June 12, 2010

Berlusconi's attack on a free press?

As all the word knows (we live in a global village, after all), Silvio Berlusconi is a controversial figure. There are those who love him and those who hate him, those who appreciate him and those who don’t. I’ve always tried to be as “objective” as possible regarding to him, but I don’t pretend to have succeeded, because—whether I like it or not—I agree with him on most issues. Let’s say that I generally favor a “dialectical approach” whose result, most of the times, is that I cannot but agree with him on the substance and disagree on the form (Ok, sometimes form is substance, I know ...). Here is an example (regarding Berlusconi’s controversial law curbing the use of wiretaps by police). Adrian Michaels in the Telegraph:


A great number of people working in the Italian judiciary behave incorrectly. Convinced that they will never secure convictions of the rich and powerful, they habitually leak their entire investigations to newspapers, so at least to hang their subjects in the court of public opinion. It is a shameful way to ride over due process, no matter how much it may seem justified.
So I have some sympathy with Silvio Berlusconi’s attempts significantly to tighten up the rules on judicial surveillance, wiretaps and leaks, even if it once again looks like the Italian prime minister is putting the machinery of state to use in the service of protecting his personal interests.


But, Michaels adds (“and it’s a big but”),


Berlusconi’s attack on the journalists who print transcripts of telephone conversations or other such information from judicial sources is completely indefensible.

Well, “indefensible” is perhaps a strong term. What about “embarrassing but understandable?” And it’s a big but.

The Year of the (Conservative) Woman


~ “LETTERS FROM AMERICA” - by The Metaphysical Peregrine ~

We had several primary elections this last Tuesday. Most notable was that Conservative women dominated.

In California former eBay CEO Meg Whitman won her primary against a strong Republican field. She’s wasn’t the most conservative of the candidates, yet the Democrats are already painting her as a ‘right wing extremist’. Of course, to them, anyone to the right of Mao, Lenin and Marx are ‘wingnuts’. She’ll be running against ex-governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. California is a collapsed lawless state, with thousands of people and dozens of businesses leaving every week. The collapse started with Brown when he was governor 1975–1983. Nearly all the policies that have lead to the demise of the late great state of California were instituted during his administration. I was living in California those years, and was a liberal then, and even liberals knew he was a whack job; thus the nickname “moonbeam”. Whitman will be running against him in the general election this coming November.

Also in California, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for Senate won her primary and will be running against Barbara Boxer. As a side note, I highly recommend her autobiography “Tough Choices”. This is a formidable businesswoman. She’s also a cancer survivor, and her story of overcoming that, and her overcoming the failing “good ol’ boy” culture and turning around HP, is a phenomenal story of overcoming opposition, devastating setback, perseverance and triumph. Again, she wasn’t the most conservative of candidates running in the primary, yet true the form, the Dems started the day after the election calling her a ‘wingnut’. Statists have created that as a pejorative to describe anyone that believes in lower taxes and less government.

The third candidate, Sharron Angle, won the Republican primary by a fourteen point margin against Sue Lowden in Nevada, the state where I now live. A few months ago she was at 5%, and everyone thought Lowden was for sure going to be the nominee. The turnaround was nothing less than astonishing. The surge was a result of the TEA party movement endorsing Angle. She, unlike Whitman and Fiorina, is a hard core conservative. She’ll be running against Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, and an uber-Statist. He’s to the left of Lenin, Marx and Mao. Day after Election Day, the first poll showed Angle at 50% and Reid at 39%. In this State, Reid has a political machine like what can be found in Chicago, and is formidable. He also had tens of $millions in campaign money and Angle is starting from financial scratch. The implications of this race are national. Reid is one of the most powerful men in the country, and does not value capitalism or liberty at all. His view is that the State should control everything, and everybody should be enslaved to the state.

Those are the big three, with several other races going to conservatives and women. The TEA Party movement is being very successful in running RINO’s (Republican in Name Only) out of office, so we Conservatives are heartened. In the past year there have been several special elections due to deaths, retirements etc. and all those but one have been won by the Republican candidates. Some are RINO’s, but sometimes you have to take what you can get.

The Democrats have had complete and total control of Congress for the past four years. The forced passage along party lines of their health care bill, and 70% of the population was and is against it. They have increased the deficient by nearly $2 Trillion during that time. They’ve nationalized much of the automotive and financial industries. All of the programs the Democrats are trying to pass right now will increase taxes, increase costs, and deny liberty to citizens. The Republicans must win in November. That slogan “take our country back” has become the rallying cry, which is the same thing Democrats and fellow Statists were saying during the Bush years. (Bush, by the way, is a RINO, and other than the War on Terror, was not supported by Conservatives.) A longer but more effective slogan would be “Return to the Constitution and the Rule of Law.”

Hats off to the rise of Conservative women in the Republican Party.