Directive  |
were greeted with loud applause miners rescued from San Jose. The ceacheí was felt on the set of CNN.
The TV show "CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute" to honor the "heroes" of the year, began with a sense tribute to the 33 miners who spent 70 days underground in a reservoir San Jose, who took the stage and received warm applause from the audience.
Anderson Cooper was on hand to present the workers: "survived a nightmare, they experienced a miracle and became brothers," said . Moments
after the miners appeared onstage at the Shrine Auditorium, Los Angeles (California, USA) for about 6,000 spectators.
The curtain rose and workers appeared with a large Chilean flag to cheers from public recognition, while the cameras showed the excited faces of actresses Renee Zellweger and Jessica Alba.
"We thank God and the world for their prayers," said one worker. "Our families have suffered, our children, thanks to the prayers of the world we leave this problem," added another.
The 33 miners were invited to this program with five of the responders who participated in the rescue, because "symbolize the resilience, strength and persistence of the human spirit" , according to a CNN .
"Some of the rescued us here. Thanks for bringing us home, are heroes to us," said one miner, who sang part of the anthem of his country and ended shouting in unison: "Chi, chi, chi, le, le, le ... Mineros de Chile! ".
The ceremony honored the 10 heroes of the year, chosen from 10,000 candidates contesting from more than one hundred countries, who each received a $ 25,000 prize.
Anuradha Koirala's Nepali, an activist who has set a mission to combat sexual exploitation of young women in her country, was honored with the votes of the public as the most prominent figure and received an additional amount of $ 100,000.
Global linkages,
by Jorge Edwards.
Everything is connected. Called globalization can be a development of these connections, or increased awareness, knowledge tighter than existing ones. Globalization, in other words, there would be more than a global vision of things. I read a recent French text speaks of the interplay between past, present and future. While games are just games. The past influences the present, and this in the future but the future, in turn, is projected back. The future influences the present. When last we will see the current time according to the lines that have followed. For example, if Iran today walking in a democratic direction, we will interpret the case of the woman sentenced to stoning in a way. Think about that too, barbarism, primitivism led to reflect, to a human reaction. Or tell us which was the threshold of an even darker time.
In Chile we know the subject but I do not know how it has impacted. In France it is easier to address these problems such as constellations, such as large aftershocks at the level of moral consciousness. Bernard-Henri Lévy, who earlier in my years spent in France and Spain, was a young philosopher, and now no longer so young, has taken the lead through an own internet site called The rule game. I find it interesting, for starters, that today's intellectuals occupy sites in the network and use it to develop ideas, to express and discuss them. In the past, Levy was a dissident of the official left, a Marxist, and there were constant accusations of pandering to the right. We could say that these days, with the fall of the Berlin Wall with many other phenomena, passed, and it's much better that way. Bernard-Henri Lévy, for instance, tells us that he telephoned the President Sarkozy about the Iranian woman convicted and that the President had a very good reaction "was a good reflection, the words fair and accurate and the tone , an emotion that no cheating. " The quote is interesting as a portrait of a dissident now: there is agreement on some issues, and shows that under stress, with enthusiasm, and can disagree on others. Gone are the reactions in bulk, at the point of overt old-hat, the Cold War years. The signatures of those years, public accessions, podían recitarse de memoria. El caso de la iraní, en cambio, ha provocado la redacción de un manifiesto de estilo nuevo, lleno de firmas imprevisibles. Me siento inclinado a firmar, pero tengo que acordarme de que he regresado a la diplomacia en activo, no sé por cuánto tiempo. Me abstengo, por consiguiente, y me quedo pensativo acerca del papel de una diplomacia moderna, en un mundo donde los límites profesionales, nacionales, de todo orden, cuentan menos que en el pasado.
En consideración al paciente lector, cuento algunos detalles. La joven iraní Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, casada with two children, was accused in his country of having sex with two men out of wedlock. Was sentenced in a first stage, a penalty of 99 lashes and the punishment was carried out in presence of one of their children. Since those days, not out of jail. Was recently sentenced by a court to death by stoning sentence provoked international reaction passionate, intense, perfectly predictable. To the best of the media campaign, appeared on television in his country veiled in the shadows, and confessed that she was present when one of her two lovers murdered her husband. His Iranian lawyer, specializing in human rights causes, she was bullied, harassed in each of his steps and his family, preferring to escape over the border from Turkey on foot and horseback, and settle in Norway. Bernard-Henri Lévy managed to speak with him by telephone, in English, and the lawyer informed him that the confession of Sakineh, in his view, had been extracted by force and had no basis whatsoever. The lawyer believes that the death sentence by stoning can be done at any time and that international pressure is the only thing that could save her.
I come up here and I see a headline in another side: the foreign policy of President Lula, announced in short, has an impact on the campaign. And Lula da Silva, with his usual flexibility, meanwhile, says: if this woman causes trouble in Iran, we can host it in Brazil, a statement that the Tehran regime attributed to "excessive sensitivity" of the Brazilian President.
watched with interest, curiosity, often with admiration, the Brazilian diplomacy of some thirty years ago. While I do not know now, but I guess not much has changed. They are professional, imaginative, high assertiveness. I remember ambassadors poets, a novelist boundary issues addressed, as it was Guimaraes Rosa, brilliant economist, educated in England, and intervening on behalf of Brazil in the Geneva discussions. In the delegation at the first UNCTAD Conference in 1964 included at least four ambassadors. One of them used to dance at night in one of the clubs in town Calvinist, in the shadow of the grim walls of the cathedral of San Pedro. Bygone times and lived, said a former diplomat essayist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Joaquim Nabuco, author, at a distance, a remarkable book about our President Balmaceda.
are tissues, interconnections, which branch in space and time. I visited the country again, two or three years, and they told me that the memories of Nabuco had become a classic of contemporary Brazilian literature. I now intend to read those reports nineteenth century and contemplate with a curious look XXI century diplomacy. In the absence of another subject.
The itinerary of claudication,
by Alberto Medina Méndez.
To generate changes need to be involved in policy says that phrase we've heard ad nauseum. Only since the party organizations can be influenced enough to change the course of reality. We've also read somewhere.
Many insist that to achieve the transformation, it is muddy, getting in the mud. The idea of \u200b\u200b"dirty" appears as the ideal it generates an environment enabling justificatory inadmissible certain issues deemed as necessary, such as dues, as an indivisible part of the truth. That's the gimmick that turn many to admit to themselves, certain frivolities.
But you say, seem to want to suggest that involvement implies invariably given to game the system. Recite with fervent passion, that list of values \u200b\u200bwith which the company is fully identified, the level of principles that we all want in our leaders. However, when incorporated in the party leadership, leaving the rhetoric, to give way to pragmatism deified empty of content, that will allow them the chance to do whatever, but always receding, leaving the road much of the above recited .
allowed this mutation, because it still failed to understand that politics is discredited just as dire practices transmitted, so that means giving up the ideals, the apparent compromise against enforcement raised by this route in which the prebend, discretion, cronyism, corruption and privileges seem too common.
Some assume that the path to the desired construction should be based on permanent concessions, delivery of the principles and beliefs trample over railways. Must say that nothing good can come of this process are handled in one's convictions. Nothing positive will come of that scheme in which the currency becomes honesty, openness and transparency.
If the attempt to make improvements to society, the price is beyond certain thresholds of morality, to fall into corruption, hypocrisy and concealment of public affairs, will say that it is an amount too high, that no good person would have to pay. Accept this compromise so docile, it's just an excellent argument to validate part of what has often been criticized.
We are exhausted of this dynamic in which "honest" will denaturing over time, once they feel part of the system with the conveniences that proposes the scheme. The tour includes the original enthusiasm, that then gives way to the eternal frustration at the impossibility of reaching expectations.
is that exactly, "the system" is prepared to prevent attacks of the romantics, idealists and dreamers. Have antibodies that protect it from the honest no will, the warm without deep convictions and proposes that as a "toll" give these flags, to achieve any progress negligible.
If intended to achieve those changes that society wants, it will have to blind eye, let arbitrary, illegal silence, be functional to the structural corruption and other accessories essential to continue making the rounds and many more convincing that these rules are correct and this is what can be done and no more than this, because in that case, this is a way to rule.
Perverts have always developed a set of beliefs that feed this fable and are intended to make it believable. The unwary, the gullible, the naive that abound among the good citizens, accept these rules, without more, just to play that game.
Those
abuse the system creates a need for the rest of this "so" you can not change, that these are guidelines and must adhere to them. Favoritism, discretionary, embezzlement, hidden boxes, and huge payroll issues that any average citizen with ruthless abhor and criticize virulence was attenuated when the star guest becomes part of the team recruited.
They try to convince everyone that these codes are unchangeable, that the bureaucracy makes sense that the laws were made to hold the frame that supports their unprovable political financing and that the traps are an essential part of his daily. They also say that despite all the criticism, it is better to be inside than outside, changes are able to be part of the system and not being outside.
Interestingly as they get submitted to the dreamers. The break and intimidate, oppress and intimidate them to their knees. Manage down their will, break your spirit, bend them and make them surrender them to believe they are insignificant compared with the power of the fait accompli. It is part of the strategy and go if they can be convincing.
All his arguments, without exception, are extremely kind to themselves and highly tolerant of their abuses. That line of claims for exemption from giving explanations, justify, keep them as secondary characters only abide by unwritten rules, which are not its mastermind.
Let everyone enter through that alternative is what they want. There will be recalled that the world is only changed when the pioneers took the initiative, those who dared to say "may" to challenge the obvious, not meekly accept the endless list of reasons that show because it "can not."
so peacefully We can not accept something that only entering the parties adjust to this. Is a half truth and as such, it is worth questioning. Definitely NOT change the system from within, at least not respecting its rules. Is modified from outside by setting the agenda. The alternative, more daring by the way, enter the system and be part of it, but to spray, without ceremony, its rules one by one.
is good to remember the proverb that says that only dead fish swim with the current. To guard against such fallacies perversely installed. Have become the biggest trap to co-opt the most gullible and make the journey of capitulation.
