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.

Exactly who or what will take over the DNS from the US government? And will it make the Internet better or worse?

On March 14, 2014, the United States announced its intention to turn over control of the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) to someone else

writes Bob Rankin.

But exactly who or what will take over? And will it make the Internet better or worse? Here is my analysis of what’s really happening…

Is the U.N. Taking Over the Internet?

Despite what you may have heard about the recently announced changes in Internet governance, it's not exactly "new news," it's not going to happen any time soon, but it could affect how people in some countries access the Internet (or not). Here's what you need to know.

…/…

Some Concerns About Human RIghts

What unsettles some is that Russia, China and other countries with less-than-stellar human rights policies are making the most noise about moving Internet governance out of the USA. They would like the U.N. to be in charge, giving them more power to censor online political speech and dissent. And given the U.N.'s track record of putting dictators in charge of things, one can understand these concerns. Last November, Russia, China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia were chosen by secret ballot to serve on the UN's laughable Human Rights Council.

Typically, whoever controls the purse strings controls everything. If the new Internet governance body is funded by member contributions, then power will concentrate in the factions that contribute the most money. ICANN will have to come up with a different, politically neutral funding mechanism. Selling IP addresses and domain names may be a workable option, but provisions will be needed to prevent any entity or faction from cornering the market.

The news that the U.S. is giving up control of the Internet is being painted as a reaction to current events, including the NSA’s spying activities. In reality, it’s a long-anticipated step in what has been planned for the Internet since 1998. Before NTIA and ICANN, control of the Internet was held by DARPA. In fact, at one time a single person held the power to decide who got a domain name and who didn’t. His name was Jon Postel and his power was so awesome that his nickname within the geek community was simply, “God.”

The transfer of power from a military agency to the Commerce Department, which serves broad commercial interests, was a step towards openness and inclusion of more stakeholders. Delegating power to the non-governmental ICANN was a further step. Taking the U. S. government entirely out of the picture is the final step, and it won’t be taken until another suitable custodian of the Internet is available.

Bottom line, the Internet isn't likely to fundamentally change (at least in the USA) once this transition is complete. You'll still be able to find cat videos on Youtube, and spew the most private details of your life on Facebook, if you choose to do so. Users in China, Russia, and other totalitarian regimes may not be as lucky.

Here’s the unfortunate truth: There are a number of problems with Rand Paul’s formula for a GOP victory

Senator Rand Paul thinks he has a recipe for a GOP comeback

writes Benny Huang —

Republicans should agree to disagree on social issues.

… According to this argument, after a mutual agreed-upon truce on social issues, a slew of disaffected voters will flock to the GOP and the party will be able to tackle the debt crisis that plagues us.

There are a number of problems with Paul’s formula for victory. Let’s start with the fact that Republicans have already agreed to disagree on these issues. Come to Massachusetts and you’ll find nary a trace of social conservatism in the state GOP. Even outside of New England there are pro-abortion Republicans like Chris Christie and and pro-same sex marriage Republicans like Rob Portman. The party even has turncoats who think that religious business owners should be forced by law to take part in same-sex weddings—John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Jan Brewer, to name a few. So there’s plenty of room in the Republicans’ “big tent” for people who hate religious liberty and love violence against the unborn.

“Agreeing to disagree” can’t be what Paul really means. I think what he’s saying is that all-around conservatives should let the fiscal-policy-only conservatives do all the talking so the party will stop looking so mean and exclusive. This will be accomplished by punting all social issues to the Democrats, who have most certainly not agreed to disagree.

And they will win. Every time.

The only way this could possibly grow the party is if the ostracized social conservatives continued to faithfully cast their ballots for Republicans; just for old time’s sake or something. I guess it never occurred to Senator Paul that those conservatives who don’t like the new GOP might just stay home, thus shrinking the party.

But there’s another problem with the Paulian plan for a rejuvenated Republican Party: the demographic groups the senator is hoping to reach by focusing on budget issues are probably the least receptive to the message.

Try preaching fiscal conservatism in an inner-city neighborhood where the population is disproportionately young, non-white, and Democratic. Here’s a message that will get you nowhere with them: “Hi, I’m running for office on a platform of lower taxes and less government.”

 … Less government terrifies them because they understand the term to mean fewer social programs. And they’re right. They might even ask what parts of the budget Republicans plan on cutting, which is a fair question. What will Republicans say?

Consider for a moment Generation Y and its priorities. A 2012 Pew poll found that among eighteen- to twenty-nine year olds socialism had a nice ring to it. Forty-nine percent of this age group reported a positive reaction to the word, while 47% had a negative view of capitalism.

Among blacks of all ages, 55% had a positive reaction to the word socialism, and among Hispanics of all ages it was 44%. If Rand Paul thinks he can win these people over by kicking Phyllis Schlafly to the curb he’s wrong.

The reason the cost of government is perpetually growing is because our elected officials don’t know how to say no to any constituent group or “good cause.” Every program is someone’s lifeblood, whether it’s HUD or farm subsidies, and every agency is someone’s employer, whether it’s the turnpike authority or TSA. Making a cut anywhere will generate pushback, often from exactly the people Rand Paul thinks he can attract.

If the pivot from social policy to fiscal policy is compelled by a burning desire to be liked, the effort can only fail. Congressman Paul Ryan experienced this last week when he recommended a change in work ethic as an antidote to welfare dependency in inner city communities. In short order, Congresswoman Barbara Lee played the race card. “My colleague Congressman Ryan’s comments about ‘inner city’ poverty are a thinly veiled racial attack and cannot be tolerated,” Lee said. “Let’s be clear, when Mr. Ryan says ‘inner city,’ …what he really means [is]: ‘black.’”

Don’t think you can get off with just being called racist either. Welfare benefits are paid out primarily to women, which means the Left can also call accuse fiscal conservatives of opening a new front in the War on Women™. And since the Left does everything “for the children,” fiscal conservatives will be accused of stealing food from the mouth of babes too.

If Republicans are going to be throwing principles overboard for the sake of giving their party a facelift, they needn’t stop, or even start, with the social issues. The MSNBC lineup will be delighted for a short time to learn that the Republicans have agreed to shut up on certain issues, but they will never stop calling Republicans bigots. Ever.

Which isn’t a reason to abandon fiscal conservatism. I’m a fiscal and social conservative, or what used to be called, um…conservative. Here’s the unfortunate truth: leftists are never going to stop calling us bigots, and certain segments of the population are never going to stop believing them. So if you believe in something, be prepared to suffer a few slings and arrows. If opinion polls are trending the wrong way then work to change those polls. Fight the battle of ideas.

Does Rand Paul understand that? I don’t think so. If he did, he would understand that sacrificing conservatism for the sake of growing the Republican Party is a good deal for the Republican Party but a rotten deal for conservatism. My party loyalty at this point is at about zero, so I don’t see the advancement of the GOP as a goal worth pursuing.

More from Josh Richman (thanks to Instapundit); meanwhile, the Huffington Post's intro to a Sabrina Siddiqui column suggests that Rand Paul is… a racist — because, you know, the only people who are ever allowed to broach the subject of race are Democrats and progressives…

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter chimes in, saying that she has

been reading that same column in The New York Times every few months for the last 20 years. Whether it’s abortion, gays, God or drugs, Times reporters are like bloodhounds in sniffing out Republicans — often kids — who are “pro-free market on fiscal issues and libertarian on social ones.” If something has been trending for decades without ever really catching on, it’s probably not about to sweep the nation.

Ann points out that

young people are idiots. I love them, I was one once myself -– but they’re idiots. We’ll be interested in their opinions on the basic rules of civilization as soon as they have one of three things: a household to run, a mortgage or school-aged children. Being in college is like living in Disneyland.

  … In 2012, the Times produced this gripping headline: “Young in GOP Erase the Lines on Social Issues.” Yes, apparently, people with no responsibilities, no families to provide for, no children to worry about, and who had recently experienced their first hangovers, didn’t care about the social issues.

As with every generation, the kids always think they’re saying something fresh and new. “Social issues are far down the priorities list,” Matt Hoagland told the Times, “and I think that’s the trend.” (How far down the list compared to “global warming”?)

So I guess, in addition to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, we can add to the list of “Things Young People Didn’t Invent” the bright new idea of being “pro-free market on fiscal issues and libertarian on social ones.”

Interestingly, when the Times reports on actual election results, rather than the opinions of 20-year-olds, the paper admits that the social issues are a huge boon to Republicans.

In 2004, for example, when traditional marriage initiatives were on ballots in dozens of states, the Times admitted that the measures “acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted” and even “tipped the balance” in close races. (“Same-Sex Marriage Issue Key to Some GOP Races,” Nov. 4, 2004.)

Luckily, like every generation before them, someday, young people will eventually grow up and discover that you can’t have conservative economic policies without also having conservative social policies. Imagine their embarrassment when they realize that a free society is impossible without lots of stable, married, two-parent families raising their children in safe, drug-free neighborhoods.

How about not letting them vote until they’re at least old enough not to be on their parents’ health insurance?

Russia — a producer of almost nothing except for hydrocarbon, weapons, and vodka

Putin has every reason to be satisfied

writes a Le Monde editorial, which calls Russia a producer of almost nothing except for hydrocarbon, weapons, and vodka.

The Europeans' reaction to the deed committed by the Russian president in Crimea was one of minimalism.

 … The result? For the second time, following Georgia's in 2008, Russie has modified the continent's borders by force without having to pay a price.

Plantu's cartoon, meanwhile, brings Vladimir's arch-enemy, the semi-nude Femen protesters, into the equation.

En français :

Poutine a tout lieu d'être satisfait. Les Européens ont réagi a minima au forfait que le président russe vient de commettre en Crimée. … La Russie, qui, hormis des hydrocarbures, des armes et de la vodka, ne produit presque rien, est aussi un formidable débouché pour les exportateurs européens.

Résultat : pour la deuxième fois après la Géorgie en 2008, la Russie a modifié les frontières du continent par la force sans en payer grand prix. Cela impose aux Européens, au minimum, de se tenir aujourd'hui fermement aux côtés de Kiev.

 … l'affaire a été menée dans une ambiance de surenchère ultranationaliste entretenue à Moscou par les médias russes au service du pouvoir. Comme s'il fallait préparer l'opinion à d'autres aventures militaires – en Ukraine, dans les régions russophones de l'est du pays, par exemple.

The U.S. and the Venezuelan administrations couldn’t be more similar: Chávez was the Obama of South America, and Maduro was his Biden

Joe Biden almost sounded like he meant it when he rebuked Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro over his government’s repressive reaction to the recent protests that have beset the South American nation

writes Benny Huang.

“The situation in Venezuela is alarming,” [the Vice President] wrote. “Confronting peaceful protesters with force and in some cases with armed vigilantes; limiting the freedoms of press and assembly necessary for legitimate political debate; demonizing and arresting political opponents; and dramatically tightening restrictions on the media.”

The Latin American quasi-dictator could be heard snickering all the way from Caracas. While the description certainly fits Venezuela in the Chavez/Maduro era, it isn’t a half bad description of the US in the Obama/Biden era either.

Okay, so armed vigilantes aren’t literally clubbing the Tea Party in the streets. Here in America we have a more gentle touch. Weaponizing the IRS to bludgeon opponents works far better without providing the news media with a gory scene to show on the evening news.

Not that they would show it anyway. With the possible exception of the Kennedy White House, no administration in the history of this country has gotten such fawning coverage from the media as has Team Obama, and none has been less grateful. This White House is paranoid in its secrecy and lashes out at the few honest reporters who still think it’s their job to report the news without fear or favor.

 … In Venezuela, CNN was stripped of its press credentials because it didn’t cover the Caracas protests in a light favorable to the government. (The government later relented.) The Obama Administration merely tries to isolate its bête noire, FOX News, refusing it access, excluding reporters from media events, and attempting to turn other news agencies against it. The White House’s excuse for excluding the news outfit most likely to ask a tough question is that FOX is “not really news,” as David Axelrod, former Senior Advisor to the President once said. Interestingly, Maduro said the same about CNN. In fact, every despot who ever tried to restrict press freedoms has used the same justification.

 … The Obama Administration also likes to arrest its opponents, including Dinesh D’Souza, producer of “2016: Obama’s America,” the second highest grossing political documentary of all time. I think the left might have found it a tad suspicious if Michael Moore had been arrested during Bush’s second term. D’Souza stands accused of violating campaign finance laws and has pled not guilty. The charges wreak to high heaven of being trumped up by an administration furious over D’Souza’s movie.

 … These two administrations couldn’t be more similar. Chavez was the Obama of South America, and Maduro was his Biden. They’re like two pairs of twins separated at birth. Welcome to the banana republic.

Tourists like to complain that Parisians are rude and unfriendly, but, of course, this is nonsense

 

Tourists like to complain that Parisians are rude and unfriendly, but, of course, this is nonsense

writes the International Herald Tribune, tongue-in-cheek.

Paris boasts an annual courtesy crusade during which people are urged to be polite to each other for an entire week, and only last November [1963]  a club for the promotion of niceness, Le Club de la Gentillesse, was founded. The group’s aim is ‘‘to gather those who appreciate the need of teaching the benefits of niceness, which is the key to a balanced life and world harmony.’’ Membership is already up to nearly 100, and one man recently offered to go to Madagascar as France’s Ambassador of Niceness.

50 Years Ago: 1964: Paris Club Promotes Niceness

You do not install one mistress at the Élysée when you have another mistress; That is simply bad form

  … we face another Gallic paradox, like the one about red wine and foie gras keeping you thin

writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.

“The whole problem with this Hollande scandal is that he is not married,” says Jean-Marie Rouart, the French novelist. “Had he been married, this affair would never have been revealed.”

He observed that, as an “elected monarch,” the president has to maintain appearances. “In France, having a mistress is not considered cheating,” he says. “We are not a puritanical country. France is Catholic. We accept sin and forgiveness.”

It’s bad enough to hide under a helmet and dismiss your security and go incognito on an Italian scooter to have a tryst in an apartment that is a stone’s throw from the Élysée Palace and has some tenuous connection to the Corsican Mafia. But everyone here except François Hollande seems to agree: You do not install one mistress at the Élysée when you have another mistress. That is simply bad form.

Why should the tabloids stick to the rule of the French press to ignore the private lives of presidents if Hollande breaks the rule of French presidents to lead an “exemplary” public life, which means having a real wife to cheat on?

 … “The concept of the first lady doesn’t exist in France, and even less the first mistress,” sniffed Olivier de Rohan, a vicomte and head of a foundation that protects French art. “The protocol in France is very strict. It is not a question of choice or pleasure. The wife of the president of the republic was always seated as the wife, never paraded as the first lady. I don’t care with whom Hollande sleeps. But the whole thing is totally ridiculous, the head of a great state exhibiting mistresses, one after the other.”

Or as one French journalist murmured, “All this, in the place where de Gaulle was.”

 … The French have spent centuries making fun of us for our puritanism, and now they feel the unbearable sting of our mockery, as our press and comedians chortle at a mediocre pol caught up in a melodrama with all the erotic charge of week-old Camembert. (Maybe that’s why the French got so swept up in the ridiculous but glamorous rumor about Obama and Beyoncé.)

All those French expressions we siphon because English isn’t nuanced enough — finesse, etiquette, savoir-faire, rendezvous, je ne sais quoi, comme il faut — Hollande flouted.

In the minds of many here, the French president is a loser because he’s so unrefined he might as well be American.

The only subjects schools seem to be good at teaching are environmentalism, critical race theory, and queer studies

There’s a reason why only one out every thousand Americans can name all five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment 

writes Benny Huang regarding the recent scholastic achievement test cheating scandals.

It’s because our schools fail to teach civics, just the same way that they fail to teach history, foreign language, and nearly every other subject. The only subjects they seem to be good at teaching are environmentalism, critical race theory, and queer studies. If kids today graduate school knowing anything it’s that humans are poisoning the earth, white people are evil racists, and homosexuality is an unqualified good.

When I juxtapose the multi-state cheating scandal next to the Long family’s legal battle to homeschool their children, I can come to only one conclusion: there’s something fundamentally backwards here. Parents have to prove, to the satisfaction of the state, that they can educate their children, when it should really be the other way around. Year after year public schools award diplomas to twelfth graders who can’t perform at a twelfth grade level and yet no one removes the captive children from their custody.

 … Maybe it’s time for the government-run school systems to start proving to parents that they are up to the task of educating children. The way we do it now is backwards—parents groveling for permission from the state to educate their children at home.

“Every stone and every tree in Sevastopol is drenched in blood," claims Sevastopol tour guide, "with the bravery and courage of Russian soldiers"

Sevastopol constantly feeds thoughts of war and its agonies

writes Andrew Higgins in a New York Times story on the historical aspects of the Crimean peninsula, an article echoed by Michel Guerrin in Le Monde.

With nearly every other main street named after a Russian military hero or a gruesome battle, its lovely seafront promenade dominated by a “monument to sunken ships” and its central square named after the imperial admiral who commanded Russian forces against French, British and Turkish troops in the 19th century, Sevastopol constantly feeds thoughts of war and its agonies.

Bombarded with reminders of the Crimean War, which involved a near yearlong siege of the city in 1854-55, and World War II, when the city doggedly resisted Nazi forces until finally falling in July 1942, Sevastopol has never stopped thinking about wartime losses — and has never been able to cope with the amputation carried out in 1954 by the Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev.

… When Ukraine became a separate independent nation near the end of 1991, however, Sevastopol — the home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet since the 18th century — began howling, culminating in the Crimean Parliament’s decision on Thursday to hold a referendum on March 16 on whether to break away from Ukraine and formally become part of Russia again. Jubilant residents gathered in Sevastopol. 

 … “Every stone and every tree in Sevastopol is drenched in blood, with the bravery and courage of Russian soldiers,” said [Irina Neverova, a guide at Sevastopol’s Crimean War museum]. “This is obviously Russia, not Ukraine,” Ms. Neverova said later in an interview.

Religious liberty belongs to all of us, not just to clergy and churches; Forfeiting constitutional rights is not the price of going into business for yourself

The reason the [religious liberty] bills are controversial is because a generation of Americans reared in a statist society and taught false history and civics cannot understand what religious liberty means. They think of it as “a cloak for prejudice,” as washed-up Star Trek actor George Takei described the Arizona bill on MSNBC.

Thus Benny Huang hits the nail on the head.

Allow me to summarize the Left’s position: they’re all for religious liberty and all that, but you can’t discriminate!

I always ask the same question: Why not?

There is no clause in the Constitution that says that religious freedom must yield to someone else’s fanciful right to flowers or wedding cakes. If liberals would like to insert that exception into the Constitution they’re welcome to go through the process of amending the Constitution. All it takes is two thirds of both houses and three quarters of the state legislatures. As it stands now, the First Amendment is not qualified with a “but you can’t discriminate” clause.

There’s always a “but” with these left-wingers. They adore freedom of the press but the government has to rein in Fox News. The Second Amendment is grand but it must yield to “public safety” concerns. They care deeply about free speech but you can’t engage in hate speech. But, but, but. The never ending stream of “buts” allows them to pay lip service to our Constitutional rights while simultaneously violating the letter and the spirit thereof.

Protecting citizens from this type of coercion is exactly what the free exercise clause was designed to do. Sometimes religious minorities (and we’re all religious minorities in this country) have beliefs and practices that other people find offensive. The purpose of the Amendment is to protect the unpopular beliefs and practices. If it doesn’t apply here then it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

When liberals tell you that your church will not and cannot be forced to perform same-sex weddings, they’re making a tacit admission that discrimination is, in fact, part and parcel of religious liberty. So it isn’t really a question of whether constitutional protections extend to discriminatory practices but rather who is entitled to constitutional protections. Bishops have full protection but not bakers, pastors but not photographers.

Which is nonsense, of course. Religious liberty belongs to all of us, not just to clergy and churches. Forfeiting constitutional rights is not the price of going into business for yourself.

Liberals’ confidence that no church will ever be forced to perform a same-sex wedding probably stems from their belief in the mythical “separation of church and state” clause of the Constitution. I call it “mythical” because it’s not there. Look it up. According to this argument, a law compelling churches to perform same-sex weddings would be unconstitutional because the state would be overstepping its boundaries into the realm of the church, but a bakery is not a church so different rules apply. 

Read the whole thing

That’s what nondiscrimination laws are—involuntary servitude laws; 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, Democrats are still fighting for involuntary servitude and the party of Lincoln is still fighting against it

The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) … which would ban discrimination based on the amorphous and ill-defined concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity, has long been the dream of the rainbow crowd 

writes Benny Huang as he accuses Arizona Governor Jan Brewer of acting in a moment of extreme cowardice. ("Nondiscrimination laws are handy for one purpose, however, and that’s for demonstrating that liberals’ hypocrisy is as limitless as the heavens. Arguing in bad faith has become second nature to them because every goal they’ve ever achieved has been accomplished by a sustained campaign of lying.")

ENDA is toast. For now.

Thank goodness for that. Government imposing nondiscrimination laws on supposedly sovereign citizens and their enterprises is silly at the very least, and usually a violation of constitutional rights.

Every economic transaction has two ends—a buyer and a seller. Both ends of the transaction should be completely voluntary. Employment is an economic transaction like any other, with the employee selling his labor to the employer at an agreed upon price. Employees and employers have to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. The government should never mandate that citizens engage in economic transactions against their will.

In the absence of a contract, employers should have free reign to fire or not hire whomever they want, just as employees have the ability to quit or not take any job that they want.

Unfortunately, this issue is clouded by a number of very emotional issues, to include racism, though it doesn’t have to be that way. Nondiscrimination laws are about the ability of free people to make decisions without the crushing power of government hanging over their heads. The issue doesn’t boil down to being “pro-discrimination” or “anti-discrimination.” It’s about freedom.

The usual rebuttal to my argument is that it represents a giant step backward to the bad old days of Jim Crow. Such historical ignorance abounds. Jim Crow laws didn’t permit discrimination, they mandated it. People in the segregated South were not free to serve whomever they wanted. They were compelled by law to serve one race or another, and always in separate sections. In any case, it’s more than a little far-fetched that a business, in this day and age, would refuse to serve black customers. If any business did, the proper response would be to exercise some much deserved public shaming by means of a boycott, not to run to the government and force the business owner into involuntary servitude.

That’s what nondiscrimination laws are—involuntary servitude laws. Take, for example, the case of Elaine Huguenin, a devoutly Christian photographer in New Mexico. In 2006, a lesbian couple approached her to photograph their commitment ceremony. Huguenin, thinking that she had the ability as an independent businesswoman to decline a contract, told them no. Silly woman thought this was a free country. One of the two lesbians filed a complaint with New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission, a misnomer if ever there was one. After years of fighting in court, the photographer was forced to pay the woman $7,000 in damages.

Here’s what Huguenin should have done. She should have accepted the contract, then arrived wearing leg irons and an orange jumpsuit. The message would have been clear—you have made me your prisoner. Mrs. Huguenin did not want to serve this couple, so the couple appealed to the government to force her to serve them. By definition, that is involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment’s Section One. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

One hundred and fifty years after the Emancipation Proclamation, Democrats are still fighting for involuntary servitude and the party of Lincoln is still fighting against it. Some things never change.

 … Private sector nondiscrimination laws have no place in a free society. By their very nature they compel people to engage in economic transactions against their will. Be on guard against ENDA and any other law that forces one person to do business with another. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Check out Benny's look "at some of the disingenuous phrases that liberals spout" (“You can’t impose your morals on others”, “Don’t judge”, “Tolerance”…)

Payroll Tax in France Is Almost Double That Paid in the UK, Complains a British CEO

“There is a great fear about taxes” [in France, said Ian Cheshire, the group chief executive of Kingfisher, a British do-it-yourself retail conglomerate]. Last year, Kingfisher paid €216 million in payroll tax on about 11,500 French workers. “That’s almost twice the amount we paid in Britain for the same number of employees,” he said.

Thus writes Liz Alderman in a front page article in the International New York Times.

President François Hollande of France has begun a major charm offensive to convince the world that France is open for business in a bid to lure back investments, which have slumped since he took office. 

Armed with pledges not to be overly taxing, he gathered nearly 40 chiefs of some of the world’s biggest multinational companies and investment funds on Monday under the gilded eaves of the Élysée Palace and told them that their money was not only welcome — it was sorely needed.

Mr. Hollande reiterated his pledge from last month to reduce by 30 billion euros, or $41 billion, the social charges that companies pay on their employees. But he went further on Monday, announcing plans to stabilize corporate tax rules, simplify customs procedures for imports and exports and introduce a tax break for foreign start-ups.

“I know that France is seen as a more complicated country than others,” Mr. Hollande told the leaders of General Electric, Volvo, Nestlé, Mars and others, as well as representatives of BlackRock and the sovereign investment funds of China, Qatar and Kuwait. The message, he added, is that “we aren’t afraid of opening ourselves up to the world.”

But it remains to be seen whether he can deliver those needed investments while burnishing an image tarnished by everything from high taxes to a labor dispute earlier this year in which employees at a Goodyear tire factory temporarily held their bosses captive. He has spooked investors by hewing to a populist agenda, including a proposal, now watered down, to impose a 75 percent marginal tax on the wealthy, and threats to nationalize companies to protect jobs.

Despite his new business-friendly promises, he still faces the hurdle of getting policy changes enacted into law over opposition from his fellow Socialists and other left-leaning politicians, who have successfully cowed him into retreat in the past. He must also persuade investors and multinational companies that France really is determined to change, after years of employers judging France to be an expensive and inflexible place to do business.

France “has everything it needs to succeed,” said Ernst Lemberger, an Austrian industrial investor who participated in the Monday meeting. “But still it’s been behind neighboring countries in taking the necessary economic reforms.”

 … after two years of rising unemployment and a languishing economy that has twice flirted with recession, the French president last month did a striking about-face with business, shifting his agenda and announcing a so-called responsibility pact to cut government spending and deliver a €30 billion reduction in the social taxes that support family benefits like day care.

 … Yet even as he talked to business leaders, the French Parliament began considering a law that would steeply fine companies trying to close operations the government deems economically viable.

 … In December, the heads of 50 French affiliates of foreign companies wrote an open letter to Mr. Hollande warning that it had become increasingly difficult to persuade their parent companies to invest more in the country.

“There is a threat hanging over France’s ability to attract foreign investment,” wrote officials from Microsoft, American Express, Xerox, Siemens, Unilever and others, which jointly employ about 150,000 workers in France. They cited the “penalizing” complexity and instability of the legislative and regulatory environment; a lack of flexibility in labor laws; high employer costs; and an overall “cultural mistrust” of the market economy.

 … A week earlier, it was Mr. Hollande who offered a gesture of reconciliation to French entrepreneurs, thousands of whom have left France for Silicon Valley, London, Hong Kong and other dynamic destinations.

After spending time in Washington, Mr. Hollande visited Silicon Valley. While there, he gave an American-style bear hug to the entrepreneur Carlos Diaz, who founded a group called “les Pigeons,” or the suckers, in 2012 to protest what they called Mr. Hollande’s “business-crushing” tax policies, including now-shelved proposals to double the capital gains tax for people selling their companies.

High taxes have generally been the sorest point for businesses. Ian Cheshire, the group chief executive of Kingfisher, a British do-it-yourself retail conglomerate, said on Monday that he would be ready to open 50 stores in France within five years, creating thousands of jobs, if he could be assured the tax regime would remain stable.

Lance Armstrong and the Riders of the Tour de France: It’s not cheating if everybody is doing it

Throughout the 1990s, [John Thomas Neal] was [Lance Armstrong’s] main soigneur at some domestic races and at national team training camps.

The New York Times carries a page-long excerpt from Juliet Macur's Cycle of Lies (Cycles de mensonges in French).

But in Europe and at the big races, the honor of rubbing down Armstrong went to John Hendershot.

Among soigneurs in the European peloton (another French word, one that refers to professional riders generally as well as the pack during a race), Hendershot was at once the cool kid and the calculating elder. Other soigneurs envied the money he made and the cachet that came with the cash. Wherever he walked — through race crowds or at home in Belgium — people turned to catch a glimpse. Teams wanted him. Armstrong wanted him. Neal said he was “like a god to me” and called him “the best soigneur that ever was.”

Hendershot, an American who lived in Belgium to be closer to the main cycling circuit, was a massage therapist, physical therapist and miracle worker. His laying-on of hands would bring an exhausted, aching rider to life. Eating at Hendershot’s direction, sleeping according to his advice, a rider began each morning reborn. He came with all the secrets of a soigneur and an unexpected skill developed over the years. In Neal’s words, Hendershot took to cycling’s drug culture “like a duck to water.” But his enthusiasm for and skills in chemistry would be remembered as his special talent.

Before speaking to me last year, Hendershot — who had retired from the sport in 1996, shortly after Armstrong’s cancer diagnosis — had never told his story to a reporter. After all the years of silence, he seemed relieved to finally share it.

 

  … Hendershot said the riders on his teams had a choice about using drugs. They could “grab the ring or not.” He said he didn’t know a single professional cyclist who hadn’t at least dabbled in doping. The sport was simply too difficult — and many times impossible, as was the three-week Tour de France — for riders who didn’t rely on pharmaceutical help.

 … Cycling has been one of Belgium’s most popular sports for generations, and the pharmacist didn’t question Hendershot’s request for such large quantities of drugs. In exchange, Hendershot would give the pharmacist a signed team jersey or all-access passes to big races. Then he would leave with bags filled with the blood booster EPO, human growth hormone, blood thinners, amphetamines, cortisone, painkillers and testosterone, a particularly popular drug he’d hand to riders “like candy.”

 … Hendershot said all those riders probably believed they were doing no wrong by doping. The definition of cheating was flexible in a sport replete with pharmacology: It’s not cheating if everybody is doing it. Armstrong believed that to be the dead-solid truth. For him, there was no hesitation, no second-guessing, no rationalizing.

As Hendershot had done, Armstrong grabbed the ring.

 … His former sponsors — including Oakley, Trek Bicycle Corporation, RadioShack and Nike — have left him scrambling for money. He considers them traitors. He says Trek’s revenue was $100 million when he signed with the company and reached $1 billion in 2013.

“Who’s responsible for that?” he asks, before cursing and saying, “Right here.” He pokes himself in the chest with his right index finger. “I’m sorry, but that is true. Without me, none of that happens.”

What Do French Cartoons on Russia's Crimea Annexation Look Like?

Le Monde has been printing a number of cartoons but, needless to say, few (such as the Xavier Gorce and the Plantu cartoons above) that are very hard-hitting — their point being indeed kind of obscure. One exception might be the Xavier Gorce penguin cartoon below.

Then again, we have the cartoon of a Bonhomme, which paints moral equivalence between "the great powers", the U.S. and Russia along with the EU, with (a unified?!) Ukraine a poor innocent victim of them all…

What Was the Name of the Senator Who Voted Against a Sterling Supreme Court Nominee in 2005?

In a move sure to rattle the legal community, a majority of senators voted Wednesday to block the confirmation of a respected civil rights lawyer to a top Justice Department spot because he helped get a convicted murderer off death row

writes the Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly in a highly-partisan piece.

A lot of leftists seem to forget that when John Roberts was selected for the Supreme Court, one senator said (in so many words) that he did indeed have a sterling record, but that he would vote against him because of Roberts's convictions (nothing to do with the John Errol Ferguson case, which the senator would probably approve of).

The senator's name? Barack Obama.

(I now expect a myriad of comments from leftists saying "Oh, but that is not the same thing — not at all!")

 Republicans vote against Debo Adegbile because he is one more activist who not only wants to defend the but also wants to use the law apparatus against everyday honest American citizens — citizens of whatever race.

Update: The Justice Nominee and The Cop Killer:
Debo Adegbile's disturbing support for Mumia Abu-Jamal should disqualify him

How to Recognize a Fascist — According to a Russian

Xavier Gorce:


• Let's take another look on the main way to recognize a Fascist:
It's someone who doesn't speak Russian

Le Monde: Neither the Europeans nor Barack Obama understand that the heart of "Comrade" Vladimir's rhetoric holds that the West is Russia's enemy

Neither the Westerners in genereal nor Barack Obama in particular understand that the heart of Vladimir Putin's rhetoric holds that Westerners are Russia's enemies, writes Le Monde in an editorial.

M. Poutine pose ouvertement les Occidentaux en ennemis de la Russie : pour qui veut bien se donner la peine de la lire, c'est le cœur de la rhétorique poutinienne. Le « camarade » Vladimir n'en a pas fini avec la guerre froide. Les Occidentaux ne l'ont pas compris, qui ont laissé la Russie en 2008 dépecer une partie de la Géorgie. Le président Barack Obama ne l'a pas compris, qui a multiplié les gestes d'ouverture sans jamais rien obtenir de Moscou.

Plantu on
Letting the Diplomats Handle the Situation
• It's Mister Stalin's turn to speak













 
Quel bonheur que George Bush soit parti! Maintenant, l'Europe a obtenu son vœu le plus cher, un président US à l'européenne, et l'Amérique a un Barack Obama qui fustige les Américains de souche (ces horribles créatures) tout en enlevant aux USA son rôle de policier du globe. Et voilà le résultat — comme l'a très bien observé Vladimir Poutine : la Syrie pas inquiétée pour un sou (ou pour une attaque chimique), l'Iran permis de construire une bombe nucléaire (en signant des accords bidon), etc…

34 Years Ago: "Such an aggressive military policy [by the Kremlin] is unsettling to other peoples throughout the world"

Thirty-four years ago, Jimmy Carter went on television to discuss the (hostage) crisis in Iran along with, after waking up to the true nature of the Russians, the Kremlin's invasion of a neighboring country: "Such an aggressive military policy is unsettling to other peoples throughout the world" (2:34).

Back during the 2008 election, I wrote a letter to the editor of the International Herald Tribune comparing Barack Obama with Sarah Palin and bringing up Jimmy Carter:

Whatever the alleged lack of experience that the Republicans' choice for vice-president may have, it can hardly be greater than that of the Democrats' choice for chief executive — a man with only two years in the national legislature.

During the latest debate, Barack Obama skewered John McCain and/or the Bush administration for not acting friendlier toward Iran or North Korea, all the while, in so many words, issuing threats to Iraq and Pakistan. In the third and last debate, Obama went on to lambaste Columbia (totally misrepresenting — i.e., caricaturing — the situation in the process).

We have seen the this fairy tale-type of foreign policy before (speak to all and all will be well or, at least, all problems will lessen and start getting resolved). If Iran is in the threatening, inimical position it is now, it is largely thanks to Jimmy Carter's similar "be kind and understanding to our enemies, be tough on our friends" approach to foreign affairs.

If the Camp David accords were a success, the 39th president's State Department managed to alienate one faithful (if distasteful) ally after another. And two of them — Nicaragua's Somoza and Iran's Shah — were overthrown during his tenure, both of whom were replaced by régimes arguably far more more repressive and more hostile to Washington if not the Western world itself. While Carter — a man at the time almost as young as Obama — preached Americans to get rid of their alleged outdated anti-communism and to focus on America's own alleged sins and those of its allies, Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Grenada, Mozambique, Ethiopia, South Yemen, and Nicaragua fell into the Kremlin's sphere while Moscow proceeded to invade Afghanistan — leading the idealistic (and naïve) Carter to state how shocked he was to have been lied to.

We are seeing similar echoes in today's Democratic candidate and it is without the least hesitation that I say that I will take Palin over Obama any day.

The Crisis in Ukraine and Its History Explained in a 6-Minute Video

Le Monde's Donald Walther, Francesca Fattori, Flavie Holzinger, Mathilde Gérard, Jérôme Gautheret, Jules Grandin, and Véronique Malécot have a 6-minute video to understand the situation in Ukraine over the past centuries.

France's Law to "Protect" Prostitutes Is a Case Study of How a Government's "Good" Resolutions Simply Displace Problems Elsewhere

French prostitutes should be happy due to a new law acting in their protection and, just like in Sweden, criminalizing clients, shouldn't they?

As Matteo Maillard writes in Le Monde (not in terms as sarcastic as mine), it has simply displaced the problem, with French filles de joie moving to Switzerland en masse.

MASSIVE ARRIVAL OF FRENCH GIRLS

In recent months, [the message box of the largest brothel in Geneva, the Venusia] has been overflowing with casting applications from young French women hit by the crisis, or who fear the increasingly repressive legal framework towards them, after the National Assembly's December vote of the law that penalizes the clients of prostitutes.

"I no longer accept any girls but blondes between 18 and 25 years" [says Madame Lisa]. These past two weeks, twenty new French girls made ​​their début at the Venusia and the pace continues to accelerate. "This is a massive arrival. Four years ago, I had fewer than five French girls. Two years ago, we went to one girl in three. Since the beginning of winter, 70% of my girls are French. The penalization law makes them flee. They find refuge at my place."

Through a random search on the Internet, [a Parisian named Anastasia] falls on Geneva escort lounge websites. After several unsuccessful attempts, she is allowed to join the Venusia.

"IT IS BETTER JOIN A BROTHEL IN SWITZERLAND"

"The French girls are a phenomenon that we have observed since 2003, following the passage of the Sarkozy law criminalizing passive soliciting", argues Michel Felix de Vidas, the communications officer at the Aspasia, Geneva's prostitute rights association. "In recent months, escort agencies and parlors confirm a significant increase in the number of French girls. The phenomenon will regulate itself because the market is not expandable and the places of work are counted. "

 … One night in July 2013, when she had been hooking [at the Bois de Boulogne ] for a month, [Julie] was already considered a competitor to dislodge. "Another girl came up to me with a knife. Fortunately, a frightened customer opened the door of his car and we sped away." She never more prostituted herself in France, preferring a "Switzerland where we do not have to go into hiding and risk our lives," she says.

"Neither the prostitutes nor their customers should be blamed, but the networks that dirty our reputation. The law should fight for girls coerced into the profession. I 'm not a coerced girl. It is a choice. And this choice does not make me a disgusting person or a sex object. This law does not even recognize in us the status of being human."

En Français:

« ARRIVÉE MASSIVE DE FRANÇAISES »

Depuis quelques mois, [la boîte électronique de la plus grande maison close de Genève, le Venusia] déborde de demandes de casting émanant de jeunes Françaises éreintées par la crise, ou qui craignent un cadre légal de plus en plus répressif à leur égard, après le vote en décembre par l'Assemblée nationale de la loi qui pénalise les clients de prostituées.

« Je ne prends plus que des blondes entre 18 et 25 ans ». Ces deux dernières semaines, vingt nouvelles Françaises ont fait leurs débuts au Venusia et le rythme ne cesse de s'accélérer. « C'est une arrivée massive. Il y a quatre ans, chez moi, moins d'une fille sur cinq était française. Il y a deux ans, on est passé à une fille sur trois. Depuis le début de l'hiver, nous sommes à 70 %. La loi pour la pénalisation des clients les fait fuir. Elles se réfugient chez moi. »

… Au hasard d'une recherche sur Internet, [Anastasia, une Parisienne] tombe sur les sites de salons d'escort genevois. Quelques essais infructueux plus tard, le Venusia lui ouvre ses portes.

« IL VAUT MIEUX REJOINDRE UN BORDEL EN SUISSE »

« Les Françaises, c'est un phénomène que nous avons observé dès 2003, après le passage de la loi Sarkozy pénalisant le racolage passif, soutient Michel Felix de Vidas, chargé de communication à l'Aspasie, association genevoise de défense des droits des prostituées. Depuis quelques mois, les agences d'escort et les salons nous confirment une forte augmentation du nombre de Françaises. Le phénomène va s'autoréguler, car le marché n'est pas extensible et les places de travail sont comptées. »

 … Un soir de juillet 2013, alors qu'elle n'exerce [au bois de Boulogne] que depuis un mois, [Julie] est déjà considérée comme une concurrente à déloger. « Une fille s'est approchée de moi avec un couteau. Heureusement, un client effaré m'a ouvert la portière de sa voiture et on a démarré en trombe. »

Elle ne s'est jamais plus prostituée en France, préférant une Suisse « où l'on n'est pas obligé d'entrer en clandestinité et de risquer sa vie, lance-t-elle. Ce ne sont pas les prostituées ni leurs clients qu'il faut accuser, mais les réseaux qui nous salissent. La loi devrait se battre pour les filles forcées. Je ne suis pas une fille forcée. C'est un choix. Et ce choix ne fait pas de moi une personne dégueulasse ni un objet sexuel. Cette loi ne nous reconnaît même pas le statut d'être humain. »

We're From the Government and We're Here to Give You Anything You Like

Check out Tim Hawkins song, The Government Can, at the Uncle Sam Theater…

I'm here to give you anything you like — free college, energy, mortgages, whatever you like