GOD BLESS AMERICA

POLITICS

GOD BLESS AMERICA

"And together with your help and God’s grace we will continue our journey forward and remind the world just why it is that we live in the greatest nation on Earth." C'est avec ces mots, ponctués de l'habituel "God Bless America", que Barack Obama clos son "victory speech" (discours du vainqueur) ce 7 novembre 2012.

Effectivement, M. Obama est vainqueur. Il a remporté les élections présidentielles de 2012 face au candidat Républicain Mitt Romney, de 332 votes de grands électeurs à 206. Cet écart très étroit n'est pas à négliger cependant.

La grande majorité des américains sont aujourd'hui des Républicains qui, en partie, on décidé d'altérer leurs convictions légèrement en faveur de Barack Obama. Pourquoi ce détournement de Mitt Romney?

Tout d'abord, Mitt Romney a été considéré par de nombreuses personnes, parmi lesquels des journalistes, comme "extrémiste" dans ses convictions, obsédé par certains thèmes récurrents de la société américaine comme le mariage homosexuel ou l'avortement, ce qui semble lui avoir coûté une grande quantité de voix.

C'est du moins ce que suggère The Economist comme raison pour laquelle Mitt Romney n'as pas gagné. Car il s'agit bien de cela. De faire perdre Mitt Romney, et non, pour une partie de la population, de faire gagner Barack Obama.

Ce dernier a bénéficié du désaccord total de certaines personnes avec les idées du républicain ce qui a résulté en un vote en sa faveur, par élimination. L'un des seuls pays véritablement déçu par les élections pourrait être l'Israël en la personne du premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu, dont la réélection dépend aussi du nouveau président américain.

En effet Mitt Romney s'était prononcé en faveur de l'actuel premier ministre israélien. 30% des israéliens sont certains que M. Romney améliorera les relations diplomatiques entre les deux pays, alors que seulement 8% pensent ceci de M. Obama. Cependant, pour l'Europe et pour la Chine, il y avait tout intérêt à ce que M. Obama renouvelle son mandat, Romney s'étant exprimé opposé à des relations économiques et diplomatiques avec la Chine, qui selon lui ferait de l'ombre aux États-Unis.

En situation cruciale de crise économique, ce dernier ne pouvait se permettre de perdre un tel agent commercial, alors qu'il se situe au bord de la "falaise fiscale".

Il serait, d'un autre coté, incorrecte d'approprier à M. Obama tous ses votes comme des votes par élimination, par peur que M. Romney ne prennent la tête du pays.

Une grande majorité de ses électeurs croient avec ferveur à son projet de réduction du déficit (Bowles-Simpson Commission) qui consisterait en une hausse des taxes sur le revenu et une baisse des dépenses, et à son projet de diminution de chômage aussi (qui est actuellement d'environ 8%), ce qui expliquerait aussi sa réélection, puisqu’aucun président américain n'a été réélu avec un taux de chômage aussi élevé depuis Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Cependant les américains croient aussi en leur président, particulièrement depuis l'ouragan Sandy pendant lequel sa rapidité à prendre des mesures efficaces a contrasté avec l'échec de George Bush dans une situation similaire (ouragan Katrina en 2005), ce qui a provoqué un sentiment de confiance générale de la population en leur président.

C'est cette unité de la nation qui se fit voir lors de cette catastrophe naturelle qui poussa une partie d'entre elle à réélire son ancien président, pour un mandat de 4 ans, jusqu'en 2016.

Eléonore PISTOLESI

Battle to the White House

Abortion finds itself front and center in the battle for the white house.

This turn of events was unexpected both for the democrat candidate and current US president, Barack Obama and his major opponent, the republican candidate Mitt Romney.

It all began when Todd Akin, 65,refused to bow out of the Missouri Senate race in August. Why would the Grand Old Party (GOP) ask for Akin to leave the competition against the Democrat runner up after spending 5 millions dollars on his campaign in an attempt to assure their control of the US Senate this coming November?

One might assume it is because Akin managed to embarrass the tea party infused GOP with a rather extremely medieval view on abortion and on woman’s rights. It’s evident that the ex-factory manager never attended medical school or even sat in an eight grade biology class.

“If it’s a legitimate rape,” he said,” the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.”

 According to Akin woman who are true rape victims rarely get pregnant and are therefore not entitled to abortion, especially not covered by the government.

The Atlantic Magazine called his highly intelligent remarks the contemporary equivalent of the early American belief that only witches float.

During the eighteenth century if a pregnant rape victim sought justice she was often publicly humiliated, banned from society and accused of falsely blaming the men as well as inciting them to commit fornication and adultery.

However Romney does not agree with Akin’s ideas that date back to the colonial era, when women were seen as “the cunning sex” and men were warned against their bewitching seduction talents.

The former Massachusetts governor is prolife –opposed to abortion and believes that an unborn child has an inherent right to life- with exceptions for rape, incest and if the mother’s life is at risk.

Because of Akin’s idiotic faux pas Romney now finds himself in a very disadvantaged position. The debate is now centered on Woman’s rights, contraception laws and abortion.

Obama and his party have ceased the opportunity, even though this is not the most pressing issue facing a country with a persistent high unemployment.

The campaigns discussions went from Obama’s vulnerabilities concerning the economy, as joblessness has risen to 8.2% in June, to asserting that Romney and his fellow Republicans want to turn the clock back to a more repressive era.

The result is a distinct gender gap. A July Poll from the Pew Research Center showed Obama and Romney tied amongst male voters, but the president ahead among women by nearly 20 percentage points.

And the poles don’t seem to be affected by Akin’s mea culpa, he apologized following the sex scandal saying that legitimate rape did not exist and that it was a horrible act committed by violent predators.

It is yet to be seen who will come out victorious on November 6, taking the seat as the new US president.

A crucial position in global relations, and hopefully promises will be kept; they range from economy to the energy and environment.

The next president will have to reestablish middle class security, reduce unemployment rate, get the troops out of Afghanistan by 2014 after losing over 2000 men, and keep it’s promises to young immigrants with the “dream act” that will give them permanent residency and a key to a brighter future.

By Victoria Taittinger 

EDITORIAL by Pearl Lake

Tragedy struck the French nation as a gunman went on a rampage targeting people because of their religion or due to their enrollment in the French army. The terrorist used his religion as a justification. It is terrible to think that such a thing could happen in one of only two countries where the state is secular in the world today. The French have always prided themselves on this characteristic and we should be proud to be part of an institution that holds that value strongly. The Islamic extremist threat is alive in virtually every region of the world. This particular event may have been precipitated somewhat by the xenophobia of certain-high profile politicians. But while this may have aggravated the disillusionment of the Muslim community with French society the problem does not seem to be an ‘immigrant’ one. Mohammed Merah was from a French family of three generations. By that measure, he was 'more French' than many people holding the passport, including the current President, yet he found his identity first in religious extremism and not in his nation - which is fundamentally wrong.  Religion should always be a means for hope, never for cruelty and immoral crime. The implications of this abominable act are equally serious. The far-right now have concrete backing for what they have been preaching for many years, and the fact that the deceased Jewish children are being buried in Israel and one of the dead soldiers in Morocco, and not France, pushes this point further: Who really wants to be French? Who actually puts their nation before their religion? The socialist party still have ammunition from the mistakes of the current Premiership, but many of their high-profile intellectual supporters have been made to look naive for immediately assuming these killings were a Breivik style far-right rampage (though the similarity of the two threats is interesting). Mr. Sarkozy now finds himself in the middle: does he follow more right-wing sentiment following these attacks, risking the disillusionment of the center and thus potentially further worsening his odds against Hollande, or does he stand firm, in the middle, potentially losing his electorate farther right of the political spectrum. Now that we see Hollande coming out the first round as favourite and is almost guaranteed Méchelon's supporters votes, Sarkozy has got to try and attract Le Pen's 19% and hope that they don't vote for Hollande in a bid to ensure that the Front National becomes the major right-wing party ahead of UMP.

R.I.P.E.U

R.I.P.E.U

 

Europe gave birth to industry, liberty and science but then again it also created fascism, totalitarianism and eugenics. For good or bad, it has always been the focus of international events, mainly thanks to its invasion and subjection of almost every people on the planet. The great wars and the cold war saw the balance of power shift to only two ‘superpowers’, the US and the Soviet Union (who were both born out of European ideals: Liberalism and Marxism). However, post-Mao China witnessed the emergence of a wholly new beast; a cauldron of regurgitated ‘European’ ideas: Stalinist single party government intertwined with a ruthlessly capitalist economy. This was hugely more effective; the balance of power of the world economy is moving rapidly from the Atlantic to the Pacific. With huge and densely populated countries (Brazil, India, Vietnam, China) now overtaking the old powers in GDP rankings it is clear where the power now lies: in size. So when European leaders squabble over a bail-out fund, it is more than a temporary economic solution that they should be fighting for; if the European Union were to collapse over the current meltdown, then no single European country would be imposing on a global scale. Together, however, the European Union has a population of over 600 Million people, and the worlds single largest economy. When David Cameron walks out of treaty signing, not even taking one of the other non-Eurozone members (Poland, Sweden), he made a fatal error: Yes, the United Kingdom could become an off-shore Switzerland, but on the world stage what say would it have?

There are also, of course, arguments against uniting the nations of Europe in a single state. The unelected rulers of Brussels have appointed the governments of both Italy and Greece and will subject their economies to alien German standards. This is all happening due to an obvious flaw in the great European project; you cannot have a set of common policies, common borders and common currency without an executive common government and bank. Therefore why should this failing machine be given license to operate on more devastating terms? No one is suggesting a creation of the Fourth Reich, but the revival of the National Socialist party with its warming “We Keep Our Word” slogan is not helping much. Euro-skeptics, like Nigel Farrage have a reason to be worried about a numbing of cultural identity but such people should be warned that it seems that it is either a cultural compromise or the death of a Europe prominent in world politics. Cultural compromise is in fact the absolute opposite of what we have been seeing; France and England arguing and blaming each other for their respective problems, Germans proving to be especially efficient and England allowing continental agreements to take place whilst overseeing them from afar. 

Nevertheless, I still feel that the countries within the eurozone should do everything they can to assure unity. How could this possibly come about? I believe that the solution would be in enforcing common economic policy across all eurozone members, but only following a referendum in each state. In that way you would avoid the arbitrary imposition of puppet governments, such as the ones seen in Greece and in Italy. The citizens of the European Union all live in democracies therefore it is they who should be deciding who will govern them. They should have the choice between being a “region” within the european superstructure or quitting the eurozone but maintaining political union with the superstate. You would have a two-tier europe consisting of a single mega-nation and a community of affiliated states; more like NATO than MERCOSUR.

Jack Apollo George

Political Rant 1.0

 Political Rant 1.0 

It's been a pretty tumultuous few months for our leader.  If it weren't for the well-timed revelation of the Milly Dowler hacking scandal, Murdoch's BSkyB bid would have gone through, and his company would own a third of our media.  This would have led to a undemocratic and unfair bias in the opinions reported to us.  Luckily though it all fell apart, as one dark revelation followed another: families of terror victims being hacked for a cheap story, police being paid six-figure sums for unappetizing tabloid scandals.  Now the 168 year old News Of the World has been shut down, many of Murdochs minions have resigned or been arrested, and others have been entertainingly interrogated on live TV by MPs.  The worst, however, were the close ties that Murdoch's empire enjoyed with our political hierarchy; Andy Coulson (hired by Cameron under dubious circumstances and who is now under arrest) was receiving payment form Murdoch’s News Int. whilst working for number ten!  If that doesn't sound corrupt, then how about the fact that Murdoch's eldest children have 48-hour parties with a host of high-profile individuals (amongst others, Cameron and wife, David Miliband, Peter Mandelson, BBC reporter Robert Peston, Jeremy Clarkson, PR god Matthew Freud, the education minister and Kate Moss).  If ever there was a time when one can feel a bit of democratic deficit it is surely now with members of all parties and the media, getting on frightfully well at extravagant raves.  One could be forgiven for thinking that Cameron and Co. are a bit out of touch with what their citizens feel, and that sentiment was justified in the aftermath of the English riots.  Boris Johnson hopelessly waving a broom around whilst being unable to answer to valid heckling from real Londoners, Cameron seizing upon the chaos as an opportunity to build his "Big Society". As for stopping the benefits of those caught looting, if one has no money, and no income then one steals so you would just create a vicious circle of poverty.  The way out is to enable people more means of escaping from this seeming underclass; cutting community centers and their livelihoods is therefore probably not the best answer in the age of an employment crisis.