# A new president for the Republic of France



## idler (Nov 23, 2006)

So - France just appointed a new president. Few (even in France) would dissagree that this was long overdue. But what do we make of the new guy? Given the large US patronage on these forums, and the difference of his politics from those of Chirac, I'm thinking people might have views? 

?


----------



## Gruto (Jul 5, 2004)

idler said:


> So - France just appointed a new president. Few (even in France) would dissagree that this was long overdue. But what do we make of the new guy? Given the large US patronage on these forums, and the difference of his politics from those of Chirac, I'm thinking people might have views?
> 
> ?


He is a French Tony Blair, I think. Tough on crimes and immigration, goes for economic deregulation. Has learned a lot from populist parties in terms of communication. Better than Royal.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am just hoping Etienne makes a re-appearance on the forum. I am sure he is fit to be tied.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Charvet or Hermes?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Charvet or Hermes?


Heh, good one for so early on a Monday 

Tied to the left I am sure :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I am sure he is fit to be tied.


What on earth could that mean? Maybe my lack of command of the English language here, but I simply don't get it.

Anyway, I am convinced that the man is very bad news for France, that's about all I have to say.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Étienne said:


> What on earth could that mean? Maybe my lack of command of the English language here, but I simply don't get it.
> 
> Anyway, I am convinced that the man is very bad news for France, that's about all I have to say.


Etienne, 'fit to be tied' is a fairly common expression over here meaning any of the following: to be upset, frustrated, on the verge of getting angry. It seems you are not happy with who won. I would be happy if anything like 85% of Americans ever turned out to vote - that's impressive.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> What on earth could that mean? Maybe my lack of command of the English language here, but I simply don't get it.
> 
> Anyway, I am convinced that the man is very bad news for France, that's about all I have to say.


It means you would not like the situation. As predicted, you have just stated it.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Étienne said:


> What on earth could that mean? Maybe my lack of command of the English language here, but I simply don't get it.
> 
> Anyway, I am convinced that the man is very bad news for France, that's about all I have to say.


"Fit to be tied" I believe, is a reference to insanity, strait jackets etc.

If you think he is bad news for France, its an appropriate reference.

Cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Some good stuff on cnn.com at

In response to his pledge to cut taxes on overtime and undermine the 35 hour work week:



> Union leaders criticized Sarkozy's proposals and France could face crippling strikes in the autumn


"Democracy" loving leftist's reactions:



> Violence was reported after the election outcome. Youths clashed with police in Paris and Lyon on Sunday, and security forces fired tear gas at 2,000 protesters in the French capital..


I am sure there will be more violence this year.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Gruto said:


> He is a *French Tony Blair*, I think. *Tough on crimes and immigration*, goes for economic deregulation.


You just contradicted yourself.

I guess the election of Sarkozy gives the lie to the all-too-often-heard claim that France is inherently "anti-Semitic".


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

JRR said:


> If you think he is bad news for France, its an appropriate reference.


So, to sum up, disagreeing with you is enough for you to call people crazy. And this seems to you a proper way to engage others in discussion.

I think I just remembered why I was avoiding the Interchange like the plague, I shall resume said avoidance.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I am sure there will be more violence this year.


I am too. Sarkozy is without doubt the most divisive politician France has seen in decades. I am not in any way condoning what the rioters' reaction, but I wonder why nobody here seems to hold Sarkozy in any way responsible for the effect his general demeanor and continuing insults have had (and will continue to have) in some neighbourhoods.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I am not in any way condoning what the rioters' reaction, but I wonder why nobody here seems to hold Sarkozy in any way responsible for the effect his general demeanor and continuing insults have had (and will continue to have) in some neighbourhoods.


I am certain that the opposition will attempt to do so. The rioting, however, really shouldn't come as a surprise irrespective of the results of the election. France has a long tradition of it and it seems to be part and parcel with French democracy. In America, we conduct polls to get a handle on popular feeling. In France, there are, in ascending order, demonstrations, strikes and riots. No doubt Sarkozy will be particularly tested and it will be interesting to see how he rises to those challenges.

Incidentally, Etienne, "fit to be tied" is generally not considered to be an insulting idiom or a serious allegation of insanity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I am too. Sarkozy is without doubt the most divisive politician France has seen in decades. I am not in any way condoning what the rioters' reaction, but I wonder why nobody here seems to hold Sarkozy in any way responsible for the effect his general demeanor and continuing insults have had (and will continue to have) in some neighbourhoods.


The people that were violent this weekend do not need Sarkozy to be violent. Any excuse will do and they will find one whether he is President or not. We do not hold him responsible for the violence in some neighborhoods because we hold the individual is responsible for his/her own actions.

Just for the record, I used "fit to be tied" as a statement equivalent for "frustrated and angry", not "crazy". I have no problem coming to the point, if I had wanted to intimate insanity, I would have said so.

Edit: BTW, "most divisive"? Hell, the guy got nearly 1/2 the vote from the very neighborhoods that rioted in 2005! He got blue collar votes at far higher rates than pro-capitalist politicians usually do. Looking at the voting breakdown, he seems to have garnered a much wider mandate than any recent French President.



> In a surprising turn of events, 46 percent of blue-collar workers -- traditionally leftist voters -- chose Sarkozy, according to an Ipsos/Dell poll, an AP report said.
> 
> Forty-four percent of people of modest means voted for him, while 32 percent of people who usually vote for the Greens and 14 percent who normally support the far-left cast ballots for Sarkozy.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Étienne, would you have been happier if Ms. Royal had won? Or was there another candidate you liked better? Will many people in government work with Mr. Sarkozy, or is there good opposition to him?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Étienne said:


> So, to sum up, disagreeing with you is enough for you to call people crazy. And this seems to you a proper way to engage others in discussion.
> 
> I think I just remembered why I was avoiding the Interchange like the plague, I shall resume said avoidance.


 
Etienne, to say someone is "fit to be tied" in english is not an insult at all. It's just expressing that you realize that they're frustrated.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> The rioting, however, really shouldn't come as a surprise irrespective of the results of the election. France has a long tradition of it and it seems to be part and parcel with French democracy.


A surprising statement. I don't seem to recall this ever happening before over election results.



Wayfarer said:


> Just for the record, I used "fit to be tied" as a statement equivalent for "frustrated and angry", not "crazy".


Acknowledged. I still find JRR's comment pretty insulting.



> Edit: BTW, "most divisive"?


Yes. According to polls and what people say around me, the people who dislike Mrs Royal dislike her. The people who dislike Mr Sarkozy hate him and are generally scared of him. His discourse during the campaign (except the last two weeks) was also really full of contempt and fear-mongering for his opponents. He now tries to recast himself as a statesman, but impressions such as that one die hard.



mpcsb said:


> Étienne, would you have been happier if Ms. Royal had won? Or was there another candidate you liked better?


I did not like Mrs Royal, and would have liked Dominique Strauss-Kahn or Laurent Fabius to get the PS nomination. Among the 12 candidates we had for the election, my favorite would probably have been Mr Bayrou, then Mrs Royal.



> Will many people in government work with Mr. Sarkozy, or is there good opposition to him?


There is a general election for the parliament in one month, it all depends on who will get the majority then. If the socialists win (which seems unlikely right now), then we have a "cohabitation" like 1997-2002, if the UMP wins then Sarkozy gets pretty much a free rein to do as he pleases.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Étienne said:


> A surprising statement. I don't seem to recall this ever happening before over election results.
> 
> .


I'll stand corrected on the particular point about elections. Nonetheless, rioting as an expression of social and political will or frustration does seem to be more common in France than in many other western countries, no? I'm not making a normative judgment about it or France or the French. There do, however, seem to be differences in approach to popular expression that would merit serious study. It would be interesting to know why the French tradition differs from others.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Étienne said:


> There is a general election for the parliament in one month, it all depends on who will get the majority then. If the socialists win (which seems unlikely right now), then we have a "cohabitation" like 1997-2002, if the UMP wins then Sarkozy gets pretty much a free rein to do as he pleases.


Thank you for your views! I guess there is still much to watch for eh?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Yes. According to polls and what people say around me, the people who dislike Mrs Royal dislike her. *The people who dislike Mr Sarkozy hate him and are generally scared of him.* His discourse during the campaign (except the last two weeks) was also really full of contempt and fear-mongering for his opponents. He now tries to recast himself as a statesman, but impressions such as that one die hard.


Re: "most divisive".

I think what this does is to say more about Mr. Sarkozy's detractors than it does Mr. Sarkozy. To me, this shows the general lack of maturity and acceptance of the democratic process amongst those on the left and/or his detractors. It shows to me their childish inability to accept defeat graciously, their manufactured fear in lieu of mature acceptance of diversity of thought, and the anti-democratic tendencies used to marginalize a duly elected President. I notice you did not comment on the data I provided to show that he actually has what appears to be a quite broad-based mandate.

Just my opinion, I am sure yours will differ greatly. However, this is not a France specific phenomenom, I have noted in the last 15 or so years, any defeat of the left leads to fear mongering by them, possible violence, and definite anti-democratic urges manifested by them.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Just my opinion, I am sure yours will differ greatly.


Indeed. Contrary to what you just said, I have never noticed "fear-mongering" by the left when they lose elections.

And I stand by my statement. If Mr Sarkozy is divisive it's entirely by his own doing. Nobody else on the right (Mr Fillon, Mrs Alliot-Marie, Mr Chirac, Mr de Villepin) has ever created by his discourse such a strong reaction of reject. To me, this proves that the reject and division Mr Sarkozy creates are not because of some failure by his opponents.



A Questionable Gentleman said:


> I'll stand corrected on the particular point about elections. Nonetheless, rioting as an expression of social and political will or frustration does seem to be more common in France than in many other western countries, no?


No. Peaceful demonstration, yes, that is indeed common and much more common here than in countries like the US. Riots, however, are a very rare occurence indeed.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Indeed. Contrary to what you just said, I have never noticed "fear-mongering" by the left when they lose elections.
> 
> And I stand by my statement. If Mr Sarkozy is divisive it's entirely by his own doing. Nobody else on the right (Mr Fillon, Mrs Alliot-Marie, Mr Chirac, Mr de Villepin) has ever created by his discourse such a strong reaction of reject. To me, this proves that the reject and division Mr Sarkozy creates are not because of some failure by his opponents.


Again, you have not addressed the exit data showing he has quite broadbased support. This, in and of itself, is a typical fear-mongering tactic. Telling us the winner, with widespread support, is actually "divisive", has created a "strong reaction of reject" and you have already agreed further violence from the fringe is likely. You seem to be somehow painting his victory as something brought about by an isolated and reactionary minority of disaffected elites, vs. a substantial and diverse majority, which all data indicates is the case.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Etienne makes the most relevant point:
The parliamentary elections to be held later (28th of this month?) will determine to a large extent what Sarkozy will be empowered to do.

I'm ignoring the spin for now. I will wait to see actions. I will watch closely on a number of issues:

a) labor laws - temporary workers, 35-hour work week, size of government workforce

b) immigration and cultural assimilation issues

c) foreign policy - especially as related to 1) middle east and 2) far east

I listed labor/employment first because it is the place Sarkozy has the most potential. The level of unemployment in France of people under 35 is crazy. There are so many talented young Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who are denied an opportunity to contribute. It is a tragedy that lessens the entire Western world.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Étienne said:


> .
> 
> Acknowledged. I still find JRR's comment pretty insulting.


How did I insult you????

I gave the historical background for the phrase.

THEN,

I stated that it was an appropriate phrase when someone is upset about something.

Christ, I even wrote "CHEERS" as a gesture of goodwill...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Étienne said:


> So, to sum up, disagreeing with you is enough for you to call people crazy. And this seems to you a proper way to engage others in discussion.
> 
> I think I just remembered why I was avoiding the Interchange like the plague, I shall resume said avoidance.


Where did I call you crazy????


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

JRR said:


> I gave the historical background for the phrase.
> 
> THEN,
> 
> I stated that it was an appropriate phrase when someone is upset about something.


My bad. You gave only the historical background, not the current sense. You basically said "it refers to straight jackets" and "it's a good description of you". One crucial link was missing and I misinterpreted.



Wayfarer said:


> Again, you have not addressed the exit data showing he has quite broadbased support.


Because that's irrelevant. Yes, he has 53% of the vote. What I am pointing out is that out of the 47% who do not support him, an important proportion are actually scared of him, and that's something no other conservative leader has. I then explained that this is due to his past demeanor, his political discourse has been up to one month ago more divisive than any other conservative politician. Hence the large reject, hence the few riots (fortunately quite limited right now). I don't how any of the facts I just gave is tantamount to spreading "fear".



> You seem to be somehow painting his victory as something brought about by an isolated and reactionary minority of disaffected elites, vs. a substantial and diverse majority, which all data indicates is the case.


You are extrapolating, I never said anything of the sort.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Hey Etienne*

Etienne,

Here is a link that uses the term as the title.

https://www.writehands.com/main/portfolio/op-ed/op-ed1.php

In the link, the author describes how her wedding planning is causing her great frustration, driving her crazy, making her "fit to be tied"

In this other link, the historical reference is made:
https://www.collinwood.net/christmas/12days.htm

"Naomi, my mother, is fit to be tied and father is thinking about building a sanitarium just to have some place to send her."

Hope this helps with your understanding.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

JRR said:


> Hope this helps with your understanding.


No need for more links, I get it now. I made a mistake because you were only giving the historical context and not the current meaning, but I know the current meaning now. Again, my bad, I misread what you said, sorry.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Just to weigh in on the current trend of fearmongering from the left all across the globe. It is not the type used by Reagan or even LBJ in their famous campaign commercials. Rather, it is an appeal to a more insidious sort of black hand roaming the world. It takes its form in "he is really scary", "many people are very frightened" or "we ought to be scared" and leaves any substance out as to make the threat all the more nebulous. It has worked in the US for several years now and obvioulsy we exported it to the French left as well.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

iammatt said:


> obvioulsy we exported it to the French left as well.


If you want to convince yourself that there is some sort of dark conspiracy behind the feelings Mr Sarkozy creates, fine, but really there is no need for that far-fetched hypothesis. The plain reason seems reason enough: he repeatedly insulted and spread concern in his previous discourses, and now he is reaping the fruit of that demeanor.

As far as "nebulous fear" is concerned, I have some very specific points, not nebulous at all, in his program and his past endeavours that explain how I feel. I did not wait for some conspiracy to try and instill fear in me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Because that's irrelevant. Yes, he has 53% of the vote. What I am pointing out is that out of the 47% who do not support him,* an important proportion are actually scared of him, *and that's something no other conservative leader has.


But of course it is irrelevant to you and of course the important part is the 47% that did not vote for him. This could not have played out better to prove my observation of the left's anti-democratic tendencies, as I posted far up this thread. And what portion is "actually scared of him"? The portion that is currently rioting and promising crippling strikes and further rioting? I think if they are scared, that is a good thing. Criminals should fear the application of law.

No Etienne, you are saying exactly what I predicted you would. It would seem I am also not alone in my observations. If you and those on the left said something such as, "I do not understand why, but the majority of the population has decided our vision on how to run France is the wrong one. We will examine our positions, modifying those in error and for those we still deem valid, we will assemble facts, data, and logic and attempt to win the next round....with ideas, not Molatov cocktails."

That would earn respect. This fear mongering earns nothing but contempt and derision.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> But of course it is irrelevant to you and of course the important part is the 47% that did not vote for him.


Once again, you choose to completely disregard what I said and distort it. One last time I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have genuinely not understood what I was saying. Let me, then, endeavour to express it as clearly as I can.

I never said that the majority of 53% is not important, or not the majority. I nerver ever said that the minority of 47% is the only relevant one. What I did is point out a new development: Mr Sarkozy is particularly divisive. My argument: the people who do not agree with him are particularly scared of him and many hate him. This is a reaction no other politician in France provokes. The people on the right who don't agree with Royal usually are not scared of her. The people on the left are not scared of any other of the conservative politician.

That second fact is, to me, a proof that this is not a problem that the left has with democracy, contrary to what you claim. It is a specific reaction to the person of Mr Sarkozy. Pointing out that Mr Sarkozy enjoys a majority support is, I repeat, completely irrelevant to analyzing that specific problem. The problem here is to understand why the people who don't support him react the way they do to him, when they don't react the same way to other conservative politicians.

So, turning now (now that we are, I hope, clear on the preceding point) to that further interesting thing, which is to try and understand why Mr Sarkozy is particularly divisive. Matt offers the hypothesis that this is a plot by the political left to vilify him. Unsurprisingly, that is also, of course, what Mr Sarkozy claims has happened. I respectfully disagree (see my answer to Matt above).

There are of course many other things at stake in this election, I only spent so much time on that specific issue because you kept - err - "misunderstanding" what I was writing on the subject.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> My argument: the people who do not agree with him are particularly scared of him and many hate him. This is a reaction no other politician in France provokes.


I can remember the hate Chirac engendered. I would put this foward: the reason no other conservative politician at this time "scares" the left is because Sarkozy was the one and only in the race...a race he was winning.



Étienne said:


> The people on the right who don't agree with Royal usually are not scared of her.


Of course. They lack the childish fears.



Étienne said:


> That second fact is, to me, a proof that this is not a problem that the left has with democracy, contrary to what you claim. It is a specific reaction to the person of Mr Sarkozy. Pointing out that Mr Sarkozy enjoys a majority support is, I repeat, completely irrelevant to analyzing that specific problem. The problem here is to understand why the people who don't support him react the way they do to him, when they don't react the same way to other conservative politicians.


Again, what these "scared people" have to say says more about them than it does Mr. Sarkozy. It is indeed relevant he has such broad based support as it shows he is capable of winning the minds of many diverse people. It shows where the lack of diversity is, namely in the minds of the scared leftists. If there was a broad based fear of Mr. Sarkozy, I would be concerned. When it is concentrated in fringe groups, I think it is the baggage of those groups, not Mr. Sarkozy. If he was so divisive, by the word's very definition, he could not have broad based support, which once again, all data indicates he does.



Étienne said:


> So, turning now (now that we are, I hope, clear on the preceding point) to that further interesting thing, which is to try and understand why Mr Sarkozy is particularly divisive. Matt offers the hypothesis that this is a plot by the political left to vilify him. Unsurprisingly, that is also, of course, what Mr Sarkozy claims has happened. I respectfully disagree (see my answer to Matt above).


It is not a plot, I never hypothosized that. It is merely a learned reaction for a group of people.

Etienne, the fact that you cannot see the supposed reactions of a reactionary few does not negate a broad based result is illogical. It shows where the true divisive nature is and it shows who is immature and unable to admit a simple defeat in the realm of politics and ideas. I think my statement above is good advice, namely examine why the positions of Royale were rejected.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I can remember the hate Chirac engendered.


I nerver noticed the same type of reactions in 1995 or 2002 to Mr Chirac. I maintain that you are wrong.



> If he was so divisive, by the word's very definition, he could not have broad based support, which once again, all data indicates he does.


Maybe we don't have the same definition of the word. I use it to say he promotes divisions and encourages strong opposition. I would contrast that to, say a poltician like Mr Balladur, who was really inclusive (although also a conservatice politician).



> It is not a plot, I never hypothosized that.


I was refering to iammatt.



> it shows who is immature and unable to admit a simple defeat in the realm of politics and ideas.


The problem of Mr Sarkozy's divisiveness was already a problem before the election. Contrary to what you say, it is not simply a matter of him being the victor of the latest election. It was already a problem in the last 5 years, when neither Mr Raffarin nor Mr de Villepin (at least before the "CPE" affair) were as divisive. That last victory is just making the problem even more accute. It was a problem that he provoked such reactions when he was number 2 in the government. It is an even more pronounced one now that he is head of state.



> I think my statement above is good advice, namely examine why the positions of Royale were rejected.


I am not a politician, this is perhaps a good advice for the politicians of the left for their future electoral fights, but I am merely discussing and analyzing the last election here.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Étienne said:


> If you want to convince yourself that there is some sort of dark conspiracy behind the feelings Mr Sarkozy creates, fine, but really there is no need for that far-fetched hypothesis. The plain reason seems reason enough: he repeatedly insulted and spread concern in his previous discourses, and now he is reaping the fruit of that demeanor.
> 
> As far as "nebulous fear" is concerned, I have some very specific points, not nebulous at all, in his program and his past endeavours that explain how I feel. I did not wait for some conspiracy to try and instill fear in me.


I never suggested it was a plot either. I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to describe the way that the fear is presented, that is by suggesting that there is some dark, insidious group of which you should be scared. This group has included recently Bush, Cheney, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and once included Reagan as well. Sorry for the miscommunication.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Again, what these "scared people" have to say says more about them than it does Mr. Sarkozy.


I count myself among the people scared of Mr Sarkozy's personality and politics. What is it exactly that this is supposed to say about me?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I count myself among the people scared of Mr Sarkozy's personality and politics. What is it exactly that this is supposed to say about me?


Do I really need to spell it out? I am trying not to directly insult you very hard.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Hey Etienne! Welcome back. 

I'm sure you're feeling as if you've made a dreadful error in returning to the Interchange, but I for one hope you stick around. 

I'm willing to bet that you know more about French politics than I do, so I'm glad to have the chance to benefit from your perspective.

Cheers.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Not worth it.*

Okay, France is doomed for electing Sarkozy. He is a right ba$tard and everyone that voted for him should have the right to vote stripped from them. He is a scary guy. He eats babies. Long live the right to riot, work no more than 35 hours a week and have a bloated civil service.

Etienne, you have convinced me the error of my ways. I do apologize that Sarkozy has been inflicted on your being by a broad based solid majority of your country men. May god have pity on all our souls.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Hey Etienne! Welcome back.
> 
> I'm sure you're feeling as if you've made a dreadful error in returning to the Interchange, but I for one hope you stick around.
> 
> ...


No Bertie, the dreadful error was in my demurring regarding Sarkozy. I have since come to my senses! Etienne's wonderful perspective, that you so astutely keyed into, has brought me around. Let us hope the babies are safe in their cradles tonight all across France from the vile Sarkozy!


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Do I really need to spell it out? I am trying not to directly insult you very hard.


You are really incapable to spell some characteristics without insulting? I think that says a lot about you.

To be more specific, Mr Sarkozy's record is to undermine civil liberties (he has enacted various laws which had this effect under the pretext of fighting crime and terrorism). His program includes more of the same. He has also included in his program some worrisome tokens of the far-right (like a fight against immigration seen as a threat to national identity). He made at least one speech implying France had "nothing to be ashamed of" concerning WWII. He has also instituted a muslim council, which I see as a step towards communautarism.

This mixture of policies, past and planned, added to the way he has shown nothing but contempt for his opponents until a few weeks ago are what make him scary to me.

There are other parts of his program I disagree with, but as simple normal political disagreements (such as his economic program). The parts I mentioned above, however, I find disgraceful.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

BertieW said:


> I'm sure you're feeling as if you've made a dreadful error in returning to the Interchange, but I for one hope you stick around.


Indeed. For a minute, I thought I could have a reasonable discussion with Wayfarer, but I soon discovered he has not abandoned anything of the kind of rethorics I found so distateful.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> You are really incapable to spell some characteristics without insulting? I think that says a lot about you.


Ah yes, yet when I have posited here several times what the "hate Sarkozy" crowd has to say says more about them, you disagree with that concept...for me though, it speaks volumes? LOL, typical. Can we say "hypocrite"?



Étienne said:


> To be more specific, Mr Sarkozy's record is to undermine civil liberties (he has enacted various laws which had this effect under the pretext of fighting crime and terrorism). His program includes more of the same. He has also included in his program some worrisome tokens of the far-right (like a fight against immigration seen as a threat to national identity). He made at least one speech implying France had "nothing to be ashamed of" concerning WWII. He has also instituted a muslim council, which I see as a step towards communautarism.
> 
> This mixture of policies, past and planned, added to the way he has shown nothing but contempt for his opponents until a few weeks ago are what make him scary to me.
> 
> There are other parts of his program I disagree with, but as simple normal political disagreements (such as his economic program). The parts I mentioned above, however, I find disgraceful.


Anyways, it makes no difference to me. I actually would have liked to see Royal win, just as it would have been far more interesting and I think you should have the government you deserve.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes, yet when I have posited here several times what the "hate Sarkozy" crowd has to say says more about them, you disagree with that concept...for me though, it speaks volumes? LOL, typical. Can we say "hypocrite"?


Are you really that incapable of getting a joke? Sad.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Are you really that incapable of getting a joke? Sad.


My mistake...I just did not think you capable of one....sorry.



> Police reported that 270 people were taken in for questioning and that 367 parked vehicles had been torched. On a typical night in France, about 100 cars are burned.
> 
> Late Sunday, small bands of youths hurled stones and other objects at police at the Place de la Bastille in Paris. Some bared their backsides at riot officers behind their shields, and police fired volleys of tear gas. Two police unions said* firebombs targeted schools and recreation centers* in several towns in the Essonne region just south of Paris.


From foxnews.com Man, 100 cars burned a night on average? Surely that cannot be correct? And why target schools? French politics is indeed beyond me.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Man, 100 cars burned a night on average? Surely that cannot be correct?


That seems a lot to me, but not entirely inthinkable. I read somewhere that it is almost twice that in the UK, just to compare.

As far as targeting schools, I cannot claim to know what crosses the minds of rioters, as I am not one.


----------



## bmoney (Mar 27, 2007)

*yo*

I like Sarkozy, and I think that his policies are the best for France in the long term. However, I'm worried that his constituents will find them unpalatable and he'll soon end up lame duck - just like Bush when he tried spending his "political capital" after the election and ended up getting nowhere with Social Security. Best of luck Sarkozy!


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Dear Etienne,

I'm struck by this statement in your criticisms of Sarkozy:



Étienne said:


> He has also included in his program some worrisome tokens of the far-right (like a fight against immigration seen as a threat to national identity).


I certainly can understand how that position would be associated with Le Pen in France and how that might engender a negative reaction.

What confuses me is that it simply seems like a statement of fact. Native Europeans have a birthrate less than the rate of replacement. Immigrants, specifically the folks who burned the banlieus last year, have a very high birthrate. In 50 years or so there will be a new majority in the country. Demographics is destiny.

Is there something I'm missing? What is the perspective or fact that informs your disdain for Sarkozy on this issue?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

radix023 said:


> Is there something I'm missing? What is the perspective or fact that informs your disdain for Sarkozy on this issue?


The fact that I am a firm believer in universalism and the French values. Being French is not a matter of culture, it is a matter of citizenship. I don't care what their religion or customs are, as long as they acept the constitution and the laws.

By the way, the people in the "banlieues" are not immigrants. They are French, usually of immigrant descent (2nd or 3rd generation). More importantly, they are poor and I think that is the important point here. The current immigrants are working their ass off to send some money back home and have no time for rioting.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

Surely if the French Republic views headscarves and crucifixes as a threat to the national identity then one could see how unfettered immigration poses a threat to national identity. The inability of North African immigrants to fully integrate into French society (for whatever the reason) has radicalized them and poses a long term problem. 

Also, your criticism of Sarkozy seems a bit alarmist and bitter - a bit early to condemn Sarko's reign, don't you think?

I wish Sarkozy all the best and hope he is able to overhaul and modernize the French economy, welfare state and bloated public sector. But in all likelihood he will fail bc most of France seems more willing to take a day off from class or work to hit the streets in protest than to accept painful but necessary reforms. To be fair, an unwillingess to accept painful reform is hardly unique to France but the French unwillingness to accept even mild, half hearted measures like the last attempt to reform employment law is, shall we say, novel.

I do think Sarkozy will have a difficult time as France is in a state of relative decline (so is the United States btw.) The French economy is the weakest among the EU's Big 3 and is in dire need of reform. French power in the EU has been diluted by the increasing indepenndence of Germany and the admission of the former Eastern Bloc states, who tend to look to London and Washington for direction rather than Paris. The French military, with the exception of the Air Force and its strategic nuclear forces, is in need of a huge capital injection and modernization and bc of the delay of the A-400 transport, has extremely limited lift capability and hence force projection capability.

In any event I am glad that Sarkozy is not reflexively anti-American, as the Chirac regime became. I do hope that Franco-American relations improve and that France becomes an even stronger ally on the fight against Islamic terrorism. Sarkozy is also the most pro-Israeli French President ever. De Gaulle was friendly to Israel in its early days (even supplying the technical capability to build Dimona, and hence the Israeli bomb. How's that for non-proliferation?) but adopted a pro-Arab policy around 1967. Perhaps France will finally abandon the discredited PAF policy, one can hope anyway.

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Surely if the French Republic views headscarves and crucifixes as a threat to the national identity then one could see how unfettered immigration poses a threat to national identity.


Not really. Accepting the laws includes accepting a very secular state like ours. Catholics had a very hard time accepting that in the early 20th century (and many of them never accepted it), some Muslims have the problem now.



> Also, your criticism of Sarkozy seems a bit alarmist and bitter - a bit early to condemn Sarko's reign, don't you think?


He has been in power for 5 years now. Not at the top, but head of the main political party and number 2 in the government. That's plenty enough to judge him in my book.

In addition to the worrisome policies I was talking about (about justice reform, civil liberties, national identity, inability to consider French history with a balanced view...) there is the economic performance. In 1997-2002 under the previous government, Franc was ahead of the rest of the Euo zone. In 2002-2007 we slipped behind. Hardly a stellar performance.



> Sarkozy is also the most pro-Israeli French President ever.


https://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070506/CPMONDE/70506105/6283/CPMONDE

In short : the Hezbollah congratulates Sarkozy and is happy Chirac is out as they viewed him as anti-Hezbollah and anti-Syria.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Etienne,
> 
> Surely if the French Republic views headscarves and crucifixes as a threat to the national identity then one could see how unfettered immigration
> 
> ...


Sometimes I think if more Americans were willing to take an occasional day off from the grind to protest or otherwise get involved with the political life of the country we would be better off. Perhaps not in Iraq, for example.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Étienne said:


> The fact that I am a firm believer in universalism and the French values. Being French is not a matter of culture, it is a matter of citizenship. I don't care what their religion or customs are, as long as they acept the constitution and the laws.


An interesting point, Etienne, and one that illuminates the major difference between continental democracy, like that in France, and Anglo-Saxon democracy, like that in America. There is a tension between egality and liberty. Both are worth pursuing, but each comes at some cost to the other. France has chosen, when they are in conflict, to go with egality. Hence, no religious symbols and an effort to homogenize culture. America has made the opposite choice and favors liberty. Hence our Equal Access Act which vitually guarantees the right to wear religious symbols in public institutions. The differences between us are small, but they do seem to cause misunderstanding.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> The fact that I am a firm believer in universalism and the French values. Being French is not a matter of culture, it is a matter of citizenship. I don't care what their religion or customs are, as long as they acept the constitution and the laws.


Wow....I could write books on that little blurb. Do you not see that values and culture are inexorably connected? Your belief in "French values" are indeed cultural aspects of France! And in case you have not figured this out yet, the very root of the problem is that Islamists do not want to share the same secular values you have. Accepting the constitution and the laws, all of which reflect the French culture by the way, is exactly what is being fought over by the Muslim immigrants and is what you say does not matter. Indeed, in a post after this you state:



Étienne said:


> Accepting the laws includes accepting a very secular state like ours.


A sizable portion of Muslims do not validate your secular laws and what you are doing here is forcing your values on them. You are basically being inconsistent. I know you will not acknowledge this, but my friend, it is very apparent. You are willing to accept all....*as long as they are willing to change to your way of thinking*. You are being just a great of a cultural elitest as what you think Sarkozy is.

Lastly, universalism? Trust me, most of the problems with religion is that the fundies are not universalists. It all breaks down to "my way is right, yours is wrong (so you must die sometimes)" and "you are going to hell because only my belief is correct". You might believe in universalism but the sector in which the assimilation problems lie most certainly do not believe in it.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> A sizable portion of Muslims do not validate your secular laws and what you are doing here is forcing your values on them.


Only forcing them to accept the laws, in fact, but yes I never said I was for separate communities "free" to do as they please.



> You are being just a great of a cultural elitest as what you think Sarkozy is.


Wow. You honestly cannot tell the difference between what I wrote and how I described Mr Sarkozy's policies? Amazing.



A Questionable Gentleman said:


> France has chosen, when they are in conflict, to go with egality. Hence, no religious symbols and an effort to homogenize culture. America has made the opposite choice and favors liberty. Hence our Equal Access Act which vitually guarantees the right to wear religious symbols in public institutions.


Indeed you could say that France chooses to promote equality over liberty more often than the US, although I would argue that this is oversimplified.

The example you are making, though, is not a valid case. If anything, it's a different view of liberty. We consider that having a perfectly neutral state (no mention of a religion or of religious values anywhere) is an important part of the freedom of conscience. That entails that public education be free of any attempt at proselytism.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Is there only the equilivalent of our establishment clause in France and not equivalent of the free exercise clause? I am surprised at that.

it makes every bit of sense that France would hold liberty and equality as being of more equal importance than would we. Our country was founded on the basis of liberty being the first among rights where France's ideals have held the two as equal.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Indeed you could say that France chooses to promote equality over liberty more often than the US, although I would argue that this is oversimplified.
> 
> The example you are making, though, is not a valid case. If anything, it's a different view of liberty. We consider that having a perfectly neutral state (no mention of a religion or of religious values anywhere) is an important part of the freedom of conscience. That entails that public education be free of any attempt at proselytism.


Sure, it's a bit simple, but we're on an internet forum, so a few broad brushstrokes get a conversation going.

Here's why my distinction is valid. In the Anglo philosophical tradition, we view liberty as being able to do as one chooses absent interference by the government. John Locke is the poster boy for the school of thought. We do not view it as freedom from expression of the opinions of others. John Stuart Mill convinces us that this is necessary for effective governance. Applying this to public education in the US, our state-funded schools are required by law to be free of attempts by the state to inculcate religion. So, consistent with Locke, we are free from state imposition of faith. However, our schools are also required to let student religious groups assemble and operate on the same basis as non-religious groups. So, if the Young Repbulicans or Democrats get to meet after school and post on bulletin boards, so does the student prayer club. It's a fine line to walk. As a school solicitor, I've had to make calls on it. When in conflict, current caselaw generally supports free expression by students as opposed to bans on expression.

France, unlike the US, will not permit official religious inculcation. However, unlike the US, France has determined that the religious neutrality requires a ban on student expression in the form of religious apparel. It is, in essence, a form of state interdiction of private activity and infringes on liberty. This enforced freedom from the opinions of others is not really entirely consistent with liberty even as defined by continental types like Hegel or Rousseau. So, there must be something else at work in France. I posit that it is to elevate the equalite and fraternite bits a bit above the liberte bit. It is an attempt to create a communal and peaceful rather than individualistic and more turbulent atmosphere and is influenced by Rousseau's more sociable take (than Locke's) on the nature of civil society. Rousseau, I believe would have little problem with the French take on classical liberalism.

So, yes. I do view the headscarf thing as a prime example of philosophical differences between the US and France. We bridle at being told not to do something by the government and you wonder why we can't simply look to the common good.

In each case, I suppose that the test is whether the approach works. In the US, we constantly question whether all the freedom we want should be curtailed for security and safety. In France, rioting over the past year or so should cause a similar evaluation of whether equalitarian approaches are delivering their goal of a culture characterised by relatively uniform acceptance of communitarian principals.

Whew! That's a lot of thought for one afternoon at AAAC. Perhaps we should uncork some wine?


----------



## idler (Nov 23, 2006)

*?!?!?!?*

Phew! Wayfarer and Etienne you guys really know how to antagonise each other eh?

Anyway - nice to hear your views. Etienne, I am yet to find an intelligent Frenchman whose view differs from yours on this by even a whisker. So there must be something in it! I would love to have thought that his failings were worth it to let France benefit from his proposed economic reforms but I'm becoming convinced that they are not.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> However, our schools are also required to let student religious groups assemble and operate on the same basis as non-religious groups. So, if the Young Repbulicans or Democrats get to meet after school and post on bulletin boards, so does the student prayer club.


Ahem, of course political propaganda is also banned in public schools in France... When I said "neutrality" that's not only on a religious ground.



idler said:


> Etienne, I am yet to find an intelligent Frenchman whose view differs from yours on this by even a whisker.


I know intelligent Frenchmen who support Mr Sarkozy. To take an example, when I asked an old friend of mine, who happens to work on his staff, about it, he answered: "yes, I know, he fucks up about civil liberties and such, but the economic program is worth ignoring that". Different priorities, I guess.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

*Hit the road Jack!*

Gents,

Now that Sarkozy has won we can begin to assess the awful reign of Chirac. But I will let Anne Applebaum speak for me in her recent Slate column:

https://www.slate.com/id/2165750/?GT1=10034

"......Ponder closely, for example, what Chirac has had to say about Africa, where his country has enormous influence, in many places far outweighing ours. During a visit to the Ivory Coast, Chirac once called "multi-partyism" a "kind of luxury," which his host, president-for-life Félix Houphouet-Boigny, could clearly not afford. During a visit to Tunisia, he proclaimed that, since "the most important human rights are the rights to be fed, to have health, to be educated, and to be housed," Tunisia's human rights record is "very advanced"-never mind the police who beat up dissidents. "Africa is not ready for democracy," he told a group of African leaders in the early 1990s.

On Britain: "The only thing they have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease. &#8230; You can't trust people who cook as badly as that."

On Russia: "For his contribution to friendship between France and Russia," Chirac decorated Vladimir Putin last year with the highest order of the Légion d'honneur, a medal reserved for the closest foreign friends of France (Churchill, Eisenhower), despite the deterioration of the Russian president's human rights record. A few weeks later, Chirac decided to hold his 74th birthday party in Riga, Latvia, after a NATO summit. He invited President Putin, disinvited President George W. Bush, and snubbed the Latvian president in the process. As the diplomatic scandal grew, the guests all begged off, and the birthday dinner never took place.

On Saddam Hussein: "You are my personal friend. Let me assure you of my esteem, consideration, and bond."

On Eastern Europe supporting the United States in the United Nations: "It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well-brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to shut up."

On Iran's nuclear program: "Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that's not very dangerous." Theoretically, Chirac was supposed to be negotiating with Iran to give up its nuclear program at the time.

On hearing a French businessman address a European summit in English, "deeply shocked," he stormed out of the room.

As I say, it's a very important legacy: One of consistent scorn for the Anglo-American world in general and the English language in particular, of suspicion of Central Europe and profound disinterest in the wave of democratic transformation that swept the world in the 1980s and 1990s, of preference for the Arab and African dictators who had been, and remained, clients of France. In his later years, Chirac constantly searched, in almost all international conflicts, for novel ways of opposing the United States. All along, he did his best to protect France from the rapidly changing global economy........."

Particularly galling (pun intended) is Chirac's attempted bullying of Eastern Europe, but as the Czech defense minister said after the incident (and I paraphrase), Prague knows not to count on French guarantees. Perhaps Sarkozy with his Hungarian roots will be welcoming to the EU's newest members.

Good riddance to Chirac, perhaps the only politician who made one miss Mitterand and who made the former Trotskyite Lionel Jospin look good.

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Now that Sarkozy has won we can begin to assess the awful reign of Chirac. But I will let Anne Applebaum speak for me in her recent Slate column


Wow. Talk about a biased and unfair account. And yet, trust me, I deeply despise Mr Chirac and hold his overall record in very poor esteem.

I can point at somme good decisions. The main ones are of course in the so-called "war on terror" (supported the US when they were right, Afgghanistan, intelligence work, and not when they were wrong, Iraq). Then there is Lebanon (although that one does not stem from a right analysis of the situation but from a personal friendship with Mr Hariri), Ivory Coast (did not shun from intervening when the UN asked, even if it meant losing the suppport of the main country in Western Africa)... He did make a few good calls.

Yet of course, he said he would contribute to the democratization of Africa and did almost nothing of the sort (Mitterrand actually did quite the same), is personally corrupt, etc. I really do not think he was very good overall, but the piece you quote is so one-sided as to be laughable and would almost make me like the guy in reaction.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

*Vive le Sarko!*

Etienne,

I find it odd that you call Applebaum's piece unfair when her comments are based on direct quotes from Chirac himself.

And I find it disheartening that you have such a violent reaction to a man (Sarkozy) who recently spoke these words:

"I want to launch a call to all those in the world who believe in the values of tolerance, of liberty, of democracy and of humanism, to all those who are persecuted by the tyrannies and by the dictators, to all the children and to all the martyrized women in the world to say to them that the pride, the duty of France will at their sides, that they can count on her. France will be at the sides of the Libyan nurses locked up for eight years; France will not abandon Ingrid Betancourt; France will not abandon the women who are condemned to the burqa; France will not abandon the women who do not have liberty. France will be by the side of the oppressed of the world. This is the message of France; this is the identity of France; this is the history of France."

Royal, on a tour of Communist China right before the election campaign, said that Chinese courts are more efficient than French ones - of course they are! This is the candidate, whose defeat you rue? It is hard not to conclude that you support continued dirigisme and the defense of dictators. But Etienne, surely as a humanist, you have to admire Sarkozy's words, no? Time will tell if Sarkozy actually makes the notions of liberté, égalité, fraternité the guiding themes in French foreign policy. I wish him well in this endeavor and if he succeeds then I would happily endorse the US following the French lead.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Nice to see this thread kept going in my absence.

So on to serious stuff. What is Sarko's view on foi gras?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Nice to see this thread kept going in my absence.
> 
> So on to serious stuff. What is Sarko's view on foi gras?


And fox hunting, don't forget about those poor foxes.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> I find it odd that you call Applebaum's piece unfair when her comments are based on direct quotes from Chirac himself.


I enjoyed the Applebaum piece and thought it was fair play. However, when judging fairness and bias in news media, just judging accuracy is insufficient.

The other two factors (only one plays in this instance) are:
a) Story selection (doesn't factor in here, but is basically the choice of what stories to cover)
b) Framing of the story. This is where you determine what the overall narrative is (in this case, something like: politician's career ends, his own words demonstrate his hypocrisy and the lack of accomplishment). Once the frame is established, only facts that support that frame are included and other facts are discarded.

So by the framing consideration, one could make a case against Applebaum's piece.

My take is that while the article is not a model of objective fact-reporting, politicials voluntarily enter the arena and 'hit pieces' like this are simply part of the cost of doing business.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

idler said:


> Phew! Wayfarer and Etienne you guys really know how to antagonise each other eh?
> 
> Anyway - nice to hear your views. *Etienne, I am yet to find an intelligent Frenchman whose view differs from yours on this by even a whisker. So there must be something in it! * I would love to have thought that his failings were worth it to let France benefit from his proposed economic reforms but I'm becoming convinced that they are not.


Welcome to the board.

Now that that is out of the way, the bolded section is a classic logical fallacy. Good job.


----------



## idler (Nov 23, 2006)

*Keep off the gras*



Wayfarer said:


> What is Sarko's view on foi gras?


Why would we be interested in whether he likes foie gras or not? I mean - who doesn't? - its delicious. Still, I'll bet he can spell it.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Étienne said:


> What on earth could that mean? Maybe my lack of command of the English language here, but I simply don't get it.
> 
> Anyway, I am convinced that the man is very bad news for France, that's about all I have to say.


Don't worry Etienne, I didn't understand it either and I'm English - American and English idiom isn't always the same!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

idler said:


> Why would we be interested in whether he likes foie gras or not? I mean - who doesn't? - its delicious. Still, I'll bet he can spell it.


Oh dear! I left off an "e". Well that certainly cancels out your logical fallacy I was so kind to point out to you....no, wait, an error in basic thinking abilities shows a certain fundamental lack. Further, you should have used "it's" not "its". One is a contraction, the other shows possession, again, basic thinking problems.

Man, that has to sting.

:icon_viking:


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Wow, poor Etienne - he seems to be coming in for a lot of stick here! France has a different tradition to the U.S.A. but it still is a free country! We don't all need to do things U.S. style, there are, as someone has pointed out different histories here.

We can point to the French riots but then we could also point to the much much lower divorce rate, levels of happiness amongst children ( compared to Britian and the US) stronger families due to the resistance to the 24/7 culture - so most people get the same day off etc etc.

I have always said that the more the UK adopts American ecomonic ideals the more we will inherit all America's social problems. We have and it all began with Margaret Thatcher and her love affair with Monetarism and all things American - economically speaking. 

The U.S. is a great country and has so much to offer but doesn't have all the answers!

I won't be sad to see the back of Chirac - he was no friend of Britain - but then we havn't exactly been cooperative with the E.U. have we? Chirac was however needlessly chauvanistic. Sarcosi is a real unknown to us - only what we see on TV and read in our papers. If he is a follower of Tony Blair then France is in for a rough ride - for it will see Thatcherite reforms - leading to a low wage, low security, winner takes all economy. Yes it leads to high employment but at what price? No bread winning jobs anymore - unless you are a politician of course!!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Wow, poor Etienne - he seems to be coming in for a lot of stick here! France has a different tradition to the U.S.A.* but it still is a free country! *We don't all need to do things U.S. style, there are, as someone has pointed out different histories here.


Run an experiment. Have school girls wear an _hijab_ to public schools in France, the US, and the UK. Tell me who gets sent home. I am no fan of Islam, but let us get our facts straight.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

the best endorsment is in who hates him - if the people out burning cars and gang raping girls and painting hate slogans on graveyards hate him, he must be ok.


----------

