2004 Easton Synergy 2

Barak Obama: false expectations of change for the world

Obama: FALSE EXPECTATIONS OF CHANGE

arrive the day: Barack Obama became president of the United States and his inaugural speech long expected, showed that not many expectations for change that should be assumed, especially for the world-system. Obama
assumes that the U.S. decline is inevitable and that its decline as a world power is a consequence of a perspective or cynical view that has characterized the elements of power in the American system. No doubt the self subsumed in its approach, establishing a mea culpa that identifies some of the elements that have driven the cash decline of U.S. power: the excesses of the military apparatus, the resistance to accept change and an overly liberal of the economy. On the other hand, does what few presidents of the great power: to accept the hegemonic expectations as a nation can be maintained as it has attempted to argue so far by the factors of power. This acceptance is certainly a blow to the American way of life for all citizens and moved or driven - inside and outside the U.S., for that ideal or communicative matrix.
However, despite this pessimistic and realistic while the immediate present, takes the values \u200b\u200band key principles on which the American empire was built. The vision of manifest destiny, the strengths and ideals of the so-called "founding fathers" often crop up in the inaugural speech, seeking thereby to lift the mood and spirit of a society battered pride after the events of 11 September 2001. Obama is clear about the impact of the crisis, on the other hand means that it is not possible to resume the dominant hegemonic level was the U.S. in the context of post- End of World War II in 1945, but still on these considerations - in an attempt to emulate Martin Luther King-launches and idealistic speech reminiscent of the great works and buildings of the "founding fathers" and it takes the discourse liberal legal equality before the law in a multiethnic society like the United States, the keynote address at which assumes the diversity of human groups that make life - legally and illegally in the U.S., his words make sense to fill some hope to those areas as beaten and abused by the American right, with its policy of apartheid and segregation caused much damage internally, however it is just an idea. The approach about equality, justice, hope is just a litany in the context of the wild type of capitalism that developed in the U.S. and the current president has shown signs of wanting to help. Obama is in the prisoner's dilemma. Disagree with the liberal economy extended model, without restrictions based on speculation and has been ready to sink the capitalist world, but on the other hand, he is defending champion of this model. Makes it clear when a part of his speech says, "we will not apologize for our lifestyle."
no intention to change the discourse of U.S. power, even when aware of his own penalty and crisis. Continues to build his speech about the ideals of greatness and manifest destiny over which rose and spread, not only American society but the Western capitalist model. Obama has made in his speech the optimistic stance, trying to revive the ideals of the founding fathers and thus carry out the inevitable loss of global hegemony. Without knowing it, Obama is acting the same arrogance of the Romans at the height of their empire when they were gradually being penetrated by companies from Central Europe, which they considered "barbarians", unworthy of a citizen of Rome. Even in his own deterioration refuse to accept our own decline.
The 1st African descent in the U.S. President, accepted in his speech the idea of \u200b\u200bchange, but it is assumed with the traditional elements that are built and maintained the American empire. In that sense, the chances of seeing one Obama to insist on a change in conflictual relations promoted by the world-system and its structure outdated and helpless, are just false hopes. For the Arab world, for Latin Americans and the rest of the world, we see an American president less inclined to wars and conflict, but nevertheless to keep the procession with the hawks of war on which depends the economic apparatus of the USA. Finally a change in appearance or simply an appearance of change.

Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero
Historian
Juane1208@gmail.com
20/01/2009

How Many Calories In Italian Sausage Risotto

The World Crisis: prelude to a new war?

The World Crisis: prelude to a new war?

The contradictions of late-capitalist system are many, starting with the fact that the dynamics of capital is based on speculation as its highest expression. This means that the economic power of the so called G-8, and particularly the U.S. is divided on the use of financial resources arising from speculative capital "move" freely about the conceptual foundations of the so-called "globalization" or globalization. Precisely because it is so, is that we understand the "urgency" with which they act the presidents of large countries and their financial representatives, who after decades of advocating non-interventionism of the nation state in economic affairs of the market, came swift and quick to the rescue of banks and other entities that play by the rules of speculation - that govern the world-system-register the financial system to collapse.
This economic crisis has huge similarities with the crisis of 1929 that ushered in the Second World War. How to be remembered, then - as now, there was a speculative rise with market values \u200b\u200bof many different companies on the stock exchanges located in major world capitals. The manner in which the hegemonic sectors of the economy, linked to the control of the means of production, managed the performance of capital, coupled with the fact that both the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), USA, France, England and China itself were in a geostrategic game - such as today, which included the use of financial capital to shore up its military strategy was an incentive to evade controls on any system must generate speculative dynamics. However, in the 1st half of the twentieth century, as in the 1st half of this century, those checks were unsuccessful, plunging the world system in a struggle for financial control.
From what we talked about is how the great powers, in the logic of development of late-capitalist system, seek to accumulate as much financial and economic capital and thus aiming to shore up its strategic military deterrent device, a dynamic that seeks to neutralize the weapons efforts of its geopolitical rivals through the real or perceived threat of moving the "vital space" of "other." It should be remembered as Hitler's Germany, since the rise to power in the early twentieth century proposed recovery areas or territorial areas considered "vital" to the existence of the German nation, implying this is not only a process of rearmament, but also the use and operation of the means of production to strengthen the military power. That action led to Hitler to expand on the Rhine, taking Austria, invade Poland and Russia signed an agreement with non-aggression that will facilitate strategic move to areas controlled by Britain and France in Western Europe. When we see what drove this situation, we realize that all countries - including the U.S., used the path of military confrontation to revive the economy in crisis beginning the decade of the 30's of last century. In making the comparative analysis, we realize that yesterday and today, the crisis is the result of speculation and that the existence of it seriously endangers the dynamics of development of power factors. Yesterday and today we see the powers start to mobilize action towards expanding "spheres of influence" on the other: the U.S. moves and acts on Georgia, seeking thereby to affect the flow of oil from the Caucasus - vital for Putin's Russia - as Russia increases its economic and military assistance in Latin America, vital area par excellence of the US-as never before even during the Cold War.
What we are proposing is that the global financial crisis and the limited opportunities they have to fill the gaps and imbalances caused by the absence of state and global controls on global speculative activity, may become a new great confrontation that can be disastrous given the significant development of military capability to destroy everything in its path. This confrontation can be taken as "a way out of crisis", to reactivate the productive apparatus being connected to the military and thus generate a new dynamism to produce a rebalancing of capital itself. This hypothesis - crazy in our view, not as you do see the perspective of the huge vested interests and is contextualized in a scenario where energy consumption continues to rise and global reserves are reduced to the maximum. We also have to dress this with the fact that, as happened in the prelude to the Second World War, the hegemonic power then - England was losing deterrence and progressively displaced by emerging powers - the U.S. and Germany, which accelerated the final confrontation that would generate a new world order. Today the situation is similar: the U.S. hegemonic status is in doubt, there are new emerging powers - China, Russia's recovery, Brazil, India, which felt the brunt of the crisis and using the condition of weakness may seek to accelerate the U.S. military crisis. On the other hand we must consider that in the U.S. are aware of this situation and handle well the hypothesis of war as a scenario of economic recovery, as happened with the First and Second Gulf War. As we are at a historical juncture which must be seen to care about the implications it may have. Dr. John E.

Romero Universidad del Zulia

17/12/2008

Quo Cosmetics Products Prices

-WORLD SYSTEM AND THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE

What happens now in Gaza, corresponds to the logic of the Revolution in Action Military (RAM), which involves the use of technology in the development of military action. But we have to contextualize it in a set of actions that have gradually removed the possibility of a peace agreement, while increased U.S. military intervention and the most ultraconservative Israeli society. One should not forget that during the Clinton administration, stressed the particular search of a stable peace that involved the realization of a fruitful dialogue between Rabin and Yasser Arafat Yitzat, both historical leaders representing extreme positions on both the Israeli side as Palestinian world.
The insistence on the agreement was necessary and was possible due to the relaxation of Cold War conditions in the Middle East. The U.S., without losing sight of the strategic role that Israel plays to their interests, understood the impossibility of maintaining a high level of conflict in the area, especially considering it is the key transitional space for the giant military preponderance in the north. Israel and the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine (PLO), Arafat understood that the historical conditions that had permitted the maintenance of political extremism had changed and it should change its position. In this context of international pressure, Arafat and Rabin materialize the Camp David Agreement, by which obtuvieron el Premio Nobel de la Paz. La muerte de Rabin, consecuencia del extremismo sionista, significó un retroceso en la construcción de la paz. Su sucesor, Benjamin Nethanyau, en nada contribuyó al avance de la paz y por el contrario dio inicio a un ciclo radical continuado por Ariel Sharon y sus sucesores en el ejercicio del poder en Israel. La muerte de Arafat, y el avance del extremismo de Hamas dejo sin interlocutores válidos a los palestinos que fueron arrastrados al clima de guerra sin cuartel propiciado por el Estado de Israel. Ante esta situación, la comunidad internacional, el Sistema-mundo con sus instituciones ha dejado de ejecutar los elementos de contención que debería implementar y al mismo tiempo, se ha mostrado impávido to the recurrent violations of humanitarian agreements by the Israeli security forces.
The context of change of government in the United States, framed by the output of the far right represented by Bush and the course - but not real-emerging leadership of Barak Obama, shows that expectations about a change in policy outside the U.S. is only an illusion. The Obama has demonstrated his inaction its relationship with Israel's strategic interests in the Middle East. No chance of peace agreement at this time. Israel insists on a Manichean position that argues that Hamas is not a political movement representing the leadership of the Palestinian people. The Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has done little to realize a dialogue with the militant group Hamas, which controls the Palestinian political representation and has the full weight of popular support. U.S., both outgoing and incoming representatives, maintain the same policy of unconditional support to Israel's interests, despite the constant violations of UN resolutions and the implementation of agreements Plastation West end of the 90 , which forced upon Israel to deliver more than 7% of the territory of the Gaza Strip have been occupied illegally. In short, this a moment where it is expressed - as ever, "the crisis of military power (U.S.) articulated yet provocative actions that tend to seek a consolidation of what they consider the "living space": the area of \u200b\u200bthe Middle East and central Asia. As happened in the twentieth century Germany and England, now in the XXI century we see a competition between the interests of power - which despite its weakness, "with another that challenges the positions and privileges of the hegemonic. The U.S. are concerned that the situation in the Middle East is not stable, since this instability increases the fluctuations in the dynamics of hegemonic control that aims to develop in other world stages. The situation is risky and envisions a 2009 full of conflicts, This is so because the U.S. kept fighting fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, central Asia at the same time you have to face the economic crisis. At this stage you have to look carefully at the reactions and actions in this area of \u200b\u200bthe world has so much conflict, we hope that the international community to contain the demons of war unleashed by the U.S., which needs a large-scale war to revive its economic system, as it did in the 1st Gulf War in 1991. We will follow closely the crisis and development. Dr. John E.

01/06/2009

Historian Romero
Juane1208@gmail.com

Lethal Temazepam Dose

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT A: POLITICAL CHANGE IN VENEZUELA (1999-2009)

TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT POLITICAL CHANGE IN VENEZUELA (1999-2009)

The call for a Constitutional Amendment process, recently made by President Hugo Chávez allows a number of considerations that are located both in the field of Constitutional Law and the Political Philosophy. For Constitutional Law, as the Constitution adopted in December 1999 is located in the so-called New Latin American constitutionalism, which considers the need to increase opportunities for political participation, and take the Constitution as a legal body is not static, not perfect, more well understood as a dynamic institutional setting where collective of law can participate and articulate answers, and legal adjustments necessary. This new constitutionalism differs from classical models in the form and content of the Constitutions. Of Venezuela, Colombia, the proposal approved in Bolivia and Ecuador, incorporating direct democracy as the referendum, in its various forms, but beyond that bear or incorporate in its structure that allows for modification items, second also differences by the fact that its articles are less general and more specific in addressing the issue of social, political and economic aspect which contrasts with the Classic Constitutionalism - Under which is written by the general body of laws in France, Germany and the U.S., which raises a more general perspective of rights.
This difference is not accidental or casuistry. Classic Constitutionalism For this generalization facilitates, promotes and encourages a significant general process of exploitation of man by man and, moreover, holds a hegemonic apparatus which builds and strengthens the rule. For its part, the new constitutionalism emphasizes the need to understand one thing or moment that occurs when a constituent assembly is proposed to generate a new constitution and also, not necessarily a long period, could have changed the conditions historical and political, so it is necessary to profound modifications (Constituent Assembly), partial (Reform) or specific (Amendment) of any legal aspect.
From the standpoint of political philosophy, the proposed amendment also allows for other socio-political considerations. In this sense we must consider establishing a discussion of concepts such as political stability, governance and participation. We discussed the political stability, as there are sectors that point - located in the Classic Constitutionalism constitutional adjustments, which are processes that "altering" public peace and translated in tacit recognition. We discuss the issue of governance, it is thought that new additions for expanding the rights, increase the demands of citizens and this increases the possibility of social conflict. We discuss the issue of participation, for the amendment - as outlined, means that the last stage for enactment is exercised by the citizen himself and this increases the opportunities for discussion. Anyway, in regard to stability and governance, the positions taken by political actors outlines are extremely conservative attitudes in the wrong way with the political approach of the new constitutionalism. There
doubt that the Amendment process differs markedly from the reform process. Proposed in the year 2007 implemented significant changes in various aspects of the body of law adopted in 1999 without touching the core principles that characterize it. The Amendment is very specific, is to broaden the possibilities of participating in the election of officers of public performance and again, you enter a discussion on politically very important. First, we discuss the issue of rotation. In traditional and conservative views of politics, the rotation is defined as the possibility of replacement of a political actor on the other, with preferences different ideological, political philosophy less static alternation is seen as a process of open competition for the occupation of a position of public responsibility. Between one and another position is a great distance. In the case of the first definition, the rotation is defined as the succession of a political group by another. In the case of the second, the rotation is seen as an electoral competition and policy regarding citizen preferences for occupation of public office. In short, the alternation is given today by the conditions that ensure that any person or political organization can access the aspiration public office. In this regard, the Amendment does not alter the concept of rotation. In fact remains the figure of the referendum which ensures the rotation policy.
Another myth arisen around the reform is that the unrestricted application of candidates for public office involves closing the possibility of generational replacement. Those who say it shows an ignorance about the reality of government policy. It is known from many theoretical research by political science as O Donell, Sartori, Bobbio, Pzworsky, including the continued exercise of power translates into a significant political erosion which leaves open the replacement as soon as produces a loss in the preferences of the electorate on the ground that are not met its demands. That was demonstrated in the English parliamentary democracies such as Felipe González was replaced, or in England when Margaret Tatchert was replaced or when Francois Mitterrand in France lost the hegemony it had exercised. In all these cases arose alternate forces who was governed and represented an alternative to political hegemony. Therefore, in the specific case of Venezuela's democracy remains open the possibility of replacing those who hold positions of public representation as the recall referendum mechanism is still important for balance political.
The amendment has also served to discuss the possibility of introducing innovations in presidential political systems. There is no doubt that the nomination without limits is a feature of political systems are parliamentary and presidential systems that incorporate it, but this does not mean that it is not possible. Precisely this amendment introduces the theme of institutional change in political systems as an emergency of new constitutionalism. We must not forget that in world history there have been discussions about political change. I can not fail to note that when Thomas Hobbes spoke in his "Leviathan of the construction of a contract social between civil society and the ruling was considered absurd in the absolute climate of governance that prevailed, as happened with the Social Contract Rousseau raised the possibility of exercising civic responsibility. In short the fact that arises in a presidential system should be no limit on the application opens a space for the drive around to good governance is an array of opinion that makes a decision to change or retention election. That fact would have great weight in the structure of political systems in Latin America and certainly the most conservative sectors understand the political implications it can have on an area like ours where the prevailing leftist governments closer to the interests and perspectives of social groups.
The amendment is therefore a multiple space of creation. Multiple it broadens the field of political participation, as it introduces multiple new features in the structure and functioning of political systems. This moves away from those who assume that political change is dangerous for "political stability". Who indeed is what they do to indicate their grave concern about an increase in citizen participation. In this sense, the political campaign of those proposing the amendment must cease to be political propaganda that says nothing. I mean, should not make the mistake that took office in November last year it took the slogan Come with Everything, that slogan did not make any difference ideological opponents of the proposal of the PSUV. In the present case is key to emphasize the expansion of rights, to not disturb the rotation and especially the incorporation and adaptation of new constitutionalism in the change process. And to do this is to differentiate between propaganda and political communication. The propaganda drive the same elements of commercial marketing that characterizes capitalism while communication policy should be structured on high-impact cultural meanings that encourage participation. I can not conclude without noting that these considerations it seems that later rather than sooner we will lead a new process of Constituent Assembly (ANC) since the dynamics of change that have been generated in Venezuela are so great that in many cases articles of the Constitution of 1999 did not reach the magnitude of the expectations and needs of social groups. In that sense, at any given time - given the dynamism of democracy, will end in a need to adapt to change and this process is only a new step in that direction. Dr. John E.

Romero
historian and University Professor 10/01/2009

Juane1208@gmail.com