Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England
At one point in the past, one could argue that unions were a desirable thing in the manufacturing industry in order to pave the way for better working conditions and more humane hours. Can the same be said today? I read stories about union thuggery fairly often, with inflatable rats being placed outside buildings where non-union labor is being used etc. I won't even get into the absurdity of public sector unions buying elections for the people who are supposed to be their adversaries in contract negotiations...

Here's a current story that really ticked me off:
Four days before Christmas, the Friends' world was rocked by the sort of violence they have devoted their lives to stamping out.

Vandals with an acetylene torch crept onto the project's muddy construction site in the middle of the night. Working out of view in the meetinghouse's freshly cemented basement, they sliced off dozens of bolts securing the bare steel columns and set fire to the building crane, causing $500,000 in damage.

Police detectives deemed the attack arson because of a series of confrontational visits from union officials days before the incident. They say the torch could only have been operated by a trained professional, and believe it was almost certainly the work of disgruntled union members. The city has assigned extra investigators to the case and is working with federal forensic experts to track down the vandals, said Michael Resnick, the city's public safety commissioner.

---

Through all the changes Philadelphia has undergone in the last decade - the surge in its downtown population, the blossoming of its inner-ring neighborhoods - the trade unions haven't budged on the cost issue. Cross them by hiring nonunion workers or demanding more efficient work rules, and you can expect a giant inflatable rat at your door - or worse. The Post brothers, who are renovating a former factory into apartments at 12th and Wood Streets, learned the hard way in the spring when union protesters laid siege to their construction site, blocking deliveries for five months.

The Quakers' decision to go nonunion may be a sign of a broader shift in attitudes. The group, known for its commitment to social justice, chose contractor E. Allen Reeves of Abington after conducting a blind review of bids. Reeves' price was 23 percent lower than the nearest union bidder, the group says.

It was not an easy decision, acknowledged Meg Mitchell, clerk of the meeting, the closest thing the non-hierarchial group has to a spokesperson. But after assuring themselves that Reeves was paying fair wages and that his company had maintained an excellent safety record, she said, the Chestnut Hill Friends dropped any lingering reservations.

Despite their frugality, the Quakers wanted to spend money where it counted, on serving their members and the public.
http://articles.philly.com/2013-01-05/n … -workers/2

tldr: new Quaker meetinghouse was being built with non-union labor in Philadelphia and a union member cut all the structural steel with an acetylene torch and then set it on fire.

Personally, I don't see anything that distinguishes union tactics from the mafia practices of extorting protection money out of businesses. They like to justify the thuggery by talking about how well trained they are and how safely they produce a building, but if the difference were really that stark, people would happily pay the difference for a quality building. Instead, they get slowdowns and cost overruns for slightly better craftsmanship.

Does modern society benefit from the existence of unions?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6629|BC, Canada
TBH modern unions don't do very much aside from promote slower, sub-par work at inflated prices, and of course the thuggery mentioned above.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

Unions can be a pain in the ass a lot of times. But I think there should be at least some counter balance to capital interest.
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6629|BC, Canada

Macbeth wrote:

Unions can be a pain in the ass a lot of times. But I think there should be at least some counter balance to capital interest.
Yeah, the power has just swung way to far for the unions. It needs to be cut back.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Unions can be a pain in the ass a lot of times. But I think there should be at least some counter balance to capital interest.
Yeah, the power has just swung way to far for the unions. It needs to be cut back.
what sort of statement is this? generally speaking the unions and any sort of broader progressivist/socialist impulses have been losing traction continuously since like the 1960's.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

I don't think it has swung that far in their favor or it at least has swung back. 24 states are right to work states with one being added to that list a month ago.
The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.

Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

On a tangent...

It is funny to see the right wing in this country rally around GĂ©rard Depardieu. The man effectively abandoned his country like a rat fleeing a ship at the first sign of trouble. Not only does he flee to live in Holland, he bought a home one mile over the border so that he can drive back to France to use the resources he ran away from contributing to. Then after the tax he was fleeing was repealed he still decided to move to Moscow to take up Putin's offer of citizenship.

People on the right have been telling me about national sacrifice, duty, loyalty, etc. all of my life but now the same people are holding up a traitor who fled to our #2 greatest rival as some sort of hero to be admired.

But it is not like I needed any more validation of my view that America is a fairly soulless place contrary to how we think about ourselves and to what we tell the rest of the world.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-06 11:46:29)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England
They speak of national sacrifice, duty, loyalty and expect the same in return from others. That's the difference. France's new PM made a stupid decision to single out a group of people to carry the lions share of the burden. After the 75% tax went into effect, he was getting taxed at a 98% rate overall. Why would you expect anyone to accede to living in those conditions? Citizenship is not a death pact. It's supposed to benefit all relatively equally. When some are asked to carry the load unfairly, while others feed at the trough, they have every right to get upset about it. Hyper-progressive taxation systems will always drive the people at the top away, and they should. The PM's policies are going to injure Frances already tattered economy even further, just like FDR made the Depression worse by jacking up taxes on the rich to 94% and trying to steal corporate profits. I would've renounced my citizenship too.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6629|BC, Canada

aynrandroolz wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Unions can be a pain in the ass a lot of times. But I think there should be at least some counter balance to capital interest.
Yeah, the power has just swung way to far for the unions. It needs to be cut back.
what sort of statement is this? generally speaking the unions and any sort of broader progressivist/socialist impulses have been losing traction continuously since like the 1960's.
Not so for what the individual worker is able to get away with, teachers here in particular and a lot of trades are limited to a low number of tasks per day, so much so that nothing gets done and keen workers are singled out for doing more than the minimum. The politics of unions slows down work in almost every aspect. eg. my buddy is an electrician up at the Ft. Mcmurry oil sands in N. Alberta. If he wants to go to the bathroom he has to go to the far side of the camp to the ones his union asked for than the porta jon right next to where hes working. Lots of little shit like that inflates the labor costs a stupid amount.
Places like Quebec are a cesspool of union corruption. Lots of that coming in the open now. It takes forever to get anything done there.

Last edited by -Whiteroom- (2013-01-06 12:18:27)

Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

Jay wrote:

They speak of national sacrifice, duty, loyalty and expect the same in return from others. That's the difference. France's new PM made a stupid decision to single out a group of people to carry the lions share of the burden. After the 75% tax went into effect, he was getting taxed at a 98% rate overall. Why would you expect anyone to accede to living in those conditions? Citizenship is not a death pact. It's supposed to benefit all relatively equally. When some are asked to carry the load unfairly, while others feed at the trough, they have every right to get upset about it. Hyper-progressive taxation systems will always drive the people at the top away, and they should. The PM's policies are going to injure Frances already tattered economy even further, just like FDR made the Depression worse by jacking up taxes on the rich to 94% and trying to steal corporate profits. I would've renounced my citizenship too.
The tax was thrown out in court and went back down to 40% a little overs ours. He was educated in France. Made movies there for the French. His wealth was a direct result of French society. It is like me building a factory in NJ and making millions of dollars selling stuff to people specifically in NJ and then splitting to Florida to avoid income taxes. Or you going to school on a military scholarship and grants from the federal government and then running to Switzerland to avoid capital gains taxes from the career the education provided you with. It is slimy. Very, very slimy.

Then again I'm not surprised you don't have any concept of gratitude since your moral compass is pointed towards acquiring money by any means possible.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-06 12:18:06)

Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

Jay wrote:

They speak of national sacrifice, duty, loyalty and expect the same in return from others...Citizenship is not a death pact.
lol g1c
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

They speak of national sacrifice, duty, loyalty and expect the same in return from others. That's the difference. France's new PM made a stupid decision to single out a group of people to carry the lions share of the burden. After the 75% tax went into effect, he was getting taxed at a 98% rate overall. Why would you expect anyone to accede to living in those conditions? Citizenship is not a death pact. It's supposed to benefit all relatively equally. When some are asked to carry the load unfairly, while others feed at the trough, they have every right to get upset about it. Hyper-progressive taxation systems will always drive the people at the top away, and they should. The PM's policies are going to injure Frances already tattered economy even further, just like FDR made the Depression worse by jacking up taxes on the rich to 94% and trying to steal corporate profits. I would've renounced my citizenship too.
The tax was thrown out in court and went back down to 40% a little overs ours. He was educated in France. Made movies there for the French. His wealth was a direct result of French society. It is like me building a factory in NJ and making millions of dollars selling stuff to people specifically in NJ and then splitting to Florida to avoid income taxes. Or you going to school on a military scholarship and grants from the federal government and then running to Switzerland to avoid capital gains taxes from the career the education provided you with. It is slimy. Very, very slimy.

Then again I'm not surprised you don't have any concept of gratitude since your moral compass is pointed towards acquiring money by any means possible.
Was what he provided not a fair tradeoff? He's a movie star and an entertainer. People paid him money to act in movies and entertain them. He doesn't owe them anything beyond that initial transaction. If he forced them to sit in those theater seats agains their will then yes, I'd say he owed reparations, but he didn't. Everything was voluntary.

Frankly, you're coming across as silly as all the liberals in California complaining about businesses fleeing to Texas, Nevada and Arizona because of the friendlier business climate. Are people just supposed to sit there and take whatever garbage is heaped on them? No. It's completely irrational to expect that. If you're going to jack up taxes, regulate everything that moves, make it impossible to get new building permits without seventeen forms of environmental impact surveys, impose higher energy costs etc people will move to where they aren't hassled as much. The fact that those companies can move to a different state is a wonderful thing. It means we still live in a somewhat free society and competition works.

As for your factory, you created useful products for the people in that state, yes? They bought your products willingly, they paid you money knowing you were exacting a profit on each item, what more do you owe them beyond providing them with a good they want to buy? Go to Florida, you did your job.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

They speak of national sacrifice, duty, loyalty and expect the same in return from others...Citizenship is not a death pact.
lol g1c
You do understand that the idea of national citizenship is modern invention, yes? People used to be able to come and go from country to country as they pleased without needing a passport. Frankly, the idea of cemented national borders and captive citizens should piss you off, not make you piss your pants in glee.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-Samuel Johnson
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5514|Toronto
Jay, where do you stand on philanthropy? Doesn't the military have some form of 'golden rule'? Doesn't the dollar bill have 'In God We Trust' written on it?
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Pochsy wrote:

Jay, where do you stand on philanthropy? Doesn't the military have some form of 'golden rule'? Doesn't the dollar bill have 'In God We Trust' written on it?
I think philanthropy is a wonderful thing. I also feel it should be voluntary.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

I was laughing at your defense of their "duty, loyalty, sacrifice" propaganda and then a few lines down disavowing any sort of nationality. Concepts of citizenship go back all the way to the Greeks by the way.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
lol what is it with jay and his steady repertoire of goodquotes.com sam johnson sayings? does jay even know who samuel johnson was? isn't he like the antithesis of jay's personal values? it's not exactly displaying fucking erudition to cluelessly quote some 'famous' dude. it doesn't help your debate, particularly when you clearly know so little about the thinker/personality you cite.

"strawberry poptarts are the best flavour" - adolf hitler.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

aynrandroolz wrote:

lol what is it with jay and his steady repertoire of goodquotes.com sam johnson sayings? does jay even know who samuel johnson was? isn't he like the antithesis of jay's personal values? it's not exactly displaying fucking erudition to cluelessly quote some 'famous' dude. it doesn't help your debate, particularly when you clearly know so little about the thinker/personality you cite.

"strawberry poptarts are the best flavour" - adolf hitler.
Well aware of who Samuel Johnson was, and yes, his were the antithesis of my own personal values. Would you have rather I quoted Einstein instead? Patriotism is used by those in power to blind the eyes of their populace. It's how anti-democratic stuff like the aptly named PATRIOT Act was passed.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

I was laughing at your defense of their "duty, loyalty, sacrifice" propaganda and then a few lines down disavowing any sort of nationality. Concepts of citizenship go back all the way to the Greeks by the way.
I'm aware that it goes back that far, but citizenship in the modern sense is relatively new. I disavowed those values because they aren't my own values. I'm not a social conservative blinded by patriotism.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5567|Vacationland

Jay wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

lol what is it with jay and his steady repertoire of goodquotes.com sam johnson sayings? does jay even know who samuel johnson was? isn't he like the antithesis of jay's personal values? it's not exactly displaying fucking erudition to cluelessly quote some 'famous' dude. it doesn't help your debate, particularly when you clearly know so little about the thinker/personality you cite.

"strawberry poptarts are the best flavour" - adolf hitler.
Well aware of who Samuel Johnson was, and yes, his were the antithesis of my own personal values. Would you have rather I quoted Einstein instead? Patriotism is used by those in power to blind the eyes of their populace. It's how anti-democratic stuff like the aptly named PATRIOT Act was passed.
There is a difference between using fear to take away people's rights and love of one's country.

Last edited by Narupug (2013-01-06 14:05:36)

Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I was laughing at your defense of their "duty, loyalty, sacrifice" propaganda and then a few lines down disavowing any sort of nationality. Concepts of citizenship go back all the way to the Greeks by the way.
I'm aware that it goes back that far, but citizenship in the modern sense is relatively new. I disavowed those values because they aren't my own values. I'm not a social conservative blinded by patriotism.
the only form of citizenship that is 'relatively new' (which isn't the type you are referring to) is the modern-technocrat 'consumer civilian' model, in which there is such a state of relative peace and prosperity that most advanced nation's government's have just become bureaucrats, essentially voted in place as functionaries of citizen's happiness and facilitators of a consumer-type 'demand'. that's what 'modern' citizenship is, in a sense: a contractual agreement between a demos and a bunch of bureaucrats to keep them happy and deliver a service in return for their tax money. a lot of idealism (and hence ideology) has been stripped from it, and most forms of nationalism and chest-beating seem fairly antique and parochial, by contrast. what people want now in return for their deontological 'duty' is mostly peace, prosperity, and the right to buy as many white goods as possible.

but you weren't referring to any of that. you were trying to suggest that the type of citizenship outlined by macbeth is 'relatively new'. which it isn't. as he was spot-on in saying, it historically derives from the pre-greeks, but certainly reaches an early zenith and example under pericles' athens (in turn emulated by the romans). that is why so much of american civic life has a classicist basis: precisely BECAUSE the ideal form of citizenship in your new country was adapted from the greeks. you are pretty much just factually wrong. it's a minor point anyway, so concede it with grace, and stop quoting people you are principally allergic to in an attempt to slip out the back way with some faux-erudite smokes-n-mirrors.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

aynrandroolz wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I was laughing at your defense of their "duty, loyalty, sacrifice" propaganda and then a few lines down disavowing any sort of nationality. Concepts of citizenship go back all the way to the Greeks by the way.
I'm aware that it goes back that far, but citizenship in the modern sense is relatively new. I disavowed those values because they aren't my own values. I'm not a social conservative blinded by patriotism.
the only form of citizenship that is 'relatively new' (which isn't the type you are referring to) is the modern-technocrat 'consumer civilian' model, in which there is such a state of relative peace and prosperity that most advanced nation's government's have just become bureaucrats, essentially voted in place as functionaries of citizen's happiness and facilitators of a consumer-type 'demand'. that's what 'modern' citizenship is, in a sense: a contractual agreement between a demos and a bunch of bureaucrats to keep them happy and deliver a service in return for their tax money. a lot of idealism (and hence ideology) has been stripped from it, and most forms of nationalism and chest-beating seem fairly antique and parochial, by contrast. what people want now in return for their deontological 'duty' is mostly peace, prosperity, and the right to buy as many white goods as possible.

but you weren't referring to any of that. you were trying to suggest that the type of citizenship outlined by macbeth is 'relatively new'. which it isn't. as he was spot-on in saying, it historically derives from the pre-greeks, but certainly reaches an early zenith and example under pericles' athens (in turn emulated by the romans). that is why so much of american civic life has a classicist basis: precisely BECAUSE the ideal form of citizenship in your new country was adapted from the greeks. you are pretty much just factually wrong. it's a minor point anyway, so concede it with grace, and stop quoting people you are principally allergic to in an attempt to slip out the back way with some faux-erudite smokes-n-mirrors.
I was in fact referring to that. I wasn't insinuating that the idea of country was a new concept, or the idea of Rousseau's social contract were anything new. The idea of country and culture is as old as civilization itself. It just wasn't codified until recently by the bureaucrats you mentioned. It wasn't until said bureaucrats started to modernize governments into the form they are today that the idea of controlling citizenship was put into practice, and most of it has to do with taxation and being able to squeeze every last penny out of the populace it holds captive with citizenship rights. It's why we all have surnames we pass down, and birth certificates, and social security numbers etc. If people were free to move across borders as they wished, and didn't have to declare their residency, the tax system would collapse. That's why the systems exist, so to call people traitors because they renounce one set of bureaucrats for another is silly and disingenuous.

Is Depardieu going to be any less French because he renounces his citizenship and declares it in another country? No. He still speaks French, has French mannerisms, supports French culture etc. He's just giving a big fuck you to the government and its bureaucrats who see him as nothing more than a cow to be milked for money. Just because you are born within a set of borders does not mean you should be forced to pay homage to everyone else within those borders to the end of your days, especially if you strongly disagree with the path that the country is taking. Again, citizenship is not a death pact.

But let's try to get back on topic, yes? Does the modern union really have a useful place in our societies? Personally, I hate the very idea of a closed shop system where everyone is forced to join a union in order to be employed. If the union owns the company, sure, makes sense, they can set the rules, but 99% of the time they don't. Unions should be a wholly voluntary association.

Last edited by Jay (2013-01-06 15:05:13)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
i think the tacit point here is that depardieu would be nothing without france. his fame and his status all stems from the support of a predominantly french audience and buying public. he has become very rich and yet will not consent to pay taxes 'according to his ability' (notionally). it has nothing to do with 'citizenship being a death pact'. how absurd are you to liken a multimillionaire having to pay higher taxes as an equivalent to death? he is still enjoying a quality of life in the top 0.1% of all people on this globe. everywhere he goes, quite apart from material wealth, he enjoys fame and celebrity and respect (well, he did). hardly a 'death pact'.

and yes, all this is tinged with an irony, because you promote a set of personal ethics that does not bind you to any nation or confine you to any set of borders... although you certainly cannot deny that the state was the wolf-tit that you suckled from in your own youth and maturation. and yet, as soon as you reach a position of wealth and advantage, you'd be willing to wave it 'tar-rah!' and hop ship to another welcoming host. sounds like parasitism to me.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

aynrandroolz wrote:

i think the tacit point here is that depardieu would be nothing without france. his fame and his status all stems from the support of a predominantly french audience and buying public. he has become very rich and yet will not consent to pay taxes 'according to his ability' (notionally). it has nothing to do with 'citizenship being a death pact'. how absurd are you to liken a multimillionaire having to pay higher taxes as an equivalent to death? he is still enjoying a quality of life in the top 0.1% of all people on this globe. everywhere he goes, quite apart from material wealth, he enjoys fame and celebrity and respect (well, he did). hardly a 'death pact'.

and yes, all this is tinged with an irony, because you promote a set of personal ethics that does not bind you to any nation or confine you to any set of borders... although you certainly cannot deny that the state was the wolf-tit that you suckled from in your own youth and maturation. and yet, as soon as you reach a position of wealth and advantage, you'd be willing to wave it 'tar-rah!' and hop ship to another welcoming host. sounds like parasitism to me.
I would jump ship if it were advantageous to do so, yes. I would have to weigh the benefits versus the losses, and make my decision in that way. Taxes wouldn't be the primary motivator, although they would play a part. Do you have some moral aversion to the idea that countries should compete for our citizenship?

If I'm starting a business I'd start it in a country or state that offered me the best chance at success. I'd want to do business in a country that strongly upheld contracts, that didn't place financial burdens on my business that made me uncompetitive, I'd want an educated workforce with access to good medical care so that I wouldn't have to train new personel constantly etc. When the state gets in the way to the point that it makes my time pointless or causes me to fail, I'd move. To say that I owe loyalty to a country because it provided for me is quite laughable btw. I've been paying taxes since I was 13 years old. My parents paid property taxes and income taxes to send me to school. I performed a service to the government in order to pay for college. My countrymen do not have a right to my time and money 'just because'. We've rendered each other services for my entire life and if I choose to join a different crowd, so be it.

Depardieu paid his taxes, yes? He's probably paid during his lifetime a hundredfold more in taxes than he ever took out of the system. Why does he owe more? You're acting like men of talent, ability, and yes, luck, are born to serve. What a silly idea. If his country no longer offers him more benefits than negatives, he should leave. Anyone in their right mind would leave. It's the rational thing to do. What is irrational is trying to make him feel guilty about it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
depardieu is a decorated man. he's a legionnaire. when you are a public figure elected and award prizes, put up on a pedestal, you enjoy the respect of your countrymen. as soon as the economy downturns and people face austerity, he jumps ship, not wanting to suffer any 'cut' or negative effect to his own life. it's just not decorous. in your own case, i think people find it's funny because you essentially are a welfare recipient who spouts this free-market libertarian shit-- a minor hypocrisy. but in the case of someone like depardieu, who gladly ACCEPTED and assented to having certain awards conferred upon him, it is obviously seem as a symbolic betrayal. when the going was good, he was happy to be symbolised as a national icon. as soon as everyone faces a period of austerity, he's off to become a russian citizen. yes, patriotism and assigning a high symbolic value to national identity is facile. yes, it's not for me. but he was more than happy to play that game back when it was advantageous to him. and people - sharing this national pride and very much immersed in the culture - have a right to feel bitter and angry at him. "irrational"? i don't really see what rationality or irrationality has to do with it, really. not all things in the public sphere have to be coldly rational and reasoned. much of the american civic system and national identity is irrational. was it rational to have to say the pledge every morning at school? is it rational to cling to your right to keep military hardware in your homes, in case tyranny returns overnight? probably not.

anyway, yes, digression closed. i can see why the french are pissed at depardieu. you don't accept national decorations and reap the rewards of fame (and its fortune), only to turn around and shit on the poor everyman that granted that status to you in the first place. depardieu is not a multi-national corporation. he has social ties to his kin, however romantic or irrational that may be, or however cynical you are about such a concept (a cynicism i share). the point is that he played into it.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard