So after all, Hamid Karzai may emerge as the official winner of the August 20th blackout.
The day presidential and regional elections were held in Afghanistan, all lights of democracy seemed to be switched off :
- a me-too product modeled after Iran's 2009 infamous elections : manipulations, forged results, stuffed ballots...
- a few typically local florentine delicacies : last minute outrageous alliances and legislative gifts, continuous and shameless corruption...
- an agenda set by enemies of democracy : Taliban intimidations, threats, bombings, terror attacks, murders, mutilations of women who dared vote..., and to spice it up,
- the revolting complicity of all major Western democracies : eyes, ears, and noses wide shut, observers didn't observe anything, media didn't report anything, respecting the blackout on violence (including the aforementioned attacks on democracy levelled by the Afghan government)
As a result : a parody of democracy, a low turnout, the final destruction of the last illusions of the Afghan people.
The government started testing rumors : Karzai would have won by a landslide with 68% thanks to a massive turnout, so no second round needed, thanks for coming.
In other words : Iran Elections 2009 redux (see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow"), except that unlike Ahmadinejad, Karzai was supposed to cruise easily towards victory in case of a second round : Abdullah Abdullah doesn't enjoy a political spectrum as wide as Mousavi's.
But the attempted fraud went too far : such a stage of forgery would backfire on Western democracies as surely as it did on Khamenei.
So the government backpedaled and anounced today a much more politically correct first batch of official results : President Karzai would enjoy a slight, 2 point lead over his main rival according to 10% of the votes fully counted. 10% more shall be revealed tomorrow, and so on because see, that's the smartest way we and our Western allies found to gain some time to sort things out and build the least implausible scenario. We wouldn't want this crisis to take an Iranian turn, would we ?
Welcome to Ground Zero, Afghanistan. The twin towers of democracy and decency were not that tall so nobody noticed their fall, but this time, inside job conspiration theories are not totally unfounded.
blogules 2009
(also in French : "Afghanistan, morne plaine")
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
20090826
20090803
Israel openly embraces fascism
"Let's face it: they're fascists".
Beyond a certain point, you have to give up politically correctness and diplomatic circumnavigations.
Israel is being ruled by fascists.
This week-end's outrageous expulsions of Palestinian families* in the middle of Palestinian territory (East Jerusalem), only confirmed a recent hike in deliberate provocations from Tel Aviv following Obama's clear warnings issued at Benjamin Netanyahu during his last White House visit : illegal colonization unleashed, hatemongering declarations or actions... (see "Netanyahu's al Aqsa Intifada").
These provocations soothingly comfort Israel's extreme right voters as Avigdor Lieberman feels the heat : following years of investigation, the police officially demanded that the extremist Vice-Prime Minister / Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be charged for a massive corruption scheme.
But Israel had already entered deep into illegal territories long before the Netanyahu Administration V2 even reached power : illegal attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, illegal anschluss of Palestinian land, illegal use of weapons of mass disinformation, illegal colonies, illegal walls, illegal murders on foreign land, negation of basic rights of Palestinian AND Israeli citizens...
Israel is now officially being ruled by fascists, and I'm weighing my words the way I weighed my words five years ago, using the very definition of fascism by Benito Mussolini himself to define Bush-Cheney Amerika (see "Let's face it they're fascists").
Once again, this is not about religion, and this is not even about the existence of Israel. This is about justice and politics, about the legal and political framework wanted by the people of Israel (see "Justice in America - Democracy in Israel?").
If any Israeli citizen refuses to see his or her country embracing fascism any further, let he or she speak out, speak out loud, and speak out now, without waiting for the next elections.
Beyond the future of Palestine, the future of Israel is at stake.
* "Police evict two Arab families in Sheikh Jarrah, sparking furious int'l reaction" (Haaretz 20080801)
Beyond a certain point, you have to give up politically correctness and diplomatic circumnavigations.
Israel is being ruled by fascists.
This week-end's outrageous expulsions of Palestinian families* in the middle of Palestinian territory (East Jerusalem), only confirmed a recent hike in deliberate provocations from Tel Aviv following Obama's clear warnings issued at Benjamin Netanyahu during his last White House visit : illegal colonization unleashed, hatemongering declarations or actions... (see "Netanyahu's al Aqsa Intifada").
These provocations soothingly comfort Israel's extreme right voters as Avigdor Lieberman feels the heat : following years of investigation, the police officially demanded that the extremist Vice-Prime Minister / Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be charged for a massive corruption scheme.
But Israel had already entered deep into illegal territories long before the Netanyahu Administration V2 even reached power : illegal attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, illegal anschluss of Palestinian land, illegal use of weapons of mass disinformation, illegal colonies, illegal walls, illegal murders on foreign land, negation of basic rights of Palestinian AND Israeli citizens...
Israel is now officially being ruled by fascists, and I'm weighing my words the way I weighed my words five years ago, using the very definition of fascism by Benito Mussolini himself to define Bush-Cheney Amerika (see "Let's face it they're fascists").
Once again, this is not about religion, and this is not even about the existence of Israel. This is about justice and politics, about the legal and political framework wanted by the people of Israel (see "Justice in America - Democracy in Israel?").
If any Israeli citizen refuses to see his or her country embracing fascism any further, let he or she speak out, speak out loud, and speak out now, without waiting for the next elections.
Beyond the future of Palestine, the future of Israel is at stake.
* "Police evict two Arab families in Sheikh Jarrah, sparking furious int'l reaction" (Haaretz 20080801)
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").
20090611
Intelligence Supremacy
Yesterday, an 88 year old unrepented White Supremacist, James W. von Brunn, murdered a black guard at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Earlier this month, a "pro-life" fanatic murdered a doctor at his church (see '"Pro Life" Murderers').
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
20090605
State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine
Believe it or not, we live in a multicultural and diverse world.
A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.
Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.
A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :
Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".
Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)
Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".
Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...
The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.
Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".
The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.
A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.
* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").
** see transcript (NYT 20090604)
*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"
A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.
Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.
A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :
Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".
Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)
Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".
Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...
The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.
Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".
The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.
A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.
* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").
** see transcript (NYT 20090604)
*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"
20090601
"Pro Life" Murderers
George Tiller was murdered on Sunday. Just outside the church where he served as an usher, in Wichita, KS. Back in the nineties, this physician already survided one bombing and one shooting.
The murderer* will probably get a life sentence for this monstruous crime... Life for a "pro-lifer", because I presume that this dangerous lunatic considers himself a good Christian and a good defensor of God's creation, and that in this troubled mind, Tiller was a serial killer because he happened to perform late term abortions.
But to the contrary, "thanks" to his crazy act, Tiller died a martyr for actual faith as well as a martyr for the actual "pro-life" movement : those who chose saving one life over fanaticism, those who respect mankind and want to protect democracy from fundamentalism.
Federal law protects people like Tiller because America chose democracy over fundamentalism. His tragic death will resonate during the usual Roe v. Wade bout following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement.
Pro-choice activists will screen Judge Sonia Sotomayor as well as pro-lifers, and both should : any democracy needs transparency, and this one endured enough consequences of hidden agendas. Justice Souter's most important decision was to wait for the Bush-Cheney era to end before leaving office (see "5-4. Still standing").
About Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, I spilled this blogule a couple of days before the November 2004 Elections (see archives : "Red Blogule to this "pro-life" President - Stem cells : who's the murderer ?"**)
Justice Souter will not be replaced by a radical. Nor will Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm so glad Obama makes the choice. Of life.
* probably the man already charged : Scott Roeder, also from Kansas
** to complete the Pro-life trilogy, see also Pro-life / pro-death pro-teges"
The murderer* will probably get a life sentence for this monstruous crime... Life for a "pro-lifer", because I presume that this dangerous lunatic considers himself a good Christian and a good defensor of God's creation, and that in this troubled mind, Tiller was a serial killer because he happened to perform late term abortions.
But to the contrary, "thanks" to his crazy act, Tiller died a martyr for actual faith as well as a martyr for the actual "pro-life" movement : those who chose saving one life over fanaticism, those who respect mankind and want to protect democracy from fundamentalism.
Federal law protects people like Tiller because America chose democracy over fundamentalism. His tragic death will resonate during the usual Roe v. Wade bout following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement.
Pro-choice activists will screen Judge Sonia Sotomayor as well as pro-lifers, and both should : any democracy needs transparency, and this one endured enough consequences of hidden agendas. Justice Souter's most important decision was to wait for the Bush-Cheney era to end before leaving office (see "5-4. Still standing").
About Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, I spilled this blogule a couple of days before the November 2004 Elections (see archives : "Red Blogule to this "pro-life" President - Stem cells : who's the murderer ?"**)
Somebody tell me why this "pro-life" President, so much eager to protect life in the form of embryos, is the biggest supporter of death penalty and holds the record for executions in the US.He did. But American voters redeemed themselves last year.
Somebody tell me why this man, who says every tiny cell counts, doesn't show any remorse when soldiers die because of his failures or kids are slaughtered during his massive bombings to smoke Zarkawi out before November the 2nd.
Somebody tell me why this imposteur, who dares say he defends the values that built America, should even have the slightest chance of fooling the electors once more.
Justice Souter will not be replaced by a radical. Nor will Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm so glad Obama makes the choice. Of life.
* probably the man already charged : Scott Roeder, also from Kansas
** to complete the Pro-life trilogy, see also Pro-life / pro-death pro-teges"
20090530
A Yellow Sea For Roh
Downtown submerged by a tsunami of yellow ribbons, arm bands, hair pins, hats, and balloons.
Not at the Gyeongbokgung today : the color of Roh Moo-hyun's campaigns was strictly forbidden at the site of the official ceremony.
Also forbidden : Kim Dae-jung's eulogy for his successor. This request from the family was turned down by his successor's successor... a measure of respect to other former Presidents according to Lee Myung-bak, a setback for democracy according to the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Also forbidden : Seoul Plaza, closed to mourners until today, for fear of a remake of last year's massive demonstrations. Roh sympathizers improvised the first altar just across the street, in front of Deoksugung's gate, the very morning when he died*. Local and foreign V.I.P.s waited for a more exclusive altar to be opened, a few days later, at the Seoul Museum of History. Both sites felt silent, but one did sound a little more sincere than the other.
Above, the head of the convoy on Sejongno, as it leaves Gyeongbokgung for Seoul Plaza and Roh Moo-hyun's Yellow Sea of supporters.
Right, Roh's collaborators, following the deceased and singing the song that cemented their cause for democracy.
* See "Roh Moo-hyun follows Pierre Beregovoy".
---
initially published on SeoulVillage.
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)
20090416
Last Throes of Democracy : India Votes
The World's biggest democracy votes. Ahead of Iran, and after Israel (another candidate for theocracy*).
Soon, we can actually measure the "Lessons from Mumbai" : either fundamentalists and nationalists gain ground, or moderates secure the country. Or politics at its worst wins : an unnatural coalition cripling democracy and fueling the rise of hatred upon which radicals feed.
Manmohan Singh is far from being Mr Perfect, but he somehow managed to minimize the impact at home of Pakistan's gradual collapse under Pervez Musharraf. India is far from being a model democracy, and it suffered its share of terror well before Mumbai, but the central Government kept some distance from fundamentalism as well as from ultranationalism.
Yet the main issues for voters will be economy, inegalities, not politics. But precisely : beyond these elections, the best way to prevent radicalism from rising is to eradicate poverty and unfairness. May India strengthen its so rich and diverse identity around that noble mission, may India sent the right message of mutual respect to our troubled world.
* "Beyond the Iranian people, Obama is addressing Israel"
see "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?" in "Bush's Farewell : Mission Accomplished... as Fundamentalist in Chief"
Soon, we can actually measure the "Lessons from Mumbai" : either fundamentalists and nationalists gain ground, or moderates secure the country. Or politics at its worst wins : an unnatural coalition cripling democracy and fueling the rise of hatred upon which radicals feed.
Manmohan Singh is far from being Mr Perfect, but he somehow managed to minimize the impact at home of Pakistan's gradual collapse under Pervez Musharraf. India is far from being a model democracy, and it suffered its share of terror well before Mumbai, but the central Government kept some distance from fundamentalism as well as from ultranationalism.
Yet the main issues for voters will be economy, inegalities, not politics. But precisely : beyond these elections, the best way to prevent radicalism from rising is to eradicate poverty and unfairness. May India strengthen its so rich and diverse identity around that noble mission, may India sent the right message of mutual respect to our troubled world.
* "Beyond the Iranian people, Obama is addressing Israel"
see "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?" in "Bush's Farewell : Mission Accomplished... as Fundamentalist in Chief"
20090304
Yoo Got Mail - The Prince's Diary
The USDOJ released on monday confidential OLC memos 1 confirming what everybody already knew : the Bush administration had rather strange ways of defining such concepts as democracy, freedom, justice, or law. To name a not so happy few.
I'm afraid my title may be perceived as too kind for the infamous psychopath who used to run (and disgrace the very name of) the Office of Legal Counsel at the time when those memos were crafted : John Yoo is neither Niccolò Machiavelli, nor even Karl Rove (at least, The Architect did have some competence, some florentine know-how, and a few neurons to spare).
And John Yoo was not an advisor to "Il Principe" : Lorenzo il Magnifico offered Renaissance to the World. George W. Bush ? A sick Medieval revival.
Indeed, W. seems closer to Girolamo Savonarola than to Lorenzo de' Medici : his glorious "acts of faith" will be remembered as the destructive crimes of a dangerous fundamentalist, the same way "auto de fe" / "auto-da-fé" now echoes Spanish Inquisition delicacies, or bonfires of good books or people.
At least, the Bush Administration did embrace innovation in that field, and not only in the torture section : compared to Yoo's 9 memos, a Library of Alexandria of confidential documents has disappeared in the shredding machine feeding frenzy meant to save Dick Cheney from Justice (see "Justice now").
But change has come to America and guess what ? Justice, the real thing, is back.
Exit Yoo. Exeunt Addington, Ashcroft, Gonzales.
Enter Eric Holder. Enter Dawn Johnsen, and the new OLC boss has a long history of sound statements against the mob that used to rule the nation 2.
Other relevent comments ? From Jack Balkin (Yale), who sees in Yoo's memos a "theory of presidential dictatorship". "This was a period of panic, and panic creates an opportunity for patriotic politicians to abuse their power" 3.
I guess "patriotic politicians" abusing their power could pose a problem.
But I know for sure what happens when it's a bunch of "fascist theocons" 4.
1 http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm
2 "Obama's impressive new OLC chief" (Glenn Greenwald - Salon 20090105)
3 "Bush administration memos on presidential powers stun legal experts" - David G. Savage - LA Times 20090303)
4 see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism" and "Let's Face It They're Fascists" (archives 2004)
I'm afraid my title may be perceived as too kind for the infamous psychopath who used to run (and disgrace the very name of) the Office of Legal Counsel at the time when those memos were crafted : John Yoo is neither Niccolò Machiavelli, nor even Karl Rove (at least, The Architect did have some competence, some florentine know-how, and a few neurons to spare).
And John Yoo was not an advisor to "Il Principe" : Lorenzo il Magnifico offered Renaissance to the World. George W. Bush ? A sick Medieval revival.
Indeed, W. seems closer to Girolamo Savonarola than to Lorenzo de' Medici : his glorious "acts of faith" will be remembered as the destructive crimes of a dangerous fundamentalist, the same way "auto de fe" / "auto-da-fé" now echoes Spanish Inquisition delicacies, or bonfires of good books or people.
At least, the Bush Administration did embrace innovation in that field, and not only in the torture section : compared to Yoo's 9 memos, a Library of Alexandria of confidential documents has disappeared in the shredding machine feeding frenzy meant to save Dick Cheney from Justice (see "Justice now").
But change has come to America and guess what ? Justice, the real thing, is back.
Exit Yoo. Exeunt Addington, Ashcroft, Gonzales.
Enter Eric Holder. Enter Dawn Johnsen, and the new OLC boss has a long history of sound statements against the mob that used to rule the nation 2.
Other relevent comments ? From Jack Balkin (Yale), who sees in Yoo's memos a "theory of presidential dictatorship". "This was a period of panic, and panic creates an opportunity for patriotic politicians to abuse their power" 3.
I guess "patriotic politicians" abusing their power could pose a problem.
But I know for sure what happens when it's a bunch of "fascist theocons" 4.
1 http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm
2 "Obama's impressive new OLC chief" (Glenn Greenwald - Salon 20090105)
3 "Bush administration memos on presidential powers stun legal experts" - David G. Savage - LA Times 20090303)
4 see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism" and "Let's Face It They're Fascists" (archives 2004)
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 :
20081222
So help me Rick Warren
The key question is not "Does it matter that Rick Warren will give the inaugural invocation ?"1 but "Does it matter that a supposedly model democracy performs inaugurations with invocations, swearings on the Bible, and the final words 'so help me God' ?"
I don't consider myself an atheist and I understand the value of traditions, but these symbols are a clear statement against the separation of church and state at the most critical moment : when the power is handed to the very person who will defend the U.S. Constitution.
I know I'm repeating myself ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism"), but even religious Spain understood that this century and moreover this post-9/11 World demanded clear messages from democracies. Zapatero swore with his right hand on the Spanish Constitution.
I don't consider myself an atheist and I understand the value of traditions, but these symbols are a clear statement against the separation of church and state at the most critical moment : when the power is handed to the very person who will defend the U.S. Constitution.
I know I'm repeating myself ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism"), but even religious Spain understood that this century and moreover this post-9/11 World demanded clear messages from democracies. Zapatero swore with his right hand on the Spanish Constitution.
Barack Obama can't afford this now, and his poor choice of Rick Warren proves to those who doubted that he won't ignite any divisive war during his mandate.
But I have this dream : President Obama casually swearing on the U.S. Constitution for his second term.
In doing so, Barack Hussein Obama will also defuse many mines for successors who are bound to break, sooner or later, that other glass ceiling.
1 - see today's Politico Arena.
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.
20081021
Drop ACORN, pick-up YPM
YPM (Young Political Majors) are under several investigations for voter frauds across different states (ie bait-and-switch registration schemes). YPM owner Mark Jacoby has just been arrested in Ontario*.
Now here is a genuine threat to democracy, Mac. The problem is, YPM was hired by the GOP to do this, so you'd better keep quiet a low profile on ACORN... which has nothing to do with the Obama-Biden campaign, nor even the Dems.
I guess this is it, John McCain. All your accusations have failed lamentably :
How can you say Obama is a threat to democracy when HE is its last chance and YOU are ready to destroy it ?
How can you say Obama is a socialist when HE is working on the salvation of the whole economy, and YOU are voting for the same rescue package ?
How can you say Obama is palling around with a former terrorist when HE is simply accepting a membership to the same charity run by Republicans (the said terrorist turned into a Chicago Citizen of the Year), and YOU are a member of the USWCF board during the very peak of this organization's most infamous exactions ?
How can you say Obama doesn't share American values when HE is fighting for the restoration of America's greatness and advocating a sound, respectful and profound approach of religion, and YOU are fueling racial and religious hatred, courting Amerika's worst enemies, and reciting empty mantras in which you obviously don't even believe ?
Your smear ads backfired to the point Republican candidates are begging you to stop them. Colin Powell broke the dam, and will unleash a flock of true Republicans who cannot subscribe to your not-so-hidden agenda***.
You lost, because you chose the wrong side of your party, the wrong side of your country, the wrong side of your own self.
You lost the War in MacCainistan.
* see "Voters contend they were duped into registering as Republicans" (LA Times 20081017)
** see "Ontario police arrest man in voter fraud case" (LA Times 20081020)
*** at last ! see "GOP : Time to Split"
PS : don't forget to report any voter fraud attempt (more more about this CMD initiative on "The Election Protection Wiki")
Addendum 20081022 : speaking of the wrong side of America, here is Jon Stewart wondering where the pf..k is real America :
Now here is a genuine threat to democracy, Mac. The problem is, YPM was hired by the GOP to do this, so you'd better keep quiet a low profile on ACORN... which has nothing to do with the Obama-Biden campaign, nor even the Dems.
I guess this is it, John McCain. All your accusations have failed lamentably :
How can you say Obama is a threat to democracy when HE is its last chance and YOU are ready to destroy it ?
How can you say Obama is a socialist when HE is working on the salvation of the whole economy, and YOU are voting for the same rescue package ?
How can you say Obama is palling around with a former terrorist when HE is simply accepting a membership to the same charity run by Republicans (the said terrorist turned into a Chicago Citizen of the Year), and YOU are a member of the USWCF board during the very peak of this organization's most infamous exactions ?
How can you say Obama doesn't share American values when HE is fighting for the restoration of America's greatness and advocating a sound, respectful and profound approach of religion, and YOU are fueling racial and religious hatred, courting Amerika's worst enemies, and reciting empty mantras in which you obviously don't even believe ?
Your smear ads backfired to the point Republican candidates are begging you to stop them. Colin Powell broke the dam, and will unleash a flock of true Republicans who cannot subscribe to your not-so-hidden agenda***.
You lost, because you chose the wrong side of your party, the wrong side of your country, the wrong side of your own self.
You lost the War in MacCainistan.
* see "Voters contend they were duped into registering as Republicans" (LA Times 20081017)
** see "Ontario police arrest man in voter fraud case" (LA Times 20081020)
*** at last ! see "GOP : Time to Split"
PS : don't forget to report any voter fraud attempt (more more about this CMD initiative on "The Election Protection Wiki")
Addendum 20081022 : speaking of the wrong side of America, here is Jon Stewart wondering where the pf..k is real America :
20081009
The Election Protection Wiki
I forgot to mention this great initiative from (who else ?) the Center for Media and Democracy :
From John Stauber :
The Election Protection Wiki: A Dynamic Website Helps Safeguard America’s Right to Vote
The non-profit, non-partisan Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) has launched a unique website to help safeguard the fairness and integrity of US elections, using the power of citizen journalism. The Election Protection Wiki is now online at EPWiki.org . It enables citizens, journalists and government officials to actively monitor the electoral process in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. CMD and its community of volunteer editors will continue to improve, expand and update the EP Wiki beyond the upcoming November 4th election.
The Election Protection Wiki: A Dynamic Website Helps Safeguard America’s Right to Vote
The non-profit, non-partisan Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) has launched a unique website to help safeguard the fairness and integrity of US elections, using the power of citizen journalism. The Election Protection Wiki is now online at EPWiki.org . It enables citizens, journalists and government officials to actively monitor the electoral process in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. CMD and its community of volunteer editors will continue to improve, expand and update the EP Wiki beyond the upcoming November 4th election.
The EP Wiki is part of CMD’s award-winning SourceWatch website and operates on wiki software which allows anyone who registers on the website to participate in creating and updating articles. SourceWatch contains in-depth articles on every member of (and most candidates for) the US Congress at Congresspedia.org . CMD employs both professional and volunteer editors who work together online to ensure articles are fair, accurate and fully documented.
epwiki.org
epwiki.org
20080905
"Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?
What a disgrace for such a great man.
A "Maverick" ?
McCain sold his soul to Bush and other theocons in order to clinch the nomination, and even accepted the humiliation of a Karl Rove sidekick leading his own campaign, 8 years after being thrashed by the same team.
"Change" ?
What do you think McCain had to pledge to these madhatters in order to get their nods ? Over the last few years, he has repeatedly pleaded allegiance to theocons, Intelligent Design advocates and extremists who expect only one thing from him : to put one more ultraconservative justice in the Supreme Court.
A "Maverick" ?
McCain sold his soul to Bush and other theocons in order to clinch the nomination, and even accepted the humiliation of a Karl Rove sidekick leading his own campaign, 8 years after being thrashed by the same team.
"Change" ?
What do you think McCain had to pledge to these madhatters in order to get their nods ? Over the last few years, he has repeatedly pleaded allegiance to theocons, Intelligent Design advocates and extremists who expect only one thing from him : to put one more ultraconservative justice in the Supreme Court.
George seems to trust John, to be sure he won't take any maverick initiative. And he told it clearly to his fellow fundamentalists at the RNC : "John is a leader who knows that human life is fragile … that human life is precious … that human life must be defended". The message is clear : this guy will destroy Roe vs Wade. And John knows something : his new friends have put a born again ayatollah one heartbeat away from his job... so he'd better enjoy his eighth house quietly, and paint it black without asking too many questions. Sarah Palin is not only a pitbull with lipsync (see her stand-alone gig reading o'reillishly partisan jokes from a prompter), but some kind of "pro-life insurance" for hardcore fundamentalists.
How dare John McCain claim at the same time his independent heritage, the Bush heritage, and the theocon leadership ?
"Change is coming" all right : voting for McCain means voting against America and for Amerika, against democracy and for theocracy. I saw McCain change over the years and I wouldn't like all his fellow Americans to follow the same path.
Will America be fooled once more, or will America wake up on time and declare its independence from theocons ?
20080113
GOP : Time to Split
I warned Republican voters four years ago* : if Bush wins these elections, your party loses.
The divide seems everyday more obvious now, but the main decision remains to be taken : to separate US politics from religion.
As expected**, all 2008 candidates are compelled to prove how strong their belief is, and this sick competition turns into a caricature : Romney, faithful to his Mormon religion as well as to his wife, is criticized by a womanizer (Giuliani) and two more or less outspoken promoters of Intelligent Design (Huckabee and McCain - the latter even gave conferences at the infamous Liberty University and Discovery Institute***). It sounds almost normal to most Americans but this is not a political debate - at least not in a country supposed to be a model democracy.
It is time to make things clear to the audience at the National as well as at the International levels and to officialize the creation of The Theocratic Party. All candidates would then decide : do they put democracy and the republic first, or they believe politics should be ruled by religion ?
True democrats and true republicans will chose not to mix religion with politics. Those who want America to turn into a theocracy and away from its core values must be clear about it. They can keep competing on theological issues, but never more in the name of a Republican or a Democratic Party.
* see "Red Blogule to the Bush system - Prevent a New War of Secession" (20041101)
** see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism" (20070809)
*** if you didn't get the scoop from my French blogules ("Bonne année 2009" - 20080102) : both are casting Bruce K. Chapman as their VP
The divide seems everyday more obvious now, but the main decision remains to be taken : to separate US politics from religion.
As expected**, all 2008 candidates are compelled to prove how strong their belief is, and this sick competition turns into a caricature : Romney, faithful to his Mormon religion as well as to his wife, is criticized by a womanizer (Giuliani) and two more or less outspoken promoters of Intelligent Design (Huckabee and McCain - the latter even gave conferences at the infamous Liberty University and Discovery Institute***). It sounds almost normal to most Americans but this is not a political debate - at least not in a country supposed to be a model democracy.
It is time to make things clear to the audience at the National as well as at the International levels and to officialize the creation of The Theocratic Party. All candidates would then decide : do they put democracy and the republic first, or they believe politics should be ruled by religion ?
True democrats and true republicans will chose not to mix religion with politics. Those who want America to turn into a theocracy and away from its core values must be clear about it. They can keep competing on theological issues, but never more in the name of a Republican or a Democratic Party.
* see "Red Blogule to the Bush system - Prevent a New War of Secession" (20041101)
** see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism" (20070809)
*** if you didn't get the scoop from my French blogules ("Bonne année 2009" - 20080102) : both are casting Bruce K. Chapman as their VP
20071113
Hillary vs anyone = Bloomberg 2008 ?
Over one year ago, I predicted a candidacy of Segolene Royal in France would be the best opportunity for center hopeful Francois Bayrou. Sego eventually did get her chance, but Bayrou blew his own.
I've been telling the same about Michael Bloomberg for a while : should Hillary Clinton prevail in the Primaries and run without Obama, the mayor of New York could win as an independent. Except this time, the man would deliver.
Don't get me wrong. I'm mentioning "the man" and not "the male", and the fact that both Royal and Clinton are female is a pure coincidence. There was clearly a question of character and competence for Royal*, whilst Clinton mainly suffers, more or less unfairly, from a popularity problem.
I'm quite sure Bloomberg waits for the outcome of the Democratic race. Should he bring a new, disruptive face as a Veep**, he would gain momentum within weeks. Heck : for all you know, he could hire the best team. Not as a candidate, but as the head of a non partisan administration.
The US are ripe for a telluric change in politics. This is no more about Elephants vs Donkeys but about forward looking and humanists vs conservative and determinists. And consider "conservative" and "determinist" at the literal sense of the term : a hardcore liberal can be ultra conservative and an ayatollah of free trade as determinist as a radical Hegelian.
Bloomberg is by no means the perfect man. Yet he does stand a chance and he could make a change.
Anyway, I believe both Obama and Hillary can deliver great presidencies. And I sincerely hope whoever wins will actually reach across the aisles to make a sustainable difference.
What America needs now is not alternance from Reps to Dems but from offside politics to noble politics, from the negation of the republic and of democracy to the essence of republic and democracy.
* see my not so kind blogules on her in French.
** I mean someone coming out of the blue, not out of the Grand Old Blue Party.
I've been telling the same about Michael Bloomberg for a while : should Hillary Clinton prevail in the Primaries and run without Obama, the mayor of New York could win as an independent. Except this time, the man would deliver.
Don't get me wrong. I'm mentioning "the man" and not "the male", and the fact that both Royal and Clinton are female is a pure coincidence. There was clearly a question of character and competence for Royal*, whilst Clinton mainly suffers, more or less unfairly, from a popularity problem.
I'm quite sure Bloomberg waits for the outcome of the Democratic race. Should he bring a new, disruptive face as a Veep**, he would gain momentum within weeks. Heck : for all you know, he could hire the best team. Not as a candidate, but as the head of a non partisan administration.
The US are ripe for a telluric change in politics. This is no more about Elephants vs Donkeys but about forward looking and humanists vs conservative and determinists. And consider "conservative" and "determinist" at the literal sense of the term : a hardcore liberal can be ultra conservative and an ayatollah of free trade as determinist as a radical Hegelian.
Bloomberg is by no means the perfect man. Yet he does stand a chance and he could make a change.
Anyway, I believe both Obama and Hillary can deliver great presidencies. And I sincerely hope whoever wins will actually reach across the aisles to make a sustainable difference.
What America needs now is not alternance from Reps to Dems but from offside politics to noble politics, from the negation of the republic and of democracy to the essence of republic and democracy.
* see my not so kind blogules on her in French.
** I mean someone coming out of the blue, not out of the Grand Old Blue Party.
20071007
Benedict XVI's "coming out"
To those who doubted, the Pope gave the ultimate proof.
I'm not talking about the existence of God but about the nature of John Paul II's successor : a Christian fundamentalist who after attacking science and education* decided to bulldoze democracy and justice.
Benedict XVI wants "natural law" to rule where "civil law" does : about abortion, euthanasia, ethics, moral, and other issues that have no clear frontiers and can ultimately claim all human activities. Actually, the aim is to leave no room for civil law. Or else, the whole society collapses - call it Judgment Day, Armageddon or moneytime, you get the general idea. "No man-made law can subvert the norms written by the creator in human hearts without society itself being dramatically attacked in what constitutes its necessary basis". Some can translate "in human hearts" by "in the Bible" or in whatever opus they want.
Trim off the "feel good" verbiage and what do you get ? This man is once again talking about the substitution of the law of man by the law of God. This man is once again trying to put religion at the core of the society and at the core of politics. This man is once again crossing the line and opening the gates to fundamentalism.
* see "Red blogule to Benedict XVI - fundamentally wrong" (20060921) and other blogules related to Benito the 16th.
I'm not talking about the existence of God but about the nature of John Paul II's successor : a Christian fundamentalist who after attacking science and education* decided to bulldoze democracy and justice.
Benedict XVI wants "natural law" to rule where "civil law" does : about abortion, euthanasia, ethics, moral, and other issues that have no clear frontiers and can ultimately claim all human activities. Actually, the aim is to leave no room for civil law. Or else, the whole society collapses - call it Judgment Day, Armageddon or moneytime, you get the general idea. "No man-made law can subvert the norms written by the creator in human hearts without society itself being dramatically attacked in what constitutes its necessary basis". Some can translate "in human hearts" by "in the Bible" or in whatever opus they want.
Trim off the "feel good" verbiage and what do you get ? This man is once again talking about the substitution of the law of man by the law of God. This man is once again trying to put religion at the core of the society and at the core of politics. This man is once again crossing the line and opening the gates to fundamentalism.
* see "Red blogule to Benedict XVI - fundamentally wrong" (20060921) and other blogules related to Benito the 16th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
