Translate

jueves, 31 de julio de 2014

This survey of interwar Soviet spying offers many lessons on how we deal with Putin’s Russia


The threat from Russia’s spies has only increased since the fall of Communism



Britannia and the Bear: The Anglo-Russian Intelligence Wars, 1917-1929

Britannia and the Bear by Victor Madeira


‘No, we must go our own way,’ said Lenin. The whole world knows him as Vladimir, while he was in fact Nikolai. ‘Nikolai Lenin’ was the party alias of Vladimir Ilyich Ulianov, a terrorist leader and psychopath whose ideas changed the history of the greater part of the 20th century. This era ended on 26 December 1991 with the collapse of the 74-year-old Soviet Union, founded by Lenin, who seven years after the Bolshevik revolution died of syphilis, only to be succeeded by Stalin.

‘Stalin’ was also an alias. The Soviet dictator’s real name was Ioseb Vissarionovich Jugashvili, born into the family of a Georgian cobbler. His education, which he never finished, was limited to a theological seminary. Those were two leaders who successfully stood their ground against such personalities as David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, Stanley Baldwin and Clement Attlee.

Extraordinary political decisions and secret intelligence wars fought between Russia and Britain between the two world wars comprise the general subject matter of Victor Madeira’s excellent Britannia and the Bear, published in the ‘History of British Intelligence’ series with a foreword by Christopher Andrew. The book covers the period between 1917 and 1929 — that is, from the Bolshevik revolution masterminded by Lenin to the five years following his demise, when Stalin established himself as the unchallenged master of the country. And for all those decades from Lenin and Stalin to the three-time Russian president Vladimir Putin, the largest country in the world has continued to be unpredictable, as the recent events in Ukraine show.

Madeira’s pioneering work, which in the words of Professor Andrew is ‘the first to integrate successfully the early history of British counter-subversion with the development of the British intelligence services’, will certainly be of interest to students and historians of intelligence. But it should also appeal to anyone interested in modern politics, international relations and, as strange as it may sound, in Russia’s present-day secret intelligence operations in Britain.
....



Summary

Decades before the Berlin Wall went up, a Cold War had already begun raging. But for Bolshevik Russia, Great Britain - not America - was the enemy. 

Now, for the first time, Victor Madeira tells a story that has been hidden away for nearly a century. Drawing on over sixty Russian, British and French archival collections, Britannia and the Bear offers a compelling new narrative about how two great powers of the time did battle, both openly and in the shadows. 

By exploring British and Russian mind-sets of the time this book traces the links between wartime social unrest, growing trade unionism in the police and the military, and Moscow's subsequent infiltration of Whitehall. 

As early as 1920, Cabinet ministers were told that Bolshevik intelligence wanted to recruit university students from prominent families destined for government, professional and intellectual circles. 

Yet despite these early warnings, men such as the Cambridge Five slipped the security net fifteen years after the alarm was first raised.

Britannia and the Bear tells the story of Russian espionage in Britain in these critical interwar years and reveals how British Government identified crucial lessons but failed to learn many of them. 

The book underscores the importance of the first Cold War in understanding the second, as well as the need for historical perspective in interpreting the mind-sets of rival powers. 

Victor Madeira has a decade's experience in international security affairs, and his work has appeared in leading publications such as Intelligence and National Security and The Historical Journal. He completed his doctorate in Modern International History at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

Entrevista con el cardenal prefecto de la Doctrina de la Fe: ¿nulidad del matrimonio por «evidente falta de fe»?





En un libro-entrevista que lleva por título La esperanza de la familia. Diálogo con el Cardenal Gerhard-Ludwig Müller y que ya está a la venta en español editado por la Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (BAC), el cardenal Müller, prefecto de la congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, habla de lacuestión de la comunión a los divorciados vueltos a casar.

La entrevista ha sido realizada el pasado mes de junio por Carlos Granados, director de la madrileña Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (BAC). Ha sido revisada por el cardenal y tiene como horizonte el próximo sínodo de los obispos, dedicado al tema de la familia.

En el prólogo otro cardenal, el español Fernando Sebastián Aguilar, arzobispo emérito de Pamplona, escribe:

"El principal problema presente en la Iglesia a propósito de la familia, no es el pequeño número de los divorciados vueltos a casar que desean acercarse a la comunión eucarística. Nuestro problema más grave es el gran número de bautizados que se casan civilmente y de casados sacramentalmente que no viven ni el matrimonio ni la vida matrimonial en sintonía con la vida cristiana y con las enseñanzas de la Iglesia, que desearía que fueran iconos vivientes del amor de Cristo hacia su Iglesia presente y que obra en el mundo".

Religión en Libertad ofrece a los lectores la parte de la entrevista en la que el cardenal Müller habla de esta cuestión tan de actualidad y de debate.

– Últimamente, el problema de los divorciados vueltos a casar vuelve a ser centro de la opinión pública. Partiendo de una cierta interpretación de la Escritura, de la tradición patrística y de los textos del magisterio, se han sugerido soluciones que proponen innovaciones. ¿Podemos esperar un cambio doctrinal?
– Ni siquiera un concilio ecuménico puede cambiar la doctrina de la Iglesia porque su fundador, Jesucristo, ha confiado la custodia fiel de sus enseñanzas y de su doctrina a los apóstoles y a sus sucesores. En lo que concierne al matrimonio tenemos una doctrina elaborada y estructurada, basada en la palabra de Jesús, que hay que ofrecer en su integridad.

La absoluta indisolubilidad de un matrimonio válido no es una mera doctrina, sino un dogma divino y definido por la Iglesia. Frente a la ruptura de hecho de un matrimonio válido, no es admisible otro "matrimonio" civil. De lo contrario, estaríamos frente a una contradicción porque si la precedente unión, el "primer" matrimonio o, mejor aún, el matrimonio, es realmente un matrimonio, otra unión sucesiva no es "matrimonio". Es sólo un juego de palabras hablar de primer y de segundo "matrimonio". El segundo matrimonio sólo es posible cuando el cónyuge legítimo ha muerto, o cuando el matrimonio ha sido declarado inválido, porque en estos casos el vínculo precedente se ha disuelto. En caso contrario, nos encontramos ante lo que se llama "impedimento de vínculo".

A este propósito, deseo resaltar que el entonces cardenal Joseph Ratzinger, prefecto de la congregación que ahora presido, con la aprobación del entonces Papa San Juan Pablo II, tuvo que intervenir expresamente para rechazar un hipótesis similar a la de su pregunta.

Esto no impide hablar del problema de la validez de muchos matrimonios en el actual contexto de secularización. Todos hemos participado en bodas en las que no se sabía bien si los contrayentes del matrimonio estaban realmente dispuestos a "hacer lo que hace la Iglesia" en el rito del matrimonio.

Benedicto XVI ha pedido reiteradamente que se reflexione sobre el gran desafío representado por los bautizados no creyentes. En consecuencia, la congregación para la doctrina de la fe ha acogido la preocupación del Papa y un gran número de teólogos y otros colaboradores están trabajando para resolver el problema de la relación entre fe explícita y fe implícita.

¿Qué sucede cuando un matrimonio carece incluso de la fe implícita? Ciertamente, cuandoésta falta, aunque haya sido celebrado "libere et recte", el matrimonio podría resultar inválido. Ello induce a considerar que además de los criterios clásicos para declarar la invalidez del matrimonio, habría que reflexionar más sobre el caso en el que los cónyuges excluyen la sacramentalidad del matrimonio. Actualmente estamos aún en una fase de estudio, de reflexión serena pero tenaz sobre este punto.

......




Books: Wilhelm II: - This great biography shows how a dynamic modern country can be ruined by nationalism and militarisation.


Wilhelm II: Into the Abyss of War and Exile, 1900–1941 

by John C.G. Röhl, 

Wilhelm II: Into the Abyss of War and Exile, 1900-1941


The role of personality in politics is the theme of this awe-inspiring biography. This is the third volume, 1,562 pages long, of John Röhl’s life of the Kaiser. It has been brilliantly translated — the labyrinth of imperial Germany navigated by many headed subdivisions in each chapter — by Sheila de Bellaigue.

The fruit of what Röhl calls a ‘dark obsession’ with the Kaiser, it had its origin when, writing about Germany after the fall of Bismarck at the apogee of social and institutional history in the 1960s, he realised that he was analysing not a modern government but a court society. Personalities and dynasties were as important as classes and parties. One of the outstanding biographies of the past 20 years, based on research in almost as many archives as the Kaiser had palaces, it is also a guide to how to ruin a country.

This volume deals with the years from 1900 to the Kaiser’s death in exile in the Netherlands in 1941. Behind Germany’s façade of parliamentary government, with the most advanced economy in Europe (by 1914 twice as many books were published in Germany as in France), considerable power remained with the Kaiser and his private military, naval and civil cabinets. He could appoint the Chancellor, ambassadors and generals. As he wrote to his first cousin George V in 1912, ‘They have to obey and follow my will.’ Germany did not make ministers responsible to the legislature rather than the monarch until October 1918 — in a last-minute attempt to win better peace terms, rather than a sudden enthusiasm for constitutionalism.

Journeys reveal power structure. The Chancellor travelled to remote royal hunting lodges — Rominten, Springe, Hubertusstock, even to the Kaiser’s villa in Corfu — in order to consult his master. One of the Kaiser’s closest friends, Prince Philipp zu Eulenburg, provoked public exposure as a homosexual by returning to Germany in January 1907 to be received into the Order of the Black Eagle in the Schlosss in Berlin. He risked everything to attend a court function.

Admirers of Prince Charles’s speeches might reflect on the damage inflicted by the Kaiser’s indiscretions on his country, his monarchy and himself. From the start of his reign, he said ‘I’ instead of ‘my government’. After 1899 this forceful, volatile, controversy-courting ruler was openly attacked in a way other German monarchs were not. Every imperial speech, August Bebel said, to gales of laughter in the Reichstag, won 100,000 votes for the socialists.

........




Unless the trend changes significantly, taxes will likely continue rising slowly


When High Taxes Lead to Revolution


History is full of tax revolts. It’s a fairly popular pastime, if historians are to be believed. But when do they come? What’s the spark and what’s the gasoline?

In Sun-Tzu’s Art of War, he argues that long military campaigns are unwise because they exhaust the people, and he says that long campaigns exhaust “seven tenths” of the wealth of the elites.

This is one of those oddly-specific claims that sometimes strike westerners as hilarious. But Sun-Tzu was a historian, and lived in an era with plenty of case studies of war’s destruction. So it’s worth exploring his rule of thumb here.

One of the problems we immediately face is a lack of good statistics for most historical periods. Even in the twentieth century, statistics can be incomplete, biased, or poorly collected. Before then, all bets are off — the statistics stink in history.

So we have two choices: either we completely ignore the past, and reinvent every wheel. Or else we estimate the past using these kinds of subjective commentaries like Sun-Tzu’s. The model is a radar, used not to “see” something but to estimate its location with fragments of data.

So let’s use this “radar” method on Sun-Tzu’s “seven-tenths.” One interpretation is that he thinks there’s an upper limit to the devastation that can be imposed on your own citizens. This would be consistent with modern economic “marginal analysis,” where people value a loss more as it grows bigger. For example, if you take $10 from a billionaire, it’s not a big deal, but if you take his last $10 in the world he’ll fight you to avoid going hungry.

In this light, Sun-Tzu is saying that once you pass the 70 percent threshold, people become desperate enough to shift from sheep to wolf.

We can translate this into a modern hypothesis, that the people will accept up to a 70 percent tax rate with manageable protest, but go much beyond that and you’re likely to have problems. Now, we’re still a way off this mark in the US: spending at all levels of government in 2014 was about 42 percent. The highest spenders in the world, according to the OECD, are the Scandinavians at about 50 percent.

While these are high numbers, they’re still well below Sun-Tzu’s 70 percent. And the trends are not as bad as they might seem. While the trend is worsening, we’ve still got a ways to go: OECD average tax take grew about 4 percent between 1975 and 2010. At that rate the US wouldn’t get to 70 percent for another 250 years. Fortunately we’d have a “canary in the coalmine” as the Scandinavians would hit this threshold about 100 years earlier.

..................

Read more: mises.org



Un livre qui illustre bien les raisons pour lesquelles engagement maçonnique et foi catholique sont incompatibles








L'ouvrage de Maurice Caillet, ex-membre du Grand-Orient de France, a fait l'objet d'une réédition. Un livre qui illustre bien les raisons pour lesquelles engagement maçonnique et foi catholique sont incompatibles. Extrait de la présentation par L'Homme Nouveau, alors que Maurice Caillet, touché par la grâce lors d'un voyage à Lourdes, se convertit :

"[...] De la découverte de la profonde intolérance maçonnique à l’abandon de ses « frères » de loge, des persécutions professionnelles aux menaces de mort, Maurice Caillet raconte son chemin de croix jusqu’à ce que feuille après feuille, haillon après haillon, il entre dans l’Eglise universelle. Un parcours si improbable qu’on en sort émerveillé par la puissance de l’Esprit, qui souffle où Il veut, et par la force de l’homme qui accepte d’entendre Sa voix.

De la spiritualité à la Vérité

De lecture très aisée, cet ouvrage aux allures de roman permet d’intégrer les contours de la franc-maçonnerie, ses attraits, ses pièges, et, cheval de bataille de Maurice Caillet, l’incompatibilité entre l’engagement maçonnique et la foi catholique. J’étais franc-maçon est le septième ouvrage qu’il écrit sur ce thème.

Notons que le descriptif des rites initiatiques et de la « foi » véhiculée, aussi bien que l’historique, correspondent en tous points aux explications données par les grands-maîtres du mouvement. L’esprit aguiché par l’idée de découvrir les dessous de l’affaire en sort cependant un peu déçu. Non que le livre ne tienne pas ses promesses. Bien au contraire. Mais l’absence de transcendance, la pauvreté symbolique des rituels, leur puérilité même laissent un peu perplexe. Comment tant d’hommes supposés chantres du rationalisme peuvent-ils se laisser entraîner par de si piètres sirènes ? Lorsqu’on a goûté à la spiritualité que propose l’Église, on trouve qu’en fait de séductrices, celles-ci relèvent plutôt de la poissonnière que du conte d’Andersen. Chargée de symboles chrétiens détournés, alignant une succession de jeux de Kim ou apparentés, et surtout demandeuse d’une éradication complète des convictions antérieures laissant l’esprit perméable à tout ce qui lui sera insufflé, l’initiation a des relents de conditionnement. Elle donne à penser que, plus qu’un désir d’initiation à un secret fondateur, l’appartenance à la FM présente des attraits assez pauvrement humains : le plaisir d’être un élu, de se trouver une communauté de frères, de n’avoir ultimement plus à penser par soi-même puisque les buts poursuivis sont dictés et jalousement surveillés, de bénéficier de soutiens et de privilèges qui sont une véritable insulte à la démocratie de laquelle ils se réclament pourtant… toutes choses que Maurice Caillet illustre à mesure de son éloignement, qu’il payera de sa vie professionnelle. Ce n’est d’ailleurs que l’un des nombreux paradoxes de cette « association » qui compterait 150 000 membres en France. De même, sous prétexte de rationalisme, les maçons rejettent la religion, pour au final se plonger dans une spiritualité syncrétiste assez vidée de sa substancepuisqu’elle se veut fédératrice, et surtout parce qu’elle refuse toute véritable transcendance, considérant l’homme comme celui qui rendra parfaite la Création. Tout cela manque fort de souffle ! [...]

Au fil du livre se dévoilent quantité d’informations intéressantes. Le serment maçonnique oblige à risquer sa vie pour ses frères. Celui qui l’accomplit ne doit pas faire machine arrière, même s’il ignore ce à quoi il s’engage ; c’est d’ailleurs l’une des raisons de la condamnation de la maçonnerie par l’Église. Se font jour les fortes accointances entre le Grand Orient de France et le Planning familial, Force ouvrière et les hautes sphères de la Sécurité sociale. Ce livre réserve bien d’autres surprises. [...]"

«Ci sono più martiri cristiani oggi che nei primi secoli della Chiesa»


La strage taciuta:
un cristiano ucciso ogni 5 minuti

di Massimo Introvigne


Il 4 aprile 2014, nella sua omelia di Santa Marta, Papa Francesco ha affermato: «Oso dire che forse ci sono tanti o più martiri adesso che nei primi tempi, perché a questa società mondana, a questa società un po’ tranquilla, che non vuole i problemi, dicono la verità, annunziano Gesù Cristo: ma c’è la pena di morte o il carcere per avere il Vangelo a casa, per insegnare il Catechismo, oggi, in alcune parti! Mi diceva un cattolico di questi Paesi che loro non possono pregare insieme. È vietato! Soltanto si può pregare soli e nascosti. Ma loro vogliono celebrare l’Eucaristia e come fanno? Fanno una festa di compleanno, fanno finta di celebrare il compleanno e lì fanno l’Eucaristia, prima della festa. E quando vedono che arrivano i poliziotti, subito nascondono tutto e continuano con la festa. Poi, quando se ne vanno, finiscono l’Eucaristia. Così devono fare, perché è vietato pregare insieme. Oggi».

Papa Francesco ha ricordato oltre venti volte, in meno di un anno e mezzo di pontificato, i cristiani perseguitati oggi nel mondo. Chissà perché, non è la parte del suo magistero su cui i grandi media insistono di più, anche se Francesco ha cercato di attirare l'attenzione su questo tema più di ogni altro Pontefice precedente e certamente più di qualunque leader politico mondiale. I capisaldi del magistero di Papa Francesco sui cristiani perseguitati sono quattro. Esaminiamoli insieme, perché ci dicono molte cose sia sui cristiani che oggi, non solo metaforicamente, tornano sulla croce in molte parti del mondo, sia sul perché l'Occidente tace.

Primo: «ci sono più martiri cristiani oggi che nei primi secoli della Chiesa». Il vero tempo dei martiri è il nostro. Era già un grande tema di san Giovanni Paolo II (1920-2005), il quale invitava a non dimenticare mai i martiri dl XX secolo, a partire dai cristiani uccisi da quel comunismo che conosceva così bene. Che ci siano più martiri nel nostro tempo che durante le persecuzioni romane è un dato di fatto supportato dalle statistiche. Il maggiore istituto di statistica mondiale sulle religioni è l’americano Center for Study of Global Christianity, diretto fino alla sua morte nel 2011 da David B. Barrett (1927-2011) e oggi dal professor Todd M. Johnson, che Papa Francesco ha ricevuto qualche mese fa. Nel 2000 l'Istituto volle contare i cristiani uccisi per la loro fede da Gesù Cristo alla fine del secolo XX. Barrett concluse che le vittime cristiane nei primi due millenni erano state circa 70 milioni, di cui 45 milioni concentrate nel solo secolo XX. Il XX secolo da solo ha ucciso più cristiani di tutti gli altri secoli messi insieme.

Secondo insegnamento di Papa Francesco: i cristiani continuano a essere la minoranza più perseguitata oggi nel mondo. Anche questo è un dato statistico. Barrett e Johnson ci dicono che anche nel XXI secolo i cristiani rappresentano oltre il 75% delle persone perseguitate a causa della loro fede. È giusto parlare anche di altre minoranze perseguitate ieri e oggi (lo stesso Papa Francesco ha chiesto perdono per la complicità di cattolici nella persecuzione degli ebrei o dei pentecostali), ma diventa ipocrita se si dimentica la minoranza più grande e più perseguitata: i cristiani e, tra i cristiani, i cattolici. E i morti continuano a essere tanti. C'è una battaglia mediatica sulla cifra fornita da Johnson di 105.000 cristiani uccisi all'anno, un morto ogni cinque minuti. Soprattutto la Bbc è scesa in campo per contestare questa cifra, e anche studiosi seri, ma non specialisti di queste statistiche, come il mio amico e grande sociologo Rodney Stark la contestano.

...............
Leggi tutto: www.lanuovabq.it



miércoles, 30 de julio de 2014

What the Ryan reforms mean to address ....



by James Pethokoukis

As the Manhattan Institute’s Scott Winship notes in “Room to Grow,” ” … upward mobility among young adults who grew up poor is no higher today than it was in the mid-twentieth century.” That problem is what the Ryan reforms — from welfare to education to prison — mean to address.

The Ayn Rand Institute is disappointed in Paul Ryan, claiming that the House Budget chairman went to all the trouble of rolling out an antipoverty plan and somehow forgot to obliterate the safety net. However, it is a stubborn fact that the safety net has cut US poverty, material deprivation, in half since the 1960s. Unfortunately in too many cases, poverty is a trap. The Ryan plan reforms intend to address the lack of upward mobility in the US and to give everyone a chance at the American dream.


Un’Europa imbelle, che stende “tappeti d’oro” all’islamizzazione del continente....


L’Europa delle moschee


di Danilo Quinto



Con tutti i problemi di Milano, le priorità del suo Sindaco post-comunista, Giuliano Pisapia, sono quelle di garantire «luoghi di preghiera» e di «pace» alla comunità islamica. Dopo uno studio accurato, il Comune ha individuato 8 aree sulle quali costruire Moschee. Fatte ulteriori analisi, ne resteranno 4 o 5. Ai primi di agosto, si conosceranno gli indirizzi di terreni o di stabili degradati di proprietà comunale. L’urgenza dei «nuovi luoghi di culto» sarà soddisfatta attraverso un bando, il primo di questo genere in Italia. Il Comune non sborserà un euro. Sarà tutto a carico delle comunità.

Nel cuore dell’Europa una volta cristiana, si garantiscono «luoghi di culto» ai membri di una religione che nella sua versione radicale ed estremista – sempre che esista quella “moderata” – è capace, prima, di segnare di rosso le porte dei cristiani, per segnalarli, poi di lasciarli senz’acqua e cibo e di minacciarli di morte in caso di mancata conversione all’Islam. Infine, di cacciarli dalle loro case. È accaduto in queste settimane a Mosul – l’antica Ninive, citata nella Bibbia, dove il Cristianesimo si sviluppò sin dal II secolo d.C. – ad opera del neonato Stato Islamico e del Levante (Isis) – creato nell’Est della Siria e nell’Ovest dell’Iraq, dove sono state compiute crocifissioni e lapidazioni nelle piazze, esecuzioni sommarie e fosse comuni, è stato dato alle fiamme l’Arcivescovado, sono stati fatti esplodere il Mausoleo di San Giorgio, la Moschea con la tomba del profeta Giona ed anche la tomba di Seth. «Se Iddio vorrà, conquisteremo Roma e il mondo intero», aveva detto il califfo Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ma prima era necessario incitare i suoi fedeli alla «pulizia religiosa» del “suo” territorio. Come avviene, del resto, in tutti gli Stati musulmani dove la minoranza cristiana è oggetto di persecuzioni.

............

Leggi tutto: www.corrispondenzaromana.it



The most chilling similarity between the rise of Nazism and the rise of Islamism lies in the similar response of those threatened


If It Looks Like a Duck: 
The Islamist-Nazi Connection


Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West

One of the great advantages we have over our ancestors is hindsight. With a clearer picture of the past, we can avoid making the same mistakes they made. But what if we’re not allowed to use our hindsight? What if we’re forced to pretend that what happened in the past bears no relation to what is happening now?

Of course, there’s something to be said for learning from your own mistakes, but some mistakes are so costly that it’s far better to learn about them in history books. The appeasement of the Nazis prior to World War II is an example of the kind of mistake the world can’t afford to repeat. Yet there’s much to suggest that we are engaged in a similar folly today. The rise of Islamism in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere is eerily reminiscent of the rise of Nazism in Europe eighty years ago. By now, anyone with a passing acquaintance with history should have had that hmm-this-rings-a-bell moment. Thanks to our exquisitely sensitive educational system, however, the ranks of those who “don’t know much about history” has swollen to vast proportions. And even those who do know their history know that there are certain comparisons you are not supposed to make—like the one that obtains between Nazis and Islamists. To do so would be offensive to Muslims and to all sorts of other people as well. In other words, it’s not permissible to have the kind of discussion that might help us to avoid the fate suffered by Europe under the Nazis.

As a general rule, it’s best to avoid the Nazi analogy. Nazism represents a uniquely evil moment in history. Labeling every politician you disagree with as a Nazi only serves to dilute the singular horror of the original. Yet in the case of Islamists, the analogy is appropriate. The similarities between the two ideologies are too close to ignore. Moreover, as a point of historical fact, prominent Islamists worked closely with the Nazis during the Second World War. What’s more, even today many Muslims make no secret of their admiration for Hitler. It may be a stretch to call Senator so-and-so a Nazi for employing dirty campaign tricks, but it’s less of a reach to notice a Nazi resemblance when Islamists are so willing to paste a Charlie Chaplin mustache on their upper lip—when, for example, an upscale Turkish mall featuresposters of Hitler as part of the décor, or when Muslim mobs in Paris attack a synagogue full of Jews, or when prominent imams express a desire to bat cleanup for Hitler.

Finish Hitler’s work? Islamic theologian and scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi has voiced just such a wish. In a 2009 statement, he called the Holocaust “a divine punishment” of Jews: “The last punishment was carried out by Hitler… Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.” Of course, Sheik Qaradawi does not represent the views of all Muslims on the matter.

......................

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com



Argentina: The Road to the Latest Default


Understanding Argentina’s Coming Default


At the time of this writing, Argentina is a few days away from formally defaulting on its debts. How could this happen three times in just twenty-eight years?

Following the 2001 default, Argentina offered a debt swap (a restructuring of debt) to its creditors in 2005. Many bondholders accepted the Argentine offer, but some of them did not. Those who did not accept the debt swap are called the “holdouts.” When Argentina started to pay the new bonds to those who entered the debt swap (the “holdins”), the holdouts took Argentina to court under New York law, the jurisdiction under which the Argentine debt has been issued. After the US Supreme Court refused to hear the Argentine case a few weeks ago, Judge Griesa’s ruling became final.

The ruling requires Argentina to pay 100 percent of its debt to the holdouts at the same time Argentina pays the restructured bonds to the “holdins.” Argentina is not allowed, under Griesa’s ruling, to pay some creditors but not others. The payment date was June 30. Because Argentina missed its payment, it is now under a 30-day grace period. If Argentina does not pay by the end of July it will, again, be formally in default.

This is a complex case that has produced different, if not opposite, interpretations by analysts and policy makers. Some of these interpretations, however, are not well-founded.

How Argentina Became a Bad Debtor

An understanding of the Argentine situation requires historical context.

At the beginning of the 1990s, Argentina implemented the Convertibility Law as a measure to restrain the central bank and put an end to the hyperinflation that took place in the late 1980s. This law set the exchange rate at one peso per US dollar and stated that the central bank could only issue pesos in fixed relation to the amount of US dollars that entered the country. The Convertibility Law was, then, more than just a fixed-exchange rate scheme. It was legislation that made the central bank a currency board where pesos were convertible to dollars at a “one to one” ratio. However, because the central bank had some flexibility to issue pesos with respect to the inflow of US dollars, it is better described as a “heterodox” rather than “orthodox,” currency board.

Still, under this scheme, Argentina could not monetize its deficit as it did in the 1980s under the government of Ricardo Alfonsín. It was the monetization of debt that produced the high inflation that ended in hyperinflation. Due to the Convertibility Law during the 1990s, Carlos Menem’s government could not finance the fiscal deficit with newly created money. So, rather than reduce the deficit, Menem changed the way it was financed from a money-issuance scheme to a foreign-debt scheme. The foreign debt was in US dollars and this allowed the central bank to issue the corresponding pesos.

The debt issued during the 1990s took place in an Argentina that had already defaulted on its debt six times since its independence from Spain in 1816 (arguably, one-third of Argentine history has taken place in a state of default), while Argentina also exhibited questionable institutional protection of contracts and property rights. With domestic savings destroyed after years of high inflation in the 1980s (and previous decades), Argentina had to turn to international funds to finance its deficit. And because of the lack of creditworthiness, Argentina had to “import” legal credibility by issuing its bonds under New York jurisdiction. Should there be a dispute with creditors, Argentina stated it would accept the ruling of New York courts.

.............

Read more: mises.org



Plusieurs intellectuels cherchent à éviter l’engrenage de la guerre en imaginant un nouvel ordre international.


« En attendant août 14 : Pour un nouvel ordre international personnaliste »

Antoine Arjakovsky, directeur de recherche au Collège des Bernardins

Alors que le monde voit se rapprocher avec une inquiétude croissante la date fatidique du centième anniversaire de la première guerre mondiale, plusieurs intellectuels cherchent à éviter l’engrenage de la guerre en imaginant un nouvel ordre international. 

Adam Michnik, le directeur de GazetaWyborcza, milite contre le pacifisme consensualiste. Il a rassemblé le 28 juillet les rédacteurs en chef des principaux journaux européens pour demander à l’Union européenne d’adopter des sanctions très fermes, non contre la Russie comme nation, mais contre le gouvernement russe actuel et sa politique néo-impérialiste. « Une politique de conciliation ne mènera à rien », selon Michnik. « Vladimir Poutine n’est pas un homme politique à l’européenne. M. Poutine ne pratique que l’aventurisme permanent ». - [1]

Le philosophe Adrian Pabst pour sa part refuse de dénoncer « la Russie comme l’empire du mal » et suggère une coalition du « Grand Ouest » dans lequel il inclut l’Ukraine et la Russie pour lutter contre le nouveau fondamentalisme de l’islam sunnite radical dont l’importance grandit de jour en jour au Proche Orient. - [2]

Bien qu’elles puissent apparaître contradictoire ces deux prises de position se complètent sur un plan théorique car elles refusent toutes les deux une compréhension manichéenne des relations internationales. Mais sur un plan pratique, il me paraît nécessaire de mener fermement une politique de sanctions à l’égard du Kremlin sans négliger pour autant une politique de relations internationales qui marginalise toutes formes de fondamentalisme à commencer par celui de groupes comme ISIS.

D’abord parce que la Russie ne se pense pas comme appartenant au Grand Ouest aujourd’hui. Dans son projet d’Union eurasiatique Vladimir Poutine et ses idéologues, Alexandre Douguine et le patriarche Kirill Goundiaev, ont bien plus en vue la constitution d’une troisième Rome qui mettrait fin au « schisme occidental » et engloutirait enfin la lumière ténébreuse de la modernité décadente. De plus ostraciser le Kremlin n’est pas perdre la Russie. Bien au contraire, ce serait retrouver la Russie authentique, fondée sur la valeur de pravda, de justice-vérité, d’Alexandre de la Néva, d’Alexandre Pouchkine et d’Alexandre Soljénitsyne. On a voulu croire en 1991 qu’inviter la Russie dans les instances internationales permettait d’effacer plusieurs décennies de sauvagerie idéologique. Les relations internationales de ces vingt dernières années ont montré à l’inverse que le sentiment d’impunité dont avait bénéficié l’Etat russe lui avait empêché tout retournement moral authentique. Très vite, dès 1999, le pouvoir fut repris fermement en main par les services secrets nostalgiques de l’URSS.

On pourrait faire un parallèle entre l’actuelle pratique des sanctions et des embargos et celle de l’excommunication dans l’Eglise ancienne. L’ancienne pratique ecclésiale de l’excommunion n’avait pas comme objectif de vouer le pécheur aux peines éternelles, mais de permettre à celui-ci de se souvenir de l’ekklesia comme temple de l’Esprit Saint, de la communion des fidèles qui seule rend possible la rencontre durable avec Dieu et l’épanouissement individuel. Car l’individu est d’abord un être relationnel. Et s’il l’oublie il doit s’en repentir avant de rejoindre à nouveau la communion universelle. Dostoievski disait « préférer le Christ à la vérité », précisément parce qu’il savait que dans l’Eglise, qui est le corps du Christ, on est en communion avec une vérité personnelle, communionnelle. Le Christ s’est défini lui-même comme « la vérité, et le chemin et la vie ».

Je partage le point de vue d’Adrian Pabst sur la nécessité urgente de penser aujourd’hui un nouvel ordre international post-westphalien. Mais ce serait céder à une vision trop statique que d’imaginer que l’ensemble des nations doivent aujourd’hui, soit revenir à un nouveau Moyen Age, comme l’imagina Berdiaev en 1924, soit entrer dans un âge alter-national et cosmopolitique comme l’envisagent de nombreux intellectuels européens tels que Jean-Marc Ferry. La post-modernité n’est possible qu’à condition de retenir les erreurs du Moyen Age et des Temps Modernes, à savoir la sacralisation des temporalités divine puis humaine. La temporalité divino-humaine à l’inverse est dynamique, interactive, et, à son sommet, insouciante, capable d’oublier les blessures les plus profondes au nom, aurait dit Paul Ricoeur, de « la philosophie des lys des champs ».

....

Lire la suite: www.france-catholique.fr




Le préfet de la congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi réfute les thèses de ceux qui voudraient permettre un second mariage à des gens dont le premier conjoint est encore en vie.




Dans un récent et long entretien, le cardinal Müller, préfet de la congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi, déclare :

"Tout récemment, le problème des divorcés remariés a été de nouveau porté à l’attention de l’opinion publique. À partir d’une certaine interprétation de la Sainte Écriture, de la tradition patristique et des textes du magistère, des solutions qui proposent des innovations ont été suggérées. Peut-on s’attendre à un changement de la doctrine ?

Même un concile œcuménique ne peut pas modifier la doctrine de l’Église, parce que celui qui en est le fondateur, Jésus-Christ, a confié la garde fidèle de ses enseignements et de sa doctrine aux apôtres et à ses successeurs. En ce qui concerne le mariage, nous avons une doctrine argumentée et structurée, fondée sur ce qu’a dit Jésus, qui doit être offerte dans son intégrité. L’indissolubilité absolue d’un mariage valide est non pas une simple doctrine, mais bien un dogme divin et défini par l’Église. Dans le cas de la rupture de fait d’un mariage valide, un autre "mariage" civil n’est pas admissible. Dans le cas contraire, nous serions confrontés à une contradiction, parce que si la précédente union, le "premier" mariage - ou, pour mieux dire, le mariage - est véritablement un mariage, une autre union qui vient ensuite n’est pas un "mariage". Parler de premier et de second "mariage" c’est simplement jouer sur les mots. Le second mariage est possible uniquement lorsque le conjoint légitime est mort, ou bien lorsque le mariage a été déclaré invalide, parce que, dans ces cas-là, le lien précédent a été dissous. Dans le cas contraire, nous nous trouvons face à ce que l’on appelle "empêchement au lien".

À ce propos, je voudrais souligner que celui qui était alors le cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, préfet de la congrégation que je préside actuellement, avait dû intervenir expressément, avec l’approbation du pape d’alors, saint Jean-Paul II, pour repousser une hypothèse semblable à celle de votre question.

Cela n’empêche pas de parler du problème de la validité d’un très grand nombre de mariages dans l’actuel contexte sécularisé. Nous avons tous assisté à des mariages où l’on ne savait pas très bien si les personnes qui contractaient cette union avaient véritablement l’intention de "faire ce que fait l’Église" dans le rite du mariage. Benoît XVI avait demandé avec insistance, à de multiples reprises, que l’on réfléchisse au grand défi que représentent les baptisés qui ne sont pas croyants. La congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi a donc pris en compte cette préoccupation du pape et elle a mis au travail un bon nombre de théologiens et d’autres collaborateurs en vue de résoudre le problème de la relation entre foi explicite et foi implicite.

[...] On ne peut pas déclarer qu’un mariage est éteint sous prétexte que l’amour entre les époux est "mort". L'indissolubilité du mariage ne dépend pas des sentiments humains, permanents ou transitoires. Cette propriété du mariage est voulue par Dieu lui-même. Le Seigneur s’est impliqué dans le mariage entre l’homme et la femme, c’est pour cela que le lien existe et qu’il a son origine en Dieu. Voilà la différence.

Dans son intime réalité surnaturelle, le mariage inclut trois biens : le bien de la fidélité personnelle et exclusive des époux l’un envers l’autre (le "bonum fidei"), le bien de l’accueil des enfants et de leur formation à la connaissance de Dieu (le "bonum prolis"), et le bien de l’indissolubilité ou de l’indestructibilité du lien, qui a comme base permanente l’union indissoluble entre le Christ et l’Église, représentée sacramentellement par le couple (le "bonum sacramenti"). Par conséquent,même s’il est possible de suspendre la communion physique de vie et d’amour, par ce que l’on appelle "séparation de corps", il n’est pas licite pour un chrétien de contracter un nouveau mariage aussi longtemps que le premier époux est vivant, parce que le lien légitimement contracté est perpétuel. Le lien matrimonial indissoluble correspond en quelque sorte au caractère ("res et sacramentum") donné par le baptême, par la confirmation, par le sacrement de l’ordre.

...................




"Ce livre englobe les principes et les détails de la religion musulmane et je l'ai appelé « Minhaj-Almoslim » - la Voie du musulman. J'appelle les fidèles à se conformer à ses prescriptions et à les appliquer."


Un livre djihadiste en vente en supermarché !






Cette année, « La Voie du musulman », un livre écrit par le cheikh algérien Abu Bakr Al-Jazairi, fait l'objet de plusieurs pétitions.


Depuis 2001, la conquête de toutes les enseignes culturelles et de la grande distribution par la maison d’édition familiale Albouraq ne se dément pas : FNAC, Carrefour, Leclerc, Auchan, BHV, Galeries Lafayette, Intermarché, Casino, Cora – pour ne citer qu’eux – promeuvent la vente d’ouvrages islamiques et, à l’occasion du ramadan, installent dans leurs lieux, des « box » Ramadan et Cuisine, source de profits non négligeables quand les ménages musulmans dépensent durant le mois de jeûne 350 millions d’euros.

Cette année, « La Voie du musulman », un livre écrit par le cheikh algérien Abu Bakr Al-Jazairi, fait l’objet de plusieurs pétitions en raison de l’un de ses chapitres intitulé « Rapports sociaux » qui évoque, tout au long de ses 11 pages,« la guerre sainte, le djihad »


Le cheikh n’y va pas par quatre chemins : « Le djihad a pour but de comprendre et contenir tous les mécréants, ennemis de l’islam » […] par conséquent, poursuit-il, « les musulmans doivent installer toutes sortes d’usines d’armement pour fabriquer tous genres d’armes en usage dans le monde »

La religion de paix, d’amour et de tolérance enjoint également à ses fidèles de se perfectionner dans « l’art militaire défensif et offensif » pour attaquer, le moment venu, afin que « le Verbe de Dieu triomphe ».

Et si les hérétiques que nous sommes n’avons pas compris la mission ordonnée aux disciples d’Allah, à l’instar des chrétiens de Mossoul, nous aurons trois jours pour nous convertir, sous peine d’être passibles de la peine de mort.

..................

Lire la suite: www.bvoltaire.fr


-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Un livre pronant le jihad et la Bible
"c'est pareil"




La polémique autour du livre intitulé "La voie du musulman", vendu dans des grandes surfaces à l'occasion du Ramadan, enfle. L'auteur de ce livre édité en avril 2014, le cheikh algérien Abu Bakr Al-Jazairi, y évoque longuement "la guerre sainte, le djihad". Et l'on y lit ces paroles d'une grande finesse (© Manuel Valls) :
  • "Le djihad a pour but de comprendre et de contenir les mécréants, ennemis de l'Islam et de la communauté musulmane. C'est un devoir pour tout musulman que tous les croyants sont appelés à accomplir"
  • "les musulmans doivent installer toutes sortes d'usines d'armement pour fabriquer tout genre d'armes en usage dans le monde".
  • "les musulmans doivent aussi se perfectionner et s'améliorer dans l'art militaire défensif et offensif pour se défendre ou attaquer au moment opportun pour que le verbe de Dieu triomphe".
  • "L'hérétique : c'est le musulman qui renie sa religion, devient juif, chrétien ou athée, de son propre gré. On le somme dans un délai de trois jours pour revenir à l'Islam, s'il refuse, il sera passible de la peine de mort".
Alerté au sujet de ce livre "salafiste aux propos radicaux", le ministère de l'intérieur estime :
  • "On ne peut pas interdire des livres dès qu'ils sont choquants. S’il n'y a pas d'appel à la haine ou d'apologie au terrorisme, on ne peut pas l'interdire. Ce n'est pas un délit de prôner le djihad, ce n'est pénalement pas répréhensible".
  • "Si l'on prend la Bible, c'est pareil, il y a également des passages choquants et pourtant, on ne va pas l'interdire".



À sa mort en 632, Mahomet possède 7 sabres, 3 lances, 3 cuirasses, un bouclier. Et des hectolitres de sang sur les mains.


Vademecum d’islamologie 
(à l’usage de Manuel Valls)



Gender, dénaturation du mariage, etc. Le positionnement sociétal des gouvernements de François Hollande a tout pour rebuter les franges de la population attachées aux valeurs familiales. Parmi celles-ci, une grande partie des musulmans, dont le vote historiquement acquis aux socialistes est en train de virer à droite. Devant l’érosion du dernier quartier d’électeurs potentiels, Manuel Valls a accouru à la mosquée d’Evry pour « rompre le jeûne », alors même qu’il décommandait sa présence à Bouvines pour le 800e anniversaire de la bataille éponyme.

Ce faisant, il n’a pas pu s’empêcher de déblatérer sur l’islam… en des termes qui pourraient faire rire.
Quand des casseurs se réclament d’une forme dévoyée de l’islam, ce sont les musulmans qui souffrent les premiers car ces actes nourrissent des amalgames insupportables. Ces groupes radicalisés s’en prennent à votre foi, à la noblesse du message de l’islam, à ses valeurs d’ouverture, de tolérance.
Aaaah, cet islam d’ouverture et de tolérance… il y avait bien longtemps qu’on n’en avait pas entendu parler !

Alors, vois-tu, Manolo, histoire de bien te rafraîchir les idées, voici un petit vademecum. Tu pourras demander aux gars de la DCRI en charge de la lecture de Boulevard Voltaire de te l’imprimer sur un petit carton, et comme ça tu pourras le garder dans ta poche. Tu vas voir, c’est riche en enseignements sur la naissance de ces « valeurs d’ouverture, de tolérance ».

Il motivo più forte dell’indifferenza verso il massacro dei cristiani in Medio Oriente è la paura ...



Perché l’Europa ha già deciso di lasciare i cristiani d’Oriente (e gli ebrei) in balìa del “nemico”

La nostra civiltà secolarizzata, arida e indifferente a tutto è ormai strutturalmente incapace di avere a un “nemico”. L’editoriale del Corriere della Sera sulla nostra indifferenza verso le persecuzioni dei cristiani e l’antisemitismo

«A quanti qui in Europa e in Occidente importerà davvero qualcosa dell’ennesima uccisione di cristiani, saltati in aria ieri, a Kano, in Nigeria, per lo scoppio di una bomba in una chiesa? E del resto a quanti glien’è importato davvero qualcosa dei cristiani obbligati la settimana scorsa ad abbandonare Mosul nel giro di 24 ore, pena la vita o la conversione forzata all’Islam?». Sono le domande con cui si apre l’editoriale odierno del Corriere della Sera, firmato da Ernesto Galli Della Loggia. E la risposta è scontata: «A nessuno».

A nessuno – e lo scrive il Corriere, non Tempi – interessano «i cristiani fuggiti a centinaia di migliaia in tutti questi anni dall’Iraq, dalla Siria, da tutto il mondo arabo». Non se ne occupa l’Onu, non se ne occupa l’Europa, non se ne occupa nessuno in Occidente. «A decine e decine i cristiani vengono bruciati vivi o ammazzati nelle chiese dell’India, del Pakistan, dell’Egitto, della Nigeria. E sempre nel silenzio o comunque nell’inazione generali».


Galli Della Loggia prova a ipotizzare anche i «principali motivi di questa vasta indifferenza». E per quanto «ovvi», sono motivi che non dovrebbero lasciare tranquillo nessuno. «Il primo è che sempre di più stentiamo a sentirci, e ancor di più a dirci, cristiani», spiega l’editorialista del Corriere. Che però non vuole farne appena una questione di fede, perché si tratta di un deficit culturale e ideale che riguarda soprattutto la parte cosiddetta “laica” della nostra civiltà: «L’atmosfera culturale dominante nelle società occidentali giudica come qualcosa di primitivo, al massimo un “placebo” per spiriti deboli, come qualcosa intimamente predisposto all’intolleranza e alla violenza, la religione in genere. In special modo le religioni monoteistiche».


.....

Leggi tutto: www.tempi.it



Matrimonio e comunione ai risposati.


«La Chiesa non capitoli davanti al pensiero dominante»


di Robert Spaemann


Riportiamo la riflessione del grande filosofo cattolico pubblicata da First Things. La Chiesa resterà il sale della terra o cederà alle logiche di un mondo in cui il matrimonio vale “finché l’amore non finisce”

Le statistiche del divorzio nelle società occidentali sono disastrose. Esse dimostrano che il matrimonio non è più considerato una realtà nuova e indipendente che trascende l’individualità degli sposi; una realtà, come minimo, che non può essere dissolta dalla volontà di uno solo di essi. Può invece essere sciolto dal consenso di entrambe le parti, o dalla volontà di un Sinodo oppure da un Papa? La risposta deve essere “no”, perché Cristo stesso ha dichiarato esplicitamente che l’uomo non può sciogliere ciò che Dio stesso ha unito. Questo è l’insegnamento della Chiesa cattolica.

La comprensione cristiana di ciò che è vita buona pretende di essere valida per tutti gli esseri umani. Tuttavia persino i discepoli di Gesù furono scioccati dalle parole del loro Maestro. «Allora non sarebbe meglio non sposarsi per nulla?», gli replicarono. Lo stupore dei discepoli sottolinea il contrasto fra il modo di vita cristiano e il modo di vita dominante nel mondo. Che lo voglia o no, la Chiesa in Occidente è sulla strada per diventare una controcultura, e il suo futuro ora dipende principalmente da una cosa: se sarà capace, in quanto sale della terra, di mantenere il suo sapore e di non essere calpestato dagli uomini.

La bellezza dell’insegnamento della Chiesa risplende solo quando non è annacquata. La tentazione di diluire la dottrina è rafforzata oggi da un fatto imbarazzante: i cattolici divorziano con la stessa frequenza dei non credenti. Qualcosa chiaramente non ha funzionato. È irragionevole pensare che tutti i cattolici divorziati e risposati abbiano iniziato i loro primi matrimoni fermamente convinti della loro indissolubilità e poi abbiano cambiato radicalmente idea nel corso del tempo. È più ragionevole presumere che si siano sposati anzitutto senza comprendere chiaramente cosa stavano facendo: bruciavano i ponti dietro di sé per sempre (cioè fino alla morte), cosicché l’idea stessa di un secondo matrimonio semplicemente non doveva esistere per loro.

Purtroppo la Chiesa cattolica non è senza colpa. I corsi di preparazione al matrimonio cristiano molto spesso non forniscono ai fidanzati un quadro chiaro delle implicazioni di un matrimonio cattolico. Se lo facessero, molte coppie probabilmente non deciderebbero di sposarsi in chiesa. Per altre, naturalmente, una buona preparazione al matrimonio fornirebbe un’utile spinta alla conversione. C’è un immenso fascino nell’idea che l’unione di un uomo e di una donna è “scritta nelle stelle”, che resiste per una forza dall’alto, e che nulla può distruggerlo, “nella buona e nella cattiva sorte”. Questa convinzione è una magnifica ed eccitante fonte di forza e di gioia per sposi che attraversano crisi matrimoniali e cercano di infondere nuova vita nel loro vecchio amore.

Invece di rafforzare il fascino naturale e intuitivo dell’indissolubilità matrimoniale, molti uomini di Chiesa, compresi vescovi e cardinali, preferiscono raccomandare, o almeno prendere in considerazione un’altra opzione, che è alternativa all’insegnamento di Gesù e che rappresenta fondamentalmente una capitolazione al pensiero dominante secolarista.

Il rimedio per l’adulterio implicito nelle seconde nozze dei divorziati, ci viene detto, non deve più essere la contrizione, la rinuncia e il perdono, ma il passare del tempo e l’abitudine, come se la generale accettazione sociale e il sentirci a nostro agio con le nostre decisioni e con le nostre vite avesse un potere quasi soprannaturale. Questa alchimia presumibilmente trasforma il concubinaggio adulterino che chiamiamo “secondo matrimonio” in un’unione accettabile che merita di essere benedetta dalla Chiesa nel nome di Dio. Se la logica è questa, non sarebbe men che giusto che la Chiesa benedicesse anche le unioni fra persone dello stesso sesso.


...............


Leggi tutto: www.tempi.it




martes, 29 de julio de 2014

President Obama offered a misleading criticism of corporate inversions and missed an opportunity to call for structural reform of corporate income taxation



Alan Viard 

In his CNBC interview yesterday, President Obama offered a misleading criticism of corporate inversions and missed an opportunity to call for structural reform of corporate income taxation.

President Obama began by condemning inversion transactions, in which corporations effectively swap their US charters for foreign charters. Inversions offer tax savings because foreign-chartered corporations pay US tax only on their domestic profits while US-chartered corporations also pay US tax on their repatriated overseas profits (with credit for any taxes paid abroad). The president complained that it was unfair for corporations to “move their technical address simply to avoid paying taxes” while still benefiting from “the best university system in the world, the best infrastructure [and] a whole range of benefits that have helped to build companies.” But, those services primarily aid domestic production, on which inverted corporations, like other foreign-chartered corporations, remain subject to US tax. The president did not explain why corporations that previously had US charters and inverted to obtain foreign charters should pay US tax on their overseas profits while corporations that have always had foreign charters face no such obligation.

Rather than condemning corporations that change their “technical address” to lower their taxes, we should be asking why we base tax liability on that technicality in the first place. If we tell a corporation that it must pay millions of extra dollars in tax because it has a piece of paper that was issued in the United States rather than abroad, should we really be surprised when it tries to get a new piece of paper issued abroad? The tax incentive for inversions would vanish if all corporations, regardless of their charters, were treated uniformly, paying tax solely on their domestic profits.

.....




lunes, 28 de julio de 2014

We understand that neither President Obama, nor his secretaries of State or Defense have said one word about the INF violation to their counterparts




Sens. Jon Kyl and Kit Bond 

It is time for President Obama, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his pledge to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, to show the world that he, and the United States, will no longer ignore Russian aggression and the violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Failure to confront this violation poses a threat to the very idea of arms control. After all, if the enforcement of nuclear weapons arms control obligations is not worth the attention of the president of the United States, what is the point of the obligations?

Podría decirse que prácticamente la definición de un caballero es la de aquel que nunca inflige dolor.




por el Beato Cardenal Newman, 

en "La Idea de una Universidad", 
serie de 
disertaciones ofrecidas en Irlanda en 1852.


"Podría decirse que prácticamente la definición de un caballero es la de aquel que nunca inflige dolor. Esta es una descripción tan exacta como refinada. Un caballero se ocupa principalmente en remover aquellos elementos que obstaculizan la libre acción de quienes que lo rodean. Procura colaborar más que encabezar iniciativas por sí mismo. Si bien la naturaleza nos provee de los medios naturales para el reposo y nos ofrece el calor animal, los beneficios de un caballero pueden equipararse a la comodidad que nos brinda una silla confortable o un buen hogar encendido; ambos mitigan nuestro frío y fatiga.

Un verdadero caballero evita cuidadosamente ocasionar un sobresalto en las mentes de aquellos con quienes trata, evita todo enfrentamiento de opiniones, coalición de sentimientos, restricciones, sospechas, tristezas o resentimientos. Su principal preocupación radica en que cada uno se sienta cómodo como en su casa. Sus ojos están puestos en todas sus compañías, es considerado con los tímidos, gentil con los distantes y misericordioso hacia los absurdos. Recuerda a todas las personas con quienes estuvo conversando. Se cuida de hacer acotaciones impetuosas o mencionar temas irritantes. Rara vez destaca como centro en las conversaciones y, sin embargo, jamás resulta tedioso.

No le pesan los favores mientras los realiza y parece recibir precisamente aquello que está confiriendo. Nunca habla de sí mismo excepto cuando está obligado y jamás se defiende mediante una simple réplica. No tiene oídos para los chismes ni las calumnias. Es escrupuloso para comprender los motivos de aquellos que interfieren y trata de interpretar todo de la mejor manera posible. Jamás es desconsiderado o mezquino en sus disputas ni tampoco se aprovecha de ventajas injustas.

No confunde las personalidades ni tampoco deja de ver la diferencia entre lo que es una observación tajante y un verdadero argumento.Tampoco hace insinuaciones sobre hechos nefastos sobre los que no pueda a hablar francamente. Ejerciendo una prudencia de largo alcance observa la máxima de aquella antigua saga que dice que debemos conducirnos con nuestros enemigos como si un día fueran a ser nuestros amigos.

Tiene demasiado sentido común como para sentirse afectado por los insultos, está suficientemente ocupado como para recordar injurias pasadas y es lo suficientemente indolente como para soportar las malicias.

Es paciente, contenido y resignado a los principios filosóficos. Soporta el dolor porque sabe que es inevitable, las aflicciones porque son irreparables y a la muerte porque es su destino.

Si entra en algún tipo de controversia su intelecto disciplinado lo preserva de cometer una desatinada descortesía propia de las mentes menos educadas. Estas últimas, cual armas romas, cortan y desgarran en vez de realizar cortes limpios, confunden el motivo principal del argumento, gastan sus fuerzas en trivialidades, juzgan mal al adversario y dejan al problema peor de lo que lo encontraron.

El caballero puede estar en lo correcto o estar equivocado en su opinión pero tiene demasiada claridad mental como para ser injusto.Así como es de simple es de fuerte, así como es breve es también decisivo. En ningún otro lugar encontraremos mayor candor, consideración e indulgencia.

En sus argumentos con sus oponentes no olvida sus propios errores. Él conoce la debilidad de la razón humana así como su fortaleza, su competencia y sus límites. Si el caballero no fuera un creyente aun así tendría una mente lo suficientemente amplia y profunda como para no ridiculizar la religión o actuar en su contra. Es demasiado sabio como para ser dogmático o fanático. Respeta la piedad y la devoción y apoya el bien de aquellas instituciones con las cuales no está de acuerdo considerándolas como elementos venerables, hermosos o útiles. Honra a los ministros de la religión y declina aceptar sus misterios sin por ello agredirlos o denunciarlos. Es amigo de la tolerancia religiosa y esto no es tan solo por su filosofía, que le exige ser respetuoso con todas las formas de fe, sino por su caballerosidad y delicadeza de sentimientos las cuales constituyen el séquito de toda provechosa civilización”.

Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say that he is one who never inflicts pain.


"The Definition of a Gentleman"

by Cardinal Newman, 

from The Idea of a University, a series of lectures given in Ireland, 1852.

Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say that he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature; like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast --- all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at his ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favors while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort; he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets everything for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp saying for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny.

If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candor, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits.

If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honors the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.