The French, The Left and Idiocy

A curiosity has arisen, why have the left in this country abandoned the ideals of leftism and begun to profile those of different races/cultures?

"What's that," you say, "the left is profiling?"

Yep, it began with the insistance that Dubai Ports NOT be allowed to operate shipping in ports (they were never going to be in charge of security). In essence, the left (and too damn many on the right) said, in essence, "Whoa now!" We can't have a bunch of Arabs controling our port security and business; never mind that as I said port security would still be the responsibility of the United States and never mind that Dubai Ports has been operating other US ports for years with no problems what so ever and never mind that Dubai has been our partner in the war on terror. Nope, not that bunch of Arabs.

"Well," you say, "that's not really profiling now." Yes it is!

Now comes the left and the so called progressives doing it again. This time, in support of those poor benighted French student's from the Sorbonne and other institutes of higher education.

The issue is guaranteed jobs. In France, before Chirac signs the new CPE law or "contrat première embauche" (very loosely translated as "First Employment Contract") the old law said that once hired, you practically couldn't be fired. The result is that France is not able to compete in the world marketplace, unemployment routinely runs in excess of nine or ten percent and unemployment among immegrants to France is astronomical. Yet, here is the left supporting the students for the most part. One Michael Balter, an obviously very smart fellow, but a lefty none-the-less (by the way, I've read his book The Goddess And The Bull and it is pretty damn brilliant) has opined in Marc Cooper's Blog:

Readers of my comments in this space about last November's riots will recall that I usually approach these situations with mixed feelings. There is little doubt that the government's approach--creating jobs by making it easier for employers to exploit workers--is nothing more than a provocation in a country that prides itself on its social protections. Few people here look with admiration on the American model, in which employers have a nearly free hand in keeping wages, benefits, and employment protection to a minimum not only for young people but for a significant percentage of the nation's workforce. Wal-Mart would have a hard time making it in France, even if some Americans--usually the better off ones--think that workers should be grateful to have jobs at all.

On the other hand, as I have said before, the French model also leaves much to be desired. Certainly, job creation has to involve a lot more than pandering to the capitalist class's natural desire to increase its profits. And here is where the social protections, when interpreted rigidly--and that is exactly how most French unions do interpret them--often stand in the way. The French economy is stagnant and lacking in dynamism, and the unemployment figures--more than 10 percent amongst all workers and an average 22 percent among workers aged 15-24 years--are just one of the most important symptoms of this malaise.

But, there is something left out of this equation. Last November we witnessed the rioting in France by a bunch of disaffected (mostly) Muslim youth and one of their major complaints was lack of opportunity/lack of jobs. Yet, here is the left supporting the Sorbonne Grads (I'm only using them for a foil if you happen to be a graduate of the Sorbonne) against Muslim youth who desperately need jobs if they are ever to assimilate. Though, personally I don't think that they will be allowed to, they just aren't "FRENCH" enough.

Then, you have institutions like New York University who won't allow cartoons of Muhammad to be shown in an open, public discussion of the riots sparked by the cartoons. Because the Muslims might riot! NYU's response to the kerfuffle? In part because:

(1) "NYU has to be concerned with its students' safety and well-being, which are among the factors that drove our decision in this matter."

(2) The decision was also based partly on NYU's "larger obligation as a university to the sensibilities of its students," many of whom are offended by the cartoons.

(3) As to the policy, "No-one's speech was curtailed." "If you read the policy, it talks about speakers' speech being curtailed, and to the best of my knowledge none of the speakers were the cartoons' authors."

Yeppers, looks like profiling by me!

UPDATE: USA Today has an interesting article regarding who is striking/rioting and why:

Chirac's compromise was not enough, said Claude Olivier, 20, who attends the University of Paris VI. "The idea of opening up jobs is good," he said. "There is so much unemployment among youth. And the idea of giving them trial periods, two years or one year, is good. But not for an employer to fire you at any time."

To let employers more easily fire workers adds to a sense of an uncertain future among young people, he said. "Not only are there not enough jobs, young people cannot afford a place to live or buy a car," he said. "There is no job security."