man help: Creative Fusion - from the French perspective - Help.com

That’s a good article Florie. Interesting!

I agree! Good article Florie! I think Obama represents, or is the finest example of what America really should be all about - a melting pot of culture, ideas, religions and backgrounds.

sadly, our economy will not handle the flagrant idealism that barack has in mind. I like idealism, but not when used flagrantly… truthfully, only time will tell. but in 3 years, when everyone starts to wonder why those tax breaks for the working man he promised turned into tax hikes to cover for such idealist plans, (becuase we must always remember, anything the government/president wants to get done, we are the ones who have to pay for it).

honestly, its the party’s who are ruined evertying, they take good people, (who happen to be running for president) and ruin every good aspect about them that could apply to being a good president (or any elected government position) the democrats have their ‘im better than republicans’ idealism, which makes people think like our government works with blank checks to do whatever the party wants… and the republicans have a backwards, out of date perspective on morality. Not to mention the behind the scenes hierarchies within both camps. the democrats being run by hypermodern eccentrics, and the republicans being run by old fashion robber barons.

its my opinion that in the end however. the people are to blame… they don’t educate themselves… from an economic standpoint, the republicans win hands down… simply put, they are better businessmen. the democrats have morality and equality in spades… only problem is, morality and equality can leave us all equally broke. but with the republicans, while our wallets will be safer, our consciences are bankrupted.

in short, the democrats want to help the unfortunate. but don’t realize they have to foot the bill.

the republicans want to cut their losses as much as possible. but don’t consider helping the unfortunate.

and both sides think the other is stupid. and they are both right.

At what cost will we get the French to think of us as the “Tocquevillian America” as apposed to the ‘Crepuscular America’?

Also why is it that Americans should put much stock in which way a French writer views America. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying there is reason to discount the view point of those outside the US, I value the opinions of our world neighbors. My question really has to do with the tone and rigidness of this easy. Why does a country as complex as America need to be broken down into such small and narrow comparisons such as the two faces in this easy; I don’t go around viewing European countries by magnifying their good and bad qualities into personas all their own such as this. I look upon them for what they are, good and bad qualities as a whole and judge them on their merits of all things considered. Once again why should Americans or any one for that matter put much stock in such a shallow analysis of a country (any country)?

But wear we to pick a face of such simplicity to show the world. The one I would like to see next is the one of Isolationism. I am becoming tired of having to live and die by the over critical view points of others. Where today everything can change simply doe to one event that has caught the worlds attention while everything else is engorged and tomorrow things change yet again. Where just based on who we elect to president some how changes America from Tocquevillian to Crepuscula over night; when nothing fundamentally has/will changed at all.

Being written from a French perspective, it highlights issues that are important within France at the moment.

There is significant intolerance of multicultural diversity, class difference and religion in some areas. Some of the more recent riots in France are testimony to the difficulties they are having resolving those issues there.

I think, in context, it’s interesting. What happens in America will directly affect the politics of France as a country.

Mas 1st wrote:
I actually think it is is quite insulting that the people of the States are being encouraged to vote for a candidate because of his ethnicity, your country may appear to have reached a new milestone in race relations but surely Mr Obama’s qualifications, experience and policies are what the rest of the world are hoping you are voting for. As an outsider I’m quite terrified that this has turned into a politically correct contest. In a lot of respects it has damaged race relations in the US - and that is mainly due to how the campaigns have been handled.

I’d sleep well knowing that the USA has voted for the best man for the job - America needs to be in a safe pair of hands - any colour is fine. - Mas

Obama has actually made a point of NOT courting the African-American vote. There are some who will vote for him because of his ethnicity, and some who will vote for McCain because of his, but I think it will be a small number. With few exceptions (Bill Clinton, Rev. Wright) this election while excruciatingly long has been notable for it’s lack of people playing the race card. Barrack’s first primary win was in Iowa, which is 97% caucasian.

As for the economy, the Republicans have doubled the size of government during the Bush years, and wasted money on a preemptive war (I suppose to control the oil, but that didn’t work out too well.) And socialized the risk-side of Wall Street while the profits remain private. I don’t have illusions about Obama; he is still a politician and has already broken his promise to use public funds (and thus limit contributions) for his campaign. But he is selling hope very effectively, and when the world is on the brink of recession and America bogged down in two wars, hope is like lightning in a bottle. Hope itself won’t turn the economy around on a dime, but it will have a significantly positive impact. Also, and no one even notices, but Obama opposes implementation of the RFID chip, which McCain supports.. a technology that would further erode our privacy.

The reason for America invading Iraq is often presumed to be “because of the oil”.

Interestingly, it ranks as only 13th in the world when it comes to oil production. In terms of oil reserves, it ranks 4th.

What most people do not understand when they use the term “oil reserves” as a basis for argument is that geologically speaking, many oil reserves are in fact inaccessible and therefore useless. Not all oil reserves are the same in terms of viability. In other words, yes.. gallons of the stuff down there but it’s not necessarily technically possible to get it out. In simplistic terms, oil that lies in “pools” within rock formations is accessible. But much sits in sponge-like formations. And you can’t just squash the rock to get it out so easily.

The media do tend to only ever focus on the first two figures. Capacity and Production. They never mention Viability.

Since Russia and China actually have far better viability.. you’d think that the “invade for the oil” argument would mean they’d be over there.

I just thought i’d throw that in as a point of interest. Maybe it’s less about the oil and who has the easiest army to overcome?

Personally, I think the reasons are a lot more complex than I can ever comprehend !

super-necro-post awayy! i (the guy who badmouthed this post above ^^^^^^^) voted for obama, and will do so again next election. The Repubs/Conservs are getting Nazi scary, and im talking end of the world Nazi scary, so to avoid Mayan calander predictions on the end of the world, i would advise others to do the same. They’re going to have an idiot run against him, and i’ll give you 3 guesses what her name is. doh, make that 2.