Borealis is right - real politics are a million shades of grey, but this doesn't suit politicians or journalists who want their own message to stand out in high contrast, so they exaggerate the positions of others.
Somehow they dont see this as lying.
Incidentally, here in the UK feet & inches are called "imperial measure"!
Good riddance!

An aside on the weights and measures issue: when I do my shopping at the market in France, many vendors sell fruit and veg by the pound ("livre"), even though prices are displayed in kilos.

Sheila, in the US, producers don't have to fall in line with government dictates to sell most things. If a butcher wants to sell meat in grams rather than the accepted pounds, he is free to do so in America though most consumers will find him a little batty. Another comparison, this time with Australia. After a shooting that left about 30 dead in Tasmania about 5 years ago, Australia, under an alleged right-of-center government, essentially banned gun ownership. That would never happen here. Gunowners are a huge constituency in the Republican Party and the Democrats, in many rural states, must appease gunowners to win election. For instance, Howard Dean, the most likely Democratic opponent for George Bush in 2004, strongly supports the right to bear arms. Bush's victory in 2000 was secured by his winning highly Democratic West Virginia, a state of hunters (during Thanksgiving week in November, the schools don't even bother to open in most counties) worried than Al Gore Jr.might rein in their gun rights. Even if some sort of gun grabbing statute was passed by the legislature and signed by a president, an event as likely as the cow jumping over the moon, most American gunowners, unlike those of Europe and Australia, would happily ignore the statute. With over 200,000,000 guns at large, gun rights is pretty much a done deal in the USA.

hanl, a livre is not a pound, it is a half kilo.Nobody in Europe sells in pounds, thank goodness.

Vincent, most Americans are sadly and even willfully ignorant about most things that happen outside the country. The American rebelliousness has little to do with them not comprehending that Bush invaded Iraq under trumped up or altogether dishonest reasons. Americans, always strongly insular (however not fodors posters), are made even more ignorant by their reliance on television for not only most reporting of the news but for most analysis of the news. As a proud American, I find this a glaring weakness of the USA. Sadly, I don't see Americans improving on their ignorance. The delirium of Arnold Schwartzenegger's election as California governor shows America at her worst. Ahhnold won because he was a well-known movie star known to 99.9 % of his fellow Californians. His bromides he uttered during his campaign certainly didn't elect him.

you see Steve, this is where America leaves Europe completely baffled. In what possible way is it a good thing that there are 200,000,000 guns at large in the US? Strict gun control is not only in force in the UK, it has universal support. Considering that more children are killed by accidental shootings in the home in the US in a WEEK than people are killed by guns in the UK in a year speaks volumes to us about the sense of gun control.

A shooting in the UK makes national news.

I find the frontier mentality quite laughable in this day and age.

Vincent and Elina - I think you're confusing a couple of things. The Schengen agreement as I understand it is the customs agreement between a number of EU states, the most obvious point of which is the lack of border controls when passing from France to Germany, for example. Not all EU states are included in this - the UK remains apart (quelle surprise) but I think also Denmark too. The EEA was created to accomodate the rump of EFTA when the UK, Greece and (later) Portugal joined the EC and basically gives the free trade rights without any of the political requirements. Pedantic point over....

The issue of gun control is a good example of the difference between European and US politics. The European point is that if you take away the guns, then there'll be less gun crime (although UK figures since handguns were banned after Dunblane actually show an increase.) That said, in the UK at least, people who legally hold guns must be able to prove that they are fit to do that and aren't likely to use it in any crime.

In Europe, we don't really understand the US "obsession" with unrestricted gun sale - the ability to walk into a European equivalent of Wal-Mart and buy a gun off the shelf horrifies most people here. A European interpretation of "the right to bear arms" might be "you have the right, but we need to be sure that you are fit to do it."

In terms of comparison, the UK political scene is probably the closest to the US - with the distinct difference of having a strong third party (the Liberal Democrats - my own party.) There's really little to separate Labour and the Tories now, and there is a genuine feeling that people want to try something different - to coin a phrase, a "third way." The recent by-election in Brent East - where the Liberal Democrats came from 3rd with about only 10% of the vote to win the seat - is being used as an example.

Finally, there really is much more of a challenge to leaders from the electorate in the UK, at least. I was in the US in 1992 when Clinton won, and one of the things that struck me after this was the call by Bush Snr to rally round the new President and support him - a message which came from politicians both of Democratic and Republican hue during the war in Iraq. Somehow I can't ever see that happening here!

keith, surely the reason than that UK political parties have more similar policies than they used to is that the voters are less divided.
There is simply very little support for extremists.
This must be preferable to the "them & us" politics of yesteryear.

Zippo, half a kilo is approximately a pound (500g = 1.1 lb), give or take a few brussel sprouts or whatever. I'm not claiming that French market vendors scales are in lb and oz or anything. It just tickles me that the word "livre" is still used, even if it is being applied to a metric measurement.

Zippo, I don't think so. Labour shifted right in the early 1990s because it was the only way to win power - they needed to disassociate themselves with the Labour government of the 1970s (Winter of Discontent and all that) - and even then there was the argument that they were just taking the Tory line on many things, including the spending plans from 1997 - 1999. The Tories still haven't worked out where to go - further right isn't an option which will win them votes, but equally a shift back to the patriarchal "One Nation" Conservatism is opposed by the current leadership.

There's also a lot of indecision in Britain about whether politicians should lead, taking potentially unpopular decisions, or follow public opinion and be accused of being all things to all men. As a result, both Labour and the Tories are scared to create new policies in case they are torn apart by the media (either the Guardian or the Daily Mail) and don't want to alienate the electorate by taking tough decisions (you want more nurses and better schools? That'll cost you x% on income tax.)

The opportunity is there for someone to be honest, and who is slightly disengaged from the political system to come in.

Meant to add - books on UK politics worth reading...

The Ashdown Diaries, vols 1 & 2 - written by former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown these provide (esp. in vol 2) a great insight into leading a political party and also into the workings of a New Labour government.

Were You Still Up For Portillo? - an hour by hour account of the 1997 General Election results from 10pm, including that immortal moment when Portillo lost his seat.

Andrew Rawnsley wrote an excellent book on New Labour which was published just before the last election (I think it's been revised since.) Can't remember the name though...!

I get a big kick out of people like SteveJudd, who has the all the answers. He knows better than the millions of Califorians who voted the way they did. He knows invading Iraq was a bad idea -- except, I guess, for the Iraqis, some 70% of whom think it was a good idea.

All Americans (except Judd) get their news from TV and nowhere else -- he must have read that on the internet.

Let us all now genuflect in front of Steve and beg him to enlighten us.

Keith, I know what Schengen is. Not all Schengen countries are EU countries. And Denmark is in Schengen (but does not use euro), and so are both Norway and Iceland, two countries that are not in EU.

How do Europeans feel about the huge numbers of legal and illegal aliens from Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia that continue to come into your countries.

I realize your birthrates are low and you can't find native citizens who want to perform dirty jobs or work long hours at low pay, but are you not placing yourself at serious risk of eventually losing your cultural and religious identity?

I read where 20% of France is already muslim. In thirty years will Notre Dame is turned into a Mosque?

Doesn't the absorption of poor and often old people place an unrecoverable burden on a severly strained social welfare system? Will European workers agree to work longer hours and work more years prior to retirement to support them?

keith_l said: <<In Europe, we don't really understand the US "obsession" with unrestricted gun sale - the ability to walk into a European equivalent of Wal-Mart and buy a gun off the shelf horrifies most people here.>>

What you should understand is that the "obsession" with guns is not universal here in the US. A greater percentage of gun owners and people who are obsessed with guns live in more conservative and rural parts of the country where there is a history of gun ownership. In larger, more cosmopolitan parts of the country (particularly in the north east, where I live), people tend to be much more in favor of gun control laws and own fewer guns than in the south and west. I'd be really shocked to learn that anyone I know owns a gun.

The Wal-Marts I've been in do not sell guns, but the thought of being able to buy a gun in Wal-Mart is pretty frightening to many Americans, too.

Dumas, be signed by all the Le Pens of Europe, and God knows there is no shortage of them. Even the facts are wrong:
20 % of France is muslim? Where have you heard that? On Fox News? True, France has got the largest Muslim (and Jewish, for that matter) community in Europe, but it doesn't exceed 4 to 5 million out of 60 million Frenchmen, so you do the maths. Furthermore, and that's some general knowledge that brings us back to the initial request for general political knowledge about Europe, France is a fiercely secular State. No president or politician will ever say "God bless France", or would hold prayer sessions with his cabinet in the Elysee palace! All religious symbols, such as the Muslim veil, the Jewish kippa, or even theoritically a Christian cross, are forbidden within public schools and administrations. Granted, the implementation of such measures does pose some problems, especially with Muslim female teenagers in schools, but that's the rule.

No,immigrants do not bring "old" people, on the contrary, they are the only ones who still have large families, necessary for the renewal of generations and the feeding of State pension funds. And, if anything, it's these workers who will support European born ones in their pensions. Another racist cliche exploited by the far right is that immigrants are more prone to using the public health system than native Europeans. This does not stand the test of statistics: as usual, welfare state benefits (health care, free universities, free museums, etc. ) are more used by the middle classes and up than by the poorest.

You did not answer my question about you being at risk of losing your cultural and religious identity?

If the imigrants have large families will they not soon represent the majority?

And don't many immigrants work for cash and don't pay taxes?

What about unemployment rates? Are you saying all immigranrts are employed?

And can't an immigrant bring thier parents into the country after they are a citizen? These people will not have paid into the system, but will be getting benefits.

What is the source for your view on what % muslims make up of the french population?

Dumas, you never answered as to where you "read" that the Muslim population was so large in France, I'd be curious also as to your source. I don't think Vincent's ideas are "views" on things that are more factual. Here is a source from Islamic web which certainly is not going to underest. it, and has 7 pct
http://islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm

Here is an article in the IHT by a NY times writer from earlier this year that says it is about 17 pct in MARSEILLE, which I imagine is one of the highest concentrations in the country. Now if it is only 17 pct there, how could it be 20 pct for France as a whole?
http://rasa.iht.com/articles/92727.html

Here is the CIA Factbook, and they put it at 5-10 pct.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/fr.html

Why don't you read more reliable sources?

On another note, I'm currently reading Paris 1919 for a history book group I belong to and am enjoying it, but I've always been interested in French and Eur. history, especially in last 200 years. I second the recommendation above on this.

Another random thought on this thread -- I lean to the left politically, am probably socialist regarding health care due to my public health background, and I lived in California many years. Even I do not think Mr. Schwarzenegger was elected solely because he was a celebrity. We used to live in the same neighborhood, actually, and I'd run into him at the store, coincidentally. He is a moderate or progressive Republican, as they say, which is appealing to many, has done some good things with charities and run successful businesses, and shows some energy and enthusiasm. I don't know who I would have voted for out there if I still lived there, but even I can't stand Gray Davis. Saying the results had no meaning, and that he is not as qualified as almost anyone else who runs for office in our country, is not something I can agree with. I personally like the idea that people from different backgrounds are entering politics and don't think it should be reserved for lawyers or whatever the allusion is when people say he wasn't qualified. A lot of politicians have no particular qualifications, at least they sure don't show it and I think other intangibles can predict success a lot more than having been a state comptroller or lawyer. In any case, it will be interesting to see what happens as there is no easy fix to their budget problems out there.

I do agree with Iraq statements, but I feel that when it is necessary to make fun of someone's name or accent (as in SteveJudd's post) in order to prsent a position or argument is an indication of ignorance itself and lack of ability to make any legitimate argument or thought. This is the kind of thing Rush Limbaugh does and I find it of no merit and disgraceful. It is also not very thoughtful analysis to claim that as the sole reason he won the election.

A couple of people wondered aloud as to what is the objective means of measuring extremism or a political viewpoint.

I'll bite with this definition: Extremism isn't a point on a spectrum, but the degree of arrogance with which we hold a view. Extremists try to coerce or shame people into adopting their views: moderates try to persuade, while refraining from attacking people for being fearful.

Jason888, I've just started reading "Paris 1919." I gotta confess, it's quite a tome. With my schedule, not to mention my degree of discipline, ,with luck, I'll finish it by Christmas.... : - )

dumas - I am presuming you are an American, as it's Americans who dominate this forum.

In which case I presume that at some point in your family history, either you or your ancestors were immigrants to America. That being the case, I find your obviously harsh views towards immigrants rather hard to take.

Europe, and especially former imperialist nations such as the UK and France, have always seen an influx of immigrants. London has been multicultural since the Romans arrived.

The mother countries of immigrants changes as wars and economic crises occur in different parts of the world.

Religious identity is really not an issue as Vincent points out - certainly in the UK our politicians would never dream to bang the god squad drum, and even conservative old Prince Charles would like his title to be "Defender of Faiths" when he's King (the Queen's title being Defender of the Faith as head of the Church of England).

Are you suggesting that we lock up our borders and let no-one who isn't pure bred to enter? After all why should we care if people in Bosnia/Iraq/Liberia etc are destitute and homeless?

In the UK we invited immigrants from former British Colonies to move here in the 50s and 60s because we needed them. Our workforce just wasn't strong enough. And I for one am glad they are here. Europe is not a time capsule or a set from the Epcot Centre. Politics change, religions change, language develops, and long may it continue.