Ok, let's see if I get it or not

My comments in no particular order:
I know they speak French well, but the language alone doesn't integrate them into society. I know that the majority are from Northern Africa. In fact, I only mentioned the Middle East once in this entire thread (I didn't keep mentioning it), and only as an example (twice if you count me mentioning Qatar, but feel free to replace Qatar with Algeria and replace Middle East with Northern Africa, The Ukraine, Asia or any other place of origin -- the points still stand).


I knew about this issue. I didn't raise it because my focus was on Chirac's failing policy of forced diversity and not on France's views on Religion (or its intolerance towards religion). This law didn't boost my argument at all, so I didn't refer to it.
It is true that France is a largely atheistic nation. It has laws that restrict free expression of many religions. This is not a new occurrance. Immigrants to France should have been aware of this. If they choose to live in France, then they must understand that French laws are going to impact their lives including their religious expression. Expecting the French to change their stance is simply unrealistic.
Certainly the ban on headscarves and other items of religious expression in France is somewhat more recent, but it is in line with other French laws and could have been anticipated.

These difficulties exist with any immigrant group regardless of time period. In the 1970s, many Cambodians came to the United States fleeing the Khmer Rouge (a large number came to my home city). They adapted very quickly and integrated successfully into our society. They too faced discrimination at first (unfortunately), but the discrimination couldn't stand up when they showed themselves to be willing to adapt and integrate. They committed to dressing as we dress, acting as we act, etc. They retained their culture, but still became part of ours because they realized, as immigrants, that they would have to change significantly when the left Cambodia and moved to the U.S.
Why do you think that they were so successful where other minorities aren't? There weren't any special laws for them. They weren't given any special treatment. Their success was because they took the steps to achieve.

You keep making my points for me, thanks. Yes, you hated these kids when you were there, and they likely hated you. These aren't statments made of people who are trying to integrate into society. These are statements made of those who don't want to succeed in society. They hassled you for money or tried to rob you. The French majority is supposed to then turn around and hire these same robbers?
Yes, contempt breeds contempt. If the immigrants had embraced French society and French customs instead of remaining separate from them, would that contempt be what it is today? Generally speaking, a majority group doesn't often have any feeling of contempt for a minority group. Instead the majority group often simply ignores the minority. The minority group views the majority as oppressive not because of any overt action, but because they are being ignored. This isn't true oppression, it is simply the desire of the majority to live their own lives and to not bother with things that they aren't comfortable with.
Yes, Chirac is a wuss. If he were a real man, who understood reality, he'd be a better leader. Yes Sarkozy is a hard liner, and I think he showed poor judgement in his statements (of course he had been attacked by these people).

Actually, I asked for a hard case of oppression. I admitted that discrimination exists, but oppression is a bit stronger of an issue. Oppression is an unjust use of force or authority to keep someone down (force or authority suggests that the French government themselves would be the ones doing the oppressing, a thought contradicted by Chirac's own policies; note that an individual cannot oppress another without having some power or authority over that person, so one cannot accuse French citizens or even French society of oppression of immigrants because that authority doesn't exist in that relationship).
That said, 30% unemployment suggests 70% unemployment. That isn't oppression. Those numbers say that 70% of the immigrants (a significant majority) in these neighborhoods have been successful at finding jobs. That a significant number have integrated in society well enough to have employment and perhaps a chance of success. 70% have not experienced "oppression", and although they have likely experienced some level of discrimination, they've overcome it.
I don't suggest that the remaining 30% are being lazy, but I do suggest that they aren't doing all that they can to succeed unless there are simply no more jobs available (anyone check the help wanted section of any French Newspapers lately?). I've read many news articles, during these riots, where many of the youths involved are interviewed (not by U.S. media). The reports suggested that these youths are directionless. They've adopted an attitude of ambivalence. They aren't ambitious; they don't have any goals in life. Now I'm not saying that this is the majority opinion in these immigrant neighborhoods (the 70% employment rate suggests that the majority are hard working and dedicated people). What I am saying is that these people feel left out of society and as much as they blame society, I suggest that they are equally responsible. It is unrealistic to expect society to change for them and to go out of its way to embrace them. If they want to be included into society, then they need to make choices to become includable.
This is not too different from what teenagers experience in the U.S. At some point, groups that used to be friendly, split off into cliques which exclude certain members (sometimes this is based on shared interests, style of clothing, etc.). Those excluded teens often complain about how unfair it is, but they rarely take the obvious necessary steps to re-integrate into the clique. The ones that do take these steps tend to succeed.
I'm also not saying that any of this is "fair". It isn't. Discrimination is an ugly thing. It is an expression of unfounded and illogical hatred. Nonetheless it is real and it does exist. Nobody can pass a law that will prevent it. Nobody can make it go away. The minorities who are discriminated against have a choice, they can take steps to minimize the chance they will be discriminated against, or they can withdraw into their own cultural ghetto. From all reports, that withdrawl is what has happened in some of these neighborhoods in France. The problem with the withdrawl from society is that it causes those who discriminate to feel justified in their ridiculous stance. That is why Sarkozy feels comfortable with his comments. He held a negative opinion of the immigrants and they reinforced it by attacking him. If, instead they had been peaceful and polite, if they had treated him well, to his surprise, then he'd have left feeling foolish for his opinions. Instead he feels justified because the worst of what he thought about the immigrants have been shown by their actions towards him.

Let's be fair here. I'm not advocating facism, nor am I advocating oppression or discrimination. I'm simply stating that they exist. They are a reality to be faced (and defeated). I'm also stating an approach that will work better than what is currently being tried (IMO). It is clear that accepting other people's unique cultures is a good thing. It is clear that some tolerance of other cultures is necessary. The French people practicing discrimination against the immigrants are clearly in the wrong. All that said, it is France, where this is occurring. French culture is the reality of the nation. While the ideal may very well be a loving diversity, one cannot force people to accept diversity if they choose not to. Immigrants need to understand that they must compromise to be accepted into French society. In fact, being a minority group, they'll need to compromise more than the French people will. That is reality. It may not be "fair" or "just" but it is still real. If the minority makes these compromises and integrates into French society, then it can apply pressure from within to change social mores. If it simply refuses, then it will bump against a wall of unchanging social mores and eventually violence occurrs.
Chirac wants us to be one happy diverse family, but neither the French majority, nor the minorities in France want that at this point. As such, the policy is unrealistic (which is why it fails). The American "experiment" has shown us that over 200 years, the "melting pot" has not occurred, and instead the "salad bowl" is a better example. In the United States, we still have groups of different cultures. Italians live near Italians, Irish near Irish, Hispanics near Hispanics, Chinese near Chinese, etc. What we've accomplished, however is that we, in our public/professional lives, set aside our ethnic/cultural ideosyncrasies and find a non-ethnic, amoral middle ground where we can deal with each other. That middle ground is societal norms. Those who don't adapt to those norms tend to remain outside of the mainsream society and end up not as successful as others who take the steps to assimilate.

You are correct that in Europe and indeed most of the world, there are still ancient ties to ideas such as aristocracy. That the rich will always be rich and there is no hope for the poor to improve their lot in life. That is, quite simply, sad (IMO). That being said, however, we're not talking, at this point, about college or C-level careers (CEO, CFO, etc.). We're talking about getting a start in a "foreign" society. For many of the immigrants in France, French society is still foreign. They haven't adapted to it and then French clearly aren't embracing the minority culture. Chirac keeps hoping that these diverse cultures and diverse people will simply live happily together, but millenia of history tell us that this isn't a realistic expectation. Well, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it and France is repeating it right now.

I "get it", at least the reality of it. I simply have a different solution than you. By the way, my solution does indeed include an eventual acceptance of both cultures and perhaps even a merging of them where possible, but it also acknowledges that it will take generations and that huge compromises will have to be made, especially at the beginning, by the minorities. It may not be "fair", but at least it is an approach that admits the current situation, instead of an approach that suggests some "magical" resolution (a diversity policy) that ignores the human reality.

I agree with you Skan that a law prohibiting a religious observance is wrong. Amazingly, it goes against Chirac's diversity plan, but then again, it isn't at all surprising, because of the atheist nature of France. The thing is that Chirac wants diversity without religion and he doesn't realize that religion is part of diversity. I admit that this places the immigrants in France in an untenable position. Frankly, if it were me, I'd do what I could to leave France in the face of such a law, but if they are going to stay, then they're going to have to adapt in some manner (private schools might be an option, but of course that won't help them integrate). Sometimes there isn't an easy answer.

I like him too. He's pretty smart and although we don't see eye-to-eye on most issues, he's willing to stand up and discuss (which earns my respect). That is what this board is for, isn't it?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Hey zteccc. I have a little question, not really worth a new thread. You seem to have an opinion on most political situations, so I was just curious...

We all know Bush isn't exactly the best president in the world.

What do you think of this new "Al Jazeera bombing intentions" scandal?

__________________

I believe, based on what I know about President Bush, that he was joking and that someone read a transcript and couldn't see the tone of his voice in the transcript. I believe that there are many people out there who don't like President Bush, and in fact there are many people in Britian who don't like Prime Minister Blair, and are searching for anything to make him look bad, and one of those people got ahold of the memo and decided to leak it.

Lets look at the facts here. The referenced discussion occurred during the Fallujah operations in Iraq. At that time (and currently), Qatar was a coalition member in Iraq. Al-Jezeera is based in Qatar and to bomb it would mean using coalition forces to attack a coalition member's soverign territory. That simply doesn't ring true. If there's anything that we know about President Bush, it is that he is (sometimes fanatically) loyal to his friends and allies. Even his strongest opponents will admit that. I suspect that the tone of the discussion had a large amount of sarcastic humor to it, possibly due to some bad press that the U.S. military had gotten from Al-Jezeera and the fact that Al-Qaeda uses Al-Jezeera to deliver many of its statements. That doesn't mean that it was serious.

There is a film, released in 1992 called "My Cousin Vinny". In that film, a young man and his friend are arrested for the killing of a store clerk. They didn't know what the charges were (they had accidentally left the store without paying for an item and they thought the charges would be shoplifting). During questioning, the Sherrif surprised one of them with the question "Why did you shoot the clerk" to which the young man, who was obviously surprised, incredulously asked, "I shot the clerk?". Later, in court, the transcript of this questioning was read to the jury, only the inflection was removed. So what the jury heard was "Why did you shoot the clerk", and the response was "I shot the clerk." which sounds like a confession instead of a confused question. The transcript was factually accurate, the words were a direct quote, but the meaning had been changed. I suspect that the same thing is happening with the allegations of President Bush wanting to bomb Al-Jezeera.

Now for the record, I wasn't there. I don't know the tone of the meeting. It may be as bad as some would like to make it. It may be worse. It just wouldn't make sense, and it wouldn't mesh with what we know about President Bush.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

You don't.

The only thing you keep saying, in many words, is that immigrants don't assimilate and Chirac's policy doesn't help the French open up them. I say that the immigrants are having a hard time assimilating while Chirac is pretty much irrelevant in this matter. You keep mentioning Chirac... It's not his fault that they are in the situation that they are in. It is the ignorance and incompetence of the prime minister(s) and the other members of government, along with general discrimination. In France, domestic affairs are handled by the PM. One can argue that the President does more than act as a poster boy for France and its interests abroad but that's another matter. I've seen many different ways they've handled the situation, from outright fascism in some Front Nationale mayor controlled cities, to attempts at appeasement (by giving away scooters for example).

Any time you are critically assessing a situation, you need to consider the environment. By constantly applying how things work in the US, you prove you don't quite understand this. You bring up Cambodians, and I'll say the US is a much more immigrant-friendly country (duh), and tell you that comparison is irrelevant. In all that you've written (which is a lot), there isn't much France-specific content (except some feeling expressed by Chirac - as if that could be the main cause of those fires), which is why I felt like posting.

Finally, I'll say this. How can you possibly say that you are "getting" the reality of the situation? I've lived there and I wouldn't even say that, not being a pissed off immigrant or white French. I bet you've never even been to France and seen what's going on. You even say you have a "solution"? Are you insane? I never even said I had a solution. Do you really think it's that easy, that someone who hasn't even lived in France can just type up something based on his readings and think he has a solution for a problem plaguing a country like that? Incredible... Why not put your expertise on fixing the race problems in the US first? You keep on saying they haven't tried to assimilate and I can tell you I've met plenty who have. I can also say that the French, to an extent have opened up to Muslim culture and have seen many examples of this. I used to play soccer every week mixed with Moroccans (some of them were co workers I got along with) and regular French people. You're trying to make simple observations out of the whole riot problems while you have no clue of what's going on there, period. I really don't mean to sound harsh but I feel it's so true. I also don't mean it as a cheap insult. There are immigrant problems in the UK that I read about some times and you know what? I have no clue of what's going on there. I've been there plenty of times for vacation or work, but still can't understand the subtleties of their situation, just like I think it highly unlikely that you can understand why Paris was burning. I've gotten lost in Paris and walked through horrid parts of it inhabited by African immigrants. Why didn't they riot (I'm sure some in the suburbs did) since their lives seems much worse than those of these arab immigrnats? I don't have a clue...

After all that, if you have real observations on the French, please feel free to discuss it here. If anyone else feels that ztecc "gets" it as he says, please do the same because I'm not convinced. Things like this just aren't that simple.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

__________________

The fact that the immigrants are having a hard time assimilating doesn't mean that they are absolved from the responsibility of assimilating. It is up to them, just as it would be in any society. My point was that the policies that France has set forward (largely at Mr. Chirac's urging) make it appear to the immigrants that they need not assimilate, which directly leads to their failure in society. Perhaps I have indeed overestimated Chirac's capabilities there, but not his contribution to this situation; it was largely his work to put into place the policies that are now causing much of these problems.
The PM certainly has a level of responsibility here, let's not forget that Mr. Chirac was PM in the 1970s and again in the late 1980s. He's made his mark on that post and is quite familiar with the post and its capabilities, yet he didn't direct his current PM in a manner that would prevent or avoid such problems.
Still, the specifics of the problem are indeed complex. Mr Chirac, by himself, couldn't bring this about. It is true that the French citizens played a part as did the immigrants themselves. Neither appeasement, nor facism are long term solutions, instead any reasonable solution will require a level of compromise that at least some of the French, and some of the immigrants, appear to be uneager to embrace.

There are many ways to assess a situation. Your method is indeed one of them. Another is to toss aside all of the local specifics and look at the situation in a more general light which is what I've done.
The general case is that diverse groups from different backgrounds, living near each other, aren't getting along. That's a macro-view of the situation, but it avoids entanglements in issues that are not necessarily part of the problem, but can distract from the problem. If we look at more specifics, we get into ethnicity, national origin, religion, discrimination, bans on religious articles, etc., but those specifics don't change the aspect of the basic problem. Since the basic problem is that diverse groups don't get along, one of the methods of solving the problem is to look at generally similar cases that have had better results. The U.S. is one of the examples of a society where different groups have figured out a way to get along, so it makes sense to take from those examples (plus there is a wealth of bad examples in the U.S., so one can learn from the bad and the good). From these examples, one gets the following:

• Assimilation is important and even necessary for minorities to succeed.
• Putting forward a culture that denies this necessity is not going to work (as history has shown us countless times).
• Discrimination exists throughout the process and isn't going to go away because of legislation, a policy of multiculturalism, etc.
• People from different groups have to want to live together in order to do so.

As to France specific content, you're right, there isn't much. Neither is there much Muslim specific content, African specific content, etc. That is because the problem (diverse gorups having a problem getting along) isn't really a French problem, nor is it a Muslim problem, etc. The problem is a human problem, and it has been repeated throughout human history many times, the only thing that makes it French is that it is occurring in France. Xenophobia is a common trait in all of humanity. Show a human something strange enough and the human will fear it. Show a community, society or culture something strange enough (something that is different or doesn't conform) and the community will band together to defeat it (even if only on a subconscious level).
I could, as you've suggested, look more closely at the specifics. I could look at the ban on the hijab and say that we need to fix that law, but the law is a symptom of the problem. Discrimination is also a symptom of the problem. Unemployment is a symptom of the problem, etc. Even the current riots and fires are symptoms of the problem. Treating those symptoms is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You can eliminate the ban on the hijab (and on all religious articles), but the people still won't get along. The government can impose laws against discrimination, but will that make these diverse cultures like each other? Such a law wouldn't even end discrimination because people can often give a good business reason for discrimination. If, on the other hand, one deals with the problem, then the symptoms will go away.
It is true that sometimes we have to treat the symptoms as well as the problem. For example, the riots need to stop before any solution can have a chance, but your suggested approach would focus entirely on symptoms instead of the problem itself. That approach will only drag the problem out until it reappears (possibly in later generations).

The reality of the situation, as I stated above, is that diverse groups of people, living in the same community, are not getting along. Everything else is an emotional distraction from, or symptom of, the basic facts. I can “get” that, as can anyone who is objective, because I've set aside the emotional distraction and gotten to the root of the problem. I'm not insane (well, not that anyone has proven), but I do have a different approach and a different point of view from you (obviously) which means that we won't likely agree on this issue.
Do I think it is easy to see the problem? Yes, I do, and I've done so. Do I think that it is easy to solve the problem? Absolutely not. People will have to be willing to change. They will have to be willing to accept that which they don't want to accept. They will have to want to live together (which some of them obviously currently don't). Nonetheless, the solution is going to have to be a decision, by all parties, to live together. I stress the minority needing to assimilate because the country is France, so the society is French and the French majority will want to retain their culture as part of their national identity. The immigrants will need to adopt to that reality.
In history, there haven't been many successful integrations of immigrants (or minority groups) into an existing culture. There have been enslavements, oppression (real oppression like we see in Darfour in the Sudan), insurrections/civil wars, etc. The only models that history provides with a positive result are those of assimilation. As such, any policy or any approach that ignores this is likely doomed to failure.

I don't believe that I've said that they haven't tried to assimilate, I've said that they haven't assimilated (e.g. they haven't succeeded, don't confuse effort for achievement). Indeed some of them, from all reports, don't want to, and as I suggested before, a 70% employment rate in these ghettos means that a great many of them have. I'm glad that you know some who have and this isn't surprising. I suspect that you enjoyed playing soccer with them and working with them largely because they had assimilated to a great extent. I also suspect that the people that you knew aren't likely to be involved in the riots. For that matter, the ones that you called punks and robbers are likely the ones who haven't assimilated well into French society and some of them are likely involved in the riots.
By your own admission, you don't understand all of what is going on there, and I submit it is because you are too focused on the subtleties of the situation. I've simply divorced the problem from its subtleties.
I don't claim to know the subtleties either (never have). For that matter, I'm pretty sure that neither the French, nor the immigrants themselves fully understand all of the subtleties of the situation. In fact, I submit that it isn't possible to know them all because you'd have to be fully a member of each side of the conflict to have a chance, and nobody can fill that role. Getting tied up in the subtleties is an approach that is fruitless. It doesn't lead to any solutions or benefit because the people involved won't generally even agree on the facts of a partcular issue. By distancing one's self from the subtleties, one can objectively view the problem as being similar to countless other problems and one can inded choose a solution that worked in other cases.

Despite all that you've written, you haven't really shown how they aren't that simple, so tell me. If I've missed the problem in some way, let me know. Be certain that any point you make is significantly different and isn't simply a distraction from or a symptom of the basic problem. Let's face it, the riots aren't about a ban of the hijab, nor are they about two kids electrocuted in a power substation. As such, at least those two specifics aren't really going to be part of a greater solution.

-- Jeff

ps Doubtless many people will object to my separating the problem from the specifics. It can be argued that by ignoring the specifics I'm ignoring the cultural and environmental situation that is unique to the problem. That said, in general, history has shown that focusing on the specifics tend to lend themselves to much argument and discussion and very little actual progress. Because of focus on specifics instead of the real problem, hatred tends to be buried under the surface only to arise again. As an example, the British and Irish have been fighting each other for one reason or another for more than 1000 years. It isn't because of any specifics, they simply aren't willing to get along. We'll never find out why they started fighting, and any attempt to focus on the specifics will fail because there is always one more argument from one side or the other. To fix such a problem, we have to realize that we'll never know all of the specifics and cannot focus on them. Instead we need to identify the basic problem, and then put forward a solution that will doubtless fail to address all of the specifics, but will deal with the problem as a whole.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Let's see, I believe that I wrote that:

1) France would need to deport immigrants who wouldn't assimilate
2) Limit immigration to those who have taken steps to assimilate
3) Admit that forced diversity is a failure and that people need to be responsible for fitting into society.
I've also written that the immigrants would need to assimilate into French culture.

Well, France's Prime Minister de Villepin announced some new policies which include that applicants for 10 Year residency permits or new citizens must master the French Language and integrate into society.

article 1
article 2

De Villepin said "integration into our society, notably command of the French language, should be a condition for bringing in one's family. That ensures the future of the spouse and of the children but also of society."

Well, It appears that for someone who doesn't "get it", I'm doing pretty well by the Prime Minister's standards. Of course a government will never "admit" that forced diversity is a failure, but de Villepin is basically doing so by demanding that immigrants integrate into society as a requirement for citizenship. Perhaps Mr. de Villepin doesn't "get it" either.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Hmmm.. yeah, pat on yourself on the back Nostradamus.

First of all, there's nothing original about your "solution." You can see a lot of people commented with similar ideas (you probably read conservative blogs don't you?) when the riots took place. Language requirements are common (Germany) and nothing you recommended or Villepin wants to do is original. I mean come on, isn't "tightening immigration controls" the first thing one thinks of when a country has such problems? I also didn't read anything about deporting people, so in the end all you've said is that these immigrants need to assimilate. I don't think anyone here wrote the contrary so I guess we're all self-congratulating geniuses.

In any case, Villepin’s policy may be a solution that's going to help them out in the long run, but it does nothing for the present situation. Like I said, the pissed off kids that are causing the problems now and will likely cause problems in the future speak French and are citizens already. Their ability to speak French certainly doesn't seem to help the situation now does it? They are French citizens but do not even feel like they are French. Has Villepin come up with any solid ideas on how they'll gauge how integrated someone is into French society? I don't think so. Is he just saying what he can to seem firm so he can help his future presidential campaign? Yes.

Villepin wants parents of delinquents to sign a pledge of some kind and be liable for their behavior. If the kids screw up, the government may suspend any aid the family is getting. (That's an example of something you may not have read since it's not easily found in English.) Although the first article says some want to improve living conditions for these suburbs, you can see the kind of stuff they're trying to do to improve the present situation.

BTW, comparing yourself to a French Prime Minister is not exactly a big ego boost. They have all been failures for a long, long time, and I don't think they "get it" either lol.

And finally, please make an effort to write succinctly. It's torture reading some of your posts because you go out of your way to stretch out your ideas to no additional effect. I don't read most of your long posts because you're often just covering your back (I don't discuss specifics, not because I don't know them but because it is more important to separate them blah blah blah). That's why I didn't bother replying to your previous post. One should not have to read 4-5 paragraphs echoing the same idea, it's like listening to a nagging girlfriend/wife.

As a good example, look at these four sentences you listed:
1) France would need to deport immigrants who wouldn't assimilate
2) Limit immigration to those who have taken steps to assimilate
3) Admit that forced diversity is a failure and that people need to be responsible for fitting into society.
I've also written that the immigrants would need to assimilate into French culture.

2,3, and the last sentence are painfully similar, and 1 is a related idea.

Again, I don't mean to knock since you do write well (in style), but it would help the discussions.

Of course my approach isn't anything new. As i wrote before, I looked for a successful solution (which wasn't difficult to find) from history. You're right, it doesn't really "fix" the specific (the short term) problems, only the big problem, and I admitted as much earlier. The fact is that the specifics are not where the problem lies. They are only symptomatic. Fix the problem and the symptoms go away.

As to language (since you focus on it so much), language is only one part of assimilation. If one speaks the language, but doesn't assimilate into the culture, the lifestyle, of the French, then one is simply not integrated into French society. As you said, they don't feel like they are French. I suggest that it is because they haven't become part of French society yet. Immigrants in any country can have children, and their children are, generally speaking, automatically citizens of that country, but that doesn't mean they are integrated into the society, there's more to it than that.

I'm sorry you don't like long posts. The posts here are actually not the longest that I've written. I'm verbose in my thinking and my typing. This may be because I'm a fairly fast touch-typist, so these posts really aren't taking me much time to put out there. It may also be that I anticipate arguments that I expect from others, and since I generally only post once per thread per day (at most), I try to pre-emptively deal with them.
There is also, generally, some level of subtlety between different points that I make. I really do edit for repeated content, just for that reason, but If I leave something in, it is because, IMHO, it is significant (in the current post). I also restate, rather than refer back to previous posts (because I believe it is easier for the reader than having to go back and reread the thread each time).

I can't promise to reduce my post length (frankly, I don't really care to do so). If you don't want to read my posts, so be it. Of course many people who have not read my full posts, end up misquoting me when they post an opposing viewpoint, so if you want to discuss with me, understand that peril.

-- Jeff

ps As long as we're picking on writing style, the personal "shots" don't really help your posts. For example, the Nostradamus comment, the conservative blogs assumption or me not "getting it", are personal, not objective parts of the discussion. They don't bother me, but they suggest that you're out of points, so you're reduced to attacks to distract from your dearth of a substantive argument. Take your last post, you spent almost 2/3 of it on me rather than saying anything about the topic.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

This forum doesn't deserve you Jeff, you should post at the e-mpire mature board instead or something. http://forums.e-mpire.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13