Is Apple a revolution?

Last week, Julien presented the article Seven Secrets of a Steve Jobs presentation, published in the Washington Post on the November 4th, 2009 and dealing with the Apple phenomenon and its world-wide attraction.

To Julien, Steve Jobs has no imagination and his products are not original. Steve Jobs argues that an ipod (launched in 2001) makes the world « a better place », whereas it wouldn’t improve people’s life. What about the iphone ? It’s not because it combines several use that it is a revolution.

The success of Apple products would be a symptom of our consumer society, where one product is replaced by another in a month, where you have to get an ipod not to look like an old-fashioned person. It would reveal our taste for new things and fashion things.

There were three discussion questions : Do you think that, as a french TV show has said it, Steve Jobs « makes essential what you actually don’t really need » ? Do we have to consider the i-pad and all Steve Jobs’ projects as simple gadgets or real revolution ? Finally, should we make a movie about Steve Jobs because he’s a philanthropist as well as Facebook’s creator according to some people ?

The biggest problem of the first question is that it is a philosophical one : what do we really need ? All I can say, is that our generation was born with technology, we’ve always had it and to be fair, most of us are just drug addicts. We love taking pictures easily, listening to music and using our cellphones where and when we want. We’re used to it. And that leads to the second question. I don’t know if we can consider Steve Job’s products as a revolution – as this word is maybe excessive, but we can’t say that they’re not an original and an useful evolution. The Apple first improvement is the beauty of the design and the quality of the products (even if the screens could be very fragile). Then, and it is the most important : it was the first to combine few use in the same product, that’s why the iphone has had such a great success : it combines a phone (with a tactile keypad and a nice design that is today copied by a lot of its competitors : phones are thiner and bigger), an ipod (a music player with, again, a nice design, an original widget and a high memory), a camera (that wasn’t new) and internet with a big variety of applications – which are the most famous of its assets. Finally, the products are juste very easy to use. These assets are also very well sold by the marketing and we have to admit that Steve Jobs is a genius in this field. As the article explains it, when Steve Job presented the MacBook Air in 2008 the part of the presentation that a lot of people remember is when Steve Jobs unveiled the MacBook Air : he removed it from an envelope. It was crazy ! It looked like a revolution, even if it was maybe a just a very cool product.

Finally, I don’t think that Steve Jobs is a philanthropist, he’s first a business man before being a man who loves high technology and wants to improve it. There will probably be a movie about his life, but it won’t be based on his philanthropy just like the Social Network (the movie about Facebook’s creator) isn’t. I think that what is really impressive about his life is the fact that he has had to face Apple’s terrible difficulties at the end of the 1990’s before having a great success. American movies are often based on stories of losers who achieve great success thanks to their efforts and/or genius.

On Friday the 5th of November, Paul chose to present us an article from the Washington post untitled « For tea party, victories may trigger identity crisis » written by Amy Gardner and David A. Fahrenthold. This article has been published on the 4th of november, it raises the issue of the consequences of victories of the Tea Parties on itself. This article highlights a different and interesting view on the topic.

As Paul explained the major problem of these victories for the Tea Party is the link between rhetoric and action. In fact, this party is known to be an anti-government party, so its participation would necessarily bring about a change to its behaviour towards the government. How could an anti-government party be part of the government ?
The Tea party’s winners are going to make policy, whereas the ethic of their party usually criticizes it. We can predict an ideological conflict will emerge.
Moreover, one other huge issue is the cooperation with the Republican party. Even if the two parties could seem quite similar at the first time, in fact they are not.
Thats’s why we should come back to the définition of what is the Tea party.
The Tea Party movement grew throughout 2009, into a series of locally and national protests. These protests were in response of a series of laws created after the 2007’s financial and economic crisis. The growing influence of the federal State was in contradiction with their ideals, with the idea of the American States thèse people had. Two main revendications could be identifyied : first, they think the federal spending and taxes are too high and secondly, they feel like Washington isn’t listening to them.
It means that this movement gathers many average American, not highly educated, not wealthy. This group have in common the feeling that no one is listening to them. And by no one they mean, no political party, or figure.
This short definition of the Tea Party movement attests its integration to the political game would be hard. On the contrary, the Republican hasn’t any problem with the political structure and organization of the United States.
That’s why Paul asked us if we think that the Tea Party could participate in a major shift in the American policy. But also, if we think the Republican party is going to change some of its positions.

I think that one of the major issues for Tea party movment is the lack of accuracy of their candidates about how they are going to deal with the experience of the power. Moreover, the way they will check if the governmental program is in agreement with their main principles. Some argue that they will create an organization to look after how the new Congressers behave but I’m not sure this measure would be efficient. Mainly, because the Tea party members are very much in the minority in the Senate. Furthermore, I don’t think Republican party is going to change its plan to adapt it for Tea Party movement. Republican party is one of the two major parties of the country, they don’t need Tea Party’s members. Even if, actually this movement represents a thread for them. In my opinion, this movement won’t be long-lasting, and it is going to merge into Republican party. Sarah Palin herself urged Republican party to “absorb” Tea party movement. And it seems to me that it will be true. First, because of the ideological suitability issue Tea party movement must face and above all because of the alliance they have to make to play an active part on the political federal scene.

What if we started again the Korea war?

Last week, Laure presented us an article from the Guardian which deals with the issue of North Korea. Barrack Obama, the US president, has recently delivered a speech for the commemoration of the Korea war that demanded to North Korea an immediate interruption of its nuclear program. He said the United-States would always protect South Korea against its northern communist neighbor and considered as provocation the sinking of a South Korean corvette in March. A month ago, in North Korean capital Pyongyang, Dictator Kim Jong-Il gave the power to his son. Thus, Kim made sure that his political system would not collapse after his upcoming death.

Laure asked us if a military intervention for democracy was necessary to protect a people dying of food shortage from its dictators, Kim Jong-Il and his son, and if the regime, based on the military, was a danger for the international community.

More than 1.5 million people work for the People’s Army in North Korea which represents the fourth greatest army in the world for a country of the size of Ireland. Moreover, if such an instable regime owned the nuclear bomb, it could some terrible consequences. Yet, as far as I’m concerned, we should relax a bit: a nuclear war is –at least I hope so – still far from us. Why? Because nobody is interested in starting this war. North Korea seems to have very few reasons to desire to be fully destroyed by a worldwide coalition. Moreover, since it has neither military base outside of its territory nor ballistic missile submarine, it has no means to attack territories such as Europe or even the United-States… They can only bomb South Korea (with missiles or planes) – but do we really care about South Korea? – which means they could not do anything against an attack from western country. Such a nuclear war would not last more than a day with minor consequences for the world.

On the other hand, the international community – to say it differently the US, Europe and their allies - does not desire a new conflict since it already has to cope with the Iraq and more particularly the Afghanistan war. These two experiences might also have discouraged the US of starting other “preventive wars”. Finally, Western countries need an enemy and North Korea, with Iran, is the most seducing candidate for that role. The only state that could be willing to start a war would be South Korea that would reunite its thousands years old country but North Korean are so deprived that this reunification would have as a consequence decades of economic crises and social agitation. I am not sure those are risks South Korean are ready to take.

Politics and Facebook

Last week, Marine presented us an article from the BBC website entitled "Queen to launch British Monarchy page on Facebook". As she said, this page was created by Buckingham Palace. However, this is not a personal page but this is a new means to keep us up-to-date on royal events. This is not the first time British Monarchy resorted to the use of Internet.        
 
 To widen the subject, Marine refers to politicians using a social network as Facebook. She hinted at our beloved President Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac and Ségolène Royal having a Facebook page. This phenomenon sheds light on the fact that it is more and more necessary to politicians to have visibility on social networks. It is a new trend to make politics, a new place to gather votes. Marine asked us two relevant questions:
 

 
She first asked us what we thought about the use of Facebook by British Monarchy.
 
On that issue, I will agree with one of my classmates who said that we couldn't care less what is doing Queen Elisabeth and her so conventional family. Nevertheless, I am bound to recognize that having a Facebook page might be a means for British Monarchy to appear as being "in" and not utterly old-fashioned as I am used to thinking…
 

 
Then she wondered why politicians use social networks as Facebook.
 
Blatantly, politicians use Facebook in order to convey the image of connected, trendy individuals close to young people. But it is only a new way to shape their public image. As one of my classmates said, contrary to the medias, Facebook enables politicians to choose "how" they want to appear. And they will likely show us how "honest", how "concerned", how "genius" they are...
 

 
I sincerely think that for a politician, having a network activity could be a great idea. However, it really depends on how it is done. As far as I am concerned, I think that politicians should resort to Facebook in order to democratize politics, that is to say showing that it is not as boring as we firstly could think. Facebook could be a place of concrete debate with politicians, with no pompous speeches or boring platforms. On the other hand, I am not interested at all in reading a politician's Facebook page telling us what he is doing in his private life. I don't want to know if Nicolas Sarkozy drinks his coffee with sugar or not, or if he prefers cannelloni or spaghetti…

How We Can Stop Being Eco-Hypocrites?

Last week, Cécile presented to the class an article from the Newsweek website dealing with “eco-hypocrisy”. Eco hypocrites are the kind of person who never waste an opportunity to tell everyone how the world is going to hell thanks to inappropriate actions such as eating meet, have a car while they often breaking eco-rules themselves. With this article, Cécile have brought us a different way of thinking about our ecologist (or not) actions, it changes from the actual environmental discourse which just leads us to feel guilty about our green behavior always insufficient to save the planet.

First, Cécile started by sharing the point of view of the article’s writer, Raina Kelley who explained that she is tired of being considered as a bad person because she does horrible things, such as having her own car, and refused to feel guilty about them. The journalist estimates that she tries to do her best for the environmental cause: she takes public transportation, recycles plastic bags... She does worry about polar bears and global warming but she doesn’t push people into doing what is supposed to be “right”. She doesn’t want to be an eco hypocrite.

Then, Cécile gave us some examples of famous eco hypocrites, the Top 5 listed by the Telegraph. At the top of the list there is Sting, on the second place there is the Nobel Peace Prize winning environmentalist Al Gore who faced accusations of hypocrisy last year when a research group claimed his 20-room, eight-bathroom home consumed more electricity in a month than the average American household did in a year. Then there is the actor John Travolta and on the last celebrity is the Prince of Wales who faced embarrassment last year over a 7,000-mile round trip to the US to pick up an award for his environmental work.

Finally, Cécile asked us: What do you think about this green fashion?

I think that the green fashion is obviously used by persons who don’t put the environmental problems as their first preoccupation. Firms use it to sell eco-friendly products; politics use it in their campaign… However, the fact that the theme of ecology is fashion can encourage people to make little green actions: when it is said in fashion magazines that recycling is so cool and that Cameron Diaz is combating global warming, the idea of saving the planet begins more seductive than a decade ago when only pure (strange) ecologists were worrying about the environmental cause. Even if is hypocrite, it could finally have a positive impact on people behavior.

"Smart Systems"

Yesterday, Laure chose to present us an article extracted from The Economist, which deals with the “smart systems” and in particular the convergence between the digital and the real worlds they imply.

Let me begin with a short definition, because it seems that a lot of people don’t understand what “smart systems”, or “mirror worlds” as they are often called, are exactly. In fact, this recent concept describes the fact that the digital world becomes more and more a reflection of the real one. In other words, we can recognize some part of our world on our computer screen. In a sense, it’s a sort of “virtualization” of our world. Thanks to “smart systems”, the digital world takes all information provided by the real world and automatically acts on it. So, “smart systems” can react instantly to changes on its environment. But, concretely, what does a “smart system” look like? This is, for instance, an application like “Google’s Earth” or “Street View”, which is a replica of the entire world. Another example is the connection of real-life objects with copies in the simulator “Second Life”.

Firstly, Laure mentioned the growing proliferation of smart systems. Indeed, mankind is building more and more “mirror worlds”. In fact, a lot of scientists have noticed that the real and the digital worlds are converging. In this article, a professor of computer science even predicted that soon “you will look into a computer screen and just see reality”.

Then, Laure developed the journalist’s example of Smartphone and its “apps” (small applications), as the best illustration of the convergence between the real and digital worlds. In fact, “Apps” are just miniature smart systems. In Smartphone, the virtual and the real merges into something called “augmented reality”. For instance, if you download an application called “Layar” on your Smartphone, turn on its video camera and point at a street, the software will overlay the picture on the screen with all kinds of digital information, such as the names of the businesses on the street or of a house is for sale.

Finally, Laure evocates the attitude of governments and Information-technology firms, who both make smart systems a one of their priorities. The fact is that there is a real need for such systems. Smart Systems address environmental, societal and economic challenges like limited resources, climate change, aging population, and globalization. They are for that reason increasingly used in a large number of sectors. Key sectors in this context are transportation, healthcare, energy and environment, safety and security.

But, with so much to gain, what is there to lose? The smart systems are at the heart of a debate, and have to face a lot of critics. For instance, some people reproach them for giving an unfair advantage to those who can afford to pay for it. Others criticize them for endangering private life, or mention the risk of abuse by a malicious government, or simply by hackers.

That’s why Laure asked us if we think smart systems are a great or a bad initiative. Are they more dangerous than useful, or inversely?

Personally, I think that smart systems themselves are not dangerous; but they make us lazier because they often make our live too easier. I agree they are very useful but not in our daily life, just when they are use in order to treat social and environmental problems. In fact, everyday, we don’t really need all these “apps”, even if we tend to think it more and more. However, smart systems are dangerous because of what they imply, that is to say the growing convergence between the virtual and the real worlds. The risk, in terms, is to lead to confusion between the two worlds, which will distort our perception of reality.

Battle over California marijuana initiative goes down to the wire

On November 5th, Elise presented to the class an article dealing with an actual phenomenon which interests a lot of young people : the consumption of marijuana... in California! She also chose this article because behind this issue, there is an interesting political debate : the impact of financial grants in a campaign.

But first, let's start with a short summary of the situation : in California, voters had to elect a new governor but at the same time they had to say YES or NO to the Proposition 19 which goal is to legalize marijuana in California... No suspense : the result was....No! ( there were 44% to say Yes).

However, the presentation of Elise didn't aim to convice us of the legalization or not of marijuana. She prefered tell us about the arguments of both sides and the way they lead their campaign that was a quite interesting thing to analyse for students of SciencePo. First, proponents of Proposition 19 think that it is ridiculous to act as if consumption of marijuana does not exist and for some of them it could act as a cure for the great deficit of California. On the other hand, opponents of Proposition 19 explain that this measure will endanger children, and they criticize the promises sent by the other side. Some of them, as the former governor of California, said that it is not a bad idea to pass this Proposition but the text is not enough complete espacially concerning the sale, production and taxation to local government.

According to some people, the result of the vote has not such an importance, now it's more a question of borders, because it is transformed the debate not only in California but in the United States and in the world too.

Finally, a last aspect of the campaign is money engaged in it. Backers of the measure spent a lot of money, especially coming from personalities. The opposition campaign had a financial disadvantage so they used political forces.

Elise asket 3 general questions:

Can we talk about a domino theory:if on state accepts to legalize marijuana consumption, will others follow?

Do you really think it is "one of our generation most important issue"?

Do you think that financial supports are more efficient than ideology to make a political campaign being successful ?

So first I think we can talk about a domino theory on the scale of the United States because if one state allows the legalization of marijuana, it could be quite easy to move from one state to another to get it. Then if one state accepts it, there could be movements of pressure on local governement which can be forced to pass the proposition. But we won't see the effects or not of this theory because Californian voters said No!

Then, concerning the second question, I don't think that it is one of our generation most important issue. Indeed, there are questions to which we must be more attentive as environmental issue, or education and jobs. But I think it is still an important issue in medical field.

Finally, I think financial supports are now very important to lead a campaign in this current world. Organizing meetings, making advertisement need money. Somebody who has pleinty of great ideas can't do a lot of things without money. However, ideology is still important as we can see it in the campaign for/against Proposition 19. Actually, proponents of the reform received a lot of donation by famous personalities but it was not enough to win. To conclude, financial helps is a big benefit to lead a campaing but it is not essential!

Is Hu Jintao The Most Powerful Person in The World?

Are you fed up of mid terms elections ? Because I am. Republicans this, Democrats that, bla bla bla. I would like to thank Louis- Vladimir to save my Friday about it. He has chosen to take an article which comments the new granding published by Forbes.

About what? Power. The article deals with the most powerful person in the world. You will ask me: "who is the best of the best?". The suspense is unbearable. It's... (drum roll)... Hu Jintao. Poor Obama: he's second everywhere (I know I said that we should stop talking about mid- term elections...).

Hu Jintao is the general secretary of the communist party of China. Why Hu Jintao? Louis Vladimir explained us giving three reasons. First, China is not an actual democracy. so it is easier to be powerful when nobody has the right to prevent you doing whatever you want. Hu Jintao doesn't car about free media, independant judiciary or mid term elections with its tea party. Secondly, China's economy is stronger while unemployment in the USA is getting worrying. Thirdly, China has a great place in the world diplomacy because of its important army, its nuclear weapons and its permanent membership of the select "Council of Security" club of the UN. So, we can consider China has a great place in the world order.

But, Forbes doesn't tell the whole truth. Hu Jintao is NOT the most powerful person in the world. Ha. Hu Jintao is totally dependant of the communist party whereas Obama has more freedom. The decisions of Hu Jintao are the decisions of the Politburo and the journalist doesn't hesitate to write about Politburo:"the most powerful person in the world". Does Hu Jintao deserve his first place since he has actually not absolute power in his country? I think Forbes wants to make people realize that China is taking more and more importance in the world and the United States could be threatened by China's uprising.

While reading this article, we can wonder "What is actually power?" "What are the characteritics of power?" Pope Benedict XVI, Angela Markel and Bill Gates are present on this top 10 list even if they are totally different from one each other. I believe that power concerns the influence on people but it is not rendered clear in the article.

Louis Vladimir asked two interesting questions to the class. The first is about an alternative to the American way of life: the Chinese way of life. Classmate's answers are unanimous: they prefer the American way of life. I understand them. I would not live in a country where the thought is uniform, the point of you of the ruling class. Furthermore, wages are higher in the United States: American people have better access ton consumption than Chinese people.

The second is "China: a rival? an ally? an enemy? or our future "master"? Louis Vladimir underlines also the fact that China's population is pretty important: 6 persons out of 68 are Chinese. They are bank magnates, propaganda chief or entrepreneurs. Classmate's opinions are divided. They think China must to be an ally because of its geopolitical position but it is a real rival in economy. In my opinion, China can not be our future "master". Being a master implies gaving an influence on the whole world and I'm not sure that people from other industrialized countries want to give up their freedom. I concede that China has a strong economy but the social development is as much important as economy development. What about wages? What about press freedom? what about political pluralism? What about working rights? What about equality between men and women ? Indeed, in the grading concerning the most powerful women in the world, Chinese women are away! But, maybe when China will tend to become a more democratic country, maybe we could consider it as a concrete rival.

Should G.W. Bush be worried for authorizing a Middle-Age torture ?

On the 5th of November 2008, Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, admitted the use of waterboarding during the Iraq war. Waterboarding is a technique simulating drowning in order to obtain informations.

On, the 8th of March 2008, G.W. Bush vetoed a bill voted by the Congress which aim was to forbid this practice.

And, on November 2010, the former President recognized that he has personally authorized this technique. He refused to consider waterboarding as a real torture. However, it’s very contestable. Like the President Obama, many people disagree with this interpretation.

Torture has always been a burning issue. It has ever been a current reality. And the question whether torture can be used to save innocents’ lives is still today a polemical topic.

As for as I’m concerned, torture can’t be justified in any cases. It has to be condemned because it is contrary to human dignity.

In fact, torture can’t be considered as an optimal means of saving innocents’ lives, neither as a sure way to make someone speak. It’s true that the person being tortured will just say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear whether it is true or not.

But, there is a thing we can be sure: torture destroys a man. And perhaps, an innocent man.

So, forbidding torture is a moral necessity for human dignity. And that’s why, if proved responsible in this practice, G. W. Bush has to be prosecuted. And here, it’s a moral necessity for justice.

Italy’s beleaguered prime minister

Last week Bastyen made his oral presentation on an article from the Economist untitled “A fresh scandal and a former ally, Gianfranco Fini, behind his back. Is it the beginning of the end for Silvio Berlusconi?”.

This article tells us that the situation is rather difficult for Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister. Three main reasons can explain the difficulty of the current situation. First the article tells us about another sex scandal involving Silvio Berlusconi. Then there is the fact that Gianfranco Fini, a former ally of Silvio Berlusconi, is now deserting the prime minister’s cause and the difficulties the governmental coalition has to face.

The prime minister’s behavior is problematic for the country. Indeed Silvio Berlusconi gives a bad image of Italy. We can mention the sex scandals which involve minors. We can also evoke his racist or homophobic declarations. His attitude and his statements also discredit him on the international level and particularly on the European scene. That’s why Bastyen said that Berlusconi badly represents his country.

Then, Italy meets financial difficulties which makes the country hard to govern. Moreover the People of Freedom (the prime minister’s party) is declining. However Silvio Berlusconi is still prime minister because Italians don’t see any other alternative. The opposition is in fact divided.
Berlusconi’s opinion is the following one: I can do whatever I want because my private life concerns just me and anyone else. Bastyen asked us if we thought that the intimacy of a politician should be exemplary or, on the contrary, if a politician can do whatever he wants. Bastyen thinks that a politician can do whatever he wants; his intimacy doesn’t have to be exemplary. Pascal agrees with Bastyen but for him this is more than a problem of private life. Berlusconi’s behavior is immoral and illegal. Pascal wonders if a politician can represent his country when he doesn’t respect these main rules. In my opinion, a politician can’t do whatever he wants. Indeed he has been elected. So he can’t change his behavior after his election (such as being involved in a sex scandal). He is also some sort of example. So he has to respect the code of ethics. Moreover a politician represents his country. His behavior will determine the image of the country he represents. His behavior can discredit a country on the international scene. I think that a politician can do whatever he wants in his private life as long as he is sure that his actions or his declarations won’t have any impact on the image he reflects. But he has to take into account the repercussions his behavior could have. At last, if his behavior is disappointing, voters will sanction him at the time of the next elections.

Then Bastyen reminded us that Berlusconi wanted to reform the Italian judiciary system in order to protect politicians from lawsuits during their mandates. His question was the following: “do you think that heads of states or prime ministers shouldn’t be sued during their mandates or are they lambda citizens?”. He evoked the fact that there are countries in which politicians can be sued during their mandates. I think that heads of states or prime ministers have to respect law as the others citizens. So in my opinion they should be sued during their mandates. However it could be prejudicial for the image of the country to sue the head master or the prime minister.

FACEBOOK: A PHILANTROPIC INVENTION?

Before the holidays, Antoine tells us about facebook and its presentation trough the film « the social network ». He presented facebook, the most popular mean of communication, as an attractive idea, useful and pleasant. According to his analysis, the “facebook generation” seems be a generation of interconnection, sharing of knowledges, but also pleasures, message or personal life.

This description, quite positive, presented facebook as an inescapable invention. And he even asks whether it could be an invention philantropic, created by a man attentive to relate most of people.

I think, as other students, that's before all it's a mean – as an other, I concede - to ear money and make profit. Certainly, at the begginig, it could just be an idea of a geek student, quite clever and gifted in computer, who imagined a large network to relate all of his university.

However, it's seems quite naïve to conserve this approach today. Facebook, as many other sites or social network in the Internet, is an industrial production. If the site had not worked, we can easy imagine that Mark Zuckerberg would continue its project for the well being of the humanity. For example, all the photos published on this site are the facebook's property. Does it's normal? A man, philanthropic and disinterested can't choose appropriate personal life of his users.

I think the polemic of the film “The social network” doesn't seem realy interesting. It's a false debate, the personal life of the facebook's creator masks the problem of facebook. In my point of view, the question of the publication of your life in facebook it's the most important.

It seems that this appropriation of personal life is one of the most important problem of this site. Various articles show that some persons, absorbed by facebook, lose the control of their personal informations. Private and professional life merge and it's create polemics

If it's a philanthropic project, it's, for me, a strange conception of the human. Of course, it's permit exchanges and finally, it can be considered as a mean of communication as an other: rapid, useful, pleasant. However, if it can create links before some persons, it remains virtual. In my opinion, there is many means to meet new persons or new idea. Facebook it's not the only way. For me, it's quite gloomy imagine a world trough a computer.

I can't compt my friends, I'm not in facebook.

"Don't ask, don't tell"

You certainly believe that I'm a lazy boy because I summarise the presentation of Hugo three weeks after. But I'm not...
His article -taking from Google News and dated from 14th October- talks about the attempt of the U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips to prevent the enforcement of the law nicknamed « Don't ask, don't tell ». This law says that gay and lesbian militaries have to hide their homosexuality from the other militaries. 14 000 militaries have been fired since 1993 because of this law.

Virginia Phillips, persuaded by many associations, considered that this law was unconstitutional because all Americans have the right to serve their country honorably and patriotically regardless of sexual orientation. This law denied the constitutional rights and freedoms.

Normally, the decision of the judge must end the law. But Barrack Obama wanted to end the law by an ordered way passing by the administration and an official congress vote. Hugo was optimistic and he said that the law was going to end. I wasn't like him.

The 20th of October, a Federal Appeals Court chose to temporaly suspend the decision of Virginia Phillips till the decision of the Appeals Court about the consitutionality of her decision. I was waiting for this decision (that's why I said in the beginning that I'm not a lazy boy!). It was the first attack against the decision of Virginia Phillips.

This monday (the first of November) the Federal Appeals Court acted to keep the military’s « don’t ask, don’t tell » policy in place. The Appeals Court considers that the judge bothered the administration which was tempting to prevent the law by a congress vote.

So, the law “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is likely to remain in place for the months or years it could take to decide an appeal, unless President Barack Obama manages to persuade Congress to repeal the statute. Because of the loosing mid-term election, it seems that this law will stay in place for a long, long time.

The first question of Hugo was to ask if it was fair for gay and lesbian militaries to hide their homosexuality. Everybody agreed with him in order to say that they should have the right to choose themselves if they want to hide or not their homosexuality. But if I was the Devil's advocate, I would say that they have to hide their homosexuality for their own security, in order to be integrate by the other militaries. In this way I can say too that homosexuality would disrupt the « masculine atmosphere » of the army. Don't worry: I'm not the Devil's advocate!

His second question was to ask if gays and lesbians were discriminated in our society. He says that in the legal point of view, in France, there is not real discrimination, but in people's mind there still are. I don't agree with him. In my opinion, in France, gays and lesbians are discriminated in people's mind and by the law. For example they have not the right to be married, or to have children whereas this is a fundamental human right.

Eventually, I agree with Hugo to say that there is an ambiguity of American society: homosexuals are tolerated, but only if nobody knows. But I just want to say that this law his just an example of this ambiguity. There are lots of ambiguities in the American society. So, the problem is not coming from the homosexuals but from the Amercian society itself.

China & Nobel Price

The last presentation was Sylvain's one, about an article extracted from the Economist, dealing with the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to a Chinese dissident : Liu Xiaobo.

Let's remember, as Sylvain did, who is this man : Liu Xiaobo, 54 years old, is a pacific opponent to the Chinese Regime. He was a main actor in the Tiananmen protests, and since 1989's events, writes several essays, among which « Charter 08 », a text calling for a real Democracy in China. This essay was seen by Chinese leaders as an “incentive of subversion of state power”. Liu Xiaobo was sent in Jail for the third time, for eleven years.

The decision of the Nobel committee infuriates Chinese leaders, because all international medias point at this man, and many organizations, among which Amnesty International, who want his release, are brought to light. According to Beijing, this decision is totally against the principles of the organization and could be a source of clash between China and Norway.

This article underlines the fact that many dissidents are in jail and also in a weird position : if Western countries know perfectly them and their ideas, Chinese People ignore them, because of Beijing's censorship and media control. Knowing that, we could wonder if those western countries, United States of America and European Union in the lead, could not use their influence in order to sort out the problem ?

According to Hillary Clinton, “[the] pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis”. As Sylvain said, China has often been courted by West : during the cold war, it was a potential ally versus the USSR and today, China presents huge economic interests. Personally, I don't think western powers such as the US still have the power to influence China's civil right policy, considering China's weight in the global economy. China has become a real economic power, and can now catch up with America. By the way, the Asian power owns the majority of American treasury bills. As a result, China doesn't really fear economic sanctions. Beijing asserts that the Nobel Price Committee's decision is nothing but a symbol of fear felt by western powers towards economic Chinese power.

Contrary to Mr Liu, I don't think that civil rights are really making progress in China. Advances are very perfunctory. Do we have them to blame for all that ? Human rights and democracy are eventually nothing but western values which are imposed by Europa, United States & Nobel Comittee.