Captain's Quarters -

They interviewed a dope-smoking, flipflop-wearing "decorator" to get the "mood of the country"???

Wait, was this the Times of London or the New York Times? Sounds much more like the latter interviewing a typical democrat...

Come to think of it, this sounds like a typical democrats, too:

... tend to elect those who will protect them from reality.

But, as for the fwench election itself, they've got a choice between a hardcore socialist and a soft socialist. Who wins? Who cares? It's Fwance, and they're going down the crapper no matter what they do. It's just a question of how long they're willing to try to stay afloat.

I couldn't care less about who the frogs elect - because whoever it is won't help the people or the state - both are lost forever in ignominy and utter disgrace.

>>>Le Pen would create less division among his fellow citizens -- despite Le Pen's xenophobic rants

Hah, there's a typo. That should read "Le Penwould create less division among his fellow citizens *because* of his xenophobic rants.

Glad I could be of help there.

Uh, I'm thinking it's not just the Fwench who elect whoever promises protection from reality.

Does anyone care about French politics?

I say, send them some colorful sashes, a s**tload of small arms and some prefab guillotines. Then hope for the best.

Like and good right wing candidate, Sarkozy bases his campaign on fear. Even back on the Captains thread of 7 November 2005, Sarkozy was saying that the risk of terrorist attack in France is "at a very high level... There are cells operating on our territory." Two weeks ago, Sarkozy was still on the same theme, saying that the suicide bombings in Algeria and Morocco proved that there was a “real threat” of similar terrorist attacks on French soil (1).Just like in the US, Sarkozy also brings up 9/11 to aid his campaign (see “France’s Sarkozy Says France Might One Day Face it’s Own 9/11” BBC Monitoring Reports, 12 April).
This terrorism threat is brought up in relation to the great “Islamic threat”, whether its related to the riots a while back or Islamic terror attacks in Algeria today. So what is the terrorism situation in Europe in the world of reality? Europol released a report that looked at all the terrorist attacks in Europe in 2006. They talked about Islamic terror throughout the report, but how much does Islamic terror contribute to the overall terrorism risk in Europe? The report says that there were 498 terrorist attacks in Europe in 2006. How many were from Islamic terrorists?? (See link 2).

One.

1)The Financial Times, “Sarkozy Warns of ‘Real Threat’ in Run Up to French Election”, 13 April 2007, Page 7, Martin Arnold
2)http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/TESAT/TESAT2007.pdf

Thanks, Dave!

It's good to know that since there were no Islamists terrorists attacks in the US in 2006, we can all just forget about Al Queda and dismiss political candidates who talk about the illusory threat as "fear-mongers".

What a relief! Thanks, Reality!

Here's a question: if there is an Islamist terrorist attack in France, how will you then blame Sarko for it? Because we all know that like any good left-wing liberal, you're never going to blame the actual perpetrators. I mean for God's sake, man...they have brown skin! Brown!!!

rvastar:
"Here's a question: if there is an Islamist terrorist attack in France, how will you then blame Sarko for it?"

If there is any type of terrorist attack in France, of course the primary responsibility lies with the attacker. That is not the point, however. The point is that there is a huge gap between perceived risk and actual risk, and this gap exists due to deliberate manipulation of the public by politicians. First of all, the 498 terrorist attacks in Europe accounted for 2 deaths. The death of two people is tragic, but for a politician to consistently talk about a threat that took the lives of 2 people last year is ridiculous. On top of that, to focus on a subset of terrorists who were responsible for 0.2% of the total number of terrorist attacks last year is even worse. You really don't see a problem there? Do you think it might be possible that there is a deliberate propaganda campaign to demonize a particular group? If not, would you have guessed on your own that only 1 out of 498 terrorist attacks in Europe last year were carried out by Islamic groups? If you would not have guessed that, why do you think your perceptions are not matching reality? Did you know that most suicide bombings are carried out by secular groups? Did you know that out of 36 suicide bombings that occurred in Lebanon, nearly two-thirds were carried out be secular individuals? Did you know that Hezbollah is responsible for a total of 8 suicide attacks, all against the Israeli army? Why don't you know these things? Why doesn't the media portray these things as they exist?

rvastar:
Lets compare the terrorism risk to the risk of falling off a cliff. At least 177 people per year fall off cliffs in the EU every year. Why are there no candidates saying that they will put guardrails on all cliffs? This would save many more lives. Also, at least 2 people per year die from acne in the EU. You have just as much risk of dying from pimples as from terrorism.

Let the Islamofascists acquire nukes! After all, they can only kill two people in Europe per year, by dave's logic. Europe loses two people per year, choking to death on bacquettes.

Because past performance always predicts the future. Since today is sunny and dry, I forecast we will all die of thirst by the end of June.

By this logic, since the Islamofascists murdered 3,000+ people here on 9/11, they can't possibly murder any more than that? Or less? Or what?

NoDonkey:
Were you surprised to find out that out of 498 terrorist attacks in Europe last year, Islamic groups were responsible for one? Did that surprise you? Can you answer that one question?

I think the French election highlighted two important things... large democracies can still generate big turnouts on election day and that politics there, like the US, are moving back towards the centre and away from the fringes.

The turnout was extraordinary for a modern election. The vote for Royal was the largest ever for the Socialists in French history and it will be interesting to see if Sarkozy can overcome some of the negative polls which show a large number of voters turned off by some of his more stridewnt views.

The good news is that both of the parties involved in the upcoming run-off feature change and reform of the French economy which has not served its population very well and is desperate for the type of change both parties are campaigning for. The real question is how strong should the medicine be and that is what will shape the debate in France for until the run-off. The upcoming debates between Royal and Sarkozy will help many undecideds come off the fence.

i had the fortune to be working for a company that was puchased by a French firm in a buyout. That French firm was a nationaized Sate enterprsie.

It was eye opening to see senior vice presidents appointed to jobs for no other qualification that having deleiverd some vote in Marseilles or Vchy ot the governing party.

Over the course of the few years I saw rank stupidity, over and over, and eventually had bankruptcy facing them. Naurally the non French interests were layed off and a new crew of absolutely unqualified party hacks appointed ot high Office.

I left the firm but I understand it has shrunk into insignificance but lots of French jobs are still being maintained . The company hasn't made a dime in ages.

Socialism DOES NOT WORK !!!

Oh, I get it! It's the alarmist tone that you don't agree with...the appeals to emotion rather than facts and hard data, right?

Well, tell us, Dave:

How many people actually die each year from lack of health insurance in the US? Percentage wise, I bet it's a pretty minuscule number...so I guess we can put you down as not supporting universal health care, right? Now, which party is it again that's always talking about the "desperate" need for universal health care?

What percentage of abortions performed in the US each year are actually due to rape, incest, or the health of the mother? Again, a pretty minuscule percentage, I'll wager. So that means that, in reality, abortion is simply another means of birth control, like condoms or the Pill...except after conception. Funny, though...I don't ever hear it framed that way by the politicians that support abortion rights.

Wait, which party are the big advocates for unfettered abortion...oops, I mean "choice"...why use the real word when we have such snappy, less offensive euphemism available, right?

As an American citizen, what are your chances of actually being shot with a handgun this year? Something like 0.00004%? No calls from Dave and pals for gun control, then! If only those pesky, fear-mongering politicians had the same scruples. Which party are those politicians from again?

Hey, what European country suffered a global warming attack last year, Dave? How many people were killed? None? Wow. Maybe that's why you don't hear anything about it in the media or from politicians...especially politicians of a particular political stripe.

Seriously, people. Islamic terrorism is just a figment of your imaginations!

You've got a better chance of being struck by lightning!

Don't worry, be happy!

Terror-shm'error!

I had the fortune to be working for a company that was purchased by a French firm in a buyout. That French firm was a nationalized State enterprise.

It was eye opening to see senior vice presidents appointed to jobs for no other qualification that having delivered some precinct vote in Marseilles or Vichy to the governing party.

Over the course of the few years I saw rank stupidity, over and over, and eventually had bankruptcy facing them. Neurally the non French interests were layed off and a new crew of absolutely unqualified party hacks appointed to high Office,along with a state subsidy.

I left the firm shortly thereafter, but I understand it has shrunk into insignificance but lots of French jobs are still being maintained. The company hasn't made a dime in ages.

Socialism DOES NOT WORK !!!

If socialism doesn't work then how come the world's fastest growing economy for the last 20 years is a socialist one?

I do agree that socialism doesn't work but I think you have to make a better argument than merely pointing to the economic performance of French companies.

There are a few world-class French companies which are majority state owned. EDF come to mind immediately.

rvastar:
“How many people actually die each year from lack of health insurance in the US?”

18,000 excess deaths per year are attributable to a lack of health care coverage:

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/17647.aspx

This is six 9/11’s every year. Two people died in Europe last year from terrorist attacks. The number 18,000 is much greater than the number 2.

Let’s compare health care costs and life expectancy for a few countries. We’ll compare the great US to a socialist (Sweden) and a communist (Cuba) country. Here are the health care costs per person for each of these three countries:

US = $5,274 per year
Sweden = $2,512 per year
Cuba = $236 per year

Here are the life expectancies:

US = 77.9 years
Sweden = 80.5 years
Cuba = 77.4 years

We can adopt Sweden’s model of universal health care, live over 2 years longer, and save over $200,000 per person over a lifetime. Sounds OK? We can adopt Cuba’s health care system, live 6 months less, but save nearly $400,000 per person over a lifetime. I’d take 6 months off my life if you give me 400 grand.
But there’s a problem with these other models. The pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc don’t make their billions. I guess our capitalist system really is the best.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_per_cap_tot_exp_on_hea_in_int_dol-capita-total-expenditure-international-dollars

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop-life-expectancy-birth-total-population

I think it’s pretty easy to prove that health care is a much better way of saving lives than starting wars. Especially for the countries we are invading.

Your logic in the rest of your post is borderline insane, and not really worth replying to. Try to put together a cohesive thought and get back to me.

I think it’s pretty easy to prove that health care is a much better way of saving lives than starting wars. Especially for the countries we are invading.

Really, Dave? I guess 10s of millions of lives could have been saved in WW2 by offering Hitler universal health care instead of if European nations actually had the balls to recognize a glaring threat staring them in the face.

But since you say it's easy to prove, why don't you do that for us, Dave.

Now, on to other things. Let's see...18,000 out of the number "45 million uninsured" that the American public is constantly hammered with...although the number is misleading, which everyone understands why so I won't go into it.

18,000 out of 45 million. Again, the earth-shattering number of 0.0004%!!!

I'm not even going to waste my breath. You explain to us how 0.0004% equals a national crisis, Dave.

Your logic in the rest of your post is borderline insane, and not really worth replying to. Try to put together a cohesive thought and get back to me..

No, it just obviously took you a long time researching your first pointless response, and you don't have the energy for another, so you do what the left does best: dismiss someone else's argument as "insane".

It's really simple, Dave. Just explain why Sarko is fear mongering by talking about the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, but the same isn't the case when leftists such as yourself:

- represent the lack universal health care in the US as a crime against the universe, when the chances of dying for lack of insurance are 0.0004%?

- represent the lack of stricter gun control laws as the height of American barbarism, when the chances of being killed by a handgun this year are 0.0004%?

- tout abortion as a precaution against rape, incest, and dangerous pregnancies when probably 95% of abortions are simply post-conception contraception?

- push nothing but fear mongering of the worst sort about global warming when the actual proof you have of anything whatsoever is nil.

Get to it, Dave.

Rvastar:
“18,000 out of 45 million. Again, the earth-shattering number of 0.0004%!!!”
18,000 is 0.04% of 45 million, not 0.0004%, idiot. When you divide one number into another, the result is not the percentage until you multiply the answer by 100. To illustrate, what percent of 100 is the number 50? If you divide 50 by 100, you get 0.5. Does that mean 50 is 0.5% of 100? No, idiot. The answer is 50%. You have to multiply by 100. I can’t believe I have to explain 3rd grade math to the imbeciles on this site.

“You explain to us how 0.0004% equals a national crisis, Dave.”
If you don’t think 18,000 unnecessary deaths per year is a national crisis, then you are psychotic. Presenting the number in the form of a percentage is ridiculous, and it shows how incredibly stupid you are. Using your logic, we can also say that only 0.001% of Americans died on 9/11, so therefore it was no big deal and it is nothing to make a fuss about. Correct? Psycho?

“No, it just obviously took you a long time researching your first pointless response, and you don't have the energy for another…”
It took no time at all. Statistics such as the one I pointed out are routinely expressed in terms of “excess deaths” or “increased mortality”. So I went to Google and typed in “excess deaths””lack of health care” in the search field and hit the “Return” button. Try it yourself. Look at the first hit. It was quite easy.
As for the rest of your posts, they make absolutely no sense. They were written by an individual who doesn’t even have the ability to handle 3rd grade math.

"18,000 is 0.04% of 45 million, not 0.0004%, idiot

You're absolutely right, Dave...I did forget to multiply by 100. Playing cards is a part of my income, so I'm used to extrapolating the odds without going all the way with the calculations - speaking of which, just got back from a quick, one-nighter to AC! So in my everyday usage, yes, 50 is .5 (or 50%) of 100. But incorrect, nontheless.

So, instead of a national crisis of .0004%, we have one of .04%. Again, those are really earth-shattering numbers when you reduce things down to percentages and probabilities, don't you think? And before you go into another hissy fit, keep reading...

If you don’t think 18,000 unnecessary deaths per year is a national crisis, then you are psychotic.

And if - after all these posts - you still haven't figured out that my point is exactly the opposite of that, then you should be a little less quick to throw around the word "idiot".

Of course 18,000 unnecessary deaths a year is tragic! But you can't simply pick and choose when it's acceptable to reduce social/political issues to studies in probability based on your preference for or dislike of a particular politician's political affiliation.

If you're going to say that certain politicians shouldn't be trying to make political points off of the threat of Islamist terrorism due to the small probability of an actual attack against a certain affected group (the nation of France) over a short period of time (one year), I say fine, amen. But you can't then turn around and say that it is OK for other politicians - of a different political stripe - to try to make political points off of universal health care or gun control when a small probability of death exist within a certain affected group (uninsured Americans; all Americans) over a short period of time (one year)...because when you reduce the actual risk down to percentages and probabitilties, whether you like it or not, the hard, cold numbers indicate a statistically negligible risk!

IOW, serious socio-political issues that can have enormous impacts on human societies shouldn't be reduced down to some kind of cold, risk assessment exercise. It's simply asinine to state that a French presidential candidate shouldn't be discussing the threat of Islamist terrorism in a campaign, considering that all of the following are true and certainly represents reason enough for public attention:

1) France is a leading Western nation. Not a good thing in the eyes of Islamists!

2) France is a Western nation with extensive ties to Muslim governments, none of which the Islamists look upon favorably.

3) Terror cells and radicalized Islamic leaders exist in France. I guess their motto is "Death to the West! Eh, except for our lovely French compatriots, of course!"

4) France has actively been fighting Islamists in Afghanistan. No biggee!

5) French intelligence actively participates in the international anti-terrorism effort. But no hard feelings! Right, Ahmed?

Just because relatively few people were killed in Europe last year by Islamists, that is in no way predictive of what could happen this year...or next year...or the year after that.

If Sarko's political opponents don't like his use of the topic of an Islamic terrorist threat, then they are free to do exactly what you did: cite numbers and percentages that they feel refute his position. And then, if an attack occurs, they should have the decency and the humility to admit that they didn't take the threat seriously enough. But we both know that will never happen. Why? Because the word "right" appears in Sarko's political bio, not theirs!

If he talks about the dangers of terrorism before an attack, he's playing on people's fears.

If he talks about the dangers of terrorism after an attack, he's still playing on people's fears.

If there's no attack because of aggressive intelligence/police work, he's a fascist who's violating peoples' rights.

If there is an attack, he's an incompetent who wasn't aggressive enough in counter-terrorism efforts.

It's a no-win situation! And in the end, the people who could end up being the biggest losers in this silly political show are the innocent French citizens who are constantly fed a diet of PC bullsh** rather than an occasional dose of the truth.

Ravstar:
Fine, I will be consistent and deal with probabilities for both issues. The chances of someone dying in the EU from terrorism last year was 0.0000004%. The chances of dying due to lack of health care coverage is 0.04%. The chance of dying because you don’t have health care coverage is 100,000 times greater than dying from terrorism. Therefore, the lack of health care coverage is comparatively speaking a much more urgent issue. But we are comparing the EU to the US. So let’s look at the risk of terrorism in the US and compare that to the lack of health care coverage in the US. Over the last 10 years, let’s say that 3,000 people died in the US due to terrorism (300 per year). The chances of dying in any one year due to terrorism in the US is then 0.0001%. The chances of dying due to lack of health care coverage is therefore 400 times greater than dying from terrorism, and this includes 9/11. If the chances of dying from one thing compared to another is 400 times greater, shouldn’t that be a bigger issue? Why do you think it is not? Does it have anything to do with money and power, and very little to due with a real concern for saving lives?
You say that a bad terrorist event *might* happen, so that makes terrorism a big issue. We know that in the past 10 years, about 3,000 people in the US died from terrorism. We also know that 180,000 people died due to a lack of health care coverage. We can be pretty certain that in the next 10 years, another 180,000 people will die in the US due to a lack of health care coverage. Are you saying that we should ignore the health care issue and instead focus on terrorism because maybe more than 180,000 people will die from terrorism in the US in the next 10 years? Do you really believe there’s a chance that will happen? That chance is worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars to start wars with other countries? Wars that any sane person knows actually greatly increases the chances of someone retaliating through terrorism? Why don’t we discontinue social security as well, and let old people just die? Then we could use that money to start even more wars? Would that make you feel even safer?

Ravstar:
If Sarkozy feels it necessary to focus on terrorism because it *might* become a real problem someday, then why does he focus on a group that commits 0.2% of terrorist acts? Why not focus on the groups that are committing most of the terrorist acts? Wouldn't that be more productive?