Nigel Farage: standing up for democracy

If only... Nigel Farage was Prime Minister of Great Britan!

Check out this speech and then you will either find it outrageous and inopportune and you will happy to sell your country to the EU crooks or, like me, you will feel like starting a revolution to get rid of the EU bureaucrats once and for all:
Nigel Farage speech

Well, can you imagine David Cameron delivering this speech? No, because he is a wanker, that's why and alongside him many other politicians but the most wankers of all are the members of the Italian Parliament, allowing the EU technocrats to rule their (my) country.

It is not surprising though the you need an Englishman to stand up and fight for freedom. Churchill stood up a while ago and he was right, just like Farange is right today. What I enjoy about the speech was its directness, take-no-prisoners attitude, pride and focused rage: a masterpiece. Farange is deadly right in calling Von Ronpuy and co. assassins of democracy, because that is what they are.

What I also could not fail to notice was the Britishness of it all, with that  reference to Agatha Christie: "I feel like in a Agatha Christie novel, wondering who's gonna be next one to be bumped off". And the ending is a Bruce Lee kick in the face: "Who the hell do you think you are????"

By the way, Farange was fined for his remarks because he was rude and aggressive. Well, it is not his fault if the EU is run by bastards and with bastards you have all the right in the world to be angry. But you just wait a bit longer, and one day, our assassins of democracy will take away the freedom of speech, just like they did with national currency and national sovereignty.

Unless we do something about it. We had enough, don't you think?

The end of democracy in Italy... for now’s the time for your tears

DEMOCRACY... Isn't it a wonderful thing?

I mean, trying to imagine a country where the Prime Minister is not chosen by the people of that country, but put there by the leaders of some other countries via some non-elected bureaucratic political entity... wouldn't that be outrageous? Wouldn't that be totally unrealistic and impossible to happen in the 21st Century? In Europe?

Well, think again, because this is exactly what is happening in Italy, and Greece too.

Yes, I know, Mr Berlusconi is ugly, rich, pervert, president of AC Milan, had hair transplant and take viagra, but, you know what? He was elected by the Italian people, three times. On the contrary, Monti won as many elections as me multiplied by the circumference of the all the planets in the solar system. In other words: zero, nada, niente, nothing, nichts.

Now, what is really pissing me off the most is the anti-Berlusconi brigade. They are the ones that for 17 years are shouting like lunatics: there-is-no-democracy-in-Italy, but then, when the EU (i.e. the Germans) decide the new Presidente del Consiglio, they do not object! What the hell is democracy, then? Only when their side get the trophy?
 
And even if we are going to leave the small detail of democracy aside, how can they, the anti-Berlusconi, accept in charge of Italy a man strongly linked with Goldman Sachs???? I am deadly sure I heard "it was all fault of the banks..."

As for Greece, the people were prevented by having a referendum by, yet again the EU commission and, instead, they are having another European bureaucrat and ex-Goldman Sachs puppet in charge of their country, Mr Papademos.

Well, as Ghandi almost said: "Democracy, that would be a very jolly good idea!"

And in my next post, be prepared for the best speech since Churchill "On the beaches"....

The problem with Change!!!!

There lies the problem with Change, you see... it keeps changing!

You don't believe me? Well, ask President Obama, he just found that out this week.

Two years ago he won the US election because he was the one about Change and, fair enough, he was really the Change and he got the job. But now, he ain't the Change anymore, he is the Establishment and so he has lost the mid-term election, because people want Change, they always do, it keeps them busy. I, for example, would love to change my hairstyle if I had any hair left but because I don't have any, I am probably going to wear a wig.

The crucial problem with Obama is that he should have explained the meaning of Change in a more formulated manner, not as Change and that's it, but as Change to Elect Me and Then Let It at That! But then it was going to be a rather long-winded slogan and he so he kept it short: Change!

It worked magnificently, nobody at the time dared to say that they were not convinced by Obamania, but then is then and now is now, and in two years time another US Presidential election will come around and we are not completely sure that Obama is going to keep his job... It will all depend on whether the Americans want to change again or if the Change has been Change enough, but mainly it depends on how the Republican nominee is going to look like and how changeable he or she will look like and which silly slogan he or she will come up with.

Will see. Who cares. My wig is going to be a curly one, I think.

The most popular name for boys in the UK, or maybe not

Now, you tell me, what was the most popular boy’s name in England in 2009?


Well, that depends on the newspaper you read.


In fact, according to the Guardian, Oliver was the most popular name for boys in 2009 but according to the Daily Mail it is instead, believe it or not, Mohammed.


Now, how can that be? Are the two newspapers reporting two different statistics? Or is one of them lying? And if so, which one? The truth is that both newspapers are technically right but they are highlighting the facts in a different way and here I can demonstrate it to you.


Let’s look at the figures, shall we? “Facts are sacred”, says the Guardian.


Then, if we look at the official list, we can see that in 2009 there have been 7,364 babies under the name of Oliver, 300 or so babies ahead of the second most popular name, Jack.


We can clearly see that Oliver is indeed, as reported in the Guardian, the most popular name for boys in 2009, no doubt about it. Mohammed is merely 16th, with only 3,300 babies bearing its name… so the Daily Mail is wrong, you may think, bloody Daily Mail always banging on about the Muslims Taking Over the Country.


But hold on a minute. Let’s look at the full list. Noticing something? Yes, Mohammed has indeed only 3,300 babies bearing its name, but Muhammad has 2,162, Mohammad 1,073, Muhammed 515 and so on… basically the total number of baby boys born in 2009 named after the prophet Mohammed with different spellings is 7,569 and therefore beating the number of boys called Oliver…


Now then, after the facts, who do you think is trying to deceive us? Who is telling the truth? Is the Guardian trying to cover the fact that the Muslim population is growing exponentially or is the Daily Mail always trying to talk about the Muslims with any possible excuse? Is the Guardian right in making us believe that Mohammad and Muhammad are two completely different names such as, shall we say, Jack and Oliver? Or is the Daily Mail right in pointing out that Mohammad and Muhammad are actually the same name and therefore it is rather stupid and deceiving to pretend they are not?


I leave the answer to you, and to Oliver and Mohammed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324194/Mohammed-popular-baby-boys-ahead-Jack-Harry.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/27/baby-names-children-oliver-olivia

Inter champion of Europe: obrigado and farewell, Jose Mourinho

When Jose Mourinho joined Inter two summers ago, I wrote a post in this blog on how happy I was that my team have signed him. One comment, I received at the time, said that it would be a disaster for Inter.

Two years later, the comment turned out to be ridiculously wrong and my hopes vindicated. My expectations, in fact, were not only met, but actually overly surpassed, elevated to the cube, actually.

Jose Mourihno, in fact, after winning the Italian championship and the Italian Supercup in his first year at Inter, has won in the second year in chronological order: Italian Cup, another Italian Championship and, Saturday night, after a wait of 45 years for us, “nerazzurri fans”, the most dreamt for prize of all: the Champions League.

Mourinho managed the “treble”, something no other Italian team had ever managed before. However, just winning the Champions League alone, believe me, would have been bloody good enough for us.

Now, the Champions League is important for any team, but especially so for Inter. The last time we won the cup was 1965 and, just to draw a comparison, the other team of Milan, AC Milan, have won the cup 5 bloody times in the last 20 years. For us, at Inter, winning the cup was becoming an obsession.

But obsession turned into a dream after the double victory against Chelsea, and then it became a possibility after the heroic night at the Camp Nou against the “best team in the world” aka Barcelona, and then, after two wonderful goals of Diego Milito in Saturday’s final, it was a reality: Capitan Javier Zanetti raising the Champions League trophy in the Madrid’s night.

But although the players are actually the ones kicking the ball on the pitch, it was not going to be possible, this dream, without Jose Mourinho. The Special One, in just two years, has changed the team’s mentality and, like a true leader of the pack, has made the team believe that, yes, it was capable of winning the Champions League and the secret of that was to believe in him, in his tactics, in his leadership. Inter did that and Inter won.

And when the final whistle blew, Mourinho cried because he knew he had just achieved the greatest (so far) achievement of this career, winning the Champions League for Inter and in doing so, giving to Inter President Moratti the greatest prize of all.

The image of two of them, crying and hugging like excited kids, will be forever with Inter supporters. President Massimo Moratti had spent tons of money for fifteen years in order to bring Inter back to the top, replicating what his father Angelo did in the sixties. Mourinho understood what the cup meant for Moratti and he was happy to have made the dream a reality.

But Mourinho’s tears were not only of happiness, they were of sorrow too. Next season, very likely, he will not be at Inter. Like a true Mary Poppins of our times, he has done his job and he has to leave. He has taught Inter how to win the Champions League again, and Inter can carry on alone now. There is Real Madrid that needs to be taught on how to win it again.

So, after the greatest season I have experienced as an Inter fan, it is farewell and obrigado Jose Mourinho: Inter will manage also without you.

Life is like that, sometimes, and there is nothing nobody can do about it.

How to resolve the hung parliament issue and get rid of Gordon Brown

I am sorry to say this, chaps, but Scotland has to go.

The thing is, if we are really going to resolve the hung parliament issue (and get rid of Gordon Brown once and for all), we have no other choice but to give full independence to Scotland.

It is because of Scotland that the electoral system in the UK is screwed up, you see, and it is all in the numbers and, just because you ask, here they are, the numbers:

In Scotland, out of 59 available seats in Westminster, Labour got 41 of them and the Conservatives only 1.

In England, out of 532 available seats, Labour got 191 and the Conservatives 297.

Without Scotland, the Conservatives would have an overall majority, having more than 50% of the seats available, and therefore no hung parliament and no need for Cameron to ask that loser of Nick Clegg to cut a deal.

Wales and Northern Ireland are small fishes, so they can still be part of the UK, but Scotland has to go! Westminster Parliament is basically currently run by 1,035,528 Scots who think the UK should by run by that moron of Gordon Brown!

Actually, just because we are at numbers and considering that in Scotland 412,855 decent Scots voted Conservative, the whole of the UK is run by 622,673 Labour Scottish voters. I can only guess the Scots are seeking revenge after hundreds of years of abuses from the English, but there is a limit even to evil deeds and here they have crossed the line!

Now, considering that, in the whole of the UK, the Conservatives got more than 2,000,000 votes more than Labour, I find rather frightening that 622,673 Scottish Labour voters can keep Brown into power (and the rest of us in misery).

But also, on a brighter side, think about the side effects of Scottish independence: Mel Gibson will be vindicated, Andy Murray can stop pretending to support England during the World Cup and, best of all, Gordon Brown can go back to his own native land and become the Leader Maximus of Socialist Scotland!

Bet you, he will succeed in two things: making Scotland join the Euro, and then, after managing the country to go bust, ask for money from the Germans!

UK General Election: what's good about it and how it could be much better

The UK general election is upon us, and many of us can’t wait for it to be over. I know, politicians trying to get your vote is the main disease of modern democracies… but I instead enjoy elections so much that I think we should do them more often.

Yes, because I love to see politicians pretending to care about us. We know they don’t care, and they know that we know, but still, I like to see them sweating their way to number 10 by trying as hard as they possibly can to be nice to us. Think if they had to do that all the time? Think if they were going to be nice to you, scared that you could remove them from power with the stroke of a pencil? Yes, give me that power anytime!

Anyway, what I like even more than politicians pretending to care about us, is to see politicians getting caught off guard and saying things they really mean but don’t want anybody to hear, just like Gordon Brown in Rochdale, when he called that poor Duffy lady a “bigoted woman”.

Brown really thought that Mrs Duffy was a bigot because she had the audacity of asking him a question about immigration, and also because, although a life-long Labour supporter, she was questioning (how dare she!) the Labour government!

Saying that, what I really like to see (more than politicians pretending to care about us or politicians getting caught off guard by saying things they really mean but don’t want anybody to hear) is politicians undeservedly apologising for what they have inadvertently said and pretending that they did speak “in the heat of the moment” or their words had been taken “out of context”. But don’t they look so pathetic and harmless, like a puppy left out in the rain?

However, instead of apologising, I would have preferred if Mr Brown had explained why he thought Mrs Duffy was a “bigot”, instead of claiming to have (somehow) misunderstood her.

In fact, let’s take it a step forward, and instead of a debate like the ones we had in the last couple of weeks, let’s make Cameron, Clegg and Brown completely drunk, so at least we will finally get the truth from them, and instead of lots of nice words such as “fairness”, “change” and all of this rubbish, we can really understand what their real ideas, motivations and values really are and maybe, who knows, even agree with them, after all.

Barcelona-Inter, the revenge of Mourinho and the "remuntada" that never took place

... and at the end there was no "remuntada".

All the angry talking of Barcelona players (Pique, poor boy, must be feeling a bit down today, I guess), and all the big fuss about Barcelona being the greatest team in the world and Messi being the new Maradona (not yet, Leo, not yet), and all the water sprinkled on the Nou Camp before the match to make the game easier for the Barcelona stars, and all the 100,000 or so Barcelona supporters being the 12th man on the pitch and... well, it counted nothing, because at the end of the night it was Jose Mourinho and Inter Milan celebrating, walking away from the Nou Camp with the qualification to the Champions League final.

It was a victory for Inter, reaching the final of the Champions League after 38 years, but also for Mourinho, who was nicknamed the "translator" back in his Barcelona days, when he was an assistant to the late Bobby Robson, manager of Barcelona in the '96-'97 season. Barcelona never considered Mourinho a possible future manager for the club, but tonight Mourinho showed them how wrong they were and revenge is always good.

Mourinho tactics, unlike Guardiola, were spot on. Inter played a defensive match but that is what they had to do, considering that it was Barcelona that was beaten in Milan and had to perform a "remuntada" and considering also that Inter played with 10 men for three-quarters of the game. Inter showed Barcelona and the world the meaning of defending, and how Messi can be neutralised. All Inter players were amazing, Samuel, Zanetti, Maicon, Lucio, Cambiasso and so on, a wall that frustrated Barcelona until the end, especially Zlatan Ibrahimovic, the striker who left Inter in the summer because he wanted to win the Champions League and instead he showed the world that Inter is instead a better team without him.

Barcelona cannot complain with the referee either, Motta sending off was a Godsend, Barcelona’s first goal was very likely on off-side, and a handball is a handball, and therefore the second goal was rightly disallowed.

As the final whistle blew, Jose Mourinho celebrated his joy in style, by rushing towards the Inter fans, raising his arms and pointing his fingers to the sky, while Barcelona-keeper-sore-loser-Vitor-Valdes clumsily and pathetically tried to stop him, obviously not liking the fact to be out of the Champions League and probably still thinking about a "remuntada" that never took place.

In defence of the Pope (and yes, Richard Dawkins is a fool)

Some, (too) clever minds in England, are trying to legally prosecute a man coming to our shores in September.

They want to arrest him. They want to strip away his immunity because they think he needs one (!), they want to ask him tough questions (whatever that means) and, above all, prosecute him for crimes against humanity.

Big stuff, isn’t it?

Now, who do you think they are talking about? Three options for you:

a) Osama Bin Laden
b) Fidel Castro
c) Pope Benedict the XVI

Difficult choice, yes, between a and b, but actually the “right” answer is c!

Oh yes, because according to Richard Dawkins, the world famous scientist and author of the God Delusion, the Pope is the man to stop, to silence, to arrest, to prosecute because of “crimes against humanity”.

The reason for this, he claims, is that the Pope is covering up the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The God-hater Dawkins, who in the past called the Pope a Nazi and a leering villain in a frock, also claims that Pope Benedict the XVI is the man responsible for people dying of AIDS in Africa…

Dawkins’ claims are easily brushed aside. The Pope has not covered up the child abuse scandal but has dealt with the situation in its own way, and if that way is not the one Dawkins likes it is not his business. Secondly, people are dying in Africa because of AIDS because over there they f#@k around rather too much, and it is not the word of a Pope that can make much of a difference.

It is easy to grasp that the real issue instead is that Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist that has decided to focus his energy in trying to undermine religion whenever he can. That is his brand, his credo and probably his purpose in life.

I don’t agree with him on almost anything but I could at least respect him if he had the guts to be tough on any religion, when in fact he is just against Christianity. Has he ever publicly said anything about… Islam?

Let me think for a minute, did Dawkins ever say anything about Abu Hamza preaching hatred and murder in the Finsbury Park mosque? Or did he or his followers had anything to say when Islamic extremist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi preached to kill the Jews while in London, invited, by the way, by then mayor of London Ken Livingstone?

No, he did bloody not say a bloody word. Dawkins is against religion but if you are an Islamic preacher willing to kill Jews that is fine and why is that? Is Dawkins either not aware of Islam being a religion or is he shitting in his pants at the thought of a fatwa?

Instead, Dawkins talks rubbish about the Pope because he knows the “old villain in a frock” will not do any harm to him, and the lawyers of this country are always ready to take a fight for pointless causes.

Anyway, the Pope will be coming to the United Kingdom in September whether Dawkins likes it or not and if you agree with what I wrote and you do welcome the Pope in the UK, please sign the petition below:
http://www.petitiononline.com/PopeinUK/petition.html

Big Businesses and the one with the best car: Formula 1 is back

You look at Formula 1 today, and what is the first thing you think about?

Probably, I would guess, about Michael Schumacher hoping to win yet another title or about Lewis Hamilton trying to get it back at Jenson Button, or maybe about Bernie Ecclestone and how the hell he let that amazon ex-wife of him to run away...

I, instead, being a cynical and political animal, think about the decline of Europe as an economic powerhouse.

The reason, I am saying this, is all in the 2010 Formula 1 calendar, in the link below:
http://www.formula1.com/races/calendar.html

Out of 19 races, only 8 are in the Old Continent (and no, Turkey is not in Europe, sorry), a mere 42% of the total. Asia, instead, that had just one race (in Japan) until ten or so years ago, has jumped to 8 races, equalling Europe and probably going to grow even further in the future.

Formula 1 is the sport of Big Businesses and Big Businesses follow the smell of money, and it is clear that Europe has been outstaged by Asia, while Africa is non-existent, and the rest of the world is shuffling by.

Formula 1, let's not forget, used to be until 10 years ago mainly a European affair. Out of 16 races (at the time), 11 of these were in Europe, a whopping 68% of the total. But with the passing of every year, races in Europe have dropped, while races in Asia, by contrast, have risen, and new destinations such as China and Singapore have popped out.

Interesting also to note, in the European decline, how Spain got not one but two races, and I guess it has to do with Santander, basically the only bank alive in Europe these days and you always need banks on your side and think about it:
Big Business = Santander = Spain = Fernando Alonso.

Yes, Fernando Alonso, the Spanish champ: wasn't he partly involved a couple of years ago in the McLaren spy-affair, but came out clean? And then, the year after, partly involved in the deliberate crush of Piquet Jr at the Singaporean Grand Prix that allowed Alonso himself to win the race, but again, came out clean?

Big Business is running Formula 1 but it has always been like that and it can't be otherwise, so I'll get over it, don't worry, and if I was to be asked to bet on anyone to win the title this year, I would bet on the driver with the best car.

So, grandad Schumacher, you do have a chance, maybe, after all.

What does poverty mean in today's society? Ask the Evening Standard... (not)!

Did you know that, according to the statistics published yesterday by the Evening Standard, 41% of children in London live below the poverty line?

41% means that every time you walk in the streets of London, almost every other child you see is poor! Yes! And how come you never realised that? How come you never ever felt the rush of saving almost every other child you came across in the street?

The reason is simple: 41% of children of London do not live below the poverty line.
The problem with the statistic lies in the definition of poverty line. Poverty line is defined, according to the Evening Standard again, to be at 60% of the median income.
And what does that mean? I guess that means that if you are “poor” you cannot afford Sky TV or you don’t travel abroad. Tough yeah (especially Sky TV), but that is not what I call poverty.

But then the Evening Standard, not happy with just a statistic in its crusade against poverty in London, wants to make sure we get the picture by telling us the story of two “dispossessed” Londoners and, even more, making sure we understand it is all the government’s fault, i.e. yours.

The first “poor” we come across is an 18 year old Jamaican boy in Islington who lives with his single mother and his half-sister. He is a student and lives on benefits but he said he also applied for jobs, 32 times he claims (did he count them?) but never got an interview. Oh well, why not try for the 33rd time? He said it affected his confidence… but not his laziness, fortunately.

The journalist is then describing the story of the boy, and you have to feel sorry for him and I am not being sarcastic here. In fact, as per the article:

…several things happened to plunge the family into poverty. In 1998 his father, a chemical engineer who had split from his mother four years earlier, left the country and stopped supporting his son.

That is terrible, I agree, although no ground for blaming the government. Anyway, the next sentence baffled me:

And the following year, his mother had a second child. Unable to afford childcare, she gave up her job and went on benefits.

What? A second child? From whom? The Invisible Man? For goodness’ sake, if you have a child already and a low-income job, why have another child???

But then again, it is not her fault, the paper claims, but the government’s, which does not help the “poor” and so it is the taxpayers (me and you) who pay for that.

There is then the story of a 21 year old girl who left home at 17, got pregnant (obviously) and now lives on benefits. Fault of the government (again) according to the Evening Standard, and I and you pay for her again.

Now, what really pisses me off about these stories is reading about people who cannot find a job.

When I arrived in this country more than 10 years ago my English was non-existent and I did manage to find a job and, I now discover that I was living under the poverty line by earning (at the time) £96 a week and considering my rent was £55 and travel-card £13, I had £28 a week to live by and damn! How could I not realise that I was living under the poverty line? Was I stupid? Or had I been “indoctrinated”? Or was that maybe, just maybe, for me poverty meant my granddad eating rats in the Second World War or my granddad again as a child not being able to go out because he had seven brothers and only two pair of shoes for all of them?

And again, today, just to make sure we got the picture about “poverty”, the Evening Standard reports the story of a “hero” of a woman who is a single mother raising a family of…

(I have not made this up) 11 children

By

(I have not made this up either)

5 different fathers

And the “hero” is (surprise surprise) living on benefits, and you know what?

It is all the government’s fault!!!!!!!!

Global warming... or global cooling? Welcome to one of the coldest winters of the last 100 years

Yes, I have heard about Global Warming, yes, I know the Kyoto agreement was not followed, and yes, I know Prince Charles has declared that we have, I guess, 90 months to save the planet and yes, I know that Al Gore has told us the sea levels will rise, and the polar bears will melt and that G. W. Bush is the evil bastard to blame for all this, but… I was considering something, you know, something that recently has been buggering my little silly mind of mine:
If the world is really warming up (and it is all our fault, obviously) can anyone explain to me why, here in Britain we are experiencing one of the coldest winters in the last 100 years????

I mean, I know Global Warming is the coolest bright idea of the moment, and that Al Gore really knows his stuff (does he? He is a scientist after all and not a loser US presidential candidate, thank God) but if this winter is one of the coldest of the last 100 years, maybe, just maybe, we are not really warming up that much…

Also, recently I was reading an article where it was reported that in one region of Peru in the last 50 years the temperature has been getting colder and colder. Hmm, better keep the news quiet, shall we?

Now, some global warming “experts” have the answer for this. Yes, they do! Aren’t you all feeling much better???

They claim that… the cold temperature we are experiencing is due to a climate change… (!)

Don’t you love how the simple twisting of the word can make a lot of new meaning??? I mean, so is the world going to get cooler then? And how it is all of a sudden getting cooler if the problem is carbon emission? If we emit lots of fumes and smoke in the atmosphere it can only get warmer, not cooler, right? Or should we ask Al Gore?

Al? Al Gore? Where is Al? Damn, he took another long-haul flight to get to a conference to tell people not to take ever again a flight! Well, at least he is warming up the planet, not sorry, I meant cooling, no, sorry again, changing the climate of the planet, dare you go.

So, enjoy the snow and the cold. But please do worry about the world. It is at the boiling point. Yes, of bullshit.

Nobel Peace Prize winner bombing Yemen????

Would you believe it? The Nobel Peace Prize winner is thinking about bombing Yemen.
I am sure that no science fiction writer has ever dreamed to come up with an absurd storyline like that… what next? The Prince of Wales fighting for the establishment of the English Republic? Or Global Warming scaremonger Leader acknowledging that it is actually a bloody cold winter?

Anyway, apart from the Nobel Peace rubbish business, what I find amusing is how Obama is now the man who can tell when a war is bad and when a war is good. I thought he was the one that would have brought peace to the world just by being nice, cool and trying to understand the reason why the Islamists do-not-like-us-and-what-to do-to-change-their-minds. Well, it’s not working that way, and even the most blind deluded optimist can see that, so when the game gets tough, what does Obama do? He drops the bomb!

But that’s fine, he is Obama and he won the Nobel Peace Prize. If it had been Bush, he would be a world criminal. That’s double standards for you. That’s life.

I am actually really surprised by Obama’s behaviour. He was always the one playing it cool with “terrorism”. Remember that US soldier, what’s his name? Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert who murdered a US Army recruit in Little Rock, Arkansas in June? Or that Major, what’s his name? Oh yes, Major Nidal Malik Hassan, who slaughtered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas? And that recent wannabe bomber, what’s his name? Oh yes, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab?

They were “isolated cases” according to Obama, but now, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is possibly starting to think that maybe, just maybe, the Islamic threat is real and it wasn’t just a deranged fantasy of that deranged President before him.

Happy 2010 everyone and please do not go to Yemen!

Merry Christmas and the battle against the Evil Politically Correct forces, part 2

As per my last post, the Politically Correct Evil forces are trying to get rid of Christmas by calling it any possible name in order not to “upset” anyone who is not Christian, although, funny enough, non-Christians (at least the ones I know) do celebrate Christmas as much as the Christians do. But this is not deterring the Politically Correct Evil forces. In fact, common sense and the real world is what they despise the most and they like things their way and everybody should follow.

Well, the hell with that, and I think I made my view clear enough in my last post, but what about the rest of my colleagues? Majority of them are British and from a Christian upbringing: Would they join my fight for Christmas?

Well, once Human Resources forwarded to all of us the email about the Festive Winter Celebration, there was a bit of talking about a possible boycotting of the party and a proper uprising was taking form, in the shape of an alternative Christmas Party staged somewhere at some point.

Wow, I thought, power of the masses! Yes, we can! The times they are a-changing, and all that jazz…

Yes, because only the masses can change the world. Take Ghandi, for example, he managed the independence of India not by being non-violent as the “historians” always want us to believe, but because he had 300 millions (at the time) Indians behind him to kick the British out of the country. In fact, if he was just as non-violent but with his family and his mates as his only supporters, do you think we will still be talking about him?
On the other hand, take the Olympics in China last year. If every single athlete had the decency of boycotting the opening ceremony, the Chinese government would have suffered an unbelievable embarrassment by staging an open ceremony with no bloody athlete (apart for the Chinese of course) to take part in it. Instead though, only a small minority of athletes boycotted the opening ceremony and in the end nobody noticed they were missing.

But masses need a leader. Even the commies, always banging about collectivism and “people”, they always had a leader, didn’t they? Mao, Stalin, Che Guevara and so on, because they well knew that without a leader the masses lose any interest and go back to watching Ex-Factor. Talking about that, Simon Cowell is a leader too and if tomorrow he was going to start a political party, I bet he could get more votes than Brown and Cameron put together. Not sure how the country will cope with the credit crunch but Britain will put up a hell of a karaoke show.

So, in order to do a rebellion, we need the masses, a leader and then propaganda, leaflets, banners and yes, of course, some money to keep the fight going.

Unfortunately, we didn’t have any of the above: no masses, no leaders, no propaganda, no leaflets, but this didn’t surprise me. The British have many qualities, but what they are absolute rubbish at is to set up a proper rebellion!
After all, they still have kings and queens and the congestion charge could double up tomorrow morning and nobody will move a muscle.
So, at the end the only thing I could do was to boycott myself the Festive Winter Party and tell as many people as possible why I was not going to the party. I was the masses, I was the leader, I was the propaganda.

I must say I did get the odd look about this but no arguments were raised and no clash happened and the world did not (sadly) change.

Lucky Ghandi. I wish I had his 300 million (at the times) followers. I will be celebrating Christmas every day.

And now Happy New Year to all of you, Happy 2010 and if I remember correctly, aren’t we all counting the years from the birth of Jesus Christ? Or maybe should we not count the years from another important event in the history of the world? Such as, let me say, when Political Correctness was invented?

I am not sure exactly of the year when this rubbish thinking started, nobody is, but more time goes by it seems 1984 to me…

Merry Christmas and the battle against the Evil Politically Correct forces, part 1

Merry Christmas everyone!

Yes, you heard me right, Merry Christmas, I said, and no happy Diwali, joyful Ramadan or gracious Winnie-the-Pooh day but Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas!

I hope I said it many times, because one day, if we keep prostrating our intellect to the Politically Correct brigade, the C-word will be banned and we will be doomed.

It all probably started in America I guess, like Coca-Cola, Rock n’ roll and take-away pizza, but political correctness is now a disease spreading all over the Western world, to the point that, sadly, it is already corroding our way of living.

Political correctness is such a big subject that I cannot describe it in one post, so I will instead focus my attention on two things: the battle for Christmas and the unwillingness of the British to rebel.

Christmas had been suffering a few setbacks in the last few years. Christmas lights in Oxford Street had been renamed Winter lights, for example, and in some schools Christmas is not celebrated anymore. However, it was not until this nonsense reached me directly that I really understood the gravity of the phenomenon.

Now, my company held every year a Christmas Party, in which I have always participated, and this year I was going to participate too, until I received the invitation from the Human Resources Department where, with my anger and disbelief, the Christmas Party had been renamed Festive Winter Party.

Festive Winter Party? I never knew that people celebrated winter since the times the druids were constructing Stonehenge, or was it some kind of typing error? Some of us in the company made the point of asking if, by any chance, there was some kind of mistake and this is the reply we got from the HR department:

Further to the recent disappointing comments concerning the ‘Company Festive Winter Party’, I would like to clarify any confusion.

As I expect you are aware, we have a team made up of many faiths, and in recognising our diversity we have referred to the party as our Festive Winter Event. As the event is not themed as a Christmas party this is thought to be more appropriate.
Criticisms which have been made in this regard have upset and offended other employees and all staff are asked to use email in an appropriate way which does not or could not cause such offence.

Please feel free to approach HR further if needed in regards to this.

Thank you for your cooperation, understanding and appreciation of others.

I decided not to reply to the statement, considering that, although I had the right to do so, it would have done me no good and, who knows, maybe put me into trouble. So, I have decided to do it here and HR is welcome to comment on my post:

Dear Human Resources Department,

Further to your recent communication, let me clarify the following points:

I am aware that we have a team of many faiths, as a Catholic I myself belong to a minority in this country, and as an Italian I belong to an ethnic minority, so I can play the race-faith card too.

Christmas is a tradition of this country as much as the Queen and therefore it is ridiculous to abolish it in the name of political correctness. Diversity is a wonderful thing, but in Rome do as the Romans do, as the saying goes, or otherwise, shouldn’t the Muslims rename the Ramadan and the Hindu Diwali?

If the criticism made has upset and offended some people, could I please have a word with them? I am sure I will be able to explain my action, although I guess this is out of the question, considering that probably nobody was upset and offended…

Lastly, don’t thank me for what I am not doing: cooperating and understanding, and the appreciation of others does not mean that I have to renege on the 2,000 years of history and tradition.

I was going to talk about the unwillingness of the British to rebel, but I will write it in my next post, in the meantime, Merry Christmas and if you are offended, I couldn’t care less.

Thierry "Handry" Henry is just like a politician

Unless you are Michel Platini or a fundamentalist France or Barcelona or Arsenal supporter, or you are not aware that at football you cannot play with your hands, you will agree with me that Thierry Henry is a bloody cheat.

As you may know, during last night’s World Cup qualifier against Ireland, Monsier Va Va Voom has controlled the ball with his hand (twice) before making the pass to his team-mate Williams Gallas, who did eventually score the goal that qualified France for the 2010 World Cup.

Now, it seems like that even the most fundamentalist France or Barcelona or Arsenal supporters (although I am not so sure about Platini) could, after all, possibly agree that Thierry Henry was wrong in controlling the ball with his hand (twice) but nonetheless they still excuse Mr Henry’s behaviour by claiming that everybody else would have acted in the same way in the same situation.

Sounds familiar this way of thinking, doesn’t it? Where did I hear it before? Oh yes, the politicians!

Do you recall the scandal of the MP expenses, a few months ago, where British politicians were caught claiming expenses for non-existent mortgages, armchairs, gate repairs or any other possible bizarre purchases with taxpayers money? Well, yes, do you remember their excuses? Yes, you got it, everybody-else-would-have-done-the-same-it-was-the system-that-was-wrong...

Nobody was feeling sorry for the politicians then, so is Thierry Henry any better? What about the bankers then? They were doing the same as the other bankers, why so much rage against them? Huh?

What I find really pathetic is that, after the match, Henry admitted to have handled the ball with his hand (twice) but then he concluded by saying “I am not the referee”.

Love that: “I am not the referee”.

So, if I understood correctly the Henry-philosophy (if there is actually any), I can go and steal a bike right now because I am not the law, I can throw a rubbish can in the street because I am not a cleaner and I can pee in your beer because I am not a barista!

I also must say that, in a way, I am glad Henry did what he did. I always knew the guy was not a gentleman and finally now I don’t have to hear or read any rubbish about the supposed flair of this overrated player. It is almost as good as when Zidane showed his true colours by head-butting Marco Materazzi after the 2006 World Cup Final, another example of a “gentleman” loved by the media and then showing himself as the thug he really was.

Save the crucifix from paranoid atheists and the EUSSR

The crucifix, in Italy, is everywhere.

If you go to a school, or if you go to a hospital or to any public place in Italy, you will always see a crucifix hanging from one of the walls. It is so much part of the Italian identity that the first time I happened to be in a British hospital, it took me several minutes to understand why the hell I did not feel to be in a hospital at all.

“Damn”, I then thought,”the bloody crucifix on the wall… it is missing!”

If you are a fundamental atheist or a know-it-best-laic, or an even-more-know-it-best-Liberal, you are probably thinking that I am a small brained bigot, brainwashed by the Catholic Church from an early age.

Maybe, I was indeed brainwashed from an early age, but I am rather glad to have been brainwashed by the Catholic Church than by the Soviet Communist Party or by the Politically Correct lobby that is running the propaganda show these days.

Anyway, back to the crucifix, in Italy it is everywhere and it has been there for a very long time.
However, Christ is not very much liked by the Socialist Super-State of Europe and it is recent news that the European Court of Human Rights has awarded €5,000 (of our money) in damages to Soile Lautsi, a Finnish woman (married to an Italian man and living in Italy) who had opposed the display of a Catholic crucifix at a state school attended by her two children.


Now, where should I start?

The European Court of Supposedly Human Rights is a Soviet-style bureaucratic body where all decisions are filtered by the political agenda of the European Union with the ultimate goal of undermining the sovereignty of each member of such a union.
Just as much Christmas has been increasingly banned by becoming Festive Winter Celebration in the United Kingdom, the goal of the EU policies is to eliminate the identity of Italy by diminishing the influence of the Catholic Church.

Now, Mrs Soile Lautsi is a paranoid atheist, who has not a clue of Italian history, Italian identity and Italian way of living. It is such a shame that she married an Italian and moved to Italy, it would have been much more engaging for her to have married, let’s say, an Iranian and have moved to Iran… there she could really have made a bigger name of herself!
Can anyone sane of mind imagine brave-heart Soile taking a stand against the theocratic government of Iran? Anyone guessing how much compensation the Great Council of the Ones You Do What I Say will be giving her?

Exactly.

However, the people who I understand the least are the Italians who stand on the side of the paranoid atheists and The European Court of Supposedly Human Rights.
I guess they think that Italy should follow whatever Europe decides to do with our history, tradition and identity… I guess they think it is advisable to avoid any confrontation with Mighty Europe… I guess they think that if they can get rid of the crucifix today, well why not getting rid of the saints from the calendars tomorrow, alongside with the sound of the bells of the churches and the images of saints and Madonnas in the streets… and I guess I am having none of that knee-jerk rubbish.

And, as a final thought, I would like to point out the wording of The Times in reporting the news:
The ruling could encourage a review of the use of religious symbols in state schools throughout Europe. The court did not, however, order the Italian authorities to remove the crucifixes.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6901228.ece

I repeat: the court did not order the Italian authorities to remove the crucifixes…

Of course they didn’t! If they had, that would mean that Italy is not a country anymore but only a colonial outpost of the European Community Empire.

But that, I am very sorry to say, is only a matter of time.

Andre Agassi and the wig (and the drugs)

Unlike many tennis fans of my generation, I never managed to idolise Andre Agassi. In the ‘90s, in fact, most of my friends loved the guy to bits, partly because of his tennis skills, but also because he came across as a kind of “rebel of tennis” because of his heavy metal hair style, bad-boy behaviour and coolish (at the time) outfits.

I always considered Agassi a great tennis player (although too stuck on the baseline for my liking) and a charismatic entertainer. However, I couldn’t see any rebellion in him, because there was none. To me he was more like a clever businessman who managed to fill a gap in the bad-boy-tennis-player market after McEnroe had retired.
What Agassi did was to take SuperBrat’s nutty behaviour and adding to it the funky clothes and the long hair. What I didn’t know at the time was that, just as much the rebellion was fake, the long hair was a trick too.

In fact, as per Agassi recent admission, he had been wearing a wig from 1990 to 1994 (making him the only player to have won Wimbledon wearing a wig) and I wonder how his teenager supporters of the time would have felt if they had found that out… By the way, thinking about it, in 1994 Agassi shaved his hair and dumped the wig. Did anybody ever wonder how he went from long thick hair to baldy in one go? I guess we were too busy watching Beverly Hills 90210 back then… for that matter I had a crush on Shannen Doherty, and wasn’t she hot?

Anyway, as time went by, Agassi slowly ditched the Rebel Without a Cause image and instead turned himself into a kind of Dalai Lama of tennis, throwing kisses to the crowd at the end of every match, raising money for charity, crying after victories and becoming one of those gentlemen that in the early years he despised.

However, as much as Agassi was not a rebel at the beginning of his career, he was not a gentleman at the end. By his own admission, he took illegal hard drugs in 1997 but was not banned by the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) because he had written them a letter asking for forgiveness! The reason why Agassi was not sentenced is simple: he was too popular with the tennis fans and too “marketing valuable” to receive a ban.

What I find irritating, but not surprising, in Agassi’s behaviour is that he has decided to come clear about his tricks only now, three years after having retired from tennis and just before publishing his autobiography… but will the extra bucks do him any good?

Ultimately, the Agassi’s saga can also be read in a political way. Agassi has, in fact, shown us the true colours of the Liberal he has always been: a rebel not really rebelling in his youth, a publicised do-gooder in his older days and all along, while pretending to be equal to others, cunningly not paying for his errors by abusing his popularity.

I must say that I am quite glad that Pete Sampras beat him most of the time. Nobody in my circle of friends liked Sampras back then. “Too boring”, they were saying. Still, he won 7 Wimbledon titles, never pretended to be anything more than a great tennis player and, I can pretty much say, never dared to wear a wig on Central Court!

Obama or Berlusconi should have won the Nobel Peace Prize? You decide!

Can you believe it? President Obama has scooped up the Nobel Peace Prize! Wow, the guy has been President of the USA for only nine months and he has already grasped a prize that many others have spent a lifetime to achieve.

I mean, think about it, Al Gore, for example. The poor chap had to come up with a full 94 minutes documentary packed with convenient lies and mistakes to get the prize, although I must admit the accusations to George W. Bush helped him quite a bit in getting the prize.

Then think about Yasser Arafat, a terrorist leader, who in order to scoop up the prize had to pretend to care and cry of rage about the Israeli people blown apart (by his men) and, mind you, no onions were left on the shelf in his local supermarket, I can tell you. So then, after such incredible performances, how could Obama get the prize so quickly?

Well, it seems like that he won the prize because, first of all, he is not George W Bush, and this is a great achievement.

He is also sending more troops to Afghanistan. No, that is not a real peaceful thing to do, I admit, but because he is not George W Bush we’ll let him off the hook. You never know, instead of bullets the US soldiers will be firing flowers!

Furthermore, he has politely asked the Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad, to stop being a bully and to get rid of his nuclear toys soon. It seems like the Iranian Big Boss does not give much of a monkey about it but, hey, that is irrelevant!

Then, President Obama is also working to reduce the impact of global warming, taxing naughty businesses lots of money to go green and spending billions of US taxpayers’ dollars in order to stop the world getting hotter and hotter. Let’s really hope that global warming is a real thing, otherwise all the money and energy will be wasted and that would be a shame.

Finally, President Obama is giving hope to the world because he is a nice, cool chap and he can talk, and now that I am saying this, why all of you are suddenly thinking of Tony Blair?

Anyway, all of this is great stuff, and one day President Obama will be walking on water scooping up the Second Coming Prize, but in my personal opinion another man should have won the Nobel Peace Prize instead, and his name is….

...Silvio Berlusconi.


“Naah! Who are you kidding?” You must be thinking, but, hell, give peace a chance and I will try to explain.

Now, aren’t they all, the Peace loving people of the planet, always telling you to make Love Not War? Aren’t they? Well, Mr Berlusconi has been doing Love for quite some time and with many women, some rather hot, I must say, so respect for the man and we all know Love is the answer.
Secondly, he is not George W Bush and this is a great achievement too.

Berlusconi is also trying to make a peace deal with the magistrates in Italy, he keeps saying to them: “I don’t want anything to do with you, let’s be friends”, but they keep bullying him.

Well, if I have not done enough to convince you, and you still think Berlusconi’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize is ridiculous, I hope that you consider Obama’s victory ridiculous just the same.

I personally think the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing but an expensive and useless political circus, and it stinks.

One last thought, before I go betting on President Obama winning the next Miss World title… the President-Obama-Nobel-Peace-Prize-winner, is he or is he not the same President Obama that refused to meet the Dalai Lama? I mean: one Nobel Peace Prize winner that refuses to meet another Nobel Peace Prize winner!

That is not very peaceful, is it?

News from the EUSSR

Heard the news? No, I am not talking about Sir Alex complaining to a referee or Ken Livingstone whingeing about Boris Johnson appearing on Eastenders, what I am talking about instead is the Irish voters handing their sovereignty to the EU.

Only last year, if you recall, the Irish had casted their vote about the European Constitution. But last time the No had won, so the European Parliament has allegedly changed parts of the European Constitution (Really? How? Can anybody give me a clear example?), threw money to Ireland (i.e. bribed their government) and, voila, Irish voters have been asked again to cast their vote.

This time, however, the Yes has won and no more referendum is now needed. In fact, in true European Union style, once the only acceptable answer is given (Yes, of course), the game is done and politicians of the main parties (Left or Right, whatever) rush to congratulate themselves to the next target: convincing the renegade states, Czech Republic and Poland, to sign the bloody Lisbon treaty.

The media, in the meantime, are quick to glorify the great achievement of the European Union and the Irish voters have been immediately re-instated to the status of human thinking beings, and the same happened with the US voters after they voted for Obama in the last presidential election.

It is undeniable that every time some European country, naughty enough to hold a referendum in the first place (where are you Mr Brown? Mr Berlusconi?), decides not to give away their sovereignty to the EU super-state, the media and the establishment are utterly disgusted. All of a sudden the pro-Europe intelligentsia, usually so much “for the people”, is raising the issue that maybe the people are not clever enough to vote, or maybe the questions were not asked in the proper way because, in their Soviet-like minds, there could not possibly be so many people not agreeing that the European Union can only be a successful idea.

Euro-sceptics, in fact, are usually portrayed as a mixture of fascists, close minded, Neanderthal, underdeveloped morons who must be silenced in order for the future of Europe to be possible.

The European Union is getting more and more executive powers without our consent, but why Brussels should decide how to rule the UK or Italy or Ireland? What is the point of having fought World War II if the sovereignty of our states is given away to a utopian un-represented bunch of bureaucrats?

Behind our back more laws are introduced and political correctness is the weapon of the new dictatorship that is taking over Europe while we waste our time thinking about the new football season or X Factor wannabe singers.

The EU is getting bigger, just like the Soviet Union or the Third Reich did. The first two empires used tanks, while the EU uses the media, diplomatic bullying and lack of information to allow the empire to expand. Can anyone, sane of mind out there, explain to me why, when a referendum about Europe is finally taking place, and if the answer is not what the EU wants, the referendum is taken again and again, until the outcome satisfies Brussels? Do we call this democracy? I call it scam.

The issue about Europe is a big one and a serious one. Please note the following:

The word empire, referred to the European Union is not mine. I have actually quoted from Jose Manual Barroso, yes, the President of the European Commission. You can check him out in the following interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ralocq9uE

The link between the Soviet Union and the European Union is not mine invention either. It has been expressed by a former Soviet dissident and free-thinker, Boris Bukovsky. You can read his opinion in the following link:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

Or watch his interview on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YEjgg5cuwE

Bruce Springsteen is hitting 60

You know what? Also rock stars get old. They dye their hair and keep singing the old anthems, but time ticks for them too and this week Bruce Springsteen will be hitting 60.

The difference between rock stars and normal people is that rock stars do not retire, they earn way too much to take retirement into consideration. They rather prefer producing overrated records instead: they know too well that there are always some deluded fans willing to buy them. What rock stars, though, have in common with normal people, is the desire to talk about things they don’t know much about and trying hard to be popular. Bruce Springsteen and his fiddle with politics is a typical example.

The guy, as per his own admission, was never much interested in politics and he had never read a proper book until he was in his mid-twenties. In fact, he had spent most of his younger days making music, great rock music if you ask me and millions of people who bought his records.

“The Boss” was so much disinterested in politics that many people even thought that he could even be a bit of a Conservative. I thought it too, after all most of his songs were about getting on with it.

I remember my Leftie friends hated the guy because of the American flags flying everywhere at his concerts and because of him looking as a “white trash” without a clue about the issues of the world, but what they despised more than anything, was that “Born in the USA” song, so damn patriotic.

But that was then, now Bruce Springsteen is the prodigal son of the Liberals. He has been bashing George W Bush in the past five years with so much hatred that from listening to his interviews and songs you must think Dubya must be the reincarnation of the Devil.

Springsteen is entitled to his own opinions, but there is more than just “patriotism” in his passion for politics. In the 80’s he was keeping a bit quiet about politics because those were the Reagan’s years and many of his fans loved the then President of the USA as much as him. With the arrival of the ‘90s though, “The Boss” started to lose followers and in order to keep afloat (aka making money) he needed a way to come back into the spotlight, and what a better way than to receive an ovation from the political Left?

The first pivotal moment was the song “American Skin”, written in 2000, in which Springsteen was condemning the NY police for having killed an innocent immigrant, Amadou Diallo. The song was the kind of bad white cops kill innocent black immigrant and was a condemnation of the “zero tolerance” approach of Rudolf Giuliani and a call against anti-racism. Of course, Springsteen never wrote a song about all the policemen killed while on duty or praised Giuliani’s policies that made New York City much safer. Instead, he preferred to concentrate on a tragic episode in order to make himself a “hero” and get some publicity (aka making more money).

September the 11th was the second and more important pivotal moment. The Boss was always known for his tedious attention to details in producing a new album, but with “The Rising” (the album that followed 9/11) it didn’t take him long to produce it. In less than a year, in fact, the album was ready. America was still shaken by the atrocities that happened in New York and the old blue collar hero (who, by the way, has never worked in a factory) was ready to be back at the right time in the limelight.

From then on, it was all about Bush did this and Bush did that. Listening to Springsteen you would think that America was at risk of becoming a dictatorship run by a dick, a bit like Zimbabwe.

President Bush was not for everybody’s taste but it doesn’t take a genius to realise that if you want to save your citizens from further atrocities you have to take some though decisions, whatever that takes. After all, if the terrorists do not care about out rights why should we care about theirs? Does Springsteen really believe that leaving the terrorists alone, they will be leaving us too? Does he really think the US government is imprisoning random people? A man who spent his life singing songs what does he know about the security of the country? Not a word came from Springsteen since 9/11 about the Islamic threat, not a word about the number of Islamic terrorists’ plots that the CIA has stopped from happening.

Thankfully for Springsteen though, now Obama is the President of the USA and he is already “Working on a Dream”.

I am guessing “The Boss” is having a very happy 60th birthday and I am wishing him so, and at least now, with Bush out of the picture, he will hopefully stop talking about what he doesn’t know.

CD Shops vs Spotify

I used to love CD shops, back in the 90's and early 00’s, when I was younger and CD shops were a cool place to spend time and the only place where you could buy music.

Time used to fly in CD shops, looking for rarities, bargains and sometimes both. CDs were expensive at the time and you couldn’t afford many, so when you decided to buy one, you wanted to buy something worth the money.

But nowadays, things have changed so much that the 90's and early 00’s are ancient history.

I went to HMV recently, only because I had a voucher that I received a year ago and I wanted to spend the last £8 remaining. I ended up spending half an hour undecided between Led Zeppelin, Piazzolla and AC DC. I must say, in the last three years I have been in CDs shops only because I had vouchers given to me for my birthdays.

The problem is that I don't enjoy anymore buying CDs in a shop, especially in megastores. First of all, the CD section is shrinking by the day, and soon you will be able to buy only games and DVDs. Secondly, the music I like, rock and jazz, is dying out and the majority of music in the store I cannot make out what it is. Maybe, it's called getting old I suppose, but anyway, what's the point of making the journey to a shop, getting bombarded by loud music, sandwiched between people and then queuing to buy your purchase, when the Internet can do most of the work for you?

If I have to buy a CD I would rather buy it online. On the HMV website, for example, I can listen to 30 seconds of most of the songs, and there and then I can decide to buy the album or not. The price is also generally cheaper than at the store. There are also other websites, like Kazaa (is it still around?) or some others like E-mule where you can download music for free.

However, I recently discovered the best website of all, called Spotify. This site is free and you can access thousands of tracks apart from Beatles, Pink Floyd and some others who have not signed up (yet).

I personally love jazz and at Spotify I can find lots of albums that would cost me a fortune at the shop. That's the thing about jazz, in a shop it's expensive because not many people listen to it but online instead it is, together with classical music, the easiest music to get, maybe because most of the artists are dead or maybe their copyrights did not include any Internet clauses.

With Spotify, like everything else in life, there are downsides too, but only two that I can think of. The first one is advertisement, but the ads are every four songs or so, and they last just ten seconds.

The other downside is that you cannot download music from Spotify into your Mp3 or Ipod.

I am personally rather suspicious of the idea of free things and at the beginning I thought the ads were during the actual songs, similar to when I was a kid and the radio hosts used to talk over the songs to discourage you from recording from the radio and at the same time persuading you to buy the cassette or the CD.

The benefits are, however, more substantial than the downsides and what I like the most about Spotify is, apart from the selection of music, the fact that you don't need to download the music into your computer! You are practically borrowing a CD shop every time you log in and then giving it back.

As far as I am concerned, CD shops do not do for me anymore but, I must say, I still like the very small ones or the ones I visit while I am abroad. I like the feeling of looking through random titles instead of going to a shop where everything you know is where it is supposed to be.

By the way, at the end of my shopping I bought AC DC, maybe because they are not on Spotify... yet.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a man?

Another summer is gone, oh dear, well, at least here in good old England we did have a summer at last. Climate change is finally working but, blimey, it will take a while before matching Brazil or Thailand!

Anyway, summer is all about sport.

England has won the Ashes, apparently. I don’t know anything about cricket, or what some kind of ashes have to do with a sport competition, but it seems like the trophy was a cool thing to bring home. In tennis, Roger Federer has won Wimbledon (again) and Andy Murray still hasn’t managed to win a bloody Grand Slam title. However, the main sporting attraction of the summer was a sportswoman (or sportsman) under the name of Caster Semenya.

Well, as you probably know, Caster Semenya has won the Women's 800 metres of the World Championship of Athletics by a mile. Nothing wrong with that, if it wasn’t that, well… she looks A LOT like a man… I mean much more than Ann Widdecombe does! And she talks like a man, with a pitch of voice that she could be performing as a decent tenor. I could get hold only of an interview of her/him (what the hell) in the web, but the way she/he looks, talks and moves is unquestionably manly, and many people I talked to seem to agree.

The questioning about Semenya’s real gender has been growing for a while, and increasingly so since her stunning victory in the final that IAAF (the International Association of Athletics Federations) has forced Semenya to take a gender test. By that, I don’t mean just checking what she looks like naked, but a thorough examination of her body, internally as well as externally.

The story has obviously created, since the start, a lot of controversy. Not only the issue is rather intriguing, but political and racial ingredients are playing part in the story, and many commentators and members of the public are willing to read into the story other “conspiracy” meanings.

There is, in fact, the customary talking of “raaaacism” by some usual forever-guilty white liberals and from some over-sensitive members of black community who believe all this talking of Semenya’s gender issue has to do with the fact that she is black. Bloody hell, this has nothing to do with race but with gender! In athletics, differences between man and women are huge. I was myself an 800 metres runner back in the ‘90s and with my record (1’ 57” 6) I could have been easily running in the Women's Olympic Final, but as a man I could barely manage to reach the semi-final of a regional event.

The other issue is that the athlete is South African, and this story has apparently been created to discredit a black person from a country guilty in the past of apartheid. Should we then all pretend nothing is happening until we will find a white woman with the same conditions?

Last, let’s not forget, South Africa is hosting the next World Cup of football, and the country is trying to keep a good appearance on the international stage, and a sex scandal, as every US President wannabe knows, is not welcomed.

But now, finally, the test is coming through, and it seems like Semenya is a hermaphrodite after all, in other words not a woman and not a man, but more a man than she and all her supporters and “raaaacist” idiots wanted us to think.

Now what the IAAF is going to do? Strip Semenya of the gold medal? And who is she going to run the next race with… Lily Savage?