Oh_my_god (or: goddesses and gods, above and below, named and unnamed, real and imaginary), someone in the US has seen the light.
An earnest columnist has written an article for a US newspaper in which he actually makes a _F_A_I_R_ report concerning the choices of our European welfare states, instead of simply belittling them with a dismissive wave of the hand. And not just anyone, Paul Krugman, who happens to be an acknowledged economist and who writes a regular op/ed column in the New York Times.
In this article (read it here ), Paul Krugman actually uses intellectual honesty in explaining the differences between US and European systems, and in explaining that differences result from different choices for one's life on both sides of the Atlantic.
More than that, Paul Krugman also explains that choices are simply what they are: choices, and that one isn't above the other. One isn't "the one and only choice" and the other "stupidity". The US citizens choose some things above others, the European citizens choose other things above others. We have different priorities. It's our problem, our right, and nobody can scorn the other because of those sets of priorities. Hence the conclusion that there may be more than one way to lead one's life, more than one view on work, work conditions, health care systems, and, lo!, it follows that more than one kind society is possible. Almighty ultra-liberalism isn't the One Truth its supporters boast it is.
I am amazed.
So, Mr. Krugman, all my thanks and gratitude for your honesty and your courage in publishing such a column.
Maybe there's a chance for us, after all...
Friday, July 29, 2005
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Spoilers Deserve to Die.
And a slow, painful death at that.
I hate self-important fools who blurt spoilers around and take all the pleasure out of watching or reading something. I'm a regular poster in a French usenet anime and manga group. Been there for ages. There have been morons along the years, less than on web forums (whose sole existence is the proof that humanity is coming to an end, by the way), but this time it beats all I've ever encountered.
A thread on an anime title. Contains spoilers for the anime. And one fucking moron stumbles upon the thread and spits out a spoiler of galactic proportions for Harry Potter 6 there. And justifies himself saying there was a spoiler tag...
Of course, I will still read the book I had carefully packed away for my September holidays in order not to yield to temptation and read it then and there, but much of the surprise, of the pleasure of the book will be just gone. Thanks to one frigging brainless MORON. Shit!
Someone, give me an axe. A dull-edged one.
Now.
(and, yeah, I'm ususally against any form of capital punishment :P)
I hate self-important fools who blurt spoilers around and take all the pleasure out of watching or reading something. I'm a regular poster in a French usenet anime and manga group. Been there for ages. There have been morons along the years, less than on web forums (whose sole existence is the proof that humanity is coming to an end, by the way), but this time it beats all I've ever encountered.
A thread on an anime title. Contains spoilers for the anime. And one fucking moron stumbles upon the thread and spits out a spoiler of galactic proportions for Harry Potter 6 there. And justifies himself saying there was a spoiler tag...
Of course, I will still read the book I had carefully packed away for my September holidays in order not to yield to temptation and read it then and there, but much of the surprise, of the pleasure of the book will be just gone. Thanks to one frigging brainless MORON. Shit!
Someone, give me an axe. A dull-edged one.
Now.
(and, yeah, I'm ususally against any form of capital punishment :P)
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Shoot To Kill! Great. Now, What?
From Friday's edition of the Guardian:
As he got on to the train I looked at his face. He looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified and then as I say he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him.
They couldn't have been no more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had a black automatic pistol in his left hand. He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.
An innocent man was murdered in London on Friday morning.
Shot five times in the head while he was lying on the floor, far from being a threat to anyone.
Shot by police officers.
His crime? To have been mistaken for someone else. To have been frightened and subsequently to have run away when he was chased by people in plain clothes, people he didn't know. To have been hounded and herded to the underground coach. To have tripped and fallen to the floor where he lay helpless.
Where he lay helpless until the police officers reached him and shot him in the head five times.
A tragedy, some will say, a necessary evil, others will contend, a regrettable sacrifice to methods that insure the safety of the public, a good portion of people in official positions are likely to support. If you've read previous rants of mine, you know how I feel about so-called necessary sacrifices: bullshit. You CANNOT weigh the worth of lives against life. To do so is repellant. Revolting.
The method of shooting to kill comes, unsurprisingly enough, from Israel. Okay, regardless of what I think of Israelian methods, importing this to Europe is plain madness. Are police officers now instructed to shoot to kill anyone suspect? Is the definition of "suspect" wearing a coat and having a backpack? Great. Guess what?
Whenever I travel, I'm a potential suicide bomber. Well, yeah, I do have a backpack, and I usually have a coat or a jacket on my back, even in Summer, because I always travel with one, and having it on me saves place inside my luggage or my backpack!
And, guess another thing: if a group of officers in civvies start chasing me, I WILL RUN. No, I won't let myself be grabbed and manhandled by people who wear no uniform and whom I can't identify as proper agents of the law.
It gets better: imagine for a moment that a petty thief is chased down by those officers. He has a backpack where he stores his catch of the day, and he has good reason not to want to be apprehended. Yet, does this thief deserve to be shot in the head? I would think not. Of course, I'm not a raving tabloid op/ed columnist demanding "shoot them all". Another bit of niceness, that one. And just WHERE do you think calls to hatred and murder will lead? To peace and happiness ever after?
Please.
A man is dead.
An innocent has been murdered.
Nothing will ever undo that evil.
Nothing will ever help the terror that crushed that poor man, or his pain upon being murdered.
Nothing will ever help the loss of his family and friends.
At least, the British police has publicly recognized this tragic misconduct. Now, it's time to rethink methods and tactics, and to stop with the cowboy, shoot-to-kill attitude. The last thing to do is to strive for justification and go about claiming it's all the terrorists' fault. No, sir. No way. Far too easy.
We show our metal, we show our ethics and our values when we decide on investigation methods, on instructions and procedures. We are responsible for the way in which we, as an embodiment of the law or the state, choose to react to threats such as terrorism. If we can't find the strength to remain ourselves, to hang on to who we are, to what has always defined us, then we will inevitably lose ourselves in the long run. If we allow a shoot-to-kill policy, then we deny the most basic of the principles upholding our societies: due process. Anyone is innocent until proven guilty. That requires arrest, charges, and a trial. Nobody is guilty by default, or deserving of death by default. If we find that shooting mere suspects in the head is acceptable, then the terrorists have already won.
So, no.
No, you don't instruct police officers to aim for the head, get the suspect dead and ask questions later.
Not in Europe.
As he got on to the train I looked at his face. He looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified and then as I say he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him.
They couldn't have been no more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had a black automatic pistol in his left hand. He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.
An innocent man was murdered in London on Friday morning.
Shot five times in the head while he was lying on the floor, far from being a threat to anyone.
Shot by police officers.
His crime? To have been mistaken for someone else. To have been frightened and subsequently to have run away when he was chased by people in plain clothes, people he didn't know. To have been hounded and herded to the underground coach. To have tripped and fallen to the floor where he lay helpless.
Where he lay helpless until the police officers reached him and shot him in the head five times.
A tragedy, some will say, a necessary evil, others will contend, a regrettable sacrifice to methods that insure the safety of the public, a good portion of people in official positions are likely to support. If you've read previous rants of mine, you know how I feel about so-called necessary sacrifices: bullshit. You CANNOT weigh the worth of lives against life. To do so is repellant. Revolting.
The method of shooting to kill comes, unsurprisingly enough, from Israel. Okay, regardless of what I think of Israelian methods, importing this to Europe is plain madness. Are police officers now instructed to shoot to kill anyone suspect? Is the definition of "suspect" wearing a coat and having a backpack? Great. Guess what?
Whenever I travel, I'm a potential suicide bomber. Well, yeah, I do have a backpack, and I usually have a coat or a jacket on my back, even in Summer, because I always travel with one, and having it on me saves place inside my luggage or my backpack!
And, guess another thing: if a group of officers in civvies start chasing me, I WILL RUN. No, I won't let myself be grabbed and manhandled by people who wear no uniform and whom I can't identify as proper agents of the law.
It gets better: imagine for a moment that a petty thief is chased down by those officers. He has a backpack where he stores his catch of the day, and he has good reason not to want to be apprehended. Yet, does this thief deserve to be shot in the head? I would think not. Of course, I'm not a raving tabloid op/ed columnist demanding "shoot them all". Another bit of niceness, that one. And just WHERE do you think calls to hatred and murder will lead? To peace and happiness ever after?
Please.
A man is dead.
An innocent has been murdered.
Nothing will ever undo that evil.
Nothing will ever help the terror that crushed that poor man, or his pain upon being murdered.
Nothing will ever help the loss of his family and friends.
At least, the British police has publicly recognized this tragic misconduct. Now, it's time to rethink methods and tactics, and to stop with the cowboy, shoot-to-kill attitude. The last thing to do is to strive for justification and go about claiming it's all the terrorists' fault. No, sir. No way. Far too easy.
We show our metal, we show our ethics and our values when we decide on investigation methods, on instructions and procedures. We are responsible for the way in which we, as an embodiment of the law or the state, choose to react to threats such as terrorism. If we can't find the strength to remain ourselves, to hang on to who we are, to what has always defined us, then we will inevitably lose ourselves in the long run. If we allow a shoot-to-kill policy, then we deny the most basic of the principles upholding our societies: due process. Anyone is innocent until proven guilty. That requires arrest, charges, and a trial. Nobody is guilty by default, or deserving of death by default. If we find that shooting mere suspects in the head is acceptable, then the terrorists have already won.
So, no.
No, you don't instruct police officers to aim for the head, get the suspect dead and ask questions later.
Not in Europe.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
The Greatest Democracy in the World? Yeah, sure.
I don't know. Sometimes I think I'm hallucinating when I read articles in the US newspapers (Source: today's edition of the Washington Post).
So, now, the White House--the center, the heart of the US, the self-proclaimed Best Democracy Of All Times (not to mention best judicial system--and everyone knows the rightness of that fact), great defender of freedom, of human rights (that's a joke, right? Tell me that's a joke, please)--is now lobbying to prevent a law from being voted in the US Senate.
But, what law?
Why, a law presented by none other than Republican Senators (you know, the ones who are in the same political party as the specters haunting the White House)!
So, why would Dick Cheney, Vice-President of the US, second in command to the president leading the greatest, best, fantasticest, most democratic, most you-name-it country in this world work like crazy to prevent a law presented by his own camp to pass?
It must be a terrible, terribly evil law.
Lemme see...
The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.
So, in short, the White House is fighting to prevent the passing of a law that would insure the US behaves like a civilized country, a country that respects the most basic of war conventions (Geneva anyone?) and human rights. Anyone care to tell me how that's a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs?
Ah, but in the words of the White House Officials, this law would interfere with the president's ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."
Oh, so torture is no longer evil. The US president must use torture to defend the US citizens? He must be above conventions against torture that his country signed in the United Nations?
Wow.
We can all see how abuses and torture have helped all of us in the recent days and months. We can see how it helped out London and Madrid, how it's helped out Sharm el-Sheikh. How it's helping out Irak. And Afghanistan, where women are being stoned again. We can see it, all right.
When I look at the terrorists that bomb London, that slaughter innocent civilians, I know what I see: evil barbarians, cowards, raving fanatics, murderers--the enemy.
When I look at the people owning the White House, leading the self-proclaimed greatest democratic country in the world, I find myself feeling sick. And I fond myself having more and more difficulty understanding what I see.
On a scale of "Enemy" to "Friend" going through "Neutral" in the middle, I fear the US governement is dangerously slipping toward the "Enemy" side.
Oh, and think about this, think long and hard: if the US feels it can torture "enemies", then just how can it ever again express outrage if its own end up being tortured by the other side?
So, now, the White House--the center, the heart of the US, the self-proclaimed Best Democracy Of All Times (not to mention best judicial system--and everyone knows the rightness of that fact), great defender of freedom, of human rights (that's a joke, right? Tell me that's a joke, please)--is now lobbying to prevent a law from being voted in the US Senate.
But, what law?
Why, a law presented by none other than Republican Senators (you know, the ones who are in the same political party as the specters haunting the White House)!
So, why would Dick Cheney, Vice-President of the US, second in command to the president leading the greatest, best, fantasticest, most democratic, most you-name-it country in this world work like crazy to prevent a law presented by his own camp to pass?
It must be a terrible, terribly evil law.
Lemme see...
The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.
So, in short, the White House is fighting to prevent the passing of a law that would insure the US behaves like a civilized country, a country that respects the most basic of war conventions (Geneva anyone?) and human rights. Anyone care to tell me how that's a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs?
Ah, but in the words of the White House Officials, this law would interfere with the president's ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."
Oh, so torture is no longer evil. The US president must use torture to defend the US citizens? He must be above conventions against torture that his country signed in the United Nations?
Wow.
We can all see how abuses and torture have helped all of us in the recent days and months. We can see how it helped out London and Madrid, how it's helped out Sharm el-Sheikh. How it's helping out Irak. And Afghanistan, where women are being stoned again. We can see it, all right.
When I look at the terrorists that bomb London, that slaughter innocent civilians, I know what I see: evil barbarians, cowards, raving fanatics, murderers--the enemy.
When I look at the people owning the White House, leading the self-proclaimed greatest democratic country in the world, I find myself feeling sick. And I fond myself having more and more difficulty understanding what I see.
On a scale of "Enemy" to "Friend" going through "Neutral" in the middle, I fear the US governement is dangerously slipping toward the "Enemy" side.
Oh, and think about this, think long and hard: if the US feels it can torture "enemies", then just how can it ever again express outrage if its own end up being tortured by the other side?
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Kill Moronic Summer Parties. NOW.
Ooookay.
It's 22:34. Tomorrow I'm working, as are many other people. That means I have to get up EARLY. A fucking moron is having himself a little fiesta down the street. A giant karaoke thing, and its shitty music MUST be on a maximum volume so it can gloriously resound through the whole quarter. The WHOLE quarter just MUST listen to pathetic voices attempting to sing ages-old sappy tunes.
I wish I knew the phone number of these people. I wish I had a nuclear missile at hand. I wish I had a machine gun, a B52, a rifle, a knife (the butcher kind, preferably). Anything.
I HATE morons who will bug a whole lot of people just because they have to have their fun and damn the rest of the world.
I hate Summer Parties.
I hate self-centered party-loving moronic fools.
I guess that means I hate most of humanity.
Fine with me.
Now, does anyone have a spare nuclear warhead close by? I promise, I'll give it back. Promise.
It's 22:34. Tomorrow I'm working, as are many other people. That means I have to get up EARLY. A fucking moron is having himself a little fiesta down the street. A giant karaoke thing, and its shitty music MUST be on a maximum volume so it can gloriously resound through the whole quarter. The WHOLE quarter just MUST listen to pathetic voices attempting to sing ages-old sappy tunes.
I wish I knew the phone number of these people. I wish I had a nuclear missile at hand. I wish I had a machine gun, a B52, a rifle, a knife (the butcher kind, preferably). Anything.
I HATE morons who will bug a whole lot of people just because they have to have their fun and damn the rest of the world.
I hate Summer Parties.
I hate self-centered party-loving moronic fools.
I guess that means I hate most of humanity.
Fine with me.
Now, does anyone have a spare nuclear warhead close by? I promise, I'll give it back. Promise.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Hell on Earth and Below
There are many things I could say, like "told you so", "bound to happen", but... In the end, it doesn't matter. The two things that matter are all the people who were the victims of the cowardly, despicable terrorist attacks in London today--the people who will keep terrible scars in their flesh and in their hearts for as long as they live.
Them, and the descpicable cowards who targetted innocent civilians.
It's easy to take on innocent people, is it not? So much easier than to take on trained soldiers and on the real people responsible for whatever wrong you claim was done to you. It takes guts and courage, it takes balls to take on a true enemy who can fight back. But then, everyone knows terrorists don't have balls.
And they have the gall to call themselves warriors of god?
Hello, darling terrorists, here's a newsflash for you: you're mere warriors of shit and sewers.
No more and no less.
Trash.
Vermin.
You're no men. There's no bravery in you, nothing noble or strong. You're weak. You're cowards. You're so low, despicable and worthless that you're not worth spitting on.
Come to think of it, you're not dogs, not even worms. I think they haven't yet invented the right qualificative for soulless emasculated beasts like you. One thing is sure, though:
No matter how you go carvotting about your so-called courage, you have less balls than gelded animals.
You think you'll spark terror across the democratic countries of the world? You think people will be so afraid they'll be paralyzed? But, darlings, you simply delude yourself, like all the addle-brained, foaming-at-the-mouth raving religious fanatics all around the world.
The one thing you inspire in people is not fear. It's contempt-dripping scorn.
It has been said before today, but still I'll repeat it: we're all Londoners.
Them, and the descpicable cowards who targetted innocent civilians.
It's easy to take on innocent people, is it not? So much easier than to take on trained soldiers and on the real people responsible for whatever wrong you claim was done to you. It takes guts and courage, it takes balls to take on a true enemy who can fight back. But then, everyone knows terrorists don't have balls.
And they have the gall to call themselves warriors of god?
Hello, darling terrorists, here's a newsflash for you: you're mere warriors of shit and sewers.
No more and no less.
Trash.
Vermin.
You're no men. There's no bravery in you, nothing noble or strong. You're weak. You're cowards. You're so low, despicable and worthless that you're not worth spitting on.
Come to think of it, you're not dogs, not even worms. I think they haven't yet invented the right qualificative for soulless emasculated beasts like you. One thing is sure, though:
No matter how you go carvotting about your so-called courage, you have less balls than gelded animals.
You think you'll spark terror across the democratic countries of the world? You think people will be so afraid they'll be paralyzed? But, darlings, you simply delude yourself, like all the addle-brained, foaming-at-the-mouth raving religious fanatics all around the world.
The one thing you inspire in people is not fear. It's contempt-dripping scorn.
It has been said before today, but still I'll repeat it: we're all Londoners.
Monday, June 06, 2005
American Nightmare
I'm sick and tired of condescending columnists in the US newspapers (the Washington Post and the New York Times come to mind) who go around claiming Europe must bow to the One Truth and give up its ludicrous, obsolete social system.
I'm fed up with those same columnists dripping self-proclaimed compassion on how hard the path of Europe toward righteous respect of the One Truth of ultraliberalism is bound to be.
We have no need for your pity. No need for your compassion.
Do you want me to describe exactly what you can do with them? No, I didn't think you did, anyway. Wouldn't be politically correct.
I wish those same columnists would STOP spewing their worthless brainwashing propaganda. The only people they can fool are the poor deluded souls who believe in the myth called the "American Dream." Oh, yes, economy is flourishing in the US. Yes, the very rich get much richer, very fast. That is true. Now, tell me how the numbers of a healthy economy help the millions of poor people in the US, those who are homeless, who have nothing left? Tell me how it's all helping a disintegrating middle class in the US?
I think that what gets to me the most is how those columnists, those thinktanks and all keep at it. It's how they won't leave us the hell alone. For all their claims of belonging to a great country which respects all the political opinions, all the religions (they take that so far that they support sects like the church of scientology), they display a rather blatant lack of overture on the social and economic aspects of life. I'm not spending my time telling the US people to stop being morons who have a heart attack at the single mention of the words "left" or "socialism", am I? I'm not telling the US to give up its inhuman model, am I?
What right do those columnists have, telling us we must bow down to THEIR views?
None.
Why am I ranting on this all of a sudden? Well, it's been bugging me for years, how people in the US dare passing judgements on systems they neither live in, nor understand. Nobody has ever demanded they give up their system to live in ours. Yet, from their self-proclaimed position of superiority, they have tthe gall of telling us we must bow to their One Truth. And they do this, in spite of all the signs that demonstrate that economic good health serves none other than the very rich people in the US, while impoverishing the middle class. That, and I read this column in the New York Times today.
Ever noticed how One Truth rhymes with One Ring?
I'm fed up with those same columnists dripping self-proclaimed compassion on how hard the path of Europe toward righteous respect of the One Truth of ultraliberalism is bound to be.
We have no need for your pity. No need for your compassion.
Do you want me to describe exactly what you can do with them? No, I didn't think you did, anyway. Wouldn't be politically correct.
I wish those same columnists would STOP spewing their worthless brainwashing propaganda. The only people they can fool are the poor deluded souls who believe in the myth called the "American Dream." Oh, yes, economy is flourishing in the US. Yes, the very rich get much richer, very fast. That is true. Now, tell me how the numbers of a healthy economy help the millions of poor people in the US, those who are homeless, who have nothing left? Tell me how it's all helping a disintegrating middle class in the US?
I think that what gets to me the most is how those columnists, those thinktanks and all keep at it. It's how they won't leave us the hell alone. For all their claims of belonging to a great country which respects all the political opinions, all the religions (they take that so far that they support sects like the church of scientology), they display a rather blatant lack of overture on the social and economic aspects of life. I'm not spending my time telling the US people to stop being morons who have a heart attack at the single mention of the words "left" or "socialism", am I? I'm not telling the US to give up its inhuman model, am I?
What right do those columnists have, telling us we must bow down to THEIR views?
None.
Why am I ranting on this all of a sudden? Well, it's been bugging me for years, how people in the US dare passing judgements on systems they neither live in, nor understand. Nobody has ever demanded they give up their system to live in ours. Yet, from their self-proclaimed position of superiority, they have tthe gall of telling us we must bow to their One Truth. And they do this, in spite of all the signs that demonstrate that economic good health serves none other than the very rich people in the US, while impoverishing the middle class. That, and I read this column in the New York Times today.
Ever noticed how One Truth rhymes with One Ring?
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Apocalypse Knight
On the morrow of the French "no" to the project for a European Constitution, the French president has reshuffled his whole cabinet. Months too late, he has sent his former prime minister back to his countryside. To lead the government until the next presidential elections, he has called Dominique de Villepin. It could have been far worse.
It could have been Nicolas Sarkozy.
It could have been I-know-it-all-the-social-model-of-Europe-is-doomed, ultra-liberalist, pro-US, populist, authoritarian Nicolas Sarkozy.
Nicolas Sarkozy would have been the daring, bright, extremely dangerous choice. Naming him prime minister might have weakened him, unmade him for the presidential election, but only if Jacques chirac could give him free reign to lead his destructive policies, and force him to remain as prime minister until the time of the election--to remain until his politics had time to show their terrible effects and the character of Sarkozy lost his hold on people held in thrall by the honeyed words of the populist he is. I doubt Jacques Chirac would have managed to force him to keep his post until the election. And if Nicolas Sarkozty had been allowed to leave his position of prime minister a year before the election, claiming he had no means to lead his policies, the situation would have left him a winner, and a virtual president for France.
The gods and goddesses know I NEVER want to see Nicolas Sarkozy in power. The man is everything I reject, all that revolts me. He would destroy our social model--or give anything to do it anyway.
But the dice have rolled, the advisors have spoken, and Dominique de Villepin is the new French prime minister.
A Knight in Shining Armor.
Proud.
Noble.
A striking figure, Dominique de Villepin is a perfect hero of shoujo manga. Slim and tall, eloquent, with a beautiful deep voice, he's also smart and the ideal herald for Europe. All of us felt our hearts beating with pride on the day he spoke out at the UN stronghold in New York city, refusing to go to war in Irak.
Of course, if Jacques Chirac had really wanted to show he understood the significance of his failure to get a "yes" in the referendum, he's simply have resigned from his post and called for presidential elections on the spot. Or he'd have dismissed the parliament and called for legislative elections on the spot. But then, he could hardly do that. No matter how he's been trying to say Europe is of the utmost importance, still Jacques Chirac, his party and others are just as bad as some voters: in truth they only focus on the domestic issues. Europe is a simple tool, a convenient scapegoat when things go wrong.
Sick of the unemployment rates?
Sick of taxes?
Sick of companies closing down and leaving for Poland or Roumania so they can hire wrokers for virtually nothing and quarduple their profits?
Well, blame Europe, of course. It's not their fault--no, how could it be? After all, they're the ones sitting at Europe's negociations tables, they're the ones bowing down to ultra-liberalist policies, or they're the one shaping them!
I find myself in a weird position right now. I am a left-wing union representative, and yet here I am, watching Dominique de Villepin, and dreaming of Knights in Shining Armor.
Of nobles in castles of old.
Of kings and princes of long ago.
I find myself hoping this brilliant figure can somehow stand strong and steady, and resist the irrepressible assaults that Nicolas Sarkozy is bound to make on his government. Nicolas Sarkozy, named minister of Interior and number two in the government, a virtual prime minister in the shadows.
A bitter enemy of Dominique de Villepin, who will stop to nothing to thwart whatever attempt Dominique de Villepin to salvage a hopeless situation. For, make no mistake, Nicolas Sarkozy will move, he will act and if he can, he will destroy everything we stand for.
Nicolas Sarkozy cares nothing for us, the only thing driving him is his all-devouring ambition. He will stoop as low as it takes, he will betray anyone and anything for power. In contrast, Dominique de Villepin has accepted the mission to lead a doomed government, a fact that will certainly bar him from the possibility of competing during the next presidential race.
So, while the political elite indeed seems oblivious to the landslide that had triggered the massive "no" to the project of European Constitution, while they seem oblivious to the primeval importance of that result and its significance--while they seem oblivious that this time it's not governments, prime ministers or presidents who say "no" to Europe but whole populations…
Well, at least the proud silouhette of Dominique de Villepin is now leading the French government.
A Knight of Ancient Times...sigh.
I've always had a weak spot for noble figures, for kings and princes and knights. So I wish you good luck, Mr. De Villepin. May you stand steady and strong in the storm. May you find success on your path of opposition to Nicolas Sarkozy's rise in power.
I find some consolation in the knoweldge that Dominique de Villepin is fiercely attached to the European model and values. Some hate him because he belongs to the great, ancient families of France and to the intellectual elite, but I say enough with this stupid low-level thinking. Why hate and brand people as elite? Those who do so only need to work for it, to reach out. No, you can't become a billionaire with simple effort, but you can learn, and become a member of any intellectual elite, if only you condescend to use your mind and make it work.
Then, I find some measure of comfort and amusement at the thought of the temper tantrums and outbursts that must have taken place at the White House upon the nomination of Dominique de Villepin as prime minister. My, poor Bush administration, how that must rankle. I think I can even find a bit of compassion for you...
At least, Dominique de Villepin will fight for our values. Even if the question of Europe gets back to the shadows for a time, at least he won't start unmaking everything.
So, yeah, give me Dominique de Villepin. I'll choose him everytime over a greedy minion of the heartless, inhuman financial interests who are busy killing the blue planet we call earth.
Give me a Knight in Shining Armor.
It could have been Nicolas Sarkozy.
It could have been I-know-it-all-the-social-model-of-Europe-is-doomed, ultra-liberalist, pro-US, populist, authoritarian Nicolas Sarkozy.
Nicolas Sarkozy would have been the daring, bright, extremely dangerous choice. Naming him prime minister might have weakened him, unmade him for the presidential election, but only if Jacques chirac could give him free reign to lead his destructive policies, and force him to remain as prime minister until the time of the election--to remain until his politics had time to show their terrible effects and the character of Sarkozy lost his hold on people held in thrall by the honeyed words of the populist he is. I doubt Jacques Chirac would have managed to force him to keep his post until the election. And if Nicolas Sarkozty had been allowed to leave his position of prime minister a year before the election, claiming he had no means to lead his policies, the situation would have left him a winner, and a virtual president for France.
The gods and goddesses know I NEVER want to see Nicolas Sarkozy in power. The man is everything I reject, all that revolts me. He would destroy our social model--or give anything to do it anyway.
But the dice have rolled, the advisors have spoken, and Dominique de Villepin is the new French prime minister.
A Knight in Shining Armor.
Proud.
Noble.
A striking figure, Dominique de Villepin is a perfect hero of shoujo manga. Slim and tall, eloquent, with a beautiful deep voice, he's also smart and the ideal herald for Europe. All of us felt our hearts beating with pride on the day he spoke out at the UN stronghold in New York city, refusing to go to war in Irak.
Of course, if Jacques Chirac had really wanted to show he understood the significance of his failure to get a "yes" in the referendum, he's simply have resigned from his post and called for presidential elections on the spot. Or he'd have dismissed the parliament and called for legislative elections on the spot. But then, he could hardly do that. No matter how he's been trying to say Europe is of the utmost importance, still Jacques Chirac, his party and others are just as bad as some voters: in truth they only focus on the domestic issues. Europe is a simple tool, a convenient scapegoat when things go wrong.
Sick of the unemployment rates?
Sick of taxes?
Sick of companies closing down and leaving for Poland or Roumania so they can hire wrokers for virtually nothing and quarduple their profits?
Well, blame Europe, of course. It's not their fault--no, how could it be? After all, they're the ones sitting at Europe's negociations tables, they're the ones bowing down to ultra-liberalist policies, or they're the one shaping them!
I find myself in a weird position right now. I am a left-wing union representative, and yet here I am, watching Dominique de Villepin, and dreaming of Knights in Shining Armor.
Of nobles in castles of old.
Of kings and princes of long ago.
I find myself hoping this brilliant figure can somehow stand strong and steady, and resist the irrepressible assaults that Nicolas Sarkozy is bound to make on his government. Nicolas Sarkozy, named minister of Interior and number two in the government, a virtual prime minister in the shadows.
A bitter enemy of Dominique de Villepin, who will stop to nothing to thwart whatever attempt Dominique de Villepin to salvage a hopeless situation. For, make no mistake, Nicolas Sarkozy will move, he will act and if he can, he will destroy everything we stand for.
Nicolas Sarkozy cares nothing for us, the only thing driving him is his all-devouring ambition. He will stoop as low as it takes, he will betray anyone and anything for power. In contrast, Dominique de Villepin has accepted the mission to lead a doomed government, a fact that will certainly bar him from the possibility of competing during the next presidential race.
So, while the political elite indeed seems oblivious to the landslide that had triggered the massive "no" to the project of European Constitution, while they seem oblivious to the primeval importance of that result and its significance--while they seem oblivious that this time it's not governments, prime ministers or presidents who say "no" to Europe but whole populations…
Well, at least the proud silouhette of Dominique de Villepin is now leading the French government.
A Knight of Ancient Times...sigh.
I've always had a weak spot for noble figures, for kings and princes and knights. So I wish you good luck, Mr. De Villepin. May you stand steady and strong in the storm. May you find success on your path of opposition to Nicolas Sarkozy's rise in power.
I find some consolation in the knoweldge that Dominique de Villepin is fiercely attached to the European model and values. Some hate him because he belongs to the great, ancient families of France and to the intellectual elite, but I say enough with this stupid low-level thinking. Why hate and brand people as elite? Those who do so only need to work for it, to reach out. No, you can't become a billionaire with simple effort, but you can learn, and become a member of any intellectual elite, if only you condescend to use your mind and make it work.
Then, I find some measure of comfort and amusement at the thought of the temper tantrums and outbursts that must have taken place at the White House upon the nomination of Dominique de Villepin as prime minister. My, poor Bush administration, how that must rankle. I think I can even find a bit of compassion for you...
At least, Dominique de Villepin will fight for our values. Even if the question of Europe gets back to the shadows for a time, at least he won't start unmaking everything.
So, yeah, give me Dominique de Villepin. I'll choose him everytime over a greedy minion of the heartless, inhuman financial interests who are busy killing the blue planet we call earth.
Give me a Knight in Shining Armor.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Told You So !
The French voted " no " because the EU Constitution treaty doesn't have enough social aspects and far too many aspects stinking of unfettered market economy--aka ultraliberalsim--to it (that is, if you don't count the racists and nazi nostalgics of the far-right and the deluded fools who believe they're back in the years of Louis XIV)
The Dutch voted "no" because some are deeply xenophobic, and others are greedy rich people who refuse to be a part of the solidarity system that helps poorer countries to catch up with us (well, there were a few "no of the left" lost in that crowd, but they weren't exactly a majority).
The UK is contemplating a totally unsubtle attempt not to go forward with darling Tony Blair's promise to put the project to the vote (but then, if you ask me the UK shouldn't be in the EU to begin with, they hate the EU and everything it represents; over the years they've been nothing but a spoke in our wheels, and a convenient way for non European interests to paralyze Europe's development).
The US thinktanks have seized this too-good-to-be-true opportunity to bash on oursocial model : according to them, the "no" votes are proof that our "welfare" social models have outlived their usefulness and are now obsolete. According to them, the "no" votes are the undeniable proof that we must abandon our welfare system and embrace the so wonderful unfettered concurrency, ultraliberal model.
Better to live in a poor country that's looking forward than to live in a rich country with a full-fledged social system that refuses to yield on the principles that have defined the existence of its population for generations.
Why should we cling to and defend the rights that our parents and grandparents fought so hard to gain?
After all, we're busy voting "no" to Europe, are we not?
It does mean that we've shed our delusions about social security nets and all those hindrances to the free market, that we'd rather live by the so perfect US or UK model, does it not?
You don't believe me? Well read this first, and then come back to me..
This post's title tells it all. The "no of the left" was pure stupidity and madness, and the only thing it could do was backfire. It's just started, and we haven't seen the end of it.
I told you so.
The Dutch voted "no" because some are deeply xenophobic, and others are greedy rich people who refuse to be a part of the solidarity system that helps poorer countries to catch up with us (well, there were a few "no of the left" lost in that crowd, but they weren't exactly a majority).
The UK is contemplating a totally unsubtle attempt not to go forward with darling Tony Blair's promise to put the project to the vote (but then, if you ask me the UK shouldn't be in the EU to begin with, they hate the EU and everything it represents; over the years they've been nothing but a spoke in our wheels, and a convenient way for non European interests to paralyze Europe's development).
The US thinktanks have seized this too-good-to-be-true opportunity to bash on oursocial model : according to them, the "no" votes are proof that our "welfare" social models have outlived their usefulness and are now obsolete. According to them, the "no" votes are the undeniable proof that we must abandon our welfare system and embrace the so wonderful unfettered concurrency, ultraliberal model.
Better to live in a poor country that's looking forward than to live in a rich country with a full-fledged social system that refuses to yield on the principles that have defined the existence of its population for generations.
Why should we cling to and defend the rights that our parents and grandparents fought so hard to gain?
After all, we're busy voting "no" to Europe, are we not?
It does mean that we've shed our delusions about social security nets and all those hindrances to the free market, that we'd rather live by the so perfect US or UK model, does it not?
You don't believe me? Well read this first, and then come back to me..
This post's title tells it all. The "no of the left" was pure stupidity and madness, and the only thing it could do was backfire. It's just started, and we haven't seen the end of it.
I told you so.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Well, you voted. Now, renegociate !
It's a no.
I know some people who're laughing right now. I don't think they're friends of anyone among the "no of the left". No, no friends at all.
And now, for the great rising tide of the "people of the left"! Oh, yeah! Now, for the renegociation of the text. Sure!
I'll be sitting with the crowd of ultraliberalists laughing at you while you try, and I'll be there with a bucket full of scorn and contempt for the great names among the Socialist party who conveniently ignored the results of the internal polls in the PS. You, who scorned your party's internal democracy to support the "no" despite the votes of your affiliates, you who did so out of pure and simple political opportunism and with the single goal of the presidential election of 2007. Remember this: not only will you lose in 2007, and will Nicolas Sarkozy be elected president thanks to your despicable petty powergames, but what's more you'll fail at renegociating.
Because the other countries which will reject the treaty will do so because they believe it's far too social. Because they don't want this ultraliberalism that you claim to be fighting to be hampered by any rule, however small.
Oh, you will have a new text. And you can be certain, that that new text won't have an ounce of social flavor to it.
Now, excuse me while I go heave out the contents of my stomach, I just heard a far-left defender of the "no" rejoicing at the thought that the UK will reject the treaty as well, and claiming they'll do so because it lacks of social aspects.
Excuse me, while I go and cry over the stupidity and the low-level populism of the far-left.
You voted "no". Well and good. Now, deal with the consequences.
And don't come whining in a year or two.
Oh, I forget, the World Company CEO sends his most sincere thanks between guffaws of laughter at your stupidity.
The only thing you stopped is European integration, more power to the EU to shield us from the consequences of globalization. Don't worry, China is still rising and killing us, the US is sticking to its policies. The globalization of economy and the weakening of our welfare systems continue.
I guess, you can be reaaal proud of yesterday's vote.
Real proud.
I know some people who're laughing right now. I don't think they're friends of anyone among the "no of the left". No, no friends at all.
And now, for the great rising tide of the "people of the left"! Oh, yeah! Now, for the renegociation of the text. Sure!
I'll be sitting with the crowd of ultraliberalists laughing at you while you try, and I'll be there with a bucket full of scorn and contempt for the great names among the Socialist party who conveniently ignored the results of the internal polls in the PS. You, who scorned your party's internal democracy to support the "no" despite the votes of your affiliates, you who did so out of pure and simple political opportunism and with the single goal of the presidential election of 2007. Remember this: not only will you lose in 2007, and will Nicolas Sarkozy be elected president thanks to your despicable petty powergames, but what's more you'll fail at renegociating.
Because the other countries which will reject the treaty will do so because they believe it's far too social. Because they don't want this ultraliberalism that you claim to be fighting to be hampered by any rule, however small.
Oh, you will have a new text. And you can be certain, that that new text won't have an ounce of social flavor to it.
Now, excuse me while I go heave out the contents of my stomach, I just heard a far-left defender of the "no" rejoicing at the thought that the UK will reject the treaty as well, and claiming they'll do so because it lacks of social aspects.
Excuse me, while I go and cry over the stupidity and the low-level populism of the far-left.
You voted "no". Well and good. Now, deal with the consequences.
And don't come whining in a year or two.
Oh, I forget, the World Company CEO sends his most sincere thanks between guffaws of laughter at your stupidity.
The only thing you stopped is European integration, more power to the EU to shield us from the consequences of globalization. Don't worry, China is still rising and killing us, the US is sticking to its policies. The globalization of economy and the weakening of our welfare systems continue.
I guess, you can be reaaal proud of yesterday's vote.
Real proud.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The US is rooting for "no"
One editorial of Today's Washington Post splatters around a web page on how "no" is the right answer to the European Constitution. I'm not surprised.
Now, ladies and gentlemen of the "no of the left", care to reconcile that with your lofty delusions of having the "people of the left rise and demand--not to mention obtain--a more social text" ?
Care to tell me how you can justify your "no" in a realistic manner?
No, of course.
The polls will deliver their verdict tonight. There's still time. Think, and go vote, dagnabit! And if you're still not convinced, if you're so self-centered that you haven't thought of watching the different reactions in Europe and the world concerning the ascent of the "no", if you've been so hard of hearing that you haven't picked up the ultraliberalist and anti-Europe crowd rooting for the "no", then simply go read this.
Yes, there are many in favor of "no", and they're not social-minded people.
They're in favor of a wholly unfettered capitalist world, unbridled competition and the destruction of our social and welfare system. They stand for everything we hate and reject. They stand for the unique, unrivalled power of the US over the world in every domain.
No, they're not people who want a better world with more equality and social justice.
Open your eyes.
Go vote.
There's no such thing as a perfect world.
Now, ladies and gentlemen of the "no of the left", care to reconcile that with your lofty delusions of having the "people of the left rise and demand--not to mention obtain--a more social text" ?
Care to tell me how you can justify your "no" in a realistic manner?
No, of course.
The polls will deliver their verdict tonight. There's still time. Think, and go vote, dagnabit! And if you're still not convinced, if you're so self-centered that you haven't thought of watching the different reactions in Europe and the world concerning the ascent of the "no", if you've been so hard of hearing that you haven't picked up the ultraliberalist and anti-Europe crowd rooting for the "no", then simply go read this.
Yes, there are many in favor of "no", and they're not social-minded people.
They're in favor of a wholly unfettered capitalist world, unbridled competition and the destruction of our social and welfare system. They stand for everything we hate and reject. They stand for the unique, unrivalled power of the US over the world in every domain.
No, they're not people who want a better world with more equality and social justice.
Open your eyes.
Go vote.
There's no such thing as a perfect world.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Enjoy the Silence
Who said there’d be scribblings of mine up this blog every single day of every single week, huh? I don’t remember signing any contract with my blood, so all expectations or expostulations will have to be reported to your mirror, or to the moon, the stars or the clouds.
I guess I’m rather tired at this moment--all right, more like exhausted and in dire need of holidays far, far away from work. That, and the one subject that’s currently being given my undivided attention is the vote in France next Sunday. Yeah, the vote.
Eu-ro-pe-an Cons-ti-tu-tion, remember?
The French will vote yes or no on Sunday. In Germany, Shroder announces early elections for next Fall, elections in which the social-democrats look like they might have to yield power over to the christian-democrats. And THAT is yet another sign that screams at me there will NOT be a way to renegociate a better compromise for the constitution.
Or…
Well, let me be honest : of course if the result of the polls is a no, and if enough countries reject the text, there will be new talks, and new negociations. And, yes, a new compromise will emerge. A better one.
But a better one for whom?
Facts: the current compromise was reached when the EU was made of 15 countries, most of those with social-democrats in power. If a new compromise must be reached, it will have to be done between 25 countries, 10 of whom belong to the newly integrated countries. Countries governed by people who believe in the lawless rule of ultra-liberal economy. And, to crown it all, in all likelihood, in case of new negociations, the Germany that would sit down at the negociations table would then be a CDU Germany, not a SPD-Grune Germany.
So, be honest. Use your brain, and tell me: what are the odds of getting these countries to agree on a text with a much more social flavor? Zero, or close to zero.
So move your asses, people, and go vote yes. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to start raving over how great it is, or over the fact that it’s so easy to read and understand. It’s not. It’s far from perfect, it’s far from containing all the essential social principles and defenses that we need as a European people. It’s far from going far enough in uniting the policies of all our countries, but it contains steps in the right direction, however small.
Precious glimmers of hope.
Small, but primeval steps. We must have them if Europe is to survive, if Europe is to be given if only the beginnings of a chance to stand for what its people believe in, to stand for our rights, for everything our parents and grandparents fought for--then we must have this text. Now, before it’s too late. Before there’s nothing left to save.
Come on, comrades (yes, I get to say that, I'm a union representative, so I get to say it :P), a constitution where there's not a single mention of God or Christianity? We MUST have it! You can be sure that with Poland now an active member, and with our dear Panzer Pope fuming at the lack of G word in the constitution, any new text would include the G word. I don't know about you, but I know I don't want to see the smallest mention of a god or a religion in the European Constitution. Europe must remain a secular zone.
A God-free zone.
We're not the US where they use the G word at every opportunity they get, and are about to bar evolution from their biology courses in school. No. No obscurantism here, no religious zealots and religious dogma. No, thank you very much. We want to be miscreants, sinners, unbelievers, heathens, you name it. We want to remain god-free.
The Constitution’s text can be perfected. It can be reviewed, and the odds of managing that are way higher than the odds of managing to renegociate a more social text. I think that what enfuriates me the most when I listen to the people who support the “no of the left”, is their argument according to which it will be easy to renegociate a much more social text on the morrow of the victory of the “no”. It’s self-delusion at best, bullshit at worst. I can only hope the people who go around claiming that renegociations will do the trick are just sincere fools, and not lying bastards.
The French people will give their verdict on Sunday. I can only hope they will think long and hard before going to the polls. I can only hope they will focus on the actual question they’re being asked, and not on all the domestic issues that rightfully anger them.
We’ll see.
… Okay, I said I was tired, and here I wrote this long post on the European Constitution. Hm. Well, I’m still tired. I think I'm going to fling myself in the arms of Morpheus for a time. So, enjoy the silence.
Enjoy it while it lasts. :P
I guess I’m rather tired at this moment--all right, more like exhausted and in dire need of holidays far, far away from work. That, and the one subject that’s currently being given my undivided attention is the vote in France next Sunday. Yeah, the vote.
Eu-ro-pe-an Cons-ti-tu-tion, remember?
The French will vote yes or no on Sunday. In Germany, Shroder announces early elections for next Fall, elections in which the social-democrats look like they might have to yield power over to the christian-democrats. And THAT is yet another sign that screams at me there will NOT be a way to renegociate a better compromise for the constitution.
Or…
Well, let me be honest : of course if the result of the polls is a no, and if enough countries reject the text, there will be new talks, and new negociations. And, yes, a new compromise will emerge. A better one.
But a better one for whom?
Facts: the current compromise was reached when the EU was made of 15 countries, most of those with social-democrats in power. If a new compromise must be reached, it will have to be done between 25 countries, 10 of whom belong to the newly integrated countries. Countries governed by people who believe in the lawless rule of ultra-liberal economy. And, to crown it all, in all likelihood, in case of new negociations, the Germany that would sit down at the negociations table would then be a CDU Germany, not a SPD-Grune Germany.
So, be honest. Use your brain, and tell me: what are the odds of getting these countries to agree on a text with a much more social flavor? Zero, or close to zero.
So move your asses, people, and go vote yes. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to start raving over how great it is, or over the fact that it’s so easy to read and understand. It’s not. It’s far from perfect, it’s far from containing all the essential social principles and defenses that we need as a European people. It’s far from going far enough in uniting the policies of all our countries, but it contains steps in the right direction, however small.
Precious glimmers of hope.
Small, but primeval steps. We must have them if Europe is to survive, if Europe is to be given if only the beginnings of a chance to stand for what its people believe in, to stand for our rights, for everything our parents and grandparents fought for--then we must have this text. Now, before it’s too late. Before there’s nothing left to save.
Come on, comrades (yes, I get to say that, I'm a union representative, so I get to say it :P), a constitution where there's not a single mention of God or Christianity? We MUST have it! You can be sure that with Poland now an active member, and with our dear Panzer Pope fuming at the lack of G word in the constitution, any new text would include the G word. I don't know about you, but I know I don't want to see the smallest mention of a god or a religion in the European Constitution. Europe must remain a secular zone.
A God-free zone.
We're not the US where they use the G word at every opportunity they get, and are about to bar evolution from their biology courses in school. No. No obscurantism here, no religious zealots and religious dogma. No, thank you very much. We want to be miscreants, sinners, unbelievers, heathens, you name it. We want to remain god-free.
The Constitution’s text can be perfected. It can be reviewed, and the odds of managing that are way higher than the odds of managing to renegociate a more social text. I think that what enfuriates me the most when I listen to the people who support the “no of the left”, is their argument according to which it will be easy to renegociate a much more social text on the morrow of the victory of the “no”. It’s self-delusion at best, bullshit at worst. I can only hope the people who go around claiming that renegociations will do the trick are just sincere fools, and not lying bastards.
The French people will give their verdict on Sunday. I can only hope they will think long and hard before going to the polls. I can only hope they will focus on the actual question they’re being asked, and not on all the domestic issues that rightfully anger them.
We’ll see.
… Okay, I said I was tired, and here I wrote this long post on the European Constitution. Hm. Well, I’m still tired. I think I'm going to fling myself in the arms of Morpheus for a time. So, enjoy the silence.
Enjoy it while it lasts. :P
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Sigh...
It’s grey. All around. Grey and cold.
This time of the year is traditionnally known as the “Saints of Ice”, and it’s always cold like this. It doesn’t have to be rainy and windy, though. But it is. Maybe to spite this little portion of the world, or just maybe because this is Belgium and that Belgian weather is ruled by the whims of clouds. It doesn’t help one to feel enthusiastic about things.
Say, I’m not even happy that it’s likely Belgium will survive this day and that it looks like we won’t have to go to the polls before summer. The government may well not fall upon its failure to resolve the ridiculous issue of BHV (no, this isn’t the name of a supermarket company, it’s the nickname of the Brussels-Hal-Vilvoorde issue). I think the far right, fascist and racist party called Vlaam Belang (by the way, nice usurpating of a concept which means “Flemish Interests”, call your party like that, and the unfortunately-not-giffted-with-the-minimums-of-a-brain-who-are-more-numerous-than-you-might-think will automatically listen when you start spewing your hatred and your racism and your lies, just because they hear the magic words) must be fuming. Not to mention the CD&V, our so niiiiiice, not greedy, not go-getting AT ALL political party. They must be ready to throw a fit by now.
I don’t know what I despise most: a racist, far right, fascist, nazi-nostalgic party, or a so-called “democratic” and “christian” party that keeps barking as loud as it can, cavorting behind the fascists and racists in order to win more votes and come back to power.
I so enjoy watching these greedy bastards playing with people’s kinder and nicer instincts. Dangling phony messages of doom, threat, unfairness--maybe I should be fair as well, and admit that I also love the people ready to listen to whatever low-level propaganda and follow blindly whoever howls the loudest--and suptters the most, don’t we all love the traces of drool trickling down the chin of a raving extremist?
Perhaps I should also mention my undying admiration for the Flemish media and the rest of the Flemish political parties, which have ALL the same, single voice, which ALL play and push on the button of "we're the Walloons' victims, they're so bad people, they steal from us, and they refuse to assimilate and speak our language." The media, especially, deserve all the praise I'm capable to give for their precious help they're giving to the far-right, racist and facist party with their obsessive need to dangle those issues in front of the public's nose--with their turning insignificant issues into matters of state while the true social and economical problems aren't addressed. It's so easy, so rewarding to contribute to the rise of the far-right. I hope they're all proud. I hope they'll still be proud on the day when a fascist, racist and nazi nostalgic party is in power on the Flemish side. I know I'll be asking for political asylum in France on that day.
One day, maybe, I’ll gather enough energy to review the whys and wherefores of the Flemsih obsessions and fantasies toward the French-speaking part of the country. Maybe I’ll take the time to explain calmly that, while the Flemish people were suffering under the whip of the rich, French-speaking bourgeoisie (we’re talking 19th and early 20th century here), the Walloon people (who at the time were NOT speaking French but the various Walloon dialects, depending on the region where they lived), were ALSO suffering under the whip of a rich, French-speaking bourgeoisie.
Will the Flemish part of Belgium one day realize that its own bourgeoisie used the French language as a way of social distinction between classes, just as it was the case on the Walloon side, and that if the Flemish children of those days were forced to speak French, the ones forcing them to do so were THEIR OWN. Not the Walloon people. As the whims of history go, the Walloon dialects all but disappeared, and French became the unique tongue spoken here.
If I could speak candidly to a Flemish politic or journalist, I would tell him this: really, people, instead of blaming all the suffering of the times, all the feelings of inferiority of the times, the arrogance of the bourgeoisie of the times on the French language, why don’t you get real, get yourselves a brain, think, and place the blame where it should be: on the shoulders of your OWN bourgeoisie, and leave this country alone? And, while you’re at it, please, keep your obsessive needs for revenge for your own companies and bourgeoisie, for your parents and grandparents who punished you and bawled out on you.
The future looks dreary enough as it is, we don’t need to have far-right nationalists and fascists in power to add to the fun.
This time of the year is traditionnally known as the “Saints of Ice”, and it’s always cold like this. It doesn’t have to be rainy and windy, though. But it is. Maybe to spite this little portion of the world, or just maybe because this is Belgium and that Belgian weather is ruled by the whims of clouds. It doesn’t help one to feel enthusiastic about things.
Say, I’m not even happy that it’s likely Belgium will survive this day and that it looks like we won’t have to go to the polls before summer. The government may well not fall upon its failure to resolve the ridiculous issue of BHV (no, this isn’t the name of a supermarket company, it’s the nickname of the Brussels-Hal-Vilvoorde issue). I think the far right, fascist and racist party called Vlaam Belang (by the way, nice usurpating of a concept which means “Flemish Interests”, call your party like that, and the unfortunately-not-giffted-with-the-minimums-of-a-brain-who-are-more-numerous-than-you-might-think will automatically listen when you start spewing your hatred and your racism and your lies, just because they hear the magic words) must be fuming. Not to mention the CD&V, our so niiiiiice, not greedy, not go-getting AT ALL political party. They must be ready to throw a fit by now.
I don’t know what I despise most: a racist, far right, fascist, nazi-nostalgic party, or a so-called “democratic” and “christian” party that keeps barking as loud as it can, cavorting behind the fascists and racists in order to win more votes and come back to power.
I so enjoy watching these greedy bastards playing with people’s kinder and nicer instincts. Dangling phony messages of doom, threat, unfairness--maybe I should be fair as well, and admit that I also love the people ready to listen to whatever low-level propaganda and follow blindly whoever howls the loudest--and suptters the most, don’t we all love the traces of drool trickling down the chin of a raving extremist?
Perhaps I should also mention my undying admiration for the Flemish media and the rest of the Flemish political parties, which have ALL the same, single voice, which ALL play and push on the button of "we're the Walloons' victims, they're so bad people, they steal from us, and they refuse to assimilate and speak our language." The media, especially, deserve all the praise I'm capable to give for their precious help they're giving to the far-right, racist and facist party with their obsessive need to dangle those issues in front of the public's nose--with their turning insignificant issues into matters of state while the true social and economical problems aren't addressed. It's so easy, so rewarding to contribute to the rise of the far-right. I hope they're all proud. I hope they'll still be proud on the day when a fascist, racist and nazi nostalgic party is in power on the Flemish side. I know I'll be asking for political asylum in France on that day.
One day, maybe, I’ll gather enough energy to review the whys and wherefores of the Flemsih obsessions and fantasies toward the French-speaking part of the country. Maybe I’ll take the time to explain calmly that, while the Flemish people were suffering under the whip of the rich, French-speaking bourgeoisie (we’re talking 19th and early 20th century here), the Walloon people (who at the time were NOT speaking French but the various Walloon dialects, depending on the region where they lived), were ALSO suffering under the whip of a rich, French-speaking bourgeoisie.
Will the Flemish part of Belgium one day realize that its own bourgeoisie used the French language as a way of social distinction between classes, just as it was the case on the Walloon side, and that if the Flemish children of those days were forced to speak French, the ones forcing them to do so were THEIR OWN. Not the Walloon people. As the whims of history go, the Walloon dialects all but disappeared, and French became the unique tongue spoken here.
If I could speak candidly to a Flemish politic or journalist, I would tell him this: really, people, instead of blaming all the suffering of the times, all the feelings of inferiority of the times, the arrogance of the bourgeoisie of the times on the French language, why don’t you get real, get yourselves a brain, think, and place the blame where it should be: on the shoulders of your OWN bourgeoisie, and leave this country alone? And, while you’re at it, please, keep your obsessive needs for revenge for your own companies and bourgeoisie, for your parents and grandparents who punished you and bawled out on you.
The future looks dreary enough as it is, we don’t need to have far-right nationalists and fascists in power to add to the fun.
Friday, May 06, 2005
"Our Economy is the Healthiest." Yeah. So What?
Originally, I wanted to title this post "Shouganai ne", Japanese for "it can't be helped". I also considered "Sigh" and "Yawn" to emphasize the fact that the elections result in the UK are no surprise to me, even if I hoped things would turn out in another fashion--if I hoped that people might open their eyes and see beyond the narrow path that their field of vision is reduced to. But then, watching a debate on TV, I was once more forced to hear that absurd sentence: "and of course one of the strong points of his campaign was centered on the fact that, thanks to his governing the country, its economy is the healthiest, the strongest."
Oh, great.
Companies are well and good, thriving even. That's so nice to hear.
Tell me, how are the real, normal, common people's lives affected by this healthy economy? How have their lives become better?
They have not?
Oh, that's so bad.
How have their jobs become more stable, more secure? How has it become more difficult to fire people? How have those who've lost their jobs been insured that they will keep getting help until they can find a job THAT MATCHES THEIR RESUME and not whatever trash thing that gets tossed their way?
They have not?
Well, really, that's too bad.
How have people's wages and work conditions grown?
Much worse?
Really, really, that's too bad.
How about the essential pillars of society that are Education and Health Care?
They're the worst around? Worse than in all those countries that are belittled because their economic growth is weak, much weaker than the UK's?
Oh, that's so bad.
This is for Mr Blair and all the believers in the almighty supremacy of economy: your mantras and dogmas are no good. Your economy is no good, serves no purpose if people are forgotten and sacrificed on its altar. Economy is useless and worthless when all it does is strengthen the differences between classes.
When it serves only to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
When people are made to serve it.
When people are dumped and are marked with the label of "drifters".
When men and women are trashed like garbage, flushed out like excrements by a society that rejects them once they've ceased to be useful to it.
So, a healthy economy? Yeah. Sure.
Remind me again, what does it matter to me?
Oh, great.
Companies are well and good, thriving even. That's so nice to hear.
Tell me, how are the real, normal, common people's lives affected by this healthy economy? How have their lives become better?
They have not?
Oh, that's so bad.
How have their jobs become more stable, more secure? How has it become more difficult to fire people? How have those who've lost their jobs been insured that they will keep getting help until they can find a job THAT MATCHES THEIR RESUME and not whatever trash thing that gets tossed their way?
They have not?
Well, really, that's too bad.
How have people's wages and work conditions grown?
Much worse?
Really, really, that's too bad.
How about the essential pillars of society that are Education and Health Care?
They're the worst around? Worse than in all those countries that are belittled because their economic growth is weak, much weaker than the UK's?
Oh, that's so bad.
This is for Mr Blair and all the believers in the almighty supremacy of economy: your mantras and dogmas are no good. Your economy is no good, serves no purpose if people are forgotten and sacrificed on its altar. Economy is useless and worthless when all it does is strengthen the differences between classes.
When it serves only to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
When people are made to serve it.
When people are dumped and are marked with the label of "drifters".
When men and women are trashed like garbage, flushed out like excrements by a society that rejects them once they've ceased to be useful to it.
So, a healthy economy? Yeah. Sure.
Remind me again, what does it matter to me?
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Go, LibDems! Go!
On Thursday, citizens from all over the UK will go to the polls. I hope they kick Tony Blair’s ass all the way to the Shetland Islands and beyond.
As luck would have it, Thursday is a legal day-off--wait, it’s a day-off here, not in the UK. Ah, that means that getting as many people as possible to take the time to go to the polls and do their duty won’t be as easy as I had first thought. Can anyone tell me why those coutnries that keep bragging that they’re the greatest democracies in the world keep maintaining a system in which voting isn’t compulsory, and in which they organise their election day on a weekday? How can you exepct a big voters' turn-out when you tell people to go vote on a day when they’re supposed to be working, and when their boss isn’t gonna give them the day off or the morning off or two hours off to do it? And just how can you honestly pretend your democracy is the best when it’s based on a system as crappy as that, pray tell?
Ah well, I’m not going to continue along those lines, otherwise this post is going to be miles long, and I’m gonna be whining for hours on end (not to mention make myself a lot of enemies).
The point of this post, as its title so subtly indicates, is to get anyone of British nationality who’d stumble upon it to get themselves moving and voting Liberal Democrat.
Yes!
You can do it, people! There's a life outside of Labour and the Conservatives! There's more to the political spectrum! The Liberal-Democrats exist, they’re not demons out of limbo--at least they weren't last time I checked (but then, maybe I am a demon out of limbo, and maybe I'm also hell incarnate).
LibDems are the one, real altervnative to dear old lying Tony.
And, once again, yes, you may vote for them. Don’t worry, it’s not dirty, you won’t be sent off into hell once you get out of the polling station. If enough of the british people vote for the Liberal-Democrats, then they will wield enough power to be a major influence, they might even enter a majority and then have a say in decisions. Please, enough with this stupid reflex of thinking there are only two parties. It’s not so.
Government coalitions WORK.
They truly do. Take it form someone living in a country where no single political party has ever been in power alone, where coalitions are a habit as old as the country itself. No, government coalitions don't exist to herald the coming of the next apocalypse, I haven't spotted riders lately, not even around the Vatican. So you're safe. Go ahead! Nothing bad can happen, the Conservatives won't gain power. all that can happen is Labour beinf gorced to build a coalition with the Liberal-Democrats. And that, I swear, would bring a lot of interesting new things in the so well ordered British political life.
Vote for the Liberal-Democrats, and turn them into a power to be reckoned with.
Vote for the Liberal-Democrats, and take your destiny in your own hands, stop bowing to traditions and habits.
Vote for the Liberal-Democrats, and prove that things can change.
Prove that YOU can make things change.
As luck would have it, Thursday is a legal day-off--wait, it’s a day-off here, not in the UK. Ah, that means that getting as many people as possible to take the time to go to the polls and do their duty won’t be as easy as I had first thought. Can anyone tell me why those coutnries that keep bragging that they’re the greatest democracies in the world keep maintaining a system in which voting isn’t compulsory, and in which they organise their election day on a weekday? How can you exepct a big voters' turn-out when you tell people to go vote on a day when they’re supposed to be working, and when their boss isn’t gonna give them the day off or the morning off or two hours off to do it? And just how can you honestly pretend your democracy is the best when it’s based on a system as crappy as that, pray tell?
Ah well, I’m not going to continue along those lines, otherwise this post is going to be miles long, and I’m gonna be whining for hours on end (not to mention make myself a lot of enemies).
The point of this post, as its title so subtly indicates, is to get anyone of British nationality who’d stumble upon it to get themselves moving and voting Liberal Democrat.
Yes!
You can do it, people! There's a life outside of Labour and the Conservatives! There's more to the political spectrum! The Liberal-Democrats exist, they’re not demons out of limbo--at least they weren't last time I checked (but then, maybe I am a demon out of limbo, and maybe I'm also hell incarnate).
LibDems are the one, real altervnative to dear old lying Tony.
And, once again, yes, you may vote for them. Don’t worry, it’s not dirty, you won’t be sent off into hell once you get out of the polling station. If enough of the british people vote for the Liberal-Democrats, then they will wield enough power to be a major influence, they might even enter a majority and then have a say in decisions. Please, enough with this stupid reflex of thinking there are only two parties. It’s not so.
Government coalitions WORK.
They truly do. Take it form someone living in a country where no single political party has ever been in power alone, where coalitions are a habit as old as the country itself. No, government coalitions don't exist to herald the coming of the next apocalypse, I haven't spotted riders lately, not even around the Vatican. So you're safe. Go ahead! Nothing bad can happen, the Conservatives won't gain power. all that can happen is Labour beinf gorced to build a coalition with the Liberal-Democrats. And that, I swear, would bring a lot of interesting new things in the so well ordered British political life.
Vote for the Liberal-Democrats, and turn them into a power to be reckoned with.
Vote for the Liberal-Democrats, and take your destiny in your own hands, stop bowing to traditions and habits.
Vote for the Liberal-Democrats, and prove that things can change.
Prove that YOU can make things change.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Where Threads of Gold Shine in the Night
It's 20h50, and the phone starts ringing. I hate the phone, I truly do.
Spitting out a curse, I reluctantly go to pick up the fucking thing. In the privacy of my rather pissed-off mind, I wonder who has the gall to call me on a Sunday evening. Just as my dull, reflex welcome sentence fades, the sound of music registers in my mind.
Violin-like...bouzouki.
And people's voices.
They're singing.
Two thousand miles away, on a small island of the dodecannese, Easter is being celebrated in the village of Olymbos. The women have donned their most beautiful, colorful dresses--ancient clothes that belong to a centuries-old tradition. Above the dresses and the aprons, they wear coins of pure gold, threaded and woven with the costumes' delicate fabrics.
Night has fallen there.
The moon is glittering over the sea, its white light challenged by the happy fires of a small village set atop the cliff.
Challenged by the warmth of voices singing.
Challenged by glimmers of gold as women dance in the village's central tavern.
It's dad on the phone, and he remains silent, allowing me to listen to the faraway songs and music for a few, infinitely precious moments--allowing me to share the warmth and the celebration, all the way on the other side of Europe. It's magic, a priceless gift.
I listen.
I feel the vibrations of voices and music.
I close my eyes.
I can see the tavern, I remember it from my visit, all those years ago.
I can see the musicians and the dancers at the center of the taproom.
I can see the walls and the windows, and the night outside.
I can see the wood and straw chairs.
The bouzouki resting on the men's thighs.
I'm happy.
It's moments like these that make living a wonderful thing. It's moments like these which warm your soul and allow you to regain strength to face tomorrow.
On a small island of the Dodecannese, they're celebrating Easter. The village's name is Olymbos. The island is Karpathos.
Thank you, Dad. Thank you, Mom. I love you.
In Greece, when a child is baptized, at the heart of the orthodox rite, his godmother presents him to the Four Winds and requests the protection of the Four Elements for her godson. It's Easter in Greece, in Karpathos, and the moon watches over the celebration in Olymbos.
Over the sky and below the Aegean Sea, the ancient gods are smiling.
Spitting out a curse, I reluctantly go to pick up the fucking thing. In the privacy of my rather pissed-off mind, I wonder who has the gall to call me on a Sunday evening. Just as my dull, reflex welcome sentence fades, the sound of music registers in my mind.
Violin-like...bouzouki.
And people's voices.
They're singing.
Two thousand miles away, on a small island of the dodecannese, Easter is being celebrated in the village of Olymbos. The women have donned their most beautiful, colorful dresses--ancient clothes that belong to a centuries-old tradition. Above the dresses and the aprons, they wear coins of pure gold, threaded and woven with the costumes' delicate fabrics.
Night has fallen there.
The moon is glittering over the sea, its white light challenged by the happy fires of a small village set atop the cliff.
Challenged by the warmth of voices singing.
Challenged by glimmers of gold as women dance in the village's central tavern.
It's dad on the phone, and he remains silent, allowing me to listen to the faraway songs and music for a few, infinitely precious moments--allowing me to share the warmth and the celebration, all the way on the other side of Europe. It's magic, a priceless gift.
I listen.
I feel the vibrations of voices and music.
I close my eyes.
I can see the tavern, I remember it from my visit, all those years ago.
I can see the musicians and the dancers at the center of the taproom.
I can see the walls and the windows, and the night outside.
I can see the wood and straw chairs.
The bouzouki resting on the men's thighs.
I'm happy.
It's moments like these that make living a wonderful thing. It's moments like these which warm your soul and allow you to regain strength to face tomorrow.
On a small island of the Dodecannese, they're celebrating Easter. The village's name is Olymbos. The island is Karpathos.
Thank you, Dad. Thank you, Mom. I love you.
In Greece, when a child is baptized, at the heart of the orthodox rite, his godmother presents him to the Four Winds and requests the protection of the Four Elements for her godson. It's Easter in Greece, in Karpathos, and the moon watches over the celebration in Olymbos.
Over the sky and below the Aegean Sea, the ancient gods are smiling.
Friday, April 29, 2005
All Good Things...
Yes, I'm a geek, reread my profile :P
And no, this isn't about TNG. It's about good old dark, angsty and beautiful, aka Angel The Breeding Mar^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hooding Hero.
All in all, it was a very nice and enjoyable series--except for season 4, which doesn't exist except as one of those nightmares that fades from your mind even as you get up from your bed in the morning. I expected feeling intense frustration upon reaching the end of the last episode, but I didn't experience that. The ending is, amazingly enough, coherent with the pronouncements made all along the series: the fight never ends. You cannot win, but you keep fighting, again and again, and nevermind the impossible odds. It couldn't end. There could be no victory and living happily everafter. So, the ending as it was suits me fine. As for the few peeves I might entertain toward the series, let me see...
(note for anyone who isn't done watching Angel season 5: you might want to skip the rest, unless you don't mind spoilers...)
Plot holes. Hello, plot holes! The whole series is strewn with them. An example? Oh, gladly! Meet Illyria, Season 5 archdemon, Old One, older than the Wolf, the Ram and the Hart ("they were small"), absolute power, overgod, and so on. Incarnates in a human shell too fragile for it, and lo, all it takes to contain it is some plastic pseudo sci-fi weapon developped in less than an episode by Wesley (not that we get to see him actually _working_ on the thing), who's not exactly an expert in the manufacturing of advanced weaponry... Urgh.
Connor. Ah, no, no Connor, doesn't exist. Impossible, remember. Why did they write Connor? Insufferable character, except for the few scenes he has in season 5, when he's finally gotten a life (litterally).
Season 4--wait, what season? Ah, the thing that could have been written and directed by a 5 year-old kid? The thing during which all the actors suddenly regressed to be really, _really_ bad? Three things save season 4 from the abyss and allow it to hang by a tiny corner of paper on the edge of that veeeeery high cliff: Wesley, Lilah, and the last episode.
Lindsey. Come on, Lindsey is such a fantastic character, why, oh why, did the writers have to bring him back for another round in season 5? Why was it necessary to change that nuanced, grey character into your average middle-level Bad Guy (tm)? How could they throw to the wolves such a superb character? Anyone but Lindsey! Leave Lindsey alone! (perhaps I should create a society for the preservation of Lindseys...)
The fabulous depth and sincerity shining (yep, shine. Shine, shine!) in the so-called romances of our resident dark-and-beautiful-and-tormented Angel such as they're masterfully blundered during season 5--on the other hand, no. Let's not go there, or I will start saying really unflattering things for whoever was in charge of managing that. One word: ludicrous.
Angel killing off Drogyn and feeding from him...okay, I can work with that, but dagnabit, CHARACTER COHERENCE, people! It takes roughly 10 seconds of footing to justify it, a word whispered in an ear. But, nothing. And as a result we get Angel being as un-Angel as you can get. Really, was it too much to ask to get Drogyn to know and accept the reason why he was about to die? With such a scene, all is well. Without it, Angel just goes over to the dark side--not to fool his enemies as is stated in the season, for real. It doesn't fit with the character, it's just plain stupid.
Other than that, as stated before, Angel is a really fine entertainment series. If you don't get sick when you spot plot holes (no matter how huge they can be), if you don't mind the occasional deus ex machina, then you get truly nicely done and developped characters.
And you get Spike. Yes! Spike! More Spike is always good! But then, Spike, simply by being Spike, would turn any series into a worldwide success (and I won't even try claiming a semblance of objectivity here :P)
Wesley is definitely one of the best characters I've ever seen in a TV series, along with Lorne and Lilah. Gunn and Fred come next. Angel is Angel, too much of a cliche and a walking stereotype to be really good, in spite of valiant attempt of gifting (or cursing) the character with a sense of humor. I would mention Andrew, but then he gets so few scenes and is such a Buffy character that I can't decently list him here--wait, isn't that what I just did?
And kudos to Joss Whedon for coming up with the Wolf, the Ram and the Hart. Must be one of the very best depictions of evil I've ever seen or read about.
Before I finish this mind dump on Angel, one last note regarding coincidences: discounting season 5 (which can't compete since it has Spike throughout, and that would be unfair when comparing with seasons which have much less--and sometimes none--of him), my favorite season in Angel is season 2, which matches Buffy season 5, my favorite Buffy season. Chances, chances.
Now, Mr. Whedon, why don't you start working on something that doesn't involve catering to the nostalgics of the American Founding Fathers and the Wild West Pioneers, and get back to something that's also palatable for the rest of the world? I happen to believe you're a man of true talent, and I'd really love to get more of what your mind can create :P
And no, this isn't about TNG. It's about good old dark, angsty and beautiful, aka Angel The Breeding Mar^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hooding Hero.
All in all, it was a very nice and enjoyable series--except for season 4, which doesn't exist except as one of those nightmares that fades from your mind even as you get up from your bed in the morning. I expected feeling intense frustration upon reaching the end of the last episode, but I didn't experience that. The ending is, amazingly enough, coherent with the pronouncements made all along the series: the fight never ends. You cannot win, but you keep fighting, again and again, and nevermind the impossible odds. It couldn't end. There could be no victory and living happily everafter. So, the ending as it was suits me fine. As for the few peeves I might entertain toward the series, let me see...
(note for anyone who isn't done watching Angel season 5: you might want to skip the rest, unless you don't mind spoilers...)
Plot holes. Hello, plot holes! The whole series is strewn with them. An example? Oh, gladly! Meet Illyria, Season 5 archdemon, Old One, older than the Wolf, the Ram and the Hart ("they were small"), absolute power, overgod, and so on. Incarnates in a human shell too fragile for it, and lo, all it takes to contain it is some plastic pseudo sci-fi weapon developped in less than an episode by Wesley (not that we get to see him actually _working_ on the thing), who's not exactly an expert in the manufacturing of advanced weaponry... Urgh.
Connor. Ah, no, no Connor, doesn't exist. Impossible, remember. Why did they write Connor? Insufferable character, except for the few scenes he has in season 5, when he's finally gotten a life (litterally).
Season 4--wait, what season? Ah, the thing that could have been written and directed by a 5 year-old kid? The thing during which all the actors suddenly regressed to be really, _really_ bad? Three things save season 4 from the abyss and allow it to hang by a tiny corner of paper on the edge of that veeeeery high cliff: Wesley, Lilah, and the last episode.
Lindsey. Come on, Lindsey is such a fantastic character, why, oh why, did the writers have to bring him back for another round in season 5? Why was it necessary to change that nuanced, grey character into your average middle-level Bad Guy (tm)? How could they throw to the wolves such a superb character? Anyone but Lindsey! Leave Lindsey alone! (perhaps I should create a society for the preservation of Lindseys...)
The fabulous depth and sincerity shining (yep, shine. Shine, shine!) in the so-called romances of our resident dark-and-beautiful-and-tormented Angel such as they're masterfully blundered during season 5--on the other hand, no. Let's not go there, or I will start saying really unflattering things for whoever was in charge of managing that. One word: ludicrous.
Angel killing off Drogyn and feeding from him...okay, I can work with that, but dagnabit, CHARACTER COHERENCE, people! It takes roughly 10 seconds of footing to justify it, a word whispered in an ear. But, nothing. And as a result we get Angel being as un-Angel as you can get. Really, was it too much to ask to get Drogyn to know and accept the reason why he was about to die? With such a scene, all is well. Without it, Angel just goes over to the dark side--not to fool his enemies as is stated in the season, for real. It doesn't fit with the character, it's just plain stupid.
Other than that, as stated before, Angel is a really fine entertainment series. If you don't get sick when you spot plot holes (no matter how huge they can be), if you don't mind the occasional deus ex machina, then you get truly nicely done and developped characters.
And you get Spike. Yes! Spike! More Spike is always good! But then, Spike, simply by being Spike, would turn any series into a worldwide success (and I won't even try claiming a semblance of objectivity here :P)
Wesley is definitely one of the best characters I've ever seen in a TV series, along with Lorne and Lilah. Gunn and Fred come next. Angel is Angel, too much of a cliche and a walking stereotype to be really good, in spite of valiant attempt of gifting (or cursing) the character with a sense of humor. I would mention Andrew, but then he gets so few scenes and is such a Buffy character that I can't decently list him here--wait, isn't that what I just did?
And kudos to Joss Whedon for coming up with the Wolf, the Ram and the Hart. Must be one of the very best depictions of evil I've ever seen or read about.
Before I finish this mind dump on Angel, one last note regarding coincidences: discounting season 5 (which can't compete since it has Spike throughout, and that would be unfair when comparing with seasons which have much less--and sometimes none--of him), my favorite season in Angel is season 2, which matches Buffy season 5, my favorite Buffy season. Chances, chances.
Now, Mr. Whedon, why don't you start working on something that doesn't involve catering to the nostalgics of the American Founding Fathers and the Wild West Pioneers, and get back to something that's also palatable for the rest of the world? I happen to believe you're a man of true talent, and I'd really love to get more of what your mind can create :P
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Of Albatroses and Threads
It flies.
It's big, it's white and blue, it has lots and lots of wheels. It has impossibly long wings. It's so huge and heavy it shouldn't be able to lift from the ground, and yet there's a strange feeling of grace to it. A feeling of reverence as you watch it win free from the runway's asphalt. I watch the pictures and, taking the measure of the quiet awe rising inside me, I find I'm happy there's still so much left of the child within.
The Airbus A380 is a wonderful success, and never mind analysts--astonishingly enough all of them from the US, and all of them speaking only now, when the maiden flight is taking place (no, Boeing doesn't look like the grumpy stepmother frustrated at how well her daughter in law is doing in the world)--claiming the very existence of the A380 is all a strategy mistake on Airbus' part.
What's even better, is that Airbus is European. It's a union of the knowledge, investment, faith and expertise of several countries which made it possible. I find comfort in that fact. Yes, Europe can build things. Beautiful things. I can only hope the range of what Europe can build will expand with time (this is a subtle hint that I'm in favor of the project for a European Constitution, by the way :P)
Threads are another matter, and much less satisfying. China is now free to export fabrics into Europe without any limitation. The consequences of that change have been quick, and deadly: companies are closing everywhere. Fabrics are being imported into Europe at a price impossible to beat--oh, right, let me be fair in this matter: those prices would be beatable, if only European employees accepted to work for wages that wouldn't allow them to even _EAT_ during the month.
Ever heard of social dumping?
I hate the globalization of economy. It serves a single purpose: make the very rich even richer, and never mind the less pleasant consequences of making the poor poorer and the destruction of the middle class. Economy and its "laws" should _SERVE_ humanity, not the other way around. We are no ants. We are people, and we have the most absolute right to decent work conditions, wages and decent lives. This is the first principle those fucking laws of economy should bow to--not the ever increasing short term profit margin of stock holders. Ever noticed how communism and neo-liberalism have so much in common? How both work on the hypothesis that the people who work are just there to serve the system, just tools, just ants?
We're going nowhere with the current model, and we're going there fast. I think about how my grandparents and great-grandparents fought for their social rights, and I feel like vomiting when I listen to people telling us on TV or everywhere that there's only one way: globalization of economy, rule of economy. In a single generation, we're going to destroy what it took centuries to gain. Because we're too selfish, too blind, too bored, too stupid or a bit of all the above to care, to move and to stand up for what was achieved before us. We don't care about politics. We despise politicians. We refuse to move our sorry asses to vote at elections. We bow to the will of lying bastards. We listen to their honeyed words. We give up. We refuse to burden ourselves with taking our fates into our own hands. We can't be bothered, you know. After all, there's something on TV right now, that's way more important--not to mention agonizing over the latest fashion trend.
Yay for us.
But then, who knows? Maybe we'll sink down the abyss of poverty and misery so fast that we'll find ourselves forced to move, to rise and to fight for our rights. Maybe there's hope. Maybe we can one day convince those who win millions of Euros a month to give up a ten of a thousandth of what they win by just exchanging virtual hords of money. Maybe we can convince them to do this greatest of sacrifices for the stability of our world, so that we can remain good consumers who'll still have the means to buy the products they sell, and so allow them to remain the grotesquely rich people they are...
Maybe one day we can denounce the dictates of the allmighty god of Economy.
Maybe someday we can even stop bowing to economical dogma.
Mr. Tobin, where are you?
It's big, it's white and blue, it has lots and lots of wheels. It has impossibly long wings. It's so huge and heavy it shouldn't be able to lift from the ground, and yet there's a strange feeling of grace to it. A feeling of reverence as you watch it win free from the runway's asphalt. I watch the pictures and, taking the measure of the quiet awe rising inside me, I find I'm happy there's still so much left of the child within.
The Airbus A380 is a wonderful success, and never mind analysts--astonishingly enough all of them from the US, and all of them speaking only now, when the maiden flight is taking place (no, Boeing doesn't look like the grumpy stepmother frustrated at how well her daughter in law is doing in the world)--claiming the very existence of the A380 is all a strategy mistake on Airbus' part.
What's even better, is that Airbus is European. It's a union of the knowledge, investment, faith and expertise of several countries which made it possible. I find comfort in that fact. Yes, Europe can build things. Beautiful things. I can only hope the range of what Europe can build will expand with time (this is a subtle hint that I'm in favor of the project for a European Constitution, by the way :P)
Threads are another matter, and much less satisfying. China is now free to export fabrics into Europe without any limitation. The consequences of that change have been quick, and deadly: companies are closing everywhere. Fabrics are being imported into Europe at a price impossible to beat--oh, right, let me be fair in this matter: those prices would be beatable, if only European employees accepted to work for wages that wouldn't allow them to even _EAT_ during the month.
Ever heard of social dumping?
I hate the globalization of economy. It serves a single purpose: make the very rich even richer, and never mind the less pleasant consequences of making the poor poorer and the destruction of the middle class. Economy and its "laws" should _SERVE_ humanity, not the other way around. We are no ants. We are people, and we have the most absolute right to decent work conditions, wages and decent lives. This is the first principle those fucking laws of economy should bow to--not the ever increasing short term profit margin of stock holders. Ever noticed how communism and neo-liberalism have so much in common? How both work on the hypothesis that the people who work are just there to serve the system, just tools, just ants?
We're going nowhere with the current model, and we're going there fast. I think about how my grandparents and great-grandparents fought for their social rights, and I feel like vomiting when I listen to people telling us on TV or everywhere that there's only one way: globalization of economy, rule of economy. In a single generation, we're going to destroy what it took centuries to gain. Because we're too selfish, too blind, too bored, too stupid or a bit of all the above to care, to move and to stand up for what was achieved before us. We don't care about politics. We despise politicians. We refuse to move our sorry asses to vote at elections. We bow to the will of lying bastards. We listen to their honeyed words. We give up. We refuse to burden ourselves with taking our fates into our own hands. We can't be bothered, you know. After all, there's something on TV right now, that's way more important--not to mention agonizing over the latest fashion trend.
Yay for us.
But then, who knows? Maybe we'll sink down the abyss of poverty and misery so fast that we'll find ourselves forced to move, to rise and to fight for our rights. Maybe there's hope. Maybe we can one day convince those who win millions of Euros a month to give up a ten of a thousandth of what they win by just exchanging virtual hords of money. Maybe we can convince them to do this greatest of sacrifices for the stability of our world, so that we can remain good consumers who'll still have the means to buy the products they sell, and so allow them to remain the grotesquely rich people they are...
Maybe one day we can denounce the dictates of the allmighty god of Economy.
Maybe someday we can even stop bowing to economical dogma.
Mr. Tobin, where are you?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
But… Billions of Lives are at Stake !
Everyone, please remain calm. The situation is under control, we just need to sacrifice someone in order to save the world--or maybe even the universe if we're working with an ambitious scenario writer.
Just stop and think for a moment. How many times have you had to bear with that particular plot twist? Okay, stop counting. Too many.
It's not that I don't enjoy good character torturing, I do. I love nothing better than a genuine Cornelian dilemma which sends the characters agonizing over impossible choices--but.
Frankly, I've had enough of having to watch Winston Churchill's decision being revisited in every universe available (but with much sexier characters, true; so there might be some merit in that after all, hmmm...).
There's no choice, no question--not in my book anyway.
To sacrifice a life, no matter how many you save in return, simply invalidates the choice. Comparing the worth of lives versus life is absurd. Every life is unique, and precious beyond what words can describe. There's no calculating the worth of one and weighing it against the worth of the other, for a very simple reason : who are you (who is the hero) to decide such a thing? What places you above the others? Excuse me, are you some kind of god or goddess of old? Unless you just sprung out of a book, a game, a TV series, a movie or the imagination of someone else, that's not bloody likely. There's just one exception I can see, when the life you're willing to sacrifice is YOURS.
There.
Of course, I'm as human as the next girl, I kind of enjoy watching your dark and gorgeous character angsting over the fate of the world, and then whipping himself with guilt. Cross my heart. Still, I don't think I care for writers to overuse the theme, and reach the conclusion that, well, yes, it's painful, but if it's to save the [insert "world", "solar system", "galaxy", "universe", "dimension", "multiverse", etc.] then we'll be brave and do it and agonize lots thereafter. It's not an acceptable choice. You can have characters make it, but then there must be consequences--hell to pay sounds rather nice. A hero who can live with him/herself and live happily everafter once he's made such a choice isn't a hero. Sorry.
Why am I whining about such philosophical questions on a Tuesday afternoon? Boredom or lack of motivation at work might explain a part of it. Watching Angel season 5 might explain another part of it, if only in an indirect fashion. And, at least, you've learnt something about me that's not mentioned in my profile:
You know how I feel about Coventry.
Just stop and think for a moment. How many times have you had to bear with that particular plot twist? Okay, stop counting. Too many.
It's not that I don't enjoy good character torturing, I do. I love nothing better than a genuine Cornelian dilemma which sends the characters agonizing over impossible choices--but.
Frankly, I've had enough of having to watch Winston Churchill's decision being revisited in every universe available (but with much sexier characters, true; so there might be some merit in that after all, hmmm...).
There's no choice, no question--not in my book anyway.
To sacrifice a life, no matter how many you save in return, simply invalidates the choice. Comparing the worth of lives versus life is absurd. Every life is unique, and precious beyond what words can describe. There's no calculating the worth of one and weighing it against the worth of the other, for a very simple reason : who are you (who is the hero) to decide such a thing? What places you above the others? Excuse me, are you some kind of god or goddess of old? Unless you just sprung out of a book, a game, a TV series, a movie or the imagination of someone else, that's not bloody likely. There's just one exception I can see, when the life you're willing to sacrifice is YOURS.
There.
Of course, I'm as human as the next girl, I kind of enjoy watching your dark and gorgeous character angsting over the fate of the world, and then whipping himself with guilt. Cross my heart. Still, I don't think I care for writers to overuse the theme, and reach the conclusion that, well, yes, it's painful, but if it's to save the [insert "world", "solar system", "galaxy", "universe", "dimension", "multiverse", etc.] then we'll be brave and do it and agonize lots thereafter. It's not an acceptable choice. You can have characters make it, but then there must be consequences--hell to pay sounds rather nice. A hero who can live with him/herself and live happily everafter once he's made such a choice isn't a hero. Sorry.
Why am I whining about such philosophical questions on a Tuesday afternoon? Boredom or lack of motivation at work might explain a part of it. Watching Angel season 5 might explain another part of it, if only in an indirect fashion. And, at least, you've learnt something about me that's not mentioned in my profile:
You know how I feel about Coventry.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Red Lights Flashing Everywhere @_@
Rain rhymes with pain.
Don't mistake me, I kind of like the rain. I like its song, I like the feeling of the raindrops splashing over me in summer when it's been too hot and stuffy for my taste, but rain makes driving hell incarnate. Oh yes, it does, if you're a decent driver, and you know how to behave in the rain (or when it snows for that matter). Rain means a myriad red dots flashing before you, when the freeway abruptly becomes clogged by an accumulation of poor, frightened drivers who'd be far better off if they didn't have a driving license (most of whom shouldn't have one in the first place--but then what would happen to the car industry, huh?). Of course, there wouldn't be many people allowed to drive, and that would force the state to develop other means of transportation like the train or the bus, but that is another subject for another day.
As it is, I'll just keep watching the rain fall, and valiantly endeavour to be patient when the car before me brakes violently just upon reaching a truck's level. I will try, but, as with everything, no promises.
Oh, and, advice of the day: never, EVER buy plane tickets online. Why, you ask?
Because if you do, when the airline you chose goes bankrupt, then you're done for. No refund for your tickets, and well, good luck trying to book another ticket at an affordable price. Whereas, when you go through a travel agency, the nice, kind people of the agency will take care of everything. They will book you another flight, they will simply ask the price difference, if any, and they will shoulder all the annoyances tied to getting a refund for the now worthless tickets.
No, this doesn't happen only to fictional characters. It just happened to me today, when I got home from a long, hard day at work and a drive back cursed with hords of drivers terrified by the rain pouring down from the sky.
I swear.
And now, for a good, long soak with a manga to read.
Don't mistake me, I kind of like the rain. I like its song, I like the feeling of the raindrops splashing over me in summer when it's been too hot and stuffy for my taste, but rain makes driving hell incarnate. Oh yes, it does, if you're a decent driver, and you know how to behave in the rain (or when it snows for that matter). Rain means a myriad red dots flashing before you, when the freeway abruptly becomes clogged by an accumulation of poor, frightened drivers who'd be far better off if they didn't have a driving license (most of whom shouldn't have one in the first place--but then what would happen to the car industry, huh?). Of course, there wouldn't be many people allowed to drive, and that would force the state to develop other means of transportation like the train or the bus, but that is another subject for another day.
As it is, I'll just keep watching the rain fall, and valiantly endeavour to be patient when the car before me brakes violently just upon reaching a truck's level. I will try, but, as with everything, no promises.
Oh, and, advice of the day: never, EVER buy plane tickets online. Why, you ask?
Because if you do, when the airline you chose goes bankrupt, then you're done for. No refund for your tickets, and well, good luck trying to book another ticket at an affordable price. Whereas, when you go through a travel agency, the nice, kind people of the agency will take care of everything. They will book you another flight, they will simply ask the price difference, if any, and they will shoulder all the annoyances tied to getting a refund for the now worthless tickets.
No, this doesn't happen only to fictional characters. It just happened to me today, when I got home from a long, hard day at work and a drive back cursed with hords of drivers terrified by the rain pouring down from the sky.
I swear.
And now, for a good, long soak with a manga to read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)