Nexuses

en voilà un article intéressant ! Maintenant, on comprend mieux pourquoi Arlette Laguillier s’acharne avec ses "travailleuses, travailleurs"

il y a un paquet de mots sur lesquels on peut faire cette analyse, ce qui permettrait de deconstruire tout discours mystificateur de quelque nature qu’il soit. 

sinon le problème du vocabulaire n’est pas nouveau. et, par exemple, ce n’est pas pour rien que l’Académie Française existe, cette institution, a priori, poussiereuse, quasi desuete, dont on ne sait à quoi elle sert. mine de rien, sa fonction est aussi de veiller à ce que un norme reste la norme. par exemple, imaginez que cette institution décide que le mot citoyen, veut dire tout simplement "habitant d’une cité" (ce qui d’ailleurs est exact, selon son ethymologie) vous imaginez le chambardement politique ? et du même coup la question du droit de vote des etrangers est reglée d’un seul coup, d’un seul. 

la lecture de Michel Foucault, vous aurait également été très profitable pour cet article. à l’occasion, jetez un oeil sur son ouvrage "Les mots et les choses". (juste des extraits, le livre est plus complet ! LOL)


 

"Si des contribuables paient moins d’impots qu’ils devraient, c’est l’ensemble des contribuables qui paient à leur place pour le budget de l’état. "

mouais, chui pas convaincue.

l’amendement ne prévoit pas d’augmenter les impôts des autres. que certains payent moins, ne suppose pas que d’autres vont payer à leur place, et donc payer plus.

cependant, je suis outrée par cet amendement, comme je suis outrée par le bouclier fiscal ou encore le sauvetage des banques. outrée mais pas surprise, c’est une politique au service de l’argent, uniquement l’argent. mais avec Sarkozy on savait où on allait ... oui enfin sauf peut-être les 53% qui ont voté pour lui.

durant la campagne presidentielle, il a tapé à tout va sur les "assistés" mais on savait qu’il voulait juste que l’assistanat change de camp. voilà c’est fait.

l’article et beaucoup de commentaires sont très interessants. certains commentaires très eclairants, merci.

mais.

"rembourser les pertes en bourse ... avec l’argent des contribuables"

là, j’aurais juste une petite question naïve. Comment on rembourse avec l’argent des contribuables ? est ce que cet amendement prévoit d’augmenter les impôts des autres, pour combler le manque à gagner ?

si un boursicoteur déduit ses pertes de ses impôts, il payera donc moins d’impots. Mais en quoi il sera remboursé avec MES impots ? 

@ K

ces salariés ont joué aussi, et ils ont perdu eux aussi. placer sa prime sur des actions, pouvait rapporter si les actions montent, ça gonfle la somme. mais placer sa prime sur un compte bloqué elle bouge pas.
ils ont choisi de bousicotter. il faut etre naif pour acheter des actions bloquées 5 ans !! alors que la bourse bouge tous les jours, et tout peut arriver.
il fallait tout simplement opter pour le compte bloqué, ils n’auraient rien perdu de leurs primes. 

ils ont joué, ils ont perdu. Point. ce sont les règles du jeu de la bourse. il faut en accetper les consequences. Point.

 c’est interessant de voir d’autres points de vue.

The Reverse-Bradley Effect

The WashingtonPost.com
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102328.html
By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 ; 12:00 AM

At this juncture, I wouldn’t want to bet even a subprime mortgage on this presidential election. As perhaps never before, multiple hidden factors could alter the outcome.

Judging by polls, it would seem that Barack Obama will be our next president. Monday’s Washington Post-ABC tracking poll, for example, showed Obama even winning 22 percent of conservatives and getting 12 percent support among Republicans.

But polls only reflect what people say they think, not what they really think.

Which is to say, we have both an election and a shadow election in progress. The latter, in which unconscious motivations come into play and buried prejudices surface in the privacy of one’s voting space, is the one that counts — and that can’t be quantified in advance.

The 2008 election may prove to be history’s highest stakes game of Liar’s Dice.

Among the hidden factors is the so-called Bradley Effect, meaning that whites lie to pollsters about their support for a black candidate. It is cited as the reason Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost to George Deukmejian in the 1982 California governor’s race, despite polls showing him up to seven points ahead.

But equally significant this time may become known as the Reverse-Bradley Effect : whites who would never admit to voting for a black man, but do. And, expanding the definition somewhat, Republicans and conservatives who would never admit to voting for a Democrat, especially one so liberal. Whether these dynamics are in balance won’t be known for a while — or perhaps ever. That’s because the crux of the reverse syndrome is a code of omerta.

No one talks.

While some have minimized the impact of a Bradley effect in this election, we’d be wrong to discount it. Anti-black has morphed to some degree into anti-foreigner and anti-Muslim.

"Palling around with terrorists," as Sarah Palin said of Obama, gets to an underlying xenophobic, anti-Muslim sentiment. Using surrogates who strategically use Obama’s middle name, Hussein, feeds the same dark heart.

This tactic, denied but undeniable, has been effective with target audiences, some of whom can be viewed on YouTube entering a Palin rally in Pennsylvania. One cherubic older fellow totes a stuffed Curious George monkey wearing an Obama sticker as a hat.

"This is little Hussein," he says, holding the monkey up to the camera and cackling as he walks away.

To McCain’s credit, he has tried to correct his audience — when, for example, a woman said she couldn’t trust Obama because he’s an Arab. Gosh, wonder where she ever got that idea ? But the McCain-Palin bad cop-good cop routine is what it is. The hot babe lathers the crowd ; the noble soldier hoses them down. This isn’t a campaign ; it’s a sideshow.

Nevertheless, it is fair to concede that a few fruitcakes — those who yell epithets or make racial slurs — are not representative of Republicans, any more than those now Photoshopping ugly (and violent) depictions of Palin should be considered typical of Democrats.

One can hope that the uglies will cancel each other out. That leaves an X Factor of possibly exponential proportions that includes not just the Bradleys, but the Reverse-Bradleys.

I’ve received too many e-mails and had too many conversations that began, "Just between you and me," and ended with, "I wouldn’t want anyone at work to know," to believe that this is an insignificant trend.

Sitting quietly at their desks are an unknown number of discreet conservatives who surprise themselves as they mull their options. Appalled by McCain’s erratic behavior, both in dealing with the financial crisis and his selection of an unsuitable running mate, they will quietly (and with considerable trepidation) vote for Obama.

Are they are worried about higher taxes, a premature withdrawal from Iraq, and Obama’s inexperience in matters executive ? You betcha. But they do not want to vote for a divisive, anti-intellectual ticket headed by a man who, though they admire him, lately has made them embarrassed to be Republicans.

Should Obama win, it will be in part because some number of quiet, mostly white-collar men and women who speak Republican in public voted Democratic in private.

Whatever the final tally, Obama should not interpret his victory as a mandate. Many of the Reverse-Bradley ballots won’t have been votes cast for Obama, but against a campaign turned ugly. They also will have been delivered with solemn prayers that Obama will govern as the centrist, pragmatic leader he is capable of being.



www.nexus-et-jonction.com/