When I was a teenager I was convinced that mine was studying engineering, of course at the University of Chile. Bank with my partner and best friend to this day, we were happy it would follow several years students together in the same college and university. However, the day he was to choose the specific tests, I happened to note the social sciences, for the last months of my school years, I suddenly had doubts and invaded the idea of studying a career "humanist".
The day I had to choose a university course I was going to study, I was very indecisive: he wanted to study all the races, for example: education, architecture, sociology, law, engineering, chemistry, psychology, etc..
Faced with all this indecision, I decided to use the dice and let the random complete the race would score in the "application form to the University." It was. Each of the six numbers represented as a career. I threw the dice and came out first "laws." My luck was defined by chance.
I joined the Law School without much enthusiasm. The first year I hated my school for two reasons: first, was too small compared to my school (High School #1 of Santiago) and second, most of my classmates were very wealthy, that disturbed me: talk to a special voice, their conversations were very distant from my family and social reality. But fortunately I passed the first year with good grades all exams.
The second year I started to having more affection for the college, because I met my first friends, who were much bigger than me. They were highly educated and learned a lot from them.
Finally finished my career deeply love my school.
After graduation, career suffered a major academic reform, reducing the number of oral examinations. Also gone the only green area - "Mato Grosso"-, in which he used to spend my spare time.
Today I do not regret at all having studied Laws at the University of Chile, although over the years I discovered that my real vocation is teaching.
Today I dedicate to teach Labor Law.
Therefore, I strongly support both active and passive euthanasia, for two reasons: first, personal freedom to decide to die in a deteriorated state of health and, second, practical, given the high economic cost that often carries a terminal illness.
Some people speak of "the right to die with dignity".
On April 1, 2002, Holland became the first country to legalize euthanasia. Is also legal in Belgium, which reveals that in a South American country with strong Catholic, will take several years to achieve the legalization of euthanasia.
There are countries that have an intermediate position, prohibited the EUTHANASIA, BUT ALLOW AN "AID TO DIE", such as: Italy, France, Switzerland, Britain, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Mmm, is a difficult question, because are many countries that I like.
First, I think that Canada is a good country to visit. Being more accurate, Vancouver. I like Canada because this place have in the coastal zone has very beautiful places, where it is mixed forest, lake, sea and mountains.
This city is noted for its high standard of living, their port, their ethnicity, their film production, the quality of education, universities, such as the prestigious University of British Columbia, its many parks and beaches, its many sporting activities and cultural, etc.., so it is a city completely cosmopolitan.
Personally, I like to travel to Vancouver as a tourist and to obtain a stay of graduate studies. I think it would be great to live several years in that place
There are many ways to acquires specifics habits and ecological awareness.
In terms of consciousness, is very important that a person from childhood imbued with environmental values.For example, watch films such as "Avatar" can be very powerful who begins to define its values as a child.
Useful is also the environmental education in formal educational process of children, to learn and practicethis key concepts such as: RECYCLING, REDUCE and REUSE
The newspapper "The Guardian UK"reports: " Social security 'reforms' are a litany of welfare cuts" (Thursday 5 January 2012)
The upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (House of Lords) announces welfare curts. These reductions in social security benefits.
In this case, specifically decreases meal benefits of children from poor families. The reform means that will reduce benefit for families to generate income above 26.000 pounds.
Therefore, this measure will hurt families generate incomes above that figure (26.000 pounds) and have many children.
This meausure is part of a series of policy decisions that aim to boost the flagging Brithish economy.
The measure is contrary to the traditional approach of English social security: "since the days of the parish loaf, the basic idea has been ensuring every hungry mouth gets fed", wich has a great concern for the rigths of children and their proper development.
The reform proyect involves granting benefits only to children whose families have incomes not exceeding of £26,000. For some conservative politician, such as George Osborne (finance Minister of UK), the only benefit justifiable is the salary and nothing more.
However, in the Labour Party are politicians who want to improve the bill.
Some argue tha this measure will slow the birth rate, which in the long run economic growth slows a country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/05/social-security-reforms-welfare-cuts
