Roger Panes

Pago de la semana pasada: 1,15 €

@TruthTrumpPost Mr. Trump, in Spain many politicians seem disconnected from reality: rules are stretched, accountability is weak, and citizens are losing trust.

BREAKING PRESIDENT TRUMP: 🇺🇸🇮🇷 The WAR in IRAN has been WON. The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.

Los pagos de Feiyr siguen en su línea: cifras mínimas, pendientes eternos y una sensación constante de que nada termina de cuadrar.

Recordando estos días la figura de Johan Cruyff, el gran maestro, el “holandés volador”, vale la pena también poner en valor a Josep Lluís Núñez, su presidente. Su mítica frase, “el soci no se’l pot enganyar”, sigue teniendo vigencia.

El Barça presenta colección Racing. Interesante propuesta… aunque cuesta encontrarle la curva en el trazado del club.

Entradas para el Barça vs Espanyol a precios desorbitados. Sinceramente, no me parece normal. Entiendo el tirón del Barça, pero el rival no está al nivel como para justificar estos precios. Así es difícil disfrutar del fútbol.

Surrealism is a state where reality feels distorted and unfamiliar, as if logic has been replaced by dreamlike connections. It blends the ordinary with the unexpected, creating a sense of confusion, intensity, and strange beauty. Things appear real, but something is off — like being inside a vivid dream where nothing fully makes sense, yet everything feels meaningful.

Tengo entrada para el partido de Champions femenina del día 2 de abril. Sin embargo, he decidido no asistir. Es una decisión meditada. No me siento cómodo y no existe ahora mismo una conexión real con algunas figuras del equipo. He intentado darle margen, pero la situación no mejora. Es una lástima comprar una entrada para un evento y acabar no yendo por una sensación de incomodidad con ciertas personas. No es lo ideal, pero es lo que hay. Ir a un evento así debería ser algo que disfrutes, no algo que te genere incomodidad. Por eso, prefiero no ir. No pasa nada por reconocerlo y actuar en consecuencia.

De querer irse de España a querer gobernarla. La evolución política de Rufián es, como mínimo, difícil de explicar.

@sanchezcastejon Puede transmitir enfado, y es cierto que ha tomado medidas, pero el discurso que utiliza es claramente populista: simplifica el problema y busca quedar bien más que aportar soluciones reales.

El nuevo disco de Gorillaz es una delicia, altamente recomendable. ‘The Manifesto’ es una pasada. Y después de leer su entrevista… ¡aún más! elpais.com/icon/2026-03-2…

@realDonaldTrump Mr. President, I’m concerned about the situation in Spain. There is a growing perception that laws are not being consistently enforced and that institutions are not functioning as they should. I hope this situation receives more international attention.

Pedro Sánchez insiste en proyectar hacia fuera una imagen basada en la paz, el diálogo y el “no a la guerra”. Pero cuando se observa la realidad interna, ese discurso pierde consistencia. España sigue teniendo catalanes en el exilio por un conflicto político que continúa sin resolverse. Personas que sostienen que su actuación fue política, no violenta, y que, años después, siguen fuera del país. Esto no es únicamente un debate ideológico. También lo es de coherencia institucional. Porque resulta difícil sostener un discurso de resolución pacífica de conflictos hacia el exterior mientras dentro persisten situaciones abiertas de este calibre. Hay una contradicción evidente entre el relato y la realidad. Y cuando eso ocurre, la credibilidad se debilita.

There is a strange feeling in modern society — as if something is slightly off, but never clearly visible. It is not an obvious system of control, not something you can easily point at and say “this is the problem.” Instead, it feels more subtle, almost invisible. A kind of structure that shapes behavior, expectations, and even emotions without ever fully revealing itself. People seem connected, yet distant. Opportunities appear endless, yet outcomes feel limited. You can invest time, money, and effort into improving your life, and still find yourself in the same place — as if the system absorbs everything but returns very little. Sometimes it feels like society is not designed for individuals to truly thrive, but rather to keep them occupied, distracted, and quietly compliant. Not through force, but through repetition, pressure, and subtle conditioning. It creates a paradox: freedom on the surface, but restriction underneath. Choice everywhere, but little real impact. Movement without direction. This doesn’t necessarily mean there is a single group controlling everything. It may simply be the result of a complex system that has evolved in a way that no longer serves people as individuals. But the sensation remains the same: that something is not entirely natural, that the rules are unclear, and that despite doing everything “right,” the outcome still feels empty. And that is perhaps the most unsettling part — not knowing whether the problem is the system, the environment, or yourself.

Felicitats a Joan Laporta per la seva reelecció com a president del FC Barcelona. Molta sort en aquesta nova etapa al capdavant del club. Visca el Barça. 🔵🔴

Barcelona, the city of “Menganito told me.” A place where what matters is not what actually happens, but who says it. Facts become secondary, details disappear, and the narrative changes depending on the voice repeating it. In the end, reality is less important than the story someone decides to circulate.

“Breaking the law: a typical Spanish tradition.” The phrase refers to a deeply rooted perception that rules and laws are often treated as optional rather than binding. Instead of being respected as a common framework that ensures fairness and order, laws are sometimes viewed as obstacles that can be bypassed if one has enough influence, connections, or simply the willingness to ignore them. In this context, breaking or bending the rules becomes normalized. People may openly disregard regulations, procedures, or legal commitments while still expecting legitimacy for their actions afterwards. What should be clear legal boundaries are treated more like suggestions, and accountability becomes blurred. The problem is not merely the act of breaking a rule. The deeper issue is the culture that allows it to happen repeatedly without meaningful consequences. When laws are selectively applied, ignored, or reinterpreted for convenience, the credibility of institutions and the rule of law itself begins to erode. A functioning legal system depends on consistency: rules must apply equally, and actions must have consequences. When this principle disappears, narratives are built not on facts or legal frameworks, but on convenience and power. At that point, the law stops being a reference point and becomes just another element that can be manipulated or ignored. This is why the idea of “breaking the law as a tradition” is ultimately a criticism of a broader attitude: a culture where accountability is often secondary to personal interest, and where the line between legality and convenience becomes dangerously thin.

Description To “brush everything aside” or to treat everything with complete disregard refers to an attitude in which facts, responsibilities, or previously stated commitments are ignored as if they had no value at all. It is the behavior of acting as though agreements, details, or consequences simply do not matter. In practice, it means that statements made earlier are forgotten, minimized, or dismissed without explanation. When someone behaves this way, any narrative or explanation they later present becomes difficult to take seriously. A coherent narrative requires consistency: facts must align, details must be acknowledged, and words that have been spoken must carry some weight. If relevant elements are omitted, ignored, or treated as irrelevant, the narrative collapses into something arbitrary. In other words, it becomes impossible to construct a credible account of events when important facts are selectively forgotten or when commitments are treated as if they were merely words with no meaning behind them. A narrative cannot be built only on convenience; it must withstand the presence of inconvenient details as well. When people “brush everything aside,” they essentially signal that accountability is optional and that the factual context surrounding a situation can be disregarded. Over time, this erodes trust, because others can no longer rely on the continuity between what was said, what happened, and what is later claimed to be true. For this reason, ignoring important details or previous statements does not simply weaken a story—it undermines the very possibility of a meaningful narrative.

Llevo ya varios días bastante mareado. Todo apunta a que puede ser una o mala reacción a la medicación que tomé por la faringitis y la bronquitis que tuve hace dos semanas. La verdad es que es bastante agobiante, porque el mareo no se va y te deja bastante limitado para hacer cualquier cosa con normalidad. Hoy otra vez en urgencias para ver si pueden aclarar exactamente qué está pasando. Todo esto se hace muy pesado… cuando parece que ya estás recuperado, aparece otra historia más. Paciencia y a ver si poco a poco se estabiliza.

Definition of “Malpractice” (Extended Explanation) Malpractice refers to professional negligence or misconduct committed by a person who is expected to perform according to specific professional standards, resulting in harm, damage, or loss to another individual or entity. It occurs when a professional—such as a doctor, lawyer, engineer, financial advisor, or other licensed specialist—fails to meet the accepted level of competence, care, skill, or ethics that is normally expected within their profession. In legal and professional contexts, malpractice is generally understood as a breach of duty. A professional has a duty to act responsibly and competently toward their client or patient. When that duty is violated—either through careless actions, poor judgment, incompetence, or unethical behavior—and the violation causes measurable harm, the conduct may legally qualify as malpractice. Malpractice can take several forms, including: Negligence: Failing to exercise reasonable care or attention when performing professional duties. Errors or omissions: Making serious mistakes or failing to take necessary actions that a competent professional would normally take. Violation of professional standards: Ignoring established procedures, protocols, or ethical guidelines within a profession. Misrepresentation or misinformation: Providing incorrect information, misleading advice, or concealing important facts from a client or patient. Abuse of authority or trust: Exploiting the professional relationship for personal benefit or acting in bad faith. For malpractice to be legally established in most jurisdictions, four core elements typically need to be demonstrated: Duty of care – The professional had a responsibility toward the affected person. Breach of that duty – The professional failed to meet the accepted standard of care. Causation – The breach directly caused harm or damage. Damages – The affected party suffered real losses (physical, financial, emotional, or reputational). Malpractice is most commonly associated with medical malpractice, but it can also occur in many other fields such as law, finance, accounting, architecture, psychotherapy, and engineering. In all cases, the central principle remains the same: a trained professional fails to perform their responsibilities with the level of competence and integrity that their position requires, causing harm to those who rely on their expertise. Because of the serious consequences involved, malpractice can lead to civil lawsuits, financial liability, disciplinary action by professional regulatory bodies, suspension or revocation of licenses, and reputational damage for the professional involved. In summary, malpractice is not simply a mistake. It is a significant failure to meet professional standards in a way that causes harm and violates the trust placed in a professional by clients, patients, or the public.