Slashdot Mirror
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).
Not everyone lives in the USA, you insensitive-- Oh! Nevermind...
... that Royal didn't just surrender the election?
... will it?
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
Thank all the gods, the Frentch elected a radical instead of a radical.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sarkozy's views on innovation and free software
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.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789 ,1062291,00.html(in swedish)
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Thatcher.
My blog
Do they use electronic voting machines? Will Jimmy Carter certify the election for us?
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
The issue was not the popularity of their respective genders, but of policy - that's why she lost.
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!
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.
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 ?
Yeah, because only communists vote for women leaders.
Troll.
The election year attempt to push immigration reform through the Republican Congress was one of several factors leading to that party's recent implosion.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Is that really such a bad thing for him to want? I often feel that the wrong side won the Napoleonic Wars. :-)
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.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
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.
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
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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).
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
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
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.
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.
Will we call them French Fries again?
Will France now help out in the Iraq War to end it?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
guess yourself ??
Do you think French are stupid enough to elect a such man ?
some hints :
http://www.ordinateurs-de-vote.org/
-- http://rzr.online.fr/
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?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yes, there are other left-wing parties in france, but the communist party is just a ghost of the past now.
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
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.
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
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
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!
This sig is intentionally left blank
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).
Conquest is fair and square. ... used and accepted worldwide for over 6,000 years.
Conquest
Now I'm depressed...
...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.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
He's wants people to learn French instead of C++. We need more nerds than bad French speakers!
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?
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.
I thought segolene was an anti-knock additive.
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).
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.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
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).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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..
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
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!"
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, but I should point out that the USA also has an "active communist party".
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.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
In most parliamentary democracies the PM is far more powerful than the President.
A blog about stuff.
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.
What?
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.
A blog about stuff.
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!
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
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.
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]
Hey, I was mostly replying to the comparison with Blair. I voted for Royal.
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.
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).
In group behavior: 'because they're evil/morons/sheep/crazy' is not 'insightful' it's 'oversimplified'
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.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
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!
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.
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.
**Life is too short to be serious**
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...
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.
Comment of the year
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.
**Life is too short to be serious**
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.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I'll buy a vowel for 1000...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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
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.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
seems conservertisim is on the rise :( as well as yanky looking presidents, what happend to the good old boys like churchil and major ?
Thanks for the article. It says:
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
-- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
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.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
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.
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.
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
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.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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".
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
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.
What?
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*
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.
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.
-- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
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."
-- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
>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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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?
What?
There was rioting in Paris, Toulouse and Lille last night...
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
>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.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
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.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
>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.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
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)
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.
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.
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.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Yes, USA, that believes that one world of freedom* justifies one world in war.
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.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
"...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.
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.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
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.
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.
Amen to your post. Feel sorry for the guy though....
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.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.
The saddest poem
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).
it just didnt this time.
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.
Reality is for people that can't handle drugs. So do your part, just say no to reality!
... 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???...."Reality is for people that can't handle drugs. So do your part, just say no to reality!
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.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
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.
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
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.
**Life is too short to be serious**
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... where the best outcome is not to play.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
Belgian Waffles, Belgian Chocolate, so why not just call them Belgian Fries? What do they call them in Flemish?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.