Is France "stingy"?

Well, gosh, not everyone can be so farsighted as PDiddie!

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041228-122330-7268r.htm

"Ignorance" implies a lack of malice, so it isn't quite accurate.
Adjectives that come to mind are Contentious, mean-spirited and hypocritical...

President Compassionate Conservative responded to a global calamity with tens of thousands dead by offering a measly $35 million. That is less than he will spend on his coronation -- err, inauguration. It's what the US spends in Iraq roughly every 3-4 hours.

This administration's first feeble efforts at generosity, coupled with Bush's utter silence on the matter (until he was shamed by Clinton into opening his mouth), adds further to the animosity the world holds against the US.

At a time when we could've shined, and made true on our promise of international generosity and a beacon of optimism and hope, the Bush administration gave us the opposite.

And the obnoxiousness continues. Why did Colin Powell have to wait until he dropped the ball in Times Square before going to Indonesia? And what qualifies Jeb Bush to be making this trip? His expertise in viewing aquatic calamity from a helicopter?

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. You accuse me of a double standard. For this to be true, you would be obliged to demonstrate that i object to criticism of France, but not to criticism of the United States. You have not demonstrated that this is the case. So, as this doesn't seem to sink in for you the first time, or even the second or third time, i'll go over it again:

1. First and foremost, your claim that Tico's thread here is a response to criticism of the United States is specious for several reasons:

a. Criticizing the amount of aid offered for disaster relief by a government is a criticism of that government, not the nation which has the misfortune (in this case) to be subject to that government. Therefore, even if Tico had made his case that the French government were stingy in the amount of aid they have offered (which he has not, see Walter's post and my posts on this subject), it would neither prove that France is stingy, nor that France is generous. Had he proven his case, all that it would demonstrate is that the French government is stingy. However, he failed to make his case.

b. Those whom you allege have criticized the United States for the amount of their disaster relief are in fact criticizing the government of the United States, and not America or the Americans themselves (if you still aren't following this, read 1. a., above, again. The individual whom Lash has cited is described as a Norwegian-born official of the United Nations--therefore, were there any logic to Tico's thread (a pathetic hope to cherish), Norway would be the object of his criticism, not France. In the thread you linked, Gus is the author, and you have suggested that inasmuch as Dlowan and Farmerman posted there, it ought to be taken seriously. I state with confidence that neither Gus, nor Dlowan, nor Farmerman are French, once again beggaring your contention that some sort of double-standard is in operation here. I have contended that this thread is an exercise in French-bashing, and you have written nothing to contend against this, you simply have shouted "double-standard" again and again, using one or your favorite pathetic forensic techniques, large, bold-faced type to do your shouting. You have not demonstrated that my objection to French-bashing constitutes a double-standard, because you haven't demonstrated that i remain silent when people bash Americans. You will be unable to do so, not simply because of your profound ignorance of what i believe, but because there is no evidence to that effect.

c. You beggar your own case by pointing to Gus' thread and it's Bush-bashing content. That constitutes criticism of the administation, not of the United States. I point out to once again that the current government and the United States are two different things altogether.

d. Although it seems hopeless to try to get through your skull what forensic terms mean, i'll take another shot. Having a double-standard means that one objects to something in one case and not another. Therefore, you failed attempts to paint me in the same terms as others are meaningless precisely because you have not demonstrated that i object to French-bashing but do not object to American-bashing. Unless and until you do so, you're just shouting meaningless phrases which you apparently think give weight to your argument. You allege that a double standard is in use--therefore, the burden of proving that to be the case lies with you. You have not proven that case.

So let's look at your nonsense in detail: That's because just like the others who demonstrated the double standard before your arrival, you didn't have anything to say about that.--I have repeatedly pointed out that you have no evidence that i object to French-bashing but not to American-bashing, so you are lieing when you say i have nothing to say on that topic. The truth, a word you bandy about without much regard for what may in fact constitute the truth, is that you have failed to respond to this point i have repeatedly made. Thus, you perpetuated the double standard that I detailed here.--You have detailed nothing, you have failed to demonstrate that i object to French-bashing but not to American-bashing. Ignoring that fact won't change the nonsensical nature of your accusations. There's nothing complicated here Setanta.--Indeed, there is nothing complicated here, this is a clear-cut case of French-bashing, engaged in without any basis for claiming the lack of reciprocation which would answer your specious charges of a double standard in operation. No matter how long you make your responses, the truth remains the same.--In this, you are correct, but not as you believe it to be the case. Neither the length of my responses, nor the impoverished brevity of yours alters the fact that Tico started a thread to bash the French without good reason, and likely only because French-bashing has become one of the favorite indoor recreations of American conservatives.



Whether or not you believe in god is meaningless, the point is that Rove has relied upon charismatic and fundamentalist christians to make the crucial difference at the polls for the Shrub. Not everything i write is about you, so don't flatter yourself overly.

B. I agree with Bush on very little outside of his aggressive foreign policy.

Once again, my comments were about the administration and its deluded followers, and not necessarily about you. You need to get over yourself. Whether or not you support the Shrub's policies does not alter either that you have failed to make your case that a double standard is in operation or that a criticism of the amount of aid offered is a criticism of the government and not the American people. As your contention that an objection to bashing France constitutes a double standard can only work if the person objecting to the French-bashing fails to object to American-bashing. This is why i have repeatedly made a distinction between the government and the people of both nations. The title of this thread is "Is France stingy," not "Is the French government stingy."



Then you have no basis for claiming that objecting to French-bashing is a double standard, unless you define America in such terms. Tediously, allow me to repeat that criticism of the amount of aid offered by the American government does not constitute criticism of the United States. If you do not define America in terms of your political view, you have no basis for your claim that an objection to French-bashing is a double standard in view of criticisms about the amount of aid offered by the government of the United States.



You demonstrate a profound ignorance of American political history. After Andrew Jackson created the modern Democratic Party from the wreck of Jefferson's Republican party, and defeated John Quincy Adams, Adams attempted to create a new political party from the remains of the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans who were not among the disaffected members attracted to Jackson's party. He failed. The remaining Federalists who were unwilling to follow Adam's lead formed the Whig Party. Others who supported Adams' political principles were not content with the Whigs however, and the modern Republican party was created, and in 1856, put John C. Frémont up as their Presidential candidate. Frémont got shalacked, and the survivors went to work creating a party from the local wards upward, just as Jackson had done in 1828 when he created the modern Democratic Party. They then put Lincoln up as their candidate. Even then, Lincoln would not have won had not John Breckenridge split the Democratic Party by opposing the Democratic candidate, Stephen Douglas, in 1860. The political bosses put the ward heelers to work, and their rewards were the appointments that Lincoln made in 1861, Chase from Ohio, Cameron from Pennsylvania, etc. With Lincoln's assassination, and the failed attempt to impeach Andrew Johnson, the Republicans took drastic steps to create political machines in the image of the successful Tammany Hall of "Boss" Tweed in New York. With the election of Grant, the spoils system first instituted by Jackson's Democrats became enshrined in American politics, as the Democrats and Republicans were the only surviving political parties.

Political Bosses were those who could get out the vote reliably, and award the spoils of victory to those who assisted the task. At the lowest level, this meant ward heelers who would hire thugs to beat up the known supporters of the opposing party when they tried to go vote. At the highest level, you had the United States Senate. Senators were not elected by popular vote then, the were still appointed by state legislatures. Therefore, when Joe Conkling delivered the vote for Rutherford Hayes after the 1876 election, he was appointed to the Senate by the now Republican-dominated Assembly in New York. He insisted on getting his way in the distribution of offices, and the most celebrated case of this was the Collectorship of Customs for the Port of New York. Conkling put forward Chester Arthur for the position; Hayes tried to appoint Theodore Roosevelt, Sr. (father of the Theodore Roosevelt who would become President in 1901), because Roosevelt was a hero to Civil War Veterans for his work on the Allotments Commission which assured that the wives and children at home would be cared for while Mr. Lincoln's armies fought for the Union, and because Roosevelt was "above" politics. Conkling simply put the screws to the other appointed Republican senators, and Hayes had to give. Teddy Roosevelt always believed that the entire affair killed his father, who was dead within less than two years after the controversy began. This is why TR became a "radical" Republican when he entered the New York assembly in 1881, and fought Tammany Hall and the Conkling Republican machine. Because the Democrat, Grover Cleveland, had been elected Governor of New York in 1882 as a "reform" Democrat, Roosevelt worked with him, and further alienated the Republican machine. At the 1884 Republican convention, Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge opposed the favored candidate of the Republican Bosses, James Blaine, because he was considered corrupt. Many Republicans "bolted," and simply didn't vote (called "mugwumps," because their "mugs" were on one side of the fende, and their "wumps" on the other). Roosevelt and Lodge were accused of being mugwumps, although it was not true--but the upshot was that Grover Cleveland was elected. In 1888, Roosevelt and Lodge came back to the fold, but were shunned by the bosses, and Benjamin Harrison got elected by the Electoral College, while being a minority President who had gotten a smaller popular vote than Cleveland. Roosevelt's reward was appointment to the Civil Service Commission, and Lodge won election to the House of Representatives. In 1892, Roosevelt and Lodge came back to the fold, but it didn't help, and Cleveland was elected to his second term. Cleveland continued Roosevelt on the Civil Service commission, further alienating him from the Republican Bosses. In 1896, Marcus Hanna of Ohio, the Republican political Boss in that state, put forward a member of the House, James McKinley, and Roosevelt and Lodge got behind him in that campaign. Lodge's reward was to be appointed to the Senate by the Massachusetts Republican machine, and Roosevelt was finally appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy, despite the misgivings of McKinley and Hanna. Hanna's piece of the pie was appointment to the Senate by the Ohio machine.

After Roosevelt, Lodge, Leonard Wood and others succeeded in their "aggressive foreign policy" (plus ça change . . . ) and got a war with Spain, Roosevelt resigned, and went to Cuba. Returning a hero, he was elected Governor of New York. New York by then already elected its Senators (the constitution was not ammended to require the popular elections of Senators until the XVIIth amendment was ratified in 1913), and Thomas Collier Platt was the Republican Senator, and the Republican political boss. Roosevelt refused to appoint the men Platt selected, and compromised by providing short lists from which Platt could choose a name. The Republican political bosses profoudnly mistrusted Roosevelt, but Platt was not about to have him for another term as a "reform" governor in New York (Governors in New York then served a two-year term), so at the 1900 Republican convention, he managed to get Roosevelt nominated as Vice President (Garrett Hobart, McKinley's first Vice President, died in office), and therefore "kicked upstairs," or so Platt believed. Marc Hanna was vehemently opposed to Roosevelt, saying: "Don't you realize that only one life separates this madman from the Presidency?" In September, 1901, at the Panamerican Exposition in Buffalo, New York, McKinley was shot. A week later, he died, and Roosevelt became President.

I have chose Roosevelt both becasue i am intimately acquainted with the details of his career, but also for a much more important reason in the context of this reply. When Roosevelt won re-election in 1904, it was without reference to the political bosses, and it was by the greatest proportionate plurality in the history of our nation, with the exception of George Washington who ran unopposed, and James Monroe, who ran unopposed for re-election in 1820. The 1904 election was the first time since 1868 that an election was not decided by the political machines, and in my never humble opinion, it's the last time it happened as well. If you really believe that our government is selected by the popular will, you are living in a fool's paradise. Since you know nothing of what i believe, you are not qualified to decide what my "ilk" is. John Kerry was not "my" candidate, i personally would have preferred to see Edwards in the top spot. But i voted for Kerry, because the Shrub is a disaster for the economy and our foreign policy. You are completely incorrect to state that a "minority" of citizens oppose Bush. You don't know, and i don't know if that is the case. Bush was elected by a slim majority of those who bothered to vote--you have no basis for your inference that the majority of Americans support Bush. I have already pointed out that Rove depends on the people you have described as "stupid, bigoted bible-freaks" (i did not use such terms) to provide Bush's electoral majority. I have nowhere described all, or even a majority of Bush's supporters in such terms. Nice try at raising the temperature of the exchange, but you've failed, and only demonstrated your own lack of discretion and a sense of proportion.



And i have repeatedly pointed out that your link proves nothing about a double standard. Your continued insistence upon this demonstrates that your don't understand the rhetorical principles in operation here--which doesn't surprise me.



Ad nausem: your links do not provide the least proof that i am applying different standards to the criticism of France and the criticism of the United States. You're way in over your head--i wouldn't give you a snowball's chance in hell in a debate with a member of a bad high school debating squad. You're clueless about the terms you use, what they mean, and how they ought to be demonstrated. I have no doubt, however, that you'll continue to "laugh out loud," to use idiotic emoticons, and to shout in large, bold-faced type in a pathetic attempt to make an argument without a clue.

Yeah, I probably am giving them too much benefit of the doubt, Magus, seeing as how the Bush lickspittles on this board are screeching so loudly in defense...

Yeah. Actually, it is. And the joke's on you--and your so-inclined cohorts. You never disappoint.

Why DO you think France crops up so often here...?

It is a template for forcing your bias out into the open. Some insult or accusation is hurled against the US... And it is so transparent I'm really surprised this crew continues to fall for it-- France is dragged into the same thing--and lo, those who either criticised the US FOR THE SAME THING, or at least buzzed around in tacit agreement are suddenly and traumatically indignant that an American--more specifically a conservative American-- would dare say such a thing about France. (Though a few threads over, they are clearly SAYING THE SAME THING about the US, or chuckling in tacit agreement.)

Works every time. Watching you try to mold facts to fit your obvious behavior (see above) has become sport. You just can't spin it.

Maybe you should just all admit your biased against America--and France can catch a break. For a couple of weeks, anyway. Its sort of become a habit.

Lash is exactly right, Timber. Please consider any French slamming I do wholly separate from my take on this disaster... as I've made clear from the beginning. Next, examine how many of the usual suspects are going out of there way to use the disaster as bludgeon to hit our country's leadership with. THEY ARE NOT DOING SO OUT OF HUMOR... yet are completely blind to the hypocrisy they demonstrate with their feigned indignance.

Walter, you slipped an OCCOM/Phoenix slam in there and a good one at that. Your Ayn Rand Institute Story illustrates the importance of not taking too literally any ideal. In light of this disaster, their position is morally bankrupt to the point of being disgusting. Your decision to post it, however, makes you as guilty as anyone saying anything about the French…

Let me be very clear about this. Thank you for posting the news about the Ayn Rand Institute. I hadn't seen the story before and am glad to know their position, however disgusting it may be. The world is still turning. Had I not already seen Tico's list of contributions on a half a dozen different news segments, I would have been glad to know their positions as well.

I'm doubly glad that it proved false and that all countries seem to be stepping up to the plate. I 'd prefer another Zero from my own, not because I'm so impressed with our penis size, but rather because of the extraordinary difference it could make to the victims compared to the nearly unperceptable difference it would make here at home.

Ps. The French still suck.

You're as full of it as O'Bill. Rather than simply referring to a different thread, or providing a nebulous link the way Bill does, why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, and prove your case.

I defy you to demonstrate that i have objected to the criticism of the French, while indulging in the same criticisms of the Americans.

Remember, criticizing the administration does not constitute criticisim of Americans--just some of the more venal ones.

I'll never keep up with this thread today, wow.

Wow is right. I immediately started answering a post, and it wound up three pages over...

Phew - glad it IS a joke, Lash.

As for the rest - I will not presume to comment for others - but as for myself, here are my comments on this thread - if you wish to read into them an unfair bias, so be it. Enjoy yourself. I am happy to let my words speak for themselves in this pitiful matter:





And a quote from another thread:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1096167#1096167

I STILL think it a pity that these threads were opened.

This isn't any kind of a rebuttal to any idea that's been posted here. It's certainly not evidence for a contention of any kind.

It's just pure nasty.

You really should make an attempt to exercise some restraint if this is all you can do.

Hear, hear, Miss Wabbit . . .

Very good idea to boost this with two [Middle] French words, Lash!

I have not specifically accused you of bashing the French. I have opined that this is part and parcel of the kind of French-bashing in which conservatives love to engage. Having taken notice that i did not specifically state that you did this to bash the French, i will offer my opinion however, that that is precisely what i believe you are doing, and i don't for a moment believe your protestations to the contrary. You have written: "Are there any Francophiles out there who can explain this?" That is tendentious language, and constitues a gage thrown down to all those whom you would characterize as "francophiles."

In your opening remarks, you have written: "Just looking at the pending tsunami disaster in Asia, the US has already pledged $35,000,000 in "preliminary aid" to the region. UK, Japan ($30 mil), Australia ($27 mil), Saudi Arabia ($10 mil), Germany ($2.7 mil), and Canada, have all pledged large sums. France has pledged $135,000." Not only is this a patently false statement on your part (Walter's link demonstrates that France had already pledged 5.6 million Euros to the EU aid package for southeast Asia), but what you provide as evidence is no evidence at all. The article you have reproduced clearly relates to French aid offered in the search for the 14 missing French citizens in Thailand. The article does not state, nor is it reasonable to construe that this is all the aid France was prepared to provide.

And, i refer you to the point i made to O'Bill. When both O'Bill and Lash objected that others were bashing America for its aid package, as though that justified bashing France, i pointed out that these are unrelated. Lash quoted Jan Egelund, and you have vilified this individual--who is described as Norwegian-born. So how does that justify going after the French? Why was France in particular your target, after having slurred Mr. Egelund for his remarks. If you have no particular prejudice against the French, why have you not investigated Norway in response to the comments of Mr. Egelund?

You are absolutely correct, i do not know you--and am uninterested in making your acquaintance, having read many of your posts. You are absolutely wrong, i have not made accusations about you, my remarks were about the attitude of conservative Americans toward France and the French. Of course, if the shoe fits . . .



Yes, i am saying that this is not a legitimate line of questioning, as the article refers specifically to the aid France will provide for rescue efforts in Thailand to find the missing French citizens, and does not refer to French aid pledged for the nations devestated by the tsunami.



Simply because Walter provided information with which you were unfamiliar does not authorize a statement that the information was not widely available in the United States. If that ended it as far as you are concerned, what are you doing back here?

Once again, i did not say that you personally were bashing the French. However, i'm willing to state right now that i do not believe your protestatons, and that i believe from the outset that your intention was to vilify France and the French. As for the use of the term "Frog-bashing," i was simply repeating the term most popular among conservatives in the area in which i live. Yes, it is derogatory, which is why those conservatives use it.

You don't convince me at all with your protestations of innocence. If you were innocent of antipathy toward the French, you would not have used the article you posted, which clearly does not refer to overall aid, but simply the amount allocated to support efforts to rescue the missing citizens in Thailand. Either that, or your reading skills are so poor that you couldn't figure that out.

I'm not buying your story.

Setanta, you accurately predicted my reaction to your enormous hot air balloon:

I won't be separating the smattering of fact from the mountain of fiction in that filibuster of denial. I will state that the folks you are now chiming in your agreement with are the very people perpetuating the double standard I described. By agreeing, rather than doing your "I'm-so-disgusted" dance, you continue to perpetuate the double standard yourself as well.
You, Deb, PDiddie etc. empathize with these sentiments even while you continue to use this disaster as a staging ground for attacks against the leadership of the United States. This is utter hypocrisy and your refusal to admit the obvious really is quite... well, obvious.

O'Bill, you are a liar. You have failed to provide any direct quote of mine which demonstrates that i object to criticism of the French, but criticize Americans, or support or condone the criticism of Americans.

Until you do that, every time you trot out your double standard crap, you are just making a liar out of yourself, once again.

That is a flagrant slur of Miss Olga. Do you have any direct quotes from Miss Olga or Dlowan to support you claim that they "use this disaster as a staging ground for attacks against the leadership of the United States," or are you up to your old tactic which assumes that repeating a lie often enough will make it true? Quite frankly, i haven't read enough of PDiddie's posts to answer that charge against him, and suspect it may be true, because he revels in such attacks on the Shrub--i can't really blame him, although i quickly tire of it myself, at least relative to the enthusiasm which he displays for the exercise. You have no business leveling such an accusation against Miss Olga and Our Dear Bunny--i just despise you the more for nastiness such as this.

Actually, Bill, I don't feel guilty at all.

And even more: I have more than doubts that you can prove that, but it definately wrong to call me guilty.

The op-ed I quoted above, wasn't online as an op-ed until ... well, recently, hours ago, I might think.

It was at first published as a Letter to the editor and thus not in my direct focus.

(Besides, I must admit to read very, very seldom anything by the aynrand. And I even would have missed this, if not a couple of conservative newsletters were pointing to it.)

Now I'm a liar? Get a grip, Set. Your hypocrisy has been thoroughly demonstrated here by your very lack of quote-ibility in that regard.

Perhaps some members of your choir will agree with that feeble denial, if only to defend their own hypocrisy.