Hair to give and take

Pablo Iglesias is not the only one who has given more to speak for his hair than for his works. Other more influential politicians, such as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, also stand out for their seemingly messy hair-like appearance. Johnson himself explained it with humor: “My hairstyle is the result of chance and the unstoppable forces of Nature.”

There is no reason to be surprised, if one takes into account that politics is a variant like any other of the theater. Or the cinema. Yul Brynner, whom only the oldest will remember, achieved just fame as an actor, but above all for the gleaming bald spot that would identify him throughout his career. Recently it has been known that Brynner was not actually bald and only shaved for the demands of the script. With such pretenses he could have had a brilliant performance in politics.

As in the case of actors, these arrangements are excusable and even necessary for the exercise of the profession.


Until now, the usual thing was that politicians with less hair had tried to hide this lack. Famous was the case of Iñaki Anasagasti, who took advantage of the remains of his scarce fur to make hairstyles almost impossible. Of others, such as the Social Democrat Bono or a certain famous adviser to the current president Sánchez, it was said – rightly or wrongly – that they had resorted to the most expeditious procedure of implanting strands where their hair had begun to thin.

As in the case of actors, these arrangements are excusable and even necessary for the exercise of the profession.

Hair and its care are of particular interest to women, who constitute a majority part of the electoral body in any country. That explains, no doubt, the attention that candidates for a career in public affairs pay to their own appearance, in general; and his hairstyle, especially.

It’s show business. The revolutionary Iglesias appeared in his first elections with a ballot in which his disheveled image appeared with no other accompaniment than the name of the party. It goes without saying that he obtained a notable public success, which would then wane in successive electoral consultations until he has chosen to cut his ponytail in the most bullfighting sense of the term.

As in this business there is no distinction of ideologies, the liberal Isabel Ayuso has swept in the last elections to the Madrid Assembly with a propaganda brochure in which, as in the previous case, only her photo and the slogan ” Liberty”. No programs or rolls like that, which force people to fall into the annoying vice of reading.

The success of two seemingly dissimilar candidates makes it clear, if necessary, that the important thing in politics is not the ideas or the promises that the wind blows away, but the hair and the paint with which one appears before their clientele. There will be time later to tease those who voted for photographic impulses. And what else will it give, after all.

.

When pouring fish is not for joy – Mir – Kommersant

This week, a real war almost broke out in the English Channel, provoked by the decision of the island of Jersey to change the rules for fishing off its shores. Already on Wednesday, dozens of French fishing boats, as well as French and British warships, gathered around the island. However, unlike previous wars over fish in the region, this time it has not yet come to direct clashes.

Doomsday threat

On January 31, when the United Kingdom officially left the European Union, the Granville Agreement, which for two centuries established general fishing rights in the island area, also ended. It became invalid after the island of Jersey signed a trade and cooperation agreement between the UK and the EU after Brexit. And the French authorities had to agree on the new rules not with Britain, but with the representatives of the island.

France wanted to keep the terms of the previous agreement. Jersey wanted something different. The island’s authorities had 90 days to put forward specific conditions for a new agreement.

But instead, they simply announced the introduction of new rules for fishing in the region, and did so only on the evening of Friday, April 30, at the very last moment. At the same time, without notifying either France or the EU (which they should have done under the terms of a new trade agreement between Great Britain and the European Union). In fact, the island’s authorities have unilaterally introduced new requirements for foreign ships.

The reaction from the French authorities followed on Tuesday. Marine Resources Minister Annick Girardin said the Jersey authorities’ actions give France the right to retaliate. For example, stop supplying electricity to Jersey. Now almost 95% of the electricity needed for a normal life, Jersey receives from France.

On the night of Wednesday to Thursday, about 50 French fishing boats departed from the coast of France towards the island in order to block the port of the Jersey capital Saint Helier by morning.

Later, two French warships were spotted nearby, as well as two British warships. At the same time, both sides stated that the ships were sent purely to monitor the situation and ensure security. It seemed, however, that collisions could not be avoided.

But on Thursday evening, French fishermen unexpectedly left the territorial waters of Jersey. “The demonstration of strength took place. Now politicians have to get the upper hand, ”Dmitry Rogoff, President of the Normandy Regional Fisheries Committee, told the French TV channel BFM TV.

On the crest of the war

It is still unknown how the conflict between France and Jersey will end and what historians will later call it. But history already knows cases when the disagreements between French and British fishermen resulted in open confrontations at sea with the participation of warships. This is how events developed Great scallop war… It includes several episodes of clashes between anglers of the two countries in the English Channel: in 2012, 2018 and 2020. The cause of the war, as it is not difficult to guess from its name, was the scallops. More precisely, the difference is in the restrictions of the French and British legislation on their catch in the Seine Bay. As a result, the French mined them only from October 1 to May 15, and the British – all year round.

Offended by such injustice, the French on October 28, 2012 decided to take revenge on their competitors. About 40 French boats found 5 British fishing boats in the waters of the Gulf and attacked them, throwing stones and nets in the hope of damaging the propellers and engines of the enemy boats.

Even signal flares were used, which the French used to shoot at their enemies.

Fortunately, no one was seriously injured during the clashes. The British Marine Resources Management Organization notified the French authorities of the incident, which immediately sent a warship to the region, which stopped the fishing showdown.

After negotiations in 2013, the authorities agreed to amend the UK regulation of scallop fishing in the Gulf of Seine: now the fishermen of both countries were limited in time. True, this limitation did not apply to British fishing vessels less than 15 meters long. Therefore, the conflict was not settled there.

In 2018, the French National Fisheries Committee refuses to accept the renewal of this agreement, which meant the lifting of any bans for the British. On 28 August, about 35 French ships launch an attack on 5 British ships that have come to fish for scallops. And again stones, nets and flares are used. Two British trawlers are damaged. The British, pursued by French fishermen, leave for the English port of Brixham, where the Scottish oyster ship Honeybourne III is also involved in the battle of fishermen, which manages to damage three French boats with a ram. Further escalation of the conflict was prevented by the timely arrival of the law enforcement forces. British this time.

In the course of further negotiations between London and Paris, the parties agreed to extend the rules to British vessels less than 15 meters in length in exchange for the issuance of an additional catch quota to the British.

The war seems to have ended diplomatically. However, in the fall of last year, there were two more cases of clashes between fishermen of the two countries in the Seine Bay.

With stones, nets, flares – everything is as it should be in this war.

Fever pretensions

In both French and British history, there have been many disputes over maritime boundaries and fishing rights. However, all of them, with the exception of one case, were of an exclusively diplomatic and judicial nature. But this exception was included in history textbooks, books were written about him and even films were made. And the confrontation itself lasted almost 20 years – and this is not counting disputes and proceedings in various instances for several centuries. This is about Cod wars between the UK and Iceland.

The beginning of the Cod War is considered 1952, but it was preceded by a conflict between Britain and Denmark, which controlled Iceland until 1944. In 1893, the Danish authorities unilaterally closed the 50 nautical miles (93 km) zone around Iceland and the Faroe Islands to foreign fishermen. The British government refused to comply with the Danish demand, as it caused significant damage to British fisheries. British vessels continued to fish off the coast of Iceland, where they fished mainly for cod (hence the name of the conflict).

Attempts to find a compromise solution lasted several years, but ended in vain.

And in April 1899, the first military clash happened: the Danes tried to detain the British trawler Caspian off the coast of the Faroe Islands, and the captain of a fishing vessel even boarded a Danish patrol ship. But the crew of the trawler, according to the preliminary order of the captain, did not give up and took the ship away. The Danes, who opened fire on Caspian, could not stop him. And the negotiations that followed this incident ended with the signing of an agreement in 1901 establishing the width of Iceland’s territorial waters at three miles, which was in line with the doctrine of the high seas, which had been in force since the 17th century around the world.

The seemingly resolved conflict erupted with renewed vigor after Iceland gained independence. Now the island itself controlled its territory and in 1952 announced the expansion of the forbidden waters for foreign fishermen from three to four miles (from 6 to 7 km). Britain first imposed sanctions on Icelandic fishermen in retaliation, forbidding them to unload fish in British ports, and then went to the International Court of Justice to resolve this dispute.

Most likely, this conflict would have remained behind the more powerful Great Britain, if the USSR had not suddenly intervened in it first, seeking to increase its influence in Western Europe and agreeing to buy Icelandic fish, and then the United States, which did not want the growth of the influence of the Soviets in Europe.

The Americans, following the Soviet leadership, also agreed to buy Icelandic fish and persuaded Spain and Italy to do the same. As a result, Britain’s sanctions policy failed, and it had to admit the expansion of Iceland’s exclusive economic zone.

Another escalation of the conflict occurred in 1958, after Iceland announced a new expansion of the exclusive fishing zone from 4 to 12 miles (up to 22 km). At that time, many countries wanted to expand their maritime borders, and this issue was even brought up for discussion at the UN in the framework of the first ever conference on the law of the sea, but the debates there did not lead to any formal agreements. Therefore, Iceland has decided on the border of the fishing zone unilaterally. Britain could not make concessions to the island for the second time, and therefore announced that from now on, British fishermen would fish in the waters of Iceland under the protection of the navy. Fishing off the coast of Iceland has turned into a full-scale military operation with systematic clashes between military and fishing vessels of the two countries.

Iceland’s insolence was not supported by either the UN or NATO. The military power of Great Britain significantly exceeded the Icelandic one. It seemed that this time the situation would be resolved in favor of a power accustomed to rule the seas. But the Icelanders again outwitted their rival, and the outcome of the confrontation was again decided by the United States. Iceland threatened to withdraw from NATO and expel American troops from the island. The American leadership immediately put pressure on the UN, which held another conference on the law of the sea, after which Great Britain agreed to recognize in February 1961 the expansion of Iceland’s exclusive economic zone to 22 km. British fishermen got only a few concessions.

In 1972, the Icelandic leadership will actually repeat the same maneuver in order to expand its borders to 50 nautical miles (93 km). British resistance was even more fierce, with a total of 32 British frigates entering the disputed territories during this phase of the conflict. But, like a decade before, the outcome of the confrontation was decided in the NATO offices, and again not in favor of Britain.

And in 1975 Iceland will announce the next stage of expansion of its special economic zone – up to 200 nautical miles (370 km from the coast).

The third stage of the Cod War was the most fierce in terms of battles between the Icelandic coast guard and British naval sailors.

The balance of power, as always, was in favor of Great Britain. British interests in Icelandic waters were defended by 22 destroyers, 7 auxiliary vessels and 6 fortified tugs. Whereas Iceland had only six patrol ships. But as soon as the Icelandic leadership started talking about leaving NATO, closing the American military base and buying patrol ships from the Soviet Union, the dispute was immediately resolved according to the old scheme. So Iceland still lives with a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

For the entire time of the Cod Wars, Iceland lost one person in the battles – an engineer who performed welding work on one of the ships after a collision with a British destroyer. During the work, the compartment where the engineer was located was flooded with water, and he received an electric shock from the welding equipment.

British losses were not calculated in lives, but in money. The costs of repairing the ships alone amounted to £ 1 million – what can we say about the lost profits from fishing and thousands of jobs.

Kirill Sarkhanyants

.

74 parishioners contract COVID-19 after mass, church had sued Oregon

Futuristic coronavirus cells abstract background with glowing low polygonal virus cells and text on dark blue background. Immunology, virology, epidemiology concept. Vector illustration.

SALEM, Pray. – Oregon health officials reported Thursday that at least 74 people linked to a church in Salem contracted the coronavirus.

According to The Statesman Journal, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) began investigating the outbreak at the People’s Church on April 6. But the state did not release information until Wednesday.

However, the church’s website and Facebook page indicate that face-to-face Masses and events continue to take place, including a service to be held to celebrate Mother’s Day on Sunday.

People’s Church officials declined to respond to the newspaper’s questions.

Last year, the People’s Church joined by nine other Oregon churches filed a lawsuit to overturn the COVID-19 restrictions imposed by Governor Kate Brown.

The lawsuit, filed by the California-based Pacific Justice Institute, argued that the restrictions on churches violated constitutional protections for religious freedom.

According to the church’s Facebook page, Senior Pastor Scott Erickson and his wife, Bonnie, were both hospitalized with COVID-19 last month.

Marion County has been in the “high risk” category for the past few months, with the exception of April 30-May 6, when it entered “extreme risk.”

In both categories, people must wear face masks and stand 6 feet apart.

However, in recent photos of the church on Facebook, parishioners are not wearing masks or keeping a healthy distance. People’s Church is a nondenominational church of the Assemblies of God.

.

Sevilla FC | But what did you do ‘Papu’? First Ocampos catches him and then his wife

The ‘Papu’ Gómez He has been an unexpected protagonist in social networks after his partner and compatriot Lucas Ocampos has recorded him picking up a courier package in the middle of República Argentina avenue. So far so good, But what is striking about the anecdote? Well, he did it dressed in the Sevilla FC kit and knee-high socks included.

Ocampos approached him by car, probably after training, and he could not suppress the desire to record it with his mobile while he laughed at such a scene in which you can see the ‘Papu’ running towards the store and walking out with a big package seconds later.

But the thing has not stopped there. To make matters worse, the wife of ‘Papu’ also recorded him in her own home dressed in the Nervionian equipment while washing the bowls of mate. “What are you doing, sir, dressed like this at home? “The woman wrote as she approached from behind to the surprise of the Sevilla footballer. In short, the Argentine was the protagonist by force on Instagram with Ocampos and his wife as improvised ‘paparazzi’.

.

Julian Nagelsmann and the most expensive coaches in history – International Football – Sports

At 33, Julian Nagelsmann has taken the last step to reach the highest level: after Hoffenheim and RB Leipzig, the young coach will lead one of the biggest clubs in the world, Bayern Munich.

1. Julian Nagelsmann

The German club will pay 25 million euros for the coach, who will become the most expensive coach in football history. These are the ones that follow him up the ladder.

(You may be interested in: Cold water balding for Real Madrid)

2. André Villas-Boas

Portuguese André Villas-Boas was until now the most expensive coach in football. In 2011, Chelsea paid 15 million euros for him.

3. Brendan Rodgers

The Northern Irishman Brendan Rodgers moved from Celtic of Scotland to Leicester City in 2019, for a figure of 10.44 million euros.

4. Ruben Amorim

The Portuguese Ruben Amorim went from Sporting de Braga to Sporting de Portugal, in 2020, for 10 million euros.

5. José Mourinho

Jose Mourinho

José Mourinho, coach of Tottenham.

The Portuguese José Mourinho went from Inter Milan to Real Madrid in 2010, for 8 million euros.

6. Mark Hughes

Welshman Mark Hughes moved from Blackburn Rovers to Manchester City in 2008 for 6.2 million euros.

7. Brendan Rodgers

Brendan Rodgers repeats, in 2012 he went from Swansea to Liverpool for 6.2 million euros.

8. Manuel Pellegrini

Chilean Manuel Pellegrini went from Villarreal to Real Madrid in 2009 for 4 million euros.

9. Carlo Ancelotti

Carlo Ancelotti

Italian Carlo Ancelotti, James’ current coach at Everton, moved from PSG to Real Madrid in 2013 for 3.8 million euros.

10. Sergio Conceiçao

The Portuguese Sergio Conceiçao went from Nantes to Porto in 2017 for the figure of 3 million euros.

SPORTS

We invite you to read also:

-With these goals, Mineiro is defeating America

-In Europe they say that Egan does not run the Giro, what is the truth?

-Liverpool millionaires lost in the 2019/2020 season

.

UK public debt reaches highest level since the end of WWII

Due to the effect of the coronavirus pandemic, the public debt of the United Kingdom stood at 303.1 billion of pounds sterling.

For the first time since the beginning of 1960s, the liability exceeds the size of the country’s economy, the second largest in Europe, as a result of the impact of the pandemic that affects the entire planet.

The huge sums that the Government has borrowed during the Covid-19 crisis brought the deficit to its highest point since the end of the Second World War, according to new figures for the 2020/2021 financial year, which closed last March.

The Office for National Statistics specified that the net indebtedness of the public sector, the government debt, reached 303,100 million pounds (almost 350,000 million euros).

This figure represents 14.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), the level highest since 1946, when the deficit reached 15.2%, it is an increase of the deficit of 57,000 million pounds sterling in the fiscal year, according to the newspaper Mirror.

In the postwar era, debt levels peaked after the 2008 financial crisis, when it reached 10% of GDP. The average deficit since 1970 has been 3.4% of the product.

In 2020 the public debt in the United Kingdom was 2,462,276 million euros, the 97.7% del PBI, which represented a growth of 239,581 million since 2019 when it stood at 2,222,695 million euros.

The government has spent billions of pounds propping up the economy since the pandemic began more than a year ago, in particular the debt was to pay salaries during the period when there were closures and strong restrictions to reduce the level of contagion.

KPMG Senior Economist Michal Stelmach stated that “the increase in debt is largely an unfortunate consequence of the government’s focus on protecting the economy as much as possible from the impact of Covid-19.”

“However, doing the opposite could have created lasting scars that would be much worse for fiscal sustainability,” the analyst clarified.

Stelmach noted that while borrowing has so far increased to cover the spending hike, the government will likely need to borrow to make up for a shortfall in the taxes it collects this year.

.

No Spanish team is going to play more than Granada CF

Nothing like it has ever been seen in these struggles. And it will not be easy for it to happen again. Granada will close the 2020/21 season as the Spanish team that will play the most official matches this season.

After being eliminated by Manchester United last week in the Europa League, it is already known that the rojiblancos will play this season a total of 58 official meetings.



With the historic duel held on Thursday at Old Trafford he reached the Granada the fifty commitments. The eight duels that he still has to face in LaLiga Santander until the end of the course will make the figure rise, and close, at 58.

Neither Barcelona, ​​nor Real Madrid, nor Atlético de Madrid. Nobody is going to play this season more than Granada. Alone there is a squad that can match it, which not to overcome.

Is he Villarreal. The yellows, qualified for the semi-finals of the Europa League, will reach 58 if they beat Arsenal and get into the final. If not, they will stay at 57.

Among the greats, the Barcelona They will stay at 55, Sevilla at 54, Real Madrid at 52 or 53, depending on whether or not they reach the final of the Europa League, while Atlético de Madrid will stay at 48, ten less than Granada.

Only the english

The good performance in Europe of English football and the fact that the teams of the Premier They play one more competition in their country, it will cause the rojiblanco team not to be the one that will play the most official clashes in all of Europe.

Tottenham, Chelsea and Manchester United will surely surpass it, while Arsenal is also in a position to do so.

As is evident, this is going to be the season of Granada in its ninety years of existence in which it faces more official matches. In the 2018/19 campaign, the first of the ‘Diego era’, the team played 42 official matches, while the previous year went to the 45.

253 days will pass between the first game of the season, on September 12 against Athletic, and the one that closes the course, which will be on May 23 against Getafe. The mean is creepy. One encounter every 4.36 days for more than eight months.

.

Trump Is No Longer, But The US-Europe Relationship We Remember Will Not Return | Opinion

Donald Trump changed America, not as much as his supporters wanted, but more than his critics expected. However, this was not the only country that changed in the last four years.

While incumbent President Joe Biden struggles to reassure allies that the America they remember is “back,” others have continued to change, making it impossible to go back to the way things were. That’s particularly true of the transatlantic link: the unique relationship that was once enjoyed between the US and Europe will not return, even with Biden. And not everything has to do with Trump.

The first reason why relations between the United States and the EU will not return to their previous state is before Trump took office: the Brexit vote, because for decades, the United Kingdom was the first port of call for the United States. When it came to Europe.

While at times bucking the prevailing winds in the EU, London served as a reliable and effective advocate for the United States on the bloc. Biden must now invest even more time and energy in his dealings with EU politicians and institutions without appearing to give the UK any less importance; Anglo-American defense and intelligence ties remain valuable enough to warrant special attention from Washington. After all, it is the UK that most closely shares the US view on geopolitical issues like Russia and China.

On the other hand, the Biden administration shares the EU (and Ireland) assessment of the challenges re-established by Brexit in Northern Ireland.

Brexit will make navigating the UK-EU relationship that much more challenging for the White House, especially as the UK and the EU remain at odds for the foreseeable future.

The second line that separates the US and Europe is in the broader values ​​that underpin the decisions. On economic issues, the Trump era raised awareness in American politicians that they need to address domestic affairs more proactively. For Democrats, that means more assistance for American workers and more industrial subsidies. This may seem more familiar in Europe, but it will not prevent Brussels from defending its single market against what it perceives as unfair competitive advantages.

To this can be added the EU’s focus on 21st century concerns such as climate change and digital services, resulting in a fairly high probability that new tariffs, regulations or both will be applied to trade between the two.

Along with the different approaches taken to issues such as data privacy, the social contract, and freedom of expression, the “common values” that the United States and Europe once shared are becoming difficult to realign.

But the most critical divide is geopolitics and perceptions of who is friend and who is enemy. The transatlantic relationship was at its strongest during the Cold War, when the Soviets presented a common enemy that both the United States and Europe had to focus on. Today, some Europeans want closer relations with Moscow, seeing it as a key energy partner; others seek to ignore the aggressive actions of Vladimir Putin abroad and human rights violations at home.

But the real problem of division between the US and Europe is China: The United States sees the Asian country as its main rival, both in the economic landscape and in that of national security (including technology).

Europe may view China as a threat to national security, but it hopes to cooperate economically in areas of mutual interest with Beijing, as shown in the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment they signed in December.

It’s hard to work closely together when you can’t even agree on who your friends are and who your enemies are. And without an external threat to unite them, the transatlantic relationship drifts even further.

European leaders are happy to see a more traditional president like Biden back in the White House. But the relief that Trump is gone does not provide a foundation for a strong relationship.

The transatlantic alliance is in decline, as is the Western-led world order. The sooner both parties understand that, the sooner they can begin to build the new architecture necessary for a stronger and more lasting relationship.

Ian Bremmer
Presidente de Eurasia Group y GZero Media, y autor de ‘Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism’.

@ianbremmer

.

More than half of the British believe a second referendum for independence in Scotland should be allowed


  • Only 25% of Brits believe the UK will be as it is in a decade

51% of British people believe that a second Scottish independence referendum should be allowed over the next five years, if the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) gets a majority in the May 6 elections. 40% of those surveyed are opposed to authorizing a new consultation.

The Ipsos Mori survey, cited by the Financial Times, reveals the constitutional uncertainty about the future of the country after Brexit. Only 24% of those surveyed believe that a decade from now the UK will continue to exist as we know it now. 53% believe it will be different and 23% do not know.

Pro-independence pressure on Johnson

The survey, conducted of 8,500 people across the country, will raise pressure on British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Downing Street refuses to call a second referendum, like the one held in 2014. At that time, the independence option lost with 45% of Scots in favor of independence and 51% for remaining in the union.

The SNP goes to the Scottish elections on May 6 with the promise of holding a new independence referendum before 2023. The independence party has not made it clear what it will do if the London Government refuses. The previous referendum was held with the approval of the then British Prime Minister, the Conservative David Cameron.

Brexit triggers Scottish independence

Despite the fact that in 2014 the leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, argued that the independence referendum was a call that could only be held “once each generation”, Brexit has strengthened the Scots’ desire for independence.

62% of Scots voted to stay in the EU and 38% against. In the UK as a whole, Brexit went ahead with 52% of the votes in favor and 48% against.

The growing English nationalism

English nationalism is a growing phenomenon. According The Economist, two-thirds of those who describe themselves as ‘English’ – not ‘British’ -, they wouldn’t mind Northern Ireland leaving the union.

And although these Englishmen wish Scotland within the UK, they want to suppress the autonomy of the old independent kingdom of the north, reduce their public spending to the national average and prevent Scottish MPs from voting on English laws. England accounts for 84% of the British population. More people live in London than in Scotland and Wales combined.

However, about 60% of those surveyed by Ipsos Mori believe that Scottish independence would weaken the UK and 41% would be “saddened” by Scottish independence.

.

The force of the Jedi unites to feed the newborns

Aware of this code, Order 66 of Asturias, a non-profit association inspired and completely dedicated to “Star Wars”, has started a solidarity campaign in collaboration with the Food Bank of Asturias, with the aim of raising funds to purchase formula milk for the different stages of the infant and donate it to the organization so that it can reach those who need it most.

“We know that as a result of the pandemic there are many families who are going through real financial difficulties. People, very supportive, give products to the Food Bank to be distributed, but we realized that baby milk was not a very common item to donate. And of course, babies can only take a bottle. For 5 or 6 year olds, for example, you can give vegetables, potatoes, which is what people donate the most. But baby milk is an expensive item and not much is donated, because if you don’t have small children at home, you don’t realize that expense or that need. For all this, we decided to organize a small campaign to collect the largest cans possible and deliver them to the Food Bank so that they can distribute them as they see fit, ”he says. Pilar Acebal, the president of Order 66 of Asturias.

The ‘Star Wars’ fan organization, based in Gijón, has the mission of combining their passion for the franchise created by George Lucas more than forty years ago with carrying out initiatives throughout Asturias that manage to “bring a little joy and hope ”to people in these times.

The so-called “Operation Baby Bottle” arose from one of those coincidences in life and a caring eye that immediately knew how to help.

Pilar Acebal recalls that she went to deliver some cans of formula milk to the delegation of the Food Bank of Gijón that were very well received “by the boy who was there attending.” “He told us that people do not bring these types of products and that they are expensive. It was then that it occurred to me that we could organize this initiative ”.

Ignacio Martín and Felipe Allende.


From the Food Bank of Asturias they celebrate this solidarity campaign and ensure that everything arose from Order 66. “They got in touch with us, they told us what they wanted to do and we said yes, without a doubt. We are delighted ”, he tells this newspaper Maria Velasco, coordinator of the entity.

“For us it is a support. These are products that generally are not donated, either because of the lack of knowledge of the people or because of the price. They are quite expensive ”, he emphasizes. Velasco also affirms that the Food Bank is now living a time of relative tranquility after 2020 in which they had to reinforce distribution due to the increase in demand for products by people who needed food or other essential items. .

Baby foods are expensive and do not usually reach the Food Banks


The solidarity initiative will culminate on May 4, a date that has become the day of “Star Wars” due to the play on words “may the fourth be with you”, which recalls the legendary phrase “May the Force be with you”. From Order 66 they clarify that all those who are interested in contributing their bit in helping the most needy babies can do so through the organization’s social networks or by donating directly to the establishments that collaborate as collection points, both in Oviedo as in Gijón.

“Seeing how everything is being done with the covid and the economic situation, it is necessary to help and even more being for young children, nothing is left over,” he confesses Alexander White, in charge of the Endor store in Gijón, one of the official collection points for this solidarity initiative.

Sith and Jedi, antagonists in fiction, finally come together to fight for a common good and help those families with economic difficulties who need to get such a basic and fundamental food, such as milk for Asturian newborns and babies.. There is only one thing to tell you: may the force be with you.

.