Clear Clot During Period

De anti-abortion organizations



is not uncommon assume that the national press without further questioning concepts cheats communication consultants like me, we tend to invent. She swallows everything with extreme ease to what custom has not prepared to counter.
One of these concepts is "pro-life organizations." pro-life groups refused shortage pressures for pill, reports Radio Cooperativa, " pro-life groups promulgation of the standard expected to go to court against the freezing of embryos " publishes the newspaper El Mercurio . Both media whose editorial may explain almost legitimate to use this docility.

But the efficiency of the true horse of Troy, is such that Raul Gutierrez, editor of the libertarian and pluralist granvalparaiso.cl, writes that "pro-life The option taken by the previous governments in Chile should complement .. . "or on the website of the Chilean Communist Party point out that" in turn are based on current Integralists Catholic employers and the right of Chileans (opus Dei, pro-life) ".
"pro-life organizations? But why should we call it an institution s whose only stated goal is to oppose any regulation of abortion. How many m interfere with manifestations anti-death penalty have starred in the "pro-life organizations? Do not recall hearing any of them act outraged by the execution of Saddam Hussein, as if listening to representatives of Amnesty International-an organization that itself could be defined as an organization just right pro-life. What is the opinion of these organizations on the destruction of ecosystems and the disappearance of species, on the wars in different parts of the world, on the application the pe na capital? Death, death, death ... Where are then the "pro-life organizations?
not be so silly. Communicating is already a complex enough process to do more absurdly confusing. The anti-abortion organizations are just that: anti-abortion organizations .

Free Memory Stick In Budweiser

The democratic press as Channel 13



With the very Christian and be an objective reference, Channel 13 has just delivered a memorable piece of inexplicable concept of democratic press. "How did they live Pinochet's death two women politically opposed? "in the program On everyone's lips, he wanted to introduce the former dictator from two perspectives: that of a supporter of Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet another. With this, our Catholic channel intended to base its impartiality, objectivity and attachment to what is supposed to be a quality press showing two contrasting looks on the political figure of ex-dictator Pinochet, who finally opened the possibility of a reunion.
What Channel 13 has not understood and not understood as never remains as erratic and diffuse editorial is that a democratic press is not one that presents the opposing views supposed objectivity of a certain reality. Or perhaps we should discuss whether or not the sun rises in the west just because someone says so? A democratic press is one that is defined as such, among other things because there is no democratic press: this is called propaganda.
for a real democratic press the figure of Pinochet and his government can not simply portrayed as a debate on the positive side of the dictatorship versus the negative side. Because the debate of whether a dictatorial government is good or bad is not debate: any dictatorship is bad. Debating whether the government of Allende was good or bad, I bet it was bad, but a democratic press is unable to provide the same quality of debate to a dictatorship. Because if so one would expect to see a debate "objective" about whether the government of Hitler was good or bad. Expect them to give him minutes of screen to all those who deny the Holocaust and Nazi militarism defend as an effective national policy recontrucción.

(Originally published in the blog 15/12/2006 Ne-Yo)

Brazil Carnival Invitation

Chilean Antarctic Territory "?

Among the many expressions of confusion in the national press about his own role, given such a role moralizing or solidarity, "to highlight the sovereignty of their duty to inform. And nothing more palpable in this situation that any mention of Antarctica.

From Icarito up Weather Channel 13 . From the weather report The Third TVTiempo TVN to insist on calling that piece of ice located between 53 ° W and 90 ° W as the Chilean Antarctic Territory Chilean Antarctica and grant or certainly, part character the country. What is dramatic is that perseverance pays off and it seems that nobody in Chile is aware of the true forced. I've never heard anyone, under any circumstances even put quotes that fallacy: Chile has no territory in Antarctica and no other country possesses.

Any journalist reported should know, but the frozen continent is governed by Antarctic Treaty , signed on December 1, 1959 by thirteen countries, including ours, and in its Article 4 states a permanent freeze of any claim to sovereignty. Our Antarctica is not just a territorial claim not recognized by any other country, not least by the United Nations. It is also a very feeble claim that about 60% of the "Chilean Antarctic Territory is part of" Antarctica Argentina "and about 80% of the "British Antarctic Territory," of course countries that also have no sovereignty over any ice.

How long that the press must take as its own function "to sovereignty? Independent of the valid or not anything of "homeland defense", does the role does not correspond to other stakeholders? Is it so weak commitment of our press to freedom of opinion or information to any value that conflicts with it is willing to assign?

Stomach Banding Ohip Covered

Finally ..!

please check at the video, which is missed. What desubrí Maricza thank my friend, it makes me aware of the news and I had breakfast with this wonder yesterday as we talked about artists freaksmmmm ...! (Eye, which is not Evo Morales).