Friday, December 31, 2010
Why Is Honey Bunches Of Oats Bad To Eat
By Chloe Leprince and Pascal Riche late Wednesday afternoon when his work had exceeded 450,000 copies. Following the interview Rue89 which published the first part of Thursday, December 30.
Rue89: In your little book, you call for a reduction in inequality, a better environment, human rights are better respected, but you do not attack frontally the heart of the system, the market economy. Stéphane Hessel
And next to this "social market economy, we need a social economy based on cooperation, sharing, and which, if I may say, the economy of profit. You
credit program of the National Council of Resistance (NCR) as base values to defend. Is not this a little inappropriate to bring this dark period in the current period?
On the program of the National Council of Resistance, I'm just saying it's wonderful that a dozen good men and good women, who meet at a time when they have no power of any kind which are underground, who observe the country and wonder "what will we do once we have won this war? "Have noted in a program that values still appear as legitimate and fundamental! It is a moment in the history of France is quite extraordinary. In what they said, there is not much to set aside, and there is much to take.
We are not in the same situation. But if we have opponents who are not as clear as were Petain or Laval, or Hitler, these opponents exist: one must know them, decrypt them and they must be resisted with the same energy, even if these opponents n longer have the same violence.
you think that?
A Sarkozy, the current government in Europe today. Because I think that this is not only to resist what is wrong in France but also in Europe and worldwide.
Why go back that far? Since the CNR program, has there been no other political acts as strong?
Since 1948, we've worked hard and progressed. At the end of the war, we defined the fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights which all people can aspire: it was the Universal Declaration. It was completed in 1966 by two covenants: the covenant of social economic and cultural rights and the covenant of civil and political rights, there was the European Convention on Human Rights, the construction of Europe, decolonization ... All this marked a tremendous change in the functioning of the planet.
There is now more of apartheid, most of Soviet totalitarianism, most of Maoism in China - even if what wonder what its successor ... It moves, but much remains to , the program is not yet completed. We are in a roll, but during the last decade the movement has faltered. This is one reason that pushes the indignation: there were positive forces at work, why these forces do not they continue to play?
What is the first factor "negative" of the past ten years?
In my opinion, the word "terrorism". The Terrorism has always existed: it décanillait the tsars. But this was not comparable to what we are experiencing now, with small groups that engage in violence, committing destruction, and bring into people's minds the idea that they are threatened.
We did not find a way to cope intelligently. Tap the Taliban with war bombs hit Iraq on the pretext that there are weapons of mass destruction - which are not even - it is not good policy.
An intelligent policy would be, as has attempted to do by Obama's speech in Cairo in June 2009, to find that when the different cultures that exist in the world collide, it only results in disaster, so that say "Look, Islam is exciting, there are good things Christianity is interesting, also secular atheism, Buddhism ... "Let's work together to civilizations and cultures ... It would be for the coming decade a formidable task.
This cultural harmony is still a utopia. It seems very important to overcome the resistance to utopia: there is no reason that the vision we have of the future of the human species, our future is not exciting.
But what we lack, and I regret very much, they are Pierre Mendes-France of de Gaulle's ... figures that arouse enthusiasm.
Has ceased to be indignant because they lacked the commitment thinkers, great figures?
It would be unfair to say that lack of major figures - major figures, they are discovered elsewhere when they are dead. Thinkers, there are: Edgar Morin, Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Mary Robinson ...
But at "statemanship [as a statesman, ed], we have neither Roosevelt nor Gaulle, or Mendes ... Where are those who, when they stand up, raise a movement of real trust? It could have been the case with Barack Obama, who gave a terrific way to his first book, "The Audacity of Hope" ("The Audacity of Hope"). This reminds me of two verses of Guillaume Apollinaire, in "Le Pont Mirabeau"
"As life is slow. And as hope is violent. "
So I think what we need, they are women and men who would exciting vision of what may be the twenty-first century. I think of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, or even to Lula. Today, these people can not be derived Quartier Latin or London, they may very well appear in India, China, Brazil.
Remember that it is fear of the owners, terrified by the rise of Bolshevism, which led to the rise of Nazism. Would you say that today there is a danger of the same type, linked to the behavior of the wealthy?
I think there is now a serious complicity between the haves and the haves can finance. The proprietors of finance have taken fright, suddenly, two years ago, with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, which announced the crisis.
Their boyfriends, the haves of power, told them:
"Do not worry, you will be refloated to allow you to resume as before. "This complicity
then perhaps what I am saying the most. If we had socialist governments or sufficiently anchored to the left, they could say to the bankers and financiers:
"You have demonstrated your incompetence, we'll nationalize and deal with the public interest as a compass, and not, like you, the interest of profit. "
For now, these governments do not exist, but that may change: I am very interested in what the Mercosur countries and more generally in Latin America, where people like Chavez, Morales, Lula and Rousseff now, can play a role. This complicity between financial and political drama will continue maybe not.
Meanwhile, the state is a prisoner of financial and economic forces. Which state is defending itself? None. Instead, they support the economic power. The few measures that were taken during the banking crisis are just a tiny keys, so you should have told them: "You went to the disaster, you takes all. "Nobody has said.
Nicolas Sarkozy is it that a "president who is wasting time "as claimed by the journalist Thomas Legrand, or translated Sarkozyism there a deeper phenomenon in French political history?
Sarkozy demonstrates first, by the way it operates, overly personal, our Fifth Republic was founded on a constitution dangerous because it gives all power to an elected president. What is not very democratic.
Sarkozy is a man who lacks culture, and was still elected. It is this trade necessarily evil, but because of how our Constitution, it would not necessarily more successful with another person, or Fillon Lagarde, for instance.
I do not like Sarkozy, I did not vote for him and I will never vote for him, but the French system is more critical than men.
Following your statements on Israel and Palestine, you were rudely attacked by people such as Pierre-André Taguieff. How did you feel about these very personal attacks?
With profound indifference. No outrage. My classmates, because I have many more friends than I thought, what are outraged, them.
Mr. Taguieff does not scare me. It's so absurd to say, like him, I'm on the side of the "guards slave drivers" when you know that I was in deportation. But many people took this very seriously and six thousand people have signed an appeal.
With this call, I went to see the new Justice Minister, Michel Mercier. I told him that his predecessor had made a mistake in saying that we could condemn people who simply wanted to boycott Israeli investments. Oppose a foreign government does not merit naturally that one is immersed in unnecessary legal proceedings.
I think he understood and that person shall be prosecuted, even if, personally, I would rather be pursued pleasure it would give me the opportunity to remember why Israel is acting against international law, violates the Geneva Conventions, killing innocent people. It is high time we do not continue to benefit from this government a scandalous impunity. The guilt is
Europe vis-à-vis the Jewish people she weighs still prevents this debate and she's outrage at Israeli policies?
The bad conscience of the Holocaust is certainly. The bad conscience is obviously very strong in Germany and quite strong in France where we have been "culpably "Obedient to the orders from Berlin. But the others? Scandinavians, Britons guilty conscience ... what do we talk?
There is a second reason for the lack of outrage: everything revolves around Islam and terrorism. Is allowed to say that, faced with these people supposedly dangerous, it is fortunate that Israel exists for the West. Help Israel to live but in the framework of international law, by which it was created!
What are your views on French policy vis-à-vis Israel?
I think our government is very loose. When he was at the Quai d'Orsay, Kouchner said, Of course, like everyone else, there should be a Palestinian state. But what did you do, exactly?
, France does not even question its trade agreement with Israel. This would at least be a way of saying we disagreed on how Israel behaves.
When we send fleets to supply Gaza and that these fleets are attacked by the Israeli fleet, it said nothing. When Goldstone notes that committed war crimes in Gaza, says nothing. There is at least guilty of a lack of reaction.
You advocate non-violence but in a conflict like this, Palestinians can they win by being Non-violent?
When they are violent, and they were from time to time, this does not bring them much. When they are non-violent people around the world come to help. Non-violence can pay. This Accruing perhaps Mahmoud Abbas is in all cases more than what obtained so far Hamas. The violence of the weak against the strong is not an effective policy. The nonviolence of the weak against the strong is more.
For nearly an hour as we speak and you have not uttered a single time on the term "civil disobedience". Now for désobéisseurs, you became a model ... I
the difference between legitimacy and legality. I testified in favor of José Bové in the trial of GMO activists by saying that what he did was illegal but legitimate because it was fully protect us against GMOs. I think désobéisseurs civilians have often reason for a fundamental legitimacy to their actions.
But I also say to be careful: civic disobedience is not necessarily to support. We live in a democracy and the laws of democracy should normally be applied. When these laws become unlawful unless it can withstand.
Photo Stéphane Hessel (Audrey Cerdan/Rue89).
Thursday, December 30, 2010
How To Program A Sequoia 2001 Remote
By Chloe and Pascal Leprince Rich worms
Rilke, one of his favorite pastimes. According to his publisher, "Unworthy you! "A cry against indifference, went to over 500 000 copies. Maintenance.
Rue89: How do you explain the success of "indignation you! ? Stéphane Hessel:
And then, in 2001, after the towers fall, we experienced the rejection of these initiatives. It was the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. United States, it is the Decade of George Bush. In France, it was the election of Sarkozy on which we had to resolve a number of problems he has not finally settled ...
"Unworthy you" would never have been so successful if it was a big book, I think, for example the book by Susan George ["Their attacks, our solutions," ed] that you see on the table: this excellent book which says much better what I'm trying to say ... but is 350 pages.
Sartre, you mention in your little book, said: "It is always right to revolt." Is there a difference between the revolt that he dearly wanted, and outrage you advocate?
Dignity is an interesting term. It appears in Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Hessel which was one of the editors, note]: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. "
dignity, rather than rebellion, is something that marks the human individual. The citizen is proud of his manhood, and when she seems to appeal, it is normal that he was indignant.
Do you think we need today is to revolt "individual" rather than as collective? were most in need of radical change and reform. In France, for example, we need a republic other than the Fifth, more democratic. These major changes can be obtained by an action to which all citizens can participate aware, ready to indignant and resist what is likely to lead to "I can not help it," it's like that, "there is nothing to do" ...
Is this going to then lead a revolt ? Maybe, but I guess something rather non-violent. What I ask people is to get out of their indifference and their discouragement, to mobilize their energies to say it has to be done, provided we resist as withstood time the German Occupation . I mention elsewhere in the little book program of the National Council of Resistance who said these are strong values on which to rely for things to go in the right direction.
Specifically, when discussing the mobilization of energy, what kind of commitments do you advise?
There are lots of things to do, and they are within reach of everyone. We must fight against such an economy completely dominated by profit and can do so by engaging in such social economy. This can be done by citizen organizations, there are a number, and exit from the shackles of neoliberal economics and financialized
... You talk about organizations you cite even in the book Attac, Amnesty International, FIDH, but you do not call to campaign in political parties ...
Subscribe in a party vote for a party, that's fine. But my little book encourages its readers to go beyond, to become active citizens, to invest their energy in the environment, fight against injustice, immigrant advocacy ... All things that the parties should certainly look , but are they enough? If they do not, they need to grow there!
I do not underestimate the role of political parties. A democratic state can not function without them. I even affection personal two of them:
the Socialist Party
one hand (and I stand with all my heart Martine Aubry, who did a remarkable job);
Europe Ecology
other First, a list which I left register, the last regional elections.
I wish only to legislation that will follow the presidential election of 2012, several leftist parties are working together: Communists, greens, socialists, and even Republican candidates in the center. But beware: do not they have four different candidates the presidential election. I see only two possible candidates in the current state: Martine Aubry, Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
But Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, which is among the institutions that you denounce ...
DSK took the IMF at a time when he had to withdraw, but it is being transformed quite useful. We do not yet know all that well DSK did. For example, the IMF does more structural adjustments, that's progress.
Personally, I prefer Martine Aubry: I consider it more vigorously left, but I know, to know that Strauss-Kahn is also a man left. If he becomes president, he will reform the French economy by the same lines as those he has supported time Jospin or Rocard.
There was one left in France who did things, I think the RMI, the universal health coverage ... And it can do more tomorrow.
With this little work, you become an icon for a left far more radical than those who support or DSK Martine Aubry. How do you live?
I've never been sensitive to the extreme left. When I defended the undocumented, people told me: "You have to legalize them all! "I told them I "No, you need a smart policy. If we decide to legalize everyone, it leads to disaster. "The speech
extreme left, even in the mouth of a man like Mélenchon, which has sides very friendly, does not seem to me the answer. The answer is social democracy.
It looks to be an old word, but it is very modern. It's not giving himself to an ideology that will advance society: we will do a balanced and democratic reform. Ideologies have done much evil, communist ideology as the ideology neoliberal. We must listen to people, knowing what the unworthy, to understand what we can work with them, not tell them, as do the ideologues: that's what you do.
- After the interview, we asked to give Stephane Hessel its board of indignation youth.
- (See video)
-
Stephane Hessel
sent
rue89. -
Watch the latest videos of news.
► Part of the interview coming