La lettre de France – 1

Ce qui suit est un commentaire sur la vie politique francvaise provenant  – on a peine a y croire – d’un ancien condisciple de lycee. JD

This is a political essay from one of my high school buddies. NS! J.D.

Au cours de ce mois d’Avril qui se termine aujourd’hui les medias français se sont principalement nourris de politique intérieure et en particulier de la perte de crédibilité du président de la République François Hollande qui atteint un record historique. En effet après un an d’exercice sa cote de confiance, après une chute continue qui a commencée dès le second mois de sa présidence, n’est plus aujourd’hui que de 24%. Cette perte de crédibilité est imputable à 3 facteurs :

• l’aveu que ses principales promesses de campagne qui concernaient la baisse du chômage et la diminution de la dette publique au cours de l’année 2013 ne seront pas tenues,

• l’absence d’une orientation lisible de sa politique qui apparaît en fait comme une suite de compromis en contradiction les uns avec les autres et qui est aggravée par un déficit de leadership ressenti comme un manque d’autorité,

• une certaine cacophonie entre les ministres dont les déclarations sont souvent contradictoires et qui dans certains cas n’hésitent pas à critiquer publiquement le premier ministre.

Au total l’ambiance générale est très pessimiste avec l’impression que le pays est dans une chute continue que personne n’est en mesure d’arrêter. Cette impression trouve un exutoire dans des manifestations de rue massives organisées à propos de la loi nouvelle sur le mariage homosexuel. Cette loi qui répond à une autre promesse de campagne et qui devait être promulguée sans problème s’avère finalement être un sujet de clivage profond de la société française. Les manifestations des opposants comme de ceux qui sont favorables, ont maintenant tendance à devenir violentes, comme deviennent également violentes les protestations des employés des entreprises dont la fermeture est annoncée, notamment dans les secteurs de l’automobile et de la métallurgie auxquels le futur président avait déclaré qu’une fois élu il allait régler leur situation, remettre leurs employeurs dans le droit chemin… et qu’on allait voir ce qu’on allait voir !

La seule consolation, dans un climat aussi négatif, consiste à dire que lorsqu’on touchera le fond on ne pourra que remonter; simplement on se demande à quelle profondeur est le fond ? La loi de la rue interrompra-t-elle le processus avant que la renaissance s’amorce, c’est toute la question.

Tige d’airain

30 Avril 2013

Liberal Scum’s Response to “Telling the Truth and Tarentino…”

The friend of mine described in my piece ”Telling the Truth and Tarantino…” decided to respond formally . We agreed that his pseudonym should be “Liberal Scum.” Here it is: (JD)

I believe I may have either failed to communicate or you (conveniently?) misunderstood some of my stances First I do not offer a defense of everyone of Obama’s actions, and I believe he is as prone to mistakes as any other leader… however I believe he is a wise leader and is guided by an ideology of liberty and peace both of which resonate well with my own personal values.. Also I laud his and Hillary Clinton’s ability to transform America’s narrative in the international community to that of a restrained peacemaker despite 6 times the drone strikes than his predecessor. There is something to be said about diplomacy and image management. Sometimes these can be more potent weapons for peace than all the war machinery in the world.

Second I do not believe that random killings of Americans should ever be condoned, but in the interest of peace if we through covert means were to facilitate the removal of a destabilizing leader versus invading a country resulting in thousands of deaths including american soldiers, I prefer the former any day. To me, the sneaky strategic removal of a “Hitler” like leader is far far more moral than a righteous war that kills millions.

Three I do not agree with the concept of big Government or redistribution (irrespective of Obama or the liberal stand on this), I believe in free enterprise and that the role of government is to promote it. However I do believe that taxes are a necessary evil and that it is the moral obligation on a people that can afford it to not see their lowest strata of society die “involuntarily” of hunger or lack of medical care (basic human needs). I have seen too much of that in the third world and believe it is immoral and makes us less of a civilization.

Also I do respect your extensive experience, scholarship and reading , which is why I pay attention to what you say even if it sometimes makes no sense to me I typically have faith that what you tell me is rooted deeply in your beliefs and your scholarly background, versus the propaganda one hears from right wing TV shows.

Frankly I was also a little disappointed as well that Obama’s inaugural speech was a bit too much to the left and did not focus as much on the economic agenda. I believe or hope he may have in some respects been pandering to some of his more staunch constituents as his inaugural victory lap, and will take a more pragmatic approach to resolving our economic challenges once the rhetoric is done. So my support for Obama is driven not so much by his rhetoric or political affiliation but my faith in him as a wise leader who believes in doing the right thing.

Pour le Nouvel An juif

Voici une communication de mon copain Antoine Casublo,  avocat a la cour:

Je sais, je vous ai souvent raconté ma vie-mon œuvre, mais, là, je vous invite à acheter le Journal du Dimanche de cette semaine.

Alors que je finissais ma formation d’avocat, stagiaire au cabinet de mon ami Francis CHOURAQUI, Nathalie NEUMAN est venue nous voir pour nous raconter l’histoire de son père Emile, de ses grands parents, Sarah et Mordka, disparus à Auschwitz.

Arrivés de Pologne dans les années 30, les parents d’Emile avaient acquis un petit lopin de terre à Villepinte dans la banlieue parisienne afin d’y faire un potager qu’ils entretenaient le weekend et durant les vacances d’été.

Hélas, raflé en 1941, déporté par le convoi n°6 parti de Pithiviers le 17 juillet 1942, Mordka n’aura pas eu le temps de beaucoup profité de ce potager.

Restée seule avec ses deux enfants Emile et Reine, Sarah est allée se cachée sur ce terrain de Villepinte dans la cabane en bois, au fond du potager. Mais en 1943, à son tour, sûrement dénoncée par des voisins, elle fut arrêtée devant sa cabane, sous les yeux d’Emile par des gendarmes français qui la conduire à Drancy.

Après la guerre, Emile qui n’avait que 12 ans en 1945 n’a pas retrouvé dans l’appartement familial parisien, pillé par les voisins, de document prouvant la propriété de ses parents sur ce lopin et toute sa vie il a gardé au cœur le souvenir de ces jours heureux à Villepinte avant guerre mais aussi la rage de ne pouvoir prouver sa propriété, n’ayant jamais trop su comment s’y prendre.

C’est cette histoire que Nathalie Neuman m’a raconté ce jour là au cabinet de Francis Chouraqui.

Je venais de finir mon documentaire sur les Rafles de l’été 1942 en Zone libre, je ne pouvais rêver meilleure transition professionnelle que de m’occuper de ce dossier.

Je ne m’étendrai pas sur les presque trois ans que j’ai passé à tenter d’établir la propriété d’Emile sur ce terrain…

Lundi dernier, jour du nouvel  an juif et soixante-dix ans après la mort de Mordka à Auschwitz, Nathalie récupérait (pour Emile très fatigué en Israël), les clés de la grille et faisait, en propriétaire, le tour de ce terrain.

Je suis très heureux d’y avoir réussi.  Et très fier de vous raconter, par cet article, le point final de cette histoire.

Antoine

Antoine CASUBOLO FERRO

Avocat au Barreau de Paris

55, rue de Varenne 75007 Paris

Tél.: 01 83 62 83 58 Fax: 01 83 62 86 61

Toque A 415

A Teapublican Conspiracy? Exchange

Terry Amburgey, our brave liberal friend tried one on Facebook, thinking I had my back turned to deliver one of his drive-by pronouncements. I caught him red-handed. Below is  a recent Facebook exchange. (He is brave liberal because he keeps coming back for more punishment.)

Amburgey: The teapublican love of conspiracy theories goes well beyond anti-muslim and birther conspiracies; lets not forget climate-change-what-climate-change? whackos. I know one idjit that will tell you that climate scientists around the world fake their data as part of a grand international conspiracy.

Jacques Delacroix

Is it not true that one of the main university research centers in charge of climate change research was caught plotting “conspiring” not so long ago? This is a real question. Not all “scientists” around the world are scientists and many scientists have never joined the chorus. More are leaving through the back door as we chat. There is no need for a conspiracy for great falsehoods to spread anyway. Unexamined faith will generate a culture of belief that is more powerful than simple evidence. Human-made global warming about which we must worry instantly has all the attributes of a religious cult, including instant excommunication for doubters. The absence of criticality among otherwise well-educated believers is tangible. Thus, I learned recently in Le Monde that the Ocean was rising faster in some places than in others! Le Monde is the flagship of French-language left-leaning intellectuals. I don’t know where you went to school, Dr Terry but I learned in mine that when a theory had great big chunks of untruth, it needed to be reviewed. Here is a chunk: What did the Norse of Greenland eat with great frequency in 1100, in 1200, that you would not expect at all? The answer is in that great Tea Party Republican conspirationist Jared Diamond “Collapse.” And after being entombed,  Jesus just got up and left under his own power. It must be so because billions believe it. Right?

11 minutes ago · Like

Write a comment…

The Collective Moral and Practical Burden of Past Injustices: An Exchange

JD A couple of weeks ago, my friend Scott wrote a brief comment to something I had written about collective compensation for wrong inflicted one group by another group. Scott was frustrated because he could only answer me from a small impractical handhold device. Below is his expanded response typed on a conventional computer.

My argument is summarized below. It’s in two parts, one ethical and moral, the second part practical.

1 When the harm was inflicted with help from the polity and when there is polity continuity and when the harm inflicted has consequences into the present, then compensation is due to the group that was harmed. That’ s three conditions that have to be met.

African-Americans whose forebears were not voluntary immigrants (about half of today’s black Americans) fall into that category. As far as the third condition is concerned, of course, as a conservative, I believe that families matter. I think slavery permanently injured family formation among the African-Americans as described above.

Native Americans also belong to that categories because of forced relocations and numerous broken treaties by governments (plural) that were the direct antecedents of today’s American governments.

I stated than and repeat now that no immigrant group belongs in the category.

2 It’s difficult or impossible to put an end to the continued, ill-defined claims harmed groups place on the general polity without a comprehensive compensation program. The continuing claim most injurious to the polity is affirmative action because it demoralizes and makes immoral our whole social system .

Scott’s response is below.

SC    What I am saying is that for a practical purposes every person/generation gains/looses from his/her previous generation and determining and meting just compensation is impossible from both a practicable standpoint as well as getting all parties to agree on valuation.

Example, slavery, an inarguable sin, ended the only way we seemed to be able to end it, with over 600K casualties in the Civil war, more than every other American war combined. It was, inarguably, the greatest price paid by America for absolutely anything, ever.  If that was not sufficient compensation, what is?  Does it not count? And for how much?  If that is not enough, could we afford the remainder?  Let’s even say that we could somehow agree to a price for having an ancestor enslaved is $1000. Let’s pretend that Jesse Jackson does not march insisting it should be a billion plus interest). Let’s assume we have perfect linage and ideal census numbers (despite the fact the first census was in 1790, earliest slaves came to Jamestown in 1619).

How do you compensate for this? (there will be no straightforward cut and dry cases)

One of my great great great great great great grandfathers was a slave owner, with between 0-219 slaves depending on which time.  One of my great great great great great great grandfathers ran the underground railroad. One of my one of my great great great great great great grandfathers was a slave for 2 weeks, before escaping. One of my one of my great great great great great great grandmothers was a slave her whole life. My great great great great great great grandmother is Harriet Beecher Stowe. One of my one of my great great great great great grandfathers died in the civil war while fighting for the confederacy. One of my one of my great great great great great grandfathers was blinded and crippled while fighting in the Michigan regiment at the battle of Gettysberg. One of my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfathers was a slave trader. My father is Chinese.   My grandmother smoked like a chimney and both my mom and me were born prematurely with lung problems.  How much do I owe?/ get?

At what point does one say that the effort to try to settle (with widely imperfect data) create a greater harm (especially as a precedent) than to pick one’s self up and move on?

About 25 years ago the US compensated (belatedly) existing Japanese Americans who were interned in camps during WWII.  I supported that. I wouldn’t had it happened a 100 years earlier, though I do concede that there would still be legacy harms.  I am aware of the moral hazard of waiting out a statute of limitations but I still think it is the lesser evil.

First Muslim Comment on “Islamophobia.”

This a comment by a well-educated  and devout young Muslim I know well about my recent posting: “Islamophobia. Part 1 .”  The response is one of the things I wished for when I posted that piece so, I am grateful. Each reader may decide whether the comment responds to my concerns at all,  or to what extent. (The sign ////indicate my excisions from the original text. These excisions do not alter meaning.)

A  wrote:
“You do really like to pick and choose don’t you////?he Quran does not punish anyone by death for apostasy! Nowhere in the holy Book is it DIRECTLY written that one is to be killed for leaving Islam…the punishment for such a person in the Book is in the hereafter…therefore Islam in itself DOES NOT punish anyone by death for apostasy! Yes some Muslim countries do choose to interpret Sharia law that way by following a Hadith (Saying) from Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him regarding the apostates. Now if you want I can develop on that (where the misunderstanding comes from). Islam in itself insists on freedom of religion and freedom of worship:

Quran 10: 99-100 “If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.”

Quran 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion:  Truth stands out clear from error:  whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks.  And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.”

Quran 15:2-3 “Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God’s will) in Islam.   Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them).”

Quran 27:92 “And to rehearse the Qur’an: and if any accept guidance, they do it for the good of their own souls, and if any stray, say: ‘I am only a Warner.’”

Quran 42:6 “And those who take as protectors others besides Him – Allah doth watch over them; and thou art not the disposer of their affairs.

If you want I can keep going! Read the WHOLE Quran////Now for those countries that interpret Sharia based on their interpretation, it is THEIR law, though unfair. It should be respected just as the U.S. legal system is respected worldwide though unfair at times as well! Who are you to say that your system is better than someone else’s? “

This is JD:  I confirm that I think the US legal system is one of the best in the world as far as fairness is concerned but that was not the topic. Rather: What to think of a society so barbarous that it kills people for committing apostasy? And if such a society misinterprets the religious injunction against apostasy, where are the condemnations of this doctrinal error by religious authorities?