ONE LINER 0014: Hilary Clinton - stuck in the era long gone…

Let me start from the statement:  I am a Democrat, in fact more Liberal (on the social issues).
As I wrote before, many times, our goal, as Democrats, in 2016 is to prevent the Republicans from taking the White House to farther ruin, and dissipate the American Middle Class.

That said, I am more and more convinced, that the Secretary Clinton is not the answer to our quest.

To be honest, I hate such politicians, like Hilary Clinton.  
Intelligent - yes, but dishonest, and weak.
Senator Sanders has been absolutely right rising the question: if Secretary Clinton is, al all, qualified to be a President of the USA, having such a history of bad judgment on so many important issues (the war in Iraq, bailing out the banks, disastrous trade agreements, etc).  
We could farther and farther with the list of the wrong judgment proofs - I wrote about it already.

Today I want to shine a spotlight on Secretary Clinton’s disconnection from the 2016 reality.
Not only she still defends her husband’s NAFTA, and her husband’s crime bill, and talks about Super Predators, but uses the metaphors, which have been condemned and discarded a long time ago - in the nineties.

I saw her on TV today (and it’s widely described in many journals, both paper and virtual, like Politico - 1*), saying:
"I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get ‘off the reservation’ in the way they behave and how they speak."

If I said that as a joke I would still be considered a bigot and an ‘asshole’, but it would be a ‘no harm done’ - I am a private citizen.  However, if the ‘off the reservation’ metaphor is used in 2016 by a presidential candidate, it becomes simply another ‘lack of judgment’ moment, and a proof, that she is not grown (as a human being) since the time she was a ‘first lady’.  She is stuck in the past.
I repeat, louder:  SHE IS STUCK IN THE PAST.

As I wrote in my previous article, Susan Sarandon had expressed some doubts if the Sanders supporters, like herself, would ‘have the stomach’ to vote on Clinton in general elections.  I start thinking along the same lines.  
Scary, what the result might be…

_______________
1* - http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/hillary-clinton-men-reservation-222645

ONE LINER 0013: Bernie for the President of the USA 2016

2016 Presidential Campaign is in a full swing…
Watching what the Republican candidates say and do is to a certain degree, entertaining, but in most cases, disgusting and worrying to anybody who hopes for the better future to the America.

Democrats are much more civil, and much more united… or do they?

OUR ONLY GOAL IN 2016 IS TO ELECT THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
So, our immediate goal is to chose the ‘electable’ candidate, putting aside the most personal opinions.  When the time comes we have to stand united, without reservation, behind the candidate who wins the Democratic Convention Nomination.

Until then, a two-candidate race is a fierce contest.  Both the Secretary Clinton and the Senator Sanders kept promising the issues oriented campaign.  Senator Sanders even refused discussing the ‘email scandal’, which clearly showed the Secretary Clinton’s lack of judgment.

The New York Primary is approaching.  It comes down to who is trustworthy in his/her message, and who has, historically, the record showing a consistency of the political position, thus indicating the chances of carrying forward his/her political agenda.

On April 6, in the interview on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’, Clinton uttered a number of demeaning remarks about the Senator Sanders, skillfully hinting (and stopping short of saying it straight) that the Senator in not qualified to be president - as summarized by The Washington Post (1*).  When the next day, Senator Sanders asked the audience to decide if the Secretary’s record is the base for qualifications (with the wrong votes on the Iraq War, and on all, disastrous Trade Agreements), he played the same game.
Unfortunately, the mayor media outlets, even the MSNMS, are so biased toward Secretary Clinton, that no one even noticed that they behaved identically.
To all fairness, the Secretary’s record is not so glorious:
- She voted for the war in Iraq.
- She voted for all Trade Agreements, which decimated the well paid workers’ jobs in the States.
- She voted for the financial institutions bail-out, making them even more powerful and ’too big to fail’.
- She collected hundreds of thousand of Dollars from the speeches given to the financial institutions and doesn’t want to reveal the transcripts.
- She collected millions of Dollars from the ‘Wall Street’ for her campaign (Wall street, she claims, she wants to regulate - and the voter has to believe, that there are no strings attached - how naive, she thinks, we are?).

And yet she, in her attacks against the Senator Sanders, used, to say the least, misrepresentation, half-truths, or simple lies.
She accused Sanders on voting against bailout of the automotive industry - omitting to say that the bill Sanders opposed was a mainly financial-institution-bail-out bill, where the automotive industry bailout was just a small attachment.  He opposed the bill on principle.

She attacked Sanders on multiple occasions, instigating the whole movement promoting the bill allowing suing the gun manufacturers by the victims of gun violence.  Senator Sanders opposed this bill, logically, on principle, that you can’t sue the manufacturer of the legally available product for the product performing its functions.
Everyone should be revolted by the gun violence, especially the mass shootings, which happen in our country.  We, the society, should do all we can to end this violence.  We should influence our legislators to make it more difficult to obtain a firearm, with the mandatory background checks, and mandatory registration.  We should have the ‘assault’ style rifles banned completely and available ONLY to the military, and law enforcement personnel.
But making the gun manufacturers liable is not the way to go - if they do, what they do in a legal way.  Hysteria shouldn’t be a part of our political reality.

On April 4, The Daily News published an interview with the Senator Sanders, which led some commentators to conclude that he didn’t know anything on how to brake up the ’too-big-to-fail’ financial institutions.  This opinion stuck to the media (I heard it repeated several times by the CNN, MSNBC, etc).  Secretary Clinton repeated the accusation, without a blink of an eye.
However, as explained in the article in The New York Times a day later (2*), which revealed that last year Sen. Sanders introduced the bill which dealt with this problem, and to which his answers in the original interview obviously referred.

It wasn’t a blunder on part of Sen. Sanders, but on part of the interviewer.  And yet, the blame for being ‘unprofessional’ stuck to the Senator.

It hasn’t started in April, let’s move back to the beginning of January: “Chelsea Clinton claimed, on January 12, that Bernie Sanders’ health care plan would “empower Republican governors to take away Medicaid” and undo Obamacare. That line of attack was deemed “mostly false” by the left-leaning fact-checkers at Politifact.” (3*)

All this missteps by the media and the Secretary Clinton campaign are offensive, and mislead the general voter into wrong conclusions.  Those, who follow Senator Sanders, and who want him to get the Democratic Nomination, and who know a bit more in depth what the Senator Sanders stands by, are appalled and angry.

Unfortunately, the only outcome of this situation is not going to be for the Democratic Party.   As polled by MSNBC on April 07, more than 60% of the Senator Sanders supporters would not vote for the Secretary Clinton if she gets the Nomination.  Susan Sarandon is one of these people, saying: "I think Bernie would probably encourage people to [support Hillary if he loses] because he doesn't have any ego in this thing," Sarandon said. "But I think a lot of people are, 'sorry, I just can't bring myself to [vote for Hillary].'" (4*)

Sadly, this would result in the Republicans getting to the White House, and the bleak future for the America’s Middle Class, and the poor.






_________________________________________________
1* - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/
2* - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html
3* - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/06/chelsea-clinton-accidentally-calls-bernie-president-sanders/
4* - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/28/susan_sarandon_i_dont_think_i_could_vote_for_hillary_if_sanders_loses.html

ONE LINER 0012: Nothing says ‘I love you’ as strong as 10mm Glock Birthday Present.

We are so hung up on the gun issues, constitutionality of the right to own a gun, loopholes, and so on, that we run circles not seeing a single viable solution.  
The ‘gun show loopholes’ happen only because the whole process of obtaining a gun is so convoluted and awkward, and and IS un-applicable.  
No matter if you are pro-gun or anti-gun, you have to agree, that a clear, applicable, and easily understood gun law would make our country safer.

We argue constantly about the background checks at the purchase point.  Since the individual sellers do not have real means to perform it, they are exempt from this requirement.  I hear constantly voices trying to impose this requirement also on the individuals.  How? 

I am sure that the solution lays elsewhere.

We do not even think about the driving licenses.   Many decades ago we have agreed that you have to obtain the driving license for the kind of vehicle you want to drive.  Once you get the license to drive a vehicle under a certain weight limit, you can’t drive an eighteen-wheeler, or a motorcycle without obtaining an additional license.  It simply makes sense.
And then, when you buy a vehicle you register it - but you are able to operate it if, and only if you have the license!

So, my proposal is as follows:

1.  In order to be able to buy a gun (any gun), an individual has to obtain the license (for the particular kind of weapon - be it a hand hun, hunting rifle, or a shot gun).  But separate the licensing from the gun purchase.  At the point of obtaining the gun license all background check are done by the most suitable to do so agency - the police.  Every 2 years the process should be repeated.  If you have seizures - the driving license is revoked.  If you have psychotic episodes your gun license should be revoked - just a common sense.

2.  The above is followed by just a single additional requirement.  You can’t purchase any guns, anywhere, without a VALID, current gun-license.  

3.  All guns are registered at the point of purchase - with no exceptions.

It makes all the gun sales vetted, and takes the burden of the background check in the individual sales from the seller.  But at the same time creates the situation in which an individual who doesn’t pass the periodical renewal - can’t purchase a gun.  

Wouldn’t it make simpler and more logical the whole process of purchasing and using guns in America.  It surly would.  

Unfortunately, both proponents and opponents of the guns are so deeply entrenched in their outdated (I would call it archaic) application of the second Amendment, that the logical and simple solutions are never on the table.

I am not even talking about the 'assault rifle' issue.  To me, it's no-brainer.  Unless you are a law enforcement agent, you do not have a use (and you shouldn't be able to use it) for the AK-47, M-16, nor their 'semi-automatic' versions.  The ban on these weapons was in force for years and should return.  

We have as many guns in the open as many citizens in the US.   We have to make these guns trackable and transparent.  We have to take them away from the individuals who are unstable, or simply ‘loonies’ (I know it’s not ‘pc correct’).  

What do you say - Citizens of the US?

ONE LINER 0011 - Greek Financial Crisis, Currency, and the Cold War...

The Greek financial struggle with the Euro in recent, at least 5 years, became a subject of many heated discussions in Europe and in the US.  Everybody has an expert opinion on why GREXIT (Greek exit from the Euro Zone) would be a disaster to the economies of the World. 

Greece was admitted to the Eurozone in 2001.  The discussion on the Greek chances to succeed started right away and never stopped.  Greek economy seemed a bit ‘incompatible’ with the Euro. 

I have been a long time supporter of the theory, that the week, traditional economies shouldn’t enter the Eurozone, since they (if they encounter the problem with cost of goods production) loose the ability to manipulate the value of their currency, and instead they have to respond to all the particularities of the Euro, set and enforced by the biggest and strongest economies, like Germany, France etc (*1).  And all that happens without the benefit of the Greek people.

However, this is not my argument at this moment.  Greece has been admitted to the Eurozone, and should stay there, even though in the minds of the common people in Europe, Greece is the Least Hardworking, and the Least Trustworthy country in the European Union… (*2).

Greece tries to renegotiate terms of the debt payment, as well as the new, significant loans.  International banks, exposed to the Greek debt, try to impose the harder austerity measures on the Greek nation.  This doesn’t sit well with the nation, which for years have been suffering dire straits and increasingly worsening social services.  So, on Sunday, July 5, in the country-wide referendum, Greek people rejected the farther going austerity measures.  They do not want to go out of the Eurozone, but to get new help and try to return to the normal lives, if it’s at all possible…(*3).

Both sides try to play ‘hard ball’, no one is ready to give in… and definitely Europe doesn’t want to increase the exposure to the new Greek debt. 

There is another, political aspect of this ‘game’.  In the middle of June this year, while the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras visited Russia to take part in the St. Petersburg International Investment Forum - Putin offered him financial help (*4) initially related to the prospective Russian natural gas pipeline (going through the Greece). 

Knowing the aggressive expansionist tendencies of the Russian President, already well visible in the case of the Ukraine, and Transnistria, such an offer is not without the strings attached. 

Right after the WWII, Russia sponsored a socialist revolution in Greece (*5) when the royalist government was restored by plebiscite in 1946.  It took 3 years, then, to remove the communist threat with help of the West.

Now the West (mainly the European Union) should think very carefully how to proceed in this matter. 

One thing is to loose some of the money, Greece owns to the European Countries, and other foreign banks - and completely another, is to have the Russia control Greece and this part of Mediterranean.

Greece is still a member of NATO, and if it is too Russian-friendly, it would be devastating for the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it’s policies.

So, what’s gonna be…?

__________________________________________

*1 - http://www.indiana.edu/~eucenter/documents/Euro-and-Greece-Explained.pdf

*2 - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/07/5-facts-about-greece-and-the-eu/

*3 - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/world/europe/greek-referendum-debt-crisis-vote.html?_r=1

*4 - http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/06/19/greece-signs-deal-with-russia-to-build-gas-pipeline

*5 - http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/greek-civil-war-ends

ONE LINER 0010 - Immigration - love it or hate it...

It looks like no matter where we look, we are reminded that IMMIGRATION (and in fact, it’s un-controlled, illegal part) is a part of our reality, will stay a part of our reality for any foreseeable future.

We, in the States have a continuous influx of the immigrants form the Latin American countries - the influx we are completely unable to control or regulate.  Europe, especially Italy (being the closest to Africa European country), has to deal with the Africans coming there, crossing the Mediterranean on a variety of not-sea-worthy vessels, and drowning in numbers…  Australia deals with the South-Asians, who go there to better their lives and/or to study…

The countries like the USA, Canada and Australia are the countries of emigrants.  They were created for and by the Europeans who, for one reason or another were looking to start the new lives far away from where they grew up.  The reasons were completely different in the case of the USA (religious persecution in England…, and then famine…, and then wars…, and then political asylum…) and Australia (a ‘promised land’ - white country… and then wars… and then poverty…, and then political asylum…), or were they?

At the end, all developed, and politically stable countries, who enjoyed at the same time the economical booms, and prosperity, have become the destination in the dreams of all the people who’s lives were far from the economical and political stability. 

Be it a political oppression in the communist states (like USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland…), or fear for survival in the war stricken countries (like former Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania in the 90-ties, or Syria, Iraq, Libia, Mali, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, sub-Saharan countries, in the recent years), millions of people always had a very good reason to try to escape, and, even rising their lives try to reach the ‘promised lands’.

Little they knew, that in the ‘promised lands’ no-one wanted them, and in fact, no-one cared.  Little they knew, that when the immigrants reach the point of the ‘critical mass’, the whole societies revolt against them, and their lives not only do not improve, but in some cases even worsen.

And here comes the point why I decided to write this article:

WE  ARE ALL MISTAKEN  (IN THE DEVELOPED AND STABLE COUNTRIES) - when we think about the immigration problem in the terms pertaining to our welfare, and it’s good or bad impact on our countries.  WE ARE ALL WRONG.

Also the argument on the subject of the immigration, we have in the States, starts from the wrong thesis. 

We all talk about it, the subject is one of the decisive topics of the election campaigns, and yet we start the discussion from the wrong premise.  All we hear is that the America was built on, and by the immigrants.  That is a fact.  But drawing the conclusions just from the historical references is not enough and may be completely wrong.  We used to have a slavery - and we developed understanding that it was wrong, and won’t be repeated.  We used to burn the alleged witches…, and then we grew understanding that it wasn’t right. 

We, as a society evolve, the same way as the world evolves around us.  The increasing availability of the information and the speed with which this information reaches even the most remote parts of the world is changing the people’s perception of the world.  Is it good or bad, it’s another story.  One may always argue that the ‘ignorance is bliss’.  But it doesn’t change the equation.  The ‘gene is out of the bottle’.  The world has changed and it’s changing constantly with the ever increasing speed.

We have to understand that - like nomadic tribes change location in search of the grass to feed their cattle, not caring about the artificially imposed (by the English, French or Spanish Colonialists) borders - people will always move in search of the better pasture.  It’s not something which started happening right now, it’s been always like that  (I do not want to put too much emphasis on this reference, but such an exodus was described even in the Bible).

So, we have to accept it as part of our reality.  The world is changing.  Hitler wanted the blood purity of the nation and all the people in the world knew that it was a wrong concept.  Australia until quite recently had a constitutional motto - to be a white nation.  Come-on!  Even there the concept hasn’t survived.

THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF STOPPING OR LIMITING OF THE INFLUX OF IMMIGRANTS TO THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD IS WRONG.  ANY ACTING ON IT - FUTILE.

At this point of the development of the Civilization, we simply can’t deny anybody’s right to better their lives.  The fact that someone was born in the now corrupt and dangerous, post-colonial African, or Asian country, dosn’t mean that that person has to endure the abuse for the rest of his/her life. 

And again the argument is not about our (American) roots as a immigrant country, but simply about the humanitarian effort to help those who do not have anything.  Let’s not fool ourselves, the immigration in the numbers we are experiencing, will cost a lot.  It’s not that (as the politicians try to tell you in the election campaign speeches) make us rich or even improve our lives.  But the world is decided on those who have and those who have not.  For centuries the countries who have have taken advantage of those who have not.  It’s been happening today all around the globe. 

Colonialism, and late the Economical and Technological Hegemony of the developed countries are to blame (in great degree) for the poverty, wars and political instability of the so called 3rd World.  Even the corruption (I should say ‘uncontrollable’ corruption) in these countries is the direct result of the situation we have created.

So, since WE HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE PROBLEM - WE HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.

Europe, after the Arab Spring has been dealing with the thousands of African immigrants crossing the see.  Italy is the closest to Africa European country.  Hundreds of thousands of the immigrants crossed what’s called ‘The Sicilian Canal’ trying to reach a small island of Lampedusa.  Thousands haven’t succeeded and died trying. 

Corpses were washing off the beaches of the Italy. 

It took them a long time, but finally the Government in Brussels reacted.  The military vessels monitor the open see and pick daily hundreds of the immigrants.  They are brought ashore and start their way though the system.  At this point, thanks to operation ’Triton’, people stopped drowning. 

the Mediterranean Sea has been recently named “Mare Nostrum” (in Latin “Our Sea”).  It’s the beginning - a step in the right direction. 

The next step - in my opinion - would be the creation of the World-wide refugee registry.  This kind of registry should contain all the immigrants who enter the system in any country in the World. 

It is unfair to Italy, that all the African immigrants stay and are processed in Italy.  According to the World-wide Registry, they should be distributed among all the countries in the region, who have abilities to accept the certain number of immigrants.

The most immigrant-friendly European country is without the doubt Norway.  At the beginning of 1992 the immigrant population in Norway was 183,000 persons, or 4.3 per cent of the total population. 23 years later, at the beginning of 2015, the number had risen to 815,000 persons, (or 15.6 per cent of the population).  A small country, with the best understanding of the global population trends.

We all, especially in USA, should look into the Norwegian approach (or solution) and learn.  The world is changing, and we have to be productive about it - not by building fences and using the military drones to control the borders, but by building the IMMIGRATION CENTERS to which those who really want to enter the US would go and register.  You can’t limit the immigration - but you can very well control it. 

And think about:  human trafficking is a multi-billion Dollar business.  By accepting the immigration and controlling it, you can easily defeat the trafficking business.  But it would be too logical.  It’s always easier to respond with more ‘SWAT’ teams or ‘special forces’- like border guards.  It’s business after all.

ONE LINER 0009 - America, you should know better…

I am a ‘news junkie’. 

A long time ago I realized, that taking your news from one source (however trustworthy it is) leads to loosing perspective.  What’s more:  if, for any reason your source of information gets manipulated by the government, or other groups of interest, you get ‘skewed’ information, or information missing some, important parts.

That is why I watch, or listen to (beside our, available in America, networks), original AlJazeera English (which is often skewed as well, but in different direction), or Italian RAINews24 - directly from Milano. 

I saw recently the ceremony of swearing in of the new President of the Republic - Sergio Mattarella.

And, at that moment I had an epiphany… I will explain in a moment what caused it.

Most of ‘thinking’ Americans consider the USA the secular country.  Apparently our forefathers thought about the newly formed USA as a secular country.  Otherwise we wouldn’t have the FIRST AMENDMENT in our US Constitution.  This Amendment guarantees the separation of the State and Church.  This is what constitutes the secular, modern country, as opposed to the countries, which are run along the religious law, however you call it.  It’s not only Islamic ‘SHARIA’ which we should be afraid of - any religion imposed on the policy of any country makes it ’non-modern’ (let’s say it: BACKWARD) country…

You would think that Italians are, as a nation, deeply religious people.  You wouldn’t think it about Americans…  Yes, the whole South is deeply religious, but that’s it… Our Nation is not religious… Or is it?

So, I watched the ceremony of swearing in of the new (XII-th in the short history of the modern Italian Republic) President of the Republic - Sergio Mattarella.

I was expecting some convoluted and referring to the glorious history and the God, line.  And what I heard?  Here we go: « Giuro di essere fedele alla Repubblica e di osservarne lealmente la Costituzione » what translates in simple:

‘I swear to be faithful to the Republic and to uphold loyally the Constitution’.

At the same time every politician in the secular US of A swears on the Bible, finishing his or hers oath uttering: ‘…so help mi God’.

Helloooooooooooo!

Maybe it’s time to revise these oaths.  Maybe it’s time to enter the Modern World, a world where the European Countries already found themselves…

Instead, we allow the people like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and others, to express the total disregard to the Constitution of the USA and run their campaigns on the fundamentally religious agenda.

It’s unbelievable, when a US Senator (Rand Paul) says openly, that:

‘the United States are in the religious war with Islam’.

What ???!!! … we are in war with the ‘religious extremists’ (whose religion is, in their minds, Islam), but we do not fight religious wars (at least now - the last Crusade ended in 1444 what led to fall of Constantinople in 1453).  No matter what side the religious extremists are on - all of them pull their countries back into the Middle Ages.

America, you should know better…

ONE LINER 0008 - Pope’s Gaffe, or back to the ‘hard lines’?

I have been called by the term ‘infidel’ by the members of all the religions.  It’s offensive, it may hurt… but I do not give it a thought! (of course I had a stronger expression on my mind - self ‘censorship’).
I am an atheist, have been for a long time.  
And yet, I thought that I would, maybe, have a positive opinion about the current Pontiff, since he seemed to open up on the possibility of the major changes in the rules imposed on the believers by the Church.

Well, until today.  Today the Pope responded to some of the journalists questions during a short Press Conference on board of his plane flying toward Philippines.
Of course some questions asked the Pope for his opinion (or the opinion of the church) on what happened in Paris to the journalists of Charlie Hebdo.  And then the Pope, who right after the terrorist attack condemned it strongly, this time stated:
“(…) We all have the obligation to speak openly.  Have this liberty, but without offending.  It’s truth that one can’t react violently, but if Mr. Gassbarri, who is my friend, says a bad word against my mother, he should expect a punch! And this is normal!  One can’t provoke.  One can’t insult the believes of others. One can’t make jokes about believes.(…)”(*1)

Oh really!?  And I can’t say a bad words about your mother (=Church) even though ‘she’ is filled with the convicted pedophiles, and abusive-slave-running nuns (in Ireland in the 40-ties to 60-ties), and ‘she’ prefers to have millions of new AIDS infection instead of letting people in Africa use condoms… 

Yeah, according to the Pope, you can’t offend anybody’s feelings, even though that person might be worst person on the planet.  
You can’t offend the religion, even though it’s responsible for millions and millions of killed in it’s name?!  And I am not talking about the Islam - I am talking about Pope’s religion, and not that far ago, just a few hundred years ago.  
Are we forgetting about the Crusades?, Inquisition? - and other bright moments in the history of that religion?  
Every Religion imposes on it’s believers it’s dogma, without questioning, without the right to express any free thought by anybody.  And every religion punishes for any attempt to contradict it

Answering to a journalist’s question, the Pope confirmed that the Church (or/and himself) stands still for the censorship, and not the free expression.  
Any form of censorship, political correctness (which is simply self-censorship) is harmful to the society as whole.  Any form of that censorship allows the bullies to triumph.  Any form of the censorship makes the truth vacant from the every day life of the people, replaced by the dogma, and the official, approved political line.

Do we want to live in the Orwellian 1984?  No - the Pope is wrong.  Je Suis Charlie.


________________________________
ad *1:  http://www.corriere.it/esteri/15_gennaio_15/intervista-papa-bergoglio-filippine-sri-lanka-624f6434-9cab-11e4-8bf6-694fc7ea2d25.shtml