"[T]the campaign of bullying -- the attempt to terrify Greeks by cutting off bank financing and threatening general chaos, all with the almost open goal of pushing the current leftist government out of office -- was a shameful moment in a Europe that claims to believe in democratic principles. It would have set a terrible precedent if that campaign had succeeded, even if the creditors were making sense.

"What's more, they weren't. The truth is that Europe's self-styled technocrats are like medieval doctors who insisted on bleeding their patients -- and when their treatment made the patients sicker, demanded even more bleeding. A 'yes' vote in Greece would have condemned the country to years more of suffering under policies that haven't worked and in fact, given the arithmetic, can't work: austerity probably shrinks the economy faster than it reduces debt, so that all the suffering serves no purpose. The landslide victory of the 'no' side offers at least a chance for an escape from this trap."

I agree with Krugman on this one. The tough austerity measures adopted by Greece thus far at the EU's behest, which were supposedly intended to spur its economic reform and recovery, have instead mired that country in its eighth consecutive year of economic contraction, one which is fast approaching free fall. The Greek economy shrank by 23% between 2008 and 2014, and anemic or no economic growth has been projected for 2015. And the country's public workforce has shrunk correspondingly by 30% during that same period.

Unemployment in Greece more than tripled in the subsequent five-year period following the first implementation of austerity measures in 2007-08, rising from 7.7% in 2008 to 24.3% in 2012, and the nation's long-term unemployment reached 14.4%. And in a country where access to medical care is linked directly to one's employment, the austerity regime imposed upon the Greek people by their creditors has left nearly one million of the country's 11.2 million citizens with no access to healthcare whatsoever.

Indeed, the startling collapse of the once-admired Greek public health system, which is entirely due to a lack of requisite funding, has created a devastating domestic health care crisis of rather tragic proportions. Rates for infant mortality, HIV infection and suicide have soared. Even malaria, once all but eradicated in Greece thanks to the public health sector, has since made a startling rebound.

Clearly, there is little if any likelihood that a small nation like Greece will ever be able to repay its enormous $313 billion debt to its foreign creditors. And to a great extent, those creditors themselves are responsible for having encouraged the profligate spending policies which led to Greece's massive indebtedness in the first place. Debt relief has to be a real and substantive part of any economic aid package to that stricken country.

To insist otherwise, and instead demand that the Greeks implement even more draconian austerity measures, as Chancellor Merkel and her allies are doing here, is at once morally reprehensible, fiscally irresponsible and politically reckless. Is she soon going to peddle the same snake oil to the much larger countries of Spain and Italy, whose own economic recoveries have been hampered -- if not hamstrung -- by the fiscal austerity bandwagon that's still all the rage in conservative financial circles?

Because despite what its advocates are claiming, there is very strong evidence that these austerity-based policies have been entirely counterproductive to conservatives' own publicly stated goals of restoring economic vitality in the wake of the 2008-09 economic recession. While financial institutions which precipitated that severe economic downturn with their own reckless and misleading banking practices were bailed out, it's been citizens themselves who've taken it on the chin, having had to absorb the resultant costs of those bailouts.

More importantly, we need to remember that it really wasn't all that long ago when Europe was a seething caldron of conflicting nationalist ambitions, which produced the sort of destructive rivalries that twice plunged the world into catastrophic world wars during the three decades between 1914 and 1945, and which resulted in nearly 80 million people losing their lives.

And in that regard, we should further realize that it was the insanely punitive fiscal policies imposed upon the German Weimar Republic by the Allies in the wake of the First World War, which eventually prompted the political ascendancy of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, who quite simply availed themselves of the political opportunities presented to them by the Great Depression, the effects of which had hit Germany particularly hard.

Politics and economics are not mutually exclusive social disciplines, because working class resentments and nationalist fervor have shown a remarkable tendency throughout history to become intertwined and take firm root during times of economic distress, dislocation and hardship.

NATO and the European Union, borne from the ash heaps of that 30-year disaster, offered Europeans of all nationalities a real opportunity to move beyond the often petty but entirely deadly squabbles that have plagued their history, and into a more enlightened era.

It would be a shame to see that this pan-European and trans-Atlantic alliance collapse, due primarily to the willingness of Germany, far and away the EU's largest and most prosperous member, to once again throw its weight around the continent, much as it has in times past.

All this does is reaffirm for many European skeptics -- whose numbers included more than a few former East Germans -- the very real fears which were first expressed by them 25 years ago, when they publicly doubted the conventional wisdom of allowing for Anschluss, the reunification of the German Democratic Republic (East) and the Federal Republic of Germany (West), in the wake of the Warsaw Pact's collapse.

Even if was real, do they think that is some how going to change the debate.  I have to say it's a great fake in that it is black and white, years ago, and just a tiny section of the flag.

I especially enjoyed "And then Friday night I watch the White House be lit up in the abomination colors"

He is not doing the GOP any favors in regards to our southern border.  His latest:

"This is merely one of thousands of similar incidents throughout the United States," Trump said Monday. "In other words, the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government."

The 2016 Republican presidential candidate said that Mexican drug cartels are using immigrants to smuggle heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs into the United States.

"The Border Patrol knows this. Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border," Trump continued.

The 45-year-old Mexican man, whose background of five deportations and seven felony convictions....

Within legal civil procedure, prejudice is a loss or injury, and refers specifically to a formal determination against a claimed legal right or cause of action.[2] Thus, in a civil case, dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future. The present action is dismissed but the possibility remains open that the plaintiff may file another suit on the same claim. The inverse phrase is dismissal with prejudice, in which the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it; dismissal without prejudice is not.

Res judicata

In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.

• built with solar collectors if conditions of site allow it
  
• all roofing material should be white or light grey
  
• parking lot footage laid in impermeable material should be less than 20% of parking space required by municipal planning laws
  

Looks like it was done by S.C. Rep. Mike Pitts who has introduced between 26 and 28 amendments. No word as to whether anyone else has added to the list.

Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'

They were nihilists and hedonists. They just supported anything that was against the establishment. There was no intellectual foundation.

there's still nihilism & anti-intellectualism galore among the self-styled anarchists (that is, the ones who are actually in Berkeley & not squatting in West Oakland houses taken from foreclosed-on black families)

but forget hedonism anywhere in Berkeley, where a hardy strain of puritanism has only grown more infectious over the years & made the default attitude an anhedonic tight@ss scolding conformity