En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

The @blabla is a specific reply to another user (called blabla in that case), and yes thats all posts by Nosemonkey.

Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. Frank Borman

Can someone explain how twitter works?

And follow it by explaining what it is all about? By now I think can understand Facebook, but the purpose of Twitter goes above my head.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

Dave from Marketing is reluctantly - oh, so reluctantly - admitting that it's a fait accompli.

Tragically, he's going to have to renege on his heartfelt promise to hold a referendum, now that it's out of his hands.

The faithful will be duly tranquilised - or at least pacified - for now.

I suppose this means that unless someone (note how I don't mention Hannan here) sticks a Westminster knife in his back, the UK won't be leaving the EU just yet, even if the ToryTubbies win the next round of celebrity expenses.

Now that's a provocative question of which one, such as myself, could easily make light by differentiating cruciform and crucifix.

I'm pretty sure the standard of those nations doesn't depict either Jesus or his bloody beating heart.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

For that matter, what about something much less symbolic: state churches in Scandinavia and Britain.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

No, but as a precondition for membership, Turkey will have to start using Denmark's flag.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

Should we start a European People's Party Hissy Fit Watch?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

Done and done:

Kruzifix-Beschluss - Wikipedia		Crucifix ruling
Kruzifix-Beschluss (umgangssprachlich auch Kruzifix-Urteil) wird die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts genannt, mit der Teile der Bayerischen Volksschulordnung von 1983 für verfassungswidrig und nichtig erklärt wurden, nach denen in jedem Klassenzimmer der Volksschulen in Bayern ein Kruzifix oder zumindest ein Kreuz anzubringen war.[1] Der Kruzifix-Beschluss ist eine bedeutsame Entscheidung zum Verhältnis von Religion und Staat in Deutschland.		The crucifix ruling (originally also called the crucifix verdict) decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court overturning parts of the Bavarian School Statute of 1983 that required a crucifix or at least a cross to be mounted in all classrooms in Bavaria. The crucifix decision is a major decision on the relationship between church and state in Germany.

There's no such thing as original sin - Elvis Costello

"We're all Post Modernists now."

Madness takes its toll. Have exact change ready

ECHR:

Principal facts

The applicant, Ms Soile Lautsi, is an Italian national who lives in Abano Terme (Italy). In 2001-2002 her children, Dataico and Sami Albertin, aged 11 and 13 respectively, attended the State school "Istituto comprensivo statale Vittorino da Feltre" in Abano Terme. All of the classrooms had a crucifix on the wall, including those in which Ms Lautsi's children had lessons. She considered that this was contrary to the principle of secularism by which she wished to bring up her children. She informed the school of her position, referring to a Court of Cassation judgment of 2000, which had found the presence of crucifixes in polling stations to be contrary to the principle of the secularism of the State. In May 2002 the school's governing body decided to leave the crucifixes in the classrooms. A directive recommending such an approach was subsequently sent to all head teachers by the Ministry of State Education.

On 23 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Veneto Regional Administrative Court about the decision by the school's governing body, on the ground that it infringed the constitutional principles of secularism and of impartiality on the part of the public authorities. The Ministry of State Education, which joined the proceedings as a party, emphasised that the impugned situation was provided for by royal decrees of 1924 and 1928. On 14 January 2004 the administrative court granted the applicant's request that the case be submitted to the Constitutional Court for an examination of the constitutionality of the presence of a crucifix in classrooms. Before the Constitutional Court, the Government argued that such a display was natural, as the crucifix was not only a religious symbol but also, as the "flag" of the only Church named in the Constitution (the Catholic Church), a symbol of the Italian State. On 15 December 2004 the Constitutional Court held that it did not have jurisdiction, on the ground that the disputed provisions were statutory rather than legislative. The proceedings before the administrative court were resumed, and on 17 March 2005 that court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It held that the crucifix was both the symbol of Italian history and culture, and consequently of Italian identity, and the symbol of the principles of equality, liberty and tolerance, as well as of the State's secularism. By a judgment of 13 February 2006, the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the applicant's appeal, on the ground that the cross had become one of the secular values of the Italian Constitution and represented the values of civil life.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicant alleged, in her own name and on behalf of her children, that the display of the crucifix in the State school attended by the latter was contrary to her right to ensure their education and teaching in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions, within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The display of the cross had also breached her freedom of conviction and religion, as protected by Article 9 of the Convention.  

Decision of the Court

The presence of the crucifix - which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms - could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion. This could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities. The freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.

The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a "democratic society" as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.

The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public  authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 of the Convention.

This is the court so-called "Eurosceptics" throw their vomit on.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

wouldn't be a military-industrial state either.

And if it hadn't been for Roosevelt we'd all be speaking Russian...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

libs + dems moving the democrat party so far to the "left" that they chase the blue dogs into some centrist GOP is a reasonable possiblity

Hahaha... no.

While the blue dogs may leave the Democratic Party, it won't be because the party heads left. There is no signs of that happening. The left of the Democratic Party isn't about to chase away blue dogs out of ideological purity.

In the U.S. two party system, there is a right wing party (Republicans) and a centrist party (Democrats). Since there is no left wing gravitational force, I think the American politics always is pulled rightwards.

When the blue dogs leave, it will be because the pull right to the right is electorally safe again; meaning the Republican Party becomes less social issue bent and more corporate and moneyed interests bent.

Of course this all assumes the U.S. will survive as a nation long enough.

Dick Armey, Leader, Organizer, and Spokesperson for the Peculiar People announced today:

"I would say it's [NY-23] the tip of the spear," said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. "We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today."

So the PP seem set on their course, sailing off to La-La Land.  

I go back to my original assessment: the Tea Baggers are driving this.  The party leadership and elected officials in both the GOP and DP are playing catch-up in a political (and economic and social and so on) environment that has completely shifted under their feet in the last five years.  Assuming the Baggers follow through, as they seem to be doing, the GOP targets of the Baggers are going to have to make a decision before the next filing deadline:

Do I run to the Right, risking the votes I NEED to win from the Center?  Do I run to the Left forgetting the GOP base and almost certainly lose the primary?  Do I use my incumbency and all the benefits of incumbency and do A Liberman?

I note Liberman was able to make his decision to run as an Independent due to Connecticut's election laws.  Some states have a Sore Loser Law and that option isn't available once the primary has decided the parties nominee.

I submit my "comfortable resolution" is, as of today, the likely resolution.  I just can't accept the Tea Baggers have enough demographic clout to win state-wide elections outside the South.  The polling isn't there for them.  

Last, I want to point out the "comfortable resolution" isn't what I would like to see.  In my projected re-alignment there's no room for a true Left party to emerge.  :-(

Madness takes its toll. Have exact change ready

Some of them are going to get kicked out in 2010. Or primaried. If you cut them by a fourth you'll halve their influence.

I don't understand the interest in exiling the left from power. The present configuration in the US means that the left cannot govern alone, it can only govern in an alliance. Similarly for the right. The idea that by polarizing from the mushy middle and corporatist reformers, the US left can do anything but condemn itself to watching haplessly as the far right continues to build a fascist state is one that seems to have no evidentiary basis.

Full of Banans republicans?

Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. Frank Borman

Should they make him look like some dick who hasn't got an idea?

For once they're quoting an "expert" who's giving them the right facts and frame.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

Oh, I should have refreshed the page :)

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

Here is a reasonably equanimous ("balanced") outline of partisans' meta-agitprop.

NJ, VA Vote as Palin Stumps in NY | Bloomberg | 3 Nov 2009

Scozzafava, a state Assemblywoman chosen by local Republican leaders to compete in the special election, also was targeted because of her support for same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama's stimulus plan.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed her, saying the party needed to be more inclusive. Palin and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty lined up behind Hoffman [Conservative Party].

David Carney, a former political director for President George H.W. Bush, said Scozzafava was pressured out by voters, not party leaders.

`Political Elite'

"The political elite missed the point," he said. "It's the voters having a say."

"Elite" inexplicably including innerboobz klatschers who never had the pleasure of either living in NY or venturing beyond Manhattan -- much less NY-23. What's the last TPM story you ever read that profiled NY-23 demos, industry, county tinpots?

I'd forget Palin starring in the catastrophic GOP telenovela cast by MSM. For "the point" being that NY state is populated by a socially and fiscally conservative electorate in the tradition of 18th cen. federalists. Srsly. Pragmatic constituents.

Scozzafava failed, right, before Palin or Pawlenty "succeeded".

On the other hand, the millions with pension and IRAs have been fleeing NYC for climes of lower costs and charms since Dubya came to town. This element's turnout could produce a win for Owens to save status quo.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

Everything you need to know about upper New York state can be found in this clip.

4 races! Then the best would be to lose the two Governors and win the House seats.

Could you explain why both graphs seem to show an accelerated number of bank failures after 2008?

Skennah Kowa

Spot the hockey stick...