Bad Trip

My head hurts, I feel sick, and I can both taste and feel bile rise up my throat. Yes, just like one does after a really bad hangover and rotten weed.

So Nicolas Sarkozy has been elected president. And the participation was a record. People voted en masse for this election. That is democracy. So much for the intelligence and the capacity of analysis of the average Joe and Jane.

I still feel as if this was a bad trip of sorts. As if somehow I was going to wake up and it had all been a nightmare. But...well, I know it's not.

Segolene Royal managed to gather more votes than any Socialist candidate before her, but she was defeated by the mobilisation of the right. The far-right eclectors massively voted for Sarkozy instead of abstaining as they usually do, as was to be expected. All the old, conservative people voted for Sarkozy, who managed to rally them with his simplistic arguments and solgans, and his grand speeches reminiscent of a dark past.

Some people on the left might be happy with this result. Mostly they will be those who believe in what is called "le grand soir", they believe in a revolution to come. A revolution, because in a possible scenario things will have become so bad, will have regressed so badly, that we'll have come back to the time, work and social conditions our forefathers knew in the 19th century. In that century where they were so enslaved, so mistreated that they had nothing more to lose, and found the strength to rise and revolt against those who oppressed them.

I do not wish for that. Revolutions are a messy business, full of noise, blood and chaos. I prefer smooth transitions, peaceful solutions. But it's true that with the likes of Nicolas Sarkozy, if he applies his campaign promises, he will bring us much quicker, and much closer to a point of no return, to the evening of that future revolution. Because there is only so much people can take. Because there is only so much people can lose.

And of course, Nicolas Sarkozy had a special place reserved in his grand victory speech for his pals in the US. If that doesn't tell you the kind of foreign policy he's gonna lead, fighting Tony Blair for the honor of being Georges W Bush's lapdog, I don't know what it means.

Ah well, looks like Sakorzy intends to keep his promises. You can't fault him for having been unclear on this. People elected him nonetheless.

Now they will have to assume their choice.

If I ever see or hear someone who voted for him whine that s/he's unhappy with things happening in France in the next five years, I will personnally skin that person alive. With a spoon.

Now it's time to say good bye for the day, and to prepare for the next hurdle: the legislative elections, both in France and in Belgium. Our darling moronic MR is ready to spring into Sarkozy's steps, cavorting around and yapping with overboard enthusiasm.

Now it's time to take a deep breath, and rise again.

Good night, and good luck.

And remember: "Never give up! Never surrender!"

Ignorant Fools Should Grow Balls. Really.

Ah, I so love when I see basic anti-European editorialists spewing out the same crap, over and over again, like Mr Krauthammer in today’s edition of the Washington Post, for instance.

It’s always “impotent Europe this”, “impotent UNO that”, and “oh so powerful and benevolent and absolutely non-profit oriented US that saves the day”. An interesting analysis grid for the recent events, to be sure. I’m happy to report that the neo-cons and anti-multilateral institutions goons still cling to the same blindfolds and the same story-spinning and twisting to evangelize the world with their superior wisdom.

So it is that Europe and the UNO are now the ones humiliated by the whole farce between Iran and the UK. That’s weird. Last I checked, the UK was a fervently anti-European integration country, one adamantly opposed to any kind of political harmonisation. Last I checked, the UK was the most vocal and most powerful country to oppose any other voting rule within the UE than unanimity. And now it’s Europe’s lack of ability to unite politically which turned this whole thing into a humiliating route for itself? Uh, no, I really, really don’t think so.

Last I checked, in this hostage situation, it was the UK that was humiliated, along with the US that were forced to move and yield behind the scenes on prisoners and stuff they’re doing together in Iraq. Yeah, Iraq, remember, Mr. Krauthammer? You know, the country you’ve been happily destroying and dumping into long-lasting chaos and civil war? The country you went in to “free” (oil reserves and their exploitation by Haliburton included, batteries sold separately) where now you can even hear Shia people publicly regret the era of the tyrant Saddam Hussein?

Yes, Mr. Krauthammer, Iraq, the mess you caused, the US and the UK together, where Europe and the UNO wisely refused to get drowned along with you. So your allies get caught in a very predictable stage of the nice, unacknowledged cold war you’re busy entertaining with Iran, and it’s Europe’s fault for not getting them out? It’s Europe’s duty to get your allies out of the mess they decided to get in, and where Europe doesn’t want to go, refused to go from the start, and rightly so? It’s the UNO’s fault that your own folly is backfiring and exploding in your faces?

Give me a break, and get a life!

Those who humiliated themselves are the UK, which negotiated behind the scenes while trying to have everyone believe that they were the strong party and were ready to do anything to free their men, with the full option of warlike action hints. Even the UK press didn’t believe a word of that, and mocked the stupid attitude of Tony Blair’s government. Funny, I didn’t hear the English press mocking Europe or the UNO. But then, maybe, just maybe they’re not composed of brain-dead neo-cons and rabid anti-European fools.

Oh, and as to the US, which had to grumpily agree to assist the UK out of that whole nice mess, and had to step back on their own little warfare actions, allowing prisoners to be visited and the like, well, guess who’s looking like a fool? Ah, surprise, it’s your nice and oh-so wise government, Mr. Krauthammer, this paragon of intelligence and world vision that rules over the White House.

So, please continue spitting and foaming at the mouth. Please keep on spewing out ludicrous nonsense. I’m sure you’ll end up convincing yourself…one day. Still, if I mayt be so bold, one humble piece of advice: instead of projecting your own shame and humiliation on others, grow up and learn to shoulder them yourself. It will help you look a bit less like a total fool and ignorant.

As for me, I’ll continue being very, very happy that Europe stayed out of this mess, that we will keep out of this mess, and that it’ll keep being your responsibility, and yours alone. You wanted to dance, well now you’d better dance, and dance until the music dies out completely. I estimate at least a full generation, something like 20 years, before any semblance of order can come back to the ravaged country that you’ve turned Iraq into. So you’re stuck there for a while yet.

I hope you bought good dancing shoes, Mr. Krauthammer.

Good night, and good luck.

Delusions

In the grand Stratego game unfolding in the Middle East (and killing off hundreds of innocent people, displacing half a million innocents who've lost everything they had to define their lives, but let's not tarry on inconsequential collateral damages, our air strikes have a perfect surgical precision), I have found myself wondering what the heck Tony Blair was doing.

For a very long time, I've found myself wondering just where the UK was going, and how its governement could believe the path it had chosen would be beneficial. When I saw Tony Blair rallying W's insane cause and speech of "Crusades" and "Changing the Middle-East" through the folly that led the US in Irak, I just went, "duh, has Blair taken leave of his senses?"

Well, he has not--or not in the sense I first thought.

Reading today's edition of the Guardian, I have found a few scraps that may be the start of an explanation to Tony Blair's apparently crazy choices and decisions. Why did Tony Blair play along with the brutish, coarse and beyond stupid, primitive rethoric of Georges W Bush? Why did he play along with "Crusades" and "Bring Them On" (W has since then been on the receiving end of his "bring them on", not that he'll ever admit as much)? Why is Blair allowing himself to be seen as the US's dog? Why does he let W talk to him as one would a pal during a student party? Why does he bow at anything W says and play good and obedient "aye aye sir" underling?

Well, it would appear Tony Blair believes he can accomplish something by being on the good side of W. It would appear our dear Tony believes he has a mission to accomplish, and that in order to reach the higher goal, he needs to kind of sacrifice his image by doing a bit of "W boot licking".

There is something that is almost coherent in that line of thinking. It's true that you need to US if you're going to do any good in the Middle-East. You need its military power (although how much of it is left now that they're firmly trapped in Irak and not anywhere near winning free of that swamp?), you need its influence on some Arab countries, and first and ofremost on Israel (if one can conceive that the US will ever go against Israel's will, that is yet to be proven possible). It may also be true that in order to make friends with the US, while it's being led by the likes of W and his goons, Cheney and Rumsfeld overshadowing his every action, you need to play dog and win that friendship through displays of blind, mindless loyalty and all that jazz.

Still, when I contemplate plans like that, when I contemplate Tony Blair playing along with primitive speeches and black and white views of the world, I can't help but ask: Mr Blair, are you simple-minded, naive or blinded by your sense of being burdened by a mission only you can achieve?

You can play W's game all you want, you won't make him change his mind. You won't bring him to your line of thinking. You won't make him see the other side of the coin. W's game is a game of alpha males locked in a sandbox and battling it out. In this game, brains and strategy, intelligence matter almost not at all. You allow yourself to be used, you allow the UK's image in the Arab World (and elsewhere) to be diminished and tainted. But you will get nothing in return.

Trying to counter that by naive displays of your opposition to W in domains like stem cell research that, in the grand scheme of things in the Middle East have zero importance, is nice and all, but will produce no result--or it might, but the opposite of what is desired. Instead of portraying Blair as a courageous opponent to what is nothing more than the obsucrantist policy of a man who's the puppet of raving religious fanatics (yes, I do believe that the Bible Belt people in the US are as dangerous, if not more, than the Islam fundamentalists), this kind of action simply leave off the sensation of a pathetic attempt at showing one's independance from W.

All in all, I always come back to the same conclusion: people who have "missions" are dangerous people. People with missions quickly become blind to anything other than what they perceive to be the one and only path they can walk. People with missions are easily manipulated, and lured the way one wants.

Delusions--it's the worst flaw in people with missions.

And it's a fatal one.

The only way out is to take off one's blindfold and to stop this blind forward race. to accept the possibility of being mistaken, of failure, and to stop. To stop and get a good look around, and change things while there is still time. But doing this takes courage, a lot of it. And Mr Blair doesn't look like he's ready for a much needed bit of soul searching and truth confronting.

In the meantime, Israeli bombs kill hundreds of innocents. Disturbing wounds and burns seem to indicate the possibility of use by Israel of Phosphoric bombs and maybe even chemical weapons. The Hezbollah sends missiles on Israeli cities and kills innocent Israeli civilians. And chaos--grows.

Entropy thrives.

Sometimes I wonder, are human mistakes and blindness just another expression of the second law of Thermodynamics?

And All Their Dreams, Torn Asunder.

I’ve been trying to gather my thoughts on the current wars led by Israel against the civilians of Gaza and Lebanon. I know, I know, many righteous people will tell me that Israel is simply trying to free its kidnapped soldiers and fighting against the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah. Will those same people please explain to me how bombing the Christian quarters of Beirut is fighting the Hezbollah? How annihilating the infrastructures of Lebanon, undermining its government and killing off children is fighting against terror and helping free those poor soldiers?

It’s highly likely, all these actions can achieve is getting those soldiers killed, sparking rage and long-lived hatred in the hearts of the Lebanese population, and in the end destroying any hope for peace and stability in the region for a very, very long time.

No matter how I try, I just don’t understand the rationale that’s behind Israel’s current actions. I don’t understand what the government of Ehoud Olmert is hoping to achieve. Destroying the Hezbollah? Can anyone in his right mind truly believe that? After a week of intense bombardment, all Israel has achieved is the destruction of a country that was rebuilding itself and finally succeeding in getting a chance at peace and stability after a score of years in the throes of civil war and Israeli/Syrian occupation. The death toll in civilians has soared, while the Hezbollah appears to have lost almost nothing of its power and hold on the South of Lebanon. With its seemingly random strikes, Israel is seen attacking humanitarian convoys, Beirut’s reserves for food, and it’s even hampering the evacuation of foreigners by threatening the boats which come to Beirut to get innocent people trapped in this one)sided war.

Yes, you heard me. I’m sure the American press hasn’t spoken much of it, but Israel has forced French evacuation boats to leave early, abandoning hundreds of refugees in Beirut, because past a given time Israel kindly warned the French authorities that it could “no longer guarantee” the boats’ safety and safe escape from the trap of Beirut’s port.

There. Now, do you see where we stand? Do you see the insanity of Israel’s actions? I get the feeling this is a runaway train heading straight for a mountain’s wall at full speed, and unable to stop.

What will it take for the international community to react?

Mr Bush is happy to let Israel do what he’d do if he could spare the military power, since his primitive black and white vision of the world would have him subdue the parts of the world which don’t work according to his views through the force of arms. Mr Bush dares to “hope the civilian casualties will be kept to the minimum”, in yet another display of despicable hypocrisy. Mr Bush cares nothing if Lebanon is destroyed. Mr Bush imagines that he can have Israel be the US’s viceroy in the region, a looming, threatening power that would guarantee the region’s stability for the US’ insatiable thirst for oil (and its profit for W’s friends…). And if whole populations in the Middle East are unhappy, live in poverty, cannot have the slightest chance at achieving a good life, who cares? Not Mr Bush, and not the Christian fanatics which are his base of support.

Mr Blair is also happy being Mr Bush’s dog. For some reason I have yet to understand, Mr Blair has chosen to debase the UK, and to play the role of Mr Bush’s and the US’ faithful servant. The G8 meeting conversation (in its entirety, not the small bit that went on TV), is very enlightening in that regard. There, again, I fail to understand. And I fail to understand how the English people can accept that, and how the advisers who have the ear of Mr Blair let him play that game without warning him of the political consequences of this game of his. He should stop, if only for his own personal interest—or is he really into that foaming at the mouth self-righteous “world vision” that they’re brining peace by allowing a few “unfortunate sacrifices” to take place?

As to Europe…. Poor, tattered Europe. The acceptance of the Eastern countries has diminished it. We have welcomed among us people who care nothing for the European ideal, only for the money Europe can bestow upon their private companies. Politically-wise, they follow the US in blind displays of gratitude for the US’s so-called support during the cold war, even though as I recall, at Yalta, when Stalin cut the world in half, the Americans agreed to it, and to abandoning the Eastern countries behind the Iron Curtain to the tender mercies of the Soviet Empire. Needless to say, I have yet to understand those people’s blind faith in the US as well.

France would do the right thing, France is calling for action and a cease-fire. At least someone is. But they don’t have the military power to move, and make a difference. Europe is too divided for France’s voice to be heard, thanks to all our new friends from the East.

The silence of the Arab countries is deafening, and extremely dangerous. The more time passes, the more populations who see that Lebanon is abandoned to the bombs of Israel are likely to turn, not to their own governments, but to terrorist groups and militia.

Where are Israel’s and the US’s hopes for a future stability and peace in the region in all this?

Nowhere.

The only thing in sight is-- War.

Devastation.

Death.

Injustice.

Horror rained down from the sky by people who should know better, whose families have suffered the most horrible of genocides, and thus should know better than to visit chaos and death on innocents. Or is it that the horrors they suffered has bereft them of a heart and soul? Is it that they believe themselves entitled to any kind of action because of their terrible past? Has it made them blind and uncaring to the suffering of others? There is a horrible symmetry in Israel’s actions, in its bombing of innocent people. I think, that many people who advocate this exercise in slaughter of a country should take a good look in the mirror. I think what they’d see there wouldn’t be to their liking.

Because, the more time passes, the more they are becoming the enemy.

And all those who give a sad nod and look the other way as Mr Bush and Mr Blair are doing, are following the same dark path.

Tell me, Mr Bush, tell me, Mr Blair, you who think so highly of yourselves and your motives, where is your moral high ground, when you allow the bombing of humanitarian convoys, of purely civilian targets, of Christian quarters of Beirut to take place? Where is it, when you admittedly plan to wait until the grisly job of butchering Lebanon is done before coming in as saviours?

In Lebanon, people had at last reached the end s of their struggles. They had overcome the terrible consequences of a twenty-years long civil war. They had rebuilt. They were looking at very good prospects in terms of tourism. People at last had a chance of building themselves good lives, and at being happy.

All this is gone.

All this has been annihilated by Israel, and by the US’s and the UK’s mad choice to let it all happen unhindered.

All those people’s dreams, burnt to ashes.

Shoot To Kill! Great. Now, What?

From Friday's edition of the Guardian:

As he got on to the train I looked at his face. He looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified and then as I say he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him.

They couldn't have been no more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had a black automatic pistol in his left hand. He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.

An innocent man was murdered in London on Friday morning.

Shot five times in the head while he was lying on the floor, far from being a threat to anyone.

Shot by police officers.

His crime? To have been mistaken for someone else. To have been frightened and subsequently to have run away when he was chased by people in plain clothes, people he didn't know. To have been hounded and herded to the underground coach. To have tripped and fallen to the floor where he lay helpless.

Where he lay helpless until the police officers reached him and shot him in the head five times.

A tragedy, some will say, a necessary evil, others will contend, a regrettable sacrifice to methods that insure the safety of the public, a good portion of people in official positions are likely to support. If you've read previous rants of mine, you know how I feel about so-called necessary sacrifices: bullshit. You CANNOT weigh the worth of lives against life. To do so is repellant. Revolting.

The method of shooting to kill comes, unsurprisingly enough, from Israel. Okay, regardless of what I think of Israelian methods, importing this to Europe is plain madness. Are police officers now instructed to shoot to kill anyone suspect? Is the definition of "suspect" wearing a coat and having a backpack? Great. Guess what?

Whenever I travel, I'm a potential suicide bomber. Well, yeah, I do have a backpack, and I usually have a coat or a jacket on my back, even in Summer, because I always travel with one, and having it on me saves place inside my luggage or my backpack!

And, guess another thing: if a group of officers in civvies start chasing me, I WILL RUN. No, I won't let myself be grabbed and manhandled by people who wear no uniform and whom I can't identify as proper agents of the law.

It gets better: imagine for a moment that a petty thief is chased down by those officers. He has a backpack where he stores his catch of the day, and he has good reason not to want to be apprehended. Yet, does this thief deserve to be shot in the head? I would think not. Of course, I'm not a raving tabloid op/ed columnist demanding "shoot them all". Another bit of niceness, that one. And just WHERE do you think calls to hatred and murder will lead? To peace and happiness ever after?

Please.

A man is dead.

An innocent has been murdered.

Nothing will ever undo that evil.

Nothing will ever help the terror that crushed that poor man, or his pain upon being murdered.

Nothing will ever help the loss of his family and friends.

At least, the British police has publicly recognized this tragic misconduct. Now, it's time to rethink methods and tactics, and to stop with the cowboy, shoot-to-kill attitude. The last thing to do is to strive for justification and go about claiming it's all the terrorists' fault. No, sir. No way. Far too easy.

We show our metal, we show our ethics and our values when we decide on investigation methods, on instructions and procedures. We are responsible for the way in which we, as an embodiment of the law or the state, choose to react to threats such as terrorism. If we can't find the strength to remain ourselves, to hang on to who we are, to what has always defined us, then we will inevitably lose ourselves in the long run. If we allow a shoot-to-kill policy, then we deny the most basic of the principles upholding our societies: due process. Anyone is innocent until proven guilty. That requires arrest, charges, and a trial. Nobody is guilty by default, or deserving of death by default. If we find that shooting mere suspects in the head is acceptable, then the terrorists have already won.

So, no.

No, you don't instruct police officers to aim for the head, get the suspect dead and ask questions later.

Not in Europe.

"Our Economy is the Healthiest." Yeah. So What?

Originally, I wanted to title this post "Shouganai ne", Japanese for "it can't be helped". I also considered "Sigh" and "Yawn" to emphasize the fact that the elections result in the UK are no surprise to me, even if I hoped things would turn out in another fashion--if I hoped that people might open their eyes and see beyond the narrow path that their field of vision is reduced to. But then, watching a debate on TV, I was once more forced to hear that absurd sentence: "and of course one of the strong points of his campaign was centered on the fact that, thanks to his governing the country, its economy is the healthiest, the strongest."

Oh, great.

Companies are well and good, thriving even. That's so nice to hear.

Tell me, how are the real, normal, common people's lives affected by this healthy economy? How have their lives become better?

They have not?

Oh, that's so bad.

How have their jobs become more stable, more secure? How has it become more difficult to fire people? How have those who've lost their jobs been insured that they will keep getting help until they can find a job THAT MATCHES THEIR RESUME and not whatever trash thing that gets tossed their way?

They have not?

Well, really, that's too bad.

How have people's wages and work conditions grown?

Much worse?

Really, really, that's too bad.

How about the essential pillars of society that are Education and Health Care?

They're the worst around? Worse than in all those countries that are belittled because their economic growth is weak, much weaker than the UK's?

Oh, that's so bad.

This is for Mr Blair and all the believers in the almighty supremacy of economy: your mantras and dogmas are no good. Your economy is no good, serves no purpose if people are forgotten and sacrificed on its altar. Economy is useless and worthless when all it does is strengthen the differences between classes.

When it serves only to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

When people are made to serve it.

When people are dumped and are marked with the label of "drifters".

When men and women are trashed like garbage, flushed out like excrements by a society that rejects them once they've ceased to be useful to it.

So, a healthy economy? Yeah. Sure.

Remind me again, what does it matter to me?