20070613
(answer to the question "how can we be sure of what is "true"?")
Our digital world relies on series of 0 and 1, and for every single digit you can truly tell whether you have a 1 or a 0. Beyond that, there is no guarantee whatsoever regarding what you make of these series. You may not speak the same language nor share the same culture, you can at least use some common tools.
Our world basically works on compromises, truthes that any logician could destroy in a blink. Truth is a subjective label. It wholly depends on the referential and the context. This car is blue ? True, but wrong to the eyes of a color blind people or to a vast number of animal species. The plant you see green reflects the only color it doesn't need.
Truth is about certainty, psychological comfort. People need certainties, some landmarks. You are a farmer, feeling comfortable when standing with your feet down on the ground, but do you realize this earth is cruising space at an amazing speed ?
The quest for truth is universal, but if you are looking for truth, you are bound to end up either disapointed or manipulated. Truth is the ultimate Weapon of Mass Disinformation for propagandists, who offer comfort and certainties for free. No one can claim a belief to be true.
To me, truth is boring. I don't enjoy contemplating series of 0 and 1 for long. I need to feel the sting of doubt, the beauty of life blooming beyond the tracks. Which doesn't mean I enjoy staying in the dark, in the cave described by Plato. I don't believe progress will bring answers to all questions but I enjoy research all the same. It is just that I don't expect to find truthes.
A scientist who always talks about truth is likely to be a fake scientist, generally acting in the name of a caricature of religion (see Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute, almost every sect...).”
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Friday
On sustainable arrested development
20070606
(answer to the question "Sustainable development : illusion or action")
- Most companies are still at the "feel good PR" stage.
- A significant number of them are getting serious, and the past few years brought significant tools (ie labels, environmental tools...), beyond general awareness and a consensus from the public on key issues. Economists are embracing ecology as a key topic, ecology becomes a key issue in economics (see recent reports on the costs of global warming). Beyond the buzz, there are now high expectations for action (from all circles, social, economical and political).
- The swiftest ones have already understood a lot of money could be made, and great competitive advantages taken.
(answer to the question "Sustainable development : illusion or action")
- Most companies are still at the "feel good PR" stage.
- A significant number of them are getting serious, and the past few years brought significant tools (ie labels, environmental tools...), beyond general awareness and a consensus from the public on key issues. Economists are embracing ecology as a key topic, ecology becomes a key issue in economics (see recent reports on the costs of global warming). Beyond the buzz, there are now high expectations for action (from all circles, social, economical and political).
- The swiftest ones have already understood a lot of money could be made, and great competitive advantages taken.
On releasing press releases
20070606
(answer to the question "Is there still a point to creating press releases?" with all those blogging and social networking tools)
More than ever.
Anything can happen to the multitude of formal and informal messages you (willingly or not) send to the market ; you want to keep a trustable source for yourself as well as for outsiders :
(answer to the question "Is there still a point to creating press releases?" with all those blogging and social networking tools)
More than ever.
Anything can happen to the multitude of formal and informal messages you (willingly or not) send to the market ; you want to keep a trustable source for yourself as well as for outsiders :
- - press releases are a good exercise for your company, to formulate your position and put your action into words, take some distance with your daily routine, look back in the mirror anytime needed (paper and webpages tend to end up in dustbins)...
- - medias, bloggers, outsiders want to know your position on key issues, know the official line at any given moment. A company that communicates respects the market, and the market respects a company that disciplines itself.
About ideology and leadership
200705
(answer to a question about "Ideology and 'Leadership' in Your World")
Ideology can be a means of leadership (ie to challenge, reach, maintain, strengthen the status), but one doesn't necessarily need it to enjoy leadership. Content generally matters less than the look, or charisma. When both are combined, that can be very efficient and potentially dangerous, depending on the character and the ideology : the first face that generally comes to mind when you mention "ideology" and "leadership" is Adolph Hitler's.
The rencent French presidential elections opposed two styles of leadership and clearly raised the issue of ideology, traditionally a taboo in French politics (it echoes dark periods of our history). Both finalists had a lot of charisma and overused images and symbols, but one would rely on an outspoken and consistent ideology (the winner, Nicolas Sarkozy) while the other (Segolene Royal) avoided the issues because her own camp was too divided to agree on a clear and consistent vision (not to mention the lack of consistence of the candidate herself). The socialists had to admit this failure on ideology cost them the elections. Note that Blair also won 10 years ago on that turf. Time will tell whether Sarkozy can deliver the goods he promised... or the evils he is sometimes stimulating.
To me, true leadership is about changing the ideology, not surfing on it.
(answer to a question about "Ideology and 'Leadership' in Your World")
Ideology can be a means of leadership (ie to challenge, reach, maintain, strengthen the status), but one doesn't necessarily need it to enjoy leadership. Content generally matters less than the look, or charisma. When both are combined, that can be very efficient and potentially dangerous, depending on the character and the ideology : the first face that generally comes to mind when you mention "ideology" and "leadership" is Adolph Hitler's.
The rencent French presidential elections opposed two styles of leadership and clearly raised the issue of ideology, traditionally a taboo in French politics (it echoes dark periods of our history). Both finalists had a lot of charisma and overused images and symbols, but one would rely on an outspoken and consistent ideology (the winner, Nicolas Sarkozy) while the other (Segolene Royal) avoided the issues because her own camp was too divided to agree on a clear and consistent vision (not to mention the lack of consistence of the candidate herself). The socialists had to admit this failure on ideology cost them the elections. Note that Blair also won 10 years ago on that turf. Time will tell whether Sarkozy can deliver the goods he promised... or the evils he is sometimes stimulating.
To me, true leadership is about changing the ideology, not surfing on it.
On the transparency of news reports
200705
(answer to the question "How transparent media Mass in reporting News?")
1) You can have a few hints after checking who owns the said mass media.
2) Anyway, you must understand that there is no such thing as objectivity - reporting news is necessarily subjective. Certain words are written, certain images caught, news are composed, selected, sorted, edited and formated - keyboards, cameras and the humans who operate them are not Godalmighties, even when they have the best intentions.
3) subjectivity is not necessarily bad - the only thing is you must realize it and understand the limits before enjoying the show.
4) You can be both subjective and transparent. The BBC and al Jazeera have different standards but both tend to present the points of views of different sides.
(answer to the question "How transparent media Mass in reporting News?")
1) You can have a few hints after checking who owns the said mass media.
2) Anyway, you must understand that there is no such thing as objectivity - reporting news is necessarily subjective. Certain words are written, certain images caught, news are composed, selected, sorted, edited and formated - keyboards, cameras and the humans who operate them are not Godalmighties, even when they have the best intentions.
3) subjectivity is not necessarily bad - the only thing is you must realize it and understand the limits before enjoying the show.
4) You can be both subjective and transparent. The BBC and al Jazeera have different standards but both tend to present the points of views of different sides.
On the success of reality shows
200705
(answer to the question "Why do you believe Reality Shows have grown in numbers regarding various subjects, along with the television viewers ?")
It is basically the same trend as on the internet : reality shows have this consumer generated content flavor and give the illusion something is really happening on the screen, something you could be involved in, something you could even be doing yourself. The illusion that at last TV is somehow about me, somehow as interactive as the internet.
The internet positioned TV as a monolithic media for the masses, TV answered with real life real time individuals. People get hooked to it for fear of missing an event, something happening, some naughty movement in front of these fake webcams. Of course everything is set, staged, programmed, scenarized, but it doesn't feel like broadcasting (or better : I'd dare say "downcasting") anymore. Rather like bottomupcasting / grassrootcasting. And it tastes like s..t.
(answer to the question "Why do you believe Reality Shows have grown in numbers regarding various subjects, along with the television viewers ?")
It is basically the same trend as on the internet : reality shows have this consumer generated content flavor and give the illusion something is really happening on the screen, something you could be involved in, something you could even be doing yourself. The illusion that at last TV is somehow about me, somehow as interactive as the internet.
The internet positioned TV as a monolithic media for the masses, TV answered with real life real time individuals. People get hooked to it for fear of missing an event, something happening, some naughty movement in front of these fake webcams. Of course everything is set, staged, programmed, scenarized, but it doesn't feel like broadcasting (or better : I'd dare say "downcasting") anymore. Rather like bottomupcasting / grassrootcasting. And it tastes like s..t.
Entrepreneurial culture and market valuations
200706
(answer to the question "Do you believe that large companies with more entrepreneurial cultures have higher stock market valuations than their more traditional counterparts ?")
To my humble opinion, the stock exchange is not the place where actual business is being done, except for stock traders. If you don't accept that fact, if you don't realize that you are in a different level of reality, you may wake up in the middle of a Twilight Zone episode.
That said, take two companies from the same field and with the same assets. In a rational market, the company with the higher value should be the one with the higher potential to grow beyond its current position.
But the market is not rational, there is no such thing as two similar companies, and communication / propaganda plays too big a role out there, especially where "culture" is involved. Remember the late nineties ?
(answer to the question "Do you believe that large companies with more entrepreneurial cultures have higher stock market valuations than their more traditional counterparts ?")
To my humble opinion, the stock exchange is not the place where actual business is being done, except for stock traders. If you don't accept that fact, if you don't realize that you are in a different level of reality, you may wake up in the middle of a Twilight Zone episode.
That said, take two companies from the same field and with the same assets. In a rational market, the company with the higher value should be the one with the higher potential to grow beyond its current position.
But the market is not rational, there is no such thing as two similar companies, and communication / propaganda plays too big a role out there, especially where "culture" is involved. Remember the late nineties ?
Define: intelligence vs information
=> Intelligence is the capacity to apprehend (ie your environment, other people, situations...), understand and give sense beyond what you see, feel, touch, smell, or hear.
Many people consider the ability to memorize a lot of information as a sign of intelligence - the most clever people I know make complex things look simple - simplicity is not always stupidity but often the key to intelligibility, apprehensibility.
My job used to be providing intelligence for decision makers and convincing them to see beyond the information they asked for. I would industrialize information as much as I could, always keeping in mind the necessity to often change the formats and adapt to a disruptive environment. Managers who stick to a few indicators tend to miss major changes in the market. Pedagogy was also useful to promote human networking within the organization. Intelligence was considered as information gathering in an hostile environment, strategic intelligence became a way of peacefully moving a few steps ahead of competition.
The public is so much overwhelmed by information it cannot see intelligence when it comes across it. Internet is a kingdom of information / disinformation where the public can easily be fooled. There is a realization of that and the emergence of a need for genuine intelligence. Unfortunately, prevails the one who advertizes the best, not necessarily the most relevant.
200703
(answer to the question "intelligence vs information")
- NB : intelligence is not something absolute. you can be very intelligent in certain situations and dumb in others. There is no such thing as one kind of intelligence and IQ is an heresy : you cannot sum it up in one dimension.
- NB : the format of the information is very important. Information can be perceived differently by the emitter, the receiver or a third party, it can be altered during the transfer and edited anytime. For instance, this chair is blue but the color blind person will get another information, I say something, you hear something else.
Many people consider the ability to memorize a lot of information as a sign of intelligence - the most clever people I know make complex things look simple - simplicity is not always stupidity but often the key to intelligibility, apprehensibility.
My job used to be providing intelligence for decision makers and convincing them to see beyond the information they asked for. I would industrialize information as much as I could, always keeping in mind the necessity to often change the formats and adapt to a disruptive environment. Managers who stick to a few indicators tend to miss major changes in the market. Pedagogy was also useful to promote human networking within the organization. Intelligence was considered as information gathering in an hostile environment, strategic intelligence became a way of peacefully moving a few steps ahead of competition.
The public is so much overwhelmed by information it cannot see intelligence when it comes across it. Internet is a kingdom of information / disinformation where the public can easily be fooled. There is a realization of that and the emergence of a need for genuine intelligence. Unfortunately, prevails the one who advertizes the best, not necessarily the most relevant.
200703
(answer to the question "intelligence vs information")
Crowdsourcing - innovation accelerator or fad ?
Crowdsourcing is smarter than it appears and must be handled with intelligence. To me, its pros and cons can easily be visualized : think about a coffee break with scores of people in the same room. Some are from your company, friends or relatives, some just joined from the street below. Their only thing in common is to be interested in the conversation taking place. You will get interesting points of views from experts and ignorants, insiders and outsiders, inconvenient truths and convenient hoaxes... a 3D / 360 vision of the topic. Often uncensored (praise informal gatherings and Coffee Break Allmighty). You can be overwhelmed by it quite easily.
Tools will help you sort the mess, but don't rely totally on them either. Beyond your own judgement, trust that of people and experts you trust. Don't rely fully on crowdsourcing, too. That said, crowdsourcing has already become a very valuable strategic intelligence technique, as well as a wonderful marketing tool (to sell all kinds of things, buzz and disinformation included).
200703
(answer to the question "Crowdsourcing: a massive global innovation accelerator or another hype that will fade away?")
Tools will help you sort the mess, but don't rely totally on them either. Beyond your own judgement, trust that of people and experts you trust. Don't rely fully on crowdsourcing, too. That said, crowdsourcing has already become a very valuable strategic intelligence technique, as well as a wonderful marketing tool (to sell all kinds of things, buzz and disinformation included).
200703
(answer to the question "Crowdsourcing: a massive global innovation accelerator or another hype that will fade away?")
Define: WOM, Buzz, Viral
. WOM is the descriptive term for one specific medium.
. Buzz focuses on the impact on the environment and generally certain groups of people.
. Viral is more about time, reach and depth, how things spread.
20050721
(answer to a question for a thesis on Viral Marketing for Souki.com - differences between WOM, buzz and viral ?)
. Buzz focuses on the impact on the environment and generally certain groups of people.
. Viral is more about time, reach and depth, how things spread.
20050721
(answer to a question for a thesis on Viral Marketing for Souki.com - differences between WOM, buzz and viral ?)
Thursday
Red Blogule to the Alliance of Fanatics - Vote Bush-Bin Laden 2004 !
Archives 20041030
(regarding Osama Bin Laden's intervention before the US Elections)
What I saw yesterday was a politician - neither a jihaddist warlord nor a religious leader - inviting himself to the debate, behind his stand. No red tie but as elegant an outfit as Karzai's. He waited for the candidates to use their time up and spill their beans. He's exposing his results and his programs. Facts and figures. No need to talk about his convictions - the message obviously passed earlier during the campaign.
Bin Laden just reminds the American audience he's not at war with the US and that his ennemies are moderate muslims. America was the one to start hostilities, helping Israel attack Lebanon. On September the 11th, Baby Doc paid for Papa Doc. Joseph Goebbels being long gone and Karl Rove being already hired by someone else, I wonder which hotshot propaganda expert this man drafted...
Without spending hundreds of million dollars in campaigning, this man sets the agenda. This is neither about Bush's results nor about Kerry's program. You want to promote democracy ? Be consistent and let the US majority withdraw the troops of Iraq, let the middle east populations, polarized by your fanatism, elect radical leaders... Now that you've done your job beyond my wildest expectations you can leave me alone. You think you're leading the world but you've misled it. Vote Bush-Bin Laden 2004!
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to the November (c)Rush - Comical Ali Burton
Archives 20041016
The US army is carpet bombing Fallujah again. This time the aim is to get Zarkawi before November the 2nd, whatever the cost for the population (and for the image of the US - this is not the deserted mountains of Tora-Bora we're talking about but an Iraqi city where many kids have already been killed by the American bombs).
Significantly, the man has just been put on the list of most wanted terrorists because Bush knows he can get him ("smoke him out"?) on time. But Bush is not your friendly cow-boy hero; he is the corrupted sheriff who invited the bad guys to rule the country.
Again, bringing more chaos and fueling more hatred abroad, hurrying the agendas of the country you invaded is not the most respectful way of salvaging an election. Bush is right when he says we should get rid of the thugs: it's time for him to get the heck outta the White House.
SM on a forum
The US army is carpet bombing Fallujah again. This time the aim is to get Zarkawi before November the 2nd, whatever the cost for the population (and for the image of the US - this is not the deserted mountains of Tora-Bora we're talking about but an Iraqi city where many kids have already been killed by the American bombs).
Significantly, the man has just been put on the list of most wanted terrorists because Bush knows he can get him ("smoke him out"?) on time. But Bush is not your friendly cow-boy hero; he is the corrupted sheriff who invited the bad guys to rule the country.
Again, bringing more chaos and fueling more hatred abroad, hurrying the agendas of the country you invaded is not the most respectful way of salvaging an election. Bush is right when he says we should get rid of the thugs: it's time for him to get the heck outta the White House.
SM on a forum
White Blogule - putting more pressure on Dubya for debate 2
20041004
(discussion between prez debates 1 and 2)
Homeland security is one thing, homegrown propaganda another. Kerry should expose W in next debate.
Last thursday, John made a strong point remembering Osama was the one who did 9/11, not Saddam. He has one more move to do in order to complete the home run on this issue.Let's make it clear, with the bold facts :
- because of the Weapons of Mass Disinformation carpeting the US since 9/11, too many US citizen still believe there was a link between Iraq and 9/11
- the intelligence cannot be blamed since the only tiny thread (a meeting in Baghdad) was very early confirmed as a fake by the US as well as by European and Middle East intel services
- the Veep keeps telling lies about it
- the Prez did admit something but not wholeheartedly, and even now keeps leaking fake lapses (oops, did it again during debate 1 - too bad a smart man was in the audience and had the opportunity to talk back)
Here and now, during this very debate and in the name of truth, let Kerry ask Bush to confirm he was wrong when he said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, and that Dick Cheney, the man who would be President if anything happened to him, is wrong when he maintains it. Now regarding the way this Administration is defending the US : the strategy is totally counterproductive. It is the way a fascist regime would proceed : isolating the country from its partners, depriving citizens from freedom and raising fear across the land with people as respectful of democracy as Hoover or McCarthy, exporting chaos and fueling terrorism abroad and at home with a crusade in the name of God...
The question is not what President Kerry could do to improve this arsenal, but how long it will take for America to fix the mess and restore its pride.
Bush fails to defend the US because he fails to respect its values. He is corrupting America from the inside and should not be allowed to do more harm at the command of the country...
SM on a forum
(discussion between prez debates 1 and 2)
Homeland security is one thing, homegrown propaganda another. Kerry should expose W in next debate.
Last thursday, John made a strong point remembering Osama was the one who did 9/11, not Saddam. He has one more move to do in order to complete the home run on this issue.Let's make it clear, with the bold facts :
- because of the Weapons of Mass Disinformation carpeting the US since 9/11, too many US citizen still believe there was a link between Iraq and 9/11
- the intelligence cannot be blamed since the only tiny thread (a meeting in Baghdad) was very early confirmed as a fake by the US as well as by European and Middle East intel services
- the Veep keeps telling lies about it
- the Prez did admit something but not wholeheartedly, and even now keeps leaking fake lapses (oops, did it again during debate 1 - too bad a smart man was in the audience and had the opportunity to talk back)
Here and now, during this very debate and in the name of truth, let Kerry ask Bush to confirm he was wrong when he said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, and that Dick Cheney, the man who would be President if anything happened to him, is wrong when he maintains it. Now regarding the way this Administration is defending the US : the strategy is totally counterproductive. It is the way a fascist regime would proceed : isolating the country from its partners, depriving citizens from freedom and raising fear across the land with people as respectful of democracy as Hoover or McCarthy, exporting chaos and fueling terrorism abroad and at home with a crusade in the name of God...
The question is not what President Kerry could do to improve this arsenal, but how long it will take for America to fix the mess and restore its pride.
Bush fails to defend the US because he fails to respect its values. He is corrupting America from the inside and should not be allowed to do more harm at the command of the country...
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to subliminal ads - Subliminal ads watch
20040914
Is anyone making sure there is no remake as far as subliminal ads are concerned ? Four years ago BC would insert a "RATS" for the fraction of a second during a negative campaign on Gore, and he had to withdraw the ad before the scandal went too far. A 2003 experiment proved once more the efficiency of subliminal images to influence elections and I wouldn't be surprised if they gave it one more shot.
For those who wonder how a bold liar could be reelected, don't forget these guys got their masters in Weapons of Mass Disinformation.
SM on a forum
Is anyone making sure there is no remake as far as subliminal ads are concerned ? Four years ago BC would insert a "RATS" for the fraction of a second during a negative campaign on Gore, and he had to withdraw the ad before the scandal went too far. A 2003 experiment proved once more the efficiency of subliminal images to influence elections and I wouldn't be surprised if they gave it one more shot.
For those who wonder how a bold liar could be reelected, don't forget these guys got their masters in Weapons of Mass Disinformation.
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to the "Dear Compassionate Leader" - Bush: the opposite of compassion
Archives 20040910 (see blogules 2004)
Imposture again. Would deserve more exposure in the medias.
How dares Bush say he is compassionate after missing such an historical opportunity as the "after 9/11"?
Just remember - it's not that far away: right after America has been struck by the most massive terrorist attack ever, the whole world is with the USA and grieves with them. Beyond terror, there is the hope for a new world: will the international community seize this unique opportunity to do things differently, to move closer to each other, to build a more tolerant and compassionate world ? The very first statesman to visit the US and Ground Zero is a man who as a mayor and Prime Minister, knew all about being hit by terror. A man who knew the worst thing to do was to start a religious crusade and fuel the hatred across the globe. Jacques Chirac offers Bush his full support and will send troops to Afghanistan because the war to the Taliban regime is legitimate for the war on terror.
But the POTUS made the wrong choices. Instead of leveraging on the support of the whole international community, he accumulates mistakes and manages, within a few weeks, to have most countries against the US (and the few leaders backing his crusades don't have the support of their own people). The victim becomes a wreckless outlaw, the criminals become heroes or victims. Bush is killing the 9/11 victims one more time, and will even do it once more during his campaign, using the images of the tragedy for his reelection ads.
The problem is showing compassion is not being compassionate, especially when you're making a show out of your so called compassion. Compassion is not about stealing other people's hearts.
But the American people isn't aware of this imposture. People who know are those who are used and abused by Bush's weapons of mass disinformation:
- look at the grieving 9/11 families opposing this misuse of their pain
- hear the Iraqi soccer players rebel at the Athens Olympics when they hear Bush is trying to take advantage of their successes (Bush eventually canceled his plans to go to Athens and tried to send his dove alibi Powell instead. A series of demonstrations made Powell cancel his trip too)
- listen to the Afghan leaders complain about the october 9 presidential elections (the calendar is totally irrealistic for the country, they know these elections are just another argument for Bush reelection campaign).
SM on a forum
Imposture again. Would deserve more exposure in the medias.
How dares Bush say he is compassionate after missing such an historical opportunity as the "after 9/11"?
Just remember - it's not that far away: right after America has been struck by the most massive terrorist attack ever, the whole world is with the USA and grieves with them. Beyond terror, there is the hope for a new world: will the international community seize this unique opportunity to do things differently, to move closer to each other, to build a more tolerant and compassionate world ? The very first statesman to visit the US and Ground Zero is a man who as a mayor and Prime Minister, knew all about being hit by terror. A man who knew the worst thing to do was to start a religious crusade and fuel the hatred across the globe. Jacques Chirac offers Bush his full support and will send troops to Afghanistan because the war to the Taliban regime is legitimate for the war on terror.
But the POTUS made the wrong choices. Instead of leveraging on the support of the whole international community, he accumulates mistakes and manages, within a few weeks, to have most countries against the US (and the few leaders backing his crusades don't have the support of their own people). The victim becomes a wreckless outlaw, the criminals become heroes or victims. Bush is killing the 9/11 victims one more time, and will even do it once more during his campaign, using the images of the tragedy for his reelection ads.
The problem is showing compassion is not being compassionate, especially when you're making a show out of your so called compassion. Compassion is not about stealing other people's hearts.
But the American people isn't aware of this imposture. People who know are those who are used and abused by Bush's weapons of mass disinformation:
- look at the grieving 9/11 families opposing this misuse of their pain
- hear the Iraqi soccer players rebel at the Athens Olympics when they hear Bush is trying to take advantage of their successes (Bush eventually canceled his plans to go to Athens and tried to send his dove alibi Powell instead. A series of demonstrations made Powell cancel his trip too)
- listen to the Afghan leaders complain about the october 9 presidential elections (the calendar is totally irrealistic for the country, they know these elections are just another argument for Bush reelection campaign).
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to BUSH, THE NEW HUGO CHAVEZ
Archives 20040902 (see blogules 2004)
Stop demagogy!
Dubya is using the same tricks as Chavez and could get the same results as his fellow dictator if the American audience doesn't get any wake up call. Soon.Time to remember how inspirational the man can be, but how delusive he actually is.
Time to say "It's democracy, stupid".
Some extracts from his inauguration speech (20010120) :
SM on a forum
Stop demagogy!
Dubya is using the same tricks as Chavez and could get the same results as his fellow dictator if the American audience doesn't get any wake up call. Soon.Time to remember how inspirational the man can be, but how delusive he actually is.
Time to say "It's democracy, stupid".
Some extracts from his inauguration speech (20010120) :
- . "Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations."
=> A seed of torture upon a wind of shock and awe. What kind of freedom and democracy are you talking about? - . "America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness."
=> Some still do expect that from you. Along with apologies. - . "If we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most".
=> You're gifted with precognition, man. - . "We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors".
=> And we will use weapons of mass disinformation, so that our voters are spared the horrors we provoque and even sometimes commit. - . "The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth."
=> Make no mistake : now all nations despise your arrogance and your betrayal of your own nation's values. - . "And I can pledge our nation to a goal : when we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side."
=> Yeah. You just drove the damn tank over him. And made sure the damns walls were fully destroyed. - . "America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected."
=> Thus, we'd value and are expecting your non reelection. - . "Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored acts of decency which give direction to our freedom."
=> Family bonds it is. Along with honored acts of indecency. The problem is the public interest depends on your very private character. - . "After the Declaration of Independance was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson : 'We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm ?' Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity. We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today, to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life. This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."
=> What a quote ! You knew from the start the race was about swift boats and dignity. You just don't fit in, and the Karl Rove directing the storm is no angel. Learn more about duty and service in your public library (I don't think there will be many other books in your own prez library than your faves : "My Pet Goat", the Reverend Moon's autobiography, "An End To Evil" by Richard Pearle and David Frum... and of course The Stubborn Again Christian Handbook...).
- . "Our nation must rise above a house divided. Americans share hopes and goals and values far more important than any political disagreements"
=> Are the US more divided now than 4 years ago ? Betcha ! - . "I know America wants reconciliation and unity. I know Americans want progress. And we must seize this moment and deliver."
=> Like seizing Iraq and delivering goodies to old pals ? - . "Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy and common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens".
=> Courtesy might be your middle name, when you let Karl do the dirty job (I love the "Turd Blossom" you use as a nickname for your first counselor). - . "Together, we will work to make all our public schools excellent, teaching every student of every background and every accent, so that no child is left behind".
=> Taught 'em how to die in Iraq, didn't you ? Why didn't you include your own major (Dodger 101) in your costly tuition program? - . "Together we will save Social Security and renew its promise of a secure retirement for generations to come."
=> Social Security and secure retirement for all, no former Halliburton CEO should be left behind. - . "Together we will strengthen Medicare and offer prescription drug coverage to all of our seniors"
=> Too bad daddy let you use all these non-prescription drugs when you were young... - . "Together we will give Americans the broad, fair and fiscally responsible tax relief they deserve."
=> ... and a jumbo size deficit while you're at it. - . "Together we'll have a bipartisan foreign policy true to our values and true to our friends, and we will have a military equal to every challenge and superior to every adversary."
=> By "bipartisan", you meant Lookheed and Martin ? Halli and Burton ? Come on ! Gimme a break. But your military surpasses Saddam's, that's for sure. Even in torture. - . "This is the essence of compassionate conservatism and it will be a foundation of my administration."
=> Compassionate conservatism indeed. Now you and your compadres can leave. Please. - . "These priorities are not merely Republican concerns or Democratic concerns; they are American responsibilities."
=> Now I get it. You read by mistake Al's acceptance speech.
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to the New Lie - France was not against a war on Iraq (if all other options failed)
Archives 20040829 (see blogules 2004)
GWB on CNN's Larry King Live : "this debate on coalitions is a very interesting debate. Sometimes I think they're basically saying that there is no such thing as a coalition unless the French are involved. But the truth of the matter is, the French are involved in Afghanistan, and the French have been involved in Haiti. The French government just didn't agree with the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And, therefore, there was a difference of opinion on that issue."
A Frenchman, I cannot accept this lie : the issue was not about removing Saddam from power but about starting a war with a wrong motive, without any propper peace strategy, but with a clear and immediate danger of fueling terrorism across the planet in general and BRINGING it to Iraq in particular. The war in Afghanistan was completely linked to the war on terror. Too bad Mr Bush used this token for an illegal wild ride, forgetting to finish the job where it mattered : instead of financing what was planned there, he's asking for more billions to cover up his mess in Baghdad. Afghanistan is back to drug mass production, insecurity, corruption and intolerance. Dismission accomplished.
Bush should remember the position of the French government : they were not against a war on Iraq, but only if all other options failed. War isn't only a matter of boys using toys and friends getting contracts. The decision of going to war should not be left into the hands of this man.
SM on a forum
GWB on CNN's Larry King Live : "this debate on coalitions is a very interesting debate. Sometimes I think they're basically saying that there is no such thing as a coalition unless the French are involved. But the truth of the matter is, the French are involved in Afghanistan, and the French have been involved in Haiti. The French government just didn't agree with the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And, therefore, there was a difference of opinion on that issue."
A Frenchman, I cannot accept this lie : the issue was not about removing Saddam from power but about starting a war with a wrong motive, without any propper peace strategy, but with a clear and immediate danger of fueling terrorism across the planet in general and BRINGING it to Iraq in particular. The war in Afghanistan was completely linked to the war on terror. Too bad Mr Bush used this token for an illegal wild ride, forgetting to finish the job where it mattered : instead of financing what was planned there, he's asking for more billions to cover up his mess in Baghdad. Afghanistan is back to drug mass production, insecurity, corruption and intolerance. Dismission accomplished.
Bush should remember the position of the French government : they were not against a war on Iraq, but only if all other options failed. War isn't only a matter of boys using toys and friends getting contracts. The decision of going to war should not be left into the hands of this man.
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to Bush - Stealing words
Archives 20040829 (see blogules 2004)
"Building a safer world and a more hopeful America" will be GWB's wrap up address to the Republican Convention.
Once again using the opposite side's words to make them his own, with just more media power. You may even hear an inspiring Dubya in a few days. The same kind of moving address he gave at his inauguration four years ago. The same smoke screen to cover his hidden agenda up.
Enough of this. Expose him. Do not let America be betrayed once again.
SM on a forum
"Building a safer world and a more hopeful America" will be GWB's wrap up address to the Republican Convention.
Once again using the opposite side's words to make them his own, with just more media power. You may even hear an inspiring Dubya in a few days. The same kind of moving address he gave at his inauguration four years ago. The same smoke screen to cover his hidden agenda up.
Enough of this. Expose him. Do not let America be betrayed once again.
SM on a forum
Red Blogule to the use of terror - Terrorists and Resistants
20040828 (see blogules 2004)
(discussion about the definition of a terrorist)
Defining a terrorist is actually a tricky task. I'd rather use the expression "terrorist actions" or better "actions of terror" since a terrorist is defined by his actions rather than by his permanent state (Arafat proved a former terrorist could be awarded a Nobel Prize).
Terrorists and resistants shouldn't be opposed since resistance is an aim and terror a means. Thus, some resistants do use terror. Does the aim justify the means is another question - I guess a true resistant should resist certain temptations.
One should also avoid the dangerous turf of "good vs evil" to draw the line. The problem with Bush is the way he uses terror and even the word "terror". To me, his definition of a terrorist should be extended to anyone threatening his reelection.
Still, there is a notion of "positive action" or kind of : with resistance and sabotage, you are opposing a force directly, sometimes through its symbol if you cannot manage any "better". With terror you can also weaken an ennemy overwhelmingly stronger than you, but you do not strike at the source of the force and go for the weakest part of the society. Bringing fear and destruction is the thing, and publicity (at home and/or abroad) a must. And the action is more important than the actor (terrorist) : the fear is greater if you do not know who's striking. I am anyone and everyone, I can strike anyone anywhere anytime.
SM on a forum
PS : don't get me wrong : Bin Laden won't get a Nobel prize (except maybe for his command of TNT, a Nobel invention)
(discussion about the definition of a terrorist)
Defining a terrorist is actually a tricky task. I'd rather use the expression "terrorist actions" or better "actions of terror" since a terrorist is defined by his actions rather than by his permanent state (Arafat proved a former terrorist could be awarded a Nobel Prize).
Terrorists and resistants shouldn't be opposed since resistance is an aim and terror a means. Thus, some resistants do use terror. Does the aim justify the means is another question - I guess a true resistant should resist certain temptations.
One should also avoid the dangerous turf of "good vs evil" to draw the line. The problem with Bush is the way he uses terror and even the word "terror". To me, his definition of a terrorist should be extended to anyone threatening his reelection.
Still, there is a notion of "positive action" or kind of : with resistance and sabotage, you are opposing a force directly, sometimes through its symbol if you cannot manage any "better". With terror you can also weaken an ennemy overwhelmingly stronger than you, but you do not strike at the source of the force and go for the weakest part of the society. Bringing fear and destruction is the thing, and publicity (at home and/or abroad) a must. And the action is more important than the actor (terrorist) : the fear is greater if you do not know who's striking. I am anyone and everyone, I can strike anyone anywhere anytime.
SM on a forum
PS : don't get me wrong : Bin Laden won't get a Nobel prize (except maybe for his command of TNT, a Nobel invention)
White Blogule to Kerry-Edwards' positive campaign
Archives 20040715-19
(discussion on the pros and cons of positive campaigning)
20040715 - I fully agree : let Michael Moore do the dirty job and match Dubya's Weapons of Mass Disinformation (in your face images, basic words, tears). John² will then stand at their usual and positive level, leagues over the neo-con junk talk.
20040719 - Playing "good cop - bad cop" with the likes of Moore or MoveOn.org is actually a kind of risky game and will succeed only if overall both manage to expose BC00-04's true nature to the American people.
This means a true debate which the Reps might want to skip, just like they did for every other aspect of democracy. Bring it on folks.
SM on a forum
(discussion on the pros and cons of positive campaigning)
20040715 - I fully agree : let Michael Moore do the dirty job and match Dubya's Weapons of Mass Disinformation (in your face images, basic words, tears). John² will then stand at their usual and positive level, leagues over the neo-con junk talk.
20040719 - Playing "good cop - bad cop" with the likes of Moore or MoveOn.org is actually a kind of risky game and will succeed only if overall both manage to expose BC00-04's true nature to the American people.
This means a true debate which the Reps might want to skip, just like they did for every other aspect of democracy. Bring it on folks.
SM on a forum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search through my personal portal :
