The conceptual reasoning behind the various awards is truly staggering. Logic reversed dished without shame that apparently relies on the general inability of reasoning of the majority of Italians, or the lack of understanding of this majority voting. In fact it is admitted or that the need for a law of this kind is born as man Berlusconi (and he alone) has an extreme need (and with it the law on "interception"), for his personal history, for mode, somewhat ambiguous, to say the least, through which "ascended" to the success, or is inverted logic that should be a simple and obvious necessity in a democratic system of ethics. Or who are the best to lead us to those who arrive at the top of a nation and assumes the responsibility of government is, beyond the ideas and coalitions, morally irreproachable and even sufficiently (Or should I say, undoubtedly) honest. According to the PDL of a law as the Lodo Alfano is needed for the proper functioning of the institutions. We are told that in this country should be ensured at the top of the state "peaceful development" of its functions. And if you end up in this peace process obviously is not. The victim then can no longer devote themselves full and complete dedication to public affairs, having to devote to the processes. But if this concept is not designed "exclusively" for the personal and particular situation of Mr. Berlusconi, having to do so by a law that will survive, it means that in Italy is expected to more or less with a certain continuity and regularity to be ruled forever, now and in the future, people who may have trouble with the law. It is expected that is being led by rascals, cunning, dishonest businessmen, tax evaders, corrupt, concusi, it may be, in future, a rule in Italian! One thing is certain. Many disreputable people, with this law, when you feel they smell trouble, when they feel their breath on the neck of the judiciary, will not have to do is take the field to save his own skin. And so the question can be easily reversed. How easy will it, with this law, to draw more or less organized crime? When it becomes attractive to the Mafia - on that basis - to engage in first person - already do, is just the point - in our politics "sieve" - \u200b\u200bthat for now mostly working outside - and therefore gain a better impunity? Berlusconi ensure that itself, as we know, (it makes me laugh, but let's face for a second). He says that in his personal case, the "conflict of interest" does not affect his "good opinion" and that he has never profited from (and on this there was no need to legislate! Ahahahaha!). In the case of Berlusconi's no problem to the fact that he is not only head of government, including Minister of Telecommunications and both the owner, together with their family, of many of the Italian media (TV, newspapers, weekly magazines, publishing houses, ahahahaha!). Because he is good and honest beyond any law, we can certainly trust (ahahahah!). His is a selfless commitment for the good of the nation, all right, but who will guarantee for the future? Who will provide for those who will come? The laws, once written, are worth! If the honest and disinterested Berlusconi things work (at least according to all the PDL, which evidently does not see, along with most of the Italians, the total idiocy inherent in all this - or maybe see it very well - far beyond the limit of a total stupidity and obvious), who will provide for the future? But in the end, then, should not everything work in reverse? Should not those who intend to lead a nation first show with their actions, with the clarity of their lives, a degree of irreproachable? They should not only persons of proven and absolute confidence to offer their candidacy? No shadows, no skeletons! In a normal country we should not think in any case, to proceed as in the case Brancher, which indeed shows very clearly what I mean. In short, it is likely to offer the opportunity for criminals to use the policy to avoid the process. Think about it!
Also, I must stress that in the case of Berlusconi its problems courts have been an obstacle to good governance. Although it is true that thanks to several laws, awards, obstacles, requirements are managed in more than 15 years of policy to prevent any phenomena, it is also true that in recent years he and his closest associates have devoted most of their energies at this: "avoid the process." So it's not in public, but private thing, very private indeed. So even here the logic of "let him work," shows its inappropriateness and the stupidity of those who insist on believing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment