An Ode to Chirac

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Judt didn't attribute social stats to Chirac. Judt simply stated that the rhetoric that France is in some terrible state seems overblown given the reality.

One can cite statistics showing the strength of the US economy, despite deficits, and of society (crime still lower than in the 80s, etc) under Bush. That wouldnt speak to whether Bush has dealt with deficits, entitlements, etc. France has major issues, that Chirac has deferred dealing with - is France currently in a state of declining social indicators? No, but who has said they are? thats a strawman.

2. Yeah, Chirac said nice things about Turkey. Did that work? Was it effective in getting Turkey into the EU?

Given that there are two dozen countries in the EU, all of whom need to agree, its no kidding that Chirac alone could not move the EU by himself. And Turkey is certainly closer to membership now than 12 years ago, so obviously Chirac did do something, if only stand by the principle, which matters.

3. Ditto his support for Europe. Was the EU constitution passed?

At least they tried. Besides, whether that particulalr documnet should have passed or not is a far more involved question.

The question is whether Chirac has been an effective leader. If he has made France admired in Europe, then youd think France might have gotten Turkey in, and the EU constitution passed. If his major accomplishments are things that failed, it stands to reason he wasnt a success.

You might as well give Hillary credit for national health insurance, or Bush for immigration reform.

4. Sarkos admiration for the US seems to go well beyond its growth rates, and economic policies, important though those are (and as much as Judt dislikes them) Sarko has strongly advocated integration minorities. As he has made clear, the term "racaille" was used by a north african banlieue dweller, it was used for law breakers, not as an ethnic term.

Except that all the "law breakers" at that moment were minority youths. And the minority community itself certainly believed that Sakorsky was talking about them. As for integration, what has Sakorsky done as interior minister besides having that group come to despise him? Made their lives better? nope.


Its not clear to me that every single member of the "minority community" agrees on Sarkosy. Anyway, even if they do, that doesnt make him a bigot for saying what he said.

IIUC hes done a number of things on integration, including suggesting affirmative action as a solution. Has he transformed French society? No, he was the interior minister (And that for only a few years) his job is to maintain order. Chirac has been Prez for 12 years - has HE made the lives of minorities better?

5. I see no strong evidence that Royal will be more anti-US than Chirac was. Some of her rhetoric on Iran seems to go in quite the opposite direction.

Since when is being anti-Iran equal being pro-US???? Wwarped logic warning....

Its closer to the US position on Iran. Which is just one issue, of course. Again, I see no strong evidence that Royal will be MORE anti-US than Chirac, which is what Judt claimed.


[q]Cyclotorn already covered this one.

All the folks here who think its covered basically share Judt's view of the ME, so its hardly surprising they dont see it as impacting his views.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris



The idea is to show that both are nearly the same, i.e. the difference is too insignificant to adequately support Oerdin's drivel.

I agree with the general idea. But "at-will dismissal" is ambiguous. There is a contract between the worker and the company or the boss; this contract is qualified of "indented deed" (contrat synalagmaytique) which means that the two parties have rights and obligations. One of the obligations of the employer is to have a reason to end the contract. The court has to decide if the reason is in conformity with the law regulating the contract. For instance, reasons such as absence, late arrivals, non application of company regulations, refusal to execute orders, being drunk at work, fighting with colleagues at work, stealing company's assets or colleagues' purses and stuff, reduction of workload, are acceptable; nepotism, refusal of sexual relations, and all kind of arbitrary decision are not.
With this understanding, any firing intended can be made under regulated procedures.

[Fake Boris]

If I understand you correctly, we're on the same wavelength.

I was trying to show that the true difference between France and America was that France has a specific judiciary dealing with labor contracts, which in reality is but a minor hindrance to flexibility.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If I understand you correctly, we're on the same wavelength.

I was trying to show that the true difference between France and America was that France has a specific judiciary dealing with labor contracts, which in reality is but a minor hindrance to flexibility.

Yes, we are.

The interesting point about the specific judiciary (Conseil des Prudhommes) is the juges; they are elected half by employees and half by employers.

Under modern management, flexibility is now controled more elegantly than by massive firings (temporary jobs, working time adjusted to workload, delocalisations anticipated years ahead, ...).

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by VJ

If you would've been a voter when Reagan was around, he'd have scared the crap out of you because you would've read what you should've thought of him from op-ed's instead of looking at what kind of a man he was yourself. I know this claim makes you pissed off, but I can't think of a more diplomatic way to put it without you tuning out from what I'm saying because of boredom.

Seriously, take a look at what the guy has said and compare that to what the guy has done before you get all hysterical from typical election-related spin.

Reagan still scares me

The idea is to show that both are nearly the same, i.e. the difference is too insignificant to adequately support Oerdin's drivel.

Except if they were the same, why were there massive protests?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by VJ


...which was my point. Only race-baiting spinmeißters and their tools see racism where it doesn't exist, in both cases. Since you don't probably have an axe to grind in French elections, you're being the latter.

So when George Wallace was campaigning on State Rights' and anti-segregaton in the 1960s, it had nothing to do with racism? How absurd.

Sometimes the same term can be used by one group in one way and another group in another way. Or change its connotations in the future.

You know, since I don't see an apology but yet more personal attacks, I really wonder why I'm bothering to even answer to your arrogant idiocies.

Yes, I do wonder why you haven't apologized yet. Still haven't responded to the fearmongering of "100 million Turkish Muslims" yet, though, interestingly enough.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So basically, even if he has said bigoted statements, he really doesn't mean it? He just likes pandering to racists and religion-ists and won't really do anything when in charge?

Partly, yes. Just like Bush does pander to the religious right in his speech, without delivering too much.

It'd be wrong to consider Sarkozy a racist. I don't know if he is one personally, but he has avoided making any overtly racist policy.

The "scum" isn't a racial minority, but a class one. In France, Black and Arabs are overwhelmingly overrepresented in the lower class (and ergo in the ghetto subculture). However, they're not the only ones, and you'll find quite a few white ghetto-dwellers, especially those of Portuguese origin.

Among the young ghetto-dwellers, many are in the ghetto subculture, and use the self-derogatory word "scum" (in a fashion similar to the word "******" in the US ghetto). This use of the word "scum" is well known among the urban French people.

Sarkozy's use of the word "scum", as a result, isn't a racial attack. However, it whipped up class-hatred, as it contributed to the confusion between young ghetto dwellers and criminals. This confusion happened both in bourgeois circles (I talk from experience), and in the ghetto itself: plenty of arrested rioters actually had no judicial history.

Rather than a racist comment, the "scum" comment could have simply been a blunder. However, Sarkozy is a guy who never publicly admits he is wrong: instead of apologizing about the comment (which was exactly as insulting as if Bush had said "******s" while referring to the ghetto blacks), he insisted, and repeated it several times on TV. As a result, the enmity against him and his "gang" (the police) became complete.

[Spiffor]

While Sarkozy doesn't enact racist policies, his policies directly result in increased racism on the part of the police:

Sarkozy is obsessed with statistics. Upon taking over the Interior Ministry, he demanded the police to provide as much measurable result as possible. This starkly contrasted with the qualitiative approach under the Socialists.

As a result, policemen had to increase their profiling. In some cases, the profiling wasn't racial (traffic). However, in matters of petty crime and immigration-control, racial profiling became the norm. Simply because racial minorities are much more likely to be illegal immigrants, or to belong to the ghetto subculture, a big source of petty crime.
As a result, racial minorities get harassed for ID checks, and they get a tougher treatment in all their dealings with the police.

[Fake Boris]

True story : I've seen the police interpelate a brown guy on a bike asking him for 'proof' that the bike was his.

Yes Oerdin, the problem of the ghetto is they're all scum.

[RGBVideo]

Man, what a waste of time this thread was. Gained nothing by reading it, gained nothing by writing in and communicating through it. It's been slightly entertaining, but a temporary change of mood doesn't equal gain of knowledge or new viewpoints.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

...which was my point. Only race-baiting spinmeißters and their tools see racism where it doesn't exist, in both cases. Since you don't probably have an axe to grind in French elections, you're being the latter.

So when George Wallace was campaigning on State Rights' and anti-segregaton in the 1960s, it had nothing to do with racism? How absurd.

Sometimes the same term can be used by one group in one way and another group in another way. Or change its connotations in the future.

You know, since I don't see an apology but yet more personal attacks, I really wonder why I'm bothering to even answer to your arrogant idiocies.

Yes, I do wonder why you haven't apologized yet. Still haven't responded to the fearmongering of "100 million Turkish Muslims" yet, though, interestingly enough.

Originally posted by Spiffor
Rather than a racist comment, the "scum" comment could have simply been a blunder. However, Sarkozy is a guy who never publicly admits he is wrong: instead of apologizing about the comment (which was exactly as insulting as if Bush had said "******s" while referring to the ghetto blacks), he insisted, and repeated it several times on TV. As a result, the enmity against him and his "gang" (the police) became complete.

Quoting and bookmarking these two posts for posterity, so you can't edit their contents off.

I think I'm going to bump this thread annually if Sarko becomes the president, so we can all realize the surreal nature of these accusations and comparisons.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
True story : I've seen the police interpelate a brown guy on a bike asking him for 'proof' that the bike was his.

Yes Oerdin, the problem of the ghetto is they're all scum.

Interpolate doesnt mean what you think it means.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by VJ
Quoting and bookmarking these two posts for posterity, so you can't edit their contents off.

I think I'm going to bump this thread annually if Sarko becomes the president, so we can all realize the surreal nature of these accusations and comparisons.

I'm delighted to see you quoting Spiff, I had mistakenly thought from your post in the other thread that he's an evil "Spinmeißter" too

[RGBVideo]

Trolling again?

Yes. That's the point. The quoted post reflects that.

[Spiffor]

"******" is a self-derogatory word the American Ghetto Blacks commonly use to refer to themselves. It takes its roots in a history of oppression. "Racaille" is very similar, except for the fact it shows class stigma rather than race stigma.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
"******" is a self-derogatory word the American Ghetto Blacks commonly use to refer to themselves. It takes its roots in a history of oppression. "Racaille" is very similar, except for the fact it shows class stigma rather than race stigma.

Does racaille have class references as strong as the racial references of "******" If so, its been mistranslated - scum in English implies moral degradation, but doesnt particularly imply working class, not even "lumpenproletariat"

you can have working class scum, but you can also have yuppie scum, jewish scum, right wing scum, or even male patriarchal scum (remember the society for cutting up males, S.C.U.M.I think it was)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto