Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War by Greg Grandin

    Afterword: An Interview with Naomi Klein
    Many readers will know Chile as the fi rst place where the direct relationship between neoliberal economics and torture became evident. But the backstory to Friedman’s involvement with the Pinochet government is less well known. Years ago, when I heard the phrase “the Chicago boys,” I thought it referred to North Americans who had gone to Chile and worked with Pinochet. And that was true to some extent, because Friedman himself did travel to Chile in 1975 and meet with Pinochet. But the real Chicago boys, as you have written in Empire’s Workshop, were the Chileans who had studied at the University of Chicago. To a large extent, that was not just an academic program but the U.S. government’s attempt to change the ideological landscape of Latin America. It started in the 1950s, when a great deal of concern in Washington centered on the so- called pink economists and the notion that Latin America was moving very far to the left.

    One strategy, devised by USAID, was to bring large numbers of Chilean students to the University of Chicago, which was then considered a very ex- treme institution. In the United States, the Chicago economics department was seen as way out there. Friedman was always complaining about how marginal he was, how the Keynesians at Harvard and Yale had a monopoly on political infl uence. He and his colleagues saw themselves as a band of rebels on the fringes, working with these Latin American students, who were brought into what was practically a cult for extreme capitalism. The students were trained as ideological warriors—their tuition was paid for by the U.S. government and later by the Ford Foundation—and then sent back home to battle the “pinks.” It started with Chile, but it later expanded to Argentina, Brazil, Mexico.

    But it failed. Even though millions of dollars were spent on their educa- tion, these ideological warriors fl opped. They went back to Chile in the 1960s and they had their little journals and the economics pages of newspapers and they published papers. But the political debate had moved so far to the left that they were irrelevant to it. The idea that the U.S. State Department was somehow going to convert Chile to Friedmanism, to a form of capitalism that was more radical than anything that had been attempted in the United States, was clearly absurd.

    This initial failure is important because we’re so often told that capitalism, or this radical form of capitalism, has triumphed around the world because there was a battle of ideas, and the Friedmanites won. When Friedman died last year, we heard an unrelenting celebration of this supposedly peaceful battle that his side won. They won in Latin America, they won in Russia, they won in China—or so we are told. But from the very beginning, from the very fi rst laboratory, the Friedmanites lost badly when it was peaceful. But then, of course, the Chicago boys came back, after Salvador Allende’s overthrow, this time with tanks. And it was in this brutal, anti- democratic context that they “won.”

    #colonialisme #néolibéralisme #Chili #stratégie_du_choc #Amérique_latine

  • The Fare - Film Recommendation and Explanation

    Noch’n Taxifilm. Diesmal mit „Penny“ Persephone und „Harris“ Charon als Gast und Fahrer. Reichlich Stoff, um Taxi zu überhöhen, als universelle Metapher für das Leben und überhaupt alles zu betrachten, ähnlich wie es "Jim Jarmush in „Night On Earth“ macht.

    Did you realize that there is an enormous world of film out beyond the tightly defined and constructed box of Hollywood film norms? That the standard Hollywood tropes and narrowly confined screenplays aren’t all there is in the world of film. Which is why, today, we are excited to talk about The Fare. A movie you should all see. And after you’ve seen it, join us for my explanation and detailed walkthrough. And better yet? Today we have a special treat because Brinna Kelly, the co-lead, and screenplay author, was kind enough to help enlighten me on some of the more intricate details of the film. And I have also published an interview with her as well – which you can find right here. I had such a great conversation with her, I can’t wait to bring it to you. More importantly though, I’m so stoked about bringing you this movie (Thanks DeKev for bringing it to my attention!!). And now, the Fare Film Recommendation and Explanation…

    The Fare, directed by D.C. Hamilton, and written by the aforementioned Brinna Kelly, is a really simple story. It’s a story of two people stuck in a perpetual loop. A taxi cab delivery loop that is really satisfying. Here at THiNC. we cover our fair share of looping mindjob movies. No, not just Groundhog Day. Not that there’s anything wrong with it. Movies like A Day, 41, Blood Punch, Russian Doll, Pig, Infinite Chamber, you think I’m even close to being done yet? Nope. And the cause of the looping that happens in these movies are a fascinating study in and of themselves. An unforgiven sin. A chance at a perfect day. A hope for a reason why. Stars aligning. Stars misaligning. But The Fare has one of the most intriguing origin stories of them all. However, from the outside, this movie is as cheesy as it gets. Two people riding in a taxi?? Awful. But, we’ve seen other movies just like it with simpler raisons d’etre – like Locke maybe? Here, watch the trailer – it’s ultra cheesy – but the movie’s plot and explanation are worth the investment.

    But know this, if you haven’t seen this movie yet (and you have lots of places and options to watch, here, here, and here), you really need to stop, and not continue on. Spoilers will be found throughout the rest of this post.

    The Fare Walkthrough

    The reason I walk you guys through the intricate details of the movie is mainly to make certain we are all 100% on the same page. And this movie has a lot more going on under the surface than usual, so I am going to move extra carefully as we walk through this film. (And heck, sometimes it’s more about me getting on the right page than it is about you figuring it out!) Then, afterwards, we’ll discuss the ins and outs of the movie in general. So yeah, remember, SPOILERS.

    Our taxi cab driver, Harris (played by Gino Anthony Pesi), starts the movie off with a fare. He picks up Penny, they head towards Elm and River, and toward a set of events that might rearrange our brains a little along the way. The conversation is congenial, and the two seem to have something else going on. But somewhere along the line, POOF! Penny vanishes.

    Round 2, begins with another taxi cab fare, and Penny in the back seat again. The movie is all black and white, lacking color, and depth. This time the conversation varies slightly, but not very significantly. There is one moment though, when the cab almost hits something and Penny cracks her head, that Harris grabs her hand, and everything goes to color. “Penny, are you alright?” That is when we realize that she never told him her name. What is going on here? And Penny beseeches Harris to remember her and then vanishes again… POOF!

    But the THIRD TIME? The third time it stayed up! (Holy Grail anyone?) No, the third time, their conversation diverges from the previous loops and Harris starts remembering on his own. He remembers their conversations, he remembers the radio details, he remembers the storm, he remembers that she asks if she can call him Harry. He remembers all of it. And he’s immediately curious if he’s in a science lab, “pumped full of cocaine and daffodil juice or something.” And Penny informs him that they have shared maybe over a hundred rides together, and that he had forgotten them all. And then she vanishes again.

    But the fourth time, when he pulls up to Penny, he says, “Get in, it smells like burning.” And they are off. “Sit up front.” “Is that allowed?” “Who’s going to tell on us, we are apparently caught in a time loop together.” The conversation is fast, and fluid, it’s as if they hadn’t missed a beat since the last time they were together. However long ago that was (wink). And we begin to learn that Penny has tried a million different ways to get out of the loop together (different directions, they’ve gotten out and walked, running the cab off the road at 100 mph) but mainly Penny is just thankful to have a real conversation together.

    Ride five – yes, we are to ride five already – and the conversation goes towards real conversation. Stranded island type conversations. Harris’ theories about aliens creating humans to look like them…etc., etc. But mainly Harris is despondent about this loop that they are caught in. That is when Penny tells Harris about being trapped in a joyless marriage back in the real world. And here we begin to get into discussions of aloneness, and existential meaning…purpose. But when Penny is with Harris, she doesn’t feel alone. Most importantly, we learn that Harris once had a significant other in his life…and she got into his cab one day. And that he didn’t know how to fix it. And she’s gone. Harris chooses to not reset his meter, and he floors it. But a bright light and a loud voice orders him to turn back.

    Ride six – is started with a hug, and an honest exclamation from Harris that he can’t lose Penny ever again. And they make a decision to stay there together forever…to never leave. But Harris notices that Penny has a scar where she hit the partition. And that implies to him that these are not recurring and resetting loops, but something else. This is where the spoilers become really important. One last chance – if you haven’t seen the movie, and SOMEHOW, you’ve gotten this far down this page, you really need to go. Harris really needs to understand what is happening to him – understand this non-resetting looping that is happening. And just before Penny disappears, she tells Harris not to drink the water. Which takes the film in a totally new direction.

    The first fare after the sixth is an old man. At the end of the ride, he gives Harris a gold coin. And from there on he begins taking other riders – but amongst the new riders are memories of his first time meeting Penny in real life. Their budding relationship, and then her disappearance. But he does learn one important thing from the dispatcher, that his job is to be the ferryman….to collect golden coins for rides, and deliver people to their destinations. That, oh, and the small detail that Penny is the dispatcher’s wife. That every year Penny leaves, and when she comes back, she comes back via Harris’ cab. And from here on out we have a cavalcade of fares for Harris to ferry.

    But eventually, Penny is back. And Harris has been waiting for this conversation an entire year. The thing he wants most of all to communicate is that even if he only gets 20 minutes a year, he really is a very lucky man. That they are the stars Altair and Vega, and that their paths cross only once a year.

    The Fare Film Explanation

    OK, so as we discussed in the walkthrough…the looping repetitions aren’t actually a standard Groundhog Day sort of loop. Generally when a film invokes a Groundhog Day loop the point of the film is to morally resolve sin, or failure, and direct the hero towards perfection. That isn’t happening here. Instead, the film is continuing to progress in time, but Harris isn’t fully aware of what is actually happening. And it’s only when he sees Penny’s scar that he understands that time is actually progressing quasi-normally.

    When Harris is told by the dispatcher, that he is death, and that Harris is his ferryman, does Harris really understand what is going on. In this moment, you should have immediately started flipping back through your memories of Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman gods, in order to place who Harris really is. And when I chatted with Brinna, and she told me that Harris’ last name was Caron…Harris Caron…it all came together. Now, to appreciate that, in the world of classical Greek mythology, the ferryman had several different names – but Charon, or Caron – was the most widely used. And if you are really curious, an A+ over achiever, you’ll find him in Dante’s Divine Comedy (the fifth ring), and also in Milton’s Paradise Lost.

    And, in ancient times, many believed that a coin placed in the mouth of a dead person would pay the fee necessary for Caron to ferry their family member across the river to the underworld. This coin was called Charon’s Obol. But if the dead couldn’t afford the tribute, they would be cursed to never cross the river.

    The 3 Theories to Explain The Fare

    Now, having spent an hour or so chatting with Brinna about her film, I am fairly biased as to how good it is. But that doesn’t mean I’ve lost all objectivity. With that said, I think there are three possible ways (along an infinite continuum) in which to interpret this movie. Theory 1 is the literal reading of the film. Theory 2 would be a dark view. And Theory 3 would be the mind-blown ultra-dark view. All of which come from Brinna and myself bouncing alternatives off of each other. (Brinna gets 100% of the credit for theory 3…kudos to you Brinna.)

    Theory #1 – The Literal View

    If you are a romantic, and you prefer a little simpler view of life – this is the theory for you. I’m not saying that in a denigrating way at all. Personally wish the optimistic view was my own personal first inclination. But alas.

    This theory basically states that Penny, or Persephone, wasn’t the one who trapped Harris and made him the Ferryman. The Dispatcher, Hades, is the one that did that. Here’s Brinna talking about this particular theory: “He (the Dispatcher) talks about it in his reveal monologue to Harris after the old man was dropped off. (After Harris died, Penny would have wanted his soul to move on like the others, drink from the Lethe and forget about his life and her, and reincarnate. But her husband, who is cruel, had other plans.) What Penny did for Harris was give him the water, so he didn’t have to remember his purgatory, or her, so he would be blissfully unaware. (It’s the only thing she could do for him. Because ultimately, Persephone is not as strong as her husband Hades, who’s one of the big ‘three’, the eldest at that, Kronos’ first born.) But Harris’s memory of her is so strong, that it’s starting to break through the fog, and when they touched, he remembered her despite the water. That’s why, in the end, he chose to stop drinking, so he can always remember her…”

    Make sense? She went kind of fast. Let me try and slow it down a little bit. Persephone, Hades’ wife, met Harris while away from the underworld. They fell in love, but eventually fell distant. Harris came back after realizing he screwed up, but it was too late, Persephone had already left. But she never would have wanted evil to befall Harris. Hades, on the other hand, giggled at the idea of evil befalling Harris… and so he made Harris the perpetual ferryman. But eventually, Harris began to remember, in spite of the water that Persephone gave him to ease his pain. And voila, he stopped drinking it in order to have his 20 minutes with her each year. Make more sense?

    This is the romantic’s view mainly because it shows Harris as someone that saw his eternal existence as a glass half full sort of experience. He was given the opportunity to spend an eternal amount of time (albeit in 20 minute increments) with his one true love. And it wasn’t Persephone that locked him in this experience, but rather, it is Charon & Persephone who are choosing to make the best of this ‘curse’.

    Theory #2 The Pessimistic View

    So, let’s think about the plot of this movie a second, practically. If we were to go back to the beginning and think about it from scratch, knowing what we know about Penny, the Dispatcher, and Harris. Penny is Persephone, who is the daughter of Zeus. Persephone was the queen of the underworld who carries out the curses of men on the souls of the dead. She’s married to Hades, the god of the underworld. Death himself. Right? And let’s just take Penny at her at her word, that her life married to Hades is anything but satisfying. So she courts a mortal man, a taxicab driver. And during this experience, they spend time together for about a year, and then it falls apart. And Penny disappears. But then, somehow, Harris dies, and it is Persephone that installs Harris as the Phlegyas, the Caron, the ferryman for the dead, for all time. Not Hades. Why? So that she can have Harris forever. (Random tangent, if you guys haven’t read the book The Book Thief, I literally cannot recommend it enough. It happens to be narrated by Death, and has some of the most beautiful prose this side of straight up and down poetry.)

    “OK, so?” I hear you asking. Well, I get it that the gods play with mortals regularly… but this is some next level god-playing if you ask me. No? And for Harris to vow his unconditional love to Persephone after learning of how she trapped him in this task seems a bit much. No? Isn’t it literally the definition of a Sisyphean task? WHICH WAS A CURSE! Sisyphus was tasked with rolling his boulder for eternity because he was selfish and deceitful, no? What was Harris’ sin? How do we spin this as a blessing?

    Theory #3 The Mental Mindjob View

    What if, the experiences we watch throughout The Fare are just one of a million different times that Harris has forgotten, and then remembered again? Here’s Brinna again, talking through the ins and outs of this particular theory:

    “Do you think this is even the first time Harris has remembered Penny? Penny’s words are unreliable, she’s lied to him throughout the film (whether or not it’s for his own good is up for debate…). So, what if this has all happened before? What if it hasn’t been 100 rides? What if it’s been 1000? 10,000? He’s in eternity (or limbo, whatever you want to call it..) time is relative…what if they’ve been here before? He remembers her, he re-declares his love for her. They continue like that for an age or two… But eventually, his human mind can’t take the loneliness and isolation, he starts drinking the water again…after awhile, the entire dance starts anew. Imagine that…what if that’s the loop they’re in, and Harris still can only see but a fraction of it. Poor human soul, lost among the Gods…”

    This vantage seems the most real to me only because it is the gods we are talking about here. But the beauty of this movie, and these three theories is that you can choose the one that makes the most sense to you.

    Final Thoughts on The Fare

    The conversation with Brinna Kelly really helped me to clarify my understanding of what happened at the end of The Fare. But even so, a question that still plagues me at the back of my mind is…after Harris walked out on Penny, and then came back to find her gone…how did Harris die? Did Hades kill him? Did Harris kill himself? Was it an accident? Each of these variations could have been added above to the correct theory that matches best. (E.g.: Theory #1 Just a car accident caused by Harris’ drinking. Theory #2 Hades killed Harris. Theory #3 Harris committed suicide.)

    We know that his cab was wrecked. Penny said she had it fixed up after he died. Did he commit suicide after losing his one true love? Was it just a random accident? Or was he just taken from earth by Persephone to help ferry the dead across the Styx and in the process, his cab was crashed mid-teleportation? When I asked Brinna about this particular plot point, here is what she had to say about it, “Yes, the way you described it is pretty much how I imagined it happening…except I don’t think Harris meant to kill himself necessarily (that probably plays into why he can’t remember it clearly). I think he probably had too much to drink and then crashed his cab. Hence why dispatcher taunts him about ‘hitting the sauce’ early on.” She had a lot more to say on that plot point, so watch out for my interview with her in the next few days to hear more.

    I was CERTAIN that The Fare was going to go down the exact same road that all the other looping movies take. That Harris was in desperate need of learning that one critical thing in order to perfect his fare experience with Penny…in order to escape the loop. So, for me to get right hooked by Brinna’s clever screenplay was a real treat. The simple aesthetic (Did you know this movie was filmed in only six days?? Yeah, extraordinarily difficult to pull off even a simple movie like this one in six days.) and magnetic acting of the two leads was a lot of fun to dive into.

    And the movie does a good job juking us on the concept of the loop actually not being a loop. Most importantly, it is a clever romance made out of a tragic circumstance. A curse even. One that I’m not entirely certain is a love story. Remember the movie Passengers, with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt? It has that similar after taste. I’m stuck, married to Hades, eternally trapped…so, hey you, pleasantly sleeping woman…who happens to be beautiful…why don’t you wake up, and enthrall me a bit as I pass through occasionally! hahah. But ultimately it works for me. Harris has had his close encounter tangle with the gods, and is now the eternal ferryman. Alright. And romance, or no, he really does seem perfect for the job.

    Gino Anthony Pesi as Harris
    Brinna Kelly as Penny
    Jason Stuart as The Dispatcher
    Jon Jacobs as Frail Man
    Matt Fontana as Dewey

    Directed by D.C. Hamilton
    Produced by D.C. Hamilton, Brinna Kelly, Gino Anthony Pesi, Kristin Starns
    Written by Brinna Kelly

    #Film #Taxi #Mythologie

  • Amchitka (album)

    Il y 50 ans ce concert marquait la fondation de Greenpeace.

    Amchitka is a 2009 two-CD release of a recording of Joni Mitchell, James Taylor and Phil Ochs performing an October 16, 1970, benefit concert at the Pacific Coliseum in Vancouver. The event funded #Greenpeace's protests of 1971 nuclear weapons tests by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission at Amchitka, Alaska

    James Taylor Concert Footage For Greenpeace (Amchitka, Alaska)

    Phil Ochs | Changes — at Amchitka

    Recorded live at Amchitka, the 1970 concert that launched Greenpeace

    Joni Mitchell: Big Yellow Taxi, 1983.04.24 Wembley Arena,London, England

    #environnement #pollution #musique

  • Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1989)

    Pour mon anniversaire mon frère m’a trouvé ce film en me disant « on dirait que c’est toi qui a écrit le scenario ». La protagoniste est une docteur en ethno-anthropologie féministe qui s’appelle Margot ! et qui a pour mission de sauvé des tributs d’amazones cannibales de la prédation masculine sur leur terres et leurs avocats. La boite de prod s’appel « Guacamole production » et il y a tout ce que j’aime, du féminisme, du cannibalisme et du guacamole. Du coup j’ai développée une théorie qui dit qu’on aurais chacun·e un nanar sur mesure qui nous attend quelque part. J’ai trouvé le mien dans ce « Cannibal women in the Avocado Jungle of Death » Youpiii

    The U.S. government grows worried for the nation’s avocado supply after some confrontations with the “Piranha” tribe of cannibal women, who live in the mysterious “Avocado Jungle” (westernmost outpost: San Bernardino) and ritually sacrifice and eat men. The government recruits Margo Hunt (Tweed), a professor of feminist studies at a local university ("Spritzer College"), to travel into the Avocado Jungle and make contact with the women to attempt to convince them to move to a reservation/condo in Malibu. Along the way, she and her travelling companions — male chauvinist guide Jim (Maher) and ditzy undergraduate Bunny (Karen Mistal) — meet a tribe of subservient men called the “Donnahew” (a reference to talk-show host Phil Donahue) and face dangers in their path.

    Eventually, the trio (Margo, Bunny and Jim) meets the Piranha women, who have recently taken Dr. Kurtz (played by Adrienne Barbeau) as their “empress.” Kurtz is Dr. Hunt’s former colleague in feminist studies (the internationally famous author of Smart Women, Stupid Insensitive Men) and now her nemesis; she has joined the tribe of Piranha women with her own exploitative agenda. The two argue about the morality of sacrificing men and the exploitation of the Piranha women, and Bunny decides to join the tribe, her first sacrifice being Jim. Bunny cannot go through with the kill, however, and Dr. Hunt escapes, aided by the handsome, intelligent, and sensitive Jean-Pierre (Brett Stimely), who also was to be sacrificed.

    Dr. Margo Hunt finds in the jungle a rival tribe of cannibal women, the Barracuda Women, who are at war with the Piranha women due to differences over which condiment (guacamole or clam dip) most appropriately accompanies a meal of sacrificed man. Hunt returns to the Piranha stronghold with this other tribe and rescues Bunny and Jim as well as Jean-Pierre.

    Margo Hunt challenges Kurtz to a duel for supremacy, and they argue while fighting with various weapons; eventually, Margo impales Kurtz with a fencing sword. Kurtz explains her motives to Hunt in her last words: After ruling the Piranha tribe, she cannot return to civilization and the talk-show circuit. She then kills herself by plunging into a pit filled with water and piranha fish.

    Having discovered the government plot to domesticate the Piranha women by providing aerobics classes and frequent exposure to Cosmopolitan magazine, Hunt refuses to bring the Piranha women with her, and instead persuades the warring cannibal tribes to reunite, maintaining the peace by means of consciousness raising groups.

    The film ends happily for the trio of main characters: Bunny and Jim are to be married, and Jean-Pierre has enrolled at Dr. Hunt’s university as a feminist studies major, becoming in the process the ideal companion for Hunt.

    Spoiler = J’avais peur que Margot finisse mariée avec le phallocrate mais heureusement c’est pas le cas (ouf)

  • Saul Alinsky - Wikipedia

    Influence on the Tea Party movement[edit]
    In the 2000s, Rules for Radicals did develop as a primer for middle-class moblization, but it was of a kind and in a direction—the return to “vanished verities”—that Alinsky had feared. As did William F. Buckley in the 1960s, a new generation of libertarian, right-wing populist, and conservative activists seemed willing to admire Alinsky’s disruptive organizing talents while rejecting his social-justice politics. Rules for Radicals, and adaptations of the book, began circulating among Republican Tea Party activists.


  • A l’est, mais où et quand ?
    Ce sont de vieilles diapos. Cette statue est impressionnante. Google ne me répond pas quand je lui demande où c’est. La seconde diapo date à priori, du même voyage... mais ça n’aide pas plus... Si par hasard vous avez déjà vu une telle statue dans vos voyages :-)

  • Parasite !

    Punaises de lit, gale, poux, lentes, etc., comment s’en débarrasser sans utiliser de produits chimiques, voire, comment s’en accomoder ! Sommaire : - Intro / Giz Fragments préliminaires à une théorie de la lose / Anon. Se débarrasser des poux et des lentes sans se noyer dans des produits chimiques / Léa Verdun, une fiction d’action directe / Giz Compléments documentaires Conclusion #P

    / Infokiosque fantôme (partout), Corps, santé

    #Infokiosque_fantôme_partout_ #Corps,_santé

  • Investor-Staat- #Schiedsgerichte (Audio mit Sendungs-Skript) Wie in...

    Investor-Staat- #Schiedsgerichte (Audio mit Sendungs-Skript)

    Wie internationale Unternehmen nationales Recht aushebeln

    oAnth: Die Gültigkeit einer immensen Anzahl von Investitionsschutzabkommen umfasst generell alle Arten von Großprojekten und gibt weltweit Investoren das Recht zum Einklagen ihrer als Ertragsausfall kalkulierten Summen in privaten Investor-Staats-Schiedsgerichtsverfahren unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit (Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung, kurz #ISDS, s.u.), sollte es staatlicherseits zu einem wie auch immer begründeten Rückzug von den Vertragsvereinbarungen kommen. Dies geht einher mit horrenden Forderungen seitens eigens hierauf spezialisierter Anwaltsbüros und finanziell kaum zu schulternden Folgen für die staatlichen Vertragspartner - ein äußerst hörenswertes (...)

  • Fablab ou Labfab ?

    Cet article est une réponse au commentaire de rodinux, faisant suite à l’article Les fab labs ne sont en rien un dépassement de la société industrielle paru le 11 septembre dans Ricochets. * « Bien communs, biens d’aucun... ». Voilà un refrain bien connu, qu’on rencontre généralement dans certains cercles libertariens fanatiques … libertarisme proche d’une certaine couleur de l’anarchie. En effet, pourquoi l’accès à l’eau, au paysage, un jour (...) #Les_Articles

    / #Technologie


  • Dérive autour de Ranglin… Hier comme on continuait la nécro de la légende Toots, je mettais un lien vers son brodage jazz sur 54-46

    Du coup je réécoutais Ranglin que j’adore. Son album Below the bassline qui contient le morceau précédent est un de mes albums préférés de tous les temps. Ranglin a toujours été virtuose sans se la péter, pas de vitesse pour la vitesse, toujours au service d’une mélodie, Below the bassline étant le summum de ses albums pour ça je crois. Dû très sûrement au fait qu’à côté de ses propres compos, il a été arrangeur et guitariste pour de nombreux morceaux ou groupes populaires une bonne partie de sa carrière, et pas pour du menu fretin (Marley ! Skatalites !…).
    Playlist album complet :

    Sur cet album, comme sur plein d’autres il joue (quasi à égalité, cf les solos) avec son ami Monty Alexander, grand pianiste jazz jamaïcain (avec qui il fera de nombreux albums, sous l’un ou l’autre de leur nom).

    Au fil de l’eau revient dans mon navigateur le lien que je m’étais mis de côté de son improbable album disco, que j’avais annoncé

    Album produit par King Sporty, un musicien et producteur jamaïcain, parti à Miami. Il est connu pour avoir co-écrit Buffalo Soldier (quand même !) mais ensuite il a fait du funk, de la disco, et même de l’électro.

    Il était aussi marié à… Betty Wright, autre grande chanteuse. Du coup j’écoute et je me retrouve sur Seenthis car @sinehebdo annonce sa mort dans la triste longue liste des gens morts pendant la pandémie.

    Dans ce seen, @vanderling annonce que Millie Small est morte aussi la même semaine… Millie dont la carrière a débuté et explosé très jeune, à 15-16 ans, avec l’album « My boy lollipop », dont le morceau éponyme est considéré comme le premier morceau de ska diffusé massivement (quand même !). Et ça ça vient d’où ? C’est Chris Blackwell, le fondateur d’Island, qui a décidé d’associer… Ernest Ranglin avec Millie Small, qui a donc été le directeur artistique, l’arrangeur, et la lead guitar sur cet album. C’est lui qui a ré-arrangé cette reprise d’un morceau existant.

    Au passage la première version de ce morceau, 10 ans plus tôt, interprété par Barbie Gaye

    a été joué en première partie de… Little Richard, dont @sinehebdo annonçait la mort aussi, au même moment que Betty Wright et Millie Small.

    #tout_est_lié ! (ce tag n’existe pas en 10 ans de seens, c’est une honte)

    Bon mais Ernest lui il est encore vivant, même s’il a quand même 88 ans, et ne doit pas forcément faire des milliers de choses (et on ne lui demande pas tant vu tout ce qu’il a déjà fait). Le wiki français ne sert pas à grand chose :

    Finissons sur un autre album que j’ai en physique, son voyage en musical en Afrique de l’ouest, « In search of the lost riddim ». C’est vraiment un tout autre style, où son jazz se mélange à la kora ❤︎, et divers chants (dont une avec une chanteuse de 14 ans qui est incroyable). Cet album est vraiment très très beau.

    #musique #Ernest_Ranglin #King_Sporty #Betty_Wright #Millie_Small #Barbie_Gaye

  • 4 Minute Men. Le pitch ascenseur avant l’heure

    Pour convaincre l’opinion américaine, des moyens sans précédent furent employés, même si leurs résultats ne furent pas convaincants — il a été nécessaire de faire appel aux conscrits de l’armée vu le faible nombre de volontaires.

    Les #Four_Minute_Men étaient à cet effet un groupe de comédiens volontaires autorisés par le gouvernement fédéral à prononcer des discours en place public pour promouvoir l’effort de guerre américain. La principale utilité de cette initiative était de pouvoir s’adresser à de nombreux américains à la fois par le biais de voix reconnues, locales et populaires : l’organisation était répartie dans les grandes villes stratégiques, notamment Chicago — point central du mouvement socialiste — puis au sein de communautés dans ces mêmes villes.


    • découvert sur

      En plus des outils habituels de la propagande d’État — campagnes de presse, tracts et affiches — elle emploie pour la première fois des techniques psychologiques balbutiantes. Elles ne consistent pas à asséner un message clair, comme la réclame en vigueur à l’époque, mais usent de moyens détournés et d’associations d’idées visant les inconscients. Les Four Minute Men par exemple, étaient des personnes bien en vue dans leur communauté et mandatées par Washington pour prendre ino-pinément la parole en public. Elles semblaient le faire en leur nom, mais diffusaient en réalité le point de vue gouvernemental sur l’entrée en guerre. Ces techniques ont très bien fonctionné, et l’opinion publique s’est vue retournée en moins d’un an. À la fin du conflit, ces messieurs ont continué à vendre leurs services à celles et ceux qui pouvaient se les payer, c’est-à-dire les entreprises et les gouvernements qui avaient déjà à l’époque pas mal de camelote à écouler et des démocraties à organiser.



  • Le président américain Donald Trump, nominé pour le Prix Nobel de la Paix 2021 -

    Le président Donald Trump a été nominé pour le Prix Nobel de la Paix 2021. Sa candidature a été proposée par Christian Tybring-Gjedde, président de la délégation norvégienne à l’Assemblée parlementaire de l’OTAN, pour les efforts du chef de l’État visant à « résoudre les conflits prolongés dans le monde ».
    Le Norvégien a salué l’engagement du président américain en faveur pour « l’accord de paix historique » conclu entre Israël et les Émirats Arabes Unis le mois dernier. La semaine dernière, Donald Trump était également intervenu lors du sommet Serbie-Kosovo, organisé à la Maison-Blanche. Le président américain s’était alors réjoui d’une possible « grande paix au Moyen-Orient ». La Serbie a par la suite annoncé qu’elle allait transférer son ambassade en Israël à Jérusalem.

  • Immigration and crime - Wikipedia

    Immigration and crime refers to perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration. The academic literature provides mixed findings for the relationship between immigration and crime worldwide, but finds for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] A meta-analysis of 51 studies from 1994–2014 on the relationship between immigration and crime in the United States found that overall immigration reduces crime, but the relationship is very weak.[8] Research suggests that people tend to overestimate the relationship between immigration and criminality,[9][4][10] and that the media tends to erroneously depict immigrants as particularly crime-prone.[11]

    The over-representation of immigrants in the criminal justice systems of several countries may be due to socioeconomic factors, imprisonment for migration offenses, and racial and ethnic discrimination by police and the judicial system.[12][13][14][15][16][17] The relationship between immigration and terrorism is understudied, but existing research suggests that the relationship is weak and that repression of the immigrants increases the terror risk.[18][19] Research on the relationship between refugee migration and crime is scarce, but existing empirical evidence fails to substantiate a relationship between refugee migration and crime.[20]

    Much of the empirical research on the causal relationship between immigration and crime has been limited due to weak instruments for determining causality.[21] According to one economist writing in 2014, “while there have been many papers that document various correlations between immigrants and crime for a range of countries and time periods, most do not seriously address the issue of causality.”[12] The problem with causality primarily revolves around the location of immigrants being endogenous, which means that immigrants tend to disproportionately locate in deprived areas where crime is higher (because they cannot afford to stay in more expensive areas) or because they tend to locate in areas where there is a large population of residents of the same ethnic background.[2] A burgeoning literature relying on strong instruments provides mixed findings.[2][3][4][5][6][7][22][23] As one economist describes the existing literature in 2014, “most research for the US indicates that if any, this association is negative... while the results for Europe are mixed for property crime but no association is found for violent crime”.[2] Another economist writing in 2014, describes how “the evidence, based on empirical studies of many countries, indicates that there is no simple link between immigration and crime, but legalizing the status of immigrants has beneficial effects on crime rates.”[12] A 2009 review of the literature focusing on recent, high-quality studies from the United States found that immigration generally did not increase crime and often decreased it.[24]

    The relationship between crime and the legal status of immigrants remains understudied[25][26] but studies on amnesty programs in the United States and Italy suggest that legal status can largely explain the differences in crime between legal and illegal immigrants, most likely because legal status leads to greater job market opportunities for the immigrants.[12][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] However, one study finds that the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 led to an increase in crime among previously undocumented immigrants.[34]

    Existing research suggests that labor market opportunities have a significant impact on immigrant crime rates.[12] Young, male and poorly educated immigrants have the highest individual probabilities of imprisonment among immigrants.[35] Research suggests that the allocation of immigrants to high crime neighborhoods increases individual immigrant crime propensity later in life, due to social interaction with criminals.[36]

    Some factors may effect the reliability of data on suspect rates, crime rates, conviction rates and prison populations for drawing conclusions about immigrants’ overall involvement in criminal activity:

    Police practices, such as racial profiling, over-policing in areas populated by immigrants or in-group bias may result in disproportionately high numbers of immigrants among crime suspects.[37][15][38][39][13][16][40]
    Possible discrimination by the judicial system may result in higher number of convictions.[37][13][16][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]
    Unfavorable bail and sentencing decisions due to foreigners’ ease of flight, lack of domiciles, lack of regular employment and lack of family able to host the individual can explain immigrants’ higher incarceration rates when compared to their share of convictions relative to the native population.[50][51]
    Natives may be more likely to report crimes when they believe the offender has an immigrant background.[52]
    Imprisonment for migration offenses, which are more common among immigrants, need to be taken account of for meaningful comparisons between overall immigrant and native criminal involvement.[35][16][53][54]
    Foreigners imprisoned for drug offenses may not actually live in the country where they are serving sentences but were arrested while in transit.[35]

  • The Next Great Migration. The Beauty and Terror of Life on the Move

    The news today is full of stories of dislocated people on the move. Wild species, too, are escaping warming seas and desiccated lands, creeping, swimming, and flying in a mass exodus from their past habitats. News media presents this scrambling of the planet’s migration patterns as unprecedented, provoking fears of the spread of disease and conflict and waves of anxiety across the Western world. On both sides of the Atlantic, experts issue alarmed predictions of millions of invading aliens, unstoppable as an advancing tsunami, and countries respond by electing anti-immigration leaders who slam closed borders that were historically porous.

    But the science and history of migration in animals, plants, and humans tell a different story. Far from being a disruptive behavior to be quelled at any cost, migration is an ancient and lifesaving response to environmental change, a biological imperative as necessary as breathing. Climate changes triggered the first human migrations out of Africa. Falling sea levels allowed our passage across the Bering Sea. Unhampered by barbed wire, migration allowed our ancestors to people the planet, catapulting us into the highest reaches of the Himalayan mountains and the most remote islands of the Pacific, creating and disseminating the biological, cultural, and social diversity that ecosystems and societies depend upon. In other words, migration is not the crisis—it is the solution.

    Conclusively tracking the history of misinformation from the 18th century through today’s anti-immigration policies, The Next Great Migration makes the case for a future in which migration is not a source of fear, but of hope.
    #adaptation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #mobilité #solution #problème #résilience #livre #changement_climatique #climat #réfugiés_environnementaux #migrations_environnementales #histoire #survie #crise #histoire_des_migrations

    ping @isskein @karine4 @_kg_ @reka

    • Climate migration is not a problem. It’s a solution.

      Climate migration is often associated with crisis and catastrophe, but #Sonia_Shah, author of “The Next Great Migration,” wants us to think differently about migration. On The World’s weekly look at climate change solutions, The Big Fix, Shah speaks to host Marco Werman about her reporting that considers how the world would be more resilient if people were given legal safe ways to move.


      Sonia Shah parle aussi de #musique métissée, dont celle de #Mulatu_Astatke, qui n’aurait pas pu voir le jour sans la migrations de populations au cours de l’histoire :

      #immobilité #fermeture_des_frontières

    • Migration as Bio-Resilience : On Sonia Shah’s “The Next Great Migration”

      DURING THE UNUSUALLY frigid winter of 1949, a breeding pair of gray wolves crossed a frozen-over channel onto Michigan’s Isle Royale, a narrow spit of land just south of the US-Canadian maritime border in Lake Superior. Finding abundant prey, including moose, the pair had pups, starting a small lupine clan. Over the next almost 50 years, without access to the mainland, the clan grew increasingly inbred, with over half the wolves developing congenital spinal deformities and serious eye problems. As the wolf population declined — scientists even found one mother dead in her den, with seven unborn pups in her — the moose population came thundering back, gobbling up and trampling the forest’s buds and shoots. The ecosystem’s food chain now had a few broken links.

      The Isle Royale wolf population was saved, however, by a lone migrant. In 1997, a male wolf made his way to the island. Within a generation — wolf generations are a little less than five years — 56 percent of the young wolves carried the newcomer’s genes. In the years since, thanks to ongoing conservation efforts, more wolves have been brought to the island to provide enough genetic diversity not only to save the wolves but preserve the ecosystem’s new balance.

      This is just one of many examples of the bio-benefits of migratory species provided by Sonia Shah in her new book, The Next Great Migration. Hers is an original take on the oft-stultifying debate about immigration, most frequently argued over by unbending stalwarts on opposite extremes, or sometimes quibbled over by noncommittal centrists. There are now more displaced humans than ever — around one percent of the total human population — and the climate crises together with humanity’s ceaseless creep are driving an increasing number of nonhuman species to search for more welcoming climes. That half of the story is popularly understood: the world is on the move. What is less often acknowledged, and what Shah convincingly fills out, is its biological necessity. “Migration’s ecological function extends beyond the survival of the migrant itself,” she writes. “Wild migrants build the botanical scaffolding of entire ecosystems.” Besides spreading pollen and seeds — upon which the survival of many plants depend — migrants also transport genes, thus bringing genetic diversity. Migration is not only a human fact but a biological one.

      But the understanding of migration’s critical import — whether broadly biological or specifically human — has been a long time coming.

      “The idea that certain people and species belong in certain fixed places has had a long history in Western culture,” Shah writes. By its logic, “migration is by necessity a catastrophe, because it violates the natural order.” The so-called “natural order” is actually a construct that has been buoyed for millennia by a broad coalition of scientists, politicians, and other ideologically inflected cavillers. As for the word “migrant,” it didn’t even appear in the English language until the 17th century — when it was coined by Thomas Browne — and it took another hundred years before it was applied to humans. One important migrant-denialist, as Shah details, was Swedish-born naturalist Carl Linnaeus, most famous for formalizing binomial nomenclature, the modern system of classifying organisms as, say, Canis lupus or Homo sapiens.

      Shah goes beyond Linnaeus’s contribution to taxonomy — which, notably, is itself subject to critique, as when essayist Anne Fadiman describes it as a “form of mental colonising and empire-building” — to illuminate his blinkered fealty to the dominant narratives of the day. More than just falling in line, he worked to cement the alleged differences between human populations — crudely exaggerating, for instance, features of “red,” “yellow,” “black,” or “white” skinned people. He sparred with competing theorists who were beginning to propose then-revolutionary ideas — for instance, that all humans originated in and migrated out of Africa. With the concept of the “Great Chain of Being,” he toadied to the reigning theological explanation for the world being as it was; this concept hierarchically categorized, in ascending order, matter, plants, animals, peasants, clergy, noblemen, kings, and, finally, God. To support his views, Linnaeus took a trip to northern Sweden where he “studied” the indigenous Sami people, all the while complaining of the climate and the locals not speaking Swedish. Robbing them of a few native costumes, he then freely fabricated stories about their culture and origins. He later tried to give credence to biological differences between Africans and Europeans by committing to the bizarre fantasy that black women had elongated labia minora, to which he referred using the Latin term sinus pudoris. The cultural backdrop to his explanations and speculations was the generally held view that migration was an anomaly, and that people and animals lived where they belonged and belonged where they lived — and always had.

      Ignorance — deliberate, political, or simply true and profound — of the realities of even animal migration went so far as pushing scientists to hatch myriad far-fetched theories to explain, for example, where migratory birds went in the winter. Leading naturalists at the time explained some birds’ seasonal disappearance by claiming that they hibernated in lakes — a theory first proposed by Aristotle — or hid in remote caves. Driving such assumptions was, in part, the idea of a stable and God-created “harmony of nature.” When some thinkers began to question such fixed stability, Linneaus doubled down, insisting that animals inhabited their specific climes, and remained there. The implication for humans was not only that they had not migrated from Africa, but that Africans — as well as Asians and Native Americans — were biologically distinct. This kind of racial essentialism was an important structural component of what would morph into race science or eugenics. Linnaeus divided Homo sapiens into Homo sapiens europaeus (white, serious, strong), Homo sapiens asiaticus (yellow, melancholy, greedy), Homo sapiens americanus (red, ill-tempered, subjugated), and Homo sapiens afer (black, impassive, lazy), as well as Homo caudatus (inhabitants of the Antarctic globe), and even Homo monstrosus (pygmies and Patagonian giants).

      “Scientific ideas that cast migration as a form of disorder were not obscure theoretical concerns confined to esoteric academic journals,” but, Shah writes, “theoretical ballast for today’s generation of anti-immigration lobbyists and policy makers.”

      Here Shah dredges up more vile fantasies, like that of the “Malphigian layer” in the late 17th century, which claimed that Africans had an extra layer of skin consisting of “a thick, fatty black liquid of unknown provenance.” While the Malphigian layer has been roundly dismissed, such invented differences between peoples continue to bedevil medical treatment: even today, black people are presumed to be able to tolerate more pain, and so it’s perhaps hardly surprising that more black women die in childbirth.

      The idea was “that people who lived on different continents were biologically foreign to one another, a claim that would fuel centuries of xenophobia and generations of racial violence.” Or, put more simply, Linnaeus and other believed: “We belong here. They belong there.”


      “The classifications of species as either ‘native’ or ‘alien’ is one of the organizing principles of conservation,” Shah writes, quoting a 2007 scientific study in Progress in Human Geography. The implications of that dichotomous classification are harmful to humans and nonhumans alike, setting the stage for xenophobia and white anthropomorphism. As a case in point, the son of author and conservationist Aldo Leopold recommended in 1963, that US national parks “preserve, or where necessary […] recreate the ecologic scene as viewed by the first European visitors.” The idea of a pristine, pre-colonial era presumes an ahistorical falsehood: that humans and others left no trace, or that those traces could be undone and the ecologic scene returned to a static Eden. While many indigenous cultures certainly live less disruptively within their environment, in the case of both the Americas and Australia for example, the arrival of the first Homo sapiens heralded the swift extinction of scores of native species — in the Americas, woolly mammoths, giant sloths, saber-toothed tigers, camelops, and the dire wolf. Yet the pull toward preservation persists.

      In 1999, Bill Clinton established the National Invasive Species Council, which was tasked with repelling “alien species.” This move was an outgrowth of the relatively recently created disciplines of conservation biology, restoration biology, and even invasion biology. I recall being a boy in northern Ohio and hearing of the horror and devastation promised by the zebra mussel’s inexorable encroachment into the ecosystems of the Great Lakes. One invasion biologist, writes Shah, “calculated that wild species moving freely across the planet would ravage large swaths of ecosystems. The number of land animals would drop by 65 percent, land birds by 47 percent, butterflies by 35 percent, and ocean life by 58 percent.” And while the globe is certainly losing species to extinction, blaming mobility or migration is missing the mark, and buoying up the old “myth of a sedentary planet,” as she puts it.

      For millennia, humans had hardly any idea of how some species could spread. They had neither the perspective nor technology to understand that creepy-crawlies have creeped and crawled vast distances and always been on the move, which is not, in the big picture, a bad thing. Zebra mussels, for example, were not the only, or even the greatest, threat to native clams in the Great Lakes. Besides disrupting the local ecosystems, they also contributed to those ecosystems by filtering water and becoming a new source of food for native fish and fowl. Shah notes that Canadian ecologist Mark Vellend has found that “wild newcomers generally increase species richness on a local and regional level.” Since the introduction of European species to the Americas 400 years ago, biodiversity has actually increased by 18 percent. In other words, Shah writes, “nature transgresses borders all the time.”

      In her last chapter, “The Wall,” she tackles the immunological implications of migration. While first acknowledging that certain dangers do uncontrovertibly exist, such as Europeans bringing smallpox to the Americas, or Rome spreading malaria to the outer regions of its empire, she metaphorizes xenophobia as a fever dream. To be sure, wariness of foreign pathogens may make sense, but to guide foreign policy on such grounds or let wariness morph into discrimination or violent backlash becomes, like a fever that climbs beyond what the host organism needs, “a self-destructive reaction, leading to seizures, delirium, and collapse.” It’s like a cytokine storm in the COVID-19 era. As Shah told me, “the reflexive solution to contagion — border closures, isolation, immobility — is in fact antithetical to biological resilience on a changing planet.”


      In 2017, a solo Mexican wolf loped through the Chihuahuan Desert, heading north, following a path that other wolves, as well as humans, have traveled for thousands of years. Scientists were especially interested in this lone wolf, known as M1425, because he represented a waning population of endangered Mexican wolves dispersing genes from a tiny population in Mexico to a slightly more robust population in the United States.

      Like the Isle Royale wolves, “[i]f the two wild populations of Mexican gray wolves can find and mate with each other, the exchange of genetic material could boost recovery efforts for both populations,” a New Mexico magazine reported. But the area where M1425 crossed the international boundary is now closed off by a border wall, and the Center for Biological Diversity counts 93 species directly threatened by the proposed expansion of the wall. This is what we should be worried about.
      #bio-résilience #résilience

      signalé par @isskein

  • So why is it that in lower-income countries, richer people emigrate more? What does that mean about the effects of immigration?

    @MariapiaMendola and I went all-out to find answers, using survey data on 653,613 people in 99 countries.

    Start with the facts. This shows 120,000+ people in low-income countries (Malawi, Laos,…). The orange bell-curve is the distribution of income (0=average). The blue line (with confidence interval) is the probability that people at each income are actively preparing to emigrate:

    This is not actual migration, but people who report that their intent to migrate has recently culminated in a very costly action, like purchasing international travel or applying for a visa.

    We show in the data that relatively richer people, as you would expect, are better able to turn their migration wishes and plans into reality than poorer people. So the line for actual migration, by income, should be even steeper than the blue line above.

    That has two remarkable implications. First, when poorer people get more money, they often invest it in… migration.

    This has been found in specific settings around the world. @SamuelBazzi rigorously showed this happening in rural Indonesia:

    The second implication is about what happens to immigration on the other end.

    It means that the “additional” migrants caused by rising income in the origin country are likely to possess more & more of the things that make workers earn more, like education or work ethic.

    In the cold, hard economic terms used in the literature, it means that rising incomes in developing countries mean 1) higher propensity to emigrate from the origin and 2) more “positive selection” of immigrant workers at the destination.

    What’s going on here? Is it that richer people have an easier time paying to migrate? Is it that richer people invest more in things that facilitate migration, like schooling? Is it demographic change accompanying rising incomes?

    The literature posits all of these and others.

    And why is it so difficult for people, especially many smart people in the policy world, to accept these facts?

    I want to address all these with two pictures from the paper.

    First, pool all the surveyed people in 99 countries into one graph. As people begin to earn the (price-adjusted) equivalent of thousands of dollars a year, they are more & more likely to be preparing to emigrate. For the richest people, that reverses.

    Now just split exactly the same data by education level. In green, that’s people with secondary education or more. In red, people with primary education or less.

    The dashed line (right-hand vertical axis) shows the fraction of people in the green (secondary education+) group.

    That inverse-U shape, the #EmigrationLifeCycle at the household level, is greatly diminished. The emigration propensity barely rises with income within each group.

    This is informative about the origins of the life-cycle. A lot of it comes from rising investment in education, which both motivates and facilitates emigration.

    It confirms what Dao, Docquier, @ParsonsEcon, and Peri find in cross-country data:

    It also explains a lot about why the Life Cycle is so counterintuitive. For any given kind of person—like a person with a certain level of education—emigration either doesn’t rise or actually falls with higher income.

    But the process of economic development means that people are shifting between those groups. In the last picture above, you can see people moving from the low-emigration group (low education) to the high-emigration group, as incomes rise.

    If this seems like a brain twister, you’re not alone. This counterintuitive “flip” in correlations is such a common pitfall of reasoning that it has a name: #Simpson's_Paradox (

    Notice that the “groups” in Simpson’s Paradox can be any size. They can even be individual people! That is, it could both be true that 1) any given person would be less likely to emigrate if they had more income AND 2) more people emigrate if the whole country gets richer.

    There’s no contradiction there. I have sat across the table in Brussels from a brilliant development expert who said, “But people tell me personally they’re moving to earn more money. Do you think they’re lying to me?”

    They are not lying. It’s just that the relationship conditional on individual traits can be the opposite of the relationship across all individuals, because economic development brings shifts in those traits. That’s Simpson’s Paradox.

    There’s a long-read blog that goes into more depth, and links to the papers, here:


    voir aussi le fil de discussion: “Does Development Reduce Migration ?”

    ping @rhoumour @_kg_ @karine4 @isskein

  • Using ffmpeg to compress, convert, and resize videos - DEV

    Réglages de compression mp4 ou webm avec FFMPEG.
    Voir aussi :
    – discussion sur les différentes options :

    ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vcodec h264 -acodec aac output.mp4

    – utiliser le codec h265 à la place de h264 :
    – Web video codec guide sur MDN :
    – les résolutions vidéos standards :
    – les 20 commandes de base de FFMPEG expliquées :
    – la doc officielle de FFMPEG :
    – uiliser Shotcut pour faire la compression : page 15 de

    #vidéo #ffmpeg #compression #h264 #codec #howto

  • Très très très étonnant : Richard Silverstein prétend avoir une source selon laquelle Israël a provoqué l’explosion du stock de nitrate d’ammonium en faisant exploser un stock d’armes du Hezbollah.

    À cet stade, évidemment, beaucoup beaucoup de pincettes. Mais le blog Tikun Olam n’est généralement pas considéré comme fantaisiste.

    BREAKING : Israel Bombed Beirut

    A confidential highly-informed Israeli source has told me that Israel caused the massive explosion at the Beirut port earlier today which killed over 100 and injured thousands. The bombing also virtually leveled the port itself and caused massive damage throughout the city.

    Israel targeted a Hezbollah weapons depot at the port and planned to destroy it with an explosive device. Tragically, Israeli intelligence did not perform due diligence on their target. Thus they did not know (or if they did know, they didn’t care) that there were 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate stored in a next door warehouse. The explosion at the arms depot ignited the next door warehouse, causing the catastrophe that resulted.

    À propos de Richard Silverstein :