Sunday, March 05, 2006
Nem se compara | Aqui quem fala sou eu: "isto, 'Sem d�vida, se as verdades acerca do Isl�o forem ensinadas correctamente, a maior parte das pessoas aceitariam o Isl�o' lembrei-me daqueloutro presidente que defende "
Thursday, February 10, 2005
After trying unsuccessfully this process at the Chubloga - found via the blogger help - and this simpler one at mentoliptus - that does not work with Internet Explorer browser - , I took a bit of both and came up with this a smart-ass solution.
First always make a backup of your template... just in case you want to go back.
NOTE: I had to add a space in front of each < , delete these spaces in order to work.
ALSO NOTE: you can edit the bold parts as you please
Add this at the styles:.fullpost {
< MainOrArchivePage>
{display:none;}
< /MainOrArchivePage>
{display:block;}
< /ItemPage>
}
.more {
< MainOrArchivePage> {display:block;font-size:85%;text-indent:0px;padding-top:3px}
< /MainOrArchivePage>
< ItemPage>
{display:none;}
< /ItemPage>
}
Between < $BlogItemBody$> and before the next < /div> add this:< span class="more">< a href="< $BlogItemPermalinkURL$>" target="_blank" title="permanent link">< $BlogItemTitle$>< /a> < /span>
Finally, add this to your Post Template (in Settings -> publishing):< span class="fullpost">< /span>
< span class="more">< strong>Read complete text:< /strong>< /span>
Write the part you do not want to show on the main page between < span class="fullpost"> and < /span>; and the rest either before or after.
Leave an empty line between the text and the the second span that should always be at the end of the message.
If you want to write a normal post just delete it.
The downside of this system is that you will have your post title also at the end of the posts (that's why I made the font a bit smaller than the post itself), but at least the "Read the complete text:" only appears on posts that have more to read. The Blogger solution has "Read more" in every post regardless.
To have a look on how it works visit my Portuguese blog aqui quem fala sou eu
Read complete text:
< MainOrArchivePage>
{display:none;}
< /MainOrArchivePage>
{display:block;}
< /ItemPage>
}
.more {
< MainOrArchivePage> {display:block;font-size:85%;text-indent:0px;padding-top:3px}
< /MainOrArchivePage>
< ItemPage>
{display:none;}
< /ItemPage>
}
< span class="more">< strong>Read complete text:< /strong>< /span>
Sunday, November 07, 2004
As Gore, Kerry lost the election because he could not stand against the Bush profile. Bush (or groups in his name) could stain with lies what would be a critical and contrasting quality favourable to Kerry – their military service.
Besides failing in imposing his military curriculum, Kerry strangely tried to hide, or at least did not brought to the campaign front, his own leadership abilities: MSNBC - Kerry by the Book: "It's one of John Kerry's biggest achievements in the Senate: a groundbreaking investigation into money laundering, drug dealers, terrorists and secret nukes. Yet voters have rarely heard of the senator's dogged inquiries into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Why? Because some of Kerry's leading campaign strategists believed it was too difficult for voters to digest. 'You can't talk about that because people think you're talking about the BBC,' Bob Shrum, Kerry's top adviser, told one senior staffer. 'Why were you investigating British TV?'"
I am not one of those that think that Americans are stupid but apparently Mr. Shrum was not that positive.
Kerry also kept his distance to the human rights abuses of Guantanamo Bay. He did not underline the Bush’s disastrous economical management, the outrageuous tax cuts for the richer or the financial scandals involving personalities active in his administration.
But mainly, Kerry avoided the "moral values" The Washington Monthly – SLOW DOWN THERE: "(Did you hear once during this election season that abortion rates have risen under W. after they fell dramatically during Clinton's eight years in office?)";
giving Bush the advantage of explaining his positions without opposition and defining Kerry’s position by default.
This apathy from Kerry can even have further consequences than his own loss of the presidential election. .MSNBC - Culture Wars: Winning the 'Values' Vote: "In eight states, including Ohio, Michigan and Utah, the measures went even further. They curtailed rights granted under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which could affect unmarried straight couples, too - a position to the right of President Bush and other Republicans. Ohio's Republican governor opposed his state's initiative. It still passed with 62 percent of the vote."
So in one of the key states of this election, a regressive law that could cancel acquired rights for unmarried couples (hetero or homosexuals) was being voted, with the republican governor campaigning against it, and Kerry was unable to use this to his own advantage.
These two articles explain a bit the reasons behind this turn to the right and the way the discussion around the gay marriages mobilised the religious right, inverting the tendency generally accepted that a high turn-out would benefit the left.The Washington Monthly - MOST IMPORTANT EVENT...RECONSIDERED...: "the Massachusett's Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage. The result was nearly a dozen initiatives across the country to ban gay marriage and a perfect wedge issue for Republicans."
The Washington Monthly – SLOW DOWN THERE:
The Washington Monthly – SLOW DOWN THERE:
The role of the moral values on the election is getting a lot of attention.
However, the voters are not referring to values like honesty, goodness, compassion or generosity. These are values are social values shared by religious and non-religious voters.
The truth is that the moral values the voters have in mind are not the real ones. Those "moral values" are just a smoke curtain, behind which the prejudice of religious intolerance is hidden. The intransigence in not accepting that people of the same sex can have a legally recognized relationship or the inflexibility in accepting that under certain conditions a pregnancy can be ended, are not defending moral values. They defend religious values, which shall be imposed to those that do not share that religion.
(The fact that there are catholic homosexuals and evangelists that had an abortion is an internal problem to those religions and should be solved within the cult – I do not discuss that as I wish they would not discuss my own life options.)
The 2000 elections were lost by Gore allegedly by his reluctance in bringing Clinton into the campaign due to hi "immoral" behaviour. Gore thought that the number of votes brought by the ex-president charisma and public office curriculum would be less than those lost by his personal "sins".
In 2004, Bush wins the election because people saw in him a defender of the moral values and capable leader. He achieved this in spite having dragged the U.S. to war under false grounds, and disregarding the moral scandal of Abu Graihb and the continuous moral scandal of Guantanamo bay.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
"Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 283 Bush 246": "But don't count on it. Many of Kerry's leads are razor thin. Counting only the strong weak states, Bush leads 229 to 196, with 113 electoral votes in the tossup category Kerry's leads in the tossup states mean little to nothing. The turnout Tuesday will determine who wins."
more maps with different methodsAveraged Nonpartisan Polls: Kerry 244 Bush 272
Predicted Final Results: Kerry 291 Bush 242
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 247 Bush 285": "What about teaching of creationism in schools, separation of church and state, medical research using stem cells, and so many other issues on which the candidates differ? Ultimately, practically all of them end up in the Supreme Court. Ten years from now the war in Iraq will be over (hopefully), but the justices the next president appoints will still be on the Court making decisions that affect many aspects of life in America. Think carefully about this issue before voting next Tuesday."
Friday, October 22, 2004
"Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 264 Bush 264": "One issue that has been totally absent from the campaign is the Supreme Court. The median age of the justices is 71.[...]It is very likely than multiple vacancies will occur on the Court in the next four years. The court will undoubtedly have to rule on cases involving abortion, the Patriot Act, and other divisive issues. If you are an undecided voter, think carefully about which candidate would make better appointments to the Supreme Court. [...]The next president's appointments could shape the country for decades to come. It is at least worth discussing. If you have a blog, this topic might even be worth blogging about."
Thursday, October 21, 2004
"Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 271 Bush 257": "The office in charge of helping overseas Americans to vote [...] now appears to be doing its best to make sure the 10% of overseas Americans who are in the military (and largely Republican) can vote while ignoring the 90% who are civilians and who hear about America's loss of respect in the world daily and are much more likely to want to replace George Bush."
Monday, July 19, 2004
And nobody resigns?The Observer | Politics | PM admits graves claim 'untrue': "Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered."
Political Animal coments:The Washington Monthly: "There was no WMD, no collaboration with al-Qaeda, no 45-minute missiles, no mobile bioweapons labs, no regional military threat, and now it turns out that even the humanitarian case wasn't as clear cut as they suggested."
PoisI'm doing the talking here: Anniversary: "The concepts of Pre-emptive War, War on Terror and Humanitarian War have already a doubtful sound to them. But not even with these concepts this action in Iraq is justifiable."
