person:gandhi

  • 82 venezolanos fueron deportados de Trinidad y Tobago
    http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/sociedad/venezolanos-fueron-deportados-trinidad-tobago_231999

    Varios de los deportados habrían solicitado asilo en esa nación y algunos de ellos estaban a punto de recibir el beneficio

    Al menos 82 venezolanos, que estaban detenidos en Inmigración, fueron deportados desde Trinidad y Tobago este sábado.

    Alfredo romero, director del Foro Penal Venezolano, informó que los ciudadanos estaban recluidos en el Centro de Detención de Inmigración de Trinidad y Tobago y pertenecían al grupo de más de 100 venezolanos con amenaza de deportación.

    El Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (Acnur), Filippo Grandi afirmó que 13 de los 82 venezolanos eran solicitantes de asilo y otros 19 estaban en proceso de convertirse en solicitantes de asilo, reseñó The [Trinidad and Tobago] Guardian.

    • Trinidad y Tobago deporta a 82 venezolanos | Excélsior
      http://www.excelsior.com.mx/global/trinidad-y-tobago-deporta-a-82-venezolanos/1234107

      Las autoridades de Trinidad y Tobago deportaron a unos 80 venezolanos de más de 100 que fueron detenidos tras ingresar de forma ilegal a ese país caribeño, confirmó el domingo una organización humanitaria local.

      Julio Henríquez, coordinador internacional de la organización humanitaria venezolana Foro Penal, dijo en una conversación telefónica que al menos 20 personas permanecen retenidas en el Centro de Detención de Inmigrantes de Trinidad y Tobago, la mayoría de ellos tendría pendiente el pago de una multa.

      Las leyes migratorias trinitarias contemplan prisión de seis meses o una multa estimada en unos mil 500 dólares para los que ingresen ilegalmente al país, comentó Henríquez.

    • TRINIDAD - Venezuelan nationals deported - Barbados Today
      https://barbadostoday.bb/2018/04/22/trinidad-venezuelan-nationals-deported

      At least 82 Venezuelan nationals were deported to their homeland on Saturday amid concerns that among them were people seeking asylum in Trinidad and Tobago.
      The Ministry of National Security in a statement issued late Saturday night said that 82 Venezuelan nationals including 29 women “were voluntarily repatriated…to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with the assistance of the Ambassador of Venezuela to Trinidad and Tobago, Her Excellency Coromoto Godoy”.
      […]
      But the Living Water Community( LWC), a religious based organisation that works with the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), said that it had received reports of Venezuelans being deported.
      At this point we are unclear if this deportation extends to asylum-seekers duly registered with the UN Refugee agency (UNHCR) as such, or who have expressed a desire to seek asylum.
      “We await confirmation on this. The guidance note from UNHCR on the outflow of Venezuelans advises that states apply a protection-oriented response in dealing with Venezuelans in a way that reflects an understanding of protection as a humanitarian and non-political act, and as an act of solidarity with the people of Venezuela.
      “It asks that states find ways to facilitate access to their territory, award official documentation, grant access to basic rights and very importantly, apply a non-return principle to Venezuela,
      ” according to Rochelle Nakhid, the coordinator at the LWC.
      […]
      Earlier this month, [Chief Immigration Officer, Mrs. Charmaine] Gandhi-Andrews, told a select Joint Committee of Parliament that an estimated 2,000 Venezuelans have applied for asylum here in recent months.

      The committee was told that in 2015, there were 29 male Venezuelan detainees, but one year later the figure had risen to 125 including 97 females. Last year, there were 45 men and 82 women. She said that on a weekly basis, between 150 to 200 Venezuelans come here by sea, some of them, illegally.

  • #Ahed_Tamimi offers Israelis a lesson worthy of Gandhi – Mondoweiss
    http://mondoweiss.net/2018/01/tamimi-offers-israelis
    http://19453-presscdn.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/25398864_1989433914643958_7048778023664293151_n.jp

    Ahed and Nabi Saleh have shown that popular unarmed resistance – if it is to discomfort Israel and the world – cannot afford to be passive or polite. It must be fearless, antagonistic and disruptive.

    Most of all, it must hold up a mirror to the oppressor. Ahed has exposed the gun-wielding bully lurking in the soul of too many Israelis. That is a lesson worthy of Gandhi or Mandela.

    • Pour relever un tel défi et construire le monde nouveau qui émerge, la permaculture humaine propose une approche novatrice, globale, créative, interactive. Elle transpose sur le terrain humain les bases de la permaculture classique

      La permaculture pour moi c’est l’architecture d’un paysage cultivé ou habité. De quoi la permaculture humaine est-elle l’architecture ? Quelle glu est-elle, quelle « valeur ajoutée » par rapport à un catalogue d’outil et de processus de communication, de gestion de groupe, de prises de dédisions, etc.. ?

    • L’originalité de l’approche « permaculture humaine » est de considérer la discipline dans son sens le plus large. Il s’agit de (re)construire les écosystèmes humains en s’inspirant des modèles de la nature : multiplier les interactions entre les personnes plutôt que de fonctionner chacun.e dans son coin ; produire plus d’énergie qu’on n’en consomme ; utiliser des outils simples plutôt que high-tech – ils sont tout bêtement plus faciles à entretenir et à réparer !

      Qu’est-ce qu’un « écosystème humain » ? (une société ?).

      Si se baser sur les « modèles de la nature » pour concevoir un paysage cultivé est pertinent, en quoi cette démarche est-elle pertinente pour gérer des relations entre humains (ou entre otaries, araignées, ...) ? En quoi multiplier les interactions dans les relations humaines est-il intrinsèquement bon, sous prétexte que dans la « nature », il y a un interconnexion des systèmes ? (

    • Un des gros problèmes de cette « permaculture humaine », c’est qu’elle se réfère aux « lois de la nature » toutes les quatre lignes, alors qu’a ma connaissance, s’il y a des « lois » (très mauvais terme, je parlerais plutôt de motifs récurrents), elles s’appliquent surtout à des interactions entre espèces ou avec leur environnement. Il me semble que dans les interactions au sein d’une même espèce, c’est un peu open-bar et la sélection naturelle élimine les mauvaises stratégies. Du coup c’es absurde de se référer aux lois de la nature pour gérer nos interactions, ou alors tu vas piocher dans des grandes stratégies du règne animal pour certains sujets (combat entre les mâles pour avoir un territoire et attirer les femelles pour la reproduction... ce genre de trucs qui n’apportent aucune solution à la question).

    • Comme toute espèce vivante, l’espèce humaine a un rôle spécifique à jouer ; l’être humain est doté d’une capacité singulière à créer, à agir de façon délibérée et réfléchie – pour le meilleur et pour le pire.

      Ils ont tiré ces passage de la bible ou quoi ?

      Cette liberté lui confère une grande responsabilité. En faire bon usage suppose beaucoup de sagesse et d’intelligence. Or, l’Homo sapiens, apparu il y a seulement 200000 ans sur une planète vieille de 4,5 milliards d’années, commet depuis quelques décennies de sérieuses erreurs de jeunesse : en exploitant les ressources humaines et naturelles pour satisfaire des intérêts particuliers à court terme, l’« Homo industrialis » menace l’équilibre et la pérennité du système Terre

      « COMMET DEPUIS QUELQUES DÉCENNIES DE SÉRIEUSES ERREURS DE JEUNESSE » (oui je crie)

      OMFG O__o
      Bon, admettons que l’humain n’a acquis que depuis quelques décennies le potentiel de détruire à peu près toute la planète. Il n’avait jusque là « que » détruit des portions immenses de sous continents par son mode de fonctionnement ... Et puis c’est juste hallucinant de lire ça dans un livre sur les rapports humains, genre le génocide, l’esclavage, le patriarcat, ce ne sont pas de « sérieuses erreurs » !? (même pas « de jeunesse »)

    • Dans la nature, il n’y a pas de hiérarchie entre les espèces : c’est notre vision anthropocentrique qui introduit une notion de hiérarchie. C’est nous qui avons couronné le lion comme roi des animaux de la jungle. Bien sûr, chaque espèce a un rôle défini, spécifique. Le rôle d’un charognard n’est pas celui d’un insectivore ni d’un pollinisateur. Dans une ruche, le rôle d’une ouvrière est différent de celui d’une reine, mais sa valeur n’est pas moindre.

      Bon le gars te dit qu’il n’y a pas de hiérarchie entre espèces et te sort un exemple de hiérarchie au sein d’une espèce, en affirmant un truc faux (ben si, chez l’apis mellifera, (la vie d’)une ouvrière vaut moins que la reine). D’ailleurs nos ancêtres faisaient de la permaculture humaine, ils prenaient exemple sur la nature (en l’occurrence les abeilles, les fourmis locales) pour leur monarchies et leurs empires, cool !

      Edit :
      D’ailleurs : « Chez l’Abeille domestique, la championne de la longévité est la reine qui vit de 3 à 5 ans. Une ouvrière d’été vit en moyenne de 5 à 6 semaines et une ouvrière d’hiver de 5 à 6 mois. » http://www.insectes.org/insectes/questions-reponses.html?id_quest=22

    • Pff j’avance pas faut que je cite chaque ligne ...

      Il en va de même dans le règne végétal. La fonction du chêne n’est pas « supérieure » à celle du roseau. L’humble mousse qui recouvre le sol de la forêt, comme bien d’autres formes de vie, visibles ou invisibles à l’œil humain, est aussi utile que les grands arbres.

      C’est d’une platitude et d’un vide ...
      La mousse est utile, le chêne et le roseau aussi, so what ? Tout le monde il est gentil ?
      Il sait pas que dans la nature, il y a des catastrophe (éboulement, irruption volcanique, feux, inondation), et qu’à partir de là il y a une succession de différents types de végétaux, et donc que certains laissent leur place à d’autres ? C’est censé se traduire comment chez les humains grâce à la permaculture humaine ?

      Pour l’instant, permaculture humaine = projeter des idées gnan-gnans sur les écosystèmes pour en tirer des principes.

    • Parfois, l’être humain passe à côté de belles occasions. Imaginons que les premiers Européens à avoir posé le pied en Amérique, plutôt que de chercher à détruire la richesse des peuples autochtones, eussent accueilli leur différence. Ils auraient contribué à la création d’un véritable Nouveau Monde, fruit des expériences des deux cultures, bien plus riche que la somme des deux : une civilisation à la fois respectueuse de la nature et dynamique sur le plan technologique.

      Euh ...

      a) On remarque qu’Alonso est plus peiné par l’opportunité ratée de piller la culture amérindienne pour être plus écolo, que de la destruction de nombreuses cultures autochtones

      b) Les amérindiens seront contents d’apprendre que leur culture aurait était meilleure en étant « plus dynamique sur le plan technologique » (pourquoi ? Habiter dans des tipi et avoir une gestion fine d’écosystèmes par le feu ça fait plouc ?)

      c) La civilisation est meilleure que les cultures de chasseurs cueilleurs de l’époque (ah ?)

      d) Les amérindiens étaient morts à la seconde où les européens ont posé leurs pieds et apportés leurs germes sur le continent. Leurs germes les ont devancés et anéantis 90% de la population avant que les européens soient entrés en contact avec les différents peuples amérindiens. Si vous voulez déprimer, il n’y a qu’à lire le livre 1491 pour voir l’étendu des détails. L’insulte suprême c’est que ce paragraphe apparait sus le principe de permaculture n°8 : « Intégrer plutôt que séparer ou diviser »...

    • Dans la nature, toutes les espèces travaillent au bien commun, toutes produisent plus d’énergie qu’elles n’en consomment, toutes contribuent à la pérennité de l’écosystème. Même les parasites s’arrangent pour ne pas détruire l’espèce dont ils tirent leur subsistance. Seule exception : l’humain !

      Soit c’est faux, soit c’est tellement approximatif que ça ne veut rien dire ...

      Elles travaillent de manière consciente ? Au bien commun de quoi ?

      Ça veut dire quoi « produire de l’énergie » pour un lapin ? L’énergie que son corps peut fournir si on le mange ? L’énergie produite par son métabolisme et qui ne peut plus servir à rien, c’est bien ? Alonso connait-il le principe d’entropie ?

      « Seule exception : l’humain » ? L’humain, espèce maudite ? En quoi les aborigène d’australie qui ont vécu pendant 40000 ans dans des environnements hostiles sans bousiller leurs moyens de subsistance sont un exception par rapports aux autres animaux ?

    • Avec la permaculture, il s’agit de retrouver la complémentarité des deux hémisphères, conçus pour fonctionner de concert, en parfaite harmonie. Ainsi, quiconque désire développer son plein potentiel de créativité (et contribuer à l’évolution de l’humanité !) aura avantage à stimuler l’hémisphère droit de son cerveau. C’est grâce à cet hémisphère droit que nous pouvons accéder à la « mémoire du vivant », imprimée dans chacune de nos cellules. De grands personnages comme Hildegarde de Bingen, Léonard de Vinci, Albert Einstein, Gandhi et Janine Benyus ont développé leurs deux hémisphères, épanouissant aussi bien leurs talents scientifiques qu’artistiques ou spirituels.

      Sans surprise, la solidité scientifique n’est pas au rendez-vous

      La fin du mythe des personnes à cerveau « droit » ou « gauche »
      http://www.futura-sciences.com/sante/actualites/medecine-fin-mythe-personnes-cerveau-droit-gauche-48433

      Au cours d’une large étude menée pendant deux années, les auteurs ont analysé des images par résonance magnétique du cerveau de plus de 1.000 personnes âgées de 7 à 29 ans. Pour chaque candidat, ils ont analysé en détail l’activation d’environ 7.000 régions de la matière grise, afin de déterminer s’il existe une latéralisation fonctionnelle du cerveau. En d’autres termes, ils voulaient savoir si certains réseaux neuronaux situés à gauche fonctionnaient plus souvent que ceux de droite, et inversement.
      Leurs résultats montrent sans équivoque que l’hémisphère droit est autant activé que le gauche. « Certaines fonctions mentales sont localisées dans un seul des hémisphères, explique Jeff Anderson, le directeur de l’équipe. Mais nos résultats montrent que les individus ne font pas fonctionner un hémisphère plutôt qu’un autre. » Il existe bien des individus plus logiques ou plus artistiques que d’autres, mais cela ne signifie pas qu’ils soient plutôt « cerveau droit » ou « cerveau gauche ».

    • Dans le monde vivant, le pouvoir est focalisé sur un objectif unique : la survie de l’espèce. Seuls les plus forts gagnent et se reproduisent. Les luttes qui se jouent entre congénères ont pour principale fonction la sélection génétique et la pérennité de l’espèce. Les fourmis n’ont pas d’opinion personnelle ou d’intérêt individuel à défendre face au groupe…

      Bon je comprends plus, c’est pas le bien commun et la pérennité de l’écosystème ?

      C’est quoi « le pouvoir », dans le « monde vivant » ? (c’est quoi le monde vivant, c’est la nature ?)

      Les animaux non-humains ont une conscience d’espèce ? L’objectif est la « survie de l’espèce » ? Des herbivores sur une île sans prédateurs vont finir par s’auto-réguler pour ne pas mettre en péril l’espèce (ou œuvrer pour le bien commun, pour la pérennité de l’espèce) ? (oups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island)

      [...] Aujourd’hui, l’urgence collective est bien de dépasser nos réflexes de défense et de compétition, de renforcer le sens du bien commun en créant des réseaux, en recherchant des complémentarités, en protégeant le droit à la différence, en portant une attention particulière aux plus faibles.

      AH STOP ! Les réflexes (naturels par définition) ne vont pas, l’exemple de toutes les autres espèces (selon les notions d’écologie d’Alonso) ne vont pas en fait. Là, on va pas prendre la nature comme exemple.

      Résumé : ses bases d’écologies sont fausses, et lui font aller à l’encontre du principe de base de son concept.

    • Certains peuples autochtones ont développé des mécanismes de communication et des systèmes de prise de décision qui leur permettaient de vivre en paix. [...] Traditionnellement, chez les Inuit par exemple, [...]L’homme actif le plus âgé était le porte-parole de la famille.

      (patriarcat)

      [...] Les Inuit utilisaient de nombreux moyens pour renforcer la cohésion du groupe : le mariage arrangé dès l’enfance (les parents des enfants promis l’un à l’autre se trouvaient ainsi unis par un lien de parenté), l’échange de conjoints, l’adoption d’un enfant, etc.

      Le paragraphe était donc nommé « les #peuples_premiers nous montrent l’exemple »

      Et ainsi s’achève ma lecture du chapitre premier, « Des clés pour aborder la permacuture humaine » ...

    • Chapitre 4, la table des matières va m’éviter de faire des commentaires :

      4 Prendre soin de l’humain
      Permacultivons notre alimentation
      L’eau, un élément vital
      Se nourrir grâce aux végétaux
      Se nourrir grâce aux animaux
      Se nourrir grâce à la mer
      Se nourrir grâce aux insectes
      Un design pour nourrir ma famille

    • https://www.permaculturedesign.fr/permaculture-humaine

      Conclusion
      Comme vous le comprenez, la permaculture « humaine » est donc un « mot-valise » fédérant de nombreuses pratiques. Néanmoins, comme le concept mère de permaculture, cette démarche a l’intérêt de redonner une vision globale et cohérente aux différentes pratiques, de permettre à un tout un chacun de découvrir de multiples outils pour continuer d’apprendre, et de les fédérer en un seul but commun à toute la démarche permaculturelle : celle de faire évoluer notre modèle de société vers un futur durable, pacifique et juste…

      Voilàààà, là je comprends, c’est une expression qui veut rien dire, pour faire du branding et du marketing d’outils de dev personnel et de gestion de groupe.

      Pfff

    • #david_foster_wallace dans le tour bus de #McCain, il y a des siècles...

      SUCK IT UP

      Another paradox: It is all but impossible to talk about the really important stuff in politics without using terms that have become such awful clichés they make your eyes glaze over and are difficult to even hear. One such term is “leader,” which all the big candidates use all the time—as in “providing leadership,” “a proven leader,” “a new leader for a new century,” etc.—and have reduced to such a platitude that it’s hard to try to think about what “leader” really means and whether indeed what today’s Young Voters want is a leader. The weird thing is that the word “leader” itself is cliché and boring, but when you come across somebody who actually is a real leader, that person isn’t boring at all; in fact he’s the opposite of boring.

      Obviously, a real leader isn’t just somebody who has ideas you agree with, nor is it just somebody you happen to believe is a good guy. A real leader is somebody who, because of his own particular power and charisma and example, is able to inspire people, with “inspire” being used here in a serious and noncliché way. A real leader can somehow get us to do certain things that deep down we think are good and want to be able to do but usually can’t get ourselves to do on our own. It’s a mysterious quality, hard to define, but we always know it when we see it, even as kids. You can probably remember seeing it in certain really great coaches, or teachers, or some extremely cool older kid you “looked up to” (interesting phrase) and wanted to be like. Some of us remember seeing the quality as kids in a minister or rabbi, or a scoutmaster, or a parent, or a friend’s parent, or a boss in some summer job. And yes, all these are “authority figures,” but it’s a special kind of authority. If you’ve ever spent time in the military, you know how incredibly easy it is to tell which of your superiors are real leaders and which aren’t, and how little rank has to do with it. A leader’s true authority is a power you voluntarily give him, and you grant him this authority not in a resigned or resentful way but happily; it feels right. Deep down, you almost always like how a real leader makes you feel, how you find yourself working harder and pushing yourself and thinking in ways you wouldn’t be able to if there weren’t this person you respected and believed in and wanted to please.

      In other words, a real leader is somebody who can help us overcome the limitations of our own individual laziness and selfishness and weakness and fear and get us to do better, harder things than we can get ourselves to do on our own. Lincoln was, by all available evidence, a real leader, and Churchill, and Gandhi, and King. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, and probably de Gaulle, and certainly Marshall, and maybe Eisenhower. (Although of course Hitler was a real leader too, a very potent one, so you have to watch out; all it is is a weird kind of personal power.)

      Probably the last real leader we had as US president was JFK, 40 years ago. It’s not that Kennedy was a better human being than the seven presidents we’ve had since: we know he lied about his WWII record, and had spooky Mob ties, and screwed around more in the White House than poor old Clinton could ever dream of. But JFK had that special leader-type magic, and when he said things like “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” nobody rolled their eyes or saw it as just a clever line. Instead, a lot of them felt inspired. And the decade that followed, however fucked up it was in other ways, saw millions of Young Voters devote themselves to social and political causes that had nothing to do with getting a plum job or owning expensive stuff or finding the best parties; and the 60s were, by most accounts, a generally cleaner and happier time than now.

      It is worth considering why. It’s worth thinking hard about why, when John McCain says he wants to be president in order to inspire a generation of young Americans to devote themselves to causes greater than their own self-interest (which means he’s saying he wants to be a real leader), a great many of those young Americans will yawn or roll their eyes or make some ironic joke instead of feeling inspired the way they did with Kennedy. True, JFK’s audience was in some ways more innocent than we are: Vietnam hadn’t happened yet, or Watergate, or the S&L scandals, etc. But there’s also something else. The science of sales and marketing was still in its drooling infancy in 1961 when Kennedy was saying “Ask not …” The young people he inspired had not been skillfully marketed to all their lives. They knew nothing of spin. They were not totally, terribly familiar with salesmen.

      Now you have to pay close attention to something that’s going to seem obvious at first. There is a difference between a great leader and a great salesman. There are also similarities, of course. A great salesman is usually charismatic and likable, and he can often get us to do things (buy things, agree to things) that we might not go for on our own, and to feel good about it. Plus a lot of salesmen are basically decent people with plenty about them to admire. But even a truly great salesman isn’t a leader. This is because a salesman’s ultimate, overriding motivation is self-interest—if you buy what he’s selling, the salesman profits. So even though the salesman may have a very powerful, charismatic, admirable personality, and might even persuade you that buying is in yourinterests (and it really might be)—still, a little part of you always knows that what the salesman’s ultimately after is something for himself. And this awareness is painful … although admittedly it’s a tiny pain, more like a twinge, and often unconscious. But if you’re subjected to great salesmen and sales pitches and marketing concepts for long enough—like from your earliest Saturday-morning cartoons, let’s say—it is only a matter of time before you start believing deep down that everything is sales and marketing, and that whenever somebody seems like they care about you or about some noble idea or cause, that person is a salesman and really ultimately doesn’t give a shit about you or some cause but really just wants something for himself.

      Some people believe that President Ronald W. Reagan (1981-89) was our last real leader. But not many of them are Young Voters. Even in the 80s, most younger Americans, who could smell a marketer a mile away, knew that what Reagan really was was a great salesman. What he was selling was the idea of himself as a leader. And if you’re under, say, 35, this is what pretty much every US president you’ve grown up with has been: a very talented salesman, surrounded by smart, expensive political strategists and media consultants and spinmasters who manage his “campaign” (as in also “advertising campaign”) and help him sell us on the idea that it’s in our interests to vote for him. But the real interests that drove these guys were their own. They wanted, above all, To Be President, wanted the mind-bending power and prominence, the historical immortality—you could smell it on them. (Young Voters tend to have an especially good sense of smell for this sort of thing.) And this is why these guys weren’t real leaders: because it was obvious that their deepest, most elemental motives were selfish, there was no chance of them ever inspiring us to transcend our own selfishness. Instead, they usually helped reinforce our market-conditioned belief that everybody’s ultimately out for himself and that life is about selling and profit and that words and phrases like “service” and “justice” and “community” and “patriotism” and “duty” and “Give government back to the people” and “I feel your pain” and “Compassionate Conservatism” are just the politics industry’s proven sales pitches, exactly the same way “Anti-Tartar” and “Fresher Breath” are the toothpaste industry’s pitches. We may vote for them, the same way we may go buy toothpaste. But we’re not inspired. They’re not the real thing.

      It’s not just a matter of lying or not lying, either. Everyone knows that the best marketing uses the truth—i.e., sometimes a brand of toothpaste really is better. That’s not the point. The point, leader-wise, is the difference between merely believing somebody and believing in him.

      Granted, this is a bit simplistic. All politicians sell, always have. FDR and JFK and MLK and Gandhi were great salesmen. But that’s not all they were. People could smell it. That weird little extra something. It had to do with “character” (which, yes, is also a cliché—suck it up).

      All of this is why watching John McCain hold press conferences and -Avails and Town Hall Meetings (we’re all at the North Charleston THM right now, 0820h on Wednesday, 9 Feb., in the horrible lobby of something called the Carolina Ice Palace) and be all conspicuously honest and open and informal and idealistic and no-bullshit and say “I run for president not to Be Somebody, but to Do Something” and “We’re on a national crusade to give government back to the people” in front of these cheering crowds just seems so much more goddamn complicated than watching old b/w clips of John Kennedy’s speeches. It feels impossible, in February 2000, to tell whether John McCain is a real leader or merely a very talented political salesman, an entrepreneur who’s seen a new market-niche and devised a way to fill it.

      Because here’s yet another paradox. Spring 2000—midmorning in America’s hangover from the whole Lewinsky-and-impeachment thing—represents a moment of almost unprecedented cynicism and disgust with national politics, a moment when blunt, I-don’t-give-a-shit-if-you-elect-me honesty becomes an incredibly attractive and salable and electable quality. A moment when an anticandidate can be a real candidate. But of course if he becomes a real candidate, is he still an anticandidate? Can you sell someone’s refusal to be for sale?

      There are many elements of the McCain2000 campaign—naming the bus “Straight Talk,” the timely publication of Faith of My Fathers, the much-hyped “openness” and “spontaneity” of the Express’s media salon, the message-disciplined way McCain thumps “Always. Tell you. The truth”—that indicate that some very shrewd, clever marketers are trying to market this candidate’s rejection of shrewd, clever marketing. Is this bad? Or just confusing? Suppose, let’s say, you’ve got a candidate who says polls are bullshit and totally refuses to tailor his campaign style to polls, and suppose then that new polls start showing that people really like this candidate’s polls-are-bullshit stance and are thinking about voting for him because of it, and suppose the candidate reads these polls (who wouldn’t?) and then starts saying even more loudly and often that polls are bullshit and that he won’t use them to decide what to say, maybe turning “Polls are bullshit” into a campaign line and repeating it in every speech and even painting Polls Are Bullshit on the side of his bus… . Is he a hypocrite? Is it hypocritical that one of McCain’s ads’ lines in South Carolina is “Telling the truth even when it hurts him politically,” which of course since it’s an ad means that McCain is trying to get political benefit out of his indifference to political benefit? What’s the difference between hypocrisy and paradox?

      Unsimplistic enough for you now? The fact of the matter is that if you’re a true-blue, market-savvy Young Voter, the only thing you’re certain to feel about John McCain’s campaign is a very modern and American type of ambivalence, a sort of interior war between your deep need to believe and your deep belief that the need to believe is bullshit, that there’s nothing left anywhere but sales and salesmen. At the times your cynicism’s winning, you’ll find that it’s possible to see even McCain’s most attractive qualities as just marketing angles. His famous habit of bringing up his own closet’s skeletons, for example—bad grades, messy divorce, indictment as one of the Keating Five—this could be real honesty and openness, or it could be McCain’s shrewd way of preempting criticism by criticizing himself before anyone else can do it. The modesty with which he talks about his heroism as a POW—“It doesn’t take much talent to get shot down”; “I wasn’t a hero, but I was fortunate enough to serve my time in the company of heroes”—this could be real humility, or it could be a clever way to make himself seem both heroic and humble.

      You can run the same kind of either/or analysis on almost everything about this candidate. Even the incredible daily stamina he shows on the Trail—this could be a function of McCain’s natural energy and enjoyment of people, or it could be gross ambition, a hunger for election so great that it drives him past sane human limits. The operative word here is “sane”: the Shrub stays at luxury hotels like the Charleston Inn and travels with his own personal pillow and likes to sleep till nine, whereas McCain crashes at hellish chain places and drinks pop out of cans and moves like only methedrine can make a normal person move. Last night the Straight Talk caravan didn’t get back to the Embassy Suites until 2340, and McCain was reportedly up with Murphy and Weaver planning ways to respond to Bush2’s response to the Negative ad McCain’s running in response to Bush2’s new Negative ad for three hours after that, and you know getting up and showering and shaving and putting on a nice suit has to take some time if you’re a guy who can’t raise his arms past his shoulders, plus he had to eat breakfast, and the ST Express hauled out this morning at 0738h, and now here McCain is at 0822 almost running back and forth on the raised stage in a Carolina Ice Palace lobby so off-the-charts hideous that the press all pass up the free crullers. (The lobby’s lined with red and blue rubber—yes, rubber—and 20 feet up a green iron spiral staircase is an open mezzanine with fencing of mustard-colored pipe from which hang long purple banners for the Lowcountry Youth Hockey Association, and you can hear the rink’s organ someplace inside and a symphony of twitters and boings from an enormous video arcade just down the bright-orange hall, and on either side of the THM stage are giant monitors composed of nine identical screens arrayed 3 ¥ 3, and the monitor on the left has nine identical McCain faces talking while the one on the right has just one big McCain face cut into nine separate squares, and every square foot of the nauseous lobby is occupied by wildly supportive South Carolinians, and it’s at least 95 degrees, and the whole thing is so sensuously assaultive that all the media except Jim C. and the techs turn around and listen facing away, most drinking more than one cup of coffee at once.) And even on four hours’ sleep at the very outside now McCain on the stage is undergoing the same metamorphosis that happens whenever the crowd is responsive and laughs at his jokes and puts down coffee and kids to applaud when he says he’ll beat Al Gore like a drum. In person, McCain is not a sleek gorgeous telegenic presence like Rep. Mark Sanford or the Shrub. McCain is short and slight and stiff in a bit of a twisted way. He tends to look a little sunken in his suit. His voice is a thin tenor and not hypnotic or stirring per se. But onstage, taking questions and pacing like something caged, his body seems to dilate and his voice takes on a resonance, and unlike the Shrub he is bodyguardless and the stage wide open and the questions unscreened and he answers them well, and the best Town Meetings’ crowds’ eyes brighten, and unlike Gore’s dead bird’s eyes or the Shrub’s smug glare McCain’s own eyes are wide and candid and full of a very attractive inspiring light that’s either devotion to causes beyond him or a demagogue’s love of the crowd’s love or an insatiable hunger to become the most powerful white male on earth. Or all three.

      The point, to put it as simply as possible, is that there’s a tension between what John McCain’s appeal is and the way that appeal must be structured and packaged in order to get him elected. To get you to buy. And the media—which is, after all, the box in which John McCain is brought to you, and is for the most part your only access to him, and is itself composed of individual people, voters, some of them Young Voters—the media see this tension, feel it, especially the buses’ McCain2000 corps. Don’t think they don’t. And don’t forget they’re human, or that the way they’re going to resolve this tension and decide how to see McCain (and thus how to let you see McCain) will depend way less on political ideology than on each reporter’s own little interior battles between cynicism and idealism and marketing and leadership. The far-Right National Review, for example, calls McCain “a crook and a showboat,” while the old-Left New York Review of Books feels that “McCain isn’t the anti-Clinton … McCain is more like the unClinton, in the way 7Up was the unCola: different flavor, same sugar content,” and the politically indifferent Vanity Fair quotes Washington insiders of unknown affiliation saying “People should never underestimate [McCain’s] shrewdness. His positions, in many instances, are very calculated in terms of media appeal.”

      Well no shit. Here in SC, the single most depressing and cynical episode of the whole week involves shrewd, calculated appeal. (At least in certain moods it looks like it does [maybe].) Please recall 10 February’s Chris Duren Incident in Spartanburg and McCain’s enormous distress and his promise to phone and apologize personally to the disillusioned kid. So the next afternoon, at a pre-F&F Press-Avail back in North Charleston, the new, unilaterally non-Negative McCain informs the press corps that he’s going up to his hotel room right now to call Chris Duren. The phone call is to be “a private one between this young man and me,” McCain says. Then Todd the Press Liaison steps in looking very stern and announces that only network techs will be allowed in the room, and that while they can film the whole call, only the first ten seconds of audio will be permitted. “Ten seconds, then we kill the sound,” Todd says, looking hard at Frank C. and the other audio guys. “This is a private call, not a media event.” Let’s think about this. If it’s a “private call,” why let TV cameras film McCain making it? And why only ten seconds of sound? Why not either full sound or no sound at all?

      The answer is modern and American and pretty much right out of Marketing 101. The campaign wants to publicize McCain’s keeping his promise and calling a traumatized kid, but also wants to publicize the fact that McCain is calling him “privately” and not just exploiting Chris Duren for crass political purposes. There’s no other possible reason for the ten-second audio cutoff, which cutoff will require networks that run the film to explain why there’s no sound after the initial Hello, which explanation will then of course make McCain look doubly good, both caring and nonpolitical. Does the shrewd calculation of media appeal here mean that McCain doesn’t really care about Chris Duren, doesn’t really want to buck him up and restore the kid’s faith in the political process? Not necessarily. But what it does mean is that McCain2000 wants to have it both ways, rather like big corporations that give to charity and then try to reap PR benefits by hyping their altruism in their ads. Does stuff like this mean that the gifts and phone call aren’t “good”? The answer depends on how gray-area-tolerant you are about sincerity vs. marketing, or sincerity plus marketing, or leadership plus the packaging and selling of same.

      But if you, like poor old Rolling Stone, have come to a point on the Trail where you’ve started fearing your own cynicism almost as much as you fear your own credulity and the salesmen who feed on it, you may find your thoughts returning again and again to a certain dark and box-sized cell in a certain Hilton half a world and three careers away, to the torture and fear and offer of release and a certain Young Voter named McCain’s refusal to violate a Code. There were no techs’ cameras in that box, no aides or consultants, no paradoxes or gray areas; nothing to sell. There was just one guy and whatever in his character sustained him. This is a huge deal. In your mind, that Hoa Lo box becomes sort of a special dressing room with a star on the door, the private place behind the stage where one imagines “the real John McCain” still lives. And but now the paradox here is that this box that makes McCain “real” is, by definition, locked. Impenetrable. Nobody gets in or out. This is huge, too; you should keep it in mind. It is why, however many behind-the-scenes pencils get put on the case, a “profile” of John McCain is going to be just that: one side, exterior, split and diffracted by so many lenses there’s way more than one man to see. Salesman or leader or neither or both, the final paradox—the really tiny central one, way down deep inside all the other campaign puzzles’ spinning boxes and squares that layer McCain—is that whether he’s truly “for real” now depends less on what is in his heart than on what might be in yours. Try to stay awake.

  • George Orwell: Reflections on Gandhi
    http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi

    Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent, but the tests that have to be applied to them are not, of course, the same in all cases. In Gandhi’s case the questions on feels inclined to ask are: to what extent was Gandhi moved by vanity — by the consciousness of himself as a humble, naked old man, sitting on a praying mat and shaking empires by sheer spiritual power — and to what extent did he compromise his own principles by entering politics, which of their nature are inseparable from coercion and fraud? To give a definite answer one would have to study Gandhi’s acts and writings in immense detail, for his whole life was a sort of pilgrimage in which every act was significant. But this partial autobiography, which ends in the nineteen-twenties, is strong evidence in his favor, all the more because it covers what he would have called the unregenerate part of his life and reminds one that inside the saint, or near-saint, there was a very shrewd, able person who could, if he had chosen, have been a brilliant success as a lawyer, an administrator or perhaps even a businessman.

    At about the time when the autobiography first appeared I remember reading its opening chapters in the ill-printed pages of some Indian newspaper. They made a good impression on me, which Gandhi himself at that time did not. The things that one associated with him — home-spun cloth, “soul forces” and vegetarianism — were unappealing, and his medievalist program was obviously not viable in a backward, starving, over-populated country. It was also apparent that the British were making use of him, or thought they were making use of him. Strictly speaking, as a Nationalist, he was an enemy, but since in every crisis he would exert himself to prevent violence — which, from the British point of view, meant preventing any effective action whatever — he could be regarded as “our man”. In private this was sometimes cynically admitted. The attitude of the Indian millionaires was similar. Gandhi called upon them to repent, and naturally they preferred him to the Socialists and Communists who, given the chance, would actually have taken their money away. How reliable such calculations are in the long run is doubtful; as Gandhi himself says, “in the end deceivers deceive only themselves”; but at any rate the gentleness with which he was nearly always handled was due partly to the feeling that he was useful. The British Conservatives only became really angry with him when, as in 1942, he was in effect turning his non-violence against a different conqueror.

    But I could see even then that the British officials who spoke of him with a mixture of amusement and disapproval also genuinely liked and admired him, after a fashion. Nobody ever suggested that he was corrupt, or ambitious in any vulgar way, or that anything he did was actuated by fear or malice. In judging a man like Gandhi one seems instinctively to apply high standards, so that some of his virtues have passed almost unnoticed. For instance, it is clear even from the autobiography that his natural physical courage was quite outstanding: the manner of his death was a later illustration of this, for a public man who attached any value to his own skin would have been more adequately guarded. Again, he seems to have been quite free from that maniacal suspiciousness which, as E. M. Forster rightly says in A Passage to India, is the besetting Indian vice, as hypocrisy is the British vice. Although no doubt he was shrewd enough in detecting dishonesty, he seems wherever possible to have believed that other people were acting in good faith and had a better nature through which they could be approached. And though he came of a poor middle-class family, started life rather unfavorably, and was probably of unimpressive physical appearance, he was not afflicted by envy or by the feeling of inferiority. Color feeling when he first met it in its worst form in South Africa, seems rather to have astonished him. Even when he was fighting what was in effect a color war, he did not think of people in terms of race or status. The governor of a province, a cotton millionaire, a half-starved Dravidian coolie, a British private soldier were all equally human beings, to be approached in much the same way. It is noticeable that even in the worst possible circumstances, as in South Africa when he was making himself unpopular as the champion of the Indian community, he did not lack European friends.

  • B. R. Ambedkar
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar


    B. R. Ambedkar est toujours admiré par les pauvres d’Inde qui n’ont que peu d’estime pour le Mahātmā Gandhi vénéré par les hindous modérés des classes moyennes.

    Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar ([14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956), popularly known as Babasaheb, was an Indian jurist, economist, politician and social reformer who inspired the Modern Buddhist Movement and campaigned against social discrimination against Untouchables (Dalits), while also supporting the rights of women and labour. He was Independent India’s first law minister and the principal architect of the Constitution of India.

    His later life was marked by his political activities; he became involved in campaigning and negotiations for India’s independence, publishing journals advocating political rights and social freedom for Dalits, and contributing significantly to the establishment of the state of India.

    In 1956 he converted to Buddhism, initiating mass conversions of Dalits.

    Mahātmā
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma

    This epithet is commonly applied to prominent people like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Munshiram (later Swami Shraddhananda), Lalon Shah, Ayyankali and Jyotirao Phule.

    Manusmriti Dahan Din (Manusmriti Burning Day)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti_Dahan_Din

    The Manusmṛti Dahan Diwas (Manusmriti Burning Day) during Maha-Sangharsha of Mahad Satyagraha, was day on 25 December 1927 that Manusmṛti was publicly burned by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is an important mile stone in Dalit struggle against Brahminism. Manusmṛti is probably the most burnt book in India every year by Dalits and Ambedkarites.

    Dr. Ambedkar came from Bombay by boat “Padmavati” via Dasgaon port, instead of Dharamtar, though it is longer distance, because in the event of boycott by bus owners, they could walk down five miles to Mahad. A pit six inches deep and one and half foot square was dug in, and filled with sandle wood pieces. On its four corners, poles were erected, bearing banners on three sides. Banners said,

    “Manusmṛti chi dahan bhumi”, i.e. Crematorium for Manusmṛti.
    Destroy Untouchability and
    Bury the Brahmanism.

    Dalit Buddhist movement
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement

    Twenty-two vows of Ambedkar
    Inscription of 22 vows at Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur

    After receiving ordination, Ambedkar gave dhamma diksha to his followers. The ceremony included 22 vows given to all new converts after Three Jewels and Five Precepts. On 14 October 1956 at Nagpur, Ambedkar performed another mass religious conversion ceremony at Chandrapur.

    He prescribed 22 vows to his followers:

    I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara, nor shall I worship them.
    I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna, who are believed to be incarnation of God, nor shall I worship them.
    I shall have no faith in Gauri, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus, nor shall I worship them.
    I do not believe in the incarnation of God.
    I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.
    I shall not perform Shraddha nor shall I give pind.
    I shall not act in a manner violating the principles and teachings of the Buddha.
    I shall not allow any ceremonies to be performed by Brahmins.
    I shall believe in the equality of man.
    I shall endeavour to establish equality.
    I shall follow the Noble Eightfold Path of the Buddha.
    I shall follow the ten paramitas prescribed by the Buddha.
    I shall have compassion and loving-kindness for all living beings and protect them.
    I shall not steal.
    I shall not tell lies.
    I shall not commit carnal sins.
    I shall not take intoxicants like liquor, drugs, etc.

    (The previous four proscriptive vows [#14–17] are from the Five Precepts.)

    I shall endeavour to follow the Noble Eightfold Path and practice compassion and loving-kindness in everyday life.
    I renounce Hinduism, which disfavors humanity and impedes the advancement and development of humanity because it is based on inequality, and adopt Buddhism as my religion.
    I firmly believe the Dhamma of the Buddha is the only true religion.
    I consider that I have taken a new birth.
    I solemnly declare and affirm that I shall hereafter lead my life according to the teachings of Buddha’s Dhamma.

    Democracy and Class Struggle : Bhagat Singh On Dalit Question by Ashok Yadav
    http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.de/2015/06/bhagat-singh-on-dalit-question-by-ashok.html?m=1

    “Bring revolution through social movements and then be prepared for political and economic revolutions.” This is yet another important formulation of Bhagat Singh. Right from Jotiba Phule to Dr Ambedkar all have stressed upon the importance of social revolution in bringing about the final revolutions in political and economic sectors. Bhagat Singh who otherwise devoted major part of his short life for socialism and national liberation did not digress much from India’s great social revolutionaries in prescribing the trajectory of revolution. Bhagat Singh had started off his revolutionary life by making national liberation from subjugation of British rule the sole preoccupation. In a very short span of time he had realised that the ground for political-economic revolution in India cannot be prepared unless social revolution is effected. This was a great and stirring journey of Bhagat Singh in the realm of philosophy.

    (Note: All the quotations of Bhagat Singh from the article have been translated in English by this writer from the Hindi version. The article in question has been taken from Bhagat Singh’s collected works published by Rajkamal Prakashan)

    Source : http://www.countercurrents.org/yadav231209.htm

    Graham Staines
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines

    Graham Stuart Staines (1941 – 22 January 1999) was an Australian Christian missionary who, along with his two sons Philip (aged 10) and Timothy (aged 6), was burnt to death by a gang while sleeping in his station wagon at Manoharpur village in Keonjhar district in Odisha, India on 22 January 1999. In 2003, a Bajrang Dal activist, Dara Singh, was convicted of leading the gang that murdered Graham Staines and his sons, and was sentenced to life in prison.

    Communist Party of India (Marxist)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_%28Marxist%29

    The party emerged from a split from the Communist Party of India in 1964. The CPI(M) was formed at the Seventh Congress of the Communist Party of India held in Calcutta from October 31 to November 7, 1964.

    The strength of CPI(M) is concentrated in the states of Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura. As of 2015, CPI(M) is leading the state government in Tripura. It also leads the Left Front coalition of leftist parties. As of 2013, CPI(M) claimed to have 1,065,406 members.

    Tripura
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura

    In the last elections held in February 2013, the Left Front won 50 out of 60 seats in the Assembly, 49 of which went to the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM).[61] As of 2013, Tripura is the only state in India where the communist party is in power. Formerly, two more states—West Bengal and Kerala—had democratically elected communist governments.

    Kerala
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala

    West Bengal
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal

    #Inde #hindouisme #bouddhisme #communisme #dalit #Ambedkar

  • BALLAST Thoreau, derrière la légende
    http://www.revue-ballast.fr/thoreau-derriere-la-legende

    Il en tirera Résistance au gouvernement civil, en 1849 (un détail plus conséquent qu’il n’y paraît : La Désobéissance civile est le titre, devenu concept politique et philosophique, sous lequel l’ouvrage est connu mais il n’est qu’un choix éditorial, survenu après le décès de l’écrivain – ainsi que le rappelle Michel Granger, dans sa biographie Henry David Thoreau, on ne trouve nulle trace de cette formule de son vivant : « L’usage du titre posthume revient, rapporte Granger, à figer la pensée de Thoreau », puisque la « désobéissance civile » n’est pas l’exact synonyme de « résistance »). Petit ouvrage de haute volée, par la densité et la vigueur du propos, comme le sont souvent les textes politiques fondateurs (songeons au Discours de la servitude volontaire de La Boétie ou au Manifeste du Parti communiste de Marx et Engels). Thoreau y déclare que la place de l’homme juste, lorsque son gouvernement ne l’est pas, se trouve en prison, tout en appelant explicitement à « la révolution ». Un ouvrage qui influencera Luther King et Gandhi – ce glorieux héritage contribuera malgré lui à tronquer sa pensée.

  • 14 millions de sans-terres indiens marchent derrière le nouveau Gandhi (v John Rolling)
    http://www.wedemain.fr/14-millions-de-sans-terres-indiens-marchent-derriere-le-nouveau-Gandhi_a491

    Raffa

    14 millions de sans-terres indiens marchent derrière le nouveau Gandhi (v John Rolling) - http://www.wedemain.fr/14-mill...

    10 minutes ago

    from Bookmarklet

    Comment

    Like

    « S’inspirant du père de l’indépendance indienne, Rajagopal organise d’immenses marches pacifiques. Objectif : permettre aux déshérités des campagnes, dont il est devenu le héros, d’accéder à la propriété de terres cultivables. » - Raffa

  • I was eagerly hoping for the outbreak of the #Lebanese_Civil_War
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/i-was-eagerly-hoping-outbreak-lebanese-civil-war

    I don’t know about you but I was not one of those who now claim that they were opposed to the Lebanese Civil War all along. That was not my story at all. I did not hold candle vigils and I never chanted for peace in my life. I never admired Gandhi. I was 15 when the war broke out back in 1975 (to the day). It was a Sunday and my parents were at a social event in Aynab in the mountains of #Lebanon. They came home reporting an eerie sense in the deserted streets of Beirut. The war that I was eagerly expecting finally broke out. read more

    #Israel #phalange #Suleiman_Frangieh #syria

  • #Atos Healthcare: failing UK’s most vulnerable
    http://www.multinationales.org/Atos-Healthcare-failing-UK-s-most

    “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members,” Gandhi said. And the UK is not measuring well. The government is failing society’s disabled, ill, and most vulnerable. The Work Capacity Assessment (WCA), which is being carried out by the French firm Atos Healthcare on behalf of the British government, is proving to be an ineffective, costly process which is pushing many to the verge of despair. This article was initially published by OpenDemocracy (...)

    #Investigations

    / #United_Kingdom, #Information_Technology_Consulting, Atos, #public_campaign, #human_rights, #ethics, #privatisation, #social_impact, #social_security, collective (...)

    #collective_services
    http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jennifer-kennedy/department-of-work-and-pensions-and-atos-healthcare-still-failing-uk'
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/atos-contract-does-not-offer-value-for-money-says-national-audit-offi
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00wq21j
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/knox1013/7907844322/in/photostream

  • Désobéir en démocratie - Reporterre
    http://www.reporterre.net/spip.php?article4773

    En s’appuyant notamment sur les écrits de Thoreau, Gandhi et Martin Luther King, il retrace l’apparition et l’affirmation d’une pensée qui précise peu à peu les conditions de légitimité et d’efficacité de la désobéissance civile.

    Il en ressort une certitude : la désobéissance civile, loin d’être une entorse à la démocratie, en est une composante essentielle.

    #livre #a_lire ?

    Si quelqu’un l’a lu ;-)

  • #Exposition de #peintures de Marc-Édouard #Nabe à #Aix
    http://www.marcedouardnabe.com/tableaux

    Nous avons la joie de vous annoncer que la nouvelle exposition de peintures de #Marc-Édouard-Nabe se tient actuellement, et pendant tout le mois de juillet, à #Aix-en-Provence, en haut du cours Mirabeau (1, Place Forbin).

    250 #portraits d’écrivains, poètes, jazzmen, révolutionnaires, philosophes, peintres, et même d’une sainte et d’un rockeur... De James Joyce à Che Guevara en passant par Georges Simenon, Mozart, Picasso, Kafka, Céline, Bud Powell, Gandhi, Jimi Hendrix et Thérèse de Lisieux, la quasi totalité de cette production a été peinte à #Aix même, de septembre 2012 à mai 2013.

    Pas mal de belles choses. Évidemment un peu cher pour un pauvre comme moi (mais pas tant que ça non plus).

    Billie

    Fats Waller

    Mingus

    La tableau de couverture de Lucette (je crois que c’est le plus cher) !!

    Rimbaud à vingt ans

    L’affiche de l’expo :

    Etc, etc.

    Sans oublier, vu les sujets : #littérature #musique #jazz !

  • Il y 30 ans, une #manifestation de plus 40 jours en #France
    http://www.argotheme.com/organecyberpresse/spip.php?article1637

    Page-recto d’une France ou Martin #LutherKing et #Gandhi inspiraient...

    #Fait majeur dans le #mouvement #social français, il y a trois décennies la #marche des #beurs, connue aussi par « Marche pour l’égalité et contre le #racisme », a soulevé la situation d’une catégorie distincte de #jeunes français. Exclus pour leur double origine territoriale et ethnique, les enfants des #émigrés #maghrébins prenaient à bras le corps leur destin. Mais que reste-t-il ? Une #question récurrente visiblement reprise à ce sujet...

  • How Nonviolence Protects The State
    http://centreofthepsyclone.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/nonviolence-serves-the-state
    Petite intro à un texte de Peter Gelderloos disponible sur ZineLibrary.info : http://centreofthepsyclone.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/how-nonviolence-protects-the-state.pdf

    I approached How Nonviolence Protects The State by Peter Gelderloos expecting a pro-violence rant, but still curious to see what the argument would be. What I found was less of an argument and more of an analysis of the issue of violence and nonviolence within political struggles, discussed from a seldom-if-at-all taken perspective.
    A basic premise of the book is that the argument in favour of nonviolent resistance is based on selective, and therefore biased, historical information, particularly that to do with the independence and human rights campaigns of Gandhi and King. When usually omitted information is included in the analysis, statements (chapter headings in the book) such as:
    NONVIOLENCE IS INEFFECTIVE
    NONVIOLENCE IS RACIST
    NONVIOLENCE IS STATIST
    NONVIOLENCE IS PATRIARCHAL
    NONVIOLENCE IS TACTICALLY AND STRATEGICALLY INFERIOR
    look more reasoned and less sensationalist and unlikely.

  • George Orwell : “Reflections of Gandhi”
    http://www.george-orwell.org/Reflections_of_Ghandi/0.html

    Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent, but the tests that have to be applied to them are not, of course, the same in all cases. In Gandhi’s case the questions on feels inclined to ask are: to what extent was Gandhi moved by vanity — by the consciousness of himself as a humble, naked old man, sitting on a praying mat and shaking empires by sheer spiritual power — and to what extent did he compromise his own principles by entering politics, which of their nature are inseparable from coercion and fraud? To give a definite answer one would have to study Gandhi’s acts and writings in immense detail, for his whole life was a sort of pilgrimage in which every act was significant. But this partial autobiography, which ends in the nineteen-twenties, is strong evidence in his favor, all the more because it covers what he would have called the unregenerate part of his life and reminds one that inside the saint, or near-saint, there was a very shrewd, able person who could, if he had chosen, have been a brilliant success as a lawyer, an administrator or perhaps even a businessman.

  • Gandhi’s views on #non-violence : between Cowardice and Violence
    http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

    Between Cowardice And Violence I would risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race. I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

    #Gandhi

  • Defending seed sovereignty - The Ecologist
    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1547385/defending_seed_sovereignty.html

    A new Global Campaign for Seed Freedom will be celebrating the fortnight from Ghandi’s birthday (October 2nd) to World Food Day (October 16th) as the first Seed Satyagraha during which all participants will declare No Patents On Seeds

    The brainchild of Indian environmental activist Vandana Shiva and her Navdanya organisation, the new campaign is circulating a declaration (see details below) that you can sign to become a Seed Defender.

    #semences #résistance #agriculture #alimentation

    • Vandana Shiva explains why Seed Satyagraha – a non-cooperation movement in the footsteps of Gandhi – will be crucial in blocking the introduction of the proposed Seed Law
      http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1547185/reclaiming_the_seed.html

      Seed is the first link in the food chain. Seed sovereignty is the foundation of food sovereignty. If farmers do not have their own seed or access to open pollinated varieties that they can save, improve or exchange, then they have no seed sovereignty and consequently no food sovereignty.

      The deepening food crisis has its roots in changes in the seed supply system, and the erosion of seed diversity and seed sovereignty.

  • Internet Entreprise Digital Index

    The Digital 100 Power Index - The Daily Beast

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/24/the-digital-100-power-index.html

    Jun 25, 2012

    To paraphrase Gandhi: First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then—when you black out the sixth-largest website on the planet for an entire day—you win.

    This is what Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales learned about power on Jan. 18, 2012. The online encyclopedia had once been a novelty: written by everyone, it could contain errors from anyone, as when Stephen Colbert doctored the entry for George Washington in 2006, asserting falsely that he had not owned slaves. But the idea behind Wikipedia was powerful enough to survive pranks, as the service grew to become an essential reference tool for hundreds of millions of users. And late last year, when two bills working their way through the U.S. Congress threatened the site’s ability to function, Wales knew it was time to flex his digital muscles. In coordination with other web giants, Wikipedia went dark in protest, a blunt demonstration to lawmakers of just how dependent the wired world had become on its model. Less than 48 hours later, the legislation was dead.