Is There A Diffrence Between Laptop Memories

Open Letter to Future Dino Boffo

Dear Mr. Director. Tarquin

if not thrown so brazen in politics was better.

We sympathized with much less embarrassment to a man who was wrongly seen nailed to a mistake. We would have done without reservations, as children of that the Church always teaches us not to judge, and to distinguish between sin and the sinner.

However, it is not respectful of your readers to continue to pretend that we are all so biased and gullible is not to be noticed that the ruling still exists, and that you're not just talking about an anonymous letter.
When Dr. Boffo has not even wanted to make public acts, and honor to the full truth, it was insulting to our intelligence to bet everything on the theory of libel and slander.

Okay, we are Catholics living in the world, so we men of the world, as well as charitable people. We understand that bad luck can happen in life to leave the phone unattended, and to have so betrayed by a wayward friend who used to molest a girl, plus he knows us.

can happen, for further misfortune, that friend ends up dying before they can accommodate all take the blame in the court ... and can also happen to be incredibly unlucky then goes to end the lawsuit but the call girl molested then does a time, or forgets, or refuses or whatever ... but in the end is not to say to the judge hearing your voice and then know that you were not the abuser, so they must perform.

And just to not to miss anything, it can also happen that when because of that incredible event, after a few years you are in contempt before the world as harassers and "known homosexuals," here, just then - at worst - it can happen that the same girl, hiding behind the no comment, and once again not even consider the case that was the harasser was another bad story, and in that homosexuality had nothing to do.

So, you may occasionally end up being affected as a result of a series of unlucky coincidences. But maybe at that point should be a bit 'of caution before you start shouting slander and libel, if it happens that a colleague's uncharitable you reproach the thing in front of everyone and do not even want him, as judges, to believe what has been your unfortunate story.

Yet you just installed as the interim Director , instead of trying to turn the page and blind us, we immediately asked to judge just on that matter and on the theory of defamation. With an impenetrability to the evidence of the facts - especially when he brought up the television - which frankly we would have expected from her, having read his articles.

In that part of the public still can not think of deployment criteria, you are given the idea that communication between people of Catholic logic family (In the worst sense of the word) takes precedence over everything. Also on that love for the truth in love, that we've been called recently by Pope Benedict.

In a country where now, at least in some quarters, even the kids who go home with a bad report card are tempted to blame Berlusconi, did not feel the need to see your journal so shamelessly with this easy to cede recall.
It has lost all credibility Future , and frankly has been astonished to see that this so decomposed to face the unpleasant question was adopted, first, by the highest representative of your "publisher".

Cardinal Bagnasco was really the minimum to expect more caution. It is unacceptable that this has not taken that he represents a group of newspapers, but all the Italian bishops, while Victor Felts, by contrast, represents only a newspaper, not the head of government.
In these situations, arguing only between peers, and the manner and tone befitting the reality that it represents, would have been more than appropriate.

So, dear Director, she has explicitly asked readers to judge: it is not so sure of their opinion.

Can You Fix A Broken Micro Sd Card?

and secularism lost

speak of the scandal concerning the future of manager . Meanwhile, we begin to wonder why none of the secular media has yet named, although it is one of those itchy events that usually attract an instant healthy first hail of stones on anything that smells even remotely of the Church. According to us - and we think the worst aspect of the whole story - what happened is also and above all a lost opportunity for the Catholic world.

Mind you, there was nothing to get too many illusions. However, in principle, this unfortunate situation could become even before the explosion, for pastors and all the intellectuals truly Catholic a wonderful opportunity to reaffirm in front of everyone, high and strong, a real lesson in secularism. Of those that only the Catholic culture that secularism was invented, it would be able to give, if only they showed less unconscious of itself.

First, by the leadership of CEI, he would have insisted on the concept that the Church condemns sin but never the sinner. Possibly, it should have been done in Caritatis room before the scandal broke, making news comes with holy prudence, the same ear Dino Boffo. In fact - as also pointed to the influential Vittorio Messori - the story of the sentence harassment had long been well known in the Episcopal, and more. Perhaps in this way could be achieved by Future greater discretion on the private matters of the Prime Minister. In the chorus of the secular press would not have certainly felt the lack of voice of the newspaper of the CEI, and if the thing could have a look on the publisher's director of censorship, well, who cares.

Moreover, to feel the same Avvenire, the position (after all moderate) on the alleged events of sexual premier was not spontaneous but had been requested by throngs of disappointed readers that the newspaper of Bishops have claimed greater severity and moral rigor against the outrageous (to do) the Knight libertinism. What you read in the editorial Boffo, in well over a parish of the beautiful country, where the able pastors every Sunday put Future bench of good press, we were advancing grim suspicion of cowardice, or worse, to compromise with Sodom and Gomorrah, the power of Berlusconi.

Precisely for this reason, therefore, from the bishops would have spoken loud and clear, in advance, just to the public of the Catholic faithful.
First, he could remember them, and everyone, that it was Catholicism that invented the possibility stessa di un approccio “laico” al rapporto del popolo con i governanti.
Infatti, è stato il cattolicesimo – e nessun altro – ad avere portato nel mondo la distinzione tra l’autorità spirituale e quella temporale. Senza l’esperienza storica della Chiesa cattolica, il potere secolare in Europa non avrebbe mai lasciato a nessun altra autorità il diritto di definire, in ultima istanza, cosa è morale e cosa non lo è. Tant’è che tutte le forme di governo che si sono succedute nel nostro Continente, dall’Editto di Costantino in poi, in un modo o nell’altro questo potere hanno sempre cercato di riprenderselo.

La storia della civiltà occidentale ci insegna that the relationship between the Church and the secular power has never been so troubled dialectic and on any issue, as on that of the right to have the last word on the morality of the rulers and the ruled. The most bitter disputes
between popes and emperors, ultimately, always referred to this crucial principle. There is no need to bother Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli, to prove the claim to absolute moral autonomy of the civil power, which also dates back many centuries before the Renaissance. At least since the time of the investiture controversy. Indeed, even before that, let's say from the time of Pope Gelasius I (late fifth century), who first formulated the theory of separation of powers, against the caesaropapism of the Byzantine tradition.

The history of this troubled relationship is nothing less than the history of secularism. E 'Catholicism was in fact the need to bring to the world - is now being claimed as a "secular" - a clear separation of the spiritual power to interpret the moral standards that God expects from men compared to temporal power in regard to the Government of policy.
Before the advent of the Catholic Church, in ancient societies all this religious power belonged to the civil power. E 'hardly necessary to recall that the Roman Emperor was also pontifex maximus , ie l’unico autorizzato interprete del rapporto tra gli uomini e la divinità, e quindi delle norme morali.

Ancora nel IV secolo, fu Costantino a convocare il Concilio di Nicea, nella convinzione – indiscussa ai suoi tempi – che l’Imperatore fosse il massimo responsabile delle questioni religiose. Dunque, solo per questo si deve riconoscere che è stata la Chiesa di Roma a “inventare” la laicità, togliendo al potere politico il compito sacrale di definire le norme della morale pubblica e privata. Un compito che, come vedremo, in Europa è ritornato nelle mani del potere “laico” solo con la riforma protestante. A seguito della quale, non a caso, le chiese sono tornate a essere “nazionali”, and to recognize the king as their supreme leader.

It is therefore not a quirk of history, nor the expression of a greater sense of civic duty, if they are still countries in the Protestant tradition those who place greater emphasis on sexual morality of their leaders. And at the same time, it is not a coincidence that the popular press in the Anglo-Saxon world wallows in a bed of political events with a delight that, prior to the event Noemi, Italy had not really ever seen.

To explain it, let us take it a bit 'at a distance, which unfortunately is necessary. In 1525, Martin Luther, to maintain the political support necessary for the dissemination of his theological reform, wrote to the Princes German (just waiting), the famous Exhortation to Peace that was considered legitimate use of brute force against the rebellious peasants of Swabia.
This is because, according to the great religious reformer, if any legitimate authority comes from God, the rulers were not to be bound by the moral law in suppressing the revolt of the peasants who had "took the sword without divine authority" . From this it follows that "a prince can, spilling blood, earning heaven" .

Luther concluded his letter with an exhortation to the present day, deep down, it would be very pleased to loyalists Antonio Di Pietro: "dear sirs, exterminated, slaughtered, strangled, and who can use it" .
Now what does this historical background with modern secularism and even more with the gossip about Mister B. and Mrs. D'Addario? A factor, a factor, because it is the Protestant tradition that comes the belief that the private behavior of public figures - especially with regard to the sexual sphere - may never be their only business.

fact in a democratic system, whether it is for the political power finally to determine what is moral and what is immoral, then it can not the fact that being a legitimate - even vital - that voters will affect the private morals of our politicians.
In a similar set of values, the people can legitimately expect that, after the elections, the private morality of the Prime Minister will be the same that will be claimed by them. E 'for this reason that the private virtues and vices of politicians in countries that have experienced the Calvinism in all its various forms, still become automatic in a deal that covers all citizens.
Precisely because of the lack of a spiritual authority distinct from the politics, the culture of Protestant mold has become quite natural that - quanto meno nella percezione dell’opinione pubblica – il livello medio dei costumi della nazione venga definito da come si comportano i governanti nel loro privato.

Invece, la cultura cattolica consente di mantenere ben distinti i due piani, proprio perché si basa sul principio per cui ciò che è morale in definitiva lo stabilisce Dio, ma non lo interpreta il Principe, bensì la Chiesa. E comunque, il potere politico non può usare la spada a cuor leggero e di sua autorità, per ripristinare la pubblica moralità violata. Questa ben diversa concezione, d’altra parte, nella storia ha sempre viaggiato in parallelo con il noto principio, altrettanto “laico” nella sua essenza, e parimenti forgotten by those Future, for which the Church condemns sin but never the sinner.

The doctrine of the traditional canonical potestas ecclesiae in temporalibus - so cursed by our laicones the amatriciana, because the mere mention of the phrase in Latin, gives them a sense of oppression and undue interference - has always been the caretaker of this fundamental principle of secularism. In fact, bringing the world the idea that the Prince must be considered subject to the spiritual authority of the Pope, is that it is not worth getting to the civil power lay down on his own canons of morality.

short, if Future or whoever it had spent two lines for this simple ripassino history of political and religious beliefs, perhaps the initiative would have been enough to remind everyone, Catholic or not, that the criterion for which you do not go under the Ravana sheets of public men is just a principle of Catholic culture. That is, of secularism. Why - other thing that should never be forgotten - the secular nature of the man who invented it taught to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's

As is evident, therefore, Burian that has unleashed by the accident happened to the poor Dino Boffo, yes it is a political issue, at least for a few days will involve the relationship between Church and State. But in its essence it is also a theological question, and no morals. Probably for this reason that the Holy See, so attentive to that which is not contingent on the political life of nations, it seems so far tried in some way to mitigate the morality of the Italian bishops' newspaper, regarding the events of private life Cav. and immigration.

And it is always why, in the rough story of the director of Avvenire, the bishops themselves have not only lost a great opportunity to exercise prudence Gospel. The newspaper of the CEI was also well able to remind those of his readers so kind and hard-liners, who tore their clothes for the licentiousness of the premier that one of the most important criteria for life, for a Catholic, should not be to judge not to be judged.
Indeed, once again, it is sad that no one who knew the story of Terni has invoked that golden ear of poor policy Dino Boffo, before exposing himself on the columns of his newspaper to preach to the jolly Berlusconi .

But other than that, more than anything, we regret that the pastors of the Church and especially the Catholic intellectuals have lost the opportunity to give everyone a good lesson in secularism.
L 'Osservatore Romano , almost unheard, at least tried to respond to moral theologians from overwork, like the ineffable Vito Mancuso, the souls that the Catholic Church accepts them and care, not condemnation.
doing the reverse - that is, to condemn the sinner not the sin, as used by the neo-Calvinist Republic of cattocomunisti and their friends - not only the symbol of the morally inferior. And 'well, what interests us most, an expression of total absence of meaning of secularism.

short, it was a missed opportunity, and we hope that next time, if you must there be one, go better. Even if, as things go in the Italian Catholic world there is too much to hope for, if not in the Seat of Wisdom, which is always the best thing to do. And we are asking where is this Seat of Wisdom, and if you are in Rome or elsewhere. Catholics in the pipe.

How To Build A Garage Loft

What Fini is the head of

We feel a bit 'all, for some years to understand what you're trying to do Gianfranco Fini. We, too, so we will give our modest contribution.

We do this willingly, however, because the former leader the MSI gives us one of those rare cases in which the words in the last of the freedom bloggers will never be less authoritative quelle della media degli opinionisti politici.
Infatti, il pensiero e le intenzioni di Fini rappresentano ormai uno di quegli argomenti sui quali chiunque può applicare a cuor leggero, nel suo piccolo, la linea editoriale di Repubblica . Nel senso che si tratta di uno di quei casi in cui le opinioni possono essere completamente svincolate dai fatti.

E poi, si tratta pur sempre di interpretare quel che dovrebbe avvenire dopo il governo Berlusconi. Quindi, siamo in un campo in cui tra il sapere tutto della politica e – come si dice nel baseball – non capirci una mazza, alla fine il risultato è uguale. Possiamo dunque sbizzarrirci a piacere.

Dunque, vorrei inziare col dire che I still remember a public meeting with Gianfranco Fini, which I witnessed, by chance, in the early 90's. Maybe I already told you: I'd cross the street, and - wearing his historic loden - walked up Via San Vitale, Bologna, accompanied by two of his loyalists forever. Knowing
public meeting which was scheduled in the vicinity, I decided to follow him.

When I entered, the room was already filled with a large band of militants, who have just seen approaching the then secretary of the MSI began to stand up and shouting slogans still pretty gruesome for the time. I still remember that, at the precise moment when our arrived at the table of the rapporteur, slogan turned into one deafening chorus "Fine, Fine!" , which went on for a couple of minutes .

At that time were still recent clashes with Congress Pino Rauti, and the divisions between their militants. Fini had just returned to be secretary of the MSI, after being ousted from a historic conference, and then resume the party leadership a year later, in the wake of a resounding electoral defeat.

The wounds of that phase of transition were all still open, and Fini was still a relatively leader weak even in his own party. So, his loyalists in Bologna, with all that noise, rather than render homage to their leader were trying to mark their territory, discouraging any demonstrations of dissent of any infiltration of the opposite faction.

Still, there were very few, even among his own, those who doubted that Fini would be the liquidator of the MSI. Although no one even remotely imagined what would happen in a few months.
At that time, the fall of 1991, Tangentopoli had yet to explode, and only the League was less timidly collecting the protest of the productive classes of the north.
were still missing about three years for customs clearance Fini and the very idea of \u200b\u200bright, which just happens to be the case in the now legendary hall of the mall Casalecchio, just a few miles from where we were that night.

However, Fini has played his entire speech to his feet, never sit down for even a moment, as to want to impose on the audience and never let go. According to the custom ever lost, speaking spontaneously without any notes in front.
Just as it did his master Almirante, all night tried to offer his audience wanted to hear the jokes. In his speech Secretary of the still young, the rhetorical skills that would make him famous, to the point that Today there is even those who call upon him as a statesman, was already present throughout. But on that occasion his tone was much more stentorian, Mussolini, as yet imposed the concepts expressed.

He spoke for half an hour in fact plenty of moral values, law and order, flying very high, as was fitting for those who still can not guess how many would still have had opportunities to play a role, with regard to this and the future of Italian politics. The famous
"Fascism in 2000" thesis of his latest conference was still fully present in this speech. Although - in hindsight - perhaps you could already guess that, at least in his head, and so confused and still embryonic, it was going to find a way out.

More than once he claimed the best tradition of thought right, "... and then fascist" , as I heard him say verbatim. However, in all that his impromptu speech, the evocation of fascism occurred only in those words, added at the end of a sentence, lower a little 'voice. As if it were a concession to the audience, but should remain within the walls.

Here, recalling that evening in Bologna today for nearly two decades ago, are behind the idea that mutations of the Speaker of the House, after all, there is still the attitude of those who would already be elsewhere. But at the same time knows that somewhere else is not, and maybe realize that in politics the miracles are not repeated, and therefore can never be. How well have guessed

those of sheet, probably there is no political strategy behind the conversion of secular Fini. Is not moving in the perspective of the Quirinale. Although, without doubt, a good politician by profession has understood before others that the role of the Dauphin of Berlusconi would eventually crushed, and so he should somehow get rid of.
However, in its search a way out, we believe there are reasons more personal than political.

One of quite a few things that our Speaker of the House agrees with Massimo D'Alema, together with the taste for the ideologies historically losers, is sentenced to be costly - more than honored - of his own intelligence. That is to say that it is condemned to be consistently overestimated, and always being chased by the attempts of others to explain, with some kind of hidden motivations, choices that ultimately, from a political point of view, they represent only the sesquipedalian bullshit.

already had been such a thing when, chasing his note ansia di legittimazione, aveva pensato di smarcarsi dal suo partito prendendo posizione contro la legge sulla fecondazione assistita. Lo ha fatto non senza frasi sprezzanti verso chi la pensava diversamente, nello stesso preciso momento in cui i suoi militanti di AN si stavano mobilitando per difendere quella legge dall’imminente referendum .

La gigantesca tramvata che gli intellettuali laicisti si sono presi in quell’occasione avrebbe dovuto rappresentare, da un punto di vista politico, una sorta di pietra tombale sulle eventuali strategie di avvicinamento di Fini al fronte “laico”.
Il risultato referendario fu infatti talmente eclatante da mostrare in modo addirittura plastico la sproporzione che ancora esiste - In the opinion of the Italians - including the Church's credibility and that of mainstream intellectuals who dominates the media.

But, still, the ineffable Gianfranco seems willing to try again, threatening dramatic gestures of disassociation from the law on living wills, even in contrast with that institutional profile that until now seemed to have become the leitmotif of his entire action policy. And beyond all decided to do so in the days when all the others, by the allies to opponents (which is in the case of Fini now no longer be distinguished), are wiggling to get the attention of the Catholic world - Or what purports to be - recognizing what a good relationship with the Church is essential to rule the Italian democracy.

Here, precisely, in our opinion for these reasons alone can not be a political choice, not a strategy for the future.
Well, in hindsight, only one that cares about his political future may come to think of coming down from the bench chairman of the House - with unprecedented action - to go on the benches of the deputies to vote against the majority who hoisted the office. It is not what you'd expect from a reasonable man. Even less so from a politician that, moreover, is in the fortunate position where there is already who took him for a statesman, and perhaps could even aspire to go to the Quirinal.

Only, as we said, our Gianfranco shares with Massimo D'Alema being affected by the overvaluation of others. The journalist, and in general the intellectual who must prove to himself and others to be a keen interpreter of politics, in general, made a great effort to understand the flight Fini is just a fucking fucked up.
Instead, the key to interpreting the gestures of rupture of our Speaker of the House probably is entirely outside the political logic. It is to be found today in the way in which, almost twenty years ago, we heard almost imperceptibly lower la voce, mentre aggiungeva in fondo a una frase quell’inciso “…e quindi fascista” .

Non si sta insinuando che, nel suo intimo, già si vergognasse di esserlo stato, per carità. Anzi, è significativo che oggi Fini abbia deciso di scegliere il laicismo, proprio nel momento in cui esso sta dimostrando di essere l’ideologia più perdente, sorpassata e senza prospettive del nostro tempo.
Una simile scelta, così poco “politica”, vorrà pure dire che tra i tanti difetti che il nostro può avere, ancora oggi, non vi è certo la paura di essere in minoranza.
Anzi, al contrario, da un punto di vista strettamente politico, secondo noi Fini è ancora oggi vittima di un’attrazione incoercibile per le idee più perdenti di ciascuna epoca. Scegliere proprio oggi di essere laicisti duri e puri non è tanto diverso, dal punto di vista della credibilità e delle prospettive politiche, dall’aver scelto di essere neofascisti trenta o quarant’anni fa.

Quindi, non è tanto la politica a ispirare le mosse di Gianfranco Fini. Secondo noi si tratta di un uomo molto più impolitico di quanto non suggeriscano la sua carriera e la sua posizione. Per questo è così difficile interpretarlo, per tutti noi che ci attendiamo che ragioni secondo le categorie proprie della sua professione (aspettativa che, peraltro, è assai più saggia e ragionevole than that of politicians who claim - or pretend to expect - only the moral integrity, as demonstrated by the events of recent months).

probably at the bottom of the choices of Fini's still just his desire to be elsewhere, and now that is no longer leader of any party finally feels liberated from the burden of having to always give his audience the joke that is expected of him, as he had taught Almirante.
So, those who are wrong - just because it is a professional politician, plus clever and good looking - still expect Gianfranco Fini is still consistent with what was stato e che non è più.

E non sarà più quello, almeno per i prossimi quattro o cinque anni. Ma questo è già un altro discorso.