Ps3 No Yellow Or White Plug

About the statement of the Assembly of TAV

against TAV Assembly has issued a statement following the attack which claimed the life of Ignacio Uria. I'm not at all agree with the terms under which it says:

* Opposition to the HST should be as comprehensive, popular and participatory as possible. The right tools to achieve the cessation of this infrastructure are truthful information on the impacts of the project, civil disobedience, direct action and mass mobilization.

seems disavow the killing as "right tool" to achieve the cessation of ART, but only implicitly. If so ... Why not explicitly disavows? So would not doubt that the murder is not within the concept of "direct action" referred to the Assembly.

* There is no violence comparable to that exercised by the states and capitalism on nature and human beings in their daily lives. Deaths caused by wars, pollution, industrial accidents, in car coffin wage poverty, unemployment, police, prisons, etc. Are just some of the forms of violence, "fuzzy" or not, we support a daily. The works of TAV and claimed the life of a Romanian worker Luko on 14 July.

this is very true, but not the question to be addressed at this time, but has killed a man, a matter that is not comparable at all to others such as pollution or unemployment. Not even an accident. Such a string of examples of violence can only be aimed to minimize the violent event on which to rule Assembly, that is, the murder of Uriah.

* We demand that ETA is not involved in this conflict. This does not mean much less an endorsement of any kind to the political 'terrorism' of the English state but to extend the reflection on the legitimate means of struggle to stop the imposition of TAV and preserve the autonomy of the opposition movement.

's okay to make clear that such a requirement to ETA does not mean in any way an endorsement of the State, but I think at the same time should make equally clear whether they support or not the attack on ETA. Especially since over the statement did not become clear to all.

The rest of the statement insists and again to attack the TAV without mentioning the attack more, which would seem to me very well if it was not what many expected from this statement is a critique of it. But it seems that the criticism is conspicuous by its absence.

As for the terms in which the attack is mentioned, I think intentionally soft, always used the word "death" instead of other more suitable as "murder" or "murder." I have no doubt they would not use that terminology to be an anti protestor TAV who had been killed by the police, for example.

Obviously I do not demand that the Assembly condemn ETA globally, not to condemn the use of violence with respect to the anti TAV (is ethically refuse to sabotage machinery works? how to act when the state does not hear the outcry?), or even to "condemn" the attack as required by the PP and the PSOE. Suffice it to say explicitly whether they favor or against the use of assassination as a tool to achieve the cessation of TAV. If yes, explain why, if not, reject it properly.

Of course, this does not mean I am in favor of the TGV (in fact I am against), to outlaw the Assembly against the TAV, criminal act against it, etc.. I think the opinion Assembly is just an opinion, and has as much right to express it as I disagree with it.

Lump Around Anus Hole

Towards a separatist alliance? Inconsistent State

- Last April, the secretary general of LAB, Rafael Díez Usabiaga, said in a statement to Euskadi Irratia that "short term" we would be faced "new designs. "

- In May, Juan Mari Olano (Gestoras Pro Amnesty spokesperson) claimed in the weekly Argia be convinced "that this people will return to the situation sooner than people think. Not only the nationalist left . There will be a new opportunity will not be missed. Concerns us all. I can guarantee that the nationalist left to complete is ready to seize the moment ".

- In September, building on the tenth anniversary of the signing of Lizarra, President of EA , Unai Ziarreta, bet to" reclaim " the path of that pact.

- November 9, El Pais published this suggestive statement: "The internal division covers also the demoralized ranks Batasuna militants and manifests itself in the promotion of dynamic and electoral participation projects implicitly questioning the role of "leading edge" assigned to ETA anticipate the possibility that the terrorist organization chooses to abstain and the boycott of the elections. Arnaldo Otegi, the former spokesman for Batasuna recently released from prison, former general secretary of trade union LAB, Rafael Díez Usabiaga, and other former leaders like Tasio Erkizia are driving with former Commonwealth Secretary General, Joseba Elorrieta and former Basque Minister of EA Sabin Intxaurraga, creating an open platform independence to political and trade union left-wing nationalism, EA, Aralar, Zutik and Euskal Batasuna (party of the French Basque area) as well as ALS. The creation of this platform, an imitation of Nafarroa Bai, with Batasuna in place of the PNV, would allow the activist base and its electorate out of the political wilderness, save injunction hanging over his public and downloaded to a large extent on the railway protection exerted by the terrorist organization. The union's national congress commonwealth has conditioned its participation in the process "democratic" and "civil", ie free from pressure and interference of ETA. And it is conceivable that the conditions of EA, a party that seems to opt for breaking the electoral alliance with the PNV, and other groups would be convened no less demanding. The question is whether the promoters of this project will go ahead in the event that the organization terrorist reject it. "

- The next day, November 10, EA announces the end of its alliance with the PNV and the 11th its president, Unai Ziarreta, made public its commitment to" a great movement for independence "stating that" the solution can only come through the articulation of a large sovereigntist movement to achieve, through peaceful and democratic, the majority of the public commitment to move towards a new legal framework in which all political projects, including the independence as that unequivocally defends EA, can materialize. "

- Today, November 12, the nationalist left is declared willing to "work" with EA for a "common sovereignty project:" If EA is willing to exceed the constitutional limit, the left wing nationalists have no problem to make a common effort from the current autonomous project. " Think of a block sovereigntist "with three goals based on overcoming the current political framework, independence and social model" as opposed to neoliberalism PNV. Also claim that their offer is "deep" and "longer term" than the merely electoral.

remains whether the above are mere electoral strategy for the next renewal of the Basque Parliament (it is possible that EA just try to attract the nationalist vote, an orphan from the outlawing of ANV and EHAK) or, on the contrary and in light of the above evidence, would be part of the public staging of a prior, secret agreement, similar to what happened in Lizarra. In this case, various questions arise: How would the state against a broad alliance of independence and left? Do you realize this in some sort of electoral coalition? What would set the Basque Parliament with the actor on stage?

And ETA? How to be positioned in such a situation? It seems unlikely (but very useful for the purposes propaganda pursued) the thesis of the country by which the whole plan is being carried out behind the terrorist organization, but also hard to believe that EA, Aralar or Zutik to develop agreements are in line with the nationalist left while ETA continue in business.

We'll see.

What Is Use Of Figaro Oil

The indictment by Judge Baltasar Garzon, through which it intends to open proceedings against the crimes of the civil war and dictatorship, contains a gem like this:

"Action displayed by the people revolted and contributed to armed insurrection of July 18, 1936 was beyond all legality and attacked the form of government (crimes against the Constitution, the Second Section of the Criminal Code of 1932, in force when the uprising occurred), in a coordinated and conscious, determined to end by way of fact the Republic by overthrowing the legitimate government of Spain .

It may be deduced that the state emerged from the July 18 is completely illegal and illegitimate, and therefore also all the legal and policy decisions emanating from it. So the government should withdraw all court decisions of the dictatorship, or at least those of a political nature. Another should set aside the Political Reform Act of 1976, as was supported by the Fundamental Laws Franco, and his main result: the 1978 Constitution. And of course should be ipso facto deposed dictator's successor illegitimate.

short, if ultimately were proven by final judicial decision that the Francoist state was illegal and illegitimate current state it is also to be a just reform it. Only then breaking it with him soon. That if the English state was consistent, clear.

But I fear that it will be, and that as much as the cause garzoniana continue to be done well considering all legal and legitimate instrument Franco's power. Will get to wonder how to reconcile the illegality to legality, legitimacy of illegitimacy. The state has experienced it: as it did during the transition.

Lg Super Multi Ge20nu10 How To Use

Topics


- Telecinco issued a report on child prostitution and offers Cubainformación his reply about using a video . Essential to know the rough handling to which we are routinely subjected.

- The 25th anniversary of the disappearance of José Antonio Lasa and Jose Ignacio Zabala . Obviously, only echoes Gara anniversary, recalling the case of state terrorism with an opinion and two reports.

Frothy Concentrated Urine

The broken window

"The broken window (Hautsitako Leihoa)" is a documentary about juvenile law applied to Basque boys accused of involvement in street violence. Conducted by ESCAC (Film School of Catalonia), the work is based on the testimony of the victims of this repressive phenomenon. Highly recommended especially for those unfamiliar with reality in its true state of emergency that exists in Euskal Herria.

To emphasize intervention, throughout the documentary, the former judge of the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, Joaquín Navarro Estevan.








Link for download by emule ed2k: Hautsitako_Leihoa.avi

Fabric To Make Fluffy Leg Warmers

Venezuela, human rights and HRW

Government Venezuela has expelled the head of the American branch of Human Rights Watch, Jose Miguel Vivanco, accusing him of being "bought by the rule", after the publication of last report that the organization has developed on Venezuela, entitled "A Decade Under Chávez . Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for the advancement of human rights in Venezuela ." This is a really critical report, which accuses the Venezuelan government of neglecting the institutional guarantees and fundamental rights, undermine the independence of the judiciary and union elections, take action against opposition media outlets or to be aggressive against human rights organizations.

On several occasions the report contains criticisms very unfair if we consider the actual context of the same. Only in regard to the issue of media, the executive summary the report accuses the government of "abusing state control over radio and television frequencies to threaten and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming ." The paradigmatic example of such "abuse" was, as the same report notes over and over again in their pages, Chavez announced that " not renew the broadcast license of RCTV ." Renewing a license radio state is absolutely normal in any civilized country (also in Spain, but here they have been closed several media by court order) but HRW criticizes the other reports, let alone if the station concerned has actively supported (as did the RCTV) a coup such as that suffered by the Venezuelan government and the HRW report itself described as follows: " in April 2002 a coup temporarily removed Chávez from office and replaced him with an unelected president who, in his first act of government, dissolved the country's democratic institutions, suspending the legislature and disbanding the Supreme Court. At 40 hours, the coup ended, Chavez resumed his position and constitutional order was restored . "

But HRW has no choice but to recognize the current media landscape Venezuelan media:

"Venezuela still enjoys a vibrant public debate in which opponents of the government media are equally vocal in their criticism and pro-Chavez expressed his government's defense. However, while Chávez faced an almost entirely hostile private media at the time of the 2002 coup, has since achieved the balance of the media tilt, significantly, in favor of the government. This change did not occur because it has promoted more funds are available plural, but because they acted against opposition media outlets and at the same time, state media promoted only reflect the views of supporters of Chavez. "

Human Rights Watch acknowledges that today there are anti-government media that" can make their criticism "(presumably without being bothered by this, as HRW does not say otherwise) , so that in Venezuela there is "a vibrant public debate" between pro-government media and media critical of him. He recognizes that while almost all private media were hostile to Chávez in 2002, having that he was elected four years earlier, so then it is assumed that the Venezuelan government did not act against any media during that time.

But after Lime is the sand is said that leaning over the balance in favor of the Government after it has "acted" against the opposition media and by "promoting" pro-government media. And I wonder: if one assumes that it is natural for the media of a society are a reflection of it even in regard to political trends ... HRW considers why natural that "nearly all" of Venezuela's media are hostile to a government that has been voted by the majority of the country? Why do you think that the government has no right to change this situation a little more to balance the scales, using to do the legal means at its disposal?

The report then has no choice but to admit:

"There is one area in which the government's media policy has had positive results in the transmission of radio and television at the community level. The government has actively supported the creation of radio and TV community, whose transmission contributes to pluralism and diversity of the media in Venezuela. "

Similarly, at the beginning of the report acknowledges what it has meant to the country the Bolivarian constitution promoted by Chavez

" The 1999 Constitution significantly expanded protection of human rights , for example, by giving prevalence to the international legal obligations in this area for over domestic laws. He also created a new Supreme Court and tried to give it the necessary institutional independence to act as the ultimate guarantor of fundamental rights. "

So from the beginning HRW admits that the human rights situation in Venezuela is much more favorable than before Chavez's election in 1998, thanks to a new constitution that is actively promoted. should take this into account when assessing the criticism poured in that report, because it means some terms are used as hard on him to criticize a government whose bottom line on human rights is favorable. Nor is it clear why the report personalized in the figure of Chávez all the criticism on it. If you consult any report referred to Spain, we find that HRW does not usually refer to the English government of Zapatero person. Why then mentioned in this report on Chavez to the Venezuelan government itself?

also quite suspect that this report was published just two months of the upcoming Venezuelan elections, scheduled for Nov. 23. But the special sense of opportunity that has come to be HRW commonplace: since the June 17, 2004 (two months before the presidential referendum of August 15) published the report " Judicial Independence threatened in Venezuela."

Vivancos Does this mean that it was in fact, "bought by the rule? Perhaps, but if we have to rule that also harshly criticized a pro-American government so as Colombia. On the other hand the question is not whether you have received money from the U.S. government for making their criticisms as if they are right or wrong. And one can only argue against this serious and reasoned.

why the government Venezuela should not have made the mistake to expel the country Vivanco. Human Rights Watch has such a reputation, deserved or not, to expel its American representative serves up juicy ammunition just Chavez's detractors, who will not hesitate to shout on the intransigence of the "dictator" against criticism. On the other hand, what good is such an expulsion, other than to give a huge worldwide publicity and free to report or to pretend that the harsh criticism of this real? The damage by Vivanco was done and their presence in Venezuela was thereafter fairly harmless, because they do not forget: HRW will continue to issue critical reports anyway.

Tiffant Towers Shower

" I want the masses of humanity is truly emancipated from all authority and all present and future heroes." (Mikhail Bakunin).

The left should escape from the myths and exceptional leaders. The people must understand that he, alone and in an organized manner, is capable of reaching all those goals you wish without leaders, or heroes vanguard.

also need to reflect on the heroism itself, especially understanding that most of the time a hero is not just a ordinary person, located in a socio-political context favorable for eventual heroism. From this point of view, the hero is not just for himself but for the circumstances that surround him, push him to act in a certain direction.

is true that, despite everything, there are heroes. People who are willing to sacrifice everything for others. Very few people, but they are there. Let's face it. But can be a hero in every sense and facets of human beings? A hero has no weaknesses or flaws? Can a hero defects invalidate the heroism of this in any other way? The answer

to such questions, new questions arise: should the people take example of heroes? Should they really be a role model? Can we demand the heroic posture people or else we must accept that heroism is a phenomenon so rare that is exceptional? Do I need it to achieve the great objectives that we intend to or just enough strategy and organization? Is it fair to demoralize the people about their capabilities to legendary heroes mythical infinite, without which nothing would presumably be?

The latest film by Steven Soderbergh ("Che, el argentino") is even very indirectly the whole issue by exposing the life of revolutionary Ernesto Guevara in the first stage in Cuba. Shows us a brave and charismatic leader, endowed with large doses of humanism and sense of justice, and not hesitate to sacrifice his life in pursuit of a political ideal. But the film also shows us how confident the death penalty, how mercilessly shot them who felt that he deserved it, and how he recognized even in the same UN General Assembly that the shootings were absolutely necessary for the survival of the Cuban revolution. We also see at all times the authoritarianism of Fidel, Che and the other "bearded" and its armed struggle in a country like Cuba that also shows continuous as it was then: dictatorial, illiterate and miserly.

can be said, therefore, that the objectivity of the Soderbergh film breaks a myth that so far has been too installed between the left, or at least require a great deal in this regard. This is not to destroy the example that Che gave the rest of the world, but rather to humanize it. Che had strengths and weaknesses, and they need to clearly see its true value in those. Regarding the final balance, the balance is in my opinion clearly positive for Che, but you must always keep in mind their shadows to not forget the necessary objectivity and avoid falling into the easy myth.

At the end of the case with respect to all the Cuban revolution as a whole: the balance clearly in favor of it should not blind us to its many shortcomings, in order to avoid positioning fanatical or mythologizing.

Aoe 2 How To Resume A Multiplayer Game

Demystifying the myth of reason's enemies

Part of the documentary "Root of all evil?" , subtitled in English. To highlight the part that explains human superstition as a byproduct of evolution and the instinctive need to have all men to find patterns in nature that make it easier to survive. Then implied that superstition (and all that derives from it: faith and therefore religion) is a component of pre-human, animal and instinctive, we should overcome to more rational levels of consciousness.

Digital Playgrounds Movies Watch Free

, threatened and other hypocrisies

On 12 July, the newspaper El Mundo had the Basque prisoner De Juana Chaos live in San Sebastian just 150 meters from several victims of ETA when leaving the prison the next month of August. The report goes so far as to publish in detail the direction of the floor of De Juana, absolutely unnecessary data from a reporting standpoint. Others in the blogosphere have gone even further: Teleoperador adds its own zip code and even attached a map of the house.

One wonders what might be the motivation behind the publication of such data, and if it is purely and simply to foment some kind of attack (violent or not) against De Juana. It is curious that such acts have consequences, given that another journalist (Pepe Rei) was charged in court for "naming" ETA targets because of a documentary (" Journalists: the business of lying ") that mentioned a number of English journalists without offering data some of them personal.

So do you think someone take action on this issue? Yes Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the Government raises the possibility of taking measures to prevent the former ETA can live near their victims, and that taking into account such a possibility is already covered since 1995 in Article 48 Penal Code. Presumably, the government is considering some sort of special measure intended solely for Basque prisoners. Other unlawful as of the kind we are accustomed, in short.

But this thing is nothing but yet another hypocritical act of a long list that we have been living since De Juana legally fulfilled their jail sentence back in 2005, and began when De Juana was charged (and subsequently convicted ) for a crime of "threats" because of two articles published in the newspaper Gara and in fact did not contain any threats. However, the far-right leader Saenz de Ynestrillas who threatened to kill himself De Juana himself in full view no such act had no legal consequence for him.

From this new conviction for "threats" (practically a crime of opinion), would the rest of the story already known: the prisoner's hunger strike and subsequent force-feeding ( practice described as "torture" by the UN itself, as much as Amnesty International use double standards in this case), transfer to the Basque Country and back away (just next day to give ETA end the cease-fire, etc.).

This framed, of course, within the general hypocrisy with which it is itself the Basque conflict in Spain. Because all those who cry out against De Juana prison claiming that 20-year sentence for his murder are insufficient, both cry out against certain characters just as murderers (maybe more) and yet have not met any convictions since have not even been tried (in many cases have important political office without anyone taking their hands to the head). Nor do they shocked too that other murderers live near their victims' families, as often happens in many English towns without Pedro J. Ramirez publish anything about it.

Gangsta French Nicknames

libertarian socialist values \u200b\u200band myths of fascism

from different sectors argues that the main evil gets left now is the acquiescence of workers. Indeed, it seems that having enough purchasing power to consume, along with some entertainment and sports-entertainment, causes a lack of motivation and a mackerel in the work, preventing him to surface in any revolutionary spirit. Panem et Circus, in short.

But that explanation may small superficial. I think the current conformity with true, has its origin in a much more profound and difficult to face: the right core values \u200b\u200bare shared largely by the left. By "right values", entiéndaseme well I mean all those values \u200b\u200bthat have traditionally held the power to uppercase throughout history: tyranny, dogmatism, fanaticism, irrationality, injustice, selfishness, materialism ...

Humanity remained fairly stable, socially speaking, over the millennia in which there was an almost total consensus in accepting these values \u200b\u200bas a political base. The gap in this regard took place during the Enlightenment. The new values \u200b\u200bthat brought this line of thought (democracy, freedom, rationality ...) represented a moral and philosophical breakthrough that led to many revolutions since the late eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century. Judging modern capitalist states that gave rise to those bourgeois revolutions, it is clear that they certainly accounted for revolutionary advance in certain values, but not in others such as social justice and human solidarity. Arguably, the revolution created by the Enlightenment was lame in one leg.

born during the nineteenth century, another school of thought that just focused on the Enlightenment values \u200b\u200bthat inadvertently was left out: socialism.

Unfortunately, Marxist socialism (which became the mainstream in socialism) made the same mistake they had made years earlier illustrated, and conducted its analysis based on values \u200b\u200bof social justice and solidarity, forgetting or downplaying those that had prioritized the Enlightenment: democracy and freedom. That gap explains quite well the fact that ultimately could be as authoritarian Marxist interpretations and undemocratic as Leninism or Stalinism.

seems then that socialism was just as lame as the Enlightenment, albeit in the opposite leg.

But if we agree that the values \u200b\u200bof democracy and freedom are so desirable and necessary as social justice and human solidarity, we must conclude that the leftist current is ideal that he is able in its midst such approaches equally and in a balanced enough to preclude any type of deficit. And the truth is that this particular stream has always existed. I refer to libertarian socialism.
character
libertarian socialism is the counterpart of authoritative readings of Marxist socialism, and this is so precisely because it derives both socialism libertarian current that emerged during the Enlightenment.

And yet ... How is it possible that even the libertarian left today is able to seduce the mass of workers? The problem is, as I said, values. Society current is extremely individualistic, materialistic, selfish and consumerist. Which we have been so deeply ingrained as anti-human values \u200b\u200blike these, is the greatest triumph of the system and also its Achilles heel, because sooner or later ends our human condition rebelling against them. It is precisely at this point that the libertarian left should attack, and more in an economic crisis like the present, which are revealed most aberrant miseries we suffer socio-economic system. Thus, we must understand and make the public understand that the final collapse of capitalism (which is ultimately what we are attending) can only be overcome regardless by the end of selfishness and individualism, that is, coming together and organized under the banner of human solidarity.

But we will only reach that goal before today's society convince the great absurdity of materialism and consumerism. We need to see to the masses that happiness is not in the mall, but in different human interactions, and knowledge, culture, art or nature. It is essential to understand that the wealth of a society is measured not only in material terms but also in democratic terms, in social indicators (education or health, for example) or ecological levels. We are

a turning point in humanity, in which the old values-based mindset barbarians come to an end after a decline of several centuries. The transition will be more or less tolerable to the extent that the left knows different building schemes, relying on values \u200b\u200bequally different or even opposed. Keep in mind that the revolutionary left is, by definition, but requires a radical revolution of values \u200b\u200bor revolution is not complete. Both the nineteenth-century bourgeois revolutions and communist revolutions of the twentieth century suffered from a deficit or the other in that aspect, so when they failed to build a decent system for humanity. It is necessary that the XXI century revolution not make the same mistake again because failure could be fatal at this critical time for humanity.

Antique Nurses Silver Belt Buckles

In modern political discourse is fascism with too little rigor, combining the concept in an absurd maremagnum others as disparate as "extreme right", "capitalism", "xenophobia" or "racism." This only succeeds in creating confusion about fascism and distort our view of certain problems and to make a proper diagnosis is necessary to clarify these concepts:

- Fascism is not the extreme right . In reality, fascism tends to the left as it is a party system from a planned economy or the nationalization of key economic sectors such as banking, while it recognizes the right to private property, social classes and certain bourgeois values \u200b\u200b(patriotism or religion). Collect, therefore, components of both capitalism and authoritarian socialism, so can not say you are on either extreme of the political spectrum. Would rather be the center of it, then capitalism liberal standing at one end and the other socialist systems.

- Fascism is not an absolute evil . Despite the efforts in this regard by the propaganda of war (which still exists), the fact is that fascism does not necessarily imply any genocide itself, and this is a unique feature of fascism. For example, the Allies also committed war crimes and genocide (the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without going further), and countries like the United States also adopted racist policies against its black population, without thereby officially considered capitalism as a criminal in itself.

- Fascism died after the second world war . The prestige of such a system led to only be supported since by a small minority, strongly rejected by the whole society by violent and radical. The only European exception to this rule is Spain, where fascism continued (with several short-term and cosmetic reforms) for 40 years, and was later transformed by way of covenant and in a pseudo-reform in which many institutions continue cutting fascist or fascism introduced by the English, like the monarchy, the courts and special laws or the political role of the military.

- Fascism is not booming now . It is true that in several European countries including France, Austria and Switzerland is being a large electoral support fascist parties of origin, which has more to do with a xenophobic tendency that fascism itself. The proof is that these parties tend to moderate over the discus at election time, and this for an obvious reason: a fully fascist discourse would only score a spectacular bleeding, because society would not accept today the disappearance of democratic forms . The European problem now is more of a growing xenophobia, mainly due to the immigration problem.

- Xenophobia not mean fascism. Xenophobia has been at all times and places in the world, is a feature as human as selfishness, and usually arises when there are cultural clashes, domestic, immigration, etc. The present moment is characterized by a growing influx of immigrants heading from Third World poverty to the prosperous first world, and in a context of globalized economy, is the ideal breeding ground for the emergence of all kinds of xenophobic tensions have nothing to do with fascism, which is only xenophobic nationalist dimension.

- Xenophobia has nothing to do with racism . Racism is a political or social doctrine that ranks human races, but does not necessarily imply a rejection of foreigners. The xenophobia, by contrast, is a mere feeling of rejection of foreign without it having anything to do with political or racial concepts.

- "Fascism" is not synonymous with "racism" . Racism existed before fascism and later, and by parliamentary capitalist countries like the U.S. and South Africa. Moreover, not all are racist fascist regimes.

- The word "fascist" is used today mostly as a simple insult . Indeed, the epithet "fascist" today rarely has to do with the political system of the same name, but used rather to offend the opposing reference and a particular attitude of the authoritarian or undemocratic. But although fascism is authoritarian and undemocratic by definition, not all authoritarian or undemocratic attitude necessarily have anything to do with fascism.

summary: fascism died after the second world war, and any current attempt by the left to fight it not only useless but also counterproductive, because it distracts us from where is the real enemy, not is other than capitalism. They are the modern features that are creating this chaos that gives rise to migratory current rise in xenophobia in Europe, and certain absolutely fascist minority factions will try to exploit in vain. Focusing too much attention on those sectors which are given only get more important than they really are, causing a propaganda effect completely free and that they appreciate.

Drivers Free Dell Gx620

Violence ETA (II): a strategy

In previous post I tried to analyze the violence of ETA only from an ethical point of view, accepting the fact that for the radical left violence should not be lawful rather than a means of self-defense, and never aggressive. But also indicated that such an analysis does not matter if we the fact that ETA violence arises only as a strategic means to achieve a political goal: to compel the State to recognize the right of Basque self-determination. It is clear that from that point of view of ethical considerations go into the background.

But my purpose today is to analyze precisely the violence of ETA from a purely strategic point of view. because it could happen that the violence, although it can not be ethically justifiable, it may be strategically or politically : the use of ETA violence on their targets more than a purely peaceful strategy?

We recognize that it is very logical think that a certain pressure on a state it tends to get some concessions, especially when the pressure is manifold: political, social and economic. ETA's violence is putting pressure on these three areas, because it is a political problem that causes suffering in society and economic losses. We also know, on the other hand, that the State has granted to negotiate with ETA on several occasions. It appears, therefore, that violent strategy pays off . However

appearance differs significantly from reality. All negotiations attacks to date, featuring the governments of Gonzalez, Aznar Rodriguez Zapatero, have suffered from a manifest bad faith on the part of the state (something known from the Left wing nationalists), which seem to regard as a mere bargaining weapon to weaken ETA and its political . That was true even in times when the armed organization killed hundreds of people a year, so there is no reason to believe that the current level of ETA violence (with a few murders a year) will force the State to take negotiations more seriously.

Keep in mind also that the violence of ETA over the years has achieved the opposite effect on English citizenship: not just this is not wanting a negotiated solution to the conflict, but also is radically opposed to the same (something that has been actively involved state propaganda). So much so that it is suicidal for any English government to raise even that option. Moreover, the very existence of ETA for about 50 years has finally create or strengthen certain state sectors that feed on the existence of the organization or fight the , and of course never will welcome its demise: People's Party, National Court, journalists, police, private security, counterterrorism police ... How point these industries will lead to an eventual stop negotiating strategy of the state?

course ETA violence has other side effects. Your expression gets put on the table always crude Basque conflict, and it is permanently present. ETA says the news and drink, both nationally and internationally, there is a Basque conflict in Spain territorial problem that remains unresolved, for which the legal channels seem insufficient.

But all this we must add other effects as positive if we consider that in the XXI century the majority of society, and especially the left, the fight does not accept army as a political method valid. ETA's violent strategy succeeds, then, away from itself to broad popular Basque, English and international organizations that could help push the state toward solving the problem. This should be a growing concern for an organization that sees the long run, is losing support among its political base.

Finally, the persistence of ETA violence success has helped the state propaganda has managed to move the debate between "vs. Basque nationalism. English nationalism" and focus on "violent vs. Non-violent, something that has helped a substantial reduction of state violence in recent years, but now endures torture and violation of civil and political rights.

Thus, it appears that the strategy causes violent positive and negative effects for the political ends they seek, and ETA should reflect on them and decide which are more prominent. But I insist that this assessment can not fail to take into account the ethical, in my opinion are the most should weigh .

Escape From Guantanamo Bay Bottomless

violence ETA (I): The real crisis

perceive violence as a means only as legitimate as any to get a particular purpose is a position fully consistent with the classical use of violence that humanity has done throughout its history. A left that aspire to a total revolution in human relations is forced to reconsider that position if necessary. It is obvious that if we build a more just and humane from pillars and solidarity is necessary in this analysis introduce new factors such as ethics and morality, apart from the usual political and strategic factors.

Therefore, if we consider that the main result of the violence is the pain and suffering, the choice is obvious: Can a particular political or strategic outcome somehow compensate for the suffering caused by violence? I firmly believe (it is a purely personal belief) that this debate is sterile because it is very difficult to determine whether such compensation exists, exists when and when not, and especially how to calibrate. The answer is so highly subjective, depending on each personal value accorded to different factors in the equation, it is quite possible that any violence could be justified by any political purpose and strategic. What kind of political projects can objectively justify the use of violence? Which are not? What limit is violence, if they had one according to that view?

The most reasonable solution is simply not about taking risks and concluded that Violence can never be justified on strategic or political reasons . Therefore, bearing in mind that violence is not desirable for its harmful effects, it is logical to conclude that one should not make use of it, or at least should be used only as a last resort. The debate is then placed between a moderate pacifism that only accepts the use of violence as a legitimate defense or radical pacifism which excludes any violent acts even in self defense.

Personally I advocate the first option, and although I admire the radical pacifists believe that its position is not only not viable in today's society but is even suicidal. I position, then, for the use of violence only as a last resort if self-defense. Of course, the concept of "self defense" involves a number of basic assumptions:

1. There must be a principle of proportionality : violence has to be exercised against an equally violent attack, and therefore the level of violence in response should not exceed the level of violent offending.

2. violence defense has to be directed against targets directly responsible for the attack: it can not be addressed against targets that have little or nothing to do with it.

3. Finally there should be no other way of nonviolent self-defense (legal, political, etc.) Or it is clearly inadequate.

Such a position, with such basic assumptions, is in a perfect balance between a powerful limits to violence and a preventive effect against any aggression. Of course, this argument can be applied to either individuals or groups, and any situation of aggression imaginable. With respect to a State, a case in point would be that of a police officer violently reduced (of course maintaining the principle of proportionality mentioned in point 1) to an individual who uses violence to attack others.

not difficult to make an assessment of the Basque conflict and the violence of ETA in the light of this position. It is clear that when there are torture, beatings of demonstrators, outlaw forced party, etc. there is a situation of aggression illegitimate state violence could bring about a perfectly legitimate self-defense. However ETA violence is no longer proportional (because the state no longer kills Basque militants or too infrequently) and has extended to groups which have only a very indirect relationship to state violence (Councillors or former Councillors Basques, for example). ETA violence, then, it will only get justification from the point of view of the inability to defend themselves by any other peaceful course of state aggression (mainly due to the impunity enjoyed by the aggressors), but the flagrant violation of other invalidate the premises comply with it.

short, the violence of ETA (at least in its current strategy level) do not think is justifiable. But it does not matter too much if we consider that ETA does not share my view and not even part of the same ethical concepts than me. For ETA, the violence is justified when the state denies collective right (the self-determination of the Basque people) and is a legal means to force the state to the negotiating table. From that point of view any other consideration of moral or ethical passes the background, as is usual for any State, dominion or organization making use of violence to the classic mode, which should give pause to those who are considered to itself "revolutionary."


(Next post: "The violence of ETA (II): a strategy.")

History Of Immanuel Chapel In Largo Florida

ethics Distracting the problem

Overwhelmed by the crisis of the wealthy, we do not want to find out about the crisis of the poor. Even the UN has found that millions of people are dying of hunger and thirst and disgust. And that many more will die. If the twenty-first century world can not stop this nonsense of prices, if the planet XXI can not get people not starve, it's time to do something. The real crisis is not for mortgages, is that of hunger.

The crisis of the rich is terrible, and even more so because nobody understands it, because nobody knows how far the bottomless hole of debt, because nobody wants to know how far reaching the blunders they have committed the banks and the financial arrangements for the institutionalized greed. What we see under such trash, such as logo and harangues is that the system is rotten. Always has been, but now we've reached the climax of misery. We have perfected both the mechanism that supports the greed that there is no way of knowing what is happening. The states are going to run out of money to cover such infamy spoiled and sometimes encouraged by them. International money institutions are already taking things by the back door. While obvious issue their opinions and their gibberish seroleras, everyone is waiting for the helicopter idling on the roofs of its luxury skyscrapers. But the real crisis, which is part of the world and the same system, is that the more and better produced, more Hunger is passed. The more satellites and more networks and more intelligence and more information, more millions of people dying without food and work for a euro from sunrise to sunset.

The solution would be true democracy, which we have not yet dared to imagine. The real problem is not climate change, but the change of ideas: we are like in the Neolithic. Until the spirit predator will have to evolve sometime.

Gistaín
Mariano, El Periódico de Aragón .

Anti Fungal Dietkaufmann

Lokarri thesis is usually based on with which I disagree. Regarding his latest initiative , it is based on: 1) The requirement for political parties (PSOE and interest) in the implementation of a dialogue process "will culminate in a political agreement to improve the coexistence of Basque society. " It also calls for a referendum in the Basque society to express their will, 2) The requirement of an end to ETA violence and any violation of human rights that make possible a peace process and to allow the Basque society to decide that consultation with complete freedom.

things first:

1) not require the State to its violations of human rights, civil and policy in relation to the Basque conflict, as it is required (and rightly) to ETA . I think it is necessary to check that, apart from the killings and threats from ETA, also by the state there are still other forms of violence serious enough to require her disappearance. I am referring, of course, to torture. Requiring only a party to any violation of human rights, while hiding the other party violates also suffers from a worrying lack of objectivity and even suspicious.

2) do not see how the unilateral end to ETA violence can lead to a peace process . In any case we would ETA to surrender and thus would not be needed any process of dialogue or negotiation, and certainly not peace as violence from the other party would still be present.

3) Lokarri requires a "process of dialogue that would lead to a political agreement to improve the coexistence of the Basque society", but does not at all who has to reach that agreement and how to improve the coexistence of Basque society . Lokarri's thesis is too open, so that it can be a simple political agreement between the PSOE and PNV culminating in a mere statutory reform with greater powers to the Basque Government, leaving intact the knots conflict (territoriality and self-determination). I think it is essential that agreement is also present the nationalist left, and if you agree with me Lokarri should specify in their approach. On the other hand, believe that the end of this agreement should not be "to improve the coexistence of the Basque society", but finally achieve minimum democratic standards that demands this, that all political projects are possible if they get enough support democracy and full respect for all human rights, civil and political rights.

4) Finally, Lokarri see your "consultation" more like an end than as a means . I think the end of any Basque type of process (call it "peace", "dialog", "negotiation" or as we like, words are not important) must be respect for all human rights, civil and political (and therefore all political projects), than for the Basque people to rule in a query about which know everything: their time, their purpose, their terms ...

On the other hand, perform a search in the current conditions (with outlawed political parties, with the threat of ETA violence and this, with hundreds of political prisoners in prisons, with the threat of torture and detention always present, with censored media, etc.). not only undesirable, but it is undemocratic. Would be as valid as any referendum held in a dictatorial system. To query the Basque policy is necessary that it has complete freedom to act, and today is not because that freedom is violated by both sides: ETA and the State.

Lokarri Supporting this initiative is an error because he confuses the problem and conflict, and could serve certain political purposes that currently go brewing in the kitchens of the PSOE and PNV. Perhaps Lokarri collaboration in that sense there is a conscious strategy at all, but is the least important thing is that it is absurd and distracts us from the real issues we must address if we find a solution to the Basque conflict.

The Demand For A Product Of Cologates

Critics of the prison system Multiverse

is curious to see how after thousands of years of civilization there are still some systems or human institutions remain essentially unchanged, however much we advance in other fields such as social science, politics or technology. One example is the prison system. For thousands of years, humans have resorted to prisons to eliminate crime, and although the details have changed the essence of the system remains unchanged. Perhaps the reason

last of that permanence is a widespread feeling that prisons are inevitable. But no human institution is inevitable if it is not really justified its existence. Asked if prisons were really necessary response can only be answered before another more immediate question: Is it useful to the prison system?

In this sense, the usefulness of the prison system is primarily determined by three functions: punitive (to punish the guilty), preventive (to deter citizens from committing crimes) and rehabilitation (to reintegrate the prisoner in our society and prevent re- offending):

1) rehabilitation function. To what extent are rehabilitated people passing by a prison? Do most are rehabilitated or otherwise reoffend after their stay in it? It is difficult to understand how a prison environment, consisting of all sex offenders, can help a person to forget the crime. It seems more logical, however, that the "university of crime" foster new relationships between criminals and learning new forms of crime. Is it an exaggeration to say that the prison actually encourages crime, and therefore is counterproductive?

2) Function preventive. It is more than arguable that prisons are an effective crime deterrent system. If we look at the crimes of blood, most are passionate and therefore irrational, and it is unlikely that a person acting irrationally stop to weigh rationally the consequences that lead to the realization of his act.

As regards other crimes, the vast majority are due to poverty or marginalization (theft, drug trafficking, etc..), Ie either to sheer survival or to the environment, two factors much more likely to weigh on the performance of a person that the threat of future punishment. In this context, a preventive measure certainly more effective would be to eliminate pockets of poverty and marginalization of our societies.

3) punitive function. Certainly the prison is a harsh punishment for the offender, but there is little point that beyond the simple satisfaction of a primal instinct for revenge. And aside from the no use of that function, we must consider other points of ethical and moral, is it lawful deprivation of liberty of a human being? Will there come a day when the right to liberty is considered a human right as fundamental as the right to life, and therefore the State can not even threaten him?

We must also take into account that the deprivation of liberty of a human being not only punish the man, but all of its surroundings. What happens to the family of a convict? Why is condemned to that family to give your loved one? What will happen to those who may depend sentimental, or economically material condemned as a parent, a spouse or a child? We are talking about a tragedy that transcends the punishment to a single fault to affect several innocent. Is it ethical therefore uphold the punitive function of prison?

Another issue we must add to the above is the immense social injustice filters leading to the jail. I am referring to the judicial system suffer from the system millions in fines to bail, to the lack of free legal defense (which means that the best lawyers are also the most expensive). This is clearly designed to punish the offender poor and rich return the offender unpunished, which makes the whole judicial system in general and prison in particularities, something very wicked and unjust.

be alleged that the reason that the prison system remains unchanged over the centuries, despite being unfair, counterproductive, useless and ethically questionable, is none other than the absence a realistic and viable alternative to it. But the truth is that humanity has not made any serious effort to rethink the system, perhaps because the criminals are the last human beings that anyone would worry. Either way I think the time has come to open a serious debate, calm and reflective about the prison system to remove and replace it with another (or others, since the problem we are dealing with is wide and therefore requires more than one solution) more useful, fair and humane.

Shelly Martinez And Jewel Denyle

evolutionary theory lost

"Another theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has developed a tempting Darwinian version of the multiverse theory, including both serial and parallel elements. Smolin's idea, outlined in The Life of the Cosmos, depends on the theory of universes were born child of the parent universe, not in a Big Crunch fully protected, but more localized black holes. Smolin adds a form of inheritance: the fundamental constants of a universe versions child are slightly "mutated" from his father's constant. Inheritance is the fundamental ingredient of Darwinian natural selection, and the rest of the Smolin theory flows naturally. Those universes that have what it takes to "survive" and "play" come to predominate in the multiverse. "What makes failure "includes long enough to reproduce. Given the fact that reproduction takes place in black holes, universes selected should have what it takes to generate black holes. This capability involves several other properties. For example, the trend matter to condense into clouds and then into stars is a prerequisite to generate black holes. Also, the stars are, as we have seen, precursor chemical is an interesting development, and hence to life. Thus, as Smolin suggests, has been a Darwinian natural selection of universes in the multiverse, indirectly favoring the evolution of fertility and indirectly black hole production of life. Not all physicists are enthusiastic about the idea of \u200b\u200bSmolin, although it is said that the physicist, Nobel winner Murray Gell-Mann said, "Smolin? Is this young with these crazy ideas? Can not be wrong ". A naughty biologist might like to know if some other physicists are in need of improvement Darwinian consciousness. "

In this excerpt from The God Delusion ( recently spoke of the great Richard Dawkins ) We are talking about a revolutionary scientific theory, mixing consistently in the top two branches of physics as diverse as cosmology and Darwinian theory natural selection. The process used for that Lee Smolin, and that Dawkins may not entirely satisfy explain, is simple:

1) Just as the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, the theory of "Big Crunch" predicts that the expansion of space-time due to that end being slowed by the force of gravity and all matter in the Cosmos will be gathered and compressed into a single point or "singularity." This instability may suffer so that they would have to expand again by another Big Bang, and perpetuating the Universe in a sequence ("infinite?) Expansion-contraction: Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches, which in turn provoke new Big Bangs.

2) According to this theory, it is logical to think that the Big Crunch not only causes the death of a universe, but also the birth of a new one. There would, therefore, a "child universe" born of a "parent universe."

3) But we know it "small Crunches" that exist in our universe, in the center of many galaxies is black holes. These are created when the immense gravity of a supermassive star comes to a collapse of the fabric of space-time into a singularity similar to that formed at the time of a Big Crunch, but a much smaller scale. Black holes would then be a Big Crunch in miniature.

4) According to Smolin's theory, the same way that a Big Crunch creates a new universe, black holes could perhaps do the same. Perhaps there is only one Big Crunch, but many, and these black holes. If the whole universe devoured by black holes ended, multiple and unstable singularities that would be established following the collapse (massive black holes) would lead to the formation of multiple expansions (Big Bangs), and therefore of new universes. We thus find a multiverse that is reproduced and multiplied, so as you would like a living organism.

5) The law of probability tells us that the new universes created from the "parent universe" could have very different characteristics, and in fact the possibilities are endless, but only a universe that has black holes could grow again. Thus the black hole becomes the "reproductive" universes contained in the multiverse, and any universe in which events do not occur as black holes would be doomed to extinction, and vice versa: a universe that has Black holes have many chances to reproduce.

6) But a universe that has black holes is quite different from one that does not possess. If black holes exist, it is because there are stars and they occur because the cosmological constant universe (the gravitational force, for example) are what you have in our universe. Sufficient a slight variation in the values \u200b\u200bof these constants for our universe was very different, but Smollin believe that the values \u200b\u200bof the constants of the "child universes" are similar or very similar to the "parent universe." We thus obtain a form of "inheritance", and that slight margin of error allowed in the values \u200b\u200bof "child universe" with respect to the "parent universe" would be the equivalent of a "mutation." Both factors (inheritance and mutation) are what make evolution possible, which means that would eventually dominate the Multiverse universes with black holes.

7) On the other hand, the existence of stars (which make the existence of black holes) also implies the existence of complex chemicals (formed only in the stellar core), which allow the existence of complex chemical interactions to turn give rise to life, and after intelligent life. This suggests that the existence of black holes in a universe more than likely the existence of intelligent beings within it. Therefore, the evolution of the multiverse would be at various levels.

All this is summarized in that we could live in a multiverse that is subject the same factors that living things: reproduction, multiplication, heredity, mutation and evolution, and therefore is an "agency" is born, grows, multiplies and evolves. Would live within a cell belonging to a cosmic being very similar to a living being, or at least subject to similar laws. In fact, that cosmic evolution would have reached the point where it arises in a mind capable of understanding, or at least trying. Not only have achieved the degree of "living organism", but also of "intelligent living organism."

is true that Smolin's theory is purely speculative and lacks any evidence for it. But it is an important theory is wrong but because it opens our minds to new concepts and potential future discoveries. On the other hand, if only the core of Smolin's theory have any credibility and the world also suffer some kind of cosmic evolution based on natural laws, this would have obvious implications, not only in science but also religion: just as that natural selection applied to living beings made unnecessary the concept of a Creator to explain the great complexity of them, the same law applied to the Cosmos could also explain the great complexity of this without any external factor to it.

29 Weeks Pregnant And Stools Are Black

left senseless crime

- Win PP and PSOE, both in number of votes into seats (both win 5 more). A new step, then, to American-style bipartisanship.

- collapses IU (passed 5 to 2 seats), probably due to the mismanagement of Llamazares, without discarding of all the excuses he has presented it: the electoral law, the useful vote and bipartisan trend. In any case lost its parliamentary group, about what will happen to the Joint Group as any residual force.

- ERC collapses (from 8 to 3 seats). Do not forget that the excellent results he achieved in 2004 were due mainly to the fierce campaign Carod-Rovira suffered at that time by the right because of his meeting with ETA.

- Right Catalonia (CiU) won one seat (with a total of 11) and it probably rests on the PSOE during this term, given the good results that have given money to the "center."

- The PNV loses more than 100,000 voters and a seat, having been overtaken as largest party in Euskadi in favor of the PSOE, for the first time in its history. "It promises that a future conquest of the Basque territory PPSOE? More than one-independence is shaking with fear at the possibility.

- EA loses his seat and disappears Congress. It will be difficult to return to it.

- Canary Coalition lost a seat and gets 2.

- BNG Nafarroa Bai and manage to keep their seat each.

- New: Rosa Díez's party won seats, so unfortunately continue charging the public treasury.

- My personal choice has not reached the 300,000 votes and has declined compared to 2004.

- The inactivity of the state is more or less the same as 2004 but has increased in Euskal Herria Hego to reach eight points. The leftwing nationalist campaign in favor of abstention has taken effect, but only among regular voters. Would there have been more abstention in the absence of the ETA attack last day of campaigning? In any case not benefited.

The conclusions are obvious: out very detrimental to the multiparty system in favor of PP and PSOE. The shift to right center that will take both parties is evident. On the other hand, the parliamentary left collapses down to almost nothing, while there are new right-wing forces as UPyD.

Anyway, now more than ever have won as usual, while others have lost.

Where Can I Buy Fabric To Make Fluffies

I think we can draw some conclusions about the latest attack by ETA:

1) ETA has carried out an attack easier and convenient: a person without an escort and in a town like Mondragon, where I suppose that the organization will have significant support. I conclude therefore that ETA wanted by all means do not fail on this occasion.

2) It seems clear that an attack carried out two days before the election is intended to influence them. The question is whether this will eventually influence and in which direction. For now, I fear that no such attack had been less participation (by that of "ETA wants to not vote, so voted all over the world" or by statements Carrasco's daughter calling for participation), for what gives paradox that the killing undermines the strategy of abstaining from the nationalist left. High participation also benefits the PSOE, with the risk that Zapatero reach an absolute majority and reach a clear conclusion: that the Basques stick up for the polls, because even the responses of ETA at the same benefit you.

3) Isaias Carrasco was not an elected official, but a former elected official. It appears that ETA opens a new front (another): the former elected officials. The next step will be to imagine that the rank and simple, and I think this step will prove to be targets of ETA even mere voters, thereby giving the reason that the manipulators Euskadi ensure that there is a fear vote. On the other hand, I think that ETA's supporters are more sympathetic to its stock when the murder in question is a member of the ESF or a politician who has anything to do with state repression. I guess one more will have been hand-to-head to see that this time the crime has been directed against a person who already had nothing to do with the apparatus of state repression (if they ever had something to do that is enough), so that social support ETA is today somewhat less than yesterday.

Conclusion: I believe that this murder was senseless even from the cold point of view of political tactics. This is what has let the military conduct policy analysis.

Xilisoft Dvd Creator 6 License

more useful Voting Article 19

politically responsible Everyone has a duty to consider its position regarding the forthcoming general election, against which the radical left has few alternatives to be analyzed rationally and calmly. The

at first sight could be the most obvious is precisely what discard before: vote for the PSOE. Nobody who actually see on the left can help to establish a government that has been characterized by its position in international politics quite fascist (active collaboration with the occupation of Afghanistan and Lebanon, complicit with Israeli and American terrorism, confrontation with Venezuela, etc..) and with respect to the Basque conflict (negotiation-trap, outlawed, mass arrests of political leaders, torture ...), or his cowardice with dyes accomplices in other national issues: the economy, church-state relationship, etc. Some tentative progress in certain social rights (gay marriage law) do not compensate at all the above.

Another option would be to vote in another force on the left, for example UI. Obviously this is a far more left-wing party the PSOE, but not enough, or at least not enough to stop paying his support and contributions to it. It is true that both IU and ERC have had a key pressure for the government of Zapatero derechizase no further, but the conclusion remains the same: it does not offset the full support and complicity that have provided the PSOE.

And the latter is true for left-wing parties as IU as nationalist parties PNV and CiU as: votándoles guarantee the parliamentary support and complicity of the "consensus" that needs Zapatero.

But if we discard the parliamentary parties ... Who do vote then? We can forget any kind of pragmatism and choose to offer our support to innumerable (and often wacky) minority parties also submitted to the elections, it will not be very different to throw away the ballot next: do not get any representation (d'Hondt law and the provincial district and are responsible it) and our votes will be included within the limited category of "other", so will not help.

We only have, therefore, two proposals: one abstention and blank votes, and both are excellent in showing our disagreement and our contempt for this "democracy" glue. The leftwing nationalist campaign is conducted in the Basque Country abstention, for example, is a magnificent example of demonstration of protest against the system and the government to suffer. Predictably, the abstention orchestrated hundreds of thousands of people will be a real blow to democracy that called rigging.

However, to join this campaign in other parts of the state is an error. If someone wants to do a show similar to the nationalist and declines, will likely be added to all that passive abstention composed of citizens politically unconscious, among other reasons because there is no campaign to call the locals, like myself, the abstention. Thus, the protest vote would remain in nothing.

My conclusion therefore is that if we make a show of contempt for this system cuasifascista is no other recourse than white vote, which hopefully will be posted along with the rest of blank ballots as an expression of protest dissidents in the country, ensuring not to be confused with passivity or any political passivity.

I also can say that I consider the forthcoming elections in terms of "useful vote." In fact, I think my vote is going to be the most useful of all.

Is Emily 18 Actually 18

At the time expressed my disagreement with Amnesty International with respect to its position in the case of John, which I thought was hypocritical as well as erroneous.

AI The second discrepancy was a few days ago, when the organization tried to issue an advertisement that was banned in the media by the English Government, in a probable case of censorship. The spot is a montage in which they appear different world leaders while a voiceover refers to various articles of the Declaration of Human Rights. I could not understand why AI decided to include a president (Fidel Castro) whose attacks on human rights pale in comparison to the crimes of other governments and, for example, Colombia. But it seems that AI does not consider it appropriate to include Alvaro Uribe in his spot, as also chose to include in it the slightest criticism of the English Government strategy strange if we consider that the intended spot airing in our country.

I think it's reasonable to think that criticism of a Government are even more useful are the more accessible to people who support that government. So needless to criticize Bush in Spain and Zapatero criticized in the U.S.. Jabiero probably thought something like this when editing the video of AI to replace Bush and Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba:



Amnesty International believes that this video violates your copyright, so it has submitted a complaint to YouTube. For its part, YouTube has taken the opportunity to cancel your account and delete all Jabiero videos: more than 160. And it has even bypassing its own rules.

The truth is I do not want to go assess in detail such an outrage. It is clear that a commercial enterprise like Youtube one can expect anything but an organization whose priority should be to uphold human rights collaborate in an attack on a fundamental human right, it seems simply shameful. AI and YouTube may have Forgot Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to their opinions, receive and impart information and ideas and through any media and regardless of frontiers, by any means of expression. "

Coincidentally Jabiero that has developed in recent months a tremendous activity, both on YouTube and on his blog or forum-Basque conflict, denouncing the persecution that is currently suffering a large part of citizenship Basque, whose rights (civil, political and even humans) are being violated with a gall and ferocity only seen in decades, an issue that Amnesty International gives a tiny (or rather lack of) advertising. "The attack on Jabiero is a fact independent of this context or is there a connection? Which each draw their own conclusions.

Finally, the third time I am disappointed that Amnesty International, and the third time's the charm. Therefore I pass here all my contempt for an organization that deals with human rights violations abroad (especially in countries "enemies") while ignoring the national brand, and not happy with that indulges to report "violations of copyright" for the sole purpose of censoring (in complicity with Youtube) uncomfortable political messages. AI If you stay a minimum decency, should publicly distance himself from the action of Youtube, so show us that there is no complicity in it in such an attack on freedom of expression. Because in this case, silence gives consent.

I also convey my sympathy to Jabiero. I am aware that the abuse he has suffered is just one more in the flood of persecution, censorship, outlawed political parties or torture to which we have been witnessing for months, and shut us so embarrassing. Jabiero why people like it more necessary than ever. Put another way: the work would not be necessary Jabiero if AI did his as it should. -----



Update 10/03/2008: It seems that the paradox is triple this time, since I have been censored and banned Jabiero their domains. And like us, the defense that makes Jabiero human rights is relative, depending on who the vulnerable. All this does not change at all my position on the unjustifiable censorship case that has suffered at the hands of AI Jabiero and YouTube, because unlike AI and Jabiero my values \u200b\u200bare absolute and not relative.