eat@me, you said two things that really interested me.
First, your comment on Australia. How would you say things are different? I visited Australia on a job for a month. It's a really nice place. Awesome place. As I traveled from Sydney to Melbourne by bus over the month, I amazed the vastness of that continent. Between those two major cities, only small-medium sized town dot the coast?the large cities felt almost outposts in a frontier country. Sydney and Melbourne are not all that close (I think it is about the distance from Los Angeles to Settle, or there abouts). Still, I traveled only about half of the east coast. This place is BIG with hardly anyone there.
Getting to my point, as an American I thought, ?Wow. They have a lot of space to take advantage here. The ought to open their coasts and let it be populated.? HA! Too bad just about every Aussie is against letting immigrants in. I mean, I find that rather sad? but I guess that?s a road they just don?t want to travel. I understand why they wouldn?t want all of South-East Asia moving in.
The second thing I found interesting what your claim that things will pass. What did you mean exactly? LePen or the influx of immigrants? If you meant the second, do you really think so? Europe is a concentration of wealth in that hemisphere. Further, westerners have some of the lowest birth rates globally (especially France). The rest of the world is growing at a tremendous rate. They want a good life too. They want in to western countries while their nations are plagued with debt, political struggles, disease, and crime. At some point, violence may be the only way to keep them out?would they use violence to get in? Who knows.
As a Southern Californian, the state of Mexico is important to me. The issue if illegal immigration has been of major debate here. Personally, I?m all for some how getting Mexico to stand on its own two feet through explicit effort?not a very Republican view, I know. But if nothing is done, it?s only going to get worse?.
[edit: want to make note that I am not making a joke about Mexico being a United State-- rather, I mean its situational state ]
<strong>I had a hard time understanding why there was so much anti-semitism in Europe but after reading some comments in this thread I understand some things about the mindset there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There isnt that much anti-semitism in europe. It IS present, but it would be false to say that it isnt. Its not that Europeans are against Jews or Muslims or Protestants or Catholics, etc... This has nothing to do with religion.
While many people of the Jewish faith tend to be VERY closed and let few insiders in (which only makes people suspicous and paranoid in my opinion), they do not go out in gangs and mug people. I think European society has become sensitive and tolerant enough oover the past 60 years... its the, in this case, north african, people that come here and are basically USING the horrors that happened during WW2 against the Jews (and other minorities) as a SHIELD or EXCUSE to be left alone.
Its quite interesting in fact. I just watched CNN a few minutes ago and an interviewee (a French guy) said he voted Le Pen becasue of the sense of insecurity caused by the illegal immigrants and such. The guy even said he was married to a north africain woman... he says that the French have nothing against the immigrants as people... its the immigrants that attack the French. This has been going on for years... and I think people are getting REALLY fed up with it.
PC^KILLA, stop being such an ass. You're putting yourself on the same level as other intolerants. The Jews in Israel aren't going anywhere and neither are your neighbor Arabs. Deal with it. Live with it.
On another note, LePen will not win. Thats for sure. He will get, at most, about 20-30% of the vote.
If there is something that worries me is his fervent anti-european unionism. He has made promise to make France leave the Euro, etc etc... which would be impossible and stuff... but still, the guy is a fanatic. I just hope Chirac will be as harsh as Le Pen with illegal immigration.
What?!? Don?t you want any of our Arabs?!? As ZO had mentioned, they are very ?generous?. Even with their lives! They don?t mind taking as many people as they can with them to paradise and Allah.
I think European society has become sensitive and tolerant enough oover the past 60 years... its the, in this case, north african, people that come here and are basically USING the horrors that happened during WW2 against the Jews (and other minorities) as a SHIELD or EXCUSE to be left alone.
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think Jews in Europe is exactly a new thing. They've been there from before the Renaissance and the racism against them has been there from the start*. How long have they been living in Europe and only recently are they starting to gain acceptance? By the time the North Africans are accepted in France, every person on the planet will look alike.
*some scholars source anti-Semitism to the idea that, during the middle ages, Christians were barred from making loans. The Jews had no problem taking up the role of banker. This meant anyone with debt owed money to a Jew. ?Those dirty Jews. Let?s get rid of them (and cancel my debt)!? Well, it starts somewhere, right?
*some scholars source anti-Semitism to the idea that, during the middle ages, Christians were barred from making loans. The Jews had no problem taking up the role of banker. This meant anyone with debt owed money to a Jew. ?Those dirty Jews. Let?s get rid of them (and cancel my debt)!? Well, it starts somewhere, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
well, for that matter Jews were already being persecuted back in ancient egypt. But anyway... we digress.
The problem of immigration is much more a problem of insecurity.
The problem of insecurity is becoming a real problem in France, it was not the case in the past. Even if now according to statistics (if they are not tricked) France is not more dangerous than other country of Europe, Insecurity is much more important than it was in the past. violence is growing everywhere, people tend to be more aggressive. Many crimes are not punish, especialy when commited by youngs people where the law is too protective and not any more appropriate. Law and respect of the state must be restored everywhere especially in the peripheric border of the towns.
Illegal immigration is a problem but not the major one. Saying that all the problems are coming from youth arab is reductive, even if they are the number one population for violence. As a republican ( i mean a man believing in the republic) i will say : that law must be respected and applied to everypeople of any ages, any ethnics, any religions. Saying that we must fire all the immigrants like le Pen is full of sh*t. There is law they must be applied that's all without any distinction of people and religion.
The two candidates who are present in the second turn of the elections where the candidate who speak of insecurity. Jospin and the socialist refuse to speak about this problems saying that was not politically correct and socially dangerous.
The socialist have paid for this, hiding problems for politically correct reasons brings to extremist vote like le Pen.
Le pen play with the fear and hate of the population, fear of insecurity , hate of the immigrants who are supposed to stole the work of the french (but there is many french people who are too lazy to work, i would add that some immigrants are as good as the french to take social advantages too), fear of the mondialism that supposed to bring all the economical problems.
HIs answers are stupid : leaving euro and europe will be an earthcake for France, do not belonging to the euro is one thing, but leaving it is an another thing that i can't just imagine. Firing all the immigrants will not bring anything good.
And for the foreign policy, Le pen has ****ed many times : during the golf war, Le pen was against it, and officially support Sadam Hussein, you must remember he is a populist and he act just to be popular in the particular aera of the population where he gets is votes.
As a conclusion , i will say that the problem of insecurity is real, but it has to be solve in a republican way (in the respects of the law of democratia) and not in a fascist way. Solving this problems in a good way, will be the best manner to diminish the influence of Le Pen in France.
This must be a French thing. Our own Q-bec-qwas have been playing a thinly veiled version of this for te last oh 30 years. Powerdoc, anyway we could interest you in a 6-7 million white francophones with funny accents?
I haven't commented on any of these issues the past few weeks, as I've been trying to absorb exactly what it is that we're seeing. It's so easy to compartmentalize and oversimplify things when watching these clowns on the national news, when the truth is they provide very little context. Even less understanding.
I try to look at these problems in human terms and not political ones, and I think what we've been seeing with the Palestinians and Israelis, what we saw before with the Serbs and Croats, and now with the French and the N. Africans ? they?re all just different manifestations of the same ?problem?. To try and reduce their causes to nothing more than political policies or lines on a map or economics is a little shortsighted IMO. Put all these things on a much larger timeline (and on a larger geographic scale) and you'll see what I mean.
I don't claim to be a social anthropologist or grand historian, but it seems to me what we're dealing with are [chaotic (and yet cyclic)] manifestations of human malcontent. For thousands of years different groups have castigated and physically mangled one another. Why? For the color of their skin, their religion, the piece of land they occupy, for the crest on their armor - whatever excuse was handy. But the [operative word is excuse because they] usually have little to do with the real problem. In other words just "solving the immigration problem in France" or "solving the border disputes in Israel" won't end the violence (or more to the point, the malcontent).
When humans are unhappy, they invariably and almost instinctively find a scapegoat (and sometimes an excuse to vent their anger against that scapegoat). If it wasn't Algerian thugs in France, it would be the Tunisians, if not the Tunisians the labor laws ... If it isn?t the control of holy sites in Jerusalem, it?s the annexation of Gaza, if not Gaza, then political representation, and on and on it could go. I think the violence and finger-pointing is actually a misplaced symptom of whatever is truly wrong in these people's lives (something I don't claim to have any clue about because I don't live with them).
In other words, these happenings can be reduced not to macro-level phenomenon, but to individuals.
Don?t lose sight of the fact that groups are simply individuals who have made a decision to stand with a particular set of people and take a particular set of actions. Thus it?s not ?the group?s fault? ? the fault lies with individuals. Even those living under oppressive governments have free will, even those who have little money can act nobly. There?s no law that dictates: if I am put under condition X, I MUST take actions Y and Z because that?s what society expects of me. People can choose to follow their own conscience. Both the Israelis and Palestinians are terribly guilty of letting politics and hype and hysteria rule their actions. Can they not say ?I will not utter a hateful word today, I will not take out my gun and flash it in someone?s face, I will not let myself be consumed by idiocy??
I feel the real issues aren't being addressed when the explanations are always "those people over there have ruined our neighborhood - they're all bad." and "I'm the victim of discrimination; therefore I am justified in breaking their laws and attacking my oppressors. If someone is rich and I am poor, they must've wronged me somehow. Etc. Etc."
These are personal problems, personal shortcomings, manifesting themselves in group behavior. I have to wonder: if these people (on all sides) valued health more than power, personal happiness more than money, friendships more than status or membership in a group -- would ANY of these problems exist in their current forms? I?m inclined to think not. The people partaking in all these hostilities are lying to themselves, telling themselves that if they simply rid their area of a particular group, or if they gain control of certain lands, or if they get their guy elected ? that all their troubles will go away. But even if they succeed, they will still be unhappy and thus will act out in irrational ways.
Governments will not solve any of these problems, only the participants can. That?s why these battles between ethnic groups rage on not for years but decades or even centuries. It only ceases when the combatants ? not the politicians ? decide they will not blame their personal problems on other people.
Arakageeta i m granting you the french medal of honor, for your courage . you have suceed the ultimate task, read an entire Powerdoc post !
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Trés bien! I watched the election returns live last Sunday, and I agree with most of powerdoc's assessment. If the Left of Left (the Trotskyites) hadn't been so busy calling Jospin a bourgeios poodle, and if Jospin had run a more engaged campaign, perhaps this ridiculous run-off would not be taking place.
The dialectic of Le Pen has change a little (there is some amnesia concerning some declarations about races he made some years ago), he presented himself like the candidate of union. His programm :
- reduce the tax on the work
- fired all illegal immigrants
- priority to the french citizens
- more prisons, more judge but not politised ones to reinforce security;
- leaving the euro and Maastrich after a referendum.
The strange things is that even French young arabs have voting for Le PEN hoping change and more security. So the vote of Le Pen is not only a vote against arabs (Le pen who is not an idiot : that's why he is so dangerous, has change his dialectic he has found that he will become more popular if he does not speak of racism, but rather speak of priority to french citizens vs strangers).
So Le pen tend to leave his past of facist and try to become a populist taking votes from the lower class of the population. According to interview i have ear on TV and radio, the reason number one for their vote was insecurity (or the increase of insecurity : because it's not so bad comparing to other occidental states)
Chirac has refused the traditional TV debate with Le Pen. Even if it's not a great demonstration of courage, i quite understand the decison of Chirac, this debate will be nothing less than terrible and a shame for France ( Le pen will certainly use many personal attacks agains Chirac). There is no good debate without dignity and respect of the other, even if the discussion can be harsh.
The second turn will be a easy victory for Chirac ,but i won't be a great victory. The major election for France politic will be the legislative election of our deputy. The majority of deputy design in France the governement who decide of the politic (at the restriction of foreign politics and the army where the responsabilities are shared) of the nation.It's quite possible to see a majority of left winning the legislative election, or it's possible to see the right winged from LE PEN who will be strong enough to make a blocade minority. That will be bad for France.
No. But you're probably wiser than most of them put together. Best post I've read here in a long time.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't know about that but I certainly appreciate the compliment. Hopefully some of our "world leaders" will try and integrate the human perpective as much as the political ones into their analyses and proposed solutions, but don't hold your breath. As I mentioned these kind of things seem to have a nack for repeating themselves over time. Seems we don't learn from history too well after all?
Comments
First, your comment on Australia. How would you say things are different? I visited Australia on a job for a month. It's a really nice place. Awesome place. As I traveled from Sydney to Melbourne by bus over the month, I amazed the vastness of that continent. Between those two major cities, only small-medium sized town dot the coast?the large cities felt almost outposts in a frontier country. Sydney and Melbourne are not all that close (I think it is about the distance from Los Angeles to Settle, or there abouts). Still, I traveled only about half of the east coast. This place is BIG with hardly anyone there.
Getting to my point, as an American I thought, ?Wow. They have a lot of space to take advantage here. The ought to open their coasts and let it be populated.? HA! Too bad just about every Aussie is against letting immigrants in. I mean, I find that rather sad? but I guess that?s a road they just don?t want to travel. I understand why they wouldn?t want all of South-East Asia moving in.
The second thing I found interesting what your claim that things will pass. What did you mean exactly? LePen or the influx of immigrants? If you meant the second, do you really think so? Europe is a concentration of wealth in that hemisphere. Further, westerners have some of the lowest birth rates globally (especially France). The rest of the world is growing at a tremendous rate. They want a good life too. They want in to western countries while their nations are plagued with debt, political struggles, disease, and crime. At some point, violence may be the only way to keep them out?would they use violence to get in? Who knows.
As a Southern Californian, the state of Mexico is important to me. The issue if illegal immigration has been of major debate here. Personally, I?m all for some how getting Mexico to stand on its own two feet through explicit effort?not a very Republican view, I know. But if nothing is done, it?s only going to get worse?.
[edit: want to make note that I am not making a joke about Mexico being a United State-- rather, I mean its situational state
[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: Arakageeta ]</p>
<strong>I had a hard time understanding why there was so much anti-semitism in Europe but after reading some comments in this thread I understand some things about the mindset there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There isnt that much anti-semitism in europe. It IS present, but it would be false to say that it isnt. Its not that Europeans are against Jews or Muslims or Protestants or Catholics, etc... This has nothing to do with religion.
While many people of the Jewish faith tend to be VERY closed and let few insiders in (which only makes people suspicous and paranoid in my opinion), they do not go out in gangs and mug people. I think European society has become sensitive and tolerant enough oover the past 60 years... its the, in this case, north african, people that come here and are basically USING the horrors that happened during WW2 against the Jews (and other minorities) as a SHIELD or EXCUSE to be left alone.
Its quite interesting in fact. I just watched CNN a few minutes ago and an interviewee (a French guy) said he voted Le Pen becasue of the sense of insecurity caused by the illegal immigrants and such. The guy even said he was married to a north africain woman... he says that the French have nothing against the immigrants as people... its the immigrants that attack the French. This has been going on for years... and I think people are getting REALLY fed up with it.
PC^KILLA, stop being such an ass. You're putting yourself on the same level as other intolerants. The Jews in Israel aren't going anywhere and neither are your neighbor Arabs. Deal with it. Live with it.
If there is something that worries me is his fervent anti-european unionism. He has made promise to make France leave the Euro, etc etc... which would be impossible and stuff... but still, the guy is a fanatic. I just hope Chirac will be as harsh as Le Pen with illegal immigration.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/22/france.election/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/22/france.election/index.html</a>;
He makes Bush look like a pussy cat.
mika.
[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
I think European society has become sensitive and tolerant enough oover the past 60 years... its the, in this case, north african, people that come here and are basically USING the horrors that happened during WW2 against the Jews (and other minorities) as a SHIELD or EXCUSE to be left alone.
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think Jews in Europe is exactly a new thing. They've been there from before the Renaissance and the racism against them has been there from the start*. How long have they been living in Europe and only recently are they starting to gain acceptance? By the time the North Africans are accepted in France, every person on the planet will look alike.
*some scholars source anti-Semitism to the idea that, during the middle ages, Christians were barred from making loans. The Jews had no problem taking up the role of banker. This meant anyone with debt owed money to a Jew. ?Those dirty Jews. Let?s get rid of them (and cancel my debt)!? Well, it starts somewhere, right?
<strong>
*some scholars source anti-Semitism to the idea that, during the middle ages, Christians were barred from making loans. The Jews had no problem taking up the role of banker. This meant anyone with debt owed money to a Jew. ?Those dirty Jews. Let?s get rid of them (and cancel my debt)!? Well, it starts somewhere, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
well, for that matter Jews were already being persecuted back in ancient egypt. But anyway... we digress.
well, for that matter Jews were already being persecuted back in ancient egypt. But anyway... we digress.
<hr></blockquote>
Indeed. But Egypt is not Europe.
The problem of insecurity is becoming a real problem in France, it was not the case in the past. Even if now according to statistics (if they are not tricked) France is not more dangerous than other country of Europe, Insecurity is much more important than it was in the past. violence is growing everywhere, people tend to be more aggressive. Many crimes are not punish, especialy when commited by youngs people where the law is too protective and not any more appropriate. Law and respect of the state must be restored everywhere especially in the peripheric border of the towns.
Illegal immigration is a problem but not the major one. Saying that all the problems are coming from youth arab is reductive, even if they are the number one population for violence. As a republican ( i mean a man believing in the republic) i will say : that law must be respected and applied to everypeople of any ages, any ethnics, any religions. Saying that we must fire all the immigrants like le Pen is full of sh*t. There is law they must be applied that's all without any distinction of people and religion.
The two candidates who are present in the second turn of the elections where the candidate who speak of insecurity. Jospin and the socialist refuse to speak about this problems saying that was not politically correct and socially dangerous.
The socialist have paid for this, hiding problems for politically correct reasons brings to extremist vote like le Pen.
Le pen play with the fear and hate of the population, fear of insecurity , hate of the immigrants who are supposed to stole the work of the french (but there is many french people who are too lazy to work, i would add that some immigrants are as good as the french to take social advantages too), fear of the mondialism that supposed to bring all the economical problems.
HIs answers are stupid : leaving euro and europe will be an earthcake for France, do not belonging to the euro is one thing, but leaving it is an another thing that i can't just imagine. Firing all the immigrants will not bring anything good.
And for the foreign policy, Le pen has ****ed many times : during the golf war, Le pen was against it, and officially support Sadam Hussein, you must remember he is a populist and he act just to be popular in the particular aera of the population where he gets is votes.
As a conclusion , i will say that the problem of insecurity is real, but it has to be solve in a republican way (in the respects of the law of democratia) and not in a fascist way. Solving this problems in a good way, will be the best manner to diminish the influence of Le Pen in France.
<strong>Mmmmmm.... earthcake... is that anything like mud pie?
Yes earthcake are very bad for the digestion
Earthquake are perhaps a more better syntax.
Arakageeta i m granting you the french medal of honor, for your courage . you have suceed the ultimate task, read an entire Powerdoc post !
I try to look at these problems in human terms and not political ones, and I think what we've been seeing with the Palestinians and Israelis, what we saw before with the Serbs and Croats, and now with the French and the N. Africans ? they?re all just different manifestations of the same ?problem?. To try and reduce their causes to nothing more than political policies or lines on a map or economics is a little shortsighted IMO. Put all these things on a much larger timeline (and on a larger geographic scale) and you'll see what I mean.
I don't claim to be a social anthropologist or grand historian, but it seems to me what we're dealing with are [chaotic (and yet cyclic)] manifestations of human malcontent. For thousands of years different groups have castigated and physically mangled one another. Why? For the color of their skin, their religion, the piece of land they occupy, for the crest on their armor - whatever excuse was handy. But the [operative word is excuse because they] usually have little to do with the real problem. In other words just "solving the immigration problem in France" or "solving the border disputes in Israel" won't end the violence (or more to the point, the malcontent).
When humans are unhappy, they invariably and almost instinctively find a scapegoat (and sometimes an excuse to vent their anger against that scapegoat). If it wasn't Algerian thugs in France, it would be the Tunisians, if not the Tunisians the labor laws ... If it isn?t the control of holy sites in Jerusalem, it?s the annexation of Gaza, if not Gaza, then political representation, and on and on it could go. I think the violence and finger-pointing is actually a misplaced symptom of whatever is truly wrong in these people's lives (something I don't claim to have any clue about because I don't live with them).
In other words, these happenings can be reduced not to macro-level phenomenon, but to individuals.
Don?t lose sight of the fact that groups are simply individuals who have made a decision to stand with a particular set of people and take a particular set of actions. Thus it?s not ?the group?s fault? ? the fault lies with individuals. Even those living under oppressive governments have free will, even those who have little money can act nobly. There?s no law that dictates: if I am put under condition X, I MUST take actions Y and Z because that?s what society expects of me. People can choose to follow their own conscience. Both the Israelis and Palestinians are terribly guilty of letting politics and hype and hysteria rule their actions. Can they not say ?I will not utter a hateful word today, I will not take out my gun and flash it in someone?s face, I will not let myself be consumed by idiocy??
I feel the real issues aren't being addressed when the explanations are always "those people over there have ruined our neighborhood - they're all bad." and "I'm the victim of discrimination; therefore I am justified in breaking their laws and attacking my oppressors. If someone is rich and I am poor, they must've wronged me somehow. Etc. Etc."
These are personal problems, personal shortcomings, manifesting themselves in group behavior. I have to wonder: if these people (on all sides) valued health more than power, personal happiness more than money, friendships more than status or membership in a group -- would ANY of these problems exist in their current forms? I?m inclined to think not. The people partaking in all these hostilities are lying to themselves, telling themselves that if they simply rid their area of a particular group, or if they gain control of certain lands, or if they get their guy elected ? that all their troubles will go away. But even if they succeed, they will still be unhappy and thus will act out in irrational ways.
Governments will not solve any of these problems, only the participants can. That?s why these battles between ethnic groups rage on not for years but decades or even centuries. It only ceases when the combatants ? not the politicians ? decide they will not blame their personal problems on other people.
Just my $.02 worth.
[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
I don't claim to be a social anthropologist or grand historian...
No. But you're probably wiser than most of them put together. Best post I've read here in a long time.
mika.
<strong>
Arakageeta i m granting you the french medal of honor, for your courage . you have suceed the ultimate task, read an entire Powerdoc post !
Trés bien! I watched the election returns live last Sunday, and I agree with most of powerdoc's assessment. If the Left of Left (the Trotskyites) hadn't been so busy calling Jospin a bourgeios poodle, and if Jospin had run a more engaged campaign, perhaps this ridiculous run-off would not be taking place.
... sorta-- go Nader!!
The dialectic of Le Pen has change a little (there is some amnesia concerning some declarations about races he made some years ago), he presented himself like the candidate of union. His programm :
- reduce the tax on the work
- fired all illegal immigrants
- priority to the french citizens
- more prisons, more judge but not politised ones to reinforce security;
- leaving the euro and Maastrich after a referendum.
The strange things is that even French young arabs have voting for Le PEN hoping change and more security. So the vote of Le Pen is not only a vote against arabs (Le pen who is not an idiot : that's why he is so dangerous, has change his dialectic he has found that he will become more popular if he does not speak of racism, but rather speak of priority to french citizens vs strangers).
So Le pen tend to leave his past of facist and try to become a populist taking votes from the lower class of the population. According to interview i have ear on TV and radio, the reason number one for their vote was insecurity (or the increase of insecurity : because it's not so bad comparing to other occidental states)
Chirac has refused the traditional TV debate with Le Pen. Even if it's not a great demonstration of courage, i quite understand the decison of Chirac, this debate will be nothing less than terrible and a shame for France ( Le pen will certainly use many personal attacks agains Chirac). There is no good debate without dignity and respect of the other, even if the discussion can be harsh.
The second turn will be a easy victory for Chirac ,but i won't be a great victory. The major election for France politic will be the legislative election of our deputy. The majority of deputy design in France the governement who decide of the politic (at the restriction of foreign politics and the army where the responsabilities are shared) of the nation.It's quite possible to see a majority of left winning the legislative election, or it's possible to see the right winged from LE PEN who will be strong enough to make a blocade minority. That will be bad for France.
<strong>quote:
No. But you're probably wiser than most of them put together. Best post I've read here in a long time.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't know about that but I certainly appreciate the compliment. Hopefully some of our "world leaders" will try and integrate the human perpective as much as the political ones into their analyses and proposed solutions, but don't hold your breath. As I mentioned these kind of things seem to have a nack for repeating themselves over time. Seems we don't learn from history too well after all?