Cervical Fluid, Long Thick Blob

Blue Fire VS FROST NIXON

Nixon vs.

. Frost is a movie based on a true story about an English presenter sees the opportunity to interview the U.S. president, Richard Nixon. Since this work aims to analyze the ethical approach to journalism, not political, we will analyze the character of Frost, not Nixon. From the ethical point of view there was no fault and that the conformation of the interview is a prior agreement and payment of four interviews that each has a different theme (Internal Affairs, Foreign Policy, Nixon: The Man and Watergate in that order). From the standpoint of ethics Frost agreement fully achieved, since the interviews were able to do exactly in that order and without any delay in the schedule.

The film begins with the rejection of all U.S. television channels to cover the costs for any channel interview and looked with enthusiasm that David Frost had any success. The reasons are obvious, it is very rare for an English entertainer whose television programs are quite frivolous, (Species Daniel Sarcos), to interfere in American politics. However, it is admirable journalistic value had this interview for the U.S., otherwise not have done this movie.

personality Interestingly frivolous and unserious that this man is making the research process with their overconfidence, compared with its investigators, and obviously underestimating Nixon, forgetting that he is a politician who is going to face and for very good or very bad that it was in his administration, a politician will always have a Machiavellian left natural to any nominee. This brought very bad consequences for his first interview in the first place because Nixon used the technique of dislodging the reporter just before starting to record, pointing out the "effeminate" in their shoes. Once distracted, Frost begins the interview with a Watergate question, forgetting that that was not previously scheduled in the agreement. But Nixon is a man ready and knew, as any good politician, dodging the question, making it extremely long answers without interrupting the reporter thus showing that Nixon had done her homework to prepare for the interview and Frost.

Frost For the second interview was a little more prepared, and there was indeed some improvement in the interview, however, still I could not hit the target. Nixon came back with the same technique of misplaced just before the interview, make long answers, with virtually the same result. At this point its investigators wanted to hang the mainmast, mainly because it had failed to get anything new or of interest to the public.

The third interview was about his personal life, continued to gain ground without any problems. Frost had not yet learned and trusted Nixon returned to his technique became dislodged and the next round virtually intact.

The night before the final interview, Nixon calls Frost by phone in a serious state of drunkenness and admits the potential importance of this interview for either. He admits that only one may shine and the other will be obscured. This call is what ends up waking up to the journalist who is sleeping in it. There is a change and immersed in investigative journalism in a serious and deep. For this last interview the roles are reversed completely, Frost learns his lesson and starts unseated Nixon. Frost Nixon manages to defeat making confessions, achieves the goal. The interview is saved and Frost manages to redeem his ethics of good journalism. In the epilogue

Frost Nixon visit to her home with a small gift, with the intent that is no rancor for the interview, demonstrating the good will of the journalist. The final message we know the difference to reflect on the personal lives of the public. If we have a well-known that we, as journalists we interviewed, no matter how a friend of ours is, we must delimit all sentimentality that can affect our work, hence the importance and projection of journalistic ethics.

Can U Do A Manual Cbt

"The price of truth" is a film made in 2003, inspired by an article by Buzz Bissinger's Vanity Fair magazine and later wrote the novel under the title "The Fabulist" which tells the story of a journalist (Stephen Glass) who invents news to climb rapidly in his journalism career (In The New Republic magazine current affairs and politics in the U.S.). This film is based on real events, under the newly elected U.S. president, Bill Clinton in the late twentieth century.

The film begins with one of his fake stories (Spring Breakdown) where it has the hypocritical behavior of a student community bourgeois Republican side, smoking weed, getting drunk, abusing innocent girls and speaking ill of their own party they belong to.

figure in journalism from the editor (also known as Editor) has not only the arduous task of correcting errors of wording and style of the journalists, but also to confirm whether all data provided by the journalist's story are real. When Stephen Glass has this first story, the Editor is Michael Kelly, who has a tolerant, non-paternalistic position with reporters. Upon receiving a complaint from the Republican party's youth committee which wield the falsity of the report by the detail that the hotel where they were staying these students, has no mini-bar service and therefore could not consume liquor bottles which were allegedly drunk. When the editor (Michael) calls the reporter (Stephen) to make note of this complaint, the response from Stephen is to have resorted to speculative lightness of being a mini-bar if not possibly a rented mini-freezer. The editor Michael accepts the response of the journalist but once away reconfirms the fact the direct source, and in the film story, is suspended from the fact the truth. Closing the ellipsis in the final match of the two colleagues, Michael asks again about the events of that spring Republican and reminds the incident of the mini-bar and only response obtained by the silence of Stephen leaving unclear what it is: a storyteller.

then the newspaper's owner, Marty Peretz, has a strong argument with the editor in question and dismissed, not only to confront him and hurt his pride, but for their alleged negligence in the forms of writing. This makes the next editor Chuck Lane is considered by Marty as the best journalist of his staff. Lane does not have the status and esteem of the rest of the newspaper plant unlike Stephen that it does for his jovial, friendly and flattering.

The reason is that Stephen has a greater ability to socialize with others. How it works mostly with women, this reporter used manipulation techniques and be aware of small details, something that women love, that brings things like chewing gum, the slope of their hair looks, your lipstick, it is that is deeply in touch with their feelings, to even get to invent rumors as being homosexual just to justify this behavior. This is your main shield with her fellow journalists when claims its new chief editor (Chuck Lane) Chuck

entering the editorial leadership, the new article of the journalist is Hack Heaven (Paradise Hacker) that becomes the corpus of the film story and where it is discovered at an average inter-yacht. In the invented story spoiled child hacker gets applause and cheers of a community of hackers allegedly having defrauded a large multinational. To confirm this story contact the new editor to another editor Chuck competitive match to check if other media are covering the story in the same way. She realizes that the story is a fable. There is no news because there are no facts. This produces a stronger fissures between the professional ethical, moral ethics and journalism.

Both editors in his telephone call and project pose potential problems that can emerge once the means to discover the information and publish farce lies. Chuck defends his colleague and superior. A full public discrediting affect the personal career of journalist and sprinkle the pristine truth of the magazine. The cyber environment editor gentlemen's agreement establishes his position in time (reportedly the departure date of the article) and warns against public scorn become a colleague, but you must understand that a crime has been committed and that's communication news and should not be hidden. Open and to reconfirm facts within the report questioned where he participated in his rescue by the publisher of the journalist who is increasingly exposing the lie as the investigation proceeds of the facts, all fictional.

Colleagues journalists from The New Republic take an auto unionism and Stephen decide to support and confront unconfirmed report in question. In principle Chuck decides to suspend the editor and Stephen handled an alleged psychological weakness that is only the mask of storyteller who makes fun of its readers and the race itself attempting not only to the principles of journalistic ethics but also ethics. Stephen turns to crying, pleading, too much work and fight until the last causes its blatant lie when Chuck discovers that this story is not just a dream but 27 of the 41 signed articles for the magazine.

In short, Chuck finally discovers that Stephen is a great deceiver and deceived his colleagues and all readers who have been in this environment as one of the most accurate and high credibility in the elite caste of politicians, including the reading of the presidents of state.

The last letter of apology alone is not written by the editor, but by the collective consciousness of the folks who finally saw their Editor in Chief was right to take away the mask of journalist Stephen Glass. Thus shows that colleagues weighed the race and questioned manipulating its partner and opted for an ethical decision. Are co-workers but they must distinguish between a case-error can be forgiven, to settled, treacherous and unforgivable way to lie compulsively in this profession.

The film ends with a trial where the crimes are clarified and noted that the journalist agrees with his silence that he had invented 27 reports partially or completely. Stephen illustration film takes the theme of the report, due to some students of social communication presented as a role model of contemporary journalism ... but finally we note again that this is another of the fantasies of the protagonist. This final revelation makes us think that the protagonist is a pathological liar, hence his vicious excesses lies.

Cartier Paris Cuartz 20-61323

The Fabulous Thank You for Smoking



Thank You for Smoking is a movie depicting the life of Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), a lobbyiest whose primary role is to defend the tobacco company where he works. The question of whether it is ethical in their work or not is what this paper seeks to answer. For that is vital to have a clear concept of what is ethical. The dictionary of the English Royal Academy defines it as "Part of philosophy dealing with morality and the obligations of man." Traspolando this concept to work we can conclude that they are the moral obligations of the worker. To extend this concept to the teacher telling Fernando Savater illustrates that ethics "is concerned with the administration that everyone does in their life, for his own good, (...). It is fundamentally intimate: the consciousness of everyone (...), the characteristic of moral choice, it always is in our hands, ie depends only on the intent of each.

As I said before the work of Nick Naylor is valid arguments to defend the tobacco companies, that is their obligation, that's their job. If ethics is fundamentally intimate ethical point here is whether what he says really agree with his way of seeing the world, because ethics at the end of the day is on the ideology of each person. For example, to a socialist buy a Hummer and a house in the Country Club, even if the money is good there is unethical because it does not agree with that it promulgates. If beyond it is corrupt and that money illegally obtained, then not only unethical but immoral act. On the contrary, if a capitalist buys a house in the Country Club with money from their labor will not have major consequences, as their philosophy of life consistent with their actions, is Capital!

Any ideas where there is no evidence to prove rationally defining their validity, are and should be subject to public debate for discussion and deepening it. Any idea who is in the field of speculation can be argued. Smoking is not an immoral act, each person decides whether it or not and also if there are advocates of nonsmokers Why should not they be defenders of smokers? Therefore the actions of Nick Naylor are largely ethical.


The only time where a man missing from his work ethic and commits an act of which he is convinced, is not well, therefore against their ideology of life, when bribes to a former actor Marlboro commercials not to give his statement to the media (and obviously the moral burden that is) However we could say that this man claimed and recovered his ethics to quit her job at the end of the film. He had clear that bribing a man is unethical and immoral act, which forced his boss. Decisive is the character of the child, which does not give a bad example and decide to do the right thing and resign. Ends up in a job just advice but phones, much less covered by the media and therefore less problematic.


The other major character in the film, which triggers all the dramatic conflict is the reporter (Katie Holmes) whose behavior went against journalistic ethics to make two serious mistakes that are clear. The first is not to respect the confidentiality of the source consulted by publishing his article. When you lack this, the biggest loser is the journalist to lose that source for future articles and in addition to possibly losing social status in any other neighboring sources. The second action is not only a breach of ethics but the moral is to get information, not a formal interview, but on data provided off the record (lack of ethics), and also mixed with sex as a tool manipulation (Immoral). However, it is interesting to note that it retains its ethics because she believes in everything he wrote in his article, but did not follow good ethics and their behavior was immoral. A good example of the differences between deontology, Ethics and Moral.

How To Sharpen Ice Skates Without A Machine

Two sides of same coin

After the death of Juan Vicente Gómez Worthy "The liberal tyrant", Caracas begins a slow process of modernization and orderly, just as was the politics of those times. The planning at that time was changing from that small village that was to become what the poet Antonio Pérez Bonalde called "The city of red roofs."


During the military governments of López Contreras, and Pérez Jiménez Medina Angarita (1936-1958 period) there was an orderly growth of the city of Caracas. Carlos Raúl Villanueva was visionary architect who dreamed of a modern and tidy Caracas. There were great expectations for Caracas. Which is dreamed igualáramos to Buenos Aires or Madrid that were already large cities for the time. During this period widened roads, built hotels like the Humboldt, is generally followed with the city of Villanueva project that was being built. The development project was going according to plan.



With the advent of democracy, they relaxed the projects. "As if tomorrow there in this country. This country everything is today. It is all for now. Pure emergency. It is a country in emergency " Javier Vidal reflects the teacher in his Showtime. From that moment everything was built on this premise of an emergency, it is all for now, without thinking of future consequences. This resulted in chaos. Factors such as migration from rural to urban areas with populist governments and permissive, did that instead of constructing buildings where new citizens were established, they were allowed to build huts began to cause serious architectural problems in the city. Hence we see terrible neighborhoods such as La Bombilla where there seems to be breathing. It is also possible to see in Caracas disorders such as a building in the middle of farms.

is important to remember that Venezuela is primarily a Valley (what happens is that we forget to see both ranch) and therefore plants grow even in the midst of the chaotic development, which makes us understand that this land is extremely fertile.

In addition, these democratic governments gave some solutions to the highways of Caracas, as the construction of the Cota Mil, which once ruled much of the city dwellers of the problem, slowing down a good part of the chaos. But remember all that democracy
lasted forty years, with the Cota Mil the only major road project during that time. There is very little for all the time they were in power these "melcheviques Creoles (Melchevismo: Doctrine and Practice melcheviques basically a mild form of socialism)


But all is not chaos in this city. There are also areas such as Las Mercedes, the Cafetal, Chuao, Prados del Este, Alto Prado, Manzanares, Los Naranjos, where there is a certain order, at least from the architectural point of view. However, these areas are not exempt from Caracas chaos caused by the amount of cars and highways Revolution 11 years have not bothered to expand, improve and maintain leading to more chaos, not to mention the subway service and systems external transport.
Where are the achievements of these "Bolshevik revolutionaries? Well, besides the project of Caracas-La Guaira, there has been no solution to solve this major problem.

In conclusion we can say that Caracas was a city that initially had high expectations of being, which for example is Bogota today, a silver cup. To end the term with these unanswered questions How can you have allowed such a mess? Are the order and progress possible in the chaos? Is it true that Venezuela seeks order and fails?

Best Cardio Workout Machine Arc Trainer

Three visions

Venezuelan cinema today is pleased to offer three very interesting films from different directors and genres. Two of which are shortlisted for the Oscar as are Havana Eva and brother. Fina Torres gives us a comedy that portrays the social reality of Cuba in the middle of a love story.

Fina Torres's proposal has the distinction of having elements of magical realism-pleasing Latin America. The film has some quite remarkable sequence errors that the post did not see. There is also the problem of sound, at times the movie does not listen very well, something in the school of communication tell us again and again, the sound can not be ignored.

note is the performance Prakriti Maduro, Venezuela as we all know that the character of the Cuban working so well that he was not note their nationality. Besides colorful characters as the friend Cubans happy, jealous and conservative pope, two old ladies so much fun and "green" literally. A comedy that can not be seen

Luis Alberto Lamata
presents a historical drama that tells the story of how a man becomes a social misfit because of an elitist society as it was at that time. In this way the military takes control of the English crown with a group of disaffected black and brown, ready to kill any target will traverse Creole on the road.

The story is interesting enough in itself despite lacking historical rigor. In part because it is based on the novel by Herrera Luque "Boves, the grouse." In my opinion there is quite bumpy history. Does not explain why the Crown chose him to command his army. Nor does the fact that the first fight with the royalist army and uniformed Domingo Monteverde. Does not explain why the board wanted independence patriotic and why Simon Bolivar is the sworn enemy of Boves. Show the chaos but do not explain why it arose.

Finally it is interesting to see the parallel that has this character with Two Faces. Ie how a man with good intentions becomes a monster because society destroy your soul.


Rasquin
Finally Marcel gives us a tragedy. Brother has so far been awarded three international awards, all national pride! Who knows if even an Oscar winner! Once again we see the Venezuelan social realism on screen. It tells the story of two brothers who dream of being a scout players and offers them the opportunity to play club football in Caracas, which begins the fulfillment of their dreams. The film has a beautiful message about brotherly sacrifice and what it means to have a quixotic dream achievable. Is Clearly the great effort put into this film for all the technical details done right, which is thanks enough.

87 Phazer Carb Settings

FACING ELECTION


As you all know on September 26 we have new parliamentary elections, not only for the national assembly but to the Latin American Parliament, parliamentary representation in Latin America. Unfortunately when you understand how to manage the politics in this country tends to skepticism. I do not see very much encourage you win in the National Assembly, not because the country is unhappy with this government and the opposition votes have increased, but by the lively Creole with which this government was prepared for these elections.

First, the fact that Machiavellian constituencies have changed based on the results of the elections of mayors and governors so that the votes are concentrated in one area, so as to detract opposition votes in the most needy Chavez's supporters and join in their weaknesses. Even with all this we could argue that the opposition has increased its popularity in these areas, which could help win the election anyway.

But the government also made allowances for if this comes to pass and approved in the meeting that the president controls at will, the brunettes. The government contends that this law elections are more "Proportional", which is totally false.

The law provides that a Member can win the seat must obtain a certain number of votes in proportion to the population. Since in this way no one could deny that the law effectively guarantees the proportionality, but we learn more about their true intentions. Hypothetically speaking if the state of Amazonas 100 people and as we know, the state is large (and therefore has many more constituencies to Caracas) has 9 districts say that means 11 votes to win the constituency MP. We then 9 members each chose one with 9 votes to 100 people. On the contrary if there are 1,000 people in Caracas and 4 constituencies, Members would need about 200 votes to win a seat and would get 4 members elected by 200 votes to 1,000. Imagine then that the assembly is 55% of opposition votes but 20% representation in the assembly, and conversely 45% of votes of the government but with 70% representation PROPORTIONALITY GO! With the hazy

this case because I do not see much encouragement to us to win more than 20% of the assembly as much. It is therefore imperative to increase this percentage, these days we must dedicate ourselves to persuade Ninis to go to the polls to vote, NO ONE LEFT AT HOME! NOBODY IS GOING TO THE BEACH! Everyone to vote to restore this assembly we need so much !!!!!!!

Crossdressers Wearing Skirts

A contract to the Venezuelan



In 1958, arguably the beginning of democracy in Venezuela (although in 1945 he was the model made). To strengthen and reinforce it, the democratic parties decided to create a contract (or compact) state to establish democracy as a fundamental column of support in the country.

At that time signed only three democratic parties had Venezuela (AD, COPEI and URD). The only party not signing was the PCV.
The reasons are obvious. How is it possible to create a state contractor whose base is democracy with a party that follows the lines of the Bolshevik Stalin and bearded on the island?
simply unacceptable and absurd. Although the Communists themselves were victims of having been excluded, more resentment than anything else. Rómulo Betancourt in his inaugural speech very democratic states:

"That pact was excluded the Communist Party, by reasoned decision of the organizations that signed it. (...) Respect the right of that party to act as a community organized in the country, his members would not be called by me to perform administrative positions in which an influence on the directions of national and international politics of Venezuela. (...) The communist philosophy goes against the democratic structure of the Venezuelan State (...) "


Thus begins the game of democracy in Venezuela. Divisions of these parties began to produce other products such as the MIR, the ARS, the MEP, the NRP, the MAS and the PCV camouflaged under the UPA party etc. These were the parties that fought the guerrillas, say the "hot heads". The justification of these is the exclusion of fixed-point agreement and of course, the alleged attacks by Betancourt for telling the truth. Ie express the fact dissatisfaction with these puppets operated by the USSR and its satellite closest: "Cuba." But beyond this is resentment because at one time supported Betancourt, thinking that would establish a Communist dictatorship and instead it went from communist to social democrat, something that never forgave him, but democratic belief that we thank him for be the father of it.


The guerrillas in Venezuela was a lost cause. After the insurrection in Carúpano (Carupanazo), 4 May 1962 and Puerto Cabello (Porteñazo), one month after its slopes were, until total peace with Caldera I. However, there was damage, peace was expensive. In addition to the infiltration of communists in the armed forces, whose primary responsibility is the former guerrilla Douglas Bravo. Breaking myths

bipartisanship does not begin in 1958, as certain sectors indicate. Actually the "Soursop" is from 1973 to 1988 (80% AD and COPEI). Taking account is fifteen years, not forty.


For just one example, during the government of Raul Leoni, establishing the "Broad Base" with the parties of AD, URD and NDF (Uslar Pietri) versus COPEI was the opposition. In this way the power was fairly balanced.


When Rafael Caldera took power for the first time was unprecedented in Venezuela. For the first time the government gives the opposition democratic government. That's something never seen before. That breaks that "Government does not lose elections." Although in this case AD actually had won again, but thanks to its MEP division of votes shall be distributed in 19.34% (MEP) and 28.24% (AD), compared with 29.13% of COPEI pyrrhic . If there had been no such division AD probably would have won with a crushing 47%. At this time, the guerrillas were pacified and virtually disappear as we enter the political game democratic.

end armed forces to institutionalize and become a non-political entity that exists to support all governments to come provided they meet the democratic pact. Therefore Article 132 of the constitution provided:

"National Armed Forces are an apolitical, obedient and not deliberating, organized by the State to secure the national defense, the stability of democratic institutions and respect for the constitution and laws, whose occurrence is always above any obligation. National Armed Forces will be at the service of the Republic, and in no case to a person or political partisanship "

An interesting fact I Caldera government is that there was still a small part of the population wanted the return of Pérez Jiménez to power. When democracy is aware of the potential threat that could looming, intelligently is a constitutional amendment that says: "No person may be elected President, Senator or Representative, or Judge of the Supreme Court, who have been convicted by a final decision, rendered by ordinary courts or prison sentence of imprisonment exceeding three years, for crimes committed in the performance of public functions or during these "The unfortunate thing is that in the second Caldera administration, be given an amnesty to Chavez just before the court give a final decision.

With the government of Carlos Andrés Pérez began the era of bipartisanship, the
patronage, corruption and cronyism, but also the economic boom, which was not known to use. Taking advantage of oil prices were so high, the government took the opportunity to nationalize companies in the iron and oil, thus creating a large employer and bureaucratic state, fitting the center-left governments. Besides that began to borrow to take double the money, despite the taboo that had to indebt the country at that awkward incident we had with "The Little Corporal" and that painful sentence that exalts Chavacano government as "insolent foreign plant ..."

However, there are good things I CAP government and that they respected the country's institutions. Most of the corrupt were imprisoned and were not all corrupt, was a minority that was gradually increasing to its total decline. By that time Ramon Guillermo Aveledo (Congressman) summarizes the Congress must be in these words:

"Congress can not be employed by the opposition. Congress can not serve the government. Congress should support the Venezuelan citizen. This Venezuelan depleted by inflation, threatened by the mob, frightened by the threat of unemployment, troubled by a pension or retirement, skeptical, tired of believing (...) That Venezuelan never lost hope "

In the 80
followed these policies in the state business, but without the economic boom. The government of Herrera Campins noting that government savings were few, establishing RECADI, which retains the flight of capital, that the ark filled again. What this government does not understand is that this inevitably brings two phenomena terrible. The first is inflation, namely the devaluation of money and rising prices. The second consequence of the first shot of the dollar of 4.30 "to infinity and beyond"

The next government of Jaime Lusinchi rather than the wrongs of its predecessor, the continuous, embezzling public money in campaigns and populist measures anything healthy for the country. The hills grew, prices continued to rise, the devaluation in a tailspin, just worsened the situation. Unquestionably needed a change!

Thus we reach the 90s, the people choose to believe that Carlos Andres Perez in this way that would magically "Venezuela Arabia" where the price of oil were plentiful and people lived well. It was impossible that we returned to that time. Oil prices would never be of that magnitude and Carlos Andres Perez promised populist reforms anything but healthy for the country. It enflaqueció the state bureaucracy down, companies were privatized, all measures a government's own center-right (note how in this country there is no consistency between the parties and their ideology ¿¿¿What is that thing? ???).

Finally Carlos Andres took his worst decision and is left to subsidize gasoline and of course on the economy, prices rose bus. This was what brought about the Caracazo, where the entire population movement out unhappy to the streets to steal, desperate for the dismal situation.
addition the media was irresponsible in making such images because it created the phenomenon of self-generated news that made nationwide reproduce this behavior. By having all this trouble armed government's duty to restore order, one of the major tasks of any government. The problem is that brute force was used at that time too, the military has exceeded its procedures which resulted in wrongful death.

At this point is that the government (now) has manipulated the information claiming that this whole problem was caused solely by the actions taken by PAC in its government. This is false, the economy came to be wrong since the time of the first government of Carlos Andres Perez (the left), the economy got worse until Carlos Andres Perez (the right) had to take these measures for reorganizing of the economy that just do not know how to handle the right way. Chavez had also already planned his coup in that pathetic scene of Güere Saman, in the early 80s I think ... There is no way supporting that the coup was coming in defense of "sovereign people"


in 1992 raised a terrible ghost slept since 1958. It is the military coup, a product of communist infiltration in the armed forces. At that time, the institutional military coup able to stop twice. Recall that there were two strikes, not only of Chavez in February, but one in November of that year. Both failed. And this tells us much about the personality of President Chavez Not even a stroke is able to run! But beyond the two strikes is an interesting fact here is that Carlos Andres Perez left the presidency by the democratic path. Perez admitted that he did a trial for all his bad habits and corrupt administration. "I wonder if the president now accept a trial for all the violations that he has made to the constitution? Is not that right? The answer is clear, democracy worked as a truck collided with the hood raised and full of scratches but with the other intact. The democratic nature existed in those days. To complete the CAP II period tentatively enters Ramón José Velazquez and called again for election.


The last Democratic president was in superb Caldera, again, but this time did not win his party he founded (COPEI)
since he was deflated and decaying. To win he had to do with convergence, a very weak game, made by a number of smaller parties. This was called the chiriperos. For that time the Venezuelan people were so disillusioned with politics that abstention results for 1993 indicate about 39.84%. Is an excessive proportion.

We conclude that democracy was a very good intentions when it began. Democratic institutions was always, no politician had dictatorial ambitions remained so for forty years of democracy. It was a perfect democracy, had its setbacks and mistakes is obvious.

After a century of leaders and come the twentieth century two dictatorships, four hits, some attempts at democracy, it is clear that the overnight we were not going to become a Swiss canton. One of his biggest mistakes was to give permission in the constitution of 1961 re-election of a president after 10 years in office. The consequence of this is that it gave rise to a new generation to take power and the parties will eventually deflate and lapse.

Refrigerator Drip Pan Smell

The Venezuelan learns to hit

The paper is patient and democracy is a word that is on everyone's lips. Since the last century, all countries established in their constitutions the word democracy. Proof of this is that the Constitution of the Franco regime in the light of all fascist was called "organic democracy." Moreover the current communist (China, North Korea, Cuba) claim that their country is a democracy is popular because it is written in its Constitution, as Marx himself, who inspired such regimes, spoke of dictatorship "transitory."

This leads us to reflect on what democracy is. By reducing only to vote, universal, direct and secret, then any system that does not respect freedom of expression, to exercise restraint on its citizens, who have a game where there is only one candidate can be considered democratic, no problem. If instead, we define democracy as a system of ethical values, where the State must respect laws that are universal to all countries by international conventions and agreements (Declaration of Human Rights), then things change. Then the dictatorship still exists in certain countries, even to respect the sacred democratic vote.



do believe then that the state must be limited and moderate (John Locke) and it should be tied to morality (Aristotle) \u200b\u200bin which the opposition is a political opponent whom you respect their opinions and not a strategic enemy military to be removed, then we can speak of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a "popular democracy", is contradictory and absurd, is ultimately Communist demagoguery. True communist, ie lie. Question of dialectics.

The issue of democracy is very clear today. We can not stay with the concept of democracy in ancient Greece which both Plato criticized for producing "oligarchs and tyrants." Which was right. Democracy is understood today by the mixture of the ideals of the Republic (read Plato) with the ideals of liberalism (read John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocequeville, etc.). That's why today a truly democratic system is a "liberal democratic republic."


Venezuela
Fortunately, we have understood through a long process which means a democracy and a shock! Nothing academic classes, but through dictatorships. When in 1936 dies "The tyrant liberal" begins a process of democratization irreversible, with governments increasingly democratic.

General Lopez Contreras burst into a storm between gomecistas, democratic, militaristic and lopecistas own, and takes control of the situation and its peaceful "calm and sane" and was slowly sailing through these murky waters, recognizing the country's democratic freedoms are rightfully theirs, but carefully so that the military did not rise up. In sympathetic


General Medina Angarita, continued these processes of democratization in the right line of thinking, were completed to legalize all political parties, was established a constitutional republic. But this was not enough, something was missing. The General problem was his lack of consensus on enabling universal suffrage, secret, direct and essential foundation for democracy, for being "too left for the country."

Here is a historical problem, Diogenes for the next election was the candidate of Medina, Lopez did not, there was a break. This split between Lopez and Medina served to divide the military, who went to conspire. The Democratic leadership had been terminated in accordance with Diogenes Escalante, future president of Venezuela and unifying civilians (Democratic Front). All had won, except of course the military coup and undemocratic. When you are found disabled Diogenes mental insanity is forged by the blow to Medina because there was no unity candidate representing Diogenes.

The military plot was cooked, the military is preparing for the return of the dictatorship of positivist and although they succeeded, and the country was ready for democracy. What all Venezuelans thought is that the coup was made by López Contreras, who had broken with Medina, but to the surprise of all, who got on the power was
Romulo Betancourt, a man advanced, along with AD match with the intention of establishing a democracy left center. This error came out expensive, since democracy established by Betancourt only lasted three years.

After its revolution, immediately called for elections and AD occupied most of the charges. The reason is obvious, awarded the people who had given them democracy. That way the teacher Rómulo Gallegos
was the first president elected by means of universal, direct and secret. Apparently the model of the democratic project went from strength to strength.

Six months after Gallegos won the presidency by popular vote, the military institutional tired of this democracy's center-left AD, then Llovera Páez Pérez Jiménez and exploit the situation to give a blow to Gallegos. In the meantime beat Delgado Chalboud virtually compel a leading areas coupled with the threat of sending him to jail. Chalboud have a tragic fate. Kill him at 50 ... re-instituted the dictatorship.


is important to emphasize that the actual period of Pérez Jiménez was '50 to '58. Taking account are 8 years of dictatorship. Pérez Jiménez's dictatorship has been shorter than we had in our history! What does this tell us? What conclusion can we draw? Well, since the Venezuelan learned that the last thing he wants is an authoritarian.

Although it was not all bad. There progress. These improvements were due to the dictatorship of Perez Jimenez was autocratic and not totalitarian. In totalitarianism is to destroy everything old, everything old to start building the new that it is good and therefore everyone should think like the leader. The authoritarian leader is not interested in America to think like him, is only interested in do not say anything bad about their government (and tortured or imprisoned if they catch you.) So in an authoritarian government that already is not necessarily bad and is built around the country that already exists, no new men millennial or attitudes. It built the Caracas-La Guaira highway, the Hotel Humboldt, roads, bridges, school buildings, irrigation systems, two lifts, among other things.

Even with all the evil of that dictatorship, the country has made great progress. Perhaps that is why Venezuela has the mistaken idea that military rule is equal to progress, although they are aware that the dictatorship per se is bad. In 1958 the country took to the streets to demand their rights and overthrow the dictator. Who happens to govern during this period went to Wolfgang Larrazabal and Edgar Sanabria for the preparation of the democratic transition.
and is interesting to note a constant and is repeated each time a dictatorial military regime falls, goes a military institutional transition.

Now we arrive at the expected time: DEMOCRACY What about this? Did you progress? Is it true that the civil government was SO bad? Do these last 11 years in office have been better than previous ones? Do not miss the next post ... A Contract for Venezuelan