if i was to ask you

to imagine to match “a soldier” with “any beautiful woman” , would you think

(a) that i am engineering a mass rape of never-seen-before proportions

(b) that i am engineering a evil, and doomed, repopulation plan

(c) that i mean to protect women from sexual harassments

SOLUTION: (a). And no, Mr. Berlusconi, it is not (c).

oh tempora, oh mores

literally a turmoil on the major English newspapers, when it was reported the news that a 16-year old student passed the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Examination) with the shocking result of 2/27.

too little? too harsh a correction? how could it be possible that a (supposedly) well-taught adolescent is only able to elaborate on the theme “Describe the room where you are sitting in” up to 2 over 27 points?  

FUCK OFF

this was the whole body of his exam essay. 

with this important piece of information revealed, the turmoil takes a different, but equally inflamed, turn: why did he not get zero?

a part from the obvious grammatical and synctactic reasons to give a round zero (capital letters? exclamation mark?), there are quite a few of hidden ones: students should not to make use of vulgar language in official and formal situations, should show respect for the established authorities, show comply to the common understanding that the GCSE is an unappropriate arena to test new form of beat-generation language. 

why then 2/27 (or the 7.5% of the total score)?

1 because there was at least something written

1 because the sentece was carrying some meaning 

1+1 = 2 

the corrector added that if only there would have been an exclamation mark, the grade would have skyrocketed to 3.

now, abstracting from the futility of these comments, one may want to wonder whether Mr. Di Pietro will be willing to blame it on his Oxford education if two days ago he referred to Mr. Berlusconi as a “pimp”. 

the bandits’ circle

now, a good bandit, a serious and -so to speak- respectable bandit has a certain style. he imports cocaine. he deals with nuclear weapons. he bargains with governments and dictators. large scale prostitution, that s already a cheap business.

so, i fancy to imagine that the bandits have their society, you know, some fancy old house in the heart of Knitsbridge, where they meet for a wiskey and a cigar.

“how was the week, Tom?”

“oh, unspectacular, i just had to bribe for 2 millions puonds a couple of policemen, but the cocaine landed safely. what about you, John?”

“oh, pretty good, i had to kill 3 men, not really much, but what can i say, time have changed,,,”

now, i also fancy to imagine this: the doorbell rings, and as soon as the new guest enters the room, loudily patting shoulders and casting smiler, the joyful chit chatting sharply drops, leaving space to a half mouthed conversations:

“i still wondered why they let him in. he is not in international drug import/export. not in nuclear weapon. not in large scale corruption. he does not even do prostitution!”

“i totally agree, John. and look at his manners! oh, no, please, some one stops him from sitting at the piano..”

but the newly arrived sits, and sings along. 

the moral of the story is that once the evil people used to do evil stuff. now they are happy with recommending some too old and too ugly ladies for some second hand tv production. 

and this does not make the real evil ones better: it just makes the “newly arrived” more ridiculous. simply ridiculous.