We are at war again...

International relations fascinate me. If I had to do something else than sociology, I'd go for international relations. Few months ago, an Italian guy came to Griffith to do a talk about the danger of Iran getting the nuclear bomb. All Griffith students had received an email about that. On the day, in the audience, 3 people... A chick who studied international relations, a Sri Lankian who only arrived and who went to everything he could, and me. It took me 2 minutes to realize that my knowledge in the discipline was bigger than the chick's one... (but that's not the topic of the day, I will probably write an article one day about how apathetic I find Australia).

This picture of Gaddafi (in Europe it's written Kadhafi) and Sarkozy was taken in December 2007, when the French president welcame the Libyan leader for an official visit. All the honors were deployed to receive Gaddafi, as he agreed to set Bulgarian nurses few months earlier (see details > here). Yesterday on the 19th March, Sarkozy who took the lead of a coalition organized a meeting in Paris with British PM Cameron, Hillary Clinton and some others partners (Canadian, Italian...). It has finally been decided that the rebels in Libya would be backed up (these rebels have been calling for help for weeks), now that Gaddafi has counter-attacked and almost reached the North East city of Benghazi.

Between these two moments, revolutions have taken place in North Africa which have given an example to follow for many people undergoing dictatorships. France have backed up murderers in Tunisia (I wrote about it here), and Sarkozy thought that it'd be a good idea to go in war in Libya to make people forget about this, and about the absolutely amazing amount of internal affairs that is transforming the French regime and government into a big joke.

Now we end up with a situation where western countries (minus Germany, but quid about Spain?!) is engaged in a war in Libya against a crazy dictator who would do everything to keep his ass on his seat, and who, if he gets down, will definitely bring everybody he can: he has already threatened to hit military and civilian places in Southern Europe, and is looking for friends in the region in order to globalize the conflict (too bad for him, his two main neighbors got rid of their own dictators). On the other hand, the coalition doesn't look undoubtful: Qatar, who know unrest in their country that they are handling with a huge repression. But by participating, they are assured that 'the leaders of the free world', the 'inventors of Human Rights' won't get involved in their own shit. I'm exhausted of western countries' hypocrisy: they always back up dictators first, because they can make deals with, and when media show how fucked a situation is, they suddenly realize that the same dictators are actually mean and they claim they want to protect freedom etc... Gaddafi on the other hand plays the card of interference (droit d'ingérence en francais)...

I personally don't know whether I am for or against this war. I think wars are always the worst solutions, but in a crazy, extreme world we live in, it can unfortunately become a necessary solution. I certainly dislike when western countries get involved in internal affairs of any other countries for economical reasons or to order them to do anything, but can we let a crazy idiot kill his people to sit his power?

Today was Friday

Today, Brady made me a song that blew my mind: 'Friday' by Rebecca Black. I then realized that it's been a huge buzz for at least a week explaining the numerous pictures of this teenage girl I've come across (notably on Facebook, and sometimes with Charlie Sheen (you can easily found that on Google)). I was so surprised by what I was hearing and seeing that I had to live tweet the song the second time I listened to it (the only reaction I had during the first listening was rather close to this... Oo). Here are some interrogations I have raised (but 16 million people have seen it, so I guess I must share these with many of them):
- how can epileptic people watch this video clip?
- why is Rebecca Black insisting so much on the 'BUS STOP' where she needs to get down?
- why is she hesitating between 'kickin' the front seat' and 'sittin' on the back seat'? Does she think that her decision will have repercussions on the whole world? (we can surely blame her for the earthquake in Japan and its aftermath!... because she chose the back seat!)
- what is the secret meaning of 'I get this... you get this... my friend is by my right'?
- where does this Usher twin come from? Isn't it Usher himself after few days spent at McDonald's? Why is he driving the motorway and what is his purpose?
- Aren't 13 year old kids supposed to drive cars and go partying on Friday night?
All the secret deep meanings of the song probably reveal what is the secret of life... some interpretations have started, see here.

But before we get to all the clues, let's get a bit more serious...

This song represents the shittiest of what the mainstream 'pop-RNB' music industry can release. You know all these people whose aim has never been the music but the sells! Furthermore, the 13 yo Rebecca Black has today (on Friday) complained about the reactions people have had on her videos.... Well kid, don't release shit and people won't mock you!


PS: tagging this as 'music' makes me sad!

Be careful: philosophers are everywhere

The emergence of Internet 2.0 has potentially given a voice to all Internet users. All news websites, sport websites etc. now include comment sections. The bunch of analysts who look at Internet 2.0’s practices are basically and simplistically divided as follow: a part of them develop a positive thinking and insist on the participative aspect and the worldwide connection of users. The other one is more pessimistic and rather focuses on the pointless aspect of most exchanges, the digital divide or narratives, the waste of time etc… The positive ones would argue that online exchanges represent an increasing part of internet users’ daily life and therefore it matters, while the negative ones would say that it gives the impression of replacing the ‘real’ daily life without actually doing it (I over simplify).

I tend to be in the middle between the two approaches: I am fully interested by what I call the ‘interest-based connection’ (me 2011, 2012) and how it helps fostering the life of a scene etc… but I am often struck by inaccurate statements and general idiocies that are screwing the internet as a space of exchange. Giving a voice to everybody is one thing; giving some importance to all voices is another one. It is easier to recognize a moron when you hear one claiming that Jesus is going to come back, that we’ll be living the apocalypse soon and that only hardcore Christians are going to be saved… And it is so because social interactions in ‘real life’ are regulated by a bunch of things: what you hear, what you see, how you feel, and generally all the clues that the other person gives you to evaluate him/her. Online, things are different.

The existence through avatars and the type-worded interactions highly limit the detection of morons, and the use of a good rhetoric can easily place you as an opinion leader. Moreover, on a news website where commentators/participants are numerous, everyone is placed on the same spot and has to same legitimacy to split what they want to (forums are organized differently). On the other hand of the spectrum, readers of comments are the audience researched. Everybody is not naïve to believe everything they read online, but sentiments like scariness, insecurity and periods like economical and social crises can foster the spread of lies, non-sense and conspiracies. It is always easier to believe in a fake answer than spending more time seeking a true one!

Let’s take for instance the case of the magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan, which has caused a 10 meters high tsunami, which has caused a nuclear catastrophe. I have spent a lot of time watching the news on TV (BBC, CNN) and on the Internet (al Jazeera) and read plenty of articles and the reactions left by internet users on some French news websites I regularly follow. I have perceived a form of hysteria… not because of the situation in Japan, but because suddenly, many people realized that there are 150 nuclear plants in the whole Europe (France is the 2nd nuclear country in the world – after USA and before Japan – and depends on nuclear power to provide 80% of its electricity needs) and that there all are potentially dangerous (Germany has stopped all their nuclear plants). Questioning the nuclear power is one thing, panicking because you live 30km away from a nuclear plant and because you haven’t collecting a thousand of iodine pills (Japan must be something like 10,000 to 12,000km away from Europe) is an egocentric, European-centered extremity. Needless to point the idiots who have counted that 11/09/01 + 10/03/11 = 21/12/12, which is the day of the end of the world according to the Maya calendar (you know, these people who disappeared centuries ago…) (you have noticed too that they use the wrong date for the earthquake). Plus the countless victims of the 2004 tsunami in south East Asia must feel left out! Why shouldn’t they count to scientifically prove the end of the world? Why about the bombings of London or Madrid?

My point basically needs to be divided in two parts (including a first one I haven’t developed): nature is scary, random and neither good nor bad, only ‘natural’, we cannot prevent earthquakes or tsunamis, but can only be as prepared as it is possible to be, and build technologies that don’t risk to do more damage than what the nature does (nature is the only one allowed to do damages here!). What scares me even more than natural catastrophes is the way human beings – both as individuals and societies – react to those: scare, panic and hysteria lead to nothing but bad decisions and to an even worse result (just think of a crowd movement – isn’t it the most frightening thing ever?), and in that regard, internet (again, neither good nor bad) encourages the spread of rumors and give them both a legitimacy and an unexpected tribune which is – I think – dangerous in that situation.


PS: did I tell you I don’t necessarily believe in democracies?
PS2: I could have also taken the examples of sports websites and show how stupid comments/commentators are.
PS3: or I could also make an article saying how interesting Internet’s affordances can be when used in productive ways.
PS4: no I don’t have any solutions, only problems.

Radiohead already got it right

I don't know whether the new Radiohead album (The King of Limbs, coming out on Saturday the 19th) is good or not, I only surely hope it's gonna be crazy and dark. I hope they're not falling into pop-radio-mainstream-crap good for idiot teenargers who lack knowledge and culture, but I trust them for that.

However what I'm sure of is that they got something right to start with: the diffusion mode. They understood that people always necessarily get the digital files first, and their album will be first available on downloading (for 7€ in Europe... I don't remember the prize here in Australia), which is far cheaper that the type of prizes iTunes automatically practices. Then it'll be available on compact disc format in a few months in all music retails... and a bit later on, the fanatics will receive their vinyl discs box-set from the band (and a lucky one will apparently get a signed one).

Through this strategy, they show that yes, the musical objects matter, that yes, for the fans it's important to have either the vinyls or compact discs sitting at home with the artwork, the better sound quality and doing all the postures required to play them (don't you like grabbing a CD from its case to delicately place it on the player?!)... because digitalization is not a revolution (read my PhD thesis in a year and a half and you'll get it), it doesn't suffice to release stuff online on MP3s. And for those who regret the fact that they're no longer able to pay what they want, it is not such a rip off, it seems to me quite fair for MP3s, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind if you get it for free from someone!

dälek - A Beast Caged

Rusted irons trap mental, thought's essential
Mask meticulous movement towards central
Sip from holy grail to breath eternal, but time's concurrent
Displace visual with iller words, I'm slurring
Inferred meaning missed target, Minute margins
Make the most hardened crumble when they're forced silent
Our only virtue left is pure violence
Remain defiant
Incarcerated souls sold to build empires
I grow tired of tyrants passed as presidents
Evidence to theft swept under oval carpet
As inmates and children kept starving
True criminals walk free with presidential pardons.


Somber note takes hold of optimistic
Mind that tongue they surveillance visits
Nostalgic visions bring us back to days of backspins
When trivial infractions got your jaw fractured
Shattered lineage from land of US sanctions
Indebted servants to democracy
Feed their families with mere pennies
There's that truth you seek...
Knew you wasn't ready
Implications too heavy
The stickup kids I fear wear three-piece suits
Subdued murders lose their meaning when you stand accused
Most my people was born with their necks in noose
So now I wander own streets verses packed in twos


Some succumb to pressure
Resort to drastic measures
Modern slavery sanctifies corporate greed
Economies solely based on prison industries
Becomes reality
Dilutes humanity
Our common enemy has long since won
Paint melanined as monsters for years to come
Brushstrokes evoke sage in this heathen MC
A beast caged in the heart of the city


This beast caged in the heart of the city
Circumvents common speech
Gutter tongue kept filthy
Histories passed in handshakes
Wisdom achieved
Victory's always fleeting for these pseudo MC's
Trapped by narrow minds
Eyes blinded
Political prisoners terrorized in confinement
Confirms what we learned of US police state
Asphyxiate the people they claim to liberate
While you debate Democrat Republican...
They ran the game on poor again
Latins and Africans
Chained at wrists and ankles
Create profits for world bankers
This heart filled with rancor
Resurrected by this modern Rome
Where hate's condoned
Inherent anger strangles what night has shone
Found shelter when conscienceness faltered
We've all been offered as Abraham's son on ruined alter.


I shall talk about this band soon...

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I've been watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for over 30 minutes and here are few things that came accross my mind within this time:
- why Cate Blanchett thought she could screw her career with a bad character and an even worse accent?!
- If there's an H bomb about to blast one day, don't forget to hide in your fridge!
- Did Lucas and Spielberg think it had been too long since they had spread out some stupid stereotypes about the 'reds', 'comrades', 'soviets' and 'KGB'? damn it, we are in the 21st century!
- Harrison Ford is definitely too old for this shit!
- A picture of his father - Sean Connery - sitting upon his desk was one of the best moment of the movie! Indeed Connery is the best actor of the movie...
- a piece of dialogue I've noted: '_ Mud? what kind of name is that? _ just the one I picked, you got a problem with that? _ take it easy kid'.
- Eldorado? really? nothing else could have been explored? Even Voltaire was already bored of this place in 1759
- these Russians are just too good: everytime Indiana walks out a place, they're waiting for him!
- another good replica: ''hopefully they'll let me out of this chair, and when they do, I'm gonna break your noise'

I should have stopped having any consideration for this movie after seeing the South Park episode in which Kyle, Stan and friends cannot get over this movie and the rape of Indiana Jones...

After Tunisia, Egypt

Egypt is now following the model set by Tunisia and is in big turmoil.

I watched the special show Anderson Cooper hosted on CNN on Saturday (the 29th of January). The general trend is to support the will of the people, so follow the protesters and ask for an end of the dictatorship. They easily forgot that they (I totally group journalists and governments together here) have supported Mubarak for 30 years.

Moreover I thought the general tone was a bit too confident if not pretentious: again Cooper and few of his guests felt obliged to feel like they're having the perfect model of regime in US, and that at the end, what Egyptians want is the duplicate of the US. As if it were impossible to look at events without cultural judgments.

Then let's imagine that a democracy type of regime is installed in Egypt, and what if the people elect Muslim extremists, what would be the reaction of western countries? To still support the will of people?!

My point is that it is a bit too easy to support a regime in a country and then to condemn it because the people of this country are protesting against it. The versatility of both journalists and governments never cease to surprise me, especially when their only value consists of protecting their interests.

French Tragedy Ep. 2: Support the Murderers

Episode 2 of French Tragedy brings me to talk about Africa again. But this time by focusing on its extreme north and on 2 countries: Tunisia and Algeria.

As you know - because you are informed -, there have been riots for days, if not weeks, in both countries. Protesters, especially young people, want the end of dictatorships. Both Tunisia and Algeria are ruled by aged '''presidents''', respectively Ben Ali and Bouteflika, whose reigns are both described as mafia-esque with their own anti-freedom laws. Speculations are aired about the starting of these protests/riots, some even pointing Wikileaks as a potential precursor (see here).

Despite what's going on in both countries, it is also interesting to see how other countries react to the riots. France has really close ties with Tunisia and Algeria which were both French colonies few decades ago and whose independence didn't necessarily happen well (see the Wikipedia article about the war in Algeria here). As I've argued only a few days ago (here), France still likes to interfere in ex-colonies' political and economical matters as much as possible.

The French foreign minister, Michele Alliot Marie, indeed recently offered France's help to maintain security in both countries in a public announcement at the assembly, see the video in French:


ALLIOT-MARIE propose d'aider la Tunisie dans la répression
Uploaded by SuperBeurkMan. - News videos hot off the press.

What I haven't mentioned yet is that Algerian and Tunisian governments have reacted to protests and riots by deliberately shooting in the crowds, killing dozens of people (see here). And the only reaction that the French government has is not only to interfere in the matters of sovereign countries, but also to support governments that are opening fire on their citizens...

Country of the Human Rights they say...

When Global Warming Brings More Snow in Europe

The snowfall episode which happened the last few weeks in Europe brought its wagon of crappy reactions, the typical kind of reactions stating that an example proves a scientific theory wrong. 'Oh my god, regarding all the snow, there cannot be a global warming, because if temperatures are getting higher, how could there be more snow during winter in Europe?'

Well, if you'd see a bit further than the facts, you'd know that the usual cool temperatures during winter in Europe are caused by a big current in the Atlantic Ocean coming from America and called the 'Gulf Stream'. Indeed, Montreal, where snow is abundant every winter during months, is located on the same latitude than Lyon, where there is rarely snow in winter.

However, Global Warming would cause the progressive disappearance of the Gulf Stream, making winter colder and bringing more snow.

Two conclusions come to my mind: first, it would be a good idea for European countries to get prepared of having loads of snow in winter, and therefore to stop looking ridiculous and force people to sleep in airports. Second, I tend to believe in a Global Warming caused or reinforced by human activities, however I wouldn't automatically conclude that a particular climatic episode confirms or contradicts the theory...



PS: that should mean more snowy Christmas in Europe in the future... and Christmas is actually Christmas if there is snow involved!

French Tragedy ep.1: Africa, the Mother Land

The 'French Tragedy' serie will be a recurrent one on this blog... as long as this pathetic country gives me food for that.




On the 2nd of January, I woke up late and both watched BBC World and read some news online. The 'pick of the year' document on BBC touched on the 9/11 and the collapse of the famous tower 7, officially remained unattacked... The online news taught me another older part of the history that is mostly unknown by French people: the war in Cameroon between 1955 and 1962. Everyone rather keeps in the mind the other meanwhile conflict with Algeria, even if I didn't learn much at all about this one in school. All we got told was that the process of decolonization happened more or less in peace after WWII... and few examples were given for the different cases.

The role of France as well was not deeply discussed. Only a few years after I left high school, a law was voted in the parliament by the conservative government about the 'positive aspects of colonization': basically, history books and classes have to argue that colonization was not only about stealing the resources of a whole country (or even half a continent) and treat the populations as being inferior, needing education because they were only savages. Instead, colonization brought infrastructures: roads, schools etc... And in a broader sense, capitalism and globalism.

In the comments of the article about the war in Cameroon, where civilians were slaughtered and tortured (but that was really fashion back in the days... apparently I'm told that it still is!?), I found some comments utilizing the exact same arguments than what the law states, but with the underpinning theory behind it: French people and the French state should not feel sorry and apologize for what happened in the past (aren't you having the similar type of debates about the 'lost generation' in Australia?), and rather be thanked for their contribution of the development of African countries.

And this is where I start feeling sick. Colonization has ONLY been about domination of a powerful country over others in order to state and increase this domination. The infrastructures built only aimed to route natural and primary resources from the lost territories where they seated to their new mother land: France. Still today colonization exists by taking different forms. Yes we conceded their independence but at the specific cost that we can still control what happens in the country: get your freedom, but we will help you with anything only if you still give us what we want. So all dictators around the African continent got some forms of support from France as from other countries, whereas the same kinds of shitheads in other parts of the world have been and are picked on. Vast hypocrisy!

The Ivory Coast's current crisis shows that roles are changing in Africa: while France still aims to empower the political and economical decisions made, China walks in with a different strategy. They don't pretend to care about human rights or democracies like Europe and North America do, they are honest enough to say that it is just about business, and in that game, African countries have more to win with China than with the old aggressive dominant entities. At the end, the results are pathetic for France: the French citizens are not really welcome in those countries, and every comment made about what African countries should do is perceived as a threat.

You can still argue that your shameful actions have had positive effects France, but you've lost this game.