My Faculty

Never I had followed the questions one by one; I prefer to write in a free way. But, as Judy TOLD me do it as an obligation, I'm fucked.
1. The situation is a Faculty which has four degrees. A problem here is that one degree, Education, doesn't considerate is self as a social science. For that, have different opinions and points of view at the moment of to make political diagnostics and generate own positions related to the other degrees. The other degrees, that are Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology, are the rest of the Faculty. Also, and is the most important aspect, the current situation shows degrees without a definite orientation who, with the expansion of market, just follow it.
2. The things are needed to improve are new political-academics lines to re-structure the orientation of our disciplines, to start to finish the expansion of Market in the objectives of our sciences and to star to build public orientations: disciplines working at the service of the majorities of Chilean people and his main problems of inequality.
3. The first steps to dealing with this situation and to reach these objectives is to create a political force, among students and academics, who wants to revisit the abandoned project of Universidad de Chile as a public university at the service of Chile.
4. This situation only will be resolved only in the political dimension: by creating a new program to all the university, approved and supported by the high positions of the institution, who will re-structure all the degrees and faculties. That is to say, the problem exceeds this Faculty.
5. The real impact of these improvements (turnerd-from a big one political improvement) will and would be: (1) a more equality access to this University; (2) more autonomy and financing to the faculties and its investigations; (3) more activities and products to the civil society.
6. The steps are, first, to create a political force. After that, there will be two roads which have to be done: in one hand, an movement of construction of public activities, as free and alternative classes, forums, etc., to legitimate this idea; in the other hand, political pressing, as manifestations for example, to generate changes in the universitary policy.

A film

My movie -I mean it- is Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

The movie is the second part of a history about the wolrd’s end because the final judgment day. A North American company created a new technology who, after, was used by the military forces of USA; but one day this new developed programs and technology reached an autonomy which begun a conflict among humans and machines to have the control of the opponent and the existence. The story line, which is about science fiction and a typical North American movie of action and explosion, is basically an expression about the paradoxes modernity: in terms of alienation, of can it be -at extreme- the subordination of the human to the machine.

I like the movie because, contrary the opinion of a lot of people, is not only a movie of action made it fast. Out of the central problem who it illustrates about modernity, the film has an excellent photography and music. It is not a surprise that it is a classic.

The director was James Cameron. However, he is not so remembered: his last-name is not an idea that is around the collective imaginary of the film. Who reached fame, at contrary, was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who starred a robot of the future. Is he a good actor? I don´t think so, but almost we can say he was made to this movie.

He starred a robot who travel to past to save the main character, John Connor, from other robot who also traveled, but to kill him. Then, the film will be about a constant fight to change the present to build another future: or the machine´s domination over human, or the human emancipation to have another opportunity.

British mining company against Peru's protesters

Once more, a country from the central capitalism has a conflict with a country from the periferic capitalism, this once, England with a mining company against Peru with its people. It is not something new: it is a old story about how imperialist countries come to this region to have cheap work force and cheap natural resources. And it is not a story who has end, a story who only appear in history books from the pass: on the contrary, it is something that continue ocurring now, such as continue the capital's wars, the massacres in other places, etc.

In this particular case, the problem is between a British powerful mining company and alliances of poor subsistence farmers and environmentalists. Actually, this corportation is facing a multimillion demand about claim for damages to protesters, who where allegedly tortured by police that, they say, is directing by Monterrico Metals, owner of this company.

Its evidence is a Peruvian journalist who also was detained with the protesters, and who received a series of photographs from a Monterrico supervisor, who, apeearly, change of position and give photographies that took about police operation. That shows how much difficult is to know the true of this cases: naturalized, it is not of commun sense to thing that a Britih companie would do that; and only with this lucky case we can remember that, as it was in the pass, today this companies continue using illegal or legal methods to make its mainly objetive: the accumulation of capital.

Honduran

Honduran is now a in a conjucture very important because is actually a nodal point in the power relations of Latin America: after the dictadorships made in a lot of countries to resolve the problems of domination existing in the period of 70-80 years, the posterior process of political (not social) democratization of the region had not seen the appearence of new "coup d'etat" until now in this case, the case of Honduran.

In its origing, the conflict appeared by the existence of two antagonist proyects related to the gouvernment of Zelaya. This (ex) president wanted to center his political program tring to make a popular consult to creat a new constituional letter. Nevertheless, a lot of actors belonging to dominanting gruops and classes opposed to this project and created the bases to this new dictadorship.

Then, for one hand, there is a "international comunity" giving his support to the return of Zelaya (who went out of the country), and, for other hand, there is a gouverment of fact who wants to keep the class domination existing and is opossed to Zelaya's return.

What will happen in this Hounduran's cojunture? Actually, Micheletti (on the gouvernment's head) is giving more and more space (in front of national comunity) to the Zelaya's political return. Zelaya is already returned in the country, but he needs to return to political power to finish his proyect.

It is very interesting to think how will be the outcome: surely Zelaya will back to the gouvernment, but surely he will do it with a political restriction (imposed by dominating classes of Hunduran) to don't re-create his popular consult and other things related. ¿Will he returns in that conditions? ¿To what? Is something that will se in a few months.