Sarko sark sarks was he being cruddy?

Nicolas Sarkozy. I have been a bit slack as of late and should have commented earlier on the buzz surrounding the man, the new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. Of course the news this week also reported on another sub plot, following the election result. Riots. Nearly six hundred people were arrested after violence due to the vote tally. Vehicles were torched tear gas was dispensed and rocks were thrown. Yes add a dash of salt and a pinch of pepper. Incite. Ignite.

I was pondering again, of course, on the use of violence and its accomplishments in regards to politics. I will start with the extreme case first. Adolf Hitler, after failing in his first bit at attaining power employed bully boys, who took care of any who opposed his ideals. He like others started small, and conned the nation into giving him a chance at power.

Stalin was a little less subtle in his approach. He became the party leader and it wasn't long before Trotsky was found with an ice pick protruding from his head. Stalin's brutal five year plans rewarded success but punished failure so badly, that a good percentage of the population died because of the brutal conditions. Most who were deemed a failure were sent to "siberia," never to be seen again. Yet it was, some historians argue these same 5 year plans which propelled Russia into becoming a productive and powerful nation.

Mao Tse-tung used violence as well. He originally failed in a largely peaceful attempt to attain power. He realized that he would only become a leader of the country he loved when he incited the massive peasant population to take power. And take power violently he did.

Nelson Mandela, had roots to terrorism. He advocated the use of violence to attain political change.

Nasser, hero in Egypt, achieved power only after ousting the king.

Fidel Castro. Robert Mugabe. Macbeth. Oh wait, he was fictional.

Political change, shifts in the thinking of a nation in many cases appear to be firmly rooted in violence. What are the catalysts for this behavior. I tend to think it could be associated with prosperity or lack thereof. When the gap between the rich and the poor becomes too great, trouble brews. This is a massive subject which could take years to discuss.

Now back to France. We had a little bit of a BS on the french riots last year. It was in relation to proposed changes to the youth and their rights in the workplace, with respect to their employers. Previously, there were riots when police killed a young man fleeing the scene of a crime. If you recall there were weeks of unrest. Why is this happening in France? Is it as bad as the press makes it out to be? Is the gap between the haves and the have not's too vast? Do people feel that they do not have a voice which can be heard? Is it because they haven't been exposed to Psam and Chankslee?

Who was man we started with? "Sarko," as he is known by many became the Leader of the French Republic on May the 6th. He wants to change his country, economically. The suggestion of a more liberalised economic model strikes a chord of fear among the unions and those of the protectionist movement. He wants the market to be opened up to more competition where a business has to offer more if it wants to survive. This in itself will become a challange and only time will tell if it will bring success to the man named, Nicolas Sarkozy.