adski's corner

GOP Candidate Ron Paul: "We're Under Great Threat Because We Occupy So Many Countries"

2011-09-24T14:52:00.000-07:00

2011-08-11T08:50:00.000-07:00

"We will gradually become indifferent to what goes on in the minds of other people when we acquire a knowledge of the superficial nature of their thoughts , the narrowness of their views and of the number of their errors. Whoever attaches a lot of value to the opinions of others pays them too much honor." - Arthur Schopenhauer

False sense of urgency

2011-08-10T10:22:00.000-07:00

"We've fallen into this false sense of urgency that they create. That idea that everything is breaking news and that if you're not watching us, you're going to miss this thing. But nothing they're saying is of any import because nobody filters it. Print reporters are able to step back for a moment and think. They're not. They're just pointing a camera and saying, 'What do you think that is? I don't know. Let's go to 'The Situation Room.' " - Jon Stewart

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-08-27/news/17124018_1_stewart-s-comedy-central-political-convention-jon-stewart

Democracy in America - George Carlin

2011-08-06T20:36:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul on Julian Assange

2011-08-01T13:09:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul 1988

2011-07-22T20:00:00.001-07:00

2011-07-21T08:08:00.000-07:00

"It is often forgotten that democracy, defined chiefly by elections and the exercise of power in the name of majority, can be as repressive of individual freedom and minority rights as dictatorship – sometimes more so"

- John Gray (Oxford, London School of Economics and Politics, Harvard, Yale)

The reason why is that majorities in "democracies" are a controllable and lazy herd, proverbial sheep led by wolves. Which essentially makes democracy a sham, a system slightly more refined and sophisticated than dictatorship, but not too different from it in terms of governance. The choice of one in a dictatorship is replaced with a choice of 2 (or occasionally 3) in a democracy. The coercive apparatus of dictatorship is replaced with mainstream media whose role is to divert people's attention from, or misinform them about, important issues. When establishment media fail, the coercive apparatus is promptly dispatched.

The difference between democracy and dictatorship is thus only illusory.

The Guardian: the media is corrupt – we need a Hippocratic oath for journalists

2011-07-16T15:35:00.000-07:00

"The corporate media is a gigantic astroturfing operation: a fake grassroots crusade serving elite interests. In this respect the media companies resemble the Tea Party movement, which claims to be a spontaneous rising of blue-collar Americans against the elite but was founded with the help of the billionaire Koch brothers and promoted by Murdoch's Fox News.

Journalism's primary purpose is to hold power to account. This purpose has been perfectly inverted. Columnists and bloggers are employed as the enforcers of corporate power, denouncing people who criticise its interests, stamping on new ideas, bullying the powerless. The press barons allowed governments occasionally to promote the interests of the poor, but never to hamper the interests of the rich."

-George Monbiot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/11/media-corrupt-hippocratic-oath-journalists

The Story of Your Enslavement

2011-07-16T15:02:00.001-07:00

Julian Assange talks to David Frost

2011-07-12T13:12:00.000-07:00

The War You Don't See

2011-05-11T17:49:00.000-07:00

2011-05-10T19:16:00.000-07:00

"Chomsky embraces the Julien Benda view of the world. There are two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege it will always be at the expense of truth and justice. Benda says that the credo of any true intellectual has to be, as Christ said, ‘my kingdom is not of this world.’ Chomsky exposes the pretenses of those who claim to be the bearers of truth and justice. He shows that in fact these intellectuals are the bearers of power and privilege and all the evil that attends it."

-Norman Finkelstein

2011-03-28T09:47:00.000-07:00

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

-Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was desperate to justify the disfranchisement of many in the early days of the United States. Not mentioned was the fact that the rights are invariably granted and taken away exclusively by the elites. The population is either prevented from decision making, discouraged from it, or steered to decide a certain way through manipulation by establishment media and public opinion polls that serve to mold views and opinions.

When the 51% impose their will on the 49%, they often do so in the interests of the elite. When the job is done, more often than not the 51% get left hung out to dry, so that only the elite stands to profit from the imposed will.

2011-03-25T08:15:00.000-07:00

"Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon."

- Ron Paul

2011-03-25T08:04:00.000-07:00

"1913 wasn't a very good year. 1913 gave us the income tax, the 16th amendment and the IRS."

-Ron Paul

2011-03-25T07:46:00.000-07:00

"Idiocie nie mozna przyznac racji. Jezeli raz przynamy mu troche racji, to za chwile z tego paluszka reke zje. W sprawie raportu MAK pan Donald przyznal czesciowo Kaczynskiemu racje, i zrobil straszliwy blad" - Janusz Korwin Mikke

"Niestety, Kaczynski oszalal. Po Smolensku, albo oszalal, albo gra na 20% elektoratu, tych ludzi ktorzy wiedza ze wszystko jest zawsze wina Ruskich, bo tak ich nauczono" - Janusz Korwin Mikke

2011-03-09T13:28:00.001-08:00

2011-03-09T11:59:00.000-08:00

The Fall of the Liberal Class

2011-02-03T10:38:00.000-08:00

"The question is not: how do you get good people to rule. That's the wrong question. Most people attracted to power are at best mediocre, which is Obama, and often venal, which is Bush. The question is how do you stop the power elite from doing as much damage as possible."

-Chris Hedges

George Galloway at Pearson International

2011-02-03T10:09:00.000-08:00

"I'm standing here because I won" - George Galloway

Christopher Hitchens on public opinion polls (1992)

2010-11-20T21:42:00.000-08:00

Brian Lamb: "Is the electorate manipulated by polls?"
Christopher Hitchens: "Yes. The people who invest all this money in polling are not doing it for nothing. They are not doing it just to find out what people think. They’re doing it to try to influence what people think. Who would spend all that money just to find out what was going on? They want to be able to predict it, and therefore to mold it. So it’s an intervention in the political process."

2010-11-01T09:18:00.001-07:00

"At some point in the last 20 years, the Left moved to the center, and the Right moved into a mental institution" - Bill Maher

2010-10-25T10:52:00.000-07:00

"That was one of the things that worried me — to be raised to the position of a semi-god — because then you are no longer a human being. I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but, nevertheless, sometimes fails to live up to expectations."

Nelson Mandela

Charest rips Marois a new one.

2010-10-19T15:14:00.001-07:00

2010-10-11T08:35:00.000-07:00

"Why does everything have to be for profit?"

-Oliver Stone

2010-10-11T08:29:00.001-07:00

"This country is not overrun with rebels and freethinkers, it's overrun with sheep and conformists" - Bill Maher

2010-10-01T07:38:00.001-07:00

"In life, everything is relative — except Einstein’s theory of relativity" - Leonid S. Sukhorukov

2010-09-27T08:28:00.000-07:00

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
-Enoch 'Nucky' Thompson (Steve Buscemi)

2010-09-13T07:07:00.000-07:00

Homer: "Trying is the first step towards failure"

In comedy as in life

2010-09-07T09:04:00.000-07:00

“A British audience has all the intelligence but none of the enthusiasm...and an American audience...you can see where I’m going with this...”

-Danny Bhoy

Jessie Ventura on the vote of no confidence

2010-08-30T13:24:00.000-07:00

0:45

"I wish they had on all the ballots, be it local, state, or federal, a 'none of the above' (...) What that truly would mean is that I'm here, I'm participating in the system, I'm voting, but it's also a vote of no confidence in your government. And I believe strongly that if they did that, at local, state, and national, you would see 'none of the above' occasionally win"

Fox News the least biased news broadcast - according to some poll and...Fox News

2010-08-18T11:54:00.000-07:00

Fox News may be the best anti-dote to depression. Or a sure cause of it. It all depends on how one wants to look at it - as brainless comedy, or as heart-wrenching drama. Or both at the same time.

1:56

“You should know that in the polls (…), one taken by Rasmussen, the majority of Americans think that Fox is the least biased network out there. MSNBC was first, ABC was second, Fox was last in terms of bias…”

My first thought was that the poll was tampered with. After all, it is so easy to spin polls, either by asking leading or convoluted questions, or targeting a sample that would produce a “desired” result. Since it is obviously preposterous to even suggest that Fox News is not biased, questioning this poll’s integrity should be an instinctive reaction of any rational human being.

However, after thinking about it a little more I realized that the results may be correct and simply testament to the intelligence (or lack thereof) of an average American. After all, let’s not forget who their vice-presidential candidate was, or who was the spokesman / poster boy of her and Meverick's campaign. So if the Fox News is the least biased news network according to Americans, it says more about the Americans than about Fox News.

Also, the poll may reflect the sad truth that other major American TV networks are not that much better than Fox in the domain of objectivity. And they are NOT. Far from it, actually.

How the US created a monster

2010-08-16T10:31:00.000-07:00

"God is on your side!"

- Zbigniew Brzezinski, US National Security Advisor, 1979

(Speech to a group of Mujahideen that the US Administration armed and trained throughout the 1980's. The Mujahideen later morphed into the Taliban and Al Kaida.)

Great job, Zbig. But if I were you, I'd crawl into a cave and never make another public appearance.

Nick Clegg denounces the Iraq War

2010-08-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

The new British Deputy Prime Minister says the invasion was "illegal".

Question: where was the American media on that? When the second most powerful man in a country that was US's biggest ally in the 2003 invasion of Iraq states (during a parliamentary session of all things) that the invasion was illegal, I would think that is newsworthy.

Apparently, it wasn't. No major US network carried this story when it broke out 3 weeks ago.

It's easier to ignore inconvenient truths than to face them, I guess.

Rober Fisk on the Middle East (and Obama's impotence)

2010-08-02T07:30:00.001-07:00

0:57

“By all means we should send to the Muslim world our doctors, our teachers, etc… but we’re always going there offering democracy and freedom, and we’re arriving with our tanks, and our Abrams, M1A1 tanks, and our Bradley armored vehicles, and our horses, and our swords, always promising freedom. I calculated the other day that we now have 22 times as many military personnel in the Muslim world than the crusaders had in the 12th century. And that land does not belong to us, it is not ours, and we should leave militarily, we should take all our soldiers out. It doesn’t belong to us.”

Christopher Hitchens replies to a redneck (1991)

2010-08-02T06:25:00.000-07:00

Asked by a redneck caller if he was a communist, and asked to state his political inclinations and his country of origin, Hitchens replied:

2:40

"I'm an English-born socialist, slightly to the left of Thomas Paine (...) Like Mr.Paine, born in England, like Mr.Paine, claim the right to make a nuisance of myself anywhere I pay taxes."

I miss the old Hitchens. It's sad what happened to this guy over the years - how he evolved from a brilliant political critic into a bitter supporter of the neocon agenda.

JFK on democracy

2010-07-28T06:21:00.000-07:00

"Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us."

-JFK, 26 June 1963, West Berlin

2010-07-27T07:51:00.000-07:00

Bob Porter: Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
Peter Gibbons: I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.

TV5Monde subtitles Quebec French

2010-07-25T07:04:00.000-07:00

I caught these while channel surfing in an Amsterdam hotel:

One of the best points made...EVER

2010-07-09T19:44:00.000-07:00

“You’re in office to serve the people, and when you start talking about being in power, you really make people feel that you’re in it for the wrong reasons.”

Good old days

2010-06-21T11:00:00.000-07:00

This is what it was like before FIFA introduced a ban on playing with open cuts and wounds.

England's Terry Butcher played drenched in blood for over an hour in the game against Sweden on September 6th, 1989 in Stockholm.

The game ended in a 0-0 tie. It was a World Cup qualifier for Italia '90. Both England and Sweden made it to the tournament, where Sweden was eventually knocked out at the group stage, while England made it into the semi finals.

Click on the image to read more about that memorable match.

Enough said

2010-06-17T19:13:00.000-07:00

Ireland vs. France, con't

2010-06-11T13:32:00.001-07:00

"Pizza Hut Ireland is running a Facebook promotion that promises users a free pizza every time a goal is scored against France over the course of the World Cup. "

http://www.culture-buzz.com/blog/Pizza-Hut-Ireland-Plays-Hardball-with-France-2633.html

Could O'Reilly be right?

2010-06-10T12:03:00.000-07:00

I thought this would never happen. That in an interview conducted by Bill O’Reilly, I would actually partly side with O’Reilly and not his guest.

O’Reilly, 1:14

“But we have always had on this earth crazy extremists in every religion. I’m a Roman Catholic and we had the Inquisition (…) and I don’t necessarily agree that most people who are Muslim agree with blowing up children. I don’t think they do. Am I wrong?”

Harris 2:09:

“The issue really is – unjustifiability. For paying a terrible price for allowing people to be motivated by beliefs, because they are religious beliefs, it’s a taboo to criticize them.”

Harris dodges the question and sidetracks to a different topic altogether- that of immunity from criticism that some religious authorities demand on behalf of their religions (which is wrong, nothing on this earth should be immune from criticism), but not before showing his true colors and challenging the right to be motivated by whatever one chooses as the motivational or inspirational force. Isn’t it the cornerstone of a liberal democracy that we can choose to be motivated by whatever we desire, even if it’s little green men from the outer space? And be held responsible for what we do or commit and not by things that other people arbitrarily decide motivated us into our actions?

That’s why I disagree with New Atheists like Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and Dennet. And that’s despite the fact that I’m not a religious person myself. Because I think that if someone chooses to be religious, it’s within his rights. And if we start imposing “secular humanism” on everybody, we will be no different from religious quacks bent on converting us to their religions.

The key is to give people space and let them arrive at their own conclusions.

Solving crimes in one day

2010-06-03T10:55:00.000-07:00

While channel surfing one day, I hit an episode of CSI Miami. Even though I consider this show the most ridiculous thing that ever aired on television, I felt compelled to watch it to the final credits. And that has always been a norm with me - I was never a fan of this preposterous and silly show but whenever I caught it by accident, I always ended up sticking with it and watching it to the end.

For many reasons, I suppose. One is the comedic aspect that runs through every fiber of this "drama". From the almost comical assortment of main characters, the comical assortment of villains, to editing and direction of the show.

It is noteworthy that all the crimes on CSI Miami are always solved in one day. At the end of each episode, all characters have the same clothes on as at the beginning. The crimes are always solved with ease. A tiny piece of fabric or a hair strand is not only noticed from a mile away by a watchful member of Horatio Cane's team, but it always ends up being a groundbreaking clue. And it takes no more than a minute to analyze it. Yes, no need for any arduous and tedious lab work that is required in real life. No, the CSI Miami team does not need to bother with that. All they need to do is to plug a piece of fabric, a hair follicle or a fingerprint into the computer and wait for 10 seconds. In a blink of an eye the computer finds the culprit in the database and displays the bad guy’s mug shot along with his address.

The suspects are always apprehended swiftly (one day is all it takes) and always questioned without a lawyer present. Yes, they are too dumb to ask for a lawyer, supposedly because Horatio's evidence is so incriminating, or Horatio is simply so persuasive. So the suspects confess, even if from the looks of it a half decent lawyer would get them off the hook.

But the best part is Horatio himself. A character that is supposed to be serious, complex, and respected, is in reality comical, superficial, and pretentious. He's the reason why I don't change the channel. Horatio is just too good to pass up on. His way of talking to people, never facing the interlocutor straight on but instead standing sideways, is classic. As are the one liners that Horatio delivers at the beginning of each episode.

Enjoy:

It's beautiful out there!!! And TGIF!!! And STFU, please.

2010-05-14T08:26:00.000-07:00

Britons spend six months of their lives discussing weather.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100514-britons-spend-six-months-lives-discussing-weather

"Famously weather-obsessed British people spend on average six months of their lives talking about whether it's going to rain or shine, according to a survey published Friday."

Question: what other nation doesn't?

Weather must be the most common conversation starter and conversion filler in the whole wide world. People who have nothing to say to each other but who feel obliged to exchange a few lines 99% of the time will talk about the weather. I hear it every day in the elevator of my office building. "Hey, it's pouring out there isn't it?", "It's so sunny today, it's gonna be like this for a few days", "It's freezing out there, and they're forecasting snow, damn", "It's like -40 (winter)/+40 (summer) out there, humans have not evolved to survive in these conditions" (common in Montreal, and so f***ing true).

In all fairness, I resort to it too. Like when I get stuck in the elevator with a co-worker I have no interest talking to, but the discomfort of the situation pushes me to say something. Anything. And so I go: "Wow, it's beautiful outside. What a great day. I think I'm going to spend some time outdoors after work" (Right, I'll probably end up doing overtime anyways).

The only other conversation filler that can compete with weather is Friday. "Hey, finally it's Friday", "TGIF", "We made it through the week". Or alternatively "Oh man, too bad it's not Friday". "I hate Mondays", "3 days till Friday", "It's Friday tomorrow, yes yes yes".

If it only wasn't for these social conventions, maybe people would just shut up and enjoy a quiet elevator ride down. And then leave for home with a simple good bye, without mentioning the weather, or reminding you what day of the week it is, or any other triviality that you don't care about.

But s**t doesn't work like that. So we all end up talking about banalities of life. Just to make conversation.

And finally, la question du jour: Who commissioned this poll? Who wasted the taxpayer's money to investigate this nonsense, instead of diverting the funds to more important research, like cancer and heart disease, for example? That's slightly more important than knowing how much time the Brits spend talking about the weather, isn't it?

The British government must have a lot of money to waste. Either that or someone in their research grants department is getting a bloody hiding as we speak.

Father knows best...for 33 years now

2010-05-12T07:58:00.000-07:00

GlobalTV, May 11, 2010:

Poll shows Quebecers support right to choose language of education.

http://news.globaltv.com/entertainment/Poll+shows+Quebecers+support+right+choose+language+education/3010906/story.html

“…The poll, conducted for The Gazette by Leger Marketing, asked whether students other than those now allowed, including francophones, should have access to English-language schools if they wish.

A total of 66 per cent of a representative sample of Quebecers agreed that they should, including a 61 per cent clear majority of francophones.

Non-francophones were even more overwhelmingly in favour, at 87 per cent… “

The poll was conducted by Leger Marketing for The Gazette in response to the talk of strengthening and extension of the law that is already very restrictive and infringes on the most basic freedoms. The talk that emanates from separatist grass-roots organizations (SSJB, IF, MMF) and from both major separatist political parties (PQ,BQ).

The poll results clearly show that 33 years after the enactment of La Loi 101 in Quebec (which amongst other things prohibits Francophone and Allophone parents from enrolling their children in English primary and secondary schools), the majority of people affected by the law (61% Franco, 87% Allo) have had enough.

Although not surprising for Allophones, the results are kind of surprising for Francophones who until recently preferred to suffer the limitations on their own freedoms for the greater good of "protecting their language and culture".

Well, not anymore. The government's "Father knows Best” attitude will no longer fly. The majority seem to want some rights (taken away in 1977 with the passage of Bill 101) returned to them.

The poll results are definitely a severe blow to language militants like PQ's Pierre Curzi and Societe St-Jean Baptiste's Mario Beaulieu. Beaulieu tried to challenge the poll results yesterday:

"Quand la question est posée avec les termes de liberté de choix, tout le monde est pour cette liberté. Mais si les conséquences, dans ce cas-ci le déclin de la langue française, étaient expliquées, je pense que la réponse serait différente. "

Translation: If the question is asked in terms of “the freedom of choice”, everybody is for that freedom…

No shit, Sherlock.

The very essence of this issue is the liberty to choose vs. delegating that choice to the government. And it is obvious that the Quebecois are tired of being treated like children. And 87% of non-Francophones too. That shows where the immigrants stand on the issue.

And how else would you ask this question anyways? Is it really necessary to supplement the question with a note about "le déclin de la langue française"? Especially given that the SSJB bombards the population with this bit of information every single day.

If anything, it all means that people know, but do not care. And the question was good precisely because it was direct. It got to the bottom of it without sugercoating and clouding the matter. This poll actually illustrated how polling on Bill 101 should always be done. Instead of general questions like "Do you think Bill 101 has been good for Quebec?", polls should focus on the specifics of the law.

A general question will always yield a high percentage in favor, given the mystical aura of a "savior of the French culture" built around this law by romanticizing and melodramatic nationalists.

But take away the symbolism and ask specific questions:

Do you want to have the right to choose the language of education for your children? Yes
Do you care if public signage is predominantly French? No
Do you think that French should be one and only language of Quebec? No

Strip this law down to the bare essentials and you expose it for what it is - a set of prohibitions and interdictions that infringe on the most basic rights of every citizen.

And people affected by it are becoming sick of it. And not only immigrants, but Francophones themselves. Quite rightly.

What is most noteworthy in light of these revelations is that the pro-Bill 101 militant camp (SSJB, IF, MMF, PQ, BQ) remains undeterred in their mission to protect, enforce, and expand the reach of the failed Bill 101 - and that without noticing the obvious contradictions. Like the fact that vociferous defending of the law in its current (and extended) state: http://www.ssjb.com/contenu/mobilisons-nous-pour-la-loi-101-au-cegep, is always accompanied by lamenting at the decline of French in Quebec and Montreal (thus confirming the law's inefficiency and essentially its failure): http://www.ssjb.com/contenu/bouchard-responsable-du-declin-du-francais.

Maybe this is a good time for the militant element to reflect on the issue and to finally accept that a culture and a language cannot be maintained by prohibitions and constraints. Things like that can only be cultivated and nurtured by individuals who harbor an emotional attachment to the issue. While others may be encouraged and welcomed to participate, but never forced.

But the militants do not concur. They are willing and ready to carry on. And continue to hit dead ends, like they have been for over 30 years now. And watch less and less people care, and more and more people abandon the fight - including the major players of the movement (http://www.vigile.net/La-souverainete-n-est-pas).

It must be frustrating to be a language militant in Quebec. I don't envy them one bit.

Jimmy Carter on Palestine

2010-04-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

1:59

“What is being done to the Palestinians right now is horrendous in their own territories by the occupying power which is Israel. They’ve taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the Blacks. (…) The apartheid (in Palestine) is not based on racism as it was in South Africa, but it’s based on the desire of a minority of Israelis to acquire land that belongs to the Palestinians. And to retain that land, and to exclude the Palestinians from their own property and subjugate them so they can’t arise and demonstrate their disapproval of being robbed of their own property.”

Wise words from President Carter notwithstanding, what’s most telling about this clip is how biased the US media is for Israel and against Palestine. Even in such a brief interview that MSNBC graciously aired, the interviewer couldn't stop himself from throwing a curveball at Carter:

1:23

Interviewer, cutting Carter off: "Is it (the depravation of Palestine) even worse than in a place like Rwanda?"

again, at 1:30:

"The oppression now of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwandans and the civil war?"

What bollocks by the NBC.

First of all, the Rwandan situation is completely different. The country was ravaged by a civil war and not by a long lasting foreign occupation. Second of all, the question is not even relevant to the discussion at hand - which deals with Palestine and only with Palestine. Because even if the situation in Rwanda were more dire than that in Palestine, it wouldn't mitigate the situation in Palestine one bit. Rwanda might be one of the most impoverished countries in the world but it is irrelevant in the context of Palestine and what goes on in Rwanda has no affect on what goes on in Palestine. These two cases are not connected in any way and one can't excuse an injustice in one part of the world by comparing it to an injustice in another part of the world. The fact that Rwanda might be worse off does not make the lives of Palestinians any better.

It appears that the anchor was trying to derail Carter and get him to start comparing the two unrelated cases, and in the process downplay the injustice that is happening in Palestine. And Carter made a mistake by responding to this side track. That Palestinian situation is even worse than that of Rwanda (as Carter asserted) is besides the point. Mr. Carter’s answer should have been to ask why we are getting off course and comparing apples and oranges. He kind of said that at 1:52: "You can talk about Rwanda all you want to. I want to talk about Palestine", but only after engaging in a useless exchange that meant to deflect from the topic of the conversation.

And what's sad that it wasn't even on Fox News. This was on NBC, a station that claims to be impartial and objective.

But don’t they all claim that?

Ghosts of the past

2010-04-12T12:15:00.000-07:00

Polanski’s “The Ghost Writer” is a hit. A smart, slow moving, suspenseful thriller with a clever twist.

The story revolves around a writer (Ewan McGregor) hired to write the memoirs of a former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (played by Pierce Brosnan). Lang is on the lam from international and British justice and takes refuge in the United States. The international justice tribunal in the Hague as well as British prosecutors are pursuing Lang for his complicity in illegal prisoner renditions and his greenlighting of “extended interrogation techniques” (more commonly known as “torture”). Ewan McGregor’s character (who remains nameless through the movie and is referred to only as “ghost”) is sent to a cold and rainy island off the US mainland following a murder of his predecessor – Lang’s previous ghost writer who washed up dead on the shores of a New England beach a few days before.

Taking over from the deceased writer, the new “ghost” ends up picking up the missing pieces and follows the trail of clues left by his predecessor, only to discover an explosive secret behind Adam Lang’s political past.

The movie moves slowly but it never loses the edge. The suspense and the somber mood are magnified by the filming locations (a cold rainy island and cloudy London). Since Polanski couldn’t leave certain legal jurisdictions, he used a German island of Sylt to moonlight for Cape Cod, and the London scenes were filmed in Berlin. Both locations were very good, almost seamless replicates of the places they were meant to represent.

The chemistry between McGregor and Brosnan was very good. In this clip, the writer gets to interview his “mark” for the very first time and Adam Lang gets to explain some interesting intricacies of being a prime minister.

This scene shows the dire situation Lang found himself in.

Lang’s claustrophobia might be something that Roman Polanski, a fugitive from justice himself, could relate to very well. Especially now, being stranded under house arrest in Switzerland while awaiting extradition procedures. Polanski finished the movie literally days before getting arrested in Switzerland on an outstanding warrant from a San Francisco DA.

Roman Polanski's personal problems, as well as the quality of his latest movie, are one thing. Another thing is the political implications that the movie carries. The references to Tony Blair are very obvious through Adam Lang, both in the way Pierce Brosnan portrays the character and in the things he and other characters get to say. There is a scene where Ewan McGregor talks to Robert Rycart (played by Robert Pugh) - a former member of Lang’s cabinet (unfortunately I couldn’t find a clip online). Rycart talks for 3 minutes about Lang, at one point saying something along the lines of: “Has he ever made a decision that went against US interests?”. The frequent references to getting Britain involved in a war, participation in torture and rendition programs, and pandering to US interests couldn’t be clearer a reference to the real former British prime minister - Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

The movie is a treat. You can read a Rolling Stone review here.

Not to be missed.

R.I.P.

2010-04-10T22:52:00.000-07:00

Sen.Coleman and the (neocon) pack of lies

2010-02-11T06:38:00.000-08:00

George Galloway, former British MP, testifying to the US Senate Committee on the Oil for Food Programme, May 17, 2005:

"(...) and I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies,
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction,
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to Al-Kaida,
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001,
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country,
and that the fall of Baghad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right, and you turned out to be wrong, and 100 thousand of people have paid with their lives [casualty count as of May 2005]."

Chelsea vs. Arsenal, and the glorious snubbing of the Super Bowl

2010-02-10T13:18:00.000-08:00

Last Sunday, on February 7 2010 (the day of the Super Bowl), Matt Damon appeared at Stamford Bridge in London to watch the Premiership's clash of the titans: Chelsea vs. Arsenal.

Watch Chelsea v Arsenal in Sports | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

It turns out Matt is a Chelsea fan, and is rumoured to hate Tottenham.

And apparently he prefers European football (a.k.a. "soccer") to American football.

Good man, Matt. Way to go.

But rethink the Chelsea thing. Please.

Raffarin and the old refrain

2010-02-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

I have to thank the Mouvement Montréal Français and their website for providing a constant supply of entertainment. The conspiracy theorists of the MMF monitor and report on the decline of French in Montreal, Quebec, and the world, and get involved in various initiatives to "promote" French, which in most cases amounts to weeding out anything English from the city of Montreal.

Reading the MMF website is almost a hypnotic experience - one gets truly mesmerized by the ramblings of the paranoiacs. Occasionally, however, an interesting piece is presented.

Today, there was an article posted on the efforts of the French government to fight the decline of French at the U.N. Former French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin was dispatched to the U.N. headquarters in New York to "endorse" a more frequent use of la langue de Molière by the United Nations bureaucrats, paper pushers, janitors, diplomats, etc... French is one of the official languages of the U.N., but in reality its use has been in a slow but sure decline. One of the tasks monsieur Raffarin undertook was to test Ban Ki-moon's (UN secretary-general) knowledge of French. Mr.Ki-moon is proficient in English, but not so much in French.

We all know that in the bygone era, French was the language of diplomacy. That is no longer true today. Not only in the U.N. but also in the E.U. and other organizations. Today, French has been replaced by English in most international institutions. The late Stefan Meller, a great Polish diplomat and Poland's former ambassador to Paris, wrote in his memoirs that these days the common language amongst all European diplomats of different origins is almost exclusively English, EXCEPT for the French diplomats, who get offended by this and insist on using French.

It might be hard for the French to accept, but it's how things are. The time is up. Finito. The good times are over. So instead of fighting with nature and singing the same old refrain about the importance of French (yawn), why don't they just do what the rest of us did - learn English and get on with it.

And instead of waiting (in vain) for everyone else to learn French, it would make monsieur Raffarin more good to practice his English:

I couldn't summarize this whole spectacle better than this:

"Deal with it, mon ami [Jean-Pierre Raffarin]. It's time to get with the programme. Like for the rest of us, learning English as a second language is both easier and more practical than learning French. The writing is on the wall: this world will not take foreign language imperialism from a bunch of old guys who dress funny, monsieur!"

Amen to that.

The "old guys who dress funny" are members of L'Academie Française, an institution whose aim is to "promote" French in France and abroad. It is a sort of a MMF on a larger, more pretentious scale. At least the MMF people have more decency not to dress like clowns...although...hold it...no...I take it back...They can dress like clowns too, on occasion.

It's also funny how these two organizations can claim to protect linguistic diversity and pretend to only limit themselves to fighting the omnipresence of English, and then go and do this.

I guess dressing like a clown makes you one too.

The Sopranos intro - Montreal link

2010-02-01T11:01:00.000-08:00

The best-ever intro of the best-ever TV show:

Music by Leonard Cohen, one of a few world-famous Montrealers:

"You woke up this morning
Got yourself a gun,
Mama always said you'd be
The Chosen One.

She said: You're one in a million
You've got to burn to shine,
But you were born under a bad sign,
With a blue moon in your eyes.

When you woke up this morning
All that love had gone,
Your Papa never told you
About right and wrong.

But you're looking good, baby,
I believe that you're a feeling fine, shame about it,
Born under a bad sign
With a blue moon in your eyes.

So sing it now

Woke up this morning
Got a blue moon in your eyes

You woke up this morning
The world turned upside down, Lord above,
Things ain't been the same
Since the Blues walked into town.

But you're one in a million
You've got that shotgun shine, shame about it,
Born under a bad sign,
With a blue moon in your eyes.

Woke up this morning
Got yourself a gun

Got yourself a gun
Got yourself a gun."

The Great and the petty

2010-01-28T11:37:00.000-08:00

François Pienaar, played by Matt Damon, reflects on Nelson Mandela’s stance after the collapse of Apartheid in South Africa.

0:21:

"I was thinking about how you spend 30 years in a tiny cell, and come out ready to forgive the people who put you there."

The movie Invictus recounts the events of 1995, when Nelson Mandela rallied the South African rugby team to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup in an attempt to bring his divided nation together. Against all odds, South Africa won the tournament, beating in the final the team that was at the time unbeatable - the All Blacks.

Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner for almost 3 decades, and he spent most of his prison term on Robben Island in a tiny cell.

Having become the president of South Africa in 1994, he worked tirelessly to unite his country and to reconcile South African blacks with their (and his) former oppressors.

In the movie, Mandela is played by Morgan Freeman. In this clip, he speaks to his black compatriots:

0:35:

"They [the whites] are our fellow South Africans, our partners in a democracy (…) I know, all the things they denied us, but this is no time to celebrate petty revenge, this is the time to build our nation."

What can I say? Mandela was one of the greatest men that ever "grazed" this earth. It’d be very hard, for anyone, to reach his level.

But compare that with political "leaders" who have never experienced oppression in their entire lives, who spent their lives living in one of the best countries in the world, who enjoyed the standard of living offered by this country, yet they still want to dish out petty crap.

Well, some people are born great, and some are born petty.

But they just don't get one basic, fundamental thing: you can't build a real nation on pettiness and malice.

To build a nation, one needs a Nelson Mandela. But, unfortunately for them, Quebec nationalists don't have someone even with an iota of Mandela's quality.

Never had, never will.

A spoilt brat he may be, but he gets this one right

2010-01-28T10:40:00.000-08:00

0:56:

"It's an old idea [Quebec as a nation] from the 19th century, it's something that is not relevant to the vibrant, extraordinary culture that is Quebec, Quebec as being such an amazing part of Canada. Nationalism is based on the smallness of thought that closes in, that builds up barriers between people, and has nothing to do with the Canada that we should be building. We need to start looking forward, and unfortunately some people these days are wrapped up in this idea of nation for Quebec".

Enough said.

More teeth, less brain cells

2010-01-26T11:46:00.000-08:00

During my daily round of "youtubing", I stumbled upon this clip:

0:31:

“C’est à dire, ça, la solidarité, ça, une société tolerante, ça, des outils politiques, les outils qui nous permettent de mieux vivre ensemble. Et ce rêve là, c’est un type d’idealisme qui a finalement déclenché chez moi un desir d’arrive en politique.”

Huh? A tolerant society? Solidarity? Idealism?

This is from the guy who once said:

"We can't take away their [Montreal Anglophones/Allophones] right to vote because that is a right we cannot control because we are still a province within the federation. Obviously, the day when the country is there, we will control citizenship, which will have more teeth, if I can dare to say so." (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=292b8f48-37af-4a1c-aefe-307d41537b86)

Here, the same genius explains the “necessity” of application of Bill 101 to CEGEPS:

1:04:

“On s’inquite des pleusieurs phénomènes qui sont fondamentalement des phénomènes de culture. Il y a sur le même espace 2 cultures qui s’affronte, et dans cet échange entre les cultures, on veut, disons, preserver la presence de culture francophone. Un des phénomènes, et j’ai dis bien un parceque il y a pleusieurs endroits où on doit intervenir, c’est la question de cette migration d’une cohort, d’environ 13000 etudiants qui à chaque année desert, en quelque sorte, le secondaire pour consituer un cohort de 13000 Allophones et Francophones qui vont continuer leur études en Anglais, leur études collegials, et pour une bonne part des leur études universitaire (…) C’est qui va arriver, ca vas exercer une pression accrue sur la langue de travail, et ultiment la difficulté pour nous de faire de progress au niveau de la francisation de milieu de travail et defer le recul. Comment faire? Ce soit ne rien faire, ou la loi 101, et pour le moment il n’y a pas d'autres manières de resoudre ou d’apporter les solutions à ce problème là.”

Huh?

Let’s break up this diatribe:

- there are 2 cultures that “confront” each other? Or one culture that tries to sweep all others aside?
- Allophone and Francophone students choose English CEGEPS? So what? We are living in North America, Pierre. Can’t sweep that fact under the carpet…
- Allophone and Francophone students choose English universities? Have you heard of McGill, Pierre? One of the top North American universities? What’s wrong with going there?
- The “francisation” of the workplace? What if a company operates in another language and does well?
- It’s either “do nothing” or “Bill 101”? Let me guess, you will go with Bill 101.
- There are no other ways to resolve this? Really? Maybe you’re too thick to think of them?

George Orwell in his Notes on Nationalism wrote:

"By 'nationalism'... I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

Nationalism is what is often mistaken for patriotism in Quebec. There is nothing wrong with patriotism. But whereas patriotism is an inward emotion, nationalism is an outward action. What Pierre Curzi is doing is not promoting his language, but imposing it on everyone else. He is not personally (or privately) content with his language and culture, he wants to "spread it" like the Gospel. Furthermore, instead of limiting himself to plugging his concept of social interaction and to endorsing his way of life (constructive actions), Pierre Curzi is more committed to removing the alternatives (destructive action). Banning access to (very popular!!!) English institutions, imposing a certain language in the workplace (without consulting the workforce), telling people what their common language should be (even when the people in question are perfectly content with another language) are all good examples of it.

As usual, Orwell got it right...

I won’t waste any more breath on this creep Curzi. (I’ve already wasted half an hour of my precious time transcribing his rant and commenting on it)

Instead, I will ponder the words of a great man...

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others”

...and breathe a sigh of relief. Not everything has gone to shit. There are good men left in public life. Too bad it's the scumbags that grab all the attention lately.

Why we fight

2010-01-25T09:07:00.000-08:00

Robert Fisk, on what it takes to be a good war correspondent:

12:50:

“You’ve got to be able to write with passion, and you’ve got to have the freedom to write angrily and to point out the bad guys. If I see a massacre, I don’t hesitate to say who’s done it or why I think they did it (…) Simon Kelner, who’s my editor at The Independent. (…) wants his correspondents out there on the front lines, saying what’s it like and saying who the bad guys are, and usually it turns out they’re all bad. (…) I remember once Ed Cody of the Washington Post (…) was taking me around Lebanon on my first battle in the civil war in 1976, and he said: “Bob, a lot of people will tell you the Israelis are right, or the Syrians are right, or the Palestinians are right, or the Christians are right, or the Muslims are right…” and then he said: “believe me, they’re all bastards”. (…) What he was trying to say was that there are no good guys in war. And he’s right, there aren’t (…) Movies give you the idea that war is about victory and defeat, heroism and cowardice. It’s not. War is primarily about the total failure of the human spirit. It’s about death and the inflation of death. And if you don’t realize that, you’ll die in a war. Forget Hollywood."

Empire of (Dis)illusion

2010-01-12T06:15:00.000-08:00

The most recent book by the Pulitzer Prize winning author Chris Hedges has hit the stands. The man who brought us "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" (an account of his personal experiences as a war correspondent in places like Nicaragua, Bosnia, and Iraq), "Losing Moses on the Freeway" (based on Kieslowski's brilliant 10 part series "Dekalog" - 10 Commandments), "American Fascists" (a scathing attack on the Christian Right in America), and "I Don't Believe in Atheists" (a scathing attack on the New Atheist movement led by Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) is at its best again. In his latest book ""Empire of Illusion", he dissects the decomposition of the American culture and society.

The book is broken down into 5 chapters: The Illusion of Literacy, The Illusion of Love, The Illusion of Wisdom, The Illusion of Happiness, and The Illusion of America. Every one of these chapters is a fascinating read.

In a very uncompromising way, Hedges tells his American compatriots that they have been and are living in the land of make-belief. The population in which 40 million people are illiterate and another 50 million read at a 4th grade level, where millions more are not interested in reading (some 40% of university graduates in the US never read a book after graduation), and where print-based media are in decline, the main source of information comes from the corporate-owned television that lies to us at every step of the way. Be it the foreign (i.e. interventionist) policy or domestic (i.e. social) policy. In addition, we are fed cheap and mindless entertainment, from American Idol to Survivor, that gives us an illusion of happiness and keeps us from thinking and questioning.

Hedges also discusses the financial crisis of late 2008, when the bubble burst and the society that lived on credit had to face reality. Unfortunately, it was the people that the banks and the Wall Street speculators lied to that took the hit. Their jobs got put on the line, the houses went into foreclosure, all while the Wall Street got billions of dollars in bail-out money. The "Yes, we can" Obama has turned out to be just another corporate-owned president. (I wasn't very surprised, I always found "Obama-mania" to be a product of a PR spin for the credulous and naive, although the McCain-Palin duo would have been much worse, no doubt).

American universities are not spared by Hedges either. With an increasing corporate funding and influence, the places of learning and independent thought have turned into manufacturing plants that produce "system managers", people molded to sustain the system, not to question it.

American health care system, almost a too-easy target, is touched upon as well. HMO-run system whose sole purpose is to maximize profit and not care for the ill is, according to Hedges, non-reformable. The "health care reform" must amount to overhauling the existing system and replacing it with a framework whose goal would be to care for the sick, not to generate profits for shareholders.

At every level, the system is a failure. It is sustained only because people's judgements have been clouded. It is sustained because the people have been marginalized and turned into apathetic, passive spectators instead of being active participants in the democratic process (see the election turnouts nationwide, at local levels they are often in single digits, in presidential elections they do not go higher than 60%).

The corporations gave people illusions to which they cling as they are getting fleeced and cheated. Hedges concludes that it's those illusions that turn a nation that wages illegal wars, keeps penal colonies where torture is commonplace, does not care for its poor and sick, rewards greed and manipulation and punishes honesty and hard work, into the best democracy in the world. Most Americans believe that they are a perfect democracy, even as their system is falling apart.

For a more detailed review of the book, go here:

http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2009/12/06/truth-power-empire-illusion-interview-chris-hedges

And here is an excellent, 1-hour long, interview with Hedges about his latest book:

http://www.booktv.org/Watch/10883/After+Words+Chris+Hedges+Empire+of+Illusion+Interviewed+by+Ron+Suskind.aspx

The book is available in hard cover in fine bookstores everywhere (I got mine at Indigo-Chapters, corner of McGill College and St-Catherine).

Highly recommended.

Maudit Toyota

2009-12-18T08:41:00.000-08:00

The new Toyota ad strirred up controversy in Quebec:

http://videos.argent.canoe.ca/video/choix-de-lediteur/choix-de-lediteur/21160528001/toyota-retire-une-publicite-controversee/57727690001

I have to say that it is one of the smartest and most engaging ads I've ever seen. As catchy tune is playing in the background as we're shown snap shots of several recent global and Canadian events. We see the fall of the Berlin War in 1989, the liberation of Nelson Mandela, the ice storm of 1998, Obama's victory in 2008, amongst others.

So where's the controversy, you ask?

At 01:40, you will catch a snap shot of the pro-Canada rally on the eve of the referendum in October 1995. You'll see a giant Canadian flag floated around the Phillips Square by the crowd (with absolutely no mention of the political circumstances of the event). And you'll see it for exactly 1 second. Yes, at 01:41, the clip passes to something else.

Big deal, most people will say. But some people (surprise, surprise) will get offended.

Having realized that the ad may offend the sensibilities of some rather sensitive individuals in La Belle Province, Toyota opted to remove it from the Quebec market, tweak it a little, and reintroduce it with the 1 second Canadian flag bit replaced by an image of "organic fruits and vegtables".

03:31 - "L'image de referendum a été remplacé par des fruits et des legumes biologiques"

"C'est sur que des bananes, ca porte moins que la grand drapeau portée par la foule. Effectivement" - 03:40

C'est vrai, monsieur. The Canadian flag carries a stronger connotation. A positive connotation. For most for us, at least. And I'm not talking about the controversy surrounding organic food either.

The ad will continue to be shown in its original, "offensive" form in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, we will be seeing it in the censored form. So that our children can sleep tight and not have nightmares.

On behalf of all the children, I thank you, Quebec.

The Power of Preconceptions

2009-12-17T08:45:00.000-08:00

Tariq Ali, a British political observer of Pakistani descent, on the US foreign policy, war on terror, 9/11:

04:32 -

“My book rejects the argument that if you’re not with us you’re for the terrorists. It’s a bogus argument. It’s an argument used to drown dissent. It’s an argument used to make war without allowing an opposition to exist and without permitting that opposition the voice, because if you’re not with us, you’re for the terrorists. Absolute nonsense. One can be neither for George W. Bush and this particular war NOR the terrorists. That is the position I defend and this is the position that has to be defended if we’re going to move forward from this crisis which has arisen after September the 11th”.

May I add that it is also possible to be against the Israeli policy towards the Palestinians WITHOUT being an anti-Semite. If one considers that Palestinian victims of the IDF’s excursions into the occupied territories are to be mourned too, as are the Israeli victims of terrorist attacks, one is NOT an anti-Semite. A death of a Palestinian mother and her child killed in Nablus or Ramallah by an Israeli sniper is EQUALLY sad and disheartening as a death of an Israeli mother and her child killed by a suicide bomber on a Tel Aviv bus. If one equates the two deaths, one is NOT an anti-Semite. One is NOT anti-Isreal. One is NOT against the Jews having the right to exist and defend themselves. One is simply an objective observer. Moral equivalence is good, not bad. Are you listening, CNN? Are you listening, FOX News? Are you listening, the American mass media?

One can be against Hamas AND against the IDF. One can decry Palestinian rocket attacks on Isreal AND Isreal's razing of Palestinian villages. These things do not have to be mutually exclusive. They are NOT. They are both CRIMES.

Closer to home, it is possible to oppose some restrictive provisions of Bill 101 and not be a “Francophobe”. If one disagrees with certain parts of the language law in Quebec, it does NOT mean that one wants the French culture in NA to disappear. It does NOT mean that one hates the Francophones. It does NOT mean that one is a "Quebec-basher". It does NOT mean that one sides with the Anglophones. It simply means that one disagrees with parts of some law. An arbitrary, man-made law, enacted in the times of nationalist euphoria and the climate of revanchism. Are you listening, les Patriotes, le RRQ, le MMF, monsieur Landry?

One can be for the preservation of the French language and culture in North America AND be against discriminatory language laws. One can support the efforts to curb the decline of French AND oppose the efforts to eliminate other languages from public space.

Also, if one argues that West Island Anglophones choose to "segragate" themselves in their "ghetto", one must also allow for an argument that Francophone Quebeckers are doing the same thing on a larger, continental scale. If, on the other hand, one argues that the Quebecois are just protecting their culture and language, one must also grant the same excuse to West Island Anglophones. We either criticise both, or we don't criticise at all. (I, for one, criticise BOTH)

This is something that must be understood before we even start debating. All facts and events need to be examined independently, without generalizations, pre-conceptions, associations, or stereotyping. The mindset has to flexible, not fixed, so one can see the shades of gray besides the black and white. And the rule of equivalence must be applied, because if it isn't, then we will get NOWHERE. We will remain as polarized and entrenched as we are.

But, unfortunately, it's hard for some to grasp this basic, fundamental concept. Or maybe they don't want to grasp it. After all, it's easier to live by generalization. It does simplify life, I'll give you that.

But isn't it also short-sighted and limiting?

Probably is.

The 2010 World Cup Draw - impressions

2009-12-07T11:53:00.000-08:00

The groups have been drawn:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/livedraw?cc=5901&ver=us

Group G is the closest to what one can call a "group of death". In it, Brazil will face off against Portugal and the top African team - Ivory Coast.

Group D should be interesting too, where Germany will play against a very strong Serbian side, a decent Ghana team, and Australia that has come a long way and is now a team that can surprise against anyone.

In Group A, France, a team that shouldn't have made it, will match their skills with Uruguay, Mexico, and host South Africa. Although the French are very happy with the draw, I wouldn't underestimate any of the sides in their group. Uruguay and Mexico know how to play ball, whereas the hosts are always dangerous. In fact, the host nation never failed to progress beyond the group stage in the history of the World Cup.

In Group B, Argentina will play a tricky fixture with Nigeria. There is also Greece and South Korea, two teams not to be trivialized, but the Argentinians should beat them if they put their minds to it.

Group E favorites - the Netherlands, will bump heads with two tricky opponents - Cameroon, one of the top African sides, and Denmark, who beat Portugal and Sweden in their qualifying group.

The other 3 powerhouses lucked out and drawn opponents that shouldn't cause too many problems. England, Italy, and Spain should all top their respective groups. The match-ups that are not to be missed for these teams are:

England - USA (June 12)
Italy - Paraguay (June 14)
Spain - Chile (June 25)

But the real fun will not begin until the playoff round, where theoretically-possible fixtures in the Round of 16 include:

Argentina - France
England - Germany
Holland - Italy
Spain - Brazil or Spain - Portugal

It will be even juicier in the quarter-finals. The better of the best, one step closer to the coveted trophy.

All in all, it should be pretty competitive and entertaining.

Let's just hope there won't be too much cheating.

Although that is wishful thinking. I know.

The Scoundrels Inc.

2009-12-01T11:09:00.000-08:00

At the last Parti Quebecois convention (November 21/22, 2009), one of the issues discussed was the extension of Bill 101's educational provisions to CEGEPs:

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/277758/la-loi-101-doit-etre-appliquee-au-cegep-reclament-les-militants-pequistes

Under the current regulations, Quebec's Allophone and Francophone children are obliged to attend primary and secondary schools in French, but are free to choose between French and English language of instruction at the post-secondary level. Many Allophone parents (50% according to latest stats) - and quite a few Francophone parents as well - choose to send their kids to English CEGEPs to ensure that their children master English - the language of North American majority (320 million speakers) and the world's lingua franca.

All this shady plotting by the PQ comes only 3 weeks after Montreal's municipal elections (November 2, 2009), in which Allophones unanimously rejected pequiste candidate Louise Harel, and unanimously voted for Gerald Tremblay, a man embroiled in a corruption scandal but unaffiliated with Quebec's nationalist movement. This caused quite an outcry in some of Quebec's media, who joined forces in accusing Quebec's non-Francophones of "non-democratic spirit". (Francophones split their vote 3-way amongst the 3 candidates, non-Francophones fixated on Tremblay):

http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Municipales2009/2009/11/01/024-Tremblay-vainqueur.shtml

This sort of rhetoric accompanies pretty much every election in Quebec, be it municipal, provincial, or federal. Non-Francophones hardly ever vote for the PQ, BQ, or any candidates even loosely associated with these parties. But what Quebec nationalists do not get is that this voting pattern has nothing to do with a lack of democratic spirit. It is really about choice. It's about choosing not to vote for people who, let's see...hmmm...would work hard to prevent our children from mastering the English language. People who will never accept us for who we are. People who will never leave us alone. People who won't rest until they make the clones of themselves out of us.

But what they are too thick to understand is that what they are trying to do is physically impossible. Immigrants come to Quebec with a set of loyalties and attachments deeply engrained in them based on the history and values of their countries of origin, as well as on their own personal experiences. And as long as their beliefs and practices do not clash with the general western values, there is no point in even trying to modify them.

I ain't no Freud, but the "modification therapy" served to us by the PQs and BQs of this province seems to be doomed to fail. It's because it is impossible to change someone who does not want to change. So while some ground rules need to be laid out by the welcoming country (for example, that extremist customs, like sharia, won't fly), the customs that aren't harmful to the functioning of a liberal western democracy should not be tampered with. It's a waste of time and energy for those on the giving end (i.e. them) and a highly annoying burden for those on the receiving end (i.e. us). It creates rifts in the society. It polarizes it. It sets people against each other. But it accomplishes nothing besides that.

But PQ's esteemed social engineers do not concur. They do not like the fact that immigrants might think differently, vote differently, speak differently, and may be loyal to something else than Le Quebec Libre. So they want to change us. And that is exactly why we, the immigrants, prefer a crook who will let us be, to a devout ideologue on a mission to shape and mould us and our children into "perfect" neo-Quebeckers.

So...just 3 weeks after the great debate in the separatist media entitled "why don't the immigrants vote like us?", the answer has been served on a silver platter at the PQ convention. And it is really easy to make that connection. After all, the two events are only 3 weeks apart.

It doesn't take Einstein to link them up.

Adski's top 10 Stones tunes

2009-11-26T15:18:00.000-08:00

1. Gimme Shelter
2. Under My Thumb
3. Sympathy For The Devil
4. Wild Horses
5. Paint it black
6. 2000 Light Years From Home
7. Angie
8. Satisfaction
9. You Can't Always Get What You Want
10. Jumpin' Jack flash

Opening the next 10:
11. Like A Rolling Stone

There is no third way

2009-11-22T12:41:00.000-08:00

In the aftermath of the Henry incident, two ways of dealing with the flaws of soccer refereeing have been discussed at length: video replay and extra referees. A third option has been suggested yesterday on Soccer Central on Sportsnet: asking the player (i.e. the culprit) to admit that he committed the infraction. If he owns up to it, the play is ruled out. If he denies it, the play stands, but the player faces a possible ban.

The problem with it is that it would create a dangerous precedent where decisions are taken out of referee's control and given to the players. Players that have cheating in their blood.

Would a match ban or suspension be enough of a deterrent? Doubtful. Especially if the game in question is at the beginning of the qualifying round, where players can easily afford to sit out a couple of insignificant matches. And who would decide if the offense merits a suspension and for how long the suspension should last? Some FIFA committee that wants Henry and France in the World Cup anyways? Please.

Also, how would a suspension of the offender help the team that was wronged? What does Ireland have to gain from Henry's match ban?

I'm sure that even if the third option passed, players like Henry would manage to find ways to weasel out of punishment and get away with it. After all, "the ball just touched my hand. It was really an instinctive move", Henry could say. And the FIFA stooges on the committee would nod and agree. After all, they don't want to downgrade the marketing value of the World Cup, do they?

So no, gentlemen. Don't give us the player ban. Give us video replay. Cool?

And as to Gary Neville of Manchester United who publicly defended Henry's "character" yesterday, I suggest Gary stops embarrassing himself and does some research:

An error in the "war on terror"

2009-11-20T09:08:00.001-08:00

We all remember the images broadcasted by all major networks at the end of March 2004. Four civilian US contractors were ambushed and brutally murdered in Fallujah on March 31 2004. The burnt and mutilated remains of Scott Helvenston and Michael Teague, two of the 4 killed contractors, were strung up on a Fallujah bridge by the enthusiastic mob.

The events that transpired on that day were used by Bush propagandists to deflect from more relevant issues and shift the attention to the Iraqi resistance. “This is the kind of folks we are fighting against”, said el presidente Bush. Innocent civilian contractors, brutally murdered by a mob of savages. Plain and simple. We were the good guys trying to save the Iraqi barbarians from themselves.

Well...contractors they were, but not so innocent and not so civilian, as it turned out...

One of the consequences of the Fallujah ambush was that a company that managed to stay in the shadows up until then was brought to the spotlight. That company being Blackwater Worldwide (then known as Blackwater USA). A private security company that takes former military and law enforcement officials and turns them into guns-for-hire. Blackwater calls their people “security contractors”, the critics call them “mercenaries”. The 4 men killed in Fallujah on March 31 2004 worked for Blackwater.

The rise of Blackwater has been very meticously researched by Jeremy Scahill and presented in the book “Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army”. In it, Scahill retraces the history of Blackwater from its humble beginnings in the swamps of North Carolina in the mid 90s, through its ascent to the status of a multimillion enterprise.

The company was founded in 1997 by Erik Prince, a former Navy Seal with strong connections to the Christian right. Blackwater started as a training facility where US law enforcement officials outsourced the vetting and training of their recruits. Until 2001 the company enjoyed a steady growth that took off exponentially once the “war on terror” was declared by the Bush administration.

Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to employ private contactors on a large scale in the war effort. It was actually Cheney’s pet project since the time he was Secretary of Defence in Bush I's administration. In the first Gulf War, he lobbied for the use of private security companies, which in the 1991 campaign ended up comprising 10% of US forces deployed in Kuwait. In the second Gulf War, this percentage went up to 50. Which means that half the US forces operating in the Iraq theatre were not strictly military, but para-military. Occassionally, the army and the contractors fought side by side, as in Najaf, on the 4th of April, 2004.

Deployed with US forces in April 2003, Blackwater set themselves up all over Iraq. The company won several major US State Department contacts in the occupied country, including the guarding of Paul Bremer, the appointed Governor of Iraq.

As hard as Blackwater tried to keep a low profile, the true nature of its involvement was bound to come out. Prior to the Fallujah incident, Blackwater operatives have managed to make a terrible impression on the Iraqi people. Rather quickly, they gained a reputation of aggressive, disrespectful, arrogant, trigger-happy goons in cheesy combat uniforms, who with the utmost contemptous attitude pushed the locals around on their home soil. Incidents of serious abuse perpetrated by Blackwater occured on regular basis all over Iraq, as the contractors employed a shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy, committing numerous acts of violence and murder, and inflicting misery on the Iraqi civilian population.

Unlike the army, Blackwater did not answer to US military laws. It was also out of US civilian jurisdiction. By pro-consul Paul Bremer’s 17th decree (Order 17), they were also immunized from Iraqi prosecution. That essentially granted them an above-the-law status, a free hand. The lack of judicial oversight translated into their behavior.

Unfortunately for Blackwater, the Fallujah incident was too graphic and too widely publicized for the company to sweep under the carpet. In its wake, Blackwater's founder and CEO Erik Prince was forced to stand before a bi-partisan congress committee and for the first time answer some serious questions:

He also had to come out of his fox hole and grant some in which he cynically defended his company:

Concurrently, Blackwater unleashed an aggressive PR campaign aimed at clearing its name and presenting the company in good light.

Despite the emerging controversies, Blackwater continued to do well under Bush and even managed to diversify. It started hiring foreign nationals (e.g. Chilians trained by Pinochet), opened itself up to different markets (e.g. US-led war on drugs in Columbia), and started production of their own weapons that included armored vehicles, helicopters, and gun boats. Blackwater allegedly even contracted some military aircrafts from Boeing.

The private army was growing more powerful with the blessing of the neoconservative governement obsessed with privatization and outsourcing. Blackwater managed to secure some major Homeland Security and FEMA contracts on US soil itself. Its mercenaries were the first security people on the scene in New Orleans in 2005 after hurricane Katrina hit. They were on the ground conducting armed operations in the legal vacuum of Louisiana's largest city, in the absence of army, police, or any other law enforcement agency. Armed goons driving around the recently flooded streets of a major US city, keeping an eye on the victims of a terrible natural disaster. Not a scary prospect anymore, but a scary fact.

The use of mercenary forces in Iraq, Afganistan, and elsewhere has been very convenient for the Bush administration. Their casualties go unreported - the killed contractors are not included in the official body count. And unlike the US military, private contactors do not answer to the public, even though most of their income is generated from taxpayer's money funnelled by the government into Blackwater accounts. US laws regulating the use of private contractors are ambigous. The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 is the only legislation in the US judicial system regulating these matters. The prohibits the use of private security contractors by the government but is rather ambiguous and can be sidestepped easily. So until clear laws are passed, the crimes committed by companies like Blackwater can go unpunished. The judicial system can be evaded and criminal prosecution avoided as no legal levarage exists for prosection to lean on. As of today, all legal action against Blackwater came not from criminal but from civil suits.

What are the implications of this for the US as a country, as a democracy? Outsourcing their wars and security operations to the private sector. Relinquishing the control and oversight over their military actions.

Luckily, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

In June 2007, in response to a civil suit, a federal judge ordered the military to temporarily refrain from awarding the largest security contract in Iraq that Blackwater was bidding for.

Blackwater was also sued in by the families of the 4 Fallujah victims for negligence and by the abused Iraqis themselves, who came to the United States to seek justice in US courts. The charges that the Iraqis are filing against Blackwater are not for negligence, but for murder.

Finally, in May 2009, the Iraqi government stepped up to the plate and ordered Blackwater out of their country.

The ball is rolling now. Let's hope some neocon heads will roll too.

Ireland calls for match replay

2009-11-19T08:12:00.001-08:00

http://www.soccerway.com/news/2009/November/19/ireland-calls-for-france-world-cup-replay/

Update:

They didn't get the rematch. Surprise, surprise.

The (not so) beautiful game

2009-11-19T06:58:00.000-08:00

The luck of the Irish has run out. Ireland has been run out too. Out of the World Cup, that is. >Robbed of a place in the upcoming event.

Today, Irish international Robbie Keane >lashed out at FIFA and UEFA and accused them of cheating Ireland out of a win against France.

Even the Irish government got involved in the row.

In yesterday’s game, Ireland dominated throughout and scored a goal that leveled the aggregate 1-1. In extra time, as the game was heading for the penalty kick shootout, France scored a controversial goal that made the aggregate 2-1 and allowed France to go through. It was controversial because Thierry Henry evidently handled the ball, not once but twice, before making the pass that led to France’s equalizer:

Apparently, Henry forgot it was a soccer match, and not a game of handball.

Too bad for the Irish. The deserved to qualify. They showed great spirit and determination as they went after France from the opening whistle to the very end. They were the better of the two teams. France, on the other hand, was just a shadow of its past greatness. Team made up of aging stars way past their prime. Early retirement would be more fitting for Les Bleues than a trip to South Africa in 2010.

Whether FIFA plotted against Ireland or not is not provable. Unfortunately, the problem lies elsewhere. It’s with the game of soccer itself, and the room for error and manipulation that exists due to the lack of instant oversight. Soccer is one team sport that doesn’t allow time stoppage and video review. The game is officiated by one referee with two assistants on the sidelines. With the speed of the modern game, it is impossible for referees to be on top of everything, especially if the players deliberately and persistently mislead them. And refs fall for this trickery half the time. What is obvious to millions of viewers watching the game on their tv screens is not obvious to the one man that matters – the game official.

Honest refs that get misled is one thing. Fixing matches is another. The inability of teams to contest referee decisions by reference to video recording essentially makes one man the master of their fate. He makes all the decisions. He awards free kicks, penalty kicks, doles out yellow and red cards. His judgement is final and irreversible. The room for manipulation is wide open. If the ref is paid off, or even slightly biased against a team, he can do a lot of damage.

Cheating by the players is also noteworthy. Unfortunately, it is in the blood of every soccer player to be dishonest, to pretend, to act, to simulate fouls. All the great players do it: Rivaldo, Rooney, Gerrard, Christiano Ronaldo, ... Henry.

For fun, ESPN compiled the top 10 soccer dives:

Soccer coaches are cynical about the lack of quality in refereeing. They can be very critical and bitter of it when their teams get wronged, but ride the wave and turn a blind eye when things go in their favor. Just listen to any press conference of Alex Ferguson, Rafael Benitez, Arsene Wenger, or Jose Mourinho, to name a few. If injustice happens to their team, they cry unfairness. If injustice happens to the opponent, they all sing the same tune: “I haven’t seen it so I can’t comment. I will need to review it”. Raymond Domenech, France's coach, said he didn’t see the incident. No surprise there. I wonder what he'd be saying if it was France that got wronged.

It seems the entire football community is in on it.

So what’s the solution?

Both FIFA and UEFA oppose a possibility of allowing video review claiming that stoppage time and appeals for review will ruin the fluidity of the game. True. But is the current state of affairs any better?

And why stonewall all other initiatives of improving the game? Like Michel Platini’s suggestion made 2 years ago that a pair of refs be placed behind the penalty area, on each side of the net. It’s a great idea!!! Most cheating and trickery goes on in the penalty area. Most controversial decisions are made in the penalty area. Most action happens in the penalty area. There needs to be more oversight in the friggin' penalty area.

Ironically, Henry’s handball(s) would have been easily caught by the extra referee standing next to the goal post. Gallas’ goal would have been flagged and ruled out. The game would have been decided honestly – in the penalty shootout. If France won on pk's, nobody would question their victory.

But everyone questions it now.

In a post match interview, Henry admitted his wrongdoing, but told reporters to blame the referee. "I played it. The ref allowed it. That’s a question you should ask him," Henry said. Well, I blame them both. The jackass referee, and the jackass cheat Thierry Henri.

And I blame FIFA and UEFA for allowing this state of affairs to go on.

The rules of refereeing must change. Something’s gotta give.

The scoundrels amongst us

2009-11-17T19:28:00.000-08:00

George Galloway, former British MP, an icon of the left, on BBC News 24 HardTalk:

(at 0:59)
Stephen Sackur: "Are you proud to be British? "
George Galloway: "Being British is an accident of birth. If you forgive me, that’s just the patriotism which Dr. Johnson called “the last refuge of a scoundrel”. I’m proud of many things that British people have done and I’m ashamed of others. I’m proud of many things that French people have done, and I would be ashamed of others. I’m a human being, a believer in God, I’m a European person, I’m a Scottish person of Irish background who lives in Britain. But all of these things were accidents of birth. "

I just wish these scoundrels would take a minute to listen to Galloway's words of wisdom and reflect on them, before going out to mindlessly chant Le Québéc aux Québéçois!!! (2:42 and throughout):

...and this scoundrel before politically endorsing them:

...and this scoundrel before putting this divisive nonsense on paper.

A little self-reflection. Ça leur ferait du bien.

But self-reflection is impossible if your head is up your ass, and your brain is running on auto pilot. If you're walking through life with blinders over your eyes and plugs in your ears.

And it'd be a different story if things like La Marche des Patriotes were isolated events attended by a handful of crackpots. But when well-spoken, educated, bilingual politicians choose to openly endorse them and effectively stoke the flame, it is where the whole thing stops being a funny joke and starts being a sad joke.

Rumble over Charlie

2009-11-16T08:20:00.000-08:00

It wasn’t a pretty reception that Prince Charles received in Montreal last week. About 150 protesters gathered around the Black Watch building downtown Montreal to shout abuse and invectives at His Royal Highness. Charles' grand entrance to the regiment building was delayed by 40 minutes, as the police in riot gear scrambled to push the protesters back and clear the way.

The protest was organized by Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (RRQ), a self-proclaimed militant organization dedicated to securing Quebec’s independence from the ever "oppressive" Canadian regime. People in Tibet, Kurdistan, Gaza, and East Timor wish they were under this kind of oppression. Where after a demonstration in Beijing, Ankara, Tel Aviv, or Jakarta, instead of being thrown into dangeons and tortured, they would get into their brand new SUVs and drive to their 2-story houses in the suburbs to spend the rest of the day watching tv on their 40 inch LCD screens. I guess Canada is tyrannical in a more subtle way.

And so the protests and disturbances proceeded as planned on November the 10th.

In all likelihood, however, most Quebeckers do not care either way about the British monarchy in general, and Prince Charles specifically. Just like the rest of the world. Today, even in countries that are part of the Commonwealth, the indifference to the Crown is obvious. As in Australia for example, where former Prime Minister John Howard even suggested that Australia should drop its symbolic association with the British Royal Family. In Britain itself the royalty has been out of the game for a while now, having been stripped of its influence on British policy making, both foreign and domestic, a long time ago.

So the passionate and aggressive nature of the protests carried out by the 150 overzealous men and women in Montreal is mind boggling, given the irrelevance of the target. Target that doesn't deserve more than a yawn.

But the level of hostility to the phenomenon that should invoke nothing more than indifference reached its peak in Montreal.

Sad but true.

And when it seeemed like this whole thing couldn't get more absurd, it did. The RRQ and La Societe St-Jean Baptiste issued a demand that Prince Charles apologize for “cultural genocide” of the French in North America.

A demand far fetched and hypocritical.

Firstly, the British never pursued an active policy of extermination of Francophones after the conquest of 1759. The Francophones were removed from the position of power and effectively sidelined and marginalized, but no attempts to physically annihilate their population in North America have ever been made by the British.

Secondly, the French were colonizers just as were the British. They came to North America with guns, subdued the native population, and appropriated their lands. They were eventually beaten by a more powerful colonial power but t lost control ONLY of the lands that they themselves colonized 2 centuries before that.

How can Quebec nationalists talk about genocide (that never happened) with a straight face and lay arrogant claims to the lands that they stole from other people to begin with? How are we supposed to take them seriously?

I think that Quebec nationalists should pause for a minute and think about similarities between them and the British monarchy, rather than differences. And apologize for the cultural genocide of the Indian population under the French rule prior to the arrival of the British. And for failing to do anything to improve their conditions, in recent years or ever.

Or at least have some humility and drop this victim shtick.

It's getting old.