Hier les syndicats publics et parapubliques ont fait une 'journ?e de disruption' pour protester les changements du Code du travail qui peremttra le gouvernement ? conclure des contrats de soustraitance. Moi, je m'en fous des syndicats car ils devront motiver pourquoi leurs jobs sont si importants si sacroscants que le gouvernmenet ne puissent jamais les toucher.
La derni?re fois que j'ai r?gard? la s?curit? ne figurait pas dans le 10 Commandements. La raision que le monde s'en fout carr?ment c'est parce que les membres des syndicats sont tr?s bien pay?s par rapport aux emplois comparables au secetur prive?, ont moins heures du travail, de longue vacacances pay?es et sutout c'est quasimment impossible de les licenser lorsqu'il y a un changement ?conomique ou technologique.
Comme contribuable, je veux de bons services, efficace, etc mais si on peut les avoir pour moindre co?t pourquoi payer plus cher? Voil? la question pour les syndicats qu'ils devront r?pondre avec coh?rence.
Like any other languages, Catalan has names for colours. Further, it's always interesting to compare and contrast the names with other European languages.
In Catalan there are several names for red. The most common word is vermell, vermella. According to the dictionary, it's an 'arterial red' (i.e. that of blood) also vermell is a red tending to orange (tarjona) Vermell is from Latin vermiculus a dimunitive of vermis worm. The word is also applied to ladybugs from which a scarlet dye was obtained.
Another word for red is roig, roja. This is a red tending towards yellow. The word is from Vulgar Latin ruiu. Classical Latin it's rubeus, -a, -um, derived from ruber, -bra, -brum. Scarlet is escarlet, escarleta which is from carlet. Interestingly, aside from being a colour, it's also a type of mushroom According to the etomology the word comes from Larin cardetum- a thorn place- so that people could see the mushroom with thorns. The Latin word went through a partial dental dissimulation.
Carmesine is carmes?, carmesina is a red that tends towards blue. It's from an Hispanoarab word: qarmaz? derived from q?rmaz (from qirmaz- ladybug) from the Persian kirm;worm. Blue is blau/blava. It derived from the Germanic blau older bl?o. Verd,verda is green the etmology indicates glass (Latin vidiris)
Yellow is groc,groga it's derived from Latin crocus- saffron and Greek krokos. White is blanc, blanca is from the Germanic blank signifying white, brilliant. Alb, alba is arachic and only used in poetry. Negre, negra is black and that's derived from niger, nigra, nigrum. Gris,grisa (the s is pronounced like a z sound as in buzzard) grey. The word is derived from the Frankish word gris and is identical with the French word.
En moins de 24 heures de la decision du P?ntagon ? exclure les pays qui se sont oppos?s ? l'invasion d'Iraq comme contracteurs principaux, les creanciers dont la Russie, France et l'Allemange, qui sont l'objet privil?g?s de cette decision, ont cat?goriquement r?j?t? l'appel de Bush d'annuler la dette irakienne.
?a commence bien dej?. En outre le processus d'octoyer les contrats pour la reconstruction du pays a ?t? r?tard? et les Europ?ens scruntent les lois du commerce international afin d'assurer ou non que la decision am?ricaine contraviendrait les r?glements de l'OMC. En tout cas, dor?anavant les Am?ricains se trouverent parfois tr?s seuls lorsqu'ils demondront de l'assistance. ?a m'attriste beaucoup car chaque division et chaque refus de s'entraider facilite la t?che des terroristes integristes.
Throughout much of the American bloggerdom, most bloggers and commentators to the blogs, are euphoric over the exclusion of France, Germany, Russia and others who opposed the war from submitting as prime contractors.
Most justify the exclusion on several ground. First, rewarding friends and punishing enemies is an important policy; second that Amrican taxpayers should finance those countries that obstructd American interests; third to send a message that actions have consequences. The justifications are reasonable enought but most bloggers except for one don't seem fazed that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are on the list nor that American taxpayers fund some of their worst enemies.
Yet despite all the bombastic rhetoric about teaching reclacitrant countries a lesson about obstructing American interests, the fact that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are on the list raises uncomfortable questions. The first that comes to mind is what do the DOD officials hope to accomplish with their vindictive attitude towards the excluded countries? Second, how credible can the exclusion as policy when some of the same countries are regarded as threats to American strategic interests and Iraqi wellbeing when they can be trusted with deploying troops Afghanistan or arresting suspected terrorists and accomplices?
It's the sheer incongruity to reality that's so deeply offensive about the decision to exclude those countries that opposed the war. Saudi Arabia is completely responsible for Islamojihadism through the funding and the encouragement of religious hate; Egypt as the Arab world's most culturally important country, provides the intellectual soil to the rancid hate that grows within the region. And yet they're far less threatening to fundamental American strategic interests than Chile and Canada. The policy doesn't suffer from cognitive dissonance, it's highly imprudent. It's simply impossible to explain coherently, logically and sincerely how Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't threats while Canada and others are.
According to various news sources that Wolfowitz will limit outside contractors in Iraq's reconstruction to those Coalition countries that supported the U.S. OK fair enough even though I think it's countrproductive. Nonetheless, when I saw some of the countries that the U.S. has permitted to submit tenders my jaw dropped.
It's one thing for Spain or the Phillipines to benefit but Egypt?! Saudi Arabia?! What the fuck!?! Why don't the Americans just cut off relations with those NATO allies that opposed the invasion and be done with it? Instead, the Administration insults its closest allies, both NATO and non-NATO by shutting them out of Iraqi reconstruction 'to protect vital American strategic interests' but allows Egypt and Saudi Arabia to compete for contracts.
Think about this for a moment, Egypt which recieves 2 billion$U.S./yr in subsides very recently had an exhibition at the Alexandra Library where the organizers placed that rancid fraud called the Protocol of the Elders of Zion beside the Torah The justifications were so loathsome that they're evil. Yet Egypt is far less of a threat to 'essential American strategic interests' than Canada or Chile. This policy decision will bode so well for the upcoming renegotiations on Iraqi debt. Those very same countries, that are regarded as threats to 'essential American interests' and excluded in consequence from Iraqi reconstruction, will ferociously oppose the debt be declared odious. Payback's going to savage the Americans just as much as those that opposed the war. The current Administration never loses an opportunity to alienate close allies and sympathetic countries whenever the occasion presents itself.
I'm deeply consternated by the consequences of this decision. This policy will haunt the Administration and future ones for some time.
Update: No Professor The French, German and Russian creditors won't be worried about holding worthless paper. In fact, it's the Americans who'll be sweating; not only over the Iraqi debt renegotiations but the fact that the Americans have successfully aliented sympathetic countries than when the next request for help comes, those countries will simply ignore it. Since no matter what they do or won't do the latter will be equally castiagted by the Americans. Also why should France and Germany heed Japan's decision to send troops to Iraq? The Americans will simply sneer at the French and Germans as a bunch of lazy, shitty, cowardly appeasers who only advance their interests. Better to stay home than to offer help that isn't wanted.
Update2: Here's the official document (PDF 272 kb) that lists the eligible countries that can participate in theWith all due respect to Georgia and Rwanda, what can they offer to Iraqi reconstruction? Georgia just had a peaceful coup d'?tat and needs to gets its house in order before it can help out in Iraq's reconstruction. There are other countries that you also wonder just how they'll contribute to Iraqi reconstruction.
This morning I read that 2 South Korean enginneers died in Iraq. I'm wondering if the shift in the nature of the attack from trying 'to plink' an American soldier or vehicle here or there to killing Coalition personnel is a change in tactics?. In sum, that the Iraqi holdouts realize that killing American soldier is a futile act because the former shoot back and achieve high kill ratios. Unfortunately, the Iraqi holdouts are committing a fatal mistake by killing Coalition personnel, especially civilians.
While the Coalition countries with smaller contributions might not yet be psychologically prepared for casualities, nothing will outrage them and galvnize them more than the killing of its citizens who are there for a noble purpose: help rebuild a devastated country. Further, most of the Coalition militaries face far less inhibitions with respect to media scruitny and rules of engagement.
As I pointed out when the Italian and Spanish personnel were killed, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the special units from both countries are actively pursuing the killers; quietly and ruthlessly. So in the end, teh Iraqi holdouts will invariably commit a fatal mistake- if they haven't yet- and slowly but surely be killed, captured or driven out
Dan r?pond ? un article ant?rieur de Bill qui d?fend William Tyndale consid?r?e par certains comme le p?re du Bible en anglais. En realit? le d?bat entre les deux bloggeurs centre sur si c'est possible d'initialiser une r?formation dans l'Islam ? la chreitienne.M
a r?ponse est bien sur que non mais pas pour les raisons typiquement pr?sent?es. La rasion princiaple c'est que l'Islam est fissiporeux par rapport non seulement entre les sectes d'interpr?tation mais ?galement aux doctrine. Regardez la controverse qui entoure le djiade. S'agit-il d'une lutte spirituelle contre la tentation? Ou plut?t un cri aux fid?le ? soumettre le monde sous l'empire d'Islam? Voil? le probl?me: pour certain musulmans, c'est le premier; pour d'autre le deuxi?me et encore ce sont les deux.
Donc il n'a pas de magist?re islamique qui articule, d?fend, clarifie et l?gue le d?pot de la foi ? chaque g?n?ration. Or, comment pr?consier une r?formation de ce d?p?t s'il y a tellement des interpretations qu'auncunes font doctrine mais plut?t un choix que les fid?les peuvent ou non accepter? C'est pourquoi plaidoyer pour une telle reforme s'av?re illusioire; cependant, on peut encourager les musulmans a r?flchir sur certains aspect de leur doctrine et demander pourquoi ils ont tellement de difficult? ? vivre en paix ou laisser les autre tranquilles lorsque les muslmans sont en majorit?. Peut-?tre un telle r?fl?ction permettra une refonte d'Islam.