Competiţie electorală
Care va să zică, mâine locuitorii Colegiului 1 din Bucureşti sunt chemaţi să aleagă între Honorius Prigoană şi Radu Stroe. Sincer să fiu, ambii îmi sunt la fel de antipatici. E drept, Radu Stroe este mai potrivit să fie deputat. Dar amândoi sunt moartea pasiunii politice. Uitând căror partide aparţin cei doi, de ce ar fi aleşi? Pentru care merite? Şi de ce s-ar identifica un votant cu unul dintre ei?
Mă îndoiesc că alegerile de mâine vor avea rol de test pentru actuala guvernare. Dacă Honorius nu este ales, asta nu va însemna că PDL este sancţionat pentru felul în care guvernează, ci doar că n-a investit cât trebuie! Dacă Radu Stroe este ales, aşişderea: nu este un vot sancţiune pentru PDL, şi un semn că electoratul apreciază PNL.
Poate că lucrul cel mai interesant mâine va fi prezenţa la vot. Eu nu cred că va depăşi 20%, pentru că, dincolo de oboseala alegerilor cu repetiţie din ultimii doi ani, chiar nu există o miză. Cu sau fără Honorius PDL are o majoritate mai mult decât confortabilă în Parlament, populat cu atâtea lichele care se lasă cumpărate pe doi firfirici, iar PNL, cu sau fără Stroe, tot forţa aia de a influenţa lucrurile o va avea. Adică mai nimic, dacă nu face o alianţă explicită cu PSD şi nu-şi coordonează acţiunile unii cu ceilalţi.
Aşa că, dacă ar fi să pariez, aş paria pe Honorius. Votanţii PDL sunt mai talibani, şi banii lui Prigoană senior mai convingători. Pentru că sunt mai mulţi. Apropo: ştie cineva care sunt tarifele la zi? Cât costă un vot în Colegiul 1?
4 comentarii:
Să înţelegem că te oferi? :p
Acum, un ban cinstit în plus nu strică! Ghinion: nu am "onoarea" să respir acelaşi aer cu Honorius...
PARTEA I : )
Voi posta cateva exrtrase dintr-un articol de Charles Lewis, publicat azi pe HuffPost. Charles Lewis este profesor si fondator al "Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University School of Communication in Washington, D.C." Intr-un fel, profit de legatura (aparent indirecta) dintre ultimul d-tale articol si cel semnalat de mine aici (si) pentru a pastra o atare coerenta/consitenta cu ocazionalele mele postari pe blogul dumitale. Intr-o cultura a globalizarii agresive, ceea ce se petrece in Romania nu este in afara acestei ecuatii, chiar daca constantele nu sunt la vedere in timp ce variabilele sunt in periodica schimbare, o data la cativa ani, dupa cum dicteaza calendarul electoral local.
Ca o concluzie colaterala, in tara, ca si aiurea, este o disperata nevoie de reporteri de investigatie dedicati, o specie, din nefericire, pe cale de extinctie, iar in Romania, dupa cate stiu, aproape inexistenta. Ma rog, nu pun la socoata fratii Roncea, din motive lesne de inteles??? . . .
Urari de bine!
'Shadow Elite': Outsourcing Government, Losing Democracy by Charles Lewis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-lewis/shadow-elite-outsourcing_b_420752.html
"The problem is, what has happened to that lofty, Founding Fathers notion of government as our protector? To me, the most important contribution, and the most disturbing part of Janine Wedel's brilliant new book, "Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government and the Free Market", is that she has laid bare the lie that we have functional separation today between the public and private sector. Over time, capitalism and democracy have become gradually melded into corporatism in the corridors of power in Washington (and in many other national capitals around the world). Public and private are now substantially blurred, as the "transnational" political elites and the financial elites have become literally the same people. (...)
(...) three out of four people doing the work of the federal government today are actually private contractors. (...) That means private company employees -- with less stringent conflict of interest requirements and also not generally obligated to adhere to the Freedom of Information Act -- increasingly have become the government and now substantially rule the roost.
When I directed the Center for Public Integrity earlier in this decade, we discovered a mercenary culture far more extensive than I had ever imagined. For example, in 2002, in a report entitled "Making a Killing: The Business of War", we identified 90 private military companies operating in the world, hired by governments or corporations. In early 2003, we reported that nine out of 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, then chaired by Richard Perle, had ties to defense companies with $76 billion in Pentagon contracts in just the preceding two years. In late 2003, the Center issued "Windfalls of War", first revealing that Kellogg, Brown & Root, then a subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, was the top recipient of U.S. war contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. (...) also revealed that the most of the major contractors had close employee or Board ties to the executive branch for Republican and Democrat administrations and cumulatively they had contributed many millions of dollars to the political process."
PARTEA A II-A
"Fascinated and alarmed by the Tammany Hall feeling of political favoritism or cronyism I was getting, we launched into another epic investigation and published "Outsourcing the Pentagon: Who's Winning the Big Contracts" in the fall of 2004. We examined 2.2 million contract actions over six fiscal years, totaling $900 billion in authorized expenditures, and discovered that no-bid contracts had accounted for more than 40 percent of Pentagon contracting, $362 billion in taxpayer money to companies without competitive bidding. In other words, the multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts Halliburton had received actually weren't such an aberration, unfortunately. Indeed, we found contractors had written the Department of Defense budget (...)
Were there howls of protest in Washington, aggressive investigative Congressional hearings, angry protestations from the companies, substantial news media attention about these findings? No. The silence was deafening. (...) Where are the traditional journalistic watchdogs in all this? Early retired, tightly leashed or asleep. (...)
Bravo to Janine Wedel for this significant book, and to Arianna Huffington for calling it to the public's attention."
Charles Lewis is a professor and the founding executive editor of the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University School of Communication in Washington, D.C. He left a successful career as an investigative producer for ABC News and CBS News 60 Minutes and began the award-winning Center for Public Integrity, which under his leadership published roughly 300 investigative reports, including 14 books, from 1989 through 2004. In late 1997, he began the Center’s International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the world’s first working network of 100 premier reporters in 50 countries producing content across borders. The principal author of five Center books, including national bestseller The Buying of the President 2004, Lewis was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 1998 and received the PEN USA First Amendment award in 2004.
Pentru alte detalii "de adancime", vezi si articolul mentionatei autoare, Janine A. Wedel:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janine-r-wedel/for-the-shadow-elite-fail_b_422939.html
si cartea sa:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Elite-Undermine-Democracy-Government/dp/0465091067/ref=sr_1_1/181-4677086-1714156?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263702455&sr=8-1
dar si acest articol de :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-blum/shadow-elite-are-they-res_b_423884.html
a carui concluzie o pun aici:
"The approach of looking to the roles, activities, sponsors, and networks of players--be they organized crime figures, politicians, experts, influencers, or some combination thereof--is today, more than ever, imperative. Profound changes in government and society have vastly increased the opportunities for agenda-bearing players wearing multiple hats (and often working in close-knit networks) to significantly influence public policy. Such activity is much less transparent to the public eye than when I first began my career. An amazing variety of corporate entities with strange and complex interrelationships today do much of the work of federal government, virtually substituting for it in some arenas. These entities and their sponsors are harder to identify, more insidious, and much more plentiful than the corporate fronts of yesteryear."
Trimiteți un comentariu