Dictator Francos head replica rolls on football pitch in Spanish art festival
MOIA, Spain, July 4 (Reuters) - Spanish artist Eugenio Merino and a U.S. art collective used a lifelike replica of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco's head as a football at an art festival to warn of the dangers of fascism amid the rise of the far right in Europe and the United States.
The performance formed part of the Ex Abrupto festival near the town of Moia, about 60 km (37 miles) north of Barcelona, where intense fighting occurred in 1939 during the Spanish Civil War.
A representative from the U.S. collective INDECLINE, who did not want to be identified, said the act aimed to remind people about the history of fascism in Europe and the risks posed by the rise of the far right in many countries in Europe and the United States.
"Without addressing these issues and addressing history you don't really have a context of what you are really walking into," he said.
Franco ruled Spain with an iron fist for almost four decades until his death in 1975 after his fascist forces defeated the leftist Republicans in the 1936-39 Civil War.
Artist Eugenio Merino, 50, who created the rubber replica, said the game he had dubbed "Kick Franco's Head" was to mark the 50th anniversary since the dictator's death.
Merino has previously used Franco's likeness as a punching bag or has displayed it in a fridge. Those works from the early 2010s led to several defamation lawsuits against him, but the courts threw them out in 2015.
The short game, played by 22 performers, featured frequent shouts of "No pasaran!" – a Republican slogan meaning "they (fascists) will not pass".
(Writing by Andrei Khalip; Editing by Sharon Singleton)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Trump to sign sweeping tax and spending cuts bill at July 4 White House ceremony
Trump is expected to sign the bill around 5 pm ET during a White House event celebrating the July 4 Independence Day holiday read more President Donald Trump is set to sign a sweeping tax and spending cuts package into law at a White House ceremony on Friday, following its narrow approval by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The legislation, which aims to fund Trump's immigration crackdown and make his 2017 tax cuts permanent, was passed by a tight 218-214 vote after a heated debate on the House floor. Critics warn the bill could cause millions of Americans to lose health insurance coverage. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump is expected to sign the bill around 5 pm ET during a White House event celebrating the July 4 Independence Day holiday. The ceremony will reportedly feature a flyover by stealth bombers and fighter jets that participated in recent US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The bill's passage marks a significant victory for Trump and his Republican allies, who argue that the legislation will stimulate economic growth. However, a nonpartisan analysis projects that it will add $3.4 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt, reported Reuters. Vice President JD Vance, who cast the tie-breaking vote to help the bill clear the Senate, said on Friday that the legislation supports Trump's goal of encouraging investment within the United States while discouraging investment abroad. 'We're going to look back on this, I really do think, as the beginning of the golden age of the United States of America,' Reuters quoted Vance as telling reporters during a visit to North Dakota. While some lawmakers in Trump's party expressed concerns over the bill's price tag and its hit to healthcare programs, in the end just two of the House's 220 Republicans voted against it, joining all 212 Democrats in opposition. The tense standoff over the bill included a record-long floor speech by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who spoke for eight hours and 46 minutes, blasting the bill as a giveaway to the wealthy that would strip low-income Americans of federally-backed health insurance and food aid benefits. With inputs from agencies
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
The Apprentice: Fed chair drama as Donald Trump eyes replacement
US President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to name the next chair of the Federal Reserve earlier than expected in an effort to undermine incumbent Jerome Powell, who has frustrated him by refusing to cut interest rates. Mr Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Mr Powell, recently describing him as 'an average mentally person' with a 'low IQ for what he does.' But Mr Powell's term does not end until May 2026, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the Fed is the one independent agency whose chair the president cannot fire. Typically, a US president announces a new Fed chair a few months before the incumbent's term ends — just enough time for Senate confirmation hearings and a smooth transition. Naming a successor 10 months early would be highly unusual. So why do it? Mr Trump is apparently planning for his Fed chair-in-waiting to establish a 'shadow' Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) that would publicly pressure the real FOMC to lower interest rates more aggressively. The idea of a shadow FOMC dates back to economists Karl Brunner and Allan Meltzer, who introduced it in 1973 during the early years of the Great Inflation, when Fed policy was widely criticised for being too expansionary. Brunner and Meltzer were influential academics, but they had no direct influence over policy decisions. By contrast, Mr Trump's plan — first floated by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during the 2024 campaign — would place his nominee at the centre of a very public effort to undermine Mr Powell's authority. But analysts who see this as a serious attempt to bully Mr Powell may be missing the point. Monetary policymakers are unlikely to pay more attention to a Trump-picked shadow chair than they do to Mr Trump himself. If anything, the move could prompt the Fed to assert its independence by doubling down on current policies. The real goal appears to be weakening the next chair before they even begin their term by forcing them into a kind of public apprenticeship, giving Mr Trump a preview of their approach to monetary policy and testing their ideological loyalty to his agenda. Moreover, the shadow Fed chair will know that any sign of independent thinking could cause Mr Trump to reprise his famous reality-show catchphrase: 'You're fired.' The Supreme Court may have ruled that the President cannot fire the sitting Fed chair, but nothing prevents him from withdrawing a nomination. That threat alone could pressure the nominee to toe the line. The leading contenders to replace Mr Powell reportedly include former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, who was a finalist when Mr Trump appointed Mr Powell in 2017, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, and Mr Bessent. Current Fed Governor Christopher Waller, a former academic known for his work on central-bank independence, is also in the mix. Appointed by Mr Trump in 2020, Mr Waller is generally viewed favourably by Republicans. This shortlist includes capable and experienced contenders who could rise to the challenge of sustaining economic growth while curbing inflation. But Fed chairs are not monetary dictators; they must win over the rest of the FOMC or risk being outvoted and heavily scrutinised. Even a strong and independent nominee could be weakened by a prolonged stint as shadow chair. Seen as Mr Trump's lackey, their credibility would be severely damaged, limiting their influence over both the FOMC and financial markets. Let's give credit where credit is due: Mr Trump has devised a fiendishly clever way to rein in the next Fed chair, whom he cannot control — at least in theory. But in doing so, Mr Trump risks shooting both himself and the US economy in the foot. Contrary to popular belief, the Fed does not control all interest rates. It sets only the very short-term policy rate, while longer-term interest rates are largely determined by markets. Those rates reflect expectations about future Fed decisions, and those expectations are based on the assumption that policymakers will work to keep inflation under control. If Mr Trump succeeds in pressuring the Fed to cut interest rates too aggressively, inflation expectations will rise, and so will longer-term interest rates. Given that these rates affect everything from mortgages to car loans, ordinary Americans would feel significant pain. The purpose of an independent central bank focused on price stability— an idea I first proposed 40 years ago— is to maintain low long-term interest rates. That may help explain why reports that Mr Trump is planning to announce the next Fed chair ahead of time caused the dollar to fall sharply. Still, The Apprentice: Fed Chair Edition is sure to make for great television, which may be what Mr Trump cares about most.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Zohran Mamdani's win challenges CEO-style governance, urging empathy over metrics in leadership
The unexpected victory of 33-yr-old political rookie Zohran Mamdani over 67-yr-old seasoned political leader Andrew M Cuomo in NYC's Democratic mayoral primary has opened the debate on whether younger leaders with enthusiasm are better than older leaders with has examined the effects of ageing leadership on a company's performance and vitality. Comparing the performance of 1,000 publicly listed companies, the research concluded that the older the average age of leadership is, the lower the firm's vitality. The problem with statistical research is that correlations between two variables in one context cannot be applied to another. For example, performance and age are related in physical sports because they require physical ability. Skills specific to the sport are also required. Whereas skills and judgement improve with experience, physical ability decreases with age. Therefore, older sports stars must concede to younger players even before they are 40. However, leaders in business and government have less need for physical strength than sports stars. Their leadership tasks and the skills they require are different. Ronald Reagan said, 'Government is not the solution; it is the problem.' US economists and corporate CEOs adopted this slogan. Corporate CEOs were celebrated as the models to follow in the heady days of corporate capitalism and the Washington Consensus. Even some heads of government and CMs of Indian states were called CEOs of their states and feted at WEF in Davos. Differences between responsibilities of corporate CEOs and governmental leaders, and inappropriateness of the CEO model for government, were not understood. In those days, Jack Welch was among the most celebrated CEOs in the world. He had created enormous value for GE's shareholders. He had a reputation for toughness, insisting that every year, the poorest performers must be removed from GE. He downsized the workforce when hard times came and acquired and sold companies to increase GE's shareholder value. His methods became 'best practices' taught in business schools and propagated by management consultants. Imagine the head of a country - even an unelected one. When times are tough, can he ship out people from the country to reduce the burden on finances? Can he buy and sell other countries to increase his country's GDP when economists express concern about its decline? Yet, this is what Donald Trump tried to do - chasing immigrants out of the US, offering to buy Greenland, and threatening to convert Canada into a US state. 'Socialism' is taboo in the US. Mamdani's empathy got him branded one by both Republicans and Democrats A country is not a business corporation and should not be run like one. The instruments that leaders of governments and leaders in the corporate world can use to produce results for their stakeholders are different - and they must be so.A business corporation is an economic institution. A nation is a socio-political owners of a business corporation are its investors. The legal owners of a country are 'We, the People' - all its of investors in a business corporation are proportional to their ownership. Those who own more have a greater say in how the corporation is run. In a true democracy, however, all citizens - whether billionaire or pauper - have equal of business corporations are limited by law. They are not legally accountable for the impacts of their profit-making activities on the environment and society. Thus, corporations are selfish citizens created by law but given the same rights as human citizens to protect their property and sue others. Leaders of governments are responsible for welfare of all citizens. They must discipline all - including large business corporations - who cause harm to others. Therefore, government leaders must give precedence to the 'ease of living' of common citizens over the 'ease of doing business' of corporations and their investors. Mamdani has not yet been elected mayor. He is only the candidate for the Democrats - a political party that lost touch with the needs of poorer, working-class people. Donald Trump, a billionaire, tapped into this need and beat the Democrats. The Democratic establishment - including billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Bill Ackman, and Bill Clinton, who revived the Democratic Party's fortunes in the 1990s by raising more money from Wall Street than Ronald Reagan could - supported Cuomo. 'Socialism' is a verboten word in the US. Mamdani, with his concern for common people, has been branded a 'socialist' by Republicans and the Democratic establishment. NYC's businesses have become alarmed that Mamdani, if elected, will push through his agenda of public welfare - reducing bus fares and rents for poorer citizens, and taxing businesses to balance the of all governments must be socialist in their hearts, by 'putting the last first' in their policies - Gandhiji's principle of Antyodaya. He hoped that even business leaders would follow this principle as 'trustees' of a society's resources and wealth - not its owners. Human values must guide their business decisions, not stock market valuations of their wealth.
