31.1.06

GWB?

Une des meilleures imitations de Bush que j'ai vue.

Via Manumilitari.

30.1.06

Return of the Jedi



Pas besoin de le louer.

Nouvelles tactiques de l'armée américaine en Irak

Pas capable de mettre la main sur un suspect? Vous n'avez qu'à kidnapper sa famille...

Winning hearts and minds 101.

Comme le dit Paul Krugman, en parlant de Rob Corddry:

"How does one report the facts," asked Rob Corddry on "The Daily Show," "when the facts themselves are biased?" He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that "facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," and therefore can't be reported.

Wanker roundup

Du Poor Man Institute. Si vous vous demandiez ce qui se passe dans les blogs de droite aux USA, en voici un très bon exemple.

Extrait:


The Left doesn’t want people to hear what conservatives have to say, perhaps knowing that they have been intellectually outclassed and proven disastrously wrong by history and current events. Instead, they issue mindless attacks, childish insults, and do everything possible to keep people from having access to conservative thought.


Ou comment l'absence d'argument (présumée) peut servir à masquer l'absence d'argument (bien réelle).

28.1.06

Les plans du Pentagone pour attaquer Internet

Un article assez étonnant signé par un journaliste de la BBC révèle que le Pentagone se dote en ce moment de moyens pour mener une guerre électronique contre tous les ordinateurs en réseau.

À lire...

When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.


Via Hoffmania.

27.1.06

Réactions à l'élection du Hamas

Juan Cole a écrit un article assez intéressant sur l'élection du Hamas dans les territoires occupés (et préoccupés -> Gaza, gniouk gniouk!) dans Salon (just watch the damn ad, you won't die).

Bush has boxed himself into an impossible situation. He promoted elections that have produced results opposite of the ones he wanted. For all his constant rhetoric about his determination to hunt down and kill terrorists, in Palestine he has in effect helped install into power a group he calls "terrorists." His confusion over whether this is democracy, which should be legitimate, or is an unacceptable outcome -- and his unwillingness to address the underlying issues behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- suggest that a fatal paralysis will continue to afflict the region.

L'article souligne bien le fait que le problème est avant tout celui de l'administration Bush. Quant aux israëliens, c'est business as usual, et même mieux, car on retrouve la bonne vieille excuse du temps d'Arafat: "on ne négocie pas avec des terroristes". Le seul problème avec l'excuse en question, c'est qu'elle cache (malhabilement) le fait qu'on n'a absolument pas envie de négocier quoi que ce soit avec qui que ce soit, et ce, depuis des années.

26.1.06

Le PC et le PQ

Stephen Harper a beaucoup aimé faire appel à René Lévesque durant sa campagne électorale, surtout dans le but d'invoquer les efforts entrepris par l'ancien chef du PQ afin d'enrayer la corruption dans la politique québécoise. Mais il est clair, comme on le mentionne ailleurs, que les parallèles entre le PQ et le PC ne s'arrêtent pas là. Les deux partis ont en effet leurs assises dans des mouvements idéologiques forts, et leurs bases militantes respectives ont toutes deux des buts politiques peu subtils, qui ne se laissent pas (ou peu) encombrer de considérations pragmatiques liées à l'exercice du pouvoir. Or, si Harper est intelligent, il saura retenir dans l'histoire du PQ les différentes stratégies qui ont été appliquées au cours des années afin de satisfaire la base militante tout en l'empêchant de contrôler l'agenda politique du parti (en anglais, on dirait "Harper needs to placate his base"). Il faudra donc s'attendre à ce qu'il trouve l'équivalent des conditions gagnantes, qui ont fait pleurer de rage tant de militants du PQ au cours des dernières années, surtout que d'aucune manière, il peut se permettre de pousser des lois radicalement à droite alors qu'il veut se faire beau pour une éventuelle réélection "gagnante" où il obtiendrait une majorité.

Couric vs Dean

Après Wolf Blitzer de CNN, qui n'avait visiblement aucune difficulté à lire les questions qui ne pouvaient qu'être préparées par le GOP, c'est au tour de Katie Couric de tenter la même chose.

Via Thinkprogress.

25.1.06

Water? That's for boats, right?

Via War and Piece.

The first official history of the $25 billion American reconstruction effort in Iraq depicts a program hobbled from the outset by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting, secrecy and constantly increasing security costs, according to a preliminary draft copy of the document dated December 2005. ...

Seemingly odd decisions on dividing the responsibility for various sectors of the reconstruction crop up repeatedly in the document. At one point, a planning team made the decision to put all reconstruction activities in Iraq under the Army Corps of Engineers, except anything to do with water, which would go to the Navy.

Lorsque les photographes s'amusent

L'apparent paradoxe québécois: le nationalisme mou

Plusieurs se demandent (surtout au Canada anglais, où l'on croit souvent que les préférences électorales des québécois sont fortement teintées d'irrationalité), après les résultats de lundi dernier, comment se fait-il que beaucoup de québécois sont aptes à opérer un changement apparemment radical de position alors que certains qui semblent être des supporteurs de la cause indépendantiste peuvent aussi facilement voter pour un parti fédéraliste, en l'occurence les conservateurs? Le problème n'est, à mon humble avis, qu'apparent; il se trouve au centre de ce que l'on appelle depuis des années le nationalisme mou(tm). De toutes les positions quant aux relations QC-CAN, la position qui veut que la spécificité du Québec soit reconnue au sein d'un nouvel arrangement fédéral est la plus populaire. Le problème est que le deuxième choix des québécois n'est pas le statu quo, mais l'indépendance. C'est donc dire que le vote pour le changement, qu'il soit au sein de la fédération ou à l'extérieur de celle-ci, si on le combine, (choix no.1 + choix no.2) est beaucoup plus populaire que le vote combiné fédéraliste (choix no.1, changements au sein de la fédération + choix no.3, statu quo). Donc, la contradiction entre soutenir une position fédéraliste et soutenir une position souverainiste n'est qu'apparente. La combinaison des choix 1 et 2 est soutenue par l'idée que des changements s'imposent, quelques soient les formes potentielles que ces changements prennent. C'est pourquoi le glissement d'un vote souverainiste (pour le Bloc) vers un vote fédéraliste (conservateur) n'est pas si difficile à faire, du moins beaucoup moins selon moi qu'un glissement du choix 2 vers le choix 3. Il faut dire que de moins en moins de québécois se déclarent ouvertement pour ce dernier choix (c'est la tendance lourde depuis les années '60). Il est donc plus facile, pour le québécois moyen, d'être un nationaliste à texture variable (de mou à dur à mou, selon les circonstances) qu'un fédéraliste de même accabi (style PLC d'héritage PET du type "Just watch me", au fédéraliste sauce PC de Mulroney, par exemple).

24.1.06

La Presse: le journal qu'on aime aimer

Via Al-Shifa.

La Presse a refusé de laisser Norman Lester répondre à des attaques d'André Pratte et de Lysiane Gagnon. Je vous invite à lire son texte.

Extrait:

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.

Qu'elle ne lâche pas. Le siège de Renaude Lapointe et de Solange Chaput-Rolland au Sénat l'attend. La récompense sera bien méritée.

Après avoir lu mon texte, André Pratte m’a transmis le courriel suivant :

Nous avons bien reçu votre réplique. Il nous fera plaisir de la publier, mais pas dans son état actuel.

Je ne permets pas les insultes ou les procès d'intention dans nos pages, de notre part ou de celle de ceux dont nous publions les textes. Or, vous nous accusez de « mentir » ; cela me semble un peu fort. Que nous soyons en désaccord avec vous ne fait pas de nous des « menteurs ». Vous avez le droit de ne pas vous considérer comme un essayiste ou comme un militant souverainiste nous avons le droit de penser le contraire.

Par ailleurs, votre dernière phrase sur le Sénat est de trop. Je suis convaincu qu'il vous est possible d'exprimer votre désaccord avec vigueur sans insulter les gens.

André

Je lui ai immédiatement répondu :

Le problème n’est pas que Lysiane et vous pensiez que je suis un militant indépendantiste pur et dur de la tendance nationaleuse. Vous avez le droit de pensez ce que vous voulez. Le problème vient du fait que vos affirmations ne correspondent pas à la réalité. Utiliser, par exemple, le mot militant pour me désigner. En français le mot militant à un sens bien précis, selon le Larousse : « Adhérent d'une organisation politique, syndicale, sociale, qui participe activement à la vie de cette organisation ».

Vous dites, André, que ma dernière phrase sur le Sénat est de trop ajoutant qu’il est possible d’exprimer mon désaccord avec vigueur sans insulter les gens. Vous devriez diriger vos remarques à votre chroniqueuse. Ses propos me traitant de nationaleux relève non seulement de l'invective mais aussi de la calomnie. Et, dois-je comprendre que Lysiane considère que je l’outrage en disant qu’elle mérite le siège au Sénat de Renaude Lapointe, une éditorialiste émérite de La Presse ? Y a-t-il quelque chose d’infamant dans le fait de souhaiter à une chroniqueuse fédéraliste qu’elle accède aux honneurs de la chambre haute ?

J’ai proposé au représentant éditorial de Power Corporation de remplacer « Les deux mentent carrément » par l’équivalent : « Ces affirmations sont contraires à la vérité. » Ce n’était pas assez. J’avais comme l’intuition que l’éditorialiste en chef de La Presse ne voulait pas publier un texte dans lequel je le mettais au défi avec la chroniqueuse Gagnon de soutenir ce qu’ils avancent. Nouveau courriel de Pratte :

Normand,

Nous publions demain des répliques à nos textes sur Option Canada mais la vôtre n'en sera pas, puisque vous refusez d'enlever cette référence au Sénat comme « récompense ». Cette remarque remet en cause l'intégrité de Lysiane, et il n'est pas question que je la publie. Si votre texte était élagué de ce passage, nous le publierions bien sûr avec plaisir.

André

Pour ne pas faire de la peine à Lysiane Gagnon, j’ai accepté de biffer « La récompense sera bien méritée. » Je me doutais que cela ne serait pas suffisant et que La Presse ne voulait pas publier ma réplique. Le courriel suivant de Pratte confirmera mes doutes :

Ça ne change rien. L'allusion reste claire.

Je te rappelle ce passage des Droits et responsabilité de la presse, du Conseil de presse :

« Les journaux peuvent apporter des modifications aux lettres qu'ils publient (titres, rédaction, corrections) pourvu qu'ils n'en changent pas le sens et qu'ils ne trahissent pas la pensée des auteurs. Ils peuvent refuser de publier certaines lettres, à condition que leur refus ne soit pas motivé par un parti pris, une inimitié ou encore par le désir de taire une information d'intérêt public qui serait contraire au point de vue éditorial ou nuirait à certains intérêts particuliers. »

André

Lysiane Gagnon ne veut vraiment pas être comparée à Renaude Lapointe qui a effectivement gagné son Sénat en écrivant pendant des décennies des textes insignifiants et oubliés pour défendre le fédéralisme canadien. Il est aussi amusant de noter comment Pratte se cache dernière une citation du Conseil de presse pour me censurer. Ça me donne une idée : Devrais-je moi-même porter plainte au Conseil de presse contre deux membres de la profession qui caractérisent les gens en fonction de leurs préjugés au mépris des faits.

Bye bye Sam!

Parkdale - High Park

• 51329 bulletins dépouillés / 70859 électeurs inscrits (72.43%)
• 190 bureaux reçus sur 190
• Candidat élu : majorité 9722 votes


Nash, Peggy NPD 20690
Bulte, Sarmite Sam LIB 18489
Klufas, Jurij PC 8767
Rishchynski, Robert L. PV 2820
Parker, Terry PM 311
Gershuny, Lorne ML 133
Bernardo, Beverly AA 119

Combien de temps avant que l'industrie du disque se trouve un autre lacquais au sein du PC?

Le morcellement du Québec

Quelqu'un peut-il m'expliquer ce qu'on met dans l'eau dans la région de Québec? On a voté pour lui? On a voté pour elle, elle qui avait toutes les difficultés du monde à faire des phrases de plus de trois mots à la télévision hier soir (et c'est ministrable, on dit). Il ne manque plus que Jeff Fillion à cette belle brochette; on devrait l'inviter à se joindre à un parti politique dès que possible, pour qu'on puisse le voir et l'entendre plus souvent.

La performance du Bloc et les succès des Conservateurs

Certains ce matin seraient portés à croire que la performance du Bloc a été quelque peu décevante (avec 50 sièges). Ceci dit, il ne faut pas oublier que le vote pour le Bloc demeure avant tout un vote de protestation, et, pour cette raison, sa robustesse est moins grande que serait un vote pour le PQ aux élections provinciales. Selon moi, pour cette raison, on en ne peut conclure grand chose quant à l'éventuelle campagne électorale au Québec, contrairement à ce qu'annonce d'un ton ridiculement triomphal un des lap dogs habituel. Néanmoins, je ne pensais pas que Harper & cie feraient une si grande percée au Québec: il faut croire que n'importe quel politicien au fédéral qui chante une autre chanson que celle à laquelle nous a habitué le PLC quant à la place du Québec au sein de la fédération saura faire des gains. Le plus dur maintenant? To put your money where your mouth is.

Le winner



Pronunciation: 'wi-n&r
Function: noun
: one that wins: as a : one that is successful especially through praiseworthy ability and hard work b : a victor especially in games and sports c : one that wins admiration

20.1.06

Sam Bulte passe aux menaces

Via boinboing.

Sam Bulte - la députée libérale à la solde des compagnies de disque - se retrouve dans le Globe and Mail ce matin grâce à menaces proférées contre Michael Geist.

The back-and-forth between Ms. Bulte and Mr. Geist, the blogger, is getting increasingly personal and nasty. In an interview, Ms. Bulte accused Mr. Geist, members of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Ms. Nash of trying to discredit her.

"I will not be silenced by zealots like Michael Geist and political opportunists like Peggy Nash who are making something out of nothing," she said, adding that she believes Mr. Geist's comments are nearing the point of being defamatory.

"I am not going to sue him before the election but dammit, watch me after the election."


Ce commentaire dans le bas de la page du GaM résume tout:

E Mang from Toronto, Canada writes: Ms. Bulte's protestations equal the tenor of the Liberals' national campaign: comical. Professor Geist is effective in his criticism of Ms. Bulte because he uses facts and research to buttress his claims while Ms. Bulte, who doesn't let facts get in the way of a good verbal brawl, is left sputtering, ranting and issuing threats.

Finally, what does she mean by "...watch me after the election."? Is this yet another Liberal who believes she is owed her job? I'm sorry Ms. Bulte, but Parkdale-High Park is not your seat any more than it's Peggy Nash's, Rob Rishchynski's or Jurij Klufas'. You have to work for it. And lashing out as you have done to date makes you look petty.

En attendant Osama

Je vous suggère un bon article de Pepe Escobar..

Just a slow, composed, husky voice out of a telephone line recorded on a scratched tape (not digital; a mere cassette). No video. Just a voice - capable of sending the markets into a tailspin and the networks into hysteria, spiking the oil bourses in London and New York, resetting the global agenda, unleashing armies of US intelligence analysts scrambling to confirm if the voice is real or fake.

You had totally vanished from the face of the Earth for more than a year. You are the most wanted man in the world. You re-enter the global stage just with your voice, a mere whisper. The simplicity of it. What politician would not dream of such power?

Osama bin Laden, master media manipulator turned global politician, is back. Talk about astonishing timing. Only a few days ago in the Pakistani tribal area of Bajur a US Central Intelligence Agency drone delivered punishment from heaven toward what should have been al-Qaeda's No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, but turned out to be villagers, including children, and also reportedly some al-Qaeda militants.

Cue to a tape moving hand-to-hand undetected from the tribal areas - it could be South Waziristan in Pakistan, it could be Kunar in Afghanistan - to Al-Jazeera's office in Peshawar and then to the network's headquarters in Doha, Qatar. There's no reason to doubt Al-Jazeera's assessment that the tape was recorded last month. It didn't have to sit very long to reach the limelight.

Bin Laden may have never read James Joyce, but he is applying to perfection the Dubliner's motto: silence, exile, cunning. Against the awesome US military machine, al-Qaeda's weapons of choice since September 11, 2001, have been subterfuge, evasion and deception.

But the Bush administration - and US public opinion - will have only themselves to blame if they confuse the messenger's tactics with the message. Whatever the tactics, bin Laden is always on message - and should be taken at his word.

Bush vs Osama

We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and based on the substance of the polls, which indicate Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stand by ... a truce that offers security and stability and the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan that war has destroyed ... And there is nothing wrong with this solution except that it deprives the influential people and warlords in America from hundreds of billions of dollars - those who supported [President George W] Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars.
- Osama bin Laden on tape, January 18

Chickenhawks

One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. The P.S.U.C. militiamen whom I knew in the line, the Communists from the International Brigade whom I met from time to time, never called me a Trotskyist or a traitor; they left that kind of thing to the journalists in the rear. The people who wrote pamphlets against us and vilified us in the newspapers all remained safe at home, or at worst in the newspaper offices of Valencia, hundreds of miles from the bullets and the mud. And apart from the libels of the inter-party feud, all the usual war-stuff, the tub-thumping, the heroics, the vilification of the enemy—all these were done, as usual, by people who were not fighting and who in many cases would have run a hundred miles sooner than fight. […] Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him.

George Orwell
Homage to Catalonia

19.1.06

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Maher Arar: Out of sight...

...out of mind.

At today’s press conference Scott McClellan claimed he has never heard reports that the United States sent detainees to Syria, where they were tortured:

QUESTION: There are allegations that we sent people to Syria to be tortured…

MCCLELLAN: To Syria?

QUESTION: Yes. You’ve never heard of any allegations like that?

MCCLELLAN: No, I’ve never heard that one. That’s a new one.

QUESTION: Syria? You haven’t heard that?

MCCLELLAN: That’s a new one.

QUESTION: Well, I can assure you it’s been well publicized. My question is…

MCCLELLAN: By what, bloggers?

18.1.06

More Liberal pleasure

Via Montreal Metroblogging.

Vous cherchez à être doucement influencé par l'équipe politique de l'heure? Je vous recommande un des fonds d'écran libéraux (tm). Je vous suggère particulièrement celui de la belle Belinda qui a courageusement quitté Stephen Harper et les méchants conservateurs pour faire partie d'une équipe gagnante. Bravo Belinda!

L'héritage de Sharon

Je vous invite à lire cet article de Tony Karon (le seul journaliste intéressant qui travaille pour le magazine Time) sur Ariel Sharon. Oui, ça va vous prendre plus que trente secondes, mais ça vaut la peine.

Extrait:

Sharon’s stewardship came about as a result of the errors of others — Bibi, Barak, Clinton, Arafat and other Palestinian leaders who seemed to forget the basic lesson of insurgency, that you confront your enemy where he is weakest, not strongest (a military confrontation was always going to be won by Israel, and not only that — it effectively neutralized the Palestinians’ advantages in the realm of politics and diplomacy). And his success in rolling back Oslo has been similarly premised on the mistakes and cynicism of others.

But his victories, as profound as they may appear right now, may nontheless prove to be tactical rather than strategic. In the place of Arafat’s PLO there will arise a new Palestinian political consensus, established at the ballot box and both more reflective of Palestinian opinion and more accountable to it than the Arafat generation had been — and probably, as a result, less palatable to U.S. preferences. Hamas will play a substantial role in that new Palestinian political order, to be sure, but as much as that fact will remind Israel and the West that Palestinian sensibilities cannot be ignored, it will also acquaint Hamas with the fact that Israel’s existence is an intractable reality. And an Israeli society that remains locked into a state of protracted conflict with the Palestinians will accelerate the internal collapse of Zionism. Indeed, Sharon may have convinced the Bush administration, but he has failed to persuade the majority of the world’s Jews to sign on to his vision of their future.

So, Sharon may have won the day, and that’s bad news for all who believe in justice for the Palestinians — and those for whom the term ‘Jewish’ is an ethical calling more than a tribal rallying cry. But he has not ended the conflict on his terms. And whether his inheritors manage to complete his work may depend on the ability of all those who seek a just solution understanding how Sharon’s victories were achieved.

The great hope of those on the Israeli left who supported Sharon’s Gaza pullout was that although Sharon had no intention of pursuing a credible two-state solution with the Palestinians, he might nonetheless set in motion a train of events over which he’d lose control. At the time that sounded like nothing more than wishful thinking. Ironically, his departure from the political scene makes it a more plausible belief. But given the current state of politics on both sides of the divide makes any expectation of movement back towards a peace process in the near term seem giddily optimistic.

Le Washington Post s'enfarge encore

Dans le blogue du WaPo, le bordel est encore pogné, cette fois-ci parce que l'équipe qui se charge de la gestion des commentaires a retiré certains d'entre eux qui soulignait le fait que le Post avait, sans vérifier, soutenu que Jack Abramoff avait aussi pompé du fric vers les démocrates, un mensonge qui s'est répété un peu partout.

Exemple:

Set aside, for the moment, the fact that your readers have utterly nailed you on your factual errors. Deleting angry but overwhelmingly inoffensively phrased comments (yes, some used foul language, but those were a clear minority when I read them)? Astonishing, depressing, disgusting, disturbing, alarming...unacceptable. Your hostility towards your readers is mind boggling. What kind of business model is this? During the Froomkin kerfuffle national politics editor John Harris claimed that credibility is the Post's greatest asset. Ask yourselves honestly, how does this mass deletion contribute to your credibility? Isn't there anyone at the Post who can step in and put a stop to this insane war on your readers?

Dupe

Mouvement involontaire de l'index, encore.

Pro-user zealots: count me in!

La campagne menée par Cory Doctorow et Michael Geist contre Sam Bulte commence à porter fruit. Un article de Macleans résume bien les événements.


At an all-candidates meeting last week, Bulte bristled at the suggestion that she take Geist's advice and reject money from the entertainment industry. "I will not allow Michael Geist and his pro-user zealots to intimidate me," she said.

Toujours pas convaincu du ridicule de la loi sur les droits d'auteur?

Lisez cet article..

Extraits:

Dans le cadre actuel de la Loi canadienne sur le droit d'auteur, il pourrait être illégal de transférer, dans un baladeur de type iPod, Rio, Sana et autres, des pièces musicales pourtant achetées en toute légalité chez un disquaire ou à partir d'un magasin de musique en ligne, tel Zik, PureTracks ou iTunes Music Store.

Dans le cas d'un CD musical dont on est le propriétaire, la loi ne permet que de le graver sur un des supports vierges tarifés, en autant qu'une fois la copie complétée, on l'efface du disque rigide (s'il y a transité). La copie sur disque n'est pas plus autorisée, qu'elle ne l'est sur baladeur.

«On pourrait argumenter qu'au Canada, il est actuellement légal- puisque pas encore déclaré illégal- de se télécharger de la musique à partir de systèmes illégaux, soutient Me Bertrand. Par contre, il est clair qu'on ne peut transmettre de fichiers musicaux à des tiers (comme le recommande la philosophie propre aux services de partage P2P, p. ex. eMule). Seul l'auteur peut décider de rendre son oeuvre disponible sur Internet.»

RADIO ET TÉLÉ

Toute reproduction non autorisée d'une émission est strictement interdite. Vous enregistrez un téléroman sur Mac mini, TiVo, Media Center PC ou magnétoscope; vous commettez une violation de copyright si le diffuseur n'a pas donné son autorisation. Le même principe s'applique à la baladodiffusion. À moins d'une permission formelle, ce que vous stockez dans votre iPod est illégal. Sauf qu'ici, il y a tolérance puisque, pour l'instant, le dommage subi est nul.

FILM

Aucune exception comme dans le cas de la musique: les DVD vierges ne font pas partie de la liste. Ce qui signifie que si on copie un film (ou qu'on en capte un en salle), on commet une violation de copyright. En tout temps! Par contre, il est légal de s'acheter un logiciel permettant la copie de DVD. C'est comme pour le cannabis; on peut s'acheter une pipe à eau, mais il est illégal de l'utiliser.

Afghanistan: retour à l'anormal

Pendant ce temps, l'Afghanistan s'est lentement mais sûrement retrouvé dans les mêmes conditions qui prévalaient après le départ de l'Armée Rouge. Certains aiment croire qu'il s'agit là d'une victoire, mais le pays est encore une fois à un poil du chaos le plus complet.

Extrait:

From Washington's point of view, therefore, it may seem that the law of diminishing returns is at work for the Bush administration. The most prudent thing for the US is, understandably, to claim "victory" and to disengage from active military duty in the Hindu Kush. The ground situation in Afghanistan is worsening. The Taliban are undoubtedly spreading their presence. There is no point quibbling over the Taliban's "strength".

The Taliban may not be able to capture power in Kabul, but they are increasingly in a position to create mayhem, and that makes the governance of the country simply impossible. The huge income from drug trafficking has made Afghan resistance "self-financing". The Taliban's tactics are working.

17.1.06

Rondo Thomas

Via Rick Mercer.

On a bien hâte de le voir en action, au pouvoir.

La Presse

Aujourd'hui, la page éditoriale du journal dont on aime tant parler se prononçait ouvertement pour les conservateurs, histoire de tenter de faire taire les critiques. Devrait-on s'en surprendre? Seulement si vous avez oublié que le journal est intimement lié avant tout à Jean Chrétien, par l'entremise de relations familiales peu fortuites.

Les ennemis de mes ennemis...

Le Winner (suite)

La suite.
Le ministre traîne de la patte derrière la candidate bloquiste et ex-présidente de la Fédération des femmes du Québec, Vivian Barbot.

Mme Barbot récolterait 37% des voix contre 25% pour son adversaire libéral.

Les patients étrangers

L'histoire à propos des patients qui se font opérer dans des hôpitaux québécois a fait coulé beaucoup d'encre. En fait, même les apôtres des PPP en santé dénoncent le phénomène. Et pourtant, l'histoire illustre très bien le problème qui nous attend avec l'introduction du privé en santé: si les ressources sont limitées (médecins et infirmières, salles d'opération et équipements spécialisés divers) et que le privé s'en mèle, qui aura accès à ces ressources en premier?

De quoi de se rendre malade en attendant de ne plus pouvoir se le permettre.

16.1.06

Nos amis de La Presse

Le manque flangrant de subtilité de Vincent Marissal et d'André Pratte fait maintenant aussi sursauter Martineau du Voir. Les commentaires sont aussi plutôt amusants.

Le lobby du disque au Canada

Via Boingboing. Michael Geist, en fouillant un peu dans la boue, a déniché une opération de graissage extensive de plusieurs politiciens (libéraux, fallait-il l'ajouter), dont Sheila Copps et Alan Rock.

Extrait:

While the impact of lobbyists occasionally comes into public view through the presence of MPs at industry-sponsored events, most of it is evident only behind closed doors.

Greater access to Ministers and government officials is certainly one of the most important consequences. A March 2002 letter from then CRIA President Brian Robertson to newly appointed Industry Minister Allan Rock, obtained under the Access to Information Act, provides a classic illustration of this phenomenon.

The CRIA letter congratulates Rock on his new position and urges him to support ratification of the World Intellectual Property Organization' s Internet treaties. Rock is advised that CRIA has enjoyed a very productive dialogue with Canadian Heritage Minister Sheila Copps “persuasive enough to have the Minister of Heritage publicly state…that it was now the government' s intention to ratify the Treaties.”

Dupe

Oops.

Interlude.

NSFW.

Le Winner

À chaque jour son scandale pour le PLC. On apprend maintenant que le scrutateur des libéraux dans Papineau donnait délibérément un nom fictif au lieu du nom de la députée bloquiste lors du vote par anticipation. La réaction du principal intéressé, Pierre Pettigrew? Faut pas en faire un plat, c'est "juste quelques votes".

...

13.1.06

Si l'Akratique était américain...

.. il serait dans l'eau chaude.

Extrait:

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

Rob Corddry

.. en feu.

(Via C&L).

Ford: que faire lorsque votre compagnie est en chute libre?


Build bigger SUV's, of course.

Americablog achète les détails de la facture de téléphone de Wesley Clark


Afin de démontrer comment la vie privée aux U.S.A. est si peu protégée, Americablog s'est amusé à déterrer l'ensemble des numéros contactés par et qui ont contacté Wesley Clark, ancien candidat à la chefferie du parti démocrate et ancien commandant en chef des forces de l'OTAN. Inquiétant.

12.1.06

Mario Dumont et l'ironie

M. Dumont estime que les Québécois s'apprêtent à voter une cinquième fois pour un parti dénué de l'ambition de gouverner et dont le nationalisme est défensif.

Pétition

En suite aux articles concernant Sam Bulte, une députée libérale à la solde des lobbys du l'industrie du disque, je vous invite à signer cette pétition sur le site d'Online Rights Canada.

P.S. Michael Geist a écrit un autre article intéressant sur la personne suite à un débat des candidats de sa circonscription.

Le texte de la pétition:

WE THE UNDERSIGNED DECLARE:

We believe that the politicians who craft copyright policy should not take money from a small, wealthy subset of the people whom copyright is intended to serve. In order to address this conflict of interest, we request that Canadian politicians sign the following Copyright Pledge:

"No Member of Parliament who has accepted financial contributions or other benefits from (i) a copyright lobby group, (ii) its corporate members, or (iii) senior executives as well as (iv) a copyright collective shall serve as Minister of Canadian Heritage or as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, nor sit on any legislative committee (parliamentary or standing committees) conducting hearings or deliberations on copyright matters."

Le cabinet de Stephen Harper

Via Maze.

Rick Mercer nous donne un aperçu d'un éventuel cabinet Harper.

Un échantillon:

Stockwell Day – Minister of Foreign Affairs

Stockwell Day is perhaps the most experienced and most talented member on the Conservative front bench.

Stockwell is currently Foreign Affairs critic for the Conservative Party and he has done a bang-up job. When he was questioned as to why his party did not offer condolences to the Palestinians when Yasser Arafat died Stock responded by sending out a column by David Frum that speculated that Yasser died of AIDS.

With Stock representing Canada on the world stage can Peace in the Middle East be far away?

Juan Cole à propos de Sharon

Un excellent article ce matin dans Salon de Juan Cole sur la stratégie d'Ariel Sharon à propos des Palestiniens.

Extrait:


The conflict between Sharon and the Likud Party, with which he recently broke, was over two distinct far-right-wing visions of Israel. The somewhat messianic Likud is committed to completing the creeping dispossession of the Palestinians by relentlessly colonizing the West Bank and Gaza (at least), and refusing to accept any clear demarcation between Israeli territory and that of its neighbors. This 19th-century-style settler colonialism, reminiscent of the French in Algeria or the Italians in Eritrea, is so blatantly aggressive that it continually threatens to disrupt vital economic and diplomatic relations between Israel and Europe. Sharon saw that, but his rival Benjamin Netanyahu never could.

Likud is hoping that somehow along the way the indigenous population will gradually be convinced to leave for Egypt or Jordan, as the Israelis move in. (Some hard nudging is not ruled out by some elements of the party.) In the meantime, in the words of Likud leader Netanyahu, the Palestinians might have self-rule, but would not be allowed to have self-government.

In reality, it is the Palestinians, with their high population growth rates, who have the demographic advantage. Israel's ability to retain new immigrants fell during the second intifada or Palestinian uprising. As the Russian economy benefits from high petroleum prices, further major immigration by Jews from that country seems unlikely. Indeed, some of the 1 million Russians in Israel, many of them not actually Jewish, may start returning to the old country. By 2020, most projections predict that Jews will be a minority in the area comprising Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Even among Israeli citizens, Israeli government demographers predict that by 2030 the population could be a third Arab.

Sharon, unlike the Likud, understood the threat these demographic trends posed to Israel, and so saw the future as one in which Israel stopped expanding in some directions, instead accepting a fixed territory. It would become a huge gated community, surrounded by seven or eight small enclaves. Each enclave might remain a bad neighborhood, but gates, punitive raids and assassinations would keep the ghetto dwellers from storming the citadel. The "gates" include checkpoints, highways and a wall that would have made the first Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huangdi -- who built his own Great Wall -- proud. It would break up the Palestinian regions into isolated cantons and guarantee that they could never mobilize politically and would remain de facto stateless. It would also preserve the Jewish polity by keeping the Palestinians in their current limbo, prevented from claiming Israeli citizenship even as they are denied a viable state of their own.

11.1.06

Les choses que l'on oublie...

Cliquez sur "смотреть клип (352x288 300Kbps) 10.5Mb"

Le choix de pub des libéraux.

Je vous invite cordialement à aller voir la série de publicités datées du 10 janvier sur le site (anglais) du PLC. À ranger avec les pubs du Reform sur les leaders du Québec et celles des conservateurs de Kim Campbell sur Jean Chrétien (Is this the face of a Prime Minister?).

Bravo au PLC pour avoir élevé le débat d'un cran (ou deux).

Addendum à la publicité des libéraux

Un des commentaires sur PTBC.ca a - il le fallait - mis le doigt sur le bobo.

Quote:

Suggestion: Take the soundtrack from that ad, but put footage from the Trudeau imposed martial law from the FLQ crisis in the background. Soldiers. With Guns. In the streets. In Canada. No, it really happened. We’re not making this up. LOL.

GWB est-il un sociopathe?

Repiqué du NewsHog.

Une liste de caractéristiques qui semblent s'appliquer de manière assez frappante à notre grand ami GWB. À lire.

Republicans exhibit many of the behavioral characteristics of a sociopath or socialized psychopath-- such as an outstanding ability to charm and seduce followers. Since they appear apparently normal, they are not easily recognizable as deviant or disturbed. Although only a trained professional can make a diagnosis, it is important to be able to recognize the personality type in order to avoid further abuse.

  • Glibness/Superficial Charm
    Language can be used without effort by them to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers that exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.

  • Manipulative and Conning
    They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims.

  • Grandiose Sense of Self
    Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with their own fantasies as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality.

  • Pathological Lying
    Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and able to pass lie detector tests.

  • Shallow Emotions
    When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion, it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

  • Incapacity for Love
    While they talk about "God's love" they are unable to give or receive it. Since they do not believe in the genuineness of their followers' love, they are very harsh in testing it from their devotees and expect them to feel guilt for their failings. Expects unconditional surrender.

  • Need for Stimulation
    Living on the edge, yet testing the beliefs of their followers with bizarre rules, punishments and behaviors. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

  • Callousness/Lack of Empathy
    Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power. Since the follower cannot believe their leader would callously hurt them, they rationalize the behavior as necessary for their (or the group's) own "good" and deny the abuse. When devotees become aware of the exploitation it feels like a "spiritual rape" to them.

  • Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
    Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. The followers only see them as near perfect.

  • Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
    Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

  • Irresponsibility/Unreliability
    Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blame their followers or others outside their group. Blame reinforces passivity and obedience and produces guilt, shame, terror and conformity in the followers.

  • Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
    Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future. Many groups claim as their goal world-domination or other utopian promises. Great contrast between the leader's opulent lifestyle and the followers' impoverishment. Support by gifts and donations from the followers who are pressured to give through fear and guilt. Highly sensitive to their own pain and health.

  • Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
    Changes their image and that of the group as needed to avoid prosecution and to increase income and to recruit a range of members. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed to preserve the group. Can resurface later with a new name, a new front group and a new twist on the scam.

    Other Related Qualities

  • Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them

  • Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them

  • Authoritarian

  • Secretive

  • Paranoid

  • Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired

  • Conventional appearance

  • Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)

  • Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life

  • Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)

  • Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim

  • Incapable of real human attachment to another

  • Unable to feel remorse or guilt

  • Extreme narcissism and grandiose

  • May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
  • La publicité non diffusée des libéraux

    Via BREM.

    Amusant. Il est de plus en plus clair que la tentative de coller une étiquette extrémiste sur Harper ne fonctionne plus. Dans ces circonstances, que fait le PLC? Essayer de lui coller une étiquette encore plus extrémiste....

    La rebuffade de Mike Duffy est aussi amusante.

    P.S. L'encapsulage du clip fait par proudtobecanadian.ca m'a ému aux larmes. Bravo les mecs.

    Une belle conférence de presse de Bush

    Via C&L. GWB avait-il oublier sa dose de Peruvian Special avant de paraître devant les caméras? On dirait qu'on vient de le tirer de son fauteuil et des éliminatoires de la NFL.

    10.1.06

    Paul Otellini



    La confusion règne dans le merveilleux monde des Macqueux. En quoi Paul Otellini était-il déguisé au MacWorld 2006? En lapin?

    Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini emerged from the stage in a white “bunny suit.” He called his company’s efforts to get their CPUs working on the Mac “energizing, challenging and fun.” dit Macworld.

    10:10 am Paul Otellini appears. Intel is ready. Apple is ready too.
    10:09 am Intel Bunny suit guy walks out...
    dit MacRumors.

    Mais où sont les oreilles?
    En suit Hazmat?

    1:10 PM - An Intel clean-room-suit guy walks out of a cloud of smog with a 12" silicon wafer and says, "Steve I want to report that Intel's ready. " Takes off his his helmet -- it's Paul Otellini Intel CEO. dit Endgadget.


    Otellini veut battre Ballmer en fait de niaiseries publiques?

    Paul Martin sur la clause dérogatoire

    Hier, notre cher ami en a fait sursauter plus d'un, en proposant d'empêcher le gouvernement fédéral de se soustraire à des jugements de la CSC qui touchent à la Charte. Le problème, c'est que ce genre de changement exigerait sans doute, selon la formule d'amendement en vigueur, l'accord unanime des provinces et du parlement (41, e). On parle bien du même Paul Martin, cet être fondamentalement frileux qui reportait aux calendes grecques toute discussion sur la constitution, il y a à peine un mois?

    N'importe quoi.

    Débat des chefs - the drinking game

    Gracieuseté du Périscope.

    Il n'est pas trop tard pour ce soir.

    9.1.06

    Isn't bad publicity, good publicity?

    Bizarre, pour un site qui nous a habitué de mettre tout, jusqu'à la texture des selles, des participants de Star Académie à la une, que l'histoire sordide d'Audrey Trépanier y figure à peine.

    Indeed.

    La montée des conservateurs

    Certains font grand cas de la remontée de Stephen Harper au Québec, essentiellement aux dépends du BQ. Que devrait-on en penser? Que c'est fort probablement un feu de paille qui s'éteindra au prochain débat des chefs en français, lorsque l'incapacité de Harper de comprendre les questions sans préparation soulignera son plus important handicap.

    Les troupes américaines en Irak arrêtent un journaliste..

    ... qui enquêtait sur les millions de dollars disparus dans l'attribution des contrats de reconstruction. La démocratie à la sauce Bush.

    Via Juan Cole.

    Extrait:

    American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.

    Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.

    Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.

    The troops told Dr Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned.

    The director of the film, Callum Macrae, said yesterday: "The timing and nature of this raid is extremely disturbing. It is only a few days since we first approached the US authorities and told them Ali was doing this investigation, and asked them then to grant him an interview about our findings.

    Dure semaine...

    Pour les vieilles croûtes de droite..

    8.1.06

    La censure de MySpace

    Via Atrios. Ruport Murdoch ne pouvait laisser son jouet tranquille.

    Extrait:

    The 38 million subscribers to MySpace, which News Corp bought for $629m (£355m) last July, discovered that when they wrote to each other about rival video-swapping site YouTube, the words were automatically deleted, and attempts to download video images from YouTube led to blank screens.

    Howard Dean vs Wolf Blitzer on Abramoff

    Via Canofun.

    The official republican spin finds no traction.

    Écoutez ce soupir à 100$ de ce pauvre Wolf à la fin.

    Espionnage 101

    Vous êtes un apprenti espion et vous manquez de moyens afin d'intercepter les conversations de votre cible? Pas grave, faites appel à Locatecell.com. Facile et pas cher.

    7.1.06

    Le Kansas et l'alcool au volant

    Via Plastic.

    Ça ne s'invente pas. Un sénateur du Kansas veut, afin de lutter contre l'alcool au volant, interdire la vente de bière froide.

    Under a bill by Sen. Bill Alter, grocery and convenience stores would risk losing their liquor licenses if they sold beer colder than 60 degrees. The intent is to cut down on drunken driving by making it less tempting to pop open a beer after leaving the store.

    6.1.06

    Sean Hannity et le désastre de la mine Sago

    Via C&L.

    Sean Hannity, si vous ne le saviez pas, est un de ces beaux "journalistes" de Fox News (il anime une émission avec un "gauchiste" de service, Alan Colmes). Le passage cité ici illustre bien le genre de personnage:

    ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Joining us now on the phone is the former director of the National Mine Safety and Health Academy, Jack Spadaro. In terms of safety, Jack, what do we know about this mine and its relative safety in how it should have been operating?

    JACK SPADARO, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MINE ACADEMY: We know from the record that the mine, in particular in the past year, has been cited over 180 times for violations of federal mine health and safety law and regulations. And about 90 of those violations were called serious and substantial violations of the law. So we know that it was a very unsafe mine and that there were serious problems with mine ventilation and roof control.

    COLMES: Are you saying that these men should not have been allowed to go down there?

    SPADARO: Yes, sir.

    COLMES: You're saying this mine should not have been open?

    SPADARO: This mine should have been closed. And there were too many serious violations. And the record is very clear.

    COLMES: Why was it open then? If you, as a safety expert, feels it should not have been, why was it open?

    SPADARO: I think it's because of the current Bush administration's policies toward mine operators and their reluctance to take the strong enforcement action that's sometimes necessary. And that often involves closing a mine.

    SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Jack, let's not politicize this! I mean, already, what do you want, to blame George Bush with this? Is that where you're headed with this political question? I don't think this is the time to go into that.

    There certainly are issues. This mine was cited for over 200 violations, 46 during an 11-week period late in the year. They've been fined thousands of dollars. But I can't see an instance where it was recommended that they close it.

    SPADARO: Well, actually, there were three orders to close portions of the mine that were issued in the October to the December period. And there has been a significant change since the Bush administration took over, the enforcement of mine safety and health.

    And I can speak to that, because I worked in the agency, and I talk with people every day who tell me that, in recent years, and particularly in recent months, there's been a reluctance on the part of the top management at the Mine Safety and Health Administration...

    HANNITY: All right, you've got a political...

    SPADARO: ... to enforce the law.

    HANNITY: We don't have time tonight to get into this, nor do I think it's appropriate. But you clearly have a political agenda that, if I had enough time, I'm sure I...

    SPADARO: No. You called me and asked me to make a comment.

    HANNITY: I know, but I'm sure...

    SPADARO: And I'm telling you what's...

    HANNITY: You want to turn this into a political thing...

    SPADARO: No, I'm telling you what the truth is.

    HANNITY: ... and we have families that are suffering tonight, sir.

    SPADARO: And that's the truth is that there were 180 violations...

    HANNITY: You want to blame George Bush...

    SPADARO: ... that were serious.

    HANNITY: ... like a lot of extreme left-wingers. All right. Go ahead. You got your point out.

    COLMES: Mr. Spadaro, I'm not sure that you have a political point of view, but I do thank you very much for coming on the show tonight. Thank you for your time.

    L'Après Sharon: qu'est-il permis d'espérer?

    Selon moi, ça va être business as usual. À ce titre, je vous invite à lire un petit texte de Mark LeVine de UCIrvine, publié sur l'excellent blogue de Juan Cole.

    Extrait:

    But from Israel's perspective of "unilateral disengagement" (begun by Barak and cemented by Sharon) the Palestinian position is irrelevant. Israel has succeeded in crushing the al-Aqsa intifada; its withdrawal of settlers and forces from Gaza has freed up personnel, funds and political capital to dig in where it really matters: protecting the red lines regarding settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, and economic control, which have guided Israel's negotiations for decades. As important, they have now been accepted fully by the Bush Administration, which means that no power on earth will be able to force Israel to withdraw from a single settlement, change a single line on a map, or let in a single Palestinian refugee that its government doesn't want to do.

    Pat Robertson: Dieu punie Sharon

    ROBERTSON: I have said last year that Israel was entering into the most dangerous period of its entire existence as a nation. That is intensifying this year with the loss of Sharon. Sharon was personally a very likeable person. I am sad to see him in this condition. But I think we need to look at the Bible and the Book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, "divide my land." God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible, he says, "This is my land." And for any prime minister of Israel who decides he going carve it up and give it away, God says, "No. This is mine." And the same thing -- I had a wonderful meeting with Yitzhak Rabin in 1974. He was tragically assassinated, and it was terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless, he was dead. And now Ariel Sharon, who was again a very likeable person, a delightful person to be with. I prayed with him personally. But here he is at the point of death. He was dividing God's land, and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations or United States of America. God said, "This land belongs to me, you better leave it alone."

    5.1.06

    Sam Bulte

    Via Boingboing. Une députée libérale de Toronto est devenue le fer de lance de l'industrie du disque afin d'imposer des lois farfelues sur les droits d'auteur au Canada comme il en existe maintenant aux USA.

    Voici ce qu'en dit Michael Geist:



    In May 2004, the Canadian Heritage Standing Committee released what is now widely described as the "Bulte Report", a remarkably one-sided report on the future of Canadian copyright. The report addressed WIPO, ISP, and education issues, siding in every instance with the views of rights holders such as the Canadian Recording Industry Association. Soon after I wrote a column about the report, arguing that there was an unfortunate perception of bias given the fact that Ms. Bulte had accepted campaign contributions from various rights holder organizations. I recommended that "parliamentarians involved in the copyright reform process should refuse all such contributions to ensure that the perception of absolute impartiality is preserved." Ms. Bulte was unhappy with the article, complaining about "allegations that my work in Parliament has in any way been influenced by donations that I have received."

    Fast forward to the current election campaign and it is clear that Ms. Bulte remains closely aligned with those same rights holder organizations. Her website lists a number of campaign events, the most interesting of which is a $250.00 per person fundraiser on January 19th featuring Cowboy Junkies singer (and CRIA President Graham Henderson partner) Margo Timmins.

    The sponsors of this event, to be held four days before the election?

    * Doug Frith (President of Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association)
    * Graham Henderson (CRIA President)
    * Jackie Hushion (Executive Director of the Canadian Publishers Council)
    * Danielle LaBoisserre (Executive Director of the Entertainment Software Alliance) and
    * Stephen Stohn (DeGrassi producer).

    Within the boundaries of the Election Act, MPs are of course free to fundraise any way they like and individual Canadians are free to contribute to those same MPs. However, with the public's cynicism about elected officials at an all-time high and Canadians increasingly frustrated by a copyright policy process that is seemingly solely about satisfying rights holder demands, is it possible to send a worse signal about the impartiality of the copyright reform process? At $250.00 a person, I have my doubts that many of the artists that Ms. Bulte claims to represent will be present. Instead, it will lobbyists and lobby groups, eagerly handing over their money with the expectation that the real value of the evening will come long after Margo Timmins has finished her set.

    Marc Garneau strikes again

    Ne reculant devant rien pour donner un coup de pouce aux forces libérales, Marc Garneau compare la situation après un référendum gagnant à la situation actuelle en Irak.

    L'ancien directeur de l'Agence spatiale canadienne et l'un des candidats vedettes des libéraux au Québec a déploré le manque de réflexion à long terme de certains souverainistes, comparant même leur projet à l'invasion américaine de l'Irak.

    « Lorsque vous vous dites souverainistes, vous devez penser à toutes les conséquences de votre projet. Je crois que plusieurs souverainistes ne l'ont pas fait. C'est un peu comme lorsque les États-Unis sont allés à Bagdad. Ils ont agi rapidement, mais qu'est-ce qui vient après? » a-t-il lancé.

    « Chaque fibre de mon corps est fédéraliste et canadienne. Je me battrai jusqu'à mon dernier souffle pour montrer qu'un Canada stable est la meilleure alternative », a promis Marc Garneau.


    Ça me rappelle cette histoire qui voulait que lorsque Garneau a fait son beau voyage en navette, il a vomi sans arrêt du début à la fin, comme quoi il ne peut s'empêcher de démontrer ses grandes aptitudes à arroser ses compagnons du contenu d'une sélection de choix de "chaque fibre de son corps" dès qu'il en a la chance.

    Espionnage, suite...

    Americablog explique les implications de la chose:

    1. Such a wiretap would likely include her home, office, and cell phones, and email correspondence, at the very least.

    2. That means anyone Christiane has conversed with in the past four years, at least by phone or email, could have had their conversation taped by the US government.

    3. That also means that anyone who uses any of Christiane's telephones or computers (work or home) could also have had their conversation bugged.

    4. This includes Christiane's husband, former Clinton administration senior official Jamie Rubin, who was spokesman for the State Department.

    5. Jamie Rubin was also chief foreign policy adviser to General Wesley Clark's presidential campaign, and then worked as a senior national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

    6. Did Jamie Rubin ever use his home phone, his wife's work phone, his wife's cell phone, her home computer or her work computer to communicate with John Kerry or Wesley Clark? If so, those conversations would have been bugged if Bush was tapping Amanpour.

    7. Did Jamie Rubin ever in the past four years communicate with any elected officials in Washington, DC - any Senators or members of the US House? Any senior members of the Democratic party?

    8. Has Rubin spoken with Bill Clinton, his former boss, in the past 4 years?

    Now you understand how potentially broad a violation of privacy the Bush doctrine on illegal domestic spying really is. Everyone who's anyone is a degree or two of separation away from a terrorist.

    Bush espionne une journaliste de CNN

    Cette histoire fait pas mal de bruit ce matin; n'oublions pas que le mari d'Amampour, Jamie Rubin, faisait partie de l'administration Clinton. Wow.


    Extrait:

    Do you feel comfortable with the government spying on reporters for American-based news organizations, even if they are working abroad and are part of a chain that leads back to al-Qaeda? We don't, although we know there are many who would disagree with us. After all, some people say that Bush wanted to drop bombs on al-Jazeera.

    Then there is the issue of Amanpour's husband, Jamie Rubin, former official in the Clinton administration State Department. You may have forgotten (we did, frankly), but Rubin re-emerged in 2004 -- as a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry. Do husbands and wives use the same telephones and computers? Is the Pope German?

    But frankly, the concept that scares us the most, as a journalist, goes back to that lovely quote from the Fox News spokeswoman at the very top of this post -- and the episode that inspired it. Because Christiane Amanpour was highest profile, and also the most forceful, critic of the media's pliancy toward Bush after the 9/11 attacks.

    Here's what she said in Sept. 2003:

    "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

    The next day, Fox blasts her as an "al-Qaeda spokeswoman." And two years later, we are left to wonder if she was spied upon by the American government.

    Coincidence?

    We sure hope so.

    4.1.06

    Michael Harris

    Le columniste dont la perruque ferait rougir de honte Norman Lester a pondu un papier fort amusant sur la présente campagne électorale.

    Extrait:

    The campaign is about to enter the Air War phase. Unlike the Tories, the Liberals have been storing up their ordinance for an all-out blitz in these last three weeks. Their primary target will not be the new and reconstructed Stephen Harper, who has so far managed not to present as a cross between Jimmy Swaggart and Dr. Strangelove, but a more familiar fellow: The man who said so many stupid things as an executive of the National Citizens Coalition and leader of the former Canadian Alliance that he might as well have been Stockwell Day.

    Those Canadians still treating their lips for salt burns from holiday season margaritas are about to find out there's an election on. Here are some Harper-isms from Christmases past I expect to see recycled by the Grit war machine:

    "It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."

    "Your country (the USA) and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."

    "Today the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.This is a serious mistake."

    "Universality has been severely reduced: It is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party."

    "Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan."

    And finally this beauty in a country that still sees itself as the world's largest nature reserve:

    "Continental economic and security integration" with the U.S. as well as a "continental energy strategy" that should be broadened "to a range of other natural resources."

    You get the picture. So do the Liberals. These quotes and others will be billed as the "spit on your mother's grave" agenda of the Tories. It might work in a country deeply attached to universal social policies, wary of the U.S. on issues of sovereignty and culture, averse to illegal war in Iraq, and mistrustful of the private sector assuming any of big government's nanny duties.

    Mould growing

    The looming Big Smack Attack by the Grits will establish once and for all the shelf life of political slander. There is so much mould growing on Harper's words they could be made into penicillin.

    But only voters will get to decide if something the Tory boss said eight or nine years ago to a roomful of people who orgasm at the words "missile defense shield" will be held against him today.

    Letterman vs O'Reilly

    Pôvre Bill.