As an American my reaction to this news was ,"They had elections in France?"

Well, they can choose now from a Nazi and a corrupt power-hungry Macchiavelli wannabe. Nice, isn't it?

I think it's clear the French have failed as a soverign nation. I think it's time to rejoin the United Kingdom. Or to apologize to the House of Bourbon and do them fealty. I mean, how many forms of government have they had in the past 200 years? How many has the US had?

Matt,

You said - it's time to rejoin the United Kingdom ... You mean as in UK, Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Hmmm as far as can remember from my history books I don't think they were ever a part of the UK....(which of course dates from the union of Scotland and England in the eighteenth century..)

Please clarify how the French have failed as a sovereign nation? Their electoral system worked how it should. Why Le Pen got in to the second round was because the parties of the Left put up 16 different nominations for the presidency - effectively they split their own vote. France didn't fail, the left wing failed because they couldn't see the danger.

People still have the right to vote for the political candidate of their choice.

As repellant as the policies of Le Pen are - he still operates within the political system of his country.

>As repellant as the policies of Le Pen are - he still operates within the political system of his country>

So did Hitler and Aberham Lincoln.

So does Tony Blair, George Bush , so I suppsoe does Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat et al... your point being?

What I was attempting to point out that it was the failure of POLITICIANS not the political SYSTEM or the Nation that has let Le Pen through.


According to a news bulletin I watched this lunchtime, even now although the left know that they need to vote for Chirac (someone that is imicable to their policies but perhaps a lot less so than Le Pen) to keep Le Pen out.. There is a very real worry within the establishment that a lot of the left wing will stay at home rather than swallow their pride and vote for a conservative.

There is a real worry within the UK (local elections in some places this week) that the same pattern will appear here. Our far right parties have a reasonable chance of wining council seats for a variety of reasons but mainly because the voters who would normally turn out for mainstream parties feel alienated and therefore can't be bothered ...

Ironically, it is these same voters who shake their heads at the prospect of anyone from the BNP gaining any sort of power.

Again it is the mainstream politicians that are turning the people off politics ...

because the voters who would normally turn out for mainstream parties feel alienated and therefore can't be bothered

There you have it in a nutshell.

While everyone else has a bout of apathy do the French suffer ennui?

Why does nearly everybody hate the French?

- Because they eat frogs! And snails! And they are proud of it!
- Because ßey are ße Erbfeind! And ve vill get ßem one day!
- Because they are greedy! Look what a simple cup of coffee costs in Paris and remember where the word "Ferengi" comes from!
- Because they deliberately show you the wrong direction when you ask! And they will laugh at you!
- Because France borders on Belgium!

When Gorbachev and glastnost opened up the Soviet Union, Billy Crystal did a show in Moscow. He opened by stating how for years he was brought up to think of the people in that room as "the enemy" as they were brought up to think of America as the enemy. He said, "We were both wrong. It's the French."

(Of course that was his only funny line, but I digress from the French bashing.)

Go away! I shall now be rude to you!

The British Royal Houses laid claim to the throne of France until the Kingdom was abolished. So the UK did once claim France as part of it, due to the Platagant dynasty, I believe? Although, restoring the Pretender to the throne should be sufficent.

The past two hundred years have shown the French are incapable of governing themselves. Voting for Troskyest mailmen is the latest example.

Matt,

Laying claim to a place (as we see in other threads) is not the same as the two ever being part of the same *country* which is what you seemed to imply in your first post.

I don't think that any claim has been made over France since before the time of the Stuarts... which was about 400 years ago...

Of course I could be wrong so if you could point me in the direction of a historical text which tells me otherwise, I would be grateful.

Just to let you know the latest opinion polls have reported that Le Pen is forecast to get 19- 26 % of the vote on Sunday ...

Latest opinion polls (ending Saturday 4/5/02) suggest that Jacques Chirac is set for a landslide victory later on Sunday (predicted to get 82% of the vote). Sounds more like a potential protest vote rather than support for Chirac himself.

On the BBC (NPR carries their "world news" at 6am) I heard a French socialist telling people to vote for Chirac be cause the larger the vote total the less valid any claims of support he makes.

Looks like Fucques got 82%...

Anyway, it looks like Chirac has been returned as President of France - it was confirmed a short while ago. Le Pen is crying foul, just as expected. The turn-out was unusually high, some 80-odd per cent.

Does anyone wish to discuss the riots occurring in France? These riots have been going on for almost 2 weeks. I think it's terrible.

I hope they can restore order soon.

Well I am still digesting this. But it does seem to be a rather widespread reaction to something that had been brewing for a time.

Namely excessive unemployment, racial and relgious integration failures and general class struggles between the rich and the poor.

Theoretically it could be a portent for the future of most capitalistic countries if they permit the resource and money curve to go too far to the upper class elites.

Let's not forget that the French have a history of riots when other countries just have demonstrations.

They haven't been sharpening their guillotines again, have they?

Not yet....

Heard on Jay Leno:

The riots have been going on for 12 days... and the French haven't surrendered! That's a new record!

DISCLAIMER: Mr. Leno's jokes are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the poster

Whats to discuss? People have seen this coming for decades. Like most of Europe France sold its soul. They sold it to maintain a level of sloth no economy could sustain. They sold it for 3 months of paid vacation every years. They sold it so that they didn't have to wipe themselves when they got done on the can. They have proven that socialism is only viable if its supported by slavery. They have given us a glimpse of Europe's future.
The Muslim hoards have tested the metal of French society and, like so many before them, found it wanting.

Oh and so the American wage slavery ideal is the best choice to sell your soul to the corporate machine? Nice choice. I am begining to like R's hippie communism thing.

And just because socialism doesnt work don't mean communism wouldn't or couldn't. Politics ain't building houses.

And I love how its the laziness of the workers and people that cause all the problems in this world.

Adam,

which France are we talking about? Last I checked, they still had their "soul" (though if you can give me pointers on how to find if a country has sold its soul, that would be helpful. I'm afraid you're probably only referring to "looser morals", though.)
The problem isn't a "level of sloth no economy could sustain" - the trouble is over unfair, bigoted, biased remarks made by politicans catering to the right wing (conservatives), who don't care about the disenfranchised. Comments like yours would've probably lead to a lynching or two.
I don't know as much intimate details about french sanitary habits than you do, and I wonder where you got the fact that they don't want to wipe themselves from.
And in what way are riots a glimpse of Europe's future? The outcome of the riots is important, how to deal with the underlying causes instead of just repressing the symptons.
Maybe you don't know, but riots and demonstrations because of economic unfairness, disenfranchisment and similar aren't new in Europe. A 150 years ago, when pure Capitalism brought new levels of misery, there were revolts (which lead to societal changes, like moderated capitalism and a social system). In the Middle Ages, when the farmers were fed up with being exploited by the church and nobility, there were uprisings.

What Muslim hoardes? France hasn't been attacked by the Turkish or Arab riders. The uprisings are the part of their own society which has been left out.

Finally, why do you classify France as socialist? (Is this another case of American vocabulary meaning a different thing then over here?)

To the American politics Socialism means government control of things like airlines (Air France) and government paying for medical health for the people.

*slaps head* You do have funny definitions. Medical Health for everybody is social network, not Socialism. Not evertime the government controls sth. it's socialism.

Here in the US that's what lots of people believe. Throughout the 80s and 90s we weren through the deregulation kick. The idea was that government can't do anything nearly as well as the "free marketplace" can (meaning big business.) So states all over the country deregulated power, gas and water companies and made them from government run utilities into private caompanies.

Here in GA when they deregulated natural gas it caused people's bills to double or more. Deregulation of power lead to energy traiding companies like Enron who ran up people's bills and casued the California energy cricis that put the state into billions of debt and caused rolling brownouts.

Which goes to show that despite some people's assurances there are some things that are and can and should be run by the government because they are done better that way.

R - that's what I think. Because the way the free market works is that things get priced to where some people can afford them and others can't. Which is find for most goods, after all who would care about trying to work hard and get ahead if they could get an Escalade, 60' plasma screen TV and 4 story mansion on a cashiers salery? On the other hand water, power and natural gas are utilities that are needed for modern life and should be avalable to everyone rather than artificaly inflated in price so that a companey can make a bigger profit.

Thats one of the things I was trying to get across to Luigi on the Katrina/relif board. That some thigns are essentials and should be controlled and excempted from the free market economy due to their very mission critical status. And other thigns are not mission critical and should be valued at whatever any lunatic could be convinced to pay for it.

All the time I thought that calling every form of govt. control socialism was sth. that the fringe groups/ lunatics did (like the liberatarians, who want to do away with govt. completly, so you'll end up with anarchy). But if it has entered mainstream politics... too bad.

By that standard, though, *every* European country is socialist! Except the UK post-Thatcher (where they let people die once they're past 65, because health care is too expensive).

About the guillotines: If the French were like the Americans, and everybody had guns, instead of burning things, people would've been shot en masse. (Thankfully, Europeans don't need to hold onto a piece of metal to feel free. Except male Germans, who believe freedom is equal to " no speed limit on the Autobahn". )

ScottN,

just where is that American obsession with the French surrendering easily coming from? Under Napoleon, they had a pretty big empire, and even though Napoleon lost in Russia, the Empire went down fighting after a long period of war. Is the reference to WWII? Then maybe I should clarify that there's nothing dishounourable to me in loosing when outnumbered or overrun, and nothing special that the US won by sheer majority in numbers.
For that matter, the US withdrew from Vietnam, too. Does this count under surrender, or do point to the technicality that war hadn't been offically declared?

The French joke about surrendering (which was around in various forms long before the recent imbroglio) is one of those jokes that have no easily attributable point of reference. I think it mainly ties into perceived French arrogance and the fact that they have rarely won a war.

I think it mainly ties into perceived French arrogance and the fact that they have rarely won a war.

I guess it takes arrogance to spot arrogance...

here's a short overview about why the French lost last time.

quote: Why is a big fuss made over France falling to a bigger power? Pretty obviously it's a historical remnant: till its defeat in 1871, everybody in France-- indeed, everybody in Europe outside Germany itself-- assumed that France would continue to act as it had a century or two back as Europe's predominant land power.

Before WWII, the French won a lot of wars... I mentioned Napoleon's empire; before that, French, Spain, Britain, Austria etc. were always fighting with each other, and the French didn't surrender easily or loose all their wars.

read more here for a start (in-depth-history would be thick books): Wikipedia article History of France

constanze, Libertarians do not want to do away with government completely. That would be anarchists. Libertarians want a small government, limited to essential functions. They tend to believe in Thomas Jefferson's maxim, "That which governs best, governs least." This doesn't mean no government at all.

In general, Libertarians believe in the power of a free market. Governmental regulation is only needed/desired when a market is not "free", due to artificial reasons.

May I suggest you look at the Libertarian Party board?

Incidentally, Libertarians tend to be an independent minded bunch, running the gamut from near-anarchists to hard-core Randians to Jeffersonians to pragmatists. I tend to count myself as a Jeffersonian type.

Thanks, Scott, but I suggest instead what's wrong with liberatariansim, where Zompist has the facts and figures to dispute the claims, and besides, better knowlege of liberatarians then I have. (We don't have them over here as main force. The closest would be Manchester-Liberalism, or a part of the FDP, Wirtschaftsliberale = economic liberals, but none of them want to do away with govt.)

Power of free market: I've heard enough of history 150 years ago to know why free market is a bad thing for most people (excepting the rich who rake the money in by the boatload.) No thanks.

about French arrogance

Quote:

You hear people complaining that the French are rude. My experience is the opposite... last time we were in Europe, if anything it was the Spanish who seemed rude. There is no one more polite than a French shopgirl. (Yeah, I know French, which helps; but my wife doesn't, and she felt the same.)

What happens, I think, is that (generally, well-off) Americans go over and treat the waiters and clerks like they'd treat "service workers" at home... that is, as people who only exist to fulfill their whims, however extreme. But the French are, frankly, more democratic at heart. A French waiter is not just holding a day job on the way to a show business career, nor does he consider himself your inferior (or your pal). He's exercising a respectable profession and expects to be treated as such.

and

I think the real reason the French come off as arrogant is that Americans are arrogant. Pride is most offensive to the proud. The French are about the only other Western culture with our self-absorption, the only other ones who mentally divide the world into reasonable civilized people and foreigners, ...

I would rank myself as a libertarian with some communist ideas. I do believe that govt should be as small as needed to control the markets and flow of resources, provide for the common defense yada yada yada without trampling on or being involved in the personal private lives of the citizens.

Hey, I said PERCEIVED French arrogance! I agree that they come off as very proud, which rankles the similarly very proud Americans.

Also, I dispute the assertion that the French "won a lot of wars."

Okay. You don't have to take my word for it; I'm not well versed in military history (or interested enough in it) to quote all the battles and wars lost and won; and then compare it to whatever factor you were thinking of when you said that the French "have rarely won a war" or that they have not "won a lot of wars". (50% of all battles? Of all wars? Comapared to other countries?)

But I'm sure if you get a good book on French military history you can find out these facts for yourself.

By that standard, though, *every* European country is socialist! Except the UK post-Thatcher (where they let people die once they're past 65, because health care is too expensive).

I've heard quite a few people on the far right who consider pretty much all of Europe to be a Socialist, Secular bunch of wierdos who's women don't shave (legs and arm pits) and show too much skin on the beach.


For that matter, the US withdrew from Vietnam, too. Does this count under surrender, or do point to the technicality that war hadn't been offically declared?

I think the diference is that the US won every major battle of Vietnam but still lost of war while France fell to invaders in like under a month. Of couse being surrounded by 2 oceans, and having Canada and Mexico sharing our only land boarder means that the US has never had to face such an attack from an outside force.

Actually france has had a pretty good and active military. Right now they have troops involved in iraq, afghanistan and haiti in support of UN operations.

France is a part of the NATO. And one of the founding members. The free french resistence performed many acts of rebellion and general resistence against the nazis during wwii.

Oddly enough the french military is not under command and control of the president but the french equivalent of congress. At least I think thats the way I understand it.

All this from wikipedia.

I've heard quite a few people on the far right who consider pretty much all of Europe to be a Socialist, Secular bunch of wierdos who's women don't shave (legs and arm pits) and show too much skin on the beach.

Except for being weirdos... what's wrong with that? A bit simplified, yes, (non-shaving and showing too much skin or being secular are normal, so we wouldn't mention them... and since Europeans have a different definition of "socialist", they don't consider themselves to be), but generally correct. (Of course, from this POV, the Americans are a bunch of gun-toting, bible-fundamentalistic, sexually-uptight, superstitious, ignorant-about-the-rest-of-the-world, bunch of weirdos...

Though the women-shaving thing is sadly becoming fashionable, at least there are more and more ads on TV on how to shave the hair of the legs (probably so the producers of the razors and wax can sell more).

Oddly enough the french military is not under command and control of the president but the french equivalent of congress. At least I think thats the way I understand it.

And what's odd about that? Neither the german chancellor nor the president are commander of the military. We don't think (because we try our best to learn from history) it's a good idea to give that much power to one guy. Which is why before the german army could go to Kosovo (and Afghanistan), there were long discussions in the Bundestag to allow it.

Well, while our president is the commander-in-chief, it's not like he has unilateral power. He has to get his money from Congress.

Also after Viet Nam the congress passed a law saying that the President can only deploy our troops for 60 days without getting Congress to approve it. This was to cover emergency situations but prevent another Viet Nam where the president never gets congress to declare war but still has troops fighting for 10 plus years.

With the current Iraq mess the republicans introduced a bill before the 2002 elections saying that the ppresident could commit our millitary to Iraq without the approval of congress. This was at a time around 1 year after 9/11 when most people in the US believed that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction and links to Al-Quida. The bill passed with even many democrats voting for it. It wasn't until after this war started when it came out that the administration (if not lied was at least not entirely honest) about the WMDs or any link between Saddam and Al-Quida.

Except for being weirdos... what's wrong with that?

constanze - saddly your discription does discribe many Americans. Of course not all of us are like that. I remember talking to a German exchange student who told me that in Germany he was told that all Americans are prudes and he was pleased to know that many of us are not like that at all. Although I think you and I have to agree to disagree on the whole shaving thing. I don't like harry women. LOL

I used oddly enough because like Brian said the president can send in the troops without congressional approval (even though he has to get the moeny to do it he can sned them in and let congress worry about paying for it if he truely wanted to)

Also he can do a big picture thing and declare what the overall military objectives are, then passing those ideas down the chain of command from the joint chiefs etc on down to the soldier in the field. Or at least thats the way it works in theory.

And as for how you describe us. Yeah too many are like that but many (like me) are just regular ol gun toting, sexualy comfortable, bibleless, scientific, not too ignorant about the rest of the world, wierdos... :-)

And as for the hairy bit. I like a nice medium somewhere between the two extremes. But if she has more hair on her legs or pits than i do something is very very not right.

Could the Moderator then please move these last posts there? (I can't). And then I can try my best to explain the recent fiasco. About the general stuff... well, I'm not good in details about politics. When I have time during the weekend, maybe I can make longer posts.

Brian,

With the current Iraq mess the republicans introduced a bill before the 2002 elections saying that the ppresident could commit our millitary to Iraq without the approval of congress. This was at a time around 1 year after 9/11 when most people in the US believed that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction and links to Al-Quida. The bill passed with even many democrats voting for it. It wasn't until after this war started when it came out that the administration (if not lied was at least not entirely honest) about the WMDs or any link between Saddam and Al-Quida.

Umm ... maybe the main media gave this impression, but over here and the anti-war protesters knew *long* before the attack on Iraq that most of the so-called "evidence" was manufactured. There were lots of ressources for those interested to check it out.

But that belongs on another board.

I'm gonna boycott freedom fries until these riots come to an end!

Yes, that's going to be a big help. It will surely hurt McDonalds and the other fast food outlets which usually sell French Fries. Or the producers of frozen French fries (which you do at home). Or the American Farmers who grow the potatoes for them.
And it certainly will impress young, disappointed, left-behind teenagers in the suburbs angry over the way the french society treats them, a French minister called them Scum, and the police now reacts with curfew (which of course only results in the teenagers starting the riots earlier).

If this works, does this mean if the French (and Germans) had boycotted Coca-Cola, the Rodney King riots and similar riots when the African-Americans in the US felt disappointed at their 2nd-class-citizens treatment would've stopped, too?

constanze, there's some missing [HUMOR] tags on Biggy's post.

Even more humorous - CNN's Carol Lin referring to the rioters as "African-American." Now granted here in America we've shied away from the term "black" in favor of the more politically correct "African-American," but to refer to Muslims living in France as African-Americans shows we've lost touch with reality.

With the current Iraq mess the republicans introduced a bill before the 2002 elections saying that the ppresident could commit our millitary to Iraq without the approval of congress. This was at a time around 1 year after 9/11 when most people in the US believed that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction and links to Al-Quida. The bill passed with even many democrats voting for it. It wasn't until after this war started when it came out that the administration (if not lied was at least not entirely honest) about the WMDs or any link between Saddam and Al-Quida.

Umm ... maybe the main media gave this impression, but over here and the anti-war protesters knew *long* before the attack on Iraq that most of the so-called "evidence" was manufactured. There were lots of ressources for those interested to check it out.

Actually I did know about a lot of that at the time, as did many of the congress people. The problem was it was right before the 2002 election and the general public did not know. If they were to vote "no" they would have to run as the candidate who wouldn't give President Bush the power to defend the US aginst Saddam's WMDs.

ScottN

I wanted to add "If your post is , then mine is, too", but it was too late last night...

constanze, which posts do you feel I should move to the Germany board? Only the latter portion of one of your Nov. 14 post touches upon Germany, then Mark V's subsequent post merely admonishes you to bring it to that board, and then the next one by you simply agrees that you should've done so. Doesn't appear to be much to move, if you ask me. Why not just post on that board now?

Luigi,

I thought of Mark V's post from Nov. 12th, 9:05 am,

the second part of my post from Nov. 14th, 3:24 am, which answers that,

and Mark V's post from Nov. 14th, 7:22 pm, since it's also a comment belonging on the Germany board.

If you can do it; otherwise I'd try copy + pasting

Done. I've moved the requested posts, and even made a new one into which I pasted the secondary portion of your Nov. 14 one, constanze, and deleted that portion from the original.

Thank you kindly, Luigi.