French Election Shock

[zootm]

chirac is a fool

le pen has a dumb solution (ship out all the foreigners- and yes, i'm pretty sure that's what his manifesto says)

so, what choice do france have. chirac is the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't help anyone really...

i think it would be extremely interesting to run le pen's policy on the USA. the only people left would be the native americans...

just because people are from another country doesn't waive them rights. just because someone was born in a rich area shouldn't make them rich. people should not be entitled to luxury because of the region in which they were born, and that's why the right-wing are wrong. there are practicality issues that act against immigration, which is why it has to be controlled, but ultimately it is morals that make us accept those from the outside.

my 2 centimes.

[nature spirit]

Philosopher, nice to meet you, and thanks a lot for your appreciation. And to tell the truth, this discussion is really interesting.

What you presented so far is so right. Some racism from here, and some undiscipline from here makes the culture clash.
but you mentioned that more than half of the prisonners are immigrants. Isn't this significant enough? personally I see that immigrants would in a certain way or another disturb the social pattern. (I guess you've heard of those 4 Iranians who burned that discotheque in Sweden.. ok I know they don't represent every immigrant, but it's an example of the culture clash)

Please don't get me wrong, I have nothing against them. On the contrary, Im a fierce warrior for equality among people. The point is, this isn't the solution. Let's try solving problems in those countries first, cuz draining millions of ppl to other wealthier countries will not solve the problems of the poor countries and on the other hand will only create huge problems at the other countries.

India hosts 1 billion inhabitants, and 80% of them crave to live somewhere else. will you distribute them on other countries?
of course the already existing immigrants in western countries are welcome. but take it from a strategical angle.. will you keep the door open for all the other in line? if you do for a boat or two, soon you will see that there are fleets coming. Moreover, of course you've heard of those boat-traders, those agents who make the poor ppl pay all what they ever have, (may be sell their houses and goods) for some hundreds of bucks to have a 'ticket' on that boat, hoping they will reach the shore safely. I see this as the neo-slavery route.

One more word about Le Pen. Again, don't take me as his supporter or anything for I second that I hate politics and I'm a planetist. He didn't want to kick out existing immigrants, he just wanted to put limits on immigration. There is enough unemployement and problems in france to make this prospect only fair.

[snailrush]

chirac is a fool.
And chirac is also a coward.
He has just refused the traditional TV debate between the two canditates. He said something like "you can't debate with xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism"

[patroclus22]

I've been working long hours, so I'm a little behind the news on this issue. So this LePen (does he come with a matching LePencil and LeLetterOpener)* wants to limit immigration and pull France out of the EU? Seems I've heard the same views somewhere else...
Oh yeah, high school. Of course, then it was taking the US out of the UN, and building a wall to "keep all the mexicans out".
Anyway, this guy sounds alot like George Wallace did during the 1960's here. Typical racist, radical, etc. He'll probably lose in the general election, so there's probably nothing to worry about.

Steve

*(Stationary humor? My gods, what the hell did Beau put in my strudel this morning!?)

[apollos]

I read about Le Pen today and it sickened me. We don't want the past to creep up with us again!

[2tall]

The Gulf War was a UN resolution. It set the terms of the war, which prevented the allies from going into Baghdad. The terms of the surrended are still intact, and that includes weapons inspectors. THerefore, Iraq has been breaking the terms of the surrender for many years now, without any action from the UN. That further demonstrates how the UN cannot be taken seriously.

Yes, we did sponsor Iraq at one point... when it was in OUR interests. That is very rational. We will act upon on our interests. Other countries do the same. In fact, tons of countries free ride on the US.

And yes, countries will be pulling out of alliances, as they have for centuries.

[will]

Originally posted by snailrush
chirac is a fool.
And chirac is also a coward.
He has just refused the traditional TV debate between the two canditates. He said something like "you can't debate with xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism"

He is not a coward. He is quite right. He does not see this le Pen guy as a politican, just a misguided racist, as most of the world (including france) see him. I am begging you not to vote for le Pen, as he would do very badly for france. This guy might as well be a nazi, for what he believes. He is employing all the tactics that hitler used. Personally i would rather have a corrupt coward running my country as opposed to a racist.

[snailrush]

> He is not a coward. He is quite right.
It's your opinion. I've just seen a opinion poll: 69% want a debate. Moreover, there's something you might not know: listening to Le Pen is very often funny. A few weeks ago, he said that he was Zorro! Another fact: Le Pen speaks very well. And I think -I'm surely not alone- that Chirac is afraid of that. It's a pity, this debate would be very interesting.
> He does not see this le Pen guy as a politican, just a misguided
> racist, as most of the world (including france) see him
But he is a politician.
> I am begging you not to vote for le Pen, as he would do very badly
> for france.
I simply don't vote. Yes it's irresponsible, but less irresponsible than these people that do not vote and then demonstrate in the streets against Le Pen, who has been elected by the people. And if Le Pen is really intolerent, racist, etc., these people should not shout messages of hatred. For me -I'm surely not alone-, they are just sheeps that follows the politicians and others that say "Le Pen is a danger to the democracy! Le Pen is evil! Fight Le Pen!". And why would he be a danger to the democracy? That's manipulation. What I say is not vote for Le Pen, vote for Chirac, or don't vote; I say let the French people decide itself. If the people's choice is an error, then too bad, next time. That's experience. And that's my point of view.
> Personally i would rather have a corrupt coward running my country
> as opposed to a racist.
There are people in France who are fed up of all the system, and would like to see things change (Chirac is the president since 1995). Note that I don't say that for myself. By the way, you say he's racist because you thinks it or because people say it? (oh, I really shouldn't imitate Jesus in such a context :-) Note again that I don't say he's racist or he's not.
It's the people like you that makes me defend Le Pen. It's a natural reaction for me. Most of criticisms I hear are just diabolization, carricatures and distortions.

[will]

1) a good politicain need not be a good orator, and ditto the same way round. just becuse he is a good speaker, it doesn't mean he'll be a good leader. dare i say it, hitler was a superb orator.
2) You have strong political views, yet you don't vote. I say you are the coward.
3) is it me or do i see this le pen guy taking advantage of the french tiredness of the normal. i could draw up a parralell with pre-war germany if you liked, but i cant be bothered to write it.
4) Jesus was black. If jesus walked into france, le pen would have him kicked out.

[Francis]

Snailrush,

You should read a little bit about pre-nazi Germany, the rise of Hitler (which btw many people were describing as you do le pen); what you are saying has all the tones and subtexts of what happened at the time.

And what the fsck does jesus has to do with this topic ? Oh wait, I know: NOTHING.

Francis.

[dylman]

Snailrush:

55% of the vote actually voted for the political left, unfortunately it is so fractured that the vote was split between many competing factions (16 candidates in total). Many others were disenchanted with the major candidates (they saw it as choosing between shades of grey, as it were), and thus either didn't vote or voted for Le Pen as a token gesture, little realising what effect it would have.

I simply didn't vote

Then you simply have no right to comment.

You can't debate with xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism

You can only stand up and say NO.

If the people's choice is an error, then too bad, next time. That's experience.

Germany, 1933. That is experience.

Get your head out of your politics textbooks and take a look at the real world.

[snailrush]

> 1) a good politicain need not be a good orator, and ditto the same
> way round. just becuse he is a good speaker, it doesn't mean he'll
> be a good leader. dare i say it, hitler was a superb orator.
Never said that, man. But I'll react anyway on what you wrote. Objectively (I'll try at least). What is the meaning of your "good politician"? Is it a politician with "good" ideas ("good" = democratical)? Hitler may be a superb orator as you say, he may also be a good politician. And when I say that, that doesn't mean obviously I appreciate him. I'll add also that a politician is a representative. A representative that doesn't speak (or write) well, or has no charisma, is not a good representative, to my mind. If a politician with ideas cannot express them clearly, with credibility, what's the use?

> 2) You have strong political views, yet you don't vote. I say you
> are the coward.
You're right. But I would not say that I'm a coward because I don't vote. I prefer letting the others decide, I'm passive. That's why I'm a coward (it's not really different, in fact... eh!).

> 3) is it me or do i see this le pen guy taking advantage of the
> french tiredness of the normal. i could draw up a parralell with
> pre-war germany if you liked, but i cant be bothered to write it.
Don't worry, I listened to and learned my history lessons at school. I see very well what you mean. The ecologist leader said sunday night: "We remember what happened in Germany in 1933, and we don't want the same thing in France in 2002." Of course, you can see many similar points (History tends to repeat often), but can we really compare? Le Pen = Hitler is an old cliché, one more time too easy. Actually, there's a danger, but I don't beleave that this danger comes from Le Pen (there's much more danger with Bruno Maigret, I think. Maigret was with Le Pen, but a few years ago he created his own party. He got 2.2% sunday). And to be provocative, I would say that Hitler managed to raise his country from the abyss of the crisis to the top of the Europe.

> 4) Jesus was black. If jesus walked into france, le pen would have
> him kicked out.
You can't know. I can easily say, if Jesus walked into France, Le Pen would follow him. After all, why not? See what happened to Saint Paul :-) And please let Jesus out of the discussion.

> And what the fsck does jesus has to do with this topic ?
> Oh wait, I know: NOTHING.
Nothing, indeed. The way the phrase was turned just reminds how Jesus spoke.

[Philosopher]

Yes, this discussion is indeed interesting, and I thoroughly enjoy reading your opinions. We have in fact very similar views on this, the only thing we really disagree on is how to handle the situation (The situation being close to diaspora).

The only legitimate refugees in my view are political and social refugees, not economic ones. If one is poor, we can drop rice on their heads. If the government wants to kill you because you think your wife is sexy, we have to get you out of there. There are situations where one cannot change from the inside due to severe oppression. If the insiders are not educated, not given freedom to do anything, and incentives to spy on their friends on relatives (can you say east berlin before the wall?), change will be deathly slow, and maybe nonexistant. People will want to change but cannot for lack of education and power. Enter the first world nations, the famous allies, the ones who do their best to disrupt conflict if their oil is in jeapordy (the world wouldn't lift a hand if kuwait didn't have oil, in fact the only ones who did was the US, and only to liberate kuwait. To justify this act they exposed saddam for what he is (or what cnn says he is at least). The fact is that the conflict has not helped the people of irak much at all. In fact, by coming with tanks, planes, and troops, killing off almost every iraqi in sight with no obvious casualties, then stopping an inch before finishing the job, and now many many years later still imposing sanctions becuase they failed to complete what was morally right, they have stirred up such ill emotion against them that.. (hey wait, waaaaay off topic. i'll just stop that part here and get back to the topic at hand, which is of course a tad off the topic of the thread ).

Aaanyway, my belief is that the best way to resolve the situation is to take in those who cannot live where they are now for fear of death, educate them in the first world nations, empower them with the ability to change the way things are, then send them back (if you're really good you'll make them want to go back themselves). Now, with the people who have already arrived, there will be a tendency like there was in the united states in the 60's, where the african americans wanted to explore their r00ts (sorry, couldn't resist). If they can make a change, they should. But we want this to happen now, not in several hundred years.

India is a very advanced society with a very ancient culture. It's a huge source of IT labour, but also a country where ghettos are huge, disease is rampant, and overpopulation is a fact. The people who leave india are not usually the ones who are worst affected, they are the ones who see the opportunity for something better than they will ever achieve in their native country (due to lack of facilities, caste, whatever). But the bell just rang and i have a couple of second graders to teach now. Will finish this off in appx 2 hours.

[nature spirit]

Originally posted by 2tall
The Gulf War was a UN resolution. It set the terms of the war, which prevented the allies from going into Baghdad. The terms of the surrended are still intact, and that includes weapons inspectors. Therefore, Iraq has been breaking the terms of the surrender for many years now, without any action from the UN. That further demonstrates how the UN cannot be taken seriously.
Yes, we did sponsor Iraq at one point... when it was in OUR interests. That is very rational. We will act upon on our interests. Other countries do the same. In fact, tons of countries free ride on the US.
And yes, countries will be pulling out of alliances, as they have for centuries.

The UN was only a very obvious cover for the Gulf war, which was very clearly an American plan. many countries participated, but it was an obvious American comedy. Even the resolutions that prevented forces from going into Baghdad were US made and for a reason, to Keep Saddam there becuase its role has not ended yet. The West didn't sponsor this horrible regime, it built it.
You said it right 2Tall. Every country acts upon its own interests. and US does that with excellence. and it's obvious that building totalitarian regimes in order to have excuses to destroy them later is US's favorite game.

[nature spirit]

Philosopher.. you teach second graders? very interesting..

Indeed, I join you in many of the views you presented.
Media that reached everywhere show how deep is the difference among different worlds and make ppl crave to emigrate to advanced countries.

you proposed to let those people in, educate them, and empower them so they do some change in their own countries. this is ideally correct. but do you think this can be realistically done? How good can you be in order to convince those people to go back without having to 'force' them going back?
You know that the visa applications of the US hold a statement saying that US thinks you, the applicant, are going to the US in order to STAY, unless you prove otherwise. Why? simply because virtually no one would want to go back to the misery he escaped. and I can understand that.
this is on one hand.. on the other hand, do you think the social tissue of the host country would be able to embrace this whole population suddenly existing in its environment? you should take in consideration this cultural feel of belonging that gives security to residents.

For example.. do you know how many inhabitants there are in Iran let's say? and of course you know how much oppression they are suffering, especially women. how could you just do the plan you proposed here? of course you can count here many other countries. All countries in South America (except, somehow, Argentine) suffer from deep deep corruption and chaos. and now, including Argentine, they have no economical hope for growth.

UN failed in political conflicts simply because it was manipulated by the big boys. but IMHO, I think that the UN can do a good job here. Wealthy countries should contribute to a world fund that has a CLEAR and transparant plan. Unlike the World bank which is deeply corrupted by regional policies, such a fund should focus on the human being.
Like you've said it should all start with education. Visiting teachers and institutions would transmit techniques and values to those countries. and within some timeframe, the emerging educated society would be the major factor in change.

[Philosopher]

I am a supporter of a unified world, no national frontiers, rules and regulations be equal for all people of the world. This is of course far to ambitious to ever happen in my lifetime, and i won't lie to myself by thinking it will. I just think that we should embrace our culture, but not be limited by it. We should open up, help eachother the best we can, and help make this world a better place (/me wipes tear from eye). The only way we can do this is accept our differences, literally and seriously. Noone would care if there were 200 brits coming over on boats to australia every week, not even the australian government.

Nuff ranting however, need to fix this b0rk internet before it kills us all!

"..2000 years after people nailed a guy to a piece of wood for saying how good it would be to be nice to eachother for a change."
-Paraphrasing The Narrator in THHGTTG by Douglas Adams

P.S. - I am not a second grade teacher, i was called up two weeks ago by some strange person i had never heard of offering me a job as a computer teacher. Since i'd been sitting on my ass for 4 months i figured that 2 hours in 2 days a week wouldn't be too much trouble, so i took the job, et voila, i'm a computer teacher. I love power.

[zootm]

the problem with having a unified earth is that the only way people in general are motivated these days is by greed... the system we use has everyone chasing their own dreams and stepping on others to get there. the world's most "successful" people are often the world's most ruthless. until we can learn to be more compassionate, there's never going to be any chance of world unification. not until power structures are stopped. religious institutions, capitalism, government- all of these things would have to be stopped in order that we have our perfect world in the future.

but then how could we have society?

y'know, this would make a good reductio ad absurdum (reducing to absurdity/proof by contradiction) argument that such a utopia could never exist. shit.

[nature spirit]

we should embrace our culture, but not be limited by it.

well said. but what's culture? when society becomes a full mix different types of cultures, that might create a new melting-pot with its own identity. but I guess the main traits of the original culture would melt into it and fade away.

I'm myself a planetist. I believe in NO countries or borders, but I believe in cultures. ideally, yes there should be no borders and everyone should be able to move wherever he/she wants. but since we're living in a non-ideal world so all the problems force ppl to migrate to luckier countries, which will break the equilibrium and will create a chaotic statu-quo.

I join you in craving for a perfect world. at least we live with hope.

[zootm]

the problem i've found with cultures is that many deliberately preclude others- the obvious (in my case) example being that it is a well-known feature of scottish culture to hate the english...

i've been called "not properly scottish" for not (always) hating the english. i suppose the fact that i'm part irish/english might have something to do with it too

[SSJ3_Sharp]

Everyone expects the French to not vote for Le Pan, right?
Thus the French will do what they always do which is what no one expects them to do and vote for him.

[snailrush]

My last post. To (try to) clarify things.
I've spent these last days offline, and had more time to think more deeply about everything. And especially about the situation, here in France, and about what I wrote in this forum too.
That was the introduction. Now, time for autocritique!
Almost one week elapsed since the big surprise. At that time, I really didn't appreciate that people demonstrated (and still demonstrate) in the streets of several cities. Then, I felt the need to express myself. I was sure that there were something about the "French events" in this forum, and even though I hesitated, I decided to write down my opinion. My original aim was to show that there are people like me supporting Mr. Le Pen because of the general anti-Le Pen movement, without necessarily joining Le Pen's ideas. The problem is that things took a different way. I think I've begun to defend not only Le Pen, but also his ideas.
Days have passed now. Situation is more quiet, and on TV they speak about the "events" much less. And when they're debating about the "events", their speech is much more constructed, and better constructed. So do I. With more distance, I can analyse things in a somewhat better way. I wrote stuff about the manipulation. But... I was manipulated too! Maybe in a different way, but still manipulated. I think my mistakes are to have defended blindly Le Pen, and with my will of being objective, to have forgotten my subjectivity, that is my capacity to distinct what's good and what's not. I wish I hadn't write anything.

I was hesitating about what to do. Either I write nothing in the forum, and do as if I were dead, either I write an ultimate post, with my new thoughts and my appologies. Although I'm a bit ashamed, I've chosen the second possibility. I think it's better. And I hope that you guys will understand my process, and will not take me as a undeclared racist as I might give the impression.

That was experience :-) (not very pleasant, though)
Life goes on.

[rm']

Originally posted by dylman
55% of the vote actually voted for the political left, unfortunately it is so fractured that the vote was split between many competing factions (16 candidates in total).

All the more reason for a two party system. In Canada, we have five national parties all saying the same thing: RAISE TAXES, CURB CIVIL LIBERTIES!

[rm']

Originally posted by snailrush
I'm French. I don't care very much about politics, I'm not at all patriotic, I didn't vote and I will not vote. And I'm happy that Le Pen got 17%. Very happy. Le Pen is the (one of the) only one who speaks very well and to be credible. Why am I supporting Le Pen? Simply because everybody is against him.
.
.
.
Actually, I'm rather against people who are against Le Pen.

I concur. Virtually all of the European media is state-run, thus, far to mid left biased. Granted, I have not heard the actual Le Pen quotes from which these accusations of racism and xenophobia stem from, but it seems likely that they are mere exaggerations. As snailrush pointed out, the holocaust was a detail of history (a bloody one, but a detail nonetheless). I'd have to hear the phrase in context to know whether Le Pen is brushing aside the holocaust as inconsequential, or merely stating the obvious. Given the left-leaning slant of the European media though, I'm inclined to think he was just stating the obvious.

As for immigration, Le Pen has very valid concerns. Immigration has the capability to have terrible consequences on both the cultural and economic life of a country, and I say this as an immigrant myself (I've lived in three countries, but I've never been a natural-born citizen of either one). I don't think Le Pen wants to shut off all immigration so much as he wants to stem the tide of unskilled laborers. Very few countries have shortages of unskilled laborers... bringing in new ones from abroad can devestate the French citizens who depend the most on the welfare of the state, not to mention overburden the social assistance programs (education, healthcare, policing, etc). Furthermore, the French are very proud of the centuries old culture... immigrants, if allowed in in large enough numbers, will increase racial tensions and dilute the local culture. That's not a racist statement in the least; it's plain fact. The city I live in has over 70 cultural groups. There is no such thing as a Canadian identity any more.

Withdrawing from the EU just shows where Le Pen's priorities are. An ubergovernment based in Brussels controlling foreign, monetary and fiscal policy has very real consequences on the sovereignty of France. I'd say Le Pen is more of a patriot than a xenophobe.

As many people have already pointed out, French and foreign, this is just a backlash to a system which simply has stopped working. Decades of spending-rich, liberty-weak policy has left a country grasping for it's own identity, and struggling to make a buck. You can always count on democracy to pull itself out of a crisis. It may veer across the straight road like a drunk driver, but in the long run, it's still headed in the right direction.

[zootm]

RM, Le Pen is a little more sinister than you may have thought before... i have to admit i shared your concerns that he was being villianised for no reason but after checking over this i have found his ideology to be very distasteful...

everybody is right- a strong line on asylum seekers is required. that's not an opinion- that's a fact. but Le Pen is not what he may at first seem in respect... he's not so much for a strong immigration policy, but against non-french in general. he is the head of the french national front, which are a predominantly fascist party.

the UK has a strong line on asylum seekers already (it recieves abuse, even from Le Pen, for this - until they get in of course, as a bitter bilbo has pointed out in another thread)...

also, please do not insult the european media- the media here (at least where i am) is a shining example of neutrality, if you choose upstanding publications- as is the case in most places. the only place i don't really trust the media at this moment is the US, and then only because they are still in their post-11/9 nationalist frenzy... in general i would say they are as good as any other organisation.

there's understandable backlash to the EU- as a centralised diplomatic base, it is a good idea, but it has assumed too much power, and is run in what is ultimately an ineffecient and beurocratic(sp?) way.

i believe the reason people voted for Le Pen is not a system that has "stopped working" (in contrast, i believe that the system in france, as the one in the UK, is working as well as ever, possibly better) - it is because it is working, and has done for so long, that people grow complacent, and eager for a change. unemployment and crime had risen to high levels in that country (making my last parenthetical look a bit dumb ), and people needed something to blame... le pen gave them an answer that played on their national pride, something they felt was slipping away from them due to outside influence.

i believe the people wanted to make a statement, and i believe they made one.
i also pray they don't make another.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I do not think that the British press can be trusted either. I look at yesterdays Daily Express for my example.

The most interesting thing was a double page spread of David Beckham with other potential hairstyles for the world cup.

Back to topic.

One of the things that I hate more than ever about Le Pen is his belief that Asylum Seekers from Sangatte should be shipped to Britain. Whether this is a political aim, or a gesture of retaliation for Blairs comments about Le Pen remain to be seen.

The EU as it stands at the moment is no more than a rich mans club looking after big business in the wider world. Only a tiny fraction of the workings of the EU, and the legislation that it has provided has ever had anything to do with federal aims, or to do with the actual people of Europe. Perhaps the most significant wasthe Single European Act that highlighted Citizenship and various social rights for people. That some member countries didn't ratify this into their constitutions / political systems shows how fragmented Europe is when it comes to actually being one. Talk business however, and European politicians will gladly hold hands.

I laughed this morning when i heard that Le Pen was being given 24 hour protection because he has recieved so many death threats.

[nature spirit]

Sorry it seems I posted twice the same one. since I have no power to delete this one, cud any of the mods here delete it pleae before they call me a post pumper? thx

[nature spirit]

Originally posted by zootm
I concur. Virtually all of the European media is state-run, thus, far to mid left biased.

You seem to be living in an isolated world calling the EU media state-run and biased compared to the media in North America and especially in the US. in Canada media are much more diversified, true, but the US media is the WORST example of a free media. let me quote this again:
"Any dictator would crave for the uniformity and obedience of the media that exists in the US flying, in the same time, the banner of Freedom."

Originally posted by zootm
also, please do not insult the european media- the media here (at least where i am) is a shining example of neutrality, if you choose upstanding publications- as is the case in most places. the only place i don't really trust the media at this moment is the US, and then only because they are still in their post-11/9 nationalist frenzy... in general i would say they are as good as any other organisation.

well said zootm.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins
I do not think that the British press can be trusted either. I look at yesterdays Daily Express for my example.

The most interesting thing was a double page spread of David Beckham with other potential hairstyles for the world cup.

lol! i saw that. i was referring to quality (broadsheet, "serious", "boring", whatever you wanna call it) publications though... the tabloids will always find something irrelevant to whine about.

oh, and nature spirit, i didn't say the first of those two comments

[nature spirit]

Originally posted by zootm
oh, and nature spirit, i didn't say the first of those two comments

This is among the times I wish Im an admin. really.
now how to fix it?

I'm terribly sorry zootm. let me try to fix it:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rm* (and not by zootm)
I concur. Virtually all of the European media is state-run, thus, far to mid left biased.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry again zootm.

[rm']

Originally posted by zootm
also, please do not insult the european media- the media here (at least where i am) is a shining example of neutrality, if you choose upstanding publications- as is the case in most places. the only place i don't really trust the media at this moment is the US, and then only because they are still in their post-11/9 nationalist frenzy... in general i would say they are as good as any other organisation.

I'm not saying that one continent's press is better than the other, I'm just saying that I wouldn't trust the European news media to cover domestic issues like I wouldn't trust the American press to cover foreign policy. Just be aware that the European press is highly politicized.

As for Canada's media, just like our politics, it's entirely one-sided (and state-run too).

[insomniac]

Tchernobyl totally screwed France...lol

[nature spirit]

sometimes your agressor could be your savior?

[patroclus22]

Well, I guess France can quit worrying now.

Chirac Wins

[Bilbo Baggins]

w000000t

[Xerxes]

I don't think it was a contest really.

When I heard he was elected, it was the first time I had ever spoke the words "Vive le France"...

[fwgx]

Originally posted by patroclus22
Well, I guess France can quit worrying now.

Chirac Wins

Why post a link to som ething to do with Egypt? Good news though

[Xerxes]

Napoleon did conquer Egypt and have lithographs of the Rosetta stone sent all around europe for study....