Minunata lume nouă

    102

    Something for Nothing

    Campania a ajuns la sfârşit. John McCain şi-a recunoscut înfrângerea, iar Barack Obama urmează să îşi ţină discursul victoriei*. Cei care l-au votat se pregătesc entuziasmaţi de discursul Alesului. Televiziunile sunt extaziate şi întreaga lume se află în delir. Şi pentru ei şi pentru noi, ceilalţi, care nu ne-am lăsat păcăliţi de un oportunist incapabil, cu simpatii socialiste şi un trecut dubios, e clar că lumea nu va mai fi la fel.

    America a pierdut şi împreună cu ea întreaga lume, nu numai Irakul, Afghanistanul, Israelul, Georgia, Columbia şi Europa de Est. Oamenilor o să le ia ceva timp să înţeleagă, dar peste ani se va vorbi despre miopia, iraţionalitatea şi necinstea care i-au permis unui farsor să ajungă liderul lumii libere pe 4 noiembrie 2008.

    Alegerile din 2008 sunt o adevărată piatră de hotar. În urma lor, America s-a ales nu numai cu un preşedinte democrat, ci şi cu un legislativ democrat. Partidul Democrat domină ambele camere ale noului Congres, nemaiexistând echilibrul fragil din Senat. Preşedinţia Obama va putea opera orice modificări consideră că sunt necesare pentru a „transforma fundamental” Statele Unite ale Americii şi împreună cu ele, întreaga planetă.

    Bine aţi venit în Minunata lume nouă!

    Imnul Obama

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    102 COMENTARII

    1. Da, exact asta e genul de comentariu delirant care il arata pe McCain drept un om de onoare, pentru care am foarte mult respect, iar pe tine un sectant obscur reprezentat mai bine de alde Sam Brownback sau Pat Robertson. Nu va ramane decat sa asteptati impreuna apocalipsa post-Obama.

    2. Sa nu fiu inteles gresit: nu ma astept la vreun fel de Ierusalim pamantesc de la administratia Obama, am indoielile mele, multe chiar; dar sa lasam istericalele astea ieftine.

    3. Draga Marmoros, pastreaza-ti acuzatiile si uita-te mai bine in oglinda. Una din caracteristicile sectantului este ignorarea realitatii si substituirea ei cu credintele proprii. Sa luam drept exemplu cazul tau: apar probleme (dezvaluiri despre trecutul lui Obama), le ignori si mergi mai departe netulburat. Atata timp cat pe tine nu te-a interesat cine este Barack Obama, optiunea ta pentru el este complet irationala.

      Mai demult ai participat la o mica discutie despre Obamessiah. Atunci cand ai vazut ca nu ai argumente te-ai retras pentru a-ti vedea linistit de contributia la cultul personalitatii, reintrand doar la cateva zeci de minute de la victoria lui Obama. E frumos? Nu e, asa ca nu te afli in postura de a tine lectii altora.

    4. Draga Imperialistule,

      Nu m-am retras din dezbatere din lipsa de argumente, ci fiindca, in ceea ce ma priveste, e foarte dificil sa dezbati cu cineva care sustine idei luate din National Review cu argumente luate de pe blogul lui Michelle Malkin. Era inutil. E ca si cum eu ti-as explica, de pilda, ca Bill Ayers e un tip ok, fiindca asa zice Tariq Ali in The New Left. Sau ca si cum tu mi-ai explica cum ca evreii sunt pecinginea pamantului, fiindca asa spune ala il Mein Kampf. Ne pierdeam vremea. Daca eu puneam la bataie o idee si o sustineam cu vreun editorial din Washington Post sau New York Times, imi spuneai ca alea-s ziare kominterninste, aducand ca dovada reportajul publicat de NYT in anii ’30 despre Uniunea Sovietica. Pierdere de vreme.
      Si, ca sa-ti mai raspund o data la intrebare, stiu bine cine e Obama, dar cred ca legaturile lui cu Ayers si cu Wright au fost fie nerelevante si pasagere (Ayers), fie denuntate public si regretate (Wright). Si asa mai departe. Inca o data, cred ca ne pierdem vremea. Nu sper intr-o dezbatere cinstita, doar ca de data asta m-a distrat nota isterica a ultimei tale postari.

    5. Ma acuzi ca as contribui in liniste la consolidarea cultului personalitatii lui Obama, desi in cel de-al doilea post ziceam clar ca am indoielile mele cu privire la Obama. Astia cu cultul personalitatii nu prea lasa loc de rezerve, parca. Vrei sa ma spovedesc la tine ca sa-ti arat ca nu-l idolatrizez pe Obama, ci dimpotriva?
      Vezi, asta e atitudine sectanta. Iti spun ca am indoielile mele, dar ca eu asa cred, ca in situatia asta Obama e mai potrivit pentru America decat McCain. Ei bine, asta e o chestie pe care tu, ca un fanatic obtuz, nu poti s-o pricepi. In ceea ce te priveste, lucrurile sunt clare: ori esti d-al nostru, ori esti un idolatru si un orbete. De-aia zic, e o mare diferenta intre tine si McCain. Esti sigur ca n-ai plans cand McCain a castigat primarele republicanilor, si ca nu i-ai fi preferat pe Brownback sau pe Thompson? Astia barbati de stat!

    6. Marmorosblanc, dezbaterea cinstita nu poate avea loc atata timp cat realitatea nu intra in scena, iar daca tu compari National Review sau pe Michelle Malkin cu Tariq Ali, e clar ca ne pierdem vremea.

      N-ai pic de habar despre viata lui Obama daca poti sa spui ca legatura cu Ayers a fost pasagera si esti lipsit de judecata daca poti afirma ca legatura cu Wright a fost regretata. Relatia cu Wright a fost incheiata numai dupa ce scandalul s-a amplificat, devenind un pericol pentru campania lui Obama. Heh, pana atunci Wright era mentionat si pe site-ul lui Obama. Ba chiar avea o poza faina. 😆 A urmat celebrul discurs despre rasa, acea gargara care i-a dat pe spate pe sectanti 😉 . Altfel nici nu poate fi interpretat un discurs care a fost primit cu atata entuziasm, desi Obama nu numai ca nu isi explica optiunea Wright si minciuna televizata („nu am stiut despre aceste declaratii, altfel as fi parasit Biserica” => „Did i ever hear him say remarks that could be considered controversial? Yes.”), dar o da ca exemplu negativ pe bunica-sa alba („typical white perso” care se temea de negri si facea remarci rasiste).

    7. Ei bine, asta e o chestie pe care tu, ca un fanatic obtuz, nu poti s-o pricepi. In ceea ce te priveste, lucrurile sunt clare: ori esti d-al nostru, ori esti un idolatru si un orbete.

      Cam te contrazici, stimabile. Daca numai un „fanatic obtuz” trateaza parerile opuse conform „ori esti d-al nostru, ori esti un idolatru si un orbete”, atunci numai genul asta de fanatic ar putea sa ma califice drept un „sectant obscur” atunci cand ii pun la indoiala Alesul.

      genul de comentariu delirant care il arata pe McCain drept un om de onoare, pentru care am foarte mult respect, iar pe tine un sectant obscur

      Critica mea (si a noastra) s-a bazat intotdeauna pe ceea ce americanii numesc facts. In cazul sectantilor (ori daca preferi expresia englezeasca: in cazul acelorcultists), am criticat lipsa lor de discernamant, intunecarea mintii. Acuzatiile tale nu au nici o baza si nu ma impresioneaza, ba chiar ma amuza. E usor a trata pe celalt drept dusman al poporului, mai greu e sa deschizi ochii si sa lipesti unele de altele piesele din puzzle.

      In alta ordine de idei, ma bucur ca macar McCain e apreciat pozitiv. :mrgreen:

      P.S. Am tinut cu Romney. Am fost departe de a-i fi facut o evaluare completa, mi-a lipsit timpul pentru asa ceva, dar dintre candidatii republicani, el mi s-a parut cel mai potrivit. Nu regret insa candidatura lui McCain. Nici un alt republican nu ar fi avut sansele lui John McCain, mai ales cu o asemenea presa partinitoare.

    8. cam cum s-a vorbit peste ani despre duminica orbului.
      la ce folos?
      zarurile au fost aruncate.

    9. Liderii Minunatei Lumi Noi se felicita:

      Jose Manuel Barroso, presedintele Comisiei Europene: „Trebuie sa transformam criza in carene aflam intr-o noua oportunitate. Avem nevoie de un nou plan penurt o lume noua. Sincer, sper ca avandu-l ca presedinte pe Brack Obama, SUA isi va uni fortele cu Europa pentru a crea o lume noua. Pentru binele societatii, pentru binele lumii”.

      Gordon Brown, premierul britanic l-a felicitat pe noul presedinte ales al SUA salutand „viziunea sa pentru viitor”.

      Liderii socialisti salutind-ul pe Obama, sperind ca ii va ajuta in crearea unei noi lumi, a unui viitorului luminos. Ma intreb doar, despre ce fel de viitor vorbesc Barroso si Brown? Unul in care imigratia musulmana din UE a transformat intregi cartiere din marile orase Europene in ghetouri, multe dintre ele de nepenetrat, in care politia, salvarea si pompierii sint atacati de imigrantii musulmani daca indraznesc sa intre? Minunata Lume Noua a lui Gordon Brown, care ca prim ministru al UK, se intilneste prieteneste cu teroristi Al Qaeda? Minunata viitoare lume noua in care Obama promite palestinienilor divizarea Ierusalimului?

      Despre ce lume noua vorbiti domnilor??

    10. zice Barack HUSSEIN Obama:

      „The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you we as a people will get there.”

      Deci habar nu are ce-i de facut si unde se afla „there”. Si lumea care credea ca are solutii minune! Asadar, dragi americani, pregatiti-va nu pentru un an, si nu pentru un termen. Pentru doua, si poate si mai mult. Eu zic sa-l inscaunati neintirziat pe viata, pentru a fi siguri ca va avea timp sa va aduca schimbarea mult dorita. Si sa nu uitati sa numiti pe una din fetele lui (sau si mai bine, pe fiul lui daca da Dumnezeu sa se nasca primul printisor mulatru la Casa – care nu mai e chiar asa de – Alba) drept urmasa de drept la tron.

      Iata ca America tot nu e in stare sa aprecieze un om dupa „contents of his character”, ci tot dupa „color of his skin”. Sa-l purtati sanatosi, dragutilor!

    11. What sank McCain? (Byron York, National Review Online)

      In January, a few days before the South Carolina Democratic primary, I went to a Barack Obama rally in Columbia with a Republican friend who had never before seen Obama in action. This friend’s reaction: „Oh, s**t.” The super-enthusiastic crowd was about 3,000 strong — no big deal compared to the audiences Obama would later draw in the general election, but several times what John McCain was attracting in South Carolina at the time. My friend said the scene reminded him of the old clip from Jaws, in which the small-town sheriff, seeing how big the shark really is, says, „We’re gonna need a bigger boat.” The question, of course, was whether Republicans actually had a bigger boat.

      Now we can say for sure that they didn’t.

      In his concession speech, John McCain referred to his effort as „the most challenged campaign in modern times.” He was right. What sunk McCain’s presidential bid was a set of the worst conditions to face any candidate in decades, in combination with an opponent who was not only a better campaigner but also the favorite of the nation’s media establishment. And there was some luck involved, too.

      Could any candidate have been elected to succeed a president of his own party whose job approval rating was 25 percent? Probably not. Could any candidate have been elected to continue his party’s stay in the White House when roughly 90 percent of Americans believed the country was on the wrong track? Probably not. Could any candidate from the governing party have been elected after the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 4,000 points before one could even turn around? Probably not.

      McCain faced all those obstacles — and not just those, but a political climate in which his advantage over his opponent was perversely diminished by McCain’s own courage and good judgment. In the primaries, McCain bet his entire candidacy on the surge in Iraq. He was right, and Democrats were wrong. By any measure, he should have benefited, and Democrats should have suffered, when the surge worked. Instead, as Americans achieved greater success in Iraq — and as U.S. deaths fell to 13 last month, equaling the lowest total in a very long time — the war in Iraq simply fell off many voters’ radar screens. McCain’s resoluteness and good sense went largely unrewarded.

      And yet in spite of it all, McCain still managed to outperform conditions. The vote totals, as of 2 a.m. Eastern Time, show McCain with about 47 percent of the national popular vote. Perhaps that figure will go down a bit, but there’s no doubt that McCain far outshone George H.W. Bush’s 1992 re-election effort — a campaign undertaken in poor conditions for a Republican, but not nearly as bad as what McCain encountered this time — in which Bush won just 38 percent of the vote. Likewise, McCain outperformed Bob Dole, who won a little less than 41 percent in 1996. And McCain’s percentage of the popular vote might be not too far from George W. Bush’s in 2000, when Bush lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

      In other words, McCain, facing tougher challenges than his predecessors, yet somehow managed to win more votes. Just not enough.

      You hear a lot of talk to the effect that, despite all the obstacles facing his campaign, McCain was actually even, and a little ahead, of Obama until the financial crisis blew everything up. There’s some truth to that; on September 8, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, McCain led Obama 48.3 percent to 45.4 percent. As late as September 17, the two candidates were tied at 45.7 percent each.

      But that relatively brief moment at the top of the polls didn’t mean that all McCain’s other problems had gone away, or been conquered. Instead, it meant that any new problem, whether it be one as cataclysmic as the financial breakdown or one far less serious, would be placed on top of all of other McCain’s other handicaps, making the wall facing McCain a little higher.

      A few weeks before the election, a top McCain aide gave me the campaign’s inside view of the situation. „You could think of this as trying to summit a mountain,” he said. „Both campaigns have to summit the mountain. In most elections, one campaign has some kind of advantage over the other — maybe they get a ten-minute or a half-hour head start — but both sides have to climb the same face of the mountain. In this election, we’re not climbing the same face of the mountain. They’re climbing the side of the mountain with boardwalks and latte stands and playgrounds for the kids, and we’re climbing the side of the mountain with axes and ice picks and one slip and you’re dead.”

      It wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t fair, but that’s the way things go. And in the end, McCain slipped.

    12. Vreau sa va spun ca „palestinienii” sarbatoresc victoria lui Obama. Inca de ieri au inceput sa se traga din Gaza zeci rachete si mortiere spre sudul Israelului. Teroristii sustin ca „riposteaza” la actiunea de ieri a armatei israeliene care a neutralizat un tunel prin care ar fi trebuit sa fie rapiti soldati israelieni.
      Gaza moare de foame! Trimiteti urgent provizii si bani!

    13. Last time around, it was Diddy warning citizens to “Vote or Die,” but last year a study by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press nearly gave the world of punditry a collective heart attack. Looking at the survey somberly reminds us that these are the people who voted, volunteered, were perhaps cajoled into registering by an ambitious, compensated town crier with a clipboard.


      Only 36 percent of Pew respondents could name Vladimir Putin as the president of Russia — even when he’d been president for nearly eight years. Only two-thirds could name their own state’s governor. Sixty-nine percent could even identify our vice president, even with Dick Cheney’s starring role as the butt of liberal jokes. Just 37 could peg the chief justice of the Supreme Court as leaning conservative, and even fewer respondents, 32 percent, could name Sunni as the Islam branch opposite Shia. And on, and on.

      http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/president-elect-obama-faces-a-dangerous-world/

    14. Mitologia in America (Traian Ungureanu, Cotidianul)

      Ce trebuie spus trebuie spus: victoria lui Barack Obama e un moment istoric periculos, un semn de derută şi declin intern american. Statele Unite vor fi conduse de un preşedinte politic imaterial, de o imagine transformată în mit şi administrată prin aparatul mediatic.

      Chiar înainte de triumful lui Obama, primul rezultat concret al alegerilor din Statele Unite a fost prăbuşirea completă a presei ca instituţie publică şi democratică. Aliniată militant la campania de reeducare pro-Obama, majoritatea presei americane şi-a recunoscut fără rezerve noul statut: cameră de rezonanţă ideologică a grupului stângist care fixează opinia publică şi controlează mediile educaţionale. Din clipa în care Barack Obama şi-a anunţat candidatura nu a existat ştire sau comentariu care să nu trimită la culoarea candidatului, înainte să trimită la culoarea politică. Barack Obama a fost totemizat şi plasat într-o postură intangibilă: candidatul care poate întrupa primul preşedinte american de culoare.

      Această logodnă vicioasă cu rasismul pozitiv a denaturat grav competiţia politică, pentru că a forţat o decizie politică pe baze iraţionale.

      Politica a fost redusă la verificarea singurului verdict admis şi corect. Problema lui Barack Obama nu e culoarea pielii, dar problema sistemului electoral, mediatic şi politic american e că l-a promovat pe Barack Obama pentru că e de culoare.
      Primele titluri de presă postelectorale salutau ieri „victoria care pune capăt, după 216 ani, conducerii exercitate de bărbaţi albi“. Ar fi bine dacă adevărul ar fi atât de simplu.

      Problema e cu totul alta şi apasă deja asupra sistemului mediatic şi electoral american. Problema e următoarea: victoria lui Barack Obama pune capăt, după 216 ani de alegeri prezidenţiale, instinctului pur politic american. Victoria lui Obama e victoria conformismului mascat în superioritate morală. Trist şi paradoxal, Statele Unite nu se află în faţa unei schimbări, ci se pregătesc să repete superstiţia socialismului democratic, a economiei de piaţă sociale şi cea a internaţionalismului de seminar perpetuu care au făcut din Uniunea Europeană un dirijor de subvenţii şi un actor global fără credibilitate.

      Sentimentul de vinovăţie tipic liberal a încheiat narcotizarea politică a Europei, a traversat Oceanul şi a ajuns la Casa Albă. Elita politică şi cea mediatică au reuşit să mute discuţia din realitatea politică în mitologia morală. Fetişul binelui progresist a corupt, treptat, lipsa de prejudecăţi tipic americană. Compasiunea programatică a elitelor e satisfăcută, schema de bază a democraţiei electorale e în derută. Această abatere riscantă de la direcţia lucidă şi egală stabilită de părinţii fondatori ai democraţiei americane are patru ani la dispoziţie, timp destul pentru abuzul camuflat în operă de caritate.

      Ea poate conta pe coordonarea unui preşedinte ostatic al propriei aure, pe un Senat şi pe o Cameră a Reprezentanţilor dominate de promotori ai agendei de intoleranţă stângistă. În patru ani de administraţie omogenă, obamismul poate face din intervenţionismul federal şi din şantaj un instrument devastator. Densitatea democratică a Statelor Unite e însă un adversar istoric inalterabil şi ireversibil. Asaltul obamist va produce avarii, fără să poată dirija etosul american într-o direcţie străină de cultul legii şi de primatul dreptului individual. Însă aceşti patru ani de încercări vor fi o enormă şi costisitoare rătăcire.

      Noul preşedinte al Statelor Unite e limitat tocmai de noutatea sa impecabilă. Barack Obama e un politician de discurs video. Politica externă şi problemele fabuloase ale unei lumi care caută un centru valoric pentru vremurile postmoderne se deosebesc radical de teoria generală şi verbală a binelui universal. Lumea priveşte spre America în căutarea unei soluţii şi, între timp, răspândeşte un miros grozav de petrol, Semtex şi idei subversive.

      ***************************************************************
      America unchiului Sam şi nepotul unchiului Tom(Ioan T. Morar)

      Aşa au vrut americanii, aşa va fi. A cîştigat Obama. Ei, acum va curge lapte şi miere în State, economia se va redresa, bunăstarea va ajunge pe noi culmi, războiul din Irak va fi o dulce amintire. Jos cu albii republicani şi bătrîni! Trăiască corectitudinea politică!

      Aşa cum îmi spunea un vecin, azi dimineaţă, gata cu Unchiul Sam, acum e la modă unchiul Tom! (daca aţi citit, cumva, Coliba Unchiului Tom, probabil că aţi înţeles aluzia). Alegerea de acum îi dă o şansă lui Denzel Washington să joace şi el rolul de preşedinte. Dacă nu l-a jucat cumva, pînă acum!

    15. After years, the classic M L King’s „I HAVE A DREAM” become „Wellcome To Your Nightmare!”

    16. Va place mistica?

      Obama and Ahmadinejad

      Amir Taheri in Forbes, 26 octombrie, 2008

      Is Barack Obama the „promised warrior” coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?

      The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.

      According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a „tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” Commanding „the strongest army on earth,” the new ruler in the West will carry „a clear sign” from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: „Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”

      In a curious coincidence Obama’s first and second names–Barack Hussein–mean „the blessing of Hussein” in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means „he is with us,” the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.

      Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama’s rise as another sign of the West’s decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama’s promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama’s position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a „systematic violator of human rights.”

      Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is „a state sponsor of terrorism.” Instead, he uses the term „violent groups” to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

      Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.

      Obama’s election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad’s entourage claim that his „steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan” was a factor in helping Obama defeat „hardliners” such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.

      „President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson,” says Hassan Abbasi, a „strategic adviser” to the Iranian president. „This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran’s power.” The Iranian leader’s entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan „Yes, We Can” from Ahmadinejad’s „We Can,” used four years ago.

      A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an „enemy of Islam.” A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama „a better choice for everyone.” Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic „prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House” next year.

      Tehran’s penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power. He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.

      Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a „sunset” (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a „sunrise” (toluee) power. Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America–attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.

      Seen from Tehran, Obama’s election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat. American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region. Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.

      During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show „understanding of Muslim grievances” with regard to Palestine. Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the „Iranian solution for Palestine,” which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.

      Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.

      Amir Taheri is the author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.

    17. Hai ca nu sintem la inmormintare. Azi in drum spre lucru am reascultat la radio, pentru a nu stiu cita oara, o melodie Rolling Stones si refrenul mi s-a parut tare nimerit pentru deznodamintul de ieri. You can’t always get what you want, but you’ll get what you need. O sa ziceti ca e nevoie de Obama ca de o piatra in pantof, dar e firesc sa-ti intre pietre in pantof daca umbli fara sireturi. Practic, le inviti inauntru. America umbla de ani buni fara sireturi: invatamintul produce orice dar nu cetateni constienti, cultivati si patrioti, cultura populara promoveaza narcisismul si superficialitatea vulgar-agresiva, elitele au devenit un fel de aristocratie rupta de realitate, ca aristocratia pomadata si decrepita moral a lui Louis XVI, iar partidele Republican si Democrat au devenit sinonime cu statismul si clientelismul politic si economic. In aceste conditii, Obama este doar culminarea necesara a evolutiei din ultimele decenii. De ce necesara? Pentru ca aceasta e natura umana: tentatia social-utopica bate ratiunea. A batut-o si in trecutul nu prea indepartat, dar am ales sa stergem sau minimalizam memoria fascismului si comunismului si in special sa rescriem trecutul, astfel incit sa justifice utopiile din prezent.
      Tentatia destructiva a utopiei este oricum in ascensiune in acest ciclu istoric, asa ca la ce bun sa mai asteptam patru ani? McCain, oricit de onorabil si bine intentionat, nu ar fi reusit decit cel mult sa peticeasca un sistem a carui dinamica ar fi culminat oricum cu triumful ideologiei reprezentata de Obama. Aceasta ideologie are acum cimp liber de manifestare. Va esua in faliment si argumentul meu este mai bine mai devreme decit mai tirziu. Un economist celebru american lauda mecanismul de distrugere creatoare al fortelor pietei libere; companii dispar si apar prin competitie si inovatie, un proces destructiv care stimuleaza crearea de noi bunuri si servicii. La fel si in arena social-politica. Ce-i drept, cu un pret uman si traume mult mai mari decit in economie. Procesul destructiv inaugurat prin suprematia patrulaterului Obama-Congres-mass/media-elite stingiste va testa sever masura in care exista resurse pentru o reorganizare intelectuala si politica la nivel de grassroots a celor care pretuiesc libertatea, capitalismul si responsbilitatea individuala. In ce priveste partidul Republican, este serios deficitar la toate capitolele si daca nu se va schimba profund, risca irelevanta sau disparitia. So be it.

    18. Emil, nu e vorba de inmormantare. Poate ca tu te astepti ca falimentul sa fie temporar; eu ma astept ca el sa fie definitiv, ultimul cui batut in sicriu. Daca se ajunge la faliment, din el nu se ma iese si asta transforma aceasta victorie a lui Obama in cu totul altceva decat un simplu episod din lupta dintre libertate si aservire. Poate ca exagerez, dar in intreaga lume occidentala, tiparul este acelasi: peste tot se lucreaza din rasputeri pentru a mina „cladirea”. Nicaieri lupta nu a fost mai pierduta ca acum in Statele Unite si asta este un semn foarte rau.

      In fine, cred ca esti prea relaxat. 🙂 Nu zic, nu ma dau de ceasul mortii, dar nu-mi vine sa spun „c’est la vie”. Parca vad unde duce.

    19. emil, gind la gind, sau aproape. Eu nu stiu cum e cu what you want or what you need, ci mai degraba cu what you deserve. Azi-dimineata cind am ajuns la lucru m-a intrebat o colega ce parere am despre alegeri. I-am raspuns fara sa ma gindesc – daca americanii l-au ales pe Obama, inseamna ca il merita!

    20. dupa socul initial, ajung si eu sa cred ca asa este, daca Obama a ajuns presedintele Americii, atunci a venit momentul lui, americanii au primit ceea ce au meritat si pot sa se spele cu el pe cap cel putin 4 ani de acum incolo.

      dintre cei care l-au votat, cind roadele votului lor incep sa se arate (deja bursa a cazut ca rezultat), putini vor fi cei ce vor intelege ce se intampla. vor cinta la unison cu ce le zice iubitul conducator si trompetistii din mass media dind vina pentru tot raul pe anii Bushitler, pe capitalism, imperialism, rasism, si fereasca Domnu’, conspiratia sionista. Daca l-au crezut pe obama un om decent, daca cu toate prieteniile lui, cu tot trecutul, cu posibila dubla cetatenie, cu copilaria probabil musulmana, dupa toate minciunile si razgindirile acestia tot nu au putut sa isi ia ochii de la dintii lui albi, atunci cu siguranta vor crede lucruri mult mai abstracte cum ar fi explicatii savante pentru ce va sa vina. deci DA, IL MERITA!
      Majoritatea celor care il merita nu vor intelege oricum ce au facut.
      seamana cu situatia de la noi in care atitia ani zimbaretul Iliescu vrajea pensionarii si in ciuda mineriadelor, a stagnarii timp de 2 decenii, a enormei coruptii din jurul lui, exista inca multi ce il iubesc ca in prima zi. multi il urasc, dar multi inca il iubesc, putinora le e indiferent. probabil asa va fi si cu obama.
      mai nasol de cei ce stiu ce fel de om este

    21. Reactiile arabe la alegerea lui Obama. de ce ar avea arabii vreo rectie?… pt ca in ochii majoritatii arabe Obama este musulman?

      Special Dispatch Series – No. 2103
      November 5, 2008 No. 2103

      Initial Arab Media Reactions to Obama’s Election
      Initial reactions in the Arab world to the outcome of the U.S. presidential election focused on several aspects. While some writers discussed which candidate would be better for the Arabs, others compared the democratic process in the U.S. with the situation in the Arab world, where such turnover in government is impossible.

      Following are excerpts from some of the reactions:
      Al-Qaradhawi: The Democrats Are Like a Snake That „Kill[s] You Slowly Without You Noticing”

      In a fatwa published on the eve of the U.S. elections, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi expressed his preference for Sen. John McCain as president: „Personally, I would prefer for the Republican candidate, [John] McCain, to be elected. This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you… to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness].”

      Al-Qaradhawi added: „Whoever thinks that the Democrats are less hostile to [the Arabs] than the Republicans should know that the number of Iraqis killed during the siege [of Iraq] by the Democrat Bill Clinton is twice as high as the number of [Iraqis] killed by the Republican [George] Bush.

      „The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it – and therein lies the danger. They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body.

      „Therefore, I hope that McCain comes to power, so that the motivation for jihad remains in our hearts, and so that we do not [begin to] rely on the infidels – [which will cause us] to be struck by the fire [of Hell].” [1]

      Iranian Daily: „That Black Man” Will Never Change U.S. Policy

      In an editorial, the Iranian daily Jomhouri-ye Eslami stated: „The most that that black man can do in the White House is to replace some of the staff and change some ceremonial procedures. He will never manage to change the structure of the American regime, which was established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists.”

      The paper added that President Obama would not bring change to the world, because both the Democrats and Republicans were party to the U.S.’s oppressive and interest-driven foreign policy. Therefore, it said, any changes that do occur would be tactical rather than strategic. [2]

      Syrian Daily: „We Hereby Declare Obama the 44th President [Before It’s Official]… Even If It Might Be Considered Irresponsible Journalism”

      In its headline, the Syrian daily Al-Watan named Obama president even before the official results were announced. The editorial that accompanied the headline explained: „We wanted to declare Obama president… as a show of solidarity with millions of Americans, Arabs, and colleagues in the world media who [all] yearn for ‘change’ in U.S. foreign policy. They are all betting on Obama – who has been waving the slogan [of change]… in hope that he will be different not only in the color of his skin, but also in his view regarding Washington’s policy towards the world…

      „Some claim that if Obama wins he will be no better than Bush, if not worse… They may be right, since it is well known that no American president has ever stood on the side of the Arabs – rather, they have all stood on the side of Israel…

      „Yesterday was undoubtedly a long, exhausting, and historic day by any standard. The American people [voted] with a vigor not seen in any [previous] U.S. presidential election, in a bid to make history and change the ugly face of the U.S.

      „Out of respect for them and for everyone who voted for change, and out for respect for the souls of the Syrian, Iraqi, and Arab martyrs, we hereby declare Obama the 44th president of the U.S., even if it might be considered irresponsible journalism. We are sure that our readers will forgive us if we turn out to be wrong – [a possibility] for which we do not hope.”

      Saudi Daily: No Difference Between Obama and McCain

      The Saudi daily Al-Watan stated in an editorial: „There is no significant difference between Obama and McCain. They disagree only on the means to achieve America’s chief goal, which is to rule for another hundred years.” [3]

      Al-Hayat Columnist/Al-Arabiya Deputy Director: „The Faces [in the White House] Change in a Way That We Find Impressive”

      Daoud Al-Shiryan, columnist for the Saudi daily Al-Hayat and deputy director of Al-Arabiya TV, praised American democracy, comparing it to the nondemocratic processes in the Arab world: „The U.S. elections afford a kind of change that does not occur in the Arab ‘democracies’… The faces [in the White House] change in a way that we find impressive.

      „Over the next few days, the world will see a new staff [there], while the current names will forever disappear from the [stage of] American politics. The [current] stars of American politics will go home, and the day after they leave the White House, the American public will see them standing in line at the airport, at the supermarket, or at the dentist’s office…

      „While America watches this turnover of personnel [in the White House]… the Arabs are following [attempts in] Algeria to amend the constitution and remove the restriction on the number of consecutive terms allowed the president – so that ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz Bouteflika can continue with a third term in office, and perhaps [remain in office] until the end of his life.

      „In the past few days in Egypt, the [ruling] NDP party showed its impressive ability to retain the same people over three decades. [Egypt] uses ballots just like the U.S. – but does so the Arab way.

      ” The situation is similar in the other Arab democratic republics as well…” [4]

    22. Mie mi-a trecut bluesul, cu ajutorul lui „Gipper”, actorasul ajuns presedinte dar dispretuit de elitele „inteligente”.
      Omu’ si-a scris majoritatea discursurilor singur.
      Tineti-va de fundul pantalonilor, discursul e lung dar e la fel de important ca oricare din articolele din „Federalist Papers”, in spiritul lor, si, spre oroarea celor care-l dispretuiesc pe Reagan, adimrabil gindit si argumentat. E cea mai buna demostratie, din spatiul public, a caducitatii statului de welfare, perfect aplicabil dupa 48 de ani.


      Ronald Reagan, 1964 , RNC

      Address on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater
      Rendezvous with Destiny
      October 27, 1964

      This speech is a verbatim transcript of „The Speech” given as a portion of a pre-recorded, nationwide televised program sponsored by Goldwater-Miller on behalf of Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for the presidency whom Ronald Reagan actively supported.
      4,626 words

      Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

      I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used „We’ve never had it so good.”

      But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury–we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

      As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

      Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, „We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, „How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to.” In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

      You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

      In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the „Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a „greater government activity in the affairs of the people.” But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves–and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say „the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as „meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.” Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me–the free man and woman of this country–as „the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, „the full power of centralized government”–this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

      Now, we have no better example of this than the government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don’t grow.

      Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

      At the same time, there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

      Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

      Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a „more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

      We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they’ve had almost 30 years of it, shouldn’t we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

      But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

      So now we declare „war on poverty,” or „you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!” Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are spending…one more program to the 30-odd we have–and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs–do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

      But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.

      Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always „against” things, never „for” anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

      But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term „insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.

      A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary…his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due…that the cupboard isn’t bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

      At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

      In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents’ worth?

      I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.

      I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

      No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, „If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

      As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men…that we are to choose just between two personalities.

      Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear. Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him „when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

      This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

      An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, „Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was this fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.

      During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, „There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, „There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.

      Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy „accommodation.” And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer–not an easy answer–but simple.

      If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, „Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, „A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.

      Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face–that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand–the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for „peace at any price” or „better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he would rather „live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin–just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ‘round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it’s a simple answer after all.

      You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, „There is a price we will not pay.” There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s „peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said that „the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits–not animals.” And he said, „There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

      You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

      We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

      Thank you very much.”

      Pasajul de mai jos mi-a adus aminte de o postare a mea de acum citeva zile, in care o femeie de 4o de ani, obeza, necalificata si inacapabila de a-si gasi o munca stabila, a fost sfatuita de vecine sa faca un copil ca sa primeasca ceva bani de la stat.

      „Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.”

    23. Imperialistu’:

      Cred ca Ungureanu a fost in capul lui Jefferson sau Madison sau Adams intr-o viata anterioara.

      Compara cu ce intelege Ioana Lupea de la Evenimentul Zilei despre gindirea „Parintilor Fondatori” si „visul american”:

      http://www.evz.ro/articole/detalii-articol/827350/EDITORIALUL-EVZ-Obama-in-Romania/

      Lasind la o parte idiotenia corect politica a intrebarii centrale–cind va fi un tigan ales presedinte al Romaniei?–tipa isi dovedeste ignoranta profunda in privinta fundamentelor statului american:

      „Barack Obama a fost votat în ciuda rasei de americani de toate culorile, de toate vârstele, din toate mediile sociale, de muncitori şi de intelectuali, pentru că reprezintă visul american şi valorile părinţilor fondatori.”

      „Parintii fondatori” n-au avut nimic de spus despre „rasa”, „muncitori” si „intelectuali”, categorii care nu se aplica vremii lor, dar apartin ale analizei marxist-leniniste a situatiei sociale din secolelele 19/20 dar expirate aici–daca nu e clar, muncitorii cu adevarat „proletari” sunt de gasit in China sau Mexic sau Shri Lanka, nu in SUA.

      Geniul Parintilor a fost preocuparea constanta cu libertatea de actiune, sub lege, a individului, cu restringerea puterii statului asupra lui. Constitutia initiala nu i-a inclus pe sclavii negri si pe femei, dar spiritul individualismului originalist, prezent in gindirea Parintilor, in ciuda limitarilor lor, a triumfat in istorie.

    24. Panseluta, acest discurs al lui Reagan (din 1964!) este un „slam dunk”, cum se zice in baschet.
      Imperialistu’, ai dreptate cu „minatul cladirii”. Gramsci ii spunea, mai plastic, „lungul mars prin institutii”. Deci, acum 44 de ani Reagan spunea ce ne arata Panseluta: o reactie la rezultatele ideilor lui Gramsci de acum 75-80 de ani. Apoi Reagan s-a opus cit a putut lui Gramsci cit a fost presedinte, acum 25-30 de ani. Dar interesant: pe vremea lui Reagan, Obama isi incepea lungul mars prin institutii. Obama a ajuns unde se afla acum deoarece mostenirea lui Gramsci este mai puternica decit cea a lui Reagan, Goldwater, Calvin Coolidge, Burke, Adam Smith, Madison, etc. Gramsci a invins temporar si restul sint tablouri pe coridoarele istoriei. Hai ca acum eu tin prohodul la inmormintare. Dar chiar ca nu vad incoronarea lui Obama drept un eveniment fatal. Nici macar Ceausescu nu a fost etern si crede-ma, a durat o eternitate. Pina la urma vor veni americanii si in America.

    25. Costin > Mi-a placut clipul de la The Onion. 🙂 In alta ordine de idei, nu stiu daca ai vazut ieri la televizor, a fost o chestie relativ interesanta CNN, una care spune multe despre televiziune americana, dar si despre cum gandeste o buna parte din lumea musulmana. Era un reportaj despre Irak, reportaj care intr-o prima faza s-a concentrat pe soldatii americani. Curios lucru, CNN a prezentat doar soldati care asteptau „schimbarea” aduse de Obama. Foarte interesant cum nu au putut gasi nicaieri un soldat republican. Trecem peste acest amanunt si ajungem la irakieni, irakieni care au tinut in general cu Obama. Un irakian a facut o afirmatie interesanta: „Il sprijinim pe Obama pentru ca el e musulman, tatal sau fiind musulman”. E posibil ca multi sa treaca peste convertirea sa la „crestinismul” lui Wright tocmai prin acest proces de autoconvingere ce are radacini in practica islamica. In familiile mixte religios (sotul musulman, nevasta de alta religie), copilul este crescut in religia tatalui. Asa se face ca Obama, fiul unui tata musulman, este considerat de multi musulmani ca fiind un islamic, ceea ce nu este cazul. Si desigur sunt aceia care cred ca un non-alb poate sa ii inteleaga mai bine pe non-albi. Un fel de solidaritate de rasa: de ce sa castige un alb cand poate sa castige unul de’al nostru?

      Panseluta, am gasit discursul lui Reagan. O sa il atasez mesajului tau.

      Daca peste Ocean, in Statele Unite, dezbaterea a avut de multe ori un nivel extrem de scazut, la noi nici macar acest nivel jenant nu a fost atins. Doamna Lupea nu a inteles nimic din alegerile prezidentiale americane si mai mult decat atat, se dovedeste a fi PC, dupa cum bine ai observat. Ce intrebare tampita mai e si asta: „pe cand un presedinte tigan?”. Nu vreau sa fiu, rau dar sunt unii care arata cu degetul catre Nastase si Iliescu atunci cand vine vorba de tigani in politica. Trecand peste asta, zau daca pricep de ce trebuie sa avem un presedinte tigan/ apartinand oricarei alte minoritati. E ca si cum ai spune ca trebuie sa avem un presedinte roman. Snt de alta parere: nu exista acest „trebuie”. E o falsa problema.

      George W. Bush a câştigat ultimul mandat exploatând spaima americanilor de celălalt, aşa cum a încercat şi Sarah Palin, nominalizată de republicani pentru funcţia de vicepreşedinte. Obama a pariat pe mesajul pozitiv, demontând mitologia ţesută de marii strategi politici, unii dintre ei angajaţi şi în România, că numai o campanie negativă poate mobiliza masele. Şi oricât ar părea de straniu, aceleaşi cuvinte vor fi pilulele de însănătoşire pentru criză. Încrederea este catalizatorul economiei.

      Victoria lui Obama a fost primită în România ca vestea că există viaţă pe Marte. Rasismul s-a deghizat în refuz ideologic. Nu ne place Obama nu pentru că e negru, ci pentru că e socialist. Dar primul preşedinte de culoare al Statelor Unite, reprezentant al unei minorităţi, întruchipează tot ceea ce urăşte ultimul preşedinte postcomunist al României, Ion Iliescu, căruia ideea de societate deschisă îi dă fiori de groază. Un apropiat al lui Iliescu din vremurile de glorie îşi exprima informal speranţa că alegerile vor fi câştigate de republicani.

      Cand or sa inteleaga oamenii astia ca o campanie nu are nici un sens sa fie pozitiva daca adversarul tau este un personaj sinistru? Campania pozitiva nu are valoare in sine, la fel cum campania negativa nu are valoare in sine. Campania ti-o faci in functie de adversari si a ignora semnele de intrebare nu te transforma in gentleman, ci in fraier. Un gentleman nu isi face probleme atunci cand se pune problema adevarului. Nu-mi dau seama ce ar fi vrut doamna Lupea de la campania McCain. Sa il laude pe Obama? Si asa nu l-au taxat cat trebuia…

      Cat despre rasismul deghizat in refuz ideologic, nu pot decat sa zambesc rautacios. Am auzit de atatea ori prostia asta incat alta reactie nici nu mai pot avea.

      Emil > Ceausescu nu o fi fost etern si oricat de mult ma incanta aceasta „vor veni americanii si in America” 🙂 , nu pot sa nu ma gandesc cat de ceausiti am ramas noi toti. Revolutia odata facuta, ea nu mai poate fi undone. Nu te poti intoarce in timp, oricat de mult ti-ai dori si oricat ai incerca. E o problema pe care vechii conservatori francezi asemeni lui Joseph de Maistre, catalogati drept reactionari si obscurantisti de cei care i-au invins, au inteles-o mult prea bine.

      Dinny > Ma bucur ca ti-a placut. 🙂

    26. :)) Nu pot sa cred! CTP ARE CEVA DE BINE DE SPUS?! Nu l-am auzit NICIODATA vorbind de bine despre cineva / ceva. :))

    27. De la Salam Megaproduction:

      Am auzit că lucraţi la Balada lui Obama.

      – Deci, tomnai mi-am reţinut oră la studiou, la „Florin & Victoria Salam Megaproduction”…

      – Putem îndrăzni să vă rugăm să ne fredonaţi un crâmpei?

      – Deci, am compus acest cântec de suflet şi voi lua cu uşurinţă un La de sus:

      La Casa cea Albă vine-un preşedinte,
      E Barack Obama, tânărul brunet,
      Bucurie mare pe toţi ne cuprinde,
      Băncile se-nchide, însă mai discret

      Şi refrenul:

      Măi, Barace, dragă, din neam cu Vanghele
      Care eşti aproape de al tău popor
      Scoate-ne din foame, scapă-ne de rele
      Ia-i pă teroriştii ăia la omor

      Strofa a doua:

      Mare este SUA, ţară de poveste
      S-o conduci în pace, ca un bun şi drept
      Căci a ta mamaie astăzi nu mai este
      Ca să-ţi deie dânsa un sfat înţelept

      Strofa a treia:

      Ne-ai făcut safteaua, ne-ai băgat în priză,
      Mândru eşti, O, Bama. Ce carismă ai!
      Dă-ne nouă astăzi un homar de criză,
      Frunzuliţă verde, verde de Hawai.

      Strofa a patra:

      Voturi multe ţie ţi-au dădut din plin,
      Precum în Florida şi la Ilinoi,
      De se-albise ăla, moşu Mecain!
      Eşti de-al nost, Barace. Să fii om cu noi!…

      – Superb.

    28. imperialistu – cind il aud pe CTP nu stiu ce sa fac, sa rid sau sa pling. aveam impresia de CTPeu ca e baiat destept. foarte tare Balada lui Obama

    29. emil – trebuie sa recunosti ca am si eu o virtute: binedispun fetele pe aici.
      presa romana abunda de informatii eronate.
      am citit prin evz ca mr obama, un presedinte afroamerican in tara in care acum jumatate de secol afroamericanii nu aveau voie sa voteze, articolul lupeascai pe care l-a demontat panseluta, ctp care da vina pe bogati in criza financiara si declara sus si tare ca mr obama este un presedinte popular – nu populist ca in campanie domnia sa nu a auzit de pomenile socialiste propagate de stanga indepartata a democratilor ( bine, adevarul este ca mai toti stim ca injineru’ le are pe ale lui si nu iese din ele), comparatiile cu lincoln, „transmisiunile la cald” ale „jurnalistilor” din chicago care scriu ca ilegalii ( saracii) asteapta cu sufletul la gura mesia sa le dea acte cand se stie ca mr. president bush a introdus de vreo doua-trei ori legea de amnistiere a ilegalilor ce a fost trantita de senatul majoritar democrat cu aportul unei mici parti republicane si cate si mai cate.

      stau si ma crucesc la ce impact poate avea televizorul asupra oamenilor. repoduc aici un mesaj:

      „TIMISOARA IN SARBATOARE
      de Andrei V(Vizitator), joi, 6 noiembrie 2008 – 03:03
      In Timisoara a fost mare sarbatoare astazi. Masini claxonand, steaguri romanesti si americane, sampanie, multe lume in strada, pocnitori. De la revolutie din 1989 nu a mai fost asa. Pacat ca restul Romaniei nu sarbatoreste. E o rusine. Mi-e rusine [Citeste] ca sunt din aceeasi tara cu gloata, insa sunt mandru ca sunt Banatean ”

      eu dupa ce am ras asa cu jumatate de gura – am cam ramas cu un gust amar. masina de propaganda leftista mediatica a devenit, as putea spune fara sa exagerez, periculoasa.
      una e sa te mai injure vreunu’ pe forum ca nu esti ca el.
      dar cand deja se iese in strada la timisoara pentru victoria unui candidat din statele unite – mie unuia mi se pare deja mult prea mult.
      ca in propozitie nu este vorba nici de ceausescu – nici de iliescu.
      ma rog, dupa cum vad eu situatia astia daca ar candida ar avea sanse reale de castig.
      ma intreb daca vreunul din acesti simpatizanti ( aproape fanatici dealtfel) realizeaza ca tocmai mr obama este o alegere destul de proasta din punctul lor de vedere.
      a se vedea reactia lui in cazul georgiei si declaratiile belicoase ale cuplului medvedev-putin care nu ca nu l-au felicitat pe noul presedinte al americii dar l-au si avertizat subtil cu niste rachete iskander la granita cu polonia in kaliningrad si declaratia dura cum ca se asteapta la o alta politica a statelor unite de acum incolo.
      am citit pe blogul lui frumuseanu comparatia intre mr obama si fostul presedinte kenedy – dar in sensul ca mr kenedy a manageriat criza rachetelor din cuba magistral ( ???).
      si vad o asemanare – si anume ca slabiciunea de atunci a administratiei democrate conduse de mr kenedy care defapt a generat acea criza.
      si, probabil aceeasi slabiciune o simt rusii acum.

    30. Citiţi articolul ăsta, deşi a fost scris înainte de alegeri:

      As the presidential election nears, I hear more people voicing their fear over the prospect of the other candidate winning. People from both major parties express genuine trepidation at the thought of a world without their candidate as commander in chief. Both sides believe we will lose our freedom if the wrong party wins.

      Perhaps surprisingly, I think there’s a lesson to be learned in all this from Hollywood.

      The 1994 movie Shawshank Redemption is the fictional story of Andy Dufresne, a prisoner at the infamous Shawshank Penitentiary. One of Dufresne’s fellow inmates, Brooks Hatlen, has spent nearly his entire life in Shawshank, and has settled in to the routine and become the prison’s bookkeeper. After a lifetime in prison, Hatlen is finally freed as an old man. Once on the outside, Hatlen finds life beyond bars too complicated and confusing, too new, too risky. He cannot cope with this newfound freedom after a life of bondage and, tragically, he commits suicide.

      Brooks Hatlen forgot how to be free. He became accustomed to bondage and let the yearning for freedom die within him over his long stay in the penitentiary.

      Andy Dufresne, on the other hand, never let his freedom die. While locked in Shawshank, despite oppressive and often gruesome circumstances, Dufresne’s spirit was unshakable. He constantly cultivated the seeds of freedom in the least free setting imaginable. When Dufresne escaped, unlike Hatlen, he embraced life in the free air and pursued his dreams.

      The difference between these two men had nothing to do with their physical circumstances; both were in prison. Yet Andy Dufresne, even while imprisoned, was still free. No bars or guards or hardships could take away his freedom. Hatlen had lost his freedom, and even in the absence of physical oppression, he was still a prisoner. An individual who wants to be free can be, no matter what the world brings. An individual who has let the spirit of freedom die will never be free, no matter what the world brings.

      The idea that freedom is simply a state of mind may sound trifling, especially when considering some of the unimaginable horrors faced by unfree peoples across the globe. But even political freedom cannot be had without a people who keep the spirit of freedom alive within themselves; and if they do, political freedom is often not far behind.

      $10 $7

      „Political freedom cannot be had without a people who keep the spirit of freedom alive within themselves.”
      Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, tells an inspiring story of an underground band of freedom fighters in formerly communist Poland. Their spirit of freedom was kept alive despite a tyrannical Communist regime. Indeed, they not only held onto their belief in freedom, but they spread it, often at great risk to their lives. When the Communist authorities finally announced that they were relinquishing their power the reason they gave was that the Polish people had become „ungovernable.” No regulations, no prisons, no secret police, no propaganda, no physical or political suppression could take away the people’s freedom. They were free, whether the government liked it or not.

      Keep this in mind as America’s government changes with each election. Remember this when you see government expanding its reach into your life. Rather than looking to political leaders to protect or expand our freedom we should cultivate the seeds of freedom in our own spirits, and inspire others to do the same. Nothing government can do can take away our freedom; and if we are a people who are truly free, the government will have to follow.

      sursa: http://mises.org/story/3129

    31. John McCain plecand… (Liviu Antonesei – Cotidianul)

      În ultimele zile a făcut un veritabil tur de forţă în întâlniri electorale în cinci dintre statele ce păreau indecise.

      Vineri, 7 noiembrie, mi se pare o frumoasă probă a schimbării vremurilor că nu mă poate obliga nimeni să scriu despre Marea Revoluţie din Octombrie şi că mă pot referi la alegerile prezidenţiale americane. Pe care le-am urmărit, în noaptea de marţi spre miercuri, pe toate media pe care le puteam avea la dispoziţie. La 4.00 devenea limpede că Obama se îndreaptă spre victorie, la 6.00, victoria acestuia se înregistra. Spre tristeţea mea, care, pe motivul că un republican este un preşedinte mai bun pentru România, am sperat până în ultima clipă că va câştiga McCain. Dar americanii, nu eu, nu noi, îşi votau preşedintele lor şi, probabil, ştiau ei mai bine decât mine ce şi de ce au ales!

      Şi, totuşi, în aceste momente, la cald, gândurile mele nu se îndreaptă către învingător, ci către învins.

      Despre cel dintâi vom avea la dispoziţie cel puţin patru ani de acum încolo pentru a ne tot pronunţa. Despre McCain vom mai vorbi probabil câteva săptămâni, poate luni. Acest om de 72 de ani s-a bătut ca un leu pe parcursul unei campanii electorale ce reprezenta în fond ultima sa şansă de acces la marea politică a lumii. În ultimele zile a făcut un veritabil tur de forţă în întâlniri electorale în cinci dintre statele ce păreau indecise.

      Rezultatul eforturilor sale s-a văzut în diferenţa la „votul popular“, foarte mică prin comparaţie cu diferenţa dintre numărul „marilor electori“ alocaţi de cei doi candidaţi şi faţă de ceea ce spuneau sondajele dinaintea alegerilor.

      Ei bine, acest om care a crezut în steaua sa politică târzie, care s-a bătut pentru victorie cu o energie egală tânărului învingător, la anunţarea rezultatelor, a mai avut puterea şi pentru a da o lecţie de fairplay, într-un domeniu, politica, în care nu fair-playul e regula. În discursul de recunoaştere a victoriei adversarului său, ţinut la circa un sfert de oră de la înregistrarea acesteia, nu doar că l-a felicitat şi şi-a manifestat compasiunea pentru pierderea familială a acestuia, survenită în pragul alegerilor, dar a spus câteva cuvinte ce vor marca istoria, ca şi victoria lui Obama de altfel: „Îi urez succes celui care a fost oponentul meu şi de-acum încolo îmi va fi preşedinte“. Felicitări învingătorului. Onoare celui învins.

    32. Imperialistu”:

      Nu esti „rautacios” cind arati ca sunt multi tigani la putere, deja, in Romania. E un fapt indiscutabil.
      Citeva puncte:
      1. Din punct de vedere rasial, sunt asa de multi romani si tigani care s-au amestecat „rasial”, intre ei, ca e aproape imposibil de stabilit „puritatea rasiala” a cetatenilor din anumite zone ale tarii–in sud, in special (vorbesc din experienta de familie). In plus, rasa nu era mentionata nicaieri in actele oficiale (conform ideologiei comuniste si realitatilor demografice romane–poate cel mult etnia era mentionata), asa cum e in SUA.

      2. In zonele astea, si cele doua culturi s-au amestecat, inevitabil, asa ca e imposibil sa distingi intre unul si altul daca judeci dupa semnele omului civilizat. Impresia mea e ca multi romani s-au tiganit, mai ales dupa ’89. Procesul incepuse mult inainte de ’89, dar a capatat forta uriasa cind s-au instalat la virf/putere comunisto-securisti fara constiinta, o mafie de smecheri, afaceristi si panglicari.
      Se pare ca Vanghelie e tigan, dar nu habar n-am ce rasa e Piedone, care-i seamana perfect, sau Mazare de la Constanta, sau „senatorul conservator” (ce aberatie!)Marius Marinescu din Bucuresti, si atit de multi altii.

      Catavencu si compania erau rromani verzi. Asta e ce ma nelinisteste, nu tiganii. Tiganii au stiut pe ce s-au altoit.

    33. Am scris in graba. Corectez mesajul anterior:

      Imperialistu’:

      Nu esti “rautacios” cind arati ca sunt multi tigani la putere, deja, in Romania. E un fapt indiscutabil.
      Citeva puncte:
      1. Din punct de vedere rasial, sunt asa de multi romani si tigani care s-au amestecat “rasial”, intre ei, ca e aproape imposibil de stabilit “puritatea rasiala” a cetatenilor din anumite zone ale tarii–in sud, in special (vorbesc din experienta de familie). In plus, rasa nu era mentionata nicaieri in actele oficiale (conform ideologiei comuniste si realitatilor demografice romane–poate cel mult etnia era mentionata), asa cum e in SUA.

      2. In zonele din sud, cele doua culturi s-au amestecat, inevitabil, asa ca e imposibil sa distingi intre unul si altul daca judeci dupa semnele „omului civilizat”.
      Impresia mea e ca multi romani s-au tiganit, mai ales dupa ‘89. Procesul incepuse mult inainte de ‘89, dar a capatat forta uriasa cind s-au instalat la virf/putere comunisto-securisti fara constiinta, o mafie de smecheri, afaceristi si panglicari.
      Se pare ca Vanghelie e tigan, dar n-am habar ce rasa e Piedone, care-i seamana perfect lui Vanghelie, sau Mazare de la Constanta, sau “senatorul conservator” (ce aberatie!) Marius Marinescu din Bucuresti, sau chiar primarul Oprescu al Bucurestiului.

      Catavencu si compania erau rromani verzi, ca si Mitica, arhetipul rromanului verde, cu baston si palarie tare si vorba usoara, mistocar de meserie, care te-ar fi vindut intr-o clipita pentru citiva lei vechi sau citeva runde la Gambrinus sau o camera la o vaduva sau un post de scirtza-scirtza pe hirtie la vreun minister, nu la oficiul postal.
      Acum miza e un post de senator.

      Asta e ce ma nelinisteste, nu tiganii. Tiganii au stiut pe ce s-au altoit.

    34. si eu de multe ori scriu in graba. mai suna telefonul si reiau ideea altfel asa ca nu de multe ori iese ceva alandala. sper sa va obisnuiti cu mine 😉 ca nu am rabdare si nici timp sa refac mesajul.

    35. Dr. Jones, nici o problema. Pacientii au prioritate 🙂
      (zic in gluma, rog sa nu fie cu suparare)

      Tiberiu, multam pentru re-aducerea aminte (freedom is a state of mind). Partea mai proasta este ca mintea se obisnuieste repede cu ce e hranita. Nu stiu de ce, dar parca as zice mai degraba ca „freedom is in your spirit”. Daca ajunge acolo, greu sa-ti mai fie extirpata.
      Asta apropo si de exemplul polonez… mai ales exemplul polonez.

    36. Panseluta,
      Interviurile de la unkommon knowledge sint si pe situl Hoover Institute , intr-o sigura bucata.
      Inerviul cu Thomas Sowell:



      Thomas Sowell: The Reason I vote for McCain and not for Obama is because I prefer disaster to catastrophy
      Am aflat prima data de Unkommon Knowledge de la Emil si de atunci mai verific din cind in cind. Interviurile sint foarte bine facute, Peter Robinson e un tip foarte destept si meticulos. Interviul care mi-a placut cel mai mult a fost cel cu Andrew Klavan.

    37. Si acum ceva educatie civica.

      Diantha Harris: It’s a senseless war! [Stares at Kathy.] And by the way, Kathy, the person that you’re picking for president said [Harris shakes her head] that our troops could stay in Iraq for another hundred years if they need to! [Kathy bites her lip, looks ashamed. Other kids stare at Kathy, laugh, smirk.] So that means that your daddy could stay in the military for another hundred years!

      [Kathy is on verge of tears.]

      [In an interview later:]

      Diantha Harris: Now I can support whomever I want to support, as long as I don’t browbeat another person for the candidate that they supported. Like I have some students that support John McCain, and when they told me that, I said ah … “that’s good’ and I just moved on. So, I think that everybody is entitled to their own personal opinion.

    38. discutam cu cineva ieri si imi explica cat de proasta e palin. si l-am intrebat de ce crede el asta.
      mi-a raspuns: pai tu nu vezi ca fac toti misto de ea?
      asta da argument.

    39. Palin a fost urata de radicali pentru ca era o republicanca pro-life, pro-guns si cu credinta in Dumnezeu. Ceilalti au urat-o din ignoranta. Au acceptat orice mizerie s-a spus despre ea, intrucat este aproape imposibil sa mai distingi adevarul de minciuna in conditiile in care ii lasi pe altii sa gandeasca pentru tine. Nici macar nu le-a trecut prin capsor ca ar putea pune la indoiala ce vad la televizor. Au ramas ferm convinsi ca Sarah Palin este o taranca proasta si fanatica, amatoare de casapit elani si facut copii pe banda rulanta.

    40. ma intreb daca acum dupa terminarea campaniei are cineva din media vreo remuscare pentru toate mizeriile care i s-au pus in carca.
      cu toate ca personajul sarah a fost de 10 x mai integru decat obama…

      si iata ce ma face sa ma simt intr-adevar bine in america:

      http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/joe-the-plumber-ohio-records-illegal-child-support-searches-violate-laws/

      „Meet Helen Jones-Kelley

      It is now being discovered that the Ohio government checks into the records of Joe the Plumber were quite extensive. There are now four separate focal points of the investigation; among them, a low-level law enforcement computer operator–now relieved of duty–and the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelley.

      This latter usage is far more troubling–not only because the job is a political appointment and the hold very likely knew better, but also because of a little-known quirk in the laws of search and seizure.
      The checks were run after the news media reported that Wurzelbacher was considering buying a plumbing business with more than $250,000 in annual income, Jones-Kelley wrote.

      “Given our understanding that Mr. Wurzelbacher had publicly indicated that he had the means to purchase a substantial business enterprise, ODJFS, consistent with past departmental practice, checked confidential databases ,…

      “Not surprisingly, when a person behind in child support payments or receiving public assistance is receiving significant media attention which suggests that the person appears to have available financial resources, the Department risks justifiable criticism if it fails to take note and respond,” Jones-Kelley wrote.”

      That, of course, is absolute nonsense.

      How would anyone know if such a person owed child support? And an inquiry into the so-called past practices would reveal that no such ‘practice’ existed. The Federal and State guidelines for Child Support investigative sweeps require that there be a specific target first.

      In other words, the agency must first know that Joe owes or owed child support.

      It is unheard-of that such a sweep would occur at the cabinet level; normally the results of such investigations are not shared with individuals outside of the Child Support Directors office–pending legal action.

      In fact this says much about the banana republic that Ohio is transforming itself into. In most States this would be a scandal of momentous occasion.

      What is so special about the use of Child Suppport investigative techniques?

      They are unique. Without any warrant, and unlike any other government entity, including the taxing authorities, Child Support has the ability to access all government computers: taxes, even Federal by arrangement, law enforcement, prison, labor, traffic, voter registration–you name it.

      All government data bases are available to Child Support. In fact, Child Support can physically examine tax returns and applications of various sorts. So the rules of usage are very strict and the penalties normally severe.

      But apparently not in Ohio.

      The information was made public. We know Joe owed some property taxes. We know he does not owe child support. We also know that Ms Jones-Kelley searched his tax and criminal records.

      This was relevant to child support, how?”

      un functionar public care a abuzat de functie este investigat acum. este vorba de joe the plumber care a avut cutezanta de a pune o intrebare si a fost luat la purificat amintind de politie politica.

      helen-jones kelley a accesat informatii personale ale joe the plumber ( putea fi oricine) in reteaua guvernamentala facandu-le publice.
      cred ca situatia ar trebui tratata foarte serios pentru ca este inadmisiil ca orice functionar public sa iti acceseze informatiile despre viata ta personala. cat castigi, cat cheltui si unde, ce datorii ai si unde, ce medicamente iei etc.

    41. Imperialistu’, blogosfera in limba engleza.

      dr. jones, sa zicem ca un functionar public poate sa-ti acceseze datele personale, dar in nici un caz si sub nici o forma nu are dreptul sa le faca publice.

    42. Salut, Clodius! Bine ai venit printre noi! Ai dreptate, clipul este cu adevarat ingrozitor. Pot sa inteleg de ce politistii l-ar fi sfatuit sa nu stea in jurul acelor isterici – risca sa fie linsat -, dar nu pricep de ce l-au bruscat si arestat. Reactia suporterilor obamaieni la arestarea omului asta este absolut fantastica. Mindless drones, fiecare dintre ei.

      O sa introduc in comentariul tau varianta embed a clipului.

      P.S. Am apreciat inceputul si sfarsitul conspirationist. 😀

    43. Dragi tovarasi, America descopera (si incepe sa-si faca) autocritica:

      The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
      What must our enemies be thinking?
      By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO
      The Wall Street Journal
      November 5, 2008

      Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
      According to recent Gallup polls, the president’s average approval rating is below 30% — down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
      This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, „Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.”
      Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
      The president’s original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
      It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
      Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country’s current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
      Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, „We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.”
      To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman’s low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
      Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman’s presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years — and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
      The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
      Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
      Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry’s legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

      Si inca un articol foarte bun, desi un pic cam lungut si cu citeva referinte despre care nu prea am idee:
      The Day After
      Victor Davishanson
      November 6th, 2008 2:48 am

      Reconciliation
      I wish President-elect Obama well, and hope that even his critics can concede that he waged a successful and often brilliant (if not shrewdly stealthy) campaign.
      It seems to me that conservatives have a golden opportunity to offer criticism and advice in a manner that many liberals did not during the last eight years. By that I mean I hope there are no conservative versions of the Nicholson Baker Knopf-published ‘novel’ Checkpoint, the creepy documentary by Gerald Range, the attempt to name a sewer plant after an American President, or the celebrity outbursts that we have witnessed with the tired refrain of Hitler/Nazi Bush—that all have cheapened political discourse. When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.
      In the future, criticism should be offered in unified pro-American tones, rather than anti-Obama screeds. When disagreements arise, they should be couched in a sense of regret rather than ebullition. There should be no conservative counterparts of Bill Maher, Michael Moore, or Al Franken.
      That said, read on.
      Be Careful of what you wish for…
      Note the Iraqis immediately rushing to say Obama surely won’t pull out of the Iraq prematurely. Note secondly that just recently they were grandstanding that we had to leave. I had noted earlier a Zen-like possibility with an Obama victory: those who counted on Bush-Hitler to both defend them and be a big target for their cheap anti-Americanism, might not like going it alone as equal “partners” in the much praised “multilateral” fashion.
      Obama may just say “We are right behind you when you deal with Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, etc.” Note again, as Europe goes wild over Obama, the subtext is, “This would never happen here.” After all, we Amis have had African-American secretaries-of-state for eight years (well over a quarter-century ago Andrew Young was UN ambassador)—and still no Turkish-German Foreign Minister or Congolese-French Prime Minister? In some sense, Obama will bring welcome moral clarity to foreign relations, because if he really is a multilateralist, current opportunistic foreign dependencies will be forced to weigh in on multilateralism.

      On the Taboo of Race

      The landmark consequences of electing the first African-American President dominated the news cycle for the last 24-hours. But just as importantly, we have forgotten that we have chosen the most hard left candidate since Henry Wallace assumed the Vice Presidency, in a transparent fashion without fraud or deception. That marks a landmark shift in American attitudes, like it or not. And no one reported on that anomaly, or on the fact that Obama was the first northern liberal to be elected since JFK—or even the first senator to make it since JFK (and LBJ via the Vice Presidency).
      On matters of race, at some point the country will evolve beyond the current narrative of the last day that runs something like—‘You redeemed yourself by voting for Barack, and now we can all say we are truly Americans’. The problem with that understandable sentiment is a number of its corollaries: ‘Unless you support European socialist solutions offered by a charismatic African-American candidate, then you confirm America as a quasi-racist nation.’ And this thought: African-Americans voted for a black candidate at a 95% rate; Hispanics at perhaps 75%; yet the country was judged as free of racial tribalism on the basis of whether whites voted for a black candidate far to the left of any Democratic nominee during the last three decades in pluralities greater than they did for past white Democratic candidates like Gore or Kerry. And they did!
      It will be interesting when the first Hispanic candidate wins to see whether Mexican-American citizens en masse reaffirm the country to be finally fulfilling its promise—and what would be the reaction of African-Americans and Asians to such ethnic solidarity.
      This solidarity may be a natural reaction, but something is still puzzling about hours of television showing African-American ecstasy based on apparent racial pride rather than glee that someone of Obama’s views was elected—all often editorialized by teary-eyed objective journalists. A person from Mars who watched this post-election celebration, might study the popular reaction to the Obama victory and become puzzled: “Aren’t people now saying pretty much what Michelle Obama said twice, and to great criticism, during the campaign: that the emergence of Barack Obama was occasion for many to have pride in their country for the first time?”

      Be careful Barack
      When off the teleprompter, natural exuberance takes over. The day before the election, Obama was praising his late grandmother and I heard him say that his grandmother, born in 1922, had witnessed both world wars (including 1914-1918?). In his acceptance speech, Obama mentioned that he might not achieve all his aims in “one term”—so we are talking about dynasties of two terms before even assuming office? We remember likewise he kept saying we are only going back to the Clinton tax hikes (up to 40% on top brackets), while omitting the 15.3% FICA and Medicare taxes once the caps are to be eliminated. And we remember that he kept saying he was going to pay for (a trillion dollars worth of) entitlements in large part by “ending that war” (which even by his figures was running at about $100 billion or so now a year (we would need to be in Iraq another 10 years to waste enough that would have gone to new social programs?))

      Second Stimulus
      After running up the annual deficit to a near half-a-trillion dollars in stimuli rebates and bailouts, now we are to send checks out again for subsidies for food, housing, and power? And how to pay for it? And the consequences of looking for others to channel money to be redistributed? At some point, there should be some overarching exegesis to explain all this. Something like: ‘Compensation is arbitrary and not based on either fairness or logic. So government is necessary to make the needed corrections and to redistribute in the way a flawed market cannot.’ At least then we could learn the logic involved.
      Internal Struggles
      We are going to witness a gargantuan struggle among the Obama camp in the next 90 days. On the one hand, the following argument will be advanced:
      “Look, Barack, we have a historical opportunity with the Congress, the honeymoon, voter momentum, and your communicative brilliance. Carpe diem!”
      “Liberals will never have such a window again, so let’s move full blast with Axlerod, Emanuel, and the Chicago Boys before they know what hit them: make lots of hard-left appointments for agency heads, executive branch controllers and cabinet posts; restore the fairness doctrine and get talk radio out of the picture as it was pre-1987; empower unions with an end to secret elections; move on de facto amnesty and keep the borders porous, given how the continually replenished illegal alien community, with periodic amnesties, evolves into Democratic constituencies in key states; go for BOTH tax increases on income up to 40% and ending the FICA caps so you can get another 15.3%. That way we can pay for some of these new programs. Try to create a national health care system akin to Canada’s. Don’t just go for the agenda, but for structural changes that will make it almost impossible for conservatives to win again. Now with incumbency, restore campaign financing in all its manifestations, lest some Republican gets smart and emulates our money-raising strategies. And while we are at it, why not call in Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Bush neocons and charge them with war crimes for Guantanamo and water-boarding?”
      Realists will counter:
      “Wait! LBJ, Nixon, and others all blew their mandates. Festina lente (‘make haste slowly’). Remember the Clintonian 1993-4 debacle with gays in the military, Hillarycare, Les Aspen at Defense (cf. his no armor in Somalia decision), Travelgate, etc, so we don’t need more hubris that means calling in another Dick Morris and triangulation to save the Obama presidency. Either raise income tax or lift FICA caps, but don’t do both unless you want to gut, not shear, the sheep. Throw the loonies looking for jobs under the bus where they can join Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, etc. Adopt the Petraeus withdrawal plan, but claim it was really the “Obama” plan all along. Turn over the cabinet to Larry Summers and Robert Rubin types and a few Republican-lites like Chuck Hagel.”
      So we will see who wins—or whether Obama votes “present,” and the sides go to and fro, back and forth ad nauseam. Beware, we will hear soon a Reaganesque “Let Obama be Obama!”—if we knew exactly what that would mean?
      Sarah Palin

      There was something bothersome about the treatment of Sarah Palin. Her final campaign appearances and interviews showed calm, poise and competence. Her charm galvanized the base. And yet the hard Left on day one reduced her to a Neanderthal creationist. The DC-NY Republican grandees demonized her as a cancerous bimbo who spoke in a patois and represented a culture that was an anathema. Now after heroic campaign work, she returns to Alaska with leaks that she was a diva, appeared in a bathrobe, and threw things, as failed strategists grasp at scapegoats for their lapses. I hope she completes her term, runs for Senate, and comes back to DC to haunt her critics. Long after 2008, we shall remember that an Atlantic Mazagine blogger for days on end trafficked in rumors that her own daughter delivered her mother’s Down Syndrome child. That smear says it all.
      Good/Bad John McCain
      Let me understand the current media analysis of John McCain: 2000—“Old” John McCain runs against the more conservative George Bush and loses, so he’s declared principled and good; mid-2008—“new” John McCain runs against a messianic Barack Obama and could win, so he’s ruthless, quasi-racist, and bad; late 2008—“new-old” John McCain loses against Obama and makes a typically gracious speech, so suddenly he’s the new ‘old’ John McCain again?
      Creepy People
      We, of course, wish to be liked abroad. But there are reasons why in many cases we are not. That is, many governments welcome authoritarians. They prefer tribal, religious, and racial chauvinism compared to our diverse plurality. They like class hierarchies and resent our mobility. They prefer statism, are anti-democratic, and have contempt for consumer capitalism. So why would we wish governments currently composed of radical Palestinians, Iranians, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Syrians, or Russians to like or admire us? While we would wish not to gratuitously excite their ire, their empathy toward us should make us worried not relieved. Who cares whether the royal House of Saud is happy over the election, or those in the Iranian parliament or the activists of Hezbollah?
      Campaign casualties
      1. No one will again trust the media to report objectively a general election. Turn on NBC or CNN or read the front page of the NY Times, and you will expect an editorial for the more liberal candidate without pretense of objectivity.
      2. Public financing is over as a bipartisan tradition. The Democrats may try to resurrect it, once as incumbents they see advantages in limiting fund raising, but no one will ever again believe the mantra of big money + big politics = sleaze
      3. Colin Powell. Now a tragic figure. His endorsement of Obama came too late to appear principled (at a time of Obama’s soaring ratings rather than, say, in mid-September when McCain was ahead). And when he had nicer public things to say of the crooked Ted Stevens than he did the principled hero John McCain, one remembered that his former subordinate Mr. Armitage once apparently knew that Mr. Libby had been charged with a crime that was not a crime, and if it were, Mr. Armitage himself had privately admitted that he was the culpable party. Surely Armitage should have been fired or at least reprimanded by Mr. Powell.
      4. Obamacons. The timing and rationale for conservatives jumping for Obama became suspect not because of their decision per se, but because it came late, and was often without an explanation of why Obama’s tax or spending plan, or foreign policy, or proposed new entitlements were superior to John McCain’s.
      They will be orphaned since there are too many more liberal in line ahead of them to enjoy Obama’s graces, and they burned their bridges with their former conservative supporters. Had any of them simply said in March, “I am for Obama since I think he is a superior candidate to Clinton, Giuliani, Romney and McCain because his preference for a European-model is to be welcomed”, I think they would seem mavericks and issue-orientated thinkers rather than opportunistic.
      5. Beltway Republicans. When the conservative party spends wildly, runs up deficits and justifies them by citing percentages of GDP rather than apologies for trillions borrowed, gives us the likes of the criminally-minded such as Cunningham, Abramoff, and Stevens, the morally dubious like Craig and Foley, and the sycophantic like a Scott McClellan or FEMA’s “Brownie” and the other incompents in high-profile administration jobs, then don’t they naturally lose?
      Fiscal restraint.
      The promises of bailouts and fiscal reprieves from the two candidates were like two Roman emperors outbidding each other for the services of the Praetorian Guard in order to become coronated. Not a word where the borrowing would ultimately come from, how it would be paid back, or how the indebted incurred their obligations in the first place.
      As a self-interested columnist, I would hope Obama reassumes his natural hard-left position of his 1996-2005 period that would provide both plentiful column topics and prove counterproductive to his I fear scary agenda. But as an American, I surely hope he doesn’t, and so wish him personally well, and success as a possible centrist commander-in-chief that advances American interests.
      Interesting times…

    44. # 51 Imperialistu’:

      Am vazut si eu videoul azi, la slujba. Ce oroare. Copii de clasa a 5-a, fir-ar sa fie, fortati sa exprime optiuni politice si umiliti daca nu enunta linia corecta a profei. Mai lipsea ca profa s-o oblige pe fata sa-si faca autocritica, si ne aflam in pur regim stalinist/maoist.

      Cretina n-are habar de pedagogie. In plus, incalca statute clare care interzic prozelitismul politic in scolile platite de contribuabili. E treaba ei ce face in afara scolii, dar in scoala trebuie sa ramina apolitica, conform legii.

      Ce e si mai revelator pentru scolile publice de azi e engleza de ghetto pe care o vorbeste. Femeia asta are o patalama, a trecut examene de certificare, si nimanui nu i-a pasat ca e agramata si ciunteste cuvintele. Oare de ce, ghici ghicitoarea mea??

      Bineinteles ca tipa spune ca videoul a fost „aranjat” ca sa o saboteze, in ciuda imaginilor si a propriilor cuvinte:

      http://www.fayobserver.com/special/drudge.html?id=309760

      Nu-si va pierde slujba, pentru ca profii platiti din taxe sunt sindicalizati, si aproape imposibil de concediat. (Scria cineva aici, nu de mult timp, ca America e prea capitalista. Sfinta ignoranta…)

      Uitati-va bine la femeia asta. Sunt sute de mii ca ea, motivati de revendicari rasiale care vor domina Administratia lui Obamamesia.

    45. costin:

      Multumiri intirziate pentru ajutorul tehnic.
      Intelighentia de stinga il uraste pe Sowell pentru ca nu corespunde stereotipului lor de negru-victima perpetua a albului. Nu e „angry”, nu-si reduce identitatea la cantitatea de melamina din piele, n-are revendicari, dar are idei si o minte independenta. Cineva il numea, cu dispret, „a failed academic”. Mie mi se pare un compliment urias. Sowell e un educator, un pedagog prin excelenta de tip socratic, de felul care e pe cale de disparitie din scoli si universitati. Au ramas „academicii” politruci care-si ascund incapacitatea de a comunica cu verbiaj si teorii la moda.
      Si mai e ceva: spre deosebire de academici, care se citesc intre e si ale caror carti zac acoperite de praf in biblioteci universitare, Sowell e citit de milioane de oameni. Are succes. Asta-i roade, asta le da icter negru.

    46. israelianca:

      Despre Rahm Emanuel:

      http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/05/emanuel-obama-sends-signal-israel/

      Loialitatea sa fata de zionism si Israel pare indubitabila. Pe de alta parte, a nu se uita ca Emanuel e membru al elitei democratice de pe vremea lui Clinton, statista, care crede in mai multa interventie a statului in viata cetatenilor, nu mai mica.
      Ca majoritatea evreilor americani, care au socialismul in singe.
      Asta va conta, in final, si nu loialitatea lui Emanuel fata de Israel. In privinta asta, alegerea lui Emanuel e o miscare de pura imagine, oportunista, un evreu de convenienta, in timp ce Obama si-a ingrosat rindurile stingiste cu inca un „progresist” in afacerile interne.
      Nici nu ma asteptam la altceva.

    47. Multam, Panseluta. Necazul mare este ca de cite ori evreii din America isi declarea loialitatea totala fata de Israel ne vedem pusi in situatia de a mai da inapoi teritorii cucerite pe drept in razboaie care ne-au fost impuse, si care oricum faceau parte din Palestina mandatorie care la rindul ei a fost ciopartita de englezi pentru a-si satisface propriile interese in zona. Nu asta ar fi problema, ca vrem teritorii ca asa avem noi chef sa in intindem si sa ne labartam peste tot Orientul Mijlociu. Problema e ca „baietii” pun rachete si mortiere, si sapa tuneluri pe dedesupt.
      Asta iti raspund fara sa fi citit articolul tau. Dar il citesc eu imediat.

    48. israelianca:
      Total de acord. Ai pus degetul pe rana. De asta am scris ca Emanuel „pare” loial Israelului.
      Eu ma uit la Reagan, care nu era evreu, ca sa inteleg adevarata loialitate fata de Israel, fara concesii. Un paradox care-mi da dureri de cap.

    49. In pas grabit, spre deificarea lui Obama

      (patrupezi, poate postati asta ca articol).

      Din Topeka, Kansas, Capital Journal:

      Planning under way for Obama holiday
      The Capital-Journal
      Published Sunday, November 09, 2008
      Plans are being made to promote a national holiday for Barack Obama, who will become the nation’s 44th president when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20.

      „Yes We Can” planning rallies will be at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. every Tuesday at the downtown McDonald’s restaurant, 1100 Kansas Ave., until Jan. 13. The goals are to secure a national holiday in Obama’s honor, to organize celebrations around his inauguration and to celebrate the 200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln, who was born on Feb. 12 1809.

      At 7:30 a.m. on Inauguration Day, Obama Cake will be served at the downtown McDonald’s, and a celebration is scheduled for 8 p.m. to midnight Jan. 20 at the Ramada Hotel and Convention Center, 420 S.E. 6th.

      For more information, contact Sonny Scroggins, (785) 232-3761, 845-6148 or at biasbustersofkansas@yahoo.com; Lamont Lassiter, McDonald’s general manager, 608-2739; Ava Chander-Beard, (785) 234-9138, ava.beard@sbcglobal.net; or Rhoda Carr, (785) 220-5883.

      As fi zis ca e o gluma proasta, un „prank”, daca nu erau nume si numere de telefon la sfirsit.

      Andrei Craciun, un EvZ de azi:

      „ANDREI CRĂCIUN: Obama, visul
      Duminică, 09 Noiembrie 2008

      Americanii au ales corect politic şi istoric. Barack Hussein Obama Junior are mai multe calităţi decât veteranul de război John McCain.

      Are şi tot ce i-ar fi trebuit lui George W. Bush ca să nu aducă SUA în pragul unui faliment financiar şi moral. Acest absolvent de drept la Harvard, fiu al unui tată kenyan şi al unei mame „native american“, care a copilărit în Indonezia pentru a se rătăci adolescentin în SUA pe aleea drogurilor şi a alcoolului, un învingător al propriilor demoni, un longilin cu alură de jucător la Chicago Bulls, o inteligenţă strălucitoare, un orator electrizant şi civilizat, o apariţie charismatică şi imposibil de ignorat, Obama a fost răsfăţatul presei americane din alt motiv. Pentru că e „de culoare“.

      Putea fi un magnet electoral şi mediatic şi altfel. În fond, e de partea progresistă a baricadei, care seduce intelectualii pacifişti şi săracii. Cu toate acestea, tot ce s-a spus despre el a început cu faptul că e „afroamerican“.

      Barack Obama e un egalitarist, care nu-şi putea rata cariera în noul spaţiu public occidental în care agenda este dictată de minorităţi şi stângiştii care luptă pentru ele. De cei care au vise ca Martin Luther King sau John Lennon: o lume emancipată şi „eco“, în care între noi toţi, de toate rasele, genurile, religiile şi orientările sexuale, să existe armonie.

      Între 1915, de la primul blockbuster din istoria cinematografiei, „Naşterea unei naţiuni“, şi o zi de toamnă din 2008 când a plouat peste cozile de alegători care l-au distribuit pe Obama în rolul noului Superman, se comprimă o poveste care a rulat în alb şi negru şi a sfârşit într-un curcubeu sub care scrie „schimbare“. O poveste care ascunde o bucurie imediată şi un pericol pe termen mediu.

      E momentul ca numele lui David Llewelyn Wark Griffith să fie spus, chiar dacă la el rezonează azi doar iubitorii de filme de epocă, lungi şi mute. Născut într-un ianuarie geros din 1875, în La Grange, Kentucky, în ferma unui colonel erou al Războiului Civil, Griffith a crescut în epoca în care albii şi negrii alergau doar pe diagonalele lor, ca nebunii unei partide de şah care exclude toleranţa.

      În 1915 a lansat filmul „Naşterea unei naţiuni“. Pelicula lui despre războiul de secesiune arată felul grotesc în care gândesc sudiştii că va arăta ţara condusă de negrii dezrobiţi. Şi pentru că se temeau atât de tare, şi-au tras cearceafuri albe pe cap, un nume fioros (Ku Klux Klan) şi au început să-i ucidă. De atunci au curs mulţi ani şi mult sânge nevinovat, croitoreasa Rosa Parks nu s-a ridicat în picioare ca să stea jos un alb, pastorul Martin Luther King a fost asasinat şi Barack Hussein Obama Junior a ajuns preşedinte.

      Deja mitizat, Obama va avea zilele grele ale oricărui erou viu. E un chip pe tricourile de concert ale Madonnei şi o icoană la care se închină pe ascuns negrii din cartierele sărace, urâte şi periculoase ca Leith-ul din cărţile britanicului Irvine Welsh. Visul s-a terminat. Urmează ciocnirea periculoasă dintre utopie şi realitate. Eu ţin cu prima. ”

      Isterie in masa, hipnoza colectiva?
      Irationalul dezlantuit, asa cum s-a petrecut de multe ori in istorie? Id-ul si fortele libidinale eliberate de sub supravegherea tiranica a ego-ului (aviz lui Woland)??
      Nu stiu. Ce mi se pare clar e ca, exact din cauza ca Obama e imagine pura, si zero substanta (Woland ne e dator cu explicatia „mesajului” lui Obama, in care zice ca crede) lumea proiecteaza in el ce vrea. Tipul e un „blank slate”, o foaie alba. Mesajul sau e el insusi: culoarea pielii, zimbetul, alura, vorba usoara.

      Scria israelianca pe un alt sir de entuziasmul pro-Obama din mediile israeliene. Eu ascult la slujba posturi de radio italiene, de pe vremea crizei cu rromii si din nostalgie pentru muzica usoara italiana. Ce jale si acolo. Ma duc sa-i aud pe Mina, pe Celentano, pe Battisti, si, intre cintece, DJ-ii isi proclama devotiunea fata de Obama.

      Chiar daca ar vrea sa se opuna mitului creat in jurul sau (daca ar fi crestin in adevaratul inteles al cuvintului, si nu un crestin de oportunitate, probabil ateu sau agnostic care s-a alaturat unei biserici „crestine” din pure motive politice, pentru ca politicienii fara religie n-au nici o sansa aici, toata idolatria ar trebui sa i se para profund ne-crestina, blasfemica), Obama nu mai are cum. E prizonierul propriei legende. Daca ar tine o conferinta de presa in care ar spune ca e un simplu om, ca nu e Mesia, ar fi linsat de adoratori.

    50. costin: Despre Hollywoodul stingist

      E poveste veche, de pe vremea Marii Depresii, cind studiourile faceau profituri uriase in timp ce majoritatea actorilor, a scriitorilor si masinistilor erau „wage earners”, salariati care se credeau „sclavi” ai patronilor studiourilor.
      Nemultumitii s-au sindicalizat, s-au uitat la Uniunea Sovietica, si s-au constituit in celule comuniste in anii 50, atacate de Senatorul McCarthy.
      Jocul dintre „patroni”, „mari capitalisti” si „salariati/proletari” traieste bine-mersi in Hollywood, intr-o scara economica si de valori culturale in care „vedetele” au prioritate.
      Cind Matt Damon il sprijina pe Obama, ce aud eu e „Nu ma invidiati ca fac milioane de dolari in masinaria Hollywood, pentru X zile de filmare, si pentru ca sunteti indobitociti de cultura populara a capitalismului, al carui exponent sunt eu. Eu sunt, de fapt, pentru cei mici, cei colorati, si cei oprimati.”

    51. Urmeaza una bucata interpretare a maestrului anticapitalist si rusofil (chiar sovietofil) Vasile Ernu. Mi s-a parut indeajuns de distractiv incat sa ne uitam pe ea. Pe scurt, tov. Ernu ne spune ca un politician de paie, precum OBama, e mai periculos pentru Rusia. 😆 E ca si cum ai spune ca Jimmy Carter a dat mai multa bataie de cap Uniunii Sovietice decat Ronald Reagan. 😀 Sau ca Chamberlain l-a lasat fara grai pe Hitler, in timp ce Churchill l-a bagat intr-un colt si l-a lasat fara nici o alta optiune afara de razboi mondial. 😆

      *****************************************************
      Obama in interpretarea Kremlinului

      Obama a invins. S-a auzit in toate capitalele lumii, iar liderul de la Kremlin a avut deja o convorbire telefonica cu noul sef de la Casa Alba pentru a-si stabili o intrevedere. Comentariile specialistilor rusi, oricit ar suna de straniu pentru noi, nu sint foarte diferite de cele ale comentatorilor din tarile occidentale. Singura diferenta semnificativa priveste posibilele schimbari pe care noul lider american le poate aduce in relatia intre cele doua state, care in trecut au fost si dusmani, si aliati, si parteneri.

      E foarte important de spus ca, traditional, politica externa a Rusiei, dar si tendinta de analiza a ei, porneste de la o supozitie tare, care este un principiu al gindirii imperialiste: existam noi si restul lumii (nediferentiat). (De altfel acest lucru este perfect valabil si pentru SUA). In cazul in care apare o putere concurenta, principiul se modifica: existam noi, ei, si restul lumii. Rusia a suferit in anii 90 nu atit din cauza saraciei, cit mai ales din motivul ca SUA a trecut Rusia la capitolul „restul lumii”.

      Rusia poate sa suporte multe, de la razboaie si Gulag-uri, la foamete si restrictii de tot felul, insa ii este foarte greu sa accepte sa devina un anonim in componenta formatiei „restul lumii”. De citiva ani, Rusia incearca sa scoata capul din aceasta categorie pentru a deveni un nou dusman sau partener al SUA, cu toate ca o face destul de neconvingator.

      Si acum a venit Barack Obama. Dincolo de opiniile unor extremisti rusi faimosi (Limonov, Dughin, Prohanov), gasim in principal doua tabere de analisti. Prima grupare sustine ca venirea lui Obama la Casa Alba este un mare minus in relatia dintre cele doua state. Rusia, dupa cum afirma ei, stie foarte bine sa comunice cu un presedinte precum Bush sau McCain. Limbajul celor doi este agresiv, razboinic, fara multe elemente de concesie.

      Atitudinea liniei Bush de politica externa este simpla: nu au nevoie de prea multa diplomatie pentru a declara si infaptui un razboi. Este un limbaj pe care Kremlinul il intelege foarte bine, nu are nevoie de traducatori sau hermeneuti. Rusia a inceput sa se simta ca in vremurile ei bune si a inceput si ea sa comunice cu SUA in acelasi limbaj. Ce ONU! Ce drept international!

      Asa ca in aceasta grila de interpretare, aparitia unui Obama, care aparent are un limbaj mai diplomatic, mai nuantat, face sa apara semne de intrebare asupra capacitatii diplomatiei ruse de a se adapta la acest nou posibil model al politicii externe americane. In acelasi timp, nimeni la Moscova nu uita ca vicepresedintele Joseph Biden are o pozitie la fel de radicala ca si cea a lui McCain fata de politica externa din ultima perioada a Rusiei.

      Cea de-a doua grupare a analistilor se ingrijoreaza si ea de venirea lui Obama la presedintie. Rationamentul insa porneste din alta directie. Ei vad in Obama un soi de Gorbaciov al Statelor Unite. Ei considera ca traseul lui Obama are sanse sa repete traseul lui Gorbaciov in politica interna si mai ales in cea externa din perioada URSS. Obama nu are o experienta in politica mondiala si incearca sa rezolve marile probleme ale politicii interne reducind influenta globala si prezenta fortelor americane in intreaga lume.

      Cu intentiile lui nobile, Barack Obama, asemenea lui Mihail Gorbaciov, poate destabiliza America atit in interior, cit si in exterior. O America slaba este, dupa parerea lor, daunatoare pentru lumea intreaga, si mai ales pentru Rusia. Rusia are nevoie, sustin ei, de o America puternica. Cind e haos pierd in primul rind cei slabi, iar Rusia este inca slaba. Asa ca e mai bine ca Rusia sa aiba un partener sau chiar un dusman puternic decit sa se regaseasca in haos, trag ei concluzia.

      Acest ultim rationament este unul destul de vechi in gindirea politica rusa. Primul, daca nu ma insel, l-a rostit Karamzin (parintele istoriei ruse, pe care noi il citam numai cind e vorba de Stefan cel Mare si care a zis: „acest domnitor, cu mijloace mici facea fapte mari”), care sustinea ca „ceea ce e bine pentru ceilalti e bine si pentru Rusia”. Parca si Obama avea intr-unul din mesajele sale electorale aceasta idee.

      Putem sa ne intrebam: cine are dreptate? Mai toti analistii romani sint de acord cu faptul ca ceea ce e bine pentru SUA e bine si pentru Romania, insa mai nimeni nu e de acord ca ceea ce e bine pentru Rusia poate fi bine si pentru Romania. Sa fie oare asa? E greu de dat un raspuns. Insa ceea ce stim sigur e ca Rusia este foarte aproape de noi, iar Ucraina, cu care avem de impartit destule lucruri, este si mai aproape.

    52. Via Hot Air.

      Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions (Washington Post, Ceci Connolly si R. Jeffrey Smith)

      Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

      A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

    53. m-am uitat aseara putin la jay leno. glume despre vizita lui obama la casa alba unde copii lui obama erau cu mult mai inteligenti decat bush. astia au o fixatie. astazi e invitat in emisiune john mccain si sarah palin se duce la nbc si cnn in incercarea de a demitiza imaginea creata de media leftista – o sa fie interesant.
      nyc a anuntat ca va creste taxele la 15% si va incepe o campanie de taxare a cetatenilor – asa numita taxa ecofriendly. un bun inceput – 5 centi taxa pe punga de plastic. iata cateva masuri ce o vor ajuta pe tanara mamica ce castiga $2/h si ii va face viata mai buna.

    54. „Lately, it seems that no matter what channel I turn to on the radio, there is a song by T.I. Top 40? Pop? Bluegrass? Christmas Carols? He’s there. So, I’m listening to the radio, and his song „Whatever You Like” comes on. And I’m only half listening, and he’s going on about all the things he can provide for his lady, and then I think hear one of the lyrics as „meet Joe Biden.” And I kind of think it’s totally awesome. Because 1) how many rappers since Public Enemy mention politics at all? 2) how friggin’ random? and 3)isn’t that the greatest pickup line ever? I mean, anyone can save enough money to buy a Bentley or bottle of champagne, but it takes someone special to get you a meeting with Joe Muthafuckin’ Biden.”

      deci pe mine ma asasineaza melodia asta. acum trei zile – cand ma intorceam acasa au pus-o de patru ori pe acelasi canal. asta si un remake al „dragostea din tei” in versiunea hip-hop.
      tot de patru ori.
      de obicei cand conduc pe autostrada prefer sa ascult muzica mai antrenanta iar cand conduc in oras – dau pe jazz.
      acum trei zile am ascultat numai jazz ca a trebuit sa schimb postul la greu.

    55. Urmeaza una bucata interpretare a maestrului anticapitalist si rusofil (chiar sovietofil) Vasile Ernu.

      Daca ai tras concluziile astea citind cartea lui „Nascut in URSS” trebuie sa spun ca eu am inteles cu totul altceva din ea. Si daca ai citit-o sper ca n-ai sarit peste raspunsul de la sfarsit al lui Ernu in care da de inteles (dupa cum intuiam) ca ironiile si criticile subtile la adresa fostului URSS sunt esentiale pentru carte.

    56. Va prezentam un proiect-protest fata de complicitatea dintre Biserica si Stat, coordonat de Cosmin Costinas, Vasile Ernu, Attila Tordai-S., in colaborare cu revistele Observator Cultural si Idea Arta+Societate

      Si eu protestez impotriva finantarii publice a institutiilor religioase, dar asta nu ma face filosovietic. Indymedia a preluat stirea respectiva, asta nu inseamna ca Ernu are vreo legatura cu Indymedia. Si nici daca ar avea legaturi cu anarhistii (vreo dovada in sensul asta?) n-ar insemna ca e filosovietic…

      Mi-a fost greu sa urmaresc discutia (al doilea link). Se refera la cartea „Nascut in URSS” pe care am citit-o vara asta. Am remarcat ca Ernu nu e un entuziast promotor al capitalismului, dar in acelasi timp am gasit-o ca fiind pur si simplu opinia unui om inteligent si moderat care desi are un atasament fata de tara in care a crescut (si e de inteles sa fie asa) analizeaza retrospectiv critic si uneori ironic Uniunea Sovietica.

      Sorin Antohi (stiu ca a fost implicat in cateva scandaluri, nu ma preocupa asta), in prefata pe care i-a scris-o, a atras atentia asupra pericolului ca nostalgia fostilor cetateni sovietici sa se transforme in sentimente pozitive nejustificate, iar Ernu ii raspunde exact cum m-as fi asteptat sa-i raspunda tot in carte.

      Nu cunosc intreaga activitate a lui Ernu deci s-ar putea sa ma insel in privinta simpatiilor sale, dar cartea mentionata nu-l face in niciun caz militant comunist.

      Cititi cartea, chiar e interesanta!

    57. Ernu este orice, dar nu moderat. Filosovietic prin opera, prin afirmatii, prin obsesia lui fata de „anticomunism” pe care il considera un fel de boala estica de neinteles, prin tentativele sale de a spala imaginea regimului criminal care a casapit oameni jumatate de secol.

      Nu i-am citit faimoasa carte si nici nu cred ca o voi face prea curand. Mi-e jena si nu vreau sa dau un leu pe o asemenea tampenie despre URSS. Daca mi-o da cineva pe gratis, poate imi arunc ochii pe ea, altfel nu. Nu tin sa citesc carti care par a fi scrise de mankurti. In schimb, i-am citit opiniile exprimate candva pe un forum pe care eram si eu membru si articolele pe care le-a scris pentru diverse publicatii sau site-uri, iar concluzia mea este una singura: Ernu este un filosovietic, apologet al comunismului in general si al comunismului sovietic in particular, individ care nu mai poate sa doarma la noapte din cauza „neoliberalismului invingator”.

      Inca ceva. Indymedia nu este strict un portal anarhist, ci unul stangist. Nu numai anarhistii il frecventeaza, ci mai ales socialistii si comunistii.

      P.S. Iluzia anticomunismului. De asta avea nevoie Romania, fara indoiala, o tara unde comunismul a disparut peste noapte si nu a fost inchis un securist sau un comunist pentru faptele sale de glorie.

    58. Poţi să-mi trimiţi şi mie nişte articole incriminatorii? N-am timp acum, dar îmi fac în week-end… chiar sunt curios să văd ce te-a supărat aşa.

      Depinde ce înţelegi prin „filosovietic”. Fără îndoială, Ernu e nostalgic după anumite părţi ale URSS-ului pentru că sunt legate de copilăria lui şi de o perioadă în care nu putea percepe „the big picture”. Şi părinţii noştri sunt nostalgici după una-alta, chiar şi după lucruri care la o analiză serioasă sunt triste (ieşitul la defilări de 23 august) şi ştiu şi ei că sunt anormale.

      Dacă acest tip de nostalgie înseamnă filosovietism atunci da, ai dreptate… Dacă insinuezi că Ernu găseşte justificat şi comunismul sovietic în ansamblul lui atunci vreau să văd şi eu pe ce te bazezi, poate ai dreptate.

      „Iluzia anticomunismului” ai citit-o? Eu nu, dar nu pare ceva atât de îngrozitor din descrierea de pe site…

    59. Nu poti sa apreciezi comunismul sovietic pe bucatele, asa cum nu poti aprecia nazismul pe bucatele. Nu exista nazism bun si nazism, nu exista aspecte pozitive si aspecte negative, exista nazism si atat. Asa si cu comunismul. Numai ca tov. Ernu spune ca e gresit sa il judeci in intregul sau. Gulagul nu e comunism. Nu-stiu-ce carte publicata de comunisti si care i-a placut lu’ Ernu, aia da, aia face parte din comunism.

      Daca vrei exemplu de gandire a la Ernu, citeste interventiile sale incepute aici. Discutia era pe tema cartii domniei sale. Te invit sa citesti si articolele pe care le aduce in apararea operei si pozitiei sale. Fireste, ele sunt scrise de colegii cu care a scris „Iluziile anticomunismului”.

      Ernu asta merita o analiza mai serioasa, ai dreptate. Sa pun mana pe carte, sa citesc si porcaria „Nascut in URSS”, si o voi face.

    60. Nu poti sa apreciezi comunismul sovietic pe bucatele, asa cum nu poti aprecia nazismul pe bucatele.

      Nu înţeleg… asta e o constatare sau o interdicţie? Dacă vine cineva şi-ţi spune că a apreciat o parte, cum îi răspunzi? Cu „eşti nebun” sau cu „nu ai voie”?

      Nu exista nazism bun si nazism, nu exista aspecte pozitive si aspecte negative, exista nazism si atat.

      Uite, unii sunt nostalgici după faptul că toată lumea avea loc de muncă în timpul lui Ceauşescu, şi eu sunt primul care le explică DE CE erau locuri de muncă şi cum dezavantajele şi problemele nu puteau merge decât mână-n mână cu realizările regimului (mi se pare indiscutabil că regimul a avut şi realizări, aşa cum dacă nu mă înşel şi Hitler a dezvoltat, printre altele, reţeaua de autostrăzi a Germaniei. Asta nu înseamnă că naţional-socialismul german a fost „mai puţin rău”, înseamnă doar că a avut şi reuşite, chiar dacă nesemnificative în raport cu dezastrul umanitar provocat).

      Dar dacă noi doi ştim asta, de ce ai impresia că toţi trebuie s-o ştie? De multe ori oamenii vor chestii contradictorii (siguranţă şi prosperitate, să zicem) fără să-şi dea seama că se bat cap în cap, şi la ce să te-aştepţi când legătura dintre ele nu e atât de vizibilă pentru toţi?

      Bineînţeles că Ernu îşi dă seama ce implicaţii are de obicei comunismul. Cartea lui e doar povestea unui om mare care şi-a dat seama cum stau lucrurile, dar care se răsfaţă imaginându-şi că e din nou un puşti şi că vede doar lucrurile frumoase din jur. Nu e un manifest politic, chiar dacă autorul are convingeri politice, poate diferite de ale celor care scriu şi comentează pe acest blog.

      Şi având în vedere ce a însemnat privatizarea şi neoliberalismul în Rusia, Moldova sau România, are toate motivele să se gândească la soluţii alternative. Alegerea în spaţiul ex-sovietic şi în Estul Europei în general se pare că nici nu e între comunism şi capitalism, ci între comunism şi cleptocraţie. Şi da, eu cred că pe termen lung cleptocraţia pseudo-capitalistă va avea efecte mai bune dar nu înţeleg de ce toţi cei care o privesc dubios sunt filosovietici.

    61. Imi deformezi afirmatiile si te joci cu concepte precum neoliberalismul, nu inteleg de ce. Mai bine zis, inteleg de ce imi deformezi afirmatiile – nu-ti plac afirmatiile tari -, dar nu pricep de ce te lasi furat de comunistii astia de salon si interpretarea lor a capitalismului.

      Este o mare greseala sa interpretezi economicul prin gargara facuta de niste Ernu. Ce se intampla in Romania, in Moldova, in Rusia, in Ucraina, in orice alta tara semibarbara din coltul asta de lume, NU este neoliberalism, ci jaf, NU este capitalism, ci smecherie. Ma mir ca trebuie sa iti explic asa ceva.

      Revin la Ernu. Unui Vasile Ernu NU ai ce sa ii explici pentru ca omul asta este imun la orice argument. El le stie pe ale lui: capitalismul este imperfect, deci orice alternativa la capitalism, chiar si una intrinsec diabolica precum comunismul, nu trebuie ignorata sau condamnata.

      Pentru domnul sau tovarasul Vasile Ernu, membru al unei ‘telectualitati stangiste cool, capitalismul este la fel de rau cu ceea ce s-a numit comunism, iar GULAGUL nu face parte din comunism, ci este rezultatul naturii umane imperfecte. Culmea, asta desi parintii fondatori o spun foarte clar. Lenin o spune clar, chiar si inocentul Marx: clasele inamice trebuie distruse. Diferenta e data de nuanta, de prezenta sau nu a urii. Lenin uraste, Marx pare sa nu. La Marx, dusmanul trebuie eliminat din ratiuni obiective. Nu e rau, dar slujeste un fals zeu. Indiferent insa de motiv, rezultatul acelasi: razboi de clasa si multe cadavre. Crima este parte integranta a sistemului comunist. Numai un Ernu ar fi incapabil sa priceapa atata lucru.

      Nu înţeleg… asta e o constatare sau o interdicţie? Dacă vine cineva şi-ţi spune că a apreciat o parte, cum îi răspunzi? Cu “eşti nebun” sau cu “nu ai voie”?

      Este o constatare. Cum ii raspund? Cu malitiozitate. In lumea mea sunt putini nebuni si foarte multi prosti si ignoranti, iar mie mi s-a acrit sa imi pierd vremea cu ei. Nu sunt cel mai destept, nu sunt cel mai citit, dar macar sunt constient de asta si ma tratez, indivizii astia nu-s si scriu carti despre URSS si comunism.

      Bineînţeles că Ernu îşi dă seama ce implicaţii are de obicei comunismul. Cartea lui e doar povestea unui om mare care şi-a dat seama cum stau lucrurile, dar care se răsfaţă imaginându-şi că e din nou un puşti şi că vede doar lucrurile frumoase din jur. Nu e un manifest politic, chiar dacă autorul are convingeri politice, poate diferite de ale celor care scriu şi comentează pe acest blog.

      Bineinteles ca nu isi da seama. Daca si-ar da seama, i-ar fi jena sa vina cu prostii d’astea. Imagineaza-ti o carte despre cat de frumoasa era viata in Germania nazista, pornind de la copilaria proprie. Aia n-ar mai fi fost amuzanta, desigur. Auzi, sa ignori violenta nazista! In schimb, o porcarie precum Nascut in URSS, unde statul la coada este o forma de socializare (iti doresc sa stai la coada toata viata, tov. Ernu 😉 ), trece drept doar o alta parere. Ei bine, asta mi se pare incredibil, cu atat mai mult cu cat este un tip de manifest politic, doar Nascut in URSS si Iluziile anticomunismului fac parte din aceeasi familie, ca si intreaga publicistica a lui Ernu.

      Dar dacă noi doi ştim asta, de ce ai impresia că toţi trebuie s-o ştie?

      Pretentia nu o am decat de la cei care vor sa isi dea cu parerea pe subiect. Nu ii cer unui cititor de Libertatea sa inteleaga cum functioneaza, dar am asemenea pretentii de la cineva cu o atitudine de better than thou, precum tov. Ernu, cel care considera ca in acest colt al lumii, comunismul si superba Uniune Sovietica sunt denigrate, facand din apararea lor un fel de cruciada personala.

    62. Este o mare greseala sa interpretezi economicul prin gargara facuta de niste Ernu. Ce se intampla in Romania, in Moldova, in Rusia, in Ucraina, in orice alta tara semibarbara din coltul asta de lume, NU este neoliberalism, ci jaf, NU este capitalism, ci smecherie. Ma mir ca trebuie sa iti explic asa ceva.

      Nu trebuie să-mi explici asta, dar nu e clar că majoritatea oamenilor când vorbesc de capitalism sau neoliberalism se referă la ce se vede în practică?

      În America Latină e/a fost capitalism sau jaf? Unde se găseşte capitalismul ăla pur pe care îl apărăm amândoi? Şi mai ales unde în ţările post-comuniste?

      Din nou, nu-mi propun să echivalez lucrurile între ele… spun doar că înţeleg de ce foarte multă lume caută alternative atât la capitalism cât şi la comunism.

      nu-ti plac afirmatiile tari

      Nu-mi plac afirmaţiile tranşante când nu cred că sunt justificate.

      Imagineaza-ti o carte despre cat de frumoasa era viata in Germania nazista, pornind de la copilaria proprie. Aia n-ar mai fi fost amuzanta, desigur.

      Dar spune cineva că descrierea vieţii în URSS e amuzantă? Dacă au fost germani care între războaie au fost ţinuţi în puf şi n-au fost expuşi direct la atrocităţile din jurul lor sau n-au putut să le înţeleagă din cauza vârstei, e foarte posibil să aibă amintiri plăcute din copilărie.

      Oricum, o să mă opresc… Tu vorbeşti de politică, eu vorbesc de literatură. Mie mi s-a părut o carte bună, nu un manifest. 🙂

    63. acum am aflat de vasile ernu si asta e tot ce am gasit pe net: http://www.nascutinurss.ro/nascut_in_urss.html

      mi s-a facut pielea gaina citind retetele de cocktail.
      unul soft:

      „A Goni ursul din bîrlog presupune doar inversarea băuturilor. E bine de ştiut şi de tehnica Vodolaz care e construită în felul următor: într-o halbă de bere se dă drumul la un păhărel mic de vodcă. Paharul nu trebuie să fie răsturnat. Halba se bea dintr-o dată în aşa fel încît ultimele înghiţituri sa fie cele de vodcă. Cu alte cuvinte, vorba populară sovietică: berea fără vodcă e ca nunta fără muzică. ”

      asta mi-a adus aminte de „car bomb”, – ingredientele erau toate irish. intr-un pahar de guinness se introducea cu grija un shot de crema de whisky ( bailey’s) combinat cu irish whisky ( jameson) si trebuia baut dintr-o sorbire pentru ca altfel reactia dintre crema de whisky ( normal whiskey ca e irlandez) si bere il facea sa se branzeasca.

      iar apoi varianta hard:

      „Despre Troinoi Odekolon (Odekolon vine de la eau de Cologne) se ştie din anii de grădiniţă că e băutura cea mai răspîndită după vodcă, datorită faptului că e foarte ieftin (94 kopeici) şi conţine 64% spirt şi 3-4% substanţe aromate. Am putea să împărţim băutura în categoriile parfumerie, unde s-ar încadra tot ce ţine de parfumuri, cosmetică etc., şi unde intră aproape tot, adică de la apă de colonie pîna la soluţii pentru unghii, păr şi picioare. O altă categorie ar fi himia ce presupune orice clei, diluant, dizolvant etc., pe bază de spirt, alcool industrial etc. De exemplu din această categorie face parte lichidul de frînă. Era preferat cel folosit în aviaţie. Băutura chiar aşa se chema Tormoz (frînă). O categorie importantă era cea care făcea parte din apteka, căci aici aproape toate lichidele erau pe bază de alcool. Deviza băutorului sovietic era: tot ce arde se poate bea. Mai era şi categoriea de băutură unguente ce conţineau alcool: pastă de dinţi, cremă de ghete, dar aici produsul necesita ceva preparare. Aceste categorii au fost folosite mereu în URSS, însă ele au dat roadă în perioadele mai dificile şi mai ales în perioada prohibiţiei gorbacioviste. În această perioadă poporul sovietic a trebuit să devină un adevărat artist al producţiei produselor alcoolice.”

      dupa care vine episodul cu djinsii in care e descrisa corvoada procurarii unei perechi de blue jeans si apocaliptica concluzie:

      „Cînd merg în magazine şi văd grămezile de blugi de acolo mă ia cu ameţeală. Cîtă desconsiderare faţă de aceste lucruri care cîndva au fost sacre pentru noi! Îmi cumpăr rar djinsî ca să nu „strivesc corola de minuni” a perioadei mele comuniste. Capitalismul ăsta ne-a stricat de tot. Ne-a distrus una dintre cele mai mari plăceri, plăcerea de a avea lucruri obţinute cu greu. ”

      cred ca o vizita a d-lui ernu in koreea de nord sau cuba i-ar rezolva multe din nostalgii.
      nu stiu de unde poate veni aceasta nostalgie.
      din dorinta masochista de a o duce rau? sau poate doar din placerea de a fi centrul atentiei si invidiei profunde ca ai avut posibilitatea procurarii unei perechi de „blugi”, fiind primul si singurul din scoala care avea asa ceva.
      cam acelasi fenomen se intampla si acum in Romania ( dupa cate am inteles). Esti cool daca ai Iphone cu toate ca este decodat si daca ii faci un upgrade il poti pune linistit ca si obiect de decor langa pestele de pe televizor. Plus ca nici o retea de telefonie din Romania nu face fata toate gadgeturilor incluse.
      eu cam asa imi explic. poate nu am dreptate.
      ai o pleasca de lcd in casa – ultimul ragnet in domeniu – dar nici un program care sa emita hd si nici un player sau discuri blue ray.
      ai ferrari, prosche, bentley, mercedes, bmw dar strazi inguste, 150 km de autostrada si dimineata trebuie sa te trezesti devreme sa impingi masini sa poti iesi din parcare, http://catavencu.ro/cine_se_scoala_de_dimineata_departe_impinge_video-3913.html

      toate acestea – eu le consider lacune ramase din comunism.
      dorinta perfect omeneasca de a iesi din standard ( toti oamenii sunt la fel) de a fi privit ca individ si nu ca masa.
      si atunci, probabil

    64. oops. nu mi-a intrat tot comentariul si nici nu il mai refac,’
      ideea era ca aceasta carte a d-lui ernu e interesanta daca treci peste cateva idei nostalgice.
      cred ca este placuta la lectura dar nu as fi sigur ca i’as impartasi nostalgiile.

    65. cred ca o vizita a d-lui ernu in koreea de nord sau cuba i-ar rezolva multe din nostalgii.

      Eu încă încerc să-mi dau seama dacă glumeşti sau nu… Nu e vizibil de la o poştă tonul ironic pe care critică în acea propoziţie capitalismul?

      Sunt utile paragrafele pe care le-ai extras şi reprezentative pentru toată cartea. Dacă ele îl fac pe Ernu un filosovietic inveterat atunci nu ştiu ce să mai spun…

    66. Dr.Jones,

      Vasile Ernu este un nostalgic al comunismului bun care a „fost intinat” si care s-a prabusit. Un pic de bine era in Raul total, era binele stabilitatii, pana la urma, daca nu te lua KGB-ul se putea vietui, nu-i asa?

      Si apoi, ce placere sa mai ai intr-o societate a plenitudinii, cand ai gustat strasnica fala a mandriei de a te sti grozav in salopeta si tatuc in Moskvici?

    67. Bine, e cum ziceţi voi. 🙂 Nu mai e nevoie de intepretări şi nici măcar de lectura cărţii… prima impresie e adevărată şi gata. Putem să schimbăm subiectul din partea mea.

    68. Intru si eu piezis si repede in conversatia despre Ernu. Nu cunosc nimic despre el in afara din ce am citit de la voi, dar pot sa validez pasajul despre cum se poate obtine alcool in vremuri grele. 🙂 Absolut adevarat si pentru Romania. Adaug o reteta olteneasca: tuica din gainat de pasare. Gustat in armata de la un gospodar milos cu teristii (milos pe bani, ca orice bun gospodar). Cam strepezitor la dinti, dar trece cu ardei iute. A doua zi este de incapacitare sub forma de crampe, intoxicare, dureri de cap, depinde de cantitatea ingurgitata si metabolismul consumatorului. In orice caz, trebuie abordata cu optimism: ce e distilat nu face rau, ramine doar „good stuff” ca d-aia e distilat. Si in plus, intre crema de ghete si gainatul de pasare, al doilea cistiga fara drept de apel: e 100% organic si natural. Azi ar trebui sa-i zica tuica „paceverde”.

    69. Dr. Jones,

      Cu referinta la „Tronoi Odekolon”-ul lui Ernu, cuvantul odicolon exista in limba romana si este unul din exemplele de proletarizare pana la mahalagism a unor cuvinte sau notiuni ce nu isi aveau locul in societatea comunista. In cazul nostru este vorba de apa de colonie – Cologne – ce a dat nastere chiar si unui nume, un cunoscut de-al meu a auzit pe cineva strigand la telefon:
      – „Alo, Ioane, tu esti? Odicolon la telefon.”

      Cuvantul „odicolon” mai este folosit si in limbajul smecheresc, in special de tineri, ca in blogul lui Madelin.

    70. @cine-i ernu,

      De acord ca Vasile Ernu este un tip echilibrat si ca scrie cu umor, dar mi se pare ciudat ca a continuat sa-si cantoneze gandirea in mirificul URSS la atatia ani de la dizolvare.

    71. Dacă au fost germani care între războaie au fost ţinuţi în puf şi n-au fost expuşi direct la atrocităţile din jurul lor sau n-au putut să le înţeleagă din cauza vârstei, e foarte posibil să aibă amintiri plăcute din copilărie.

      Una este sa ai amintiri placute din copilarie si cu totul altceva este sa faci paralele intre comunism/ nazism si capitalism. Tov. Ernu exact la asta se rezuma: comunismul nu a fost atat de rau pe cat se zice. Anticomunistii sunt niste dereglati, comunistii cu basca d’aia cool ca a lui sunt constiinte lucide.

      bine, e cum ziceţi voi. Nu mai e nevoie de intepretări şi nici măcar de lectura cărţii… prima impresie e adevărată şi gata. Putem să schimbăm subiectul din partea mea.

      Iti place sa faci pe rebelu’. Numai asa imi explic atitudinea asta concilianta fata de un Ernu.

      cine-i ernu> Dragut din partea ta, dar cred ca i-am facut destula reclama ‘telectualului de stanga Vasile Ernu. Mai du-te si pe la Costica Rogozanu. Acolo sigur vei gasi amatori.

    72. dr. jones,

      Un dolar Obama deci costa numai 9.95 USD (plus 4.95 S&H)! Pai este chiar o oferta grozava!

      Iar la Mumbay este jale da. Teroristii islamisti au ucis 80 de oameni.

      FBI-ul a anuntat ca este posibil sa fie atacate si obiective de pe teritoriul american – stire Antena 3.

    73. E prea tare. 😆

      … the Democratic Party gave their presidential nomination and it seemed their heart and soul and the muscle and bone and sinew of their political organisation to Barack Obama, the son of a black man from Kenya and a white man from Kansas. No matter what your politics, that is a moment for the history book.

      Comentarii pe YouTube:

      1. „i would say it’s a moment for a history books… two men create a baby… you’d think that would be all over the news.” (theartofnotbeingseen)
      2. „White men from Kansas can have kids but only with Black men from Kenya” (Eskimolz)

      :mrgreen:

    LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here