The Republic of Dissent

Rational modesty

“The lesson for us in all of this is rational modesty. In the past, it used to be said that arrogance and selfishness were impediments to rationality; now, we have to say that arrogance equals irrationality and that modesty is one of the essential virtues of rational people and seekers of learning.” Abdolkarim Soroush, “On Reason.”

Desperately seeking Marianne

The New York Times has an article on the increasing role, which national identity has played in the French elections. There was this part of the article, which I thought not only misread the issue, but polemicized it:

For the past few years, France has struggled with economic and cultural issues related to its immigrants. One is shared by much of the rest of Europe: how to stop the influx of illegal immigrants who drain a country’s economy and social services. A second is how to force French citizens of immigrant origin to obey laws, including those banning practices like polygamy and the wearing of head scarves by Muslim girls and women in schools and universities.

This paragraph contributes to the urban legends that they are millions of polygamists in France and that the majority of Muslims girls and women wear the veil and that isn't true. Reality doesn't matter in this case, because perceptions are more important and the French feel that both immigration and globalization are threatening their national identity. However, the article doesn't distinguish between the use of identity by Nicolas Sarkozy and the one by Ségolène Royal. Nicolas chose to link national identity to immigration because he was worried about the fact that some of his voters may be tempted by the centrist candidate François Bayrou, In order words, he knew that the only way for him to avoid an erosion of his vote on the left was to attract far right voters by giving them a sign that he is the only candidate who shared their ideas and who has a chance to win, a change, which  Jean-Marie Le Pen the leader of the French far right doesn't have. Ségolène Royal used national identity because she knows that the election isn't going to be won on the left ad on the right and that her only change to win is to reassure voters that not only is she not as scary as Sarkozy, but she isn't part of the old left, which resents national identity, authority and security. Ségolène Royal, who I support, knows that she can't win if she is viewed first of all as a leftist because the French electorate has become more conservative. However, the problem for her is that she needs the left to reach the second round of the election and to hold off by Bayrou. It is for this reason that her campaign is a lot less straightforward and a lot more complicated than the one of her rivals Sarkozy and Bayrou. She needs the left to be in the second round, but at the same time, she needs the center and a small part of the right to be able to become the first French woman president. It is for these reasons that she has invoked Marianne, who is the heroine who epitomized France, Jeanne D'Arc, the Marseillaise, and the French flag. Her goal is to send signals that she is a moderate. However, the risk for her is that the left will desert and that she will find herself without a solid base. I think that it is a risk worth taking for her because her biggest challenge in my view is not to win the French presidential election, but to be in a second round, which I believe she would win.

Obama and Poetry

Ian McMillan assesses Barack Obama lyrical skills by examining some poems he wrote and published when he was 19. He finds that his poems have “a humanity […] , a sense of family values and shared cultural concerns that give us a hint of the Democrat to come.” Here is one of Obama’s poems:

Pop

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken

In, sprinkled with ashes,

Pop switches channels, takes another

Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks

What to do with me, a green young man

Who fails to consider the

Flim and flam of the world, since

Things have been easy for me;

I stare hard at his face, a stare

That deflects off his brow;

I'm sure he's unaware of his

Dark, watery eyes, that

Glance in different directions,

And his slow, unwelcome twitches,

Fail to pass.

I listen, nod,

Listen, open, till I cling to his pale,

Beige T-shirt, yelling,

Yelling in his ears, that hang

With heavy lobes, but he's still telling

His joke, so I ask why

He's so unhappy, to which he replies . . .

But I don't care anymore, cause

He took too damn long, and from

Under my seat, I pull out the

Mirror I've been saving; I'm laughing,

Laughing loud, the blood rushing from

his face

To mine, as he grows small,

A spot in my brain, something

That may be squeezed out, like a

Watermelon seed between

Two fingers.

Pop takes another shot, neat,

Points out the same amber

Stain on his shorts that I've got on mine,

and

Makes me smell his smell, coming

From me; he switches channels, recites

an old poem

He wrote before his mother died,

Stands, shouts, and asks

For a hug, as I shink*, my

Arms barely reaching around

His thick, oily neck, and his broad back;

'cause

I see my face, framed within

Pop's black-framed glasses

And know he's laughing too.

Under water grottos, caverns

Filled with apes

That eat figs.

Stepping on the figs

That the apes

Eat, they crunch.

The apes howl, bare

Their fangs, dance,

Tumble in the

Rushing water,

Musty, wet pelts

Glistening in the blue.

I can’t offer an objective evaluation of Obama because I don’t believe in English poetry. I think that for poetry to be poetry, it must be written preferably in a Latin language.

Too much English

French politicians aren’t the only one to regret and combat the supremacy of the English language and its penetration of the French language. German Christian Faction in the German parliament have joined the fight against English to stop the anglicizing of German. Sugary excerpt:

According to the group behind the initiative, which is calling itself "Consumer Language Protection," some 33 percent of people in German do not understand English. While this part of the population might be perplexed at the train station or outside a cafe offering "coffee to go," the use of English in some situations could even be dangerous, such as when a label on a space heater says "do not cover" only in English or when a sign in a taxi says "please fasten your seatbelt" instead of Bitte anschnallen.

Steinbach said she realized English use was too widespread in Germany when she saw an older woman confronted with the word "sale" in a shop window, and thought the store was referring to a river. The woman was also perplexed at by the signs talking about the "news" or the latest "special offer."

Samuel Beckett, Ireland and France

Colm Tóibín writes in the London Review of Books about Samuel Beckett and Irish theater and actors. He shows how much Ireland was a part of Beckett’s works and why he was in my opinion one the best writers of the last century. Sugary excerpt:

It must be emphasised, but perhaps not too much, how close Beckett was to the theatre of the Irish Literary Revival, the classic plays through which the Abbey Theatre became famous. The only time in his life when Beckett actually went to the theatre regularly was in the 1920s, when he was a student at Trinity College Dublin. In his first year there he saw a production of Sean O’Casey’s The Shadow of a Gunman at the Abbey. Later he saw a revival of J.M. Synge’s The Well of the Saints, as well as the two great O’Casey plays Juno and the Paycock and The Plough and the Stars. He also saw Yeats’s two extraordinary Oedipus translations. The best sense of him as an enthusiastic attender at the Abbey is given by the fact that he was in the theatre not only on the opening night of The Plough and the Stars but two nights later, on the night of the riots, when he sat in the centre of the first row on the balcony.

What I admire the most about Beckett is the fact that he chose to write in French even though it would have been a lot easier to continue to write in English. Anybody who knows anything about French knows that it is a much more difficult language than English that is harder to mold and to master. It is for that reason that Samuel Beckett’s gifts to literature is undervalued and that one has to speak both French and English to realize why En Attendant Godot (Waiting for Godot) is one of the best plays ever written.

Poetry and totalitarianism

“How do poets live in a totalitarian state? House searches come to mind, interrogations, the gulag and more. All very true. But there is also the painful slog: not belonging, being poor and poorly dressed, living in paltry surroundings, appearing as a bit of an oddball to others who are better at fitting in. It takes a lot of resistance to be able to say no to the general aesthetic and create an autonomous world of your own with a tiny group of like-minded people.” Olga Martynova, “The source we drink from.”

Europe and the Multipolar world

Joseph Stiglitz argues that the European Union’s first 50 years have been a success and that Europe is the only power able to create a multipolar world that would create a fairer and more equitable world. Sugary excerpt:

Europe has succeeded in part because it recognises that the rights of individuals are inalienable and universal, and because it created institutions to protect those rights. America, by contrast, has witnessed a massive assault on those rights, including that of habeas corpus - the right to challenge one's detention before an independent judge. Fine distinctions are made, for example, between the rights of citizens and non-citizens.

Today, only Europe can speak with credibility on the subject of universal human rights. For the sake of all of us, Europe must continue to speak out - even more forcibly than it has in the past.

Likewise, while the European project sought to bring about the "harmony" of people living together in peace, we also must live in harmony with our environment - the scarcest of all of our resources. In this area, too, Europe has taken the lead, especially concerning global warming, showing that petty selfishness can be put aside to achieve a common good.

Outrage and impotence

Brendan O’Neil argues that the current hostage crisis in Britain just shows how impotent the war in Iraq has made Britain since all that the British can do is to watch their 14 captured seamen paraded on Iranian television and to be outraged at the evilness of Iran:

The Iranian captive crisis has provided some striking snapshots of Britain’s standing: its isolation post-Iraq; the emptiness of its foreign policy; a view of the military as victimised, vulnerable. The affair shows Britain is the loudmouth of international affairs - it talks big, but it lacks the strength or coherence to back the talk up.

What I wonder is whether Blair’s weakness isn’t having a negative impact on the situation in the sense that the Iranians knows that he doesn’t have the support of his people and that he is his way out and cannot therefore afford to make the mistake of confronting him. One of the biggest drawbacks of having an impotent leader at the top of an important such as Britain is precisely that they can’t deal with any crisis or with any international issue precisely because their interlocutors have no faith in their ability to keep their word and to act.

Dawkins and fundamentalist atheism

Ruth Gledhill writes about a debate on whether people are better off without religion that took place Westminster Central Hall in London. Richard Dawkins was obviously on the side, which argued that for the uselessness of religion and he was joined by Christopher Hitchens and Professor AC Grayling. Gledhill writes that Dawkins was able to knock down all of the arguments from the other side (Baroness Julia Neuberger, Professor Roger Scruton and Nigel Spivey) and makes the point that although he isn’t angry and one-dimmensional, his views on religion are extreme. Sugary excerpt:

Dawkins did not have to work very hard to win the argument last night. His problem is that he takes religion too literally, and as many have pointed out, is too fundamentalist about his own atheistic creed. Apart from that fleeting moment of doubt I spotted, we are all creationists in his eyes.

Gledhill confuses passion with fundamentalism. Richard Dawkins believes intensely and passionately that religion is useless and dangerous. However, the problem is that it is impossible to have a debate about religiosity on the level that Dawkins wants to have it because religion is more about faith than reason. This limitation doesn’t mean that dialogue and debate is impossible, but that it can only be about the place of religion within a modern and democratic society.

Drunken Europe

“Regardless of the curses and complaints fired at her, America remains the last resort separating Europe from subjugation. In the manner of the drunken fool Europe throws mud at her only protector, kowtows to her would-be conquerors and ignores the contradiction. That a significant minority in the US concurs and that her public opinion is more concerned with Britney Spears' rehabs than with global threats targeting her is as regrettable as it is a fact. This condition becomes understandable given the average person’s limited experience with catastrophes that cannot be Pelosied away by the magic of “immediate withdrawal.” Excuses along these lines also fit the west of Europe. Enjoying good weather since 1945 under a free umbrella amounts to ineffective preparation to defend liberty against anything beyond rampaging guinea pigs. Thinking in such terms it is more difficult to comprehend the naiveté of some majorities in east-central Europe.” George de Poor Handlery, “Replace the USA.”

Bruckner, Islam, and Multiculturalism

Pascal Bruckner has a rebuttal on the subject of Multiculturalism and Islam responding to both Timothy Garton Ash and to Ian Buruma. He argues that, “The right to difference gets us very quickly to the difference of rights, with which believers may be preserved from contamination from impious – and so impure - ideas and behaviour.” Bruckmer writes that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a better role model for Islam than Tariq Ramadan because the most important thing is for Islam to look within and to reform their religion not just to renounce violence. Sugary excerpt:

It seems to me a blatant error to start talking with conservatives just because they don't openly call for the holy war. This amounts to renouncing reform of Islam, provided Muslims renounce violence. But preferring modern fundamentalism to terrorism runs the risk of having both: orthodoxy and extremists, men with beards and kamikazes, seditious preachers and bombs, plague and cholera. After all, the obscurantist regime in Saudi Arabia didn't prevent the emergence of Al Qaeda.
This position, dictated by fear and short-term preoccupations, was taken by the English Labour government - even they now question it. And it was taken by Nicolas Sarkozy, then minister of the interior, when he supported letting the fundamentalists of the UOIF (Union des organisations islamistes de France, very close to the Muslim Brotherhood) join the Conseil Francais du Culte Musulman. What's at stake here is the possibility that Islam could engage - like Rome at the time of Vatican II - in a true aggiornamiento, and take a critical look at itself and its 14 centuries of history, in particular at its relationship to violence and its desire for universal domination.

The problem that I have with Pascal Bruckner is that he always seems to be working backwards that is to take an absolute and passionate position and then to adapt reality to his position. Although I too prefer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Tariq Ramadan, I don't make the mistake to believe the difference between the two is just about Islam. The most important question, which Pascal Bruckner avoids to answer, is whether the right to difference can only mean what he wants it to mean just in order to be able to reject in order of the values of the Enlightenment. The most important question is whether identities are flexible or unchangeable that is whether when there will be a majority of people who will not agree with Bruckner they will be allow to change society. If it is fine to say or rather to scream that some things are unacceptable and intolerable, but there comes a time when the focus of the conversation must change and become about what is acceptable and what is permissible. It is a conversation that Pascal Bruckner doesn't want to have. Bruckner is a sentimentalist who believes that Europe is La Joconde, the Mona Lisa and that change no matter how consensual and acceptable would make it less of masterpiece.

God and nothingness

“God explains nothing; he explains less than nothing, since the assumption of his existence introduces more problems than if one were to assume nothing. Amazement was the act that gave birth to philosophy. Why was it, then, along with everything that followed, especially science, so keen to make that amazement disappear at all costs – as if it were its inverse duty, when it came to the crunch, to see to it that amazement was no more? I suggest leaving amazement well alone, just as it came into the world: no other emotion that accompanies the realization will turn out to be more satisfying.” Burkhard Müller, “The concept of God – and why we don't need it.”

Rape and consent

Lesley Thomas has an op-ed in the Telegraph about rape and consent. She discusses the complexity of the complex issues and argues that cover-all-consent laws are not the solution to avoid rape. Sugary excerpt:

Sex, alcohol and consent make blurry bedfellows. Which of us hasn't said yes after a drink or two? Who, apart from recovering alcoholics, has sex without it for that matter? Some cruel commentator said of Jo Brand, the chubby, back-combed comedienne, that a man would have to be drunk to sleep with her. She quipped, rightly, that most men would never get laid were it not for alcohol. In this equality-minded society of ours women wear beer goggles, too.

[…] I think it's fair to say that young women can be very stupid. In city centres up and down the country they are binge-drinking their way to oblivion on Saturday nights. Binge drinking can lead to binge bonking.

There's nothing stupid or immoral about having lots of sex but often, these women sleep with men they later wish they hadn't. Regrettable sex is never a good idea but these women are not, as some headlines suggest, crying rape at the moment of regret. They feel the same as men do when they wish they hadn't - except with more guilt.

The key issue is always about to do to make sure that people understand that rape is a general intent crime and not a specific intent crime that is that the state of mind of the defendant doesn't matter and therefore shouldn't be the focus of the discussion. Once this issue is resolved, I believe that the issue of consent becomes less complicated since the only relevant question is not whether the defendant thought that the rape victim consented, but just whether s/he consented.

Literary attitude and kinky sex

The Guardian has an interesting piece on AL Kennedy who is one of my favorite writes. She talks about her new collections of short stories Day and about her views of literature, life, and about her writing. Sugary excerpt:

'It's like anal sex,' she explains when I ask her about her fiercely literary attitude to her work and her correspondingly confrontational presentation of it. 'If that's what I want to do to you and you're not into it, then go away, because that's what will keep happening.'

History, Slave, guilt and responsibility

I just read this article in the Guardian about a protester who asked the Queen to say sorry for the slave trade and who said that she should be ashamed because of the role of Elizabeth I in the slave trade. I am not one of those people who believe that people are "slaves" to history and that they should repent and apologize constantly for the sins the wrongs of their ancestors. When it comes to history and to shameful episodes, I believe that the most important is not penitence or apologies, but acknowledgement and a willingness to admit that historical events don't happen in a vacuum and have consequences. Repentance is useless because it legitimizes the concept that blood is everything and that the sins wrongs of the ancestors are those of their descendants. Jorge Semprún who wrote a magnificent book about the Shoah, memory, and History called L'Ecriture ou La vie (Literature or Life) said that there isn't such a thing as the duty to remember, but that there is a duty to know. Thus, Elizabeth II doesn't have to weep and flagellate herself for what Elizabeth I did, all she has to do is to know what she did, to acknowledge that it was wrong and that her actions had enduring consequences. After all, there is a difference between responsibility and guilt and more importantly blood doesn't confer guilt, but only responsibility, which is more elastic and less extremist concept because it emphasizes the fact that we are all, as Sartre would say, condemned to be free.

Gitmo,war, and image

David rivkin jr. and Lee Casey make an argument for Guantanamo in the Wall Street Journal by reaffiming its necessity to the war on terror. They argues that closing Gitmo wouldn’t appease critics who don’t understand the war and don’t believe in. Sugary excerpt:

Nothing illustrates this better than the continuing challenges to Guantanamo Bay. Even European officials who have visited the American base acknowledge conditions there--including housing, food, medical care and recreation--are better than in most civilian penitentiaries around the world. What most critics really object to is the entire "laws of war paradigm" that has been employed since 9/11 by the Bush administration.

Some claim, incorrectly but passionately, that the U.S. cannot be at war with a non-state like al Qaeda, and that the classification of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners as "unlawful enemy combatants" violates the Geneva Conventions. Others care less about the legal questions, but assert that Guantanamo and the "war on terror" have done fundamental damage to the U.S. diplomatic position around the world--sullying its reputation, straining its alliances and undercutting its leadership of the international community.

However, Rivkin and Casey don’t address what is one of the essential questions and that is whether Gitmo is accomplishing its objective that is protecting Americans against hardened terrorists. After all, if one doesn’t believe in the power of symbols, then one has whether Gitmo is an efficient tool against terrorism.

Alpha women and political power

Camille Paglia writes about alpha women and their rise to power. She argues that Hillary epitomizes the new feminism, which is about women gaining power by conquering male territory and not about being “too consumed with domestic social welfare issues and with women's studies courses that preached male-bashing and female victimhood.”

Being a journalist and being sympathetic

Dan Goldberg defends Katie Couric against the vicious attacks made against her by some who believe that she was unsympathetic during her interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards. He points out correctly that as a journalist, Couric had the duty to play devil advocate and that she did it without crossing any boundary. The Edwards tragedy although it is first and foremost a personal one poses interesting issues about the balance between politics, public service, and personal lives. It would have been irresponsible for Couric to do a puff piece without emphasizing those issues. I watched the interview and I thought it was a balanced piece, which put the light on Elizabeth Edwards' grace and courage and the brave decision of the Edwards to continue their campaign.

The beauty of selling out

“But where does personal confession leave the men who are involved in our lives? In a tough place. In my case I asked them all, but especially the one I loved most, to put my right to self-expression before his desperate desire for privacy. Well, I asked and then I didn’t give him much choice. The way he saw it, I rewrote our history and he had no control over the outcome. And, perhaps even worse to him, I turned our very real feelings into the plot of a book.

So do I regret writing it? No. Do I feel bad about it? Often. Did I feel bad when I was writing it? The whole time. I would sit at my computer remembering an argument, a night of passion, a tender secret moment — and think “No, no, I can’t write that.” Then I wrote it anyway. Strangely, my desire to communicate with and prove my worth to hundreds of potential readers I didn’t know — and never would — became more important than the feelings of the man who I claimed to love. In justification, perhaps I had a story to tell. I wonder if really I was driven simply by vanity.

[…] But with that I have to accept that I did choose to sell out the men I claimed to care about — and no excuses will change that. I may get e-mails from strangers, but I will never hear again from the man I hoped would be the love of my life. And I don’t blame him.” Bridget Harrison, author of Tabloid Love a tell-all book about her private life.

French Left and Right

Democratiya has two excellent articles about the French elections, which show the transformations, which both the French Right and the French Left are undergoing. In the first article, André Glucksmann explains why in spite of the fact that he has always been a leftist philosopher he will vote for Nicolas Sarkozy. He denounces the left's moral superiority and its lack of substance. Sugary excerpt:

The official left believes itself to be morally infallible and mentally untouchable. It embodies both the revolution and the republic as a whole. That was relatively true up to 1945. The left had dared to put everything in question and lead the struggles from whence our secularist social democracy was born. But since 1945, after Vichy ad buried the thoughtfulness of the right, the professional left sat on its laurels. It misunderstood the discussions in Germany regarding Bad Godesberg) and in England about New Labour), it knew nothing of the spiritual explosion of dissidence in Eastern Europe, it didn't give a damn about the Velvet Revolutions, from Pragueto Kiev and Tbilisi. 

Wallowing in its narcissism, the left found itself badly wanting when Nicolas Sarkozy broke with every tradition of the right and claimed to stand for the rebels and the oppressed, as well as the young communist agitator Guy Môquet, martyred Muslim women, Simone Veil (who eradicated the suffering caused by clandestine abortions), Brother Christian à Tibhirine, and the Spanish Republicans. Instead of bemoaning the way he has appropriated the socialist legacy, allow me to rejoice. When I recognise Victor Hugo, Jean Jaurès, Georges Mandel, Jacques Chaban-Delmas and Albert Camus in this candidate's speeches, I feel somewhat at home.

In the second article, Philip Spencer responds to André Glucksmann by correctly pointing out that the French Right is not pure and is in fact culpable of colluding with regimes which Glucksmann find intolerable. Sugary excerpt:

But the French left is not the prime culprit here. It is the French right which has been in government for several years and has colluded with such regimes. One can argue that Sarkozy has made some effort to distance himself from Chirac's opposition to the Americans over Iraq, an opposition he called 'arrogant' rather than what it actually was - grossly hypocritical and grounded in past collusion with Saddam's regime. This French government has been complicit, or worse, with several murderous regimes around the world, from Rwanda in the 1990s to the Sudan today. There is mounting evidence that the French knew about and abetted the plans of the Hutu Power genocidaires. Most recently it was the French government which welcomed Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir with full pomp and ceremony at the very moment a global campaign was calling for his regime to be indicted for genocide.

Sarkozy is a powerful figure in this government. He may have differences with Chirac but he is not a candidate running against the machine or the right itself. He is the unchallenged leader of the right and a prominent figure in its government - Minister of the Interior no less. In that position, from which he has repeatedly said he has no intention of resigning (despite credible claims that he has abused it in the presidential campaign itself) he has openly flirted with racism against minorities, calling for the banlieues to be 'hosed clean'. This was widely perceived as a semi-naked appeal to Le Pen's voters on the racist right.

Glucksmann's allegiance to Sarkozy saddened me but it didn't surprise me for there has been an evolution within Glucksmann’s and other former leftist intellectuals which leads them to believe that confusion, ambivalence, moral ambiguity is the worst sin of all. Because the French left is torn between modernization and regression, it has become cause of all ills for Glucksmann and others. However, what is disconcerting about Glucksmann’s point of view is that he implies that the French has les mains propres clean hands even though as Spencer argues it does not. What is in my opinion the most intellectually dishonest about Glucksmann who remains my favorite French philosophy is his willingness to forgive Sarkozy and the Right the sins which he finds unforgivable on the left that is moral ambiguity and lack of principles. Sarkozy, more than Rightist presidential candidate in the past, has flirted with the far right by tying for example immigration with French national identity and the main problem of immigrants and their French descendants is that they don’t love France enough and that their culture is a obstacle to their integration, which is why they should leave it behind in order to assimilate. Glucksmann has remained silent despite the fact that he does not have a ethnic vision of France because for him, Sarkozy will shake the status quo in France and on the international scene by refusing to tolerate compromises and by to stirring up the hornets' nest like Bush did in Iraq in order to create a new and fairer world order.

The Evolution and the banalization “Slut”

Patricia Hluchy shows in an article that the word “Slut” has undergone some transofmrations and taken on different and unexpected meanings even though it remains mostly pejorative. Sugary excerpt:

Marcel Danesi, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto who teaches semiotics and youth culture, observes that "slut" is now an ambiguous word whose various meanings include – in hip-hop – "my woman." Yet he was taken aback when a colleague called him a "slut" recently. "I was complaining about the inane bureaucracy at the University of Toronto, and he said, `You're a typical slut ...' It was kind of friendly – he was saying that I break the rules."

To him, "slut" still reverberates with negative connotations linked to sexual promiscuity. "I would never, absolutely never, present my wife in this way."

Among younger people, though, the friendly use of "slut" is common. Mimi Hagiepetros, a 13-year-old  Toronto student, says her schoolmates mostly use it "lovingly" and "as a joke."

Grown-up women will good-naturedly call each other "slut," employing the word with all its sexual connotations in subtle, ironic rebellion against a double standard that refuses to go away.

If racism is as bad as sexism, and “slut” as bad as the N-word, why hasn’t any called for the ban of “slut?”

Voting for a French Fascist

Haaretz published an article last weekend on some French Jews who are tempted to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French far right candidate, which has argued that the Gas chambers were a small detail of the Second World War history and which believes that Iran is entitled to possess the Nuclear bomb. Daniel Ben-Simon, the author of the article argues that the cause of this vote is the increased anti-Semitic violence and the desire to restrain “Muslim immigration.” Sugary excerpt:

While the state has not admitted to the growth of extremist elements in the Muslim community, Le Pen more forcefully emphasizes his well-known opinions: Muslims, or most Muslims, should go back to their countries of origin. The enemy of my enemy has suddenly become a friend. A Jewish doctor in this picturesque town said a few days ago that many of his friends intended to vote for Le Pen. "Of course, because he is the best for the Jews of France," he said. A friend of his, an economics professor who took part in the conversation, conceded that although things had improved, most of the Jews of Aix-en-Provence would vote either for the right-wing candidate Nicolas Sarkozy or Le Pen. "I have a feeling that Le Pen will do very well in the coming elections," he said.

I don't believe that a sizeable minority of Jews will For Jean-Marie Le Pen for although he has soften his stand on Islam and Muslims immigration in order to attract the vote of French Muslims, but he hasn't never refuted his past views of the Shoah and his members are still notable for their anti-Semitism.

European Identity and Christianity

“It is an identity built on a set of universal values in which Christianity played a role in moulding them, which gives it a role that is not only historical but also foundational vis-à-vis Europe. Such values, which constitute the continent’s soul, must continue in the Europe of the third millennium as a ‘spark’ of civilisation.

Should they fail, how could the “old” continent play the role of “yeast” for the whole world? If on the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the governments of the Union want to be “closer” to their citizens, how can they exclude from Europe’s identity an essential element like Christianity in which a vast majority continues to identify themselves?

Is it surprising then, that whilst it aspires to be a community of values, modern Europe seems to question universal and absolute values? Even before it is against God, doesn’t this singular form of ‘self-apostasy’ not lead the continent to doubt its own identity?

[…]A community that is built without respect for the authentic dignity of human beings, that forgets that each person is created in God’s image, ends up not doing any one any good. This is why it is seems ever more necessary that Europe be wary of that widespread pragmatic attitude that systematically justifies compromising on essential human values as if accepting an allegedly lesser evil inevitable.” Pope Benedict XVI.

Punching Michel Foucault

The best article I read last weekend is Andrew Scull’s article in the Times of London questioning the scholarship of Michel Foucault, especially the one for his major work, “History of Madness.” Scull points out the fact that the previous English version of this work titled “Madness and Civilization” was shortened and too many chapters were left untranslated thus giving readers an incomplete picture of Foucault’s thesis. However, Scull argues that a thorough reading of “History of Madness” leads to the conclusion that Michel Foucault’s thesis in that work is unsubstantiated by scholarship even though complaisant readers and followers have accepted it. Sugary excerpt:

Foucault’s isolation from the world of facts and scholarship is evident throughout History of Madness. It is as though nearly a century of scholarly work had produced nothing of interest or value for Foucault’s project. What interested him, or shielded him, was selectively mined nineteenth-century sources of dubious provenance. Inevitably, this means that elaborate intellectual constructions are built on the shakiest of empirical foundations, and, not surprisingly, many turn out to be wrong.

I am not a great fan of Foucault, but I wonder whether philosophy is a science and whether the possibility that Michel Foucault’s assertions are unproven makes them irrelevant. In other words, if Andrew Scull happens to be right about the scholarly work upon which Foucault based his readings does it make Foucault’s philosophy irrelevant? I believe that Foucault has remained relevant all of these years because he puts his finger on something that may not have been scientifically provable, but that was essential for it led to important and existential questions.

Russia + Europe =?

“The development of multifaceted ties with the EU is Russia’s principled choice. In the foreseeable future, for obvious reasons, we have no intention of either joining the EU or establishing any form of institutional association with it. Russia intends to build its relations with the EU on a pragmatic basis with a treaty and a strategic partnership. In this regard I agree with Romano Prodi’s view of Russian-EU relations: “Anything but institutions.”

We are prepared to develop this partnership to a maximum extent, expecting of course that our partners will meet us halfway along this road.

The interests of Russia and the EU will not always coincide. Competition is the reverse side of cooperation and an integral part of the process of globalisation. At the same time, one should not see political intrigues behind purely economic measures. One should not superimpose cold war ideological labels on legal and quite understandable actions aimed at protecting our national interests. Let me say again: we are ready to settle differences through open dialogue and compromise, based on mutually agreed rules.” Vladimir Putin, “Russia is Europe's natural ally.”

A new kind of multiculturalism

“I continue to defend multiculturalism, but with this vital caveat: multiculturalism is a force for good, providing it does not involve tolerating values and practices that sustain prejudice, injustice and suffering. Everyone should have the freedom to pursue their own morality and lifestyle, so long as they do not harm others or diminish other people's freedom. With these qualifications, the right to be different should be respected and we should be able to think and do what we like. Christian fundamentalists ought, therefore, be free to practice their beliefs. If they believe homosexuality is wrong, they are entitled to hold that belief and to abstain from same-sex relations. Christian husbands and wives who believe in a Biblical-based, strict male-female gender division of labour in the home should be allowed to lead their domestic lives accordingly. But they have no right to insist that their homophobic, patriarchal interpretation of scripture should become the law of the land and be imposed on everyone else. In the public sphere, all citizens should be treated as equals, with a shared commitment and entitlement to human rights.”  Peter Tatchell, “Their Multiculturalism and Ours.”

Europeans have no identity and no values

Two things strike about Francis Fukuyama. The first is that he loves grand and provocative, which always end up being wrong. The second is that when they end up being wrong, he doesn’t deny, by argues that people took his ideas farther than he expected. What Fukuyama says about European identity and European values or rather about the fact that their nonexistence shows that when he comes to Europe he is stuck into a restraining framework, which doesn’t even enable him to see the trees. Sugary excerpt:

In Europe especially, the issue of immigration and identity converges with the larger problem of the valuelessness of postmodernity. The rise of relativism has made it harder to assert positive values and therefore the shared beliefs Europeans demand of immigrants as conditions for citizenship. Postmodern elites have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation to what they regard as a superior place. But aside from their celebration of endless diversity and tolerance, they find it difficult to agree on the substance of the good life to which they aspire in common. […]What I find fascinating is that, apart from drinking beer and playing soccer (football), Europeans find it hard to define the virtues with which they identify.[emphasis added] In the end this is really about positive virtues — what kind of people you find admirable in your common story that builds your community. To what kinds of behavior do you assign dignity in your culture?

Doubting loyalty

Stephen Pollard is lamenting in the Telegraph that his loyalty to England national soccer football team for its match with Israel tomorrow is doubted simply because he is Jewish:

It seems Norman Tebbit may have been on to something when he identified his "cricket test" in 1990. As he put it at the time: "A large proportion of Britain's Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? It's an interesting test. Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?" He was questioning the integration of fans who wanted England to lose and were explicitly cheering on the foreign opponents. I'm an Englishman; I want England to win. But I hear echoes of the Tebbit test when people ask me which team I will be supporting when we play in Tel Aviv tomorrow. They are making (albeit unconsciously) an interesting point. They are assuming that, as a Jew, I am somehow not as English as they are. While their loyalty to the team is implicit, mine is - for no other reason than my Jewishness - open to question.

Their assumption is based on the latest incarnation of the medieval trope of the Wandering Jew, renewed in the 20th century in Fritz Hippler's 1940 Nazi film, The Eternal Jew, and in Stalin's labelling of Jews as "rootless cosmopolitans". In such portrayals, Jews remain loyal only to themselves and their tribe, wherever they happen to live, and scheme to undermine the state to their own nefarious ends.

The dehumanization of politics

Here is a comment, a reader of townhall wrote regarding the announcement that Elizabeth Edwards’s cancer is recurring. My point isn’t that all townhall readers are as hateful as this reader is for they are not and I’m sure that you could find as hateful and despicable a comment of sites from the left. However, I am always astonished when I realize that how low and how far people are willing to go in their attempt to dehumanize whom they consider their political foes. Sugary excerpt:

Unfortunately Ann took a lot of heat for describing the bundle of sticks as a "faggot" which was suddenly determined by the PC police to be a 'slur' regarding ones manhood or something like that.
John Edwards, your would be president, is also the man who has borne the moniker 'the Breck girl' for several years now. A lable bestowed upon him by yet another satirist with great effect, a lable that has obviously 'stuck' to him like oh so much glue.
There are some who might think the 'Breck girl' tag to be an unfair attack delivered by a partisan commentator. A reasonable man might even conclude that having 'perfect hair' is a curse for Edwards, a heavy cross for him to bear. But then the reasonable man drawing such conclusions surely hasn't yet seen THE video. Oh yes, there is a video, and a goodly number of people have seen it in the past week or so. The coincidence, the timing, is not lost on the reasonable man. […] Watching him at the press conference I was struck by the idea that he had done the very same thing as the video portrayed just before stepping in front of the cameras to 'break the news' that wasn't Exactly the news that was expected. The new, manly John Edwards reassured us that he is "ready to be president" because he is "able to focus" under this type of pressure. It made me want to scream at the television...Earth to John! It's your wife who is feeling the pressure!
We were reassured that the "campaign goes on strongly" and, for good measure ever the Breck Girl sprinkled several other manly words into his performance. He said the Edwards' would be "tough", and "strong", that they would 'not go cowering in a corner'.
A corner? Hardly! Look for Edwards to make the rounds, Oprah, Today, GMA, you name it, he'll be there. Already News Anchors, reporters, print journalists and bloggers are using words and, phrases never before mention with the name John Edwards in the same sentence. Words like courage, determination and, guts. Phrases that make HIM out to be the martyr when it is her and, her children who needs our prayers.
If the Breck Girl was any type of man and wanted to prove he is presidential material he would withdraw this go round and try again another time. He is young enough to wait. He should also want to spend as much time with his wife as possible. A man this power hungry is dangerous.

Gore Vidal and the United States of Amnesia

I don't know what to make of Gore Vidal, because my vision of him switches from that of tragic figure to that of an artist who refuses to become reasonable and to give up his fantasies. Stephen Wilson has an interesting portrait of Vidal in the Dublin Review of books (hat tip: Conversational Reading), which is fascinating because it shows the complexities and the contradictions of Vidal. Sugary excerpt:

Vidal may have much in common politically and ideologically with such public intellectuals as Noam Chomsky and the late Edward Said, but the size and nature of his audience, his public, set him apart from them. […]In 1994 Gore Vidal attended a small dinner given by First Lady Hillary Clinton. The dinner took place two years into Clinton's first term, only a few days before the disastrous (for the Democrats) mid-term elections of 1994; by this time Hilary had tried and failed to implement the administration's policy of reforming health insurance. Vidal's account of the evening (given in "Bubba Rules: Clinton Gore II") can be read as a parable of his position as an American writer and it is worth quoting at some length.

[We] talked about Washington in general. About Eleanor Roosevelt, whom I'd known and she was fascinated by. Then I began to probe, tactfully, I hope: How well did the Clintons understand just what they were up against? Did they know who actually owns and is rather idly running the United States- a very small class into which Bush had been born and trained and they had not. So, Who? What? How? […] As an old Washingtonian, I mentioned some of the ways in which the great corporate entities destroy politicians. 'It will never be on the issues. It will always be something unexpected. Something personal. Irrelevant. From long ago. Then they will worry it to death.'

[…] This is Vidal in one of his favourite roles, that of the biographer of what he likes to refer to as the "United States of Amnesia". Poets were traditionally the custodians and transmitters of the record. They recorded and celebrated or lamented triumph and disaster, told the "tale of the tribe" (the phrase is Ezra Pound's and he stole it from Rudyard Kipling). Vidal is well aware no such role is available to the contemporary writer, but it is nonetheless one to which he aspires.

This proclamation by Gore Vidal that America is amnesic leads to me wonder whether America is the only amnesic country in the world and I don’t think that it is. However, I think that America deals with its amnesia differently that other country by romanticizing its failures and shortcomings as a way to deal with its history. America is one of the few countries, which is able to face its past by writing about it and by making movies about it. The reason for this willingness to face the past even though it may not lead to actions or to reparation can be explained in my opinion by the fact that America is not just a country, but a grand and noble idea, which  overcomes more often that not the need for denial.

To catch a rapist

I find this post on an anti-rape device marketed in South Africa interesting. The device is Rapex and it enables the rape victim by catching the penis of the rapist when he violates her/her. I don't know what to think of it and I have great doubts about its effectiveness. I mean what rape victim would want to have her/his rapist trapped within her/him? I think that this device misunderstand rape by trying to make it a crime like any other when it isn't and when the more important thing for a woman or a man who is about to get rape is not to do anything necessary to catch the rapists, but to do everything to avoid the rape.

Religious sites and controversy

Foreign policy has a list of the world's most controversial religious sites, which includes Bob Jones University in South Carolina and the Temple of Mount in Israel. In explaining why Bob Jones University is a controversial religious sites, the articles states that, it is “the self-declared “citadel” of fundamentalist Christian thought in the United States'” and that that “For political candidates from both parties, a trip there is considered a litmus test of red state appeal.” I don't think that Bob Jones University is a religious site as much as it is a political site for no Democrats with national ambition would ever give a speech at that University. It seems to me that including Bob JonesUniversity with the Temple of Mount in the same list discredit it because there is nothing sacred about Bob Jones University. Nobody would or is fighting over that university.

The roots of Middle East violence

Husain Haqqani argues that the West isn't the sole cause for Middle East violence. He writes that because of the lack of a democratic space of Muslim world, it is much easier for its population to focus on outward causes than to look inward. Sugary excerpt:

National pride in the Muslim world is derived not from measurable achievements - economic productivity, technological innovation or intellectual output. Instead, rhetoric about Islam being in danger and Islam's enemies plotting against Muslims prevails. Such rhetoric sets the stage for the clash of civilizations as much as specific Western policies. More significantly, it serves as an opiate that keeps Muslims riled against external enemies, with little attention paid to the internal causes of intellectual and economic decline. Ignorance and anger feed tribal and sectarian conflict, and the spiral of violence and decline endures.

Revisiting Beauvoir

Bookforum has three great articles on Simone de Beauvoir and what remains of her work more than 20 years after her death and more than a half of a century after the publication of her major work Le Deuxième Sexe. Hazel Rowley writes about Beauvoir, Sartre, their trip to Brazil, and Cristina Tavares, a woman who gave the typhoid to Sartre after sleeping with him, which in turn Beauvoir contracted while visiting that country. Sarah Glazer focuses on Le Deuxième Sexe and the attempts of Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier to provide a more adequate translation for English readers. Toril Amoi talks about the younger years of Simone de Beauvoir, the one before she met Sartre. Sugary excerpt:

This passionate young woman led an austere life. She had little personal freedom. Her mother censored her correspondence, throwing away letters she deemed less than proper. She supervised visits by Beauvoir's friends and did not permit her daughter to go out at night without a chaperone. One of the reasons Beauvoir worked so hard, surely, was that it was a precious pretext to be alone. Ensconcing herself with her books in a university library or in her father's study, she was throwing up a protective shield against relentless maternal intrusions.

Europeanizing Europe

“[…] there can be no Europeanising of Islam unless Salafist concepts like Sharia and Jihad are abandoned through cultural-religious reforms, and this goes too for the vision of Islamisation through Da'awa and Hidjra. Only an Islam that is in tune with the fundamentals of cultural modernity (democracy, individual human rights, civil society) and embraces pluralism deserves to be defined as Euro-Islam. And furthermore, the concept of Euro-Islam applies only to Europe, in other words unlike the earlier universal vision of Westernising the world - the world of Islam included – it is not universalism.
The argument for Europeanising applies to all Muslims who are settled in Europe, as well as in countries (like Turkey for example), which want to join. We are talking here about a vision of Euro-Islam which has yet to become reality. Of course we should also consider the Islamic countries surrounding Europe which the EU refers to as the "European Neighbourhood." The integration of Muslims in Europe could contribute positively to the democratisation of this European "neighbourhood."” Bassam Tibi, “Europeanisation, not Islamisation.”

How to make globalization work

Joseph Stiglitz has the following prescription for making globalization work that is for increasing equity and fairness throughout the world and thus, reducing the huge gap between the have and the have not:

The prescription for making globalization work is what is generally called “the Scandinavian model.” That means high levels of investment in education, research and technology plus a strong safety net. That, of course, also entails, as in the Scandinavian countries, a highly progressive income tax.

Far from making these countries less competitive, it has made them more so. Though it may seem a contradiction to conservative ideologues who think cutting taxes is the answer to everything, the fact is that people are more willing to take entrepreneurial risks if they can count on a safety net and if they have the training to be innovative.

Liberalism defined by a "paltoquet"

“The leftist impulse to side with the underdog has become so powerful that liberals never bother to inquire whether a given "oppressed" group counts as deserving or not.

This explains the odd liberal sympathy for Islamo-Nazi terrorists, whose radically reactionary (indeed, medieval) ideology should make them anathema to enlightened opinion in the West. How can militant feminists applaud the anti-American rhetoric of Islamist crazies who want to keep all women in burkas as the property of their husbands, and how can gay activists identify with jihadi killers who endorse the execution of homosexuals? The widespread activism on behalf of the fanatical internees at Guantanamo remains one of the most spectacular displays of lefty lunacy in recent years. Aside from the common distaste for free-market economics and the shared desire for a reduced American role in the world, liberal ideologues see themselves as persecuted victims with natural fellow-feeling for exotic and angry third-worlders who blame all their problems on the USA.” Michael Medved, “The Essence of Liberalism: Embracing Life's Losers.”

Useless bla bla bla?

It is always difficult to watch a dialogue on a serious topic where the goal isn't to debate, but to shout and to humilate or debase the other side.  The point is that after watching this video, nothing has changed and one has to come to the realization that television's debates are becoming increasingly useless.

Lying about sex

Julie Sternberg writes about the lies, which she argues are told to American teenagers about sex in order to control their sexual behavior. She argues that the problem that ideologues have hijacked sexual education and have made it difficult to teach teenagers about sex in ways which reflect the world in which they live. Abstinence programs don't work because they aren't based on science, but on ideology and wishful thinking. Sugary excerpt:

If you’re like the majority of Americans, 75 percent to be exact, by the age of 20 you’ve had sex without being married to your partner. […] Yet our government is downright obsessed with abstinence until marriage. In fact, since 1996, the federal government has poured more than a billion dollars into programs that are required to promote abstinence until marriage, and forbidden from teaching about contraception, unless it is to emphasize failure rates. […] It gets worse. Not only are these programs encouraged by the government to teach that condoms fail, but many federally funded curricula exaggerate failure rates. A report released in December of 2004 by a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives detailed the distortion and misinformation found in some of the most widely used federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula. One such curriculum even compared using a condom to playing a game of Russian roulette.

Europe and Anti-Americanism

“By continually representing the United States as the antithesis of Europe, anti-Americanism has helped Europeans set aside their differences and historical enmities and instead envision a common European identity – but only at the price of perpetuating at a continental level the strategies of delimitation commonly associated with the nation-state, in other words, by substituting traditional nationalism with a potentially just as chauvinist "continentalism" (Arendt 1994; Garton Ash 2004). However, in spite of its cultural prominence, anti-Americanism is today the last of the great European chauvinist discourses that has not yet been subjected to extensive study and has not fallen into general public disrepute.” Jesper Guldal, “A heavy prelude to chaos.”

Fundamentalism is everywhere

“But all fundamentalisms, rejecting a secular claim to have replaced the sacred as chief source of meaning, are skeptical of Enlightenment values, even as the Enlightenment project has begun to criticize itself. But now "old time religion" of whatever stripe faces a plethora of threats: new technologies, globalization, the market economy, rampant individualism, diversity, pluralism, mobility -- all that makes for 21st-century life. Fundamentalisms will especially thrive wherever there is violent conflict, and wherever there is stark poverty, simply because these religiously absolute movements promise meaning where there is no meaning. For all these reasons, fundamentalisms are everywhere.” James Carroll, “The Many Forms of Fundamentalisms.”

National identity and immigrants

Alka Sehgal criticizes the attempts by many politicians particularly Blair’s successor Gordon Brown to put immigrants at the center of the crisis of national identity which Britain is facing. He argues that placing the blame on immigrants is avoiding the fact that Britain is no longer what it used to be. Sugary excerpt:

Rather than address more difficult issues – that Britain today is less than inspirational on the world stage, is less of a meritocracy, more socially stratified and a place where individuals are more closely monitored in virtually all aspects of our lives – politicians and pundits tear their hair out wondering why on earth immigrants don’t appear to want to be part of and to celebrate British culture.

Maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. I can see no reason why it should matter to anyone. Many people live outside their countries of birth; they work and socialise without conflict. Yet they do not feel that they necessarily belong to, or have to belong to, the country they have chosen to live in. People may feel contradictory affiliations; and something as subjective as a sense of belonging frequently waxes and wanes over time. A more confident, forward-looking society would be more relaxed about these facts.

Unfortunately, this problem is not solely a British problem for immigration has been tied up in too many countries with a loss of national identity and with impotence. Politicians who as Gordon Brown bind together and national identity and immigration are just following the people because no matter how the elites may feel about populism, it helps to win elections.

Miracles and Jesus

The Times of London has an article on the authors of The Gospel according to Judas Jeffrey Archer and Professor Francis Moloney. They argue that most of Jesus’ miracles didn't happen and that Judas didn't betrayed Jesus for money. It's a good read in my opinion because it goes at the heart of faith for it leads to the fundamental question of whether Jesus can still be Jesus without miracles. Sugary excerpt:

Although the idea that Jesus's miracles did not happen and were pure invention have been common in academic circles for decades, for many of the faithful it will still come as a shock.

Father Moloney, believed by many to be the world's greatest living Biblical scholar, drew on years of scholarship to make The Gospel According to Judas as close as possible to those passages thought to be genuine in the three synoptic gospels and the Gospel of St John. But he insisted they leave out verses agreed by scholars to have been made up by the original authors of the Bible. […] Father Moloney told The Times that he did consider Jesus to have been a 'miracle worker'. But he had studied the Bible all his life, and had become convinced that some of Jesus's miracles were invented by the early Church.

American power after Iraq

Joseph Nye imagines in the essay American Foreign policy after Iraq and argues that it will neither go back to a narrow realism and remain within the new unilateralism, which based on the erroneous assumption that “the unipolar distribution of power in the military context was sufficient to guide foreign policy." The most important point of Nye's essay is the following, which he makes at the conclusion of his article:

The paradox of American power is that the world’s only military superpower cannot protect its citizens by acting alone.

Should we start writing an ode to the glory of the multipolar world?

Dating just for fun

The funniest article I read last weekend was the one by Ariel Leve on the hazardousness and unpredictability of dating. It is not funny, but witty and so in tuned with our times and with in my view the unhealthy focus that society put on dating as a way not to have fun, but necessarily to find a mate especially for a female. Why can we just date for fun? Sugary excerpt:

For instance, one of the most romantic first dates I’ve ever been on was with a man I’d met at a friend’s party. He chose the restaurant, booked the table and was waiting for me when I arrived. Over dinner he said a lot of “we should” and “we could” and talked about the second date. Then he walked me home and we kissed outside my building, then I said good night and floated upstairs. The next day he called. To let me know he was getting back together with his girlfriend.

The most vivid memories I have of first dates are the arguments. There was the capital-punishment guy — we got into a fight about the death penalty. And there was the Marquis de Sade guy — we fought over the pronunciation of Sade. There was also the

Brooklyn

guy? I told him I grew up in the city and he became defensive and said, “

Brooklyn

is the city,” and I said, “No,

Manhattan

is the city —

Brooklyn

is

Brooklyn

” — and then he called me a snob and I called him a pig. That was fun.

Rape, forgiveness, reconciliation and politics

“Rape is a form of absolute crime because it murders the subject-self of the person against whom the crime is committed. Rape is precisely a way of removing "that freedom, that force and that power which authorises [and] which permits the accession to the position of the 'I forgive'". Victims of rape often cannot even access the position of the "I accuse", let alone the position of the "I forgive". This, I would contend, is not the case due to any kind of innate nature of rape, but because of the way in which the function and significance of rape are constructed within a patriarchal, sexist, rape-prone society such as South Africa. The impossibility of forgiving rape must thus maybe primarily be sought in the systematically unequal power relations between women and men. [...] The question of power (the power to be asked for one's forgiveness, to forgive, to consider forgiving the unforgivable) belongs therefore to the heart of the question of forgiveness. It is finally only the relatively powerful who ever get into a position from where they might be entitled and empowered (symbolically, socially, and otherwise) to consider forgiveness. Because humans are intrinsically social beings (socially and discursively constituted) it is virtually impossible to consider forgiving something that significant (private and/or public) others do not regard as standing in need of forgiveness because they cannot make sense of the alleged damage of the alleged crime. The language of forgiveness presupposes on some basic inter-subjective level a shared language of damage, a shared appreciation of the nature and degree of the violation.” Louise du Toit, “Feminism and the ethics of reconciliation.”

Beslan, Beslan, and Anna Politkovskaya

The Guardian has just published an extract of Anna Politkovskaya’s last book before she was savagely assassinated. The subject of the book was Beslan and how the town was going out of its mind after the tragedy, which occurred there during the last days of the summer of 2004:

After the tragedy, the mothers said they trusted only Vladimir Putin and had every confidence he would ensure an objective inquiry. Putin promised he would. A year has passed. The inquiry, however, exonerated all the bureaucrats and security agents who planned and carried out the assault that led to the deaths of so many children and adults. The women are now demanding that they themselves should be arrested. They consider themselves responsible for the deaths of their own children, because they voted for Putin. Their sit-in is an act of desperation.

The trouble with leaders such as Putin who promised to crush violence and terrorists like flies is that they are never able to get out of the war mindset, which would enable them to consider the victims of terrorist acts in themselves and not just as proof that the war must go on at any cost and that victory must be achieved by any means necessary.

Defending the memory of Lucie Aubrac against bloodthirsty flies

David Pryce-Jones has a post on the Contentions blog attacking the memory of Lucie Aubrac, the French Résistance member whose courage and dedication to her country is not only legendary, but unquestioned and unquestionable. He accused her of tipping off Klaus Barbie who deported thousand of French Jews as to the whereabouts of many French members of the Résistance:

The Lyons Gestapo was headed at the time by Klaus Barbie, a hardline Nazi and a sadist who personally tortured his victims. He and a Gestapo detachment burst into the house at Caluire, arresting Jean Moulin and eight others, among them Raymond Aubrac. According to Lucie’s story, she then visited Barbie in his headquarters and persuaded him to let her see her husband. During a visit, she and Raymond planned his escape, which took place that October when Lucie led an ambush on the prison van escorting her husband and others to a different prison. Moulin died under Barbie’s torture without giving away any secrets.

How did the Gestapo know that Jean Moulin and the others were in that house in Caluire? That someone tipped them off has always been evident. Suspicion fell on the Aubracs, but in preliminary investigations they were cleared. They were also unpopular because of the zeal and frequency with which they had accused people, after the war, of collaboration with the Nazis.

And then Klaus Barbie was captured in Bolivia, and brought to trial in  France. He declared that Lucie Aubrac had, in fact, tipped him off. Prisoners did not escape the Gestapo, he emphasized with authority, unless the Gestapo wanted them to escape.

I know that for Pryce-Jones French heroism is an oxymoron and that he sees evil and cowardice everywhere when he sees someone French, but to repeat allegations made by members of the French far right who are the same one who argue that the German occupation of France was wonderful and that the Shoah is a minor detail of history is disgusting. By repeating Klaus Barbie’s allegation, Pryce-Jones is in fact saying that a person whose participation in the killing of thousand of French Jews has more credibility in his eyes than Lucie Aubrac, a French woman who fought for her country. In order words, to slander the memory of Lucie Aubrac, Pryce-Jones is choosing to believe the man who was called le boucher de Lyon, the Butcher of Lyon for his taste for blood over everything and everyone one. What to think of a man who would rather believe a member of the Gestapo because he is German than to believe a woman of the Résistance because she is French? Pryce-Jones should be ashamed of himself for going in the sewer to find slanderous and unproven allegations to defecate on the memory of a French legend who died as she lived her life, gracefully. If I believed in violence, I would seek David Pryce-Jones and challenging to a duel just to show how cowardly and vile it is to do what he just did in his post just to get some cheap thrill as spitting of the corpse of legend just because she is French. 

Pimp culture

“I hate socialization. I'm anti-socialization, and it's all horrible. The Paris Hilton-ization of our daughters is really grotesque and disgusting — and so's the bullying. It's just pimp culture. All of American culture is pimp culture.” Roseanne Barr.

Charlatan, Aids, Africa

Earlier this week, I talked about the dictator of Gambia, President Yahya Jammeh, who is claiming that he can cure Aids so here is a video of the Despot charlatan “curing” a HIV positive patient.