The Old Prof

What is the matter with the French originally written Wednesday March 2, 2003 slightly updated Tuesday July 16, 2003 A good part of what is the matter is that we differ in our basic orientation toward perhaps five things. Food Law Politics Culture Foreign policy Religion And of course the French think they are better educated than we are. So first, · Food: The menus are lifted fromhttp://www.idlewords.com/weblog.03.2003.html#132 the post of 3/16/03 (and an interesting site that can be read with benifit and which is a bit less tongue in cheek than some elements of this post) School cafeteria food for French and American students: Menu: French school Lunch Iceberg lettuce with radishes and vinaigrette Grilled fish with lemon Stewed carrots Emmental cheese Apple tart White cabbage salad [remoulade] Sauted chicken with mustard Shell pasta coulommiers [soft cheese] Apple compote liver paté and a cornichon hamburger peas and carrots mimolette [Edam-like cheese] fruit Cucumber salad with herbs Spiced sausage Lentils Saint nectaire [cheese] floating island [meringue served on custard] potato salad filet of fish with creamed celery sauteed lima beans yogurt fruit American school Lunch: Zweigel's™ hot dog on a roll with tater tots Tyson™ chicken fingers with rice and gravy Double cheeseburger with Fritos™ chips Mozzarella stixs [sic] with tomato sauce and garlic pasta noodles Stuffed crust cheese and pepperoni pizza [selected of course for greatest impact and not the best of both bests. sorry] What are you going to do with people like that? If they are aware of the disparity of course the French are going to have a supercilious, arrogant view of American. How annoying to those of us who aren't superior. Law French law is based on the Code of Justinian, a rather autocratic version of Roman law where until May 24, 2000 there was a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. And who knows how seriously the new

law on the presumption of innocence,

. has actually affected the present perceptions and actions of French courts. The Police don't like it, blaming it for a perceived rise in crime and decline in respect for the police. The press hates it and one wonders if it will actually be applied. American law is based on English Common law where a thing is what it is because it was set down as so in the time of Henry the second or has been done for long enough to have become custom, " time out of mind", or "since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" and you are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty. The implications of this are enormous. The French police only arrest the guilty and this new law lets culprets get away with their crimes. American police sometimes arrest law abiding citizens and the presumption of innocence lets the innocent go home to wife and kiddies. This would be worthy of another, different, discussion. (I may have to look up the relevant rates of arrest, conviction and subsequent jailings) No wonder we don’t understand each other. Politics French politics is of course pushed by what France perceives as best for France. That’s fine but French and American perceptions are in collision at times and what is good for one is not always good for the other. One of the clashes arises because France has a huge, 5 million strong, Islamic presence. That presence is restive and prone to violence because of its enormous employment problem, its high crime rate and its religious orientation. French politicians must take cognizance of this presence and these problems. Now everything is exacerbated by the Iraqi war which the French Muslims see or find convenient to see as a war against Islam. French interests are also tightly bound to Iraqi oil which thy need and in which the government has a large financial investment as co owners of one of the heavy development and importing companies doing business with Iraq. American intervention in the area threatens the existing contracts and will inevitably give the Americans a powerful say in how that oil is further developed and allocated in a very large and somewhat undeveloped post war region. France may lose highly in all this. If one wonders why the French are acting so intransigently and saying things so calculated to provoke American anger one may look no further than this. This alone is enough to explain "what the hell is wrong with the French." Americans see them as acting in their own interests but claiming the high ground by assuming a holier than thou attitude on the issue. Thus Americans see clearly that the French statements against the Iraqi war are often little better than cant. And their pious mouthings of insincere moral platitudes are offensive. However there is more. ·RELIGION The French view religion differently than do the Americans. Probably less than twenty percent of the French populace and vastly less than that of the French "ruling classes" view religion with much reverence or feel it is of importance to them. More than that, they tend to see religion as an agent for ignorance and illogic. The American president’s overt religiosity which sells so well with large numbers of the american electorate fills the French with contempt. The French aim not at religious freedom but for freedom from religion. For example, the French have lately introduced to the cabinet level a department to suppress or control “cults”. Among those cults is the religion to which the American President “belongs”. Since America itself professes about 80% allegiance to one or another religion the French are repulsed by both the American president's and the American publics' profession of religion. And "RELIGIOUS" Americans are repulsed by the French insomuch as the French actually reveal their attitudes on this question. What is going on at this level is little more than a thinly veiled cultural war; a verbal war of religion. The oddity here is that the French are catering to the views of their super religious minority while aggravating the American religious majority. They can do so domestically because annoying the one, the American, delights the other, the French Muslim, and probably gratifies the average Frenchman while making France seem more powerful on the world stage because it is resisting the American superpower. For this they pay a price in the eyes of the American public. This price seems to be escalating into a real economic penalty. French foreign Policy And that brings us to the next phase , French foreign policy. At this point Domestic Policy is Foreign Policy. Add to this the old theme that under external threat potential rivals pull together and get along. Remove the threat and preexisting rifts enlarge. The threat of the Soviet Union is gone. Neither France nor America any longer have to accommodate that which was accommodated for self preservation. Americans no longer give France the benefit of the doubt(s); and Americans now have a lot of them. When the French openly pursue a policy of pragmatic self-interest they are nakedly exposed as selfish. Since Americans are no longer acting as in the unselfish old days of the Marshall Plan, but in a new more overtly self interested way French and American interests more readily collide . Beyond this it is not just the case that the French no longer need the Americans but that America no longer needs France. France has built a vast Social welfare system, which she deeply needs, off the back of the American defense of Europe. France was able to put more money into her welfare system because America bore the greatest burden of European defense. Thus now America can do without the French army because it is not that large or effective any way, the French having invested their money elsewhere. France is now staggering under her welfare spending and can't afford to build a large armed forces. If an enemy appears and America has withdrawn one wonders what France will do. Hence I suppose the European Union. But France has now arrogantly angered many of the members or potential members of that union by telling them they ought to shut up. "What is wrong with France?" That certainly wasn’t in their interests. Cultural Perhaps here we are back to the cultural dimension and to old anxieties and regrets spewing forth from the deepest levels. France was once one of the world’s great powers, with empire, prestige and glory. Today she is inundated with American tourists who wander around unaware of Frances tender psyche, seeing ancient greatness as quaint and cute. France needs their dollars so she grits her teeth and waits for bad weather. But her politicians know how to gain votes in desperate straits and play the anti-American card and win. You can neither top nor stop that. And it plays out on the worlds stage. Thus when France seems to have a safe chance to both vent the old animosities and strike out against Americas annoying, arrogant, overweening power men like Chirac do so. It wins votes, and heartens the home crowd. American bashing just plays so well domestically and gives France the illusion of playing a role again on the world’s scene that it seems hard to resist. Thus it seems to many Americans that the French are not anti-war, that they are anti those who are fighting it. What may be annoying the French further is that America is willing to go it alone. At least being a big part of the U.N. gave France an illusion of being a major player. America has destroyed that illusion. Unforgivable. And further, and astonishingly: America has identified a problem that was both somewhat immediate but potentially large and intransigent and moved to remove it before it became unmovable. Amazing! Amazing many Americans and apparently all French.. Second Round Everyone please go to the board for the dictee. Nothing but cent por cent will be acceptable. The French who are so proud of their logic and who can now claim to have taught America real politic have just let emotion and short-term gain dictate their long-term well being. I am not saying that there was nothing deeper and more Machiavellian involved in both American and French actions, but there is that. And they, the French, seem stunned that America has acted on principles of real politic, having identified a potential and growing danger and acted in its own best interests, cloked it in moral terms but acted without the traditional moralistic hand wringing that has immobalized America in the past. It is dangerous to study too deeply into the ways of the enemy lest you become them. (Frodo, or was it Gandolph?). If this intervention works and America succeeds in rebuilding Iraq nearer the hearts desire France has just suffered a stunning defeat (or at least potential defeat) economically, politically and in the eyes of the American public. In the present economy this is no small thing. Economically France is suffering a small boycott in both tourism and exports right now. And instead of diminishing, this movement shows signs of remaining steady or even growing. One must just wait to see how soon, or even if, the American public forgets. Somewhat off the subject one might at this point go on into the other possible ramifications of the Iraqi thing, and they are immense. The British taught us, or we should have learned from their Empire experience, that it is easier to get into a thing than to get out. Having fought and lost men and women one can not just pull out without cheapening their sacrifice. We might ask too if democracy can just be exported to a people with no background for it. Perhaps we can give them the economic organization that will disperse some of the benefits of all that oil in a broader deeper way. Beyond that it may be that one can do something about an educational system that teaches its people that we are the vilest of peoples. Perhaps, but not likely. We are our own enemies there, exporting the hollywood view of a violent immoral, greedy United State culture. But the Iraqi religious element also is very deep, runs schools, hates evil and hates America because they believe the Hollywood caricature. Well, I am presuming that the Islamic world is getting their impressins of America from Hollywood. There may be more to it than that. I am afraid that it feels like it, but I like my theory too much to modify it now. I am tempted to think of implications for the U.N. which suddenly seems to many Americans as not only useless but actively acting against her best interests and populated by her ememies. France seems to have played in to the hands of the anti-UN American crowd. What also of the European Union, and.... but I guess we must hold ourselves to the topic with all the dedication and grim determination we have always shown. You may have noticed we are also ignoring "The germans." How did they avoid this active American antipathy so strongly felt for the French. Or have they?

Posted by at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

Can a convincing argument be made for African-American reparations? It would be pleasant to believe that at this late date some way could be found to punish the offenders and compensate the offended. Can it be done? I fear not. One might make an argument in some purely philosophical sense, arguing that such reparations were deserved; A sense which would include all groups who have ever been hurt,(such a small word for such harm) but not I think one which would include all those groups in any practical way. The resources of the earth and the patience and prejudices of its peoples would not suffice for such a gargantuan task. And to argue that one group should be favored over another would be to engage in special pleading, which would void its value and undoubtedly anger the groups that are left out and which might be asked to pay. One may of course argue that slavery is of such a reprehensible character that it simply trumps all other claims, whose claimants and which claims can be handled later if their decedents wish to do so. But , perhaps we need to deal with the American Indians first or at least jointly. Mass murder, genocide, confiscation of land, and the destruction of culture are powerful and apply here too. And they, the Native Americans, may also make the argument of enslavement. If we do include them, there will be nothing left with which to compensate anyone else. All land will be gone and so will we, I suppose "back to where we came from." Further, if we did try to compensate African Americans who should shoulder this burden? And how much compensation would be adequate, and in what form? One might make a purely pro forma apology and vote some inadequate amount but that would seem to be about it. And from where would even this compensation and these apologies be derived? Will the Arabic nations who crossed the Sahara and enslaved the Africans be compelled to admit their guilt and pay the price? Or is it the European nations who picked up the slaves and transported them around the world that will now pay for their ancient evil. I doubt that existing African groups whose ancestors enslaved neighboring tribes or even their own peoples are going to be enamored of the idea. And why should those among us whose ancestors disliked slavery, did not own slaves, and perhaps fought the system be now compelled to pay reparations for that which they then opposed. (Wasnt it King George himself who fastened upon us that most hateful of all human institutions.) Is there to be a time limit on the levying of reparations to avoid the millions who came to American after slavery was done away with? Surely illegal immigrants who exist in large numbers among us (uninvited guests) cannot be held culpable. But then again, perhaps they can. They may have had ancestors who captured, carried, sold or utilized slaves. Or if it can be proven that they themselves were of the enslaved public of their nations will we be compelled to compensate them for their nations indiscretions. Perhaps this will be a boon to the Genealogy industry. We can search the databases and find the great great grand children of salve owners and charge them. And since there will have been intermarriage with late comers and abolitionist progeny there can be a ratio worked out so that the pure descendents pay more and the mixed pay a lesser amount according to the percent of slave owning blood they inherited. Perhaps we could also compensate the decedents of slaves in the same way. After all, all African-Americans cannot have avoided intermixture with the white or otherwise population around them. Will we have to devise a scale of compensation that takes into account the percent of admixture? Is that a pleasant concept? What if some individual of African descent has at some late date married into a family with ancestry in the slave holding class? My wife is descended directly from the Maryland Mattinglys. They were slave owners. Her 10th(?) Great grandmother was a slave of the Mattinglys and had a child by the master, my wife’s 10th(?) Great grandfather. Her half black ( or half white ) 9th great grand father was recognized and raised in his fathers house. Should she receive reparations or should she pay them? How will that be handled? Is all this to be done on some long form issued by the Internal Revenue Department? Is that getting a little too internal? And if real money is involved will there be a rash of conversions to the benefited community? Are we looking at DNA testing of a massive type? And will there be fraud of an unbelievable scale? Probably. So, no, I doubt that a persuasive argument can be made for reparations to the African American community. But if a practical argument can be made which offers real solutions to present problems, and promises success, then let it be done and the sooner the better.

Posted by at 03:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (25)

What may be the result(s) of Europe’s falling birth rate? Most of the beginning of the expected result is already in place. Foreign workers have been brought in to fill the jobs that Europeans will not, cannot or do not exist in large enough numbers to do anymore. These workers are from North Africa, Pakistan and India for the most part. They are also to a large extent Moslem. And Europe is going to need more not less of them as effects of the already fallen birth rate begin to actually be felt. What we are seeing is a possible victory for Islam, in our century after being defeated by Charles Martel in an earlier one. Islam may well, in the coming century claim a Europe that they once failed to conquer. It may be little more peaceful this second time. But it also may not. We are already seeing the edges of what is to come. Germany has seen some renaissance of fascism in many of its angry youth. France is faced with an ultra nationalist candidate in a runoff this year. This is expressing itself as anti immigrant. All the countries of Europe may face the loss of what is traditionally European and its replacement with an amalgam of what can be mutually shared as disparate populations rub up against but do not blend with each other. If it were not for the religious element we might expect the immigrants to adopt European culture, but this is not likely. A transition like this is either not going to ultimately occur, or if it does, it is not going to occur happily or peacefully.. In a Europe become increasingly secular and cynical, even anti religious, witness the French law on cults, a huge influx of foreign workers who are the antithesis of all this is not really supportable. Neither side is going to want to give an inch. Expect the rise of Super nationalism in all these countries. Positions are already drawn. Expect violent reactions on the part of the workers who may well be supported by well organized, armed ,dedicated and already angry groups from home. I am of course speaking of the Islamization of Europe by workers from the Islamic world. They will most likely not be inclined to give in to anti Islamic rhetoric or violence. As Europeans try to use the cheap workers to support the failing social nets they have devised they will find problems. If they extend the social benefits to foreign workers the workers will swamp the system, and if they do not, those workers will rebel against such unequal treatment. There is going to be an economic clash complicated by cultural and religious elements unless Europe can find some way to hang on until her immigrant workers become as secularized as they. The chances of that are minute. One wonders if the Europeans will go the way of Rome, in filling even their armies with these foreigners of the border regions, filling the no longer desired army billets with those willing to take such positions to fill their bellies or to gain citizenship; And if so, will they be able to trust those armies? Or will Europe become Fascistic and expel these unwanted workers. In 1492 Spain did just that with Islam and the Jews and in one move lost almost everyone who knew what they were doing. They got away with it then because they found the riches of the new world. If they expel them now they will very likely crash their economies or social welfare systems. Expulsion is against Europe’s self-interest, but one determinant of Fascism is irrationality. If I were European I would try to find the riches of the new world again. I would be an immigrant as quickly as I could get a visa or stow away. The next wave of illegal immigrants to America may well be Europeans, West and East. They may also be North African immigrants from Europe because Europe looks more and more like a failed hope.

Posted by at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Can a good moral argument be made for the institution of private property This was a discussion based on two readings provided the participants The following is merely my part of it. I am not going to be able to talk philosophy with a philosopher [which is in fact what happened here]. My intent is to survive this discussion with some human dignity still intact. What does a moral argument look like ? Is the moral the wise, the good? If it doesn't work is it thus moral? We would have benefitted by a definition of terms. Perhaps a good moral argument can be made for the institution of private property. Neither of the philosophers cited here do so. If we postulate an original population upon a finite amount of land and resources we may assume the right of each individual to equal amounts of these resources. But as population increases, morally, the amount , proportion, of the right must diminish. Ideally (and is that morally?) as the resources are developed the return from the development would have to be equally shared. Since this seems impossible it may be that all property rights are founded on an immoral principle (based on some one grabbing others property and exploiting it) the extent to which this appropriation harms others will vary and as it varies become more or less moral but it remains more or less immoral in concept. If Uganda has tungsten and does not know it, or knowing it does not choose to, or does not know how to develop it, but I do, it does not follow that my knowledge and willingness confers any right to appropriate or develop the resource. The question even rises of Ugundas right to use the tungsten anyway it wants. A moral argument would perhaps hold that the resources of the world belong equally to all the world. That is, it has not been shown that a man has the right to mix his labor with an object and thus gain right to it. That amounts to little more than who grabbed first. Others may have formed intent and indeed formulated plans, perhaps better ones, for the use of the object or resourse. (And the question may be asked, does or does not proximity to a resource confer right to it) Does living upon or near such a resource constitute original appropriation or ownership, and the right to all minerals or resources above and below that earth. Or do all humans rather than individuals have some right to the property of the earth and thus some say in its use or miss use. Do we have property rights in the fisheries of the Galapagos or the whales of the sea and thus some moral right to regulate the use or miss use of such property regardless of whether we have mingled our labor with it, or live upon or near such objects. Probably, yes. Lockes ideas are little more than justification for theft. And Hegles ignores original ownership and justifies it by claiming that property ownership sets one on the path to self realization. His argument that the slave rather than the master benefits ethically from the process of changing the object does not take into account that the master is using the slave as a tool and it is thus the slave owner who has shaped and changed the thing. It may be true that laboring on a thing is a complex business and takes time but making a slave labor on it is also that. And it is the master who has the plan and who forces the slave to keep to it. Industrial or factory production is often so compartmentally organized and reduced to the lowest common denominator that the slave or factory worker has no idea what the plan is but rather performs endless repetitive movements to no discernable end. There is in this no self realization. The master is not poorer for having the work done. (P.372) If modifying something in the external world changes the person, it is the master, owner, who is changed. And the slave is the poorer thru spending time on what did not benefit him. As the pressure of population upon available resources becomes more severe some system of regulating the use of private property is inevitable. Private property will become less private as time passes. Society can not afford in a pragmatic way to leave all property unregulated by its owner. Honeres 9th stipulation, a duty to refrain from using X in a way that harms others is demonstrably in need of outside regulation. The lobster fishermen of the Galapagos and the whalers of Japan, acting in limited self interest will quite likely exterminate the property, to make the money they need. Who regulates this is a good question. How much force is permissible in such regulation is another. Both are better left to a later discussion. But: it seems to me that Lockes theory could justify Slavery. If I grab another man and train him, though by force, I have mingled my labor and made him mine. (It would seem to be abe to justify rape). Such appropriation [of another man] may be of the Impermissible variety though why so more than land grab I am not sure. This was my first round statement. We then went around again and I made another that I may or may not send you. Time constraints and laziness you know.

Posted by at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)