Incre?ble. Fraga ahir diu un disbarat que 'recorda' a l'alian?a de les partits catalans d'esquerra que l'ex?rcit garanteix l'unitat territorial espanyola.
?Quina gosada! Es absolutament intolerable que Fraga en nom de PP i Bono pel PSOE amenacen amb un acte que tant la Constituci? i el 23-F banniran per a sempre: el pronunciamiento. Fastidia quan el PP invoca tant al nous articles del Codi penal com cridar al l'ex?rcit per 'aplastar los separatismos' ?Per qu? no imposeu de nou el Decret de la Nova planta i acabem amb aquestes amenaces soto voce?
De cap manera es pot justificar recorre ex?rcit simplement per que els partits catalans pensen a modficar l'estatut. Ambd?s partits nacionals perden el cap i volen solicionar quansevulla advocaci? per modificar les lleis fondamentals del pa?s amb via carceral. Aix? no es cap manera de resoldre les contrav?rsies pol?tiques del dia. Ambd?s partits crispen la pol?tica espanyola en transpassen la pol?tica vasca a la catalana. Ser? un desastre i penso que el PP i el PSOE ho volen per demonstrar el 'perills' de canviar la constituici? i els estatuts. Ja s'en canstats de model autonomic i desitjen retornar al centralisme pur i dur d'antany i desde sempre.
Je n'ai pas beaucoup de commenatires ? cet ?ditorial du Figaro sur la loi anti-foulard. N?anmoins, je partage l'avis du directeur que cette loi n'int?grera pas les muslmans ? la societ? fran?aise ni les encourageront ? adh?rer aux valeurs du pays.
Comme toujours cette politique ce trace ? la R?volution qui a voulu bannir la religion pour y subsituir une culte de la?cit? que les Fran?ais n'ont jamais accept?e. Depuis lors, la France d?meure toujours profondement divis?e entre ceux qui pr?nent un lieu dans la place publique pour la religion et ceux qui d?sirent une place publique d?pouill?e de toute manifestation r?lgieuse innocuese quelle soit.
La voile islamique reveille cette tension entre r?ligion et la la?cit? que les Fran?ais n'ont jamais r?solu de fa?on satisfaisante. Cette nouvelle loi n'est qu'une autre exemple de cette incapacit? historique ? r?sourdre ce probl?matique.
Self-indulgent is the principal characteristic that comes to mind whenever I'm compelled to think about the boomers.
Nothing epitomizes the boomers' self-indulgence than Reagan and Thatcher within the international Anglophone community.
I've often remarked to my generation that Reagan was a godsend to the boomers, they relived their childhood for a second time. On the one hand, Regan and Thatcher prepared the society to undergo one of the most prosperous periods since the trente glorieuses (1945-75 post-war period). On the other, Reagan, in particular, embodied the Man and the Establishment. So the boomers could protest against Reagan's policies just like when they were teens, become fabuously rich too and enjoy the prosperity of their youth! A unique historical confluence that must be taken advantage of. And advtanage they took.
In Europe, the boomers, called the soxiante-huitards (the 68ers because they came of age in May '68), took a much different tack. They were always enamoured of the violent 'left wing' revolutionary groups like Bader-Mienhoff, November 17, ETA. When they got into power, like in France, the Euroboomers tried to dismantle capitalism. When that policy spectacularly failed, they retreated. However, like their North American contemporaries, they regarded themselves as the summit of human brilliance, beauty, achievement. Failures are never theirs; others are to blame for foiling them!
Yet what's so striking about the boomers on both sides of the Atlantic is how they fleeced everybody. In North America there were the junk bonds, leveraged buyouts, the payment of exorbitant salaries to the CEOs, huge layoffs; in Europe, the fleecing came through the illegal financing of the political parties, ripping off the state agencies, dubuious commissions, etc etc. The result was a meltdown in the stockmarket in the U.S. followed by the saving and loan financial instutitions' bankruptcy. In Europe, it's the ongoing anti-corruption trials.
In general, countries on both sides of the Atlantic really didn't benefit from that excess. Even the boomers were singed; yet, they still learn nothing. They latched on to the next BIG THING: computer technology. If ever there was an economic sector that succumbed to irrational exuberence, computers/hi tech were it. Again, I never really benefitted from the tech boom. I had no money to invest in stockmarket because I was unemployed at that time.
Besides, even if I had money, I still wouldn't've had much return on my investment, most of the investment was narrowly concentrated in certain geographical regions: Silicon Valley in the the U.S.; or companies- Nortel in Canada. Further, the analysts lied about the viability of many hi tech stocks and wrecked havoc on the resulting investment decisions. Just so that they could get their bonuses as the investment companies they worked for could continue to work with those companies.
In Canada we were spared the severest effects of the hitech bust. The principal reason was that our cheap dollar policy made purchases of American computer equipment and software too expensive. Hence we couldn't boost our productivity but at the same time we didn't benefit completely from the productivity gains as the Americans. Nonetheless, Nortel's meltdown did hurt the Canadian economy for a period of time.
Boomers, by and large, seemed to have survived this meltdown better than the one in '87. Not that they were all that hurt. Yet, the self-indulgence continues. This time it's healthcare in both Canada and the U.S.; in Europe, penisons. Boomers are like algae, wherever they show up, they completely take over and the society becomes a stagnant pool as the boomers progressively consume the former's resources and transform its political ecology without returning very much.. Why should they worry? Apr?s nous, la d?luge. Until then indulge!!!
I'm a Canadian Gen Xer which demographically start from 1965-73. This is a different age group than the American. The differences are significant.
I wrote to Kathy telling her how the article on employment brings back a lot of bad memories. First, the baby boomers have pretty much denied the Gen Xers any possibility of decent employment. Indeed, in my mid 20s, I simply couldn't find employment 'cause the boomers got scared for their jobs; so they abolished all the entry level jobs, concentrated the salaries upward and inflated the credenitials for all subsequent jobs. As I often point out to my family I'm the generation of permenant transition.
I'm revolted that many of the boomers who were either drop outs or far less credentialed than the Gen Xers demand so much from us for really straightforward positions. I remember the flurry of newspaper articles about the 30 years olds who still lived at home and the handwringing about this disturbing phenomenon. Just before the discovery of the 30 years old still lives with the parents demographic, the Gen Xers were regarded as slackers.
We weren't and aren't. The reason that so many of my generation still live at home or come across as slackers is because of the employment situation. There are simply no decent paying, full time, permanent jobs for our generation. Of course the boomers' kids won't face any of the problems we have. Jobs won't only be plentiful by the time their parents retire, the coming shortages will ensure high salary demands as well as steady employment for the boomer kids's entire lives. In sum, the Gen Xers have been effectively shut out from jobs, society, prosperity; we delayed marriage and our own families. Gen X is a cursed generation because the boomers overshadow us. Our greviences are ignorned, our dreams and hopes are ridiculed, our fears are confirmed. we're the just transiting through history generation. I often wonder if the boomers' contempt for Gen X is because we exist. Seriously, it's as if some boomers deeply regret that abortion couldn't've been legalized earlier. Thus, we're an obstacle to their kids' future careers, wellbeing, prosperity and peace of mind.
Avui es el centenari de l'aviaci?. Que m?s m'amaravella del avions es com quan comparem la m?quina del germans Wright amb un Cessna, es extraordinari la cdene?a de canvis tecnol?gics.
El primer avi? se constru? amb fusta i fill metallic i el motor es modific? d'una bicicleta. Avui un Cessna es fabrica amb materials composites mesclats de carb? (grafit) i metals ex?tics com el vanadeum aix? com el vol es control?la per un ordinador.
Ni parlem del avi?ns militares que empentaran la technol?gia avi?nica. Per? penso que la m?s gran contribuci? dels germans Wrights i tots els pionners que els seguiran es que ens ha obert el cam? de visitar pa?sos llunyans que altrament nom?s els rics, missioners, soldats i espias visitarian. Es gr?cies a tote els innovadors que han obert la porta por que tothom pugui vitajar.
Yesterday, as everyone reported on the capture, many began to probe which tribunal would have competency to try him for his crimes against humanity. A lot of experts think that it should be the Iraqis. I'm certainly sympathetic though the Kuwaitis and Iranians would also demand jurisdiction.
Interestinly, the Canadian federal justice minister Irwin Colter stated that the International criminal court doesn't have competency because Iraq was never a signatory. A trial won't be for years but my own preference would be a trial in Iraq under the auspices of a Hague tribunal. In sum, a court from the Hague goes to Iraq instead of extraditing Saddam to the Netherlands.
Establishing such a court would assuage other countries' deepseated suspicions that the trial will be nothing but a theatrical farce if the Iraqis or the Americans tried the ex-dictator on their own. That attitude is rather patronizing but that's the sentiment. More fundamentally, a trial in Iraq led by Iraqis will have a very powerful cathartic effect and allow them to establish a society based on the rule of law.
Realment, el pacte triparit en Catalunya esberra bastant el PP. Adhuc Zapalana ja amen?ava el dissabte que el govern centyral fotaria a la garjola si Maragall canvi?s l'Estatut.
Aznar ha repitat gaireb? la mateix pol?tica ahir. Que em molesta a part de qu? tot problema pol?tica se soluciona penalment, es que el PP fa 25 anys vot? en contra de raticar la Constituci? que avui dia defensen fevorsament. Tant el PP com el PSOE hauran de recordar-se que una constituci? no son pas els 10 manaments si m?s no un document fet per les mans humanes i doncs f?cilemnt defets per les mateixes persones. Recomano al PP de perdre-se el cap. Catalunya no es Pa?s Vasc per? pot esdevenir-ho si traspassen una pol?tica totalment forastera a les condicions catalanes.