The night that Paddy Murphy died
Oh the night that Paddy Murphy died, is a night I'll never forget
Some of the boys got loaded drunk, and they ain't got sober yet;
As long as a bottle was passed around every man was feelin' gay
O'Leary came with the bagpipes, some music for to play
Chorus:
That's how they showed their respect for Paddy Murphy
That's how they showed their honour and their pride;
They said it was a sin and shame and they winked at one another
And every drink in the place was full the night Pat Murphy died
As Mrs. Murphy sat in the corner pouring out her grief
Kelly and his gang came tearing down the street
They went into an empty room and a bottle of whiskey stole
They put the bottle with the corpse to keep that whiskey cold
Chorus
About two o'clock in the morning after empty'ing the jug
Doyle rolls up the ice box lid to see poor Paddy's mug
We stopped the clock so Mrs. Murphy couldn't tell the time
And at a quarter after two we argued it was nine
Chorus
They stopped the hearse on George Street outside Sundance Saloon
They all went in at half past eight and staggered out at noon
They went up to the graveyard, so holy and sublime
Found out when they got there, they'd left the corpse behind!
Chorus
Oh the night that Paddy Murphy died, is a night I'll never forget
Some of the boys got loaded drunk and they ain't been sober yet;
As long as a bottle was passed around every man was feelin' gay
O'Leary came with the bagpipes, some music for to play
divendres, 30 de juliol del 2010
dimarts, 27 de juliol del 2010
Ninguna democracia puede o debe luchar en una guerra sin el consentimiento de su pueblo.
Casualmente hablé hace unos días de WikiLeaks -el post anterior a este, que vago que estoy, como cansa el verano, el sol...-, y casualmente ahora está en todos los periódicos del mundo, tras haber publicado 90.000 informes confidenciales del ejército norteamericano que lucha en Afganistán. Sospechas por escrito; que los paquistaníes se mojan en ambos bandos, que hay más muertos civiles y militares de lo que cuentan, errores insalvables... Como cualquier guerra, de la primera a garrotazos a la última a misilazos. ¿Esta bien publicar esta información confidencial en una página web?
Os dejo un artículo de "Los Ángeles Times", del que destaco una frase:
-Ninguna democracia puede o debe luchar en una guerra sin el consentimiento de su pueblo, y el consentimiento sólo tiene sentido si se basa en información real.
WikiLeaks wasn't wrong
What motivates WikiLeaks to post classified material is barely even interesting. The germane question is whether the U.S. and its allies are best served by secrecy or debate. The answer is obvious.
Predictably, this week's release of thousands of classified documents by WikiLeaks — which also provided them to the New York Times, Germany's Der Spiegel and the Guardian in London — has fired up those who believe secrecy fosters national security and who shudder at the idea of journalists rummaging through classified material. Typical was the comment from tiresome Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). WikiLeaks, he maintained, is armed with "an ideological agenda implacably hostile to our military and the most basic requirements of our national security."
To which one is tempted to say: So what?
What motivates WikiLeaks to post classified material is barely even interesting, much less important. Rather, the germane question is whether the United States and its allies are best served by secrecy or debate. And the answer is obvious: No democracy can or should fight a war without the consent of its people, and that consent is only meaningful if it is predicated on real information.
That is not to say classified material should be published in haste or with indifference. Thankfully, WikiLeaks and its media colleagues appear to have behaved thoughtfully in their handling of these documents. The New York Times sought and received guidance from the Obama administration on especially sensitive materials, and even WikiLeaks redacted thousands of pages that included names of people whose safety might be jeopardized. Those are the actions of responsible journalists.
The WikiLeaks materials have been likened to the Pentagon Papers, an exaggeration but not an entirely inapt comparison. The new documents offer insight primarily into the war-fighting of the recently departed George W. Bush administration; the Pentagon Papers ended with the Johnson administration and were not published until Richard Nixon was president. But much of the WikiLeaks material emanates from the field, so although it makes for gripping reading, it lacks the deep policy implications of the Pentagon Papers.
In 1971, the Supreme Court rebuffed Nixon's attempt to thwart publication of that historic report, and Justice Hugo Black concurred with an opinion that offers timely rebuttal to Lieberman and others who deplore the publication of these latest documents. In crafting the 1st Amendment, Black wrote, the founders understood that security was not best protected by secrecy but by scrutiny.
"The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people," Black wrote. "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
Os dejo un artículo de "Los Ángeles Times", del que destaco una frase:
-Ninguna democracia puede o debe luchar en una guerra sin el consentimiento de su pueblo, y el consentimiento sólo tiene sentido si se basa en información real.
WikiLeaks wasn't wrong
What motivates WikiLeaks to post classified material is barely even interesting. The germane question is whether the U.S. and its allies are best served by secrecy or debate. The answer is obvious.
Predictably, this week's release of thousands of classified documents by WikiLeaks — which also provided them to the New York Times, Germany's Der Spiegel and the Guardian in London — has fired up those who believe secrecy fosters national security and who shudder at the idea of journalists rummaging through classified material. Typical was the comment from tiresome Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). WikiLeaks, he maintained, is armed with "an ideological agenda implacably hostile to our military and the most basic requirements of our national security."
To which one is tempted to say: So what?
What motivates WikiLeaks to post classified material is barely even interesting, much less important. Rather, the germane question is whether the United States and its allies are best served by secrecy or debate. And the answer is obvious: No democracy can or should fight a war without the consent of its people, and that consent is only meaningful if it is predicated on real information.
That is not to say classified material should be published in haste or with indifference. Thankfully, WikiLeaks and its media colleagues appear to have behaved thoughtfully in their handling of these documents. The New York Times sought and received guidance from the Obama administration on especially sensitive materials, and even WikiLeaks redacted thousands of pages that included names of people whose safety might be jeopardized. Those are the actions of responsible journalists.
The WikiLeaks materials have been likened to the Pentagon Papers, an exaggeration but not an entirely inapt comparison. The new documents offer insight primarily into the war-fighting of the recently departed George W. Bush administration; the Pentagon Papers ended with the Johnson administration and were not published until Richard Nixon was president. But much of the WikiLeaks material emanates from the field, so although it makes for gripping reading, it lacks the deep policy implications of the Pentagon Papers.
In 1971, the Supreme Court rebuffed Nixon's attempt to thwart publication of that historic report, and Justice Hugo Black concurred with an opinion that offers timely rebuttal to Lieberman and others who deplore the publication of these latest documents. In crafting the 1st Amendment, Black wrote, the founders understood that security was not best protected by secrecy but by scrutiny.
"The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people," Black wrote. "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
dimecres, 21 de juliol del 2010
WikiLeaks, la página de las conspiraciones
WikiLeaks, una página donde puedes encontrar documentos secretos de gobiernos, compañías, poderosos... Una auténtica mina para los fans de las conspiraciones, los curiosos y los que quieran conocer más de este mundo tan "correcto" en el que vivimos. Os dejo un artículo publicado en "The New Yorker" sobre WikiLeaks, vale la pena, es muy extenso pero curioso e interesante.
No Secrets
Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency.
by Raffi Khatchadourian
June 7, 2010
The house on Grettisgata Street, in Reykjavik, is a century old, small and white, situated just a few streets from the North Atlantic. The shifting northerly winds can suddenly bring ice and snow to the city, even in springtime, and when they do a certain kind of silence sets in. This was the case on the morning of March 30th, when a tall Australian man named Julian Paul Assange, with gray eyes and a mop of silver-white hair, arrived to rent the place. Assange was dressed in a gray full-body snowsuit, and he had with him a small entourage. “We are journalists,” he told the owner of the house. Eyjafjallajökull had recently begun erupting, and he said, “We’re here to write about the volcano.” After the owner left, Assange quickly closed the drapes, and he made sure that they stayed closed, day and night. The house, as far as he was concerned, would now serve as a war room; people called it the Bunker. Half a dozen computers were set up in a starkly decorated, white-walled living space. Icelandic activists arrived, and they began to work, more or less at Assange’s direction, around the clock. Their focus was Project B—Assange’s code name for a thirty-eight-minute video taken from the cockpit of an Apache military helicopter in Iraq in 2007. The video depicted American soldiers killing at least eighteen people, including two Reuters journalists; it later became the subject of widespread controversy, but at this early stage it was still a closely guarded military secret.
Assange is an international trafficker, of sorts. He and his colleagues collect documents and imagery that governments and other institutions regard as confidential and publish them on a Web site called WikiLeaks.org. Since it went online, three and a half years ago, the site has published an extensive catalogue of secret material, ranging from the Standard Operating Procedures at Camp Delta, in Guantánamo Bay, and the “Climategate” e-mails from the University of East Anglia, in England, to the contents of Sarah Palin’s private Yahoo account. The catalogue is especially remarkable because WikiLeaks is not quite an organization; it is better described as a media insurgency. It has no paid staff, no copiers, no desks, no office. Assange does not even have a home. He travels from country to country, staying with supporters, or friends of friends—as he once put it to me, “I’m living in airports these days.” He is the operation’s prime mover, and it is fair to say that WikiLeaks exists wherever he does. At the same time, hundreds of volunteers from around the world help maintain the Web site’s complicated infrastructure; many participate in small ways, and between three and five people dedicate themselves to it full time. Key members are known only by initials—M, for instance—even deep within WikiLeaks, where communications are conducted by encrypted online chat services. The secretiveness stems from the belief that a populist intelligence operation with virtually no resources, designed to publicize information that powerful institutions do not want public, will have serious adversaries.
Aquí el artículo completo
No Secrets
Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency.
by Raffi Khatchadourian
June 7, 2010
The house on Grettisgata Street, in Reykjavik, is a century old, small and white, situated just a few streets from the North Atlantic. The shifting northerly winds can suddenly bring ice and snow to the city, even in springtime, and when they do a certain kind of silence sets in. This was the case on the morning of March 30th, when a tall Australian man named Julian Paul Assange, with gray eyes and a mop of silver-white hair, arrived to rent the place. Assange was dressed in a gray full-body snowsuit, and he had with him a small entourage. “We are journalists,” he told the owner of the house. Eyjafjallajökull had recently begun erupting, and he said, “We’re here to write about the volcano.” After the owner left, Assange quickly closed the drapes, and he made sure that they stayed closed, day and night. The house, as far as he was concerned, would now serve as a war room; people called it the Bunker. Half a dozen computers were set up in a starkly decorated, white-walled living space. Icelandic activists arrived, and they began to work, more or less at Assange’s direction, around the clock. Their focus was Project B—Assange’s code name for a thirty-eight-minute video taken from the cockpit of an Apache military helicopter in Iraq in 2007. The video depicted American soldiers killing at least eighteen people, including two Reuters journalists; it later became the subject of widespread controversy, but at this early stage it was still a closely guarded military secret.
Assange is an international trafficker, of sorts. He and his colleagues collect documents and imagery that governments and other institutions regard as confidential and publish them on a Web site called WikiLeaks.org. Since it went online, three and a half years ago, the site has published an extensive catalogue of secret material, ranging from the Standard Operating Procedures at Camp Delta, in Guantánamo Bay, and the “Climategate” e-mails from the University of East Anglia, in England, to the contents of Sarah Palin’s private Yahoo account. The catalogue is especially remarkable because WikiLeaks is not quite an organization; it is better described as a media insurgency. It has no paid staff, no copiers, no desks, no office. Assange does not even have a home. He travels from country to country, staying with supporters, or friends of friends—as he once put it to me, “I’m living in airports these days.” He is the operation’s prime mover, and it is fair to say that WikiLeaks exists wherever he does. At the same time, hundreds of volunteers from around the world help maintain the Web site’s complicated infrastructure; many participate in small ways, and between three and five people dedicate themselves to it full time. Key members are known only by initials—M, for instance—even deep within WikiLeaks, where communications are conducted by encrypted online chat services. The secretiveness stems from the belief that a populist intelligence operation with virtually no resources, designed to publicize information that powerful institutions do not want public, will have serious adversaries.
Aquí el artículo completo
dimecres, 14 de juliol del 2010
Porqué jugué a rugby
Un día llevé el catorce en mi espalda, estuve cerca de un ensayo pero un zagueró me mandó tres metros fuera del campo, entré en algunos rucks pero todavía no he salido de muchos, me placaron y plaqué poco, me divertí, fueron buenos tiempos.
dimecres, 7 de juliol del 2010
La Pancarta
El meu pacient ha tornat, per parlar de la seva salut i sobretot de la salut del país.
-Tots estan d’acord en fer una manifestació, tots creuen que ha estat una ofensa a Catalunya el retallar l’estatut, tots tenim una idea, però els polítics van a la seva, a buscar el vots, a sortir als diaris, pasta gansa, reconeixement al meu partit, pensions vitalícies, dietes, sexe amagat, drogues de consum propi, poc rock and roll, ara tot es pop lleuger de nenets sense sang...
-Home, tots, tots no crec. Al referèndum de l’estatut van anar la meitat dels catalans i el setanta per cent van votar a favor, llavors ens queden 35 catalans a favor, 15 en contra i 50 que no estan interessats en el tema.
-Bé, però els que van voler dir la seva van tenir la seva oportunitat.
-Amb això tens raó.
-I ara el que tenim son uns que volen una bandera, uns altres que volen una frase, uns que en volen dos i uns altres tres. No aprenem mai. El nostre problema es aquest, que un cop darrera l’altre caiem en el mateix lloc del camí. Un forat immens i nosaltres a dins de cap, sense preguntar, sense mirar, endavant i fot-li fort.
-Com els rucs.
-Exacte, com el animal que ens representa al cul dels cotxes. ¿Recordes quan es van fer les primeres consultes per la independència? Van sortir alcaldes dient que volien presentar-se a President de la Generalitat, organitzadors de consultes que també ho volien ser, gent que volia formar nous partits. Tots buscant una sola cosa, el seu benefici propi utilitzant una il·lusió col·lectiva. No tenim més que una colla de ximples que es baralla per les primeres lletres d’una manifestació.
-I tu, que posaries a la pancarta?
-Aneu tots a prendre pel sac, sobretot els que aneu a primer fila.
-Collons, amb aquest lema fins i tot jo vindria.
-Tots estan d’acord en fer una manifestació, tots creuen que ha estat una ofensa a Catalunya el retallar l’estatut, tots tenim una idea, però els polítics van a la seva, a buscar el vots, a sortir als diaris, pasta gansa, reconeixement al meu partit, pensions vitalícies, dietes, sexe amagat, drogues de consum propi, poc rock and roll, ara tot es pop lleuger de nenets sense sang...
-Home, tots, tots no crec. Al referèndum de l’estatut van anar la meitat dels catalans i el setanta per cent van votar a favor, llavors ens queden 35 catalans a favor, 15 en contra i 50 que no estan interessats en el tema.
-Bé, però els que van voler dir la seva van tenir la seva oportunitat.
-Amb això tens raó.
-I ara el que tenim son uns que volen una bandera, uns altres que volen una frase, uns que en volen dos i uns altres tres. No aprenem mai. El nostre problema es aquest, que un cop darrera l’altre caiem en el mateix lloc del camí. Un forat immens i nosaltres a dins de cap, sense preguntar, sense mirar, endavant i fot-li fort.
-Com els rucs.
-Exacte, com el animal que ens representa al cul dels cotxes. ¿Recordes quan es van fer les primeres consultes per la independència? Van sortir alcaldes dient que volien presentar-se a President de la Generalitat, organitzadors de consultes que també ho volien ser, gent que volia formar nous partits. Tots buscant una sola cosa, el seu benefici propi utilitzant una il·lusió col·lectiva. No tenim més que una colla de ximples que es baralla per les primeres lletres d’una manifestació.
-I tu, que posaries a la pancarta?
-Aneu tots a prendre pel sac, sobretot els que aneu a primer fila.
-Collons, amb aquest lema fins i tot jo vindria.
diumenge, 4 de juliol del 2010
La nacionalidad de Jesucristo
Un poquito de humor, que falta nos hace.
Hay tres buenas razones para creer que Jesús era negro :
1) Llamaba a todo el mundo 'hermano'.
2) Le gustaba el Gospel y
3) No pudo conseguir un juicio justo.
Pero también hay tres buenas razones para creer que era italiano :
1) Se metió en el 'negocio' de su padre.
2) Vivió en casa de sus padres hasta los 33 años y
3) Estaba seguro de que su madre era virgen, y su madre estaba segura de que su hijo era Dios.
También tenemos tres buenos argumentos para decir que Jesús era californiano:
1) Llevaba el pelo largo.
2) Iba descalzo todo el día y
3) Empezó una nueva religión.
O tres buenas razones para creer que era irlandés:
1) Nunca se casó..
2) Siempre andaba contando cuentos
3) Le gustaba la naturaleza.
Pero la evidencia más importante de todas, es que hay tres pruebas de que Jesús era.....
UNA MUJER !!!!
1) Tuvo que improvisar una comida para alimentar a una multitud que vino sin avisar.
2) Intentó hacer llegar su mensaje a un puñado de hombres que 'no lo pillaron'
3) Incluso después de morir tuvo que levantarse porque quedaba mucho trabajo por hacer.
Hay tres buenas razones para creer que Jesús era negro :
1) Llamaba a todo el mundo 'hermano'.
2) Le gustaba el Gospel y
3) No pudo conseguir un juicio justo.
Pero también hay tres buenas razones para creer que era italiano :
1) Se metió en el 'negocio' de su padre.
2) Vivió en casa de sus padres hasta los 33 años y
3) Estaba seguro de que su madre era virgen, y su madre estaba segura de que su hijo era Dios.
También tenemos tres buenos argumentos para decir que Jesús era californiano:
1) Llevaba el pelo largo.
2) Iba descalzo todo el día y
3) Empezó una nueva religión.
O tres buenas razones para creer que era irlandés:
1) Nunca se casó..
2) Siempre andaba contando cuentos
3) Le gustaba la naturaleza.
Pero la evidencia más importante de todas, es que hay tres pruebas de que Jesús era.....
UNA MUJER !!!!
1) Tuvo que improvisar una comida para alimentar a una multitud que vino sin avisar.
2) Intentó hacer llegar su mensaje a un puñado de hombres que 'no lo pillaron'
3) Incluso después de morir tuvo que levantarse porque quedaba mucho trabajo por hacer.
Subscriure's a:
Missatges (Atom)