Turtle
The turtle reads three times
one for himself, to understand what
two and the third to tell you.
S. Benni, Donkey in the reader, Feltrinelli 1999
Ps study too, it hurts!!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Pink And Silver Wrapping Paper
I dedicate this to my grandson .........
Turtle
The turtle reads three times
one for himself, to understand what
two and the third to tell you.
Turtle
The turtle reads three times
one for himself, to understand what
two and the third to tell you.
Monday, June 22, 2009
How Do U Tie Bracelets Together
BACK .........
I'm back after a long absence I'm back! In recent times a number of things have happened in my life positive but also negative, but we must take every experience that we gained and what we have learned from what happens to us! And you who have combined both good or bad ?????? kisses 
I'm back after a long absence I'm back! In recent times a number of things have happened in my life positive but also negative, but we must take every experience that we gained and what we have learned from what happens to us! And you who have combined both good or bad ?????? kisses
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Variable Annuity Expenses
very instructive ... Oh
EDITORIAL ... reasons, silly, absurd, foolish, foolish "(Great Dictionary of the Italian language, said Battaglia, XVI). came to mind all these considerations and others, viewing months ago one of those beautiful documentary, rich in period films, which Nicola Caracciolo dedicated to Italian twentieth century: namely, that bunch of frames, intended to last a few of seconds, but of extraordinary eloquence (it must be said), in which Benito Mussolini, in fez, uniform and decorations, announced from the balcony of Palazzo Venezia in Rome, the conquest of the Empire: eyed, fists planted on her hips , the jaw that incorruptible, lifted to the sky, waves, three or four times ahead asseverate and forth to the crowd, intensely and convincingly, the thought just expressed. My God, I thought, how could this obscene jester, this artistucolo from vaudeville, banded camouflage those vulgar carnival allure for years the vast majority of the population from the past not quite inexperienced and primitive? How, faced with such a show, the crowd who filled the historic square, instead of wildly acclaim, it has not paid instantly with a huge laugh? same could be said of his dearest friend and colleague, the German madman Adolf Hitler, whose speaking to the German nation, from the tribune of the stadium in Nuremberg at night, in front of thousands of men lined up in orderly fashion square "ordo" Nazi (the "German difference!"), can not now impose on us the same question: how did hysteria conditioning, that sort of paroxysmal verve histrionic, quell'esibizione by facial-gestural acrobat, did not elicit the reaction that the ridiculous - in its many forms of buffoonery, improbability, insanity - should always arouse? But on this particular point - and the ridiculous German history - I will return later. now is inevitable - I realize - that the thought of the player runs in our time: the false hair, the bandana close, the real studs, push the jokes, the horns behind the head one of the most influential Prime Ministers of Europe, sexual obsessions, the stories itchy, speech and poorly approximate Italian, obsessive interaction of lies, contempt shouted the rules, the delusions of persecution, the old jokes Abruzzo earthquake "Go, go at our own expense in one of the hotels along the coast and bring sunscreen!" exaggeration and unreality of the fairy-tale promises, even the ignorance exhibited in the way of handling and dressing, stereotyped smile and clownish - in short, everything that is there every day under the eyes from morning to night - make up the traits of the figure more ridiculous than our contemporary world has produced, the "ridiculous Italian" in its highest and most shameless. Yet he laughs: on the contrary, for better or worse, you take it too seriously. If the picture is that, you ask some questions and / or issues. First of all: there are obviously different types of ridicule in the history of the grotesque, flamboyant-imperial, fascist-style, to the funeral, even verging on the macabre, the Nazis, to the commercial media of our times-Italian, variant of petit-bourgeois emerging and climbing category examined. But they all have, as we shall see something in common. Of course, ridicule is not limited to the figure of the Head, from which it emanates, however. Think of the carnival procession hierarchs Nazi Göring in! Hesse! Think of his (undoubtedly more guittesco) Italian consideration; Starace, Secretary of the PNF! Think to the present: Minister of Education Gelmini! The Russian Minister of Defense! Carfagna minister for equal opportunities! Minister Brunetta! The Cape
ridiculous, used day and night as a fundamental tool for containment of consent, widens like wildfire, it connects with the ridiculous already embryonically present in the depths of the surrounding society contamination in some cases the opposition ( I'll spare you the examples possible, not to stretch too much talk, but I assure you that I have). We limit our exposure to the historical and political: I feel absolutely no doubt that the type, intellectual or political, that could be called democratic or liberal democratic, generally escapes the category and the practice of ridicule. It is ridiculous Giovanni Giolitti. I'm not ridiculous Aldo Moro and Enrico Berlinguer: that they are the bare essentials they need and ensure the favor of the people (hence the ridiculous exercise that is inherent in politics, any politics? Good question: are we to go back up). If anything, a predominantly by their exclusion of exhibitionism masquerading actor and practices, they are, or appear gray. And because of this they are accusing their grayness as a sin and a limit on the part of those who choose, as cultural and political practice, exhibitionism and the scene: just think of the insults hurled at men as immodest Giolitti and Nitti by another great, great "ridiculous" ("worthy of derision," ibid) twentieth-century Italian, Gabriele d'Annunzio . The main question of this reasoning should therefore, I believe, be this: how come that reasonably and in normal circumstances would have provoked only laughter, at moments of European history of the twentieth century (but basically, alas, German and Italian), has become an essential component of political success of an individual and cultural catastrophe that followed? (And vice versa, of course: more precisely, the process is moving simultaneously in both directions). Some have already tried to define the dynamics of this that, at best, be regarded as a genuine historical and social perversion, a disease of the people: and they Licet parva, dare we call him directly involved. Thomas Mann had in mind from the outset the character ridiculous and grotesque Nazi experiment: for him to Hitler, the Great Dictator, is actually "a dark scoundrel," "a vile maniac ',' a robber ', the' cunning exploiter of a global crisis, "a" mad dog of the chain, "a" claw close to hysterical in a fist, "a" hellish Tramp "(known to escape: nothing like this has ever emerged from the pen of a great Italian intellectual of the time, this is not enough to mark an indelible character and inclinations of the two cultures). We would want to add something - to stay in the past - about what the great comedians, from Petrolini Chaplin, said sull'impura, degraded comedy miserable fools who tried to make them competitive, but sent him to next episode. To explain how this outrageous and over-excited "ridiculous" was able to seduce a people great culture such as Germany, Mann uses two kinds of motivations that may be useful to us. On the one hand, there is a crisis of democracy: its inability to solve the problems of that society in that particular phase of history. is this failure that opens the way to ground level, the loss of any sense of the ridiculous (that is, in other words, to any reasonable perception of the values). Second, there is what I would call the mass degeneracy of the same option and democratic logic, the reversal of the normal practice of consensus, rule of law, in a sort of explosion neobarbarici of instincts, which no longer able to distinguish the light of reason (in this case, as we see, the process moves simultaneously in two directions, from top to bottom and from bottom to top). Listen to the words shiny Mann: "The huge wave of primitive barbarism eccentric and vulgarity, Plebs democratic product of impressions violent, disturbing and challenging set of nerves, intoxicating, which is beset humanity" (from Appel and die Vernunft: that "Appeal to reason," a title that says it all, taking into account that the writing appeared in October 1930 when the Germans would still have taken into account, and they did not). So, to paraphrase, if it succeeds, it could be said: the ridiculous politics as an instrument of seduction is the infallible sign of the abandonment of tradition and the democratic camp and the opening of a new and disturbing range of experiences, dictatorship or authoritarian democracy that tend in one way or another to go beyond, the loss of the sense of ridicule at the mass level is the most reliable evidence of the degeneration of a people into a patchwork of disconnected individuals, intoxicated by the allure of a any - essentially replicating mutant even though formally, - 'infamous madman. " Let's be clear: the ridiculous is a bit 'like the smell, not everyone felt the same moment, anybody ever. That is, by definition (defining cultural and political) to be able to warn him, - that is what we usually call the sense of the ridiculous - a fact in itself is elitist: it is unlikely that the masses find it on their own. But when the masses have totally lost this means that the elites have been totally defeated, and this opens the way to the hegemony of the "fool": in short, is always the same speech, indeed, the same process, but it offers different in many ways.
To laugh at their inimitable 'ridiculous' of the past, Germans and Italians were in need of a terrible war, during which the trappings have fallen one by one, the uniforms were torn and the carnival grin hidden behind the mask is revealed in all its terrible: you could still get a laugh, - as has happened only later, quite a posteriori, when, in truth, there was not even most need - for the good reason that there was nothing to laugh about. What can we expect catastrophe (and hope) because the Italians are able to laugh at the "ridiculous" that now governs them?
the Manifesto of June 3, 2009
EDITORIAL ... reasons, silly, absurd, foolish, foolish "(Great Dictionary of the Italian language, said Battaglia, XVI). came to mind all these considerations and others, viewing months ago one of those beautiful documentary, rich in period films, which Nicola Caracciolo dedicated to Italian twentieth century: namely, that bunch of frames, intended to last a few of seconds, but of extraordinary eloquence (it must be said), in which Benito Mussolini, in fez, uniform and decorations, announced from the balcony of Palazzo Venezia in Rome, the conquest of the Empire: eyed, fists planted on her hips , the jaw that incorruptible, lifted to the sky, waves, three or four times ahead asseverate and forth to the crowd, intensely and convincingly, the thought just expressed. My God, I thought, how could this obscene jester, this artistucolo from vaudeville, banded camouflage those vulgar carnival allure for years the vast majority of the population from the past not quite inexperienced and primitive? How, faced with such a show, the crowd who filled the historic square, instead of wildly acclaim, it has not paid instantly with a huge laugh? same could be said of his dearest friend and colleague, the German madman Adolf Hitler, whose speaking to the German nation, from the tribune of the stadium in Nuremberg at night, in front of thousands of men lined up in orderly fashion square "ordo" Nazi (the "German difference!"), can not now impose on us the same question: how did hysteria conditioning, that sort of paroxysmal verve histrionic, quell'esibizione by facial-gestural acrobat, did not elicit the reaction that the ridiculous - in its many forms of buffoonery, improbability, insanity - should always arouse? But on this particular point - and the ridiculous German history - I will return later. now is inevitable - I realize - that the thought of the player runs in our time: the false hair, the bandana close, the real studs, push the jokes, the horns behind the head one of the most influential Prime Ministers of Europe, sexual obsessions, the stories itchy, speech and poorly approximate Italian, obsessive interaction of lies, contempt shouted the rules, the delusions of persecution, the old jokes Abruzzo earthquake "Go, go at our own expense in one of the hotels along the coast and bring sunscreen!" exaggeration and unreality of the fairy-tale promises, even the ignorance exhibited in the way of handling and dressing, stereotyped smile and clownish - in short, everything that is there every day under the eyes from morning to night - make up the traits of the figure more ridiculous than our contemporary world has produced, the "ridiculous Italian" in its highest and most shameless. Yet he laughs: on the contrary, for better or worse, you take it too seriously. If the picture is that, you ask some questions and / or issues. First of all: there are obviously different types of ridicule in the history of the grotesque, flamboyant-imperial, fascist-style, to the funeral, even verging on the macabre, the Nazis, to the commercial media of our times-Italian, variant of petit-bourgeois emerging and climbing category examined. But they all have, as we shall see something in common. Of course, ridicule is not limited to the figure of the Head, from which it emanates, however. Think of the carnival procession hierarchs Nazi Göring in! Hesse! Think of his (undoubtedly more guittesco) Italian consideration; Starace, Secretary of the PNF! Think to the present: Minister of Education Gelmini! The Russian Minister of Defense! Carfagna minister for equal opportunities! Minister Brunetta! The Cape
ridiculous, used day and night as a fundamental tool for containment of consent, widens like wildfire, it connects with the ridiculous already embryonically present in the depths of the surrounding society contamination in some cases the opposition ( I'll spare you the examples possible, not to stretch too much talk, but I assure you that I have). We limit our exposure to the historical and political: I feel absolutely no doubt that the type, intellectual or political, that could be called democratic or liberal democratic, generally escapes the category and the practice of ridicule. It is ridiculous Giovanni Giolitti. I'm not ridiculous Aldo Moro and Enrico Berlinguer: that they are the bare essentials they need and ensure the favor of the people (hence the ridiculous exercise that is inherent in politics, any politics? Good question: are we to go back up). If anything, a predominantly by their exclusion of exhibitionism masquerading actor and practices, they are, or appear gray. And because of this they are accusing their grayness as a sin and a limit on the part of those who choose, as cultural and political practice, exhibitionism and the scene: just think of the insults hurled at men as immodest Giolitti and Nitti by another great, great "ridiculous" ("worthy of derision," ibid) twentieth-century Italian, Gabriele d'Annunzio . The main question of this reasoning should therefore, I believe, be this: how come that reasonably and in normal circumstances would have provoked only laughter, at moments of European history of the twentieth century (but basically, alas, German and Italian), has become an essential component of political success of an individual and cultural catastrophe that followed? (And vice versa, of course: more precisely, the process is moving simultaneously in both directions). Some have already tried to define the dynamics of this that, at best, be regarded as a genuine historical and social perversion, a disease of the people: and they Licet parva, dare we call him directly involved. Thomas Mann had in mind from the outset the character ridiculous and grotesque Nazi experiment: for him to Hitler, the Great Dictator, is actually "a dark scoundrel," "a vile maniac ',' a robber ', the' cunning exploiter of a global crisis, "a" mad dog of the chain, "a" claw close to hysterical in a fist, "a" hellish Tramp "(known to escape: nothing like this has ever emerged from the pen of a great Italian intellectual of the time, this is not enough to mark an indelible character and inclinations of the two cultures). We would want to add something - to stay in the past - about what the great comedians, from Petrolini Chaplin, said sull'impura, degraded comedy miserable fools who tried to make them competitive, but sent him to next episode. To explain how this outrageous and over-excited "ridiculous" was able to seduce a people great culture such as Germany, Mann uses two kinds of motivations that may be useful to us. On the one hand, there is a crisis of democracy: its inability to solve the problems of that society in that particular phase of history. is this failure that opens the way to ground level, the loss of any sense of the ridiculous (that is, in other words, to any reasonable perception of the values). Second, there is what I would call the mass degeneracy of the same option and democratic logic, the reversal of the normal practice of consensus, rule of law, in a sort of explosion neobarbarici of instincts, which no longer able to distinguish the light of reason (in this case, as we see, the process moves simultaneously in two directions, from top to bottom and from bottom to top). Listen to the words shiny Mann: "The huge wave of primitive barbarism eccentric and vulgarity, Plebs democratic product of impressions violent, disturbing and challenging set of nerves, intoxicating, which is beset humanity" (from Appel and die Vernunft: that "Appeal to reason," a title that says it all, taking into account that the writing appeared in October 1930 when the Germans would still have taken into account, and they did not). So, to paraphrase, if it succeeds, it could be said: the ridiculous politics as an instrument of seduction is the infallible sign of the abandonment of tradition and the democratic camp and the opening of a new and disturbing range of experiences, dictatorship or authoritarian democracy that tend in one way or another to go beyond, the loss of the sense of ridicule at the mass level is the most reliable evidence of the degeneration of a people into a patchwork of disconnected individuals, intoxicated by the allure of a any - essentially replicating mutant even though formally, - 'infamous madman. " Let's be clear: the ridiculous is a bit 'like the smell, not everyone felt the same moment, anybody ever. That is, by definition (defining cultural and political) to be able to warn him, - that is what we usually call the sense of the ridiculous - a fact in itself is elitist: it is unlikely that the masses find it on their own. But when the masses have totally lost this means that the elites have been totally defeated, and this opens the way to the hegemony of the "fool": in short, is always the same speech, indeed, the same process, but it offers different in many ways.
To laugh at their inimitable 'ridiculous' of the past, Germans and Italians were in need of a terrible war, during which the trappings have fallen one by one, the uniforms were torn and the carnival grin hidden behind the mask is revealed in all its terrible: you could still get a laugh, - as has happened only later, quite a posteriori, when, in truth, there was not even most need - for the good reason that there was nothing to laugh about. What can we expect catastrophe (and hope) because the Italians are able to laugh at the "ridiculous" that now governs them?
the Manifesto of June 3, 2009
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/il-manifesto/argomenti/numero/20090603/pagina/01/pezzo/251310/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)