Canon Powershot Sx110is Waterproof

Strike up

A quick call to the poor and powerless (for once not about sex). Started to reassess the meaning (and thus the importance) of the classical forms of civil protest, like strikes. Sacrosanct as they are, in most cases are made for the wrong reason and shall have more disadvantages than advantages. We must stop the car down on its dissent and frustration, and a strike - which denies services to citizens of the same poverty and powerlessness - not really affect, both from a moral point of view and especially from a political point of view, on the actions of those who have political and economic power to change things. They want to strike at petrol stations? So do it, I say, denying fuel to the cars of the politicians and forcing them to your bicycle or public transport. They want to protest the researchers? So do it, I say, without interrupting the lessons to students but instead proposing acts of civil disobedience against their superiors unless they themselves do not do the same to their superiors, or by filling out the lessons of stockpiled anti-government force, leading to the discontent of the population voting locations. Farmers want to strike? So do it, I say, filling the halls of Montecitorio civil manure, not stopping the highways full of workers. If you really want to solve problems, and not only give us an excuse to give vent to an end in itself in a historically distinguished the legitimate discontent newspaper, in short, we must rethink these social mechanisms, having the courage and responsibility to pass up the discontent, and not down among our peers. Otherwise, every social struggle will be in vain, Blurred by the perverse admixture of right and wrong due to an incorrect assessment of the real causes and consequences, and the only reason why mutual animosity between political parties irrelevant, that will waste resources fighting a war between the poor thus allowing those in power without having to keep the credit.

Before trumpeting the right to strike, I say, let's flaunt the duty of civil intelligence. O and intelligence enough: more often than not enough.

Horoscopes Of Aries And Pieces

Sex is a complicated thing ... Van Gogh

... not that machine learning or theoretical physics, perhaps, but it is complicated.

Talking about sex in public is certainly liberating , especially those who grew up on bread and Catholicism as me. If faced with the necessary knowledge and wisdom (the divine that mixture that comes only with age and intelligence), it is incredible to be a topic of discussion, because empathic attractive content, and - unlike music, religion , politics and so on - can unite rather than divide, stimulating in a masterly way that hint of humanity that we all feel when naked (mentally or physically, then in direct contact with ourselves beyond the social masks) or embarrassed. What most troubled the mind of others, in that circumstance, it is often the ease with which some seem to address the issue: libertinism, painting over the centuries as negative, and only recently out of fashion (although not everyone seems to have noticed) thanks to the "culture" on television, it is perceived as a lack of respect towards the partner (the other or oneself), and therefore inherently reprehensible. The basic error of this position is, however, fundamental, because a prelude to an incorrect definition of sex and love, with all the negative consequences of the case. Perhaps for this reason, this distinction, the subject of vast numbers of works of literature and film, has never appeared as it is in reality, that is extremely easy to delineate, and typical case of application of Occam's razor.

What has always been missing in this analysis is the awareness that 'love as human feeling, is a primary form of rationality . I am not speaking of cold mathematics of the mechanism or logic existential exasperation, I speak of the mental harmony with the understanding that every human being clearly react to what he loves. Love, the authentic one, is a natural deduction resulted from a state of perfect balance, one way or another, is established in the minds of those who love. No matter the person to whom it is directed (women, men, women, men, things, art, music, situations), what matters is the immediate awareness that triggers the subject's perception, that attraction visceral, although romantically called irrational, is as inevitable as it is the force of gravity, as well as any rational law of nature. Then love is accompanied by a host of other emotions, such as' possessiveness or jealousy : different definitions for different things that have essentially to do with priorities (physical and mental) are completely different. The priority is the beauty, the perception of perfection that is in the eye and artistic sense of the beholder. Instead, the priority of jealousy, as is in dell'ossessività 'selfishness in the sense of ill possession unconsciously by those who claim that he shares with us our life, in quell'ingiusta understatement that makes the ornament a partner, a servant, a subordinate. When in fact the way the perception of beauty is diverted by a claim to power , dall'egoistica need to overpower, dominate and win, we're not talking about love (rationally devoted to perfection) but control (irrationally devoted to power ). In

sex, as in love, there's a lot of rationality. Rational and the engine of the sexual experience is precisely that balance of roles, clearly admitted by both parties as they may seem extreme to the round of right-thinking (irrationally addicted to inculcategli preconceptions of social control). Roles that intersect and unite in a game that takes participants to a better experience of the body. Sure, the sex gets even more beneficial when it is an instrument of union of people who already love each other, thus making human participation in the fast lane of their beauty (imagine a dinner with a Van Gogh to Michelangelo), but this is after all only a way - though it is the best - to live it. Sex, in other words, if decontextualized from the situation in which love can be found commonly, Dionysus is a party game, where anyone can selfishly seek the best for themselves in a common purpose that, if rational, benefiting both as naturally exists. The Parties shall exchange such passions, secrets and pleasures, they test themselves, they experience unexpected ecstasy, seeking confirmations and denials, play live and find hidden feelings. Even here, therefore, if the rules are respected, ie if abuses do not occur on one side or the other (as I say, irrational forms of domination), the rationality of the natural experiment of his own body and instruct the existence prevail. Imagination and spontaneity is everything else, in a vast array of reports (for couples or multiple), mode and positions, arrangements and interactions, to start a game with a good wine (or a recioto past, perhaps accompanied by dark chocolate) and - possibly - be terminated with a amused contentment and good coffee.

This is how the eternal dilemma between sex and love can decay in a few moments where the prejudices are left in front of a conscious search for human rationality, one that straddles the centuries and habits, that can define things with their name and according to those beautiful flawless draw inferences, that uniquely human faculty that knows how to make love and sex summary of perfection in their imperfection, a synthesis of poetry in their normal synthesis of divinity in their humanity.

American Art Commermorative Series Gold

The aesthetic admiration and the resulting deep anxiety about the fate of an artwork or a realization of fine design, are visceral elements of their personal culture to enhance the beauty . Overshadowed by the social confusion generated by their popularity and their historical importance, for there is the silent reaction, spontaneous and passionate of those who, being intimately related to the nature of their artistic essence, surrounding these masterpieces of having to care, attention, devotion and boundless love. The uniqueness, the value that transcends price, and that points straight to the real source of their emotional and rational at the same time excellence, makes them short of perfection in their imperfection, a synthesis of poetry in their normal synthesis of divinity in their humanity.

So I understand the deep concern of those who are faced with the decision to encourage the spread or not, all things considered the rational faculty or propensity to bring this beauty to as many people as possible, a beneficial social impact by sharing . I understand this concern becomes when mistrust, anger and finally, face the possibility that cotanta bellezza venga sciupata o persino deturpata da persone non in grado di comprenderne il valore. Quello stesso stupro morale che subisce un Van Gogh negli occhi o ancor peggio nelle mani di chi non lo merita, di chi insomma scambia il capolavoro per un quadro o un suppellettile.

Come si risolve un tale dilemma? Come si può mediare saggiamente tra una giustificata possessività e una legittima diffusione? Come riuscire insomma a superare il disagio della perdita o anche solo della condivisione di proprietà, dando dunque fiducia ad uno sconosciuto mettendo a rischio il prestigio di un’opera d’arte sinora custodita da mani premurose poiché profondamente amanti dell’opera stessa? Ad una prima analisi, the reproduction seems to be the only possible compromise. In short, to give a third copy, degraded, limited, original beauty, at least make sure of their proper preparation, take time, perhaps hoping that's enough. But perhaps this is not a betrayal, as well as a flaw of selfishness? Is this not hypocrisy (donate when in fact you are not giving at all), a false concession that denatures the aesthetics in favor of his banal and commercial surrogate, which loses itself in the reproduction of the original not only beauty but also the very meaning of that gift? It is in fact the lack of inner effort, the effort required to share intimate with others their own sense of aesthetic beauty and its treasures (in fact putting in game, sensibly naked in front of others' sensitivity), to remove the object to give beauty itself? That a link exists between the aesthetic nature of an object and emotion of the human being who protects him?

In reality, there is no connection. Although it may be difficult to admit, beauty, art or design that is deeply selfish, exists between himself and draws strength and definition just by itself. And so it is only justifiable but his possessiveness unjustified, irrational but irresistible emotion (and quindi moralmente sbagliata), a trattenere un’opera nelle esclusive mani del proprio custode, che svolge il proprio lavoro con una passione magistrale ma fondamentalmente corrotta . La bellezza corrompe chi la circonda, ne prosciuga la lucidità, così come corrompe chi la detiene, il quale ne viene indebitamente influenzato fino a considerarla proprietà propria piuttosto che patrimonio comune. Serve coraggio ed intelligenza per invertire la rotta, per sacrificare il proprio tornaconto e il proprio benessere interiore di fronte alla richiesta o all’esigenza di condividerla. Serve fiducia e responsabilità. Perché l’importanza dell’arte e del valore artistico è tale da richiedere sacrifici ed obblighi to those who are touched, demanding attention and unilateral rights.

Few things in the world suffer my admiration more than a painting by Van Gogh Admiration religious addict, rationally irresistible. A fascination that borders the sacred and the forbidden, the artistic and erotic, with the same ease from girlish leave you breathless every time. They are an inevitable corrupt, I admit, but also ready to suffer while granting freedom to the art it deserves, while ensuring its sacred and inviolable right to bribe - pleasantly charmed - who loves me as Van Gogh.