Ever since Bush-Cheney-Rove destroyed the GOP from the inside, the party has lost its compass. And I've said it again, again, and again: if you're Republican, if you love your country, and if you like your party, fix the GOP before causing more damage to both*.
Until that happens, you're doomed, and bound to witness comical suicidal dashes every four years: a somewhat moderatish loser emerges from zooesques Primaries, but to achieve that he has to do things that negate his own self, and ultimately to pick a lunatic that suits the radical flavor of the month.
Four years ago, when theocons were setting the agenda, John McCain had to pay a visit to the infamous Discovery Institute and to select an ayatollah as a running mate to receive the official blessing from his old nemeses Dubya and Rove.
This time, with Tea Partiers the leading cult, Mitt Romney had to euthanize Romneycare, and to put a fiscal taliban on his ticket.
Like Palin, Ryan embodies the negation of America as a republic and as a democracy. Both politicians have a vision of politics that negates the "polis" itself, and ineluctably lead to the destruction of America as an ideal of nation.
Unless the whole country has become crazy, this sick Mitt Romney - Paul Ryan joke simply cannot go all the way to the White House.
Just like I said in 2004, just like I repeated in 2008, this GOP is bound to lose: either the elections, or its very soul.
Wake up.
blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!
* "Grand Old Parting: fix your party before causing more damage to your country"
Showing posts with label george w. bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label george w. bush. Show all posts
20111210
Newt Gingrich enters McCainistan
How low can GOP candidates go to get the nomination?
Four years ago, John McCain set a record by selling his soul to fundamentalists: a visit to the Discovery Institute (a creationist joint) before the primaries, an ayatollah with lipstick as a running mate (Sarah Palin). Even Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya had to give his nod to his former rival.
Newt Gingrich scattered the crass ceiling in an interview to the Jewish Channel by referring to Palestinians as "an invented Palestinian people"*.
As ludicrous as his depiction of Netanyahu's dystopia as "a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law".
What next The Grich: picking Billy Graham as VP? recruiting armies of Timothy McVeighs to reduce the number of civil servants?
What's the point of winning the favors of AIPAC if he loses the rest ?
Does this man really think the "invented American people" will vote for him?
blogules 2011
* see "Newt Gingrich: Palestinians are 'an invented' people [video]" (LA Times 20111209)
Four years ago, John McCain set a record by selling his soul to fundamentalists: a visit to the Discovery Institute (a creationist joint) before the primaries, an ayatollah with lipstick as a running mate (Sarah Palin). Even Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya had to give his nod to his former rival.
Newt Gingrich scattered the crass ceiling in an interview to the Jewish Channel by referring to Palestinians as "an invented Palestinian people"*.
As ludicrous as his depiction of Netanyahu's dystopia as "a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law".
What next The Grich: picking Billy Graham as VP? recruiting armies of Timothy McVeighs to reduce the number of civil servants?
What's the point of winning the favors of AIPAC if he loses the rest ?
Does this man really think the "invented American people" will vote for him?
blogules 2011
* see "Newt Gingrich: Palestinians are 'an invented' people [video]" (LA Times 20111209)
20110904
9/11 2001-2011 : what we knew then, what we know now
What we knew before 9/11 :
- al Qaeda is a dangerous terrorist organization
- the clash of civilizations is an imposture
- George W. Bush is a stupid fundamentalist and a lazy president
What we have learned after 9/11 :
- al Qaeda is a dangerous terrorist franchise
- the clash of civilizations is a profitable imposture
- Trutherism or 9/11 revisionism is a profitable imposture
- George W. Bush is a dangerous fundamentalist pretending to be a war president
blogules 2011
- al Qaeda is a dangerous terrorist organization
- the clash of civilizations is an imposture
- George W. Bush is a stupid fundamentalist and a lazy president
What we have learned after 9/11 :
- al Qaeda is a dangerous terrorist franchise
- the clash of civilizations is a profitable imposture
- Trutherism or 9/11 revisionism is a profitable imposture
- George W. Bush is a dangerous fundamentalist pretending to be a war president
blogules 2011
20110728
US debt : Fools House
The debt-ceiling deadblock can be easily summed up this way : while Barack Obama is trying to prevent the economy from collapsing, John Boehner is trying to prevent the Republican party from imploding.
Of course, as we well know (see "GOP: time to split"), the said implosion started with the 2004 elections, but US voters are just beginning to understand the GOP dilemma : this party cannot at the same time win the 2012 elections and save its soul.
The only way of saving face without caving in would be to submit for vote an absurd proposal bound to crash, and to blame Democrats for the failure.
Well US voters proved that they could be fooled once (giving Newt Gingrich the right to torpedo the budget during the mid 90s), and even twice (giving GWB the right to nuke America's value and economy for four more years during the mid 2000s).
At least twice.
The other day I watched Tim Pawlenty trying to sell, on CNN's "State Of The Union", the idea that they'd been fooled one more time by Obama because the deficit tripled under his first term.
But Candy Crowley was not fooled. And she kindly reminded Pawlenty of the 2008 situation, when only he and the John McCain he campaigned for believed the US economy to be still "fundamentally sound".
Unlike Tim Pawlenty, John Boehner is not a fool.
Just a liar.
blogules 2011
Of course, as we well know (see "GOP: time to split"), the said implosion started with the 2004 elections, but US voters are just beginning to understand the GOP dilemma : this party cannot at the same time win the 2012 elections and save its soul.
The only way of saving face without caving in would be to submit for vote an absurd proposal bound to crash, and to blame Democrats for the failure.
Well US voters proved that they could be fooled once (giving Newt Gingrich the right to torpedo the budget during the mid 90s), and even twice (giving GWB the right to nuke America's value and economy for four more years during the mid 2000s).
At least twice.
The other day I watched Tim Pawlenty trying to sell, on CNN's "State Of The Union", the idea that they'd been fooled one more time by Obama because the deficit tripled under his first term.
But Candy Crowley was not fooled. And she kindly reminded Pawlenty of the 2008 situation, when only he and the John McCain he campaigned for believed the US economy to be still "fundamentally sound".
Unlike Tim Pawlenty, John Boehner is not a fool.
Just a liar.
blogules 2011
20110713
2004 inverted
Justice !!! Rupert Murdoch the amoral Kingmaker drowning in his own slime, George W. Bush the amoral Chief Torture Officer about to be indicted by Human Rights Watch...
Of course, neither Murdoch nor Dubya are in jail yet (heck, even Alberto Gonzales is walking free !), but the 'winners' of the 2004 elections have definitely moved closer to the 'losers' category. Note that the GOP joined the said category even before those doomed elections*, torn between classic conservatism and a cocktail of theocons + free market ayatollahs willing to destroy the Republic itself...
Of course, the US of A remain in danger of bankrupcy or worse, of a relapse into moral bankrupcy. Of course, UK politics remain under "Dirty Digger"'s spell, David Cameron prolonging Tony Blair as Murdoch's Prime Puppet.
But at long last, some fingers are being pointed to the right direction (and when I write 'right' I don't necessarily mean it literally).
Now France too has significantly evolved since 2004. But certainly not in the right direction (except maybe literally).
Remember France, that longtime US ally crucified for mentioning the risks that Bush's crusade in Iraq might fuel worldwide terror instead of taming it (yeah, France, that good friend of African and Middle Eastern dictators) ? Remember France, that herald of mutual respect denouncing the clash of civilizations imposture (yeah, France, that place where only sportsmen and sportswomen can succeed if their skin is too dark) ? Remember France, that country where Murdoch's Weapons of Mass Disinformation couldn't strike except for a one shot French edition of the Sun making fun of Chirac, or the infamous 'cheese eating surrender monkey' uttered in an episode of the Simpsons (yeah, the less unsung France, that country where medias consider off limits the dirty secrets of their most respected politicians) ?
Well that France is passed on ! This France is no more ! It has ceased to be ! It's expired and gone to meet its maker ! This is a late France ! It's a stiff ! Bereft of life, it rests in peace ! If you hadn't nailed it to the UN Security Council it would be pushing up the daisies ! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians ! It's hopped the twig ! It's shuffled off this mortal coil ! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible ! This is an ex-France !
Over the past few years, Nicolas Sarkozy has been dutifully** following Dubya The Perfect Fundamentalist's to do list :
- undermining the republic's safeguards ? check.
- extending the executive power's sphere against all other powers (legislative, media, justice...) ? check.
- pushing for an end to the separation between the state and religion and palling around with Ratzinger ? check.
- widening all national divides, starting with his own party ? check...
And now, Presidential Elections that have Karl Rove's fingerprints all over them.
Well. As far as Dominique Strauss-Kahn is concerned, Sarko's diggers didn't have to venture too deep into the pigsty : DSK knew perfectly that they were coming at him, but apparently the guy is too sick to control his own behavior...
But for Martine Aubry, an Angela Merkel wannabe and now their main target, here's their story : the socialist mayor of Lille would be a lesbian and an alcoholic (I thought they would save that last one for Jean-Louis Borloo, a center-right contender with a solid reputation in that field), and her husband would be a dangerous radical Islamist.
Of course, just like Bush in 2004, Sarkozy decently cannot win the elections in 2012 : that would be an insult to the Republic and a tragedy for the country, and bring absolute shame on French voters.
Well fool me once...
blogules 2011 (see also in French blogules : "Un Novembre 2004 a l'envers")
* see "GOP - Time to split"
** see "Traître à la nation"
Of course, neither Murdoch nor Dubya are in jail yet (heck, even Alberto Gonzales is walking free !), but the 'winners' of the 2004 elections have definitely moved closer to the 'losers' category. Note that the GOP joined the said category even before those doomed elections*, torn between classic conservatism and a cocktail of theocons + free market ayatollahs willing to destroy the Republic itself...
Of course, the US of A remain in danger of bankrupcy or worse, of a relapse into moral bankrupcy. Of course, UK politics remain under "Dirty Digger"'s spell, David Cameron prolonging Tony Blair as Murdoch's Prime Puppet.
But at long last, some fingers are being pointed to the right direction (and when I write 'right' I don't necessarily mean it literally).
Now France too has significantly evolved since 2004. But certainly not in the right direction (except maybe literally).
Remember France, that longtime US ally crucified for mentioning the risks that Bush's crusade in Iraq might fuel worldwide terror instead of taming it (yeah, France, that good friend of African and Middle Eastern dictators) ? Remember France, that herald of mutual respect denouncing the clash of civilizations imposture (yeah, France, that place where only sportsmen and sportswomen can succeed if their skin is too dark) ? Remember France, that country where Murdoch's Weapons of Mass Disinformation couldn't strike except for a one shot French edition of the Sun making fun of Chirac, or the infamous 'cheese eating surrender monkey' uttered in an episode of the Simpsons (yeah, the less unsung France, that country where medias consider off limits the dirty secrets of their most respected politicians) ?
Well that France is passed on ! This France is no more ! It has ceased to be ! It's expired and gone to meet its maker ! This is a late France ! It's a stiff ! Bereft of life, it rests in peace ! If you hadn't nailed it to the UN Security Council it would be pushing up the daisies ! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians ! It's hopped the twig ! It's shuffled off this mortal coil ! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible ! This is an ex-France !
Over the past few years, Nicolas Sarkozy has been dutifully** following Dubya The Perfect Fundamentalist's to do list :
- undermining the republic's safeguards ? check.
- extending the executive power's sphere against all other powers (legislative, media, justice...) ? check.
- pushing for an end to the separation between the state and religion and palling around with Ratzinger ? check.
- widening all national divides, starting with his own party ? check...
And now, Presidential Elections that have Karl Rove's fingerprints all over them.
Well. As far as Dominique Strauss-Kahn is concerned, Sarko's diggers didn't have to venture too deep into the pigsty : DSK knew perfectly that they were coming at him, but apparently the guy is too sick to control his own behavior...
But for Martine Aubry, an Angela Merkel wannabe and now their main target, here's their story : the socialist mayor of Lille would be a lesbian and an alcoholic (I thought they would save that last one for Jean-Louis Borloo, a center-right contender with a solid reputation in that field), and her husband would be a dangerous radical Islamist.
Of course, just like Bush in 2004, Sarkozy decently cannot win the elections in 2012 : that would be an insult to the Republic and a tragedy for the country, and bring absolute shame on French voters.
Well fool me once...
blogules 2011 (see also in French blogules : "Un Novembre 2004 a l'envers")
* see "GOP - Time to split"
** see "Traître à la nation"
20110502
Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader, he was a mass murderer of Muslims
Another radical political leader falls : Bin Laden was a warlord and by no means a religious leader.
So thank you Mr President for reminding your national and international audience this evidence : Bin Laden was an imposter and the worst enemy of Islam, even before he was an enemy of the USA*.
Yes, "Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader, he was a mass murderer of Muslims". But no, Justice has not fully be done : the man has been killed, not technically brought to justice.
Still, his death is the best case scenario : the terrorist has already been found guilty, and a public trial would have offered him one last moment to spread hatred in the spotlight.
The President's Speech (not the one broadcasted at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner) also timely stressed the need for national unity, to the point of mentioning Fundamentalist in Chief GWB in positive terms.
That imposter has yet to be brought to justice.
blogules 2011
* see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"
So thank you Mr President for reminding your national and international audience this evidence : Bin Laden was an imposter and the worst enemy of Islam, even before he was an enemy of the USA*.
Yes, "Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader, he was a mass murderer of Muslims". But no, Justice has not fully be done : the man has been killed, not technically brought to justice.
Still, his death is the best case scenario : the terrorist has already been found guilty, and a public trial would have offered him one last moment to spread hatred in the spotlight.
The President's Speech (not the one broadcasted at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner) also timely stressed the need for national unity, to the point of mentioning Fundamentalist in Chief GWB in positive terms.
That imposter has yet to be brought to justice.
blogules 2011
* see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"
20101219
WikiLeakified
blogule's Agence Fausse Presse managed to snatch from PeepeeLeaks a few top secret cables where several US envoys deliver their impressions about key world leaders:
- Nicolas Sarkozy : "A paranoid in love with the States, or rather obsessed with the need to be loved by Tom Cruise. Instills terror into his staff : no one dares criticize him, and he's been replacing them one by one by Oompas Loompas who call him "Your Highness", "Your Greatness", or "Dear Ladder". Now Sarkozy only refers to himself in third person."
- Silvio Berlusconi : "Like many statesmen, an eternal teenager obsessed with new conquests... which in spite of compulsive plastic surgery he needs to pay for. Told us to kiss Don Vito hello, and to thank him for his last delivery of Ukrainian blondes."
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad : "A narcissic psychopath lunatic. Likely to be good friends with our President George W. Bush."
- Tony Blair : "Very friendly but on the threshold of annoyingness. Insisted to show us his self-flagellation stigmata. Asked again for that seance with Churchill promised by the POTUS."
- Vladimir Putin : "When he enters the room, temperature drops 20 degrees. Each of his muscles is so tensed he constantly needs to tune them like piano strings... quite an experience: his face doesn't move one bit, but every five to six seconds you can hear a 'pling' or a 'plong'."
- Muammar al Gaddafi : "Couldn't meet him: the elevator got stuck between the 4th and 5th floors of his tent."
- Hu Jintao / Wen Jiabao : "The former has the sense of humor of a prison door. No wonder he wants to get rid of the latter, a brillant man with a constant smile on his face. But last time I had tea at Wen's (as usual a very pleasant afternoon), I found out back home that he'd planted about eight hundred acupuncture needles all over my back."
- Saddam Hussein : "Didn't understand why we got rid of him after all he did for us and we for him. Didn't like our farewell gift, a beautiful Lanvin hemp necktie."
blogules 2010 - initially published on blogules VF as "WikiLeakefie".
- Nicolas Sarkozy : "A paranoid in love with the States, or rather obsessed with the need to be loved by Tom Cruise. Instills terror into his staff : no one dares criticize him, and he's been replacing them one by one by Oompas Loompas who call him "Your Highness", "Your Greatness", or "Dear Ladder". Now Sarkozy only refers to himself in third person."
- Silvio Berlusconi : "Like many statesmen, an eternal teenager obsessed with new conquests... which in spite of compulsive plastic surgery he needs to pay for. Told us to kiss Don Vito hello, and to thank him for his last delivery of Ukrainian blondes."
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad : "A narcissic psychopath lunatic. Likely to be good friends with our President George W. Bush."
- Tony Blair : "Very friendly but on the threshold of annoyingness. Insisted to show us his self-flagellation stigmata. Asked again for that seance with Churchill promised by the POTUS."
- Vladimir Putin : "When he enters the room, temperature drops 20 degrees. Each of his muscles is so tensed he constantly needs to tune them like piano strings... quite an experience: his face doesn't move one bit, but every five to six seconds you can hear a 'pling' or a 'plong'."
- Muammar al Gaddafi : "Couldn't meet him: the elevator got stuck between the 4th and 5th floors of his tent."
- Hu Jintao / Wen Jiabao : "The former has the sense of humor of a prison door. No wonder he wants to get rid of the latter, a brillant man with a constant smile on his face. But last time I had tea at Wen's (as usual a very pleasant afternoon), I found out back home that he'd planted about eight hundred acupuncture needles all over my back."
- Saddam Hussein : "Didn't understand why we got rid of him after all he did for us and we for him. Didn't like our farewell gift, a beautiful Lanvin hemp necktie."
blogules 2010 - initially published on blogules VF as "WikiLeakefie".
20101119
Delusion Points - an interview with George W. Bush
From blogule's Agence Fausse Presse, this exclusive interview of former President George Walker Bush covers the most controversial parts of his memoirs ("Derision Points" - 2010 Drown Publishers, 7 pages, $75.6):
Katrina, paint it black:
blogules: "You say Katrina represents an all-time low for you. Can it possibly be lower than your forged war, you near-death pretzel experience, or those shoes thrown at you during the last throes of your insurgency against US democracy ?"
GWB: "Some people said I was a racist and that's simply not true. A dangerous, hardcore, fundamentalist lunatic maybe, but a racist...? that's not fair. Even my dog Barney is black."
Chairman of the Waterboard:
blogules: "You write that allowing waterboarding was the right thing to do since your personal team of torture promoters considered it legal. Have you ever tried it ?"
Dubya: "Of course I did : when I was younger I tried almost everything, remember ? Actually, that's the way I managed to quit drinking. And that's the moment when I learned that Dick Cheney was a guy I could rely on."
blogules: "He waterboarded you himself ?"
W: "Dick loves board games."
DUI with Barbara:
blogules: "In your book, you mention a disturbing episode with your mother, when you drove her to the hospital after her miscarriage".
Georgie: "Oh, that...? That's how I recall it now but as you know, I was not always myself back then. Still now I've got flashes with different versions playing in my head. In one of them, Mom carries a pink baby elephant in a jar, and it looks and smells like gimchi. Maybe a gift from Reverend Moon, a friend of Dad's, who knows ?"
blogules: "But you said it was a trauma for you back then."
W: "Yep. I was quite disapointed by her. When she first mentioned a miscarriage, I understood she won a beauty pageant at the local GM dealership."
No WMD, no regrets:
blogules: "You dared say you were disapointed not to have found any Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but your invasion was the right decision anyway ?"
Fundamentalist in Chief: "The extreme right decision, to be more accurate. Come on... You're perfectly aware that our case for Iraq was completely forged, and our intel cooked to the bone. We invaded Iraq to give a boost to Muslim and Christian fundamentalism, and we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."
blogules: "In a nut/bombshell: Mission accomplished ?"
Bush Jr: "Not yet: according to our plan, there must be a final war between Israel and Iran, then Jesus comes back, and ultimately the Texas Rangers win the World Series."
blogules: "I guess I can wait to read the next volume of your memoirs."
blogules 2010
Katrina, paint it black:
blogules: "You say Katrina represents an all-time low for you. Can it possibly be lower than your forged war, you near-death pretzel experience, or those shoes thrown at you during the last throes of your insurgency against US democracy ?"
GWB: "Some people said I was a racist and that's simply not true. A dangerous, hardcore, fundamentalist lunatic maybe, but a racist...? that's not fair. Even my dog Barney is black."
Chairman of the Waterboard:
blogules: "You write that allowing waterboarding was the right thing to do since your personal team of torture promoters considered it legal. Have you ever tried it ?"
Dubya: "Of course I did : when I was younger I tried almost everything, remember ? Actually, that's the way I managed to quit drinking. And that's the moment when I learned that Dick Cheney was a guy I could rely on."
blogules: "He waterboarded you himself ?"
W: "Dick loves board games."
DUI with Barbara:
blogules: "In your book, you mention a disturbing episode with your mother, when you drove her to the hospital after her miscarriage".
Georgie: "Oh, that...? That's how I recall it now but as you know, I was not always myself back then. Still now I've got flashes with different versions playing in my head. In one of them, Mom carries a pink baby elephant in a jar, and it looks and smells like gimchi. Maybe a gift from Reverend Moon, a friend of Dad's, who knows ?"
blogules: "But you said it was a trauma for you back then."
W: "Yep. I was quite disapointed by her. When she first mentioned a miscarriage, I understood she won a beauty pageant at the local GM dealership."
No WMD, no regrets:
blogules: "You dared say you were disapointed not to have found any Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but your invasion was the right decision anyway ?"
Fundamentalist in Chief: "The extreme right decision, to be more accurate. Come on... You're perfectly aware that our case for Iraq was completely forged, and our intel cooked to the bone. We invaded Iraq to give a boost to Muslim and Christian fundamentalism, and we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."
blogules: "In a nut/bombshell: Mission accomplished ?"
Bush Jr: "Not yet: according to our plan, there must be a final war between Israel and Iran, then Jesus comes back, and ultimately the Texas Rangers win the World Series."
blogules: "I guess I can wait to read the next volume of your memoirs."
blogules 2010
20100522
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
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
20100428
Arizona Dream
On his way back from the inauguration of the Great Arizonian Iron Curtain, President McCain inspected the Louisiana oil mess from Marine One chopper : "What a waste ! All those gallons will stick to our Shouthern shores for decades instead of fueling our fundamentally sound economy... Believe me my friends, heads will roll at the FEMA : we said 'drill baby drill', not 'spill baby spill', for Chrysler's sake !"
Meanwhile...
- Veep Palin visited a Creationist School. "Onov'em kids made such a terrible mistake, I hadda get to the board rite-way to fix it by m'self. Lil'guy wrote 'when dinos roamed the Earth four thousand years ago, men used their bones to play baseball'. Can you believe it ? Did I add the e to "dinoes" ? You betcha !"
- Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Blankfein attended a pre-G20 summit. "I was taken abacus by the audacity of a brilliant young Frenchman : Fabulous Fab Tourre suggested to Jean-Claude Trichet that Greece be wrapped in toilet paper and sold to Abu Dhabi in a bundle with the Brooklyn Bridge. I suggested we that trew in the New York Mets as well, but Fab wisely noted that it could raise suspicions."
- In Mexico City, former First Lady Cindy McCain married former First Lady Carla Bruni.
- George W. Bush inaugurated his Presidential Library. "All the 10,000 books I've read so far are here. I never use twice the same copy of the Holy Book, and the West Wing is devoted to the only other book I read : 'My pet goat'. This year I intend to start page 5."
- Senator Obama attended a Milk Party : Michelle Obama's movement claims 10,000 new members every day and she remains in the polls the front runner for 2012.
blogules 2010
Meanwhile...
- Veep Palin visited a Creationist School. "Onov'em kids made such a terrible mistake, I hadda get to the board rite-way to fix it by m'self. Lil'guy wrote 'when dinos roamed the Earth four thousand years ago, men used their bones to play baseball'. Can you believe it ? Did I add the e to "dinoes" ? You betcha !"
- Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Blankfein attended a pre-G20 summit. "I was taken abacus by the audacity of a brilliant young Frenchman : Fabulous Fab Tourre suggested to Jean-Claude Trichet that Greece be wrapped in toilet paper and sold to Abu Dhabi in a bundle with the Brooklyn Bridge. I suggested we that trew in the New York Mets as well, but Fab wisely noted that it could raise suspicions."
- In Mexico City, former First Lady Cindy McCain married former First Lady Carla Bruni.
- George W. Bush inaugurated his Presidential Library. "All the 10,000 books I've read so far are here. I never use twice the same copy of the Holy Book, and the West Wing is devoted to the only other book I read : 'My pet goat'. This year I intend to start page 5."
- Senator Obama attended a Milk Party : Michelle Obama's movement claims 10,000 new members every day and she remains in the polls the front runner for 2012.
blogules 2010
20091119
Warniks' Woodstock
At the beginning, only a few heard about the event. After all, this kind of people have never felt comfortable with social networking - beyond the occasional tea party or KKK BBQ that is. But Fox News helped rumors spread around like wealth across a socialist program : Sarah would be there, Dick could also do a gig... heck, George Himself may bless the gathering with His Presence !
Next thing you know, half a million souls showed up over this week end of music and celebration in the little town of Woodstock, AK.
Sarah Palin opened the show with her Lipstick Inc hit "Fundie Town", but first she warmed up an already very friendly audience : "howdy lads ! woa, there's a great buncha yougaz - I can see ya all the way to Siberia ! If y'feel cold just burn some of the stuff ya've been playin' in all afternoon long - ain't no mud but pure, high octane moose turd... burns like a cross in an Alabama field, if you know what I mean - nudge nudge, snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, say no more ?" Sarah didn't leave stage without reminding the crowd to purchase her last book, "Goring Roe (v. Wade)".
Following a short sermon on abstinence by Bristol Palin, Mark Sanford sang a moving "Appalachian Trail Blues". This quiet interlude climaxed with some classical music, Glenn Beck playing the Magnum 44 and Rush Limbaugh the AK 47.
"Gimme a F gimme a U, and please gimme a R, I'm freezing my arse off", roared Dick Cheney, drawing massive cheers. "I shot a bear down on my way here, but didn't have time to skin it. To tell the truth, that was an easier shot than skinny Harry Whittington, believe me ! Let'em peaceniks know what we think of the shame Obama and his un-Amerikan pals keep pourin' over our beautiful country !" The Man Who Sold The War started the Warnik Anthem a capella : "NRA can't you see, by the dawn's early light / What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's first waterboarding..."
Ever the entertainer, Lobby Dick granted the crowd with their favorite song : "I saw many of you planted your derricks for the night. Them thugs fear global warmin' ? Let's giv'em some ! Let's rock, let's roll, let's 'Drill, baby, drill' !!!"
Then came George.
The Fundamentalist in Chief waved at His flock, praised The Architect of the concert for his Nuremberg-style stage, and prayed. Tears rolling down theirs cheeks, His followers went down on their knees (except for those who lost them somewhere near Bagram), and religiously listened to his oldies but goodies, including a most moving version of "With a little help from my friends the haves and have mores".
This already cult concert finished with surprise guest stars : flown in straight from the Middle East on CIA Airlines, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad joined W. to reunite, one last night, The Hate Brothers. Fans sang along their most enduring standards : "I need you to exist", and "war is the answer". The final prayer went to the fourth member of the group : "Ariel couldn't make it tonight", concluded George W. Bush, "but Benjamin sure did a terrific job today - I wish my successor were that brilliant. But we reject as false the choice between a Nobel Peace Prize and a Prius."
blogules 2009
Next thing you know, half a million souls showed up over this week end of music and celebration in the little town of Woodstock, AK.
Sarah Palin opened the show with her Lipstick Inc hit "Fundie Town", but first she warmed up an already very friendly audience : "howdy lads ! woa, there's a great buncha yougaz - I can see ya all the way to Siberia ! If y'feel cold just burn some of the stuff ya've been playin' in all afternoon long - ain't no mud but pure, high octane moose turd... burns like a cross in an Alabama field, if you know what I mean - nudge nudge, snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, say no more ?" Sarah didn't leave stage without reminding the crowd to purchase her last book, "Goring Roe (v. Wade)".
Following a short sermon on abstinence by Bristol Palin, Mark Sanford sang a moving "Appalachian Trail Blues". This quiet interlude climaxed with some classical music, Glenn Beck playing the Magnum 44 and Rush Limbaugh the AK 47.
"Gimme a F gimme a U, and please gimme a R, I'm freezing my arse off", roared Dick Cheney, drawing massive cheers. "I shot a bear down on my way here, but didn't have time to skin it. To tell the truth, that was an easier shot than skinny Harry Whittington, believe me ! Let'em peaceniks know what we think of the shame Obama and his un-Amerikan pals keep pourin' over our beautiful country !" The Man Who Sold The War started the Warnik Anthem a capella : "NRA can't you see, by the dawn's early light / What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's first waterboarding..."
Ever the entertainer, Lobby Dick granted the crowd with their favorite song : "I saw many of you planted your derricks for the night. Them thugs fear global warmin' ? Let's giv'em some ! Let's rock, let's roll, let's 'Drill, baby, drill' !!!"
Then came George.
The Fundamentalist in Chief waved at His flock, praised The Architect of the concert for his Nuremberg-style stage, and prayed. Tears rolling down theirs cheeks, His followers went down on their knees (except for those who lost them somewhere near Bagram), and religiously listened to his oldies but goodies, including a most moving version of "With a little help from my friends the haves and have mores".
This already cult concert finished with surprise guest stars : flown in straight from the Middle East on CIA Airlines, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad joined W. to reunite, one last night, The Hate Brothers. Fans sang along their most enduring standards : "I need you to exist", and "war is the answer". The final prayer went to the fourth member of the group : "Ariel couldn't make it tonight", concluded George W. Bush, "but Benjamin sure did a terrific job today - I wish my successor were that brilliant. But we reject as false the choice between a Nobel Peace Prize and a Prius."
blogules 2009
20091103
Obama Season II
I hate to spoil the suspense, but here are the plots for key episodes of Barack Obama Season II :
- Prison Break : will Barack escape from Guantanamo ?
- Desperate Housewives : will Barack convince Israel to stop making a martyr of Palestine and a hero of Iran ?
- 24 Hours : will Barack arrive on time to prevent Jong-il from blowing up half Asia plus two thirds of Pearl Harbor ?
- Heroes : will Barack help Afghan women walk freely on the streets, without any mask nor costume, and without fearing attacks by fundamentalist supervilains ?
- Dexter : will Barack put in jail the serial killers guilty for the atrocities committed over the past few years (Gonzales, Cheney...) ?
- House : will Barack, in spit of his crippled bill, pass the health care reform and at which cost for midterm elections ?
- The Office : will Barack prevent W. from coming back (W as in W-shaped recession, not W as in Walker) ?
- ...
Season I set the bar at the highest levels, claiming two prestigious awards :
- Peace Nobel Prize for rejecting George W. Bush as early as January 20th, 2009
- Physics Nobel Prize for making George W. Bush invisible as early as November 4th, 2008
blogules 2009
- Prison Break : will Barack escape from Guantanamo ?
- Desperate Housewives : will Barack convince Israel to stop making a martyr of Palestine and a hero of Iran ?
- 24 Hours : will Barack arrive on time to prevent Jong-il from blowing up half Asia plus two thirds of Pearl Harbor ?
- Heroes : will Barack help Afghan women walk freely on the streets, without any mask nor costume, and without fearing attacks by fundamentalist supervilains ?
- Dexter : will Barack put in jail the serial killers guilty for the atrocities committed over the past few years (Gonzales, Cheney...) ?
- House : will Barack, in spit of his crippled bill, pass the health care reform and at which cost for midterm elections ?
- The Office : will Barack prevent W. from coming back (W as in W-shaped recession, not W as in Walker) ?
- ...
Season I set the bar at the highest levels, claiming two prestigious awards :
- Peace Nobel Prize for rejecting George W. Bush as early as January 20th, 2009
- Physics Nobel Prize for making George W. Bush invisible as early as November 4th, 2008
blogules 2009
20090911
They did it
I just tuned in to my news provider and I'm reading the 6th title or so when a new line appears higher on my computer screen.
They did it
I don't remember the exact title (probably "a plane hits a WTC tower in NYC"), but as soon as I read it I think "this time they did it".
As I click on the link, two images cross my mind : the 1993 attack on the WTC, the failed 1994 attempt to crash an hijacked plane on the Eiffel Tower.
The web is very slow, giving me time to shape images of the tragedy in my mind. From the ground, without looking up. I imagine the first devastated floors of a building, mixing snapshots from previous attacks (Oklahoma City, US embassies) with my memory of the Word Trade Center, with a more claustrophobic feeling, and darkness (more fire, denser surroundings)... Death, but without any human being, dead or alive, in the picture.
The first actual image I get is distant : black smoke rising over lower Manhattan. No details given in the short article, beyond the shock and awe. Similar results on other sites.
I'm not shocked. I'm not awed. Not even surprised. But at the same time sad and angry, empty and very tense, willing to interact with a human being. I spring out of my office and tell colleagues about the attack. I send a few mails, even joking in one (isn't humor all about coping with death ?).
All this takes less than 10 minutes : I have to keep going for a busy day in a busy office tower. And I've got this stupidly important presentation to perform later this afternoon.
A quick peek at news websites every now and then to keep up to date - but the cold brain is still running the show, speculating, and preventing the heart from taking over.
The said "important" meeting will be interrupted by an alert : the tower must be evacuated (we're in France's only high rise area). Masks off.
On the way back home, the cold brain is playing a new movie and this time it features actors. And it's not a silent movie.
I won't see the images of the collapse until I'm back home. Alone in front of a screen much bigger than reality in my memory. That evening, I don't know how many times I zapped to watch again and again the collapse. Like a titanic stake driven into a best friend's heart, pulling the shirt and streets around in a silent scream.
But revulsion and anger peaked later, when the man supposed to fix things uttered the word "crusade".
They did it
I don't remember the exact title (probably "a plane hits a WTC tower in NYC"), but as soon as I read it I think "this time they did it".
As I click on the link, two images cross my mind : the 1993 attack on the WTC, the failed 1994 attempt to crash an hijacked plane on the Eiffel Tower.
The web is very slow, giving me time to shape images of the tragedy in my mind. From the ground, without looking up. I imagine the first devastated floors of a building, mixing snapshots from previous attacks (Oklahoma City, US embassies) with my memory of the Word Trade Center, with a more claustrophobic feeling, and darkness (more fire, denser surroundings)... Death, but without any human being, dead or alive, in the picture.
The first actual image I get is distant : black smoke rising over lower Manhattan. No details given in the short article, beyond the shock and awe. Similar results on other sites.
I'm not shocked. I'm not awed. Not even surprised. But at the same time sad and angry, empty and very tense, willing to interact with a human being. I spring out of my office and tell colleagues about the attack. I send a few mails, even joking in one (isn't humor all about coping with death ?).
All this takes less than 10 minutes : I have to keep going for a busy day in a busy office tower. And I've got this stupidly important presentation to perform later this afternoon.
A quick peek at news websites every now and then to keep up to date - but the cold brain is still running the show, speculating, and preventing the heart from taking over.
The said "important" meeting will be interrupted by an alert : the tower must be evacuated (we're in France's only high rise area). Masks off.
On the way back home, the cold brain is playing a new movie and this time it features actors. And it's not a silent movie.
I won't see the images of the collapse until I'm back home. Alone in front of a screen much bigger than reality in my memory. That evening, I don't know how many times I zapped to watch again and again the collapse. Like a titanic stake driven into a best friend's heart, pulling the shirt and streets around in a silent scream.
But revulsion and anger peaked later, when the man supposed to fix things uttered the word "crusade".
20090909
Al Franken is not Dan Quayle
You know change has come when the President Of The United States can visit a school and the kids say afterwards "this guy's smarter than me".
Al Franken is by no means POTUS, and learning how to draw a map of one's country is not too demanding a trick*, but this sure beats GWB listening to My Pet Goat or Dan Quayle spelling potato :
* he's performed it before, but videos were shakier
Al Franken is by no means POTUS, and learning how to draw a map of one's country is not too demanding a trick*, but this sure beats GWB listening to My Pet Goat or Dan Quayle spelling potato :
* he's performed it before, but videos were shakier
20090905
Republican Appointed Judges : John Ashcroft "repugnant to the Constitution"
Message to Mrs BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE, RUMSFELD, GONZALES, ADDINGTON, YOO... : Justice is coming, and even Republican appointed judges are eager to set the record straight.
I didn't forget John Ashcroft in the list : the "soaring Eagle" was the main target yesterday. And according to US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, former Attorney General is not only not protected by immunity and thus prosecutable (by Abdullah Kidd or any other victim), but very much likely to be sued since what happened under his watch as chief Destructor Of Justice was "repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history" :
Even Eric Holder and Barack Obama were less direct. They are politicians, but they don't have to speak for Justice. Here, Justice spoke, and rather loudly : this is not the crime of the century but a crime unseen for at least two centuries !
Aggravating circumstances : the crime was perpetrated by the very people in charge of promoting justice ! "It is only the misuse of the statute, resulting in the detention of a person without probable cause for purposes of criminal investigation, that is repugnant to the Fourth Amendment."
Actually, torture, Abu Ghraib, illegal abductions, and all other terrible abuses are nothing compared to this ultimate "misuse" / abuse of power.
This abuse of power has a name : TYRANNY. And the judges dared pronounce the word clear and lound : "the Fourth Amendment was written and ratified, in part, to deny the government of our then-new nation such an engine of potential tyranny.".**
I'm glad that these self evidences are eventually out in the open.
Coming from "not-GOP-unfriendly" judges, that's even greater news for democracy in the US.
Behold ! Change is coming !
* See also "Ashcroft can be sued over arrests, appeals court rules" (LA Times 20090905)
Memo : Al-Kidd v. Ashcrof claims :
** maybe as a compensation for their mention of "abuses of the British Crown", the judges summoned Sir William Blackstone, a British jurist who died in 1780 (between the US Independence and the US Constitution) : "To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."
I didn't forget John Ashcroft in the list : the "soaring Eagle" was the main target yesterday. And according to US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, former Attorney General is not only not protected by immunity and thus prosecutable (by Abdullah Kidd or any other victim), but very much likely to be sued since what happened under his watch as chief Destructor Of Justice was "repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history" :
We are confident that, in light of the experience of the American colonists with the abuses of the British Crown, the Framers of our Constitution would have disapproved of the arrest, detention, and harsh confinement of a United States citizen as a “material witness” under the circumstances, and for the immediate purpose alleged, in al-Kidd’s complaint.This document also tells us about the debate and dissents within the court (see "gotcha!"), but on the Judicial Richter's Scale, this is not exactly what I would call "word mincing".
Sadly, however, even now, more than 217 years after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end, in
sometimes primitive conditions, not because there is evidence that they have committed a crime, but merely because the government wishes to investigate them for possible wrongdoing, or to prevent them from having contact with others in the
outside world. We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history.
(AL-KIDD v. ASHCROFT / "ABDULLAH AL-KIDD, Plaintiff-Appellee vs JOHN ASHCROFT, Defendant-Appellant" - ca9.uscourts.gov 20090904)*
Even Eric Holder and Barack Obama were less direct. They are politicians, but they don't have to speak for Justice. Here, Justice spoke, and rather loudly : this is not the crime of the century but a crime unseen for at least two centuries !
Aggravating circumstances : the crime was perpetrated by the very people in charge of promoting justice ! "It is only the misuse of the statute, resulting in the detention of a person without probable cause for purposes of criminal investigation, that is repugnant to the Fourth Amendment."
Actually, torture, Abu Ghraib, illegal abductions, and all other terrible abuses are nothing compared to this ultimate "misuse" / abuse of power.
This abuse of power has a name : TYRANNY. And the judges dared pronounce the word clear and lound : "the Fourth Amendment was written and ratified, in part, to deny the government of our then-new nation such an engine of potential tyranny.".**
I'm glad that these self evidences are eventually out in the open.
Coming from "not-GOP-unfriendly" judges, that's even greater news for democracy in the US.
Behold ! Change is coming !
* See also "Ashcroft can be sued over arrests, appeals court rules" (LA Times 20090905)
Memo : Al-Kidd v. Ashcrof claims :
"Al-Kidd asserts three independent claims against Ashcroft:
- First, he alleges that Ashcroft is responsible for a policy or practice under which the FBI and the DOJ sought material witness orders without sufficient evidence that the witness’s testimony was material to another proceeding, or that it was
impracticable to secure the witness’s testimony—in other words, in violation of the express terms of § 3144 itself—and that al-Kidd was arrested as a result of this policy (the § 3144 Claim).
- Second, al-Kidd alleges that Ashcroft designed and implemented a policy under which the FBI and DOJ would arrest individuals who may have met the facial statutory
requirements of § 3144, but with the ulterior and allegedly unconstitutional purpose of investigating or preemptively detaining them, in violation of the Fourth Amendment (the Fourth Amendment Claim).
- Finally, al-Kidd alleges that Ashcroft designed and implemented policies, or was aware of policies and practices that he failed to correct, under which material witnesses were subjected to unreasonably punitive conditions of confinement, in violation of the Fifth Amendment (the Conditions of Confinement Claim).
Ashcroft argues that he is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity as to the § 3144 and Fourth Amendment Claims. He concedes that no absolute immunity attaches with respect to the Conditions of Confinement Claim. He also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for all three claims.
The complaint also quotes the public statements of a number of DOJ and White House officials implying or stating outright that suspects were being held under material witness warrants as an alternative means of investigative arrest or preventative
detention. In addition to this direct evidence, the complaint cites a number of press reports describing the detention of numerous Muslim individuals under material witness warrants.
The complaint further alleges that the policies designed and promulgated by Ashcroft have caused individuals to be “impermissibly arrested and detained as material witnesses even though there was no reason to believe it would have been impracticable to secure their testimony voluntarily or by subpoena,” in violation of the terms of § 3144."
** maybe as a compensation for their mention of "abuses of the British Crown", the judges summoned Sir William Blackstone, a British jurist who died in 1780 (between the US Independence and the US Constitution) : "To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."
20090824
CIA to Blackwater : Kill, Baby, Kill
Government outsourcing according to Bush-Cheney ?
. To Halliburton: drill, baby, drill
. To Blackwater: kill, baby, kill
Even if Blackwater didn't succeed in capturing nor killing jihadists*, the contractor managed to kill at least 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007. A small step compared to the hundreds of thousand deaths caused by that illegal invasion, but a giant leap for a private corporation.
So as someone said, Mission: accomplished.
And Magna cum laude according to standards set by then Amerikan rulers, most notably :
. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a.k.a. The Chief Torture Officer, head of the Destruction of Justice
. Vice President Dick Cheney, a.k.a. The Chairman of the Waterboard, a supervillain with a knack for illegality and infamy.
. President George W. Bush, a.k.a The Fundamentalist in Chief, a stubborn again theocrat under whose rule America ended up one Supreme Justice away from outright fascism.
We don't know yet what CIA's Leon Panetta will come up with next, but expect more public outcries than five years ago when, even as all abuses were perfectly known, Dubya's Weapons of Mass Disinformation earned him a clear mandate from American voters to keep digging.
Eric Holder, this is your time to shine and restore justice in the US.
blogules 2009
* see "C.I.A. Sought Blackwater's Help to Kill Jihadists" (NYT 20090819)
. To Halliburton: drill, baby, drill
. To Blackwater: kill, baby, kill
Even if Blackwater didn't succeed in capturing nor killing jihadists*, the contractor managed to kill at least 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007. A small step compared to the hundreds of thousand deaths caused by that illegal invasion, but a giant leap for a private corporation.
So as someone said, Mission: accomplished.
And Magna cum laude according to standards set by then Amerikan rulers, most notably :
. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a.k.a. The Chief Torture Officer, head of the Destruction of Justice
. Vice President Dick Cheney, a.k.a. The Chairman of the Waterboard, a supervillain with a knack for illegality and infamy.
. President George W. Bush, a.k.a The Fundamentalist in Chief, a stubborn again theocrat under whose rule America ended up one Supreme Justice away from outright fascism.
We don't know yet what CIA's Leon Panetta will come up with next, but expect more public outcries than five years ago when, even as all abuses were perfectly known, Dubya's Weapons of Mass Disinformation earned him a clear mandate from American voters to keep digging.
Eric Holder, this is your time to shine and restore justice in the US.
blogules 2009
* see "C.I.A. Sought Blackwater's Help to Kill Jihadists" (NYT 20090819)
20090814
We reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals
According to Karl Rove*, President Obama would be in "Permanent Campaign". That comes from someone who started campaigning for George W. Bush's 2004 election as soon as he stole the 2000 ballot, and who is still campaigning for his "Bush Legacy", a revisionist's take on one of the darkest periods in US History.
According to Karl Rove, "turning critics into enemies isn't presidential". That comes from a man who had attorneys fired because they were not able to invent proofs against critics of the Bush-Cheney Administration**. Remember those "us vs them" guys ? Were they "Presidential" when they called "axis of weasels" friends who advise you not to invade illegally a country because you may fuel terror worldwide instead of fighting against it ? Were they "Presidential" when they called "un-Americans" patriots who dared point out the possibility that torture, not only performed on innocent people, may not be consistent with American values.
So why is Karl Christian Rove***, a non-presidential individual in Permanent Campaign and turning critics into enemies if I ever saw one, making once again a fool of himself ?
Simply put, this man is scared. Yes, "Turd Blossom" is s..t scared. He knows his long overdue disgrace is coming : he's heading straight to prison, he won't pass go, he won't collect $200, and the few people who would actually like to pay this criminal a visit may turn out to be inmates themselves.
Karl Rove keeps going at "Obama(s)care" because he knows perfectly that once this last major bipartisan effort is over, Eric Holder is free to unleash justice and fix the moral collapse of the Bush-Cheney era.
"Healthscare" is the last throes of Bush-Cheney politics of fear. But this time, the fear is on THEM. And this time, it's not "us vs them" as in "us vs our critics", but "U.S. vs Them" as in "America vs Amerika". This isn't the politics of fear where a corrupt Administration decides who's guilty, but the politics of justice where a sound Administration lets justice do its job independently. Once again, Barack Obama is not pointing the finger at anyone : he is simply showing the direction for Justice ****.
Some think Obama is crazy to tackle health care now, but he doesn't have much choice : it's now or never. You can't mobilize the nation on such a daunting task in the middle of an L or W shaped "recovery". And now, he still needs all aisles of the Congress to work with him.
If you have any doubt about Obama's sense of priorities, just remember the most important words in his inauguration speech ("We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals") and his first decision as a President (closing Guantanamo).
Change is coming, and the most vocal opponents are those who have the most to fear from justice.
This isn't socialism they're fearing but justice.
Justice against torture and fascism.
Justice against criminals who disgraced American values.
Justice against Nazis who parade freely in a land that defeated Nazism*****.
The time as come to restore American values.
So with hope, we reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals.
* see "Obama and the Permanent Campaign" (WSJ - 20090813)
** see on NYT "E-Mail Reveals Rove’s Key Role in ’06 Dismissals" (NYT - 20090811)
*** don't get fooled by the middle name : Karl is of the medieval, crusade prone variety - not the "peace and love" kind.
**** see "'Insects placed in a confinement box' (Welcome on Waterboard)"
***** I've often denounced hate groups in America, but they keep coming out crazier than ever as they fear for their own relevance in post-racial America. Depicting Obama as Hitler is typical Goebbels-style propaganda from extremists. On the surrealistic recent developments of the US gun gap, you want to read "
According to Karl Rove, "turning critics into enemies isn't presidential". That comes from a man who had attorneys fired because they were not able to invent proofs against critics of the Bush-Cheney Administration**. Remember those "us vs them" guys ? Were they "Presidential" when they called "axis of weasels" friends who advise you not to invade illegally a country because you may fuel terror worldwide instead of fighting against it ? Were they "Presidential" when they called "un-Americans" patriots who dared point out the possibility that torture, not only performed on innocent people, may not be consistent with American values.
So why is Karl Christian Rove***, a non-presidential individual in Permanent Campaign and turning critics into enemies if I ever saw one, making once again a fool of himself ?
Simply put, this man is scared. Yes, "Turd Blossom" is s..t scared. He knows his long overdue disgrace is coming : he's heading straight to prison, he won't pass go, he won't collect $200, and the few people who would actually like to pay this criminal a visit may turn out to be inmates themselves.
Karl Rove keeps going at "Obama(s)care" because he knows perfectly that once this last major bipartisan effort is over, Eric Holder is free to unleash justice and fix the moral collapse of the Bush-Cheney era.
"Healthscare" is the last throes of Bush-Cheney politics of fear. But this time, the fear is on THEM. And this time, it's not "us vs them" as in "us vs our critics", but "U.S. vs Them" as in "America vs Amerika". This isn't the politics of fear where a corrupt Administration decides who's guilty, but the politics of justice where a sound Administration lets justice do its job independently. Once again, Barack Obama is not pointing the finger at anyone : he is simply showing the direction for Justice ****.
Some think Obama is crazy to tackle health care now, but he doesn't have much choice : it's now or never. You can't mobilize the nation on such a daunting task in the middle of an L or W shaped "recovery". And now, he still needs all aisles of the Congress to work with him.
If you have any doubt about Obama's sense of priorities, just remember the most important words in his inauguration speech ("We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals") and his first decision as a President (closing Guantanamo).
Change is coming, and the most vocal opponents are those who have the most to fear from justice.
This isn't socialism they're fearing but justice.
Justice against torture and fascism.
Justice against criminals who disgraced American values.
Justice against Nazis who parade freely in a land that defeated Nazism*****.
The time as come to restore American values.
So with hope, we reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals.
* see "Obama and the Permanent Campaign" (WSJ - 20090813)
** see on NYT "E-Mail Reveals Rove’s Key Role in ’06 Dismissals" (NYT - 20090811)
*** don't get fooled by the middle name : Karl is of the medieval, crusade prone variety - not the "peace and love" kind.
**** see "'Insects placed in a confinement box' (Welcome on Waterboard)"
***** I've often denounced hate groups in America, but they keep coming out crazier than ever as they fear for their own relevance in post-racial America. Depicting Obama as Hitler is typical Goebbels-style propaganda from extremists. On the surrealistic recent developments of the US gun gap, you want to read "
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").
20090604
"Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama
Osama Bin Laden has got a sick sense of humor : Barack Obama would be "antagonizing Muslims"... that's according to a man who killed much more Muslims than non-Muslims.
Remember this : the main targets of al Qaeda are not Americans but moderate Muslims across the world. And George W. Bush's Amerika was not an enemy but a partner, and a very efficient at that : a double imposture that fueled fundamentalism over the past few years (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
Bin Laden speeches resonated well with a fellow fundamentalist at the helm of the US but now, they fall short. His attacks sound more unfair, less sincere than ever, and at last, the impostor is exposed.
Bin Laden is not a religious leader with consideration for coreligionists, but a selfish warlord purely motivated by hatred, on a personal crusade against himself, alienating his own allies because he is unable to build anything positive, hiding behind Zawahiri's fundamentalist rethorics to make himself believe he is fighting for a cause. Bin Laden is not submitting to Islam but to his own troubled ego. He is not defending Islam but destroying it.
Barack Obama is not a religious leader (and he most certainly doesn't want to be that One !) but he has the qualities required for a great religious leader. Not respected because feared ; respected because respectful.
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries".
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people" (...) "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" (...) "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect".
President Obama doesn't act like a stubborn again Christian fundamentalist pretending to force caricatures of democracy into other countries, but as a humble leader trying to restore the core values of democracy in his own country.
Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri can mock at Mubarak or King Abdullah, the kind of leaders who make al Qaeda's day almost everyday. But what is Zawahiri doing except reminding us what his top job consists of : "antagonizing Muslims".
And while touring the Middle-East, Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu.
Bin Laden (or his al Qaedan impersonator) doesn't dare to flash the Palestinian card in his attacks. So he focuses on the usual new weak spots*, and pushes hard on Pakistan : "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley."
Not totally untrue : as everybody concedes, US bombings in Pakistan as well as civilian casualties both sides of the border, an unsettling echo of the Bush heritage, hurt the image of the country and trouble the message of its leader.
But somehow, Bin Laden is not as much planting new seeds in order to harvest future generations of terrorists as trying to secure his own old and shaky alliances with Talibans.
Osama Bin Laden is weaker than ever : USA's main target is no more a fake icon pretending to lead the Muslim world, but the very roots of fundamentalism upon which this impostor feeds and thrives. Obama means to fight poverty and unfairness, help moderate Muslims reclaim their hijacked religion, contribute to a sustainable resolution of key conflicts...
You simply can't grow in popularity by criticizing this kind of agenda.
* see "Next stop: Pakistan"
Remember this : the main targets of al Qaeda are not Americans but moderate Muslims across the world. And George W. Bush's Amerika was not an enemy but a partner, and a very efficient at that : a double imposture that fueled fundamentalism over the past few years (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
Bin Laden speeches resonated well with a fellow fundamentalist at the helm of the US but now, they fall short. His attacks sound more unfair, less sincere than ever, and at last, the impostor is exposed.
Bin Laden is not a religious leader with consideration for coreligionists, but a selfish warlord purely motivated by hatred, on a personal crusade against himself, alienating his own allies because he is unable to build anything positive, hiding behind Zawahiri's fundamentalist rethorics to make himself believe he is fighting for a cause. Bin Laden is not submitting to Islam but to his own troubled ego. He is not defending Islam but destroying it.
Barack Obama is not a religious leader (and he most certainly doesn't want to be that One !) but he has the qualities required for a great religious leader. Not respected because feared ; respected because respectful.
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries".
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people" (...) "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" (...) "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect".
President Obama doesn't act like a stubborn again Christian fundamentalist pretending to force caricatures of democracy into other countries, but as a humble leader trying to restore the core values of democracy in his own country.
Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri can mock at Mubarak or King Abdullah, the kind of leaders who make al Qaeda's day almost everyday. But what is Zawahiri doing except reminding us what his top job consists of : "antagonizing Muslims".
And while touring the Middle-East, Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu.
Bin Laden (or his al Qaedan impersonator) doesn't dare to flash the Palestinian card in his attacks. So he focuses on the usual new weak spots*, and pushes hard on Pakistan : "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley."
Not totally untrue : as everybody concedes, US bombings in Pakistan as well as civilian casualties both sides of the border, an unsettling echo of the Bush heritage, hurt the image of the country and trouble the message of its leader.
But somehow, Bin Laden is not as much planting new seeds in order to harvest future generations of terrorists as trying to secure his own old and shaky alliances with Talibans.
Osama Bin Laden is weaker than ever : USA's main target is no more a fake icon pretending to lead the Muslim world, but the very roots of fundamentalism upon which this impostor feeds and thrives. Obama means to fight poverty and unfairness, help moderate Muslims reclaim their hijacked religion, contribute to a sustainable resolution of key conflicts...
You simply can't grow in popularity by criticizing this kind of agenda.
* see "Next stop: Pakistan"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
