France: From Gloire to Desespoir

L’Affaire Cahuzac

by BARRY LANDO
Basilica of Saint DenisFaubourg

Paris.

President Francois Hollande’s government is reeling from the latest scandal to jolt this country-the admission by Budget Minister, Jerome Cahuzac, after months of denying the charge, that he had secret offshore accounts. This newest affaire only adds to the strange brew of outrage and despair that has enveloped the citizens of what was once Europe’s greatest power.

Nothing brings home more starkly France’s awful decline than a visit to the Basilica of Saint Denis in the northern suburbs of Paris. It is still considered one of the architectural marvels of Europe. Its vaulted domes, 13th century nave, slender towering walls and luminous stained glass windows were models for the high Gothic style that that inspired the architects of Notre Dame in Paris and other great abbeys and temples to the Christian God throughout Europe. Inside are the tombs—though not always the remains–of most of the kings and queens of France over the past 1500 years. It’s a memorable sight. But there were precious few tourists there when I visited yesterday; and non apparent on the streets outside.

Once you exit the cavernous, hushed Basilica you’re suddenly walking the main shopping streets of one of Paris’s most notorious urban slums, filled mainly with immigrants and the descendants of immigrants from the sprawling lands that France once ruled in Africa, not that many years ago.

Today, however, Saint Denis is more notorious for its crime and drug rate than its basilica. Probably 25% or more of the young people on these streets are unemployed. Saint Denis is also associated with gang violence, car burnings, housing complexes that even the police fear to enter, and a predominately Islamic population that feels increasingly estranged from the rest of France.

And Saint Denis is far from being an exception in France.

Despite President Hollande’s vow when he entered office to reduce unemployment, the number of jobless is still high—more than 10% and growing higher–throughout the country.

As is the crime rate, from petty street and auto thefts to apartment break-ins, assaults, and all-out gang warfare on the streets of Marseilles. The Interior Minister talks darkly of new violent mafia-like organizations in France, run by legal and illegal immigrants who have swarmed into the country from Eastern Europe in the past few years.

Despite President Hollande’s promise to revitalize French industry and block factory closures, factories continue to shut down. Others continue to lay off thousands of workers. The 35-hour workweek still reigns supreme.

Meanwhile, Hollande’s politically-driven drive to raise taxes on the wealthy, particularly a charge of 75% on those making more than one million Euros a year, has probably cost France far more than any such tax could ever bring in. The latest demented development is that the companies that pay those salaries will also have to pay the taxes. That includes France’s major football teams and millionaire stars.

Hundreds of thousands of French—many of the best and the brightest–have fled abroad over the past few years, more than 400,000 to London alone. But a survey taken found most of them left not to so much to avoid French taxes, but to escape stifling French bureaucracy and regulations, and do something about the huge waste.

Every French government in recent history has promised to do something about that bureaucracy. None have succeeded in tackling the entrenched labor unions and special interests.

In fact, most French long ago gave up their claim to be a major power. They would happily settle for a good, secure government job, with decent schools, housing, a comfortable retirement and continued access to one of the world’s best medical systems.  They would settle in short for security, in their own land..

But that’s exactly what’s being threatened in an atmosphere of moral decay and crisis—of underlying rot.

Francois Hollande was elected eleven months ago to deal with all this-to bring an end to the frenetic bling-bling reign of Nicolas Sarkozy, to restore order, to return to a feeling of probity; to be, as he promised, “a normal president.”

And now comes the affaire Cahuzac

Jerome Cahuzac, Francois Hollande’s Minister of the Budget, who had vowed to clean up France’s huge deficit, its finances, and go after tax dodgers. This past December a new investigative on-line journal Mediapart, reported that Cahuzac had an illegal bank account in Switzerland. Cahuzac solemnly swore to his colleagues in the National Assembly, swore to all who would listen, that the charge was false.

This week, however, he finally admitted that, yes, he had secret account in Switzerland, which he then moved to Singapore. The account totaled about 600,000 Euros.

The French media immediately compared Cahuzac with Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky affair, Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Cahuzac’s humiliating admission is like blood in the water to the France’s political and media sharks. Before this scandal broke, the level of public approval for Hollande had plummeted to less than 30%. Today, it could only be lower. Now all sides are demanding to know how, if a small muck-raking journal could discover Cahuzac’s misdeeds, how is it that President Hollande—with all the investigative tools at his disposal–couldn’t have found out earlier.

Then today came further embarrassing news for Hollande. The revelation that the treasury of his last election campaign—the one that was waged to bring honesty etc. into government—the treasurer also had a couple of off-shore companies in the Cayman Islands.

http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2013/04/04/jean-jacques-augier-tresorier-hollande-iles-caimans_n_3011907.html?ju

There are increasing calls—even from within his own party–for him to completely reform his government, to strike out in some heroic new direction, to revive France’s faith in its future.

There’s no indication that Francois Hollande has either the stomach or the backbone for such a challenge. Nor that the French would willingly make the sacrifices necessary to retool and rebuild their nation.

They’re reluctant to even seriously discuss what’s needed.

Perhaps that’s because the problems they confront—like unemployment, economic growth, crime, racial strife, the survival of the Euro —-perhaps because those problems are so complex, the French—like other nations—find it much easier to obsess about other simpler issues—issues someone can have a real opinion about. Like..well, should a Muslim woman working in a government office be able to wear a veil?  Or, should France’s social security system pay for a homosexual couple to have a child using artificial insemination and a surrogate mother?

Yet all the while, France’s real problems keep growing.

This week for instance, the Canard Enchaine, reports that, according to a recent government study, the time-off taken for such things as “sickness” and “accidents at work” by the 57,000 people employed by the City of Paris, came to an average of 20 days—that is about one month—per employee. That’s in addition to the five weeks of holiday they get each year.

That represents a total of more than 1.15 million days of work—a cost of 160 million Euros per year.

Meanwhile, as part of a project to refurbish the Basilica of Saint Denis, its marvelous stained glass windows, which looked over the tombs of France’s greatest monarchs, were removed from the church, replaced by artificially colored panes, and sent off to be repaired by skilled French artisans. Ten years later, those windows, according to a guide I spoke with, are still locked away in their protective cases.

The authorities can’t find the money to restore them.

BARRY LANDO is a former producer for 60 Minutes who now lives in Paris. He can be reached at: barrylando@gmail.com or through his website.

 




Opeds—Ding, Dong: The witch is dead

By Diane Gee, The Wild Wild Left
A
n unexpurgated broadside by one of the few fearless editors still standing
“I could broaden my audience if I made an f-bomb proof page and spoke gently. Or maybe, if I did that like 100,000 other liberaloids speaking gently on DKos… I would have nothing. I speak unfiltered, saying the things many think, but won’t say, because they care about their image….”

Thatcher. Many declare one of her biggest "accomplishments" was that she "broke the unions."

Thatcher. Many declare one of her biggest “accomplishments” was that she “broke the unions.”

Why yes, she is.  Dead and truly dead. It’s already been determined that I am part of the great unwashed masses, completely ill suited for anything remotely resembling polite company. Yet even I, from the squalor of my white-trashiness potty mouth worry about where the line is when speaking ill of the dead. Not just ill, mind you – but celebrating a death with open glee.I just got a message today, in fact about my lack of gentility. 

I’m a hard core, non-prudish, liberal, atheist, but I find your tasteless posts and comments are counterproductive. They don’t convey a persuasive message, except that you’re trying desperately to offend. Too bad–you’re squandering your influence.

Which I found doubly priceless the day after Gottsy posted about Inappropriate Discourse.

Is it going too far to say… (even though I noted that the large image was way more graphic than the thumbnail portrayed to my failing eyes…) 

Thatcher and Pinochet – Now Appearing in Hell Together! photo 524280_10151519518394330_335537012_.jpg

Perhaps, because even genocidal War Criminals who impoverished their own people while killing others somehow garner respectability when their fetid hearts cease to rhythmically spasm.

I replied:  (below)

Diane Gee :: Ding, Dong….

Warning: Yes, I am prone to scathing satire and willing to lampoon hard-core war criminals on my page. I am unsuitable for Genteel company at times. Polite women never make history and we are all adults here. I don’t go out of my way to offend. I do go out of my way to push the Overton window of what is permissible thought.

Is it bad to speak ill of the dead, let alone celebrate the death of a War Criminal and genocidal enabler? They would like us to think so. I do not. I do not want History rewritten, and I want people to understand the monstrosity of our leaders without filters or rosy lenses.

I wish everyone would “like me” or at least “get me” but they don’t. If I offend thee? Pluck me out.

It may be true. I could broaden my audience if I made an f-bomb proof page and spoke gently. Or maybe, if I did that like 100,000 other liberaloids speaking gently on DKos… I would have nothing.

I speak unfiltered, saying the things many think, but won’t say, because they care about their image.

I don’t care about my image. I’m no one. If I can wake up 100 people and be reviled in the process, my job is done here on Earth.

Let’s examine what is apparently NOT offensive.

 

Lady Thatcher thanked her old friend [Pinochet] for being an ally during the 1982 Falklands War – and for “bringing democracy to Chile”.  “I know how much we owed to you for your help,” she said.

“The information you gave us, communications, and also the refuge you gave to any of our armed forces who were able, if they were shipwrecked, to make their way to Chile.”

She added: “I’m also very much aware that it is you who brought democracy to Chile, you set up a constitution suitable for democracy, you put it into effect, elections were held, and then, in accordance with the result, you stepped down.”

A Chilean commission investigating human rights abuses under the former military leader Gen Augusto Pinochet says there are many more victims than previously documented.

Commission director Maria Luisa Sepulveda said they had identified another 9,800 people who had been held as political prisoners and tortured.

The new figures bring the total of recognised victims to 40,018.

Democracy Maggie?  You protected him against trial for 2 years?

How about your Colony, the Falklands you insisted on keeping and the 700 or so young Falkland Islanders and Argentinians you killed for wanting their own Democracy?  In ’82, the population of that Island was about 2,800.

Maggie Thatcher killed ONE QUARTER of the population.  Tell me how this is not genocide?

In her own country, she killed Unions, privatized public holdings, and pulled the largest housing scam ever.  Public housing became extinct, and she sold what was left of it to the renters, leaving them underwater in aging, falling apart homes.  More often than not private companies bought the properties as they were repossessed leaving a population that rarely could own land.

BELOW, BRITISH SOCCER FANS EXPRESS THEIR LOVE FOR THATCHER

She had Victorian morals, and implemented the 1st control of the UK’s art, film and television industry according to her ideas of what was or was not “tasteful.”

Because, you know, naughty art is bad, genocide is quite tasteful.

I have to concur with one of my friends, that I hope they bury her next to Pinochet, and the Zombie Cheney should his heartless corpse ever stop stalking the planet.  It would make it far more convenient to piss on their graves.

Those numbers are numbers to some.  The death tolls.  To me?  They are each a human being, with loves, hopes, family and worth.  She and her BFF Pinochet smote them to get richer, and keep the rich in power. This doesn’t even address the torture of human beings done in both wars.

Fuck it.

Hate me for speaking truth if you must.

But I am glad the Witch is Dead.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Diane Gee edits The Wild Wild Left, as well as Facebook’s Links for the Wildly Left. Her writings appear on many leading progressive venues. 

CODA

[Some have said she was a “role model for girls.”] 

I want to projectile vomit.

Are we ourselves so sexist that we would honor a monster because said monster presumably had a vagina?  I think not.

Oh and a big “Fuck you” to NPR who just reported reverently, “that Thatcher “confronted the venal trade unions”.”

Now that is unacceptable speech on both levels. Heh. —DG

 

 




Thatcher bites the dust: CBS files gushing tribute to an enemy of the people

Margaret Thatcher

                                The dame in question. 
•••••••

Below the CBS Transcript accompanying the video

By ELIZABETH PALMER / 

CBS NEWS/ April 8, 2013, 8:10 AM

Former U.K. prime minister Margaret Thatcher dies at 87

LONDON Margaret Thatcher, the first female British prime minister referred to by both ardent supporters and critics as “The Iron Lady,” died Monday. She was 87.

Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

 

Her former spokesman Tim Bell said she suffered from a stroke.  Tough and proud of it, Thatcher was the steeliest British Prime Minister of modern times.

Born Margaret Roberts in 1925, she became a chemist, a proud housewife, and a Conservative member of Parliament, which, she thought, was as far as she would get.

“I don’t think we will see a woman prime minister in my lifetime,” Thatcher once said.

In 1979, she proved herself spectacularly wrong, and her trademark — helmet hair, cut-glass accent and bullying style — became a staple of British satire.

But the Iron Lady had a serious mission: to modernize British industry and break the powerful trade unions. 

The fallout was brutal — violent strikes and rocketing unemployment — but Mrs. Thatcher never wavered.

Slowly, the economy did improve, and Mrs. Thatcher’s uncompromising capitalism caught on with a new generation. In the 1980s, as an unlikely commander-in-chief, she led British forces to victory in the Falklands war against Argentina and appointed herself referee-in-chief between Moscow and the White House.

Mrs. Thatcher was at the top of her game and loving it.

“Yes, I hope to go on and on,” she said at the time.

But enemies were on the march. A deeply unpopular new property tax brought riots and her final undoing. In a bitter blow, her own party turned against her, and in 1990 threw her out.

“We’re leaving Downing Street for the last time,” she said at the end.

It was the first time she shed tears in public, and the beginning of a long decline. Margaret Thatcher grew frail and developed dementia.

Britons will remember her as Maggie the Iron lady, who supporters still believe put the Great back into Britain.

SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57578372/former-u.k-prime-minister-margaret-thatcher-dies-at-87/




The Man the Media Loved to Hate

The US Press and Hugo Chavez

Hated by the powers that be. Crime? Siding with the people.

Hated by the powers that be. Crime? Siding with the people.

by STEVE RENDALL

Always the target of media scorn, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s death was occasion for a double dose. “Venezuela Bully Chávez is Dead,” read the New York Post headline (6 March); “Death of a Demagogue” was how Time framed the news (5 March). “The words ‘Venezuelan strongman’ so often preceded his name, and for good reason,” declared NBC Nightly News in its send-off.

According to ABC World News, the day after he died was “the first day the people of Venezuela are no longer under the strong control of their president, Hugo Chávez” (5 March)National Public Radio’s obituary gave the last words to Chávez-basher Michael Shifter: “So in the end, he really was an autocrat and despot” (5 March).

 

An Associated Press piece worthy of the satirical publication The Onion accused Chávez of squandering his country’s oil wealth on education, health and nutrition programmes — programmes whose benefits, AP explained, “were meager compared with the spectacular construction projects that oil riches spurred in glittering Middle Eastern cities, including the world’s tallest building in Dubai and plans for branches of the Louvre and Guggenheim museums in Abu Dhabi” (5 March). Why help your people when you can build cool skyscrapers?

Wall Street Journal editorial managed to include almost every dart in the corporate media arsenal. Chávez was a “classic petro-dictator”, a “charismatic demagogue” whose chosen successor guaranteed “that the combination of buffoonery and thuggery that Chávez pioneered will continue past his grave.” Discounting Venezuela’s remarkably successful social programmes, the editors wrote: “Yet despite the populism and government handouts, life for Venezuela — and particularly the poor — has only become worse” (6 March).

The obit in The New York Times said Chávez left behind “a bitterly divided nation,” and that his tenure “widened society’s divisions” (5 March). In the corporate media lexicon, terms like “divisive” are reserved for those who challenge power — not for the powerful who wage class war from above.

Chávez never had a chance with the US media. Shortly after his first victory in 1998, The New York Times’s Latin America reporter Larry Rohter summarised his ascendance: “All across Latin America, presidents and party leaders are looking over their shoulders. With his landslide victory in Venezuela’s presidential election on December 6, Hugo Chávez has revived an all-too-familiar specter that the region’s ruling elite thought they had safely interred: that of the populist demagogue, the authoritarian man on horseback known as the caudillo” (20 December 1998).

Putting aside historical fantasies about a Latin America where “ruling elites”oppose autocracy, for the US media, Chávez was the clown caudillo from the very beginning, making outrageous declarations, trashing his economy, rigging elections, and rolling up a dismal human rights record. That Chávez was a dictator, a “strongman … profoundly anti-democratic”, was self-evident (The Daily Beast, 7 March 2013). Never mind that he routinely vanquished opponents in elections Jimmy Carter called “the best in the world”, or that autocracies don’t generally feature elections where the opposition wins 44% of the vote, as happened in Venezuela’s 2012 elections.

There was always much to criticise about Chávez’s government, as with any government. The US media watch group where I work, FAIR, has challenged censorious Venezuelan media policies (while pointing out that the country maintains a robust opposition press). And cases like that of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni, who was jailed by the government for releasing a prisoner held without trial for nearly three years, are not encouraging either.

The problem isn’t criticism; powerful leaders need to be scrutinised — period. The problem is that US and western reporters routinely fail to put Venezuela’s shortcomings in context, and refuse to apply a single standard. For instance, a FAIR study of US newspaper editorials on human rights (1) showed Venezuela portrayed as far more sinister and foreboding than violently repressive Colombia, the US’s closest ally in the region. If the reality of Venezuela during the Chávez years left something to be desired, it did not leave journalists, labour leaders and political activists fearing for their lives or worse. But US journalists can’t be expected to apply standards of fairness while serving Washington’s agenda.

In a eulogy in the leftish Nation magazine, New York University historian Greg Grandin pointed out that Venezuela has 11 political prisoners, including some held for participating in the 2002 coup (5 March). One may be too many, but the repression of political dissent, including state violence, decreased dramatically under the Chávez government. According to the 2005 Latin American Perspectives report “Popular Protest in Venezuela: Novelties and Continuities”, “There has been greater recognition of the right to protest, and this has been institutionalized” (2).

One of the most important tasks of western propagandists has been to portray Venezuela as an economic disaster. But that’s difficult, because Venezuela doesn’t look so bad, judging by the indicators that reporters use to assess economies notconsidered enemies.

It’s true that the country suffers from high inflation (20.1% in 2012), infrastructure problems, an overreliance on and inefficiencies in its oil industry. But since emerging from a ruinous strike by anti-Chávez oil managers in 2003, Venezuela has maintained a 4.3% annual growth rate, cut poverty by nearly 50% and cut extreme poverty by 70%.

In 2012 Venezuela’s growth stood at 5.8%, with unemployment at 6.4%, half what it was when Chávez took office. Economic inequality in Venezuela is the lowest in the region (GINI coefficient: 0.397). And all this was achieved while vastly expanding education, healthcare and nutrition programmes. Venezuela’s infant mortality rate has dropped steadily, more than 30% since Chávez came to power, and UNESCO has declared Venezuela free of illiteracy. This progress did not stop The Washington Post from decrying “the economic pain caused by Mr Chávez”, the man who had “wrecked their once-prosperous country” (5 January).

Last December a New York Times report on the hassles of daily life in Venezuela explained that Chávez has managed to stay in office by winning over “a significant majority of the public with his outsize personality, his free spending of state resources and his ability to convince Venezuelans that the Socialist revolution he envisions will make their lives better” (13 December 2012). As if people who’ve plainly seen their lives improve need to be convinced of the fact.

A month later it was the turn of ABC News: “5 Ways Hugo Chávez Has Destroyed the Venezuelan Economy”, was the headline over a piece published on its website by Stephen Keppel, economics editor of Univision, the Spanish-language television network (17 January 2013).

Why the increased hyperventilation and distortion over Venezuela’s economy? Because, in the end, the vitriol was not so much about elections. If elections were important to them, US newspapers, including The New York Times, would not have cheered Venezuela’s 2002 coup, and might show more concern for America’s own money-corrupted, broken process. If human rights was a chief concern, western journalists would have spent a good deal of the 14 Chávez years denouncing countries, including many US allies, with far worse records than Venezuela.

Steve Rendall is a member of the US media observatory Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

Notes.

(1) “FAIR Study: Human Rights Coverage Serving Washington’s Needs”, Extra!, New York, February 2009.

(2) “Popular Protest in Venezuela: Novelties and Continuities”, Latin American Perspectives, vol 32, no 2, Thousand Oakes (US), March 2005.

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.




You Can’t Fatten Your Cows by Constantly Weighing Them More Often

You Can’t Fatten Your Cows by Constantly Weighing Them More Often
by Myles Hoenig
school-cps-segregation

Thanks to Chris Nielson for this title’s line and to the nearly dozens of other speakers on Thursday and this weekend who comprise the line up of activist educators in Washington, DC for the Occupy the Department of Education 2.0.

This year’s show of force is sponsored by United Opt Out, a parents/teachers based grass roots organization dedicated to having public school children in America refuse to take high stakes tests throughout the school year. Founder Peggy Robertson of Colorado, teacher and parent, called on all to demand creative learning and an end to the dismantling of public schools.

 

There was a small kick-off gathering at the Department of Education site but the movement has been growing with enormous strength since 2011 with the Save Our Schools March on Washington, where nearly 10,000 educators and parents from all over the US braved the hottest day of the year to show how we are fed up with the privatization of our public education. There is a revolt going on and it’s catching fire. The brave teachers at Garfield High School in Seattle refused to administer their high stakes test. Parents all over the country are now aware of their rights as parents to opt their kids out, and often with no negative consequences to their children’s academic futures.

At this years event, speaker after speaker, from school librarians, teachers, careerists-turned educators, parents and the occasional wonk spoke passionately of how huge corporations have amassed fortunes at the expense of public school children.  Powerful forces are at work to squeeze every dollar they can from children’s daily experiences at schools. It wasn’t lost on anyone that 400 Maryland Ave SW should be renamed the Gates-Pearson building (Bill Gates, Pearson Publishers), rather than the Department of Education.  Diane Ravitch, former Assistant Secretary of Education and author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (2010) repeatedly pointed her finger to the top floors of the DOE to say how they don’t listen to educators but only those who can profit off the data mining that testing provides.

The injustices that prevail in the US regarding our children’s education can be summed up in two ways: child labor and child abuse. The Tennessee state government is considering legislation to tie a child’s test score to the family’s welfare check.  The pressures put on these children are beyond cruel and inhumane.  Forcing a child to do well on often bogus tests as a way of supporting a family’s income and survivability should be condemned in all possible ways.  The abuse all children submit to throughout the school year with endless testing, data collecting, and the denial of the arts, libraries, physical education, is one that would never be tolerated for the kids of those making educational policy. It’s no surprise that the private schools that produce the elite laugh at the idea of such high stakes testing or mindless and numbing curricula whose purpose is only to prepare  the students to pass such tests. A creative curriculum is for their kids, the children of Bill Gates and President Obama, not urban and rural kids who are likely to be of color and certainly of lower income.

5 years after President Nixon resigned no one claimed to have ever voted for him. Now, the very forces involved in destroying public education are ‘coming around’.  Fox news the other day did a story on how the Common Core for curriculum was written by private interests, but endorsed by government.  Joel Klein, former Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, has joined Murdoch’s News Corp’s  as Executive Vice President. He also acquired Wireless Generation, the IT company that data mines NY’s schools.  Bill Gates even now talks  of how testing is going overboard.  Could this be the aristocracy of France trying to fend off the Jacobins before their heads rolled off the guillotine? Or in more recent history is it more akin to the senior Nazi high command who switched allegiance to the Allies when Berlin was falling?

Like every other public service, education is for sale. Students are widgets or commodities with a price tag. Teachers are no more than McDonald’s-like employees forced to create uniform results and discarding those who don’t make the grade.  Many are leaving the profession.  Those entering are now the tools of a multi-billion dollar industry.  Who will win out will depend on whether or not we see a revolution in education carried out by the parents, students and teachers.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

mylesHoenig

Myles Hoenig is an educational advocate and veteran ESOL teacher with Baltimore City and Prince George’s County public schools. His email is hoenigedu@gmail.com.

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” Che Guevara