Energie rinnovabili nella provincia di Macerata

Cari lettori,
torno a scrivere in italiano in quanto l'articolo che riporto riguarda Macerata: chi vuole installare impianti per l'uso di energie rinnovabili, potrà ricevere degli incentivi dalla provincia di Macerata e coprire circa un terzo della spesa. Trovo che questa sia una grande notizia in quanto si dà la possibilità a privati cittadini di usare risorse non inquinanti e naturali come il sole o il vento per produrre energia. Ovviamente, bisogna poi vedere se questo progetto funziona, ma per quanto riguarda le energie rinnovabili, sono molto fiducioso. Ecco l'articolo:

MACERATA - Arrivano nuovi incentivi da parte della Provincia di Macerata per lo sviluppo e la diffusione delle energie rinnovabili. E’ in pubblicazione in questi giorni, infatti, un nuovo bando che prevede l’assegnazione di contributi per complessivi 400mila euro a privati (famiglie, associazioni senza scopo di lucro, liberi professionisti) che in edifici di loro proprietà installano impianti fotovoltaici, impianti solari termici, pompe di calore.

Le domande di contributo debbono essere presentate entro il 31 dicembre al settore Ambiente tenendo conto di quanto specificato nell’avviso pubblico consultabile anche sul sito internet della provincia di Macerata alla voce “bandi”.

“Con questo nuovo intervento, che qualifica l’azione della Provincia nel campo energetico", sottolinea il presidente della Provincia, Giulio Silenzi, "sale a circa 1 milione e mezzo di euro negli ultimi tre anni l’impegno dell’amministrazione provinciale. Lo consideriamo un investimento importante per l’energia pulita che porta benefici in termini di risparmio sulla bolletta energetica di famiglie e piccole imprese, ma anche utilità sul piano ambientale”.

Il contributo previsto è di circa un terzo della spesa (35%) con dei massimali che sono stati così determinati: 2.000 euro per il solare termico; 8.000 euro per impianti fotovoltaici e per pompe di calore del tipo geotermico; 3.000 euro per pompe di calore del tipo aria-acqua.

Il bando prevede la possibilità di chiedere finanziamenti, fino a 10.000 euro, anche per impianti “micro-eolici” (potenza non superiore a 20 kw e altezza inferiore a 20 metri). Oltre che per nuovi impianti si può beneficiare del contributo anche per impianti realizzati dopo il 1 gennaio 2008.

Tratto da:
● Macerata: incentivi a chi installa impianti termici su Gomarche.it, 11 Dicembre 2008

Some good news: German academy offers green energy knowledge to 14 countries

Dear readers,
as you may have noticed, it's sometimes very hard to find good news in newspapers and online. Most articles are about crime, financial crisis, corruption, gossip and so on. Now and again, I find an article giving good news. From now on, I'll try to publish here some good news that I find online.
The following article is about a series of seminars and conferences about renewable energy technologies that will take place in Germany. The German Renewables Academy is going to share a lot of knowledge with engineers from all over the world, especially from developing countries. I believe this is very good news, because I think it is very important to share our knowledge with these countries and help them develop their own projects and improve life standards.


Germany is sharing its renewable energy and energy efficiency expertise with developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America. The German Renewables Academy said this week that it has invited engineers and key players from 14 countries to learn the lessons gleaned from its own booming green energy industry.

More than 800 applications have already been received by the academy, which will be hosting one-week introductory and advanced seminars at its Berlin training centre from this month until June 2009. Follow-up training will be provided throughout 2009 via online courses and one-to-one consultations.

"The program is aimed at participants who can apply the acquired knowledge in the best possible way in their careers," said Berthold Breid, founder and chief executive of the academy. It is hoped the seminars will allow participants to share details of green energy projects in their own countries.

The scheme is part of the academy's Transfer Renewable Energy and Efficiency (TREE) scholarship, which is part-funded by the German government. The TREE website says its objective is to "facilitate the transfer of know-how in renewable energies, energy efficiency and climate protection, for decision makers, high potentials and engineers from developing and emerging countries".

Thanks partly to heavy investment in its solar and wind power industries, Germany has become a key player in green technology, vying with the US for the crown of global cleantech hub.

Fedex recently revealed plans for a solar-powered hub in Germany, and earlier this year German industry sealed one of the biggest ever wind power supply deals when energy giant E.ON agreed to buy 500 wind turbines from engineering conglomerate Siemens.
Source:
● Germany academy offers green energy knowledge to 14 countries by Adam Vaughan for BusinessGreen.com, Monday 8th December 2008

Let's make this a better world... why the world won't change...

Dear readers,
everybody would like to change the world. All of us would like to live in a better society than the one we live in, all people would love to have peace on earth, food and water for everyone and so on. Why is that impossible? How a great bluesman once used to sing, "everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die". In other words, everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change. In fact, the most common human fault is selfishness.

I think the world will change only after millions of people forget their own needs, wishes and problems to inform and help others. Only changing ourselves will enable us to change the world, and anyway that would take hundreds of years.
However, there are many people in the world who already do this: they forget their own needs to think about other people. I believe most of them do it on a fulltime basis, but there are also many who do it during their free time. The most important principle is, as Michael Jackson said, "...if you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make the change...".
I also had joined a group of people who fight for a better world, but I left it when I realized that most of it was just talk and frustration. When it was time to come together and speak about what could be done and how, share ideas and information, organize events and actions, the usual three or four actually showed up and all turned to dust.
Why is all this so difficult, if not impossible? Because in our society now we have too much for ourselves, too many possibilities, too many rights, too many freedoms, basically, too much of everything. We don't appreciate life anymore, we always want more, we want to have the best performance with the least effort. Of course, many people are not like that, but most of the people who have the power to change things are so, especially politicians and business people. After all, even the ancient Greeks told us that politics is corruption, but as Sting said, "history will teach us nothing".
What should we change in the world anyway? Basically, everything. First of all, introduce renewable energy sources as the only options for the future and stop destroying our environment but even the fear of a climate catastrophe does not stop politicians and tycoons to finance and build monsters like coal power stations and incinerators. Secondly, design and make products that have a very long life cycle and buy and consume local products. Then, reorganize the school system, social services, judicial system and most important, think more about the future. Many other things should be changed but I think nothing will ever change, at least not in the next few centuries. Obama? Maybe a starting point, maybe not.
However, hope is the last to die and of course, the show must go on.

Another victim of the Italian judicial system

Dear readers,
here it goes again. Another victim of the system. This is the testimony of a mother who has lost her son. I've watched the video and read the text of the interview, yet I still cannot believe it. A young man with no criminal record, arrested, locked up in a maximum-security prison without anyone being allowed to speak with him or contact him in any way. He died three days later. According to official sources, he committed suicide. I cannot believe that such things can happen in a country that claims to be democratic. The truth is, this is not a democratic country. Here's Ornella Gemini's report:

"My son was arrested in Cattolica on 19 June 2008. Since that day I was never again able to see him nor speak with him. He was arrested and when I was eventually allowed to see him, what I saw was an experience that I don’t wish on any mother! My son was arrested for an alleged offence and he was in protective custody. The word custody says it all! They should have given my son back to me standing on his own two feet, just as he was when they took him away. Instead, from the moment of his arrest, everything became more complicated and nothing was ever the same again. I was told that he had been arrested and taken to the Rimini prison, and that he was only transferred to the Sollicciano (FI) Prison the following day because they needed him there to be questioned by the magistrates. The first statement is false: my son was never in Rimini. My son was arrested and his first stopover in jail was in Sollicciano at 19h 45. He was arrested in Cattolica, having been called by the mother of the owner of the firm for which he worked because her son had been arrested the night before. She had asked him to go and see the attorney in order to find out what was happening.
My son, the one who was acting in total good faith, the one who made no attempt to escape, but went directly to this attorney in Cattolica, was arrested the moment he came downstairs and went through the door. From that moment on, he was allowed no further contact with his family. In the prison admission report from the Sollicciano prison, we see that he told them that he had an attorney and that he had telephoned his family, but I received no such telephone call from Sollicciano. It is also stated that his mother should be contacted in case of need or any other eventuality. In other words, me. Why then was I not contacted? I only found out about the events on the following day. I was told that he had been transferred. All good and well, and thus began the telephone calls putting pressure on me in an attempt to get me to change attorney. I tried to find out the name of the company’s attorney in order to find out what was going on because, at that moment, my entire world was collapsing around me! Everything was escaping me. So I telephoned the company’s attorney, a certain Mr. Marcolini, who was the person that had originally told me that Niki had been arrested, however, not even he knew anything. We had to wait for the police interrogation in order to find out precisely what my son was being accused of. I wanted to move to San Marino because I live in Avezzano, but the attorney told me: “No Madam, you won’t be allowed to see him or speak to him in any event because he has been placed in solitary confinement for three days”. Therefore, we would only be able to find out precisely what he had been charged with on Monday morning, once he had been questioned. Meanwhile, pressure was being put on me to change attorney, but I refused, asking “Why?” By that Sunday I couldn’t stand it any longer. I went to the attorney’s office, spoke with him and I mentioned the fact that perhaps a telegram should be sent to Niki, suggesting that he change attorney. Marcolini told me not to worry about it because when a prisoner is in solitary confinement, he is not even able to receive telegrams. Why, instead, was another telegram delivered to him? A telegram that I only got to see a few days ago (November 2008 - Ed). It stated that: “You must appoint attorney so and so..” Must! It was an order. Well, during those three days my son changed his attorney, appointing the one whose name appeared in the telegram. Meanwhile, Marcolini had been recused.During the course of the interrogation, this new attorney came down and told me that, at that time, Niki should exercise his right to say nothing, just as the others had done but, instead, he was talking. The attorneys I had brought along left at this point, while I stood around waiting outside. After a while I saw the armoured Police van moving in to pick up my son and I ran toward the vehicle. All I wanted was to see my son. We understood each other perfectly and a single glance would have been enough. I wanted to say to him: “Don’t worry Niki, I’m here”. However, those officers in the police van pushed me away with needless violence. They told me: “Go away, otherwise we’ll arrest you too, you must remain at least twenty metres away from the police van”. Then I saw my son exit the building, he turned towards me and they proceeded to turn his head the other way. Who had they arrested? A 26-year old young man with no criminal record! He had never before been in trouble with the law. Never! This was the first time ever! What would have been so bad about allowing him to look at me? This was the last glance we ever exchanged. I then waited for this new attorney, a woman, and I asked her: “What did Niki say? What happened?” She answered me as follows: “Niki wanted to talk, stating that he wanted to collaborate because he wanted to get out of there. So I let him talk. I asked him to explain to me precisely what was going on”. She then said: “Madam, I need to examine the case since I was only appointed the other day …”. That was precisely what the company attorneys that I had spoken to told me would happen. Clearly she could not have known this … I also had some clothes to take to the prison because Niki had taken nothing with him. I again appealed to the lady attorney saying: “try to see whether I can speak to him even just for a moment and even with you present, I don’t care how. I also have some clothes for him”. The attorney tried her best, however, I found out that 48-hours notice had to be given even for the clothes to be accepted in a super-prison. My question is WHY? Why was my son taken to a super-prison? First offence, no previous criminal record. There is no way that my son would have committed suicide in any event, but even less so without leaving me something in writing. Nothing makes any sense here! If this was such a major investigation, precisely what role did the telephone service providers play in this matter? Why were they never mentioned? They are mentioned in the arrest warrant. In addition to the Internet sites, a job that my son was very good at, he had also been involved in the deals with the telephone service providers. But how come their names were never even mentioned in the newspapers? And why was no application submitted for a rogatory to be held in San Marino? In other words, I go into a thief’s house, I arrest the thief but I don’t bother to look for the loot. Does this seem right to you? The rogatory was necessary in order to seize the computers that could perhaps help to explain precisely what was actually going on. Why did this not happen? Twenty days after my son’s death, I sent my husband and my brother-in-law to talk to the owner of the apartment in San Marino where my son had been living. It turned out that the apartment had been totally cleared out. Not even a single one of my son’s socks was left behind. I was not even able to lay my hands on something that smelled of my son. So, who was it that was so keen to clear out that apartment? Perhaps the seventeen other people arrested, whose situation could have been aggravated? Or perhaps someone who was afraid that they could land up in jail because of the information stored on those computers? They disappeared with everything! Everything! I didn’t even get back the keys to my own house. How am I supposed to defend him? How am I supposed to try to make head or tail of what happened when I have nothing left? What am I supposed to do? Please help me, I can’t do it alone! The person that sent the telegram and the person that burgled the apartment, do we know who they were working for? It costs very little to arrange these things. What I want to know is who gave the order to get my son to change attorney. Who gave the order to have the apartment cleared. I want to know who is behind it all! We cannot keep hiding behind monsters speaking of names. Are there any existing recordings of tapped telephone conversations? When a telephone call goes from one number to another, it means that there are two people speaking on the line. If you and I talk to each other, then why am I the only one that gets arrested? Nevertheless, by mid July these excellent suspects were still at work, doing precisely what they had done before. My son, instead, has been lying under two metres of soil since 24 June. The Solliciano prison medical officer, Doctor Franco Corleone, stated in an interview with La Repubblica that he had spoken with the prison governor who, in turn, had told him that just after the exercise period – and here it is important to understand the timing because the exercise period lasts from nine-thirty to ten-thirty – when my son had just made use of the opportunity to grab a breath of fresh air, he had then, according to the official verdict of suicide, gone back to the bathroom and hung himself. In that same interview, Franco Corleone added that: “You know, Niki had already shown signs of psychological collapse when he changed attorneys”. Dear Doctor Corleone, that was no sign of psychological collapse. He was ordered to change attorney. He would not have done so of his own accord. What did Doctor Franco Corleone say to the prison governor? Why did the autopsy show that death had occurred at 10, while the “118” emergency services were only called out at 11:15. Does that mean that you could have saved him? Could he have been saved? Believe me, absolutely nothing tallies! The prison gave me the archived records, but I ask myself, how can you archive something when nothing tallies? Just the day before his death, my son had asked to be placed in a cell with other Italian inmates, preferably non-violent ones. What does this tell you? Did he want to stay alive or not? In my opinion he did, otherwise he would have said “Put me with whomever you wish”. I know precisely what he would have done had he really wanted to commit suicide. The statements made by Niki’s two cellmates also don’t tally. One apparently asked the other: “Where is Niki?” and the other apparently answered: “He went out for some exercise”. In the other cellmate’s deposition, in response to the same question, he answers: “Niki went to the bathroom to wash his clothes”. I have to ask myself precisely where Niki actually was? Furthermore, there is also another statement from one of the prison warders, in which he states that: “Niki spoke to me. He appeared to be quite relaxed. He asked me “When are they going to question me again?” according to the warder, this questioning session took place at 10. The exact time that my son apparently died. I have to ask myself when exactly did this warder talk to my son? And where, because it is not specified? I appeal to all you journalists out there. Don’t concern yourselves with the idiotic news reports that we hear on a daily basis on the television, rather act like serious journalists. Stick your heads into these prisons. Reading through the “Prison Information” booklet, I discovered that all sorts of things can and do happen during the exercise period, since all of the cells are open and inmates have access to cells other than their own. My son was supposedly in custody. Who was looking after him? "

Ornella Gemini

Source:
● Niki is no longer with us by Ornella Gemini for Beppe Grillo's Blog, 9th November 2008

Cittadini non si nasce, si diventa

Cari lettori,
ecco il primo articolo in italiano! Come si diventa cittadini? Lo si è dalla nascita, lo si diventa automaticamente quando si fa la carta d'identità, lo si impara? Chi ce lo insegna? Cittadini non si nasce, si diventa: questo è il titolo di un articolo sul sito del giornale 'La Stampa' scritto da Michael Walzer, filosofo della politica americano, in cui lui parla dei tre principali requisiti da inserire nel curriculum di tutte le scuole in ogni paese affinché gli studenti possano diventare buoni cittadini in un stato democratico.


Michael Walzer, filosofo della politica americano, inaugura oggi a Asti il Master in Civic Education con la Lezione magistrale «Sull’educazione del cittadino» di cui pubblichiamo un’ampia sintesi. Frutto della collaborazione tra il James Madison Program dell’Università di Princeton e Ethica, il Master è diretto da Maurizio Viroli. Ha lo scopo di diffondere la coscienza civica, la cui nozione, in Italia e in Europa, sembra agli organizzatori assai critica. Il Master intende anche promuovere la conoscenza dei valori e della cultura americani.

Immaginate un paese moderno, come il mio e come il vostro, che sia diviso in materia culturale, religiosa, ideologica ed economica. Che tipo di educazione civica dovrebbero fornire le scuole statali e le università di questo paese? Voglio concentrarmi qui solo su questioni concernenti l’educazione politica. Che cosa devono sapere gli studenti che voteranno alle «nostre» elezioni, dove il riferimento del pronome è semplicemente l’insieme dei cittadini adulti?

Ci sono, credo, tre requisiti curriculari di importanza critica, che valgono tanto per le scuole pubbliche quanto per quelle religiose.

Il primo requisito probabilmente può essere meglio soddisfatto al livello delle scuole superiori, perché implica qualcosa di simile a quanto si usava chiamare «educazione civica». Gli studenti hanno bisogno di imparare una scienza politica pratica della democrazia; hanno bisogno di un corso dove si studino il funzionamento quotidiano dei ministeri di governo, delle assemblee rappresentative, delle corti, dei partiti, dei movimenti sociali e così via. Questa è la parte meno controversa dell’educazione democratica. Ciò nonostante, v’è un importante lavoro educativo da fare qui: insegnare agli studenti a pensare se stessi come futuri partecipanti nell’attività politica, non meramente come spettatori bene informati. E siccome lo spettacolo è spesso tutt’altro che edificante e invitante, gli insegnanti devono evidenziare come il sistema democratico non sia mai chiuso, il suo carattere non sia mai deciso una volta per tutte. Nonostante tutte le rigidezze burocratiche, ci sono sempre delle opportunità per persone con idee nuove o diverse. Gli studenti dovrebbero essere incoraggiati a sperimentare le dottrine politiche, e si dovrebbe insegnare loro come discuterle davanti ai loro pari e all’interno di specifici ambiti istituzionali.

Secondo, gli studenti hanno bisogno di studiare la storia delle istituzioni e delle pratiche democratiche dall’antica Grecia in avanti, e parallelamente devono imparare e misurarsi con la preferenza di vari gruppi religiosi per forme di governo non democratiche. Forse insegnanti in scuole con molti studenti cattolici, ebrei o musulmani cercheranno modi per naturalizzare la democrazia all’interno di tradizioni che sono state nei fatti ostili ad essa, ma io sarei per favorire un confronto onesto con le forme di governo - di re o preti o saggi religiosi - preferite dalla religione. Dopo tutto, la democrazia è una cultura della critica e del dissenso. Ci sono vari modi per aiutare gli studenti a sentirsi a casa propria in una società democratica, e la pretesa che tutti ci abbiamo da sempre vissuto non è necessariamente la migliore. Certamente non è il modo più onesto, e i giovani generalmente riconoscono e rifuggono la disonestà. Ciò detto, non penso che sia sbagliato raccontare la storia cattolica, ebrea o musulmana in una versione che metta in rilievo i possibili punti di accesso ad un’intesa democratica. Ma si deve anche raccontare la storia greca e soffermarsi sui momenti genuinamente formativi nella storia della democrazia.

Il terzo requisito è a mio parere il più importante: un corso sulla filosofia o la teoria politica della forma di governo democratica, dove si rivedano criticamente tutti gli argomenti standard. Ciò ovviamente dovrebbe includere discussioni sugli ordinamenti costituzionali, ma il fulcro dovrebbe essere sulle pratiche e le attitudini che costituiscono una cultura politica democratica: l’eguaglianza dei cittadini (così degli uomini come delle donne), la loro libertà di parola e associazione, il diritto all’opposizione, la tolleranza per il dissenso, l’esigenza (alle volte) di compromessi, uno scetticismo rispetto all’autorità e così di seguito. Queste, naturalmente, sono le pratiche e le attitudini in una democrazia liberale, ma in questo caso l’aggettivo non qualifica bensì semplicemente rinforza il sostantivo; dubito che una democrazia illiberale possa mantenere a lungo l’eguaglianza, l’inclusione, e il diritto all’opposizione che sono caratteristiche necessarie della politica democratica. Il modo migliore di insegnare queste pratiche e attitudini è esemplificarle in classe: così, i testi teorici nei quali la democrazia è stata spiegata e difesa (o criticata) dovrebbero essere studiati democraticamente, con una discussione libera, una ricerca aperta a qualsiasi interpretazione, un’idea del carattere sempre incompiuto del progetto democratico. Gli argomenti non dovrebbero mai essere ridotti ad un catechismo, in special modo non ai fini dell’esame finale.

Sebbene le nostre scuole e università pubbliche non possano insegnare teologia cristiana (tranne che, diciamo, in un corso sulla filosofia della religione), esse possono insegnare teoria democratica liberale. Costituzionalmente si tratta di un’attività permessa. Ma a me sembra un’attività politicamente e moralmente necessaria, perché gli studenti stanno per diventare cittadini attivi, e presto prenderanno decisioni di importanza capitale che determineranno la qualità, e forse anche la sicurezza fisica, della nostra vita comune. L’educazione di ciascun giovane incide su ogni altro giovane. Stante il processo decisionale democratico, i figli di genitori religiosi, i figli di politici settari, contribuiranno a decidere il destino dei miei figli e dei vostri. Non ci sono esenzioni possibili, a meno che una comunità religiosa non opti per sottrarsi del tutto dalla condizione di cittadinanza e adotti lo status di stranieri residenti. Forse dovremmo permetterlo, ma non vedo ragione per permettere a futuri cittadini di evitare o sfuggire un’educazione alla cittadinanza. La posta in gioco è troppo alta.

Pensate alla cittadinanza come a un incarico politico: senza dubbio, i futuri incaricati dovrebbero imparare qualcosa sulle responsabilità che l’incarico comporta. O meglio, coloro che occupano l’incarico adesso dovrebbero insegnare alla generazione successiva ciò che credono di aver imparato a proposito di quelle responsabilità. Questo perché la riproduzione di una politica democratica non è mai cosa certa. Dobbiamo dimostrare ai nostri ragazzi che veramente crediamo nei valori che rendono possibile la democrazia. Ciò significa innanzitutto che dobbiamo vivere alla luce di quei valori; significa altresì che non dovremmo avere paura di insistere sul loro studio. Per ragioni molto sensate, la cittadinanza, diversamente dalla professione medica o legale, non richiede una licenza; gli studenti non necessitano di una promozione in politica democratica. Ma certamente dovrebbero seguire il corso.

Tratto da:
● Cittadini non si nasce, si diventa di Michael Walzer su La Stampa, 23 Ottobre 2008

The story of stuff

Dear readers,
I'd like to recommend a website: The story of stuff. Here you can listen to a presentation about material economy: how we produce stuff, where it comes from, how we deal with it and where it goes after we throw it away. It's very interesting because it reveals what really happens along the way. The speaker, Annie Leonard, goes through the main stages: extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal. From one phase to the other, she adds all the information that we need to have, all the things that nobody talks about, she adds the truth. Here are some facts that she mentions in the presentation:

• In the past three decades, one-third of the planet’s natural resources base have been consumed.
• In the United States, we have less than 4% of our original forests left.
• Forty percent of waterways in the US have become undrinkable.
• The U.S.has 5% of the world’s population but consumes 30% of the world’s resources and creates 30% of the world’s waste.
• If everybody consumed at U.S. rates, we would need 3 to 5 planets.
• There are over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in commerce today.
• Only a handful of synthetic chemicals have even been tested for human health impacts and NONE have been tested for synergistic health impacts.
• In the U.S., industry admits to releasing over 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals a year.
• The average U.S. person now consumes twice as much as they did 50 years ago.
• We each see more advertisements in one year than a people 50 years ago saw in a lifetime.
• In the U.S. our national happiness peaked sometime in the 1950s.
• In the U.S., we spend 3–4 times as many hours shopping as our counterparts in Europe do.
• Average U.S. house size has doubled since the 1970s.
• Each person in the United States makes 4 1/2 pounds of garbage a day. That is twice what we each made thirty years ago.
• For every one garbage can of waste you put out on the curb, 70 garbage cans of waste were made upstream to make the junk in that one garbage can you put out on the curb.

Go and watch the presentation and use this information to improve your life and the world around you. Pass the word.

Kann man die Sprache einfach so ändern?

Hallo zusammen,
hier ist mein erster Eintrag auf Deutsch! Ich frage mich: kann man wirklich die Sprache einfach ändern? Die Deutschen haben es schon zweimal gemacht. Ihr denkt: WAS?! Blödsinn. Doch: Mit zwei Rechtschreibungreformen. Und jetzt will ein Professor noch etwas in der Sprache ändern: er will Deutsche anders zählen lassen. Ein Beispiel: 21 = twenty-one. Auf Deutsch: einundzwanzig. Nee. Für diesen Professor soll es "zwanzigeins" ausgesprochen werden. Lesen wir mal...


Das Problem kennt jeder: Man tippt die sechsstellige Nummer ins Telefon, doch statt Tante Erna meldet sich am anderen Ende eine wildfremde Stimme. „Oh, falsch verbunden“, murmelt man, doch das Display zeigt, dass nicht das längst ausgestorbene Fräulein vom Amt Schuld ist sondern wieder mal ein Zahlendreher. Die leisten sich die Bundesbürger auch im modernen Zahlungsverkehr mit bundesweit allein sieben Milliarden Banküberweisungen im Jahr sehr viel häufiger als viele andere Völker. Der Grund: Die Deutschen sprechen im Computerzeitalter mehrstellige Zahlen noch immer so verdreht aus wie ihre Altvordern, die mit Kerbhölzern rechneten. Das will der Verein „Zwanzigeins“ ändern – und kämpft um Aufklärung.
„Das Problem, warum wir 'einundzwanzig' sagen, aber 'zwanzigeins' schreiben, ist 500 Jahre alt“, sagt der Vereinsvorsitzende und Bochumer Mathematikprofessor Lothar Gerritzen. Damals, im Jahr 1482, wurden die arabischen Ziffern erstmals in die deutsche Schriftsprache aufgenommen, und es wurde zudem empfohlen, sie von links nach rechts auszusprechen, wie im Arabischen oder Lateinischen auch: Etwa die Zahl 21 als „zwentzigeins“, heißt es im ersten deutschen „Rechenbuch“ von Jakob Köbel.
Dass Köbel sich jedoch nicht durchsetzte, lag auch an Martin Luther, der, dem Volk aufs Maul schauend, in seiner Bibelübersetzung bei der üblichen deutschen Sprechweise blieb. Die war wiederum vor 4000 Jahren entstanden: Mangels Ziffern ritzten die Indogermanen damals Zeichen in ein Kerbholz: Immer zunächst die Einerzahl – ein Strich für eine Eins, zwei Striche für eine Zwei und so weiter – und dann erst die Zehner – jeweils ein X als Symbol gekreuzter Hände für eine Zehn. Das Zeichen IXX wurde deshalb als einundzwanzig gelesen.
In den vergangenen 500 Jahren haben zwar immer wieder Schriftsteller und Mathematiker auf das Problem der verdrehten Zahlenaussprache hingewiesen. Doch sie scheiterten allesamt an einer Obrigkeit die, wie auch im Fall von Gerritzens Verein, auf Änderungswünsche eher unwirsch reagiert. So wie das hessische Kultusministerium in einen Antwortschreiben an ein Vereinsmitglied: „Sehr geehrter Herr... Ich glaube nicht, dass es sinnvoll ist, die Benennung von Zahlen in der deutschen (oder einer anderen) Sprache mit den Kategorien der Logik zu messen. Die Zahl 15 heißt im Deutschen nun einmal 'fünfzehn' und nicht 'zehnfünf'. Niemand kann dies beliebig ändern“.
Allerdings führte Norwegen wegen volkswirtschaftlicher Probleme mit der verdreht-germanischen Zahlensprechweise in Schulbüchern schon 1951 die logisch korrekte Sprechweise ein. Heute sind die Kerbholzzähler in ganz Skandinvien zumindest in der Geschäfts-, Bank- und Postsprache in der Minderheit. Hierzulande müssen sich dagegen mehr als fünf Millionen Legastheniker und Dyskalkuliker sowie unzählige Schüler ohne besondere Lese- und Rechenschwäche damit quälen, dass sie beim Hören der Zahl 84356 von der zweiten Ziffer zur ersten springen müssen, dann zur dritten, zur fünften, um mit der vierten zu enden. „Dass das überhaupt funktioniert, ist verblüffend“, sagt Mathematik-Professor Gerritzen.
Leicht fällt das vielen Schülern nicht. Josef Kraus, Vorsitzender des Deutschen Lehrerverbands, weiß zu berichten, dass selbst Abiturienten beim Hören einer dreistelligen Zahl erst links den Hunderterwert schreiben, dann eine Lücke lassen, um rechts den Einer zu notiern und danach die Lücke mit dem Zehnerwert füllen. Vor allem türkischstämmige Schüler, die in ihrer Muttersprache „richtig“ zählen, haben Probleme mit der verkehrten deutschen Zahlenwelt.
Karlsruhe Dort, bei Schülern und Lehrern, trifft Gerritzen, der nun das Buch „zwanzigeins“ herausgegeben hat, auch am ehesten auf offene Ohren. Die Wald-Schule in Bochum hat nach seinen Angaben die unverdrehte Sprechweise inzwischen in den Unterricht eingeführt. Und zu einem unlängst von Gerritzen gehaltenen Vortrag seien mehr als 500 Lehrer und Schüler geströmt. „Es wird aber noch mindestens 25 Jahre dauern, bis sich was ändert“ befürchtet Gerritzen. Dann wäre der Mathematiker neunzigzwei Jahre alt.
Quelle:
● Mathematik: Professor will Deutsche anders zählen lassen von Jürgen Oeder für Welt Online, 6. Oktober 2008

Laptops instead of text books at school

Dear readers,
here is some interesting news. Honestly, I'm very suprised to see that it comes from Italy. A primary school in Turin has decided to use computers instead of books for its pupils for a year.

Pupils at a school in Italy are replacing all their text books with computers for a year - in what is being described as a unique experiment. More than 60 children - aged between eight and 10 - at Turin's Don Milani school will be using mini laptops with the full curriculum. Their access to the internet will be controlled by special software. The experiment, which is backed by parents, aims to test how a computer alone can improve the learning process.

Until Wednesday, the Don Milani di Rivoli elementary school was like any other in Italy. Children turned up, got out their books and pens and began the process of learning. But now, 60 fifth grade pupils and a number of third graders will start using computers only.
The mini laptops, which run Windows software, weigh less than a kilogram, can be dropped from a height of one-and-a-half metres and are waterproof. Instead of spending the equivalent of $700 (£400) a year on books, the laptops, built by the Italian company Olidata, cost less than $400 (£228).
Source:
● Italy pupils ditch books for PCs by Duncan Kennedy for BBC News, Wednesday 8th October 2008

Italy: the nightmare goes on

Hi everybody,
the police state in Italy goes on.

They killed another innocent, a guy who was 80% mentally disabled. Allegedly, he had thrown crackers at a girl, injuring her. There are no crackers, there is no girl. Listen to his mother describing what happened :

Giuliana Rasman

here's the text in English:

Interview in English

They broke into his flat and beat the hell out of him, tortured him using barbed wire as well. When other investigators went into the flat, they found blood stains everywhere. It seems they had even used a chair to beat him.

It turns out, police knew him: they had already beat him once, when a neighbour called them because he was listening to radio and it was too loud.

The policemen have been acquitted. Of course. You cannot trust police, let alone the judicial system.

SHAME ON THEM

Italy

You probably think that Italy is a wonderful country, you want to go there to spend some time at the seaside, visit some very nice towns and cities, have fun. Please, take time to see what also happens in Italy, that probably you've never seen before:

G8:FILMATI SU VIOLENZA SCONVOLGENTE DELLE"FORZE DELL'ORDINE"

Police attack aged people nearby Naple (Pustarza)

The blog's interviews: Roberta Radici

The blog's interviews: truth for Federico

Napoli - Italia - EuroNews - No Comment

G8 Genua, Bolzaneto: interviews

I want to express my disgust and my anger towards the police state in Italy.

Shame on them.

Italy is and has always been a wonderful country, but this government, these policemen, this system are destroying it. The government is full of criminals and uses violence against their own citizens.

As for the criminals in the government, here's a detailed list:

If you know them, you avoid them

The file is in Italian but you can easily see the names sorted by the parties they belong to.

Always look for the correct information. It can save your life.

V2 Day, 25th April 2008 Free information in a free state.

"... let's make this a better world... " Toto

Right to vote

This is the appeal that many Italian citizens are going to send to all the Italian Ambassadors and Consuls in the world and to the candidates for the national and foreign constituency at the Italian political elections on 13th – 14th April 2008 :

Appeal
Right to vote
for all Italian citizens:
yes or no?

From the Italian Constitution (title IV, Political affairs, art. 48):

"All citizens, men or women, who have attained their majority are entitled to vote.Voting is personal, equal, free, and secret. Its exercise is a civic duty.The law defines the procedures and conditions under which the citizens residing abroad effectively exercise their electoral right. To this end, a constituency of Italians abroad is established for the election of the Chambers, to which a fixed number of seats is assigned by constitutional law in accordance with criteria determined by law. The right to vote may not be limited except for incapacity, as a consequence of an irrevocable criminal sentence, or in cases of moral unworthiness established by law."

According to the Italian constitution the Italian citizens should be put in the condition to exercise their electoral right. In fact, the Italian citizens who are temporarily abroad or far from their electoral office are not in the condition of doing it because the law doesn’t ensure their rights effectively.

The Italian citizens who reside permanently abroad can exercise their voting rights only if they are registered with the AIRE (register of the Italian citizens living abroad). An exception is provided only for a few groups of citizens temporarily abroad like university professors away for at least six months, employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the military and sailors in temporary service abroad.
People who study and work abroad temporarily are not taken into consideration, even if their number is higher than that of the ones who are actually considered by the law.

Thus
They restrict, not ensure, the right to vote of
a good number of electors.

In the political crisis that has led to the calling of the elections, which will take place in less than two months, many Italians won’t be able to return to their country in time to vote.
Many head offices of companies with branches abroad do not grant their employees days off to go back to their countries to vote, because in many countries inside and outside the EU it’s now possible to exercise the electoral right by post.

Even in case one would like to go to Italy, the transportation costs, totally at the voter’s expense, are very high and bound up to the laws of market (since the calling of the elections for the 13th – 14th April, the prices of international flights to Italy have clearly increased and the number of flights is definitely not enough to let all people go back).

Even if one tried to solve this problem by registering with AIRE, it wouldn’t be possible to vote at the next elections. Actually, only people who have been registered for a couple of months can exercise their right to vote.

In the last years, the number of Italian people temporarily abroad has increased considerably due to the rise of free circulation within the EU countries. The significant growth of bureaucratic procedures that the Italian embassies have to go through is evidence for that.

In consideration of all that, we ask the Consular Representatives and the Candidates for the foreign constituency for the next political elections on 13th – 14th April 2008:

· To take upon themselves such a legislative void and the ineffectiveness of the article 48 of the Italian Constitution;
· To promote the voting by post as a right / duty for all citizens just like it is done in other EU countries with easy and efficient mechanisms (notice of one’s will to vote by post, the retrieval of the kit at the national post offices or at the embassy, the production of a simple identification paper during the voting procedures);

· To take upon themselves and speak for the problem at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and at other Italian institutions; to promote temporary and short-term solutions for Italian citizens who are temporarily abroad to exercise their voting rights for the coming political elections at the local consulates, producing a valid identification paper.

· To promote the registration with the AIRE at the consulates for the citizens who are abroad for a short period of time regardless of the reason for their stay as in many countries of the EU and to broaden and rethink the role and the duties of the consular offices

The Beppe Grillo International Meetup Network

Poem

Hi everybody,

here's a poem that I wrote a long time ago. I hope you like it:

LIFE

Life is real.

I can see it in your eyes,

when you cry

without hope.

I can see it in your face,

when you smile

with so much joy.

I can feel it in my heart,

when I hear

nothing but the cry

of a hopeless child.

Do we understand the meaning of life ?

Do we shout for fear ?

Do we laugh for joy ?

Do we really care

for our children,

for their future

in this cruel world

full of demons ?

Am I a demon ?

Life is real,

too real,

so real that sometimes

I want to put an end to it,

but I can’t,

because if I do it,

I will lose the only thing I have.

We must live !

We must live

to teach and to learn,

to hear and to talk,

to laugh and to cry,

to stay and to walk,

to love and to hate.

Hamlet said

that the question

was to be or not to be.

I think

that the question

is to be,

full stop.

9/11 part 2: a possible scenario and links

After all the research I have done, I feel sick and tired. Sick and tired of all the lies that we have been told, of all the games they have played to make us believe their story. People have been paid to lie, to write misleading reports, to find nonexistent evidence. I wonder how they can sleep at night, knowing that 3000 people died on that day. I hope they can't.

Long before 11th September 2001, the government of the USA heard about some plans to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, including the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. It's probably at that time that some people decided to let it happen because they wanted to make war. They had already tried but in vain: after a terrorist attack against the United States, they had asked the Congress to declare a war against the terrorists, but it had not been possible, because it seems not enough people had died in the attack. (When I heard this, it sent shivers down my spine.)

They allowed the terrorists to come into America and they kept an eye on them. They got the details of the plan and of course they knew that the Twin Towers wouldn’t have collapsed after being hit by airplanes, they needed to have more. Moreover, they decided to change the plan about the Pentagon: the terrorists would hijack the plane, then they would take over the mission.

First of all, they had to come up with a plan for the Twin Towers: to pull them down completely they needed to plant charges in both buildings. Probably, they did it little by little, taking advantage of emergency drills, maintenance work, etc. The weekend before the attack they ended the job.

They also had to develop a plan for the Pentagon. They had to think of something that would confuse people so much that they couldn’t understand what had really happened. Here it’s very difficult to say what they may have come up with, because it’s really a mystery. Finally, what happened to the fourth plane? Well, there’s no way the terrorists could have hit the White House so they pulled it down.

There were some people who had to be informed, so that the plan could run smoothly: some people at FAA had to have known about it, that’s why NORAD was informed 20 minutes after they got to know that Flight 11 had been hijacked. Moreover, the pilots never got clear indications or orders about what they had to do or where the planes were. I believe some of the recordings that have been published may be just fakes.

The most important thing for the perpetrators was to create a lot of confusion so that it would be very difficult to find out and explain what really happened. Furthermore, they knew that the event would cause so much shock that nobody would want to talk about it or look further into it.

Let's go step by step: on the morning of 11^th September 2001 four planes were hijacked and two of them were flown into the World Trade Center in New York. Possibly, some people knew about the plan and managed to stop all actions to prevent it by omitting and hiding information, organizing other military exercises and so on. Some other people were waiting for the planes at the different targets (World Trade Centre and Pentagon). The ones at the World Trade Centre were probably inside Bulding 7, waiting for the order to “pull”, which in technical jargon means to demolish, to detonate the charges inside the Twin Towers. I don't know if there is a relationship between the highest point reached by the firefighters in both towers and the time of collapse, but if there is, well, both towers collapsed exactly when or just after the firefighters reached the impact floors. In the south tower we know it for sure from the radio communications between the firemen and the command point, in the north tower we know that at about 10:00 the firefighters had already reached the 60^th floor, so when the tower collapsed they had probably already reached the impact floors. As there is no tape of the communications inside Tower 1, we don't know exactly when they reached it, and neither did the persecutors. There is enough evidence (video and audio) to prove that there were bombs in the buildings and that it was a careful and well planned controlled demolition. Building 7 had to be demolished as well, of course.

What about the Pentagon? What we know is that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon that day, that’s quite clear, but then, where did United 77 go? What hit the building? According to some evidence and some witnesses it seems that there were two planes going towards the Pentagon before the explosion, one from the right and one from the left. It's very difficult to develop a theory, but anyway I think that United 77 actually flew over the Pentagon and that some other plane, possibly a military one, launched a missile that hit the building. This is for different reasons: to create confusion among the witnesses and to make sure everything went as planned. The other plane then maybe followed United 77 to pull it down. Mind you, it was a matter of seconds so I think we'll never find anybody who actually saw the whole thing because who saw one plane never saw the other one because they were coming from two different, almost opposite directions and because everything happened too fast.

There's another idea about 9/11 and that is even more terrible: the planes were never actually hijacked, they were just flown somewhere else where they were destroyed. The planes which hit the three targets were military planes. This idea is supported by some people I heard in a few videos online. There are two main points it is based on: the first is that it seems some of the hijackers have been found alive in some Middle Eastern countries. It seems the BBC even managed to interview one of them. The second idea is that some people are said to have made some phone calls from the hijacked planes using their mobile phones but according to experts, it's not possible to use a mobile phone from a plane, especially from such high altitudes. So who made those phone calls? Moreover, I found out that in 2004 two big companies, American Airlines and Qualcomm, announced the development of a new wireless technology which would allow at some future date airline passengers using their cell phones to contact family and friends from a commercial aircraft. So the passengers on 11^th September 2001 were just lucky to get the line? We don't know what happened to the people on those four planes and maybe we will never know.

Well, this is what I think may have happened. All the information I have included comes from interviews, reports, videos and documentaries about 9/11. They are all available online.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.ae911truth.org
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
http://www.911docs.net (here you'll find all the videos about 9/11 of any kind)
http://journalof911studies.com
http://killtown.911review.org
http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm and http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm (the two official reports by NIST and FEMA)
http://www.9-11commission.gov/ (the national commission report)
http://www.studyof911.com/
http://www.mishalov.com/11_Sept_01.html
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/fdny_dispatches.htm
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=44026 (the audio files of the firehouse and emergency communications)
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#_edn58
http://www.stj911.org
http://www.earth-citizens.net/english.html
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html (all firefighters' interviews)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://www.jerseyshoretoday.com/archive/day_that_changed_america.htm
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wrh_9-11_index.html

9/11

This is the first time that I express my feelings and thoughts openly on the Internet. I feel I have to do it now, I feel the need to express my feelings to the world about the terrible events that shocked the world some years ago. Here is my story:

In the morning of 11th September 2001 I guess I went to university like every other day. At the time I was writing my final thesis, so first I went to a library to read some material then after lunch I went to another university building to go on writing, as I used to do at that time.
While I was working at my thesis, I heard two students talking about NATO planes, but I guess I didn't pay attention to that. At a certain time, possibly around 5 p.m., I left the place and later at 7 I went to take the bus to go back home. That's when I first heard of the attack. I didn't actually hear of the attack itself. You know, after so many hours they possibly took for granted that everybody knew about it and they gave a complete summary only in the 8 o'clock news. Anyway, what they said shocked me: they were saying that tens of thousands of people may have died in the attack, talking about a war. Soon they put music on and I was very curious to know what had happened.
When I arrived home, if I remember well my mother heard me taking out the key as she was standing next to the door and she opened it for me. I'll never forget the expression on her face. I asked her if the third world war had broken out and she answered: “Worse Andrew, this is worse.”
I saw the first images of the attack and I couldn't believe my eyes. I was petrified. I believe I also cried the following days, watching the news, but I don't remember the thoughts that went through my mind or if spoke about it with family and friends. Anyway, I remember very clearly thinking that they were talking too much about it on TV. I also went to the cinema to see a documentary, in fact 11 short documentaries in one, about the reactions to 9/11. Some of them actually conveyed the same idea: that many other things were happening in the world, many other people were being killed in terrorist attacks around the world and all we talked about was 9/11.
For some time I never thought about what really happened on that day and the details of the attack, I guess my mind just refused to think about it. Then in 2003 I moved to Germany and while I was in a bookshop I noticed the “9/11 National Commission Report”. I hesitated for a minute but then I decided to buy it. I have to say that reading it changed my life. I was shocked by the information that the book contained about the events and decided to go on and do some research on the Internet. In the following months I visited hundreds of web pages, saw video clips, read reports. Sometimes it was heartbreaking. I must admit that at the beginning my research was not very well organized: it was chaotic and there was too much information, often unclear, but one thing was clear to see: the official explanation didn't make sense and contained many holes and contradictions. The best evidence against it were the videos of the attack themselves.
After all this research I've reached some conclusions: that the official version is a lie from start to finish and that the attack was an inside job. At the moment, I'm writing a detailed report about what I think really happened on that day and I'll publish it here very soon.