Perche’ ho votato come ho votato

Posted on by
Reply

Con le Politiche 2006 ho "scoperto" di avere un'opinione abbastanza eterodossa. Un evento positivo, visto che, essendo io una persona comune, quelli che non si identificano anima e corpo in un unico schieramento devono enumerarsi in tanti.

Altra conseguenza e' che devo ipso facto votare "turandomi il naso": con questa coalizione un po' di piu', con quell'altra un po' meno.

Nessun premio a chi indovina le mie preferenze. Mi basti dire che l'alleanza del signor B, di cui gia' dubitavo nel 2001 (quando non potei votare dall'Inghilterra) e' stata un fallimento completo. Lasciamo perdere le innumerevoli gaffe del Presidente del Consiglio che causano ben piu' che imbarazzo a chi lavora all'estero. Con una maggioranza schiacciante e ligia al dovere, la Casa della Liberta' non ha fatto nessuna riforma seria in campo libertario, liberista o liberale. Lo sforzo quasi unico sono state leggi ad personam firmate in fretta e furia, e gli impiastri delle leggi sulla fecondazione non piu' assistita, e sulla non-risoluzione del conflitto di interessi.

Nella solita "giungla di numeri" dell'economia, e' certo che il grande esperto di economia Tremonti, troppo uso al finanziamento tramite condoni, non sa dove prendere i soldi per migliorare i conti. Se
l'avesse saputo, li avrebbe gia' presi, invece di arrivare alle elezioni in queste condizioni.

D'altronde e' difficile immaginare il dirigista, statalista Ulivo popolato da "Migliori", attuare le riforme che tutti sanno necessarie. Ma fra i due disastri, quello sicuro di altri cinque anni di Berlusconi, e quello solo possibile di qualche governo di centro-sinistra, grazie, io scelgo la speranza e quest'ultimo.

Liberisti, liberali e libertari italiani che si sono fatti abbindolare da Sua Emittenza nel 2001, gioveranno sicuramente da una sconfitta. Fosse che fosse una Destra seria, internazionalista, liberale, liberista, libertaria, antifascista e antirazzista riuscira' a nascere da qui al 2011 ("Ercolino sogna!", come dicono a Reggio Calabria)

Democracy and Religion

Reply

A quiz for all the aliens from the Andromeda Galaxy out there: which of the following organized belief systems ("religions") is more compatible with the minority-respecting political Rule of the majority of the people ("democracy")?

(a) A worldwide establishment centred on a powerful, "infallible" single person chosen for life by and among a few dozen cream-of-the-crop individuals

(b) A loose collection of groups professing very similar beliefs with a large regional variation, following charismatic people whose main claim to leadership is the ability to convince the followers of their closeness to God

Of course (a) is a simplified description of Roman Catholicism. And (b), of Islam

=====

You can guess the answer for yourself. What the above shows is that a load of uninformed garbage is currently served as "intellectual discussion" on the "unachievable co-existence" of Islam and Democracy.

Doesn't anybody remember the XIX century absurd grandstandings about the impossibility of reconciling Christianity (esp. Roman Catholicism) and Democracy?

Or those politicians musing in the 1920's about the alleged incompatibility of Southern and Eastern European societies with the concept of peaceful handover of power between political parties after lawful elections?

The problem is that it is very easy to extrapolate the news of the moment (e.g. the rise of Fascism in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania) into "universal laws" with no base in history…and so people will keep dying waiting for the simple truth to be accepted, that political systems do not depend on religion

The Hypocrisy of “Unsustainable Development” (aka Wrong Pulpit, Sir!)

Reply

Here we go with another environmental conference yet again hearing of impending Doom&Gloom

TERRADAILY – Earth Forum Hears Dire Warnings Of Environmental Collapse

Addressing the two-day forum's main topic — the feasibility of sustainable development for billions of people worldwide — [Jeffrey Sachs, director of the UN Millennium Project] painted a grim picture of systemic environmental collapse, coupled with war, famine and pandemic disease. The astonishing pace of economic growth in Asia and the increasing demands of development in the industrialised world will in a matter of decades, Sachs argued, impose a burden far beyond that which the world is already woefully failing to carry. "It is the central challenge we face on the planet," he said. "Every single major ecological system we have is already under profound stress."

This is not today's news.

I remember Clare Short, former UK minister, making a similar point

And the point is, "sorry guys but if you're poor today you must stay that way"

This is an incredibly baseless remark. Let's put aside the fact that apart than in the mind of the environment-as-religion lobby, there is little indication for any impending gloom. Let's also put aside the fact that economic development has in the last few decades taken millions out of poverty

The biggest hypocrisy is that neither Mr Sachs, nor Ms Short have shown any intention to show the way, move to a remote area, and live off the land to eliminate their own contribution to this baseless "disaster"

I remember those in the 70's, preaching collapse by overpopulation, to whom the only serious answer should have been "when are you going to help the world, and eliminate yourself?"

Obviously we don't need Jeffrey Sachs to act so drastically.

But who would accept Marie Antoinette talking of there being not enough bread, while eating croissants?

What is the meaning of telling humanity that it can't get rich, from the pulpit of Columbia University's Alfred Lerner Hall?