Condi's Dominatrix Caper or The Calm Before the Storm

We drove into Toulouse the other day to return a chair. It was nice to get out of the house for a change even though it was quite cold: staying around zero Celsius all day. Toulouse is a beautiful city and it is always a treat for me to see the people in their winter clothes. The French are even more stylish in the winter than in the summer! Fur and leather coats, fur hats, beautiful silk or wool scarves, elegant gloves that match scarf and hat, wonderful boots. It's a fashion extravaganza! I noticed in today's news a sort of nasty article about Condi Rice and her long black coat and high-heeled boots.

Condoleezza Rice's Commanding Clothes

By Robin Givhan Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 25, 2005; Page C01

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield on Wednesday dressed all in black. She was wearing a black skirt that hit just above the knee, and it was topped with a black coat that fell to mid-calf. The coat, with its seven gold buttons running down the front and its band collar, called to mind a Marine's dress uniform or the "save humanity" ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix."

As Rice walked out to greet the troops, the coat blew open in a rather swashbuckling way to reveal the top of a pair of knee-high boots. The boots had a high, slender heel that is not particularly practical. But it is a popular silhouette because it tends to elongate and flatter the leg. In short, the boots are sexy.

Rice boldly eschewed the typical fare chosen by powerful American women on the world stage. She was not wearing a bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps. She did not cloak her power in photogenic hues, a feminine brooch and a non-threatening aesthetic. [...]

Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix!

And so on, ad nauseum....

I never thought I'd defend the woman since I despise her and everything she stands for, but let's get real about the clothes! Condi was in Paris, for Gawd's sake! She saw, just like I did, that women in other parts of the world (mainly France) do NOT hide their femininity, they do NOT have to go around forever in the above touted "bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps."

It just highlights the pathetic state of women in the U.S. who can't be men and are afraid to be women.

What Condi was wearing was absolutely NO different than what millions of French women wear when it is cold - a long coat and boots. And sure, being a woman, you don't want your boots - which I remind you, are functional in the cold - to look like military clodhoppers, thus the high heels and pointed toes which are very fashionable just now. I even broke down and bought a pair myself.

The tenor of the Washington Post's comments reflect the huge differences between the U.S. and France - and Europe in general. Let me try to explain:

"In the U.S., money is beautiful," Stephane Marchand, Le Figraro's Washington correspondent wrote in January, 1996. "Money is happiness. "You look like a million dollars" is high praise that brings a pleased blush to the cheek of the American girl."

But, if you ask a French woman what her reaction would be if a man told her she looked like a million dollars and you will get the following reply:

"Comparing me to money! Why, he would be treating me like a prostitute! What an insult!"

In France, money is not beautiful and it doesn't mean happiness. It is associated with theft, extortion, blackmail and fraud.

The general opinion of the French people I know who have visited the United States, on the subject of relations between men and women, is that they are "artificial."

There's no flirting. Americans have a "de-sexed" life.

To the French, flirting is the spice of life. They flirt with everyone, all day long, strangers or not, age not considered a factor.

In the U.S., you can't look at a woman on the street. You can't flirt at a dinner party. You can never be yourself but must always follow certain "rules." If you don't, you are branded a "loose" person.

A Frenchman was reported as saying: "It's not only that you can't look at a woman in the street, much less talk to her - but the women in the U.S. dress so badly that you don't WANT to look at them! They look like sacks of potatoes! Ho sad this is! Is it because they are afraid of being provocative? Is this Puritanism?"

Le Figaro's Stephane Marchand, author of a book that contrasts the two countries: French Blues, writes: "One has the impression that American women tried so hard to imitate men and have equal power that now they resemble men. They walk like men. The essence of French femininity is to seduire les hommes... that is, to please men. French women dress to give men pleasure. They walk showing their shapes... Even the voice of American women is a deterrent to any kind of flirting. French couples talk in a tete a tete that no one else can hear, a four or five layered pattern of communicating, loaded with things not said but implied, gently insinuated."

Polly Platt reports that a French banker based in Dallas no longer accepts dinner invitations because he is always seated next to his wife and the lady across the table is next to her husband. "What fun is that?"

The fact is, the relations between men and women in America are antiseptic.

One French journalist - after working and living in America - says French women are "sensually deprived in America. Men don't look at you. It doesn't matter what trouble I go to, how gorgeously I dress, men - on the street or at a party - don't look at you. they don't complment you. An American woman might compliment your dress, but she says it to everybody, so it doesn't mean anything."

A resident of Perpingnan wrote: "I'm hardly off the plane in Paris before I feel the caressing looks. It is wonderful. I can breathe again! And people touch! It makes you feel as if you exist. In America, you are invisible!"

American feminists in the 80's screwed up a whole generation of American men and women big time. They made femininity such a dirty word to men that the guys were afraid to flirt and preferred to huddle down with their buddies and avoid the problems of being accused of being chauvinist. They retreated into a shell and became "too cool to look at women." This then made the women even more aggressive, coming on to men and demanding their "orgasmic rights" in one night stands that meant nothing emotionally.

Most American men spend their leisure time watching sports leaving their wives free to shop. Very few American men really help around the house as French men do. A typical Frenchman was noted as saying: "I like cooking and being with my wife and kids. What is important in life? To spend time with your wife! To look at her! To flirt with her! To appreciate her! American men? All they seem to care about is the next football game."

One Frenchwoman notes about America: "It is a country of hypocrites. All the couples pretend to be in perfect harmony and then, the next year they divorce. The men are obsessed by work and the women are obsessed with their children. They put all their energy into taking them to this lesson or that lesson. The children are so organized that they have no time to dream, to learn to think on their own. And then, the American women neglect themselves. French women make an effort to be elegant because it is a pleasure to look good! "

The fact is, you do not step out of your house in France without being properly dressed. If you do, it tells the world that you do not care about others or yourself.

A well-to-do doctor friend of ours visited us last year and I was absolutely cringing when I saw him get off the plane in sweats. You do NOT wear sweats around like a "leisure uniform" in France. What was also amazing to me was that he didn't even seem to notice the fact that others were looking at him askance, and that everyone else in the airport was dressed fashionably and appropriately.

We had other visitors from the U.S. last summer: a couple from Arizona, who thought that the appropriate attire for sightseeing and dining out in France was rolled up shorts, un-tucked shirts, and tennis shoes.

So, let's just let a cigar be a cigar. Condi is wearing a snazzy winter coat and a pair of boots just like every woman in France would do. What's wrong with that? I'll admit that it brings to mind what Mammy told Scarlett in Gone With the Wind when she was all dressed up and pretending to be something she wasn't: "You're nothing but a mule tricked out in a horse's harness."

Having said that, Condi's Coat is a darn sight better than what Cheney wore to the Holocaust Memorial affair where he looked like a sulky six year old in playclothes forced to sit and be still with the adults.

Who knows: maybe Condi will like France enough to get a new attitude with her new coat and boots... there's a lot more going for France and French values than just great clothes!

But that's not really what I wanted to talk about today. I want to talk about the fact that Condi and Bush have capered all over Europe trying to charm the daylights out of everybody, thinking that just grinning and saying "well, yeah, we disagreed, but that's all over... let's be pals again... I didn't really mean it when I said that Europe was the new enemy..."

It's not going over among the peoples of Europe as Bush would like, I'm afraid. Everyone I have ever spoken to here in France literally despises George Bush. Recent comments at a dinner party reflected the same sentiments about Condi.

The question that arises in my mind is: what is up with all of this?

And the only answer that comes to mind is: the calm before the storm.

It seems pretty obvious after reading the reports about Bush's meeting with Putin that some kind of information was conveyed privately that put the Russian Bear on the defensive. I can't imagine any other reason for Putin to allow himself to be upstaged and made to lose face.

Something is definitely up.

In looking around for a possible answer, the one thing that sticks out from the recent news of the day is Peter Jennings special on UFOs. "Seeing is Believing."

For decades there have been sightings of UFOs by millions and millions of people. It is a mystery that only science can solve, and yet the phenomenon remains largely unexamined. Most of the reporting on this subject by the mainstream media holds those who claim to have seen UFOs up to ridicule. [...]

On Feb. 24, "Peter Jennings Reporting: UFOs — Seeing Is Believing" takes a fresh look at the UFO phenomenon. "As a journalist," says Jennings, "I began this project with a healthy dose of skepticism and as open a mind as possible. After almost 150 interviews with scientists, investigators and with many of those who claim to have witnessed unidentified flying objects, there are important questions that have not been completely answered — and a great deal not fully explained."

The reason I wonder about the possibility that this "fresh approach" to the UFO issue may have something to do with what is going on with Condi and Bush in Europe is because of a few strange remarks made by folks who are supposed to be in the know, such as Victor Marchetti, former CIA agent:

"We have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by extraterrestrial beings, and the U.S. government, in collusion with the other national powers of the earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.

"The purpose of the international conspiracy is to maintain a workable stability among the nations of the world and for them, in turn, to retain institutional control over their respective populations. Thus, for these governments to admit that there are beings from outer space... with mentalities and technological capabilities obviously far superior to ours, could, once fully perceived by the average person, erode the foundations of the earth's traditional power structure. Political and legal systems, religions, economic and social institutions could all soon become meaningless in the mind of the public. The national oligarchical establishments, even civilization as we now know it, could collapse into anarchy.

"Such extreme conclusions are not necessarily valid, but they probably accurately reflect the fears of the 'ruling classes' of the major nations, whose leaders (particularly those in the intelligence business) have always advocated excessive governmental secrecy as being necessary to preserve'national security.'" (Marchetti, Victor: "How the CIA Views the UFOPhenomenon," Second Look, Vol. 1, No.7, Washington, D.C., May 1979.)

Notice particularly this part: "the U.S. government, in collusion with the other national powers of the earth."

It seems that, after all the breakdown of relations with the U.S. that has gone on for the past four years, in spite of the terrible state of the American economy, the protests within America and around the world against him, Bush is still able to pull some strings. And the only thing that I can see that might give him this power is that there is, definitely, something up on a scale few average people can conceive of.

This led me on a search and I found an interesting blog where the author writes about something called "The Merlin Project."

Physicist, Dr. George Hart first hears Futurist, Paul Guercio with Dr. David Brudnoy on WBZ Radio in Boston in October 1988 and is intrigued with Paul’s theory of “Time-Patterns” since it parallels his own extensive research as a highly respected theoretical physicist and inventor of the excimer laser. In January 1989 Dr. Hart comes to Paul’s office for a professional consultation. The consultation never took place and instead, the two researchers spent six hours comparing notes on time-related anomalies. The MERLIN Project evolved from a series of five meetings over the subsequent six months. The MERLIN Project is officially born on July 4, 1989 after Dr. George Hart offers to design software built around Paul Guercio's Theory of Time. A team of SDI (Star Wars) physicists is recruited to design the MERLIN Project software, which becomes known as TimeTrak. First working copy of the MERLIN software (October 5, 1989) forecasts the imminent demise of the Soviet Union or alternately, World War III. Both Paul and Dr. Hart consider either scenario unlikely at best. Soviet Union collapses as the Berlin Wall comes down (November 5, 1989) and Eastern European Communism quickly disintegrates. The newly designed MERLIN software has proven to be a stunning success. [...] In 1995, the MERLIN creators were approached by a Strategic Planning Office of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff and asked to provide a long-range forecast and timetable for potential incidents of domestic terrorism over the following seven years. This "white paper" which was submitted in July 1995, included indications of a significant threat culminating in the Fall of 2001, which we now know to be the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon.

And here is what the Merlin project is predicting as of New Year's Eve, 2004:

Osama bin Laden will be "in strength" in 2005 and 2006. Something out of the ordinary starts in the next year or two and culminates at the end of the decade. At the end of 2005, something profound will happen. They're not sure what, exactly, it may be but it could be an asteroid strike or a massive UFO invasion. In 2008-2009, something even more profoundly changing will happen that will affect about 4 out of 6 people. Something like a pandemic.

So, we have Condi and Bush doing their Vaudeville act, "Condi's Capers" in Europe singing "Peace in the Valley" in a "Dominatrix" outfit, Peter Jennings doing a serious take on UFOs, Victor Marchetti telling us that the governments of the world are all in collusion on hiding the reality of this, and the Merlin Project predicting a possible UFO invasion or an asteroid strike around the end of 2005. We may very well be in The Calm Before the Storm. I think the black cat just walked by twice.

Blogging on CNN and the Daily Show

A friend who knows I have taken up blogging today sent me a link to a recent edition of Jon Stewart's Daily Show. It was so funny I nearly fell out of my chair. http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/ds021605bloggers.html You can also go here to see the Guckert interview on CNN: http://toolz.blogs.com/toolz_of_the_new_school/2005/02/bulldog_on_360.html Jon is satirizing one of the most enormous problems of the present day: information control. Call it censorship, if you want, or call it disinformation, or psychological manipulation of the masses, it is all pretty much the same thing. Those in power control what the masses know because if the masses knew the truth, those in power would go the way of the French nobility during the Revolution. Personally, I like to call it PSYCLOPS which represents psychological operations of the All Seeing Eye of the New World Order - Bush and the neocons. Jon Stewart is an interesting guy. I saw him on Crossfire before the election. Without an ounce of self-importance, he literally begged for the rights of the common man to have access to the truth. If I could have done so, I would have been right there with him. But there's no tea or sympathy from the psychopaths that rule this world. Which reminds me. I came across an interesting article about psychopaths the other day: "Official Culture in America: A Natural State of Psychopathy." The site is probably a bit too strange for the average reader because they also talk about aliens. But then, as the wife of a scientist who has had some interesting discussions with government officials on the subject, I don't find that outrageous at all. That's another area of information the New World Order is controlling But I don't want to talk about aliens, I want to talk about journalism. When I left the U.S. and started working editing foreign news for American readers, I was quite shocked at the censorship I realized I had lived under in the U.S. No, it's not like there are guys who are hired, legal censors, it's just that those who are "in the business" know that if they say the wrong things, they are OUT of the business. Have a look at this:

Jon Stewart wins, CNN cancels Crossfire 1/6/2005 2:37:15 PM, by Ken "Caesar" Fisher

In the middle of October, Jon Stewart took his usual complaints about partisan hackery to his appearance on CNN's Crossfire (transcript here | streaming video here). From the beginning of the discussion, Stewart took aim at Crossfire and other media shows, saying (at first with a smile) that they "hurt America" by making politicians' lives easier by failing to "hold their feet to the fire." The gist of Stewart's complaint was that shows that were purportedly "hard" and "cutting" were really only theatrical performances of talking points and sensationalism. The incident is now famous, and little needs to be said about it. I'm following up that story because it was so popular when we ran it before.

Today CNN announced that they are nixing Crossfire, and dropping their relationship with one of the show's "commentators" (I use that word lightly), Tucker Carlson (who claims that he actually quit months ago). CNN's new President, Jonathan Klein, said that he agreed with much of Stewart's indictments against the media. So sayeth the New York Times:

Mr. Klein specifically cited the criticism that the comedian Jon Stewart leveled at "Crossfire" when he was a guest on the program during the presidential campaign. Mr. Stewart said that ranting partisan political shows on cable were "hurting America." Mr. Klein said last night, "I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise." He said he believed that especially after the terror attacks on 9/11, viewers are interested in information, not opinion.

Now, few would think that Stewart is the cause for the demise of Crossfire, but his complaints are most certainly a symptom of the media's unwillingness to throw punches. Whether it's Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or forged National Guard documents, too much time is spent discussing discussions about "news." Then, what becomes news are the discussions themselves, and the journalists don't spend enough time asking whether or not any of this garbage is actually correct, or engaging in real debate. I commend CNN for dumping the likes of Crossfire, but they, like most major media outlets, have a long way to go before the thinking public truly respects them again.

Then, there is this:

When real news debunks fake news Saturday, February 19, 2005 The prayers of those hoping that real television news might take its cues from Jon Stewart were finally answered on Feb. 9, 2005. A real newsman borrowed a technique from fake news to deliver real news about fake news in prime time. Let me explain. On "Countdown," a nightly news hour on MSNBC, the anchor, Keith Olbermann, led off with a bit in the classic style of Stewart's classic "Daily Show": a rapid-fire montage of sharply edited video bites illustrating the apparent idiocy of those in Washington. In this case, the eight clips stretched over a year in the White House briefing room - from February 2004 to late last month - and all featured a reporter named "Jeff." In most of them, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, says "Go ahead, Jeff," and "Jeff" responds with a softball question intended not to elicit information but to boost President George W. Bush and smear his political opponents. In the last clip, "Jeff" is quizzing the president himself, in his first post-inaugural press conference of Jan. 26. Referring to Harry Reid and Hillary Rodham Clinton, "Jeff" asks, "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" If we did not live in a time when the news culture itself is divorced from reality, the story might end there: "Jeff," you'd assume, was a lapdog reporter from a legitimate, if right-wing, news organization like Fox, and you'd get some predictable yuks from watching a compressed video anthology of his kissing up to power. But as Olbermann explained, "Jeff Gannon," the star of the montage, was a newsman no more real than a "Senior White House Correspondent" like Stephen Colbert on "The Daily Show." Yet the video broadcast by Olbermann was not fake. "Jeff" was in the real White House, and he did have those exchanges with the real McClellan and the real Bush. "Jeff Gannon's" real name is James Guckert. His employer was a Web site called Talon News, staffed mostly by volunteer Republican activists. Media Matters for America, the liberal press monitor that has done the most exhaustive research into the case, discovered that Talon's "news" often consists of recycled Republican National Committee and White House press releases, and its content frequently overlaps with another partisan site, GOPUSA, with which it shares its owner, a Texas delegate to the 2000 Republican convention. Nonetheless, for nearly two years the White House press office had credentialed Guckert, even though, as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post explained on Olbermann's show, he "was representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership." How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. "Jeff" has now quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like hotmilitarystud9.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour "escort." But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day. Though McClellan told Editor & Publisher magazine that he didn't know until recently that Guckert was using an alias, Bruce Bartlett, a White House veteran of the Reagan-Bush I era, wrote on the nonpartisan journalism Web site Romenesko that "if Gannon was using an alias, the White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover." (Otherwise, it would be a rather amazing post-9/11 security breach.) By my count, "Jeff Gannon" is now at least the sixth "journalist"to have been a propagandist on the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely arms-length ally like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or broadcast forums that purport to be real news. Of these six, two have been syndicated newspaper columnists paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the administration's "marriage" initiatives. The other four have played real newsmen on TV. Before Guckert and Armstrong Williams, the talking head paid $240,000 by the Department of Education, there were Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia. Let us not forget these pioneers - the Woodward and Bernstein of fake news. They starred in bogus reports pretending to "sort through the details" of the administration's Medicare prescription-drug plan in 2004. Such "reports," some of which found their way into news packages distributed to local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news broadcasts around the country and have now been deemed illegal "covert propaganda" by the Government Accountability Office. The money that paid for both the Ryan-Garcia news packages and the Armstrong Williams contract was siphoned through the same huge public relations firm, Ketchum Communications, which itself filtered the funds through subcontractors. A new report by Congressional Democrats finds that Ketchum has received $97 million of the administration's total $250 million PR kitty, of which the Williams and Ryan-Garcia scams would account for only a fraction. We have yet to learn precisely where the rest of it ended up. Even now, we know that the fake news generated by the six known shills is only a small piece of the administration's overall propaganda effort. Bush wasn't entirely joking when he called the notoriously meek March 6, 2003, White House press conference on the eve of the Iraq invasion "scripted" while it was still going on. Everything is scripted. There were the pre-fab "Ask President Bush" town hall-style meetings during last year's campaign. A Pentagon Office of Strategic Influence, intended to provide propagandistic news items, some of them possibly false, to foreign news media was shut down in 2002 when it became a political liability. But much more quietly, another Pentagon propaganda arm, the Pentagon Channel, has recently been added as a free channel for American viewers of the Dish Network. It is a brilliant strategy. When the Bush administration isn't using taxpayers' money to buy its own fake news, it does everything it can to shut out and pillory real reporters who might tell Americans what is happening in what is, at least in theory, their own government. Conservatives, who supposedly deplore postmodernism, are now welcoming in a brave new world in which it's a given that there can be no empirical reality in news, only the reality you want to hear (or they want you to hear). For a case in point, you needed only switch to CNN on the day after Olbermann did his fake-news-style story on the fake reporter in the White House press corps. "Jeff Gannon" had decided to give an exclusive TV interview to a sober practitioner of real news, Wolf Blitzer. Given this journalistic opportunity, the anchor asked questions almost as soft as those "Jeff" himself had asked in the White House. Blitzer didn't question Guckert's outrageous assertion that he adopted a fake name because "Jeff Gannon is easier to pronounce and easier to remember." (Is "Jeff" easier to pronounce than his real first name, Jim?) Blitzer never questioned Gannon/Guckert's assertion that Talon News "is a separate, independent news division" of GOPUSA. The "real" news from CNN was no news at all, but it's not as if any of its competitors did much better. The "Jeff Gannon" story got less attention than another media frenzy - that set off by the veteran news executive Eason Jordan, who resigned from CNN after speaking recklessly at a panel discussion at Davos, where he apparently implied, at least in passing, that American troops deliberately targeted reporters. Is the banishment of a real newsman for behaving foolishly at a bloviation conference in Switzerland a more pressing story than that of a fake newsman gaining years of access to the White House (and network TV cameras) under mysterious circumstances? As Olbermann demonstrated when he borrowed a sharp "Daily Show" tool to puncture the "Jeff Gannon" case, the only road back to reality may be to fight fake with fake.

Rafik al Hariri: Whodunnit?

It was distressing to read the news of the murder of Rafik Hariri yesterday for two reasons: the first was the obvious one that a human being - a good man of principle - had been subjected to such a horrible death, and that he is gone from his family; the second is the possible repercussions in the powder keg of the Middle East. Here in France, the Middle East is a lot closer than it is to the United States. Even in the small town near our home here (about 40 km from Toulouse) , there are many muslims. I admit that I frequently covertly examine the Muslim women in the check-out line at the supermarket to try to figure out what is making them tick. In general, I feel sorry for them because they are really no different from Christians or Jews, being caught in a trap of "belief" that is so limiting to human beings in so many ways. In their case, however, it is a lot more evident on the surface in the way they dress. Most of the Muslim women I have seen wear really UGLY clothes in public. I have heard that the reason for this is that they believe that men cannot control themselves, so a woman must cover up her charms completely to be safe and only be a "turn on" to her husband. Well, that doesn't say much for Muslim men, but then, considering the way some men behave (mostly the macho military types), they do have a point. Nothing like going around in clothes that just scream "SEE? I'm holy 'cause I wear the uniform!" But, different strokes for different folks. If it makes them feel better, it's okay by me. But in France it is such a shame to go around looking like a sack of potatoes wearing ugly shoes that look like clodhoppers, and certainly being overheated in the summer. The French have such style and diversity in their fashion sense that it is always a pleasure to me to just go out and see everyone expressing themselves. Women aren't afraid of being feminine and alluring and I sure don't hear much about rape being a major crime here either. So, in general, Muslim women have execrable fashion options in public and its a real pity, in my opinion. The whole Muslim shtick came home to me the other day in a funny way, however. We had dinner guests and I discovered, much to my surprise, that the wife of a friend of ours here is Muslim. Why was it a surprise? Well, we had certainly visited at their home a number of times, having dinner and so on, and they had been here several times, and usually, when we saw his wife, she was wearing slacks and a sweater with a nice, bouncy, short haircut. I knew she was from Morocco because when her father visited, he brought us some fresh Moroccan olive oil. So, there we were, having a dinner and this couple had been invited. She arrived in a blue whatever-it-is-called thing that Muslim women wear... the long sacky looking gown. Admittedly, the fabric and embroidery were fabulous, but nothing could change the fact that the garment was assembled like a modified tent. She removed her head scarf after entering the house, and her cute, bouncy hair was exposed, but I admit I was taken aback. Things got a bit squirrely when I was asked if there was any pork in any of the dishes being served. As a matter of fact there was. We had made stuffed mushrooms as a side dish; stuffed with bacon and cheese. When they were put in the oven, there was stuffing left over which I just casually tossed into the rice dressing mix which, until I did that, was basically "pure" from a Muslim point of view. Big mistake. Since it was a simple dinner, I was serving only turkey, rice and stuffing mixed together, cranberries (hard to get in France, so we have friends ship them to us), the evil stuffed mushrooms already mentioned and that was about it! Not to look like a bad hostess who can only feed the guest a bit of meat and cranberries, I sent my son to the kitchen (it's quite a walk from the dining room in this place!) to warm up the plain rice that had been left from lunch and which was in the refrigerator. After quickly producing some "holy" rice, I was certainly glad that I hadn't added any ham stock to the turkey gravy which I occasionally do to "liven it up" a bit. I was able to serve my Muslim guest turkey, rice and gravy and cranberries (which she liked very much!) I think the fact that everyone else in the room was eating the aforementioned evil stuffed mushrooms sort of erected a subtle barrier between us and this charming Muslim lady. I wondered briefly if she might consider her husband "unclean" and wouldn't kiss him until he fasted away the bacon stuffing? I mean, where do you draw the line there? If you believe that something is unclean, how can you be married to, and intimate with, someone who partakes of said evil substance? The evening continued normally, and we broke open a bottle of 35 year old St. Emilion that had been given to us as a gift some months back. Our guests nearly fainted from ecstasy. Well, except for the Muslim lady. She, of course, did not drink wine. In the case of this particular wine, it was really a shame. So, there was another barrier. Muslims don't imbibe. I have a bit of trouble really getting into the idea that eating or dressing one way or another will make a person more or less acceptable to God. I hardly think that God - long may She wave - really cares what people do in a material sense as long as they behave consistently with true spiritual principles like not committing murder or bearing false witness and coveting and all that stuff George Bush and the Neocons are into. But that's another subject. I don't want to go there now. So, there it is: the Middle East is very close to France and we interact directly with Muslims here and know that they are good people. Now, back to Hariri. In the recent discussions about the death of Hariri here in France, I have heard that he was a good friend of Jacques Chirac. That means, certainly, that he has eaten a meal or two with Jacques. Probably his wife, also. I wonder if they drank the wine and ate the mushrooms? The thing is, I think I would feel rather hostile if a friend of mine was murdered in so brutal a fashion. If I was Jacques Chirac, a man advocating peace at the present time, as was Hariri, I think I would also be a bit worried about my own safety. Even I am worried about Chirac. The "heir apparent" to Chirac is the America-0-phile, Nicolas Sarkozy. I shudder to think of the path France would follow with Sarko at the helm. So, the big question Chirac needs to ask here is: WHO killed Rafik al Hariri? His life may depend on the answer. I know who I think did it, and that is based on a LOT of assessment of global news over the past few years, (remember, my job is mainly a news editor). I think MOSSAD did it, maybe with some American secret services help. This job had MOSSAD and the Neocon's fingerprints all over it. What's more, it fits in perfectly with the puzzling affair of the Condi Capers in Europe. My jaw was just dropping to the floor watching that woman prance around like she had good manners, talking about "diplomacy" and "let's all play nicely together" all the while she is nothing but a barracuda. What is UP with that?! I wondered. I didn't believe for an instant that the Bush Neocons and their MOSSAD Minions had changed their spots overnight, and I really wondered if they thought that all the rest of the world was brain-dead enough to buy Condi's act. "Chere Condi" my eye! The French aren't that naive, I can assure you. It didn't take me long to figure out what was up, and the answer can be found quite easily in Paul Linebarger's Psychological Warfare, 1954 edition, pages 128-131, which is the "primer"for PSYOPS operations.

Over and above the direct contribution to straight news or intelligence, enemy propaganda in times of war or crisis affords a clue to enemy strategy.If the co-ordination is not present the propaganda may do the enemy himself harm. But the moment co-ordination is present, and one end of the co-ordinate is handed over to us, we can start figuring what the co-ordination is for. Sometimes propaganda is sacrificed for weightier considerations of security; German propaganda gave little advance warning of a war with the USSR, and Soviet propaganda gave none. In other instances, the co-ordination does give the show away. In 1941-42 the Japanese radio began to show an unwholesome interest in Christmas Island in its broadcasts to Japanese at home and abroad. Christmas Island, below Sumatra, was pointed out as a really important place, and tremendously important to Naval strategy. Subsequently the Japanese armed forces went to and took Christmas Island. The home public was delighted that this vital spot had been secured. Of course Christmas Island was not as important as Japanese radio said it was, but the significant thing was that radio talked about it AHEAD OF TIME. For what little it was worth the Japanese had given us warning...... A nation getting ready to strike à la Pearl Harbour may prepare by alleging American aggresion. A nation preparing to break the peace frequently gets out peace propaganda of the most blatant sort, trying to make sure that its own audience (as well as the world) will believe the real responsibility to lie in the victim he attacks. Hitler protested his love of Norwegian neutrality; then he hit, claiming that he was protecting it from the British. No hard and fast rules can be made up for all wars or all beligerents. The Germans behaved according to one pattern; the Japanese another. For example, the German High Command sought to avoid bragging about anything they could not accomplish. They often struck blows without warning but they never said they would strike a blow when they knew or believed they could not do it. The British and Americans made a timetable of this, and were able to guess how fast the Germans thought they were going to advance in Russia. Knowing this, the British and Americans planned their propaganda to counter the German boasts; they tried to pin the Germans down to objectives they knew the Germans would not take, in order to demonstrate to the peoples of Europe that Nazi Germany had finally bitten off more than it could chew. Later the Allies remembered this German habit when the Nazis on the radio began talking about their own secret weapons. When the British bombed the V-1 ramps on the French coast, the German radio stopped that talk. The British had additional grounds for supposing that the ramps thay had bombed were part of the secret weapons that the Germans bragged about. The British further knew that the Germans would try to counter the psychologigal effect of the annouoncement of Allied D Day with some pretty vivid news of their own. When the German radio began mentioning secret weapons again, the British suspected the Germans had got around damage done to the ramps. D-Day came; the Germans, in one single broadcast designed to impress the Japanese and Chinese, announced the secret German weapon was about to be turned loose, and that more such weapons wouldfollow. One day later the first V-1 hit London. For peacetime purposes, it is to be rermembered that tough enemies may hide their scientists, their launching ramps, or their rockets, they cannot hide their occasion for war, nor their own readiness measures. No government can afford to seem the plain unqualified aggressor. Propanal [Propaganda Analysis] may prove to be one of the soundest war-forecasting systems available to usin a period of ultra destructive weapons. Psychological mobilization may be disguised; it cannot be concealed.

Let me repeat that most important point: No government can afford to seem the plain unqualified aggressor. And that is what Condi was up to: disarming the world with her "diplomatic propaganda," trying to convince everybody that America is the good guy and they just want to do what is right... Yeah, right! I thought. What evil false flag operation have you guys got up your sleeves now? And ole Sharon had his marching orders: "look like you are willing to make peace... don't worry, it's just for show... We gotta look good while we plan our next 9-11 event." There they were, the whole gang of 'em goin' around like a Vaudeville dance act singing about "Mammy! How I luv ya, how I luv ya! My dear old Mammy!" all the while skulking like a damn spider spinning a web, setting up something to make it necessary for the good ole US of A to just step right in and take over. Or better yet, how about a nice "attack on America" ? I mean, there they were, chanting "peace, peace, peace!" and those nasty ole A-rabs will just come along and do something stupid to make them just have to go and bomb them back to the Stone Age. Didn't they already do that? Oh, yeah, right! They did, and it worked. 9-11. Lost my head there for a minute. And then, Hariri dies... Well, well, well. What makes this all the more strange is the recent news about the death of Mossad femme fatale Sylvia Rafael. Now that's a story for ya!

Sylvia Rafael, a legendary Mossad hit woman convicted of mistakenly assassinating a Moroccan waiter in Norway 31 years ago, is to be buried secretly in Israel according to her last wishes.

The following bit from Gordon Thomas' book, "Gideon's Spies" will make it clear that the Hariri hit had all the earmarks of a MOSSAD false flag operation. Could it have been timed to coincide with the burial of Sylvia Rafael, a sort of sick "tribute"?:

In July 1973, at the height of the manhunt for the killers of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, Mossad received a top that the "Red prince" Ali Hassan Salameh, who had planned the operation, was working in the small Norwegian town of Lillehammer as a waiter.

Mossad's then director, Michael Harari, had put together a team not drawn from the Kidon unit; its members were scattered across the world chasing the remaining terrorists who had carried out the Munich killings.

The first to die had been standing in the lobby of his Rome apartment when he was shot eleven times for at close range - a bullet for each murdered athlete. When the next to die answered the telephone in his Paris apartment, his head was blown off by a small bomb planted in the receiver and triggered by remote control. Another was asleep in a hotel room in Nicosia (Cyprus) when it was wrecked by a similar bomb. To create panic among the remaining members of the Black September group, Mossad Arab "sayanim" arranged for their obituaries to appear in local Arab newspapers. Their families received flowers and condolence cards shortly before each was killed.

[Several years later] Rafi Eitan, (the infamous and brutal Mossad terrorist) set about finding and killing their leader Ali Hassan Salameh. Eitan returned to Tel Aviv and made his plans. Three Mossad agents who could pass for Arabs crossed into Lebanon and entered the city. One rented a car. The second wired a series of bombs into its chasis, roof, and door panels. The third agent parked the car along the route the "red Prince" traveled to his office every morning. Using precise timing Rafi Eitan had provided, the car was set to explode as Salameh passed. It did, blowing him to pieces.

[Back in Lillehammer] Harari's team had no field experience, but he was confident his own background as a katsa in Europe was sufficient. His team included two women, Sylvia Rafael and Marianne Gladnikoff.

The operation had run into disaster from the outset. The arrival of a dozen strangers in Lillehammer, where there had not been a murder for forty years, aroused speculation. The local police began to watch them. Officers were close by when Harari and his team shot dead a Moroccan waiter named Ahmed Bouchiki, who has no connection to terrorism and did not even physically resemble Salameh. Harari and some of his squad managed to escape. but six Mossad operatives were captured, including both women.

They made full confessions, revealing for the first time Mossad's assassination methods and other equally embarrassing details about the service's clandestine activities. The women, together with their male colleagues, were charged with second degree murder and jailed for 5 years. (After "pressure" from Israel, all were released within 11 months).

And so, we come to the question "Who benefits?" Asking this question goes a long way toward shedding light on Condi's Capers in Europe. One thing for sure is this: the assassination of Rafik Hariri does NOT benetift Syria. Looking at the geo-political situation, what we see is the United States and Israel working hand in hand to implement the strategy of the destruction of the Arab world. For Israel, growing confusion and destruction means an opportunity to establish the mythical "Greater Israel" stretching from the Mediterranean through Mesopotamia. Israel has already invaded and occupied portions of Lebanon. It has attacked positions in Syria under the guise of "fighting terrorism". France has been a strong opponent of the US agenda for Iraq and has been attempting to find a negotiated settlement for Iranian nuclear development - even while chatting politely with "Chere Condi." Meanwhile, Condi was working hard to paint Syria as a "terrorist" state. Hariri's death right after this farce is quite telling. Killing Hariri, one of Jacques Chirac's good friends, and pointing the finger at Syria, seems to be an attempt to drive a wedge between France and its Middle East friends. It might also be intended to create more division between France and Russia, two of the key members of the anti-US imperialist coalition that also includes China, for the simple reason that Russia is negotiating to sell missiles to Syria. Israel has been waging a propaganda campaign in the Western media against this sale. What better way to get international support against the sale than to blame Syria for the bombing in Beirut? The bombing and assassination also threaten to throw Lebanon back into the chaos of the 1970's. That chaos gave Israel an excuse to invade and occupy southern Lebanon. Will the excuse work a second time? Israel is well-known for its false-flag operations. Why should we think that this operation was any different? MOSSAD dunnit.

Lynne Stewart and the American Inquisition

We attended a luncheon and planning meeting at my daughter's school yesterday. The meeting was to discuss a series of special events to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the College. The school began as a Catholic instititution, but in 1905, when France passed legislation that separated Church and State, the school had to make some adjustments in order to receive government funding. And so, though it is nominally a Catholic school, it must follow the national educational guidelines which include tolerance for all faiths.

One of the attendees of this luncheon was an Abbe from Toulouse who belongs to the order that founded the school and which still keeps ties with it, though not religious ones. He will soon be defending his Ph.D. thesis in Medieval history. The headmistress of the school has degrees in history, and her mentor was also present, being invited to give special lectures on Egypt as part of the 150th Anniversary programs. We were there because my husband has been invited to give a scientific lecture.

So, there we were at the dinner table with all the teachers and administrators of this small, private, French college - some 20 people - and the issue of America and George Bush and Condi's recent Capers in Old Europe came up. I noticed that the subject was being handled carefully out of consideration for me, the only American at the table. The Abbe, however, was not so concerned with my finer sensibilities and pronounced, with a snort, that the Neocon administration was exactly like the Inquisition!

I'm sure he was deliberately trying to goad me, but he was surprised when I agreed with him and even mentioned that I had written exactly that myself quite recently. Everyone at the table relaxed, and I was granted an privileged hearing of the opinions of ordinary French people on the subject of George Bush and America.

Now, let me make it clear that most French people are able to separate the government from the people, and while they love Americans, they don't have any illusions about the nature of governments in general and specific. After all, France got fed up with her own corrupt government and killed them all... You could even say that the seeds of this attitude were planted during the Inquisition, and watered by the blood of martyrs to royal and priestly prerogatives. It could also be said that the fact that France is a fiercely secular state is directly due to the hatred of the church that was nurtured in silence during the Wars of Religion.

In any event, there are no illusions about George Bush among most French people. They know their history - they lived it, remember it, and teach it - and it seems that I'm not the only one who sees the comparisons betweeen what is happening in America and the Inquisition.

This comparison has recently become even more terrifyingly real. I read in the news the other day that Lynne Stewart had been convicted of "violating special administrative prison rules and of providing material support to terrorists." It was ssynchronous that this came so soon after I had written about the Inquisition, comparing it to the Mad March of Fascism in the United States tody. In that post, I wrote:

A person suspected of Cathar sympathies was not always informed of the charges hanging over his head; if apprised of the danger, he had no right to know who his accusers were; and if he dared to seek legal help, his lawyer could be charged with abetting heresy.

Sounding more and more like George and his War on Terrorism ...

Whatever the verdict of the inquisitor - who was prosecutor, judge and jury - no appeal was allowed. Anyone could be held indefinitely in prison for further questioning without cause of explanation.

Yes. Enemy Combatants, no doubt.

The inquisition destroyed the bonds of trust that hold societies together. Informing on one's neighbor became not only a duty, but a necessary survival strategy. And so it is becoming in America today. [...]

In theory, of course, no one could be punished if no one talked because the inquisitor could not act without a writ of denunciation, but in practic, no community possessed the cohesion needed to combat the power of a secret tribunal.

The same is true in America today. Everyone has been adequately conditioned by watching "reality TV" and "Survivor," and they know the rules: Do unto others before they do unto you.

And so it was in the Languedoc, the historical model for what is happening in the United States today, and for what happened in Germany under Hitler. [...]

The real proof of genuine piety toward the Catholic Church was defined as the number of people the sinner was willing to betray!

Armed with a list of proposed offenses to be considered "heretical" or "supporting heretics," which included just knowing that a heretic had crossed one's property and failing to report it, the Inquisition proceeded to intimidate the population of Europe on a scale that was impossible to imagine.

Jennifer Van Bergen wrote yesterday on CounterPunch:

Only a few weeks ago, Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Barkow told the jury in his closing statement that Lynne Stewart "thought she could blow off the rules that apply to everyone else because she's a lawyer, and she's above the law. She said, 'I think my client is more important than the law. My cause is more important that the risk to lives of innocent people.'

This is a complete distortion of the woman I have come to know. [...]

Lynne Stewart never ever thought she could blow off the rules that apply to everyone else. She never thought she was above the law. She never supported or endorsed terrorism. Nor did she ever intend to provide material support to terrorists.

The words she spoke to her client were meant for her client alone and the one who has violated rights here is the Department of Justice. They violated something so sacred that it can hardly be spoken without somehow losing the value of it: they violated the attorney/client privilege.

The DOJ violated this privilege by listening in on her conversations with her client, which they then took out of context and tried to make into a monstrous thing.

But is anyone prosecuting them for this violation? No.

The DOJ has violated something more, as well. They have violated the right of an accused to have zealous counsel represent them. This right is so fundamental that our Framers put it in the Bill of Rights: the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The DOJ has violated the last vestige of democracy: the judiciary, by using this system to destroy one of the watchdogs of liberty, our criminal defense lawyers. Without criminal defense lawyers, who will protect us from government incursions of our rights?

Now, the idea of a convicted terrorist having any sort of privilege is perhaps unfathomable to a jury. But that privilege is considered sacrosanct and we all have it, we all may call upon the attorney/client privilege because without it, we have no defense attorneys, we have no defense, and we have no witnesses to government abuse of our rights.

Lynne continued to believe in her client's innocence, and to declare that evidence against him was fabricated by our government in order to secure his conviction.

Has this fact come out anywhere? Has any newspaper revealed that the client Stewart represented was convicted on fabricated evidence? Have any of them investigated the charge? Has the Department of Justice investigated it?

No? Why not?

Well, as far as I know, Lynne never brought this charge out to the press during her trial. But it was certainly known to the DOJ. And if it is true that her client was convicted on fabricated evidence, what does it mean that she is now convicted because of her representation of him? [...]

This day, while I do not want to believe that the prosecutors themselves maliciously prosecuted Stewart, the best I can believe is that they have blinded themselves with their own zeal. But I have seen prosecutors and government officials declare what they should have known were untruths about the law, what I knew were untruths and if they didn't know they were untruths, they could only have been ignorant of the law.

This day the Justice Department has done a great injustice, not just to Lynne Stewart, but to our entire system of justice, to our country, and to our democracy.

Jennifer Van Bergen must not know her medieval history very well or she would recognize exactly what is happening in America today. Just as the Inquisition was declared to be a War for Salvation of Souls, but in reality, was a war for Control, so is the United States "War on Terror" in reality a Terrorist War Against Freedom.

What has happened in the conviction of Lynne Stewart is that a clear message has been sent to those who might try to stand up for the freedom of the individual and that message is: If you defend the right of the individual against the predations of the State, YOU are going to be destroyed. And so, there will be no more defense of anyone's rights. This is not a legal system, it is a system designed to create fear, to destroy social bonds, and to put absolute power into the hands of a few, immoral elitists.

Martin Niemöller, a German Protestant pastor learned this lesson the hard way.

Niemöller was a commander of a German U-boat in World War I. A seminal incident in his moral outlook, as he related in many public speeches later in his life, occurred when he commanded his submarine crew not to rescue the sailors of a boat he torpedoed, but let them drown instead.

In 1931 Niemöller became a pastor in a wealthy Berlin suburb. As a German nationalist he initially supported Hitler, but as the Nazis began to interfere in church affairs, he moved into opposition.

In 1937 he was arrested because of his outspoken sermons, and sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp. In 1941 he was moved to Dachau, where he stayed until the end of the war.

Shortly after the end of the war Niemöller became convinced that the German people had a collective responsibility for the Nazi atrocities. In October 1945 Niemöller was the the prime mover behind the German Protestant Church's "Confession of Guilt".

It was clearly in this Oct/Nov 1945 context that Niemöller's most quoted saying began to evolve. This early statement implies that he may have thought first of the Communists, then the disabled, then Jews, and finally countries conquered by Germany.

In a 6 January 1946 speech, Niemöller said:

We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934 - there must have been a possibility - 14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30-40 people, because that is what it is costing us now.

In 1947 his reputation was challenged because he devoted substantial energy to protecting Nazi war criminals from the death penalty, and because of some pro-German things he had said in his own defense while on trial by the Nazis in 1937. However, during the 1950s and 1960s he refused to join in the dominant anticommunist sentiment in the West, which earned him the respect of the left again. His uncompromising stance allowed him to remain a figurehead of the German peace movement into the 1980s.

Niemöller's quote generally runs as follows:

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing.

Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist.

And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little.

Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'

Many people use this quotation in various ways. Some of them even alter it to suit their purpose. When Time magazine used the quotation, they moved the Jews to the first place and dropped both the communists and the social democrats. American Vice-President Al Gore likes the to quote the lines, but drops the trade unionists for good measure. Gore and Time also added Roman Catholics, who weren't on Niemöller's list at all. In the heavily Catholic city of Boston, Catholics were added to the quotation inscribed on its Holocaust memorial. The US Holocaust Museum drops the Communists but not the Social Democrats; other versions have added homosexuals.

‘The Nazis did not come first for the Jews," Peter Novick tells us in his book, The Holocaust in American Life, "First they came for the Communists" - a circumstance acknowledged by Niemöller. The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC is just another place where "Communists" is omitted Niemöller's homily. [Some interesting background on Niemöller can be found HERE]

And so it is in America today: Categories of heretics have been established, and little by little, it will become possible to hold the hammer of the New Inquisition over the heads of everyone.

They came for Lynne Stewart. When will they come for YOU?

A Voice in Exile

Today I thought I would write a bit more about myself and my life. I am an American, descended from settlers who came to America before the Mayflower. I have enought Revolutionary War soldiers in my family tree to be DAR five times or so. I am married to a European scientist who has a fine reputation in his field, and between us, we have six children, the youngest being fifteen, the oldest over thirty. We currently live in France, in a beautiful old Chateau overlooking the Tarn River near Toulouse. The house has something like 35 rooms, and only about half of it is heated and that's the part we live in during the winter. The laundry room is in the unheated half, so nobody likes to fold linens in the winter. We have been here two years now, having left the US just before George W. Bush started bombing Iraq. In fact, we left the US because we could see that the impending war was just the first step in a process that would ultimately have ended with our own lives being personally affected in a very negative way. As I mentioned, I'm an editor. I edit news reports from around the world for publication on the internet. Most of those reports are not favorable to George W. Bush. The job of editing and publishing global news doesn't give me much of an opportunity to talk about ordinary things like how it feels to live in a foreign country as what amounts to an exile. Exiled by choice, certainly, but a forced choice no doubt. Our lives here - the atmosphere, the people - are very much like it was in the US back in the 60s... I was quite amazed to discover that Southern French cooking is very similar to Southern US cooking in many respects. Dishes that are "traditional" here are very much like dishes that were traditional in my family. Of course, my grandmother was of French descent, so that may be why. People are very polite and good manners are valued very highly. People dress up more here, also, like they used to do in the South when I was a kid. Ladies wear dresses and stockings and high heels and gloves and all that. Little girls wear dresses more than they wear pants, and there are lots of stores that are devoted just to children's stuff - fashions, toys, furniture, equipment and so on. My youngest daughter is attending a French "middle school." It is very different from American schools. They go from 8:45 in the morning until 4:40 in the afternoon except on Wednesdays when they only have classes until noon. Latin, Spanish and English are required courses. The French kids are WAAAY ahead of American kids in math and science. My daughter has had to work very hard to catch up. The schools also have an interesting schedule: 6 weeks on, 2 weeks off and then July and August off. I think this is much better because the kids don't have to get "burn-out" and they seem to learn more and to be much brighter than American kids. Certainly, it is clear that they are able to reason and think better in addition to having a much broader and more thorough education. But then, who in America has really been happy with the school system there for a long time? What bugs me is that nobody has ever been able to do anything about it. I can remember complaints from kids and parents when I was a kid. The school buses the kids in France ride aren't those old, ugly, yellow things with hard seats and industrial rubber floors. Here, they are the same as Grayhound buses in the states - big and comfortable and air-conditioned. But, the school itself is in an old monastery - about 500 years old - and inside, reminded me a lot of the old junior high that I attended way back before my hometown finally built a modern school. Even smells the same. My daughter's school does have a new dining facility with modern restaurant equipment and they serve very fine meals, including wine for the teachers every day. Lunches are always two hours. It's the same everywhere in France. Two hour lunches are the norm in all businesses and nearly everything closes at lunch. Just about everything is closed on Sundays also, not to mention closing at 7:30 - or at the latest, 8:30 - in the evenings. No such thing as convenience stores or all night shopping. Most things in France are still obtained from small family owned shops - butcher, baker, pastries, vegetables, cheese, wine - and so on. Additionally, every town has a "market day" when all the farms around bring their stuff to sell, including freshly butchered poultry, lambs, pigs, and so on. Rabbit is a popular meat in France, and the butcher shops and supermarkets usually have interesting displays of skinned rabbits with the heads still on and the eyes looking at you from the cooler. Same with poultry. The feet are still on them, and so are the heads - complete with feathers - and it is quite unnerving to purchase a nice capon with these indicators of freshness still intact. Of course, you CAN get them "sanitized" as they are in America, but the really good French cooks want to know what they are getting and that means with heads and feathers still intact. The market days in the South of France are really great for another reason:lots of vendors come up from Marseille with stuff from North Africa. The family farm is also alive and well in France, a VERY agricultural country. I was surprised when I first arrived to notice that so much of the land is cultivated. We drove once from Paris to the Mediterranean, and there were farms all the way. In France, the social and legal system support family farming as not only a respectable profession, but also a good living. A person who has passed the "exam" to be a "farmer" is entitled to all kinds of things, including representation at the chamber of commerce, social security, health insurance, etc. Doctors still come to the house if there is a problem after hours or if the patient feels too unwell to go to the doctor. They only charge 20 euro for a visit and that is reimbursable by the state health insurance. Medicine is very affordable and if prescribed, is also reimbursable. We pay about 600 euro every quarter for health insurance and it covers about everything. Even glasses, etc. Dental care is much better here. I had a whole lot of work done, some of which was the same I had done in the U.S., but had to be repeated. In the US, it cost about 1500 bux. Here, it cost 200 euro. The only thing that is about the same is the cost of orthodontics. But again, it is more progressive here. France is a strange mixture of very, and I mean VERY progressive, ideas and products and so on, set against this background of thousand year old buildings. The walls in our house are three feet thick! If they built houses like this in Florida, no one would ever worry about a hurricane! When we were packing to move, we bought a bunch of transformers because I was sure that European appliances were not going to be adequate. Like every other American girl who had never lived abroad, I was convinced that everything in the US was not only advanced, but that it was better. Well, was I ever wrong! I ended up buying a french washer and dryer while we were waiting for our shipping containers to arrive, and I had an epiphany! The washers heat their own water according to the temp you set, are "water conserving" front loaders, and the dryer doesn't have to be vented! It has an extractor that you empty every few loads and you can put it anywhere you want to! When I took my son's white socks out of the French washer for the first time, I was sold. I only use my American washer for rugs and blankets anymore. There are big supermarkets in France kind of like a "Wally World," only better. The fresh produce sections and the seafood sections are like nothing I've ever seen before in my life. You can buy ten or twelve varieties of lettuce, the freshest and crispest you've ever seen. There are laws in France against additives, even in meat, so you don't have to worry about the growth hormones that are supposed to be so harmful in American meat. About half of the eggs sold in the supermarket are from "free range" chickens, as well as the birds themselves. The difference in taste is remarkable. The kitchen appliances are available in such variety that I was actually stunned to see them. It reminded me of the scene in the Robin Williams' movie "Moscow on The Hudson," when the Russian defector played by Williams goes to a New York supermarket for the first time. He was used to waiting in lines all day to get anything, and there he was, in front of a display of hundreds of kinds of coffee. He had palpitations and fainted from the shock. Well, it was similar for me when I first saw the electronics section of a national chain supermarket in France. Not only many different brands, but styles and the colors! Even lavender toasters and coffee makers, fryers, waffle irons, bread machines, expresso machines, fondue pots, and on and on. I ended up having to buy a vacuum cleaner while waiting for our furniture also. Keep in mind, that I was holding out for my Oreck. Well, using my French vacuum cleaner was an epiphany. Not only are they quiet, they really, REALLY suck up the dirt in a major way. Even after it arrived and I could plug it in and use it, I never touched the Oreck again. Sorry Oreck people. Your machines just aren't up to snuff in France! Cars are another interesting difference. Here, they are MUCH smaller than American cars. They are also tighter and faster and more economical to operate. It was funny when we first arrived, we were driving down the road and I said "Look at all the foreign cars!" Well, they aren't foreign here. The motorways are also wonderful things to travel on... gas, snacks and bathrooms every ten kilometers or so, free stations to put air in the tires, rest stops with views and picnic tables at regular intervals; the French are very aware of their heritage, are proud of it (rightly so), and the countryside is there for all to enjoy. Walkways, paths, wayside "scenic overlooks" can be found about everywhere. At lunch time, the parks along the motorways are generally utilized by travelers who stop to enjoy the views, and have a relaxed meal and bottle of wine before continuing their journey. Yes, there are McDonald's here, but even they are somewhat different. They sell wine and beer and the chicken sandwiches are better, and naturally, the bread is better. The French are pretty picky about their bread. They will sell "American style" cardboard bread in touristy places, but no Frenchman would ever choose to eat it if there was a nice, fresh baguette on hand. The baker in town makes me a loaf of rye bread every other day since I am wheat sensitive and try to limit my intake. I don't even want to talk about the pastries. Unless you live in a big city with a real French bakery in the U.S., you just have no idea. Maybe I'll take some photos and share them. There are a few things I can complain about, though. One is that the French don't seem to have a big thing about cakes the way Americans like them: tall with yummy fillings between the layers and creamy rich icing. (I'm not talking about supermarket cakes here, I still believe in the real thing with home-made fillings and icings!) Their ideas of apple pies are also a bit strange to me. In the South, when I was growing up, the ladies in my family made the the big, deep dish pies with spicy fillings. The French "apple tart" is kind of a flat affair with just a single layer of thinly sliced apples and sugar and no spices or anything. They also haven't taken to peanut butter and we have friends in the states send us a regular supply. Other than that, I think that the differences are decidedly better than the U.S. The French love Americans, by the way. It's just a bit difficult to be one here right now because the tide is certainly turning. We have adjusted well though I still don't speak much French. The kids are rapidly picking it up, though and I will get better with time and practice, I think. Maybe in my next post I'll talk about some things I haven't talked about in this one: politics, and how different it is here from there.

George Bush's Inquisition

It has been a few days since I have had a moment to call my own. I am editing a series of books, and when I ask questions, the author keeps adding new material so that I have to go over the same ground again and again. Frustrating.

In the back of my mind, during these days building up to the so-called Iraqi Election, I have been thinking about the example of the Crusade against the Cathars in another context: the creation of the Inquisition.

Many people think of the Inquisition as something that was started to eliminate witches and Devil worship, and the word conjures images of the rack and iron maidens and all kinds of bizarre and twisted torture equipment. Sure, torture was a big part of the Inquisition, but not as much as some people might think. You have to remember that the Inquisition began during a period of history when human life was treated so casually that cutting off noses or ears or hands, or gouging out eyes was not unheard of as a legal punishment.

After years of brutal massacres, of destruction of the land, of some of the most horrible events ever to bear witness of man’s inhumanity to man, Pope Gregory IX decided that it was only results that counted. He intended to wipe Catharism from the face of the earth. He must have sat up at night to create the bizarre system that was put into place to deal with heresy.

First, he created special papal legates who were granted wide powers of prosecution similar to what we have today in the Homeland Security nonsense, and sent them out all over Europe. The men chosen for this task were clearly psychopaths, and their mission was to spread terror all over Europe.

Gregory staffed the episcopal palaces of the South of France with psychopathic bishops who offered a cash bounty to anyone who betrayed a heretic. The inducements to betray one's neighbor were surely tempting in the best of times. But in a time when starvation and destruction was everywhere after more than 20 years of the rampaging of the Crusading armies, it was well-nigh impossible to resist. The terms were that the property confiscated from the heretic was divided between the informer, the church and the crown. Naturally, in a land that was financially devastated, where people were displaced and starving after years of being battered by this same church and crown, there were a lot of individuals offering up their neighbors for blood money.

Robert le Bourgre, which means "the bugger", suggesting the contempt in which he was held by the peopele, terrorized formerly peaceful northern France. Another legate, Conrad of Marburg found unsuspected heretics everywhere in the Rhineland. Thousands were sent to the stake, often on the same day that they were accused. Again, sure sounds like Bush and his private torture chamber at Guantanamo. Conrad rode about on his mule with two assistants, bringing terror to every village and town they approached. Apparently, even the regular clergy saw through this nonsense and finally decided to do something about it. On July 30, 1233, a Franciscan friar, driven to act in the name of justice, intercepted Conrad and murdered him.

The pope had had enough. He turned to the Dominicans. In the spring of 1233, papal inquisitors were appointed in Toulouse, Albi, and Carcassonne. These inquisitors were succeeded in an unbroken line for 600 years.

Hundreds of people were summoned to testify before inquisitors. The questions were repetitive, designed to plant doubt in the mind of the person being interrogated as to what, exactly, the inquisitor knew, and who had told him. Hmmm... Sounds like "Total Information Awareness," doesn't it?

A person suspected of Cathar sympathies was not always informed of the charges hanging over his head; if apprised of the danger, he had no right to know who his accusers were; and if he dared to seek legal help, his lawyer could be charged with abetting heresy.

Sounding more and more like George and his War on Terrorism ...

Whatever the verdict of the inquisitor - who was prosecutor, judge and jury - no appeal was allowed. Anyone could be held indefinitely in prison for further questioning without cause of explanation.

Yes. Enemy Combatants, no doubt.

The inquisition destroyed the bonds of trust that hold societies together. Informing on one’s neighbor became not only a duty, but a necessary survival strategy. And so it is becoming in America today.

For 100 years, the inquisition was a fact on the ground of life in the Languedoc. The arrival of an inquisitor in a town was the occasion for demeaning displays of moral collapse just as the arrival of George W. Bush is the occasion for legislators and journalists to take off their shirts and display the wide yellow streaks down their backs.

In theory, of course, no one could be punished if no one talked because the inquisitor could not act without a writ of denunciation, but in practic, no community possessed the cohesion needed to combat the power of a secret tribunal.

The same is true in America today. Everyone has been adequately conditioned by watching "reality TV" and "Survivor," and they know the rules: Do unto others before they do unto you.

And so it was in the Languedoc, the historical model for what is happening in the United States today, and for what happened in Germany under Hitler.

Upon his arrival in a town, the inquisitor consulted with the local clergy. All males over the age of 14, and females over the age of 12, were required to make a profession of faith in the Catholic church. Those who didn’t were the first to be questioned.

Then, the inquisitor would give a speech in which he invited the people to spend some days thinking very, very hard about their activities past, present and future, and to come forward in the following week to give confidential depositions. After a seven day grace period, those who had not denounced themselves would be issued a summons.

The punishments ranged from loss of property , to loss of life. Aside from the capital crime of being a Cathar, punishable offenses included sheltering a Cathar, or even failing to report any instance of heresy.

The real proof of genuine piety toward the Catholic Church was defined as the number of people the sinner was willing to betray!

It only took ten years for the Inquisition to become the work of a few psychopathic fanatics, to being a proficient bureaucracy that lasted for 600 years. It employed hundreds of individuals who interrogated thousands of people with such monotonous regularity that a regular "glossary" was established for the "workers".

Armed with a list of proposed offenses to be considered "heretical" or "supporting heretics," which included just knowing that a heretic had crossed one's property and failing to report it, the Inquisition proceeded to intimidate the population of Europe on a scale that was impossible to imagine. The sheer numbers of people called to testify, and re-called to testify again and again, was staggering. In a strange twist of historical irony, the Catharas - who believed that the material world was evil and irrelevant - inspired the codification of the Police State.

A cross-referenced compendium of the confessions extracted from tens of thousands of people was compiled, creating a map of the mental landscape of the Languedoc. The more than 5 thousand transcripts of interrogations that survive represent only a small fraction of the work of the Inquisition.

Inquisitors manuals were created to serve as guides for the growing number of Papal courts in Europe. These manuals reminded the inquisitors that they were in the business of saving souls, but I think that the distinction was lost on those whose lives were lost or ruined by the judgments of the Inquisition.

Languedoc was, essentially, the laboratory for repression. The reputation of the Inquisition was enhanced by the talented Inquisitor of Toulouse, Bernard Gui, who was the villain in Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose."

The Inquisitors persuaded a handful of captured Cathars to convert and sell their testimony. Sicard of Lunel of Albi gave the friars and exhaustive list of Cathar sympathizers, even fingering his own parents. Anyone who had ever helped him in his life as a Cathar, whether they had just given him a bed for the night, a bit of food, or even a jar of honey, were hauled in to be punished - just on the his word. He and several others like him were lodged thereafter in a castle outside of Toulouse in the medieval version of the "witness protection program." Sicard was well paid for his perfidy and lived to a ripe old age. One wonders how peaceful it was.

The use of torture was delicately referred to as "putting the question." In the Languedoc, successive waves of highly trained inquisitors, aided by informers and torturers, fired by the totalitarian creed of the Catholic church, with detailed manuals and expanding registers of "intelligence," slowly but surely ground Catharism into oblivion. Thousands of dramas of conscience ended in the dungeons or in fires quenced with blood. By the end of the century, only the truly heroic dared to say that this world was evil...

It was not a legal system; it was a system designed to create fear.

And so is the War on Terror in America today.