"Back to you in a minute, Mahmoud... Benjamin too".
follows "Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada" and "Khamenei's death wish"
20090624
Keep your eye on the ball, Barack !
Cartoon of the day :
"Back to you in a minute, Mahmoud... Benjamin too".
follows "Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada" and "Khamenei's death wish"
"Back to you in a minute, Mahmoud... Benjamin too".
follows "Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada" and "Khamenei's death wish"
Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada
Benjamin Netanyahu has a sense for timing. To answer Obama's ultimatum on illegal colonies on Palestinian ground, he waited for the POTUS to be silenced by uproar in Iran*.
Emboldened by the crisis in Tehran, Tel Aviv hawks pushed ahead, financing new settlements. Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharanovitch's visit to al Aqsa Mosque was supposed to mirror that of then Interior Minister Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount back in 2000, which ignited the Second Intifada. Only Sharon didn't even dare entering the Mosque. Avigdor Lieberman's friend did, and his team went as far as exlaining that "the intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency"**.
The Temple Mount has been under considerable threat for years, several extreme right Israeli activist groups undermining its very foundations and claiming this sacred Muslim ground as theirs. One could hardly find any more controversial thing to do at this defining moment.
As advertised during his campaign, Benjamin Netanyahu is governing the most extreme way. His intentions are crystal clear : fueling hatred, destroying all peace attempts, strengthening radicals within Israeli as well as Palestinian ranks... business as usual for a post-Rabin Israeli PM. The difference : Netanyahu must act even bolder than his predecessors to maintain his coalition.
Joe Biden mentioned a test during the first 6 months of Obama's presidency ? Here we are. Die hard fundamentalists are putting their very existence in the balance in both Iran and Israel... And oh, Kim Jong-il plans another missile launch to celebrate July the 4th. Take your ticket and get in the line.
* see previous blogules on post-Bush Israel and Iran, and "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?".
** from IslamOnline.net and "Occupied Jerusalem" : "Palestinians Blast Provocative Al-Aqsa Visit"
Emboldened by the crisis in Tehran, Tel Aviv hawks pushed ahead, financing new settlements. Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharanovitch's visit to al Aqsa Mosque was supposed to mirror that of then Interior Minister Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount back in 2000, which ignited the Second Intifada. Only Sharon didn't even dare entering the Mosque. Avigdor Lieberman's friend did, and his team went as far as exlaining that "the intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency"**.
The Temple Mount has been under considerable threat for years, several extreme right Israeli activist groups undermining its very foundations and claiming this sacred Muslim ground as theirs. One could hardly find any more controversial thing to do at this defining moment.
As advertised during his campaign, Benjamin Netanyahu is governing the most extreme way. His intentions are crystal clear : fueling hatred, destroying all peace attempts, strengthening radicals within Israeli as well as Palestinian ranks... business as usual for a post-Rabin Israeli PM. The difference : Netanyahu must act even bolder than his predecessors to maintain his coalition.
Joe Biden mentioned a test during the first 6 months of Obama's presidency ? Here we are. Die hard fundamentalists are putting their very existence in the balance in both Iran and Israel... And oh, Kim Jong-il plans another missile launch to celebrate July the 4th. Take your ticket and get in the line.
* see previous blogules on post-Bush Israel and Iran, and "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?".
** from IslamOnline.net and "Occupied Jerusalem" : "Palestinians Blast Provocative Al-Aqsa Visit"
20090622
Khamenei's death wish
It's over now. As expected*, even if Khamenei manages to crush the opposition, the Supreme Leader has totally lost the battle against himself.
Iran rulers are now led to the classic desperate straits of a fascist regime lacking confidence in their discredited leader. Since they cannot anymore pretend to bring the Iranian people together around the figures of Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, they forge a case for terror attacks on the father figure of the 1979 Revolution ("suicide bomber" near Khomeini Mausoleum), and fuel nationalism by mentioning foreign agent provocateurs**.
Official media exhibit demonstrators attacking policemen as a proof of their terrorist nature, but the very image of demonstrators defying the explicit orders of Ali Khamenei is in itself a major blow to the country's most important Ayatollah.
Terror and foreign agent provocateurs are a reality, though. But terror perpetrated by the State, foreign agents invited by the State (some Iranian policemen refuse to hit their own kind, some militiamen talked only Arabic and not Farsi...).
Official propaganda remains strong and powerful, but Iran's level of education and international overture makes it impossible to control minds as tightly as in other countries.
Mousavi brilliantly exposed Khamenei's contradictions, putting a true believer's mirror in front of his face and caricature of faith. Who is the true guardian of the spirit of the revolution ? Who is the true defensor of the Islamic Republic ? Who would be a true martyr if he were to die ? And on the other side, who is this imposteur posing as a Supreme Leader ? Who is this deviant liar ? Who must "face the consequences" ?
The stronger the repression, the quicker the implosion. Khamenei seems ready to go all the way and probably won't concede. The key now is to see who wants to join him as he fullfills his death wish.
* see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow" and "Party Unity My Ayatollah ?"
** UK explicitely named by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. BBC's Jon Leyne asked to leave (BBC in Farsi too independent for the regime).
Iran rulers are now led to the classic desperate straits of a fascist regime lacking confidence in their discredited leader. Since they cannot anymore pretend to bring the Iranian people together around the figures of Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, they forge a case for terror attacks on the father figure of the 1979 Revolution ("suicide bomber" near Khomeini Mausoleum), and fuel nationalism by mentioning foreign agent provocateurs**.
Official media exhibit demonstrators attacking policemen as a proof of their terrorist nature, but the very image of demonstrators defying the explicit orders of Ali Khamenei is in itself a major blow to the country's most important Ayatollah.
Terror and foreign agent provocateurs are a reality, though. But terror perpetrated by the State, foreign agents invited by the State (some Iranian policemen refuse to hit their own kind, some militiamen talked only Arabic and not Farsi...).
Official propaganda remains strong and powerful, but Iran's level of education and international overture makes it impossible to control minds as tightly as in other countries.
Mousavi brilliantly exposed Khamenei's contradictions, putting a true believer's mirror in front of his face and caricature of faith. Who is the true guardian of the spirit of the revolution ? Who is the true defensor of the Islamic Republic ? Who would be a true martyr if he were to die ? And on the other side, who is this imposteur posing as a Supreme Leader ? Who is this deviant liar ? Who must "face the consequences" ?
The stronger the repression, the quicker the implosion. Khamenei seems ready to go all the way and probably won't concede. The key now is to see who wants to join him as he fullfills his death wish.
* see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow" and "Party Unity My Ayatollah ?"
** UK explicitely named by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. BBC's Jon Leyne asked to leave (BBC in Farsi too independent for the regime).
20090619
Scoop : Karl Rove is Pro Choice
According to Karl Rove, "The GOP Can Stop ObamaCare" (see WSJ 20090618).
Beyond the negative title, the idea is to prove that the GOP cares, and that the Party of NO can make proposals.
Karl himself becomes pro choice. Well... in favor of "Patients' Choice Act", at least.
To understand a proposal, you have to understand who's pushing it. Karl named four names :
- Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Yes, that's Tom "But what if I want to drive a gas guzzler ?" Coburn
- Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Famous these days for promoting R.J. Reynolds' highly controversial "tobacco lollipops".
- Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI). This man is in favor of universal coverage but make no mistake : his dream has always been to serve his generous sponsors and to offer to private funds the possibility to manage SS money
- Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA). Citizens Against Government Waste elected him "Porker of the Month" in February 2008 for "attempting to impede the recovery of hundreds of millions in over-payments to Medicare providers in the state of California" (thanks to SourceWatch / CMD for that gem)
This compassionate dream team comes up with a very innovative proposal : vote John McCain, and socialize the losses of companies.
Health insurance portability sounds nice, but it's mainly a scheme to clean up big corp balance sheets. Transferring the tax reductions for health care from the companies to individuals, that's a way of taking the burden off corporate shoulders, empowering private financial advisors, and weakening the collective power of employees.
Karl keeps going : "another proposal is to pass medical liability reforms that will reduce costly junk lawsuits." OK, but what is a "junk" lawsuit ? "A charge on big tobacco", would answer Senator Burr.
Overall, a pervasive system designed to weaken individuals vs big companies, to scatter about all counter-powers.
The GOP set up a Health Care Solutions Group, a one stop shopping joint to facilitate the job for lobbyists.
The GOP does care, after all. For his generous donators.
Beyond the negative title, the idea is to prove that the GOP cares, and that the Party of NO can make proposals.
Karl himself becomes pro choice. Well... in favor of "Patients' Choice Act", at least.
To understand a proposal, you have to understand who's pushing it. Karl named four names :
- Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Yes, that's Tom "But what if I want to drive a gas guzzler ?" Coburn
- Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Famous these days for promoting R.J. Reynolds' highly controversial "tobacco lollipops".
- Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI). This man is in favor of universal coverage but make no mistake : his dream has always been to serve his generous sponsors and to offer to private funds the possibility to manage SS money
- Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA). Citizens Against Government Waste elected him "Porker of the Month" in February 2008 for "attempting to impede the recovery of hundreds of millions in over-payments to Medicare providers in the state of California" (thanks to SourceWatch / CMD for that gem)
This compassionate dream team comes up with a very innovative proposal : vote John McCain, and socialize the losses of companies.
Health insurance portability sounds nice, but it's mainly a scheme to clean up big corp balance sheets. Transferring the tax reductions for health care from the companies to individuals, that's a way of taking the burden off corporate shoulders, empowering private financial advisors, and weakening the collective power of employees.
Karl keeps going : "another proposal is to pass medical liability reforms that will reduce costly junk lawsuits." OK, but what is a "junk" lawsuit ? "A charge on big tobacco", would answer Senator Burr.
Overall, a pervasive system designed to weaken individuals vs big companies, to scatter about all counter-powers.
The GOP set up a Health Care Solutions Group, a one stop shopping joint to facilitate the job for lobbyists.
The GOP does care, after all. For his generous donators.
20090617
Party Unity My Ayatollah ?
As expected (see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow ?"), Supreme Leader Khamenei ends up badly exposed in the front line after taking too carelessly sides in utterly controversial elections.
Khamenei eventually conceded a recount and theoretically, Guardian Council won't change the story. Except this is Khamenei's last chance to save face : at this stage, he can still dump his joker (Ahmadinejad). Unless he prefers to share his fate.
Either way, the system failed :
=> The official story doesn't stand mathematically or rather, appears too outstandingly perfect. Beyond the elements in the equation already mentioned earlier, some pointed out the fact that when you compared votes for Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, the six official partial results released over election day drew too perfect a line. Farideh Farhi (University of Hawaii) nails the result as "pulled out of a hat"*.
=> A different story would mean a failure in the election process, ricocheting on the country's ruling class.
And either way, the Supreme Leader failed in his judgement and sense of timing. His supporters, but furthermore the people of influence who owe him their powers, must have taken notice. Khamenei caused a disruption that could prove fatal for the unity of Iran as a people as well as a political system.
Even Mousavi would have some trouble playing the Obama role, bringing back all parties together...
Party Unity My Ayatollah ?
* see "Was Iran's election rigged? Here's what is known so far" (Christian Science Monitor 20090617).
Khamenei eventually conceded a recount and theoretically, Guardian Council won't change the story. Except this is Khamenei's last chance to save face : at this stage, he can still dump his joker (Ahmadinejad). Unless he prefers to share his fate.
Either way, the system failed :
=> The official story doesn't stand mathematically or rather, appears too outstandingly perfect. Beyond the elements in the equation already mentioned earlier, some pointed out the fact that when you compared votes for Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, the six official partial results released over election day drew too perfect a line. Farideh Farhi (University of Hawaii) nails the result as "pulled out of a hat"*.
=> A different story would mean a failure in the election process, ricocheting on the country's ruling class.
And either way, the Supreme Leader failed in his judgement and sense of timing. His supporters, but furthermore the people of influence who owe him their powers, must have taken notice. Khamenei caused a disruption that could prove fatal for the unity of Iran as a people as well as a political system.
Even Mousavi would have some trouble playing the Obama role, bringing back all parties together...
Party Unity My Ayatollah ?
* see "Was Iran's election rigged? Here's what is known so far" (Christian Science Monitor 20090617).
20090614
Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow
Iran reformers were denied their "Yes We Can" moment or at least, a second round against the incumbent at the Presidential elections.
To Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I'd say "yes, you can" remain in power thanks to such disgraceful methods but no, you can't declare yourself a winner. Because somehow, you put an end to the 1979 Revolution and alienated, beyond half of the great Iranian people, the clerics who allowed this political suicide.
The problem with official election results is that they look too perfect to be true :
. Ahmadinejad's 62.63% are high enough to avoid controversies about a potential second round, and low enough to avoid embarrassing comparisons with dictator plebiscites in banana republics or stalinian states... or even Bush approval rates in Midland, TX.
. in a model democracy you need a significant opposition, and considering the success of his campaign as well as all polls published before election day, Mir-Hossein Mousavi couldn't decently claim less than one third of ballots. Done, but not by much (33.75%).
Great, but that leaves us with only a few votes to split between the remaining two candidates. And we want to keep the same 2 to 1 ratio in favor of conservatives against reformers... so be it : 1.73% for Roshen Rezaee and 0.85% for Mehdi Karroubi !
Don't get me wrong : I expected Ahmadinejad to come first at the first round, leveraging on his position at the entry point of elections, for the registration. He was bound to get a massive turnout in rural regions, struggling only against candidates with a local stronghold. But a second round was more than likely.
The turnout exploded (85% vs 62.6% in 2005), but Mousavi contributed a lot to it while mobilising younger generations. With 13.2 M votes, he weighs twice as much as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani at the first round four years ago (the old leader campaigned for him). But Ahmadinejad's score seems extreme (even in rural areas - 75% according to the IRNA / Islamic Republic News Agency), and Karroubi's simply impossible : 300,000 ballots for a man who claimed over 5 millions at the 2005 presidential elections and was expected to finish significantly ahead of Rezaee ?
In a press conference broadcasted live on international channels (NB: CNN winning over BBC for the Farsi to English interpretation), Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli exposed the smoking gun : in the same speech, he delivered extremely precise results at the national level, and announced further delays in the publication of regional results.
Officially, the announcement has to be done by each region, but the message seems obvious :
- leave us some time to give our "top down" decree some illusion of "bottom up" consistency.
- there will necessarily be some inconsistencies hard to swallow for the opposition (you can't explain quantum physics with classic physics), but we would consider them minor and local, and they wouldn't threaten the national results
Always the vigilant Juan Cole* already pointed out a few aberrations : "Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations", the Lur Karroubi failing in Luristan, the Azeri Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Azerbaïdjan... Mahsouli did announce a victory of the latter in Tehran, though.
Unsurprisingly, opposition turned into resistance as soon as the first results were published.
Violence, arrests, censorship... unsurprisingly, Ahmadinejad confirmed his fundamentalist nature : his main targets are neither Israeli nor Americans but Iranian moderates.
His 2005 victory was already a felony but here, the clash seems final. Something is broken for good, and beyond the trust between some Iranians and their president.
Dragging along with him down to illegitimacy the clerics who let him go this far, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may simply have put an end to the 1979 Revolution :
- as a former Prime Minister of Khomeini, Mousavi was paradoxically in the best position to extend the regime's legitimacy even as he pushed reforms
- by alienating Iran youth, religious leaders deprived themselves of a future
- worse : their destiny is now intimately linked to a man who is not even one of them. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cannot hide anymore behind this joker : he is more than ever responsible for whatever Ahmadinejad does.
- Ahmadinejad wins but the cleric system loses - exactly like the 2004 US elections, when Bush's victory meant the end of the GOP
This President and this system cannot go on forever together and a divorce seems ineluctable. And the more Ayatollahs stick to their suicidal posture, the nastier the separation will be.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never looks so strong, nor Iran so weak since 1979.
Exactly as the world needs a stable and consistent Iran.
Of course, repression can succeed in the short term, but Iran may have soon to choose between the unity of the country and the survival of a regime. Right now, Ahmadinejad is compelled to enter one way or another unknown territories : even only in apparence, he must somewhat offer some positive change in the balance. And the easiest path seems on the international stage.
* see "Informed Comment" : "Stealing the Iranian Election"
---
also on blogules (V.F.)
To Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I'd say "yes, you can" remain in power thanks to such disgraceful methods but no, you can't declare yourself a winner. Because somehow, you put an end to the 1979 Revolution and alienated, beyond half of the great Iranian people, the clerics who allowed this political suicide.
The problem with official election results is that they look too perfect to be true :
. Ahmadinejad's 62.63% are high enough to avoid controversies about a potential second round, and low enough to avoid embarrassing comparisons with dictator plebiscites in banana republics or stalinian states... or even Bush approval rates in Midland, TX.
. in a model democracy you need a significant opposition, and considering the success of his campaign as well as all polls published before election day, Mir-Hossein Mousavi couldn't decently claim less than one third of ballots. Done, but not by much (33.75%).
Great, but that leaves us with only a few votes to split between the remaining two candidates. And we want to keep the same 2 to 1 ratio in favor of conservatives against reformers... so be it : 1.73% for Roshen Rezaee and 0.85% for Mehdi Karroubi !
Don't get me wrong : I expected Ahmadinejad to come first at the first round, leveraging on his position at the entry point of elections, for the registration. He was bound to get a massive turnout in rural regions, struggling only against candidates with a local stronghold. But a second round was more than likely.
The turnout exploded (85% vs 62.6% in 2005), but Mousavi contributed a lot to it while mobilising younger generations. With 13.2 M votes, he weighs twice as much as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani at the first round four years ago (the old leader campaigned for him). But Ahmadinejad's score seems extreme (even in rural areas - 75% according to the IRNA / Islamic Republic News Agency), and Karroubi's simply impossible : 300,000 ballots for a man who claimed over 5 millions at the 2005 presidential elections and was expected to finish significantly ahead of Rezaee ?
In a press conference broadcasted live on international channels (NB: CNN winning over BBC for the Farsi to English interpretation), Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli exposed the smoking gun : in the same speech, he delivered extremely precise results at the national level, and announced further delays in the publication of regional results.
Officially, the announcement has to be done by each region, but the message seems obvious :
- leave us some time to give our "top down" decree some illusion of "bottom up" consistency.
- there will necessarily be some inconsistencies hard to swallow for the opposition (you can't explain quantum physics with classic physics), but we would consider them minor and local, and they wouldn't threaten the national results
Always the vigilant Juan Cole* already pointed out a few aberrations : "Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations", the Lur Karroubi failing in Luristan, the Azeri Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Azerbaïdjan... Mahsouli did announce a victory of the latter in Tehran, though.
Unsurprisingly, opposition turned into resistance as soon as the first results were published.
Violence, arrests, censorship... unsurprisingly, Ahmadinejad confirmed his fundamentalist nature : his main targets are neither Israeli nor Americans but Iranian moderates.
His 2005 victory was already a felony but here, the clash seems final. Something is broken for good, and beyond the trust between some Iranians and their president.
Dragging along with him down to illegitimacy the clerics who let him go this far, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may simply have put an end to the 1979 Revolution :
- as a former Prime Minister of Khomeini, Mousavi was paradoxically in the best position to extend the regime's legitimacy even as he pushed reforms
- by alienating Iran youth, religious leaders deprived themselves of a future
- worse : their destiny is now intimately linked to a man who is not even one of them. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cannot hide anymore behind this joker : he is more than ever responsible for whatever Ahmadinejad does.
- Ahmadinejad wins but the cleric system loses - exactly like the 2004 US elections, when Bush's victory meant the end of the GOP
This President and this system cannot go on forever together and a divorce seems ineluctable. And the more Ayatollahs stick to their suicidal posture, the nastier the separation will be.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never looks so strong, nor Iran so weak since 1979.
Exactly as the world needs a stable and consistent Iran.
Of course, repression can succeed in the short term, but Iran may have soon to choose between the unity of the country and the survival of a regime. Right now, Ahmadinejad is compelled to enter one way or another unknown territories : even only in apparence, he must somewhat offer some positive change in the balance. And the easiest path seems on the international stage.
* see "Informed Comment" : "Stealing the Iranian Election"
---
also on blogules (V.F.)
20090613
Is Your PC P.C. enough for China's PC ? Green Dam Youth Escort
Beijing's idea of fighting porn is to launch a "youth escort".
Announced last month, the Green Dam-Youth Escort system will be implemented starting July 1st, 2009.
Basically, all computers will come with a software preventing web surfers from coming across unhealthy content as defined by the regime. Potentially : pornography, violence, democracy, human rights, resistance against State propaganda and revisionism...
Theoretically, you can switch it off. But the moment this Government plants a troyan horse in every computer, all your own dams break loose.
This pushes the Golden Shield Project (A.K.A. the Great Firewall of China) up one notch on the totalitarian scale. Instead of just controlling the access to specific sites, Beijing may monitor all the traffic and beyond, all usages and every individual from every computer. It would just take a few transparent updates in the "service".
This is about tracking minds, preventing "negative" buzz from spreading, spotting "rebel" patterns, and anticipating potential disruptions. Zombie computers for a zombie people.
US manufacturers see the trap : they would join Google or Yahoo!, regularily blamed as collaborators by human rights groups.
I presume Chinese Authorities consider this as an inoffensive technology transfer from regular NSA partners...
---
Addendum 20090613
I mentioned "technology transfer" and it seems to be the entry point for a US counter attack : "Solid Oak Software Inc said it found pieces of its CyberSitter Internet-filtering software in the Chinese program, including a list of terms to be blocked and instructions for updating the software" (see "U.S. company accuses China of stealing software" - Reuters 20090613).
---
Also published on blogules in French and on mot-bile.
Announced last month, the Green Dam-Youth Escort system will be implemented starting July 1st, 2009.
Basically, all computers will come with a software preventing web surfers from coming across unhealthy content as defined by the regime. Potentially : pornography, violence, democracy, human rights, resistance against State propaganda and revisionism...
Theoretically, you can switch it off. But the moment this Government plants a troyan horse in every computer, all your own dams break loose.
This pushes the Golden Shield Project (A.K.A. the Great Firewall of China) up one notch on the totalitarian scale. Instead of just controlling the access to specific sites, Beijing may monitor all the traffic and beyond, all usages and every individual from every computer. It would just take a few transparent updates in the "service".
This is about tracking minds, preventing "negative" buzz from spreading, spotting "rebel" patterns, and anticipating potential disruptions. Zombie computers for a zombie people.
US manufacturers see the trap : they would join Google or Yahoo!, regularily blamed as collaborators by human rights groups.
I presume Chinese Authorities consider this as an inoffensive technology transfer from regular NSA partners...
---
Addendum 20090613
I mentioned "technology transfer" and it seems to be the entry point for a US counter attack : "Solid Oak Software Inc said it found pieces of its CyberSitter Internet-filtering software in the Chinese program, including a list of terms to be blocked and instructions for updating the software" (see "U.S. company accuses China of stealing software" - Reuters 20090613).
---
Also published on blogules in French and on mot-bile.
20090611
Intelligence Supremacy
Yesterday, an 88 year old unrepented White Supremacist, James W. von Brunn, murdered a black guard at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Earlier this month, a "pro-life" fanatic murdered a doctor at his church (see '"Pro Life" Murderers').
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
20090605
State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine
Believe it or not, we live in a multicultural and diverse world.
A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.
Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.
A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :
Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".
Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)
Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".
Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...
The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.
Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".
The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.
A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.
* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").
** see transcript (NYT 20090604)
*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"
A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.
Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.
A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :
Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".
Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)
Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".
Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...
The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.
Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".
The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.
A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.
* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").
** see transcript (NYT 20090604)
*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"
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 :
