This is the fist time I checked Hatrack today, and you all seem to think Bush won. Well, I just had to tell you that here in France, medias told us that it wasn't over and that there was a lot of recounting voices. Note that I'm not optimistic, because all this will end in a lawyer battle, and Bush will probably win anyway. But still...
[ November 04, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah, the 2000Election decision of the Gang of Five on the USSupremeCourt stated quite clearly that they would rule in favor of the Republicans no matter what.
[ November 03, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, perhaps France will refuse to accept the results of the election and negotiate only with Kerry. But unless Kerry can pull a rabbit out of a very small hat, it's over.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From another thread:
quote:The provisional ballots won't be counted for 11 days, to give the state time to receive military absentee ballots postmarked by election day and to count them. If the gap between the candidates is less than the number of provisional ballots, the provisionals will be counted.
The margin in Ohio is 136,221 (2,794,346-2,658,125). 96,221 provisional ballots have been used so far, but 25 counties remain to report. If there are 175,000 provisional ballots, Kerry would need to win 155,611, or 88.92%, to close the gap. If there are 250,000 provisional ballots, Kerry would need to win 193,111, or 77.24%. Not all provisional ballots received are counted.
It's not over, but the result won't change.
Dagonee
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
When I came home last night, C-Span 2 was running the news from France's Channel 2. So, I watched for close to an hour.
To the French, I can say this, unequivocally: Your media presents us in the worst possible light. I saw them do "psychological" studies on the American voting public. Their commentators and "experts" were condescending and acting as if we were children, rather than a nation in its own right.
Strangely, it was the politicians they interviewed that seemed to have a closer idea of what Americans, and our government, are really like. The commentator wasn't comfortable with the French Foreign Minister's assessments of the situation and his questioning constantly seemed like he was trying to get the Minister to contradict himself.
Also, in any footage shown, the scenes of American political rallies were edited to show groups of soldiers or police officers in the crowd. It would look like we were a police state. And one lingering look at a Secret Service Agent who was performing his duties as a body guard looked blatantly like he was the strong-arm for Bush ready to bust the head of anyone who spoke against him.
The most enduring image, however, was a still shot taken from a rally with Bush. The photo had him leaning over the podium, his right hand raised and a bit of a scowl on his face, while an American flag obscured the background. In short, he looked like Hitler giving a speech at Nuremberg. There was no doubt that this was chosen specifically for that effect.
They also talked about how the cities of New York and Boston had slipped into despair and extreme psychological distress after the election. That people were weeping in the streets.
Look, your media isn't just putting a spin on this, they are actively propagandizing and outright lying at times. Lying.
I didn't support Bush. I'm no great fan of his.
But, he is not a Facist. He is not Hitler. Our nation is not divided and on the brink of civil war. The cities of New York and Boston are not crippled with emotional distress.
We are not under some sort of martial law. We can speak our minds whenever we like, whether it is for or against the government.
The policemen in that footage were not crowd control, they were holding signs from the Fraternal Order of Police (a union-like group) and showing their support for their choice of candidate. They were part of the crowd (as you could see if you looked closely) instead of intimidating the crowd.
The soldiers, well, the speach he was given was apparently on an army base, so there would be soldiers in the crowd. They were unarmed, please note.
The Secret Service Agent wasn't there to squelch opposition. He was there to protect the President against the possibility of an attempt on his life. Secret Service Agents also protected his opponents during the race. This is our policy.
We're not thugs, or children, or a facist state.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think we'll allways be viewed as children by parts of Europe. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Hear hear, Sopwith.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anna, how accurate would you say that Sopwith's characterization of French coverage of the election is? For all we know, the footage that he's describing having seen is from a highly biased news organization that thinking French citizens take with an enormous grain of salt.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Also, in any footage shown, the scenes of American political rallies were edited to show groups of soldiers or police officers in the crowd. It would look like we were a police state. And one lingering look at a Secret Service Agent who was performing his duties as a body guard looked blatantly like he was the strong-arm for Bush ready to bust the head of anyone who spoke against him.
Isn't that exactly what we do to other nations with our news?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Mostly I can't answer your questions, because I don't watch much Frenc TV, because it is often biaised. I mostly watch arte TV, a German-French TV, and a great TV which really covers what happens in the all world. Now, I can say that no, most people here don't think Americans are childish. BTW, I hope most of you don't think we are communists larvas. What I really mean is that the way medias treat information is not the way everybody thinks. We still have brains, hopefully. I agree to say that too much people think of Bush as an extremist, but let's face it, would he have done it in France or another European country, that would have been the way citizen would have perceived it. I mean, lying about WMD and links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, the will to end abortion and to ban gay marriage, BUT to preserve death penalty... (Do you know a guy has been killed the night of the election ? America is the only democracy still allowing such barbary...) All of this would be innacceptable here, and I'm not even talking about voting machines made by firms that clearly approve one or the other candidate ! As I guess some of our laws, like the one banning visible religious signs in schools couldn't exist in your country. We need to take some time to rethink things and try to understand the other's point of view, instead of yelling at each other. And maybe we are that deceived because we felt all this hate toward France when Bush was president. Freedom fries... Really ... I felt only sorry, because I know Hatrack and I love it. But I understand the people who felt vexed and even threatened by this attitude.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
*shrugs* I think banning religious symbols is bigoted, it depends on what you value.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I never get to have a clear point of view on this law. It has good and bad sides, according to me. BTW, it's only in public schools.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Also, in any footage shown, the scenes of American political rallies were edited to show groups of soldiers or police officers in the crowd. It would look like we were a police state.
Maybe they got the idea from Bush's campaign ads which digitally added soldiers to show the strong military support for our beloved president.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote: The provisional ballots won't be counted for 11 days, to give the state time to receive military absentee ballots postmarked by election day and to count them. If the gap between the candidates is less than the number of provisional ballots, the provisionals will be counted.
The margin in Ohio is 136,221 (2,794,346-2,658,125). 96,221 provisional ballots have been used so far, but 25 counties remain to report. If there are 175,000 provisional ballots, Kerry would need to win 155,611, or 88.92%, to close the gap. If there are 250,000 provisional ballots, Kerry would need to win 193,111, or 77.24%. Not all provisional ballots received are counted.
That's incorrect. Some of the provisional ballots will not count.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not all provisional ballots received are counted.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
What I mean is that some of the ballots will be incorrectly filled out, some will thrown away because the voter went to the wrong precinct, etc...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right. That's what I meant, too. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Do you know a guy has been killed the night of the election ? America is the only democracy still allowing such barbary...
According to Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart as of 1996 12 out of 36 democracies chosen for their study still provided for the use of the death penalty. The US, Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, India, Jamaica, Japan, and Trinidad and Tobago all used the death penalty for "ordinary" crimes. Canada, Israel, Malta, and the UK all provided the death penalty for "exceptional" crimes. Belgium and Papua New Guniea are not included in the 12 because although they have the death penalty on the books, they hadn't used the death penalty for at least ten years.
I don't know what's changed in the last eight years, but those aren't all the democracies in the world, just the ones chosen for his study, and I know at least some of those still use the death penalty.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: Look, your media isn't just putting a spin on this, they are actively propagandizing and outright lying at times. Lying.
My dear neighbours to the south, you may be interested in noting that this is not just French TV (although it is admittedly worse there). The whole world does this. All over Europe. Even in Canada. And not shlocky tabloids either, I'm talking about "respectable" news sources.
It also seems to me that this is not just journalists going after sensationalism and leaving out a balancing view, or something like that. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have had some incredibly exciting developments lately, and most media sources either say nothing about them, or just report the same old BS about "massacres" and such. Afghanistan just helt its first election, which was brilliant, and went off almost without a hitch, but it was reported as a fiasco and proof that the Americans destroyed the country. This, of course, is a lie.
The truth is, the media like portraying the US in a bad light and exciting feelings of anger and hate towards you. Why? Because you're bigger, stronger, richer, and better than everyone else, and they resent that you won't let yourselves be bossed around, and they're jealous.
You're in for some tough times ahead, my friends. Hang in there.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Ok, I thought you were impling that the counters would look at a stack of votes and just throw them away illegally.
I was just saying that kerry could need less than the number if some are thrown away.
[ November 04, 2004, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: MEC ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I was pretty sure both Canada and the UK had abolished the death penalty.
However, there is also a difference between having a law on the books and actually enforcing that law.
quote: CHINA (At least 726 Executions) IRAN (Approx. 108) UNITED STATES (65) VIET NAM (Approx. 64) Remaining Countries Listed Alphabetically BANGLADESH BELARUS BOTSWANA CHAD CONGO CUBA EGYPT IRAQ JAPAN JORDAN KAZAKSTAN KOREA (North) MONGOLIA PAKISTAN SAUDIA ARABIA SINGAPORE SOMALIA SUDAN TAIWAN THAILAND UGANDA UZBEKISTAN YEMEN ZIMBABWE
Posted by Vv009vV (Member # 2568) on :
All I ever watch on the television is BBC news, and I can vouch that many foreign news sources downplay America in a delicate spin
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
My goodness we're in excellent company! Hey, look, isn't that the Axis of Evil, right there around us?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote: Yeah, I don't recall being too happy about our coverage of the French election either. That doesn't make it right, but I wish our media would take the high road once in awhile.
Out of curiosity, how exactly did the US medias treat our elections ? Because if they told you one of the two candidates left was a nazi, it was true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's hard to recall precisely. I remember the reporting about the Nazi guy. I remember detailed explanations of the rules and how the runoff is what gave him such power. And I remember hearing about how Chirac got so much of the vote as a backlash against him.
What was particularly lacking was any analysis. There was a lot of "the nazi is so popular because the French are anitr-immigrant." Much the same type of over-simplification of complex issues recounted above by Sopwith.
The problem with international coverage is that most of the viewers have no context to place the stories in, unless they happen to have lived over in the foreign country being covered. So everything that gets put on the news occupies a large spot in our perceptions.
When looking at coverage of your own country, it's easy to remember that the news is 1/1,000,000 of the story, because you can see the rest of the story for yourself.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It should be noted that in most democracies that have given up the death penalty, the move was made by the government and was unpopular at the time amongst the general populace. The book I have on this is at home, not down here at school, but it makes the case that within 20 years or so after executions end the public finishes a convincing swing from pro- to anti- death penalty. Had the original case banning it nationally not been circumvented, we'd probably have a national majority against the death penalty.
Our dual-level systme makes it particularly difficult to achieve this kind of result, because the presenc of the death penalty in some states likely bolsters its popularity in states that have banned it.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
nfl's list is as of 1996, Sara. We could still legally kill someone under the clauses you listed. And that's all the list was, who had provisions for it, not who'd done it. The book was only published in 1999 it's understandable that it isn't up to date.
It does, however, nicely illustrate the dangers of applying old data to current situations. All questions of distortion aside.
(Speaking of distortion, can you fix the formatting of that list?)
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:According to Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart as of 1996 12 out of 36 democracies chosen for their study still provided for the use of the death penalty. The US, Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, India, Jamaica, Japan, and Trinidad and Tobago all used the death penalty for "ordinary" crimes. Canada, Israel, Malta, and the UK all provided the death penalty for "exceptional" crimes. Belgium and Papua New Guniea are not included in the 12 because although they have the death penalty on the books, they hadn't used the death penalty for at least ten years.
I don't know what's changed in the last eight years, but those aren't all the democracies in the world, just the ones chosen for his study, and I know at least some of those still use the death penalty.
newfoundlogic, what are the page number references for this info in Patterns of Democracy? It looks like there is a copy at a local Borders, and I'd like to see the text for myself. I think that either you've interpreted it incorrectly, it was misleadingly written, or the book is just plain wrong.
As for Canada, there was a bill in 1976 that took capital punishment out of the criminal code. After that, only military crimes like treason and mutiny were permitted capital punishment, and even that hadn't been done since 1962. And in 1998, Canada finally removed capital punishment, even for military offences, in a revision of the National Defence Act.
The UK had its last execution in 1964. they also abolished the death penalty in 1998. Both the UK and Canada should have been "not included in the 12 because although they have the death penalty on the books, they hadn't used the death penalty for at least ten years" at the time of publication of Patterns of Democracy.
From the Amnesty International site, it looks like Belgium abolished it in 1996. Malta abolished it in 2000, and as their last execution was in 1943, they -- like the Canada and the UK -- should have been excluded from the 12 listed. Israel, too -- their last execution was in 1962.
The wording of your post makes it look like 4 countries (Canada, UK, Malta, Israel) have executed since 1985. They haven't. How did that happen?
I'm really curious about the specific cite (page reference). Thanks!
quote:Following is an alphabetical list of countries that retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes [from the Amnesty International site. Looks like the US is pretty much the only developed first world country still doing this. Japan is our only economically comparable neighbor that still kills its own citizens.].
AFGHANISTAN ALGERIA ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ARMENIA BAHAMAS BAHRAIN BANGLADESH BARBADOS BELARUS BELIZE BENIN BOTSWANA BURUNDI CAMEROON CHAD CHINA COMOROS CONGO (Dem. Republic) CUBA DOMINICA EGYPT EQUATORIAL GUINEA ERITREA ETHIOPIA GABON GHANA GUATEMALA GUINEA GUYANA INDIA INDONESIA IRAN IRAQ JAMAICA JAPAN JORDAN KAZAKSTAN KENYA KUWAIT KYRGYZSTAN LAOS LEBANON LESOTHO LIBERIA LIBYA MALAWI MALAYSIA MAURITANIA MONGOLIA MOROCCO MYANMAR NIGERIA NORTH KOREA OMAN PAKISTAN PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PHILIPPINES QATAR RWANDA SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS SAINT LUCIA SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES SAUDI ARABIA SIERRA LEONE SINGAPORE SOMALIA SOUTH KOREA SUDAN SWAZILAND SYRIA TAIWAN TAJIKISTAN TANZANIA THAILAND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TUNISIA UGANDA UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UZBEKISTAN VIETNAM YEMEN ZAMBIA ZIMBABWE
How are other developed countries able to have lower crime rates with capital punishment? Why do we have the highest incarceration rate in the world? Why is it that the European Union has an imprisonment rate of 87 persons per 100,000, but ours is 701 per 100,000?
If we are a more moral society and we are more free, why are ~10 times the percentage of people imprisoned here? What's going on?
[ November 06, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: If we are a more moral society and we are more free, why are ~10 times the percentage of people imprisoned here? What's going on?
What makes you think you're more moral and more free than other developed countries?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:nfl's list is as of 1996, Sara. We could still legally kill someone under the clauses you listed.
No, you cannot, at least not legally. See from further in my post:
quote:And in 1998, Canada finally removed capital punishment, even for military offences, in a revision of the National Defence Act.
Canada has completely abolished capital punishment by the government, as of 1998. Of course, you could still do so when nfl's reference was published. I acknowledged that. This is what concerns me:
quote:nfl's post:
According to Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart as of 1996 12 out of 36 democracies chosen for their study still provided for the use of the death penalty. The US, Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, India, Jamaica, Japan, and Trinidad and Tobago all used the death penalty for "ordinary" crimes. Canada, Israel, Malta, and the UK all provided the death penalty for "exceptional" crimes. Belgium and Papua New Guniea are not included in the 12 because although they have the death penalty on the books, they hadn't used the death penalty for at least ten years. [bold added]
and from my reply:
UK and Canada [and Malta and Isreal] should have been "not included in the 12 because although they have the death penalty on the books, they [also] hadn't used the death penalty for at least ten years" at the time of publication of Patterns of Democracy. [bold added]
And now for my apology to you, BtL.
quote:(Speaking of distortion, can you fix the formatting of that list?)
It must have posted while I was editing it -- my computer screen went wonky, but recovered. I have deleted the wonky one -- I had already posted the correction before I saw your reply, or I would have edited it. Sorry!
[Still hard to read. I'll edit it above.]
[ November 06, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:What makes you think you're more moral and more free than other developed countries?
St. Yogi, that is what is called a rhetorical question. I only assert the conditional clause hypothetically, not as a straight assertion. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Although he engages in no terroristic behavior (unless you count the taunting of our cat Gussie with the evil "string going under a rug"), mistakes of identity and other matters do happen. In the country of his citizenship, no matter how many mistakes might be made, he will not be executed.
He wants that freedom back.
[ November 06, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: St. Yogi, that is what is called a rhetorical question. I only assert the conditional clause hypothetically, not as a straight assertion.
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. I didn't think you were a nationalist anyway, with your plans to move to Canada. But it still bugs me when Americans just assume that their country is the best. Of course, I assume that my country is the best, but that's just because it is .
[ November 06, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: St. Yogi ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not be executed?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I don't currently have the book with me, but if you go to the index and look under "death penalty" its the last listing under death penalty. Like I said that was as of 1996, but there certainly have been democracies to recently use the death penalty. If you look at imogen's list there are still several democracies listed. As far as the utilization of the death penalty is concerned I would say its like comparing two American states that both have the death penalty. Some states you need more than two hands to count the number of executions a month while others you can count the total on death row on one hand.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Israel has carried the civil death penalty since its founding, and has used it once: on May31st1962 against AdolfEichmann, architect of the FinalSolution/Holocaust/Shoah. Admittedly, Israel has carried out assassinations against military targets when extradition into Israeli courts was impractical. However, those assassinations were/are undertaken on contemporaneous threats: ie as far as can be determined, assassinations aren't used as punishment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
While at any given time there are ~50 prisoners on death row, Japan is weird. Though it is true that one to four hangings occur per year, they appear to be closer to assisted suicide than execution: ie after the condemned prisoner chose to cease appeals to higher courts for stays of execution. It is hard to say with any surety due to the extremely tight cordon of secrecy surrounding the appeals process and executions, but the only probable exceptions to assisted suicide after cessation of appeals in the past fifteen years appear to be the hangings of a husband and wife (convicted of arson* murders of six employees to collect insurance) and of a AumShinrikyo**member (convicted of murdering a lawyer, his wife, and their infant because the lawyer was exposing the cult's illegal activities). Of course, twenty-plus years*** of solitary confinement**** might encourage a condemned prisoner to think of death as an escape.
* Arson is historically held to be the most horrific crime in Japanese minds. Think in terms of large high-density cities built of wood and paper when European capitals such as Greater London were still mostly rural villages.
** AumShinrikyo is most infamous for the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway which injured thousands.
*** The average length of time between sentencing and hanging.
**** Solitary confinement for condemned prisoners is extremely restrictive. Two-and-a-half tatami cells -- a tatami is 191centimetres by 95.5 centimetres, ie 75.2inches by 37.6inches -- for a cell size of 49 square feet or 4.55 square metres; ie an area equivalent to 7feet by 7feet or 2.14metres by 2.14metres. Family members who have visitation rights nearly always shun the convicted. Otherwise, the condemned is allowed to see only his/her guards while they deliver meals/etc, physicians for medical treatment, a chaplain for one hour per month, and his/her lawyer(s) at the beginning or ending of a particular appeal.
[ November 06, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Darn it, Sara! We're saying the same thing your grammar is just better . I speaking as of the writing of nfl's book (which was likely written before its 1999 publication date).
I'm even taking an English course this term and everything.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
"But Bobby, you speak English!"
Okay. I figured you knew whether or not you could be executed, but then I wasn't sure.
The way nfl's post read, by specifying exclusion of Belgium and Papua New Guinea from the list of 12 because they hadn't used the death penalty for at least ten years, it implied that all those countries weren't excluded (i.e., were on the list of 12) had all had executions within the ten years prior to the writing of the document.
That's the problem. 4 countries listed there were in the same situation as Belgium and Papua New Guinea, and so they should have been excluded. Including Canada, BTW.
Make sense? (I am having erratic English today as well.)
[ November 06, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Anna
quote: Out of curiosity, how exactly did the US medias treat our elections ? Because if they told you one of the two candidates left was a nazi, it was true.
Actually, Anna, don't take this the wrong way, but they really didn't cover it. I'm sure they announced the winner, but that's about it.
Really, it just wasn't high on the American radar. Unless it is a quick blip on one of the 24-hour news networks, elections anywhere else in the world, outside of Russia, don't get much coverage.
Honestly, I guess we figure that you select your candidates and we select ours. Whoever you elect, we have to develop relations with.
Sadly, and please don't take this the wrong way, we just really aren't that interested most of the time. It kind of amazed me how much attention and rhetoric is paid to American elections in Europe.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Anna, I'm pretty sure that the vast vast majority of Americans (I'd guess upwards of 95%) have no idea of when France holds elections.
As far as how many of them would even be sure that France even holds elections at all, I couldn't say.
[ November 06, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmm. I'm not what I'd call a news junkie, but I remember hearing about France's last elections several times, although I couldn't tell you when they were off the top of my head. Although almost all of it was about the contraversy over the canidate that didn't win.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Wasn't his name Jean-Marie Lepeine? And wasn't he then (and maybe still is) the mayor of Marseille? And hasn't he been implementing white supremacist policies in that city for several years now?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Like I said, not much coverage.
But when they have that big tomato fight in Spain each year, we'll see that again and again. Or the running of the bulls. The Olympics got a lot of coverage... Oh yeah, and Batman at Buckingham Palace, we really enjoyed that greatly, very funny.
But politics in Europe just doesn't seem to be a big draw for us as a people. Unless a war starts over there again, and historically we are slow to catch on to that.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
ElJay, you are a college-educated, computer fluent young woman who hangs out at a science fiction writer's site. Of course you have some awareness of this.
But, e.g., a national survey of the Hearst Corporation about fifteen years ago found that most adult Americans don't know that the Bill of Rights is "the first 10 amendments to the original Constitution."
We don't even know our own politics, much less anyone else's.
[ November 06, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I live (or lived) in Quebec, where people are naturally much more interested in what goes on in France. Maybe this is they only reason I heard of it. It was very big news at the time. I actually didn't even follow it that much, I just couldn't get away from it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*sigh* I know you're right, Sara, but I always wonder where they find the people for those surveys. Particularly the ones where most of us can't find countries we're currently bombing on a map, and an incredible percentage seem shaky on finding the US. I swear, the people I meet in my day-to-day life, and not just the ones I voluntarily hang around with, don't seem that ignorant.
But really, I was addressing this:
quote: Unless it is a quick blip on one of the 24-hour news networks, elections anywhere else in the world, outside of Russia, don't get much coverage.
I don't watch TV, and I don't really pay attention to news online. So if I heard about the French elections, it was either on the radio while I was in my car or covered in the newspaper, which I do read with some regularity, if only to get the comics. So it must have gotten a decent amount of coverage... I think it's more accurate to say most Americans ignore or forget stuff that doesn't pertain directly to us than that it isn't covered over here.
[ November 06, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The election was well-covered in the Post, and probably a few other papers. I never watch TV news (I listen to it on election night, though).
One thing that amazes me when I travel is what's on the front page of local newspapers. Outside very large cities, it's usually local or national, not international. Barring mega-events, of course.
Dagonee
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
I thought it was covered rather well (as far as foreign election coverage goes).
CNN, and the like, had coverage of the primaries (or 1st round/run-off/whatever you call it) as well as the final election.
LePen wasn't specifically labeled a nazi(are they even allowed ? I know you have laws against the symbolism..) but his hard-line views were the focus of the majority of the coverage.
Mostly it was viewed with suprise and a "Well, if they're dumb enough to elect this guy, its what they deserve"-type attitude, much in the same way I imagine our election is viewed abroad.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
NPR covered the French elections pretty thoroughly, if I'm remembering correctly.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I don't mind the USA not covering or care for our elections. It's a pretty self-centered country, and anyway, it's not the same thing when an election, like it was the case of your last one, concerns a war, and one of the biggest military and economoc power in the world. Of course we're concerned, because it will influence our life, in little or big ways.
[ November 06, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
I think that the general disinterest you’re describing regarding what is happening in the rest of the world is one of the reasons European media were covering the US election so extensively this time and why many Europeans are feeling so anxious about the re-election. Bush did not show great insight into cultural and historical conditions in Europe and the Middle East by his actions and rhetoric in his first period. The fact that he was re-elected would, from an outside point of view, seem to indicate that you couldn’t care less about the rest of the world. Of course I realize this is not true for those of you participating in or reading this thread. After all, you are interested and mostly very well informed. I’m just trying to give you my understanding of outside reactions.
Another four years with Bush seems frightening to those who are concerned with the overall international situation. Statistics (I’m sorry I don’t have them at hand now, but I will try to find them if necessary) show that acts of terrorism have increased greatly in other parts of the world after the invasion of Iraq. In Europe in particular, people are afraid that there will be such a polarisation between Muslim and western countries that the breach can never be healed. The consequences for Europe would be grave. To distance oneself from US policies might therefore seem wise, both to individuals and to nations.
And people are afraid that the UN, because of US policy in general and the war in Iraq in particular, will cease to be an international authority. The UN might not seem a big deal to those living in the world’s only superpower, but it looks a lot different if you are less powerful. When the US ignores UN resolutions and refuses to ratify international agreements, people around the world are made to feel powerless.
Kerry as president might not have been much different than Bush, but he at least had the advantage of not "having a record". So the reactions are against Bush in many countries. I’m sure the media are biased in their reporting, but at least they are reporting Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I just do not know a nice way to share my thoughts about France, There is the myth of France and then the reality. The Myth is that of our Co-Revolutionary partners at the beginning of the industrial age.
The Reality is one of an endless conflict that the French have been losing for two and a half centuries.
The French Indian War, The French taking the Souths part in the Civil War, conflicts of personality and the faulty resolution in WW I, Fighting through French Units to reach the Germans in Africa in WW II and trying to decide whether they were fools we were to liberate or collaborators in WW II (yes I said fools, do you think America would fall if Washington was taken? That kind of thinking went out with Napoleonic Warfare, Flags, ghaa...) Leaving out the excuse of being outflanked. I am sure it truly rankled to have us liberate them. A thing that was simply incidental by the way, we were in the neighborhood... No it was a major objective.
Sigh... I want to be nice about this, French is no longer the Lingua Franca, it is English that everyone speaks a bit of. Movies are todays canvas, and Brotherhood of the Wolf was the only French film I have seen that was up to Hollywood grade B standards. I have been around the world and what I see are fragments of American culture everywhere. It is a love hate relationship the world has, watching our latest movies on DVD while we are still seeing them in the theater. France is to the world what Iowa is to the American election, first with an opinion and last to be counted. They resent it and show it.
I had a waitress in Paris with straight face tell me that a Coke cost four Euros because it was an import. The train goes by the Coke plant in Paris where hundreds bottle it locally. It is petty and small from a country that longs for the greatness it thinks it lost. In a way it has this in common with Islam, its greatness is a matter of historical note.
The answer? Well I Guess they have decided to be the western anti-American option for the coalition of the wanna-bees. Extending a long tradition of being on the wrong side. Too bad, there is greatness to be had in the world yet. God how I loved Cousteau as a child, to see him riding on the back of a whale shark...
BC
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Wow. I love that you are judging French history and culture when you (and most Americans, including me) know very little about it. If you don't watch foreign films, you don't see good foreign films. WOW, shocker.
And if you think that the anti-American sentiment in France is pervasive, you'd best look out for the anti-French sentiment in America, though it seems you're already intimately familiar about it. The looks I get when I tell people I speak French... Mon dieu. C'est comme j'ai dit que j'aime manger les bébés....
But of course, if someone expresses an opinion that's contre your particular sentiment, you obviously have to assume it's because they are a stupide foreigner, n'est-ce pas?
Edit: Additionally, about Coke? It costs money to sent the premixed secret ingredients over the Atlantic to the plant, my friend. But besides that, it's always good to judge an entire country on the ignorance of one person who lives in it. Because that's OBVIOUSLY why everyone LOVES America so much.
[ November 07, 2004, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
As a very wise man once wrote, the only praise that matters is green and folding. Box office baby, and you know it.
I sighted one example, Coke was high everywhere, but a drunk French student tried to shoulder me out of the way in a street and whined about having to pick himself up. There were several others in a three day stay, please nobody assaults you in Des Moines Iowa while you visit the Botanical Garden...
I have long loved reading about French and Romantic History, do not assume I do not speak from some knowledge. I even chose French as an elective for a couple of years.
I never ever assume that people are less ingenious or "stupid" , but they can be wrong. Voltaire was fun, but look how he mocked the idea that we live in the best of all possible worlds, only to have it turn out that the slightest variation in the fundamental laws of the universe would make life impossible... the best indeed.
BC
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Comparatively, the US is a large country. You have a very different experience in Des Moines, IA as you would in New York, NY. Or even Minneapolis, MN.
I apologize for doubting your knowlege of France and Francais. But I do not apologize for my insinuation that you do not understand the significance of cultural difference.
And I submit to you Titanic, USA's top grossing film ever as evidence that Box Office take is not an indication of what is a good movie.
Edit: PHANTOM MENACE IS NUMBER 5!!!
[ November 07, 2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Oh yes, nothing like three days in Paris to have a plain and objective view of France. I understood you can easily be shot in the streets of a large number of your towns. That must may you violent barbarians, for sure. Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
True, Paris is Urban and likely stressed out about Tourist while still milking them. I would have liked to have seen more of France, but the Louvre alone would not let go of me for two days and I fumed that I could only glance at things that would have needed hours to a absorb. It is a daunting collection. (I do like Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry more, the U-Boat tour rocks! It is less of an assault on the mind)
There was the Cabaret and the Arc and that eye sore they are so proud of, and of course my girlfriend and I went shopping for the latest Paris Fashions and scents. It was quite fun divorced from a few incidents, but I would have liked to hear from the country folk with whom I might have more in common.
Still I did not find it so in Germany, there methods of farming and types of crops are quite alien to a Midwest boy, (Mannheim home of the white asparagus!) more like what I have seen in the Fresno area save only that the operations are smallish. Though I understand the Aussies think we have small farms and ranches!
My home in Iowa has less they 5000 in the county, so of course I ran into three people from there in Paris!
BC
PS tell me Titanic did not make you cry. I cry every time I see it, and I have not cried since my grandfathers funeral for any other reason! I have to avoid the thing so I am not a wreck after.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)