Europe, America and post war Iraq: air conditioners have nothing to do with it!

Sometimes Victor Davis Hanson belabours his point with utterly ludicrous analogies. This article is a case in point. I was so flabbergasted by the rather ridiculous equivalency that for America to accept the European perspective on Iraq is asking that France should've accepted American style investment in air conditioners (leaving aside that it's unheard of for Paris to have temperatures of 30+ degree for 50 days straight)

Actually the reasons why Europeans are so disdainful of the current administration is far more mundane and banal. Let's review some of the highlights: first, Rumsfield makes an off the off remark between Old and New Europe which gratuitously alienates a lot of Europeans that the former are nothing than socialist fuck ups with an effete military. Second, Rumsfield again makes another off the cuff statement that America really didn't need the British to invade Iraq. Which not only shocked the British, who had committed a third of their military and very nearly cost Blair his position, but reinforced the European prejudice that the Americans wanted a convenient rubber stamp to OK the invasion that was predetermined.

Third, it's really tough being America's ally when its political entities, like the Commerce Department, impose protectionist tariffs to a wide variety of domestic industries on contestable grounds; which in turn, disrupt the nominally allied countries' economies and diminish their capacity to contribute to the war on terrorism much less to Iraq. It turns out, ironically enough, in light of the post-Iraq situation that the Western European militaries aren't so pathetic after all and do have some enviable expertise in peacekeeping and nation building.

Fourth, if America were truly consistent with advocacy that the allies, especially the European allies, spend more on defence than the Americans wouldn't need to outspend the next 12 or 20 countries combined However, deep down the fact that Canada or Europe underspend for their defence budgets suits the Americans just fine because they can forever carp, hector and denigrate the Canadian and Europeans as lazy, freeloaders who drag down American prosperity and unfairly compete against domestic industries burdened by the 'defence tax'. Right and the ideologists of the American Century would slap down any attempt by the Canadian or Europeans to take their defence more seriously as an insufferable affront to the benevolent but perpetual American hegemony.

So before Davis Hanson pours the plaster to statue of America Pacifitrix mundi and declaims paeans to American noblesse oblige, he should remember that America too has its warts with respect to Iraq just like the Canadian and Europeans.

Couche-tard ach?te Dunkin Donuts

De la coexist?ncia entre el muslmans i els europeus: uns comentaris

Ahir trob? un article del Dr Michael Vlahos. Estava tant surpr?s per la tesis del article que fins i tot l'envi? a Bat Ye'or per haver la seva reacci?.

Mestrestant, passant per Flit TM Lutas escrigu? un comentari sobre l'article en q?esti? i el cit? Val Valberg que al seu torn analitzava en dues parts que l'Europa no esta condemnat

Ara b? haver llegit tots els articles, afeixir? la meva perspectiva. L'article del Dr Vahlos presumeix molt. Assumeix que els musulmans que viuen en Europa adoptaran l'estil de vida europeu. La realitat refuteix tanta naivitat. Si m?s b? es pal?s que els musulmans tenen m?s fills i refusant d'integrar-se a la societat europea. Els cit?s franceses en son un bon exemple d'aquesta rejecci?.

Per? que m?s em molest? es aquesta creen?a ahist?rica que el cristians i els musulmans visqueren en un pau paradisca durant l'Edat mitja tal com s'exemplifica al-Andalus per? que la pujada dels f?ntics musulmans als segles X i XI axafaria tot. Sempre els f?ntics per? si mirem l'hist?ria subseq?ent de la Pen?nsula ib?rica, els cristians iniciaren la Reconquesta m?s o menys des del l'any 1000 i no acabaren fins 1492. Gairb? mig mil?leni; una gran estona per culpar els fan?tics ?oi? Adm?s, la situaci? dels cristians del Pr?xim orient desde la conquesta muslman fins avui refuta encara m?s la supposici? d'un conviven?a daurada. Si els musulmans foren molt m?s tolerants... sobretot quan es pagava la jirza. Tampoc, hem de deixar de costat que a Saud? ?rabia els cristians no poden ni si vol celebrar missa en l'intimitat de llurs cases i ni en parlem dels jueus.>/p>

Tanmateix,opino que els europeus i els musulmans podran conviure sempre i quan els musulmans s'integran a les societats, adopten les valors (no totes; car algunes son for?a discutibles i poden oposar-se-les) i acepten els l?mites que la democr?cia imposa a tothom a imposar-se en la societat. Si no els fotem afora Els europeans hauren de mostrar molt m?s const?ncia a defendre llurs valors i civilitzaci? aix? aceptar que l'asc?ndencia no es l'?nic criteri per la ciutidania; la lleitat al pa?s i les seva valors tamb? compten.

Contemporary immigration and the Anglosphere: some additional comments

I visited Prof Glenn's blog when he posted an article that linked to James Bennett's latest article It's a theme that touches me quite closely and stimulate me to comment: immigration and the Anglosphere.

In general, I understand James' point but I've been singularly unimpressed by the Anglophone's discomfort with linguistic diversity. Indeed, even to this day, the Anglophone's tacitly expect that for the immigrant to be a 'good' American or to be fully accepted as an English Canadian, the immigrant must give up his mother tongue. Joan Didon's Miami and Ontario's Regulation 17 of 1912 come to mind The Anglophones have always perceived linguistic acquisition as a zero sum situation which has never been the case.

I concour with James' assessment that the stakes are quite important but I don't quite grasp why he defers to improvisation. If he means that the civil society will work out the thematic framework on its own without much guidance from the state, the political and cultural elites then I wholeheartedly agree with him. That's indeed one of the most salutary characteristic of the Anglospheric civil society. If he means that hoary penchant of the Anglosphere to muddle through until it finds a modus vivendi then I disagree with him. I've never been impressed with that trait and view it as a maddening flaw of Anglophones.

Les bombes en Bombai

Hier, j'ai ?cout? les nouvelles o? le journaliste rapport? le bilan des autos pi?g?es: 46 morts et centaines de bless?s. On accuse un groupe estudiantin musulman r?cemment banni d'?tre les auteur de cet attentat. Selon les reportage que j'ai lus ce matin, il s'agirait d'un rapport qui sortira sous peu sur le statu du site ou la mosqu?e en Gurjarat a ?t? d?truite par des int?gristes hindouistes puisqu'il avait un de leurs temples ? ce site.

Moi, j'ai pens? que les attentats avait un lien avec le Cachemire et le reflex semble le bon En tout cas, il para?t qu'il s'agit d'un groupe musulman qui est derri?re cet atrocit?. Un moment donn? les musulmans devront d?noncer beaucoup plus ouvertement au risque de se faire exclure par les autres.

Non par discrimination mais par la manque de confiance que la pr?sence de musulman signifierait une augmentation de risques pour des actes terroristes. Ce qui est profond?ment injuste pour la grande majorit? car sans doute dans cet attentat hier a Bombai il y a des musulmans parmi les victimes. Encore je me demande la question comme ces auto pi?g?es jumelles qui ont saut?es en Bombai avancent la cause du Cachemire en particulier et la situation du musulmans ? travers le monde en g?n?ral?

Posant al dia la bit?cola

Les journ?es p?dagogiques et l'apprentissage au Qu?bec

La Gazette de Montr?al fait un r?portage sur l'?ducation en Qu?bec. Hier il avait un article sur les journ?es p?d comme on les appelle ici au Qu?bec. Je ne suis pas le seul ? y croire qu'on paie pour un cong?s de profs du primaires.

Maman me rappelait quand j'ai ?t? jeune il n'avait que 9 journ?es p?dagogique; aujourd'hui il y en a 20. Le pire c'est que les profs sont pay?es pour 200 jours mais l'ann?e scolaire dure que 180. ?a c'est un contraste total avec les autre professions: les avocats, par exemple, de tem^ps ? temps doivent suivre de cours de la Formation permanente du Barreau. Cependant il n'ont pas de journ?es p?ds et ils doivent payer les cours de leurs poches. Sans doutes ils re?oivent un cr?dit d'imp?t mais l'argent n'est pas rembourser de fa?on imm?diate.

En plus, la colonne d'opinion de Don MacPherson nous pr?cise que les ?tudiants au Qu?bec on la dur?e le plus court tant en ann?e scolaire qu'en classe de l'ensemble du pays. Cette situation est notre faute. Une fois qu'on quitte les ?cole on perde compl?tement du vue la r?seau ?ducative sauf lorsqu'on a des enfants et m?me l?. Il existe un indiff?rence Une partie s'explique que le MEQ (Minist?re de l'?ducation) est tellement centraliste quoique fassent les parents, les fonctionnaire du Minist?re trouveront un moyen de mettre les b?ton de les roues.

Je sais par exp?rience de ma soeur et m?re qui s'impliquent beaucoup au comit? de parent. Mais l'autre partie de la faute reste avec nous-autre les citoyen. On parles comme si l'?ducation f?t importante mais au moment de la v?rit? on s'en fout. En plus, avec l'implosion d?mographique on tombera dans l'indiff?rence totale. Il n'y arien ? faire pour l'instant; ?a prendra un choc externe lorsqu'un rapport d'une institution quelconque ou une admission d'une PDG d'une multinationale importante qui dise que l'ensemble de la population n'est pas autant instruit par rapport ? d'autres r?gions de l'Am?rique du Nord sans parler d'autre du monde entier.

La mort de John Geoghan

Els preus de gasolina a Quebec: un robo i un estafa

The Americans and the UN: some serious dilemmas

I was unaware that the Australians are facing a troop shortage However, Australia's reluctance to send additional troops bodes rather ominously for the Bush administration's desire to have more countries participate in Iraq.

Most countries want a UN resolution; something that the American officials are extremely reluctant to do given recent events. Hence, there's a serious impasse. Even with a UN resolution, most countries still wouldn't commit their troops to Iraq until the guerilla war. In a way, this international reluctance is in slight way, America's responsibility.

For some time, the Americans have bragged- with justification- that their military is the most powerful, sophisticated, innovative fighting force in history. The stunning victory in Iraq is proof enough of the claim.

Unfortunately, along with the bragging came some not so subtle sneering at other countries' militaries. It's quite obvious that the rest of the world's militaries are simply no match for the Americans; however, many armies- especially the Canadian and Western European- are actually quite proficient in peacekeeping and relatively experienced in nation building. Unfortunately, many of those countries felt slighted as well as facing enormous public pressure against the war.

I listened to the discussion of the McLaughlin group where one of the panelists stated that Bush would have to humble himself- eat crow was the phrase used- when he goes to the next NATO meeting. I disagree because as frustrated as the Europeans are, they too recognize the historic opportunity of democratizing Iraq. So I won't be surprised if the public statements from the Europeans are for public consumption while in private there'll be some very hard bargaining. Whether or not the Americans and Western Europeans can come to an agreement remains to be seen but I think some more Europeans will send troops once the guerilla war is over.