31 March 2010

"E' quasi l'alba

ma non te ne andare..." - colonna sonora di tempi felici in Sicilia.

30 March 2010


Arieccheli di nuovo sulla breccia. Stavolta non meno bistecche, ma meno IT.

28 March 2010

Killer app

Secondo Bill Whittle (guardate la clip !), questo:

A Jesolo !

Una grande Isabella e compagne hanno vinto la fase regionale del 3 contro 3 under 14. Per Isa e' la seconda volta (dopo 2 anni fa). Wow !

In passing

Siamo diventati decenti: gli antropologicamente superiori risalgono in disordine eccetera, o solo opportunisticamente ?

Shrillary: cool down on Israel: lo dice perfino il Congresso.

Kristol: repeal !
The last Rasmussen poll before the House passed Obamacare had 54 percent of voters opposed and 41 percent in favor. The first survey taken after the president signed the bill showed 55 percent favoring repeal, with 42 percent supporting the legislation. Independents were 59 to 35 percent for repeal. And the generic congressional ballot remained virtually unchanged, with Republicans holding the steady 7-9 point lead they’ve had since the new year. If anything like that margin holds, Republicans will win the House in November.

But there are those who are rallying to Obamacare. Fidel Castro, for instance. Last Thursday he declared its passage “a miracle”: “We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of [Obama’s] government.”

So, the verdict on Obamacare: The American people, No; Castro, Si.

Castro would presumably approve of some other recent Obama initiatives, too: The wholesale retreat on Iran sanctions and from any prospect of acting seriously to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The fact that a Guantánamo detainee released in December—with much touting of how careful Team Obama was being in contrast with the Bush administration—has rejoined the battle against American troops in Afghanistan. And, of course, the stunning turn against Israel.

27 March 2010


The same people who went into conniptions over the bipartisan, relatively innocuous Patriot Act are calling *us* crackpots? (Goldberg qui.)

In any isolated circumstance, we are willing to give the president of the United States a pass on a particular disturbing decision. But after 14 months of them, the Obama particulars add up to a remaking of America that is now clear and consistent: Grow government; redistribute income; establish permanent political constituencies of dependents; increase entitlements; hike taxes; demonize “them” while deifying their supposed victims; seek global neutrality abroad; and always play fast and loose with the truth. (VDH qui.)

26 March 2010

Welcome Eddy !

Mezz'oretta fa è nato Edoardo, il nuovo cugino di Giovanni. Evviva ! Auguri !

Giovanni ha risposto al telefono dicendomi "E' nato il cuginetto!". "Ehi, che bello ! E come si chiama ?"

"Eee... Ee... mah... Eu... Eudardo, Euduardo ... hm, non so bene come si chiama...!"


La fiera delle vanità

Poteva mancare la requisitoria di Marco Travaglio? E il temino da primo della classe di Giovanni Floris dal titolo «Gli italiani hanno la democrazia nel sangue»? E l’invito di Gad Lerner a «mettere agli atti» chi si è accorto della censura e chi no? E la metafora hard di Daniele Luttazzi su certe attitudini sodomitiche del potere? [...] Quando Luttazzi conclude il suo monologo ricordando che «odiare i mascalzoni è cosa nobile » non fa un enorme regalo elettorale a Berlusconi? Fomentare l’odio, alla vigilia delle elezioni, non è un atto di irresponsabilità? Se oggi la maggioranza reagirà pesantemente sarà inutile nascondersi dietro la retorica della libertà d’espressione o della rivoluzione. La politica è effetto di scena e la censura il peggiore dei suoi effetti, un indice di stupidità, ma spesso il rumore delle piazze, delle adunate, degli applausi ottunde le menti e copre i pensieri. (Aldo Grasso sul Corriere oggi.)

23 March 2010

The fix is in

Theodore Dalrymple sul City Journal. Sadly, è lì che sta andando anche l'America.

Americans would do well to ponder a recent admission by a former British minister in the Blair government. On March 2, the Guardian reported that the ex-minister, now Lord Warner, said that while spending on Britain’s National Health Service had increased by 60 percent under the Labour government, its output had decreased by 4 percent. No doubt the spending of a Soviet-style organization like the NHS is more easily measurable than its output, but the former minister’s remark certainly accords with the experiences of many citizens, who see no dramatic improvement in the service as a result of such vastly increased outlays. On the contrary, while the service has taken on 400,000 new staff members—that is to say, one-fifth of all new jobs created in Britain during the period—continuity of medical care has been all but extinguished. Nobody now expects to see the same doctor on successive occasions, in the hospital or anywhere else.

The ex-minister admitted that most of the extra money—which by now must equal a decent proportion of the total national debt—had been simply wasted. (The same might be said, of course, of the increased outlays put toward state education.) But his explanation for this state of affairs was superficial and self-exculpating, to say the least: he said that the NHS received more money than it knew what to do with because of managerial inexperience. “It was like giving a starving man foie gras and caviar,” he said.

As it happens, the NHS knew exactly what to do with the money: give it to its staff, new and old. British doctors, for example, are now the second-highest-paid in the world, though not necessarily the happiest. They have accepted the money on condition that they also accept—as quietly as mice—increasing government interference in their work. When you go to a family doctor in Britain, he is more likely to do what the government thinks he ought to do and will pay him a bonus for doing than what he thinks is right. This is sinister, even when what the government thinks is right happens to be right.

There is a possible explanation other than managerial inexperience for the waste, namely that the waste was intended and desired: indeed, that it was the principal object of the spending. Experience has long shown that further spending by state- monopoly suppliers of services (if services is quite the word I seek) benefits not the consumers but the providers. And they—ever more numerous—naturally vote for their own providers, the politicians. Thus the NHS has become an enormously expensive method of ballot-stuffing. Personally, I would rather have outright electoral fraud. It would be less expensive and slightly more honest.

Just before the last election, the chief executive of one of the hospitals in which I once worked was overheard saying, “My job is to make sure that the government is reelected.” (The government’s job, in turn, was to make sure that she remained chief executive.) She also explained that the hospital could expect no increase in its government funding, unlike other hospitals—because it was located in an area in which most people voted for the government anyway.

22 March 2010

Repeal (see you in Waterloo)

Last night’s victory was the culmination of Obama’s health care effort, which has been his version of Napoleon’s Russia campaign. He won a short-term victory, but one that will turn out to mark an inflection point on the road to defeat, and the beginning of the end of the Democratic party’s dominance over American politics. Last night was Obama’s Borodino. Obama’s Waterloo will be November 6, 2012.

Kristol su NRO.

E un editoriale del WSJ...

20 March 2010

Il dittatore inesistente

Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro e gli altri dittatori chiamati in causa in questi giorni dall’opposizione possono continuare a vivere indisturbati nel boschetto della fantasia di Tonino Di Pietro e Nicola Latorre.


18 March 2010

Hey Joe

Su AS7:

President Lyndon Johnson June 19, 1967:

" A return to the situation on June 4 (the day before the outbreak of hostilities) was not a prescription for peace, but for renewed hostilities."

President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982:

" In the pre-'67 borders, Israel was barely 10-miles wide...the bulk of Israel's population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."

Secretary of State George Shultz, 1988:

" Israel will never negotiate from nor return to the '67 borders."

Many others understood all the above as well--the need for a reasonable territorial compromise--including America's last leader, President George W. Bush. He spelled this out in letters given to Israel during its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, yet another test that Arabs would soon flunk with flying colors.

The Obama Administration acts as if none of the above matters and/or even exists.

Peace--real peace, not that of the grave, the one which Arabs still have in store for Israel--will never come by forcing a miniscule Israel to forsake its minimal security needs in return for promises by Arabs which can (and will) be broken tomorrow.

When peace is made between enemies, for it to last (learn the lesson of what happened regarding Germany after World War I), a reasonable compromise addressing the needs of both parties to the conflict must be reached. No one side gets all that it wants at the expense of the other. That only gives rise to problems down the road.

Taking the lead from President Obama himself, Arabs have simply stated--repeatedly and recently--that their obligation in "negotiations" (i.e.,arm-twisting) will be to simply receive, while Israel will do all of the concrete giving.

16 March 2010

G. W. Obama 2.0 - quando va bene

As the Obama trance subsides, we will only in retrospect come to appreciate the collective derangement that swept America in the summer of 2008, when a sophisticated electorate fell for “hope and change” bromides and talk of healing non-partisanship from a Chicago pro and the most partisan member of the Senate.

But just as interestingly, George Bush will not be seen any longer as the caricature of the New York Times, but as a figure whose foreign policy his successor emulated. Better yet for Bush, to the degree that Obama has been successful in keeping us safe, it is because he copied the Bush antecedents; to the degree he has endangered or embarrassed us [...], it is because of Obama’s utopian arrogance that is all his own.

Il resto, di VHD, qui.

Errore di mira

Jim Geraghty su NRO fa il punto su Obambi e Joe Goofen in Israele. Bottom line: we're playing hardball with the wrong middle eastern country starting with 'I'.

Haaretz: "Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has told the country's diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their worst crisis in 35 years." Apparently, we've given the Israelis a bunch of demands.

Hey, I have a tough time believing the Israelis just happened to announce a bunch of new settlements the moment the vice president stepped away from the luggage carousel. But it's not like their diplomatic high-inside fastball wasn't predictable when our government started crowding the plate with an official stance that the Palestinians would be normal, happy, well-adjusted pacifists if it weren't for a couple of new condo projects. We've got beleaguered descendents of Holocaust survivors who have been hearing "we will push you to the sea" for 50 years on one side, and on the other, a culture that has adopted as its national pastime making mentally challenged children wear suicide belts.

Yet every president -- okay, not all of them, just the Democratic ones -- seems to think that sending enough retired senators and special envoys over there will garner them a treaty ceremony on the White House lawn and a couple (more) Nobels. Why is everyone reacting as if this diplomatic train wreck wasn't predictable? Obama and Netanyahu don't see eye-to-eye on almost anything; that'll strain the strongest alliance.

Why are we supposed to be the honest brokers in one of the world's most intractable and long-running disputes, anyhow? What have the Palestinians ever done for us?

William Jacobson says on the settlement announcement: "The optics looked bad, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has apologized. That should and could have been the end of it. But consistent with Obama's policy of beating up close allies, Obama is not letting the issue rest. Obama has found his excuse to bring Israel to its knees, both on the peace process and the coming Iranian crisis.

Obama loaded up his foreign policy establishment with people who view Israel as the problem, and who look to taking Israel down a few notches as the key to our foreign policy. The foreign policy establishment has many sympathizers among the
anti-'Israel lobby' crowd."

Jen Rubin: "If they're honest, those who vouched for Obama's superior temperament and his pro-Israel bona fides must be embarrassed. For those of us who suspected that this president
lacked a fundamental attachment to Israel, critical national-security experience, and a full appreciation for why we don't have 'peace' in the Middle East (it's not housing sites, especially ones clearly within the Jewish state in any future two-state
deal), there's little comfort in saying, 'We told you so.'"

The conclusion of a lengthy, thought-provoking post from Bruce McQuain at QAndO: "Much like the people of the US, Arab leaders are not going to be impressed by only talk -- something the administration is long on. It is going to demand action -- something which puts the administration in a very awkward position given what they're now demanding vs. what Israel may be willing to do. And even if Israel capitulates, it will simply mean more demands -- all to the detriment of our strongest ally in the region. A very interesting situation brought on by perceived weakness and a diplomatic style akin to a pit bull at a cat show. It will be interesting to monitor the situation and see what comes of it, but, as one Israeli envoy noted, US/Israel relations are at their lowest ebb in 35 years. And I doubt this has substantially increased our image among the Arabs."

E la situazione e` lose-lose. O perde Bibi, o perde Obambi. Male tutte e due.

Piazze di lotta e di governo

Una sintesi condivisibile della vicenda voto sì voto no.

E qui sotto un'altra... ;)

"We are the world e non dovresti
caccia` Renata che ha cacciato i sordi per i manifesti
e se Alfredo Milioni ha mandato tutto all'aria
lo damo in pasto al campo nomadi sulla Salaria
le nostre candidate sono zappe ma so` tanto bbone
a pensarci bene se Renata poi si insedia
sconfigge i comunisti ma c'abbassa un po' la media