Soooo, my new favorite bitch is (drum-roll please)………………..The Harajuku Barbie, Nicki Minaj!!!! She is signed to Lil’ Wayne’s label, Young Money, but by no means from the N.O. She is from Queens, NY, and bringing some much needed femininity to the game. I had been hearing a little buzz around her name, and she really got my attention on the “5 Star Chick” remix with Yo Gotti, Trina, and Gucci Mane, while her rhymes on this track are sub-par compared to her others, but she definetly has theeeeee hottest chain in the game right now which is what reeeeeaaaaaalllllly got my attention, seeing as how my alter ego is also BARBIE!!!! So I “bought” a few of her mixtapes, and FELL IN LOVE with her flow, her swag, and (some of) her style. Sometimes her diction sounds a little bit like Lil’ Kim, and she covered a few Biggie hits that Kim also did covers of, and Kim first called herself the “Black Barbie dressed in Bvlgari” and posed as a Barbie doll in her “How Many Licks Does it Take” video circa 2000, when Nicki, ( who is now aged 24 about to turn 25 in about two weeks) was surely alive and listening, but I can’t really knock her for trying cuz all things old are new again, and she has taken the Barbie alias to different heights. She calls herself the Harajuku Barbie because she appreciates and her style semi-mimicks the Harajuku culture of Japan, and there are constant references in her raps to Asian culture “faster than a sprinter, pass me my chopsticks, I eat this rap bitches for dinner”, her other aliases include Nicki Lewinsky (cuz she only fucks with Presidents), Nicki the Ninja, and of course Minaj is not her real name, she changed it from Maraj because Minaj was a play on her bisexuality, the fact that she has a nasty flow, and she eats the other rap bitches with her flow!!! IDK how I feel about her style, it needs a little work, I love and appreciate the pink girly glitzy glam look, but she needs to step her cookies up in the fashion department, it looks a little “Wet Seal” or “Forever 21”….I am NOT HATING at all, I love dat Bitch, but she should perhaps marry the style of Kim Kardashian, Beyonce, Lil Kim, Hayden Pannatiere, Barbie, and the Harajuku Girls to create some sort of Haute Couture style that is unique to her. I love the chain, love the hair (with the lil pink at the bottom) love the Barbie pink nail polish, buuuuut we gon need you to cut the stripper nails a little; short nails are def the trend, and have been for the past like 3 years, that long shit is played. But on an interview at Honeymag.com, she did say that her style was evolving, and that she was going to step outside of the rap fashion box, so I would love to see her in some sexy Barbie Pink mini dresses, maybe even a gown on the red carpet, I do adore the tutu’s and happen to be the proud owner of a Haute Couture tutu (I’ll have to find you guys the website), But I would really like to see Minaj step out as a true fashion icon, and not just a caricature like Lil’ Kim. Her lyrics and metaphors are crazy, she raps over the hardest and most popular beats as if they are her own, and we cannot wait for her album, which is stated to be released in the second quarter of 2010. But in the meantime, we can get our Nicki fix with the latest compilation cd of Young Money artists, the first single is called Bed Rock featuring Nicki, Lloyd, Drake, and Gudda Gudda, and a video soon coming. Also, she is featured on the newest Robin Thicke single “Shakin it for Daddy”, and Jay-Z personally suggested to Thicke that Minaj be featured on the track!!!! In the meantime…..IT’s BARBIE BITCH!!!!

A very interesting and incisive take on what has transpired in our modern-day history. You will not see or hear this in the news……………

In order  to understand  what is happening today  you need to know your history.

Andrea

J. D. Pendry, Retired Sergeant Major, USMC: On Your Hands

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more
fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You’re a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq , like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You’re not a Marine, sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s ass. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated, drunken, useless old fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your fat, gin-soaked ass in Washington

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer..

You are America ’s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS.’ Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

Semper Fi,
J. D. Pendry – Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired

Lo de encontrar pareja es como buscar trabajo… Cuando estás en horas bajas empiezas a preguntarte si serás tu, si que es que no vales para eso, o si habrá sido por los combos de palomitas que se acumulan en tus cartucheras. Si, si..siiiiii…. y una montaña se deseperados condicionales que se acompañan con toneladas de chocolate y comedias románticas de Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, Katherine Heigl y Meg Ryan.  Buagggg!!! Aburiiiiido!!!

¿Cuándo nos daremos cuenta que lo únicon que pasa (en ambos casos) es que el mercado está muy malo?

Puedes tener sexo. Ahora mismo, si lo deseas. Sólo tienes que ensayar una cara de furcia a lo Paris Hilton y plantarte un escote por el que prácticamente asomen tus pezones. Es… La cruda realidad (cómo la peli). Pero si eres lista, puedes sacarle partido, baby. Esa actitud puede llevarte a ser la próxima Lewinsky, que no tenía ni el cuerpo, ni la cara, ni siquiera la actitud y puso en jaque mate al presidente de los Estados Unidos. En esto, he de darle la razón a los tios de que hay tantas zorritas sueltas como hijos de “piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii”.

Este blog no es para las descritas en el último parrafo. Y las aprendices de MadreTeresa, quiero pensar que ya han salido espantadas. El resto, podeís quedaros conmigo. Os prometo que este será el comienzo de una gran amistad, porque… ¿quién no tiene un puñado de secretos debajo del colchón?

We’ve seen Dunn, Axelrod, and Rahm-bo Emanuel attacking Fox News this week. They’ve singled out Fox as their main obstacle to total media domination. It’s the “Isolate and Destroy” Lewinsky tactic in action.

Here’s a new video of Anita Dunn explaining how Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled”.   http://bit.ly/4k517v

The National Organization of Women (NOW) just did a 180 and blasted David Letterman over the affairs he had with subordinates over the last few decades.

From CNN:

“The latest Letterman controversy sheds new light on the widespread objectification of women in the workplace,” NOW said in a statement Tuesday. “Most women can attest to the fact that many workplaces are plagued with inappropriate behavior by men in power.”

NOW said Letterman’s behavior was inappropriate in the workplace, saying all employees should be respected for their talent and skills.

“Recent developments in the David Letterman extortion controversy have raised serious issues about the abuse of power leading to an inappropriate, if not hostile, workplace environment for women and employees,” NOW said in Tuesday’s statement.

Men such as Letterman make decisions on hiring and firing, who gets raises, who advances and who does entry-level tasks, NOW said.

“As ‘the boss,’ he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace — and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees — including employees who happen to be women — in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation,” the group said.

“The National Organization for Women calls on CBS to recognize that Letterman’s behavior creates a toxic environment and to take action immediately to rectify this situation. With just two women on CBS’ board of directors, we’re not holding our breath.”

Welcome to the party, ladies.  In 1998, the leadership of NOW sent out a press release condemning the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton (Democrat) over his affair with subordinate (Monica Lewinsky) and the associated cover up and possible witness tampering in the investigation.

Back then, the “bigger picture” was the issue over the rights of trampled subordinates.  Remember, though Lewinsky was supposedly a willing participant, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones were not.  They all charged rape and or sexual harassment against the former President.  Where did NOW stand on their rights as women, subordinates and American citizens?

From September 24, 1998 NOW press release signed by its leadership*:

While women are angry and do not condone his conduct, women want President Clinton to remain in office. We believe, and the women of the nation concur, that Mr. Clinton’s actions are not impeachable. His misdeeds are not of the nature of high crimes and misdemeanors required by our Constitution for impeachment of the president.

They went on to say this:

While President Clinton’s record for women’s rights is less than perfect, on balance women have had an ally in the White House.

That is comforting.  They put politics ahead of women.  That’s right.  In 1998, the big picture was important.  Al Gore would be hounded from office, they reasoned, so to keep Newt Gingrich from becoming president, a few women were tossed under the Clinton bus.

Roll ahead to 2009.  David Letterman is a comic, a late night talk show host and occasionally an awards show host.  His influence is nil compared to a sitting US President.

Asking that Clinton step aside would have been the courageous thing for NOW to do.  It would have said that NO MAN should be able to abuse women under his command in the workplace.  Not even a big time ally like Bill Clinton.  By becoming political whores themselves, the leadership of NOW set women’s rights back even further than a sex crazed ass-hound like Bill Clinton or Bob Packwood ever could (Packwood resigned – Clinton the “shameless” did not).

Remember, Letterman is a comedian and is not taken seriously.  Bill Clinton was a sitting President.  I quote Late Night host Craig Ferguson:

“If we are now holding late-night talk show hosts to the same moral accountability as we hold politicians or clergymen, I’m out.  I’m gone.”

* Signed by feminist leaders:

• Betty Friedan
• Patricia Ireland, President, National Organization for Women
• Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority
• Dr. Dorothy Height, Chair and President Emerita, National Council of Negro Women
• Susan Bianchi-Sand, Chair, National Council of Women’s Organizations*
• Dolores Huerta, Co-Founder and Secretary Treasurer, United Farm Workers
• Sheila Coates, President, Black Women United for Action
• Kathy Rodgers, Executive Director, NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund
• Dr. Jane Smith, President, National Council of Negro Women
• Lina Frescas Dobbs, Executive Director, Wider Opportunities for Women
• Dr. Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, Black Leadership Forum
• National Women’s Political Caucus
• Karen Narasaki, Director, National Asian Pacific Legal Consortium
• Dr. Donna Allen, President, Women’s Institute for Freedom of the Press

Even Helen Keller can sense the hypocrisy.

The other night, I met a real-life womanizer.  A handsome attorney named Steven sidled up to me at a bar during a political fundraiser.  As he flirted over conversation about the local senate race, he was charming and complimentary of all my lady loveliness.  Because he hung on my every word and got a kick out of my jokes, I felt deliciously clever and sexy.

When Steven asked for my number, I wasn’t sure whether to be more dazzled by his wit, his smile…or the light shining across the gold band on his left hand.

Among oversexed men, womanizers are a unique breed.  They’re not the same as players.  Like the sleezeball, predatory exploits in Tucker Max’s “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell,” player activity is all about putting whatever power these boys wield toward conquest and busting a nut.  Tuck made a small fortune and gets laid beyond his wildest dreams but, like most players, he obviously doesn’t really like women, at least not smart, together ones.

Meanwhile, commitment-phobes buzz around avoiding confrontation with their fears.  A Frenchman I knew had a monstrous reputation for bed-hopping, but admitted, “Women scare me a bit” after we became friends.  Still, players and commitment-phobes often have a long line of tail available to them for accidental reasons like good looks, undeserved fame or the huge population of insecure girls who dig chumps.

But womanizers love women and ain’t one bit afraid of them.  I became fully aware of the power of these men when I briefly met the King of Womanizers, Bill Clinton, at an event years ago.  Slick Willie, I never considered attractive.  But darn it, if I didn’t feel like the only woman on the planet when he said hello.  When he gave me the Clinton handshake – holding my hand while simultaneously squeezing my elbow – my knees weren’t the only thing knocking.

Womanizers are Kennedys, the James Bonds and Don Drapers of the world, men whose promiscuity is met with a giddy roll of the eyes because they’re charismatic and apparently so generous sexually.  Womanizers are smart, successful and tantalizingly out of reach.  Connoisseurs of the ladies, they make us feel intriguing because they are truly intrigued by every gal they meet.  They especially like women with mystery and pluck, females who’ll join them in a bit of sexual gamesmanship and allow themselves to be seduced.

So what’s the appeal?  Clinton was still loved by his female supporters even when he pulled a Lewinsky.  Draper is a complete hound dog but no female Mad Men fan can deny feeling fire in her loins when Don gets frisky.  Like he said last season, Kennedy’s womanizing only made him more appealing to female voters.  And it’s not just famous or powerful womanizers who get our motors runnin’.

Is it women’s alleged biological urge toward the alpha-male?  Is being chosen by a man with so much sexual expertise like being officially branded desirable?  How can a guy be a bulbous-nosed chub monster like Bill Clinton and women still wanna do him?

I can’t speak for the whole of my gender, but I may have an idea what the appeal is for me.  I think, well, maybe I’d like to be a womanizer.  But, y’know, a female version.  A Manizer.

Most interesting women I know would love to rule a country or a company, be the magnetic center of every party and sleep with the best-looking people in the room.  These women might like to flirt with everything in a jock strap yet receive a forgiving turn of the cheek when they get caught “dipping their wick” in the wrong pot of ink.  They might like to be compelling, self-directed, sexually explosive supernovas without being labeled bitches or easy.  And who wouldn’t want the kind of freedom that allows one to be a self-indulgent scoundrel like David Letterman or a fat, old, mole-covered Jack Nicholson yet still get loads of success and booty?

So maybe it’s Freudian.  We don’t envy the penis but the privilege attached to it.

When I’m hooked on a guy, the rest of the male population disappears.  Someone could offer to slip me inside a Clooney/Denzel Man Sandwich and I’d say, “no thanks, boys, I’m in loooove.”  Really, I’m not interested in sleeping around and am too faithful to be a Manizer.  But I wouldn’t mind the other advantages.

In the end, I didn’t give Steven my number.  But the interaction left me asking a question that’s baffled women for ages – how to reap the benefits of life as a womanizer, without having to sleep with one.

Vorrei tornare all’argomento di Annozero.

Pare che il miglior PdC del mondo e di tutti i tempi ieri fosse incazzato nero, o meglio abbronzato, per la messa in onda dell’intervista alla prostituta più famosa d’Italia.

E chi ci comunica, hoibò, ti tale umor nero? niente meno che Belpietro il quale. come è norma in qualsiasi paese occidentale, era stato convocato insieme a Vespa al cospetto del gran capo del governo e delle televisioni sua maestà silvio I (ci sono tanti giornalisti escort).

Il prode Belpietro informa: “Berlusconi è indignato per le vicende di questi giorni, compreso il caso Santoro con la puntata di questa sera. E’ convinto che le trasmissioni del servizio pubblico non debbano dare spazio a certi personaggi”.

Anch’io, udite udite, sono d’accordo con quanto detto dal premier; sono indignata per le vicende di questi giorni e sono convinta che al servizio pubblico non debbano accedere certi personaggi. Forse, però, con le stesse parole non intendiamo le stesse cose.

Il carico da novanta è compito di Cicchitto dichiarando che il fatto che ben due trasmissioni si siano contese la D’Addario (1/2 ora e Annozero) è indice di faziosità politica mai verificatasi prima e di un autentico e profondo disagio.

Immaginate le stesse dichiarazioni negli Stati Uniti dove, a fronte di un episodio analogo o forse anche meno grave, un presidente è stato messo sotto impeachment, ha dovuto testimoniare davanti ad un giudice e tutti i cronisti, tele cronisti e showman hanno fatto a gara per avere la mitica Lewinsky in studio con il suo bel abitino blu macchiato da presidenzial sperma.

E Clinton non è mica andato in giro a gridare ai quattro venti “Complotto, Complotto, Colpo Di Stato, Colpo di Stato!” e neppure ha mandato a fare altrettanto uno dei suoi fidi scagnozzi.

Anche perchè se lo avesse fatto, oltre alle bastonate della moglie, si sarebbe preso risate in faccia da tutto il mondo mediatico e non.

La ciliegina sulla torta invece l’ha messa l’onorevole Pini della lega nord il quale chiede se alla D’Addario sia stato pagato un cachet od un rimborso spese o qualsiasi altro accidente per essere presente alla puntata di Santoro e per rilasciare l’intervista.

A parte il fatto che mi risulta che spesso e volentieri le interviste e gli interventi in video di chicchessia siano pagati, a Pini sembra sfuggire un particolare: se non si paga una prostituta chi cavolo mai si dovrebbe pagare?

Dulcis in fundo: Vespa e la sua trasmissione sono sostanzialmente neutri rispetto alle posizioni del governo. ?!?!

Sex and Politics- probably the most extreme antagonism ever. That´s exactly what makes it so interesting for the media and for us as an audience. In Peter´s example (see guestbook), when a bud was printed on a political campaign poster, the sex sell strategy didn´t really work.

The German party was forced to remove or censor the bud posters with the claim “The only reason to vote black- time for green” and the only positive effect was that they were in the media for a short time. They also could have lost voters not only because the posters could be considered to be pornographic and racist, the party was also not present because they had to remove their ads.

An example for a long lasting Sex Sells affair, literally a best-seller in Sex Sells is – everyone knows this video sequence – …the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Im sure you remember it but anyway, watch this:

The story was a best-seller not for the former US President but for Miss Lewinsky. How much money the intern earned by selling the story to the media, doing interviews and photo shoots is her secret. Nevertheless, the following numbers provided by Media Monitor reveal that it must have been a best-seller:

Allegations of a sexual affair between President Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky first appeared on national television on January 21, 1998. Over the next 30 days, the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news shows broadcast 305 stories on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, with a combined 9 hours 12 minutes of airtime.

During the first week after the story broke, the networks devoted more airtime to it (142 stories) than they gave to Princes s Diana’s death in a comparable period last fall (103 stories). In its first month, the Lewinsky story consumed more than one-third (34%) of the available airtime on the network newscasts – more than the showdown with Iraq, the winter Olympics, the Pope ‘ s visit to Cuba, and EI Nino combined.
(source: Media Monitor, Center for Media and Public Affairs.)

As the story evolved, journalists’ use of unnamed sources and the credibility of the ir information became a major source of controversy. Contrary to the claims of some media critics, it is not clear that the network s relied more heavily on unnamed sources in detailing the Lewinsky charges than they had in previous political scandals.

Accusations that Mr. Clinton had sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky – which would not by it self constitute criminal conduct – were discussed extensively in 114 stories. In contrast, stories alleging criminal behavior were less frequent.

What I find interesting about the case is that although the US President was lying and denying he didn´t lose any sympathies in the end (see video). Normally the most approved way to react on crises situations is honesty, isn´t it? But no: “I never had any sexual relations to that woman…”.

.

Young John walked into his Logistics In Literature class expecting an easy class day.   It was Friday.   College was always easier on Fridays, certainly easier than High School, but this end of the M-F work and school week would be different.

Once the class settled in, Professor Dawson told the 43 nubile minds on his class roster that they would be challenged over the weekend, to read two books, then ONLY compare how the two stories are similar, yet find their subtly differences.  

The class let out a collective groan, while John immediately thought the prof was referring great works of literature such as “Ulysses” and perhaps “Paradise Lost”, but that wasn’t case.   The professor handed out a one-sheet containing the specifics regarding the assignment and John’s eyes bugged out when he read it.   The two books to be compared and contrasted were ( in terms of subject matter) seemingly as incongruous as apples and horseshoes.

,

A book about James Cameron’s screenplay of “Titanic” and one entitled,  ”My Life” by Bill Clinton????   What the ______????

John sat at his desk and felt queasy at the thought.  How in the hell could be even remotely find these two books even the least little bit similar in plot and subtext??

He decided to forego the weekend falderal that this typical college junior would usually participate in.  No drinking, no clubbing…no skiing at the lake.  He would instead read both books and have the report written and ready to submit by Sunday night.

He got home from class and began the task at hand.  Tackling  ”Titanic” was first.  He read the book with enthusiastic gusto, making notes and even keeping track of the time it took to read each chapter.   Then, Clinton’s semi-autobiography was next.

By Saturday afternoon, he was already starting to see a pattern of similarity and contrast emerge.   But that evening, he had a pretty good idea of his approach.   By lunch time on Sunday, he was on a role.

By Sunday evening, before Andy Rooney finished his diatribe at the end of “60 Minutes”, John had the report typed and in a binder, ready to be handed in bright and early Monday morning.

It wasn’t anything elaborate.   It consisted of  bullet points, really, but John felt it was clear and concise and perhaps, exactly what his professor wanted.  

Here’s what he submitted:

Titanic:….. Cost – $29.99
Clinton  :… Cost – $29.99

Titanic:….. Took over 3 hours to read
Clinton  :… Took over 3 hours to read

Titanic:….. The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.

Clinton  :… The story of Bill and Hillary, of Bill and Monica, of Bill and Kathleen, of Bill and Gennifer, of Bill and Paula, of  Bill and apparently, YOUR NAME HERE and their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe

Titanic:…. Jack is a starving artist.
Clinton  :…Bill is a bullshit artist.

Titanic:…. In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.
Clinton  :…Ditto for Bill.

Titanic…..In one scene, Rose wore a blue dress

Clinton….Monica Lewinsky blew something while wearing hers  

Titanic:….. During the ordeal, Rose’s dress is ruined because it got very, very wet
Clinton  :….Ditto for Monica L.

Titanic:….. Jack teaches Rose to spit.
Clinton  :… Spitting is something Monica apparently never learned

Titanic:…. Titanic was owned by a steamship company called “White Star”.
Clinton  :…Clinton “got owned” by a Special Prosecutor named Kenneth Star

Titanic:….. Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.
Clinton  :….Clinton  doesn’t remember Jack.

Titanic:….. Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.
Clinton  :….Monica… well, uh….er….let’s not go there

Titanic……Rose eventually begins a new career and marries a man
Clinton……In many ways, so did Bill Clinton

Titanic:….. Jack surrenders to an icy death.
Clinton  :…. Bill goes home to Hillary;  basically the same thing

.

Professor Dawson gave John an A+ for his effort   

.

Rhetorical question really.  Regardless of my own thoughts on those that elected the Socialist now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Bill Clinton apparently believes the US Citizenry to be absolute morons.  In a CNN story (link posted below), Bill attributes the failure of the Obamacare plan on the ever-pesky GOP; “Simply put,” Bill stated, “they’re at it again.”

Really?  Presumably (by saying “again”) he is, albeit cryptically, referring to his absolute failure (along with his wife) to reform health care back in his care-free, cigar-orifice-intruding Oral Office days.  Yet, to truly put it “simply,” it does not make one difference if every Republican in office voted against Obamacare; the Democrats control Congress (and have for sometime now) and, frankly, Obamacare does not need one Republican vote to pass – it can pass through soley through Obama’s Democrat cronies.

Does Bill think that the American Citizenry does not comprehend this fact?  Does he think that the masses have forgotten the “sweeping change” that came during the last election, wherein the Democrats gained control of the Executive and Legislative branches?  The Republicans, even if voting en masse against Obamacare, cannot muster enough of an obstacle so as to prevent Obamacare’s implementation.

What Bill leaves out is that there are numerous Democrats against the President’s proposal as well.  Further, to the extent the Democrats are seeking Republican favor on the travesty which is Obamacare, they are only do so so that when Obamacare (if passed) fails (which it will) and creates an absolutely catastrophic health care situation in the United States, the Democrats, can then try to excuse themselves by saying, “well…it was a bi-partisan plan; they voted for it too.”  But, for the time being, blaming one’s failures on the other party is nothing new.  Clinton mastered it, to be sure.   Clinton is now just towing the Obama party-line/rhetoric with such an absurd statement.  Clinton’s statement is not only ludicrous on its face, but also insults the intelligence of most people (there are certainly some people out there who think his statement is gospel, if, for nothing else, it is a criticism of the GOP – reading the comments to the story/link posted below evidences as much).  Yet, Clinton long-ago evidenced the contempt and disregard he has for the public at large.  This latest statement is merely Clinton continuing to be true to form.

Here’s the link to the CNN story.

Edited to add follow up -

While Billy-boy is off spewing such idiotic statements as those above and cavorting about with Kim Jong Il, Chuck Schumer has made it clear: socialized, government-run health care is possible without the GOP – read the Washington Times story here.

[Foto da: www.ilpopolodellaliberta.it]

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/6949372

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/6949372/1/2

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/6949372/1/3

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/6949372/1/4

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/6949372/1/5

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/6959303/1/1

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/6959303/1/2

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/6959303/1/3

http://espresso.repubblica.it/multimedia/6959303/1/4

Lui è il nostro Presidente del Consiglio. Lei Patrizia D’Addario, la donna che da mesi ormai afferma di averlo incontrato per festini nella residenza romana di Palazzo Grazioli e che lui aveva assicurato era stata ben retribuita da qualcuno contro di lui

Questi audio dimostrano quanto anche oggi affermato dal premier: “non sono un santo”.

Certo, santo non lo è, ma guida e rappresenta con il suo governo il popolo italiano!

Sono queste le libertà quindi di cui si fa portatore? Sono questi i valori di cui si fa portatore? I tanto decantati valori cristiani? Proprio quello della monogamia e della fedeltà?

Chi continua a ripetere che questo è un affare privato, si è ben ambientato in una democrazia offuscata, quella italiana.

Come ripetono da troppo tempo le testate giornalistiche estere, in un altro paese quest’uomo non sarebbe più (o non lo sarebbe mai diventato) primo ministro. Tutto il mondo si diverte e spettegola del nostro capo del governo. Ne andate fieri? Io no…

Ricordate Bill Clinton? Poi assolto, fu sottoposto ad “impeachment” per la sua relazione segreta con la stagista Monica Lewinsky.

Perché Silvio Berlusconi dovrebbe ancora rappresentarci? Sono davvero fatti da considerarsi privati?

Yesterday, a liberal blogger raised some eyebrows by employing a vulgar eupemism for Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky’s, er, “relations” on MSNBC.

 For those of you who may have been living in a cave, cloister, or monastery for the last century, that would be a “blow-job”, which while it might invite raised eyebrows and gasps of dismay on MSNBC, is perfectly acceptable over on Bravo.  If you want to hear that Ms. Lewinsky blew the president but at least she didn’t fuck him, you’ll have to tune into HBO.  And if you genuinely believe that you’re shielding your teenagers from this “vulgarity”, you should tune in to whatever channel is currently providing free psychotherapy.

If the commentator on MSNBC had used the clinically precise description of “fellatio”, nary a gasp or twitter would have been heard, but “fellatio” is about as poetic and descriptive as a bucket of mud.  Whenever I hear “fellatio” I think it’s something in an Italian opera.  We’ve been fighting this stupid battle since George Carlin enunciated the seven forbidden words four decades ago, and we’re still living in some kind of puritanical delusional state, playing a video charade of censorship.  Don’t believe me?  Tune into “Hell’s Kitchen” next Tuesday on FOX.  I guarantee that Gordon Ramsay will have dropped the F-bomb at least half a dozen times before they break for the first commercial.  All of the expletives will be carefully bleeped…and all of them will be perfectly understandable to anyone who isn’t deaf, blind, and speaking English as a second language.  So what’s the point?  Who are we kidding anymore?

BW

Não, você não leu errado e não [2], eu não estou sendo exagerado.

Fazendo a minha rotina de visitas por site de notícias, me deparei com os seguinte título “Foto de Obama supostamente “observando” brasileira gira o mundo“. Mas é claro que fui ler a matéria!

O site Drudge Report, os mesmos filhos daquela senhora que troca “favores” por dinheiro que publicaram em primeira mão o escândalo do caso Monica Lewinsky, colocam a foto com o momento exato em que Obama dava uma conferida na retaguarda da brasileira (Mayara Tavares).

Continue lendo »

My friend Barack may finally get his wishes come true. He has now found a good maid for his kids. He was rummaging, aggresively, for a maid for the past few weeks. Finally, Ms. Lewinsky, a resident of the Sunnyvile, has agreed to his terms and conditions.

Actually, Barack will have to thank Bill since it was Bill who first recommended Lewinsky to Barack. According to Bill, Lewinsky knows what she is doing and is quite adept at it.

As the administrator I see certain things on this site.  On our stats page I am told what you guys click on while on the page (at the bottom of our entry they automatically will generate other blogs that MIGHT be close in content…although I doubt it…and it says where our traffic goes).  

It also tells us what people search when they stumble upon us.  Most of the time it is the obvious “Shavetown.com” or “shavetown”.  Another popular item has been “Mickey Mouse Ice Cream Bars”…which I’m sure horrifies people when they arrive on Shavetown Ave.  Some others have been “christopher brawn” which had to be my mom because nobody calls me that.  “Griz shave back fat” was probably my all time favorite one until today… 

I honestly just looked and someone got to shavetown.com (somehow) when searcing “Hilary Clinton porn pictures.”

Really?  a) how did they end up here??? b) Really?  fuckin Hilary Rodham?   The rain is gettin to me too pal, it blows.  But people look at porn for one reason.  To punch the clown.  That’s it.  The average porn viewing on the internet I would bet is under 5 minutes.  Maybe 7 minutes if you’re one of the 4 people on the planet reading this on dial-up.   I know what you’re thinking.  5 minutes is pretty quick.  And maybe I just showed my hand,  but from what my “friends tell me” it’s accurate for two reasons 1) the party’s long over by then or 2) someone just pulled into the driveway earlier than expected.   

Granted, I hope the sick fuck that yanks to Rodham is an official Townie.  I hope that he’s hooked even though the reason he swung by was based on the hopes I’m peddling pictures of Hilary getting root-hogged in the vertical smile.  If so, sorry to disappoint you there Wendell.  But there is a reason Ol Billy went hoggin’   Because it beat the shit out of the alternative.

-CB

Was lesen, wenn man alle Kinder- und Jugendbücher gelesen hat? Man jenseits der Welten von Harry Potter, wilder Hühner, Illuminati und geliebter Vampire Erfahrungen sammeln möchte?

20 wundersame Geschichten

alphabetisch nach Autoren geordnet, bei denen man en passant fundierte Geschichtskenntnisse erwerben, Antworten auf Fragen finden und die Schönheit der deutschen Sprache erleben kann.

·    Max Frisch Stiller. Roman (1958)

„Ich bin nicht Stiller“ behauptet der Ich-Erzähler und die 450 Seiten starke Beweisführung und die Beweisführung des Gegenteils ist ein spannendes Verwirrspiel für den Leser, ob jung oder alt. Denn die Frage nach der Identität und der Ich-Akzeptanz bleibt über Altersgrenzen und Zeitgeister hinweg brisant; besonders intensiv und brennend dann, wenn die Liebe involviert ist und die rothaarige Julika so geheimnisvoll-ätherisch (wir befinden uns in Vor-Heidi-Klum-Zeiten) ist. Wer Frisch liest, wird immer wieder konfrontiert mit der Frage, wer man denn sei, in und mit seinen eigenen Entwürfen und Bildern und/oder in und mit denen der anderen. Der Schluss führt den Leser, der sich beim Lesen mit der Hauptfigur im Rollenspiel erprobt, zum Anfang zurück: „Man will sich selbst ein Fremder sein. Nicht in der Rolle, wohl aber in der unbewussten Entscheidung, welche Art von Rolle ich mir zuschreibe, liegt meine Wirklichkeit.“

·    Helga Glaesener Die Safranhändlerin (1997)

„Misstrauen trieb Benedetto Marzini in die Lagerhalle im Erdgeschoss seines Genueser Palazzo.“ Die Handlung des Romans spielt nicht in Genua, wie der erste Satz vermuten lässt, sondern hauptsächlich in Trier und Umgebung im 14. Jahrhundert. Die Autorin hat fundiert recherchiert und die Geschichte der Safranhändlerin spannend und (im Gegensatz zu den unzähligen auf der Welle der historisierenden Erzählkunst schwimmenden Schreiberlinge) handwerklich solide mit Augenzwinkern erzählt. „Hinter dem Armenviertel breiteten sich die Weingärten aus, in deren Mitte völlig frei die Johannisgasse lag, das war eine gefährliche Strecke. Sie ritten ein Stück hinauf, bogen dann aber schnell in die Straße der Weber ab.“ Der Folgeband kann vernachlässigt werden, nicht nur, weil er in Italien und Frankreich spielt.

·    Günter Grass Die Blechtrommel (1959)

„Zugegeben: ich bin Insasse einer Heil- und Pflegeanstalt, mein Pfleger beobachtet mich, lässt mich kaum aus dem Auge; denn in der Tür ist ein Guckloch, und meines Pflegers Auge ist von jenem Braun, welches mich, den Blauäugigen, nicht durchschauen kann.“ Dieser Eingangssatz hat das Potenzial zum schönsten Romananfangssatz gewählt zu werden. Da das Kapitel mit „Der weite Rock“ betitelt ist und sich die Geschichte des kleinwüchsigen Oskar Matzerath unter den weiten Röcken seiner Großmutter entfaltet, kann man gar nicht anders als weiter lesen. Und wird belohnt mit barocker Fabulierkunst, die den Leser quer durch ehemals deutschsprachige Gebiete in Polen und deren wechselvolle Geschichte bis ans Ende – immerhin 784 Seiten in der Taschenbuchausgabe – trägt. Es soll Leser gegeben haben, die dabei die Kunst, Glas durch Schreien zum Zerspringen zu bewegen, ausprobiert haben.

·    Katharina Hacker Die Habenichtse (2007)

Als bedeutungsvoller und kluger Roman wurde das Erstlingswerk der Autorin rezensiert und gleich mit dem Deutschen Buchpreis ausgezeichnet. Weil Katharina Hacker eine Heldin der Moderne beschreibt, die alles hat und die es als Freundin eines Juristen von Berlin nach London treibt, über die Gartenmauern zum misshandelten Kind im Nachbarhaus und zurück, und die „nichts begriffen“ hat, nichts hat als „unerbittliche Ziellosigkeit“? Klug hin, bedeutungsvoll her, wie gegen Ende Isabella ihre Augen öffnet, Jakob ansieht und auf die ins Schloss gefallene Tür zugeht, ist auf 300 Seiten geschickt dargelegt und im Vergleich zur larmoyant-beredten Hohlheit zeitgenössischer Kolleginnen wohltuend pointiert-tiefgängig.

·    Ulla Hahn Das verborgene Wort (2001)

„Mit Schreiben und Lesen fängt eigentlich das Leben an“ lautet das Motto – es stammt von einer mesopotamischen Wachstafel mit Schulübungen aus dem 4. bis 5. Jahrhundert, das die Autorin für ihren Roman gewählt hat. Ulla Hahn, bekannt durch ihre Gedichtbände, schrieb die Lebensgeschichte eines Mädchens aus katholischem Arbeitermilieu während der Nachkriegsjahre im Kölner Raum. 622 Seiten zählt die Taschenbuchausgabe, wer nicht alles lesen möchte, kann lustvoll blättern, das Buch ist eine Fundgrube für Sprachforscher und Liebhaber des rheinischen Idioms. In der deutschen Geschichte Kundige wissen, dass das Bild des katholischen Arbeitermädchens in den 70er Jahren Pate stand für die Forderung nach  Chancengleichheit und Gleichberechtigung durch Bildung. Der letzte Abschnitt des Romans beginnt mit: “Der Brief von der Schule kam an mich. Nicht an den Vater. Die Einladung zur Aufnahmeprüfung.“

·    Marlen Haushofer Die Wand (1968)

„Heute, am fünften November, beginne ich mit meinem Bericht.“ Die Ich-Erzählerin stößt an einem Wochenende im Gebirge plötzlich auf eine Glaswand und führt Tagebuch über ihr Leben als einzige Überlebende in einem begrenzten Stück Natur, dem sie nicht entrinnen kann. „Durch die Wand wurde ich gezwungen, ein ganz neues Leben zu beginnen, aber was mich wirklich berührt, ist immer noch das gleiche wie früher: Geburt, Tod, die Jahreszeiten, Wachstum und Verfall.“ Ein Hund, eine Katze, eine Kuh sind ihre Gefährten im Kampf ums Überleben. Der Roman, häufig als weibliche Robinsonade bezeichnet, ist einer der wenigen modernen Bestseller, der nicht vor Erscheinen massiv vermarktet wurde, sondern in der Wiederauflage 1983, nach dem Tod der Autorin, ein Leseerfolg im ursprünglichen Sinne wurde. Unzweifelhaft diente er Thomas Glavinic als Vorlage zu Die Arbeit der Nacht (2006).

·    Hermann Hesse Narziß und Goldmund (1929/30)

In der Regel erscheint Der Steppenwolf auf den Leselisten für Jugendliche, so wie alle Werke Hermann Hesses zyklisch junge Leser zu begeistern scheinen. Narziß und Goldmund ist eine – fast schon wieder modern anmutende -  Liebesgeschichte zwischen zwei Männern im Goldenen Mittelalter. Die Geschichte beginnt unter einem Kastanienbaum „vor dem von Doppelsäulchen getragenen Rundbogen des Klostereinganges von Mariabronn“, die Reise geht in „die weite Welt hinaus“ – „War es möglich, dass man ihn verfolgte?“ Und was man als junger Reisender in dieser märchenhaften Zeit alles erleben kann, ist zwar heute hinlänglich bekannt, jedoch so farbig und spannend erzählt, dass „die letzen Worte Goldmunds auch dem heutigen Leser in seinem Herzen wie Feuer brennen“ können.

·    Uwe Johnson Zwei Ansichten (1965)

Dass zwei Ansichten besser sind als eine, weiß jedes Kind. In dieser Geschichte sind die zwei Ansichten jedoch wenig hilfreich, sondern schmerzvoll, weil sie diesseits und jenseits der Mauer, gemeint ist die Mauer zwischen Ost- und Westdeutschland in den 60er Jahren, statthaben und eigentlich die gleiche Ansicht sein sollten, wenn man sich liebt, so wie die Krankenschwester (Ost) und der Fotograf (West). „Dann hilf mir rüber, ich will jetzt kommen. Es muß aber was sein wo nicht geschossen wird. Nimm mir nicht übel, die Angst.“ Wer Ost-West-Liebesgeschichten mag, die nicht reißerisch und wild daherkommen, sondern sachlich und selbstverständlich, ohne Gefühls- und Humanitätsduselei, für den wird Uwe Johnson eine Entdeckung sein, ebenso sein gegen Ende der Geschichte gestreutes Statement: „Sie dachte nicht daran, Berlin aufzugeben.“

·    Imre Kertesz Roman eines Schicksallosen (1975)

„Heute war ich nicht in der Schule.“ Und dann verfolgt man mit den Augen des 13jährigen die allmähliche Veränderung seines Alltags in Ungarn und den Gang der Ereignisse, die mit der Befreiung aus Buchenwald enden, und man wundert sich nicht, dass die Publikationsgeschichte dieser Kindheitsgeschichte so ist, wie sie ist, weil sie schließt mit dem Satz „Wenn sie überhaupt fragen. Und wenn ich es nicht selbst vergesse.“ Und man fragt sich, wie ein Leben nach Buchenwald mit dem Fazit enden kann: „…es gibt keine Absurdität, die man nicht ganz natürlich leben würde, und auf meinem Weg, das weiß ich schon jetzt, lauert wie eine unvermeidliche Falle das Glück auf mich.“ Und dann weiß man, dass man Viktor E. Frankl und alles über das Glück lesen muss, von Epikur bis zu Eckart von Hirschhausen.

·    Bodo Kirchhoff Infanta (1990)

Die Liebesgeschichte, die auf den Philippinen spielt, wird, was nicht unbedingt zu erwarten ist, aus der Perspektive von sechs alten Mönchen erzählt, was dem Leser einiges an Puzzlearbeit abverlangt, aber bis zum letzten Satz (501 Seiten im Taschenbuch) spannend bleibt: „Als ihr erster Strahl über eine der Waldkuppen schoß und seine Stirn wärmte, traf er die Entscheidung.“ Spannend und amüsant zu lesen ist auch die Kontrastierung der unterschiedlichen Biografien, hier das Liebespaar, dort die nicht zwingend in Liebesdingen erfahrenen alten Herren, und selbstverständlich das exotische Umfeld, das sich allerdings weniger pittoresk als politisch brisant entpuppt: „Infanta ist kein Spielplatz.“

·    Charles Lewinsky Melnitz (2006)

Hat Charles Lewinski, bevor oder während er seinen Roman schrieb, ein Wörterbuch der in Vergessenheit geratenen Wörter geführt, um dann ein Feuerwerk der deutschen Sprache zu entzünden, um (laut Klappentext)  „eine jüdische Familienchronik vor dem Hintergrund der Schweizer Geschichte in den Jahren 1871 bis 1945“ zu schreiben? Näheres zu sagen erübrigt sich, außer dass der zeitliche Rahmen der Chronik das Dreiländereck Deutschland, Frankreich, Schweiz impliziert und die Frage nach der Zugehörigkeit: „So kam es, dass Pinchas Pomeranz an einem christlichen Grab den Kaddisch sprach…für einen Juden,…den man zum Christen gemacht hatte und zum Schweizer, und dem das alles nichts genützt hatte.“ Wem der Roman zu lang ist, pralle 765 Seiten in der dtv-Ausgabe, dem seien besonders Kapitel 32 und 33 ans Herz gelegt: ein Paradebeispiel sophistischen Argumentierens zu eigennützigen Zwecken mit unheilvollen Folgen. “Es wurde eine Katastrophe.“

·    Erich Loest Nikolaikirche (1995)

„Der Raum hatte die Form eines Rugbyballs.“ Besagte Nikolaikirche in Leipzig war Treffpunkt der Gemeinde und der Dissidenten, die den Fall der Berliner Mauer am 09.Oktober 1989 maßgeblich beeinflusst haben. Der Roman von Erich Loest ist kein literarisches Kunstwerk, aber eine sachlich interessant dargestellte Geschichte um einen Polizeigeneral, dessen Tochter Mitglied der SED und dessen Sohn Stasi-Offizier war. Die Geschichte beginnt im März 1985 und beschreibt die allmählichen Auflösungsprozesse in der Familie und in der Gesellschaft und darüberhinaus die unvermeidliche Kontinuität einstmals herrschender Denk- und Deutungsmuster. „Der General überlegte, mit wem er jetzt zusammen sein wollte. Mit einigen, die tot waren, mit dem alten Bacher zum Beispiel. Vielleicht mit Honecker, den die anderen nun verrieten. Im Hinausgehen hätte er gern die Faust zum alten Rot-Front-Gruß erhoben. Aber es wäre lächerlich gewesen einem neuem Mann wie Schnuck gegenüber.“

·    Thomas Mann Der Zauberberg (1924)

Thomas Mann gilt immer noch als der größte deutschsprachige Erzähler des 20. Jahrhunderts, was aus Sicht junger Leser nicht unbedingt eine Leseempfehlung bedeuten muss. Zumal es Familiengeschichten wie die Buddenbrooks, mit denen Thomas Mann als junger Schriftsteller zu Ruhm und Ansehen gelangte, heutzutage reichlich in Soap-Format gibt. Der Zauberberg ist jedoch einzigartig und überraschend modern: Ein junger, gelangweilter Mann flüchtet sich in Krankheit und zieht sich sieben Jahre lang in die gesellige Einsamkeit eines Luftkurortes in der Schweiz zurück, um sich selbst zu entkommen. Wer die zeitkritischen, für ungeübte Leser zum Teil doch sehr langatmigen Dialoge der Kurgäste über Kunst, Philosophie, Politik, Liebe und logischerweise Krankheit und Tod gelegentlich überlesen möchte, wird sich dem wunderbaren Kapitel in der zweiten Hälfte, in dem sich der Held im Schneegestöber verirrt, nicht entziehen können.

·    Sten Nadolny Die Entdeckung der Langsamkeit (1983)

„John Franklin war schon zehn Jahre alt und noch immer so langsam, dass er keinen Ball fangen konnte. Er hielt für die anderen die Schnur.“ Der Roman ist nicht nur ein Buch für männliche Leser, wie einer meiner Schüler behauptete. Auch weiblichen Lesern kann es nicht schaden, das historische und literarische Leben von John Franklin bis zum Tod im Eismeer mitzuverfolgen und dabei zu lernen, was die Nordwest-Passage ist und wie man aus einer Behinderung einen kostbaren, einzigartigen Schatz macht. „Wenn ich erzähle, Sir, brauche ich meinen eigenen Rhythmus“, sagt Franklin in einem Bewerbungsgespräch. Gleiches gilt auch für den Leser; er kann gar nicht anders, als sich beim Lesen dem Zeitlupentempo der Hauptperson anzupassen und dessen Schnur bzw. Taktung zu folgen und Segen und Fluch der Langsamkeit zu entdecken.

·    Helga M. Novak Die Eisheiligen (1979)

„Das Wasser ist resedagrün und mit Schaum gesprenkelt. Ich stehe neben Kaltesophie und betrachte ein Schiff.“ Warum dieser Roman (wie auch das Gesamtwerk) dieser Autorin immer wieder vergriffen ist, bleibt ein Rätsel. Der Text ist autobiografisch gefärbt, beschreibt eine Kindheit und Jugend im Krieg und in der Nachkriegszeit in der DDR, ist auch die Geschichte einer Adoption  und dank der kreativen sprachlichen Gestaltung eine erfrischende Herausforderung, wenngleich das Leben der Ich-Erzählerin mit Kaltesophie keineswegs den z. Z. modischen Vorstellungen vom Leben eines Adoptionskindes  (z. B. bei Madonna oder  Katie Holmes) entspricht und die Flucht der Sechzehnjährigen im Internat endet: „Auf der Mauer waren Glasscherben einzementiert.“

·    Erich Maria Remarque Im Westen nichts Neues (1929)

„Wir liegen neun Kilometer hinter der Front.“ Erstaunlich, wie lesbar der Weltbestseller aus dem Jahr 1929 heute noch ist. Der Roman beschreibt glaubhaft und ergreifend die anfängliche Begeisterung einer Schülergruppe für den Einsatz in der Armee an der Westfront im Ersten Weltkrieg und die allmähliche Ernüchterung und Klarsicht durch die Konfrontation mit der Vernichtungsmaschinerie und der Grausamkeit des Krieges. „Wären wir 1916 heimgekommen, wir hätten aus dem Schmerz und der Stärke unserer Erlebnisse eine Sturm entfesselt. Wenn wir jetzt zurückkehren, sind wir müde, zerfallen, ausgebrannt, wurzellos und ohne Hoffnung. Wir werden uns nicht mehr zurechtfinden können.“

·    Herbert Rosendorfer Briefe in die chinesische Vergangenheit (1983)

„Die Zukunft ist ein Abgrund.“ So beginnt der erste Brief des chinesischen Mandarins aus dem 10. Jahrhundert, den es mittels einer Zeitmaschine in das Ba-yan der achtziger Jahre verschlägt. Der Briefroman ist witzig geschrieben, die Lust des Autors (von Hause aus Jurist) am Spiel mit Sprache ist unverkennbar. Es überrascht nicht wenig, dass es kaum wirklich witzig-geistreiche Romanliteratur im letzten Jahrhundert gegeben hat. Dass die Geschichte gegen Ende etwas erlahmt, sei daher dem Verfasser verziehen. Da der Erzähler nicht am Wert seiner Erkenntnisse für die Großnasen zweifelt, sind auch wir`s zufrieden. (Taschenbuch, 368 Seiten) Wer den ersten Band mag, mag auch die Die große Umwandlung. Neue Briefe in die chinesische Vergangenheit (1997).

·    Joseph Roth Hiob. Roman eines einfachen Mannes (1930)

„Vor vielen Jahren lebte in Zuchnow ein Mann namens Mendel Singer.“ Joseph Roth schrieb die abenteuerliche Geschichte des jüdischen Rabbi und seiner Familie, die am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts das ostgalizische Stetl verlassen und nach Amerika auswandern, in Anlehnung an die gleichnamige biblische Geschichte. Wer mehr wissen will über das Leben der Einwanderer in New York und was es heißt, eine Heimat gegen eine andere einzutauschen, wird überrascht sein über die Aktualität der Geschichte angesichts weltweit millionenfacher Suche nach einer dauerhaften Bleibe. Der Roman beginnt nicht nur mit einem der schönsten in deutscher Sprache geschriebenen Sätze, der Roman endet auch mit einem solchem: „Und er ruhte aus von der Schwere des Glücks und der Größe der Wunder.“ Klein, aber fein. (192 Taschenbuch-Seiten)

·    Patrick Süskind Das Parfüm. Die Geschichte eines Mörders (1985)

Der Plot ist reißerisch, der zweite Teil ein Highlight für Germanisten, der Schluss bemüht artifiziell. Jedoch – der olfaktorische Genuss beim Lesen – man lernt in der Tat einiges über die Herstellung und Wirkung von Parfüms – ist unerreicht und der filmische Einstieg in die Geschichte des Wunderkindes, das zum Mörder wird, mitreißend: „Im achtzehnten Jahrhundert lebte in Frankreich ein Mann, der zu den genialsten und abscheulichsten Gestalten dieser an genialen und abscheulichen Gestalten nicht armen Epoche gehörte.“ (319 Seiten im Taschenbuch)

·    Christa Wolf Kein Ort. Nirgends (1979)

Etwas mehr als hundert Seiten umfasst die kleine Geschichte über die fiktive Begegnung von Heinrich von Kleist und Karoline von Günderrode, zwei Autoren des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts. Die vorangestellten Zitate „Ich trage ein Herz mit mir herum, wie ein nördliches Land den Keim einer Südfrucht. Es treibt und treibt, und es kann nicht reifen“ (Kleist) und “Deswegen kommt es mir aber vor, als sähe ich mich im Sarg liegen und meine beiden Ichs starren sich ganz verwundert an“ (Günderrode) sind sozusagen eine Leseanleitung, sich auf das Spiel der Autorin mit den Perspektiven und historischen Grundlagen einzulassen. Die Geschichte kommt historisch daher, ist gleichwohl als Standortbestimmung des Schreibens in der DDR zu verstehen. „Es steht uns nicht frei“.

Gola profonda non abita più qui

La Repubblica va all’attacco e cerca di creare il Noemigate.
10 domande a Berlusconi sulla natura dei suoi rapporti con la famiglia Letizia, tra l’interese pubblico e il tentativo di mettere nei guai il PresDelCons con uno scandalo a sfondo sessuale.

La memoria torna a dieci anni fa e all’impeachment di Bill Clinton.
Clinton rischiò di giocarsi la presidenza perché aveva mentito, ostacolando il corso della giustizia, nel processo per le molestie a Paula Jones. Clinton sostenne di “non avere mai fatto sesso” con Monica Lewinksy, poi disse che credeva che pensava che aver ricevuto del sesso orale non valesse come “sesso”. (ora, immaginatevi che personaggio meraviglioso deve essere uno che si inventa una supercazzola del genere).
Il fatto, dal punto di vista tecnico, era squisitamente etico, non morale: se il presidente mente di fronte alla legge, non può più fare il presidente.
Probabilmente, l’eco e lo squallore dello scandalo sessuale hanno avuto un ruolo non secondario nel far perdere ai democratici le elezioni del 2000 (assieme a tutti i casini che le caratterizzarono). Ma gli USA del 2000 erano una nazione assai meno dogmatica, nelle sue scelte di voto, di quanto non lo sia l’Italia di oggi. E soprattutto ai democratici si opponeva un partito vero, non un’informe e sempre più disorganizzata associazione di tizi.

The name of the game

Ma in Italia, oggi, l’idea di leadership politica che incarna Berlusconi (digressione: Berlusconi è un cognome che riempie la bocca, che risuona grasso e invadente, che negli ultimi 15 anni abbiamo pronunciato o scritto tutti quanti talmente tante volte che mi stupisco che riusciamo a farlo ancora. A volte è come se questa parola grossa e unutosa fluttuasse nello spazio attorno a noi, strusciandosi sui nostri vestiti, sulla nostra pelle, i capelli. L’esplodere sonoro dell’occlusiva bilabiale /b/, che si prolunga per un istante nella chiusura sorda della /e/, il frizzare della vibrante alveolare /r/, dopo la quale la lingua si ferma un istante al centro della bocca per far passare l’aria ai lati e dare vita al suono della /l/, poi si sposta indietro ed è la /u/, lunga e cupa, poi il rapido soffio della /s/ che si infrange sull’occlusiva velare sorda /k/ a cui fa seguito una /o/ che per un attimo sembra allargarsi all’infinito, prima di impennarsi nella nasale alveolare /n/ e di chiudersi in /i/, un suono che costringe gli angoli della bocca a tendersi all’indietro in una specie di impercettibile sorriso. Ecco la danza con cui la nostra bocca modula l’aria che le arriva dai polmoni per riprodurre quel nome, un kata che abbiamo tutti ripetuto mille e mille volte, riempiendolo ognuno con la sua inflessione, con il suo insistere su un suono anziché un altro, di volta in volta sussurrando ammirati o facendo esplodere fortissima la prima lettera, colpo di cannone che annuncia guerra) ha pochissimo a che vedere con quella che è stata l’esperienza delle democrazie occidentali emerse tra il XIX e il XX secolo. Esperienza che, in fin dei conti, è poco più che una parentesi, rispetto a forme di governo più  spicce e dirette .
Quello che emerso dal lungo travaglio post-manipulite e che ha trovato forma compiuta dopo le elezioni del 2008 è uno scenario completamente nuovo, in cui il partito principale in Italia è un non-partito, che pur dialogando con partiti più strutturati e tradizionali (la Lega e quel che resta di AN) è in realtà qualcosa di completamente diverso da essi; al potere che esercita non si riescono ad applicare le vecchie categorie della vita politica.
Normalmente, un partito punta alla sua sopravvivenza spostando in posizioni di retroguardia i suoi membri meno presentabili, perché la reputazione dell’organizzazione è più importante di quella dei suoi singoli membri. E la reputazione si basa sulla credibilità: in ogni sistema politico la menzogna è strutturale, ma verso l’esterno si deve mostrare di ricorrervi il meno possibile.
Quello che sta facendo Repubblica è qualcosa che in linea teorica è assolutamente legittimo: dimostrare che il Presidente del Consiglio sta mentendo, sovrapponendo versioni discordanti che danno l’impressione che stia cercando di mascherare qualcosa di potenzialmente dannoso per la sua reputazione. Il che dovrebbe indurre in quella che si chiama “opinione pubblica” dubbi sulla credibilità di un leader che si smentisce da solo ogni due giorni e svariati malumori nel suo partito, con conseguente fronda interna per il bene dell’organizzazione qualora il malumore dovesse sembrare eccessivo.
Di politici la cui carriera è stata sbriciolati da scandali di varia natura è piena la storia. Uno fa una cazzata che dimostra che è una persona di cui ci si può fidare (o talmente stupida da fare cazzate e farsi beccare) e cortesemente il partito lo mette da parte e ne prende le distanze. Una versione in giacca e cravatta dell’esilio dalla tribù dei sacrileghi, se vogliamo.
Il punto è che Berlusconi di tutto questo può bellamente fregarsene. Chi lo vota lo vota a prescindere. Lui è l’apoteosi dell’autorità carismatica teorizzata da Weber: viene seguito perché è lui. Perché è il personaggio pubblico che ha saputo costruirsi addosso. E’ leader di un partito (e di una coalizione di partiti) non perché è stato scelto dall’apparato, ma perché si è imposto come tale. Forza Italia era davvero il sogno di un visionario (che cercava di scampare la galera) retto solo dalle capacità comunicative di una persona. Più che un partito è un comitato elettorale, una macchina che ha lo scopo di arrivare laddove il capo non può arrivare. L’esoscheletro di Berlusconi.
Il fatto che Berlusconi menta e lo faccia compulsivamente come fanno tutti i grandi venditori non preoccupa i suoi elettori. Di conseguenza, con buona pace di Ezio Mauro, le bugie su come conosca Noemi Letizia e la sua famiglia non scalfiranno minimamente il suo potere, come accadrebbe in una normale democrazia parlamentare. Non l’hanno scalfito menzogne ben più gravi sul livello pubblico, come il fatto che prima negò che Fininvest avesse società off-shore e poi, una volta sbugiardato, sostenne che fare società off-shore è il minimo per una grande azienda. In altre parole, lo Stato è governato da una persona che si è sbattuta per anni per trovare il modo di pagare meno tasse possibile allo Stato stesso.
E uno dirà: vabbeh, ma queste sono questioni alte, che magari la gggente non capisce, se invece andiamo sul privato, sul torbido, sul sesso con le ragazzine tocchiamo più il cuore della gggente.
Rido. Forte.
Perché anche questo fa parte dell’immagine del capo. Intanto, da un lato, lo zoccolo tosto dell’elettorato berlusconiano crede a Berlusconi. Non ai giornalisti (di Repubblica poi. Già di default non ci credo io ai “retroscena” e agli scoop di Mauro e soci, figuriamoci chi guarda il tg4). Se lui dice che Noemi l’ha vista sempre e solo con i genitori, così è. Punto. Ma il lato trombeur de femmes (la r in più è voluta) di Berlusconi è comunque visto come un pregio, o al limite un peccatino veniale. Le reazioni alle esternazioni della moglie sono state istruttive in questo senso e hanno svelato il permanere di una cultura che associamo a tempi più remoti: l’uomo è libero e cacciatore, la moglie cornuta stia zitta e mantenga un contegno (cultura che per inciso appartiene anche a chi Berlusconi non lo può soffrire. Gli idioti sul piano privato si distribuiscono equamente).
Io non penso che saranno queste cose a minare il consenso di cui gode. Anzi, non riesco proprio a immaginare che cosa sia.

Hop hop hop! Din din din!

Forse la prima cosa necessaria per minare il consenso a Berlusconi sarebbe avere dall’altra una forza di opposizione credibile, unita e coerente. Cosa che il PD non è. E che probabilmente, a meno che non compaia un leader assolutamente straordinario, capace di unire le diverse anime e di dialogare con la sinistra, non sarà nemmeno alle elezioni del 2013. E questo leader dovrebbe essere in grado di competere con Berlusconi sullo stesso piano della costruzione del personaggio, della capacità visionaria e di entrare in risonanza con gli altri. Saper dire agli altri che cosa devono desiderare.
C’è più poco da girarci intorno: Berlusconi ha determinato questi ultimi 15 anni. Non ha cambiato gli italiani, quello no: ha solo saputo comunicare con i loro desideri, con quello che forse prima si vergognavano a esprimere. Ma ha cambiato la faccia e i modi della competizione politica, sempre più nella direzione di una sorta di dispotismo para-parlamentare, già oltre il presidenzialismo. Più ancora che nelle presidenziali americane, chi ha votato ha votato per o contro un uomo, non un politico. Dal 1994, il modo di porsi di Berlusconi è sempre stato “io ho fatto questo e quello per il mio paese come imprenditore perché sono una persona che pensa questo e quest’altro e ha queste altre doti. Adesso datemi il potere e lo farò come vostro governante”. Berlusconi è entrato in politica non per andare in parlamento a discutere, a perdere tempo: non ha chiesto a Fini un posto in lista. Ha fatto un partito e si è proposto come suo leader. Una cosa assolutamente al di fuori della prassi politica che prevedeva un cursus honorum piuttosto definito: fai politica nel tuo paesello, diventi consigliere comunale, poi magari passi alla regione, poi forse prima o poi ti candidano al parlamento, se va bene al senato, o forse ministro o poi… un percorso che era anche un’alfabetizzazione alla politica, ai suoi riti, alle sue regole, alle sue convenzioni. Che certamente non sono/erano tutte giuste e/o perfette, ma che  servivano anche a ribadire l’esistenza di una tradizione.
Berlusconi quasi da un giorno all’altro è arrivato e ha spazzato tutto. Mentre scrivo queste righe leggo che da Confindustria ha detto che il Parlamento è un luogo dove si perde del tempo.
La prima cosa che viene in mente è il famoso discorso di Mussolini: “Potevo trasformare quest’aula sorda e grigia in un bivacco per i miei manipoli…”. Ma è sbagliata.
Berlusconi non è fascista. I fascisti duri e puri lo vedono come pluto-borghese fumo negli occhi. Non è nemmeno antifascista. Come disse tempo fa, l’intera questione è una perdita di tempo, per uno come lui che pensa a lavorare.
Il modello piuttosto è aziendalista; infatti i ministri sono “efficienti come membri di un CdA”.
E’ un culto del capo di nuova concezione, totalmente slegato da qualunque ideologia politica. Con scarsissime basi ideologiche, se non in negativo (“non siamo comunisti”). Berlusconi è il capo non in quanto inventore di una dottrina politica o suo massimo interprete: è il capo perché è il più bravo, per il suo curriculum, perché è quello che sa cosa va fatto. E’ il capo perché l’azienda è sua. Ha chiesto se poteva prendersela, gli hanno detto di sì e se l’è presa.
Gli altri sono collaboratori, ai quali si possono delegare dei compiti minori o messa in atto di disposizioni, ma che non devono interferire con il livello direzionale.
E soprattutto non va mai messa in questione in pubblico l’autorità del leader, perché questo crea discussioni, distrae energie e proietta all’esterno un’immagine negativa.
Il padrone è il padrone. C’è chi l’ha capito ed è contento di averlo come padrone e non crea problemi
Chi invece non ha capito e lo critica pubblicamente fa male all’azienda-Paese.
Punto.
Il padrone risponde a quello che vuole, quando vuole.

Shape of things to come

Rendiamoci conto: l’Italia, contrariamente a quello che pensiamo di solito, non è un posto noioso dove non succede mai nulla e dove tutto è fermo.
L’Italia è un posto in cui succedono cose interessanti (nel senso della famosa maledizione cinese).
Negli anni venti del XX secolo abbiamo inventato un modello totalitario che ha avuto una certa fortuna in Europa e nel mondo.
Oggi stiamo sperimentando una nuova e strana forma di governo, che dell’ordinamento democratico come l’abbiamo conosciuto mantiene una crosta esterna, che probabilmente diventerà sempre più sottile. Una forma di governo indissolubilmente legata a doppio filo a un uomo solo e alla sua biografia.
Tempi interessanti. Tempi interessanti.

Noemi Letizia (photo: Castano, Controluce)

Selon Enrico Franceschini, voilà ce qui se passerait si l’affaire Noemi avait éclaté dans un autre pays que l’Italie, par exemple UK ou USA: une voix sans issue menant droit à l’impeachment contre Berlusconi . un article d’Enrico Franceschini paru sur son blog “MyTube”/La Repubblica le 9 mai 2009. Traduction française: a&c)

Et si Noemi était anglaise ou américaine?

“Si Noemi était anglaise ou américaine, donc si cette histoire avait lieu en Grande Bretagne ou aux États-Unis, voilà ce qui se passerait à ce niveau du soap opera dont elle est aujourd’hui la  (co)protagoniste : un journal à scandales proposerait à elle, ou à son père ou à sa mère, une somme invraisemblable, genre 500 000  euros, 1 million d’euros, ou même plus, pour tout déballer et tout raconter de ses rencontres en privé avec le leader maximo, savoir si elle en est l’amante ou la fille illégitime, ce qu’ils se disaient, ce qu’ils faisaient, etc.

Le leader démentirait ou bien dirait que tout cela relève de sa vie privée et qu’il n’entend pas s’acharner sur une jeune femme séduite par la célébrité tirée d’un scandale issu d’une presse n’ayant plus de limites. Quelques parlementaires se poseraient cependant des questions à haute voix, pour savoir s’il est vrai que le leader a eu des rapport avec des mineures, s’il a dépensé de l’argent publique dans ce cadre, s’il a abusé de la jeune femme. Suite à un âpre débat, le Parlement dans son ensemble approuverait la création d’une commission d’enquête sur cette affaire. Le leader serait appelé à témoigner, sous serment.

Ses avocats nieraient tout usage impropre des biens de l’État, soulignant que d’argent il n’en manque pas; quant au reste, à ce qui s’est passé ou pas entre le leader et la jeune fille, ils expliqueraient qu’il n’y a eu aucun délit, qu’elle n’a d’ailleurs pas porté plainte contre lui, et qu’alors où y aurait-il scandale? Les membres de la commission parlementaire d’enquête, après lui avoir fait jurer de dire rien que la vérité et toute la vérité lui poseraient des questions de ce genre: “Est-il vrai ou est-il faux que vous avez rencontré Noemi dans la ville A, B, C? Est-il vrai ou est-il faux que vous lui avez offert un collier de valeur X et un diamant de valeur Y?”

Et ainsi de suite. En tentant de parer les coups, à un moment le leader répondrait: “Non. Ce n’est pas vrai”. Plus tard, et grâce une abondante somme d’argent dépensée par la presse à scandales en chasse de scoops, apparaîtrait un témoin (un chauffeur, un garde du corps, un serveur, une tante de Noemi, un voisin) prêt à fournir la preuve que le leader, en tout cas sur un point précis, a menti. Si le vice privé peut être pardonné, et certainement non répréhensible quand consommé entre adultes consentants (on souligne l’usage ici du terme “adultes”), le parjure est par contre tout à fait inadmissible, comme le diraient ensuite les politiques et les médias ainsi que l’opinion publique.

Une procédure visant à sa destitution serait alors lancée. le Parlement voterait la condamnation et le leader serait contraint, avant ou après le vote -suivant son niveau de ténacité- à démissionner, alors que la presse à scandales continuerait à faire sortir quotidiennement de nouvelles révélations provenant de femmes plus diverses les unes que les autres, révélant tout de ce qu’elles sauraient de la vie et des habitudes sexuelles du leader. Pendant ce temps-là, sa femme l’aurait abandonné, tout comme ses (ex)alliés politiques et le leader se retirerait de la vie publique, s’embarquant pour un île lointaine, pourquoi pas les Bermudes, laissant son empire médiatique à ses enfants. Quant à Noemi, après avoir publié ses mémoires, interprété quelques films de série B et co-présenté une saison du “Grande Fratello” * ou d’un autre reality, elle épouserait un pharmacien, aurait 2 enfants, et, petit à petit, serait oubliée.”

Auteur: Enrico Franceschini
Titre original: “Se Noemi fosse inglese o americana“
Traduction française: Aglio E Cipolla

* Le Loft, version italienne

So Gingrich is kind of a new character to me, since in the ’90s I was way more into cool amphibians than presidential blow jobs, much less the resulting political scandals. He doesn’t strike me as wise or principled; he contorts and fabricates facts to appeal to the masses’ basest drives: greed and fear.

Gingrich on how Republicans love America, Democrats love terrorists: “There’s this weird pattern, where the Bush people wanted to defend Americans, and were pretty tough on terrorists, and these guys [Holder et al.] are prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists.”

On how thinking about investigating war crimes is like McCarthy’s paranoid crusade against undercover communists: “What we’re seeing now, in a very sad way, is as bitter a partisan attack on the Bush people, as we’ve seen since the McCarthy era. The degree that they’re putting people at risk for criminal prosecution in America is unprecedented.”

On how defense attorneys willing to defend alleged enemy combatants are actually spies for Jihadist terrorists: “Now, his (captured, maybe-enemy combatant) defense attorney would like you to share with them all the ways in which you’ve spied on terrorists. Which they will then promptly give back to Al Qaeda and other terror organizations.”

A few thoughts:

1. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, punk.
2. You can’t just “put people at risk for criminal prosecution,” they have to do something illegal for there to be any risk at all. It sounds like he agrees that it looks like the “Bush people” broke laws. Otherwise he wouldn’t think that if we investigated, we might find a basis for prosecution. In hindsight, it seems that Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to the torture memos was the most consistent for the Bush defenders, if also the most monstrous and historically aberrant. “Slapping, sleep deprivation, and a little water on your face can’t be torture.” It’s the only way to pay lip service to the rule of law. If you accept the fact that we tortured, but object that the law shouldn’t be applied to the most powerful people, then there’s not really any argument to be had. We’re just a country that elects a 4-year dictator, and we cross our fingers and hope they don’t figure out a way to extend their term limits.
3. I would love to hear Gingrich get into the details of why the Lewinsky scandal wasn’t a “bitter partisan attack” but it when you form a bipartisan investigation of Republicans and Democrats who gave torture the thumbs up, it’s just posturing.

Para muchos venezolanos, es difícil creer que los “líderes” opositores son verdaderamente eso… “Líderes Opositores”.

Tengo un pana en la oficina que es chavista de los que llaman “Rodilla en Tierra” (que no sé porque lo relaciono con Mónica Lewinsky) y él cree que Chávez le paga a Rosales para que diga las estupideces que dice, o que los dirigentes de Partidos Políticos de Oposición son infiltrados que toman las peores dediciones para perjudicar al pueblo y seguir dejando que Chávez se quede en el Gobierno.

Por líderes así, que no tienen el más mínimo interés en el bienestar del venezolano es que Chávez sigue y seguirá en el Gobierno, aprovechándose de las riquezas, invadiendo fincas, nacionalizando empresas, regalando el dinero y haciendo lo que se le da la gana. Como es posible que la esposa de Rosales diga que él es muy valiente, que él siempre da la cara ^_^…

Yo tengo mi teoría: Yo soy Adeco, soy Pitiyankee, y además de eso soy un “Disociado Psicótico” que piensa que TODO lo que pasa en Venezuela y parte del mundo es culpa de Chávez, y como él es un Dictador Totalitario, necesita que el resto de los idiotas piensen que él es Democrático, así que contrató en el Circo de los Hermanos Gasca o el de Los Valentinos aun grupo de Payasos desempleados y los puso como “Líderes” de Partidos Políticos (Dígase Primero Justicia, Un Nuevo Tiempo, Copei) para hacer creer que en Venezuela hay democrácia porque hay oposición…

Cual Oposición… si en Venezuela existiera Oposición, no tendríamos una estrella más en la Bandera, el Caballo Blanco iría a la Derecha, tendríamos todavía 20 Estados, Dos Territorios y Un Distrito Federal, No existiría esa cosa que llaman Estado Vargas donde Un Gobernador tiene la misma jurisdicción que el Alcalde, existirían solo Cuatro Componentes de las Fuerzas Armadas y éstas se someterían al presidente de Turno (La Constitución) y no a un Proceso Ideológico del siglo XIX…

La Única Oposición de Chavez se llamó George W. Bush, el Imperio, la CIA… eso si es Oposición; también está Collor de Mello y Uribe…

Here he is looking us boldly in the eye and lying straight to our face. What a liar.

Remember this little piece of nastiness? Even when he was confessing about lying, he was lying. I wonder what he’s lying about these days?