Piñera, Chile's government...Centre-left?

Chile today, with CarlosToledolabarca.02/14/2010

"Carlos Larraín understands well, the indispensable need to maintain autonomous intermediate social bodies?" (Gonzalo Rojas Wednesday February 9, 2011 Girardi and Larraín, "symmetrical?)

In days past, I mentioned the fine irony that encloses the entire text in the political column of the week 09/15.

Both political parties in our Chilean right (UDI and RN) in its declarations of principles consider indispensable citizen participation in decisions and the course of opinions, from and intermediate social bodies.

But the fact is that this is not even the least bit according to the reality that both parties practice. All decisions that concern these "intermediate social bodies, are far from being made for the themselves or less they are made into account its views, the" senator "Larraín is an example for himself …

Senator Larraín was a Municipal Council member in the Metropolitan Region, and right now he is going to fill a vacant in the Senate, representing a region far away from the capital city, and "designated to finger", this occurs: because he is the Chairman of the National Renovation Party .

Is that in the 16th circumscription does not exist some person capable of taking the vacant?

Point is not to enter at discussing the exercise, or the present political direction of the party leaders of our Chilean right, is merely to call attention ....

"Our" administration has made progress in certain issues, in particular is noticed technically and professional hands of State administration, but it is also true that politically, and in the general terms of it, is necessary to agree that it is a administration of "continuing. " of politics the country has known, with the left... and whether Piñera has come to La Moneda, with the support of Right, let's say we have the right “to ease” the classification,and to name to the actual government like"Centre-left. "

The basis for this assertion is that there is a large distance between the pragmatic activities of the President and his collaborators and the leadership of the political parties, about form and mode to gain the favor of the electors, according to the upcoming elections.

And having ignored the urgent needs of the intermediate social bodies, and as well they forget election promises, which spoke of a deep "change" in the direction of State policies.

A pathetic example is what is happening with the Head of the Regional Government, Jacqueline van Rysselberghe, in Concepción. .
Alternation, respect for the law, to banish dirty policy(¿?) ...


CarlosDomingoToledo is based in Logan, Utah, United States of America,

and is Stringer for Allvoices

If President Hosni Mubarak falls, the entire West will regret it. Jidad!

When we received the news from Egypt, the media makes us believe that those who want to remove Mubarak are democrats. And it is not true!.

Mohammed ElBaradei Nobel Prize is no guarantee if he became the next president of Egypt with the support of the left wing and the “Muslim Brotherhood”. Both groups are enemies of the West and Israel. And that's the main reason for the riots. The only valid security for us in the West, is that in Egypt, they made reform and political transition, backed by the Egypt Army, and to ensure the maintenance of a secular democracy, and a permanent and full peace with Israel, as has been until today.

Democracy as we in the West and Israel understand and practice, is totally opposed to democracy that they are talking about today in Egypt and other Arab countries, that are being convulsed by leftist and religious fundamentalist agitators.

We all think in the West, the Arab world as backward societies and anchored in the Middle Ages, that our world has experienced. We imagine that because we have developed and reached levels of cultural and social exchange, in which the focus is on individual freedom, they go after it.

We are so shallow, that we have not fallen in mind that the Arabs religious fundamentalism provides an opportunity to reconcile the Western development and military power we have generated, our need for oil, with their aspirations to impose their religion on the whole world, neither more nor less than to recover the lost ground, which means converting all infidels to Islam.

These revolts have no other objective than to unite the Arabs to wipe Israel and subdue the West!

President Mubarak has been, is and will be a U.S. ally, is a man who has helped preserve world peace, has ruled strong, with errors, but the result is in sight, Israel and the West have been able to hold up today the "Intifada" or uprising in the Islamic world.

The "Jihad or Holy War" against the Judeo-Christian West has never been abandoned by them, and the "Left Democrats" do not exist.

The military, in Egypt and other Arab countries still America's friends, the West and Israel, they are looking at the actions of our leaders ... if Mubarak's regime falls violently ... sooner or later we'll all regret it.

Carlos Toledolabarca
CarlosDomingoToledo is based in Logan, Utah, United States of America, and is Stringer for Allvoices

A great and unique country called Chile.

The big companies all with its capital, its directors, shareholders,employees, without exception, in a free economy and democracy are absolutely necessary. As likewise, are necessary, small and medium enterprises and their workers. Also, are essential in a democracy and free markets, independent entrepreneurs and freelancers.

It is necessary to insist that this must happen within a framework of democracy and free market, where the state is an alternative agent and does not interfere in any way controlling the market. Is ideal,however, in Chile we have a serious problem.

Because it is quite true that the oligarchs do not trust in the free market, nor in democracies. And somehow they are right, because when it comes to defining this situation, we find that the struggle always has been that one sector of those citizens are attempting to socialize the market without putting even a dollar, because they say be "representatives of labor forces" (¿?).

In this our modern era, after all the experiences we have lived, we all know that in Chile, there have been big changes. We know very well what happened before the Military Government and former President Pinochet and what happened in the same government.

After the plebiscite which gave way to live in full democracy, the economic oligarchy (without flushing or prejudices) of Chile took the right path, thanks to the model inherited from the military government,and secure and advances in economic field, gave way to what we all know: the creation of large national companies and the attraction and settlement of transnational (global), nothing bad in this regard.

Is shown by macro-economic figures, Chile's economy is running very well in many aspects, so that anyone can dare to predict a promising future.

Where it gets bad? It is important to repeat: the great economic power have no confidence in the freedom of individuals, either on the open market, in fact, are corporatist in nature, and this is understandable. Company directors, owners of capital and companies have to look after their interests. And corporatism is essentially an interaction of "groups. "

But Chile and its Chilean, paid a high price to recover its democracy,ordinary citizens also do not want to repeat past mistakes.

But what about the Left, where it fits into all this? They have their reason to exist, as the enemies of the "capitalists " ... and they also are corporatist.

In Chile, the leftists have left that to be the enemies, now the ideology of confrontation, the class struggle, has become a "business " of scholars.

With the failures of socialism in Chile and elsewhere, finally Chilean leftists, have been shown as they are, and have faced the reality ..."You have to earn money but in large amounts" ... At last these people, understood that growth, development, progress depends on the work, invest and move capital.

But here came the problem for the rest of ordinary Chileans, rightists,centrists, leftists without adherence to the political parties, the Chileans without political color. The left and their troupes won the elections, but not to become the solution to bring development and progress for all in general.

The "joy" (1990-2010)... was only for politicians. Government departments throughout the whole country, the legislative chambers were filled with hundreds and thousands of new employees, and grew a state bureaucracy that gave birth to another oligarchy, a new breed politicians and bad politicians. And they ruthlessly took over that part of the national wealth, which corresponded to the rest of Chilean entrepreneurs, workers, medium and small businesses, and was not difficult because, as owners of political power, made their own business. With reforms and moves to catch the market in all its aspects, so that what was inherited from the military government and General Pinochet, who was a free market, open economy and a true democracy, were trapped by the"corporatism" director of both oligarchies.

Of the economic oligarchy, there should be no complaints from their activities, if those stop trying to captivate, to own and manage for themselves only the market and society. Stated plainly, that they end the prevailing neo mercantilism.

But our misfortune, the political oligarchy: that is the one to stop at all the ghosts, their immorality, vileness, wickedness, lies, cruelty, which seek to exhaust the patience of most of our society.

With all the human and natural wealth that exists in Chile, they have no right to have led the country to the situation in which it is, a country where the rich are too rich at the expense of the poor, too poor.

Because the political oligarchy hypocritically and shamelessly, is also an ally of economic power, both are supported, and cared for, are aided each other to subdue the Chileans, to manipulate, to plunge into the dark world of consumerism in debt, and make sheep who by necessity have to go where they want, sheep have to accept what they want to give as a benefit.

In Chile, two large companies are the monopoly of the print media.

Where are the opponents of the military government? Newspapers such as the "Fortin Mapocho", “La Epoca”, regional newspapers edited even in small towns, and dozens of magazines that circulated freely and financed with hundreds of journalists who could write what they pleased. in articles, essays, books, especially in the final years of the "dictatorship. "

The same applies to other media.

What I am saying is that just as captivated other areas of the market,they also caught the media, selected everything that has enabled them to "brainwash millions of Chileans. "

No wonder then, that the leftists want a "Constituent Assembly" is not surprising that the sheep of this sector, seen as the out put to become more democratic.

And what an amazing to be heard must post in a column from a right-wing conservative, and in a newspaper, essentially right (¿?).

Happily the matter is, among a large percentage of Chileans became aware that something is wrong as well, the public realized that here there is a "media manipulation" and some are shaking the brain detergent, and they are now looking to where they really should look.

We must also understand that the economic oligarchy known that the current travel companions can not be trusted, are fickle when they lose power.

The "constituent assembly"is a story ... is part of a deceptive rhetoric,that being a reality, it would separate most of the opportunity to recover the good place that corresponds to the majority, who work hard and move. in a great and unique country called Chile.
This comment of "opinion"was written by Carlos Toledolabarca, and was published in "El Mercurio of Santiago, in the column of GonzaloRojas on 22/01/2011 at 17:09.
CarlosDomingoToledo is based in Logan, Utah, United States of America, and is Stringer for Allvoices

Cohabitation agreement is sufficient for homosexuals?

In Chile there is no need to legislate on the union of the homosexuals . Traditionally intimate behavior of these people do not have to transcend public life.
It is unrealistic not to worry about a man or woman who is attracted to another of the same sex and when that happens we must ask: what happened?.
As do not have all the answers, we can not be biased and error giving the wrong reasons. Therefore we must ensure that these people get help and love necessary to feel no discrimination, so they can live their situation, and hopefully one day leave this difficulty.
Encourage homosexuality is right?
This situation in Chile captures notoriety because like the rest of the world is a commercial product.
First, there are millions and millions of dollars to get rich advertisers,writers, intellectuals, human sciences professionals with this problem. Behind them are hundreds of thousands of politicians who benefit from the lobby.
If homosexuality in Chile or anywhere in the world is a problem of majorities in a few years we are doomed to disappear as a human species,
And if it has been established as a political problem of "rights " of minorities, we are setting precedents for the institution of heterosexual marriage as sustaining the family unit, which in turn supports our societies, complete collapse against the power and rights of minorities.
Because without doubt this is the ultimate goal of "corporatism"globalist and political, which is also a minority, and using the issue of homosexuals as another scapegoat for their hegemonic aspirations and control over the majority.
All this power of politicians and intellectuals, instead of twisted ideas used to protect minorities, were used to establish and up hold correct principles and values, those affected and troubled by homosexuality,without a doubt that would be less.
Respectfully
Carlos Toledolabarca opinion posted in "El Mercurio" of Santiago, Chile. Gonzalo Rojas column ... " Allamand and his Defense "
January 19, 2011
CarlosDomingoToledo is based in Logan, Utah, United States of America, and is Stringer for Allvoices

The Last Chilean Myth (I)

By James R. Whelan on 6.24.09 @ 6:07AM

Editor's Note: In yesterday's press briefing, President Obama said of Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, "I'm very much looked forward to seeing President Bachelet. I think she's one of the finest leaders in Latin America, very capable person.... And I will be looking at President Bachelet giving us further advice, in terms of how we can take the kind of relationship we have with Chile and expand that to our relationships throughout Latin America."

In the May, 2007 issue of The American Spectator, James R. Whelan reported on the real Bachelet, explaining that -- contrary to what the President would have you now believe -- she is neither a fine leader nor an ally of the United States. That article is reproduced here.

THERE IS AN OLD ADAGE IN STATECRAFT which instructs that the height of stupidity is the inability to distinguish between friend and foe. What, then, are we to think of the White House of George W. Bush and the State Department of Condoleezza Rice, as they and their minions fawn and fuss over the Chilean president, Michelle Bachelet, as though she were some sort of Tony Blair in drag? They even managed to hornswoggle into their minuet old Daddy Warbucks himself, Donald Rumsfeld, a few weeks before he was sent packing.

But then the White House itself came out of the closet and, in a mind-boggling statement, proclaimed its fealty to Chile’s Socialist government on the occasion of the death of former President Augusto Pinochet.

Let’s lay it on the line: Michelle Bachelet is not a friend of the United States. True, she is not a declared enemy of the United States. But friend? There is not a scrap of evidence to support such tomfoolery. Yet, no one—in the U.S. government, in the media, in other governments, in public affairs in general—ever speaks ill of Michelle Bachelet, as though to do so would be like spitting on the sidewalk or blowing smoke in someone’s face—simply not done, old top. In part this may be because there is so little there, there—there is much more form than substance about Michelle Bachelet, much more appearance than reality. Increasingly, questions are being raised about her ability to govern, her competence.

She came to the presidency with strong public support. By early March, support for her had fallen from 65.3 percent to 47.5 percent. Fully half those surveyed (50.8 percent) said her government was less than what they had expected. On a scale of one to seven, her government got a poor 3.9 rating.

No wonder. She was abroad much of the time last year when Chile suffered the worst outbreak of public disturbances in three decades—a strike of 600,000 high school students, aided and abetted by former terrorists and Communists. More recently, the government implanted a new public transportation system—a total and unmitigated disaster.

Sebastian Piñera, leader of the opposition, called Bachelet’s first year “a comedy of errors, omissions and improvisations.” The problem, he said, is that Bachelet came to the presidency “without clear ideas, or well-defined programs, nor qualified people.” Indeed, Bachelet insisted on a cabinet evenly divided between men and women—whatever their qualifications. She was forced recently to jettison that idea in re-shaping her cabinet to meet the transit crisis.

Briefly, who is this person we are talking about? Michelle Bachelet is, since March 11, 2006, the first woman president of Chile: In a recent Barometer of Governability in Latin America, Spain, and Portugal, Bachelet topped the list of 15 presidents, polling an 87 percent approval rating of her performance. Not surprisingly, Bachelet has wowed the Beautiful People. On her first visit to Washington last year, Hillary Clinton gave a party in her honor, with a host of glitterati in attendance (including the actress who plays the U.S. president in the now-discontinued TV series, Commander in Chief. Bachelet later let on that she liked the actress—but not the program). Bill Clinton, glad-handing around Santiago a year ago, described Bachelet as a “particularly well-qualified candidate, because of her experience.”

One wonders what experience Clinton had in mind. Until President Ricardo Lagos plucked her from virtual anonymity in 2000, naming her his minister of health, she had never held a significant job. Later, in 2002, he named her his defense minister—first woman in Chile or Latin America ever to hold that job. Although in neither post did she distinguish herself, in the second in particular she did attract media attention, including a famous photo where she posed aboard a half-track. (She had prepped for that job: She graduated at the top of her class in 1996 from Chile’s National Academy of Political and Strategic Studies. That entitled her to a one-year scholarship at the U.S.- run Inter-American Defense College at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C., along with 46 civilian and military officers from around the Americas.)

VERÓNICA MICHELLE BACHELET made her debut in this world on September 29, 1951, after only seven months in her mother Angela’s womb. She weighed but 3.9 pounds, but then she was lucky: Her mother had lost four babies before giving birth to Michelle (though she had managed to bring into the world a son, Alberto—Beto). Although baptized in a Catholic church (at the insistence of a staunchly Catholic paternal grandmother), Michelle—like her parents— has been a lifelong agnostic.

Her father was an air force general, and in 1962- 1963, he was assigned to Washington. There, at a Prince George’s grammar school, she mastered English. Her father, long left-leaning, strongly backed the Marxist- Leninist president Salvador Allende (1970-1973), and was up to his epaulets in subversive scheming. When Allende was ousted in the 1973 coup, General Bachelet was one of two air force generals (along with a passel of lower officers and enlisted men) arrested and tried for treason. He died in prison before coming to trial.

Though he had suffered a massive heart attack in 1968 that very nearly killed him—after playing basketball— he insisted on doing the same thing while in prison, despite medical advice to the contrary. That second massive attack did kill him. (His only son, Alberto, died of a heart attack in the U.S. in 2001, at age 54.) There are four or five keys to understanding Michelle Bachelet:

• She is a hardcore, lifelong socialist, but a brand of socialism which, during the years in which she was growing up in the party, had nothing in common with the parliamentary socialists of Europe and far more in common with the murderous Maoists of China. The party no longer either preaches or practices violence, but Michelle Bachelet continues to identify strongly with those for whom revolutionary violence was a way of life.

• Superficial: From the time in 1970 when she joined the Young Socialists, Michelle was a “gopher,” delivering messages, writing manifestoes, running errands, even at one point, serving as “bag-man”: delivering money from the Socialist high command to the very embattled terrorists of the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR). That would lead to her arrest. She was held for two weeks, later insinuating that she was tortured. Her mother, arrested with her, was held a month, and later said she was not tortured, but submitted to a brutalizing “softening-up” procedure. After their release Michelle decided to leave the country, traveling with her mother to Australia, where Beto awaited them.

Fuente

The Last Chilean Myth (II)

By James R. Whelan on 6.24.09 @ 6:07AM

(Page 2 of 2)

After only a few months there, at the behest of a boyfriend, Michelle traveled to East Germany, joined by her mother shortly afterwards. She continued in that “gopher” role during the four years she spent in East Germany, the nerve center of rebellion for Chile’s far-left parties. There, she was again deeply involved in the party’s conspiratorial, underground activities. Indeed, in 1977, she traveled—obviously on party business— to Vietnam, a fact she let drop during her official visit to Hanoi for the Asian-Pacific Cooperation conference in November 2006.

She continued as an underground operative when she returned to Chile in 1979, moving in for a time with a high official of the Communist-sponsored, Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front (FPMR) terrorist organization. She herself was heavily involved with the radical wing of her party—a wing so radical, to quote two puff piece biographers, “it had no real problem with the policies of the armed wing of the Communist Party.” Until 1995, when she was elected a member of the party’s Central Committee, at no time was she ever given an executive post of any kind (in other words, taken seriously). While in the outskirts of Berlin, she likes to say that she resumed the medical studies interrupted by the 1973 revolution in Chile, but in point of fact, what she did was start (but not finish) a German language course that was a prerequisite to medical school. (She frequently fudges in the stories she tells.) She also married a would-be revolutionary like herself, and gave birth to the first of her three children. (The other two would be born out of wedlock in Chile, one of them fathered by a right-wing doctor.)

• She undoubtedly is smart—she graduated (in 1983) from Chile’s leading medical school, later specializing in pediatrics and public health medicine. But she is neither brilliant nor a strong leader. Nor a commanding presence: How could she be when she measures a mere 5 feet 2 inches—and is decidedly pudgy (indeed, a former finance minister raised her dander when he referred to her as “my fatso”). There is some real question as to how much of a leader, period, she is. As indicated, the party waited 25 years before naming her to a leadership role. In her only other try for public office before winning election as president last year, she ran for the city council of a suburban community in 1995 and won all of 2.35 percent of the vote.

• Her closest friends and advisers all come out of the hard left of Chilean politics. So, too, do her predilections: She recently sent shock-waves through the economy when she wondered aloud whether maybe the time had not come to “humanize” the market economy model that has made this country the envy of all of Latin America—indeed, of much of the world. (“Humanize,” in socialist parlance, means enlarge the role of the state, and shrink that of the private sector.)

AS IT IS, THE CHILEAN ECONOMY SLID in 2006, its growth rate falling from 5.7 percent in 2005 to 4 percent. That, despite sky-high prices for Chile’s principal export product, copper. In surveys of business leaders, confidence in her declined for four straight months, reaching a record low midway through her first year. She has a first-class economic team, and mainly defers to them, but in general has a reputation for leaning far more on her palace inner sanctum, a group that features two hard-core women Communists, bypassing her cabinet.

So it is, too, with her international outlook. Ever since girlhood, she has been an admirer of Fidel Castro, the longest-serving dictator in the history of the hemisphere (and the only totalitarian dictator). Inasmuch as she also claims to be a champion of human rights, her support for the hemisphere’s worst abuser of human rights requires fancy footwork. But, then, she chose to live in East Germany—the ugliest of the Soviet satellite states—and has never been heard to utter a single criticism of that ghastly regime—nor, for that matter, of the savage North Vietnamese regime. By contrast, though she never met the longtime dictator of East Germany— Erich Honecker, who lived in Chile the last two years (1992-1994) of his ghoulish life—she did meet his widow.

“I thanked her,” Bachelet said, “because while I was in East Germany, I had the chance to work in a hospital and study and form a family. They gave us much material support. For those of us who left Chile during difficult times, there we were welcomed and supported.” Bachelet did not mention that at that same time, life for East Germans was very hard—for those who escaped prison or death. Indeed, her very leftist mother, Angela, in another interview, was candid enough to observe that the Chilean revolutionaries in general fared better there than ordinary Germans. Angela toughed it out in Germany for only two years, before leaping at an opportunity in Washington. (Many, many other “Red” refugees—discovering the harsh reality of Communism—bailed out from the Iron Curtain countries. Michelle evidently had no such qualms.)

It needs be remembered—although she waffles on this, as she does on so many other subjects—that Michelle did not have to live there. She had already settled in Australia, and Belgium had also offered her a visa. There is, in fact, no doubt that many other countries would have welcomed her—Canada, Sweden, Spain, France—as they did thousands of other Chilean revolutionaries.

Until her Christian Democrat partners gave her a tough ultimatum, she leaned toward throwing Chile’s support behind Hugo Chavez in the Venezuelan’s high-powered campaign last fall for the Latin American seat on the UN Security Council. Chavez has, of course, made U.S.-bashing the centerpiece of his oil-funded international style. Though forced to back off, Bachelet continues to make plain her affection for Chavez. Gravitating to the Soviet orbit was, in fact, doing what came naturally for a woman who, from her earliest days, was immersed in propaganda portraying the U.S. as evil and predatory, and who spent years in terrorist organizations dedicated to hating the U.S. and all it stood for. Some of that venom was bound to stick.

Fuente