digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

France at a Standstill: Five Million Civil Servants Join Strikes

spiegel.de — It's Black Tuesday for French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Five million French civil servents have gone out on strike, joining millions of others already on the streets protesting planned reforms.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • KewlerKid3, on 11/22/2007, -70/+16Wow, reported from a German newspaper interesting.

    French people need to stop striking it just so counter-productive. Their arrogance really feeds into it
    as well. Someday they'll figure out their country isn't the best -anymore.
    • Marijuana, on 11/22/2007, -6/+40***** that. That's why our country is so ***** because of people who think like you. You always want the government to fear the people, not the other way around.
      • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -24/+7No one (especially Sarkozy) fears the French people.
        • niczar, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Yeah, Louis XVI didn't, maybe he should've.
      • djbon2112, on 11/22/2007, -7/+9I'm not entirely sure where you're comment is coming from... people striking in France to protest the government... that's people fearing the government? I think you meant for that last sentence to be the other way around.
        • Marijuana, on 11/22/2007, -0/+8Sorry, I should have said "We should always want the government to fear the people, not the other way around."
      • niczar, on 11/22/2007, -1/+27Amen, I'm French, used to be against such strikes ... until I heard a brit saying that at least we could demonstrate when our gov't tries to fsck us, whereas they have to take it and shut up.
        • WhiteRaven, on 11/22/2007, -8/+6But what do you do about the people "fsck"ing themselves by opposing badly needed reforms? How do you respond when the position of the protesters is just unsustainable and destructive? In short... what do you do when the people protesting are *wrong*?

          Sarkozy was elected based on his plan to institute exactly these kinds of reformations. The protesters are NOT the "people". Several million certainly sounds like a lot but France has already established the will of the *majority* and these mobs don't represent it.
      • swoopdog, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7thank you for saying what I wanted when I saw that.
    • grr74, on 11/22/2007, -0/+14The right to organize, form unions, demonstrate, etc. are fundamental in democracies. If one were to remove these aspects of democracy, you would eventually end up in a police state. Who then, would demonstrate on your behalf?
  • lekahe, on 11/22/2007, -41/+13What do they think they'll achieve by the strikes? If the system is not working now, something must be done before improvements are possible. What is wrong with private finance in schools? More money, more possibilities!
    • ElAssoWipo, on 11/22/2007, -2/+10Mo' money mo' problems.
      • DruSam, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2I don't know what, they want from me
        It's like the more money we come across
        The more problems we see

        RIP B.I.G.
        • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -7/+2If there is a Hell, he's there. Right next to Tupac.
          • Chompy, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3The man was a drug-dealing, murdering pimp.. but he made catchy rap songs, so I guess that's all OK then.
  • graviplana, on 11/22/2007, -1/+25I have been following this developing story. The 'sabotage' of various rail stations is certainly interesting. I noticed noone has gotten hurt. Since the reports of sabotage, there have been even further calls by the government for people to end the strike. I wonder what will happen next?
    • gendjinn, on 11/22/2007, -3/+14Reminds me of the miners strike in britain in the 80s. There was violence committed that was attributed to striking miners. Recently it was revealed that it was actually agent provocateurs in the pay of Thatcher. Wouldn't surprise me to find Sarkozy up to the same thing.
      • WhiteRaven, on 11/22/2007, -6/+4Revealed how? Which version is actually credible?
        • Chompy, on 11/22/2007, -7/+1Whatever version backs up genjinn's version of events.
      • pintomp3, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3wow, sounds like cointelpro. it's sad how the government tries to infiltrate and undermine genuine populist protests.
    • Farik, on 11/22/2007, -8/+1I can't understand how so many people can so consistently type noone. Same goes for tech-illiterate people calling LinkSys "Link Skiis", as ridiculous as it seems, so many people call it that.
    • rouslan, on 11/22/2007, -6/+1lol "Link Skiis" - I never heard of that!
      http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/
    • themastersb, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6If only people in the US protested like they do in France.... the one thing that the french get right.
      • smackhero, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2yep. that's a true democracy at work. part of the problem with the U.S. is that we're such a large society that the population is very fragmented, both culturally, politically, and geographically. it is much harder to organize over a geographic area as large as the U.S. than an area the size of France. i think that conditions were more favorable in certain eras of mass reform in U.S. history, such as during the 20's, the 60's and the 70's, but right now the progressive movement and democratic culture in the U.S. is practically dead. there is just no sense of unity amongst the working class today.

        and, really, the reason that we're a republic, or representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy is because that it's logistically impossible to implement a direct/participatory democracy at the national level in the U.S. people in different parts of the country simply care about different issues, and the political culture is so diverse across the country that it's impossible to have a popular government truly representative of the will of the people--hence the bipartisan system was created to give the illusion of choice and democratic power.

        instead, our "republic" is really just a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy where the public gets to vote on which aristocrat they want to be ruled under. and i really can't see this system changing unless each state actually becomes its own nation-state. after all, third-party candidates are only a viable choice in local and state government. also, i believe many states already conduct public referendums to pass legislation--a true form of democratic political participation. i mean, it's sad to see that a country like Venezuela can have direct democracy and even draft their own constitution by mass referendum when the public holds a completely passive role in government here in the U.S.
  • kgrandia, on 11/22/2007, -11/+51France is one of the most productive countries in the world -- can't be that bad. http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/22/cx_da_0322topnews ...
    • tsotha, on 11/22/2007, -12/+22Well, sort of. If you divide economic output by the number of hours worked, they're right up there at the top. But that's not necessary the mark of a healthy economy. The reason French workers are so productive is companies are terrified of hiring anyone - it's nearly impossible to get rid of them if they don't work out.

      I good example is the Hilton hotel chain. In New York dish-washing is done by hand. They hired five or six guys, at a low wage, to wash dishes. If you go to work in the kitchen you'll probably start there, but you can transfer to other jobs in the hotel after you've been there awhile. In Paris they spent nearly 100k on a dishwashing machine, and they hired one guy to load the machine and one guy to unload it. I suppose you could say the French guys are more productive, but the hotel spends more money cleaning dishes in Paris. Plus there's four jobless Parisians somewhere that would have found a job there if the rules hadn't priced their labor out of the market. I like the US system better.
      • clnydk, on 11/22/2007, -6/+16I respectfully disagree; A dishwasher doesn't make sustaining wages anywhere I know of, so is that really a "job"? Sounds like indentured servitude. And, somehow this leads to a better job? And where does this all lead to, years later? Owning the restaurant? Very unlikely. I disagree that these kind of jobs are useful, they simply distract people from maximizing their human potential by sending the wrong signal that menial labor is a viable career option. Maybe, if these kind of jobs were not available, there would not be so much pressure from outside of this country to come to the US and "work", and if it comes down to man competing with machine, let the machine do it.
        • WhiteRaven, on 11/22/2007, -10/+8If the wages you earn are not "sustaining", you don't accept the job. Your premise is false from the start. No one works for a wage that can't sustain them, that is a logical impossibility.
          • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -1/+7To say that working for a wage which can not sustain you is logically impossible is possibly illogical. A square circle is a logical impossibility. Working for a wage which can't sustain you is not only logically possible, it is a policy goal which has already been realized in many sectors of this country ( sectors which WhiteRaven probably has no experience with )

            Working for unsustainable wages just means that you will have to join the increasing number of Americans working multple jobs to support their families, which to quote George Bush is "Uniquely American". Those of you have ever heard his reply to a working mother who works three jobs to "sustain" herself probably recognize the president's utter detatchment from reality in WhiteRaven's sophistic little comments in this thread.

            Just consider how easily this imbecile's "argument" is refuted by the facts that the average household debt in this country is rising faster and faster while the savings rate has been negative and is continually decreasing. The number of forclosures is approaching new records at accelerating speed. At the same time, the number of people working multiple jobs is higher now than it ever has been in the US. What about this situation indicates sustainability in any sense of the word besides the orwellian sense which WhiteRaven employs - probably without even realizing it? More importantly, WhiteRaven might ask, were he not content to remain such a little man, what about this situation indicates desirability? necessity? or the realization of possibility?

            (Well, might not want to answer that rhetorical question if you are a capitalist, where lower wages necessarily means more profit )
          • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4You forget that when the system is rigged to favor employment monopolies, the owners can coerce the masses to take a much lower wage than what they could in a "regulated" environment.

            Look at what happens now with corporation executive staff and boards. They are in a unique position where the top execs coerce ridiculous payment advantages, and stack the board with their supporters. The shareholder gets SCREWED. And where are they supposed to go if they don't like CEOs getting 4000x more salary than their lowest paid employee? The system is rigged. Look at the H1-B and related employment systems. Of course, top companies are going to say "we have a talent shortage", and actually they have a point. But the reality is that its a lot easier to import foreign trained workers, pay them below what a native worker would be willing to accept, and that foreign worker still ends up having to work hours no normal employee would accept, for less. If its really PhD talent that is at an acute shortage, change the H1-B to only allow MS and PhDs at "accredited" universities to be allowed into the program, for more specific type jobs. There's no freaking reason a system administrator or a coding grunt needs to be imported from overseas.

            The real problem is that we don't have a forward thinking enough population that will "hire" legislators that will craft legislation that will reasonably regulate employer practices and monopolies. If you don't have good gov't, you're stuck with the market regulating itself, and that mean unionization determining what's best for the economy. I'm not a Libertarian, so yes, I'd sooner have good legislation over strong unions trying to crowbar economically undesirable but member beneficial agreements.
          • WhiteRaven, on 11/23/2007, -1/+1@netant
            "You forget that when the system is rigged to favor employment monopolies, the owners can coerce the masses to take a much lower wage than what they could in a "regulated" environment."

            Give me a real-world example. Company towns are dead and gone... if you're in a town that remotely resembles one, it's easy to move.

            "Look at what happens now with corporation executive staff and boards. They are in a unique position where the top execs coerce ridiculous payment advantages, and stack the board with their supporters."

            You *object* to this. However, the fact that this happens is NOT evidence that anyone is working for sub-subsistence wages so really, you're just generating a smoke screen. A pay disparity does not indicate any kind of coercion or "slavery".

            What are you supposed to do if you "don't like" pay disparity? Well, unless you have the gumption and ability to become a highly paid executive yourself I guess you just put up with it. Like I do. Oh well, I guess life sucks... why do you think that means that regulations that strip people of basic rights are justified? Unlike you, I actually value my rights and I understand that it's not possible to strip them just from the segment of society I hate... we all loose our rights when politicians do your bidding.

            The system is not "rigged". That statement implies that there's some "right" way for things to work. If you think the regulation you favor are not "rigging" the situation just as badly, you are just too dense to bother with.

            Why do you think unions are the only alternative to regulation? That's a logical fallacy. You are proposing a false dichotomy. FREE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT AND POWER TO NEGOTIATE WAGES INDIVIDUALLY, FOR THEMSELVES. Since *ALL* people have this right and power, it is impossible for employers to take advantage of anyone. We don't need unions. All we need are the simple facts of life that dictate that an employee MUST sustain themselves. No amount of rigging or advantage allows an employer to break this law of nature.
        • magila, on 11/22/2007, -6/+7How is someone who is unemployed supposed to "maximizing their human potential"? Not everyone can be an astronaut or corporate exec, your notion of the value of labor is out-of-sync with reality.

          tsotha is absolutely right. France may rank highly in terms of hourly productivity, but if you look at the per-capita GDP of France you'll find it is far behind that of the US. Unemployment has also been a huge and persistent problem in France, chiefly due to the very labor regulations that make it's per-hour productivity look so good.
          • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Magilla is obviously the product of the -COMPULSORY- state-sponsored "public" schooling system in the US, and another Little Man.

            His question - how is somebody supposed to realize their human potential if they are unemployed - requires that we accept the premise that a human being can only realize their potential while being employed as a wage earner in some profit oriented or state-socialist enterprise -- a premise which is so false it must be instilled in a majority of the modernized world's population, by force of law, starting from the ripe age of 5.

            Just because Magilla might lack any human potential at all doesn't mean this is the case for the majority of human beings in industrialized countries. The reality is all wage earning jobs exist because they produce goods or services relatively cheaply enough for those who "own" businesses to be able to turn around and sell said good or service and charge their consumer a premium to enjoy them -- in the process, rendering a profit. ( Revenue minus Cost )

            There are a whole host of human activities which can not turn a profit but which nevertheless have the potential to enrich human life considerably. To make life more enjoyable, less boring, less demanding, to make human relations more convivial, nurturing, and sustainable.

            One example out of many? PARENTING. Only a little, damaged, and mean man would rather another human being spend their time doing something a machine can do instead of pursuing other, albeit possibly unemployable potential to enrich human life, if only something as simple as being home with their child, talking to them or reading to them rather than resigning them to the TV.

            Fight for your right for useful unemployment - against the robots like Magilla, Tsotha, and WhiteRaven
        • teadrinker, on 11/22/2007, -3/+7"so is that really a "job"?"
          Yes it is. Is it a good job? No it is not.

          "I disagree that these kind of jobs are useful, they simply distract people from maximizing their human potential by sending the wrong signal that menial labor is a viable career option."
          These jobs are not sending any signals about anything. They simply ask for labor, in return for certain amount of money. If the people who took the jobs worried about maximizing their human potential, they would not take the job, and the hotel would have to buy the machine, anyway

          "Maybe, if these kind of jobs were not available, there would not be so much pressure from outside of this country to come to the US and "work", and if it comes down to man competing with machine, let the machine do it."
          Machines are great, they have improved productivity many times, but the human productivity goes unused. If you force companies to get machines to wash dishes, you are not using the human productivity, and people are forced to either accept their life of government handouts or compete with even more people for fewer jobs.
          • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Another little man. Human productivity is better used being home with children, reading to them, talking to them, teaching them, instead of resigning them to the TV, the Streets, or to the State, so you can go perform jobs so mindless that machines could perform them in your stead.
        • shoop008, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3Yes it could lead to owning a restaurant. The manager of the restaurant i work at started as the dishwasher there when he was 16. I started as a busboy and moved up to being offered a management position within 4 years.
        • bobbyi, on 11/22/2007, -5/+4If the jobs aren't "useful", then people shouldn't take them. Apparently you think that no one except you is smart enough to figure out what is good for them, so you had better be careful to "send them the right signals" to guide them to the life decisions that you find acceptable. Maybe you should work on having more respect for the agency of your fellow man instead of being a patronizing *****.
          • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Obviously spoken by a suburban white kid with few if any serious bills to pay. Most jobs are completely useless - and while I agree people shouldn't do them, not everybody has the luxury ( or parents and mom's basement to fall back on ) of choosing unemployment. The choice to work multiple jobs serving people like you as they leisure isn't so much a life decision as it is a life dilemma. You would do well in life to stop and think about the difference between these things.
        • WhiteRaven, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1@jonathansoeder
          Working multiple jobs is merely a way to achieve that sustaining level. As long as people are willing to work that many hours to sustain themselves, it is unfair and illogical to blame the employers for only paying no more than what the people have demonstrated they are willing to work for. *I* work two jobs. So what? Of course, I also know that I'm doing so to get *ahead*, not merely to sustain myself.

          Your argument that debt and an absence of saving is an indication that I am wrong doesn't make the grade. First of all, you would have to demonstrate that any significant portion of the debt is going towards *subsistence*. Or rather, demonstrate that those living in debt are living sensibly. Obviously, you can't do this. Also, my argument does not account for the fact that there are people like you who do not understand that they are free and worth something and should be demanding more. Neither employers nor the "system" can be blamed for the fact that some people just make poor decisions.

          Desirability? What you desire and what is reasonable to achieve or what are just methods of achieving it are some very different things. Having a desire does not mean that it must be met. "Necessity" is in fact what substantiates my argument and guarantees that employees are in fact free and able to support themselves. "the realization of possibility" is the kind of throw-away phrase that is usually only heard in political campaign speeches. Apparently, you think in sound-bites.
      • smackhero, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2your logic is very suspect. by your reasoning, it's better for me to hire 100 people and pay them $1/hr. than it is to hire 10 people, paying them $10/hr. to do the same work. how is such an inefficient system better? because it creates more menial jobs and keeps the average living standards low? workers in france are generally more happy and find their jobs more fulfilling than U.S. workers. and interestingly enough, they also have much less poverty.

        the fact is, in the U.S. workers are treated as commodities. that is why many U.S. companies are outsourcing--workers are cheaper in populated countries like india and china. in countries like France, workers are treated as people, and maximizing the welfare and wellbeing of workers takes priority over maximizing profits. IMO, that's how a democratic government should function--it should be serving public interest rather than corporate interest.
  • WordsnCollision, on 11/22/2007, -34/+26Margaret Thatcher faced down the coal unions in the eighties and guess what... Britain not only survived, it thrived. Stick to your guns, Sarkozy - and do what the people of France elected you to do!
    • gendjinn, on 11/22/2007, -4/+17London thrived, the rest of the country took a dive. Water, gas, electric, telephone - all privatised and every single one of them resulted in reduced quality of service and increased cost to the consumer.
      • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -4/+3Increased cost - yes. Especially since infrastructure spending went out the window. But I recall reading that BT has much better customer satisfaction now.
      • WhiteRaven, on 11/22/2007, -4/+4Describe the reduction in quality.
      • solid12345, on 11/22/2007, -12/+4Government run anything is crap. Look at the BBC, for decades its picture quality was fuzzy and blurry, inferior to American private networks.
        • Sketchcast, on 11/22/2007, -0/+11You need to read up on NTSC vs. PAL and loss of quality due to conversion before you start blaming the BBC for their video quality. BBC has always produced very high quality programming of a considerably higher standard (until recently) than the US networks which act as troughs for the white trash to feed from.
          • WhiteRaven, on 11/22/2007, -9/+1What magical and perhaps nearly divine piece of machinery do you use to objectively measure the quality of TV programming?

            Your arrogance is just ugly and certainly unjustified.
          • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -4/+1"act as troughs for the white trash to feed from."
            YOUR MOMMA!
        • maffiou, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2Yeah, don't start on the bbc... Comparing it to any american is an insult... The BBC is what TV should be...
  • puto, on 11/22/2007, -17/+70I hope that we can learn from them... Time to take to the streets here too.
    • mchinsky, on 11/22/2007, -25/+16Yea right. And do what, demand more money so prices go up? If you don't like your lot in life, get off your ass and do something. Don't wait for the government to solve you problems...

      • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -8/+16They are. They're striking. Welcome to the free market!
        • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -3/+11They're striking to object to labour market regulation being decreased. Whether that is good or bad aside, they certainly are not an example of the free market in action.
          • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1You are right, this isn't the free "market" in action this is FREE PEOPLE in Action, and you are afraid of such a responsibility yourself which is why you and your imbecilic supporters will shout hurrah as THE STATE uses its police and its spies and if necessary, its military, to protect the Market from too much freedom.

            These people are making the free choice to go on strike regardless of what the minority of men who act on behalf of the state, capital, or union bosses have in their interests and regardless of what the happily servile people like you are afraid of seeing happen because it might force you to evaluate your fanatical religious belief in markets which are only free for the people who own them.
          • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1@ jonathan soeder - Perhaps you missed the "whether that is good or bad" part of my post. The positions you attribute to me are not present in what I wrote.

            But to address your invective head on, I have no fear of a free people in action. I believe that democracy works, and if the people make a choice, within the bounds of a constitution (so as to avoid mob rule and events like la Terreur) that choice should be respected. Of course, the people taking to the streets in France seem to be missing the point that their fellow Frenchmen just had an election and endorsed the policies that they are protesting against. Perhaps they are the ones that fear a free people?
        • WhiteRaven, on 11/22/2007, -5/+11As echinda said, they are striking to keep anti-competitive, anti-free market laws. It would have made a little more sense to say "welcome to democracy" except for the fact that France just had an election where Sarkozy won on a platform that proposed to do exactly what he is doing.

          So in fact, the protesters are protesting the will of the [voting] people to restore some measure of a free market economy to France. But thanks for playing.
          • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1Voting people vote once a year and follow orders the other 355 days. That isn't a will so much as it is a lack of will. If people didn't protest what results from this lack of will of the herd like masses who have been indoctrinated, intimidated, seduced, shackled, or otherwise made to submit throughout history then what?
          • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2@ jonathan soeder - I'm sorry. Where is this sheep-like behaviour you're speaking of? Sarkozy has been in power for mere months and he has barely begun to do what he was voted in for. In order for your contempt for the majority of Frenchmen to have any basis in reality, there must be some behaviour you can point to where Sarkozy goes beyond the mandate given to him by the populace and the majority blindly followed along. But that hasn't occurred because Sarkozy hasn't actually done what he promised to do yet. He hasn't even come close to fulfilling his mandate. Your rhetoric may sound great on the barricades but to quote Voltaire "A witty saying proves nothing."
        • JoelBakan01, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3OK WhiteRaven, so your saying that if a majority of people outside of your field say your field should change then you should just capitulate without protesting? Get bent.
        • WhiteRaven, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1@JoelBakan01

          How about a form of protest that doesn't cripple a country and basically make the people you are trying to persuade hate your guts and view you as greedy and uncaring. You say "field", I think perhaps a better word would be industry. And the people "outside" that industry are the representatives of the taxpaying public. In other words, the "customers".

          The expectations of the people on the "inside" are no more right are realistic than those on the outside. They always want more resources than can be given.
    • MikeFallopian, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1Do you even know why they're striking? They do not enjoy the support of most frenchmen...
  • siszam, on 11/22/2007, -25/+92We need to do that in America to end the war and get fully tax funded, universal healthcare for all citizens. The French get what they want because the government fears them. They don't fear their government.
    • mchinsky, on 11/22/2007, -27/+16Oh yea, Do exactly as the french do 9and why Sarkozy was elected by a landslide to repair) That might get us an economy like france with runaway inflation, high unemployment, forced reduciton in work weeks, long waits for healthcare, etc.
      • jerryparid, on 11/22/2007, -5/+17Lol; landslide; this man is a war monger, supports Bush's actions in Iraq, supports strong actions against Iran. He is basically a French "Neo-Con." The American all have learned from electing Bush; now the French will learn.
      • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6Landslide?...as the French would say QLF? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_e ...
        • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -1/+8They don't have an electoral college, so he's obviously confused by their inability to turn a 7% lead into a landslide.
      • rodolphe, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Ahaha, what the hell are you talking about?
      • maffiou, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Man, you should read up before taking *****... Long wait for healthcare ? And man did I enjoy my 7 weeks vacation when I worked there, yes I did... And the people on employement benefit ? Maybe it's because the system is too good for them...

        The french system isn't perfect that's for sure, but some of it is certainly worth looking at... Especially if you're American, considering the state of your system...
    • postaldave, on 11/22/2007, -29/+13OR, go get a ***** job and pay for your own health care.

      you are against the war but have no problem using the government(by force) to steal money from your neighbors to pay for your health care. by that logic you only support killing americans.
      • thefirstenemy, on 11/22/2007, -11/+8By that logic you're a moron.
      • djbon2112, on 11/22/2007, -8/+7Amen.
      • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -3/+4Man - I think the French protesters are wrong but you can't even see right from where you're standing.
      • EarlOfLade, on 11/22/2007, -2/+9I'd rather my tax money benefit the citizens of the country rather than go overseas and to a few select corporations in the military sector and to the oil industry.
        • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1I ask again "WERE IS THE CHEAP ***** STOLEN OIL ASSHOLES!"
      • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1Right on Postal Dave, but don't expect the digg socialists to blame anyone but the people who try hard and make good choices for their failures. They are the blame someone else and expect government handouts generation. Hardly rugged individuals, merely cattle waiting at the trough and demanding their dinner. France has 14.5 ish% unemployment while the US has around 3.5 % unemployment even being flooded with illegals taking jobs! Thats 4 times more unemployed people. I hope these union ***** strike themselves out of jobs, perhaps that will teach them to act as individuals instead of a heard.
        • skyteria, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1McDonald's called. You're late for your shift.
    • ssn697, on 11/22/2007, -5/+23You could at LEAST say you are quoting "Sicko" when you use lines directly from the movie.
    • ralph12c41, on 11/22/2007, -19/+8I don't fear our Government, I don't think the majority of Americans fear the Government. A relative handful of America hating leftists claim to fear the Government but apparently not so much that they won't sound off of forums like DIGG.
      • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -0/+8It isn't leftists holed up in compounds in Montana with their guns and survival gear. Say what you like about the majority, but there is a significant population that does fear the government on both ends of the spectrum.
      • zombies187, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6It isn't leftist who fear government involvement in health care. The free market conservatives seem to hate the government at least in part because they fear them.
      • videographer, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4>...but apparently not so much that they won't sound off of forums like DIGG.<

        Anonymity is a great shield, wouldn't you agree, ralph12c41? If that IS your REAL NAME.... (think of the last part in Lionel Hutz's voice and it works out better.)
    • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -14/+14I prefer a market-based solution to the "crisis" in healthcare in the US. This is one issue I agree with the Ronbots on. Healthcare was mostly affordable until the government started getting involved. The last thing we need is more government.
      • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -7/+10Healthcare was mostly affordable back when no one had it....
        The real world disagrees with you.
        • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -10/+10Are you kidding me? You're saying that no one in America had healthcare in 1970? Health care was affordable. Innovation costs money, and bureaucratic insurance companies waste money. Can you at the very least admit that when you take away the incentive for profit we will likely see less innovation?
      • LargeTrout, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Haha, Ronbots. I like that.
    • WhiteRaven, on 11/22/2007, -4/+9As soon as someone in America proposes a constitutional amendment to make federal social programs such as health care and education legal, we can seriously discuss it. But until people start playing by the rules, my answer is going to ALWAYS be no. Quit raping the constitution.
    • BassMastr, on 11/22/2007, -8/+17Live in France for four years and you'll change your mind. Takes forever to get anything done. There's a strike every other week about something. Universal health care doesn't mean free high quality health care. You think our taxes are high!?!?
      • miketherazor, on 11/22/2007, -6/+12Same thing for Spain. I lived their for almost four. Everything is slow and all employees are lazy. Health care is free and awful and the same time.
      • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4Its simple. There are too many gov't owned services, MANDATING ineconomic practices. People join and support unions, because they do not have an alternate means to negotiate on behalf of the worker, and the economy is so screwed up from the regulating, they legislate job security, rather than letting the employer hire and fire at will.

        Get the legislature out of the management of business profitability, and limit gov't to being the referee between capitalist vs public interest. Part of the reason why the French unions are so strong is that the gov't is not a negotiator, its the employer. No one is looking out for the worker, other than the union. Its not the union's job to be looking after the long term interest of the industry, and that's why they don't negotiate on behalf of the industry. Look at what happened to the American auto industry. Granted, unions had only a limited role in causing the collapse, (I still blame bad corporate management for not responding to competition or taking longer term planning), but they weren't willing to settle for benefits that were sustainable in the global economy, and eventually chased their jobs outside of their states, and eventually the country.
    • redmonkey, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Tax founded health care? Are you ready to 15-20% sale tax and 8$ per gallon gas similar to Europe? There is not such thing as free health care.
    • mountaincable, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Its not like the french don't have a history of beheading poor leaders...
    • brad3378, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1I agree we should end the war, but I disagree about having socialized health care.
      Socialized health care will effectively transfer wealth from taxpayers to non taxpayers (such as retired baby boomers).
      At the moment, our National Debt is approximately $9 Trillion, but only about 177 million of our 300 million population pays more than $0 in Federal income tax (Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/141 ... ). That's more than $50,000 per 'active' taxpayer! To me, this is proof enough that the Baby Boomers have already gotten more than their fair share of the pie and I think it's time for all of us to start paying our own way. The money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from our taxes.
  • jetboyterp, on 11/22/2007, -17/+29Strikes are the national pastime in France. Nothing new here...
    • johnhummel, on 11/22/2007, -6/+21'Which is why they have universal health care, education, high standards of living, and huge vacation times every year.

      Seems that unions are very good for the middle class - if they have the balls to use them when they're being stomped on.
      • jetboyterp, on 11/22/2007, -17/+6We don't have education and a high standard of living in th States? And last time it was tried...no one wanted universal healthcare here. Plus, France has a very high unemployment rate.
        • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -5/+15That's *****. Most people want Universal Healthcare. And France has a higher life expectancy than us, along with 38 other countries.
          • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -3/+6Does that have to do with Universal Healthcare of lifestyle? I think you're being disingenuous here. Look around you. Americans are fatter, eat ***** diets, don't exercise, and are more likely to die young from things like auto accidents and murder.
          • jetboyterp, on 11/22/2007, -7/+4No...most people here DON'T want universal healthcare. Hillary tried it, with her "Healthcare Express" bus tour around the country...and most everyone said NO! If you can show me even one poll where anything close to a majority want universal healthcare, I'll eat my hat.

            We have the best, top-notch medical treatment in the world. People come from all over to be treated here. In places with socialized medicine, however, people often die waiting just to see a doctor. I want my doctor to tell me when I can get treatment...not the government beurocracy.
          • zombies187, on 11/22/2007, -2/+9jcm, don't you think that our 'every man for himself' culture is inhumane and at the root of our 'lifestyle' problems? Here we set the example that murder is OK; it's GOOD to kill if you have a good enough reason. We subsidies sugar and beef and McDonald's and think that the free market is making people fat. We're not even promoting logical thinking there. Universal health care would be cheaper and give us healthier workforce. Why should I as a restaurant entrepreneur be responsible for figuring out my employees health care? If we are competing with china shouldn't we level the playing field by subsidizing our workers health care as well as theirs? Also, if UHC was the law of the land and accepted by republicans...I think that would give the repubs the permanent majority they have been looking for. (shudder)
          • there, on 11/22/2007, -1/+7jetboyterp wrote: "If you can show me even one poll where anything close to a majority want universal healthcare, I'll eat my hat."

            Eat it in small bites to make swallowing it easier

            "n an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system".

            http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcar ...
          • there, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4jetboyterp wrote: "If you can show me even one poll where anything close to a majority want universal healthcare, I'll eat my hat."

            Hell... one more for the road. (incidentally I recommend the straw kind for greater nutritional value) You should really consider using Google prior to misinforming people with your opinions.

            "A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare"
            http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-r ...
          • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1@jetboyterp:

            "We have the best, top-notch medical treatment in the world."
            If you can afford it.

            "People come from all over to be treated here."
            If they can afford it.

            "In places with socialized medicine, however, people often die waiting just to see a doctor."
            Because everyone has this twisted notion that if you have universal health care, you're entitled to ineconomic treatment that won't significantly extend your life, OR do so in a manner that was fiscally impossible for the population to sustain.

            Why on earth should socialized medicine be funding organ transplants, or expensive medical treatments to someone that doesn't have a chance of surviving past a month (or in France, nanny service to newborn couples)? Leave the "Hail Mary's" for the rich, and institute a reasonable universal healthcare that has some form of private management component. Let the gov't mandate the minimal standards, and then let the market figure out how to fulfill them.
        • johnhummel, on 11/22/2007, -2/+10We don't have free college education. Used to in Texas and California, and then they lost it.

          Funny thing about the high unemployment rate. Remove the college students in France - the ones getting free college education, who aren't working so they can focus on their education (age 18-23), and you get equal unemployment rates between France and the US.

          Only, now you have a population where the majority of young people have college degrees, so they can earn more income to pay for that universal health care and education. I'm not saying France is perfect, but they're more willing to give up some things to get a better life.
          • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -4/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
          • zombies187, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3jcm, France is shown here to be above many staggeringly rich countries. Isn't it more about the life of the average citizens?
          • smackhero, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1GDP doesn't mean ***** when the income gap is so high here in the U.S. the median annual household income in the U.S. is $40k (before taxes). that puts the average american family well below the middle class suburbanite depicted in TV shows and movies as the common american. the fact of the matter is, the average american is not enjoying the american dream and the financial prosperity that the privileged minority enjoy. the average american would profit greatly from a system like France's. the average american is in desperate need of universal healthcare and socialized higher education.
        • smackhero, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1france may have higher unemployment, but at least their unemployed enjoy higher living standards. the U.S. has the highest poverty rate of any developed nation: 14%. whereas france only has a 6% poverty rate--and every one of them has free healthcare.
      • BassMastr, on 11/22/2007, -5/+7Their definition of high standard of living and my definition of high standard of living are two different things. Universal health care doesn't mean it's high quality free health care. Yes, the big vacations are nice, but that shouldn't be decided by the govt. Unions make sure everything takes forever to get stuff done there. Just about anyone who wants to go to school here and works hard can get free money to go to college. I was happy to return home after four years. Be careful what you wish for...
        • pgouy, on 11/22/2007, -3/+5As a French myself (now living overseas) i couldn't agree more. Everything is expensive, taxes are insane, health care isnt wath it used to be, economy stagnant, strikes every month... What a waste..
      • catalysis, on 11/22/2007, -2/+9Apparently you have never seen the French slums.
  • Narrator, on 11/22/2007, -18/+3So let me guess, people are striking because of all the global warming the transportation system creates? Finally somebody is taking direct action to combat global warming on a large scale!
  • drewpost, on 11/22/2007, -4/+19I was in Paris for the day on Tuesday and it was ridiculous. Traffic at rush hour was INSANE. We were up on the top of the Eiffel Tower and all you could see was GRIDLOCK in all directions on all streets. We had to walk from the Tower to the Louvre before we found a cab to get us back to Gare du Nord. Along the way there was a convoy of 10 Gendarmerie riot vans was blaring sirens and lights and we were making more progress then they were. It was pretty nuts.
    • niczar, on 11/22/2007, -3/+16No gridlock on the bike lanes. My bicycle is not on strike. Get off your lazy ass.
    • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7By the time you got to the Louvre, you'd already walked half the distance from the Tower to Gare du Nord.
    • Tippis, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4Good thing that the centre of Paris is perfectly sized for walking, then... :)
  • BlaenkDenum, on 11/22/2007, -12/+4The new type of revolution.
  • lordmetroid, on 11/22/2007, -20/+21Civil servants doesn't produce anything anyway. This will be a boom for the economy!
    • bodger, on 11/22/2007, -7/+21This strike was planned for 1988, but they've only just got the paperwork in completed...
  • Memitim, on 11/22/2007, -8/+21Seems like the perfect opportunity to wean some of the unnecessary positions from the public funding teat. It'd be difficult to determine the necessity of some positions due to their overlap with others, but not having people working in many areas might just illustrate what a pointless tax burden they are on the country. Wish we'd do the same here in the US; having the government as the largest single employer in the country is nothing to brag about.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -4/+9Or watching France grind to a halt might show how necessary they are. :)
      • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -9/+2HAHAHAHAHAHA
      • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2Or show the complete lack of redundancy associated with having government and union monopolies control things with a iron fist.
  • bojee12, on 11/22/2007, -9/+0I was there for a visit a month ago. I can't imagine how poor peoples' trips are during this time. Where's my cup of coffee??!
  • tehxen3, on 11/22/2007, -20/+6Just fire all those welfare losers who are leeching off productive people.
    • terrordome, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2Collectivize every corporation and put the workers and consumers in charge.
  • URnotheonly1, on 11/22/2007, -15/+8It's what happens when a population is employed by the government. 60% of the USA work force is employed by a local, state or the federal government. They will never vote for a spending cut.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -1/+9The federal government is only a fraction of the US work force, I might add.
    • tehxen3, on 11/22/2007, -2/+11Number is about 10-15%, not 60...
      • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6Bah - screw facts! This is politics!
      • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Less probably. You must mean all forms of public employment (federal, state, & local).
    • videographer, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3>60% of the USA work force is employed by a local, state or the federal government.<

      Citation, please. Facts or it didn't happen.
  • stephbangm, on 11/22/2007, -3/+3Puissance!
  • Damian91, on 11/22/2007, -7/+18If only America was like that....
    • tsotha, on 11/22/2007, -6/+6...we wouldn't be able to get to work either? Can you imagine living in Paris and your mom having a heart attack and be unable to get her to a doctor? No thanks, I'll take the US.
      • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2You STUPID, propagandistic twit. That does not happen in Paris.
    • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1If many of the people here get their way it will be. Then they will promptly complain that the huge government they create are listening to their phone calls. tsotha, great point, I wonder how many people have died because they couldn't get to the hospital in a timely manor, a statistic the socialist unions will see to it you NEVER know.
  • Devotia, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4If Americans didn't have mainstream media I can only think of good things happening (TSS and Cheers reruns all day, for one)
  • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+14France has a pretty rich history of taking to the streets. Read about the Paris Commune or May 1968.
    • terrordome, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2The Paris Commune, may it be remembered forever.
  • graviplana, on 11/22/2007, -2/+12"Prime Minister Francois Fillon later blamed militant unionists for the "criminal acts"."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7106419.stm

    I don't have any evidence, but it just smells fishy to me. Nice use of 'Militant' there. Inaccurate, to say the least.
    • HUKI365, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1Heh, come to Western Australia, I'll show you how millitant unions can be...
    • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -3/+3From Merriam Webster: Militant: (2) aggressively active (as in a cause): combative

      No inaccuracy as far as I can tell. To quote Inigo Montoya - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
    • solid12345, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1Gee, militant is inaccurate but call insurgents in Iraq terrorists and left-wingers go nuts saying that is a false term.
  • TGMD, on 11/22/2007, -24/+19Reason #95 of Why I hate Unions
    • niczar, on 11/22/2007, -8/+17Sweat shop owners hate unions too.
      • TGMD, on 11/22/2007, -9/+9What kind of logic is that?

        Yes, Unions are good in limited circumstances but things go way too far when they form cartels.

        Just because sweat shop owner hate unions doesn't necessarily mean that unions are all good,

        Grow Up.
        • jetboyterp, on 11/22/2007, -8/+1You're asking for "logic" from the liberal left? Shame on you...

          ;-)
        • Elranzer, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4Wal-Mart hates unions, too. It's right in their indoctrinating video series you have to watch if you get employed there. Instant termination if you even speak with a union rep on Wal-Mart grounds.
      • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -8/+9Indeed. The threat of a union is great, but unions ruin companies. Look at Detroit.
        • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -10/+8Um, Detroit was ruined by unimaginative CEOs reliant on gas-guzzling ***** who outsourced their labor to wage slaves overseas in economically half-dead countries. ***** that *****.
          • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -6/+7Oh, look! I've got a new enemy who responds to everything I say!

            "Gas guzzling *****" were what Americans wanted in the 1990s and early 2000s. Detroit would not have made them if there was no incentive, and sales of these cars kept those companies afloat. Thanks to the unions, it costs quite a bit more for an American auto company to build a car in America than a (non-union) Japanese company.
          • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -2/+8Sorry, JCM but that is wrong. The wage gap between Japan and the US in the auto-industry is largely due to health care costs that the Japanese have paid by the government, but that the Big-3 have to pay themselves. Case in point - on November 15 the UAW agreed to have health care benefits largely moved off of Ford's books and into a private trust. Ford reported that that move largely eliminated the $30/hour wage gap between Ford and its Japanese competitors. If the US had universal health care like Japan does, Ford wouldn't have been in this position in the first place.
          • videographer, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1>Ford reported that that move largely eliminated the $30/hour wage gap between Ford and its Japanese competitors. <

            Yeah, but do you think that'll be reflected in the actual cost of the cars? Not a chance.
          • twomeyw23334, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2echininda!??? health care!!??? Do you realize most Japanese cars are assembled in the US? If you are building a car in the US for a Japanese company it doesn't mean you have Japanese health coverage. Honda and Toyota can build a car in the US for %20-%30 less than their Ford and GM counterparts. Ford and GM can't possibly design a competitive car with those types of margins (because of unions).
          • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3@echinda

            I'm pretty sure that a lot of their money have more to do with pensions and healthcare benefits for retireees than anything else. Explain how UHC in Japan has anything to do with the cost of labor at assembly plants in the USA.
          • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2@jcm267

            Ford and GM can't design a competitive car, because they are too focused on meeting quarterly revenue reports, rather than competing with the Japanese on product quality. Instead of designing cars that are more fuel efficient and reliable, they produce SUVs, because those cars get the best profit margin, and then get killed in the car market when gasoline prices make those SUVs uneconomically sustainable.

            What American car can I get that can compare to the Toyota Yaris in reliability, fuel consumption, and price?
          • echinda, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1@twomey - for some reason Digg won't let me reply directly. I messed up in my post - I shouldn't have said "wage gap" because I meant "all in cost of labour gap". It is the historical cost of labour that is killing the Big 3. If they had had UHC in the 50's, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
        • bobbyi, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Or our public school systems.
      • EntangledPhysx, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3One job I have where I'm in a union, my boss treats me like a second-class citizen, because he knows he cant just fire me (apparently). At my other job where the work is alot harder (FedEx), there is no union, but management respects me as a person, not as a soulless drone like at my union-job. I heard bad things at UPS (unionized) from friends who worked there, where i never had such experiences at FedEx. Thats my experience...
        • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1And that is the key to the problem.

          Unions wouldn't exist if management could be counted upon to "reasonably" look after the employee's interest. Management (like Walmart) that only looks to squeeze every last penny out of their labor, and their quarterly report, pretty much causes union recruiting.

          Sure unions are evil, but only when compared to a better situation. In an ideal world, there would be no unions, but because of greedy asshats, they make unions the lesser evil.
    • f54280, on 11/22/2007, -3/+5Why are you saying that ?

      Civil servants are seeing their salaries raised to less than the inflation, and will now be required to work longer to get their pension benefits.

      Isn't that a good enough reason to go on strike? Of course, the private sector workers already have to work more to get their pension, but that is because they have been ***** over by the "employer union", the medef, in the last few years.

      On the other hand, as soon as he was elected, the French president just voted a 15 billions of euro of tax cut for the rich (in a way to limit the higher bracket of the tax range), then voted himself a 200% raise (yes, that is a x3 salary augmentation). French congressmen get a life-long pension by being elected once, and have recently voted themselves a 30% raise.

      That is a good and necessary strike. And I am French, I live in Paris, so I suffer in transports, and I am NOT in the civil servant sector, so I don't benefits from the strike.
      • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -4/+3I have a question about your "tax cuts for the rich". How much more of a percentage of their income do the rich pay versus the middle class and what France calls "poor"?
        • f54280, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1The tax shield is fixed at 60% of the revenue. It means that you cannot pay more than 60% of your yearly revenues in taxes.

          The "poorest" people, pay no revenue taxes.

          Seeing that way, you may think that this law is a good thing.

          Unfortunately, and as usual, the things are more complex than it seems, and you should take the following into account:
          * the 60% barrier is on the sum of 3 taxes: revenue, housing and fortune (there is a fortune tax in France, if your wealth is higher than 763keuros, and that tax can be as high as 1.8% if your wealth is higher tan 15m euros)
          * the poor have only salaries revenue. taxes on the salaries themselves (for wellfare and other things -- before revenue tax) can be as high as 40%. rich people generally have no salaries, as those are heavily taxed.
          * most of the money spent by the poor is used on housing (not taxed), and buy of goods, itself taxed at 19.6%

          there are additional complexities, like the fact that revenues in form of salaries are taxed much higher than revenues from capital gain (or stock options), and the fact that "work wealth (ie:factories, etc)" are removed from the wealth for fortune calculation etc, etc.

          The net result of the french taxing system is that the amount of revenue taxes paid by the highest fortunes is generally very small, as they posses companies and use this to post net negative revenues. This was already the case before the new law.

          Of course the non-work related wealth of those people was taxed (the fortune tax).

          Now, thanks to the new law, such people will be able to post next to no personal revenues (due to creative accounting) AND will be able to use that to protect themselves from the need to pay a fortune tax (ie: they will have even less incentive to invest into things that actually produce work to people). That loophole is estimated to 15billions of euros.

          Note that people have high salaries but no fortune are NOT concerned by this disposition, as the highest they could be taxed before was 48% of 80% of their revenue (well, a new change will make that 40% of 100% of their salaries), well under that 60% barrier.

          Sorry for the long post. Hope it is clear enough.
      • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1See this is the problem with leftist idiots. They give the government all the power in the world and then are appalled when "French congressmen get a life-long pension by being elected once, and have recently voted themselves a 30% raise." WHAT THE ***** DID YOU EXPECT?
        • skyteria, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Isn't the government in power now a conservative government?
  • Boing, on 11/22/2007, -11/+3Oh yeah, that's what America needs...to be like the French.
    • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -6/+2/sarcasm
    • thagr8one2110, on 11/22/2007, -4/+11They just might, being as how France is better than us in almost every important category (health care, economy, inventions, etc)

      Nice try though.
      • jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -5/+2/sarcasm?
      • tsotha, on 11/22/2007, -7/+5No, the French are far worse in all three of those categories. "Economy"? Was that supposed to be a joke?
  • positron, on 11/22/2007, -2/+20The French philosopher, Alexis De Tocqueville, once said "America will last until the populace discovers that it can vote for itself largesse out of the public treasury." How ironic.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -1/+17Close...: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

      The REAL AdT: "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

      "As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?"

      "Grant me thirty years of equal division of inheritances and a free press, and I will provide you with a republic."

      "I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all."

      "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."

      "In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned."

      "No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country."

      "The French want no-one to be their superior. The English want inferiors. The Frenchman constantly raises his eyes above him with anxiety. The Englishman lowers his beneath him with satisfaction."

      "The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through."

      "What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class."
    • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1No doubt positron, no doubt. Except that these people aren't trying to vote, they are trying to force themselves more money from the public treasury
  • RavagesOfTime, on 11/22/2007, -9/+9Maybe one day....who am I kidding?

    We'll never figure it out in the US. You can barely get 5 people to stand up for something anymore. 5 million? And miss "Phenomenon"?
  • graviplana, on 11/22/2007, -2/+7http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSL19106 ...

    "Unions condemned the sabotage attacks and said there was no proof any of their members had been involved. A senior SNCF executive blamed militant strikers for the damage and President Nicolas Sarkozy called for crack police teams to be dispatched to hunt down the culprits."

    So the Unions, known for peaceful protests, deny their involvement in the complex, highly coordinated, systematic 'sabotage' of key communication points used by the railway system, a complicated network of transportation infrastructure comprised of cables, sensors, computer systems and multiple types of personnel - usually constructed with a basic level of security by governments and powers that be to ensure that they are not easily disrupted. Check. Meanwhile, the government vows to punish the 'Militants' who are responsible. So a repeat of the word 'Militants' on Reuters. Interesting.
  • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -5/+8The revolution IS being televised...until the TV news stations join CBS and all go on strike also....
    So, coders, engineers, start ***** striking. I'm tired of EA making such ***** games.
    • crapmatic, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4But... you all are buying 'em.
    • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1One of those capitalist pampered useful idiots aren't you Zen
  • niczar, on 11/22/2007, -2/+8Standstill? That's quite the exaggeration. Shops are open, there's just some gridlock.
  • Zenas, on 11/22/2007, -1/+11The only way Americans will take to the streets is if their favorite TV program is disrupted. But that's coming - as soon as the dollar finishes it's downward spiral to the bottom and crashes.
    • tsotha, on 11/22/2007, -9/+1Americans have no reason to take to the streets.
  • jbmcb, on 11/22/2007, -8/+2"Many are also protesting against low wages and the increasing cost of living. The issue of a reduction in "purchasing power" as prices rise is currently a hot issue in France."

    LOL! So they want a raise to make up for inflation. That's not inflationary or anything. Someone needs to get on translating Friedman into French...

    • Mayfoev, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4Please understand that the salaries of the civil servant have grown during the last ten or fifteen years a lot less than the inflation..
      For them the cost of living seems more expensive each month..
    • ZenMojo, on 11/22/2007, -5/+5Friedman wasn't stupid. He admitted himself that a free market is only theory and only applicable in local communities where everyone benefits equally in exchanges.
      By the way, in the United States minimum wage NEVER FAILS to trigger an increase in real wages throughout the economy, raising purchasing power across the board and spurring economic growth.
      • jbmcb, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3Yeah, and the money used to pay those wages comes from the ether. Or increased taxes. Which do you think is more likely? Yes spending power increases for a bit, then prices go up to compensate for the wage increases, and the cycle continues. It's even worse for most of the public sector jobs, since they don't actually produce anything to expand the economy.

      • twomeyw23334, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1Free market works on more than local level. In global situations the poorest least developed part of the world benefit more than the richer more well developed areas which is what Friedman describes in his book "The World is Flat" and pretty much goes against what you're saying. France is practicing protectionism which just makes things worse for them. I didn't see how the recent US min wage hike spurred the economy.
        • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1stupidhead,

          "The act will raise the federal minimum wage twice more: to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008, and to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009." (Wikipedia)

          1) It hasn't come into effect yet.
          2) It is merely one economic variable in a plethora of variables. Only a competent economist with enough data will be able to produce a "reasonable" conclusion.

          This is moot anyway. The purpose of a minimum wage is not to stimulate the economy. Its to establish a baseline to determine to what level people who depend upon it can be economically exploited. Its a "human rights" issue, not an economic strategy. Everyones' salaries rising from its increase is merely an indirect consequence.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 11/22/2007, -12/+6When frogs strike!
  • maiku00, on 11/22/2007, -9/+18I admire how the French actually stand up for their rights. Here in America, we bend over and ask for more.
    • Scheissen, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3???
    • twomeyw23334, on 11/22/2007, -0/+5He's right. The average French person works about 2/3 the hours I do, gets 4x the vacation, receives govt health care benefits, and receive earlier retirement money, and they are the ones going on strike for MORE from their govt. We should all do the same, except that will inevitably lead to the govt taxing us more so they can fund it all ... D'oh!!

      Well, after they raise taxes we can go on strike again! Who is going to stop bending over and join me!
      • netant, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1But do you want to be a Frenchmen when France goes into an economic depression due to its state regulated economy? France has to answer to the global market, just like any other country.

        France has too much gov't interference. I wish the US gov't took up more "interference" like universal health care, monopoly regulation, and enforcement of fair practices in economic transactions.
  • asancho, on 11/22/2007, -17/+13Finding out the French are on strike is like finding out that your dog licked its own *****...
  • Icupnimpn2, on 11/22/2007, -2/+9All of America's civil servants are on a 1 day strike tomorrow. They call it "Thanksgiving,"
  • Scheissen, on 11/22/2007, -3/+3I bet 10 cars will burn.
    • terrordome, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1Hopefully more. Burn Paris, burn. Long live the proletariat.
  • actonbell, on 11/22/2007, -1/+11Ah the French! The world would be a more boring place without them.
    • netant, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1And the US would not have a competitor for the "Greatest concentration of arrogant assholes".
  • blankoboy, on 11/22/2007, -0/+8Telecommuting FTW! I'm telling you, they have to get more and more people telecommuting...the time and energy wasted going to and from work daily is unbelievable.
  • prashantpawar, on 11/22/2007, -9/+10Sarkozy needs to do what Ronald Reagan did during the air traffic controller strike in the 80s. Fire them all!
    • terrordome, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3Sarkozy needs to ***** off, just like Reagan should have.
      • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1Yeah, cause Jimmy Carter was doing such a great job
        /sarcasm
        • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Jimmy Carter did a better job for the country than Ronald Reagan. Unless you count successful harassment with your nation's military as the only criteria.
    • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Yes sir, and say, anyone who wants a job and actually wants to work, we have a ***** load of positions open.
  • BlackJackJester, on 11/22/2007, -10/+1Screw France
  • solid12345, on 11/22/2007, -6/+10Problem in France, right here

    "As teachers go on strike on Tuesday high-school pupils are expected to join students who have blocked and occupied many universities to protest government attempts to bring in more private investment into education."

    The left has been playing the youth card for years. I'm sorry but the average teenager is too ignorant to be knowledgeable about political affairs. It is sad some leaders like Hugo Chavez want to lower the voting age to 16, many teens can barely hold a job much less decide the fate of a nation. It is just a sleazy way to win votes, no different than bringing your kids to political rallies and putting a sign in their hand.
    • f54280, on 11/22/2007, -2/+5> The left has been playing the youth card for years. I'm sorry but the average teenager is too ignorant to be knowledgeable about political affairs.

      Uh ? Only a fool would not be able to understand what the Pecresse law is about (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_sur_l%27autonomie ... Basically, it will give "independence" to university (and will cut their budget), requiring them to find other source of revenues and will differentiates them. Inscription costs universities will go up (in France, inscription costs used to be free, or next to free), universities diplomas will have different values depending on where you went (ie: how much you paid). Of course student are concerned by that.

      Just avoid talking about a country you don't know much about. French schooling system is one of the best in the world, and the current government is just trying to monetize it.
    • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Absolutely solid, easy to get a kids mind all wrapped up in ideas of "revolution". That is EXACTLY why ***** want hormone filled 16 year olds to vote.
    • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Actually, I think this country (US) would be served by lowering the voting age to 16.

      1) Sixteen year olds have more time to pursue topics of national interest.
      2) This is a technological age. The younger you are, the more exposed you are to "new" information and new concepts.
      3) Sixteen year olds should have a say in gov't policies that will require them to get shot in the ass overseas.
      4) You can argue they know less about the "real" world, but I haven't seen anything which makes me think that a dumbass at sixteen is going to make better decisions than a dumbass at thirty. If older is wiser or more competent, why not raise the voting age to 25?

      Frankly, I wish the age of "majority" was lowered to sixteen. By that point, their concept of right and wrong is not going to be further developed, and in most countries, that is the point you're treated as an adult, and have to support yourself. The only reason why sixteen year olds seem incapable of taking care of their own affairs in this country is because the US infantilizes its children. Instead of "starting" to teach themselves to be more responsible at sixteen, teach them to be more responsible at fourteen.
  • superyounan1, on 11/22/2007, -3/+6why'd they elect him if they wont give his policies a chance?
    • f54280, on 11/22/2007, -1/+5Up until now, his policies were to get people working longer for worse pensions, to get an immediate 15billions euro tax cut on the highest revenues, to multiply his own salary by 3, and a few other things of the same flavor.

      The policies he is trying to put in the university (monetize them) and in the civil sector (cut their advantageous pensions) are not going to be reversible, so it seems logical that a lot of people are not going to give him a chance to screw them even more.
    • mavere, on 11/22/2007, -3/+4As far as I know, what he's currently doing was basically the platform he ran on. Considering that he won and that (I believe) his current poll numbers are positive, the strikers do not represent the majority of France's populace. And this is not so much the people rising against the man as it is an interest group pulling every string it can to get what it wants.
      • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3It is amazing people buy your argument, but one would hope that since same was true for George W Bush at one point more people might stop and think before agreeing with you.
      • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1What's really needed is that France's voting population needs to take a good hard look at itself and figure out if they are more concerned about their current standard of living, or their future. If its the future, they need to have a strategy where they dismantle what doesn't work (gov't run socialism), and have a plan/philosophy in place where the rats don't steal the ship (Russia). From what I understand, the culture is so "indoctrinated" with a particular perspective, its probably not going to be possible for them to change until the aftermath of a serious economic crisis (which I have read some people claim is looming).
  • caferrell, on 11/22/2007, -2/+13Sarko is going to achieve Bush's approval ratings in less than one year in office!
    He is pounding on the war drum in the Mideast which his constituents definitely do not want.
    He has changed the course of the French government drastically and he will not be able to control the demonstrations and riots that are now beginning without applying massive force, which will only make him even more unpopular.
    France is not the USA, so Sarko's past (hopefully past) connection with Israeli intelligence will not fly as well in Paris as it does in Washington and New York.
    They hate him for lengthening the work week and are only waiting to see if it means that workers will actually get bigger paychecks. They won't. When they realize that they won't be paid more, but will have to work more, old Sarko is going to have the pleasure of dealing with civil disturbances a la francaise.
    Good luck butthead.
    • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2I REALLY don't get his ridiculous support for Bush's foreign policy. It doesn't help him or France politically. France is slightly more dependent on Mideast oil than the US; I don't see how it helps him or France "needlessly" antagonize Iran.

      I get the feeling Sarkozy wants to bring France closer into the US economic orbit, a la Tony Blair, but its not going to happen unless Sarkozy can implement the equivalent of the Tory revolution of the 1980's.

      If he doesn't take a strategy where he is implementing more radical economic reforms than cutting margins on pensions, or increases in salary, he's going to be screwed in a few years when little changes in France for the better.
  • Nerys, on 11/22/2007, -4/+10THATS how you do it. For better are worse its the PEOPLE who are supposed to be in charge NOT the government. They are here to SERVE US. The sooner we realize this and do as the french do the sooner we can return freedom to this once great nation.
    • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1The essense of Democracy. If your country consists of a population of dumbasses, the gov't will operate like its run by dumbasses. Look at the US as an example.

      French people need to realize they compete in a global market, and that will eventually determine their standard of living. From that point on, they need to figure out how can they be more economically competitive and still hold onto what is important to their culture.

      They need a fire in the house from which they can figure out what they REALLY need. You really need to get the kids out, you then can determine how badly you need to rescue the parents, the family pet, the X francs in bearer bonds, the family heirlooms, the Sony playstation, etc.

      If you have a nation of people who think they can ensure job security by law, raise wages by union strike, prevent people from working to increase the working pool, and to economically favor large, establish business over the entrepeneur, they're pretty much screwed.
  • kerryhall, on 11/22/2007, -2/+10Solidarity for the working class.
  • LinuxGalore, on 11/22/2007, -2/+7That must be the scam of the century...

    1. Reduce the average hours and wages in the working week to force employers to hire more staff.
    2. Watch as employers dont hire more people and country tanks.
    3. Increase hours again but dont increase weekly wages to match.
    4. Sit back and watch people burn cars
    5. Priceless.
    • maffiou, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1I think you're mistaken...
      The reduction of weekly hgours was done without paycut in most cases
      The increase in the weekly hours are volontary and will be paid extra (work more for more money is the moto)

      The people on strike are upset about a different issue... The fact that they may lose the possibility to retire at 50 on full pay...
  • londubh, on 11/22/2007, -7/+1say this in an outrageous French accent: "I need to buy wine for my children."
  • NatashaCall, on 11/22/2007, -8/+2By the way, did anyone mention that Hillary Clinton's programs are what the French are trying to get away from and why their taxes are so high? Ah, yes...their taxes are so high because of the Health Care Programs of Equality for all (Socialism), and etc. Sound familliar? They are a country going through many changes in these current times. To make the changes like those after making the mistakes of giving the socialistic programs like those are going to be causing riotous behavior, regardless of whether this strike relates or not. Being not from that country, and being not from those working in those forces striking, the details are only what we are given by our media...whom I don't trust past the "drama and entertainment" (for the majority). The other comments are quite insightful into the situation. I appreciate others points of view.
    • jonathansoeder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+5You fail at life. If you add up all the health care and education costs you incur on the free market, you pay more than the french and get much less from your society. Oh, and you work much more , take less vacation, read less books, speak fewer languages, die of more stress related illnesses. Good Game buddy.
      • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1But is EVERYBODY really entitled to a graduate education? Is it a guarantee if you put out people with degrees, that there will be better paying jobs? (Look at really poor countries like in Africa or SouthEast Asia.) What would be so terrible to allow only the top 10% of testing applicants get a free ride in college? Do you really need to provide every newborn with their own nanny for the first few months?

        Don't get me wrong. I am no supporter of this screwed up capitalist system we have in the US, but I think all parties involved need to educate themselves as to the "aerodynamics" of economics, and mold their public policy based on what will fly, and what won't.
  • arnoldrimmer, on 11/22/2007, -0/+0http://voorgevorderden.com/images/difference_eu_an ...
  • soymalau, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1France is NOT the country of strikes, if you read french a bit have a look at this : http://www.acrimed.org/article2415.html

    And if you don't just look this : http://www.acrimed.org/IMG/gif/Graphique6.gif

    This is the ranking of european countries in termes of days of strike per employee. (1998-2004)
    • netant, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Its not enough to look at a factoid, and then base a conclusion upon that factoid.

      Who cares if Denmark and Spain strike for more days than France? How were the strike statistics compiled? Who's to say which industries were hit by strikes significant enough to harm the economy? If you get a strike at LG, its harder to get a TV. If you get a strike of the transporation system, then the city/region shuts down.
  • LargeTrout, on 11/22/2007, -4/+6You Americans need to learn from the French. Do like they do and your Government will stop removing your freedoms and your police will stop tasering you and denying you your Constitutional rights. No other country has a Constitution like America, and yet it's such a waste if all you're going to do is sit on your asses reading Digg all day moaning about how ***** your country has become. Do something, like the French. And do it now before it's too late.
    • govsucks, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2So I should stop them from removing my freedom to chose my health care, the freedom to chose my retirement plan, they freedom to chose how my income is spent? Sounds like a good idea to me. The people in France are standing up for LESS freedom and more government control. Freedom and socialism have NOTHING to do with each other.
      • LargeTrout, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1Er, no. I'm saying you need to protest in large numbers about Bush TAKING AWAY your freedoms. The French are an example in that when the government do something they don't like, they make sure the government knows about it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.