Most of you have already heard about the massive protests in France regarding a proposed bill that would increase flexibility for an employer to fire a worker under 26 who has worked for less than two years at said establishment.
The protests have effectively shut down the bill, from what I have told. It is heading for the scrapper. Unions are ecstatic.
Of course the Unions are ecstatic. Part of the reason is that the unions fear that their cherished "job protections" would eventually be disintegrated. I think I have heard that the present job security laws prevent employers from trimming their workforces without paying substantial severance packages. I have also heard that current job security laws make it a whole lot harder to fire bad employees (again without paying substantial amounts in severance). Finally there is a notion stating that whatever job you get will perhaps be the job for life due to these protections.
The Law was created to address growing unemployment among the younger generations, their unemployment rate is around 22%, in minority areas, this rises to 55%.
Personally, I believe that the government is crazy to remove the law. France's Job protections amount to a "culture of entitlement" and therefore are the posterchild for North American Unions. If I heard correctly, France's deficit is starting to balloon to very high levels, the responsibility for this lies with the unions. Like seriously, can I get these protections with insane benefits and severance packages?
France's Job protections need to go. Only then will they be able to solve what ails them.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
What, fire everyone & then rehire them again at lower rates? Reagan tried that with the air traffic controllers.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I wasn't around for that...I take it it didn't go over too well?
So Iran's joining the Nuclear "Club"
Anyone here believe the Iranian government when they say that it's only for energy production?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I don't think the protests shut down the law. I think the government decided to keep it with a few modifications.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
At the risk of seeming terminally incurious: What I don't get is, why does anyone who isn't French care? A billion weblogs moaning or yahooing, and almost none of them actually in French, or even by people who own a lot of Airbus stock or something. Another nation's internal economic debate is just a chance for these people to fill in another blank on their "pundit" bingo cards.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(By these people I mean bloggers, I guess, which doesn't really have anything to do with this thread. Still, grr.)
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I've figured some people want to complain or blog about something... even if its not something they are involved in.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
People love complaining, they love stating thier opinions on something that doesn't even have a thing to do with them, and thier deluded minds actually believe someone cares about what they have to say.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: People love complaining, they love stating thier opinions on something that doesn't even have a thing to do with them, and thier deluded minds actually believe someone cares about what they have to say.
The thing is though, in an increasingly interdependent global economy something that affects the French might well affect us all. Besides it's good that we have different opinions available: you don't want to read them all you don't have to (I know I don't want to!) but it's nice to know the freedom exists for those opinions to be out there...and you never know, maybe someone out there will come up with a truly original take on the whole thing. Maybe.
The blogging world is full of a lot of the worst tripe imaginable, but it's a hell of an opportunity to get perspectives you wouldn't ordinarily get from the mainstream media.
As for the French law itself: while I can see the point being made above, I think that job security is important too. People want to get on the property ladder, they want to know that if they get sick or injured through no fault of their own they won't just lose their pay/lose their job, and they want to know that they can start to build a life with a certain level of assurance that the financial carpet won't be pulled from under them. That, I can understand. I'm not for protecting poor workers or making victims of honest companies trying to make a profit, but we have to consider the people involved too and not just treat them as disposable parts of a larger machine.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Actually, the French have rather a cosseted existence. The entire EU Common Agricultural Policy is basically designed to allow them to continue this idyllic pastoral lifestyle, making their rural areas one big Provencal theme park. When Blair caved in on the CAP renegotiations, he was making us relax our sphincters so that, rather than just getting buttfucked by Bush, we've now got a whole double-anal thing going on with France as well. For France, globalisation is something that happens to other people.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: Anyone here believe the Iranian government when they say that it's only for energy production?
It generates exactly the energy Iran's leader wants- political energy. Iran has been trying to make itself into the leader of the arab world for some time now: that means it's chief goal is to provoke both the US and Israel into attacking them- politically or otherwise (or the public's perception of an inpending/inevitible conflict) so that public support can solidify behind their current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It's not only the Bush administration that uses public fear of forigners as a political tool.
Check today's news: Rumsfeld is calling any plans to attack Iran "fantasyland", but common sense indicates that every country intrested has a plan to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Not that Iran would not looove to have a nuke- it would make them the defacto head of all arab countries as their sole superpower.
My best guess is that Israel will airstrike select Iranian military targets (knocking Iran's nuclear programs back only a few years to a decade, but forgoing an all-out war), the US will not officially condone the attack, but will certainly not condemn Israel for defending itself either, and Iran can all itself a victim of Western aggression (thus assuring the status quo and the Cleric's control of every aspect of all Iranian's lives).
Everybody wins. except those killed in the attacks, and those motivated toward terrorism by the attacks and anyone hoping for any freedom in Iran and US foreign policy in the region and...
But what do I know? The NSA no longer responds to my observations... (and after I went to all the trouble of cutting and pasting all the letters from diffrent magazines and newspapers too...)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Arab countries might have some minor issues with being ruled by Persians.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As though "Persia" has existed in any real context in...forever.
As much (or better) chance than Egypt leading the arab countries...and I wont even coment of Saudi arabia's chances. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think you're missing something crucial here, re who is Arab and who is Iranian, and how that line has been historically demarcated with impressive bouts of violence.
So I find your whole analysis a little suspect.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: When Blair caved in on the CAP renegotiations, he was making us relax our sphincters so that, rather than just getting buttfucked by Bush, we've now got a whole double-anal thing going on with France as well.
I'd love to see Peter Snow illustrating that on one of his big computerised displays on Newsnight. I think even Paxman would be stuck for words at that one.
I admit that as things go in the world the French aren't coming off too badly at all, but I'd still like to think that there were some workplace protections available for workers. Not all employers are scrooges, sure - but by that same token not all employers will treat their workforces fairly, and might just apply a vigorous shafting to the aforementioned workforce if it's without legal cover.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
In case anyone has forgotten, Israel sent a strike force of F-16's with a CAP of F-15's into Iraq back in the early 80's to destroy a nuclear facility. Had they not, we could very well have had to deal with a Nuclear Iraq. Not to mention the decade of war between Iraq & Iran. The Iranis sent waves of humans against an outnumbered Iraqi army and got chem'ed for their troubles. The Middle Beast will never have peace. It simply is not their way. Americans need to get it out of their head that everyone wants freedom and believes in playing fair. Centuries of factionalism isn't going to be erased by a handshake and some grand epiphany on a couple of leaders parts. I mean, look at European soccer and all the hooligans and fights started over a FREAKING SPORT! How can we expect other cultures to behave differently when it comes to the basis of their religion?
As for the French....well....it would've been better to have let the Germans keep them. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I think you're missing something crucial here, re who is Arab and who is Iranian, and how that line has been historically demarcated with impressive bouts of violence.
So I find your whole analysis a little suspect.
You'd think so, but it seems Hating The West makes for strange bedfellows these days- with the exception of Egypt, there is vocal arab support for Iran getting their (ahem) "peaceful" nuclear capability. Mabye it's because of all the Israel bashing Iran is doing lately, or just the general perception of the US telling arabs how to live, I cant say.
Two intresting reads- one is a news ]blog from last year that points out Iran's President is not really running the show.
quote:Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani - a powerful figure in the country's clerical regime - warned in an interview with the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai Al-Aam that pressuring Iran over enrichment "might not have good consequences for the area and the world."
Later he says:
quote:"There is no worry as we will not threaten anyone,"
Except mabye, you know..."the area and the world." Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: As though "Persia" has existed in any real context in...forever.
I didn't know a hundred years was classified as "Forever"
To Fawndoo - You have a point, but to be realistic, most peoples opinions are made on erroneous (Cool word of the day) facts. They don't have the whole picture. So thier opinions really don't matter. (Except you guys) Especially if it doesn't directly involve them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, a hundred year absence means that no one alive today was ever at war with or oppressed by the Persians. They were gone long before "modern" stuff like airplanes, tanks, nuclear weapons and the UN inspections were a factor, so "forever" applies here. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Ottoman?Persian.
Osirak was a good'un, too. First combat use of an F-16. Also, my vote for favorite Mideast construct has to go to the UAR.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well, a hundred year absence means that no one alive today was ever at war with or oppressed by the Persians.
And that means 'Persian oppression/aggression/whatever' won't be invoked as a reason to fight because..?
It's a toss up as to whether traditional Arab/Persian (incidentally, 'Persia' was just the Western name for it, it's always been called Iran by the natives) antagonisms or newly radical Islamic nationalism wins through in this scenario.
As to the French; the law actually wasn't that bad, by the standards of most other western nations. But for the French economic liberalism=the evil Anglos, and they still haven't gotten over the Seven Years War, let alone the whole revolution/Bonaparte thing.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:On March 21, 1935 Reza Shah Pahlavi issued a decree asking foreign delegates to use the term Iran in formal correspondence. After Persian scholars protested, Mohammad Reza Shah in 1959 announced that both Persia and Iran could be used interchangeably.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...I wonder if the current batch o' clerics would allow that. Probably not- these are the screwballs that banned all western music (including classical now!) to "preserve the Iranian way of life".
We need Zombie Alexander The Great to lead our armies! though he'd be none to happy at the state Greece is in...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Oh, Like we need a homosexual zombie running around. While we're at it, let's bring back Tchaikovsky...
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Well, in Iraq who would be able to tell that the "1812 Overture" was being played?
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Ottoman?Persian.
No! The Ottoman Empire decayed into what is now Turkey (the final blow being WWI). The Ottoman Empire actually fought several wars with Persia.
The people in Iran are almost all shiite, and mostly ethnic Persian. There are some ethnic Arabs in the south-west, but these do not have power. Most Arabs are Sunni, who do not get along well with shiites. Thus, Iran will NOT become "leader of the Arab world". They might get support in some areas, but that is very different then getting leadership. Pakistan (nuclear armed) is different ethnically from Arabs and is sunni, so since they don't have leadership, I don't see how Iran could get it...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yes, I know. That wasn't supposed to be a question mark, but rather a "does not equal" sign. Apparently Flare does not like certain Mac keystrokes.
My point was that 100 years ago, that area was mostly under Ottoman rule.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: Oh, Like we need a homosexual zombie running around. While we're at it, let's bring back Tchaikovsky...
Phhht. Nothing from the era anywhere says he was or was not a homosexual.
He died with no heir and his dickweed relatives (likely) started all that nonsense as they both slandered him in every way they could while ripping his empire to pieces for their own petty desires.
Not that is should matter...
Read Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander (the closest written accounts of his life and campaigns- still almost 400 years after the fact though) sometime and skip the Hollywood version of history.
In time, people will probably speculate that Jesus was gay for the same reasons....mmmmm....time to start a rumor...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
"In time, people will probably speculate that Jesus was gay for the same reasons....mmmmm....time to start a rumor..."
Well. We all know he loves Pornstars.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
After mishearing a line in whatever was playing at the local videophonic rentery establishment, I have decided to start a religion based around the teachings of Cheezit Christ.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
What about Jebus? He was the best Jesus mispronunciation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I want to see Cheesus Chirst. He could be an animated bunch of cheese cubes (think of the old Gumby animation) and would be the saivor of the starving masses untill he's cruicfied on a giant triscut with fancy toothpicks.
The "H" stands for "Havarti", by the way. hmmmm....Havarti...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Our peace-loving pals in Iran have something to say.
I'm really trying to understand why they're building acse for Israel to attack them in self defense... Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Man...Why do I get the feeling WW3's only a few years away...
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
What's not to get? The muslims hate anything that ISN'T muslim oriented or dominated. You cannot rationalize with a belief system that says "All non-believers must convert or DIE".
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
NO, Jason. Not "Cheesus." CHEEZIT.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: What's not to get? The muslims hate anything that ISN'T muslim oriented or dominated. You cannot rationalize with a belief system that says "All non-believers must convert or DIE".
Yeah but...they're not stupid. I mean, why give anyone a motive to attack your country? Particularly a reason most of the world will accept as valid and needed.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I cannot even look at a map without seeing all these Muslim invasions!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er...I was referring of Israel possibly attacking Iran in a self-defense kinda thing (what with Iran enriching uranium and threatening to destroy Israel "very soon" and all...).
No invasion needed on any side though- everybody's got missiles with enough range for serious devestation nowadays.
Wonder where Omega, Magic and Psyliam are now? They all got the bomb while we've been talking about Firefly.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
So, what do you thinks going to happen in the next few years? Will Iran attack Israel? Or will Israel make a pre-emptive strike? It's a given that the US is going to get involved seeing as they're Israels allies. But does Iran have allies? and who else is going to get involved? Britain probably, Russia maybe, Can't see France doing much. I don't think China or Japan have any interest in the mideast, although they might get involved if they feel threatened. What about Egypt? They're a Muslim country, but I don't think they're too close with Iran. We know the African nations don't have much of a standing army, but for some reason I see them siding with Iran. Some of them anyways.
And then there's Canada. We didn't get involved before. But if this escalates into a global conflict we might not have a choice...
The world is going to hell...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think your analysis leaves a lot to be desired.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I wouldn't call it an "Analysis". More along the lines of paranoid rambling...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
In that case, good job.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Why thank you! I take pride in the quality of my paranoid delusions!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I don't think China or Japan have any interest in the mideast...
Anyone who uses oil has an interest in the mideast. That's why I plan on switching to an alternative fuel source: the burning of aborted fetuses.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
What I meant by that is they have no interest in military action in the middle east. Although, come to think about it, China would probably take the side opposite the US.
I plan on using bottled flatulence as an Alternative Fuel Source.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I saw an intresting interview on Tavis Smley's show just now (though I generally find him an annoying bootlicker)- it seems that 70% of Iran's population is under 30 years old and is actually pretty moderate, while the ruling party is very extreme.
Seems they had a sorta post-war baby-boom. The woman being interviewed,Lila Azam Zanganeh explained that there after the Iran/Iraq war ended (with more than a million dead in the conflict!) and that the masses voted for the current batch of bozos because previous (more modrate) regiemes were ineffective in many ways- mostly monetary issues but also in basic services.
She feels that Iran's retoric is mostly talk, but they need to be catious- by both the international community and by their own people, but that if the people of Iran feel threatened by another country (Britan, America, The Caman Islands, etc.) they'll rally around their leaders out of intense nationalist pride. Even if they dont really like their leaders.
She also thinks the media are hyping Iran's usual rhetoric (though I dont agree completely with this).
Heey! I found a transcript. I may pick up her book to read some of the essays therein.
She's pretty hot too. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'm really trying to understand why they're building acse for Israel to attack them in self defense...
Maybe they're just really concerned about global warming and are hoping the nuclear winter will offset it?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh...that's cool then. I though they wanted a giant skate pit where they could hold summer concert tours (like the WARP Tour or Ozzfest).
Mabye they are envious of all the tourists the Grand Canyon attracts...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"What's not to get? The muslims hate anything that ISN'T muslim oriented or dominated. You cannot rationalize with a belief system that says 'All non-believers must convert or DIE'."
And people wonder why so many of them think Westerners are ignorant assholes...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
