El héroe del Metro

Uploaded on Dec 3, 2010
El héroe del Metro salva la vida de un hombre en el metro de Madrid. alcobendasdigital.com

Un policía nacional fuera de servicio se ha convertido en un héroe anónimo al salvar a un hombre que iba a ser arrollado en las vías del Metro de Madrid, después de que éste perdiera el equilibrio en un anden de la estación Puerta del Ángel. Varios viajeros que esperaban en el andén la llegada de un convoy vieron cómo una persona perdía el equilibrio y caía a las vías y empezaron a gritar para alertar al conductor. Al percatarse de la situación, el agente ha corrido a lo largo del andén y se ha lanzado a las vías para arrastrar al hombre fuera de la trayectoria del metro, que no consiguió detenerse a tiempo. La persona que cayó a las vías es un ciudadano español de 41 años que ha resultado herido leve

toda la humanidad

Beirut y París: Historia de dos ataques terroristas

Por: Belén Fernández

Publicado 16 noviembre 2015


Cuando llegó la noticia de los ataques terroristas en París, que en última instancia dejaron más de 120 muertos, el Presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama calificó la situación como "desgarradora" y un asalto "a toda la humanidad".

Esa simpatía presidencial estuvo notablemente ausente el día anterior cuando los ataques terroristas en Beirut dejaron más de 40 muertos. Como era de esperar, los medios de comunicación Occidentales y los medios sociales fueron mucho menos vocales sobre la masacre en el Líbano.

Este contenido ha sido publicado originalmente por teleSUR bajo la siguiente dirección:
http://www.telesurtv.net/opinion/Beirut-y-Paris-Historia-de-dos-ataques-terroristas-20151116-0036.html.

texting and driving

Boxing

This is what happened when a young man broke into his neighbor's house! The 23 year old intruder had a knife, but 72 year old Frank Corti, a former junior boxing champion, had his fists!

The punks name is Gregory McCallium from England. Frank Corti the 72 year old knocked him down with 2 punches, then sat on him until the police arrived. The judge had no sympathy for the punk and said he got what he deserved. 4-1/2 years in jail.

Annie Laurie

Annie Laurie, cantada en las trincheras

Un exitoso concierto con armónicas, peines y papel de seda e incluso silbidos fue dado por los guardias británicos en las trincheras de primera línea cerca de Loos. Tocaron viejas melodías inglesas, armonizadas con gran emoción y habilidad técnica.

Esto atrajo a un público inesperado: Los alemanes hacinados en su línea frontal - no muy lejos - aplaudían cada número.

Repentinamente, en buen Inglés, una voz alemana gritó desde su trinchera: "Tocad 'Annie Laurie' y yo la canto".

Los Ingleses tocaron 'Annie Laurie', y un oficial alemán se puso de pie sobre el parapeto - el sol de la tarde de color rojo brillaba trás de él - y cantó la antigua canción escocesa, admirablemente, con gran ternura.

Al terminar hubo aplausos en ambos lados.

Nota histórica: 'Annie Laurie' es una vieja canción escocesa, basada en un poema de un tal William Douglas (1672?–1748). La melodía de la canción fue creada por una tal Alicia Scott quien modificó los versos originales de Douglas allá por 1850. Puede oírse una de las versiones de esta popular vieja canción aquí.

REUNIONES EN LA TIERRA DE NADIE

A medida que se acercaba la Navidad de 1914, una serie de treguas improvisada estallaron en el frente occidental en los que las tropas alemanas y británicas intercambiaban saludos, canciones, e incluso alimentos. El riflero Oswald Tilley de la Brigada de Rifleros de Londres escribió a sus padres el 27 de diciembre en relación con un incidente ocurrido cerca Ploegsteert, justo al norte de la frontera franco -belga:

"La mañana de Navidad, ya que habíamos dejado prácticamente de disparar contra ellos, uno de ellos comenzó haciéndonos señas, por lo que uno de nuestros soldados salió de nuestras trincheras a su encuentro a mitad de camino en medio de vítores. Después de un poco algunos más de nuestros soldados salieron al encuentro de otros más hasta que, literalmente, cientos soldados de cada lado estaban en la tierra de nadie saludándose e intercambiando cigarrillos, chocolate y tabaco, etc ... Sólo piensen que mientras ustedes estaban comiendo pavo yo estaba afuera hablando y dando la mano a los mismos hombres que había estado tratando de matar un par de horas antes... Fue asombroso!"

En los años siguientes las autoridades trataron de desalentar esas treguas. Porque además de romper la disciplina, se tenían problemas para que la guerra se reiniciara.

A finales de 1915 Ethel Cooper, una mujer australiana que vivió en Alemania, conoció a un soldado de permiso del Cuerpo de Saxon XIX que le dijo que su unidad había fraternizado extensamente con un batallón británico durante dos días a partir de la víspera de Navidad. Ella escribió: "El problema comenzó el día 26, cuando se dio la orden de disparar, fue un duro golpe para los hombres. Herr Lange dice que nunca había escuchado el lenguaje empleado por los oficiales y que logró, como único resultado, la siguiente respuesta de los soldados: " No podemos dispararles- son buena gente , y no podemos hacerlo". Finalmente, los oficiales volvieron con los soldados, "Disparan, o nosotros lo hacemos y no contra el enemigo". Ningún disparo había venido del otro lado, pero al fin iniciamos las hostilidades, y posteriormente no llegó un fuego de respuesta, pero ningún un hombre caía. "Pasamos ese día y al día siguiente desperdiciando municiones disparándole a las estrellas del cielo"

The Morality of Evolution

As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like ... Charles Darwin.

Ezra Taft Benson

More than other modern societies, United States relies, even depends, on myth to cement its confidence. Americans are profoundly ahistorical.

Our national myths are representations of identity and the actual instrument of acculturation. This process of acculturation through myth, moreover, is achieved through entertainment: television and movies. The culture of a society—its ethos—defines distinctive patterns of individual and group behavior. Culture shapes the way we look at the world. Whatever our immediate group membership, our final sense of identity is shaped by larger cultural patterns. If we define ourselves according to myth, what kind of worldview has it given us?

First, at the core,  the United States has an essentially religious value system. The primal myth of our origin is that of the "Pilgrim’s Progress," with the Plymouth Colony completely overshadowing Virginia and its lineal transplanting of British class and caste. We believe that the source and inspiration of America is bound up in religion: religious freedom, but also the moral vantage of Calvin. The impact of Protestant thought is felt in the ways we talk about mission, service, sacrifice, restraint. It underlies the sense that Americans share of serving a higher calling. This underpinning remains dominant today even though it is highly secularized, and transmuted into legal, constitutional language.

Second, Americans still hew a set of specific myths about the United States. One of these is that America is the source of human progress and can achieve perfection as a society. Americans believe that there has never been a society quite like our own. This American "exceptionalism" suggests that we are a people graced with unusual natural endowments. We think of ourselves literally as a "people of plenty." But our mythology also reminds us that this land was a great "untamed wilderness," a "land of savagery." It was the exceptional will, unity and vision of the American people and their beliefs that transformed the landscape. The twin icons of national bounty and national achievement have inspired two senses of an American national purpose: a conviction that the United States should serve as an example to the world, that America and its people are the model for all human development; and an impulse to change the world for good, to become the active agency of human progress. Tyranny and resistance to change are so entrenched in the world that only direct American intercession can shift the direction of history. America’s gifts demand that it assume a missionary role.

In the United States at the turn of the 20th century, Darwinism was greeted with glee because it seemed so compatible with the prevailing ideology of theday,  where robber-baron capitalists like the Carnegies, Mellons, Sumners, Stanfords and yes, even Jack London, could not stop rattling on about how the "survival of the fittest" justified crushing unions, exploiting immigrant labor or being left unregulated to amass huge fortunes while administering monopolies. In the popular ethos of the United States, there is a confusion of Capitalism with the American worship of the individual and the nuclear family. It can be argued that these ideas are related but they are different and independent. According to the American work ethic you only get what you work for, but this is not what Capitalism is. Capitalism is the idea that market forces, carried out by intelligent agents looking for profit (self interest), let by themselves will generate wealth and prosperity for society as a whole. The dichotomy Capitalism/Socialism is actually dated. If one understands socialism as government control of the economy, all, 100%, of the world's governments are socialist to some degree. In any case, we now live in a competitive society and are often told that to get ahead we require drive, commitment and determination, that we must expend a great amount of energy and, if necessary, use force to get what we want. A ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality is deeply entrenched in our culture. Despite the fact that this Wild West mentality  is a historical byproduct, it is now attributed to Darwin’s Origin of the Species.

Religious fundamentalists are sincere on their view of the World as a battleground between Good and Evil. For them anything that undermines faith in God, specially with regards to children, is utterly evil. The teaching of Science to children, in particular Evolution, is seen as a threat to children indoctrination. Nonetheless,  the attack on Evolution is an attack on Science as a whole. Science is not about what to believe but rather a method to perceive Reality. It is the critical objective look at reality aspect of Science that is perceived as a treat by the religious establishment. However, teaching religious ideas as an alternative to factual descriptions of reality undermines science education by misinforming students about the scientific method — the basis for science literacy.

The scientific method teaches students the fundamentals of science — how to observe data, perform experiments and form scientific theory. Religious explanations for creation are not science – they cannot be confirmed or denied by the scientific method. Teaching them as science confuses and misleads students about the scientific method, thereby warping their ability to live in a technology-driven society

Most people don't read scientific papers because they are extremely complex. Even college science students have a hard time digesting scientific papers. But what is easy to understand is that, since the bible says this, science says that, therefore science is the devil, and since we hate the devil and our job is to fight him, we must hate science and fight it. Christian leaders can be blind sighted to the outside world at times. All this commotion about a science that goes against the bible. The Bible today, still says that the Earth does not move around the sun as much as it did thousands of years ago. The Bible did not change. At the end of the Middle Ages, Christian leaders threatened heavy punishment to Galileo for suggesting that, based on his scientific evidences, the Earth revolved around the Sun. 

Any effort to introduce a theological doctrine into public school science curricula would inevitably offend some teachers and students. After all, a Protestant fundamentalist's "literal" reading of Genesis would likely differ markedly from that of a Catholic or an Orthodox Jew. Both public school educators and religious leaders should be concerned about the prospect of biology lessons degenerating into debates on Biblical or religious interpretation.

Evolution by natural selection, at its core, works like this: living organisms are characterized by heritable variation for traits that affect their survival and reproductive abilities. This heritable variation originates from the (truly random) process of mutation at the level of DNA. The process of evolution turns out to be largely the result of two components: mutations (which are random) and natural selection (which, again, is not random). It is the joint outcome of these two processes that—according to evolutionary theory—explains not only the diversity of all organisms on Earth, but most crucially the fact that they are so well adapted to their environment: those that weren’t did not survive the process. Because the environment changes overtime, and therefore, what characteristics of life forms are better changes, and it cannot be said in absolute terms that extinct forms are inferior to those present today.

You may find it intuitively difficult to believe that two relatively simple natural processes can produce the complex order we observe in living organisms. But the beauty of science is that it so often shows our intuitions to be wrong. Because nature does not always function according to our common sense or intuition, the scientific method a necessity on the quest of the human race for survival.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact, contrary to simplistic creationist views. How can this be? Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is beyond reasonable doubt that living organisms have changed over time throughout the history of the earth. It is a theory in the sense that biologists have proposed a variety of mechanisms (including, but not limited to, mutation and natural selection) to explain the fact of evolution.

The theory of evolution is a fundamental concept of biology and it is supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. Simply eliminating evolution from the public school curriculum in order to ease community tensions would do a great disservice to all students. It would deny public school students an adequate science education – which is more and more becoming a necessity for professional success in a high-tech world.

It must be said that there is a propagandistic perversion of language, and there are religious groups that use the language of science to mislead and actually undermine a scientific conceptualization of Reality. Religious opponents of evolution have cloaked religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent Design organizations are fundamentalist religious entities that consider the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry. Creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Creation science is simply not science because it depends upon supernatural intervention, which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable.

The argument for Intelligent Design (ID) is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God, traced back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. Although proponents of ID occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed. The writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as "Governing Goals" to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

Because Science wins over Religion on factual description of Reality, the attack on Science is made nowadays on moral grounds.  From the point of view of religious fundamentalists, Science is a competing religion, although a silly one at that. Then the scientific community is under attack with this straw-man argument against evolution:

But if design, conversely, is rational, why do so many scientists reject it? Because this is not an issue of science, but of religion. Their religion is that of materialism and naturalism, and they are under no illusions as to the implications of design.

James M Tour, in the blog entry Layman’s Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insider’s View of the Academy, claims insufficient understanding of what he calls Macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.^[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,^[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. However, contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation". Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories.^[7]

A more practical definition of the term describes it as changes occurring on geological time scales, in contrast to microevolution, which occurs on the timescale of human lifetimes.^[8] This definition reflects the spectrum between micro- and macro-evolution, whilst leaving a clear difference between the terms: because the geological record rarely has a resolution better than 10,000 years, and humans rarely live longer than 100 years, "meso-evolution" is never observed.^[8]

As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhard Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who did were generally working within the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, Richard Goldschmidt, and Otto Schindewolf were) and those who didn't were generally working within the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not.

At the end of his article, Tour makes a reference to the movie, “Expelled. No Intelligence Allowed.” He asserts that a subset of the scientific establishment is retarding the careers of Darwinian skeptics. He closes citing  Viktor Frankl , The Doctor and the Soul with the comment If Frankl is correct, God help us:

“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.

“I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say, ‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers [emphasis added].”

The movie Expelled main theme is that what it calls Darwinism inherently contain the seeds of Nazism, and even more Darwinism equals Nazism. This frighteningly immoral narrative is capped off a la Moore, with shots of the Berlin Wall, old stock footage of East German police kicking around those trying to escape through the wall to the West and some solemn blather by Ben, who calls upon each one of us to rise up in defense of freedom and knock down a few walls in order to get creationism back into the curriculum at American Schools.

There were many nations, such as Britain which embraced Darwinism but saw a considerable number of their population killed trying to eliminate Nazism. There were other nations, such as the Soviet Union, where Darwinism was seen as so dangerous and subversive to State sponsored dreams of social engineering that those who espoused it were killed or exiled and a complete biological fairy tale, Lysenkoism, put into classrooms and agricultural policy ultimately leading to the deaths of millions from starvation.

Now, Christian groups are tying a neutral scientific theory to racism, antisemitism and xenophobia.That is extremely irresponsible and untrue. In fact, Christianity has a stronger link to anti-semiticism and xenophobia than Evolution which is a scientific theory that purports every man is from the same ancestor.
Throughout history, especially in the Crusades, European Christianity has consistently been a xenophobic culture - Jews were expelled out of England, were treated as second class citizens by Christians, and were not allowed to own lands. Black people were expelled by the Protestant Queen Elizabeth during the food shortage in England. Nazi Hitler, had Christianic themes in support of his treatment of the Jews.

The linking of Nazism to Evolution is a dishonest and cheap attempt at trying to personify a scientific theory as the root of all evil in the world. Evolution implies is that every human came from a single
ancestor. Darwin himself was anti-slavery and he said that there was "no clear distinctive characteristics to categorize races as separate species, and that all shared very similar physical and mental characteristics
indicating common ancestry". However this went against Christian beliefs of that time. A German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who wrote "Life of Jesus", "The Positivity of the Christian
Religion" and thought to be Christian by many critics believed that scientific racism - or the use of science to propose that other races such as blacks are of different heritage and descended from apes "fitted well with the Christian belief of a divine Creation following which all of humanity descended from the same Adam and Eve.

The Bible sanctions slavery, and from the 1820s to the 1850s it was cited in the Southern States of the United States of America to support the idea that negroes had been created unequal, suited to slavery, by writers such as the Rev. Richard Furman, Joseph Smith Jr. and Thomas R. Cobb." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism).

Christians are very uncomfortable with the idea that Adam and Eve were Africans - who, by the now debunked scientific racism are deemed to be descendants of apes. This was a central Christian tenet for much more years than evolution was around, and it was the catalyst for the systematic degradation of a particular group of people - the fact that black people were descendants of apes, gave Christians the biblical right to rule over them. Now that evolution has equalized and showed that all men are equal, and given the current taboo of identifying oneself as racist as well as the demise of Scientific racism. Many xenophobic people turn to Intelligent Design as their last ditch attempt to salvage some element of supernatural support for dominion over a certain group of people. This does not mean all Intelligent Design supporters are racists, but it is certainly a comfortable place for xenophobic individuals to channel their energies to.

Mind and reality

alan watts - simplicity and complexity

La teniente Barbara Balanzoni

Publicado: 22 dic 2013 | 23:47 GMT Última actualización: 22 dic 2013 | 23:47 GMT

Texto completo en: http://actualidad.rt.com/sociedad/view/115009-militar-procesada-salvar-gata-kosovo-otan

La teniente Barbara Balanzoni, que fue enviada para ser juzgada en un tribunal militar la semana pasada, está acusada de insubordinación grave. Cometió un presunto delito mientras se desempeñaba como oficial médico en una base de la OTAN en Kosovo.

Se afirma que al atender a una gata que se moría, Balanzoni hizo caso omiso de una orden emitida por su oficial que prohibía a las tropas en la base "traer a los animales salvajes, callejeros o no acompañados". Ahora se enfrenta a una pena mínima de un año en una prisión militar.

Balanzoni dijo a 'The Guardian' que intervino tras recibir una llamada a la enfermería del personal militar que alarmaba por los ruidos que hacía un felino. La italiana reveló que la gata –que fue llamada más tarde Agata– normalmente vivía en el techo de una choza. "Hay un montón de gatos en la base", dijo.

Según Balanzoni, en aquel momento el funcionario veterinario estaba en Italia. "Lejos de desobedecer órdenes, yo estaba siguiendo los reglamentos militares, que establecen que en ausencia de un veterinario, el médico debe intervenir", insistió.

Reveló que encontró que la gata no podía dar a luz al último de sus gatitos, que ya estaba muerto, y ella seguramente se moriría también. "Si la gata se moría, toda la zona tendría que ser desinfectada", argumentó la militar añadiendo que los gatitos sobrevivientes no podrían haber sido alimentados. "Así que ellos también habrían muerto, lo que habría creado un mayor problema de salud pública".

El juicio de Balanzoni se iniciará en Roma el 7 de febrero. Su caso ha sido asumido por la asociación de defensa de los animales más antigua de Italia, el Ente Nazionale Protezione Animali.

Texto completo en: http://actualidad.rt.com/sociedad/view/115009-militar-procesada-salvar-gata-kosovo-otan

Le fair-play

Luis Aguilé

Luis María Aguilera Picca (* Buenos Aires, Argentina, 24 de febrero de 1936 - † Madrid, España, 10 de octubre de 2009), conocido artísticamente como Luis Aguilé, fue un cantante y autor de música pop. Activo desde los años cincuenta, y siendo ya famoso en toda Latinoamérica, se estableció en 1963 en España.

Grabó más de 800 canciones, la mitad de ellas de su autoría, y algunas se han convertido en estándares de la música popular en castellano, como Cuando salí de Cuba, quizá su canción más conocida, grabada por muchos otros artistas. También compuso canciones para niños y publicó varios libros.



Las canciones de Luis Aguilé se han caracterizado por estar alejadas de temas sociales o políticos. Algunos críticos las han considerado como pasatistas. Él personalmente tampoco ha tenido una actuación política o social, aunque se ha declarado contrario a la Revolución Cubana. La canción Cuando salí de Cuba se refiere precisamente al momento en que decidió dejar Cuba, donde estaba radicado y era un ídolo juvenil. Aguilé cuenta que al momento de vender sus propiedades, el gobierno revolucionario había sancionado una ley de control de cambios, que limitaba la cantidad de dólares que se podían comprar, y que por esa razón sólo pudo sacar de Cuba una cantidad limitada; el resto se la regaló a sus amigos:

Allí gané muchísimo dinero porque era un ídolo juvenil. Pero un mes antes de salir decretaron una ley que decía que no se podía cambiar el dólar y no se podía sacar dinero. Tuve dos entrevistas con el Che Guevara y me autorizó a retirar una pequeña cantidad.²

En 2007 Aguilé se vio involucrado en un escándalo político de corrupción, a causa de una colaboración suya con autoridades del Partido Popular de Castellón.² Ese mismo año lanzó un tema nuevo, titulado Señor Presidente. La canción es un mensaje mordaz dirigido a un Presidente a quien Aguilé dice haber votado, al que le hace saber sus quejas, para pedirle que cumpla las promesas de campaña y que "mi humilde voto no caiga en su olvido".
Durante la promoción del disco, algunos periodistas le preguntaron si la canción estaba dirigida al Presidente de España José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.³ Aguilé aceptó que podría aplicársele, pero declaró también que su destinatario era el Presidente de Venezuela Hugo Chávez.³ También declaró que la canción había sido prohibida en Venezuela y censurada en Argentina y Guatemala, sin mayores precisiones.³ Aguilé sostuvo entonces que él "había sido más perseguido que Serrat".³
Sin embargo, en Argentina la canción fue presentada con un recital realizado ese mismo año en Buenos Aires, sin ningún tipo de incidentes,⁴ mientras que en Guatemala, la canción fue utilizada incluso en un video del programa Libre Encuentro, del Canal 3, para promover las buenas prácticas democráticas.⁵



Pese a ello, la canción ha sido desde entonces difundida como "la canción prohibida de Aguilé".
Aguilé también hizo público su apoyo a posición de la Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) de España, en una serie de controversias en la que esta entidad se ha visto involucrada relacionada con los alcances de los derechos de autor, y ha defendido el alto precio de los discos como un acto de libertad comercial.