Still high on her already cult classic performance at the Warnik's Woodstock, Sarah Palin joined FOX News dream team of political commentators*.
Program schedules : a comprehensive shake-up. Our own Agence Fausse Presse investigators can already bring you exclusive insights into future changes : the former Governor of Alaska may run her own shows on Fox News TV and radio channels, plus specials with each fellow star. That's according to random memos extracted from her most recently hacked email accounts (featuring Yahoo!, gmail, nra.org, and Discovery Institute) :
In duo with Glenn Beck : "for our 'Gore Rogues' routine, imagine his Guantanamo-style slapstick humor plus my pitbull-with-lipstick biting humor ! There will be blood and screams and will Alberto Gonzales be a regular guest ? You betcha ! But we'll try to reach across the aisle whenever possible. I heard Howard Dean made a pretty mean "yeehaw", but we need people with actual hatred in'em. Know what I meanie mean ?"
In duo with Karl Rove : "We'll welcome only people we like in a cosy, Barbara-Cartland-pink studio, and compose actual bouquets for them during the interviews. Dubya already said yes for the pilot and the first fifty episodes devoted to his Bush Legacy. He also promised to help us get the best possible cast to fill the first season of 'Flower Arrangements With Turd Blossom' up to the roof and over the top".
In duo with Bill O'Reilly : "We're gonna reach for Joe Six-Packs. I'll tend the saloon and he'll be our sheriff. 'Brewing Grog : an Irish life' is gonna knock unconscious the odd FOX regulars who have any trace of conscience, or trouble swallowing everything we say or scream. And I'm talking about real people, not about the 3-7% who always give the wrong answers to our live questions - that number is randomly generated by the Afghan polling software FOX got from the CIA."
In duo with Sean Hannity : "Our alternate reality show 'HealthScare : Losing Your S'Hannity' is already a commercial success. We had to auction our top sponsor slots to play fair with all Big Pharma members. Of course, lining up $10M was a pre-existing condition. They just loved the concept of Sean screaming 'you're fired' to patients recently diagnosed with lobstrosities."
In duo with Mike Huckabee : "OMG. I love'em all but I really have a special feeling for this show : "Anti-School With Sarah And Mike" will pump creationism into the most vulnerable minds, and our cute cartoons and puppets will teach'em how not to learn by themselves. In our M.O.U. with Hezbollah TV, we agreed to share some platforms, adapt a few concepts, trade worst practices, and foster exchanges between each other's most cunning writers."
Sarah Palin : "I intend to run my own edition of 'Real Amerikan Stories' doing the things I know best. Like international issues, starting with Russia, Canada, Mexiland, and Chinaware... The audience must see the world as I see it from my own windows, my own cupboards, my own gun racks. Plus of course economitics and all that stuff with Joe The Plumber - who else ? Every week I'll have a special talk show up in Alaska. Outdoors, on ski-doos, just small talk, chit-chat, shoot the moose, that kinda stuff. I expect 'Gun report, you decide' to make quite a bang."
blogules 2010
* "Palin to Join Fox News as Contributor" (Fox News 20100111)
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
20100112
20091103
Obama Season II
I hate to spoil the suspense, but here are the plots for key episodes of Barack Obama Season II :
- Prison Break : will Barack escape from Guantanamo ?
- Desperate Housewives : will Barack convince Israel to stop making a martyr of Palestine and a hero of Iran ?
- 24 Hours : will Barack arrive on time to prevent Jong-il from blowing up half Asia plus two thirds of Pearl Harbor ?
- Heroes : will Barack help Afghan women walk freely on the streets, without any mask nor costume, and without fearing attacks by fundamentalist supervilains ?
- Dexter : will Barack put in jail the serial killers guilty for the atrocities committed over the past few years (Gonzales, Cheney...) ?
- House : will Barack, in spit of his crippled bill, pass the health care reform and at which cost for midterm elections ?
- The Office : will Barack prevent W. from coming back (W as in W-shaped recession, not W as in Walker) ?
- ...
Season I set the bar at the highest levels, claiming two prestigious awards :
- Peace Nobel Prize for rejecting George W. Bush as early as January 20th, 2009
- Physics Nobel Prize for making George W. Bush invisible as early as November 4th, 2008
blogules 2009
- Prison Break : will Barack escape from Guantanamo ?
- Desperate Housewives : will Barack convince Israel to stop making a martyr of Palestine and a hero of Iran ?
- 24 Hours : will Barack arrive on time to prevent Jong-il from blowing up half Asia plus two thirds of Pearl Harbor ?
- Heroes : will Barack help Afghan women walk freely on the streets, without any mask nor costume, and without fearing attacks by fundamentalist supervilains ?
- Dexter : will Barack put in jail the serial killers guilty for the atrocities committed over the past few years (Gonzales, Cheney...) ?
- House : will Barack, in spit of his crippled bill, pass the health care reform and at which cost for midterm elections ?
- The Office : will Barack prevent W. from coming back (W as in W-shaped recession, not W as in Walker) ?
- ...
Season I set the bar at the highest levels, claiming two prestigious awards :
- Peace Nobel Prize for rejecting George W. Bush as early as January 20th, 2009
- Physics Nobel Prize for making George W. Bush invisible as early as November 4th, 2008
blogules 2009
20091015
As if
The Dow Jones Industrial hit the 10k mark, again.
This is not the same index : General Motors or Citigroup Incorporated have gone after September 2008 (AIG left the DJI a little bit earlier). And this is not the same Bank Of America either...
So basically a makeshift index passes a symbolic mark. So what ? This new bubble is simply not sustainable. And Mr Jones cannot make much dough out of industries which often have yet to evolve.
Asia is booming, again.
And real estate bubbles keep inflating in South Korea, Hong Kong, or China. Hu Jintao wants to secure positions for his friends before the 2012 regime reshuffle, and Beijing decided to sacrifice long term economic soundness for short term growth. Seoul also refuses to deflate the housing bubble for fear of accelerating the second dip. LEE Myung-bak knows the demand will grow during the construction of all programs launched before 2008, but hopes that the hard landing will not happen under his "sit and watch".
Financial institutions are racking up profits, again.
Part of their garbage has been collected, but they keep doing business as usual : destroying value in the long term to maximize short term gains, focusing innovation on ways of bending laws, sucking money from places where investments are really needed. Total crap.
...
Three years after the downturn, one year after The Crisis, we are somehow still in denial (see "This is not a financial crisis"), and the same diagnosis applies.
There's still a lot of greedy money out there : unable to find exciting guaranteed returns (closer to 5% than to the 15-20% they were used to - not enough to hedge inflation which is bound to come back with a vengence), investors keep fueling bubbles in stocks, commodities, gold, currencies, private equities, and even real estate.
Regulation remains a dirty word and everything is done to undermine collective and comprehensive efforts to reform the system.
The question is not if but when the next wake up call comes. Before the end of the year ? H1 2010 ? Will the illusion even last until 2011 ? Will everything collapse big time in 2012 ?
Yet I'm still confident : in the long term, we are to evolve from free market to fair market.
blogules 2009
This is not the same index : General Motors or Citigroup Incorporated have gone after September 2008 (AIG left the DJI a little bit earlier). And this is not the same Bank Of America either...
So basically a makeshift index passes a symbolic mark. So what ? This new bubble is simply not sustainable. And Mr Jones cannot make much dough out of industries which often have yet to evolve.
Asia is booming, again.
And real estate bubbles keep inflating in South Korea, Hong Kong, or China. Hu Jintao wants to secure positions for his friends before the 2012 regime reshuffle, and Beijing decided to sacrifice long term economic soundness for short term growth. Seoul also refuses to deflate the housing bubble for fear of accelerating the second dip. LEE Myung-bak knows the demand will grow during the construction of all programs launched before 2008, but hopes that the hard landing will not happen under his "sit and watch".
Financial institutions are racking up profits, again.
Part of their garbage has been collected, but they keep doing business as usual : destroying value in the long term to maximize short term gains, focusing innovation on ways of bending laws, sucking money from places where investments are really needed. Total crap.
...
Three years after the downturn, one year after The Crisis, we are somehow still in denial (see "This is not a financial crisis"), and the same diagnosis applies.
There's still a lot of greedy money out there : unable to find exciting guaranteed returns (closer to 5% than to the 15-20% they were used to - not enough to hedge inflation which is bound to come back with a vengence), investors keep fueling bubbles in stocks, commodities, gold, currencies, private equities, and even real estate.
Regulation remains a dirty word and everything is done to undermine collective and comprehensive efforts to reform the system.
The question is not if but when the next wake up call comes. Before the end of the year ? H1 2010 ? Will the illusion even last until 2011 ? Will everything collapse big time in 2012 ?
Yet I'm still confident : in the long term, we are to evolve from free market to fair market.
blogules 2009
20090910
We didn't come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it
"We didn't come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it".
That's a good definition of what politics should be all about, and a perfect punchline for a speech on reforms.
So forget about "fear politics" and embrace "shape politics". Fitter, smarter, trendier, evolutive, creative... what else is in a word ?
Images, maybe. The shape of John McCain's nervous rictus as he was reminded how much he shared with his friend Ted Kennedy on health care. The shape of Nancy Pelosi's nervous smile as she tried to stand up at the right moments to get a few claps from the public option loving liberal part of the audience.
And the audience was tense, alright. The man in charge was telling them : It's not about me, Barack Hussein Obama, it's about you. I can run the country, but YOU can't hide. I'm doing my job, just do yours.
And oh. I'm keeping my eye on the ball : "we reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals"
blogules 2009
That's a good definition of what politics should be all about, and a perfect punchline for a speech on reforms.
So forget about "fear politics" and embrace "shape politics". Fitter, smarter, trendier, evolutive, creative... what else is in a word ?
Images, maybe. The shape of John McCain's nervous rictus as he was reminded how much he shared with his friend Ted Kennedy on health care. The shape of Nancy Pelosi's nervous smile as she tried to stand up at the right moments to get a few claps from the public option loving liberal part of the audience.
And the audience was tense, alright. The man in charge was telling them : It's not about me, Barack Hussein Obama, it's about you. I can run the country, but YOU can't hide. I'm doing my job, just do yours.
And oh. I'm keeping my eye on the ball : "we reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals"
blogules 2009
20090905
Republican Appointed Judges : John Ashcroft "repugnant to the Constitution"
Message to Mrs BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE, RUMSFELD, GONZALES, ADDINGTON, YOO... : Justice is coming, and even Republican appointed judges are eager to set the record straight.
I didn't forget John Ashcroft in the list : the "soaring Eagle" was the main target yesterday. And according to US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, former Attorney General is not only not protected by immunity and thus prosecutable (by Abdullah Kidd or any other victim), but very much likely to be sued since what happened under his watch as chief Destructor Of Justice was "repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history" :
Even Eric Holder and Barack Obama were less direct. They are politicians, but they don't have to speak for Justice. Here, Justice spoke, and rather loudly : this is not the crime of the century but a crime unseen for at least two centuries !
Aggravating circumstances : the crime was perpetrated by the very people in charge of promoting justice ! "It is only the misuse of the statute, resulting in the detention of a person without probable cause for purposes of criminal investigation, that is repugnant to the Fourth Amendment."
Actually, torture, Abu Ghraib, illegal abductions, and all other terrible abuses are nothing compared to this ultimate "misuse" / abuse of power.
This abuse of power has a name : TYRANNY. And the judges dared pronounce the word clear and lound : "the Fourth Amendment was written and ratified, in part, to deny the government of our then-new nation such an engine of potential tyranny.".**
I'm glad that these self evidences are eventually out in the open.
Coming from "not-GOP-unfriendly" judges, that's even greater news for democracy in the US.
Behold ! Change is coming !
* See also "Ashcroft can be sued over arrests, appeals court rules" (LA Times 20090905)
Memo : Al-Kidd v. Ashcrof claims :
** maybe as a compensation for their mention of "abuses of the British Crown", the judges summoned Sir William Blackstone, a British jurist who died in 1780 (between the US Independence and the US Constitution) : "To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."
I didn't forget John Ashcroft in the list : the "soaring Eagle" was the main target yesterday. And according to US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, former Attorney General is not only not protected by immunity and thus prosecutable (by Abdullah Kidd or any other victim), but very much likely to be sued since what happened under his watch as chief Destructor Of Justice was "repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history" :
We are confident that, in light of the experience of the American colonists with the abuses of the British Crown, the Framers of our Constitution would have disapproved of the arrest, detention, and harsh confinement of a United States citizen as a “material witness” under the circumstances, and for the immediate purpose alleged, in al-Kidd’s complaint.This document also tells us about the debate and dissents within the court (see "gotcha!"), but on the Judicial Richter's Scale, this is not exactly what I would call "word mincing".
Sadly, however, even now, more than 217 years after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end, in
sometimes primitive conditions, not because there is evidence that they have committed a crime, but merely because the government wishes to investigate them for possible wrongdoing, or to prevent them from having contact with others in the
outside world. We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history.
(AL-KIDD v. ASHCROFT / "ABDULLAH AL-KIDD, Plaintiff-Appellee vs JOHN ASHCROFT, Defendant-Appellant" - ca9.uscourts.gov 20090904)*
Even Eric Holder and Barack Obama were less direct. They are politicians, but they don't have to speak for Justice. Here, Justice spoke, and rather loudly : this is not the crime of the century but a crime unseen for at least two centuries !
Aggravating circumstances : the crime was perpetrated by the very people in charge of promoting justice ! "It is only the misuse of the statute, resulting in the detention of a person without probable cause for purposes of criminal investigation, that is repugnant to the Fourth Amendment."
Actually, torture, Abu Ghraib, illegal abductions, and all other terrible abuses are nothing compared to this ultimate "misuse" / abuse of power.
This abuse of power has a name : TYRANNY. And the judges dared pronounce the word clear and lound : "the Fourth Amendment was written and ratified, in part, to deny the government of our then-new nation such an engine of potential tyranny.".**
I'm glad that these self evidences are eventually out in the open.
Coming from "not-GOP-unfriendly" judges, that's even greater news for democracy in the US.
Behold ! Change is coming !
* See also "Ashcroft can be sued over arrests, appeals court rules" (LA Times 20090905)
Memo : Al-Kidd v. Ashcrof claims :
"Al-Kidd asserts three independent claims against Ashcroft:
- First, he alleges that Ashcroft is responsible for a policy or practice under which the FBI and the DOJ sought material witness orders without sufficient evidence that the witness’s testimony was material to another proceeding, or that it was
impracticable to secure the witness’s testimony—in other words, in violation of the express terms of § 3144 itself—and that al-Kidd was arrested as a result of this policy (the § 3144 Claim).
- Second, al-Kidd alleges that Ashcroft designed and implemented a policy under which the FBI and DOJ would arrest individuals who may have met the facial statutory
requirements of § 3144, but with the ulterior and allegedly unconstitutional purpose of investigating or preemptively detaining them, in violation of the Fourth Amendment (the Fourth Amendment Claim).
- Finally, al-Kidd alleges that Ashcroft designed and implemented policies, or was aware of policies and practices that he failed to correct, under which material witnesses were subjected to unreasonably punitive conditions of confinement, in violation of the Fifth Amendment (the Conditions of Confinement Claim).
Ashcroft argues that he is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity as to the § 3144 and Fourth Amendment Claims. He concedes that no absolute immunity attaches with respect to the Conditions of Confinement Claim. He also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for all three claims.
The complaint also quotes the public statements of a number of DOJ and White House officials implying or stating outright that suspects were being held under material witness warrants as an alternative means of investigative arrest or preventative
detention. In addition to this direct evidence, the complaint cites a number of press reports describing the detention of numerous Muslim individuals under material witness warrants.
The complaint further alleges that the policies designed and promulgated by Ashcroft have caused individuals to be “impermissibly arrested and detained as material witnesses even though there was no reason to believe it would have been impracticable to secure their testimony voluntarily or by subpoena,” in violation of the terms of § 3144."
** maybe as a compensation for their mention of "abuses of the British Crown", the judges summoned Sir William Blackstone, a British jurist who died in 1780 (between the US Independence and the US Constitution) : "To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."
20090814
We reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals
According to Karl Rove*, President Obama would be in "Permanent Campaign". That comes from someone who started campaigning for George W. Bush's 2004 election as soon as he stole the 2000 ballot, and who is still campaigning for his "Bush Legacy", a revisionist's take on one of the darkest periods in US History.
According to Karl Rove, "turning critics into enemies isn't presidential". That comes from a man who had attorneys fired because they were not able to invent proofs against critics of the Bush-Cheney Administration**. Remember those "us vs them" guys ? Were they "Presidential" when they called "axis of weasels" friends who advise you not to invade illegally a country because you may fuel terror worldwide instead of fighting against it ? Were they "Presidential" when they called "un-Americans" patriots who dared point out the possibility that torture, not only performed on innocent people, may not be consistent with American values.
So why is Karl Christian Rove***, a non-presidential individual in Permanent Campaign and turning critics into enemies if I ever saw one, making once again a fool of himself ?
Simply put, this man is scared. Yes, "Turd Blossom" is s..t scared. He knows his long overdue disgrace is coming : he's heading straight to prison, he won't pass go, he won't collect $200, and the few people who would actually like to pay this criminal a visit may turn out to be inmates themselves.
Karl Rove keeps going at "Obama(s)care" because he knows perfectly that once this last major bipartisan effort is over, Eric Holder is free to unleash justice and fix the moral collapse of the Bush-Cheney era.
"Healthscare" is the last throes of Bush-Cheney politics of fear. But this time, the fear is on THEM. And this time, it's not "us vs them" as in "us vs our critics", but "U.S. vs Them" as in "America vs Amerika". This isn't the politics of fear where a corrupt Administration decides who's guilty, but the politics of justice where a sound Administration lets justice do its job independently. Once again, Barack Obama is not pointing the finger at anyone : he is simply showing the direction for Justice ****.
Some think Obama is crazy to tackle health care now, but he doesn't have much choice : it's now or never. You can't mobilize the nation on such a daunting task in the middle of an L or W shaped "recovery". And now, he still needs all aisles of the Congress to work with him.
If you have any doubt about Obama's sense of priorities, just remember the most important words in his inauguration speech ("We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals") and his first decision as a President (closing Guantanamo).
Change is coming, and the most vocal opponents are those who have the most to fear from justice.
This isn't socialism they're fearing but justice.
Justice against torture and fascism.
Justice against criminals who disgraced American values.
Justice against Nazis who parade freely in a land that defeated Nazism*****.
The time as come to restore American values.
So with hope, we reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals.
* see "Obama and the Permanent Campaign" (WSJ - 20090813)
** see on NYT "E-Mail Reveals Rove’s Key Role in ’06 Dismissals" (NYT - 20090811)
*** don't get fooled by the middle name : Karl is of the medieval, crusade prone variety - not the "peace and love" kind.
**** see "'Insects placed in a confinement box' (Welcome on Waterboard)"
***** I've often denounced hate groups in America, but they keep coming out crazier than ever as they fear for their own relevance in post-racial America. Depicting Obama as Hitler is typical Goebbels-style propaganda from extremists. On the surrealistic recent developments of the US gun gap, you want to read "
According to Karl Rove, "turning critics into enemies isn't presidential". That comes from a man who had attorneys fired because they were not able to invent proofs against critics of the Bush-Cheney Administration**. Remember those "us vs them" guys ? Were they "Presidential" when they called "axis of weasels" friends who advise you not to invade illegally a country because you may fuel terror worldwide instead of fighting against it ? Were they "Presidential" when they called "un-Americans" patriots who dared point out the possibility that torture, not only performed on innocent people, may not be consistent with American values.
So why is Karl Christian Rove***, a non-presidential individual in Permanent Campaign and turning critics into enemies if I ever saw one, making once again a fool of himself ?
Simply put, this man is scared. Yes, "Turd Blossom" is s..t scared. He knows his long overdue disgrace is coming : he's heading straight to prison, he won't pass go, he won't collect $200, and the few people who would actually like to pay this criminal a visit may turn out to be inmates themselves.
Karl Rove keeps going at "Obama(s)care" because he knows perfectly that once this last major bipartisan effort is over, Eric Holder is free to unleash justice and fix the moral collapse of the Bush-Cheney era.
"Healthscare" is the last throes of Bush-Cheney politics of fear. But this time, the fear is on THEM. And this time, it's not "us vs them" as in "us vs our critics", but "U.S. vs Them" as in "America vs Amerika". This isn't the politics of fear where a corrupt Administration decides who's guilty, but the politics of justice where a sound Administration lets justice do its job independently. Once again, Barack Obama is not pointing the finger at anyone : he is simply showing the direction for Justice ****.
Some think Obama is crazy to tackle health care now, but he doesn't have much choice : it's now or never. You can't mobilize the nation on such a daunting task in the middle of an L or W shaped "recovery". And now, he still needs all aisles of the Congress to work with him.
If you have any doubt about Obama's sense of priorities, just remember the most important words in his inauguration speech ("We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals") and his first decision as a President (closing Guantanamo).
Change is coming, and the most vocal opponents are those who have the most to fear from justice.
This isn't socialism they're fearing but justice.
Justice against torture and fascism.
Justice against criminals who disgraced American values.
Justice against Nazis who parade freely in a land that defeated Nazism*****.
The time as come to restore American values.
So with hope, we reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals.
* see "Obama and the Permanent Campaign" (WSJ - 20090813)
** see on NYT "E-Mail Reveals Rove’s Key Role in ’06 Dismissals" (NYT - 20090811)
*** don't get fooled by the middle name : Karl is of the medieval, crusade prone variety - not the "peace and love" kind.
**** see "'Insects placed in a confinement box' (Welcome on Waterboard)"
***** I've often denounced hate groups in America, but they keep coming out crazier than ever as they fear for their own relevance in post-racial America. Depicting Obama as Hitler is typical Goebbels-style propaganda from extremists. On the surrealistic recent developments of the US gun gap, you want to read "
20090627
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 :
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.
=> 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.
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 :
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").
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 !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.
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.
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").
20090521
Open Season for Yosemite Sam
The Congress voted 279-147 to allow guns in national parks.
Don't ask why representatives tackle such priorities in times of recession. I guess not every NRA card holder can afford paying for meat in his or her local Wal Mart. Who knows ? Some may even want to check if their mortgaged machine guns can still fire correctly.
Anyway, this votes marks a bipartisan "victory", since 105 Dems joined what happens to be a GOP initiative ("yes, we can have initiatives").
Dick "Yosemite Sam" Cheney plans to invite his closest friends to celebrate. The bang of a party in ... deed.
Bambi sadly commented on the vote : "The buck stops here".
Don't ask why representatives tackle such priorities in times of recession. I guess not every NRA card holder can afford paying for meat in his or her local Wal Mart. Who knows ? Some may even want to check if their mortgaged machine guns can still fire correctly.
Anyway, this votes marks a bipartisan "victory", since 105 Dems joined what happens to be a GOP initiative ("yes, we can have initiatives").
Dick "Yosemite Sam" Cheney plans to invite his closest friends to celebrate. The bang of a party in ... deed.
Bambi sadly commented on the vote : "The buck stops here".
20090515
Rove v. Pelosi v. Rove v. America
In his latest biweekly piece of revisionism*, Karl Rove pointed his bloody finger at Nancy Pelosi : YOU supported waterboarding and EIT ("Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"). YOU supported what you liberals call 'torture'.
First thing, Karl : whatever Pelosi did or said, waterboarding IS torture. Not 'torture'. And certainly not your edulcorated "EIT".
Second : many Americans (including some Democrats) supported the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, and even voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
Which doesn't mean they were in favor of torture, Abu Ghraib, or that dangerous fundamentalist who wrecked world peace and for whom you used to work for as "The Architect" (or more intimately as "Turd Blossom").
This only shows how powerful was your system of bold lies, wild propaganda, and indecent Weapons of Mass Disinformation. Pelosi was lied to and misled, like all Americans.
But I'm actually glad you raise this issue, Karl.
We are not only about to expose what that infamous administration of yours did, but also the propaganda machine that made it easier to swallow by a people who was supposed to live in a model democracy.
I'm having great fun listening to you giving lectures on torture Karl, but I'm also keeping my eye on the ball. And it's time for you to give some answers to Justice about those attorney firings...
* "Congress and Waterboarding" - Wall Street Journal (20090504)
First thing, Karl : whatever Pelosi did or said, waterboarding IS torture. Not 'torture'. And certainly not your edulcorated "EIT".
Second : many Americans (including some Democrats) supported the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, and even voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
Which doesn't mean they were in favor of torture, Abu Ghraib, or that dangerous fundamentalist who wrecked world peace and for whom you used to work for as "The Architect" (or more intimately as "Turd Blossom").
This only shows how powerful was your system of bold lies, wild propaganda, and indecent Weapons of Mass Disinformation. Pelosi was lied to and misled, like all Americans.
But I'm actually glad you raise this issue, Karl.
We are not only about to expose what that infamous administration of yours did, but also the propaganda machine that made it easier to swallow by a people who was supposed to live in a model democracy.
I'm having great fun listening to you giving lectures on torture Karl, but I'm also keeping my eye on the ball. And it's time for you to give some answers to Justice about those attorney firings...
* "Congress and Waterboarding" - Wall Street Journal (20090504)
20090430
American Banks Post TARP, Stress, Disorder : I.O.U. Holdings
Signs of the times :
* Taliban consultants from the Boston SWOT Valley cling to their regressive vision of economy : "we don't understand what's happening, we are the ones who planted IEDs and we are the ones treated for PTSD"
* A.I.G. is still hesitating for its new name : "A.I.U. Holdings sounds nice, but I.O.U. Holdings would make more sense".
* Barack Obama is looking for a Swine Flu czar : "how about John McCain ? Somehow, it's about fighting pork. John would just need some training to search nosemarks beyond earmarks".
* The GOP wants Arlen Specter back : "we'll do whatever it takes, even hiring Sarah to build this ultimate bridge to nowhere".
* Chrysler and GM shall survive, but Nardelli remains a little bit nervous : "I feel comfortable with Italian backers and stronger trade unions, and I love the designer shoes they offered me. I get the idea behind the material used (steel), but I'd rather have them branded 'Jimmy Choo' than 'Jimmy Hoffa'".
* Taliban consultants from the Boston SWOT Valley cling to their regressive vision of economy : "we don't understand what's happening, we are the ones who planted IEDs and we are the ones treated for PTSD"
* A.I.G. is still hesitating for its new name : "A.I.U. Holdings sounds nice, but I.O.U. Holdings would make more sense".
* Barack Obama is looking for a Swine Flu czar : "how about John McCain ? Somehow, it's about fighting pork. John would just need some training to search nosemarks beyond earmarks".
* The GOP wants Arlen Specter back : "we'll do whatever it takes, even hiring Sarah to build this ultimate bridge to nowhere".
* Chrysler and GM shall survive, but Nardelli remains a little bit nervous : "I feel comfortable with Italian backers and stronger trade unions, and I love the designer shoes they offered me. I get the idea behind the material used (steel), but I'd rather have them branded 'Jimmy Choo' than 'Jimmy Hoffa'".
20090121
True v. False vs Good v. Evil
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
I must confess I had the political equivalent of a quick but intense orgasm when I heard that sentence, to me the climax of an otherwise not-so-great but nonetheless perfectly powerful inaugural speech.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" celebrates the end of the Bush-Cheney era.
This "we" goes far beyond "We the People of the United States", which does already incompass a large spectrum of origins, colors, beliefs, non-beliefs... you name it, and did Barack name a few during his 18 mn speech !
This "we" includes human beings from "each nation, every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity".
The verb "reject" resonates strongly in such an inclusive speech and it should because it denounces our worst enemy, the one from within. When we forget who we are.
The Bush-Cheney equation was "false". This is not a moral judgement, "right" vs "wrong". And this is certainly not a religious statement about who is "good" and who is "evil". This is a clear definition of what mankind is all about.
At this defining moment, Barack Hussein Obama reminded us the true definition of freedom and democracy.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
We reject as false the Bush-Cheney definitions of "freedom" and "democracy".
To add insult to injury, the Supreme Justice nominated by George W. Bush fumbled with the 35 words of the Constitution he was supposed to protect during that glorious inauguration. And of all words, he put "faithfully" in the false position.
President Obama later talked about things that were "true". One may question "patriotism" or other examples, but the word "true" has a more forgiving and subjective meaning. It is about loyalty to life, whatever or whomever you care for. Your ideals.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
Obama's first decision is to close Guantanamo and put an end to Bush-Cheney's caricature of justice.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
At this defining moment, America declared its independence from Amerika.
blogules 2009
I must confess I had the political equivalent of a quick but intense orgasm when I heard that sentence, to me the climax of an otherwise not-so-great but nonetheless perfectly powerful inaugural speech.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" celebrates the end of the Bush-Cheney era.
This "we" goes far beyond "We the People of the United States", which does already incompass a large spectrum of origins, colors, beliefs, non-beliefs... you name it, and did Barack name a few during his 18 mn speech !
This "we" includes human beings from "each nation, every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity".
The verb "reject" resonates strongly in such an inclusive speech and it should because it denounces our worst enemy, the one from within. When we forget who we are.
The Bush-Cheney equation was "false". This is not a moral judgement, "right" vs "wrong". And this is certainly not a religious statement about who is "good" and who is "evil". This is a clear definition of what mankind is all about.
At this defining moment, Barack Hussein Obama reminded us the true definition of freedom and democracy.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
We reject as false the Bush-Cheney definitions of "freedom" and "democracy".
To add insult to injury, the Supreme Justice nominated by George W. Bush fumbled with the 35 words of the Constitution he was supposed to protect during that glorious inauguration. And of all words, he put "faithfully" in the false position.
President Obama later talked about things that were "true". One may question "patriotism" or other examples, but the word "true" has a more forgiving and subjective meaning. It is about loyalty to life, whatever or whomever you care for. Your ideals.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
Obama's first decision is to close Guantanamo and put an end to Bush-Cheney's caricature of justice.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
At this defining moment, America declared its independence from Amerika.
blogules 2009
20090116
Bush's Farewell : Mission Accomplished... as Fundamentalist in Chief
"There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions, but there can be little debate about the results".
Well. The least one could say is that George W. Bush was not very open to debate before nor during these decisions, but I agree with him on this : "there can be little debate about the results". Thanks to him, Muslim, Christian and Jewish fundamantalists are far better off than before 9/11.
Because George W. Bush never acted as a POTUS for the good of his country,
and George W. Bush never even acted as a Republican for the good of his party
George W. Bush always acted as a Fundamentalist for the good of fundamentalism.
So Mission Accomplished, Mr Fundamentalist in Chief.
Now, let History do its job and put "The Bush Legacy" into perspective.
Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?
Yesterday, Eric Holder confirmed that waterboarding was torture, and that "Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting tools". In other words : yes, the Bush-Cheney Administration fueled terrorism by disgracing the very values they were supposed to defend. No wonder Karl Rove wants Holder's head before he get yours, Dubya.
Once again (see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"), the only way of fighting against terror and fundamentalism is at their roots : poverty, unjustice, and wrongdoings of supposedly model democracies.
Once again (see "The Stolen Election"), America has only gone halfway towards redemption by electing Barack Obama, and will finish the job by bringing actual justice to the people who insulted her. Gonzales must pay, Cheney must pay, Rumsfeld must pay, Bush must pay. Their desperate attempts of rewriting History are bold revisionism (see "The Bush Legacy").
Meanwhile, Israel confirms its wrong choices (cf "Come Feb. 10th, Will Israel Embrace History Or Vote Bush-Cheney 2004 ?") : by banning two Arab parties from upcoming elections, the Government clearly stated its poor consideration of democracy and its will to exclude from the Nation its non-Jewish citizens.
Muslim Israelis (about 16% of the population) were already asking themselves questions : they pay taxes but don't think the money is well spent in the Gaza invasion. Actually, extremists from both sides would love to see them turn into radicals.
At this stage, the Hamas alibi doesn't stand. It's not about Israel v. Hamas but about Israel v. Israel. Like Amerika v. America. Israeli voters are entitled to know where this Government actually wants to go. Keeping digging deeper and deeper as if there were no limits is totally suicidal.
Israel cannot postpone an official declaration about how it defines itself in the XXIst Century, its nature, its values, its political project.
Presented at birth as the State of the Jewish People, this country chose democracy and republic, and Non-Jews represent 20% of its population.
But the 1948 project of Constitution failed because of disagreements between fundamentalists and partisans of secularism, and nothing has really changed ever since.
It's time to stop kidding and play out in the open : does Israel want to become a democracy among peers or a Jewish sidekick to Iran-style Islamic Republics ?
If Israel prefers the latter, it only has to keep insulting fundamental values and rights, refusing international law, and of course giving terrorists "prime recruiting tools" by multiplying illegal exactions and usages of WMDs...
But the USA may not keep using their veto rights to absolve them much longer...
Obama pledged to close Guantanamo et restore Justice and Democracy at home. I sincerely hope he will help democracy in Israel even quicklier.
---
PS: "Six Days Seven Nights" - Jon Stewart on W.'s farewell speech, mistakes, disappointments, and soul sales :
Well. The least one could say is that George W. Bush was not very open to debate before nor during these decisions, but I agree with him on this : "there can be little debate about the results". Thanks to him, Muslim, Christian and Jewish fundamantalists are far better off than before 9/11.
Because George W. Bush never acted as a POTUS for the good of his country,
and George W. Bush never even acted as a Republican for the good of his party
George W. Bush always acted as a Fundamentalist for the good of fundamentalism.
So Mission Accomplished, Mr Fundamentalist in Chief.
Now, let History do its job and put "The Bush Legacy" into perspective.
Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?
Yesterday, Eric Holder confirmed that waterboarding was torture, and that "Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting tools". In other words : yes, the Bush-Cheney Administration fueled terrorism by disgracing the very values they were supposed to defend. No wonder Karl Rove wants Holder's head before he get yours, Dubya.
Once again (see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"), the only way of fighting against terror and fundamentalism is at their roots : poverty, unjustice, and wrongdoings of supposedly model democracies.
Once again (see "The Stolen Election"), America has only gone halfway towards redemption by electing Barack Obama, and will finish the job by bringing actual justice to the people who insulted her. Gonzales must pay, Cheney must pay, Rumsfeld must pay, Bush must pay. Their desperate attempts of rewriting History are bold revisionism (see "The Bush Legacy").
Meanwhile, Israel confirms its wrong choices (cf "Come Feb. 10th, Will Israel Embrace History Or Vote Bush-Cheney 2004 ?") : by banning two Arab parties from upcoming elections, the Government clearly stated its poor consideration of democracy and its will to exclude from the Nation its non-Jewish citizens.
Muslim Israelis (about 16% of the population) were already asking themselves questions : they pay taxes but don't think the money is well spent in the Gaza invasion. Actually, extremists from both sides would love to see them turn into radicals.
At this stage, the Hamas alibi doesn't stand. It's not about Israel v. Hamas but about Israel v. Israel. Like Amerika v. America. Israeli voters are entitled to know where this Government actually wants to go. Keeping digging deeper and deeper as if there were no limits is totally suicidal.
Israel cannot postpone an official declaration about how it defines itself in the XXIst Century, its nature, its values, its political project.
Presented at birth as the State of the Jewish People, this country chose democracy and republic, and Non-Jews represent 20% of its population.
But the 1948 project of Constitution failed because of disagreements between fundamentalists and partisans of secularism, and nothing has really changed ever since.
It's time to stop kidding and play out in the open : does Israel want to become a democracy among peers or a Jewish sidekick to Iran-style Islamic Republics ?
If Israel prefers the latter, it only has to keep insulting fundamental values and rights, refusing international law, and of course giving terrorists "prime recruiting tools" by multiplying illegal exactions and usages of WMDs...
But the USA may not keep using their veto rights to absolve them much longer...
Obama pledged to close Guantanamo et restore Justice and Democracy at home. I sincerely hope he will help democracy in Israel even quicklier.
---
PS: "Six Days Seven Nights" - Jon Stewart on W.'s farewell speech, mistakes, disappointments, and soul sales :
20090108
Come Feb. 10th, Will Israel Embrace History Or Vote Bush-Cheney 2004 ?
Israel 2009 mirrors America 2003 : a “war on terror” deliberately meant to fuel hatred and secure the victory of hawks in upcoming elections1, outright propaganda with daily lines carefully edited by spin doctors, and media either kept in the dark or turned into weapons of mass disinformation.
In 2003, Americans overwhelmingly supported the invasion and in 2004, America embraced Bush's Amerika.
Israeli moderates have a choice : making sure Israeli embraces post Nov 4th History, or remaining silent and letting their country vote for Bush-Cheney 2004.
Barack Obama will have one shot and about 3 weeks to put his weight in the balance.
1- see "A Christmas Gift for Fundamentalists ?"
In 2003, Americans overwhelmingly supported the invasion and in 2004, America embraced Bush's Amerika.
Israeli moderates have a choice : making sure Israeli embraces post Nov 4th History, or remaining silent and letting their country vote for Bush-Cheney 2004.
Barack Obama will have one shot and about 3 weeks to put his weight in the balance.
1- see "A Christmas Gift for Fundamentalists ?"
20081204
Big 3's Slim Fast solution
US automotive industry is dead because, in spite of decades of decay, it decided to stick to "US automotive industry" instead of switching to "global mobility services".
Ford being Ford, only GM and Chrysler are openly talking about bankruptcy* in what looks like a slim-fast solution before a merger of equals (obese couch potato dummies lacking a vision for the future) : "just give us some cash, we'll deliver green cars as soon as we can and oh... if you don't mind we'll deliver a few pink slips even sooner".
Flint survivor Michael Moore wants**, like most Americans, the US to put money in sustainable transportation infrastructures, and to pull the plug for dumb, dumber and dumberer, to which I answer "which plug, Mike ? Isn't it time to install one ?"
* see for instance "GM, Chrysler Said to Consider Bankruptcy to Get U.S. Bailout" (Bloomberg 20081204)
** see my e-mail box, in the spam section : "Saving the Big 3 for You and Me ...a message from Michael Moore" (20081203), somewhere between an ad for blue chips (take a blue pill and recover your lost highs on Wall Street) and a message from a desperate whitehousewife ("take my advice, O Great Bama, and please pardon my sins for I don't want to go to jail. Yours Truly, Karl Rove").
Ford being Ford, only GM and Chrysler are openly talking about bankruptcy* in what looks like a slim-fast solution before a merger of equals (obese couch potato dummies lacking a vision for the future) : "just give us some cash, we'll deliver green cars as soon as we can and oh... if you don't mind we'll deliver a few pink slips even sooner".
Flint survivor Michael Moore wants**, like most Americans, the US to put money in sustainable transportation infrastructures, and to pull the plug for dumb, dumber and dumberer, to which I answer "which plug, Mike ? Isn't it time to install one ?"
* see for instance "GM, Chrysler Said to Consider Bankruptcy to Get U.S. Bailout" (Bloomberg 20081204)
** see my e-mail box, in the spam section : "Saving the Big 3 for You and Me ...a message from Michael Moore" (20081203), somewhere between an ad for blue chips (take a blue pill and recover your lost highs on Wall Street) and a message from a desperate whitehousewife ("take my advice, O Great Bama, and please pardon my sins for I don't want to go to jail. Yours Truly, Karl Rove").
20081119
Everybody loves Raymondville, TX
America just redeemed itself*, and Texas seems to follow suit.
I mean literally : a local Grand Jury has indicted, along with Senator Eddie Lucio Jr**, the two symbols of George W. Bush's sick idea of justice.
Cheney and Gonzales Indicted At Last !
This suit has something to do with abuses of prisoners, but neither in Gitmo nor in Abu Ghraib : the crimes were perpetrated in US prisons just a few miles away from the Mexican border, in Willacy County, TX. Today, everybody loves Raymondville.
W.'s Chief Torture Officer is charged for lobbying against investigations into those abuses, and "Lobby Dick" for - what else - conflict of interest : Darth Vader owned shares in the Vanguard Group which itself had something to do with those dark Texas detention centers.
Interesting day for Alberto Gonzales : the Justice Department announced that his lawyer fees would be paid for (up to 24 Grants a month) by taxpayers' money. You know ? Gonzie happens to be sued for imposing political biases in hirings and firings within that very Justice Department... I doubt this exceptional favor was awarded by a "liberal leaning" appointee.
* see "America is a great country"
** KRGV-TV, today's Huff Post "Cheney, Gonzales Indicted By South Texas Grand Jury".
I mean literally : a local Grand Jury has indicted, along with Senator Eddie Lucio Jr**, the two symbols of George W. Bush's sick idea of justice.
Cheney and Gonzales Indicted At Last !
This suit has something to do with abuses of prisoners, but neither in Gitmo nor in Abu Ghraib : the crimes were perpetrated in US prisons just a few miles away from the Mexican border, in Willacy County, TX. Today, everybody loves Raymondville.
W.'s Chief Torture Officer is charged for lobbying against investigations into those abuses, and "Lobby Dick" for - what else - conflict of interest : Darth Vader owned shares in the Vanguard Group which itself had something to do with those dark Texas detention centers.
Interesting day for Alberto Gonzales : the Justice Department announced that his lawyer fees would be paid for (up to 24 Grants a month) by taxpayers' money. You know ? Gonzie happens to be sued for imposing political biases in hirings and firings within that very Justice Department... I doubt this exceptional favor was awarded by a "liberal leaning" appointee.
* see "America is a great country"
** KRGV-TV, today's Huff Post "Cheney, Gonzales Indicted By South Texas Grand Jury".
20081106
The Stolen Election
I'm not fully pleased by the way Obama's historic victory is being celebrated.
Don't get me wrong : I've been wishing for his election ever since I listened to his 2004 DNC speech and Tuesday night, I've welcomed my own tears of joy, relief, hope and respect... Heck, I even felt like hugging America altogether !
Yes, the ultimate race barrier has been blown away by a tidal wave embracing the US of A as a whole and as they are at their best, strong of an incredible diversity. At last, die hard outspoken racists will be silenced... and even better : unconscious racism may decrease significantly (without even noticing it, many unintentional aggressors will change their body languages - but their common and uncommon victims will more than probably notice... and hopefully feel a lighter weight on their chests).
Yet. If America electing the first African-American President is in itself History and a giant leap for mankind, this election cannot and shouldn't be summed up by this one formidable accomplishment.
The stakes went even higher.
And no, it's not the economy, stupid. I know that was the top issue for 62% of voters as well as I know that Obama will do a much better job than McCain in that field. But the situation would have improved after a while anyway and as far as History is concerned, even this titanic mess is a minor factor compared to the key issue of the 2008 Presidential Elections : the very survival of America as a democracy, and the world struggle against fundamentalism.
Everybody is celebrating the first African-American president, and of course everybody should, but it wasn't the aim of these elections, and certainly not the reason why the dangerous Bush-McCain-Palin squad failed (even if they want you to believe it)... only the most exquisite bonus to the main prize.
The aim was to elect a strong but sound leader who would not only prevent the nation's moral and political collapse but also durably put the country and the world back on the tracks of democracy and mutual respect.
When Barack Obama says "America is a place where all things are possible", he knows that this is not a one-side coin : if all things are possible, even the worst is possible. When Barack Obama says "the dream of our founders is alive", he doesn't forget that the great George Washington himself used to own slaves. And when Barack Obama finishes with "the power of our democracy", he's not only making his strongest focus on the massive turnout of this glorious day.
When Barack Obama uses the words "power", "democracy", "patriotism" and "liberty", they don't have the same deviant flavor as in the mouth of George W. Bush ; they claim their true meaning back, as the ultimate condemnation of the wrong path taken after 9/11...
... "because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America".
This change happens to be carried by an African-American, but what really matters is that it is a change in the good direction, not the irreversible change George W. Bush was only one Supreme Justice shy of triggering**.
* see "The Maverick is free again"
** see (I hope for the last time) "Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?"
PS : All right. I just wrote yesterday* that Barack Obama's speech was not "a truly Historic one", and I didn't mention the unease I felt when John McCain (like Bush the following day) focused too much on the African-American dimension of That One's victory. But I did mention the special quality of those two parts of his speech.
Don't get me wrong : I've been wishing for his election ever since I listened to his 2004 DNC speech and Tuesday night, I've welcomed my own tears of joy, relief, hope and respect... Heck, I even felt like hugging America altogether !
Yes, the ultimate race barrier has been blown away by a tidal wave embracing the US of A as a whole and as they are at their best, strong of an incredible diversity. At last, die hard outspoken racists will be silenced... and even better : unconscious racism may decrease significantly (without even noticing it, many unintentional aggressors will change their body languages - but their common and uncommon victims will more than probably notice... and hopefully feel a lighter weight on their chests).
Yet. If America electing the first African-American President is in itself History and a giant leap for mankind, this election cannot and shouldn't be summed up by this one formidable accomplishment.
The stakes went even higher.
And no, it's not the economy, stupid. I know that was the top issue for 62% of voters as well as I know that Obama will do a much better job than McCain in that field. But the situation would have improved after a while anyway and as far as History is concerned, even this titanic mess is a minor factor compared to the key issue of the 2008 Presidential Elections : the very survival of America as a democracy, and the world struggle against fundamentalism.
Everybody is celebrating the first African-American president, and of course everybody should, but it wasn't the aim of these elections, and certainly not the reason why the dangerous Bush-McCain-Palin squad failed (even if they want you to believe it)... only the most exquisite bonus to the main prize.
The aim was to elect a strong but sound leader who would not only prevent the nation's moral and political collapse but also durably put the country and the world back on the tracks of democracy and mutual respect.
When Barack Obama says "America is a place where all things are possible", he knows that this is not a one-side coin : if all things are possible, even the worst is possible. When Barack Obama says "the dream of our founders is alive", he doesn't forget that the great George Washington himself used to own slaves. And when Barack Obama finishes with "the power of our democracy", he's not only making his strongest focus on the massive turnout of this glorious day.
When Barack Obama uses the words "power", "democracy", "patriotism" and "liberty", they don't have the same deviant flavor as in the mouth of George W. Bush ; they claim their true meaning back, as the ultimate condemnation of the wrong path taken after 9/11...
"The true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms
or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals:
democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope".
... "because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America".
This change happens to be carried by an African-American, but what really matters is that it is a change in the good direction, not the irreversible change George W. Bush was only one Supreme Justice shy of triggering**.
* see "The Maverick is free again"
** see (I hope for the last time) "Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?"
PS : All right. I just wrote yesterday* that Barack Obama's speech was not "a truly Historic one", and I didn't mention the unease I felt when John McCain (like Bush the following day) focused too much on the African-American dimension of That One's victory. But I did mention the special quality of those two parts of his speech.
20081105
The Maverick is free again
I watched both victory speeches.
Obama obviously prepared the first part and the last part of his most important speech until January 20... but not much else. 44 somehow filled the blanks with a medley of his own campaign speeches, sounding at times presidential, at times partisan, and letting us wondering whether he was talking to Chicago, a crowd of ecstatic fans, the USA or the whole World.
But you cannot blame him for delivering just a great speech instead of a truly Historic one. Not today. And I loved to see this beautiful first family*, this colorful Obama-Biden kindergarten, and Barack's wonderful smile at the very last moment when he left the stage. A smart kid enjoying a powerful home run over the neighbor's fence (did you hear that window crack ? could be a glass ceiling for all you know...).
McCain celebrated his victory against himself. He seemed relieved and at peace with himself. Not compelled to please the most extreme core of diehard fanatics anymore. His speech was quite good and probably sincere (except of course for his tribute to Sarah Palin, you betcha).
* we've seen them grow up, wide and grey - but stronger and even deeper in love with each other. Michelle will be America's favorite First Lady. And if she wants, she can even do what Hillary couldn't 8 to 16 years from now.
Obama obviously prepared the first part and the last part of his most important speech until January 20... but not much else. 44 somehow filled the blanks with a medley of his own campaign speeches, sounding at times presidential, at times partisan, and letting us wondering whether he was talking to Chicago, a crowd of ecstatic fans, the USA or the whole World.
But you cannot blame him for delivering just a great speech instead of a truly Historic one. Not today. And I loved to see this beautiful first family*, this colorful Obama-Biden kindergarten, and Barack's wonderful smile at the very last moment when he left the stage. A smart kid enjoying a powerful home run over the neighbor's fence (did you hear that window crack ? could be a glass ceiling for all you know...).
McCain celebrated his victory against himself. He seemed relieved and at peace with himself. Not compelled to please the most extreme core of diehard fanatics anymore. His speech was quite good and probably sincere (except of course for his tribute to Sarah Palin, you betcha).
* we've seen them grow up, wide and grey - but stronger and even deeper in love with each other. Michelle will be America's favorite First Lady. And if she wants, she can even do what Hillary couldn't 8 to 16 years from now.
20081027
October Surprise : W. delivers FL to McCain
Dubya eventually picked Syria to deliver the October Surprise McCain needed (red flag provoquing an artificial tension). Smart move : putting economy behind security was one thing, but boosting AIPAC vs JStreet may help the GOP keep FL red.
W. : "Here is the October Surprise you needed, John. My unprovoqued aggression of Syria will put economy behind security, and Florida is yours."
Mc : " Thanks, my friend. Do I need to put the bombs on my campaign budget ?"
PS (addendum 20081027) - the US attack Syria because the US didn't defend Syria enough : "Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem of Syria accused the United States earlier this year of not giving his country the equipment needed to prevent foreign fighters from crossing into Iraq. He said Washington feared Syria could use such equipment against Israel."(IHT 20081026 "US choppers attack Syrian village near Iraq border")
Bonus : TNL endorsement of McCain-Palin by Ferrell / Bush :
20081025
McCain has been "tested" as a soldier, not as the decision maker
McCain used the Cuba nuclear crisis to make his point "I've been tested, not that one"*.
The fact that he pictured himself on the USS Enterprise in a plane loaded with nuclear weapons, which he was not supposed to have ever piloted, should be enough to backfire on him. But more fundamentally, in this situation, McCain was tested as a soldier, not the decision maker. And after all, he wasn't tested all the way : he didn't even take off.
JFK was the one tested as a President, not him.
Now following the first wave of the financial krach, both McCain and Obama received the same 3 AM call. And guess who reacted as a leader and who reacted as a follower...
The point is McCain is not a good decision maker. He lacks judgement. But he does take decisions... only of the suicidal kind : ending up in the hands of the enemy and thus endangering the nation, picking the most dangerous person for the most vital job...
The fact that he pictured himself on the USS Enterprise in a plane loaded with nuclear weapons, which he was not supposed to have ever piloted, should be enough to backfire on him. But more fundamentally, in this situation, McCain was tested as a soldier, not the decision maker. And after all, he wasn't tested all the way : he didn't even take off.
JFK was the one tested as a President, not him.
Now following the first wave of the financial krach, both McCain and Obama received the same 3 AM call. And guess who reacted as a leader and who reacted as a follower...
The point is McCain is not a good decision maker. He lacks judgement. But he does take decisions... only of the suicidal kind : ending up in the hands of the enemy and thus endangering the nation, picking the most dangerous person for the most vital job...
McCain is not a Maverick : he is a daredevil and a compulsive gambler**.
My friends, John McCain has been tested, and proven totally unfit for the job of President of the United States of America.
* "I was on board the USS Enterprise. I sat in the cockpit, on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise, off of Cuba. I had a target. My friends, you know how close we came to a nuclear war. America will not have a president who needs to be tested. I've been tested, my friends."
** see "A Maverick or a Gambler ?"
20081024
Paulson, Sarkozy to Socialist Heaven : "show me the money !"
Europe hastily awarded some jailed Chinese dissident with some prestigious human rights prize before embarking on a plane for Beijing.
There, Jose Manuel Barroso, Nicolas Sarkozy et al went down on their knees and begged the Great Socialist Empire to let some of its wealthy reserves trickle down over the bankrupt Capitalist rest of the World.
From DC, Hank Paulson also asked the IIIrd Millenium's Hyperpower to consider some kind of a Marshall plan ("could you please bail out the US of A ? you know, we don't hate socialists that badly, after all - according to John McCain we're even about to elect one as our President").
In other words, capitalism defies socialist China : "Show me the money".
Wen Jiabao is all ears. And smiles*. "Yes, we can".
Yes, Wen can provide some kind of relief to his new admirers, but he has some fish to fry at home as well. Will he chose to secure China's business model and one fifth of the World's population, to help the richest fifth, or to give a hand to the forgotten rest ? Probably a little bit of each : China will durably strengthen its positions in Asia, Africa, Europe and America, but the trickiest part will be China itself (see "Pervasive China's CIA (Central Investment Agency)").
New series of models will emerge. Not this week-end. Nor November the 15th, when the World Egghead Forum takes place. Nor even during the couple of years to come. But timely (at a geologic time scale at least).
They will differ from XXth century socialism or capitalism (see "This is not a financial crisis"), and China is no exception.
* Actually, I'm wondering how badly Wen's jaws hurt - he was already jubilating during his interview with Zakaria a couple of weeks ago (GPS @ CNN / Newsweek). But not as much as I did, listening to Alan Greenspan swallow just a tiny little bit of his titanic pride.
There, Jose Manuel Barroso, Nicolas Sarkozy et al went down on their knees and begged the Great Socialist Empire to let some of its wealthy reserves trickle down over the bankrupt Capitalist rest of the World.
From DC, Hank Paulson also asked the IIIrd Millenium's Hyperpower to consider some kind of a Marshall plan ("could you please bail out the US of A ? you know, we don't hate socialists that badly, after all - according to John McCain we're even about to elect one as our President").
In other words, capitalism defies socialist China : "Show me the money".
Wen Jiabao is all ears. And smiles*. "Yes, we can".
Yes, Wen can provide some kind of relief to his new admirers, but he has some fish to fry at home as well. Will he chose to secure China's business model and one fifth of the World's population, to help the richest fifth, or to give a hand to the forgotten rest ? Probably a little bit of each : China will durably strengthen its positions in Asia, Africa, Europe and America, but the trickiest part will be China itself (see "Pervasive China's CIA (Central Investment Agency)").
New series of models will emerge. Not this week-end. Nor November the 15th, when the World Egghead Forum takes place. Nor even during the couple of years to come. But timely (at a geologic time scale at least).
They will differ from XXth century socialism or capitalism (see "This is not a financial crisis"), and China is no exception.
* Actually, I'm wondering how badly Wen's jaws hurt - he was already jubilating during his interview with Zakaria a couple of weeks ago (GPS @ CNN / Newsweek). But not as much as I did, listening to Alan Greenspan swallow just a tiny little bit of his titanic pride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
