Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The only new thing, is that it will be too short to present/explain/compare seriously the different programs...

    Otherwise it seems it will be as usual in France :
    • People only talking about what others did wrong
    • People talking about the "affaires"
    • People making vague promises that they will forget as soon as they'll be elected...
    • No serious real debate

    The worst is that it's true for each party !
    (I can give example, if asked)

    It sometimes makes me sick to hear them complaining about the people's lack of

    • As I said in my previous entry on the subject, campaigns aren't where politics happen. Never, not in any country that I know. To a certain extent, this can be considered "logical". The goal of the campaign is to win the elections, and then the politics happen (or not ;-)

      I totally agree that this is not optimal, but in the past having genuine public debates has proven disastrous as any well-developed idea is broken by the simplest demagogy. One thing that I find a pity is that the programs are avail

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • I hope you won't take it for a personnal attack, but what you say is a perfect illustration of what I dislike in politician politic :

        The goal of the campaign is to win the elections, and then the politics happen (or not ;-)
        Sorry but no, Call me an idealist but I thought it should be a moment when everybody would present/share/compare his Ideas to make the things better.
        Now every people involved in politic find it normal to see it ONLY as a race to win (Should I underline that the reach for power total
        • First and foremost, I don't take this as a personal attack. This is a discussion site, if I didn't want people to voice their opinions I'd turn comments off. I hope you don't take anything personally either.

          Second, while I'm a member of the PS for pragmatic reasons (ie I want to be involved in politics, and it is the best option I could find after moving through a number of parties) I am clearly not representative of the main tendencies of the party -- I'm probably on the most leftist branch, and clearly avant-garde on a number of subjects. I will certainly not try to defend some PS positions or actions that I disagree with.

          Now that those points are clear, call me a bastard if you wish but I stand by my opinion that the primary goal of a campaign is to win the elections. I do concur that more and better debate would make things more interesting, but you can have the best ideas in the world, if you don't get to have the power it's moot. Nice discussion, but mostly useless. That's why it's called a campaign and not a debate. Besides, I'd find it a bit silly to suddenly have debates because the elections are coming up. That's like throwing a party only when there's a national event (14th of July and the such). There are plenty of places in which the political debates can and in fact do take place. Open conferences, associations, think tanks, etc. All year round.

          For the "affaires", I was talking about the candidates, not politicians as a whole. Quite obviously Pasqua most certainly beats anyone else in terms of illegality, politicians and mafiosi alike. I maintain that Chirac is by far more corrupt than all the others put together. I think that's not too hard to see.

          Saying that no candidate is worse than the others is just silly. If you want a debate, it would probably be a good not to make broad sweeping assertions like that.

          Re measures that didn't make it:

          retirement (re)financing, yes indeed, that was one of those I had in mind in my previous comment.

          35h: as the owner of a small company, I am well aware of the problems and pitfalls. We succesfully had our company running on 35h here before we were sent into turmoil by our former associate. The problems of companies with less than 20 employees (on average) are known and hard to fix (which is why the reform doesn't affect them very directly). I think it's a pity that the CJD (Cercle des Jeunes Entrepreneurs, mostly not politically aligned) didn't make its voice heard better as they had some good ideas in that area, and that instead the MEDEF, which is only representative of the largest companies, put forth it's bag of filthy ultraliberal ideas. Note also that working more than 39h is illegal unless you are a share-holding manager, or you have a contract that precompensates for overtime (as is often the case in scientific research). Also note that a large part of the population has already benefitted from it, and that in my opinion is already progress.

          Online administration: I can tell you haven't looked at what is offered. Let me restate: most administrative tasks can be carried out at least in part online, and more is constantly in the works. I already filed my income tax online, so I know that it's already possible. It's also far from being the only thing that can be done on the many administrative sites. I'm personally presently working on the front of accessibility, which is imho still a major problem there.

          Crypto: I agree that things could be better there. The problem is currently stuck in diplomacy, ie we are talking with our political partners abroad in order to have something coherent, and that is proving difficult. 9-11 hasn't made that much easier so far.

          PS: hey look! It's the campaign and we're having a debate! ;-)

          --

          -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]