Troupeau de nègres

Je voulais laisser passer, mais ma nuit de sommeil agité m'a conseillé de revenir sur ma décision.

Dans ce billet, je décrivais Manu Militari comme un blogue politique reflétant parfaitement le consensus médiatique. Il est un des blogues québécois les plus lus, le plus populaire est sans l'ombre d'un doute les carnets érotiques d'Anne Archet, lesbienne anarchiste au talent d'écrivain assez exceptionnel (quand elle s'en tient à son amour des femmes, mais bon je fais la fine bouche, l'internet est vaste). On peut apparenter Manumilitari à Tout Le Monde en Parle, dans un médium différent et avec un public beaucoup plus large, même proportionnellement: le web est beaucoup plus fragmenté, normal. Tout Le Monde en Parle est donc nécessairement le reflet d'un certain consensus dans la Cité. Mais il y a la présence d'un type comme Guy A. Lepage, qui force évidemment un contenu idéologique plus ciblé, plus clair et plus honnête que la moyenne, et leur blogue en fait foi. Ce que j'ai entendu dimanche soir ne m'a pas plu par contre.

Dany Turcotte fait référence à Hugo Chavez en utilisant le quolibet 'Hugo Boss', Jean-Michel Leprince accepte la passe et marque un 'le Venezuela de Chavez, ou comment faire apparaître démocratique une dictature'. Donc W, un président élu frauduleusement deux fois, appuie un coup d'état contre le gouvernement démocratique de Hugo Chavez, qui préside à une révolution démocratique sans précédant, et ce que le québécois moyen doit en comprendre c'est que Hugo Chavez est un dictateur. Le consensus est donc celui de Foreign Policy, le flagship journal des idéologues de Washington, catch phrase inclue.

Jean-Michel Leprince en rajoute: l'Amérique du Sud est 'l’arrière-cours des États-Unis', Washington la perd par 'manque d’attention et négligence'. Voilà de bien drôles de mots pour décrire des décennies de crimes innommables, tant en échelle qu'en nature. Faites vos propres recherches, je propose ceci, qui n'est qu'un bien mince aperçu.

Voilà le gros Coderre qui interjette: 'Aristide n’a pas été renversé, il est parti'. Blablabla les Haïtiens ne sont pas prêts 'la démocratie ça s’apprend'. Blablabla 'moi même j'ai tenté de rassembler le groupe 184 et le président pour qu'ils s'entendent'. Jean-Michel Leprince parle du coup d’état... de 1991 (!) et du retour d'Aristide: 'je ne comprenais pas, et 10 ans après si j'y retournais, je craindrais de comprendre encore moins'.

Vous ne travaillez pas pour les médias? Il vous est alors assez facile de comprendre: une proposition al-Shifa pour commencer.

Finale, au sujet d'Israël dans le contexte original:

"Orwell disait que le nationalisme est le dernier refuge des crapules, et bien on pourrait dire que la complexité est le dernier refuge des nationalistes" -Norman Finkelstein

Exactement

Does Oprah Winfrey, the American television celebrity, host of the eponymously named broadcast and cable TV shows, and top-honoree in Forbes Magazine's 2005 "Celebrity 100" Hall of Fame, really expect us to believe that James Frey's 2003 bestseller A Million Little Pieces is a fictional account of a young man facing-down destruction at the hands of his own drug and alcohol demons, rather than a straightforward factual report, otherwise known as autobiography or memoir? And does it really matter? And if so, for whom, exactly? For you? For me? For its author? How about for its publisher, Doubleday? The next thing you know, Oprah is going to turn on J.D. Salinger and denounce him to her devoted 30-million-households-a-week audience. What if the events that Holden Caulfield recounts in The Catcher in the Rye never happened? What if they happened, but in some kinda weird way, and these differed from the way recounted by Holden? Worse, what if it turns out that Holden Caufield doesn't really exist? That is to say, exists, but exists as a character within a fictional work, and therefore exists without also being real? Leaving us in the end with a kinda nonexistent Holden only? Along with his nonexistent world? A World-Catcher, for those paying attention? Kinda like a World-Lear? A World-Recherche? And a World-War on Terror? Rather than a real world? Wow. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Really. Right-right-right. Uh-huh. We'll be right back.... (Announcements)

A Million Little Lies -- and One Great Big Lie, David Peterson, 28 janvier 2006

Message à nos petits-enfants

Last August, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that undermines the science behind the ESA [Endangered Species Act] in significant ways. First, the legislation transfers the authority of deciding what is the best available science from scientists to political appointees in the Department of Interior. Second, the legislation requires decisions affecting species to be based on empirical data—effectively eliminating the use of established scientific techniques such as modeling, population surveys, and taxonomic and genetic studies.

Furthermore, species' habitat requirements are threatened. The Act currently requires the designation and protection of habitat that is "essential to the conservation of the species," including recovery. The House bill eliminates the "critical habitat" requirement and replaces it with the identification of certain areas that are of "special value" to its conservation and are already occupied by the species. There are, however, no guidelines as to what "special value" means, no attention to historical habitat or future habitat the species might occupy, and no requirement or guidelines for habitat protection.

The House legislation would fundamentally and negatively alter the way science would inform critical decisions affecting endangered and threatened species. Furthermore, it represents a Congressional assault on scientific integrity and the ability of federal scientists to do their jobs.

Science in The Endangered Species Act is Threatened, The Union of Concerned Scientists et al, janvier 2006

A Letter from Biologists to the United States Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species Act, Janvier 2006

Kevin Evans

Des japonais 2

When I first got to Japan, I had an interesting experience: while sampling the local "Kentucky" I saw two high school girls standing around smoking and trying to look tough. They noticed me, and one boasted, "We are furyo!" I didn't know the word at the time, but the joy of kanji is that you can often understand concepts by working out what the characters would mean when put together. Fu is "not" and ryo is "good," and furyo (pronounced foo-RYOH) means "bad" in a juvenile delinquint sort of way. From the rockabilly boom of the last decade to the more ominous boso-zoku street gangs who drive down the street on motorcycles modified to be extra loud and annoying, a lot of Japanese young people seem to be dedicated to this James Dean-esque idea of acting tough, of rebelling against mainstream Japanese society by smoking, cutting school uniform skirts very high, and (gasp!) dying their hair brown. Another word for these mostly-harmless street punks is yanki (YAHN-kee), which is often thought to be related to the word "yankee" (because of their "American" colored hair), but it actually comes from a word in Osaka dialect. Whenever there's a Japanese festival you'll see these tough-looking kids out in force, standing around in their funny baggy clothes and looking vaguely scary. I used to make a point of approaching them and starting improptu English conversation classes with them, since their shy reactions when asked to speak English was priceless.

Vendredi, 27 janvier, 2006

Lei la deve cambiare questa espressione! "Trend negativo"... Io non l'ho mai detto! Io non l'ho mai pensato! Io non parlo così!

Numéro courant		article
Olivo Barbieri photographie des environnements urbains d'un hélicoptère et usant de techniques de lentille particulières, obtient des résultats époustouflants! Merci Bryan

Vision Messianique et autres farfadetteries de la Cité

J'aime bien ManuMilitari; l'opinion de David est exactement celle du concensus médiatique, du moins des médias que les états-uniens catégorisent 'liberals', ce qui m'évite de pousser des sujets qui ne m'intéressent pas: ce type abbat un boulot considérable. Prenez le brouhaha concerté autour du résultat des élections en Palestine. Un groupe de résistants à l'occupation (illégale) passe au politique. Pensez Sinn Féin. Mais ici le Hamas raffle la mise.

George Bush: "[...] If the greater Middle East joins the democratic revolution that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in that region will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be ended at its source."

Désireux de passer de la théorie à la pratique, les États-Unis ont forcé le jeu pour provoquer des élections en Égypte, Irak et Palestine. Le résultat ?

[...]

mais il ne suffit pas de faire voter les gens pour mettre en place un processus qui favorise la paix, la stabilité et l’émancipation des gens. Il faut avant toute chose développer une tradition et un contexte qui rendent possible l’enracinement de ces valeurs.

Be careful for what you wish…

On consultera les sources journalistiques qu'il cite pour évaluer le concensus sur les élections palestiniennes, elles sont toutes également pertinentes, David ratisse large. Un des axiomes du Concensus (ce n'est pas particulier au cas palestinien) est bien exprimé par David, dans les mots de The Guardian: "All this does not mean that the dreams that the Bush administration has for the region are coming true." Je l'ai déja répété pour contraster un autre billet de ManuMilitari, je récidive (le recyclage c'est écolo), avec Rationaliste 1er:

The interesting fact is that it was presupposed uncritically across the spectrum that the messianic vision must be the goal of the invasion, not this silly business about WMD and al-Qaeda, no longer credible to elite opinion. What is the evidence that the US and Britain are guided by the messianic vision? There is indeed evidence, a single piece of evidence: our Leaders proclaimed it. What more could be needed?

Imperial Presidency, Noam Chomsky, janvier 2005

Mais laisser passer le tout aussi concensuel "une tradition et un contexte qui rendent possible l’enracinement de ces valeurs" sans contraste Chomskyien, ça serait pas vraiment al-Shifa, non?

The right wing in Israel is undoubtedly trying to destroy the possibility of a meaningful two-state settlement by such methods. More specifically, I presume that the purpose of murdering Sheikh Yassin, destroying Rafah, and other similar measures is to ensure that after a likely Israeli partial withdrawal, the Gaza Strip will be so utterly demolished that the population caged within it will rot and die and turn on each other in desperation, at which point Western humanists can comment sagely on the inability of Palestinians (like Haitians, and other targets of our benevolence) to manage their own affairs even when given a chance. Therefore we must (reluctantly) support Israel's "defensive" moves to take over the valuable land and resources of the West Bank while leaving the remaining population caged in a dungeon there.

Justice for Palestine? Q & A on prospects for a solution, Noam Chomsky, Justin Podur-Stephen Shalom, 30 mars 2004

Analyser, c'est bien, mais faut aussi acquérir des connaissances, alors voilà, du Monde Diplomatique:

Les électeurs ont voté pour le Hamas non pas parce qu’ils adhéreraient à son programme « historique » d’élimination de l’Etat d’Israël, non parce qu’ils souhaiteraient une relance des attentats-kamikazes (les récentes enquêtes d’opinion montrent au contraire une volonté de paix et de négociation), mais parce qu’ils veulent en finir avec la gestion catastrophique de l’Autorité palestinienne. On peut espérer d’ailleurs que le tremblement de terre du 25 janvier suscitera une recomposition de la vie politique palestinienne permettant une stratégie plus efficace contre l’occupation.

Quelques remarques sur le Hamas lui-même sont aussi indispensables. Cette organisation est incontestablement populaire, implantée en Cisjordanie et à Gaza. Elle fait partie du paysage politique. Comme dans beaucoup d’autres pays arabes, il est illusoire de penser pouvoir avancer vers la démocratie en excluant les islamistes. Le Hamas dispose de trois atouts majeurs auprès de la population : sa participation à la résistance à l’occupation ; son réseau d’aide sociale ; le dévouement incontestable de ses cadres. Mais l’exercice du pouvoir sera un défi redoutable. Rappelons, par ailleurs, que, sur le plan économique, le Hamas se situe plutôt à droite de l’échiquier, favorable au libéralisme ; et sur le plan des mœurs, il est extrêmement conservateur, ce qui suscite de l’inquiétude, notamment chez une partie des femmes.

Le Hamas est aussi une organisation qui sait être pragmatique : ainsi, il avait refusé de participer aux précédentes élections de 1996, sous prétexte qu’elles se déroulaient dans le cadre des accords d’Oslo ; il a désormais modifié sa position, alors que les conditions n’ont pas changé. Il a aussi su nouer des alliances avec des notables locaux très respectés, accepter des chrétiens sur ses listes, gérer avec compétence les municipalités qu’il a conquises, etc.

Il est difficile de savoir ce qui va se passer dans les mois à venir. Pourtant, si la France a un rôle à jouer, c’est de rappeler que toute solution du conflit passe par l’application des résolutions de l’ONU : retrait total d’Israël de tous les territoires occupés en 1967, y compris Jérusalem-Est ; création d’un Etat palestinien indépendant ; droit d’Israël à la paix et à la sécurité. Affirmer vouloir obtenir du Hamas qu’il reconnaisse l’Etat d’Israël, conformément au droit international, sans répéter dans le même temps que l’impasse actuelle réside dans le refus permanent de cet Etat de mettre en œuvre les résolutions de l’ONU, ne ferait que confirmer que Paris renonce à tout rôle indépendant au Proche-Orient.

Sur la victoire du Hamas, Alain Gresh, 27 janvier 2006

À la bonne heure!

Via-1 L'as-pilote du carton

U.S.A. ! U.S.A. !

À celui-ceuzes qui a conçu les pubs de NBC, et à celui-celle qui a choisi la chanson thème, Someday de Flipsyde, aussi d'ailleurs: bravo; la pub est disponible ici, sous promos. Vraiment dommage que je ne puisse complètement participer à cette orgie glorificatrice, ne sachant que trop d'où elle tire son efficacité: c'est rationnel

Et non, vous n'êtes pas fou, pour les états-unis, ces jeux sont ceux du patinage artistique.

Bombe cognitive

Qu'Allah bénisse Book TV. La version DVD est dialoguée.

In heaven, everything is fine, in heaven...

De David Lynch via YouTube. Eraserhead n'est jamais très loin, han?

May!

L'espoir, un instant

Nous vaincrons

Dans un paragraphe digne de la Gazette ou du National Post, la chroniqueuse Gagnon me reproche, à la Bill Johnson ou à la Diane Francis, d'avoir porté plainte pour m'être fait lancer au visage « Speak to me in english. This is an English hospital » par une infirmière unilingue anglaise du « Jewish General Hospital ». Pour Lysiane Gagnon j'aurais du courber l'échine en silence. Cela ne me surprend pas d'elle. Nombreux sont les Canadiens français de sa génération qui acceptaient, sans rien dire, de pareilles humiliations. Ce n'est pas dans ma nature.

Quand André Pratte tente de me bâillonner, Normand Lester, 19 janvier 2006

Aujourd'hui sur Manumilitari

Parce que la différence entre "On ne laissera pas Calgary décider pour le Québec" et "On ne laissera pas un chiite décider pour un sunnite" n’est pas si grande que ça… En terme de replis identitaire, voir de xénophobie, c’est dur de faire pire.

Ça démontre bien le vide qui habite le Bloc, incapable de réalisations concrètes, ils en sont rendus à tenter de monter les citoyens de ce pays les uns contre les autres. Attiser ainsi le nationalisme c’est indigne d’un politicien, on ne parle plus de simple campagne de peur, mais de campagne de mépris envers toute une population. Il y a de quoi avoir honte…

Mal de Bloc

The interesting fact is that it was presupposed uncritically across the spectrum that the messianic vision must be the goal of the invasion, not this silly business about WMD and al-Qaeda, no longer credible to elite opinion. What is the evidence that the US and Britain are guided by the messianic vision? There is indeed evidence, a single piece of evidence: our Leaders proclaimed it. What more could be needed?

Imperial Presidency, Noam Chomsky, janvier 2005

Aussi à voir ce vidéo récent: Democracy Promotion: Reflections on Intellectuals and the State

Ils sont parmis nous

This dismissive attitude pervaded a meeting I had with the top leaders of ABC in 1989. I was there to make a presentation to the corner office crowd about this "Internet stuff." To their credit, they realized something was happening. Still, nothing I could tell them would convince them that the Internet was not marginal, not just typing, and, most emphatically, not just teenage boys. Stephen Weiswasser, a senior VP, delivered the ultimate putdown: "The Internet will be the CB radio of the '90s," he told me, a charge he later repeated to the press. Weiswasser summed up ABC's argument for ignoring the new medium: "You aren't going to turn passive consumers into active trollers on the Internet."

I was shown the door. But I offered one tip before I left. "Look," I said. "I happen to know that the address abc.com has not been registered. Go down to your basement, find your most technical computer guy, and have him register abc.com immediately. Don't even think about it. It will be a good thing to do." They thanked me vacantly. I checked a week later. The domain was still unregistered.

We Are the Web, Kevin Kelly, août 2005

Une belle leçon de vie

Tuer quelqu'un vous donne un détachement fort approprié aux dures exigences imputées à la portion la plus élevée de l'élite.

At 17, Laura Bush ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing her boyfriend who was driving it, according to an accident report released to The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Report: Laura Bush in 1963 Car Wreck, Jim Vertuno, 3 mai 2000

La seconde révolution cognitive se poursuit

Un organe de l'esprit sous-tend notre appréhension géométrique du monde: des travaux de Stanislas Dehaene, évidemment. Les empiricistes finiront bien par crever. Via-1 Radio-Canada

Cherchez ça dans La Presse

The endorsement of Tehran's nuclear energy program by Moscow and Beijing reveals the primary impetus behind the China-Iran-Russia axis - to counter US unilateralism and global hegemonic intentions. For Beijing and Moscow, this means minimizing US influence in Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. For the regime in Tehran, keeping the US at bay is a matter of survival.

The joint statement issued at the conclusion of Putin's state visit to China in October 2004 was a clear indication of Beijing's and Moscow's abhorrence of the Bush administration's unilateral foreign policy. The statement noted that China and Russia "hold that it is urgently needed to [resolve] international disputes under the chairing of the UN and resolve crisis [sic] on the basis of universally recognized principles of international law. Any coercive action should only be taken with the approval of the UN Security Council and enforced under its supervision..."

Two weeks after this statement was released, and just prior to the US presidential election, Beijing's position against US unilateralism was again made explicit by China's former foreign minister Qian Qichen - arguably China's most distinguished diplomat.

In an opinion piece published in the state-controlled China Daily, Qian ripped Washington's unilateralism: "The United States has tightened its control of the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia." He noted that this control "testifies that Washington's anti-terror campaign has already gone beyond the scope of self defense". Qian went further, stating that: "The US case in Iraq has caused the Muslim world and Arab countries to believe that the superpower already regards them as targets [for] its ambitious democratic reform program."

To China and Russia, Washington's "democratic reform program" is a thinly disguised method for the US to militarily dispose of unfriendly regimes in order to ensure the country's primacy as the world's sole superpower. The China-Iran-Russia alliance can be considered as Beijing's and Moscow's counterpunch to Washington's global ambitions. From this perspective, Iran is integral to thwarting the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. This is precisely why Beijing and Moscow have strengthened their economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. It is also why Beijing and Moscow are providing Tehran with increasingly sophisticated weapons.

The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran, Jephraim P Gundzik, 4 juin 2005 via-1 ZNet

Du présent blogue: Yves Boisvert, père de 3 ptits garçons

Bien dit

Asked by Life magazine in 1988 if he'd like to be secretary of state, Koppel responded affirmatively and touted his qualifications: "Part of the job is to sell American foreign policy, not only to Congress but to the American public. I know I could do that."

Ted Koppel at NPR: A Natural Fit, Norman Solomon, 18 janvier 2006

Son prédécesseur s'est suicidé de remords

Le nouveau commandant des forces MINUSTAH fut officier sous Pinochet. Pas de remord pour celui-là: la démocratie est finalement en marche.

Port au Prince -- As pressure from Haiti's elite on MINUSTAH (United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti) continues to escalate, so too does the violence perpetrated by UN forces against civilians in Cite Soleil. The death toll in the desperately poor neighborhood has been climbing steadily since the Group 184 organized a business strike and a demonstration on January 16th outside UN headquarters in Port-au-Prince with the aim of pushing MINUSTAH to do more to provide security and eliminate so-called terrorists in the city's poorest neighborhoods. At least 10 civilians have been killed by UN forces this week.

[...]

The actions of MINUSTAH in Cite Soleil make one wonder just whom is terrorizing whom. The Geneva convention states that “Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets.” (Protocol I, Art. 48). Residents that we interviewed stressed that the two men who had been gunned down in the street were unarmed. It is impossible to make the argument that eight year old Valencia is a combatant. The Geneva convention also specifically protects hospitals, stating that “Fixed establishments and mobile medical units must be protected and respected by all sides in a conflict.” (Convention I, Art. 19). If the United Nations is willing to ignore international law to serve the interests of the rich in Haiti, it should be cause for concern not only for residents of Cite Soleil, but for citizens the countries like Canada whose governments are supporting the UN mission here.

UN commits war crimes in Cite Soleil, Haiti, Leslie Bagg, 20 janvier 2006

Photos

Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie

As the on again, off again elections approach the renewed deadline of Feb. 7, the United Nations Stabilization Mission (MINUSTAH) in Haiti has been led to believe in and listen to Haiti's most reactionary voices. The U.N. is being pressured to crack down hard on poor neighborhoods that remain loyal to ousted president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and who have recently staged large rallies in support of Rene Garcia Preval. MINUSTAH attacks on Cite Soleil have been frequent and deadly. Lobbying in the form of outright disinformation and lies by the likes of sweatshop owner Andy Apaid, presidential candidate Charles Henry Baker and the president of Haiti's Chamber of Commerce Dr. Reginald Boulos, have had dire consequences for MINUSTAH. General Urano Bacellar, the Brazilian head of MINUSTAH, apparently took his own life on January 7th after a tense meeting with Boulos and Apaid. Bacellar reportedly disagreed with plans to invade Cite Soleil upon viewing footage of the collateral damage and deaths following a previous raid into Cite Soleil on July 6, 2005.

Andy Apaid leads the Group 184 representing a U.S. foreign policy vision that dropped the zero from Haiti's year of independence, 1804, to create a civil society organization named Group 184 that was heavily funded by the United States, France and Canada. The Group 184 helped to build opposition to Aristide's government and Apaid was among the first to refer to paramilitary forces that invaded Haiti from the Dominican Republic as freedom fighters as they killed police officers and Lavalas officials in their bid to oust Aristide. Late in 2003, Apaid led demonstrations by the so-called student movement and right-wing sectors of Haitian society to oust democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Haiti's Elites Pressure the UN, Leslie Bagg & Aaron Lakoff, 18 janvier 2006

Cargo cult

[U]n Martien qui serait débarqué sur terre au cours des dernières semaines et qui chercherait à s’informer sur la campagne électorale en lisant La Presse ou en écoutant Radio-Canada aurait certainement l’impression que le Bloc québécois est un obscur tiers parti.

[...]

Le lendemain de la publication du livre de Lester et Philpot sur Option-Canada, la journaliste Julie Miville-Deschênes y allait d’un reportage-fleuve sur des dépenses de 25 millions du gouvernement du Québec en 1995. Le lendemain matin, Paul Martin reprenait bien entendu l’argumentaire développé par Miville-Deschênes

[...]

Non seulement la société Radio-Canada sert de centre de recherche et de documentation au Parti Libéral, mais elle censure les quelque rares voix discordantes, comme celle du zapartiste François Parenteau remercié de ses services à l’émission de Joël Le Bigot juste avant les vacances de Noël. Il n’aurait pas respecté son contrat en transformant sa chronique « d’humeur » en chronique « éditoriale ». Le seul humour politique toléré est celui du cynisme à la Gérard D. Laflaque où l’on valorpe tout le monde. Parenteau avait le courage de ne pas camoufler ses convictions souverainistes.

Malgré la désinformation et les manigances de l’empire médiatique fédéraliste, la puissance du mouvement de libération continue de s’exprimer, élection après élection, à travers le Bloc Québécois, ses candidates, ses candidats et son chef.

Alors, il ne reste aux fédéralistes qu’à se préparer à tenter de faire avaler à l’opinion publique que le Bloc subira une « cuisante défaite » s’il ne récolte pas plus de 50% des suffrages et au moins 60 circonscriptions, mais que les Conservateurs auront remporté une « éclatante victoire » s’ils forment un gouvernement minoritaire et qu’ils vont chercher 15% des voix au Québec, sans faire élire un seul député !

Cout’donc, le Bloc es-tu troisième au Québec ?, Pierre Dubuc, 17 janvier 2006

Trop cool

WTF Mate

Euhhh de Sony Picture Classics, Why we fight via -1 Manumilitari

★★★★☆

Référence: note préfatoire de The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume 1

[...] moins de cinq mois avant le congédiement de M. Parenteau, l'ombudsman signait son plus récent rapport annuel. En page 16 et 17 de ce document, l'ombudsman fait le compte rendu d'un cas d'espèce : une plainte contre l'humoriste François Parenteau par un réputé professeur de droit au Osgoode Hall de l'Université York de Toronto, Me Gerald Heckman.

Motif de la plainte : le scandale des commandites, objet d'un billet de François Parenteau diffusé le 27 mars 2004. Me Heckman n'aime pas que le Canada soit décrit comme «une patente politique qui, sans l'argent des commandites, tomberait en ruines» ou que le love-in de 1995 soit l'oeuvre «de rednecks qui s'en foutaient». Il croit que l'humoriste «a droit à son opinion», mais que le diffuseur doit en assumer la responsabilité.

Il est étonnant de lire aujourd'hui ce qu'a répondu à l'ombudsman la direction des programmes de la radio de la SRC pour se défendre au sujet de cette plainte. Elle a fait valoir «que la chronique est un genre qui permet à son auteur l'expression d'une opinion personnelle et qu'il faut situer les propos de M. Parenteau en contexte, soit celui d'une programmation riche et variée». On parle pourtant de la même direction qui le congédiera cinq mois plus tard pour manque de diversité d'opinions ! Bienvenue à Radio-Canada...

Peu satisfait de la réponse, Me Heckman réplique alors avec des arguments d'autorité. Selon lui, la loi sur la radiodiffusion canadienne «confère une responsabilité particulière à Radio-Canada et [...] à tout le moins, celle-ci aurait dû accorder dans la même émission un temps d'antenne équivalent à un représentant du point de vue opposé».

L'argument semble porter. Car à peu près au moment où cette plainte est traitée, François Parenteau est convoqué par la direction. On lui explique qu'il doit «changer» sa façon de faire. On lui propose de devenir lui-même le représentant du point de vue opposé. De se faire contrepoids seul, être lui-même et son contraire quoi, penser une chose, le dire, mais aussi dire ce qu'il ne pense pas. Un véritable ticket pour la schizophrénie ! Sans compter que le billet de Parenteau est toujours diffusé après la «Bourse de l'actualité» qui fait entendre des éditorialistes aux points de vue souvent opposés! [à celui qu'il exprime, leur faisant contrepoids, aka fou du roi]

L'affaire Parenteau - Une censure nommée diversité, Jocelyn Desjardins, 17 janvier 2006.

Michel Brûlé snappe pis bourdonne

[N]ous ne sommes pas des Américains ! Nous ne sommes pas des Canadiens non plus. Nous sommes des Québécois et nous avons prouvé que nous étions un peuple qui se tenait debout, notamment en manifestant contre la guerre en Irak au printemps 2003. Lors de la seconde manifestation, nous étions 200 000 à braver un froid de -40 ºC. À Toronto, ils étaient 6 000 manifestants. Pourquoi étaient-ils si peu ? Parce que la majorité des Canadiens anglais appuyait Bush (voir tableau ci-dessous). Les Canadiens anglais regardent la télévision américaine 96 % du temps. Voyez-vous beaucoup de différences entre les Canadiens anglais et les Américains ? Pas moi.

Mir est-il un journal souverainiste ? Oui, bien sûr, mais Mir est avant tout un hebdo culturel et social. Je suis souverainiste, mais je ne sais pas si nos journalistes le sont. Chose certaine, au dernier référendum de 1995, 62,5 % des Québécois francophones ont voté OUI. À Montréal, 69 % et, dans le beau Royaume des bleuets, plus de 80 %. Étant donné que Mir ne s’adresse pas aux gens de l’âge d’or, très majoritairement fédéralistes, on pourrait facilement dire que trois lecteurs sur quatre seront souverainistes.

Question : Dans l’éventualité d’une intervention militaire en l’Irak, croyez-vous que le Canada devrait appuyer cette intervention ?

	Oui	Non	Ne sait pas / Refuse de répondre
Provinces  de l'Atlantique	54	34	11
Québec	30	62	8
Ontario	48	39	12
Prairies	54	31	15
Alberta	50	36	14
Colombie-Britannique	42	38	20
Canada	44	43	13
			Sondage Léger Marketing

1er éditorial de MIR, Michel Brûlé, 11 janvier 2006.

Une dernière fois

Milosevic's alleged pursuit of a Greater Serbia was also a misreading of his actual policies, which were, first, to prevent the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and second, as that disintegration occurred to protect the Serb minorities in the new states and allow them either to remain in Yugoslavia or obtain autonomy in the new rump states. In fact, he was considered by the Bosnian Serbs and Krajina victims of Operation Storm to be a sell-out, eager to bargain away their interests in exchange for a possible lifting of sanctions on Yugoslavia. He did support the Bosnian Serbs, sporadically, but it is rarely mentioned that all the NATO powers and Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda were supporting the Bosnian Muslims (and Croatia was supporting its allies in Bosnia).

So Milosevic was guilty of pursuing a Greater Serbia by trying to prevent the dissolution of Yugoslavia and feebly seeking to give stranded and threatened Serb populations protection! His "war" against Slovenia -- one of those "terrible conflicts" Tim Judah attributes to Milosevic -- was a half-hearted ten-day effort to prevent an illegal secession of that Republic, quickly terminated with minimal (and mainly Yugoslav army) casualties. Meanwhile, Tudjman, quite openly seeking a Greater Croatia, and Izetbegovic, trying to leverage U.S. and other NATO hostility to Yugoslavia into a means of compelling unwanted Greater Muslim rule in Bosnia, were just victims of the bad man! This is Orwell written into mainstream truth.

Diana Johnstone On The Balkan Wars, Edward S. Herman, 26 mai 2003.

Oubliez ces demeurés

Aujourd'hui à Je l'ai vu à la radio, Marc Labrèche vient discuter de tout et de rien et du Fric Show. Le cours de l'entrevue entre dans une phase inconfortable quand Franco Nuovo, aussi subtil qu'un coké qui a chronométré la prochaine ligne, impose le vide à son sujet, l'interlocuté

"Vous êtes un inattaquable, vous êtes unique."

"Sans nul doute, en ce sens, qui les regroupe tous, vous l'êtes, étant unique au rayon de l'unicité, en tout ce que vous faites, parfaitement un intouchable. On ne pourrait rien dire. Je ne vois vraiment pas." renchérit la fille des deux autres (conçue lors d'un ménage à trois impliquant Suzanne Lévesque et Josée Di Stasio)

"Vous êtes la seule raison qui rende intéressant le Fric Show, si vous me permettez de commencer mon intervention en agréant avec mes collègues pour reconnaître votre talent, cette émission étant un ramassis de mensonges, un acte de propagande grossier, comme l'a démontré ma collègue Sophie Cousineau." éditorialise celui qui a déjà écrit que les États-Unis n'ont jamais attaqué un pays que par légitime défense

"Merci pour le café." finit Marc Labrèche

"Yé spécial lui hein?" conclut l'indépendantiste qu'ils n'ont pas foutu dehors.

Je précise au départ que Mme Cousineau attaque une émission sans défense: le lecteur ne peut se faire sa propre idée, l'épisode visé n'étant pas celui du jeudi précédant ce front du samedi 7 décembre, mais bien un autre prévu pour plus tard dans la saison, ce qui avait titillé le nez sensible de l'autre Cousineau à La Presse. De plus, le premier point soulevé comme démontrant la fumisterie est le fait qu'elle n'ait pas été retenue comme 'tite face avec son nom en dessous, pis son titre, pis toute à TEEVEE'

Sophie, t'es bonne tu le sais, mais on veut plus, faut que tu penses, si tu veux aller jusqu'où tu le mérites, à devenir une vraie figure connue, une,... comme un householdnameslashréférence, dans plusieurs médias.

Oui j'ai des contacts, j'ai suivi vos leads, ça avance...

Parce que tse, avec notre alliance avec Radio-Canada, y pas de raison que...

Oui, je rencontre la gang du Fric Show justement pour parler des mes reportages en Chine

Excellent, on a beaucoup d'investi en Chine, et on apprécie vraiment ton travail journalistique percutant et incisif, toujours du côté du citoyen, propulsée par l'espoir de voir de ton vivant un monde où le niveau de décence qu'atteindra un individu ne dépendra pas du lieu de sa naissance, nous forçant à tout moment à soumettre nos placements à un jugement éthique hors de tout reproche, dépassant les normes de la marque la plus vendue. Un peu comme Laure Varidel, qu'on vient de médailler, et Richard Desjardins, qui a été sacré chevalier de l'ordre du Sélection de l'extra-terrestre. Merci. Ta rébellion est tellement plus efficace, puisque effective, que celle de tant des penseurs locaux, nationalistes-socialistes à la naissance.

Y'a pas de quoi

Paul Desmarais (au top de la pyramide dont La Presse est le médium) était en Chine avec la tournée commerciale quelque peu rocambolesque de Jian Cheurray à l'automne 2005, à la demande express et empressée de ce dernier qui voulait "que les Chinois sachent que c’est une mission faite au plus haut niveau possible". Le billet de Sophie Cousineau que notre Mario cite comme démonstration est classique, et s'y prend de la bonne manière pour son public cible: il y a eu erreurs, ces erreurs sont corrigées. L'ordre international existe, se porte très bien merci. Go back to sleep. Dans sa 'démonstration' du caractère essentiellement erroné du Fric Show spécial Sweatshop, elle commence donc par citer des exemples d'actes criminels commis par Gildan et GAP, ciblées dans cet épisode du Fric Show, dans le cas de Gildan, au Honduras. Ces effroyables pratiques sont évidemment choses du passé. Toujours pour Gildan, elle donne comme preuve de cette révolution corporative un énoncé vague sur une quelconque approbation de la Fair Labor Association (FLA) en décembre 2004, sans aucune possibilité de savoir exactement de quoi elle parle. Elle ajoute que même le Maquilaroda Solidatity Network admet que le vent a tourné, prétend-elle, toujours sans la moindre référence. En juillet 2004, Anthony Fenton, lui, référait à ces deux organismes dans son article qui débutait par une nouvelle d'intérêt pour tout être doué d'un minimum de raison qui s'intéresse au sujet du sort des travailleurs de Gildan au Honduras:

On July 14th, “North America’s largest t-shirt maker” Gildan Activewear announced that they will be closing their El Progresso assembly plant in Honduras, when the lease expires on September 30th. 1800 workers will be laid off, in addition to the approximately 100 workers who were fired for attempting to unionize in 2002-03. Several organizations are shocked by Gildan’s decision to shutdown and relocate - like a “godsend” - to Haiti and Nicaragua, especially since reports are about to be released by the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) that detail the findings of their extensive audits into factory conditions, wage and worker- related issues.

The WRC’s Scott Nova said “the evidence is overwhelming” regarding “serious violations”, part of a broader “systematic problem” in the realm of women’s and workers rights. Nova described how Gildan even conducted their own internal investigation concerning the violation of women’s rights reaching the “exact same” conclusion as the WRC. The WRC’s case, similar to the forthcoming FLA report, is “cut and dried”. Being an unaccountable corporation has its advantages, however, as Gildan has consistently denied any wrongdoing and appear to be operating with ‘corporate impunity’. [...]

It is doubtful that Gildan will care whether or not they remain members of the FLA; they probably only joined to appease some shareholders, notably the Quebec Solidarity Fund. One week after Gildan joined the FLA, the Solidarity Fund announced that they will be pulling out their 11.1% share of Gildan, based on their own findings concerning the “cut and dried” facts of workers and women’s rights violations at El Progresso. No longer having to concern themselves with ‘ethical considerations’ Gildan is proceeding into Haiti and the Dominican Republic [...] where conduct is neither seriously monitored nor enforced, especially now that the legitimately elected government is gone.

[...]

People like Andy Apaid, who is one of Gildan’s “local” subcontractors, according to former workers, never honored the minimum wage and would fire workers who dissented. In addition, feudal lords like Apaid would force workers to attend anti-Aristide “opposition” rallies under threat of termination or reprimand.

It should be recalled that Apaid, despite the fact that he is a US citizen, was the leader of the International Republican Institute-spawned Group of 184- anti-Aristide “opposition”, and that Apaid’s family gave financial support to the 1991-94 military junta that overthrew Aristide the first time. Apaid, along with other members of the tiny “Haitian” elite and former death squadrons, orchestrated the destabilization and eventual overthrow of Aristide [with the “international community”]. That Gildan has benefited directly from this may or may not be a coincidence, but we must carefully consider the timing herein.

Gildan Activewear: Taking Sweatshops to new depths in Haiti, Anthony Fenton, 24 juillet 2004

Plus récemment.

De bonnes nouvelles

À la douleur que j'ai, que j'ai

Un extrait de la recommandation (c'est pas du tout de l'insistance):

In These Times rejected first hand reporting from Kosovo by Johnstone, their longtime European Editor, when it diverged from the line of their more recent correspondent, Paul Hockenos, whose connections with the establishment included a stint as the spokesperson and media officer for the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe Mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina, acting as an occupying power in northern Bosnia-Herzegovina, and an affiliation with the American Academy in Berlin, whose chairman and co-chairman are Richard Holbrooke and Henry Kissinger.

Diana Johnstone On The Balkan Wars, Edward S. Herman, 26 mai 2003.

pwned!!!

Sur les publicités de peur du PLC, de Vigile:

Aujourd'hui sur Chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm

WorkingForChange.com interview, 'There Is No War on Terror', with Geov Parrish (December 23, 2005). An excerpt:

[Y]ou can measure the number of terrorist attacks. Well, that's gone up sharply under the Bush administration, very sharply after the Iraq war. As expected -- it was anticipated by intelligence agencies that the Iraq war would increase the likelihood of terror. And the post-invasion estimates by the CIA, National Intelligence Council, and other intelligence agencies are exactly that. Yes, it increased terror. In fact, it even created something which never existed -- a new training ground for terrorists, much more sophisticated than Afghanistan, where they were training professional terrorists to go out to their own countries. So, yeah, that's a way to deal with the War on Terror, namely, increase terror.

- posted by Pablo @ 11:05 AM

Voici un extrait de l'introduction d'un article multivitaminé sur le cas spécifique de la performance de l'administration Cheney dans le dossier de la sécurité interne des U.S. au sens précis de cette administration. Cet article est un bon exemple de ce qu'un journaliste ou éditorialiste correctement éduqué, e.g. Michel C. Auger et Mario Roy, ne peut littéralement pas comprendre, comme le dit merveilleusement la phrase sous le titre de ce blogue. L'introduction porte sur le non-travail fait par les médias U.S. sur le sujet, ce qui permet d'évacuer en partie du corps du texte cet angle d'analyse, certes essentiel, mais qui aurait allongé l'article s'il y avait été densément intégré, comme il l'est naturellement chez Herman et Chomsky. Faut lire des livres des fois.

Bush has gotten away with this image of security-savior by stoking fears, stirring up patriotic ardor, manufacturing wars—or rather invasions of small and virtually defenseless countries

[...]

But he couldn’t have done this without an ultra-compliant media that followed his agenda, featured virtually without comment his photo-ops, serial misrepresentations of fact, promoted scares, and refused to challenge their leader, serving him much in the manner of the media of a totalitarian state. Professor Lance Bennett refers to this media performance as a “near-perfect journalistic participation in government propaganda operations.” The large right-wing segment of the media have functioned as literal press agents and cheerleaders for the Bush administration, setting the tone and helping cow the “liberal” sector of the corporate media into similar, if less vocal, subservience to the government (although most of them didn’t need to be cowed).

George Bush Versus US National Security, Edward S. Herman, octobre 2003

Edward Herman est un analyste des médias important, qu'il faut visiter, ne serait-ce par exemple que sur la campagne de propagande menée dans les médias, U.S. principalement, mais son travail s'applique en tout point aux médias québécois, campagne résultant en la fabrique du consentement de la population étatsunienne (et québécoise donc) à l'aggression du Kosovo par l'OTAN sous la férule de Clinton. Le chef recommande cet article. Avouez que le monsieur a du style et qu'il sait rhétorer:

If one argues that the policy makers decided to attack Yugoslavia for geopolitical reasons, that is apparently a conspiracy theory; the war managers “conspire” to this cynical end. On the other hand, the belief that they do it because of Clinton’s and Blair’s “exasperation” at Milosevic’s evil, as Rieff would have it, is not conspiracy theory—you can’t conspire to do something of which Rieff approves. We are clearly dealing here with comic book level analysis, but acceptable in the mainstream.

Nuggets From A Nuthouse, Edward S. Herman, novembre 2003

Des japonais

Entendue à la Fosse aux Lionnes de la bouche de Suzanne Lévesque (j'avoue, j'avoue, j'ai un gros kick sur Renée-Claude Brazeau), cette histoire délicieuse, et vraie, qui est arrivée à son mari François Macerola lors d'un séjour au Japon, celui-là même qui s'était 'luxé' le poignet en faisant du porte-à-porte comme candidat de Jian Cheurray en 1998:

Il est très tôt le matin, rendez-vous d'affaire avec un groupe de japonais dans un resto pour le ptit-déj. Notre homme se dirige vers ses hôtes, s'assoit à table et cherche l'interprète: elle est en retard. Il ne parle pas un strict mot de japonais, ils sont unilingues. Bon. Le voilà réduit à se présenter en mimant tantôt une caméra, tantôt un téléviseur. Baragouine du globish. Ses 'interlocuteurs' sont avenants, approuvent de la tête, l'encouragent, y vont de quelques simagrées retenues. Le repas arrive, du poisson entier, cru, porté sur des brazeros individuels. Notre pauvre homme n'a aucune idée du fonctionnement de la chose. Ses vis-à-vis s'empressent de lui montrer, puis les convives commencent le repas, décidemment dans la bonne humeur, en attendant l'interprète. La voilà qui arrive. "M. Macerola, mais ou étiez-vous ? Ça fait 30 minutes que nos hôtes attendent".

Mon top 11 des tounes de 2005

Inspiré par la liste de Nicolas Langelier, voici la mienne, en moins culturée, plus courte et trois semaines en retard:

1. Born Into The World - Supersystem

2. Hope There's Someone - Anthony & The Johnsons

3. Stay Beautiful - Stacs Of Stamina

4. Si tu disais - Francoiz Breut

5. The District Sleeps Alone Tonight - The Postal Service

6. Question - The Kleptones

7. La réalité - Amadou et Mariam

8. The 4th Branch - Immortal Technique, sortie en 2004 par contre

9. Mon nom est Jonathan (live) - Les Trois Accords

10. Squid - A Million Bilion

11. Expiration Date - Blockhead

Mention spéciale à Thomas Fehlmann qui fait de la musique lounge qui ne me donne pas envie d'avaler du Kool-Aid de zombie, idem pour Jackson And His Computer Band, dans le style...hmmm...DJ-électronica? Et le Langelier a bien raison, j'ajoute MIA, Bucky Done Gone mettons; et il m'a fait découvrir Bloc Party...je suis complétement déconnecté hein? ><

Un gros merci à Ève qui m'a fourni du maudit bon stock électronico-éclectronique canadien obscur pour partir l'année 2006 du bon beat. Et du François de Roubaix! Vraiment excellent.

Bon je vais aller tirer une pipée de mon meilleur opium et me tapper Takk en boucle, à plus.

Orwell qui tournoie

Returning to Iraq, the BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, notes that the United States has been the biggest foreign player in the Middle East for 50 years, but that Bush has created "a much more intimate connection by going to war and occupying Iraq". (Bowen, 'Middle East on the road to change', January 2, 2006)

"Intimate" is an interesting adjective to describe the relationship between an imperial superpower and its victims. Bowen writes blandly that the US administration justifies the enormous human and financial cost of the war "by saying that it is spreading democracy to people who deserve it yet have been denied it" .

This sounds like objective, balanced reporting - Bowen is merely reporting the US government view, after all. But the meaning is changed by subsequent comments. Bowen observes that "Voting in itself is not a magic formula to make people's lives better... Under American protection, Iraq's newly elected politicians now have to show they can build a democracy."

"Under American protection"? This is certainly one version of events, but not the neutral, balanced version promised by the BBC. Orwell is already turning in his grave. But there is more:

"Critics - enemies - of Washington are still very easy to find in the Middle East. But the irony is that the US intervention in the region, and the way that it is pushing its democracy agenda, has created a political space that dissenters can occupy."

Bowen lists alleged examples of democratisation in the region, before concluding:

"All this does not mean that the dreams that the Bush administration has for the region are coming true."

This is the key propaganda sentence: the United States and Britain are driven by fundamentally benign motives in the Middle East - by "dreams" of democracy, no less. Our governments invade countries illegally, wage vast propaganda campaigns to deceive their own populations, and kill and injure countless thousands of innocent civilians. But somehow, at heart, they are striving to spread liberty, democracy and the rights of man.

^*Bambi Journalism: The Art of Professional Naivete, David Edwards et David Cromwell, 9 janvier 2006

[...] democracy is fine if the results come out the right way; otherwise, to the flames. That is “the quintessential faith.” The evidence is so overwhelming it is pointless even to review it – at least, for those who care about such matters as historical fact, or even what is conceded publicly.

To take just one crucial current example of the same doctrines, a year ago, after other pretexts for invading Iraq had collapsed, Bush’s speech writers had to come up with something to replace them. They settled on what the liberal press calls “the president’s messianic vision to bring democracy” to Iraq, the Middle East, the whole world. The reactions were intriguing. They ranged from rapturous acclaim for the vision, which proved that this was the most noble war in history (Ignatius), to critics, who agreed that the vision was noble and inspiring, but might be beyond our reach: Iraqi culture is just not ready for such progress towards our civilized values. We have to temper the messianic idealism of Bush and Blair with some sober realism, the London Financial Times advised.

The interesting fact is that it was presupposed uncritically across the spectrum that the messianic vision must be the goal of the invasion, not this silly business about WMD and al-Qaeda, no longer credible to elite opinion. What is the evidence that the US and Britain are guided by the messianic vision? There is indeed evidence, a single piece of evidence: our Leaders proclaimed it. What more could be needed?

Imperial Presidency, Noam Chomsky, janvier 2005

^*Ou la pensée de Passe-partout

Un blogue à surveiller

Paul Wood, my hero!

My dear and brave Paul Wood,

In your last fatigue, you write:

“Still, one unpublished estimate circulating among the US marines is that 30,000 insurgents have been killed since the coalition came to Iraq in 2003.

By that measure of bloody attrition, the coalition is winning.” (US boosts anti-rebel offensive, By Paul Wood, BBC defence correspondent, Friday, 2 December 2005)

How beautifully you master the words “since the coalition came to Iraq in 2003”.

How fascinating your interpretation, ‘more killing more winning’!

When I saw you on TV a few days ago, I was in ecstasy when you referred to the use of white phosphorous in Fallujah as “a public relations disaster for the US”. And you didn’t let the facts interfere with your work. You repeated what has become a milestone in war journalism:

"But I repeat the point made by my editors, over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed. We cannot therefore report their use."

I really love a man of his word. Bravo!

I must confess, I have a weakness for you. Every time I see you on TV, so confident, brave and strong, I ask myself: Why doesn’t he wear a military uniform?

With endless admiration,
Gabriele Zamparini

Du blogue de The Cat's Dream

Hi hi hi

The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.

Tiré de l'entrevue de Noam Chomsky dans l'édition courante de Newsweek, déja mentionnée mercredi dernier dans ce blogue.

George Orwell

The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.... The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trouser in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

Préface censurée d'Animal Farm par George Orwell (1943), mentionnée ici, tirée de Progressive Political Fiction, Tony Christini, 6 décembre 2006. Orwell a ses continuateurs en Fairness And Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), dont la section spéciale Issue Area: Narrow Range of Debate est plus que roborative. De l'autre côté de l'atlantique, MediaLens fait un travail admirable, j'ai bien hâte au livre 'Guardians of Power: The myth of the liberal media':

UKWatch: The focus of your book is the liberal media. Why have you chosen this target rather than the right-wing media which many would consider far worse.

MediaLens: [...] Phil Lesley, author of a handbook on public relations and communications, advises corporations:

“People generally do not favour action on a non-alarming situation when arguments seem to be balanced on both sides and there is a clear doubt. The weight of impressions on the public must be balanced so people will have doubts and lack motivation to take action. Accordingly, means are needed to get balancing information into the stream from sources that the public will find credible. There is no need for a clear-cut ‘victory’. ... Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this is not a clear-cut situation in support of the opponents usually is all that is necessary.”

This is the main function of ‘professional’ news reporting. The main function of the ‘liberal’ arm of professional journalism is indicated by Australian media analyst Alex Carey:

“There is evidence from a major wartime study that, for the best results, one side only of an issue or argument should be presented to poorly educated people. Two-sided presentations, however, are more effective in influencing better educated people and those initially opposed to the desired view.” (Alex Carey, p.159)

The liberal media tell both sides of the story – kind of. They emphasise the state-corporate version of the truth, particularly in news reporting. This is then ‘balanced’ by commentary that presents superficial or trivial counter-arguments that do not seriously challenge the official view. So, for example, on the issue of Iraqi WMD, the official view – that Iraq was a threat that had to be disarmed, by force of necessary – was countered with a superficial, trivial view – that this may well be true, but any action should be endorsed by the UN. The real counter-argument – that Iraq was clearly not a threat and that any attack on Iraq, with or without UN approval, would be the supreme war crime – the launching of a war of aggression – was almost nowhere to be seen. The result is what Edward Herman describes as “normalising the unthinkable”. The liberal audience – the section of the population that might be expected to be most compassionate, most fiercely opposed to government crimes – was subject to endless liberal propaganda persuading them of the basic reasonableness and respectability of the US-UK government position. This consistently has the effect of pacifying and neutralising the most concerned and motivated section of society - people drawn to progressive, liberal ideas. By contrast, the right-wing press preaches to the converted, people who are happy with the status quo and keen for it not to be challenged.

D. Edwards et D. Cromwell interviewés par UK Watch via -1 Z Mag

Yves Boisvert, père de 3 ptits garçons

I Iran. Un président qui dit qu'il faut rayer Israël de la carte. Un gouvernement qui veut acquérir la technologie nucléaire et qui refuse toute médiation internationale. La menace nucléaire a un nom et un visage.

T Troupes américaines en Irak. Ils sont environ 150 000. On aurait préféré qu'ils ne fassent pas la guerre, mais s'ils se retirent, qui fera la paix? Ils sont là pour longtemps.

L'année de A à Z par Yves Boisvert, Yves Boisvert, 30 décembre 2005

[His] comments [that Israel should be “wiped off the map"] are doubtless deplorable, but would it be more acceptable for him to be announcing publicly that he is going to bomb Israel and the US, meanwhile demonstrating very openly that he is preparing the capacity to do so? That’s after all what the US and Israel have been very openly proclaiming with regard to Iran, and preparing to execute, for years.

No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons. However, it’s hard to disagree with the conclusion of one of Israel’s leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, that Iran would be insane not to develop them, surrounded by hostile and threatening nuclear powers, including the global superpower—which ... has a history in Iran that Iranians are unlikely to sweep under the rug as is done here.

Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons, Noam Chomsky, 2 janvier 2006

Mais encore:

With modern technology, the gap between these programs [du genre que ceux que L'Iran poursuit] and nuclear weapons capacity is much narrower than it was in 1970, when the NPT was signed. There are ways to overcome that problem, including quite concrete proposals. But they have gotten nowhere because the US has blocked them, most recently in November 2004, when the UN voted 147-1 (guess who) for a treaty placing production of fissile materials under international supervision—unreported here to my knowledge, though I presume Iranian intelligence is aware of this critically important vote. There’s a lot more.

The US is playing with fire in this case. Iran does have options. It might decide to give up on Europe, assuming that it is too much under the thumb of Washington, and turn to the East, joining the Asian Energy Security Grid based in Russia and China. That’s part of a range of issues much too complex to discuss here, though it’s worth mentioning that it’s one of the reasons why the US greatly fears the danger of a sovereign and more or less democratic Iraq—facts highly relevant to current withdrawal debates, which are almost meaningless if these factors are ignored, as they are.

Thomas Friedman

THE UNITED STATES AS A BENEVOLENT “ELEPHANT”

On page A21 of yesterday’s Times, Friedman praises the supposedly benevolent United States for “provid[ing] the basic governance that keeps the world stable and on a decent track.” America provides this noble service, Friedman argues, “through its vast military deployments, diplomatic engagements, and vital role buttressing the global economy and its rules” (“Social Insecurity Crisis,” 4 January 2005).

In support of this nationally self-congratulatory thesis, Friedman cites leading academic foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum’s claim that (in Friedman’s words) “most countries in the world like” American global dominance. “They like it,” Friedman says, “because they know that the U.S. is not a predatory power” and that American rule “is helpful to every country in the world.”

Friedman gives a lovely quote from the professor’s recent book, “The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Government in the 21st Century.” The U.S., Mandelbaum writes (to Friedman’s applause), “is not the lion of the international system, terrorizing and preying on weaker animals in order to survive itself. It is, rather, the elephant, which supports a wide variety of other creatures – smaller mammals, birds, and insects- by generating nourishment for them as it goes about the business of feeding itself.”

“The best evidence” for this benevolent "elephant" thesis, Friedman feels, “is the fact that no military coalition has ever formed to counter America’s global governing role – as happened with other hegemonic powers in history.”

Thomas Friedman and the Murder of Civilians, Paul Street, 5 décembre 2005

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road.

Du discours d'acceptation du prix Nobel 2005 de littérature par Harold Pinter

Michael Ignatieff prise 2

[H]e called for a bold definition of national unity and Canadian sovereignty that was relevant to the modern world. "We're an experiment as to whether a multicultural, multilingual society can survive and prosper," he said. "If we can't do it, no one can."

The speech contained the outlines of the Big Idea. While the revival of Quebec separatism remains a clear danger, he said, Canada also needs to deal with its other regional, ethnic and economic tensions before it is overwhelmed by them. Ignatieff, whose career has been devoted to chronicling human-rights abuses committed in the name of nationalism, said there was a "global stake in us getting this story right ... in a world which is ravaged by intolerance and hatred."

Could Michael Ignatieff's Canada be the Big Idea of this election?, Stephen Handelman, 12 décembre 2005

Pour se rafraichir la mémoire sur ce sombre personnage: Ignatieff

Marc Garneau persiste et signe

Marc Garneau persiste et signe. La nouvelle recrue libérale affirme que les Québécois ne savent pas vraiment ce qui les attend dans un éventuel Québec souverain. " C'est un peu comme lorsque les Américains ont envahi Bagdad. C'est arrivé très rapidement, mais qu'est-ce qui arrive ensuite? "

[...]

Dans un article paru dans La Presse hier, l'ancien astronaute affirmait qu'il serait incapable d'habiter dans un Québec souverain car il se bat depuis des années contre l'indépendance. Bombardé de questions par les journalistes à la suite de ces propos, Marc Garneau en a remis.

[...]

Ainsi, tant et aussi longtemps que la " menace " séparatiste planera sur le Québec, M. Garneau affirme qu'il défendra avec fougue l'unité de son pays, un endroit qui fait l'envie du reste du monde, estime-t-il. Le candidat libéral avoue toutefois qu'il trouve difficile de " vendre le Canada " aux Québécois. " Il y a certaines personnes (qui ont été) anesthésiées par le refrain incessant du Bloc, explique-t-il. C'est à moi de les réveiller et de les sortir de cette anesthésie.

Marc Garneau persiste et signe, Nathaëlle Morissette, 5 janvier 2006

C'est confirmé: fièvre en phase terminale

Dans le Newsweek du 9 janvier, fronté sur les répercussions du scandale du faux pas présidentiel sur les technicalités de la NSA, une courte entrevue avec Noam Chomsky:

You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?

I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.

A Tale of Two Quagmires, Noam Chomsky-Michael Hastings, 9 janvier 2005

the total failure of the human spirit

The semantic effect of this journalistic obfuscation is clear. If Palestinian land is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely.

If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly "neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless terrorist act.

And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" — words that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a private housing complex.

For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.

Telling It Like It Isn't, Robert Fisk, 31 décembre 2005