Fluctuat nec mergitur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humanity is not sinking.

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

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

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

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

---

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

Follow Us

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

Imperial Japan v. Japan

On December 14, Japan will probably give the LDP four more years to rule. More than enough for Shinzo Abe to fulfill his dream of destroying post-war Japan (see "It's the democracy, stupid").

Even the return of recession, and a Moody's downgrade won't affect the result of the snap elections: Japan has already reached the point when the economic alibi (Abenomics) isn't even required anymore to sell the political agenda (Abeignomics).

Abe and his fellow Nippon Kaigi friends never hid their intentions:

• to restore the Empire of Japan (monarchy, State Shinto, militarism)
• to rewrite the Constitution and history textbooks
• to abandon post-war pacifism, peace treaties, Japan's human rights law
• to negate the existence of Japanese war crimes
• to remove all memorials to the victims of sex slavery for the Japanese military
• to occult documents as 'State Secrets' and to harass whistleblowers

The State Secrets Law, a Patriot Act on steroids, will be implemented on December 10, even before the vote. Thanks to it, this openly revisionist government will decide which documents will be forbidden to reveal. People who dare disclose the truth, for instance regarding Imperial Japan war crimes, will face jail.

Anyway, hard to find a media to which blow the whistle: NHK is controlled by a friend of Abe's, the Yomiuri Shimbun and the Sankei Shimbun renewed their pledge to spread negationist versions of 'the facts', and their venom on a Asahi Shimbun still licking its wounds.

Foreign media are multiplying articles exposing the imposture, the outrageous lies, and Japan's suicidal path (special mention to the New York Times), but they're boycotted by the ruling party. And if Abe accepted to talk to The Economist, it ended in a surreal interview pushing denial to new standards (see "Shinzo Abe talks to The Economist").

Sorry for boring you with lost causes. 2014 Japan mirrors 2004 USA, except for the fact that the hidden agenda is even more extreme. And that it's not even hidden.

*

See all posts related to Shinzo Abe on blogules and Seoul Village.
See all tweets related to #ABEIGNomics and #YesToJapanNoToNipponKaigi.
See my piece in French on the Nippon Kaigi imposture: "En finir avec Nippon Kaigi" (on blogules V.F.), followed by ""En finir avec Nippon Kaigi, le lobby révisionniste japonais"" (on Rue89)

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

Follow Us

Booz Allen is watching you. Saving Private Snowden or Saving Public Manning? (Outsourcing intel in Patriot Act times - When Big Data meets Small Government)

So I received this email*, which is supposed to make me feel guilty:

"191,537 people have signed President Obama's birthday letter.

But you're not ONE OF THEM.

SIGN THE CARD."

 
Sorry, but I don't feel guilty. And this choice of picture... Barack Obama like Cary Grant carrying that glass of milk to Joan Fontaine in "Suspicion"...

Well. I'm still ONE OF THEM, them people who subscribe to Barack Obama newsletters. So the NSA didn't have to scan my profile to find out I didn't sign the darn card: I opted in 6 years ago. And yes, I still receive Karl Rove memos - you need a good laugh now and then.

Ah! Ah! Guantanamo, can't get tired of that old Bush-Cheney joke! Actually, Obama's America invented something even better than Guantanamo in Cuba: One-man-ammo in Russia! You're afraid to face unfair justice in the US? Uncle Vlad will be happy to provide tailored hospitality in his model democracy.

No, Eric Holder hasn't choked on a pretzel yet.

Frankly, I think Saving Private Snowden is less important than Saving Public Manning. I'm not talking about poor whistleblower Bradley Manning, but about national intelligence services.

Outsourcing intel at the core of NSA is already disturbing. To a Carlyle Group affiliate. As if Israel were outsourcing its strategy to the Boston Consulting Group. Sorry, wrong example.

Outsourcing intel in Patriot Act times, when Big Data meets Small Government.

Outsourcing intel means that the Big Brother who's watching you is not the NSA but Booz Allen Hamilton.

And don't think these contractors are very careful when they handle or man this most sensitive mission. Booz Allen CEO Ralph W. Shrader said "Mr. Snowden was on our payroll for a short period of time, but he was not a Booz Allen person and he did not share our values".

In other words: "Oh, you know, that mission you hired us for, spying for America? You can trust us: we gave the job to a most untrustworthy person. Anyway, we can't afford to keep the best ones, they sell their services to foreign companies and nations. Handling confidential NSA stuff, that's pretty good on a resume when you're looking for a job in Russia, in Pakistan, or at Facebook. Non Disclosure Agreements? We do those, but only to make sure the public doesn't know how much your Government is paying us. By the way, can we renegociate this contract of ours? We believe you need new servers and software to catch up with the competition. To build their own systems, they hired people who were trained on your obsolete material and knew all your weaknesses."

Talking about weaky leaks.

McLean, Va. 795,582,003,441,637,794 data burgers served across the world.





Outsourcing intel: - #ParriotAct + #BigData + small government = #BoozAllen is watching you - Saving private #Snowden or public #Manning?
twitter.com/stephanemot/status/363709151731388416
 
#Snowden: after #Guantanamo in #Cuba, the US created #OneManAmo in #Russia The moral hazards of outsourcing intel in #PatriotAct times
twitter.com/stephanemot/status/363710368557711362





blogules 2013
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

The main threat against Japan? Its own leader

On July 21, 2013, Shinzo Abe's LDP will probably win the House of Councillors elections, and the controversial Prime Minister move closer to his dreams of revising the Constitution, discarding the peaceful nature of Post-War Japan, and restoring the belligerent nature of Imperial Japan. The publication of the annual white paper "Defense of Japan" is the perfect occasion to mobilize the base ahead of the elections.

Abe has made no secret of his intentions to modify the fundamental Article 9 of the Constitution, which clearly defines Japan as a peaceful nation ("Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes"*), and prior to that, to change the Article 96, which makes it difficult to change the Constitution itself. Right now, you first need the two thirds of each of the two Houses to vote the change, then a popular vote to ratify the text**.

In order to optimize his victory in elections that vast moderate majority don't perceive as vital for the future of Japan, Abe needs a strong mobilization from his ultra-nationalist base. That's one of the reasons why his government has recently been reviving tensions with Japan's neighbors around Dokdo, Senkaku, or Kuril islands. And should uproar and anger explode across the region, they would once more be used to trick the peaceful people of Japan into believing that this anti-democratic government is actually protecting the interests of a people surrounded by hot-tempered barbarians.

Very significantly, the "Defense of Japan 2013" annual white paper issued on July 9 by the Ministry of Defense justifies the first increase in Japan's defense budget in 11 years by depicting East Asia as a region on the brink of war, where everybody's beefing up their military capacities, and where diplomacy is not even mentioned as an option: North Korea's nuclear threats got more serious than ever, "China’s activities in the sea/air area surrounding Japan involve its intrusion into Japan’s territorial waters, its violation of Japan's airspace and even dangerous actions that could cause a contingency situation", "Russia continues to intensify its military activities", and even Southeast Asian countries are forced to modernize their military forces.

Of course, the Abe Government has been pouring oil on every possible fire to make diplomacy as irrelevant as possible, and the document hints at more than just increases in Defense spendings: towards a structural revision of the National Defense Program Guidelines and the Basic Policy for National Defense, and potentially a redefinition of key concepts such as "military power", "self defense", "right for belligerency" or, why not, "control over the military by democratic political authority".

The new National Defense Program Guidelines expected by the end of the year - in other words after the elections - are expected to include the capacity, for Self Defense Forces - provided the name sticks -, "of striking military targets in enemy countries" (see "White paper echoes Abe's plans to strengthen Japan’s defense" - Asahi Shimbun 20130710).

What we'd like to hear is Shinzo Abe state loud and clear, here and now, ubi et orbi, and with all the specifics, his precise vision and his ultimate goals, how he would rewrite the Constitution, in which terms he would redefine the nation, what would be allowed and not allowed for its defense. But unlike Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto, Shinzo Abe always wisely / cowardly comes short of fully speaking his mind out. And if he never leaves any room for misinterpretations, he knows how to use symbols and circular references when he's venturing into the most outrageous territories, as he recently proved during his sick tribute to the infamous Unit 731 (see "Can't top that? Shinzo Abe posing as Shiro Ishii, the Josef Mengele of Imperial Japan").

So will the right for peace triumph over the right for belligerency? With an opposition unwilling to risk infuriating the ultra-conservative minority that corrupts and controls Japan's whole political system, the population remains overwhelmingly unaware of the dangers. But one thing is sure: belligerence being defined as an aggressive or warlike disposition or behavior, Shinzo Abe himself is more than ready for action.

And in this most defining moment, the main question remains***: will the great people of Japan wake up at last, and say no to Shinzo Abe, or will it let him continue saying and doing whatever he fancies, and let the whole nation follow him along this suicidal path?

blogules 2013

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

* Note that the repudiation of pacifism happens to be the first article in the definition of fascism, as written by Benito Mussolini himself in 1932: "Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death". Note also that the last element of Mussolini's definition of fascism refers to imperialism, another key ingredient in today's Imperial Japan nostalgia: "For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence". (source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp - long time no recycling for this definition - see "Red Blogule to neo-fascists - LET'S FACE IT THEY'RE FASCISTS" - 2004/05/27)

** see previous episodes, and on Seoul Village: "ABE forced to back down a bit. For the moment. Next PR stunt: KIM Jong-un"

*** see "Dear Japan, Say No To Fascism"

The Sand Curtain, Two Years Later (or is it 20?)

Islamists being among the fiercest enemies of democracy, you certainly can't defeat them with a permanent denial of democracy, particularly when they've claimed some level of legitimacy in elections. So if no true supporter of democracy can be fully satisfied by Egypt's sudden demorsification, one can hope lessons from Algeria have been learned.

Regional and global terrorism feed upon this kind of shell games and actually, Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb celebrates the merger of the islamist movement that was prevented from winning the 1991 elections in Algeria* with a global franchise whose main theorician and now main leader happens to come from Egypt. And people like Ayman al-Zawahiri loves to have enemies like Hosni Mubarak or Adbelaziz Bouteflika (not to mention the Saudi ruling family, Bibi Netanyahu or, even better, George W. Bush**).

So today, as Abdelaziz Bouteflika reaches the end of his rope, Mohamed Morsi the end of his luck, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan the end of his imposture***, the moment has come to make very clear the point that was at the core of the Egyptian revolution, before the Muslim Brotherhood hijacked it: "we reject as false the choice between dictatorship and fundamentalism"****.

And again, this should not become a debate about religion, but about politics. And again, secularism is the only way of securing both democracy and freedom of religion. One of the best illustrations is the ban of Burqa in France - a case I discussed with Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawi back in June 2009*****.

Egypt cannot secure its democracy until it states clearly the separation of State and religion (of course the same could be said about any country, be it Iran or Israel). And ultimately, the Muslim Brotherhood will have to chose between democracy and illegality.

blogules 2013
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)


* from Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) and Groupe Islamique Arme (GIA) to Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat (GSPC) to Al Qaeda au Maghreb Islamique (AQMI)

** see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism":

Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. (...) For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment. His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success. Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country. And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party. George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism".

*** see "Turquie : la révolution silencieuse" (20070723 on my French blogules):

Turkey: the Silent Revolution Coupled with the rise of extreme right nationalism (14% for the MHP) and the strenghtening of Kurdish nationalism (again over 20 lawmakers for the DTP), Recep Tayyip Erdogan's triumph (the AKP claimerd over half of the votes) only leaves twenty something percent of the vote to the main republican party. And when one sees this CHP cling to a caricature of edulcorated kemalism, one can wonder if Turkey has not turned its back for good on its ideal of secular democracy. As expected, the pressures from Western Christian fundamentalists on Turkey only beefed up islamists and nationalists, marginalizing the true heralds of a model democracy.  Erdogan won because of his economic results and because of the irrelevance of his opponents. And if he remains hindered by an aging military clique, his islamist revolution is well under way, and time is on his side (like demographics). Turkey is asserting itself as a new model combining economic modernity and religious archaism where woman is progressively sidelined, where the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV) can freely spread its creationist theses, and where change is implemented from the bottom up through socio-religious pressure more efficiently than through a law that will eventually be altered - if not the letter of the law, at least the acts. Turkey's candidacy for EU membership is now taking the turn that all the enemies of democracy wanted: a forum - La candidature à l'Europe prend désormais toute la saveur qu'attendaient d'elle les ennemis de la démocratie : un forum - amplifier for all the hatred and fears they've been knowledgeably feeding for years. European voters must reject this parody of a debate, punish those who deliberately pour oil on the fire, and refuse the 'clash of civilizations' imposture. Let's send to our Turkish friends a message of exemplary nature by rejecting as anti-democratic the return of religion in the political debate. Starting with the debate about the integration of Turkey in Europe.

**** see "Sand curtain" (2011/02)

"(...) Of course, nature abhors a vacuum, and fundamentalists would love to step in to fill the ideology void. At this defining moment, most people on the street seem to reject as false the choice between dictatorship and fundamentalism, but most people on the street prefer order to chaos, and uncertainty shouldn't last too long. Israel nervously watches as Jordanian and Egyptian regimes falter under popular pressure. Muslim friends who could turn enemies, with the benediction of Iran, whose own corrupt regime postponed its ineluctable fall by a few years by crushing popular uprisings at home. Unfortunately, these days, Israeli leaders seem to position themselves as a corrupt regime with some ideology. Not a dictatorship, mind you, but not a bunch of nice guys either. Barack Obama is a nice guy. Unfortunately, these days, the US leader doesn't seem to be in charge of foreign policy, so huge is the gap between what he says and what the US do. And the poor lad doesn't have one Gorbachev to call if he wants that sand curtain torn down... So what's ahead ? Probably trouble and uncertainties, but somehow this transitional period has started after WWII and independence wars, and we're closer to the end than from the beginning. Something new will emerge and eventually, something positive. Societies freed from political and religious deviances. Hopefully, the time has come for a true Muslim renaissance. Right now, most dictators across the globe must have gotten some kind of message. But even supposedly strong democracies should be thinking twice when they applaud successful local uprisings or self-determination processes like in South Sudan : what is a nation in this globalized world, what will be holding its members together in this networked millenium ? More than ever, each individual will reach for the universal (as a human being), and the personal (identity)."

***** following the post "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one" (200906)

The Commander In Chief Has Spoken

I won't be cruel enough to compare DNC 2012 and RNC 2012... Scratch that. I mean. Who could decently resist the urge?

The only speech we remember from Tampa is Clint Eastwood's "Clumsy Harry" flop, and I can't count the stellar performances I've seen in Charlotte over the past three nights. Light years ahead of the Tampa duds.

What better answer to Fading Star Shooter Clint Eastwood than Recovering Gabrielle Giffords? Gaby wasn't stellar, simply radiating. Not decomposing side by side with an empty chair, but proudly looking forward, standing in front of a US flag. Gaby went ahead and made our day very very special.

Of course, this being the DEMOCRATIC party, a mirror to the great American rainbow, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer had to stick to his guns just like, the previous night*, Sister Simone Campbell stuck to her 'pro-life stance'. And of course, Schweitzer, who knows Mitt Romney and business far to well to vote Republican, was not aired by FoxNews. What I didn't expect was CNN cutting Charlie Crist in the middle of his speech.

I think Barack Obama gave the greatest speech any human being could give under the circumstances, but if I were to pick the best performance of this great convention, I'd vote Michelle Obama, with John Kerry a not so distant second.

Sorry Bill. I loved the way you tippergored Barack while Hillary was in Noncharlottistan, but John Kerry was much more presidential than you. And he didn't stretch his talk beyond the essential: every single word, every single sentence connected. Timeless yet timely common sense, wisdom, vision... If Kerry was not a great campaigner, he would have been one of the greatest POTUS in History. Actually, I wonder if I haven't already seen his face on a US bank note.

The way President Kerry dismembered President Romney... splendid. Yes, that was an easy task: "I, Romnbot"** isn't assembled yet. Yes, he didn't miss the opportunity to expose the actual flip-flopper. But as the - I hope - next Secretary of State, John Kerry also exposed Mitt Romney as the worst possible world leader, nailing him with a delicious "before you debate Barack Obama on foreign policy, you better finish the debate with yourself". Ouch.

Romney never stood the comparison with Obama, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, or even that empty chair. Even Jill Biden outshone any GOP speaker. A full time teacher, a military mom, and the thing that both Obamas and both Bidens have that the Romneys and Ryans lack: sincerity in the eyes. With friends like Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, or Joe Biden, Barack Obama will move more mountains. Mitt Romney looked everyday smaller, more lonely. Someone smoke him out of the hole he dug himself into before November 6!

With that unique smile of his, Joe Biden showed how Barack Obama decided to take the high way instead of Romney's "Bain way". He highlighted equal access, stakeholders, values, instead of inequities and shareholder value. And confirmed the record: GM alive, Bin Laden dead.

Romney's record? An old, scratched LP playing the same negative tune on and on, never moving to a new plane, never even disclosing a plan. America doesn't need negative vibes right now, "it has never, never, ever, been a good bet to bet against the American people", and "we have no intention of downsizing the American Dream".

The Romney campaign communique following the DNC summed up the GOP's lack of ideas and vision. It could have been written before the convention: "Tonight President Obama laid out the choice in this election, making the case for more of the same policies that haven't worked for the past four years. He offered more promises, but he hasn’t kept the promises he made four years ago. Americans will hold President Obama accountable for his record – they know they’re not better off and that it’s time to change direction. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will restore America’s promise and deliver a better future for our country."

And after watching both conventions, how can one possibly hesitate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to lead the world? How can one possibly put Paul Ryan in Biden's seat behind the POTUS for Romney's State of the Disunion Address? In a position to potentially nominate the next Supreme Justice?

America needs love, good vibes. Look at Joe and Jill, look how Michelle Obama introduced her lover, outhugging Bill Clinton in a warm embrace.

America needs self confidence. Look at Obama talk about the return of "Made in America" when "No-Tax-Return" Mitt Romney plays it "Hidden in Caymans". Look at this Commander in Chief mocking at the Gaffer in Chief's foreign politic antics in London.

Barack Obama couldn't propose the same kind of speech as four years ago. He had to go down from the Olymp of timeless principles to concrete, day to day issues, and he did it efficiently and gracefully. But he didn't lose his mojo nor his vision of History, and he presidentially restored citizenship as a core value.

From Day 1***, this Convention has been all about Unity in diversity and adversity. And united, all Democrats stood for democracy.

And at the end of it all, Barack Obama delivered an inspiring acceptance speech, boosting the whole country forward, where Mitt Romney only read a boring denial script, barely comforting Bain investors.

Take that, Mitt: Barack is The President. And THE. Chief. Executive. Officer. 

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

* see "Bubba Clinton rocks DNC 2012: GOP Unity My Ass!"
** see "I RomnBot (Meet Mitt)" *** "DNC 2012 Day 1: Come Together, Now"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

DSK is not 'not guilty' : US Justice's standards are poor

Even if the case has been dropped, Dominique Strauss-Kahn is not 'not guilty' : New York D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr is guilty of cowardice, and the US Judiciary guilty of mixing politics with justice.

I more than reasonably doubt that Mr Vance believes DSK to be innocent.

I more than reasonably doubt that this masquerade will serve women's rights : for rape victims, the Nafissatou Diallo jurisprudence states that you are not a Saint you will be treated as a whore.
I more than reasonably doubt that the judicial system that spared O. J. Simpson is just.

I more than reasonably doubt that in a democracy District Attorneys should be elected directly by the people and campaigning as politicians.

US Justice's standards are poor : it should be downgraded.

blogules 2011

Texas State Board of Education dumps Education in favor of Creationism

I love Texas, but my patience is wearing thin.

Hosting and supporting the worst POTUS in history was one thing, delivering his dystopia is pushing a bit too far.

Among the key changes voted by the State Board of Education for 10 years starting in 2011-2012 :
- pupils will be taught that "separation of church and state" isn't written in the Constitution, a necessary step towards Dubya's vision (Intelligent Design at school, theocracy in Washington)
- pupils will be asked to point out attacks from the UN and other international bodies against the US of Amerika (you know, them Human Rights and Geneva Conventions, those un-Amerikan terrorists who dared criticize the way we handled things in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo)

Contagion to other states would be certain : Texas being a major market for textbooks, it often sets the pace at the national level.

I'm speechless, but I hope true democrats and republicans (across the aisle, without the capital D and R) will not let this infamy happen.

The obvious ways out would be a gubernatorial win by Democrats or a Supreme Court overrule. But even if they lose in the end, GOP fundamentalists would win by reigniting a really un-american civil war. This episode is also a perfect stimulus for mid-term elections : expect a spectacular turnout across the Bible belt.

blogules 2010

GOP meets Poujadism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blogules 2010

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

Herman van Rompuy, haikus, humor and religion

The new President of the European Council is praised for his talents as a negociator and haiku writer as well as for an undisputable sense of humor. What bothers me is the main reason why Herman van Rompuy probably got the job.

I strongly campaigned against once front runner Tony Blair. Less for his role in the invasion of Iraq than for his belonging to the clique of fundamentalists who, after ruining World peace along with their Islamist friends, are deliberately turning Europe into their new playground (see "Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?"). But I'm afraid this man could be as dangerous for democracy in Europe.

If HVR passes for a moderate who "hates extremists", he is in favor of a fusional relationship between politics and religion.

For starters, he belongs to CD&V (Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams), Belgium's Flemmish Christian-democratic party. European-style Christian Democracy usually promotes rather balanced platforms for politics, economics and social affairs, but fundamentally, they mix religion with politics and expose a vision of politics somehow superseded by religion, which is incompatible with the concept of secular, republican democracy. Yet at this stage, mentioning fundamentalism would be more than far-fetched.

I nonetheless observe that Mr Van Rompuy, who regularly fights with Luc Van den Brande over the political future of Belgium, supports his CD&V colleague at the European level, where this ayatollah efficiently undermines democracy by promoting Intelligent Design.

Furthermore, our moderate who "hates extremists" is himself using rather radical terms, usually associated with ultra-conservative Christians in Europe. Turkish media didn't forget his outburst during the debate on Turkey's candidacy for the EU : "it's a matter of fact that the universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also the fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey".

Everybody knows Herman Van Rompuy majored Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic University of Leuven) in economics, but he also majored in philosophy. And there again, he tends to blur lines.

Van Rompuy maintains he never campaigned for the job but that's not true. On October 19, 2009, exactly one month before his nomination, he delivered a conference on the last encyclical of a certain Benedict XVI about the Church's social doctrine.

I cannot help but think about John McCain giving a conference at the Discovery Institute ahead of his own campaign, as a guarantee to US theocons (see ""Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?").

In this conference ("Conférence de Herman Rompuy sur Caritas in Veritate", on LaCroix.com), economics / philosophy expert Van Rompuy talks about love and humanism, but also and first of all, just like Pope Benedict XVI, about politics :

. "No political regime, no social organization and no economic system can claim the realization of ultimate salvation" - all this is nothing compared to faith and religion
. "According to Social Doctrine, the political community is at the service of civil society where it originated. This civil society represents the sum of all relationships and goods, either cultural or associative, which are relatively independent from politics and economy" - politics cannot rule over everything, and a superior power somehow needs to be materialized
. "The principle of subsidiarity is binding, each human should have the opportunity to contribute to the construction of well being and prosperity. Yet, the difficult question is to know how today, we can achieve this principle within an unified Europe and in a globalized world where more and more decisions are taken at a level actual individuals cannot reach, even as they know how they condition his well being and prosperity, his work and his responsibilities" - BTW: did you notice that religions are not only relevant when it comes to essential issues, but also perfectly organized to cope with subsidiarity issues, and to reach each and every individual ?
. HvR then directly pushes Benedict's agenda, using the core message of his encyclical : "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago." - the new President of Europe stops here his quote, but Ratzie and his followers perfectly know what comes right after that sentence : "Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth" (...) It would also "require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations". So like Ratzinger, Van Rompuy wants the lines "between moral and social spheres" to disappear.

I already denouced the imposture of Benedict XVI, a hardcore fundamentalist undermining, beyond Evolution itself, centuries of evolution for the Church from a Medieval mob to a modern, compassionate religion. If you purge elaborate and nice sounding circonvolutions from his texts, they always come down to the same message : let's go back to the time when religion was at the center of education, science and politics, the very attributes of democracy, that corrupt system (i.e. "Le mauvais plan de Benoît XVI"). Watch him exulting at the FAO meeting the other day : the "true world political authority" he envisions welcomes religious authorities as star constituents. In this quest, he already had the support of people like Ban Ki-moon at the UNO : very discreet regarding his own faith, and always pretending to be neutral in that field, Secretary General BAN pushes inter-religious dialogs INSIDE institutions he is reponsible for. European secular organizations were likewise appalled to see similar oddities recently performed in official EU meeting places.

Now Herman van Rompuy joins Barroso, van den Brande and company as an eminent element of the wedge strategy of fundamentalists against truly democratic European institutions.

I'm curious to see if this Christian democrat will be more "democrat" or "Christian" when it will come to defend European Court of Human Rights against the next attacks from fundamentalists*...

I wish I investigated a little bit earlier to expose the Herman Achille Van Rompuy imposture.

At this stage, I didn't find anything suspect against Cathy Ashton, alias Lady Catherine, a.k.a Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the EU's first High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

blogules 2009 - initially published on blogules (V.F.) "Herman van Rompuy, les haikus, l'humour et la religion"

* see "European Court of Human Rights slams fundamentalists (a)cross Italia and Europe", "Traditions, conservatismes, obscurantismes et fondamentalismes"

European Court of Human Rights slams fundamentalists (a)cross Italia and Europe

"The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it" : so Italy will have to stop allowing crucifixes in courts or worse, public schools.

To support its sound decision*, the European Court of Human Rights specifically mentioned arguments traditionnally used by religious conservatives : the right for the parents to educate their children according to their own beliefs, the right for the childre to freedom of religion.

The plaintiff, Mrs Soile Lautsi, a Finnish-born Italian mother, will receive EUR 5,000 in damages. But this is not about money, and all partisans of secularism across Europe should rejoice : mixing religious signs with public service clearly insults to the very essence of democracy and republican values. Judge Luigi Tosti also fought for this vital cause, putting his career in jeopardy because he refused to enter in court rooms featuring a crucifix.

Once again, this is not about atheism vs. religion, but about democracy vs. fundamentalism AND about religion vs. fundamentalism. Secularism is the only way to protect at the same time democracy AND religion from their common and most lethal enemy.

Needless to say, the Lega Nord, the Re-Reformed Church of Chief Fundamentalist Benedict XVI, and other fundamentalists from all confessions** didn't welcome such resistance before the probable inauguration of one of them at the first continental leader (see "Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?").

Yesterday, Minister of "Education" Mariastella Gelmini tried to make crucifixes pass for "symboles of Italian tradition"... The usual neo-creationist trick : multiply smoke screens, ban from the vocabulary all religious reference, deny any hidden agenda / wedge strategy, and send coward, submarine strikes against science, education, and democracy (see cf "En finir avec l'Intelligent Design").

The battle is not over : Italy's Supreme Court revoked in 2004 a 2003 judgement banning crucifixes from schools and courts without bringing any legal justification, and the European Court of Human Rights must brace against furious attacks from fundamentalists, most likely using their usual proxies within European political spheres (i.e. Luc van den Brande).

This battle is not a new one, but it's now official and out in the open : like the US before, Europe fights for its very survival as a symbol of democracy against its worst enemies, imposters from within.


blogules 2009
also in French : "La Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme crucifie les fondamentalistes"

* "Communiqué du Greffier - Arrêt de chambre - Lautsi c. Italie (requête n° 30814/06)" - the English Version :

CRUCIFIX IN CLASSROOMS:
CONTRARY TO PARENTS’ RIGHT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN LINE WITH THEIR CONVICTIONS AND TO CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)
examined jointly with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
of the European Convention on Human Rights
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(...)
The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

** I cannot imagine any better message for moderate Muslims struggling to eradicate fundamentalism across the world (i.e. most recently Al-Azhar University in Egypt banning the niqab, or the heated debate about "France, secularism and burqa").

ADDENDUM 20091104
I replaced the French version (below) by the English Version (above) :

CRUCIFIX DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE : CONTRAIRE AU DROIT DES PARENTS D'ÉDUQUER LEURS ENFANTS SELON LEURS CONVICTIONS ET AU DROIT DES ENFANTS À LA LIBERTÉ DE RELIGION
Violation de l'article 2 du protocole n° 1 (droit à l'instruction) examiné conjointement avec l'article 9 (liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion) de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
En application de l'article 41 (satisfaction équitable) de la Convention, la Cour alloue 5 000 euros (EUR) à la requérante pour dommage moral.
(...)
"L'Etat doit s'abstenir d'imposer des croyances dans les lieux où les personnes sont dépendantes de lui. Il est notamment tenu à la neutralité confessionnelle dans le cadre de l’éducation publique où la présence aux cours est requise sans considération de religion et qui doit chercher à inculquer aux élèves une pensée critique".

Korea needs even more Truth and Reconciliation

In its 2009 International Symposium (see program below*), the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Republic of Korea (TRCK) collected priceless insights, very comforting for the future of Transitional Justice in Korea and, beyond, for the future of democracy itself.

This country is about to decide which model to follow, with the unique opportunity to not only follow but lead, and even become a role model for all Asia. The Commission has already accomplished a terrific job, and Korea needs it more than ever, not only because more truth needs to come out. But for reconciliation to succeed, Korea needs its government to play its role, to fully support transitional justice as a whole (i.e. beyond the TRCK, the settlement foundation has yet to be established according to the law), and to guarantee the success of national reconciliation. Any failure to do so would definitely send the wrong message to the world about the level of democracy in Korea.

Hopefully, this simply can't happen in this century.

Yesterday, among the cases from Africa, Americas, Africa, and Europe, I expected the most from Rwanda and indeed, ITCR Judge PARK Seon-ki delivered a comprehensive presentation, including precious insights about the local context (i.e. the Gacaca justice system). I only wish he had more time to raise the "national reconciliation" issues, critical in a country where genocide survivors often live in the same village as their torturers.

Dr. Martin Salm (Germany) put the human factor centerstage, and that's a necessity when all you can give to people who lost 3 years of their lives as forced laborers is 500 euros... not much at the micro level, but his EVZ foundation eventually distributed about 5 billion euros to 1.6 million victims across Europe, and that's not petty money. Korea and Japan can learn a lot from this impressive publicly and privately funded international effort, but also from the importance of the care given to grieving individuals often suffering from isolation. Reconciliation is also about replacing bitterness and anger with peace, recognition, and confidence in the future. Strenghtening society and lifting the whole nation instead of letting it rot it in a nationalist dead end. For chaebols often perceived as distant from the people, contributing to this national cause would not only be the high road, but an easy one at that if they want to enhance their own image.

In Korea like everywhere else, victims first need to be officially, and if possible legally, recognised as victims. This usually comes before financial reparations. Condemning methods (beyond potential political / ideological sensibilities) is also essential : the most powerful sentence ever pronounced by Barack Obama is "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals". Punishing the criminals is yet another level, and Korea will probably fine tune its amnesty / trial ratio. But if much truth remains to be uncovered, the time of reconciliation has come, and that will require pedagogy, sensibility, a lot of work on memory, with visible, tangible, shared elements to not only honor and remember, but also strengthten society and its future.

Honoring the great Latin American literary tradition, former Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission President Salomon Lerner submitted a brilliant text with a universal reach. One can only subscribe to his beautifully crafted focus on the power of words and the clarity of the vision, the importance of "a prudent approach to social expectancies (...) which demands, in turn, a fine and responsible crafting of the discourse and messages", and the need to prolong this writing with "memory, that, in becoming social life and in being fecundated by ethical motivations, becomes a true transformer of history".

I wish Dr. Leigh Payne used a more "responsible crafting of the discourse and messages" in her own conclusions, particularly since those were only temporary conclusions following the first part of her very interesting research on 91 national cases of Transitional Justice. She did use all the right precautions in her speech, but "verba volant, scripta manent", and the slide bluntly singled out TJ systems featuring only truth commissions as potentially "harmful". Such a message could be misunterpreted and thus maybe "harmful" to transitional justice, particularly in countries where truth commissions very existences are threatened... It can be misunderstood and almost sounds like blaming a thermometer for fever : of course, what is "harmful" is the abuses perpetrated, and certainly not the doctor examining the wound and recommanding ways to cure and prevent further damage - what is also "harmful" is the lobby trying to silence the doctor, or to discredit him by depriving him of his most essential tools. TRCs are not into reopening wounds : they are an essential part of the healing process, the guarantee for a better future.

That said, I'm not exactly a model in "fine and responsible crafting of the discourse and messages", and I naturally agree with Dr Payne's results, which look totally logical : Truth Commissions simply cannot work as stand alone tools precisely because they are not meant to work as stand alone tools... except in those countries where they are set up as smoke screens (or rather, as Dr. Payne finely and responsibly put it, "facades"), by governments who want to appear as mature democracies facing their own pasts. That is, fortunately, not the case of Korea, where the TCR was really meant to help the country move to a higher level.

But the TCRK was given a relatively limited reach, and key elements of the Basic Law for the Settlement of Past Incidents have yet to be implemented. Furthermore, the success of the whole system depends on the full support of a government which, these days, can at times appear uncomfortable with transitional justice : as I pointed out earlier**, ultra-conservative die harders keep lobbying against the TCRK, undermining not only Korea's efforts to emerge as a leading nation on the international stage, but also Japan's efforts to at last face its own dark chapters regarding Korea.

Every voice should be heard in the process : as reminded yesterday, that is the essence of democracy. It is not an easy task but there is no other way. The choice is simple : unity or division, reconciliation or hatred, healing or suffering, more democracy or less democracy. And it's binary : not doing anything, letting time pass and tensions rise is equivalent to killing transitional justice altogether.

So the pressure is certainly not on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but on the Korean government, who is compelled to give it a total support. By the end of TRCK's mandate, the world will have an answer : either Korea decides to become a model for Asia, or its rulers decide to cast shame upon themselves.


Blogules 2009 (initially published on Seoul Village - Truth and Reconciliation : which model for Korea ?

---
* "The Global Trend of Past Settlement and the Task of Korea to Build National Reconciliation" (20091027) :
Opening Remarks (AHN Byung-ook, President, TRCK)
1. The Justice Balance: When Transitional Justice Improves Human Rights and Democracy (Presentation by Dr. Leigh PAYNE, Professor of Sociology, Oxford University - Questions from AHN Kyong-whan, Professor, SNU and former President of Naitonal Human Rights Commission of Korea)
2. Rwanda Genocide, United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Lessons from Rwanda and Africa (Presentation by Judge PARK Seon-ki, ITCR - Questions from LEE Suk-tae, Lawyer, Duk Su Law Office)
3. Achievements and Tasks in confronting the Past in Peru and Latin America (Presentation by Dr. Salomon LERNER FEBRES, Rector Emerito, Pontifica Universidad Catolica del Peru and former President of the TRC in Peru - Questions from PARK Koo-byoung, Professor, Ajou University)
4. Will remembrance of National Socialist Crimes never end ? Meaning, tasks, and societal role of the Foundation 'Remembrance, Responsibility and Future' (Presentation by Dr. Martin SALM, Chairman of the Board of Directors, EVZ - Questions from SONG Chung-ki, Professor, Kongju National University)
Wrap up session : Evaluation and Proposal for the Past Settlement of Korea

** see "President Lee, keep digging" followed by "A Common History".