"The first human right is to eat, to be cared for, to receive an education and to have housing.".
That was Jack back in December in a story that went unremarked at Pave. (Hat Tip: Frogman)
Jack here is confusing his statist version of the corporal acts of mercy with those rights that are essential to one's humanity, which John Locke gives succinctly as life, liberty, and estate. Notice that the rights Jack enumerates are adventitious provisionings, none reside solely in or with the individual. Ever the innovator, not one of Jack's rights is mentioned in the whole of the celebrated La Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen. Yes, well, Jack does not shrink from making his inappreciable improvements.
While the French state is kept busy administering a conglomeration of exciting new rights, Jack is lopping off those superfluous rights that are so pesky in tidy societies.
I invite all to help Jack out and suggest other human rights for Frenchmen, e.g., the human right to dessert.
The poor Chirac is just an old man waiting for prison after his last erroneous mandate.
Don't believe that Chirac is the president of 82% french voters.
Max,
Alas, the wait will be long enough for Jack to promulgate boat-loads of new rights before the law catches up with him.
Meanwhile, here are a few new rights coming soon from the Salon Doré:
1. The human right to have an unindictable president, present or former.
2. The human right to have politicians unindicted for corruption, graft, and self-dealing (regrettably this right will require the abolition of the French judiciary).
3. The human right to shut up when told to by a French president.
I'm sure there'll be more before M. Chirac loses the next election.
Regards,
DGB
But where will the French find an uncorrupted person to take on the office of President?
Guess they will have to outsource.
I nominate this one.
'Ideas are sacred, even counterfactual ones, and so any idea widely held by Europeans shall not be challenged on the bases of "small facts" and shall automatically be deemed as true.'
To that end, we hereby declare the need for a new ministry, a "ministry of truth", which shall centralize the function of preventing Europeans from hearing these small facts, thus protecting them from disturbing small doubts in their certainty that they have attained the perfect state of civilization.
This function is currently widely distributed among various govts and departments, of which the existence of this website proved the ineffectiveness.
Washington Post: March 28, 2004
“A French lawyer announced Saturday that he would represent Hussein in the war crimes trial now being prepared by US and Iraqi officials. Jacques Verges ….. has a history of defending unpopular clients, including Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, the terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal and former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic.”
From reading the names of those Verges has defended, I would say Hussein is in good company. Some, however, may say that the Frenchman is the one in good company.
Paper T,
A French human right to an unindictable French president won't require an incorruptible person – an impossible burden on the French – simply an extension of the protection of law against the prosecution of law to anyone assuming the office.
The French already have a partial immunity in place, covering the president only during his tenure. The innovation above is to cover Jack's fanny after he leaves office. Essentially this is the French human right of pretentious virtue particularized.
Of course, if the second French human right proposed above is adopted, well, that's surety to the first. Since these are French human rights, duplication and needless complication are bonuses.
Drive-by,
Your proposal is interesting, discard human rights altogether and enshrine ideational rights. This is George Orwell's argument in 1984. The only improvement I might suggest to your language is, "French ideas are sacred..."
Andy,
M. Vergès has been winning headlines and losing cases for some time. His employment by the accused is as good as an admission of guilt. You can read more about M. Vergès defense of Saddam here. That incontestable criminals such as Saddam should have their day in court is the genuine right of due process, a right subordinated to "housing" in Jack's hit parade.
DGB
Damian,
Your right. I thought you were saying you couldn't have a criminal in the French Presidency.
Whew! What a relief. I thought the French would have to import a Pole or an Austrian.
Thats good news isn't it, Stephane? Good news, right Max?
This is turning into a quagmire! End the unjust, imperialist and illegitimate occupation NOW!
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/world/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040329/ap_on_re_af/ivory_coast
"His employment by the accused is as good as an admission of guilt"
I 100% agree. Barbie and the Jackal both got life sentences (there's no death penalty in France, so it is basically the most they could get). With such a brilliant record and if there is in Iraq such a penalty as gutting and dismembering (and putting salt on his wounds), I'm sure Vergès will get it for Saddam. Then he'll probably move on to defend Chirac, the Tobacco industry and Mickael Jackson.
Every guilty man will have the right to an incompetent lawyer, paid for by the state - just as long as the lawyers incompetences include the blind belief that Americans are to blaim for his clients atrocities.
Results are in for the French election. http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=189957
The right wing of the Socialist party has been almost completely replaced by the left wing of the Socialist party. - At least got the one thing right. In France the Socialists are red on the election map.
"The right wing of the Socialist party has been almost completely replaced by the left wing of the Socialist party"
That's always fun to see that you're so near to our Right wing extremist leader, on your opinions, on your ideas. I said fun? mmh...frightening.
Max,
I think the Socialists are the only people for the job. After all, when the Socialists find that there is no way to keep the health insurance system going without bankrupting the Federal Government, people might listen to the calls for reform.
It is like recently, a French expat living in America, who works as an image consultant, said John F'in Kerry is too French to be elected in America. He said Kerry's public personna is tending toward a thinker, when the American President must be a do'er.
While I find the characterization of Americans as non thinking sort of insulting, my umbrage is molified by the thought, that Kerry was just told he is too French, by a Frenchman no less.
You see? If an American, born and bred, had said that Kerry acts too French, it would not raise an eyebrow. It isn't the message that is important, truth is France is over their spending limit no matter who is in office. In the end, it is the messenger, who will give this truth, that will determine if it is accepted by a wide audience.
I am hopeful for your future.
Max and PaperT,
There are two great indifferent movers in the lives of nations, great fortune and great misfortune.
I do not see France reforming itself without one of these two movers jogging her inertia. I regret, with no prospects of the former, it will be the latter that brings the bounty of France's promises in line with her straitened capacities.
However, I think the imminent French catastrophe may serve some purpose as a warning, perhaps, tempering the prodigality of American socialism-in-the-making.
Socialism is a leveler. In a society that embraces mediocrity, it is a blessing. Feudalism was the heyday of socialism. Of course, people today want the bland munificent "quid" of socialism without the backbreaking "quo" of feudalism. Socialism imagines its ideal society peopled with citizens of moderate appetites and with a jolly uncle with limitless wealth for a government. Socialist fantasy lags behind realities at the outset and socialist programs quickly devolve into Ponzi schemes.
People largely recognize that something from nothing is a trick effected solely by supernatural powers, yet many stubbornly believe that a government can provide in the span of five generations more than it produces in perpetuity. I am not here arguing against governments running deficits. But credit is a mix of arithmetic and prudence. It is not boundless and the arithmetic is circumscribed. Though a nation may believe itself too big to fail, not so its many creditors and beneficiaries who all take their losses in the collective neck.
DGB
"truth is France is over their spending limit no matter who is in office"
Truth is, America is over its spending limit only when Republicans are in power!
America is over its spending limit only when Republicans are in power!
See, here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is patently untrue, I could prove it is untrue, but what would the point be? Maybe I am the 'point-misser', since I thought that the frogs here were here for honest discussion.
Ask yourself this Steph, do you have ANY evidence that the above statement is true? Who is the audience, even Democrats would laugh at it in the US. Is the audience yourself? Are you trying to drown out some inner voice? Or are you worried that other frogs might be reading this blog and you have to protect them from hearing other ideas?
Why did you post the nonsense comment above?
Ok, my mistake:
America was within its spending limit in the past 25 years only when Democrats were in power.
(1997 (Clinton) was the first balanced budget since 1969 (Johnson))
Do you feel better?
