April 04, 2006

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.

Wow, acknowledges that something needs to be done but lables what seems to be a fairly good way to work in market forces as "...creating jobs by making it easier for employers to exploit workers..."

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."

So, three examples: 1) No Arabs can run the ports; 2) French Arab youth must remain unemployed and 3) Muslims are violent by nature and can't tolerate a bunch of damned cartoons.

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."

They seem to be saying "I really want that omlette (actually, I demand it), but please don't break any eggs!"

Posted by GM Roper at April 4, 2006 08:09 PM | TrackBack

Since the left is promoting profiling now, it should be interesting to see what they now think about profiling at security checkpoints, in airports, stadiums, etc..
They would appear hypocritical if they change their stance, again.
By jumping the gun to oppose the Dubai port deal, they have painted themselves into a corner, so to speak.
The smart thing (especially for Hillary), would have been to let the Republicans fight it out.
Their hatred of Bush prompted them to act without thinking of the long term consequences.
Republicans running for reelection would be prudent to point out that Dems wanted no racial profiling, and more cooperation and better relationships with other countries.
Now they want profiling, and broken business dels with other countries, some of which are our allies (economic isolationism). An end to free trade, essentially.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at April 5, 2006 03:11 AM

1) No Arabs can run the ports

As far as Dubai goes, even though it would have been Arab owned it would most likely have been American operated. Americans would surely have been hired to handle the day to day operations. Jimmy Carter supported the Dubai deal, by the way. Imagine, you and Jimmy Carter on the same page. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

2) French Arab youth must remain unemployed

Do you feel the same way about our own immigration situation? Should American corporations and our government continue to import cheap labor rather than offer protections for American workers?

3) Muslims are violent by nature and can't tolerate a bunch of damned cartoons.

I think preventing riots is, in the short term, a good thing. However continual appeasement, in the long term, is not a good thing. So it's a bit of a tight-rope walk... Sometimes appeasement is the best course and sometimes it is not.

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at April 5, 2006 06:55 AM

Moose, yeah it is disconcerting to see Carter on my side, but then, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Although in Carter's case he is only right once per 30 years.

Immigration is a tough nut to crack. I do not think we would ever be able to round up and deport all 11 million illegals. Maybe what we need to do is seal the border, deport those we do catch and make it easier for immegrants who can contribute to enter. I also think that illegals should not be "given" (allowed?) drivers licenses or the opportunity to vote (and the do in droves don't they?) but I also don't think that we can ignore them in our midst either.

Appeasement to those who would do us harm is never acceptable. We should have learned that from Neville Chamberlin shouldn't we? Appeasement always encourages those who don't have our interests at heart, it is a simple fact of human behavior. When you reward a behavior, you tend to get more of that behavior.

Posted by GM Roper at April 5, 2006 08:58 AM

Thanks for the Balter quote. It's always gratifying when liberals provide examples of my criticisms the next time I go online. In Part II of my section on Faux Logic, I go after arguing from vague terms, and "exploiting workers" certainly fits that definition.

Part III will be False Dichotomies, BTW. (Thanks for argument #2, Moose!)

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at April 5, 2006 06:36 PM

Oppose Harry Reid

Christians Against Leftist Heresy


I Stand With Piglet, How About You?

Reject The UN
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


101st Fighting Keyboardists

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Naked Bloggers

Improper Blogs

Milblogs I Read

The Texas Connection
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

American Conservative

The Wide Awakes


< TR>
AgainstTerrorism 1.jpg
[ Prev || Next || Prev 5 || Next 5]
[Rand || List || Stats || Join]

Open Tracback Providers

No PC Blogroll

Blogs For Bush

My Technorati Profile
Major Media Links

Grab A Button
If you would like to link to GM's Corner, feel free to grab one of the following buttons. (Remember to save the image to your own website).

Whimsical Creations by GM Roper
My Store

Technorati search

Fight Spam! Click Here!
YCOP Blogs

The Alliance
"GM's Corner is a Blogger's
Blog, and then some!"
-----Glenn Reynolds

Coalition Against Illegal Immigration

Southern Blog Federation

Kim Komando, America's Digital Goddess
Powered by:
Movable Type 2.64

Template by:

Design by:

Hosted by: