Mood: happy
Topic: FORUM
« | April 2012 | » | ||||
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 | 30 |
La Tienda Virtual de Trillas para ver mis tres (3) libros es:
http://www.etrillas.com.mx
El tema del asunto político de Honduras es bastante polémico. La politóloga costarricente Montes nos dice que lo que ha sucedido allí es un NUEVO PARADIGMA en relación a los anteriores alzamientos militares. Ella señala que realmente esto no fue un GOLPE de ESTADO pues los militares cumplían con una autorización del Poder Judicial y además porque una vez cumplida la orden los militares se retiraron a sus Cuarteles.
Otros analistas dice que sí hubo un GOLPE de ESTADO en Honduras por la forma para sacar el país al Presidente Manuel Zelaya.
Sea cual fuese la opinión, lo cierto es que Zelaya, apoyado por Chávez (Venezuela) y por Ortega (Nicaragua) quería cambiar las instituciones políticas de su país para organizar una Constituyente con el objetivo de retener el poder total y asegurar su elección vitalicia, y según la Constitución hondureña eso no está permitido y la persona que lo intente, estaría haciendo algo que se considera TRAICION a la PATRIA.
La globalización ha hecho que hoy existan los diarios para REPORTEROS CIUDADANOS. Qué significa esto ? Pues que cualquier persona con habilidades de buen REPORTERO se puede suscribir en el lugar y entonces subir su noticia o reportaje sobre un tema de interés general. En internet existen al menos 4 lugares para poder participar como REPORTERO CIUDADANO. Los nombres son los siguientes : (1) OhmyNews ; (2) Citizenxpress ; (3) NowPublic ; y (4)NewsVine
Las condiciones son las siguientes:
en OhmyNews es necesario que los artículos se escriban en idioma inglés; además,
los editores harán algunas correcciones y si el artículo es aprobado puede ser remunerado en la moneda local de Corea del Sur, donde se ubica el diario. En los otros lugares no existen tales restricciones,pero en conveniente escribir en Inglés en especial en Citizenxpress que esta ubicado en la India.
Yo sugiero que en GOOGLE busquen esos lugares y sus enlaces o link
Askain tiene varios Blogs y Wikis, cual más interesantes
After a sweeping re-election victory, President Hugo Chavez reaffirmed his goal of transitioning Venezuela from a capitalist democracy into a socialist state.
As Mr. Chavez was sworn in for his new six-year term before the National Assembly, he raised his right hand and boldly declared, “Fatherland, socialism or death—I swear it. I swear by Christ—the greatest socialist in history.”
Mr. Chavez also said he would ask the National Assembly, which is controlled by his political allies, for special powers allowing him to enact a series of “revolutionary laws” by decree. Seeing his victory as a referendum by the Venezuelan people, his immediate plans include sweeping changes, such as nationalizing power and telecommunications companies, and eliminating presidential term limits—in effect, paving the way to becoming a ruler for life.
Critics have accused him of doing the bidding of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, whom Mr. Chavez admires. Rather than denying the charge, Mr. Chavez responded, “The important thing is that the people will make the decision.”
An Associated Press poll conducted in November 2006 found that 62% of Venezuelans strongly support nationalizing companies when “in the national interest,” while 84% of citizens opposed totalitarian forms of government such as Communist Cuba. The survey seems to indicate a desire to have the best of both worlds—the “free handouts” of a socialist state accompanied by the personal freedoms and human rights found in democratic nations. Yet, throughout history, have the two of these ever occurred in the same system?
Venezuela is now the fifth largest oil-producing nation in the world, accounting for more than 80% of the country’s export revenue. Mr. Chavez has cemented his grassroots popularity by using these oil windfalls to fund programs such as state-subsidized grocery stores and, with even more popular support, the Bolivian University of Venezuela. Opened by presidential decree in 2003, the university is free and open to all, regardless of academic qualifications, prior education or even nationality.
In order to ease the fears of his country embracing socialism, Mr. Chavez has stated he is developing a new “21st century socialism.”
However—in a chilling harbinger of things to come—the Venezuelan leader closed his January 10, 2007 speech by boldly repeating the mantra made famous by Fidel Castro: “Toward victory always! Fatherland, socialism or death! We shall prevail!” Time will tell how Mr. Chavez’s vision differs from socialist experiments of the past.
Is Mr. Chavez’s statement above correct? Was Jesus Christ a socialist? Was His message one of socialism—or was it something very different?
2007-08-10
21:44:12
http://tinyurl.com/3dzwv5
Chavez’s U.N. Moment
Why Do Latin Democrats Support Him?
By Jackson Diehl
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jackson+diehl
Monday, October 16, 2006; Page A21
It's Election Day for Hugo Chavez -- not in Venezuela but at the United Nations General Assembly. Today a vote is due on his government's bid for a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council. Chavez has spent most of this year campaigning for the job, traveling the world and promising tens of millions of dollars in aid to poor countries in Asia and Africa whose votes he's counting on. His ambition is a big one: to become the leader of global opposition to the United States, or, as he puts it, to "radically oppose the violent pressure that the empire exercises."
There's a fair chance he'll lose. Most vote counters at the United
Nations think Venezuela will fall short of the 122 General Assembly
Votes it needs on the first ballot, as will its opponent for the seat, Guatemala.
One of the two might win on subsequent ballots, but Latin American governments are already anticipating that a third candidate
From the region -- such as Uruguay or the Dominican Republic -- will end up getting the job. If so it will be a wounding rebuff for Chavez following his Bush-as-devil tirade before the assembly last month, and One that could hurt him in another vote, if it is free and fair: his bid for reelection as president in December. His opponent in that race has been hammering home the point that Chavez is squandering the country's oil revenue on foolish foreign adventures.
A Chavez defeat would save the Bush administration from embarrassment And spare the Security Council a nuisance factor. Still, there won't be much to celebrate. The fact that a clownish populist who has eagerly embraced the presidents of Iran, Belarus, Zimbabwe and Libya could even come close to getting two-thirds of the votes of the 192 U.N. members is testimony to how low U.S. prestige has sunk around the world. More specifically, it's a measure of how twisted U.S. relations with Latin America have become -- and also, how fragile the appeal of democratic values is in that region.
How twisted? Let's look at Chile, a country that has been convulsed by debate the past two months over whether to vote for or against Chavez.
Chile's democratic president, Michelle Bachelet, is a moderate leftist; her government has a free-trade agreement with the United States and just took delivery of new F-16s for its air force. Some in her party were sheltered during the Pinochet dictatorship by Venezuela's then-liberal democratic government. Chavez has not only dismantled that democracy but has vociferously supported Bolivia's claim to a piece of Chile's coastline. Under a military pact he signed with Bolivia's leftist government, Venezuela is committed to building new military bases on Bolivia's border with Chile.
All this, and yet Bachelet was unable to decide on her government's vote by yesterday. Only strong opposition from the centrist Christian Democratic Party, a member of her coalition, prevented her from backing Chavez. Why? A vote for Guatemala, she told Christian Democratic congressmen earlier this month, "would be a signal of little independence from the United States," which has been pressing hard for Guatemala's candidacy, according to an account of the meeting by the newspaper El Mercurio.
In other words, as Chile's president sees it, it's better to support a budding autocrat who promises to defend Iran's nuclear program on the Security Council, and may threaten her own country's security, than to be seen as close to Chile's largest trading partner and strategic arms
supplier at a time when it is trying to use the Security Council to stop Iran (and North Korea) from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This certainly says something about Chile, and neighbors Brazil and Argentina, which are also supporting Chavez: that they value Venezuela's investment in their economies more than preventing nuclear proliferation (Chavez is buying debt from Argentina and aircraft from Brazil); that solidarity with a neighbor matters more than solidarity with other democracies (probably the only votes for Venezuela in the free world will come from Latin America and the Caribbean); that their governments prefer a weaker United States to a chastened Hugo Chavez.
But this affair also underlines the continuing fecklessness of the Bush administration's approach to Latin America. There is its over reliance on faithful but small allies in Central America and its inability to come to terms with the region's giant, Brazil. There is its heavy-handed lobbying, which prompted Guatemala's foreign minister to say that he wished Washington "would not promote our cause so much." Most disturbing, there is the inability to win support from a nominally close ally such as Chile, even against an autocratic demagogue. Chavez may lose the U.N. vote, but in the contest for Latin America, the United States isn't winning.