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/




Greanville Tweetios: Pop stars’ cretinous messages

We consider the following opinion worth quoting:

[VIDEO WITH BEYONCE FOLLOWS]

Incidentally, what TF was that Beyonce number with those storm troopers for decoration? I think the choreographic idiocies pioneered by Michael Jackson and exploited by Madonna and a zillion others are also culturally and politically reactionary, the summit of self-indulgent ignorance.

—A fed-up citizen of the United States




Domestic Disturbances

An excerpt from Noam Chomsky’s Power Systems, interviews with David Barsamian

110509_FW_chomskyTN.jpg

Cambridge, Massachusetts (January 17, 2012)

Noam Chomsky – Power Systems: Conversations with David Barsamian on Global Democratic Uprisings and the new challenges to U.S. Empire’ [Hamish Hamilton, 2013]:

DB:… In late 2011, ‘New York Times’ columnist David Brooks reported that a Gallup poll showed that in answer to the question “Which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future – big business, big labor, or big government?” close to 65 percent of respondents said the government and 26 percent said corporations. Is that an example of the persuasion and manufacturing of consent that you alluded to?

NC: If you look a little bit beyond that question and you ask, “What do you want the government to do?” the answer will be, “Stop bailing out the banks. That’s why I hate the government don’t bail out the banks. Stop freeing the rich from taxes. I want more taxes on the rich. Increase spending on health and education.” And so on down the line. So yes, the question is framed so that people like David Brooks can draw this conclusion.

Take welfare. There’s strong public opposition to welfare. On the other hand, there’s strong public support for what welfare does. So if you ask the question, “should we spend more on welfare?” No. “Should we spend more on aid to women with dependent children?” Yes. That’s successful propaganda. Welfare has been successfully demonized. Reagan took a big step forward on that, sort of constructing an image of welfare as meaning a rich black woman who drives to the welfare office in her chauffeured limousine and takes away your hard-earned money. Nobody is in favour of that, so no welfare. But what about a mother with a child that she can’t feed? Oh, yes, we’re in favour of helping her.

In fact, if you look at the 1960s, there were significant changes in the way these issues were conceived. A useful study of this shift just came out in ‘Political Science Quarterly’. The New Deal conception was that support for people’s needs was a right. So, say, a mother with dependent children had a right to food for her children. That began to shift in the 1960s. As the welfare system was expanded, a shift began toward the conception that you can get support but you really ought to be working, ultimately leading to the move from welfare to workfare. By the time you get to Clinton, the right to food for your children is not really a right. It’s only something until you get a job, which is what you ought to be doing. This is based on the idea that taking care of children isn’t work. It’s an amazing conception. Anyone who has taken care of children knows it’s work, hard work. Even from an economic point of view, adopting the rather ugly terminology of standard economics it creates what’s called “human capital” In economics courses, human capital, the quality of the workforce, is terribly important. How do you get human capital in a four-year-old child? When the mother is at home taking care of him, not letting him run out in the streets while she’s washing dishes in a restaurant. And, of course there’s almost no support for the working family, so you destroy the family. It’s a very striking shift in mentality.

The driving force behind these changes is people who claim that they are fighting for “family values.’ The people who call themselves conservatives say, “We have to maintain family values by preventing women from having a choice as to whether they will have children, and then by not giving them any support when they have to take care of their children. That’s how we preserve family values.” The internal contradictions are amazing. …