How Can I Style My Very Short Bob

Eluana

These reflections on the thorny case of Eluana were published as a letter to the newspaper Messaggero Veneto February 5, 2009

We are not in Iran's Khomeini

I would like to say a few words as a person , a citizen and a retired doctor, on the case of Eluana, now that you start the epilogue.
Frankly, every time I hear or read newspaper articles, inappropriately or written about this sad story, on which everyone feels compelled to make judgments ed'invadere the privacy of that poor family, I can think of the word Disconcert .
right, else puzzled by the lack of respect for the grief of the family that started seventeen years ago will stay with them forever, because the pain of losing a child can not be erased.
I wonder, regardless of the views of all those who spend many words on the subject, what support was given to the family. How many of those who verbally defend life at all costs, the first person to engage in protecting, supporting, helping, respecting the rights of the weakest people and acting in a way that others respect them. Because people who suffer, families suffer, there are many.
are horrified by the inaction of the political class. Politicians continue to prove more and more opportunities to leave the discussion of issues so crucial to all of us, emotional wave of collective ethical conscience, being characterized by thousands of diverse voices, only creates confusion. It would be better than such topics as living wills or others that affect the lives of all the relevant sites were discussed and finally legislate appropriately in respect of those who have faith, but also of those who did not have it.
are horrified by the non-compliance with a decision, right or wrong that we consider, issued by the supreme law of the State and that many invite to disown it. My parents taught me that this is civil disobedience. What explains their children, students, or young people with whom they have to do those people: to follow their religious beliefs or the law of the State? Following ethics objective that seeks the respect of the person, although secular, or only Catholicism? We're talking about freedom and I do not want, on purpose, to be part of that chorus that comes in on the medical problem that affects the family and Eluana Englaro, providing additional personal voice to a problem that has become all too collective.
are horrified by the interference of certain sectors of Catholic fundamentalists who claim to impose their ideas to those who are secular and do not forget that the State is and must remain secular! We are not in a state Khomeini's theocracy like Iran. The Catholic Church is indeed an integral part of our culture and therefore has the sacred right and duty to express their ideas, but can not expect to impose them on everyone. In the Constitution, so often disregarded, there is freedom of worship for all faiths.
are horrified by some Catholics, fundamentalists feel compelled by the Bishop of chopsticks for not taking drastic action, it is even spoken of excommunication, against ten "priests of the border" hot as signatories of the famous document. One has the impression of falling back to the times of the Inquisition, when the Church was more careful not to lose its temporal power and Orthodoxy, which allowed him to maintain it, rather than living according to the dictates of the Gospel.
are horrified, and I will end here, hoping not to appear as Cato the Censor, but as a citizen of the sick, the excess of the spotlight on this critical matter that affects one person, pointing out that, in contrast, has little visibility been given, for example, to twelve hundred Palestinian deaths or all of those, lay or missionaries who are murdered every day in over a hundred ongoing conflicts in the world today.

LINK related

http://libridibeppeavanzato.blogspot.com/

When Can You Trade In Crystal

2 3 Introducing a culture

Messaggero Veneto letter published on June 1, 2009.

Culture

a definition is not fashionable

In a moment of loss of values, empty of meaning, particularly the ethical, linked also to the media bombardment that subtly suggests a series of more appearance-oriented models that being, the ephemeral beauty of the body eternally unchanged in spite of any law of nature, the omnipotence of the village money in the name of which it becomes permissible to trample any law, dignity and feelings, I asked myself that way, what value, which give meaning to the word culture, both used and often abused.
certainly not talking about the "culture" that would have us believe that life is a reality or would like to convince that the "thinking" is just one and unquestionable.
For my CULTURE is:
- open your mind because the intellect is the greatest gift that man has ever had and would be a sign of ingratitude not to use it better;
- be the protagonists of their history;
- choose what is right from what is not, what is good and what is bad for everyone us not forget that your neighbor can have different parameters, equally valid, of course, in respect of the current Constitution and the moral
- can tell when the speaker is telling the truth or telling a pack of lies;
- know and demand their rights;
- make your voice heard, participate in decisions and not be caged by preconceived ideas, but take personal opinions;
- know how to listen to others and have the courage to say "I do not understand! Tell me more! "
- understand that it is fruitful to all work together to build the common good, and learn to communicate, share and discuss;
- have the courage to say" I was wrong! " and find the strength to apologize;
- understand that "others" are not "bad" and that is a great richness in diversity;
- respect yourself, others and nature;
- respect their history and traditions, treasure the past and look to the future;
- enjoy having doubts as a stimulus to think, argue with yourself and with others, draw conclusions, but be ready to challenge in the light of new information, not satisfied with the "certainty" of others;
- enjoy the beauty and consider it as a stimulus for discussion and debate, and then the "growth";
- learn to use their knowledge in new contexts, growing cross-fertilization of thought.

To me, the educated man is not who you know has a sector-wide that may be, but one that is constantly evolving, which jealously guards and cultivates in himself the ability to be amazed by the new and different things, not barricades himself in the ivory tower of knowledge, but which permeates all his knowledge with humanity, making it a fully-fledged citizen of civil society.

LINK related

http://libridibeppeavanzato.blogspot.com/

Softasilk Cake Recipe

My wife and I, after thirty years of marriage, we, maybe even more than before, the desire to compete on many issues that often lead us to make the reflections, so we decided to publish on a blog in order to broaden the discussion.

I, among other things, it is my hobby of writing, so I've made since 2003, five books on which you can read up in the books my blog beppe advanced . In all my publications, gives voice to people who recounts his experiences thus reconstructing the history of everyday people who lived dramatic moments, important in a border area as Carnia, perhaps taking inspiration from particular aspects such as, for example, by correspondence.

I must say that the stimulus to our thinking have their origin in time from the political chronicle, sometimes made by national or local custom often strong social and ethical value. When we do or do some reflection I think that I write or think is important, because it trace left of it. Lately I got into the habit of writing some thoughts that are usually based on respect for the person and the indignation that stems from abuse, particularly when certain values \u200b\u200bare trampled by the brutal way in power related to any type of lobby.

We would like to deal with the thought of others and then we will be happy to receive your comments.

LINK related

http://libridibeppeavanzato.blogspot.com/

Does A Cone Biopsy Make You Infertile

The gene has become selfless

Neuroscience - The live images neurons reveal the secrets of moral decisions. Ethical principles to pre-existing religions, as a natural circuit, similar to that of language. Nothing but selfishness, we are programmed to work together and fall in love. The "goodness" comes from the interaction between the cortex, the seat of emotions and rational.

The thing about scientists is that they are the only people willing to change his mind. But even more remarkable is that many test support what most consider unrealistic: humans are basically good. We were scheduled to work, rather than help us out, build stable social groups and even fall in love. On evolution, the discovery that ruins sleep in many men and women of faith who stigmatize Darwin as a lost soul.
one surprise, science puts the nose in philosophy, ethics and religion, and builds a provocative image of the human being, throwing the air a few thousand years of meditation far from obvious. And it does putting into play their own interpretations. Between the years 70 and recently, followed the mainstream of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (again evolutionism!) And claimed that the bodies - including us - are prey to the so-called "selfish gene". His favorite phrase said "The quality of a dominant gene that has happened is ruthless selfishness. And 'this gene at the base of the evil behavior of individuals."
is no longer the case. The latest technologies that observe the functioning of the brain directly, along with the explosion of neuroscience who enjoy the Appearance section and more specific skills, argue the opposite: the ethical principles, rather than a product of religion, these pre-exist as a natural circuit, parallel to the "software" of the language (theorized by prof.'s MIT Noam Chomsky). A test is the test of Marc Hauser, a Harvard evolutionary psychologist, who devised the formula of "moral minds" (here again appear Darwin). As a refutation of Dawkins posthumously, explains it this way. "I are given $ 10 to make an offer to a stranger who will never see again. I'll have to deliver the agreed amount and keep the rest. But if he refuses, neither of them will have nothing." And here's yet another
twist. "From a rational point of view, I should give the minimum amount possible. But most of the" guinea pigs "proposes $ 5. And when the figure is much lower, the other tends to say no." And 'one of the evidence - says Hauser - that the mind has been formed "with a series of regulatory mechanisms that balance the unbridled egotism."
The great thing is that, beyond the statistics, is the 'imaging of neurons to explain the secret. The decisions of "moral" - and I confirm my colleagues, beginning with Antonio Damasio, a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California - are not taken from the bark only rational, but also and inevitably by the limbic system, seat of emotions. To take action is a mix.
means that the only reason the crude greed drives us to Dawkins (and extreme even murder). E 'instead of the seemingly irrational sophisticated package - consisting of four categories of feelings, from anger to compassion, according to research psychologist Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia - transforming us into benevolent creatures "pro-social". Steven Pinker, a Harvard cognitive psychologist, is quite clear: "It's adaptive mechanisms to enable cooperation."
And this, of metamorphosis, can sublimate in love watching the interactions of neurons, Semir Zeki, neurobiologist at University College in London, is convinced that the development of ideals - a path that moves from changing artistic creation to the feelings, in fact - is the inevitable expression of our way to acquire knowledge, which can handle huge amounts of data only through synthesis. Neuroscience, with him, opened the era of neuroestetica and expand the range of neuropsychology. We are social beings and, if not more, binds us an idea of \u200b\u200bromantic love is a universal constant, as confirmed by the confessions of frustrated poets.
final surprise: it is demonstrated that the gene selfish or generous - said Piergiorgio Strata, president of the National Institute of Neuroscience - our freedom flows through narrow limits, genetically determined. E 'Roger Sperry's Nobel prize for medicine a cruel metaphor of the wheel: like our thought patterns can run or slow down, but its geometry is that it always requires the molecules, determining their behavior.

of Gabriele Beccaria by La Stampa, June 11, 2008

How To Drain Macaroni Without A Strainer

The Seven Deadly Sins of the Internet (and virtues)

What is the fate of the parliaments in the information and communication? Some years ago, when he began the debate on electronic democracy, it seemed that new technologies have led to the gradual disappearance of representative democracy, replaced by more and more common forms of democracy Direct. In the new electronic agora citizens could always take the word and decide on everything.

The memory of ancient Athens and the model of the town meetings of New England appeared to be the new form of democracy, with a mixture of old and new that would gradually erased the role of parliaments. Today these assumptions are far away, and electronic democracy going in different directions from those of a brutal and deceptive simplification of political systems. But this does not mean that parliaments can overlook some great new information and communication technologies, which have a profound effect on their role and how they structure their relationship with society. We are not faced with simple technical means, but a powerful force, technology as a whole, which is radically transforming our society.

We are moving on a global scale, from a technological equilibrium to another. The first great task of parliaments, today, is therefore to take this moment to make timely choices necessary for all the smart technologies will be resolved in an overall strengthening of democracy.

became clear some lines of analysis and intervention, which can be summarized as follows:

- to ensure that new technologies lead to a concentration instead of a spread of social and political power;

- to ensure that new technologies become established as a form of populism in our time, with a continuous sliding into a plebiscite democracy.

-avoid that we are increasingly faced with control technologies rather than technologies of freedom;

- preventing new inequalities in addition to those existing

- to avoid the great potential creative use of new technologies does not lead to a diffusion of knowledge, but insidious forms of privatization.

Pure digital age, therefore, has its sins, seven as tradition, and were listed as: 1) inequality, 2) commercial exploitation and abuse information, and 3) the risks to privacy, 4) disintegration of communities; 5) instant plebiscites and dissolution of democracy, 6 ) tyranny of those who control access; 7) loss of value of public service and social responsibility. There are, however, the virtues, first and foremost the great opportunity to give voice to an increasingly large number of individual and collective subjects, to produce and share knowledge, so that now many believe that the definition that best describes our present and a future closer, is just that of "knowledge society".

Beyond the images and metaphors, parliaments are not called to choose between good and evil. Faced with a complex reality, in which live the knowledge society and risk society, parliaments are not being asked to choose between good and evil. They must reaffirm their historic and unique role as guardians of freedom and equality.

references are not rhetorical. The technology provides us with many promises.

democracy offers the means to combat the declining efficiency, and up to propose a regeneration. But if we look at the real world, trends in act, we risk to meet increasingly use technology that makes extensive and continuous monitoring of citizens. Must react to these trends, not only to escape to a kind of institutional schizophrenia that leads to the construction of a world divided between the hopes of freedom and the danger of surveillance. And 'necessary, especially realistically considering the social dynamics, beginning with those which could produce new inequalities.

This problem is usually referred to as digital divide, and indeed the use of technology, the Internet first, produces social stratification, the emergence of new classes of haves and have nots, the haves and its have-nots with regard to the fundamental resource of information. But the most reliable research on the digital divide, highlight the gap between developed and less developed countries as regards Internet access, can not be examined by referring mainly to differences in income. Although still very deep, in fact, the distances on the Internet tend to fall faster than those related to wealth.

This means that the factors of influence are not so much economic, but rather the social and cultural rights.

Knowledge is a word that sums up the access to the sources, to develop the material collected, disseminate information freely. Already in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights United Nations has affirmed the right of everyone to freedom of opinion and expression "and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of Frontiers. Today this right is threatened by the claim of many states to control the Internet, for the exercise of real power of censure, for convictions of perpetrators of those particular communications network that are blogs.

This situation can not be ignored, especially as some large companies - Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Vodafone - Announced by the end of the publication of a "Charter" to protect freedom of expression on the Internet. Parliaments can not accept that the guarantee of free speech, that the U.S. wanted to entrust their First Amendment of the Constitution, become the stuff of which deal only with individuals, which obviously will only offer guarantees compatible with their interests.

Internet is the largest public space that humanity has known, where he is also making a great redistribution of power. A place where everyone can speak, acquire knowledge, generate ideas and not just information, to exercise the right to criticize, discuss, participate in the common life, and thus build a different world to which all citizens can equally be said.

But all this may become more difficult, if not impossible, if knowledge is closed in pens owners without considering the very novelty of the situation we face and that requires looking at knowledge as the most important assets common.

The question of the commons is essential. New words travel the world - open source, free software, no copyright - giving the sense of a change of epoch. Today, the conflict between ownership interests and collective interests can be found not only around scarce resources, in view increasing dramatically as water scarce. In the global context we see a continuous creation of new goods, knowledge, first of all with respect to which the shortage is not the result of natural data, but of deliberate policies, misuse of the patent and copyright, which are leading to a movement of "closure" similar to that in England, led to the enclosure of the commons, the first freely available. This artificial scarcity, created, and threatens to deprive millions of people with extraordinary opportunities for personal growth and collective political participation.

The challenge for parliaments is not only about the need to find new balance between logic and logical properties of common goods. Invests the same way of understanding citizenship. The real novelty of democratic information and communication technologies, in fact, is not to give the public the misleading illusion of participating in major decisions through electronic referendums. It consists in the power given to each and everyone to use the extraordinary wealth of material made available for technology to develop proposals to control the ways in which power is exercised, to organize society. With this wide world - in which democracy is manifested in a "live", but no overlap with the "representative" - \u200b\u200bthe parliament must find new forms communication, through consultations, informal networking of proposals on which it urges the citizens' opinion, procedures to allow the parliament to extend in proposals drawn up by groups to whom, then, are also recognized the possibility of intervention in the legislative process.

The rigid opposition between representative democracy and direct democracy may well be exceeded, and the same parliamentary democracy would receive new legitimacy from its stand as a constant partner of the company.

In this context, parliaments must in particular rule that needs to fight terrorism and crime and the demands of economic system will lead to the creation of a surveillance society, the selection and control, altering the democratic character of political systems which Parliaments are the first and essential guarantors.

Just technologies, with their apparent neutrality, have strengthened the push towards the creation of huge collections of personal data.

policy is delegating to the technical management of the different aspects of society, forgetting, for example, a principle clearly stated in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this rule is permitted to limit rights for various purposes, including security national law, provided, however, that it measures compatible with the characteristics of a democratic society. Parliaments should exercise this function with the utmost rigor of control, without delegating it to other state bodies, be it constitutional courts. Only thus can prevent the transformation of citizens into suspects, and prevent, with the argument of the defense of democracy, the democracy is being lost.

This is the speech Stefano Rodota held at Montecitorio for the opening of the International Conference of the Interparliamentary Union (March 6, 2007)

Woman Milking Forced Cocks

the brains OF The Harvard boffins at Harvard: "Punishing is useless, it is only losers"

EARN POINTS IN SIMULATION those who collaborate with the opposition.
"The punishment does not help to achieve results. Serves only to reaffirm a strict hierarchy." The

had said to the jailers at Abu Ghraib, maybe they would be kept a bit '. Punishment does not do any good, is a behavior from losers. The sociological and psychological truth, that prisoners and subjected the world had already guessed, is now certified by a Harvard University study, led by Martin Nowak and published in Nature. The researchers gathered a group of volunteers and screened them with a series of role-playing games (not torture) to understand what were the behaviors more efficient in a group or in a hierarchical chain.
The key experiment was the "Prisoner's Dilemma", a model already studied in economics and sociology.
version of the game used in the experiment, volunteers had different options of win or loss, related to the moves of others. Each player could decide to "cooperate" with opponents (losing a coin, but making them win two opponents), thinking only of his own interests and thus win by losing his opponent, to punish the opponent, a currency and self-assessed wasting the "enemy" four coins.
the end, the five players were better placed than those who chose not to punish ever. At the other extreme are those who had placed the punishment frequently qui red. The punishment short
NOT USED TO PROMOTE COOPERATION, BUT EQUAL TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS THAT OF REINFORCING A HIERARCHY OF CONTROL OR DEFEND A property '.
"Winners do not punish," summed up David G. Rand, a researcher at Harvard.
not do it because the punishment creates a spiral of revenge, which can have destructive consequences. "In a competitive society like today - he concludes - who choose to punish, lost, victim of his own weapon."

study published in Nature

Laptop Tables For Couch

should the principles of democracy

This text appeared in 1958 on "Risorgimento" that, during the first decades of the Constitution, had initiated an investigation. It was later published in the same year, the Bulletin of the University of Turin.
When we speak of democracy, we are not referring only to a set of institutions, but also indicates a general conception of life. In the democracy we are committed not only as citizens with certain rights and certain duties, but also as men who must incorporate a way to live and deal with themselves and with others. How
political system, modern democracy is founded on the recognition and guarantees of freedom under three aspects: civil liberty, political liberty and social liberty. To civil liberty means the right, by giving each citizen to make personal decisions without interference by public authorities in those fields of economic and spiritual life, within which explains, expresses, enhances the personality of each . Through political freedom, which is the right to participate directly or indirectly in the formation of laws, it is recognized to citizens the power to contribute to the political choices that determine the orientation of the government, and to discuss and perhaps change the policy choices made by others, so that political power loses the odious character of oppression from above. In addition, we are now convinced that civil liberty and freedom Policy names are vain if they are not complemented by social freedom, which alone can give citizens a real power and not only abstract or formal, and they can meet their basic needs and to develop their natural abilities.
These three freedoms are the expression of a complete conception of life and history, the highest and most humanly rich conception of life and history that men have created over the centuries. Behind the civil liberty is the recognition of man as a person, and thus the principle that only just society is one in which state power has limits and well-established barriers, and abuse of power can be lawful, that is, through legal, rejected, and there is dominated by the spirit of dialogue, the method of persuasion against all forms of dogmatism of ideas, of bigotry, oppression spiritual, physical and moral violence. Behind the political freedom is the idea of \u200b\u200bfundamental equality of men in front of political power, the principle that before the task of governing, which is essential for the survival and development of human society, there are elected and reprobate, governors and governed by purpose, powerful and uncontrolled servants resigned, the lower classes and upper classes, but all may be, from time to time, rulers or ruled, and to each other and the second alternate events, interests, ideologies. Finally, upon social freedom is the principle, and later appeared hard, but not reject them, that men count must count, not for what they have, but for what they do, and work, not ownership, the actual contribution that everyone can give according to their capacity for social development, and not the possession that each has merit or not to an extent proportionate to the merits, is the dignity of man in civil society.
A democracy needs, of course, appropriate institutions, but does not live where these institutions are not fueled by strong principles. Where the principles that inspired the institutions lose force in people's minds, even the institutions decay, become, first, empty skeletons, then the first impact and risk of ending up in dust. If today there is a problem of democracy in Italy, it is more a problem of principles and institutions. Ten years after the promulgation of the constitution, we can say that the main institutions for the functioning of a democratic state there. But we can say with equal confidence that the principles of democracy have become a living part of our costume? I can not express any apprehension on this point.
The path of democracy is not an easy path. For this we must be constantly vigilant, not resign ourselves to the worst, but even indulge in a quiet confidence inevitably arise in the progress of humanity. Today we do not believe, as they believed the Liberal Democrats, the Socialists at the beginning of the century, that democracy is a fatal path. I belong to the generation that has learned from the European Resistance as the sum of suffering was necessary for Europe to return to civilian life. The difference between my generation and that of our fathers is that they were democratic optimism. We are, we must be more democratic in alarm.

Norberto Bobbio

5 Month Old Baby Having Bad Coughing

Who loves and who is not the risk of spring cleaning

The disappointed people left, many feel that "exiles to their homeland", to quote Ilvo Diamonds, still show, however, whenever he found the ' occasion, an unexpected desire to have their say, and have something to participate in the political debate. They hit me in that sense the unique reactions to "The Hunting Party" on March 2, in which I gave on behalf of 'the initiative of a researcher of the CNR (Stefano Calabretta: http://doparie.it) promote, in addition to the primary direct selection of candidates, "doparie", an internal referendum to a party or a coalition, both national and local level, to decide by majority vote, once a 'year in a special election day, the most important issues divide 'public opinion relating to the Pd (living wills from the tramway in Florence). I doubted that the proposal fell within ' indifference that gives rise to the 'institutional engineering, but maybe wrong because I still really do not capture the explosive power of the Internet. The network has begun, in fact, to seek and revive the 'idea: from the "Citizens for the' Olive 'in Friuli Venezia Giulia to the Committee for the open primary of San Giovanni in Fiore (Cosenza) and various blogs, generally militants pd . It is manifested as a correspondence tending to steal a new path of direct and participatory democracy. Comforting the content of the e-mail to our address book. Prof. Mario Staibano, chief cardiac surgeon and now head of Health 'Italy of Values, "At a time vacuum of ideas and dramatic decline of interest in politics, only the recovery of a participatory democracy can bring hope for a rescue. 'S introduction of doparie in health issues would pose an obstacle to political intrusion in hospitals, criticized by all in vain. " Laura Wise, university student: "The primaries are not enough anymore. IOE other university students in Rome are planning a primary symbol on a hot topic that has divided opinions within the 'coalition of the inner Pd, such as living wills. What we want is that the party supported and voted that we find the courage to contact us. But the Democratic Party still affects our opinion? ". Finally Civati \u200b\u200bGiuseppe, Milan, owner of a popular blog, has intend to enter the 'idea of \u200b\u200bdoparie in the document with other friends present at' assembly of the Democratic Party circles, called for 31 to Rome. A sharp criticism, however, expressed in flattering terms, that of Lanfranco Pace Gazette of 6 March. World youth from sympathy for the armed party, the 'paper analyzes the proposal "to do once a' year, a little 'how to do spring cleaning, internal referendum on a controversial points ... all youth with tools and much obamiani .... And yet - he continues - the remedy is worse than the disease ... Among the many misfortune that may befall parties already characterized by high degree of indecision and internal bickering, to contact members and voters, that even though they reduce are still millions ... reduces the political to registration deed without putting it in away from the people, that if it is large in general can be perfect bull in particular. If instead of proceeding on its own and with courage to abolish the death penalty, Mitterrand had asked for enlightenment to his constituents, in France it would still be the guillotine. " Evidently the French long exile has left some traces in the minds of Lanfraco Peace does not realize that there is no boredom left Mitterrand, able to proceed alone, while Berlusconi is right there, that could, if he wants, reintroduce the death penalty by a vote of the majority of single parent, according to its constitutional find.

of Mario Pirani from the Republic of March 16, 2009

Christmas Vacation Moose Punch Cup

A victory for the Yes

The dispute about the dates of the referendum is running out, so you can start talking substance. The intent that drove the referendum to take the initiative in 2007 was more than commendable. Faced with the risk that the landscape of quarrelsome coalition of its last term to become a structural feature of our political system, proposed to liquidate those coalitions and awarded the prize of winning a majority in the single list. In each choice there are advantages and political damage. So the benefits outweighed the damage.

Now, however, to overcome that kind of happened by political coalitions. In 2008 Veltroni, with courage, united with the only IDV and Berlusconi followed him make a pact only with the League. It 'hard to think that we can go back to the caravans of the past: the first would be to rebel against the voters. Therefore, the advantages gained by political means that you wanted to achieve through the referendum, you have to deal with the damage.

The main question intends to award a prize to the list of majority who has got the most votes: the list of winning the House or the Senate, in cases with only 30% of the votes, would get 55% of the seats. Even now, not voters, but the leaders of parties, case unique in the developed world, have the power to choose members of Parliament. The referendum confirms this and indeed enhances their prerogative because it puts in the hands of one man, the leader of the winning party, whoever he is, the choice of an absolute majority of parliamentarians. The concerns are exacerbated when you look at the party statutes and practices that characterize their internal life: very few political parties today might be called democratic, as most work with the charismatic and populist mode. If the Yes wins tomorrow, only one party in the minority in the country, would become an absolute majority in Parliament and could, for example, alone, to elect the Head of State, take possession of the media, change according to your conveniences the electoral law and parliamentary rules. Parliament would become a prosthesis of the government, even the Prime Minister, whoever he is.

Today, most PDL-League provides a degree of political discourse that promotes democracy but does not block the comparison, the same would happen if he won the coalition Pd-IDV. If tomorrow, thanks to the referendum, only govern the PDL or just the PD democracy would be stronger? The bipartisanship is not blasphemy, but it requires an electoral system which gives people the opportunity to choose their parliamentary and democratic norms in all the major parties. These conditions are not present and therefore the two-party out of the referendum that would consolidate the current reality in oligarchies.

seems very risky to say that I should make is to win power and then change the law Calderoli. If indeed there was a majority to change the electoral law, because it is not changed promptly, to avoid the referendum? In reality today there is no majority for a new electoral law and is unlikely to be there tomorrow when the winners have all the power in their hands.

of Luciano Violante by La Stampa, April 16, 2009

Why Is My Pee Foamy And Smelly?

boycotted the referendum

It seems that many in the center are directed to vote Yes in the referendum Guzzetta. I hope they change their minds.

There is no single reason in the world to vote in that direction. The question of the referendum was portrayed as an attempt to eliminate the negative effects of the law Calderoli. This is not true. If accepted would result in a sharp deterioration in the law: the automatic transition from a bipolar to a forced forced bipartisanship. And not only that the party list that gets the most votes gets the absolute majority of seats.

Some repeats that reform should not be judged by the contingency but for effects of the system. The assumption may make sense in a normal democracy, but in Italy there is not a normal democracy. It is not clear why one should judge the solution Guzzetta disregarding its consequences over the next ten or twenty years. After what will happen in this period the effects of the system of law out of the referendum would have the effect of a drug on the body of the dead. Why?

Why in the given conditions in Italy today, the success of you have only one meaning: the final victory of Berlusconi. If yes can pass the support that you must go to early elections with the new electoral law. The PDL will win and get a overwhelming majority that will allow him to do what he wants. D'Alema and many others argue that if the Yes wins will need to write a new electoral law. The hypothesis has been disproved by the PDL, the law changed since you will immediately enforceable and enforced.

The League has understood very well that it will lose all power to influence the center-right and that the PDL will be able to govern alone. Therefore, opposes the decision. And if Berlusconi were really willing to vote to Yes, the League might have no choice but to bring down the government before the referendum. What it does or not will depend on its will. But in any case within its ranks the alarm is sounded.

It is not clear why the parties instead of the center should be chosen in a vote that they start a peaceful suicide. The PD can claim the reason that he has long supported the validity of a solution very bipolar. But at this point should have realized that the decision "courageous" to go it alone only passes from one defeat to another. For its part IdV can justify the choice of Yes, just because he had collected signatures for a referendum. But today is far more clear then that the solution Guzzetta is a clear deterioration in law Calderoli. So why insist? And then the consistency to a poor choice and now exceeded worth much less than the coherence due to their vocation: yes to pluralist democracy, no one in power.

However IdV PD and are faced with a future already marked. If he wins the Yes, after Berlusconi early elections will be only the full possession of Parliament. It will change the Constitution and the Constitutional Court. Become president of the republic with increased powers. Elected assemblies, which already count for very little, will become the interior boundary of presidentialism. Italian democracy will be forever disfigured.

Faced with this prospect can not even advertise the Deployment for No. of Yes, even without the inclination to suicide of the center, is already quite formidable. It is hoped that June 21 is a date which in itself discourages public participation and must mobilize all our forces to be lacking a quorum. This is not to say go to sea. It must be explained with extreme care: the solution Guzzetta gives all the power in the hands of those who already have full mastery over the media. This is not democracy. E 'establishment of an absolute power plebiscite.

Far lacking a quorum is not a manifestation of indifference. E 'active defense of democracy.

of Pancho Pardi