Enfin une bonne nouvelle! :D
(L'interdiction de fumer dans les lieux publics rentre finalement en vigueur a Genève a partir du 30 Octobre). :D
lunedì 12 ottobre 2009
Italy
Somebody was asking explanations about Italy's politics.
I wrote down this and now I post it here for future memory.
-------------------------------------------------------------
During the first half century of republican life, we had the cold war at home: a good third of the country was sympathising with the eastern block, while a half was pro West.
Only the latter were 'allowed' to power because we all knew that if the communist party won the elections and claimed power CIA would have imposed a dictatorship (as in Chili, Greece, etc.). -> no alternance -> corruption.
When the wall came down in '89 the centre-right parties in power lost their main argument and crashed down under trials of corruption.
Half the country found themselves politically 'orphans' and scared that the old 'communist' (who had not been such for decades already) came to power.
Berlusconi (who had lost his protector -Craxi- who died on the run from justice, and who had nobody anymore to protect him against his huge debts and several coming trials) smelt the opportunity, made of himself the 'paladin of anticommunism' and 'adopted' that important part of the electorate that was unable to think out of the schemes that had ruled the republic since its very beginning (Communists vs.- pro-westerners) while giving access to parliament to those political forces that could not be presented as viable until then (the heirs of Mussolini, the regional separatists...).
All serious politicians of any colours were therefore obliged to ally against him, despite the fact that they were extremely distant from one another (from the former republicans, to the former communists, from the former socialists to the former Christian parties...).
The result is that the several parties of the opposition have been fighting one-another for visibility much more than they have ever been countering Berlusconi.
In the meantime, he could strengthen his grip on media and also grab the public media when got to power.
I've been in Italy recently and I realise that they really live in a bubble with very little access to normal info, while the few normal newspapers and TV programmes remaining are tagged as 'militant' by mainstream info.
Berlusconi doesn't have the problems that centre-left have, because his allies can only access power together with him. He only needs to satisfy their requests on the easy slogans (e.g. security -> patrols, against all real crime statistics) and in exchange they let him satisfy his own agenda for himself and his electorate (de-classification of financial and fiscal crimes, etc.)
I wrote down this and now I post it here for future memory.
-------------------------------------------------------------
During the first half century of republican life, we had the cold war at home: a good third of the country was sympathising with the eastern block, while a half was pro West.
Only the latter were 'allowed' to power because we all knew that if the communist party won the elections and claimed power CIA would have imposed a dictatorship (as in Chili, Greece, etc.). -> no alternance -> corruption.
When the wall came down in '89 the centre-right parties in power lost their main argument and crashed down under trials of corruption.
Half the country found themselves politically 'orphans' and scared that the old 'communist' (who had not been such for decades already) came to power.
Berlusconi (who had lost his protector -Craxi- who died on the run from justice, and who had nobody anymore to protect him against his huge debts and several coming trials) smelt the opportunity, made of himself the 'paladin of anticommunism' and 'adopted' that important part of the electorate that was unable to think out of the schemes that had ruled the republic since its very beginning (Communists vs.- pro-westerners) while giving access to parliament to those political forces that could not be presented as viable until then (the heirs of Mussolini, the regional separatists...).
All serious politicians of any colours were therefore obliged to ally against him, despite the fact that they were extremely distant from one another (from the former republicans, to the former communists, from the former socialists to the former Christian parties...).
The result is that the several parties of the opposition have been fighting one-another for visibility much more than they have ever been countering Berlusconi.
In the meantime, he could strengthen his grip on media and also grab the public media when got to power.
I've been in Italy recently and I realise that they really live in a bubble with very little access to normal info, while the few normal newspapers and TV programmes remaining are tagged as 'militant' by mainstream info.
Berlusconi doesn't have the problems that centre-left have, because his allies can only access power together with him. He only needs to satisfy their requests on the easy slogans (e.g. security -> patrols, against all real crime statistics) and in exchange they let him satisfy his own agenda for himself and his electorate (de-classification of financial and fiscal crimes, etc.)
domenica 11 ottobre 2009
The frustration of a sterile graphomaniac
"Graphomaniac" defines me rather well.
I started a number of books without ever finishing any, but what I really enjoy is the act of writing itself.
In the last years, online forums gave me the opportunity of satisfying this need by interacting and debating in written, a much more effective way than the oral form to communicate, when your point is not only impressing; when what you want to exchange is real content, real opinions, real understanding...
While writing you can double check the facts you are mentioning by heart, you can review what you wrote without thinking before launching it in the world, you can re-read that offensive line you were going to post against somebody and remember that you are not like that: you are not going to offend somebody unless you can include in the same sentence all the elements that justify that attack.
And over all no impolite fast-food-minded idiot can interrupt you in the middle of a reasoning, judging what (s)he thinks you were going to say before having let you the opportunity of saying it, often contesting you for something you were not going to say at all.
Finally, there is this comforting impression that it is worth saying what you are going to say. That someone will listen and be interested in what you are saying, not in the way you are looking at them while saying it.
... whether it is actually the case or not. :)
Only one day you realise that most of the time it is not the case, we live in an era of superficiality, where what counts is success, that only translates in money and fame.
Most of the time conversation is a social tool, useful to fill the void with the comforting impression of not being alone.
A conversation most of the time is over all an opportunity for looking good, rather than for exchanging content and tickle our minds.
And writing loses its appeal as well, like sending radio messages to an infinite space where you know nobody is there to listen.
I started a number of books without ever finishing any, but what I really enjoy is the act of writing itself.
In the last years, online forums gave me the opportunity of satisfying this need by interacting and debating in written, a much more effective way than the oral form to communicate, when your point is not only impressing; when what you want to exchange is real content, real opinions, real understanding...
While writing you can double check the facts you are mentioning by heart, you can review what you wrote without thinking before launching it in the world, you can re-read that offensive line you were going to post against somebody and remember that you are not like that: you are not going to offend somebody unless you can include in the same sentence all the elements that justify that attack.
And over all no impolite fast-food-minded idiot can interrupt you in the middle of a reasoning, judging what (s)he thinks you were going to say before having let you the opportunity of saying it, often contesting you for something you were not going to say at all.
Finally, there is this comforting impression that it is worth saying what you are going to say. That someone will listen and be interested in what you are saying, not in the way you are looking at them while saying it.
... whether it is actually the case or not. :)
Only one day you realise that most of the time it is not the case, we live in an era of superficiality, where what counts is success, that only translates in money and fame.
Most of the time conversation is a social tool, useful to fill the void with the comforting impression of not being alone.
A conversation most of the time is over all an opportunity for looking good, rather than for exchanging content and tickle our minds.
And writing loses its appeal as well, like sending radio messages to an infinite space where you know nobody is there to listen.
Già mi manchi!
Dormo male da solo.
Quando viaggio, o viaggi tu, io non chiudo occhio.
Mi sa che questa settimana mi impasticco, ma tanto so per esperienza che poi mi sveglio con l'impressione di non aver chiuso occhio lo stesso ed altrettanto stanco.
:-(
Quando viaggio, o viaggi tu, io non chiudo occhio.
Mi sa che questa settimana mi impasticco, ma tanto so per esperienza che poi mi sveglio con l'impressione di non aver chiuso occhio lo stesso ed altrettanto stanco.
:-(
giovedì 8 ottobre 2009
Voglio un Paese normale, ma non ci credo neanche stavolta.
Con tutta calma i giudici della Corte Costituzionale hanno finalmente ribadito che nessun cittadino ha il diritto di definirsi più uguale degli altri (ci sarebbe stato bisogno di ripeterlo in un Paese normale?).
Berlusconi è sbottato in una crisi isterica da re sole che accusa tutti di lesa maestà.
Vale la pena ricordare che non è imputato per reati di opinione, ma per corruzione, frode fiscale, reati societari... (e pensare che si vende come un araldo del libero mercato!) x-(
Comunque non credo che avrò mai la soddisfazione di vederlo in galera, o almeno ricercato e latitante come il suo mentore Craxi.
E questo perché il Paese non se lo merita. Da noi infrangere la legge è tollerato ed apprezzato. Siamo disonesti. Gli onesti sono pochi e vedono l'onestà come una questione privata con la propria coscienza, non come precondizione per la convivenza civile. Per cui tollerano la disonestà con condiscendenza.
Non c'è una vera opposizione a Berlusconi. E lui resta il padrone del Paese.
domenica 4 ottobre 2009
Crepa, please!
Who ever said one shouldn't wish (not pursue, of course) somebody's death?
Thanks again and again Tony! :)
Thanks again and again Tony! :)
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)