May 17 - And Then A Step To The Right

France, the only country in the world to have a martial art specializing in running away (it seems like a joke, but it's true), last week turned it's political direction around for the first time 40 years when it's people elected Nicolas Sarkozy their president. Further cementing the move to the right, Sarkozy, just yesterday, named François Fillon prime minister.

Sarkozy is about as right wing as one gets in France and Fillon is about the same, but both of them would nevertheless look somewhat liberal if included in the set of Democratic U.S. presidential hopefuls.

That said, Sarkozy ran on two philosophies. One was that France is a long time friend and ally of the U.S. and should start acting like it. Not that they would dive into Iraq or anything, but that they should not be openly antagonistic. I think it not inconsequential that this comes on the heals of Frances internal unrest last summer. The second is that the people need to work in order for the country to be successful. Sarkozy has been an open critic of the enforced limited work-week.

Sarkozy, as the person responsible for French foreign policy, is bringing a very new approach. Since the ascendancy of Charles De Gaulle, France has haughtily stood alone as what it believed to be the premier political entity, taking the position that other countries could follow France. Sarkozy believes that France should operate more cooperatively with it's neighbors and allies and that cooperation should extend beyond continental Europe. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

After Sarkozy's election it was perhaps even more interesting to see who would become PM. The French PM is responsible for domestic issues. It will be Fillon that sets the agenda for repairing France's ailing economy and re-energizing its workforce.

He and Sarkozy were blunt and open with their platform when campaigning. They won against a far left Socialist who was equally open. Over 80% of the eligible populace came out to vote and it went soundly for Sarkozy. That is perhaps one of the most heartening things to hear. When the people of a democratic nation for once, not vote themselves bread and circuses, you have to feel some pride.

May 7 - Schadenfreude

I rarely engage in schadenfreude, that grotesque sport where one laughs when the fortunate fall. However, some of the fortunate just basically deserve our pleasure at their pain. Especially those who think they get to live under different rules than us "little people". So it is with Paris Hilton.

I think a little time in jail will do her good, don't you?

May 6 - Other People are Not Like Us.

The people who live in the U.S. and similar countries have been brainwashed to some extent. Conditioned, at any rate. The whole concept of "all men are created equal" that permeates our culture has lead us to believe that, except for the pretty differences of our various cultures, all humans are fundamentally the same. That the only difference between a Mulsim and a Christian are the Burka, the language and the place of worship, or things to that effect. This just is not so. The differences are not merely trappings.

In North America and most of Western Europe we have come to think that urbane civilization is just about within reach. We value life very highly and believe that is a characteristic of most people. We often project the idea that this applies to the world as a whole and that if we only treat others in a civilized way, they will reciprocate. We still seem to believe this. We learned nothing from the nationalistic collapse of Yugoslavia. We flatly refuse to acknowledge that Hamas and Hezbollah might actually have less than noble intent even in the face of ample evidence. When Muslim extremists chop off another head, it is not unusual for some people to justify this by pointing out Christian behavior during the inquisition as if actions 500 years ago in any way are indicative of western behavior today.

But these are old arguments. Today we have some new ones for how cultures differ in fundamentally different ways that speak directly to the value of human life. Not too many weeks ago we we worried about our pet food. It appears that some melamine made it's way in to gluten that was for use in manufacturing the foods. I imagine that most of use saw this as an issue of contamination... an accident or an anomaly like the Tylenol scare of a few decades ago. It is actually an indicator of that which I write. A fundamental difference how two cultures value life.

That gluten came from China. This is a country that maybe doesn't have the best controls on manufacturing quality. It turns out that it is not all than uncommon for melamine to be used as a filler in animal feeds there. Yep, you read that right. Melamine is a less expensive "substitute" for gluten. When you figure that out, and then figure out that we use gluten sourced from China for people food too, you quickly realize that there were a lot of panicked executives a few weeks ago. I can just imagine the conversations in the Lay's boardroom.

It seems that no contaminated gluten made into our food, just fido's. Hot on the heals of that catastrophe, though, comes new that the Chinese has another "substitute" used in food products, this time that has made it into people food, tragically. diethylene glycol, it turns out, is sufficiently similar to glycerin and sufficiently less expensive, to make it an attractive substitute. Diethylene glycol is similar to the stuff you put in your car's radiator and is a poison.

At least 100 children in Panama have fallen victim to this poison, recently, from consuming medicine prepared with what was supposed to be food grade glycerin shipped from China. Accidents can happen in this country. People do, in fact, make actuarial decisions about the value of life in this country. People do not make decisions that directly lead to guaranteed loss of life in this country, especially of children. That is a fundamental cultural difference and one that does not change overnight.

We live in an uncivilized world where life has vastly less value than we place on it. To think otherwise will certainly lead to calamity.

May 3 - Codswollop

Beauty is both subjective and not. There are things that I think are beautiful and other things that I don't. Also, there are things I objectively know to be beautiful even though I don't personally appreciate them, such as most opera and much classical music. Not every guy is attracted to Nicole Kidman, but I think most people can agree that she has classical beauty, for instance. Likewise, I think most folks would agree that Roseanne Barr does not have classical beauty, though she may have other redeeming features (what they are, I can not identify, to date.) In some cases a person is not necessarily qualified to judge beauty. For instance, I would generally accept my good friend joeyblades's opinion on what constitutes beautiful electric guitar riffs over my own. That's all to frame what I think of when people use the word beauty.

So, when I hear from someone who recently took a corporate diversity class, that we should think of all people as beautiful, I just want to go puke. I have written before that I am sick of people hijacking words and this is another case. All people are certainly not beautiful. Some people are particularly ugly. We can not all be excellent in all characteristics. Some of us are not excellent in any characteristics. By declaring that all people are beautiful, the instructor simply destroys the fundamental meaning of the word. The instructor would have better served the audience to say that we should look for beauty in all people. Some inevitably will be found lacking.

I challenge anyone who disagrees to show me the "beauty" in a man like Jeffrey Dahmer.