*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/23/ireland-economy-double-dip-threat?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
25 September 2010 4:39AM
To the editors:
I feel sad for Europe and especially for Ireland and the United Kingdom; you have to live under the delusions of self-made ministers who worships their creator. Disraeli’s ghost would even be dismayed by people so flawed at the center. What more could possibly be wrecked in Europe by such a sterile mind as that of your European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and the hundreds of others like him who are all driving you willy-nilly. They think this way and that way is the best way, with so much mediocrity.
I cannot believe as some do that you are all so blind that you cannot see what is happening to you. As the saying goes it’s not all the economy stupid. But we all are aware of that. All the credible economic strategies that you employ will not rid you of that heavy chain linked across your necks. A more contemptible, unfeeling bunch that you have to contend with makes me want to throw up. America has problems too, but it is not as surprisingly bad as your radicals may think.
Having long ago betrayed themselves to whatever crowns of glory they feel entitled to, these exhausted volcanoes think nothing of betraying you and the rest of Europe over and over. How many “inspired plans” have you seen demolished by their wrecking crews in preceding years? Now they are looking to make everybody feel a sense of responsibility as they squander your time, waste your money, and plunge all of you deeper into remorse. I can only believe that Ireland and Europe wants better, in spite of what you might deserve.
Dom Giovanni
Irish Italian poet
Wooster, Ohio, America
September 25, 2010
Comment Deleted by the Daily Mail UK
To the editors: (Daily Mail)
I would like to know what kind of government it is that discriminates between political bullying and societal bullying and makes a charge that the worst offenders are the street bullies, when they have picked up their bad attitudes from the political thugs that look down upon everyone else from their opera boxes?
.....................
Note: I find it curious that the editors deleted this comment posted on 24/9/10. Perhaps I am too harsh in my assessment for their publication. Perhaps they misread my question to mean that I think all political people and your government in particular are “political thugs,” and in impeccable bad taste. Perhaps the editors of the Daily Mail are too self-conscious about where they stand in the middle of their tightly knit community. Perhaps they just didn’t know how to take it. Perhaps they are just snobs.
As a born citizen of the UK that’s OK with me. I have been discriminated against before in more ways than one. One was being a wop. You should not be so mean spirited, after all, you asked for comments and I tried not to be personal. Will you let it stand this time? Or am I just a coxcomb flinging a pot of paint in the public face? Nevertheless, nothing written these days ever goes away – it is available elsewhere - sooner or later posterity will judge the efficacy of my words, but I hardly think it will be sooner. I am of no importance to your community or to the world.
I apologize to the British people that I have had to write this note. It obscures my original point.
The original comment appeared at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1314130/The-epidemic-hate-crimes-vulnerable-reveals-callousness-heart-society.html
Dom Giovanni
Irish Italian poet
Wooster, Ohio, America
I would like to know what kind of government it is that discriminates between political bullying and societal bullying and makes a charge that the worst offenders are the street bullies, when they have picked up their bad attitudes from the political thugs that look down upon everyone else from their opera boxes?
.....................
Note: I find it curious that the editors deleted this comment posted on 24/9/10. Perhaps I am too harsh in my assessment for their publication. Perhaps they misread my question to mean that I think all political people and your government in particular are “political thugs,” and in impeccable bad taste. Perhaps the editors of the Daily Mail are too self-conscious about where they stand in the middle of their tightly knit community. Perhaps they just didn’t know how to take it. Perhaps they are just snobs.
As a born citizen of the UK that’s OK with me. I have been discriminated against before in more ways than one. One was being a wop. You should not be so mean spirited, after all, you asked for comments and I tried not to be personal. Will you let it stand this time? Or am I just a coxcomb flinging a pot of paint in the public face? Nevertheless, nothing written these days ever goes away – it is available elsewhere - sooner or later posterity will judge the efficacy of my words, but I hardly think it will be sooner. I am of no importance to your community or to the world.
I apologize to the British people that I have had to write this note. It obscures my original point.
The original comment appeared at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1314130/The-epidemic-hate-crimes-vulnerable-reveals-callousness-heart-society.html
Dom Giovanni
Irish Italian poet
Wooster, Ohio, America
September 7, 2010
Contesting Liberal Reality
Little Fiori,
Really, contesting the narratives of liberal demagoguery:
I believe that the only serious threat to a liberal democracy are liberals themselves. Specifically their actions which seek to impose their own variations of orthodoxies and abridgment of freedom of speech within the open marketplace of ideas. Thousands have asked the same question, why?
Liberalism, or progressivism as it's sometimes called, is in itself a form of extremism in its political and social attitudes toward anything that hints of dissent. It is an egalitarian good guy/bad guy syndrome of polarization.
Liberals often resort to forming groups specifically designed to counter the narratives of groups with which they disagree, groups that have an inherent equal right to participate with others in a true and free democracy.
Such groups as these desperately need and use costly and burdensome lawsuits intended to intimidate and prevent individuals and their collected assemblies from acting in their own interest within the spheres of political and social issues.
The most notorious and obvious cases in point are the strategies of liberals to impose orthodoxy in academia, religion, and the scientific disciplines, with the aim to exclude those who refuse to play the same beggarly, cheating, and corrupt game.
Give them an f.
Your bud,
Dom
Really, contesting the narratives of liberal demagoguery:
I believe that the only serious threat to a liberal democracy are liberals themselves. Specifically their actions which seek to impose their own variations of orthodoxies and abridgment of freedom of speech within the open marketplace of ideas. Thousands have asked the same question, why?
Liberalism, or progressivism as it's sometimes called, is in itself a form of extremism in its political and social attitudes toward anything that hints of dissent. It is an egalitarian good guy/bad guy syndrome of polarization.
Liberals often resort to forming groups specifically designed to counter the narratives of groups with which they disagree, groups that have an inherent equal right to participate with others in a true and free democracy.
Such groups as these desperately need and use costly and burdensome lawsuits intended to intimidate and prevent individuals and their collected assemblies from acting in their own interest within the spheres of political and social issues.
The most notorious and obvious cases in point are the strategies of liberals to impose orthodoxy in academia, religion, and the scientific disciplines, with the aim to exclude those who refuse to play the same beggarly, cheating, and corrupt game.
Give them an f.
Your bud,
Dom
August 24, 2010
Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times is himself a demogogue
Little Fiori,
With all the glowing words which the New York Times writer presents to the world, none can take away the impression that Nicholas Kristof is himself a demagogue. He is among the mindset that desires to rescue us from some evil by creating another evil in the minds of the gullible and the uneducated. It is through people like him that politicians appear to stink in your mind. It is through people like him who use politics to divide and conquer, but the truth is only to divide, never the latter. Kristof manipulates and promotes another kind of intolerance in the minds of the many who share his paranoid and irrational fears.
Dom Giovanni
With all the glowing words which the New York Times writer presents to the world, none can take away the impression that Nicholas Kristof is himself a demagogue. He is among the mindset that desires to rescue us from some evil by creating another evil in the minds of the gullible and the uneducated. It is through people like him that politicians appear to stink in your mind. It is through people like him who use politics to divide and conquer, but the truth is only to divide, never the latter. Kristof manipulates and promotes another kind of intolerance in the minds of the many who share his paranoid and irrational fears.
Dom Giovanni
August 20, 2010
MoveOn.org, Who is Reading MoveOn.org?
More from
Who Is Reading MoveOnOver.p.i.g?
Who is reading MoveOn.org?
It is not liberalism that is the problem just as it is not conservatives who are a problem, not anymore than independents or libertarians (or equivalents of all) who are a problem worldwide today, isn't it the hard heart of humanity? To paraphrase Shaw, 100% human and 99% idiots.
Who belongs to the Professional Left?
Does anyone really respect the few, vain, vicious, spotted reptiles writing for the Huffing Post?
Who has really betrayed the WTC Mosque controversy?
Who said Media Matters?
What would you do for the price of a sheepskin?
While reading Daily Kus, do you get the feeling that the Dog returns to its vomit?
Is it fair to call political activist Erica Payne a
street hustler with a chip on her shoulder?
You don't believe that ambitious, sordid, and vindictive political activism isn't street hustling, really?
Great people frequent the Internet, but I find it hard to understand why dogs do. Are they literate?
Like mangy canines with their drooling fangs bared at the slightest jest or provocation, tearing away at the flesh of the inhabitants of the land whom they have been taught to attack, isn't it the protection of the lambs from the beasts that I mean?
Certainly the most conceited people with whom you have ever encountered are those who boast the most about their political activism, you don't say?
Have you not a conscience that you would make a wreck of your life protecting those who malign the innocent? You are a law abiding citizen? Why do you then puff like an exhausted volcano?
Who Is Reading MoveOnOver.p.i.g?
Who is reading MoveOn.org?
It is not liberalism that is the problem just as it is not conservatives who are a problem, not anymore than independents or libertarians (or equivalents of all) who are a problem worldwide today, isn't it the hard heart of humanity? To paraphrase Shaw, 100% human and 99% idiots.
Who belongs to the Professional Left?
Does anyone really respect the few, vain, vicious, spotted reptiles writing for the Huffing Post?
Who has really betrayed the WTC Mosque controversy?
Who said Media Matters?
What would you do for the price of a sheepskin?
While reading Daily Kus, do you get the feeling that the Dog returns to its vomit?
Is it fair to call political activist Erica Payne a
street hustler with a chip on her shoulder?
You don't believe that ambitious, sordid, and vindictive political activism isn't street hustling, really?
Great people frequent the Internet, but I find it hard to understand why dogs do. Are they literate?
Like mangy canines with their drooling fangs bared at the slightest jest or provocation, tearing away at the flesh of the inhabitants of the land whom they have been taught to attack, isn't it the protection of the lambs from the beasts that I mean?
Certainly the most conceited people with whom you have ever encountered are those who boast the most about their political activism, you don't say?
Have you not a conscience that you would make a wreck of your life protecting those who malign the innocent? You are a law abiding citizen? Why do you then puff like an exhausted volcano?
August 1, 2010
Democracy by Carol Ann Duffy Letters of Giovanni
Carlo,
I have just read Carol Ann Duffy's poem Democracy that was published in the Guardian on May 18. What do I think of it? I think it gives the impression of a poet hard at search for an idea.
Sometimes, as poets, when we are overworked, our words have a tendency to meander down through our fingers and the pencil fails to capture even a straggling thought. It's a heavy burden on writers to discover that nothing of triumph is coming forth.
I believe Ms. Duffy was quoted as saying that she was "not interested, as a poet, in words like 'plash'-Seamus Heaney words, interesting words. I like to use simple words, but in a complicated way." Well, there is no sand in this oyster and you can bet there will be no pearl either. Democracy simply lacks passion.
My artistic sensibilities tell me to look at this poem objectively, to get out of it and see what I can find, but in Democracy there is no "out" there. A few people of extreme smartness, profound intellectuals,
Just as some people are never really charming til they die, a dead word is never charming at all, and nothing short of a miracle can make that Lazarus rise from the grave again. The most serious advice, Carlo, that I can give a poet is not to begin taking shortcuts with the imagination. We poets, too, can have bad days. I think we should allow Ms. Duffy that consolation. The question is, what's the Guardian's excuse?
I have just read Carol Ann Duffy's poem Democracy that was published in the Guardian on May 18. What do I think of it? I think it gives the impression of a poet hard at search for an idea.
Sometimes, as poets, when we are overworked, our words have a tendency to meander down through our fingers and the pencil fails to capture even a straggling thought. It's a heavy burden on writers to discover that nothing of triumph is coming forth.
I believe Ms. Duffy was quoted as saying that she was "not interested, as a poet, in words like 'plash'-Seamus Heaney words, interesting words. I like to use simple words, but in a complicated way." Well, there is no sand in this oyster and you can bet there will be no pearl either. Democracy simply lacks passion.
My artistic sensibilities tell me to look at this poem objectively, to get out of it and see what I can find, but in Democracy there is no "out" there. A few people of extreme smartness, profound intellectuals,
Just as some people are never really charming til they die, a dead word is never charming at all, and nothing short of a miracle can make that Lazarus rise from the grave again. The most serious advice, Carlo, that I can give a poet is not to begin taking shortcuts with the imagination. We poets, too, can have bad days. I think we should allow Ms. Duffy that consolation. The question is, what's the Guardian's excuse?
July 27, 2010
E. J. Dionne The Washington Post "faire des siennes"
What should you believe, Alessandro, concerning the journalist E. J. Dionne? What does it matter what we believe politically when it is really how we live that makes all the difference in our lives. If we live lousy lives politics is not going to save us. I suspect, like you, that E. J. Dionne is little more than an alienator among us and a political propagandist.
Please, don't take my word for this. Continue to read his words for yourself and form your own opinion. I cannot criticize you for asking, as you say, such unvarnished questions, for no one is knowledgeable in everything. Dionne the writer is all that I am familiar with. As Dionne the writer he trivializes and smears as much or even more often than he accuses others of doing.
To me, E. J. Dionne appears to be a nasty little self-centered human being as any of us could ever wish to be. He is not hesitant in throwing projectiles at others whose views he does not share. It is only thoughtless idiots that think they can do this forever and not be held responsible for their insults.
His narrative does not follow any sort of logic that is not politically motivated and that is the real shame. Dionne is absolutely deliberate in his sentiments and no doubt very well paid for his pronouncements. Dionne is surrounded by willful people who are as designedly demoralizing in our present political climate as he is or as he thinks he sees.
I believe, at best, that he is a dissembler. Dionne may not think he is and he might disguise it very well, but you believe so and I do, too. We may be wrong but we are not fully wrong, and no one can accuse you or me of taking pleasure in the present political cockfight, the one in which Mr. Dion places his bets daily.
You and I, I think, are trying to live our lives reasonably well, when men and women like him scatter discord. Of course, and I am sure, that he is not a totally disreputable man. Yet, is he willing to give many others the benefit of the doubt? Nowhere in his present essays can he hope to appear to do so without dragging in some ancient draft or other, proving that he is not inclined to a prejudice.
Dionne is consistently wagging his intellectual finger at someone and patronizing a dozen others. He is an amateur rather than a professional, one who looks at human life from a distinctly jaded approach that can only come from political invective - say an acid-penned columnist. Oh, he can change but perhaps he has no incentive for real change.
We should often overlook each others faults, not encourage them. Neither should we praise fools (those who encourage falsehoods) because of their impetuosity or laying claim to some societal nobility or other. Good God, Alessandro, only those who are bilingual in profanity could be so stupid and live in such rotted air.
It takes considerable skill to cut through the political hype and hoopla that passes through the minds of journalists such as Dionne. In fact there are many of these people. Their disservice to society has no bounds and their disdain for others shows how vain they are. We are all cut from the same cloth. We can all descend the ladder of hypocrisy, not once but often, and who will show us the way up again?
Many people are taken in by Dionne's rhetoric. What he says lacks more substance than it actually gives. People such as this may be blinded by his standing among the press, or they are simply in awe of what he has achieved as a lecturer, writer, or who knows what. They may even secretly lament that they have very little force of their own and depend on people like him to procure what they cannot. Honors are very flattering, except that in themselves they cannot make a whole a person when half that person is absent. These honors are more often used as propaganda to the young and a silent personal excuse for our intellectual dishonesty, rather than an internal quality needed for making fair and crucial decisions in life.
Portraying E. J. Dionne in this way may hurt him, you say. It may hurt him and hurt his family, hurt his friends and his colleagues, even wound his neighbors to see him portrayed so publicly, but isn't that his business, to destroy, to scar, to wound? Political dialogue is rarely a dialogue of optimism and eloquent expressions, a guiding light for the masses. No, political dialogue is more often cowardly, greedy, ignorant, and narrow-minded wisps of wet straw cut and thrown about by men and women of little intelligence, who have absolutely no understanding of wisdom; their families, friends, cohorts, and societal positions notwithstanding.
Those who support windy oratory, whether spoken or written, who revere pompous impressions that will never leave a true lasting legacy will always be deluded by deceitful speech. They will never be reassured that what trips them up won't do it again and again.
Best to you, Alessandro,
Dom
I have just discovered that your name in Italian means defender of men. It sprang from the Greek Alexander. Also, I am very appreciative that we can converse by computer so easily and change our text to suit the needs of the moment -
I am speaking of spellings and grammatical mistakes, or to clarify a point.
Please, don't take my word for this. Continue to read his words for yourself and form your own opinion. I cannot criticize you for asking, as you say, such unvarnished questions, for no one is knowledgeable in everything. Dionne the writer is all that I am familiar with. As Dionne the writer he trivializes and smears as much or even more often than he accuses others of doing.
To me, E. J. Dionne appears to be a nasty little self-centered human being as any of us could ever wish to be. He is not hesitant in throwing projectiles at others whose views he does not share. It is only thoughtless idiots that think they can do this forever and not be held responsible for their insults.
His narrative does not follow any sort of logic that is not politically motivated and that is the real shame. Dionne is absolutely deliberate in his sentiments and no doubt very well paid for his pronouncements. Dionne is surrounded by willful people who are as designedly demoralizing in our present political climate as he is or as he thinks he sees.
I believe, at best, that he is a dissembler. Dionne may not think he is and he might disguise it very well, but you believe so and I do, too. We may be wrong but we are not fully wrong, and no one can accuse you or me of taking pleasure in the present political cockfight, the one in which Mr. Dion places his bets daily.
You and I, I think, are trying to live our lives reasonably well, when men and women like him scatter discord. Of course, and I am sure, that he is not a totally disreputable man. Yet, is he willing to give many others the benefit of the doubt? Nowhere in his present essays can he hope to appear to do so without dragging in some ancient draft or other, proving that he is not inclined to a prejudice.
Dionne is consistently wagging his intellectual finger at someone and patronizing a dozen others. He is an amateur rather than a professional, one who looks at human life from a distinctly jaded approach that can only come from political invective - say an acid-penned columnist. Oh, he can change but perhaps he has no incentive for real change.
We should often overlook each others faults, not encourage them. Neither should we praise fools (those who encourage falsehoods) because of their impetuosity or laying claim to some societal nobility or other. Good God, Alessandro, only those who are bilingual in profanity could be so stupid and live in such rotted air.
It takes considerable skill to cut through the political hype and hoopla that passes through the minds of journalists such as Dionne. In fact there are many of these people. Their disservice to society has no bounds and their disdain for others shows how vain they are. We are all cut from the same cloth. We can all descend the ladder of hypocrisy, not once but often, and who will show us the way up again?
Many people are taken in by Dionne's rhetoric. What he says lacks more substance than it actually gives. People such as this may be blinded by his standing among the press, or they are simply in awe of what he has achieved as a lecturer, writer, or who knows what. They may even secretly lament that they have very little force of their own and depend on people like him to procure what they cannot. Honors are very flattering, except that in themselves they cannot make a whole a person when half that person is absent. These honors are more often used as propaganda to the young and a silent personal excuse for our intellectual dishonesty, rather than an internal quality needed for making fair and crucial decisions in life.
Portraying E. J. Dionne in this way may hurt him, you say. It may hurt him and hurt his family, hurt his friends and his colleagues, even wound his neighbors to see him portrayed so publicly, but isn't that his business, to destroy, to scar, to wound? Political dialogue is rarely a dialogue of optimism and eloquent expressions, a guiding light for the masses. No, political dialogue is more often cowardly, greedy, ignorant, and narrow-minded wisps of wet straw cut and thrown about by men and women of little intelligence, who have absolutely no understanding of wisdom; their families, friends, cohorts, and societal positions notwithstanding.
Those who support windy oratory, whether spoken or written, who revere pompous impressions that will never leave a true lasting legacy will always be deluded by deceitful speech. They will never be reassured that what trips them up won't do it again and again.
Best to you, Alessandro,
Dom
I have just discovered that your name in Italian means defender of men. It sprang from the Greek Alexander. Also, I am very appreciative that we can converse by computer so easily and change our text to suit the needs of the moment -
I am speaking of spellings and grammatical mistakes, or to clarify a point.
April 30, 2010
Stefano, Stefano, Stefano, Tracey Emin is no amusement
It is true, the work of British artist Tracey Emin
emanates a kind of unpleasant gas. But, what can
you tell the British about art these days, they
have forgotten all they ever knew about art and
that's the real pity! Today, there is nothing more
terrible on earth than so-called modern British art.
Your friend,
Dom
emanates a kind of unpleasant gas. But, what can
you tell the British about art these days, they
have forgotten all they ever knew about art and
that's the real pity! Today, there is nothing more
terrible on earth than so-called modern British art.
Your friend,
Dom
April 24, 2010
Islands Out of Time
They call themselves liberal, big-city Democrats. It is no use, even the earth itself begins to sweat.
February 6, 2010
To Mr. (or) Mrs. Verbal Vitriol on the Life of Ted Kennedy
To Mr. (or) Mrs. Verbal Vitriol on the Life of Ted Kennedy
I am not writing here to defend the late Ted Kennedy. I did not share his politics or his liberal outlook on life such as it was. In many ways, as you point out, he had serious faults, but Ted Kennedy was not a totally unprincipled man. At least not in the way you think. Oftentimes the senator was inclined to use audacious rhetoric and misinformed opinions to get his political and social way. Of course, he was not alone in this gamesmanship, for as one gives one usually receives in return.
The natural ability of liberalism to bully through the use of clever insults did not come from the senator only; it is the one thing that all liberals share equally, because it is a natural inclination in humans. Just as the tendency in dogs is to approach other dogs with caution and sometimes fight, we humans, too, express ourselves when needed with a verbal bite. The only thing I have against liberalism, and or people such as Mr. Kennedy, is their shared principles of denial and their refusal to speak the truth when the pranks and indignities of their peers are exposed. Except for this I would not have much time or special interest is such prejudice, for I am not especially wedded to any theories that the holders of liberalism are any worse by national customs or habits than any other obfuscating people.
All things being considered it doesn’t end there. The language of liberalism is a graceless and inarticulate language, the paradox being, liberalism teaches what it professes not to teach, admires what it professes not to admire, and glories in the popularity of the most witless and vulgar celebrities while hiding behind civic responsibility. I wouldn’t hesitate to call a spade a spade. Strong and powerful people, especially people who wholeheartedly accept the ideals of liberalism, or to put it another way, people who believe there are no eternal consequences involved with their words or actions, are easily persuaded to reject common sense and resort to the verbal violence of vulgarity while parading it off as mere opinion. Defenders of fairness and fighters for the middle class they are not except in words only. The only thing these politicians defend and fight for is their own degraded values, and for nothing and nobody else.
Such people have for the most part an unhindered use of language because they believe they have an uninhibited right to any language they please. As an example, liberal comedians today are sick with their mealy-mouthed and insulting humor because their politicians, who may not use the same vulgarities themselves, at least not often in public, accept it as valuable in itself, sometimes as vote-getters. Many people who do not profess such easy liberal virtue reject these values, and often wind up being ridiculed savagely in the comedy routines of these disgusting monkeys of stupidity throughout media.
Ted Kennedy whatever his faults did not commonly use foul language with a streak of malice against his political foes. It may be that the restraints of statesmanship prohibited him from doing so in public, but I think the senator retained a sense of honor that many men and women today have deliberately forgotten. In my mind liberalism may be bleak, taciturn and naturally hypocritical but it cannot totally overcome the conscience of even the most thick and barbarous individuals. Something remains that even the most selfish imbecile cannot completely wipe out of themselves if they have to give a show for it.
What I find troubling, and it is obvious that you do not, is the malicious manner in which you express yourself. Writing the way you do about Ted Kennedy, having no ear for integrity in the slightest degree will not help you explain yourself to anyone and the senator is beyond anybody’s help. You are wasting your time. You make yourself appear as an illiterate ox that was suckled by a moron.
Even as an Irishman myself, I cannot defend the Senator in everything he did during his long years in the American government. Using that age old “I am Irish, too,” defense holds no sway with everyone, but he rightly used his Irish heritage and political influence to help restore peace to Ireland. That is more than highly commendable; it is a point of honor that your brave invective cannot take away. Although I could never relate to Kennedy the politician, Kennedy the man I could understand easily. He was a flawed individual as we all are and I think you would do well to look at yourself as you are and not look at a dead man for what you think he was.
You resemble Ted Kennedy in more ways than you understand. He was stubborn just as you are. He often refused to acknowledge the faults that were pointed out in him. Yet in many other ways he was a kind and caring individual to which many people surely can attest. He had a family who loved him, friends and acquaintances who cared for him, I am sure, just as you do. Tell me, who doesn’t share these same faults, qualities and passions? Who doesn’t sometimes rise to greatness even if only in little ways and at other times fall to a lower rung of human existence if only a little? Being totally despicable and given to fiery and vulgar invective because you are prodded by some perversion of justice or lousy political ideal rather than to sense is no excuse for you to claim a perfect right to remain a part of the human race.
Ted Kennedy worked tirelessly to expand his political agenda just as you work overtime out of your egotistical psyche to show the world how many ways you can spew forth four letter words. But don’t feel bad or alone. There are millions just like you showing their disdainful, savage stuff on the internet. In all four corners of the world they are crawling out of their psychotic holes spreading their misery. It does seem a pity that we try to teach dogs not to bite but think that doing the same with people like you somehow
invades their personal rights to do or say as they please. Well, there is a saying that you can teach a dog nearly anything that you can teach a fool or a Supreme Court Judge.
Where you and Kennedy differ is that he did not feel the need to exhort to your type of foulness with those with whom he differed--a point you neglected to bring up. He was not put in his position of power and wealth simply because he was a great man, but because someone bigger than himself chose him for that life. How could you negate that choice? For all of the man’s faults, he was more often than not able to obey a public decency that you don’t care a fig about and are willing to say so to anyone who will listen. Often Senator Kennedy said that with him it wasn’t personal when it came to policy, with you there is no policy but the personal and you degrade yourself.
Do not be so ambitious to prove yourself to the world that doesn’t know any better when you do know more than you let on. The way you write is absolutely cynical and filled with personal venom. Your unpolished, unsophisticated way with grammar and spelling doesn’t hide your obvious showmanship, nor is that a guarantee to you and people like you that you won’t be forgotten twenty-four hours after your exit from life and the internet. No one ever went broke overestimating themselves, hell, they just died overestimating themselves.
Looking out my window I see birds hiding in a copse and a few riders on their horses traveling the snowy road. Even in the bleakness of life, among the imprecations and incivility that you often see emanating from politicians and others, there is beauty. Try and find it and leave your sore horses behind.
Dom Giovanni
Irish Italian poet
I am not writing here to defend the late Ted Kennedy. I did not share his politics or his liberal outlook on life such as it was. In many ways, as you point out, he had serious faults, but Ted Kennedy was not a totally unprincipled man. At least not in the way you think. Oftentimes the senator was inclined to use audacious rhetoric and misinformed opinions to get his political and social way. Of course, he was not alone in this gamesmanship, for as one gives one usually receives in return.
The natural ability of liberalism to bully through the use of clever insults did not come from the senator only; it is the one thing that all liberals share equally, because it is a natural inclination in humans. Just as the tendency in dogs is to approach other dogs with caution and sometimes fight, we humans, too, express ourselves when needed with a verbal bite. The only thing I have against liberalism, and or people such as Mr. Kennedy, is their shared principles of denial and their refusal to speak the truth when the pranks and indignities of their peers are exposed. Except for this I would not have much time or special interest is such prejudice, for I am not especially wedded to any theories that the holders of liberalism are any worse by national customs or habits than any other obfuscating people.
All things being considered it doesn’t end there. The language of liberalism is a graceless and inarticulate language, the paradox being, liberalism teaches what it professes not to teach, admires what it professes not to admire, and glories in the popularity of the most witless and vulgar celebrities while hiding behind civic responsibility. I wouldn’t hesitate to call a spade a spade. Strong and powerful people, especially people who wholeheartedly accept the ideals of liberalism, or to put it another way, people who believe there are no eternal consequences involved with their words or actions, are easily persuaded to reject common sense and resort to the verbal violence of vulgarity while parading it off as mere opinion. Defenders of fairness and fighters for the middle class they are not except in words only. The only thing these politicians defend and fight for is their own degraded values, and for nothing and nobody else.
Such people have for the most part an unhindered use of language because they believe they have an uninhibited right to any language they please. As an example, liberal comedians today are sick with their mealy-mouthed and insulting humor because their politicians, who may not use the same vulgarities themselves, at least not often in public, accept it as valuable in itself, sometimes as vote-getters. Many people who do not profess such easy liberal virtue reject these values, and often wind up being ridiculed savagely in the comedy routines of these disgusting monkeys of stupidity throughout media.
Ted Kennedy whatever his faults did not commonly use foul language with a streak of malice against his political foes. It may be that the restraints of statesmanship prohibited him from doing so in public, but I think the senator retained a sense of honor that many men and women today have deliberately forgotten. In my mind liberalism may be bleak, taciturn and naturally hypocritical but it cannot totally overcome the conscience of even the most thick and barbarous individuals. Something remains that even the most selfish imbecile cannot completely wipe out of themselves if they have to give a show for it.
What I find troubling, and it is obvious that you do not, is the malicious manner in which you express yourself. Writing the way you do about Ted Kennedy, having no ear for integrity in the slightest degree will not help you explain yourself to anyone and the senator is beyond anybody’s help. You are wasting your time. You make yourself appear as an illiterate ox that was suckled by a moron.
Even as an Irishman myself, I cannot defend the Senator in everything he did during his long years in the American government. Using that age old “I am Irish, too,” defense holds no sway with everyone, but he rightly used his Irish heritage and political influence to help restore peace to Ireland. That is more than highly commendable; it is a point of honor that your brave invective cannot take away. Although I could never relate to Kennedy the politician, Kennedy the man I could understand easily. He was a flawed individual as we all are and I think you would do well to look at yourself as you are and not look at a dead man for what you think he was.
You resemble Ted Kennedy in more ways than you understand. He was stubborn just as you are. He often refused to acknowledge the faults that were pointed out in him. Yet in many other ways he was a kind and caring individual to which many people surely can attest. He had a family who loved him, friends and acquaintances who cared for him, I am sure, just as you do. Tell me, who doesn’t share these same faults, qualities and passions? Who doesn’t sometimes rise to greatness even if only in little ways and at other times fall to a lower rung of human existence if only a little? Being totally despicable and given to fiery and vulgar invective because you are prodded by some perversion of justice or lousy political ideal rather than to sense is no excuse for you to claim a perfect right to remain a part of the human race.
Ted Kennedy worked tirelessly to expand his political agenda just as you work overtime out of your egotistical psyche to show the world how many ways you can spew forth four letter words. But don’t feel bad or alone. There are millions just like you showing their disdainful, savage stuff on the internet. In all four corners of the world they are crawling out of their psychotic holes spreading their misery. It does seem a pity that we try to teach dogs not to bite but think that doing the same with people like you somehow
invades their personal rights to do or say as they please. Well, there is a saying that you can teach a dog nearly anything that you can teach a fool or a Supreme Court Judge.
Where you and Kennedy differ is that he did not feel the need to exhort to your type of foulness with those with whom he differed--a point you neglected to bring up. He was not put in his position of power and wealth simply because he was a great man, but because someone bigger than himself chose him for that life. How could you negate that choice? For all of the man’s faults, he was more often than not able to obey a public decency that you don’t care a fig about and are willing to say so to anyone who will listen. Often Senator Kennedy said that with him it wasn’t personal when it came to policy, with you there is no policy but the personal and you degrade yourself.
Do not be so ambitious to prove yourself to the world that doesn’t know any better when you do know more than you let on. The way you write is absolutely cynical and filled with personal venom. Your unpolished, unsophisticated way with grammar and spelling doesn’t hide your obvious showmanship, nor is that a guarantee to you and people like you that you won’t be forgotten twenty-four hours after your exit from life and the internet. No one ever went broke overestimating themselves, hell, they just died overestimating themselves.
Looking out my window I see birds hiding in a copse and a few riders on their horses traveling the snowy road. Even in the bleakness of life, among the imprecations and incivility that you often see emanating from politicians and others, there is beauty. Try and find it and leave your sore horses behind.
Dom Giovanni
Irish Italian poet
January 30, 2010
Worry Is A Fruit That Never Ripens
Federico,
I believe that you should not worry about the relations between Europe and the United States. There will always be people living here who will fault the United States publicly in international circles only because they wish to appear in European eyes as the more enlightened Americans. They take pleasure in seeing us throwing insults back and forth at each other across the wide blue ocean, not out of cruel intentions so much as crassness of feeling. It may seem strange to say it, but it's true, falling for such a massive heap of stupidity will lead us nowhere, even though numerous seemingly intelligent people fall for it all the same.
Europe has a multitude of fine individuals and has always had them, as well as an equal amount of people who will hate America all their lives, who will comment unfavorably against us at every opportunity. The fact that you see in so many Europeans a condescending distaste for us, and a willingness to cure us by cursing us rather than by blessing our liberties and plenty, it is only logical to conclude that such people are living in a state of envy. The American experience is unique to us and it cannot be recreated among any other people, for it is a consciousness of ourselves that makes us American, not our place of birth, our color or any outward manifestation. Those who spite us with their fits and hisses usually fail to do us any lasting harm because we refuse to embark upon a senseless policy of self-righteousness that only leads to delusion.
Those who wish to do us harm do it out of a simplistic and revisionist interpretation of what it means to them to be an American or even a citizen of the world. It would be presumptuous to think that that harm means bodily harm in the minds of the majority, but it is more realistic to state that they are uncertain of their intentions except to be punitive. I believe they wish to punish severely those whom they see as ungrateful for the way of life that their most advanced, enlightened, and liberal awareness offers the world.
Not being able to physically hurt us, they go skulking about spouting some theories of liberation, uprising, and social revolutions that no one but themselves have any faith in, and which after several decades eventually peters out to nothing if not boredom. When one is not endowed with great common sense, the realization of possible failure often leads to unchecked rage, which it is hoped, will cover what they should be ashamed of--the triumph of the thin-skinned! That which makes them so unkind is not so much a determination to exploit and oppress, rather it is an intellectual laziness that has become the currency of our times and they must spend what they have. For it is not natural that people of a generous and wholesome state of mind can build their capacity for goodness by exhausting themselves with such petty meanness.
The moral and spiritual leadership of America and Europe will not come through the mouths of ignorant people saddled with stubborn pride, but through men and women determined to rise above the negative effects that such people leave to posterity. If some people are to become the villains in our society today, it is not out of a spirit of contest or revolution, or that we are better than they are, but that their choices have become destructive policies under which many men and women refuse to seek or live by. Public sentiment cannot be manipulated in such a manner as to make villains out of honest people because, as far as villains go, their necessity is to gradually abandon all that appears reasonable for an implacable determination to succeed at any cost. Eventually, their spines will bend with the wind and their fruit will be thrown to the ground, if not in our lifetime, certainly in that of somebody else.
Giovanni
I believe that you should not worry about the relations between Europe and the United States. There will always be people living here who will fault the United States publicly in international circles only because they wish to appear in European eyes as the more enlightened Americans. They take pleasure in seeing us throwing insults back and forth at each other across the wide blue ocean, not out of cruel intentions so much as crassness of feeling. It may seem strange to say it, but it's true, falling for such a massive heap of stupidity will lead us nowhere, even though numerous seemingly intelligent people fall for it all the same.
Europe has a multitude of fine individuals and has always had them, as well as an equal amount of people who will hate America all their lives, who will comment unfavorably against us at every opportunity. The fact that you see in so many Europeans a condescending distaste for us, and a willingness to cure us by cursing us rather than by blessing our liberties and plenty, it is only logical to conclude that such people are living in a state of envy. The American experience is unique to us and it cannot be recreated among any other people, for it is a consciousness of ourselves that makes us American, not our place of birth, our color or any outward manifestation. Those who spite us with their fits and hisses usually fail to do us any lasting harm because we refuse to embark upon a senseless policy of self-righteousness that only leads to delusion.
Those who wish to do us harm do it out of a simplistic and revisionist interpretation of what it means to them to be an American or even a citizen of the world. It would be presumptuous to think that that harm means bodily harm in the minds of the majority, but it is more realistic to state that they are uncertain of their intentions except to be punitive. I believe they wish to punish severely those whom they see as ungrateful for the way of life that their most advanced, enlightened, and liberal awareness offers the world.
Not being able to physically hurt us, they go skulking about spouting some theories of liberation, uprising, and social revolutions that no one but themselves have any faith in, and which after several decades eventually peters out to nothing if not boredom. When one is not endowed with great common sense, the realization of possible failure often leads to unchecked rage, which it is hoped, will cover what they should be ashamed of--the triumph of the thin-skinned! That which makes them so unkind is not so much a determination to exploit and oppress, rather it is an intellectual laziness that has become the currency of our times and they must spend what they have. For it is not natural that people of a generous and wholesome state of mind can build their capacity for goodness by exhausting themselves with such petty meanness.
The moral and spiritual leadership of America and Europe will not come through the mouths of ignorant people saddled with stubborn pride, but through men and women determined to rise above the negative effects that such people leave to posterity. If some people are to become the villains in our society today, it is not out of a spirit of contest or revolution, or that we are better than they are, but that their choices have become destructive policies under which many men and women refuse to seek or live by. Public sentiment cannot be manipulated in such a manner as to make villains out of honest people because, as far as villains go, their necessity is to gradually abandon all that appears reasonable for an implacable determination to succeed at any cost. Eventually, their spines will bend with the wind and their fruit will be thrown to the ground, if not in our lifetime, certainly in that of somebody else.
Giovanni
January 23, 2010
Sell Google, Feed China
I was talking with a person who, incidentally, requested to remain completely anonymous, but felt that he or she had something important to relate concerning world affairs. "And what might this be?" I asked said anonymous person.
"Stockholders should sell Google, feed China." was the reply. "For such a magnanimous deed would absolve its stockholders from any guilt they might have over the allegation that Google is secretly involved in manipulating its highly sophisticated information retrieval program to act as an automatic censoring device."
I was shocked, absolutely shocked!
Would anyone in the modern world actually stoop so low as to further or restrict internet content, claiming that they are not moving up or setting back information on the results pages out of ideological motives?
I was shocked, absolutely shocked to think so!
Sell Google, feed China.
What a brilliant idea. Or was it only half-baked?
How long until the money ran out?
A couple billion people, including their cats and dogs
have to be fed more than once a day.
Day after day, year after year.
Sell Google, feed China?
What kind of genius (or idiot) could think of these things?
Sell, Google, feed China, indeed!
"Stockholders should sell Google, feed China." was the reply. "For such a magnanimous deed would absolve its stockholders from any guilt they might have over the allegation that Google is secretly involved in manipulating its highly sophisticated information retrieval program to act as an automatic censoring device."
I was shocked, absolutely shocked!
Would anyone in the modern world actually stoop so low as to further or restrict internet content, claiming that they are not moving up or setting back information on the results pages out of ideological motives?
I was shocked, absolutely shocked to think so!
Sell Google, feed China.
What a brilliant idea. Or was it only half-baked?
How long until the money ran out?
A couple billion people, including their cats and dogs
have to be fed more than once a day.
Day after day, year after year.
Sell Google, feed China?
What kind of genius (or idiot) could think of these things?
Sell, Google, feed China, indeed!
Wanted: Young Jewish Woman Willing to Travel...
Wanted: Young Jewish woman willing to travel the world making lewd jokes at the expense of Catholics.
January 12, 2010
Uncle Ho Pimpo
I recently happened across a new name, derogatory to be sure, for Ho Chi Minh: Uncle Ho Pimpo, written by an anonymous Vietnamese. He is often referred to as "Uncle Ho" or simply as "Uncle" by his cult of loyal followers. His unmistakable vulture-like face peers oppressively down upon the people of his skinny Republic from every monument in triumph, and not as the face of a benevolent uncle as his worshippers declare, but more as the proud and arrogant winner in a deadly test of wills. The late great uncle was a degenerate, a bozo, with more muscle than brains.
Note: The officially recommended propaganda of Unesco (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) asked Member States that they "join in the commemoration of the centenary [1990] of the birth of President Ho Chi Minh by organizing various events as a tribute to his memory.", recognizing "the important and many-sided contribution of President Ho Chi Minh in the fields of culture, education and the arts" and that Ho Chi Minh "devoted his whole life to the national liberation of the Vietnamese people, contributing to the common struggle of peoples for peace, national independence, democracy and social progress."
Note: The officially recommended propaganda of Unesco (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) asked Member States that they "join in the commemoration of the centenary [1990] of the birth of President Ho Chi Minh by organizing various events as a tribute to his memory.", recognizing "the important and many-sided contribution of President Ho Chi Minh in the fields of culture, education and the arts" and that Ho Chi Minh "devoted his whole life to the national liberation of the Vietnamese people, contributing to the common struggle of peoples for peace, national independence, democracy and social progress."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)