2017: Fasten Your Seat Belt

 
This is my last blog of 2016, the 14^th of the year. My blogs are written to entertain my friends and stimulate my intellect. Conveniently, inspiration comes a little more than once a month. I like to share attention-grabbing tidbits, and endeavor to give a new spin to better known facts and information. My blog’s topics are eclectic at best, but Brazil, my primary residence is a bottomless source of inspiration. Blogging is an unpretentious therapeutic exercise started six years ago out of boredom and curiosity. Sadly, my blog mentor has passed away, but I like to think that I continue blogging as a tribute to his memory. Blogging is first and foremost a vehicle to stay in touch with my friends.
My blogs are dispatched to some 30 friends and acquaintances. I have no way of knowing if they are read and . I obviously appreciate receiving comments. Most are posted anonymously, and keep me guessing. At the same time, I understand that the innocuousness of some of the blogs doesn’t deserve any reaction from my busy friends.
In Brazil, 2016 is ending the way it started, enmeshed in the jumbo Lava Jato (car wash) corruption scandal. Car Wash is the most stimulating and probably the longest Brazilian telenovela (soap opera). But contrary to soap operas, Car Wash gets better as it progresses. Since I wrote the Tropical Marie Antoinette blog in November, two Marie Antoinette reincarnations are now in jail: Sergio Cabral, the former governor of Rio de Janeiro and his jewel-obsessed wife. For good measure, another ex-governor of Rio de Janeiro was also dispatched to jail: he stands accused of vote buying.
Brazilian male prostitutes are world famous. The highest concentration of them is found in Brasilia, Brazil’s capital where congressmen and senators have been falling over themselves to trade their favors to the highest bidder, mainly construction companies. Odebretch, Latin America largest construction conglomerate not only bribed politicians to win contracts but it paid lawmakers from all sides of the aisle to pass legislations favoring the company’s interests. The kick-back money (US$ 599 million according to the investigation) was mainly used to illicitly finance their election campaigns and occasionally line their pockets. Michel Temer, Brazil unpopular substitute president (after Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment), is also on Odebretch’s beneficiary list.
All the juicy tidbits came out in the wash, namely through the hundreds of testimonies for plea bargains tycoons and executives have signed. Bribing was so institutionalized that Odebretch set up a special division to handle it. It is estimated that during the last decade, the company paid US$ 30 million in bribes to Petrobras executives, the state-owned oil company at the center of the Lava Jato probe. Lawmakers received even more. For expediency sake, Odebretch purchased a bank in a fiscal heaven solely dedicated to its money laundering activities. Brazilian conglomerates exported their bribery expertise to Latin America and Africa. This business extension was allegedly orchestrated by former president Lula da Silva.
Schell shocked by the result of the American presidential election, I wrote a short blog titled The Fox In The Chicken Coop. As I suggested, Donald Trump has selected men (mostly rich men) to head departments they wanted to dismantle in their previous lives. The president-elect could just as well have selected thieves as bank tellers! I also hinted that Trump will run the White House like a casino. He regards himself as deal-maker-in-chief; his cabinet picks have a combined wealth of US$ 14.5 billion (WSJ), more a Fortune 500 club than a cabinet. A Trump administration will certainly expose clashes of egos, expect some rough and tumble like his real estate business. For a start, autocrat Putin who openly bet on Trump and helped him win may soon ask for a pay back. As the bloodshed in Syria indicates, Putin takes no prisoner and the bromance may end before it starts. I have no crystal ball, and your guess is as good as mine, so fasten your seat belts. The world is probably in for a rough ride.
                                                  
I don’t mean to be a party pooper, so enjoy the holidays, and start the New Year with optimism. I plan to keep blogging and promise to write shorter blogs. Last but not least, I would like to thank my friend Caryl who, during all these years, has had the patience to edit my writing, even when the subject was of no interest to her or she did not agree with my comments. The red pencil has been replaced by computer track change: however new editing technology does not make the exercise less time-consuming.
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to all.
P.S. Cartoon freely copied from O Globo newspaper.

A yellow hair fox in the chicken coop

 

America has done the unthinkable, electing a man who may run the White House like a casino. Hillary Clinton was the common sense candidate, but democracy is not a logical game. Shell shocked, the media carried out an exhaustive soul searching to explain the cause of this unexpected and against nature election and figure out why their projections were so wrong. Let bygones be bygones. At 70, Donald Trump will become the 45^th and oldest president of the United States[1]. He is also the strangest and most oddball of the lot, even by US presidents’ standards.

Trump was elected because a sizeable segment of the American people, mostly living in the flyover states is fed up with the Washington establishment, which is regarded as out of touch, uncaring, and doing nothing for them. In other words, being a political novice was Trump’s comparative advantage. Ironically, to compensate for his lack of political savoir-faire, Trump is now busy recruiting a team of Washington insiders.

If Trump is not the first oddball to move into the White House, he is first real estate tycoon and billionaire to do so. As a brash, ostentatious and tasteless billionaire, one wonders whether he and his extended family will enjoy the quaint coziness of their new abode.

At this stage, only a fortune teller with a crystal ball can tell what the future holds for America and the world. For clues, one can look at some former unconventional American presidents and consider experiences from other countries which were once run by billionaires.

The Trump election brings to mind the case of John Tyler, the 10^th American president better known as His Accidency. Unaligned with any political party, his moving into the White House was an accident of sort due to the death of the incumbent, William Harrison after only one month. Lawmakers wanted a new election. Historians consider him in low esteem and his legacy insignificant. He is mainly remembered for escaping an impeachment and having a veto overridden; the first overridden veto of any American president. His claims to fame are his 15 children and the annexation of Texas in 1845. Ironically, His Accidency is responsible for the first Latino migration into America.

Warren Harding is also seen as one of the worse US presidents. Before entering politics at his wife’s urging, the 29^th US president was a wealthy newspaper publisher. The Republican candidate won the election in a landslide promising to roll back the progressive legislations of his predecessor; he favored pro-business policies and a limit to immigration. He launched a tax cut program which benefitted the richest segment of the population, and imposed protective tariffs on imports. His presidency was tainted by corruption in his cabinet and by his extramarital affairs. He was a consummate poker player and in one night lost the White House china set. His presidency (1921-23) was cut short by a fatal heart attack.

Chile, Italy and Ukraine have experience in billionaire leaders.

Chile elected Sebastián Piñera (net worth US$ 2.5bn, 2016) in 2010 for a four year term. Piñera comes from a patrician family and Huayna Capac, the last Inca emperor, is one of his ancestors. The soccer club, airline and television tycoon made his fortune in the credit card business. Before taking office he sold his stocks and placed the rest of his business in a blind trust. His term started inauspiciously with a 6.9 earthquake shaking his inauguration ceremony. In 2012, the Economist, the British weekly labeled him an “inept president.” He was famous for his lapses and gaffes. In the United States, he is remembered as the guy who sat down at Barack Obama’s desk in the Oval Office. Apparently the first person to do so. Actually, Piñera could offer Trump his unique expertise in mine rescue. Trump wants to revive the West Virginia run-down coal industry and coal mining is notoriously accident-prone. Piñera is the man who stood on the spotlight while 33 miners were pulled alive to the surface after spending 70 days trapped underground in October 2010.

In 2014, Ukraine elected Petro Poroshenko, the Chocolate King (net worth US$ 1.3bn, 2014) as its president. Pro-western Poroshenko promised to resist further Russian aggression after Putin snatched Crimea and supported the separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. Putin closed Roshen confectionery factory in Russia and seized its assets. Trump’s bromance with Putin doesn’t augur well for the Ukrainian leader who will certainly be persona non grata in Washington. To aggravate his case, Poroshenco visited Hillary during the campaign. To break the ice, Poroshenco phoned Trump and invited him to visit Ukraine, a greenfield country for luxury hotels.

The third billionaire is Silvio Berlusconi (80 and asset valued at US$ 5.9bn, Forbes, 2016), the on and off Italian prime minister during the period 1994-2011. After Trump’s surprise election, the disgraced former prime minister claimed that they are both cut from the same cloth. There is some truth is this statement as both are consummate salesmen, narcissists with oversized egos, bullies, gaffe prone misogynists and have tacky tastes in everything from women to buildings. Finally, both used their wealth to force the doors of politics without having any formed ideology. The media plaid a critical role in both men’s ascent to power. Berlusconi depended on the support of his media conglomerate, while Trump’s victory stems from the relentless and counter-productive bashing from the media establishment. Under Berlusconi’s leadership Italy became a reality television show. Forza Italia, Berlusconi’s anti Establishment party was more a vehicle for political permanence than political ideology. At the end, Berlusconi lost popular support because he could not deliver on his job creation promises, and Italians got tired of his scandalous lifestyle (remember the infamous bunga parties) and the corruption surrounding his business. There was no fire wall between public goods and Berlusconi’s business interest.

A Berlusconi clone has become the president of a respected democracy relishing its own Brexit moment.

Trump may have outfoxed Hillary, but the chicken usually come home to roost.

P.S. These fellows do not deserve any additional promotion, no pictures.

---

[1] Actually there are only 44 presidents, as Grover Cleveland was twice elected for nonconsecutive terms.

Tropical Marie Antoinette

 
In the confined and shameless world of Brazilian politico-corporate corruption, it is more Versailles than Greenwich, Connecticut! With more trips to Rue Montaigne than to Wall Street, the loot is spent ostentatiously rather than invested with discretion. Last week a Brazilian newspaper ran an article entitled Fashion Week in Curitiba. Curitiba is the small capital of the small state of Paraná in southern Brazil. Since March 2014, the city’s claim to fame is not fashion, but Lava-jato, the Car Wash police investigation of the billion dollar corruption probe at state oil company Petrobras. It is the biggest graft and money laundering investigation ever held in Brazil. Curitiba is the seat of the investigation, and the city jails have become a social hub for jailed construction tycoons, crooked politicians and their respective lawyers and families.
Claudia Cruz, the 48 year old wife of Eduardo Cunha[1] the former speaker of the lower house, visited her jailed husband dressed in Chanel. What else could she wear? There is only couture in her closets. Cunha is an Evangelical Christian and a leader among his peers. He is also the most reviled and wicked Brazilian politician, the poster boy of greed and hypocrisy. The family’s life style is more Kardashian than evangelical austerity. Cunha is accused of pocketing millions of dollars in bribes from contractors involved in Petrobras operations and squirreling his loot in offshore bank accounts. The police believes that he has between US$ 13 and 20 million hidden away in several foreign bank accounts. The Swiss government has already identified US$ 5 million.
Between 2008 and 2014, Claudia Cruz is suspected of having spent over US$ 1 million in clothing, hotels and restaurants in Paris, New York City and Miami. She spent US$ 60,000 on tennis lessons in Miami. A day in Paris does not come cheap either: US$ 10.000 is an average. These figures came to light after the police tallied her credit cards charges. Her splurging in couture fashion did not pay off, as she never made it to the best dressed list. Because many bank accounts are under her name, she may soon have to leave her couture in her closet and switch to a prison uniform.
 

                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                         Seen on the Curitiba catwalk
 
The Marie Antoinette’s lifestyle of the Cunhas is not uncommon among Brazilian political families. The former governor of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Sergio Cabral, who coincidentally is from the same party as Cunha, also made headlines with his extravagant lifestyle. If his spending pattern was similar, his paying methods were different. He did not charge on his own credit cards but that of his corporate friend Fernando Cavendish. Alternatively, he charged the state. In 2014, Cabral resigned as governor to run for the Senate, but dropped his bid when it was disclosed, among other failings, that he had used a state helicopter to commute to his beach house, carry his kids and nanny to school and dogs to the vet.

                                                                                                                   
                                                           Happy Times in 2012. 
Governor Cabral (left), Elke Batista (the guy who lost US$ 35 billion in less than 365 days) and president Dilma Rousseff (impeached) 
 
Now, the anti-corruption judges are catching up with him. Cavendish, his former friend is in jail, and has agreed to a plea bargain. Cabral and his wife, Adriana Ancelmo loved luxury junkets to Paris and Monaco, all expenses paid for by Cavendish’s construction firm. The firm, which is appropriately named DELTA became the governor’s private travel agency. In return, Cavendish received juicy state contracts at inflated costs. During the “friendship”, the Cabrals indulged in luxury hotels, such as Hotel de Paris in Monaco (standard room rate €500.00), restaurants like the Louis XV (three Michelin stars) and gifts. One particular gift attracted the investigators’ attention: In 2009, Cavendish gave Adriana Ancelmo a Van Cleef & Arpels diamond ring as a birthday present. The price tag was €220,000.00! When Cavendish was investigated, the friendship ended and the gift was returned. Cabral claims that he never knew the value of the ring.
Fortunately, for Cunha and Cabral there is no guillotine in Brazil.

---

[1] Rio de Janeiro is his political base. He has been given many derogatory nicknames; my favorite is Xicun Cunha, pronounced like chikungunya.

Olympe and Mary, 18th Century Feminist Trailblazers

“So you have found love in Paris”, Olympe de Gouges greeted English war correspondent  Mary Wollstonecraft in her apartment in early 1793. Mary blushed, did not respond instead asking if Olympe was afraid of the guillotine.
Olympe did not answer the question but told Mary that she was happy to welcome her. She added that “France is at war with itself. The reign of Terror is destroying our new-found equality and the dictatorship of radical Jacobins is wiping out the freedom given to women by the revolution. Mary, beware, everybody can be reported as an enemy of Robespierre and his clique of blood thirty fanatics. Mobs are murdering people without trial and others are sent to the guillotine”.
Mary replied “I am concerned but not afraid. Do you know how is Théroigne de Méricourt doing? I heard that she had been seriously beaten by a mob of revolutionary women.”
Olympe answered “She is in the hospital with a bad head injury. Can you imagine that she was stripped naked by a gang of brainless, illiterate and vulgar women! They didn’t even understood that Théroigne was encouraging them to fight for their rights and be able to bear arms like the sans-culottes, their men folks. No, they didn’t understand. Equal rights for women are inconceivable and irrelevant to them! Mary, how right you are to encourage women’s education. Educated women can be independent and play a meaningful role in society.”
Mary replied “I am only able to do this because my book A Vindication of the Rights of Women has just been published. It has made me famous in England; now I am able to support myself and my two sisters.”
“Mary, you are a role model. I understand that in England, wives have even less rights than in France! Are they not at their husband’s mercy, their property? I also heard that their children are regarded as the father’s property. I wish you luck in your mission.” Returning to the fate of Théroigne, Olympe asked Mary when she had met her.
“Some time ago,” replied Mary. “I am very impressed by her dashing allure: she was dressed in a man’s riding habit with a large feathered hat. I listened to her haranguing a group of women patriots trying to convince them to form revolutionary clubs. She is a former actress and knows how to speak.”
Olympe arose and voiced her anger at the Jacobins who had started the bloody Terror. Louis XVI, the French king, has been guillotined at the end of January 1792, a mistake according to her. France was now at war with neighboring nations, and their rulers were trying to stop the trans-border spreading of revolutionary propaganda. On the defensive, the Jacobins were now targeting women, stripping them of their previous social gains; divorce and inherence had in particular been rescinded. A gag rule has been imposed, and women like her were prevented from involving themselves in politics.
“What are you planning to do?” asked Mary.
“I will sharpen my pen, and fight to the bitter end for the right to free speech,” replied Olympe. She looked at Mary and again asked her about her Parisian romance. This time Mary could not escape. At 33, she qualified as a spinster. She had nonetheless attracted the attention of Gilbert Imlay, an American in Paris who used his American Revolution credentials to launch a business in revolutionary France. His involvement in the American Revolution fascinated Mary, and she had fallen madly in love to the point of irrationality.
“We are soul mates”, said Mary. She did not want to admit that she was emotionally hooked on her American lover. “We are free to love each other without getting into a marriage contract. It is a match of equals.”
Olympe wished her happiness, but warned that “love goes hand in hand with pregnancies; this is our lot, and babies are our responsibility. Beware of men, many are weak and won’t feel guilty in abandoning an independent woman if she does not need their financial protection.”
They parted, promising to meet again to exchange views on the evolution of the revolution.
       
 
This is a fictional meeting, the fruit of this blogger’s imagination. In topsy-turvy Paris, during the Terror, Mary Wollstonecraft knew of Olympe de Gouges but never had the opportunity to meet her.
In 1791, Olympe de Gouges, the abolitionist, feminist playwright and political activist wrote the famous declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen. She had famously declared that “if woman has the right to mount the scaffold; she must equally have the right to mount the rostrum.”
Unrepentant and true to her ideas, she wrote pamphlets against the Terror until the guillotine chopped her head off on November 3, 1793. She was 45 year old. Portrayed as a virago by her executioners, she was the only woman executed for sedition (her political writings) during the revolution. Because of her gender, her avant garde views were either dismissed or received with hostility. She qualifies as the first feminist martyr.
If de Gouges were a man, she would have been buried in the pantheon of national heroes, but as a woman she remained shunned by 19^th century male historians. They could not accept that such progressive and equalitarian ideas sprouted from the head of a petite bourgeoise from a small town in France. De Gouges’ body of work was overlooked during the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Finally, she is getting the recognition she deserves.
The same can be said about Wollstonecraft’s legacy. Her journalistic and philosophical works were discredited by the Victorian elite. In a way, she had her bad judgment to blame for the onslaught against her ideas and writings. The disclosure of her foolish, hysterical behavior and lack of self-esteem, during her liaison with Imlay damaged her reputation for a long period. Mary spent three years in revolutionary France, and wrote An Historical and Moral View of the Origin and Progress of the French Revolution (published in 1794). To protect her from the reach of the blood-thirsty Terror, Imlay had registered her as his wife. In 18^th century, sex meant pregnancy, and Mary had an illegitimate daughter with Imlay. Mary, who had promoted women independence in peaceful England, discovered maternal bliss and longed for domesticity in troubled France. Back in England, Imlay, always in search of adventures both sexual and commercial, abandoned nagging “wife” Mary, leaving her emotionally devastated, suicidal and her freethinker reputation in tatters. Her craving for domestic dependency brought her intellectual downfall and she was branded as a hypocrite by her peers.
Finally, Wollstonecraft married William Godwin, a freethinker like her. She died in 1797 at the age of 38 soon after having delivered her second daughter Mary Shelley who made a name for herself as the author of Frankenstein. Mary Wollstonecraft lacked Olympe de Gouges’ emotional strength and strong judgement; however her psychological shortcomings do not diminish her contribution to women’s empowerment.
References: Gordon, Charlotte. Romantic Outlaws. Random House, 2015. A biography of Mary Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley.

My home-made burkini

Since August 15, 2016 the New York Times and many other English-speaking newspapers have been fascinated with the burkini, a swimsuit worn by some conservative Muslim women which covers the whole body. Some French cities had banned the burkini from their beaches. Soon, the burkini story was all over the international news which condemned the ban as bigoted. The Times was the most persistent of the lot in pursuing the burkini issue; it carried daily articles, editorials, op-eds or letters on the subject. Furthermore, the Times encouraged the French to be more tolerant towards conservative Muslim women’s religious beachwear.

On August 26, the Council of State, a French top administrative court, reversed the ban taken by one city on the grounds that a burkini was not a risk to public order and infringed on personal freedom. To heed the Times’ call for tolerance, I decided to try wearing a burkini. I checked the burkini website to choose a model. It is essentially a wetsuit with a tunic to cover the crotch area and a hood. The Burkini is actually a registered trade mark from an Australian firm and was designed by a Lebanese-born woman there. The range of models is large. Each size comes in two styles: slim or modest fit. To me, the slim fit seems like to follow Islamic modesty guidelines to a lesser degree. They are colorful and made of synthetic fiber. Prices range between US$ 60 (for sale items) and US$ 90. A bargain compared with the price of a bikini, which needs much less material. As I couldn’t get one before the end of summer, I decided to make my own burkini (see photo below). 

                                                                                                                                                            
Actually, I was outfitted like many Muslim women in France who swim fully dressed. Since I had a choice, I quickly reverted to western type swimwear as my burkini dragged me under the water. I have tried wet suits and hated them, so I suppose it was not a surprise that I did not like wet burkinis either.

The recent deadly terrorist attacks committed by radical Islamists, many of them French-born, have shaken French self-esteem. People are increasingly concerned and irked by the overt dressing of conservative Muslims which is viewed as both ostentatious and culturally provocative. French people are realistic and know that it is illegal, unfeasible and ridiculous to fine women because they want to swim in the sea fully dressed. However, a majority of people are of the view that the burkini is another sign of goading from a religious and activist community which takes advantage of the freedom provided by a democratic state. After the hijab, the burkini is the new Trojan horse of political Islam to erode the liberal social system of western society. The majority of French people fear a fifth column ready to Islamize secular France.

Since 1905, after having defanged the lay power of the Catholic Church, France has been strictly secular or “laïc”. Twenty first century politicians are not ready to compromise with provocation from an imported religion which compels its faithful to occupy both private and public sphere. The state offensive against Islamic behavior and clothing can be seen as a repeat of the 19^th century crusade against the modus operandi of the Catholic Church. French presidents do not swear on the bible, and “in God we trust” is not written on banknotes. Although, during the 20^th century France integrated hundreds of thousands of destitute European migrants, the country does not qualify as a country of immigrants. The French now find frustrating that people who choose to live in France, and are often regarded as milking the social security system[1], show little desire to melt in.

It is estimated that 7.7 million Muslims live in metropolitan France, about 11 percent of the population. This is only a rough estimate because, as indicated above the French government does not collect ethnically-based statistics. If a large proportion has blended in, many are living in ethnic ghettos under the influence of conservative imams dispatched from the Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia. Recently, the Times[2] quoted a Norwegian terrorist expert, Thomas Hegghammer, who said that the most important effect of Saudi proselytizing might have been to slow the evolution of Islam, blocking its natural accommodation to a diverse and globalized world. “If there was going to be an Islamic reformation in the 20th century, the Saudis probably prevented it by pumping out literalism,” he said. Over the last twenty years In France, the dominant Catholic faith has become more liberal, but Islam has become much more conservative and intolerant, and as a result the cultural gulf between communities just got wider.

The burkini controversy led to lively debates in the French media, political circles and among friends. If the majority agree that the ban is illegal, unfeasible and counterproductive (why to ban the burkini when the hijab is authorized in public places?) the pro and con of the use of the burkini and its explicit religious undertone brought arguments which cut across the left-right ideological division. Two groups were notably disagreeing among themselves: the imams and the feminists! The more open-minded imams support the use of the burkini, for example, to allow mothers to looks after their children on the beach. Others argue that Islamic dressing should be more discreet and conform to the national fashion norms. Conversely, conservative imams condemned the burkini as indecent, stating that both pious men and women should stay away from the perversion of the beach, where people cavort nearly naked.

The divergence of view among French feminists was more subtle. All agree that women should be free to wear whatever they wish, but for left-leaning feminists, the ban is a humiliation and the burkini, albeit an obvious religious garment, give Muslim women a new freedom and empowerment. Other feminists, and I am in this group, regard Muslim societies as blatantly patriarchal, medieval and misogynist, whereby women are second-class citizens and as such, have to conform to male diktats. Muslim men should also dress modestly, but they do not and get away with it. They control women’s bodies, and as a result, women are de facto instrument of a male-dominated religious activism. Western women have fought hard to gain their equality status and are still battling machismo which also aims at “instrumentalizing” women’s bodies. State institutions should help newcomers to attain the same level of social freedom. Muslim women should be taught to decide for themselves. In Iran, dress codes are enforced by the religious police, but it is not the role of the French police.                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                     
Autumn will empty French beaches, but the burkini controversy will not die down. The presidential election is taking place in 2017, the concept of laïcité is central to the French state; tempering with it will be political suicide for any candidate. The government is working with the French Council of the Muslim Faith in order to work out solutions and calm the tempers on both sides. Women should be free to choose their wardrobe without having to conform to anyone.

The media’s attention span is notoriously short, and the burkini controversy will fade away. Always in search of stimulating topics, the media in general, and the Times in particular could expose the media bias against female politicians and its negative impact on their empowerment.

---

[1] May be a perception. Many anti-immigration parties have peddled this information. Hard to know, as racial and ethnic censuses and statistics have been banned by the French government since 1978. For egalitarian sake, it is forbidden to collect data on racial and ethnic groups. [2] Saudis and Extremism: “Both the Arsonists and the Firefighters” by Scott Shane, August 26, 2016.

Nolympics

I hate the Olympic Games, all of them. Intended to bring friendship, they instead arouse infantile and, or, toxic nationalistic instincts. For me, this nationalistic fervor wipes out the sports and performance values. Not coincidentally, the most recent games, with the exception of London, have been organized by the dictatorships of China and Russia. The Olympic Games are state-sponsored vanity projects aimed at masking the host nation’s failings on the world stage. Not surprisingly, most Olympic Games end up as economic failures with few concrete benefits. Many host countries have exploited the games to advance their nationalistic agenda, making sport competition an instrument of their imperialist political goals. Conversely, some participating countries’ heads of state exploit the prowess and medals of their athletes to either boost their standing or mask their failures.

Potential host countries sell the games to their skeptical citizens by promising livelihood improvements (one may ask why these needed improvements are not made in the first place!). Fortunes are spent on grand sports venues and infrastructures, many of which become white elephants. The local population has little say in decision-making but often advocates that education, health, housing and infrastructure are better investments than a stadium.

Last but not least, because the games are both exploited and manipulated for nationalistic purposes, they have led to institutionalized cheating through out-of-control doping schemes. True, enhanced performance drugs are as old as the games themselves and drug-free sport is an oxymoron. Fighting doping has become a hypocritical pursuit. Athletes routinely take enhancing or comfort drugs; however some are afforded smarter and harder to detect drugs and, as a result they may outperform their competitors. In other words, records and medals depend on drug improvement; athletes become guinea pigs of the underground doping industry and pawns of their government’s disillusions of grandeur. These athletes are expandable, willing or forced to take dangerous life-shortening drugs to achieve their governments’ sports goals. Too many countries are doping complacent, but in Russia, doping is state-sponsored. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has nonetheless allowed more than two-thirds of Russian athletes to compete, despite a blanket ban request from the anti-doping agency. IOC is as usual playing politics.

I hate the Olympic Games, notably the Rio games. In selecting Rio de Janeiro as the venue for the 2016 games, IOC made a bold political decision. Back in 2009, Brazil was basking in glory, a fast growing country led by a charismatic leader universally known as Lula (real name: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva). Brazil was awash in Chinese money thanks to its raw material exports and oil royalties were transforming Rio from a downtrodden former capital into a self-confident megapolis. The games were Lula’s personal achievement. He was the toast of the world, praised for his mix of economic orthodoxy and progressive social policies instrumental in pulling millions of people out of poverty. Everybody was thrilled: construction companies anticipated juicy contracts and politicians hefty kickbacks.                                                                     

                                                                                                      The two faces of Brazil

Now the party is over. Brazil is going through its worst economic recession in decades, compounded with a whacky political crisis. The low price of oil and the billions of dollars-corruption scandal affecting Petrobras, the state-owned oil giant, left the state of Rio de Janeiro bankrupt. Frustrated people wonder why the money is spent on a party rather than on public service improvements and job creation. Ironically, neither Lula nor his successor, Dilma Rousseff, will be in attendance at the opening ceremony. Expecting her impeachment trial, Dilma has been suspended from office. Lula will keep a low profile having been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice. Hopefully, the games will run without too many glitches, something positive in the current doom and gloom.

                                                                                                 Brazilians love a good party

The unpopular, lame duck French president, François Hollande, was the first head of state to visit Rio, officially to lobby for Paris to be awarded the 2024 Games. This is Paris’ fourth bid since 1924. Hollande was probably looking for a break from France’s gloomy situation. In its bid, Paris is proposing Seine-Saint-Denis as the Olympic co-venue, a region famous for its violent ghetto-type banlieues. Is Hollande hoping that sport become an alternative to Islamic State enrollment for banlieus’ disenfranchised kids? Knowing that many athletes are shunning Rio, fearful of the Zica virus, one may wonder whether they will welcome banlieue hospitality!

By keeping the media distracted from unpleasant topics like IS, the Zica virus and Trump, among topics, the Rio Olympic Games will provide a three-week escape from current miseries.
Panem et circenses.

Brexit and I

 

Early in June I placed two bets. On June 23^rd, I lost the first one, as did David. I will have to wait until November 8^th to know if my second bet is luckier. I lost my bet and David Cameron, Britain’s Prime Minister (PM) his reckless political gamble. Brexit, or the exit from the European Union (EU) was chosen by 52% of 33.6 million voters[1]. I had bet that the British people, in their wisdom would decide to stay within the EU family. My optimism was influenced by that of my many British friends, whose opinion was squarely in the “remain” camp.

For me, Brexit was much more than a shock, it was an emotional letdown, a betrayal. In the darkest hours of the 20^th century, Britain had twice courageously stood by France, but in 2016, for trivial and inward-looking reasons, it decided to cut these old links. So to speak, the referendum was a dog’s breakfast, a mess to vent a zillion grievances, legitimate or not, but mostly unrelated to the EU. The “leave” camp used the referendum to protest against a political system it regards as culturally or socially destabilizing and that no longer represents its interests. Anger was the rallying cry of people who felt abandoned, left by the wayside.

                       

Brexit was a boon to editorialists and politicians on both sides of the Channel and the Atlantic Ocean. They have scrutinized and cherry picked Brexit to prove the relevance of their respective opinions. Among pundits, conservative, nationalists, nativist and protectionists had a field day. Brexit was the triumph of their prediction, evidence that their goals could be achieved somewhere else. For Marine le Pen, the president of the Eurosceptic far right National Front party, Brexit was the first crack in the EU monster’s shield. Smelling the opportunity to pounce, she pledged to squash the face-less monster to free France from the evil of globalization, immigration, loss of sovereignty and liberal social policies.

Brexit carries a double paradox: It was a rebellion against the British elite, however led by prominent members of the same elite, the so called Notting Hill set. I guess that old school Robert Crawley, Lord Grantham of British series Downton Abbey, would have been a keen Brexiteer! Brexit was also the rejection of liberal economic policies, notably free trade and the freedom of movement for EU workers. Coincidentally these policies had been spearheaded by the British government and reluctantly adopted by other EU members. In the end, Britons were angry at the way their own government was taking care of them.

The EU is a convenient scapegoat for EU member governments who routinely blame the union for their own failures; not surprisingly, people get brainwashed. They casually enjoy EU benefits while rejecting its constraints. Think of the hordes of British on holiday in southern Spain! They may have to change the venue of their next cheap vacations. Apart from being ill-conceived, the referendum was hypocritical and cynical. Referenda are best left to the Swiss who have mastered the process. From now on, the British government will have to take full responsibility for its shortcomings and mistakes.

                           

                                        Courtesy of ChappatteI

In my view France, as well as the majority of EU countries, greatly benefitted from being part of the EU. A member has to adhere to club rules for its own good and that of the community; as a member, France had to repeatedly discipline its finances which tend to be mismanaged by the profligate practices of party politics. Parties resent this scrutiny; they portray it as a loss of sovereignty. In addition, the stragglers blamed the good performers for their failings. Am I being sarcastic?

The EU bureaucrats may be carried away by their frenzy for rules and regulations. In our competitive world, systems have to be harmonized to achieve both critical mass and economy of scale. Sometimes the EU steps on cherished cultural traditions angering citizens. It is a trial and error process to move forward. Reassuring inward-looking policies may preserve the traditional way of life but they are hardy adequate to meet the challenges of our fast-moving global world.

Readers must wonder why I take Brexit so much to heart and why I pass such a harsh judgment on Brexit peddlers. I am a born believer in internationalism, with a first passport at age 14 and an overseas job at 26. I may qualify as an utopist for having worked 25 years in the much maligned United Nations. Being incremental in nature, UN’s achievements are rarely publicized, and successes rarely make headlines. Founded in 1945, the UN has been relentlessly criticized for irrelevance, waste, mismanagement and inefficiency (among other things) by its member states[2]. Had the UN been subjected to reckless national referenda, the organization would no longer exist! Cynically, the UN’s raison d’étre is probably its scapegoat and punching ball usefulness. If the UN did not exist, member states would have created it in order to have a bully pulpit; a talk fest; a forum where they can grandstand, bicker and vent their anger and frustration; and last but not least, a place to safely park their redundant or cast-off politicians. The UN is frequently blamed for being an instrument of the foreign policy of powerful members. This is true, and often UN troops are called to clean up the mess left by these same powers. The EU faces similar criticisms. The UN Secretariat was used as a blue print for the EU Commission.

Europe will see more bickering and hardships, but hopefully the Union will make its case to the citizens. I don’t see much alternative to a strong and united continent. To move forwards, its restless member states must come to consensus politics.

Home Secretary Theresa May has been appointed British PM with the task to clean the Brexit mess. The Guardian newspaper noted that “there is an increasingly widespread sense that strong female leaders are needed to clean the mess created by men”.

Hopefully on November 8, I will win my second bet, Hillary be elected president of the United States. The alternative to her election is too frightening to consider.

                          

---

[1] The turnout was 71.8%, high by UK elections standards. Brexit was therefore backed by 36 % of the voting age population.

[2] 193 in 2016.