Michael Dwyer, Wicklow, Bolivia and Buenos Aires

Some fucking amadán called Charlie Boyle has a post here – at the very heart of Nac&Pop blogging –   in which he condemns La Nación for its treatment of the death in Santa Cruz de la Sierra of three alleged plotters against the life of the president of Bolivia. So far, so good.

Now one of the dead was Irish and was called Michael Dwyer. The genius of a blogger  then goes on to say “Look what Wikipedia has to say about Michael Dwyer.” No, not the one riddled with bullets by the Bolivian cops a few days ago but rather the United Irishman, the hero of the 1798 rebellion who died in Australian exile in 1825. The relevance of the recently deceased neo-Nazi gobshite having had the same name and surname as a notable figure in the struggle for Irish freedom who died 184 years ago isn’t explained. Blogger Boyle does, however, go on to say that “I know from experience what it’s like to have bad Irish ancestors.”

Thank Christ having Irish blood hasn’t made us all as moronically racist as him.

Kevin

I received an email from my brother this morning informing me of the death of Kevin Hanley, at the relatively young age of 55.

I am greatly saddened by this news. Though we had not seen much of each other in recent years and there was a considerable degree of strain in our last meeting I vividly remember his visits to our house with his first wife – my cousin – Carmel, when I was young. They had travelled extensively, worked in education, liked a good argument and were great crack; a model of another kind of life.

A Nation of Nations?

There are signs of sweet reason starting to have some influence on the government’s plans for constitutional reform in Bolivia. The Vice President here talks of a

… a nation of nations with a common space but also where groups have their history, contribution, identity and participation acknowledged. And also a decentralised state with autonomous regions. In this way the three great historic axes of tension; the modern, the communitarian and state as articulator of the community are synthesised into a complex form that defines our state.

And on being asked whether indigenous peoples will own and administer the natural resources in their regions, he responds like this,

No, because that’s the state’s business, with the participation of the indigenous people. This shows the importance of the debate on sovereignty and the imperativeness of the participation of all nine million Bolivians in the ownership and management of our natural resources. This could never have happened if the indigenous people had remained fixated on the recognition of the local.

I think what this means is that at least the Vice President realises that turning Bolivia into a politically correct, neo-apartheid tribal jigsaw is a bad idea and that the state won’t be handing over control of the country’s only real source of wealth to ethnic groups anytime soon. It seems that a spell in power doesn’t always have negative, isolating consequence for politicians and it may sometimes bring them into closer touch with reality.