Dirt? "I'd take it"

Asked by George Stephanopoulos what he would do if Russia or China told him they had dirt on a political opponent, Donald Trump replied: 'I think I'd take it'. And when reminded that Christopher Wray told the Congress that in this situation, candidates should contact the FBI, he simply said 'the FBI director is wrong'.

When DJT says something is 'wrong', he's not talking moral compasses, but what doesn't follow his mobster principles.

'Russia! If you have dirt on Biden, tell me. I won't tell the FBI, as usual'

Donald Trump is 'right', because the GOP keeps following his mobster principles, putting him on the 'right' track to get reelected. GOP voters keep supporting him because GOP lawmakers keep enabling him, starting with the most corrupt of them all, Mitch McConnell, who not only confirmed his grand stand to block Obama's legitimate Supreme Court pick would not be applied should Trump face the same situation, but also had his state shamelessly benefit from his wife's work for the administration. Corrupt Elaine Chao. Corrupt Susan Collins, who pretends to defend women's rights, but gives the nod to Brett Kavanaugh, and countless anti-abortion judges.

DJT will be reelected if Democrats let Putin and Trump run the show, like they did in 2016. Feeding the narrrative that DNC primaries will oppose an ultra-radical, revolutionary, and an old conservative, and that only Trump represents change.

Which is true. Only not the change you want, if you care for democracy, human rights, the environment, healthcare...

Either you take a stand for decency, for democracy, for the values that make America great, or you let the worst enemies of America Make Amerika Great Again.

You want dirt? You'll get it.


blogules 2019
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

The Rule of Low

Reading Christine Blasey Ford's testimony was already convincing, but I don't think anyone who watched her deliver it believed one second that she was lying, including many Republican senators who will anyway vote to elevate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. 

 In contrast, Kavanaugh exposed himself (!) as a shamelessly partisan judge with major anger management and alcohol issues, not to mention a total disrespect of fairness in justice.

This man should be not only totally disqualified for the SCOTUS, but challenged for his status as a judge altogether. Since he chose indecency, and refused to withdraw his candidacy, he deserves the fair and thourough investigation Ford was deprived by GOP Senators in the most outrageous process ever.

But no.

Even before Donald Trump officially ordered Senators to vote and confirm him, Republican members of the Committee went full throttle behind this disgraced judge, even dumping their 'female assistant' smokescreen to scream in unison with Kavanaugh the 'victim'. Because the only thing that matters for them seems to be making sure the Supreme Court will tilt to the wrong side of History, whatever the cost.

No one objects. Susan Collins just had to say it would be fair to investigate further, and to postpone the vote, but so far nothing.

It seems that Collins doesn't mind ruining her legacy, and remaining forever the betrayer who failed to stand for womens rights in America when they most needed it.

Unless Susan Collins rises to the challenge, and choses decency, the Supreme Court will be tainted even more than when Clarence Thomas joined it, decades before the words 'hashtag' and 'metoo' even existed.

Susan Collins met with Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski to decide how (whether) to vote. They brought on board Joe Manchin, one of the few Democrats able to confirm Kavanaugh to secure his reelection.

History is watching them mercilessly.

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

"Restoring Honor" ? Maybe, but not the Glenn Beck way

blogules 2010

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" :

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.
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)*

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".

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."

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 "

GOP - From Morale Building to Moral Damage Control Mode

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) and Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) left without a word the office of the new GOP boss. So did Michael Steele, after a last attempt to keep his job.

"I came to fix this heckuva mess and believe me, change is coming to the GOP", said Sarah Palin to a forest of microphones. "Enough blows below the Bible belt. Enough Appalachian Trails to nowhere. I know about family values : how much do you think it cost me to cancel the party for Bristol and Levi ? And don't try to stop me. I already received stupid e-mail from macho Republicans, and stupid stuff from the letter man. Even Mark Foley tried to page me."

Is she going to run for 2012 ? You betcha.

"I can't hide that I can run", continued the theocon icon. "I'm rather fit for a hockey granma, see ? Actually, I ran all the way from Wasilla down to DC. Bobby wouldn't let me stop. Bobby, the pitbull chasing me... I can run, I tellya. Obama ? He couldn't even run a fever after a trip to swine flu infected Mexico".

Lobby Dick Tries To Retire, Fails To Retract

As the newly reformed League of Justice (D.C. Serious Comics) consider putting behind bars the Supervillains who disgraced America over the past 8 years, one of their most abject leaders resurfaces.

Last time we saw The Evil Doctor Cheney, he was pitifully escaping with his master Victor von Dumb in an helicopter. Their lair had just been raided by Captain America, who even humiliated von Dumb in public with his most powerful weapon ; a loud and concise X-ray speech exposing the imposter. The hero then threw this protective shield over the nation : "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".

It's hard to tell whether von Dumb will ever recover from his wounds. Somewhere deep into the darkest swamps of Amerika, The Rover is probably trying to revive his creature. D.C. Serious Comics declined to comment, but a sequel could be in the making under the title "Amerika Doomed : The Legacy".

We do know for sure the man known as Lobby Dick is still alive. Yesterday, he even rose from his armchair to deliver a "State of the Union with John King" address on CNN.

The Anchorman's hulk of a body was protected by a 8-inch adamantium-reinforced glass table, but for good measure King cast a few spells on The Creepy Veep, using quick hand gestures on his Magic Screen : as some of the Supervillain's most shameless moments were instantly brought back to life, there was no chance anyone in the audience could misinterpret his snarl for a friendly smile.

King first asked Doc Dick what he thought about Captain America's first weeks in power :
- "This League of Justice is dangerous : they are changing the very definitions of democracy, justice, freedom, science... cancelling all the much needed reforms we brought to the dictionnary over the last eight years. Next thing you know, even listening to Rush Limbaugh will be considered cruel and unusual punishment".
- "Well... isn't it already, I mean technically ? And what do you think about the use or abuse of the new superpower called Stimulus ?"
- "You sometimes do need a stimulus to get things going. For instance, when I don't get an answer or when I get an answer that I don't like, electroshocks can prove useful. But this Stimulus is a joke. Let's be clear : this country needs bullets, not bullet trains. Tax cuts for the rich, ax cuts for the poor. And a nationwide pipeline network".
- "... connected with new oil fields in Alaska, I presume ?"
- "Nah... oil should keep circulating on trucks, gas-guzzling trucks doing circles, virtuous circles. This country needs pipelines for water."
- "Pardon me... did I hear "water" ?"
- "You did. Getting water all across the nation is a major challenge for this millenium : we want to democratize waterboarding - no child left behind."
- "But that's insane !"
- "Yeah. Look how poor John McCain lost his bearings... I'm sure he refuses to promote waterboarding because Arizona is too dry."
- "Wasn't it because he was tortured in Vietnam ?"
- "That's a question of vocabulary. There was no CNN at the Hanoi Hilton back then, talk about cruel and unusual punishment..."

King offered the criminal an opportunity to redeem himself : "come on, Doc, now that your ruling days are behind you, now that you have nothing to lose... why not confess that you could have done or said things a better way ?"

Hissing and shrugging, von Dumb's sidekick refused to retract :
- the collapse of the Twin Towers ? "The DemoTeam did it, we tried to save Freddie and Fannie, but this infamous gang deliberately refused to strip them from their most dangerous powers when it was still possible"
- the Deficit ? "yet another creature from the DemoTeam - we found the fingerprints of The Dude all over it. Plus we had to reprint all procedure manuals... and by the way, do you know how much it costs to build a soundproof torture chamber ?"
- the Big Bang ? "We were caught in a global tempest and had to cope with the same crisis as our allies - rumors that the crisis originated from our own labs, our very homes, are bold lies"
- Shock and Awe ? "My only regret : the CIA didn't do their job and provided us with poor intel... but luckily enough, I was there to correct them and forge the case for the invasion of Iraq. Going at a Supervillain was the right thing to do. Everybody is definitely better off now, don't you think ? Iraq has ceased to exist as a united nation, Persia has recovered its Superpower status, new enemies keep popping up from all over the planet... more than ever, this World needs Amerika."

- "And how about The Scoot ?"

The Dark Lord's face turned even more somber as The Anchorman mentioned the case that almost tore the Doc Cheney - von Dumb couple apart in the last throes of their assault on democracy : "Victor and I slightly disagreed on that one, granted. I think it has something to do with my partner's hypocrisy. That's probably the reason why he keeps hiding his true fundamentalist face behind a mask of compassion. But make no mistake : he is as dangerous as I am."

True v. False vs Good v. Evil

"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".

I must confess I had the political equivalent of a quick but intense orgasm when I heard that sentence, to me the climax of an otherwise not-so-great but nonetheless perfectly powerful inaugural speech.

"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" celebrates the end of the Bush-Cheney era.

This "we" goes far beyond "We the People of the United States", which does already incompass a large spectrum of origins, colors, beliefs, non-beliefs... you name it, and did Barack name a few during his 18 mn speech !

This "we" includes human beings from "each nation, every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity".

The verb "reject" resonates strongly in such an inclusive speech and it should because it denounces our worst enemy, the one from within. When we forget who we are.

The Bush-Cheney equation was "false". This is not a moral judgement, "right" vs "wrong". And this is certainly not a religious statement about who is "good" and who is "evil". This is a clear definition of what mankind is all about.

At this defining moment, Barack Hussein Obama reminded us the true definition of freedom and democracy.

"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".

We reject as false the Bush-Cheney definitions of "freedom" and "democracy".

To add insult to injury, the Supreme Justice nominated by George W. Bush fumbled with the 35 words of the Constitution he was supposed to protect during that glorious inauguration. And of all words, he put "faithfully" in the false position.

President Obama later talked about things that were "true". One may question "patriotism" or other examples, but the word "true" has a more forgiving and subjective meaning. It is about loyalty to life, whatever or whomever you care for. Your ideals.

"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".

Obama's first decision is to close Guantanamo and put an end to Bush-Cheney's caricature of justice.

"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".

At this defining moment, America declared its independence from Amerika.

blogules 2009

Riding The Bullet

"Where Have You Gone, John ?"

Good question and excellent answers by Jonathan Atler*.

McCain 2008 is definitely becoming a caricature of Bush 2004, and doesn't have much left in common with McCain 2000.

Already swiftboated in muddy waters by 527 Groups**, Barack Obama is now being parishiltoned by John's own Nightmare Team of campaigners, headed by The Bullet himself, Steve Schmidt, the ant behind The Architect in Karl Rove's masterpiece : George W. Bush 2004 election (remember ? Dubya lost in 2000 but Jeb won Florida for him).

How low can it go indeed ? Back in 2003, The Dixie Chicks would clearly denounce Bush's invasion of Iraq. Five years later, Paris Hilton is actually campaigning for John McCain. No wonder : compared to Nathalie Maines, this perfab rehab celeb has the IQ of a fencepost. Ever the superficial caricature of herself, she is not criticizing the Republican candidate for his program or character but for his age, the only field where she can outscore him (Mac also underwent cosmetic surgery, but for serious reasons - and no, I never considered dumbness a sexy attribute).

The air is almost getting fouler in pre-election America than in pre-olympic Beijing. Yet, even under this blanket of slime and mud, a serious debate seems to be emerging on energy issues. Obama knows the quickest way to curb emissions is to change behaviors, and McCain knows nuclear power should remain a major option.

Even nowadays, after the World's leader in percentage of electricity generated by nuclear plants disclosed series of embarassing incidents involving its beloved plants.

After all, there's been some improvement since 2004 : if France is still not really helping the GOP champion, at least Paris joined the Party.



* see his latest column (Newsweek 20080811) - and my previous blogules on this tragic Mac Drive : "The McCainistan War" (20080718), and "Values Question Marks" (20080512)
** see "The Case Against Barack Obama ? More propaganda from mud loving PIGs" (20080703)

France heart Obama

In Germany the giga rock concert given to the people of the World, in "Sarkozie" the somber threat addressed to the rulers of Iran. Hope for the doves on one hand, dope for the hawks on the other... in the process Barack Obama even manages to claim the Reagan Democrats heritage.

France's love story with Obama is first the end of a hate story with Bush. We like his balanced views and sound approach of international politics. We like the way he sets people in motion in a positive way. And yes, we wish we had such a charismatic politician making it to the top job from our own minorities.

France is a melting pot. Both a former colonial superpower and the victim of countless invasions, a crossroads where 60 million people live and 75 million people pass by every year, the place where Europe's biggest Muslim minority and Europe's biggest Jewish minority used to live peacefully together until George W. Bush decided to give fundamentalism a worldwide boost.

Race is not an issue in France since raising the issue is almost forbidden : all databases have to be declared to an independent council (the CNIL), and keeping data related to race is illegal. So there are no official statistics regarding minorities, and everyday discrimination cannot be easily exposed. Even the HALDE (a post-2005 authority against discriminations) doesn't mention "race" in its website's keywords : "physical appearance", "genetic characteristics" and "origin" (circumnavigation if I ever saw one).

Everybody knows there is a problem. The only institution reflecting France's diversity remains the national soccer team, and the media and politics are still 99.999% white. Following the 2005 riots, Chirac urged the media to change this and there has been some improvement (anyway from scratch there wasn't any other way than upwards). Sarkozy's Ministry of Justice happens to be a woman with a dual French-Moroccan nationality (Rachida Dati), but there again, a tree doesn't make a forest. Political parties are guilty too : if minority talents are not given any opportunity, France is already dramatically lagging behind most countries when it comes to giving women electable spots.

France has been waiting for a "French Kennedy" for 40 years - to no avail. But a President Obama could certainly help the self proclaimed "country of Human Rights" to be at last true to its values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite".

5-4. Still standing

Guantanamo prisoners have a right for justice, ruled the Supreme Court. Habeas Corpus still means something in Bush's Amerika.
But that was a close call : 5-4.
And there were a lot of comments from both sides.
From Justice Anthony Kennedy, this sound and relevant comment : "Liberty and security can be reconciled and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."
For Justice (?) Antonin Scalia, this ruling is an "incursion into military affairs".
And from the 4 Justices (?) who voted against the ruling (the same Scalia + Samuel A. Alito Jr, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice (?) John G. Roberts Jr, Dubya's latest pick), this written comment, a clear incursion into political affairs : "America is at war with radical Islamists"..
Amazing.
US voters should definitely make sure John McCain is not elected.
And the 5 last defensors of genuine Justice in their country should definitely watch for their health until next spring.

Values Question Marks

Douglas E. Schoen raised the "Obama and the Values Question Mark" issue in the Wall Street Journal.

I do believe the question marks to be much bigger as far as John McCain is concerned.

Obama didn't have to make compromises as damaging as those made by his GOP rival.

And McCain can lose his independent base as well as the theocon base he's desperately been courting for months : he will be under sniper fires from both sides.

... not to mention Obama who will ask a few questions. Such as :

- did you actually vote for Roe vs Wade before you voted against it ?
- did you actually not vote for Bush before you asked for the vote of his followers ?
- was your conference at the Discovery Institute a sign of change in the US educational system ? do you favor Intelligent Design ?
- ...

Question marks, anyone ?

---
PS (addendum 20080514) - ethics an issue, anyone ? - Amy Poehler a definitely spitting image of HRC :

I had a nightmare

Hillary found her voice but America's eventually hearing Obama's.

This looks too good to be true : Barack gaining momentum (and even lately, the support of Bill's 1992 campaign manager David Wilhelm), theocons and neocons infuriated by McCain's lead, America has never been closer to restoring its core values and turning its back to obscurantism...

I should be rejoicing but I'm actually feeling kind of scared.

Fundamentalists won't let it go that easily and actually, I guess Romney was the one to "surrender to terror", escaping from an ever sicker race to the GOP Convention (that's God's Osama-style Party).

I've been fearing an assassination of Obama from Day One but unlike Doris Lessing, I don't think those madhatters would wait for him to be elected. They would even love the idea of celebrating the 40th anniversary of the murders of Martin Luther King and Bobby K.

Hillary vs anyone = Bloomberg 2008 ?

Over one year ago, I predicted a candidacy of Segolene Royal in France would be the best opportunity for center hopeful Francois Bayrou. Sego eventually did get her chance, but Bayrou blew his own.

I've been telling the same about Michael Bloomberg for a while : should Hillary Clinton prevail in the Primaries and run without Obama, the mayor of New York could win as an independent. Except this time, the man would deliver.

Don't get me wrong. I'm mentioning "the man" and not "the male", and the fact that both Royal and Clinton are female is a pure coincidence. There was clearly a question of character and competence for Royal*, whilst Clinton mainly suffers, more or less unfairly, from a popularity problem.

I'm quite sure Bloomberg waits for the outcome of the Democratic race. Should he bring a new, disruptive face as a Veep**, he would gain momentum within weeks. Heck : for all you know, he could hire the best team. Not as a candidate, but as the head of a non partisan administration.

The US are ripe for a telluric change in politics. This is no more about Elephants vs Donkeys but about forward looking and humanists vs conservative and determinists. And consider "conservative" and "determinist" at the literal sense of the term : a hardcore liberal can be ultra conservative and an ayatollah of free trade as determinist as a radical Hegelian.

Bloomberg is by no means the perfect man. Yet he does stand a chance and he could make a change.

Anyway, I believe both Obama and Hillary can deliver great presidencies. And I sincerely hope whoever wins will actually reach across the aisles to make a sustainable difference.

What America needs now is not alternance from Reps to Dems but from offside politics to noble politics, from the negation of the republic and of democracy to the essence of republic and democracy.


* see my not so kind blogules on her in French.

** I mean someone coming out of the blue, not out of the Grand Old Blue Party.

From Sim City to Sin City

I haven't been precisely kind to Dubai lately*, but things keep turning uglier in this tiny Emirate where - I hate to say this - everything tends to take biblical proportions.

Building the tallest Babel Towers (Burj Dubai) is one thing, competing with Sodom and Gomorrah quite another. The rape of 15 year old Alexandre Robert by 3 Emirati (2 former convicts including one H.I.V. positive) recently made the international headlines only because he was a Westerner and because his family decided to fight ; to overcome the humiliation ; to help all the silent victims, and to prevent more crimes from happening in the future.

This tragedy could become a turning point for Dubai's rulers. This time, it's too late for your usual cover up, you can't hide the dark sides of your wonderful mirage anymore. You can make a few bucks out of a Disneyland Resort, not out of a Mickael Jackson's Neverland. Either you stick to denial or you decide to take measures.

This Emirate is led by people who do have a strategic vision, people who should understand that firing a few people won't be considered as measures, that scaring away a few potential customers is much less serious than building a social bomb at home, or alienating the global Muslim community. Dubai could thrive as a neutral heaven in the middle of the Middle East, where sailors meet pirates, raiders traders, fundamentalists infidels. Dubai will collapse if it doesn't come to its senses.

This is no more about luxurious condos but about that most valuable ressource : human beings. This is no more about concrete but about the cement of a nation.


* to mention a few :
- blogules in English : "Red blogule to the DP World - P&O deal's Architects and winners"(20060224), "Halliburton and the 40 thieves (continued) - Dubai, we have a problem" (20070312)
- blogule in French "Dubai - de Sim City à Sin City" (20071101), later published on Agoravox.
- one letter published in Newsweek (20070810 - following their Dubai Rising article last summer) : "I wonder if your writer went behind the scenes in Dubai. The bulk of its population is poor Muslim foreigners from the East living in ghettos, workers building a dream world they cannot afford and which is denied to them anyway because even longtime residents cannot become citizens. I saw Dubai rising, all right. But I also saw the seeds of unfairness, injustice and anger being sown ; these are the kind of things that breed fundamentalism. And I saw wealthy Westerners all over the place, enjoying this Middle Eastern Vegas. Let's keep a watch on what may rise from that."

Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism

1 - What is fundamentalism ?

At the beginning, the word used to designate a deviant Protestant movement but now, it can be applied to trends found in all major religions.

Fundamentalism means the total submission of a people to a strict set of principles.

Fundamentalism is not about religion (the pretext behind the means), but about politics (the actual aim of the game) ; ultimately, fundamentalism is about the total control of society in a caricature of theocracy.

Fundamentalists are humans who build the set of strict rules and define what is true and what isn't, generally developing a simplistic doctrine based on their own biased interpretation of ancient religious scriptures that can be interpreted in as many ways as there are human beings. Since fundamentalists consider their doctrine as absolute, perfect, good and unfailable, anything growing out of it is necessarily wrong, corrupt and evil, and thus has to be eradicated in order to purify the world. Beyond what people do or say, fundamentalists intend to control and judge what people think.

Fundamentalism is totalitarian because all human activities should abid to the rules, starting with the pilars of democracy : political debate, science, education, justice, information... any field where intelligence can bloom and expose the limits of a basic propaganda.

The same logic can be found in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy : the ultimate goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine science and education, key entry points for fundamentalists. ID has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, starting with the artificial legitimation of religion at the root of the social system, and ultimately the restoration of theocracy.

The worst enemy of a fundamentalist is a person from the same religion who preaches tolerance, reason, and respect of the differences between individuals and cultures. Charismatic pro-peace leaders who happen to be people of faith, sometimes even former respected warriors : Yitzhak Rabin, Ahmad Shah Massoud…

The most embarrassing enemy of a fundamentalist is a "competing" fundamentalist from the same religion. The sales pitches are basically similar, but it brings the notion that there is not only one good answer to the question. At least one is necessarily wrong, it is more difficult to claim the true version. The best way is to either destroy this enemy or find a way to merge both franchises into a more powerful band.

The best ally of a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist from a "competing" religion. Each one becomes the "evil" of the other one, feeding him with new arguments. The more radical the opponent, the better : fear makes propaganda sound more credible and moderates less audible.


2 - Why did fundamentalisms gain momentum recently ?

Fundamentalist movements have always existed in most religions, but were traditionally limited to small circles around isolated radical doomsayers. They tend to blossom in periods of materialist decadence and crises because they leverage on basic fears : fear for one's own life and future, fear for the loss of identity and values of a whole society... In times of uncertainties, fundamentalists offer simple answers, clear visions of a brighter afterlife… and order. With a full set of golden rules.
Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. Most islamist fundamentalisms find their roots in the abuses of colonization, the failures of decolonization (not to mention the disastrous management of the creation of Israel or India / Pakistan), and many were infuriated by the aberrations of the Cold War. They usually reach power when Western democracies start sending the wrong signals at the wrong moment.

For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment.

His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success.

Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country.
And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party.
George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism.

Right after 9/11, the whole world was behind him and the USA, but this man refused to lead the world towards peace and mutual respect. Instead, he decided to send the worst signals to the worst people, deliberately triggering a sick race between fundamentalisms. Bush's first speech after 9/11 was meant to clarify the framework for his fellow fundamentalists thanks to one single word : "crusade". In other words : let's go back to the good old times when people fought for religion, we fundamentalists are ruling the show, and I will play on the very ground Bin Laden hoped I would.

Because "the Sheik" new perfectly what kind of leader he was facing : a (stub)born again Christian fan of fundamentalist Billy Graham, a man who set from the start his mandate in a theocratic frame by saying some Higher Being was in charge and driving his decisions. Dubya not only made Bin Laden the official "evil" figure of his crusade, but he happily obliged by becoming the official "evil" figure for Islamists. Everything he did was meant to fuel hatred, sideline the moderates (ie those coward weasels in the West, promoters of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agenda in the Middle East...), and sabotage all attempts of peace or reconciliation. Where multilateralism and pragmatism was the answer, he avoided all forms of debates and sticked to his radical black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil rhetoric.

During the 2004 US presidential campaign, I raised a few eyebrows a couple of years ago by dubbing Bush a fascist, pointing out the disturbingly accurate echoes of Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism in BC00’s Amerika. The propaganda reacted with a karlrovishy counterattack on the weak point : all of a sudden, Bush was facing “Islamofascists”. The actual fascists were at the other end of the spectrum… but that other end is a mirror, and fundamentalism fueling fundamentalism, propaganda feeding counter-propaganda, extremists ideas became mainstream. Beyond fundamentalism, other forms of radicalism could gain momentum across the world. In Far-East Asia, ultra-nationalists took over Japan, and state revisionism became common in the Archipelago as well as in China.

Bush did not wage a war on terror but in favor of it : instead of focusing on terrorist networks and reducing their ground (ie by fighting injustice and poverty, promoting peace in the region and especially between Israel and Palestine), he deliberately infuriated the muslim world and helped fundamentalists recruit new flocks of followers. And he targeted a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with peace in the region. A new playground for international terrorism, the end of Iraq as a united country, civil war here, the rise of a new form of fundamentalism in Iran when reformers were "threatening" the Khomeini generation, the failure of Fatah and the victory of Hamas... all this was not collateral damage but the very aim of his sick game.

The war in Iraq has been misunderstood as a war for oil led by neocons. The fact is theocons used neocons because they could sell the war to SIGs and thus to Congress. The hidden agenda was not about securing energy sources but about spreading fundamentalism, and if hardcore neocons truly believed in the democracy spreading agenda, theocons knew perfectly the outcome of this madness.

Paleocons followed because money flew from the budget surplus to the hands of greedy SIGs, with significant crumbs ending up on their own laps. Paleocons followed because the official propaganda combined with Karl Rove’s witchcraft made sure 2004 elections would be a landslide victory for Bush. Paleocons were fooled because they thought it would be a victory for the GOP.

I warned Republican voters before November 2004 : if Bush wins, the Republican party loses its soul and is bound to implode. Letting this man invade Iraq was criminal negligence, (re)electing him a strict liability crime by the American people against American values.

The 2004 elections celebrated the rise of Christian fundamentalism across the US at a level never reached before. If not mainstream at this stage, it gained significant social and political power in areas where demographic tides are changing the very shape of the country. Whatever the outcome of the 2008 elections, the USA are shifting towards more internal and self-centered dynamics, and theocons are more likely to bloom in such an environment.

Bush has been isolating the US from external influences, refusing any kind of accountability for his acts but for the dialogs he pretends to hold permanently with The Lord Almighty. At home, he shunted the Congress and his not so fellow Republicans. Away, he switched off the Kyoto protocol, unplugged the Geneva Convention (with the benediction of his Chief Torture Officer Alberto Gonzales), and tried to destroy the UN from the inside (with the help of Bolton the UN bomber). He even bypassed the WTO with series of bilateral FTAs or rather unilateral PTAs (Protectionist Trade Agreements).

A dedicated fundamentalist, Bush has been methodically destroying America from the inside, corrupting justice, science and education with a caricature of religion and paving the way for theocracy. This man is a total fake : a New England brat pretending to be a Texas hunk, a coward pretending to be a soldier, an amoral fundamentalist pretending to be a compassionate saint, a theocrat pretending to spread democracy, a weak wannabe who should never have been the most powerful man on Earth.

If you think the worst happened in Iraq, consider this : this man is planning an even craziest sequel in Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to George W. Bush he shared the same approach of religion. The fact is both are fanatics who expect important visits in a near future ; respectively the return of the Mahdi and the second coming of the Christ. And along with by a bunch of fundamentalists from all confessions (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), they share a more than weird doomsday scenario: the final clash between Iran and Israel will lead to those much awaited visits.

This Commander in Thief only has a few months before giving up power. He is working on peace all right, but rather of the eternal kind.

Compared to such madhatters, Islamist fundamentalists who kicked the Shah out of Iran back in 1979 look like moderates. No wonder Bush does his best to help Ahmadinejad stay in power.



3 - What can be done to undermine fundamentalism ?

Like fascism, fundamentalism needs a permanent state of fear, war and propaganda to survive, and is defeated by democracy at its best : exemplary, fair, just and respectful.

America cannot be respected if it doesn’t respect its own values ; those of a model democracy.

The war on terror should be waged at its roots : helping Afghanistan out of despair and out of the reach of Talibans, converging towards a fair resolution of the Israel / Palestine crisis, focusing on poverty and injustice across the World.

The only way out of Iraq is to fire those who deliberately misfired. Bush and Cheney should be prevented from spreading more chaos and impeached… Easier said than done, but removing Gonzales would be a significant first step forward.

Moderates should speak up across the political spectrum : Dems or Reps, we share certain values and think our leaders betrayed them. We may not overpower them as quickly as we’d like to, but we want to tell the world that we want America back on track, we are not going to let that happen again, and we will do our best to get rid of fundamentalists among us.

Humility will make America stronger : it takes courage to give up arrogance. Besides, there is no other way to get out of what is basically a moral collapse (not to mention to claim any kind of leadership back in the future).

The aim is not to please atheists and condemn believers but to expose fundamentalists, especially among those who are supposed to defend justice, education or democracy. You don’t want to ignite a witch hunt the McCarthy way (are you or have you ever been a fundamentalist ?), but rather to promote transparency over the hypocrisy and confusion fundamentalists are feeding upon.

I’m asking for a much needed reverse burden of proof : nowadays, lawmakers are terrorized by fundamentalists and it should be the other way round. Instead of harassing the bulk of the candidates with questions regarding their private life, we should be forcing fundamentalists to come out in the open, give democracy the lead over the theocratic agenda. Lawmakers shouldn’t be compelled to demonstrate confusingly why they are good believers, they just should clearly tell that they don’t support fundamentalism and that, whatever they believe in, religion should not mix with politics in this country. Ultimately, if some people want religion to rule politics, let them found their own party like they do in other countries.

Once again, I’m not promoting atheism, but defending democracy. And in the US, a cultural change is needed. The fact is America has always allowed too much confusion between the religious and political spheres ; been too tolerant with sects and fanatics that are not compatible with democracy (partly because it was built by people who sometimes fled Europe for religious reasons - ie the Mayflower pilgrims). For a European such as me, it can be upsetting to hear the leader of a supposedly model democracy finish his acceptance speech with “so help me God”. And it is upsetting to see secular democracies under the pervasive threat of fundamentalists in the EU as well (lobbying for the mention of the Christian heritage in the Constitution, for the promotion of creationism and ID… with the benediction of a rather ambiguous Pope ; Benedict XVI).

Beyond the US and EU political microcosms, all moderates should voice their hope for a sounder and more transparent system. This new “we the people” should reach across the world, wherever moderates are threatened by fundamentalists, and not only in the usual hot spots : the race for juicy market shares is raging all over Asia.

Why not A Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism, that perennial enemy of peace, freedom and democracy ?

blogules 2007

---

ADDENDUM 20090117

"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" - Barack Hussein Obama (Baltimore, January 17, 2009).

Change has come to America.

---

digg this

Chief Torture Officer

Impeachment. The situation requires impeachment.

I know neither Dubya nor Lobby Dick are likely to get it on time. But there is a chance their Chief Torture Officer will, as a tribute to such a disgraceful presidency.

The least one could say is Alberto Gonzales acted wrongly in the US at the head of the DOJ, but History is bound to attach two more exotic resorts to his name : Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Not to mention these Twilight Zones where people disappeared, phantom CIA planes landed, and justice was denied.

If Gonzales is not responsible for everything ("higher" beings were in charge), he clearly provided the theory and was a mastermind for the most revolting insults made by this administration to justice and democracy.

Impeaching Alberto Gonzales would be a small step for the restoration of American values, but a giant leap for mankind.

Red blogule to Wolfie's Personal World Bank

Annus horribilis for neocons (continued) : Paul Wolfowitz, whose World Bank is supposed to give governance lessons, abused his power to raise above the level of decency the pay of his own girlfriend. Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove may be the next members of the crude crew to fall, the Dems only have a few months to restore America and impeach both Lord Dubya, King of the Banana Republic of the Divided States of Amerika, and his puppeteer Lobby Dick Cheney.
Anyway, History will give its verdict sooner or later, and the Bush years will be forever remembered as years of immorality and disgrace.

George Pontius Pilate Bush lets Gonzales face justice - Red blogule to Our Dear Compassionate Leader

"Al has got work to do up there".
Ecce homo. I give you Alberto Gonzales, and it's up to the people to judge, it's up to him to explain why he dismissed some nosy attorneys, it's up to my fuse to explain why he short circuited the Congress.
George W. Bush washes his hands and I see mud on them : his justice promotes scientific revisionism and medieval fundamentalism, attacks the moderates and pacifists, protects Special Interest Groups.
George W. Bush washes his hands and I see blood on them : his justice promotes torture and protects the gunslingers.
George W. Bush pretends to be compassionate and to stand for values ? He should be remembered as the immoral coward who betrayed America.
Go get Alberto Gonzales, the mastermind of this deviant justice, but don't forget to get the man who ordered this kind of plans*.
Go get Alberto Gonzales, the mastermind of Abu Ghraib, but don't forget to impeach his master.


* "plans", "intelligent design", "The Architect"... building a fundamentalist utopia looks demanding on the gray cells side for the promoters, but the aim of the game remains the negation of intelligence for all others.

(debate) First withdraw from... the Bush doctrine

(debate on "our way out of Iraq")

No sane decision can be made before setting the house in order (the house beyond the House, that is - congrats for the Elections !). I suggest 3 steps :

First, America must clearly formulate some apologies to the Iraqi people and the international community for forgetting its own values. America will be respected again when America will be respectful again.

Second, quickly formulate the positions from all key players through a commission with a mandate to meet with all parties willing to talk (including Iranians). Iraqis should be open to new faces and ending the black / white talk should help hitting common ground / common sense. From America's point of view, that could also be a way of putting a friendly pressure : the US won't be the black sheep anymore, the scapegoat responsible for all trouble.

Once America repositions itself as a neutral force instead of an invasion / occupation force, the next steps will appear much easier.

But the US cannot leave Iraq without fixing the damage done. It is the hell of a burden but you cannot say you weren't warned of the consequences of this war.