posted
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 ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
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
Posts: 92 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My goodness we're in excellent company! Hey, look, isn't that the Axis of Evil, right there around us?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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?)
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
