Various media have reported recently the President Uribe's hobby refer to the "state of mind", a supposed "higher phase of the rule of law." The first time I read a comment about it could not understand even remotely hinting. In lasillavacia.com have reproduced several examples use of that expression, which give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe meaning of this strange occurrence. And the truth is that nothing good pint.
The mere name of finding it annoying. If one stops to think the only thing that is similar the "opinion vote," a term used to explain the anomaly of Colombian democracy, where the fact that people vote according to their ideas and not on illegal incentives offered the "machinery" for his vote is the most honorable. As if someone printed "legitimate child" in their business cards. Outside of Colombia, "opinion vote" is a incomprehensible. As it would be "carbon biology." The votes that were not "opinion" would be considered fraudulent.
not overstretch To comment on this post just one sentence that seems to sum up the spirit encouraging the new finding of government: Here
You can not stop looking at the political regimes in the Third World, and Colombia is one of them, but as a classroom of unruly students, undisciplined and conflict for which mature democracies always have a suspicious look and severe. Many may react with nationalist emotion to this idea, thinking it must be subjected to such scrutiny. But just compare the results of all the statistics to understand there is no alternative to assimilation to these democracies.
And what more can damage a student's integration problem is resistance to adhere to the protocol: who knows what may have occurred, by which performance will worsen and the doors open for other correctional, as you know all teachers. The idea of \u200b\u200bcounting the view is a common occurrence with all dictatorships, like the pompous names are to refer to such occurrences (impossible not to remember the "organic democracy " of fascism).
Most worrying is the sense that the president is circling of sycophants and is losing the notion of reality. Popularity is something that can be lost at any time and does not guarantee success, as happened to Fujimori (who was the first populist had a broad popular support thanks to television ). Also the continuity of government policies is a legitimate concern and we must defend, but the polls could choose something else. The president is not the owner of the job, but who has received a mandate which expires on August 7, 2010.
If Uribe was aware of the issues that Colombian democracy abroad and the enemy so powerful that it would not yield to the temptation to promote such occurrences. The fact that half the BBC as a propaganda play someone like Holman Morris provides an example of the threats to democratic rule and the continuity of government policies. No one could do no better gift to friends of the FARC and the left called democratic rhetoric reminiscent of dictatorships or semi-dictatorship in neighboring countries, and they just serve to delegitimize the majority view that liberal democracy support the polls.
The mere name of finding it annoying. If one stops to think the only thing that is similar the "opinion vote," a term used to explain the anomaly of Colombian democracy, where the fact that people vote according to their ideas and not on illegal incentives offered the "machinery" for his vote is the most honorable. As if someone printed "legitimate child" in their business cards. Outside of Colombia, "opinion vote" is a incomprehensible. As it would be "carbon biology." The votes that were not "opinion" would be considered fraudulent.
not overstretch To comment on this post just one sentence that seems to sum up the spirit encouraging the new finding of government: Here
laws do not determine the Presidency. Hardly the majority of Congress. All are subject to rigorous scrutiny, and finally to a rigorous constitutional scrutiny.So the state of opinion is the majority approval of government policies. The first thing scary is the blatant lie: how will be "rigorous" scrutiny popular? This is the most obvious contradiction in terms, the "popular" is almost by definition it is not rigorous. Who evaluates the popular approval of each measure? But that's the first thing that frightens not what is most frightening. The worst thing is that if enough opinion more than enough laws. And what about advertising: a plebiscite system to build on the success of the propaganda arts of the president to impose what they want at the point of referendums.
You can not stop looking at the political regimes in the Third World, and Colombia is one of them, but as a classroom of unruly students, undisciplined and conflict for which mature democracies always have a suspicious look and severe. Many may react with nationalist emotion to this idea, thinking it must be subjected to such scrutiny. But just compare the results of all the statistics to understand there is no alternative to assimilation to these democracies.
And what more can damage a student's integration problem is resistance to adhere to the protocol: who knows what may have occurred, by which performance will worsen and the doors open for other correctional, as you know all teachers. The idea of \u200b\u200bcounting the view is a common occurrence with all dictatorships, like the pompous names are to refer to such occurrences (impossible not to remember the "organic democracy " of fascism).
Most worrying is the sense that the president is circling of sycophants and is losing the notion of reality. Popularity is something that can be lost at any time and does not guarantee success, as happened to Fujimori (who was the first populist had a broad popular support thanks to television ). Also the continuity of government policies is a legitimate concern and we must defend, but the polls could choose something else. The president is not the owner of the job, but who has received a mandate which expires on August 7, 2010.
If Uribe was aware of the issues that Colombian democracy abroad and the enemy so powerful that it would not yield to the temptation to promote such occurrences. The fact that half the BBC as a propaganda play someone like Holman Morris provides an example of the threats to democratic rule and the continuity of government policies. No one could do no better gift to friends of the FARC and the left called democratic rhetoric reminiscent of dictatorships or semi-dictatorship in neighboring countries, and they just serve to delegitimize the majority view that liberal democracy support the polls.
By Jaime Ruiz. Columnist of Atrabilioso.
0 comments:
Post a Comment