Bfp 10 Days After Ovidrel

Ethics and technical

Recent

, delusional claims of some picturesque Italian politician, designed to throw in a nice pot equiparante all twentieth-century historical events have raised a heated crawl space, where the intricate tangle of politicians intellectuals and the court has given rise to the usual competition to those who shoot bigger. The mountain of nonsense incurred by them, however, provided an opportunity for greedy reflect on what is, in the opinion of the writer, the real cancer of the present era, consisting of the general inability to relate constructively with the past. This inability is now even encouraged by the extensive process of propaganda designed to discredit the objective and detached attitude essential to adopt a correct and Lenin with the historical facts, in favor of ideological partisanship to a more appropriate memory and self-sterile, subjective and biased by definition. History and memory are not complementary, and the constant work overlay on top of one is a practice that is more suited to politicians, who have an interest to advocate an ideological reading of events, and not the free spirits who wish to analyze the history correctly. The memory is made, however, absolutely indispensable when it comes to establish an identity and to ensure the survival of individuals and social groups. However, it solidifies through a process of sacralization of memory, which drives those who you call to replace the past to the present, moving on a particular sufferings and joys of contemporary dating and earlier ages. This leads inevitably appeals to those who make absolute their pain and to place on a higher plane than where you put the pain perceived by others. Memory is also hard, and this makes them immune to criticism and second thoughts. It avoids the contextualization of events, freeing the specific facts from which they were completed, which should give pause to those who claim to be associated with the judiciary. The Court's objective is to establish a proportionality between crime and punishment, the duty of lawyers to identify the terms. Tying justice to the memory would be to translate it, in fact, in revenge. In many ways it can be said with reasonable certainty that memory and history are located in two opposite polarities for the way they relate with the past. Bent to certain instrumental purposes, the memory becomes a pivotal role, writes Alain de Benoist, "The memory leads to retreat on non singular identity incomparable judged by the mere fact that one identifies with those who are its victims, while historic to be broken as it can with any form of subjectivity. " E 'relying on this "withdrawal of identity" in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 that "someone" was able to proclaim the ridiculous slogan "We are all Americans." E 'relying on this "withdrawal of identity" that is now accused of anti-Semitism if you report the scandal of the town of Hiroshima acceptability and unacceptability of the common Auschwitz (absolutely double standards prevailing). And it is the light of the differences identified and described above that history condemns the Nuremberg trials and condemn those in The Hague while memory deify them, that history does not distinguish between the victims and the memory is extremely selective, that history esacra Israeli politics and the memory brings his sureties to justify it no matter what. E 'duty of any democratic state to educate citizens by providing them with historical knowledge, not a memorial, in the past, endowing them with the keys of interpretation are essential to understanding the dynamics present.