Straight Outta Compton : NWA movie | Cinematraque
▻http://www.cinematraque.com/2015/09/22/straight-outta-compton-fuck-the-police
Difficile de comprendre la naissance de NWA, la violence de leurs textes et leur attitude, sans un petit rappel : Ronald Reagan était au pouvoir et imposait la révolution néolibérale. 4 ans plutôt le pouvoir fédéral frappait un dernier grand coup contre les mouvements noirs politisés en condamnant à mort pour l’assassinat d’un policier le journaliste Mumia Abu Jamal
Selon Stiglitz, baisser les impôts des entreprises est « une idée vraiment stupide »
Il critique également cette « idée vraiment stupide selon laquelle baisser les impôts sur les entreprises stimulerait l’économie », jugeant que cette « politique de l’offre » mise en oeuvre par Ronald Reagan aux Etats-Unis dans les années 1980 est aujourd’hui « totalement discréditée ». « Ce n’est même plus un sujet de débat pour les économistes, seulement pour les Allemands et pour quelques personnes en France ».
La baisse massive des charges et des impôts des entreprises est au coeur du Pacte de responsabilité et de solidarité mis en place par François Hollande. « Je ne comprends pas pourquoi l’Europe choisit cette voie aujourd’hui », indique Stiglitz, pour qui les élections en 2017 en France et en Allemagne sont peu susceptibles de changer la donne.
L’universitaire dit cependant « espérer » un changement en Espagne, où des élections doivent se tenir avant la fin de l’année, après plusieurs années de rigueur budgétaire, mais sur fond de redémarrage de la croissance. Une réussite en trompe-l’oeil selon Stiglitz, qui souligne le toujours très fort taux de chômage espagnol : « Le simple fait (que le pays) survive est vu comme un succès ».
▻http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualite-economique/selon-stiglitz-baisser-les-impots-des-entreprises-est-une-idee-v
@aude_v : oui c’est gênant, un peu comme les gens de droite qui critiquent Macron parce qu’il est dans le gouvernement d’en face, sans se rendre compte qu’il va plus loin que ce que la droite osait à peine proposer...
#con_comme_un_partisan
Les #inégalités de revenus nuisent à la #croissance - Le Monde
▻http://alireailleurs.tumblr.com/post/121819053156
Une étude du Fonds monétaire international souligne que plus la fortune des riches s’accroît, moins forte est la croissance. “Lorsque la part de gâteau des 20 % les plus aisés augmente de 1 %, le produit intérieur brut (PIB) progresse moins (– 0,08 point) dans les cinq ans qui suivent. Autrement dit, les avantages des plus riches ne ruissellent pas vers le bas, contrairement aux convictions des économistes néolibéraux qui défendirent les politiques de Margaret Thatcher et de Ronald Reagan et les baisses d’impôt pour les hauts et très hauts revenus.En revanche, une augmentation de même importance (+ 1 %) de la part des revenus détenue par les 20 % les plus pauvres est associée à une croissance plus forte de 0,38 point.”Les auteurs font également remarquer que “la globalisation financière et les (...)
The three benefits of ending the U.S.’s cold war with Iran - Opinion - Israel News | Haaretz
►http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.650483
By Peter Beinart
Right now, a thousand pundits and politicians are debating the details of Thursday’s framework nuclear deal with Iran. That’s fine. I think the details are far, far better than the alternative—which was a collapse of the diplomatic process, a collapse of international sanctions as Russia and China went back to business as usual with Tehran, and a collapse of the world’s ability to send inspectors into Iran. But ultimately, the details aren’t what matters. What matters is the potential end of America’s 36-year-long cold war with Iran.
For the United States, ending that cold war could bring three enormous benefits. First, it could reduce American dependence on Saudi Arabia. Before the fall of the shah in 1979, the United States had good relations with both Tehran and Riyadh, which meant America wasn’t overly reliant on either. Since the Islamic Revolution, however, Saudi Arabia has been America’s primary oil-producing ally in the Persian Gulf. After 9/11, when 19 hijackers—15 of them Saudis—destroyed the Twin Towers, many Americans realized the perils of so great a dependence on a country that was exporting so much pathology. One of the unstated goals of the Iraq War was to give the United States a large, stable, oil-producing ally as a hedge against the uncertain future of the House of Saud.
What George W. Bush failed to achieve militarily, Barack Obama may now be achieving diplomatically. In recent weeks, American hawks have cited Saudi anxiety about a potential Iran deal as reason to be wary of one. But a big part of the reason the Saudis are worried is because they know that as U.S.-Iranian relations improve, their influence over the United States will diminish. That doesn’t mean the U.S.-Saudi alliance will disintegrate. Even if it frays somewhat, the United States still needs Saudi oil and Saudi Arabia still needs American protection. But the United States may soon have a better relationship with both Tehran and Riyadh than either has with the other, which was exactly what Richard Nixon orchestrated in the three-way dynamic between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing in the 1970s. And today, as then, that increases America’s leverage over both countries.
Over the long term, Iran may also prove a more reliable U.S. ally than Saudi Arabia. Iranians are better educated and more pro-American than their neighbors across the Persian Gulf, and unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran has some history of democracy. One of the biggest problems with America’s Mideast policy in recent years has been that, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Egypt, the governments the United States supports preside over populations that hate the U.S. Thursday’s nuclear deal, by contrast, may pave the way for a positive relationship with the Iranian state that is actually undergirded by a positive relationship with the Iranian people.
Which brings us to the second benefit of ending America’s cold war with Iran: It could empower the Iranian people vis-à-vis their repressive state. American hawks, addled by the mythology they have created around Ronald Reagan, seem to think that the more hostile America’s relationship with Iran’s regime becomes, the better the United States can promote Iranian democracy. But the truth is closer to the reverse. The best thing Reagan ever did for the people of Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R. was to embrace Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1987, American hawks bitterly attacked Reagan for signing the INF agreement, the most sweeping arms-reduction treaty of the Cold War. But the tougher it became for Soviet hardliners to portray the United States as menacing, the tougher it became for them to justify their repression at home. And the easier it became for Gorbachev to pursue the policies of glasnost and perestroika that ultimately led to the liberation of Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the U.S.S.R.
Iranian President Hassan Rohani, like Gorbachev, wants to end his country’s cold war with the United States because it is destroying his country’s economy. And like Gorbachev, he is battling elites who depend on that cold war for their political power and economic privilege. As Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick recently noted, Iran’s hardline Revolutionary Guards “thrive on hostile relations with the U.S., and benefit hugely from sanctions, which allow them to control smuggling.” But “if the sanctions are lifted, foreign companies come back in, [and] the natural entrepreneurialism of Iranians is unleashed.” Thus “if you want regime change in Iran, meaning changing the way the regime operates, this kind of agreement is the best way to achieve that goal.”
The best evidence of Sick’s thesis is the euphoric way ordinary Iranians have reacted to Thursday’s agreement. They’re not cheering because they want Iran to have 6,000 centrifuges instead of 20,000. They’re cheering because they know that opening Iran to the world empowers them, both economically and politically, at their oppressors’ expense.
Finally, ending the cold war with Iran may make it easier to end the civil wars plaguing the Middle East. Cold wars are rarely “cold” in the sense that no one gets killed. They are usually proxy wars in which powerful countries get local clients to do the killing for them. America’s cold war with the U.S.S.R. ravaged countries like Angola and El Salvador. And today, America’s cold war with Iran is ravaging Syria and Yemen.
When America’s relationship with the Soviet Union thawed, civil wars across the world petered out because local combatants found their superpower patrons unwilling to send arms and write checks. The dynamic in the Middle East is different because today’s cold war isn’t only between Iran and the United States, it’s also between Iran and Sunni Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither of which seems particularly interested in winding down the civil wars in Syria and Yemen. Still, a different relationship between the United States and Iran offers a glimmer of hope. In Syria, for instance, one reason Iran has staunchly backed Bashar al-Assad is because it fears the fierce hostility of his successors. The United States cannot entirely alleviate that fear, since some of the groups battling Assad—ISIS, most obviously—are fiercely hostile to Iran and to Shiites in general. But if Iran’s leaders knew that at least the United States would try to ensure that a post-Assad government maintained good relations with
Tehran, they might be somewhat more open to negotiating a transfer of power in Syria.
Clearly, the United States should push for the best nuclear deal with Iran that it possibly can. But it’s now obvious, almost three decades after Reagan signed the INF deal with Gorbachev, that it’s not the technical details that mattered. What mattered was the end of a cold war that had cemented Soviet tyranny and ravaged large chunks of the world. Barack Obama has now begun the process of ending America’s smaller, but still terrible, cold war with Iran. In so doing, he has improved America’s strategic position, brightened the prospects for Iranian freedom and Middle Eastern peace, and brought himself closer to being the kind of transformational, Reaganesque president he always hoped to be.
This article was first published in The Atlantic
The Deal with Iran: Five Arguments to Watch Out For « LobeLog
▻http://www.lobelog.com/the-deal-with-iran-five-arguments-to-watch-out-for
Third, pay attention to history. Those who offer a bland, one-size-fits-all version of history are almost always wrong.
For example, a few days ago the noted historian John Boehner (R-OH) commented about the negotiations that “Iran has no intention of keeping its word.” Others claim that Iran has always cheated on every agreement they have signed.
Actually, this is a subject I know something about. In January 1981 when I worked on the Iran desk at the White House, the United States and Iran signed the so-called Algiers Accords that ended the hostage crisis. There was an absolute deadline–Ronald Reagan was about to be inaugurated–and both sides had to make concessions at the last minute.
I won’t go into the details except to note that candidate Reagan denounced the agreement as negotiated under coercion and did not need to be observed by a new administration. However, when President Reagan and his advisers examined the small print, they realized that the Iranians had made extraordinary concessions that were important to U.S. interests . He quietly changed his mind, and five presidents have enforced the agreements. It has been meticulously observed by Iran, even at great cost. And by the way, the agreement was never sent to Congress for approval .
Politics, Power, and Preventive Action » Putting Iran’s Nuclear Program in Context
▻http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2015/03/31/putting-iran-nuclear-program-in-context
The April 24, 1984, edition of the British defense publication Jane’s Defence Weekly informed its readers: “Iran is engaged in the production of an atomic bomb, likely to be ready within two years, according to press reports in the Persian Gulf last week.” Subsequent warnings from U.S. and foreign sources about Iran’s imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon have been offered over the past four decades. These false guesses are worth bearing in mind as news from the P5+1 nuclear negotiations in Lausanne, Switzerland emerges.
(...)
To repeat: Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program, nor does it possess a nuclear weapon. So when a politician, analyst, or pundit mentions an Iranian “nuclear weapons program” they are referring to a program that the IC is not aware of. Moreover, if possible, tell them to contact the Central Intelligence Agency through its “report threats” website to let the agency’s nonproliferation analysts know about whatever secret information they are basing their judgment upon.
#jane
Une page qui va rejouir tous les amateurs du film Harold and Maude
Flickr: Fotostream von CasketCoach
▻https://www.flickr.com/photos/87601914@N00
Harold and Maude by Hal Ashby
▻http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_and_Maude
Très belle aussi : The hearse used to transport the body of former President Ronald Reagan
Very british
▻http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbillard#Corbillard_automobile
#film #mort #suicide #funérailles #shoa #shoah #voitures #corbillard
Les marchands de doute, de Naomi Oreskes et Erick Conway
▻http://www.les-crises.fr/les-marchands-de-doute
La physique nous dit que si le Soleil était la cause du réchauffement global – ce que certains sceptiques continuent de croire –, la stratosphère et la troposphère verraient toutes deux leur température augmenter car la chaleur arrive par le haut. Mais si les gaz à effet de serre émis par la surface et piégés pour l’essentiel dans la basse atmosphère sont la cause du réchauffement, alors on s’attend à ce que la troposphère se réchauffe et que la stratosphère se refroidisse.
Santer et ses collègues ont montré qu’il en est bien ainsi : la troposphère se réchauffe et la stratosphère se refroidit.
Depuis que des scientifiques ont commencé à expliquer que le climat se réchauffe – et que les activités humaines en sont probablement la cause –, des gens ont mis en doute les données et les preuves, et ont attaqué les scientifiques qui les collectent et les interprètent. Et personne n’a été plus violemment attaqué que Ben Santer, et de façon aussi déloyale.
QUELQUES ANNÉES PLUS TARD, en lisant son journal du matin, Santer tomba sur un article qui relatait la façon dont des scientifiques avaient participé à une opération organisée par l’industrie du tabac dans le but de discréditer tout élément scientifi que reliant le tabac au cancer. L’idée, expliquait l’article, était de « maintenir la controverse active ». Tant qu’il y avait un doute sur le lien causal, l’industrie du tabac pourrait éviter d’être poursuivie en justice et échapper à toute régulation.
Santer trouva que cette histoire ressemblait étrangement à la sienne. Il avait raison. Mais il y avait plus. Non seulement la tactique était la même, mais les gens aussi étaient les mêmes . Les attaques les plus virulentes contre lui avaient été menées par deux physiciens en retraite, deux Fred : Frederick Seitz et S. (Siegfried) Fred Singer.
Tous deux étaient des « faucons » extrémistes, profondément persuadés de la gravité de la menace soviétique et de la nécessité de défendre les États-Unis par le déploiement d’armes de haute technologie. Tous deux participaient à un think tank conservateur de Washington, l’Institut George C. Marshall, fondé pour promouvoir l’Initiative de défense stratégique de Ronald Reagan (SDI, ou « Guerre des étoiles »). Et tous deux avaient naguère travaillé pour l’industrie du tabac, l’aidant à instiller le doute quant aux risques mortels du tabagisme.
Ce #livre décrit dans une formidable #enquête_journalistique comment on a façonné l’#opinion_publique en lui instillant du doute sur des sujets où il n’y en avait plus, pour retarder l’adoption de mesures.
Tiens, ça me fait penser à ça ▻http://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-industry-funded-research-bias , ça cause aussi du doute ajouté volontairement par l’industrie du tabac, et repris dans d’autres domaines… par les mêmes acteurs, notamment là, dans l’industrie alimentaire.
▻http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance
Another academic studying ignorance is David Dunning, from Cornell University. Dunning warns that the #internet is helping propagate ignorance – it is a place where everyone has a chance to be their own expert, he says, which makes them prey for powerful interests wishing to deliberately spread ignorance.
The Ghost of Ronald Reagan Authorizes Most NSA Spying
▻https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/29/new-documents-confirm-expansive-spying-powers-reagan-era-order
The trove, which includes documents from the NSA, Department of Justice, and Defense Intelligence Agency, confirms long-standing suspicions that the bulk of U.S. foreign surveillance operations are governed not by acts of Congress, but by a 33-year-old executive order issued unilaterally by President Ronald Reagan.
▻https://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/executive-order-12333-foia-lawsuit
Reagan sous l’administration duquel était déjà passé le Computer fraud and abuse Act (CFAA).
Les reniements de la social-démocratie, ou l’avenir à reculons — Bernard GENSANE
▻http://www.legrandsoir.info/les-reniements-de-la-social-democratie-ou-l-avenir-a-reculons.html
Deux données en passant :
le nombre de jeunes âgés de 25 à 35 ans se lançant dans la construction ou l’achat d’un logement a diminué de 10% en un an.
50% des auto-entrepreneurs n’auto-entreprennent actuellement rien ou quasiment rien. Il y a en fait 500 000 chômeurs partiels ou totaux de plus que ce que l’on veut bien nous dire.
Ce, dans un pays qui n’a jamais été aussi riche et qui, depuis 1981, aura été gouverné quinze ans durant par des sociaux-démocrates.
Partout dans le monde, a fortiori en France, le curseur s’est déplacé à droite car les partis de droite se sont eux-mêmes déplacés vers l’extrême droite. Ce qu’avaient génialement envisagé les théoriciens du libéralisme économique à tout crin, puis leurs meilleurs élèves aux commandes, tels Margaret Thatcher ou Ronald Reagan.
alors, l’UMP est social-démocrate ?
Je croyais que la droite ne l’était pas. Surtout quand on voit la configuration de l’UMP, le RPR et l’UDF. Confondre sociaux-démocrates, chrétiens-démocrates ou sociaux-chrétiens , c’est problématique pour une analyse politique.
@l_etranger : tu peux développer un peu, là, s’il te plaît ?
Je trouve qu’il a confusion entre social-démocratie, social-christianisme et démocratie chrétienne. Ces 3 courants sont les enfants des radicaux. En tant qu’héritiers du radicalisme, ces courants cherchent « améliorer » les conditions de vie ; mais, ils considèrent « naturelle » le système inégalitaire dans lequel nous vivons. Pour eux, il y a toujours un système de « classe » ou des « castes » qui permet de stabiliser la société. Ils croient - de la croyance comme la résurrection ou le paradis chez les religieux- qu’une distribution « correcte » des profits en société passe par une système de charité organisée : peu pour le bas de l’échèle sociale et « naturellement » beaucoup pour le haut.
Comme l’exemple de Schroeder, l’archétype de ces politiques se sont des personnes qui ont compris le système, qui ont appris les leçons pour « s’en sortir » et qui ne vont pas reformer ce système.
On voit des trahisons dans la social-démocratie quand ils n’ont jamais souhaité faire une révolution radicale.
L’UMP et le centre ont gouverné en France après Mitterrand. La social-démocratie va « réparer » les excès ; mais, ils ne vont pas défaire le système.
Enfin, cette analyse ne prend pas en compte 2 éléments importants de l’évolution de l’histoire : une nouvelle caste est arrivée au pouvoir à nouveau - les capitalistes financiers, après se faire chassés par les capitalistes industriels- et la décolonisation -c’est la création des frontières entre les zones d’exploitation des matières premières et les zones de transformation qui ont provoqué la chute des capitalistes industriels.
Sur ce point, on voit que les politiques sociaux-démocrates vives aux 19ème siècle puisqu’ils partent bosser chez des exploitants de matières premières. Les droitiers restent dans leur monde spirituel et préfèrent les finances : le rien qui crée de la richesse.
Merci pour ce complément d’analyse @l_etranger.
Nouvelle guerre froide, par Serge Halimi (septembre 2014)
▻http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/09/HALIMI/50753
En 1980, pour résumer sa vision des relations entre les Etats-Unis et l’Union soviétique, Ronald Reagan eut cette formule : « Nous gagnons ; ils perdent. » Douze ans plus tard, son successeur immédiat à la Maison Blanche, M. George Bush, pouvait se féliciter du chemin accompli : « Un monde autrefois divisé entre deux camps armés reconnaît qu’il n’y a qu’une seule superpuissance prééminente : les Etats-Unis d’Amérique. » Ce fut la fin officielle de la guerre froide.
Cette période est à son tour révolue.
Bill Clinton a déclaré sur un show de la TV qu’une invasion extraterrestre est la seule chose capable d’unir notre monde de plus en plus divisé
▻http://www.brujitafr.fr/article-bill-clinton-a-declare-sur-un-show-de-la-tv-qu-une-invasion-extrat
Ronald Reagan, lors de deux allocutions officielles, déclare qu’une invasion extraterrestre suffirait à l’unification de tous les peuples de la terre... ▻http://www.conscience-du-peuple.blogspot.com/2013/08/ronald-reagan-lors-de-deux-allocutions.html Clinton a récité mot à mot ce qu’à déclaré Reagan lors d’une de ses allocutions aux Nations Unies en 1987... Si une invasion extraterrestre devait être annoncée dans tous les médias du monde, soyez assurés qu’elle fera partie d’une gigantesque imposture pour la mise en place d’un extraordinaire chaos devant donner naissance à un nouvel ordre des âges... Ordo Ab Chaos ! source (...)
#USA
Counter-terrorism expert lists 10 impacts of NSA on cloud security | ZDNet
▻http://www.zdnet.com/counter-terrorism-expert-lists-10-impacts-of-nsa-on-cloud-security-7000026712
The NSA is so good at collecting intelligence that it has the potential to create a police surveillance state that could never be shut off, counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke said during his keynote address at the Cloud Security Alliance Summit taking place Monday at the RSA Conference.
“We are not there yet, but the technology is,” said Clarke, the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-Terrorism for the United States and advisor to presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan.
#Bloomberg_Africa evokes Reagan’s “welfare queen” stereotype for poor South Africans
▻http://africasacountry.com/bloomberg-africa-evokes-reagans-welfare-queen-stereotype-for-south-
Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg was in South Africa this month to launch the Bloomberg #MEDIA Initiative, a $10-million project to build capacity in business and financial #JOURNALISM across the continent (starting first in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa—which is a questionable choice of countries). But he should probably also invest some of his billions closer to home, too; at Bloomberg Africa, the Africa-focused overlay of his New York-based Bloomberg News agency.
#Northern_Cape #Rene_Vollgraaff #Ronald_Reagan #social_grants #South_African_Institute_of_Race_Relations #welfare_queen
The British Punk Band That Fooled Reagan, Thatcher And The CIA -
How a small British punk band fooled Reagan, Thatcher, the MI6, and American spies.
The full story of a hoax recording of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher can now be disclosed after a raft of secret documents were declassified in London. A crackly tape purporting to capture a confrontational phone call between Reagan and Thatcher in 1982 was created as a prank in the Essex bedroom of an English punk band, and yet we now know it was being analyzed by the British Prime Minister and top officials in Washington years later.
The tape, which was delivered anonymously to the offices of a Dutch newspaper, apparently recorded a serious disagreement between the leaders of the “free world” over Britain’s controversial conflict with Argentina in the Falkland Islands.
(...)
After the publication of the documents this week, Steve Ignorant, Crass’s lead singer, said it was incredible that their hoax had caused such high-level discomfort for so long. “It makes me a bit worried about governments because if they could be fooled by something so ridiculous… well, someone told us that there was an MI5 dossier on us but we didn’t take it that seriously,” he said.
#crass #punk #uk #spy_vs_spy
Fukushima : 51 soldats américains atteints de cancer portent plainte contre Tepco
▻http://www.brujitafr.fr/article-fukushima-51-soldats-americains-atteints-de-cancer-portent-plainte
JAPON -Fukushima : Tepco admet que le réacteur N°3 est peut être actuellement en train d’entrer en fusion En 2011, ils naviguaient sur le porte-avions USS Ronald Reagan. Ils participèrent aux missions de secours près des côtes du Japon, après le Tsunami et la catastrophe de Fukushima. Aujourd’hui, ils sont atteints de leucémie, de cancer de la thyroïde ou des testicules, de tumeurs cérébrales, de saignements rectaux ou gynécologiques. Ils portent plainte. Non, non, ils ne firent pas trempette dans les eaux infectées par les radiations. Mais burent, cuisinèrent, utilisèrent pour leurs ablutions, comme tous leurs compagnons, celle que leur distillaient les machines de dessalement de leur vaisseau de guerre. En 2012, la NBC faisait état (...)
Fukushima : 51 soldats américains atteints du cancer portent plainte contre Tepco - Chroniques du Yéti
▻http://yetiblog.org/index.php?post/fukushima-51-marins-us
En 2011, ils naviguaient sur le porte-avions USS Ronald Reagan. Ils participèrent aux missions de secours près des côtes du Japon, après le Tsunami et la catastrophe de Fukushima. Aujourd’hui, ils sont atteints de leucémie, de cancer de la thyroïde ou des testicules, de tumeurs cérébrales, de saignements rectaux ou gynécologiques. Ils portent plainte.
Non, non, ils ne firent pas trempette dans les eaux infectées par les radiations. Mais burent, cuisinèrent, utilisèrent pour leurs ablutions, comme tous leurs compagnons, celle que leur distillaient les machines de dessalement de leur vaisseau de guerre.
51 Sailors from USS Ronald Reagan Suffering Thyroid Cancer, Leukemia, Brain Tumors After Participating in Fukushima Nuclear Rescue Efforts
▻http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/99-pat
The Reagan passed through debris as far as the eye could see: wood, refrigerators, car tires, roofs of houses with people riding on them. Hair was told they were five to 10 miles off the coast from Fukushima, which had been damaged by a massive tsunami spawned by the quake.
And it wasn’t until the USS Ronald Reagan had left Japan and sailors were scrubbing down the ship that they were offered radiation protection. Enis said the enlisted sailors were never offered any iodine. He said he later learned the “higher ups” — officers and pilots — had received the tablets to protect their thyroids from radiation damage.
Les gouvernements US , une bande de trafiquants et de conspirateurs depuis l’ère Reagen ?
Carl Elmer Jenkins : Biography
▻http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjenkinsC.htm
Gene Wheaton, interviewed by Matt Ehling on Declassified Radio (4th January, 2002)
In the late 70s, in fact, after Gerry Ford lost the election in ’76 to Jimmy Carter, and then these guys became exposed by Stansfield Turner and crowd for whatever reason... there were different factions involved in all this stuff, and power plays... Ted Shackley and Vernon Walters and Frank Carlucci and Ving West and a group of these guys used to have park-bench meetings in the late 70s in McClean, Virginia so nobody could overhear they conversations. They basically said, “With our expertise at placing dictators in power,” I’m almost quoting verbatim one of their comments, “why don’t we treat the United States like the world’s biggest banana republic and take it over?” And the first thing they had to do was to get their man in the White House, and that was George Bush."
Reagan never really was the president. He was the front man. They selected a guy that had charisma, who was popular, and just a good old boy, but they got George Bush in there to actually run the White House. They’d let Ronald Reagan and Nancy out of the closet and let them make a speech and run them up the flagpole and salute them and put them back in the closet while these spooks ran the White House.
They made sure that George Bush was the chairman of each of the critical committees involving these covert operations things. One of them was the Vice President’s Task Force On Combating Terrorism. They got Bush in as the head of the vice president’s task force on narcotics, the South Florida Task Force, so that they could place people in DEA and in the Pentagon and in customs to run interference for them in these large-scale international narcotics and movement of narcotics money cases.
They got Bush in as the chairman of the committee to deregulate the Savings and Loans in ’83 so they could deregulate the Savings and Loans, so that they would be so loosely structured that they could steal 400, 500 billion dollars of what amounted to the taxpayers’ money out of these Savings and Loans and then bail them out.
They got hit twice: they stole the money out of the Savings and Loans, and then they sold the Savings and Loans right back to the same guys, and then the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - the taxpayers money - paid for bailing out the Savings and Loans that they stole the money from.. and they ran the whole operation, and Bush was the de facto president even before the ‘88 election when he became president.
J’ai du mal à croire cette déscription. Si on accepte la véracité des affirmations sur ce site, il y a des liens directs entre la mafia cubaine d’avant Castro, la CIA et les groupes qui contrôlent la maison blanche depuis 1981.
D’après ces anciens collaborateurs de la CIA le gouvernement US ne représente ni le peuple des Etats Unis ni les élites du pays. Il serait tout simplement le bras exécutant de la mafia et du complexe militaro-industriel réuni.
Parfois les résultats d’une recherche dans Wikipedia sont encore plus intéressants quand l’article recherché n’existe pas.
▻http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Gene+Wheaton&button=&title=Special%3ASearch
Tiens, ça va bientôt être le 40ème anniversaire du décès de Gennady Eliseev.
Oui. C’était hier.
One instance of combat during Project Dark Gene was an engagement on November 28, 1973 between an RF-4C aircraft piloted by IIAF Major Shokouhnia and backseater USAF Colonel John Saunders and a Soviet MiG-21 flown by Captain Gennadii N. Eliseev. The Soviet pilot fired a Vympel K-13 missile at the Iranian aircraft, failing to destroy it. He pressed his attack, attempting to use his guns, only to find out that they were not functioning. Getting permission from ground control to attack in this manner he continued by ramming the Iranian aircraft and losing his life in the process. He struck the RF-4C’s tail assembly with his wing. This was the first deliberate jet-to-jet ramming by a Soviet aircraft during an interception, a practice common in the propeller age of World War II. Eliseev was posthumously awarded as a Hero of the Soviet Union.[7][10] The crew of the RF-4C aircraft were captured by Soviet ground forces and released after 16 days.
A l’époque on cultivait encore une attitude chevaleresque dans la région. Au lieu de torturer et d’abattre l’équipe sur place on la relâchait après le temps nécessaire pour l’interroger et établir les contacts diplomatiques convenables.
The Ugly Revolution
Michael Rogin
▻http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n09/michael-rogin/the-ugly-revolution
A falsification that held more universal sway among whites than did any Stalinist rewriting of history in the Soviet Union transformed black Americans in the post-bellum South from victims of re-subjugation into political and sexual predators.
It is now a commonplace that, instead of protecting Southern civil rights workers, the FBI (with the collusion of the Kennedy brothers) conducted a campaign to discredit King. The organisation’s assistant director, William Sullivan, compiled from the Bureau’s wiretaps and bugs a tape of the noises of the civil rights leader’s extramarital activities. He sent it to King with a letter threatening to expose him; purporting to be a ‘Negro’, the letter-writer proposed suicide as King’s only way out.
Elevating King to the pantheon of founding fathers, however, has served as a ritual of national self-congratulation that obliterates the radical movement in which King lived, breathed and died.
(...)
Ronald Reagan, who had opposed not only the civil rights movement but also the national legislation ending legal discrimination and guaranteeing the black right to vote, was the President who signed the Bill declaring King’s birthday a national holiday. There were two reasons for this historical irony. First, King was being celebrated as ‘poster boy’ (Dyson’s term) for the achievement of formal legal equality by those claiming that the struggle for racial justice had been won. Second, Reagan was paying back the debt he owed King, since the entry of racial conflict into national politics overthrew the FDR/Johnson New Deal coalition and put the former actor in the White House.
#BAE_Systems Recognized for Support of MLK Memorial as Fundraising Efforts Near Close | Business Wire
▻http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111109006440/en/BAE-Systems-Recognized-Support-MLK-Memorial-Fundraising
Yesterday, the Washington DC Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation, Inc. acknowledged BAE Systems for its $1 million donation during a formal check presentation ceremony held at the recently dedicated Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
Rappel:
10 companies profiting the most from war
►http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997
(...)
3. BAE Systems — aircraft, artillery, electronics, vehicles, missiles, ships
Arm sales: $29.2 billion, total sales: $30.7 billion
Gross profit: $2.3 billion, total workforce: 93,500.
Schneier on Security: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet
▻http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_trust.html
Ronald Reagan once said “trust but verify.” That works only if we can verify.
Noam Chomsky : Ronald Reagan’s Secret, Genocidal Wars
▻http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-nuclear
But truth was unwelcome. It interfered with the objectives set by Reagan’s national security team in 1981. As reported by the journalist Robert Parry, working from a document he discovered in the Reagan Library, the team’s goal was to supply military aid to the right-wing regime in Guatemala in order to exterminate not only “Marxist guerrillas” but also their “civilian support mechanisms” – which means, effectively, genocide.
The task was carried out with dedication. Reagan sent “nonlethal” equipment to the killers, including Bell helicopters that were immediately armed and sent on their missions of death and destruction.
But the most effective method was to enlist a network of client states to take over the task, including Taiwan and South Korea, still under U.S.-backed dictatorships, as well as apartheid South Africa and the Argentine and Chilean dictatorships.
At the forefront was Israel, which became the major arms supplier to Guatemala. It provided instructors for the killers and participated in counterinsurgency operations.
How Amnesty has let down Bradley Manning
▻http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/david/how-amnesty-has-let-down-bradley-manning
Why is Amnesty applying different rules to the US than to Russia?
My own interest in human rights was sparked by the protests over US foreign policy that occurred when Ronald Reagan visited Ireland in 1984 (I was 13 years old at the time). I first heard about Amnesty a year or two later and have supported the organization ever since.
So it felt like a betrayal when I heard that Amnesty’s American office was headed for most of last year by Suzanne Nossel; before taking up that job she had been a deputy assistant secretary of state under Hillary Clinton. Under Nossel’s leadership, Amnesty whitewashed the invasion of Afghanistan by hosting a conference praising NATO’s “progress” in that country. The guest of “honor” at that event was Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state who declared that killing as many as 500,000 children in Iraq by depriving them of essential medicines was a price worth paying.
Comment les États-Unis ont organisé et financé massivement le développement de l’enseignement islamique en Afghanistan :
▻http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4d_1365286482
Under NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channelled through Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also supported and financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions. (Michel Chossudovsky, 9/11 ANALYSIS: From Ronald Reagan and the Soviet-Afghan War to George W Bush and September 11, 2001, Global Research, September 09, 2010)
Religious schools were generously funded by the United States of America:
Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. The US covert education destroyed secular education. The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrassas) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000 [in 2001]. (Ibid.)
Unknown to the American public, the US spread the teachings of the Islamic jihad in textbooks “Made in America” developed at the University of Nebraska:
… the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books…
The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books “are fully in compliance with US law and policy.” Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.
… AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.
“It’s not AID’s policy to support religious instruction,” Stratos said. “But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity.”
… Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.” (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
The myth of the cowboy
▻http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/20/myth-of-the-cowboy
How did the lone cowboy hero become such a potent figure in American culture? In an extract from his final book Fractured Times, the late Eric Hobsbawm follows a trail from cheap novels and B-westerns to Ronald Reagan
There is thus no shortage of potential cowboy myths in the western world. And, in fact, practically all the groups I have mentioned have generated macho and heroic semi-barbarian myths of one kind or another in their own countries and sometimes even beyond. But none of them has generated a myth with serious international popularity, let alone one that can compare, even faintly, with the fortunes of the North American cowboy. Why?
J’vais vu à Montreal une exposition au musée des civilisations pour retracer l’histoire réelle des cow boys (des ouvriers agricole saisonniers qui amenaient les troupeaux dans les abattoirs des grands centres urbains de l’est des US) et isoler le mythe. C’était passionnant.
Les cow boys n’avaient rien à voir avec Clint Eastwood. La plupart était noirs ou mexicains, et aucun n’était armé car les armes à feu étaient interdites au contact des troupeaux (risque de panique)
Les légendes sont nées suite aux fêtes alcoolisées et sans doute violentes qui avaient lieu en fin de transhumance.
ça me fait penser en France à l’ambiance qu’on devait connaitre à la fin des vendanges (dans le sud de la France, au début du siècle dernier, on affrétait des trains entiers pour faire venir les vendangeurs espagnols)
#Luis_Aguilé (mon idole !), Pecos Bill
Ay ay ay ay lo digo yo, fue el vaquero más auténtico que existió
▻http://www.musica.com/letras.asp?letra=2060350
Ben oui, garçon vacher…
Tear down this wall - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
►http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/tear-down-this-wall.premium-1.507182
Tear down this wall
The separation fence does not prevent terror attacks, but it is a blight on the land and a burden on the Palestinians.
“Tear down this wall,” called out President Ronald Reagan in June 1987 on a visit to Berlin. And two and half years later the Berlin Wall came down. There is another wall, whose construction is not yet complete, which has been built over the past 10 years. It runs the length of the Land of Israel, like a scar along the face of a beautiful woman – the separation fence. When will it come down?
Voilà que Moshe Arens, ancien ministre des Affaires étrangères du Likoud, appelle à raser le mur !
Tear down this wall - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
►http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/tear-down-this-wall.premium-1.507182
Tear down this wall,” called out President Ronald Reagan in June 1987 on a visit to Berlin. And two and half years later the Berlin Wall came down. There is another wall, whose construction is not yet complete, which has been built over the past 10 years. It runs the length of the Land of Israel, like a scar along the face of a beautiful woman – the separation fence. When will it come down?
This monstrosity, which has cost billions, will certainly not stand there forever to be dug up by puzzled archeologists a thousand years from now. The time has come to tear down that wall.
The decision to build the separation fence was taken by the government led by Ariel Sharon in April 2002. It was a moment of panic, a time of hysteria. Hundreds of Israelis — men, women, and children — had been killed in the previous two years by Palestinian suicide bombers who entered Israel’s cities, but Sharon refused to react, proclaiming over and over again that “restraint was strength."
The security services at the time insisted that the only way to stop the carnage was to build a fence that would separate the bulk of the Palestinian population from Israel’s population centers. An increasingly vocal public campaign, insisting that not building the wall was costing the lives of Israeli civilians, brought the Sharon government to its knees. It decided to build a security barrier.
The barrier is a severe imposition on the Palestinians. Farmers are separated from their lands, the movement of those who live within the area cut off by the barrier has become restrictive. Life for the Palestinian population has become more difficult. Can this be justified? Is it reasonable to continue construction of the barrier? Has the time not come to pull it down?