Saturday, April 30, 2005

Jacque Chirac Full of Crap

I'm sure that is no surprise to anyone that reads here. I don't talk much about him because I see him as just another world leader with crap on his lips and his butt in the air, pretending in between to be an arbiter of world morality.

That's a laugh.

In the wee hours of the morning I was watching CSPAN and they had a translation of a Aril 14, 2005 "town hall" meeting between Chirac and a small number of people (mostly between the ages of 19 and 35 I'd say). This was a discussion on ratifying the EU Constitution. Obviously, old Jacque is in desperate need of shoring up his base (since polls indicate it is the young that actually support the EU Constitution more than the old concerned with French Sovreignty) if he is going straight to the young people.

I didn't catch the whole thing, but I did find some parts of it amusing.

First, politicians are ever the same, side stepping questions and throwing up bogies to distract the inquisitor from their original question. Let us not forget giving long winded answers full of verbose prose that end up saying nothing what so ever.

In the section I did catch, several people were asking questions about environmental protections and how they related to the EU constitution and the French Constitution.

Jacque full o' crap, explains that France is the first country to actually make the environment a constitutional concern.

Other's have talked about this before, but I think it's fair to mention again that the EU's ideas of what constitutions are for is why they are in such pain and legal quagmires. Instead of the austere idea of the constitution set down by our founding fathers and largely maintained as austere, for the basic purposes of setting down minimal guidance for creating and administering governmentand good society, they have tried to codify just about everything in existence, which, according to some readings, means that they often have extremely contradictory points.

I tried to locate it, but I read somewhere that they were codifying the right to free expression as, "shall have the right to free expression" then they throw in the contradiction, "except where such expression is harmful to the public good".

We in America know that that just opens up the valve for suppression of speech. Who is this grand arbiter that will decide what expression is harmful to the public good? You know what happens next? New laws and precedents that set "law" will have to be written and codified in ever more increasing degrees in order to determine that which is "protected" and that which is "harmful". One reason why I don't go for PC laws here. Too arbitrary and, depending on who is in power, your speech may be good or bad. You might recall the Sedition Act repealed in the US in the early 20th century. At the beginning of the 19th century, different political parties in power tried to use this act to silence their critics. This is one reason why it fell out of power. It really damaged the overall concept of the First Amendment.

I frequently thank God I live here and not over there.

Back to the environmental questions being tossed at ol' Jacqui boy. One young lady asked directly, what was it that, as a French citizen she could do to help reduce green house gases and why didn't the government impose certain restrictions on their life styles to help mitigate these gases.

Of course, as soon as I heard her ask the question, I almost started laughing. Yes, let's let the government tell you on what days you can drive, what cars you can drive, what food packaging you can buy and dispose of. Let's make it a law, with fines and prison terms. Of course, let's just tax you to 50% of your salary instead of 30% or 40% whatever is the current mode of operations in France, so that these laws and activities could be put in place. Then you won't have any money to buy anything or drive your car so it will be all good, N'est ce pas?

It is amazing the self flagellation of these folks. One wonders why the young lady didn't just get on the internet and find some ideas on how she could do it herself? Of course, that wouldn't allow her and her kind to impose their will on the rest of the poor smucks trying to make a living and survive so maybe that just isn't enough?

Back to Jacque full o' crap. Instead of answering the question directly, Jacque acts like the best of dictators in the ME and whips out his favorite whipping boy and goes to town, hoping to distract his young inquisitor with a greater evil. "Well, France's environmental policy must take into account, look over there! There's a big black cloud of poisonous gasses coming from the US." Don't you know that French citizens need not worry about their responsibilities since France has ratified the Kyoto Treaty (and apparently this is all one needs to do to be environmentally friendly), but the US, we evil environmental sabotuers, has yet to ratify it and there is nothing much more that France can do on the subject and since France is only one small part of the world, it didn't much matter what they did.

Then some bozo commentator (whose name I didn't get) asks what France is going to do to pressure the US into signing and ratifying this treaty. Jacque full o' crap takes this helpful bit of further distraction and comments about the upcoming G8 meeting where the US president will be "isolated" due to the US refusal to sign this treaty and there is an alleged general concensus in the G8 that will bring such pressure on the US. At which point, I had to giggle a bit. But he did go on to explain that legally and politically there wasn't much that France could do on the subject, but she shouldn't worry her pretty little head since France is doing all it can, while maintaining its focus on development.

In other words, as rightly noted by many, Kyoto treaty Schmyoto Treaty, if anyone thinks some country is going to totally give up its ability to develop and produce for the sake of saving the ozone, they got another think coming. Its really just a piece of paper to make everyone feel good that they are doing something, even if it is just signing the damn thing.

Strangely, this young socialist was not detered by the red herring Mssr. Full o' Crap (translated to de Merde I believe) tried to throw up and held on to the microphone, asking again, what is it that she and others as French citizens could do or expect the government to enact to insure that they are doing all they can.

Mssr. de Merde continued to throw up words like developing countries, Kyoto, policy and the US, meandering off to be saved by a commentator indicating they only had a few moments left to answer questions.

Additional questions asked about the EU budget and the amount of money being spent on development in countries like Spain and Portugal compared to France and compared to contributions to the budget. He actually explains the reality that they need to develop these other countries to create wealth there and open up trade between their countries, thus increasing economic growth and that they cannot ask countries, including France, to scale back their national budgets just to contribute more to the pork ponzi budget.

Sound familiar? Wonder where these folks got that idea?

Another question regarding French Sovreignty. So, would the French keep their place on the UN security council and be able to veto the bad ol' US or is this position in fact going to rely on the EU foreign minister and the consensus developed in the EU and, by the way, many eastern European countries have strikingly different policies than France, like on Iraq, so what happens if they don't have a concensus?

Mssr. de Merde explains France keeps its seat on the Security Council, but that the EU foreign minister will be responsible for trying to herd all the other countries into a bat to beat the UN and, essentially, the US with, but France will always make decisions about its own security issues and speak on them regardless.

He went on to talk about the necessity of the French to ratify the treaty. Using some scary language, he says that if the French citizens refuse to ratify the treaty, they must understand that France will give up its role as power broker (paraphrasing here, but essentially the same) in the EU.

With a news flash to the other members of the EU, the EU constitution and ideas are essentially based on french ideas and this constitution is meant to protect these french ideas and propagate them through out the EU so, he really doesn't understand how French citizens could oppose it.

No wonder the Brits are bulking. I wonder if they got this same broadcast? I wonder if Mssr. de Merde knows that he is spewing nationalistic bull merde while insisting that the rest of the EU swallow their own nationalistic ideas in favor of French ones?

Anyhow, the inquisitor then asked how the foreign minister of the EU was going to develop a concensus when the US was continuously interfering in EU business and convincing these other member countries to follow other policies and would this fabled Minister evince any policy if the EU members did not agree? (I was thinking what a good little indoctrined socialist the boy was; its not that these folks might find French to be anathema to their own struggle for democracy, but it is somebody else who formulates their foreign policy) Mssr. de Merde side stepped this question and continued to point to France's sovreignty in stating positions, the security council and, out and out stating, that he intends France to be the leader of the EU in ideas, at least, and make it an opposing power to "other powers in the world".

Gee..who would he be speaking of?

Finally, they wrapped it up and Mssr de Merde basically pleaded with the people to ratify this constitution so that France, who worked the hardest on it, would not be the laughing stock of the its position as a leader in the EU.

Any how, I only caught the last 20 minutes of the program, but I was struck how many times the US was brought up in their discussions. The old "bait and switch" tactic. Don't pay attention to the flaws in this gigundo piece of crap we're selling you, watch the big, black bird over the ocean called the US while we dip our greasy fingers in your back pocket and take your wallet so we can support this grand socialist scheme to become the next USSR on the European continent. Sure, France has problems like giant unemployment, crappy immigration and assimilation policies, but our economy is growing twice as fast as the other countries in the EU (yeah, they got a GNP of 1% compared to the .5% and .3% of their neighbors; brilliant economy structure).

Basically, I wonder how many French know they are getting snookered by the Wizard while little men play with their gadgets behind the curtain?


cjufnf said...

Kat, I think you should be at these meetings to ask questions. You won't get confused by the tactics politicians use. It would be hilarious to see you back them into corners by not letting them dodge a serious question.

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter said...

Kat, glad to see you're taking a look at what's happening (and not happening) in Europe.

Well-written, as usual.

Scott from Oregon said...

I wonder why gnp is so important to you? GNP tranlates to consumption. Consumption tranlates to pollution. Pollution tranlates to a lower life quality....At what point do we humans consider 'shrinkage' a good thing? Is the male ego working overtime avoiding shrinkage, with some gung ho women cheering on their gains?

We have reached the tipping point in modern developement. Do we want to attain a plateau, or rapidly head for the abyss that awaits?

Go Giants!

Kat said...

Um...welll..good catch on the typo. it was 7 AM in the morning and I meant GDP.

Nobody is saying that looking at Polution isn't important. maybe you missed the entire point of the article ie Jacque is just as full of crap about these things as the next leader? I mean in terms of offering any real solution or putting forth any ideas and the fact was they were discussing the EU constitution ratification and I was questioning why he would be continuously bringing up the US as a birdie for his constituents to look at in the middle of a home political issue.

That would be like the President talking about social security and then talking about how France's exhorbitant minimum wage was forcing the cost of living to go up. It had no bearing.

Kat said...

Oh...and as far as polution and "shrinkage" goes, I would suggest that when such things are presented with more cognitive ideas on effecting such things, I'll go for it.

As far as I can tell, the Kyoto treaty does no such thing and barely slows it on the map while creating economic hardship if implemented completely.

So, I prefer, as a citizen, to have real ideas on how to manage this situation that actually has real effects, not bogies that are supposed to make us feel better about paying attention to it. For that, I'd say we as citizen have the ability to change things in our utilization of packaging, gas, etc, but we're a bunch of lazy folks so it's going to take a lot more than an owl saying, Hoot-hoot don't pollute.

MichaelH121 said...

We would not have entered into the Was in Europe if not for the French. We would not have been involved in Viet Nam if not for the French. The French controlled Haiti oh yeah we had to clean that up.

They controlled Rawanda oh yeah look what happened there.

They were selling weapons to Saddam even in Jan 2004.

They complain that America's Navy and Englands Navy is too big, they don't have much of one at all.

Look at history, France always wants to be in on the power without being in on the fight.

They wanted control of AEF in WWI Pershing said no. They wanted to tell us where to send out troops, Pershing said no.

In WWII they denied us use of their railroads de Gaulle tried until Ike said okay but the US will take back its trains that are running on your tracks, and our food supplies etc... And Gen Jim Gavin who after the War was ambassador to France was told by de Gaulle to remove all US forces from france asked:

"Do you mean all those serving now or does that apply to the ones buried here also?"

So we see Scott and his true nature coming out. It is America's fault. We consume, we pollute. Of course we pollute less than ANY other developed nation per capita, but that is not socialist enough.

France made a lot of money in the Oil for Food UN scandal. Chirac is under French law not even allowed to be investigated while he holds office. So even his own people cannot get the truth till it is too late. France complains about America getting involved in other countries.

Oh wait the Foreign Legion is CONTROLLED by France paid buy France, yet when France sends them in they claim it is not the French Government that is involved. France always wants their way regardless of others, but what is good for France does not apply to the others.

I never met an Englishman when there who liked the French. Nor A German, nor an Italian...etc.

They all say France is our ally but it does not mean I have to like frenchmen.

The other countries in the EU finally realized that France has too much power in the deal. England is not happy when they get into the details.

Tom said...

Michael that is hilarious. You are so right.

I think it was Victor Davis Hanson who said that the French are in the position of all declining powers; if they can't lead then no one else can also.

They long for their (brief) days of glory and can't handle the fact that they are gone for good. They have never really accepted the fact that the Germans made fools of them by simply going around their Maginot Line, and then, to add insult to injury, they had to be rescued by - gulp - the Americans.

Kyoto is mainly a way for them to criple the US economy. As if they really cared about the environmental aspects (ok some of them do but not Jacque full 'o crap).

France, like Germany and many other European nations, are stuck in a high- unemployment-low-growth cycle that they have no idea how to fix. More precisely, they can't fix it given their socialist policies. The U.S. economy scares the daylights out of them as well it should.

Half of the reason they formed the EU in the first place was protectionism. From us.


I'm afraid are mistaken when you say that "consumption tranlates to pollution." It is often in the third world where the worst pollution is found. The reason is that they don't have the money to clean it up, and their dictatorial governments won't tolerate enviromental groups (to put it mildly). Don't fall for the trap of Malthusian thinking.

We can have growth and reduction of pollution and an increase in resources. Yes, all three. The first two because of technology and awareness, the third because resources can be created. Stated another way, what is not a resource one day can be one with new technology.

Kender said...

The french suck...more specifically europes socialist policies suck...and the progressives here want to do the same thing.

Chirac is an ass.

Kyoto would, much like EU style socialism, destroy America.

Our growth last year, I believe, was around 4%.....awesome country we have here isn't it?

Our unemployment has been running for along time between 5-6% and lately has been in the low 5s...awesome country we have here isn't it?

Did I mention that we have an awesome country?

Scott from Oregon said...

"So we see Scott and his true nature coming out. It is America's fault. We consume, we pollute. Of course we pollute less than ANY other developed nation per capita, but that is not socialist enough."

I never said it was America's fault. I see your reactionary nature coming out. I am one of those people who have been blessed with the ability and luck to have seen most of the world. Third world, second world, first world. I have walked the back streets of Jakarta, swam with crocodiles in the Gulf of Carpenteria, sat on top of one of the great pyramids, been on top of Kilaminjaro, Fuji, Shasta.... Lived and dove on the Great Barrier Reef, boated and dove the waters along the Yucatan and Belize, checked out the great gaping thongs of Rio, flew over Papa's New Guinea, surfed in Bali.... Skiied in the Japan Alps....

I have seen what pollution is, what it does, and how it is created.

It is not America's fault. There really is no 'fault'. Humans crave comfort. Always have. They/we are clever enough to invent things to make us comfortable... These things leave an aftertaste called pollution.... You see it in the miles and miles of dead reefs. You see it in volumes of undrinkable, sometimes completely dead waters. You feel it in your lungs when you try to jog in the summer in LA, or in Salt Lake City when the inversion layer holds it in, or in Indonesian cities where two strokes spew their half burned oil into the spaces between buildings....

You see it in the measurements made in our water tables. You watch resources fall from favor because, quite simply, they have been decimated.

You see it as you watch species after species drop completely off the planet. You wonder how those who revere a Creator, could sully his creations with such disdain.

You watch as whole species of trees are reduced to a few parks, where lazy tourists can drive up to them, have their picture taken, and drive off to get a burger at Mickie Dee's....

As far as being a 'socialist', that's the dumbest thing I've read about myself in quite awhile....

Europe is more socialist than we are, predominately due to population density and a lack of resources. The US is not a densely populated country. We have ample space and resources, allowing for an easier time of taking care of the basic needs of our citizens. We don't 'need' to be as accomodating as EU countries, because we don't have the stresses on our system that they do.

Doesn't the Bible say anything about taking care of the poor and the downtrodden? Or was that in some other Book?

Scott from Oregon said...

"I'm afraid are mistaken when you say that "consumption tranlates to pollution." It is often in the third world where the worst pollution is found. "

Third world pollution is caused by consumption. So is first world pollution. Your car consumes gas, coughs out pollution. Factories consume raw materials, spew out pollution. Humans consume goods, toss out trash.....

Right now, the reason the US consumes more, pollutes less, is very simple. We get our goods manufactured in other countries so as not to sully our statistics.... Human detritus is a global problem. There are no borders holding hydrocarbons in or acidic clouds out......