Apple Cider Vinegar And Hpv In Men

presidentialism versus parliamentary government Fueguitos

Recently I was in a very interesting debate that took place in the faculty of law at the University of Buenos Aires between systems of government: The Presiencialismo as a guarantor of good governance (system currently in Argentina) and the parliamentary representation as a guarantor of the (current in Britain, Spain, etc..). The epicenter of the debate was to clarify what is the best system of government that would allow the best exercise of democracy in our country.

Before we get into it, I would like to highlight the main features of both systems.

presidentialism is a system where executive power lies with the president and Congress is where the weight of power that defines the power being run. The President, unless waived, must end its mandate given by the Constitution, has the power to veto congressional legislation and may order Necessity and Urgency Decrees (provisions similar to those laws.)

Moreover, the two-headed parliamentary government is a system where executive power is deposited in two: the Head of State who is in charge of diplomatic policies, you can call elections and figure is a rather formal and otherwise is the Head of Government which is responsible for government policy, must be a member of parliament and supported by the majority. No head of government plays a rigid mandate, but is subject to the decisions of parliament and possible vote of no confidence (you can remove him from a majority vote).

projects focused debate on whether we could perhaps save the parliamentary political crises (common in our country) and which of the two systems allows the best safeguard of democracy.

parliamentary supporters raised the need to reform our system hyper-presidenciacialista (there were exhibitors characterized our presidential figure as a constitutional monarch) established in the Constitution of 1853 and strengthened in the 1994 reform. Its foundations are in that practically in our system precidencialista no place for that in terms of Montesquieu, the power limits of power, because Congress has little power over the majestic power of the president Caesarian. Moreover, in this system is very difícli for negotiations and agreements since they have the power to corner his opponent wants to perpetuate itself in office. Consequently, it becomes very dificles design policies that exceed state government.

parliamentary advocates argued that this system allows greater consensus, better policies and a constant state parliamentary negotiations to ensure better representation of the concept of the general will roussonianio.

On the other hand, those who attacked the parliamentary system, they did not by its flaws (I think there are many) but thought it would not solve our deepest problems and justify their arguments based on constitutional reform of 1994 in which introduced some elements of parliamentarism as the Council of the Magistracy, the chief of staff and the vote of confidence in the chief of staff. However, none of the reforms to function fully and this is where the discussants raised before discussing ways of government is necessary to solve political problems inherent in our society as

1) The Public Control. There is no law on access to public information, the same as control are being controlled. Major corruption schemes that are not controlled.

2) Political parties have imploded in Argentina, have lost their identity and their structures are weak -> You can fall into warlordism and follow an individual and not a party, making it difficult to state policies .

3) political apathy in society. Increasingly less politically involved, there is less interest and more misinformation.

In conclusion, from my point of view, I must admit I am a supporter of the parliamentary system because I believe that ensures a better representation and greater control than presidentialism. However, I must admit I do not know whether to take the parliamentary system in the Argentina solve our political problems and issues I think are inherent in our society.

We must change the uses, but we must prevent abuses.

What system you like most? and Do you believe that parliamentary democracy can be applied in Argentina?

Greetings and I hope your comments,
Juan

Incesti Italiani Watch Online Ppv

"Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? Nature versus Nurture

Recently the Norwegian committee that awards the Nobel Prize winners awarded to President Barak Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize, saying it had promoted dialogue and nuclear disarmament. According to the testament left by Alfred Nobel, the prize is awarded "to the person who has worked harder or better for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the holding and promotion of peace processes" . Thus joins Muhammed Yunus (creator of the Graeme Bank), Mother Teresa, Oscar Arias (President of Costa Rica), Al Gore (former vice president of EEU and promoter of the fight against climate change) and Jimmy Carter , among others.



To try to raise a discussion I would assess the three criteria set, as Nobel, to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

First, Obama "has worked over or better for fraternity between nations?

From the moment he assumes his presidency, Obama proposes a policy of open dialogue with all nations. From Iraq to Venezuela (Two opponents of the U.S. under President Bush), Bush said that "closer your hand and his fist." It is really very positive that has adopted a policy diametrically opposed to that of his predecessor. However, I think it has been merely a wish and have not seen any dialogue concrete.

Second: Obama has abolished or reduced in standing armies?

There are a lot difference, but in general terms we can save 2 measurements taken as withdrawing troops from Iraq and the closure of the Guantanamo base. However, the base at Guantanamo continues to operate for lack of political decision where will the prisoners and the war in Iraq continues. Not to mention that recently has increased the number of troops in Afghanistan.

Finally: Have you celebrated and promoted the peace process?

This is a larger question and more difficult to answer. Obama's desire to sign several treaties with Russia India and the nuclear powers to disable nuclear weapons is a way to promote peace processes. Moreover, one of his greatest achievements has been the fruitful relationship with Latin America, as evidenced in the recent Summit of the Americas. However, How to increase military bases in Colombia can be considered a peace process?

In conclusion, like everything, there are many blacks and whites to analyze whether Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's definitely a premature decision (perhaps have been better give it to the end of his term) and his rhetoric represents the values \u200b\u200bof the prize, but his actions leave much to be desired.

I think the award was given not to Barack Obama, the man, but the ideal that Obama represents, to democracy, pluralistic dialogue and a policy diametrically opposed to George W. Bush. I sincerely hope you do well and prove himself worthy of the prize, as there are high hopes that when Obama leaves office, we live in a world more peaceful, secure and democratic place to live.

I welcome your comments,
Hugs, Juan