This brief document is a summary of the United States bishops’ reflection Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.  It complements the teaching of bishops in dioceses and states...

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.  A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.  Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

(http://smmp.com/info/bulletins/2010-10-17.pdf)

Two years ago I stopped supporting my church because they preached support for Obama.   It had nothing to do with the concept of separation of church and state; it had nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement with the competency, ethics, morals, or principals of Obama; it had everything to do with the hypocrisy of the American Catholic Church and how its principals deviate from my own and those dictated by the Vatican.

In reality it is only a single word that I disagree with:  "may".  Although via strict interpretation of the Pope's writings the word "may" can conceivable be used in good conscience.  I think it could possible mean what the Pope wrote about.  That it was ok to vote for a pro-abortion candidate only when all possible candidates were pro-abortion and the one you are voting for is by comparison the most pro-life otherwise.

Or, since that is not stated in any way whatsoever in the bulletin or from the pulpit for the last two years, "may" seems to imply that abortion is just another issue that must be weighed against all other issues.  Thus relieving the parishioners of their obligation and to allow them to vote for whomever they wanted based on whatever they wanted.

My proof is in the last election.  52% of Catholic voters voted for Obama: the absolutely, undeniably, self-professed, most pro-abortion candidate ever to exist.

I feel a strong need to bring to your attention the scam that banks are perpetrating on small business and ultimately the public in general.  It is the "interchange" fees that they apply as a percentage of every sale.  This percentage can range from 1 to 3 or more percent depending on the credit card the purchaser uses.  Most other developed countries in the world have capped this fee to be something like 0.3%; I think that is wrong-headed, overreaching, and anti-free market.  However, the bill "H. R. 5546" is also ridiculous;  A bill written by overbearing members that don't want to solve a problem as much as they want it to sound like they are solving problems.

There is one thing that a vendor must be allowed to do that I think would fix the problem as the free-market should: print the credit card interchange fee on the receipt.  A receipt would then show the price of the product, the appropriate sales taxes, and also the credit card interchange fee.  And the credit card application should disclose this as a percentage as well.

The intended result of this is to inform the consumer.  That is all.

The ripple effect might be that stores will be able to lower their prices.  And then add on the interchange fee to get back to the real cost.  The consumer would be able to choose a credit card that had the lowest interchange fee.  And the bank would be induced to remove the fee all-together and instead charge the appropriate annual fees on the card for the specialized services they attach to the card.  It has also been noticed that when the banks can no longer fund airline-miles, and cash rebates, ... with the proceeds from interchange fees, that they will compete by reducing the APR.

Without this change consumers will continue to be charged higher prices at the counter in order to create higher, unfair, anti-trade profits for banks to the tune of about $50,000,000,000 / year.

In Smalltalk it was called TrailBlazer.  I loved it.  But I didn't think it really caught on at the time.  It took a while to get used to and that was more than the average developer was willing to put in to it.  But they didn't realize the long term benefit.

Now we have nWire.  woohoo!

Most developers around here have two monitors for their development.  I have one and use VirtuaWin instead to get multiple desktops.  And I have Eclipse maximized in one of the virtual desktops.

Here is how I use nWire.

I have an Eclipse perspective with an editor on the top half of the window, full width.  And on the bottom half I have a tabbed window  (full width) with nWire as the leftmost tab.  I have various other tabs in the notebook but don't really use them since nWire does just about everything I need.  On the editor I have "breadcrumbs" enabled.   This takes the place of the package explorer and the outline view.   That's it!  I develop all day long without deviating much from this basic set up.

I also configure a few things to make it flow naturally, at least naturally for me.

Set the nWire filter to "ALL".

Link the editor to the nWire Navigator.  That is the icon with the down arrow.

Unlink the nWire Navigator to the editor.  That is the icon with the up arrow.

Toggle on the Smart Focus Mode.

With this configuration the nWire Navigator stays in-synch with your cursor in the editor.  And if you want to navigate around in nWire you just have to double click on an entry and it loads the editor for that item.  Easy, natural.

Btw:  you load the breadcrumbs feature by adding the currently open file to the breadcrumb with alt-shift-B.

I use MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench Version: 8.5.

Our company has implemented Dress Up Your Wedding and FireMail using this set up. Only lately have I started using nWire. I wish I knew about it sooner.