The World Cup (WC) is over, and now we have to content ourselves with the local leagues. Yes, it sounds like a terrible agreement but that's the way it is. I was tempted to comment on the only two surprises of the WC (Paul the octopus and Larissa Riquelme, that is) but pretty much everyone else has done so by now, so I will concentrate on two rather curious debates that have arisen after the WC.
The first one is about Spain. It is well known that Spanish people have a surprising ability to create divisions and conflicts among themselves, and for very simple reasons. (Not surprisingly, and sadly, a great deal of that ability was inherited by the former Spanish colonies...) It is also well-known that Spain as a country is actually the delicate union of several small countries, each one with their own culture and character. There is, for instance, a latent tension between the people of Madrid and Barcelona, a tension that goes deep into history and covers different facets of society, including sports. Now it turns out that some Spaniards are debating about the "contribution" of players from Barcelona and Madrid into the recent world championship. It is well known that the national team has several players from Barcelona FC (seven, I think), and this is the reason why some people in Barcelona claim that the WC is mostly theirs. People in Madrid, reply claiming that the "contribution" of coach Vicente Del Bosque and goalkeeper/captain Iker Casillas (as well as some other players from Real Madrid) is equally good. Reasonable people simply celebrate the victory of a whole nation. Granted, this useless debate is not massive, but it can be well identified in Spanish sport media commentators. The political component of this debate---the everlasting "Catalonia is (not) Spain" issue---is of course at the heart of this sterile debate.
The second debate takes place in Argentina. I think that after the WC one can safely conclude that most of us are more prepared than Diego Maradona to lead a football team. He unsuccessfully tried to compensate his lack of preparation with great doses of charisma and arrogance. This worked more or less OK in the first round (against weak opponents), and he was rather lucky against Mexico. Instead, in the last game against Germany, Maradona failed miserably. When we all were expecting a new, mentally stable coach for the Argentinian squad, we discover that not only he will be offered a four-year contract renewal, but also that the AFA (Argentine Football Association) is almost begging to him to sign! This is unbelievable. Apparently at present there are no better candidates for the position and, more dramatically, with Maradona in the bench AFA gets a lot of money through sponsors and highly payed friendly games. That's one of the reasons why AFA is not willing to get rid of DM (although they intend to change the people working with him). There is also the fact that, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the current president of Argentina (Mrs. Kirchner) loves and supports Maradona unconditionally, and so apparently she would be terribly disappointed at AFA if DM is fired. These are sad news for the current generation of Argentinian players and common sense at large.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
In greed
I remember attending a ceremony in honor of Ingrid Betancourt in Bologna, in December 2008. She received a number of honorary titles from the city, awful music inspired in her drama was performed, and at the end she gave a very touching speech, in which she made a lot of references to the Virgin Mary, and to her responsibility in preventing kidnapping in the world. She also briefly mentioned a foundation/NGO she planned to create. The whole thing sounded so noble when I heard it, that I thought that Ingrid was indeed a different person after spending 6 years of her life in the Colombian jungle, kidnapped by the terrorist group FARC.
I also remember thinking that being kidnapped is such an outrageous thing that one should not judge people that have suffered that experience, essentially because one has no idea of what they have been through. Hence, one should respect their suffering (and that of their families); such suffering includes any incoherent reactions or behaviors once they return back to freedom. In Ingrid's case, the incoherence was in becoming somewhat religious after a having a fairly promising political carrer, built upon equal amounts of courage, intelligence, stubbornness, and arrogance.
In fact, Ingrid was a controversial character way before her kidnapping. She was able to carry out brilliant debates in congress, but also was capable of doing stupid things just to attract media attention. At the end one would put up with the stupid/arrogant side of her, because she would aim at the right goals, most likely with the wrong manners. In the corrupt political setting of a third world country such as Colombia, however, that seemed as an acceptable compromise.
Ingrid was then a special politician. She was a special hostage, too. Her French citizenship was a factor that changed everything in the political tensions between the Colombian government and the FARC. Her family tried to exploit both options, the Colombian and the French, in order to put pressure on FARC so as to get her back. It didn't work that well, and soon it was pretty obvious that she would be the last one in coming back. The attempt of playing both sides wasn't appreciated by a large part of the Colombian society, who found it despicable to try to give priority to certain hostages, because it was clear that France was only interested in Ingrid. The liberty, equality, and fraternity didn't apply for the others. C'est la vie.
But at the end Ingrid got her happy ending and she got back her freedom thanks to a special operation of the Colombian army. We all were quite happy about that. We were equally surprised last week when we heard that she intended to obtain a "symbolic amount of money" from the Colombian state so as to compensate the period during which she was kidnapped by FARC. The amount of money were mere five million euro. The plan was to try to get an agreement for such a money, and to sue the government if no agreement was reached.
It is very hard for me to take position in this move by Ingrid. It is well known that she ignored a number of warnings regarding going to dangerous places, and so she is responsible for her own kidnapping. Of course, she's not responsible that she had to wait six years before coming back, but she was the responsible in first place. It is hard to explain the way she's hated right now in Colombia. People find her lack of gratitude simply unacceptable. They have a hard time understanding why she claims 5 million euro, which is by no means symbolic for a country such as Colombia. Not only: by attempting to sue the state without a good reason, she has created an awful precedent for other kidnapped people who, unlike Ingrid, might deserve a compensation, for whatever reason. (In the case of other politicians who were kidnapped more or less in the same period as Ingrid, a compensation makes a lot of sense, I think.)
She finally took her demands back, most likely after seeing the unanimous reaction against her and her pretensions. She should haven't done that, in my view. Suing the state is a right, even if you have crazy reasons to do so. Her pretensions would have been denied, I am sure: all the warnings to her were public and are well documented. It would have been great to see, after several years, a final verdict from a court stating that Ingrid was irresponsible and stupid, and also arrogant enough so as to blame others for her own stupidity (and to try to get some money in the process).
I also remember thinking that being kidnapped is such an outrageous thing that one should not judge people that have suffered that experience, essentially because one has no idea of what they have been through. Hence, one should respect their suffering (and that of their families); such suffering includes any incoherent reactions or behaviors once they return back to freedom. In Ingrid's case, the incoherence was in becoming somewhat religious after a having a fairly promising political carrer, built upon equal amounts of courage, intelligence, stubbornness, and arrogance.
In fact, Ingrid was a controversial character way before her kidnapping. She was able to carry out brilliant debates in congress, but also was capable of doing stupid things just to attract media attention. At the end one would put up with the stupid/arrogant side of her, because she would aim at the right goals, most likely with the wrong manners. In the corrupt political setting of a third world country such as Colombia, however, that seemed as an acceptable compromise.
Ingrid was then a special politician. She was a special hostage, too. Her French citizenship was a factor that changed everything in the political tensions between the Colombian government and the FARC. Her family tried to exploit both options, the Colombian and the French, in order to put pressure on FARC so as to get her back. It didn't work that well, and soon it was pretty obvious that she would be the last one in coming back. The attempt of playing both sides wasn't appreciated by a large part of the Colombian society, who found it despicable to try to give priority to certain hostages, because it was clear that France was only interested in Ingrid. The liberty, equality, and fraternity didn't apply for the others. C'est la vie.
But at the end Ingrid got her happy ending and she got back her freedom thanks to a special operation of the Colombian army. We all were quite happy about that. We were equally surprised last week when we heard that she intended to obtain a "symbolic amount of money" from the Colombian state so as to compensate the period during which she was kidnapped by FARC. The amount of money were mere five million euro. The plan was to try to get an agreement for such a money, and to sue the government if no agreement was reached.
It is very hard for me to take position in this move by Ingrid. It is well known that she ignored a number of warnings regarding going to dangerous places, and so she is responsible for her own kidnapping. Of course, she's not responsible that she had to wait six years before coming back, but she was the responsible in first place. It is hard to explain the way she's hated right now in Colombia. People find her lack of gratitude simply unacceptable. They have a hard time understanding why she claims 5 million euro, which is by no means symbolic for a country such as Colombia. Not only: by attempting to sue the state without a good reason, she has created an awful precedent for other kidnapped people who, unlike Ingrid, might deserve a compensation, for whatever reason. (In the case of other politicians who were kidnapped more or less in the same period as Ingrid, a compensation makes a lot of sense, I think.)
She finally took her demands back, most likely after seeing the unanimous reaction against her and her pretensions. She should haven't done that, in my view. Suing the state is a right, even if you have crazy reasons to do so. Her pretensions would have been denied, I am sure: all the warnings to her were public and are well documented. It would have been great to see, after several years, a final verdict from a court stating that Ingrid was irresponsible and stupid, and also arrogant enough so as to blame others for her own stupidity (and to try to get some money in the process).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)