New Little Red Book in France

[Simon]

Well, Syd makes a meal of it for sure. But he's lost the plot with comments like:

les Français d’aujourd’hui ferment les yeux sur le traitement infligé aux sans papiers, prisonniers, Roms etc de la même manière que les Allemands ont fermé les yeux sur le traitement réservé à ceux que leur régime conduisait aux vapeurs du Zyklon B. (The French today close their eyes to the treatment of illegal immigrants and prisoners, etc., in the same way that the Germans closed their eyes to the treatment of those their regime led to the gas chambers.)

That's just grotesquely and stupidly exaggerated and demeans the memory of the murdered millions.

PS Did you know what une frange was. I'm going to have to look it up: first time I've seen the word!

[french frank]

What evidence do you have that it's grotesquely exaggerated? Is it the talk of le pub up and down the country? Surely, all he means is that the general public doesn't worry itself overly about such matters; or manages to go on living their lives without protesting?

[Lateralthinking1]

I am not wading into all of the ins and outs of this discussion. In fact, I wasn't going to wade in at all so I will just keep it to this. The author is a "someone" and for me this represents a problem. The relationships between people of note and the general public remain all wrong.

Some tell us that they know what is best for us and decide on our behalf. Some say that the state is too big and that more power should be devolved to us. Some, like this guy, say that we should take more power into our own hands. While these positions may seem very diverse, they have one crucial thing in common. They all have a "them" and an "us" with insufficient connection between the two, namely sufficient accountability of them to us, now that elections do not appear to deliver this fully.

Alongside elections, I would like to see a system in which power is not merely devolved formally but the "somebodys" also come down from their (non)sense of being on high and connect at ground level. These people seem in their work to disconnect from the fact that they are also members of the public themselves.

I have in mind something that works a bit like a jury system where the public have the benefits of listening to the experts and then decide so that the outcome is a consequence of this collaboration. The main difference would be that it would apply to policymaking rather than jurisdiction. I would also envisage there being scope for the public to question the experts directly.

Top-down grand committees of the great and the good rarely work and pamphlets from respected gentlemen are similar. In fact, note the irony here of this one being a best seller.

[french frank]

We may be at something of a disadvantage in not having read anything more of the pamphlet than a few short extracts ...

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, ff, but on the FoR3 forums we have the template for international economic recovery. You might need to consider whether we should patent it.

[amateur51]

Well, Syd makes a meal of it for sure. But he's lost the plot with comments like:

les Français d’aujourd’hui ferment les yeux sur le traitement infligé aux sans papiers, prisonniers, Roms etc de la même manière que les Allemands ont fermé les yeux sur le traitement réservé à ceux que leur régime conduisait aux vapeurs du Zyklon B. (The French today close their eyes to the treatment of illegal immigrants and prisoners, etc., in the same way that the Germans closed their eyes to the treatment of those their regime led to the gas chambers.)

That's just grotesquely and stupidly exaggerated and demeans the memory of the murdered millions.

PS Did you know what une frange was. I'm going to have to look it up: first time I've seen the word!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

say what you will the real impact for me is that it has sold 600,000 copies and still going .....

[Simon]

It's not the quantity that counts Calum. You can fool a lot of people with canny words. You've only to look at how many voted Labour at the last election in Britain - despite their having wrecked the country over the past ten years!

[Simon]

What evidence do you have that it's grotesquely exaggerated? Is it the talk of le pub up and down the country? Surely, all he means is that the general public doesn't worry itself overly about such matters; or manages to go on living their lives without protesting?

I think we must be at cross purposes. What is grotesque is comparing the situation of illegal immigrants in France today to the situation of the innocent Jews in Germany in 1935-45. One lot get directed to the channel coast on the way to Britain, or repatriated. The others were murdered.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

let's not change the subject eh

One senior banker told our correspondent there "could be more spin than substance" in any commitments the banks make to reduce bonuses.
Royal Bank of Scotland may pay nearer £1bn in bonuses than last year's £1.3bn, while Barclays may pay less that the £5bn-£6bn in total remuneration that its results from the first nine months of last year suggest are due to its investment bankers, our correspondent said. But even if bonuses are cut, salaries have risen significantly to compensate, by up to 40% in some cases, he added.
from BBC news

[Lateralthinking1]

One of the thing's I've noticed. On absolutely every forum I've ever been on, a very, very, high percentage of people have written to the effect that their favourite political number is, say, 4, 5, 6 or 7.

Then at the General Election everyone suddenly goes blank and says "oh dear me, what shall I choose, will it be number 1, 2, or 3?" then places a cross against 1, 2 or 3.

A minute after the result is declared, there's a rush to the keyboards to moan about 1, 2 and 3 getting all the votes and this goes on persistently for five years until the whole charade begins again. Can someone explain to me please what this is all about?

[amateur51]

I think we must be at cross purposes. What is grotesque is comparing the situation of illegal immigrants in France today to the situation of the innocent Jews in Germany in 1935-45. One lot get directed to the channel coast on the way to Britain, or repatriated. The others were murdered.

Surely what is being compared is the laissez-faire attitude of the general public to the treatment of both groups?

See Claude Lanzmann's film 'Shoah' for documentary evidence of the latter

[french frank]

I think we must be at cross purposes. What is grotesque is comparing the situation of illegal immigrants in France today to the situation of the innocent Jews in Germany in 1935-45. One lot get directed to the channel coast on the way to Britain, or repatriated. The others were murdered.

But that is precisely the point in Assouline's response which M. Alexander responds to: "Ce n’est pas moi je l’espère qui vous apprendrai qu’évoquer le régime nazi même à titre de comparaison ne revient pas à traiter de nazi celui qui y est comparé." The use of an analogy is not the same as equating, and it's ducking the issue to follow that particular canard.

It is simply illustrating the ability of the general public to block out nasty facts: if the German public could do so during that regime, how much more simple for people to do so now over 'lesser' outrages, 'lesser', perhaps (but then, what in comparison is not 'lesser'?), but still outrages?

[Simon]

it's ducking the issue to follow that particular canard.

Oh dear! :)

I suppose that what may appear a nasty fact to some may appear otherwise to others.

[Simon]

One senior banker told our correspondent there "could be more spin than substance" in any commitments the banks make to reduce bonuses.
Royal Bank of Scotland may pay nearer £1bn in bonuses than last year's £1.3bn, while Barclays may pay less that the £5bn-£6bn in total remuneration that its results from the first nine months of last year suggest are due to its investment bankers, our correspondent said. But even if bonuses are cut, salaries have risen significantly to compensate, by up to 40% in some cases, he added.

Yes ... but that's not news, everybody knows it and it's disgusting, obscene - it wants stopping. Nobody can be more outraged by it than me, when I see some poor people who can't have proper care in their old age. But how do we stop it? None of the current political parties seems to be able to do so... and press pressure has little effect - they are too thick skinned for that - and they know that today's outrage will be forgotten in a week.