jueves, 13 de diciembre de 2012
miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012
The Death of Socrates.
Socrates
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) is one of the great Greek philosophers.He can be considered the father of philosophy. He did not only teach ideas and theories but also something that is much more important: an attitude and a lifestyle. The most noteworthy element of his philosophical approach is that he said that he did not teach anything, rather the only thing he did was help his audience draw out their own ideas from inside themselves, that is to say, he helped them to think for themselves. That is why he said that his job was the same as his mother's, who was a midwife, as it had to do with giving birth, helping one to be born. This process of "giving birth" to one's own ideas is called "maieutics".
The Death of Socrates. A man like Socrates, who helped people to think, was seen as a danger by the Athenian authorities; it was said that he corrupted young people, and he was therefore condemned to death. He did not agree with this, however he accepted the judgement (to drink hemlock, a poison), in spite of the fact that his friends and pupils (among them his greatest disciple, Plato) proposed ways for him to escape from jail. He preferred to comply with the law. In the next box we can understand Socrates’ arguments through a text by Plato.
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) is one of the great Greek philosophers.He can be considered the father of philosophy. He did not only teach ideas and theories but also something that is much more important: an attitude and a lifestyle. The most noteworthy element of his philosophical approach is that he said that he did not teach anything, rather the only thing he did was help his audience draw out their own ideas from inside themselves, that is to say, he helped them to think for themselves. That is why he said that his job was the same as his mother's, who was a midwife, as it had to do with giving birth, helping one to be born. This process of "giving birth" to one's own ideas is called "maieutics".
The Death of Socrates. A man like Socrates, who helped people to think, was seen as a danger by the Athenian authorities; it was said that he corrupted young people, and he was therefore condemned to death. He did not agree with this, however he accepted the judgement (to drink hemlock, a poison), in spite of the fact that his friends and pupils (among them his greatest disciple, Plato) proposed ways for him to escape from jail. He preferred to comply with the law. In the next box we can understand Socrates’ arguments through a text by Plato.
The Organisation of Freedom: Conflict and Cooperation
To talk about citizenship automatically suggests talking about coexistence. We
have already seen the complexity of human life in the previous units; to set out the
citizenship issue cannot be undertaken of the entire person. And a person is basically
communication, society, and being present with and for others. The human being is, as
the ancient Greeks once said, a "social animal".
Referring to society is not making an allusion to something unknown. In the
previous unit we already learnt that the fundamental constitution of society is family,
friends, neighbours, etc. Therefore, society is the group of relationships within which we
move, which allow us to develop and live, even though they may, at times, cause us
difficulties.
We can live in society thanks to the effort of all of its members. Each of us has
a function in society, and we are able to live, and even enjoy, thanks to society and its
social, political and cultural institutions. Society works thanks to rules or laws; they are
not merely tools of oppression, punishment or sanction. Thanks to rules we can do
many things, thanks to rules we can be free as rules give us possibilities. Rules (or
laws) can be compared with paths in the jungle; it could be said that it is annoying that
one should go along these previously drawn paths, that they are inhibiting us, but if it
weren’t for those paths we would not be able to reach the other side or move inside the
jungle. To live our lives immediately suggests that we use the paths and rules that are
given to us and that we give ourselves. Imagine what might happen if every day when
we woke up we had to invent the rules that might be useful for that day (from the most
elementary to the most complex)! Surely we would waste a lot of time (and we wouldn't
get anything done), and even moreso if we imagined that the next day we would have
to invent them all over again. Therefore, it is useful, good and very healthy to use the
rules or paths that are at our disposal. And this does not stop us from questioning some
rules, as nothing guarantees that a path is always valid or that there are no alternative
paths.
On the other hand, human coexistence is not always harmonious or friendly.
There are times when conflict arises. It also happens that there are persons who, by
using the freedom and the possibilities that coexistence offers, act for their own benefit
or interest. They are people who want to impose their point of view and their lifestyle.
Imagine, for example, a thief who steals money from a person, or a terrorist group that
wants to impose its criteria on the majority by using weapons and violence. This is
precisely why the existence of rules and laws is necessary, as they do not only attack
this selfish, unsupportive or violent behaviour, but also, and more importantly, they
guarantee everybody's freedom. This is precisely the function of law: to guarantee
everyone's freedom. The lives of citizens cannot do without rules. We can call this "the
normative dimension of civic responsibility".
Social State and Welfare State
The Liberal Rule of Law
After the liberal revolutions of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the rule of law was called "liberal rule of law". This form of political organisation made individual freedoms the centre of democratic citizenship. These are the true freedoms, because public powers have the obligation to guarantee, consolidate and strengthen these individual freedoms as the basis of democratic citizenship.
Social State and Welfare State
After the socialist revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, the rule of law was called "social rule of law". This form of political organisation makes social conditions, material
necessities and economic resources the centre of democratic citizenship. So that fundamental rights were not just formal rights or rights only recognized on a paper, the defenders of the social state proposed equality as the centre of democratic citizenship. The social state did not promote equality of results but it did present equality of opportunities, so that the less capable citizens could participate as equals in public life. This concern for equality produced some new rights called "social rights". Among these we can find the right to education, healthcare and cultural training. The social state not only protected citizens, it also trained them and promoted them in order to encourage their welfare. This is why we can say that we have passed from a social state to a welfare state.
Social and Democratic Rule of Law
The Spanish Constitution was one of the last European constitutions of the 20th century. When it was written it adopted aspects of the liberal and social state. This summary of political traditions is one of the biggest efforts of the constitution because liberal- and socialistinspired traditions can rule from it. A summary that does not refer to the existence of rights and laws but to the recognition of values that are not the property of any political or ideological tradition therefore receive the name of higher values.
After the liberal revolutions of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the rule of law was called "liberal rule of law". This form of political organisation made individual freedoms the centre of democratic citizenship. These are the true freedoms, because public powers have the obligation to guarantee, consolidate and strengthen these individual freedoms as the basis of democratic citizenship.
Social State and Welfare State
After the socialist revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, the rule of law was called "social rule of law". This form of political organisation makes social conditions, material
necessities and economic resources the centre of democratic citizenship. So that fundamental rights were not just formal rights or rights only recognized on a paper, the defenders of the social state proposed equality as the centre of democratic citizenship. The social state did not promote equality of results but it did present equality of opportunities, so that the less capable citizens could participate as equals in public life. This concern for equality produced some new rights called "social rights". Among these we can find the right to education, healthcare and cultural training. The social state not only protected citizens, it also trained them and promoted them in order to encourage their welfare. This is why we can say that we have passed from a social state to a welfare state.
Social and Democratic Rule of Law
The Spanish Constitution was one of the last European constitutions of the 20th century. When it was written it adopted aspects of the liberal and social state. This summary of political traditions is one of the biggest efforts of the constitution because liberal- and socialistinspired traditions can rule from it. A summary that does not refer to the existence of rights and laws but to the recognition of values that are not the property of any political or ideological tradition therefore receive the name of higher values.
From the State of Nature to the Rule of Law
Citizenship and the Rule of Law
From the State of Nature to the Rule of Law
From the 17th century onwards a concept of citizenship was consolidated that has
lasted until today. It is a citizenship we can call "legal" because it is related to the capacity to
submit to laws or the Law and transform both laws and the Law. This double movement of
observance and transformation of laws defines the concept of modern citizenship.
To describe this double movement political philosophers thought it was important to
differentiate between two ways of understanding the organisation of social and political life. On one hand, there is the primitive and gregarious form in which individuals are all in conflict
because they consider each other as wolves (homo homini lupus). This form is called the state of nature and is not the state of civilised and intelligent people. On the other hand, there is an evolved and educated form in which individuals cooperate and are capable of giving way in their ambitions so that everyone can be a part of the project of the city. This form receives the name of rule of law, because the relation between laws and the Law is a criterion to measure the level of civilisation. The state of nature (barbarity) is in complete opposition to the rule of law (civilisation).
The Rule of Law and the Social Contract
This leap from barbarity to civilisation happens when individuals are capable of submitting to the rules of a contract. The citizen is the person who is ready to make this leap and assume the consequences. The rules, norms, laws and values that are treated in this contract form a rule of law.
Citizenship according to Two Modern Philosophers: Locke and Rousseau
J. Locke
Essay on Civil Government
Being men free, equal and independent by nature, none of them can be withdrawn from
this situation and submitted to political power with his consent. This is given by an agreement celebrated with others to meet and integrate in a community destined to offer
them a good, safe and peaceful life together.
Two Treaties of Government
J. J. Rousseau
The Social Contract
This act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic;it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and several are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.
The Social Contract. Or Principles of Political Right
1. Define the following expressions: "State of nature", "rule of law", "social contract".
2. Read Locke and Rosseau's texts carefully. What stands out in each of them? How do they understand political association (contract)?
From the State of Nature to the Rule of Law
From the 17th century onwards a concept of citizenship was consolidated that has
lasted until today. It is a citizenship we can call "legal" because it is related to the capacity to
submit to laws or the Law and transform both laws and the Law. This double movement of
observance and transformation of laws defines the concept of modern citizenship.
To describe this double movement political philosophers thought it was important to
differentiate between two ways of understanding the organisation of social and political life. On one hand, there is the primitive and gregarious form in which individuals are all in conflict
because they consider each other as wolves (homo homini lupus). This form is called the state of nature and is not the state of civilised and intelligent people. On the other hand, there is an evolved and educated form in which individuals cooperate and are capable of giving way in their ambitions so that everyone can be a part of the project of the city. This form receives the name of rule of law, because the relation between laws and the Law is a criterion to measure the level of civilisation. The state of nature (barbarity) is in complete opposition to the rule of law (civilisation).
The Rule of Law and the Social Contract
This leap from barbarity to civilisation happens when individuals are capable of submitting to the rules of a contract. The citizen is the person who is ready to make this leap and assume the consequences. The rules, norms, laws and values that are treated in this contract form a rule of law.
Citizenship according to Two Modern Philosophers: Locke and Rousseau
J. Locke
Essay on Civil Government
Being men free, equal and independent by nature, none of them can be withdrawn from
this situation and submitted to political power with his consent. This is given by an agreement celebrated with others to meet and integrate in a community destined to offer
them a good, safe and peaceful life together.
Two Treaties of Government
J. J. Rousseau
The Social Contract
This act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic;it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and several are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.
The Social Contract. Or Principles of Political Right
1. Define the following expressions: "State of nature", "rule of law", "social contract".
2. Read Locke and Rosseau's texts carefully. What stands out in each of them? How do they understand political association (contract)?
The Historic Conquest of Citizenship
The Historic Conquest of Citizenship
Athens and Ancient Citizenship
The concept of citizenship appeared in Greece in the 5th and 4th centuries before
Christ. It describes the way free individuals, who because of their condition could take
responsibility for the dealing with public matters, participated in city life. These cities were
actually medium-sized towns called polis. This term refers to a city-state, which means, not
only the union of citizens but also the way in which they were organised. Not everyone had the condition of citizen (polites), because women, children and slaves were not considered capable of taking on the responsibility of running the city. The ones who had the condition of citizens were obliged to participate in the running of the city, holding positions in equality and changing positions from time to time.
Rome and the Limits of Laws
Another important moment in the history of citizenship came with the expansion of the
Roman Empire. Rome developed the Greek idea of citizenship and spread it throughout the
Mediterranean. Roman Law developed the procedures for taking part in the life of the Republic and obtaining citizenship. To be a citizen of Rome was a privilege and honour people from other places could achieve if they obeyed the laws of the Empire or the Republic. From the first century before Christ to the third after Christ, the concept of citizenship changed, not only because it spread throughout the Mediterranean, but because it raised a very important problem: could only those who obeyed Roman laws be citizens? Was it possible to have another law, another Republic and another way of being a citizen?
Stoic philosophers like Seneca and Cicero set out an interesting transformation of the concept of the citizen and extended it to individuals capable of submitting to the laws of reason, as if the city in which they had to live was not a real city as had been seen up until then, but rather a "virtual" city in which all human beings could participate.
National Citizenship, Modern Citizenship
This tension between the real citizenship imposed by Rome and the virtual citizenship
in which one took part only by using reason and considering himself to be part of the world,
would mark the birth of the modern concept of citizenship. Apart from this tension between
written and unwritten laws, from the 6th century onwards, the concept of citizenship would be directly related to the new ways of understanding the Republic which, from then on, would receive the name of "nation". Citizenship became national and was limited by the state of belonging to a territory, by the link to a sovereign power and by the achievement of certain benefits in exchange for certain responsibilities. With the appearance of modern nations, sovereignty was the responsibility of the nation as a whole (national sovereignty) or of the people defined as a group formed by all individuals (popular sovereignty).
Athens and Ancient Citizenship
The concept of citizenship appeared in Greece in the 5th and 4th centuries before
Christ. It describes the way free individuals, who because of their condition could take
responsibility for the dealing with public matters, participated in city life. These cities were
actually medium-sized towns called polis. This term refers to a city-state, which means, not
only the union of citizens but also the way in which they were organised. Not everyone had the condition of citizen (polites), because women, children and slaves were not considered capable of taking on the responsibility of running the city. The ones who had the condition of citizens were obliged to participate in the running of the city, holding positions in equality and changing positions from time to time.
Rome and the Limits of Laws
Another important moment in the history of citizenship came with the expansion of the
Roman Empire. Rome developed the Greek idea of citizenship and spread it throughout the
Mediterranean. Roman Law developed the procedures for taking part in the life of the Republic and obtaining citizenship. To be a citizen of Rome was a privilege and honour people from other places could achieve if they obeyed the laws of the Empire or the Republic. From the first century before Christ to the third after Christ, the concept of citizenship changed, not only because it spread throughout the Mediterranean, but because it raised a very important problem: could only those who obeyed Roman laws be citizens? Was it possible to have another law, another Republic and another way of being a citizen?
Stoic philosophers like Seneca and Cicero set out an interesting transformation of the concept of the citizen and extended it to individuals capable of submitting to the laws of reason, as if the city in which they had to live was not a real city as had been seen up until then, but rather a "virtual" city in which all human beings could participate.
National Citizenship, Modern Citizenship
This tension between the real citizenship imposed by Rome and the virtual citizenship
in which one took part only by using reason and considering himself to be part of the world,
would mark the birth of the modern concept of citizenship. Apart from this tension between
written and unwritten laws, from the 6th century onwards, the concept of citizenship would be directly related to the new ways of understanding the Republic which, from then on, would receive the name of "nation". Citizenship became national and was limited by the state of belonging to a territory, by the link to a sovereign power and by the achievement of certain benefits in exchange for certain responsibilities. With the appearance of modern nations, sovereignty was the responsibility of the nation as a whole (national sovereignty) or of the people defined as a group formed by all individuals (popular sovereignty).
jueves, 29 de noviembre de 2012
Human Right #3: Everyone has the right to life and to live in freedom and safety.
Human rights have become the ethical, social and political reference of our time. Their proclamation has meant new attitudes and a new mentality towards social, political and cultural issues. They are major principles and ethical values which ethically guide our behaviour from a social point of view. As we know, in a human being we cannot separate the social and individual aspects, so we could say that they are like an ethical lighthouse for our behaviour. They are not just ethical references for political constitutions and legislations in different countries; they also help and promote people's social and political activities. Human rights are therefore the backbone of active citizenship.
Nevertheless, the use of human rights is often questioned due to their "lack of credibility". It seems that writing human rights into laws and constitutions is enough, but it isn't. It is not enough that human rights are approved in laws; they have to be a part of the social and political life of our countries, because if that does not happen they lose credibility and trust. What does it matter if they are written but not applied? What is the point if they are protected only by words and not actions? Apart from a crisis of credibility, there is also another problem: that they are just used for protesting and as a way to solve conflicts. But we forget that they are also used as a way of building a responsible and active citizenship, they can help create shared projects in which rights are not just used for protest, but also as a means of imagining a shared life together.
Human rights are an ideal that can encourage the realisation of social life. They are often great principles, norms or values that are rendered useless, but we also have to look at the positive side: they teach us what we can achieve by changing laws and rules. They let us withdraw from our conventionality and pull away from the idea that laws are fine as they are. Human rights are a motor of change, not only so that we can protect them in words, but also as a means of inventing laws that will make them real.
When human rights form part of a constitution - the legal project of countries and regions -, they are the legal form that guarantees the bond of citizenship. By recognising ourselves in human rights, we recognise ourselves as sharing a common dignity upon which we have the right to insist. In addition, and this is important, this dignity can belong to everyone, not just a few. Thanks to human rights we can aspire to an international and global citizenship But, as mentioned previously, they must be human rights that help, guide and plan, thus becoming the duty and reponsibility of all states and every one of us. The human rights, human duties and human responsibilities of every one of us can become the heart of a common mission.
Human Rights Video: No Slavery
Human Rights Video: No Torture
Human Rights Video: Equal Before the Law
Human Rights Video: Protected by Law
Human Rights Video: No Unfair Detainment
"The Man Who Wouldn`t Be King"
George Washington is one of the Greatest American Generals, Presidents and Heroes Ever. George Washington inspired his men, his fellow americans and nations domestic and foreign. To fight in war for liberty, opposing the largest army and navy in the world at the time, keeping moral among his troops, facing betrayel of his peers, finally defeating the british, resigned his commision when he could've been king and then to be nominated and become the first President of a new country is beyond epic.
Human Right #1: We are all born free and equal.
Human rights
What are they?
Human rights are a way of acknowledging and demanding the dignity of all human beings.
Human rights are not just a series of values we have more or less agreed upon. They bear a lot of responsibility because each right creates obligation and duty. If we recognise and accept the "right to work" as a right this means that we need to organise society so that we create conditions that guarantee work for everyone. This, of course, bears a great responsibility for all, every single person and mankind in general. That is why we must speak of rights, duties and responsibilities.
Human rights are not a "fairytale" we should tell from time to time and neither are they
a mere imposition from the Western world. They are a grand ethical project that can bring
together citizens at all levels.
When were they founded?
World War II (1939-1945) saw some of the greatest acts of cruelty in the history of mankind. After the war, states considered that it was necessary to have a series of legal and
institutional rules so that such a crimes could not happen again. With that purpose, the
Declaration of Human Rights was written in 1948, which was in part based on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen from the French Revolution in 1789. The different countries that would later form the United Nations reached a consensus and the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was created.
On what are they based?
To base something on something else means to explain it, to give reasons for why it
was done that way and not another. In this case the question is: why these rights and not other ones? We agree and reach a consensus because these values are desirable and defensible.
It is not that they appear to be good because we agree, because agreeing on something does not necessarily guarantee its goodness.
In the Declaration of Human Rights we can find three ways of justifying and explaining
these rights:
1. Individualist justification (anti-state); human rights are individual and natural, prior
to the State and therefore claimed by individuals and groups in the face of the State;
States must acknowledge these rights.
2. Statal justification (contractual); rights are the result of a contract or agreement
between the governors and governed, rights depend on the authority of the State.
3. Statal justification (historical); rights appear with the different forms of State of the
modern era. There are no rights prior to the State. The State, in its various forms,
is the one that proclaims them.
Maybe human rights can be considered as invariably human and therefore have to be
protected, guaranteed and promoted by States.
ACTIVITIES:1. Write a short history of the devising of human rights. Pay attention to these three dates:
1776, 1789, 1948.
2. What is the difference between saying something is good and therefore we agree, and
saying that as we agree therefore it is good?
3. What would you base human rights on? How would you justify them? Why have they to be obeyed?
miércoles, 7 de noviembre de 2012
Democratic citizenship
The exercising of our citizenship is always done in a historical context that is always
evolving and changing. Therefore it is important to approach the exercising of citizenship historical point of view. That means, knowing that our pretentions to citizenship are not the first and will not be the last.
In recent decades, moral philosophy and politics have not approached citizenship only
in legal terms, as if the practise of the citizenship was only reduced to the relation between the people and the legal systems or legislation itself. Nowadays, as well as speaking of legal
citizenship, we use terms such as social, cultural, economic and even intercultural citizenship.
In order to refer to all of these things as part of peoples' democratic life we shall speak of
"democratic citizenship".
In this unit we will look at how the concept of citizenship has changed, and to what
extent it has been related, from the very beginning, to political organisation. Sometimes we
refer to political organisation in terms of government (polis, republic) and this is the reason why it is important to understand the relationship between citizenship and types of states. Nowadays we only speak of true citizenship when there is a state ruled by laws, values and human rights.
We also describe political organisations as "democracy", describing not only the forms of
government, but also a form of participating in public matters, of identifying with a political
community and promoting a worthwhile existence for all human beings.
One of the most important institutions in the development of democratic citizenship is
the Public Administration. It is a part of an executive power, not only in a national sense, but also in the context of an autonomous region and in a local sense. Nowadays, democratic citizenship is not only practised on a national level. On the one hand it is open to a cosmopolitan citizenship, where the people in a country consider themselves as citizens of the world; for example the way people in Spain are citizens of the European Union. On the other hand, democratic citizenship is open to an environment of proximity in which local and autonomous powers participate. In Spain, the city halls and autonomous regions are institutions that administer increasingly more public services every day.
This idea of service has developed historically as the ideas of separation of powers and social justice have become part of citizens'democratic convictions.
evolving and changing. Therefore it is important to approach the exercising of citizenship historical point of view. That means, knowing that our pretentions to citizenship are not the first and will not be the last.
In recent decades, moral philosophy and politics have not approached citizenship only
in legal terms, as if the practise of the citizenship was only reduced to the relation between the people and the legal systems or legislation itself. Nowadays, as well as speaking of legal
citizenship, we use terms such as social, cultural, economic and even intercultural citizenship.
In order to refer to all of these things as part of peoples' democratic life we shall speak of
"democratic citizenship".
In this unit we will look at how the concept of citizenship has changed, and to what
extent it has been related, from the very beginning, to political organisation. Sometimes we
refer to political organisation in terms of government (polis, republic) and this is the reason why it is important to understand the relationship between citizenship and types of states. Nowadays we only speak of true citizenship when there is a state ruled by laws, values and human rights.
We also describe political organisations as "democracy", describing not only the forms of
government, but also a form of participating in public matters, of identifying with a political
community and promoting a worthwhile existence for all human beings.
One of the most important institutions in the development of democratic citizenship is
the Public Administration. It is a part of an executive power, not only in a national sense, but also in the context of an autonomous region and in a local sense. Nowadays, democratic citizenship is not only practised on a national level. On the one hand it is open to a cosmopolitan citizenship, where the people in a country consider themselves as citizens of the world; for example the way people in Spain are citizens of the European Union. On the other hand, democratic citizenship is open to an environment of proximity in which local and autonomous powers participate. In Spain, the city halls and autonomous regions are institutions that administer increasingly more public services every day.
This idea of service has developed historically as the ideas of separation of powers and social justice have become part of citizens'democratic convictions.
Turtle's Flute
Turtle was a gifted flutist. One day a greedy man shuts her in a cage. Find out how Turtle escapes in this Brazilian folktale.
miércoles, 31 de octubre de 2012
miércoles, 17 de octubre de 2012
Abdul Kalam, Failure to Success: Learn English
Kalam and his team take the space programme to new heights by launching India's first satellite into orbit.
Abdul Kalam, A Lesson for my Teacher
Kalam and Ram were best friends in school but one day a teacher separated them. A touching story about how everyone learned a lesson.
jueves, 4 de octubre de 2012
VideoBooks
Classic Literature VideoBook with synchronized text, interactive transcript, and closed captions in multiple languages. Audio courtesy of Librivox. Read by Lizzie Driver.
Playlist for Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift:http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL941385100E890A88
Gulliver's Travels free audiobook at Librivox: http://librivox.org/gullivers-travels-by-jonathan-swift/
Gulliver's Travels free eBook at Project Gutenberg:http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/829
Gulliver's Travels at Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels
miércoles, 26 de septiembre de 2012
HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.
We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth's climate.
The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.
For this purpose, HOME needs to be free. A patron, the PPR Group, made this possible. EuropaCorp, the distributor, also pledged not to make any profit because Home is a non-profit film.
The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.
For this purpose, HOME needs to be free. A patron, the PPR Group, made this possible. EuropaCorp, the distributor, also pledged not to make any profit because Home is a non-profit film.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)