Conservative Sarkozy Wins Presidency of France

Reader reporter tips us to a story just up at the NYTimes reporting that the tough-talking conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won election as the president of France. His opponent, Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, the first woman to get as far as the runoff in a presidential contest in France, has conceded defeat. The vote went 53% to Sarkozy and the turnout was a remarkable (by American standards) 85% of registered voters. Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Comments

Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone lives in the USA, you insensitive-- Oh! Nevermind...

Re:Obl.

[AchiIIe]

Actually, speaking of the USA, how does "conservative french" relate to "conservative american". Is 'their right' our left? It appears conservatives there are pro-american, whereas conservatives here are anti-french (freedom fries?)

Re:Obl.

[WarwickRyan]

European conservatives generally cut taxes and also government spending compared to the left-sided parties. They also tend to look after business over their own citizens (though I fear that's a cross party issue).

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

In terms of current political leaders, Sarkozy is most often compared to Tony Blair. Blair in turn modelled himself on Bill Clinton, so I think it's fair to say that the French right is roughly equivalent to the American left. This ignores the complication of Blair's cosying up to Bush, but that is really restricted to foreign policy.

Sarkozy is also undoubtedly the most pro-American French president ever. One of the opposition's favourite nicknames for him is "Sarkozy the American" (a deadly insult, of course!)

Re:Obl.

[WED Fan]

conservatives here are anti-french (freedom fries?)

Well, someone had to use a broad brush stroke. Aren't you glad it was you?

For your info, not all conservatives did that. In fact, I'd say it was only the most publicity seeking ones that tried that little bit of triteness.

Re:Obl.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Well for one thing, they love Jerry Lewis.

Re:Obl.

[Miseph]

You say publicity seeking, I say dangerously xenophobic and painfully stupid. Potatoes, potahtoes.

Re:Obl.

[diegocgteleline.es]

I think it's probably more "your left". I've heard that in France, being called "liberal" is somewhat of a insult.

I can tell you how it compares in my country. In Spain, the left parties think of democrats as a rigth party. Republicans are considered ultra-right.

Re:Obl.

[rednip]

whereas conservatives here are anti-french (freedom fries?)

The French, the 'liberal media', 'environmental wackos', and 'holly politics', have been very common 'straw men' for Republican pundits for a number of years now. It seems to get the base fired up fairly well, however any relationship to real political thought is only incidental.

Re:Obl.

[vidarh]

In large parts of Europe, the Democrats are considered right wing, and the Republicans are considered far right wing comic relief, though the political parties on the left wing in Europe generally support the Democrats as the lesser of two evils, and the conservative parties tend to support the more moderate parts of the Republican party.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

The same in France

Re:Obl.

[FlopEJoe]

Naw... it's metric in'it? Something like 30 centi-taxcuts is an American foot stem cell or something.

Re:Obl.

[mehgul]

Actually, he's really more like Bush, but tries to cater to workers at the same time. And "Sarkozy l'Americain" wasn't such a deadly insult, it appears, since more than 53% of the French voted for him.

Re:Obl.

[Original Replica]

Yes, I've heard that many Europeans don't consider the US to have an opposition party, just two of the basically same party.

Re:Obl.

[newbsauce]

Hard to believe these days, given who's in office and our foreign policies of late, but this is actually true for a fair number of US citizens. Everyone I know has been voting for the "lesser of two evils" long as I've been of voting age.

Re:Obl.

[Goalie_Ca]

Same goes for canada. Funny you say comic relief.. because for a while there we took your dollar very seriously! :P

Re:Obl.

[AoT]

And by broad brush you mean pretty much every conservative pundit, right?

And a lot more than that.

Re:Obl.

[notamisfit]

Come on, they're complete and total opposites! One supports the welfare state of Marx, and the other supports the welfare state of Jesus.

Re:Obl.

[kalidasa]

Bill Clinton is part of the American Left? /me laughs uncontrollably, wipes a tear from my eyes. Thanks, I haven't laughed that hard in years.

Re:Obl.

[Shihar]

It should be pointed out that Europe's far right and America's 'normal' right really only vaguely relate. European far right parties would generally be considered extremely xenophobic by the American right. European far right parties almost always revolve around anti-immigration positions. The American right does hold sometimes hold some limited anti-immigration views, but they are rarely front and center, and they are absolutely nowhere near the extreme of their European counterparts. Comparing the American right to any European political parties is generally a mistake. While the American left has some fairly close European counterparts, the American right is fairly unique in the world.

Re:Obl.

[iminplaya]

And they would be correct in that assessment. There is no opposition of any real force. Basically it is be true throughout the world. There are no true freedom loving leaders in any country. All have their personal agendas, and we aren't included, except as support staff(slaves).

Re:Obl.

[notamisfit]

Judging by the results of the last election, I'd say it's rather the more incompetent of the two evils than the lesser, per se. The Dems are crazy redistributionists, but lack discipline and any ideological principle deeper than "well, it works". That makes them a safer bet than the Republicans, who have the discipline and the depth of faith to bring us all under their God's law. In a battle between two evil ideologies, the more committed adherents win.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the opposition's favourite nicknames for him is "Sarkozy the American" (a deadly insult, of course!)

Never heard that. I guess we lack some information here in France...

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

In France, we have conservative politicians who somewhat favor business and increase the public debt.

The aim of Sarkozy is different :
- increasing debt a lot (both public and private)!
- by favoring the rich people and the big corp.

I had hoped that Slashdot would have definitely forgotten France. Instead of that, this -probably real bad- news is on the first page, one of so few first-page news about France in a year. (sigh).

What is he talking about:
- suppressing inheritance taxes
- easing private borowing of money (i.e. increasing bank profits for short time benefits and lifetime interests for poor people)
- "an ownership society"
- he is glorifying the "France of the Crusades". (discourse in besançon, March 13th 2007)
- "le travail rend libre" (one of the offical videos, first sentence)
- he thought some months ago that "France had been arrogant in 2003" while attempting to stop the Iraq war.
- if he survives two more weeks, he will realise his public lifelong dream: becoming president in place of The President.
- he is a lawyer with a speciality: fiscality. I have not written tax evasion even if you read that.

I love him! I am sure you won't.

Re:Obl.

[Guppy06]

"European conservatives generally cut taxes and also government spending"

While here in the United States, they only cut taxes.

Re:Obl.

[Captain Splendid]

They also understand the concept of spearation of church and state.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about France, but here in Germany the equivalent to the Republicans is also called Republicans.

For the benefit of Americans unfamiliar with German politics, this is a dig at the US Republicans, since Die Republikaner are generally considered a crypto-neo-nazi party and enjoy very little electoral support. The major conservative party in Germany are the Christian Democrats (CDU).

Re:Obl.

[ChameleonDave]

- "le travail rend libre" (one of the offical videos, first sentence)
For those who don't know French, le travail rend libre means the same as Arbeit macht frei, the motto of the Auschwitz concentration camp — i.e. "Work makes one free". It seems that Sarkozy is practising dog-whistle politics.

Re:Obl.

[Capsaicin]

le travail rend libre

My French is not all it should be, but that translates into the German Arbeit macht frei, no?

Re:Obl.

[powerpants]

One of the opposition's favourite nicknames for him is "Sarkozy the American" ... Woohoo! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Re:Obl.

[aled]

In Spain, the left parties think of democrats as a rigth party. Republicans are considered ultra-right.

In almost any country other than the USA, almost everyone think of democrats as a right party. Republicans are considered ultra-right.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, they're complete and total opposites! One supports the welfare state of Marx, and the other supports the welfare state of Jesus.

Actually, it's more like one supports welfare for inner-city crack-heads, and the other one supports a welfare program for trigger-happy crackers (the military). Interestingly, the beneficiaries of these programs are largely interchangeable.

Re:Obl.

[loganrapp]

[Insert] pundits = sensationalist headline-mongers. To use them as indicative of anything is a bad example.

Many actual conservatives - as opposed to Republicans - believe that incredibly silly.

At least in my area, and I will admit it's hard to say because conservatives in California != conservatives at large, the whole freedom fries thing was about two weeks long before it quickly got old.

Really, France is going to be moving on up regardless of who had been elected, when one considers the previous man in office. Much as France's people recognized the distinction between president and people (or so my French friends in college tell me; I'll take their word for it), I recognize that Chirac != France at large.

Especially when you look at the last election. In a series of political errors, the run-off became between Chirac, the devil they knew, and Le Pen, someone who makes Rumsfeld look like a hippie. Couldn't really blame them for sticking with a guy who was just personally corrupt, rather than potentially evil on a global scale.

Re:Obl.

[danbeck]

Go read the 1st Amendment, then come back here and give me one example of where the Federal Government has abridged this right at any point in the last, oh... say seven years. State and local governments don't count; you never know when some yokel in Mississippi is going to do something idiotic.

I'll quote it though, just in case you've never read it, are too lazy to look, or both:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Give me a law, or give me an example of when the right to freely practice your religion, or anyone else's has been prohibited?

Re:Obl.

[gfilion]

For those who don't know French, le travail rend libre means the same as Arbeit macht frei, the motto of the Auschwitz concentration camp — i.e. "Work makes one free". It seems that Sarkozy is practising dog-whistle politics.

From what I heard on french-canadian TV (Radio-Canada), Sarkozy used this "dog-whistle politic" to get the vote of the far-right.

Re:Obl.

[Cid Highwind]

Many actual conservatives - as opposed to Republicans - believe that incredibly silly.

Many actual conservatives (all four of them) better start standing up to the Bill O'Reilly-watching, "freedom fries" eating, Christian dominionists currently running their political party if they want representation in future American governments.

Re:Obl.

[brightmidnight]

He's not like Tony Blair. What you must have heard was that he was more like Tony Blair than, for instance, Jacques Chirac, in that he's young and has interesting ideas. He's not like Bush either-- he doesn't support Iraq and all that. He may be more of a Reagan, especially since it seems that he doesn't really have plans to bring down the huge public deficits that much.

Segolene Royal actually often talked of Tony Blair and her admiration for him.

Re:Obl.

[Cid Highwind]

Many Americans said the same thing in 2000. Then we got eight years of Bush as punishment for our stupidity.

Re:Obl.

[drsmithy]

Actually, speaking of the USA, how does "conservative french" relate to "conservative american". Is 'their right' our left? It appears conservatives there are pro-american, whereas conservatives here are anti-french (freedom fries?)

First you have to account for:

* The US political spectrum is skewed significantly to the Right.
* The French political spectrum is skewed significantly to the Left.

So while 'conservative' in France means relatively the same thing as it does in the US, by policies and attitudes a French 'conservative' probably sits somewhere noticably to the left of the Democrats (in general there will be specific counter-examples).

Compared to most of the western world, he's probably centrist.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I've heard that many Europeans don't consider the US to have an opposition party, just two of the basically same party.

I've heard Gore Vidal say basically that, something along the lines of "The US is a one-party state, where the one party has two wings."

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, they're complete and total opposites! One supports the welfare state of Marx, and the other supports the welfare state of Jesus.

Of course by European standards neither supports the welfare state. Universal health insurance anyone?

On the other hand this nicely sums up the politics of many European nations at least until fairly recently. Eg in Germany the SPD traditionally a socialist welfarist party and the CDU a christian welfarist party, whereas the smaller pro-free market party (the FDP) sits in centre.

Re:Obl.

[Poltras]

I don't know about France, but here in Germany the equivalent to the Republicans is also called Republicans.

For the benefit of Americans unfamiliar with German politics, this is a dig at the US Republicans, since Die Republikaner are generally considered a crypto-neo-nazi party and enjoy very little electoral support.

And how is that different from US republicans? Ok I'm out ^^

Re:Obl.

[arrrrrpirates]

NPR reported that Sarkozy has been consistently involved with intimidation to achieve US-like conservative goals. Science magazine has been covering this election greatly as well because Royale was a strong proponent of funding science. Sarkozy, similar to Bush, could really care less (although Bush puts up a false front about caring). This election will probably end up being bad for France, but Royale's own inexperience and bad ideas prevented her from being a favorite.

Re:Obl.

[OakDragon]

I'll grant that Bill Clinton, as President, was more a centrist than a leftist. But he's still a Democrat, and that means he belongs to the major political party that is most likely to provide host to the American left.

Re:Obl.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Forcing me to pay for the activities of your religious groups, however charitable, is arguably a violation of the Establishment Clause.

If "the power to tax is the power to destroy," as is so often parroted by the Christian Right here in the US, then the power to fund is the power to establish. You Bible-beaters can't have it both ways.

Re:Obl.

[shaitand]

'They also tend to look after business over their own citizens (though I fear that's a cross party issue).'

That seems to be an all candidate issue world-wide.

Re:Obl.

[Aeron65432]

Pretty similar, they have the same kind of low taxes, no illegal immigration, and nationalism as the US.

The last part is where conservatives across the Atlantic clash. Liberals across the world seem to support each other but Conservatives all believe their country is better so Sarko and Bush will probably not be too chummy, Sarko seems too proud. (obviously goes as well for Bush)

A clear example of this is Charles De Gaulle. Big french conservative.....but butted heads with the United States constantly.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination.
-DeGaulle

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think many countries in Asia and Africa would disagree with that statement.

Re:Obl.

[shaitand]

You can't win, the right cuts taxes (for the wealthy) and increases government spending. The left increases taxes (for comfortable individuals) and increases government spending.

Both cut taxes for corporations and increase government handouts to corporations. Both reduce the rights of citizens and grant new ones to corporations. Both support copyright regimes.

The right claims to cater to rural nuts and wins the heart of the 'common man' by claiming that those who educate themselves and have brains 'intellectuals' are somehow bad and shouldn't be listened to. The left claims to cater to those with thoughts and be the party of reason.

Neither lives up to those promises, they just pay lip service to them (although the right is closer, since they are officially in favor of business over individuals they just ignore the rest of the nonsense). Both strengthen the central government, attempt to weaken the judicial branch, and attempt to take all the power upon themselves.

Its a rigged game. The only hope is revolution and revolution won't come. The only ones who have the stomach for violence are the ignorant masses. The only ones bright enough to understand the need are intellectuals who don't have the stomach and still haven't realized that violence sometimes IS the answer.

I'm not saying I have the stomach for revolution either. I'm just stating the facts. I'm just hoping to stay under the radar and hope the march doesn't move so quickly I have to move to another western nation that is a couple steps behind in the process. In the end all governments grow corrupt and must be abolished.

Re:Obl.

[nospam007]

* The US political spectrum is skewed significantly to the Right.
* The French political spectrum is skewed significantly to the Left.
--
Skewed? The French invented the very word!

The term originates from the French Revolution, when liberal deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair, a habit which began in the Estates General of 1789. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. It is still the tradition in the French Assemblée Nationale for the representatives to be seated left-to-right (relative to the Assemblée president) according to their political alignment.(Wikipedia)

Re:Obl.

[nico_poon]

The term "conservative" in France means right wing. However, it has nothing to do with conservatism. Sarkozy wants to modernize the country, make it more competitive by changing overly socialist work laws, safer by securing the ghettos in big cities... so to that standpoint, he claims to bring more change than any of his predecessors. Of course, the question is, will he actually do it, or is it just... empty political statements. Based on what he did as a minister, there is a good chance he will make stuff happen.

Re:Obl.

[shaitand]

I think you need to read my post again. Government control of commerce and nationalism are two of my chief complaints.

Re:Obl.

[Paladin128]

As a very religious conservative, I'll have to agree with you there. I personally think that self-respecting religious organizations (including my own church) should stop accepting federal funds altogether. Even if it weren't unconstitutional for the government to do this, it would be unwise to accept such funds, as to do so, one also has to accept the government's terms. The first amendment is there even more to protect religions from the federal government than the federal government from religions.

As the old saying goes, if you accept the king's pence, you play the king's tune. I think no self-respecting church should submit itself to the state in this way.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

The most conservative French parties are at the far left of the US political spectrum.
Every party in France agree that the top income tax rate should be at least 50% (it's currently 60%), that everyone should have health insurance that covers everything (including drugs), that the unemployed should have unemployment benefits, that teenagers should have free access to contraceptives, that abortion should be legal, free, and rare, that religion should have nothing to do with politics, and that global warming should be curbed, that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, etc....

That puts them at the left of the Democratic Party.

  -- Anonycous Moward

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

suppressing inheritance taxes

Sorry, I'm not quite following your phrasing here. Are you for or against the government getting one last shot at looting personal wealth, after taxing someone all his life?

-jcr

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

You might consider Estonia, Poland, or any of several other formerly-communist countries. Estonia in particular has a rational tax system that's let them grow their economy at a very quick pace.

-jcr

Re:Obl.

[jsebrech]

it's fair to say that the French right is roughly equivalent to the American left.

Actually, it's fair to say that there is no american left. In most countries the political spectrum runs from near-communism on the left to near-fascism on the right. In the US, however, communism is such a political taboo that anything that even remotely sounds like it (like socialism) is a politically bad idea as well, resulting in left-wing ideas that are commonplace everywhere else (like universal health-care) getting branded as somehow "outlandish".

Re:Obl.

[Ender_Wiggin]

Bill O'Reilly to this day is boycotting France, and I don't hear of an outcry.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read their programme? I'm not by any means a German republican, but AFAIK they aren't in any way Naziist (or they'd already have been prosecuted by our government).

They're "just" an extreme-right-wing party, like the right-wing parties in France (under Le Pen), or in Italy, or some parts of the Republicans in the US.

Of course they're also the party some right-wing Neo-Nazi nutjobs can most easily align themselves with, but that doesn't mean the party is pro-Nazi in their policies. Stop perpetuating stupid prejudices like the Media. It doesn't help anyone. (It would help more to understand how Hitler could rise to power in the Weimar Republic. That means today's mainstream parties should also wake up instead of simply throwing stupid insults against the Socialists and Right-wing Socialists parties.)

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

Sarkozy has been consistently involved with intimidation

Sounds like a smear to me. Got any proof?

BTW, Royale was on the record threatening violence if she lost, and lo and behold! Cars are burning again as we speak.

-jcr

Re:Obl.

[MojoStan]

In almost any country other than the USA, almost everyone think of democrats as a right party. Republicans are considered ultra-right. I think many countries in Asia and Africa would disagree with that statement. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is the most right-wing and conservative party in Japan. I snicker every time I hear/read the name of this party.

Re:Obl.

[Jesrad]

In almost any country other than the USA, almost everyone think of democrats as a right party. Republicans are considered ultra-right.

If you think they're all so right, why do you keep calling them wrong ?

Re:Obl.

[dunkelfalke]

not in germany - here they prefer to raise taxes.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US equivalent would be the Constitution Party in the US, with its ties to white supremacy.

(I almost never post anonymous, if this is any hint)

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

Your question is fully biased and I am pleased to blow it.

"government getting one last shot at looting personal wealth" is a very subjective point of view.
- First of all, most of the money the "government" collects actually _creates value_, for instance under the guise of quite efficient health services, clean streets, museums and free education for all, TV programms, roads, etc... So those services may or may not be provided with more efficiency by the private sector, but all that money is not wasted.
- public taxes are decided by a democratic instance, private taxes are not. For instance, I would rather escape the costs of the "marketting" stuff included in cars, Ms Windows Vista licences with my PC, etc... They are very expensive, as hidden as possible and much less democratically decided.

And finally:
- considering that no poor people currently pays any inheritance tax,
- considering that most people who currently pay this tax can afford it very well,
- considering that most heirs do not deserve their good fate, and that many of them have already received a very significant heritage under the guise of privileged conditions at the beginning of their life (address book, healthy food and home, education, free housing, cars, etc... during 50 years...)
- considering that I just paid some inheritance fees, mind you, and that Mr. Sarkozy will waste them in gifts to his really wealthy pals who escape most taxes thanks to numerous and cunningly designed-for-them fiscal holes,
- I am all _against_ any suppression of the inheritance tax.

The sole question as for me relates to enterprises being sold for cheap because the owner has died and the heirs cannot afford to pay the related taxes. Most of the time, it has not been properly prepared, but this should be addressed...

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

> One of the opposition's favourite nicknames for him is "Sarkozy the American" (a deadly insult, of course!)

obviously an insult if you're supposed to rule over a country of gastronomy...

other possibilities: "Putin the chinese monk", "Chavez the canadian folk singer", "Bush the frenchy", "nelson mandela the australian"

Re:Obl.

[arivanov]

I will be very cautious with this analysis. While some of their economic growth can be attributed to the tax system a large portion lies elsewhere:

• Primary weapons dealer in dumping unused weapons from the part of ex-Warsaw pact to become NATO into conflict zones around Russia border. By various accounts the Estonians supplied Dudaev with more than a 100+ trainer aicraft. Various makes (Chech, Polish, etc) roughly equivalent to the UK Hawk. It is not a well known fact, but the pictures of trainer aircraft converted into battlefield bombers at Hankala were the final straw that made Eltcin convinced in starting the first Chechen war. That is just one example. Plenty of others where it provided supply chain management for the local conflicts around the ex-Soviet Union.
• Primary jumppoint for drug traffic from Russia into Europe, especially Scandinavia with involvement all the way to the government. The scandinavian governments deliberately disallowed to confirm or deny the rumour that the Estonia ferry sank while trying to dump overboard a couple of lorries with Russian heroin. So we will never know. But that is by no means the not only example.
• While I do not recall if Estonia specifically has a legalised form of apartheid and has "Purity of the Nation" laws (some other baltic states do) it wealth relies on a lowly payed labour of a minority which is denied its civil rights and is never allowed to become cittizens.

So with all due respect, I will have my doubts about the Estonian economic miracle. The Estonian taxation miracle reminds me of a "miracle" agricultural community I saw in Bulgaria 20 years ago. A small village, newly paved roads, all houses freshly painted. Picture perfect. Official source of income - raspberries and plums. Real source of income (70%+) - a small workshop producing tail fins and other mortar bomb components for the Sopot armoury (man BG military weapon producer). Using vietnamese labourers.

Re:Obl.

[Opportunist]

Hmmm.... *looks at the US national debt*
Could've fooled me. Almost.

Re:Obl.

[Kyusaku Natsume]

At least, here south of the border, the mexicans that still live in Mexico think that, too.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read their programme?

Do I have anything better to do with my time? And besides, what their programme says is not relevant to my post (as you will note if you read it with care).

I'm not by any means a German republican, but AFAIK they aren't in any way Naziist (or they'd already have been prosecuted by our government).

You will note my choice of words, "crypto" and "generally considered". I'm not saying they are avowedly pro-Nazi, nor am I saying that they are indeed Nazis. Of course I could be wrong about the general perception of the party, but most German people I know tend regard any public expression of Fremdenfeindlichkeit in general, with great suspicion --and in particular a number of them have dispagaged the Republikaner as neo-fascist. Now if you want to disagree with me as to the public perception of the party, (as opposed to debating what their programme may or may not say), feel free.

As far as being prosecuted by the government, what about the NPD? It has long been an open joke that they are just the NSDAP rebadged (though in favour of the Republikaner it must be said that despite waning electoral fortunes they have resisted aligning themselves with the NPD.) What the badges look like makes a world of difference, when it comes to prosecution.

In any case my point was not to enter into some in-depth analysis of the politics of that particular party, which you seem much more qualified to do than I. My point was to make clear to the readership (only few of whom can be expected to know what the German 'Republicans' are), that the original post was not an innocent comparison of like named political parties, but a swipe at the US Republicans.

They're "just" an extreme-right-wing party, like the right-wing parties in France (under Le Pen)

... who is widely regarded as a crypto-fascist in the mold of Charles Maurras. Thank you for that example: I don't think it would be a politically neutral statement (nor a even fair one) to equate Bush (for all his failings) with Le Pen. Do you?

Re:Obl.

[Opportunist]

But doesn't that make one think? When did politics shift from voting for the better candidate to voting for the lesser evil?

Even I find myself more and more drawn towards corrupt nepotists, simply because the alternative is even worse. It tells you something when you're looking for the most inapt, knowing that he can do at least no harm, because you don't expect anything good.

We need new politicians. Dunno where they should come from, though. I mean, if you have selfish, greedy people, you get selfish, greedy politicians. Where else would they come from but from the stock you have?

Re:Obl.

[Opportunist]

Maybe because we already learned about 60 years ago that being extremely right is wrong?

Re:Obl.

[Opportunist]

the other supports the welfare state of Jesus

Well, if, then only that of Supply Side Jesus.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that he is also pro-software-patents. That should tell you something about his personality traits.

This guy is dangerous not because of his ideas in but that he can actually make those ideas real. He is efficient. He is smart. I'm scared for France future after last night.

Re:Obl.

[Yvanhoe]

Well his enemies compare him to G.W. Bush.
He is more at the right than usual in France, he won by attracting electors of Le Pen, the far-right candidate.

Re:Obl.

[DiscoFreq]

In Belgium, the right wing or conservative parties are more like the democrats in the US.

The parties that come closest to Republicans (in values, economy) are the right wings within these parties and the nationalist/fascist parties (these are often the only ones agreeing with some of the decisions/plans of the republicans).

There's a whole spectrum of parties to the left of these ("green", socialist, communist,...)

Re:Obl.

[alexhs]

IMHO, it's not a strategy, he is far-right.
He and his minions - many of them have been in far-right organizations before - took the party from the inside.
Most media are in the hands of Sarkozy's friends, so he has a far-right politic, but without the disrespectability of the far-right.
Clever.

However I wouldn't say it is dog-whistle politic, or it is with a twist. It is not intended to nazi supporters (I don't think there is much of them), but to the uneducated masses who ignore(*) history (and has in that sense quite an orwellian meaning), while scaring others.
Most of his campaign strategy relied on polarizing the debates, then stopping to do that for only two weeks betweens the two turns of the vote and set himself as a victim when others argue (IMHO rightfully) that he is a fascist for such kind of statements.

BTW, at the time he took the UMP, he used the same tactics of victimizing himself when he encountered internal opposition...

(*) or forgot, as it seems only people 65+ are voting in their majority for Sarkozy, but at a majority of 75%... My guess is that that score is also due to older people not conceiving to see a women at the head of the country...

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

Your question is fully biased and I am pleased to blow it.

Yep, you sure blew it all right. Your answer shows that you have no respect for human rights.

-jcr

Re:Obl.

[TapeCutter]

"a small workshop producing tail fins and other mortar bomb components"

And when the EU or the UN suggests the US should wind down the small arms trade through international treaties, the NRA comes along waving the constitution like Mosses coming down the mount. /gun_nut_flamebait

Re:Obl.

[Corporate Troll]

My French is as it should be, as is my German... Yes, that is exactly what it translates into.

Re:Obl.

[Hognoxious]

I'd be more scared if Royal had won. At least with Sarkozy in place it might delay the islamic rupublic by a few years.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go back to where you came from, and take all the other asylum seeking pikeys with you?

Re:Obl.

[daem0n1x]

Don't worry, it's all the same bullshit on both sides of the Atlantic. I strongly suspect France will now happily support your president to spend all your hard-earned cash in stupid wars.

Re:Obl.

[daem0n1x]

Actually, I think it's the opposite. Radicals attract radicals. I think he will mistreat the Muslims so bad that the Kuran-waving fanatic freaks will gain a lot.

Re:Obl.

[VJ42]

Really? Then why are many of the centre right parties throughout Europe know as Christian Democrats?

Re:Obl.

[Johnny5000]

Are you for or against the government getting one last shot at looting personal wealth, after taxing someone all his life?

You're probably right... the dead rich guy should be buried with all of his wealth.
It's his! He should take it with him.

Re:Obl.

[Lord Ender]

My girlfriend is french. She is also a professor of economics. She is extremely happy that this guy won. She is convinced that France's economy has been mismanaged for a long time and is hopeful that this guy can change that. Her parents own a few businesses and are being forced to close some of them due to the exreme socialist burdens France places on small business owners.

Also, she knows far more about economics than you or I know.

My point is that some really smart people wanted to see this guy win.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

in Soviet Russia, right party thinks of YOU!!!

Re:Obl.

[Captain Splendid]

Oh fuck, I totally forgot about the first amendment, silly me!

I said they had a better understanding of the concept, not better legislation. Next you'll tell me there are no pot smokers in the US thanks to the war on drugs...

Re:Obl.

[gfxguy]

When there's variety of destinations for funding, including churces from several different religions, then it doesn't violate the establishment clause.

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment, and I know you used the word "arguably," but unless the destinations are all Christian, I don't think it's a valid argument.

Re:Obl.

[yog]

... - considering that most people who currently pay this tax can afford it very well, - considering that most heirs do not deserve their good fate, and that many of them have already received a very significant heritage under the guise of privileged conditions at the beginning of their life (address book, healthy food and home, education, free housing, cars, etc... during 50 years...) - considering that I just paid some inheritance fees, mind you, and that Mr. Sarkozy will waste them in gifts to his really wealthy pals who escape most taxes thanks to numerous and cunningly designed-for-them fiscal holes, - I am all _against_ any suppression of the inheritance tax. The sole question as for me relates to enterprises being sold for cheap because the owner has died and the heirs cannot afford to pay the related taxes. Most of the time, it has not been properly prepared, but this should be addressed... This doesn't really address the pros and cons of inheritance tax. You're against suppressing this tax (which I guess in American means "reducing" the tax), and you gladly pay it because you feel it is for the betterment of society.

This is an idealistic attitude, but the unfortunate side effect is that a business owner cannot pass his or her business on to designated heirs without their paying a crippling penalty. This affects small family run businesses like retail stores, and is a major reason why so few survive after the owner's death. It's hard enough to make a living in a small retail business without all the confiscatory taxes and fees sucking every available penny out of the budget, but then to have to have it all taken away on one's deathbed is the final blow.

On a philosophical note, one is also presupposing that the State has the right to confiscate someone's wealth at time of death, a right which is highly debatable. If you believe, as many on the Left would, that wealth is an evil thing that is usually obtained through dishonest means, then inheritance tax is merely justice. If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth, then inheritance tax is merely another form of confiscation.

Re:Obl.

[sumdumass]

I watched an interview with him on PBS and he didn't seem all that polarizing. In fact, what he said made a lot of sense and I would probably vote for him if given the opportunity.

A lot of the programs he talked about seemed reasonable and I especially like his open and honest personality. He acknowledge problems with the US relations and said he wanted to fix them.

Bottom line, France is a big part of the reasons we are at war in Iraq. If this guy was president back then, we wouldn't have gone in. There was a period of time were Iraq was doing everything possible to comply with it's obligations then France declared it would Veto and resolutions calling for war and then Iraq kicked the inspectors out. Even if france didn't support the war, keeping quiet in this one statement would have changed the entire line of history.

I guess that is what happens when you line your pockets with oil deals you used the UN sanctions to make at a discount. Maybe If france had not of sneaked oil deals in, Saddam and Iraq would have co-operated years ago and the entire last 10 years or so would have been completely different. It is time they got someone new in there and I'm happy with their choice.

Re:Obl.

[gfxguy]

Also keep in mind that guys like that Judge that wanted the 10 commandments in his courtroom weren't violating the constitution either, since congress didn't pass any laws telling him he had to. It's not that I disagree with the separation of church and state (I actually wholeheartedly agree), but constitutionally, unless congress passes a law, it's not a violation of the first ammendment.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservative Americans are not anti-French The "freedom fires" were a way of protesting Frances foreign policy.

Re:Obl.

[sgt_doom]

It saddens me to say this, but it is now time for the French citizenry to read de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (something, admittedly, far too few Americans have read).

As a descendant of one who served beside Lafayette, it saddens me to see the French go down a similar (although hopefully not exact) path as the US of feeble sheeple.

Re:Obl.

[4D6963]

First off, the French right is not at all the equivalent of the American left. The American left differs from the French left in that since it's in a more libertarian country, it's more libertarian. Besides that detail they're just as much on the left.

And secondly, he's not called "the American" (and that's not an insult, actually people call me "L'Américain" and that's very far from an insult), but an "Atlantist".

Re:Obl.

[MaxInBxl]

The sole question as for me relates to enterprises being sold for cheap because the owner has died and the heirs cannot afford to pay the related taxes. Most of the time, it has not been properly prepared, but this should be addressed...

Interesting example, one that I fully agree with. I'm guessing by your username and post that you're French (and living in Paris). Here's another example that you may have heard of and that you might agree with. What happens when you inherit the house that's been in the familiy for generations.. But that house is, say, on the Ile de Ré where property prices has sky-rocketed? The state will no doubt attribute to the house a market price well over what the inheritant could pay (again, htis is an example), and the inheritant could find themselves in the situation where they must sell the house to be able to pay the inheritance fee induced by the house. Does that sounds sane to you?

If you read the French papers you must know that this type of situation is not unheard-of at all.

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

You are right: some extremly smart people like my brother believe this guy, they believe he want to change thinghs and that he knows how.

I really wonder why they believe him.

He has been the leader of the UMP for 4 years, a political party that :
- has a wide majority in the Senate and the Parliament, detains 7 of the 9 seats in our High Court.
- has strongly supported the government with some arguments only, provoked by Sarkozy himself to blow any hopes for Mr. de Villepin.
- has such strong ties with the big medias that they openly campaigned for him, or covertly as Le Monde who decided, god still wonder why), that a vote for Mr. Bayrou would have been "undemocratic". The reason being that all polls were predicting that Sarko would lose against Bayrou.

Sarkozy has been a Finance minister before, and the debt has strived under his rule at an unknown pace, much more than under the socialist government, mind you.

But be sure that the Great Decider (tm) will solve everything by the virtues of his magic gaze!

I am glad your girlfriend knows a lot about economics. I studied that too in the Sorbonne. And I am not impressed by Sarkozy.

Re:Obl.

[kdemetter]

you mean it has been abused as a motto . That doesn't make a statement about joy for working a nazi statement . True , his opponents will probably use it against him . but that's just the ill nature of politics .

Re:Obl.

[varcher75]

If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth,...

To resurrect an old and out of fashion style, that's the difference between capitalistic and bourgeois. I don't have a problem to get people enjoying the fruit of their labors. But one ancestor's labors? What made you earn the right to those fruits... beside being born in the right family (and not having too many siblings to share it with).

The idea of inheritance is at the root of one of the oldest of human institutions, that of aristocracy. The idea that, being born of your father (or mother, lets not be sexist), you have an inalienable right to whatever your father enjoyed. Power, lands, wealth. No matter what you are personally. It took us millenia to get right of - most of - aristocracy's power inheritance (and we've had only partial success, a surprising number of the "powerful" of this world are still found among families where political power wasn't uncommon among their ancestors... it's just that you can now enter that club without all of your ancestors since the last coup/revolution having been there). If inheritable political power is such a bad thing, why is inheritable financial power any better?

Re:Obl.

[spun]

Bill Clinton, as president, was more conservative than centrist. Heck, he was more of a true conservative than our current "conservative" president. The Democrats are hardly leftist.

Re:Obl.

[Lord Ender]

She said her big fear was that he would not make good on his economic reform plans, but it is better to have a good plan and poor execution than to have a bad plan and good execution...

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

Well, you are perfectly right, and the same may be said, perhaps, of whatever has gained much value and cannot be easily divided: problems arise when one heir wants to buy the shares of the others and cannot afford it.

As for the example in the Ile de Ré, it is certainly sad, but the same goes on in Paris and so on, perhaps on a lesser scale. The issue lies not in the inheritance tax in my opinion, but in the conjunction of several factors:
- very low interests rates,
- big money comming from abroad from -for instance- Britons paid three time more in a country where the cost of living is four time that of Paris: purchasing power parity between currencies is a myth, it is easy for them to buy here. Not sure they are all welcome.
- a belief from everybody in my generation that we will have _no_ decent retirement considering the pilage currently underway by our parent's generation (I am not 40 years old yet),
- the fact that there are more and more single people following divorces: separate houses are needed, that fuel the buying fever.
- Frogs love to own their houses. I believe the figure is that more than 60% of the French owns their dwellings.
- and more generally, more money comming to the very affluent, Bush's base: some places are hyped.

So what is your solution? The inheritance tax is just a part of the issue in the Ile de Ré; part of the solution could be, for some time, to rent that so-valuable house to reimburse the mortgage...

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

Could you elaborate a bit, please: which human rights have I disregarded in my post?

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

The question being: what is his plan, precisely?

One question for instance: does he want more protectionism or less? He wants to stop replacing one over two civil servants that goes into retirement. The current government wanted that too, and he was the n°2 by the way ("minister of state"). has he achieved anything in this field? No? Was it all for Chirac "liberal bias" or could it be possible that the current and future team is as bad as the formers and especially badly helped by an homogeneous but stupid, old, national assembly?

By the way: nobody, nor my brother nor your girlfriend, I guess, believes he can fulfill his oath about unemployments being brought back to 5% in 5 years.

We'll see. The hope bearing candidate got nearly 7 millions votes (over 44) and was eliminated on the first round. His budget was a tenth of that of Sarkozy, he was attacked viciously on both sides, betrayed by the pollsters and supported by _no_ media whatsoever but one weekly publication. that is not _that_ bad. The fight goes on.

Re:Obl.

[MrYotsuya]

Sorry, I'm not quite following your phrasing here. Are you for or against the government getting one last shot at looting personal wealth, after taxing someone all his life?

How are the dead paying taxes? It's the person who inherits it (i.e. reports the inheritance as income) is paying the tax on something they didn't work for at all.

Re:Obl.

[SQL_SAM]

To resurrect an old and out of fashion style, that's the difference between capitalistic and bourgeois. I don't have a problem to get people enjoying the fruit of their labors. But one ancestor's labors? What made you earn the right to those fruits... beside being born in the right family (and not having too many siblings to share it with).

How about: "family is everything, everyone else is just friends" Kind of sums it up for me....

Re:Obl.

[koreaman]

Care to elaborate?

Re:Obl.

[Lord Ender]

Yeah, I don't know the details. Such a large employment change would take a long time, I would think. Even he cut WAY back on the taxes, regulations, and beurocracy required of businesses, he will have to convince investors that the laws will STAY that way before they will sink serious money into french business.

Re:Obl.

[pommiekiwifruit]

becoming president in place of The President

LOL! He does look a bit like Iznogoud but that might be a stretch for most /. readers :-)

Re:Obl.

[pommiekiwifruit]

Well /. is an american board and they like inheirited power e.g. Kennedy family, Bush family, Adams family, Gore family.

Re:Obl.

[alexhs]

I watched an interview with him on PBS and he didn't seem all that polarizing. A single interview isn't enough to understand the guy... He says lots of things, is consistent in an interview, but can say the opposite the week later (more on that later). Also, he wasn't polarizing in the last two weeks, as I wrote. He even maybe wasn't polarizing in the last two months, I'm not sure, because one of his strategy is to let other people in his party say controversial things for him. If polls show opinion agree, he will take the idea on his own account. If not, he will quickly dismiss the idea as not his own.

He's very professional when it comes to communication. He controls what's said about him, and editors have been fired to being critical of him.

Bottom line, France is a big part of the reasons we are at war in Iraq. If this guy was president back then, we wouldn't have gone in. There was a period of time were Iraq was doing everything possible to comply with it's obligations then France declared it would Veto and resolutions calling for war If Sarkozy was president back then, the only that would have change is that France would have been part of the coallition as Russia was going to veto anyway. History might have been different, but the war would have happened anyway as Bush & Co wanted that war really bad.

and then Iraq kicked the inspectors out. Wow, fact distortion ! Iraq never kicked the inspectors out, neither in 1998 nor in 2003 (search "UN inspectors Iraq" for more)

Even if france didn't support the war, keeping quiet in this one statement would have changed the entire line of history. Sarkozy would have supported war for sure. Back on its changing opinion, he was critical of the french government while meeting Bush, then the year later cheered the way that same government handled that same issue.

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy is a quarter Jewish. He's not going to resurrect the Third Reich.

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

You've made it clear that you regard a person's earnings as the property of the state, to be granted or withheld from the wage-earner at will. That is the antithesis of liberty.

-jcr

Re:Obl.

[jcr]

But one ancestor's labors?

It's my right to give my earnings to whomever I wish, whether I do it before I die, or do it in my will. It's not the rights of the recipients that are attacked by inheritance tax, but the rights of the giver.

The idea of inheritance is at the root of one of the oldest of human institutions, that of aristocracy.

The problem of aristocracy isn't inheritance per se, it's the idea that people can be property. Serfdom is an evil thing, whether it's inflicted by a nobleman or by an elected legislature.

-jcr

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

You have made it clear that you cannot properly read a text when its general meaning displeases you.

I am sure that you know the famous words "We, the people" engraved at the heart of the US constitution: they spell out that this federal state comes from then people, for the people. The mechanisms by which this is processed could be discussed and changed, but those words mean that the government emanates from the people: it is (or should not be) an ugly untamed beast devouring your tiny budget. Its funding is (should be) legitimate and decided by the people or its representants.

The "Declaration de l'homme et du citoyen" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_R ights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen) written in France in the same years during which your constitution was polished deals with both property and taxes, mind you.

Was that what you were refering to?
And what was your idea again?

Re:Obl.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to steal someone's hard-earned wealth, at least be honest about it instead of playing stupid semantic games to justify your larceny. If the heirs didn't "earn" it, then certainly neither "society" or "the government" earned it. The heirs have the best claim.

Re:Obl.

[HuguesT]

Rewriting history.

The one reason the US (and its coalition) is at war with Iraq is that president Bush had some kind of fixation against Saddam Hussein. He wanted to invade Iraq even long before 9/11. Listen to what everybody who has been close to the president now says, don't just listen to Fox news.

Bush senior lead a successful international coalition against SH in 1991, but then the international community balked at removing SH from power since this was against the mandate they had from the UN (which was in effect, liberate Kuwait, then stop). Then we had this big mess with the situation worsening on several fronts in Iraq, with SH stopping at nothing to hang to power. We had this "food for oil" program into which several nations including the French tried to get some dibs, and a game of cat and mouse with the UN inspector to disable the WMD. This was disgraceful to say the least.

I can understant GWB wanted to come in and clean the mess, but to invade Iraq and topple SH he had to invent some kind of credible threat. That's where he went wrong IMHO. "The end justify the means" is rarely a good option, and now the end itself is now seriously in question with 3500 US dead and counting, and Iraq nowhere near democracy.

As we now know, SH had no WMD left, the inspectors had in fact done their job (who will ever thank them?).

To blame the French and in particular Chirac who has been president since 1995 for all of what caused the US to invade Iraq for the second time is disingenuous at best.

Re:Obl.

[Copid]

You've made it clear that you regard a person's earnings as the property of the state, to be granted or withheld from the wage-earner at will. That is the antithesis of liberty.

I'm assuming that your suggested solution to this problem would be a tax-free society with no government, or perhaps a voluntary tithing system in which a few nice people make sure that roads get built and police act in the public interest?

Re:Obl.

[HuguesT]

To clarify a bit, a person's earning belong to them. However, there is a "death tax" in France, i.e. some of the inheritance value must be paid in the form of tax when a person dies. The tax is low if the heirs are the person's children, and get progressively higher as heirs get further away from being the person's descendant, up to a cap of 60% for a total stranger on the testament, IIRC.

If one makes the assumption that governments are a necessary evil, and that they must be supported by taxes, then I'd much rather that the state taxes the dead rather than the living, but that's just me. Therefore, the "death tax", which is very common in many countries, actually makes some sense.

On the other hand, if you think rich dynasties are a good thing (and there may be a few examples of that), then taxing the living workers makes more sense.

Finally, if you are for small goverment, then cutting taxes is good. It forces government to be lean and mean. However Nicolas Sarkozy has no intention to run lean and mean. Sure he will eventually cut some government jobs, but he is broadly for "Reaganomics" : continue spending, borrow, cut taxes. It worked for Reagan, it may not work for Sarkozy. For a start the GDP growth in France is projected to about 3% a year this year, which is not enough to reduce the debt burden fast enough for it to not be a problem.

So dear jcr, I've noticed you post often, it's always a joy to read you.

Re:Obl.

[Copid]

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment, and I know you used the word "arguably," but unless the destinations are all Christian, I don't think it's a valid argument.

What if they overwhelmingly favored Christianity? I'd hate to think that the government could get away with such misbehavior simply by giving a small financial nod to some minority religion every once in a while.

Re:Obl.

[HuguesT]

This is almost a moot point, as (1) direct descendant (like children of a store owner) would pay little taxes today. It's only remote descendants and total strangers mentionned on the will that are taxed heavily -- and (2) there are in place perfectly legal ways to pass on businesses to children (*before* you die) without them having to pay anything besides normal business transfer fees. It does suppose that you are getting along fine with your children though : if you make them an associate and then a majority share of them fire you, what can you do ?

Sarkozy's gesture is not empty though. How will he make up the lost tax revenue? This point is not often mentionned.

Re:Obl.

[HuguesT]

The whole idea behind this is that dead people don't have rights, therefore they cannot be violated. I think if you check, you'll find that dead people in the US don't have rights either. Indeed the US has the concept of a "death tax", currently at 46% apparently. The rights you think you have seem to be imaginary, my friend. In France, the current death tax rate for direct descendants in France is I think around 20%, perhaps less.

The people who are taxed are not the dead people but their heir. See my other reply for the rationale behind taxing dead people (or at death) rather than living ones.

In addition, in France like elsewhere, if you don't want the state to pillage your hard-earned assets, you can set up a foundation, you can set up a company and give your heir shares, etc. Oh, this requires a bit of planning, for sure.

Re:Obl.

[HuguesT]

In France direct descendants (sons & daughters) are not death-taxed much, while grand-children, cousins, etc are taxed more and total stranger even more. I think primary dwelling is treated separately and may not be taxed at all. AFAIK my wife inherited part of the dwelling of her father and had no tax to pay.

In the emotional case of a primary family dwelling, this would not be a problem I think.

Re:Obl.

[HuguesT]

If the heirs didn't "earn" it, then certainly neither "society" or "the government" earned it.

Why not? There is the small matter of lifelong education, social security, various benefits like public transport, that both society and "the government" provide while the person was living. "Earning" is very relative. If someone earns reasonable income now, it may be partly thanks to good cheap education.

The idea that heirs have the best claim could very well be construed as perfectly ridiculous in a society.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion, not a natural truth.

Re:Obl.

[HuguesT]

Actually, I think the fact that Bayrou got attacked viciously on both sides played in his favour. Vicious attacks can sometimes be handled more easily than subtle ones.

Re:Obl.

[sumdumass]

If Sarkozy was president back then, the only that would have change is that France would have been part of the coallition as Russia was going to veto anyway. History might have been different, but the war would have happened anyway as Bush & Co wanted that war really bad.

If france would have been part of the coallition and russia didn't publicly state it would veto any action the US presented, we wouldn't have needed to goto war.

People think Bush wanted the war before anything on 9/11 happened. But what they don't understand is that the reasons for going into Iraq before then consisted entirely on the fact that Iraq had failed to disarm according to thier obligations under the cease fire that ended the first gulf action were they invaded, looted and destroyed much of Kuwait. It iraq had complied with it's obligations and disarmed their WMD weapons as well as let the Inspectors verify without issues, this all would have been satisfied. In simpler terms, there would be No need for a war because the war was only the tools necessary to bring this to an end.

The people claiming Bush wanted war, in their push to demonize Bush, fail to see the reasons why anyone wanted war. Instead they give the generic funding of the industrial military complex and all about oil excuses. While that might be a side effect, it was never the main reason for anything except France's position (because of the oil deals they had in violation of UN sanctions wouldn't be as attractive when Iraq was out from under the sanctions and could negotiate a fair price).

Wow, fact distortion ! Iraq never kicked the inspectors out, neither in 1998 nor in 2003 (search "UN inspectors Iraq" for more)

Yes, fact distortion indeed. Actualy, both are leaving facts out. Iraq was co-operating with it's obligations and making progress until france publicly stated it's intent to protect their oil deals. From this time on, Iraq went back to stalling, delays, withholding access to sites for a few days as if to imply it was moving materials out, and any chances of the fair or complete inspections were gone. This happened around the 7th of march 2003 and was directly the cause for the statement on the 17th giving Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq.

During the recent push into this cycle, Iraq had been working to satisfy their obligations but after france did what it needed to do to protect it's oil deals, Iraq slipped back into the non compliance stages they have done for so many years before.And yes, Iraq never actually kicked the inspectors out, they have always left out of protest that they cannot do their job or needed to insure their safety. But it is the same effect. If inspector cannot legitimatize their work, then what is the use having them there?

Sarkozy would have supported war for sure. Back on its changing opinion, he was critical of the french government while meeting Bush, then the year later cheered the way that same government handled that same issue

Supporting the war or a war is the type of leverage needed to avoid war. It is like your mom getting so frustrated at her kids not listening that she eventually has to declare if you don't do whatever, you will be spanked. Well, Imagine how this went over in your mind when Dad jumped in saying you won't touch them. This is exactly what was going on in Iraq, We had threats with no teeth for so long and we had countries like France protecting Iraq to some degree that Iraq felt there was no reason to fulfill their obligations.

Finally, the threat of the most severe punishment was placed on the table. Iraq began doing what it was asked as best as it could until France stood up claiming not only did it object to the punishment, it would take actions to stop it with the Veto. No Iraq, like the kid, decided it didn't have to listen again and we decided we couldn't go about with empty threats any more.

Sorry about the kid analogy, I recently saw ano

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

It is true if one has the opportunity to answer the attacks, which he had not.

During one month, and frequently several times a day, all big medias (but Liberation perhaps) have stressed that he was "down in the polls" and finished, they relayed the blatantly false PS-UMP talking point that he had "no programm", and that he would find nobody to govern with (good joke !). I would better say "hammered".
Oh, and he was "flip-flopping" and "soft on crime" too.
Good! Now, the new prez loves so much the country that he just left it "to breath a little". Do we stink so much?

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

That's hogwash.

"we wouldn't have needed to goto war."
There _was_ _no_ _need_. With or without Sarkozy.

"But what they don't understand is that the reasons for going into Iraq before then consisted entirely on the fact that Iraq had failed to disarm [...]"
No. They _had_ disarmed and they had _hidden_ it. The inspectors never stated that Iraq was not cooperating in 1991: on the contrary, their last communication in the UN security council was stating that Iraq was cooperating better, even if it was not perfect, and this statement was the basis of Chirac's refusal to agree with Bush.

And so on.

Everything I read in your post was false, though I have not finished it...

Re:Obl.

[jlehtira]

On a philosophical note, one is also presupposing that the State has the right to confiscate someone's wealth at time of death, a right which is highly debatable. If you believe, as many on the Left would, that wealth is an evil thing that is usually obtained through dishonest means, then inheritance tax is merely justice. If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth, then inheritance tax is merely another form of confiscation.

See, you're free to do whatever you want with your wealth, even after death. You don't? Well, isn't that nice! Then I guess that wealth goes to someone, and it's not confiscation anymore! There's some kind of a tax on every other method of transferring wealth from one person to another.

How I see this right vs left argument: the Right thinks it's entirely justified that one can have a privileged life with no shortage on anything just because an ancestor of his happened to belong to nobility or start a nice business. On the Left it feels unjustified - everybody should have a fair chance of success, and wealth should be a reward for one's own labor, not somebody else's.

I'd be more than happy to suddenly become the owner of a retail store. Even if it wasn't a completely free lunch.

Re:Obl.

[WarwickRyan]

You can probably replace the "european" with "british" in my first post, then :)

Seems strange for rightwing parties to increase the tax burdon, usually the socialists like to have things like a strong benefits system, which they pay for via generally stepped taxation (those who can afford to pay more do pay more).

It all gets messy though, in the UK the current Labour party claim to be socialist but then act in many ways as the conservatives would have....

Re:Obl.

[sumdumass]

There _was_ _no_ _need_. With or without Sarkozy.

History shows us that enough people in power believed there was a need to go in. But the need was only there after threats needed to be shown that they weren't empty as a direct response to France's vow to protect it's oil deals. Don't associate the need to be more then the western threats would be valid. There may not have been a need to go into Iraq to get compliance but the threat was there to force compliance and there is a need to show the threat wasn't empty. It is the only way we got action out of Iraq.

We are in the situation we have today simply because of empty threats and non-action when there should have been a strong responses. 9/11 wouldn't have happened, I don't believe the London subways bombing or the Madrid bombing would have happened. The recent Israel war thing never would have happened. There are a lot of things that would never have happened.

No. They _had_ disarmed and they had _hidden_ it. The inspectors never stated that Iraq was not cooperating in 1991: on the contrary, their last communication in the UN security council was stating that Iraq was cooperating better, even if it was not perfect, and this statement was the basis of Chirac's refusal to agree with Bush.

Wow, you have a serious problem of not knowing shit. They didn't disarm, they were further then we thought but they still had the stuff they shouldn't have had. And they wouldn't present records to the fact of their disposition.

And Iraq was cooperating and the UN inspectors were giving favorable report on the inspections but not to the disposition of known weapons. And once France announced it's intent to veto any military actions, Iraq went back to hide and seek, stalling and evasive actions. This is something that should have been taken care of in less then 5 years but has stretched out to almost 20 years and lots of resolutions and sanctions that didn't do anything but present France with an opportunity to make oil deals in their favor. (again, something france did that caused the war, the sanctions were there to put pressure on Iraq, not enrich french companies) And it took a war with Saddam's execution to find out what was going on.

Everything I read in your post was false, though I have not finished it...

It would appear that after finishing your post, I can safely say you have a habit of not finishing reading anything and your impressions are totally off base with reality. There is more to life then what you want to pick and chose to support your argument. You fail miserable at seeing the picture as a while and will suffer grave disappointments specifically because of this. I'm wondering, does it sometimes feel like everyone is out to get you? Maybe this is a sign of a more deeper mental condition that you should have looked at.

Re:Obl.

[sumdumass]

The one reason the US (and its coalition) is at war with Iraq is that president Bush had some kind of fixation against Saddam Hussein. He wanted to invade Iraq even long before 9/11 [guardian.co.uk]. Listen to what everybody who has been close to the president now says, don't just listen to Fox news.

I don't think this is any big secrete. And the fixation is the same thing that was present when going into Iraq, it was Saddam's non compliance.

I'm not sure what you think 9/11 has to do with it. The only thing it changed is the political environment was now ripe to support an invasion in Iraq were it was shaky at best before. But nothing on 9/11 changed the views on Iraq, it just place a sense of urgency on dealing with it. And BTW, I am one of those who supported going into Iraq. I think we should have done it back in '95 when they started firing on out patrols in the no fly zone. Unfortunately, we didn't have the leaders in place and we ended up appearing like a paper tiger that would fold at the slightest bit of resistance. I think A lot of history from that area wouldn't have happened with another president who was willing to do something. I even think 9/11 never would have happened if Al qeada would have seen some teeth in that area and knew they couldn't get away with doing things. Of course I also think we should have done what bush did with the taliban back when the USS cole was hit.

I can understant GWB wanted to come in and clean the mess, but to invade Iraq and topple SH he had to invent some kind of credible threat. That's where he went wrong IMHO. "The end justify the means" is rarely a good option, and now the end itself is now seriously in question with 3500 US dead and counting, and Iraq nowhere near democracy.

Actually, as long as Iraq was complying with it's obligations in full, we didn't need to go in. The problem is that they only cooperated when there was a real chance of something happening. Saddam could tell when other countries were serious or not about their threats. As you noted, Most of the objecting countries had oil deals that they made using the UN sanction to their advantage so the sanctions weren't working. Originally Iraq was cut off form selling their oil, People pushed for the oild for food program as a humanitarian measure but it seems like it was mostly a smoke screen to hide the oil transfers that should have been banned by the UN sanctions.

I probably don't need to explain to you about what the Sanctions were supposed to do but I will briefly touch on it for some of the others reading who never gave enough of a fuck to pay attention until bush became president. The sanctions were supposed to entire Iraq into complying with their terms of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war. It worked for a while but when Other countries started back-dooring deals and using the Sanctions to their advantage, it quickly became ineffective and we had 15 years of getting jerked around.

Then the threat of war when Bush came to power and specifically after 9/11, Iraq started complying but was testing to see what they could get away with. In March of 2003, UN inspectors reported that access to inspection sites were improving but they were still receiving resistance to the disposition of weapons we knew they possessed. The US attempted to incite the situation by adding another resolution specifically threatening military action if they didn't comply. France announced it would Veto any actions involving military force (presumably to protect it's oil deals). Iraq took this as a sign that nothing would happen (maybe because of some inside knowledge because of the oil deals) and then resumed their actions of stalling, misleading and evasion as before.

The US went in without a UN declaration and most of the countries objecting were the one who would lose out on the oil deals if Saddam was gone as well as have an embarrassing mark in them. Unfortunately, The bush administratio

Re:Obl.

[varcher75]

The problem of aristocracy isn't inheritance per se, it's the idea that people can be property. Serfdom is an evil thing, whether it's inflicted by a nobleman or by an elected legislature.

Don't mistake serfdom (where people are linked to their places) with slavery, where people can be property. Serfs couldn't be sold, traded, or exchanged in any way. Medieval noblemen didn't own serfs, they owned land, and the serfs were "part" of the land.

Re:Obl.

[varcher75]

The people who are taxed are not the dead people but their heir. Exactly. And, as long as you have an income tax, why would be the income from your parents be treated any differently than the income from your employer.

As for France, the inheritance tax law has multiple purposes. One of them is that your heirs should "inherit" early, when they're starting in life, and that money would help, rather than at your death, when usually one's heirs are middle aged, with established situations and own's fortunes. For one, you can give your children money, and it's completely tax free. All you have to do is to give them money early, not hold on it until it's no longer of use to you.

Re:Obl.

[gfxguy]

Even if that's more or less representative of the makeup of the people of the U.S. and the number of, and size of, the charities themselves?

I remember having a black social studies teacher who insisted that our current system of government is inherrently unfair unless there's an equal representation of blacks and whites in government. And that for either "side" to have less than 50% invites one to opress the others (of course, if that were true, slavery would never have ended and equal rights ammendment would never have made it).

Of course, he's leaving out other minorities but, like many idiots, he didn't acknowledge the hypocrisy of what he was saying.

In other words, if all charities were the same size, and helped the communities about the same, and 90% of those charities were Christian, it'd actually be ANTI christian to give less than 90% to Christian charities. If 5% are Jewish, and 5% are Muslim (I know I'm excluding a lot, for sake of example), then it would be biased to give either one of them less than that share.

Some far out cult or wiccan group would never be able to claim even 0.001%, so there's no valid arguments there.

Now, if you could show that a particular Jewish charity gave more of it's proceeds to those it wanted to help, then there might be an argument to over represent that charity... but I'm saying, in an overall picture, that having a majority of those charities be Christian should suit the demographics of the country.

You have to keep in mind that far more money is given to non-religious charities. This religious thing was a recent Bush-ism. And all I can say is that if they don't require you to convert, if they are thrifty and wise with the money, and they do a lot of good, then I think it's backwards to use the fact that the charity was created out of religious beliefs as a counterargument.

Re:Obl.

[Copid]

Even if that's more or less representative of the makeup of the people of the U.S. and the number of, and size of, the charities themselves?

No, I think that you're assuming that we'd be using the wrong metric. The incorrect metric, as you point out, is the overall percentage of money going to particular religions (obviously skewed by the prevalence of that particular religion). A better metric is, is there a correlation between which religion a faith-based group represents and the likelihood of funding? You might want to read David Kuo's book on the topic, Tempting Faith. The problem here is less a matter of a vast conspiracy and badly written policy and more a matter of obvious bias and misbehavior on the parts of the actors. Kuo recounts talking to somebody on the review board:

She talked about how the government employees gave them grant review instructions - look at everything objectively against a discreet list of requirements and score accordingly. "But," she said with a giggle, "when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero."

Once government gets into the business of propping up religious organizations, people just can't help but dole out the hand-outs inequitably. That's just the way it always works out, and that's why a lot of us are suspicious of such programs. It's easy to turn it into a program for quietly funneling taxpayer money into the pockets of favored religions.

You have to keep in mind that far more money is given to non-religious charities. This religious thing was a recent Bush-ism. And all I can say is that if they don't require you to convert, if they are thrifty and wise with the money, and they do a lot of good, then I think it's backwards to use the fact that the charity was created out of religious beliefs as a counterargument.

The whole point of the faith-based initiative was to get government funding to religious organizations by exempting them from rules that say that you're not allowed to discriminate if you receive government money. The counterargument to the program is simply that it won't be (and hasn't been) administered fairly, and I strongly suspect that aside from proselytizing, there's nothing that "faith based" organizations do that can't be found in an equivalent secular organization.

Re:Obl.

[boule75]

To put it simply: your answer is a pack of propaganda at a great scale.
<p>
There were no WMD in Irak at the time Blair and Bush decided to invade, that's why the inspectors found nothing. Please take some time to read the official US documents about that, from the Iraq Survey Group for instance.
<p>
I am sure you can find them in full and cite them correctly if a quote contradicts me.
<p>
Oh, by the way, Chirac never threatened to put France veto to _any_ military action against Iraq _forever_. On the contrary, he stressed that he would vote "no" under "the current crcumstances", i.e. as long as the UN inspectors were reporting that progress was made and that they needed some more time before concluding. Want to have it in full? It is <a href="http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/franca is/interventions/interviews_articles_de_presse_et_ interventions_televisees/2003/mars/interview_telev isee_du_president_de_la_republique_sur_tf1_et_fran ce_2.935.html">there </a> (in French, quite evidently).
<p>
Best kisses from Paris.

Re:Obl.

[HuguesT]

Thanks for the long reply.

Personally I think Saddam was a horrible dictator, but that for all his evil ways he had been pretty much neutralized in 2001 from the international point of view. His worst deeds, again from the international PoV was to encourage Palestinian terrorism by offerring rewards to families of suicide bombers.

Now in Iraqi affairs he was just as horrible as ever, but my opinion on this is that the American approach has pretty much made things as bad as they could. The international community should have supported an internal resistance movement rather than invading. Democracy and peace is not something you can impose easily.

Re:Obl.

[ultranova]

You've made it clear that you regard a person's earnings as the property of the state, to be granted or withheld from the wage-earner at will. That is the antithesis of liberty.

No, it is the antithesis of the idea of private property (or perhaps capitalism). The antithesis of liberty - freedom - is bondage.

It is not at all clear that private ownership has anything to do with liberty, and in fact it can be argued that they are antithetical concepts; after all, owning some resource means having a State-granted monopoly on using it, meaning that other people are prevented (by force) from using it.

Of course none of this makes confiscating someone's property arbitrarily a good idea or morally right.

Re:Obl.

[sumdumass]

Personally I think Saddam was a horrible dictator, but that for all his evil ways he had been pretty much neutralized in 2001 from the international point of view. His worst deeds, again from the international PoV was to encourage Palestinian terrorism by offerring rewards to families of suicide bombers.

Actually Saddm was a bigger threat then anyone wants to admit. To this date there are hundreds of tons of sarin and VX nerve gas missing. Some have been found but vast quantities are gone. Here is a clip from the abstract to the of the report giving to the UN security counsol by the UNMOVIC qich over saw he inspections They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The few rockets were Chemical warhead rockets that Iraq until this discovery claimed had been destroyed and were found in a bunker built after the gulf war in the early 90's.

Now what is to say non of those chemical agents or missiles made it out of the country and what is to say none of them didn't arrive in other terrorists hands? And I wouldn't say that we knew because we were watching, there were several countries and companies who were getting oil out and bring weapons and such into Iraq against the UN sanctions. And these countries were high level members of the security council. The inspection reports from june 5th 2003 says While we are all aware of the large amounts of proscribed items, which still remain unaccounted for, we should perhaps take note of the fact that for many years neither UNSCOM nor UNMOVIC made significant finds of weapons. The lack of finds could be because the items were unilaterally destroyed by the Iraqi authorities or else because they were effectively concealed by them. and we have the Iraqi general and the Russian spy who says they were carted off to other countries.

Saddam hadn't been neutralized at all, from an international point of view or we wouldn't have still had inspectors looking for the weapons that didn't exist and we wouldn't have been finding them.

Now in Iraqi affairs he was just as horrible as ever, but my opinion on this is that the American approach has pretty much made things as bad as they could. The international community should have supported an internal resistance movement rather than invading. Democracy and peace is not something you can impose easily.

Things in Iraq haven't gone very well lately. But this wasn't always the case in relative terms. In the beginning of post war Iraq is was slow moving but progress was being made. Then when it start looking good, we had Al Qeada start influencing things as well as some factions of the internal resistance getting funding and orders from Iran and Syria. Maybe not from the governments themselves but we do know for certain that Ex-Iraqi military and political officers are residing in those countries who are financing and supplying arms to post war insurrections. What you have is differing factions of Iraq being fed by outside influences and the idea of them fighting in the first place is being sparked by terrorist.

Politicians on the left relegate this down to a civil war. This is only true in the essence that an outside force can incite a portion of the people to cause the civil war. I don't think this is a valid civil war or do I think these fights cannot be solved by peaceful means. This is part of the confusion surounding Iraq that is being fueled by the political left. All the American troop have to do over there is stop the violence long enough to bring the two sides together to negotiate terms they both can be happy with. It isn't enforcing democracy or anything of the sort. Iraq could change to a popularly elected dictatorship tomorrow if they wanted, the Idea of democracy was to make sure that if th

Are you sure ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... that Royal didn't just surrender the election?

In all seriousness, Royal deserved to lose after she tried her "if you vote for Sarkozy there will be violence in the streets" rhetoric. That kind of crap just won't ever work ... will it?

Re:Are you sure ...

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, that would be as silly as "if you vote for the Democrats, the terrorists win!" rhetoric. It would never convince the savvy masses.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

n all seriousness, Royal deserved to lose after she tried her "I'm a a socialist bitch" rhetoric. That kind of crap just won't ever work ... will it?

Re:Are you sure ...

[The Hobo]

She did surrender. From the CBC story

Sarkozy defeated his rival, Socialist Party Leader Ségolène Royal, who conceded minutes after polls closed at 8 p.m. local time

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it didn't. All the Democrat's other failings in 2000/04 did that just fine.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, good thing the Republicans were there to make all the correct decisions.

Re:Are you sure ...

[ductonius]

Absolutly, and with the Democrats forming such an effective opposition it's no wonder we've had nothing but peace and good governence in recent history.

Re:Are you sure ...

[furball]

Well, let's dissect that "terrorists win" rhetoric for a second shall we?

We elected Democrats to the majority in Congress right? And right now the Democrats are pushing for us to leave Iraq. Rightly so. Ending wars is a highly desirable thing. So if we leave Iraq, do the terrorists win or lose?

There are no ties in warfare.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, I was in a bit of a hurry to post, if they had grown a spine (or at least found the one they're starting to discover) in the first place, we may have avoided the clusterfuck all together.

Re:Are you sure ...

[rachit]

"savvy masses"?

Re:Are you sure ...

[WED Fan]

I also loved Royal's, "If you vote conservative, their will be riots," method.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We elected Democrats to the majority in Congress right? And right now the Democrats are pushing for us to leave Iraq. Rightly so. Ending wars is a highly desirable thing. So if we leave Iraq, do the terrorists win or lose?

The terrorists won, but they won in 2003 when we disbanded Iraq's infrastructure and all its existing power structures. Everything since has just been a consequence of that.

Re:Are you sure ...

[CosmeticLobotamy]

So if we leave Iraq, do the terrorists win or lose?

There are no ties in warfare.

Of course the terrorists win. That's what you get for agreeing to play a game whose conditions for victory are so horribly skewed in the other guy's favor. We've got to wipe out every single one of them. They just have to wait and shoot into the air every once in a while so everyone knows they didn't forfeit. So of course we're not going to win. We should have tried a lot harder to get them to play a different game.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Eivind]

Because, in France it's not allowed to publish voter-polls on election day before all polling-places are closed. Which happens at 8 pm.

In reality, everyone knew since these polls where in, early in the morning, that she'd lose, it's just, they all sorta pretend not to know until it's "official". You see, french law has little influence abroad, so anyone with an internet-connection has been able to read these polls all day. Only in French media are they disallowed.

So, each and every journalist covering the election, and every politician aswell, knew the result (aproximately, but good enough since it wasn't a close race anyway) hours earlier.

In this setting it makes perfect sense to admit defeat at 20:01. It'd have been disrespectful of the law and the voters to do so any earlier, and pointless to wait much longer when the numbers where as obvious as they where.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

All the Democrat's other failings in 2000/04 did that just fine.

In 2004, anyway.

Re:Are you sure ...

[giorgosts]

You have to leave Iraq because it's wrong, to plunder other peoples' wealth. Not because of terrorism or preventive warfare.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Beretta Vexe]

Because French ballot counter are faster than voting machine!

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if we leave Iraq, do the terrorists win or lose?

Both. The question is whether the ones that win the civil war that will inevitably follow the withdrawal of our troops will be the Sunni terrorists or the Shi'a terrorists. :P

There are no ties in warfare.

So who won in Korea, then? I'd say that was pretty much a tie.

Re:Are you sure ...

[furball]

By plunder you mean let the first oil contracts go to China and Vietnam right?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international /iraq_oil/index.htm

Re:Are you sure ...

[hyperstation]

how about: if we leave iraq now, fewer soldiers die in vain, so they win. the iraqis don't really want us there, so they win too. everyone wins!

Re:Are you sure ...

[mehgul]

Because, in France it's not allowed to publish voter-polls on election day before all polling-places are closed. Which happens at 8 pm. Not exactly, I'm afraid. The vast majority of polling-places close at 6pm. Only in big cities do polling-places close at 8pm. And since the polling-places that close earlier are in smalls cities and rural dwellings, that means the ballot-counting goes very fast. And then the results are sent in real-time to the interior minstry, which can gathers results and get quite a good view on the results already around 6.30 pm.

Re:Are you sure ...

[twenex27]

It would never convince the savvy masses. Please, no oxymorons on a Sunday.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

>In reality, everyone knew since these polls where in, early in the morning, that she'd lose, it's just, >they all sorta pretend not to know until it's "official".

It is completely wrong; polls are available at 6 PM only, and usually can not be trusted before 7PM. So that's one hour before election close in a few big cities like Paris.

Re:Are you sure ...

[furball]

So who won in Korea, then? I'd say that was pretty much a tie.

Except for the little problem that the Korean War isn't over.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, in France like in the US (and in many other 'développed' countries), "savvy" is not a correct adjective for "masses" yet.

Re:Are you sure ...

[be-fan]

Uh, it's France. They've gone through almost a dozen governments since we started our first. They've been pretty calm the last fifty years or so, but given historical precedent, it doesn't take a whole lot to get the French marauding through the streets of Paris...

Re:Are you sure ...

[kitzilla]

Besides, she's right. She wasn't threatening violence from dissatisfied voters -- she was pointing out that it was Sarkozy's policies which ignited race riots two years ago.

I wish Sarkozy and the Republic well, and the Socialists are long overdue for reform. Further, even though Royal is one of the world's hottest-looking politicians, she campaigned terribly. I just worry French voters may find they're going to get exactly what they just voted for.

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

actually, terrorists did celebrate the democratic victory in 06 and they are also supportive of the democrats withdrawl from iraq and afganistan since that would be a defacto win for them. So yes, that is actually true in this case.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

don't you see that it is USA that behaves like terrorist? I mean "visiting (=invading) other countries, spreading democracy among people (= killing everyone standing for their fatherland against US invadors).

So terrorists win anyway, either this is Osama or George.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Chemicalscum]

There will be "violence in the streets". That was a prediction not a threat.

Re:Are you sure ...

[mehgul]

I must give the precision that, of course, since we don't want to influence the vote of the late voters, the interior ministry doesn't proclaim any results before 8pm.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Spookticus]

don't you mean Mrs. Hilary Bill Clinton?

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you're lost. Here's where you should go: Go back to the echo chamber. Get back before Websense blocks them for good =)

Re:Are you sure ...

[Original Replica]

Actually, the conditions aren't so skewed in the terrorist's favor, we are just fighting the wrong war. We can't handily win a war of bullets and lives against them, because they are willing to lose far more than we are. The war we should be fighting is in changing the values and culture of Iraq and Afganistan. Feed them the line about "the pen is mightier than the sword" and hope they buy it. I'll take angry letters and protest signs over bombings and kidnappings any day. They won't blow up LA if they are too busy watching American Idol. This is where I find myself agreeing with Sarkozy and his call for immigrants to "learn the French language and Values". This war is a war of cultures, it's not about countries and borders, it's about which set of values will endure. And multiculturalism doesn't work, unless you want to surrender all other values to it. Take Germanys conflict with multiculturalism vs. Women's Rights.

"The crux case centres on a woman called Nishal, a 26-year-old Moroccan immigrant to Germany with two kids and a psychotic husband. Since their wedding night, this husband beat the hell out of her. She crawled to the police covered in wounds, and they ordered the husband to stay away from her. He refused. He terrorised her with death threats. So Nishal went to the courts to request an early divorce, hoping that once they were no longer married he would leave her alone. A judge who believed in the rights of women would find it very easy to make a judgement: you're free from this man, case dismissed. But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here. Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings. This is not a freakish exception. Germany's only state-level Minister for Integration, Armin Laschet, says this is only "the last link, for the time being, in a chain of horrific rulings handed down by the German courts".

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/jo hann_hari/article2496657.ece

Trying to preserve the French culture isn't necessarily xenophobic. A significant part of what makes a country a good or bad place to live is it's culture.(yes, language is part of a culture) For example both Saudi Arabia and the USA are wealthy countries, but ask your wife or girlfriend which one she would rather live in. There is a difference between

Re:Are you sure ...

[notamisfit]

It's why declarations such as "The War on Terrorism" are so idiotic. We didn't declare a "War on Aviation" when Pearl Harbor was attacked. We really should have gone with "War on Jihadism" and just let fifth-columnists like CAIR bitch all they wanted. Then again, if we had gone after a country that supports jihadism (*coughIrancough*), we'd be philosophically bulletproof.

Re:Are you sure ...

[rlp]

There will be "violence in the streets". That was a prediction not a threat.

Pretty accurate prediction:

In Lille, just before 22h00, around 200 French youths with black flags grouped around the Grand Place and chanted "Fascist Sarko, the people will have your hide". After pelting riot police, the demonstrators were dispersed. One demonstrator was injured.

Firemen in the south of Lille have answered 20 alarms for torched vehicles.

Around 100 demonstrators grouped around the Place Kléber in Strasbourg slightly after 21h00 and chanted "Sarkozy fasciste".

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In all seriousness, Royal deserved to lose after she tried her "if you vote for Sarkozy there will be violence in the streets" rhetoric.

Yes, but that happens every day anyway. The french media just don't bother reporting the burned cars anymore.

And frankly, if you respond with violence when you don't like the outcome of free & fair democratic elections, the army should be called out to deal with these scum.

And yes, scum is the right word. If these scum were a little smarter, they would be stealing cars and shipping them to eastern europe, instead of just burning them.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A socialist would probably be more dependant on urban votes than rural ones. It's a lot easier to live off the teat of the welfare state in a city.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Blakey Rat]

The Democratic platform was so weak the last two Presidential elections that a phrase like that (if anybody even said it in an official sense) would be completely unnecessary. I know Democrats hate to admit it, but they've had a lot of weak candidates lately. I believe that probably 90% of votes for John Kerry were actually votes against Bush, since Kerry was such a weak candidate.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"if you vote for Sarkozy there will be violence in the streets"

And there's rioting in the streets. Sounds like a petty threat to put her hooligans in action.

I don't know about you all, but I think that France voted the right way. By that I mean that if the people rioting had their person win, then think about what that says. In light of this, I'd say that Sarkozy pretty much falls in with the American right, or at least ... Okay, wait, let me try it this way: Royal's followers fall in with the American left. There, that's better. Albeit more violently, but when Bush won the last two elections, the Left over here had a hissy fit. There were no riots, mind you, even though THE ENTIRE REST OF THE PLANET THINKS WE'RE BARBARIC, thankyouverymuch.

So I'm kind of sitting here lmao at our brothers overseas every time I see a riot break out over something that we Americans would debate.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Ensign Nemo]

Um, no.

Which terrorists celebrated when the Democrats won in '06? Did some people labeled as 'terrorists' support the democrats, yes very probably, but that's a fairly broad brush. Some support Bush's policies, so the fact that Bush has remained in office could be construed as 'Bush's policies support terrorism'.

2) Please point to references that support your position that "...they are also supportive of the democrats withdrawl..."

3) I'm not sure I agree with the premise that a withdrawl is a victory for the terrorists. Most of what the US is fighting are Iraqi nationalists who hate the western foreign presence.

*Disclosure, I'm not a democrat. I'm an independent from a long line of Republicans so this is not a partisan thing.

Re:Are you sure ...

[ChameleonDave]

I also loved Royal's, "If you vote conservative, their will be riots," method.

What's wrong with that? There have been riots in recent years in France, and Sarkozy promises to exacerbate the causes of them.

Re:Are you sure ...

[ghoul]

Sure your wife or girlfriend wants to live in the US but as a man where would You want to live? In a nation where if a girl gets pregnant she has the right to have an abortion even if the man wants the baby but on the other hand if the man doesnt want the baby the woman can go ahead and still have the baby and have to pay child support for the upkeep of the baby which is used by the mom to enjoy a life of leisure and boyfriend hopping while you work your butt off to pay Child Support. Even assets like Retirment saving and health insurance accounts which are protected even in a bankruptcy are not safe from Child Services. This is also a nation where even if the mother has been cheating in a divorce she still gets custody of the child. Further even if she denies the father child visitation rights the father still has to pay child support. Further when the mothers tricks make the man go crazy (after all he is also working a 9 to 5 job unlike the mother who is sitting at home all day on his money and plotting new ways to use his children against him) and he shouts into a phone it becomes a national scandal that a man shouted into a phone raher than a woman used children as a weapon against their father. You may criticize Saudi for being hard on their woman but USA is equally bad in the other direction. So to rephrase your question where would your husband/ biyfriend like to live USA or Saudi?

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, terrorists did celebrate the democratic victory in 06 and they are also supportive of the democrats withdrawl from iraq and afganistan since that would be a defacto win for them. So yes, that is actually true in this case.

Cite references or stand down--unless you're a terrorist yourself.

By all categories of description, the US has engaged in STATE terrorism since its inception, with a dramatic escalation in the 20th century. So, yes, in that context, you ARE a terrorist--as am I, as is every citizen of this country--so I guess you get a pass on this one. Hey, let's get back to torturing people; it's what the West IS the Best at.

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

hey if you think you are a terrorist fine by me, dont call me one. I'm not even an american. I live in asia.

Re:Are you sure ...

[king-manic]

On paper women seem to have an advantage in practice They don't. I was cynical like you at one time and then a good friend of mine got divorced. I was expecting the courts to cave to this adulterous bitch but they made the right decisions and awarded him full custody. The systems lean towards women because they traditionally have had less of a voice. But if you do the right things you don't run into the garbage you state. If the father demands custody and seems sincere then he doesn't have to pay child support. Often it's more capitalistic. It's all about the quality of your lawyer sadly. In Saudi Arabia it is also about how much money you have to throw around. So if you married say the daughter of an Arab prince and then got divorced... you may find even Saudi Arabia won't go your way.

The US isn't that kind to women. Still make less. Still lots of rape and sex crimes. Still a lot of chauvinist pigs who can't see the forest from the trees.

Also, the gold diggers who have your kids and divorce you are numerically less then the stupid retards who insists condoms give him a rash and they should do it anyways since she's going on the pill next month...

Re:Are you sure ...

[Timbotronic]

Sarkozy could have said "if you vote for Royal, the terrorist's sister wins" and he would have been right

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

The link you provided starts with "Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri said a US congressional bill calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq was proof of Washington's defeat, according to a web video posted on Saturday." that is hardly support for bush's policies. I doubt al-qeda would oppose their own victory. I also do not think al-qeda is an iraqi nationalist group since they consist mostly of foreign whabbist fighters and that has been a source of tension with actual nationalists. al-zawarhi that is in the article you linked to is Egyptian. Al-qeda is a sunni arab group. iraq is a majority shia arab and sunni kurd country.

I oppose islamic radicals and i see there is a disturbing link between democrats and them.

First islamic congressman was elected a democrat in 06. This guy is a former nation of islam member (they think non-blacks and non-muslims are "potential humans" that is a malcom X quote google it )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6127234.stm

Islamic theocratic rulers celebrated in iran "this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation." ..."
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/khameni-calls-d emocrat-victory-a-victory-for-iran

Al-qeda welcomes democratic victory
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061121-083639-1 601r.htm

everyone else
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738183/p osts

Shite radicals chant death to america while supporting the democratic bill
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/10/africa/web- 0410iraq.php

If this were WWII and the nazis and japanese were praising one parties policies over anothers like this, people would have reacted differently. These days it seems people cant see the obvious.

Can you show me anything where terrorists groups oppose democratic policy on the war? in the link you provided they are basically saying you have admitted defeat and now we want to kill more of you. Im sure if they cant kill more infidels in iraq they will move to another country and resume there.

Re:Are you sure ...

[nexeruza]

Article states he won with 53% vs 46%, where did you get these 20:01 odds???

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I also loved Royal's, "If you vote conservative, their will be riots," method.

What's wrong with that? There have been riots in recent years in France, and Sarkozy promises to exacerbate the causes of them. Think, man, think! She had months to bring up the riots as a centerpiece of her campaign, but she decided to only do it a couple of days before the election and after the debate. Do you think that was a coincidence? Or do you think she was trying to use a FUD tactic?

I support her bringing up the riots. But I don't support her bringing them up at the last minute in a way that Sarkozy couldn't respond (due to the media blackout). That was a very very dirty move and she deserved to be punished for it.

Re:Are you sure ...

[RightSaidFred99]

Haha. Truly stunning turn of logic, that. What if the terrorists get really smart and use reverse psychology on us? "We, uhh, really want the hardline conservatives to win!"

Of course, that's retarded. In a logical world what the terrorists say or think about our policies and decisions has no meaning, and should be completely ignored. Because they support something doesn't mean it's a bad policy or decision. I'm sure they're hellfire against the US dropping a nuclear bomb on their holy sites, does that mean we should do it? After all apparently by your "logic" their wishes and the things they oppose should inform our decisions.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you take the "we can't lose if we never leave" stance? Yes, saving face is clearly more important than saving lives.

Bush's logic that a "date certain" will only embolden the insurgents falls on its face when you realize there already is a date certain: January 20th, 2009. The momentum has already started in Congress to end the war. It's a political certainty that no candidate is going to be elected in 2008 without a clear plan bring the troops home. The Republicans need to ask themselves how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have to die between now and then.

Re:Are you sure ...

[ChameleonDave]

I really don't see why they can't make arguments up to the last minute. I wouldn't have minded it from Sarkozy either.

Furthermore, her prediction was quite accurate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2073832, 00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

...as he talked, there were reports of car-burnings in the suburbs and trouble flaring in Lyon, with police firing flashballs after skirmishes between leftwing activists and Sarkozy supporters.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I remember, the riots a few summers ago; involved angry Muslim youths that were not orchestrated by anybody. Not a bunch of left wing nutball^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hactivists that believe that molitov cocktails are a legitimate way to express dissatisfaction with the outcome of an election. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if Royal's "threat" was backed up by some "operational knowledge"... nah couldn't be.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we would have went after a country that supported jihadism in the 70s, 80s, and after, we wouldn't have the problems we are facing right now... course, that country that supported jihadism was Yankee Imperialist Bastardistan...

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

By plunder you mean let the first oil contracts go to China and Vietnam right?

I think he means U.S. companies are granted shares of Iraqi oil. Bush et al don't care where it's sold so long as his political supporters get the money.

Re:Are you sure ...

[FrenchNeal]

Some violence began just after election: (Yahoo's Article). (All the links will target French content, use translators, or learn french)
Here are the links to see major points of his program :
First, his ideas on genetics : Suicide, pedophilia and homosexuality are genetic, if one of your parent is pedophile, you are a criminal too.
Sources :
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/2467 52.FR.php/ ,
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,3 6-892092,0.html?xtor=RSS-3208/,
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/09042007/202/genes-les-pr opos-de-sarkozy-pas-scientifiquement-fondes-pour-l es.html/,
http://www.france.qrd.org/actualites/article.php3? id_article=2976/.
On civil liberties, the Human Rights League has announced that democracy is in great danger with Sarkozy :
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/26042007/202/la-ligue-des -droits-de-l-homme-attaque-le-bilan.html/
Since 2 years now (Sarkozy was in the Government), since you are seven year old, the police can take your DNA if you are caught in a fight (even in the school yard) or any reprehensible act. Exemple of new criminal act : be more than 3 people in front of a building (that was to prevent suburbs criminality)!.
Sarkozy wanted a law to drug to calm restless children, since they are 3 years old. There was too much opposition at the time and the law was temporarily abandoned, but in an interview he said his delinquency prevention laws will be activated if he becomes president (http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl05-433.html/).
Wish us good luck, no more civil or human rights in France.

Re:Are you sure ...

[clacke]

It's funny, laugh!

Re:Are you sure ...

[fishbowl]

Anyone who profits from war, should be required to invest those profits in war bonds, not redeemable for the duration.
Operating costs only, and those are subject to approval.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Kokuyo]

Excuse me? So just because that judge was a complete moron (a problem America seems to be very acquainted with) makes it a valid argument or what?

On that basis you could argue that any catholic woman marrying and then getting beaten up should have seen it coming. Catholics are allowed to sell daughters, take slaves unless they're from the same country and so on. If judges took the bible that literally, I shudder imagining where we'd be.

That judge in this quoted story, if it is acurate in the first place, has somehow decided that the law has to obey every religious book out there. If that was a precedent, I'd go making up my own religion right now and I wouldn't be alone.

I seriously doubt that story goes beyond urban legend.

Re:Are you sure ...

[giorgosts]

So everytime you fire up your pick-up or SUV you'll feel less guilty knowing that the Vietnamese got their share first.

Re:Are you sure ...

[yndrd1984]

I agree that in relation to other injustices in the US the things you've listed are pretty bad, and that some of the other sexism against men that you didn't are even worse (at least from my viewpoint). But you really should keep some perspective - men in the US have both voting and free speech rights, which has led to at least some progress (my state just forced courts to treat all parents as equals last year) - while nobody in SA has any real rights at all.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Alioth]

The USA of course.

A girl doesn't just "get pregnant" out of thin air. The man is absolutely responsible as well and should pay his share. Saudi Arabia is a repulsive regime (although not quite as repulsive as Iran). The USA has its faults, but if you think you'd rather live in Saudi because women in the USA actually have some rights and men are expected to pay up for things they were personally responsible for, then you've got some issues.

Re:Are you sure ...

[yndrd1984]

On paper women seem to have an advantage in practice They don't.

Well, things are getting better (in some places more than others), but I still think that (at least on average) they still do.

The systems lean towards women because they traditionally have had less of a voice.

Automatically giving mothers custody was due to gender roles. Dad's job was to get money, mom did the touchy-feely stuff, especially with young children. The idea that women "don't have a voice" came a fair bit after sexist divorce law was in place.

If the father demands custody and seems sincere then he doesn't have to pay child support.

OK, most of your post was reasonable, even if I had quibbles with it, but this is just silly. Support is determined by custody and income levels - you can get on your knees and beg the court for custody, but if the other parent still gets primary custody you will still owe support.

The US isn't that kind to women.

It isn't that kind to men either.

Still make less.

And men still ends up working more hours and giving more financial support. Imagine an alternate universe where a major part of a woman's attractiveness and social standing is based on her income, where girls are raised to to "suck it up" and "be a woman" means to be competitive, and where women are expected to be the primary breadwinners, pay for dates, and give expensive gifts. Don't you think they'd put more effort into work, and thus earn more in that world?

I'm not saying that there's not a lot of sexism in business, but not all of the "pay gap" is caused by discrimination.

Still lots of rape and sex crimes.

True, but at least they're acknowledged as being crimes:

Many places still treat the rape of a man as something to be joked about (rather than a crime). Boys statutorily raped by teachers still end up paying their rapists child support (even after she's convicted) - while men still get convicted of rape when the 16-year-old they had sex with admits that she showed the man her fake ID that said she was 18. And then there's the fact that women can use any type of deceit to get pregnant - not just pretending to be on the pill or poking holes in condoms, but even by giving oral sex with a condom and using the resulting "sample" to get pregnant, and the man can still end up owing child support.

And that doesn't included things like circumcision/genital mutilation - even taking a single drop of blood from a girl to symbolize an ancient ceremony is illegal in the US, but even jerks with no medical training can circumcise a boy (and keep in mind there aren't any medical groups, or any major studies, that show that circumcision in western countries has any significant medical benefit - plus there's no guidelines on how much tissue can be removed, and no requirement for painkillers).

And it doesn't include sexist culture like the "don't hit a girl"/"slap him if he gets fresh" advice, the idea that women "getting even" is OK while men should never consider such a thing - along with a host of other cultural biases (in the middle and upper classes of western countries at least).

Still a lot of chauvinist pigs who can't see the forest from the trees.

Yeah, it's amazing that some people don't get that sexism exist against, and hurts, both sexes. But in men's defense, we have come a long, long way in just three generations - and in women's defense, they can't hear what men don't say, and not enough men are pointing out the bigotry that hurts them.

Also, the gold diggers who have your kids and divorce you are numerically less then the stupid retards who insists condoms give him a rash and they should do it anyways since she's going on the pill next month.

Do you have numbers for that? (Just kidding). But you forgot to include the ones that accidentally-on-purpose get pregnant to get him to marry her, etc.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Opportunist]

Well, are you sure it ain't that way?

Both sides draw their power from the fight against each other. If the US stopped attacking Al Quaida, they'd have to stage another terror attack to "remind" the US that they got it in their contract to keep fighting, dammit.

And since such an attack costs, money, resources and people, Bin Laden (or whoever happens to be the head honcho now) is actually quite a bit better off when the fight continues without too much activity from his side. The US continue to "liberate" countries, the people get angry at the US and they don't even have to do anything for it 'cause it perpetuates itself.

Now imagine the Dems win and end that war. Do you think it's easy to steal two planes? That's some hard work, man!

Re:Are you sure ...

[king-manic]

OK, most of your post was reasonable, even if I had quibbles with it, but this is just silly. Support is determined by custody and income levels - you can get on your knees and beg the court for custody, but if the other parent still gets primary custody you will still owe support.

Perhaps I should clear that up. I agree if you get custody you don't have to pay as much. If you make a good case for custody then that helps. Being sincere helps you make a better case.

Do you have numbers for that? (Just kidding). But you forgot to include the ones that accidentally-on-purpose get pregnant to get him to marry her, etc.,/i>

For example my friend who just won full custody. Slutty bitch. My GF hated her the moment they met. Now there is a post hoc reason.

And then there's the fact that women can use any type of deceit to get pregnant - not just pretending to be on the pill or poking holes in condoms, but even by giving oral sex with a condom and using the resulting "sample" to get pregnant, and the man can still end up owing child support.

You'll have to admit that is rare. I know a lot of guys with baby mama's and I don't think any of them resorted to this. I know there were a lot of "ohh please baby the condom sucks" or "don't worry I'm on the pill" variety. These are my seedier friends. Oddly all Jamaicans. an Asian Jamaican too. I am aware that it happens and that my boys would ditch that baby mama in a heart beat if not for the "pigs". But thats what they are there to protect, the kid from a dad who would ditch them. The majority of the time it's not so sleazy and dirty like those guys. Often custody battles and divorce is with some blue collar guy and a blue collar girl who have grown to hate each other over time.

Yeah, it's amazing that some people don't get that sexism exist against, and hurts, both sexes. But in men's defense, we have come a long, long way in just three generations - and in women's defense, they can't hear what men don't say, and not enough men are pointing out the bigotry that hurts them.

Well I'd defend us too. But it's not as bad as some think. Just protect yourself. If you have money then get a pre-nup. If you like to spread the seed wear a jimmy and bring yours. If you are really that paranoid you should revise your criteria for a partner. Or do it like me and aim above you on the social ladder. that way the palimony will go your way. It's not as lop-sided as some men think as my friends case proves. Just don't date gold diggers.

Re:Are you sure ...

[king-manic]

And that doesn't included things like circumcision/genital mutilation - even taking a single drop of blood from a girl to symbolize an ancient ceremony is illegal in the US, but even jerks with no medical training can circumcise a boy (and keep in mind there aren't any medical groups, or any major studies, that show that circumcision in western countries has any significant medical benefit - plus there's no guidelines on how much tissue can be removed, and no requirement for painkillers).

And it doesn't include sexist culture like the "don't hit a girl"/"slap him if he gets fresh" advice, the idea that women "getting even" is OK while men should never consider such a thing - along with a host of other cultural biases (in the middle and upper classes of western countries at least).

Umm.. The difference is female genital circumcision does a lot more then the male version. It's like slicing off the whole head of your penis. It would suck. No orgasms for life. Circumcision is more like trimming the clitoral hood or piercing it. But I think male circumcision is a idiotic idea too. If there isn't a reason for a medical procedure don't do it.

The hitting women thing is something off too but the majority of the time men have the upper hand with violence. I'd crush half their ribs my last 4 GF if I ever bear hugged them. But sometimes it is the big wife smacking small husband and although I think it's hilarious I agree it's not right and he deserves protection from the law and protection from my ridicule of him.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is true, though the higher instances took another stance.
Still, it is a shame.
There's been a lot of ...dubious rulings in the lower courts (Amtsgerichte, Landesgerichte) during the last times. E.g. the Stuttgarter Landgericht ruled it illegal to display anti-fascist symbols because they were displaying the swastika. That it was broken, ridiculed, etc. didn't count.
It took the Bundeverfassungsgericht (the equivalent to the american supreme court, though without as much political influence in the nomination process) to restore common sense.

Still, the higher instances do a pretty good job at correcting those mistakes - until now.

Re:Are you sure ...

[ghoul]

If the man is responsible for the child he should have say on whether or not the child is to be born. Why does only the woman get to decide on abortion? As you say a woman doesnt get pregnant out of thin air so why does she get all the rights? Also traditionally a husband was supposed to earn the money and the wife was supposed to take care of the children and the house. With the advent of labour saving devices and prepackaged food the amount of housework has drastically dropped so why is the man still supposed to provide support in a divorce . In todays world women even with kids should be able to earn their keep and if they claim they cant as they have to babysit why not just cede custody? But women dont as they know Child Support is a pot of gold. Only about one third of child support is spent on the child itself the rest is used for leading a level of life higher than deserved based on basic competency.
What people dont realize is that as children have an instinctively stronger relation with their mothers it is very easy for mothers to use children against the father as a weapon. In traditional society this power was balanced by the fact that fathers would simply stop supporting children who are brainwashed to hate them. With compulsory child support this balance is broken leading to abusive behaviour by women without suffering consequences.
I have not said I would like to live in Saudi for my wife is a sensible person and I would never put her in the situation of not being able to even drive but the point is USA is not a fair society. Its an unbalanced society.

Now I will say something which will make the femino fascists gasp. Men are traditionally physically stronger but women have had higher emotional quotients. What this means is as long as there is no violence women always have the upper hand as they are better at manipulating emotions and using words to get their own way. Traditional society has balanced that by the fact that men who are driven to extremes by such pschologically abusive behaviour can respond with physical violence to balnace the scales . As there is a balance both kinds of abuse psychological and physical dont happen commonly. What has happened in US is by outlawing physical domestic abuse but at the same time allowing psychological domestic abuse (in fact even encouraging it by child support and custody laws) families have been made unstable. Thus except for the small number of extremely emotionally stable women and mild tempered men who form couples most American marriages end in divorce. If domestic sparring of a low key kind were legal the divorce rate would be much much lower.

Re:Are you sure ...

[evilviper]

We can't handily win a war of bullets and lives against them, because they are willing to lose far more than we are.

That's horrible logic.

First, thanks to training and technology, we can impose unbelievably high casualties on our enemies, while suffering minimal casualties ourselves. That should have been clear from Desert Storm.

Second, thanks to extremely large bombs, we can kill everyone, everywhere, without suffering a single American casualty. Collateral damage is high, in such a situation, which we will not accept... But on the other side, the terrorist are exactly the opposite, looking for the maximum collateral damage they can inflict.

Third, you're mistaken, and the parent is exactly right. Until the entire world is free of every last terrorist, we can't be said to have won any wars fought in the name of terrorism... Kill millions upon millions of terrorists, every single one in the country, and when you're done and leave, more will come into the country, and continue the havoc. Even if you spend years to start developing such a reformation process as you describe, it will still be viewed as a (immediate) failure.

Re:Are you sure ...

[ChameleonDave]

Take your tinfoil hat off.

Re:Are you sure ...

[jschrod]

While there is a breeding conflict between multiculturism and Women's Rights in Germany, you took the completely wrong incident to illustrate your case. That judge simply was a moron, and there was not only a very public outcry, but her decision was immediately sacked in the appelate court as well.

The more interesting part is the fight over the allowance of traditional islamic women clothing (in particular, the veil) that takes place in Germany -- and in many other countries as well, e.g., in Turkey. As an example, there is lots of public support to forbid the islamic veil in schools -- but the permission to wear christian veils (by Christian nuns) or those jewish caps (sorry, don't know their name quite now, and dict.leo.org doesn't help me either here :-) are not changed at the same time. To tie it back to the article, the French are at least more consequent with their secularism than the Germans are.

For the record, I have nothing against wearing religious symbols in the public, be it in school or somewhere else. At the same time, as a society, we need to support and defend those who don't want to wear such symbols and are forced by their family or neighbourhood.

Re:Are you sure ...

[evilviper]

A girl doesn't just "get pregnant" out of thin air. The man is absolutely responsible as well and should pay his share.

Unfortunately, "his share" is considered absolutely everything. Divorce law is so insane that men have absolutely no rights, what-so-ever. You will pay every cent you have in child support, and after that, will continue to pay alimony until such time that your wife choses to get a job or remarry... or not. Such is the situation even if the woman was a drug addict, and completely unfit to be a parent. Unless there is overwhelming hard evidence that the woman is a horrible parent, and the man would be an ideal parent, the woman automatically gets sole custody of the children.

What's more, the man doesn't even have to impregnate the woman... Even when paternity tests have shown the child to have been conceived with another man, the ex-husband will still have to pay child support for the children his wife got through her extra-marital affair. In an even more unbelievable case, a woman was able to discover the well-hidden identity of a sperm donor, and have him ordered to pay child support.

The USA has its faults, but if you think you'd rather live in Saudi because women in the USA actually have some rights and men are expected to pay up for things they were personally responsible for, then you've got some issues.

Saudi Arabia is merely another extreme. The US is almost as extreme of an example in the opposite direction, horribly biased against men. Yes, in the US, wives can (practically) beat their husbands with impunity, while any man doing the same, or even just defending himself sometimes, can be locked away for an very long time, and if the wife choses to file for divorce, will be able to use that as grounds to get everything from him that should could possibly want, without question.

I have no desire to move to Saudi Arabia... But this is a huge problem, hanging over the head of every man in the country. Does anyone wonder why the marriage rate has fallen through the floor?

Re:Are you sure ...

[madbrain]

20:01 refers not to odds, but to the time of Royale's concession speech, ie. 8:01pm. France uses 24 hour time.

Re:Are you sure ...

[evilviper]

I was expecting the courts to cave to this adulterous bitch but they made the right decisions and awarded him full custody.

I must submit that the case you witnessed was a (rare) exception to the rule, and not standard fare, in the slightest.

Re:Are you sure ...

[koxkoxkox]

And you don't think French people intelligent enough to think of that ?

What is used is not the total result of all small towns, but the results of a subset of them, selected to vote like France in general in the previous polls.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Eivind]

True. But unrelated to my point.

Unless I'm very thoroughly misinformed, publishing exit-polls on election day is forbidden -- aslong as the polling-stations are open.

Exit-polls are normally quite reliable, so in cases like this, when its not very close, they are able to predict actual outcome with a very high probability of being correct.

That is why you could read exit-polls all day -- provided you visited a foreign webpage instead of one belonging to french media. (though some foreign media respect the french law too, despite not being legally required to)

That many polling-stations close earlier, and some counting is done earlier is true, but irrelevant since these numbers aren't communicated to anyone prior to 8pm. The strange situation with the exit-polls is that everyone knows what they say (certainly every journalist covering the election) yet they are all prevented from saying what they say, do they pretend not to know, sort of, until 8pm.

Re:Are you sure ...

[cduffy]

If this were WWII and the nazis and japanese were praising one parties policies over anothers like this, people would have reacted differently. These days it seems people cant see the obvious.

No, you're seeing "the obvious" in places where it isn't.

If A is my enemy, and A opposes B, does that mean I should support B? Not necessarily, and certainly not categorically. The terrorists are against poverty and hunger, too; is that to say we should try to make the common people of their countries as poor and hungry as possible? [1]

I don't care about the terrorists' interests; I care about my own. Opposing something just because someone else supports it or visa-versa is stupid in the extreme.

[1] - While those blowing up infrastructure in Iraq are obviously acting against the peoples' best interests, some of the organizations behind terrorism have significant arms doing charitable work within their countries. Is that to say that these organizations' (para)military actions are in any way less objectionable or legitimate as targets? Of course not; it's just to say that when overriding priorities do not conflict [as they so severely do], poverty and hunger are something everyone can agree is a Bad Thing.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Eivind]

I understand, and agree with the motivation.

It's just that the law ain't adequate for todays global media-landscape.

The law should be changed so that not only is it illegal to *publish* exit-polls in france on election day, but even *taking* them should be stopped. If you really want to avoid influencing voters I mean.

Today is just silly -- you don't get to read french exit-polls prior to 8pm, unless you're capable of asking Google or one of the many foreign media that reported them from a few hours after the polling-stations *opened*.

Meanwhile, journalists talk about the election without being able to say what they actually do know, only they can't say it. Which is sorta absurd.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Glock27]

So you take the "we can't lose if we never leave" stance? Yes, saving face is clearly more important than saving lives.

Staying in Iraq IS saving lives, fool. If we leave anytime soon, millions will likely die (not to mention the increased risk of lots of people dying here in the US). You want that blood on your hands? Our soldiers are taking some casualties, but at very low rates compared with any other war you'd care to name. In other words, the losses are (more than) acceptable, given any positive outcome compared with leaving.

"Bush's logic that a "date certain" will only embolden the insurgents falls on its face when you realize there already is a date certain: January 20th, 2009. The momentum has already started in Congress to end the war. It's a political certainty that no candidate is going to be elected in 2008 without a clear plan bring the troops home. The Republicans need to ask themselves how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have to die between now and then."

You're dead wrong. A Republican will be elected in 2008, they're already leading in the polls - and the top contenders have no plans to leave Iraq prematurely. I'm actually betting the winner will be Fred Thompson, though he hasn't announced his candidacy yet.

Most likely Republicans will regain a majority at least in the Senate also.

The political dynamic will change a lot once we bomb Iran into submission later this year. Yes I'm serious.

Re:Are you sure ...

[FattyBoeBatty]

Goodness..

You take issue with the status of father's rights in the US. Yes, I agree that the system could use some changes. However, because of that, you conclude that "USA is equally bad in the other direction"? WHAT?? I can't stand moral equivalencey like this that concludes because the USA isn't perfect, we can't criticize others. Hell no. There is absolutely zero comparison between parental rights in the USA and the state of human rights in Saudi Arabia. Absolutly none. There is good and evil in this world, and despite our flaws, it's our responsibility to continue to point out evil where it exists.

For instance, women are stoned for adultery. You ever seen someone get stoned? To see someone writhing in agony, buried up to their neck, while be pummeled with rocks thrown at their face until they're dead is a horrible, horrible, horrible thing. And to disregard this because the USA isn't perfect means you're a lousy human being to have on this planet. Your brothers and sisters are struggling against a terrible regime, and you instead sit back and conclude that because you don't have the moral high ground, you will do nothing. Shame on you.

Here's a snapshot from Wikipedia about good 'ole women's rights in SA:


Women are not allowed to drive or ride bicycles on public roads in large cities. However, most women are capable of driving, and some do so on rural roads illegally. Women are allowed to fly aircraft, though they must be chauffeured to the airport. Education, although limited, has become an important aspect. Religious police enforce a modest code of dress; foreign women are also expected to wear abaya, violators may face caning, harassment or fines. There are numerous legal restrictions of what kind of jobs women can do (as to prevent their direct contact with men). Progressively over the decades, many foreigners residing in the Kingdom have reported that enforcement of dress code laws has become slightly less strict. Institutions from schools to ministries to restaurants are always sex-segregated. Women cannot be admitted to a hospital, examined by a doctor, travel abroad or leave the house without the express permission and/or company of an immediate male relative. After their first menstrual cycle, women must cover their entire body in a long black cloak (abaaya) as according to tradition. Failing to do so results in severe punishment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi _Arabia

So let me play your question back to you now. Where would your significant other like to life, USA or Saudi?

Re:Are you sure ...

[4D6963]

In all seriousness, Royal deserved to lose after she tried her "if you vote for Sarkozy there will be violence in the streets" rhetoric. That kind of crap just won't ever work ... will it?

Well she was right. As soon as clocks stroke 8pm, yesterday, cars started to burn, and cops came down in the streets in the ghettos and blocked streets. And Sarkozy hasn't done anything yet...

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather my significant other lives in Saudi thank you very much. At least they know not to treat women as if they are equals, which they most certainly are not.

Women should not be allowed to vote, drive, divorce, have abortions or anything. Women are shallow and amoral. They honestly need to be kept on a tight leash. Otherwise they run rampant and screw everything up. Just look at the USA; women have plenty of rights and what are they doing? Having kids out of wedlock, divorcing husbands on a whim, having their unborn babies butchered because they couldn't be bothered to look after it, and so on.

Women, quite simply, are like toddlers; self-centred and amoral. They have proved this in the last forty-years of feminism.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Johnny5000]

If the man is responsible for the child he should have say on whether or not the child is to be born. Why does only the woman get to decide on abortion? As you say a woman doesnt get pregnant out of thin air so why does she get all the rights?

Good news! When you figure out a way to get a man pregnant, then he'll get to decide whether or not he wants to get an abortion.

The woman "gets all the rights" because it's her body that the fetus grows in. The man is just a sperm doner.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Xeriar]

I'd pick the US. A good friend of mine ran into all the bullshit you state by the court. It lasted about six months. Is the US system perfect? Hell no. But it's certainly a hell of a lot better than Saudi, especially considering the comparative male/female ratios of such countries.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is total bullshit. Fathers get custody all the time. Especially if they shed a few tears like my father did. Back in the 80's!

Little did they know what a manipulative ass he is, but hey, that's life.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Pipelino]

Feed them the line about "the pen is mightier than the sword" and hope they buy it. Honestly, are you even believing what you're saying ? People aren't that stupid that they'll just buy into whatever propaganda you feed them, it's a different culture with different values, and America failed this war because they just didn't understand it. Only neo-conservators could invent such a stupid ideology - Sarkozy isn't one of them.

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

where have I mentioned hamas or hezbollah? dont mix up your terrorist groups i am only talking about al-queda and their wabbisht sunni beliefs. I do not see them doing any charitable work and in fact they are in iraq blowing up infrastructure and historical landmarks.

Re:Are you sure ...

[CompleatGentleman]

Why does only the woman get to decide on abortion? Because it's in her body. It's not that hard a concept. Forcing her carry the baby to term is unreasonable. Threatening no child support if she doesn't have one is basically saying that you're in favour of forced abortions.

Re:Are you sure ...

[drinkypoo]

The USA of course. A girl doesn't just "get pregnant" out of thin air. The man is absolutely responsible as well and should pay his share.

Either you did not read the entire comment or you are morally bankrupt.

The man absolutely is responsible. He is responsible for his part in raising that child. If the woman denies him that right - which frankly should not be possible barring him being a threat to the child, or other things for which we take children away from parents - then she should not be entitled to any monetary compensation.

I agree that the man should be responsible. But I do not believe in responsibilities without rights, or vice versa.

Those who do are responsible for basically every ill in society today.

Re:Are you sure ...

[drinkypoo]

keep in mind there aren't any medical groups, or any major studies, that show that circumcision in western countries has any significant medical benefit

Studies have shown that removal of the foreskin dramatically lowers the risk of the man contracting HIV due to unprotected sex.

I'm fairly anti-circumcision, but you're wrong about that.

Yeah, it's amazing that some people don't get that sexism exist against, and hurts, both sexes. But in men's defense, we have come a long, long way in just three generations - and in women's defense, they can't hear what men don't say, and not enough men are pointing out the bigotry that hurts them.

My problem is that we seem to be caught in an overcorrection. Some people see that as justice, but revenge doesn't actually solve anything. It only leads to resentment (as we have seen here) which is simply not a positive force. This results in violence, among other negative occurrences.

Also, the gold diggers who have your kids and divorce you are numerically less then the stupid retards who insists condoms give him a rash and they should do it anyways since she's going on the pill next month.

Do you have numbers for that? (Just kidding). But you forgot to include the ones that accidentally-on-purpose get pregnant to get him to marry her, etc.

It's also a stupid fucking irrelevant argument because it should not be any more or any less her responsibility to not have a child.

If she lets him talk her into it, then she made a mistake. If he does it, he made a mistake. If everyone is an idiot, well, you can't just blame that on the man. Barring rape, it takes two to do the mattress mambo. At least two.

Re:Are you sure ...

[drinkypoo]

Good news! When you figure out a way to get a man pregnant, then he'll get to decide whether or not he wants to get an abortion. The woman "gets all the rights" because it's her body that the fetus grows in. The man is just a sperm doner.

In that case, then the man should have no responsibilities vis-a-vis raising the child, because he's "just a sperm doner(sic)".

When it comes to human reproduction, the man has no rights in the US. This is the gospel truth, especially in certain states like New York and California, in which it is nearly impossible to clear your name even when you AREN'T obligated to pay and pay.

I have a friend who has a child who he cannot see because he does not have any visitation rights. A claim for child support was actually filed fraudulently by a relative (or maybe step-relative, I forget) of the mother, and it was eventually thrown out in one court, but my friend is going to have to go to court again just in order to get his passport back and leave the country, and it won't completely clear up his debt. He's multilingual (English, Spanish, and Portuguese) and is pretty much planning to just take his ball and go play somewhere else because this country won't allow him to clear his name.

Personally, I think that this is the answer. I think that if you are intelligent then you should do one of two things - either do something that will really make this country better, or get the hell out before it's too late. I don't want to lend my power and energy to this bullshit kleptocracy any more.

Re:Are you sure ...

[cduffy]

Misdirection. The hunger-and-poverty thing was just an example of how we and people we disagree with can agree on things, with neither of us being incorrect in our position or acting against our own best interests.

The corellary is that both the Democrats and Al Qaeda can want the US out of Iraq, and -- enemies though we may be -- both groups can be simultaneously right.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a citation for that? I've never heard anything like that before, so I'd be interested to see these studies.

Re:Are you sure ...

[drinkypoo]

Sure, here you go. Bonus points for learning to use the internet someday...

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

how would you explain the extremist congressman? does this idea extend to afganistan as well? the anti war groups which have clout in the democratic party want the US out both countries.

Re:Are you sure ...

[cduffy]

how would you explain the extremist congressman?

Huh?

does this idea extend to afganistan as well?

Which idea?

the anti war groups which have clout in the democratic party want the US out both countries.

Last I remember hearing Obama's position, he was arguing that we need to increase troop levels in Afghanistan -- but then, I don't listen much to these "anti-war groups" you speak of.

Re:Are you sure ...

[pommiekiwifruit]

"...there will be violence in the streets"

Well she does have a terrorist for a brother. Maybe it runs in the family.

Re:Are you sure ...

[ghoul]

When the father wans the baby and the mother still goes ahead and has an abortion isnt that a forced abortion - one forced on the father? And if forcing someone to carry to term is unreasonable why is forcing someone to become a father reasonable? And its not merely the question of money. Becoming a father has a huge emotional cost too and you might not be ready for the responsibility. Just think of a young man leading a carefree life bungee jumping or parajumping. Suddenly he is a father and society has taught him he has a responsibility and cant take those risks anymore. If he is not a self centered asshole suddenly he has to change his entire lifestyle. This can happen even if the woman tricked him because even if he hates the woman he cant really hate the innocent child as it is his

Re:Are you sure ...

[ghoul]

Thats a load of crap about the adultery. Under Sharia for adultery both men and women are stoned. That might be harsh and some societies may decide adultery is not such a big deal. But the point is its a fair punishment both the man and the woman are stoned. Thats one of the few places you cant blame Sharia. Sharia when introduced in the 6th century was one of the most liberal laws at the time. It actually allowed widows remarriage, divorce and prenuptial agreements (when Muslims get married the man has to deposit a certain amount of money with the mosque which the woman gets if there is a divorce). This was at the time whem if a man got killed or left his wife pretty much the only job open to an Arab woman was to become a prostitute. Also to be able to recruit men for his army Mohammed wanted to assure men their wives will be taken care of so he proclaimed if men died in battle their brothers or other male relatives were to take care of their wives. The only way to ensure this in a hardscrabble society was to allow them to marry the women as even starving men take care of their wife/wives. Thats what the provision on 4 wives was for not for general polygamy.

Anyway what went wrong with Sharia especially in Saudi Arabia was they stopped adapting the law. Any law has to change with the times or it becomes anachronistic. If muslim law had adapted with the times it probably be a fairer law structure than one based on Roman law as is used in the west.

BTW I have read this at many places but never got it confirmed. They say the reason the Saud family are such traditionalists and Saudi is such a fundamentalist country is that the Sauds are actually descended from Baghdadi Jews and they needed to prove their Muslimhood to the general population by adopting the strictest form of Islam possible.

So sure Saudi and Sharia in its unreformed form sucks but just saying that doesnt divert attention from the fact that US law sucks too and the moral thing to do is if you are going to criticize others set your own house in order first. Like they say - "People in glass houses..."

Re:Are you sure ...

[ghoul]

I am talking about personal civil law where if Saudi is unfair in one direction USA is unfair in the other direction. Why do you bring general human right into the question to muddy the waters. Noone is claiming Suadi is the pinnacle of liberal democracy. You can have a liberal democracy without femino fascism you know.

Re:Are you sure ...

[ghoul]

Its not a question of people being stupid. Its a question of people being busy. Busy people working full time jobs dont have the time to sit down and analyze everything in the media so they believe whatever the mainstream is talking about. The flip side is in places with high unemployment and youth sitting around all day they have lot of time to debate and figure out how society has screwed them and how anything is justified to change things. Its not a wonder that revolutions are either started by poor unemployed youth (French) or rich people who dont have to work and have time to think (American). Seriously if the Palestinain economy was vibrant and everyone had jobs instead of being stagnated due to Israeli security measures very few Palestinians would be interested in becoming suicide bombers. Ditto for Iraq. You might hate the occupiers but unless you are a college student you dont have time to debate the issueas and you go with the flow.

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

read the link with the new nation of islam congressman elected from Michigan. At least part of the democratic party are islamic radicals.

anti war groups like moveon.org, dialykos and code pink oppose "the war" all of it. i have never seen end the war in iraq it is always end the war in iraq and afganistan.

Re:Are you sure ...

[yndrd1984]

Perhaps I should clear that up.

I get what you were saying now.

You'll have to admit that is rare ... I know there were a lot of "ohh please baby the condom sucks" or "don't worry I'm on the pill" variety.

Of course that's rare, my point was that no matter how freaky the situation is, the legal system treats all paternity suits the same - DNA = legal responsibility. On the other had, if a guy kills a girl rather than getting her pregnant, there's several degrees of murder and manslaughter to cover it, and a chance at an affirmative defense, like showing that it was an accident or self defense. If you knock her up, that's it, end of game.

Often custody battles and divorce is with some blue collar guy and a blue collar girl who have grown to hate each other over time ... Just protect yourself.

Right, most people are OK - and that's great. It's just that when someone does gets hurt, our culture and our legal system both tend to protect women much better. The same legal system that's so anti-sexist that it mandates that businesses can't discriminate against women also has no problem with giving men harsher sentences for crimes and forcing men to sign up with selective service.

I have no problem with encouraging self-reliance and caution, as long as it's done equally. But it's sexist to suggest that men have to be on the lookout all the time while women have a much better safety net. And as a side note, there's no way that a newborn can protect themselves from circumcision, or that a three-year-old should be expected to take responsibility for preventing child abuse - and we do take the abuse of a girl more seriously.

Re:Are you sure ...

[yndrd1984]

The difference is female genital circumcision does a lot more then the male version.

"Female circumcision" usually refers to clitoridotomy, clitoridectomy or infibulation.

Circumcision is more like trimming the clitoral hood

That's what a clitoridotomy is, and it's illegal in almost all countries to preform one on a child.

No orgasms for life.

Well, there is the G-spot, but yeah, that kind of thing is horrific.

Re:Are you sure ...

[yndrd1984]

Studies have shown that removal of the foreskin dramatically lowers the risk of the man contracting HIV due to unprotected sex.

A few small (but highly publicized) studies of highly at-risk adults in third-world African nations with high HIV infection rates have shown a connection. On the other hand, the dozens of studies of circumcisions done on children in first-world western countries with low rates of infection (and a different HIV strain), as well as large-scale statistical studies of first worlders, show no connection.

On the other hand, there's quite a few people that seem desperate to produce some post-hoc reason why circumcision is good. First it stopped masturbation (yeah right), then it prevents HPV (at least that was an honest mistake), now it prevents HIV (maybe, but not for the group of people I was talking about). That's why the African studies are front-page news, and few of the newspaper articles point out any of the contradictory evidence.

For contrast look at the opinions of medical groups - as far as I can tell, none of them actually advocate routine circumcision for children - they are either neutral ("it's up to the parents") like the AMA or moderately against it ("we recommend against it").

It's also a stupid fucking irrelevant argument because it should not be any more or any less her responsibility to not have a child.

First off, men have a choice between difficult-to-reverse vasectomies, and condoms with a 20% yearly failure rate. Women have pills, IUDs, and diaphragms with less than 1% failure rates, and after-the-fact emergency contraception and abortion, with essentially 0% failure rates. So yeah, 50/50 responsibility seems a bit off.

And that wasn't the point, if person A sabotages the efforts of person B, person A should be held as the responsible party. I've met a girl that lied about taking her pills without telling her boyfriend, in order to get pregnant and thus get him to marry her, and a guy how messed with his girls pills so he could be a daddy. I believe that both should be condemned.

Re:Are you sure ...

[koreaman]

Well, she was right: there was violence in the streets after the results were announced. Car-burning, the second French national pastime after Pétanque, reached a new high (low?) on the night of Sunday-Monday, with over 700 cars being burned.

For what it's worth.

Re:Are you sure ...

[cduffy]

read the link with the new nation of islam congressman elected from Michigan. At least part of the democratic party are islamic radicals.

Everyone has their radical fringe. You've got Coulter and Phelps; need I say more?

That said, this fellow isn't radical at all -- even per your own link. Can you honestly believe that someone so far separated from the ideas held by the extremists of their faith as to be willing to support abortion and gay rights would be supportive of those who wish his nation ill?

anti war groups like moveon.org, dialykos and code pink oppose "the war" all of it. i have never seen end the war in iraq it is always end the war in iraq and afganistan.

Uhh... huh. "The war" is singular, and if you ask just about any American what it refers to in the present political context, there's no question that it's Iraq specifically. If they said that they want to end all "war", or "the wars", that would make sense; as it is, I think you're making a stretch.

In any event, we're not running a bunch of bloggers for President. Hopefully, we're running Obama -- and he's well behind the war in Afghanistan.

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

thats what i have been saying since the beginning a fringe of the democratic party are the islamic radicals we are at war with. I'm glad we finally agree.

I suspec barak hussein obama is the same as a (self proclaimed ) former muslim who hides his middle name, i suspect he will say anything to appeal to the base which elects him in the primary.

Re:Are you sure ...

[cduffy]

thats what i have been saying since the beginning a fringe of the democratic party are the islamic radicals we are at war with. I'm glad we finally agree.

I've conceded no such thing; as my parent post made more explicit, the individual you held up as an example is in no way a "islamic radical". (The point I have made is that even if such existed, you've got some despicable fringe elements on your side too, so who the fuck cares?)

I suspec barak hussein obama is the same as a (self proclaimed ) former muslim who hides his middle name, i suspect he will say anything to appeal to the base which elects him in the primary.

As you say, Obama is "self proclaimed" inasmuch as he makes no effort to hide his background; it's discussed to various degrees in both of his books. As such, however, the same source material you use to describe him as a "former muslim" can also be used to paint a more accurate picture. Suffice to say that Obama is (and has ever been) about as Muslim as going to a gay bar makes me homosexual -- which is to say, not at all. Even if that were untrue, however -- what's your point? The folks we're at war with are radicals who use their religion for justification rather than understanding, and it's that radicalism in general (rather than the religion in particular) that makes them dangerous.

As for your suspicions, you're welcome to them. Obama has a significant political career behind him (despite much of it being at the state level), and his present actions are consistent with his history -- and all of the above are consistent with his stated values. That consistency is much better than what Clinton has, and good enough for me.

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

I was hoping you would look up details on this guy, but here it is for you all laid out. note CAIR. What kind of group is CAIR? well they were bad enough that barbra boxer (who is hardly a supporter of the war) decided to return an award from them recently http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014984.php

note the suspected terrorist ties part. this guy is a member of that group. I dont know if you are black or muslim, but he is also close to nation of islam and according to them everyone is not human. Louis Farrakhan has stated that "White people are potential humans...they haven't evolved yet." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00).

I like this one from malcom X in playboy though. BTW im not american or white. I'm an asian buddhist, i wonder, are you black? muslim? i hope they spare you. I hope you arent jewish. First they came for the jews..

"PLAYBOY: If Muslims ultimately gain control as you predict, what do you plan to do with white people?

MALCOLM X: It's not a case of what would we do, it's a case of what would God do with whites. What does a judge do with the guilty? Either the guilty one repents and atones, or God executes judgment.

"

from : http://anklebitingpundits.com/abp_forum//viewtopic .php?t=4535
"Keith Ellison

"CAIR's Congressman"

Ellison attended the University of Minnesota, along with future CAIR heads Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper, just prior to Awad and Hooper taking leadership positions with the Minnesota-based Bosnian Relief Committee. While at the university, Ellison became involved with the Nation of Islam (NOI), the organization led by notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. He kept this involvement in NOI for a period of ten years, participating in rallies, including the Million Man March hate fest; defending hate speech; and using such aliases as Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad. (Scott Johnson, Power Line, 'KEITH ELLISON FOR DUMMIES,' September 30, 2006)

Amidst Ellison's run for Minnesota's 5th District Congressional seat, in 2006, he accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions raised during CAIR-sponsored events, including secret CAIR fundraisers held out of state in Florida. As well, he accepted thousands of dollars in contributions from CAIR leaders themselves, including contributions from CAIR's Executive Director Nihad Awad (Nehad Hammad) and CAIR's Chairman Parvez Ahmed. (Federal Election Commission, 'Individuals Who Gave To: ELLISON, KEITH MAURICE,' November 2006 Congressional election) "

Obama is the 2008 howard dean. His scream moment will come. I suspect it will be his ties to radicals.

FYI the folks "we" (by this i mean the non muslim world) are fighting is islam. islam is not a religion it is a manifestation of fascism. There is no moderate islam since there has been no reformation movement. Religions do not dictate interest rates on loans or have detiled political systems (the caliphate). The iraq war is incredibly succesful in one regard and that is sunnis and shites hate each other even more. The kind of killing they are engaged in generates extreme hatred that lingers in a population's social memory. They are so blood thirsty that presented with the opportunity they slaughter each other. Everyone fighter they kill among themselves is one less person who will come to kill me. Its like the japanese fighting the germans for us in WWII.

Re:Are you sure ...

[cduffy]

Quoting Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X to define Keith Ellison's views is like quoting Richard M. Stallman to define my views -- I've taken actions which support his organization where we have goals in common, but by no means do I support his more radical policies (or believe that they have a prayer of a chance of taking place in the Real World, even with my support of his organization as a whole). As such, you're throwing a bunch of irrelevant BS into this conversation. I don't care what Malcolm X believes; if I'm deciding whether to vote for Keith Ellison, I care what Keith Ellison believes. As for the source you've quoted, its description of the Million Man March as a "hate fest" is sufficient for me to consider it irreparably biased.

FYI the folks "we" (by this i mean the non muslim world) are fighting is islam. islam is not a religion it is a manifestation of fascism. There is no moderate islam since there has been no reformation movement. Religions do not dictate interest rates on loans or have detiled political systems (the caliphate). The iraq war is incredibly succesful in one regard and that is sunnis and shites hate each other even more..

Demonstrably false. The Catholic church traditionally forbid usury (lending with interest, or, later, excessive interest) as a sin; would you claim that Catholicism is not a religion? In any event, what is it that makes interest rates exempt from the scope of a legitimate religion's moral code (while such mundanities as diet are fair game)? It strikes me as an awfully arbitrary distinction. Moderate islamists demonstrably exist. See Azar Nafisi, Bassam Tibi, Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, and others.

I think this thread is over: I can argue with reasonable people, but the kind of twisted worldview necessary to believe your own claims is alien to me.

(I find today's xkcd rather fitting, by the way).

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

when was the last time the catholic church officially killed people over ursury? did you see the part i wrote about reformation? yes the catholic church at one time was a dictatorship and to this day the holy see is a dictatorship in the vatican city. That is a political system and not a religion and it was a source of tension un italy for a very long time. At one point the pope was king over the holy roman empire (these issues led to the creation of the vatican). Even then no one pretended papal infallibility applied to the pope ruling over parts of europe. It wasnt religion then and it is not today. Similarly, Islam as it is today is not a religion it is a political system.

Does the catholic church today impose that belief on everyone? Do not try to justify what islam does today by comparing it to the past of other religions. This is the 21st century not the 15th that stuff does not fly anymore.

Salman Rushide has a price on his head for writing a book ( a fucking book). Do other religions do that? The artists behind the danish political cartoons have a price on their head. Theo van gough was killed for making a movie critical of islam.

Please tell me how many other religions still establish theocratic states like saudi arabia, taliban afganistan, iran and soon to be iraq. how many other religions put a price on people's heads for exercising basic human rights?

BTW it think barak obama might have had his scream moment today (lets hope one of many)
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0JNR82& show_article=1

I'm not going to end this with and insult It does not contribute to anything.

Re:Are you sure ...

[cduffy]

Maybe I spoke too soon -- your argument is cohesive again. (Supporting the kind of tragedy that is the bloodshed between Sunni and Shi'a is abhorrent to me; I think I shut down somewhat at that point).

What you're clearly opposed to is not Islam, but Islamism. I agree with you in the rightness of that opposition, but disagree with the implicit presumption that all or even most Muslims are Islamists. Moreover, only a small subset of Islamists are willing to use violence to achieve their goals -- but part of the effect on the "war on terror" has been to radically increase that subpopulation.

Radical Islamists are indeed a significant threat to freedom of the populations on whom they would oppose Sharia law -- and they're not infrequently recognized as such by those populations, even when Islam is the prevailing religion. (There are Christian extremists who have likewise said that enforcing the morality given them by their religion is an appropriate use of government, but thankfully those have much less sway; if they had the might to enforce their views, as radical Islamists right now too often do, the situation would be just as bad).

As for the claim that there has been no reformation within Islam, there are two distinct, active reform movements: Interpretation-based Islam and Progressive Islam. Both of these are strongly supportive of human rights, tolerance and nonviolence (although homosexuality is still controversial within them). Not all Muslims are the extremists you paint them as.

That said, liberal thought tends to prosper best when peace and prosperity is the rule. Bringing war and poverty (or even fear of war) drives populations towards fundamentalism -- and the fundamentalist Islamic movement and those who are political Islamists are not entirely unlinked. The "War on Terror" thus has a great deal of ability to severely retard the gradual social change which -- excluding those cases where political Islamism is forcibly spread via armed conflict -- would eventually render these concerns moot.

BTW it think barak obama might have had his scream moment today (lets hope one of many)

Would you really rather have Clinton?

Re:Are you sure ...

[minus_273]

the war on terror is a very very small part of the conflict with islam. To understand it you need to look at what muslims have been doing in asia for the past few hundred years up until the present. Look at the islamic conquest of india and the assault on the existing cultures and more so nearly all of south east asia where. In places like malaysia and indonesia it is called arabization where the existing culture and religion is replaced by force. Is this like western colonization? yes? but does the west still do that? no. Muslims still do that.

For example in indonesia, there is an island called bali it is the one of the last places in the area where the people are still hindus. It has been bombed twice. This was before the war in iraq. There was a point where i used to defend islam by pointing out that indonesia was the largest muslim state and they were peaceful. I cant say that anymore.

the common thread among the populations that were ravaged is that they were mostly hindu and buddhist and tended to be pacifist or too trusting. I believe this is the error many in the west are making too. I am not aware of any culture that has been able to co-exist with islam on a long term scale without major conflict.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Original Replica]

Yes with our superiour weapons and traing we could accomplish Geneocide with far less effort than we have spent in the "War on Terror" thus far, but again that is a line we as Americans are not willing to cross, where as I doubt such a line of morality exists within the terrorist's culture.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Original Replica]

I seriously doubt that story goes beyond urban legend.

Unfortunately that is just one of many, documented court cases. Real, hard, Fact. My intention was to show the limitations of the idea of multiculturalism. If you hold the idea of "respecting someone's culture" as higly or higher than your countries native core values, then very important things (like women's rights) get compromised.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Original Replica]

it's a different culture with different values, and America failed this war because they just didn't understand it.

I agree. The cultural differences are what make this war unwinnable for the US. I was trying to say that inorder to win we needed to change their culture.

People aren't that stupid that they'll just buy into whatever propaganda you feed them

They do buy into propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Where exactly do you think suicide bombers come from? The propaganda of "all the injustices of you life are the fault of the evil USA, give your life to destroy them and you will be greatly rewarded to the afterlife."
Individuals might be intelligent and shrewd, but people are stupid.

Re:Are you sure ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where I find myself agreeing with Sarkozy and his call for immigrants to "learn the French language and Values"

But are you sure that you both mean the same thing? Sarkozy's idea of "learn" may just mean "attend a couple of classes and pass a multiple choice test" while your meaning of "learn" is "take the concepts to heart and practice them every day". Has he said what he actually means by this snappy little soundbyte?

Neufs pour les Nerdes!

[Black Parrot]

Thank all the gods, the Frentch elected a radical instead of a radical.

And one of the first statements he made:

[smchris]

"France will always come to the aid of the U.S. when it seeks it from us." Why he's called America's New Poodle.

Something to think about though. You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party and they won't elect a female? So Hillary's chances rank somewhere below slim and none?

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue was not the popularity of their respective genders, but of policy - that's why she lost.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because only communists vote for women leaders.

Troll.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Nixon could go to China. Only a conservative woman can get elected at that level.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Eivind]

There's no indication whatsoever that sex was important, or even relevant, in this election.

Unlike the two major parties in the US, the various parties in France actually have significantly different political ideas, like you said there's even an active communist party.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[GnuDiff]

Rather the opposite, as far as we are talking about presidents rather than prime-ministers, at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaira-Vike_Freiberga

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Anonymous Coward]

O ya?

Heh.

If socialism is the deciding issue, and it can happen in Finland, then it could surely happen in France. As many others have said, Royal lost because she ran a silly campaign, and overplayed her 'radical socialist' image (which was of course mostly an act - whether the French saw through it or not, it didn't work).

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[anti-pop-frustration]

You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party Active communist party ? They've got 1.93% of the votes in this presidential election, they're about as big as the libertarians or greens in the US. That would hardly qualify as "active" or influential.

Yes, there are other left-wing parties in france, but the communist party is just a ghost of the past now.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy is the most pro-american of all French presidents to date. But here in France being pro-american just means that you accept to shake your hands with an American.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Mutatis Mutandis]

France will always come to the aid of the U.S. when it seeks it from us." Why he's called America's New Poodle.

Sarkozy has made a point of highlighting the French love for Coca-Cola, jeans and American movies; concluding from this that he would be inclined to support Dubyah's policies is a stone's throw too far. Sarkozy is neither stupid nor inclined to political suicide. He has promised the USA friendship, but immediately made clear that the Americans would have to accept "that friends can think differently". I think Sarkozy knows very well that the Bush administration is allergic to constructive criticism, but that doesn't matter any more. Sarkozy's real problem is finding common ground with the next American president, and he may well opt for backing the future winner early, instead of associating himself with the loser in office. For example, Sarkozy's position on Iraq is not that far distant from the position the next US president is likely to have, i.e. phased withdrawal.

Something to think about though. You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party and they won't elect a female? So Hillary's chances rank somewhere below slim and none?

The French communist party is now a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Royal's problem is not that she is female, but that she is a poor campaigner. Her starting position was not that bad, her selection as the socialist candidate generated some genuine enthusiasm. But then she blew it. She was gaffe-prone throughout the campaign, her political platform was a collection of crowd-pleasers, her statements on policy consisted mostly of baked air, and in the decisive last phase she resorted to blatant scare tactics.

On the other hand, Americans could do worse than adopt the French election system. A genuine, fair two-round election, an 85% voter turn-out, a clear majority for the winner, and the election over at election night --- not bad, isn't it?

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[M. Baranczak]

Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, but I should point out that the USA also has an "active communist party".

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[AoT]

In most parliamentary democracies the PM is far more powerful than the President.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[brightmidnight]

Just because you're not influential doesn't mean you're active. Libertarians are pretty darn active to try to get their message out there. They have to be.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Opportunist]

No. Seriously.

France has one of the lowest "women quotas" of European parlaments (iirc 10% compared to the 40something% of Sweden). There was a documentary recently about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously there.

I can actually see a lot of people not voting for her simply on grounds of her being a woman. But I wouldn't attribute it to French chauvinism. I doubt it would have been much different in other parts of the world.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Stickerboy]

>On the other hand, Americans could do worse than adopt the French election system. A genuine, fair two-round election, an 85% voter turn-out, a clear majority for the winner, and the election over at election night --- not bad, isn't it?

I don't know... considering 25% of Americans think that the Sun goes around the Earth, and 40% of Americans believe using the zodiac to predict the future is at least somewhat scientific, it makes me kind of scared to think about that kind of turnout.

Although, by the same poll, 53% of Europeans think astrology is rather scientific, and a whopping 33% said the Sun goes around the Earth. So much for a better education.

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that the US has a female secretary of state, and that she outranks the minister of defence, right?

Re:And one of the first statements he made:

[fast penguin]

Ahah. Check this out!

Americans are no superior or inferior than the rest of the world. Astrology is spread to even tv news bulletins in my country, few people can point countries in a map, etc, etc. Stupid people exist in every nation, race, gender, whatever.

Can we be next?

[ptbob]

When Sarkozy is done with France do you think he could come over here for a few years? I like his ideas on immigrants, it would be nice if our "President" had the balls!

Re: Can we be next?

[Black Parrot]

When Sarkozy is done with France do you think he could come over here for a few years? I like his ideas on immigrants, it would be nice if our "President" had the balls! A hard line on immigrants won't happen in the USA. The Democrats wouldn't think it's nice, and the Republicans are split between the social conservatives who want it and the monied folk who don't think it's in their best interest.

The election year attempt to push immigration reform through the Republican Congress was one of several factors leading to that party's recent implosion.

Re: Can we be next?

[furball]

Just adding to the parent, Republicans see Hispanics as the new Black. Some members of the leadership strongly believe that embracing this emerging voting block is essential to the party. Other members disagree very strongly. I'd almost say violently but they haven't reached that degree yet.

Democrats are Democrats and are always too afraid to go hard-line on anyone that might be perceived as a protected class.

If you're looking for immigration reformed in the USA, you are shit out of luck.

Re: Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to check on the polls. There's broad bi-partisan support for fixing the immigration problem. Democrat and Republicans want merit-based, front door only, no employer sponsored immigration.

Re: Can we be next?

[enharmonix]

A hard line on immigrants won't happen in the USA. The Democrats wouldn't think it's nice, and the Republicans are split between the social conservatives who want it and the monied folk who don't think it's in their best interest. Put a bit more cynically: Republicans want cheap labor, Democrats want cheap votes.

Now I'm depressed...

Re:Can we be next?

[be-fan]

The immigration problem in France is a world away from the "problems" we have in the US. By and large, our immigrants either end up working hard in the lower runs of society, and many end up leading productive lives in the professional class (doctors, engineers, etc). Many groups in our immigrant population assimilate (most everyone outside of some hispanics) and even the ones that don't do not go out of their way to resist American culture.

In comparison, the French have to deal with huge waves of lower-class immigrants who clog up their social welfare system. Moreover, not only do they not assimilate, but they actively resist and antagonize the native culture.

We have our problems with immigrants sure (like most poor classes, they commit more crimes, etc), but there is no way to compare our problems to those faced by the French. When we have Hispanics rioting en masse in the streets, like Muslims in France are doing, then maybe your sentiments will be valid.

Re: Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

A hard line on immigrants won't happen in the USA. The Democrats wouldn't think it's nice, and the Republicans are split between the social conservatives who want it and the monied folk who don't think it's in their best interest.

The election year attempt to push immigration reform through the Republican Congress was one of several factors leading to that party's recent implosion.

The Republicans imploded during the election because they were unable to get meaningful immigration enforcement passed, thus pissing off those social conservatives so much they didn't bother to vote.

It's true that neither party supports doing anything than continuing to let the flood of immigrants come in. That's why I expect the lynchings to start up again soon. If the government won't do what overwhelming numbers of the people want it to do, the people will do it themselves, and they won't bother being nice about it.

Re: Can we be next?

[AoT]

Lets be honest here, both parties want cheap labor and cheap votes.

They just have to tailor their rhetoric to the right parts of society.

Re:Can we be next?

[WotTheFrog]

French immigrants are not all muslims. In fact most of last year's rioters are not immigrants at all, they were born here and are completely assimilated, as much as the white French will allow them to. When the French start treating their immigrants with half the civility that the US show theirs (now) there won't be so much rioting in French streets.

Re: Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Migrants are coal mine canaries. The USA receives migrants because it has an interesting mix of individual rights, economic growth, political liberty, social stability. Once some other country offers a better mix, there will go the migrants.

What I am saying is, don't feel bad because of migrants -- they indicate everything is well. It should be simple to get rid of them (and perhaps even start getting born-americans migrating): take away individual rights, get an economic depression, put political repression, and a few social clashes and you will see. You can start with the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Agency.

Do not pretend to understand the cause-effect relationship between immigration and economic success -- you could easily get it wrong. When in doubt, go back to your personal/national values: what would the forefathers do ?

Re: Can we be next?

[Valar]

You know, it isn't just the monied interests wanting cheap labor or democrats trying to pick up votes. Some of us happen to believe that a) open borders will lead to a better economy for everyone (Solow growth model indicates that population growth plus technology growth equals economic growth) and b) the freedom to move about the world freely is a fundamental human right.

I'm sorry, but I've just never heard a compelling argument for why someone is more entitled to live here just because they were born here. I am sympathetic to the argument that people should do it legally, but that condition can only really apply if we allow a legal option for everyone. As it is, most illegal immigrants couldn't legally move to America because of our quota and visa restrictions.

This whole concept of nationality and citizenship has ensured that every child is born into a prison.

Re:Can we be next?

[Blakey Rat]

What do the rioting immigrants expecting from the white French, exactly? It seems to me like they already get far more support than they do in 95% of the countries on Earth, and probably just as much as in the US.

Every OTHER commentary on the recent riots (except yours) hold that the rioters, while not technically immigrants, are not at all assimilated into French culture and nearly all, if not all, were Muslims. The media, in the interest of political correctness, tends to call them "youths." I'd be interested to know what your source is, and why you're saying the opposite of everybody else.

Re: Can we be next?

[megaditto]

Democrat and Republican constituents want merit-based, front door only, no employer sponsored immigration.

There, fixed it for you. However, what politicians want is really quite different.

Re: Can we be next?

[megaditto]

Perhaps it's time we "liberate" Mexico, install democracy, and use it as a buffer zone of sorts? Seems silly to fight all over the globe but no in our backyard.

Re:Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

WotTheFrog already said it, but it's true. Most of those "muslim rioters" were about as muslim as I am -- they don't go to mosque or pray to mecca or anything. They've tried hard to assimilate into French culture, and you know what? The French people won't let them. You can overhear two Frenchmen discussing a dark-skinned member of a football team and one will roll his eyes and say sarcastically "oh, yeah, HE'S a Frenchman." -- can you imagine an American saying that about someone on a baseball team? Those kids figured out that they can try as hard as they like to do what French leaders say they want them to do (to assimilate), but they just can't get past some of the racist attitudes that persist in French culture.
  I think it's because racism in the US was so much worse (see: Jim Crow) that we couldn't ignore it, and had to get it out and deal with it. In France it's simply bubbled away at a low level and everyone just pretends it's not there.* It reminds me of how people with severe mental illness will realize something's wrong and seek out help, while countless people with a handful of neuroses and other problems never see (or admit) that there's anything wrong with them that could benefit from some treatment.

  * Segments of the US are like that now. Every so often a political talk show will bring on the entire spectrum of white guys (from pasty to doughy!) to discuss "Racism in America", and they'll conclude that it's all over and done, and whatever recent cry of racism prompted this Very Special Episode is just 'the usual suspects' getting oversensitive again, ho ho! Maybe there'll be a couple of jokes about Al Sharpton's hair.

Re: Can we be next?

[mishagam]

Just create France levels of welfare for Hispanics + France levels of unemployment to prevent Hispanics from working and you will surely have Hispanics ghettos and France level of riots in 10 years.

Re:Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so completely wrong. France's immigration problems aren't even 1/10th of America's. First of all, the rioters were mostly not immigrant, and mostly not muslim. In fact, France is one of the least religious countries in the world (right behind Hungary).

The riots in France are NOTHING compared to the riots in the US. No one dies in the French riots (only a few cars get burned). Compare that with the L.A. riots in 1991.......

The immigration problem in France appears magnified because France has a much higher standard for cultural integration.

Re:Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

he's an idiot with his head up his ass. That's why he's saying the opposite. France needs to deport these people to the 3rd world shithole they came from. Immediately.

Re: Can we be next?

[Grishnakh]

So how about my freedom to move into your house? Do you agree with that, too?

I'll need you to set me up with a nice bedroom, and make sure there's plenty of food for me. And don't ask about rent; you're not getting any. It's my fundamental human right to live in your house free of charge.

Re: Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike most countries in the world the US wouldn't even BE a country if it weren't for immigration.

Re:Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want a president with balls...you might get your chance to vote for one - she'll be the only woman running for president in a year and a half.

Re:Can we be next?

[g8oz]

The problem with the French is that they give minorities overly generous welfare payments, put them up in anonymous concrete tower blocks distant from towns AND discriminate against them when they try to get jobs. Their policies led to the current situation, not any intrinsic cultural characteristics of the Arab/African immigrants themselves.

It can be reversed with welfare reform, public housing reform, job training, and maybe some affirmative action.

Re: Can we be next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me where the parent poster advocated revocation of the right to property.

Idiot.

Re:Can we be next?

[chaoticzen]

Really the issue here in the U.S. is not about "LEGAL" immigration, we have no problem with people wanting to come here legally following the rules like our relatives did in the past. It's welfare robbing, social security depleting, economy busting, criminally inclined "ILLEGAL" aliens we have a problem with. I get so mad when the left tries to include the good legal immigrants in the mess by lumping them in with illegal aliens in order to misrepresent the true issue at hand. Illegal aliens are single handedly destroying the economy of the southwestern states and have increased crime rates astronomically all along the boarder states. Before you try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I was born in the southwest and have lived 37 years here in 3 different southwestern states. So I am talking from experience on the degradation I have seen and the cime problems illegal aliens have brought to our country. In my opinion becoming an American is a privilege not a right. I personally applaud the building of the wall and the reform of birth right of citizenship to disallow citizenship to the children of anyone who enters the country illegally.

sweet

[koan]

I guess the USA isn't the only country with a broken voting system.

Re:sweet

[Beretta Vexe]

53% of French vote are for Sarkozy, it's a direct voting system. Even if you don't like him he win with popular vote and with on of the larger turnout for a French election.

Sarkozy on free software

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy's views on innovation and free software

Re:Sarkozy on free software

[Pantero Blanco]

That article doesn't give much information about Sarkosky's opinions on free software, not that I can tell anyway... It only says that he is opposed to government interference in favor of interoperability, and is against certain patent/copyright reforms.

"It is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone."

Does anyone have any statements by him that state his views on F/OSS specifically? The above quote seems to be more about mandating it.

Re:Sarkozy on free software

[rm999]

I think he is basically saying that the government should not *require* free software or ban it. It is not the government's job to mandate anything about a technology or an application of a technology. This is a great view (and very against the anti-competitive nature of previous French politicians). Remember that fiasco where France essentially tried to ban iPods from France? Sarkozy probably wouldn't pull crap like that.

It's too bad that linux.com has to put a anti-Sarkozy spin in its article. In the process, they spent all their space blasting him instead of summarizing his answers. Just because he doesn't want to require Linux does not make him evil.

Re:Sarkozy on free software

[mapkinase]

At the globalization time supporting software bullies by a French president means only one thing: treason of La France, because French software represented by ... (actually I do not know a single prominent French software company).

Re:Sarkozy on free software

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Mandriva?

Too bad

[i_should_be_working]

He was the only candidate who doesn't support, or even have a clear stance on free software.

Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.

Re:Too bad

[oever]

That is a very sick comment!

Re:Too bad

[jalet]

He is also G.W. Bush's puppet.

Really a great great day for us !

Re:Too bad

[p!ssa]

Never happen, the french president doesnt rate high enough to go hunting with Cheney.

Re:Too bad

[ThePromenader]

Sarkozy doesn't have a clear stance on anything at all. As someone watching most every move he has made since his first appearance as a Chiraq supporter (around 1997), his "discours" since then has been a sea of passive-voice platitudes geared to please the common public. He does pronounce himself clearly on a few issues such as immigration, yet does not provide a clear idea on how he intends to impliment his 'ideas'. These next months will be revealing about what this guy is really about.

Re:Too bad

[king-manic]

He is also G.W. Bush's puppet.

Really a great great day for us !

Wow Cheney must be Dextrious. He had his hand up 3 world leaders ass.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheney has his GUNS TO 3 WORLD LEADERS HEADS.

Re:Too bad

[Opportunist]

Well, he doesn't need to use a hand everywhere. You know his first name?

And now

[El Lobo]

2 hours later, he need to deal with the first big riot.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789 ,1062291,00.html(in swedish)

Re:And now

[Misagon]

I would have been surprised, if there hadn't been riots. After the previous riots, Sarkozy put a lot people off with his behavior. I would think that most of Segolene Royal's votes were not in fact votes for Royal, but against Sarkozy.

Re:And now

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

So by your logic 53% of the french voted against Royal. Now what did she did wrong to be hated by so many people?
IMO those who voted for Sarkozy are the people who want a stable society, one in which you wake up and can drive to work without first extinguising your car.
The problem with France and many other European countries is their obsession with multiculturual society. Some how people believe you can trow together different cultures and everything will be all milk and honey and that considering they can't even get supporters of 2 different soccer teams to share a street.

Re:And now

[Opportunist]

That's how it is today. You're not voting for a candidate, you're voting against the other one.

Personally I consider it a shame of today's politics. We don't have leaders that you want in office, we have other candidates that you want even less than the one you vote for. What's worst about it is that the speeches are even geard towards that. You no longer hear what a candidate wants to do for your country, for you or for the world, instead he tells you what bad things are gonna happen if the other one wins.

How is this supposed to instill some kind of trust in a politician?

In fact, after the speeches are done, you don't know why you should vote for either of them, you only know why you should not. You hear no suggestions how to improve this country and how he or she would make it better, you only hear how bad it's gonna be. No matter which goon is gonna take it.

The only thing you hear in campaigns anymore is that both candidates are unfit for the office.

One word

[pieterh]

Thatcher.

Re:One word

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, we need her in the UK again.

Re:One word

[powerpants]

ding!

Re:One word

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and Thatcher was a good thing for the UK, as much as any hates to admit it. After the waste and ruin of the 70's she and the Tories managed to take the country and turn it into something useful again. We were dragged, kicking and screaming away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, which has proved to be a good decision for the two decades following. Yes, the Tories fucked up a lot of stuff (They decimated the NHS and the Poll Tax was never a good idea, and the sleaze and corruption in the later years is only matched by that of New Labour now) but on the whole, it was a painful but necasary time for Britian.

France is quite possibly in a worse position than Britian was in, in the 70's. Labour laws in France have practicall sucked the life out of the economy. I'm all for workers rights, but not at the expense of there being no jobs to work in.

Re:One word

[fireylord]

Not to mention thatcher was a murdering bitch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Belgrano

Re:One word

[joshsnow]

--Quite frankly, we need her in the UK again.

That's so freaking funny, I actually LOL!

Wait...you were joking,right?

Re:One word

[brightmidnight]

Well, that bought her another term in office. Way to go, patriotic Brits!

Re:One word

[paedobear]

Actually, she increased spending on the NHS at higher-than-inflation rates. The privatisation of BT, water, gas, electicity, trains, etc - those were all clusterfucks though.

Re:One word

[flyingfsck]

Ugh, Thatcher did some good with her economic policies in the UK, but her foreign policy sucked. All the big leaders of that time, Thatcher, Gorbachef, Reagan and others, supported terrorist groups around the world, which led to much suffering.

Re:One word

[hoofie]

What a tool.

Did you actually read the wikipedia entry ?

The Captain of the ship himself agrees that it was a legitimate attack. So does the Argentinian Government.

Please read up on your Falklands War history - this would be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_Wargood start. Especially the bits about the carrier 'Vincent De Mayo' and the damage that would have done if it ever got near the Task Force. The sinking of the Belgrano made it very clear to the Argentinian Navy that nuclear submarines where in the area and all enemy warships were targets. It had the effect of keeping the Argentinian Navy out of the war. If Vincent De Mayo had got close enough to launch a strike package against the Task Force then I can guarantee that the UK would have lost the war since I'm sure they would have disabled or destroyed at least one of the British carriers - the Argentinian Naval aircraft were not piloted by morons and had the weapons to do it.
Also, there WERE Argentinian submarines active. I remember reading a report that one in particular managed to fire a salvo at HMS Invincible, but major reliability problems with their torpoedos meant they never got a hit.
The captain of HMS Conqueror was in command of a warship, the Belgrano was a warship of the enemy, and both countries were at war. The Argentinian Navy may have taken casualties, but I can assure you so did the Royal Navy, thanks to the Argentinian Airforce and their attacks.

As a final note, did you know there are numerous reports from Special Forces of them being fired upon from an Argentinian Hospital Ship, in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention ? Read This : http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/sbs.ht m

Re:One word

[yndrd1984]

I dislike with most of what Regan and Thacher did (just as I do with almost all politicians), but I have to agree that without them the economies of both countries would be much worse.

Re:One word

[MojoStan]

France is quite possibly in a worse position than Britian was in, in the 70's. Labour laws in France have practicall sucked the life out of the economy. I'm all for workers rights, but not at the expense of there being no jobs to work in. Sounds like an appropriate time for a French punk movement. Anarchy à le RF!

Re:One word

[Alioth]

Sinking the Belgrano was an absolutely legitimate act of war. Wars aren't nice things and people get killed.

Re:One word

[Anonymous Coward]

" France is quite possibly in a worse position than Britian was in, in the 70's. Labour laws in France have practicall sucked the life out of the economy."

At the end of the 1970s Britain was in staglation - negative growth, 15% inflation. At the moment France is enjoying modest positive growth and low inflation (both around 2%) . The UK was in a MUCH worse position in 1979 than France is in 2007.

Re:One word

[Richard_at_work]

People need to remember that the Belgrano wouldnt have been sunk if the Argentinians never invaded the Falklands Islands....

Re:One word

[fireylord]

just because it was legal doesn't mean that it was moral. The cruiser was not a threat :o) the carrier could be described as a threat, , but the cruiser could not. Theres no way you could equate the threat from the carrier with the (lack of viable) threat from the Belgrano. calling me a tool without actually reading between the lines a little, or asking me for my viewpoint. What an ass.

Re:One word

[Hognoxious]

The only thng propping the French economy up is the money it siphons of the EU, mainly via the CAP. Just wait till Germany cuts off their allowance...

Re:One word

[hoofie]

You decided that a simple insult was all that was required without bothering to supply any supporting arguments.

Was the sinking of the Belgrano moral ? No.
Was the firing of an exocet into a conveyor ship killing some of the crew moral ? No.
Was the Argentinan invasion of the Falklands moral ? No.
Were the bombing of Port Stanley airport duing the BLACK BUCK missions moral ? No. Were the harrasment and threats to locals by the Argentinian Military Intelligence moral ? No. Were any of the deaths on ANY side moral ? No.
Was any of it moral ? No.

The whole Falklands was a short high-intensity conflict in which no-one ultimately won. The Argentinians were defeated yes, but both navies took ship losses [The Royal Navy especially]. Men died. Islanders died. All for one little barren rock in the South Atlantic which the British Government had to spend blood and treasure to retake and is still spending on now to garrison and support. The Argentinians gambled and invaded another country's territory. The British Government more-or-less gave the Junta a green light by indicating HMS Endurance was to be withdrawn. The invasion of South Georgia by a scrap metal dealer forced the Argentinian hand.

You can't look at one incident in the whole was and determine that it was immoral. It was a war - war is immoral period.

And finally here another one for you : Rick Jolly, the famous field surgeon during the Falklands, saved the lives of many British AND Argentinian soldiers. He treated everyone based on their condition, NOT their allegiance.

Diabold?

[k1e0x]

Do they use electronic voting machines? Will Jimmy Carter certify the election for us?

French bashing?

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues. Frankly it appeared that they were right regarding Iraq. France is certainly one of the greatest allies this country has had, in fact we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not sold us the Louisiana Purchase to pay for his war with England. If anything we owe them quite a bit and their only crime is that they are just as patriotic to their country as we are to ours.

Now with that being said, do you know why there are trees on the Champs D'Elysees? So the Germans can march in the shade!

Re: French bashing?

[Black Parrot]

I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues. Some of it may be heartfelt politics, but a lot of it is just jest resulting from their easy stereotype as a nation of mood-swingers.

Re:French bashing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

France is certainly one of the greatest allies this country has had, in fact we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not sold us the Louisiana Purchase to pay for his war with England.

Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies."?

Re: French bashing?

[ystar]

I've always found the 'easiest' stereotypes to be the farthest off-base (your sentence structure is just ambiguous enough that I'm not sure if you agree with the stereotype or not). French political sentiments are as diverse as their political system is, I really doubt it's mood swinging as much as it is just a shift in who has say at what time (and who's listening). And I'd argue it's better than Dubya's "stay the course, ignore everything else" mentality.

Re:French bashing?

[GnuDiff]

Louisiana Purchase to pay for his war with England.

Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies."?

Erm, not that I've ever been particularly interested in the US history, but wasn't England sort of in war with the US over independence or something? Or who are the Allies of the US during Napoleon's time you refer to?

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because ever since WWII, France has been trying to maintain the illusion of grandeur that they are of equal stature in the world geopolitics as the US, and doing it by ribbing the US every chance it gets. Cheese-sucking surrender monkeys.

Re:French bashing?

[DrDitto]

My wife and I were in Paris 3 weeks ago...we are both American. A local grocery store posted a sign saying they were closing at 1pm that day (due to a holiday). That day my wife and I were taking a train ride to Germany. We made a concerted effort to walk to the grocery store in order to get a couple sandwiches for the train ride. We got there at 12:40. The grocer wouldn't let us in saying they were closed. Fine...but in the next couple minutes as we stood outside trying to figure out where to go next, he let in several French men and women!! No, they didn't live there...we watched through the window as they grabbed their stuff and checked out!

Yes, only one person treated us like that, but its hard not to form a lasting impression!

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right to be fair, it's not like America didn't have a surrender like stance when it came to the Suez situation in refusing to give support, much like the French refused to give support to the US over Iraq. France really hasn't shat on America anymore than America has shat on France.

From a British point of view, I'm not entirely sure why we give so much support to the US when they treat us with an awful lot of disrespect also. It's not like they didn't screw us in the Suez crisis as well. There's plenty of other examples of US disrespect towards us as one of it's strongest allies such as always entirely downplaying the years of fighting we were doing in World War II before they even decided to join in (most American's probably don't even know what the Battle of Britain was). Even now where we support them in Iraq the US goverment is essentially blanking us when it comes to request for support into the inquiry of friendly fire incidents instigated by US personnel - when a US A10 pilot kills our troops even an apology would be nice, refusing to even cooperate in the slightest is outright insulting.

America would do well to learn to respect other countries, realise that it does sometimes need allies in this world and that when nations do support it that that support should perhaps be remembered and respected, not ignored.

Re:French bashing?

[Bloke down the pub]

War of independence was in 1776. Napoleon was a kid at the time. Maybe you're getting confused with the war of 1812, in which case Allies probably refers to Britain, Austria, Prussia - pretty much every European power other than France.

Re:French bashing?

[ScrewMaster]

They helped finance the Revolution ... without France the United States would have been stillborn. They gave us the Statue of Liberty in recognition of the friendship and mutual respect between the two nations. Remember when Jane Fonda commented to Johnny Carson, "What did the French ever do for us?" That earned her Carson's famous wide-eyed "what the fuck?" look.

Of course, people would have to have some awareness of history to know any of this. There's a reason why we teach history in schools. It has numerous benefits: among other things, it helps you to remember who your friends are.

Re:French bashing?

[Hadlock]

Yeah? And how were you dressed? Amazing that they could tell you were americans based on which type of english accent you had. I was in Europe for three weeks, wore khakis and oxford shirts with leather shoes and was treated supurbly. The story I always tell is how we ate at a restuant down the street from the Paris opera house, were seated, got excellent service, and left (after leaving a giant tip for such great service)... on our way out we saw the same american girls waiting for a table that had been there since before we arrived (They were part of our travel group). They were also dressed in bright colors, speghetti straps and whatnot.
 
Appearance matters.
 
I hate to say it, but a muslim couple dressed in a durka and a turban might get the same (or worse) treatment in the deep south here in the US. Or an African American dressed to the nines in his rap-pimp outfit at an exclusive resturant.

Re:French bashing?

[DrDitto]

Yup...a huge difference between France and America. Apparently if you dress wrong, you get rude service. We were dressed for a 5-hour train ride that day which included loose, comfortable jeans. I wore slacks the other days.

Don't get me wrong...I really liked Paris and most people we interacted with were just fine. But all the other European countries I've visited, the locals don't get snotty and rude if we happen to dress in bright colors, or god-forbid, wear blue jeans. Maybe this is why there is so much "French bashing"???

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I come to the US several times a year, and boy if I were to form an opinion on experiences like these I would 've gone crazy.
And you went to Europe for three weeks, only once were you treated like that.
Please, learn to relativise.

By the way, I'm Belgian, not French.

I went out to buy lunch a few days ago at the grocer around the corner. An American on holiday with his wife and three kids was furious because the grocer didn't have anything else but Tobasco to spice up his sandwich. "I don't want that shit it's too American, don't you people have your own stuff!" were his exact words.

Yes i've only seen it happening once at the grocery, but it's hard not to form a lasting impression!

Re:French bashing?

[mehgul]

Yeah sure, appearance matters, so what?
If a tourist, or anybody for that matter, is treated badly, or worse, xenophobically, then the shopkeeper is a fucking jerk. That would be the case if he's French or anything else. And god knows how awful some parisian shopkeepers can be (luckily, not all of them , but quite a lot indeed). I should know, I'm a parisian by birth.

Re:French bashing?

[DrDitto]

Rude people are everywhere...but me the last time in the U.S. where you were _refused_ service for your nationality or for how you looked? There is the difference between snotty, minimal service and no service at all.

My impression of France is, overall, pretty good. Its just that I witnessed some of what gets the country its reputation.

Re:French bashing?

[caluml]

OT, regarding your sig:
Sangahost: Misusing apostrophes. Not once, but twice.

Re:French bashing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

War of independence was in 1776. Napoleon was a kid at the time. Maybe you're getting confused with the war of 1812, in which case Allies probably refers to Britain, Austria, Prussia - pretty much every European power other than France.

Let's see. I mentioned Napolean and his wars with the Allies, in context of the Louisiana Purchase (which happened in 1803). That would leave out the American Revolution. It would also leave out the War of 1812. That pretty much leaves the Napoleanic Wars, doesn't it? Which was between Napoleanic France and the Allies, which Allies pretty much included everyone in Europe but France. Yep.

I'm not quite sure where the confusion comes in, though, unless you were confused....

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note, just as the US invasion of Iraq was crappy idea, Brit+French+Israel attempt to take over Suez was a crap idea, and the US was quite commendable in scaring yous off.

The US didn't fare too well when baited by the Brits to overthrow Mosadeq's democratic Iran (and for what, so BP can be a bloodsucking oil giant), and we are still paying for it to this day.

Stop whining. If you don't like it, pull your troops out - the US didn't put her gun to your head, and your government went along with it willingly.

Re:French bashing?

[Waffle Iron]

... and I suppose that the Spanish obtained control of Louisiana from its original occupants fair and square.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies."?

He could easily have split it up among different countries. In fact he used to swear he'd never sell it all off at once thus creating a superpower, but apparently he changed his mind.

Re:French bashing?

[morari]

I receive snotty service all of the time in the U.S. and I live here! I think it has something to do with the long hair and lack of a hillbilly accent though. However, Paris is one of the worst places you can go in France. Not only does it suffer from being a large, filthy city, but it's also a huge tourist attraction. Typical Americans probably are treated worse. If you barge into someplace and immediately ask if anyone speaks English, no one will help you. If you try to speak French and at least acknowledge their culture, people are more forgiving. Such things might be hard for a lot of Americans to understand though, since it's a country with no real culture or history of its own.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit.

Louisiana was a french colony that ended up under spanish rule as a consequence of one of many european wars. Napoleon Bonaparte worked/negociated/bargained with spain to get it back (to rebuild/restart New France?)... Only to be made an offer he could not refuse by the USA: "you sell it to us for nuthin' or we take it from you and you won't get diddly". As he was already embroiled in, huh, "misunderstandings" *cough* with his neighbours, he didn't have much of a choice.

If you don't believe me, why do you think it was called "Louisiane"? Why do you think its main city was called "La Nouvelle Orleans" (sorry, not accents)? Why...

I am just stunned that Bonaparte extended so much efforts to get Louisiane back when it was so obvious that the 'murkins would want to expand westward and be damned anyone standing in their way (like the North-American Indians found out).

Re:French bashing?

[DrDitto]

" a lot of Americans to understand though, since it's a country with no real culture or history of its own. "

The U.S. has a history. The U.S. also has plenty of local culture. The history doesn't go back thousands of years, and a distinct national culture is possibly lacking. But plenty of small, local cultures. Its sad that you would say such a thing.

Re:French bashing?

[Jerome H]

Now with that being said, do you know why there are trees on the Champs D'Elysees? So the Germans can march in the shade!

I'm french but well... is a good joke and I didn't know it :)

Re:French bashing?

[morari]

Perhaps it's because my culture does go back thousands of years, because America came and stomped all of that out. Aside from that however, I don't think the country as a whole has much of a culture or history. When people look at our culture, they see muscle cars and fast food. Local cultures may fare better, but that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It would be like trying to point out one family's tradition while talking about the heritage of a state.

Re:French bashing?

[twenex27]

Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies."? Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napoleon not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish, who stole it from the Native Americans, and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies"?

Re:French bashing?

[MrSteveSD]

I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues.

Well it was encouraged from the highest levels of Government. First of all you had Rumsfeld etc al, dismissing France as "old Europe". This was effectively an ad-hominem attack. Rather than dealing with the important issues it raised, France was effectively the subject of name calling. Then you had the "Freedom Fries" escapade in the House Of Representatives where all the menus were changed. France was then routinely accused of anti-Americanism in the media. All of this kept peoples attention away from Frances actual objections to military action, amongst which were that it did not believe there was an imminent danger from WMDs, that invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and that a war would destabilize the Middle East.

The whole racist tirade against France in the US was/is interesting, especially at a time when there is so much discussion about anti-Americanism. Renaming French Fries to freedom fries is definitely anti-French, but is criticising US actions in Iraq or other foreign policy issues, Anti-American? I think not. It seems to me that currently the concept of anti-Americanism is being used as propaganda. Americans are being encouraged to feel that they themselves are being targeted in some racist way, when it is in fact government policy that is being criticised. The result of this is that people are more likely to rally behind their government when confronted with such criticism. The Russian government uses the same trick when it's policies are criticised. The Russian people are deliberately made to feel that everyone is against them.

When you are angry with a country because of specific military or political issues, you should address those specific issues and argue your case. It's all to easy to be dragged into name calling by government and the media.

Re:French bashing?

[rho]

and I suppose that the Spanish obtained control of Louisiana from its original occupants fair and square

Sure. Spain had 1) more people, 2) better technology, and 3) a superior culture that emphasized a national community over tribalism, which was a large part of 1) being true. I guess Spain could feel bad for being a more advanced culture, but who'd want to do that?

Re:French bashing?

[DrDitto]

You could say the same thing about the future United States of Europe (that is the goal of the European Union after all). Many, but not all, states in the U.S. have a culture that is unique and different from its neighbors.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies."?

Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napoleon not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish, who stole it from the Native Americans, and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies"?

Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napoleon not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish, who stole it from the Native Americans, who stole it from the Cavemen, who stole it from the Dinosaurs, who stole it from God and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies."?

Re:French bashing?

[fm6]

Actually, Napoleon sold the LT because he realized it would have taken a huge military force to hold onto it. He actually tried, sending out a military expedition that was supposed to first pacify Haiti (the slaves were in revolt) and then move on and fortify Louisiana. The force in question got totally chewed up in the slave revolt, making Napoleon realize he had to prioritize his plans for World Conquest. Since American settlers were bound to drift in and become the majority in this "French" territory any (the way they later did in Texas), Napoleon thought it best to cut his loses.

Also, it's pretty much a myth that America and France were ever long-term allies. Yes, the two countries signed an alliance that was crucial to America winning its independence. But when, just a few year later, the French revolutionary government invoked this treaty, the Washington administration decided that the U.S. couldn't afford to fight Britain again. And a few years after that, the U.S. and France were at war. Since the U.S. and France has had its ups (they gave us that nice statue, we helped kick out the odd invader) but also its downs (NATO, the Suez crisis). All in all, just the usual relationship with furreners that don't talk good English.

It is silly to still be pissed at France about Iraq, though. Especially since most Americans now seem to think we should have listened to them.

Re:French bashing?

[minus_273]

french opposed the war becasue the oil for food money was going through a french bank and many officials in the government were on saddam's payroll. how was that right?

Re:French bashing?

[fm6]

Spain giving Louisiana to France was just one of those colony swaps that occurred regularly in those days. Spain got Louisiana from France that way in the first place. Neither country was serious about colonizing the territory properly, which was the only way they could have held onto it. And of course, even that doesn't really work, as the American Revolution demonstrates. You just can't control territory that's so hard to communicate with and to supply.

France gets accused of "stealing" Louisiana because they were occupying Spain at the time. But neither France nor Spain had the slightest hope of holding onto Louisiana — and both countries knew it.

Re:French bashing?

[toddhisattva]

Frankly it appeared that they were right regarding Iraq.

Nice pun.

Also, on what points do you think which French were right?

(Love the France that gave birth to Lavoisier, hate the France that killed him.)

Re:French bashing?

[morari]

I'll give you that. Of course, I'm not at all convinced that uniting Europe is that great of an idea. Then again, I'm not too keen on American states being dictated as much as they are by the federal government. ;)

Re:French bashing?

[chromatic]

First of all you had Rumsfeld...

The Vichy predates Rumsfeld, and that was only the first example that came to my mind.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't spend time here, join the US army and go find the WMD in Irak

Re:French bashing?

[mehgul]

Yeah, weel, as a French, I see it a misplaced pride to be snotty to non-french speakers. The French do not learn arabic when they visit Egypt. The Germans do not learn turkish when they vacation in Turkey. They are not mistreated there from what I've seen.

Re:French bashing?

[tcc3]

In the new utopia, there will be no apostrophe.

Re:French bashing?

[Kristoph]

Actually, in small shops in France and the french speaking parts of Belgium, this generally happens not because you are not native but because you are not a known/good customer. When my wife and I lived there it happened a number of times that we were let into otherwise 'closed' shops by a shopkeeper who knew us while other native people were not. (Neither my wife nor I speak french very well but we did our best and people appreciated that.)

Although you and I might think it rude it is a cultural thing that you just sort of get used to once you live there a while.

]{

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You call a mere 200 years a history? Duh!

And culture? Average Yoplait yogurt has more culture than a coach with American trip ;-)

Re:French bashing?

[Saffaya]

1/ Source/credible links please ?

2/ When you think about Halliburton and all what the Us does profitering from the Iraq War (oil resources etc ..) , this is an extremely hilarious point to make.

Re:French bashing?

[kalidasa]

American culture goes back thousands of years - on a different continent, admittedly, but do you honestly think that *The Federalist Papers* and *Common Sense* were just invented ex nihilo?

Re:French bashing?

[Dachannien]

The whole racist tirade against France

Since when is "French" considered a race?

Re:French bashing?

[rlp]

They helped finance the Revolution ... without France the United States would have been stillborn.

France financed the American revolution as a way to damage their long-time enemy Britain. It certainly wasn't common philosophy (France was an absolute monarchy at the time), but temporary common interests. Relations between France and the US turned sour almost immediately after the American revolution. Look-up the 'XYZ Affair'.

Napoleon sold the Louisiana territories to Jefferson because he couldn't afford the troops to defend them (though he DID keep Mexico after taking over Spain), but primarily because he needed the cash to fight Britain.

Re:French bashing?

[Frogbert]

Let me get this straight, you like them because they gave you Louisiana?

Re:French bashing?

[MrSteveSD]

In the strictest sense, even the traditional concept of races is now on shaky grounds. What alternative (and non-awkward) word would you offer as a replacement? Countryist?

Re:French bashing?

[Shihar]

America has culture and culture to spare. Hell, didn't this entire thread get started because someone was complaining about how Americans act? Culture is not old buildings and long histories. Culture is the fabric of how we act, the opinions we have, the things we do, and general aesthetics and style. To deny that Americans don't have a distinct way of going about things is laughable. Now, you can argue that it might not be a good culture, but it certainly is unique.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between the culture in Boston, New York, Chicago, small town mid-west, small town deep south, Silicon Valley, Texas, New Orleans, and L.A. is either extremely oblivious or flat out stupid. All of these places are about as different as you can get while inside the same nation still speaking the same language. If you really believe that American is homogeneous, I suggest getting out more and seeing more then your tiny little plot of the world.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

True that. In popular Haitian history, Haiti saved the US from Napolean and it is not off the mark all that much either, Jefferson sent arms to Haiti very quietly.

Re:French bashing?

[Hardhead_7]

We do it because everyone bashes the French. Even themselves, according to Reuters: "French outpace Americans in French-bashing"

Re:French bashing?

[Plutonite]

They are the race of cheese-nibbling, cowardly surrender monkeys descended from Europeans :)

j/k of course, Europe (and world history) without France would be an absurdity.

Re:French bashing?

[Blakey Rat]

The French bashing is just a joke anyway. It's not like it happens at the diplomatic level or anything.

Re:French bashing?

[Blakey Rat]

There's the more general term "discrimination," if there was actually any. Which I doubt.

In any case, "racism" certainly doesn't apply.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

FREEDOM FRIES!!!

Re:French bashing?

[Guppy06]

"France is certainly one of the greatest allies this country has had, in fact we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not sold us the Louisiana Purchase to pay for his war with England."

Napoleon gave up North America because the coalition had him too bogged down in mainland Europe to realistically pursue his future plans of reclaiming France's former colonial glory in the New World. If he'd had this realization sooner, things would have gone a lot better for the Haitians.

Besides, what has joining the Union done for New Orleans lately?

"If anything we owe them quite a bit and their only crime is that they are just as patriotic to their country as we are to ours."

"Patriotic?" Yesterday was Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates part of France's attempt to install a monarch (a freakin' Hapsburg, no less!) directly adjacent to the "dangerous, radically republican" United States while we were distracted by "domestic issues." And once things calmed down enough up here for US weapons to find their way into Juarista hands (in defense of a country we waged a war against not twenty years prior) and US warships had the opportunity to patrol the Gulf of Mexico again, France coincidentally decided it was time to pull out.

This wasn't the first or the last time that things got dicey between our two countries, and I believe it's safe to say that any and all lingering goodwill leftover from the efforts of folks like Lafayette and his ilk has been spent. There's little need for a moratorium against the US asking "But what have you done for me lately?"

This is not to say that knee-jerk francophobia isn't silly, but so is knee-jerk francophilia.

Re:French bashing?

[ConceptJunkie]

Wow. You managed to blame the origin of French-bashing on President Bush, and it sounds believable.

Now, if you can do that for global warming on Mars, the heartbreak of psoriasis the Black Plague and rap it will be official that everything bad that has ever happened is Bush's fault.

Reasonable people don't have a problem with the French criticizing us. We do have a problem with the French being obstructionist against the U.S. at every turn (they wouldn't allow flights through their airspace during the first Gulf War), or the fact that anything they had to say regarding Iraq, correct or not, was compromised by the fact that they were on the take from Saddam. There are many more reasons I could list, but it has always appeared to me that the French government behaves as if it resents the fact that France is no longer a major world power, and they will do everything they can to appear influential, even if most of it is merely throwing a wrench into things.

Perhaps the French people, who as a whole seem to be decent folks, have finally gotten tired of their country's "Short Man's Disease" or being sold out to lazy people and hostile immigrants that they have chosen a leader that might actually have their interests in mind.

Re:French bashing?

[randyest]

Maybe nationalist or, if that carries connotations you don't intend, then describe what you mean in a phrase, or better yet simply leave off the abrasive, inaccurate adjective altogether. It adds nothing to your argument or meaning; rather it detracts and confuses.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok,monkey.

Re:French bashing?

[brightmidnight]

Maybe it was the fact that you were wearing LEATHER shoes... after all, the French (with their foie gras) love animal cruelty.

I wouldn't classify shoes that came at a defenseless animal's expense as dressing nicely. Sorry, I'd take spaghetti straps, burkas, or pimp outfits over that any day.

Also, no one leaves a tip in France! But I bet it made the waitstaff extra happy :)

Re:French bashing?

[Masato]

Not being there, I can't really comment on this too much. However, don't feel too bad as I hear (from Francophones) that the Parisians can be snobby even to other native French speakers (e.g. if they notice a different accent) The fact that you're an American probably didn't help your cause, but chances are you just met an asshole just like we have any other country.

Re:French bashing?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Unfortunately, some people have begun to use "racism" as a generic term for all discrimination. I've seen it used for:

Actual racism
Sexism
French-bashing (this time)
religion bashing (against Islam), and finally
Anti-Semitism (what will it take to convince people that we Jews are not a race?!)

So I've decided to capitalize on this phenomenon. Buy your ticket to redefine the word "racism" today for the low, low price of $5!

Re:French bashing?

[JFMulder]

was compromised by the fact that they were on the take from Saddam

Except that, you know, the americans are the ones who helped Saddam get to power over there and helped him for many fears before the first Gulf war. Basically, the puppet they established in Irak at one point said F-U to the states and the Bush father wasn't happy with that so you had the first gulf war.

Re:French bashing?

[king-manic]

Yup...a huge difference between France and America. Apparently if you dress wrong, you get rude service. We were dressed for a 5-hour train ride that day which included loose, comfortable jeans. I wore slacks the other days.

Don't get me wrong...I really liked Paris and most people we interacted with were just fine. But all the other European countries I've visited, the locals don't get snotty and rude if we happen to dress in bright colors, or god-forbid, wear blue jeans. Maybe this is why there is so much "French bashing"???

A lot of people forget that just because it's a "white" country doesn't mean the culture is the same. Proper titles are huge in France. While in america a friendly demeanor is more important. If you fail to call someone their proper or generic title it can be seen as rudely intimate. It might have been other things that turned that shop keeper off you or he was just a jerk. Not that indicative of a country.

Re:French bashing?

[minus_273]

the bank is Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP) and this is well known. You need to read more about the war if you want to comment on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/oil.food .report/

while kofi anans was cleared, his son kojo was also on saddams payroll
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4391031.stm

While i am at it you should read this to understand why the war happened. Its from 2003 before the war and negates any argument that saddam was secular or not an open supporter of terrorism. This is the BBC which has an anti-war slant.

Palestinians get Saddam funds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

if you dont want to click the link, the gist is this is an official iraqi PR release. With the following rates:

Saddam's payments
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35m paid since September 2000

Also, can you provide any links to iraq and afgan war profiteering that has not been officially and publicly investigated? from credible news sources not conspiracy theory blogs.

FYI there were investigations after WWI and WWII about profiteering as well google "robber baron" or just watch any movie from that time period. When there is a lot of money involved you are guaranteed to have crooks trying to take it.

Re:French bashing?

[deKernel]

First off, there was a choice between Iraq or Iran. Gee, we picked the lesser of two evils. At least we are attempting to something where most of the world just sits on its hands and extols there virtues of which mainly cause erosion of their own culture (France and Germany come to mind).

Now regarding the the "...and the Bush father wasn't happy with that so you had the first gulf war." comment. Gee, I guess we were the ones to ask Iraq to invade Kuwait..oh wait.

Re:French bashing?

[JonathanR]

You just can't control territory that's so hard to communicate with and to supply. For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Iraq.

Re:French bashing?

[brightmidnight]

I studied abroad junior year in England and always felt welcomed. A friend studied abroad in Versailles and said that almost any time she tried to practice her French (fluent by American standards), she would be ignored or treated badly by native French people. This is the type of person who wouldn't say anything bad about anyone, yet she said they were rude. This was in 2003-2004, so the time period could have had something to do with it.

Re:French bashing?

[brightmidnight]

I agree totally with AC-- the British and French were completely wrong in the Suez disaster, America was completely wrong in Iraq, and Britain was completely wrong to support us.

For everything you said about "America" in your last sentence, you can substitute Bush/Cheney/most Republicans rather than America. America in general has been more right than wrong (the huge exceptions being the CIA's foreign activities, Vietnam and Iraq) and with Bush we're in a no-win situation because he's "The Decider."

Yes, Britain was fighting for years before America got into the year, but keep in mind that we were not being attacked and were in the midst of the greatest depression in American history. The American people would not have supported the war before Japan got us into it. Remember that Ireland didn't fight at all, and they were right next to Britain. Remember that your own prime minister Neville Chamberlain gave Hitler what he wanted in the "Appeasement" policy that ended up to be an abject failure. Remember that it was Germany's fault in the first place! We all helped win the war, and thank goodness or things would be a lot different.

Re:French bashing?

[brightmidnight]

The CIA did put Saddam's Baath party in (his predecessor was a communist), but he was in no way a puppet of theirs.

Kuwait is an ally of theirs, we told Saddam not to invade it, and he did anyway. Thus, the Gulf War. Why France wouldn't allow us to use their airspace for something perfectly legitimate (especially by today's standards), I don't know.

Re:French bashing?

[Bayoudegradeable]

Spain was GIVEN La Louisianne by the French to keep it out of the hands of the Brits. Of course, France "called" all lands drained by the Miss'sip, so that was a bit of a grand claim, of course ignoring the numerous local inhabitants (i.e. orginal Native Americans). And yes, Napoleon took it back from the Spaniards, but at the time he was pretty much running the show in Europe. Seems we in the US also like to forget the help the French gave us in helping defeat the British to get our independence in the first place....

Re:French bashing?

[brightmidnight]

Yes, the French were right. The problem is, they oppose us on so many international issues (sometimes, it seems, just to be the ones to disagree) that it just seemed like they were pulling their usual devil's advocate act. If Britain had gone against us or another country that had sensible policies and agreed with us from time to time, that might have carried more weight... but since we did ignore what the UN had to say, it might not have, either.

Re:French bashing?

[Aeron65432]

As if there's no anti-Americanism in France...

Lots of people don't disagree with our policies, they just plain hate us. We're damned for not stopping the Rwanda genocide, and damned for intervening in Somalia.

Re:French bashing?

[stephanruby]

First off, there was a choice between Iraq or Iran. Gee, we picked the lesser of two evils.

Not really, the US doesn't always pick the lesser of two evils. The US Government first picks an enemy for its own reasons, then and only then, it rationalizes its decision after-the-fact by demonizing its chosen enemy and by praising its chosen ally. I could give you specific examples, but frankly -- I'm not even sure you'd be willing to change your mind -- so I'm not going to bother citing those examples unless you specifically ask for them.

Re:French bashing?

[brightmidnight]

Whether Saddam was an open supporter of terrorism is irrelevant-- he was a mass murderer and a killer of his own people, so I'd consider him to be a terrorist himself (which obviously means that he would support terrorism). The Iraq war was justified on two grounds: 1.) Saddam had a link with al-Qaeda and knew or had something to do with the September 11 attacks, proved false; and 2.) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he was keeping to attack America or its interests soon, also proved false. The fact that he paid suicide bombers' families off does not mean anything beyond what we already know and doesn't justify the current war.

That is interesting about BNP, though. Hadn't heard that.

Re:French bashing?

[Aeron65432]

Come on, the only reason they bankrolled us in the Revolution was to spite the English. There was no friendship, no mutual understanding, it was just revenge. Like us giving weapons to Iraq to kill Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Friends of convenience is not true friendship.

Re:French bashing?

[minus_273]

it was saddam had links to terrorism (which i have shown) and WMD.

saddam had links to al-queda too the us was following a guy named Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi since 2002 from afganistan to iraq where he was being treated for injuries from fighting the americans in afganistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

Then there is the direct al-queda, link ansar al-islam which had camps in Iraq. Iraq was becoming another afganistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2149499.stm

THAT is why the war was started.

can you show me how the WMD has been proven false. If you read the UN report saddam had WMD and it is not all accounted for. What was proven false is that he made more after clinton pulled out inspectors during the bombing (operation desert fox) during his impeachment.

dont believe the american media, the news is filtered.

Re:French bashing?

[mishagam]

Having so said "culture" is no excuse for threating outsiders badly.
This is just French inferiority complex. They were once leading country in the world, and currently have no objective influence on world affairs. Now France only pretends to be world power - like holding for their nuclear weapons and place in UN Security Council. This makes them feel bad, and to envy USA which is real great power.
French language was also world language once, but these times have passed, even French can notice this if they thought a little bit, and now French people in France and Quebec just make fools of themselves demanding that everybody learn their language.

Re:French bashing?

[Tablizer]

... and I suppose that the Spanish obtained control of Louisiana from its original occupants fair and square.

That depends on how you measure "fair". Often times tribe A would sell tribe B's land to the settlers as war revenge. The settlers had no way to really know where the borders were, because there was little or no formal record system and the borders were often in dispute among the native americans. True, they probably should have checked deeper, but they obviously didn't care much.

Re:French bashing?

[morari]

I'm not saying it's an excuse per say, just what I have observed. I at least knew enough of the language to get me by in general conversation on all of the occasions I went and I noticed a distinct difference in the way I was treated from that of my traveling companions. However, this was only in Paris itself. I spent considerably more time in the south, where people are generally more nice anyway. It's like that in America though. The majority of people are just asses in large cities. They do take their language very seriously though. France has an entire sector of the government dedicated to preserving their way of speaking, as well as deciding upon what new words to officially introduce. I wish English had defenders like that. It hurts my mind when I hear the little teenagers hanging around Wal-Mart attempting to speak on their flashy cell phones... Or worse yet, reading the kind of trash they write after deluding themselves with text massages.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

(they wouldn't allow flights through their airspace during the first Gulf War)

You are so misinformed it's not even funny. France participated in the first Gulf War.
They did refuse US flyovers, but that was several years earlier, when Reagan sent bombers to kill Khaddafi in Lybia.

The French are not nearly as obtructionist on the international stage as the US. It is the US that blocks such things as the international court, the landmine ban, the Kyoto protocol, etc.....

    - Anonycous Moward

Re:French bashing?

[808140]

Repaid generously? Are you nuts? Do you know how many people the US lost in WWII? Total? In both the European and Pacific theaters? 300 thousand. That's it. And we lost most of our people fighting Japan, not the Germans.

Do you know how many people the USSR lost? 27 million. By the time we invaded Normandy, Germany was already collapsing. Do you know why we waited as long as we did? Tit-for-tat revenge: Lenin pulled the newly formed Soviet Union out of WWI as soon as he took power in 1917, leaving us and our allies high and dry. We didn't need to wait as long as we did; Stalin was begging us for reinforcements, and we could have invaded at any time, but we stood our ground, as a kind of "fuck you" to the Russians, who were hemorrhaging soldiers. Meanwhile, France suffered.

And in WWI, France kicked ass militarily, and remained a major European power. Our role in WWI was relatively small and unimportant compared to Britain and France, who lest you forget, were the world superpowers then. We benefited tremendously from WWII; we were the only developed nation to emerge unscathed, whereas Europe was decimated, its infrastructure utterly destroyed, reduced to a smoking pile of rubble. Then, as if that weren't enough, we enacted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, which more than anything drove the economic growth we experienced in the 1950s -- because the Europeans lacked the infrastructure to produce the goods they required, they were forced to buy them from us, on money we lent them.

Of course, much later we forgave that debt, and patted ourselves on the back and said, look what nice people we are. But in the meantime we had engineered American corporate dominance, and Europe has been in our shadow ever since. And sniveling little brats in the US grow up thinking that our country did all the heavy lifting in World War II, when the harsh truth is that the USSR sacrificed nearly 1 in 10 of its people to save Europe. When De Gaulle had the gall to suggest that France should maintain friendly diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, we actually criticized him!

It is sickening -- absolutely sickening -- to hear people who clearly have never bothered reading a history book in their lives say that France "owes" us for WWII, when we were too cowardly to even engage the Wehrmacht until we knew the Soviet Union had them licked. Then we raised two generations of Americans on propaganda, never even mentioning the sacrifice they made.

The Russians were the heroes of that war. They deserve our respect, which we've never given them. And I would suggest that you never go dangling WWII in the face of the French -- or anyone else in Europe -- again.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues. Frankly it appeared that they were right regarding Iraq. Regarding Iraq, N.Sarkozy position was very strange at that time. He was in the governement (as interior minister) at the time when french minsitry of foreign affairs fought against war in Iraq but when he went to see G.Bush he made escuses that the french did not come to fight with US in Iraq... he is very dangerous because he changes mind to please people and to get power...

Re:French bashing?

[fishbowl]

>The CIA did put Saddam's Baath party in (his predecessor was a communist), but he was in no way a puppet of theirs.

Hussein was no communist, but he was a diligent student of Stalin. He worshipped Stalin. He had the largest collection of Stalin-related material outside of Russia, including a certain photograph that I have not seen in years, of the old Joseph Stalin together with the young Saddam Hussein. He had an immense collection of Stalin papers, photos, and Russian books in one of the presidential libraries in Baghdad. I kind of wonder if all that history has been destroyed, in the name of destroying Hussein.

>Kuwait is an ally of theirs, we told Saddam not to invade it, and he did anyway.

"We" told him rather explicitly that we would take a neutral position. The exact words were: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Now, Hussein took that as a green light to invade, which was stupid and wrong, and ultimately a suicidal act. (Just because a politician tells you a lie you want to hear, does not mean you should assume it is safe to do some insane thing that's going to piss off someone with a giant army and lots of powerful friends who also have giant armies, etc.)

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

...among other things, it helps you to remember who your friends were.

Fixed that for you.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

|
    |
    |
WWII

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has ancestors that came from the (former) DDR ("East" Germany), and consequently has relatives who lived there from 1945 to 1990 (and beyond), I wouldn't exactly use the term "save" when referring to the USSR's role in WWII Germany.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh lord grant me a mod point to mod this up!

Re:French bashing?

[namednick]

That does seem to be a problem with native French-speakers. I made an anonymous comment earlier about DrDitto's travel experience (haden't signed up for an account yet). I live in the Flemish part of Belgium. I'm 27 years old now. We were forced to learn French at age 10. Back then there was no such thing on the other side of the country. Things have changed a bit now. Allthough a French speaking person is not likely (as in 99%) to speak Dutch when he is in a Flemish part of the country or in the company of a Dutch speaking person. As far as I can tell there is only one active Belgian politician who speaks very good Dutch. The other ones do speak the language, or at least understand it, but not what you would call decent. All this just to say that French-speakers are not likely to speak another language. Why? I guess they do still feel superior, since it was the language of aristocratic Europe for centuries. You could however say the same thing about English. How many Americans or Britts speak a second language in a decent fashion? English isn't the dominant language in the world, but still i'm doing my best to type this in English ...

Re:French bashing?

[evilviper]

300 thousand. That's it. And we lost most of our people fighting Japan, not the Germans. Do you know how many people the USSR lost? 27 million. By the time we invaded Normandy, Germany was already collapsing.

It's pure and complete bullshit to claim that lost lives equates with military progress. Yes, the Russians lost far more people. No, they didn't play a bigger role in defeating the Axis than the Americans and British.

the harsh truth is that the USSR sacrificed nearly 1 in 10 of its people to save Europe.

The USSR sacrificed nearly 1 in 10 of its people to save itself from the invading German army. Also because life in the USSR was cheap, and Stalin has no compunction about under-equipping soldiers, and sending hordes to sacrifice themselves. With better military leadership, most of those deaths need not have occurred.

You could at least have PRETENDED to be fair, by comparing American casualties to British military casualties. Inequitable casualties are extremely normal in east-west conflicts, as well as clashes between developed/non-developed countries. Examples like the Vietnam war have over a million North Vietnamese dead, with only 60,000 Americans. (There were many South Vietnamese dead, but this is just an example, and the disparity is still very high.)

.

Your comments here are just as propaganda-based, and historically inaccurate as the others you pretend to criticize...

You are get modded up only because what you're saying is overwhelmingly anti-American, which is always a popular opinion, even if completely unsupported by any evidence.

Re:French bashing?

[freedom_india]

USSR had broken the wehrmacht's steel backbone before US stepped in.
And USSR had to send in every man, child because their homeland was invaded and occupied, you mor*n !
If US homeland had been "entered into", am damn sure we would through all the Geneva conventions to wind and send in 5-10 yrs old... (heck even before that, we have started Gitmo, etc)
So stop piggy backing on the high horse and do not even compare the casualities USSR faced with that of self-inflicted wounds like Vietnam and Iraq (now).

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russians were the heroes of that war. They deserve our respect, which we've never given them.

The Soviet government was no better than the NAZIs and is acknowledged to have been worse in some respects. They planned the conquest of Europe and were only stopped by the Germans and Finns. Nobody in Europe except Russians or far-left communists calls the Soviets heros of the war. The Soviet soldiers raped millions of women, tortured people, send people off to Siberian death camps, ethnically clensed around twenty million people from their homes and systematically looted the houses of the people in some of the countries they ocupied. Peoeople committed suicide before and after the Red Army reached a town.

Re:French bashing?

[bgarcia]

Do you know how many people the USSR lost? 27 million. By the time we invaded Normandy, Germany was already collapsing. Do you know why we waited as long as we did? Tit-for-tat revenge: Lenin pulled the newly formed Soviet Union out of WWI as soon as he took power in 1917, leaving us and our allies high and dry. We didn't need to wait as long as we did; Stalin was begging us for reinforcements, and we could have invaded at any time, but we stood our ground, as a kind of "fuck you" to the Russians, who were hemorrhaging soldiers.

I think you forgot to mention one teensy-weensy little fact about WWII - that Stalin and the USSR entered WWII on the side of the Germans! The two countries signed a pact to split up Eastern Europe between the two, and the USSR went ahead and invaded several Eastern European countries. The USSR was originally allied with the Axis powers, not the Allied powers.

So later in the war, Germany decides to double-cross the USSR and invades Russia. You've already heard rhetoric from Stalin that the USSR has its own global-domination plans, and they've already invaded several Eastern European countries. Now, would you be so quick to come to Stalin's aid, or would you rather allow the two evil countries to duke it out and weaken each other for a while first, so that the victor doesn't have the military might to come after you next?

Re:French bashing?

[sarathmenon]

I don't know about you, I don't want my freedom to be fried :)

Re:French bashing?

[Balthisar]

Yeah, the USSR was certainly fighting this thing out of a duty to mankind.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty prior to the start of the war certainly exudes their altruism.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Freedom fries" was a typically silly knee jerk response by two right wing Congressmen to France's refusal to have anything to do with the war in Iraq. One of those two Congressmen is now in prison; Fox News, however, is still on the air. Actually, I think the whole incident brought home to Americans how silly some of the anti-French rhetoric was.

Re:French bashing?

[JFMulder]

If anything, the Bush administration should have invaded North Korean. Now this guy is dangerous. But Irak? Gimme a break.

Re:French bashing?

[evilviper]

USSR had broken the wehrmacht's steel backbone before US stepped in.

Except for the fact that you're completely wrong...

The USSR certainly put more pressure on the German army, but they wouldn't have stood a chance if the other Allies weren't there, also fighting.

Incidentally... Do you happen to know what country was surreptitiously sending massive amounts of military supplies and equipment to the USSR to support their fight against Germany, from very early on?

And USSR had to send in every man, child because their homeland was invaded and occupied, you mor*n !

Yeah, they had to send wave after wave of people, practically unarmed, right in-front of the strongest and most well-armed German positions, to be gunned down immediately... Now THAT'S how you defend your homeland!

As I said... Casualties do not even remotely equate to military success. It is, in fact, almost always the exact opposite.

Re:French bashing?

[Guuge]

Nope, the Spaniards were vastly outnumbered when they invaded the New World. Their technology was instrumental in their victory, but don't fool yourself about a supposed "superior culture". Their primary cultural advantage was their religion, which kept the grunts in line, justified brutality, and prevented the native culture from influencing the Spaniards. But their deadliest weapons were the contagious diseases they carried with them (which were believed to be the wrath of God against the heathens).

Calling that a "superior culture" is like calling Islamic extremism superior because they aren't afraid to die in service of their masters.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Louisiana though.

Re:French bashing?

[mishagam]

I noticed the same in Canada (I only visited Canada). All Canada learns French language and tries to be bilingual, but Quebec's people make a point in not knowing (or pretending not to know) English.
I noticed the same in Estonia, where Estonians make a point to show or pretend that they don't know Russian.

English isn't the dominant language in the world, but still i'm doing my best to type this in English ... The difference is, that English IS the dominant language in the world, it doesn't needs protection - it will dominate anyway.

Re:French bashing?

[Cro Magnon]

I wish I had mod points! Nothing is created in a vaccuum. American culture and history didn't start in 1776, or even in 1492. It merely split from the older British culture then.

Re:French bashing?

[liposuction]

All of this kept peoples attention away from Frances actual objections to military action, amongst which were that it did not believe there was an imminent danger from WMDs, that invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and that a war would destabilize the Middle East.

Yes, because the Middle East was a poster-child for peace and prosperity before Bush and his coalition set foot on the ground there? Give me a break. The same old crap from the UN and the major super-powers hasn't worked for 60 years, why shouldn't we at least support what's going on? I'm no fan of Bush, or what he started over there, but it's giving us a chance to at least try something different. We can sit around and cry about what those turds in Washington have done, and cry about who lied etc; or we can use what's CURRENTLY happening for a chance at some positive change. If anything we can just go back to status quo: Your pre-iraq war stable Middle East.

(Incidentally, we should have gone into Iraq in 1988. )

Re:French bashing?

[MrSteveSD]

Wow. You managed to blame the origin of French-bashing on President Bush

Starting off with such a blatant Straw-Man is quite impressive. I never mentioned Bush. I did mention Rumsfeld. Then you move on to the standard exaggeration part...

Now, if you can do that for global warming on Mars, the heartbreak of psoriasis the Black Plague and rap it will be official that everything bad that has ever happened is Bush's fault.

...was compromised by the fact that they were on the take from Saddam.

What do you mean "they were on the take"?. Certainly individuals were accused of corruption with regard to the oil for food program, but it wasn't the whole government. The US company Bayoil was also involved and Senate reports showed that the US Government was well aware of the corruption all along, but allowed it to continue.

There are many more reasons I could list, but it has always appeared to me that the French government behaves as if it resents the fact that France is no longer a major world power, and they will do everything they can to appear influential, even if most of it is merely throwing a wrench into things.

So rather than looking at the objections France raised, you instead focus on France itself and how it "resents" it is no longer a world power. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.

Re:French bashing?

[MrSteveSD]

As if there's no anti-Americanism in France...

It's a bit off a dodgy term really. I prefer the term racism, but it's not quite correct because it refers to races, not countries. People do hate what the US is doing right now, but that's really not the same thing as hating all of the US people.

We're damned for not stopping the Rwanda genocide

The French government was involved in blocking any action as well. The word "Genocide" was prevented from entering UN documents since if it did, it would have required immediate action. Actually it's the UN that routinely gets the blame over Rwanda. Most people are unaware that the US and France are really the culprits of the UN's inaction.

Re:French bashing?

[MrSteveSD]

Maybe it's a reaction to a lack of a better word. I can't think of a word that has the same sort of "force" as the term racism, but which refers to discrimination against people from a particular country.

Re:French bashing?

[ConceptJunkie]

Starting off with such a blatant Straw-Man is quite impressive. I never mentioned Bush. I did mention Rumsfeld. Then you move on to the standard exaggeration part...

It's a joke, son. Laugh. Besides, if Rumsfeld didn't represent Bush's policies then I need a lesson in how the U.S. government is composed. My point was that the anti-French feeling in this country goes back decades, it is not new.

Re:French bashing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seems we in the US also like to forget the help the French gave us in helping defeat the British to get our independence in the first place....

Yah, a lot of us do. I'm not one of them.

Qualifier: saying that we "defeated" the British is misleading. We, with French help, convinced them that the price they'd pay to keep us was too high for what they'd gain. Or possibly, the French, with OUR help, did that.

Note that the French didn't especially like us. They joined in because they wanted to hurt the British. Of course, we didn't especially like the French either - we had more in common with the British than with the French (we were mostly of British descent, after all).

Note further that our very next war was with the French. Followed by another go with the British. Nations have interests, not morals, after all. "Last war's enemy, next war's ally" is as old as humanity.

Re:French bashing?

[Bloke down the pub]

If anyone's confused, it was either the person who wrote "Or who are the Allies of the US during Napoleon's time you refer to?" or the person who can't follow a thread, i.e. you.

Re:French bashing?

[808140]

You're drunk on cold war propaganda. There's no doubt that the USSR and Germany had a pact do divide Europe -- but that's no different than the arms, technology, and supplies that we (as in the US, the UK, and France) gave the Nazis to protect us from the Communist threat we perceived from the USSR. Germany at the end of WWI was not in any sort of position to engineer the huge economic and military comeback that they did on their own -- they had help, and it was from us (the Allies). When the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, what did the Allies do? Nothing. The UK and France were deadset on avoiding war, and they feared Stalin, so not only did they appease Hitler, they actually armed him (the US is guilty of this too). And we (the US) entered the European theater in December of 1941, nearly 3 years after WWII started on the continent.

Sure, the USSR and Nazi Germany signed a pact, but neither of them had any intention of honoring it, as the Nazis hated and feared Communists and Stalin gravely underestimated Hitler. And here's the thing -- until people became aware of the atrocities being committed by the Nazi party, what was wrong with supporting them? You must keep the time frame in mind: we now see Nazis as the embodiment of all evil, but before news of the Holocaust got out, the Nazis were just another fascist party. And again, lest you forget, the reason fascism enjoyed such popular support in Europe (and elsewhere) in the late 30s early 40s was because of the Great Depression, which left many people wondering whether or not free market capitalism could even work: the only country left untouched by the depression was the Soviet Union. Now of course we better understand the effects of monetary policy and investment on the economy, and know that that's bunk, but at the time, people thought that crashes like the great depression may be a result of the inherent instability of markets, and statism in its left and right wing forms was immensely popular, especially in nations that had been monarchies in fairly recent memory.

There's one other very important point, and this is mainly why I accused you of being drunk on cold war propaganda. Stalin severely changed the direction of the Soviet Union's expansionist policies by declaring the feasibility of "Socialism in one Nation". You see, up until then, much Communist thinking was centered on the idea that the whole world must be Communist, or capitalist trade would remain a driving economic force on the national level. Sure, the USSR might be communist, but they would still need to buy and sell commodities on the international markets, meaning that they were a socialist enclave that still needed to concern itself with free market details. Trotsky was very much against this idea, and continued to champion the idea of worldwide revolution until his death. Stalin, on the other hand, suggested that the USSR concentrate on itself and less on the rest of the world. He felt that having the USSR be Socialist was enough, and that there was no need to forment revolt in the rest of the world.

In other words, the world-domination plans you speak of were, well, non-existent.

Furthermore, and this I really don't get, you say "they've [the USSR] already invaded several Eastern European countries" -- uhh, which? Why don't you take a look at this map of Europe in 1920, after WWI and tell me what nations they "invaded" by the time WWII came around. The answer, simply, is none -- those nations behind the iron curtain fell under Soviet influence after WWII, and that was a result of the Allies carving up Europe. The poor relations between the Warsaw Pact nations and the NATO nations was a direct result of the Cold War, and the iron curtain was a result of that. Lest you forget, West Germany was also occupied by the Allies.

And just in case you're confused, I'm not saying that the USSR was great in every way -- just that they bled for Europe in a way that cannot possibly be c

Re:French bashing?

[Hognoxious]

In the strictest sense, even the traditional concept of races is now on shaky grounds.

Only among tree huggers, kumbaya singers and similar yoghurt knitting types.

Re:French bashing?

[renoX]

> Frankly it appeared that [France] was right regarding Iraq.

Well, you know that the bearer of bad news isn't welcomed usually whatever the truth is..

I'm French, so maybe I'm biased, but the mess that the US went into was obvious, the only things which surprised me is that Americans elected again Bush after he wasted billions of taxpayers dollars in a war started under false reason (no WMD: either he's a liar or an incompetent).

The only non obvious thing about this mess, is how it'll end..

Re:French bashing?

[808140]

Disclaimer: my grandfather was a German soldier on the eastern front.

When you say "but they wouldn't have stood a chance if the other Allies weren't there, also fighting", what exactly do you mean? France was occupied, Spain was neutral, Italy was one of the Axis powers -- who exactly was fighting? The French resistance? The UK was sitting on their island, getting shelled by Germany and occasionally shooting down planes over the Channel, although most of the shooting down was done by the Germans -- they didn't open the Western Front until D-day. That was in June 1944. The USSR, on the other hand, turned the tide against the Wehrmacht in the Battle of Stalingrad, which was -- wait for it -- in late 1942. By April 1944, still before D-day, Soviet troops had pushed Germany entirely out of Soviet territory and had entered occupied German territory; Germany was already collapsing in on itself. The Allies fighting on the newly opened Western Front several months later would encounter relatively little resistance. Nazi Germany was essentially finished by this time.

This is not to say that the US did nothing, far from it: but the idea that the USSR wouldn't have kicked Germany's ass on its own is completely incorrect, Germany was running for its life by the time D-day rolled around and there's no reason to believe that that would have changed. Of course, then all of Europe would have been Communist.

My grandfather, who was only 17 at the time, ran from the Red Army to surrender to the Americans, because he'd heard that the Americans were nicer to their POWs than the Russians. Small wonder -- the life expectancy of a Russian soldier at the Battle of Stalingrad was less than a day, can you really blame them for hating the Germans? We suffered comparatively little.

Re:French bashing?

[fm6]

Har har. Communication and supply is not the issue in Iraq. The U.S. military is actually quite good at that sort of thing. The problem with Iraq is that the Iraq's didn't spontaneously create a modern democracy as soon as we got rid of their dictator for them. Guess they didn't know that was a crucial element of The Plan.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed a very good opportunity for a Monty Python reference here.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right to be fair, it's not like America didn't have a surrender like stance when it came to the Suez situation in refusing to give support, much like the French refused to give support to the US over Iraq. France really hasn't shat on America anymore than America has shat on France.

Also: on september 1st, 1939, Germany invades Poland. On september 3rd, 1939, France, UK and other Poland allies declare war against Germany. On september 5, 1939, the US proclaim their neutrality in the conflict. The US joined the conflict not to defend their allies, but in reaction to an attack against themselves.

Re:French bashing?

[pommiekiwifruit]

most American's probably don't even know what the Battle of Britain was

Ooh, ooh, I know this one! That was when a dozen or so plucky American airmen living in Britain defeated the Luftwaffe! Well, according to Hollywood anyway... :-)

Re:French bashing?

[evilviper]

Disclaimer: my grandfather was a German soldier on the eastern front.

Perhaps that's why the eastern front is the only part you seem to know about.

France was occupied, Spain was neutral, Italy was one of the Axis powers -- who exactly was fighting? The French resistance? The UK was sitting on their island, getting shelled by Germany

You have an incredibly screwy view of war. Soldiers on the ground are far from the only weapon of war, in modern times.

The UK definitely wasn't "sitting on their island". They were fighting at sea, preventing supply lines (including the USSR's) from being cut. They were busy defeating the Italian navy. They were fighting across Africa. They were fighting in the Mediterranean. They were conducting air strikes on Germany. etc. All while "getting shelled".

Invading a country doesn't really end the war, when the army is elsewhere, occupying the rest of Europe, much of Africa, parts of Asia, etc. If not for the Allies, the full force of the entire German army would have been focused on the USSR. Things would have been far, far worse for them.

The USSR, on the other hand, turned the tide against the Wehrmacht in the Battle of Stalingrad, which was -- wait for it -- in late 1942.

The war wasn't over in '42. The German military certainly wasn't broken even in '44 when D-Day came around. There was a huge amount of fighting left to do. They absolutely did not "encounter relatively little resistance." The fact that the US and UK sacrificed fewer lives says nothing about how much resistance their soldiers faced. Things were only starting to turn, and the German army was still an extremely strong fighting force.

Small wonder -- the life expectancy of a Russian soldier at the Battle of Stalingrad was less than a day, can you really blame them for hating the Germans?

Understandable, but the anger would have been more appropriately directed at Stalin, who may have been the worst military leader in history.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just trying to make a point. I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:French bashing?

[ghoul]

Well I was always taught that the second world war was a war fought in Europe between Russia and Germany and in Asia between Japan and America with some smaller theaters like the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the British invasion of France and the Japanes invasion of India. I dont realize why D Day is such a big deal in the west? It was a minor after show and much smaller than the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and just as meaningless the war was over by the time these two event happened.

Re:French bashing?

[couchslug]

"And in WWI, France kicked ass militarily, and remained a major European power."

They "survived" (does not equal "kicking ass"), and had to literally "decimate" mutinous units in 1917 to keep order. Google for plenty of info on both the French and British WW1 mutinies. Interesting stuff.

In 1940 they collapsed in six weeks, an incompetent performance by any standard, but at least they avoided mass casualties.

"when the harsh truth is that the USSR sacrificed nearly 1 in 10 of its people to save Europe."

No, they LOST that percentage, mostly defending the Rodina, but that was not at all a matter of intending to "save" Europe.

Let's not forget that the Soviets were our enemies politically, and allies of convenience only. They were not better than the Nazis, just different and less mediagenic. They didn't have any qualms about splitting Poland with Hitler in 1939.

Re:French bashing?

[808140]

Your points about naval combat and North Africa are well taken. Of course, since we're talking about US involvement in WWII -- remember that the OP said that we didn't need to remember how the French saved our butts in 1776 because we'd repaid our debt with WWII -- it's somewhat tangential, but nonetheless relevant.

To reiterate, I don't mean to imply that we did nothing during WWII, and I certainly don't mean to imply that Britain did nothing during WWII -- just that both of these nations did less than might have been expected of them, the US in particular. The truth is, the US had no real reason to enter WWII, and while she did so for not entirely altruistic reasons, it's worth remembering that we could have told Europe to fuck itself and didn't. So that in itself is commendable, on some level.

What I take issue with is the way that Americans bring up WWII every time they feel criticized by Europeans. This is particularly true when it comes to the French. "If it weren't for us, you'd all be speaking German." Whereas the French never say "don't forget what we did for you in 1776", Americans pull out WWII literally all the time. This wouldn't be so bad if America had been half as important to the war effort as the average American seems to think we were. My point -- and I think it stands -- is that most Americans are not the least bit aware of how much the Soviet Union did, they literally think that we marched in and saved the day. No surprise there: that's what we're taught in school. If the USSR is mentioned at all, it's as a footnote, usually with the caveat that "Stalin was a bad guy". Stalin was not a nice guy, it's true -- but he was far more competent than Hitler in the long run, because Stalin actually learned from his mistakes. Especially late in the war, Hitler replaced a good number of his most competent generals with members of the SS -- consider the appointment of Heinrich Himmler to command Army Group Vistula in defense of Berlin, a disaster -- whereas Stalin largely got over his initial distrust of the Army and removed bureaucratic deadlocks (like the political commissars scattered throughout the chain of command) that had been disastrous early in the war. He made mistakes to be sure, but he learned from them.

You poo-poo the lives lost as irrelevant, but that is clearly not the case. The Red Army continued to advance, fighting with whatever they could find, and incurring tremendous losses. Unlike the US and the UK, they did not have the military infrastructure to do any better -- the USSR in 1942 hadn't even completely industrialized. If it hadn't been for Stalin's emphasis on industrialization, it would have been even worse, and they might not have prevailed.

For the record, my other grandfather was French, born and raised in Pas-de-Calais, and he remembers the German occupation well. There are bullet holes on the side of the Belfry in Arras, but it's nothing -- and I mean nothing -- like what you see in Eastern Europe to this day. No one is saying that the soldiers on the Western Front had it easy in a general sense, but comparatively speaking, the WF was nothing compared to the fighting that was being done in the East. The Germans also incurred their heaviest losses there.

Re:French bashing?

[freedom_india]

The famed Allies were being pummelled in Africa by Rommel in 1942.
>>surreptitiously sending massive amounts of military supplies
I beg your pardon, but sending one ship every month loaded with 4000 tonnes of war supplies does not exactly count as massive, especially when that much was being used by USSR troops in a day.

>>they had to send wave after wave of people, practically unarmed,
Hmmm, when the goal of your enemy is not merely to defeat you, but to annihilate you http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/programs/living history/SovietExperienceww2.htm then its better to die fighting than die in a labor camp.

>>but they wouldn't have stood a chance if the other Allies weren't there
I do not wish to belittle the allied contribution, but in 1944 (by Normandy time), the USSR forces were rolling towards Moscow on their own and were capable of defeating Wehrmacht by themselves as acknowledged by Eisenhower himself.

El Alamein, the much-praised British victory in north Africa, was a mere pub brawl compared with the battles of Stalingrad.

Re:French bashing?

[evilviper]

You poo-poo the lives lost as irrelevant, but that is clearly not the case. The Red Army continued to advance, fighting with whatever they could find, and incurring tremendous losses.

I'm not discounting them at all. It's just dishonest to say that (eg.) 10X more lives lost means the USSR was therefore more important to the defeat of Germany, when it's quite likely that if the US/UK found themselves in the same situation, could have fought the battle with a fraction as many lives lost. I also have to seriously doubt claims that the USSR would have prevailed, without the help of the UK/US.

but comparatively speaking, the WF was nothing compared to the fighting that was being done in the East.

To be fair, the reason for the fierceness of fighting is because neither of the two was significantly superior to the other. That was more the situation with the west, so it rarely came down to hand-to-high combat, as it regularly did in the east.

Re:French bashing?

[bgarcia]

You're drunk on cold war propaganda.

And you're resorting to an ad-hominem attack to begin your argument. Excellent <rolls eyes>.

Why don't you take a look at this map of Europe in 1920, after WWI and tell me what nations they "invaded" by the time WWII came around. The answer, simply, is none

I was talking about the expansion of the USSR after WWII began in Europe. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the deal made between Germany and the USSR to divide Eastern Europe. After signing this treaty, the USSR invaded Poland, Finland, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

So, why don't you take a look at this map of Europe in 1940, you will see that the USSR did indeed invade all of these countries during WWII.

In other words, the world-domination plans you speak of were, well, non-existent.

Sorry, but the facts dispute your assertion.

Re:French bashing?

[koreaman]

What exactly is wrong with killing cows for their leather? It's not like cows have feelings.

BTW this post is entirely serious, I'm not trolling.

Re:French bashing?

[koreaman]

"American culture consists of muscle cars and fast food" does not mean the same thing as "The United States have no culture".

We do have a culture. The merits of that culture are an entirely different discussion.

By the way, I assume you're a Native American, by your post. It's funny that you'd say "because America came and stomped all of that out". America didn't come to your ancestors, Europe(ans) came to America.

Re:French bashing?

[koreaman]

I'm an American studying abroad in France. Nobody criticizes me for not speaking French as well as a native. Everyone is amazed by the fact that an American can speak French and are very interested in and welcoming of me. Except for the odd social failure who looks for an excuse to hate everyone and finds a good one in my being a foreigner. But people like that exist everywhere, not just in France.

Also, an American is much less "foreign" in England than in France. Englishmen and Americans speak the same language and have a largely similar culture, which may be why you never felt unwelcome.

As an aside, what in the world does it mean for someone to speak French fluently, "by American standards"?

Re:French bashing?

[koreaman]

French people are actually many orders or magnitude less patriotic than Americans.

By the way, there is no D in "Les Champs Elysées"

Re:French bashing?

[brightmidnight]

First of all, it's probably a dog on your feet, not a cow.

Secondly, cows actually are quite intelligent as far as animals go, right below the pig (which is as intelligent as a human 4-year-old), more than the dog and they do have feelings-- if they are hurt by someone (cow or person), they remember it and even can hold a "grudge." http://www.goveg.com/f-hiddenlivescows_knowhow.asp

Most leather comes from India and China. China has no animal cruelty laws on any level and slaughters dogs and cats for their fur on a routine basis. Then, they use the skins for leather. Many of them are skinned alive because it's cheaper. "Hundreds of thousands of dog and cat skins are traded in Europe each year; it's estimated that 2 million dogs and cats are killed in China each year in order to meet this demand." [http://www.peta.org.uk/feat/feat-china.asp]

There's no question that all these animals feel pain when, for example, their throats are slit while they're still alive, they're bludgeoned to death, or in the case of the poor turtle, slowly hacked away for steak by customers until they bleed to death.

When you purchase something made of leather, you're supporting all this.

Re:French bashing?

[koreaman]

I guess the real problem is that I couldn't care less if cows feel pain. Humans, yes, maybe some species of monkeys, but not cows. Nor dogs.

Re:French bashing?

[brightmidnight]

Yes, I would consider that a problem.

Re:French bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Post-WWI map is a mish-mash of mediaeval partitions, pre-WWI countries and indeed post-WWI countries. Look at the sheer size of Lithuania, which definitely was not that big at the time and whose size of that magnitude belongs more to the 16th century, before the time of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Also, where there actually were Latvia and Estonia, the map shows some historical administrative partitions, not the actual countries. In short, it's a terribly inaccurate map precisely where the invasions took place.

Stalin and Hitler shared Poland between the two of them in 1939. If that's not invasion, I don't know what is. Also, the Baltic states were annexed, plus they were fiercely at war with Finland (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_war and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_states), which cost Finland much of their territory and the Baltic states their independence.

I recently read about some talks between Hitler and Stalin that took place at the beginning 1942, the point of which was to unite forces and attack the allies together. Good for the world that it was scrapped. Link (in Russian): http://www.izvestia.ru/pobeda/article3103943/

Re:French bashing?

[rho]

I don't think I implied that there were more Spaniards living in the New World than natives. But I'm pretty sure the Spanish empire was larger than the native population.

The rest of your post was so full of prejudice and bigotry I laughed.

Tant mieux pour la France!

[Rytis]

Sarkozy had been forecasted to win this election since maybe 2002 and everyone knew he would be the next President. Gladly, this happened to be true. Besides, he is less conservative than a liberal, at least that's what his ideas represents especially concerning economic issues (and France has lots of them).

If someone of you has seen the debates between the two a few days ago (you can watch it on YouTube now), you wouldn't have any doubts. I just can't understand those 47% who had. Mrs Royal didn't have a program. She didn't have any ideas of how to rebuild France. Everything I can remember from the debate from her words is "I will do it / I would be able to do it" or even "You're not credible Mr Sarkozy / You're politically immoral".

Think of Royal as George W. Bush being a socialist woman. Damn scary.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[sanman2]

As an Asian, I'm absolutely glad that Sarkozy won. May I point out that he himself is a son of immigrants, and not the anti-immigrant caricature that the story blurb would have us believe.

Vive la France! By voting against the socialist and fundamentalist-sponsored hoodlums and other opponents of assimilation, the French people have chosen a path for future progress and prosperity.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we all know that N. Sarkozy is a brilliant speaker, so it's not such a good idea to use this debate as the main basis to compare the merit of programs.

I remember hearing an economist on radio telling, a few weeks ago, that Sarkozy program was just a sum of ideas that were already tried and failed, and that Royale's programs were more interesting from the point of view of an economist. Disturbing, at the very least.

And then, compare Royale to G.W. Bush, now that's funny. One needs less imagination to compare N. Sarkozy to G.W. Bush. He shares the same technofascist ways of handling power... Well, at France's scale at least...

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[vishbar]

Think of Royal as George W. Bush being a socialist woman. Damn scary.

Wh....wh....what the fuck???

That's a little like saying "Think of Hitler as a Jewish philanthropist."

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[anti-pop-frustration]

Think of Royal as George W. Bush being a socialist woman. Damn scary.
Actually, if someone has to be compared to George W. Bush it really is Nicolas Sarkozy. France is now as polarized as the US was after the Bush 2004 victory.

Many liberals in France were not conviced by Segolene Royal at all, just like many liberals in the US weren't conviced by John Kerry. They did not vote for a candidate but against someone else. The "lesser of two evil" syndrome that is so familiar in US politics.

Sarkozy won, but just like George W. Bush in 2004, the people that did not vote for him (half of the population) really hate him and what he stands for (pro big corporation, anti-immigration etc.).

He now is president of a deeply divided country... we all saw how well that worked out for the US.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, you're quick!

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Jerf]

You speak as if the politicians are creating the divisions, rather than being the manifestation of them.

Countries are divided. That's how it is. If voting one way creates a relatively peaceful union where differences are worked out politely and within the system, and voting the other way creates a fractured country full of acrimony and bad feelings, then one side is clearly a bad loser (and that's more dangerous to democracy than you might think, as the essense of democracy is to have the losers accept their loss, not crown the winners).

And if that is the case, the side that is being the poor losers and choosing to tear apart the democracy rather than accept loss is the side that, when they win, produces the relatively peaceful government. The side that, when they win, produces "polarization" is the more democratic side. (Being in a Democracy means your side loses sometimes. That's life.)

Take that as you will. I've deliberately not name names. For one thing, it's never a choice between total chaos or total harmony, but I'd be confident that taken as trends, this point stands.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Rytis]

I remember hearing an economist on radio telling, a few weeks ago, that Sarkozy program was just a sum of ideas that were already tried and failed, and that Royale's programs were more interesting from the point of view of an economist.

Here's one that has voted today for Sarkozy. And he gives some good reasons why.

Well, we all know that N. Sarkozy is a brilliant speaker, so it's not such a good idea to use this debate as the main basis to compare the merit of programs.

It's not only about Sarkozy, it's about Segolene. Why is she playing cheap cards like raped policewoman when they're talking about economic growth? In fact, I think was the best to show whom to vote for. Sarkozy had been asking her for about 5 minutes to tell us how she would return 2,5% economic growth to the country. As far as I remembered, except for "je le pourrais", she didn't say anything meaningful. Segolene has dreams but she has no idea of how to achieve them. That's why I put a reference to G.W.Bush (OK, I admit, it was unthoughtful) in my previous post: they both (would) do stupid things without listening to others.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[corpsmoderne]

"Tant mieux pour la France!"... If you're not disabled, if you're not gay, if you're not homeless, if you're not jobless, if you're not from a poor neighborhood, if you're not poor, if you're not black, if you're not Arab, if you're not thinking different, if you're not against software patent, if you don't need help...

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Eternauta3k]

No, no, no!
He's just ridiculizing his argument. It doesn't have anything to do with what Hitler or the nazis did, nor does it appeal to people's strong rejection towards them!
(well, kinda)
If there's something worse than doing a Godwin it's wrongly calling something a Godwin.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[anti-pop-frustration]

You speak as if the politicians are creating the divisions, rather than being the manifestation of them. Because I really believe that's the case. Some politicians do divide more than others. When you're president of a country, you're also supposed to stand for the people that did not vote for you and you should remember that people who voted for you probably don't agree with you on all issues. If you only pander to extreme elements of your political base, then yes, you're going to further alienate the part of the population that did not vote for you. Thus creating more division.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[twenex27]

As an Asian, I'm absolutely glad that Sarkozy won. May I point out that he himself is a son of immigrants, and not the anti-immigrant caricature that the story blurb would have us believe. I'm surprised that being an Asian hasn't been a barrier to you being that naive. Sarkozy is rich, white, and Christian. It's not like those Frenchmen (and women) who voted for him because he was rightwing would have voted for him if he'd been a second-generation North African Muslim with a foreign accent.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[pipo]

Why the hell is this score 5 insightful ? I mean, slashdot comments are sometimes misinformed
or whatnot, but it normally doesn't get good scores such as this...

Time for a reality check ! The parent is a troll...

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Hackie_Chan]

Many liberals in France were not conviced by Segolene Royal at all

Of course not. She's a socialist.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Dogtanian]

May I point out that he himself is a son of immigrants, and not the anti-immigrant caricature You talk as if the first disproves the second. I can assure you that in Britain there are plenty of anti-immigration politicians whose parents *were* immigrants, and would not have got in under the policies their children now support.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[frogstar_robot]

Thank you! What you are talking about is called "statesmanship". Neither Kerry or Bush has it IMHO. And I've got doubts about the sort of wieners we're apt to get this time around too.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[mehgul]

And one of my best friends, a French citizen, born in Cambodia from Chinese parents, was so tired of having to always prove his frenchness, despite having changed his name to Patrick instead of Srun, that he finally left to work in China 2 years ago. Believe me, France is far from a paradise for immigrants.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[NaCh0]

Actually, if someone has to be compared to George W. Bush it really is Nicolas Sarkozy. France is now as polarized as the US was after the Bush 2004 victory.

Let's see here, the conservative wins 53% and the country is polarized but if the socialist were to win with 53% there would be unity and the French version of kum-ba-ya. That is disgusting. I guess in your view that the socialists have to redouble their efforts of "educating" the public.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[be-fan]

If you're a second-generation Muslim with a foreign accent, something is seriously wrong. If you immigrate to a country, you should raise your children to natively speak the language of that country, end of story.

I am myself a first-generation Muslim immigrant to the US. I absolutely cannot stand Muslims who don't realize that in immigrating to a foreign country, they must put the culture of their new country above the culture of the country which they left. Countries should not change to accommodate the culture of immigrants. That is not to say that countries should not evolve their culture, but rather that the culture of a country should be grown at home, through the established processes of cultural change within that country, not imported wholesale from abroad.

I can understand that the liberal tendencies of some Europeans make them hesitant about promoting their own culture above those of others. However, there is nothing wrong with the idea that France should be the home of French culture. Certainly, Algerians believe that Algerian should be the home of Algerian culture, not culture imported from elsewhere!

Moreover, and this is my personal opinionated view, it is vital that European countries maintain their western culture, for the sake of their future prosperity. I don't have any delusions that western culture is perfect, but as someone with a bit of experience with both, western culture is far preferable to modern Islamic culture. It is honestly distressing to me that many liberal-minded individuals that look down upon the worst elements of American culture (religiosity, contempt for science, narrow-mindedness, philosophical absolutism) have no problem modern Islamic culture, which displays many of the same deleterious elements!

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Anonymous Coward]

In an election, there are people who vote FOR a candidate, and people who vote AGAINST the other candidate. The way I see it, most people who were voting for Royal didn't really vote for her, but against Sarkozy. If Royal would have been elected, nobody would really care and everyone would accept her. On the other hand, people who hate Sarkozy will never accept him. I do not live in France, but this guy is obviously an asshole.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Pig Hogger]

Welll, "Patrick" is irish, no??? :) :) :)

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[brightmidnight]

Agreed. This causes so many problems. In Britain, my friend was telling me how a town that is now mainly Pakistani decided that they didn't want to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day on November 5; they wanted to basically make up a new Muslim holiday instead. Now everyone in the town who wanted to celebrate Guy Fawkes is out of luck-- no bonfire allowed. How can you move to England and not want to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day?? It's such a fun holiday.

In America, this causes many problems as well, as school districts have to hire Spanish speaking teachers and administrators to communicate with students and parents who don't speak English. From the media coverage, it seems like that's the biggest issue facing everyone even though obviously it's not. Immigrants do seem to blend in better in America than Europe, although maybe not first-generation ones.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[brightmidnight]

Royal is rich, white and Christian. Those adjectives doesn't have anything to do with Sarkozy's policies.

Being a second-generation immigrant, he's not a cookie cutter French politician.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[mishagam]

You can find some economist to support anybody.
Magazine "Economist" supported Sarkozy, as I think great majority of modern economists.
I myself have some economic education - and for me Sarkozy program made much more sense.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[brightmidnight]

The OP meant that Royal has some of Bush's combative attitude, a tendency to blame problems on other people, and a lack of ability to clarify personal beliefs and policies. (ie, Bush's campaign promise in 2000 that he would not conduct nation-building, insinuation that Al Gore would, and then three years later invading Iraq to rebuild it.) In other words, she has Bush's personality, but not his politics or his gender. It's not quite Hitler as a Jewish philanthropist :)

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[brightmidnight]

Is Sarkozy really for big corporations? That's the insinuation of many, but I haven't seen policies that back that up. It seems that his policies towards jobs-- allowing people to work more than 35 hours without taxes, easing the rules on firing workers, etc.-- are geared more towards allowing workers to earn more and companies to create more permanent jobs rather than temporary or part-time ones and end France's unemployment. Royal's solution was to build more housing for poor people, rather than work on creating jobs.

Sarkozy is actually very protectionist of French corporations not being bought out by international companies, which is technically a position against big business... because those businesses actually want to be bought out/merged with larger companies. How else is he pro-corporation?

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[brightmidnight]

Actually, she was too conservative for many socialists to support her as well, and many in her own party didn't agree with her ideas. She wanted to send young offenders to the military, for example, and punish them, and she wanted to be tough on crime. She was socialist in one big way-- spending a lot of money and raising taxes to pay for it.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[twenex27]

FYI, I stopped at the "liberal tendencies of some Europeans" crap. Choosing between liberalism and fascism is not a hard choice - for some.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[twenex27]

Royal is rich, white and Christian. Those adjectives doesn't have anything to do with Sarkozy's policies. Oh, really? So you think most Muslims would support being randomly raided, as he ordered when he was Prime Minister, do you? I'm aware that Royal is not Muslim or North African, either. What I am saying is the people who form Sarkozy's core supporters wouldn't vote for him if he were. I wasn't referring in any way to Royal.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Opportunist]

May I point out that the most vocal anti-immigration cryers here are actually immigrants? Not second generation, but the very same people that benefitted from the immigration laws that allowed them to come here?

Makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, you have that job 'cause nobody who was here in the first place wanted to do it for the pennies you get. Now you fear that someone who comes after you might be even cheaper.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Opportunist]

The difference is that the French aren't usually as easy to appease as the US people. When they don't like something, and it's getting on their nerves sufficiently, heads roll.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[be-fan]

Yes, it is a choice between liberalism and fascism, but in this situation, the small fascism of more careful immigration policy protects liberalism from the greater fascism of cultures who honestly couldn't care less about liberal European ideals.

I'm a big fan of liberalism, and an open culture. I like immigrants, (I am one!), and I know they can contribute great things to a society. However, I also know that many people in many cultures have a distinctly illiberal view of the world, and some wish to impose their illiberal views on their new country. Like all sources of illiberalism, this one must be fought.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Opportunist]

They are the expression, but they are also the reason. If campaigns weren't driven by fearmongering, people who feared the winner enough to vote against him (read: for the other candidate, who is just as unfit for the office) would simply start to arrange with the winning candidate and try to make the best out of it.

Instead, they are now conditioned to believe that everything's going to hell in a handbasket. They will deliberately go out of their way to see just the negative, because they have involved themselves and, well, who wants to be right? They have been emotionalized, and it is actually in the loser's interest that they don't get accustomed to the situation but keep their grudge so at least the next election runs better.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[twenex27]

Which is exactly why I choose to fight what you call "small fascism" as well as "big fascism".

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[Jerf]

A few moment's thought will show it is the news media that is creating the doom and gloom attitude. Everything a politician says is filtered through them. Bush can get up on a stage and sing praises for 59 minutes and give a dire warning in 1, and that one minute is all you'll hear about. This hasn't quite literally happened, but some things very close to it have.

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[brightmidnight]

Do you have a link for the random raids? I thought the raids were after riots or crimes in the area.

Sarkozy did steal some voters from Jean Marie Le Pen, but I believe most people voted for his relatively sound economic policies than his race. There was a woman in the election and few people mentioned that. The main thing is that he's trying to lift them out of that life by giving them jobs, so that there are some Muslims represented in politics and on TV and perhaps things can change in France. According to this article, the so-called "racaille" even like his ideas to help get them jobs, they just don't like being stopped by police: http://news.sawf.org/Lifestyle/35788.aspx I believe it's more up to the individual police officers rather than a higher-up in government on who exactly to stop. (He could have told them to focus on an area with 40% unemployment and higher crime statistics, which makes total sense anyway.)

Re:Tant mieux pour la France!

[be-fan]

You're basically saying that you never have to prioritize your principles, which must be nice for you. What is this magical set of COMPLETELY ORTHOGONAL principles that you've devised? Of course, if you're principles aren't indeed pairwise consistent, then what the heck do you do when they conflict? Because that's precisely when you have to accept a small fascism to fight a bigger one.

A single president ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The strange thing was that his wife was not visible. She has already left him the past and it seems it happened again...
The rumour was running recently.

Not one french journalist dared mentionning it (are they all scared ?)...

It is not a problem by itself (it happens) but the strange thing is that french journalist don't talk about it : self-censoship or privacy protection ?

Re:A single president ?

[Beretta Vexe]

It's a part of the French political culture. Journalist don't speak about politician private life, if they don't use if for political propose. Sarkozy is a an exception because he use is wife and his family for his campaign, a mistake that he don't make twice. For example, nobody openly speak about the situation of the couple Ségolène Royal and François Hollande.

Re:A single president ?

[snilloc]

It might have something to do with the fact that Royal never married her long-time partner and (as far as I know) father of her children.

Which is worse politically in France, having a difficult/broken marriage or ignoring the institution of marriage? (I ask this honestly, as an "ugly American". In the US, Royal's situation would be considered worse.)

Re:A single president ?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them are

Re:A single president ?

[Beretta Vexe]

At less they haven't hidden children, so it's really not a big deal. Lot of feminist don't get married, Royal always promot her as a feminist and it's not sure that holland still her partner.

Re:A single president ?

[squatt.bor]

Is best friend is Lagardere who owns a lot of french media, another friend is Bouigues (some more media) So one may say that they don't talk about such subject out of courteous friendship...

Re:A single president ?

[mehgul]

Nobody cares about Royal not being married to Hollande and them having 4 children together. The same way nobody cared with former prime minister Michel Rocard being divorced. Nobody really cares that Presidents Mitterrand and Chirac had mistresses. As long as they keep it private, it's none of our business. The difference with Sarkozy is that he very openly tried to put his wife (btw she's divorced from a previous marriage) under the limelight, and tried to gain a good image from it. In addition he clearly stated that if he was elected, it would not only be him to be elected but also his wife (nobody ever said something like that before in France). Only when problems arose in the couple was it something he wouldn't want to be talked about in the press. And when one of the french rags (Paris-Match) mentioned the problems and published the picture of his wife with another man, Sarkozy used his connections to get the editor sacked. He also successfully stopped the publishing of a book about his wife, again thanks to his connections. That's why the question of Sarkozy's unstable marriage is of importance, although the press doesn't talked about it anymore because of fear (and also because a lot of the french press is openly pro-Sarkozy).

Re:A single president ?

[Guppy06]

"Not one french journalist dared mentionning it (are they all scared ?)..."

That, or nobody over there gives a fuck about a politician's love life so long as he does his job. It's the United States where our skewed view of "moral decency" calls for this kind of prying by "journalists" (for whom these "moral" directives don't apply) giving us political appointees who call for abstinence-only education while visiting a brothel.

Although I will say that a divorce is far more notable in France than it is in the home of "the sanctity of marriage."

Re:A single president ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe it just doesn't matter?

Re:A single president ?

[Rumble]

it's because reporting about the private lives of politicians is illegal in france. Sarko and his wife were widely speculated to be having problems and close to breaking up, however because of these laws, french news will never report on them. the laws, and perhaps a bit of class, who knows.

Re:A single president ?

[brightmidnight]

We know nobody cares about that stuff in France, that's obvious. The point was that in America, all that would be a huge deal and Royal wouldn't have had a chance of running for president because of it. (And why do you mention that his wife was divorced previously?)

I don't see why that's a big deal at all that Sarkozy doesn't mention his wife. He said those things about his wife because they were married and he loved her, and he stopped saying those things when she left him for another man. It makes sense that he would stop talking then. What's he going to say? "I can be a better president because I have been humbled by my cheating wife?" Where's the proof that he had this editor sacked?

Re:A single president ?

[fishbowl]

>We know nobody cares about that stuff in France, that's obvious. The point was that in America, all that would be a huge deal and
>Royal wouldn't have had a chance of running for president because of it.

Basically there is a myth of "character" that exists in an American form of idealism. Nobody genuinely has all the characteristics of that mythical figure, but candidates must at least refrain from revealing anything that causes them to blatantly diverge from the ideal in the eyes of the public with regard to its contemporary zeitgeist.

Re:A single president ?

[Opportunist]

Prolly 'cause we usually don't care what our presidents do in private. As long as he doesn't get a blowjob in front of TV cams, that is. And even then we'd prolly complain most about it being cut and interrupted by ads.

We need our politicians for politics.

Our last president got divorced during his office time. And he married a woman who got divorced JUST to marry him. Still, he was loved by nearly all the people (and reelected in a landslide). And what we loved most about him was that he died JUST the day when he went out of office, so we save a damn lot of money on his pension (yes, ex-prez's here get a pension).

That's a prez you gotta love! And we do.

Re:A single president ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They did mention it, but since this being France,
they recognize that being married isn't the automatically
the same as being a good presidential canditate.

Thus no need for any Oral Offices and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" scandals...

Western values...

[VoidCrow]

Is that really such a bad thing for him to want? I often feel that the wrong side won the Napoleonic Wars. :-)

Re:Western values...

[Opportunist]

There was no 'right' side to win back then. Either you get an emperor with hegemonical and nationalist megalomania, or autocratic regimes that suppress any kind of dissent. Which one is better?

Re:Western values...

[VoidCrow]

The side that valued and understood science to the degree that it mandated the system of SI Units, and the side which sought to limit the oppressively brutal power of the Catholic Church? A side that might have unified Europe far earlier?

Re:Western values...

[Opportunist]

Rest assured, Hitler was very much for the idea of a unified Europe.

(Just to get Godwin into the discussion somehow)

Now, it would certainly not do justice to Napoleon to compare him with Hitler. He was, for his time, a very open and scientifically minded person. He took scientists with him on his expeditions to Egypt, to document and dig out some of the ancient sites. He was certainly not only interested in influence and power, but also in history, geology, geography and a lot of other sciences, and he founded and funded a lot of scientific organisations.

Still, he was certainly not interested in sharing his power with the people, in fact, he removed an at least nominally democratic movement (which, in its latter days, was most certainly a terror regime) to install himself as emperor.

If anything, he was the lesser evil. In other words, he would fit perfectly as a politician today.

Re:Western values...

[VoidCrow]

He was also not noticeably anti-semitic, and reformed the laws such that Jews were no longer confined to the ghettoes, whereas the Catholic Church was cruelly abusive. You could legitimately argue that this was a political ploy in the Machiavellian tradition, to limit and diversify the powers of major political blocs under his control, but he was still in some ways very much a force for good. I'm not usually a fan of exemplars of the high-testosterone global dominator psyche, but Napoleon was one of the better instances of the breed. It's possible that, had he retained power, the European continent's love of Rationalism as compared with Great Britain's preference for Empiricism may have damaged science in the longer term. Hard to say, really. It's also possible that had he been 6'4 rather than 5'2, he may not have felt the need to assert himself in such a striking manner. It's a bit of a sidewise jump, but the coolest dog I ever owned was a Jack Russell. ;-)

Good for the economy, at least

[powerpants]

This will be a good thing for France's economy, which has been sluggish in recent years due to the country's labor policies. It is illegal in France to work more than 35 hours a week, which makes it difficult to successfully start a small business. Royal offered a comforting promise that France could keep their old ways in place and still be economically competitive, but France has apparently opted for a tougher kind of love.

Furthermore, just because he's "conservative" by French standards, don't think that means he'd belong to the GOP.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[nicolas l.]

the 35 hours are more a theory, you can legally work more and you're paid for it, or you can just work more for nothing more. There is a big social pressure about this.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is illegal in France to work more than 35 hours a week,"

It is illegal for an employer to make you work more than an -average- of 35 hours per week or 48 hours in any -one- week.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[muadda]

But of course you can work as long as you want if you are not in a employer-employee relation. There is a limit though: 24 hour per day.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not illegal to work more than 35 hours, many people are working more, i'm paid to work for 39h for exemple. Stop with this nonsense _

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

It seemed like Royal was comparable to America's Walter Mondale in 1984, that is someone who represents a lot of entrenched liberal constituencies who insist on sticking with the comfortable old way of doing things. That worked well in the post-war era (1945-1975) but the rest of the world has gotten much more aggressive economically, it's past time for changes.

I've heard it charged that Sarkovy doesn't really stand for anything, that he straddles the issues. Maybe so, but if he's not wedded to the past then that's a big advantage for a country that's lagged behind the rest of Europe in productivity for the last 10 years or so (and the US, Canada, Japan, and Pacific Rim for much longer than that). He has license to try different approaches.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[mehgul]

Come on, that's a fallacy. Not only is the 35h-week not implemented in small businesses, but white collars work in majority more than 50 hours, often 60 a week, due to peer and hierarchy pressure, and a stupid culture of thinking that it's the hours spent on your desk that count. And in contrast with our big neighbour Germany, or Scandinavian countries (Denmark has a 37h-week that is quite respected even for white collars), french white collars do not get paid for overtime.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Garabito]

Chuck Norris can make you work more than that per day.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[powerpants]

I didn't mean to imply that the 35 hour week was the biggest or only problem, and I stand corrected about the law regarding the work week. The general gist of my post, however, is that France needs to get back in the game and having a socialist making economic policy would likely just dig the hole a little deeper. France needs pro-growth policies and sometimes the entrenched systems have to been ripped out by the roots, à la Reagan and Thatcher. Mme Royal may actually have been correct in predicting violence in the streets, but it's probably the only path that leads to an economically competitive France.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[mehgul]

Actually, the 35h week is the least of the problems, although I'll welcome its demise if it comes as a way to slack off and be paid for more hours at the same time(the main effect of the 35h week has been to increase per-worker productivity by increasing the work pace, and not reduce unemployment as it was intended).
Anyway I don't think many people in France believed in Royal's programme or ideas, most of those 47% who voted for her mostly did it as a vote against Sarkozy. That's my case, I can't stand his ideas on society and a police state. I believe big business would have thrived anyway, neither Royal nor Sarkozy can for example do anything about factory relocations in cheaper countries, but they both claimed otherwise.
In any case, it's a stretch to think of French "socialists" as socialists. The last socialist government sold more State-owned companies than the right-wing governements before and after.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[TheSync]

The bigger problem in France is the 8.3% unemployment rate, although that has improved recently from a high of 12.6% in 1997 (the US unemployment rate is 4.5%). The unemployment falls mainly on the young, with 25% of the under 25 unemployed.

French GDP growth is also unimpressive at around 1% quarterly for a while (0.8% last quarter). This doesn't seem too bad compared with the recent US GDP gorwth of 1.3% last quarter, but until this year the US economy was typically growing much faster than France at rates between 2% and 3% per quarter.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Jeff DeMaagd]

In that respect, as an American, and as a small business man, I think many Americans are working too much. A 35 hour week is a decent limit. I just know too many people that work far too many hours, their lives are just go-go-go that sometimes it's hard for them to sit still and relax. I find this in myself too. The idea of "free time" has kind of evaporated.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal in most of Europe to work more than 40 hours. In Spain for example the limit is 40 plus 80 overtime hours per YEAR, which must be paid at least at double the normal rate.
Yeah right.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you talking about ? Can you point me to specific "French productivity loss" ?

AFAIK, there are none. Legal work length is 35 hours a week, most people work 39 and have 11 additional holidays in the year. Furthermore, most white-collar jobs are not limited to 39 (for instance, I easily work 55 hours a week), but overtime is unpaid.

Beeing french and woring in a big international company, I can tell you first hand that, for white collars jobs, productivity in France is higher than in UK or India (the two countries I work with most). UK sits on its ass, trying to take credit for work performed by others, India works its ass 18 hours a day, piling mindless crap over mindless crap buried into layers of bureaucracy.

I know this is an over generalization, but if freaking match my 8 last years of day-to-day experience.

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot compare US and French employment rate. All part-time burger flippers are counted as employed in the US and not employed in France. Furthermore, big parts of the workforce are eliminated from statistics in the US (convicts, for instance).

Dirty tricks have been played with measurement in France too (pushing people out of statistics for bureacratic reasons in early 2000), so the 12% and current stats measure different things. Lastly, the last numbers have been contested by the very people that published it (INSEE, see http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/speciales/politique /elysee_2007/20070125.OBS8702/nouvelle_polmique_su r_les_chiffres_du_chmage.html if you read french), and the 8.3% is probably very underestimated.

So, you are comparing a lie (8.3%) to something totally different (4.5%).

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[PHPfanboy]

Good luck with your start-up!

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Opportunist]

And that has to change! If 24 hours a day isn't enough, you have to be allowed to work through the night, too!

Re:Good for the economy, at least

[Alarash]

It is illegal in France to work more than 35 hours a week, which makes it difficult to successfully start a small business. It is NOT illegal in France to work more than 35 hours a week. If you've got a management job, or your job contract makes you a "cadre" (making you pay more taxes than the non-cadre, but the extra money goes to a retirement fund), there are no maximum hours a week you have to work.

Sarkozy, interesting name...

[A beautiful mind]

His father was a hungarian immigrant, so that's where his name comes from.

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

I don't see anything wrong with this. If you don't like it, you should have immigrated into a different country.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[ScentCone]

I don't see anything wrong with this. If you don't like it, you should have immigrated into a different country.

I'll confess some curiosity about how you feel about the same subject in the US. Are those communities in the US that are starting to pass legislation pointing in the same direction (and being pillaried by the left for doing so) doing something wrong? If not, why is there such gnashing of teeth over it... because such movements make it more difficult to bolster the rolls of voting blocks that are typically adopted by the left? Seriously: why does the very same sentiment in the US produce such vitriol?

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[furball]

Seriously: why does the very same sentiment in the US produce such vitriol?

Democrat perspective: Multiculturalism is good. Embrace different cultures. Don't be so close minded.

Republican perspective: We've got to find a minority voting block to offset the African-American voting block.

Note that I say Democrat and Republican. I can't profess to know what's going on with the liberals but the conservatives don't necessarily agree with the Republican's viewpoints on this issue. I'm with the "l2english" crowd. Saves a ton of printing for the government if we don't have to crank out DMV forms, etc. in a dozen different languages.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anything wrong with this. If you don't like it, you should have immigrated into a different country.

Say this in the USA, and you'll be instantly labeled a racist.

But then, the USA is the great melting pot, and all that.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[abb3w]

Seriously: why does the very same sentiment in the US produce such vitriol?

My only encounter with anything like "vitriol" on the subject has been from one of my Aunts, who immigrated to the US in 1950 or so as a teenager, and is generally quite liberal politically. Her position: "If I had to learn this **** ing language, then so do they!"

Despite the years, her Italian heritage often shines through.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[ScrewMaster]

I don't see anything wrong with this. If you don't like it, you should have immigrated into a different country.

Seriously: why does the very same sentiment in the US produce such vitriol?

Because the people who understand that being an American (or a Frenchman, or an Englishman, or anyone else) is more than a piece of paper are in diametric opposition to those who wish to exploit the current immigration crisis, in one way or another. Some see the influx of illegal immigrants (and their citizen offspring) as political power, other see them as a way to raise profit margins. Others see it as a destructive influence upon our traditional culture, and would like those that want to come here to a. play by the rules and b. to understand what it means to be an American, to truly be a part of our culture.

That's not happening with the influx of illegal aliens in the United States, nor is it happening in France. In both cases the incoming non-citizens are simply transplanting their existing societal values and deliberately attempting to influence the culture and politics of their adopted nation. That's a particular problem for France (indeed, for most European nations) since their social structures have been around for a lot longer than ours. Still, it's a problem here as well. It's not okay to come here and remake us into an analog of your home country. We're going to resent that, and we do.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[DrEldarion]

Pure speculation here, but from what I've seen France is known for trying to maintain French culture, whereas the US was formed from and consists of people from every culture around. It's kind of hypocritical for Americans to say "It was fine for MY ancestors to bring their culture here, but it's not okay for you to do the same."

Also, in the US the issue is tied closely to the illegal immigration debate, which is a huge mess.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[risk one]

The concept of 'learning values' doesn't scare you? I know this can be interpreted as wanting people to be aware of a certain set of values and being able to understand them, which is probably a good thing. Unfortunately in my experience, even when this is the original intention, the steps to forcing people to adopt western values, to forcing people to adopt a very specific subset of western values to a full blown prescribed ideology are very small, and quickly taken.

Who's to say what 'western values' means? Do I get to pick or do you? The only one that I really value above anything else is the freedom of thought. That's also the one that really doesn't mix well with learning values before you get to live somewhere.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[pipo]

This point about "demanding immigrants to learn Western values and the French language" is
really weird; I've talked about Sarkozy hundreds of time with people both left and right
minded, and well, ... sure, he might have said it, but it's really, really not what people
have been worried about.

For the actual reasons why not everybody likes him, a really quick look at wikipedia can
help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy#Contr oversy

Also, it kind of implies France has a problem with current immigration - which isn't
really the case, as the bulk of France's "Immigration Problem" is not people coming in
now, but rather 2nd or 3rd generation people who've been kept into practical ghettos by
the french policies, governments and people in general. Sure, we keep calling it
"immigration issues", but that's just because complaining about it are old fascist farts
still living 40 years ago...

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[rho]

Your characterization is ridiculous.

You could easily say that Democrats are race-pandering, and that Republicans think people should be allowed to develop their own local community without onerous government oversight. It would be equally true, and equally partisan.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[ScentCone]

It's not okay to come here and remake us into an analog of your home country. We're going to resent that, and we do.

Right. I get that. I'm trying to understand why YOUR notion produces such vitriol on the other side. Yes, we're a nation of immigrants. And the large economy which that nation eventually built - and which is the lure for people from all over the world - settled on a particular sensibility about language, work ethic, etc. Our culture is defined not by whether you're of Scandinavian or Central American or African extraction, but by how we DO things. So, much of what's Really Wrong about how immigration is currently turning into a big gimme-fest if you can physically walk into the country and give birth, is counter to that culture. So... when people actually come out and SAY that, why the screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth reaction from people that think our borders should be wide open? Or should I simply place those reactions into the context of from where they issue: the sort of Hugo-Chavez-esque take on things that villifies the U.S. for having the very things that all of those immigrants are trying to get in the first place?

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[starkravingmad]

You should read up on German language schools in Pennsylvania.. the US has always been a polyglot nation with linguistic and cultural minorities that migrated or were assimilated (Louisiana purchase, Hawaii, the absorption of large parts of Mexico (CA, NM, etc) into the US, Puerto Rico, etc.). You can read more here.

In Europe visible minorities have faced social exclusion, unemployment and rampant racism. You'd be hard pressed to see a minority on French television.. people with Muslim names are far less likely to get a job interview or have equal access to housing. In Germany, until very recently even third generation Turkish minorities were not granted citizenship and often deported for petty crimes to a country they or their parents had never been to.. Imagine being told that you, your children, your grand children and your great grand children will never be considered French or German or whatever and you will forever be discriminated against even though you were born and raised in that country, went to the same schools and participated in the same culture. Would you decide that it's your own fault for not being "French" enough or would you decide you'd had enough and go back to your ancestral culture which grants you unconditional acceptance and identity?

The next time you find yourself saying something like 'they are violent' or 'they are angry' think of how you rationalise your own behavior ("I was tired" or "I work with idiots", etc.).. it's never "I'm angry because I'm Polish".. give other people the same benefit of the doubt. I strongly recommend you read this book - "Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind" by David Berreby.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[identity0]

This actually shows the problems with the nativist approach to immigrants - they're systematically taught to see their ancestral culture as something to be ashamed of, and then they're set against other immigrant communities. Imagine African-Americans actually demanding that new African immigrants be enslaved (There are already questiona about whether Obama is 'American' enough), or a WWII vet saying that a Iraq vet should go through the same horrors he did.

The hardships of past generations should not be used to justify hardships in this generation.

I hope your aunt was at least able to keep up her Italian...

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Das Modell]

When people say that immigrants need to accept Western values, they mean the really basic values we have, such as freedom of religion and gender equality. Unfortunately these basic values are diametrically opposed to values that, ahem, certain cultures have.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Das Modell]

Yes, let's blame the white man, as usual. Surely it is impossible that the immigrants and their children could be somehow responsible for their own destiny.

Muslim immigrants and their children have the exact same problems everywhere, ergo the problem is with them, not with whatever government is in charge.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[be-fan]

It's really not hypocritical. Ignoring the tricky Native American thing (which is a problem we solved, through, uh, genocide), Europeans established a culture in an area that didn't really have one, on a large scale. However, now that culture is in place, changing it is a different kettle of fish.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[be-fan]

The only one that I really value above anything else is the freedom of thought. That's also the one that really doesn't mix well with learning values before you get to live somewhere.

That's also one that doesn't mesh well with the cultures many immigrants are trying to bring to the United States. Honestly, how well do you think conservative Catholic (Hispanics), or conservative Islamic (Arabs) culture is going to uphold the ideals of freedom?

I understand the general perspective of liberals on this question, but as a liberal myself, my position is clear. While multiculturalism is important, it is lower in priority than the maintenance of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Ie: I don't have any problem with someone being Muslim, but I view the ferment Muslims raised over the cartoons making fun of Muhammad in the same light as I view all the idiotic protests from Christians regarding the teaching of evolution in schools.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just like the Jews, back in the day.

There's a serious problem with these people being treated as second class citizens. Their parents or grandparents were brought in as 'temporary' labour which turned out to be rather permanent. Their kids grew up immersed in French culture - to say nothing of the grandkids. In all important ways, they -are- French. French language, French values, French culture... but they're still treated as second class citizens.

Does that seem right to you?

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[abb3w]

The hardships of past generations should not be used to justify hardships in this generation.

Feel free to tell her that. =)

Most of the rest of your comment is completely off-target. Her cooking is distinctly Italian, she regularly attends mass at a Italian-American Roman Catholic church, practices her Italian regularly with other Italian-American friends and with family still overseas... although she's recently had to cut back on her use of vulgar Italian now that my cousins are finally distracting her with grandchildren to dote on. Aside from the idiocies of Mussolini (which she will rant about whenever she feels provoked to, including when people discuss our current President), she's generally proud of her Italian and Italian-American heritage.

As for the "hardships" issue, I believe you imply a false dichotomy. Life is hard, no matter what; it's just a question of how the hardship should be distributed. Either immigrants (such as the estimated ten million or so Mexicans currently in the US, legally and not) must face the short-term hardship of learning the language, face the long-term hardship of being at a linguistic disadvantage, or get the 90%+ monolingual 300 million US citizens to become bilingual.

I don't think mandating English as the "official" language is a good idea, and efforts should be made to help with the transition. But I still think expecting that transition to be made involves the least overall and long-term "hardship". And I think my aunt understands this, understands how painful it is to learn Enlish (she was sixteen when she reached the US, with her entire English vocabulary consisting of "Hello"), but has no sympathy with anyone who thinks that just because it's hard, that that should stop them.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Trogre]

Don't tell the muslim immigrants that. They want to see a certain black flag flying over parliament eventually.

No, I don't mean the Jolly Rodger.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[ghoul]

I hardly ever agree with the Republicans on anything but English as an offical language makes sense. Multiculturalism is a good thing and if it wont be promoted in a nation of immigrants where will it be? At the same time it does cost money to print things in multiple languages. I would think a rich nation like USA should be able to afford the costs but if certain towns and cities are economically depressed and cant afford the cost they should be able to just print in English. At the same time Language is important to people and noone should demean the language of somebody else. USA should follow the Indian model where everyone learns English and Hindi the official languages but they also get to choose a third language to learn in school where people can learn their own mother tongue as the third language. Knowing more never hurt anyone.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[instagib]

While the racial problems you describe in Europe are true, they are equally so in the US. Blacks were openly discriminated a few decades ago, today the problems non-whites have concerning getting jobs (or equal payment) is just the same in the US as it is in EU. Or, remember how "Arabic-looking" people were harrassed after 9/11, not only by normal citizens, but also by police, airport controls, etc.? Unfortunately, racism (== fear of the unknown) is very vivid in many people - Americas, Europe, Asia, it doesn't matter.

There is an important difference between immigrants coming to the US and coming to the EU though (somebody pointed this out earlier): The larger part of immigrants come to the US to work hard (often feeding family in their home countries). The larger part of immigrants in the EU came there to live on state welfare.

BTW, the addition of states into the US you mention was on a political level, this has nothing to do with the US successfully assimilating different cultures: people in PR and OH definitely have different lifestyles. Which illustrates a big advantage the US has over EU: much more space for people to live like they want without conflicting with others.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[king-manic]

This actually shows the problems with the nativist approach to immigrants - they're systematically taught to see their ancestral culture as something to be ashamed of, and then they're set against other immigrant communities. Imagine African-Americans actually demanding that new African immigrants be enslaved (There are already questiona about whether Obama is 'American' enough), or a WWII vet saying that a Iraq vet should go through the same horrors he did.

The hardships of past generations should not be used to justify hardships in this generation.

I hope your aunt was at least able to keep up her Italian...

Italian is a set of foods, a history, a last name, and a community. What if after 2 generations they didn't speak English and saw no value in believing in the American culture. As a immigrant myself I think you need to fit in wher eyo immigrate. They were gracious enough to offer you a home don't abuse it by insisting that adapt to you.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[weicco]

Unfortunately it's rather easy to respond to someone's saying to call him a racist. It's basically the same thing when you get called out as a troll when you write something to some internet forum where majority doesn't like your point of view. Happened to me many times and after a while it gives you somekind of mark-of-troll on your virtual forehead and nothing you say gets taking seriously. Oh, how bitter I am :)

Racism/troll/whatever are just stupid words nowadays which doesn't seem mean nothing anymore. If you don't like someone's thoughts (for example thoughts about some Operating System), call him a troll. If you don't like someone's political ideas, call him a racist. That way you don't have the deal with the actual facts; you can easily brush them a side and attack the person. If you get enough people behind you, you have "won" the debate.

Here in Finland I remember some politician was trying to figure out some good ways to stop the fight between Israel and Palestine, a plan which _didn't_ include exterminating israelians and/or muslims. Well, that didn't get off nicely. Half of people were calling him anti-semitism and others racist.

So summa summarum: People would do better if they actually would listen what others are saying and instead of making fun of them or calling them names, give constructive critisism, but always remember that you are not really a objective person yourself, so your personal feelings gets always in the debate... And if that doesn't work, then make fun of them with any way you like :)

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Grishnakh]

Just like the Jews? How on earth are Muslims anything like Jews?

Maybe I'm not up on all my history, but IIRC, the Jews were hated in places like Germany because they were so successful. They owned lots of businesses, and had a lot of money. Maybe they didn't fit into the culture too well, but you can't say they caused any social problems doing these things other than jealousy.

Even now, Jews are still known for being highly successful wherever they go. Here in the USA, they seem to own lots of businesses and be in a lot of high positions in the business world. In Israel, they've managed to take a crappy strip of desert and turn it into an economic powerhouse, while their neighbors are still living in the stone age comparatively.

By contrast, Muslims not only don't fit in, but they start riots, assassinate people, rape women, kill people, etc. It seems to me that maybe they just don't belong in a civilized society.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[brightmidnight]

It's not equally so in the US. The Economist did a survey on this a few months ago. Muslims make up a large percentage of the population, probably equal to blacks in the US, but they do not have the status that blacks have in the US. There is no Colin Powell or Condi Rice or Barack Obama. Muslims have very little representation in government, in business, or even on TV. It is not the same situation at all.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[brightmidnight]

France also has an interesting take on this idea-- they have a secular government, and so they prevented Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in schools (which are state-run). That would fly in the face of everything America stands for, but in France, maintaining secularism was more important than assimilating minorities (and accepting their religion) or freedom of speech.

So, not all Western countries have the same values.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[brightmidnight]

You have smart comments, but then it all devolves into racism at the end, which tempers the smart things you said before. :)

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Grishnakh]

How is it "racism" to call something for what it is? It seems like most people these days using the race card are doing it to just push their own agenda, or ignore other people's opinions, rather than to engage in any constructive dialog.

I think a better term is "culturalism" (although this sounds pretty hokey). Cultures are different, and some cultures are clearly superior to others, unless you subscribe to the idiocy that is moral relativism. Cultures which advocate stoning women to death when they accidentally show some skin on their arm are clearly backwards, barbaric, primitive cultures which have no place in the modern world. Cultures which advocate freedom, individual civil liberties, etc. are obviously superior to the former. So I don't see how criticizing or even condemning members of a barbaric culture, who continue to push said culture and attempt to destroy more modern cultures, is a bad thing.

Calling it "racism" is just BS. There's lots of people from areas of the world with such backwards cultures, who have moved to countries with superior cultures and successfully assimilated.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[dr_d_19]

I don't see anything wrong with this. If you don't like it, you should have immigrated into a different country.

I think you would change your mind when you need to flee from your homeland into the only land that would take you (lets say, Iran). In which your wife perhaps would be required by local customs to walk five feet behind you wearing a burqa. And you both converting to Islam.

Most people have no choice where to go. France accepts more immigrants than most other european countries - many people can't choose where they end up. Cultural diversity is a good thing. Do you think france has looked like this forever? That the original immigrants wearing berets, smoking cigarettes and eating baguettes on the long walk from africa?

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Opportunist]

I was already wondering, muslim immigrants voting for the Pirate Party? I'd have thought it would rather be the Chinese who offer me those bootlegs whenever I sit in some bar.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[khallow]

Looks to me like you just lost your side of the argument. :)

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of this "local" culture you have been forced to migrate (in this case western values)...
What would be the point to reinforce them in our new land and threat the succesful native one? This is silly.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Alarash]

I don't see anything wrong with this. If you don't like it, you should have immigrated into a different country.

When you're leaving your country - and you never leave your country for the kicks, it's usually because of poverty or war - you might not have the opportunity to learn french. In fact, immigrants are usually lower class with minimum education, so speaking an extra language is just not possible for them.

So I don't think you should speak french before applying for papers. They should set up language training programs or whatever, and if you didn't go/didn't pass/whatever, then you are asked to leave or given another chance to prove your motivation.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[risk one]

But that's the whole point. You can't talk about the importance of freedom and then not allow people to dismiss it. It's like how democracy is the only political system that can be legally ended, if someone who opposes democracy gets elected and changes the system. Some people say this is a weakness of democracy and there should be laws to defend against such cases. The truth is that it's not a weakness of democracy, but a strength. Everything about societies based on the ideals of the French revolution is designed to maintain the sovereignty of the people. If the system doesn't work, we are free to change it. This freedom is a fundamental quality of our society.

The same thing goes for freedom of thought. There may be people that don't believe in it, and they should be free to believe that. Freedom is ultimately about discovering new things about the world and about ourselves. Freedom means not closing off any avenues. That also means allowing people to not believe in absolute freedom. So, when an Islamic fundamentalist comes to a western country, it's important that he understands the ideals behind its society, but I think that a lot of western people could do with some more education in that respect too. What we cannot do, is tell someone how thought is free in our country, and he should believe that too, or we won't let him. How much is he going to respect those ideals then?

And when it comes to actual changes to the core values of western societies, it's not the immigrants that I'm worried about. I'm worried about the non-immigrant conservatives. If I see what conservative Christians, combined with the corporate world are doing to the values that America is always preaching about, the fundamentalist immigrants are not our biggest concern when it comes to freedom.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Das Modell]

They are treated like second class citizens because of their own behavior. And no, I don't quite think they know a damn thing about French values.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Das Modell]

Hmm. Considering that this was modded troll, does the moderator believe that the barbaric culture you described is not barbaric at all, and/or that all cultures are exactly equal regardless of customs, beliefs and level of technology? I can only assume that the moderator must hold these beliefs, since he so vehemently opposes everything the OP said.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Das Modell]

The misbehavior of Muslim immigrants and their offspring in Europe and elsewhere has been exhaustively documented, and even official statistics show that they commit disproportionate amounts of crime (rape and gangrape in particular). And who assassinated Theo van Gogh and forced Ayaan Hirsi Ali to live the rest of her life with bodyguards? Who riots, ambushes police officers and burns buildings and cars in France? Who just rioted in Malmö, Sweden? Who marched in London and declared "behead those who insult Islam"? What sparked the Cronulla riots in Australia? Who assassinated random Christians after the Pope made his speech?

The examples are endless, and prove that Muslims certainly don't belong in civilized society. But Slashdotters, instead of trying to prove otherwise, just mod people down, as usual.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Anonymous Coward]

The same has been proven for the Blacks and the Hispanics. I await the reopening of the camps as well my white brother.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[brightmidnight]

Who terrorized London and the rest of England for years, causing the UK to be covered in police cameras and not have trash cans in the tube? The IRA (born out of conflict between Catholics and Protestants). Who committed genocide in Albania? The French (Catholic). Who conducted the Crusades? Who bombed abortion clinics and the Olympics in the US? Hitler invoked God and the Bible before he killed six million Jews. I could go on. It's completely ridiculous to start a tirade against an entire religion. If you don't see that, you're not up to the level of intelligence most Slashdot posters have. The problem is not Islam, it's sects of Islam. Just as most US Christians would disavow religious fundamentalists, these sects are not part of mainstream Islam.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[be-fan]

But that's the whole point. You can't talk about the importance of freedom and then not allow people to dismiss it.

I don't personally care if an immigrant doesn't believe in our principles of freedom. What I care about is what happens when they impose those beliefs on the rest of us. It happens through various vectors, through complaints in newspapers (the Muhammad cartoons in the Netherlands), parents complaining about certain things in schools, and ultimately through voting. We're not seeing much of it now in the United States, particularly from Muslims, who are highly apolitical, but we will eventually.

Everything about societies based on the ideals of the French revolution is designed to maintain the sovereignty of the people.

The American democracy predates the substantially more liberal Continental democratic revolutions. The American democracy is built on the British model, and in intention, is much closer to a republic than a democracy (though Andrew Jackson did a pretty good job of fucking that up). The Constitution is designed expressly to prevent the people from exercising power in stupid ways. This is a Good Thing.

The same thing goes for freedom of thought. There may be people that don't believe in it, and they should be free to believe that.

Sure, but what I don't want is people who think that way to change the culture, ruining it for the rest of us. You've gotta stop people from peeing in the pool, freedom or not...

Freedom is ultimately about discovering new things about the world and about ourselves. Freedom means not closing off any avenues.

No it's not. It's about protecting Life, Liberty, and Property. Those three words are the most succinct summery of the philosophical basis of the US Constitution that I've ever found.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me that the only way to protect freedom of speech is to let it die at the hands of foreign cultures that don't care about it.

As for homegrown conservatives, that's probably a bigger issue in the US than immigrants, but the opposite is true for France. And it's really frightening to me that you don't conside immigrants to be as big a threat as homegrown conservatives. Muslims are every bit as conservative as Baptists, and believe a lot of the same ridiculous positions (ie: don't believe in evolution, don't believe in secular government, etc). They're much less of a threat to freedom in the US, because they're not nearly as politically active as conservative Christians, but that's not going to be the case forever. And of course Hispanics might be even worse, because not only are they Catholic and conservative, but they tend to be poorer than the other two groups, which amplifies the conservatism, and on top of all of that, they're politically active. If you're a self-respecting liberal who believes in birth control rights and whatnot, you're going to be wary of the influence of Hispanics on our culture...

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Das Modell]

You are making a common yet foolish mistake by thinking that just because the French are Catholic their actions must be based on their religion and justified by its holy texts. This is obviously not the case. Following Christianity and doing something is not the same thing as doing something because of Christianity, and even then the action may be completely outside the religion's norms.

Who conducted the Crusades?

Who provoked the Crusades by initiating a holy war againts unbelievers? That minor detail is, for some odd reason, never mentioned anywhere. You'd think that the Crusades just appeared one morning without any particular reason.

Hitler invoked God and the Bible before he killed six million Jews.

Hey may or may not have done that as some point, but his actions were certainly not based on Christianity.

It's completely ridiculous to start a tirade against an entire religion.

Why? If the religion's central tenets and teachings advocate holy war againts unbelievers and the subjugation of women and so forth, why shouldn't I start a "tirade" againts it? Because somebody somewhere decided that if a codified set of beliefs is a religion, it's suddenly beyond criticism (unless it's Christianity, then it's okay to criticize or bash it)?

The problem is not Islam, it's sects of Islam. Just as most US Christians would disavow religious fundamentalists, these sects are not part of mainstream Islam.

Just because US Christians do this or that doesn't mean that Muslims also do this or that. They are not linked to each other.

Re:Sarkozy, interesting name...

[Grishnakh]

Who terrorized London and the rest of England for years, causing the UK to be covered in police cameras and not have trash cans in the tube? The IRA (born out of conflict between Catholics and Protestants).

How many other countries has the IRA terrorized? None. That's an internal conflict, much like a civil war. This has no relation to Muslim behavior which targets countries outside their own.

I also seem to recall that the IRA frequently called the authorities before their bombs exploded so that people would be evacuated.

Who committed genocide in Albania? The French (Catholic).

And when did this occur? If it occurred before WWII, it's ancient history and I really don't care. What acts of genocide have the French committed lately? None. The acts of their distant ancestors are not a concern to me other than for historical interest.

Who bombed abortion clinics and the Olympics in the US?

I'll give you this one, but (and I'm not a big fan of Christianity either) these actions were conducted by an extremely small number of wackos. There definitely aren't tens of thousands (or more) Christians going around bombing clinics, and there aren't literally millions of them parading in the streets when a clinic is bombed.

Hitler invoked God and the Bible before he killed six million Jews.

How many genocidal acts have modern Germans committed? None. Plus, Hitler was well-known to be into the occult.

It's completely ridiculous to start a tirade against an entire religion.

Why not?
1) As others have pointed out, the religion's foundations include mistreatment of women and warlike actions against "unbelievers". Read the Quran and listen to all the Muslim clerics if you don't believe me.
2) The religion's followers, by and large, support these actions. After all, when the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11, millions of Muslims were on the streets in places like Pakistan cheering the event. When someone dared to simply make fun of their religion, they again took to the streets demanding they be beheaded. These aren't the actions of a tiny minority of Muslims; this looks like the majority of Muslims (at least the ones in the middle east) to me, and it definitely looks like these people are very supportive of violence and destruction. Religion of peace? No, I don't think so.

If you don't see that, you're not up to the level of intelligence most Slashdot posters have.

Always nice to question peoples' intelligence when you don't agree with them. That pretty much calls your own intelligence into question.

The problem is not Islam, it's sects of Islam.

Perhaps, but these must be rather large and powerful sects to get the popular support that we're seeing. Tiny sects don't have millions of people parading in the streets in multiple cities.

Just as most US Christians would disavow religious fundamentalists, these sects are not part of mainstream Islam.

Wrong on both counts. More and more christians in the US are going over to fundamentalism (look at how many people believe in Creationism according to polls), and as I've demonstrated above, these Islamic sects are most definitely mainstream.

Pro-software patent, DMCA and voting machines

[guerby]

Most important for slashdot readers: Nicolas Sarkozy is a lawyer and has a very strong pro-software patent stance and was behind the hardline DADVSI copyright law (our local DMCA). He was also behind the introduction of voting machines without paper trail requirements, and of the "secret" report about their validity (no citizen could get the report.

More in the PDF with his answers to the "candidats.fr" initiative here

Hard time for free software in France. There are still the parliament election next month, but last time french voters put the majority behind the president.

Re:Pro-software patent, DMCA and voting machines

[belmolis]

Yes, on many points my sympathies are with Royal. However, her critics are, I'm afraid, correct, that she knows next to nothing about foreign policy. I don't mean that I disagree with her - I mean that she evidently knows very little and has no policy on many important issues. That is a large weak spot.

Re:Pro-software patent, DMCA and voting machines

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget to add that he is agains't press freedom...

Re:Pro-software patent, DMCA and voting machines

[Anonymous Coward]

...has a very strong pro-software patent stance.

Nothing about that was in his plan when he was talking on TV nor in his agenda. On the contrary, he is clearly emphasizing that administrations in France should rely even more on "logiciels libres" (software both open and free). He may be a lawyer, but he can count too. It is not good at all for a country like France when hundreds of millions are flushed down the train to a single american company.

The shift to "logiciels libres" is clearly in his agenda. Now if he's gonna respect that or not is another topic. Still, when 99% of the population doesn't give a crap about open source software, it's interesting to see that it was in his agenda.

Last time I checked DADVSI was about copyrighted content, not about software patents. My (free) Un*x OSes are very fine without any pirated content on them, thank you very much for caring.

Re:Pro-software patent, DMCA and voting machines

[brightmidnight]

Since Segolene Royal once tried to ban Japanese anime from French airwaves and spoke out against allowing violent TV shows and the like, I doubt she's really into freedom of media either. All in all, the world is better off with Sarkozy.

Re:Pro-software patent, DMCA and voting machines

[Pecisk]

!@#$@%#^, damn, that was FIRST thing in my mind when I saw his smile - so fake and artificial - and heard his promises and taglines. NO way such man would support something so social like free software or relaxed "intelectual property" terms.

Sight, another bought out politician. And it seems like people just don't care. :(

Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[twitter]

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Some of that is good. There has been some very bad "multiculturalism" case law in the EU recently, where women have been beaten and abused but that was OK because it was supposedly "their" culture and the host country should not interfere. This makes a mockery of the foreign culture as well as allowing injustice. It is right for France, and every other country, to demand respect and offer protection for all of their citizens. Injustice and brutality should not be tolerated anywhere. Doing so in the name of "in my country we put woman in cage" is racism in disguise.

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[Alphager]

Some of that is good. There has been some very bad "multiculturalism" case law in the EU recently, where women have been beaten and abused but that was OK because it was supposedly "their" culture and the host country should not interfere. That happened in Germany, in Frankfurt am Main to be exact. The judge was thrown out of the case and the woman got the speedy divorce she wanted.

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[squatt.bor]

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language). What it means by that is that they should say 'merci' when cops break their hands, that immigrants coming to do the dirty jobs shouldn't be allowed to work legally so as to be exploited mercilessly by his close friends (big corporations owners) Good for their economy, bad for our human rights

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[Dogtanian]

There has been some very bad "multiculturalism" case law in the EU recently, where women have been beaten and abused but that was OK because it was supposedly "their" culture and the host country should not interfere. You might find this article interesting. (This broadly coincides with my views on that particular subject.)

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[Nikkos]

What it means by that is that they should say 'merci' when cops break their hands, that immigrants coming to do the dirty jobs shouldn't be allowed to work legally so as to be exploited mercilessly by his close friends (big corporations owners) Good for their economy, bad for our human rights Did it ever occur to you that an Immigrant that can speak the prevailing language now has a voice? Once that wall is broken through they can get better jobs, protest against mistreatment, and start fitting into the culture that they've decided to emigrate to?

You're an idiot if you think allowing an immigrant to live under the radar, unable to communicate with 95% of the population, is OK because he's doing a job you don't want to do. You're also a fucking hypocrite, cause _YOU'RE_ the one doing the exploiting.

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[identity0]

I think you are referring to the case in Germany.

What's bizarre is that the judge seemed to be actually following the conservative line of disparaging African/Islamic culture as sexist and at the same time doing something along what she felt were their culture. I doubt she knew enough about the culture to be able to say whether it was within those bounds. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy of creating sexism.

IIRC, in Islamic law you don't really need a reason to divorce, one only has to declare a divorce for it to take effect, so the judge was not actually following the culture of the couple.

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

no it didn't because the only ones who like multiculturalism are the invaders and their idiot enablers. I'm guessing he's one of the latter.

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[jschrod]

Oh, you mean the article that conveniently forgets to mention that the source he cites (the Spiegel article) is part of the big public outcry over these moron judges? And who also conveniently forgot to mention that the decisions by the judges were sacked by appelate courts immediately?

Yes, these were horrible incidents. No, it is not a generaly accepted public policy in Germany to let violence to islamic women happen -- quite to the contrary. If you always take occasions of moronic judge decisions to portrait the public majority opinion of a country, you do your case a disfavor.

But then, such tabloid stories seem to be more interesting than discussions about existing conflicts that take place currently in many European and Mediterranean countries, e.g., the whole veils-in-public-places discussion in France, Germany, Turkey, and other countries.

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[Hognoxious]

Happens in the UK all the time, Pakistanis kill their daughters/sisters for refusing to be sold off like catttle, er, I mean insulting the honourable islamic tradition of arranged marriages. The police more or less turn a blind eye for fear of being labelled racist.

Re:Where multicultural tolerance is bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, in Islamic law you don't really need a reason to divorce, one only has to declare a divorce for it to take effect, so the judge was not actually following the culture of the couple.

Correct, but only in part. The husband can freely divorce just by chanting the word "divorce" three times, but the wife has no recourse within the confines of the Islamic law.

So the judge was following the culture. Since it was the wife who was demanding a divorce.. tough shit.

Interesting, but...

[Idaho]

How is this "News for nerds. Stuff that matters". OK, I can see the second part, but not the first.

Re:Interesting, but...

[__aaclcg7560]

He's wants people to learn French instead of C++. We need more nerds than bad French speakers!

Re:Interesting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

False http://www.candidats.fr/documents/reponses-candida tsfr-nicolas-sarkozy.pdf he wants C++ to be learned in high school.

How do you say...

[HangingChad]

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

How do you say 'Thank you, Diebold' in French?

Seriously, though, if I'm going to move to France I'm at least going to try and learn French. And I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if you want to come and work in America, you might pick up a little English first.

Perhaps making it a demand is what makes it unreasonable? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like it should be that divisive. To me it would be reasonable to expect that those wishing to immigrate would reflect the values and language of their adopted country.

If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite.

Re:How do you say...

[Bert64]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect immigrants to blend in with the local culture...
It's not like immigrants are forced to come to the country. Immigrants choose to migrate to france, and they knew that the french speak french *BEFORE* they went there.
It's actually far more arrogant of immigrants to think that they can go to a foreign country, which already has their own language religion and culture, and then to try and change the country to suit their own! If they want to live in a country which speaks their language then they should stay where they are. If they want to live in france, they need to blend in with the french culture. It's a trade off, you can't have your cake and eat it.

As a counter example, how do you think most muslim countries would like it if large numbers of frenchmen emigrated there, refused to learn arabic and demanded the government provide information in french aswell, at their own cost. As well as demanding to eat pork, to ignore muslim religious holidays and refuse to work on christian religious days etc.

Re:How do you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite.

I agree with what your saying; however, I'm a Canadian and I say about and I wouldn't consider that pronunciation a core value of "living in Canada". Also, its not frozen up here right now for anyone who thinks we freeze all the time.

Re:How do you say...

[The One and Only]

As a counter example, how do you think most muslim countries would like it if large numbers of frenchmen emigrated there, refused to learn arabic and demanded the government provide information in french aswell, at their own cost. As well as demanding to eat pork, to ignore muslim religious holidays and refuse to work on christian religious days etc.

If you consider similar issues with Jewish immigrants, such as the observance of Jewish holidays and the use of Yiddish in Jewish communities in Europe, could this explain the centuries of European anti-Semitism?

Re:How do you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a counter example, how do you think most muslim countries would like it if large numbers of frenchmen emigrated there, refused to learn arabic and demanded the government provide information in french aswell, at their own cost. As well as demanding to eat pork, to ignore muslim religious holidays and refuse to work on christian religious days etc.

To continue your counter-example, how do you think the rest of the world would then react if the Muslim country passed laws to force immigrants to speak only arabic, convert to islam and veil their women?

Re:How do you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

> To continue your counter-example, how do you think the rest of the world would then react if the Muslim country passed laws to force immigrants to speak only arabic, convert to islam and veil their women?

Write strongly-worded blog posts, I imagine, and ultimately do nothing.

Re:How do you say...

[morari]

You'd think. But then again, everything in American is subtitled in Spanish nowadays...

Re:How do you say...

[twenex27]

Seriously, though, if I'm going to move to France I'm at least going to try and learn French. And I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if you want to come and work in America, you might pick up a little English first. I suspect many of the people who came to America didn't have time to brush up on a Teach Yourself American English course before fleeing their native country. Or the money to buy one in an airport lounge.

Re:How do you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a counter example, how do you think most muslim countries would like it if large numbers of frenchmen emigrated there, refused to learn arabic and demanded the government provide information in french aswell, at their own cost. As well as demanding to eat pork, to ignore muslim religious holidays and refuse to work on christian religious days etc.

In Saudi they'd be executed or expelled, if they survived prison. In most other Muslim countries, they'd be torn limb from limb (literally) by outraged Muslims, egged on by the Mullahs etc. In "liberal" Muslim countries they'd be severely beaten on a regular basis. Non-muslims in Muslim countries are less than second-class citizens, if they can be citizens at all, and they are frequently slaves, de facto if not de jure.

Next question?

Re:How do you say...

[Bert64]

They would be perfectly within their right to enact such laws in their own countries.
And those of us living in other countries, are well within our rights to not migrate to, or even visit, these muslim countries.

What gives anyone the right to try and dicate laws in another country? The people of that country should decide on the laws there, not arbitrary foreigners.

Re:How do you say...

[nacturation]

If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite. And 99% of Canadians would look at you and break out laughing. This accent is heavily concentrated on the East coast and was influenced by Scottish immigrants. Imagine Groundskeeper Willie pronouncing the word, and you'd have it about right. Implying that you'd learn to say "a-boot" to be polite is like saying that anyone going to the USA should practice saying "Y'all come back now, ya hear?" to be polite.

Re:How do you say...

[identity0]

I'm a linguistics student who has studied the politics of language policy so I should put my word in...

Most immigrants do learn the language of the country they move to, if only because of the oppurtunities it opens up for them. However, they will usually keep their home language, and use it among members of their own community. Unfortunately, the natives often get offended or upset when they see immigrants using their language amongst themselves, or see businesses using another language. It mostly has to do with issues of pride and fear of otherness. When natives say "they need to speak our language", they often really mean "stop speaking the other language". It's often just an excuse to keep immigrant communities marginalized.

From a practical perspective, if a group of immigrants are able to make a living using their own language, I see no need to make them stop.

France has certain issues with language that the U.S. does not, such as having French as an official language and not defining themselves as an immigrant nation. Also, although they are officially racially neutral, their culture and government are really white-controlled, more so than the U.S..

Re:How do you say...

[Lurkingrue]

And besides, its pronounced: "a-boat", not "a-boot". No oh-fense, eh?

Re:How do you say...

[notamisfit]

Well that, and the Talmud specifies a human paternal lineage for the executed cult leader that just happened to be the resident godhead.

Re:How do you say...

[randyest]

Most immigrants do learn the language of the country they move to, if only because of the oppurtunities it opens up for them.

Source? Is this worldwide, or just US immigrants?

Re:How do you say...

[TheoMurpse]

Perhaps making it a demand is what makes it unreasonable?

I think what makes it unreasonable is there is a very high probability that someone needing to immigrate to a developed country has had no opportunity to learn the requisite language before moving. Many people immigrating to developed countries aren't from developed countries, where all it takes to learn survival French is a trip to the local library and a year or so of community college classes.

Being an American who had the opportunity to study Spanish in junior high and high school, I could probably pick up enough French in a semester to be able to survive in France without using English. Hell, I can sort-of read French books, and I've never studied it.

However, there are people who need to get out of their respective countries who have not had the opportunity, or the benefit of learning a Romance (or Germanic, if the desire is to move to the other half of (north|western) Europe) language at a young age.

Re:How do you say...

[darkwhite]

How do you say 'Thank you, Diebold' in French? What does Diebold have to do with the 2007 French presidential election?

Re:How do you say...

[metacell]

Also, its not frozen up here right now for anyone who thinks we freeze all the time. Yes, I know how you feel. People believe there's ice and snow in Sweden all the time, but we actually have several weeks during summer when it rains.

Re:How do you say...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

How do you say 'Thank you, Diebold' in French?

easy: 'merci, en trichant les bâtards'

Re:How do you say...

[Opportunist]

Why do I have the hunch that I'd get thrown through their lobby window if I went there and actually say that...

Re:How do you say...

[El Cabri]

The US expects people seeking citizenship to know (a little bit of) English. From Sarkozy's official agenda, one can read that he wants to expect any person simply seeking a residence and work permit to know French. That would technically include people like relatives of immigrants, and executives relocated by multinational corporations. That sounds idiotic and undoable, and certainly very remote from the American model that Mr. Sarkozy otherwise claims to admire very much.

Re:How do you say...

[smellsofbikes]

I studied linguistics for a while, although I'm not sure that is what qualifies me to talk about this: several of my friends work in health services for low-income people, and I live in a neighborhood with a lot of low-income people. To be specific, they're uniformly Hispanic, mostly from Mexico. Many speak reasonable English and are learning more, and many speak very little English and aren't trying to change that. There's a perfectly good reason many don't speak English well: they're not planning on staying. They came up to make enough money to change the lives of their relatives at home and their own lives, and as soon as they've managed that, they're going back to where they came from, back to their homes. The US is, for them, a temporary job and a temporary residence. As such, they consider it a waste to spend the time to learn English well, and particularly to get their children to learn it, since their children won't be here for much longer.
The damned, horrible part about it is: it doesn't happen. They don't ever get to go back home because they're making more money here than they do at home, so they stay just a little longer, and just a little longer yet, and suddenly they've been here for 15 years and their kids are in high school and trying to find jobs with broken English and the sad fact that they can't let themselves realize is that they're not ever going home: they ARE home. I've seen this happen a lot. I find it especially painful when the people are living in a hellhole, a broken-down rental house with broken glass in the front yard, where their kids play in ragged torn clothing -- dude, my next-door-neighbor's kids were playing tetherball with a safeway bag full of paper hanging from a dog leash attached to a live aspen tree -- but they have a late-model Cadillac and a brand-new Silverado sitting in the driveway. Why? Because the cars are mobile so they can take them back 'home' but the house is just a temporary thing until they've made enough to go 'home'.
It's a situation that just sucks.

Re:How do you say...

[sultanoslack]

That's a bit naive. Here's something people don't seem to notice that (a) aren't immigrants and (b) aren't fluent in another lanugage:

It's hard.

I'm an American immigrant. No, I didn't move to the US; I moved away from it. I've been in Germany for 5 years, I don't have time to take a few months off for intensive language training, since like most immigrants I have to work and as such I've had to pick it up as I go along. And I have, but my grammer is still incorrect at places, I still prefer to read in my native language, I speak English with a few of my friends. These are exactly the things that people complain about the Turkish people doing. What's the big difference? Well, I'm blonde, white and come from a rich Western country. Here's another one:

It's tiring.

I spend more time speaking German than English, but even after five years, I still get tired after speaking German for an extended period of time. When I go to the cafe down the street that is owned by an American and serves up American cuisine, we speak English. We both speak German, but it's a nice break to have some American food and speak English. It's no big shocker that when speaking with another ex-pat from the same country that we speak our native language. When I'm in mixed company, I speak German, but if there are people that have moved over more recently and don't speak German yet, I fall back to English with them.

I moved here because I like the values, the work environment and the culture and I'm fairly well integrated, but I'm not from here. At the end of the day, yes, there is progress to be made on integrating immigrants into the native cultures, but more often than not, "integration" is just a euphamism for racism.

Re:How do you say...

[darkwhite]

How do you say 'Thank you, Diebold' in French? What does Diebold have to do with the 2007 French presidential election? That's right, it has nothing to do with it. And real disenfranchisement crimes go unpunished because of FUCKING IDIOTS like you who conflate issues that have nothing to do with each other and insinuate fraud where there is none, making people who demand real accountability look stupid.

Free Software

[Nymz]

He was the only candidate who doesn't support, or even have a clear stance on free software.
Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.

As a fellow Slashdotter, I also care about technology issues. But at the same time realize they will have to take a back seat while there are active special intrest groups that believe the end (one world Muslim, or one world Communism) justifies the means (violence).

Re:Free Software

[Eternauta3k]

there are active special intrest groups that believe the end (one world Muslim, or one world Communism)

When was the last violent act for communism? (French riots do not apply)

Re:Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd reply and point out that public and violent executions are pretty much an everyday occurance in places like North Korea and even China, but I suspect you're really just one of those picky little bastards who'll jump on me and exclaim "Aha! Those arn't Communist states! There has never been a truly Communist country blah blah blah", and then you'd feel terribly smug. Ho hum.

Re:Free Software

[twenex27]

But at the same time realize they will have to take a back seat while there are active special intrest groups that believe the end (one world Muslim, or one world Communism) justifies the means (violence). The problem with people like Sarkozy, and Bush, and Musharraf, is that they also believe that the end justifies the means. It's just that the end they choose is "security", which often means ditching the kind of freedom they espouse in economics when it comes to things like, oh, I dunno, living in France and not speaking French.

Re:Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last violent act for communism? (French riots do not apply) Umm... North Korean nuke tests? How about the North Korean internment of Christians? Chinese oppression in Tibet and threats against Taiwan? Litvenienko and friends (let's not fool ourselves about Putin, people). Less recently, Pol Pot, Stalin. Plenty of examples. Need I go on?

Re:Free Software

[Ornedan]

By people that actually try to act like communists, not just authoritarians claiming to be communists?
And to pre-empt the inevitable counterpoint, do note that many dictators pretend to be presidents elected via a popular election, but claiming so does not make it so.

Re:Free Software

[asninn]

Or "one world American"? Might be just me, but I have the distinct feeling that the USA are responsible for far more deaths in foreign nations than Muslims (as if they are even a homogenous group, much less one that generally supports terrorism!) are.

And communists? Come on, this isn't the 50s anymore, McCarthy.

Re:Free Software

[Nymz]

Or "one world American"? Might be just me, but I have the distinct feeling that the USA are responsible for far more deaths in foreign nations than Muslims (as if they are even a homogenous group, much less one that generally supports terrorism!) are. And communists? Come on, this isn't the 50s anymore, McCarthy.

Allow me to introduce you to a concept that appears to be missing from your incongruous assumptions and conclusions. It's called being civilized, and it's neccessary for a free and prosperous society.

Example, say a group of people need to decide together on a single plan of action. Most opinions come down to one of two different plans. They decide to hold a vote, and follow the plan of action that recieves the most votes. This is an example of civilized behavior.

For an example of behavior that lacks civility, simply continue the above example. One group decides that they will go along with the vote only if they win, and if they lose they will not honor the agreement. Instead they will use violence like assasination, riots, vandalization, etc...

While many might discount your post above as someone playing word games, or trolling, my experience leads me to believe that you really do believe America is the big evil, and that all the real evil in the world just isn't so bad, and can be justified one way or another.

If this is the case you clearly have a problem, some refer to it as "liberism is a mental disorder", but I haven't heard of any cures. All I can do is suggest is that you attempt to place more trust in those that are superior in knowledge to yourself. Example, when you go to the doctor, assuming you don't believe doctors are uncessary and that a god will heal you, then you trust his opinion and diagnosis don't you? Then simply apply this concept to other areas of your life like politics, automotive repair, financial advice, dental work, etc... Good Luck!

Re:Free Software

[Eternauta3k]

I'd reply and point out that public and violent executions are pretty much an everyday occurance in places like North Korea and even China, but I suspect you're really just one of those picky little bastards who'll jump on me and exclaim "Aha! Those arn't Communist states! There has never been a truly Communist country blah blah blah", and then you'd feel terribly smug. Ho hum.

Nope. Well, even if I did think that, it'd sound very stupid if I said it now.

Umm... North Korean nuke tests? How about the North Korean internment of Christians? Chinese oppression in Tibet and threats against Taiwan? Litvenienko and friends (let's not fool ourselves about Putin, people). Less recently, Pol Pot, Stalin. Plenty of examples. Need I go on?

I don't really see that as a way to turn the whole world into communism. However, when I look at them like that, the sept. 11 attacks weren't really meant to turn people into muslims either. Both the wtc attacks and the commie executions are punishing those who don't agree with their ideology, but neither really aim to convert.

Times will tell if this was crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

... or not ...

(By the way, I a not even commenting you dummy-crappy french bashing sentense, that shows how well you seem to know about geopolitic and history)

FYI, at this minute, already small riots are beeing reported here by France3 channel (a cluster of regional network chanels) from every conners of France : Lyon, Bastille district in Paris (mostly Anachrists), in Marseille (Vieux Port) mostly young peoples, in Bordeaux (around the TownHall) mostly people that did not vote for Sarkozy.

Ok, nothing to compare with the major riots that were cause after the young boy died and Sarkozy call them "rust" ("racaille" in French which is "rabble" literaly translating).

Personally, I don't thik there will be major riots tonight (appart from anachists or some young people in poor districts burning cars), simply because anti-riots brigades (CRS) have been deployed on potetial hotspots, plus anti-criminality squads (BAC) has already move to the zone to clear them. Nothing important.

What is realy interresting is that there is a massive participation of people : about 85 % of people have voted, which is really amazing for two "classical" candidates, plus adding that the 3rd and 4th of the first round have call to abstention.

It's called a democracy

[DaveAtFraud]

Just because the person you disagree with wins doesn't mean that the system is broken. I don't recall hearing a single complaint about the French electoral system. Maybe the conservative's ideas actually appealed to more voters.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:It's called a democracy

[Beretta Vexe]

Godwin's law, you lose.

Re:It's called a democracy

[NoseBag]

Political Correctness (PC) is a doctrine which holds that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Or - as I've put it in the past - "PC is an unwillingness to face unpleasant truths."

But your has more color.

Re:It's called a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. In fact, his post was so utterly stupid that he should be ignored forever.

Re:It's called a democracy

[DaveAtFraud]

So, since I didn't mention a particular dictator or his political party, you lose for invoking Godwin's law when it doesn't apply. Or, do you even know what Godwin's Law is?

Probable not. Typical product of the liberal-socialist public education system.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:It's called a democracy

[ChameleonDave]

Godwin's law, you lose. No. Parroting internet jokes as though they were valid anti-fallacy arguments — you lose big time.

Re:It's called a democracy

[Trogre]

Of course the GP was flamebait, but not because he fell into a logical fallacy - which Godwins law does not provide.

Saying he lost the argument merely by mentioning you-know-who and the you-know-what party is rather, naive.

Re:It's called a democracy

[menugarit]

I think you might be browsing at 0 and didn't see the -1 Flamebait he was actually replying to.

Re:It's called a democracy

[twenex27]

Parroting internet jokes I wasn't parroting, and I wasn't joking. The point is that just because someone is elected doesn't mean he couldn't possibly be the biggest scumbag to ever have walked the Earth.

Re:It's called a democracy

[ChameleonDave]

I wasn't parroting, and I wasn't joking. The point is that just because someone is elected doesn't mean he couldn't possibly be the biggest scumbag to ever have walked the Earth. Wake up. I wasn't replying to you, but to the idiot who replied to you.

Viva la Fromage!

[Organic Brain Damage]

He's a conservative, right?

As such, I expect he will protect the quality of the wine, cheese, and poulet de bresse. That's all I can really hope for from a politician.

too damn right!

[GURU Meditation 8000]

I'm sorry. but I totally agree with this guy on this singular aspect (his other policies generally suck!) if someone comes to my country, then I expect them to no only learn the lingo, but also to embrace the culture and society of the country. THAT is surely why they were moving to the country and what makes that country attractive in the first place, no? the residents of the country shouldnt expect to have to start making new laws enforcing the views and cultural requirements/demands of the incoming people. THAT is just wrong.

Re:too damn right!

[A.K.A_Magnet]

That's the way it has always been in France if you wanted French citizenship. What Sarkozy wants is no immigration except when it suits him (the so-called brain drain, as if anyone would come live in France now that he's "President", and cheap labor).

Re:too damn right!

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you move to California, would you bother to learn Spanish, to fit in with the Spanish families that have lived here for ~300 years? (Which is why California has no 'official' language.)

Re:too damn right!

[Harinezumi]

There's a difference between immigration and conquest.

Re:too damn right!

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's a difference between conquest and a revolt by immigrants. As usual, the "Why don't you all just speak English, dammit" crowd needs history lessons. Look up "California Republic."

Does this mean an end to "Freedom Fries"?

[Orion Blastar]

Will we call them French Fries again?

Will France now help out in the Iraq War to end it?

Re:Does this mean an end to "Freedom Fries"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. They'll surrender for us.

Re:Does this mean an end to "Freedom Fries"?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: French fries are called that not because they are from France. They are called french because they are frenched.

french (frnch) tr.v. frenched, frenching, frenches. 1. To cut (green beans, for example) into thin strips before cooking. 2. To trim fat or bone from (a chop, for example).

Orthopedus

Re:Does this mean an end to "Freedom Fries"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy's from the same "side" as the outgoing president, Chirac, so why should the position change?

Re:Does this mean an end to "Freedom Fries"?

[volcanopele]

Personally, I don't see why we just don't start calling them Belgian Fries, correct the historical mistake. Belgium hasn't pissed us off recently as far as I know.

blackbox voting

[rzr]

guess yourself ??

Do you think French are stupid enough to elect a such man ?

some hints :
http://www.ordinateurs-de-vote.org/

Re:blackbox voting

[Cochonou]

This is, at best, a very misleading answer.
- only 77 voting places (out of about 577) were using voting machines for the run-off election,
- the only models allowed are ES&S iVotronic, Indra Sistemas Point&Vote and Nedap ESF1.

M$/Corporate Lapdog.

[twitter]

From the link you gave, he's the worst of the lot:

Except for Sarkozy, the candidates also agreed that consumers should have the right to buy a computer without any preloaded software, ... Sarkozy was also the only candidate who responded with obvious hostility, remarking when talking about DADVSI that "I am opposed to the orientations implied by your questions."

He expresses his support for patent law on the grounds that it "encourages enterprises to innovate, it attracts investments, [and] encourages individuals to ... develop new inventions." In addition, Sarkozy supported the concept of intellectual property, and suggested that it was premature to talk about revising DADVSI before the end of 2007, when a review is scheduled. In answer to the question about open standards and free software, he replied that "it is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone." Other replies were so general as to suggest that he either had not considered the matter or was avoiding stating his position. As Frédéric Couchet, a director of APRIL commented, Sarkozy's "was the worst response received."

You can read his response yourself, but the above is bad news.

Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.

If standing up for French companies and citizens by supporting their software freedom is not important, I'm not sure what is. Your computer is your press, your store of important information and your telcom all rolled into one. No modern state can live without them and their security and ownership are tantamount to independence. Does he want CIA planted backdoors in his office?

Re:M$/Corporate Lapdog.

[Anonymous Coward]

He expresses his support for patent law on the grounds that it "encourages enterprises to innovate, it attracts investments, [and] encourages individuals to ... develop new inventions." So? That's completely true.

Re:M$/Corporate Lapdog.

[darkwhite]

If standing up for French companies and citizens by supporting their software freedom is not important, I'm not sure what is. Foreign policy? Immigration policy? Policy toward the EU? Scientific research budgets? Any of about a zillion domestic issues?

Make no mistake, France has much bigger fish to fry than software development and patents, and for all the usual talk of the sky falling, the consumer computing industry has been in an excellent condition recently.

Re:M$/Corporate Lapdog.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If standing up for French companies and citizens by supporting their software freedom is not important, I'm not sure what is.

I really hope that's not true.

Your computer is your press, your store of important information and your telcom all rolled into one. No modern state can live without them and their security and ownership are tantamount to independence. Does he want CIA planted backdoors in his office?

Your sensationalist comments, and others like TFA itself, are exactly why free software isn't taken seriously by a lot of government figures.

Sarkozy's position is cautious and conservative, but I don't see how you can argue with his position that it is not the state's job to tell people how to use their computers. I would much rather have a government in favour of the people being able to make their own decisions about computing platforms than one that mandated anything, whether it be Microsoft Windows, Ubuntu Feisty, or whatever other pet OS some adviser loves today.

It all makes sense now.

[twitter]

Nicolas Sarkozy is a lawyer ... behind the introduction of voting machines without paper trail requirements ...

Now you know how he won. If any of you saw the name "Edwin Edwards" anywhere, the machine came from Louisiana.

Re:It all makes sense now.

[muadda]

Now you know how he won.

Only a small percentage of voters use voting machines (~3%). Almost all other cities choose to keep transparent ballot box, see the image below:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urne_DSCN1426.J PG

Re:It all makes sense now.

[twitter]

It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes.
-Josef Stalin

more of the same.

All the same, it's nice to know someone's election has it's integrity.

Re:Slavery is an old game

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell kind of off topic red herring racism is this?

Re:Voting on Tuesday!!!

[!coward]

Yeah, being a "foreign dog" myself, I never really got that about your (american, that is) elections.. Is there any historical reason for you NOT to hold them during the weekend (Sunday to be more exact -- as most countries do)?

Is it always on a fixed day of the month, week, or exactly X days since the last election? Is it a constitutional thing? It's just that the idea of holding elections on an otherwise typical/normal working day seems...well, kinda dumb (no offense meant). Isn't it more disruptive to businesses than holding them during the weekend or even on a national holiday? Even if you do get some abstention from people who are just too busy enjoying their days off to go vote.. Anyway, anyone kind enough to shed some light on this?

Anyway, not being french I really have no idea of what this spells for France, the EU and the international scene.. Can't say I got a good impression from Mrs Royal, but the whole riot issue and Sarkozy's inflammatory stance, at least in the beginning, don't bode well for the many tensions in France's society. Let's just hope he can keep it together. And, judging by all the people I've met and talked to during my stays in several french cities, his apparent overly pro-american stance (pro-american ADMINISTRATION -- not people) isn't something the french will take too kindly, especially if he takes to it like Blair did. In any case, it seems that France is due (and needs) some serious reforms.. Hope he makes it.

On a final note.. The few things I've heard and read about him, the man's not too keen on immigrants (France, not unlike the US, despite the mounting, and probably inevitable, social tension, has gained a whole lot from the many immigrant communities over the years).. Well, I guess good arguments could be made for both sides. But the part in the summary about requiring immigrants to learn how to speak French... Uhh, duh?! Feel free to keep your cultural identity, but how the hell do you plan on making a life on any (foreign) country if you can't/won't even bother learning the language? I mean, this isn't about being for or against immigrants, for or against deporting the whole lot, it's about expecting the very least of efforts to fit in.

Why divisive?

[DaveAtFraud]

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Why is learning the language and culture of the country you move to viewed as divisive? All of my grandparents came to the U.S. at around 1900 from eastern Europe. None of them expected to be able to continue speaking German or Lithuanian once they got here so they learned English. My parents, aunts and uncles all spoke English and succeeded in taking part in the "American dream" (house, education, kids went to college if they wanted to, etc.). That wouldn't have happened if they were still acting like they were still in the "old country."

Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed. How far would Sarkozy have goten if he only spoke Hungarian?

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Why divisive?

[frogstar_robot]

It's "divisive" because the Politically Correct idea of "cultural respect" is suiciding your own culture in order that an immigrant never feel uncomfortable or offended.

Re:Why divisive?

[RobertinXinyang]

Same here, when my family came to America my Grandmother forbade my father from speaking French and refused to teach us, the grandchildren, French. Her reasoning was simple, you are in America, you will be Americans. The device part is that after our family worked hard to become Ameticans, other imagrants are seen coming over and trying to make America the place they just left.

Of course, the counter point is that learning a new language is very hard and takes time. Having been in China about nine months I am just begining to be able to communicate on a VERY basic level. The residents need to be very patient with people that are learning (and the Chinese are) and offer assistance instead of rudeness.

Re:Why divisive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy wants foreign people speak French *before* they move to France !

US offer *free* English lessons in several Adult School.

I agree people leaving in a country should learn the local language so they can have
a social life ... and i do believe it is not realistic to ask them to learn a foreign
culture from their native country.

This is "divisive" because bottom line, his goal is to prevent foreign people from joining
their family working in France.

Re:Why divisive?

[Guppy06]

"Why is learning the language and culture of the country you move to viewed as divisive?"

Why must it be mandatory? Is it not possible to be a law-abiding citizen without having to assimilate? Is it impossible to value democracy and republicanism unless you speak French?

"All of my grandparents came to the U.S. at around 1900 from eastern Europe. None of them expected to be able to continue speaking German or Lithuanian once they got here so they learned English."

Bullshit. A century ago there were any number of communities in states like Wisconsin and Texas where you could go through your day speaking only German (at least). Half a century before that, the number of German newspapers and periodicals in publication in those states rivaled those in English. Even today, it's not all that difficult to buy a Lithuanian newspaper in places like Baltimore.

Now, your family may have felt a desire to become more "American" by demanding their children speak only English, but there are just as many who have taken a different tack and insisted that only their native tongue is spoken in their home. Either way, a naturalized citizen is a naturalized citizen and there should be no distinction between how the two are treated.

Despite what the far right would have us believe, English is more widely spoken in the United States today than it has ever been in the history of the Union.

"My parents, aunts and uncles all spoke English and succeeded in taking part in the "American dream" (house, education, kids went to college if they wanted to, etc.). That wouldn't have happened if they were still acting like they were still in the "old country.""

So all the ethnic neighborhoods in cities across the country with names like "Little Italy" are all falling apart with no opportunity for businesses while only the WASPs and their imitators survive? It's impossible to have a Protestant work ethic without actually being Protestant yourself?

Ever read about the early history of Bank of America?

Republics like France and the United States cannot preach the universality of their ideals while simultaneously demanding conformity to cultural norms to reap the full benefits. If there is to be a conflict between the ideals of the founding documents of both nations and the vague notions of "culture," the former must win; it is for the culture to adapt and change, not the ideals.

'Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed."

The best way to succeed is decided by the market, not by the dictates of politicians.

Re:Why divisive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy asks the immigrant to know the language *before* entering in the country. So, your grand parents would have not been able to enter in US with such law !
He is right wing, he does not want immigrants, and he just made those excuses (be able to speak the language, show your diplomas, etc.) to reduce to the maximum the immigration. He requested all illegal immigrants to go in their local civic center to be "legalized". When those people went in the civic center they had to live their addresses. In return most of them have *not* been legalized, and now the police knows where they live. Such method has been used by the gestapo (Nazi police) to get the Jews. This guy has no limit.
He wants to file DNA of every law breaker, that included a 8 years old boy who steeled a toy...

Re:Why divisive?

[khallow]

Why must it be mandatory? Is it not possible to be a law-abiding citizen without having to assimilate? Is it impossible to value democracy and republicanism unless you speak French?

I'd say yes. If you can't understand what your candidates and their critics are saying, then you aren't properly participating and hence aren't valuing democracy and republicanism.

Despite what the far right would have us believe, English is more widely spoken in the United States today than it has ever been in the history of the Union.

Try the year 1960. It was towards the end of the lull in immigration in the mid 20th Century.

Republics like France and the United States cannot preach the universality of their ideals while simultaneously demanding conformity to cultural norms to reap the full benefits. If there is to be a conflict between the ideals of the founding documents of both nations and the vague notions of "culture," the former must win; it is for the culture to adapt and change, not the ideals.

I agree here. But the existing cultures aren't the only ones that need to adapt.

Re:Why divisive?

[NeMon'ess]

Is it not possible to be a law-abiding citizen without having to assimilate?

If people don't want to assimilate, they should not become citizens. If they don't assimilate, they are taking over the country and trying to make it like where they came from. If the native French people as a whole don't want to eventually be living under an Islamic government, they should not let in everyone who wants to move there and remake the country that way. If France removed controls on immigration and let people freely move in, that's what could happen. Though I wonder about what the proportion would be of Eastern Europeans to African to Middle Eastern/North African.

Re:Why divisive?

[DaveAtFraud]

The best way to succeed is decided by the market, not by the dictates of politicians.

I couldn't agree with you more. That's exactly what the market does. Which explains why the people who try not to assimilate are marginalized and the people who assimilate succeed.

I'm pro-immigration. The U.S., in particular, has a long history of growing through immigration. I just point out that historically the immigrant groups who assimilated eventually succeeded. Those who fought or now fight assimilation, don't.

I don't want to see another government hand-out program that institutionalizes the problem. I'd like to see the people who have the most interest in being successful be given their best shot at succeeding. That means convincing anyone who moves to this country (or any nother country) to do their best to fit in. I didn't make that rule; it's the way every society works. Fit in: succeed. Stay separate: fail. Any potential immigrant who doesn't like that rule should stay home because that's what they're going to face.

Cheers,
Dave

P.S. Please don't make assumptions about how my family got along once they got to this country. What you said may be true for some but wasn't true for them.

Re:Why divisive?

[brightmidnight]

He wouldn't have gotten far, because he never knew Hungarian :) His dad was Hungarian, his mom was French and his parents were estranged. He rarely saw his dad and was never taught Hungarian.

Re:Why divisive?

[Guppy06]

"If people don't want to assimilate, they should not become citizens."

Why are you trying to give legal force to these unspoken "rules?" Why should immigrants be forced to go beyond the basic legal requirements of citizenship?

"If they don't assimilate, they are taking over the country and trying to make it like where they came from."

If the "they hate our freedom" argument held any water, they wouldn't be emigrating to begin with. But it is convenient to use to justify your requirements to assimilate as it attempts to justify your xenophobic attitude by making it into an "us or them" proposition. Does freedom of association only apply to those who you would be willing to associate with?

"If the native French people as a whole don't want to eventually be living under an Islamic government,"

Islam is wholly incompatible with republican ideals? Freedom for everybody, so long as you have a Christian background?

"they should not let in everyone who wants to move there and remake the country that way."

If French ideals and liberties can't be seen to apply to those from other cultures, then perhaps it's time to change the name of the document to the "Declaration of the Rights of White Men."

"If France removed controls on immigration and let people freely move in, that's what could happen."

Yeah, and accepting all those Catholic Irish immigrants managed to destroy the United States, I'm sure.

"Though I wonder about what the proportion would be of Eastern Europeans to African to Middle Eastern/North African."

If they are able to meet the requirements for naturalization, does it matter where they were born?

Re:Why divisive?

[Guppy06]

"Which explains why the people who try not to assimilate are marginalized and the people who assimilate succeed."

Do I really need to point out examples where both of these statements have ended up not being true?

"Those who fought or now fight assimilation, don't."

I'll keep that in mind next St. Patrick's Day.

"I don't want to see another government hand-out program that institutionalizes the problem. (...) That means convincing anyone who moves to this country (or any nother country) to do their best to fit in."

Pick one.

"Please don't make assumptions about how my family got along once they got to this country."

What else was there to expect from "None of them expected to be able to continue speaking German or Lithuanian once they got here so they learned English?"

Re:Why divisive?

[Cro Magnon]

I'll keep that in mind next St. Patrick's Day

Hmm, I see lots of people wearing green, but I've never heard any of them speaking Irish. Nor have any of those people with Irish names had any problem understanding me or fitting in with my Enligh-speaking American culture.

Re:Why divisive?

[DaveAtFraud]

"Those who fought or now fight assimilation, don't."

I'll keep that in mind next St. Patrick's Day.

And I'll be right there drinking green beer alongside you. No one said someone who immigrates has to drop every single aspect of their old life. The great thing about the U.S. throughout its history (and quite a few other countries more recently) has been the acceptance of other cultures up to a point. So, we all like celebrating St. Patty's Day, I go to Octoberfest every once in a while, etc. What isn't allowed are those behaviors that are at odds with our values and cultural norms.

So celebrate St. Patty's Day along with everybody else who's Irish for a day, drink some beer at Octoberfest, go out for some sushi, etc. Just don't try to import "the troubles" to this country, practice female circumcision, etc. If someone wishes to keep some tradition that doesn't fit with the local values and sets them apart from everyone else, that's up to them as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom. The consequences wil probably be that, to the extent they doesn't fit in, they'll have a harder time making it. It's not really all that tough.

And, no, it doesn't take a massive government program that supposedly makes that happen but which just institutionalizes the problem. It's only been since the days of "nanny government" that we seem to think that people are incapable of helping themselves.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Why divisive?

[Hognoxious]

Why should immigrants be forced to go beyond the basic legal requirements of citizenship?

Because it's not their country and being there is a privelige, not a right?

Re:Why divisive?

[Guppy06]

"Hmm, I see lots of people wearing green, but I've never heard any of them speaking Irish."

Catholic schools in this country would likely not exist if Irish Catholic immigrants hadn't pushed for their establishment to counter the Protestant assimilation efforts in US public schools. But US culture adapted to the papist wetbacks in its midst to the point of electing one president, while the Irish immigrants never did turn orange.

"Nor have any of those people with Irish names had any problem understanding me or fitting in with my Enligh-speaking American culture."

You seem to be assuming that it's always been that way.

Re:Why divisive?

[Guppy06]

"The great thing about the U.S. throughout its history (and quite a few other countries more recently) has been the acceptance of other cultures up to a point."

I bring up the Irish as an example of an immigrant group that fought very vigorously against assimilation (at bayonet point in Mexico, even), living in their own neighborhoods, choosing only to associate with each other, establishing their own schools to indoctrinate their children in an alien religion (that was greatly feared by the vast majority of Americans at the time). The Irish didn't assimilate to the United States so much as the United States assimilated to the Irish.

"Just don't try to import "the troubles" to this country,"

"The Troubles" is more or less why the Irish are here to begin with. And they didn't bring "trouble" so much as it found them, thanks to the common heritage of the English and the natural-born Americans. The only reason this has faded from conscious memory today has less to do with the Irish being better able to assimilate to Protestant America than to Protestant England and more to do with America doing a better job of adapting itself to Catholic citizens.

"If someone wishes to keep some tradition that doesn't fit with the local values and sets them apart from everyone else, that's up to them as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom."

Here you seem to be saying that immigrants should only be required to learn and abide by the law (my stance), rather than going the further step of "insisting that immigrants learn the language and the culture" of your first post.

Re:Why divisive?

[Guppy06]

"Because it's not their country and being there is a privelige, not a right?"

So they're citizens, but only second-class citizens? It would be far more ethical to refuse entry to begin with.

Re:Why divisive?

[DaveAtFraud]

"If someone wishes to keep some tradition that doesn't fit with the local values and sets them apart from everyone else, that's up to them as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom."

Here you seem to be saying that immigrants should only be required to learn and abide by the law (my stance), rather than going the further step of "insisting that immigrants learn the language and the culture" of your first post.

They are free (at least in the U.S.) to do anything that isn't against the law. I only point out that the more they assimilate into society, the more likely they are to succeed. When you can't speak the language, people can take advantage of you. The better you understand the language and culture, the better off you are in terms of types of employment open, knowing when someone is trying to pull some scam, etc.

Immigrants are free not to learn the language or the culture where they settle but refusing to do so is at their peril. I'm not looking for Congress to pass a law; the laws of economics are quite sufficient to enforce this. If you can't speak the language, chanes are that only the most menial jobs are open to you. The question is how to get those who have chosen to re-locate to understand this. They have the power to do anything they are capable of but chances are they will only succeed if they learn the language, culture, etc.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Why divisive?

[NeMon'ess]

Why are you trying to give legal force to these unspoken "rules?" Why should immigrants be forced to go beyond the basic legal requirements of citizenship?

Natural-born citizens are allowed to live their lives as slackers if they want to. Many Western countries will not people who lack skills immigrate. There's already a higher bar for immigrants. Part of that bar should be immigrants should want to be a part of the country they're joining. Not learning and participating in the common language, politics, and culture is not taking part.

If the "they hate our freedom" argument held any water, they wouldn't be emigrating to begin with. But it is convenient to use to justify your requirements to assimilate as it attempts to justify your xenophobic attitude by making it into an "us or them" proposition. Does freedom of association only apply to those who you would be willing to associate with?

Your presumptions are so off the mark it's comical. You shouldn't be presuming anyway unless you're pretty sure of my position.

When I say "they", it should be clear to you I'm not talking about ALL immigrants. I'm only talking about the people who don't want to assimilate.

Islam is wholly incompatible with republican ideals? Freedom for everybody, so long as you have a Christian background?

Never said that either, genius. Stop making broad generalizations. Of course Islam is NOT WHOLLY incompatible with republican ideals. However, parts of Islam are incompatible. Depending on how the Koran is interpreted, an Islamic government will seek limits to more or less of those ideals. Look at Islam in Turkey or Indonesia for examples of how it is changing laws and freedoms. Look at many parts of the USA to see how more extreme interpretations of the Bible have changed laws and freedoms.

If French ideals and liberties can't be seen to apply to those from other cultures, then perhaps it's time to change the name of the document to the "Declaration of the Rights of White Men."

Or perhaps that's again nonsense. We're still talking about people who don't want to assimilate, but want to become citizens. It's these people who fail to recognize the importance of the French ideals and liberties.

Yeah, and accepting all those Catholic Irish immigrants managed to destroy the United States, I'm sure.

How different were the laws in Ireland compared to the laws in the USA at the time of the immigration wave? Right. Now compare the laws of France to Sharia. Oops, looks more like apples and oranges doesn't it?

If they are able to meet the requirements for naturalization, does it matter where they were born?

One final time you misunderstand. I'm considering the possibility that enough Eastern Europeans and non-Muslim Africans will immigrate as well to dilute the influence of the North Africans and Middle Eastern immigrants.

Re:Why divisive?

[Guppy06]

"Natural-born citizens are allowed to live their lives as slackers if they want to."

And what, exactly, makes establishing a second class citizenship either ethical or just, let alone democratic or republican?

"Not learning and participating in the common language, politics, and culture is not taking part."

You're presuming that it is not possible to take part in the politics or even the language without also having to conform to the "culture."

"When I say "they", it should be clear to you I'm not talking about ALL immigrants. I'm only talking about the people who don't want to assimilate."

This seems only to reinforce my statement that you seem to believe that freedom of association should only be extended to those you would choose to associate with. Your only basis for denying a naturalized citizen all the rights and privileges they are entitled to is whether or not they modify their own personal behavior to better suit your tastes.

"Look at many parts of the USA to see how more extreme interpretations of the Bible have changed laws and freedoms."

And yet, as natural-born citizens, their rights to have noxious opinions, join cults and indoctrinate their children in their distasteful habits is protected by the constitution so long as they don't affect anybody unwillingly. You would deny extending those same rights, privileges and protections to naturalized citizens based solely on their birthplace.

"We're still talking about people who don't want to assimilate, but want to become citizens. It's these people who fail to recognize the importance of the French ideals and liberties."

If it were truly necessary to be assimilated in French culture to truly grasp the ideals laid out in the Declaration, then the English-speaking United States would not be a republic. The whole point of the document is that it is the "Rights of Man," not "Rights of French Man." Picking and choosing who was entitled to these rights and who was not based on the nature of their birth and upbringing would have been no better than the arguments used by the ancien regime to justify their monarchical rule.

If language and culture and religion were truly so necessary to grasp, understand, appreciate and exercise the rights and privileges we hold sacred, then only France or the United States would be a liberal democracy, not both.

"How different were the laws in Ireland compared to the laws in the USA at the time of the immigration wave?"

Except that I'm the one here arguing that adherence to the law should be the only demand made of naturalized citizens, you're the one insisting that adherence to cultural mores should be added to the list of requirements. Besides, Catholic Irish weren't involved in making laws in Ireland at the time, which is why they left.

"One final time you misunderstand. I'm considering the possibility that enough Eastern Europeans and non-Muslim Africans will immigrate as well to dilute the influence of the North Africans and Middle Eastern immigrants."

No, you don't understand, so I'll repeat the question: If a person meets the legal requirements for citizenship, what does it matter where they were born? Not only have you decided to put naturalized citizens on a lower tier than natural-born citizens, but now you seem to be subdividing the naturalized people, declaring some countries of origin more desirable than others. Maybe you had best exclude the Chinese while you're at it.

Re:Why divisive?

[NeMon'ess]

And what, exactly, makes establishing a second class citizenship either ethical or just, let alone democratic or republican?

There isn't. Once the immigrant becomes a citizen, he or she can become a slacker just like the natural-born.

You're presuming that it is not possible to take part in the politics or even the language without also having to conform to the "culture."

Hardly, culture can be a broad term. If it helps, ignore that word and focus on immigrants who aren't learning and participating in the language and politics.

Your only basis for denying a naturalized citizen all the rights and privileges they are entitled to is whether or not they modify their own personal behavior to better suit your tastes... You would deny extending those same rights, privileges and protections to naturalized citizens based solely on their birthplace.

Nope. Once immigrants become naturalized citizens they have all those rights and privileges. They have become naturalized citizens first though.

If it were truly necessary to be assimilated in French culture to truly grasp the ideals laid out in the Declaration, then the English-speaking United States would not be a republic. The whole point of the document is that it is the "Rights of Man," not "Rights of French Man." Picking and choosing who was entitled to these rights and who was not based on the nature of their birth and upbringing would have been no better than the arguments used by the ancien regime to justify their monarchical rule.

That is a non sequitur. Sure there are translations of French and English writings, but we're talking about people who don't want to read them.

Except that I'm the one here arguing that adherence to the law should be the only demand made of naturalized citizens,

We agree there.

you're the one insisting that adherence to cultural mores should be added to the list of requirements.

Not once they're citizens. I'm not saying adherence either. I'm just saying learn the language, learn and ideally participate in the politics, and want to integrate into the culture.

Besides, Catholic Irish weren't involved in making laws in Ireland at the time, which is why they left.

Non sequitur. How different were the laws in Ireland compared to the United States as compared to the differences between the laws of France and Sharia?

If a person meets the legal requirements for citizenship, what does it matter where they were born?

It doesn't. As long as they meet those requirements. The French may chose to require wannabe citizens learn the language, politics, and culture. How much or how well is another question.

Not only have you decided to put naturalized citizens on a lower tier than natural-born citizens, but now you seem to be subdividing the naturalized people, declaring some countries of origin more desirable than others

I answered the first part earlier. As for the second, I would equally welcome North Africans and Middle Easterners who want to or already know the native language, politics, and culture. Read back and you'll see I was hypothesizing on what if France removed controls on immigration and let people freely move in. Would it become an Islamic State, or would immigration from other places preclude that?

Re:Why divisive?

[iminplaya]

You seem to be on the right path. Let's really do the right thing, and tear down the fences completely once and for all. In truth, nobody owns the rock we live on. It's time to remove the authority of those who think they do. It is a bizarre world where anyone can get anywhere on the planet in less than 24 hours, but takes months, maybe years to get permission. Freedom to travel and live where one pleases is essential. We go out of our way to not interfere with migrating animals when we build our pipelines and windmills. Why won't we show the same respect to humans? Of course the question is rhetorical. The most fleeting knowledge of animal psychology provides all the answers.

This won't change much...

[AlXtreme]

To all the slashdotters commenting that they might now call "Freedom Fries" "French Fries" because of a change of politics in France: think again. Sarkozy is Chirac's protege, the same Chirac that questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq. This election means that (nearly) nothing will change.

The french socialists are very left-wing, even for Europe. The policy of Chirac and Sarkozy is much more similar to that of US-Democrats than the policy of the Republicans.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité, mon ami francais!

Re:This won't change much...

[Beretta Vexe]

Sarkozy is Chirac's protege

Hum, Chirac totally dislike Sarkozy, he see him as a treat after Sarkozy support to Balladur in 1995. Chirac is a Gaulist, Sarkozy is an atlantist. If Chirac and Sarkozy are in the same party, it's only because sarkozy make a political hold up on the UMP.

the same Chirac that questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq

Where are the mass destruction weapon ?

The policy of Chirac and Sarkozy is much more similar to that of US-Democrats than the policy of the Republicans.

Sorry but French politic don't fit in your bi-party scheme.

Re:This won't change much...

[CanarDuck]

Sarkozy is Chirac's protege Sorry, but you have obviously no idea what you're talking about. There has been a long-standing and bitter feud between Chirac and Sarkozy in the last years, with Chirac doing everything he could to promote other "proteges" of his instead of Sarkozy for the nomination as the right-wing candidate (obviously, he failed).

One of the main axes of Sarkozy's campaign was to herald a "rupture" in french politics. He did everything he could NOT to put himself in the heritage of Chirac (whose popularity in France has been extremely low in the past years) and to distance himself from Chirac as much as he could.

One of the things Sarkozy did during his campaign was to make a trip to the US to essentially tell GWB how much he disagreed with Chirac and his past decisions (about Iraq in particular).

In his first speech today after his victory, Sarkozy recalled that France and the US are allies before all, before adding something about divergences about Kyoto (obviously, he had to introduce some balancing factor in his discourse on this topic, but the fact that he mentioned it is significant)

Re:This won't change much...

[rv_mAdZeRG]

• Sarkozy is Chirac's protege

ahahahah ahah ahaha ! Sorry ... ;) Sarkozy betrayed Chirac during the 1995 "elections" so I don't think Chirac helped him to make his way to the "Elysée" !!

Re:This won't change much...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of cource, frenched fries are not French by any means, they're Belgian!

divisive? political correctness in action?

[porky_pig_jr]

nowdays requirement for the immigrants to learn the western values and the language of the country they live is called 'divisive'. what is the alternative? Nowdays both France and England are filled with pakis and arabs hating the West, kind of a bomb about to explode (in fact already started exploding).

Re:divisive? political correctness in action?

[Cappadonna]

Nowdays both France and England are filled with pakis and arabs hating the West, kind of a bomb about to explode (in fact already started exploding). You know its ironic that westerns are complaining about brown people from their former colonies moving to the mother land when its was our policies and meddling that screwed these places in the first place. The five permanent members of the UN (France, US,UK, Russia and China) have been meddling in 3rd affairs and robbing these countries blind for decades. Its called chickens coming home to roost. And until we change the way we do a lot of things, we are going to be complaining about Brown people (b/c Sarkozy, Dobbs or any of these other Western Xenophobes ain't complaining about white Russians) invading our lily white landscape. Speaking of politically correct, the word 'Paki' is equivalent to calling a Black person the N-word. Its offense slashdotters, lets ry not use it.

Re:divisive? political correctness in action?

[brightmidnight]

Actually, the problems in both England and France (the ones bombing the subway, plotting to blow up planes in England and setting cars on fire outside of Paris) are second- or third-generation immigrants. Their parents completely assimilated to the extent that many of their parents didn't practice Islam much at all, and when the disenchanted kids hear a bit more about Islam on a trip home to Pakistan, they fall completely into it and want to bomb their home countries. I have no idea why this is, but it's not a matter of immigrants assimilating because their parents have already assimilated completely in most cases.

Re:divisive? political correctness in action?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pakis"?! Where's the "mod poster racist idiot" button?

Re:divisive? political correctness in action?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, 1995 called, they are recalling all the Politically Correct fanboys. You guys have screwed the world over. But you have failed miserably in your quest to forcibly instill white guilt and self-hate into generations of innocent descendents just because of the color of their skin.

You have failed; go fall on your sword.

Conquest is fair and square.

[Anonymous Coward]

Conquest is fair and square.
Conquest ... used and accepted worldwide for over 6,000 years.

Re:He's a Neocon Puppet

[dredre123]

BERLUSCONI (not Burlesconi), I'd correct the rest of your non-spelling related errors, but I shan't feed the trolls.

Re:Slavery is an old game

[Anonymous Coward]

Just crybabies being crybabies--sore losers! They believe in democracy up until the moment they lose, then they cry like babies.

Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[BlackCobra43]

...but not an idiot. Of course he won't help you in Iraq, that's YOUR mess everyone told you to stay out of and now YOU will clean it up or leave with your tail between your legs.

Re:Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[halivar]

everyone told you to stay out of and now YOU will clean it up

Everyone that made under-the-deal tables with Saddam in violation of UN-imposed sanctions (*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*) bought a piece of the pie. As expected, we're picking up the tab for it.

By the way, remember Vietnam? That was France's mess we ended up trying to clean up. I don't really think they have a leg to stand on with this kind of hypocritical chiding.

Re:Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[TempeTerra]

Hussein was complying, grumpily, with UN inspections. The US is the aggressor in a war which was no more necessary than one against any other murderous despot. It sucks that you started it, and it sucks that you can't get out of it without leaving the country as a wilderness of genocidal lawlessness, but it's your baby.

Re:Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[Yvanhoe]

By the way, remember Vietnam? That was France's mess we ended up trying to clean up. I don't really think they have a leg to stand on with this kind of hypocritical chiding. Off-topic and troll but I like to jump on these :-)
Vietnam was then called Indochine. We made a mess and we pulled out, we recommended US to not engage in this but neverless, they went.

Re:Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[halivar]

I wasn't talking about UN inspections. I was talking about UN sanctions. And no, neither Hussein, France, or Russia were complying, grumpily or otherwise, with those.

Re:Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[halivar]

Huh? This isn't even remotely correct. The French petitioned for US intervention in exchange for increased support of US policies in NATO. Is this what French kids are taught in history class?

Choice quotes gathered from Wiki:

"France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of IndoChina are entitled to something better than that." - Roosevelt on Vietnam

"The U.S. came to the aid of the French ... because we needed their support for our policies in regard to NATO .... The French blackmailed us. At every meeting ... they brought up Indochina .... but refused to tell me what they hoped to accomplish or how. Perhaps they didn't know." - Dean Acheson, Secretary of State

Re:Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[Yvanhoe]

Yeah, that's what I was taught but you made me doubt. After a few wikipedia readings here is what I see :
* Indochine war ended in 1954, with French troops retiring
* Vietnam war started in 1959
* Dean Acheson was in office from 1949 to 1953

So, as much as I agree on your quotes, I think that French asked for american help during their war, before their withdrawal. After that there has been constant American support of the South-Vietnamese government and the war broke to prevent the "domino effect", then popular theory in Washington.
And I think that what disturbed France was that the South-Vietnamese government wasn't fairly elected. That is a bit hypocrite, I have to agree : the fight against communism was also in France's interests.

Re:Sarkozy is a right-winger...

[halivar]

You're right about the dates. Starting in 1954 (just prior to the French exit), the US began heavily supplying arms and supplies to French-Indochinese forces. So, while there was not yet armed conflict with the north, there was still significant military investment in the war by America.

Personally, I'm not sure we even took the right side in the conflict (Diem's government was incredibly corrupt, and his anti-communist policies galvanized hard-line communists in the north); but such is the way of America's "buddy" list. There was no way we were ever going to support the opposite side of France.

huh

[Anonymous Coward]

News for nerds, stuff that matters?

Re:Voting on Tuesday!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It dates to 1845. Combine some odd regulations with someone being able to count, and it always falls on "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November." Some states have this date as an official holiday, but it is not yet a national-level holiday.

As for why we don't change...tradition? Inertia? I don't know. It'd be an awesome experiment to try to change it to Saturday or Sunday...but I'm not sure that'll happen in my lifetime.

Americans are Der Juden

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate Americans.
I am happy an American got beheaded.
I wish more Americans had died on Sep. 11.
I hate the Jew Puppet George W. Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburten.
I hate white men, even if I am a white man.
I hate Israelis.
I beleive that people that blow up Jewish children are justified and moral heros.
My hate is politically correct hate.
I am popular because of who I hate.
I get modded up when I say these things on Slashdot.

divisive?

[folstaff]

With 85% of the population voting in a run-off election, how can this fellow be considered divisive without his conservative label? It is political rhetoric. If a politician says government cannot repair every ill of its populace, divisive is the first three syllables of slander.

Additive

[toddhisattva]

I thought segolene was an anti-knock additive.

About the French 'assimilation'

[miguelX]

I've lived for 2 1/2 years in France, and now I'm living in the U.S. for sometime (I'm of Spanish origin, btw).

The problem with the French system of assimilation is not the requirement of learning the language and the culture, which is already imposed by the market if you _ever_ want to work as anything but a streetcleaner, 'la France' being one of the countries where having a general culture and being able of expressing yourself correctly is most appreciated.

This said, French people are very often extremly dismissive of foreigners' perspective on culture and society: as an example, it is not at all uncommon for the schoolchildren of the colonial territories (DOM-TOM) to have to learn 'our ancestors the Gauls'

French and (U.S.) American people are both extremely patriotic (compared to, for example, Spain or Germany), and therein lies very often the root for immigration conflict: there is a tendency to dissaprove any societal change unless it originates within the confines of the socalled 'old French' / 'old Americans'. Respect for the basic values should already be implicit in the law, but inmigrants will transform society as the bring to the table their own cultures. This, I believe, is far better understood in the U.S. than in France (I'm frequently astonished to see how fast Spanish is becoming a 'de facto' second language, even as far to the North as Massachusetts).

Re:About the French 'assimilation'

[Catbeller]

As tolerant of immigration as I am, I must say that the French have a point. They're not really worried about people not speaking French as much as they are rightly perceiving that they are being colonized by Muslim nations. The immigrants, especially the young adults, really aren't showing much intention of adopting western ideas about women, religious tolerance, etc. It's not paranoid if they really aren't assimilating. Risking skating close to the rightists on this, I would be worried too. The intolerance feeds suspicion on the part of the host country, which becomes validated when a kid blows away a filmmaker or a girl who shows ankle. Then the circle of anger starts, feeding on every incident of violence or inability to find a good job.

Is it really so unreasonable to expect immigrants to become French? If they don't wish to become French or even western, then why not just stay in their home country? Really, the west is not obligated to absorb the runaway population growth of the hyperreligious nations of the world.

Re:About the French 'assimilation'

[FranklinDelanoBluth]

French and (U.S.) American people are both extremely patriotic (compared to, for example, Spain or Germany)...

I think you're forgetting the Fascist/Nationalist movements that occurred in both Spain and Germany within the last century. I'm afraid very few countries are free from the scourge of nationalism/extreme patriotism.

Re:About the French 'assimilation'

[miguelX]

I wholeheartedly agree, but I consider that (maybe beacause they have suffered the worst consequences of nationalism in their own blood) in some of these countries (Spain and Germany come to mind, but one may also consider Portugal, and most nordic countries) expressions of 'patriotism' and display of national symbols are less common (in the u.s. and france, everything seems to be 3-colored :P)

Re:About the French 'assimilation'

[brightmidnight]

Actually, it's often the French themselves who don't practice religious tolerance: they banned Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools. They believe in a secular state and take it to the extent of not practicing freedom of religion.

Re:About the French 'assimilation'

[fsmunoz]

I don't think it's wrong for them to learn about the Gauls. I'm sure you learned about Celtiberians in Spain, and El Cid. Here in Portugal Viriato and the Lusitanians are part of the classes on national identity (for now, I'm sure some PC character will remove it since it is beginning to happen what you said: the african immigrants that arrived since the 70's don't actually - surprise surprise! - relate that much with an obscure celtiberian tribe... they must be racist though :) ). To change what you teach in order to accomodate people that you assume will not relate with the subject is actually an admission that mass migration of ethnically disimilar populations changes the character of the host nation and makes it compromise its original values. Maybe we should stop teaching about slavery. Maybe we should talk speaking with joy about the Reconquista. Lets all dive in into absolute relativism, were every single view must be bland and neutral as not to offend anybody.

FWIW, I agree that the French model doesn't work. I also agree that the English model doesn't work. I have been to Spain, and it doesn't seem to work there. Hell, it isn't working here in Portugal - although we still have our underground system intact for now, it's worsening enough to fuel the growth of the extreme-right. So, what - if any - method of integrating large ammounts of people from culturally and ethnically distinct backgrounds work (more interest in European answers, the Americas are a different subject altogether)?

Re:About the French 'assimilation'

[Hognoxious]

They have freedom of religion - at home and in their own time. If you want to see religious intolerance, get on a plane to a muslim country with a few bottles of communion wine and a bible or two.

What does the French President actually do?

[Glowing Fish]

And will this actually make much of a difference?

I know that in some countries, the presidency is almost entirely ceremonial. In most countries, it is more ceremonial than it seems. People often get worked up about who the president is, but its usually not as big of a factor as it seems. In the United States, the past eight years have seen a powerful executive, but only because the legislative branch was along for the ride, and the public was either cowed or supportive.

Re:What does the French President actually do?

[Beretta Vexe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Fren ch_Republic Few ceremonial thing: * name the prime minister * promulgates laws * dissolve the Assembly * large influence on foreign policy * commander-in-chief of the armed forces * use of the Nuclear Forces Optional: * Have mistress * Drink Beer

Re:What does the French President actually do?

[rlp]

* name the prime minister * promulgates laws * dissolve the Assembly * large influence on foreign policy * commander-in-chief of the armed forces * use of the Nuclear Forces Optional: * Have mistress * Drink Beer

Bzzzt WRONG!! You were doing real well till the end. The correct answer was: * name the prime minister * etc. etc. ... Drink Wine

Re:What does the French President actually do?

[brightmidnight]

The French president has more powers than any in Europe, and is half-king. They can even dissolve the National Assembly. It definitely matters.

Re:What does the French President actually do?

[aadvancedGIR]

The French president is elected to drive the political program he proposed to the electors, he chose the prime minister (and the other ministers are usualy chosen by mutual agreement of the two) whose only purpose is implement the president's choices and take the backfires. If the is a conflict with the parlement, the parlement can only force the ministers out, to which the president can respond by calling a new election to get a new parlement. If members of the government disagree, he gets the final decision.

He is also chief of the armies (and the only one who has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons unless the whole country has been vaporized, in which case our submarine(s?) on duty is supposed to retaliate at random), he is also the highest judge of the country (the presidence is sometimes called "magistrature suprème") and has the right to chose who to put in a lot of key positions.

Another thing that is not in the constitution but that is a strong tradition is that the president acts as a kind of super-diplomat for important matters.

For historical reasons, he is also co-prince of Andore with the king of Spain, but that's almost a joke (Andore is a tiny valley between France and Spain, its economy relies mostly on re-exporting as duty-free imported gas, alchool and cigarettes).

Re:What does the French President actually do?

[Beretta Vexe]

Chirac is know to beer drinker. What's kind of Beer is another debate ( some rumor and humorist say corona ). http://www.eubusiness.com/news_live/1174842013.19/

Re:What does the French President actually do?

[Corporate Troll]

I don't know about Sarkozy, but Chirac was a beer-lover... So, in that context he was right.

Re:What does the French President actually do?

[TableTopJoe]

For historical reasons, he is also co-prince of Andore with the king of Spain,

Actually, the King of Spain isn't the coprince of Andorre. The Bishop of Urgell is, alongside with the French President.

Unfortunately they know of 2 bad precedents

[sethstorm]

When dealing with the business class, trust not in them with politics or economics for they will sell you down the river. Thankfully there are 2 well-known incidents that have proven this("PATCO" Reagan and "The Butcher" Thatcher) - and hopefully Sarko will be aware that he doesnt have much of a chance of stemming the violence ahead (much less being able to appeal to nation outside of resigning).

Re:Unfortunately they know of 2 bad precedents

[yndrd1984]

trust not in them with politics or economics ... Reagan and Thatcher

Oddly enough, economics is the thing I'd trust both of them with the most. If you look at the policies before them, like price and wage freezes, FBI investigations of the size of sandwiches on airplanes, and insanely high tax rates, they seem very reasonable.

Economics, the only science where ethics and morality are thrown out the window.

So you throw out scientific conclusions because they don't fit your moral ideology. That explains a lot about your post.

Re:Unfortunately they know of 2 bad precedents

[sethstorm]

So you throw out scientific conclusions because they don't fit your moral ideology. That explains a lot about your post.

Incomplete answer - but it's not as if there aren't people who think Detroit is a problem solved by selling out one's nation and prosperity for a bit more seed corn.

Well, when they all leave out the important question of how society will take to such transitions - the water just does not hold up. That is, the numbers may tell one thing, but when put in the world, they don't always come out how they're supposed to be. That means that the displaced are more than just cold statistics, they are people who have actual lives.

The displaced are just not "the part that you makes you persist until they all die off". They are the population that can see that you broke something that worked, and have the goal of repairing that any way possible on their terms. That is, you messed with something that worked, and the longer time between the displacement and the solution that passes - the less likely they're going to include you.

In short, there is a certain immeasurable component to implementing an economic solution. They know full well that this isn't honest science, it's drawn out economic torture that only has the near-certainty of it.

Was there ever any doubt?

[Anonymous Meoward]

I've heard Mme. Royal speak, and to be honest, I'm amazed she got as far as she did.

I'm no fan of Sarko or Bush, but come on people, was this really the best the opposition could do? The Socialists would have been better off kidnapping John Kerry.

He may be a stuffed shirt, but at least the guy knows how to comport himself in public, ferchrissakes. (Besides, I hear he speaks French.) Sego came across as a reactive banshee who would promise anything to get elected -- think of the evil spawn of Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton.

Ew. On second thought, don't. I need to take a shower after that one..

Re:Was there ever any doubt?

[Anonymous Coward]

think of the evil spawn of Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton. ... I need to take a shower after that one.. Cold shower?

Ils ont choisi mal.

[sethstorm]

Think of Royal as George W. Bush being a socialist woman. Damn scary.
Think of Sarko as the equivalent of Ronald "PATCO" Reagan. Even worse in terms of "screw the nation, there's money to be had!"

Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko.

[sethstorm]

Actually, he's really more like Bush, but tries to cater to workers at the same time. And "Sarkozy l'Americain" wasn't such a deadly insult, it appears, since more than 53% of the French voted for him.
Workers- don't you mean businesses? It'll be entertaining to see history repeat itself over there as that nation falls to the concept of "businesses are $DEITY and shall not be interfered with".
Mind that the AFL-CIO supported Reagan, and unwittingly wrote their own demise - less than 2 years after the election. The 35-hour limit could be what got him in the door, and what will turn the last nation to prosper and hold off globalization's worst at the gates to its demise.

The only thing going right is that they have the sense to stand up over there, even if it's the riots.

Divisions makers

[alexhs]

You speak as if the politicians are creating the divisions, Because I really believe that's the case. While I mostly agree agree with you, it's not completely true. It's both politicians and media.
Of course, most viewed / heard / read media in France are in the hands of friends of Sarkozy.
--
La France est le seul pays du monde où, si vous ajoutez dix citoyens à dix autres, vous ne faites pas une addition, mais vingt divisions. [Pierre Daninos]
(France is the only country in the world where, if you add ten citizens to ten others, you don't make an addition, but twenty divisions.)

Re:He's a Neocon Puppet

[fireylord]

you sir, have made the ****wit list. the Scottish vote was not fixed since it, er, appears that all parties lost equal numbers of votes through rejected ballots. Hardly a fix. (Although to be fair i think there could be a case for a reballot in all areas where the winning margin was less than the number of spoilt ballots- there would be problems in doing this however)

Re:He's a Neocon Puppet

[iminplaya]

We got to face the facts. People prefer to be sheep because it's easy and convenient. It's too bad that they are dragging the rest of us to the slaughter with them. And as I said, it doesn't matter who leads us there, the problem is that we follow. Sorry about the bad mod.

I am Sarkozy of France. You shall be Assimilated!

[ShagratTheTitleless]

It takes more than geography to make true countrymen; You must be able to communicate in a common language and expect the same form of government and social norms. If you will not speak French and will not accept liberal secular democracy and the prevailing culture, France will never be your home, nor should it be: guests should be gracious. Those who are not will eventually find less welcome. I wish the French people and those who sincerely want to be adopted by them good luck. Go Sarky!

The diversity illusion holds US Leftists together.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a book called Who Are We? that asks & answers a lot of these questions about America.

But the answer to why the Left gets foaming at the mouth when anyone raises the issues, is that the mere raising of the issues calls in to question the entire ideology that the Left has been based on for decades. Equality, multiculturalism, diversity, oppressing White Christians, etc. It is the foundation that holds together a conglomeration of various groups that have nothing else in common, except their shared hate of the 'traditional society.' Without these, today's Left has only it's socialist economic policies to rely on; and that is an awful rickety wagon these days. Just look at the Socialists in France.

Re:Voting on Tuesday!!!

[!coward]

Ahh.. in other words, "tradition". Yup, like many others, given enough time, the simple fact that it's been done for so long is reason enough to keep on doing it, regardless of what originated it. And on that regard, my friend, Europe is definitely riddled with more than its fair share of stupid traditions.

Seems like the sensible thing to do then would be to make it a national-level holiday. Sure, it's one less day's worth of productivity, but your economy can certainly take it if the trade-off is that people won't have any work- or time-related constraints stopping them from showing up (and facing the occasional lengthy lines).

Just a final thought: over here (Portugal), holding elections during weekends is especially useful because you get that extra day off (ie, Saturday) to set up all the voting booths and whatnot.. Considering that the whole thing takes some time and that most of the voting assemblies are placed in schools, it keeps the schools from closing (for at least the afternoon before). I suppose you guys over there set it up somewhere else.

Oh, and about "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November..." I'm supposing it means it can't be the 1st Tuesday if that day happens to be Nov, 1st, right? Any reason why it HAS to be a Tuesday Nov, 2nd to 8th? [sorry, I'm just really curious about these little details -- I'm still fantasizing that that date had some special meaning back in the 1840s]

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[mehgul]

Hey, I was mostly replying to the comparison with Blair. I voted for Royal.

Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[reporter]

The election in France will almost prove to be the single most important event in this decade, for this election signals a tidal shift back to asserting that Western values are superior. This tidal shift will be resolutely proved if the French citizens give control of the French National Assembly to pro-Sarkozy politicians in June.

Note that Sarkozy is not a neoconservative in the American sense. In European culture, he may seem very conservative, but in American culture, he is mostly a moderate populist.

Allow me to elaborate. First, he opposes an open-border policy. Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages. American agribusiness, not just Hispanic groups like La Raza, are the strongest advocates for allowing the importation of desperate foreign labor.

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

Second, Sarkozy supports globalization with only other free markets. So, he supports the European Union. However, he opposes fake free trade with non-free markets like India. He realizes that this kind of trade drives down the quality of life in France. He realizes that combining a free market and a non-free market damages the operation of the free market.

By contrast, American neoconservatives favor fake free trade with non-free markets like India.

Nonetheless, Sarkozy will (if the legislative election in June is favorable) will vastly transform France. It will not be the brutal kind (i.e., 14+ hours of work by illegal aliens) of capitalism in America. Rather, France will be a kinder, gentler economic superpower. If he succeeds (and I think that he will), I would likely prefer to live in France instead of America.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[king-manic]

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration

Cho's parents were aware of his erratic behavior. They didn't know what to do with it. How you help your son who's all of a sudden gone weird? Most of us would chalk it up to growing up since most of our kids aren't murderous pathetic narcissistic sociopaths. My parents were asian immigrants who worked 14h days and I came out fine.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[footNipple]

Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

Let me get this straight. It's your assertion that the hard work and long hours of American/Immigrant parents cause the mental degeneration of their children? And BTW, what the hell is a "neoconservative" in the context that you're using the term?

And your dreck was moderated "informative"...jeez

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Neoconservative" is a liberal propaganda term. I have never heard anyone describe themself as a "neocon". Conservatives just call themselves conservatives. They've no need to invent a new name for themselves.

And as you correctly observe, the OP is dreck.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages.

Huh?

First off, liberals don't know anymore what "neoconservative" actually means. It referred to Jews in the 1980s who supported Reagan. They use it today in short form, "neocon," because it sounds evil and war-like.

Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[pi_rules]

Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

I'm pretty solidly in the conservative camp and voted for Bush in 2004 but I have issues with working long hours dumping somebody into the neocon camp. I detest the neocon thinking as it is not conservative. I regret my vote for Dubya.

In my junior year of high school I pulled 60+ hour work weeks while still attending high school. My senior year I pulled 40+ hour work weeks while still attending school and competing in Track. I left the family busines but I'm the only one that has.

My father has clocked up to 106 hours a week at the family business. My brother considers it a day off when he only works 7.5 hours there this time of year. Still works 7 days a week though.

We're not immigrants. My great grandfather floated over here from the Old Country on a boat when he was 4, and at 18 set out as a share cropper. He tilled his first field with a borrowed shovel as he didn't have enough money to buy a damned shovel. He died in 2002 at the age of 86 and I went back to work after his funeral that day because that was how I was raised: You do your job.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[skogs]

Economic Superpower???

You mean like America, China, Russia, India ....

I don't care if French people all start oozing gold from their noses into tissue...they'll never even come close to an economic superpower.

A strong, vibrant economy is sure to be had...but superpower is just plain not possible when you are significantly smaller than say...all the other superpowers.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[snilloc]

That's not entirely historically accurate. There was once a time when "new conservatives" such as Irving Kristol opposed Marxism, generally favored freedom in its various forms, but were distinct from "cultural conservatives" (ie Pat Buchanan) and from libertarians. One might say that Kristol's son Bill Kristol and others writing for "The Weekly Standard" carry some neocon heritage, but the term has become pejorative as it has simultaneously lost its historical perspective in the absence of the Soviet government.

Full disclosure, I let my year-long subscription to The Weekly Standard lapse recently. I found it to be a good publication, but I'm currently giving National Review a shot and I don't have time to read them both. Stephen Hayes is my favorite TWS contributor.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

Funny, I didn't know that an evil capitalist controlled all 95% of the USA's laundromats, and all of those people that worked incredible hours at those places were just serving some corporate master.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[cduffy]

There's no question, though, that the branch of conservatives we've seen in power recently (personified principally by GW) is not the same variety we used to have.

Old conservatives were fiscally conservative and wanted a small, limited government tightly bound by constitutional protections. Bush and friends are not fiscally conservative in the least, and do everything they can to expand the government's power.

You may not agree with the word "neoconservative", but can you at least grant that both sets of "conservative" ideologies I've described exist, and that the difference between them is substantive?

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[cduffy]

Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.

Last I knew, the conservatives in America were pretty badly split on this issue -- and I followed it reasonably closely. I believe that the parent is implying that neoconservatives are one subset of the set of conservatives who did not take the position you describe.

That said, I think there are more charitable motivations which could be assigned to the positions in question, so I'm not inclined to give the parent's suggestions presumptive validity.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[NeMon'ess]

So it sounds like your brother is slowly working himself to death. Or at least he's not getting to enjoy enough of what else there is to do while alive. In exchange for this devotion, about what is his yearly salary?

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[callmetheraven]

Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.

Incorrect-amundo. Conservatives pretend that they plan to build a wall, paying worthless lip-service on the topic. Meanwhile they deliberately do nothing to stop illegals from entering the US, therefore maintaining the status quo of cheap immigrant labor and the nonstop invasion from the south.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[jcr]

they'll never even come close to an economic superpower.

Japan did it, and so can the French. They just have to give up on socialism.

-jcr

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Xenna]

Try again. In the seventeenth century, little Holland was *the* economic super power of the world.

X.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[laddiebuck]

Depends on how you define superpower. 7th largest economy in the world; per capita certainly far higher than many "superpowers" like India/China and even Japan.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[WingedEarth]

WRONG. Conservatives describe neocons as neocons, because they betray the conservative platform. Neocon is someone who claims to be a conservative, but supports the liberal agenda of globalism, massive spending (e.g. the Bush Administration), massive borrowing, and internationalism. If you want to see a real conservative, check out Congressman Ron Paul, who supports libertarianism, small government, state's rights, non-intervention in foreign affairs and domestic affairs (i.e. people's lives), and an end to the Federal Reserve and income tax.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[SerpentMage]

Dude this is garbage equating what happened at Virgina Tech and the US and how Europe is better. Sorry, but how do you explain the mass car fires, looting and violence last year in France?

First Sarkozy is not going to get anywhere. The vote was 53% 47%, which is a split opinion. Second Royale has already dropped the first boot on demonstrations if Sarkozy tries anything.

Second Sarkozy thinks the way to get order with the youth is to define moral and authority! Oh yeah, that is going to get far! He thinks kids should wear standard uniforms, and whenever a teacher enters class the students should stand up.

Third Sarkozy is talking rhetoric when he says he wants free trade with other free trade blocks! BS France has been problem number 1 when it comes to agricultural subsidies and EU handouts. What Sarkozy really wants is to rig the market so that the French don't have to change, and everybody who wants to deal with France does.

I don't find Sarkozy a kinder gentler super power. What I see in Sarkozy is a person who will smile and laugh with you, but the moment your back is turned will spit at you. I am not saying that Royale would be better, as I dislike her economic policies even more. I probably could have lived with Bayrou, but the reality is that France is imploding and I am darn glad I don't live there anymore.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. What??? treating immigrants kindly??? what the f..ck so telling them "je vais nettoyer la cité au karcher" is to treat the immigrants kindly??? you dont have any clue about what you're tlaking about...

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[hey!]

I think the GP was bringing up the issue of conflicting duties. Your father may have pulled over a hundred hours a week now and then, but chances are your mom wasn't doing the same thing. Also, instead of a healthy, ambitious kid you were a deeply troubled kid, he probably would have seen his duty to you as taking precedence over his duty to his business.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Targon]

Just to clarify(since I don't know), do you mean he asserts that western values are superior, or that he feels that if someone wants to move to France they should know/speak the language and know the culture? A requirement that those who move to a country should know/learn the language of the land and know the culture before they become permanent residents really should be seen as a positive thing. No country needs ghetto areas where the residents are poor and can't get good jobs because the people living in them don't know the language, and as a result can't get "good" work.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages."

As a conservative at the age of 30 (you could lump me in with the new conservatives), I totally disagree. Most of us see ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AS BAD!

Every night on the news, another Illegal Mexican shoots someone and trys to flee to Mexico... We are for giving out work visa's to KNOWN immigrants. We can then control who gets what jobs and make sure that our normal citizens are not left without work. To blindly allow anyone into our country, we are setting ourselves up for what happened in France.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day.
This is not flaimbait, this is just a giant troll. You seriously want to blame the VT shooter on the US capitalist economy and neoconservative (whatever neoconservative is) agendas?

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[lag00natic]

Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. Ah, so the VT tragedy was the fault of Conservatives. Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages. Uh... you could not be more wrong here, it's quite the opposite.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Lord Ender]

Good. You keep working harder. The truly wealthy don't really work at all. The harder everyone else works, the more money they make. Keep up the good work.

Personally, I think you're a bit of a nut. I intend to work hard (42-45 hours per week) only as long as it takes for me to live off of the dividends from my investments (looks like 20 years from college graduation is when this will be possible). Then, all you habitually hard-working people will essentially be supporting me.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[SocietyoftheFist]

Uhhh nope. Why do you think the administration doesn't like the idea of a wall and wants amnesty for all illegals already in the country?

The liberals you refer to, I'm assuming the big party that starts with a D, think illegal immigration hurts American workers. The reason that middle of the road R's like immigration is cheap labor. The more radical right don't of course because as you move farther to the right you typically get more xenophobic.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[t0rkm3]

If you're lucky.

However, if instead of sitting on your overly bloated ego you worked your ass of _and_ invested the gains of that labor, then you and yours have a great hope of sitting pretty. See, your plan puts you at the mercy of the market. My plan puts me at the mercy of no man. My father and I have stitched together a business renovating and managing properties, all the while using our knowledge of the area and very stingy accounting to purchase properties at far below their market value. After that we add some value through renovation and regain our capital through increased rents or sale value.

WE do this while I work a full-time job that pays exceptionally well, and he just puts a lot more hours into the family business. That work ethic will preserve our children and our children's children... My great-grandfather stayed in OK during the dust-bowl years, and guess what he found? Hard working men with grit and knowledge stayed employed and fed their families, whereas the noveau rich or the intelligentsia had to swallow their pride and live on the dole, or go off to work camps because they had no chance of keeping up with a man that knew real work.

So, you keep on putting your money in the hands of people that could care less about your welfare, while me and mine continue taking everything we can out of world, holding it in the ironclad grip of endless drive.

Incidentally, your thought that 42-45hrs of work per week is hard work exposes your weakness... You have no concept of what hard work is. A sad state of affairs.

The family of the GP understands the truth and ownership of work. Maybe someday you'll have to learn as well.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[i_finally_got_an_acc]

I've read about this so called wall, and it's a comedy of error. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they're basically talking about building a 700 mile long fence to protect a 1400 mile long border. That fence ain't gonna do shit, and people are still going to climb over it.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Hitto]

Boy, I don't envy you at all.
I'm from France, btw.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Fear the Clam]

WE do this while I work a full-time job that pays exceptionally well, and he just puts a lot more hours into the family business. That work ethic will preserve our children and our children's children

You do realize that you've just doomed yourself to having a gay son with a small drug/gambling habit who'll be an unsuccessful actor in New York City, right?

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you (plural) always feel the need to blame everything on socialism?

The European Union (to which, as you might know, France does belong) is quite socialistic (at least significantly more so than the US) but also the greatest economic superpower of the world.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[SQL_SAM]

Allow me to elaborate. First, he opposes an open-border policy. Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages. American agribusiness, not just Hispanic groups like La Raza, are the strongest advocates for allowing the importation of desperate foreign labor.

Allow me to elaborate, that you dont know what you're talking about: I'm an American Conservative (what the left would call a "neocon"). I also live in Arizona, do you think I favor an open-border policy? I'll answer that for you "HELL NO". Please build a wall, do whatever it takes - just get these illegals out of my country! PLEASE OH GOD, PLEASE, JUST LET THEM SPEAK ENGLISH WHEN I ORDER MY BIG MAC - but wait I thought the illegals just work in the farms picking crops - hmmm guess not.

also before you start on you're socialist rant, I have no issue with "legal" immigration - who would? I have no problems what so ever when people follow the rules and do what they are suppossed to.

The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

As to the rest of your oppinions about the +14 hour work days and some how connecting that to the Virginia Tech thing and making that killer into some kind of victim - dude take some meds and get some sleep sounds like you need it.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[SQL_SAM]

No, conservatives in the US want a "guest worker program" where Mexicans are indentured servants, paid less than minimum wage, live in whatever horrible conditions the company choses to supply, and have just exactly one human right... the right to be dragged back over the Mexican border if they don't like it.

How does a guest worker program make them an indentured servent? It would allow a Mexican to come into our country to make a bigger wage then they could in their own country! They could leave when they wanted (doesnt sound like a slave to me). Who says a company even needs to supply them with anything more than a job? If they supply a living area for them I can gaurantee it would be better then ANYTHING in Mexico - have you even been to Mexico and seen the poverty? RUNNING WATER IS A LUXURY THERE YOU IDIOT!! if they are going to be dragged back to the border as you put it, it would probably be, because the broke the law (maybe, just maybe??)

That will indeed be a very effective way to drive down the wages of American workers. What's more, it will further increase the national debt, as more and more money is sent straight out of the US, to be spent in Mexico.

This is already happening or has happened. Living in Arizona I have seen construction, fast food, hotels, etc.. get over run by illegals and the wages are in the toilet. BTW please inform me how it will further increase our national debt oh wise one. Mexicans sending money back home is not illegal, they earned their pay they can do with it what they wish - It's one of Mexico's biggest money makers. If you meant that they are incurring debts and not paying them back (like the health care in the ER's and free education, and welfare) then I might tend to agree.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[koreaman]

I wanted Bayrou to win. In the second round I wanted Royal. But I can't vote, as I'm not French, and, "de surcroît", I'm only 17 years old.

Anyway, French students already stand up until their teacher gives them permission to sit down. I don't really see what Sarko's talking about here.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[koreaman]

Il a employé le mauvais mot, et alors? Laisse tomber, on s'en fout. Sarkozy aime bien les immigrés (si, bien sûr, ils veulent "travailler plus pour gagner plus").

NB: Même si je pouvais voter en France, je n'aurais jamais voté pour Nicolas Sarkozy. Mais il y a un tellement grand nombre de problèmes avec lui qu'il n'est guère nécessaire d'en inventer d'autres.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[koreaman]

If he were a little more savvy, he would've blamed it on the lack of gun control, which is a much more defensible position and still ends up hurting the conservatives.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Lord Ender]

I know some poor people who value "hard work" above all else. Contrary to popular belief, there is no universal law of physics which transforms time or effort proportionately into wealth.

If you think investing in real estate somehow saves you from the volatility of market forces, your business plan is incomplete. If you had started buying and managing properties in Detroit a few years ago, you wouldn't be able to GIVE the property away, today.

You live at the mercy of the market like everybody else in a complex economy.

Buying land isn't amazingly different from buying companies (stocks). If you buy stock, you own a little piece of the buildings, chairs, computers, and bank accounts owned by that company. Those are real, tangible things. You also get to share in the profits the company makes from doing business. The big difference is: stock owners don't have to spend as much time managing the business.

As a bonus, the stock of large american companies typically grows in value at almost twice the rate as real estate. Of course, it is overall more volatile, so you need some sort of hedge in case you need to get money out while the market is down...

I am trying to enjoy life. I work one full time job and want no more. What good is wealth if you have to time to experience the luxuries it affords?

If your children inherit a steady income stream they may just become socialite tarts like Paris Hilton. Is that what you're going for? Enjoy your own life.

Keep investing, sure. Don't delude yourself into thinking buying land is fundamentally different from buying any other sort of revenue-generating entity.

I prefer the lower time requirements and higher average returns of big companies, myself.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[jamesmrankinjr]

So it sounds like your brother is slowly working himself to death.

Did you notice the comment about the great-grandfather living to 86, despite the same work ethic? You may be right about the enjoyment aspect, but perhaps for some people the satisfaction of a job well done truly compensates for the lack of rest and leisure activities.

-jimbo

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[evilviper]

if they are going to be dragged back to the border as you put it, it would probably be, because the broke the law (maybe, just maybe??)

The ignorance is overwhelming...

The guest worker program ties a person to a company willing to hire them. The company has all the power, and the individual has NONE. If the person so much as complains about the 100 hour work week, disgusting water, lack of facilities, etc., etc., the company dumps them, they get sent back to Mexico, and get nothing. The next desperate person, willing to put up with that, gets the job.

Living in Arizona I have seen construction, fast food, hotels, etc.. get over run by illegals and the wages are in the toilet.

The existing situation is NOTHING compared to what a guest worker program would do. Right now, it's illegal, so many employers won't risk hiring them. They also have some freedom to look around for better and higher paying jobs, unlike "guest workers", who would have no such rights or options. Also, the number of workers available, and to a much wider range of industries, would explode. It would be open season on replacing Americans with "guest workers".

BTW please inform me how it will further increase our national debt oh wise one.

Money from US jobs/services is being sent to Mexico, instead of being spent inside the US. Economics 101.

Mexicans sending money back home is not illegal,

Buying cheap junk from China isn't illegal either, but it certainly does increase the national debt.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[jcr]

Why do you (plural) always feel the need to blame everything on socialism?

Oh, I don't blame everything on socialism, just the bulk of the damage that governments have done to their countries' economies in the twentieth century. Many other problems are caused by entirely different forms of superstition.

-jcr

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[SQL_SAM]

The guest worker program ties a person to a company willing to hire them. The company has all the power, and the individual has NONE. If the person so much as complains about the 100 hour work week, disgusting water, lack of facilities, etc., etc., the company dumps them, they get sent back to Mexico, and get nothing. The next desperate person, willing to put up with that, gets the job.

You are incorrect, The Individual has all the power - they dont have to join a worker program do they? They could stay in Mexico couldn't they? The way you bring out your point, it sounds like they have it better off in Mexico anyway. Let me get you a towel for your bleeding heart....

With our media, and the leftist tilt toward amnesty you think for a minute that a compnay wouldnt be driven out of business if they forced the things you are saying? 100 hour work week? sorry, I call BS - prove it. "disgusting water" call BS again - prove it. "lack of facilities" LMAO - have you ever been to mexico? I'll say this again because you seemed to miss it last time "RUNNING WATER IS A LUXURY IN MEXICO". So the lack of facility's as you put it, would be what? Lack of a bucket? I'm not trying to put down the poor of Mexico, but that is what is coming across the border. Just having "facilities" would be a huge step forward for them. I ask again, have you ever been to Mexico? And Cancun doesnt count I mean the areas of "real life" in Mexico. I know the answer is "no" because if you have seen it you'd shut your mouth and stop talking like an elitist.

Buying cheap junk from China isn't illegal either, but it certainly does increase the national debt.

LMAO - now you need Economics 101, that is called trade. And China has one powerful economy right now doesnt it....

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Darby]

Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.

Yes, but you might have noticed that the largest conflict in the whole immigration debate is within the Republican party. The "neocons" he's referring to are really "the monied interests" who are the Republican party's most important base.

The people you're referring to are the "rest" of the Republican party, usually known as "tools".
You might have noticed that pretty much none of the things they claim to want tend to happen.

Small government? Fiscal Responsibility? Stopping immigration?

No real interest on the part of the party to do any of these things, since it's only the "tools" who want them and "tools" are merely things to be used.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Laisse tomber? n'importe quoi... c'est quoi ça?, "un petit détail de l'histoire" comme dirait Le Pen, je trouve que l'on a une facheuse habitude en France d'oublier vite le passé, ou de faire semblant que les choses qui se sont passées n'étaient pas importantes, juste un tout petit détail.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[HuguesT]

While I sincerely applaud your feats and those of your family, I think it's fair to say 60+ hours/week is for everybody, and in some contexts it's not only insane but counterproductive. I'm very much against someone working long hours at a critical piece of equipment (nuclear plant, missile defence, whatever).

Also I think it's only OK to work that hard if you enjoy it, which is probably the case for you and your family. I think 14h+ of sweatshop labor is simply a disgrace.

Finally, the point was that work is not the only finality in life. It's rather important to take care of one's kid, and that include spending time with them, not working.

Keep up the good work though.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[HuguesT]

Actually, funny you should mention that, but what did France's economy in lately was essentially immobilism, whether from the left or the right.

Also I think France is too small a country to be superpower ever. You'd need 6 or 7 Frances to match the US in population alone. Japan is actually a populous country (1/2 the size of the US approx).

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Marcos Eliziario]

you can mod me down, it doesn't change the fact that France can't be saved from decadence.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[pi_rules]

Your father may have pulled over a hundred hours a week now and then, but chances are your mom wasn't doing the same thing.

Nope, she was doing the same thing. They started the business when I was 2 and my next brother was an infant. She remembers not so fondly trying to keep an eye on me, my brother on her hip, and working with her free hand.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[pi_rules]

He's hourly, not salaried, which sort of helps out. The business is seasonal so come the end of summer he'll probably drop off to working 30-35 hour weeks, maybe take a long weekend here and there, a couple of weeks off, etc. That's pretty easy to do when you just spent 8-10 weeks making 2x more than you typically do.

Plus he gets a couple of weeks paid vacation, as all the other full time employees.

It's not a bad gig. Unfortunately I don't find it interesting enough to keep me there. That, and IT has proved to pay me much better.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[koreaman]

As-tu lu ce que j'ai écrit ou pas? M. Sarkozy a fait une erreur, en fait il n'a pas du tout voulu faire une remarque raciste. Il voulait "nettoyer les banlieues", ce qui est un objectif tout à fait admirable: il ne voulait pas débarasser la France de ses minorités ethniques mais de son problème de violence.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

D'accord, admetons, maintenant, imagine que notre super nouveau président de la république disse: il faudrait "nettoyer au karcher la palestine" en parlant par exemple des kamikases palestiniens qui se font sauter en Israel chaque jour là-bas en désespoir de cause.
Comment crois tu que cela serait vu à l'internationale? comme une petite bourde politique? comme une petite erreur commise par lui? si tu as suivi un peu le débat qu'il a tenu avec Segolène, tu peux bien te rendre compte que Sarkozy sait très très très bien peser et choisir ses mots, super bien même (ce qui est pas étonnant pour un homme qui a l'embergure qu'il a et tant d'années d'expérience en politique), ses mots "nettoyer la cité au karcher, il ne les a pas choisit au hazard, du tout, je veux bien croire que dans son discours qu'il commence par "le travail rend libre" il ait prononcé les mots sans se rendre compte de ce que cela évoque dans la mémoire de certains. Mais déclarer publiquement qu'il va nettoyer la cité au karcher, n'est pas quelque chose qui lui ait échappé de la bouche comme ca à la legére, et si c'est le cas et bien, on peut déjà commencer à prier pour qu'il la ferme à chaque fois qu'il fait des déclarations politiques (surtout au niveau international)

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Je cromprends bien ce que tu veux dire et ton opinion par rapport à Sarkozy, je t'envoie quand même ces photos qui sont un peu en raport par rapport à ce que l'on dit
Welcome to Sarkoland
Une de plus intéressantes est celle ci:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hughes_leglise/488971 823/in/set-72157600185909178/
et celle ci
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hughes_leglise/487779 559/in/set-72157600185909178/
ile st clair que ce n'est pas Sarko qui a demandé à ce que l'on disperse la foule ainsi, mais c'est quand même assez curieux que ce soit utilisé le jour même où il a été declaré gagnant

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[koreaman]

Mais non, tu ne comprends toujours pas. L'erreur qu'il a faite n'est pas l'emploi d'un mot mal approprié. Le mot "nettoyer" corréspond tout à fait à ce qu'il veut faire (et ce qu'il veut faire n'est nullement raciste). Il a dit qu'il voulait nettoyer ces fameuses banlieues au Kärcher car le Kärcher est quelque chose de puissant, de fort...

Je dis qu'il a commis une erreur car il n'a pas envisagé qu'un certain nombre de Français pourraient prendre cela comme une remarque raciste. C'est tout.

Je veux quand même préciser que je n'aurais jamais, mais jamais de la vie! voté pour Sarkozy (en tout cas je ne peux pas voter en France, mais même si je pouvais je n'aurais pas voté pour lui). Mais cette décision n'est guère basée sur l'interpretation inexacte de l'une de ces remarques par ces ennemis.

Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[t0rkm3]

I probably didn't illustrate to a great enough depth. (My wife complains of this frequently.)

Real-Estate isn't the hedge. It's an investment medium, of a different yield, but no different.

My hedge, and life lesson isn't money at all, it's the priority of effort. There is no law of physics governing the return of capital based on effort expended. However, the primacy of work and family in a moral ethos does guarantee a return. My father and I pay for the welfare of my two uncles and their children, both who've had very terrible happenstances visited upon them. My brothers help out when they can.

Thus, our wealth is increasing, and my cousins, who would otherwise be victims to destitution are able to enjoy a fairly normal childhood, and if they so choose, an education and a life far greater than their fathers could have dreamed.

That's worth busting your ass for. In all of that I still find time to be involved in competitive athletics, and my father and I have coached two nationally ranked rec teams in the last five years.

So, go ahead and believe that working for 42-45hrs a week is working hard, and that your investment acumen will save you ahead of all else. Me? I'll still be betting on iron will.

Note for Americans: French liberal vs US liberal

[Punctuated_Equilibri]

French term liberal is pretty much opposite of the US. Sarko is a 'liberal' in French terms, meaning economically, he supports open markets, free enterprise (more or less). Sego is more 'anti-liberal', though nowhere near so much as the hard left -- supporting protectionism, extensive regulation, government management of the economy and public ownership of businesses (utilities, railroads and so on).

Re:Voting on Tuesday!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It will never happen.

There would be an outcry that having voting on Friday, Saturday or Sunday would disenfranchise this group or that due to religious observations.

Monday's out too, don't want to interfer with Monday Night Football. Wednesday is for "Lost" and Thursday is for "Survivor:" and "ER".

So, that just leaves Tuesday.

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[mehgul]

oops, sorry my bad... I see that my english isn't error-free. I meant "trying to win the workers' vote by being demagogic". Someone mod my previous comment down!

Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative.

[reporter]

The election in France will almost prove to be the single most important event in this decade, for this election signals a tidal shift back to asserting that Western values are superior. This tidal shift will be resolutely proved if the French citizens give control of the French National Assembly to pro-Sarkozy politicians in June.

Note that Sarkozy is not a neoconservative in the American sense. In European culture, he may seem very conservative, but in American culture, he is mostly a moderate populist. He wants to maximize the wealth for the middle class, not the upper class.

Allow me to elaborate. First, he opposes an open-border policy. Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages. American agribusiness, not just Hispanic groups like La Raza, are the strongest advocates for allowing the importation of desperate foreign labor.

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

Second, Sarkozy supports globalization with only other free markets. So, he supports the European Union. However, he opposes fake free trade with non-free markets like India. He realizes that this kind of trade drives down the quality of life in France. He realizes that combining a free market and a non-free market damages the operation of the free market.

By contrast, American neoconservatives favor fake free trade with non-free markets like India.

Nonetheless, Sarkozy will (if the legislative election in June is favorable) will vastly transform France. It will not be the brutal kind (i.e., 14+ hours of work by illegal aliens) of capitalism in America. Rather, France will be a kinder, gentler economic superpower. If he succeeds (and I think that he will), I would likely prefer to live in France instead of America.

It worked in Ukraine didnt it?

[ghoul]

If you vote for against the West's blue eyed biy Yushchenko there is violence in the streets and the elections are overturned. (Its called Orange revolution as in orange is the color of the Euro notes the CIA passes out to paid demonstrators). The west has got used to overturning elections whenever someone inconvenient gets elected so it was going to be a matter of time before they tried to do the same at home. Personally even though I have leftist beliefs I believe for the rest of the world its better to have the Republicans in power. Why? Well the western standard of living cant be sustained without exploitation of some kind. Republicans and rightists are satisfied to exploit their own people but Democrats play nice at home and go exploit foreigners. If someone wants to say Iraq War let me explain how the Iraq war works. Poor Americans go and fight and risk their lives in Iraq, middle class Americans pay for it through the increasing national debt which they will have to payback by cancelling social security and medicare and rich Americans make money off it by investing in companies like Halliburton and General Dynamics(ticker symbol BOOM) which makes bullet proof vests. (The stock price of BOOM has gone up 20 times since the war in Iraq started). Democrats on the other hand stick to exploiting foreigners by constantly demanding market access but then blocking reciprocal access using a number of different excuses like Human rights, labour rights , environment etc.

Re:It worked in Ukraine didnt it?

[king-manic]

So your prefer warmongers instead of merchants. Thats some logic. I guess you'd rather I rape your wife and daughter then for me to steal your watch? To each their own I guess.

Re:It worked in Ukraine didnt it?

[ghoul]

Well its probably bad for the Iraqis but for the rest of the world its relief that the USA is too busy in Iraq to get into mischief elsewhere. BTW if you cant defend your country you deserve everything you get. If the Iraqis had been serious about defending their own country they would have spent money on Al Qaeda and funded Osama so he could send more special forces teams aka terrorists to the US so that the US was too busy at home to come mess in Iraq. Instead he wanted to run a secular country and turned down every overture of Al Qaeda and look what happened to him. And for what? Because he didnt want to go the the islamist route and wanted to avoid a culture of suicide bombing? Well it didnt work out that way did it? A lot more Iraqis are having to become suicide bombers in Iraq today than would have had to if Saddam had just sent some 100 suicide bombers into USA and said to USA dont invade me or bombs will start going off in all kinds of inconvenient places in the US. But if you are not willing to do that much to defend your country you deserve all the rape and pillaging that the US marines can send your way.

"divisive"?

[mad.frog]

I know nothing of this guy's policies, but asking immigrants to learn the dominant language, and assimilate (at least partially) into the existing culture sounds extraordinarily reasonable to me.

If you want to immigrate somewhere (and by "immigrate" I mean "live there long term"), I would think you'd *want* to learn the local language and customs. I know I sure would...

Re:"divisive"?

[JFMulder]

I totally agree. We've been fighting the same fight here in Québec, Canada for years now. Everything is in french everywhere, except Montreal which is bit more bilingual (but not that much) since a lot of tourists come here. I'd pity the fool who'd go outside Montreal, for example to Saguenay Lac St-Jean and tried to even order poutine in english. :p You'll want to learn the language AND the culture. Since Quebec's culture is nothing like the rest of Canada.

Re:"divisive"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it sounds reasonable to ask immigrants to learn the language, but he is asking to learn it *prior* to request immigration. This is excuse to select as many people he wants to let come in. And how difficult would be the language test ? Probably some french wont be able to pass it !
This language issue is just an excuse to refuse most of the immigrants, that's why it is controversial.

Re:"divisive"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worth noting that Sego wasn't against that kind of things (ie get immigrants to learn the language and accept values) - sarko was just more adamant in saying it.

Re:"divisive"?

[lawpoop]

You've hit on exactly why this issue of language is a false issue. Immigrants *do* learn the local language, even if they do use their native tongue at home and in their own community, and 80-year-old grandma could never learn more than a few phrases. As other posters have pointed out, this was the case in the immigration waves of the US. Here in Columbus, there was German village, where 100 years ago, you would hear German on the street, hear German in the local shops, and could buy local German-language newspapers. My grandmother grew up in the lake Erie town of Fairport harbor, which was a Finnish-speaking community 100 years ago. Has there been any serious damage to US culture from all of these foreign-speaking communities we've had in the past 200 years? No. And we do have a great variety of ethnic restaurants!

So if immigrants learn the local language, why do you have to make a law demanding that they do so? The reason is because it creates a rally point for a xenophobic base. Combine that with people who "look different from us" (something that European immigrants don't have to deal with), and you have a winner. Any time some Turkish-speaking kid overturns a car in a riot, you can demonize all Turkish speaking immigrants, who are peaceful, productive, law-abiding citizens and otherwise use French in public when dealing with the French-speaking society they live in. The implication is that France is about to be overrun by Muslims and you will have to speak Arabic to buy a newspaper or go to court. White people will be the minority, and thus treated as badly as brown immigrants are treated now. So you can get people to come out and vote for you if you say that your language, culture, ethnicity or race is about to be overwhelmed by hoards of swarthy immigrants, even when the threat doesn't match the on-the-ground reality, as you point out.

Window dressing

[ghoul]

You do realize these are very small contracts which are being given out but the really big ones have been reserved for Coalition of Willing countries. Also China and Russia had preexisting contracts with Saddam and if they dont get their money back they are not going to play ball with US on Iran. Given the fact that Russia is the worlds second largest exporter of Oil it would love to see an Iran USA war in the Gulf which stops all Oil exports from the Gulf driving the price of Oil to say 20 dollars a gallon (YOu think I am joking The price of gas in India is 21 dollars a gallon on purchasing power parity). So the US cant piss off everyone especially now that the world has seen how hollow the US army really is - they cant control a country of 25 million despite spending 500 billion a year on the war. I am sure if the US had just given each citizen of Iraq 20000 dollars they would have just elected George Bush president no need for a war.
Speaking of preexisting contracts I am sure the Saudis feel really foolish right now. Saddam had been an ally of Saudi and Kuwait in the Iran Iraq war and fought on their behalf as the Sunni and Arab champion against Shite and Persian Iran. In return they gave huge loans to Iraq. When the Iran Iraq war ended Saddam said to them my country is bankrupt I am not paying it back and if you make too much noise I have a battle trained army. They still insisted on payback of loans so Saddam invaded Kuwait to make them back off (he still thought America was his friend). Well the Suadis thought no way are we forgiving 500 billion in loans , lets call in the Americans and pay for the war- its still going to cost less than 500 billion. Well now after having American troops on their soil for 10 years and losing all credibility as an Arab nation at the recent Sharm El Shaikh conference USA asked them to forgive Iraq's loan. They must surely feel stupid now. If they had just forgiven the loans in 1990 there would not have been the first Gulf war and USA would not be sitting on their hands in the gulf.

Re:He's a Neocon Puppet

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I'll buy a vowel for 1000...

Does anyone else find it odd that...

[Franklin Brauner]

SARK(ozy) looks a bit like David Warner?

In all seriousness, he's in the right party, just bad casting. The best thing that she has going for her is that she's an Alanticist MILF.
--
Franklin Brauner

Re:Voting on Tuesday!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't know if I can lift stuff wholesale from Wikipedia or not. If not, I guess this gets removed.

From Election Day (United States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_ States)

"A uniform date for chosing presidential Electors was instituted by the U.S. Congress in 1845.[4] Many theories have been advanced as to why the Congress settled on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.[5] The actual reasons, as shown in records of Congressional debate on the bill in December 1844, were fairly prosaic. The bill initially set the national day for choosing presidential Electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the Electoral College met) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was amended to move the national date for choosing presidential Electors forward to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.[6]"

Utterly pointless today, but important then.

trerrrible

[mr_musan]

seems conservertisim is on the rise :( as well as yanky looking presidents, what happend to the good old boys like churchil and major ?

Re:trerrrible

[DigiShaman]

seems conservertisim is on the rise

And this is bad...how?

I don't have a problem with society questioning the status-quo of society. In fact, I encourage this healthy patriotic activity. However, I *do* have a problem with people tearing down family values and traditions just because a few liberal socialist think they have newer and improved solutions centered around governmental institutions.

It sounds to me like the pendulum is swinging back to the "right side" of western civilization...for now.

If left unchecked, both liberalism and conservatism can (and has been known too) decimate civilizations. But together, they keep each other in check.

Yes, that's interesting.

[twitter]

Thanks for the article. It says:

She crawled to the police covered in wounds, and they ordered the husband to stay away from her. He refused. He terrorised her with death threats.

So Nishal went to the courts to request an early divorce, hoping that once they were no longer married he would leave her alone. A judge who believed in the rights of women would find it very easy to make a judgement: you're free from this man, case dismissed

I have to wonder why the man was not in jail for assault, contempt of court and all of that. There are a lot of failures in that case, but the fundamental one was to offer her the protection of the law and the ability to live her life with dignity and control. The same kind of failing was originally used to justify abortion in the US: women were put upon by their husbands and the only protection society had to offer was the choice of carrying the baby or not.

Netherlands

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "living" (just a friendly correction as it is rather on-topic).

The Netherlands already has what Sarkozy wants - new immigrants are told to learn Dutch in their home country -and- learn a bit about Dutch culture. It is called the "inburgeringscursus". Overall I'm twixt on the idea and implementation, but I do agree with the goals. It would be absurd for a muslim to expect the Dutch women to walk around in burqhas, just as it is absurd for the Dutch men to expect female muslims to walk around in tank tops and miniskirts. A deeper goal, however, is in getting many of the younger generation of immigrants to realize that certain customs, such as honor-revenges, gang-vengeance, etc. have no part in Dutch (multi-)culture.

The language thing is far more fundamental, however. To really be able to comfortably live in The Netherlands, you at least have a basic grasp of the Dutch language - from asking where the toilet is to negotiating a health insurance policy to being able to do grocery shopping (though if you know English, you'll be able to get very far in The Netherlands, as English is pretty much national language #2). If you're unwilling to learn Dutch, given the great benefits, then perhaps The Netherlands is not the country you'd want to move to.
This is something I've seen in the (southern) U.S. a lot, actually. Immigrants from south-of-the-border countries aren't so much as asked to learn English.. and they have no incentive to learn English either; government forms come in Spanish versions, labels on products are bi-lingual English/Spanish, and even employees will know Spanish. In fact, job openings in those areas will often state that being bi-lingual in English and Spanish is a welcome quality (i.e. don't know Spanish? You need not apply). In essence this is 'viral' behavior, as the vague boundary of where people will learn English shifts further north with every establishment further north that implements measures to cater to the Spanish-speaking population just south of them in order to appeal to a greater customerbase. It's probably absurd to think, but if it does continue, and everybody will be able to speak Spanish to cater to the Spanish-speaking part of the population, while a large portion of said population is unable to spean English, then why learn English at all? Note that it is biased as well - although hotels, most restaurants, and obvious party-places south-of-the-border will happily help you out in English, that is about the extent of the English support there.

Back on-topic. If the person already has family in The Netherlands, things are much easier for them. Similarly, refugees/etc. obviously aren't asked to stay in a war-torn country or fear for their lives in political unrest just to learn Dutch / Dutch customs. They would, however, go through the same "inburgeringscursus" course - but at a local facility.

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[brightmidnight]

France has "prospered and held off globalization's worst"? France has such high unemployment, and it's not due to globalization. If France was prospering so much, they would not have elected Sarkozy, who promises to change everything around.

Re:Voting on Tuesday!!!

[imemyself]

I've heard that having them on Tuesdays made it easier for businesses to stop their employees from voting (way back in the day). I'm not sure if there's any truth to that, or not. Today, that wouldn't matter - employers have to give their employees time off to vote if they want.

This guy sounds like Reagan.

[zymano]

These immigrants are dumb for thinking that their ways should be priority.

Go back to your own country if you don't like WESTERN VALUES. Learning the language of your adopted homeland should be priority.

Legal Mexicans should learn ENGLISH or get kicked out of the country.

Re:This guy sounds like Reagan.

[sethstorm]

This guy sounds like Reagan.
That's the problem. Not the illegal immigration part, but the part about him upending prosperity comes to mind- this time, that sizable "minority" has to upend Sarko. If the country sells out to Asia with his effort, then it will be lost like the US and UK. It will have lost its character, the people losing their prosperity, and the country as a whole as the country that stood up to the evils of globalization.

Good!

[JimXugle]

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn [...] the French language

As an American, I went to Paris in Spring of 2003 as a tourist. I wouldn't recommend it to most people, but someone might like it.

Anyway... I was on the subway and someone initiated an emergency stop... I fell over, landing on a woman in a brown trench coat... I didn't say sorry... I said "ah! Pardón!"

The lesson?
If you want people coming to the US to learn english, then you are thereby honour-bound to attempt to learn a good bit of the local language of the country that you're visiting.

15,000 French troops to Iraq, boost in Afghanistan

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy's victory is a huge boost for the Bush policy.

why is parent modded troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

was it offensive to say that having national elections on Tuesdays is not voter friendly?

or was the observation that France just elected a pro US president troll worthy?

oh, I get it. expressing political sympathy with conservative/politically right views was the troll worthy offense.

Tactics reveals goals.

[zippthorne]

If that's really the case, then they should follow the example of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. rather than the French Revolution. If you just want to take stuff from people, violence works ok if you can get the numbers. If you want them to accept you, you should probably avoid killing them or wrecking their stuff.

Congratulations to Nicolas Sarkozy

[Greg151]

I continue to be amazed by the number of left wing trolls that have taken up residence on Slashdot. Nicolas Sarkozy was elected by the majority in France, who clearly wanted change on a pretty significant scale. I am fascinated by the people here, largely not French, who want to criticize their decision. Number one: If you don't live there, it isn't your decision. Number two: Your "fascinating" comparisons to American politics, or better yet, Nazi or other authoritarian regimes are amateurish, and by now, very predictable.

What happened to the smart crowd that was the back bone of Slashdot? I suspect that they have come to the same conclusion that I did, and have lost interest in participating in the forums, due to the general immaturity and idiocy that shows up. The modding system fell apart when more of the dumb crowd became moderators.

"divisive"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language)."

1. "Seen" by whom?

2. Call me crazy, but I think all citizens of France having French values (liberty, equality, fraternity?) and speaking French would be unifying, not "divisive".

Americans all learn Hindi?

[Simonetta]

USA should follow the Indian model where everyone learns English and Hindi the official languages
          I think that it would be very difficult to convince 300 million Americans for the necessity of learning Hindi. Even if you could convince them for the need to do so, the actual task of teaching Hindi to 300 million Americans would be quite the arduous undertaking. Indeed!

Re:Americans all learn Hindi?

[ghoul]

Very funny. What I meant was everyone learns the common language(s) and then their own language and no disrespect to other peoples languages. BTW the economies of China and India will be bigger than the US economy by the time children in kindergarten today are entering the workforce so its not such a bad idea to learn the languages of these countries (note the elites of the NorthEast and the West Coast are hiring Chinese speaking nannies to teach their kids Chinese) Of course since almost everyone in India will be speaking English I dont see Hindi taking off in a big way especially since quite a few Indians resent being forced to learn Hindi and would rather use English for day to day dealings.

Re:Americans all learn Hindi?

[freedom_india]

No you joker. The parent meant spanish.
Anyways, English is being outlawed in India slowly, and the famed education is being replaced by politicians...
There are two ways to accomplish things:
1) Do them yourself.
2) Challenge your politicians to dare do it.

So do many others - thus the win

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people think Regan, and prosperity and common sense come to mind. It would appear the French had similar feelings here.

Re:So do many others - thus the win

[Tumbleweed]

Some people think Regan, and prosperity and common sense come to mind.

Sadly, those two things don't go together at ALL where Reagan was concerned. Fake prosperity like we have now at the expensive of massive national debt is just an illusion. People with common sense realize that. That bill is gonna come due sooner or later, and with the real estate market crashing in large parts of the country, many people think it'll be sooner rather than later.

The near-diefication of Reagan by Republicans is one of the most ridiculous things about that party that I've ever seen (which is really saying something). The party of 'fiscal responsibility' has shown itself to be anything but for the majority of Americans. If you're rich, yeah, sure, it's a great party to belong to - but not for anyone else. Now, don't assume I'm a big fan of the Democrats, either. As Bill Maher once said, "The biggest difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Democrats are beholden to an only slightly less scary set of special interests." Plus there's the whole incompetence thing the Dems have going when it comes to selecting a Presidential candidate.

We *really* need a credible third party in this country. *sigh*

Re:So do many others - thus the win

[jez9999]

We *really* need a credible third party in this country. *sigh*

Not quite. You need massive reform of your electoral system to allow a plethora of parties to have a fighting chance at getting representation, and if none of them are any good, a low barrier to entry for any people wishing to form a new party.

A single 'third party' under the current system would quickly be swallowed up by bribery, as the current 2 have been.

Re:So do many others - thus the win

[Rotten168]

I'd consider Democratic special interests to be a tad scarier to me, a white male, who is representative of all things evil to them.

Re:So do many others - thus the win

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, no! My privelege is being threatened!

Don't underestimate language difficulty.

[Simonetta]

Being an American who had the opportunity to study Spanish in junior high and high school, I could probably pick up enough French in a semester to be able to survive in France without using English. Hell, I can sort-of read French books, and I've never studied it.

    Please allow me to suggest without sarcasm or ill-will that this might be an illusion on your part. These languages are all very difficult to learn even though they have many similarities in their written form.

    For example, get a couple French and Mexican (spanish) DVDs from the library and try to understand what is being said without the subtitles being on. Then turn on the subtitles in the native language, i.e. the titles for the deaf if they are available and follow the spoken dialog with the text in the original language. Still very difficult because the verbal flow is not the same as English (the breathing between phrases and things like that).

    If you want to take this experiment so far as to actually rent a French video from Blockbuster or a speciality video store then I suggest checking out La Femme Nikita by Luc Bresson 1991. It's the best French film made in the past 25 years. It also has the French dialog in both English and French subtitles.

    Hollywood movies in DVD often have the dialog in audio French soundtracks and subtitles for the Canadian market. But the written subtitles in French usually don't match the spoken audio dialog because the movies are actually translated into French twice by different teams. One for the subtitles and the other for the spoken dialog. La Femme Nikita is one of the few French films available on DVD in the USA where the French subtitles actually match 100% the actual original dialog spoken by the original actors. It's a great film.

    Most recent French films are absurdly dull and difficult to watch. The French in 1970s used to make very good films as a matter of course. But the era of the Hollywood global blockbuster that started with Star Wars in the late 1970s knocked them out of the picture, so to speak. The entire French film industry lost it totally when their guiding master Francois Truffaut died in the mid-1980s.

    Anyway, don't underestimate how difficult it is learn a language.

Re:Don't underestimate language difficulty.

[TheoMurpse]

Here is my equally objective without-a-tinge-of-animosity response:

There is a difference between consuming video or audio, and actually communicating. For example, I can't understand the telenovelas sudoamericanas my girlfriend watches, but I can speak with her and her family in Spanish fine and dandy. I speak English natively, but can't understand some English raps, and I speak Japanese fluently, but I still can't understand Japanese music very well. However, I managed the language just fine when I studied at university there.

Understanding movies means you have to be able to understand at native speed. However, when conversing, there's nothing stopping you from saying, "Repita una vez mas por favor. Lentamente," or, "Parlez plus lentement, s'il vous plait," or whatever.

I think you overestimate the skill required to survive in a foreign country. I only claimed to be able to learn survival French in a semester, not the level required to watch Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain without subtitles. I know plenty of Japanese people who cannot understand television English a lick, but get along just fine speaking English with me.

As someone who has gone through the arduous process of actually learning a second language to fluency, I understand how difficult it is to learn a foreign language.

Basically, my point was intended to be (in the previous post) that it is much, much easier for someone from a first-world country to acquire a language necessary for life in a foreign country prior to arriving there than it is for someone from Africa or the Middle East, two primary countries of origin of immigrants-to-France. Whether I can actually learn French in a semester is irrelevant to my main point.

And La Femme Nikita is a great film; I also liked Wasabi, but that was more because it was a bilingual French-Japanese movie, so I got a language I speak and a language I'd like to speak, and no English that I can remember.

Learn Western Values?

[IHC Navistar]

DAMN STRAIGHT!

If you don't like it here, then go back to where you came from. Immigrants, especially those here in the U.S., have this idea that everybody should change because they don't want to. It is an extremely self-centered way of thinking and I'm not sure how on Earth they can think that it is OK.

I am sick an tired of those nutjub "Illegal Immigrant-rights" groups saying that people are entering the US because there is no clear path for legal immigration. In reality, there is a clear path: VISA FORM. It even has little boxes that tell you what to put in them.

I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti ILLEGAL immigrant. Why the hell should I let someone who immigrated into this country ILLEGALLY, doesn't bother learning English, and sucks up taxpayer money tell me how to live my life, what views I should hold, and that I should accept them. You wouldn't let a stranger into you house, so why should I let strangers into my country? Coming to the United States is a PRIVILIDGE, yet people are starting to think that because they are poorer than us, and less fortunate than us, that that gives them some kind of right to enter the U.S. and to hell with the laws we enact to keep ourselves safe.

Illegal is Illegal is ILLEGAL. Funny, my family is 100% immigrant, and despite how poor and hungry we were, we still managed to figure out how to fill out visa applications, learn English, and abide by the laws of the United States. Immigrants nowadays have become a selfish, self-centered, rude, obnoxious bunch of punks who think they are entitled to skirt the rules and laws because they are less fortunate than the rest of us. If they don't like having that image, then THEY should work to change it, not us.

HOWEVER, there are some illegals who follow the law, are courteous and freindly, speak English, and have jobs. Still, even all that doesn't make them LEGAL.

If you don't want to follow the law trying to get into the U.S., then stop waving our flag, beause it represents people who did what was necessary to get in here legally.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying unless people surrender their national identities and become part of the faceless mass, they're not welcome in the states? I bet your family a few generations up are shaking their heads at you.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[IHC Navistar]

No, they all have the same view. Keep your identity, but don't make me change mine because you don't feel like playing by the rules.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[andyteleco]

"Coming to the United States is a PRIVILIDGE" "we still managed to figure out how to fill out visa applications, learn English, " I think these two sentences contradict each other

Re:Learn Western Values?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when the illegals have a say about citizens? They have diminished rights, live hiding, and hare frecuently abused... asking for the minimal human respect its too much?

When the government criminalizes all the illegals its just doing unfair discrimination... innocent until proven guilty, remember? (some of them are criminals, no doubt -"Mara Salvatrucha gang" comes to mind- but are not the norm)

If the illegals arent really wanted, why dont just prosecute all their employers? they keep coming because they keep finding job... thats the way the corporations like it, cheap and without rights; the government from time to time, fines some employer without political cloud, and preserves the same overall status

If they hardly do enough to live, have to hide and are in fear... how do you (as a legal inmigrant) expect them to have the same opportunities that everybody to learn english and cultural citizenship? They learn as they live... and are forced to live (by their criminalization) in ghettos with people like them; How easy do you think is for them to integrate to the mainstream culture from there?

In France the immigrants have cultural issues because of religious fanatism and clash of values (like machism or lack of democratic values)... here most illegals are from western countries, seems more like just our dislike of anything that doesnt tends to the "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" ideal. (weirdly enough, latinamerican babysitters and housemaids are very appreciated... some pattern must be in here somewhere)

Its normal that the most ardent critics of the illegals are other immigrants; they are unfair competition, much more for them... than for the non immigrants.

I am not pro-immigrants... but just dont buy everything the media says. If we dont want more illegals, the logical thing to do, is demmand (we do it for the drugs) some fixes in their countrys. (I am not saying doing something like the European Union has done with their underdeveloped countries)

Re:Learn Western Values?

[Macthorpe]

people are starting to think that because they are poorer than us, and less fortunate than us, that that gives them some kind of right to enter the U.S. Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Emma Lazarus - "The New Colossus".
Inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's PRIVILEGE. Learn to speak the language of your host country before making racist tirades. Thank you.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[dlhm]

What is your quote supposed to mean? Are you telling us something we don't already know? Sure they can come to America. Just Legally.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[dlhm]

A drivers license is a privilege, I learned to fill out the app AND take the test.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey guy, that poem wasn't added to the SOL until like 1903. It had nothing to do with the founding of America, or its official values. It was written by a Zionist Jew and private fundraising paid for the plaque. Whatever "values" the poem captures, was simply whatever the private money donators approved it to say.

We won't throw away soverignty, safety, fair play, population control, economy, etc. just for the sentiments of a private citizen's poem lyrics from 1903.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[Macthorpe]

It was actually kind of a joke, but obviously it whooshed over the heads of, well, everyone. I mean, people complain that poor people want to enter America and there's a bloody advert to do so etched into one of your most famous landmarks.

I find it funny anyway.

Re:Learn Western Values?

[le_lotus_604]

"I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti ILLEGAL immigrant !" yeah right !! Who's gonna cook cheap food and clean my shit for $3.hour-1 !!

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[sethstorm]

Compared to Mugabe, Chavez, and others who have gone down this path, Pre-Sarkozy France has done quite well without corporate deification. 10% unemployment in a country that held out until 5/6/2007 is quite a feat, and should not be discounted.

Hopefully the country regains its sense, and puts someone closer to Le Pen, Bayrou or Royal. With that ~47% "minority", there's going to be quite enough people that Karcherizing their influence won't be an option for Sarko. If anything, they'll know full well what kinds of problems have occurred for those not in the right circles in the US/UK after the twin disasters of Reagan and Thatcher. If not, now would be a good time to inform of such - to defang someone who would deify businesses in the last prospering pro-worker stronghold is key.

He brings shame to France for what it means, and hopefully he goes the way of the Sun King.

Does not matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter who the President is as long as Melissa Theuriau is in France.

Re:Not true

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Stupidity is neither the exclusive domain of a single racial, social,political or economic class.

in the immortal words, of Mr Forest Gump. "Stupid is as Stupid Does".

Re:He's a Neocon Puppet

[heinousjay]

Are you falling into the common trap (around here, at least) of believing that anyone who disagrees with you is being led, and only you and others who think like you think independently? You post some interesting stuff, but my opinion of you falls sharply if that's your stance.

I feel sorry for the guy in Afghanistan

[Quila]

Al Qaeda has been holding a French guy for a while, and said they would wait on the decision of his fate until after this election.

The meaning is obvious, it was a ploy to get the French to vote for the liberal. Anti-war, pro-appeasement liberals are exactly what Al Qaeda wants in Western governments. It makes their job easier. There is precedent for this, as Radio Moscow was one big Mondale advertisement just before the 1984 election.

Anyway, now that the socialist has lost, and the guy who likely will make life a bit more difficult for Al Qaeda has won, the French guy in Afghanistan probably doesn't have long to live.

Re:I feel sorry for the guy in Afghanistan

[MagicBox]

Amen to your post. Feel sorry for the guy though....

Q4S9: Have Hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with Quad-4 System-9 (Q4S9). We are working to free the French hostage. Q4S9 is part of a joint Germany-French Special Forces Team.

We know the location of the Frenchman. However, we will not head directly to his location. Instead, we will take a roundabout path in order to "ethically" justify killing 40 or 50 Islamic thugs. Kidnapping has a price. Al Qaeda will pay -- big time.

Q4S9, collaborator (No. This is not a joke.)

Re:He's a Neocon Puppet

[iminplaya]

Nope, not saying that at all. They free to go as they please. If they wish to blindly and without question, as IS happening, follow their leaders into battle, that is their prerogative. I'm saying they have no right to force me to follow their path. I will continue to show them the errors of blind obedience. If I appear harsh in my criticism, so be it. Those who call me "unpatriotic", for instance, for my refusal to go along are in the trap. I have a fairly unique position being able to observe from outside the circle, with no personal ambition* to clamber over others to reach some mystical advantage over them. And what I see is what I say. I been watching this steady decline for a long time. I'm not entirely without experience. Though I may be inarticulate in my observations, I have full faith in them, until someone can come along and prove otherwise. I am more than happy to admit my errors when they are presented to me or if I see them for myself. My mind, while possibly quite flaccid, is very wide open. So are my eyes as deteriorated as they may be.

Now, my only difference with JC is that he places the blame on external causes, where I place the blame squarely on my own shoulders. I alone an responsible for my own misfortunes. And all good fortune I ascribe to pure luck. In truth it all seems kind of chaotic. But so far I've been pretty lucky. I don't care who's conspiring what. They can only do such things when they have followers**. In light of that, now I can't figure out what you're talking about. Now I need a little clarification. please?

*I believe the average person calls it lazy...whatever.

** A guy in Time Magazine once said, paraphrasing, *I don't care what Rush Limbaugh says. I'm more concerned about his listeners.* Absolutely correct. They are the ones who put into action what ever he says. So the leaders of whatever possible conspiracy there is mean absolutely nothing to me either. They come and go like (dust in)the wind The followers are much more dangerous. They are the mob that creates the havoc. They are the ones with the irrational fears and hatred. It is upon them that I will direct my attention.

The tiniest understanding of animal psychology clears things up quite nicely. We have this real problem of accepting the fact that we are under the influence of very strong, more like overwhelming, instincts. Apparently they feel that admitting that would make them less than human. And they are acting less than human when they let instinct overrule rational thought. And it is quite possible we can't be any other way. Most everybody lives by conditioned response.

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[Anonymous Coward]

Supporting businesses, and by effect, the workers of those businesses...and the economy as a whole (even making sure an economy even EXISTS) isn't such a bad thing. Sociaists always think divisively in the concept of business and workers...when they are far more inclusive than they want to admit. One cannot survive without the other.

Someone name me one positive thing that socialism has done in France, that has benefited the country as a WHOLE? Now tell me why socialism was just defeated by the WHOLE voting body in France?

Open your eyes, look at the WHOLE forest...not just the single trees in it.

Apples and oranges

[rve]

You are comparing apples and oranges.

In the US, with its one-tier winner-takes-all system, only the largest two parties are represented. That doesn't mean the US doesn't have political extremists, they just either don't bother to vote (50% turnout as opposed to 80% - 90% in many western European countries), or choose what they see as the lesser of two evils.

The Republican-style American right is comparable to the European conservative parties when it comes to political and economic ideals, it just 'sounds' like right-wing extremism to Europeans because the rhetoric differs. Flag waving and 'God and Country' type rhetoric has become associated with right wing extremism in post WW2 Europe, while in the US it is just a harmless display of pride.

Re:Apples and oranges

[Shihar]

Of course I am comparing apples to oranges. European governments and the American government are two fairly different systems that result in different parties. Now, I am not saying that Americans don't have their whack-jobs that would look at a European right winger and applaud. That said, they get almost no voice in the US. The US system shoves everyone to the center. A pure anti-immigration platform (like Le Penn's party in France) will get you seats in parliament and potentially a spot in a coalition government. In the US, it is nearly impossible for such people to get elected on a federal level. The lack of a coalition system for government means that even if such a person does get elected, they get little influence over the workings of the government.

So, I agree the lack of a strong extremist ultra-nationalist politicians (that get elected) in the US is not a unique feature of the culture, it is a unique feature of the political system. Even when such people do get elected, they are deeply marginalized. I don't have any doubt that if the US had a parliamentary style of government you would find the US having just as many (if not more) xenophobic right wing nationalist party.

My larger point is that Europeans some times assume that because the US left is like their right, the US right must be like there extreme right. This isn't the case. The things that define the European right really don't define the American right. The American right is far more concerned with economics and the occasional pet social issues, and give only passing thought to immigration. Right leaning European governments almost always are deeply concerned with immigration nationalist identity. The two are very different from each other and would likely kill each other if left in the same room for too long.

Re:Apples and oranges

[demonlapin]

immigration nationalist identity

Indeed, one of the most common mistakes w/r/t US politics is a confusion of American patriotism with nationalist sentiment; although the two occasionally coexist, they are not as closely tied as in most European politics.

Re:Voting on Tuesday!!!

[brightmidnight]

One reason is we'd have to pay workers overtime to work on a weekend day.

Since Sarkozy's dad was an immigrant, I don't think he's against immigration. He actually wants to increase skilled immigration to France. He is for law and order, though, and not for people (immigrant or not) breaking the laws. I don't see how that's "anti-immigration."

Divisive, yes!

[renoX]

>Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure not for the reason written, but because when he was in the government he triggered the 'suburb riots' due to his foolish comments.

Re:Divisive, yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Poppycock! People choose how they react. A riot is a pathetic and counter-productive reaction. Ever heard of Al Sharpton? He's a so called politician/civil-rights-champion that's been known to fabricate lies and encourage violence using race-bating tactics. A true divider if you will. Sarkozy is no Sharpton!

Re:Divisive, yes!

[renoX]

You're contradicting yourself: as you said a riot is a *REaction*, so what was the action?
Two triggers:
1- the state of the suburbs in France
2- some stupid speech of Sarkozy

While Sarkozy cannot be seen as responsible of (1) (the over-concentration of suburb for poors creating ghettos), when he was the mayor of a rich town, this town paid money to avoid having social housing on their area so with him as a president, it is quite likely that the ghettos will grow.

Plus he is for 'tough police' and has even insulted policemen which do 'proximity action' (maintain social relationship such as sport action, etc).
He is seen as a guy who despise the poor, and he makes stupid speech about 'order' even though the truth is that in some suburb, the police is not able to maintain order.

So with all this, I expect Sarkozy to trigger big riots in 2-3 years, maybe not at the scale of 1968, but they'll be quite big.

Neoconservatives, Walls, and 6 Years in Power

[Infonaut]

First off, liberals don't know anymore what "neoconservative" actually means. It referred to Jews in the 1980s who supported Reagan. They use it today in short form, "neocon," because it sounds evil and war-like. Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.

It's interesting that you say "liberals" don't know what "neoconservative" actually means, then you say it is a term referring to "Jews in the 1980s." Although several top neocons are Jewish, not all of them are. They didn't just spring up in the 80s, and their story is far more complicated than your reductionist analysis makes it seem. That makes it difficult for anyone (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) to figure out exactly what the term means. Here's what Irving Kristol, one of the leading lights of the movement, says about neoconservatism. Note that he uses the term "neocon" a few times in the article. Maybe he does that because he thinks it makes him sound evil and war-like.

As for the bit about conservatives wanting to build a wall and liberals wanting no border at all, you may want to check in on that more thoroughly. The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy. One of the iron laws of politics is that when you have that degree of power, you use it. Look at the sweeping range of laws the Republican Party enacted over those same six years, covering every aspect of American life. If the party was truly unified in wanting to thwart illegal immigration, it would have done something.

Re:Neoconservatives, Walls, and 6 Years in Power

[ivan256]

The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy.

Yeah, that's the CNN version of events... In real life there's a big-ass metal wall along the border in places where there are abutting communities that wasn't there before. Just long enough to look like they're doing something, and just short enough so that people can go around it.

The currently empowered group calling themselves "republicans" want exactly the same thing that the group calling themselves "democrats" wants. They want to keep divisive issues on the table so they can use them to hold/gain power. You better re-check you 'iron law of politics'. This is a new age. The new law is "if you use it you lose it", so you may as well angle for the fat Washington paycheck and be a whore for the spotlight instead.

Re:He's a Neocon Puppet

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, not saying that at all. They free to go as they please. If they wish to blindly and without question, as IS happening, follow their leaders into battle, that is their prerogative.

His opinion of you probable just went down the crapper. You deny what he is accusing you of and then state exactly that in even stronger terms. Just to reiterate he said you appear to be expressing the belief that just because someone's opinion is different than your's that they are being led blindly and that if you held that belief his opinion of you would drop. The fact that you believe this means your a closed minded narcissistic bigot who thinks you know more and are smarter then anyone whose opinion may differ from yours. I hope I cleared that up for ya.

Re:He's a Neocon Puppet

[iminplaya]

Yep, sure did. It means you don't know what the hell your talking about. Now get back into the corral to get yourself sheared, make sure your tires are properly inflated, and have a nice day. Y'all come back now, hea?

Rioting

[Epeeist]

There was rioting in Paris, Toulouse and Lille last night...

Erm... Money?

[Gotebe]

THAT is surely why they were moving to the country and what makes that country attractive in the first place, no? Money is why they were moving to the country. Culture and society, my ass.

Troll? Parent has sourced his assertion(s)

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that the /. hive-mind doesn't like what you've said here.

I'm not overly fond of the Iraq engagement, but you have clearly presented enough of a trail to reinforce your claims. I remember some of those stories, too.

Au revoir Johnny Depp!

[Anonymous Coward]

France: Au revoir Johnny Depp!
America: Goodbye "freedom" fries! Hello french-fries!

European wanting to immigrate to Montreal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm European (I live in Finland) and I'd like to immigrate to Montreal. What would you say, possible or not?

Unemployment at what price!

[Opportunist]

You know that the US pay dearly for their low unemployment rate, yes?

It's easy to call someone employed when he has a job, but if said job nets you a buck an hour, you can't sustain yourself on it. And that's where the US are. You have a fair lot of people who have a job but are unable to survive on it!

Personally I'd rather see 10% unemployment and being able to live off what I earn (if I'm employed) than not.

This isn't universal

[Opportunist]

A lot of people come here, to my country, with little to no intent to actually learn the language. It isn't that necessary for many of them, we have strong minorities here that can easily "survive" with their own language. Our government went as far as offering them interpretors (for free) at offices.

Yes, it limits their employment opportunities. But that's exactly what should be reached with the catering to them. After all, we need office sweepers and garbage drivers just as much as any country, and we don't want to pay them more than any other country either. If they had the opportunity to climb the corporate ladder, they'd compete for the jobs that we want.

Simply said, we rely on people being too lazy to learn our language. That this opens up a lot of troubles if a given. How do you understand someone's motivations if you can't understand him?

MOD PARENT Informative!

[TapeCutter]

Thanks, I don't speak french and even though I have lived in Oz for nearly five decades had never heard the term "dog-whistle politics". I like it, it's very descriptive of what "seasoned" politicians do for a living and can be applied to all sorts of situations.

OT: Howard's latest whistle is "Hick's supporters", the issue is an Australian citizen pleaded guilty to a restrospective crime after five years in gitmo and the Australian goverment says that is a GoodThing(TM).

Re:MOD PARENT Informative!

[Anonymous Coward]

even though I have lived in Oz for nearly five decades had never heard the term "dog-whistle politics"

Howard's been practicing it for eleven years now, and you've never heard the term?

Re:MOD PARENT Informative!

[HuguesT]

Howard is very good at dog-whistle politics : asylum seekers == queue jumpers. Children overboard. Interest rates will go up with Labor. He is a master at conjuring a negative attitude about something he uses for his own political ends. Notice he (AFAIK) never used the same trick to describe something positive Australians might federate around.

History will not remember him as a kind, progressive person who helped Australia come to the 21st century.

Re:MOD PARENT Informative!

[TapeCutter]

Nope, I knew what it was but didn't know it had a name.

Worst comeback...

[Anonymous Coward]

....eva!

which Old Country?

[fantomas]

interesting expression. Which "Old Country"? Lots of countries are quite old ;-)

I'm quite curious because Americans seem very attached to their roots; I suppose we all are but maybe its more true of places where there is large scale immigration, and very few of the people of the country can claim long term heritage - I wonder if the same is true of places like Australia as well? Just curious really - I've heard Americans describing themselves as "Irish-American" (for example) when it might be like you that you have to go 4 or more generations back to have an ancestor born in a different country. MAybe we as humans have to understand our histories and relate to it, and if you're in a country where clearly you're not 20 generations native, it's more important to understand where you're from? I'm trying to think how that compares in the UK (where I am)... I think maybe past about 2 generations people would say "I'm British" rather than identifying heritage more than that. Hmmm, curious. Have to think about this one.

That's one heck of a work ethic by the way.

Re:which Old Country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans (of which I'm one) are really attached to their ancestry if not out of real politics, just for the purposes of cocktail party discussion. As you said, one might identify themselves as Irish-American, even if that goes back six generations. Though one thing about the USA is that where one came from, also played a role in what their descendants have done for a generation or two or five. I'm of English ancestry, and twenty generations ago I go back to this guy. But I can go back and identify people that fought on both sides of the American Revolutionary war. OTOH, if one is say, Irish, their family probably lived in some Irish section of Boston or NYC for a few generations. This phenomenon applies to a much greater degree so for African Americans, if I may be forgiven for understating things.

I'm not sure that this phenomenon is visible in Britain, if at all. I'm no expert on Britain, but it seems to me that when people came to Britain (such as Huguenots fleeing France), it seems like they melted into the population to a much greater extent, and there wasn't a distinctive role played by "Huguenot-British". As for Australia, I have no idea.

Re:which Old Country?

[pi_rules]

The Netherlands.

Myself, I'm a mutt. Half dutch, quarter Irish, and one quarter inbred hillbilly.

Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on Slashdot can the election of the president of France be turned into a Microsoft "critique", complete with creative spelling, ominous DRM-related predictions, bad grammar and references to spy agencies.

le travail rend libre?

[Anonymous Coward]

or arbeit macht frei?

that's odd...

-jl

He's a uniter, not a divider!

[Anonymous Coward]

just like George W. Bush in 2004, the people that did not vote for him (half of the population) really hate him and what he stands for

How could you paint our esteemed leader in such a dim light? You might as well call the man a big fat liar!

George W. Bush is a "uniter, not a divider". How could you not know this? It was at the heart of the compassionate conservative's campaign. You make it sound like he's been polarizing the electorate with phrases like "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

The President has exhibited no end to his trustworthiness. You should grant him the respect he deserves.

There are some similarities between President Bush and Sarkozy, however. For example, the President has displayed his in-depth understanding of the French saying, "The thing that's wrong with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."

They did not vote for a candidate but against someone else.

50 million U.S. citizens rallied behind George W. Bush in the 2000 election. Just recently he said, "The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me --with an ideology of hope."

From the President's own mouth, he is a man who inspires an ideology of hope. Now how could anyone like that inspire people to vote against his opponent?

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[Stickerboy]

>10% unemployment in a country that held out until 5/6/2007 is quite a feat, and should not be discounted.

ROTFL... that's rich. Considering the unofficial unemployment rate among young adults is widely considered around twice the official 10%. And that any American President would be out of a job if US unemployment reached anywhere near 10% officially. Face it, the French economy is tied down with the ropes of its "social net". Look at all the trouble GM and Ford are in with overpaying their noncompetitive UAW labor in salaries and benefits, and spread that across a national workforce.

..about the language

[pitu]

fyi
sarkozy puts a french language requirement in use with the immigration that is joining their relatives(wife, husband, father...) in france. In other words, your non EU wife you met while working abroad may not join you in france untill she has learned french properly.(among other requirements) you either fall in love in a person speaking french or your sex life will suffer. (hmm, it seems geeks won't mind it anyways)

Re:..about the language

[ghoul]

Whats wrong with that? Its going to be to that persons benefit if he/she can speak French when they come to France and its not as if French is difficult to learn. There are Alliance Francais centers all over the world teaching French. And if you are really in love with a woman you can spend the time teaching her your language cant you?

Re:..about the language

[Original Replica]

The best place to learn French, is in bed.

Re:Voting on Tuesday!!!

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Yeah, being a "foreign dog" myself, I never really got that about your (american, that is) elections.. Is there any historical reason for you NOT to hold them during the weekend (Sunday to be more exact -- as most countries do)?

Yes, there is a historical reason. Keep in mind that the USA is a really big country and not densely populated. In the early days of our country, many people did not live in cities but in rural areas. They might have to travel one or two days to reach the place where they could vote. Since the USA has always had a strong Christian tradition, Sunday voting was taboo as it would interfere with church services and some would view it as "breaking the sabbath" and be opposed to it. Elections were set up on Tuesday so that people could travel by horse and buggy on Monday and arrive at the polling place on Tuesday with no "sabbath breaking" involved. They would also then have time to return home before the next Sunday. For better or worse Tuesday voting is what we are used to and I have no doubt that many Christians would object to voting on Sunday. Saturday won't work either because you risk offending the 7th Day Adventists and orthodox Jews. Muslims might object to voting on Friday, so that leaves Monday-Thursday as the best days to vote with the fewest objections, so we might as well leave things as they are and vote on Tuesday. The election for President is set by law as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Primary elections are always on a Tuesday, but the exact dates depend on the various states. Presidental elections and general elections are always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. We have general elections every 2 years and Presidential elections every 4 years, so every 2 years you have a November election for something.

Not so free markets

[ferespo]

Thirld world nations like mine (Argentina), in general are considered not very favorable to the free market (see heritage index freedom). This view often neglects the not so free markets policies that first world countries apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidie s

United States

The U.S. Agricultural Department is required by law to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by federal legislation dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, among others.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200506200001

If the US and Europe removed their farm subsidies, the value of African food exports would double. According to Oxfam estimates, protectionism in rich countries costs the developing world £60bn a year. The organisation cites the example of sugar. Under the current regime of quotas and high tariffs, Europe's sugar prices are set at almost three times world market levels. Each year, European consumers and taxpayers foot the bill, of roughly £1bn, while developing countries - encouraged to liberalise their markets under IMF/World Bank strictures - suffer the consequences.

Re:Not so free markets

[Anonymous Coward]

"The U.S. Agricultural Department is required by law to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by federal legislation dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, among others."

Unfortunately, this would put us at the will of other countries(many of which resent us). We cannot afford to let full free trade come to fruition. The stability of our country would hang in the balance. Look at what our dependence on foreign oil has created. Look how Chavez taunts us. We are better off becoming more independent than global.

You'd never know I am a economist though. This laughs in the face of my education.

Is this what Democrats want?

[Loundry]

The democrats, at least, want to legalize immigrants, therefore giving them the right to minimum wage, unionize, complain, protest, boycott, strike

Alternatively, illegal aliens could NOT come the USA. In that case, there would be no need to legalize them and the complaints, protests, and boycotts that you seem to be agitating for could be avoided. It seems to me that you are advocating for a shittification of American society, because I would prefer to live in a culture where there are fewer complains, protests, and boycotts. Not more, fewer. And no, I never said that the ruthless jackbooted black-masked paramilitary shock troops should go crush all dissenters. Rather, it is you who seems to want more riots, not less.

And when I write, "NOT come to the USA", I am talking about building a wall and levying enormous fines to any employer who hires an illegal alien. Naturally, people who want a better life for illegal aliens (using a non-constituient's money) hate this idea with a passion. I have read that the reason that the wall/punishment idea won't happen is because it would bankrupt Mexico's economy which is now quite dependant on the remittances that are constantly sent from the USA and now is Mexico's largest source of income. As some have speculated, if this money stream to Mexico is cut off, then we're going to have a REAL problem with illegal aliens, not the tiny one that we have right now. We'll know the shit has hit the fan when a politican is brave enough to use the phrase "demographic conquest". Most liberals are familiar with this concept only through the word "settlements" when that word was used to describe what Israelis were doing in Gaza.

Republicans were not all-powerful

[snowwrestler]

You're making a couple of mistakes. First of all you're conflating conservatives with the Republican Party. But Republicans in Congress range over fairly wide ideological grounds from moderate to deeply conservative. So it's a false equivalence.

Second, you're dramatically over-estimating the amount of power the conservatives in the Republican Party wielded in Congress. The major sweeping changes they passed all had significant moderate and Democratic support. The sweeping changes that faced strong Democratic opposition all failed, because the conservatives did not have enough votes to break a filibuster. This includes tax reform and privatizing Social Security, both of which were much higher priorities than immigration.

If you followed the bills in Congress, the most conservative members were introducing bills with dramatic enforcement provisions against employers, walls to be built along our southern border, increased funding for border patrol, even deploying the military to arm the southern border. These were opposed by more moderate, business-friendly Republicans, and most Democrats. And they failed.

I don't get the cheap labor talk

[snowwrestler]

I've never gotten how pro-immigration implies a desire for cheap labor. The labor is only cheap when it's illegal; once you allow all the immigrants to be legal, you no longer have anything to hold over their heads to keep their salaries down. Legal workers can unionize; illegals can't because you can just deport them. Legal immigrants are covered by things like OSHA, Labor Relations Board, and discrimination statutes.

If I wanted cheap labor I would fight to keep immigration quotas low, but also fight enforcement funding. I definitely would NOT support a path to citizenship, or anything that legalized immigrant workers. Instead what you see is that the business community is strongly in favor of a path to citizenship, bigger guest worker program, bigger visa programs, etc. That is because they need labor AT ANY COST. Unemployment is low. The Boomers are retiring. We need workers.

A strong anti-immigrant stance today cannot be broken down easily by logic. It is an emotional, cultural issue like abortion or gay marriage. It comes from people being pissed off that the signs at McDonalds are in Spanish, instead of English like when they were a kid. It comes from discomfort and fear.

Re:I don't get the cheap labor talk

[Rakarra]

I've never gotten how pro-immigration implies a desire for cheap labor. The labor is only cheap when it's illegal;

Most of the discussion of immigration in the United States is over illegal immigration, how much of it there is, and how so many businesses are reliant on paying illegal immigrants below-minimum-wage.

Special Interests Group

[KZigurs]

Yes, USA, that believes that one world of freedom* justifies one world in war.

voter turn out

[nephridium]

What is interesting is that voter turn out in both rounds was a whopping 84%! So people apparently did put some credence into the system, despite the negative rhetoric and people like Le Pen (who got 10% in the first round) discouraging his voters from voting in round 2.

I think in France we did have a significant amount of people voting for something. E.g. some people wanted stronger restrictions on immigration etc., since according to their point of view poor immigrants ("scum" according to Sarkozy) with no perspective caused the social strife that lead to the riots in 2005. On the other hand there were around 10% of the voters in the first round who voted for far left parties (including 4% who voted for communist presidential candidate Olivier Besancenot) who then definitely voted for Royal who ran on a socialist platform.

...minor correction

[Xodmoe]

"...between the social conservatives who want it..."

...should read "...between the social conservatives who say they want it..."

If they actually wanted the hard line that badly, it really would be more difficult for illegals to get in to the country. ...especially if Lou Dobbs' 2,000,000 newcomers per year figure is truthish.

Businessweek

[mapkinase]

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2 007/gb20070507_834900.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+i ndex_businessweek+exclusives

Points:

1. Strikes are possible against even mild economical measures
2. The program itself is not right-wing enough to overcome France's woes.

Read your own article

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a label hung on conservatives by their political opponents, namely "liberal intellectuals in the 1970s". It makes as much sense as "neoliberal" or "neolib". Sure he uses the term "neocon" in his article but he makes it clear the label did not come from him ("those of us designated as 'neocons'").

I can go home again

[teal_]

As a Frenchman living in the U.S., I now feel I can go home again, because no longer will the government be hostile to business and tax me to death. I'm an engineer and it has always pained me that I deprived my native land of my work and tax base, but the taxation and social policy there made it very unattractive to me. France's social programmes are great, very generous, but it can only work in a closed society. Mass immigration has made the infrastructure and welfare state collapse, and the left in France has been in denial. Royal is a nice lady, but she doesn't have a clue how to fix France's problems. The purist in me wishes the social model worked, it's a great romantic notion, but it can't work in an open society. It makes me sad that France has no choice but to move toward an American model. But now I can go home again, and will be doing so in the next few years.

plunder

[Anonymous Coward]

The contracts under consideration are small... the barrel amount is tiny... Translation: US will plunder the major contracts, yes.

You forgot Lafayette...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US revolution was before the French revolution. The US would have lost against England without the help of the French.

Relations changed after the revolution but France still stayed a very strong ally.

Thanks to French intelligence Reagan was able to bring down the soviets with that huge pipeline explosion in Siberia. After that the soviet could no longer trust any technology they stole from the west and their economy collapsed. The right wing nuts never realized that without Mitterrand the USA would still have a cold war with the soviets. Reagan got pissed off when Mitterrand got elected but he soon found out that France had no interest in helping the soviets with their pipelines as the Brits did.

You can find details in one of Safire's article at the New York Times.

You made my point for me

[Infonaut]

In real life there's a big-ass metal wall along the border in places where there are abutting communities that wasn't there before. Just long enough to look like they're doing something, and just short enough so that people can go around it.

Which amounts to no real change in policy. That was exactly my point.

They want to keep divisive issues on the table so they can use them to hold/gain power. You better re-check you 'iron law of politics'. This is a new age. The new law is "if you use it you lose it", so you may as well angle for the fat Washington paycheck and be a whore for the spotlight instead.

The Republicans have definitely been using their power. Look at Iraq for an obvious example. Look at wholesale rollback of environmental protection laws. Look at the merging of church and state. Look at the radical shift in priorities at the Justice Department. Look at massive government spending coupled with tax cuts. They've kept abortion in limbo because they know once they win that battle they'll lose the war. They're simply torn on immigration, because big business wants more of it, and the social conservatives want less of it. That's just party politics. Other than those couple of exceptions, I'd say the Republicans have been doing an excellent job of spending their political capital. Now they're starting to find out what the payback on hubris is like.

You seem to be saying that politics is utterly content-free, and that there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans. Of course each party wants to have power. But that doesn't mean they have the same policy goals once they achieve power. It's been that way since the dawn of politics. Party machines have been around since the early days of the Republic, and power has always motivated politicians. The way I look at it, how they use that power is what counts.

Re:You made my point for me

[ivan256]

Look at Iraq for an obvious example. Look at wholesale rollback of environmental protection laws. Look at the merging of church and state. Look at the radical shift in priorities at the Justice Department. Look at massive government spending coupled with tax cuts. They've kept abortion in limbo because they know once they win that battle they'll lose the war. They're simply torn on immigration, because big business wants more of it, and the social conservatives want less of it.

With the exception of Iraq (which they probably wouldn't have attempted if not for 9/11), and the tax cuts, you've listed a whole lot of nothing. There has been more posturing than action in almost everything you listed. The Justice Department stuff is the same stuff that happens with every party change in the top seat, and doesn't actually change the law. The spending is horrid, but it was pandering to the social conservatives (read: ex-democrats who are pro-life); it only happened because the Democrats wanted to spend the money too. And you've already conceded the points on immigration and abortion.

You're right. The Democrats and Republicans have different policy goals (and the Bush administration seems to have yet a third set of goals that differs from the Republican base), but my point wasn't that they have the same goals. It was more that it pays to keep them as goals rather than to actually take action.

I disagree that the Republicans are facing payback for their actions right now. They're facing payback for double-talk, corruption, really really poor strategic decision making in the war, and to some extent really good counter-PR for things like Katrina. And despite all that the American public will still elect another Republican president in 2008 if the Democrats choose Hillary as their candidate, because she will take action on her policy goals. It is not a coincidence that we elected three very weak (when they came onto the scene) presidents in a row.

No French help since? Are you nuts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mitterrand was vital to the defeat of the USSR in the cold war. The Farewell Dossier http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/opinion/02SAFI.h tml?ex=1391058000&en=efacc527511e645b&ei=5007&part ner=USERLAND

Fair enough

[Infonaut]

You're making a couple of mistakes. First of all you're conflating conservatives with the Republican Party. But Republicans in Congress range over fairly wide ideological grounds from moderate to deeply conservative. So it's a false equivalence.

While trying to explain why someone else was being overly simplistic, I oversimplified. D'oh! Thanks for pointing that out.

This is the trouble with using terms like "liberal" and "conservative" because they really do mean different things to different people. For example, you mention "moderate, businesss-friendly Republicans" but I tak that to actually mean Republicans who are moderate on social issues. I don't know any Republicans who aren't business-friendly, but I do know some Republicans who are moderate on social issues and others who are rather intolerant on those issues.

The conservative camp is in disarray because it encompasses fiscally-conservative small-government people, big-spending church+state socially reactionary people, "We can reshape the world in our image" foreign policy zealots, and "I just want to feel good about America" people. That's quite a mix.

The same thing is true of "liberals" - a term that includes union supporters, believers in government's ability to shape domestic life, foreign policy doves, believers in realpolitik, Bill of Rights oriented voters, eco-warriors, and urbanites. That's also quite a mix.

While I agree that socially conservative Republicans were not all powerful, I still think that the conservative movement in general hasn't put immigration at the top of its priority list. Perhaps that is why more rank and file conservatives have been steadily pushing it higher up the list; they're frustrated by the Republican Party's fixation on other matters.

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[Anonymous Coward]

You said: "...any American President would be out of a job if US unemployment reached anywhere near 10% officially".

If the USA didn't have the highest prison population in the world, I guarantee that our unemployment rate would be much, much higher than it is. THINK about it!

does not apply to ex-Soviet states

[gr8dude]

Your message is interesting, but I can add a comment as a citizen of an ex-Soviet country - Moldova.

The Russians usually force themselves upon a culture and apply measures such as:

• change the character set (from Latin to Cyrillic)
• change the official language of the occupied country to Russian
• prohibit the use of the ex-official language
• discriminate the locals by promoting those who speak Russian and anti-promoting those who speak the native language
• close schools that teach in anything other than Russian
• 'import' people from Russia and assign them to highly paid jobs, while the natives are not as fortunate
• etc

Just to make sure that you don't think this is BS, check out some basic facts about Moldova.

Even today, more than 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union:

• Russian is still widely used
• Some of the country's politicians do not speak Romanian (which is the country's natural language)
• The constitution was modified, the official language was changed from Romanian to Moldovan (a language that doesn't exist; the essence of this move.. well, it's a long story, I am sure Wikipedia will provide more details)
• Some Russians who came to live here "back then" and their children who were born here still do not speak Romanian. And it is not because "we'll go back to Russia soon anyway" (as a sibling poster commented), it's just because they don't want to.

So I can conclude that Russia's language policy is very aggressive; and it is quite difficult to oppose it, because the Russia of today has a huge influence on ex-Soviet states, as their economies are still weak.

When natives say "they need to speak our language"

Sometimes this really means "they need to speak our language"; today you can bump into cases when you enter a store and try to buy something - you fail, because the seller doesn't speak Romanian. To counter that, the locals learn Russian, and they're very good at it. This is quite an interesting side-effect: there are more natives who speak Russian than there are foreigners who speak Romanian. As a result, you can feel like you're a part of a national minority, in your own damn country, walking on the land for which your grand*-fathers died in times when Russia didn't even exist.

Russian was my first language, I am glad I can fluently speak it; but when I see that they still use this language as a tool to enslave other peoples, I don't feel happy about it.

Re:does not apply to ex-Soviet states

[Anonymous Coward]

Ma-ia-hii
Ma-ia-huu
Ma-ia-hoo
Ma-ia-haha

Re:does not apply to ex-Soviet states

[Anonymous Coward]

It shows that Russians have a mindset of superpower, I think Americans have the same mindset.

Re:Obl. turnout sensational for france too

[kip stanning]

a turnout of 85% is quite a big thing even for france and europe. this is a victory of both candidates who led passionate campaigns that grabbed peoples minds. i would have preferred a victory of segolene royal but in my opionion - as far as i can judge from reading campaign websites (im austrian) - sarkozys campaign was better to a degree that justifies his victory. while royals websphere is split up in many different websites sarkozys web-profile seems much more focused and getting to the point. segolene web-strategy was focused on involving and debating (http://emilitants.desirsdavenir.org/index.php?c=p articiper_argumentaires), sarkozys site delivered messages more clearly while still "featuring" participation in a convincing way (http://www.sarkozy.fr/debate/index.php?lang=fr).

Re:crap works often enough ...

[kip stanning]

it just didnt this time.

The original occupants?

[chaoticzen]

... and I suppose that the Spanish obtained control of Louisiana from its original occupants fair and square. As Eddie Izzard said,"....Do you have a flag???...."

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[frankie]

You're forgetting that the word unemployment is defined differently in different countries. In the USA there is an enourmous swath of the adult population who are categorized as outside the labor force, and therefore not counted as unemployed. US economic figures are at least as much the result of fancy accounting as of our presumably-superior culture.

VIVA LA FRANCE!

[Anonymous Coward]

VIVA LA FRANCE! I'll be moving to France now!

Re:Unfortunately I see Reagan when I look at Sarko

[Copid]

Economics, the only science where ethics and morality are thrown out the window.

I wasn't aware the physics and geology had deep moral traditions associated with them.

German as the official language of USA

[ghoul]

When the US constitution was being created it was decided not to have an official language as given the different nationalities of the immigrants at the time the compromise candidate was German not English and the prominent English settlers bankrolling the revolution did not want German as the official language. Hence USA does not have an offical language. Also if you trace the ancestry of Americans the largest group is Germans not English Scottish or Irish. Kind of funny how this country speaks English and fought its two biigest wars against Germany.

Inheritance taxes protect the true aristocracy.

[Kadin2048]

If inheritable political power is such a bad thing, why is inheritable financial power any better?

Because it springs from the conscious desire of a free person, to give their possessions onto another person. It is simply an extension of simple property rights. If I own something, I should be able to dispose of it however I wish; if I have a computer, and I decide to give it to someone else, that's my right, since it's my property. I could decide to give it to my offspring, give it to my spouse, or give it to some bum on the street, it doesn't really matter.

There is a fundamental human desire to wish for the betterment of one's offspring; thus, many people choose to save substantial sums and give them to their children. They do this consciously, and at the expense of other things that they could have done with the assets (e.g. save for the children as opposed to blowing it on an RV). And as you pointed out indirectly, it doesn't really eliminate "privilege," since people who are wealthy and/or successful have many non-monetary means of helping their children maintain their advantage. In fact, the most highly privileged have arguably far more ways of doing that, via personal connections and the strength of their name alone, than someone from 'new money' who has only earned their fortune recently.

Inheritance taxes aren't some anti-aristocratic tool, but a basic insult to the concept of economic and personal freedom in its most basic senses. What it prevents isn't the perpetuation of privilege; instead it simply keeps people from the bourgeois class from ascending to power too quickly. By punishing money, it benefits those at the very highest echelons who can afford to perpetuate their power in other ways, while preventing competition from moving up from the bourgeois class.

Re:Inheritance taxes protect the true aristocracy.

[varcher75]

because it springs from the conscious desire of a free person, to give their possessions onto another person.

Not just another person, but, more specifically, a person of your blood, and no one else. But you haven't answered my question. Why is giving your offspring your personal wealth ok, but giving your offspring your personal political power not ok?

And the answer is, of course, because we nationalized political power! Political power is not a possession of an individual, it's a possession of the State. Away with nationalisation! Put back political power in the private sector!

Inheritance taxes aren't some anti-aristocratic tool, but a basic insult to the concept of economic and personal freedom in its most basic senses. Inheritance taxes are no more an insult to your economic freedom than income taxes are. In all cases, earning some money/possession entails taxes. The origin of the income should not make a difference.

Of course, if you also oppose income taxes, then your position on inheritance taxes is perfectly sound.

while preventing competition from moving up from the bourgeois class.

If you believe suppressing the income taxes would allow the middle class bourgeois heirs to catch up with their inheritance those heirs of immense wealth, I've got a very large steel tower for sale, conveniently located in a major european touristic city, a very good opportunity for the astute investor. And your heirs will inherit it as well!

That was not rethoric.

[jotaeleemeese]

Was prophetic (it happened) and as a matter of fact, historic as well (Sarkozy added to the flames of civil disturbance in France refering to poor people, mostly people of foreign decent ignored by French society, with appaling names. No wonder there were several violent demonstrations after the election).

There are games....

[jotaeleemeese]

... where the best outcome is not to play.

You are completely derided....

[jotaeleemeese]

Do men get stoned to death in the US when they are unfaitful? For any offense, mind you, but since you brought child support into the mix, well, try staying in that context.

Do men in the US are ever subservient to their mothers, their sisters or any female relative?

Are men in the US forced into forced marriages when they are children?

Can men in the US go anywhere on their own?

Do men in the US need to cover themsleves head to toe or be arrested by the police?

Is absolutely espectacular that somebody tries to make a comparison of lives of women in Saudi Arabia and live of men in the US.

Only somebody completly ignorant about life in Saudia Arabia would attempt to do such a ludicrous exercise.

Re:You are completely derided....

[ghoul]

Do men get stoned to death in the US when they are unfaitful? For any offense, mind you, but since you brought child support into the mix, well, try staying in that context.

The stoning thing applies to both men and women under sharia so that is a human right issue not a man vs woman issue


Do men in the US are ever subservient to their mothers, their sisters or any female relative?

Yes. US society is one where men are the most susbservient.


Are men in the US forced into forced marriages when they are children?

This is again something which happens to both men and women in Saudi. BTW they are only children by the definition of US . There are countries like Japan where the legal age of consent is 14 and in Saudi marriages happen at 16 so this point is totally irrelevant. Hell lot more US girls have had sex before 16 . Noone is crying that US is a society where girls are forced into underage sex due to the brainwashing of the media.


Can men in the US go anywhere on their own?

This is somewhere where Saudi sucks .


Do men in the US need to cover themsleves head to toe or be arrested by the police?

Womens assets are their looks. Mens assets are their earning capacity. BIology dictates that for successfully playing the mating games women have to look physically attractive hence capable of having healthy offspring while males have to look capable of earning enough to provide for the offspring. So while forcing a woman to hide her looks reduces her options in the mating game, forcing a man to have a reduced income due to compulsory child support and alimony reduces his options in the mating game equally.
Men and women are fundamentally different and they get hirt in different ways. Taking income away from a man is the equivalent of throwing acid on a womans face and taking away her looks


Is absolutely espectacular that somebody tries to make a comparison of lives of women in Saudi Arabia and live of men in the US.

Only somebody completly ignorant about life in Saudia Arabia would attempt to do such a ludicrous exercise.


You just go on believing the crap you have been brainwashed by the feminist establishment and your daughters will continue to have better lives than your sons.

What about stop being racist?

[jotaeleemeese]

Liberte, equalite, fraternite.

It is what it says in the tin, immigrants are not getting it.

They are lumped in this horrible living conditions in gethoized parts of big French towns and are discriminated when they apply for jobs or try to access higher education. In many situations a foreign sounding name in a CV is enough for them to be wedded out from a job interview.

The Malvinas are thousends of km away from UK

[jotaeleemeese]

For bunnies sakes, just look at a bloddy map.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the UK presence there.

Is one of the remanents of imperialism and colonialism.

Now, that is something people should also not forget.

Re:The Malvinas are thousends of km away from UK

[Richard_at_work]

The people on the islands want to be British - there have been many referendums on the matter. Thats the reason for the UK presence there.

It also has nothing to do with imperialism or colonialism - there were no indigenous inhabitants.

I have been stopped by police in the US.

[jotaeleemeese]

Just because I am Mexican and commit the communist activity of walking on the streets.

The statistical wordlwide distribution of arsholes is pretty even.

So what is your point exactly?

The political Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Spain could feel bad for being a more advanced culture, but who'd want to do that?
The political Left. Or have you missed that for the last 30-40 years they have told us that Western Civilization has no value.

What do you think multi-culturalism is? All cultures are of equal value, except white culture which is bad.

Interesting theory

[Infonaut]

And despite all that the American public will still elect another Republican president in 2008 if the Democrats choose Hillary as their candidate, because she will take action on her policy goals. It is not a coincidence that we elected three very weak (when they came onto the scene) presidents in a row.

I'm going to agree to disagree with you on the Republicans doing nothing but a lot of posturing. I'm also not sure you're right about Hillary being unelectable. In fact, I've been thinking lately that she's more and more likely to win. But we'll have to wait to see who is right on that one.

I think your idea about the election of three weak-seeming presidents is intriguing. I take it that your underlying premise is that the American electorate is fearful of letting the president actually get anything done? You may have it right. Perhaps in spite of all the rhetoric, and the media jawing about which candidate was more hard-core, ultimately people were enticed by Bush primarily because they thought he would be a nice figurehead, incapable of doing much real damage. That jives with what I've heard from friends of mine who voted for Bush in both elections. Neither one cared for him, but they said they were more comfortable with him than with the opposition. At the time I couldn't imagine why they would think that, but if your theory is correct, that may be part of why they disliked him less; they figured he would do a lot of posturing without changing much.

Frankly I was surprised when the Republicans took the Congress and the White House, because I'd grown up in the era of split control. Perhaps we've learned our lesson and we'll go back the old way, but I'm not sure that will happen. I'm only slightly less fearful of a Democratic Party in full control than I am of a Republican Party in full control. Things seemed to go best when one party controlled Congress and a skillful President held the White House.

in the old countries we're not so bothered?

[fantomas]

cheers, nice to chat and get a US perspective. Partly came out of a conversation I had with a friend a while back when we were chatting about the strength of feeling US citizens might have about them being "Irish-Americans" even though they might only have a couple of ancestors from 4 generations back. Interesting that somebody who'd only got this link would identify with their lesser heritage so strongly. I had this conversation in Scotland with my Scottish friend (I was born and raised in England) and we agreed people here would look at me as if I was daft if I claimed to be Anglo-Scottish on the grounds of my maternal grandparents being Scottish and my mum being raised for most of her childhood in Scotland. People would just say "you're English" because of my accent, where I was born and raised. Certainly we've always been a nation of migrants so if you want to say you're from here if you were born /raised here then that's valid. Curious. Maybe people are less interested in their heritage here, maybe its because in the USA /Australia etc people can say "you weren't originally from round here" and so folk are more interested to ground themselves and understand where they came from originally.

I like Belgium

[Orion Blastar]

Belgian Waffles, Belgian Chocolate, so why not just call them Belgian Fries? What do they call them in Flemish?