Obama '08 - Vote For Hope from MC Yogi on Vimeo .
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Saying To Write In Bachelorette Card
The Populist Argentina
What is worse than putting a fox in a henhouse? That's what millions of Argentines are asking these days. And the question is not random, especially after its president, Cristina Kirchner has decided to send a bill proposing the nationalization of the pension system, the Pension Funds. No doubt a controversial measure that goes against the American tendency to hand over private management of these funds, an idea born in the Chilean military dictatorship.
The Argentine pension system is in trouble, there's no doubt. It is estimated that the loss of savings the system would reach 50%, mainly due to fluctuations that have occurred in the markets in times of crisis. Given this scenario, Argentina creativity knows no bad times and the order of a federal judge has stopped savers withdrawing their funds, ie money.
In addition, Mrs. K, as Chavez in their approach and as capitalist in your shopping list, has decided to solve its cash shortage with a booty that is clearly attractive: pension funds. It is not illogical to think that a fund of such proportions to give you more liquidity to the government, and last, we can handle a bulging current account. Better or for worse, not all Argentines are going to retire today, so that several million dollars available. The concern is that there are a number of questions that arise from the measure, and have not been completely resolved by the Government. First, it is not clear the criteria by which the Government intends to manage that money, do not know whether to make it profitable, keep it fixed or other funds. We do not know what will be the amount which will ensure the state nor the mechanism of contribution. Moreover, there is no clarity of the system to take to seize the funds. It could be an expropriation AFJP, a compulsory purchase or another alternative.
If we are dealing with a country which has not been achieved due to retire even the first generation of people under this system, we can try to evaluate it badly seriously. In addition, those who suffered the change of regime and suffered the first loss for it, and with this, assume a new one without guarantee anything in return. In my opinion, this measure is due solely and exclusively, to a whimsical populist maneuver worthy of financial and political mess that reigns beyond the Andes. It remains surprising that a country with more resources in the region have very high levels of poverty and corruption, where its citizens do not trust in the destination state to give their money and have never raised their retirement based on their life savings. Argentina is not an example to follow, at least in this area, but no shortage of nostalgic voices that want to return to the model where the state claimed all, taking himself out of business and away from the desired sustainability.
The Argentine pension system is in trouble, there's no doubt. It is estimated that the loss of savings the system would reach 50%, mainly due to fluctuations that have occurred in the markets in times of crisis. Given this scenario, Argentina creativity knows no bad times and the order of a federal judge has stopped savers withdrawing their funds, ie money.
In addition, Mrs. K, as Chavez in their approach and as capitalist in your shopping list, has decided to solve its cash shortage with a booty that is clearly attractive: pension funds. It is not illogical to think that a fund of such proportions to give you more liquidity to the government, and last, we can handle a bulging current account. Better or for worse, not all Argentines are going to retire today, so that several million dollars available. The concern is that there are a number of questions that arise from the measure, and have not been completely resolved by the Government. First, it is not clear the criteria by which the Government intends to manage that money, do not know whether to make it profitable, keep it fixed or other funds. We do not know what will be the amount which will ensure the state nor the mechanism of contribution. Moreover, there is no clarity of the system to take to seize the funds. It could be an expropriation AFJP, a compulsory purchase or another alternative.
If we are dealing with a country which has not been achieved due to retire even the first generation of people under this system, we can try to evaluate it badly seriously. In addition, those who suffered the change of regime and suffered the first loss for it, and with this, assume a new one without guarantee anything in return. In my opinion, this measure is due solely and exclusively, to a whimsical populist maneuver worthy of financial and political mess that reigns beyond the Andes. It remains surprising that a country with more resources in the region have very high levels of poverty and corruption, where its citizens do not trust in the destination state to give their money and have never raised their retirement based on their life savings. Argentina is not an example to follow, at least in this area, but no shortage of nostalgic voices that want to return to the model where the state claimed all, taking himself out of business and away from the desired sustainability.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Brent Corrigan Y Everest
* Column published in the counter.
I am not a criminal, at least I think so. It seems that in recent days, a group of artists, thinks otherwise. During the past week, several blogs as Release of Digital or Digital Rights NGO, unveiled the existence of a secret agreement between the Government of Chile and the SCD (confirmed by them in their corporate blog.) This agreement, signed on the backs of citizens, they remembered a series of measures that the Government undertook to assist in the processing of the current draft law on Intellectual Property, which is in Congress. From this point of view, the situation is worrying since the last time a junior government minister, former Ferreiro - tried to hide an agreement with Microsoft, had to take back foot. But beyond the gesture, what really matters is the terms of that agreement, which not only restricts freedoms that exist today, but assumes that all people, just to perform certain actions, we are criminals.
The first point I want to emphasize is that the SCD responsible for the music piracy and illegal downloading of mp3 to Internet Service Providers (ISP). His theory is based on these companies provide content indiscriminately, promoting the conditions for committing an offense. Therefore, the best solution would create a fee to charge operators, which would solve the "cost" which involves flushing the rights of artists. In this interpretation are born several observations.
First, ISPs can not and should not discriminate on the content passing through their cables. Its function is to provide Internet access without any restrictions regarding content or download method. Bans of this type, allows people not able to decide for themselves what they see and how to view it. If I decide to access illegal content, I am responsible for this crime and the ISP should not assume a priori action.
On the other hand, if they are charged to the ISP, these transfers that cost to users, and thus those who are online should pay for the mere possibility that at some point in their navigation to access even the option to download music or content protected by SCD. That is, if I hold my Internet connection to check e I pay my neighbor low cost films for it. Finally, if this rate would imply that the DSS was given for those fees paid for use of intellectual property and let me legally download, free of charge all the content would probably gladly pay a fixed rate that would allow such action . But no, downloading music illegally will remain crime and as that happens, the SCD will be billed for the mere fact that we have the ability to download music. Right, right?
Another "remarkable" is that it eliminates categories such as fair use or private copying. That is, for the SCD (and the government, apparently) if I copy a CD that I bought legally to my computer or Ipod, I am committing a crime. Even if the band I love and decide to advertise for others to buy the record. Also, if a school teacher sent me a text to read, I can not get copies to study. Even think to scan the text and send it to my friends.
Not content with this, the DSS and the Government have agreed to terminate the waiver of the right to intellectual property. In other words, less legalistic, it is that if an artist decides to give his work to the world or stop charging for their rights, can not. Basically, entities of collective management of rights (which in Chile is only the DSS) will continue to receive this corresponds to use these works, although its author does not want to and have donated. Where is the freedom of the artist? Do not know, but I get the impression that Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails would not be happy with our country.
These are not the only points of the agreement, but they are the ones I care and attention. In any case, it is questionable attitude of the Government to make an agreement behind closed doors, with only one of the actors involved in the discussion, ignoring the rest of the stakeholders. It is important to mention that until last week, there was a desk between the Government and civil society (which was the SCD) and, obviously, broke with this eventuality. I am not a criminal, especially because I firmly believe in the error of this agreement and I am aware that the benefit of a few is the harm of all.
Friday, October 17, 2008
List Of English Words Used In French
I'm not a criminal why should Obama win
The U.S. elections have been, as ever, an issue in our country and the world. The message of hope and change has brought Democratic candidate, in addition to facing one of the most attractive candidates for the Republican Party has, generate a set of conclusions, only 3 weeks before the election.
First, this election means the end of Reaganism or Republican doctrine based on the glorification of "American values." Both candidates are freaks in their games. Obama represents a different twist to the traditional heads Democrats, who since Howard Dean who did not have another alternative. On the Republican side, McCain is no traditionalist. The veteran is making an analogy to our situation in Chile, a conservative maverick. Not only faced hard with Bush on issues like torura prisoners of war and the health system, but has worked in various bipartisan initiatives. McCain has not been a hard conservative, his views on abortion or gay marriage have not been sharp, at least until the election began.
Republican, with the experience of having lost the last primary against Bush, knows that to reach the hearts of the electorate, should resign their positions more progressive and has had a speech slip attached to the conservative line. Deserves special mention your choice of Vice President, summoning an unknown Sarah Palin, whose greatest merit is to represent, in the flesh values \u200b\u200bof the "deep America."
the other hand, Obama represents a outsider within his party. Is a candidate raised by the foundation and who has dared to face the epitome of Democratic establishment: the Clintons. It has already achieved the other party's powerful family, the Kennedys, the support from the outset. Obama is the embodiment of the American dream, the country of freedoms. The candidate does not tire of repeating that in any other country in the world could be a candidate for president. And not without reason, he is the son of a white woman from Texas and a Nigerian middle class, born and raised in Hawaii, won Grammy and studied at one of the best universities in the world. Not only that, he devoted his life to service and is today the only black U.S. senator
In conclusion, this is an unusual choice, which implicitly recognizes the failure of the Bush doctrine, not only on domestic issues but foreign policy. The way U.S. relates to the world will undergo changes, whatever the outcome of the election.
Second, beyond each other's stories, an interesting fact to analyze the voting behavior that has occurred in recent U.S. elections. The north country has a system of elcción complex where the most important is not the national majority, but the number of Electoral Votes (EV) obtained by each candidate. Thus, establishing a mechanism through which each state represents a particular númerdo votes and where the candidate receiving a majority of the state takes them all. Never mind winning by one vote or a thousand, all the votes that count are mine. Al Gore suffered firsthand the complexity of the system, losing to Bush in an election where you had the vote of a majority of Americans. (Below is an excellent video that explains how the system)
The latest polls give an edge between 5 and 8 points to Obama nationally, but that does not says nothing if not analyze the EV count. To analyze this, we make three distinctions: the safe states (solid ), states that lean ( leaning ) and uncertain states ( toss up). If the election were held today, and predicted by the polls continues, Obama should win by a margin of 364 to 174, whereas 270 are required to win. Considering that polls tend to tighten as the closer the elections, we would expect a smaller difference.
The key to this election is to secure those states that favored the party in 2004 and try to take any opponent. If we see it from that perspective, McCain not only states that Bush said he Gando in 2004 (as the disputed Florida now appears to be undecided), but has definitely lost states such as Colorado. Obama, moreover, not only assured the states that Kerry won, but it has gradually wresting electoral votes to the Republicans.
Given this scenario, it seems impossible that McCain succeeded in reversing the momentum Obama living, but you still have some alternatives. The first, and missed and was hung on the figure of the Democratic and try to confuse the electorate to show as well. With this, any consideration when voting would be over welcomed by the staff for ideas or projects (basically the same argument that took Bachelet 2005). The other option is to attack the opponent. Through a series of indirect ways - religious, interest, fans or other - the Republican has sown doubts about the ties Obama to terrorist groups, replicating the phenomenon to the point that the hatred becomes extreme. Republican already lived in person a few weeks ago, when he had to appease some of his supporters, who showed a deep hatred for Obama. Clearly this strategy is not proving as good as they would like a more conservative, but is likely to undermine a little take advantage of them so far. We
However, in my opinion, Obama will win, more or less slack on 4 November. Not only by a personal conviction of the qualities of the candidate, but for the budding stage and electoral projections. To the extent that nothing happens unique - style 11 / M that ousted Aznar's English government - the trend should be maintained and, therefore, would have the first black president in U.S. history
First, this election means the end of Reaganism or Republican doctrine based on the glorification of "American values." Both candidates are freaks in their games. Obama represents a different twist to the traditional heads Democrats, who since Howard Dean who did not have another alternative. On the Republican side, McCain is no traditionalist. The veteran is making an analogy to our situation in Chile, a conservative maverick. Not only faced hard with Bush on issues like torura prisoners of war and the health system, but has worked in various bipartisan initiatives. McCain has not been a hard conservative, his views on abortion or gay marriage have not been sharp, at least until the election began.
Republican, with the experience of having lost the last primary against Bush, knows that to reach the hearts of the electorate, should resign their positions more progressive and has had a speech slip attached to the conservative line. Deserves special mention your choice of Vice President, summoning an unknown Sarah Palin, whose greatest merit is to represent, in the flesh values \u200b\u200bof the "deep America."
the other hand, Obama represents a outsider within his party. Is a candidate raised by the foundation and who has dared to face the epitome of Democratic establishment: the Clintons. It has already achieved the other party's powerful family, the Kennedys, the support from the outset. Obama is the embodiment of the American dream, the country of freedoms. The candidate does not tire of repeating that in any other country in the world could be a candidate for president. And not without reason, he is the son of a white woman from Texas and a Nigerian middle class, born and raised in Hawaii, won Grammy and studied at one of the best universities in the world. Not only that, he devoted his life to service and is today the only black U.S. senator
In conclusion, this is an unusual choice, which implicitly recognizes the failure of the Bush doctrine, not only on domestic issues but foreign policy. The way U.S. relates to the world will undergo changes, whatever the outcome of the election.
Second, beyond each other's stories, an interesting fact to analyze the voting behavior that has occurred in recent U.S. elections. The north country has a system of elcción complex where the most important is not the national majority, but the number of Electoral Votes (EV) obtained by each candidate. Thus, establishing a mechanism through which each state represents a particular númerdo votes and where the candidate receiving a majority of the state takes them all. Never mind winning by one vote or a thousand, all the votes that count are mine. Al Gore suffered firsthand the complexity of the system, losing to Bush in an election where you had the vote of a majority of Americans. (Below is an excellent video that explains how the system)
The latest polls give an edge between 5 and 8 points to Obama nationally, but that does not says nothing if not analyze the EV count. To analyze this, we make three distinctions: the safe states (solid ), states that lean ( leaning ) and uncertain states ( toss up). If the election were held today, and predicted by the polls continues, Obama should win by a margin of 364 to 174, whereas 270 are required to win. Considering that polls tend to tighten as the closer the elections, we would expect a smaller difference.
The key to this election is to secure those states that favored the party in 2004 and try to take any opponent. If we see it from that perspective, McCain not only states that Bush said he Gando in 2004 (as the disputed Florida now appears to be undecided), but has definitely lost states such as Colorado. Obama, moreover, not only assured the states that Kerry won, but it has gradually wresting electoral votes to the Republicans.
Given this scenario, it seems impossible that McCain succeeded in reversing the momentum Obama living, but you still have some alternatives. The first, and missed and was hung on the figure of the Democratic and try to confuse the electorate to show as well. With this, any consideration when voting would be over welcomed by the staff for ideas or projects (basically the same argument that took Bachelet 2005). The other option is to attack the opponent. Through a series of indirect ways - religious, interest, fans or other - the Republican has sown doubts about the ties Obama to terrorist groups, replicating the phenomenon to the point that the hatred becomes extreme. Republican already lived in person a few weeks ago, when he had to appease some of his supporters, who showed a deep hatred for Obama. Clearly this strategy is not proving as good as they would like a more conservative, but is likely to undermine a little take advantage of them so far. We
However, in my opinion, Obama will win, more or less slack on 4 November. Not only by a personal conviction of the qualities of the candidate, but for the budding stage and electoral projections. To the extent that nothing happens unique - style 11 / M that ousted Aznar's English government - the trend should be maintained and, therefore, would have the first black president in U.S. history
* Video that explains how the American electoral system.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Is Grecian New Formula Safe
Netroots Rising: Book Review in magazine Que Pasa
Today Friday 10 October, was released in Que Pasa review I wrote the book Netroots Rising. This delighted, because it must be one of the texts I have written has given me more satisfaction. Unfortunately, however, did not leave the thanks I asked Claudio Orrego for lending me the book and for being the only Chilean politician is a day and knows perfectly the world of Politics 2.0. Without further ado, here's the review (without cuts).
In U.S. are used to invent words to describe new things. The English language allows them, so we are already hacen conocidos términos como googlear, bloguear u otros. Últimamente, en el mundo político ha aparecido una nueva palabra, netroots, derivada de la grassroots, que en español vendría a ser algo como “las bases” de un movimiento político, partido o candidato. Netroots, entonces, corresponden a aquellas personas que se convierten en activistas de una causa política, pero que lo hacen desde el mundo digital, desde Internet.
Lo que parece el último grito de la moda para estas elecciones municipales, es una historia de largo aliento en el país del norte, que lleva varios capítulos de éxitos y fracasos en el cuerpo. Sin ir más lejos, el libro llegó a mis hands thanks to my friend Claudio Orrego , which seems to be the only Chilean politician who understands these codes. To portray this real revolution in the way of doing politics, two protagonists of the story - Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox, known bloggers Democrats - joined in creating the book Netroots Rising. In a little over 200 pages, the authors will print a stamp epic movement that takes less than a decade, but at the time of the digital age, appear a century.
The book arises from different experiences of cases, all occurring in the home of Democratic Party activists how online have created new spaces for participation. From the memorable presidential campaign of Howard Dean, when thanks to this movement began to take a new form of political financing, it now gives rise to Barack Obama to dispense money from lobbyists and basing his campaign on small contributions Internet personal, until the fall of Tom DeLay, the once powerful Republican senator, as a result of allegations of corruption that this movement was in charge of broadcasting.
No doubt the book's central argument is that over time the vertical decisions, where the party leadership or the establishment by the decision maker rest. Internet has given a new tool that lets you generate horizontal and participatory processes. Gone are the untouchables candidates and base their success on the charisma, increasingly rewards those who are more in touch and tune with their constituents. All this was concluded after reviewing the various cases presented by the authors, from the aforementioned Dean, to Kaine, Webb and even a small reference to Obama.
An interesting feature, that certainly adds value to the work that we have here is a book written by the characters, rich personal comments, interpretations, judgments of value and self-criticism in the past. Both writers are today, regarding their issues and do not hesitate to be acidic with their comments. Deserves special mention sly critique of the Obama campaign start, which he blamed his limited contact with the very foundations of the digital world and its apparent opportunism to hold the media to attract volunteers.
As Michael Moore puts it in his latest film - Slacker Uprising - Lowell Feld and refer to the Netroots can save the Democratic Party itself. We are facing a movement that shook the progressive side of the U.S. and tore the elite influence in this party, to return it to other people who share the same values. Today cuando estar en contra de Bush se ha vuelto una causa en sí misma, es interesante ver como, gracias a estos activistas, han logrado capitalizar esto y convertirlo en una verdadera reforma al sistema político.
¿Qué pasa en Chile? Por ahora no pasamos de tímidos intentos de los candidatos de ocupar a la red como medio de propaganda, con melosos jingles y videos en Youtube (¿conocen a Ricardo Jeldes?). Lo que hace falta es que la ciudadanía se tome en serio esta herramienta y, ojalá, aprendamos lo que la experiencia norteamericana nos puede entregar. El día que eso ocurra, la actual clase política tendrá que juntar miedo.
Frase destacada:
"El relato no se refiere a que han emergido algunos líderes que remezcan al mundo, sino que en este nuevo movimiento progresista, cualquiera puede ser líder y remecer al mundo"
Se lo recomiendo a:
Todos aquellos asesores y jefes de prensa de candidato que dicen que internet y la política 2.0 no importan y que para ganar elecciones se requiere mucho dinero.
Lo que parece el último grito de la moda para estas elecciones municipales, es una historia de largo aliento en el país del norte, que lleva varios capítulos de éxitos y fracasos en el cuerpo. Sin ir más lejos, el libro llegó a mis hands thanks to my friend Claudio Orrego , which seems to be the only Chilean politician who understands these codes. To portray this real revolution in the way of doing politics, two protagonists of the story - Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox, known bloggers Democrats - joined in creating the book Netroots Rising. In a little over 200 pages, the authors will print a stamp epic movement that takes less than a decade, but at the time of the digital age, appear a century.
The book arises from different experiences of cases, all occurring in the home of Democratic Party activists how online have created new spaces for participation. From the memorable presidential campaign of Howard Dean, when thanks to this movement began to take a new form of political financing, it now gives rise to Barack Obama to dispense money from lobbyists and basing his campaign on small contributions Internet personal, until the fall of Tom DeLay, the once powerful Republican senator, as a result of allegations of corruption that this movement was in charge of broadcasting.
No doubt the book's central argument is that over time the vertical decisions, where the party leadership or the establishment by the decision maker rest. Internet has given a new tool that lets you generate horizontal and participatory processes. Gone are the untouchables candidates and base their success on the charisma, increasingly rewards those who are more in touch and tune with their constituents. All this was concluded after reviewing the various cases presented by the authors, from the aforementioned Dean, to Kaine, Webb and even a small reference to Obama.
An interesting feature, that certainly adds value to the work that we have here is a book written by the characters, rich personal comments, interpretations, judgments of value and self-criticism in the past. Both writers are today, regarding their issues and do not hesitate to be acidic with their comments. Deserves special mention sly critique of the Obama campaign start, which he blamed his limited contact with the very foundations of the digital world and its apparent opportunism to hold the media to attract volunteers.
As Michael Moore puts it in his latest film - Slacker Uprising - Lowell Feld and refer to the Netroots can save the Democratic Party itself. We are facing a movement that shook the progressive side of the U.S. and tore the elite influence in this party, to return it to other people who share the same values. Today cuando estar en contra de Bush se ha vuelto una causa en sí misma, es interesante ver como, gracias a estos activistas, han logrado capitalizar esto y convertirlo en una verdadera reforma al sistema político.
¿Qué pasa en Chile? Por ahora no pasamos de tímidos intentos de los candidatos de ocupar a la red como medio de propaganda, con melosos jingles y videos en Youtube (¿conocen a Ricardo Jeldes?). Lo que hace falta es que la ciudadanía se tome en serio esta herramienta y, ojalá, aprendamos lo que la experiencia norteamericana nos puede entregar. El día que eso ocurra, la actual clase política tendrá que juntar miedo.
Frase destacada:
"El relato no se refiere a que han emergido algunos líderes que remezcan al mundo, sino que en este nuevo movimiento progresista, cualquiera puede ser líder y remecer al mundo"
Se lo recomiendo a:
Todos aquellos asesores y jefes de prensa de candidato que dicen que internet y la política 2.0 no importan y que para ganar elecciones se requiere mucho dinero.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)