TED TALKS-Kai-Fu Lee: How AI can save our humanity

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


TED2018 | April 2018


Kai-Fu Lee: How AI can save our humanity


AI is massively transforming our world, but there's one thing it cannot do: love. In a visionary talk, computer scientist Kai-Fu Lee details how the US and China are driving a deep learning revolution -- and shares a blueprint for how humans can thrive in the age of AI by harnessing compassion and creativity. "AI is serendipity," Lee says. "It is here to liberate us from routine jobs, and it is here to remind us what it is that makes us human."

Transcript:

I'm going to talk about how AI and mankind can coexist, but first, we have to rethink about our human values. So let me first make a confession about my errors in my values.
It was 11 o'clock, December 16, 1991. I was about to become a father for the first time. My wife, Shen-Ling, lay in the hospital bed going through a very difficult 12-hour labor. I sat by her bedside but looked anxiously at my watch, and I knew something that she didn't. I knew that if in one hour, our child didn't come, I was going to leave her there and go back to work and make a presentation about AI to my boss, Apple's CEO. Fortunately, my daughter was born at 11:30 --
sparing me from doing the unthinkable, and to this day, I am so sorry for letting my work ethic take precedence over love for my family.
My AI talk, however, went off brilliantly.
Apple loved my work and decided to announce it at TED1992, 26 years ago on this very stage. I thought I had made one of the biggest, most important discoveries in AI, and so did the "Wall Street Journal" on the following day.
But as far as discoveries went, it turned out, I didn't discover India, or America. Perhaps I discovered a little island off of Portugal. But the AI era of discovery continued, and more scientists poured their souls into it. About 10 years ago, the grand AI discovery was made by three North American scientists, and it's known as deep learning.
Deep learning is a technology that can take a huge amount of data within one single domain and learn to predict or decide at superhuman accuracy. For example, if we show the deep learning network a massive number of food photos, it can recognize food such as hot dog or no hot dog.
Or if we show it many pictures and videos and sensor data from driving on the highway, it can actually drive a car as well as a human being on the highway. And what if we showed this deep learning network all the speeches made by President Trump? Then this artificially intelligent President Trump, actually the network --
can --
You like double oxymorons, huh?
So this network, if given the request to make a speech about AI, he, or it, might say --
(Recording) Donald Trump: It's a great thing to build a better world with artificial intelligence.
Kai-Fu Lee: And maybe in another language?
DT: (Speaking Chinese)
KFL: You didn't know he knew Chinese, did you?
So deep learning has become the core in the era of AI discovery, and that's led by the US. But we're now in the era of implementation, where what really matters is execution, product quality, speed and data. And that's where China comes in. Chinese entrepreneurs, who I fund as a venture capitalist, are incredible workers, amazing work ethic. My example in the delivery room is nothing compared to how hard people work in China. As an example, one startup tried to claim work-life balance: "Come work for us because we are 996." And what does that mean? It means the work hours of 9am to 9pm, six days a week. That's contrasted with other startups that do 997.
And the Chinese product quality has consistently gone up in the past decade, and that's because of a fiercely competitive environment. In Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs compete in a very gentlemanly fashion, sort of like in old wars in which each side took turns to fire at each other.
But in the Chinese environment, it's truly a gladiatorial fight to the death. In such a brutal environment, entrepreneurs learn to grow very rapidly, they learn to make their products better at lightning speed, and they learn to hone their business models until they're impregnable. As a result, great Chinese products like WeChat and Weibo are arguably better than the equivalent American products from Facebook and Twitter.
And the Chinese market embraces this change and accelerated change and paradigm shifts. As an example, if any of you go to China, you will see it's almost cashless and credit card-less, because that thing that we all talk about, mobile payment, has become the reality in China. In the last year, 18.8 trillion US dollars were transacted on mobile internet, and that's because of very robust technologies built behind it. It's even bigger than the China GDP. And this technology, you can say, how can it be bigger than the GDP? Because it includes all transactions: wholesale, channels, retail, online, offline, going into a shopping mall or going into a farmers market like this. The technology is used by 700 million people to pay each other, not just merchants, so it's peer to peer, and it's almost transaction-fee-free. And it's instantaneous, and it's used everywhere. And finally, the China market is enormous. This market is large, which helps give entrepreneurs more users, more revenue, more investment, but most importantly, it gives the entrepreneurs a chance to collect a huge amount of data which becomes rocket fuel for the AI engine. So as a result, the Chinese AI companies have leaped ahead so that today, the most valuable companies in computer vision, speech recognition, speech synthesis, machine translation and drones are all Chinese companies.
So with the US leading the era of discovery and China leading the era of implementation, we are now in an amazing age where the dual engine of the two superpowers are working together to drive the fastest revolution in technology that we have ever seen as humans. And this will bring tremendous wealth, unprecedented wealth: 16 trillion dollars, according to PwC, in terms of added GDP to the worldwide GDP by 2030. It will also bring immense challenges in terms of potential job replacements. Whereas in the Industrial Age it created more jobs because craftsman jobs were being decomposed into jobs in the assembly line, so more jobs were created. But AI completely replaces the individual jobs in the assembly line with robots. And it's not just in factories, but truckers, drivers and even jobs like telesales, customer service and hematologists as well as radiologists over the next 15 years are going to be gradually replaced by artificial intelligence. And only the creative jobs --
I have to make myself safe, right? Really, the creative jobs are the ones that are protected, because AI can optimize but not create.
But what's more serious than the loss of jobs is the loss of meaning, because the work ethic in the Industrial Age has brainwashed us into thinking that work is the reason we exist, that work defined the meaning of our lives. And I was a prime and willing victim to that type of workaholic thinking. I worked incredibly hard. That's why I almost left my wife in the delivery room, that's why I worked 996 alongside my entrepreneurs. And that obsession that I had with work ended abruptly a few years ago when I was diagnosed with fourth stage lymphoma. The PET scan here shows over 20 malignant tumors jumping out like fireballs, melting away my ambition. But more importantly, it helped me reexamine my life. Knowing that I may only have a few months to live caused me to see how foolish it was for me to base my entire self-worth on how hard I worked and the accomplishments from hard work. My priorities were completely out of order. I neglected my family. My father had passed away, and I never had a chance to tell him I loved him. My mother had dementia and no longer recognized me, and my children had grown up.
During my chemotherapy, I read a book by Bronnie Ware who talked about dying wishes and regrets of the people in the deathbed. She found that facing death, nobody regretted that they didn't work hard enough in this life. They only regretted that they didn't spend enough time with their loved ones and that they didn't spread their love.
So I am fortunately today in remission.
So I can be back at TED again to share with you that I have changed my ways. I now only work 965 -- occasionally 996, but usually 965. I moved closer to my mother, my wife usually travels with me, and when my kids have vacation, if they don't come home, I go to them. So it's a new form of life that helped me recognize how important it is that love is for me, and facing death helped me change my life, but it also helped me see a new way of how AI should impact mankind and work and coexist with mankind, that really, AI is taking away a lot of routine jobs, but routine jobs are not what we're about.
Why we exist is love. When we hold our newborn baby, love at first sight, or when we help someone in need, humans are uniquely able to give and receive love, and that's what differentiates us from AI.
Despite what science fiction may portray, I can responsibly tell you that AI has no love. When AlphaGo defeated the world champion Ke Jie, while Ke Jie was crying and loving the game of go, AlphaGo felt no happiness from winning and certainly no desire to hug a loved one.
So how do we differentiate ourselves as humans in the age of AI? We talked about the axis of creativity, and certainly that is one possibility, and now we introduce a new axis that we can call compassion, love, or empathy. Those are things that AI cannot do. So as AI takes away the routine jobs, I like to think we can, we should and we must create jobs of compassion. You might ask how many of those there are, but I would ask you: Do you not think that we are going to need a lot of social workers to help us make this transition? Do you not think we need a lot of compassionate caregivers to give more medical care to more people? Do you not think we're going to need 10 times more teachers to help our children find their way to survive and thrive in this brave new world? And with all the newfound wealth, should we not also make labors of love into careers and let elderly accompaniment or homeschooling become careers also?
This graph is surely not perfect, but it points at four ways that we can work with AI. AI will come and take away the routine jobs and in due time, we will be thankful. AI will become great tools for the creatives so that scientists, artists, musicians and writers can be even more creative. AI will work with humans as analytical tools that humans can wrap their warmth around for the high-compassion jobs. And we can always differentiate ourselves with the uniquely capable jobs that are both compassionate and creative, using and leveraging our irreplaceable brains and hearts. So there you have it: a blueprint of coexistence for humans and AI.
AI is serendipity. It is here to liberate us from routine jobs, and it is here to remind us what it is that makes us human. So let us choose to embrace AI and to love one another.Thank you.

Source:www.ted.com

TED TALKS-Tina Seelig: The little risks you can take to increase your luck

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


TED Salon Brightline | June 2018


Tina Seelig: The little risks you can take to increase your luck


Luck is rarely a lightning strike, isolated and dramatic -- it's much more like the wind, blowing constantly. Catching more of it is easy but not obvious. In this insightful talk, Stanford engineering school professor Tina Seelig shares three unexpected ways to increase your luck -- and your ability to see and seize opportunities.

Transcript:


I've spent nearly two decades observing what makes people luckier than others and trying to help people increase their luck. You see, I teach entrepreneurship, and we all know that most new ventures fail, and innovators and entrepreneurs need all the luck they can get.
So what is luck? Luck is defined as success or failure apparently caused by chance. Apparently. That's the operative word. It looks like it's chance because we rarely see all the levers that come into play to make people lucky. But I've realized, by watching so long, that luck is rarely a lightning strike, isolated and dramatic. It's much more like the wind, blowing constantly. Sometimes it's calm, and sometimes it blows in gusts, and sometimes it comes from directions that you didn't even imagine.
So how do you catch the winds of luck? It's easy, but it's not obvious. So I'm going to share three things with you that you can do to build a sail to capture the winds of luck. The first thing you want to do is to change your relationship with yourself. Be willing to take small risks that get you out of your comfort zone. Now, when we're children, we do this all the time. We have to do this if we're going to learn how to walk or talk or ride a bike or even quantum mechanics. Right? We need to go from someone one week who doesn't ride a bike to, next week, someone who does. And this requires us to get out of our comfort zone and take some risks. The problem is, as we get older, we rarely do this. We sort of lock down the sense of who we are and don't stretch anymore.
Now, with my students, I spend a lot of time giving them encouragement to get out of their comfort zone and take some risks. How do I do this? Well, I start out by having them fill out a risk-o-meter. Now, it's basically a fun thing we developed in our class where they map out what risks they're willing to take. And it becomes clear very quickly to them that risk-taking is not binary. There are intellectual risks and physical risks and financial risks and emotional risks and social risks and ethical risks and political risks. And once they do this, they compare their risk profiles with others, and they quickly realize that they're all really different.
I then encourage them to stretch, to take some risks that get them out of their comfort zone. For example, I might ask them to do an intellectual risk and try to tackle a problem they haven't tried before; or a social risk, talking to someone sitting next to them on the train; or an emotional risk, maybe telling someone they really care about how they feel.
I do this myself all the time. About a dozen years ago, I was on an airplane, early, early morning flight on my way to Ecuador. And normally, I would just put on my headphones and go to sleep, wake up, do some work, but I decided to take a little risk, and I started a conversation with the man sitting next to me. I introduced myself, and I learned that he was a publisher. Interesting. We ended up having a fascinating conversation. I learned all about the future of the publishing industry. So about three quarters of the way through the flight, I decided to take another risk, and I opened up my laptop and I shared with him a book proposal I put together for something I was doing in my class. And he was very polite, he read it, and he said, "You know what, Tina, this isn't right for us, but thank you so much for sharing." It's OK. That risk didn't work out. I shut my laptop. At the end of the flight, we exchanged contact information.
A couple of months later, I reached out to him, and I said, "Mark, would you like to come to my class? I'm doing a project on reinventing the book, the future of publishing." And he said, "Great. I'd love to come." So he came to my class. We had a great experience.
A few months later, I wrote to him again. This time, I sent him a bunch of video clips from another project my students had done. He was so intrigued by one of the projects the students had done, he thought there might be a book in it, and he wanted to meet those students.
I have to tell you, I was a little bit hurt.
I mean, he wanted to do a book with my students and not with me, but OK, it's all right. So I invited him to come down, and he and his colleagues came to Stanford and met with the students, and afterwards, we had lunch together. And one of his editors said to me, "Hey, have you ever considered writing a book?"
I said, "Funny you should ask." And I pulled out the exact same proposal that I had showed his boss a year earlier. Within two weeks, I had a contract, and within two years, the book had sold over a million copies around the world.
Now, you might say, "Oh, you're so lucky." But of course I was lucky, but that luck resulted from a series of small risks I took, starting with saying hello. And anyone can do this, no matter where you are in your life, no matter where you are in the world -- even if you think you're the most unlucky person, you can do this by taking little risks that get you out of your comfort zone. You start building a sail to capture luck.
The second thing you want to do is to change your relationship with other people. You need to understand that everyone who helps you on your journey is playing a huge role in getting you to your goals. And if you don't show appreciation, not only are you not closing the loop, but you're missing an opportunity. When someone does something for you, they're taking that time that they could be spending on themselves or someone else, and you need to acknowledge what they're doing.
Now, I run three fellowship programs at Stanford, and they are very competitive to get into, and when I send out the letters to those students who don't get in, I always know there are going to be people who are disappointed. Some of the people who are disappointed send me notes, complaining. Some of them send notes saying what could I do to make myself more successful next time around? And every once in a while, someone sends me a note thanking me for the opportunity.
This happened about seven years ago. A young man named Brian sent me a beautiful note saying, "I know I've been rejected from this program twice, but I want to thank you for the opportunity. I learned so much through the process of applying."
I was so taken by the graciousness of his message that I invited him to come and meet me. And we spent some time chatting and cooked up an idea for an independent study project together. He was on the football team at Stanford, and he decided to do a project on looking at leadership in that context. We got to know each other incredibly well through that quarter, and he took the project that he started working on in the independent study and turned it, ultimately, into a company called Play for Tomorrow, where he teaches kids from disadvantaged backgrounds how to, essentially, craft the lives they dream to live.
Now, the important thing about this story is that we both ended up catching the winds of luck as a result of his thank-you note. But it was the winds that we didn't expect in the first place.
Over the course of the last couple of years, I've come up with some tactics for my own life to help me really foster appreciation. My favorite is that at the end of every single day, I look at my calendar and I review all the people I met with, and I send thank-you notes to every single person. It only takes a few minutes, but at the end of every day, I feel incredibly grateful and appreciative, and I promise you it has increased my luck.
So first, you need to take some risks and get out of your comfort zone. Second, you need to show appreciation. And third, you want to change your relationship with ideas. Most people look at new ideas that come there way and they judge them. "That's a great idea" or "That's a terrible idea." But it's actually much more nuanced. Ideas are neither good or bad. And in fact, the seeds of terrible ideas are often something truly remarkable.
One of my favorite exercises in my classes on creativity is to help students foster an attitude of looking at terrible ideas through the lens of possibilities. So I give them a challenge: to create an idea for a brand new restaurant. They have to come up with the best ideas for a new restaurant and the worst ideas for a new restaurant. So the best ideas are things like a restaurant on a mountaintop with a beautiful sunset, or a restaurant on a boat with a gorgeous view. And the terrible ideas are things like a restaurant in a garbage dump, or a restaurant with terrible service that's really dirty, or a restaurant that serves cockroach sushi.
So they hand all the ideas to me, I read the great ideas out loud, and then I rip them up and throw them away. I then take the horrible ideas and redistribute them. Each team now has an idea that another team thought was horrible, and their challenge is to turn it into something brilliant.
Here's what happens. Within about 10 seconds, someone says, "This is a fabulous idea." And they have about three minutes before they pitch the idea to the class. So the restaurant in the garbage dump? What does that turn into? Well, they collect all the extra food from Michelin star restaurants that was going to get thrown out, and they have another restaurant at a much lower price, with all the leftovers. Pretty cool? Or the restaurant that's dirty with terrible service? Well, that turns into a restaurant that's a training ground for future restauranteurs to figure out how to avoid all the pitfalls. And the restaurant with cockroach sushi? It turns into a sushi bar with all sorts of really interesting and exotic ingredients.
If you look around at the companies, the ventures that are really innovative around you, the ones that we now take for granted that have changed our life, well, you know what? They all started out as crazy ideas. They started ideas that when they pitched to other people, most people said, "That's crazy, it will never work."
So, yes, sometimes people were born into terrible circumstances, and sometimes, luck is a lightning bolt that hits us with something wonderful or something terrible. But the winds of luck are always there, and if you're willing to take some risks, if you're willing to really go out and show appreciation and willing to really look at ideas, even if they're crazy, through the lens of possibilities, you can build a bigger and bigger sail to catch the winds of luck.Thank you.



Source:www.ted.com

R.I.P.: 16-08-2018-Aretha Franklin

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



Aretha Franklin

(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman


Kennedy Center Honors 2015

Published on Dec 30, 2015


Full segment of Aretha Franklin (You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman - Kennedy Center Honors 2015.

Chilina Kennedy, plays Carole King in Beautiful, the musical, introduces Aretha.






Lyrics:

A Natural Woman

Aretha Franklin

Looking out on the morning rain (a-ooh)
I used to feel uninspired (a-ooh)
And when I knew I had to face another day (a-ooh)
Lord, it made me feel so tired

Before the day I met you
Life was so unkind
But you're the key to peace my mind

'Cause you make me feel
You make me feel
You make me feel like a natural woman (woman)

When my soul was in the lost-and-found
You came along to claim it
I didn't know just what was wrong with me
Till your kiss helped me name it

Now I'm no longer doubtful
Of what I'm living for
And if I make you happy I don't need to do more

'Cause you make me feel
You make me feel
You make me feel like a natural woman (woman)

Oh, baby, what you've done to me? (What you've done to me?)
You make me feel so good inside (good inside)
And I just wanna be (wanna be)
Close to you, you make me feel so alive

You make me feel
You make me feel
You make me feel like a natural woman (woman)
You make me feel
You make me feel
You make me feel like a natural woman (woman)

You make me feel
You make me feel







Aretha Franklin 

 I say a little prayer 

Live HQ 1970


Published on Nov 23, 2011


« "I Say a Little Prayer" is a song written by songwriters Burt Bacharach and Hal David for Dionne Warwick, originally peaking at number four on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 pop singles chart in December 1967.

"I Say a Little Prayer" also returned to the Pop & R&B Top Ten in the fall of 1968 via a recording by Aretha Franklin taken from her 1968 Aretha Now album; Franklin and her backup singers the Sweet Inspirations were singing the song for fun while rehearsing the songs intended for the album and the viability of Franklin actually recording "I Say a Little Prayer" became apparent. Franklin's version was intended as the B-side of the July 1968 single release "The House that Jack Built" but began to accrue its own airplay that August. »


« Aretha Louise Franklin (born March 25, 1942) is an American singer, songwriter, and pianist. Although known for her soul recordings and referred to as The Queen of Soul, Franklin is also adept at jazz, blues, R&B, gospel music, and rock. Rolling Stone magazine ranked her atop its list of The Greatest Singers of All Time as well as the ninth greatest artist of all time. She has won 18 competitive Grammys and two honorary Grammys. She has 20 No.1 singles on the Billboard R&B Singles Chart and two No.1 hits on the Billboard Hot 100: "Respect" (1967) and "I Knew You Were Waiting (For Me)" (1987), a duet with George Michael. Since 1961, she has scored a total of 45 Top 40 hits on the Billboard Hot 100. She also has the most million-selling singles (14) of any female artist. Between 1967 and 1982 she had 10 No.1 R&B albums—more than any other female artist.










Lyrics:



[Verse 1]

(I say a little prayer for you)
The moment I wake up
Before I put on my makeup (makeup)
I say a little (prayer for you)
And while I'm combing my hair now
And wondering what dress to wear now (wear now)
I say a little (prayer for you)

[Chorus]

(Forever) Forever (and ever) yeah
(You'll stay in my heart and I will love you)
(Forever) Forever (and ever) ever
(We never will part, oh, how I love you)
(Together) Together (together) together
(That's how it must be to live without you)
(Would only mean heartbreak for me)

[Verse 2]

I run for the bus, dear
And while riding I think of us, dear (us, dear)
I say a little (prayer for you)
And at work I just take time
And all through my coffee break time (break time)
I say a little (prayer for you)

[Chorus]

(Forever) Forever (and ever) and ever
(You'll stay in my heart and I will love you)
(Forever) Forever (and ever) and ever
(We never will part, oh, how I love you)
(Together) together (together) together
(That's how it must be to live without you)
(Would only mean heartbreak for me)
Nobody but me

[Chorus]

(Forever) Forever (and ever) ever
(You'll stay in my heart and I will love you)
(Forever) Forever (and ever) ever
(We never will part, oh, how I love you)
(Together) together (together) together
(That's how it must be to live without you)
(Would only mean heartbreak for me)

[Bridge]

My darling, believe me (believe me)
For me there is no one but you
Please love me true
I'm in love with you (Answer my prayer)
Answer my prayer, baby (Answer my prayer)
Say you'll love me true (Answer my prayer)
Answer my prayer, baby (Answer my prayer)

[Chorus]

(Forever) Forever (and ever) ever
(You'll stay in my heart and I will love you) Ever
(Forever) Forever (and ever) ever
(We never will part, oh, how I love you)
(Together) together (together) together
(That's how it must be to live without you)
(Would only mean heartbreak for me)
Oh, nobody but me

[Bridge]

My darling, believe me (Believe me)
For me there is no one but you
Please love me true

[Outro]

This is my prayer (Answer my prayer)
Answer my prayer now, baby (Answer my prayer, baby)
This is my prayer (Answer my prayer, baby)
Answer it right now, baby (Answer my prayer, baby)
Say you'll love me true (Answer my prayer, baby)
This is my prayer, baby (Answer my prayer, baby)
I'm in love with you (Answer my prayer)





Source:www.youtube.com/www.https://genius.com

OPINIÓN | EDITORIAL-El día después

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


OPINIÓN | EDITORIAL

El día después

Luego del tratamiento parlamentario del aborto, tenemos que esforzarnos para arribar a consensos amplios que protejan el derecho a vivir de todos por igual

10 de Agosto de 2018

El rechazo por parte del Senado del proyecto de legalización del aborto debe servirnos para encauzar el debate, para darnos el tiempo necesario de análisis y reflexión que nos conduzca a acercar posiciones.

Ha sido, sin duda, un debate histórico por varios motivos. Por un lado, porque hemos dado muestras de que podemos discutir aun en la diferencia y aceptar los resultados aun en la diversidad. Ciertamente, no ha sido un camino llano, pero hemos podido transitarlo y aquí estamos frente a otra oportunidad histórica: la de procurar una convergencia que no solo se centre en la instancia final de una problemática de vieja data, sino que nos ponga a la cabeza de una discusión en serio sobre cuáles son las políticas de Estado que debemos pensar y ejecutar para que no tengamos que llegar al fin del camino de manera trágica.


En las últimas horas se ha criticado al actual gobierno por no haber impulsado y gestionado con la fuerza, continuidad y ejecución presupuestaria que merecen las políticas vinculadas a la necesidad de promover la educación sexual, atender más y mejor la cuestión de los embarazos no deseados en adolescentes, prevenir situaciones de violencia sexual y atender debidamente a quienes han pasado por el drama del aborto.

El propio Gobierno admite ahora que potenciará programas de prevención en esos asuntos, entre tantos otros en los que el Estado debe ser referencia y garantía de que todos los ciudadanos tendrán la posibilidad de contar con los conocimientos, cuidados y tratamientos que demanda una cuestión tan delicada como la protección del derecho a la vida de todas las personas por igual.

Pero sería injusto caer con todo el peso de la crítica sobre las actuales autoridades. Hasta que el Presidente no habilitó la discusión del aborto entre sus socios políticos, durante decenas de años ese tema fue tabú en nuestra sociedad y, por serlo, se descuidaron -cuando no se menospreciaron- instancias previas en todos los niveles de protección de la mujer y del bebe por nacer.

Muchísimos de los legisladores que debieron votar sobre este asunto dieron fe de lo poco que conocían del tema y de la violencia personal que les significaba a unos dejar sentado que una persona tenga poder sobre la vida de otras, y a otros, precisamente lo contrario. En el fragor de la discusión se barajaron cifras sin ningún asidero, se tergiversaron datos científicos, se infiltraron intereses económicos internos y externos, y se bastardearon doctrinas y jurisprudencias. Se juzgaron, incluso, creencias religiosas y se proyectaron soluciones leoninas. Faltó evaluación responsable y razonabilidad programática presupuestaria.

Fue lamentable, incluso, que algunos funcionarios tomaran partido en algo en que, como se vio, la sociedad está completamente dividida. Qué decir si ese funcionario es el ministro de Salud de la Nación, quien debe obrar pensando en el conjunto de la sociedad, no en las demandas de una sola de las partes.

Estado, organizaciones civiles que tanto y tan bien han venido trabajando en esta problemática y otras entidades del ámbito privado tienen mucho para conversar. Hoy es el día después o el primer día, según cómo se lo quiera ver. El día después de un tratamiento apresurado, desprolijo, y por momentos caótico y violento, como los pocos pero condenables actos de vandalismos contra algunas iglesias. O el primer día o la antesala de un gran acuerdo que nos permita, sin abismos ni callejones sin salida, llegar a instancias superadoras que permitan atender de manera adecuada una situación social extremadamente sensible.

En los próximos días, el Poder Ejecutivo ingresará en el Congreso un anteproyecto de reforma del Código Penal, en el que ha venido trabajando un grupo de expertos desde hace varios meses. El tema de la despenalización del aborto volverá a ser debatido como parte de esa reforma integral. Pero, insistimos, se trata del final del camino. Antes, debemos ocuparnos de promover políticas eficaces y mecanismos eficientes para coordinar la atención de la vulnerabilidad de la mujer embarazada, fortaleciendo su integración social, acelerando los mecanismos para la adopción, educando para el futuro y para la vida: derecho humano fundamental.

Será necesario que actuemos como conjunto, como una sociedad donde hay personas que piensan distinto, pero que no son enemigas, y que se deje de lado cualquier relativismo moral. Adherimos a los conceptos de la Comisión Ejecutiva de la Conferencia Episcopal Argentina vertidos ayer: "Nos toca ahora asumir y trabajar las nuevas divisiones surgidas entre nosotros a partir de este proyecto, a través de un renovado ejercicio del diálogo". A lo que agregamos nuestra esperanza de profundizar los esfuerzos tendientes a hallar esos acuerdos básicos que tornen posible la mejor de las soluciones.




Fuente:www.lanacion.com.ar

OPINIÓN-Quién ganó y quién perdió en el debate sobre el aborto,por Ricardo Romano

The following information is used for educational purposes only.


OPINIÓN

Quién ganó y quién perdió en el debate sobre el aborto

Por Ricardo Romano

9 de Agosto de 2018


"No dé usted por muerta a la República Argentina; Dios es grande y el hombre es inagotable" (J.B.Alberdi)


En su libro La Civilización puesta a prueba, el historiador Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) predijo que las principales disputas que se suscitarían en el mundo serían de carácter espiritual. Destaca que el mecanismo de incitación y respuesta es lo que mantiene vivas a las civilizaciones y pone el ejemplo del Fausto de Goethe en el que Mefistófeles desafía a Dios, después de que éste ya había creado todo, y donde Dios cavila pues piensa que, de aceptar el desafío, puede reconocerse de hecho la existencia del mal, pero que si no lo acepta puede sospecharse que es por debilidad.

Finalmente Dios acepta el desafío y lo vence.

Este mecanismo de incitación (Mefistófeles) y respuesta (Dios) es lo que Toynbee afirma que mantiene viva a las civilizaciones. Y si hay un hecho que puso de manifiesto lo providencial del pensamiento de este historiador es lo sucedido en las últimas semanas en nuestro país, donde el sistema de poder mundial desafió a nuestra raíz cultural fundante y se chocó con la Argentina.

(Martín Rosenzveig)

¿Quiénes ganaron y quiénes perdieron en este choque?

Perdieron, en primer lugar, todos aquellos que quisieron reivindicar el aborto como un derecho, mientras suponían que el derecho a la vida, en lugar de ser defendido, debía ser sometido a debate en nombre de la democracia.

Perdió la gran mayoría de los Organismos Multilaterales de Crédito que sostenían políticas de control de la natalidad en países con grandes recursos naturales no renovables y poco desarrollo (Protocolo Kissinger-Mac Namara), Fundaciones como la IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation), denunciada por el Congreso de EEUU por tráfico de órganos y tejidos de bebés abortados, Fundaciones como la de Soros, la de Bill Gates, la de Rockefeller o la Ford, la ONU, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (Sic), GreenPeace, Hollywood y gobiernos de países que financiaron estas políticas en grado tal que hasta organizaron un "aguante" en las principales capitales del mundo, desde Londres hasta San Pablo, y hasta financiaron la contratapa del New York Times con notas e imágenes a favor del aborto.

También Amnesty International y su filial argentina; también el CELS (Verbitsky) y otros organismos de derechos humanos -por acción u omisión-, y todas las terminales y monopolios mediáticos de Freedom House en el país, que tergiversaron cifras y mintieron descaradamente pintados de "verde", color con el que la oligarquía malthusiana identifica las políticas que tienen por objeto desnaturalizar a la especie humana como raza.

Perdió la ideología de la eugenesia social que, escudada en una falsa compasión, no encuentra mejor "solución" a la pobreza que eliminar a los niños pobres en el vientre de sus madres.

(Nicolás Stulberg)

Perdió también la clase "tilinga"; perdió el "duranbarbismo" y perdieron los legisladores que, producto de su relativismo, escepticismo o individualismo, vendieron sus convicciones por promesas de protagonismo mediático para futuras candidaturas o apoyos financieros para engrosar "las matemáticas de su egoísmo" (J.V.Gonzalez).

¿Y quiénes ganaron? La Argentina profunda, la Fe del pueblo que a través de sus Iglesias movilizó millones de personas en todo el país, en todas las provincias y en numerosas ciudades. La Academia Nacional de Medicina que fundamentó científicamente que hay vida desde la concepción. La Academia Nacional de Derecho y el Colegio Público de Abogados que argumentaron el carácter inconstitucional del aborto ya que nuestro ordenamiento jurídico está estructurado para tutelar la vida desde la concepción.

(Nicolás Aboaf)

Ganaron la ciencia y la fe, ya que en esto van de la mano, más allá de los esfuerzos de algunos por cavar una grieta entre ellas.

Ganaron los legisladores que no renunciaron a defender valores; y los periodistas que, en franca minoría, no se amedrentaron ante nada en defensa de la verdad.

Los curas villeros, que comparten cotidianamente el destino de las mujeres más pobres.

Los artistas, intelectuales y dirigentes políticos y sociales que 

dieron plafón a la vida aun frente a la descomunal ola mediática en 

radios, diarios y televisión, donde se promovía que matar 

argentinos por nacer significaba dar nuevos derechos a la mujer.

Ganó la profesión médica, a la que se quiso desvirtuar en su 

esencia y misión.

Ganó la Argentina profunda, la que no reniega de sus raíces para 

plegarse a las modas y a la corrección política.

Ganaron los que, como el diputado Luis Contigiani, sufrieron 

persecución por ser consecuentes con sus ideas.

Ganaron también algunos de los portales más visitados en la web 

porque habilitaron la expresión de la diversidad de ideas.

Finalmente, "ganó" Mauricio Macri, porque la responsabilidad de 

los Senadores que inclinaron la balanza en defensa de la vida lo 

exceptuó de que quedase en evidencia que el veto

que utilizó para defender su política tarifaria o para habilitar a su 

familia y a sus ministros a beneficiarse del blanqueo, pasando por 

encima de la ley votada por ambas Cámaras del Congreso, no lo 

iba a utilizar para defender un valor supremo: la vida de la persona 

humana.




El autor es dirigente justicialista; ex Subsecretario general de la Presidencia y ex vicepresidente de la Internacional Demócrata de Centro (IDC)



Fuente:https://www.infobae.com/opinion/2018/08/09/quien-gano-y-quien-perdio/

Debate por el aborto-Video de la estudiante Guadalupe Batallán

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

                         Debate por el aborto

         Video de la estudiante Guadalupe Batallán









Claridad,realidad,simpleza,VERDAD en las palabras; no se 

necesita nada más.

Un gran reconocimiento a Guadalupe por su firme, 

contundente y, a la vez, serena presentación.

¡Cuántos más jóvenes como Guadalupe, adultos y personas 

de todas las edades, necesitamos si Honestamente 

queremos un país y un mundo mejor!

Tomemos la responsabilidad, embarquémonos en la tarea 

de defender a los que no tienen voz, a los débiles, pobres, 

excluídos y pidamos, exijamos a la dirigencia en general

que asuma la responsabilidad y ponga el esfuerzo y 

empeño con la convicción y fuerza requeridas, para 

lograr mejores y duraderas oportunidades

para todos los habitantes de nuestra querida nación, 

especialmente para aquellos que son más vulnerables.

TODOS debemos participar-aún desde los lugares más 

pequeños o roles no tan visibles-y efectivamente colaborar 

para que así suceda. C.M.

Fuente:www.youtube.com/Google Images/Palabras de Clara Moras.

OPINIÓN-Desafíos mafiosos al Gobierno

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

OPINIÓN

Desafíos mafiosos al Gobierno

La negativa de líderes sindicales a acatar las conciliaciones obligatorias del Ministerio de Trabajo viola la ley y apunta a crear una atmósfera proclive al caos.

Moyano y Baradel, unidos por el patoterismo y el desafío a la legalidad Fuente: LA NACION

4 de Agosto de 2018

No es extraño que, a medida que crece el cerco judicial que lo compromete cada vez más, Hugo Moyano redoble su apuesta y extreme su enfrentamiento con el Gobierno, al que acusa de haber montado en su contra una persecución política y de hostigarlo para asustar a los otros gremios.

Como es bien sabido por el abuso que se ha hecho del término, son muchos los que esgrimen ser víctimas de una "persecución política" para disimular que quien en realidad los persigue no es la política sino la Justicia con el peso de las pruebas con que cuenta.

La actitud desafiante y patoteril del clan Moyano también se aprecia en su absoluto desprecio por la legalidad y las normas, por ejemplo, al desacatar la conciliación obligatoria. Por desgracia, idéntica actitud es asumida por otros gremios.

Cuando, recientemente, el Ministerio de Trabajo aplicó al gremio de los camioneros una multa millonaria por no haber cumplido una conciliación obligatoria que instaba al sindicato a suspender una huelga, Moyano rechazó pagarla. Paralelamente, la Comisión Nacional de Regulación del Transporte (CNRT) aplicó una multa a la Obra Social de Camioneros (Oschoca) debido a irregularidades registradas en los exámenes psicofísicos a los que deben someterse los choferes para obtener su habilitación.

La diputada Graciela Ocaña (Cambiemos) ha denunciado con valentía que Moyano desvía fondos de la salud de los trabajadores del gremio a empresas de su esposa, Liliana Zulet, que son grandes proveedoras de Oschoca, en particular Iarai SA, que operaría como empresa gerenciadora.

Moyano se ha propuesto no pagar la multa del Ministerio de Trabajo y apelarla, cuando el procedimiento debe ser el inverso: primero pagar y luego apelar. "Si se llevan todo ese dinero, nos quiebran la obra social. Voy a llevar a todos los enfermos a la puerta del ministerio para ver si los atiende [el ministro de Trabajo, Jorge] Triaca", amenazó el jerarca sindical, tal vez sin tener muy presente que la crítica situación económica de Oschoca viene de antes, ni los enormes costos que al país le generan sus medidas de fuerza.

La multa es consecuencia de otra grave actitud de Moyano, como fue desconocer la conciliación obligatoria. Como en tantos otros órdenes, se podrá estar o no de acuerdo con lo que resuelven los funcionarios, pero un principio básico de la vida en democracia es respetar las normas y no alzarse contra ellas. Como sostuvo Triaca, nadie está por encima de la ley, "ni Moyano ni ningún otro". "Acá no hay espacio para la impunidad ni para que ninguno se pueda llevar las cosas por delante", dijo.

Ante la negativa a pagar la multa, la cartera de Triaca solicitó a la Justicia laboral el embargo preventivo de las cuentas del gremio de los camioneros, que se concretó por 809.790.000 pesos más 242.937.000 de intereses.

Algo similar ocurrió luego de que el Sindicato Unificado de Trabajadores de la Educación de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (Suteba) no acatara la conciliación obligatoria del Ministerio de Trabajo y realizase un paro de 48 horas en la educación. Ese ministerio dispuso una multa al gremio de 659 millones de pesos. El titular de Suteba, Roberto Baradel, calificó la multa de "extorsión".

La ley prohíbe que los gremios hagan medidas de fuerza durante el plazo que fija una conciliación obligatoria dictada por el ministerio, y ante incumplimientos prevé sanciones económicas.

No escapa a los observadores imparciales el hecho de que detrás de estos alzamientos sindicales pueda esconderse la voluntad de preparar el camino para sembrar el caos. Los sindicatos apelarán las multas -Camioneros ya lo hizo-, pero es de esperar que la Justicia, cuando finalmente falle, consagre el criterio que autoriza al Ministerio de Trabajo a aplicar sanciones cuando no se acatan las conciliaciones obligatorias. Se trata de mantener la vigencia del derecho y de la autoridad.

En el caso de Moyano se suma, como ya dijimos, su cada vez más comprometida situación judicial. En efecto, existen siete causas en las que se lo investiga por enriquecimiento ilícito, lavado de dinero y el empleo de fondos de los afiliados del sindicato, de su obra social y del Club Atlético Independiente -que él preside- para favorecer a empresas que pertenecen a sus familiares.

Con sindicalistas como Moyano es muy difícil discernir dónde termina la defensa de los intereses laborales y comienza la de sus intereses personales, bajo la habitual retórica de la defensa de la causa gremial. Y al servicio de sus intereses pone Moyano el poder que tiene de paralizar el país en su beneficio. Por eso, la Justicia no debería demorar el esclarecimiento de las graves imputaciones que se acumulan en su contra.





Fuente:www.lanacion.com.ar