Infections From Cut On Elbow

Democracy welfare and assistance and consultation

of Andrea Amati - been years since we faced with the dogma of the meeting.
's one of those words that seem to rise to a higher rank, as if they were an expression of absolute value, which becomes inconvenient if not outrageous subject to criticism and raise doubt. It will be said, are just words, as the poet said, are just songs. But the pounding insistence with which the value expressed by this word is exalted, revered, exalted by the unanimous chorus of political correctness, making it unbearably disagreeable.

The word collusion hurts the camouflage with which it was introduced in the common language by the dominant political class. Its etymological meaning is that of concerted decision or the result of collaboration of all parties, as the elements of an orchestra in concert. In the political reality it consists in the agreement that the political parties to enter into government with representatives of private interests, the expression of "great powers" of society, in order to prevent their hostile reaction at government decisions that affect them. In fact it is a transgression of the strict principles of parliamentary democracy, in theory, reminds us Professor Sartoris paginme from the Courier (bottom of Sept. 6), were still in force in Italy. Parliamentary democracy requires that decisions affecting the life of the country are taken by a majority of a group of people, members of Parliament, what specifically elected by the general public. Regardless of the electoral system adopted, the Parliament is the expression of the national community, through the constraint representation of its members, and only at that meeting should take decisions affecting the generality of the citizen-voters.

With the so-called conciliation, however, problems are not just discussed (as it would certainly be acceptable) but also decided outside the halls of Parliament, directly between the representatives of special interests (employers, unions, banks, insurance companies, pharmacists, civil service unions, magistrates, lawyers, the inhabitants of the Susa Valley) and Representatives of political parties in government. Political parties have transformed, with clerical-Marxist logic, their organizational structures from free association to a kind of monastic Masonic brotherhood, where the defense of the power acquired precedence over any other value, even though they are theoretically protected by the Constitution. In this way, the political party leaders have taken an enormous power: any decision is made directly with the social groups from time time involved, regardless of the will of Parliament, and brought to Parliament only for formal ratification, imposed by the parliamentary leaders of their parties without being allowed any real critical contribution. Just for the sake of appearances, or merely for tactical requested by the parties, MPs pretend to discuss amongst themselves but in the end always vote in accordance with team orders, or order as the governing bodies of their own party. And they can not do otherwise if overdriven the party will not allow their re-election, with loss of all benefits and privileges that this entails. They also take the family. Isolated cases of parliamentarians who, in the recent past, have dared to show a little ' independence from their parties have been exposed to public ridicule, pointed at with scorn by the whole gang-Masonic monastic of Italian politics and the media, until they themselves have not made a public apology and returned to play the obedient to their well-paid role Members of keypads.

With the emergence of the meeting, the Parliament has become a mere votatoio, so that if they can, MPs go there as little as possible, making replacement of "pianists" who vote for them under the table: To vote as the party commands us you can do well to replace.

But consultation is not only degrades the constitutional role of Parliament, dismissed by their specific role representatives of the entire national community and, therefore, whether corporations, churches, lodges and even of the thighs, marginalizing the role of performers in order to vote, it humiliates, if not destroyed, the powers of the government, which would the task of leading the government. The consultation has also moved this business from the halls of government, seen as independent from the Parliament and political parties, representatives of those parties which support it: in fact members of the Government (the individual ministers, deputy ministers and secretaries) are appointed logic divider (manual Cencelli) between the party leaders or representatives closely related to them. And so the individual ministries become the only area of \u200b\u200baction of the Minister, Deputy Minister and Secretary, whose principal concern becomes that of pleasing, thanks to the power that achieved the largest possible number of groups, organizations, committees, organizations and individuals, to ensure a good election result in his own party. Even these trades under the table are defined in consultation pompously. Amen.

Bruno Vespa once said with pride that his program was called the third branch of parliament. Had not noticed that its transmission, like other successful politician of entertainment have become the only true place for political debate, where politicians can really share his ideas and his projects. With the limit, however, that the television share does not confer any power of decision and the popular appreciation on any particular point under discussion need not end with the memory of the transmission, leaving, at most, a general feeling of sympathy toward this or that politician, with the 'effect desired, to move some votes in the election.

In essence, the Parliament and its Members do not need any more. The political debate takes place publicly, through the media, but it will do bait and switch, and thus to gain broad sympathy votes. The real decisions are made in "consultation" outside Parliament, directly between the leaders of parties and any social gathering evidence that it has enough following: the purpose is always the same, "move" votes.

by legnostorto.com

What To Wear With A Blue Pencil Skirt

of Barbara Di Salvo - As often happens when you add the suffix-ism and you go from reality to abstraction, from practice to theory change the result, and considerably worse.

is that assistance, the noblest of human behavior, it becomes hopelessly in the caricature of the welfare state, no longer practical activity, but pure doctrine, no longer rational behavior, but what can be morale.Per dogma of the beasts, there is no human being is instinctively led to provide assistance to those who are in danger or necessità.Certo, some have a more heroic spirit, but even the worst of cynics, if not suffering from serious mental disorders, would starve a person dear to him, even his figlio.L 'only difference between the hero and the cynical is that the first also helps to strangers.

This is not the time to philosophize about why to do it, but Christianity is acknowledged to have provided a strong motivation to humans: the conquest of Paradiso.Ora, that we have marched over the clergy did not put in some debate, but to deny that Christians are, for purely religious reasons, more likely to give assistance to those in need seems to me quite frankly too much for even the most convinced that we can meet the atei.Non a Mother Teresa, a Padre Pio, the priest or the lady in the suburbs of San Vincenzo, who have dedicated their lives to help the prossimo.Ognuno of these believers will have had its reasons, but the merit of Christ and religions from his descendants have been able to convey the natural selfishness in altruistic behavior.
Selfishness, in fact, in these cases does not disappear, is channeled to the service of others, but the motivation of bottom is always selfish: the eternal salvation is only and exclusively of a single benefactor, mica beneficiato.Con this critic's certainly not altruistic Christians, indeed my hat off to those who invented them. I only claim what is profoundly wrong to demonize extol egoism and altruism, as the second without the first even exist. What has been invented, however, socialism and communism (two other-isms that make abstract, doctrinaire, dogmatic, and thus the worst two good concepts like socialization and communion)?

welfarism, selfless altruism, helping others without helping ourselves, or worse, making the male.Pura abstraction, simple demagoguery, tales for gullible people still believe that the help of the other may be imposed by law and the ego can be abolished for decreto.In somehow had to replace a religion and have made a new land where the only god is the need , the weak, the stranger, the poor who need help in any way, whatever the cost, whatever the conseguenze.Poco whether denying the selfishness at the root, rather than direct it as Christ did, you end up being a victim . One can not even believe in the devil, but the day before that if he finds, he plans to get away with saying "you do not exist"? And the results of such stupidity and shortsightedness are obvious to all. But they, no, do not give up.

still insist on the redistribution of income, with the uncontrolled social spending, indiscriminate with the acceptance of any derelict again destroy every resource of the country to live to make the selfish approfittatori.Questo contradict themselves because if they admitted that ' selfishness is not only rich but also poor in that if took the opportunity to live rendita.Così do not bother to help the needy out of poverty, but are happy to leave it, while continuing to satisfy their egos by the generous with our money and thus buy their consent. Thus the state, rather than facilitate social assistance carried out by individuals, whatever the motivation that drives them, to profit from religion, have the presumption to be able to do without these institutions, to be able to replace themselves and to become itself a religione.Ma yes, we remove the privileges of the Church , we pay the ICI to the speakers and Catholic schools. Enough with these gifts to the priests who have so many billions that could feed Africa. Applies to them also the European principles of free competition. That they also compete in the lucrative business of non-profit organization. Oh, I am told by the director of the non-profit organization that also do not pay the ICI. So where's the privilege? And community centers to pay? I doubt it since they are Okkupati and, therefore, does not even pay the rent. And receipts of bars and concerts that make us in are taxed? Even those? And all the cultural associations, sports clubs, and all those other organizations that deal with care, welfare, health, education, hospitality, culture, recreation and sport ? even theirs? So, no exemption is given only to the Church? "Ah, that is for all faiths? So, even mosques and cultural centers Tibetans?

But you look at it. No, not that. Too? I can not believe .... well as unions and political parties, I am treated as a non-profit non-profit? Come on, it's a joke. Party and union non-profit is a contradiction in termini.Ma is really the case? So want to say that unions such as the eyelashes, with 3,000 branches in Italy, the CISL and the UIL with 5,000, with a real estate portfolio of € 35 million, do not pay a cent of ICI? That same real estate corporate fascist state that is they literally got? The same properties that you do not even know the exact number, because the unions are not required to submit a budget that is invested billions they steal a pensioners, workers, INPS and State? Thus, the synthesis is in the name of an alleged anti-privilege, parties, friends of the unions, who invented the welfare state are trying to take away from those who support a tax exemption in their own benefit? Now that's unfair competition.

by www.barbaradi.splinder.com

Gansta Red Bandana Cakes

Turkey and the idiocy of the old Europe

Carlo Panella - The election of Abdullah Gul as President of Turkey sets the seal to the full and complete defeat of Kemalism with extraordinary consequences not only policy framework for the Mediterranean, but also for doctrinal reflection on Islam in modernity. To impose secularism, to "export democracy in Europe", heavily influenced by Masonic thought and Mazzini (the Young Turks copied the name from Young Italy). Kemal Ataturk abolished the caliphate and the sultanate, dissolved all the fraternities the immense religious and confiscated goods, abolished the Shari'a penal code replaced with Rocco and the administration of Neuchâtel and also abolished the Arabic script (written from right to left) and imposed the Latin alphabet, with a dramatic break that prevented the Turkish reading old texts in writing (in fact, the total censorship on Islamic culture). Atatürk finally put the national army to guard the secular nature, the overriding power in all institutions (nine years ago was deprived of a parliamentary mandate for the only reason to wear the hijab in the classroom). A reform that met with universal approval for 80 years, so much so that many more scholars (Bernard Lewis among them) see this as the only one able to combine with its violence-reforming-Islam and modernity.

past 83 years, Kemalism, is now dead. Because the Democratic "old mole Muslim" has crumbled all the constraints that kept Islam at the margins of power el'Akp, a modern and moderate party, but entirely Muslim, has been chosen by the people as turkish keeper of all the political power Government and President of the Republic. The failure of the Kemalist secular state model, although legitimated by the extraordinary military victory against the invasion of Atatürk greek-English 1920-22 (which also took part in Italy) is now evidence proven that no model, no political doctrine of secular-Western brand still managed to prevail in Islamic societies. Time for Reflection capital not only for Iraq but also Iran, where the Turkish experience shows that only a proposal for democratic politics in the Muslim world will be able to accumulate enough popular support to overthrow the dictatorship.

But the failure of Kemalism, playing mostly as a warning, unheeded, to the poor political culture of Europe. It 'was in fact the EU to do the immense favor of Erdogan to "impose" the elimination of the overarching power of the military government, the faithful guardians of the secular and democratic. It has been the EU to demand the idiot mechanical application of the "Copenhagen criteria" (designed to lead the former communist countries to democracy, not Muslim ones) that have allowed antilaicista Erdogan to take over, thanks to the votes of 46, 5% of the electorate, everything, absolutely all the power. Now, the turkish army, the only one in the world to have made three fully democratic coup, he has no political power and can no longer guard the secular. The EU, can only bring the candles to the Madonna of the AKP, Erdogan and Gul also thanks to the military coup of 1997 - is a fully democratic party. But the next election could be won by Muslim Brotherhood, or fundamentalists. As in Algeria. And you know how it ended.

by www.carlopanella.it