Comment from MrMark
Time: May 15, 2008, 11:17 am

The news channels in the UK are portraying this as an all-Spain drought. Is this true? I thought it’s just affecting the north-east corner ie Catalunya. I remember the winter of 2006-7 being particularly wet in central and southern parts of Spain and there were major problems with floods. However I suspect that water consumption, particularly in tourist areas with sports facilities (especially golf) increases every year. Does anyone have links that can prove or disprove this?

Comment from Bill
Time: May 15, 2008, 11:37 am

I don’t have any links I’m afraid - but here in Madrid we’ve had our usual May rainfall (like last year) and the reservoirs are nowhere near as low as they were a few years ago. Of course they keep an eye on them, but there is no panic.

Cataluña always seems to have a mixture of floods and droughts - I’d also like to know why this happens. It’s not that dry there, and the Pyrenees aren’t that far away either - surely they could build a reservoir? Maybe they just don’t want to spend the money

Comment from Pepino
Time: May 15, 2008, 12:15 pm

The rain over the weekend was the big talking point here in Barcelona. It literrally tipped it down relentlessly for hours on end. By far the worst days weather I´ve seen in more than 18 months living in BCN. But the upside was that the reservoirs registered a pretty hefty rise in water levels even after what was a relatively short, albeit intense, period of rain. Good news for the city as we desperately need it by all accounts. Every fountain in BCN except the magic fountains of Montjuic has been turned off for some time now, so whether that will change I don´t know, although I doubt it as it would be a shortsighted move when the problem still hangs over the city, and a sign on each fountain saying “off due to drought” is a subtle but effective way to remind people that we have a big problem and they also need to do their bit at home.

Someone told me yesterday the number of tankers-worth of water fell over the city but I don´t recall now. It was well into the hundreds I´m sure, so although a tanker loaded with water sounds like a lot, it´s a drop in the ocean (pardon the pun )

As for the tanker being an ex-chemical ship, I´ll keep you posted if my hair falls out or turns green

Comment from Pepino
Time: May 15, 2008, 12:24 pm

btw, the comment at the end of the Guardian report is spot on about the taste of tap water in Barcelona. It´s rotten. Very hard with a strong taste. The only time I drink it is in a cup of tea at home, the rest of the time I only drink bottled water even though the fashion fad for bottled water bugs the hell out of me. Madrileños are lucky to be able to drink water straight from the tap that tastes like it should… ie, of nothing

Comment from Mistress
Time: May 15, 2008, 2:34 pm

‘Police immediately blamed the attack on the militant Basque separatist group Eta’

As usual in the british press they forgot to write ‘terrorist group’ instead that ambiguous ‘militant’ group.

Comment from luke
Time: May 15, 2008, 3:24 pm

@Mistress
“As usual in the british press they forgot to write ‘terrorist group’ instead that ambiguous ‘militant’ group.”
I assume you’re being ironic when you say ‘forgot’. In case you’re not then you should know that for some of the media in the UK the ‘T’ word is banned since it is seen as a subjective label.

Comment from Tom
Time: May 15, 2008, 3:52 pm

Oh mistress, is ‘militant’ not accurate? I don’t think it’s an ambiguous term at all.

Ben - please feel to delete me as I too don’t want to have this debate all over again.

Comment from Frank
Time: May 15, 2008, 4:37 pm

“But the upside was that the reservoirs registered a pretty hefty rise in water levels even after what was a relatively short, albeit intense, period of rain.”

Las lluvias de los últimos días no han conseguido mejorar la crítica situación de las cuencas catalanas

http://tinyurl.com/3dn87l

Comment from Mistress
Time: May 15, 2008, 5:23 pm

@luke- I didn´t know that the ‘T Word’ was banned anyway I don´t understand why it should be ’subjetive’ talking about ETA because they´re listed as terrorist group for the CIA and the US Department among others.

@Tom- I´m not a english native speaker but I think militant sounds like an army, maybe Im wrong and I don´t get the subtle difference.

Anyway I can´t stand the condescending attitude with ETA in british press. This is my third comment at Ben´s blog so I don´t know if you talked about this in previous post and I don´t want to start a sterile debate, just explain my comments.

Cheers,

Comment from John Ross
Time: May 15, 2008, 6:20 pm

@Mistress: The CIA and US State Department are not objective. They consider an awful lot of groups to be terrorists which other people would call freedom fighters or a resistance movement, not least in Iraq. Like the IRA, ETA has been both resistance and terrorist in its lifetime, so it’s better to avoid the problem and let people make up their own minds.

Comment from Bill
Time: May 15, 2008, 8:08 pm

So why do the British press refer to Al-Qa’eda as a terrorist organisation rather than a militant one?

Comment from Parubin
Time: May 15, 2008, 8:29 pm

WTF??? Isn´t Al-Qaeda considered a ‘terrorist’ group?? Wasn´t the IRA labeled as a terrorist band??

Please, spare me the ’subjetive-freedom fighters’ bullshit. ETA uses violence, extortion, bombs, killing of innocent targets, kidnapping, and what not, to achieve their goals in an full democratic environment with some of the highest levels of freedom and prosperity in the world.

And still you can argue that they are not called ‘terrorists’ because that is not being objective?? For God’s shake… when did we start being so smart-stupid??

Comment from John Ross
Time: May 15, 2008, 8:39 pm

@MrMark/Bill - the drought is real and countrywide, though the effects are more notable in some places than others. Details at http://hispagua.cedex.es

Comment from John Ross
Time: May 15, 2008, 8:49 pm

>>WTF??? Isn´t Al-Qaeda considered >>a ‘terrorist’ group?? Wasn´t the IRA >>labeled as a terrorist band??

Not by the BBC, as far as I know.

>>Please, spare me the ’subjetive-freedom >>fighters’ bullshit. ETA uses violence,

That’s fighting talk where I come from, laddie.

>>extortion, bombs, killing of innocent >>targets, kidnapping, and what not, to >>achieve their goals

No-one has questioned it.

>>in an full democratic environment with >>some of the highest levels of freedom and >>prosperity in the world.

Perhaps now. When ETA assassinated Carrero Blanco it was attacking an illegal regime. Perhaps its legitimacy disappeared after the transition, in your eyes, not in everyone’s. I have no wish to give an opinion to someone as uninclined as you to be open-minded.

>>And still you can argue that they are not >>called ‘terrorists’ because that is not being >>objective?? For God’s shake… when did we >>start being so smart-stupid??

I have always been smart. You seem to be taking care of the other half.

Comment from Parubin
Time: May 15, 2008, 9:47 pm

@ John Ross :
Carrero Blanco? Which century do you live in, laddie?? You seem to have forgotten the last 35 years of history, or maybe they just didn´t fit to fullfill your freedom-fighting utopia.

… I can spare the rest of your enlighting post after giving if only the slightest ambiguity about this bloodthirsty terrorist band, even going as far as to give them current credibility for prehistoric actions against long-gone Franco regime, which cannot be taken into consideration now.

Not calling them a terrorist band is taking grounds of neutrality and equidistance in between mafia killers and freedom and democracy.

I’m not feeling sorry for being so biased as to position myself clearly in one side and not in the middle.

Let people make up their minds when they have set a massive load of explosives to completely destroy family homes (children and wives too) without giving previous notice??

Hell yes, maybe that Austrian psycho-Fritzl wasn´t such a bad lad after all. Who knows?maybe he was right about trying to keep her daughter away from drugs and bad company. Let’s not give him bad names, let’s take a neutral stand to avoid labels that cannot be appropiate in everyone’s eyes.

Comment from Bill
Time: May 16, 2008, 12:58 am

@Parubin - The problem with the word “terrorist” is that certain governments, simply be labeling their opponents as such, claim justification in oppressing those opponents. Therefore, if the media label an organisation as being “terrorist” they might be providing political ammunition for the government that the organisation opposes.

It is a biased word - for some reason a regime can carry out terrible atrocities without fear of being labeled as “terrorists” - it’s only the opponents of regimes that get called terrorists. I don’t know why, but I think that’s why the word is avoided by the media.

However it does seem inconsistent to me that the media still freely labels Al-Qaeda as a “terrorist organisation”. It also seems to me that the label “militant organisation” is too kind to the current incarnation of ETA. However I can’t think of a more appropriate word to use, while still remaining unbiased.

Comment from Parubin
Time: May 16, 2008, 9:55 am

I’m my last to comments posted yesterday I was a bit mad and I got a little carried away. I have to apologize for the tone of the message but not, by any means, for its essence.

@ Bill :
I understand what you are trying to say. The word ‘terrorist’ is often misused by some governments against their opponents, so the use of the term by the media should used with precaution in order to avoid endorsing those obscure motivations that those governments might have. That is so correct.

But in any case, there is actually an objective definition of ‘terrorism’ (terrorism exists), so we shouldn´t be afraid to use the t-word when the occasion doesn´t allow for the slightest shadow of a doubt.

If we never use the label ‘terrorist’, we are being as biased and as unfair to neutrality as if we always use the term to define all resistance groups. By doing the opposite we are being just as biased.

The flagship media network of the UK, a neighbouring country that shares with Spain most of its values, principles and threats, should be able to come to the conclusion that ETA is not only a ’separatist band’ but also, by all means, a ‘terrorist organization’.

We are talking about ETA, well known for their criminal record (kidnaps, indiscriminated bombings, bullets in the head, extortion, threats…) which mainly operates in Spain (Spain, not Somalia, not some God-forgotten country in the Middle East or South East Asia with who knows what kind of oppresive regime, not a Banana Republic type of military run pseudo-democracy…).

Spain : a full democracy, a solid member of the EU, one of the countries that guarantees highest levels of freedom (both individual and colective) and standards of living, with one of the most diverse national parliaments in the world (allowing for the voice of various different sensibilities and oppinions to be heard).

It is absolutely out of line not to be aware (having taken into consideration all precautions and prudence for not being biased for the indiscriminated use of the t-word) that the bloody actions of ETA are nothing but the actions of a terrorist band.

Because, when a world-respected media network such as the BBC, decides not to call them ‘terrorist’ and only labels them as ’separatists’, what happens, not surprisingly, is that you are making the killers very happy with your definition, and at the same time you are hurting the victims (and here I name the whole of the Spanish society, including the Basques who are the ones who most suffer the actions of the band). What an sickening irony!!, making happy the assasins and hurting the victims…

I don´t know who decides this matters in the BBC. I hope is not the same chap that recently put in their headlines that Madeira was part of Spain.

By the way, the extract of the piece of news given by Ben to illustrate this event, has another mistake. The powerful bomb did not explode outside a ‘police station’. It was rather a residencial complex for housing civil gards and their families (wives, children…). The bomb exploded at night without previous notice, and if you have seen the picture of the blast, you may want to thank God for the death toll being so low (only one killed) as the artefact was made to cause as much human harm and destruction as possible. Houses in which innocent families were sleeping at night, destroyed by… a separatist group…

Comment from luke
Time: May 16, 2008, 10:17 am

When the London Underground 7/7 attack occured, the BBC banned itself from calling it work of terrorists and Gordon Brown told ministers not to refer to them as muslims. The word “bombers” was accepted as an unbiased description.

Comment from Graeme
Time: May 16, 2008, 12:16 pm

It doesn’t take long with a Google search on Spanish media treatment of the IRA to see that they are not universally treated as a terrorist organisation. I’m not arguing that they should have been, it just seems that distance along with other factors makes a big difference. Throw in Hamas, the PLO, the FARC in Colombia, the ANC in South Africa and you soon have plenty of material for arguing over who is a terrorist or not even though all of these organisations have used methods associated with terrorism. Churches around Spain continue to display plaques in praise of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, even though his organisation carried out street assassinations (before the Civil War in case anyone thinks otherwise). The biggest single factor determining the use of the word is the political viewpoint of the person using it. I regard ETA as a terrorist group, but I don’t think the TV news should be telling me they are, that’s not what I watch the news for.

Comment from Bill
Time: May 16, 2008, 12:34 pm

@Parubin - I think you make a valid point. If an organisation uses terrorist tactics, then why not refer to it as a terrorist organisation?

The problem is that in many people’s eyes, you don’t have to look as far afield as African dictatorships to find examples of the police and armies oppressing people under an excuse along the lines of “the fight against terrorism”.

e.g. In the UK the police have framed and imprisoned innocent people for apparently committing terrorist offenses, simply because they were Irish. Many people consider the actions of the US army in Iraq, and the Israeli army in general as being oppressive. You can argue that modern Spain does not oppress the Basques, etc, however the issue of when to use the word “terrorist” and when not to becomes so complicated that the media shy away from using it altogether.

As I mentioned before, I think the word “militant organisation” is too kind to ETA, but I can’t think of a better word for the media to use. I appreciate it that “Mistress” and yourself have highlighted this problem.

Comment from Parubin
Time: May 16, 2008, 1:00 pm

@ Graeme :
So you consider we cannot come up with an acceptable universal and unbiased definition of ‘terrorism’?

I understand that your previous comment means that there is not such a thing as terrorism only, at the most, ‘methods associated with terrorism’ for there is valid arguments on both sides, and in the end it all depends on the ‘political views’ of each one.

Sorry but I cannot agree with it. There has to be a valid definition of what ‘terrorism’ is, and therefore, a ‘terrorist’ is only someone who uses ‘terrorism’ to pursue their goals. Why are we so afraid to say it loud??

I’m, too, against all indiscriminate use of the label ‘terrorist’ but there are some cases in which, honestly, with hand in heart, there is no other way around it. And please, in your agument, do not compare the situation of places like Palestine, Colombia or former South Africa with Spain in 2008.

I don´t know about your google search on Spanish media regarding IRA, but I pretty much sure that most of the big national Spanish media (El País, El Mundo, TVE, Canal+, Telecinco, Cadena Ser, COPE, Onda Cero… etc. etc. etc.) always regarded IRA actions as acts of terrorism.

@ Luke :
I find very stupid Gordon Brown’s ban on the use of the term ‘muslim’ to refer to the London 7/7 Al-Qaeda attacks.

If a have a casual incident with someone who just happens to be a muslim (for instance, a car collision on the road or something like that) I wouldn´t go on to say something like ‘a Muslim crashed into my car’. That would be foolish (and racist) as his religious background had nothing to do with the inccident.

On the other hand, if a group of people, carry indiscriminate attacks on civil population, on the name of the Koran and invoking Allah to justify their actions, it is more than obvious that their religious beliefs were a motivation for their actions. So it would be a key factor (not only to form an opinion what even to report the exact events as they happened) to make clear that the terrorist action (sorry, the bomb-planting activity) was carried out by radicalized muslims.

By doing so, you would not be making the assuption that all muslims are terrorist (no one could come up to that conclusion) you would only be accounting for the true bombing episode (or someone tells me know that Al-Qaeda members are not muslims???).

Sincerely, I just don´t get this hiding-the-truth paranoia that we are all involved in.

Comment from John Ross
Time: May 16, 2008, 3:38 pm

@Parubin.

>>But in any case, there is actually an objective definition of ‘terrorism’ (terrorism exists), so we shouldn´t be afraid to use the t-word…

The existence or otherwise of something does not affect its definition. You’re wrong, there is no objective definition of terrorism. The Wikipedia entry begins “Terrorism is a controversial term with no internationally agreed single definition.” Even if there were one, that would not mean that there would be agreement on who it could be applied to, which is another subjective decision. Try not to get your neurone overheated about it.

If ETA or the IRA are too close for you to be impartial about, look at Francis Drake, a hero to the English, a pirate to the Spanish. Or with the Dos de Mayo Uprising fresh in our minds, how about Clara del Rey, obviously a terrorist by your “objective” definition, killed while passing ammunition to her husband and son. Or Manuela Malasaña, a 17-year-old needleworker, quite rightly executed on May 3rd for carrying a pair of scissors, evidently with terrorist intent. Or Velarde and Daoiz, not just terrorists, but mutineers to boot.

While I’m on the subject, anyone see Ridley Scott’s “Black Hawk Down” on Spanish TV a week or two ago, about the Battle of Mogadishu? I couldn’t help thinking that the French on the Dos de Mayo must have felt like those American UN troops, trapped in an alien city with the entire population against them. The result was the same, as well, they were forced out, regrouped and took the city by massive response or whatever the military jargon is.

Comment from luke
Time: May 16, 2008, 4:02 pm

@Pablorubin
I believe that some muslims would not define the bombers as muslims since they are not living according to muslim doctrine (as perceived by moderate muslims). Again ‘muslim’ can also be a subjective term: some Sunni muslims don’t believe that Shia muslims are real muslims, etc.
Whooaa I’m going way off topic…oops.

Comment from Graeme
Time: May 16, 2008, 4:39 pm

@ Parubin

You undermine your own argument, if something is “objectively terrorist” then we should be able to compare with other countries regardless of their circumstances. It’s precisely because we look at the context in which acts take place that the definition of terrorism becomes so difficult and subjective. A car bomb is the same wherever it happens but people do not react to it always in the same way - some of those who are most vocal about terrorism say nothing when a car bomb is used to kill someone they don’t like. I’m not saying that nobody should use the term terrorism - I use it myself and for me ETA is a terrorist group. That doesn’t mean I want those (journalists) who are supposed to inform me rather than indoctrinate me to start using the term - it doesn’t provide information.

Comment from un vasco
Time: May 17, 2008, 12:31 am

Jonh Ross no tienes ni idea del daño que hacen posiciones como la tuya. No hay relativismo posible con ETA. NO hay dos maneras de ver a ETA. NO son “freedom fighters”, son MAFIA, extorsionan y matan a quienes no piensan como ellos. NO son patriotas vascos. Son traidores a la democracia y a la libertad. Ya ni siquiera saben por qué luchan, son nihilismo puro.

Te recomiendo que leas algun libro sobre la historia de ETA, entenderás muchas cosas.

A lo mejor esto, te abre los ojos:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/05/16/espana/1210953810.html

Tu opinion hace mucho daño, se más sensato, por favor.

I’ve written this in Spanish because I just can’t express my feelings about this in English. John, I want to believe you simply don’t know what you are saying and how much pain your words could cause.

Comment from Bill
Time: May 17, 2008, 1:06 am

@un vasco - puede que John Ross tenga las mismas opiniones que tú. No estamos hablando de qué opinamos nosotros sobre ETA, sino estamos hablando de si la palabra “terrorist” (en inglés) es parcial, o sea si la prensa puede usarla y también ser imparcial. ¿Qué opinas tú? ¿Es una palabra imparcial o no?

Comment from Moscow
Time: May 17, 2008, 7:40 am

Oh, I’m late for this debate and you’re probably all bored with it. But, are you sure the use of the words ‘militant’ or ’separatist’ is sufficiently neutral? If everybody, not just the BBC, would start using ‘militant’ to describe violent groups acting in the name of religion or nationality, wouldn’t the public - after a some years - identify that word with synonims for evil and vile assasins. It would defeat the purpose which it was intended for. After all ‘terrorist’ itself is a relatively new word, and it’s meaning has already morfed slightly over the years. Linguists, I believe, have a terminology that describes this sort of phenomenon, where a word, because of the context it is used in, acquires a meaning it did not initially have. I have to agree with Parubin, that if, were I a member of ETA, I would be writing my blessings to the BBC every single day of my - otherwise - miserable life.

Comment from John Ross
Time: May 17, 2008, 4:05 pm

@un vasco
Eso es tramposo. Te quieres hacer pasar por representante de los vascos, y no tienes derecho. Con llamarte algo como “Iñaki” habría sido suficiente.

>>Jonh Ross no tienes ni idea del daño que hacen posiciones como la tuya.
No es mi posición lo que hace daño.

>>…No hay relativismo posible con ETA.
¿Relativismo? Bobadas católicas.

>>…NO hay dos maneras de ver a ETA.
SIEMPRE hay dos maneras de ver a cualquier cosa.

>>…NO son “freedom fighters”, son MAFIA, extorsionan y matan a quienes no piensan como ellos. NO son patriotas vascos. Son traidores a la democracia y a la libertad. Ya ni siquiera saben por qué luchan, son nihilismo puro.

No me tienes que decir quien es ETA, yo vivía en Bilbao en el 84-85. Y no estamos hablando de eso.

>>Te recomiendo que leas algun libro sobre la historia de ETA, entenderás muchas cosas.

Entiendo muchas cosas. Soy un tipo muy informado.

>>Tu opinion hace mucho daño, se más sensato, por favor.

Repito, no es mi opinion lo que hace daño.

I’ve written this in Spanish because I just can’t express my feelings about this in English. John, I want to believe you simply don’t know what you are saying and how much pain your words could cause.

Well, I’m sorry, I know exactly what I am saying. And I have no intention of conceding to your argument because of your misplaced sensibilities.

Comment from John Ross
Time: May 17, 2008, 5:00 pm

@moscow
FYI, you’re right, the meaning of ‘terrorism’ has changed with time, but it is not a new word. It originated with the “Terror” of the French Revolution, and so meant “government by fear.”

Comment from un vasco
Time: May 17, 2008, 5:08 pm

Yo solamente me represento a mi mismo John, y repito que tu opinion si que hace mucho daño a muchas personas. Hay que llamar a las cosas por su nombre, porque el silencio a veces es culpable.

y en el caso de ETA, no hay dos maneras de verlo, ya no, no estamos en los 70 ni en los 80, estamos en 2008 y son MAFIA pura y dura. Viven de la extorsion y la amenaza. En la CAV hay nacionalistas, no nacionalistas y ETA, que se dedican a amenazar a todo el mundo, es asi de simple.

Y sobre la palabra Terrorista en la BBC, sinceramente, me parece un debate absurdo y le están haciendo un gran favor a ETA.

Comment from Edith
Time: May 17, 2008, 5:54 pm

@ Parubin and Moscow,

I definitely agree ETA is a terrorist group. To me, a militant is someone who practices civil disobedience which may involve a little bit of violence, but no premeditated murder of civilians.

Although I’m a great fan of the BBC, I don’t think they are completely objective as far as terrorism is concerned because they also advocate appeasing radical Muslim groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah by calling them ‘militant’. Remember, these are the guys who advocate Sharia law and all the inhumanity this entails: persecution of gays, oppression of women, persecution of other religions, Draconian punishments for criminals, etc. (BTW, the words ‘appeasement’, ‘Chamberlain’ and ‘Hitler’ have become connected forever in my mind).

The Spanish media are not entirely objective, either. They insist on calling ETA ‘la banda terrorista’ while they also keep referring to Hamas and Hezbollah as ‘militants’.

In my opinion, anyone who uses Semtex as an ‘argument’ is a scumbag.

Comment from John Ross
Time: May 17, 2008, 6:14 pm

This thread seems to be going round in circles, so if anyone is interested in the other subject in Ben’s post, I’m running a story about the drought in Spain as well - comments welcome, of course.

Comment from John Ross
Time: May 17, 2008, 6:31 pm

Come back here, though - I don’t want to poach Ben’s fans.

Comment from frank
Time: May 17, 2008, 10:57 pm

“I don’t want to poach Ben’s fans.”

I don’t think he has anything to worry about! He can sleep easy.

Comment from Tom
Time: May 19, 2008, 1:17 pm

@Edith - The UK government does not class Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but the United States government does. They received 400,000 votes in the last legislative election (44.5% of the vote). Hamas is a classic example of just what is wrong with the ‘terrorist’ label. They’re a movement which I disagree with massively for a number of reasons but I don’t accept the ‘terrorist’ label being applied to them, especially after they won a legitimate election. Indeed, one could make the case that reason the EU and US withdrew huge amounts of aid following Hamas’s victory was that they couldn’t continue to refer to the organisation as ‘terrorist’ if it controlled a state. States don’t do ‘terrorism’, you see.

Comment from Edith
Time: May 20, 2008, 12:13 am

@ Tom,

Hitler also received a majority vote, and the Third Reich is one of the most perfect examples of a terrorist state.

Comment from Tom
Time: May 21, 2008, 10:19 am

@Edith - When did Hitler ‘win a majority [popular] vote’? It didn’t happen. What did happen is that the Nazis came close to achieving a majority and then lost two million votes. In a bid to solve the growing crisis in the country, Hindenburg *appointed* Hitler as German Chancellor. In following votes, Hitler never gained more than 37% of the vote, but he used his power to ensure that the Nazis received more seats than any other party. Then came the Reichstag fire and the rest is history.

It’s a myth that the Nazis were brought to power though democratic elections. And Hamas is not a Nazi party.

Comment from Tom
Time: May 21, 2008, 10:22 am

@Edith - I’ll add that while the Nazis obviously employed ’state terror’, they were a fascist, authoritarian state as opposed to a terrorist movement. Part of their success in holding on to power was thanks to the creation of a flase ‘terrorist threat’.

Comment from soy pescador
Time: May 21, 2008, 11:41 am

Regional Councillor for Housing, José Ramón García Antón, met with the new Housing Minister, Beatriz Corredor, yesterday to talk about the plan. He said the properties would only be made available to those who are resident in the Valencia region and who earn as much as 45,000 € a year. Currently VPO is only open to those who earn, in Alicante for example, 20,000 € a year.

Sorry this is of the subject , but something I found very interesting besides the water crisis. Now who would want a council house if they were earning this money ? Article from El Pais today.

Comment from anna
Time: May 21, 2008, 10:15 pm

Wow what a reaction just because of the T word…
I wanted to add that the T group or the S group or whatever you want to call it placed another 60K car bomb 2 nights ago very close to where i live. I woke up in the middle of the night of the blast and having 2 children i got really scared. This was the first time while living here that i thought - time to leave!
Regards the water story…@MrMarkCome to Basque country!!! We are letting out the water from the water reservoirs….we have too much, so it’s definitely not the whole of Spain! I wish the sun could come out for at least a week or so, so that we can pretend it is summer…

Comment from Tom
Time: May 22, 2008, 5:22 pm

@ Anna - yes, it’s horrible living under that kind of threat. Throughout my entire childhood, we had to check under our car, change our route home and to school, keep an eye out for suspicious things, not touch toys left in the street… all because of my Dad’s job. We never had a bomb go off near us, fortunately, but we did have armed marines searching our house and garden on more than one occasion.

I mention this because I understand how unpleasant it can be to live your life with a shadow like that hanging over you… and also to make it clear that I’m fully aware of how nasty these militant groups, separatist groups or whatever, can be. I’m just a bit of a purist when it comes to using certain terms in journalism.