dimanche 30 septembre 2007

My friends's friends are my friends. Huh... wait a second here...

Remember the fairy tale-like story of Jessica Lynch?
You'll appreciate the story by Tania Head:

What have these two stories to do with each other will you ask?
Well, maybe we can take them as evidence (among million others) of how easy it is to manipulate the masses.

5 years ago, the most hated foreign politician in America was LAS's favourite French head of State. Now the wheel has turned, it's an Iranian about almost nobody had ever heard of in the US when Chirac was in pole position.

His sin? He's at the head of a country which is purportedly trying to built an atom bomb. Like the US? Or like Israel? Is Iran really pursuing this goal? Or isn't that another case of Iraqi WMD? Should we rely on the Media to know? Why shouldn't Iranians be allowed to possess the same weapon the US, the USSR, Israel, Pakistan, north Korea (not sure) etc. have as the ultimate deterrent?

When reading and listening to the American MSM, you feel like they want to persuade the Americans that there's an actual and near immediate danger that Iran would use its bomb to attack the US. Well, didn't the MSM succeed in making most Americans believe Saddam had WMD and was on the verge to use them against America and its allies? Remember T. Blair and his infamous quote?

In the precinct of the UN, Ahmadinedjad had the audience laugh when he said there were no homosexuals in his country. Like in Saudi Arabia, America's closest and most sincere friend in the region?

Not to say Ahmadinedjad is a nice person, sharing western values but is he really the new Attila the American MSM try to portrait? Isn't he a close friend and ally of Iraq's PM, Al Maliki?

And I thought the saying had always held true that my friends' friends were my friends.

Once again I need Greg's expertise here...

samedi 29 septembre 2007

À quoi ça tient...

Oui, c'est bien lui en 1985, sympathique petite réunion de famille

vendredi 28 septembre 2007

C'est honteux Monsieur!

La récente proposition d'un député UMP de faire procéder -à leurs frais (on parle de 200€)- à des tests ADN de reconnaissance aux immigrés souhaitant bénéficier des dispositions sur le regroupement familial a fait réagir l'habituel chœur des révoltés contre l'injustice et le racisme etc. etc. etc.

La mesure, a t-on appris, est déjà en place dans nombre de pays européens. On ne nous a pas dit par contre le nombre de fausses filiations que cela avait permis de mettre au jour. Sans doute très peu, vu le côté dissuasif de la pratique, aussi bien du point de vue financier que du point de vue de l'infaillibilité des résultats. Qui plus est les tests ne sont pas obligatoires...

Quoi qu'il en soit, le Sénat a pour l'instant refuser d'avaliser l'amendement proposé.

Ce qui me semble "amusant" c'est que nul ne songe plus à s'indigner des prises d'empreintes digitales qui sont de règle pour l'établissement de tous les papiers d'identité, carte ou passeport.
Or les empreintes digitales sont aussi "personnelles" et propres à une identité (et pour cause) que les ADN d'un individu.

Mais là, nul cri d'orfraie. Il est vrai que depuis plus d'un siècle on a eu le temps de s'habituer...

Les réactions outragées que la perspective des tests ADN soulève ne sont-elles pas le reflet de la peur que suscitent les fantasmes liés à la biologie, aux manipulations génétiques, au clonage etc?

Les empreintes digitales, c'était il y a cent ans l'équivalent de nos empreintes génétiques d'aujourd'hui.

Pourquoi oui aux unes et non aux autres? Ça vous scandalise vous? Pourquoi?

Addendum à l'intention d'ikki: Les États-Unis demandent (exigent?) à présent que les visas des visiteurs chez eux soient porteurs d'informations qui relèvent de ce qu'on appelle la bio-métrique.

L'empreinte rétinienne fait -je crois- partie de ces informations indispensables pour l'obtention du passeport "biométrique". Un blog est aussi (peut-être surtout) une occasion de s'informer. Pourquoi l'empreinte rétinienne ne suscite t-elle pas les mêmes réactions que l'empreinte ADN?

jeudi 27 septembre 2007

Do you play French billiard?

Remember the climate between our two nations five years ago, during the warm up to the Iraq war? Oh yes, you do…One of the most worn out argument that was then hurled day in, day out at the French who dared oppose the American urge to go to war was that the French may be good at talking but they were absolutely unable to tackle real situations and act decisively when needed. 

The American MSM made sure that the American people would see the French as congenital impotents as opposed to the glorious and virtuous Americans who have the guts to face the fights and act accordingly.

Yet, the French president, Jacques Chirac, tried as much as he could to warn our American friends that they should consider the long term consequences of their choices. To no avail alas, his appeals were deemed only empty talks whose function was to try concealing the innate incapacity of the French to act and fight. Oh well… nearly five years later… But never mind… 

And here may be the place for a little metaphor involving American pool and French billiard, commonly known as Carambole billiard. If it is true that games can be seen as representative of the mind of the peoples who practice them, it may not be exaggerated to see how some of our national traits reflect in our respective ways of playing the billiard.

As every self respected American knows, there are several versions of the American billiard but, basically, the players face a dozen balls of different colours with each its number. The players shoot straight in the balls and bing, bing, bing, fall the balls into the pockets, with no further fuss and the game is over. Not very subtle but quite effective indeed, one doesn’t need to think much about the day after…

The French billiard may not appear so effective but, wait, have a second look… Just three balls, white, yellow and red as seen on the picture, no pockets, no numbers painted on the balls and the counting goes 1+1+1+1+1+1 etc. until the players reach the limit they set beforehand. Here, there’s no shoot, shoot, shoot in the pack but the goal for each of the two players consists only in touching the red ball and the ball of the adversary with his/her own. Doesn’t look that difficult, does it? Ho, excuse-me, just one small detail: before hitting the 2 balls, the player’s own ball must first rebound up to three times on the cushions of the table. Now, here you really have to think on the long term consequences of your choices. Sounds familiar?

How many times have the French been mocked for their propensity at too much thinking and analysis with no conclusion in the end as opposed to the Americans who don’t waste their time on lofty considerations but act and get results? Now, try play the Carambole without thorough analysis and calculation of the reaction chain that each shot will trigger... 

Considering the outcome of the Iraq war they’ve launched while insulting the French who were desperately calling their attention on the risks involved with action undertaken without sufficient foresight, shouldn’t some American politicians get familiar with a little more thinking and analysing? Like learning to play the French Carambole for example? And when I think of it, does the metaphor apply only on the Iraq war?

Here are some fine shots of the French “carom”. Enjoy…

Note: The painting is “Night Café at Arles” by Paul Gauguin, The Pushkin Museum of Fine Art, Moscow, Russia.