Saturday, December 6, 2014

MEXICO : Identifican al ejecutado número 50 de La Paz; tenía 25 años

Home / BCS

Posted on diciembre 6, 2014 

by Redacción in BCS, La Paz, Policiaca, Portada


La Paz, Baja California Sur (BCS). La Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado dio a conocer que el nombre de la persona hallada muerta la mañana de este sábado en la colonia La Esperanza, en La Paz, era Jesús Daniel Quiroga Pichardo, de 25 años de edad.

Su identificación, informó la PGJE, se logró gracias al sistema AFIS, por medio de los peritos de dactiloscopia adscritos a la Dirección de Servicios Periciales.

Hasta el momento quedan pendientes sus causas de muerte. En estos momentos, destacaron  se está realizando la necropsia de ley para determinarlas.

El muerto número 50, que apareció con un presunto narcomensaje, fue hallado a las 07:05 horas sobre el pavimento de la calle Mar Mediterráneo, casi esquina con Océano Pacífico.

Foto: Alejandro Patrón

Russia's strategy for undermining Western unity is working

From gas for Turkey to funding for French rightists, Putin sows division by making deals.


Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan review an honor guard on Dec. 1, 2014 during a welcoming ceremony at the new presidential palace outside Ankara. (Adem Altan/AFP/Getty Images)

LISBON, Portugal — Vladimir Putin's timing can be impeccable.

On the day before NATO foreign ministers met in Brussels, Belgium, this past week to re-affirm their unity and determination in the face of Moscow's aggression in Ukraine, the Russian president was enjoying a red-carpet welcome in the country with NATO’s second-largest army.

"This visit by Putin is a clear sign of the progress in relations between Turkey and Russia,”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Monday.

 “Our political will to increase our trade volumes to $100 billion is still valid."

Photos of Putin inspecting an honor guard of Turkish troops in their sky-blue coats, offers of cut-price Russian energy exports, and a commitment to help Turkey — a key NATO ally — become a hub for Russian gas sales were perfectly timed to undermine NATO's show of unity the following day.

"Talks during my state visit to Turkey were held in an exceedingly friendly and cooperative atmosphere,"
Putin crowed at a joint news conference following the meeting in Erdogan's lavish new palace in Ankara.

Putin's Turkish trip is the latest move in what Western defense officials view as a concerted and multi-pronged Russian offensive to undermine Western resolve over Ukraine.

More from GlobalPost: The Kremlin is loving the Ferguson riots

The Kremlin's tactics include the diplomatic and economic wooing of more receptive Western governments like Turkey's; outreach to friendly political forces (see recent revelations of Russian funding for France's far-right National Front party); an expensive multimedia propaganda campaign; and attempts to undermine moves toward the West by nations just beyond NATO's eastern fringe, like Serbia and Moldova.

It's an approach that is bearing fruit.

"There are people in our countries, and legislators too, who do not see Russia’s actions in Ukraine as a threat to our interests or security,"
British lawmaker Hugh Bayley told parliamentarians from NATO nations last month.

"Some are lured by Russia’s lies and propaganda. Others want to bury their heads in the sand."

Erdogan, upset with criticism from his country’s European and North American allies over his heavy-handed rule and unpredictable foreign policy, was glad to find a friend in Putin.

"It's a reflection of deteriorating ties with the West,"
says Amanda Paul, an expert on the region at the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based think tank.

 "[The West is] pushing Turkey into the arms of other countries and one of those countries is Russia, which doesn't criticize Turkey over democracy, human rights, civil liberties, etcetera."

For Putin, the Turkey visit ticks a number of boxes.

It builds economic ties with a neighbor who has refused to sign on to international sanctions against Russia. The trip was a nice platform for slamming the European Union — and for sowing division among European nations by announcing he's pulling out of a major pipeline designed to take Russian gas into EU markets.

That stunned Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary, who had hopes of profiting from the South Stream pipeline's route through their territory.

Putin invited them to vent their anger at EU headquarters, which has sought to restrict plans to give Russian's energy giant Gazprom a monopoly on use of the pipeline.

He had a particular message for Bulgaria — a country with close historic and cultural ties to Russia — which joined the EU in 2007.

"Bulgaria is deprived of the opportunity to act as a sovereign nation,"
Putin said.

"Direct revenues to Bulgaria’s budget alone (from the pipeline) would have been no less than €400 million ($492 million) a year, but ultimately, this is also the choice of our Bulgarian partners; it seems they have certain obligations."

That's talk that resonates in Bulgaria — the EU's poorest member, where pro-Russian politicians were quick to blame the government for sacrificing the national interest under pressure from the EU and United States.

"Bulgaria had a chance to win back its energy independence,"
said the Socialist Party’s Rumen Ovcharov, speaking to Russia's new Sputnik media operation. "The country's leadership acted inadequately and foolishly. And, unfortunately, Bulgaria emerged as a loser."

Across Europe, the Kremlin has been building a network of political allies, notably among parties on the far right and radical left that are opposed to the EU and have risen to prominence in several countries during the union's long economic crisis.

After media revelations, the leader of France's National Front, Marine Le Pen, last month acknowledged the party had received €9 million ($11 million) from a Russian bank. She's denied reports that's just the first installment of a planned €40 million ($49 million) loan designed to fund the far-right leader's campaign to run for president in 2017.

Le Pen is an outspoken critic of the West's support for Ukraine, wants France to resume the sale of high-tech warships to Moscow, and describes Putin as a role model.

More from GlobalPost: France is a mess, and Europe is worried

"I admire his cool head,"
she told the Euronews TV channel this week.

"There is a cold war being waged against him by the EU at the behest of United States, which is defending its own interests. I admire that he has managed to restore pride and contentment to a great nation."

While other far-right parties in Europe have denied receiving money from Moscow, they do express ideological kinship with Putin's macho nationalism.

"Russia represents the future,"
says Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy's Northern League.

 Currently his country’s second-most popular politician, Salvini has been invited to the Kremlin to meet with Putin, which whom he shares a dislike of the EU and a penchant for posing bare-chested.

Several European parties on the far right and left have cemented their support for Putin by acting as observers in elections and referendums organized by pro-Moscow groups in bits of Ukraine they've seized.

But Russia isn’t only focusing on the extremes.

The Kremlin has also cultivated influential sympathizers among European business leaders and prominent members of mainstream parties in countries like Germany, Hungary and Italy.

Another strand of Putin's strategy is to reach out directly to European public opinion, with a propaganda blitz designed to sow doubt about Western condemnation of Russia's actions in Ukraine and other neighboring states.

Russia is pouring money into the Sputnik multimedia operation launched last month and headed by ultra-nationalist TV presenter Dmitry Kiselev, who earlier this year warned Americans that Russia had the power to turn their country into "radioactive dust."

The state-funded RT global television network, formally known as Russia Today, has also stepped up its activities.

It opened a dedicated British channel, RT UK, in October, an online German channel in November, and launched an aggressive advertising campaign that suggests the Iraq War could have been avoided if people had listened to its broadcasts.

Increasingly, Western officials are calling for a communications counter-strike.

Earlier this year a NATO Strategic Communications Center opened in Latvia. The US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee passed a bill in September authorizing $10 million in annual funding focused on countering Russian “propaganda” in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.

"The best counter to Russian disinformation is the truth,"
Alexander Vershbow, NATO's Deputy Secretary General wrote in a recent online debate. 

"NATO has improved its ability to get the facts out via traditional and social media, but I agree we can do better. This will be a priority."

How a national food policy could save millions of American lives


(Martin Tognola for The Washington Post)

By Mark Bittman, Michael Pollan, Ricardo Salvador and Olivier De Schutter 

November 7

Mark Bittman, an opinion columnist and food writer for the New York Times, is the author of How to Cook Everything Fast.” 

Michael Pollan, who teaches journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, is the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma.” 

Ricardo Salvador is a senior scientist and director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Olivier De Schutter, a professor of international human rights law at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food from 2008 to 2014.

How we produce and consume food has a bigger impact on Americans’ well-being than any other human activity. 

The food industry is the largest sector of our economy; food touches everything from our health to the environment, climate change, economic inequality and the federal budget.

 Yet we have no food policy — no plan or agreed-upon principles — for managing American agriculture or the food system as a whole.

That must change.

The food system and the diet it’s created have caused incalculable damage to the health of our people and our land, water and air

If a foreign power were to do such harm, we’d regard it as a threat to national security, if not an act of war, and the government would formulate a comprehensive plan and marshal resources to combat it. (The administration even named an Ebola czar to respond to a disease that threatens few Americans.) 

So when hundreds of thousands of annual deaths are preventable — as the deaths from the chronic diseases linked to the modern American way of eating surely are — preventing those needless deaths is a national priority.

A national food policy would do that, by investing resources to guarantee that:

● All Americans have access to healthful food;

● Farm policies are designed to support our public health and environmental objectives;

● Our food supply is free of toxic bacteria, chemicals and drugs;

● Production and marketing of our food are done transparently;

● The food industry pays a fair wage to those it employs;

● Food marketing sets children up for healthful lives by instilling in them a habit of eating real food;

● Animals are treated with compassion and attention to their well-being;

● The food system’s carbon footprint is reduced, and the amount of carbon sequestered on farmland is increased;

● The food system is sufficiently resilient to withstand the effects of climate change.

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals.

 Now weigh them against the reality that our current policies and public investments have given us:

Because of unhealthy diets, 100 years of progress in improving public health and extending lifespan has been reversed. 

Today’s children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. 

In large part, this is because a third of these children will develop Type 2 diabetes, formerly rare in children and a preventable disease that reduces life expectancy by several years.

 At the same time, our fossil-fuel-dependent food and agriculture system is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of the economy but energy. And the exploitative labor practices of the farming and fast-food industries are responsible for much of the rise in income inequality in America.

We find ourselves in this situation because government policy in these areas is made piecemeal. Diet-related chronic disease, food safety, marketing to children, labor conditions, wages for farm and food-chain workers, immigration, water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and support for farmers: These issues are all connected to the food system. Yet they are overseen by eight federal agencies. Amid this incoherence, special interests thrive and the public good suffers.

In the early days of the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that the new president recognized the problems of our food system and wanted to do something about them. He spoke about the importance of safety, transparency and competition in the food industry.

Since then, the first lady has made childhood obesity her signature issue, elevating food on the national agenda. But as Michelle Obama raises awareness of healthy eating and tries to reform school lunch, she is struggling to undo the damage caused by outmoded agricultural policies that her husband has left largely undisturbed. 

The result is the spectacle of Michelle Obama warning Americans to avoid high-fructose corn syrup at the same time the president is signing farm bills that subsidize its production.

The contradictions of our government’s policies around food become clear as soon as you compare the federal recommendations for the American diet, known as MyPlate, with the administration’s agricultural policies. 

While MyPlate recommends a diet of 50 percent vegetables and fruits, the administration devotes less than 1 percent of farm subsidies to support the research, production and marketing of those foods. 

More than 60 percent of that funding subsidizes the production of corn and other grains — food that is mostly fed to animals, converted to fuel for cars or processed into precisely the sort of junk the first lady is urging us to avoid.

How could one government be advancing two such diametrically opposed goals? By failing to recognize that an agricultural policy is not the same as a food policy — and that the former does not necessarily contribute to public health.

Our food system is largely a product of agricultural policies that made sense when the most important public health problem concerning food was the lack of it and when the United States saw “feeding the world” as its mission. 

These policies succeeded in boosting the productivity of American farmers, yet today they are obsolete and counterproductive, providing billions in public support to an industry that churns out a surfeit of unhealthy calories — while at the same time undermining the ability of the world’s farmers to make a living from their land.

These farm policies have nourished an agricultural-industrial complex before which the president and the first lady seem powerless. The administration’s early efforts to use antitrust laws to protect farmers and consumers from agribusiness oligopolies were quietly dropped

Promises to regulate the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture — widely acknowledged as a threat to public health — resulted in toothless voluntary guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration.

When it came to regulating methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed stringent rules for the energy industry — and another voluntary program for agriculture, the single biggest emitter of the gas.

 And in February the president signed yet another business-as-usual farm bill, which continues to encourage the dumping of cheap but unhealthy calories in the supermarket.

These policies and the diet they sponsor threaten to undermine President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. 

The government now finds itself in the absurd position of financing both sides in the war on Type 2 diabetes, a disease that, along with its associated effects, now costs $245 billion, or 23 percent of the national deficit in 2012, to treat each year. 

The government subsidizes soda with one hand, while the other writes checks to pay for insulin pumps. This is not policy; this is insanity.

The good news is that solutions are within reach — precisely because the problems are largely a result of government policies.

 We know that the government has the power to reshape the food system because it has already done so at least once — when President Richard Nixon rejiggered farm policy to boost production of corn and soy to drive down food prices.

Of course, reforming the food system will ultimately depend on a Congress that has for decades been beholden to agribusiness, one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. As long as food-related issues are treated as discrete rather than systemic problems, congressional committees in thrall to special interests will be able to block change.

But there is something the president can do now, on his own, to break that deadlock, much as he has done with climate change. In the next State of the Union address, he should announce an executive order establishing a national policy for food, health and well-being. By officially acknowledging the problem and by setting forth a few simple principles on which most Americans agree, the introduction of such a policy would create momentum for reform. By elevating food and farming to a matter of public concern rather than a parochial interest, the president can make it much more difficult for the interests of agribusiness to prevail over those of public and environmental health.

The national food policy could be developed and implemented by a new White House council, which would coordinate among, say, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA to align agricultural policies with public health objectives, and the EPA and the USDA to make sure food production doesn’t undermine environmental goals. A national food policy would lay the foundation for a food system in which healthful choices are accessible to all and in which it becomes possible to nourish ourselves without exploiting other people or nature.

As Obama begins the last two years of his administration facing an obstructionist Republican Congress, this is an area where he can act on his own — and his legacy may depend on him doing so. 

For the president won’t be able to achieve his goals for health care, climate change, immigration and economic inequality — the four pillars of his second term — if he doesn’t address the food system and its negative impact on those issues.

There are precedents for such a policy. Already a handful of states are developing food charters, and scores of U.S. cities have established food policy councils to expand access to healthful food. 

Brazil and Mexico are far ahead of the United States in developing national food policies. Mexico’s recognition of food as a key driver of public health led to the passage last year of a national tax on junk food and soda, which in the first year has reduced consumption of sugary beverages by 10 percent and increased consumption of water.

Brazil has had a national food policy since 2004. In the city of Belo Horizonte that policy — coupled with an investment of 2 percent of the local budget in food-access and farmer-support programs — has reduced poverty by 25 percent and child mortality by 60 percent, and provided access to credit for 2 million farmers, all within a decade.

A well-articulated national food policy in the United States would make it much more difficult for Congress to pass bills that fly in its face. 

The very act of elevating food among the issues the White House addresses would build public support for reforms. And once the government embraces a goal such as “We guarantee the right of every American to eat food that is healthy, green, fair and affordable” — it becomes far more difficult to pass or sign a farm bill that erodes those guarantees.

Think of the food system as something that works for us rather than exploits us, something that encourages health rather than undermines it. That is the food system the people of the United States deserve, and Obama, in his remaining time in office, can begin to build it.

Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

¿Es Vladimir Putin el nuevo Zar de Rusia?


by Carlos Vilchez Navamuel

• 5 diciembre, 2014 • 

Vladímir Vladímirovich Putin nació en Leningrado, Unión Soviética el 7 de octubre de 1952, proviene de una familia de origen humilde, y se graduó con honores de la carrera de Derecho en la Universidad Estatal de Leningrado, ingresó luego en el servicio de espionaje del KGB, siendo destinado como agente en Dresde (Alemania Oriental) es además de abogado un político y el actual presidente de Rusia, como se sabe anteriormente ya había ejercido por dos mandatos consecutivos (2000-2004 y 2004-2008), lo que lo convierte en el hombre que más tiempo ha estado en ese cargo desde la caída de la URSS. 

Encabezó el Gobierno de su país bajo Borís Yeltsin y Dmitri Medvédev, y es desde el 27-05-08, presidente del Consejo de Ministros de la Unión de Rusia y Bielorrusia.

¿Cómo este personaje se ha hecho tan poderoso? ¿Será cierto lo que dicen acerca de cómo vive y de la supuesta fortuna que tiene? 

Recuérdese que algunos piensan que sobrepasa los cuarenta mil millones de dólares como veremos a continuación.

El sitio de Internet nos dice que el periódico The Guardian (que cita fuentes rusas) publicó una noticia en el 2007 donde se revelaba el origen oculto de la millonaria fortuna de Putin o de sus 8 años en el poder, el presidente de la Federación Rusa, Vladimir Putin, ha acumulado una fortuna personal secreta de 40.000 millones de dólares gracias a sus acciones ocultas en tres poderosas compañías rusas del gas y el petróleo. 

Más adelante en el mismo sitio leemos “La información ya fue adelantada el pasado 12 de noviembre a la revista alemana ‘Die Welt’ por el politólogo ruso Stanislav Belkovsky, quien precisó hoy al diario londinense que el presidente Putin cuenta con importantes participaciones en tres compañías rusas del gas y del petróleo a través de “una red de compañías ‘offshore’ no transparentes”. 

De esta forma, aseguró, Putin controla “de hecho” el 37% de las participaciones de Surgutneftegaz -la tercera sociedad de prospección petrolera de Rusia-, el 4,5% del gigante Gazprom y “al menos el 75%” de Gunvor, una “misteriosa” empresa comercializadora de petróleo radicada en Suiza y fundada por Gennady Timchenko, amigo personal del presidente.

Peter Baker escribió una nota en “The Wall Street Journal Americas” el artículo fue traducido al español y lo titularon “La mítica fortuna secreta de Putin desvela a la CIA” 

En el escrito Baker nos comenta que “En 2007, la CIA elaboró una evaluación secreta de la riqueza de Putin que nunca fue divulgada. El informe se ceñía mayormente a las afirmaciones que luego hizo públicas un analista político ruso, quien aseguró que por entonces Putin efectivamente tenía participaciones en Gunvor (75%), Gazprom (4,6%) y Surgutneftegaz (37%) que sumaban hasta 40.000 millones de dólares”. 

Y añade que “Durante años, la sospecha de que Putin tiene una fortuna secreta ha intrigado a los expertos, analistas de la industria, figuras de la oposición, periodistas y agencias de inteligencia, pero ninguno de ellos logró encontrarla. Se han tirado cifras que sugieren que Putin controlaría desde 40.000 hasta incluso 70.000 millones de dólares, lo que teóricamente lo convertiría en el jefe de Estado más rico de la historia. Más allá de rumores y especulaciones, sin embargo, las evidencias son pocas o ninguna, y Guvnor, por su parte, ha negado rotundamente cualquier vinculación con Putin”.

Cierta o no la fortuna que le endilgan, otro sitio de Internet llamado nos dice en setiembre de 2012 que “El presidente ruso tiene supuestamente un total de 20 palaciegas residencias, incluyendo un misterioso y extravagante palacio estilo romano situado en la costa del Mar Negro, valorado en $950 millones dólares. Otros palacios incluyen Constantine Palace: una finca de la época zarista, en el golfo de Finlandia; un chalet de esquí en las montañas del Cáucaso y un palacio estilo neogótico en una súper exclusiva zona de Moscú, entre otros. A esto debemos de añadir que una flota de 58 aviones: (incluyen 15 helicópteros), jets ejecutivos Dassault Falcon, Airbus, uno de estos aviones es de fabricación rusa, un Il-96 “Iliushin, el cual utiliza como jet presidencial, fue personalizado por $18 millones y cuenta con un baño de $75,000 dólares; – No vamos a olvidar su colección de ultra-caros relojes de marcas, valorados en millones de dólares”. 

Y “Su desplazamientos por carretera está a cargo de una flota de unos 700 vehículos de gran lujos, incluyendo algunos de los coches más caros del mundo. Cuenta con una flota de cuatro súper lujosos yates, uno de ellos fue un “regalo” hecho por un amigo multi-millonario ruso, los otros yates viene con lujosos diseños interiores, piscina, spa, bodegas de vinos, helipuertos, etc.”.

Como ven, hasta el momento no se ha podido comprobar con certeza la fortuna de Vladimir Putin, pero por lo anterior podríamos definirlo como el nuevo Zar de Rusia, vive en la opulencia, ejerce el poder con fuerza, y la revista Forbes lo acaba de nombrar por segunda vez consecutiva como el hombre más poderoso del planeta, por lo que no nos extrañaría que su fortuna haya alcanzado las dimensiones astronómicas que le señalan, después de todo un agente de la KGB estaría preparado para esconderla. ¿No les parece?