4 mai 2008
7
04
/05
/mai
/2008
17:50
Partager cet article
(Veuillez cliquer sur le texte ci-dessus afin d'accéder au billet)
| L' affaire Wolfowitz (selon P.-V.)
Ce qui irrite le plus P.-V., n'est pas le fait qu'un tel ou tel ait une romance (la passion n'est-elle pas ephemere?...bref, passons, chaque passion, qu'elle soit de nature sentimentale ou autre, doit etre respectee...!) avec une subordonnee?, ni le fait qu'il y ait eu des avantages quelconques...(d'ailleurs P.-V. s'en fout, alors-la... vraiment eperduement...P.-V. fait sa vie car il a d'autres "priorites" bien plus importantes...). Non, ce qui "irrite" le plus P.-V. dans cette affaire, est le fait qu'une personne qui savait (pertinemment?) qu'elle serait, des le debut (de son mandat) sous le feu "des project-(-ils/-eurs) mediatiques", ait tout de meme "eu le culot?" d'enfreindre certaines regles qui a ce niveau (ultime) sont "tacites" [les regles]. |
Hasta,
el vuestro Pancho Villa-n europeo...
(Lex est Se..., ehm...Rex ?)
(Oder die Behauptung dass 'die Welt' z.Z. '...To his mind, democratic ideals had deteriorated, voters were largely ignorant about issues and policies, they lacked the competence to participate in public life and cared little for participating in the political process. In Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann noted that the stability the government achieved during the patronage era of the 1800s was threatened by modern realities. He wrote that a “governing class” must rise to face the new challenges. He saw the public as Plato did, a great beast or a bewildered herd – floundering in the “chaos of local opinions." The basic problem of democracy, he wrote, was the accuracy of news and protection of sources. He argued that distorted information was inherent in the human mind. People make up their minds before they define the facts, while the ideal would be to gather and analyze the facts before reaching conclusions. By seeing first, he argued, it is possible to sanitize polluted information. Lippmann argued that seeing through stereotypes (a word he coined) subjected us to partial truths. Lippmann called the notion of a public competent to direct public affairs a "false ideal." He compared the political savvy of an average man to a theater-goer walking into a play in the middle of the third act and leaving before the last curtain. Lippmann said the herd of citizens must be governed by “a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality." This class is composed of experts, specialists and bureaucrats. The experts, who often are referred to as "elites," were to be a machinery of knowledge that circumvents the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the "omnicompetent citizen". Modern critics of journalism and democracy say that history has borne out Lippmann's model. The power of the governing elites, they argue, stretches from the early days of the 20th century to the New Deal of the 1930s to today. Lippmann came to be seen as Noam Chomsky's moral and intellectual antithesis. Chomsky used one of Lippmann's catch phrases for the title of his book about the media: Manufacturing Consent. Philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) agreed with Lippmann's assertions that the modern world was becoming too complex for every citizen to grasp all its aspects, but Dewey, unlike Lippmann, believed that the public (a composite of many “publics” within society) could form a “Great Community” that could become educated about issues, come to judgments and arrive at solutions to societal problems....' |
"La sua e una posizione molto netta." "La chiesa proclama che la vita umana va protetta dal concepimento alla morte naturale". (4c...foresee...) |
"La sentenza dell' ordine dei medici di Cremona sull' operato dell' anestesista che ha sedato Piergiorgio Welby, e poi gli ha staccato l'ellettroventilatore che lo teneva in vita, potrebbe suonare pero come una condanna..." |
// -->
// -->
