The Salon II

Israel as Apartheid South Africa?

2009-04-28T10:24:00.000-07:00

So, we all saw the drama of the last Durban II conference in Geneva, because some countries wanted to cast Israel as a racist, Apartheid-generating state. Those statements were excessive for sure, but not entirely without basis. I was therefore pleasantly surprised to read this piece from Tony Karon that I recommend to you:

Rootless Cosmopolitan - By Tony Karon:

"In a remarkable interview last November, the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert cautioned that unless it could achieve a two-state solution quickly, Israel would “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished”. The reason, he said, was that Israel would be internationally isolated. “The Jewish organisations, which are our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.”"

Starsky & Hutch, Sarkozy & Bush?

2007-12-30T14:59:00.000-08:00

(written in October 2007, x-posted on African in America)

There has been much talk around the MSM and the blogs, especially the francophone ones, about the new relationship between France and the United States, since the election of President Nicolas Sarkozy in France. Only last weekend, here in the US, several talk shows and Sunday forums continued to comment on this new affinity between the leaders of the two countries. From Bill Maher, to the France 2 journal (on PBS), to Chris Matthews on his show, to Wolf Blitzer on Late Edition – his guest was “French doctor” and French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner – all marveled and/or sneered at the apparent 180 turn of France, and the – really unfortunate – apparent similarities between the policy and ideology positions between the two. I will therefore not spend too much time going over this again (some may argue I already have).

I must however note that there is one particular policy-setting method, long-mastered in the US, which Sarkozy seems to have borrowed, and implemented dexterously from Bush: I call it “bill packing”. Sarkozy is trying to overhaul the immigration policies of the mighty French Republic, land of welcome… well not so much anymore. In fact Sarkozy has been adamant it seems, to rethink the whole concept of immigration in France. We’ll talk about the oddness of his policy another time. But on this particular legislation, Sarkozy has proposed a total package, making it extremely hard, even for those opposed to him, to object to the law altogether. He has packed the bill with elements that pander to his far-right/center-right base – like the requirement of DNA testing to prove the paternity of the children that accompany immigrants, while also attempting to pander the immigrant rights groups, by including a measure to – this is a first in the history of France – create statistics on the ethnic/racial diversity of France. I was watching a program called “Arret sur Info” (“Pause on the News”), on 3A TeleSud, the French/African channel dedicated to Africa and the French-Caribbean, and the topic was this new legislation; the activists opposing DNA testing – like the representative of CRAN – were contrived in their remarks, because they had to be extremely careful to only reject those specific amendments, while the person defending the bill – Christophe Nana, a Frenchman of Cameroonian origin – had the easier task of simply pointing out all the positives, and the irrefutable leaps forward, that are ALSO included in the bill. Add to bill packing a majority in Parliament, the appointment of the two or three first ethnic minority cabinet members, and you have a recipe for near absolute rule by an arrogant and self-important man, who seems adamant to transform France into the US-redux. This man’s fascination with the US reminds me that the French have never really gotten over their Napoleon “grandeur” complex, and that Sarkozy is simply the latest form of that.

Do not get me wrong: Ségolène Royal would not have been much better. She is also self-important. The difference, however, is that she supports other issues, that include a reduction in the powers of the all powerful French “King-President” – which, one might argue, is not such a bad thing. But Royal would have imposed her vision in much the same way as Sarkozy, should she have had the same majority in Parliament. It seems to be the new attitude in this generation of political elites in France: I am right, I know that I am right, you’re wrong, we’ll do it my way, and if I can help it, I won’t give you any viable avenue to even attempt to prove me wrong, before I do it my way. Napoleon tried that, and we know what happened to him. Bush is still feeling the effects of that. I don’t know why Sarkozy would want to follow such dismal beacons…

I wonder…

This is why I miss John Paul II

2006-09-14T12:12:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Europe | Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger: "Muslim religious leaders have accused Pope Benedict XVI of quoting anti-Islamic remarks during a speech at a German university this week.

Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only 'evil and inhuman' things.

A senior Pakistani Islamic scholar, Javed Ahmed Gamdi, said jihad was not about spreading Islam with the sword.

Turkey's top religious official asked for an apology for the 'hostile' words.

In Indian-administered Kashmir, police seized copies of newspapers which reported the Pope's comments to prevent any tension.

A Vatican spokesman, Father Frederico Lombardi, said he did not believe the Pope's comments were meant as a harsh criticism of Islam."

From the blogosphere...

2006-08-15T22:47:00.000-07:00

A short, simple and honest piece on present day imperialism:

blog.myspace.com/tcooo:

"With the United States and Britain running Iraq and Afghanistan; while anxiously waiting for Fidel Castro to die so they can meddle in Cubas business, I would say imperialism is alive and well. My main concern is not where Britain and the United States are currently exerting their powers, but rather where they will go next. I remember in Bushs first presidential run, in a debate against Al Gore, he was asked what would he do different from what Bill Clinton did. His reply was that he wouldnt have send the troops to Haiti (In 2004 Clinton send troops to Haiti to restore President Aristide's government to power after a coup) and he would not have sent troops to Africa (Clinton also send troops to Rwanda). Bush did not stay truth to his word; in 2004 he sent troops to Haiti to keep the peace after the so-called resignation of Aristide. Aristide later denied he resigned and blamed the United States for kidnapping and shipping him to the Central African Republic. So if he did not keep his word about Haiti, who is to say, he will keep it about Africa.

I think it is safe to say the United States wont go to Africa to offer help where it is needed like the Democratic Republic of Congo. I cant help but to wonder however, if the Bush administration won't soon come up with a plan to go to Africa under the disguise of helping the continent, when their real intentions will be to get more or total control over Nigerias oil. What if Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were nothing but pawns in the Bushs administrations schemes? What if not to make it look like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were raging war against the browner people of the earth, they added a little diversity. We know now that apart from lying to the United Nations, Powell did not really play any major role in the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, his best advice to the administration that more troops were needed in Iraq was ignored. To be blunt Powell was not much more than a puppet or as Bookman said in Stepping Razor, You went from a strong Black man to George Bushs little slut.

So please tell me if I am being paranoid. Can you see the United States in Nigeria soon? Is that too far fetched? I mean Nigeria have all the elements. They have lots of oil. They have a large Muslim population, so the United States could always justify their actions by saying it is the global fight against Islamist terrorist threat. I really do hope I am too paranoid, but knowing the pain the greed for gold, diamond and free labor have caused Africa in the past, I am concern what pain her oil may cause her."

I wonder...

Breaking News: Another temporary patch

2006-08-12T04:02:00.000-07:00

As if there hasn't been enough temporary fixes to conflicts in the Middle East, here comes another imperfect, and very pro-Israeli UNSC resolution:

UN calls on Israel, Hizbollah to stop fighting | World News | Reuters.co.uk:

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council adopted unanimously on Friday a resolution calling for an end to fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah and authorising up to 15,000 new peacekeepers to enforce it.

The vote capped weeks of anguished negotiations on a plan to halt the war that began when Israel attacked Lebanon after the July 12 abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah guerrillas in a cross-border raid. Hizbollah then rained rockets on northern Israel."

And it's not even like it is really making a difference on the field. The Lebanese government is hesitant to accept it, and Israel is almost ignoring it, as it organized further strikes this saturday, on Lebanese territory:

JERUSALEM -- Long columns of Israeli tanks, troops and armoured personnel carriers streamed over the Lebanese border early today as Israel pressed ahead with its military offensive, hoping to inflict as much damage as possible on Hezbollah before a proposed ceasefire deal comes into effect.

Israeli officials said the military would push forward with the expanded offensive, ordered yesterday by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, despite a UN Security Council resolution that calls for an end to the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

The campaign will continue at least until tomorrow when Olmert will bring the resolution to his government for discussion, said Gideon Meir, a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official, adding Olmert intends to urge the cabinet to approve it.

The resolution authorizes the deployment of 15,

I am sorry to repeat myself, but I must scream: DOUBLE-STANDARDS, DOUBLE-STANDARDS, DOUBLE-STANDARDS!!! I am not a defender of Hizbollah, because I do not believe in religious fundamentalism, in any form, and Islamic fundamentalist practices are something that I abhore. But I also see Tzahal and the other Shin Bet, Mossad and the Israeli government, as being every bit as fanatic, and every bit as responsible for the current situation. Israel is always portrayed in the media, as a democratic state (which it is), that is oh so liberal, and oh so benevolent (which could not be further from the truth). Everybody seems to forget that it is a state created on the premise that a piece of INHABITED land, was theirs by a God-given right. In this context, and considering that Israel has "chronical invasionitis", I cannot help but see that Hezbollah is, in this particular case, justified, or at the very least, IMHO, at par with Israel.

And all this activity in Lebannon, is masking the other big Israeli incursions, this time in Gaza, Palestine. I say it like that (Gaza, Palestine), because it seems as though Israel has been working these past 30 years to exhaust the Palestinians into abandoning their hopes for statehood, so Israel can get bigger territory. This is, of course, a personal impression. That said, it seems the only logical explanation for the policies that encouraged the implantation of kibbutz-colonies all over Palestinian territories. It made no other sense strategicaly, as they were putting some of their own population at obvious risk, in the middle of hostile, occupied land. However it did give them an excuse to invade and/or retaliate, every single time there was the smallest attack from the occupied Palestinians. All this gives me the impression that the dream of Eretz Israel dies hard really hard. I was thinking about this, and then I found this piece (granted, by pretty liberal people), and I really, really wonder...

Moreover, I find it rather interesting that when the Palestinians or the Lebanese militant groups attack civilians, everybody is offended, but when Tzahal kills civilians, everybody lets them get away with calling it collateral damage. Furthermore, when the groups finally leave the civilians alone, and kidnaps soldiers, all hell breaks loose. What are these people to do to get back their dignity, and at least some of their land? Because you know Israel is never going to give in peacefully...

In any case, Terror as a weapon, whether carried-out by an organised group, or a recognized state, is still Terrorism, and should be equally punished. Colonization, whether by the prejudiced Europeans in the past 500 years, or by the formerly-oppressed Jews in the past 50, is still colonization, and should be equally punished. Kidnapping of civilians (or anyone), whether by Arab militants, or by Israeli soldiers, is criminal, and should be equally punished. And if Israel says it does not kidnap innocent civilians, only people with blood on their hands, the Arabs can make the very same arguments about the Tzahal soldiers they have kidnapped, and it will be equally ridiculous.

Conservatives and... YouTube!

2006-08-11T21:04:00.000-07:00

You have got to love our friends in the right-wing, here in the US. And who would have thought that my favorie site right now, YouTube, would be the source of yet another blunder by our oh so conservative groups out there?:

Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish : SF Indymedia: "Aug. 4, 2006 — - A tiny little movie making fun of Al Gore, supposedly made by an amateur filmmaker, recently appeared on the popular Web site YouTube.com.

At first blush, the spoof seemed like a scrappy little homemade film poking fun at Gore and his anti-global warming crusade.

In the movie, Gore is seen boring an army of penguins with his lecture and blaming global warming for everything, including Lindsay Lohan's thinness.

But when the Wall Street Journal tried to find the guy who posted the film 'Al Gore's Penguin Army' -- listed on YouTube as a 29-year-old -- they found the movie didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.

The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.

On perspective... and the brink of World War III

2006-07-17T12:07:00.000-07:00

It seems somewhat surreal, yet not really surprising. The round-up speaks for itself: Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel are are up to their little lethal games again; Iran is promising support to Syria if it were invaded by Israel; Israel is threatening preemptive strikes against nuclear sites in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan have evolved into unpredictable quagmires; North Korea is threatening a second Korea war, Japan is considerng preemptive strikes; the desolation in Sudan/Darfur, Somalia, Congo and other African countries, has left Africa vulnerable to many crises; Nature is not giving us a break, with hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and a second tsunami in Indonesia today; We are not giving nature a break with global warming; etc, etc, etc... World War III, anyone?

Newspapers from my country - Congo - often have so much to cover with the internal chaos, that the International pieces tend towards perfunctory platitudes. Imagine my surprise at reading this article from Le Potentiel[fr] on the new crisis in the Middle East. The author comments on the fact that since Arabs are the ones suffering the greater amount of casualties, World leaders at the G8 treated the question with much less than if Israel was the one suffering the greater number of deaths, the US would probably already be on the ground, as they value Israeli lives more than Arab lives.

Here, in the United States, it has become suicidal for any politician to express even the smallest blame towards Israel. As a result of decades of Israeli/Jewish political influence on US politics, the perspective of the average American is VERY biased in favor of Israel. That is not true outside ot the US. I used my country's newspaper because in Congo, there is no particular love lost for the Lebanese, and/or Arabs in general. The average Congolese tend to resent the fact that Lebanese families own a great portion of the food and electronics market in their country, and the fact that some Lebanese business-owners treat their workers in a very racist way. But despite this, they still sympathize with the Lebanese in this conflict, because there seems to be a fundamental injustice in the situation.

At the end of the day, the whole crisis comes down to the conflict between the Jewish and Arab inhabitants of the Holy land, that we know as Palestinians and Israelis. It is all a matter of perspective. If one wishes to defend Israel, one points out the fact that she is surrounded by Arab and Islamic countries, that do not - let's say - particularly like them. If one wishes to defend the Palestine - and yes I said Palestine - and the Palestinians, one points out that the very process of the creation of the very Jewish state of Israel (Arab Israelis are second-class citizens), on a territory that was inhabited, resulting in a refugee crisis, was the root cause of what we are now living.

Do not get me wrong, I am not one of those who thinks that the State of Israel should disappear. Most of the young Israelis know no other country as home. I am a big proponent of the right of the land: you are born there, it's your home. But I want the almighty UK, to admit that the current crisis is as much the fault of their ill-conceived plan of relocation of the Jews - that they did not want by the way - to the Holy land, as it is the fault of the reaction to that by the Palestinians.

I do not, and indeed will never, caution terrorism. But I find it curious that for once that instead of attacking civilians, the militant movements (Hamas and Hezbollah) attacked soldiers, the response by the Israelis is to fall in the trap of an all out war. And worse: Israel attacks the entire country of Lebanon, and kills civilians, in punishment for a militant group's actions. In other words, they are frightening the Lebanese people into rejecting Hezbollah, the one group that succeeded in kicking Israel out of South Lebanon 6 years ago. Isn't that the very essence of terrorism?

The Israeli government, Hezbollah, Hamas... terrorist organizations. Their victims: The Jewish and Arab populations of the Middle East. The one contry that has the leverage to change the situation: The United States, by adopting a more even-handed approach to the conflict. Until the US politicians start thinking of justice and equity, instead of campaign dollars, there is very little hope of this mess not ending in World War III.

From our friends AlterNet:The Sodomy Squadron...

2006-07-04T09:03:00.000-07:00

AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: The Sodomy Squadron:
(Posted by Melissa McEwan at 8:03 AM on July 4, 2006.)

"Pam Spaulding uncovered the existence of the real movers and shakers behind the radical homosexual agenda: The Sodomy Squadron.

...Washington's America is no longer the America of today. The Judeo-Christian compass that once guided our leaders and citizens has been displaced. A new moral order, one fueled by hedonism and a mutated form of individualism, has taken its place. Translation: Christians have become strangers in their own country.

...If one digs deeper into the cultural psyche of America, he will find that Christianity no longer sets the standard for proper human behavior. The Sodomy Squadron has been flying high, for the Supreme Court has deemed sodomy a fundamental right, the Federal Marriage Amendment was DOA, and Massachusetts strong-armed the Catholic Church into ceasing its adoption program when it demanded that a Catholic agency allow same-sex couples to adopt children under the care of the Roman Catholic Church.

Who could disagree? Christians really have become strangers in America. All they've got anymore is a Christian president with an almost exclusively Christian cabinet whose biggest supporters are conservative Christians to whom he panders relentlessly, including appointing two openly Christian justices to the Supreme Court, an almost entirely Christian Congress, who starts each day's session with a prayer, guaranteed freedom of religion, money that says "In God We Trust," a pledge of allegiance that describes us as "one nation under God," television networks who will accept advertising from conservative religious groups but not liberal political groups, schools who are incorporating a religious belief into science classes, gays being denied marriage in order to protect its "sanctity," women denied access to emergency birth control for no legitimate health reasons but because some religious people have a problem with it, Catholic communities being built in Florida, Museums of Creationism springing up, laws still on the books that respect Christians' holy day (like in Indiana, where you still can't shop for a car or buy booze on a Sunday), and churches not required to pay taxes.

Do the math, people. That adds up to total domination of The Sod Squad!"

Are you kidding me!?!?!

2006-06-01T13:35:00.000-07:00

EVery once and a while, I read a story online that is - to me - so outrageous, that it makes me jump out of my shoes. Today, it was this particular story:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Ethics lessons for US Iraq troops:

"US-led troops in Iraq are to undergo ethical training in the wake of the alleged murder of civilians in Haditha.

For the next 30 days, they will receive lessons in 'core warrior values', a military statement said.

Correspondents say Haditha, where US marines are suspected of massacring up to 24 Iraqi civilians, could have a huge effect on US public opinion.

The Iraqi prime minister has condemned the suspected massacre, adding he would conduct his own investigation"

Are you kiding me? Does the United States government, the great professional lecturer on human rights worldwide, have its head so far down in the sand, that it cannot even own up properly to its own (well its soldiers') misdeeds? Talk about a double standard!!

Let us, for a second imagine a case where Saddam Hussein's troops committed some massacre in Kuwait; and now let us imagine that our friend Saddam would come out and say that he recognizes that there is a bit of an issue, and that his soldiers would go through sensitivity training, or an ethics review course. Do you know how fast the United States would be outraged?

Why is it that the United States government is so blind to the common human nature of their soldiers. Why is it that the United States refuses to admit that its soldiers, like soldiers everywhere, sometimes let their position of total military supremacy get to their head? Is it a resurgence of the concept of "manifest destiny"? In other words, American soldiers are so much better morally than the rest of us heathens, and there are such exemplary human beings, that they could never commit massacres on purpose.

This was an attitude very much prevalent during the Vietnam war, and this is what led to John Kerry getting so much flac for denouncing their actions there. The US government is so blindly protective of its own soldiers, that they opposed the International Criminal Court, because they were scared that their soldiers would be judged unfairly, by anyone but Americans. The underlying assumption here, seems to be that US soldiers never really misbehave, and that the ICC would just invent charges to hurt the US' image.

Really? After Abu-Ghraib and the sham of a trial that ensued, which saw some lowly soldiers be reprimanded, and no officers even threatened, we can easily understand why the US wants to judge its own soldiers. But it is not surprising really. The United States has for a long time accustomed us to double standards: between Cubans and Haitians at the US border, between Hugo Chavez and the Saudi Royal family (and we can see which of the two is more democratic), between Arab and Jewish Palestinians... sorry, between Israelis and Palestinians, etc.

To this list the Bush administration has added double standards between Black and White New-Orleanians after Katrina, between conservative and liberal faith-based initiatives, between Muslim (even the legitimate ones) and Christian faith-based initiatives, and apparently - although this particular one, I have no independent confirmation, between conservative and liberal churches when it comes to IRS assessments of non-profit status compliance. Should I continue? No I think I have made my point.

Ethics training? I wish Kim Jong Il could say that he was going to give ethics training to his troops, and the officials in his regime. Does the US government realize that it has lost so much credibilty in the International arena, that such a statement is given as little credence as "Baghdad Bob"?

Ethics training? Are you kidding me?

Breaking News

2006-04-25T02:42:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Opposition calls off Nepal strike:

"Nepal's seven-party opposition alliance says it is ending weeks of protests after King Gyanendra agreed to its demands to reinstate parliament.

The alliance has chosen former Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to head a new government.

The king's announcement follows weeks of unrest by opponents to his absolute rule. At least 14 people have died.

However Maoist rebels, behind a 10-year insurgency, rejected the deal and vowed to continue blockading the capital.

KP Situala, a spokesman for the opposition alliance, said it had 'called off the general strike and protest', and that planned demonstrations would become a victory celebration instead."

Misplaced priorities

2006-04-19T01:27:00.000-07:00

Here is a story that has gone through all the major news networks, and not in an entertainment segment:

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Cruise plays down 'placenta plan': "Hollywood actor Tom Cruise has played down reports that he plans to eat the placenta of his new baby.

The War of the Worlds star was quoted in GQ magazine saying he thought the placenta and umbilical cord would be 'very nutritious'.

But in a subsequent interview with Diane Sawyer on US television, he made light of the comments."

Who gives a damn!?! I mean it is sick if it is true, but who cares? When people are dying for the daily comforts in the West, the West chooses to focus on... Tom Cruise? Where is the world going?

Opinion: Progressiste et mondialiste... (fr)

2006-04-18T04:35:00.000-07:00

Il est assez facile de prôner le "Laissez-faire", lorsque l'on est de classe moyenne, ou de classe haute, surtout – mais pas seulement – dans un pays développé. Evitons toute méprise : Je suis personnellement convaincu qu’une certaine dose de libéralisme (comme on l'entend en Français) est cruciale dans le processus d’accroissement des revenus, dans quelque pays que ce soit. Mais le fait est que même dans le monde occidental, le « Laissez-faire » a montré ses limites, et ses abus. Non seulement il semble promouvoir l'idée de la loi du plus fort (ou plus précisément, la survie du plus fort), mais il a aussi eu comme conséquence, la création artificielle d’une classe de défavorisés quasi-perpétuels. Je ne souscris point a cette notion que tous les défavorisés le sont parce qu'ils sont paresseux, qu'ils refusent de travailler, ou qu'ils recherchent une sécurité sociale excessive. Ce sont des arguments de nantis. Il y a beaucoup de gens entreprenants, travailleurs, et intelligents qui subissent les revers nécessaires pour que la minorité dirigeante puissent enfler leurs revenus (et ici je parle plus particulièrement des USA), et qui se retrouvent sans autre voie de sortie que la Sécu, et la soupe populaire, lorsque ceux-ci existent.

Le tout revient en fait, je crois, au type de société que l'on veut créer:

1) Une société qui encourage l'entreprise privée et l'ouverture des marchés, mais prend les mesures nécessaires pour que toutes les couches de la population aient les mêmes opportunités, et les mêmes chances de réussite, quels que soit leur race, leur sexe, et/ou leur condition sociale. Ce type de société aurait un gouvernement démocratique, qui aurait comme attributions prioritaires, de prendre des mesures pour la protection de l'environnement, la sécurité, l'ordre public, la garantie de l'éducation, une garantie de la survie (nourriture, et habitat), et assurer la participation du pays, de manière intégrale dans le concert des nations. Ce type de société utiliserait la force du marché pour améliorer les conditions de vie des populations, toutes les couches comprises. Ceci implique une politique de mondialisation qui ne soit pas mono directionnelle, dans tous les domaines (pas seulement l’économie). Ceci implique aussi un certain niveau de redistribution des revenus. Ce type de société prend aussi sérieusement en compte la nécessité de pallier aux réalités sociales négatives, créées par les affres de l’Histoire (racisme, xénophobie, génocides, apartheid, népotisme, etc.), et qui sont des sources d’inégalités préjudiciables à de nombreuses populations. L'économie fonctionnerait ainsi pour servir les aspirations, les besoins des humains.

2)Une société qui repose entièrement sur l'entreprise privée, et l'ouverture sélective des marchés, et qui considère comme déjà acquis que tous les participants au marché sont à un niveau égal d'accès aux opportunités, et aux chances de réussite (donc pas besoin de mesures palliatives, comme la discrmination positive). Ce type de société veut minimiser le rôle des élus du peuple, et du gouvernement dans le contrôle de l’économie, et donne un rôle prédominant à l'entreprise privée, et à la multinationale (des institutions puissantes, mais non-démocratiques, et sans réels devoir civiques dans certains pays), dans l'édification même de la société. Cette société privilégie ainsi (c'est ce que je vis aux USA) la croissance du PIB, le profit maximum, la consommation de masse, leur corollaire de la réduction la plus forte des coûts de production, et donc la baisse continuelle et inévitable des salaires pour les ouvriers, et la diminution continuelle des services sociaux de base gratuits et de qualite (ecoles, hopitaux, etc). Dans cette société, la valeur de l'être humain est déterminée, presque uniquement, par sa contribution au PIB; le développement et le progrès sont mesurés par le PIB. Les "garanties sociales" sont basées sur des plans de retraite, des assurances, le tout garanti par des investissements dans le marché de la bourse, sans autre forme de protection. Dans cette société, l'être humain est donc a la merci du marché, et vit donc presque uniquement pour servir et "accroître l’économie".

Personnellement je choisirais le premier modèle de société ; et je suis bien conscient que le fait être en faveur de ce modèle de société, me le fait être voir avec des œillères. Mais la grande raison pour laquelle je soutiens le premier modèle (qui est une sorte économie sociale de marché), est que j'ai la ferme conviction que le travail ne devrait pas être une fin un soit, mais un élément générateur d'une plus grande capacité d'autodétermination, permettant ainsi à l'être humain d'avoir les moyens de jouir effectivement de sa vie - plus ou moins - comme il/elle l'entend. Le second modèle ne permet pas cela. Il n’y a pas ici de vacances d’1 mois garanties, de vrais congés paternité/maternité, ou encore de réelle représentation des employés. Tel que je vis le « Laissez-faire » ici aux USA, les seuls qui peuvent réellement se targuer d’être capables de réellement jouir de leurs vies, sont les CEO (PDG), et les hauts dirigeants des grandes entreprises. C'est cette classe dirigeante qui se transforme de plus en plus en suzerains d'un nouveau système féodal. Et le reste des gens, les « serfs », vivent pour la retraite. Et tout cela ne m'inspire aucune confiance, surtout quand je vois ce que ces suzerains sont entrain de tripatouiller dans mon pays, le Congo (Mais ça c'est une autre affaire). Je crois que la plupart des êtres humains aimeraient vivre dans un système qui ne les considère pas comme ayant perdu leur valeur intrinsèque, et leur valeur sociale, parce qu’ils ne produisent/travaillent pas, ou parce qu’ils sont ouvriers d’usine ; un systeme qui integre les principes de la declaration universelle des droits de l’homme dans le fonctionnement de la societe. Est-ce trop demander ? Peut-être.

Je suis moi-même de classe moyenne, et Congolais. Je rejette cette notion qui veut que tous les "progressistes"/altermondialistes soient des "riches bourges" et pathologiquement hypocrites. Il y en a beaucoup bien sur, je vous l'accorde. Mais il y en a aussi beaucoup qui ne sont pas de la gauche caviar. Je n'ai rien contre la consommation de masse, ou la Star Ac, ou le Coca (mis a part le fait qu'il me fait gagner du poids). Oui j'utilise un cellulaire (d'ailleurs étant congolais, et le coltan étant obtenu chez moi de manière peux éthique, je crois que c'est mon droit le plus absolu :)). Je ne vois rien de mal à utiliser cet ordinateur japonais, pour communiquer avec vous sur la toile mondiale qui est le web. Le problème est loin d’être le principe de la mondialisation; d'ailleurs celle-ci est presque aussi vieille que le monde. Elle s'est juste intensifiée récemment. Le problème est de s’assurer de "quelle mondialisation" nous voulons. Le colonialisme, l'esclavage et le nazisme étaient eux aussi, a leur manière, des formes de mondialisation. Je n'ai aucune envie - vous me comprendrez - d'avoir ni l'un, ni l'autre. Je veux une mondialisation qui améliore non seulement les comptes bancaires des nantis partout dans le monde, mais la condition sociale des masses. En d’autre termes, je veux une « mondialisation durable et équitable ». Je sais bien que la présomption est que l’être humain est « fondamentalement bon », et que les gens prendront sûrement soin des plus démunis, par des initiatives privées. Bien que je veuille avoir foi en la nature humaine, mon expérience personnelle (génocide Rwandais, dictature de Mobutu, la Françafrique, Union Minière du Haut-Katanga, le régime de George W. Bush, etc.) tend a me prouver le contraire : Concentrez le pouvoir, et ceux qui le détiennent en abusent plus efficacement. Une mondialisation basée sur le libéralisme « a la main invisible », sans réels garde-fous, reviendrait a remettre les clés du pouvoir planétaire aux grands PDG, et ne me semble pas la base la plus appropriée pour une « mondialisation durable et équitable ». Ce n’est la bien sur que mon humble, et insignifiante opinion.

New shellings in Palestine

2006-04-11T03:48:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israeli shell kills girl in Gaza:

"'The IDF [Israel Defence Forces] does not target civilians,' a military spokesperson said.

'We regret any damage or injuries to innocent civilian Palestinians, but we do target terrorists who try to injure and kill Israelis.'
"

Back in Africa, a lecturer, who was definitely pro-terror tactics, once asked me what the difference between a Palestinian suicide bomber, and an Israeli (well he did not say Israeli, but that is what he meant) soldier, was. According to this guy, both are fighters in the cause of the freedom of their people, both are devout patriots, both have loved ones, both have an embattled nation to defend, and both are CONVINCED that the locations they are ordered by their superiors to target and/or hit, contribute in LEGITIMATELY weakening the other side. And the person to go on saying that both fighters have committed their lives - literally - to the defense/liberation of their country, thus both can reasonnably expect to die as a result of their "career choices". The lecturer finally said: "There are only 2 differences: death comes faster for one of the two, and at a predetermined date; and secondly, the West has decided that one is more legitimate because they are supposedly a recognized state".

I immediately proceeded to eagerly make the argument that suicide bombers purposedly target unarmed civilians, and that it is universally seen as a fondamentally illegitimate and morally flawed tactic of warfare. And I stand by that point. But then again, when one is talking about Arab Palestinians, launching Kassam rocket attacks on - internationally considered as - illegal settlements on their land, I am not sure I could make that argument. Just because one side has more money, more allies, more weapons, and a strategic position in the region, does not make them any more right, or more entitled to respect, security, sovereignty, freedom and self-determination than the other side. So if one side - in this case Israel - can minimise the death of the innocent civilians they kill as "collateral damage", why can't the Palestinian kassam launchers make the same argument?

I am personally for a "2 viable states" solution, but ultimately it is nobody's responsibility but that of all Palestinians, both Arab and Jewish, to realize that they cannot survive in any peaceful way, without each other's support. I am firmly against suicide bombers, but I am just as strongly against the Israeli indiscriminate invasions of the West Bank and Gaza, with the collateral infrastructure destruction, and more importantly loss of life.

A Palestinian friend, who studied at Ramallah Friends School, pointed out the irony of how one of his classrooms, built with USAID funds, was later destroyed by a US-built mortar shell... a bomb, is a bomb, is a bomb. Israel has no more - and to be fair, no less - legitimacy in that land than the State of Palestine. If the Israelis occupies the Palestinians, the latter have the right to defend themselves by the means available to them (minus the suicide bombers, and direct attacks on civilians). I always wonder how Hoosier from the Whitewater valley would react, if the US federal government decided to give back to the Miami Indians, without fair negotiations, accomodations or compensation, their ancestral lands... It would be civil war, with the Hoosiers in the position of the Palestinians... I wonder...

Giorgius Caesar, Imperator Augustus?

2006-04-11T03:44:00.000-07:00

Every sunday, I have made a point of taking advantage of my Grand-father's - it's a long story - HBO subscription, to watch "Real Time with Bill Maher", arguably the most entertaining, and informative political/satirical debate show on TV. This last sunday, aside of finding out that Sen. Joe Biden was probably my new LOVE in the Democratic Party, I also had the pleasure of hearing an interview of the author of "The American Theocracy", Kevin Phillips. The erudite, and former Republican strategist, made the claim - and I believe it's in the book too - that the United States was over-reaching dangerously. The United States is making key mistakes that other Empires before this one had made, in an overly ambitious - and frankly arrogant and self-centered - attempt at spreading their particular understanding of government, and "civilization". It is a sentiment that I had felt before, without being able to put my finger on exactly what it was. Then I read this:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Planning the US 'Long War' on terror: "It sounds eerily like the Cold War - and that is no mistake.

The 'Long War' is the name Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time against terrorism.

Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.

It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years."

If I am getting this right, the Bush administration, in a very familiar way, has taken it upon itself to single-handedly engage the entire planet in a cold-war-lengthed, but in practice much warmer conflict. Not that I like terror - in any form, and from any source - but, how arrogant can the US government be? It was not enough that they - and the USSR - held the entire planet hostage, and made the rest of us, from the so-called "peripheral countries", pay the price of their squirmishes. No it wasn't enough. Now we are forced to accept to be virtually "ruled" by the superpower. It is the return of "Rome"... hence the title of this post.

Do not get me wrong. As staunchly as I disagree with the Bush administration's policies, I do not claim that they have the exclusivity of this domineering attitude; they have just perfected it. No US administration has ever been as forceful in their imposition of an ultra-conformity to a war effort, at the planetary level. Why do I say that? In that very same article of the BBC that we quote above, it is said that:

"But I would like to see to the number of troops in the Middle East cut to a fraction of the current 300,000, by at least a half."

The US military is planning a big increase in the role of special forces, the smaller, specially-trained teams able to speak local languages - including Arabic - deploy rapidly and work with the armies of other nations.

It is now settled: The United States military has taken the option to deputize at will, the military forces of any country that they so please. No need for the UN, or Interpol, to take any action on a foreign land - they have proven that in Iraq. The United States can simply coerce, intimidate, blackmail or entice in various ways the governments of other countries to put their armed forces, military bases, (and oil fields, but that is another story) at the United States' disposal; we are going to see the first case of a super-power deputizing armies of the world, since... Napoleon! And Rome before him!

The Bush administration is so convinced that their understanding of the American way, is ALWAYS the right way for every living soul, that they are hellbent on imposing it. At least during the cold war, the rest of us had the illusion of being independent for a little while. Now even those illusions are beginning to fade away. In fact they started fading way after September 11, when Bush made the famous "you're either with us, or against us" speech. President Bush had made it clear then that he believed he was leading the enlightened forces, fighting the good fight, with God on his side. When leaders start claiming divine support - which not so far from divine right monarchy - I get very scared. It is a position that gives the leader the impression that his/her "blessed and noble" ends justify all means. This is when arrogance, and a sense of infallibility, and righteousness tends to settle in.

In the US's case, Bush has the self-righteousness, and Rumsfeld has the arrogance and the sense of infaliibility. People made a mistake when they compared these two to Hitler and Himmler. That's not it at all: It's Ceasar and his main centurion. Those that evoked the Imperial presidency were right on the money. They want to rule, theywant a rubber-stamp Congress, and they want to increase their grip on the forces of the world. They have began to develop the "paranoia of the powerful" that has it that the world is out to get them, and they have therefore developped their "premptive strikes" theory. Giorgius Caesar? you bet !

Something really cool!

2006-04-11T03:39:00.000-07:00

CNN.com - Italy arrests Mafia 'supremo' - Apr 11, 2006:

"ROME, Italy (AP) -- Italy's reputed No. 1 Mafia boss, Bernardo Provenzano, has been arrested in Sicily, the ANSA news agency has reported, citing prosecutors.

Provenzano, Italy's most wanted man, went on the run more than four decades ago and is believed to have taken over the Sicilian Mafia after the 1993 arrest of former boss Salvatore 'Toto' Riina in Palermo.

As recently as last month, Provenzano's former lawyer was quoted as telling an Italian newspaper that the elusive man was dead.

'I think he (Provenzano)'s dead, and has been dead for several years,' Salvatore Traina was quoted as telling Rome-based daily La Repubblica."

BBC NEWS | Americas | US rally backs illegal migrants

2006-04-10T14:23:00.000-07:00

FYI

BBC NEWS | Americas | US rally backs illegal migrants: "Tens of thousands of people have taken part in a rally in the US city of Dallas in support of the 11 million illegal migrants in the country.

They called on the Congress to approve a provision allowing the immigrants to stay in the US legally.

On Friday, the US Senate failed to reach agreement on a compromise deal that would allow illegal immigrants to apply for US citizenship.

On Monday, pro-immigrant groups plan nationwide rallies on the issue."

And

BBC NEWS | Americas | Crowds rally for US immigration: "Huge numbers of people across the US are taking part in rallies supporting some 11.5 million illegal immigrants.

Hundreds of thousands are gathering in several cities, including Atlanta, Washington, Los Angeles and New York.

Unions, civil rights groups, schools and churches want Congress to approve a provision allowing undocumented workers to remain in the country.

President George W Bush backs a guest-worker scheme but faces stiff opposition within his Republican party."

It just goes to show that not all USAmericans are prejudiced, and not all USAmericans are irrealistic about this immigration situation. I am proud of the country where I live because of them. They are the ones defending the ideals that the country was founded on, and they continue to give me hope in the potential for good that there is in the USA. Be blessed people!

The politics of Fiji

2006-04-10T13:43:00.000-07:00

Even in the - so-called - "paradise" areas of this world, men will be men, and petty political intrigues will still muck the waters for the rest of the people:

Qarase calls Ganilau to clear the Air: "The Prime Minister is today calling on the National Alliance Party to clear the air and admit that it is allegedly making deals behind closed doors to team up with the Fiji Labour Party.

Laisenia Qarase said it is now evident that Ratu Epeli Ganilau and Mahendra Chaudhry are making deals to form the next government, but do not want the issue to be made public.

However the National Alliance Party has rubbished claims by the Prime Minister labelling it as childish and naive.

NAP party Leader Ratu Epeli Ganilau said that Qarase's comments are invalid as the SDL will have to share preference with the Labour party anyway, as required under the law."

World election roundup

2006-04-10T12:35:00.000-07:00

Why it is that the United States, where I live, do not have elections on Sunday like most of the World, will always buggle my mind. I mean it makes sense: it's a holiday, everybody has no excuse not to go vote, and they have the time to stand in line longer, so their vote is counted... but then again, some here don't want those votes counted, do they... but that is not our topic today. No. This is: since it was a Sunday, yesterday, I thought it a good idea, to do a little round-up of the major elections that took place last Sunday.

The two most dramatic ones were in Peru (for the radical views of the front front-runner), and in Italy (due to the abrasive and insulting tone of the electoral campaign). In Peru, it seems front-runner Ollanta Humala is assured a spot in the run-off elections. The other two candidates seem tied for the second spot in that elections:

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Peru faces presidential run-off

"A nationalist ex-army officer has a narrow lead in the first round of Peru's presidential election but the race looks set for a run-off vote.

With 59% of the votes counted, Ollanta Humala leads with 28% of the vote, with conservative Lourdes Flores in second place with 26%.

Former President Alan Garcia is close behind with 25% of the vote so far."

Ollanta Humala seems to be akin to Hugo Chavez, in terms of ideology and policies: a radical turn to the left, with redistribution of wealth, and limitations to the power of multi-nationals on the Peruvian territory. Latin America has been taking a turn to varying degrees of the centre-left/left, in recent elections, with the moderates Lula da Silva in Brasil, Michele Bachelet in Chile, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Tabari Vasquez in Uruguay, the more radical Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and Evo Morales in Bolivia. Although this trend has not strongly affected the economic relationship with the very capitalist United States (at least not yet), the United States has been dramatizing the change as a catastrophe for Latin America. The United States simply has a bit of a difficulty seeing its "hegemony" challenged in their own backyard - especially when this implies an increasing support for embattled communist Cuba, and its leader, the US nemesis Fidel Castro. There is a - IMHO, positive - change, and challenge, in Latin America. The people seem to be eager to find a third way, that allies revenues from natural resources, international trade, social empowerment and a more equitable income distribution. Sounds very good to me. But the Chavez of this world need to be careful not to drift towards authoritarianism, because the same people-power that put them there, may take them down just as fast... but that is another story.

In Italy, we have another story. PM Silvio Berlusconi has been around for a long time. In fact he has the longest-running government of Italy since Mussolini! But he is also a - alleged - crook, a media-mogul, and a billionaire, who controls most of the Italian media, and is said to run Italy like a mafia boss. He has spent this campaign vilifying his mild-mannered, centre-left opponent, former EU commission president Romano Prodi, and calling all left-wing voters "communist", in a ploy to divert the attention from his own abismal government record. On the other hand, Mr Prodi has been calling Berlusconi a drunkard, and the two have had very uncivil electoral debates on national TV. It seems the two were out to confirm evert stereotype of the restless, passionate Italian, even Mr Prodi who is more known for his calm, and his moderation. The result? Well, it's a tie so far:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Election cliffhanger grips Italy:

"Italy's general election is turning into an extremely close race, with early results pointing to a slender lead for PM Silvio Berlusconi.

Mr Berlusconi's centre-right coalition may narrowly retain control of both houses of parliament, according to projections from the Nexus pollsters.

Earlier, exit polls pointed to a narrow lead for his centre-left challenger, Romano Prodi.

Polling stations closed at 1500 (1300 GMT), after two days of voting."

There was also an election in Hungary, the first-round of the Parliamentary elections, and the Socialists seem well under way to maintain their ruling position in the parliament as well:

EuroNews : Hungary's ruling Socialists lead in election first-round:

"In Hungary, the stage is set for a fierce second round in the country's parliamentary election. With 99 percent of papers counted after weekend polls, the ruling Socialists of Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany are ahead with about 43.3 percent of the vote.

Former Prime Minister Viktor Orban's opposition conservative Fidesz party edged ahead initially due to increased support in rural areas, but is now trailing behind on 42 percent. Smaller parties the Free Democrats and the Hungarian Democratic Forum have crossed the five percent threshold needed to secure seats in parliament.

The presence of the Democratic Forum in any future parliament could complicate negotiations about forming a ruling coalition. The party has recently distanced itself from Orban's Fidesz. The new government will have to grapple with a growing budget deficit, rising unemployment and much needed reforms of the health and education sectors. The second round is scheduled for April 23."

That's it for today's round-up, see you next Monday!

It was about time, no?

2006-04-10T12:29:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Europe | France to replace youth job law:

"French President Jacques Chirac has announced that the new youth employment law that sparked weeks of sometimes violent protests will be scrapped.

He said it would be replaced by other measures to tackle youth unemployment.

Millions of students and union members have taken to the streets over the last month in protest against the law, which made it easier to fire young workers.

Union and student leaders said it was a 'great victory' but it is not clear if protests set for Tuesday are still on."

Il etait temps, non?

2006-04-10T12:24:00.000-07:00

RFI | France | Chirac décide de «remplacer» le CPE:

"C’est l’Elysée qui a annoncé que le contrat première embauche (CPE) était «remplacé» par un autre «dispositif en faveur de l’insertion professionnelle des jeunes en difficulté». Le président de la République, qui avait, avant cette annonce, réuni notamment Dominique de Villepin, Nicolas Sarkozy, les présidents des groupes UMP à l’Assemblée et au Sénat, Bernard Accoyer et Josselin de Rohan, a repris la main en indiquant lui-même quelle était l’issue choisie.

Le Premier ministre est néanmoins intervenu tout de suite après pour expliquer cette décision. Il a constaté que les «conditions nécessaires de confiance et de sérénité n’étaient pas réunies pour permettre l’application du CPE», après plus de dix semaines de manifestations et de désordre. S’il n’est pas abrogé mais remplacé, le CPE n’en est pas moins mort. Dominique de Villepin qui a déclaré avoir proposé cette solution au président de la République, a dû renoncer à une mesure dont il avait pourtant fait le symbole de sa détermination politique."

Je n'arrive toujours pas a comprendre comment cela a pris autant de temps. Dans un pays comme la France, pioniere de la democratie Occidentale, le tolé du peuple aurait du ammener une reaction beaucoup plus tot. Toute personne qui étudie le systeme politique Francais, AMHA, sait qu'il a toujours été tres difficile de changer les lois en France, surtout si ces changements vont vers un affaiblissement du contrat social. Je ne pense pas que ce soit une affaire de "l'exception francaise", mais plutot une manifestation de l'instinct de survie. Toute personne qui vit sur des acquis sociaux, tend a les défendre, si tant est que l'alternative que l'on lui propose semble etre un rabaissement irrémediable des dits acquis.

Le CPE, tout inspiré de changement qu'il puisse etre, preludait pour beaucoup des changements sociaux radicaux, a l'americaine, qui n'inspirait pas confiance a des Francais qui ont l'habitude des garanties d'emploi, et des vacances acquises lors du front populaire. Pour beaucoup, le CPE predit des changements drastiques d'ordre culturels et philosophiques de la societe, qui effraient, et pour lesquels la population n'est pas prete. Ceci dit, pour que la France reste competitive, il semblerait qu'il faille des changements. C'est un jeu d'equilibriste; et il semblerait tout simplement que Mr de Villepin ait un temps soit peu perdu le sens de cet equilibre, et trop fait pencher cette balance cruciale qu'est le contrat social, versla droite economiquement ultra-liberale... Esperons que les nouvelles propositions presentées au Parlement aujourd'hui seront plus appropriées aux réalités actuelles des Francais.

Chavez II? On verra...

2006-04-10T12:20:00.000-07:00

RFI - Pérou - Présidentielle : un nationaliste au second tour:

"Tous de rouge et blanc vêtus, aux couleurs nationales, des centaines de Péruviens se sont réunis, dimanche 9 avril, devant le siège du parti nationaliste Union pour le Pérou (UPP), pour fêter la victoire de leur leader. Selon les sondages sortis des urnes et les premiers résultats officiels, le candidat Ollanta Humala, arriverait en tête du premier tour de l’élection présidentielle. L’Institut de sondage Apoyo indique ainsi que le représentant d’UPP obtiendrait 30,2% des votes, devançant de cinq points ses concurrents. «Il faut prendre ces résultats avec humilité», soulignait le représentant nationaliste, s’adressant à la foule mêlant des drapeaux du Pérou et ceux, multicolores, du Tawantinsuyo, l’empire des Incas. Ovationnés, le commandant de l’arme à la retraite depuis 2004 et sa femme Nadine ont longuement salué, le sourire aux lèvres.

Anti-système, le discours nationaliste prônant notamment la révision des contrats des entreprises transnationales minières ou encore la préférence aux industries nationales a ainsi séduit les Péruviens, qui rejettent en masse le monde politique traditionnel et espèrent «changer» leur pays."

J'aime bien ce Monsieur pour l'instant. On verra bien ce qu'il ferra s'il devient President, mais il semble avoir ce simple bon sens dont manquent beaucoup de politiciens de nos jours, et un sens - du moins en apparence - des besoins des plus demunis du pays. Il serait aussi le premier descendant des Incas a diriger le Perou depuis des lustres. Et il est de ceux qui sont prets a remettre en cause l'hegemonies etatsunienne dans le continent Americain... c'est pas plus mal, non?

Brokeback again...

2006-04-10T12:19:00.000-07:00

After the whole controversy over Wal-Mart selling DVDs of Brokeback Mountain, the movie is in another controversy:

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | US prison bans gay cowboy movie: "A US prison officer is to be disciplined for showing the gay cowboy movie Brokeback Mountain to inmates.

Correctional authorities in Massachusetts said the film was unsuitable for a prison setting because of its 'sexually explicit scenes'.

A spokesman said the officer failed to follow guidelines requiring films to be vetted for violence, nudity or sex.

Brokeback Mountain is about two men who meet and fall in love while wrangling sheep in Wyoming in the 1960s.

'Graphic' scenes

'It was not the subject matter,' said Diane Wiffin, of the Massachusetts Department of Correction.

'It was the graphic nature of sexually explicit scenes.'"

People, it's a movie! Let it go, folks!

How predictions for Iraq came true

2006-04-09T16:54:00.000-07:00

The piece below about Iraq, by a BBC World Affairs editor, is a must read, for anyone who is rying to understand where the whole Iraq campaign went VERY wrong:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | How predictions for Iraq came true:

"It was a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, three years ago. I was interviewing the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in the ballroom of a big hotel in Cairo"...

Very instructive piece.

Crisis in Palestine

2006-04-04T18:19:00.000-07:00

The following article addresses the impending humanitarian crisis in Palestine, after the decision by Israel to close all the access points to Gaza. Will these two cousin-people ever end their family feud?

The Least of My Brothers: Gaza on verge of disaster

Hope in the Middle East

2006-04-04T10:14:00.000-07:00

One more in the camp of equity, II. It seems there is some change in the situation of women in Kuwait. They are running for office, and voting for the first time, in arguably the most conservative region of the world. It is to be celebrated:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Kuwaiti women vote for first time: "Polling is taking place in a Kuwaiti council by-election in which women are allowed to vote for the first time.

Two women are also among eight candidates running for the seat in the Salmiya district, south of the capital.

The 28,000 eligible voters, 60% of whom are women, are voting in segregated polling booths, a condition demanded by Islamist and tribal MPs.

Women were granted equal political rights last year and will vote in full legislative polls in 2007."

Forum says French Polynesia tand decolonization

2006-04-02T21:30:00.000-07:00

Forum says French Polynesia to make case for decolonisation support: "The secretary-general of the Pacific Island Forum, Greg Urwin, says any possible Forum support for French Polynesia’s decolonisation bid depends on the government in Tahiti making its case to member states.

French Polynesia may be admitted as a Forum associate member after the French President Jacques Chirac asked Pacific leaders in 2003 to integrate the French Pacific territories as full Forum members.

The French Polynesian president, Oscar Temaru, says integrating among Forum countries, the territory should go further and join as an independent state.

While the Forum has supported New Caledonia’s decolonisation move, Mr Urwin says any support for French Polynesia depends on its lobbying effort.

“It’s for French Polynesia to make its case with the member states of the Forum who would then take a view about how that would be expressed through the Forum itself.”
"

I wish I knew more about the situation in the pacific possessions of France, but it seems like most of the news we get are about sports, and about political intrigues. If anyone knows more about this, please feel free to comment here.

Suspicious lack of diplomacy

2006-03-31T01:30:00.000-08:00

The current, and long-standing, Prime Minister of the Asian nation of Cambodia, Hun Sen, is a former leader of the Khmer Rouge, albeit not the Polpot variety... more like the liberating variety, but very militant and authoritarian Khmer Rouge nevertheless. So one can expect some rough edges with him, especially considering how he has managed to maintain himself in power. But this was beyond... just read on:

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Cambodian PM denounces UN envoy

"Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen has launched a scathing attack on a UN envoy who criticised the government's record on human rights.

Yash Ghai said on Tuesday that Cambodia's government was not committed to human rights, and power had been too centralised around 'one individual'.

Hun Sen said Mr Ghai was 'deranged' and should be sacked by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan."

But wait, it gets better:

"Mr Ghai said donor countries, on whom Cambodia relies for half its budget, should "put pressure on the government to use this opportunity to put laws and institutions in place".

The comments brought a furious reaction from Hun Sen.

"Kofi Annan should remove him. He knows nothing [about Cambodia], and came to talk like this. I will never meet with you [Yash Ghai]," he said.

"You don't even know about your own poor country, Kenya, in which over 50% of people live in poverty. You are lucky that this time a deputy prime minister met you. That won't happen next time." "

Now just who on earth does Lord Hun Sen think he is? First of all, he has just propped-up all my suspicions about his alleged human rights abuses - not that I wasn't already. By having such a pathetic outburst, he does nothing less than giving the UN more reasons to probe his nefarious practices.

But, as a proud African, what got to me even more, are the unnecessarily insulting references to Mr Ghai's country of origin, Kenya, and in my opinion Africa. Lord Hun Sen displays such a level of arrogance, and disdain towards Mr Ghai, that he sees it as beneath him to meet with an envoy of the UN Secretary General, simply because he dares to point out that the Cambodian regime is engaging in reprehensible practices of human rights abuses. And he finds nothing better to oppose to this, but to mock the guy's country of origin? I mean what has the world gone to? Hun Sen needs to go shove it, and clean up his act. And to use his own words, he should look at the problems - HE is creating - in his own country. The guy has done lost his mind!

One more in the camp of equity

2006-03-30T09:13:00.000-08:00

Jamaica has apparently joined the nations that have gotten the message of the need to make use of all the citizens of their nations, in all capacities, regardless of their genitalia:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Jamaica awaits first woman leader: "Jamaica is to swear in its first female Prime Minister, Portia Simpson Miller.

Leaders from around the world are gathering in the Jamaican capital, Kingston, for Thursday's inauguration.

Ms Simpson Miller, 60, takes over from the incumbent Prime Minister, PJ Patterson, who has been in power for the past 14 years.

She has said Jamaica should stop worrying about her gender and concentrate on the island's problems, particularly the high crime rate."

I really wish I lived at a time when I would not need to write about "the first woman" doing this or that (or for that matter the first Black, Latino, Asian, Gay, Lesbian, etc). I wish I lived in a time when people would have learned from History, the powerful destructive nature of hate and discrimination. I do not live in such a time, although I long for it. I do not believe in equality of men and women, because there are definitely things that make us different - genitalia, hormone functions and physical strength being the first that come to mind. I also believe, for example, that women are by far - and by biology - better equipped to care for children than men.

But that said, I strongly believe in men and women's equal worth, their equal intellectual abilities, and their equal inherent rights to live a good life. I wish I lived in a world where women can contribute to society to the best of their abilities, provide for themselves if need be, or if they choose to; a world where women could be paid fairly and equally for the out-of-home work they choose to perform, and rewarded for the in-home work they undertake; a world where they can prosper, and where all their decisions are not questionned simply because they are a woman. I am VERY far from being a feminist man - with no intentions of getting any closer, but that would be my ideal world, because it just feels more just.

Until we reach that world, I will root for every woman that fights the system to put themselves into positions of power traditionally held by men. So you go Ms. Simpson Miller!!!!

Kadima, from Palestine

2006-03-30T00:18:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israeli poll deepens Palestinian gloom

"... Ehud Olmert, wants to abandon Jewish settlements in the centre of the occupied West Bank.

But Israel would consolidate its hold on the main settlement blocs. It would also hold on to occupied East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley.

Palestinians would be confined to areas in the middle of the territory.

It would mean a continuation of occupation and a continuation of conflict - and that would be as bad for the Israelis as for us
Mustafa Barghouti

They say they would be stripped of some of their best land and water resources.

They would not have the capital they want, and they would have no control over their borders and their routes to the outside world.

They argue that they would never be able to create a viable state out of the land that Mr Olmert would leave them.

A leading independent Palestinian political figure, Mustafa Barghouti, has said of the plan: 'It would mean a continuation of occupation and a continuation of conflict - and that would be as bad for the Israelis as for us.'"

No comment.

Israel elections

2006-03-28T11:42:00.000-08:00

Haaretz | Israel News | Big parties tense as polls minutes from closing:

By Haaretz Staff

The three largest parties, Kadima, Labor, and Likud, were under mounting pressure Tuesday evening, fearing that the lowest voter turnout in Israeli electoral history may sap their strength in the next Knesset.

A low turnout is expected to work in favor of smaller, ideology-driven parties, especially those of the right. It may also enable such issue-based factions as the
Pensioners party to enter the Knesset for the first time.

The Salon II supports Kadima and/or Labor in this race, because they seem the only ones interested in some sort of a genuine compromise with the Palestinians. This conflict - and the slanted US attitude in the face of it - is the basis of many world conflicts today. It is about time that we deal with it realistically, and fairly. I will say no more... for now.

Tymoshenko : the return

2006-03-27T10:12:00.000-08:00

This is what happens when promising, people-backed, democratic revolutionnaries cannot deliver on their promises; or maybe what happens when these revolutionnaries make promises they simply cannot deliver on, realistically; or maybe what happens when the human nature takes over from human ideals... you be the judge:

Aljazeera.Net | Tymoshenko eyes coalition deal: "Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Ukranian prime minister, has scored a triumph in parliamentary elections with her own bloc coming second and placing her in a position to form a coalition government.

Viktor Yanukovich's pro-Russian Regions party won the most seats, but Tymoshenko emerged as a rejuvenated political figure, saying that 'Orange Revolution' liberals could close ranks to keep the pro-Russian party in opposition.

The outcome was a double humiliation for Viktor Yushchenko, the president, who defeated Yanukovich in a presidential poll re-run after December's 2004 street protests, and later fell out with Tymoshenko, his former Orange Revolution comrade."

So Yushchenko is being punished for not delivering on his promises, and he is paying for his falling out with Ms Tymoshenko, a move that made his entire movement weaker. Personal issues, "control-freakness", power-mongering, or whatever it was between these two, it put them in a position to falter on a very promising program for the renaissance of Ukraine. The success of the Orange Revolution was one of the strongest campaigns in support of the argument that democracy and representative/participative government are actually closer to an ideal for humans than dictaorship, corruption and politicking - at the time, represented by Yanukovich and Russia. For minor differences - or so it seems - Yushchenko and Tymoshenko jeopardize the chances of that coalition to succeed. Now that they are - possibly - given a second chance, I hope they will get it right, this time around.

Malian-Russian girl stabbed

2006-03-27T01:40:00.000-08:00

There was a time that West Africans saw Russia - well the USSR - as the Godsent cheaper and friendlier alternative to the West, for higher education. In fact about 1/3 of the political class in Mali is Soviet-educated. They often talk about their experience in Russia as a positive experience, of higher learning, and social interaction. Some of them even have Russian conjoints. For a long time, one of the biggest Moscow University was named after Patrice Lumumba, the great Congolese leader... Things seem to have changed:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Mixed-race girl stabbed in Russia

"A nine-year-old girl of mixed Russian and Malian parentage has been seriously injured in a stabbing in St Petersburg.

Prosecutors said they were considering 'xenophobia' as the motive for the attack, in which nothing was stolen.

The attack in the hallway of a block of flats on Saturday evening is the latest assault in the city on foreigners and members of ethnic minorities."

One of my best friends is a Armenian-Russian girl, Lena, and she has been a model of sensitivity, respect and consideration for Black and other people. Maybe because of the Armenian thing, that may have made her subject to discrimination there. But many other "Slavic Russians" I know, do not appear to be racist. I therefore have a hard time understanding this new rise of racist xenophobia in Russia. What are the triggers? White supremacy? Fear for jobs, like here in the US, with Latinos? What is it makes these bigots tick?

I still wonder...

Is Lukashenko done?

2006-03-25T08:02:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS | Europe | Belarus protests spark clashes

"Clashes have broken out between police and protesters in the Belarus capital Minsk during a large opposition rally over a disputed election results.

One opposition leader, Aleksander Kozulin, was reportedly detained but there was confusion over the arrest of another, Alexander Milinkevich.

Several thousand people defied police attempts to prevent the rally, moving instead to a nearby park.

Blasts were heard as a group marched on a jail where other protesters are held.

'The more the authorities conduct repression, the closer they bring themselves to their end,' Mr Milinkevich earlier told a crowd of protesters who gathered in Yanka Kupala park."

Climate change side effects

2006-03-25T01:58:00.000-08:00

Call it global warming, climate change, major @#$%^*-up, there is something that we are not doing right on this planet. And until proven otherwise to me, the most likely culprits are greenhouse gases, and we know which countries produce the most of those. And some countries are already paying for it:

Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific: "The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Maatia Toafa says resettlement of the people of Tuvalu to neighbouring island countries is really the last option on their mind.

Mr Toafa told PACNEWS his government will look at all viable options before making a decision but it hopes that Tuvaluans will not be forced out of their motherland.

“It is a complex procedure to follow. This would be the last resort for Tuvalu to look at resettlement to Fiji or the other Pacific Islands neighbours as well,” he said

“I hope that it won’t happen. We would try our very best,” he said."

Just because Tuvalu is probably the smallest country member of the UN (or at least one of them, and definitely the most recent member), doesn't mean they do not count on the world scene. And they are not the only Island nation at risk here. Why it is that the wealthy on this planet are not willing to consider any possible issue that do not fit their svheming plans, I wonder...

Some news from the Balkans

2006-03-24T16:27:00.000-08:00

DTT-NET.COM Blair says Kosovo, Montenegro status will not affect Bosnia, Macedonia: "(Sarajevo/London, DTT-NET.COM)-UK Prime minister said that solutions on the status of Kosovo and Montenegro will have no implications on the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia.

Tony Blair told Bosnian daily Dnevni Avaz that resolving the key issues of this year related to the future of Kosovo and Montenegro status solution will have to help stability in the Western Balkans region.

“Kosovo and Montenegro are the main issues of this year… the way this two issues will be resolved will have no implications on (Bosnia) Dayton and (Macedonia) Ohrid agreements” Blair was quoted in a interview to the daily.

The UK PM said that Kosovo final status will have to promote regional stability and multi-ethnicity reconfirming the position of London that independence is a serious option to be considered.

“The independence is, of course one and some would say the only option” he said on Kosovo.

On Montenegro Blair said that EU is trying to make the upcoming independence referendum in Montenegro in accordance with “ international recognised standards”."

Racism and Sports

2006-03-24T14:22:00.000-08:00

After Samuel Eto'o in Spain, another group of Africans are facing racial slurs, and racial attacks in sports fields:

BBC SPORT | Cricket | International Teams | Australia | ICC inquiry condemns racist fans: "The International Cricket Council have promised a crackdown to stamp out racist abuse at grounds in Australia.

It follows taunts directed at South African players during the recent VB Series tournament in Australia.

India's solicitor general Goolam Vahanvati was appointed by the ICC to conduct an inquiry.

In his report, he concluded: 'It was premeditated, co-ordinated and calculated to get after the players. It is a serious matter.'"

This is not acceptable, and it is seriously getting on my nerves. I am starting to rethink some of my views on free speech. The only reason why I still believe in full free-speech, is because I do not trust the government when it comes to regulating/legislating speech. But the fact that in the XXIst century, we can stiil hear such utter stupidities occuring... Who the hell do these people think they are? Do they think that they are made out of Zeus' thigh? Because i they were, they were made so high up, that they stink!

And let no one even start with me that I am saying this because they are Africans. In fact some of those heckled were lily white. Any white person that has not done anything to warrant insult should not be insulted either, period. And that goes for people of any races. The fact that there are some white racists, and that White people have a troubled past as a group, and particularly against my race (if there should be such a thing as race), does not allow me to prejudge any white person. People need to wake the @#$%&^ up!!! This is the kind of burden that the oppressed - and/or formerly oppressed - should not have to carry, and am tired, I mean dead tired of carrying it. And those that are Blacks of slave descent are probably even more tired than I am. Enough is enough!!!!!

Francophone, Francophile...

2006-03-24T08:47:00.000-08:00

An exception from most people in my country, my first language is French - although I speak fluently 2 of the 4 official Congolese languages. I also went to school from 2nd grade to 12th, in the French School system (yes, the French have International "French Schools" all over the world), and sometimes it feels like I know France better than the French (how rrogant of me, I know). BUt one of the side effects of all this, is that I have a tendency to be very defensive of the French language. Call me crazy! But the personal attachment I have developed with the language, and its right to stand as an international language (along with Swahili and Mandinka, in my opinion), is something I just cannot help. That is why I understood Pres. Jacques Chirac when he caused this mini-havoc:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Chirac upset by English address: "French President Jacques Chirac showed his temper at the EU summit when a French business leader addressed delegates in English.

He stormed out of a session when Ernest-Antoine Seilliere said he chose English 'because that is the accepted business language of Europe today'.

Mr Chirac told reporters on Friday he was 'deeply shocked' that a Frenchman chose to address the summit in English."

Now I write in English because I live in the USA, and my audience is majoritarily anglophone. But i also write article in French, because it is important that one culture don't get the impression that it can simply steamroll all the others, because they have bigger means of distribution. If to make that point I realize that I have to write everything bilingually, I might just do that. Chirac is somewhat of an overgrown drama-king, but I feel him...

France raises marriage age limit

2006-03-23T08:44:00.000-08:00

Am I alone to think that it was about darn time?

BBC NEWS | Europe | France raises marriage age limit: "The French parliament has raised the age at which a woman can get married - from 15 to 18 - as part of a package to combat domestic violence.

The law, which aims to prevent forced marriages, makes the age limit the same as that for men.

Tougher penalties for marital rape and assault will now be extended to partners and ex-partners in general.

MPs also backed measures to counter sex tourism, child pornography and female circumcision.

It will also become an offence to confiscate travel or identity documents to prevent a partner leaving.

The law on theft is also being amended: until now it has been impossible to bring theft charges against one spouse stealing from another. "

Euska Herria...

2006-03-22T06:52:00.000-08:00

We all woke up to this news all over the news channels (I just picked SABC to promote African media):

SABCnews.com | Basque separatist group declares ceasefire:

"March 22, 2006, 14:30

Basque separatist group ETA today declared a permanent ceasefire in its struggle for independence from Spain with effect from Friday, Basque newspaper Gara said on its Web site. ETA, classed as a terrorist group, previously declared a full ceasefire in September 1998. The group rescinded the ceasefire in December 1999.

ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna, or Basque Country and Freedom) is fighting for an independent Basque state in northern Spain and southwestern France. The group has killed nearly 850 people since 1968, typically using car bombs or shootings. The number of ETA killings has fallen from 23 in 2000 to three in 2003 and there have been none since then.

Spain, the United States and the European Union have listed ETA as a terrorist organisation. Jose Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister, who survived an ETA attack while he was opposition leader in 1995, made eliminating the group a priority. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, his Socialist successor, and his government have taken a softer line on ETA and have publicly fostered hopes of a truce."

Well it was about time, although with ETA, we have all learned to have a great deal of healthy caution. As some analysts were stating, ETA never did get out of the mud they were put in, whe they were - unjustly - accused for the Madrid train bombing. They have therefore had to recognize that their cause would not be served militarily, and that the political process would yield much stronger results. Aside from that, there has been some doubts over the actual strength of the Basque people's support of ETA, since they earned a great deal of autonomy from the Spanish government. By deciding to give the democratic process a fair chance, ETA has probably made its best strategic decision a in a long time.

The issue of homemade alcohol

2006-03-22T05:24:00.000-08:00

SABCnews.com | Indian country liquor kills farmer, then mourners

"March 20, 2006, 13:45

Ten villagers attending the cremation of a man poisoned by home-made alcohol in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh have died after toasting him with smuggled brew. Officials say 16 others are in a critical condition at a local hospital.

The villagers from the northeast of the state capital Hyderabad reportedly consumed alcohol believed to have been illegally brought in from the neighbouring state of Orissa. The alcohol sells for as little as 18 cents a bottle, one-third of the price of commercially produced liquor.

The drink is made from industrial spirit, to which boot-leggers add a cocktail of ingredients which could include vegetables, battery acid and pieces of old rubber tyres. The deadly mix is then boiled and distilled. It kills hundreds of poor Indians every year. - Reuters"

This is a problem that we encounter in Africa too, when the production of homemade alcohols are sometimes... creative at best, but often dangerous, due to some unorthodox ingredients.

A clash of civilizations?

2006-03-21T15:07:00.000-08:00

New round of protests and strikes set in France | International Herald Tribune

"French students and unions have stepped up pressure on the government, calling for a day of demonstrations and strikes March 28 to fight a hotly contested new labor law that makes it easier for companies to fire young employees.

Students also planned to march in Paris again Tuesday, continuing the protests that began Feb. 7 and have grown into a national movement, tipping the embattled government into crisis.

President Jacques Chirac repeated calls Monday for dialogue between the government and opponents of the law, which he said could be 'improved.' Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin met with business leaders, unemployed youths and students in an effort to find a way out of the impasse that threatens his political career.

'He is ready to go further than this,' a spokesman for Villepin said Monday, hinting there was room for negotiation. 'If there are proposals from the unions, he is ready to study them.'

The battle over what amounts to an incremental change in the country's social contract is emblematic of the overwhelming challenge facing many Western European countries as they try to loosen rigid labor laws and trim costly benefits that have built up in the social- welfare systems that emerged after World War II.

Governments recognize the need for fundamental"

One could wonder why I used that title for this commentary. Well that is because I see this problem as a clash between European and American civilizations. The all business, laissez-faire, and anti-union attitude of the United States, versus the union-friendly, worker-friendly and social-welfare based Europe.

People like Prime Minister De Villepin and Interior Minister Sarkozy, have started to live up to their conservative labels economically, as much as they do socially. In France, this is pretty new. Although one could generally look to the right - I mean extreme right, not Chirac... or do I?... - for the racists and bigots and xenophobes, it was not always clear cut in economic terms, despite all the rhetoric, and the little nationlization/denationalization of companies dance that always occur when there was a change at the helm. And it does send a bit of a chill accross Europe, and their workers. This is to some a degree, a direct attempt at changing the very fabric of European society... something that Europeans always abhore, whether it is from "those damn Muslim immigrants", or "those arrogant American bastards". Apparently change is coming. But is it really what it's cracked up to be? Living in the USA, I am still wondering...

A clash about civilization...

2006-03-21T14:53:00.000-08:00

Both leaders of the Iraq war effort - Bush and Blair - spoke to the public recently, in activities around the 3rd anniversary of the war. While Bush was clumsily stating that after 9/11, the US realized that killers could destroy innocent life (I thought that was the definition of a killer), Tony Blair was making arguments of a higher range:

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Iraq war allies remain in step: "One of the most interesting things in Tony Blair's speech on foreign policy was his disclosure that government advisers had told him never to use the phrase 'Islamic extremism'.

It was advice he resolutely rejected as he laid out his beliefs that such extremism - and especially its ideas - should be 'taken on'.

The phrase in the speech Mr Blair would probably like remembered most is: 'This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation.'

It is a clever phrase because it gets round the awkwardness of those who use the 'clash of civilisations' approach. They fall into the trap of taking sides between East and West, Christian and Muslim, secular and religious. Mr Blair is trying to run up a flag around which moderates of all faiths and no faith can rally."

Now, I agree with the analyst, that it is a very clever way t go around the notion of East vs. West. And I also agree to some degree with Tony Blair - who I respect and admire, but disagree emphatically with on the war - that these radical islamist views have to be taken on, dead on. My problem is more with the supremacist tendencies that lurk in on that statement: A clash about civilization.

The problem here, is this tendency that Western leaders to infer that the only right way to be, is like them. Yes they pay lip service to the notions that, for instance, Iraqi democracy will not look like the United States. But the pattern of actions and operations on the ground in Iraq, and in stated policies, all work on the premise that the West should be THE model to adopt by all. When the Lula, Chavez, Castro, Morales and Bachelet of this world want to have a slightly different approach, the US... freezes in apprehension. In addition, the people in the West cannot comprehend why everybody would not want to be like them. They do not realize that their countries' track records in staying true to their words when there was no particular economic interest at play, is abismal. They do not realize the deep wounds that their colonial past, and their divide and conquer policies have left, and the utter distrust that creates. And finally, they subconsciously take the arrogant attitude that Western culture is the only one worth being proud of, because - and this was actually said to me here in the US - it is the only tru Civilisation ever to have really existed. Forget Egypt, rabia and Abyssinia. Forget the three times millenary civilization of China.

This is not just a clash about civilization, because one would have to define what one sees as being "civilization". It is a similar issue as with the term "discovery". The Portuguese did not "discover" the Kongo kingdom, at least not in a globalized sense. They encountered the Kongo people, the Zulus or the East Indians, who were there, minding their own business. They were not lost animal species, to be studied and classified. If they were I could understand that it was a species unknown, in lands unknown to humanity as a whole. But these were human beings just like these Europeans, in lands that had been known to humans for quite a while, so discovery? I don't think so.

Just words, you tell me? Well yes. But see, in Congo we say that "the tongue has the same destructive power as the spear". Words, used carelessly, can start a war, and used carefully, can end one. Westerners have yet to get the fact that the pain, frustration and resentment is very real in poorer countries, and that it is often justified. It is this lack of awareness, in the people's - and sometimes the leaders' - minds that make it possible for them to be flabbergasted when some yahoos decide to take that resentment to an insane - and reprehensible - next step, and bomb civilians.

If people were more careful about holding their politicians accountable for such statements Bush's "crusade", "axis of evil", "africa is a beautiful country", etc, maybe we would be going somewhere in terrorism reduction. I mean does that not make sense?

Just wondering...

Contra el racismo : Integracion (es)

2006-03-21T14:05:00.000-08:00

Este articuo de "Contra el racismo" nos trata de explicar un poco mejor, las dificultades que los Europeos piensan tener con su poblacion de inmigrantes.

Contra el racismo y un poco mas | Integracion:

"Integracion, por asi decirlo la ultima moda en Francia y en Europa, por exagerar un poco diria que no se pasa un dia en que no escucho hablar de esto, integracion por aqui integracion por alla.
Pero que es la integracion?
Muchos se equivocan y llaman integracion a muchas cosas que no tienen nada que ver con esta y esta integracion a veces entona con desculturalizacion.
Estoy deacuerdo con la integracion, pero muchas veces escucho cosas que no tienen que ver con esta y me doy cuenta que la integracion se convirtio en una buena escusa para hacer pasar una cierta intolerancia.
En una ocacion una periodista de origen magrebi, se escandalizaba por el hecho de que algunos extrangeros tenian que cambiarse el nombre para poder encontrar trabajo y la respuesta que alguien le dio era que debian hacerlo, si estaban en Francia era hora de 'integrarse' y colocarle a sus hijos nombres franceses.
No veo por que uno deba cambiarse el nombre o colocarle a sus hijos nombres franceses para poder estar verdaderamente integrado. Yo personalmente no lo haria, no comparto esto y es mas hacerlo seria mas bien jugar el juego de aquellos que no han comprendido que es la integracion. Solo esto demuestra que aquellos que hablan de integracion, no saben lo que es y que no estan verdaderamente dispuestos a lograrla.

LA INTEGRACION NO ES DEJAR SU CULTURA Y TOMAR AQUELLA DEL PAIS. Esto es muy importante pero muchos no lo han entendido.

Tambien critican la forma de vestirse de algunos extrangeros, como las "mamas" africanas o el "voile" de las musulmanas. Pero, que les importa como se visten, cual es el problema, cada cual se viste como le de la gana, eso no afecta a nadie, solo a aquellos que quieren joder y criticar a los demas y que seguramente no tienen nada mas que hacer. Personalmente me gusta esa diversidad, ver gente vestida a la africana, a lo indu, a lo europeo, es mas simpatico que ver todo el mundo vestido de una manera uniforme y eso no tiene nada que ver con la integracion eso se llama irrespeto.
Otro problema es el que los inmigrantes solo se relacionan entre ellos . Pero me pregunto, a cuantos de aquellos que dicen esto le gustaria relacionarse con extrangeros y es mas cuantos depues de relacionarse con estos mantendrian una verdadera amistad. No creo que muchos, por que precisamente existen individuos que construyen las amistades mas fuertes y se sienten mejor con personas que tiene su misma cultura y codigos, cosa que no es criticable y es comprensible, es apenas normal que mismo si se tienen relaciones con personas de otras culturas un individuo guarde lazos fuertes con su comunidad de origen.
Cuando un europeo se va a vivir al exterior tambien busca la compañia de otras personas de su misma nacionalidad, mismo si se relaciona con los autoctonos es normal que busque personas que tengan su misma cultura. Muchos temen que los extrangeros al quedarse entre ellos se den las condiciones para la aparicion de ghuettos, mas no es asi, por que un ghuetto se crea apartir de una comunidad discriminada y excluida, si los extrangeros tuvieran las mismas oportunidades para encontrar trabajo y vivienda no tendria por que darse eso, mismo si se relacionan mas etre ellos, apartir del momento en que se tengan las mismas posibilidades, tanto en el trabajo, como en la educacion y la vivienda la fusion entre comunidades e individuos de difrentes origenes se dara cada vez mas.

Si se esta en un pais libre, cada cual se puede relacionar con quien lo desee, eso no es ningun problema simpre y cuando no discrimine, ni tenga problemas con las otras comunidades.
Una sociedad multicultural no tiene ningun pero, el verdadero problema esta en la mentalidad de aquellos que quieren uniformizar, imponer su cultura y despreciar las otras, una sociedad multicultural es posible siempre y cuando no exista discriminacion. Esto es posible, cada cual se puede vestir como quiera , guardar sus costumbres y su religion, llamarse como quiera y relacionarse con quien lo desee y al mismo tiempo estar integrado, por que la integracion es respetar las otras comunidades, es la igualdad, tener las mismas posibilidades para encontrar un trabajo y una vivienda, solo apartir de alli se puede hablar de integracion, al contario de lo que pasa en paises como Francia donde se le pide al extrangero de integrarse, sin darle las condiciones de hacerlo realmente. La integracion se da de lado y lado no unilateralmente.

LIBERTAD, IGUALDAD, FRATERNIDAD.

LIBERTAD: de pensar libremente sin ser juzgado, libertad de culto, libertad cultural.

IGUALDAD: cada individuo tiene las mismas oportunidades, derechos y deberes

FRATERNIDAD: mientras las anteriores se cumplan esta se puede dar, si no hay libertad e igualdad de donde se puede sacar la fraternidad.

Mientras se den estas condiciones, se podra ver mas mestizaje en las relaciones entre los autoctonos y los inmigrantes, aunque ya se da y no es raro ver personas de diferentes comunidades en grupos de amigos o en pareja, aun queda mucho para hacer para que se puedan dar las condiciones optimas de convivencia.

Si no existiera discriminacion de parte y parte, todas las comunidades podrian convivir juntas y en paz , guardando su cultura, sin querer obligar a las otras a abandonar y a tomar nuevas costumbres. Solo aquellas conductas que van encontra de la integridad de las personas deberian ser prohibidas.

El gran problema de los paises europeos, es querer obligar a las personas a dejar sus costumbres y tomar las suyas. Mientras no exista respeto y los europeos no comprendan esto, no habra verdadaderamente integracion, si no hay un cambio de mentalidad y los inmigrantes siguen siendo considerados como ciudadanos de segunda clase no se llegara a ningun lado y problemas como los que se dieron en las periferias de las ciudades francesas se seguiran dando."

El autor tiene razon, y ni puedo anadir nada. Pero me gustaria oir las respuestas de la gente.

The issue of Islam and polygamy

2006-03-21T10:21:00.000-08:00

It is very rare that 'The Salon II' agree on an issue that other more conservative blogs have shown concern with. In this case it is from Wizbang:

Wizbang: Muslim polygamy in America

"The fact is there are Muslim men with multiple wives living everywhere in America. But unlike the Mormons--most of whom don't practice polygamy anymore--Muslims with multiple wives aren't subject to ridicule, like HBO shows or Jay Leno jokes. And they aren't prosecuted, like Mormon Tom Green was."

Although I do not see the matter of polygamy in such clear-cut terms as my fellow bloggers at Wizbang, I agree that polygamy laws should apply uniformly to all the inhabitants of the land. And I do not believe any marriage should be recognized for anyone under 18 years old anyway, and then only if it is of their own free will that they married. I am sure I will lose my conservative fellow bloggers when I say that this uniform strength of the law should also apply to same-sex marriages, because it goes to prove that the notion of marriage, as a state-supported social institution, should have nothing to do with any religious sanctity.

Where the Wizbang and Debbie Schlussel lost me, is when they started bringing up the Mormons, and the current HBO show, Big Love. I respect the fact that the Mormons may feel offended by a portrayal that they deem unfavorable. But when we talk about freedom of expression and opinion, it means freedom of expression for everybody. If the neo-cons and the right-wing Christians can ridicule me and others for having liberal views, and tell us daily that we are going to hell, and have the king of them all claim to be in the "no spin zone", when he is the most biased silencer in the business... then HBO, SHOWTIME, Comedy Central and others should have the right to tell it like they see it, and let the audience judge.

Now, back to Muslim polygamy. I am Christian, and I spent much of my life (5 and 1/2 years) in Mali, a secular and very moderate muslim country. And there, the law applies differenty depending on what faith you claim, and what type of marriage regimen you choose. It works fairly well there, actually. And although I am unequivocally against polygamy, I was surprised at how well they all worked it out. But that is there. And unless the law is changed, it is not the law here in the US. I personally think it should not be changed, and I certainly would be one of the first on the protest march against legalizing marriages with a 14 year old girl (or boy for that matter).

The real problem here, however, is a state-nurtured fear of Muslims, and mistrust of Islam. Like every religion - including Christianity - there are aspects of Islam that I find preposterous, and very ungodly like. But like not all Christians are crusaders, not all Muslims are Jihadis. Many Christians support women staying in the kitchen, and being submissive to their husbands, and no one on the right wing seems to have a problem with that. We must all understand that there are plenty of flaws to go around with all our religions and traditions, no matter where we are on earth. And the tendency to lump all people - like I did here when talking about the right-wing as a homogenous group - only deepen the already existing divisions, thus rendering any possibility of cohabitation impossible.

Still wondering...

A UN of religions?

2006-03-20T09:43:00.000-08:00

I was wondering what people thought about this:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Rabbi calls for 'UN of religions': "The Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, has called for the creation of a world body with representatives from the major religious groups.

Rabbi Metzger was addressing the International Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace in Seville, Spain.

He called for the formation of a 'United Nations of religious groups'.

The Imam of Gaza, Imad al-Faluji, said politicians lied but religious leaders had a different objective - to work towards a higher good."

I for one am not sure what to think of this. I want the civilizations of the world, and their corollary religions to live in harmony. But I also recognize that many of the liberties that humans have garnered over the centuries have resulted from their abilities to counter the reactionary and liberticide aspects of some World religions. And the only way that was possible, was because all these religions did not get along, so they were isolated. So wouldn't a UN of religions bring about an era when religions of the World could organize to promote very inquistion-time like restrictions on individual liberties? I am just wondering...

Nobody Should Die Because of Sex

2006-03-20T06:34:00.000-08:00

SPIEGEL ONLINE | EU vs. US: "Nobody Should Die Because of Sex"

"For World AIDS Day on Thursday, the European Union released a statement that was seemingly critical of US efforts to combat the deadly disease. Too much moralizing and not enough condoms seemed to be the message. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke with Robin Gorna, head of the UK's Global AIDS Policy Team, about how realistic abstinence is, whether the US is helping or hurting, and how close we are to an AIDS cure."

I have said this from times immemorial, but no one listens to me. Well with the whole having a fairly conservative Christian country, the DRC, it is the kind of concepts that are very difficult to convey without appearing to be condoning depravity. But the fact of the matter is, in Congo, is that many fathers who would be reprimanding their 18 year-old about their promiscuity, also have 2 or 3 mistresses in other zip codes. And that attitude of do as I say, and not as I do, is something I have found in many communities here in the United States too. I have recently discovered that much of the puritanism is fairly hypocritical, except when it comes to homosexuality, the only subject on which they seem to grow a "Christian conscience". A humorist once said that White conservative women in the US are against abortion, until their daughter is pregnant of a black boyfriend. Then, I took it like just a funny joke. But it seems closer to the truth than I ever thought. Regardless, this business of promoting abstinence is not realistic, dangerous, and I would even say criminal. Call me crazy if you wish, but in my opinion, it is just as criminal not to yell fire in a movie theater when there is a fire, than it is to do so when there is not fire.

Still wondering...

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | E Timor sacks one third of army

2006-03-17T02:48:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | E Timor sacks one third of army: "East Timor has sacked more than a third of its army after soldiers went absent without leave to protest against poor conditions and rules of promotion.

The soldiers said they wanted an end to 'nepotism and injustice' in the force.

They refused to end the month-long stand-off despite an offer by President Xanana Gusmao of a government inquiry.

The dismissal of nearly 600 soldiers is a serious blow to the 1,400-strong force, set up after East Timor gained independence from Indonesia in 1999.

Most of the servicemen involved in the protest were said to be former insurgents whose 25-year fight for independence from Indonesia finally came to an end with the 1999 UN-organised referendum.

'Breeding resentment'

The soldiers have had trouble adapting to peace-time conditions and many feel they have not been given the recognition they deserve for their past sacrifices."

What's up with that?

2006-03-16T22:44:00.000-08:00

(xported from The Salon I)

So I was roaming through the net today, and I realized that I had failed in my duty to bring out important events that are often overlooked in the media here in the US, about Africa. I had not been informed - and I have myself to blame - that Ms. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, none other than the first, democratically elected, female African leader, and President of Liberia, was going to address a joint session of the US Congress.

BBC NEWS | Africa | Liberian leader wows US congress

"Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has become one of the few women to address a joint sitting of the United States congress.

In a speech which was frequently interrupted by standing ovations, she said US aid was helping to restore peace to Liberia and West Africa.

She promised to make Liberia 'America's success story in Africa.'

Liberia was founded by freed US slaves in 1847 and many Liberians see the US as their 'big brother'.

After her speech, congress promised an extra $50m in aid for Liberia, still recovering from 14 years of civil war."

Now as much as my next statement is a reflection of the extent of the power of neo-colonialism, this is a rare and important event for Africa as a whole. It is an honour rarely bestowed upon a woman in this country, let alone an African head of state. And so, in my awesome naivete, I ran out to go check the news channels, to catch images of the historic moment... ZIP, nothing, zilch. Not even a line in the tickers of CNN, MSNBC, or - yes I even went there - Fox News. Of course the speech - which was very eloquent - was available on parliamentary Cable channel C-SPAN (and you can watch it here), but who but a politics geek like me would watch C-SPAN?

And this is a perfect illustration of how the US TV-media deals with Africa. It is okay to show the starving kids, but when such an event as this one occurs in their own backyard - or actually frontyard, considering that is the Congress - then no one cares, it ceases to be newsworthy. And I had to go to the BBC to even hear about it... well not only there, all the African sources too. But none here. And then one wonders why some people here, think Africa is hopeless. That is all they get to see. And that is a damn shame.

Good ol' Saddam

2006-03-15T04:28:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saddam denounces 'comedy' court

Ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has begun his first formal defence at his trial for crimes against humanity by describing the court as a 'comedy'.

Saddam Hussein and seven co-accused are being prosecuted over the deaths of 148 people in the Shia village of Dujail following a 1982 assassination attempt.

Earlier, his half-brother and former spy chief, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, denied any part in the deaths.

Previous trial sessions have been disrupted by defendants' protests.

Saddam Hussein appeared in court wearing a dark suit, without a tie."

Now does agreeing with Saddam - on this particular statement - make me a sympathizer? Because I am not, really, the guy is a primo-B. But it is true, this court has a feel of a gorilla court. A head of state, accused of crimes against humanity, will never be tried freely in his own country; it will be either overly stringent, or overly lenient. The 4 years of trial for Milosevic were every bit worth the wait and the money, if we want to even pretend to create a remotely harmonious society on this blue sphere of ours.

His Majesty Berlusconi

2006-03-15T01:10:00.000-08:00

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. For few people is it more true than for Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi. The meda magnate controls all the major media outlets, governs like an absolute monarch, and is uhphased by all the indictments against him for government mismanagement, and corruption: he has become an all-powerful political machine, and does not believe he has to answer to anyone. Hence this type of incidents:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Berlusconi storms out of TV show

"Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has stormed off a TV show after the interviewer asked awkward questions ahead of the April election.

The media magnate refused to answer when state TV journalist Lucia Annunziata asked about his business affairs and the Iraq conflict.

'You can't tell me what to do,' he said as the conversation descended into bickering and he accused her of bias.

'This is my show, I'll decide the questions,' Ms Annunziata retorted.

She told him he was 'not used to taking journalists' questions'.

The prime minister faces his first TV debate with opposition leader Romano Prodi on Tuesday as the race hots up for the 9-10 April election and his coalition lags behind in opinion polls by several points."

It seems Berlusconi had forgotten that he was actually answerable to someone: the people. Another western leader - known as W - is learning that the hard way right now, with the Dubai ports deal (whether or not I think the people's reaction was totally rational in this case). Like Bush's imperial presidency, his friend Berlusconi has led an even more monarchical prime-ministership, and he may be paying the price now. Now, although I have deep respect for Romano prodi, if he could just be a bit more hip and energetic, I would feel a bit more certain that it was Berlusconi's last act... Iam still wondering.

Oh (native) Canada

2006-03-15T00:49:00.000-08:00

God bless the BBC (when they are impartial). They provide me with a very wide range of news to comment, like this one:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Totem returned to Canadian tribe

"A Canadian tribe has recovered a totem pole that was taken from them in the 1920s and was on display in Sweden.

The nine-metre (30-foot) high artefact is one of most significant treasures of the Haisla nation of British Columbia.

It was erected in 1876 at the mouth of the Kitlope River in north-western Canada to honour a spirit for saving the tribe from a smallpox epidemic."

Well it is about darn time! As a Congolese man, I am still bewildered by the fact that I have to travel to Brussels, and then to Tervuren, to go see much of the artistic, cultural and folkloric wealth of my own country... I mean, right now, Congo does not have the means to actually house much of those, but something tells me that even if we could, and we expressed a desire to have even some of it back, we would have to fight veeeeeery hard...

Go First Nations!

Pop... politics

2006-03-14T23:57:00.000-08:00

Growing up in Africa, I always saw the Eurovision as this very foreign, and fairly frivolous exercise at pop-patriotism. Not that I didn't enjoy watching them, they were awesome. But in the back of my head, I could not help but wonder whether it was not just a futile attempt at trying to keep warring Europeans from getting - militarily - at each other's throats. A catharsis, if you will.

This does not seem to work anymore; in fact quite the opposite:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Serbia-Montenegro in pop song row

"Tensions between Serbia and Montenegro have spilled over into the Eurovision song contest, which has a history of intense national rivalry.

An argument is raging over which band should represent the federation of Serbia and Montenegro in the contest.

A Montenegrin boy band called No Name won a televised competition in Belgrade to choose the best song - but they were booed by the audience, who cried foul."

"Speaking on Sunday, former Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Zivkovic said the furore had caused "much more excitement last night than the death of [former Yugoslav President] Slobodan Milosevic"."

When something as (well maybe not so) futile as Eurovision, can garter this much passion, shouldn't it be the proof that the Serb-Montenegrin political alliance has run its course? I mean it is but a shred of the original and mighty - if artificial - Yugoslavia; and the fact that some sentimentalists want to cling to that glorious past, should not - IMHO - perclude reality from getting the upper hand: Serbia and Montenegro should become separate countries.

And so should, for that matter, Kosovo separate from Serbia. The day when Milosevic, Mladic and co decided to make an ethnic issue out of former Yugoslavia, and seemingly promoted some level of supremacy and righteousness for the Serbs in the region (mutatis mutandis for the Croat leaders in Croatia, and to a lesser extent the Bosniacs in Bosnia-Herzegovina), they signed they broight doom to the possible peaceful existance of enclaves with a majority of another ethnic group, within another country. This is true for the Republica Serbzca, of Pale in Bosnia, and it should be true for Kosovo. Unless the Serbs - and I mean the people - are willing to recognize the Albanian Kosovars, as inherently Serb, with the same rights, the same consideration and respect, they de facto recognize that Kosova, whose land has been inhabited by these ethnic Albanians for quite a while, does not belong in Serbia, right? I wonder...

Islamic Calvinism?

2006-03-14T23:18:00.000-08:00

You tell me:

BBC NEWS | Business | Turkish toil brings new form of faith

"Kayseri is one of a handful of cities industrialising at an astonishing rate in Anatolia, Turkey's central province and the country's Islamic heartland.

Unlike the big urban centres of Ankara and Istanbul, the population is made up of devout, conservative Muslims. "

"One of the first to use this description was the former mayor of Kayseri, Sukru Karatepe.

A softly-spoken man who taught sociology before entering politics, Karatape noticed striking similarities between the changes in Kayseri and the famous thesis of the German economist Max Weber, who argued that the strong work ethic of the Protestant movement gave birth to modern capitalism. "

""I had read Weber, who'd written about how Calvinists work hard, save money and then reinvest it into business," he says.

"To me, it seemed very similar to what was happening in Kayseri.

"People in Kayseri also don't spend money unnecessarily. They work hard, they pride themselves on saving money. Then they invest it and make more money.

"In fact, in Kayseri, working hard is a form of worship. For them, religion is all about the here and now, not the next life. Making money is a sign of God's approval, and this is also similar to what Weber said about the Calvinists." "

I don't know id it is Calvinism, but it definitelt seems like a logical way to make money, and become financially prosperous, while maintaining one's virtue. That's fine by me, Islamic or otherwise.

Bush, Iraq policy, evil Iran

2006-03-14T07:19:00.000-08:00

Okay, now you all know I have my issues with President Bush, and his foreign policy. But I had been listening to him recently, and he seemed on a more "thoughtful" path, with a bit more consideration for the intelligence of his people in his speeches, and some rationality in the discourse. And then there is this:

Aljazeera.Net | Bush defends Iraq policy, slams Iran

" Bush on Monday delivered the first in a series of planned speeches aimed at convincing Americans he has a strategy for victory, days before the third anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Bush spoke amid a wave of sectarian strife in Iraq that has raised fears of civil war, dampening US hopes for a troop drawdown soon. "

" While blaming Iraq's sectarian violence on the "enemies of freedom" in the country, Bush on Monday also pointed the finger at Iran, saying some of the homemade bombs that are wreaking havoc in Iraq came from its eastern neighbour.

Locked in a test of wills with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, Bush said during his speech that "some of the most powerful IEDs (improvised explosive devices) we are seeing in Iraq today include components that came from Iran". "

Is it just me, or is this a deja-vu from the pre-Iraq war? I mean it was the same arguments, insiduously embedded in every national security/war on terror speech, against Saddam's regime. Not that Iran is not much more poweful, and more aggressive than Saddam was. But I find it eye-opening that the same build-up to war strategy is being employed here.

In light of the above, The Salon II is therefore predicting that, unless there is some major unforseen change in the current stand-off, the US will be fighting Iran by the end of 2007.

Death of Milosevic

2006-03-11T09:44:00.000-08:00

As I did my newsrounds this morning, I had the tremendously puzzling surprise of reading the following:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Milosevic found dead in his cell

Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has died in the detention centre at The Hague tribunal.

The tribunal said he had been found dead in his cell on Saturday morning. The cause of death is not yet clear.

Now I say puzzling, because I am not sure what to think, or how to react. Some primitive vengeful streak in the back of my mind wants me to jump up and down, for a tyrant has finally met his maker. But my more rational side feels a sense of anti-climactic vacuum, as it seems like after all the historical charge behind the indictment of Milosevic in front of a tribunal for crimes against humanity - the first head of state to be so indicted, justice will not get a chance to prevail, in court. For all those that sympathized with Milosevic will always be able to claim (erroneously) that he never had a fair chance, nor a fair trial, and continue to keep him in this posture, as somewhat of a persecuted and heroic martyr, etc, etc. I am simply hoping that his death was a natual one, and not suicide. I am also hoping that this event will not give the Serbian government renewed eagerness to stall the talks on the future of Kosovo, which I care deeply about.

Media, isms, and lethaly poor judgement

2006-03-09T19:42:00.000-08:00

(Repost from The Salon I, January 31, 2006)

There are times when I go through the various news sites, and I am simply floored by the unbelievably ludicrous events that occur daily on this blue ball of ours, and actually affect our lives. Between the over the top outrage at Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction", that has made television stations and networks in the USA, excessively weary of the religious right (case and point: The Book of Daniel has just been cancelled), and Hamas declaring it wants an Islamic state in Palestine, to keep homosexuals out (I guess an Islamist party is probably not big on freedoms)... Wow! Why is it that we love to feed our extremism, rather than our abilities to negotiate? And more importantly here, why is it that this human race of ours seems to always be looking for ways to worsen already tense situations?

Case and point:

BBC NEWS Middle East Danes face growing Muslim storm:

"Denmark has advised citizens against travel to Saudi Arabia, amid growing anger across the Muslim world at Danish depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
A newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet, one of which pictured a bomb hidden in his turban, apologised on Monday for offending Muslims.

A newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet, one of which pictured a bomb hidden in his turban, apologised on Monday for offending Muslims. Islam bans any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad or Allah."

Now, in as volatile a world as we have today, and considering that there is already a daily almost planet-wide clash of religions/ideologies (I am assuming the Danes have TVs, and International news), why would any journalist/newspaper, in their right mind, publish such a potentially incendiary carricature? Aren't there enough points or contention between Islam and the West, for there to be such a monumentous blunder?

Don't get me wrong, I would actually give my life for freedom of expression and opinion, and freedom of the press. But I also believe that professional press organizations should be mindful of the various ramifications of the topics/stories/images they publish. If there is something we have learnt, it is that the West NEEDS to inform itself better about Islam, and its Ummah. Even basic knowledge about Islam could avoid these kind of unnecessary offenses. Unless of course the backlash is exactly what the Jyllands-Posten newspaper was after... but I doubt it.

This brings me to my third point. These potentially inflamatory articles/images are not just a problem for the Muslim world, but may have unintended consequences in Europe itself, and the Western world in general. With the rise of such parties as the "Front National" in France, the National Democratic Party in Germany (NDP... if you replace Democratic by another word that starts with "S", And then you compare their campaign messages and tacticts, I start shivering), or the conservative Christian right-wing here in the USA, there is much cause for concern that isms and phobias in general, and racism and xenophobia in particular, might become an even bigger concern, than backlash from militant Islam. In Russia, numbers of racially motivated killings have doubled in the past 2 years, and all over Europe, xenophobic, racist, and anti-semitic crimes and attacks have become quite frequent. And there seems to be no real will from governments (especially the right-wing ones) to deal with this at all. And within this context, the French parliament had the @#$% to pass a law praising the positive effects of colonialism in the former French Empire. The law will now be repealed, but a staggering 60% of the French people thought it was an appropriate law. And now, to balance it out, Chirac has declared a "Remembrance of Slavery Day", every May 10th, to commemorate a 2001 law that made slavery a crime against humanity, and had angered the Right... it's appropriate, but a bit late.

So in the name of all my fellow formerly colonized African, Caraibean, and Asian people, and the blood of their ancestors, I must say the following. European (and Western) governments have to realize three things: One, they are old and they NEED us "Keffers, niggers, ragheads, sandpeople, beurs, camel-people, savages" to survive. Two, that we are poor and knocking at their door largely as a result of their colonial, post-colonial, Cold-war and neo-colonial policies, and they muss fess up to their responsibilities. And three, if it were not for us, our labour, our lands and our natural resources, they would not even be close to being the powers that they are today (And especially Africans, because if it were not for them, some say, there would be no humans at all).

And to all the Neo-Nazis, Front National, NDP, et al out there, I love you dearly as fellow humans, and I have nothing against you because of your race, and I never have. I have always been a champion for mingling of all humans, tolerance and racial hamony between all people, and that remains my core belief. But get this: you don't want to try us. White people are a minority in this world, and the rest of us has already seen how dangerous a fascist Europe could be... we will not let it happen again. Just so you know.

I am done venting. And I still wonder...

Epiphany

2006-03-09T01:40:00.000-08:00

So, I was mulling around on the recent outrage in the United States over the Dubali ports deals, and... I fell asleep. As I was sleeping, a revelation from above (or wherever it came from) popped in my head so hard, that I woke up.

Conspiracies... what if the stellar Karl Rove team, that are behind the unbelievable 2 terms of the increasingly imperial President Bush, planned this all along? Because I cannot imagine that the very same people that scared Americans to death, and scared them particularly about Arabs and Muslims, would not forsee that people would be scared @#$%less that ports of entry to the US would be left to an Arab-government-owned company to manage... So on that basis, I must ask myself the following: considering how it seems like agreeing with the president may be a liability for many Republicans, what if the Rove team planned all this shebang to give the Republicans an opportunity to show a backbone, and oppose the President, and regain some favor in the mind of the people?

I wonder...

A few changes

2006-03-06T21:00:00.000-08:00

I am a bit ashamed of myself, as I have been so overwhelmed with daily life, and the unbelievably self-destructive nature our world seems to be developping (have you read the news lately?), that I have been kept from fulfilling my blogging duties. I guess it is the real world catching up with me. Additionally, the politicians in Congo seem to use everyday to further prove that many of them are self-serving and immature overgrown schoolboys, and that does not help matters.

But something that I have done, is do some reevaluating. As you can see, the name of the salon has been reduced to its most simple expression. I realized that with my writing on Congo, and my trying to keep up with the situation there, I have been neglecting other things, and other places, that are just as important So we are now going to have 2 salons. The Salon will stay as the Congo blog, with my fellow team members, and the new "The Salon II" (that's here) will be for some international issues.

On a personal note, I will also try to write more, and post more pictures on my personal blog, because it has really been a while. Not that anyone needs to know about my personal thoughts on my surroundings, but it's a good catharsis.