Connect with us


Modifying the Organic Statutes at the University of Santiago de Chile



Reflection on the process of modifying the Organic Statutes at the University of Santiago de Chile

(Image by wikipedia)

Written presentation to the Academic Council of the USACh, in extraordinary session of 06/10/2021 by Bruno Jerardino Wiesenborn, in his capacity as elected representative of Professors by Class Hours before the CTEO – USACh. The intervention was restricted to 10 minutes, therefore, this text structures with more context what was said in an improvised way in that session, without altering the substance of what was said.

The university is the quintessential sphere which, among other things, reflects on the country, the world around it and its own work. This is why we will briefly reflect on the university cultural context in which the process of modifying the Organic Statute (EO) was established and its subsequent result. We conclude by making a proposal to correct the “mistakes” that the authority has made.

We would like to bring to hand the words of Humberto Maturana (1), neurobiologist, National Science Prize 1994 and honorary doctor of our university:

“… children [youth] are not the future of humanity or of the country, we are the adults, because children [and young people] are going to be adults in turn, depending on the adults they live with”.

Consequently, it is not the same how we adults behave among ourselves and with our children and young people. Moreover, in the same interview, she adds that (2):

“… deep down children [youth] want adults to respect and trust, and that requires adults to be respectable, and for them to be respectable they have to respect themselves”.

Indeed, it is our duty to teach by example in a framework of mutual respect. This consistent behaviour is the baseline for the development of critical citizens and professionals who will build a better country and a better world.

It is no news to anyone that we are in a historical moment of institutional destructuring and, in this sense, the university is no exception.

In fact, at the USACh we have research professors who make interesting political-social analyses, very critical of the inequalities in our country, of the motivations for the revolt of 18 October 2019, of discrimination against migrants, of racism, and they also produce critical analyses of the treatment of indigenous peoples and excluded minorities.

However, the colleagues are “blind” to the discrimination and job insecurity that occur in our university. They are defenders of the constituent process, but the same attitude does not exist towards our administrative, academic and academic colleagues. It would seem that, under this rationality, the destructuring and generalised crisis that we face as a society is outside the limits of the University of Santiago.

Regarding this type of rationality, the right wing and the conservative world are in the habit of always talking about what happens outside Chile where, according to them, there is no doubt that Human Rights are being violated. However, when it comes to Chile, to the eye damage and the crimes committed during the uprising, they at best relativise everything, ascribing personal responsibility or else they remain silent. This rationality corresponds to a mentality that does not want to lose what it has, and the discursive context they give themselves makes it possible for things to be presented in the most comfortable way for them, namely to preserve their privileges.

We maintain that this is what is happening in our university, because of this kind of mental form that entails a “willful blindness” and filters out everything that refers to the practices of authoritarianism and job insecurity that we experience in the university.

Discrimination, in our case, against professors for hours of classes (PHC) ranges from not being considered in the definition of the teaching protocol, through the delay in the payment of honorary contracts (pending to date), to the lack of response to the letters we send to the authorities as representatives of staff associations (law 19.296, article 25).

Regarding the process of modification of the EO, according to law 21.094, we maintain that it is flawed. According to the current DFL 149, the Academic Council (CA) is a consultative and non-regulatory body. In effect, the CA modified the 142 voting proposals systematised by the CTEO which, unanimously, as a tri-estamental committee, evacuated as options to be plebiscited. The CA, as a consultative body, had the function of validating the proposal of votes emanating from the CTEO, according to exempt 8330 of 26-12-2018 (article 3, penultimate paragraph). However, at the prerogative of the rector, he was granted powers in a spurious manner, which allowed the proposal made by the CTEO to be reduced to 44 voting options drafted by the CA.

For us, this is equivalent to the Constitutional Convention drafting a text for a new Constitution and then arbitrarily taking it from the Constitutional Court and making modifications to establish the definitive text to be plebiscited. Not only is this arbitrary, authoritarian and anti-democratic, but a body that is subject to structural modification cannot make the adjustments it deems appropriate, given that it is precisely this institutionality that is subject to modification that is being questioned. It is clear that there is a conflict of interest.

Returning to discrimination against PHCs, in figures. There are more than 2,300 of us PHCs and we teach more than 70% of undergraduate classes; however, for the plebiscite we were 1,912 on the electoral roll where the weighted vote of the PHCs was 3% (day professors have a weighted vote of 62%). In addition, a minimum quorum was demanded of all the different groups, but at the last minute, the rector removed the quorum requirement for the PHCs. What was the reason for this discretion?

Let’s see, in the 1st round 14.68% of the entire university community participated and, in the 2nd, round 4.87%, which is clearly a very low participation.

The 245 PHCs who voted in the 1st round weighed (3% weighted) 7.35 votes. If the quorum requirement set out in the electoral regulations (40%) had been applied, these same votes would have “weighed” 0.96 votes, i.e., less than 1 vote to be counted. The 128 votes of the 128 PHCs who voted in the second round weighed 3.84. If the quorum requirement had been applied, in the 2nd round, those same votes would have “weighed” 0.50 votes, i.e., half a vote to be counted.

If that is not discrimination, what is?

The question then becomes: what is this type of criteria intended to preserve by weighting the votes in this way? This question is valid for any action that is or has been taken at the university. Indeed, if we want to maintain high academic standards, it is hard to understand why five colleagues at the FAE were dismissed and not rehired, even though four of them won their cases in the Supreme Court and one in the Comptroller General’s Office. We will mention two of the five cases: Manuel Llorca, an academic of excellence, with internationally recognised Fondecyt projects, was not reinstated. Serafima Chirkova, the only female academic in the Department of Economics, the academic with the most publications in the Department, was not reinstated. What is clear is that this is a decision that entails a political and not an academic criterion, since if academic excellence is to be preserved, this is not the way, nor the criterion, nor the actions to preserve it.

We ask again: what do you want to preserve, then, with this type of action?

If we make a mistake, the answer is not to ask God to forgive us, the answer is precisely to take action to repair that mistake. There is no doubt that this is the best teaching we can give, teaching future professionals by example and correcting the mistakes made in a timely manner.

The development of scientific knowledge (in the broad sense of the word) requires a critical eye and, where appropriate, making mistakes evident and visible. Science and the different forms of knowledge cannot advance on the basis of errors and false hypotheses. In our opinion, it has become naturalised in our university to avoid talking about the “mistakes” that are made within our university. How important it is to have a multidisciplinary education that recognises other forms of knowledge, such as literature! Indeed, as the children’s story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Andersen, published in 1837, teaches us, where the lie is only exposed when a child bravely cries out “But the King is naked!

Returning to the validation criteria used by the CA, which mutilated the proposal of 142 votes originally presented by the CTEO, it is worth mentioning one example among the many discretionalities we observed: why did the CA decide to pass directly to the EO a position of exclusive confidence of the rector, such as that of Secretary General, which is not contemplated in the law 21.094? Why was the vote proposed by the CTEO, which included 4 alternatives, where one of the alternatives was the possibility of it being a position of confidence, discarded?

Legitimately we ask again: what do they want to preserve with this kind of decisions that do not respect the options proposed by the university community?

If there is a will to repair the mistakes made and, furthermore, we all wish to live together in mutual respect, preserving democratic practice and participation as a guideline, the actions of reparation should consider:

  • Roll back the EO modification process to the time when the CTEO proposed 142 votes.
  • Give a period of one month to the entire university community to collect new proposals that give rise to voting options, atingentes to the observations made by the Undersecretary of Education in Ord.: 06/7873 of 03 September 2021.
  • Correct, the 142 votes proposed by the CTEO, if necessary, the wording incorporating inclusive language.
  • Request the validation (not modification) of the voting options proposed by the AC according to exempt 8330 of 26-12-2018 (article 3, penultimate paragraph), namely: “…shall be submitted to the Academic Council by the CTEO, for validation and subsequent vote.”
  • Call for a public and participatory debate where members of the university community have the possibility to argue why it is convenient to support a certain option in each vote.
  • Hold a new plebiscite that does not discriminate between full-time and part-time lecturers.
    The result of the plebiscite should be drafted by the CTEO itself, as indicated in article 5 of exempt 8329 of 26-12-2018.

We have a long 10 months to carry out this 7-step planning in order to guarantee a public and genuinely participatory process.

  • (1) 2nd paragraph of interview published: 4 November 2004; (see here). The text in brackets has been added to extend the sentence to include young people.
  • (2) Idem, 6th paragraph of the interview.

Source: Pressenza

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


A Finger In The Dam



Try to imagine a world today unaffected by ever-increasing climate change, a world no longer on the precipice of disaster so large that our way of life and that of the entire planet may be terminated by the next decade.

What if policies had been instituted to mitigate climate change and reduce its overall effect on the environment two decades ago. Where would we be today?  The many severe hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods and drought, the astronomical financial burden on our national budget and damage to the economy, all could have been arrested and would continue to be reversed, and we as a the nation would have moved towards sustainable, renewable, low cost energy creating millions of jobs in the process.  The involvement of our government in the Middle East, and in all foreign affairs for that matter, would certainly have been severed from oil dependency and foreign policies freed from a compromise of principle in pursuit of our energy interests, unsavory deals with the devil, abroad and at home, a loss of control.

By Michael Caporale

In November 2000, you might not have wondered about such things as the fate of the Gore v. Bush election dangled on the thin thread of Floridian chad and the political relationship between Jeb Bush and the Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who certified Bush as the winner.  Even before the election, Gore was a climate activist, but then he was “ahead of his time,” which simply put means that you and I and the rest of the nation had other concerns and were divided by the many climate deniers in the right-wing media, the political puppets of the energy industry and their “loner donors” who erected a wall of confusion and doubt challenging the science and data of what was then referred to as “global warming.”  But Gore knew better.  Oh, you might say he did not say enough.  He did not fight enough. But wisdom is the better part of valor and it’s safe to assume that even then, he and his advisors knew that this would be a hill to die on.  First item on his agenda was winning.  It was understood that global warming was not a winning issue.

So now, we find ourselves today at the eleventh hour, the very last possibility to stop global warming and begin the reversal process on climate change, a reality but for one man a so-called Democrat, the Senator who opposes climate mitigation legislation. It’s no secret that Joe Manchin represents West Virginia.  Ostensibly he’s protecting a few West Virginia jobs and the economy of the state, but more so, he’s the coal industry’s finger in the dam holding back meaningful change that will allow our society to endure, that we may continue to enjoy the liberties we have all sacrificed for and pay them forward to succeeding generations.

It’s not like West Virginians don’t suffer along with the rest of us.  River floods have decimated entire communities.  The work force employed by the coal industry is only 3%.  Their infrastructure is crumbling.  Education in West Virginia is vastly in need of improvement.  Yet polls and interviews reveal that West Virginians just can’t let go of “coal,” such is their identity so entwined with it. They perceive that any other form of energy is an attack on their sacred tradition, their heritage and their future.  Truth is, it’s just not so.  But there you have it.  The Democratic Senator who represents their state has the equivalent of veto power in a Senate divided 50/50 and continually rattles that saber to obstruct meaningful and effective climate legislation. It is an affront to democracy that this one man, heavily invested in coal energy, can decide the fate of the nation and the planet for his own political and financial interests.  He is a coward.

Current climate policy is based on the concept of attaining Net Zero.  For example, even today I saw an ad for Cisco wherein they touted that they would achieve net zero by 2040, as if this was some kind of meritorious goal.  Poppycock!  How utterly pathetic and hopelessly deceiving when set upon a complacent and largely ignorant public, too busy fighting the reality of rebuilding after a disaster than to understand the finer points of policy speak

Net Zero is a term coined in climate policy negotiations that essentially means the same as the phrase “zero sum game.”  In a net zero equation, as in a zero sum game, losses are balanced against gains to arrive at zero.  The total of +1 and -1 = 0.  Theoretically, as in the game, there are no winners, but again there are no losers as well. However, in the world of climate change net zero means a balancing act that will not affect any change and it allows polluters to continue to pollute in an amount equal to mitigation forces, therefore “net zero.”  In that mathematical climate offset, we are all losers. Only actual zero will stop climate change and reverse the process.  Burning coal to produce energy causes pollution. It will always cause pollution.   “Clean coal” is not clean.  It’s like saying an “honest thief” or a “moral pedophile.”  It’s an oxymoron.  It’s a polluter. Joe Manchin has written the final act assuring that we will be killing ourselves and our children to satisfy his goals.

We can’t fix this problem totally today, but through a concerted effort it can be ameliorated in the next election if we act as we are one.  To assure climate mitigation, we must make Joe Manchin irrelevant.  In short Democrats need to pick up a minimum of two seats and stack the Senate 52/48.  The focus of the party should be to target and work towards the best opportunities in that regard, put all of their energy behind it and then cut Manchin loose. He has no value to the nation as a whole in this regard. Set him float in his own flood waters.  Let him keep his finger in the dam.  Blow up the dam.





Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading


The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-friendly Investments Are Better Job Creators



This paper compares job creation per dollar from various types of green investments vs. unsustainable investments. It also explores how to promote good jobs that have fair wages, job security, opportunities for career growth, safe working conditions, and are accessible for all.

Source: World Resource Institute

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of jobs to be lost globally and has exacerbated inequality. At the same time, addressing climate change is an urgent challenge. Too many governments have funneled money to unsustainable sectors as part of their COVID-19 recovery efforts even though this is not the best job creator and will exacerbate climate change.

This analysis of studies from around the world finds that green investments generally create more jobs per US$1 million than unsustainable investments. It compares near-term job creation effects from clean energy vs. fossil fuels, public transportation vs. roads, electric vehicles vs. internal combustion engine vehicles, and nature-based solutions vs. oil and gas production.

For example, on average:

  • Investing in solar PV creates 1.5 times as many jobs as fossil fuels per $1 million.
  • Building efficiency creates 2.8 times as many jobs as fossil fuels per $1 million.
  • Mass transit creates 1.4 times as many jobs as road construction per $1 million.
  • Ecosystem restoration creates 3.7 times as many jobs as oil & gas production per $1 million.

The paper also explores job quality in green sectors. In developing countries, green jobs can offer good wages when they are formal, but too many are informal and temporary, limiting access to work security, safety and social protections. In developed countries, new green jobs can provide avenues to the middle class, but may have wages and benefits that aren’t as high as those in traditional sectors where, in many cases, workers have been able to fight for job quality through decades of collective action.

Government investment should come with conditions that ensure fair wages and benefits, work security, safe working conditions, opportunities for training and advancement, the right to organize, and accessibility to all.

This paper is jointly published by WRI, the International Trade Union Confederation, and New Climate Economy.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [1.11 MB]

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading


Behind the Lofty SDGs the Reality is People Don’t Trust Governments to Act



Behind the Lofty SDGs the Reality is People Don’t Trust Governments to Act

By Andrew Cave, Driving Change

Michael Sani is a fervent believer in people casting transformative power with their votes. As chief executive of Bite the Ballot, a program supporting the U.K. Cabinet Office to increase voter registration, he partnered with Starbucks to create “DeCafe” debates, re-invigorating the spirit of the 17th Century coffee shop to inspire participation in elections.


The social entrepreneur later took this initiative to France and Colombia to support political engagement in elections and saw its methodology inspire the African Prisons Project, which held events in prisons with key social justice stakeholders.


Now CEO of Play Verto, which he says takes a “holistic approach” to accelerating and magnifying social impact through data-led decision-making, Sani’s new target is nothing less than generating the people power to help change the world.


The British-born, Egypt-based former business studies teacher recently unveiled The People’s Report, a global poll enabling 17,000 people speaking 43 different languages on the front lines of climate change to submit de-facto annual returns on how it is affecting their daily lives. The aim is for this exercise to act as a flash scorecard on progress toward achieving the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.


Emanating from discussions in 2019 with Catalyst 2030, a social entrepreneurship policy initiative, and run on a shoestring with a tiny staff reliant on volunteers and funded by friends and supporters, The People’s Report also wants its data to be used to formulate future policies.


“Social entrepreneurs want to collaborate in order to achieve the SDGs” says Sani, “but there are many different social entrepreneurs working towards the SDGs in silos across the different thematic areas.


“They have the same goals, but collaboration is hard to come by and what often happens is that there’s not enough funding or resources and you end up competing against those you should be working with because of the way the ecosystem has been put together.


“A lot of social entrepreneurs are therefore just surviving, rather than thriving, and that’s the piece of the jigsaw that most fascinates me: how do we shift the sector from survive mode and thrive.”


A collaboration between Catalyst 2030, the Social Progress Imperative and Play Verto, The People’s Report’s aim is to measure the reality of peoples’ lives in relation to the SDGs. Eleven questions were posed to ordinary people accessed through the partners’ networks. Eleven questions were posed to ordinary people accessed through the networks of Catalyst 2030 and other initiatives including the Social Progress Index.





They were answered by people on the world’s front lines: from the townships of South Africa, sex workers in India, Syrians in refugee camps, truck drivers in Australia, rose growers in Bogota, and office workers in Japan.


The inaugural survey found nearly two-thirds of respondents stating that they are experiencing the direct effects of climate change in their daily lives. Some 50% said they cannot trust their governmental leaders to address the issue. Asked whether they would choose to raise children in their communities in the current worsening environment, 34% of respondents replied in the negative.


The poll found that 34% of respondents under the age of 51 reported worsening mental health since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread evidence that they are living in the climate emergency, with 79% of respondents in the Indian subcontinent and 63% overall saying they had personally witnessed biodiversity loss.


The reality of hunger was also evident, with Africa (32%) and the Indian subcontinent (24%) reporting the highest levels, but 15% of North Americans and 14% of Europeans also saying they go to bed hungry. The impact of COVID-19 was clearly seen as 43% of respondents saying they had lost their income.


Lack of trust in governments emerged as a real problem, with 57% citing this in the Middle East and North Africa and one-third of all respondents stating that different views were not respected in their communities.


Finally, the survey identified a genuine fear for the future, with 42% of people in the Middle East and North Africa expressing little confidence in the future.


Sani and his partners are now planning much bigger Peoples Reports over the remaining eight years until the UN’s deadline. “The call to arms was ‘What’s your story?’” he says.


“We wanted to get the realities of as many people as possible at a particular point in time, with the goal of taking that back to the UN. It’s not about pointing out where their data is wrong and our data is right, but just to offer up our ideas so we can all work together with fresh and vivid information.


“We’ve got nine years to achieve the SDGs and this is the state of our realities according to the people facing them. We hope it can help form a unified voice to help better shape strategies based on need and a better understanding of what’s working and what’s not.


“If we’re going to set forth such an ambitious plan as achieving the SDGs, we really need to have our finger on the pulse. Now we have the data to take this forward.”

Source: Driving Change

Andrew Cave

Andrew Cave is a British business journalist who has written for The Daily Telegraph for 24 years in London and New York, rising to be Associate City Editor before switching to freelance writing in 2005. He also penned columns for Forbes Magazine for six years and has written five books on leadership and management.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading


Mobilized TV

Mobilized TV on Free Speech TV  takes a deep look at our world, the consequences of human activity on our planet, and how we can reverse and prevent existing and future crises from occurring. Mobilized reveals life on our planet as a system of systems which all work together for the optimal health of the whole. The show delves into deep conversations with change-makers so people can clearly take concerted actions.

Produced by Steven Jay and hosted by Jeff Van Treese.

Mobilized’s TV series Mobilized TV  premieres on Free Speech TV on Friday, October 15, 2021. All episodes appear:

Fridays 9:30 PM Eastern (USA/Canada)

Saturdays; 6:30 PM (Eastern USA/Canada)

Sundays: 8:30 AM Eastern (USA/Canada)

October 15, 16, 27
Many communities of native Americans have been subject to irreparable harm, and now there are some who are trying to indoctrinate them into their form of religion. We take a deep dive into conversation with Lakota Sioux Tribeswoman, Davidica Little Spotted Horse as she brings us up to speed of issues that should concern us all.

October 22, 23, 24
The overwhelming news being shoved down our throats on a daily basis is having a debilitating effect our our mental and emotional health. While many people seem to feel powerless, there are a lot of actions that people can take. gives you a front row seat to the change that you can create in the world when we speak with Rob Moir, Executive Director of leading environmental organization, The Ocean River Institute.

October 29, 30, 31
Architect Buckminster Fuller said “”Nature is a totally efficient, self-regenerating system. IF we discover the laws that govern this system and live synergistically within them, sustainability will follow and humankind will be a success.” So how can builders, architects and people in the construction industries learn from nature’s design and create healthy living systems that actually work with the natural landscape and ecosystem instead of against it? takes a deep dive in conversation with Nickson Otieno of Niko Green in Nairobi, Kenya.

Featured1 day ago

A Primer on Climate Security

Editorials3 days ago

A Finger In The Dam

Free Speech TV5 days ago

Free Speech TV: Episode 001: Davidica Little Spotted Horse

Editorials5 days ago

The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-friendly Investments Are Better Job Creators

Editorials6 days ago

Behind the Lofty SDGs the Reality is People Don’t Trust Governments to Act

Editorials6 days ago

Rebranding Public Service

Agriculture1 week ago

More than 65 groups call to fundamentally reorient its approach to global policy development on food and agriculture issues.

Chuck W.1 week ago

“We hold” this truth “to be Self-evident.”

Editorials1 week ago

The Monsters Go for a Walk in Chile

Editorials2 weeks ago

Sharing Surplus: An Ethic of Care

Editorials2 weeks ago

“If there is gas collusion in Chile, then distribution should be done by a public company”: Sector workers

Africa2 weeks ago

Eurasian Women’s Forum Seeks Answers to Significant Questions in Women’s World

Editorials2 weeks ago

Modifying the Organic Statutes at the University of Santiago de Chile

Featured2 weeks ago

Towards Latin America’s Nonviolent Future

Featured2 weeks ago

Phytotherapy, knowledge and experiences 03- “A path to the deep”.

Editorials3 weeks ago

Lies Kill

Editorials3 weeks ago

Lifting Seas to the Skies—The Invention of the Tree

Create the Future3 weeks ago

Global Wisdom Events

Create the Future3 weeks ago

Arts and Entertainment

Create the Future3 weeks ago

Let’s Create Systems That Serves People and Planet, Not corporations or governments

Editorials3 weeks ago

Chile: The Iquique bonfire, a national shame

Editorials4 weeks ago

The “Myth” of Independence (When in Reality, We are Interdependent)

Editorials1 month ago

Screen addiction, there’s still hope

Editorials1 month ago

Saying Yes to Food Sovereignty, No to Corporate Food Systems

Editorials1 month ago

La Via Campesina: The UN Food Systems Summit is hogwash. It is a threat to peoples’ food sovereignty

Editorials1 month ago

A Successful start of the Latin American March

Editorials1 month ago

The Foreign Policy We Need

Editorials1 month ago

Why Our Pay to Play System is Destroying Democracy and What We Can Do About It

Asia1 month ago

Ending the Spyware Trade

Featured1 month ago

The Spy Who Phoned In

Featured1 month ago

Scientists: Make it Easier for the Public to Understand Your Reports!

Economics1 month ago

Our Population Challenge Beyond Climate Change

Asia1 month ago

Sustainable Development: Strategies for the long road ahead in Indian cities

Editorials1 month ago

Current education systems inhibit identity development

Energy and Transportation1 month ago

Greens leader slams Green infighting

International1 month ago

Costa Rica’s Energy Independence: Renewable Energy

Europe1 month ago

A Leftwing victory in Norway election puts oil exit at the heart of coalition talks

Energy and Transportation1 month ago

The Clean Facts about Renewable Energy

Editorials1 month ago

By Jeremy Corbyn: Climate Crisis Is a Class Issue

Agriculture1 month ago

Dairy Free Milk for Disadvantaged Families

Agriculture1 month ago

Meat without the Moo

Africa1 month ago

South African Energy plant considering spending billions on wind and solar

Chuck W.1 month ago

The Interconnected structure of reality

An Empowered World1 month ago

Your front-row seat to the change you wish to create in the world

An Empowered World1 month ago

The Mobilized Exchange: Community Power: Are We finally ready?

An Empowered World1 month ago

A GPS for Humanity’s Next Adventure

An Empowered World1 month ago

Manifesto and Principles

An Empowered World1 month ago

Action Plan for Re-Thinking Humanity

Editorials1 month ago

Mea Culpa

An Empowered World1 month ago

Communities unite for World Ecologic December 10th


Translate »
Skip to toolbar