Archivo de enero 2017

El remoto país que se ha convertido en refugio de los estadounidenses

Benito Kozman
Yahoo Noticias30 de enero de 2017
newzelanda0a13f809b71c6ae1e1d7c5f7871bd73d
Photo by Chris Cameron/Volvo Ocean Race via Getty Images
Bastó una elección en noviembre pasado y apenas una semana de mandato del nuevo gobierno estadounidense, para que la idea de mudarse del país coja cuerpo y algunos decidan hacer las maletas por un tiempo.
Esto es lo que ha estado ocurriendo en los últimos tiempos con Nueva Zelanda, una isla ubicada al sureste de Australia que en 2014 tenía cuatro millones y medio de habitantes, y que se ha convertido en el destino de no pocos ciudadanos de Estados Unidos.
Considerado por el Banco Mundial como el mejor lugar para hacer negocios, relegando a Singapur a un segundo puesto, y como el país menos corrupto del mundo, según Transparency International, Nueva Zelanda ha dejado de ser un punto alejado en el mapa para pasar a ser un sueño, una utopía, y para algunos afortunados una realidad.
De acuerdo con una publicación de The New Yorker, una sorprendente cantidad de multimillonarios, conocidos como survivalistas o ‘preppers’, al parecer avizoran el fin del mundo de una manera más anticipada que el resto, y esto los ha llevado a adquirir terrenos en esta esquina montañosa y recóndita del planeta.
Para Reid Hoffman, cofundador de Linkedin, más de la mitad de las élites adineradas de Estados Unidos -residentes entre Silicon Valley, en California, y Nueva York- creen que hay que prepararse de alguna manera para lo peor. Y entre estas precauciones está Nueva Zelanda.
Los números muestran la evidencia.
Según el The New Zealand Herald, más de 3.500 kilómetros cuadrados de tierra neozelandesa pasaron a ser propiedad de recién llegados de otros países en 2016. Se trataría de una extensión de tierra más de cuatro veces mayor que la superficie adquirida en el país en el año 2015.
Uno de estos emprendedores es Peter Thiel, cofundador de Paypal y dueño de una fortuna de 270 millones de dólares, quien hasta ha logrado hacerse de la ciudadanía neozelandesa tras haber adquirido un terreno de 1.930 metros cuadrados frente a un hermoso lago.

Auckland, Nueva Zelanda
Al parecer, Thiel habría obtenido la ciudadanía hace unos años tras haber donado un millón de dólares neozelandeses (unos 727.000 dólares) a las víctimas del terremoto de Christchurch, lo que incrementó sus méritos para que el gobierno, con “un poco de flexibilidad”, al decir el Primer Ministro Bill English, tramitara su caso y lo aprobara.
“Nueva Zelanda es un lugar mucho mejor de lo que era desde que Thiel es uno de sus ciudadanos”, aseguró el político.
“Decir que te acabas de comprar una casa en Nueva Zelanda es como una especie de guiño-guiño-no-digas-más -asegura Hoffman. Una vez que ya has dado el apretón de manos masónico, la conversación sigue con algo como –‘¡Oh! tengo un amigo bróker que vende antiguos silos de misiles a prueba de armas nucleares, tiene que ser muy interesante vivir en uno de ellos’-.”
Pero los números son mucho más concretos: en el escaso lapso de tiempo desde que Donald Trump llegó a la Casa Blanca, 13.401 estadounidenses ya han echado a andar el proceso de solicitud de una residencia en Nueva Zelanda: un marcador que es 17 veces más grande que el promedio para ese país que se encuentra en el cuarto lugar de la clasificación de 2016 del Índice de Paz Global, detrás de Islandia, Dinamarca y Austria.
Tengamos en cuenta que el último incidente de violencia ocurrió en el lejano 1985, cuando espías franceses hicieron estallar un buque de Greenpeace en el puerto de Auckland.
Por su parte, el departamento neozelandés de inmigración ha confirmado que desde noviembre de 2016, cuando se celebraron las elecciones presidenciales en Estados Unidos, 17.584 personas han registrado su interés por estudiar, trabajar o invertir en el país, en comparación con 1.272 en noviembre de 2015.
Tan solo en este mes de enero de 2017, se han recibido 3.159 pedidos, cuando en el mismo periodo de 2016 fueron 1.724.
“Estamos experimentando en este momento un ligero aumento en los visados emitidos a ciudadanos estadounidenses, tanto para visas de trabajo temporal como de residencia permanente”, dijo a la BBC Steve McGill, gerente general de la oficina nacional de inmigración.
“Definitivamente hemos tenido un aumento en las preguntas de los estadounidenses, y por lo menos una venta que ha sido una consecuencia del resultado electoral en los Estados Unidos”, afirmó Nick Horton, un agente especializado en bienes raíces de lujo.
“Hay una sensación de que la gente quiere crear un refugio en el hemisferio sur, lejos de algunos de los problemas que enfrenta el mundo occidental”, concluyó.
Con reservas de agua limpia, clima templado y aire puro, Nueva Zelanda se ha convertido en el nuevo oasis físico y mental de no pocos estadounidenses. Una infraestructura moderna, buenas redes de comunicación y a ‘tan solo’ 13 horas de vuelo de la costa oeste de los Estados Unidos, pues ya tenemos un nuevo edén, hasta que las aguas tomen su debido nivel.
Aunque para algunos la aventura deje de ser temporal, y Nueva Zelanda se convierta en su casa para siempre.

In Trump era, Democrats and Republicans switch sides on states’ rights

By Dan Levine,Reuters Jan 26, 2017

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) –
Five years ago, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, now President Donald Trump’s nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, sat in the front row as the U.S. Supreme Court debated the contentious Affordable Care Act.
He was part of a coalition of Republican attorneys general fighting President Barack Obama’s health law – better known as Obamacare – based on a core party principle: that states’ rights trump federal powers, and that programs like Obamacare represent a radical overreach by the federal government.
Now, as Trump looks to undo Obama’s legacy and begin constructing his own, Pruitt and other administration Republicans are showing little interest in protecting states’ rights. Instead, they are embracing sweeping new environmental, healthcare and immigration policies that are to be imposed on all states.
At the same time Democrats, who over the last half-century have zealously defended sacrosanct federal laws – such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that tackled segregation – against arguments that states should be allowed to chart their own way, are now making plans to employ some of those very states’ rights positions to fend off Trump administration policies they disagree with.
«If (EPA nominee Pruitt) is going to argue states can go their own way, then certainly we should be allowed to make the exact same argument,» Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, a Democrat who opposes Pruitt’s nomination, told Reuters.
Pruitt’s office did not return repeated requests for comment.

SPRAWLING FLIP-FLOP
The two parties’ switching of sides is evident across a range of issues, including so-called sanctuary cities, the environment and healthcare.
Sanctuary cities – an unofficial description of places where local law enforcement refuses to report undocumented immigrants to federal authorities – could be an early test, as Trump moves to beef up federal immigration policies.
Trump threatened to cut federal funds for such cities on Wednesday, as part of an executive order clamping down on immigration.
Lawyers planning to challenge that action told Reuters they will base part of their legal argument on one successful approach Pruitt and his fellow attorneys general took against Obamacare in the Supreme Court in 2012.
In that case, the court held that federal authorities could not take away a state’s Medicaid funding for refusing to expand the program. Although they won that part of the case, Pruitt and his group failed to stop the national rollout of Obamacare.
Immigration advocates hope the logic employed by the Supreme Court in that case will protect sanctuary cities against threatened funding cuts.
However, Ken Cuccinelli, the former Republican attorney general of Virginia who launched the legal challenge to Obamacare, told Reuters he doubts courts will apply that ruling to protect sanctuary cities.
Still, Cuccinelli said the new political dynamic will expose Republican politicians who ran for office on a states’ rights platform because it fit their policy agenda, rather than because they were true believers.
«We may find out (which) folks were doing it for legal reasons and purely political reasons,» he said.
Another early battle highlighting the reversal of positions on states’ versus federal rights is likely to be the environment.
California, as its governor made clear in a speech on Tuesday, will fight any attempts to rein in the state’s sweeping environmental laws, which go far beyond federal mandates. During his confirmation hearings, Pruitt, on the other hand, refused to commit to keeping a decades-old federal waiver that allows California to set stricter emissions standards.

CONFLICT AS OLD AS THE COUNTRY
The debate over how power should be shared between states and the federal government goes back to the founding of the United States, when Federalists led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton argued for a strong central government, while Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party saw states’ rights as a necessary check against tyranny.
Jefferson’s faction eventually morphed into the Democratic Party, which backed states’ rights to allow slavery leading up to the Civil War of 1861-1865. The Democrats moved toward greater reliance on federal powers in the 20th century, as they fought battles over civil rights and regulating industry. Since then, the two parties have been fairly consistent in their stances, though on some issues they have occasionally swapped positions.
Tension between states’ rights and federal power played out time and again during Obama’s presidency, with states’ rights supporters achieving a mixed record.
Republican-led states challenged Obama’s Clean Power Plan as an example of federal overreach, in a case that is continuing. Republican state attorneys general, including Pruitt, successfully blocked an Obama executive order allowing work permits for millions of undocumented immigrants, known as Expanded DACA.
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately struck down the Expanded DACA policy, and an evenly divided U.S. Supreme Court let that ruling stand last year.
Harold Koh, a Yale Law School professor and a former adviser to Trump’s presidential challenger Hillary Clinton, said that even though he disagreed with the court’s reasoning in that case, it could now be used to at least slow down new Trump executive orders on immigration and beyond.
«The argument against DACA could come back to haunt them,» Koh said.
Embracing states’ rights could also end up haunting progressive groups during the next Democratic administration, whenever that might be, said Julia Wilson, chief executive of legal aid organization OneJustice.
«That is exactly what’s under conversation right now in the community,» she said.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Bill Rigby)

Canadá da por muerto el TLC y deja solo a México en la renegociación comercial

Internacional

«Queremos a nuestros amigos mexicanos, pero nuestros intereses van primero», dice una fuente oficial canadiense a Reuters
El País – ESPANA
México 25 ENE 2017 – 04:46 EST

La renegociación del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (Nafta o TLCAN en sus siglas en inglés), una de las promesas de Donald Trump en campaña, nace viciada para México. El país hispanoamericano, cuyas exportaciones dependen en un 73% del mercado estadounidense, tendrá que negociar en solitario el nuevo esquema que regirá sus relaciones comerciales con Estados Unidos. Así lo han anunciado fuentes oficiales canadienses consultadas por la agencia Reuters al término de una reunión gubernamental en Calgary: “Queremos a nuestros amigos mexicanos, pero nuestros intereses nacionales van primero y la amistad después. Las dos (cosas) no son mutuamente excluyentes”. De estas declaraciones se infiere que Canadá optará por negociar un acuerdo bilateral, en detrimento del actual pacto trilateral. El testimonio recabado por la agencia británica de noticias contrasta con lo afirmado en público hasta ahora por el Gobierno de Justin Trudeau, que ha negado que vaya a abandonar a México en las negociaciones.

“Nuestras posiciones negociadoras son totalmente diferentes”, ha explicado a Reuters una segunda fuente gubernamental. “México está colgado por los pies de una ventana de un rascacielos. Está en una situación terrible. Nosotros no”. Las exportaciones canadienses dependen en un 74% de EE UU, un nivel similar al de las mexicanas. Sin embargo, a diferencia de México, su economía está más diversificada y su mercado interno es mucho más maduro.
Las declaraciones de las autoridades canadienses llegan solo 24 horas después de que Trump anunciase que su país no ratificará el TPP —el acuerdo comercial en ciernes de EE UU, Canadá, México, Perú y Chile con siete países de Asia-Pacífico, entre ellos Japón y Australia—. Y justo una semana antes de que Trump reciba a su homólogo mexicano, Enrique Peña Nieto, en la Casa Blanca en una reunión que será el pistoletazo de salida para las negociaciones sobre el nuevo esquema comercial entre ambos países.
Este martes, la titular canadiense de Exteriores, Chrystia Freeland, ha recordado en una rueda de prensa celebrada en Calgary que “el TPP está construido de tal manera que solo puede entrar en vigor con Estados Unidos como país ratificante”, por lo que “el TPP no puede existir sin que Estados Unidos sea parte”. De esta forma, el Ejecutivo de Trudeau se desmarca de los planes de los otros países firmantes —entre ellos Australia y Nueva Zelanda— de resucitar el tratado, aun sin la presencia de EE UU. Una de las ideas que se han planteado en las últimas horas pasa por incorporar a China y a otras naciones asiáticas que no estaban presentes en el TPP.
México dejará caer el TLC si el acuerdo no es ventajoso
El Gobierno mexicano, por boca de su ministro de Economía, Ildefonso Guajardo, ha afirmado este martes que no aceptará un nuevo pacto comercial con EE UU y Canadá que no sea ventajoso para todas las partes. “Si vamos a ir por algo que sea menos de lo que tenemos, no tiene sentido quedarnos”, ha apuntado Guajardo en declaraciones a la cadena Televisa. Si el resultado de la negociación no implica ganancias para ambas partes, el responsable económico ha dicho que el país latinoamericano se negará a permanecer en el tratado: “no habría otra opción”, ha señalado. “No se puede sentar uno a la mesa sin traer parque con que jugar, porque simplemente solo estaría aceptando condiciones”. Sin embargo, Guajardo en ningún momento se ha referido a la posibilidad de apostar por acuerdos bilaterales en vez de trilaterales, como han sugerido las citadas fuentes canadienses.
Tanto Guajardo como el canciller mexicano, Luis Videgaray —un hombre de la máxima confianza de Peña Nieto—, viajan este martes a Washington para preparar el terreno de cara al encuentro entre ambos presidentes. El Nafta será uno de los grandes temas que se pondrán sobre la mesa de la reunión, pero no será el único: también se tratarán aspectos relativos a la seguridad y a la migración entre ambos países. El encuentro al más alto nivel se presume vital para el futuro económico de México a corto y medio plazo. Con el peso muy debilitado frente al dólar y al resto de grandes divisas internacionales, el país latinoamericano ha sufrido un fuerte incremento de la inflación, que en la primera quincena de enero ha tocado máximos de cinco años. Y, aún más importante, ha visto cómo la sombra de la incertidumbre se ha posado sobre la inversión extranjera directa, buen predictor del desempeño una economía tan abierta como la mexicana.

Lavrov dice que con Trump, Kiev tendrá que dejar de mirar a Washington

Agencia EFE 25 de enero de 2017

Moscú, 25 ene (EFE).-
Con la llegada de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca, el Gobierno ucraniano tendrá que actuar de forma independiente, sin el respaldo de Estados Unidos, auguró hoy el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores ruso, Serguéi Lavrov.
«Confío en que con Trump -si cumple con su propósito de hacer una política exterior pragmática, sin intervenir en los asuntos de otros Estados- los mandatarios ucranianos deberán actuar con mayor independencia, sin contar con sus amos transoceánicos, como era habitual con Barack Obama», dijo Lavrov al intervenir ante el Parlamento ruso.
El jefe de la diplomacia rusa denunció que casi dos años después de la firma de los Acuerdos de Minsk para la paz en el este de Ucrania, «las autoridades de Kiev siguen sin cumplir con sus compromisos».
«No hay signos de que el Gobierno de Ucrania esté a favor de llegar a acuerdos. Estos días, el presidente (ucraniano, Petró) Poroshenko dijo que no dará ni un solo paso para cumplir con los aspectos políticos de los Acuerdos de Minsk hasta que no se garanticen sus exigencias en materia de seguridad», subrayó Lavrov.
Esas exigencias de Poroshenko, agregó, incluyen «la toma del control total de todos los tramos de la frontera ruso-ucraniana», ahora en manos de los separatistas rebeldes del este de Ucrania.
«Y lo dice el presidente que firmó los Acuerdos de Minsk, que dicen negro sobre blanco que el control sobre la frontera se restablecerá cuando se cumplan todos los compromisos políticos de Kiev, incluidos la amnistía y la celebración de elecciones locales en Donetsk y Lugansk, con garantías de un estatus de autogobierno» para esas regiones prorrusas, destacó Lavrov.
Los Acuerdos de Minsk también contemplan la reforma de la Constitución ucraniana demandada por el Kremlin y los sublevados para descentralizar el país y dar amplias competencias el este rusohablante de Ucrania.
Kiev, sin embargo, se niega a avanzar en la parte política de los acuerdos y apuesta por la entrada de una misión policial internacional en las zonas del país controladas por los rebeldes.
También acusa a Moscú de haber invadido con sus tropas el este de Ucrania y exige la retirada de las fuerzas rusas de esos territorios.

Los socialdemócratas alemanes presentan por sorpresa a Schulz para derrotar a Merkel

Elecciones Alemania
Sigmar Gabriel renuncia a la candidatura a canciller a la vista de las malas perspectivas
Luis Doncel
Berlín 24 ENE 2017 – 13:21 EST

Angela Merkel ya conoce el nombre de su rival. Martin Schulz, un hombre forjado en la política europea, será el candidato del Partido Socialdemócrata (SPD) a las elecciones alemanas del 24 de septiembre. Sigmar Gabriel, líder socialdemócrata y durante los últimos cuatro años vicecanciller y ministro de Economía, renuncia a la candidatura para dar paso a alguien capaz de mejorar sus pobres expectativas electorales. Como ya ha ocurrido en tantas ocasiones, vuelve a cumplirse la maldición que acaba por abrasar a los compañeros de coalición de Merkel.
A ocho meses de las elecciones, Gabriel hace un movimiento sorpresa con el que confía en cambiar una dinámica que no auguraba nada bueno a los socialdemócratas. “Si continúo, voy a fallar. Y fallará también todo el SPD”, aseguró a la revista Stern, donde desveló sus planes. Pero nada asegura el éxito de la operación. En las anteriores elecciones, los socialdemócratas alemanes ya optaron por el candidato supuestamente más popular, Peer Steinbrück. Y acabó encajando una sonora derrota ante Merkel.
La jugada tiene varias derivadas. El hasta ahora vicecanciller abandonará también el liderazgo del partido –que ha ostentado los últimos siete años, un récord absoluto desde los tiempos del mítico Willy Brandt-, que asumirá Schulz. Gabriel cambiará además su puesto de ministro de Economía para hacerse cargo de Exteriores cuando el actual titular de esta cartera, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, se convierta en el próximo presidente federal de Alemania. El partido debe ahora confirmar esta propuesta de su hasta ahora líder.
Gabriel se despide con ataques a la que ha sido su jefa en el Gobierno los últimos cuatro años. “Las políticas de Angela Merkel y Wolfgang Schäuble han contribuido sin duda a la profunda crisis de la UE desde 2008, a la solead de un Gobierno alemán dominante y, a través de una insistencia en la austeridad, a elevadas tasas de desempleo fuera de Alemania”, aseguró en un comunicado. Pero estas palabras chocan con la dureza con la que a veces ha retado a Gobiernos como el de Grecia. Estos giros dialécticos en función de las circunstancias –tanto en la crisis del euro como en la de refugiados- han agravado los problemas de Gabriel para ganar impulso en las encuestas. Y ello pese a que puede reivindicar medidas adoptadas por el Gobierno gracias a la presión de los socialdemócratas, como la introducción del salario mínimo.
El candidato Schulz se presenta como una incógnita. A su favor cuenta con una mejor valoración en las encuestas. El hombre que trabajó como librero y más tarde se dedicó a la política local lleva más de dos décadas en el Parlamento Europeo, organismo que ha presidido hasta hace pocos días. En Estrasburgo y Bruselas ha ganado contactos por todo el Continente y talla política gracias a un discurso europeísta y de crítica feroz a los populismos. Pero al mismo tiempo resulta un político alejado de las preocupaciones del alemán medio. Y resulta difícil imaginar a un moderado como él pactando un tripartito de izquierdas en el que participen los poscomunistas de Die Linke, una de las pocas opciones realistas que permitiría a Alemania volver a tener un canciller socialdemócrata.
A Schulz le quedan ocho meses para convencer a sus conciudadanos de que es una alternativa fiable a la canciller Merkel. Tiene un gran reto por delante. Porque la crisis de la socialdemocracia que afecta a toda Europa y el ascenso de la derecha xenófoba han colocado a su partido en una situación de extrema debilidad. Las encuestas le otorgan una intención de voto en torno al 20%, lo que supondría el peor resultado del SPD en la historia moderna de Alemania. Ahora, es tarea suya darle la vuelta a estos negros presagios.

Morales ve microcorrupción y soslaya millonarios desfalcos

El Presidente, en su informe de gestión que brindó a la Asamblea Legislativa, dijo que la corrupción está en los cuoteos que promueven las organizaciones sociales.
Pagina Siete – lunes, 23 de enero de 2017
La Paz

El presidente Evo Morales afirmó ayer que en su gobierno sólo hubo casos de microcorrupción en algunas instituciones, pero no mencionó los millonarios daños económicos al Estado por corrupción, como son el Fondo Indígena y barcazas chinas, entre otros.

«Pese a los esfuerzos del Gobierno nacional, aún no se ha logrado erradicar la microcorrupción que existe en algunas instituciones a nivel nacional, departamental y sistema de justicia penal”, dijo Morales, quien afirmó que existe voluntad política, pero lamentablemente las autoridades del Órgano Judicial no pueden acompañar la lucha para erradicar la corrupción.

A criterio de Morales, la corrupción está en los cuoteos que promueven las organizaciones sociales, por lo que pidió a los dirigentes debatir este tema y de una vez acabar con la microcorrupción.

«Los movimientos sociales donde quieren cuotear y cuotean ahí está la corrupción y los cuoteos se están convirtiendo como un motivo de corrupción, eso debe ser debatido” , demandó el Jefe de Estado.

El senador de Óscar Ortiz de Unidad Demócrata lamentó que el presidente Morales sólo hablara de microcorrupción y olvidara los millonarios desfalcos al Estado por corrupción.

Ortiz manifestó que Morales no puede clasificar como microcorrupción al caso Fondo Indígena, en el que se registró un daño económico al Estado de 173 millones de bolivianos, o al caso de las 16 barcazas chinas que nunca llegaron al país, por las que el Estado pagó por adelantado 28 millones de dólares.

«Está el mismo caso YPFB, donde estuvo involucrado Santos Ramírez. El mismo Presidente dijo que había sobreprecio y corrupción en la planta separadora de líquidos, está claro que hay una macrocorrupción por la falta de control en el Gobierno”, sostuvo Ortiz.

En esa línea, el diputado Gonzalo Barrientos (UD) afirmó que si el Presidente continúa negando esta macrocorrupción, «por más planes que implemente, no logrará erradicar, existe problemas muy serios por corrupción generalizada y eso debe entender Morales”, dijo.

Sin embargo, el Jefe de Estado afirmó que su gobierno tiene voluntad política para acabar con la corrupción, y que sólo en el pasado había inexistencia de políticas públicas para acabar con este mal, que permitió «a quienes estaban en el poder político se aprovechen del Estado, generando impunidad”.

«Se eliminó la inmunidad parlamentaria durante el mandato de diputados y senadores, pudiendo éstos ser sometidos a procesos penales”, indicó.

Las acciones
• Sentencias El presidente Evo Morales informó que en su gestión se registraron 157 sentencias condenatorias por delitos de corrupción, se recuperaron 907 millones de bolivianos por daño económico al Estado por corrupción.
• Transparencia Informó que en los 11 años de Gobierno se crearon 318 unidades de transparencia para prevenir y luchar contra la corrupción, y transparentar la gestión. Además que 309 entidades públicas rinden cuentas de manera pública y obligatoria anualmente, en la que 1.809 organizaciones sociales participan y ejercen el control social.

Morales cambia al 50% de su gabinete y le da perfil político

La Paz – Bolivia – martes, 24 de enero de 2017

Víctor Gutiérrez / Página Siete.
El presidente Morales se reúne con su nuevo equipo de ministros, ayer.

El presidente Evo Morales apostó por un gabinete político y renovó al 50% de sus ministros y las tareas encargadas son consolidar la Agenda 2025, apuntalar la economía y mejorar la justicia.

«Es un gabinete político, la coordinación interna y externa será importante para seguir mejorando. Aquí, para ser ministro no vinimos a trabajar para nuestras empresas, para fortalecer nuestras ONGs o bufete de abogados. Aquí hemos venido a servir al pueblo”, demandó Morales, luego de posesionar a su nuevo equipo de ministros.

El jefe de bancada del MAS, el diputado David Ramos, manifestó que el primer desafío del gabinete es la revolución de justicia, tomando en cuenta que este año está previsto la elección de las máximas autoridades del Órgano Judicial. Es por eso -dijo- que el Presidente designó a Héctor Arce en el Ministerio de Justicia y Transparencia.

Sin embargo, para el senador opositor Arturo Murillo el Presidente envió a Arce al Ministerio de Justicia «para que termine de controlar la justicia porque toca la elección de magistrados y maneje la repostulación de Morales” a la presidencia.

El senador del MAS René Joaquino sostuvo que los ministros «tienen la tarea de ejecutar programas y políticas en beneficio del Estado boliviano” para consolidar la llamada Agenda 2025.

El ministro de Economía, Luis Arce, quien se convierte en la autoridad con más experiencia en el gabinete de Morales, tiene la misión de mantener la estabilidad económica en medio de un contexto de caída de precios.

La sorpresa fue la salida del David Choquehuanca, que acompañó a Morales desde el año 2006, cuando asumió el poder por primera vez. Otro que quedó al margen del gabinete es el ministro de la Presidencia, Juan Ramón Quintana, quien fue reemplazado por René Martínez, exdirector de recursos hídricos del Silala.

El presidente Morales tenía previsto tomar juramento a sus nuevas autoridades a las 8:00 de ayer, pero a último momento postergó hasta las 10:30.

Los cambios
• Equidad De los 20 ministros del Presidente, que ayer fueron posesionados, 16 son hombres y cuatro mujeres. El canciller Fernando Huanacuni y el ministro César Cocarico figuran como indígenas.
• Pedido Dirigente de organizaciones sociales pidieron a las nuevas autoridades que trabajen al ritmo de Morales.
Punto de vista

ilya fortún Comunicador y analista político

«Da la sensación de debilidad”

No es gabinete político ni gabinete técnico, no es ninguna de las dos cosas. Es un gabinete que da como resultado a un gobierno más débil de lo que teníamos el año pasado, que sorprenden más las salidas que las entradas.

Las salidas grandes son de David Choquehuanca y Juan Ramón Quintana, sorprenden, pero no así las entradas. Vemos que con la salida de ambos se quita fuerza política.

Da la sensación de que hay una debilidad política y fragilidad de gestión, creo que el presidente Evo Morales no ha podido cumplir el objetivo de tener gabinete político como lo anunció.

En todo caso, está claro que el país quería un gabinete técnico para hacerle frente a la crisis económica y a los grandes problemas de gestión que se acumularon en estos largos 11 años.

Por otro lado, el Presidente necesitaba un gabinete político muy fuerte, pero vemos que este gabinete no satisface las expectativas del país ni del propio mandatario.

Quintana era tremendamente resistido por la opinión pública, ahora habrá que ver si se queda fuera de la política, o lo envían a otro escenario. Pero vemos que en su reemplazo designan a una persona que no es una gran figura política, ni se sabe a quién responde.

Me imagino que la salida de Choquehuanca y Quintana es para reforzar. Choquehuanca en el occidente y Quintana en el oriente para que concreten una gestión casi preelectoral.

EEUU frenó por 60 días la importación de limones de Argentina

AFP 23 de enero de 2017

El departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos anunció este lunes que detendrá por 60 días la importación de limones frescos provenientes del noroeste de Argentina.
La decisión tomada, informó el departamento, obedece a un pedido del Servicio de Inspección Sanitaria Animal y Vegetal.
La medida anunciada este lunes representa un severo golpe a las expectativas argentinas de vender limones frescos al mercado estadounidense, ya que aproximadamente el 80% de la producción ocurre precisamente en la región noroeste del país.
Según el comunicado, el ingreso de esos limones estará supeditado a una más severa observación de criterios sobre empaquetado y colecta y presentación de pruebas sobre tratamiento de control sanitario, inspecciones y período de cuarentena.
El ingreso de limones del noroeste argentino tendrán «que ser acompañados de certificados fitosanitarios con una declaración adicional aclarando que han sido inspeccionados y carecen de pestes sobrevivientes a la cuarentena, y que fueron producidos en observancia de los requerimientos» detallados por el Departamento.
Estados Unidos había autorizado en diciembre pasado una norma que habría la puerta la importación de limones provenientes de Argentina, y productores de ese sector estimaban que las ventas podrían ascender a los 50 millones de dólares al año.

7 Major Foreign Policy Challenges Facing President Donald Trump

JUSTIN FISHEL,Good Morning America
Jan 23, 2017

The 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has inherited a number of daunting foreign policy challenges spanning the globe from the Middle East through East Asia.
Trump tweeted this morning that «THE WORK BEGINS!» yet many of his top foreign policy positions have yet to be confirmed by the Senate, including CIA Director and Secretary of State.
Trump Announces ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State Pick
What to Expect in Donald Trump’s First 100 Days
The White House website says Trump will execute an «American first foreign policy … focused on American interests and American national security.» The White House policy will center on «peace through strength,» made possible in part, it says, by pursuing «the highest level of military readiness.»
ABC News looked at seven of the most challenging foreign policy issues facing the new administration, and what President Trump said about each over the past several months.
1. ISIS
The White House announced today that for this new commander-in-chief, defeating ISIS and eliminating the direct threat it poses to Americans at home and abroad will be the «highest priority.»
Just in the last two days, the United States military conducted two separate rounds of airstrikes in Libya and Syria its says killed nearly 200 ISIS and al-Qaeda militants. The U.S. Department of State has a standing «worldwide travel caution» for all Americans traveling abroad, which warns about the continuing threat of terror attacks.
Donald Trump Sworn In as 45th President of the United States
«In the past year, major terrorist attacks occurred in Belgium, France, Germany, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh among others,» the State Department warning says. «Authorities believe there is a continued likelihood of attacks against U.S., Western, and coalition partner interests throughout the world, especially in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Asia.»
The new administration will be under enormous pressure to finish the fights to retake ISIS strongholds in Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqa, Syria — and could easily be faced with a shift in enemy tactics, an insurgency and a protracted fight that could force the White House to make difficult decisions about whether to commit more U.S. forces on the ground.
Guiding stable government institutions to fill the vacuum left by ISIS and encouraging a successful political resolution to the five-year civil war in Syria, ideally including the removal of brutal Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, are also enormous challenges.
The refugee crisis caused by both the war in Syria and the violent tactics of ISIS is another pressing issue. Amnesty International estimates the conflict in Syria has forced more than 4.5 million refugees from Syria who are now living in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The Trump administration will need to work with world powers to manage that refugee flow to prevent more humanitarian suffering and potential they have to destabilize governments that take them in.
What Trump has said: Trump has not presented a clear strategy to defeat ISIS, often claiming that public strategy discussion would tip off the enemy. He has said, though, that he would fight ISIS aggressively.
Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced that the Trump administration would be keeping the State Department’s top counter-ISIS planner, Brett McGurk, to ensure continuity.
But in regards to the refugee crisis, Trump rejected calls from former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to increase the number of refugees from Syria and Iraq admitted into the U.S. He instead proposed banning Muslim immigration to the U.S. and later called for «extreme vetting» of applicants.
2. RUSSIA
The U.S.-Russian relationship is at its lowest point since the Cold War. President Trump has said a closer relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin would be an asset to the United States. But much of his incoming administration has maintained that Russia needs to be confronted for its aggression, including for its annexation of Crimea and military incursions into Eastern Ukraine, hacking during the 2016 presidential election and backing Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and Russia’s brutal aerial bombing campaign to assist his efforts.
Unprecedented Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee also highlights the enormous security threat posed to critical components of the U.S. government, infrastructure, defense technology and many other government operations that rely heavily on cybertechnology.
On it’s website, Trump’s White House announced it «will make it a priority to develop defensive and offensive cyber capabilities at our U.S. Cyber Command, and recruit the best and brightest Americans to serve in this crucial area.»
Russia’s military intervention inside Syria has effectively set up a proxy war with the U.S. and the rebel forces it backs. The U.S. has blamed Russia for its subsequent breakdown of cease-fire negotiations and the devastating siege of Aleppo, Syria.
On Monday, the Russians will hold peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan. It’s unclear if anyone from the Trump administration will attend.
And finally, Putin’s war in Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea has sparked fears that he’s seeking to reclaim Soviet-era borders and eventually could bait the NATO alliance into a military conflict.
Donald Trump’s Views on Russia Don’t Conform to Either Party’s Platform
What Trump has said:
Trump’s recent comments on Russia have so far defied the conventional wisdom of either party and have drawn criticism from both sides.
Trump has not condemned the Russian hacks into the U.S. election process and has said he «would be looking at» the possibility of lifting sanctions against Russia tied to its illegal military annexation of Crimea, which the U.S. government has refused to accept.
He publicly doubted the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia hacked the DNC, compared them to Nazis and blamed them for leaking false information about his ties to Russia.
Rather than stand against a potential revival of Soviet expansionism, critics say Trump seems to be embracing it. He has described the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — considered the first line of defense against Russian expansionism — as «obsolete,» while also suggesting he may not honor the organization’s most sacred covenant of mutual defense.
During his confirmation hearing Trump’s pick for secretary of state, former Exxon Mobile Chief Rex Tillerson, was questioned about his ties to Russia, where he did deals with the state-run oil industry and developed a personal relationship with President Vladimir Putin. Tillerson denied lobbying against Russian sanctions brought on by its aggression in Ukraine and said that sanctions are a «powerful tool.»
In addition to saying the U.S. would benefit from a friendlier relationship with Putin, Trump has also praised him on Twitter recently, calling him «very smart» for deciding not to retaliate when President Obama kicked out Russian intelligence offers in response to the election hack.
3. NORTH KOREA
In September, North Korea conducted its largest ever nuclear test, detonating a bomb that analysts detected had a yield equivalent to 10 kilotons of TNT. It was the reclusive country’s second nuclear test this year and its fifth test since 2006.
The United States is now more concerned than ever that North Korea is closer to its goal of miniaturizing a nuclear weapon that can be placed on long-range missiles, a move that could destabilize the region and the world. Just this week a South Korean news agency reported the North Koreans announced they’re preparing to test mobile-launched ICMB’s, but U.S. intelligence officials would not confirm those reports.
Unlike with Iran, the U.S. has not been able to negotiate an agreement on nuclear issues. The U.S. and North Korea have virtually no diplomatic relations and China is considered the only global power with any leverage over the regime.
Considering that three of North Korea’s five nuclear tests have occurred during the rule of Kim Jong-un, it’s clear the dictator is undeterred by the suffocating economic sanctions imposed by foreign nations. Though China’s Foreign Ministry has criticized the North Korean test and urged international dialogue, recent tensions between the United States and China over the South China Sea could suppress Chinese support for taking a more aggressive approach to the North Korean regime.
What Trump has said: In response to North Korea’s latest nuclear test, Trump’s spokesman Kellyanne Conway said that if Trump is elected, North Korea will know the Americans «aren’t messing around.»
In January, after the North said it was close to being able to firing off a nuclear weapons that could reach the United States, Trump tweeted «It won’t happen,» which has been interpreted as a possible «red line» for the Trump administration.
In May Trump said he would be open to the idea of allowing North Korea’s neighbors, including U.S. allies South Korea and Japan, to acquire their own nuclear arsenals — a move that would effectively nuclearize the entire region and negate the cost and justification for stationing U.S. troops in the region.
«We cannot afford to be the military and the police for the world,» he said at the time.
What You Need to Know About North Korea’s Latest Nuclear Test

4. CLIMATE CHANGE
A report released in November by the United Nations World Meteorological Organization said that 2011-2015 was the hottest five-year period on record and that the climate has an «increasingly visible human footprint,» according to The Associated Press.
One year ago, nearly 200 nations signed a global pact, the Paris Agreement, to combat climate change with the shared goal of preventing global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The U.S., along with other developed countries, will have to make good on commitments to fund new low-carbon emissions systems in countries that are complaining that the finances are not coming as promised.
But the challenges on the road to achieving this shared goal are vast — and they begin with the United States. Already, legal cases in the U.S. Supreme Court have stalled President Obama’s plan to phase out coal power plants as part of his «Clean Power Plan.» The delay could take years as the cases brought by various states play out.
Meeting the goals outlined in the Paris climate agreement will take significant effort both domestically and abroad.
Trump’s pick to be the head of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, said during his nomination hearing he did not believe climate change is a «hoax» as Trump has previously claimed, but said he was in favor of rolling back environmental regulations he claims have hurt American industries.
What Trump has said: In May of this year, Donald Trump said he would «cancel» U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement.
«Any regulation that’s outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped and scrapped completely,» Trump said. «We’re going to do all this while taking proper regard for rational environmental concerns.»
As mentioned, Trump has also tweeted that global warming is a «hoax» perpetrated by the Chinese.
While Tillerson has acknowledged climate change is a problem, ExxonMobil came under fire at its shareholders’ meeting last year for rejecting resolutions that would have pushed the company’s resources toward renewable energy, according to the Washington Post.
5. TURKEY
Turkey’s proximity to the conflict in Syria, ownership of a military base leased by the United States, failed attempt at a military coup, and resentment of U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters in Syria and Iraq are just some of the contributing factors to its increasingly fraught relationship with the United States.
Turkey, a NATO ally, is also accusing the United States of harboring a person that its leaders say is the equivalent of what Osama bin Laden was to the U.S. That was how the Turkish Minister of Justice described Fethullah Gulen, the cleric living in Pennsylvania and the man Turkey’s government blames for inciting that failed coup this past summer. Turkey is insisting Gulen be extradited to Turkey, but the U.S. Justice Department has suggested Turkey has failed to present sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
Turkish Justice Minister: Fethullah Gulen Is Our Osama bin Laden
The Gulen movement is designated as a terrorist organization inside Turkey and Turkish President Recep Erdogan has been using the failed coup as an excuse to purge all his opposition. Disturbing accusations of imprisoning teachers and journalists and committing torture threaten the state’s democracy have forced the U.S. to distance itself from the country, which has been a critical ally in the past. The tensions have created a pathway for Turkey to form partnerships with adversaries of the U.S.
Meanwhile, the U.S. relies on Turkish border control, Turkish armed forces and its military base in the fight against ISIS. A diplomatic rift with Turkey could damage U.S. efforts, though both Turkey and the U.S. have insisted they don’t want that to happen.
What Trump has said: In a campaign interview with The New York Times last July, Trump applauded the Turkish president and the Turkish people for suppressing the failed coup attempt. He also said he thinks «Turkey can do a lot against ISIS, and I would hope that if I’m dealing with them, they will do much more about ISIS.»
Asked about Erdogan jailing tens of thousands of people and Turkey’s problems with civil liberties, Trump said, «I think it’s very hard for us to get involved in other countries when we don’t know what we are doing and we can’t see straight in our own country.»
6. CHINA
President Trump faces three potential threats from China. First, he’s said he will label China a currency manipulator and flirted with a idea of increasing tariffs. This could set off a trade war and, depending on China’s response, could create economic problems on a global scale.
Second, Trump has already taken the provocative step of questioning America’s One China policy, which recognizes the island of Taiwan as a part of China. After winning the election, then President-elect held an unprecedented phone call with the Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, which he says was initiated by Taiwan, that prompted the Obama administration to reaffirm its stance. U.S. policy does allow, however, for the sale of weapons to Taiwan, which it could use in a potential military conflict with the mainland.
And Third, Trump will need to decide how to confront China’s militarization of disputed islands in the South China sea and its claim to Island in the East China Sea. Tillerson has said China’s military actions are illegal, likening them to the taking of Crimea by Ukraine, and said the U.S. should send a signal that their action are «not going to be allowed.»
Chinese state media responded by saying the Trump administration risks «large-scale war» if it attempts to intervene.
IRAN
Trump and a number of his incoming cabinet members have suggested the new administration either ought to abandon or renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal. Vice President Pence has said he would «rip up the Iran deal.» But Trump’s nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations, Gov. Nikki Haley, suggested during her confirmation that the U.S. would strictly enforce the terms — which many see as a threat to dismantle it.
For instance, if the U.S. were to accuse Iran of violating the deal, sanctions could snap back into place and the deal could fall apart. If Trump is unable to negotiate a new deal, Iran would likely return to making a nuclear weapons, which even President Obama drew as a red line. Without a nuclear deal, Trump would have no option other than military force to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer Says ‘Our Intention Is Never to Lie’

MEGHAN KENEALLY,Good Morning America Jan 23, 2017

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday that he believes that his job is to be honest with the public but said «sometimes we can disagree with the facts but our intention is never to lie.»
«There are certain things that we may — we may not fully understand when we come out but our intention is never to lie to you,» he added.
Monday’s news conference is the first time Spicer is taking reporters’ questions since the inauguration Friday. On Saturday, he appeared in the briefing room and read a statement to the press but did not take any questions afterward.

On Monday, Spicer defended Saturday’s statement when he said «this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,» citing audiences who watched the inauguration online and through streaming services, even though those audience numbers have not been confirmed.
When asked by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl about whether or not Trump’s inauguration had a larger audience than that of President Ronald Reagan’s inaugurations, Spicer said, «I’m pretty sure that Reagan didn’t have YouTube, Facebook or the internet.»
In Saturday’s statement, Spicer also said «some members of the media were engaged in deliberately false reporting,» citing the use of photos from the inauguration on Friday that he said were «intentionally framed in a way … to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall.»
On Monday, Spicer defended his decision not to take any questions after making his statement on Saturday.
«Look — I came out to read a statement. I did it. We’re here today. I’m going to stay as long as you want,» Spicer said.
He also said that the numbers that he released on Saturday about WMATA metro ridership — which differed from the accurate figures that were released by WMATA later that day — were provided to him by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
«At the time the information that I was provided by the inaugural committee came from an outside agency that we reported on. And I think knowing when we know now we can tell that WMATA’s numbers were different but we were providing numbers we had been provided. It wasn’t like we made them up out of thin air,» he said.
Spicer Complains About Tone of News Coverage
Spicer said that it has been «demoralizing» to see the «constant theme» of news coverage taking what he perceives as a negative tone against Trump both during the inauguration and during the campaign.
«Over and over again there’s this constant attempt to undermine his credibility and the movement that he represents. It’s frustrating for not just him but for so many of us trying to work to get this message out,» he said.
«I will tell you it’s not about crowd size. … There is this constant theme to undercut the enormous support that he has. It’s unbelievably frustrating when you are continually told it isn’t big enough, not good enough, you can’t win,» he continued.
Spicer: Trump Has Severed Ties to His Companies but Documents Not Public
At first, Spicer said that «I believe we have» released documents showing that Trump has removed himself from his businesses, but White House Director of Strategic Communications Hope Hicks, who was sitting to the side of the podium, quickly corrected him and said that «they’re not public at this time.»
«He [Trump] has resigned from the company as he said he would before he took office. Don [Jr.] and Eric [Trump’s sons] are fully in charge of the company. He has taken extraordinary steps to ensure that that’s happened,» Spicer said.
Spicer Gives Rundown of Day’s Business
Spicer said that the three executive orders that Trump signed this morning were the last the president would be issuing today, even though Trump previously listed more issues that would be addressed on the first working day of the administration.
«I think part of it is making sure we don’t spend an entire day signing executive orders. I think part of it is doing it in a way that doesn’t jam them out in a fire hose — ensuring that we sequence these that these that gives the issue the proper attention they deserve,» he said.
Earlier in the news conference, Spicer ran through the meetings Trump had this morning, which included a meeting with business leaders, lunch with Vice President Mike Pence and a call with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.
He also criticized Democrats, saying that they were holding up Trump’s «unquestionably qualified» candidates who need Senate confirmation.
Spicer was asked about when the White House’s Spanish site would be reinstated, and he said «we’ve got the IT guys working overtime.»
«We’re working piece by piece to get that done,» he said.

More than 1 in 100 Americans marched against Donald Trump Saturday, say political scientists

Garance Franke Ruta Jan 22, 2017

A professor of political science in Connecticut has aggregated the data from public reports of crowd sizes at the women’s marches across America on Saturday and reached an astonishing conclusion: More than 1 in every 100 people in the U.S. turned out to march against Donald Trump and for women’s rights on the second day of his presidency.
Drawing on reports of 526 different marches in towns as disparate as Wichita Falls, Texas — reported turnout: 150 people — and Washington, D.C. — reported turnout: more than 500,000 — University of Connecticut professor Jeremy Pressman, working with international relations professor Erica Chenoweth from the University of Denver, estimated that 3,341,823 to 4,611,782 people turned out to march across the nation.
The Census Bureau estimated that the U.S. population as of mid-2016 was 323,127,513.
“The overall number is bigger than I expected,” Pressman told Yahoo News about his findings on the protest crowds. “With a low estimate it’s a little bit above 1 percent, and with a higher estimate, it’s probably closer to 1 1/2 percent.”
The Associated Press had reported late Saturday that “more than 1 million people rallied at women’s marches in the nation’s capital and cities around the world.”
On Sunday it became clear the global number had to be higher than that, as the low-end estimates from just four major American cities pushed the total marcher count to nearly 1 million.
In Washington, organizers released a crowd estimate of more than 500,000 early on Saturday morning that was confirmed by city officials on Sunday, and the local Metro authority told the New York Times Sunday that it had logged more than 1 million individual entries into the underground rail system over the course of the day — the second-highest number ever, after Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration day, which saw 1.12 million entries. Independent crowd scientists studied pictures from the scene for the Times and concluded turnout was at least 470,000 at 2 p.m. Saturday, or three times as many as had attended Trump’s inauguration the day before.

In California, the Los Angeles Times reported that city police estimated “well past” 100,000 people turned out to protest in the state’s most populous city, while protest organizers put the number at 750,000. (Pressman and Chenowith are putting the lower bound at 200,000.) Another 250,000 people rallied in Chicago, according to local march organizers, and the New York City mayor’s office estimated that 400,000 turned out to chant against the president in Trump’s hometown.
Pressman and Chenoweth have been publicly sharing a Google spreadsheet they’ve been using to collect reports on the turnout for hundreds of other women’s marches in America and around the world. Pressman starting to collect figures Saturday morning after posting a query on Twitter asking, “Is there an excel spreadsheet totaling all the marchers in different cities today?”
There wasn’t, so he started one.
People started tweeting at him with links to news reports on their smaller local marches, as well as emailing pictures and firsthand reports. Chenoweth added many estimates being shared from smaller marches on Facebook, where in some cases the crowds were so small they could be counted one by one.
“We’ve listed several hundred protests and marches across the country. I’ve been really struck by that. Some of them are small,” said Pressman about the extent what of organizers called “sister marches.” The main march was in D.C.
Women’s March organizers logged reports of 678 sister marches around the world, with an estimated total of 4,814,000 marchers worldwide.
The professors also have gathered reports of marches where the only source for the number of marchers was a direct report from the marchers themselves, with no public-record documentation to back that up. They have listed those cities but not listed or counted them when adding up their numbers, leaving those cities with a blank cell in their spreadsheet. “We’re being more conservative with the numbers than with the locations,” explained Pressman.
The document, for now, is a work in progress, with the final tally likely to fluctuate as more cities receive formal crowd size estimates, which can sometimes take a few days to be ascertained.

‘History!’: Journey to the March on Washington feels like an end and a beginning

Lisa Belkin Jan 22, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. — For the second day in a row, the dozen women were up and out before dawn.
On Friday morning they had done so in their hometown of Louisville, Ky., boarding a white rented van for the 12-hour drive to Washington. On Saturday they were outside Washington, boarding the Metro at about 6 a.m. for the hourlong trip to the starting point of the Women’s March on Washington. They carried the signs they had painted during a getting-to-know-you dinner back home before the trip: “Respect existence or expect resistance,” “Why are you so obsessed with my uterus?,” “We stand today so they can stand tomorrow,” “Black lives matter,” “The rise of women = the rise of the nation” and “Kentucky women stand together!”
They were early, but they were not the first. A scattering of others had signs with them on the Metro. As they neared the stage at the corner of Independence Avenue and Third Street, there were already hundreds of people, many clustered around a group who had brought box-loads of “pussy hats” knitted by women who could not be at the march. The name of the knitter was pinned to each one, along with her reason for wanting to march. The Kentucky group grabbed a hat knitted by an Oregon woman whose cause was reproductive rights.
By 8 a.m. they had secured a spot about 100 yards from the stage, in a crowd that had grown to thousands. The marchers were so densely packed that it was almost impossible to move, and basically impossible to leave. For the next six hours they would eat little and drink next to nothing, because heading for the porta-potties meant probably never getting this close to the action again. They wouldn’t sit down until dinnertime.
At 10 a.m. the program began, a nonstop parade of celebrity and history.
The scene in front of the U.S. Capitol during the Women’s March on Washington. (Photo: Joe Goldberg)
When Gloria Steinem took the stage, Bridget Pitcock, who works as a chief of staff at a managed-care company back in Louisville, was moved to tears. Steinem put into words what so many in the group were already thinking, that today was the start of something and they were a part of it.
“We are at one with each other, we are looking at each other, not up, no more asking Daddy,” said Steinem to cheers from the crowd, now hundreds of thousands. “This is a day that will change us forever because we are together. Each of us, individually and collectively, will never be the same again.”
At around 11 a.m., Pitcock’s wife, Meg Hancock, read aloud a text to the entire group from a friend back home. “You would not believe how huge the marches are,” it said. “CNN says the D.C. march may be the largest in history and streets all over the country are filled with protests. Louisville was packed!”
The Louisville group cheered when civil rights activist Angela Davis warned, “The next 1,459 days of the Trump administration will be 1,459 days of resistance: Resistance on the ground, resistance in the classrooms, resistance on the job, resistance in our art and in our music.”
When Amy Schumer took the stage, they cheered again. When it turned out that she was there to introduce Madonna, they cheered louder. When the pop megastar asked, “Are you ready?” they chanted back, “Yes, we’re ready.”
“It took this moment of darkness to wake us the f*** up,” Madonna said, and some in the crowd tittered, knowing that the banks of network cameras were covering the rally live. “To our detractors who insist that this march will not add up to anything,” she continued, “f*** you. F*** you.”
And then, perhaps fittingly, she sang “Express Yourself.”
When Alicia Keys took the stage and vowed, “We will not allow our bodies to be owned and controlled by men in government, or men anywhere, for that matter. We will not allow our compassionate souls to get stepped on,” they pumped to her rhythm with their signs. When she sang “Girl on Fire,” they sang along.
A favorite speaker of the group was Ashley Judd, who is no stranger to the Bluegrass State. The actress performed a spoken-word piece written by 19-year-old Nina Donovan. “I am a nasty woman,” she began. “Not as nasty as a man who looks like he bathes in Cheeto dust, a man whose words are a dis to America, Electoral College-sanctioned hate speech.”
“That’s our girl,” Pitcock shouted. “That’s a real Kentucky woman up there,” added Kelsey Westbrook, co-director of an animal-welfare nonprofit in Louisville.
At 1 p.m. they paused for the moment of silence that was being observed at all the 373 marches throughout the country. The official website had said the program would end 30 minutes later and everyone would march for a mile and a half to the Ellipse park, but by 2 p.m. it was clear that wasn’t going to happen. There were too many high-wattage speakers who had yet to be heard. And there was nowhere to march — throngs of people filled what would have been the route. Estimates from the stage were that the crowd had grown past half a million. By 4 p.m. the group decided to join what was becoming an impromptu walk by thousands to the White House, following the same route that the new president had taken in the inaugural parade the day before.
Along the way they chanted:
“Show me what America looks like!
This is what America looks like!”
“Show me what democracy looks like!
This is what democracy looks like!”
Westbrook was feeling tired but also energetic. “This was one of the most inspirational days of my life,” she said.
“This is the beginning of a new movement,” agreed Pitcock. “A movement that includes everyone.” To her the most inspirational message of the day was: “If there is a matter that needs to be corrected, look to the people that it affects the most to lead. This movement will be led by black, brown, Muslim, queer, lesbian, trans women…”
Zyah Brown, 5, said, “I wanna tell Donald Trump he needs to be nice to girls.” (Photo: Mary F. Calvert for Yahoo News)
It was a slow walk — 90 minutes down 15th Street. In the end, the demonstrators were turned away before they reached the White House because the march permit did not include that destination. So the group walked to the Farragut West Metro station, where there was another sea of people, worn but patient, waiting for their turn to board a train.
Westbrook read the latest crowd estimate from a news story on her cellphone. “1.2 million,” she said triumphantly.
“History!!!!!!” shouted Hancock. This was indeed the largest post-inaugural protest ever.
“Totally worth getting up at 4 a.m.,” said Julie Peyton, a home-health nurse.
“Amazing, amazing, it was priceless,” agreed Jocelyn Duke, an artist with a background in social work and basketball coaching. “The speakers that they had lined up, all those people in one spot, the knowledge that they were dropping, priceless, I’d do it over again 10 times over.”
Already, though, thoughts were turning to tomorrow and the long van ride back home.
“Being from a red state, even though Louisville is a blue city, we feel alone at times,” Westbrook said of the unfamiliar feeling she’d had in D.C., where others who shared her worldview surrounded her. “We don’t want to leave. This has been amazing.”