So that's why they want unisex restrooms!

So that's why the leftists want unisex restrooms!

Jessica Sidman (thanks to Instapundit):

Alan Popovsky, who owns Lincoln Restaurant and Teddy & The Bully Bar [in Washington DC] … has found that unisex single-occupancy restrooms—and handicap-accessible ones in particular—tend to be the most popular hookup spots. “If you go into a restroom and you can actually lock the door behind you, that’s just an open invitation,” he says.

90 Days of Madness: Dealing with a Haunting Tragedy from China's Cultural Revolution 40 Years Later

Brice Pedroletti has a story in Le Monde called the Repenters of Maoism. We learn that, 40 years after China's Cultural Revolution, former students — one of whom appeared in a famous picture with Chairman Mao (she is in the center of the modern picture, below) — have publicly repented the fact that, "during 90 days" of madness in 1966, they let their Beijing high school director be punched and kicked to death.

Nowhere is it mentioned, of course, that one solution for avoiding such tragedies is the equivalent of America's Second Amendment.

Cela fait dix ans que Liu Jin, Song Binbin, Luo Zhi et plusieurs de leurs camarades du lycée de filles de l’Université normale de Pékin s’efforcent de faire la lumière sur les quatre-vingts jours de 1966 où elles furent les protagonistes d’une tragédie qui allait engloutir la Chine tout entière. Ces sexagénaires, qui ont derrière elles des carrières et des vies de famille bien remplies, se sont engagées sur une voie encore très peu explorée en Chine, et à demi taboue : celle de la repentance pour les atrocités commises par les gardes rouges durant la Révolution culturelle (1966-1976).

Le 12 janvier, elles ont franchi le Rubicon en présentant publiquement leurs excuses à ceux de leurs professeurs de l’époque qui ont survécu, lors d’une réunion du lycée. « La plupart nous ont dit qu’ils attendaient ce geste et qu’on aurait dû le faire il y a longtemps ! », raconte ainsi Liu Jin, 67 ans. Cheveux gris coupés court, jean et pull-over bleu marine, cette éditrice retraitée avait été désignée chef officielle des élèves du lycée dans les premières semaines de la Révolution culturelle, en juin 1966.

MILLIONS DE MORTS

Ce nouveau mouvement lancé par Mao, d’abord encadré par des « groupes de travail » du parti formés de cadres adultes, semblait alors inoffensif. En réalité, Mao, écarté des affaires courantes, allait jouer de son statut de dieu vivant auprès de la jeunesse pour renverser la direction du parti à tous les échelons, dans une bataille insensée qui fera des millions de morts.

Pour comprendre, il faut remonter à une journée bien particulière, celle du 5 août 1966. Ce jour-là, c’est une scène digne d’un film d’horreur qui a lieu dans un lycée pékinois réservé à l’élite rouge. Les « groupes de travail » du parti viennent d’être dissous par Mao, furieux de les voir « éteindre le feu de la révolution ». Dans ce lycée, Liu Jin et son adjointe, Song Binbin, restent les seules représentantes d’une autorité au statut ambigu. Depuis la mi-juin, les professeurs et les cadres dirigeants débusqués comme « ennemis de classe » ont été soumis à des « séances de critiques ». Sur les conseils de Deng Xiaoping, à l’époque vice-premier ministre, à qui elles avaient rendu compte des avancées de la Révolution culturelle dans leur lycée, Liu Jin et Song Binbin ont renvoyé des professeurs aux antécédents « problématiques ». La chef du parti du lycée (l’échelon suprême de direction dans toute administration chinoise), une femme de 50 ans, Bian Zhongyun, elle, reste sous bonne garde car son dossier est accablant.

« SÉANCE DE CRITIQUES »

Ses crimes ? Elle n’a pas répondu à la question d’un élève voulant savoir, lors d’un exercice organisé au lycée, s’il fallait décrocher le portrait de Mao en cas de séisme. Puis elle a refusé de « repêcher » la fille du président chinois Liu Shaoqi, recalée de peu à l’examen d’entrée. Enfin, une femme a clamé, en juin 1966, lors d’une « séance de critiques », que son mari, professeur au lycée, la trompait avec M^me Bian (une accusation qui se révéla fausse). La femme réclamait en fait que la chef du lycée lui verse le salaire de son époux dont elle était divorcée, ce que M^me Bian a refusé. Tout cela finit de convaincre que M^me Bian est un « mauvais élément ».

Ce 5 août, les élèves la forcent à crier à tue-tête, en frappant une poubelle en fer comme si c’était un gong : « Je suis une tenante de la voie capitaliste ! Je suis une révisionniste contre-révolutionnaire ! Je mérite d’être battue ! » Ce sont les filles de première année, soucieuses de montrer leur ferveur révolutionnaire, qui ont organisé cette punition. Les coups pleuvent : fusils en bois, barreaux de chaise sur lesquels des clous dépassent. Coups de pied, aussi, car certaines lycéennes en treillis portent des bottes de l’armée.

A trois reprises, Liu Jin et Song Binbin interviennent. « La première fois, raconte Liu Jin, la foule se dispersa. » Mais dès que les jeunes cheftaines remontent dans leur bureau, d’autres recommencent à s’acharner contre M^me Bian. « Je craignais d’être critiquée en empêchant les violences. C’est vrai que c’est pour cela que je n’ai pas fait de mon mieux », a reconnu Song Binbin dans le discours qu’elle a prononcé le 12 janvier. « La vie humaine ne valait pas grand-chose. Mao était un dieu. Ses paroles étaient saintes. Tout le monde était prêt à se sacrifier », déplore Gao Ning, une autre ancienne élève du lycée, déjà à l’université à l’époque.

There is only one comment, far fewer than if the article had been on a subject involving that nightmarish society that is America's, such as (horrors!) Abu Ghraib or (imagine!) the lack of gun control. But it is worth reading. JP. Tournebroche writes:

On attend avec intérêt les réactions des anciens adorateurs de Mao et thuriféraires de la Grande Révolution Culturelle, notamment celles de M. Sollers et de ses anciens camarades de Tel Quel. On se souvient des flamboyants articles dans lesquels ce grand penseur nous instruisait de la différence entre "la pensée Mao Tsé Toung" et "la pensée de Mao Tsé Toung". On se rappelle aussi de quelle façon ces maolâtres furent descendus en flammes par Simon Leys lors d'un "Apostrophes" mémorable....

"You don't want to go there, buddy"; Many, many thanks to Eric Holder

Doesn't Eric Holder deserve our deepest gratitude?

As reported by Fox News, the attorney general told a congressman,

You don't want to go there, buddy.

Let's look at this first, briefly, in the specific venue it was said, and second, in a more general way.

1) "You don't want to go there." Can this be constructed as anything but either scorn or a veiled threat or both? Let's read the sentences that follow.

Holder went on to say that [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)] "should not assume that that [the 2012 House vote finding Holder in contempt of Congress] is not a big deal to me."

"I think that it was inappropriate and it was unjust, but never think that was not a big deal to me. Don't ever think that," Holder said, pointing his finger.

Get this right, people; get this right, congressmen: How dare you — how dare anybody — ask any member of the Obama White House for justification (documents, emails, etc) for their decisions?!

Eric Holder is part of the team of brilliant reformers sent to radically transform America by telling ordinary men and women (as Ricardo Fernandez calls the latter, "the great unwashed [who] merely swill beer, drive pickup trucks and believe in superstitious nonsense like good and evil, right and wrong, God and the devil" — thanks to Instapundit) to stop thinking they know how to manage their own lives and telling them what to do (mainly, what to do with their money, as in hand it over to the government of reformers and to their ever-growing bureaucracies).

So, for one of those unwashed people — for what else are Republicans anyway, and besides, what business do those clods have being in DC in the first place?! (stupid constitution and thank God the IRS intervened to keep the Tea Partiers in their place, and us reformers in Washington) — to question their decisions and bring up such (non-)scandals as the Mexican gun-walking affair, the failure to go after (Democratic) voting fraud, and the IRS's Tea Party hunt, all of which is highly unfair not to mention highly insulting.

2) More generally, we should all thank Eric Holder for articulating the attitude that has come from the White House (and prior to that, from the Obama campaign) for the past five or six years — as well as from its brilliant reformers (as stated above), from the mainstream media (remember the Journolist?), and all the supporters of the left in the population:

You don't want to go there, buddy.

The Benghazi massacre? The Syria red line? The reset with Russia?

You don't want to go there, buddy.

The Obamacare vote? The (repeated) "misspeaking" of Obama's promises?

You don't want to go there, buddy.

Obama's past? The Reverend Wright's Church? Obama's rise through Chicago's machine politics? Obama's winning one election after another through at least partially dubious means, from the invalidating of the petitions of Democratic party opponents (1996) and the unsealing of divorce papers (2004) to the siccing of the IRS on the Tea Party (2012).

You don't want to go there, buddy. (CNN is a Wright-free zone; ABC, CBS, and NBC haven't mentioned the IRS scandal (scandal?! what scandal?!) in months.)

Even something so innocuous as the content of Obama's Harvard papers and his grades?

You don't want to go there, buddy. (Racism, racism, racism.)

And having the gall, generally, to question people such as Barack Obama and Eric Holder?

You don't want to go there, buddy. (Racism, racism, racism.)

But why should this surprise us?

What this attitude is, basically, is symbolic of the entire Alinsky stance and everything in his radicals book:

You don't want to go there, buddy.

BBC to Commemorate the 70th Anniversary of D-Day

The 70th anniversary of the 1944 D-Day landings is to be marked by a series of programmes on BBC TV and radio, announces the British broadcaster.

The June 6 attack saw more than 156,000 Allied troops storm the beaches of France and marked the beginning of the end of World War II.

 … "We all owe so much to the brave servicemen and women who took part in the D-Day campaign," said Danny Cohen, director of BBC Television.

"It is a privilege to commemorate and mark this incredibly important anniversary with a range of programming across BBC TV, radio and online."

The story of D-Day.

Starting in the late 60s, child support and alimony went from necessary evil to an open bribe available to any woman who was willing to betray her husband and children

 … starting in the late sixties we reorganized our legal and social structure with the (unquestioned) assumption that replacing marriage wasn’t a necessary evil, but a moral imperative

writes Dalrock (echoing Stephen Baskerville).

We replaced a patchwork of bastardy laws with a declaration that legitimacy doesn’t matter.  Around the same time, we ushered in no fault divorce with very strong bias towards mother custody, while leaving in place the punitive practices of child support and alimony.  Suddenly child support and alimony went from necessary evil to an open bribe available to any woman who was willing to betray her husband and children.

Now we not only promise a woman cash and prizes if she will agree to betray her family, but we have created a presumption of guilt on the part of the very husband she sells out. As Lydia McGrew explains here it is misogyny to not assume that our pandemic of wife initiated divorce is proof that the men must have had it coming.

This assumption that the sin of divorce must be justified is combining with the lure of the financial reward to sin and snaring very large numbers of women.  Where Christians should be defending marriage and discouraging sin, most are enthusiastic supporters of child support and stand forever ready to offer justifications for women to divorce their husbands, however flimsy.   However, remaining silent about the evil of child support and alimony and encouraging frivolous divorce is not kind to women and children;  it is cruelty.

In our current rush to find some fault, any fault, by the husband to justify the divorcing wife we aren’t being honest that the standing offer of a cash reward for ending her marriage can’t help but cloud her judgment.

Update: Instapundit links another Dalrock post:
The Great Douchebag Mystery, or, How Douchebags Are Created

Leading From Behind: Obama Wants to Give an Important Role to Hollande

Delucq describes an American puppeteer leading from behind — from behind a constable-looking Hollande puppet in his hand:

• Barack Obama: Tremble, Syria! Shake in your boots, Central Africa! The world's policeman is about to get mad!

Restored WWII plane to return to Normandy for D-Day anniversary

At the invitation of the French government, [a] restored Douglas C-47 will fly in for 70th-anniversary festivities and again release paratroopers over the original jump zone at Sainte-Mere-Eglise

writes the Associated Press.

"There are very few of these planes still flying, and this plane was very significant on D-Day," said Erin Vitale, chairwoman of the Return to Normandy Project. "It dropped people that were some of the first into Sainte-Mere-Eglise and liberated that town."

 … Leslie Palmer Cruise Jr. … still remembers being squashed between other paratroopers seated on pan seats as the plane left England's Cottesmore Airdrome. He was weighed down with probably 100 pounds of gear, including an M-1 rifle that was carried in three pieces, 30-caliber rifle ammo, a first-aid pack, grenade, K-rations and his New Testament in his left pocket, over his heart.

"We could hear the louder roar as each plane following the leader accelerated down the runway and lifted into the air," he wrote in an account of the mission. "Our turn came and the quivering craft gathered momentum along the path right behind the plane in front."

The airplane's engines were so loud he had to shout even to talk with the paratrooper next to him, he said, and the scenery through its square windows looked like shadows in the dark. Over the English Channel, a colonel pointed downward.

"In the partial darkness below we could make out silhouetted shapes of ships and there must have been thousands of them all sizes and kinds," Cruise wrote. "If we had any doubts before about the certainty of the invasion, they were dispelled now."

Let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud; Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy

When the Reverend Al Sharpton embraced felonious vote fraudster Melowese Richardson he embraced her crime

writes Benny Huang.

Harlem’s own race-hustling clergyman appeared at a political rally in Cincinnati in support of the “Ohio Voters’ Bill of Rights,” that would make it illegal to ask voters for ID at the polls, when Ms. Richardson, freshly sprung from a prison she should not have left, was called up to the stage for a heartfelt “welcome home,” complete with thunderous applause and big hug from Reverend Al.

Ms. Richardson, a county poll worker, pleaded no contest in 2013 to four counts of voter fraud. The previous year she voted five times for President Obama—once for herself, and four times illegally. She has also admitted to voting illegally in 2009 and 2011, though those charges were excluded as part of her plea deal. She was then sentenced to five years in prison, though she served only eight months before the same judge that sentenced her in the first place re-sentenced her to parole.

“In the interest of justice, it is time for her to go home,” said Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters, a Republican. He offered no objection to Ms. Richardson’s resentencing.

Apparently eight months in prison was punishment enough for depriving (at least) four other citizens of their franchise. That’s what voter fraud is—disenfranchising voters. Each illegitimate ballot cast nullifies a legitimate one. Her fraud was no different than reaching into the ballot box and removing four ballots, or physically blocking four people from the polling place.

 … Any talk of voter fraud elicits swift backlash from the Left. A series of billboards reading “Voter Fraud is a Crime” created quite a stir In the Buckeye State in 2012 and were quickly condemned by the “civil rights establishment” who demanded to know who they were “targeted at.”

Answer: vote fraudsters, of course. Who else?

But misnamed “voting rights” groups didn’t see it that way. They asserted that the billboards were intended to intimidate minorities and felons, who are permitted to vote in Ohio. How someone might have interpreted “Don’t vote illegally” to mean “Don’t vote,” is beyond me. It would be like claiming that advertisements against drunk driving dissuade people from driving sober.

But I wasn’t born yesterday so I can see through their transparent objections. Liberals weren’t concerned that the billboards would send the wrong message. They were concerned that it would send the right message, thus stymying their efforts to cheat. No one honestly believes that the billboards were designed to intimidate legitimate voters from voting only once. They were aimed at the Melowese Richardsons of this world who think nothing of voting five times in a single election.

Leave Melowese alone!

 … So let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud. If they were, they wouldn’t object to billboards that warn against it and they wouldn’t make a martyr out of Melowese Richardson, who served only eight months in prison when she could have spent decades.

Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy. They know what the law says but the law is, in their eyes, unfair. So they flaunt it. They recruit noncitizens to vote, some of whom aren’t even in the country legally. They get felons to polls, even though felons are ineligible to vote in some states. They comb the voter rolls for people who have recently died, and they never allow anyone to clean up voter rolls, even if they contain more registered voters than a precinct has eligible citizens.

This isn’t an argument between two groups of people who both care about the integrity of our elections but disagree about how best to ensure it. It’s an argument between people who think that elections should be clean and well-ordered, with sensible safeguards to ensure that only eligible voters vote and only one time each, and those who think that cheating is okay so long as it is done in the service of a just cause. And really, there is no cause more just than electing saintly liberals and defeating evil conservatives.

In the Wake of Crimea, What Lands Does the Kremlin Have Its Heart Set On?

After Crimea — whose historical ties to Russia are discussed by the BBC's Ruth Maclennan — will other territories be coveted by Moscow, ask Le Monde's Jules Grandin, Flavie Holzinger, Benoît Vitkin, and Mathilde Gérard.

Historic Defeat for Hollande's Ruling Socialists in France's Municipal Elections

On Sunday, François Hollande's ruling socialists suffered a defeat without precedent in France's 2014 municipal elections (spoken about in all of Europe), leading to the opposition UMP becoming the nº1 party (on a town-hall level, at least, with the emergence of a new generation of right-leaning mayors, some under 40 years of age) and to the capture of several town halls by Marine Le Pen's Front National.

Marine Le Pen Proves Yet Again that America's Conservatives Are No Equivalent of Her Front National

While François Hollande's ruling socialists suffer a defeat without precedent in France's 2014 municipal elections (spoken about in all of Europe) — leading to the opposition UMP becoming the nº1 party along with the capture of several town halls by the Front National — Marine Le Pen proves, yet again, that America's conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans are no equivalent of her movement.

The FN leader, who once said that “Obama is way to the right of us”, does not refute the idea of being the incarnation of a sort of "Peronism à la française" (in an interview by Abel Mestre and Caroline Monnot), all the while speaking of starting over at the year 0 (evoking Robespierre, Pot Pol, et al) and rejecting the "ultra" free market.

M^me Le Pen appelle de ses vœux à la naissance d'un « grand mouvement patriote, ni droite ni gauche », s'opposant à un autre bloc politique qui serait composé de l'UMP et du PS. Une sorte de « péronisme à la française », définition que l'eurodéputée ne rejette pas.

Votre positionnement « ni droite ni gauche » n'est-il pas une impasse qui vous empêche de passer des alliances ?

Pas du tout. C'est ce qu'attendent les Français. Dans notre électorat, il y a des déçus de l'UMP et des déçus du PS. Nous sommes à l'année zéro d'un grand mouvement patriote, ni de droite ni de gauche, qui fonde son opposition avec la classe politique actuelle sur la défense de la nation, le rejet de l'ultralibéralisme, de l'européisme, capable de transcender les vieux clivages pour poser les vraies questions : est-on dans une vision nationale ou postnationale ? J'espère que cela apparaîtra de manière claire lors des élections européennes.

 … Votre positionnement « ni droite ni gauche » n'est-il pas une impasse qui vous empêche de passer des alliances ?

Pas du tout. C'est ce qu'attendent les Français. Dans notre électorat, il y a des déçus de l'UMP et des déçus du PS. Nous sommes à l'année zéro d'un grand mouvement patriote, ni de droite ni de gauche, qui fonde son opposition avec la classe politique actuelle sur la défense de la nation, le rejet de l'ultralibéralisme, de l'européisme, capable de transcender les vieux clivages pour poser les vraies questions : est-on dans une vision nationale ou postnationale ? J'espère que cela apparaîtra de manière claire lors des élections européennes.

Le Front national ne fait pas partie du bloc de droite ?

Non, pas du tout. Le bloc droite-gauche ne correspond plus à la réalité. On ne peut plus classer les électeurs dans deux camps droite et gauche, la réalité est bien plus complexe que cela.

The World’s 10 Most Beautiful National Parks

From Womanitely, the World’s 10 Most Beautiful National Parks

Le Figaro Director Shot by Finance Minister's Wife and Killed

M. Gaston Calmette, director of the ‘‘Figaro,’’ was yesterday shot and killed by Mme. Caillaux, wife of the Minister of Finance, in his bureau in the offices of that newspaper

writes the New York Herald in a special section.

Mme. Caillaux called at the ‘‘Figaro’’ offices about five o’clock in the afternoon and asked to see M. Calmette. After waiting a while, she was shown into M. Calmette’s office and immediately drew from her muff an automatic pistol and shot him three times. The shooting was the sequel to the campaign recently waged against M. Caillaux by M. Calmette in the columns of the ‘‘Figaro.’’ At the police-station, Mme. Caillaux declared that she did not intend to kill M. Calmette, but wanted to ‘‘teach him a good lesson.’’ She explained to the police commissary that the affair arose out of a letter which M. Caillaux wrote in 1901 to a woman, a photographic reproduction of which appeared in the ‘‘Figaro’’ last Friday. Mme. Caillaux said that she was very shocked by the publication of such a letter, and declared that she wanted to prevent any more letters of the kind being published. An eye-witness of the tragedy declared later that M. Calmette, as he was being carried downstairs, preparatory to being removed to hospital, said, in a fainting voice: ‘‘I have never done anyone any harm, but I have merely done my duty.’’

In Our Pages, 100 Years Ago (1914)

Check out Herbert Mitgang's book review of
Edward Berenson's The Trial of Mme. Caillaux

Racism on French Campuses on the Rise

 … [French] campuses are more and more the targets of bullying actions from extreme right groups; racist, homophobic, and nationalist graffiti; and even sometimes blows

While America and the world bemoan the dark racism that allegedly exists throughout America, Isabelle Rey-Lefebvre writes in Le Monde that French university campuses are permeated with racist acts

 … les campus sont de plus en plus souvent la cible d'actions d'intimidation de groupuscules d'extrême droite, tags racistes, homophobes, nationalistes et parfois même coups de poings. …

« UN ACTE ANTIRÉPUBLICAIN »

Les étudiants de l'université de Dijon ont découvert, mardi 4 mars, sur le mur extérieur de l'établissement, deux tags d'une même main : « Vive la France » et « A mort LGBT » (pour lesbien, gay, bi et trans). Le président de l'université de Bourgogne, Alain Bonnin, a dénoncé sur son compte Twitter un « acte antirépublicain ».

L'incident n'est pas isolé : en novembre 2013, une statue du campus était vandalisée avec le slogan « Hollande démission » signé « ONLR » pour « On ne lâche rien », mot d'ordre des partisans de la Manif pour tous. « Les manifs anti-mariage pour tous ont donné des ailes à ces extrémistes », juge Jean-Baptiste Bourdillon, de l'UNEF Dijon. …

INCIDENTS À ANGERS, POITIERS, BORDEAUX, RENNES

A Strasbourg, le 9 février, on pouvait lire, sur les murs de la bibliothèque de l'université « Alsace nationaliste » et « La France aux Français », assorties d'une fleur de lys stylisée, symbole du Renouveau français, mouvement se disant « pour la renaissance nationale ». « Ce n'est qu'un incident d'une longue série, et ils vont crescendo », témoigne Flavie Linard, présidente de l'UNEF Strasbourg, qui se souvient des tags « A mort les socialistes », des autocollants et affiches siglés GUD ou encore des distributions de journaux Action universitaire française. « On ne voit jamais les fauteurs de troubles, ce qui me conduit à penser qu'il s'agit d'éléments extérieurs », confirme l'étudiante, à l'origine, avec d'autres associations, d'un comité de vigilance.


 … les militants UNEF et RUSF se sentent toujours menacés, puisque, début février, les murs de la faculté de lettres ont été graffités de slogans « Europe jeunesse génération » et « Pasaran quand même », référence au régime franquiste.

No word, yet, on whether, like their American counterparts, many if not most of these "racist" incidents turn out to be hoaxes.

Huffington Post's AOL Uses Airliner Tragedy Story to Make a Sarah Palin Joke

Credit a leftist organization like Huffington Post and/or AOL to use the main, "front-page" article currently on the site (1st out of 35), the one written by ADAM GELLER and KRISTEN GELINEAU on a pretty serious subject — the disappearance of the Malaysian airliner, Flight MH370 — to… make (or to relay, rather) a Sarah Palin joke.

 … when a fake news story showed up online supposedly quoting Sarah Palin as saying she believed the plane had flown directly to heaven, its plausibility hinged not on the former Alaska governor, but on the fact that just about anybody could and seemingly did have an opinion on the flight's fate.

Sending a Strong Signal to Russia

Master of the Universe
by Alex in
La Liberté
(Switzerland)

Xavier Gorce

 • Okay, let's take a vote: Who's in favor of the embargo?

• Perfect, that will send a strong signal: a full halt to chewing gum exports towards Russia

Smart Diplomacy: what is happening in Eastern Europe now is as much Obama’s fault as it is Putin’s

Now we know just how little Vladimir Putin and the government behind him cares about what the world thinks 

writes Onan Coca regarding the latest entry in the annals of the Apologizer-in-Chief's smart diplomacy

– and particularly what America thinks … it seems that every step the Obama administration has taken over the last 5+ years has led us to this point. Whether it was Hillary Clinton’s “Reset” button, Obama’s pledge of flexibility once the 2012 election was over, Obama’s recalcitrance on Syria, or Obama’s impotence on Iran… every foreign policy misstep has brought us down this road. In fact, I think it’s fair to say that what is happening in Eastern Europe now is as much President Obama’s fault as it is Vladimir Putin’s.

Meanwhile, James Rosen points out how,

among ethnic Russians, and in the heart of the former Soviet Union, a palpable anti-American sentiment is discernible -- and it is, to some extent, the product of determined efforts by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin apparatus he controls. 

No Pasarán wrote about this in October 2012 after the third debate when a New York Times piece, of all places, provided fodder for the post Moscow's current tone is "reminiscent of Soviet days"; If anyone is stuck in the Cold War mentality, it is the Russians. James Rosen, again:

"Friends of mine who have been in Moscow for the past, say, two years tell me you cannot understand the amount of propaganda, anti-U.S. propaganda, that is being fed to the Russian people on Russian television -- nothing like it, unprecedented," said Daniel Henninger, deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, in an appearance on Fox News' "Happening Now." "They didn't even do this sort of thing back during the Cold War."

Fox Butterfield, Est-ce Vous? "Coincidentally, perils in Ukraine are on the rise at a time when the U.S. is announcing a reduction in military personnel"

"Coincidentally" are the first words of Corine Lesnes's article, as the Le Monde writer seems to be channeling Fox Butterfield (Renard Champdebeurre in French?) when she says that by coincidence perils are on the rise at a time when America is disarming, disarming to a level prior to World War II.

Coincidentally, the increasing perils in Ukraine come at a time when the United States is announcing a reduction in military personnel. In the 2015 budget presented on March 4, Barack Obama included a realignment of the armed forces that reflects its major strategic choices: an end to deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, adapting to new types of missions, a pivot towards Asia. According to the proposals presented to Congress by the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, the army should decrease from 522,000 men to 440,000 or 450,000 before 2017, the lowest level since 1940.

"Coincidentally"!

Corine Lesnes:

Par coïncidence, la montée des périls en Ukraine intervient à un moment où les Etats-Unis annoncent une réduction de leurs effectifs militaires. Dans le budget 2015 qu'il présente le 4 mars, Barack Obama a inclus une réorientation des forces armées qui traduit ses grands choix stratégiques : fin des déploiements en Irak et en Afghanistan, adaptation aux nouvelles missions, pivot vers l'Asie.
Selon les propositions présentées au Congrès par le secrétaire à la défense, Chuck Hagel, l'armée de terre devrait passer de 522 000 hommes à 440 000 ou 450 000 avant 2017, soit le niveau le plus bas depuis 1940.

Tenth Anniversary of My First Post for No Pasarán

A few weeks after the founding of No Pasarán, 10 years ago, I was invited to join as the blog's fourth blogger (after Douglas, Jonathan, and Liminal aka U*2, and prior to N Joe). Today is the anniversary of my first contribution:

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Growling for Colombani

Any of you who have seen me over the past 10 days knows how furious I get anytime I read or hear the French media trying to stuff down our throats their self-serving lying charges (those against Aznar, Bush, and Blair, i.e., anybody whom they don't feel any sympathy with).

So when I read that the Mémorial de Caen was organizing a conference with Jean-Marie Colombani, among others ("QUELLE LIBERTÉ POUR L'INFORMATION DANS UN MONDE INQUIÉTANT ?", organized in tandem with Les Amis de l'hebdomadaire La Vie and Reporters sans Frontières), I knew I had to attend. I wanted to give Le Monde's director a piece of my mind (in a diplomatic manner, natch). Three hours before it started at 7 pm on March 23, 2004, I jumped into my trusty jalopy, and drove the 260 km to Caen, arriving just in the nick of time.

And sure enough, the first thing any of the five intervenants did (with a constant wry smile on his face) was to attack the lies of politicians, ridicule the partisanship of the media, and bemoan the jingoism of the population (meaning those of the US, the UK, and Aznar's Spain exclusively, bien sûr). It was Jean-Marie Charon, "Sociologue des médias" (whatever that means), who opened the débat — the others being (left to right on the admittedly unclear photo) Colombani, Walter Wells, Directeur de l'International Herald Tribune (beard), Jean-Jacques Lerosier, Grand reporter à Ouest-France, and Jacqueline Papet, Rédactrice-en-chef de RFI, with the moderators answering to the names of Daniel Junqua, Journaliste et Vice-président de RSF, and Jean-Claude Escaffit, Journaliste à La Vie et Directeur des Amis de La Vie.

Before I left Paris, I'd reviewed and written down (in telegraph-style) a handful of arguments: these ranged from the Iraqis quoted in Reason, on Iraq the Model, and in Le Monde itself, to Doug's post on Le Monde's partisan mistranslation of Michael Ignatieff's piece in the New York Times.

The only problem was a rather big one, I learned as a I headed for my seat: questions would not be permitted, except in written form on small pieces of paper handed over to one of the animators. So I knew I had to pay close attention if I wanted to find an appropriate moment when to jump in. And I would obviously not have time to develop any of the arguments (especially since Eskaffit seemed to be a control freak).

It happened towards the end. There was a brief lull as Wells was about to make his last extensive remarks. Suddenly everybody turned to me as I let out : "Je pense que nous devons tous remercier les médias français pour leur admirable abilité à détecter les mensonges. Mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi ces spécialistes en la matière ignorent des sujets qui ont été traités dans le Herald Tribune, par exemple." (This was punctuated by Eskaffit's protests on his mike, you realize.) "Nous avons pu y lire des articles détaillant ce qu'on pourrait taxer de mensonges dans le camp de la paix, comme le fait que les Allemands, les Russes, et les Français avaient pas mal d'affaires avec les autorités baasistes, et que Total devait avoir un contrat exclusif avec Saddam Hussein. Pourquoi les médias français n'en font-ils pas autant état que de ce qui concerne les Ricains, les Rosbifs, et les Espagnols?"

Eskaffit was growing increasingly more vocal in asking/telling me to keep quiet (shades of Chirac?) — he claimed that "de toutes façons", nobody could hear me — so seeing the end approaching (and having a hard time competing against a microphone), I pulled out my final ace — the final ace being a book, which I held above my head. (Yes, there did seem to be a somewhat theatrical element to this scene; why do you ask?) "Et en matière de mensonges, il y a ce livre d'un rédacteur de La Croix, qui a été licencié pour l'avoir publié, qui s'appelle Comment la presse nous a désinformés sur l'Irak. Et qui raconte les partis pris des Français pour diaboliser Bush, pour sanctifier Chirac, et pour communier avec les partis de la 'paix'."

Even a few audience members had by now started to tell me to keep quiet, but that seemed an appropriate place to end anyway, so with that I sat down.

As for Eskaffit, he went on talking to the intervenants… ignoring completely what I had said. (While a couple of people behind me asked to see the book.) Well, I felt I had done my blogger's duty, so to speak, so I sat back, pretty content with myself.

Then, as Junqua made his last remarks, I understood that some people had heard me; the RSF moderator surprised me by pulling out his own copy of Alain Hertoghe's book (which he had in his briefcase), and explained that it provided a negative view of the French media during the Iraq war. But then he added that there was another book, detailing the French press's doings during the first Gulf war, with a positive slant, and that one could not read the first book without comparing it to the second. He tried to conclude that Hertoghe's book was a partisan "brûlot" that was not very friendly to his colleagues. (This from a colloque which had just declared that, happily, the old tradition in the press of refusing to criticize one's colleagues had now become "caduc"!)

I wasn't going to let him get away with that as the final word, so I let out another comment: "Les médias ont complètement censuré ce livre!" (But Eskaffit immediately started interrupting again.)

Afterwards, I went up to speak to some of the intervenants. Wells asked to see Hertoghe's book, which he wanted to check out. As for Junqua, he admitted it was news to him that the La Croix editor had been fired as a result of the book's publication.

So, all in all, a satisfying 10 minutes. (But hardly worth doing again, not at that distance. At least not without a couple of chums to have a drink with, afterwards.)

P.S. This is my first post for ¡No Pasarán! Muchas gracias, amigos, for inviting me to participar.

Posted by Erik at 20:03

The Two Big Losers in the Crimea Crisis Are Merkel and Obama, Writes Le Monde Columnist

Putin 1, Merkel and Obama 0

is Alain Frachon's verdict in Le Monde.

The West checkmated. SuperPutin triumphs.

… There are two big losers: Barack Obama and Angela Merkel … The two most important leaders in the Western family failed miserably. They did everything to "appease" a Russia said to be "humiliated" by the disappearance of its empire. They went along with numerous requests. They petted the bear. WIthout obtaining a single thing in return.

En Français :

Echec et mat à l’Occident. Super Poutine triomphe.

  … Il y a deux grands perdants : Barack Obama et Angela Merkel. … les deux dirigeants les plus importants de la famille occidentale se sont lourdement trompés. Ils ont tout fait pour « apaiser » une Russie que l’on disait « humiliée » par la disparition de son empire. Ils ont accédé à nombre de ses demandes. Ils ont caressé l’ours dans le sens du poil. Sans rien obtenir en retour.

A peine arrivé à la Maison Blanche, en janvier 2009, Obama annonce un « nouveau départ » dans la politique russe des Etats-Unis. Moscou voit alors d’un mauvais œil le projet américain d’installer un bouclier antimissile en Pologne et en République tchèque. Obama l’abandonne aussitôt et le remplace par une version plus réduite, en Roumanie. A aucun moment, le président américain n’a cherché à revenir sur la décision prise par l’OTAN, en 2008, de rejeter les candidatures de l’Ukraine et de la Géorgie.

Dans sa rhétorique comme dans ses actes, Obama a gommé l’empreinte néoconservatrice qui marquait l’administration de George W. Bush : plus question d’exporter les valeurs de la démocratie jeffersonienne où que ce soit. Concentré sur le retrait des forces américaines d’Irak et d’Afghanistan, il sait l’immense perte de crédibilité morale subie par les Etats-Unis du fait de ces interventions répétées à l’extérieur. Il a mesuré les limites de ce que peut accomplir la machine militaire américaine ; il a mesuré aussi ce que ces guerres ont coûté au statut de l’Amérique. Il est le président d’un certain désengagement américain en Europe – objectif traditionnel de Moscou. Il s’est gardé d’intervenir militairement dans la guerre syro-syrienne, et s’est rangé à l’initiative du Kremlin sur le démantèlement des armes chimiques de Damas.

Meanwhile, Sylvie Kauffmann takes on an optimistic viewpoint, opining that this crisis will see the United States return to Europe. But isn't it too late, Sylvie?

Selon les propos rapportés par M. Djemilev aux médias ukrainiens, le président russe a fait valoir que la déclaration d'indépendance de l'Ukraine en 1991, par un vote du Parlement suivi d'un référendum, n'était « pas conforme à la procédure soviétique prévue pour quitter les structures de l'URSS » … l'idée qui s'est répandue aussitôt est qu'à ses yeux, le démantèlement de l'URSS était illégal. Cela impliquerait que Vladimir Poutine veut rétablir l'Union soviétique.

L'annexion de la Crimée bouleverse l'ordre international de l'après-guerre froide. De fait, elle a déjà provoqué plusieurs renversements de tendances et fait deviner des réalignements.

Lire : Un référendum en Crimée pour dire "oui" à la Russie

Le plus visible est le retour des Etats-Unis en Europe. Soucieux de « pivoter » vers l'Asie, découragés par les échecs de l'ère Bush au Moyen-Orient, les Américains avaient laissé les Européens gérer la sécurité de leur continent et même au-delà, de l'autre côté de la Méditerranée, en « menant depuis l'arrière ». La crise ukrainienne les voit revenir en première ligne.