Un Iran dispotico potrebbe essere definito come un luogo non ameno per lo sviluppo del mondo. Tutte le dittature sono un rigetto del mondo. Una “stranezza” che affonda le proprie forze in violence and weapons. Maybe the media are pushing the "Iran problem" to reach out to the state of Israel, or for fear that a power like Iran to become an element of imbalance in the global context, and especially that of the East (a new Saddam) or maybe it really is a shame that a country like this, with a story that is central to the world along with its geographical position, sink into an abyss destructive (for the rest of the world). Unfortunately, Iran is only one piece in the puzzle of dictatorships (do not know if it is among the hardest because there are still events and blogs). Often the murders, the civil liberty abuses and "bestial" many other schemes are being neglected, or are used only rarely. The most striking case is China: the world's largest dictatorship. Are rare and sporadic, but all important and basic items that come to us from Eastern Turkestan and Tibet (half that of China occupied by the military) are abundant and hateful the news on death sentences, as well as stunning in their simplicity ( elemental analysis of reality) news censorship on the internet and elsewhere. Then there are all other countries, the Sino-Soviet axis: Vietnam, Burma, North Korea, etc ... A blob of reddish color. Moving to the other side we find the South America, Africa and some other countries Asian or European level: all under the same banner of the degradation of human civilization and social development. Currently, priority is given to Iran, but the old Persia is the first of many. dictatorships, although the methods can sometimes be complex (essentially depends on technology and culture, among other more developed in the context of freedom and progress), its sights are simple and elementary: Pheromone, chocolate, oil, cement and weapons. Democracies are slightly more complex, and analyze them, without prejudices and limitations, is not an easy task. One criticism must be balanced, realistic, can not ignore all the forces in play, and especially must strive to improve what already exists. As part of a dialectic of this kind, in a constructive dialogue with another person, we must never forget that a question correctly and usually follows, with the hypothetical interlocutor who would say something like: "Do not complain and say that you live in a country or a little pseudo free even if democratic, because there are places, see Iran, where you can express your ideas, where you just can not complain "While this maximum is simple:" If I was born in a democratic country, if I live in a democratic country, for democracy if I breathed a lifetime, it is logical that my socio-political frame of reference is directly proportional to the status in which I lived, if you were born in a dictatorship of the few freedoms I'd be happy that I can aim, but being in a particular context I will try to make improvements in that same context, in short, aiming to study the past to the future " .
E 'began a year. The change, although in the context of the needs, often becomes a process of slow. A change hath been revealed in the Oval Office in Washington. A breath of information hath been had by treating topics uncomfortable to the premier. Still there is a sea per poter iniziare a vedere qualche verità sui media, sul conflitto di interessi, sui monopoli. Qualche tempo fa apparve su Repubblica un articolo che “gioiva” alla diffusione di alcuni libri “proibiti” in Nord Corea, ed erano accennati dei passi di George Orwell, preso a modello come libero pensatore nel contesto bolscevica e comunista: pareva quasi che 1984 fosse stato scritto per i comunisti e contro i comunisti (strano che su Focus lo stesso scrittore britannico venne definito “comunista”). Mancavano, nelle citazioni, dei passi forse importanti, mentre stavano citate alcune righe riguardanti un libro di storia per bambini, e la relazione tra la figura del Grande Fratello e il Partito (espressamente associato Republic from the Communist Party). So, you want to quote Orwell, it means becoming a communist or anticommunist: This is the only solution except for the total elimination (burning) of his books. But here's what you are probably forgot to write:
"Somewhere brains were thinking, strictly anonymous, who coordinated everything and fix the policies which imposed to preserve, falsify or destroy a particular fragment of the past." " There they produced papers that contained only trash sport, the facts of crime news, horoscopes, novelettes, films crammed with sex, and sentimental songs composed by a kind of kaleidoscope called 'Versifier'. Not missing an entire subsection (Pornosez, in Newspeak) engaged in the production of pornographic material " " The hard work, care of the house and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and especially gambling, limiting their horizons. " " The rocket bombs which fell all the day on London were probably dropped by the government of Oceania 'to keep people in fear' " " On a concrete level, however, the war involves only a small number of people, for the most part highly specialized troops, and causes relatively small losses. The fighting, when there is, they occur in border towns whose location is virtually unknown to the common man. " " At the same time, the knowledge that in war, and therefore in danger, makes the concentration of all power in the hands of a small caste seem the only and unavoidable condition in order to survive. "
is the number of Republic today (December 27, 2009), a summary of some forty pages (the rest are shows, tv, sports and local news): First page headlines: "Terrorism, the fear returns flight " 11 + 1 pages were devoted to terrorism and war, safety of the Pope, Iran and Afghanistan and their wickedness, to Al Qaeda 9 pages of advertising (full page) 7 pages of crime news, weather and gossip 4 pages of curiosity (animals, wine, "Cortina d'Ampezzo and Madonna di Campiglio) 3 pages of political reforms to the summary of Berlusconi, and a little 'space at the PD and "all'inciucio" 3 pages of economy
PS Here's the part quoted by the Republic in "Reading Orwell in Pyongyang on 28 October 2009: " He took the children's history book and looked at the portrait of Big Brother that stood on the front. I His eyes stared at him, hypnotics. It was as if some immense force crush you, something that penetrated the skull and there pounding the brain, to instil the fear of having personal opinions and almost persuading them to deny the evidence of what they will send you directions. One day the party would have proclaimed that two plus two equals five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that sooner or later it happens, was in the very premises upon which it was based of the Party. (...) But the terrible thing was not so much that you would kill if you had thought otherwise, but that they could be right. After all, how do we know that two plus two equals four? "Certainly Orwell took as a reference to the Soviet sad events, but if the Animal Farm is clearly dedicated to the famous party "equality" and its vicissitudes, 1984 is something more, is an expansion of thought that extends and embraces the world, the foggy London of 1800 to smokey Shanghai 2099.
Considerations "No global, ten years after" articles appeared in the Republic of November 29, 2009, the so-called "no global" 10 years after the so-called birth in Seattle November 30, 1999. good articles, but incomplete. missing in the first place all the appearance of backroom deals. Already history has taught to consider the burning of Rome by Nero as an attack towards the first Christian communities in order to blame others of their intent: by which he could build in style to Forbes, his ivory castle: the Domus Aurea. Articles lacking in the reality of an underground diarrhea that permeates so many interests and collusion. Never underestimate, or exclude from the current history, the ground forces, and we must never forget that there are agreements and covert operations to foreign eyes, the secret activities, one of the biggest limitations of the so-called democratic countries. Many witnesses have pointed out (and these are media reports but often forgotten) that during the G8 summit in Genoa has been split windows under the eyes "supervision" of police with arms folded, a few meters away, or that of a black block, having smashed something, going to confabulation with gatherings of the guardians of the republican laws. There were also investigations on the organization of public safety, the dynamics of events (one case for all the murder of Carlo Giuliani, essentially due to a truck was isolated and easy prey to the "assailants"), how to behave and act the face of this massive and varied sea. Also in the articles of Republic has not been treated the Sermon on the choice of Genoa, also from a planning point of view, as the host in 2001, however, likely that it was only a chance of an organization such as the G8 (the last march "abundant", which was already known in advance, the people neoglobal) in a country, Italy, who was just elected Berlusconi and his band of retainers, stooges, and fascist mafia; place, even from a historical point of view, social and geographical (halfway between North Europe and other) for a violent crackdown in South American style, a place not often shaped by intrigue, subservient media, a company divert (divert human evolution) and panting coup never satisfied to belong to Homo sapiens but eager to return to an age pseudo primitive (probably because the so-called primitive men were already more advanced). The G8 summit in Genoa has definitely created in many minds the direct relationship between the company's "no global" and violence: from then on, each event is labeled as "anti-globalization" has become a space "journalism" to make it known to the public if there has been violence by participants, thus excluding the motivations and the actual event itself. missing then all the talk of the attack on the WTC in 2001, which has crushed all forms of human mental and elevation, reducing everything to good and bad terrorists and freedom fighters, civil and uncivil. Attempt following which they have organized two wars, has shifted the media attention and many people began to be formatted with new data (simultaneously with the collapse of their rights and the annihilation of their mental resources). In practice a speech on 10 years of so-called "no global", not to mention the secret agreements, the G8 summit in Genoa and the attack of 11 September 2001, a speech is slightly weak and incomplete, and even if it is done well and is truth is likely to be rich in a speech to 270 degrees.
Republic is one of those papers that consider their readers in several ways: by a parte li vuole educare o, nella migliore delle ipotesi, informare, dall’altra li stima come una massa di handicappati utili solo a massimizzare i profitti. Dopo che per giorni la notizia della privatizzazione dell’acqua già circolava, rimbalzava e si era fatta strada anche tra i titoli del TG3, Repubblica ha sorvolato sul fattaccio non dando spazio a un provvedimento così aberrante. Solo due giorni fa, mercoledì, quando il decreto blindato è arrivato in Parlamento, ha spiattellato in prima una bella foto con un bicchiere d’acqua, e un titoletto che rimandava a pagina 32: quella della sezione “Economia, Finanza e Mercati”. Ieri è andata un po’ meglio: anche se in prima non c’era nothing, has spent a couple of pages, occupied two-thirds of advertising space, in "Economics and Politics". Maybe it was the best sexual events of the premier and the ten questions for the mentally retarded, with which he invaded Italy for months. Or perhaps they were better than 10 questions on conflict of interest, reports on mafia-politics, human rights, etc.. etc ... Too bad: even for the many good journalists who work there. Maybe we need to remember one thing: if a Republic, a nation, betray the truth, progress, rights, freedom, will be a poor maimed induced drinking bitter water, which has been paid a fair amount of dust taken directly from more lower layers of the human genius. So advice to the friends of the Republic: if you do not sow bitterness, swollen livers, wilting of the creation of the mind, be consistent with your main task (hoping that the secondary information can emerge) and stop criticizing (especially on sexual events) your "pseudo" counterparts: the first Berlusconi.
Republic of the "fact of the Day on BBC2 from 14 to 14.45
The Fact of the Day is a transmission going on Rai in the early afternoon, and can only be the result of nihilism and intellectual leveling out. Certainly the situation is worse on Mediaset, to 'encephalogram piatto si aggiunge anche la cattiva qualità, ma purtroppo Mediaset è ancora in mano al cavaliere di Arcore e alla sua schiera si tirapiedi.
Nel programma sul Due ogni giorno c’è una domanda posta ai telespettatori, che grazie al telefono possono svolgere uno pseudo sondaggio, in diretta, su quelli che sono i fatti politici del giorno (o della settimana se si prolungano). Oggi la domanda era:
“I giudici in Italia svolgono un ruolo eccessivamente politico?”
I telespettatori avrebbero dovuto chiamare al numero a pagamento (classico esempio di parassitismo) e digitare 1 per rispondere “Si”, 2 per il “No”. Non bisogna esser un philologist to understand the bias of such an application, simply remove the question from the word "too" with it is that the whole concept takes on a meaning more clear, more radical, it presupposes, in short, that courts already exist in a political and this proves that sometimes "excessive." Here's how the sentence would have been without quell'avverbio: "Judges play a political role in Italy?" In and of itself an application in bad faith, but with the addition of "excessively" reinforces the bias, the double face in this case should pave, in the minds of Italians, the road to judicial reform This program P2. In "Done Day" so malicious applications are the norm, are daily, are the result of the directives of the network, the Berlusconi government. Every day, harangued the viewer (the housewife, housewives, pensioners, workers paused) with their flat applications, deployed, motivated by the dictates of Palazzo Grazioli, and on those who played a large part of the interaction viewer-tv and therefore also of the audience. What kind of a sleazy theater have set up? Making interactive questions means to rise to impartiality? Because if someone raises the question that "the courts can play a political role" just because not to be condescending in re Silvio, then there are many other questions to which "The Fact of the Day" (hidden intentions to the viewer unaware) could give an answer like:
"Roma steal babies?" "Immigrants steal work to Italians? " " The Communists do children eat? " " The PD is a hotbed of Bolsheviks? " " Di Pietro is violent language? " " Santoro insults because he feels pleasure in doing it? " "The government is governing well Berlsuconi?" "Berlusconi is the best prime minister of the last 150 years?" "The reform of justice is good for Italy?" "The P2 is a functional body to democracy?"
etc. ... Anybody can have fun to make and invent all applications that hide from a fundamental logic: the bias and vomiting in the face of its viewers (most ignorant and unaware, too distracted or too bogged down), the shaping of the minds with theaters disguised as talk shows, the influence the priorities of Italian through interactive questions that focus on where the authors, and managers employed by the government, want it to be placed.
She had never seen any tissue blasted a respected and well known journalist of the Italian television, and yet it happened. Yesterday's was just another icing on the cake of manure that Mediaset lit for slapping the culture. But you know, that's a little program (with several million viewers) which easily and often, approached shamelessly delicate topics, and half-naked little women, culture and information (or pseudo) to gossip and dolls with the suction cups to uncork the toilet. The show of showgirls who repeated the term written by the authors (or perhaps, the same Antonio Ricci) was in some ways un'ennesima conferma, ma che tipo di programma è?
POLITICA Mettere sotto la gogna degli insulti gratuiti l’eventuale avversario (del sultano), tempestandolo di pseduo-satira (vi ricordate il “fù fù” di D’alema che si soffiava sui pugni a guisa di tic?), emettendo una mole possente di denigrazione. Ad esempio i frequenti richiami a Cosa Nostra quando (giustamente^^) si parla dell’UDC; l’etichettatura a “comunisti” dei politici della sinistra; l’etichettatura a “sinistrorsi” dei giornalisti che lo criticano; o i frequenti accostamenti tra il fascismo e i vari politici di AN. Parlare di Berlusconi è invece un ridurre tutto his baldness and his little women (with an ending theme when s'inneggiava to "daddy" and Beelzebub). Relations with Craxi, his experiences with Dell'Utri and Mangano, never existed, and if they spoke a strange case, all hath been reduced to a couple of times in twenty years of daily broadcasts. In short, never mention the past or present relationship between foreign assets and Forza Italy. Another sore point, the conflict of interest, probably, even more Dell'Utri and Mangano (since there is one of the major worms of this democracy), the taboo must remain hidden (so to speak Emilio Fede but the Matrix or TG5 with recipes for pina grandmother does not affect them).
INFORMATION deal with serious themes. Environmental and social injustices, deception and fraud: the result of a state of things still to be underdeveloped and uncivilized (in the face of civilization, "Western"). Sure!, Everything is beautiful. But considering the frequency information of these interludes alternated with girlie, trash television, mistakes and bloopers, the soup is reduced to a few spaces at a time. These few areas are used to amplify the resonance of a given problem, to make it visible to a large number of people: an admirable use of the medium, but that leaves the time is when you stay on the surface, do not you go to dig in the cases, most of the time various types of collusion, and ambiguous relationships between institutions, citizens and strange areas. In short, once out of ten we give voice to the frustrations of citizens, but do not say that these frustrations have emerged. And even when it is said, would be a little 'how to empty a pond in a glass of clean water with his left arm, while with the right will continue to throw buckets of shit.
VARIETA'-VERITA'-LOL? often have fun too. There is also the mood of lightness that makes the show watchable in moments of relaxation, or while eating. Unfortunately, a bit 'as the speech information sipped with the dropper, but the laughs are rare, like those clenched teeth of the Week Enigmistica. Bisogna dire infatti che la professione di comico è diversa da quella di autore. Certamente gli autori di Striscia sono gente simpatica, con la verve creativa e divertente, ma tutto un altro discorso rispetto ai veri comici. Per non parlare della satira: sarebbe come paragonare il Po’ al Rio delle Amazzoni. Rimane, come suddetto, il velo della comicità, ma è così leggero da lasciare raramente il sorriso sulle facce delle persone anche dopo la sigla di chiusura. Insomma: i comici fanno i comici (alcuni satira, non a Zelig), gli autori fanno gli autori (pagati da Berlusconi&Co).
Il 16 luglio 2009, tra le 0:45 e l’1:25 (di sicuro un audience spaventoso...), aired one of those products in which the interviewee's presence is essential to determine their quality. Certainly it is also important to the tenant, but in this case, his figure was in some ways embarrassing. It is also a little embarrassing. The product in question is the famous piece, Ice Age (about RaiDue), in which the journalist and the cartoonist Borromeo Vauro were interviewed by the presenter Daria Bignardi. The program, recorded in May, was stopped by the director of network Marano (in line with the League) for the sake of a level playing field, but were many who feel the smell of censorship . And in fact, seeing him today, in the words of the guests not have been spoken big news compared to what was said in those days, or criticism of the "prime minister" (in the matter of tissue which is celebrating 18 years since the sultan as a guest). Other names of politicians or parties, except for a couple of brief examples of the program "Annozero" not been made, and the "prime minister", loaded at the highest institutional levels, can not remain apart, at least one democracy, of criticism of his work (seen for example the uses of "flights") and its statements. And paradoxically, if you wanted to find a nit, if you wanted to try it as an excuse to censor a lack of counterparty in realtà la controparte c’era: era Daria Bignardi. Durante tutta l’intervista ha cercato di “ammorbidire” i giudizi sul premier, evocando addirittura la mancanza di Ghedini come difensore, e ha provato a smontare la tesi secondo la quale in Italia esisterebbe un regime nell’informazione: ed è su questo ultimo punto che s’è dilungata di più. Davvero un pessimo esempio di conduzione. C’ha provato in tutte le maniere: dal cercare di “convincere” gli ospiti che la loro era una opinione personale, al parare i colpi della “verità” tentando di persuadere la Borromeo a non dividere i giornalisti in buoni e cattivi (cosa che ella non ha fatto), ma la ciliegina sulla torta è stata la solita pappardella che si utilizza generalmente per negare l’esistenza di una informazione “malata”: l’insulto agli elettori che si fanno plagiare da questo sistema mediatico. Peccato che nessuno abbia citato le relazioni di “ Freedomhouse ”, e peccato che nessuno abbia risposto che la gente non è stolta, cerebrolesa o ritardata, ma è più plausibilmente distratta, poco attenta alle faccende politiche nei suoi particolari, fiduciosa nei confronti dei giornalisti, dei media e dei politici. E ognuno deve prendersi delle responsabilità in ciò che fa e produce.
La notizia di fosse comuni in Afghanistan, dove sarebbero sepolti circa un paio di migliaia di taliban, è sicuramente una buona notizia. Infatti i taliban sono brutti e cattivi, sono terroristi, producono la droga che poi va a colpire di nostri giovani cittadini, che se fossero i soliti drogati comunisti nullafacenti se lo meriterebbero (meriterebbero anche i campi di lavoro), altrimenti è una cosa brutta e cattiva. Le guerre sono così. Alla fine si riducono tutte all’esaltazione del concetto di genere umano, di uomo, all’apologia del progresso. Portano le persone a una condizione di esseri senzienti, dove è facile riconoscersi in un altro uomo, dove è possibile creare una situazione nuova, una realtà evoluta, tecnologica, of deep culture and welfare. And fortunately there is us: the heroes of democracy. That 's what our task: to ensure that Afghanistan and the Taliban should be converted to absolute truth that we carry and offer them for nothing, in fact: we do because we are lovers of democracy. In those lands are ugly and unpleasant, but when you have to bring freedom, all of our providential intervention. We are the only ones that can help the oppressed to bring progress. The only dictates is to defeat the Taliban those bad and evil, those Reeks, those enemies of freedom and progress are just terrorists, and we know that terrorism is only defeated with fighter bombers, artillery and heavy weapons.
If it were not for the murder Aldrovandi network probably would never have been made known to most people. Would have remained hidden in the memories of the family. Events which are in developing countries, the third and fourth world, are on the agenda, but in a country that wants to soar towards technology, towards progress, towards the culture, are not conceivable. The family of the young man does well to be fulfilled, with the death of a child in that way too, it is hard to bear, a conviction in this case, is an indicator of guilt, but simply projecting the "fantasy" to imagine other scenarios. Such as: what would be the sentence if four young men were beaten to death a member of the police? If they had four extra-beaten to death a policeman? They would be sentenced to "three and a half years" in prison? And who will pay the injured dignity of so many members of the public security that they have in their mind an idea of \u200b\u200bjustice, harmony, progress and culture? Who knows! These are questions to which you will not answer in the coming years. Meanwhile, in a democracy protesters are bringing democracy itself. In China, Iran, gangs of terrorists and violent Black Bloc, who says that they have stolen elections, some for other unnecessary apologies, showed clashing with the guardians of their governments and their friends, proving one thing: violent protesters who are rightly suppressed, and often killed with blows of firearms. Why protest at the cost of their lives? Because they have nothing to do, are drugged, they just want to make racket, smashing a few cars and shop windows, are the usual: from South America to Asia, from Africa to Europe, who goes on the march, protesters, and disputes , it is only because it has nothing to do, he just wants to smash some window.
