Yes, we have no bananas...and other former imports too
- Thread starter alpac
- Start date
va2ba said:
Nope, strawberries are not imported.... In fact, I have a friend that used to live close to a huge field in a town in Santa Fe called Coronda, where the best strawberries in the country are grown. but it's not strawberry season any more.. u must check in Sep and Oct... but you'll be gone by then
scotttswan
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Likes
- 3,542
cuore said:Nope, strawberries are not imported.... In fact, I have a friend that used to live close to a huge field in a town in Santa Fe called Coronda, where the best strawberries in the country are grown. but it's not strawberry season any more.. u must check in Sep and Oct... but you'll be gone by then
it is gotita de miel season though
Alpac, aside from the remarks about the dispute, I believe the article doesn't offer an objective impression, despite it citing growth and democratic elections. We have no bananas? I have some here with me, as I did throughout the summer. Isn't it exaggerated to say that the country is beset with unrest and widespread crime?
There are other subtle remarks that I find questionable. 'Whether pursuing aggressive or deceptively moderate policies.' I understand that, by the latter, he probably means policy during the 1990s, but why 'deceptive'? Also the 'incompetent Argentines' part. Of course these would not justify a case for damages like with Larry Flint, but I don't think they're good journalism. I also find it far fetched to suggest that the protests against oil exploration near the islands are motivated by the reduction of our oil reserves.
As I understand it, the article leads readers to believe that Britain has officially rebutted the Argentine claims with, among other things, a superior historical argument that presumably includes the exposition of 'historical falsehoods and misinformation deployed in support of Argentina’s claim' which are finally gaining ground among Argentines (the quote is from the article).
I think I can confidently say that it is not true. There hasn't been proof against Argentina's historical narrative. The British case is based on weighting, on top of such historical arguments, her interpretation of acquisitive prescription, meaning 'we have acted as owners for so long that we deserve a title', and self determination. Most Argentines who criticize the claim are not stating that there are falsehoods. What they say is that the islanders shouldn't be bothered, that we lost the war, have other pressing problems, etc.
The article misleads on that point, which is not its central topic but it is important, because the Argentine claim would lose its merits if there was really such support against her narrative, and readers may do that inference if they believe what the article 'reports'. In addition, it suggests that a 'robust rebuttal' was the conclusion of every Argentine claim at the UN, as if those initiatives had been pointless, which I consider misinforming too.
What I meant is that the British counterpoints are not 'a detailed, factual account of events going back centuries validating British sovereignty', as the article states. They are something else.
I think it is not senseless to believe that the British claim is superior, though I consider it to be otherwise. But I doubt it will be called a 'robust rebuttal' in circles that have attention to knowledge. The dispute is complex because there is no clear favorite. The author is entitled to his own opinion, but I believe he's losing information quality here. Imagine a sports page stating that Argentina defeated England 'categorically' in the 1986 World Cup...
Anyway, my intention was not so much to make an appraisal of the article but rather to point out these things, thanks for posting the link.
There are other subtle remarks that I find questionable. 'Whether pursuing aggressive or deceptively moderate policies.' I understand that, by the latter, he probably means policy during the 1990s, but why 'deceptive'? Also the 'incompetent Argentines' part. Of course these would not justify a case for damages like with Larry Flint, but I don't think they're good journalism. I also find it far fetched to suggest that the protests against oil exploration near the islands are motivated by the reduction of our oil reserves.
alpac said:
As I understand it, the article leads readers to believe that Britain has officially rebutted the Argentine claims with, among other things, a superior historical argument that presumably includes the exposition of 'historical falsehoods and misinformation deployed in support of Argentina’s claim' which are finally gaining ground among Argentines (the quote is from the article).
I think I can confidently say that it is not true. There hasn't been proof against Argentina's historical narrative. The British case is based on weighting, on top of such historical arguments, her interpretation of acquisitive prescription, meaning 'we have acted as owners for so long that we deserve a title', and self determination. Most Argentines who criticize the claim are not stating that there are falsehoods. What they say is that the islanders shouldn't be bothered, that we lost the war, have other pressing problems, etc.
The article misleads on that point, which is not its central topic but it is important, because the Argentine claim would lose its merits if there was really such support against her narrative, and readers may do that inference if they believe what the article 'reports'. In addition, it suggests that a 'robust rebuttal' was the conclusion of every Argentine claim at the UN, as if those initiatives had been pointless, which I consider misinforming too.
alpac said:
What I meant is that the British counterpoints are not 'a detailed, factual account of events going back centuries validating British sovereignty', as the article states. They are something else.
alpac said:
I think it is not senseless to believe that the British claim is superior, though I consider it to be otherwise. But I doubt it will be called a 'robust rebuttal' in circles that have attention to knowledge. The dispute is complex because there is no clear favorite. The author is entitled to his own opinion, but I believe he's losing information quality here. Imagine a sports page stating that Argentina defeated England 'categorically' in the 1986 World Cup...
Anyway, my intention was not so much to make an appraisal of the article but rather to point out these things, thanks for posting the link.
genialf said:
Bimbo makes a long sandwich bread that comes in packs of 4 that I love to buy. Over the last couple of years it has always been hit or miss whether or not they are stocked - sometimes I go for weeks or a month or more between sightings of this particular item.
As well, I've had problems with rapiditas because I love to make fajitas, enchiladas, etc.
But I don't kow that it has anything to do with the recent import laws. I've had this problem with many things in Argentina - one month something is in plentiful supply, the next it may be another month or more before it is sighted again. I've always put it down to poor planning on the part of the manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
Widespread crime...if tax evasion, money laundering and corruption count, perhaps. Otherwise, Bs As probably has no greater problem than other large cities. Ditto for the nation.AndyD said:
Unrest....yes, if I understand that term to include wage and price problems and the malaise that comes from inflation and dwindling purchasing power for the middle class and retirees.
I have no idea if the supply of bananas was really interrupted because of some import quota or other tempórary blip. Not inconceivably the author chose that item simply to highlight the problem of imports generally. Would you not agree with the article's principle thesis that the governments' recently enacted currency controls and restrictions on imports are hurting the economy and alienating AR's So Am trading partners whom CFK has been recruiting to embargo the islands.
I reiterate I am not taking a position on which country has the more meritorius claim to the islands. I simply think the article made valid points including the implication that CFK is using the Malvinas issue to mask domestic problems.
On second thoughts, I think I was unfair earlier. I was writing as if the author was referring to the practicalities of the British case, as discussed by Freedman for example, their official historian on the 1982 campaign, as well as other scholars, but he was obviously referring to the brief official statements made in response to the Argentine claims, where they typically throw them everything they can think of without conceding to anything, as it happens in lawsuits for example. The author chose to call that a 'robust rebuttal', stressing the historical points, despite the fact that academics, including Freedman, express serious doubts about these and other parts of the responses, concluding that historical arguments don't make the quid of the British case. We are free to believe that this opinion from the author is a fairly objective one, as it can be believed that 678 is a tribune of plural intellectual discussion. I still think that, to offer good information, he could have expressed an opinion with better grounds or otherwise make it clear that it was just his personal opinion. But this is not as serious as what I was implying before, sorry about that.
Alpac, I'll respond tomorrow. I have to go now but didn't want to postpone this correction.
I still think that, to offer good information, he could have expressed an opinion with better grounds or otherwise make it clear that it was just his personal opinion. But this is not as serious as what I was implying before, sorry about that. Alpac, I'll respond tomorrow. I have to go now but didn't want to postpone this correction.
