Lessons from Greece

This week was a week of revelations. A week of lessons. Terrible lessons.

Backed in a corner by the dictates of powers outside his country, a man called for a referendum. This man, George Papandreou, prime minister of Greece, made a decision that was his prerogative as the democratically elected leader of his country. It was a dangerous decision, to be sure, and one which came years too late. It's highly likely it was a very selfish decision, one made in order to manipulate and retain power. Still, in a breathtaking moment, he relinquished power to the people.

Convenient or not, dangerous or not, manipulation or not, selfish or not, deception or not, power to the people is what democracy is all about.

And as this declaration was made, as the unthinkable perspective of power shifting back to the people threatened to become reality, the world of capitalism shook upon its foundations. Almost, it fell.

Almost.

At once, all the powers that be gathered and united. At once, threats and blackmail and humiliation were thrown upon George Papandreou, the man who had dared betray the system – be it for his own selfish purposes and ambitions. And so, in a move as callous and brutal as it is anti-democratic – and sincere – the puppets of the true powers-that-be, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, Hermann Van Rompuy, and all the rest, they all crushed democracy beneath their heels. They dictated what Papandreou should do and how he should do it, or otherwise his country would be dumped down the trash can, his population would be subjected to a misery even worse than the one forced down its throat now, and he would lose everything.

And he gave in. His tail between his legs, Papandreou returned to Greece, to face more humiliation, and to accept more punishment from his own colleagues and the media in general.

And all the while, the powers-that-be continued dictating their conditions, and what Greece should do, what its population should sacrifice.

All of it, so that the illusion of a thriving capitalism can continue to exist. All of it, so that the 1% of richest can keep on growing richer, can keep on devouring everything the 99% produce, and can keep on stealing legally all the richness we produce.

What this means, is that to keep their privileges, to keep this warped order of things, the powers-that-be are ready to do whatever it takes. They're ready to break even the taboos they had nurtured in order to keep us in line. They're ready to tear down the illusion of democracy. Why go so far ? Why resort to such extreme measures ?

Because democracy is a terrifying thing. Because giving back the power to the people could have unraveled the whole tapestry of capitalism. Because the Greeks had the opportunity of choosing default, which would have revealed the whole fraud around the so-called « public debt crisis ». There is no public debt crisis, there is only the result of shifting the richness we all produce toward a single fringe of population, legally or not emptying the states' treasuries and social security everywhere.

Defaulting would have torn down the illusion. Those who stole the richness would have been made to pay. Banks would have fallen. Hedge funds would have fallen. Some would have triggered the armageddon of Credit Default Swaps. Then further insurance companies and banks would have fallen, in particular in the US. Then the Chinese would have been in trouble.

It would have all been tumbling down.

The 1% would have fallen.

It could not happen. No matter what. No matter why.

And so, the powers-that-be blew the whistle and signalled the end of the game, and they slapped democracy aside.

The pundits all explain that it was to help Greece against itself, or they say that it was folly on Papandreou's part, and his move would have hurt the Greeks, and everybody else. Let them. It doesn't matter. Only one thing matters:

What's been hurting Greece for two years, what's going to keep on hurting it for a long, long time, is blind, insane austerity programs which kill the middle-class. Which kill the economy and drag people into misery and poverty. Which kill any hope the Greek people might have. Because those programs always attack the same layers of population. And all the while, the richest, the Orthodox Church – supremely rich – the great shipowners, the real estate developers, all those who reap the richness produced by the Greek population and send it abroad – more than two times Greece's annual GDP is sleeping in Swiss banks, exported by the 1% who, legally or not, do not pay taxes.

Ain't that nice ?

Shouldn't that wonderful system continue on destroying our lives, again and again, for no other purpose than maintaining the privileges of the powers-that-be ?

Nah.

When the US of A insists on choosing the Path of Shame

Yesterday, UNESCO voted the entry of Palestine into its institution by a large majority of votes. This should have been a moment of joy and celebration : even though the state of Palestine doesn't yet enjoy a full recognition by the UNO, its entry into one of the most respected and valued international organisations is another chance for peace. Yet, not everyone sees the event in this light. The US of A, in yet another demonstration of their usual grandeur, not only voted against the motion, but also decided to immediately cut funding UNESCO.

This will have repercussions, it will hurt people who have done nothing wrong, and do not deserve to be cast off with a mere flip of the hand, but let's focus first on the absolute stupidity of such a move.

It's been way too many years since a peaceful settlement was sought between Israel and the dispossessed people who have been pushed back to Cisjordania and the West Bank of Gaza. In theory, everyone agrees that there needs to be two viable states side by side, each with guarantees of security – be it the économical, social or otherwise – and good living standards. Yet, even though everyone agrees, nobody can reach a final conclusion on this protracted, and often halted, process. In the meantime, both populations – Israelis and Palestinians – must trudge on with their lives. And as the years pass, the Palestinian population gets poorer and more desperate, the rightwing and hawkish Israeli government allows furter settlements in the Palestinian territory, chasing people from their land. The Israeli government builds the Wall of Shame, at least as shameful as the Berlin Wall in its time – and even worse sinc here it's a democratic state which is building it, rather than sitting at a negociations table to find a lasting solution to this heartrending dispute.

Of course, the poorer the Palestinian population gets, the more vulnerable and prone to the influence and manipulation of extremists and terrorists like the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad they become. The more Israeli settlements steal land from the Palestinians, the more incursions and retaliations take lives, the more desperate the Palestinian population gets. The less alternative they have. One day, all this will boil down to cornering the whole Palestinian population and leaving it with only one option : hatred, and all out violence. Yet, nobody seems to care...but that's only appearances. Nobody can believe that the Israeli government would be so blind. Nobody can believe that the US of A government could be so blind.

But the US of A government keeps entangling itself further and binding itself tighter to the Israeli government, no matter what it does and decides. And the Israeli government is not only rightwinged and hawksih, its majority is also so fragile that it depends on the continued goodwill of religious extremist parties and far-right parties. Once you know this, you understand why the game unfolds in such a crazy board : extremism is extremism's best friend. Blood calls out for blood. Extremists on both sides do not want peace. They want the anihilation of the other. They want to « purify » a poor, beleaguered piece of land they claim is their very own god-given right.

Beyond the fact that this demonstrates yet again how inherently evil religions are (I'm not talking about faith here) and how they've been pushing humanity down the path of war and tragedy, destruction and horror all along history, there is another lesson to consider : it's not in the interest of extremists on both the Palestinian and the Israeli side to find a peaceful solution. It's in their interest that the situation keep festering until nothing can save peace.

When you want to settle terrible, enduring disputes which have fostered hatred, incomprehension and wariness for generations, the only way is to go through proxies, to go through institutions that both sides recognize. The UNO, and UNESCO, are such organisations. To be a part of them brings the Palestinian into the international community. It gives more chance for opening dialogue – which can sometimes start in an oblique fashion. It gives more chance for peace. It weakens the hold of extremists. It shows the Palestinian population they can be embraced by the world, and that there is a chance other than extremism and terrorism to one day win peace.

To sum it up, Palestine's entry in the UNESCO should have been a moment for hope and celebration. For joy. And yet, the US of A, not content to have vetoed Palestine's entry into the UNO, decided to cut funding to the UNESCO at once, since they couldn't blackmail UNESCO into backing down and denying the Palestinians.

Why ?

The US of A will likely use the same excuse they pulled out of a much used hat when they vetoed Palestine's entry at the UNO : such a move wouldn't help brokering a peaceful settlement. This paltry excuse isn't only laughable, it's most of all absurd : the US of A has been failing again and again at really pushing toward a fair solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute for generations. Some might even say that this state of constant threat and warfare serves the military industry in the US of A right – or that this state of affairs puts Israel in a dependant position toward the US of A, thus giving them a stable foothold in the middle east... Still, beyond the conjectures, what matters is that the more time passes, the more it ties itself with the Israeli government and embraces its views, no matter how extreme and counterproductive.

The US of A's decision simply hurts further the chances to find peace. They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, were their desire to broker an agreement real and honest.

More, the US of A's unfair and hurtful decision to cut funding to the UNESCO will jeopardize programs all around the world that the US of A should be encouraging : schools for girls in Afghanistan, help to education and teaching, help to bring writing and reading to the children of Africa, regardless of their gender. Development of culture and understanding between people. This is what UNESCO is about : sharing cultures and understanding, building bridges between people, helping people to grow and walk out of violence and war.

The US of A brought war to Afghanistan with the pretext of wanting to bring freedom and democracy there, to free girls from the living hell their existence was under Taliban rule. And now, they're cutting funding to the one organisation which is trying, really trying to help girls win free of the madness of those foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics.

Tell me, how does that add up ?

What purpose does it serve, other than abandoning people to their sorry fates, and giving a hand to terrorists and slavers – a more than fitting name for all those Islam fundamentalists worldwide methinks – to warmongers and fanatics everywhere ?

What consequence will this absurd decision of the US of A have, other than rekindling the possibilities for war and pain and grief, for destruction and death and hatred between peoples ?

So, the US of A is again choosing its path. That path has a name.

Shame.

PS : watch the declaration of the UNESCO CEO after Palestine's entry, and listen to her explaining the consequences of the US of A's decision to cut funding. Then, try telling me again we should try to understand the US of A's position.

Are We so Dangerous? Why, Thank You, Revered Powers-that-Be!

Some bits of reading make my day. They’re like an unexpected splash of sunshine, where you previously thought only dark charcoal clouds ruled. Mr. Timothy Egan’s piece on today’s NYT afforded me with such a moment a few minutes earlier. He was writing about the plight of the Roma in our backwater, uncivilised Old Europe, and lording it over us in general — it’s true that the US has so many worthy lessons to give us, the latest of them concerning their oh, so fair and gentle and humane treatment of the Mexican illegal immigrants, but let’s not be nasty. However, that wasn’t what drew my attention and made me laugh. No, it was this nice, informed and balanced little barbered jab:

“And how can you not laugh at the recent mass marches in France by people being asked to push their retirement age back to — gasp! — 62?”

I read that, and thought to myself, w-o-w. I guess I should be ashamed, and start writing letters of profound apology, all directed to Mr. Egan for my, and all those like me, outrageous refusal of the dictates of the Powers-that-Be. We should be ashamed for refusing to cut on our welfare so that the high and mighty can keep on hoarding profit, can keep on devouring resources and riches, and deny us of our hard-earned rights! Yes, we should!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nope,Mr. Egan, bad journalist, bad His Master’s Voice. No cigar.

Here is a man writing about the plight of the poor Roma – conveniently forgetting about the poor Mexicans, the poor Americans, and the poor all over the world in the process – and who takes advantage of his column to deliver this oh, my god, so painful blow to the protests in France. Yes, that’s what make me laugh.

I mean, what else can you do but laugh, when you see a man stupid enough to mock people who fight to keep their RIGHTS, the RIGHTS they fought for and gained.

What else can you do, but laugh when you see a man blind and prejudiced enough, brainwashed enough by the Powers-that-Be’s propaganda, so that he’ll actually think kthat people should be in favour of working longer, in worse conditions, and be happy to give up what is their right to ensure the continued existence of a system – hello, capitalism! – that has done nothing but hurt, destroy and tear apart every single being (and thing) it touched!

What else can you do, but laugh when you see ignorant courtesans like that do the Powers-that-Be’s bidding, attempt to ridicule us, hence giving us a voice and an existence in places which would otherwise shun us? The only thing such a piece by such a servant of the establishment means, is that even the worst attack will do.

Anything will do, if it tells readers we’re a bunch of retarded, privileged fools who refuse to bow down to the inevitable! Which means, that up there, the Powers-that-Be are frowning at what’s happening. Contrary to what Mr. Egan implies, it’s not inconsequential. It’s not worthless. It’s threatening. And that’s good.

That’s very good.

And it makes me smile, to know that people can yet rise in this world to defend their rights, to fight for what is theirs. People who refuse to bow down and who rise to fight what Powers-that-Be would impose upon them are no fools. They’re brave. They’re alive, contrary to all those like Mr. Egan, who’re nothing more than blind cattle quietly walking down toward the slaughterhouse at the rhythm demanded by their masters.

So, thank you, Mr. Egan, for making me laugh today.

Thank you, for showing everyone that we make the Powers-that-Be nervous, that we’re a threat.

Good night, and good luck.

Invictus ?

Undaunted, unvainquished? Why, maybe, but “invictus” is Latin, and Latin uses gender to qualify adjectives. Where “undaunted” is genderless, and applicable to male or female, “invictus” is marked as male. The female form would be “invicta”. But never mind.

So, invictus—or invicta—yes, but whom does this apply to?

The financial system, which plunged us down the abyss, saved through the use of massive blackmail by the use of taxpayer money, it has then spit upon? This financial system which refuses any kind of regulation even though the whole world got the bright display of its utter failure and its innate danger? This financial system which got saved by our money because it threatened governments of massive bankruptcies which would cause chaos on a global scale, leaving people, leaving us, without money, a money we gave to banks for safekeeping and they lost while playing at the casino?

Capitalism, this economic system which also demonstrated its inevitable failure where people’s wellbeing is concerned? This economic system which showed it can only function through endless sequences of crisis that harm these insignificant human variables in its “perfect” equations?

Barack Obama and his Health Care Plan, which cleared the House and Senate under fire, under the most incredible, outrageous campaign of blatant lies ever conceived (death panels where they decide to pull the plug on grandma, anyone? To think that there are people crazy and stupid enough to buy such bullshit just...urrrgh)? This plan which, even though opponents and bought-off Democrats helped gut as much as they could, will nevertheless revolutionize the way things are done, and help millions of people to get coverage?

The Republicans, who are busy rearing their ugly heads and blaming Obama for inept security designs and measures THEY planned and enacted? The worse there is that there would be people who’d agree with such blatant manipulations…

Nature, which still knows Winter, and can have snow on the eve of the new years in regions where it’s normal that Winter be cold? Nature, which will always survive, no matter what ecologists say, even if temperatures keep rising? Of course humankind would most likely disappear, but nature would adapt, and develop other solutions, life would prevail, there’s no doubt about that, it’s called “evolution”, the thing that foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics of all religions, Christianity included, refuse to acknowledge in spite of scientific proof.

Hope for freedom, in the hearts of millions of people in Iran? People who keep fighting and demonstrating in spite of the use of brutal force by authorities who are now mired in their own contradictions and failed plans to remain in power?

Us? Trade union people who keep our heads held high and refuse to bow down to the dictates of powers-that-be who’d have us renounce our rights in order to save a system that has failed, and all but enslaved us all?

The great Hadron Collider in Geneva, which is now reopened for business? This fantastic ring which some feared might cause a black hole that would engulf the earth within a heartbeat? This ring which may be the crucible inside which we’ll find the Boson of Higgs, the Particle of God?

Michael Moore, who will not renounce trying to explain to his fellow citizens just what kind of trap they’ve been ensnared into for generation? However exaggerated the tone of his moves, however outrageous his images and words can be, however mocked and ridiculed he can be by powers-that-be and “well-thinking, well-educated-and-bred” people of the good society, he will not stop. And every single person who listens, and then simply starts thinking, and asking questions, seeking answers, is a victory.

China, who will see the west destroyed before making the first concession to anything? China, who will kill a man with known mental illness simply to prove a point? China, who uses scores of millions of its own population, the migrant workers, as slaves, as cannon fodder for its blooming economy?

Black and white, light and dark. Good and evil. Contradictions. That’s who we are. That’s human. And that’s certainly undaunted. Unvanquished.

But “invictus”? Ah, no, sorry. Invictus is male, and applies to “Sol Invictus”, this celebration which Christianity parasitized, among countless others, and then claimed as its own. Male, because Sol is the sun, and the sun divinity was considered male by many civilizations. Although why that would be is beyond me, except if you take into account the design to put males in the role of dominant, radiant, strong, and the females in the opposite role. I happen to disagree. But then, I happen to be female; and born Aries, so sign of Fire and color Red. That does look like the sun, doesn’t it? And trust me, I’m female!

So, no “invictus”. But undaunted. Changing and unchanging. We are true to our nature, which is not exactly beautiful as a whole. We are who and what we are. We can only try to grow, to be better. And that hope, that attempt at greatness, well that also is undaunted.

And that, at least, is a good thing.

Happy new year 2010, and may it be wiser than the last !

Lightning isn't Zeus' Weapon Smiting down his Enemies on Earth, Really

Days pass, and I grow more amazed with how the debate over health care is "growing" (or rather devolving) in the US.

• Death Panels.
  
• Tribunals which decide which old person gets care, which baby gets to live...
  
• Obama's plan equated to placing the US under communist rule.
  
• "Socialism" flung all around and spat out (with all the necessary dribbles of saliva and glazed over eyes) at every occasion by poor morons who don't even know what the word means.
  
• Obama's plan equated with Nazi plans.

I don't know, I'm just floored.

Floored by the impossible naivete, the TOTAL IGNORANCE of a majority among the American people. Their gullibility for the most blatant, and outrageous lies uttered by mopstly maverick people they KNOW aren't trustworthy (Sarah Palin being number 1).

This stinks so much of unreasoned paranoia of people who cling to a romanced image of Founding Fathers who've been dust for CENTURIES now... People who think their governments is their enemy, and believe the greedy pharmaceutical and insurance industry are there to save them. People who believe their individual freedoms are better defended by private groups and assets they HAVE NO CONTROL over (and are at the mercy of) than by a government THEY ELECT.

I waver between outright stupidity, complete lack of maturity, and utter nuttiness.

People rave, foaming at the mouth, against government programs while benefiting from such programs (MEDICARE, anyone ?), without which they could just die out a nice, uncared for slow death (unless they believe private insurances would reach out to them and help them out of the natural goodness of their little hearts).

I can't help wondering at the incredibly immature prejudices displayed by a majority of American people. You'd think they're bunches of 4 years old who still believe thunder is a god's hammer falling upon the earth...

Watching all this as it enfolds from abroad, it frightens me to think that these USA would be the model of the world. With such obscurantism and ignorance ruling the day, the world wouldn't get far.

Veiled Reflections

The veil/niqab controversy won't die in France. It may seem weird to countries like the US or the UK, where just about all the forms of religious extremism or communautarism are openly tolerated, and where communities live among themselves, in ghetto-like quarters where people from different cultures don't mix.Usually people from those two countries look down on what's happening in France or in latin countries with a sort of kind superiority, claiming they're more tolerant, and we're all backward, stuck-up people who won't see the error of their ways.

Still, at least here we wonder, we question. We do not automatically validate everything that gets thrown our way. We try (and often fail) to promote the mix of cultures, to ban ghetto-like suburbs or quarters (but here our nice and gentle and well-educated bourgeoisie doesn't help much). And this latest controversy concerning women (not many) who flaunt the use of the niqab (complete veil which doesn't even let you see the eyes of the person) as some twisted revendication of ethnic roots is one well worth having.

Yes, the use of the niqab in the public spaces (streets, public transports, cinemas, restaurants, cafes, etc.) must be forbidden. Yes, we should not even try to argue with all the false defenders of "freedom" (which, here, is nothing more than another word for "oppression plan deployment"), and simply fall back on the obligation for everyone to be garbed in a manner that will allow them to be identified if a police officer requests it. Still, for the sake of being clear about it, here's my view on why things such as the niqab should be forbidden in all western countries, and all countries which claim they grant women a true status of equality with men :

The niqab acts like a tool of isolation and exclusion of all "others", no matter who or what those "others" may be, no matter what their nature or gender. It's a very simple, direct and primal effect: it's visual and physical both. Anyone who passes by a person wearing the niqab (ou can't tell whether it's a man or a woman) cannot help but respond, on a reflexive level, the same way you'll stare when you notice something out of place close to you, whether you want to, or not.

Beyond the obvious denial of self wearing a niqab represents (denial of one's image to others, and thus denial of self), this garb is the perfect symbol of the denial of the feminine identity, and of the rejection of a woman as a "woman", female human being and equal (even if different) to the male human being, a.k.a. "man".

The "inner beauty" fantasy or the "beyond apparences" rationale cannot resist analysis: we're human beings. As such, we cannot help responding to all external sitmuli: we react to appearances. Our gender is part of our identity and our image. To deny that is to deny oneself or worse, it's to drape oneself in hypocrisy.

And beyond all this, the niqab is as fundamentally disturbing in a western society as a woman wearing shorts and a sleeveless blouse strolling in an Arab country would be: what isn't accepted there because it doesn't respect the country's customs has its equivalent here; and what doesn't shock there (having to adhere to the customs of the country in which you are) shouldn't shock here either (*).

When extremists from all the sides of the spectrum, the false defenders of a so-called freedom which is nothing more than a pretext to establish oppression, or those who seek after roots where they have no chance of finding them will understand this, we'll have taken a great step toward brighter days.

(*) cultural relativism has ery clear limits, which are drawn around oh-so insignificant things such as the universal declaration of human rights (which, incidentally, applies to women as well...)

Something else entirely:
A small, tiger-grey cat came to say hello in Koroni. A smile and a thought from our little one, a bit of light in the blue heavens. And memories, and feelings, and this crazy mixture of warmth, sadness and beautiful memories that nothing can shake. Our beloved little guardian still watches over us. And we remember him. We think about him. We love him.

Meanwhile, in the World…

Very precise memos on US torture^H^H^H^H^H^H^H excuse me, fine interrogation techniques were released to the public by the Obama Administration. A stunning example of exquisite detail, they explain how, when, where how long (plus all the questions you could ever imagine--some which you would never think of) you should apply those fine torture^H^H^H^H^H^H^H interrogation methods on the prisoners.

As in the famous experiment on submission to authority and estrangement from responsibility and accountability demonstrated, these memos were designed to reassure the tormentors that what they were doing was sanctioned by a higher power. That they were on the side of good, that it was all right. Well, I’ve got news for you, ladies and gentlemen of the US torture battalion: torturers are evil. No matter where, when, how or why, torture is evil. And you who have willingly and knowingly tormented other human beings aren’t heroes. You’re not good citizens. You’re not faithful servants of your country. You defiled its name, you shamed it in an irremediable fashion.

And you must be brought to justice. You must face those you harmed so grievously, those you humiliated, those fellow human beings you reduced to a status far below that of animals.

The economical and financial crisis is going well, thank you very much. Lay-offs are growing exponentially. In Europe, big company CEOs are advancing their agendas to cut down on worker and social rights. Those nice CEOs and their financial tycoon masters cannot give enough thanks for the opportunities this crisis has offered them to reach goals which would otherwise have remained out of their reach. Strangled workers and unions are backed to the wall by powers-that-be who have no morals, no ethics, and for whom balance means being lords over hordes of slaves they can hire, lay off and treat however they want to, because they know what’s best [for them and the stakeholders].

The grand promises of change, of a revolution in the way things are “managed” in the global economy, the promises of regulation, control and sanction that will ensure that such a crisis never happens again…well, they’re here somewhere, I’m sure. There, in the vacuum of space, yeah. In the nothingness of the interstellar void, where all lies and false promises end up. It was to be expected: the powers do not want to be limited. They do not want to face those they’ve harmed, are harming and will continue harming for the sole benefit of less than 5% of the global population, while telling u s that this society we live in, this society they forged, is freedom’s realm—theirs, not ours.

Liars, all of them: Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown, Hu Jin Tao, Manuel Barroso, Silvio Berlusconi—the list is long. They told us they would change it, and make it better. Make it safer. They said they’d give us back the world the finance tycoons snatched from us. They lied. The one power that would represent us, the State, the union of all States in the world, is a myth, and the men at the wheels are all sold to the powers of finance and international corporations.

In the shadows of the UN building, great enlightened minds of the West are conspiring with the forces of obscurantism to reinstate the crime of blasphemy. They are gathering forces to send us back to the dark ages of the world, when dissent was whipped back with the words of a god or other. Religion, the cancer of civilization and freedom, the form of authority that would dictate every aspect of a person’s life, claiming that some higher power(s) wrote down all those laws, is tiptoeing its way back into a position to dictate what our lives should be. I have nothing against people who choose freely to adopt some rules or others (as long as they don’t impose them on others, be they of their own family), but I draw the line when those people would have me follow their philosophy and laws.

When will religions learn to mind their own business and stay out of ours?

I’ll take care of my soul myself, thank you very much (if I have one, that remains to be scientifically proven).

I don’t believe in any god, goddess, or otherworldly entity. In fact, I believe in one thing: I don’t know what’s out there. Get it through your heads that blasphemy makes no sense when you try to apply it blindly. How can a person who’s not of faith X commit a blasphemy since s/he doesn’t believe in that faith? There can be no general blasphemy crime, because that would mean that the right to not believe, the right to doubt, would no longer exist. You would institute a dictatorship of belief, where you’d go back to burning, torturing, drowning (not necessarily in that order, of course) all those who dare affirm that they bow to nobody, be they mortal, or otherwise.

There, the cat’s out of the bag. Religion is submission to a higher order of things. What it cannot abide is rebellion, doubts, questions. Well, I’ve got news for you, mullahs, priests and all your ilk: bow down all you want. Those of us who refuse to will keep on refusing to amend the errors of our ways.

We won’t bow down. Ever.

Now, get over it, tend to your flocks, and leave us and this world the fuck alone!

And then, last but not least, I have set flowers on a small tombstone in the back of my garden. Time passes, but the feeling of loss lingers. Sometimes it’s so acute it hurts and brings tears to my eyes. I guess it’s the price you pay when you lose one that you loved and love still. In spite of the pain, I’m glad for it. And memories are full of smiles and happy moments.

So here, some thoughts to hover in the limbo of cyberspace. Memories. May they spark light where the sky is grey.

On the Brink

December 31st, 2008.

We stand on the brink of 2009.

We stand on the brink of a bloody, all-out war between the Palestinians and Israel, all because of madmen in frantic search of eternal power. The Hamas, murderers, cowards. Terrorists. Betrayers of hope. The Israeli government, intent in redefining the meaning of the word “strength”, and of reawakening the fear of its army throughout the Arab world, in a hopeless quest for popularity before the Israeli people go to the polls. Death, pain, loss and despair, all for the sake of people greedy for power, people lost in petty schemes to win popular support. All for the sake of a lame-duck US administration who’s all too happy to leave this poisoned gift to the successor to the worst president the US has ever had in all its (short) history.

We stand on the brink of the total annihilation of an economical system that has caused poverty, slavery, brainwashing of billions of people into nice, good and obedient little consumers/slaves. A system which believed itself to be eternal after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but which has shown that the only thing it’s capable of is to devour itself. To trigger despair, poverty, loss of ideals and values, to replace it with the one true god it recognizes: money. A system which, after using as slaves all the people of the underdeveloped countries, is now ready to gobble us all up. If we don’t change. If we pass out on this unique opportunity to seize matters in our own hands. If we pass out on this chance to regain control. We, the people. The States. We should seize control of companies, of banks, through public stakeholders. We should be the ones dictating the policies of the multinational corporations. We should be the ones deciding where the profits go: to the States so they can pay our pensions and our social security, our roads, our trains, our schools…not to the stakeholders.

We stand on the brink of a disaster greater than any we have ever known, for if our governments do not heed the warnings we have been given since September, if we do not change the system that dictates how our lives are led, and fast, we will see it wobble through for a year or two. And then it will crumble. And it will take us along with it in its fall.

We stand on the brink of chaos in countries we sent troops in, claiming we’d bring them our enlightened vision of the world. Afghanistan is now worse than it has ever been, all because we support a corrupt government which behaves worse than the Talibans ever did, thus causing the people to side with terrorists, and causing people to regret the cruel rule of those who were nothing more than madmen.

And then, we stand on the brink of hope.

We stand on the brink of change.

In all the dreary news of 2008, there was one which shed light all over the world. One which lifted billions of hearts, and got people to believe in a better tomorrow.

On January 20th, Barack Obama will step into the White House. On his shoulders will rest the hope of a world. The hope of billions of people who need the change he has defended throughout the US presidential campaign. We need hope. We need change. We need someone to steer the way, to lead in another direction. We need someone who will dare turn his back on the old liberalism, on the financial capitalism. We need someone who will dare put us, the people, the States, back in our proper place: center seat, with the controls in hands.

Because of the vote on November 4th, 2008, hope was kindled. And for this, I will forever be grateful.

We stand on the brink.

Mr. Obama, it’s up to you to see to it that we do not fall.

I wish you all the luck in the world.

I wish us all you’ll have the guts and the strength of will and vision to get us through.

Welcome, 2009, welcome, January 20th.

We await you with great hopes and expectations!

The Gall of the Failed Ones

Everywhere it's the same. Everywhere you hear the same: financial capitalism has gone bankrupt. It has twisted our lives, it has betrayed us, it has stolen our wealth and turned it into void. If you pushed some people a bit, they would probably tell you that it eats children and is directly responsible for the eradication of dinosaurs.

Not that I disagree with some of the things that are being said out there, but who's saying that? Well, look around:

Darling W, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy...

All these men are the heroes and defenders of the same financial capitalism that has now showed us all it's a failure, and is threatening to take us with it down the drain. They all supported it, they all supported deregulation, and they all fought with everything they had anyone who dared think differently, and anyone who tried to warn of the danger we're now all too much aware of.

And beyond the grand speeches where W, Sarko or Brown tell us that they're going to control the banks, and restore regulation, save us all from the cataclysm, what do their actions tell us? Well, they tell us the truth that's hidden behind their oh so flamboyant words.

Sarko hasn't moved an inch from his positions. Jobless people will still be ousted from the protection system, the rich will still be exonrerated from taxes while the middle class continues to be the one that pays its taxes. The CEOs will regulate their own golden parachutes, there will be no law forbidding them.

In Belgium, the powerful CEOs corporation, the FEB, has the gall to threaten all the workers and the government: if there's a law regulating golden parachutes, then there will have to be deep cuts in the notices the employees have a right to when they're fired.

The speakers for all the rightwing parties, whose policies have always supported financial capitalism, now spew out words that belong to the left. They remember the name of Keynes, they remember concepts like using the state's power to help maintain the economy. They turn their back on rightwing neoliberal politics, they embrace policies they abhor, policies they insulted and spat upon yesterday without the smallest qualm. Without ever admitting that they were mistaken, that they misled people all these years. They blissfully turn coat in their speeches, making it seem they always thought that way, making it look like they're just doing what they have to do, oblivious to lies, coherence and decency.

And what's worth is: behind the strong words, the actions prove that nothing has changed: in France, huge sums of money have been poured into the banks (which is mandatory because we all stand on the other end of that line and if banks sink, we sink along with them, faster and harder) without insuring ANY MEANS OF CONTROL over the banks' actions and strategies--other than imprecations and other empty speeches delivered by the fake commander in chief, aka Nicolas "Napoleon" Sarkozy.

While the stocks were soaring, spearing through the sky, all the authorities kept howling for the incomes not to be raised, because nothing could get in the way of economic growth. Salaries couldn't be raised, it'd be impairing the companies, and hindering the system. People could simply be indebted, and it'd all turn out well, they'd be able to buy hordes of things they had no means of paying for, and everyone would be happy. We know where that particular idea led us. Now that everything is going bad, and the incomes haven't been properly raised offr years, now that the workers' unions demand this more than earned raise, the same authorites who keep barking that everything must be done to help people regain their trust in the systme and being once again able to buy stuff, well the same authorities say "ooooh, noooo, no raises, please, no hindering the poor system".

Conclusion: the CEOs keep their golden parachutes, the rich keep their tax cuts and other fiscal tricks to evade tax, the banks get the states' money (our money) without being controlled by the states who lent them the money, the politicians shoo the workers' union away for being baaaaaad people who don't understand how hard it is. Laws and decrees are passed to insure that all the social net dispositions are as hard to obtain as possible, and that people can be written off as soon as possible. And of course, we employees...

Well, we employees are screwed, as usual.

The powers-that-be keep on wanting to push the system that's eating our lives away.

And in the meantime, whenever they can spit on the left, they do. They claim the left's policies are old, obsolete, and lead nowhere.

But where have the right's, the neoliberal policies led us?

Down into the abyss.

So please, give me a break, people. You neoliberals are failures. Making riches out of the poverty of people, allowing them to get more and more indebted to compensate for their lack of income and their lack of social rights as goes the great swindling used in the US of A, is plain and simple suicide.

We know this now.

We know rightwing neoliberal policies are garbage.

So stop trying to mask your worthlessness by spitting on others. Your time is now past. It's time for a change.

I can only hope people remember that, wherever they are, and whenever they cast a vote.

Spin, Tragedy, Spin !

As the whole world now knows, there’s a state of war between Georgia and the Russian Federation. The Bush Administration, unsurprisingly, is calling upon Russia to stop its unwarranted, savage aggression of a sovereign country. And of course, most of the western capitals are following suit. Of course.

The Big Bad Russian Bear is on a rampage. What are free, democratic and civilized countries to do, but rally to the defense of the poor, gentle David being trampled under evil Goliath’s mighty foot?

What else can we do, when evil Russian Commies^H^H^H^H^H^H ooops, erm, bad guys are threatening the free world? What, I ask you? Parallels with the cold war are drawn, with the invasion of Czechoslovakia…a general recasting of the cold war and its “Communist menace upon the free world”(*) is being re-enacted before our eyes, courtesy of the TV networks, kindly fed by governmental agencies.

One thing is true in all this: there’s a war going on there, and as in all wars, those who’re paying the price are the innocent, the civilians, played as pawns on the chessboards by people who have no soul, no heart, and no dignity. No honor.

As for the rest…if you read the newspapers, if you listen for dissonant voices, you’ll get quite another story. And if you strain your memory, and focus on remembering news that are now around 4 years old, you’ll start wondering.

So, let’s go back 4 years. In Georgia, the elections renew the presidential mandate of Mr. Saakashvili. However, his election was a very close thing, instead of the plebiscite he’d been hoping for. Who’s Mr. Saakashvili? Well, again, focus on the past, and you’ll remember this man came straight from the US, so closely intertwined with the US interests that there was no hiding he was a US creature. He was first elected because people believed his American connections would help rebuild their country, depleted by generations of USSR rule. But this didn’t happen. Saakashvili used his contacts and connections to get American and Israeli instructors for his military…oh, and weapons and equipment as well, of course.

In the meantime, as these things go, and went in the Balkans, regions of Georgia where a majority of Russian population lived started wanting out of Georgia, for many reasons: growing intolerance toward them, toward their language, etc. Obviously, there’s oil in there somewhere as well. If there wasn’t, you’d never have had the US send military instructors and waste time on such a “backwater” place as Georgia. So, Abkhazia and South Ossetia severed themselves from Georgia. South Ossetia declared independence. There was strife, there were battles. The UNO settled the matter, and Russian peace soldiers were sent to the South Ossetia region under UNO mandate.

Time passed. The promises of riches of Mr. Saakashvili didn’t happen. People started grumbling, discontent flared. To be re-elected in 2004, Mr. Saakashvili promised he’d retake Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He played on nationalism. And he won. Narrowly. We were now almost to the end of his presidential term. None of the promises of regaining lost territory had been kept. People’s discontent caused this “democratic leader” to start taking authoritarian measures, to turn democratic Georgia into an autocratic state. Still, it wasn’t enough to crack down on freedom there. Promises had to be kept, at least one of them. Abkhazia was too difficult to retake. South Ossetia, on the other hand….

And then came the Olympics, and the opening ceremony. And the world’s eyes turned toward China. And Mr. Saakashvili decided to play his card: he sent his army to retake South Ossetia. His hope was that the world’s attention being focused elsewhere, Vladimir Putin being in Beijing, by the time Russia would react, it would be too late: he’d have retaken enough of the South Ossetia region to force negotiations, truce, and to haggle his way into regaining South Ossetia as a whole.

But there were two mistakes in Mr. Saakashvili’s plan (never mind that it would imply the deaths of innocent civilians, after all, martyrs are good things for a cause):

• he underestimated Russia’s capacity to react quickly, and the fact that even though Putin was in Beijing, his right arm was in Moscow.
  
• Mr. Saakashvili’s army was stupid enough to kill Russian peace soldiers, there under a UNO mandate, thus forcing the hand of Russia. Even if Russia had wished to delay its reaction, the death of its soldiers forced it to react at once as it has done.

And so here we are. We’re watching a war unfold. We’re watching innocent being murdered, because a man, pawn of the US and “champion of democracy”, is a dictator like all the others, and will not relinquish power. Because his own people are nothing but chess pieces, because Mr. Saakashvili knew that once he started the mess, the bloodshed in South Ossetia, all his western allies would rally, the US first and foremost among them, to call off the Big Bad Russian Bear. There’s too much at stake:

• appearances, first. After all, Mr. Saakashvili is the US champion and a very tainted flag of democracy (but it doesn’t matter, as long as the American citizens remain ignorant of the truth of what’s happening in South Ossetia).
  
• oil, second. Because the Caspian sea is to Georgia’s East, while the Black sea is to Georgia’s West. And it’s a crucial path to get oil from the Caspian sea to the Mediterranean sea and the West, through the Black sea. A path that avoids Russia.

There, now you have the whole picture. People are dying, innocent people, for the power of a dictator hiding between a veneer of democracy that’s so ripped and stained everyone can see through it, and also for oil. And Mr. Saakashvili and his goons started it, Russia continued it. And people are dying. As always, the innocent pay the price for war. As always, none of the two sides are innocent. There’s no black and white. Everyone is at fault.

And now that a power-hungry autocrat named Saakashvili has foolishly rattled the Big Bad Russian Bear, and given a it the perfect pretext to come playing in Georgia, where will it stop? Where will Russia stop, now that it's been invited in to play, and that it's standing inches away from gaining not only South Ossetia but also Abkhazia? and what if Ukraine starts wanting to play as well, and starts rattling the Big Bad Bear some more by threatening to prevent the return of its warships to Sebastopol? Where does it stop, Mr. Saakashvili? Where? When? How many deaths for your ambition? It's oh, so very nice to shout that you're ready to negotiate a cease-fire, and that your troops are withdrawing out of Ossetia. It's too late. And you knew it would be. You knew, and yet you gambled. You played with your pawns, with people's lives. And you might as well have killed them all yourself. And all that happens from now on, all the pain, all the damage, all the sorrow, all that will be on your bill, Mr. Saakashvili. I hope you'll be ready when they come to collect.

But then, maybe this isn’t important. After all, the Olympics have started, and what matters is the number of gold medals we get, right? Not the dead. Not the maimed. Not the raped. Not the freedom of Chinese people. Not the respect of Chinese people who were put to work to build the Olympics facilities for wages so low you wouldn’t live a day off them, and then chased away because they’d stain the games if the tourists or the athletes, or the world laid eyes upon them. The Earth’s damned. We had them in the 19th century. China has them now, and it keeps them fettered, in close control. After all, they’re the key of its economic miracle. Slaves, serfs, are the key of capitalism’ success. But then, there’s nothing new here.

Good night, and good luck.

(*) when you compare the harm, grief, sorrow, deaths caused by the “Communist menace” and those caused by the overwhelming, crushing rise of unfettered capitalism and neo-liberalism, I find myself hard put to get a winner in terms of damage, pain and evil. One (the “Communist” thingy) was openly dictatorial, sent its people to gulags and tortured or killed them if they didn’t comply. The other (capitalism) has selected a few nations to be on top, happy, free and rich thanks to the sweat, blood, pain and death of billions of other people. These other people aren’t deported to gulags. They’re starved in their own countryside, until they’re forced to march to where factories are, than forced to accept labor conditions only slaves and serfs of the middle-ages knew. Those other people die before they reach retirement (and anyway there’s no pension for them, no doctors, no health care, nothing). Their kids are put to work as well, be it in factories or brothels. And we prosper. So, really, when comparing, I don’t know which is worse between the two evils that are Communist dictatorships and triumphant capitalism—wait, no I think I know what’s worse: a power that combines both.

That’s China.

The Brave March Toward Defeat

The endless Democrat Primary seems to have found a way out of its dire predicament. Hillary Clinton conceded the victory to Barack Obama, and called her supporters to now cheer for the party’s nominee. You would think that this would herald a strong, meaningful campaign stressing out the many differences between Republicans and Democrats, underlining the differences in ideas, ideals, principles and values between the two parties. After all, even though on economical, foreign policy and many other grounds, the two parties are just about the same from my European point of view, there are true differences, essential differences when you start tackling societal issues: abortion, modernity, death penalty, the right to privacy, etc.

So, there I was, waiting for this strong campaign to start off, for the Democrats to start marching toward the final goal of a victory in November.

Instead, I found them and all the “progressive” pundits, editorialists and political analysts labeled as close to the Democrats jovially, bravely, happily marching down the road to certain defeat.

Obama-addicts like Maureen Dowd clang to their snubbing and hissing against Hillary Clinton, finding fault with just about anything she might or might not do (how ungraceful of her to be nice while conceding the victory to Obama, if only she had acted like a good, stereotype shrew…). Others continued praising their “leader maximo”, apparently so entranced as not to see where this is all heading, even though each day brings its newest Obama flip-flop.

Of course, politics is not a game for idealists. Ideals are there, but they are painstakingly hidden behind shields, armors and high walls, because what’s on the front lines is realism, a complete absence of decency and qualms when contemplating slander, lies or anything dirty that would help boost one’s chances for a final victory. Still, there’s looking the other way while your hero or his aides deftly plunge a dagger between two of your enemy’s ribs, piercing through the heart, and then there’s looking the other way and allowing your champion to skewer his own feet with his blade, repeatedly.

And I regret to say, that by now Barack Obama has so completely managed to skewer his own feet, that there’s almost no way he can heal in time for the final race in November.

Do you want a catalog of those jarring mistakes? Okay, let’s see:

• Protesting the supreme court’s decision concerning the non-application of the death penalty to child rapists;
  
• the U-turn concerning his refusal to accept public financing and the rules that go with it, the safeguards that guarantee you won’t be the puppet of all the lobbyists surrounding you (but then facts have already demonstrated that the self-proclaimed Obama the independent caters to his buyers, the same as everyone);
  
• applauding the supreme court’s decision to make the weapons’ ban on DC unconstitutional (if you ask me, only people lost in a past of cowboys and barbarians cling to an amendment allowing them to have weapons, after all in a civilized society you don’t make your own justice, you let the institutions do that, but that’s another debate);
  
• getting ready to make another U-turn in an essential vote in the Senate, to find favor with the breaches of people’s privacy and supporting the telephone eavesdropping done by the Bush Administration;
  
• flipping once again on his Iraq stance.

There are others, but I won’t bore you with them. There’s plenty enough here to get the idea.

Looking at that catalog of flip-flops, what kind of feeling do you get, other than the one that you can’t trust anything that said by this candidate who boasted that he’d do politics otherwise and would embody “change”?

Well, you get the feeling that he caters so much to the conservative base, to the Republicans, that you might as well go for the real thing and vote for Mc Cain.

One lesson we have learnt in Europe, Mr. Obama: when having to choose between an ersatz and the real thing, voters will go for the real thing.

Another lesson we are learning, is that people turn away from politics and politicians because those who come before them to get their vote no longer dare be clear about what they stand for, about the differences they have with their rivals, about real differences in vision, and what they have to offer. Politicians, and the whole machinery behind them are so obsessed with politically correct, getting the other side's people to flip over, that they will say anything, betray their own ideals, flip over and over again, deny the heart of their political engagement, in a stupid, doomed to fail hunt for the other side's voters. And in doing so, they completely forget about their own side, they fling the people who made their own roots to the wind.

Because there is no longer a clear line dividing the opponents, because there is no longer a clear difference of vision, of propositions, people shrug and go the other way instead of going to the polls and casting their vote.

Because there is almost no courage left in politics and politicians, because they cater to anything and anyone regardless of ideals and principles, people turn away from them. Because the one supposed to be the flag of your party, the embodiment of your ideas and your views on the world ignores you and is obsessed with winning some of the other side over, no matter what he has to say or do to reach that ludicrous goal, you turn away from him. Because you watch your enemy try to cajole you into voting for him, running behind your own candidate on issues, you watch him do so and laugh--and of course you won't change your vote.

Welcome on the road toward defeat, Mr Obama. You're well on your way there, and from everything I've read, heard and seen, you fully deserve what's coming to you.

If this didn't mean another Republican in the White House in November, I'd be rolling on the floor laughing.

The Old General, the Bitchy Witch and the Dazzling Idol

It seems that the time for "foreclosure", announcements of victory and calls for withdrawal has come again. In very serious and wise newspapers and elsewhere, much-listened to OP/ED pieces writers come out (yet again) to make an impassioned speech about how poor Mr Obama is attacked by bad and evil Mrs Rodham-Clinton, and how, did she have any shred of dignity and honor left, she'd just withdraw, retire in some nunnery or other and let all the Barack worshippers celebrate what often seems to amount to them as some kind of "second coming".

The most funny thing about all those pieces, is that they have nothing to support them in the way of ideas, of policies defended by either candidate. Those pieces are full of only one thing: "we love Barack, we hate Hillary the mean bitch". Those pieces simply echo the advertisement slogans of Mr Obama's campaign, which remain, to this day, just that: advertisement slogans, with little reality in them.

In the meantime, the old general strolls on, unharmed, unhampered, toward a goal he may very well reach. Of course, the fault doesn't lie solely with the Obama campaign. Theugliness is shared on both sides: Clinton and Obama really should know and do better. But in that regard, they're both in the same boat and at the same level. The only thing is that for some reason many avert their gaze when the ugliness comes from darling Barack's camp, in a fascinating display of selective vision and hypocrisy, while they pay excruciatingly close scrutiny to the smallest misstep of Hillary.

How about coming back to the basics?

How about getting back to what those people propose, and to what they're likely to do once in power to make a choice?

Have all these famous, respected and oh-so wise OP/ED pieces writers forgotten about the meaning behind the word "politics"?

Thanks to some kind god or goddess, there remains one OP/ED writer who hasn't forgotten, and it's Paul Krugman. Again, he has produced a wonderful little piece of common sense and wisdom in his OP/ED piece in today's edition of the New York Times: Loans and Leadership. Selected quotes:

(...) it’s important to take a hard look at what candidates say about policy. It’s true that past promises are no guarantee of future performance. But policy proposals offer a window into candidates’ political souls — a much better window, if you ask me, than a bunch of supposedly revealing anecdotes and out-of-context quotes.

Which brings me to the latest big debate: how should we respond to the mortgage crisis? In the last few days John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have all weighed in. And their proposals arguably say a lot about the kind of president each would be.

(...) Mr. McCain is selling the same old snake oil, claiming that deregulation and tax cuts cure all ills.

(...) Maybe the most notable contrast between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton involves the problem of restructuring mortgages. Mr. McCain called for voluntary action on the part of lenders — that is, he proposed doing nothing. Mrs. Clinton wants a modern version of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the New Deal institution that acquired the mortgages of people whose homes were worth less than their debts, then reduced payments to a level the homeowners could afford.

(...) I was pleased that Mr. Obama came out strongly for broader financial regulation, which might help avert future crises. But his proposals for aid to the victims of the current crisis, though significant, are less sweeping than Mrs. Clinton’s: he wants to nudge private lenders into restructuring mortgages rather than having the government simply step in and get the job done.

Mr. Obama also continues to make permanent tax cuts — middle-class tax cuts, to be sure — a centerpiece of his economic plan. It’s not clear how he would pay both for these tax cuts and for initiatives like health care reform, so his tax-cut promises raise questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda.

All in all, the candidates’ positions on the mortgage crisis tell the same tale as their positions on health care: a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they’re often portrayed.

Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.

Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily — but they’re the best guide we have.

Good night, and good luck.

Those Who Make the Story

Those who write or tell the story aren’t those who make it. Quite a few US commentators, OP/ED pieces writers (hello, Maureen darling!) must be busy chewing their hats or their gloves or their sleeves right now. Serves them right.

Tuesday showed those oh, so mighty “opinion makers” that people still have brains and wills of their own. Tuesday served to show that those who make the story are the people themselves. The men and women who went to the caucuses, who went to the polls and cast their ballot.

No matter how it may displease the influential journalists who went so far as to order Hillary Rodham Clinton to call it a day and go home, to withdraw before the primaries in Texas and Ohio, “plain and simple” citizens gave all those influential personalities a very much needed reality check. The Democratic race isn’t settled. The candidates are neck to neck. It can still turn out any other way, and there’s no predicting who will win it. But at least, this time, the opinion makers will learn their lessons, and will stop their dirty little games.

Perhaps, just perhaps, from now on those same opinion-makers will stop spewing out vacant slogans and empty words to focus on the contents of the candidates’ program. Perhaps they’ll analyze the reality of those programs, destroy the lies and falsehoods spread by the campaign teams, and in particular the Saint Obama team, which is very good at that nice little trick.

Again, as it happened in New Hampshire, “simple” people reclaimed ownership of a democratic process that belongs to them and them alone: to choose the candidate who will represent their party in November. Once more, people showed the powers of the media that what matters is those who make the story.

Thank you, Rhode Island. Thank you, Vermont.

Thank you, Texas.

Thank you, Ohio.

When All is Said and Done

When the doors close tomorrow night, and everyone has had their say, we will know one thing. We will know whether pure communication without depth, without questioning from the media, truly can defeat facts, political knowledge and experience.

In France, this experiment ended with the communication monster winning the presidential election. Nicolas Sarkozy who, no matter all the bad things that can be said and argued against him, has a hell of a talent when it comes to selling himself and advertising himself, was elected president.

He was elected president because his was a message of change, of “rupture” with the past. He promised he’d do things in another way. He promised he’d unite all the good, capable and competent actors of the political life. He promised he’s put an end to partisanship, that he’d end the left-right wars. He promised people he was like them, he wanted the same things they did. He painted himself as the embodiment of people’s hopes, and also as the embodiment of people’s rejection of politicians and politics in general.

And he won. By a wide margin.

It was in May, 2007.

Today, less than a year after his entrance in the Elysee palace, his popularity numbers have plummeted. Already, people are fed up with him, with his antics, and with the “nothing gets done” reality that his promises have turned out to be.

The partisan wars are worse than ever. People’s lives are getting worse. Politics have done anything but change. And France is the laughingstock of Europe, when it’s not the pain in the ass of Europe.

Having watched both political campaigns until now, in France and in the US, one can’t help but be struck by the similarity between the two. In both, a candidate with a very clear talent for rhetoric, and gifted with incredible charisma. In both, a candidate with a rather empty, populist and pleasing message, who knows how to say what people want to hear.

The possibility that what happened in France will happen in the US is appalling. The result is known, and it’s not a bright or good one. Of course, here the difference is that what’s at stake is the Democratic nomination. The winner will have to face John Mc Cain. And with Mr Nader’s candidacy, all bets are in favour of Mr Mc Cain winning when opposed to Mr Obama.

Of course, the above reasoning may sound ludicrous to Obama supporters, but they should take a step back, and consider this: up until now, the media have been after Mrs Clinton’s hide, while fawning and gushing all over Mr Obama. Anyone who’d protest that would do well to get a good reality check, because the wake-up call will be most brutal. If Mr Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, this will change. Journalists will start doing their job again. They’ll investigate. They’ll ask questions. They’ll scrutinize Mr Obama’s record. And things will go downhill from there, helped along by gentle pushes from the Republicans.

There is a way to thwart all that the media and the Republicans have planned and forecast, and that is for Hillary Rodham Clinton to win in Ohio and Texas tomorrow.

Take a good, long look at France as it is today, and think twice before you cast your ballot, or join the Obama group. Think twice, or you might very well end up like France. And you really, really don’t want that to happen.

Also, check out today’s opinion piece by Paul Krugman in the New York Times.

And tomorrow, think. Do not swoon.

Just think.

Good night, and good luck.

Is that all you’ve got to say for yourselves?

All right, everyone knows what day this is. This is "supertuesday", and there’s a lot of buzz and noise in the netherworld. But the problem is that most of it is just that: noise.

Not signal.

Dynasties of Kennedy spread the news of their support to Barack Obama, who gladly accepts, never mind that he’s supposedly representing “change” as opposed to Hillary who’s just the “surrogate of her husband” while welcoming the endorsement of what’s certainly the oldest and most powerful dynasty around in the Democratic party. But then, who cares about coherence and intellectual honesty these days?

And then there’s all the journalists, all the writers of opinion pieces. I swear, they’ve sent all those who like Hillary on leave for a few days, so they can come to Belgium and enjoy the Carnivale week, and put all those who love Barack so much on forced assignment. Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, and an opinion piece is just that. Opinion. You can say you like Barack better because he likes your favourite TV series, and you hate Hillary because really she should know Bollywood movies better. Still, I, for one, would love a bit, a tiny little bit of content in these articles.

I’d like people other than Paul Krugman (whom I’ll never cease to admire for the seriousness and depths of his articles) to come up with real stuff. With ideas. With the things that the candidates defend, and what they’ll do. I’m fed up with all those Clinton haters all bashing Hillary with “she’s a surrogate for her husband”, “it may be unfair but still it’s valid to consider that her husband would be back at the White House and we’d have a third Clinton term”. Get over it, people, get over your fake niceness, and be real. Be frank, say it: this woman’s candidacy disturbs you. It disturbs you deeply. You cannot imagine that she’d be the US president. You cannot imagine that she wouldn’t be under her husband’s thumb. In short, you cannot imagine a woman in power.

And of course, you all cover this up neatly by attacking Bill while feeling oh so sorry for Hillary, who doesn’t deserve it, for whom it’s so unfair, but.

You also cover it by drooling all over Barack Obama, who should be getting tired of all the spit drenching his costume and shoes by now. You pretend you believe in the incredibly naïve at best, and deliberately misleading dovish declarations that “with Barack, there’ll be an end to partisan wars.” Of course there won’t be. Everyone knows this. The first among those in the Obama campaign team who knows it is Barack himself. As his nice and funny experience with one of his main sources of money, Exelon, reveals.

And of course, you cover it by dumping dozens of articles on how hard it’s gonna be for poor Barack, being black and all, on how marvellous, how “truly American” it would be to have him reach the White House. Funny, almost nobody seems to realize that voting for a woman poses at least as much problems. But then, machismo, sexism aren’t things you talk about in good society. Why? Because it’s gone of course, silly! In our civilized societies, it no longer exists. Of course it’s no longer there! Nobody would use sexist arguments, nobody I say. You have to realize, to use a sexist argument, you’d have to say that Hillary is merely a surrogate for Bill, that no matter how you like her, you can’t vote for her, simply because we all know who’ll be wearing the pants, and who’ll be the real president…Ooops.

Hey, I think that’s what all those people are saying out there, making my argument for me. Why, thank you so very much.

I’d have so loved to have this campaign, and the articles I read, to be on contents. On ideas. On policies. On direction. On vision. On the future. Hillary may not have Barack’s charisma. But instead of the nice, pleasing “we’ll all love each other and be friends” or the always catchy (but phony) “I’ll do politics in a new way”, you have depth. You have plans for getting health care to all the citizens. You have strength, a backbone. A knowledge of the world, and of the harshness of it all.

And, if I may, in Hillary, you have a woman. And to have a woman lead the self-proclaimed strongest power in the world, and to have all the sheikhs and Arabian princes bow and show respect and deference to a woman…well, that is something I’d really like to see.

Enough With Naive Delusions

Everywhere, it's the same: the Clintons are big bad devils from outer space and the Nth layer of hell, complete with forks, pointed tails, horns and breathing fire and toxic fumes. Gods, you'd think all the US journalists and all the analysts have never seen a political campaign.

I don't know, people, do you even remember your own history, the way your dear country does things? The US is *T*H*E* gameboard of the dirtiest politics around the rich democracies in our sorry world. Insults, smearing, slander, lies, deception, anything is game. And yet people cringe and howl "unfair" when they hear or see Hillary or her campaign staff (husband included) attack the designated victcim and martyr: Barack Obama. Please, people, give me a break with poor, innocent, guileless and oh so pure Barack! Stop victimizing the man, stop falling into pace with his own game! He's no wide-eyed kid discovering the world, he's one of the richest candidates around, and he's been preparing for this thing. He knew the rules beforehand, he knew how things would go, so please. Please, enough with the stupid, goofy expressions of dismay and outrage whenever he's being attacked.

If somebody dares say race plays a role, s/he's branded and condemned like the worst of criminals. And yet, it's true. It's as much about race as it's about gender. And neither Hillary nor Barack are free of prejudice and bigotry, from hatred as irrational as all things that come from religion.

One thing that can be used to attack Barack Obama, that should be used against him and instead is used as a standard of "change" and "betterment" is his completely ludicrous claims that he'll change the way politics are done and put an end to partisan wars.

That claim is a pure and simple lie. And Mr Obama cannot pretend innocence or naivete on this one. Nobody can. Not his advisers, not the journalists who go about as if such childish, stupid claims were a miracle straight from the heavens. And here, again, I find myself thanking the gods and goddesses, above and below, named and unnamed, real or imaginary, for the existence of Paul Krugman. I'm just an anonymous voice echoing in the smallest bit of the netherworld. He's a renowned, acknowledged economist. And here is what he has to say in his opinion piece in today's edition of the New York Times : Lessons of 1992 :

[...] Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

[...]So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats?

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

[...]My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can’t make sense of the claims that he’s somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.

What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues — a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign — and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.

There, you have it. So please, pretty please with sugar on top, stop. Stop swallowing all the fishes Mr Obama sends your way. There will be no peace, no collaboration between enemy sides. Anyone who believes this might as well go back to school and relearn history, and also refocus on the central characteristics of human nature.

There will be partisan wars. Whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton win the White House, there will be a partisan war. A bloody one. A dirty one. An ugly one.

And no sappy claims to the contrary will change that outcome.

The Sorry Laws of US Campaigning

"Thou shalt insult thy competitors"
"Thou shalt ridicule their previous achievements"
"Thou shalt make up false biographies and smear thy opponents"
"Thou shalt attack thy opponents' families and stoop as low as it takes"

I could go on like this for ages. The list is endless. We all know the tedious, mediocre drill of elections campaigns in the US. They go lower than anyone in the Europe would dare envision, although I have to admit that Sarko, Aznar and the gang have tried their best to emulate the American talent for low, vile, and base campaigning. Better to smear and slander, to use empty but nice sounding slogans than to talk about true things. About political programs, and actually require voters to think about issues. Yeah, thinking is bad, as one of Sarko's goons, Mrs Lagarde, so eloquently put during a memorable speech in the French Assembly: thinking is bad, thinking is dangerous.

Still, as prepared as you can be, there are things that keep surprising you. There seems to be no end to the baseness some candidates can lower themselves to.

This weekend, Barack Obama has crossed the red line, and stepped to the other side. forget about achievements, forget about who likes which part of the US population more, who knows more than whom. It no longer matters.

Mr Obama has been insane enough to call Ronald Reagan's presidency better the Bill Clinton's, and to claim that Ronald Reagan's presidency has made history and made America move, adding that by contrast Bill Clinton's hasn't.

Wow. I have to admit that that one floored me.

Of course, maybe Mr Obama was locked up in a comfortable office during those years. Maybe Mr Obama isn't much aware of the world outside the US borders. If that is the case, let me just say this for the record: in Europe, Ronald Reagan is considered to be the worst president the US ever had in recent history (although W is sure to replace him on that pedestal soon). He was the laughing stock of people, as were those who voted for him and put him in power. Of course, you really don't need to take my word for this little bit of historical consideration. You should, however, take Paul Krugman's, and read his opinion piece in yestderday's edition of the New York Times: Debunking the Reagan Myth.

Now, we have two solutions :

• either Mr Obama is ignorant of all this, and he should address this blatant lack of knowledge and culture, and then come back and set things straight
• or Mr Obama is simply lying through his teeth, and he's ready to use just about anything to attack Hillary Rodham

Either way, what Mr Obama did by belittling Bill Clinton's record as president, as Democratic president, while lauding Ronald Reagan's record as president, a Republican president, has a name, be it in politics, in business, in friendly rivalries of all kind and elsewhere: a fault. A bad, really, really bad fault, which in any European country would cost him all chances of victory he might have had once.

In politics and elsewhere, you DO NOT belittle your own party's record while supporting that of your adversaries. Doing so betrays a lack of nerve, a lack of loyalty, a lack of depth and argument that simply render the one who commits him non-credible.

I've been watching Mr Obama's campaign through the newspapers, and though I've been favoring Hillary Ordham from the start, I did try to leave myself room to change my mind and to keep weighing the one against the other. Well, from now on I know I no longer need to do so. Perhaps I should thank Barack Obama for relieving me of my dilemma.

I guess that if I were an American citizen, I'd be a New Hampshire woman. Somehow, I find that to be a rather pleasing image.

Not That Dead After All !

The fact is sufficiently rare for it to deserve a post from me.

An opinion piece in a major US newspaper dares to dispel one of the Great Truths spewed out by many in the US: no matter how many love to badmouth us, bash us, call us withered and old, obsolete, Europe is alive and kicking.

Europe is well and good, and a much nicer place to live in than the US. Yes, that shocking truth has been revealed for American eyes to read, written by one of their own, a very much renowned economist.

Thank you very much, Mr Krugman, for daring to come out with a reality that runs counter all the fools who believe they're the alpha and omega of the universe in your country.

Check out the article in today's edition of the New York Times: The Comeback Continent, by Paul Krugman.

See, no only do we have fridges, electricity, but what's more we have TV, DVDs, mobiles, and even broadband internet access, but we live in a much more secure place. Because we pay our taxes, and give money so it can be redistributed to all. We're not Robin Hood and Europe isn't Sherwood, but at least here, there is something to catch you when you fall, and we don't spit our contempt on people who have accidents, who lose their jobs, who get sick or who're less lucky. It's no charity dictated by some god's moral, it's a choice made by citizens. A choice of a society in which the pursuit of happiness isn't racing to die working, and self-development and self-fulfillment can exist outside of the office.

A choice of a society where we don't go around claiming we'll never get sick or old, or we'll never lose our jobs unless we're losers. We don't claim we're all individually self-sufficient, and free to choose more or less health care if we want (which really means: whether we can afford it, it never has anything to do with "want").

We're a society that says: we'll get old, we'll get sick, and we can lose our jobs. And we must do something to insure we can live on, and live as well as possible. And to ensure this, we empower the state, and we pay our taxes. And we remember that the states are the only institutions where we have a say, that's called elections. We have a true power, that is called the right to vote.

We're a society that knows very well that companies and corporations are not philanthropic by nature, that they're there for profit only, and that they're anything but democracies. That we have no say, no true power in them. And that we cannot trust them, because it makes no sense to trust into institutions which do not exist to serve people, but to serve a goal named profit.

So we give power to the state, the one institution we can control. We pay taxes. And we live a better life.

Oh, and we do not delude ourselves into thinking we're above old age, sickness, or other accidents.

In short, we are adult enough to recognize we're only human.

Thank You, New Hampshire !

The media and surveys dictatorship has been unmade.

In the last months, all the media, all the analysts and editorialists were talking about the inevitability of Hillary Rodham’s election as the Democrats’ candidate. Some regretted it, and kept bashing her at every opportunity. Those same people were oh, so keen to point out the problems that would unfailingly arise from inexperience and the mistakes or blunders of a certain Barack Obama.

Then came the Iowa Caucuses. And, in a now overused routine of coat-turning, all the media started bashing on Hillary Rodham in earnest, while drooling with ecstasy over Barack Obama. Within a single day, experience, knowledge, an invaluable team of advisers and strength became huge disadvantages and points that would unerringly drag Hillary into total and utter failure. Within that same day, Barack Obama, who has gathered more money than the Clintons for his campaign, became the champion of change with empty declarations like “I’ll end the partisan bickering” (everyone with a shred of brains knows that this is just utopia, and will never happen in a world populated with human beings) and “I embody change”.

In the course of a single day, a candidate was dumped into the junkyard, while the other became the new “inevitable nominee”. He had all the media could dream of: nice and sympathetic face, good actor performance, nice family, a little bit of color, and the urban legend that he’s a little guy who climbed up the ladder all by himself. The perfect American Dream. And of course, since he's relatively new to the scene, people hadn’t yet had time to grow bored with him. As usual, everyone forgot that they will always be disappointed with anyone who’s been in power, and who’s had to face failure, and the hardships of actually doing something in a world dominated by a market and an economy gone mad in a globalized environment the politicians now have almost no leverage on. Add tot his the slogans that he’d end partisan wars and unite the country, well, how could the media resist?

The bashing went on for Hillary, while Barack became something like the second coming. Surveys were produced, foretelling the demise of Hillary, and the continued rise of Barack. Editorialists started writing paper advising Hillary on the right manner to bow out of the race. When Hillary showed the slightest sign of what could be interpreted as a weakness, it was broadcast all over the internet and all over the TV channels.

And then, against all odds, the results of the vote in New Hampshire came.

And the media got a very, very much needed reality check.

And the citizens of New Hampshire gave me back a reason to hope in democracy. The citizens of New Hampshire denied the rule of the media and surveys, and exercised their right to choose whomever they please, whether it pleases the great and all powerful media or not.

So I want to say thank you, New Hampshire, for giving the world a reality check, and for reminding us that people are free.

That people’s votes and opinions will not be dictated by surveys and flip-flop media.

Frenzy and Misconceptions

As expected, the Iowa caucuses results started a round of frenzy around the world. Many editorialists go on about how deeply significant these results are, and how they herald change in the US.

Some even press their right hand upon their chest at the heart's level, and tell you that what happened in these caucuses is the purest form and expression of democracy. If you look closely, you'll see their eyes glistening with unshed tears of pride and love. They're the journalists working for the Wall Street Journal, the great defenders of the neo-cons and the republicans, those who bark everywhere that the US is the greatest, the bestest democracy in the whole universe. I guess their sappy declarations of love for the caucuses, which are the most undemocratic process of election I've ever seen is coherent with their other declarations. At least I have to give the Wall Street Journal people this: they're not frightened of ridicule, and they do not step back from ludicrous claims:

Imagine a gymnasium full of people. Some are gathered in groups here and there. Others roam the space, undecisive. The groups shout at each other, yell catacalls, clap their hands and tap their feet on the ground to impress and unsettle the others, and try for shows of force to draw the undecisive their way. John Doe, who had said he'd vote for X, suddenly sees that a great many others are in group Y, and they call so loudly for more supporters that John Doe finds himself instintively going for the stronger group. In the meantime, Jane Smith wanted to vote for T, but T unfortunately doesn't gather enough supporters to be above a threshold percentage of votes. So Jane must choose someone else. No luck, she doesn't know. But the people supporting Y are so numerous, so loud. They seem so sure. So Jane goes to join the group defending Y. And when the ending time comes, a basket is handed from person to person, above heads in the crowd in a joyful chaos, and people "each" throw papers with the name of a candidate in the basket. There is no way of checking that this is done without any cheating. And of course, the caucus is nothing other than people putting pressure on other people to vote this instead of that. It bars some from attending, because it's held at a certain time, and that people who'd vote must endure at least 2hours of debate they have no need for, but must bow to, so they can be subjected to outside pressure and dictates on how they should vote.

The whole process certainly is the purest form of anti-democracy held in the self-proclaimed greatest democracy of the universe. A process the Wall Street Journal people know so well how to denounce when they explain the process of voting for or against a strike in gatherings of union workers. But then, it's true that this is the US, a country where voting isn't compulsory, and where elections day are invariably weekdays, when people are at work, and they either have to take a day off or do I don't know what to manage to place their vote. The greatest democracy of the world, indeed. But then, we wouldn't put the day for the election on Sunday, no, we wouldn't. We wouldn't dare annoy all the good Christians out there, would we?

Now, let's tackle the results of the Iowa caucuses on the Democrats' side. I'll spare you my thoughts on the Republicans' side, because you wouldn't like me to explain to you in detail how these results confirm my opinion that a good half of the USA no longer lives in a democracy but is putting a good old theocracy in place (the whole of the USA is in fact a plutocracy, but let's not go there either).

Barack Obama's victory certainly is a powerful symbol. It's gonna send hearts beating, it's gonna send waves of warmth and elation coursing the veins of all those who have soft spots and still delulde themselves into believing in the lie called the "American Dream". But at the end of the process, when the game is over, it'd be far better for Hillary Rodham to be the winner. Why?

Because, no matter what you can say, what the media can say, the American citizens as a whole will never elect Barack Obama over a good WASP Republican. No matter what people like to believe, the heritage of segregation and racism aren't dead in the US. The South and the Middlewest states, the infamous Bible Belt will not elect a black, Democrat candidate as president, even though his mother is a purebred WASP.

Because, whether or not the people who have sparks in their eyes when they hear Obama talking of "deep change in the way of doing politics" and of "suppressing the wars between red and blue states" like it, the whole speech is just empty words that have a nice ring to them. There will never be "peace" and "understanding" and "collaboration" between Republican and Democrat states. People will never abandon their little wars, their agendas. And more importantly, they will not renounce their own ideas to endorse some kind of empty, soft consensus. And if they did, in some utopia world or other, the result would be a status-quo that would in no way be the tiniest beginning of the change Barack Obama claims to be embodying.

Because, outside of his "I'll change everything" message, Barack Obama has no clear program, no clear vision of what he'll do and how. Outside of his nice face, of his appealing youth and the fact people don't know him and thus don't (yet) associate him with their general dislike of politics, there's no clear indication of what he wants. Worse, from the little he's said, he looks like the most conservative of the Democrat candidates...

Because Hillary Rodham has the experience.

Because Hillary Rodham has fought in the arena, because she has confronted the fiends one finds on one's path in Washington, when she tried to reform the oh so nice and fair health "care" system the US has.

Because Hillary Rodham has guts, because she's strong. Because she knows what she'up against, because that terrible machine has beaten her down once, and she rebuilt herself. Because she failed, and took strength from that painful experience. Because she is the only one, having encountered it, fought it, to be able to claim she can challenge the smearing and demolition machine of the Republicans. She's been there. She's withstood them. She's proven her metal.

Hillary Rodham has proven she has the will and the strength to endure and to prevail in the hell they call a presidential campaign. She has been tested. She has been through fire.

Because Hillary Rodham knows there is a world beyond hte US borders, and will have many friends in Europe. Because she knows the job.

Because she has a team such as no other candidate can have.

Because, once the Republicans will have chosen Rudy Juliani, John Mc Cain or Mitt Romney, she's the only one who can confront them.

And if she could have Edwards as a vice-president hopeful, I think I'd have to revise my judgment, and start believing again that a hope for change is possible in the US.