Externe

alamar
2006-04-07 03:59:51

Socialismul in parada.....

In europa de vest este comun ca somajul sa fie intre 8-15%...Aceste legi imbecile,trebuie schimbate,altfel rata somajului v-a ramane la fel....Pacat ca economia de piata, si fundamentele ei, nu se studiaza in scoala....Daca un atreprenor doreste sa-si riste toate economiile,sa-si ipotecheza casa si aseturile ,pt. a risca totul, in dorinta de a incepe un business,aceste legi fac aceasta foarte greu.Daca un patron stie ca este aproape imposibil sa dai afara vre-un angajat,care nu produce sau este o lichea,atunci acest patron se v-a gandi de 100 de ori inainte de a se hotari sa angajeze pe cineva....De unde somajul ridicat in europa de vest.Singura tara europeana,care a decis sa urmeze sistemul american,este danemarca.Acum somajul in danemarca,este de 3.5%...Totusi este amuzant sa-i vezi de la distanta,cum asi distrug orasele,balacindu-se in propria ignoranta...Vive la France....One more thing : scopul unui business,este acela,ca in schimbul unui produs sau al unui serviciu performat,este de a realiza un profit,si nu acela de a crea locuri de munca....Aceastea binenteles ,sant ca o tangenta binevenita,adusa de economia de piata,unei societati...

folclorist
2006-04-07 08:01:55

Re: Socialismul

Mos Grigore
2006-04-07 20:36:16

The French Disease (1)

Mos Grigore
2006-04-07 20:37:20

The French Desease (2)

They do not understand those that are inciting them to protest are those who are primarily responsible for their dark and hopeless situation in the first place. They do not understand that the privileges their parents enjoy have a price and that they are the ones who will have to pay the bill. They don't understand that they themselves are the victims of the privileges of their parents. In fact, they understand nothing about the world they live in because they have been brainwashed since primary school into believing that they deserve a job, a nice car, an apartment, a good salary—all of this immediately—and that the purpose of government is to provide them with all this.

The people who have taught these students would have been fired as totally incompetent had they been teaching in Poland or in Hungary after the fall of communism: there, it is no longer possible to say with a straight face that you're both an economist and a Marxist. In France, on the other hand, such a claim gives you instant credibility.

Within two or three years, the "leaders of the students" will be leaders of the socialist party: business as usual. Next year, there is a good chance the socialist party will rule again, even if the socialists have no ideas (or maybe because the socialists have no ideas). The people who work directly for Nicolas Sarkozy, the only "hope" of the French conservatives think it's too late, and the chances to see Sarkozy elected in 2007 have been lost now. Sarkozy has trickily started to pull the rug from under Villepin by "dialoguing" with the rioters. So very French of him! Spring vacation is coming soon, and for the French people, vacations are the only thing more sacred than strikes and protests.

A few things are for certain. The students who protest indeed have a dark future. They will live in a country that looks more and more like a slowly sinking ship—so slowly that it is able to convince itself that it is merely taking water. Some of these students, the smartest, will leave the ship before it's really too late and they will go to the UK, to Ireland, to Canada, to the US.

The people who come for the riots, who rioted last November and have been fellow travelers this spring, will continue. They have nothing to lose. Whatever happens, they know they will live in the ghettoes and in the slums, they know they are condemned to a thug's life. Even students with a hazardous future have privileges they will never have. They call themselves "scum," and in fact, it's what they are. Even if the don't join directly the ranks of radical Islam, they think the future of France belongs to it: within 20 years, one person out of four in France will be Muslim, and almost certainly poor and angry.

So the French disease progresses. It is chronic becoming terminal. On the way toward collapse, there will be no civil war, just moments of harsh violence. The population will change. People with a high level of productivity will choose exile.

People with a low level of productivity will immigrate. Jews and Christians will leave. Muslims will arrive. The number of barbarians like those who killed Ilan Halimi in February will increase. The French economy will crumble more and more. The legitimacy of the French political system will become thinner year after year: old whites voting for old whites while young dark skinned people organize the rule of the mob in wider and wider districts.

I could say that democracy in France vanished a long time ago: when decisions taken by a legally elected parliament can be wiped away on a regular basis by violence in the streets, you are not in a democracy anymore. No wonder France is a less democratic society every day and a more fearful one.

Mos Grigore
2006-04-07 20:59:34

Chirac’s Nixon Moment

By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 7, 2006
I am not a crook, French President Jacques Chirac could have been saying when he addressed the French nation last Friday.

The Nixonian quality of what could be Chirac’s last gasp as an elected official was not missed by the audience he intended to reach.

French leftists, who have hitched their wagons to an audacious student movement with the wind in its sails, have taken to guffawing in public at the president and his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin.

French trade union leaders, who can’t even make the trains stop any more, pouted that Chirac had failed to meet their demand to withdraw the controversial new law that would make it easier for students to find jobs (go figure why they object to that – but this is France).

When he was re-elected with 82% of the vote in May 2002 to a five-year term, Jacques Chirac could do no wrong. Faced with a choice in the run-off election between the center-right Chirac, and the neo-fascist Jean-Marie LePen, French voters came out for Chirac.

But they didn’t just vote for him. They loved him. They took to the streets, "united against fascism," and whatever other old demons of the French soul they found incarnate in the clownish LePen.

And Chirac paid them back by standing up to America, refusing the "rush to war" in Iraq. He was a hero.

Chirac loves to be loved. Personally. Intimately. According to his biographer, Franz-Olivier Giesbert, Chirac’s well-known love affairs may be his saving grace, endearing him to a large number of female voters. But again, this is France!

Jacques Chirac believes the French people love him, no matter what he does. And nothing anybody says will dissuade him from that belief.

Believing his own hype is a misstep any politician can make. But Chirac has done it again and again.

I knew that this latest presidential speech was Chirac’s Nixon moment the minute I heard him go through his unbelievable litany of how deeply he "knew" the concerns of the young people who had seized the streets of France.

He knew their pain, he knew their worries, he knew their fears. In fact, he was so full of knowledge that it was clear he knew he didn’t need to listen to them.

Over a million people filled the streets of France on Tuesday - three million according to the strike organizers - in an attempt to get the besieged president to listen to them.

The Nixon parallel became overt on the evening of this week’s general strike, when a French cable TV network began playing "All the President’s Men" during prime time. (For those of you too young to remember, that’s the now-classic Hollywood version of the book that brought fame and fortune to Bob Woodward and to the Washington Post, starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford as the intrepid reporters).

There is no burglary in Chirac’s Nixon; all the plumbers in today’s France are Polish. But Chirac’s behavior was "worse than a crime: it was a mistake," as Talleyrand liked to say of his own betters.

Chirac’s first mistake was to believe that young French men and women would believe he had their best interests in mind when he ordered Villepin’s government to craft the new labor law. Why should they? Just because they acknowledged that they had voted for him against LePen?

His next mistake was to assign his fatuous Prime Minister the task of ramming the law down the throat of the opposition by passing it on a parliamentary no-confidence vote.

Even pro-government members of the French National Assembly votes for the government in such instances, knowing that the slightest defection could bring down the government and force new elections – in which case, they could be out of a seat.

Imagine what would have happened in the United States had George W. Bush decided to use his "political capital" after his 2004 re-election to mandate Social Security reform without ever attempting to convince the American public.

And Democrats complain that Bush is obstinate! He spent six months taking his proposals on a failed road show around the country, before calling it quits.

Neither Chirac nor Villepin spent a single day trying to convince anyone of the correctness of the new labor law. In their eyes, it was sufficient that they were right. For the peons, that should have been enough.

Chirac is as out of touch with the French public as ever Richard Nixon was. But Dominique de Villepin doesn’t have Agnew’s sputtering sense of comedy. At least with Spiro, not everyone was laughing at him.

Many Americans agreed with Spiro Agnew’s portrayal of the media and campus elites. They might not have understood "nattering nabobs of negativism" the first time they heard the phrase. But once they did, many felt (and still feel) that it described the leftist elites to a tee.

Not so with the elitist Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin, scion of aristocracy, admirer of Napolean, and would-be king.

I’ve always wondered what part of Napolean’s glory de Villepin liked the best. Was it the retreat from Moscow, when he led 400,000 young Frenchmen to their pointless deaths?

Mark my words: the French premier is going to start going on about nabobs of negativism and pusillanimous pussyfooters in another few days – but no one will find it very funny.

As for Chirac, his days as an effective politician are over.

He’s already the lamest of lame ducks. While he threatens to run for a third presidential term next year, no one believes he will actually do it, given that the latest poll found that just one percent of French voters would actually vote for him.

I expect he will find other demons to conjur, other dragons to slay.

Why not Scientology? The other headline in France this week features Scientology adept John Travolta "coming to the rescue" of Katie Holmes.

Ban the "cult?" Seize their assets? Chase American influence from Holy France?

It might work for a week.

But when the kids come back from Easter holidays, things are going to get hot for Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin.

Even if they withdraw the new law – which members of their own party have admitted they will do in the coming weeks– they are already guilty of the Nixonian cover-up.

Chirac never learned the first rule of Watergate. If you make a mistake, admit it right away, and try to get the public to move on. Instead, he keeps inventing new excuses why he was right, why the plumbers never broke the law, why their actions were in the national interest.

Jacquot, he is called by friends and detractors alike.

President Whatever.