State Of The Union(s)

Emmanuel MACRON: 'Please don't go'
Angela MERKEL: 'You know I don't need translation when you talk to me that way'
Donald TRUMP: 'I should build a wall between these two. Maybe Russia will pay for it, I'll ask Vlad'
Melania TRUMP: 'Did I pick the right vert-de-gris color? The mustard of my pollution mask matched so well, but after the colonial helmet disaster in Kenya, my staff advised against keeping it on'
...

This great shot (by François MORI / AP) tells a lot about how differently close two couples can be, even when each member is only one chair apart from their partner.

But don't get fooled. Merkel is on the way out, Macron remains dangerously low in the polls, and both are likely to receive major blows at the upcoming European elections. If Donald Trump lost the House, he did increase his control where it mattered most over the past few weeks: the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Without any moral leadership in sight (R.I.P. McCain, Flake, Corker), GOP lawmakers remain totally under his spell. They didn't lift a finger when Trump fired Jeff Sessions to illegally elevate to acting A.G. an open critic of Robert Mueller's Russia probe (Matt Whitaker), when Rod Rosenstein was supposed to get the position.

Democracy is losing ground to nationalism, extremism, hatred. And in this world of strongmen, the free world doesn't have any strong leader in sight. 

But we do see and hear swarms of them. We do see inspiring new faces taking a stand for human rights or gun control, strengthening diversity in Congress. We do hear powerful voices, that resonate even more when they're silenced (Anna Politkovskaya and Jamal Khashoggi had Vladimir Putin and MBS expose themselves as murdering despots).

And sometimes, we do see a majority of citizens cast a ballot against the destructive tide.

blogules 2018
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

I will vote for France

France votes tomorrow. 

 

I will vote against Marine Le Pen, because France and democracy must be protected from the most dangerous impostors.

 

I will vote for Emmanuel Macron, because this nation, Europe, and the world need positive people who reach for each other right now.

PS - My take at this defining moment (in French) : "La France ou Poutine ?"


blogules 2017
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

"A word about what we should not do"

This from the Trump Campaign: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

This. Not just yet another abomination slipping from the Provocateur in Chief's mouthpiece, but a formal, written statement published on his official channel. 

This. After the Paris and San Bernardino shootings, after Marine Le Pen's victory in French regional elections, after Obama's speech, after the rise of Ted Cruz in Iowa polls, after a call from Holocaust survivors to welcome refugees in the US...

This. Even in the US, people usually hide behind masks to make such hatemongering calls.

"What is going on" is that radicals once again set the agenda, and Donald Trump is playing their game.

"What is going on" is that France and the United States send the worst message to the world.

"What is going on" is that yes, the leaders of our democracies are weak. 

Francois Hollande is weak. Unlike after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, he chose the nationalist / military only path to pose as a strong leader days ahead of elections poised to boost the extreme right, and of course it backfired.

Barack Obama is weak because there's not much he can do: his predecessor already weakened America and democracy worldwide, and he failed to keep a majority to support him at home. No wonder the first half of his address to the nation* fell flat.

But Barack Obama is not weak when he remains clear (NSA discrepancies notwithstanding) about what America should not do, and that was the second half of his speech. America will stop being America if it follows the wishes of her most radical extremists, which happen to be exactly what ISIS wants.

I'm not sure a majority of Americans got that part of the message.

What I'm sure of, is that ISIS needs friends like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Donald Trump.
blogules 2015
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

* "Address to the nation by the President" (White House - 20151206)

Fluctuat nec mergitur

Following Friday's attacks, I posted this image of Paris from my mobile phone:

That's a simple map of my hometown, with its motto in Latin.

'Fluctuat nec mergitur' means that even when tossed around in stormy waters, the city never sinks.

I considered using the official coat of arms, but it's too loaded in symbols, particularly with these protective walls, and the King's colors:

The last things I wanted were to celebrate warfare, to mention 'divine blood' in the middle of a carnage, or to bring monarchy into this new Republican challenge*.

I opted for a satellite image showing Paris as it is. Unfortunately, that crappy app cropped the map, severing even neighborhoods that had been struck by the terrorists, adding insult to death.

When I noticed that, I considered trying again, but somehow that failure made sense: you can't sum up the horror in one picture, and humanity as a whole had been assaulted anyway. 

Humanity is not sinking.

But among humans who are sinking, a few are tempted to join extremism, which feeds upon our weaknesses, particularly when our democracies fail.

And from France, more is expected than just 'staying afloat' and surviving terror attacks. This democracy can't afford failing to honor its own motto, 'liberty, equality, fraternity'. 

---ADDENDUM 20151118---
Thank you dear Annabel Park for your kind words to the French people:

(see also the French version on blogules V.F.: "Un message d'Annabel Park")

---

blogules 2015
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

* the year that started with "#JeSuisCharlie" keeps being dotted with atrocities across the globe

#JeSuisCharlie

Je Suis Charlie.

Well. Actually, I'm rather Canard Enchaîné than Charlie Hebdo (I only purchased once a copy of the latter, about thirty years ago), but that doesn't matter.

They assassinated our Grand Duduche.

Cabu's Le Grand Duduche - twitter.com/theseoulvillage/status/552810111194783744

They murdered journalists, satirists, officers of the Republic in charge of their protection. 

But you can't kill Charlie Hebdo (for that matter, that rag is perfectly able to commit "Hara Kiri" by itself).

And by shooting on anticlerical anarchists, they shot on the Republic and on Islam. 

And post-1/7 France is not post-9/11 USA: unlike George W. Bush, François Hollande won't start a pseudo-war on terror that actually fueled worldwide terror and fundamentalism.

Ces connards ont réussi à nous réunir:

"Ces connards ont réussi... ... à nous réunir"

blogules 2015
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

Francois Hollande vs Extreme Right? Been There, Done Nothing

France's extreme right party Front National claimed almost 25% of the votes at the European election, finishing for the first time as the first party in the country, four points ahead of the UMP. The ruling Socialist Party didn't even reach 14%.


French PM Manuel Valls described the results as an "earthquake". They're even worse than 12 years ago, when Jean-Marie Le Pen finished second at the first round of the Presidential Elections, kicking socialist PM Lionel Jospin out of the race for less than 200,000 ballots. Jacques Chirac went on to win the second round, but a few months later his gaullist, conservative RPR merged into the new center-right UMP. Surprisingly, the humiliated PS refused to reform, and it had something to do with the "leadership" of its First Secretary Francois Hollande, a person who loves to talk about change, but has never done anything to prove it.

When Hollande got elected in 2012, I wrote "France refuses to change" because there was no better way to sum it up. The scariest thing is not the earthquake, but the desperate flatness of French democracy's EEG.

Francois Hollande vs Extreme Right? Been There, Done Nothing
2002 Presidential Elections in France: Le Pen reaches 2nd round
2014 European Elections in France: Front National the 1st political party
Francois Hollande 1998-2008: First Secretary of the French Socialist Party
Francois Hollande 2012-2017: President of the French Republic
2002: Gaullist, conservative RPR merges into new center-right party UMP
2014: UMP evolves into???

When democracy stalls, extremes always win. And the FN didn't even have to modify its DNA to win: Jean-Marie Le Pen claimed one region, his daugther Marine another, and Marine's mate Louis Aliot yet another.

The only good news may be the fact that the UMP is at long last forced to dump Sarkozy's doomed "rightization" strategy. In the weeks and months to come, the party will either evolve towards the center, or implode. 

The Socialist Party imploded a long time ago, but managed to win an election here and there, when its rivals played it even dumber than dumb. France cannot afford two zombies any longer.

• Also on blogules V.F.: "Séisme ou Encéphalo Plat?"

blogules 2014
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

France refuses to change

Well. Now that Nicolas Sarkozy is out of the picture, will the actual political debate start? You know, the kind with real bits of genuine ideas, ideology-free?

Let's face it: we'll have to wait some more, and probably far beyond the upcoming legislative elections. Which shall be, like the presidential elections, handed on a plate by the incumbent to the opposition because in his political suicide, Sarkozy erected an inextricable triangle between amoral populists (UMP leader Jean-Francois Cope, a Sarko mini-me), moderate reformers (former PMs Francois Fillon and Alain Juppe), and the extreme right (Marine Le Pen's Front National).

By "political suicide", I'm not refering to Sarkozy's shameless courting of Le Pen's voters, but to the very fact that this Hyper-Hype President decided to seek a second mandate, ultimate proof that the man totally lacks historical vision and distance with himself. As I forecast the very evening of his election in 2007*, Sarkozy had been awarded a very clear mandate to reform, but would risk everything should he ever try to betray the Republic by undermining its pilars (particularly secularism, and the balance of powers - executive, legislative, judiciary, media...).

The "surprise" lies in the narrowness of the score** which, combined to a massive total of blank votes, confirmed that the republican sanction against Nicolas Sarkozy was not at all coupled with a massive adhesion to Francois Hollande or to his program. In spite of the record unpopularity of his opponent, Hollande barely fulfilled the only promise he could keep: to replace Sarkozy. Should he fail to win a large legislative majority in spite of the above mentioned 'political triangles', "Flanby" would fully deserve his nickname: a brand of sweet, soft, boneless pudding, promoted to the top job simply because it happened to be there when DSK and Sarkozy committed suicide.

Anyway, by opting for a run off between two promises of denial and 'fuite en avant', the French had already decided two weeks ago to procrastinate, to refuse the debate, to refuse change. Alternation without the courage of reforming, that's cowardness, that's the non-choice, not casting a blank vote. Full disclosure: I voted for change and reforms within the Republic in the first round (Francois Bayrou), and for change and reforms within the Republic in the second round (blank vote = blank page for the future winner, who will end up facing reality and rewriting his program / BTW just like she doesn't own France, Marine Le Pen doesn't own the blank vote).

Beyond France, both leading parties are also condemned to reform themselves, and the earlier the better. Nicolas Sarkozy managed to destroy the UMP the very same way George W. Bush did with the Republican Party***, and even if they manage to get rid of 'mini-me' Cope, center-right moderates probably won't have time to sort things out before the legislative elections. Even if its 'champion' won, the French Socialist Party remains an embarrassing anachronism refusing to evolve towards a modern socio-democracy, refusing to purge itself ideologically, refusing to accept that the 'French model' must adapt to survive, refusing to consider 'solutions' that are not demagogic and not ideologically driven, refusing to consider welfare policies that are not undermining welfare state as a whole. Marine Le Pen might be the first one to officially reform her party, but make no mistake: the Front National will only rename itself to fool more people into distancing themselves from democratic and republican values.

Denial can help you win elections, but Greece show us the economical, political, and social future of democracies that stick to the self-destructive dynamics of a system based on "reformless alternation".

blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!

* see "2012 Presidential Elections in France - It's not the economy, stupid", and in French "Traitre à la nation", "Sarko triomphe - Blogule blanc aux reformes"
** FH 51.6%, NS 48.4% (or FH 48.5%, NS 45.6%, blank 5.8%)
*** see "GOP: time to split"

2012 Presidential Elections in France - It's not the economy, stupid

In 2011, America discovered that helping a young democracy could result in a new theocracy. France tried that too, back in 1776, and as of today, the result is still unclear: the President of the United States pledges allegiance on a Bible, finishing with a vibrant "so help me God", and he would never dare ending a speech without godblessamericaing the audience urbi et orbi, for fear of being considered Un-Amerikan. In this presumably model democracy, all Greenbacks are tagged with the words "in God we trust", Satanists are better considered than atheists because at least they believe in fallen angels, and self-proclaimed 'republicans' would rather be represented by a Christian ayatollah (Santorum) than a moderate Mormon (Romney).

Technically, mixing religion with politics is not compatible with democratic and republican ideals, and I already explained how, in France, putting secularism at the core of the Constitution was meant to secure both democracy and the freedom of religion, and how that fragile balance was undermined as Nicolas Sarkozy followed George W. Bush's dangerous path (see "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one").

Of course, the French democracy was threatened long before Bush or Sarko came to power. And the 'laicite' and 'egalite' dogmas didn't succeed in a truly multicultural / multicultual society.

Anyway. Back in 2007, I voted Sarkozy because France needed reforms, and only he could deliver. I didn't trust the man, but somehow counted on the vast majority of UMP lawmakers to prevent him from breaking his very formal pledge to respect the French brand of secularism. Of course, Sarkozy implemented only a small part of the necessary reforms, and broke his pledge. He followed Bush's missteps to the tiniest detail, undermining the delicate balance of powers at all levels (executive, legislative, justice, media, religion...).

I can't imagine how low the French economy would have dived had Segolene Royal won the 2007 elections, but we would probably be very glad to maintain double A ratings. Yet unlike most his European counterparts who got the pink slip following the (first) depression, Sarkozy will not be judged by the economy: he simply cannot be re-elected because he betrayed the nation.

His main rival, Francois Hollande, also happens to be an impostor. He even received a boost from Sarkozy, who believed he could play the same trick as in 2007: I have my friends in the media push a weak and hollow candidate (then Hollande companion Segolene Royal), I vampirize the extreme-right with preemptive strikes in the no-man's land between 'law and order' and outright fascism, and I leverage my reputation as a doer.

Hollande is not as weak and hollow as he seems to be: he shares some of the key 'qualities' that helped his model, Francois Mitterrand, reach the top... only not the qualities leftist voters wished he had. And unsurprisingly, the worst enemy of Hollande happens to be Mitterrand's archrival Michel Rocard.

Traditionally, the French have their hearts on their left, but their wallets on their right, so they tend to vote for a center-right candidate. Fourty years ago, Mitterrand, a conservative with an ambiguous Vichy background, highjacked the Socialist party and managed to build an artificial platform where the Communists brought the votes needed to claim the Elysee Palace. Rocard, the reformer who dreamt of transforming a patchworked party into a modern social democrat powerhouse, was sidelined before witnessing, helplessly, his side fail miserably each time it claimed victory (most notably: ill timed, ideology driven 'reforms' in the early eighties or late nineties).

Holland lacks experience in governments, but he already proved his inability and unwillingness to reform the Socialist Party when he was Secretary General. Worse, instead of seizing the momentum when he finally was chosen as the party champion, he opted for yet another impossible consensus. Needless to say, his majority is bound to fail.

So the choice for those 2012 elections is clear: continuity, alternation, or change.
- Continuity means Nicolas Sarkozy and a moral collapse.
- Alternation means Francois Hollande and a deeper decline for French economy and politics.
- Change means either Marine Le Pen and the Front National, a French Revolution for the worse, or Francois Bayrou and the MoDem, a bet on the ability to build a national alliance government with moderate reformers from both sides.

Back in 2007, I hesitated between Bayrou and Sarkozy: the former would have made a good and fair president, but he didn't have the capacity to reform. Now France could be ready for a less partisan approach. Furthermore, a Bayrou victory would necessarily lead to the much needed reforms of both the Parti Socialiste and the UMP. The PS remains one of the few dinosaurs sticking to XIXth century politics, and the UMP needs to discard un-republican (no cap letter, please) elements from its platform.

The worse is that even top members from both leading parties are not enthusiastic about their own champions:
- socialist 'elephants' know Hollande is a fake but the right has never been that weak ahead of a Presidential election (even the Senate sports a socialist 'pink'), and nice positions are up for grabs in the government
- UMP leaders know Sarko doesn't stand a chance, and they already prepare for 2017 and the ineluctable failure of Hollande. Francois Fillon plans to conquer Paris and to capitalize on a strong performance as PM, while Jean-Francois Cope shamelessly carves himself into a Sarkozy mini-me.

Compared to Nicolas Sarkozy's, Barack Obama's reelection bid almost looks like a stroll in the park: both performed relatively well on the economic front, but the POTUS can put much more blame on the opposition, including during his tenure (after the 'sound economy of 2008', last year's budget mess...), and the Republican Party is even more divided, ideologically crippled, inconsistent, and unfit to govern than the French Socialist Party.


blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!

2004 inverted

Justice !!! Rupert Murdoch the amoral Kingmaker drowning in his own slime, George W. Bush the amoral Chief Torture Officer about to be indicted by Human Rights Watch...

Of course, neither Murdoch nor Dubya are in jail yet (heck, even Alberto Gonzales is walking free !), but the 'winners' of the 2004 elections have definitely moved closer to the 'losers' category. Note that the GOP joined the said category even before those doomed elections*, torn between classic conservatism and a cocktail of theocons + free market ayatollahs willing to destroy the Republic itself...

Of course, the US of A remain in danger of bankrupcy or worse, of a relapse into moral bankrupcy. Of course, UK politics remain under "Dirty Digger"'s spell, David Cameron prolonging Tony Blair as Murdoch's Prime Puppet.

But at long last, some fingers are being pointed to the right direction (and when I write 'right' I don't necessarily mean it literally).

Now France too has significantly evolved since 2004. But certainly not in the right direction (except maybe literally).

Remember France, that longtime US ally crucified for mentioning the risks that Bush's crusade in Iraq might fuel worldwide terror instead of taming it (yeah, France, that good friend of African and Middle Eastern dictators) ? Remember France, that herald of mutual respect denouncing the clash of civilizations imposture (yeah, France, that place where only sportsmen and sportswomen can succeed if their skin is too dark) ? Remember France, that country where Murdoch's Weapons of Mass Disinformation couldn't strike except for a one shot French edition of the Sun making fun of Chirac, or the infamous 'cheese eating surrender monkey' uttered in an episode of the Simpsons (yeah, the less unsung France, that country where medias consider off limits the dirty secrets of their most respected politicians) ?

Well that France is passed on ! This France is no more ! It has ceased to be ! It's expired and gone to meet its maker ! This is a late France ! It's a stiff ! Bereft of life, it rests in peace ! If you hadn't nailed it to the UN Security Council it would be pushing up the daisies ! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians ! It's hopped the twig ! It's shuffled off this mortal coil ! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible ! This is an ex-France !

Over the past few years, Nicolas Sarkozy has been dutifully** following Dubya The Perfect Fundamentalist's to do list :
- undermining the republic's safeguards ? check.
- extending the executive power's sphere against all other powers (legislative, media, justice...) ? check.
- pushing for an end to the separation between the state and religion and palling around with Ratzinger ? check.
- widening all national divides, starting with his own party ? check...

And now, Presidential Elections that have Karl Rove's fingerprints all over them.

Well. As far as Dominique Strauss-Kahn is concerned, Sarko's diggers didn't have to venture too deep into the pigsty : DSK knew perfectly that they were coming at him, but apparently the guy is too sick to control his own behavior...

But for Martine Aubry, an Angela Merkel wannabe and now their main target, here's their story : the socialist mayor of Lille would be a lesbian and an alcoholic (I thought they would save that last one for Jean-Louis Borloo, a center-right contender with a solid reputation in that field), and her husband would be a dangerous radical Islamist.

Of course, just like Bush in 2004, Sarkozy decently cannot win the elections in 2012 : that would be an insult to the Republic and a tragedy for the country, and bring absolute shame on French voters.

Well fool me once...

blogules 2011 (see also in French blogules : "Un Novembre 2004 a l'envers")

* see "GOP - Time to split"
** see "Traître à la nation"

The K-pop bubble

Pop, that's the sound of a bubble when it bursts. Not your usual, big fat speculative bubble, no : rather the cute, ephemeral, soap edifice of a kid.

But K-pop is not much of a child's play : here, no room for innocence, chance, or unexpected wind twists. In this overformatted industry, creativity only exists in the way products are marketed, with a focus on viral and addictive gimmicks.

In a certain way, K-pop mirrors Korean society in this early IIIrd millenium, but not in its most sustainable aspects : visual and auditive over-stimulations including immediate reward systems, a dystopia founded on extreme competition and superhuman training leading to the negation of nature and systematic plastic surgery, mushrooming virtual communities offering the security of belonging without any ideology-related stress...

Yet, nothing new under the sun. As far as music is concerned, of course, but also regarding the business model : you simply have to adapt classic boy / girl bands recipes, and to progressively inject some of Hollywood majors' tricks to lead a young and docile audience along the slowest and most controled maturation process. SM Entertainment & co plan to alter their product mixes step by step, so that consumers don't churn as they grow older. Longer lasting K-pop groups have already developped embryos of proto-intellectual alibis, illusions of brainwaves because you don't want to believe your favorite singer is "a mental midget with the IQ of a fencepost"*.

Does it sell ? You betcha : as soon as the first contagion signs showed in Europe, K-pop marketers rushed to Paris with their whole Barnum.

Not exactly the kind of cultural bridge I dreamt between Asia's and Europe's heralds of cultural diversity... But I'm getting used to it : a couple of years ago, I was crucified by Uzbek or Japanese Bae Yong-joon fans because I deplored the way 'dramas' were promoted overseas, or the vacuity of Yonsamania (sorry but Korea shouldn't be summed up in that Hallyuwoodian caricature of Michael Jackson).

Hopefully, theses fads won't last. And something positive can even grow from them : the most daring fans will reach deeper into Korean culture, its language, and its fantastic cuisine**.

blogules 2011 - see also "La bulle K-pop" on blogules in French, "K-popping bubbles" on SeoulVillage.com (join Seoul Vilage on Facebook, on Twitter).

* in the musical universe, Tom Waits is probably the ultimate anti-K-pop element : an ugly fella with a rough voice and crafting incredible songs by himself (this line belongs to "The piano has been drinking (not me)", best served in the album "Bounced Checks").
** another cultural domain where the Korean government has been promoting exports a not always subtle way...

Show me the money, Mr Strauss Kahn

If DSK's outrageous, $35,000-a-month new home in NYC was hard to swallow for fellow French socialists, the former IMF boss doesn't care much about politics these days. And the message is first intended to the alleged victim's lawyers.

Here it goes :

We cannot contact you, but know that money is not an issue for us.
It may be for Nafissatou Diallo, that client of yours, a brave single mom maid coming from a poor African country and living in a not so nice neighborhood. She can't offer you much beyond the satisfaction of doing something good for her and furthermore for Cyrus Vance Jr, that ambitious DA who will never make it into the Big League.
You already know that this trial won't be a walk in the park for you nor for Nafissatou : our own teams have been digging everywhere, and you know how nasty things can become. Our client's honor has already been tarnished*, but he's ready to put that aside. A nice, fat settlement would be a win win win situation, don't you think ?
Name your price.
Yours falsely.

blogules 2011

* see former episode : "DSK's appallingchian trail"

DSK's appallingchian trail

Yes, I'm a French citizen but no, I have no more sympathy for Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn than I had for Roman Polanski.

Unlike the latter, the former has not been convicted yet, but his troubled personality is at last being publicly exposed and that's a good start. Excellent news for the alledged victim, but also for France, for the French Socialist Party, and for DSK himself.

Good news for France ? All my country needed was a non deforming mirror to expose its own troubled personality : a Republic claiming liberty, equality, and fraternity, but actually a corrupt system promoting impunity, unfairness, and collusion between politics, justice, and the media.

Good news for the PS ? DSK was expected to be the target of a well deserved character assassination much closer to the Presidential elections, so the party has more time to look for a decent plan B, and if possible to look for a consistent program, one that aims at the political center and not at the impossible synthesis between progressive and obsolete currents. In the mirror, what they see is a leadership that failed to address the issues that really matter, that forgot what politics should be all about.

Good news for DSK ? This man is obviously sick and in denial of the danger he represents. Even before the alledged assault, Strauss Kahn was perfectly aware of the attacks to come on this very dark side of his personality... He too needed to have a good look at himself in the mirror.

So thank you, Dear America, for this embarrassingly precious mirror.

But please, this time, spare us your usual fake happy endings (OJ, Wacko Jacko...), and go all the way.

blogules 2011

Detox

It was definitely high time for me to come back to Seoul for a good doenjang jjigae. Here is the indecent menu of my 9 dinners and 9 lunches in Paris :
- andouillette
- Britanny galettes
- grilled sausages
- couscous at Charly's
- chili con carne
- Relais de l'Entrecote
- paella
- "canette de barbarie rôtie aux olives pommes sautée"
- delicatessen
- light salad picnic at the Luxembourg garden (the odd one, probably the reason why my arteries didn't explode during the flight back to Korea)
- gastronomic dinner at Les Bouquinistes
- Relais de l'Entrecote redux (just to check something about their damning sage sauce)
- lasagna
- kebab
- black pudding with apples
- vietnamese pho (second odd one, but there's some beef inside)
- Savoyard fondue
- pot au feu stew with bone marrow

Of course, I spare you the breakfasts (croissants in Saint Germain des Pres, kouign amann - tarte tatin duet, cheese platter...) and snacks (aah, La Pâtisserie des Rêves... and thanks again Francois for that tea at Jacques Genin's - caramels were a huge success too).

Well well... All at building my Sasquatchian carbon footprint, I couldn't find the time to do everything I wanted to do nor see all the friends I wanted to see... Mea maxima culpa. Et meus maximus stomachus.

blogules 2010

GOP meets Poujadism

When Karl Rove says the Tea Party should keep distances from the GOP*, what he actually means is that the GOP should stay away from this political dead end.

But if the Architect knows a few things about winning and losing elections, I don't think he is familiar with French Poujadism, the movement which inevitably comes up to my troubled French mind each time I hear about this laughingstock of a Tea Party.

During the early 1950s, Shop owner Pierre Poujade defied the French tax system and founded a party that surfed on a collapsed political system to claim 400,000 members and more than 50 seats in the National Assembly... where the absence of program of the movement became an embarassment for everyone. Charles de Gaulle's comeback put an end to the doomed IVth Republic, and Poujade's Union de Defense des Commercants et des Artisans left for ever the political centerstage.

Pathetic indeed. But one can worry a bit more about what could happen in a country where a certain Joseph Stack III just crashed his plane on an I.R.S. building in Austin, TX**... Furthermore, among UDCA's law"makers" was Jean-Marie Le Pen, who later founded the extreme right party Front National... I wouldn't be surprised to find this kind of "great democrats" within the Tea Party's dream team.

Hardcore taxophobes are not comfortable with the very concept of a state, and such platforms never bloom in healthy democracies because they are, fundamentally, anti-democracy.

Populism and tax breaks sell well in the short term, but only simple minds stick to it whatever happens. For instance : the same voters who followed G. W. Bush on that path are now mad at Obama because he doesn't know how to reduce Dubya's abyssal deficits with more tax reductions.

Unlike Poujadism, the Tea Party is purely grassroot and lacks a leader. Ron Paul might fit the job, but Sarah Palin proposed to take the helm at the inaugural National Convention in Nashville, TN, reading from her Palm Pilot (actually a low tech model counterfeited by John McCain). Sarah Tea Party Palin... what a match.

We already saw how Palin represented the no-future of the GOP ("Sarah Palin and the Segolene Royal Syndrome - The GOP on the same path as the French Socialist Party"). So a Tea Party Spin Off with Mrs Theocon on board would definitely leave some space for Republicans who actually respect the republic (see "GOP : time to split").

Anyway, instead of following the ones who yell and destroy, GOP leaders would better sit down and think. Even if it means losing the upcoming elections - actually, THAT could come as a blessing : they decently cannot postpone their own reforms any longer.

But Democrats shouldn't rejoice too soon : if the popular success of the Tea Party unmistakably corroborates the ideological collapse of the GOP, it also is a gorilla-sized canary in their own coalmine. And they must prevent the most liberal aisles to stretch beyond the limits of the republic. Obama took the blame and seems to be correcting communication to restore some of the truth : OK, I didn't deliver the goods, but I had a few bads to take care of first.

blogules 2010

* "Where the Tea Parties Should Go From Here" (WSJ 20100219)
** At least, a political crash of the GOP wouldn't cause much damage.

Change has come to Japan.

Change has eventually come to Japan.

The country decided to face its own past, and to reach for its neighbors in a joint effort to restore tragic facts as parts of a common history : confirming the hopes raised by Hatoyama's election, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada called for joint history text books between Japan, China, and Korea*, and revived the courageous position of former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, who apologied for "damage and suffering" under colonial rule, called for an end to nationalism, and urged fellow Japanese citizens to face their own past.

Indeed, the time has come to set the record straight, and to silence for good ultra-nationalists from all sides, particularly after years of incessant provocations**.

From all sides ? Very much like Obama's speeches denouncing choices made by his predecessor sucked arguments out of warmongers overseas as well as in the US, Japan's call for justice upon itself will expose the impostors who needed such provocations to fuel their own nationalist agendas.

If China is more than eager to cope with say the Nanking Massacre, I'm not sure Beijing regime is willing to abandon its own outright revisionist programs : English scholars recently mocked at China's attempts of claiming (or rather "hanschlussing") Goguryeo civilization : as if England decided to claim Germany !

Korea itself hasn't yet fully come to terms with its own darkest moments but keeps, as it should, investigating and correcting past wrongdoings.

Yet, not everybody is happy with this, and diehard nationalists keep lobbying against the Truth and Reconciliation Commission***. Doing so, they are actually undermining the nation's efforts to emerge as a great nation on the international stage. Because contrary to what they pretend, more revelations won't bring shame but only pride, respect and praise from other nations.

As a French citizen, I've always felt at the same time an immense respect for Germany and the way post-WWII generations were educated about Nazi atrocities, and ashamed by how late France started admitting its own contributions to the genocide, or its wrongdoings as a colonial power.

As a country accepts its past weaknesses, it strengthens itself for the future, and sends the best message to its youth and to the world. A nation respecting lessons from history is a great and future proof nation.

As it welcomes an invitation for truth and reconciliation from Japan, Korea needs to support its own Truth and Reconciliation Commission more than ever.

And together, Korea and Japan must send the best message to the region and to the world, as role models for a new, peaceful Asia.

blogules 2009

see also "A Common History" on Seoul Village

* see "Japanese foreign minister suggests joint history texts" (JoongAng Daily 20091009)
** see too many previous blogules on Japan and China.
*** on Seoul Village : "President Lee, please keep digging".

ADDENDUM 20091012
This post was published in JoongAng Ilbo today under the title "Japan may face its history"

France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one

As soon as Nicolas Sarkozy said that Burqas were "not welcome" in France, the debate rippled across the World.

I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.

I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").

I should say the same double misunderstanding :

• classic misunderstanding : fundamentalism is about politics, not religion. Claiming independence from fundamentalism is about saving democracy, but also about saving freedom of religion... see my usual pitch about the fundamentalist imposture ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
  
• cultural misunderstanding : France's very specific flavor of secularism, and the cultural exception (particularly compared to the US) regarding religion in general

Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.

So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".

But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :

=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.

Typically, some woman do wear the burqa of their own free will, and fundamentalists do claim that burqas defend the dignity of women because they are protected from the gaze of men.
We must naturally stand strong in the women's rights and freedom of religion debates, but we must also position ourselves on different planes to embrace the true nature of the subject and the true nature of fundamentalism.
Because burqa is not "a problem of religion", but a problem of politics. And a Burqa doesn't protect a woman from male gaze : integral coverings in general (burqa, niqab, masks hiding the face) withdraw people (male or female, of their own free will or not, those are yet other stories) from the watch of the Republic. Accepting this would mean accepting the most essential claim of fundamentalists : their strict set of principles supercedes the laws of the Republic. And in France, what burqas do is to put people beyond the reach of law in a secular Republic, which makes it even more offensive*.
Actually, Sarkozy didn't raise the burqa issue in Versailles out of the blue (chadri ?) : he merely reacted to many complaints by mayors and representatives of the Republic who noticed the incompatibility of such garments with the exercise of law (not to mention, of course, complaints of human right activists, women, moderate Muslims...).

=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.

Sarkozy is talking about a garment, but certain people can interpret his words a very different way : "territory" and "our values" resonate very well in extreme right circles, where xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia... and the ultimate theocon-neocon myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" rule*. Typically, radicals like peroxyde-blond Geerd Wilders, who enjoys full support from Israeli Jewish fundamentalists as well as from European Christian fundamentalists, wants to ban the burqa... but as a part of a more general ban on Islam !
Such hatemongers complain about "the Islamization of Europe" and the threats to "Western values", but Islam belongs to the West as well as to the East, North, South and Center. Besides, European culture owes a lot of its richness and diversity to Islam, Europe wouldn't be Europe without its citizens who happen to be Muslims, and France wouldn't be France without its citizens who happen to be Muslims.
Furthermore, let us not stress obsolete geographical divisions as moderates from all confessions and from over the world are reaching out to each other.
The second key point in my blogule was precisely that a ban on burqa, provided it were carefully and soundly planned and implemented, would undermine fundamentalism well beyond Muslim communities, and particularily Christian fundamentalism, also on the rise in Europe.

French Muslims overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism, and feel ostracized each time a few extremists deliberately provoque intra- and inter-religious tensions, or openly reject State laws.

Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".

And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.

Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".

The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.

In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.

He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...

Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.

Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.

As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.

People ask "What's wrong with France ?"

Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".

Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".

Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".

Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.

Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.

In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.

Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..

Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.

By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.

France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).

But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.

In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.

There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.

For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :

- The first rifts within the Jewish community appeared as a minority took sides in favor of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists or at least in favor of conservative hardliners. The majority of French Jews distance themselves from Israel, and are as sick and tired of the confusion Jew = Tel Aviv Hawks bombing Gaza as Muslims are tired of the confusion Islam = al Qaeda. Yet, there is a French equivalent to an edulcorated AIPAC, but not to J Street. Yet. Regarding the conflict, a majority of French people, beyond Muslims, supports the Palestinian cause, particularily after Arafat gave up terror.

- If wahhabism had a tough time trying to buy its way into France (where moderate Islam has traditionally been sponsored by countries like Morocco), more recent and radical movements leverage on Islamist movements fighting against dictatorship in former French colonies, most notably Algeria. al Qaeda smartly outsourced part of its French operations to GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), now known as "al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Magreb". Clearly, George W. Bush's crusade in Iraq helped the most radical Islamists gain ground, particularily among the younger generation of Muslims, many of North African origins and living in derelict suburbs, where integration failed most spectacularly. Fundamentalists did their "best" to cut those from their parents, who embraced the Republic and integration.

- Christian fundamentalism had been pretty much silenced since Vatican II, until George W. Bush and Benedict XVI revived it. Recently, the latter even lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained in 1988 by then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the French leader of the very fundamentalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Among them, Richard Williamson, an outspoken Holocaust negationist.

- Over the past few years, hatemongers of all kinds have been multiplying provocations, including profanations of Jewish or Muslim tombs...

Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.

Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.

Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.

Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.

I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.

But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.

Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.

As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.

stephane mot - blogules 2009


* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.

** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.

*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.

**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").