Archive for 25 settembre 2019

UN Climate Action Summit missed a key ingredient: climate action

settembre 25, 2019

25.09.2019 – Pressenza London

UN Climate Action Summit missed a key ingredient: climate action
Solar Towers of the PS10 and PS20 solar thermal plants in Spain (Image by Koza1983 • CC BY 3.0, Wikipedia)

Nicholas BeuretUniversity of Essex for The Conversation

A summer of civil unrest. A global climate strike bringing millions of people to the streets. A stark warning from scientists that climate breakdown is accelerating, and that we must triple our climate ambition at the very least. All of the conditions were there for this year’s UN Climate Action Summit to be a turning point in the climate crisis.

But after 24 years of inaction by governments on climate breakdown, it’s hard to feel surprised that the moment never arrived. In fact, the summit was an abject failure.


Read more:
Don’t bet on the UN to fix climate change – it’s failed for 30 years


Almost 80 countries pledged to reach “net zero” – that is, to balance carbon emissions with carbon removal – by 2050. But not only is this number far too little too late given the state of the science, none of the major carbon polluters made any significantly improved commitments.

US President Donald Trump – who previously pulled the country out of the Paris Agreement – briefly dropped by before moving on to the religious freedom, anti-abortion summit he had pledged to attend. His main contribution was to mock Greta Thunberg’s impassioned speech to world leaders at the start of the summit.

You’d have thought that the EU would seize the opportunity to finally announce a unified commitment to net zero by 2050. But it had little more to offer than highlighting that most of its members supported the goal, and offering vague suggestions that it would at some point improve its current commitment of a 40% cut in emissions by 2030. Even this goal is unlikely to get past the veto power of Poland, a significant coal producer determined to defend what it sees as its economic interests.

China, as the world’s biggest polluter, made no significant pledges nor commitments at the summit. The country did suggest that it would demonstrate “the highest possible ambition” when reviewing its climate commitments next year. But it argued that the US and the EU needed to lead on making significant reductions because of their historical responsibility for emissions. China also suggested it would use its massive Belt and Road initiative – aimed at building infrastructure networks across the globe – to tackle climate change, despite the project being linked to a massive expansion in carbon emissions.

This lack of concrete action by those most responsible for our planetary predicament was starkly contrasted by commitments from countries at the other end of the spectrum. The world’s “least developed countries” (LDCs) said that all 47 of its members would commit to net zero emissions by 2050, despite being least responsible for carbon emissions, and often still suffering the legacies of colonialism, slavery, and structural adjustment programmes – that is, enforced privatisation of major industries and programmes of austerity – inflicted by the world’s wealthiest nations.


Read more:
Not convinced on the need for urgent climate action? Here’s what happens to our planet between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming


But despite unprecedented strikes, protests and scientific warnings, most countries, cities and companies did not unite behind UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ call for a collective commitment to net zero by 2050.

Worse still, there was a near complete absence of commitment to immediate action. To have a reasonable chance of limit global heating to 1.5℃ – a level above which the effects of climate breakdown become dramatically more severe – we need to cut emissions by between 10 and 20% per year at the very least, starting in a couple of years at the latest. Were those wealthy countries most responsible for climate change to take on a fair, increased share of reductions, they would need to cut their carbon footprint by 24% a year. This amounts to a 75% cut in the next five years for countries such as the UK.

To kickstart this process, Guterres wanted world leaders to tackle subsidies for fossil fuels, implement taxes on carbon, and end new coal power beyond 2020. This did not happen. India, China and Turkey are all still planning to expand coal power well beyond 2020. Fossil fuel subsidies are still growing – and so is production. New carbon taxes are nowhere to be seen.


Read more:
2050 is too late – we must drastically cut emissions much sooner


Even countries with net-zero pledges in line with the UN’s 2050 call are nowhere near on track to realise them. The UK, for example, is forging ahead with plans for a third runway at Heathrow, supporting fracking and opening coal mines.

As it stands, we’re still on track for a catastrophic 3℃ to 4℃ of global heating by 2100. And after 24 years of abject failure, it’s clear that if there is any chance of halting global heating, it won’t be enough to just take to the streets. People will have to take matters into their own hands, and find new ways to bring about a just transition to a zero-carbon future – despite the efforts of their governments.The Conversation

Nicholas Beuret, Lecturer in Management and Marketing, University of Essex

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Protesta contro le basi dei contadini

settembre 25, 2019

Un gruppo quacchero cristiano in cosa consiste nella pratica?

Durante il regime nazista le famiglie quacchere inglesi ospitarono nelle loro case “sicure” i  figli minori della Germania nazista, per risparmaiarli dalle bombe alleate sulla Germania di Hitler. Era troppo pericoloso ospitare in casa tedeschi adulti, per paura di ritorsioni cd patriottiche inglesi… L’avrebbero fatto  pur essendo estimatori di Dietrich Bonhoeffer, come noi. Non dimentichiamoci che tutti i quaccheri – liberal e cristiani – si sono dichiarati sempre obiettori di coscienza in tutte le guerre e non hanno imbracciato mai nessun fucile. Il quacchero italiano Penna ha girovagato per il mondo nel dopoguerra per sfuggire all’arresto per rifiuto dell’obbligo militare e gli arresti per violazione della Legge allora vigente. I quaccheri americani portarono soccorso alle famiglie tedesche e italiane (Abruzzo e Molise in particolare, dove dei Comuni ci dedicano tut’ora targhe di ringraziamento) per la maggior parte ovviamente ex naziste ed ex fasciste. Non c’è solo le cattedre dell’Unesco o della Facoltà di Storia Bolognese che ci hanno contraddistinto con Bori.

Personalmente ho rinunciato ad iscrivermi ad un partito, non perchè non abbia idee politiche (ho dedicato una sezione del sito ai socialisti religiosi, anche quaccheri, unico direi,  oltre agli Hutteriti) ma l’avversario politico (il nemico) deve essere amato anche a costo di risultare “antinazionale” e siamo Premi Nobel per la Pace 1947, per questa peculiarità antimilitarista di soccorso del  nemico. Non possiamo dimenticarlo.

Non ci interessa l’opera falso spirituale del cappellano cattolico o protestante, di turno. Ad Olgiate Olona o altrove. Ben venga la disdetta alla newsletter! Lo facciamo con immenso piacere.

Pur essendo favorevoli allo staniero, non è mai capitato di leggere in questi mesi alcuna demonizzazione di Salvini ed estrema destra vicina, ma siamo felici quando leggiamo notizie di rivolta contro le armi come quella che segue… Non abbiamo nemmeno la visibilità sui corridori umanitari, pagati solo con soldi pubblici del 8 per mille. Non accettiamo sovvenzioni dello Stato. Nessun 8 o 5 per mille. Si chiude se non si riesce ad andare avanti. Sarà volontà di Dio. Oggi siamo aperti per il Reddito di cittadinanza se non lo depreda il PD.

Buona lettura dell’articolo.

La battaglia del grana: contro i dazi di Trump protesta davanti alle basi americane

Il consorzio del grana padano chiamerà allevatori e produttori davanti ai cancelli delle basi Usa nel nord Italia

di LUCA PAGNI

25 Settembre 2019

La battaglia del grana: contro i dazi di Trump protesta davanti alle basi americane”

MILANO – Pronti alla battaglia del grana, con una protesta senza precedenti: una manifestazione davanti alla basi militari americani nel nord Italia. Produttori di latte e di formaggi minacciano di scendere in strada, inscenando una protesta sul modello dei movimenti pacifisti contro la presenza dell’esercito e dell’aeronautica degli Stati Uniti. Lo annuncia il Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padana, per protestare contro la decisione del Wto, l’organizzazione del commercio internazionale, che ha autorizzato l’amministrazione guidata da Donald Trump ha imporre una serie di dazi commerciali ai prodotti europei, tra cui il parmigiano.

Una decisione che assume i contorni del danno e anche della beffa. Il danno è economico, innanzitutto: si rischia “l’azzeramento o quasi del nostro export negli Stati Uniti che oggi sfiora le 400 mila forme all’anno”, ha spiegato in una nota il direttore del Consorzio, Stefano Berni. Le forme invendute si riverserebbero così sugli altri mercati, creando un crollo dei prezzi e spingendo molto operatori versi la crisi. Il danno potrebbe corrispondere a quello provocato cinque anni fa dall’embargo russo moltiplicato per 10. Conseguenze gravi per il sistema lattiero caseario della Ue, che esporta complessivamente negli Usa 120 tonnellate di formaggi, 40mila delle quali italiane.

Poi, c’è la beffa: “Tutto ciò si tradurrebbe in un grandissimo regalo” ai produttori americani del falso grana. Dice ancora Berni: “Verrebbe usato lo strumento dei dazi, autorizzato dal Wto, per un generoso regalo ai copioni americani delle nostre pregiate Dop casearie”. In altre parole, i dazi si trasformerebbero in un indiretto vantaggio per i produttori americani, compresi quelli che sfruttano il marchio “grana” senza averne le caratteristiche, così come avviene per tutte le merci contraffatte. Per di più, il grana è finito nella lista di prodotti ai quali vengono imposti dazi per tutt’altre vicende: gli Usa, infatti, hanno contestato i finanziamenti dell’Unione europea al consorzio Airbus, principale concorrente di Boeing.

Ma che tipo di protesta hanno in mente al Consorzio? “Se avverrà quanto minacciato – – spiega ancora Berni – chiameremo tutti i produttori di latte e formaggi italiani a manifestare davanti ai numerosi insediamenti militari statunitensi in Italia, che ospitiamo con grande piacere, a Montichiari, Ghedi, Longare e Vicenza, realtà che sono proprio nel cuore pulsante di casa nostra, la casa Grana Padano, perché se si è amici ci si comporta da amici e non si usa una vicenda aereonautica avulsa dall’Italia per danneggiare il Made in Italy di qualità e favorire le fake statunitensi”

Meeting Minutes

settembre 25, 2019

Meeting Minutes del 25 sett 2019

“Fatti venire gli anziani, i sacerdoti e i leviti, Pilato disse loro in privato : “non agitate così! Voi lo accusate, ma io non l’ho trovato meritevole di morte, nè per il fatto che guarisce nè per la profanazione del sabato”. I sacerdoti , i leviti e gli anziani gli rispondono. “Dicci allora: se uno bestemmia Cesare, è reo di morte o no?” Risponde Pilato: “E’ reo di morte”. E per tutta risposta gli Ebrei: “Tanto più è reo di morte costui, che ha bestemmiato Dio”

Dal Vangelo Pilato e Giuseppe d ‘Arimatea

“La rassegnazione è un suicidio quotidiano”

Honorè de Balzac

*1971 Prima azione di Greenpeace (nata da quaccheri) contro gli esperimenti nucleari sottomarini degli USA in Alaska

Si è insediato da pochi giorni un novello prete, Don Giovanni Calastri, appena ordinato nel mio paese e il primo gesto pubblico è stato quello di benedire gli Alpini e festeggiare l’esercito italiano da cappellano.

Possibile che Capitini, Don Milani…. non siano studiati con serietà al Seminario di Venegono in provincia di Varese (1 diocesi in Italia)? Cosa gli passa nella testa su un Gesù violento e armato, rimane un mistero per me. Non è il mio Dio. Non è lo stesso mio Gesù.

Preghiamo sempre per il ravvedimento del nostro nemico che si autodefinisce “cristiano” ma di dialogo nemmeno a parlarne.

Tutta la stampa locale e l’amministrazione comunale ad esaltare il gesto patriottico compiuto: marchio di infedeltà verso colui che disse ai suoi discepoli di riporre le spade nei foderi al memento del suo arresto di condanna a morte.

” L’autoriconoscimento è lo sforzo dell’uomo, mai totalmente compiuto, di superare teoricamente la dicotomia con se stesso, di distinguersi da sé tramite il suo Io inesauribile, e di giungere all’unità con se stesso.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Anna Fasano: il cambiamento climatico dipende dagli investimenti delle grandi banche

settembre 25, 2019

24.09.2019 – Olivier Turquet

Anna Fasano: il cambiamento climatico dipende dagli investimenti delle grandi banche
(Foto di Banca Etica)

Banca Etica aderisce alla mobilitazione mondiale per il clima. Il giorno 27 Settembre fino alle ore 13.30 gli uffici e le filiali di Banca Etica rimarranno chiuse. Ne abbiamo parlato con Anna Fasano, Presidente.

Qual è il senso dell’adesione di Banca Etica allo sciopero globale di FFF?

Siamo molto colpiti dalla determinazione e dall’energia del movimento Fridays For Future che in pochi mesi ha ottenuto di mettere la questione climatica e ambientale in cima alle agende di governi, istituzioni sovranazionali e opinione pubblica.

Quando il comitato soci-lavoratori di Banca Etica ha proposto al cdA e alla direzione di aderire alle manifestazioni del 27 settembre, abbiamo pensato che meritassero tutto il nostro supporto.

Le collaboratrici e i collaboratori del Gruppo Banca Etica saranno nelle piazze insieme ai componenti del CdA e ai soci e alle socie che da oltre 20 anni credono che un modo diverso si costruisce anche cambiando la finanza e per questo hanno fatto nascere e stanno facendo crescere la nostra banca.

Direi che non potevamo mancare!

Le banche hanno una responsabilità  importante nel riscaldamento globale, vorresti approfondire questo aspetto?

Il movimento dei Fridays For Future ha l’incredibile merito di avere da subito messo la finanza globale al centro delle loro attività di sensibilizzazione. Se il cambiamento climatico è diventato un’emergenza dipende dalla politica, dagli stili di vita individuali, ma anche – moltissimo – dalle grandi banche globali continuano a fare profitti finanziando le imprese responsabili della gran parte delle emissioni.

Secondo un’analisi della rete internazionale Banktrack [https://www.banktrack.org/download/civil_society_statement_on_the_new_principles_for_responsible_banking/joint_statement_prb.pdf], nei tre anni trascorsi dall’adozione degli Accordi di Parigi per il clima (2016-2018) 33 tra i maggiori gruppi bancari mondiali hanno fornito fin qui 1.900 miliardi di dollari di prestiti al settore dei fossili: una cifra che continua a crescere ogni anno. Ben 600 miliardi sono andati alle 100 imprese che in modo più aggressivo stanno ampliando le attività legate ai combustibili fossili. Di questi 33 gruppi bancari la metà, ovvero 16, sono tra i firmatari dei “Principles for Responsible Banking” recentemente proposti dall’ONU.

Ecco… secondo noi non c’è più tempo per il greenwashing, occorrono scelte radicali.

 

Banca Etica propone da anni un nuovo modello di banca e di credito legato al mondo della solidarietà, delle imprese etiche,della finanza consapevole: come questo modello si inserisce nella necessità di un nuovo modello di società chiesto dai FFF?

La crisi climatica è un’emergenza, ma c’è molto che possiamo fare: lo sanno bene le persone sempre più numerose che scelgono la finanza etica perché rifiutano di affidare i propri risparmi e investimenti a chi li utilizza per finanziare imprese che stanno distruggendo il pianeta.  Banca Etica ed Etica Sgr da due decenni escludono dai propri finanziamenti settori rischiosi per il clima (come il carbone e il petrolio) e per l’ambiente in generale (come il nucleare) o per la collettività (gli armamenti e il gioco d’azzardo). Investiamo invece in tante aziende, grandi e piccole, che guardano al futuro e sviluppano attività innovative nel campo delle energie da fonti rinnovabili, della riduzione della CO2, dei materiali alternativi alle plastiche, della bioedilizia e che costruiscono strumenti che ci permettono di cambiare i nostri stili di vita. Quando abbiamo iniziato eravamo in pochi. Oggi questa sensibilità e consapevolezza è finalmente diffusa e se questo è successo molto lo dobbiamo al movimento di giovani e giovanissimi che ha imposto l’urgenza di una svolta radicale nelle agende delle istituzioni e nell’attenzione dell’opinione pubblica.

NYC: Income Savings Plan Program (ISP)

settembre 25, 2019

25.09.2019 – New York City – Pressenza New York

NYC: Income Savings Plan Program (ISP)
(Image by Ed Yourdon/wikimedia)

On the Department of Homeless Services proposal to amend the Rules of the City of New York to establish an income savings program for shelter residents with earned income, to be known as “ISP” or “Income Savings Plan Program”

By Diane R. Pagen

The Department of Homeless Services Income Savings Plan program (ISP) proposal to amend Title 31 of the Rules of the City could only have been cooked up by people who are not poor and not homeless. It is a bad idea. It is not innovative. It is not evidence-based. It is discriminatory. I explain why here in this document.

The ISP will create new bureaucracy. Homeless New Yorkers do not need new bureaucracy. They need new housing, and more income support to pay for housing. Their current incomes are precarious and below the amount we know people need to remain alive—being forced to save part of an already insufficient income will only increase the precarity and anxiety they already have daily. Making New Yorkers in poverty save 30% of an already insufficient income is the same as taking food out of their mouths, warm clothing out of their closets, and opportunities out of their lives. The ISP will create a new mechanism that shelter operators will use to justify kicking single adults out of shelter. The result will be more DHS spending on enforcement bureaucracy and staff, greater financial hardship every month for New Yorkers in shelter, worse health and nutrition, and more single adults leaving shelters, not for real homes, but to sleep on the streets.

Important Points:

  • The ISP proposal does not tell us the cost of implementing and running the program. We need to know the dollar cost of the administration, new staff, and the compliance bureaucracy. We need to know what DHS is intending to spend to run this program so we can ask if this program is the best use of these public funds.
  • The ISP as planned discriminates against people of color. We know that the median income of black New Yorkers ($57K) and Latino New Yorkers ($48K) is less than half of white New Yorkers ($124K). We can logically conclude that to apply a savings requirement that is the same for all when we know there is a racial disparity in their incomes makes the savings requirement discriminatory. It is likely that the black and Latino single adults will have a harder time saving and will end up on the street in disproportionate numbers. 
  • The ISP proposal does not cite data that show the model has been successful in another large, high cost city. This is problematic for reasons too obvious to list.
  • The ISP proposal forces New Yorkers living on poverty incomes to get by on less of their income putting their health and lives at risk. People who are earning between $10 to 15 per hour, and even less than that, cannot afford sufficient food, toiletries, and clothing even when spending their full income. Single adults in shelter often have to spend more for food because they do not have kitchens to prepare meals—this means they need more money for food, not less.
  • The ISP does not increase the incomes of homeless adults. The fundamental cause of homelessness is the widening affordability gap. ISP does not address this cause. The incomes of adults in shelter are insufficient for them to afford a rent. Even if an adult is able to comply with the requirement that he deposit 30% of his wages into the ISP program, he still has the same insufficient income to work with to get out of shelter. The ISP does not raise the incomes of single adults in shelter, therefore, it is not resolving the primary problem that drives poverty—inadequate incomes.A single adult in shelter is in shelter because that person is unable to afford to pay a New York City rent despite having a paid job. Let’s consider a person who earns $12 an hour and works 40 hours a week. That is $1920 a month gross income, of which the ISP program expects them to save $600 per month, leaving them with about $1000 cash after taxes for all their needs for the whole month. Even if they managed to go without basics to make the savings deposits during 6 months in shelter, they would only have saved $3600 at the end of 6 months. Within a month or two of moving out of shelter and paying rent, they will be back where they started, with inadequate income and in danger of losing their new home.
  • The ISP is not equitable nor realistic. It requires single adults in paid employment to set aside 30 percent of their gross income each month, a behavior that is not required of the general population. According to data, the average American does not have $500 in cash to use for an emergency, and the average American is not as poor as a single adult in shelter. If the average American does not earn enough to save money, why would we make saving a condition of staying in shelter and becoming eligible for housing?If saving money is such a positive and do-able practice for people who are earning at the poverty line or near it, then surely the population earning far more than homeless adults in shelter should have to set aside savings, too. The “normal” American does not have $500 in cash in an emergency, and the normal American earns far more than a person in shelter. If we do not expect the average American to save and understand why he can’t, why expect it of homeless adults? 
  • The ISP program holds on to the participants’ savings for too long. The standard time lag to give participants their savings once out of shelter is 30 to 45 days. The participants are New Yorkers with low incomes who need their funds upon moving out to meet their basic needs and pay their new rent. There is no sensible reason to make New Yorkers already living on low incomes and in precarity to wait a month to get the money they saved. Participants who want to and can save should be permitted to save in an ordinary bank where they can get their money immediately, like the rest of us. The proposal also does not tell us whether the participants earn interest on the savings. We need to know.
  • The ISP program embraces negative myths about poor people. The median rent In NYC is $2980 a month for a one bedroom apartment. This is unaffordable to median income earners, much less to single employed adults earning poverty line incomes, yet the ISP pretends that it can help “such employed individuals get back on their feet and exit shelter by budgeting for and developing savings…” Creating a compulsory savings requirement to remain in shelter embraces the myth that people are poor because they have money but mismanage it. Our principle homeless services agency should not be embracing that colonial era myth. It also legislates continued infantilizing of poor people—why should they have to explain why they chose to buy food, or a bicycle, or a present for their niece, instead of making the ISP deposit? It’s insulting to the intelligence of poor people.
  • The ISP will increase the number of single adults put out of shelter and onto the streets. When they cannot comply with the savings requirement because they choose to eat and pay their bills instead of saving, the “non-compliance” allows DHS workers to kick them out of shelter. They also lose their eligibility for whatever housing they were in line for. This practice will be a gross violation of the NYS right to shelter.
  • The ISP excludes more innovative, evidence-based approaches to reducing homelessness, like implementing a local Universal Basic Income. A Universal Basic Income is an agreed upon amount of income, paid to all in a community at regular intervals, regardless of their other income and whether or not they have a paid job. The World Health Organization has recommended a UBI as an effective way to reduce homelessness (see WHO, Universal Basic Income Policies and Their Potential for Reducing Health Inequities). There are UBI pilots in various stages of launch in Mississippi, in California, in Newark, and in Kenya (and one in Ontario that was improving lives, cancelled by their new government) yielding good results for these communities; so why is NYC, a mecca and leader in so many areas unwilling to join these innovators? Instead, DHS is proposing a costly, means tested, discriminatory and compulsory savings program rather than propose a UBI trial for New York City. This does not make sense to any rational person looking at the facts.Universal Basic Income goes to everyone in a community, so it would not discriminate; studies show cash is the least costly way to address homelessness and poverty; and Universal Basic Income would not require the outdated means tests that oppress poor New Yorkers and subject them to the mistreatment that they suffer in DHS and HRA facilities such as was exposed this year in the press. A Universal Basic Income for NYC would reduce homelessness for all single adults and it would provide adults already living on the streets to use their UBI to immediately get off the streets. There is abundant data that show that UBI works; there is no data to show forcing poor people to exist on a smaller portion of their income works.
  • ISP data will mislead the public. As participants fail to comply because they don’t have enough money to save 30% of their gross income, they will forced to leave the shelter. Data will show reductions in the numbers of single adults in shelter, which may lead the public to believe these people are no longer homeless, and that ISP is helping people. Moving people from shelter to the streets is not helping them. In the bigger picture, it harms not just those put into the streets, but also will harm those who somehow manage to go without basics to comply.

Final Comments:

Making this program compulsory perpetuates one of the core flaws of the shelter system, which is that rather than being focused on helping homeless people find and pay for permanent homes, it focuses on putting financial resources toward behavior modification of poor people. DHS already makes poor single adults participate in mental health services, job training, and adhering to purposeless curfews that impede their freedom to find new opportunities, network, spend time with family and friends. The premise of these costly services is to enhance their lives, but in reality all the behavior modification is isolating, time consuming, expensive for NYC and frustrating for homeless New Yorkers who entered shelter with one purpose: to find an apartment. There is no evidence that compulsory savings for people with low incomes reduces homelessness. It can’t because it is not raising their incomes. These DHS non-housing related services cost millions of dollars and have absolutely nothing to do with the construction of permanent housing nor with moving homeless adults into apartments. The Department of Homeless Services should be devoted to building housing, collaborating with other agencies to create income supplements, and moving homeless New Yorkers into that housing.

One additional final comment: this year, galvanized by the assault of a New Yorker seeking public assistance, as well as the release of a report on the mistreatment of low income New Yorkers in welfare offices, the City Council agreed to place a licensed social worker in every welfare center to assure decent treatment. I would like to review here a few of the elements of the social work code of ethics, which says that public policies need to be 1) socially just 2) provide dignity to the person aided 3) and operate with integrity. The ISP program does none of these things. It is unjust, because it blames the homeless person for his homelessness when we know it is not his fault; it is undignified because it doesn’t respect his decisions; and it does not operate with integrity because it promises to help homeless people when the designers know it won’t. 


Prepared by Diane R. Pagen, Social Worker, Resident of the City of New York

Co-Founder, Basic Income March


Yolanda - "Det här är mitt privata krig"

Kreativ text, annorlundaskap, dikter, bipolaritet, Aspergers syndrom, samhällsdebatt

Pioniroj de Esperanto

esplori la pasinton por antaŭenrigardi = esplorare il passato per guardare avanti

Haoyan Do

stories about English language and people in Asian communities in America and in Asia.

Il Blog di Roberto Iovacchini

Prima leggo, poi scrivo.

Luciana Amato

Parole e disincanto

friulimosaicodilingue

*più lingue conosci più vali*

Acquistaditutto.com

acquistionline,venditeonline,sport,casa,smartwatch,smartphone,iPhone,integratori,cucina,motori,pizza,pasta,

Giornalista Indipendente

Riproduzione Riservata - Testata Giornalistica n.168 del 20.10.2017

Nonapritequelforno

Se hai un problema, aggiungi cioccolato.

among Friends

the blog of four Quakers

Medicina, Cultura, e Legge

Articoli su Medicina, Legge e Diritto, ma anche Aforismi, Riflessioni, e Poesie. Autore: Stefano Ligorio

Quaker Scot

Occasional thoughts from Troon and beyond

Gioia per i libri

Recensioni - Poesie - Aforismi

Manuel Chiacchiararelli

Scrittore, Fotografo, Guida Naturalistica, Girovago / Writer, Photographer, Naturalist Guide, Wanderer

Pensieri spelacchiati

Un piccolo giro nel mio mondo spelacchiato.