Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...


Click here to go there...

« June 2005 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor


"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"

Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Monday, 6 June 2005

Topic: The Law

Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454: Oh well….

The basic news story –

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
Bill Mears - CNN Washington Bureau - Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 2:58 PM EDT (1858 GMT)
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented.

… The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.

"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.

At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of "patient pot." …
The plaintiff, Angel Raich, has brain cancer. She was growing her own. But the Justice department successfully argued that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because what she grew for herself would affect "overall production" of this stuff, "much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs." I think that’s a "slippery slope" argument.

California's Compassionate Use Act, approved by fifty-six percent of the voters out here, is now null and void – along with parallel laws in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Oh, and Arizona too. Looks like Montel Williams will have to deal his multiple sclerosis with something more expensive, but legal, from Merck or Squibb.

CNN adds this detail -
In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal government invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to combating illegal drug possession."
You see, it is all part of GWOT™ – the Global War on Terror.

Bob, our columnist for Just Above Sunset emailed me a reaction - "Compassionate Conservatives? Not for cancer patients."

I sent him back this comment from Andrew Sullivan that has been bouncing around the web -
Regardless of how you feel about medical marijuana - I'm strongly for it - the Supreme Court case was really about the right to the federal government to tell states what to do. If the feds can forbid someone who grows pot in his own garden, sells none of it, uses it for his own medical use and is allowed to by his own state, it's still covered by the Interstate commerce exemption.

Yeah, right.
And Sullivan had earlier quoted Milton Friedman in Forbes on the federal government spending billions to deal with our drug problems -
There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana. $7.7 billion is a lot of money, but that is one of the lesser evils. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven't even included the harm to young people. It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes.
Milton is an economist, not a politician.

The lawyers?

Over at Talk Left the immediate reaction was this -
The decision seems counter-intuitive to me from a practical standpoint. Under federal law, possession of marijuana for personal use is a misdemeanor. Growing even one plant is a felony. So, what the decision does is encourage pot smokers to engage in a business transaction by buying marijuana in the marketplace, so as not to get tagged with a cultivation felony. Had the court ruled the other way, the marketplace would be diminished for these users as they could grow their own in the privacy of their own homes. Go figure.
And at the UCLA constitutional law site, The Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein offers this -
The five-member majority of the Court simply does not take federalism seriously. ? It seems we do to some extent live under a system where the personal preferences of the Justices, having nothing to do with the history, text, or logic of the Constitution, dictate when the Supreme Court will or will not intervene to overturn particular regulations.
Ah, perhaps it was a political decision?

If you like law stuff, you can visit Lawrence Solum's Legal Theory Blog which, he says, comments and reports on recent scholarship in jurisprudence, law and philosophy, law and economic theory, and theoretical work in substantive areas, such as constitutional law, cyberlaw, procedure, criminal law, intellectual property, torts, and contracts. That is not everyone?s cup of tea, but you can find an excruciatingly detailed analysis of the ruling there.

For a political comment of note James Bartlett at The Best of the Blogs offers this -
Of all the pandering stunts John Ashcroft engaged in as Attorney General, his desire to prosecute medical marijuana users always struck me as one of the worst. Never mind the inconsistency of an unreconstructed Confederate arguing for federal intervention in a state issue. What's worse is the jackbooted intrusion by the feds into the lives of people with cancer or AIDS, who already have more than enough to worry about. Yet the Supremes voted 6-3 today that federal laws banning medical marijuana take precedence over the laws legalizing it in 10 states ?

John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, but he suggested that all was not bleak for medical marijuana's future. "More important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." In other words, don't worry - Congress could, after all, legalize medical marijuana.

Mr. Justice Stevens, what are you smoking?
I don?t have a dog in this hunt, as they say, but I see this from the Associated Press ?

Marijuana Plaintiffs to Defy Court Ruling
Plaintiffs in Medical Marijuana Case Say They'll Defy Supreme Court Order, Continue to Smoke Pot
David Kravets - Monday, June 06, 2005
The two plaintiffs in the medical marijuana case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday say they will defy the ruling and continue to smoke pot, even at the risk of arrest by federal authorities.

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, who smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain.

? "If I stop using cannabis, unfortunately, I would die," said Raich, who estimates her marijuana intake to be about nine pounds a year.

Raich, 39, suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other problems. She said she uses marijuana every few waking hours, on the advice of her doctor, who said dozens of other medications were of little help.
Oh, this is going to be fun.


Footnote ?

The Los Angeles Times in their editorial on these matters on Tuesday, June 7, points out the problem with arguing that the federal government superceding the states is wrong is itself a two-edged sword -
? Before you get indignant at the Supreme Court, however, think about how you might have reacted in the reverse situation. Suppose Congress did as we asked and enacted a federal law allowing compassionate use of marijuana. And suppose that California continued to arrest doctors and patients under its own drug laws, which had no such exception. Would you have said: "Well, that's federalism for you?" Or would you have found the arguments of the majority in this case, Gonzales vs. Raich, strangely compelling?

The commerce clause authorizes the federal government to regulate trade within the U.S. and abroad. For decades, during and after the New Deal, this clause became the all-purpose authority for anything the federal government wanted to do, or to prevent individual states from doing. Sometimes this was a stretch. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, for instance, was justified constitutionally by the need to regulate interstate commerce.

Federalism and the commerce clause bring out the hypocrite in all of us. If you're against some government policy, you tend to believe that the problem would be better handled at the state level. If you're for it, you believe that it is one of the nation's core functions and must be addressed nationally. There are enough contradictory Supreme Court declarations to allow either case to be made.
Yes, and the Times comes to this conclusion -
... Given how many policies this page has happily urged the federal government to impose on ? well, Alabama and Mississippi and South Carolina, if not California, that clearly means supporting the court's decision.
What?s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Maybe.

But that avoids the essential question. What?s the big deal here with denying these patients this relief? Where?s the harm?

Posted by Alan at 17:24 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 7 June 2005 12:33 PDT home

Topic: Couldn't be so...

Decline and Fall

Our friend, the high-powered Wall Street attorney, from his offices thirty-two stories above lower Manhattan, with a view down on the Statue of Liberty, sends us a note about recent current events items we’ve discussed –
The news is disturbing, but then, you just report it, you don't make it.

I do wonder how this will all look in fifty to one hundred years. If the 20th Century was the American Century, I would posit that the 21st Century will be known as the Anti-American Century - or the century in which America no longer was America in terms of ideals and its potential place in the world.
Perhaps so. Maybe things will move in another direction after the 2008 elections. Maybe not. No one can be sure.

I do note that Patriot Act II - now under consideration in Washington – has a provision for stripping Americans of their citizenship for supporting terrorist organizations – and could that apply, eventually, to registered Democrats? Well, I’m sure the Republican-controlled administration, congress and courts would never go that far.

And here a fellow argues Guantanamo should be closed because it was conceived as the beginning of the end of the American Republic. Juan Cole, that professor of history at the University of Michigan, the middle-east expert on Iraq who now and then travels down to Washington to testify before congress, has this to say - Monday, June 6, 2005 -
Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware has now called for Guantanamo to be closed down. Absolutely right.

The main reason is not that it is a continued scandal and creates a very poor image among Muslims worldwide of the United States. This allegation is true, and the US press has done a poor job of covering the continued fall-out of the Quran desecration story among Muslims world-wide. But it isn't the main reason the prison should be closed.

The main reason is that the Bush Administration established the prison at Guantanamo in hopes of gutting the Bill of Rights. They wanted the prisoners there to be beyond the law, outside the framework of judiciality. They would have no lawyers. They would be tried only if the administration wanted to try them. They would be held indefinitely. They would be outside the framework of US law and also of the Geneval Conventions-- though Rumsfeld keeps slipping and calling them prisoners of war.

Terrorists are dirty criminals who should be tried, and if found guilty, put away for life. Terrorists are criminals. They are not non-human, and any attempt to create a category of human beings to whom the protections of the law do not apply is an attempt to undermine the Republic. It is a return of the Bill of Attainder, a feature of absolute monarchy that the Founding Fathers stood against. It is something to which even Rehnquist is opposed.

Once it was established that these Muslims could be treated in this way, Bush would be a sort of absolute monarch over all such detainees (remember that some of them might be innocent for all we know) And then gradually others could be added to the category of the "rights-less." The Patriot Act II envisages stripping Americans of their citizenship for supporting terrorist organizations. Without citizenship, they would not be afforded the protections of the Constitution. And gradually, in this way, the American nationalist Right would be able to circumscribe that pesky Bill of Rights, which so interferes with Executive (i.e. Royal) Privilege. The legal minds on the American Right have clearly been annoyed with the Bill of Rights for some time and the speed with which they foisted the so-called PATRIOT Act (makes it kinda hard to oppose, calling it that, huh?) on an unwary Congress, which had no time to read it, suggests that they had a lot of these ideas on the shelf ready to go.

Guantanamo Prison should be closed because it was conceived as the beginning of the end of the American Republic.
If you click on the Cole item he had embedded links so you can check out all the items to which he refers.

But this is all happening for good reason – to keep us safe. As noted Sunday here, the historian Walter Russell Mead has argued that the Bush administration fits into the "Jacksonian tradition" in American politics. One of this tradition's core beliefs is that normal rules of warfare are suspended when dealing with "dishonorable enemies." Mead gives the example of the Indian wars in which American soldiers, enraged by Indian fighting tactics, waged battle ruthlessly and with no holds barred.

If you buy that the rest follows. All of it.

Posted by Alan at 09:42 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 5 June 2005

Topic: The Culture

Mind Games: Dangerous Books and Mission Statements

Bob Patterson, columnist for our parent website Just Above Sunset said to me Friday, while we were on a photo shoot in Santa Monica, that JAS, as he likes to call it, should publish a mission statement. This was our Joseph Cotton - Orson Welles moment, if you remember that scene from Citizen Kane. Geez, we’ve been in Hollywood way too long.

A few weeks ago Bob was in the Big Apple – New York, or as he likes to call it, Tensile Town – and was noticing all the press about the Air Force Academy and its problem with the evangelicals who now run the place and the cadets who boldly tell fellow Jewish cadets that they will burn in hell because they killed Jesus, and that the Holocaust was God’s punishment for killing Jesus. They deserved it. Ah well. Bob pointed out we were on that story long ago with Who is Your Copilot? back on April 24 – and on the underlying trend long ago with references to General Jerry Boykin saying we're fighting the great Satan, because our God is the real God, from as long ago as October 2003 and this a month later. So we’re sometimes ahead of the curve.


Boykin is now about number three at the Pentagon - Undersecretary of Defense, heading up all our planning in Iraq. We’re not.

Ahead of the curve? On August 2004, Rick, the News Guy in Atlanta, and I had a pretty complete discussion of The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and their relation to the 2001 Patriot Act. Long. Detailed. And I see The New Republic five months later published Dismal Precedents (post date 02.20.05 - issue date 02.28.05), on the same topic, by Stephen Holmes.
To help us grope our way through the perilous present, Geoffrey R. Stone, a leading authority on the First Amendment, has produced a rich and readable overview of America's curtailment of civil liberties in wartime. He focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on restrictions of freedom of speech, examining in engrossing detail six historical episodes: the Sedition Act of 1798, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and Vietnam. He appends a brief discussion of civil liberties after September 11, but his real contribution to the study of the ongoing war on terror is this book as a whole. For each episode, as Stone retells it, speaks in one way or another to painful issues of the present day. His general conclusion is that "the United States has a long and unfortunate history of overreacting to the perceived dangers of wartime." He hopes that a bit of self-knowledge will inspire us to do better this time around....
Well, the rest is behind the subscription wall, but you get the idea. Steve and Geoffrey Stone were late ? it takes time to write a book, then time to read it any review it ? but the relationship is obvious. Rick and I used to hang around with Steve Holmes in undergraduate school ? coffee daily in The Pit in Slater Hall ? but The New Republic is a big-gun, influential magazine. Now more folks consider the connection. Fine ? more power to Steve. JAS is not The New Republic - we?re riding at about 12,000 unique logons a month. Small potatoes ? and an ephemeral web thing. And I suspect many, many logons are people looking for pretty pictures of Hollywood, not political discussion of historic precedent to current events.

Still Bob thinks we need to say that we?re ahead of the curve ? if you want to know what the hot stories will be, read JAS. Maybe. His idea for a motto ? Ahead of the Curve. I prefer this - Chasing the Zeitgeist. Why? Well, I recall the May 22 issue of JAS where it kept running away from me ? Monday morning I thought that week?s topic would be the New York Times stirring up issues of class, and Tuesday the Newsweek Koran story broke, and Wednesday everyone was talking about George Galloway blowing everyone away in the Senate hearing, Thursday the talk was all of the responsibilities of the press and possible censorship, and Friday Laura Bush landed in the Middle East as probably the only person we could send there now without too much problem, and even then she had some trouble. (All in the archives, of course.) You can chase the zeitgeist all you want. It?s a slippery devil.

All this is to say I overlooked a discussion last week ? all over the web and in some of the papers ? concerning what was published in the conservative magazine Human Events - Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Really. A list of their editors is here - and I see Ann Coulter listed as their legal affairs correspondent.

Want to know what is on the list? This panel of fifteen conservative scholars and public policy leaders (see the list at the link) selected these:

1. The Communist Manifesto

2. Mein Kampf

3. Quotations from Chairman Mao

4. The Kinsey Report

5. Democracy and Education (John Dewey)

6. Das Kapital

7. The Feminine Mystique (Betty Friedan)

8. The Course of Positive Philosophy (Auguste Comte)

9. Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche)

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (John Maynard Keynes)

Honorable Mention? In descending order of danger to anyone who opens them ? The Population Bomb (Paul Ehrlich), What Is To Be Done (Lenin), Authoritarian Personality (Theodor Adorno), On Liberty (John Stuart Mill), Beyond Freedom and Dignity (B.F. Skinner), Reflections on Violence (Georges Sorel), The Promise of American Life (Herbert Croly), Origin of the Species (Darwin), Madness and Civilization (Michel Foucault), Soviet Communism: A New Civilization (Sidney and Beatrice Webb), Coming of Age in Samoa (Margaret Mead), Unsafe at Any Speed (Ralph Nader), Second Sex (Simone de Beauvoir), Prison Notebooks (Antonio Gramsci), Silent Spring (Rachel Carson), Wretched of the Earth (Frantz Fanon), Introduction to Psychoanalysis (Freud), The Greening of America (Charles Reich), The Limits to Growth (Club of Rome), Descent of Man (Darwin)

Darwin didn?t make the top ten. But then Nietzsche flat out said God is dead ? and Comte was no better. Chuck only implied it. As for the rest? You?d expect Marx and Mao ? and Hitler. Dewey is on there because he was a secular humanist and wanted kids to learn how to think, not just know hard facts. Keynes liked government and regulation too much. You can go read the panel?s reasoning.

As for the second list they offer no comment, just the list. Ralph Nader of course destroyed our domestic automakers, and forced everyone to wear seat belts when it should be a matter of personal responsibly or something. Rachel Carson did major harm to Dupont and the rest of the DDT makers who were just making an honest living. You can only guess at their reason for the rest. Did they know what Michel Foucault was even talking about?

These folks aren?t calling for book-burning or anything like that ? at least I don?t see that anywhere. They?re just kind of sad these things were ever published.

But of course such a public list gives ammunition to folks who will demand restrictions in public libraries and schools, or removal of the books. But the panel doesn?t really advocate for that.

That would be wrong.

Over at the Washington Monthly Kevin Drum has asked his readers for a parallel list from the progressive-Democrat-leftie side ? and he reports it is not going well.

Some suggest Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged - but Drum says, "I agree that it's eminently mockable, but let's face it: has this book really had that much influence on anyone who doesn't still use Clearasil pads? I don't think so." Well, the newly appointed head of the SEC is a Rand fanatic - Christopher Cox - and we?ll see how that works out. Rand once said - "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims." And the new SEC chairman no doubt believes this from Rand - "Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off." Oh yeah.

Drum points out too that Alan Greenspan is perhaps the best known Rand acolyte living today.

Some suggest Thomas Dixon - The Clansman - but really it is not that influential.

Drum thinks the only winner on the counter-list so far is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Agreed. You will find a good history of what that book is about here and all about Henry Ford?s love for it here. That one has legs, as we say out here in Hollywood.

But I suspect, in the end, there will be no good counter-list. The progressive-Democrat-leftie side just doesn?t get the idea books and ideas can be dangerous. They kind of like them. All of them.


Note: Late Sunday night - June 5, 2005 ? Kevin Drum does his best to compile a tentative counter-list of dangerous books from his readers' comments. But as you read his comments you see his heart really isn't in it.

Posted by Alan at 22:48 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 5 June 2005 23:24 PDT home

Topic: Announcements

Busy, busy, busy…

The new issue of Just Above Sunset, the parent site to this web log, went on line late last night - Volume 3, Number 23 – for the week of June 5, 2005

This first issue of June brings the usual look back on the previous week and look forward to what seems to be barreling at us. Looking back, we wrap up Memorial Day, and Ric Erickson from Paris wraps us the recent French vote with international repercussions with extensive coverage, and reaction to American columnists scolding the French. But these items also look to the future as they are really about where things seem to be heading. Sometime before the end of the year we will have a new marketing director in Washington, Karen Hughes, who has been tasked with selling America to the rest of the world - and the issues with that are covered here in depth with comments from a friend who actually teaches marketing to would-be MBA students. Military stories break in the news daily, and here you will find a discussion of the problems that are bubbling up - or the opportunities if you are an optimist. And what with Michael Jackson and scandals in Aruba, it seems we are still deciding what the news is supposed to be about. And those of deep, unwavering faith are still telling us how we should live our lives. Oh my!

This week Bob Patterson is back with news of his bus trip across America, with a stop in Hershey, and with his on-the-road book column.

And you will find two pages of guest photography - Don Smith from Paris and Bill Hitzel from Hershey. Local photography? You will want to visit Santa Monica.

Oh yes - do check out new links to wonderful photography sites. And do skim the June quotes.

Current Events (extended versions of what first appeared here) ________________

Memorial Day: Final Thoughts
Marketing 101: Containing Costs with a Finely Tuned Marketing Campaign
Military Matters: Are Our Leaders Slyly Anti-War?
The Uses of The Past: Who Cares? Irony is all we have left these days.
Imposing One’s Values on Others: Does Teaching Science in Public Schools Violate the First Amendment?
Paying Attention: What’s News and What Isn’t
Press Notes: "Maybe a little less of the pervert of the day…"

World View ________________

Geopolitics: Fallout from the French Kiss of Death (with a new exclusive editorial cartoon)
Our Man in Paris: Urge To Be - Just What Were the French Voting Against?
Dateline Paris: Get A Job! (includes new photographs from Paris)

Bob Patterson ________________

WLJ Weekly: from the desk of the World’s Laziest Journalist - The Hershey (PA) Auto Museum is "Sweet"
Book Wrangler: Beatniks with laptops, Otto von Stroheim’s legendary parties, and the Elephant Museum

Guest Photography ________________

Symbolisme Aujourd'hui: More from Left Bank Lens
Automotive: Kisses from Hershey

Photography ________________

Not Barney: The Topiary Dinosaurs of Santa Monica
Quiet Neighborhood: The Opposite of California Glitz

Miscellaneous ________________

Quotes: June (and D-Day)
Links and Recommendations: Photography Sites

And one of those topiary dinosaurs of Santa Monica?

Posted by Alan at 13:20 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:22 PDT home

Saturday, 4 June 2005

Our Man in Paris: Urge To Be
Just What Were the French Voting Against?

Note: Our Man in Paris is Ric Erickson, editor of MetropoleParis. His weekly columns appear in Just Above Sunset, the weekly parent site to this web log, and often in a slightly different version the next day on his site from Paris, with photographs. This is the latest from Paris.
Sunday 29 May 2005 and received in Los Angeles on Friday, 3 June 2005 –

PARIS - There are problems with the European Constitution but they apply to all constitutions. In Europe's new one there are articles of a few simple words that should be easy to understand. For example, Article II-62.2 in the Fundamental Rights section says, "Nobody can be condemned to death or executed."

If ratified, this will apply to 450 million people living in the 25 member states of the European Union. I expect that clever legal minds will find ways to interpret the eight simple words above and convince a judge somewhere that the opposite is really meant, but until then I would vote for a constitution that bars the death penalty and hope for the best.

The most impassioned champions of the Constitution will freely admit that some of it is not perfect. Articles that may seem a bit vague are backed up with 'Declarations' that spell out the meaning more exactly, and past European Court decisions are added if they aid clarity.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in Article II-71.1. It says, "Everyone has the right to free expression, including the exchange of opinions, without interference by the authorities and without consideration of frontiers." This is a long one and the subject is complicated so we can expect that this will see its day in courts to come.

The debate around the Constitution has been somewhat obscure because very few people have read it. The opposition has used this ignorance shamelessly by citing dubious practices that are happening today, saying they will be totally uncontrolled in the future.

In other words, if the Constitution consists of apples, they are saying it lacks oranges. Or they are saying that because it is so economically 'liberal,' we will all have to go to Poland to work for the wages there. Or just as bad, Poles will invade France and work for Polish wages here. Some very smart people will insist that the Constitution guarantees this.

The Constitution offers the very protections that the opposition says it lacks. Behavior that can't be governed by a Constitution is a used as an example for why the Constitution is bad. You are not going to get to bed this week if you want to argue about it. The arguments against the Constitution are complicated while its Articles are simple.

The official campaign to educate the voters has been a colossal flop. The opposition has used this fact for its advantage. They can say anything and this is what they have been doing.

For example, they say the 'liberal' aspects of the Constitution will cause massive unemployment. It is hard to understand how it could be made worse that it already is, under the 'old' rules. Voting against the Constitution is like voting for continued unemployment, rather than for the future.

The French government's 'reform' plans, delocalizations, unemployment, low wages, globalization, are all problems of right now, of the present right-wing 'liberal' government. Many voters have been conned into believing that their present problems will worsen if the Constitution is ratified.

Voters tend to recall the past somewhat more easily than the future so even if the Constitution is about Europe, they are probably going to vote against the government.

Well, life is a gamble. The French can vote to maintain their miserable present and what they know, or they can cast a ballot for the unknown future.

As far as Europe is concerned, it has always been a risky business. This European Union thing stumbles along from crises to crises, from boiling pot to frying pan, but it has always managed to step back from brinks in the nick of time. Against all odds, formidable odds, impossible odds, the European Union exists. It has an urge to be.

Posted by Alan at 08:30 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Saturday, 4 June 2005 08:32 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older