In case you were running out of Boycott France sites, here's one at Metrospy.

French guys aren't real men and Canada is scandalized Wall Street Journal

Here is a follow-up to a news story posted on the "Canada has the freest speech" sub-thread (fibre?).

"DISCLAIMER: The MetroSpy Website is a parody Website, intended for entertainment purposes only. The articles, comments and information entered upon these Web pages should NOT be repeated as the truth or be taken as a real quote, article, event, concept or happening. This Website is not endorsed by nor is it affiliated with any political campaign."

Well it is not Cherry's first slip up. It used to be against gays, as far as I can recall. This is not what I'd call free speech, but outright racist idiotic talk.
Considering that even Quebec is getting over the separatist thing, I reckon it's even more idiotic than racist.

Since when was Freedom of speech ammended with the qualifier as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings ? This man Cherry only spoke the truth. Is it understandable that since these truths are counter to the French climate that he should fear the loss of his job?
If only the French were as concerned with the room climate at hospitals.

Ah, to heck with it. I only stopped in to say sorry if I don't pay as much attention to Pave as usual. The Democratic primary is heating up with a sudden revelation that, the French candidate Kerry was found emulating his adopted countrymen.
Much more interesting then updating my "not to buy" list.
You know, even that member of "The French Hall of Righteous Americans", Michael Moore , has said that the Democrats are pitching in the towel on the 04 season.

Michael wouldn't lie now , would he?

World Press Photo of the Year - Remember no anti American bias exists in the media.

a photo can't be biased, it does only show the truth.
the comment of a photo can be biased, but not the photo itself. sigh

Should we understand that the photographer slipped into the POW camp, dropped a kid he'd bought on the way into the arms of a poor fellow, and put a plastic bag on his head?
Or maybe the photographer was INSIDE the camp, rightfully imprisoned for delictuous frenchness, and happend to see some weirdo sitting outside. Takes a picture, and here we go for a bit of healthy bias.
Anyway we see it, American morals are safe. Just as much as when J.Jackson gets busted for a nipple.

Coming back to Don Cherry, I admit he can say whatever he wants and thinks about Quebec, but maybe Hockey Night in Canada, broadcasted on a publicly-funded network (meaning that QC pays about 20-25% of his salary), isn't the best place for it.

And just for the sake of it, I shall remind him that these Montreal wimps have the largest collection of Stanley cups (about twice as many as freakin' Toronto!).

The point Cherry was making is that the extra protective headgear leads directly to more illegal highsticking at those Anglos who believe it is still a game.

Does this have any bearing on Montreal winning more Stanley cups?

The Answer is who gives a shit. Its Basketball season. Honk.

I just think that picture might be the French Press Photo of the year, more then it is the World Press Photo of the year.

Here is a mental exersize for you. Tell us your best America Joke. You can make fun of what ever you want. It can be as obscene as you want. No holds barred. I am curious what sort of stuff you say about us in bars. That kind of thing.

When a hockey player, Cherry was a goon. He should be the last person complaining about violence on the ice.

Sadly enough, America being far from my main concerns, I have no joke to offer (not that I care much about blonds either, come to think of it, but I know more blonds than Americans). I can only say I enjoy the occasional Bushism. But I have a Tarzan joke, if you like (wasn't he American?):

After a terrible fight in the jungle, Tarzan loses an eye, a hand and his dick. The beasts of the forest bring him back to life and transplant an hawk's eye, a chimp's arm, and a baby elephant's trunk.
After a few weeks of rehab and rest, they ask him if things are getting better:
"Tarzan sees better with new eye, and can grab things as before with new hand. But Tarzan not too happy with new dick: it keeps on tearing grass and sticks it into Tarzan's ass!"

I think Tarzan was British (yes I know Tarzan is a fictional character but he was written as lord Greystoke's kid lost on safari)

Still it is a good joke.

Why boycott France anymore? Now, the percentage of those who support Washington's decision to go to war in Iraq is about the same as those who oppose it, and both polled at under 50%. So according to that poll, the majority of our fellow Americans no longer believe that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do.

The French goverment doesn't oppose "our" decision to go to war in Iraq, and it doesn't even disagree with our people with regard to that decision... Just 49% of them!

I doubt you can find a document to support your contention that 50% of America was against invading Iraq.
Sure America had Qualms against invasion of Iraq. Going to war is a serious decision. Not to be decided by how many gallons of oil Saddam contributed to your parties re-election campaign.

Michael wouldn't lie now , would he?

Michael ONLY tells the truth, even if he has to manufacture it!

a photo can't be biased, it does only show the truth.

Facts are not bias - the selection of facts is

the comment of a photo can be biased, but not the photo itself. sigh

I think being selected as "World Press Photo of 2003" is quite a comment.

I also think Tarzan discovered a new link between fiber intake and constipation.

J. Mayeau,

I used the present tense in my comment. If you look at the article I linked to, dated four days ago, the poll figures cited there show a 49% to 49% split in the public support for the war.

Yes, the percentage of those who supported the war in the months before it began was higher... though in January 2003, about two months before the war began, I think that a Gallup poll said that support for the war was at 56%, which is not much higher than it is the aforementioned recent poll.

However, in March, the month that the war began, only 38% of Americans said that they would support the war even if Iraq did not have the "weapons of mass destruction."

And by the way, I realize that poll figures for an issue such as this (as is the case for many fluid and ongoing issues) can be deceptive, misleading, and volatile. However, it is possible that the majority of Americans do not, at the present time, believe that going to war was the right thing to do. And it is likely that, had the public known, before the war, what they do now, the majority of Americans would have opposed it. In fact, based upon his previous statements (see here and here), it is possible that if President Bush had known what he does now, he would not have made the decision that he did.

Aakash asks Why boycott France anymore?

Even though the exchange rate of USD/Euros has more to do with travel/exports down in France than any boycott, I continue my boycott of France/French products for the SAME reason as before the war started. I am not, again, here going to go into why US/France had differences before the war started, or who was correct or why or why not, because we have covered that to no end and it does not matter at this point.

The fact is, that we DID go to war, and despite the prewar disputes, the interests of all parties in Iraq have become more congruent. If Iraq becomes radical, or fundamentalist, every country threatened by terrorism will be in peril. France has had second thoughts about disputes with US (and visa versa), and their pressing for a rapid transfer of sovereignty to Iraq (via the UN) is being overtaken by events in Iraq.

The US removed the threat of Saddam (whether you agree with the reason for his removal or not, the threat IS GONE) with the “coalition of the willing”, now its time to see who helps with building the new Iraq and the new structure of peace.

So the $64 question still remains unanswered: How will France deal with the new FREE Iraq? Will they be with the US in a common process, or will France use their access to a sovereign Iraq to begin challenging the US to reduce the US influence in Baghdad? Will they be a partner or a counterweight charting the future of Iraq and the Middle East?

This does not imply an abdication of France to US policy (because of our financial and military contributions the US will have a dominant voice, just like in Afghanistan) but a multilateral agreement shaping it with strong leadership.

Until I see what the answer to this question is, my boycott of France remains intact. Polls be damned.

Andy,

So basically what you say is that even if the US were dead wrong, France should have gone to war and spent its money and men, just because they usually are on the same (western) side of the world? You should actually be grateful that the most voiceful opponent to war was a "western christian" state, because if they'd joined in, it would have really looked -to most muslims anyway- like the "crusade" Mr. Bush was calling for. No matter what Bush really meant by crusade: it is the way the word was being perceived by the other side that is important (and I'm sorry to say NeoCon propaganda in this regard sucks big time).

Bush shattered world politics for his own agenda and turned America's image of a great and free country to that of a world thug.

Quote: When [secretary of state] Acheson offered to show de Gaulle the photographs of the missile sites [in Cuba], the French leader brushed them aside and said, "A great country such as yours does not act without evidence. You may tell your President that France will support him".
Considering that France went to Afghanistan without a second thought, do you realize how much credit America has lost with your current president over only the past two years?

And that's how, ladies and gentlemen, for 64$, I explained why the world is anti-Bush rather than anti-America.

Should we celebrate with a glass of Champagne (or Coke)?

As for Iraq, France will obviously not try to challenge American influence over there. It has neither the means nor the will to. It is already quite busy with American challenges over French influence in Africa. Iraq will be a puppet state for the next few decades, I don't see by whom or how US influence could be challenged there (unless there is some iranian-style revolution taking place, of course, which answers the "who" question).

Why is there a persistant notion that France's only two options were to go to war, or to take a baseball bat to their "ally's" kneecaps? Is this just intellectual dishonesty, or is there really no perception of any middle paths?

" to take a baseball bat to their "ally's" kneecaps"

I take exception to such a description of the petty annoyance that is France today.

More Canadian 'free speech':

Conan to Canada: J'apologize

"But a Canadian businessman, who allegedly had a hand in bringing the New York-based show to Toronto, said his countrymen were taking the show too seriously.

Money quote:
"'It's a silly puppet that tells silly jokes,' said Peter Soumalias. 'Most people find it funny.'"

Boy, the canuckafroggies have a thin skin...

Sounds like Canada is a straw away from breaking up. They should chill out. Open a window.

I doubt cutting Quebec loose would break anybodies heart. It might even lead to a more responsive Central Gov. up north. Quebec is floating on the prosperity of the other Canadian provences anyhow. Just like if Puerto Rico voted to sede from America, Quebec would miss all the Gov. Benefits more then the other Canadians would miss the French language.

Steph:

So basically what you say is that even if the US were dead wrong, France should have gone to war and spent its money and men, just because they usually are on the same (western) side of the world?

No, sorry, that is NOT what I said. I said that regardless of our opinion of the war (or reasons for or against the war), we ALL have to win the peace TOGETHER, or we all lose TOGETHER.

You should actually be grateful that the most [vocal] opponent to war was a "western Christian" state, because if they'd joined in, it would have really looked -to most Muslims anyway- like the "crusade" Mr. Bush was calling for. No matter what Bush really meant by crusade: it is the way the word was being perceived by the other side that is important (and I'm sorry to say NeoCon propaganda in this regard sucks big time).

I am NOT grateful that France was one of the most vocal opponents to the stopping of a murderous dictator who was responsible for the deaths of perhaps millions of his own people. Is that something you are grateful of? Both of our countries should take some blame in letting a ruler like Saddam stay in power as long as he did. Terrorist bombings linked to al Qaeda (or its cohorts) in Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and in other Muslim countries around the world have proven to many Muslims that terrorism is not only a US problem, and that the fight against terrorism is not a “crusade” against Islam. The Muslim countries have vastly improved their cooperation with the US in the war on terror, mostly in the arena of cutting off financing of terrorism.
(Please explain your “NeoCon propaganda” statement. I do not understand this. Thanks)

Considering that France went to Afghanistan without a second thought…

YES, we are very grateful for your 150 “Special Ops” guys in Afghanistan. They have a very good reputation here in DC, and are considered some of the best in the world. Also read (yesterday or day before) that Villepin-head said France wants to increase its role in the “international” security force in Kabul and remain part of the US-led coalition that is fighting Taliban militants. I hope that means more of the Special Ops guys. And if you are wondering, this is the type of help I would like the US to seek in Iraq, and for UN/NATO forces to provide.

.. I explained why the world is anti-Bush rather than anti-America ..

To me, the line between being anti-Bush or anti-America is as thin as Paris Hilton. I don’t buy it during a time of war. If you are anti the leader of our country in a time of war, well, you are anti-America. Yes, it is that simple.

Should we celebrate with a glass of Champagne (or Coke)?

Steph, you should not drink Coke. That stuff will kill you. So we are left with Champagne. You hoist that, I’ll take California “sparking wine”.

Why is there a persistant notion that France's only two options were to go to war, or to take a baseball bat to their "ally's" kneecaps?

Same choice of middle paths as in "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? :-)

Andy,

I completely misunderstood what your post meant, thus my reply was totaly off-target. Of course the peace has to be won collectively, otherwise it's big trouble ahead of us.

Please explain your “NeoCon propaganda” statement. I do not understand this.

Well from what I understand, NeoCons argue that toppling Saddam is the best way to start rebuilding the Middle-East and move things away from the current mess. That's where I disagree: I believe this war has basically shown the arab world that 1) the West is trying to impose its culture and view of things on them (even if it's for their own good) and 2) that religious terrorism is a way to fight both the West and local corrupt regimes.
No matter how much better democracy is, it still appears as the product of a foreign hand (even more so when most members of the ruling council are exiled iraqis): I fear it will lead in the short term to a rejection of western-style govt in arab populations in favor of a more authoritarian, Iran-style type of regime. That's why we better not fail in Iraq, because if it doesn't get any better in 5-6 years then we'll have shown the people there that what's left to try is a Bin Laden revolution (and that's hoping people are willing to wait for 5-6 years just to make sure that democracy works).

It's easy for us to see what's right and wrong because, well, we're well fed and somewhat educated. But for someone that is in the middle of it all and has to decide which is the lesser of two evils, the answer might not be obvious. Look at Vietnam: people there were willing to die for freakin' communism! No matter how much of a tyranny it became afterwards, at the beginning they had a choice and still picked up the wrong one!
As for "shame on us for supporting such a murderer", well there is an endless list of countries where things haven't changed, and I'd have a hard time believing the Bush administration is being more "compassionate" than "conservative". Countries have interests, not friends (or else why did Powell refuse to go stabilize Haiti?). I am afraid that the price to pay for freeing the Iraqis is a bit too high. Millions are free, but resentment increased dramatically in many other hundreds of millions and promoting democracy over there may be even harder from now on. Don't forget that if arab regimes are increasing their cooperation with the US war on terrorism, it is mostly because their populations are more and more unruly and they play their own survival.

If you are anti the leader of our country in a time of war, well, you are anti-America. Yes, it is that simple.
No it's not, and the fact that Europeans still have troops committed in Afghanistan proves it. But do you mean that you'll be voting Bush in november just because changing leaders in a time of war is supposedly bad? (in which case I'd object that 1) this war is mostly a war by name and runs on a peace-oriented economy, as opposite to what you had in 1940 or 1944, and 2) that even so, Ulysses Grant was promoted General-in-Chief in March 1864 only).

As for Champagne vs Coke, well I was only joking since the only bubbles I tolerate anyway are those in beer. How about a game of darts?

Steph,
At last, it appears that we are discussing actual disagreements rather than name calling and attacks on motives. Thank you for that. Now to business.

"I fear it will lead in the short term to a rejection of western-style govt in arab populations in favor of a more authoritarian, Iran-style type of regime. "

What was there before that was so much better than an Iran-style regime? I would suggest that you take a look at what is happening in Iran. Perhaps militant Islam is a phase that Islamic countries have to pass through. At least Islamic govts have roots in popular support, unlike the former govt of Iraq, which ruled by terror. If Iraq democratically chooses this form of govt, we have nothing to say about it.

Here is a link to BuzzMachine that should get you up to speed on Iranian weblogs.

A couple of years ago, the US wrestling team participated in a match in Tehran, and recieved a standing ovation from the young Iranian crowd. We may disagree on this, but I think that Iran is going rather well, and when this next generation takes power, as it must, Sharia will have lost much of its charm having been proven an empty promise, as did communism in Eastern Europe when it finally collapsed due to lack of support.

brb,

Considering the conservatives are apparently bound to regain power in the upcoming elections AND the country is on the verge of developing its own nukes, I'm not exactly happy with the thought of a extension of this particular Iranian model.

Sharia has also been in place for decades in Saudi Arabia, and I don't see much change coming from these new generations (even if a few upper-class kids can afford dissident blogs). Oh wait, those new Saudi generations now board planes and use them in suicide attacks!
The US and the Soviet Union met in dozens of competitions, and I'm sure the crowds were generally friendly. Yet...

" Oh wait, those new Saudi generations now board planes and use them in suicide attacks!"

Couldn't shake your snarkiness for even a couple of minutes could you? Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian regime. You know, like the one you wanted to keep in Iraq. Iran had a popular revolution. I guess that France figured that Uday and Qusay held the best hope for the future of Iraq. Is that what you are saying?

The conservatives are only going to regain power in Iran because they are not real elections, the mullahs having excluded all reformers. This is not the same as to say that the mullahs have the support of the people. It will be interesting to see how long the conservatives can keep a lid on the majority who want more freedom. Although I am sure the Veal-pen will be there to do whatever he can to suffocate the popular will there.

Naaah, I can't help being snarky. I'm French, you see :-)

Look, I'm very surprised you are willing to wait for the Iranian masses to set themselves free when their still dictatorial government actively seeks nukes, and were on the other hand so much in a hurry to oust Saddam when his weapons-building capacity wasn't the 10th of what Iran has. All I'm saying is that the world is full of bad guys, and the Bush administration is going after the wrong ones for the wrong reasons!

We have a saying in English, you may have it in French too:

'God grant me the will to change the things I can,
The serenity to endure the things I cannot change,
And the wisdom to know the difference.'

What I hear you saying is that, because there are so many problems in the world, we should do nothing about any of them, even though we can do something about some of them? Or what would you suggest that we did first?

"ones for the wrong reasons!"

So what were his reasons? In your opinion.

"So what were his reasons? In your opinion"
The ones most often advertised were WMD, alleged Al-Qaeda links, and maybe ousting a veeeery bad dude. I'm sure there was another agenda behind all of this, but that's what we were supposed to buy (remember Powell's intervention at the UN?).

"Or what would you suggest that we did first?"
1. Repell CAN SPAM act (that's email terror)
2. Target Saudi Arabia - pressure for democratization there and not somewhere else. They have the money and wahabbism, they are the problem
3. Pressure Sharon and Arafat to stop fucking around and negociate a peace deal, if only to show that the US is not one-sided in its approach of the Mideast issue.
4. Did I mention repelling CAN SPAM Act?

But then I'm not running for presidency, and you are the voter. As such, do you think your President handled things the best possible way (please take a second to think before answering - it's a 484 billion dollars question)?

"I'm sure there was another agenda behind all of this"

What then. Say it. Come on.

Criminalizing words too close to thought control

More on Canadian free speech.

c'mon, the bait's too big. I have to say it before Pierre or Marc Levis do:

To finish daddy's job?

You actually do not need to ask me: rather check out the LA Times (already posted a few days ago, but well), Washington Post and the New Republic (only 1st § available for free but that's enough).

So that's where we are then. "Black helicoptors" Conspiricies. OOOOIIIIIIILLLLLLLLL! HHHAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUURRRRRTON!

Bush is a nazi! Cheney and Haliburton run the show!

I simply don't buy it, and you are naive if you think that you have even the most elementary understanding of how our system of government works.

Hint: The President has only the power to persuade on the matters of greatest importance. Next to an American President, Chirac, Schroeder, Cretin, even Blair have powers we Americans usually associate with dictators.

And for the record, if you read your own links, you will see that 'Daddy' and his foreign policy people opposed the war, and wrote op-eds against it in the most influential newspapers. But that would be what is known as a fact, irrelevant to you Europeans.

If for no other reason then it makes the rest of the world nervous, Iraq will have been worth it.

Fuck your French system based on cheating the tax man and bribing officers to look the other way. And fuck you taking an arab bribe to use the UN veto; sold to the highest bidding murderer.

Fuck Russia willing to sell off their old military junk to the highest bidding murderers and their kidnapping the opposition partys candidate; only the slimist sliver of a fraction better then the Commies they replaced.

Fuck China those toady bastards want to pretend their a world power when they drowned half the girl babies born and can't even feed the rest. Still they treat NKorea and that murdering fuck KIM JONG DIE IN HELL like it is their little step child and How dare Tiawan prosper under their noses. GET A FUCKING CLUE its called Capitalism you simple fucks.

MOST of all FUCK SADDAM. I wish they would put him in an electric room with a java script switch controlling the juice; charge a dollar a jolt and watch that fuck dance and pay back some of the money he stole to bribe fucked up, on the take fuckers, like you French.

You all need a public enima as far as im concerned.
Bush in 2004
God Bless America
/ rant off

Great papertiger !! Nice one !!!

I suggest your try to do some kick boxing, instead of getting out of your nerves like that !

Maybe you should open your mind, come down, take a deep breath and try to think about the smartest way you can use to help those problems, are you able to do that ??

And remember that it's easier to say "I LOVE YOU" than "I FUCK YOU" !!

Democrats in 2004 (even if I'm french I care about that)
God only exist in your mind (but that's the most important)

I love you ! (and send you a nice kiss on the cheek)

"I'm sure there was another agenda behind all of this"

What about this one ?

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

Dearest brb,

I understand that I am just a marxist godless gay euroweenie, and as such have no grasp of the American constitutional system. Fair enough. However, if I can't trust what is in the US press; or whatever conference Secretary of State Powell makes in front of the UN; and you ask me questions, deeming my answers utterly wrong without giving your own justifications:

Am I to understand that you don't know either why the US went to war?

PS:I forgot to mention I am deeply antisemite, too.

Naah, I don't buy the oil thing (although it is a nice bonus prize). As Blair is quoted saying in this link, if it were only for oil then cutting a deal would have been easier.

I stick with the Washington Post - Rummie and Cheney think it is time for America to steamroll whoever is in its path and that only an American world will be safe for America. They sure will be remembered as the founding fathers of the Empire.

Well, I don't think it's as simple as that... but for sure there was a strong will in the US to take a position in the middle east well before 911 and to impose the Pax Americana...

Some ressources (in english):
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/irak/a9693

What about this one ?
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

I wonder if there's a plan on the horizon to protect the flow of obscure cheeses into the world.

To my cyber-friend Steph,
I never said Godless, I am an atheist myself.
I never said Gay, BRB stands for Bi(sexual)Rent Boy.
I never said Marxist, though you certainly fall much closer to Marx than to Adam Smith.
I never said anti-Semetic, even though I am married to a Jewish Republican (A very rare bird), I have not seen anything remotely anti-semetic in your posts.
Euroweenie, I will own up to that one.

My problem is that you post links to entire stories, but never point out the individual arguments made there that you find convincing. Like in the other thread, you point to the IPCC report, which has been widely questioned and criticized, yet do not point to the individual arguments in there that you find compelling.

You said that W invaded to 'finish Daddy's job' but your own links point out that 'Daddy' was against the second war. What am I to make of this? Why do you not respond to this point?

Then you come up with what I consider a serious point of discussion:

"Rummie and Cheney think it is time for America to steamroll whoever is in its path and that only an American world will be safe for America."

I agree with Rumsfeld that the time has come to abandon the American, and European policy of supporting dictatorial thugs, as in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, for the false reason that they can control their populations and give us safety at the price of the oppression of their populations.

You look at Saddam, Uday and Qusay's picture in the newspaper and hum to yourself "Si la photo est bonne". You say that you have no love for Saddam, yet your policies, had France the power to enforce them, would ensure the Uday and Qusay succeed Saddam and Iraq would be condemed for decades to the murderous rule by torture that she has experienced recently. Do you accept this as a cost for a world that is not "Americanized"?

"Do you accept this as a cost for a world that is not "Americanized"?

Tricky question. But I guess I'll have to answer Yes, in a way, because since I have no voting rights in the US, there'd be quite a chance that in the long run I would not be much better off in a US-dominated world that the Iraqis were (or are). No matter what Bush, Rummie or Cheney could say, any country (even "allies") would come second to the interests of the US: if we give up our independance, what do we have left?

"Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." (you may want to ask Obersturmfuehrer Ashcroft whose quote this is ;-)

So you're willing to sacrifice Iraqis' freedom for your security? How convenient that it would be yours to bargain with. Or is it?