Translate

Trump a "sexist smear"



Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., called President Donald Trump's Twitter attack on her a "sexist smear" meant to silence her and those who have accused him of sexual misconduct after the two sparred on Twitter on Tuesday.
Trump, in an early morning tweet, called Gillibrand a "lightweight" and a "total flunky" for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who also represents New York, a day after she called on the president to resign amid a series of sexual misconduct and assault allegations against him.
d
He also claimed she would beg for campaign contributions "not so long ago" — before he was a politician — suggesting she "would do anything for them."
"Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office 'begging' for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!" the president tweeted.
Gillibrand, at a Tuesday news conference, continued to excoriate the president for the suggestive remark and said she will continue to call for him to step down.
"It’s not going to silence me," she said.
"Their voices also will not be silenced," she added, referring to the president's accusers, "and neither will the millions of women and men who have marched against the president and his policies."
Gillibrand said Congress should open an investigation into the president because "it’s the right thing to do."
Federal campaign records show that Trump donated to Gillibrand's campaign during her 2010 special election run, including $2,400 for the primary and general election. He also donated $1,050 to her congressional campaign in 2007-2008. He also gave $2,100 to the Gillibrand Victory Fund PAC in 2007, according to federal campaign records.
Trump’s attack was prompted after Gillibrand told CNN in an interview on Monday that the president should step aside amid the dozens of allegations from women, which range from inappropriate touching to sexual assault.
"President Trump has committed assault, according to these women, and those are very credible allegations of misconduct and criminal activity, and he should be fully investigated and he should resign," Gillibrand told CNN.
The president has been accused of sexual harassment or assault by more than a dozen women. He has forcefully denied all allegations.
Gillibrand responded to the barb-laced tweet with one of her own, vowing to continue to talk about the allegations against him and call on Congress to investigate the president.
"You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office," the senator tweeted.
Several of Gillibrand's Democratic colleagues have since come to her side. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who frequently tussles with the president, called the attack an attempt "to bully, intimidate and slut-shame" Gillibrand.
"Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand? Do you know who you're picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump. Nevertheless, #shepersisted," Warren tweeted.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, also defended Gillibrand and attacked the president.
"He’s a misogynist and admitted sexual predator and a liar. The only thing that will stop him from attacking us, because nobody is safe, is his resignation," she said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters on Tuesday, that the president will falter in his attempt to bully Gillibrand.
"I could just tell you that the president will fail in any effort to intimidate Kirsten Gillibrand. It ain’t going to work," he said. "If anything she is going to be strengthened in her efforts. She is a pretty determined person."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., tweeted: "I stand with Sen. Gillibrand, a dedicated public servant and friend. America must reject Trump’s sexist slurs."
After Gillibrand's CNN appearance, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., also called for Trump to resign and called on Congress to investigate.

Steve Bannon, consigliori di Trump, manda all'inferno Ivanka




(From Palmer Report)
Steve Bannon is having a really bad week, and he may have just made it even worse for himself. Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos implicated Bannon in the Trump-Russia scandal, prompting at least one prominent cable news pundit to assert that Bannon is going to prison. Now questions are being asked about why Special Counsel Robert Mueller hasn’t yet questioned Bannon. Tonight, Bannon decided to very publicly take out his frustrations on, of all people, Ivanka Trump.Bannon spoke at a rally in Alabama on Monday night for accused child molester Roy Moore. Things started off poorly for Bannon when he inexplicably insulted Joe Scarborough for having attended the University of Alabama. Then Bannon said ”there’s a special place in hell for Republicans who should know better.” This was a clear attack on Ivanka Trump, who recently said that “there’s a special place in hell” for child molesters.
So at this point Steve Bannon is publicly telling Donald Trump’s daughter to go to hell. Making things even more uncomfortable for everyone involved, Donald endorsed Roy Moore shortly after Ivanka condemned him. But the real story here is Bannon’s meltdown.
Donald Trump won’t be happy with Steve Bannon for taking such an ugly shot at Ivanka, and he could end up firing back at Bannon on Twitter. Then again, it’s widely reported that Donald and Ivanka are feuding as it is. In any case Bannon seems to be rapidly coming apart under the pressure of the Trump-Russia investigation, if it can be said that someone like Bannon ever had it together to begin with.

L’incontro più freddo fra gli Stati Uniti e i suoi alleati europei



Alberto Pasolini Zanelli
Quello di Bruxelles è stato l’incontro più freddo fra gli Stati Uniti e i suoi alleati europei. Non importa se non a livelli governativi: ugualmente significativo anche se condotti da dei ministri degli Esteri e non proprio da capi dello Stato o da primi ministri. Comunque il più gelido degli ultimi settant’anni, cioè da quando George Marshall sigillò, poco dopo la fine della Seconda guerra mondiale, la nascita di una comunità atlantica, la più durevole alleanza della Storia. A crearla fu un presidente Usa di nome Harry Truman. Oggi alla Casa Bianca abita Donald Trump, che potrebbe rimanere agli annali come l’autore del divorzio atlantico.
Per ora nel linguaggio. L’occasione è stata un incontro fra i ministri degli Esteri della Nato e della Comunità europea a Bruxelles. Fra i protagonisti l’attuale segretario di Stato americano Rex Tillerson e i suoi colleghi dei Paesi europei più importanti e inquieti. Lo ha ricordato il ministro degli Esteri tedesco Gabriel, che ha sottolineato e riassunto le “innovazioni” di Trump, che consistono nel vedere il pianeta come un’arena per competizione e anche come un avversario economico.
Ma non soltanto: gli hanno spiegato i protagonisti del “vertice”, primo fra tutti il presidente francese Macron in un colloquio telefonico con Trump, in risposta all’annuncio del presidente Usa di una decisione che certamente esacerberà una crisi regionale ormai antica come quella in Palestina, con l’annuncio che l’America è ora disposta a trasferire la sede della sua ambasciata da Tel Aviv a Gerusalemme. E che probabilmente si riverberà in tutto il Medio Oriente, a cominciare da Paesi come la Siria che ha appena – o forse – finito di soffrire sette anni di guerra nominalmente civile e del Paese che è tuttora al centro di tensioni che potrebbero riguardare l’Iran, nell’interesse esclusivo, oltre che di Israele, anche e soprattutto di una o due potenze arabe, ma certamente non degli europei. “Una cattiva idea” -, ha ammonito il presidente francese, quasi quanto la decisione, che ha aperto il primo quadriennio di Trump, di cancellare l’impegno preso dagli Stati Uniti nel trattato di Parigi di controllare e limitare i futuri energetici.
L’intervento di Macron, il politicamente più giovane fra tutti i leader europei, era probabilmente il più atteso, ma alla fine le novità importanti e le domande più puntute, sono venute dal ministro degli Esteri di Berlino, anche perché egli in questo momento rappresenta e sostituisce un governo che non c’è e sopratutto Angela Merkel, protagonista dopo anni di potere di settimane difficili e imbarazzanti di impotenza e di scelte molto difficili, soprattutto perché conseguenza di una sconfitta elettorale dovuta in parte alla sua decisione di aprire le porte agli immigrati dal Medio Oriente e dal Africa, imbarcandone un milione in un anno. Paese di tradizionale stabilità parlamentare e governativa, che hanno frustrato le sue iniziative di formare nuove maggioranze e probabilmente la obbligheranno a tenersi come partner i socialdemocratici e come ministro degli Esteri Gabriel che, anche se finisse con l’essere sacrificato alla ristrutturazione governativa, avrà  chiarito le intenzioni della Germania in Europa e, molto probabilmente, con l’Europa nel mondo. Ruolo rischioso e arduo, che implica una contrapposizione con le “novità” di Trump (che includono i rapporti con Iran e quelli con la Russia con un presidente Usa che sembra pronto a resuscitare brani e umori da Guerra Fredda che nella campagna elettorale che egli aveva attribuito a Hillary Clinton). Una “novità” non tanto nuova, come del resto le ultime “svolte” di Donald Trump.

Trump vuole farsi la propria CIA

A dimostrazione dei pessimi rapporti tra il Presidente e le istituzioni americane di intelligence Articolo pubblicato su The Interceptor

Trump White House Weighing Plans for Private Spies to Counter “Deep State” Enemies

Matthew ColeJeremy Scahill

The Trump administration is considering a set of proposals developed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a retired CIA officer — with assistance from Oliver North, a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal — to provide CIA Director Mike Pompeo and the White House with a global, private spy network that would circumvent official U.S. intelligence agencies, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials and others familiar with the proposals. The sources say the plans have been pitched to the White House as a means of countering “deep state” enemies in the intelligence community seeking to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency.
The creation of such a program raises the possibility that the effort would be used to create an intelligence apparatus to justify the Trump administration’s political agenda.
“Pompeo can’t trust the CIA bureaucracy, so we need to create this thing that reports just directly to him,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with firsthand knowledge of the proposals, in describing White House discussions. “It is a direct-action arm, totally off the books,” this person said, meaning the intelligence collected would not be shared with the rest of the CIA or the larger intelligence community. “The whole point is this is supposed to report to the president and Pompeo directly.”
North, who appears frequently on Trump’s favorite TV network, Fox News, was enlisted to help sell the effort to the administration. He was the “ideological leader” brought in to lend credibility, said the former senior intelligence official.
Some of the individuals involved with the proposals secretly met with major Trump donors asking them to help finance operations before any official contracts were signed.


The proposals would utilize an army of spies with no official cover in several countries deemed “denied areas” for current American intelligence personnel, including North Korea and Iran. The White House has also considered creating a new global rendition unit meant to capture terrorist suspects around the world, as well as a propaganda campaign in the Middle East and Europe to combat Islamic extremism and Iran.
“I can find no evidence that this ever came to the attention of anyone at the NSC or [White House] at all,” wrote Michael N. Anton, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, in an email. “The White House does not and would not support such a proposal.” But a current U.S. intelligence official appeared to contradict that assertion, stating that the various proposals were first pitched at the White House before being delivered to the CIA. The Intercept reached out to several senior officials that sources said had been briefed on the plans by Prince, including Vice President Mike Pence. His spokesperson wrote there was “no record of [Prince] ever having met with or briefed the VP.” North did not respond to a request for comment.
According to two former senior intelligence officials, Pompeo has embraced the plan and lobbied the White House to approve the contract. Asked for comment, a CIA spokesperson said, “You have been provided wildly inaccurate information by people peddling an agenda.”
At the heart of the scheme being considered by the White House are Blackwater founder Erik Prince and his longtime associate, CIA veteran John R. Maguire, who currently works for the intelligence contractor Amyntor Group. Maguire also served on Trump’s transition team. Amyntor’s role was first reported by BuzzFeed News.
Michael Barry, who was recently named NSC senior director for intelligence programs, worked closely with Prince on a CIA assassination program during the Bush administration.
Prince and Maguire deny they are working together. Those assertions, however, are challenged by current and former U.S. officials and Trump donors who say the two men were collaborating.
As with many arrangements in the world of CIA contracting and clandestine operations, details of who is in charge of various proposals are murky by design and change depending on which players are speaking. An Amyntor official said Prince was not “formally linked to any contract proposal by Amyntor.” In an email, Prince rejected the suggestion that he was involved with the proposals. When asked if he has knowledge of this project, Prince replied: “I was/am not part of any of those alleged efforts.”
The former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the efforts scoffed at Prince’s denials. “Erik’s proposal had no company names on the slides,” this person said, “but there is no doubt that Prince and Maguire were working together.”
Prince and Maguire have a long professional relationship. Maguire recently completed a stint as a consultant with Prince’s company, Frontier Services Group, a Hong Kong-based security and logistics company partially owned by the Chinese government. FSG has no known connections to the private spy plan.
Prince has strong ties to the Trump administration: His sister Betsy DeVos is secretary of education, he was a major donor to the Trump election campaign, and he advised the transition team on intelligence and defense appointments, as The Intercept has previously reported. Prince has also contributed to Pence’s campaigns.
Maguire spent more than two decades as a paramilitary officer in the CIA, including tours in Central America working with the Contras. He has extensive experience in the Middle East, where he helped plan the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Maguire and Prince met together in September with a senior CIA official at a Virginia restaurant to discuss privatizing the war in Afghanistan.
Prince told a top fundraiser that Maguire was working on part of his Afghanistan plan, characterizing it as the first part of a multi-pronged program. The fundraiser added that Prince never directly asked him for money. But sources close to the project say Maguire did seek private funding for Amyntor’s efforts until a CIA contract materialized. “They’ve been going around asking for a bridge loan to float their operations until the CIA says yes,” said a person who has been briefed on the fundraising efforts.
Beginning last spring and into the summer, Maguire and a group of Amyntor representatives began asking Trump donors to support their intelligence efforts in Afghanistan, the initial piece of what they hoped would be a broader program. Some Trump fundraisers were asked to provide introductions to companies and wealthy clients who would then hire Amyntor for economic intelligence contracts. Maguire explained that some of the profit from those business deals would fund their foreign intelligence collection. Others were asked to give money outright.
“[Maguire] said there were people inside the CIA who joined in the previous eight years [under Obama] and inside the government, and they were failing to give the president the intelligence he needed,” said a person who was pitched by Maguire and other Amyntor personnel. To support his claim, Maguire told at least two people that National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, in coordination with a top official at the National Security Agency, authorized surveillance of Steven Bannon and Trump family members, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. Adding to these unsubstantiated claims, Maguire told the potential donors he also had evidence McMaster used a burner phone to send information gathered through the surveillance to a facility in Cyprus owned by George Soros.
Amyntor employees took potential donors to a suite in the Trump Hotel in Washington, which they claimed was set up to conduct “secure communications.” Some White House staff and Trump campaign supporters came to refer to the suite as “the tinfoil room,” according to one person who visited the suite. This account was confirmed by another source to whom the room was described. “John [Maguire] was certain that the deep state was going to kick the president out of office within a year,” said a person who discussed it with Maguire. “These guys said they were protecting the president.”
Maguire and others at Amyntor have boasted that they have already sent intelligence reports to Pompeo.
Oliver North testifying before Congress in 1986, and Erik Prince testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2007, in Washington, D.C.
Photos: AFP/Getty, AP
Prince, Maguire, and North have long shared a common frustration over the failure of the U.S. government to bring two suspects from a high-profile terrorist event in the 1980s to justice. Last summer, Maguire discussed rendering the suspects with White House officials after learning the men had been located in the Middle East. Despite having no U.S. government approval, associates of Maguire began working on a snatch operation earlier this year, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Prince colleague.
Maguire, concerned that the FBI would not take action, made an offer to senior White House officials. The message, according to a person with direct knowledge of the rendition plan, was: “We’re going to go get these guys and bring them to the U.S. Who should we hand them over to?”
The rendition plan was meant to be a demonstration that Maguire and his associates had an active intelligence network and the capability to grab suspects around the world. Prince maintains he has nothing to do with that plan. But according to a source with extensive knowledge of Prince’s networks, Prince was working in parallel to assemble a team to help apprehend the men.
According to two people who have worked extensively with Prince in recent years, Prince has been contacting former Blackwater personnel who worked on a post-9/11 era CIA assassination program targeting Al Qaeda operatives. That program, which the Bush White House prohibited the CIA from disclosing to congressional intelligence committees, was revealed to Congress in 2009 by then-CIA Director Leon Panetta. The CIA says the program did not result in any assassinations.
Among the capabilities Prince offers is a network of deniable assets —  spies, fixers, foreign intelligence agents — spread across the globe that could be used by the White House. “You pick any country in the world Erik’s been in, and it’s there,” said a longtime Prince associate. “They’re a network of very dark individuals.” The associate, who has worked extensively with Prince, then began rattling off places where the private spies and paramilitaries already operate — Saudi Arabia, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, “all across North Africa.”
Opaque contracting arrangements are typical for Prince, who became a lightning rod in his Blackwater days and now prefers to minimize controversy by operating in the shadows, disguising his involvement in sensitive operations with layers of subcontractors and elaborately crafted legal structures. “That’s his exact MO,” said the longtime Prince associate, adding that Prince consistently attempts to ensure plausible deniability of his role in U.S. and foreign government contracts.
“I have zero to do with any such effort and saying that I did/do would be categorically false,” Prince said in his email to The Intercept. “Knowingly publishing false information exposes you to civil legal action. The only effort I’ve quite publicly pitched is an alternative to Afghanistan.”
Erik Prince, then-CEO of Blackwater Worldwide, drives through campus where he could conduct training in Moyock, N.C. in 2008.
Photo: Gerry Broome/AP
The intelligence and covert action program would mark an unorthodox return to government service for Prince, the onetime CIA contractor who built a mercenary force that became notorious during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would also raise new questions about Prince’s foreign entanglements since he sold Blackwater.
In addition to Prince’s former assassination network, the hidden cadre of spies with no official cover — NOCs in CIA jargon — includes the assets of another key player in the Iran-Contra affair, CIA Officer Duane Clarridge, who died in 2016. Maguire, who worked under Clarridge as a young CIA paramilitary in Central America during the mid-1980s, took over the network of contract spies, who operate mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Last summer, as Prince pushed his public proposal to privatize the war in Afghanistan, he and Maguire had broader ambitions, according to a person involved in the discussions. “The goal was to eventually get their network of NOCs worldwide, but they initially started with Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
“Prince seems to be firing on a lot of cylinders and pitching overt and covert plans,” said a current intelligence officer who has closely monitored Prince’s career and been briefed on several of Prince’s recent efforts, including the proposals to Pompeo. The official declined to discuss details of the plans but pointed to Prince’s much-discussed pitch to privatize the war in Afghanistan as a smokescreen for offering other more controversial programs and operations.
Prince’s Afghanistan plan, which received substantial media attention and got a hearing at the highest levels of the Trump administration, “was brilliant because it changed the narrative and made him relevant,” the officer said, referring to Prince’s scandal- and investigation-plagued career at Blackwater. The officer also added that the very public Afghanistan pitch, replete with cable news interviews and op-eds, provided a legitimate reason “to justify meeting with people” at the White House, CIA, or other government agencies.
“Erik has no hobbies,” said the longtime Prince associate. “Counterterrorism is his hobby.”
In some ways, these plans mirror operations Prince led during the Bush-Cheney administration. When Prince was running Blackwater, he and a former CIA paramilitary officer, Enrique Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their “deniability” as a “big plus” for potential Blackwater customers, according to internal company communications obtained by The Intercept.
In a 2007 email, with the subject “Possible Opportunity in DEA—READ AND DELETE,” Prado sought to pitch the network to the Drug Enforcement Administration, bragging that Blackwater had developed “a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations.” He added, “These are all foreign nationals (except for a few cases where US persons are the conduit but no longer ‘play’ on the street), so deniability is built in and should be a big plus.”
The longtime Prince associate said that the nexus of deniable assets has never gone away. “The NOC network is already there. It already exists for the better part of 15 years now,” he said.
Prince has long admired North and viewed his role in Iran-Contra as heroic, said the Prince associate. In 2007, Prince testified defiantly before Congress following the Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, in which Blackwater operatives gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians, including women and children. Shortly after his testimony, Prince’s longtime friend, conservative California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, praised the Blackwater chief. “Prince,” Rohrabacher said, “is on his way to being an American hero just like Ollie North was.”
North, a Marine lieutenant colonel on the Reagan National Security Council, oversaw a scheme to divert proceeds from illicit arms sales to Iran to Contra death squads in Nicaragua. The resulting scandal became known as the Iran-Contra affair, and North was convicted of three felonies, though these convictions were later thrown out.
Both North and Maguire attended a small reception in 2014 celebrating Prince’s third marriage — to his former spokesperson Stacy DeLuke. “It was an intimate affair,” said the Prince associate. “Only Erik’s closest friends were invited to that reception.” On election night in 2016, DeLuke posted photos on social media from inside Trump headquarters.
On November 30, Prince testified behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee about his January trip to the Seychelles to meet with Mohammad bin Zayed, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, and a Russian fund manager close to Vladimir Putin. According to the Washington Post, Prince presented himself as an unofficial envoy of President-elect Trump. The Intercept reported last week that the fund manager was Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Prince repeatedly said that he did not remember the identity of the Russian, but on Thursday, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Prince admitted that he did in fact meet with Dmitriev.
Prince may have revealed part of his strategy in a July 2016 radio interview with Steve Bannon, when he proposed recreating the CIA’s Phoenix Program, an assassination ring used in the Vietnam War, to battle the Islamic State. Prince said in the interview that the program would be used to kill or capture “the funders of Islamic terror, the wealthy radical Islamist billionaires funding it from the Middle East.”

Casa Italiana Language School: “Love in poetry and popular music”

(da Facebook di Casa Italiana)

Casa Italiana is very fortunate that a person of the caliber of Oscar Bartoli has personally designed this one of a kind course about love, its evolving expressions and how poetry and music convey love.
“Love in poetry and popular music”, a unique course created by Oscar, starts with the worship of women as angels by Dante contrasted with Lorenzo il Magnifico’s concept of women as confidants, lovers and partners in life.
The second third will explore how poetry sparked the love songs of Naples in the 50s and 60s. 
Part three will examine love in the family, between mother, father and child though poetry in songs and love of nation by soldiers who give their lives in war and the love of martyrs for their religion.

Part four speeds on to modern love, pornography, modern masculinity, feminism and the chaos and temporary nature of today’s relationships. 
Oscar paid his way through college as a professional guitarist and singer in clubs and on TV and Radio and will sing these songs for you. You will learn how love is shared and intensified through poetry.
ABOUT OSCAR BARTOLI
Oscar has advised top CEOs on speaking compelling Italian, taught journalism for ten years in the prestigious private Luiss University in Rome and also at Catholic University in Washington DC and has a blog followed by 300 hundred thousand. Now he is teaching at MICRI (Master in Relazioni Internazionali) at IULM (Libera Università di Lingue e Comunicazione) in Milano.
Oscar has written several books and served as advisor to top leaders in Italy on how to persuasively communicate in a way that moves people to action. Born in Venezia and raised in Florence, the birthplace of the modern Italian language, from Oscar you will learn the most correct way and beautiful way to speak the language of love, Italian, but with the precision of a lawyer and seasoned journalist.  
The course will be in Italian for students who considered themselves advanced. Oscar will give us a broad brush of love Italian style through music, novels, poetry, songs and the contemporary culture in the US and Italy.  
When: Each Tuesday (January 23- April 10) from 6:30 PM to 9:00 Pm / 
          Each Saturday (January 27 - April 21) from10.00 AM - 12.30 PM 
Where: Casa Italiana 3rd street

Time’s Person of the Year is ‘The Silence Breakers’ of #MeToo movement

"The Silence Breakers" of the #MeToo movement, who gave a voice to sexual assault and harassment survivors — and showed them that they are not alone — is Time's 2017 Person of the Year, the magazine revealed exclusively Wednesday morning on "Today."
While the concept of #MeToo was started in 2006 by activist Tarana Burke, its use became part of the national conversation in October after celebrities on social media used it to share their own sexual abuse stories in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. The wave of stories prompted people from all walks of life to add their voice to the movement.
TIME Person of the Year
Time Person of the Year of 2017. The cover features actress Ashley Judd, singer Taylor Swift, corporate lobbyist Adama Iwu, worker Isabel Pascual and former Uber engineer Susan Fowler. TIME
"I could never imagine this, I could never have envisioned something that could change the world," Burke told "Today" alongside actress Alyssa Milano, who says she was also sexually harassed and helped bring the #MeToo hashtag to a wider audience.
"As women we have to support each other and stand up and say, 'No more,'" Milano said.
Time's cover story features some of the women who spoke out against Weinstein, the former Hollywood movie producer who resigned from his studio in October and faces more than 80 sexual misconduct allegations dating back to the 1970s.

Thanks Obama !!!

Former President Obama jokingly thanked himself in a speech Tuesday as he detailed the economic accomplishments of his administration.

Obama was speaking about the actions his administration took to cut carbon emissions as part of the Paris climate change agreement.
"We met resistance every step of the way," Obama said during a speech at the North American Climate Summit in Chicago. "There were skeptics who said these actions would kill jobs and depress growth.
"As we took these actions, we saw the US economy grow consistently. We saw the longest streak of job creation in American history by far," Obama continued. "A streak that still continues, by the way."
"Thanks, Obama," he said, to laughter and applause from the audience.
During the speech, Obama also addressed President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the agreement, saying it was "difficult to defend."
"But the good news is that the Paris agreement was never going to solve the climate crisis on its own. It was going to be up to all of us," Obama said.
Obama did not mention President Trump by name during the speech, but urged officials in attendance to continue efforts to combat climate change, regardless of the Trump administration's position.
Trump announced in June that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris agreement.
Syria signed onto the deal last month, making the United States the only nation not supporting it.

Un errore di stampa può azzoppare o distorcere un articolo



Alberto Pasolini Zanelli
Un errore di stampa può azzoppare o distorcere un articolo, un racconto, un libro di storia. Capita di rado, ma ancora di rado il contrario: che cioè l’errore riassuma l’intero scritto e che le parole stampate giuste siano quelle sbagliate e viceversa. È capitato poche ore fa a uno dei più rispettati e imitati quotidiani americani: la Washington Post. Non è proprio un errore di stampa di quelli che cambiano o scambiano una parola. Questo scambia una fotografia di un personaggio che dovrebbe essere noto: un cancelliere tedesco. L’immagine raggruppa tre statisti, autori o beneficiari di un grande evento storico: la caduta del Muro di Berlino, la riunificazione della Germania, la fine della Guerra Fredda. Solo che uno dei tre non è lui. Non è Helmut Kohl, il beneficiario: è Helmut Schmidt, che a quei tempi era già fuori dai vertici della politica. Lui e Kohl avevano alcune cose in comune: erano tedeschi, sono stati cancellieri, sono morti entrambi e si chiamavano entrambi Helmut. Hanno entrambi lasciato un buco nella storia, ma in date e in situazioni diverse: Kohl ha vissuto la gloria e i frutti di un evento storico creato dagli altri due, Mikhail Gorbaciov e Ronald Reagan. Solo il russo è ancora vivo, anche da tempo in pensione. Reagan è morto e anche Kohl e Schmidt, ma questi due non si assomigliavano neanche un poco: uno molto alto, corpulento e fortunato, l’altro piccoletto, tenace e non abbastanza premiato dagli eventi. Se c’è un errore di stampa in un commento politico ecco il record in materia.
Soprattutto perché Schmidt, al posto di Kohl, è proprio accanto a Reagan in un momento in cui il primo è quasi dimenticato mentre il secondo, diversi anni dopo, è ritornato di moda, è “rinato” come esempio. In due modi, con giustificatissimi riconoscimenti mondiali e soprattutto americani e come alibi e modello di chi di un alibi avrebbe bisogno. Si tratta del suo attuale successore come presidente degli Stati Uniti e come leader del Partito repubblicano Usa. Donald Trump, evidentemente, presente ogni giorno con la parola e le immagini. Un errore di stampa su di lui è impensabile.
Ma sarebbe stato impensabile fino a poche settimane fa come continuazione o resurrezione di Reagan e del “reaganismo”. Non se ne era parlato molto, dopo l’ingresso alla Casa Bianca dell’altro. Sono passati trentasette anni dalla sua prima elezione e ventinove dalla scadenza del suo mandato. Il mondo è cambiato, in misura diversa nei tre leader dell’errore di stampa. La Germania riunificata, l’America più potente ma più incerta che mai, l’Unione Sovietica scomparsa nella nomenklatura e profondamente cambiata, a cominciare dalla morte del comunismo. La Guerra Fredda non è risorta, la tensione sta risorgendo fra le due Superpotenze e quindi in tutto il mondo, tranne forse la Germania, erede di Helmut Kohl e così diversa da Helmut Schmidt.
L’America aveva dimenticato Reagan con anticipo sul suo ruolo storico. Se risorge adesso è come memoria, compianto e alibi. Lo rimpiangono quasi tutti, soprattutto l’americano medio con riconoscenza, i politici del partito concorrente con simpatia, il suo erede attuale con rimpianto e astuzia. Donald Trump parla molto, soprattutto adesso, di Ronald Reagan e cerca di identificarsi con lui, soprattutto a mano a mano che il primo anno del suo potere ha segnato una diminuzione rapida e tenace della sua popolarità, qualcosa come una decina di milioni di elettori che rimpiangono di aver votato per lui. Trump sarebbe stato molto più contento se lo scambio di immagini fosse avvenuto fra due politici tedeschi e non americani.
In particolare l’attuale inquilino della Casa Bianca cerca di indossare il mantello di Reagan, soprattutto nella politica estera e di ottenere così una estensione del suo legato. Riesce a convincere qualcuno, ma sempre meno mentre si sta diffondendo invece l’immagine di qualcuno che ha capovolto il ritratto invocato. La versione ufficiale, portata avanti da diplomatici, legislatori, militari e ideologi dell’odierno Partito repubblicano è quella di un “Reagan moderno”, autore di un rinascimento dell’immagine americana nel mondo, soprattutto nella politica estera, dopo decenni e basata sulla formula di un “realismo basato sui principii”. In realtà questa struttura è incrinata, non soltanto dall’azione di Trump, ma in modo più evidente e dunque con maggiori pericoli. Lo ammette lo stesso presidente, che denuncia il “revisionismo” russo e cinese come minaccia di sovversione dell’ordine politico e strategico sorto dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale. Una situazione agevole da descrivere con un vocabolario e dei toni reaganiani: “Prosperità e protezione, pace basata sulla forza”.
Fin qui si può tentare l’accostamento, a rischio di moltiplicare gli errori di stampa, ma in realtà emergono sempre di più le differenze fondamentali tra i due presidenti. Reagan aveva lanciato la descrizione biblica dell’America come “città splendente sulla collina”, Trump non la riconosce più così e cerca di “recuperare la fiducia nei valori dell’America”. Invece moltiplica, a ragione o a torto, l’allarme per le minacce che vengono un po’ da tutte le direzioni, dall’estremismo islamico, all’espansione cinese, alla pigrizia e avarizia degli alleati europei e ultimamente anche al revanscismo a Mosca. Quasi un capovolgimento dell’impressione che Trump nutriva e distribuiva durante la campagna elettorale, appena un anno fa, al punto da rendere credibile il sospetto, distribuito a piene mani dalla posizione democratica (a cominciare dalla grande stampa) di una sua amicizia personale con Vladimir Putin, revisionista in capo, sospettata da sempre più politici e portavoce di connessioni nei confronti anche personali e finanziari di famiglia. Non senza successi, dal momento che è in già in corso un’inchiesta della Cia che riguarda i principali collaboratori di Trump e quindi indirettamente lui. Che reagisce in due modi: con la veemenza verbale e l’istigazione di risentimenti xenofobi e razzisti, condivisi durante la campagna elettorale dai ceti meno colti e meno abbienti, che non sono mai stati il fulcro dell’elettorato e dell’establishment repubblicano, che Reagan aveva saputo conquistare e al tempo stesso dirigere e dominare.
Trump ha tentato ma non ci è riuscito finora. E allora per salvarsi sta facendo marcia indietro e cercando di presentarsi come un repubblicano “classico”, soprattutto sul piano economico, dove si è in pratica “arreso” a una riforma fiscale voluta dall’establishment e che serve soprattutto ad “arricchire i ricchi e a sacrificare i poveri”. Ciò gli consente di riprendere il controllo del Congresso e del partito in vista della per ora lontana prospettiva di elezioni per il prossimo quadriennio. C’è chi lo segue, sensibile al fattore economico e c’è chi rimane, alla base scettico o dubitoso. Succedeva anche con Reagan ma molto meno. E, nella leggenda,è diventato impensabile. È così che nascono gli errori di stampa, quelli storici.