SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Who's Rioting In France?

THE SPINE NOVEMBER 27, 2007

Who's Rioting In France?

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

There are two articles of particular interest at the New York Times on-line at the moment of this writing, about 12:30 pam., Wednesday, November 28.  One article is by Ariane Bernard, and it was posted mid-afternoon.  The other, very up-to--date, was written by the veteran and seasoned journalist Elaine Sciolino. The headline on Sciolino's piece is "In French Suburbs, Same Rage, but New Tactics."  The sub-head tells you a bit more: "A chilling new factor makes the recent violence in France more menacing: the rioters have taken up hunting shotguns and turned then on the police."  More menacing, indeed.I assume that both Beinhold and Sciolino know who the rioters are and would be eager, in the circumstances, to tell their readers.  But the Times editors are clearly in denial -- not, by the way, to themselves.  But to deny their readers the truth.  (Sort of, but not quite, like refusing to tell the truth about suicide bombers, that they are, yes, heaven forbid, "terrorists," another curb on free speech which the Times is usually eager to defend.)    Anyway, as all of my readers know, the rioters on the outskirts of Paris are young Muslims.  (They are not rioting because of what the Israelis are doing or not doing to the Palestinians.)  They are rioting against France and the French who had the temerity to expect that immigrants come to a country to live the lives of those who receive them.  France did not do this as graciously as it might have. But that was the implicit deal.  Alas, it did not have the courage of its assumptions.There are many French residents who accepted the transaction, like the Vietnamese and the Cambodians, and they were citizens from the start.  Like the Arabs and Muslims who eagerly accepted the part of the bargain that affords them the right to go unemployed.  This is a crisis for France and for much of western Europe.  People come and want to live the lives they lived at home, but under the costly subventions of social democracy.   This certainly is not the case in the U.S.   But the subventions are less generous here.No contemporary political theorist in America has touched this subject in depth, and the subject is the right of the receiver country -- its cultures and communities -- to set explicit expectation for new arrivals.  Oh, yes, Bruce Ackerman has in his Social Justice in the Liberal State.  Also, Michael Walzer in a book the title of which I cannot recall.  It's too late in the night to call Michael to ask.  And, if I'm not mistaken, he's in China right now.P.S.: I know you'll laugh.  There is a very smart post by Abe Greenwald at "The Cabal" blog of the very smart web-site  Jewcy listing some of the publications and news agencies afraid to tell the truth about what's going on in France.  Greenwald also has an explanation for this cowardice. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 118 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

118 comments

"The events of the past three days, set off by the deaths of two teenagers whose minibike collided with a police vehicle on Sunday, make clear that the underlying causes of frustration and anger — particularly among unemployed, undereducated youths, mostly the offspring of Arab and African immigrants — remain the same."

They made your point for you. No need to be so upset at the NYT.

- rozenson

November 28, 2007 at 1:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is the US blogosphere at its worst: imposing a "Jihad!" narrative on a foreign situation that is almost totally about race and economics in a country that treats its minority youth miserably. Young non-grandes ecoles-educated French can look forward to unemployment rates that are several times higher than our youth unemployment rate; _beur_ and _noir_ young frenchmen have an unemployment rate close to 50%.

In terms of race relations, France is about where we were in 1970. What's unique about France is that they have nearly a million young people who are literally lost between two cultures, part of neither the adopted host country's culture nor the african cultures of their parents and grandparents; in fact few of these kids have even been to the lands of their parents or grandsparents.

Almost none of the rioters is an observant muslim, and the pleas of the local imams against the rioting last summer and now have little effect on the kids' behavior, which is not directed against jews or motivated in the slightest by concerns about the middle east. The dominant culural influence on these kids is American rap music, which they've fashioned into their own vernacular which they call _verlan_.

Bottom line: these kids' riots have as much to do with jihad as the LA Crips and Bloods' mayhem has to do with marxist-leninism.  

- teplukhin2you

November 28, 2007 at 3:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But the Times editors are clearly in denial -- not, by the way, to themselves.  But to deny their readers the truth. "

Well, there is a long tradition of hiding the truth from their readers at the New York Times.

First there was the issue of the Soviet state in the 20's and 30's when the Times refused to tell their readers about violence and famine.

We should also never forget the Times' refusal to print the truth about the Holocaust  while it was in progress.

Al the news fit to print doesn't seem to include the truth. The truth unless it correspond with their political agenda is not fit to print.

- jacksondyer

November 28, 2007 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Almost none of the rioters is an observant muslim, and the pleas of the local imams against the rioting last summer and now have little effect on the kids' behavior, which is not directed against jews or motivated in the slightest by concerns about the middle east." November 28, 2007 3:17 AM

There has been ongoing violence against Jews by Muslims in France, Tep.

- jacksondyer

November 28, 2007 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, did you not read my post? They condensed Peretz's post into one sentence, basically. They said that the rioters were poor Arab and African immigrants reacting to a random event. Peretz was making the case that they weren't saying who the rioters were and that they didn't say it was not because of Israeli actions or whatever. But all I had to do was click on one of the links and find that sentence I posted earlier. I know that saying the Times is lying reinforces your worldview, but they did their job here.

- rozenson

November 28, 2007 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rozenson,

""The events of the past three days, set off by the deaths of two teenagers whose minibike collided with a police vehicle on Sunday, make clear that the underlying causes of frustration and anger — particularly among unemployed, undereducated youths, mostly the offspring of Arab and African immigrants — remain the same.""

I consider this a mealy mouthed comment which seems to justify the rioters when speaking of "underlying causes of frustration and anger — particularly among unemployed, undereducated."

I would also like them to explain what they mean by the  "the uneducated?"

Have you read, btw, NIdra Poller's reports from Paris?

Here is a sample:

"The euphemism for these enclaves — “quartier sensible”—bears a nugget of truth if correctly translated as “touchy neighborhoods.” Villiers le Bel is in the administrative district of Sarcelles / Garges-les-Gonesses about 20 km north of Paris. Not so long ago Sarcelles was the home sweet home of Jewish refugees from North Africa; today it is their nightmare. They endure constant attacks and harassment from the permanently enraged African-Arab-Muslim residents who live cheek by jowl with their still neat clean streets."

pajamasmedia.com/.../paris_burning_again.php

- jacksondyer

November 28, 2007 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To be honest I care a hell of a lot more about rioting in rural China or in Burma (both cases I absolutely support the rioters) then I will ever care about rioting in France. When have the French not had riots?  As such, I simply can not muster up the slightest indignation.

- blackton

November 28, 2007 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rozenson:  The first article doesn't identify the rioters.  I recall reading another similar piece in the Times that likewise omitted this information.  The reports were not placing this in any context.  There is a lot of context to understand, including the underlying cultural and racial tensions.  It would be like saying the LA riots were just about one incident of police brutality without any discussion of who is rioting and why they are rioting.  The Times's job is to explain what's really going on.  A foreign correspondent should understand that background, convey it in the article, and the editors should permit (indeed, require) it so that the reader gets the full picture.

Tep:  I think you're misreading Peretz here.  He's not placing this merely in the context of jihad but in the context of immigration-related tensions.

- jhildner

November 28, 2007 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Mr Peretz, but there is an angle of the question you're simply not seeing.

It has to do with the inclusiveness of a society. European societies, by rule, are not inclusive as the American society is. There is a great work to be done here... a great work... class distinctions (that have not only to do with money, but with old stratified states of mind, which is something Americans no nothing of) and deeply embedded racism still exist...

There are muslims in the US and they integrate much more easily than in any European country... Which has to do with a specific American cultural trait ... in the absence of which anger grows.

And now, rioters against liberal measures hit the streets since in Europe, liberal discourse tends not to be an egalitarian, democratic discourse (opportunities for all...) It tends to cover for elitism... And all this generates more anger...

The phenomenom is very complex. And the only solution is for Europeans to learn a bit about American democratic culture. But when Americans sell their culture, they never sell their best. They sell their worse: unregulated markets, Macdonalds and free initiative (as if if in still nepotistic markets, freedom was not freedom of the wolf against the lamb)... more anger...

- luispc

November 28, 2007 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think I'm really being prevented to post by some evil force around. My last post...nope... it didn't show...

- luispc

November 28, 2007 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“It has to do with the inclusiveness of a society. European societies, by rule, are not inclusive as the American society is. There is a great work to be done here... a great work... class distinctions (that have not only to do with money, but with old stratified states of mind, which is something Americans no nothing of) and deeply embedded racism still exist...”

Of course, you are right Luis. However, France has managed to integrate Vietnamese and other non Europeans much more successfully than most other countries including Great Britain. Yet, the Muslims have resisted integration. It’s not all the fault of the French.

You are right of course when you say that “There is a great work to be done here... a great work... class distinctions (that have not only to do with money, but with old stratified states of mind, which is something Americans no nothing of) and deeply embedded racism still exist...” Here too though it’s much worse in England, yet it’s the Muslims in France and not in England or the Turks in Germany who are rioting. Why is that?

We need to make distinctions even among European countries before we resort to general comments about “European society.”

- jacksondyer

November 28, 2007 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Distinctions indeed. France's problem is a racial-economic one that has next to zip to do with islam.

For starters, many of these kids are not even nominal muslims; at least a third are from non-muslim regions of sub-saharan Africa. Of those born into muslim families, most have little interest in or adherence to the faith and next to no interest in islamism.

The dominant cultural influence here is the French version of hip-hop, its invented language, its music, its gang behavior such as the weird pastime of burning cars, etc. American rappers have far more influence over these kids' cultural and political imagination than does any imam, not to mention Osama or Hamas.

- teplukhin2you

November 28, 2007 at 4:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis,

fear not.  I have posted items and not seen them actually on the page...for hours.  Your wisdom may yet be upon us, maybe tonight, perhaps even tomorrow.  Such is the joy of the new new website...

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 28, 2007 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson is right that there are a lot of attacks on Jews and Jewish sites in France, and it is a scary and disturbing trend, but it also cuts across racial lines- there is a rising, native French right, as well.   THe Muslims elements may have something to do with jihad, and it would be wrong to say that there aren't actual jihadis in France, but I don't see the rioters in France shouting "Death to Israel" or anything, as Arab/Muslim rioters tend to do regardless of what they are protesting.  (There is a chance I missed it, but I don't think so).   It is about France's issues with immigration and assimilation, economics and angry cultural influences.  

The question is, though, teppy- why do the Arab-Muslim youths have a tougher time assimilating?  Is it something in the culture?  Is it insular, angry, ready to be rejected?   The French have clearly made a hash out of it, but why with that group moreso than others?  I don't know, really, though  I have some ideas (I think it is mutual distrust, for one, with some justifications on both sides).  

- boneill

November 28, 2007 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jhildner: If this is the case, then this is bad reporting.

Jackson: Consider it what you will, but it identifies the fact that the rioters are ethnically African and Arab and that the immediate reason for the riots is a freak accident. The underlying reasons are feelings of general disconnect from French society and stifling unemployment and inadequate public infrastructure. The same rang true with the 2005 riots -- pent-up anger being unleashed after a random event involving teenagers and police. Is the second Times piece so divorced from reality, then?

- rozenson

November 28, 2007 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bone - "The question is, though, teppy- why do the Arab-Muslim youths have a tougher time assimilating?  Is it something in the culture?  Is it insular, angry, ready to be rejected?"

1. 50% unemployment.

France's ridiculous labor laws prevent the traditional first-rung employers of unskilled labor from actually hiring lots of people. Talk to any small French employer and you'll hear this lament. This is the heart of the problem-- solve this and most of the pain goes away. But you're still left with...

2. French racism.

This is actually a perverse result of the Republique's extreme hostility to particular identities (including judaism) independent of the national one, the idea that there's only the _citoyen_ and the state which protects him, invests in his future blah blah.

This blinkered idealism leads to a denial of even the concept of racial identities, which means in practice that the kid who's denied employment on racial grounds has no effective remedy under French law, and the community leaders who wish to track progress and course-correct have no way of doing so because the State doesn't collect any racial data. Sarkozy wants to institute affirmative action, but he doesn't have any institutional tools with which to implement or measure such a program. This is one reason why I contend that on racial matters France is about where we were in 1970.

3. The intolerable sense of "in-betweenness" that these kids suffer.

They know the (white) French hate them, don't want them in their companies, grandes ecoles, party and other power structures. At the same time, there's nothing in the ruined cultures of their parents' African homelands that they find at all attractive. Islam's no comfort either-- like every religion, it's weak in France, with no social cachet and little institutional support from state or society.

- teplukhin2you

November 28, 2007 at 7:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

These kids have literally nowhere to go. That they have fashioned a vibrant and interesting culture of their own with no help from anyone is a small miracle. My heart goes out to them.

I also wish Sarko success in his efforts to stimulate labor flexibility so these kids can get out of the _cites_ [projects] and into regular jobs.

- teplukhin2you

November 28, 2007 at 7:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

teplukhin2you said:

"1. 50% unemployment"

I am not sure about the 50% figure, but in many countries you hace comparable rates of unemployment but no riots.

"2. French racism"

That should affect all minorities but  why is it  that only the Muslims are rioting?

"3. The intolerable sense of "in-betweenness" that these kids suffer."

As if Jewish and other youths never felt a sense of "in-betweenness."

These aren't causes, Tep, they are excuses.

- jacksondyer

November 28, 2007 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I also wish Sarko success in his efforts to stimulate labor flexibility so these kids can get out of the _cites_ [projects] and into regular jobs."

I agree there, tep. I too hope he suceeds.

- jacksondyer

November 28, 2007 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That should affect all minorities but why is it that only the Muslims are rioting?"

I don't know the status of other French minorities, but let's take as an example France's Jewish community. Despite the well-chronicled anti-Semitism of France, Jews are still generally prosperous. They live in the same major cities as non-Jewish French people and as a society have adapted well to French culture. The French government has made efforts in recent years to crack down on anti-Semitism.

Can French Muslims say the same thing about any of those? Rioting is never acceptable, but it's easy to understand why the Muslim community more than others is doing so.

- rozenson

November 28, 2007 at 10:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Despite the well-chronicled anti-Semitism of France, Jews are still generally prosperous. They live in the same major cities as non-Jewish French people and as a society have adapted well to French culture. The French government has made efforts in recent years to crack down on anti-Semitism." rozenson

It took the French government years to acknowledge the fact that Jews were being targeted by Muslims. It was only after many middle class Jews started to leave France for Israel and the US that the government realized that it had better do something.

As to Jews being better off economically than the Muslims from North Africa, well so are the Vietnamese and some other minority groups there.

Moreover, many Jews from north Africa are not well off at all and are trapped in the same neighborhoods were the Muslims live and often get assaulted by them. There is a literature about the plight of French Jewry in contemporary France which describes what I just wrote in more detail, rozenson.

“Rioting is never acceptable, but it's easy to understand why the Muslim community more than others is doing so.”

We’ll just have to disagree here, rozenson.

- jacksondyer

November 28, 2007 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fair enough. Besides, one of these days our friend Marty will post another entry and we can spend another few hours wasting time arguing in that thread.

- rozenson

November 29, 2007 at 1:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, on those vietnamese, do they integrate or do they conform more easily to non-integration?

And I was not referring to a European society in general (which hardly exists yet) but to "European societies, by rule".

And paradoxically, those that experienced fascism "from within" are the ones that, today, are more open and inclusive. Perhaps fascism having been a catalyst for those societies to confront themselves, when faced with their political catastrophes.

France and England, by opposition, still take themselves too seriously. They are still very proud of being France and England...with inevitable persistent cultural vices... that lead to impossibility of integration of those that are faced as "others"

- luispc

November 29, 2007 at 3:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

50% unemployment?!?!? Where did you get those numbers?

And there is another thing here. French capital does not like to employ (the American entrepeneur's urge to create jobs as a member of the community is something strange to the French capitalist mentality... and , particularly, the French capitalist double hates to employ muslims...)

- luispc

November 29, 2007 at 3:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cookie, I fear. There is something that I'm trying to tell Jackson on the discussion on the freedom of speech that simply doesn't show, days after...

And I've tried to post it here and it doesn't show too. It's strange, since my other posts show immediately...

- luispc

November 29, 2007 at 3:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah. I love it. The French "youth"... It looks like intifada alright. The French thought they were clever when they were letting these barbarians burn synagogues and kill Jews. Well, now the barbarians, the so-shyly called "youths", burn France. Not the first, but the second time.

- sleepyavl

November 29, 2007 at 3:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fucking political correctness gone mad that’s what we are seeing. Had the fucking “youths” been regular French, we would all have know it, don’t you worry. But Arabs, Muslims? Oh, how could our lovely Arabs do anything wrong, ever? So they become, endearingly, “youths”.

Youssouf Fofana lead the kidnap of torture and murder of the French Jew Ilan Halimi - just because Halimi was Jewish. How is Fofana called by the press? “A boy of 26 years-old” – “un garcon de 26 ans”. Such a cute boy! How could we be rude with the 26-year old boy who drove cigarette butts through the skin of Halimi! Awwww, such a cute boy Fofana!

It’s all the same now with rioters. They’re not bad, no no no. They’re Arab and Muslim, so a priori they’re right, a priori the crash victims were right. Right even if they drove like idiots and crashed into a police car. Police car? Shouldn’t have been there. How dare the French police enter an Arab neighborhood and offend their sensibilities! We’ll soon hear it’s against the Holy Qur’an and we’ll have a few murders of nuns or Jews or whatever peaceful Islam, the religion of peace, decides to mete upon the mass of infidels.

- sleepyavl

November 29, 2007 at 3:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SIGH.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that since the web site overhaul the only place you can reliably find an old-school Talkback thread with some genuine give-and-take running out to 30 or 50 posts is down here in the sludge pit that is The Spine?  Probably a function of the fact that 1) it combines tool of immediate posting with a low enough post frequency for threads to build before people's attention gets drawn elsewhere (or the link gets buried) and 2) the fact that Spiniacs are a breed apart, never to be deterred from saying their rabid piece.  

At the old TNRD, I avoided The Spine like the plague--really I didn't give any of the blogs much time--but lately I find myself checking here several times a week--looking for a shot of the old juice, I suppose. ( Again, SIGH.) Not that these Spine threads are any less demented than they ever were.  This is just a symptom of how different the new TNRD is from the old and how much I miss the latter.

The drugs don't work anymore.

My pre-New Years resolution.  Check the web site no more often than once a week.  And then follow the same strict procedure: open up the full magazine table of contents and read any article that appears worthwhile.  Avoid the temptation to post a comment and stay FAR away from the blogs.

Adios tep, Cookie, blackie, yard, dr dan, et al.  Let me know if conditions improve, maybe I'll venture back in.

Ciao.

- aeromonas

November 29, 2007 at 8:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And paradoxically, those that experienced fascism "from within" are the ones that, today, are more open and inclusive. Perhaps fascism having been a catalyst for those societies to confront themselves, when faced with their political catastrophes."

This is very true, Luis.

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And paradoxically, those that experienced fascism "from within" are the ones that, today, are more open and inclusive. Perhaps fascism having been a catalyst for those societies to confront themselves, when faced with their political catastrophes."

Oh, how true.

(second time posting---I hope it shows up.)

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

aeromas,

Incredible...you have articulated my thoughts almost to the T....the new new has decimated The Plank and the messaging on feature articles is almost non existant so like you, I come here because this fevered plague spot, with its small but impervious cast of characters, is the only spot that hasn't really changed since the new new was squeezed out.  Perhaps the grouchy, paranoid, and misanthropic aura of the Spine bounces off any outside influence, even the new new....

A new day has dawned at tnr online, one that is driving people away.  Like you, I now come far less frequently - news that will delight our unusually diplomatic corp residing here at the Spine I have no doubt - will concentrate on the actual magazine, and confer with paroled talk backers like bill yard, teppy, basman, iggy pop, epackard, and others on email.  

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 29, 2007 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rozenson said: “Fair enough. Besides, one of these days our friend Marty will post another entry and we can spend another few hours wasting time arguing in that thread.”

I don’t believe, rozenson, that pointing out that The New York Times has a history of not printing the whole truth is a waste of my time. (It also doesn’t take me “hours” to do so.)

During the height of the attacks on Jews in France by Muslims a few years back and before the French government would even acknowledge that they had a problem I kept waiting to read an article about it in the Times I almost lost my eye sight looking for a headline on the issue.

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez, I was only trying to say something conciliatory.

- rozenson

November 29, 2007 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Jackson. Just heard from my advisor on my thesis. Gave me "total green light", said it was "the best thing he had read on the subject" and urged me to "submit it immediately". I'm walking on air! One day, the Suarez chair will be mine!

- luispc

November 29, 2007 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re. 50% unemployment rate for under 25 year-old French kids of african or arab descent, consdier that the youth unemployment rate for ALL French kids is 22%. Obviously the rate for school-leavers generally is much higher than 22%-- IIRC it was in the 35-40% range-- and higher still for dark kids from the projects who have african or arab names.

Here's an excerpt from a BusinessWeek article of a year or so ago:

Unemployment is nearly 10%, and among those under 25 it is nearly 22%, about twice the U.S. rate. Youth joblessness runs over 50% in the suburbs that are home to many of France's more than 5 million first- and second-generation African and Arab immigrants.

Many of the French rioters have been students who figure they probably won't find jobs. Good jobs "are reserved for certain people, and usually it's white French people," says Abdel Karim, a son of North African immigrants who lives in Clichy-sous-Bois, where the rioting began. French-born Karim, 26, finished high school but has never held a steady job. He lives on welfare and rent subsidies totaling about $980 a month.

High unemployment among immigrants and young people isn't limited to France. Joblessness in Germany's Turkish immigrant community is an estimated 25%, and 14% of British Muslims are unemployed. Youth unemployment tops 20% in Italy, Spain, and Belgium. Mix in racial discrimination, crumbling education systems, and scant representation of ethnic minorities among the political and business elite, and it's easy to see why young immigrants are alienated.

More than anything, it's the welfare state that stifles job creation. European governments tax businesses heavily to pay for welfare, unemployment, and health benefits. Such taxes, including contributions by workers, account for 16.4% of France's economy and 14.4% of Germany's, vs. only 6.7% in the U.S. On top of that, governments saddle companies with rigid labor rules that make it difficult to lay off workers or hire them on temporary contracts. "The first priority must be to make the labor market more flexible," says Jean-René Boidron, chief executive of Cosmosbay, a Paris-based consulting group. Boidron says his firm would hire more if it were freed from onerous regulations.

Powerful unions add to the problem by pushing for worker protections at the expense of job creation. France's biggest union, the Confédération Générale du Travail, opposed a recent government initiative that allows employers to hire some workers on a temporary basis -- an arrangement that could encourage employers to hire young, less well-trained workers without fear of being locked into rigid, long-term contracts. Now, the union is even lobbying for higher taxes on companies that take advantage of the provision.

- teplukhin2you

November 29, 2007 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis,

Congratulations!  High praise.  Keep us posted...

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 29, 2007 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Cookie!

Tep, I'm overwhelmed by your post.

I know about the need to turn job markets flexible. But still things in Europe are not as in America. If you loose a job in America, it's no big deal, even if it is in a different state. If you loose a job in Europe, you're sort of done (very small markets, everyone knows each other and all this combinated with a nepotistic culture that still exists... and giving entire freedom to the wolf to hire and fire as he pleases maybe is not such a great idea...).

And on social security, give me a break. Why is it that companies that are showing high numbers in almost every sector (even in sectors that in America are dying, like the car industry) cannot pay for social security benefits? Greed, simple greed, if you ask me

- luispc

November 29, 2007 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

even if it is in a different state, you'll find a new one, I intended to say

- luispc

November 29, 2007 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And on that malaise as being provoked, in a great deal, by injustice in what concerns access to education and jobs (with inevitable anger created), I agree and had refered to it.

That's exactly why this youth that is rioting is not to faced as "racaille". Even if what they're doing is unacceptable, there are underlying reasons for what they do and those markets should be more democratic and inclusive.

Things won't just be solved by flexibility in labour markets. As I said this flexibility can even have a counter-productive effect, since the hirers are not really that interested in employing north-africans (racism plays here...one cannot forget that...and the French, well, tend to be a bit racist)

- luispc

November 29, 2007 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Luis - bom trabalho! continue assim, e boa sorte

- teplukhin2you

November 29, 2007 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obrigado Tep!

- luispc

November 29, 2007 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"grouchy, paranoid, and misanthropic aura of the Spine" - very eloquent!

- sleepyavl

November 29, 2007 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson: I'm so glad you brought up the French antisemitism.  I almost e-mailed you--but as usual find you here--about the November 19th profile of the French comic and monstrously antisemitic Dieudonne.  Imagine every horrible slander/conspiracy theory about Jews and this man has said it (I'm sure ND has season tickets to his shows).  What I found most horrifying is his fan-based.  Contrary to what one would assume, the man attracts not just Muslim admirers but white, middle-classers as well.  I still don't disdain the Franks as much as you, but it is eye-opening and upsetting.

As for people who find it "grouchy paranoid," etc., except for a few feuds, there really isn't all that much incivility.  The hard-core posters (myself not included) are also very well-educated and well read.  Just look at anything luispc, to name just one, has said over the past few days.  (And luis, I am not asking you to "friend" me.  I am "misanathropic" and don't need to any off-line "connectivity.")   Anyway, I like the occasional bad manners.  Keeps things interesting.

- MOLLYSIMON

November 29, 2007 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly,

Vive la difference (ungrammatical french notwithstanding)...

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 29, 2007 at 7:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"One day, the Suarez chair will be mine!"

You have my well wishes, Luis.  Hope you do get the Suarez chair someday.

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

 BR offers an economist's point of view on the rioters. Unemployment alone doesn't necessarily lead to riots. If that were the case there would be riots all over the world all the time.

There is something else at work there and my guess is the influence of the Muslim hate preaching that is going on constantly. They don't have to be devout Muslims in order to use it as an excuse to assault society at large.

Moreover, the antisemitism in those communities is endemic. I read sometime ago a piece by a French sociologist of who came from a North African Muslim home who talked about learning to hate Jews at home while he was going up.  

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 7:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Correction, the first paragraph in my previous post should have read:

BW offers an economist's point of view on the rioters. Unemployment alone doesn't necessarily lead to riots. If that were the case there would be riots all over the world all the time.

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read the New Yorker article, Molly and all I can say is that the article softened up Dieudonne’s image quite a bit.

I have been following his antisemitic out bursts in the European press and the man is a combination of Louis Farrakhan and Henry Ford.

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 7:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

one moment thejauntyboulevardier is leaving and talking to people via email and the next moment he is back again.

the one consistent thing about this guy is his indecisiveness. I wouldn’t even call him inconsistent. He is not even consistently inconsistent.

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am glad, though, Molly, that The New Yorker published the piece on Dieudonne even if it wasn't as strong a critique as I would have liked.

- jacksondyer

November 29, 2007 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson: How much worse can Dieudonne be?   What has he done that's more disgusting?

By the way, contrast France with us, where Mel Gibson was excoriated after his drunken racist orgy.  We ain't perfect, but I do thank God for the new world.

- MOLLYSIMON

November 29, 2007 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaunty, stop threatening to go.  I'm tired of asking you to stay.

- MOLLYSIMON

November 29, 2007 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, it was Jaunty’s characterization of the hard-core posters here as “grouchy, paranoid and misanthropic”. I found it funny. And there is some truth to it. Many of the regulars here (myself included) are rather cantankerous and certainly opinionated. But I’ll take any day a nasty dispute to a bland discussion. Why?

Because at least people here say what they have in their minds. In other places, they’ll give you some politically-correct hypocritical nonsense while thinking and sometimes acting upon nasty beliefs that they hold anyway.

The poster I have had the most disputes with, ndmackenzie, is still to be commended for being so candid. I think she’s a dangerous anti-Semite and a hardline terror supporter, but she puts her cards on the table. You know what? I appreciate her for that. It’s better than having people who are just as much wolves as her but are silent. At least she shows herself clearly and she wants some dialogue, even if of the screaming variety.

I think that’s the value of The Spine, of providing an arena for such discussions.

- sleepyavl

November 29, 2007 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like everybody else, the French can be racist bastards. When the subject is Jews, to whom the French have been monstrous, Spine fans will happily explain this to you at length. But if the Muslims of France are not welcomed graciously, somehow that must be their own fault, as if all they had to do was to wake up one morning and decide to be French, and all the troubles of the banlieues would evaporate.  It's like a commercial I frequently hear on WBZ implying it's my own fault I'm not a millionaire. Maybe French Muslims can send for a free tape.

In the small town where I lived in northern France, there was a neighborhood of "Maghrebis"--all in ugly high-rise buildings --that our French friends and contacts whispered darkly about. Arsonists lived there. Worse, there were kebab places. We're drowning in a tide of Muslims and soon we wouldn't be able to buy pork anymore.

In that neighborhood, built in recent decades largely to house poor immigrants, I always thought it odd that there was a huge public mural of French Crusaders killing Saracens.  Bienvenue en France!

- frippo

November 30, 2007 at 12:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

frippo your defense of Muslims in France would be more defensible if you also defended the Jews not just from the "French" but from the Muslims in France.

Most of the attacks on Jews in France today emanate from North African Muslims.

- jacksondyer

November 30, 2007 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: frippo, the Jews weren't exactly welcomed in France either. But they didn't riot and they didn't physically attack French people.

They made their way the best they could and spent their time trying to educate themselves and constribute to society.

Why do you expect less of the Arab immigrants? Do you think they are incapable of acting like decent human beings?

- jacksondyer

November 30, 2007 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Most of the attacks on Jews in France today emanate from North African Muslims."

True enough. Free-floating rage, traditional enemy. And your point about the French state being slow to do anything about it tends to prove the larger point about French racism, which I have to say is rather weird to read YOU trying to downplay.

"Why do you expect less of the Arab immigrants? Do you think they are incapable of acting like decent human beings?"

Insert eye-roll here. They riot because they are unwelcome in the land they and their parents and grandparents were born in, trapped in ugly housing projects, harassed by police, jobless in a country with few jobs even for white people, with no signs of it getting better. It's the same reason we have had race riots in this country. Unless YOU believe Arabs are incapable of acting like decent human beings (which I don't rule out), the explanation must be entirely the imams, right? Have they kept the Muslims from assimilating all these generations? And what about the specific provocation -- that's exactly the sort of thing that could set off a race riot here, too. Unless you think this is some kind of planned thing waiting for just the right excuse as you do the renewed intifada.

Jews and Asians have been discriminated against in this country, but have generally assimilated rather well; race riots involve blacks. By your logic concerning the French situation, history or social and economic pressures alone could not explain it; they'd have to be learning to hate in their inner-city churches or something. Do you think this is the case? I imagine you don't.

But I should warn you, before you go on further with your evil imams theory, that I'm one of those tiresome liberals who thinks doctrines of hate don't easily catch hold among people who otherwise doing well or see some hope of doing so.

- frippo

November 30, 2007 at 1:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Above I said, "Free-floating rage, traditional enemy." Before Jackson seizes on that to change the subject, let me say that that does not constitute a "defense" of French-Arab-on-French-Jew violence, just one explanation for it that does not require a conspiracy of murderous imams.

- frippo

November 30, 2007 at 1:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To my diplomatic fans at the Spine...

If you read my post carefully, I said..

I now come far less frequently - news that will delight our unusually diplomatic corp residing here at the Spine I have no doubt - will concentrate on the actual magazine, and confer with paroled talk backers like bill yard, teppy, basman, iggy pop, epackard, and others on email.

I never said I would leave completely.  Less frequently means less frequently.  I think you are letting your hopes and dreams cloud your comprehension...

Now I know that for a Spine purist, anything short of a Manichaean, declarative, line drawn in the sand is evidence of an "indecisive" issue avoider, somewhat off his onion....

but you misread my post.  Less frequently means that I will still visit this little paradise of warm and fuzzy to get my occasional ration of its gnarled delights...fear not...

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 30, 2007 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sleepy,

I value your post.  You and I may disagree - the soft tension that sometimes emanates from two kindred souls one could say - about language and the adisability of rapid rabid response, but I always feel that I can reason with you.  And, as you note, it is better to debate from a position of clarity, and lord knows that is what you and mack do.

Also, in your communications with me and others - other than mack that is - that you can separate issue from emotion or preference and when someone like Peretz, who you don't really like, says something insightful, you will give him credit. I try to do the same, as evidence most recently by his Condi is stupider than Bush post.

Anyhow, until next time...less frequently of course...

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 30, 2007 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

frippo it's obvious that you think that anyone who doesn't agree with you that the "French" are responsible for the Arab riots is anti-Arab.

Well, I don't think and you didn't prove that the French (which include also Jews and other assimilated populations) are responsible for the destructive behavior of the rioters.

Changing the topic to Black riots in the US doesn't prove your point.

The causes of Arab rioting in France are multiple and if unemployment is partly responsible so is the hate mongering of extremist Jihadist and also of extreme leftists.

Above all, it's the excuses some people (for the best of reasons) have been making for the hateful behavior of the "alienated Arabs" that are responsible for the violence.  This is especially true of the media which has been "explaining" the hatred of Jews that many Arabs in France feel.  If these folk believe justified in their hatred of Jews why should they not also believe justified in their hatred of French society in general.

- jacksondyer

November 30, 2007 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

frippo it's obvious that you think that anyone who doesn't agree with you that the "French" are responsible for the Arab riots is anti-Arab.

Well, I don't think and you didn't prove that the French (which include also Jews and other assimilated populations) are responsible for the destructive behavior of the rioters.

Changing the topic to Black riots in the US doesn't prove your point.

The causes of Arab rioting in France are multiple and if unemployment is partly responsible so is the hate mongering of extremist Jihadist and also of extreme leftists.

Above all, it's the excuses some people (for the best of reasons) have been making for the hateful behavior of the "alienated Arabs" that are responsible for the violence.  This is especially true of the media which has been "explaining" the hatred of Jews that many Arabs in France feel.  If these folk believe justified in their hatred of Jews why should they not also believe justified in their hatred of French society in general.

- jacksondyer

November 30, 2007 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sleepy--firstly, aren't you sick of having to sign in every time you want to post?  

Basically, your sentiments were what I was trying to get across in my last post.  Just didn't explicate as well or as thoroughly.   I'd never thought of ND as being admirable in any way, though now that you point it out, I'd have to agree.  And I do appreciate her candor.  I'd never get to hear that stuff in real life, not where I live.  The feuding I referred to was my polite way of saying, "So what if we tell each other to fuck off."  Those who are offended, nu, it's better they don't come.  I'm not so sure they'd add anything new--we have plenty of representative opinions.  

Sleepy, never clean up your act.  You go places I could only dream of.  

- MOLLYSIMON

November 30, 2007 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, Frippo:  I've been enjoying your back and forth.  I did want to add this small point.  Asians and Jews come from cultures in which achievement, ambition, drive are hammered into us, maybe even a part of our genetic material (whatever that means).  This isn't always a good thing:  it makes some of us nuts.  I'm not trying to elevate us in any way.  Or excuse rioters.  Just to say that assimilation is easier for us--we have the tools and desire to "fit in."  In a place like xenophobic France, where some immigrants aren't as willing to become fully French--and in some ways that's a really commendable thing--they have a harder time getting ahead.   How else to explain the achievement between our immigrants and theirs?   We're better able to accept differences.  For most of us, we don't hold it against people when they walk around in saris, payot, head coverings--at least not to the point where we exclude.  As for blacks in this country, who fall behind many immigrants, I don't think the legacy of racism/slavery is so easy to shake off.  Immigrants who come here weren't slaves 150 years ago, which is a drop in time.  Jews were persecuted, but never enslaved.  Another reason I'm pro-affirmative action.

By now, I've either bored or disgusted people.  And if I've been unintentionally racist, I apologize.  

- MOLLYSIMON

November 30, 2007 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it is willful myopia to discount collective influences ie. religion,culture. Within each of us is a dual narrative: Me and then my relationship to the collective. The effects and affects of Islam is a fair proposition when considering this example collective behavior. Tep would mitigate this collective face with a six of one, half dozen the other argument with the implicit folks will be folks argument. This is  typical of a generous soul and true enough within context. That context touching upon the universal. But included within this uniiversal should be an acknowledgement that folks being folks will include their world view and how it shapes their rationalizations in justifications and dispositions to the world at large. The West has largely been authored by Christianity, for better and worse, with the underlying implication of dissolving the collective. Hence the shattered church with all of its siblings. A continuance of the developing individual to a moral autonomy and full acceptance of individual responsibility and conscience. There is still quite a ways to go. Neh? Now atheists may think that they have escaped the psychological gravity of this alchemical equation. I would beg to differ but that is another story.

Is there anyone here really going to argue that these rioters in France are not influenced by their religious background and identity? I say this in defense of Marty. He has an antipathy to Islam  which I share. Within its doctrinal provisions is a decidedly undemocratic conclusion. The likes of which puts a premium on the collective at the expense of the individual. One is hard pressed to find anything resembling a personal relationship to God or conscience(if you please).  I will happily invite proofs to the contrary.

Even the enlightened social science categoricals can find room for the relevance religious influence in the realm of collective behaviors. The old 'there but by the grace of God' is a fine sentiment and one that should be embraced with all charity and clarity. Let that not cloud very real aspects of the truth as manifest in cause and effect.

- boxofrox

November 30, 2007 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is there anyone here really going to argue that these rioters in France are not influenced by their religious background and identity?"

Consider: if your/Jack's thesis-- that Islamic ideas and influences are a significant factor in explaining these kids' rioting-- were correct, then the violence would have been directed primarily at French jews. After all, the Jews are an easy and well-known target: simple to identify, and living chockablock with the beurs and noirs. There's quite a precedent for such violence in France.

But these riots have not only NOT singled out French jews, they've more or less left the jews out of it altogether. Last year, out of some 20,000 or so car torchings, there was only one report I saw of any jew's car being burnt. This year, the violence is overwhelmingly directed at not jews, or jewish institutions, but _les flics_, ie the security arm of the secular French state.

You guys are imposing a narrative  that simply doesn't fit the facts here. Were your thesis correct, we'd have seen scores of attacks directed at jews. Instead we have a race riot.

Britain has a huge and scary problem with its homegrown jihadists. France has a race problem and a labor-market problem. Let's not confuse the two.

- teplukhin2you

November 30, 2007 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Consider: if your/Jack's thesis-- that Islamic ideas and influences are a significant factor in explaining these kids' rioting-- were correct, then the violence would have been directed primarily at French jews. After all, the Jews are an easy and well-known target: simple to identify, and living chockablock with the beurs and noirs. There's quite a precedent for such violence in France." teplukhin2you

But they do attack Jews whenever they get the chance. Many Jewish parents had to take their children out of school because of physical and verbal abuse by Muslim kids who call them fuij which is the reverse spelling of Jew.

When Jews are identified as such and are exposed they are attacked. Many Rabbis and ultra orthodox Jews have been assaulted.

Jews have been concealing their identities while walking in the streets.

In some cases Muslims have gone into middle and upper middle class neighborhoods and threatened people there. In the last couple of years the government has had to institute special protection measures which makes attacking Jews all that much more difficult.

I could go on, Tep.

It’s the fact that it took so long for the authorities to clamp down that it gave these “youths” the sense that they could get away with it.

A similar (though not identical) situation occurred in the last years of the Tsarist regime. The peasants would first attack Jews and then they turned their anger at other better off Russians. Hence the slogan “beat the Jews, save Russia” was a double edged sword and the Tsarist authorities had to intervene in order to stop these attacks.

- jacksondyer

November 30, 2007 at 7:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wrong analogy, Jack. Consider racial violence in LA in 1992. The afr-american LA rioters in '92 attacked lots of Korean shopkeepers, and there's long been a history of black-on-asian violence in areas where black (and latino) gangs mix with asian shopkeepers. Such violence was a by-product of the fundamental causes of the riots, which had nothing to do with asians and which were not directed as asians per se. DItto re, French beur/noir violence and French jews.

- teplukhin2you

November 30, 2007 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, let's be aware of the huge differences between a) sub-saharan africans, who may or may not be muslim; b) north africans, whose version of islam is much less likely to fall under the sway of jihadi/wahabbi doctrines; and c) pakistani muslims, who are far more radicalized and susceptible to jihadi/wahabbi doctrines.

Britain's muslims are overwhelmingly (2/3rds IIUC) drawn from c), France's muslims from a) and b).

Again, I'm not denying the reality of significant and noxious, violent anti-semitism among French arabs and blacks. I'm saying that this is a much smaller problem than the core problems animating the rioters in the French 'burbs. In contrast to Britain, France's arab problem has very little to do with Islam or Islamism.

- teplukhin2you

November 30, 2007 at 8:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“The afr-american LA rioters in '92 attacked lots of Korean shopkeepers, and there's long been a history of black-on-asian violence in areas where black (and latino) gangs mix with asian shopkeepers. Such violence was a by-product of the fundamental causes of the riots…”

I don’t buy the analogy, tep.

The anti Korean violence is driven purely by economic resentment. It is specifically against Korean shopkeepers in Black areas and there is no historical animosity between Koreans and American Blacks.

The reverse is true in France.  

However, we have each written enough about this and we are beginning to repeat ourselves.

- jacksondyer

November 30, 2007 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The causes of Arab rioting in France are multiple"

On this at its most general, we agree. I just don't think that Islamist extremism is the chief one, and that it wouldn't have much influence at all if the other factors hadn't made people receptive. But I do want to stress that I offer these factors as an explanation, not an excuse.

(Also, the anger of these riots is expressed in purely secular terms. We see in Sudan right now, with demonstratios against that poor British teacher, the latest example of what angry Muslims being angry as Muslims look like, but the anger of French Arabs is focused on the flics. Are they keeping their Islamist rhetoric under wraps until the day of the Master Plan?)

Your mention of the years of near impunity with which French Arabs attacked Jews and the potentially resulting sense of "getting away with it" sounds reasonable as another factor.

(Interestingly, while Marty is surely right that strife in Israel/Palestine does not have anything much to do with the rioting in general, it probably does factor into the anti-Semitic harassment and violence.)

On some other matters, I'd just be echoing Tep's better informed/researched posts, and I'm not going to try my own spin on them, because then I'll come back to see if you replied, and dissertation D-Day is less than a week away, so I shouldn't even be typing here.

Molly: glad you enjoyed the posts, and thanks for your own take on the situation (well, on various situations).

- frippo

November 30, 2007 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tep's very good posts are exploring a dimension of this problem that deserves attention. Muslims in England are much more vulnerable to be attracted to radical islamism than in France, where the problem is a social one, mainly. And there are social roots that cannot be ignored. One must not apply Sarkozy's way and simply call them "racaille" without trying at least to face problems of education and job exclusion. Which would also be a healthy thing within the French society, still marked by racism. The only thing I don't agree with in what concerns Tep's posts are his applied remedies. As I said above, I'm not sure simple flexibilization of labour laws would be a remedy. I'm affraid that in the French scenario, they would be counter-productive...

With this I do not wish -- let me underline -- to excuse their violence. And least of all, their attacks on Jews which are penal matters to be handled accordingly by the courts. Anti-semitism in any kind is simply unacceptable in any civilized society and the sign must be given. CLEARLY.

And on Jack's post, I don't think that's the correct angle. The only way for the West to win this war is to stay above, keeping a higher moral perspective. This must be faced also as a liberation war, intended to (subtely, of course) get them rid of Islam. Unfortunately this angle -- that needs a very effective propaganda war -- is not being explored by a West that lives under secularist dogmas, that simply does not understand the difference between religions, that constantly ignores it's Christian cultural roots and is unaware that these are the very ones that need defense.

We have to conquer their hearts and minds. Undo the nasty work of their prophet and go back to the purity of the judeo-christian tradition, to the very reason of a monotheistic religion with a "symbol of the self" (as Jung as putten it), a reason which was subverted within the islam context...

The West must urgently do a homework that has been neglected for centuries... or it is complety vulnerable. Culturaly vulnerable, which is the worst form of vulnerability.

- luispc

December 1, 2007 at 3:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clarity is an elusive commodity. I would hope that my previous offerings would at least inform to an extent whatever follows. That said, I substantially hold a degree of agreement in matters of the God economy and as such that nature abhors a vacuum. Spiritually and otherwise. Inasmuch that Islam is an explicit refuge for bigotry and a vehicle for hate, never shall I shy from the truth of it. I don't have time to elaborate on the rest this morning. Mayhaps this afternoon. I understand the distinctions which Tep is making. I believe it to be informed and well intended. That one would emphasize particulars as he has seems to bear a bit of a wish and hope that better angels will prevail if we don't allow the 1000 lb. gorilla in on the conversation. Perhaps there is some wisdom in this. Anyway, I have some necessary things to tend. I'll try to get back this eve.

Just so I am not misunderstood I think one must allow that Christianity does have an implied obsolescence  goal. Thus fulfilled and no longer necessary. That's worth another discussion. For now I have to go. Later.

- boxofrox

December 1, 2007 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Luis, I may be misunderstanding you, but your post sounds a lot like missionary talk to me.  "This must be faced also as a liberation war, intended to (subtely, of course) get them rid of Islam."  Are you speaking of Muslims in the West, and when you speak of Islam, to what are you referring?  

I don't have any of the answers here.  I myself, as a Jew, am extremely distrustful of and hostile toward Islam, period. I do,  however, get nervous at the idea of moving them away from their religion.  A. because it's an impossibility and B. because it just ain't right.  

For me, Tep has made the most convincing arguments vis-a-vis France.  And as either he or someone else pointed out, a little affirmative action would be a good thing.   Not the whole solution, but a start that could help them get mobility and engender good will.   But that is a small idea, your seem more overarching.  

- MOLLYSIMON

December 1, 2007 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson:  Jews have always been the canary in the coal mine.  

- MOLLYSIMON

December 1, 2007 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack,

I did understand what you said. But the point here is that one must stand above water and show, by inclusion -- indirectly so to speak -- the virtualities of a different frame, which is our frame and that we wish to be theirs as well. A saving thy brother perspective, so to speak, that assumes that he is already the brother one wishes him to be.

I know that you don't disagree with this. I just think that it must be stated clearly for no confusions to happen. This is very demanding from a western perspective. Since it means simultaneously not to compromise on the essence and to transmit this essence.

I don't like the way Peretz puts things -- although I know he is not what many pretend he is -- since his words are usually full of negativity. One must get rid of negativity. Say that we simultaneously embrace and do not compromise. This can be stated from a certain perspective as a leap of faith. But it is the only possible way.

- luispc

December 1, 2007 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know it sounds strange Molly. But it is not a holy inquisition approach. It's an awareness of ourselves approach. And this must be done. The West is much more vulnerable from within than from outside.

I sent a post to Jack. I hope it will show.

- luispc

December 1, 2007 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And Molly, it is impossible to illuminate completely, in a post, what I intend to say in facing Islam as a perversion of monotheism. You must read Jung. And perhaps also, but without as much profoundity, George Steiner.

The main point is that, within monotheism, man discovers his own humanity as a perfectable humanity, which in judaism is framed by rules and within christianity is symbolized by the God made man to which you are bound to frame yourself accordingly. The message is always do unto: if you want to became more perfect, to achieve yourself completely you have to respect yourself and the other fully.

Within Islam this is destroyed. God is no longer a matter of moral perfectability of man as man, but even a justification for violence. "Faith" is not something that perfects you and that ties you to what you are as perfected. Within Islam, "faith" turns into something that "empowers" you, even giving you justifying reasons to spread it by the sword...

- luispc

December 1, 2007 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mollysimon:

I find myself intrigued by your aversion to 'changing religion'. Why is such a thing impossible? What makes it 'not right'?

- boxofrox

December 1, 2007 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am well with your comment above. Your distinctions are born of convictions which I share. Steadfast humility is not an easy concept to convey. One must own it for the unspoken to prevail.

Marty and Jackson are rightly alarmed by the anti-semitism which is shopping the marketplace and meeting with if not approval then at least a hearing as reasonable concern. Molly's canary reference is an accurate one. It portends ill winds and obscenity. These winds blow their lies and obfuscations to satisfy but one thing. As far as I am concerned a little stridency is understandable.

ps. I haven't received any email or posting.

- boxofrox

December 1, 2007 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My last post was intended for Luis.

- boxofrox

December 1, 2007 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack! My post for you was the one that starts with "I did understand what you say".

And I do understand Peretz's anger. As I understand "a little stridency". The point is that it is counter-productive and merely reflects negatively what he wishes to react against, not creating the possibility of overcoming.

- luispc

December 2, 2007 at 2:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When I'm discussing here, I like to keep things public for all my friends. I really dislike mentions to e-mailing bands apart. Not that I have anything against it in itself. People are free to engage in separate e-mail conferences as they please. But it's their private communities and not this wide open-society that is TNR talkback (rectius, that is The Spine, since since the destruction of TNR.com, this is the only place left to engage in interesting discussions).

- luispc

December 2, 2007 at 2:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luispc,

For me, you have always been one fascinating cat.  The thing I like about your participation is that you continually surprise, in politics, content, and often, in quirky predilections.

I respect your feelings about email bands truly.  Still, I think that you - and to a greater extent jackson - worship a false and illusionary God here on the Great Anonymous, Face in the Crowd Blog called tnr, or more specifically The Spine.  Luis, as I mentioned on another thread, people are social creatures and whenever we congregate, we will strike up conversations and go from there.  Sometimes that leads to greater communication, sometimes...gads....even a fuller friendship.  I see nothing wrong with that and there is also no where in the rules of tnr or the Spine that forbids this activity.  

I think anonymous posting is fine.  In my humble opinion, anonymous posting has been a god send for a particularly kind of frustrated male, who all their lives have wanted the courage to tell big bad guys to F off and insult them face to face.  Anonymous posting not only allows them to do that but, given the probable profile of one such species, to do so without suffering the inevitable consequences of such behavior, which in their lives - most likely since kindergarten - been the stomping of his innards and then being shaken like a rat.

Anyhow, personally, I will try to limit my references to off line posting.  You are a good guy and though I think you are just a tad off about this offline posting thing, like Jeeves, I am to give satisfaction.

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 2, 2007 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"just a tad off"

My dear Cookie. I never asked for inclusion on that exclusive set of yours. I'm delighted that you're having it. And do hope that you and your friends have a lot of fun. Which I'm sure you'll have. But, even without being asked (and being a "a tad off"), I'm affraid I'm not really interested in your set and in your conferences.

And on those many guys blah, blah, blah, they have one virtue. At least when online, they have the courage to say things directly. Which is a virtue I appreciate and that is very rare, both offline and online.

Best regards and wishing you all the best in that new set of yours (it's delightfull that some of the energy of yours and your friends will be channeled there, so we don't have to hear so many banalities),

Luis

- luispc

December 2, 2007 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Luis,

I never implied that you did ask for inclusion - and if you did, you wouldn't even need to ask.  The larger point gets down to what is the standard for posting.  I don't believe I ever heard or read a tnr God say that blogging on their site really had any rules.  Posters bring what they want.  What I do hear from you and others is frustration that others posters don't share your approach and personal definition of blogging, a personal definition that in my humble opinion is odd and very narrow, but hardly unwelcome nor the standard for the site.  

I have been very clear about how I feel about "F you" posting and those who practice it so I do not need to rehash that.  But, dear luis, I have also said that there ain't nothin' I can do about it either.

What we are talking about really luis, is control, control over what others write and what they bring.  The best thing you can say about Marty is that he takes all comers and only very very rarely makes a comment about his preferences.  I suggest that, in this instance, we all take the lead from the host.  Everyone is welcome to bring whatever they want.  

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 2, 2007 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oh and luis,

You can bet your entire paycheck that if I were to meet ANY tnr poster at any time, I would say communicate with them EXACTLY the way I do on line.  I have a hard time believing that certain posters - who shall remain nameless - can and would do the same thing.  And if they did, they would be disabused of it.

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 2, 2007 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Cookie, let's abandon all this tyresome talk. From what I can understand all your problems are solved within your new set of offline posting. So, off you go. I'm sure everyone is waiting for your contribution there and I'm sure it will be very amusing.

"What I do hear from you and others is frustration that others posters don't share your approach and personal definition of blogging, a personal definition that in my humble opinion is odd and very narrow"

I'm not sure what you are refering to. But again, as I'm able to understand, your problem is solved within that new set offline. Which must be not odd and not narrow at all. And again, I'm very happy for you with your new arrangement. Perhaps you can even market it. Who knows. With all that openess and widened perspectives, you'll even make money!

Best regards.

- luispc

December 2, 2007 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Box,

If you're still checking this post, I haven't had time to respond til now.  In any case, I've been mulling your question, what's wrong with conversion.  My theme song should be Zeppelin's "Ramble On."  Because I do ramble on.  Anyway, re. conversion:  Nothing's wrong, I suppose, if it's the converter's choice.  But the history of conversion isn't very nice, especially from a Jew's perspective.  In Spain,  we had no choice (unless you consider death a choice) or in.  Europe before the war, you converted and it made not a damn bit of difference.  Which is also the case for the untouchables in India--they've converted to some other religion so that they're no longer Untouchable, but it hasn't done a thing.  They're still treated as the lowest of the low.  And the above isn't even mentioning Christian crusaders, missionaries in Africa, South America, and Asia, and all other places colonized.   I know squat about the history of missionary work, but if I'm correct, the choice not to convert wasn't always a choice, no?  And didn't it also wipe out much of the local traditions/culture?  

I, in accordance with Jewish law, don't believe anyone should convert to Judaism unless by choice.  So I automatically recoil from the idea of trying to turn Muslims into Jews or Christians.  Maybe it's also my liberal background, which emphasizes accepting others' differences, a pretty ingrained belief.   I don't know the Koran, so I'm not convinced that the religion of peace isn't so peaceful.  Maybe it 's been perverted.  

I've come to believe our Judeo-Christian traditions are better than theirs, at least as practiced today.  And I suppose one could try to persuade, but can you imagine an Evangelical walking into downtown Riadh and saying that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior--and havs anyone listening considered accepting him as such?  It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke.  And an IMPOSSIBILITY.  

If I"m correct, Luis isn't talking so much about turning Muslims toward Jesus but accepting the values  of the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Your phrase "steadfast humility" also sums up what we need to convey and "export."

- MOLLYSIMON

December 2, 2007 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Luis, I'm not sure I have the temperament to sit down and read beyond the rudimentary Jung I know.  But I believe I get the gist of what you're saying.  I can't say I'm down with your idealism.  Not right now.  

- MOLLYSIMON

December 2, 2007 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaunty, if you haven't already left the building, I do want to add to Luis:  Mentioning outside posts/discussion is just downright rude.  Isn't one supposed to avoid making others feel excluded? That, to me, is far ruder than a direct "fuck you."  

- MOLLYSIMON

December 2, 2007 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly,

yes, I do agree that mentioning outside posting does inflict a cut of inclusion. Frankly, I hadn't thought of it that way exactly...and that was why I told luis...and am agreeing with you that yes, I can see how it would be exclusionary and hurtful.  

Is it worse than F you?  Ah well, enough, you know my feelings about that. Posting is a new communication form and one must learn as one goes.  I would have never thought that someone would have been hurt by my mentioning that I had a backchannel with say, basman but now that I do know, I will change that habit.  

Now Molly, can you honestly tell me that the artful practitioners of the F you style of posting are willing to do the same?  I think not.  Seems to be that it only incites them to do it more. Any fair person would draw the obvious conclusion from that telling reality...

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 2, 2007 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly,

make that cut of exclusion...

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 2, 2007 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Listen Tep, your argument about the French Arabs not attacking French Jews is false: they've already done it for years before these riots. Synagogues burnt, Jews attacked, at least three murdered (Chantal Piekolek, Sebastien Sllam, Ilan Halimi).

- sleepyavl

December 2, 2007 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaunty:  "I would have never thought that someone would have been hurt by my mentioning that I had a backchannel with say, basman but now that I do know, I will change that habit."  I've no idea whether  feelings have been hurt.  But for someone who considers himself so very polite, sensitive even, it seems an odd oversight on your part.  

As for "fuck you," I've always enjoyed posters' directness.  Those who dish it out certainly seem willing to take it.  I don't remember Jackson, for instance, crying foul.  

- MOLLYSIMON

December 2, 2007 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hee, hee..Molly you overestimate my sensitivity...

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 2, 2007 at 7:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If I"m correct, Luis isn't talking so much about turning Muslims toward Jesus but accepting the values  of the Judeo-Christian tradition. "

Exactly. For Jesus, as I can understand Him, it's not really relevant that we "follow" Him as Him. And surely is not relevant if we follow those that pretend to speak in his name (as I understand Him, He would find these latest ones quite indigestable). For Him what is relevant is that we reach ourselves completely as moral human beings. The Passion means that.

Quite a different perspective from Mohammed, which did not sacrifice himself, but used God's name to self-justify whatever goals he had as a proud male, from the subjugation of women to violence on the "other"....

I know that Christianity was also historically used to justify violence. But this can only be reported to those that abusively spoke in His name. There isn't a single word of Jesus himself that would allow you any sort of violence in His name... The message is quite the opposite: in order to achieve true humanity you have to achieve moral humanity...

- luispc

December 3, 2007 at 6:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Molly you overestimate my sensitivity..."

Without wishing to interfere, I just want to say that I'm glad that you have an accurate picture of yourself. So, in the future, please spare us from your lessons on guys that say things as awfull as "fuck you". I prefer to be told "fuck you" anytime to hear moral lessons from someone that isn't all that sensible and knows it.

- luispc

December 3, 2007 at 6:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis,

I know myself pretty well.  I know also that guys who use anonymous bloggiing to say F you to people are almost always men who are mere rabbits who use anonymous posting to be the lions they wish they were.

I also know that the Spine is a truly twisted place where posts alluding to friendships offline and admissions to other posters that their point may be correct are seen as more negative than people spouting anti social, misanthropic vitrioll at other posters.  Luis, you are entitled to your own opinion, as is Molly, but both of you can, at times, reflect the twisted values of this poisoned community of angry, anti social, resentful posters.  

I also know that the Spine is one spot where reciprocal human communication - like saying that someone else has a valid point - is perceived as a weakness.  What a bizarre little nest of misfits. Yes, I know myself and my flaws but somehow I think that many of the Spines regs, which at times, includes you luis, have a elevated, sefl heroic, intellectually arrogant, socially pinched side that goes completely unacknowledged your self congratutation on your self perceived toughness and your cauterized expectation "issued only" communication.  As I said, chances are, men who communicate as most Spine regs do are mere rabbits.  

I make no apologies for thinking that F you style posters, who are all men btw, are cowards who would wet their pants if faced with their antagnonists face to face.  If this is weakness or "moral instruction" to you, so be it.  

Otherwise, I always find your posts interesting, unpredictable, and thoughtful.  I always look forward to reading them.  

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So we're all "regs" (by the way, what's a "reg", since I'm not familiar with American sluggish talk and this one is not on the dictionary), "rabits", unable to face people "eye to eye" or "chest to chest" even if on occasion we even say "interesting" things (not enough though for separate conferences, from which we are "just a tad off").

OK. So, as I said above Cookie your problem is solved. And really, really, we do not deserve your considering attention and worried advise. And since we don't deserve it, and since you really hate the atmosphere here (beginning with Peretz), please, be my guest, and devote yourself to places where people face each other "eye to eye" and "chest to chest".

I really don't have anything else to say. And I promise I'll ignore you completely in the future, if you ununderstandably choose to remain around these parts. But please please, find some confort within those new offline chats of yours, since you really must need some sort of relief from these, from your perspective, awfull "regs" and "rabits". That even say sometimes absolutely unacceptable things to each other such as "fuck you" .

How regy and rabit of them (of me "at times" too)!

And please, please, Cookie. Join a fight club as well. One in which all those "eye to eye" and "chest to chest" real men that you are referring to meet and beat the hell out of each other. This is only a blog in which people discuss polemic things. It's impossible that your manly high standards can be achieved here.

- luispc

December 3, 2007 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis,

uh...I guess so.  reg = regular, rabbit = meek, interesting = interesting, thought provoking,

and luis, I did belong to a fight club, until I was about 16.  And I can tell you that among that manly brethren, we never spoke to one another with any disrespect. Nor did we go around insulting people indiscriminately.  We knew the power of words...and actions.  I would trust those guys, even now, with my life.  I have outdistanced them professionally but they are in my eyes, better and greater men than the whole passel of tough talkers here at the Spine, Peretz included.

Stil, I say again:  You are a fascinating, thoughtful, interesting poster.  I always enjoy them, even when they are critical of me personally.  You have things to say and you always say them well.  I do not believe I have ever read you tell anyone F off, though you defend those who do.  Fine, that is your right.

Until we meet again luis.

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok. Don't you understand Cookie that your attitude is simply annoying?

That your posts transpire self-congratulation? A self-congratulation that can only endure because you offer caricatures of everyone that doesn't worship you? The great Cookie, "eye to eye" and "chest to chest"?

And don't you understand that your posts are not "direct" at all, but quite the opposite?

That if one is "direct", one "addresses" directly Mr. X and Mr. Y on this or that specific matter and is not constantly making references to "certain" persons (of which I may be or not be one, I don't care)?

And don't you understand that if one does not like the regs and the owner of the joint, one simply chooses not go there, instead of continuously complaining about the quality of the service and of the regs?

Or is it that you prefer to show up constantly and to call everyone "rabbits" and to complain about everyone's education (...my god, they even tell "fuck you" to each other, quel horreur...), simultaneously saying that you are much better than everyone around and (what's unbelievable) that you frequent more exclusive places in which real men are admitted (such as yourself), but others are "just a tad off", as if everyone would be interested in the soirees of M. Jaunty (how proustian)?

And don't you understand that it is not "direct" but plainly rude to enter a joint saying that one frequents a more exclusive joint as if others would be very envious of you and had their "feelings hurt"?

You are just a ridiculous guy Cookie. I cannot be more direct than this.

- luispc

December 3, 2007 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis,

Let me be direct:  I enjoy posting and having political discussion with many folks.  What I do not enjoy is F you style posting.  I suspect that men who do this would never do this outside of an anonymous blogging.  

That you think I am ridiculous is your right.  I think a lot of things.  Does it bother me?  No.  Does it change my opinion of your posts?  No.  Do I think I am "better" than the Spine regs?  Good question.  What I can say is this:  I know postively and without a doubt that if I were standing or sitting next to you, jackson, sleepy, molly, or peretz, my conversation with all of you would be exactly like my blogs to you.  The question you need to ask yourself is this:  Can you or any of the regulars at the Spine say the same thing?  

My guess is that for molly and babigail, the answer is yes.  For you, the answer is probably yes.  For jackson and sleepy?  Well, we will never know will we...

Do I think you're ridiculous?  No.  I do think you are touchy about things.  

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sure I'm "touchy". I happen to like people here. They're the reason I'm here, actually. And since barbarians ruined TNR, The Spine is the only place where one can still find and talk to those people.

And I honestly don't like to see everyone offended by a self-congratulatory M. Jaunty boasting about his separate and exclusive arrangements and about his distate for the "regs", that he likes to distinguish amongst categories, as if some could stay in the front room and others should go to the back room, after his suppositions on who would speak "eye to eye" or "back to back".

And if I were "touchy" about myself specifically, I wouldn't answer you (you should know at least that much about human psychology, that you pretend to know so well...). I'm glad I'm not, since you deserved to be told: SHUT THE FUCK UP!

- luispc

December 3, 2007 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis..

Since you were so open about your criticism of me, I assumed that you were open my constructive criticism of you.  Obviously, it is a one way street.  Which happens quite often here at your favorite place.  An intolerance for divergent viewpoints.  This is nothing more than an echo chamber.  Oh well, that breaks it for me.  You disappoint me. Still, unlike you, I harbor no grudges.  Until next time luis...

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm glad I disappoint you Cookie. And I'm glad I do not fit into your standards and on your "constructive criticism".

And on this "constructive criticism", the only one I've heard was that I was "just a tad off". The rest was kind of "you could even join the crowd of swell guys like me, if you just did not insist on accepting the kind of people that I exclude"... Is this "constructive" there where you live? It surely is destructive from where I stand.

Go bully someone else Cookie. You don't stand a chance with me.

- luispc

December 3, 2007 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis...are we going to go on forever?  Clearly, we disagree.  But, in this world of the Spine, where posters insult each other, call each other nazi's, killers, demented, and all kinds of terms, you call me a bully simply because I find this objectionable and question the motives and the men behind such attacks.  That is laughable luis.  We are different and live in different worlds, literally and figuratively.  

I will let you have the last word.  Still, even though you continue to hurl hard edged personal criticism, I stand by my appreciation of your posts, your ideas, and your unpredictability.  Even though we strongly disagree on this whole concept, you are still one of the most interesting posters on the boards.  I have no quarrel with you, other than a strong disagreement on this issue luis..

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I followed with interests your debate, Luis and Jaunty. I can't quite say I'm on your side, Jaunty.

Some posters are truly demented and Nazi, contrary to what you say. Moreover, I found your penchant for equalization pretty terrible. While telling me some appreciative words and saying I usually reason, you also said ndmackenzie talks reason. ndmackenzie?! Are you kidding me? Who exactly are you kidding ? This is the one person who consistently denies to Israelis and Jews the same rights that she allows everyone else. She is also the greatest supporter of Palestinain terrorism at TNR (which says a lot).

But you're soooo even-handed, aren't you? You actually sound like the BBC, who puts suicide bombers amd their Jewish targets on the same plane. And don't tell me I cannot disagree with people. There are many people I disagreed with, or from whom I learnt and willingly admitted so - thanking them for proving me I was wrong. Yet this absolutely evil poster is just that, and I find it deeply intellectually dishonest to pretend she is OK. Yeah, can't we all get along together?... So what if she wants my country destroyed, so what if she sides with every murderer of Jews under the sun? You will see it as coming from reason. That's your even-handedness. Sounds to me like the New York Times in the '30s: "It's true that Mr. Hitler doesn't like Jews, but to be fair Jews don't like Mr. Hitler either."

- sleepyavl

December 3, 2007 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for giving me "the last word" Cookie. But I don't need it, keep it to yourself. I've already said everything I had to say.

- luispc

December 3, 2007 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sleepy,

I think that conflating the strong disagreement between luis and myself with your relationship with ndmachenzie is your deal, not mine.  Let me be luis-ian blunt:  The ongoing feud that includes you and mack is pretty weird.  I stay far away from it.  Do I think that mack has anti semetic views?  Yes.  Do I think that she drives you folks bonkers?  Yes.  

Still, my "even-handed" exchanges, hard as they were, are not about you and mack.  We were talking about one, a style of posting, two, our different interpretations of that style, three, luis' strong criticism of my views and my person.  Mack did not factor.

If I thought that your attack dog style was only limited to outliners like mack, I would not be so critical.  (though mack has always been a civil correspondent with me and though I strongly disagree with much of her perspective, she has the right to post here, just as anyone and she often does with more wit than most).  Again sleepy, it gets down to this:

Pace luis, I strongly look down on men who use anonymous posting to unleash their id on the world.  I also strongly suspect that most of those who do so, refrain from doing so in real life.  From what I do know about you - which you yourself have revealed on these boards - is that your style of posting is somewhat similar to how you communicate in real life.  For example, you have referenced your wrangling with a college professor who you viewed as anti semetic, though I don't recall the specifics. So, I do have a [grudged] respect for you because you seem to at least walk some of your talk.  Good for you.  Now, my unsolicited advice to you would be to watch your step.  You may run into some bully who thinks like me and decides to go to the mattresses with you.

And don't insinuate that I am anti semetic sleepy.  I know you're excitable but that was beneath you.  You can call me an a-hole but don't go that route.

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RMUA*

*real men use acronyms

- teplukhin2you

December 3, 2007 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For example, you have referenced your wrangling with a college professor who you viewed as anti semetic, though I don't recall the specifics.

You must be making some confusion between me and someone else. That never happened. When I wrangled with professors, it was usually on interpretations of Kant and things like that... And on Israel and semitism, in school I only learned about it when studying acient history and then, in contemporary history, when studying the effects of Holocaust ... and, yes, in Geography, I learned about their agricultural system, which wasn't really polemic. I just had to memorize it, then I made the test and forgot about the whole thing the other day.

And well I really don't know if I talk like this in "real life". You've got me thinking. In "real life", usually people don't let each other finish what they are saying. Here they have to. So it's much more civilized. And I'm sure I'm more civilized here than in "real life", if only because of that.

- luispc

December 3, 2007 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis...

that post was for sleepy....

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oh I get it...I used "pace luis".  My interpretation is that term "pace' means "contrary to the opinion of".  If I am mistaken, I apologize...

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And don't insinuate that I am anti semetic sleepy.  I know you're excitable but that was beneath you.  You can call me an a-hole but don't go that route."

Jaunty, you used to be better at reading. I have not insinuated that at all, I certainly don't think that. Moreover, I don't insinuate such things, I say them openly if I believe them.

However, what I more than insinuated is that you give in to false even-handedness, of the kind that the media or the far-left engages in. They both think Osama and Bush are not much different. Generally, they think that fairness means giving equal credence to complete bastards as to everybody else. They even say "someone's terrorist is someone else's hero', as if that equalized things.

As for spelling, anti-semitic, not anti-semetic.

- sleepyavl

December 3, 2007 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sleep,

sorry for the mis spellings...sent on the run.

false even handedness is new to me.  Let me chew on it.  How it fits into my pov is something that I need to ponder.  You could be right...

and yes, you always say what you mean.  I was too touchy...

later...

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now, now, boys....

- LISAH

December 3, 2007 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hee, hee...LISAH, you know just the right note to hit....

- thejauntyboulevardier

December 3, 2007 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close