Also in the humor category, it would be necessary to place these words of Hugo Chávez:
"The squalid (opponents) are going well together to that it does not rain. But it is going to rain more, godfather, you are going to see, because God is bolivariano, God cannot be squalid. The nature is with us".
When the message of a politician deteriorates, his ideas cannot be very far.
We can already imagine what we would say in Spain if these words should go out of the mouth of Hope Aguirre. In fact, it is strange that he has not already said it.
They are not late very much in teaching his credentials. In a house seized to his (Palestinian) proprietors in the quarter of Sheikh Jarrah, in Jerusalem East, his new (Israeli) residents intone songs in honor of Baruch Goldstein, the colonó of Hebrón that killed 29 Palestinians in 1994 when they were praying.
In spite of being despicable, the scene is not compared at all with the habitual conduct in the Israeli governments. After all, these colonists of Jerusalem represent to the most extremist sectors of the Israeli society. They are those who have direct communication with God.
The Government, at least mostly, is not provided with a direct connection with the imaginary world of the deities. It is employed at another dimension. The current one and the previous ones it takes years, not decades, using the same stratagems with a view to obtaining the same target. When James Baker, secretary of the State in the times of George Bush, father, was coming to Jerusalem, the Government of Yitzhak Shamir was approving the construction of a new establishment establishment in Palestinian territory. This was almost 20 years ago and it keeps on happening.
Now it has appeared in Israel Joe Biden and the vice-president of the USA has had to prove the same medicine. Areal humiliation that has done that They Bigive, that presents itself to himself as a "friend" of Israel, has used the word he 'condemns' to refer to the initiative.
They say that some chronicles that They should Bigive it has remained perplexed before this adventurousness. It is incredible, not in the literal sense of the term, that the North American politicians keep on demonstrating such an ignorance level at the time of valuing the behavior of the Israeli governments. Let's say that they believe their own propaganda: Israel wants the peace and only the intransigence of his enemies prevents from coming to an agreement. Meanwhile, Israel keeps on creating a reality that makes any attempt of peace impossible.
The Israelis want everything for them. They want the legitimacy that awards them the resolution of the UNO that made the creation of his State possible and they want to preserve the booty of war that they obtained in 1967. Some because God wants it. Others because it is the perfect answer to centuries of pursuit. It is the logic of the empire applied to a small country. The blindness is such that will end up by turning Israel into the perfect example of apartheid, much more finished than that of South Africa. The most amusing thing of all this is that the Israelis will accuse the others of having turned into a pariah.
Some of them say that Netanyahu did not know that the project of expansion of the establishments in Jerusalem was going to promise to be during the Biden visit. Few ones believe it. It is simply one more step in a project of colonization that began in 1967. Nothing of what the Palestinians do it will be able to prevent.
"Cameron Uncovered" is a reportage of Andrew Rawnsley done for Channel 4. Rawnsley is the fashionable journalist in Great Britain for his book "The End of the Party", a chronicle of the last two terms of Labour Government. In this reportage, it offers a profile of David Cameron and tells how a future conservative Government can be in case they gain the elections.
16.30 I'm sorry they say to me that in Spain it is not possible to see the reportage. I suppose that it will be restricted to the United Kingdom. If you can cheat YouTube and make him believe that your IP is so British as the House of Commons...
In the Sunday ones of the English press, also there appear letters of the readership who complain about the prices of the products announced in the magazine. Pardon, it is not said announced. It is supposed that it is an information of the fashionable pages, fashion design and associates. This letter went out a few days ago in The Guardian:
Your stylists haven't understood the concept of green polytics, have they? To necklace for £ 195, shoes for £ 315? I think not. Not so surprising that to Labour supporter might spend £ 205 on sunglasses - they wouldn't want anyone looking them in the eye when war is mentioned, would they?
Maggie Hook
Enfield, Middlesex
Pardon, again. In the Sunday Spanish, rarely there appears a letter in which the content of some article is criticized. My skin problems were solved after reading to Rosa Montero and things for the style this is what it is possible to find.
Obviously, all these products appear to attract certain publicity. But at least they could pretend a little: no?
A series of terrible photos on a stone beating in Somalia makes to think if some limit exists in the work of the photographer before a scene like this one. Does suppose his presence a way of collaborating with a brutal crime? Is it the only way of that something like that knows and of that in some moment someone could prevent from repeating itself? The photos appeared in the magazine of The Sunday Times before the indignation of some readership. Does he have right a newspaper to publish these images although they should be unbearable for many persons?
The author of this article reflects on the quandary and quotes a phrase of Susan Sontag who might apply herself for these images.
Part of the complex power of these photographs you eat from what Sontag calls the "provocation" inherent in all images of real suffering. The first of many questions they ask is: "Dog you look at this?" Perhaps Sontag you eat closest to articulating the mulberry tree dilemma at the heart of carry to extremes images of suffering when she writes: "There is shame grasp well ace shock in looking at the close-up of to real horror. Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this carries to extremes order plow those who could do something to alleviate it … or those who could learn from it. The rest of us plows voyeurs, whether or not we they piss to be."
Nevertheless, we all can learn of these images, extract conclusions that apuedan to apply to matters even not so dramatic. Do we stop being onlooking only that's why?
