freecounterpoint: Revolting News

Monday, March 27, 2006

Revolting News

One big concern is over security. During previous marches demonstrators have been attacked by troublemakers. Some students have been given the task of protecting others during the rally, Mr Vacheron says.

Violence during the protests has been blamed on various groups - far-right activists, anarchists and sundry outsiders.

Of course it's not the students. They are protesting fascist right-wing government policies.

12 comments:

Tecumseh said...: Here is another angle:

>“For us it is not political,” he said. “We only want >the right to carry on studying.”

Ah, mais non, these are just right wing stooges -- students who actually would want to study, instead of playing at revolution? Can't have that!

>Lily is just as frustrated by the protests. “These >days people seem to be automatically against >everything,” she said. “The people who are against >this law see the bosses as mean people who want >only to make profits and fire people. But why do >they think that? Bosses don’t take on workers just >so that they can fire them.”

Crime thought! Of course the bosses are the class enemy -- didn't Karlie say that in 1848? Hence,
it must be true.; 3/27/2006 9:43 PM
The Darkroom said...: >French students are angry about a new law - pushed through parliament last month - which makes it easy for employers to sack young people.

this may be factually correct but the reality is that the law is meant to make it easy for employers to hire youg people.

lazy looser beatnicks make me think like some fucking preachy conservative bore. Learn the value of hard work, son. But really. 10% unemployment, fresh out of school and already feeling entitled.

Will de Villepin show the same resolve he did 3 years ago and not cave in to pressure ? zis is ze question.; 3/27/2006 10:16 PM
Mr roT said...: You mean when three years ago he took the high moral ground and decided to keep the Oil for Corruption money flowing happily into la douce?; 3/27/2006 10:20 PM
The Darkroom said...: when he took the high moral ground and decided not to contribute to the bombing of a nation that represented no immediate threat to anyone.; 3/27/2006 10:27 PM
Mr roT said...: You're being careful with your words and in that sense I suppose I agree with you. "Immediate threat." Did you see the article in "Foreign Affairs"? I'll post it now.; 3/27/2006 10:38 PM
Mr roT said...: On second thought, does it count as taking the moral high ground if your choice coincides with your meretricious interest?

Just asking.; 3/27/2006 10:43 PM
The Darkroom said...: three years ago, there wasn't really a "moral ground". the mesopotamians were at the gates of suburbia, ready to trample lawns and steal the satelite dish: something had to be done immediately.

it is only when the reality of that threat receded that love for iraqikind and all things democratic bloomed and the corrolary notion of a moral ground came about.; 3/28/2006 5:43 AM
Tecumseh said...: Getting back to the original thread, how long would you guys say before Villepin throws in the towel, and gives everyone tenure for life? Looking at this, I'd give give a week, max.; 3/28/2006 10:20 AM
The Darkroom said...: As far as i can remember, our administrations have always caved in to the street. but again, villepin has shown resolve in the past so there is reason for guarded optimism. but his undoing might come from chirac who seeems ready to throw the towel.; 3/28/2006 10:51 AM
Mr roT said...: Villepin's 'resolve' was immensely popular and so came easily. That's related to my nasty question about moral high ground and meretriciousness: his 'moral' grandstanding cost him nothing but the applause of dictators' cabinboys at the UN. He accepted it gladly because he and his captain, Chirac, probably calculated that this would buy them some respite from the Left and xenophobic Right at home.

Da honeymoon is ovah, though. The Arab street erupted last Summer in France and now the youthful Left is going nuts. The xenophobic Right is being co-opted by the government in the person of Sarkozy, and antisemitism is going through the ceiling.

I hate to say it on general principles, but I am pretty sure Jospin would have done a much better job. Probably he could have avoided an open break with the US, UK, Australia over Iraq because he had all these volatile elements in his pocket anyhow.

There would have been no payoff for him besides all the Oil for Food money.; 3/28/2006 11:19 AM
The Darkroom said...: Not to scoff at the elaborate conspiracy theory of lucrative french contracts as a reason to not go to war, (the hawks' equivalent of moveon.org's blood for oil, if you will), but much more simply, the french govt of the time saw no immediate reason to invade. there is really no debate there: the facts proved them right.; 3/28/2006 11:55 AM
Mr roT said...: Have you read the Foreign Affairs piece I linked to? This idea that the facts (absence of WMDs) proved Chirac/Villepin right is specious because Saddam could still destabilize the region if everyone thought he had them. Also, it was stressed that they have the capability to rapidly build such arms.

The article is very long and has few smoking guns, but it is important to be informed on this if one wants to argue about it.

As to conspiracy theories based on Oil for Food, they were just one part of my argument. In the FA article, Saddam thought he had a strong bargaining chip there. It is just somehow that that come to no good for him.

Other points I argued (I think well) had to do with buying off the natural opposition of sectors of the French populace by throwing them this 'pacifist' bone. You don't answer those and don't seem to find it ironic that these guys haven't stayed bought.; 3/28/2006 12:37 PM