Integrating a particular group is a huge undertaking, The rioters are 1st Generation French, Muslim or not. Look how long it has taken the US to do it and still trying to do it.

I don't think Communism has anything to do with it. I think The culture of France and fear of loosing that culture is the problem.

It's harder to integrate immigrants when you aren't trying.

A Question of Integration
By George Friedman of www.statfor.com

For more than a week, France has been torn by riots that have been, for the most part, concentrated in the poorer suburbs of Paris. The rioters essentially have been immigrants -- or the children or grandchildren of immigrants -- most of whom had come to France from its former colonies. They are, in many cases, French citizens by right of empire. But what is not clear is whether they ever became, in the fullest sense of the word, French.

And in that question rests an issue that could define European -- and world -- history in the 21st century.

Every country has, from time to time, social unrest. This unrest frequently becomes violent, but that is not necessarily defining. The student uprisings around the world in the 1960s had, in retrospect, little lasting significance, whereas the riots by black Americans during the same period were of enormous importance -- symptomatic of a profound tension within American society. The issue with the French riots is to identify the degree to which they are, or will become, historically significant.

For the most part, the rioters have been citizens of France. But to a great extent, they are not regarded as French. This is not rooted necessarily in racism, although that is not an incidental phenomenon. Rather, it is rooted in the nature of the French nation and, indeed, in that of the European nation-state and European democracy -- an experience that distinguishes Europe from many other regions of the world.

The notion of the European nation stands in opposition to the multinational empires that dominated Europe between the 17th and 20th centuries. These were not only anti-democratic, dynastic entities, but they were also transnational. The idea of national self-determination as the root of modern democracy depended first on the recognition of the nation as a morally significant category. Why should a nation be permitted to determine its own fate unless the nation was of fundamental importance? Thus, in Europe, the concept of democracy and the concept of the nation developed together.

The guiding principle was that every nation had a right to determine its own fate. All of the nations whose identities had been submerged within the great European empires were encouraged to reassert their historical identities through democratic institutions. As the empires collapsed, the submerged nations re-emerged -- from Ireland to Slovakia, from Macedonia to Estonia. This process of devolution was, in a certain sense, endless: It has encompassed, for instance, not only the restoration or establishment of sovereignty to the European powers' colonial holdings in places like Africa or Latin America, but pressure from groups within the territorial borders of those recognized powers -- such as the Basques in Spain -- that their national identity be recognized and their right to democratic self-determination be accepted.

Europe's definition of a nation was less than crisply clear. In general, it assumed a geographic and cultural base. It was a group of people living in a fairly defined area, sharing a language, a history, a set of values and, in the end, a self-concept: A Frenchman knew himself to be a Frenchman and was known by other Frenchmen to be French. If this appears to be a little circular, it is -- and it demonstrates the limits of logic, for this definition of nationhood worked well in practice. It also could wander off into the near-mysticism of romantic nationalism and, at times, into vicious xenophobia.

The European definition of the nation poses an obvious challenge. Europe has celebrated national self-determination among all principles, and adhered to a theory of the nation that was forged in the battle with dynastic empires. At the heart of its theory of nationalism is the concept that the nation -- national identity -- is something to which one is born. Ideally, every person should be a part of one nation, and his citizenship should coincide with that.

But this is, of course, not always the case. What does one do with the foreigner who comes to your country and wants to be a citizen, for example? Take it a step further: What happens when a foreigner comes to your country and wants not only to be a citizen, but to become part of your nation? It is, of course, difficult to change identity. Citizenship can be granted. National identity is another matter.

Contrast this with the United States, Canada or Australia -- three examples where alternative theories of nationhood have been pursued. If being French or German is rooted in birth, being an American, Canadian or Australian is rooted in choice. The nation can choose who it wants as a citizen, and the immigrant can choose to become a citizen. Citizenship connotes nationality. More important, all of these countries, which were founded on immigration, have created powerful engines designed to assimilate the immigrants over generations. It would not be unreasonable to say that these countries created their theory of nationhood around the practice of migration and assimilation. It is not that the process is not painful on all sides, but there is no theoretical bar to the idea of anyone becoming, for example, an American -- whereas there is a theoretical hurdle to the idea of elective nationalism in Europe.

This obstacle has been compounded by the European imperial experience. France was born of a nationalist impulse, but the nationalism was made compatible with imperialism. France created a massive empire in the 19th century. And as imperialism collided with the French revolutionary tradition, the French had to figure out how to reconcile national self-determination with imperialism. One solution was to make a country like Algeria part of France. In effect, the definition of the French nation was expanded to incorporate wildly different nationalities. It left French-speaking enclaves throughout the world, as well as millions of citoyens who were not French by either culture or history. And it led to waves of immigrants from the former francophone colonies becoming citizens of France without being French.

Adding to this difficulty, the Europeans erected a new multinational entity, the European Union, that was supposed to resurrect the benefits of the old dynastic empires without undermining nationalism. The EU is an experiment in economic cooperation and the suppression of nationalist conflicts, yet one that does not suppress the nations that created it. The Union both recognizes the nation and is indifferent to it. Its immigration policy and the European concept of the nation are deeply at odds.

The results of all of this can be seen in the current riots in France. As evident from this analysis, the riots are far from a trivial event. These have involved, by and large, French citizens expressing dissatisfaction with their condition in life. Their condition stems, to some degree, from the fact that it is one thing to become a French citizen and quite another to become a Frenchman. Nor is this uniquely a French problem: The issue of immigrant assimilation in Europe is a fault line that, under sufficient stress and circumstances, can rip Europe apart. Europe's right-wing parties, and opposition to the EU in Europe, are both driven to a large extent by the immigrant issue.

All societies have problems with immigration. In the United States, there currently is deep concern about the illegal movement of Mexican immigrants across the border. There is concern about the illegality and about the changing demographic characteristics of the United States. But there is no serious movement in the United States interested in halting all immigration. There is a management issue, but in the end, the United States is perpetually changed by immigrants and the immigrants, even more, are changed by the United States. Consider what once was said about the Irish, Italians or Japanese to get a sense of this.

The United States, and a few other nations, are configured to manage and profit from immigration. Their definition of nationhood not only is compatible with immigration, but depends on it. The European states are not configured to deal with immigration and have a definition of nationhood that is, in fundamental ways, incompatible with immigration. Put simply, the Europeans could never quite figure out how to reconcile their empires with their principles, and now can't quite figure out how to reconcile the migrations that resulted from the collapse of their empires with their theory of nationalism. Assimilation is not impossible, but it is enormously more difficult than in countries that subscribe to the American model.

This poses a tremendous economic problem for the Europeans -- and another economic problem is the last thing they need. Europe, like the rest of the advanced industrial world, has an aging population. Over the past generation, there has been a profound shift in reproductive patterns in the developed world. The number of births is declining. People are also living to an older age. Therefore, the question is, how do you sustain economic growth when your population is stable or contracting?

The American answer is relatively straightforward: immigration. Shortages of engineers or scientists? No problem. Import them from India or China, give them advanced education in the United States, keep them there. Their children will be assimilated. Is more menial labor needed? Also not a problem. Workers from Mexico and Central American states are readily available, on a number of terms, legal and illegal. Their children too can be assimilated.

Of course, there have been frictions over immigrants in the United States from the beginning. But there is also a roadmap to assimilation and utilization of immigrants -- it is well-known territory that does not collide with any major cultural taboos. In short, the United States, Australia and Canada have excellent systems for managing and reversing population contractions, which is an underpinning of economic strength. The Europeans -- like the Japanese and others -- do not.

The problem of assimilating immigrants in these countries is quite difficult. It is not simply an institutional problem: A new white paper from Brussels will not solve the issue. It is a problem deeply rooted in European history and liberalism. The European theory of democracy rests on a theory of nationalism that makes integration and assimilation difficult. It can be done, but only with great pain.

It is not coincidental, therefore, that the rates of immigration to European states are rather low in comparison to those of the more dynamic settler-based states. This also places the Europeans at a serious economic disadvantage to the immigrant-based societies. The United States or Canada can mitigate the effects of population shortages with relative ease. The influx of new workers relieves labor market pressures -- encouraging sustained low-inflation economic growth -- and the relative youth of immigrants not only allows for steady population growth but also helps to keep pension outlays manageable. In contrast, the European ideal of nationality almost eliminates this failsafe -- so that while, as a whole, Europe's population is both aging and shrinking, the dearth of young immigrant workers spins its pension commitments out of control.

These are the issues that, over the next few generations, may begin to define the real global divide -- which will be not only between rich and poor nations, but between the rich nations that cannot cope with declining populations and the rich nations that can.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Frankly, I think the U.S. has been one of the more successful experiments;

Are you having a laugh? The whole world saw exactly how integrated the U.S. is during hurricane Katrina. You have one of the biggest divides between rich and poor than anywhere else in the world and race is a massive factor in determining your access to education and healthcare.

Have you forgotten your own history of race riots? Rodney King springs to mind.

I don't think Communism has anything to do with it. I think The culture of France and fear of loosing that culture is the problem.

I think their communist/heavily socialist tendencies have a lot to do with it: the costs will crush them. As far as the "culture," well, welcome to reality. Culture is nothing but somewhat similar but freely made choices of a group of people. When those same people make different choices, the "culture" evolves and changes. C'est la vie.

France is not a communist country. It is more like a socialist country with fascist leanings. Before you start throwing labels around I suggest you find out what they mean.

A lot of the so called immigrants in Paris are people from countries formally occupied by France. I don't think you can say that those countries chose to be subject to French "culture".

At least in the U.S. or U.K. you would have the right to complain if someone told you at an interview that you could have the job as long as you changed your name or straightened your hair so as not to put off potential clients. (The interviewer might think it, but they wouldn't dare say it and would probably not hire you in the 1st place.) If I had to live like that, I'd probably riot too.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Are you having a laugh?

No. Are you? I don't think people causing misery to others is funny. Well, most of the time, anyway. 8^]

The whole world saw exactly how integrated the U.S. is during hurricane Katrina. You have one of the biggest divides between rich and poor than anywhere else in the world and race is a massive factor in determining your access to education and healthcare.

Actually, the "massive factor" you refer to is economic. Yet, since people insist on making invalid race comparisons, one can blame race whether that is true or not.

Have you forgotten your own history of race riots? Rodney King springs to mind.

What I said was, "Frankly, I think the U.S. has been one of the more successful experiments...." The important terms there are "more successful experiments." I did not say something like "100% effective solution."

France is not a communist country. It is more like a socialist country with fascist leanings. Before you start throwing labels around I suggest you find out what they mean.

Again, what I said was "I think their communist/heavily socialist tendencies have a lot to do with it: the costs will crush them." The operative terms there are "communist/heavily socialist tendencies." Get it? Tendencies. I did not say France was a communist country.

Since you initiated this stuff, I'll respond in kind: Before you start throwing around glaring errors and knee-jerk reactions, I suggest that you read slowly and carefully what is actually said. Use a dictonary if necessary.

A lot of the so called immigrants in Paris are people from countries formally occupied by France. I don't think you can say that those countries chose to be subject to French "culture".

We aren't talking about Algeria here. We are talking about immigrants. So while those countries certainly did not choose to be subject to French culture, those people that chose to immigrate to France certainly did.

(The interviewer might think it, but they wouldn't dare say it and would probably not hire you in the 1st place.)

Why is that do you think? Think it has to do with economics?

France is not a communist country. It is more like a socialist country with fascist leanings. Before you start throwing labels around I suggest you find out what they mean.

The definitions of capitalism (means of production in private hands), socialism (means of production in government hands) and communism (all property in government hands) often get lost in the shuffle because no nation falls precisely into any one category, and no modern nation actually achieved 'communism' as it is formally defined. That said, it is quite correct to note that the 'communist' Soviet Union was both more socialist and more fascist than present-day 'socialist' France.

In a pure socialism, the government would be the sole employer, but individuals would be free to work for whatever part of the economy to which their desires (and ability) are suited. France isn't there yet, but with its highly restrictive trade practices, straightjacketed labor market, and sometimes laughable attempts at controlling elements of culture ("No, you may not use the word 'e-mail' because it was coined in the United States."), France is one of the closer examples out there.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

No matter what the underlying causes, reasons, or excuses for the violence in France, the French government's inability and/or lack of will to nip the rioting in the beginning, will haunt them for a long time. If greater will and force were show in the beginning, they wouldn't be having so many of their cities on fire. A resolved show of force by their military forces, as well as, the back bone to use them, would have saved innocent lives and property.

As an aside, these Muslim youths which are at the core of the violence are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Msr. Le Pen is laughing his ass off, and just can't wait for the next elections. They may have shown the world the inequities of French society, but they are also feeding French and other European reactionaries.

---

Account frozen...

France's ordeal - Rioting in Muslim areas sends a warning

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

November 9, 2005

Thirteen nights of destructive rioting in cities and towns all over France are sending Europe two jarring messages. First, Western Europe's stagnant economies are imposing painful costs, particularly on the young. Second, the failure to assimilate large numbers of immigrants from Muslim countries is a ticking time bomb, in France especially but also elsewhere in Europe.

Most of the rioters are teenagers, largely the French-born children of immigrants from France's former colonies in North and sub-Saharan Africa. In Paris and other French cities, these predominantly Muslim immigrants constitute an economic, ethnic and social underclass. Typically, this Muslim underclass is concentrated in drab blocks of public housing blighted by high crime rates, drug dealing and gangs.

Unemployment in these ethnic ghettos is twice France's already high 10 percent national rate. Among the immigrant young, joblessness reaches 40 percent.

An explosion was inevitable. Its lessons are instructive.

Many among the French political and intellectual classes sneer at America's "cowboy capitalism." The smug French assumption long has been that France's expensive welfare state, with its short work weeks and cushy early retirements, is morally and socially superior.

Yet, look at the comparative results.

As Joel Kotkin notes in his Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday, America's entrepreneurial economy has created 57 million new jobs since the early 1980s. For Western Europe's high-tax, highly regulated, welfare-state economies, the comparable figure is a paltry 4 million new jobs. In France and elsewhere on the continent, growth rates this dismal cannot begin to employ the children of immigrants who began coming to Europe when its economies were booming during the 1950s and 1960s.

Compounding the lack of economic opportunity is Europe's failure to assimilate Muslim minorities. A full 10 percent of France's 60 million people are Muslim, almost all immigrants or the children of immigrants. Some have been in France for 40 years or more but still feel like scorned outsiders. That many Muslims now resist assimilation, preferring a distinct Islamic identify, makes matters worse yet.

All this leaves Muslim youth susceptible to the appeal of fundamentalist clerics, some of whom preach the jihadist ideology of violence and terrorism. Two weeks of rioting may not add up, yet, to "France's intifada," but the eerie parallels are there for all to see.

After almost two weeks of dithering, the plainly shocked government of President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is pledging to restore order, stop the violence, and rethink its social policies at least. With Islamic terrorism already a bloody fact in Spain and Britain, and Muslim minorities restive in the Netherlands and Germany, the rest of Europe should be taking careful note as well.

---

me@rescam.org

---

In memmory of Saro Wiwa

---

Account frozen...

---

Account frozen...

I don't think Communism has anything to do with it. I think The culture of France
and fear of loosing that culture is the problem.

That's probly the bottom line in my opinion as well. But do Americans have the right to suggest that they have to become a multicultural society or culture, and then saying that they're bad if they don't? Remember, we became a multicultural society by nearly destroying the cultures and peoples that were here before us, the Native Americans. Is it possible that this may also happen to some European countries (like France) for the sake of multiculturalism. But that is more of a math question.

---

Learn from defeat - Governor bruised from picking, losing a fight

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

November 10, 2005

Having been slapped around by voters, a chastened Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger must now go back to work with significant lessons learned if he is to save his political career and achieve at least some of the reforms that remain critical to California's future.

There is, in the after-wash of Tuesday's election, at least some reason for optimism. The Republican governor, contrite in defeat, vowed cooperation with the Democratic Legislature. And top legislative leaders passed on the temptation to gloat, instead saying, in the words of Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata of Oakland, that it is now "time to put the swords down."

Indeed, the long knives never should have come out in the first place. That is the first lesson Schwarzenegger should take away from this electoral shellacking in which none of his four reform initiatives even came close to winning.

In recalling Gov. Gray Davis in the fall of 2003, voters sent Schwarzenegger to Sacramento because they were tired of the politics as usual that Davis so epitomized. With his Hollywood star power and bipartisan message, Schwarzenegger promised action, not confrontation. And throughout much of 2004, that's what he delivered - and was rewarded with a heady public approval rating at year's end of 65 percent.

But frustrated with the glacial pace of change, and perhaps blinded by his popularity, three months into 2005 Schwarzenegger abandoned cooperation with the Democrats and set in motion the machinery that led to this week's special election.

Big mistake. It not only hardened the Democrats, but it also angered voters who did not want to pay tens of millions in taxpayer dollars for a special election and who believed they had elected the governor and legislators to solve problems, not foist them off on voters. And, it galvanized the state public employee unions into an unprecedented anti-Schwarzenegger television ad campaign.

The sad reality was that Schwarzenegger could have achieved the most important of his reforms - taking the power to draw political district boundaries away from the Legislature - if only he had been willing to grab a Democratic compromise that was out there for the taking. Instead, he went to the voters with Proposition 77, and got creamed. Even Judge Wapner came out of the woodwork to oppose it.

The governor made another big mistake in allowing his political opponents - the public employee unions - to define the issues and to hammer him before he ever began to fight back. By then it was too late.

The pity of Schwarzenegger's defeat is that the reforms he sought remain key to getting California back on track. We need better teacher accountability. We need a hard mechanism to limit the runaway growth of state spending. We need to reform the redistricting gerrymander. And we need to reduce the power of public employee unions.

The governor's job is now even harder, with his public approval rating down in the 30s, the Democrats emboldened and the victorious unions having even greater leverage. His re-election prospects next year depend on how well he has learned the lessons of 2005. He cannot count, as he mistakenly did this year, on a Hollywood ending.

---

me@rescam.org

We served...for honor and country.

"If you are able, save for them a place inside of you and save one backward glance when you are leaving for the places they can no longer go.

Be not ashamed to say you loved them, though you may or may not have always. Take what they have taught you with their dying and keep it with your own.



And in that time when men decide and feel safe to call the war insane, take one moment to embrace those gentle heroes you left behind."

Major Michael Davis O'Donnell
1 January 1970
Dak To, Vietnam
Listed as KIA February 7, 1978

---

Account frozen...

---

Account frozen...

Jerry Sanders - new mayor of San Diego

---

Account frozen...

G.O.P.S.


George W Bush at his best.

---

Account frozen...

---

Account frozen...

Cuban denied entry into U.S. for award

Associated Press

HAVANA - A Cuban scientist who helped develop a low-cost synthetic vaccine that prevents meningitis and pneumonia in small children said yesterday he was offended by the U.S. government's denial of his request to travel to Northern California to receive an award.

Vicente Verez-Bencomo was to accept the award recognizing his team's technological achievement during a Wednesday ceremony at the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose. He had also been scheduled yesterday to address a gathering of the Society for Glycobiology in Boston.

Verez-Bencomo said the U.S. State Department denied him a visa because the visit would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

"That is really offensive to me," the chemical engineer said at the University of Havana's Synthetic Antigens Laboratory, where the vaccine was developed. "It's really a shame."

The U.S. State Department has not publicly commented on the case, citing a policy prohibiting comment on visa cases.

---

me@rescam.org

|- CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED -|



|- CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED -|

---

me@rescam.org