What should my wife bring me from France?

[CAnnoneer]

That ain't a girl.

Nobody can have that much testosterone and still be female.

[Lee]

My souvenir ended up being a Danish watch.  Viva la Skagen.

[The Rabbi]

Very appropriate.  As JFK said "ich bin ein Danish" or something.

Laurent, I have repeatedly posted my positive impressions of France and my love of Paris.
As to France as a force of economic and political might in the world, put a stick of gum on it.
Fistful, when I wake up in the morning I'm not drunk but you're still a savage.

[wmenorr67]

The thread has drifted so far there is no hope of getting it back.

And to Lee.

Congrats on the watch.

[gunsmith]

my goodness, this thread don't stop!

To begin with, why all the NYC bashing? NYC is a friendly place.
How many newyorkers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
none of your %^&(@#) bizness.

When I lived in Cork the basic breakfast was eggs,beans,rashers and TEA
no coffee...they don't do coffee or iced tea/coffee over there very much, but they're learning.

One of the reasons for french unemployment is that it is illegal to fire someone!
I couldn't believe it when I read it but that was part of the reasons for the rioting, they wanted to legalize firing.
Why hire someone if you can not fire them?   If I knew I couldn't get fired, I could go to work and take naps all day long.

[Laurent du Var]

Lee - congrats on your watch.
Chinese and Italian food and a Danish watch, why not ?

Gunsmith, our employment laws are outdated, flawed and from
an American point of view close to communism.

The riots were mostly because the gouverment tried to create a new job contract for the youngsters up to 26 years of age which included the right of the employer to fire you without any reason at all at any time. Since we're absolutely overregulated for all and everything that would mean for example that with that kind of contract you couldn't rent an appartement or get a mortgage.
Since we're paying up to 80 percent taxes allover we depend far too much on the gouverment which also means that we need some kind of jobsecurity because there is so little money left of what you make ; It's a nightmare really.
If you would halfway understand how bad we're doing in the good old Europe, economicly and socially you wouldn't be surprised that we are far away from being able to contribute anything to our diplomatic problems. As a continent we're barely getting by.

Me, I'm doing fine but I can't wait for things to change, if it was for me I would get the gouverment the hell out of employement and lot of other things and most of all out of my pocket.

And well, if you napped on your workplace gunsmith I'll still fire you, but in a nice and understanding way.


     
 
 

[Iain]

And to change the subject again - watch the match yesterday Laurent?

[Perd Hapley]

And well, if you napped on your workplace gunsmith I'll still fire you, but in a nice and understanding way.

Capitalist oppressor!   

"My problem with Europe is that everything that's wrong with the American left-wing seems to be magnified and embodied by Europe."
I think it may be the other way around but I find that very interesting Fistful.

I'm not sure what you meant by that, but it reminds me of a paradox that puzzles me.  While I perceive Europe as being rampantly leftist in contrast to a more "conservative" America, I can't deny that American influences are partly responsible for European politics.  But I see it this way.  The American Revolution and its principles (which came from British sources) inspired the French Revolution and its principles.  But the French Revolution went too far, both in wanton slaughter that far exceeded the persecution of "Tory" Loyalists in America, and in the effort to tear down the whole fabric of European tradition (such as a certain amount of hostility toward the church and establishing a new calender). 

Now, maybe my view of the French Revolution is inaccurate, but I see modern leftism (here or abroad) as being the result of American principles twisted by the ideological mistakes of the French Revolution and then Marxism.  The main difference I have with that tradition is that it casts society as a collective in which govt. is responsible for the well-being of individuals.  But the anti-religous strain is perhaps more damaging.  Those political traditions that favor a very limited role for government I see as upholding the universal ideas popularized by the American Revolution.

[The Rabbi]

The riots were mostly because the gouverment tried to create a new job contract for the youngsters up to 26 years of age which included the right of the employer to fire you without any reason at all at any time. Since we're absolutely overregulated for all and everything that would mean for example that with that kind of contract you couldn't rent an appartement or get a mortgage.
 

But unemployment among that age group is significantly higher than overall.  So with the option to fire untested workers, employers would be more likely to higher them.  So people in this age group have no jobs.  And with no job how do you get a mortgage to begin with? Cherchez le Peu!

Laurent, do you favor Segolene or Sarkozy?  Do you think either of them will make much difference?

[Iain]

I can't remember the specifics - anyone know? Was it the case that those under 26 would have had no job security at all, that there would never have been a case for unfair dismissal?

Favouring Royal openly on APS might be cause for a lynching. Terrible case of foot in mouth disease she seems to have.

[CAnnoneer]

I see modern leftism (here or abroad) as being the result of American principles twisted by the ideological mistakes of the French Revolution and then Marxism. 

There is a lot of truth to that, but ultimately it is an incomplete and inaccurate view of the situation, IMO.

First off, the level of oppression and excess were much higher under French absolutism and catholic control than they ever were in America under Crazy George and anglicanism/puritanism/protestantism. Also, France had the misfortune of the historical memory of the catholics slaughtering protestants, as well as earlier pogroms of various malcontents/heretics/ etc. Finally, the catholic church in France had significant financial holdings as well as influence in politics. So, while the American Revolution is essentially a very focused republican revolution, the French Revolution doubled up also as religious (separation of church and state) and bourgeois (deposition of aristocratic control in favor of bourgeoisie - something Brits took care of through Cromwell and by the Glorious "Revolution" of 1688). Thus the level of stir in French society was many times over the one in America, and so it was far easier for radicals to grab control and keep it.

As far as commies go, they had not only the French Directorate to draw upon, but also subsequent stirrings in 1830 and the wave of unrest in Europe in 1848-1849, while the Russian ones love to draw upon the Decembrists (1825). That set them up well enough for the Russian 1905 and then the Russian 1917 and German 1918. The little trick is THEY decided what to pick, ignore, or add, and so it is highly inaccurate to blame the precedent for the result.

[Laurent du Var]

"I'm not sure what you meant by that, but it reminds me of a paradox that puzzles me.  While I perceive Europe as being rampantly leftist in contrast to a more "conservative" America, I can't deny that American influences are partly responsible for European politics."

Fistful what I meant was that during the Clinton years I had the impression that
health insurance, education and a more centralized (federal ?) gouvernment looked very European to me. Just my impression, for the rest, revolutions -
like the glorious revolution, the indepandence wars followed by your constitution  and then the French revolution - the CAnnonear described it really, really well. 

About the CEP (contrat premiere embauche), that contract that had the young demonstrating against the gouverment, our young need to be protected the most that we possible can because for example of our very malfunctioning contract of generations, which means that every actively working person is paying the retirement of, well the retired,  is only working if there are 4 people working for one retired person. Do the maths, it's not working and gives everybody the impression that your paying for somebody who can't give it back, talking about inheritance taxes and the flaw that we're only having 1,6 children, and so on....

In fact right now every productive person, like me, is dragging along : the old, the young, the unemployed, the gouvernment and so on. I'm sick of it.

Every work contract even here includes between 1 and 3 months of probation so your employer can figure out if you're fit or not for your position, no questions allowed if he sends you home. If there was no protection for our employees you could be sure, and it already has happend, that every factory on the continent would move out to Roumania, where you could produce for peanuts...

"Laurent, do you favor Segolene or Sarkozy?  Do you think either of them will make much difference?"

I favor Sarkozy, I couldn't bring myself to vote socialist, I do think there will be a difference, I don't think things will get much better - basically I'm looking for the person who get's the job done, as long as he's not, well leftwing. All in all
I think we are on the edge and a new kind of revolution is waiting just behind the next corner....

Iain, I was working so I didn't watch the game, but in the Bistro where I had lunch people were talking a lot about it...

How does one do the quoting, grey in a frame thingy ?

             

[The Rabbi]

Jew-lover.

For quotes you open brackets, write "quote" and then at the end open bracket and write "/quote".

Young people do not need to be protected by the government.  They need to have jobs they can work at and advance in.  Affording them "protection" by not allowing them to get fired is not protecting them, it is barring them from getting jobs to begin with.

[Iain]

If we're not talking about removing what I would consider reasonable and necessary worker protection (being fired for getting pregnant, at the first signs of illness etc) but rather the introduction of a probationary period then I'm not quite sure what the fuss was about. Six months is pretty standard here.

To make The Rabbi's explanation of quotes simpler - there is a button above the text box for writing replies that has a cartoon style speech bubble in it. Bottom row, between the buttons with hash and the bullet points symbols on them.

Or... I only just noticed this, when you hit reply if you look down at the previous posts in the top right corner of each one are the words 'Insert Quote', click on that and it puts that post with all the correct code into the text box. I'm probably a bit slow on the uptake.

Match was pretty exciting, despite my obvious national allegiance I have to say I like the French second best, probably some of the most interesting rugby. I was sat in a room full of Englishmen who were, for some reason, supporting Ireland. When the penalty went over they all starting trying to wind me up, to which I responded that there was a try coming. Boy, did I enjoy Clerc's try.

[Perd Hapley]

CAnnoneer,

I'm aware of the differences you cite between ancien regime France and colonial America.  I don't understand the purpose of explaining away the shortcomings of the French Revolution.  Whatever caused them, they were there.  I guess you thought I was putting full blame for Marxism on the French Revolution.  I did not. 

[CAnnoneer]

fistful, I think the explanation was necessary to put things in perspective. Your original post seemed to me to have the connotation that ultimately it was the fault of the French to "go too far", "pervert" ideals, and have "hostility" against the church, and subsequently help the Marxists in their own devices.

That's why I wanted to explain that the French had a lot of problems accumulated over a long time, and were forced to deal with them in a very short period, so they were under far more pressure than the Brits (who took a long step-wise approach to reform since Henry VIII) and even more so the American colonists (who essentially took advantage of almost full British construction and just put in the headpiece). From this perspective, the negative connotation is not entirely fair.

Finally, the catholic church in France had a lot to account for, had it coming for a long time, and was one of the chief reasons (together with Spain's influence) of France's political backwardness since the times of the struggles between protestants and catholics in the 1600s. It is my opinion that France (and probably the world) would have been far better off in the long run if the protestants had won there, just as they did in the Netherlands and in England. From this perspective, the catholic church as an organization deserved all the hostility it got.

[Perd Hapley]

CAnnoneer, believe me, I'm very much opposed to the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church as I perceive them.  When I mentioned hostility to the church, I was talking about a hostility to Christianity itself, rather than the formal church organization.  I threw in Marxism almost as an afterthought, as I'm not sure what connection there might be between the two. 
 

That's why I wanted to explain that the French had a lot of problems accumulated over a long time, and were forced to deal with them in a very short period, so they were under far more pressure than the Brits (who took a long step-wise approach to reform since Henry VIII) and even more so the American colonists (who essentially took advantage of almost full British construction and just put in the headpiece). From this perspective, the negative connotation is not entirely fair.

This sounds like the line of reasoning that the Palestinians HAVE to use terror, because they are outgunned by the Israelis, therefore it's OK.  I don't claim to have a detailed knowledge of the Revolution, so maybe you could explain to me why they were "forced" to deal their problems "in a very short period."  Where was all this pressure coming from?   

[CAnnoneer]

maybe you could explain to me why they were "forced" to deal their problems "in a very short period."  Where was all this pressure coming from?   

Multiple simultaneously present destabilizing factors. On the one side, there is a strong bourgeoisie that has money but has no political power. On another side, there is the mob of the poor, who have neither but want both. On the third side, there is great dissatisfaction with the obviously corrupt clergy, which has money and power. Further, there is a weakened central authority, corrupt inefficient leadership, and a bankrupted state. Further yet, a bunch of petty-bourgeois and mobbish opportunists that looked for personal advancement by whatever means. Finally, the French also had the additional strong destabilizing factor of external aggression by royalist intervention.

A new government must appease its supporters with rapid answers to their desires or pains. Generally, it cannot because it lacks resources due to the crisis that led to revolution in the first place. If it cannot, it will either fall or look for resources and scapegoats (e.g. nationalization, terror, "traitors", etc.) and still fall when it runs out of scapegoats or the scapegoats strike back. When it falls, it is replaced with one even more extreme, more schizophrenic, and more contrained in time and resources.

Essentially, it is a social avalanche rather than a controlled release. Eventually, it does run out of steam because the made changes de-radicalize most of the participants, and then the extreme government becomes the problem rather than the solution. And then it is finally replaced by something far more stable and moderate but based on significantly altered principles than the starting point. The French went through all these phases - limited revolution, deposition of the king, radicalization to "revolutionary terror", counter-revolution, and finally a relatively stable government. What helped Napoleon succeed the Directorate was the intervention and subsequent wars that made him a military hero and allowed him to consolidate personal power.

So, the French were forced to go in 20 years through the same and more than what the Brits did in the over a century between Henry VIII and the Glorious Revolution. It is even more time if you consider the Magna Carta (1215) as an early form of constitution. The trick was the Brits did it gradually and so could keep relative control at all times, disallowing autocatalytic radicalization and critical instabilities spinning out of control.

[Perd Hapley]

Okay.  Interesting analysis.