The Joker to the Thief

THE END .....& A NEW BEGINING.

2010-01-31T12:58:00.005+01:00

The Thief seems to have left the Joker alone on this blog for a while and so the conversation has turned in to a monologue. Of course, the Thief has a large family, many obligations and a very demanding job, while the Joker has it easier. But monologues are boring.... and so the Joker thinks he may as well have a blog of his own.

Therefore, this has to be the END of Joker-to-the-Thief, after 5 years of duty but the quest for the light at the end of the tunnel continues on a new blog.

Thanks to our faithful reader and so long to y'all.

What Makes (some) Americans Buy the Eurabia Myth.

2010-01-08T17:30:00.003+01:00

While in France, the debate over the ban of the burqa is raging, it seems that some American conservatives have their own obsession with Islam in Europe, and it’s not pretty.
During his holidays in France, conservative political scientist Charles Alan Murray was in Paris and this is what he reported :

I collected data as I walked along, counting people who looked like native French (which probably added in a few Brits and other Europeans) versus everyone else. I can’t vouch for the representativeness of the sample, but at about eight o’clock last night in the St. Denis area of Paris, it worked out to about 50-50, with the non-native French half consisting, in order of proportion, of African blacks, Middle-Eastern types, and East Asians. And on December 22, I don’t think a lot of them were tourists. Mark Steyn and Christopher Caldwell have already explained this to the rest of the world—Europe as we have known it is about to disappear—but it was still a shock to see how rapid the change has been in just the last half-dozen years. (here)

Of course, Murray did not bother to tell you that the St Denis area of Paris is well known for its immigrant population. It’s a bit as if you went to South L.A. and concluded that the American population was mostly made up of latinos and blacks.
The fear of a rising Eurabia is nothing new of course, especially since 9/11 and we have indeed posted on this topic in the past, and so we are not yet again going to go on about why this is simply a myth.
I would like to focus more this time on the racist aspect of the whole theory because it shows very clearly in what Murray says. By using the euphemism “people who looked like native French.”, he of course means “white people” as opposed to those with brown skin. Sure, Murray is just a racist moron, but unfortunately the Eurabia myth seems to be very popular in some conservative circles United-States including its racist undertone.
The question is why is this theory so popular in the United-States. It is not like Europe does not have its share of racist morons. French historian Justine Vaisse wrote in Foreign Policy that “despite their Europe-focused content, these books are a largely North American phenomenon”, and I agree with him.
His theory is that those books…

“offer a variation on the conservative Cold War vision of Europe as vulnerable to the spread of communism -- only now, Muslims have replaced Soviets and Euro-communists as the enemies. The continuity in clichés with the Europhobic literature of the 1970s and 1980s is striking: In both periods Europe is described with terms like appeasing, impotent, asexual, feminine, post-nationalistic, irreligious, apologetic, self-loathing, naive, decadent, and so forth.”.

The parallel is thought-provoking, and certainly worth exploring.

The Orwellian World of Laura Ingraham.

2009-12-21T10:37:00.007+01:00

"I'm saying with great respect closing with this :

‘First they came for the rich,
And I did not speak out because I was not rich.
Then they came for the property owners,
And I did not speak out because I did not own property.
Then they came for the right to bear arms,
and I did not speak out because I was not armed.
Then they came for me and denied me my medical care, and there was no one left to speak for me…’

If you think there’s something wrong with this poem, that's because…. there is.

The original version is as followed:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a
communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

… and it is about the apathy of German intellectuals following the round up of targeted people in Nazi Germany.

The new version comes from Laura Ingraham [radio host and Foxnews star] during a Tea Party gathering in Washington DC this week.

[Tea parties, for those of you who might not have been in the US for the last year, are gatherings of conservatives who protest against possible future tax increases or healthcare reform.]

And yes, you read it right, Ingraham compared the healthcare reform and raising the marginal tax rate to…. the Holocaust! As Jon Stewart pointed out, she didn’t have to say ‘with great respect’, it is… implied!
And it wasn’t just a few fringe demonstrators at this tea party, there were elected officials too, like former House majority leader Dick Armey, or Republican senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Johnny Isakson of Georgia or Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann. (CBS)

Of course, the Hitler comparison is nothing new and should not be a surprise. Hitler is the epitome of the villainous monster and the perfect boogeyman who gives people a simplified binary view of life down to good v. evil, and allows them to overlook the differences in the present situation.
It is called Reductio ad Hitlerum, a term first used by Leo Strauss as early as 1953. Reductio ad Hitlerum has been used ever since the very end of WWIIar. It has also been used in American political discourse for a long time: during the Gulf Crisis in 1990, or in the war in Kosovo in 1999 to name just a few examples. However irrelevant the parallel was, it usually meant that the ‘enemy’ (in war) was compared to Hitler and it was used in the context of genocide and tyranny.

But there have been variations of the Hitler metaphor like when in the 1990s, the pro-life movement (Operation Rescue) started comparing abortion to the Holocaust. Little by little the semantics started to shift towards the domestic sphere. Other Americans become the Nazis.
Of course, you always had some extremists who compared US presidents to Hitler, but they were seen as lunatics on the fringe.

Things probably started to change even more under George W. Bush, mostly because of Gitmo, the disregard of his administration for the rule of law and for international institutions, and the use of torture which seemed to make the comparison to the Nazi more relevant for some people. As in any other instance, the Hitler/Nazi metaphor was ludicrous there as well of course.

Meanwhile, as the use of the internet became more widespread so did populist forms of hate speech. Of course, on the Internet, anything goes. In fact, that may be the most important reason why the Hitler comparison has become so widely used in the last decade as we have grown accustomed to online extreme rhetoric and it has seemed to become more acceptable. In fact, it has been observed that
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches”.
This is called Godwin’s Law. Although it originally referred to Usenet newsgroup discussions, it has gained relevance for other online communication: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, blog comment threads, wiki talk pages, or social networking sites.

On top of that, the influence of Fox News, right-wing radios and the Christian far-right within the Republican Party, along with Lyndon La Rouche has increased the acceptability of extreme rhetoric in the regular media and for politicians. In the meantime, the more moderate elements of the Republican Party have been sidelined, leaving room to extremes. (see our posts)

Finally, the election of Obama unleashed the fury of those on the far-right who, as Jon Stewart put it, are confusing tyranny with losing elections to the point that it has become okay to make all sorts of comparisons between totalitarian regimes and the Obama administration, including the Hitler or the Stalin metaphor, and who cares about historical accuracy!

So here we go now in this Orwellian world in which someone like Laura Ingraham can get away with actually changing the meaning of words, turning the rich into the oppressed, the gun owners into victims, and healthcare reform or raising the marginal tax rate into Nazi oppression.

Thank God for Jon Stewart for making it look all so ridiculous that it actually becomes less scary, and for reassuring us that he’ll be there no matter what:

"If the government begins to round up and kill the rich and the landowning and those who choose to exercise the right to bear arms...I'll speak up.".

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Highway to Health - Last Tea Party Protest of the Year

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Tiger Woods in Puritan America?

2009-12-13T20:15:00.008+01:00

The Europeans often criticize the Americans for their Puritanism. They find it hard to understand why for instance American politicians have to repent of their sins in public whenever they are caught cheating or lying.

That’s partly because the line between private and public is generally much more blurry in the U.S. than in Europe. That’s also because politics in America is as much about values as it is about ideas. Politicians are expected to live according to the values they claim to support and to show respect for their office.

A good case in point is that of Mark Sanford the staunch conservative governor of South Carolina who not only cheated on his wife after declaring Clinton's behavior to be "reprehensible" and voting for his impeachment, but also used public money for expenses with his mistress.
As for Bill Clinton, most Europeans did not get that it was the lying in a deposition as much as his cheating in the White House that shocked the Americans. As the nation's highest elected official the president in America is not just a politician, he embodies the nation. The French tend to think that the president is a man like any other and the separation between public and private is enforced by one of the toughest libel laws in Europe. (and Sarkozy’s public display of his private life has damaged his popularity in France).
Still, there is no doubt that in America, morals play a more crucial role in politics than it does in Europe.

What is much harder to understand is why someone who is neither a public official nor a high-minded preacher should be expected to make his private life public? After all, Tiger Woods did not win his fame for being a moral champion but a golf champion. He has broken no law, has done no physical harm and has never said anything scandalous in public. Yet, he was forced into making a public confession. His statement is extremely well worded:

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. ... Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means. For the last week my family and I have been hounded to expose intimate details of our personal lives. ... Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions. (Tiger Woods' Website)

Public repentance of one’s sins is most certainly a feature of American life that is unique and set the US apart from the rest of the Western world. This of course is often blamed on the Puritans. But puritan New England was a different society. The family was the basic unit of society and in a world without police; everyone was expected to supervise each other. The word ‘puritan’ in Europe only has negative connotations, but the puritans were not only self-righteous, they were also hard-working and egalitarian.
Unlike today’s America, they would have never turned a mere mortal into a god. Tiger Woods has been made a secular god and he is now a fallen idol. And what lies behind such worship is not the desire for morals but greed and the love of money thanks to a multi-million dollar system of contracts and commercial deals with “morality clauses”, the 24-hour news-and-entertainment media , the tabloids that have an appetite for sex scandal and finally the people who buy and watch them.
Tiger Woods is probably the greatest golfers of all time and we can revere him for that (as well for breaking another racial barrier) but as for the rest, it is his own business and he should not be expected perfection. As far as I can see, he has behaved in a dignified manner and simply refused to play the role expected of him.

It is about time that people should stop making moral judgment on people they have never met, and Americans should stop enjoying the sick pleasure of the public humiliation and torment of others.

Healthcare International Comparison.

2009-12-12T10:03:00.006+01:00

I will spare you the commentary - the following OECD figures really speak for themselves :

(Source : The Economist)

Immigration, Islam and Minarets.

2009-12-06T17:45:00.007+01:00

The following figures are somewhat interesting, given that all the countries in this comparison have similar numbers of immigrants (roughly about 10%).

(from The Economist)

It is interesting to note that once again perception matters more than reality :

Roughly 10% of peope in Britain are imigrants; the average Briton believed the
figure to be 27%.

It is too bad Switzerland was not part of the poll, given their recent vote for the ban on building Minarets, it would be interesting to analyze their views (although polls did not predict the vote).

The Minaret question is linked to the immigration in Europe. It has been the center of discussion in the rest of Europe this week, fueled by far right-wing parties.

However, it does not seem to catch on in France. As for the United-States, I have seen a few more or less large mosques with Minarets in large cities but I don't think that they have ever caused controversy. (although the number of Muslims in the U.S. is smaller, compared to the population and also of different socio-economic background than in Western europe)

It must also be noted that there is already about a dozen Minarets in France, compared to four in Switzerland. The oldest one was built in Paris in 1922 with the Great Mosque of Paris "as a sign of France's gratefulness to the Muslim tirailleurs from the colonies who fought against Germany" during WWI. No Minaret in Europe is used for the prayer call, they have no purpose other than architectural. (interestingly and somewhat paradoxially the first Minarets were originally inspired by Christian churches)

Islamic Center of America, Dearborn, Michigan.

Popularity Vs. Quality.

2009-11-29T18:33:00.001+01:00

Is the notion that most popular forms of entertainment (best seller books, blockbuster movies, music hits) tend to be low in quality is just an elitist idea, or if there is some truth to it?

Well, it would make sense if you think that the ability to assess the quality of something requires exposure to it.

In “Formal Theories of Mass Behaviour”, in 1963, William McPhee noted that a disproportionate share of the audience for a hit was made up of people who consumed few products of that type. (Many other studies have since reached the same conclusion.)
A lot of the people who read a bestselling novel, for example, do not read much other fiction. By contrast, the audience for an obscure novel is largely composed of people who read a lot. That means the least popular books are judged by people who have the highest standards, while the most popular are judged by people who literally do not know any better. An American who read just one book this year was disproportionately likely to have read “The Lost Symbol”, by Dan Brown. He almost certainly liked it. (The Economist)

So whether it is an elitist idea, one should not necessarily dismiss it. It is true of food, wine and ‘high culture’ as well.

When More Choice means... Less Choice.

2009-11-29T18:16:00.003+01:00

Obviously the Internet has changed the world of entertainment (often referred to as ‘culture’ in French), in ways that are still hard to assess. The Economist has a lengthy report this week on the future of entertainment. Their analysis, based on figures and studies, can be summed up in the following paradox: the more choice you have, the less choice you make.

Blockbusters are doing well not in spite of the fact that people have more choice in entertainment, but because of it. Imagine walking into a music shop containing 4m songs (the number available on We7, a free music-streaming service in Britain) or more than 10m (the choice on iTunes), all of them arranged alphabetically in plain boxes. The choice would be overwhelming. It is far easier to grab the thing everybody is talking about or that you heard on the radio that morning.

Hence the increasing importance of the social dimension when buying entertainment products. I found it quite relevant. If you are like me, you may have also felt overwhelmed by the number of products now available, even to the point of freezing. Too many alternatives are impossible to process of course, you will go more easily towards the product you have heard of.

As a result, it seems that even though people have more choice they do not necessarily opt for more obscure entertainments. Of course, the internet has vastly increased the supply of niche media but, according to The Economist, it has also increased the supply of blockbusters.

The unfortunate result is that sales become more concentrated, be they in movies, books, music or newspapers. As for the less popular products, they will inevitably be more expensive (as it is on television with for example HBO).

Lessons to Learn from Irak.

2009-11-28T18:29:00.003+01:00

The war in Afghanistan has been the subject of many articles, posts and editorials lately but very few seem to see that there are lessons to learn from the war in Iraq.
One aspect hardly ever mentioned is the failure of relationship between the American military and its allies. In fact, it has gone so sour in Iraq that even the British have become vocally critical of the U.S. leadership. What is particularly pointing about the following comment is not only that it underlines the hubris of the US command but also that it underlines a more important problem - the divide between how the Europeans and the Americans handle conflicts.

According to the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner:

“We experienced real difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way.
“I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians."
“If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.” (The Telegraph)

War is certainly the greatest test of friendship between allied countries, and it seems that the so-called « Special Relationship » between the UK and the U.S. has failed the test of the war in Iraq. (I personally think it has been a myth for many years, and so it is about time that Brits finally acknowledge it.)

More importantly there is a useful lesson to learn for the war in Afghanistan whose success may precisely depend even more on cohesion and communication. If president Obama wants more troops from his allies, he needs to set clear goals and strategy not to them but with them. It is the only way European leaders, including the British and the Feench, can justify sending more troops to their public opinion.

The Opposite of Competition in Europe and the U.S.

2009-11-21T13:27:00.003+01:00

Last week, Charlemagne, The Economist’s weekly column, had a good wrap-up of one major differences between continental Europeans and Anglo-Saxons:

If you play word association, it turns out that for many in a Parisian classroom, the polar opposite of “competition” is “solidarity”: i.e. the useful rigor imposed by competition is overshadowed by the pain caused as society divides into winners and losers. For Anglo-Saxon liberals, the instinctive opposite of “competition” is “monopoly”: i.e. the pain of competition is justified by a quest for fairness, even before getting to arguments about efficiency and companies’ long-term fitness.

In Paris the idea that a free-market liberal may believe he is defending a moral position (rather than a necessary evil) often causes surprise. In parallel, it is salutary to be reminded that the other side has a point too. The open borders written into the
EU can be both positive and painful, as globalisation produces losers as well as winners.

As the object of this blog is to try to build bridges between the United-States and France, this is not only relevant but also deserves pause for thought. If we consider that we are all products of our environment, I would be tempted to see (partly at least) a historical explanation to this divide between our views of economics.

For centuries, wars, revolutions and plagues ravaged the European continent and the impact on civilians only worsened with modern times to reach the climaxes of World War I and World War II and both wars changed Europe more than anything else since the Great Plagues in the 13th century.

One might argue that the notion of "solidarity" started to gain popularity during the enlightment and gained momentum with the French Revolution. Others might think the French Commune was also a major change, but I would argue that it took the impact of two world wars to build the consensus over the notion of solidarity.

In other words, the only way to survive and reconstruct a society that has been near annihilation is to get people to unite not only at a local level, but even at a state level – hence the need for welfare and government intervention. Contrary to the late 19th century, it became a national consensus in many European countries – and especially in France. The greater the destruction, the more national ‘solidarity’ was needed. (Americans may have had a sense of what that means when they think of the aftermath of Katrina). This also explains why the British turned toward a more socialistic policy (with a wave of nationalizations) in the wake of WWII, even though this world view is less engrained in their mindset, in part because destructions, wars and revolutions have not been part of their recent history to the level of continental Europe. This is why Europe has been built around the core idea of peace, security and prosperity. This is also why security (including economic security) is more relevant to the Europeans.

Now of course, there are many other historical factors to explain this quasi obsession with ‘solidarity’ – class antagonism, or the political role of the church (in France for instance), but it seems to me that the drift between Europe and the U.S. has been even greater in the aftermath of WWII. This, you might add, is an old story. After all, it’s been over 60 years now.

True, but the trauma of destruction lingers on and is passed on to the next generations. It also shaped a society and has turned the values of solidarity into mythical proportions (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité say the French). This, by the way, also explains why the Europeans are so keen on using diplomacy to the last resort and war as the last possible option – the trauma of war is greater in Europe, even at a subconscious level. (Many Americans often forget how the scars of World Wars are visible in every single village in continental Europe).

Imagine 9/11 or Katrina and multiply it to the point that everyone in the nation is personally affected and you can be sure if would change the values of the American people for decades. After all, the 1930s economic crisis almost turned the U.S. into a near-socialistic government.

This is not to say that Europe knows better. There can’t be value judgment in this, and no one is right or wrong. But it would help bridge the gap between us if Europeans and Americans realized that their world views are shaped by their history and that they are products of their own environment and history which they cannot escape and that there is precisely no value judgment to be made.

Getting Cosy with Sarkozy - on the Simpsons.

2009-11-20T15:29:00.000+01:00

Nicolas Sarkozy et Carla Bruni dans les Simpson !
envoyé par lemondededemainTV. - L'actualité du moment en vidéo.

Jon Stewart - Priceless

2009-11-19T15:12:00.002+01:00

Last night's Daily Show episode was one of Jon Stewart's finest. How does one man skewer Fox News, Sarah Palin and Lou Dobbs in 40 minutes? The best quote, among many good ones:

"Because experts at Fox News are like winners at the Special Olympics, if you show up, you are one."

Priceless.

Propaganda.... works.

2009-11-15T18:47:00.003+01:00

I always thought that a bit of cynicism was good protection from propaganda and manipulation, but I may have been wrong.

That's at least what seems to indicate a new British study:

Michael Bruter, a senior lecturer in European politics at the school, fed a steady diet of slanted newsletters about Europe and the European Union — either all good news or all bad — to 1,200 citizens of six countries over two years.

Over time, Bruter found, and without exception, the readers subconsciously adopted the bias to varying degrees and changed their view of the EU and of themselves as Europeans, a few of them in the extreme. Surprisingly, they didn't register any change right after the newsletters stopped — not until full six months later, when they had obviously let down their guard.

Bruter calls this the "time bomb" effect of one-sided news. His study paints a blunt picture of how cynicism, far from inoculating citizens to resist political persuasion, merely delays the impact. (Source)

Mmmm... I wonder if fair and balance news could somehow make people "fair and balance" over time.....

Sarkozy, the Rejected Suitor.

2009-11-15T13:13:00.003+01:00

This week Nicolas Sarkozy decorated Clint Eastwood with the order of Commander of the Legion of Honour, the highest decoration in France (established by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802).Eastwood was actually ‘upgrade’ from ‘knight of the Legion of Honor’ previously given by Jacques Chirac.
Charles Bremmer asks a pointed question :

What is the service that Eastwood has rendered ?
Sarkozy's office says the honour is deserved because Eastwood "is a global star who is very fond of France.".

This is not only strange, it is typical, as Bremmer said, of the lingering love-hate relationship between the U.S. and France.

Sarkozy’s case is different from his predecessors’ though. After he initially threw himself into the arms of the US, he now acts more like a rejected suitor.

He took his first summer holiday as President in New England, not far from the Bushes. He has cooled off in a big way. Obama's refusal to take up his offer of special complicity has been taken as a personal affront by the French President. On Monday, he tore a strip off Obama over his failure to come to Berlin for the Wall celebrations, according to a leak of his remarks in le Canard Enchaîné. [French satirical paper].
"Obama is very disappointing in foreign policy. He doesn't just have difficult relations with me," he was quoted as saying. "It's the same with (Chancellor) Merkel and (Prime Minister) Brown. Europe does not excite him. As for the rest of the world, it's a disappointment too. The language has changed. There has been an opening up. The hand is outstretched but it is grasped by no-one."
A few days earlier Sarkozy launched into an anti-Obama tirade at the weekly cabinet meeting, comparing himself highly favourably with the US president, who, he said, had only managed to produce a single reform so far.(Le Canard is usually quite accurate with its Sarkozy quotes. Ministers read it closely to find out what the boss is
thinking).

Sarkozy should take this as humbling experience rather than a personal smack, but I am afraid his ego is way too big for him to put it all in perspective. The fact remains that for Obama, Europe is less relevant that it used to be and France better get used to it.
Meanwhile, Sarkozy tried (too) hard this week to “emulate the gesture of reconciliation by the late President Mitterrand when he held hands with Chancellor Helmut Kohl at the Verdun battlefield in 1984”. This seems more like a desperate move after failing to build up a new relationship with Britain. Besides, Angela Merkel may not be so keen on those big shows of unity.
"France looks a little like the rejected lover in this couple de raison," le Monde said on Wednesday..
The fact that Sarkozy is down in the polls makes some grand scheme of unity probably more relevant to refurbish his image. That, and the French identity debate. His behavior, his lack of tact and finesse are quite embarrassing but unfortunately, they are neither new nor unexpected.

Linguistic Offense?

2009-11-07T18:50:00.002+01:00

Excellent post on Charles Bremmer’s blog (the correspondent of Times in Paris) on how similar terms in French and English can be deceiving and may even cause offense. It’s something most of those who speak two languages know but it’s always good to be reminded every once in a while:

We have a ripe example of the linguistic minefield between France and Britain today. A French minister [Claude Lellouche, French minister in charge of Europe] has caused offence in Britain by calling the Conservative Party autistic.
(…/…)
[But] words often carry quite different tones on opposite sides of the Channel.
In France in recent years, autism has become a standard term in the political-media vocabulary. It does not shock. Handicap organisations complain about it, but the word has become a routine put-down for someone who seems determined not to listen to your point of view. Trade union leaders use it against the government. Teenagers use it in school yards. In Britain, of course, it is an outrage to use a metaphor that is akin to the old insult spastic.
(…/…)
He used other strong language, saying the plans of David Cameron, the Conservative leader, were 'pathetic' and would 'castrate' Britain in Europe. "They have essentially castrated your UK influence in the European parliament," he said.
(…/…)
Lellouche does not seem to be very sensitive to the strong overtones of these words in English.
Saying that someone's power has been émasculé in French is not as strong as saying that he has been castrated in English. Lellouche has been saying on the radio that he meant pathetic in the French sense of pathéthique -- meaning sad, like Tchaikovsky's symphony. The English sense is lamentable in French. He also said that he had no idea that autistic was offensive in English.
These are among dozens of terms -- like miserable and misérable (destitute in English), seduction and la séduction (the act of charming or winning over) or ...politician versus politicien, which refers to petty politcking. A politician in French is un homme or une femme politique.
The word autistic has stung most in Britain because sensitivity over the condition has put its metaphoric use beyond the pale.
France is less sensitive over using human iimpairment and physique in invective. Crétin is a more acceptable insult in French than English. Things are however changing. An association called Autisme France has been campaigning in recent years to have the media and politicians stop wielding the condition as an insult. "In colloquial French this designates someone in a bit of a bubble, who is a little dreamy," the association said recently.
The threshold of offensiveness is always moving. It is still acceptable in both languages to 'turn a deaf ear' or be 'blind' to something. The British call people dumb now in the American sense of stupid (which came via German). In French it remains acceptable to allude to bodily functions that are unmentionable in English. A senior radio commentator last night dismissed President Chirac's new memoirs as "chiantissime". That would politely be rendered as ultra-boring, but literally and crudely, it means that it provokes extreme excretion. And then there is the matter of race. Anything remotely ethnic cannot be used metaphorically in English. France is not quite there yet. The French for speech-writer or ghost-writer is still un nègre -- a negro.

The Political Allegory of "V"

2009-11-07T13:02:00.006+01:00

Good science-fiction is allegorical and often political in nature.
Examples abound – here are two obvious ones: in movies, (The Invasion of Body Snatchers as an allegory for communist infiltration, or more recently Distcrict 9 clearly about Apartheid) or TV (Star Trek and its-anti-Vietnam war message, or The Invaders also about communist infiltration).

The very best of science fiction is not only allegorical; it also deals with myths of our time. The most achieved sci-fi narrative is definitely Battlestar Galactica with its religious and political allegories so extended and well constructed that they become myths.
In 2005, Time said it was “a ripping sci-fi allegory of the war on terror, complete with religious fundamentalists (here, genocidal robots called Cylons), sleeper cells, civil-liberties crackdowns and even a prisoner-torture scandal”.

BSG has definitely raised the bar so high that it will be hard for any new Sci-Fi to match its quality.

So what type of political allegory would (evil ) aliens pretending to be nice and offer ‘hope’ and ‘change’ be?
This week’s new series “V” is just about that – beautiful aliens showing up on earth and indoctrinating people (especially the youth) into spreading their messages of hope and change, while a group of people who know the truth organize resistance.
As the story progresses, you cannot escape the political allegory for Obama. But the “revelation” comes about 25 minutes into the show when the aliens’ plan for taking lover the world is finally revealed:
Ana, the charismatic leader gives an interview

“The intent goes beyond just healing we want to provide complete medical
services to all.”
“You’re talking about Universal Healthcare?!”.
“I believe that’s what you call it, yes”.

Meanwhile, the group of underground resistance sounds awfully like the tea-baggers.

“It worries me that they came when we needed them the most. All they’re really doing is positioning themselves as the saviors of mankind.”, one of them says.

In case, you’re not familiar with Sci-Fi, V (which stands for “Visitors”) is a remake of a 1980s version, except that in the original (cult) series, the political allegory was clearly WWII and Nazi occupation with an anti-fascist message. And the Aliens did not give humanity health-care but the cure of cancer and other diseases. (and from a narrative perspective, what an anti-climax it would for these aliens to simply bring.. universal health care. After all, it is something that some countries (in real life) have already achieved on their own. Sure, it would be for the whole world, but I don’t think I’d be impressed with anything less than the cure of AIDS, Cancer, etc…)

As may be expected, the writer/producer, Scott Peters has denied any political undertone.

But Peters says the show has been in the works since 2007. Reality was "never really a factor," he says. "There's no political message being shoved down anyone's throat." (WP)

Whatever the producer may say, the political undertone is more than obvious which has not escaped far right-wing commentaries :

Fox News personalities Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck have all “endorsed” V as “a critique of ‘Obama-mania.’” The report quotes Hannity as saying: “You know, I think this is one show that I can actually get behind.” (Media Matters)

Here’s what Bill O’Reilly had to say about “V” :

From a purely entertaining perspective, the show is watchable but has a lot of tacky moments (and why, I ask, does the Alien speak French with… an American accent?) and it is probably also due to the fact that the first episode goes too fast and the story is too condensed. They should have had a two hour pilot instead and slowly build in the tension. It will most likely never match BSG.
The best scene in the pilot is probably when Ana, the alien leader gets ready for the interview with a journalist and blackmails him into showing the aliens in a positive light:

"Don't ask any questions that would portray us negatively."
He hesitates but
she says she’ll cancel the interview altogether
"This interview would
elevate your career, wouldn't it, Mr. Decker?"

And he finally gives in to her demand. It’s one of the most well written scenes in the whole episode.

It seems that Scott Peters (The 4400), the man behind the first episodes will be replaced by Scott Rosenbaum, the executive producer of Chuck and one of the writers of the cutting edge show “The Shield”.

As for me, I'll continue to watch "V" just to see how it's going to develop but I much prefer “Flashforward”, probably the most promising new SF series on air right now.

What it means to be French....

2009-11-03T19:17:00.005+01:00

What does it mean to be French?

An overwhelming majority of the French believe their language is the greatest symbol of their nation. (in two different polls 80% here and here). This is uniquely French and certainly a major difference with what the Americans (or the British) might answer. (after all, contrary to France, the US has no official national language).
This has also interesting implications. It may for instance explain why the French are so reluctant to learn foreign languages (and particularly English of course).

The Republic came second with 92%. Public services came third with 91%. The Tricolor flag made (surprisingly) 88% and the Laicité (the French version of secularism) came next with 85 percent, followed for 77% by the Marseillaise national anthem.

Why these polls?

Because, in a very typical French fashion, the government has just decreed a debate on French identity. It is supposed to take place in the prefectures and sub- prefectures with the participation of NGOs, teachers, trade unions, elected officials etc…. Just like anything else they have done, it has taken everyone by surprise.
But no one is fool enough to miss the political timing of this initiative which is probably why it has sparked controversy. It is easy to see it as an attempt to divert attention from the recent polemics over Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand's past as a sex tourist in Asia, and over the president’s attempt of nepotism.
Sarkozy has also been accused of trying to woo the far right voters with the coming regional elections in mind, as the debate has come in the midst of the government’s talk to ban the full-body Islamic veil and implement a tougher approach to immigration.

Of course, in France, talks of national identity and national pride smacks Marshal Pétain's days and still is a sensitive issue. Recently, Sarkozy said that Frenchness had been forged by the "singular relationship of the French to the land", and that "All French families have grandparents who at one time or another worked the land.". This link to the land was also a common theme of Pétain (and here) but in today’s France, it is nothing more than a myth. Farmers represent only about 3% of the working population. Worse, this link to the land somewhat excludes all those French born in families of immigrants. (which is kind of ironic since the French president is himself the son of a Hungarian immigrant father with no farming grandparents and thus no connection to the French land or the “terroir”).

This soul-searching debate was initiated by the Minister of Immigration and National Identity Eric Besson. Yes, however strange this may sound, there is a ministry of ‘National Identity’ in France – a novelty even in this country. (Eric Besson, interestingly, used to be a socialist and switched side during the presidential campaign, and helped Sarkozy prep for the presidential debate during the campaign, giving him insight about his opponent, Segolène Rorale and was so he rewarded with this new ministry in the government).

What I find particularly it disturbing is that a debate on French identity should be so intimately linked to the immigration question. Just as disturbing to the left is that it comes from Eric Besson whom they see (rightfully) as a traitor and an opportunist. Divide to conquer is certainly what Sarkozy must have in mind (but division on this question also appears in his own camp).

Besson said he wants every young French citizen to sing the Marseillaise once a year, following a course on the theme of the national hymn. (Personally, I think the lyrics - here in French and here in English - are horribly gory and violent. My suggestion would be to change them, or find another song altogether. Unfortunately, given the recent polls, I’m afraid not many French people would agree with me.).
Forcing kids to sing the national anthem would be nothing more than a useless gimmick. Paradoxically, Besson seems to find the inspiration for this overt form of patriotism in… the American model (including with regard to immigration). He doesn't seem to see that what works in a country may not work in another! That is simply not the way the French do it.

What will come out of this 4 month debate? I think it is a lot of hot air. Inevitably, we’ll end up with reinforcing images d’Epinal (French expression referring to an emphatically traditionalist and naïve depiction of something), and for that, why not simply read Asterix, (who just celebrated his 50th birthday). At least, he is funny, which is a lot more than anyone in this government can say :

"It is clear that Asterix was made with the image of the French," says Uderzo. "We took the tics and the manners of the French" – but that it relies so heavily on ingenious wordplay and puns for its humour.
Uderzo told French radio that Astérix was born when the owner of a French magazine called Pilote wanted a comic strip his kids could read that represented French culture. The creators settled on Gaulles as their characters, because he said, nothing is more French than the Gaulles. (VOA)
Voilà!

Death of Claud Levi-Strauss.

2009-11-03T19:05:00.005+01:00

Today the last of the great French intellecuals died at 100.

For those of you for whom Levi-Strauss means denim, you should know he was one of the preeminent social anthropologists of the 20th century and whose erudite, often mind-bendingly labored studies of indigenous Brazilian tribes led to influential theories examining human behavior and culture Mr. Lévi-Strauss was often paired with writers Jean-Paul Sartre and André Malraux as the towering
French intellectuals of the last century. He said his life's work was "an attempt to show that there are laws of mythical thinking as strict and rigorous as you would find in the natural sciences." He was best-known for popularizing a social science theory known as "structuralism," a philosophical method of approaching anthropology that identified behavioral codes that were crucial to the functioning of any society and that are inherent in the human mind.

(Wash Post)

Are the French Japanese and the American Chinese... about languages?

2009-10-31T17:07:00.002+01:00

On his blog, James Fallows (Atlantic Monthly writer) made a daring comparison of the French and the Americans to the Japanse and the Chinese when it comes to how they handle and view their languages :

In France and Japan, the deep-down assumption is that the language is pure and difficult, that foreigners can't really learn it, and that one's attitude toward their attempts is either French hauteur or the elaborately over-polite and therefore inevitably patronizing Japanese response to even a word or two in their language. "Nihongo jouzu! Your Japanese is so good!"
Correspondingly (…/…) Japanese people (to generalize) often seem self-conscious about potential errors in English. Of course, French speakers of English are marvelously non-self-conscious, even jauntily willful, about retaining their French accents, especially the trademark "z" sound for "th." " Zees ees what I mean..." (Yes, I am aware that the fricative th phoneme is the most difficult sound in English for non-native speakers, our counterpart to r's in French.).

The American attitude towards English is: everyone should get with the program, there are a million variants and accents of the language, all that really matters is that you can somehow get your meaning across. Because there are so many versions of Chinese in use within China, my impression is that the everyday attitude of Chinese people toward language is similar: You're expected to try to learn it, no one will spend that much time mocking your mistakes, mainly they are trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

Probably both the U.S. and Chinese attitudes reflect the outlook of big, continental nations that encompass lots of internal diversity -- and in America's case, absorb huge numbers of immigrants.

This is interesting. However the comparisons has a few flaws. French, contrary to Japanese is spoken by a great number of people outside France.

Moreover, I’m not sure that the French think their language is “pure and difficult”, even though they attach great value to their language. They see it as the vehicle for their culture which is at the core of their identity. So they see their language from a cultural perspective and also give language an esthetic value. More importantly, I think the educational system is based on penalizing every single mistake. This is also true of foreign languages, which is why I believe most French are actually extremely self-conscious (which is why they usually claim to speak less than they do), but being a proud people, they tend to play along the clichés people may have of them.
As for the Americans, I think they have a much more practical approach of languages (as of many other things). They don’t care so much about the particulars as long as it works. The fact that they (mostly) don’t speak foreign languages also makes them more impressed with other people who do or simply try. The downside is that if your English is good enough so you are understood, it’ll be much harder to make progress because no one will correct you.

Limitating Internet Access in France and the U.S.

2009-10-26T19:57:00.007+01:00

One thing that France and the United-States is that both countries face the perils of the limitations of access to the Internet.

In France, the new anti-piracy law (called HADOPI 2) has finally been validated by the Constitutional Council. It is a "three strikes" law that will allow a state agency to cut off the access of Internet users accused downloading copyright content without authorization.

The change from the previous bill is that there will some judicial review, but the new law allows a fast-track procedure that will deny the right to due process and the presumption of innocence. The suspension of internet access will be decided by a single judge on the basis of the case file.

This of course is the latest developments in the fight of the old guard of an industry unable or unwilling to question their business model under the false pretext of helping the artists and the ‘creators’. The discussion of alternative models has been made impossible. (it must also be reminded that the state imposes on any device able to store media content regardless of their purpose or final usage to the benefit of the copyright holders). Unfortunately, it seems the old guard is winning.

No surprise that France should be the first country to invoke a “three strikes” law for repeat file-sharers. [Thankfully for those who are geeks, there will be technical ways to circumvent the new law. It is a losing fight in the end]

In the U.S., it is net neutrality that is being under attack. 'Net neutrality' says that broadband providers cannot block or hinder the internet traffic of any web site or service (regardless of whether or not that site or service competes with a similar site or service offered by the ISP itself).

Recently the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] has voted to open a proceeding that would guaranty net neutrality. In other words it would make it illegal for telecom companies to impose a service model to control the pipeline and force people to buy their own (uncompetitive and more expensive) services.

But then came John McCain who introduced a bill that would prevent the FCC from making roles on net neutrality. Of course, McCain used what many Republicans have used to defend big businesses in the past – the fear of “government takeover”. Who cares if the government is actually defending people’s freedoms? Guess what he called his bill… : the Internet Freedom Act. Don’t you love the spin?

“Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation. It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy.” (CNN)

The best part is that this comes from the man who during the presidential campaign described
himself as technologically "illiterate". Well, of course the fact that McCain has netted about $765,000 in political donations from those telecom lobbyists, their spouses, colleagues at their firms and their telecom clients during the past decade has nothing to do with his newly found technological literacy. What underlines this battle is the fight between the champion for the old-line phone industry and the new powers of Silicon Valley.

So we have two different battles in two different countries: France and the U.S. but what they have in common is an old guard trying to cling to their old-time privileges.
In both cases, the control over the Internet is fought by an industry that’s afraid of change and is incapable of having a new vision and finding new business models, an industry lacking innovation.
Meanwhile the consumer is the cow that’s being milk to keep afloat a little longer an industry that will eventually die if it does not change. Why prolong the suffering at the expense of people’s freedoms? Because politicians, big businesses and the establishment are afraid they might lose out, and reed will do the rest.

UPDATE: The French satirical investigative journalism weekly “ Le Canard Enchaîné” reveals “that our holier-than-thou presidency is in fact a pirate’s lair.

In a stunning display of hypocrisy, the presidential audiovisual services produced 400 unauthorized copies of the 52 minutes documentary “A visage découvert : Nicolas Sarkozy”… It is even more appalling that we are dealing with repeat offenders : last spring, while the Hadopi law was discussed, U.S. music duo MGMT received €30,000 as a settlement for a copyright infringement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s party who used one of its songs at a political rally without permission. Those who led the charge against Internet users are not the most respectful of copyright.” (Boing Boing)

Motivation, the Great Money Maker.

2009-10-26T12:01:00.011+01:00

In the land of ever more optimism (see our previous post), here’s an example of American ‘exceptionalism’ - the “Get Motivated” seminars.

Those are clearly uniquely American. They offer a mega-Christian-Evangelical-revival-church-like show mixed with patriotism, inspirational success stories and tips for salespeople, business men and women. “Attend This Dynamic Seminar to INCREASE Your Productivity and Income!" the Web site says. "Your life will be changed and you will leave refreshed, ready to rise to the top of the pack and achieve your dreams," it adds, "Everyone who's anyone will be there! Will you?"

But does the increase of productivity mean happiness? Undoubtedly. At least according to Peter and Tamara Lowe, who run the show and the company, and promote themselves as "the dynamic duo who create and produce The GET MOTIVATED! Seminar, and have been happily married for 20 years." To illustrate this happiness of theirs, they have even posted a picture of themselves online kissing at Getmotivated.com. Seriously!

And the worst part is that they gather thousands of people. According to Lowe, “between 10,000 and 50,000 people attend each "Get Motivated!" seminar”. And if seminars, even in big stadiums are not enough, they also sell everything from CDs, DVDs, inspirational tapes to weight loss programs.

That’s probably why their guest this week is former-president George W. Bush. The official theme being – I kid you not - "How to master the art of effective leadership", it would be interesting to see how one turns miserable failure into an inspiration for America's businessmen and women, if only I could go. Absolutely brilliant!

Other than the fact that Bush can’t speak (as the least articulate ex-president), I wonder what ‘the decider’ may inspire anyone about. How to get a country into an unnecessary war? How to spin reality and deny scientific truth? How to enthusiastically embrace torture? How to turn the Department of Justice into a tool to promote one’s agenda? Well, I suppose one can learn a thing or two about manipulation on greater scale, how to bend the Constitution and use fear to promote a political agenda. Mission accomplished… for a while at least.

Of course, George W. will have a captivated audience anyway that is already won to his cause. (plus, the seminar will be held in Texas). And no pressure for him - there are other no less prestigious guests like former secretary of State Colin Powell, former Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Terry Bradshaw, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani – for the body, with Earl Mindell, the “ultimate authority on vitamins, fitness and nutrition” and anti-ageing enzyme, and for the soul, with "inspirational” televangelist speaker, Dr. Robert Schuller.

Europe has tried in many ways to copy the U.S. but let’s hope this sort of thing, will remain uniquely American.

The Dangers of American Positive (& French Negative) Thinking.

2009-10-18T14:56:00.009+02:00

One of the notable differences between the French and the Americans is certainly to be found in their outlook on life. The Americans value positive thinking as the way to happiness and prosperity whereas the French value cynicism and dim anything too positive as incredibly naïve. This is probably where our two cultures are the most different.

Interestingly this week, Jon Stewart had the author of “The Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America”, Barbara Ehrenreich, on his show this week.

I have not read the book but her interview, however short, was fascinating. Her personal story was that she confronted to breast cancer eight years ago and while trying to find support she was told she had to be “positive and cheerful” and “embrace her disease because she was going to come out of it a better person” which she did not.

More interestingly, she blames part of current economic crises as a by-product of positive thinking when people were told that everything was going to go up forever (hence the subprime crisis). This idea certainly deserves some thought.

As Jon Stewart put it himself at the beginning of the show, positive thinking and the idea that by the power of your mind and attitude you can attract things like money and wealth is almost like a secular religion in America.

Go to any American bookstore, and read the titles of the self-help section, and you’ll see how this has become a major part of the post-modern American culture. Or consider the ‘prosperity theology’. It makes sense though – after all, positive thinking is what has sustained the economy in the last decades. The idea that tomorrow is bound to be better than today is at the heart of the credit culture and American capitalism.

The problem seems twofold:

it leads to irrational exuberance (and makes people buy more than they can afford for instance);
it invalidates people’s fears and makes them feel guilty for their (potential) negative thoughts.

Barbara Ehrenreich is convinced it is a sign of the empathy deficit in our society. She may be right. It is certainly true that (most) Americans have little patience with people who share their problems and don’t do well for too long. They’d rather have them see a shrink instead or keep their problems to themselves (or give them one of those self-help books).

That being said, the French way may not be a better alternative. Despite their good life, excellent wine and food, long vacations, first-rate health care, long holidays and sit-down lunches, protected jobs and generous welfare the French have one of the highest suicide rates in the OECD
More people take their lives as a share of the population than anywhere in Western Europe bar Finland and Belgium.

The Economist has an interesting theory as to why that is, in last week's issue:

In a country that idealizes the good life, the reality of drudgery and waiting for the monthly pay check, or of solitude in retirement, may be harder to accept.

In other words, the more prevalent the culture of good life is, the harder it is for those who don’t have it. There may be some truth in that - and the good life of some requires sacrifices that may be too costly to others.

However it seems ot me that the culture of negative thinking also plays a part in this, and it starts in school which contributes to the low self-esteem of a great number of French students.
Contrary to the U.S., the social pressure in France is against those who are too positive or at least who dare express it too much. They are seen as naïve or privileged, if by any chance, they have reasons to be positive. It is almost political. It is all the truer in this economic crisis where anything too positive is akin to indecency with regard those who are going through a rough patch.

There is a lot more to say on this topic, but we can probably safely conclude already that the best outlook on life is probably not to be found in any extreme.

The 'cure' to excessive positive thinking is certainly not negative thinking; it is realism with a bit of hope and a zest of dream for a better future.

Meanwhile positivity or optimism should not be confused with happiness, and everyone can pursue happiness in their own way. Ultimately, it is probably best to let our friends, family and colleagues be who they are, and somewhat recognize and validate their fears, joys or dreams without making feel guilty for how they feel.

Nicolas Bonaparte's King Making.

2009-10-17T17:32:00.010+02:00

The most scandalous political news these days come from France again, not from the U.S.. It is a change from the Bush era and it seems that French President is trying hard to outdo King George.

It is no surprise to those of us who have seen the early signs (here and here) that the the comparison between Nicolas Sarkozy and Napoleon had direct bearing on the governance of France.

After scandals over sex tourism (see our two previous posts), racist-sounding chaffing, now comes nepotism :

The French people found out this week that the president's son, Jean Sarkozy (i.e. as 'Prince Jean'), is a candidate chairman of the development agency for La Défense (called EPAD), a high-rise financial center to the west of Paris where major top firms have their headquarters - an area which is supposed to develop and compete with London.

Not only is Jean Sakozy only 23 years old, but he has not even finished school yet - he is repeating his second year of undergraduate law at the Sorbonne (after repeating his first), and has virtually no experience. Sure he was elected as a department councillor of the Hauts-de-Seine, but he complished little as he won the Neuilly seat, in his dad's conservative fiefdom.

He was then given the job of heading his dad's political party (UMP) in the department.

The French satitirical newspaper Le Canard Enchainé (not available online) has also investigated on how the whole process was planned by the Elysées for more than a year, (by either forcing or coaxing people into giving up their seats to make sure there would be no opposition in the EPAD body).

As you can imagine, this has provoked an outcry in France, and even made the headlines in China. A majority of French people find it scandalous 63% oppose the decision... What why 37% don't seem to be bothered.

I suppose some people may be blasé. It is true that political dynasties are nothing new in France where the presidents are more elected monarchs (who act as if they had been given all powers for term, not unlike George W. Bush) than modern presidents.

But this is different because Nicolas Sarkozy ran his presidential campaign claiming that his self-made man background made him different from the politics-as-usual. He was elected on the promise of a new "irreproachable republic" based on work, merit and the end of "birth privileges". The hypocrisy is killing me.

But here's the icing on the cake - on the very day following the news of his son's appointment, President Sarkozy gave a speech on education reform in which he praised Napoleon Bonaparte for having founded an egalitarian high school system that effectively ended "the privileges that come with birth" into families of high standing, adding that "to succeed in France, what counts is no longer being well-born, but having worked hard and proven yourself through your studies and work."

And he said it with a straight face.

Indeed he was right, Napoleon seems to be more relevant than ever - Napoleon, also known as the "King Maker" was the master of nepotism, making his family members kings and queens of countries he had invaded.

Hopefully for his own sake (and for the French) Prince Jean will not be another King of Rome but we may not get rid of Sarkozy dynasty so easily. Jean Sarkozy and his wife are expecting their first child by the end of 2009.

UPDATE : Under enormous pressure from negative public opinion - including petitions and funny flash-mob demonstrations in which young people wielded bananas like mobile phones (video) as reference to the Banana Republic France is becoming - Prince Jean finally gave in and said he would not seek the presidency of the organization that runs France’s most important business district

On the Difference between 'Art' and Government.

2009-10-11T09:25:00.003+02:00

Interesting and unexpected developments followed the Polanski case (see our previous post).

As you may have heard (or not), the whole Polanski case has turned here in France into the Mitterrand case. The French Minister of Culture has been criticized by a number of politicians for his attack on the United States when he expressed his outrage after Roman Polanski was arrested.

It also turned out that the Minister of Culture, Frédéric Mitterrand, (nephew of the now deceased former French-president François Mitterrand) had written an autobiography (‘La Mauvaise Vie’, ‘The Bad Life’) in which he talks about his sexual tourism and adventures with boys. (see excerpt here in French). Imagine how the media got a field day on that one.

The controversy started when Marine Le Pen (extreme far-right) read an excerpt on television and demanded his resign.

What followed was a controversy, a scandal and an interview with French television network TF1 on the 8 o’clock news (which had a record audience) in which Frédéric Mitterand said he "absolutely condemn(s) sexual tourism, which is a disgrace, and ... pedophilia," in which he insisted he has never participated. He also admitted to "errors" in paying for sex in the past, but said he had relations only with men his age.

It is very unusual in France to talk about the private life of a politician. There are very strict laws protecting people’s privacy but this case is different because Mitterrand made it public by writing a book about it, and also because he’s a member of government and as such his words and actions are (and should be) scrutinized.
The other reason why it is unusual is that Frédéric Mitterrand has been a rather popular figure in the French media. He was known for being a great story teller and a bit of an eccentric which the French tend to like. This may explain partly why some people are so uncomfortable with this affair.

That being said, it is pretty obvious to me that he should resign from his position, if nothing else because he is not fit to be a Minister.

First of all, he should think before he opens his mouth which clearly he didn’t (i.e. when he defended Polanski by blaming the U.S. without even knowing all the details). He acted as a private citizen, not as a member of France’s government.
Then, I thought his interview was less than convincing – Thailand is known for the prostitution of its young boys and Mitterrand’s text is ambiguous enough to keep the suspicion. (it is available in French here). He mentions a boy of 20 but he also uses the word “ephèbe” (usually a boy who just reached puberty.).
But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, he has still admitted having had sex with prostitutes in Thailand. What is that if not “sexual tourism”? So how can he not see the contradiction between what he says when he said he "absolutely condemn(s) sexual tourism, which is a disgrace” and his actions and his refusal to resign? How can he talk about defending his honor and not admit what he did and humbly resign? What honor is there to cling onto his post?
Worse still, I think : he has also turned his sexual encounters into an object of good literature, and here lies another problem – he has kept the ambiguity about whether his book was a biography or partly fiction. It is extremely hypocritical and an easy way to deny reality. I was not born yesterday and am no puritan - I know that from André Gide to Vladimir Nabokov, the subject of sex between mature males and young boys or girls has been the theme of great literature (but clearly not my favorite). But it is one thing to write a novel and be an artist dealing with one’s own demons, it is another to be a Minister and a member of France’s government. Different positions, different standards.
His ambiguous words (to say the least) undermine the credibility of France’s government abroad. It also undermines the fight against sex tourism (France has precisely arrested returning sexual tourists from Thailand ) and even, because of the ambiguity of the words he used, against pedophilia.
Worse still, it creates sick associations in people’s minds between homosexuality and pedophilia which have nothing to do with each other, and may make some people more suspicious of gays.
It also undermines the credibility of the political world (as if they needed it) when the media pundits and fellow politicians defend him simply because they know him. Such defense underlines the collusion of the elite and takes them further apart from the rest of the country. A lot of people might see that there are double standards between the way the little guy is treated by the authorities and how a Minister can get away with pretty much anything. After all, Sarkozy has constantly made a point of tough treatment of sex offenders.
Finally, the subtext of how Mitterrand has been handling the situation is that people of talent (i.e. artists) should get away with some things because of their talent. It is the old idea of the doomed artist that no one in the regular world can understand who should be given some leeway so he can do his art. I don’t agree and think it is a myth perpetuated by people in power who use art as a smokescreen. In other words, it is bullshit.

I am not saying Mitterrand should necessarily be put on trial if he committed no crime (frankly, I know nothing of the legal implications here), and I am not for either beating a dead horse or going on a witch hunt but frankly; I don’t want to be alongside traditionalists who may use this for their political agenda, and I certainly do not like what Marine Le Pen has in mind, but it remains that this whole case is a real shame for this country. I find the whole idea that this man should represent French culture abroad impossible to defend. Let him be a damned artist if he wills, maybe a sensitive writer as he is perceived by some who are “touched” by his writing, and certainly a great man of culture but certainly not a member of government.

This is likely to have great political implications in France. I have not read polls on this particular case, and don’t really know what the public opinion is, but the popularity of the Sarkozy government has just taken another dip, and they just don’t need this.

Polanski and the French..... Elite.

2009-10-04T12:09:00.006+02:00

When I heard that Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski had been arrested in Switzerland on the way to a film festival regarding a 1978 U.S. arrest warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, I didn’t know what to think of it and like most people in France didn’t actually think much of it at all afterwards.

Then I heard the French Minister of Culture, Frédéric Mitterand (the nephew of François Mitterand) say this, in very emotional tone of voice :

"Seeing him alone, imprisoned while he was heading to an event that was due to offer him praise and recognition is awful, he was trapped. In the same way there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."

Then I thought, oh boy, here we go again….

Followed more support, notably from no less than the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner.

I guess I expected the usual iconoclastic reaction from the self-proclaimed Left-Bank intellectuals à-la Bernard Henry-Lévy (and was not disappointed) but certainly not support from members of the French government immediately upon hearing the news without even knowing the details of the case.

As for Mitterand’s statementit was was dumb and arrogant : 1) Obviously every country has a generous and a “scary” side… including France. 2) the “scary” side of America certainly exists but this hardly qualifies (if you want "scary", I'll give you "scary" but not just in America). 3) Who does Frédéric Mitterand think he is to give good and bad points about another democratic country?

And for the French Foreign minister to imply that he is somewhat special because of his talent is where the injustice lies:

"This affair is frankly a bit sinister. Here is a man of such talent, recognized worldwide, recognized especially in the country where he was arrested. This is not nice [sympathique] at all," (here in French)

Pas très sympathique? This has nothing to do with being nice and even less to do with his talent.

This is somewhat typical of the way the French (mostly Parisian) artistic and intellectual circles tend to believe that art and talent allow for some leeway in morals. But morals is one thing, justice is another.

Our readers should also remember that the French artists and intellectuals may be revered for their work by the French, but certainly not followed in this cultism of the poor damned artist.

Knowing little about the original case myself, I decided to watch last year’s HBO’s documentary “Polanski: Wanted and Desired" - as in “Wanted” in America and “Desired” in Europe. (for detailed explaining read this Dailymail article)

In some ways, it does put things somewhat into perspective as the words "rape" and "13 year old" sound like one of the worse offenses. The victim who was 13 at the time says in an interview that she had sex before meeting Polanski, drank alcohol and had used Quaaludes [a sedative used as a recreational drug in the 70s] when she was real little. (Yet she refuses to blame her mother for all that).
More interestingly, it shows in details how the Judge, Lawrence Rittenband, violated judicial ethics on multiple occasions. (although the prosecutor, David Wells, who said in the documentary he colluded with the judge to increase his jail sentence now says he lied)
At the end of the documentary, there’s a powerful interview of Roger Gunson, the now-retired deputy district attorney who was one of the prosecutors against Polanski and says if he had been in the director’s position, he would have fled as well.

So in addition to the fact that Polanski has suffered many terrible events in his life (which has been put forth by many of his defenders), like his mother's death at Nazi hands or the murder of Sharon Tate, his pregnant wife, in 1969, or the fact that he was certainly trapped, there are also mitigating factors in the legal case.
That being said the fact remains that he gave a 13 year old drugs and alcohol, and had sex with her knowingly. And that was hardly an “erreur de jeunesse” (“a youthful error”) as Bernard Henry Levy puts it. Polanski was over 30 at the time.

So is he the victim of some monstrous injustice or persecution? Given all the daily injustices in our world, I would think if there is any injustice at all here, it is a minor one - certainly not worth the uproar.

In the case of Polanski, it seems the big uproar has actually divided the French. And as the NYTimes put it, it says something about French popular opinion that President Nicolas Sarkozy, the ministers’ boss, has so far declined to take up Mr. Polanski’s case in a pointed article.

Meanwhile, a popular French cable television satire, “Les Guignols de l’Info,” ridiculed Mr. Mitterrand. Recalling Chris Rock’s joke that O. J. Simpson would have been in jail years earlier if he had been “Orenthal the Bus Driving Murderer,” a puppet on the show depicting the French culture minister referred to “the Beast of the Bastille,” Guy Georges, who raped and murdered perhaps as many as 10 young women in the early 1990s. “If Guy Georges had directed ‘Citizen Kane,’ ” the minister-puppet said, “I would have let him out.” (NYTimes)

And as Charles Bremmer has noted at the end of his post :

The Socialist opposition finally came down against the government for criticising the Polanski arrest. Several eminent figures in Sarkozy's UMP party are also unhappy with the way Mitterrand and Kouchner jumped to take sides against the USA. A few from the film world, including Luc Besson, are also unhappy with the rush to defend Polanski. (Timesonline)

What to conclude? Well, first, the same old wise conclusion that whatever French officials may say should be taken with a grain of salt and does not reflect what the rest of the people think or believe. (The divide between the elite and the people is certainly wide in France.)
Then, as Meghan Daum concludes in the LATimes, we may conclude that pain is not penance and talent not a substitute for justice.

That being said, some questions remain. Is the money to extradite and prosecute Roman Polanski over a 30 year old case in which the victim says she has forgiven him and doesn’t want to hear about it worth being spent? Doesn’t the state of California have better ways to use its money these days? Would justice act the same way if Roman Polanski was not a cause célèbre?
And then there’s the Swiss…… Why did they act so suddenly after letting Polanski come and go as he pleased for decades….? That, like other things in Switzerland, even today, secrets are well kept.

The Catharsis Benefits of American TV Series.

2009-09-26T16:06:00.003+02:00

One of the most amazing characteristics of American TV fiction is its ability to address controversial issues. This week was no exception.

Not only has Law & Order (better known in France as New York District – go figure!) become the longest dramatic series (along with Gunsmoke) on American TV, but it has opened its 20th season this week with one of the hottest topic in American current affairs : torture and whether the US government should be held responsible.

As always with L&O, the story takes different twists and start with the death of a war veteran. I don’t want to give too many spoilers but at some point district attorney Jack McCoy (Sam Waterston) decides to prosecute a lawyer who wrote a Justice Department legal memo authorizing torture, as well as his co-conspirators in the chain of command all the way up to Vice President Cheney.

"Jack, you want to prosecute a member of the Bush administration for assaulting
suspected terrorists? "
"The word is 'torturing.' And yes, it's about time somebody did."

The character of McCoy takes some heat for trying the case, and he is nearly accused of treason :

"We're looking forward, not backward, we're not looking to give aid and comfort to the enemy."
"What are you accusing me of?", McCoy replies.

Interestingly by the end of the episode, it is the need for Order that has taken over the idea of the Law. (For more, please watch the show, it is worth your time).

I believe L&O is underrated by the media. It is not your typical cop-law show where the bad guy with the hideous face gets caught by the good cops and successfully prosecuted by the good lawyers. It deals with issues that are important to the country and hardly touched by most journalists. This episode called “Memo from the Dark Side” has been largely ignored and unannounced.

Of course, a TV series is not going to change an entire society and in real life no such prosecution has taken place (yet) but one should really command American writers and television for dealing with such hot button issues right on. I do not believe there is any other country in the world that’s capable of facing its demons so directly and so quickly.

It is certainly not so much the case of France which has barely started acknowledging its own use of torture in the Algerian war of independence 47 years ago. I have yet to see the day when the French dubious roles in Africa today will be on French tv fiction or movies.

I think the ability to deal with one’s demons through fiction is extremely healthy for its catharsis effect on a country. After all, that is why the Greek cam up with the word catharis (meaning "purification", "cleansing" or "clarification ralted to fiction.

Drama and justice are the two best ways to get over the dark side and eventually move forward. Otherwise, if you ignore it, it will eventually get back to you years later (the French certainly know something about that).

This speaks volume about the ability of America to make amend and recognize its errors. But now that this recognition is taking place, it may be time to get down to the justice side and make some of those people in high power accountable.

NOTE: I really wonder why the French had to change the name of the show to "New York District" while the Québécois call it simply "La loi et l'ordre"....

When Conservative Religion and Fear Rule the United-States.

2009-09-19T12:44:00.007+02:00

In today’s world, the very idea that a movie on Charles Darwin fails to find a US distributor simply because they fear it would too controversial for their American audiences is frightening. The movie has been sold all over the world. It has even opened the Toronto Festival (in neighboring Canada).

150 years after “On The Origin of Species” was published, you’d think that the passion over this might have cooled down a bit and not that it would be such a hot topic any more.

Of course, it may be that movie distributors look at the polls, and :

a Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity. (Gallup)

This, one must remember is uniquely American and itwould be wrong to see it as a Christian phenomenon. Indeed, not all Christian churches are set against the theory of evolution.

In fact, the Church of England has even made an apology for being “over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas”, and they have a series on Darwin on their website. In America, the Episcopal Church has said that the theory of evolution does not conflict with Christian faith. And the Catholic Church (which still has the greatest number of members of all Christian churches) has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
It should also be remembered that most of Darwin's theories are now accepted as a foundation of biological science.

But that’s even beside the point. Regardless of what one believes, the very notion that a movie cannot be distributed because it may offend a religious group is appalling. It means that culture is based on fear and intimidation. It is the way of countries run by religious fundamentalists like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan, not the way of a democratic country that claims to believe in freedom of expression. If this movie finds no distributor, it will be a great shame to the United-States.

France's Lead on Climate change Issue.

2009-09-13T15:15:00.007+02:00

It is not often that this blog has praises for French president Sarkozy - in fact, it’s never happened - but one must render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.

This week, Nicolas Sarkozy laid out his (radical) plan to impose a carbon tax on homes and businesses. Essentially, here’s the idea :

The tax would be initially based on the market price for carbon dioxide emissions permits, which is now euro17 ($24.74) per ton of carbon dioxide, Sarkozy said.
At that level, the government expects to raise euro 3 billion, which will be entirely returned to households and businesses through a reduction in other taxes or repaid via a so-called "Green Check," Sarkozy said.
The result would be a shift of the tax burden from other revenue sources to energy derived from fossil fuels in an effort to discourage their use.

There are many remarkable things about this plan :

First, Sarkozy is delivering on a promise he made during the campaign but also during the Grenelle Environment round-table talks (Grenelle de l’Environnement) – France’s Green New Deal.
the French president is fulfilling his promise against public opinion, which is I think a sign a of great leadership. (one does not govern by public polls).
France will thus become the biggest country (with the largest economy) yet to try taxes to slow global warming. The smaller countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland and parts of Canada) that have adopted similar plans have seen a significant reduction of CO2 emission.

Of course, one may always suspect Nicolas Sarkozy of ulterior motives – his ego showed up again when he talked about “saving the human race”, and of course, it is pretty clear that Sarkozy loves it when he can be in the lead. But so what? What matters also is that the rest of the E.U is likely to follow France’s example, which in turn might give Europe renewed credibility in international talks on climate change.

Of course, it will take strong leadership as people are always keen on helping the environment if someone else pays for it. And the French are no exception.

The most popular figure in France is environmentalist Nicolas Hulot who not only favors the carbon tax but “extracted a promise from all leading candidates during the 2007 presidential election that they would introduce the idea, if elected.” (Carbon taxes were also approved by an environmental conference, uniting politicians of all parties, pressure groups, unions and industry, in October 2007, a few months after President Sarkozy was elected.) Yet now in having to face the reality of it, the French are mostly against it. I understand they may distrust the government giving their money back with the Green check, but they should give it a chance if they have is any coherence.
The worst part is how the socialists jumped on the wagon of criticism on a plan they also initially favored. It blows my mind to see how much they are losing credibility on this (as on so many other things).

The good thing is that the French media – both left and right - have echoed such contradiction :

The centre-right paper Le Figaro says when Nicolas Hulot speaks about the carbon tax, everyone is in favour yet when Nicolas Sarkozy does the same, people disagree. Nicolas Hulot is a famous French television presenter who hosted a series on the environment. He is hugely popular and even considered running for the presidency. In the end, he didn’t but he used his popularity to get French politicians to sign an environmental pact. The paper says the time for words is over, action is needed and the tax should be introduced.
The left-leaning Libération is, for once, in agreement with Le Figaro. The paper says that the Ecology Party will inevitably claim the tax doesn’t go far enough while the Socialists will inevitably say the tax is unfair and hits the poorest hardest.
However Nicolas Hulot’s environmental tax was signed by all concerned so for the sake of coherence, the tax should be brought in and should be supported by all parties.

So the carbon-tax seems to me to be a sensible measure, no matter what ulterior motives Sarkozy may have. The French president has taken a lot of heat both the left who dimed his plan unfair to the poor and the right who fear protectionism in disguise. This makes me think it is actually a good emasure.

Sarkozy found a great ally in Nobel Price for Economics Paul Krugman's note in the NYT - and I could not agree more :

Yet when France’s Sarkozy says something entirely reasonable on the subject — and something that may well be an essential part of the politics of climate change policy — the usual suspects pop up declaring that it’s evil protectionism.
Again, it’s the economic principle that should matter — that and, um, saving the planet, which is is any case more important than the trading system.

How the Republican Party has adopted Extremist Rhetoric.

2009-09-13T08:53:00.009+02:00

Related to our pevious post, here's a fascinating interview on Fresh Air (NPR) of journalist Max Blumenthal whose book, "Republican Gomorrah, Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party," seems like a good read - especially if you've been wondering how and why the comparison of Obama to Hitler and Stalin has become more popular in more righ-wing circles this summer. (the influence of Foxnews and the Christian Right is of course mentioned as well as Lyndon La Rouche)

Basically, Blumentahl immersed himself in far-right fringe culture for six years and investigated how the Republican Party has been hikacked by extremists, and how more moderate Republicans like Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush or even John McCain have been pushed to the side.

"The GOP has become subsumed by dysfunctional personalities with no capacity for restraining themselves, either from acting out hysterically or from their most devious urges. For these internally conflicted figures, who will continue to produce new and increasingly bizarre scandals, right-wing political crusading is simply a form of self-medication."

Blumenthal partly explains the far right's new vigor by the fact that it functions best when the government and Congress is democratic so they can more easily throw stones form the outside. It seems like a scary but necessary read as one should face the reality of what is going on.

Indeed, Eisenhower would not recognize his party today.

NOTE :

If you want more, here's another interview of Blumenthal on Democracy Now.

70 Years Later.. : Hitler has become a Man of Peace!

2009-09-06T17:30:00.007+02:00

In relation to our previous post, here’s another example of a political pundit re-writing history, and on this 70th anniversary of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, it is worth pausing upon it.

This time, it is Pat Buchanan who wrote a column on MSNBC website entitled "Did Hitler Want War?" in which he claims that Hitler didn’t really want war and that the British are really to blame for WWII. (It is also the thesis of his latest book, called “The Unnecessary War”.). His theory is basically that if Britain hadn't aligned itself with Poland, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. Seriously!

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Miklos Horthy's Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso's Slovakia.

As often before, he also makes dubious parallels between WWII and the war in Iraq, and as much as one can be critical of the motivation for the war in Iraq, making such historical comparisons is idiotic, and worse, it is dangerous. (the same can be said about arguments using WWII to support the war in Iraq).

Now in case you are not familiar with Pat Buchanan, the man is not just any one, he’s an influential American conservative political commentator, author, syndicated columnist, politician and broadcaster. He was a senior advisor to American presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, and was a host on CNN's Crossfire. And today, he's a political commentator on the MSNBC cable network including the show Morning Joe and a regular on The McLaughlin Group. (He also ran for the Republican presidential ticket in 1992 and 1996).

Interestingly, his views are unlike those preached by L. LaRouche, the wingnut who provided the health-care Town Hall protesters with Obama=Hitler signs this summer. Beneath the deceiving innocuous, respectable guise of a simple foreign policy debate, one must remember Buchanan is an isolationist in the (American) tradition of immigrant-bashing nativism which blames everything wrong on the Jews, Hispanics, blacks, the media and large corporations.
Recently, Jonah Goldberg told us that Adolf Hitler was of the Left, and now Buchanan says Adolf Hitler was a man of Peace….

Such historical revisionism would never be tolerated in (Western) Europe and there would be an outcry over this sort of things… but in America, it took The National Jewish Democratic Council to release a statement in which they implored MSNBC to remove the article from their Web site for MSNBC to react and do it.

However, it is not the first time that Buchanan goes off the wall with bigoted speech, yet MSNBC continues to employ him. Maybe they want to show that they are open to a diversity of ‘opinions’ and that they are more “fair and balanced” than FoxNews but this sort of historical revisionism is not another ‘opinion’, it is a dangerous re-writing of history which ignores facts and selects whatever fits a right-wing agenda, but unfortunately not enough Americans know enough about WWII to see that.

The (Nauseous) Obama Hitler Comparison.

2009-08-30T14:12:00.020+02:00

During this summer of Town-Hall Meeting madness, I thought the Obama = Hitler placards were just the expression of some insignificant nut-jobs, but now I see this analogy taking hold in the right-wing media and I find it very troubling.

Rush Limbaugh on the radio claiming Obama is "sending out his brownshirts" and extending his comparison of the left to Nazism. (more here)

Hannity on Foxnews whose guest compared Obama policies to Nazism (a claim not only Hannity did not rebuke but seemed to condone as you can see on this video)

Glenn Beck comparing the healthcare reform to Nazi Eugenics.

Even NYTimes David Leonhardt (favorably - yes, really!!) comparing the stimulus plan to Nazi Germany (while admitting that the analogy is ‘uncomfortable’)

Last Thursday, I had a personal encounter with some of those right-wing extremists. As I was downtown Boston to see the motorcade of Ted Kennedy’s funeral, I saw a group of people singing and holding an Obama/Hitler sign (right there on the Commons by the Park Street subway station).
I decided to take a picture and talk to them to try to understand their approach. It turns out they were supporters of Lyndon LaRouche, the conspiracy theorist who patented the Obama-is-Nazi theme. Incidentally, he is also a defender of the authenticity of The Protocols of Zion and claims that Hitler was brought to power by the British and Wall street and that he didn’t actually write Mein Kampf.
In fact, that’s exactly what those people you see on the picture told me. They compared the U.S. bailout to Hitler’s support of banks, claiming at the same time that Hitler was a socialist. They also said that the goal of healthcare reform is to murder the mentally ill, the terminally ill, the invalids, and the disabled just like Hitler’s. (Although, strangely, they did not talk about the Jews).
Of course, by that point, I knew that talking to them was a waste of my time - they see anyone who disagrees as either ignorant and a victim of the cabal or as part of it and downright evil.

The Larouche supporters may not be many but they have caught media attention. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the LaRouche supporters have “contributed to the divisiveness surrounding the public debate on health care reform by producing and disseminating materials comparing President Barack Obama and other government officials to Hitler, Nazis and fascists, and by attending Congressional "town hall" meeting and other events around the country.”
A good example is last week’s much-watched video of the exchange (see our post) between Rep. Barney Frank and a mad woman who claimed that President Barack Obama supported “a Nazi policy” endorsing euthanasia whom Mr. Frank asked simply, “On what planet do you spend most of your time?” which was all over the news. It turns out that the woman in question (a certain Rachel Brown) belongs to the “LaRouche Youth Movement”.

At the same time, there has been an attempt in some conservative circles to re-write history by claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and that the progressiveness of Wilson was a fascist movement. (if you start googling it, it gets scary).

(see the thesis of Jonah golberg's Liberal Fascism given coverage on Fox )

The ridicule of such claims may make you smile but those pernicious images have been all over the regular news channels like NBC, MSNBC or CNN and they only add fuel to an already inflammatory atmosphere. Some people have even come to Town Hall Meetings with guns, and a pastor has recently called for the murder of President Obama. No wonder the death threats against Obama have increased by 400%.

These ‘protesters’ are outside the norm of course but there are enough nuts out there that might act upon the hate-speech and the Larouche and Foxnews people will bear a responsibility if anything should happen. Even comparing Obama to Hitler or the government to Nazism is a way to call for murder or terrorism. What else do you do with pure evil? The other scary part is that so many Americans are ignorant about history and so eager for conspiracy theories (which is a very American habit) that they are more likely to believe in any revionsionist view of history.

This blog is all for freedom of expression but hate speech should (no, must) have limits, especially on a channel as popular as Foxnews and I cannot believe that so many public figures can get away with publically wishing for the death of the U.S. president or with making fun of killing the Speaker of the House. It’s about time the GOP made a stance against such extremist views and stop trying to reap such evil fruit .

The French Healthcare Explained to the Americans (in a nutshell)

2009-08-24T20:11:00.008+02:00

Following the false rumors I hear about healthcare in Europe, I think it is more than appropriate for this blog to say a few things about the French healthcare system in order to debunk the myths propagated by Foxnews and its clique.

Last night, Sean Hannity had a special entitled “Universal Nightmare” during which he lashed against socialized and single-payers of Canada, Britain and France. It must be noted, for starter, that, contrary to what MrHannity said, France does NOT have a single payer system. France utilizes a mix of government and market-based systems.

Only about 60 to 90% of most health care costs are covered by the public system and the remaining is covered by private insurers and 92% of the French have them.

In case of costly or long-term ailments (Cancer, Aids, etc..) however, the public system covers 100% of the costs (in a nutshell, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get).

It should also be noted that most of those private insurers are actually non-profit mutual insurers (referred to as “mutuelle” in French) and so no one is denied insurance (on the ground of pre-existing conditions or other) and no one is asked about their medical background. Those who can’t afford private insurance have "universal health coverage".

99% of French residents are covered by the national health insurance scheme and about 92% of French residents have complementary private “mutuelles”.

Most of the funding is from a 13.55% payroll tax (employers pay 12.8%, individuals pay 0.75%). There is a 5.25% general social contribution tax on income as well. Thus, there is an approximately a 18.8% on employees for health insurance. There are also dedicated taxes which are assessed on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues. (source Healthcare Economist)

The French can choose their doctor as they please, even if recently, a “managed care” practice has been adopted, where patients have a “preferred doctors” who acts as a gatekeeper for (some) specialists.

The freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are highly protected and guaranteed by the system but American physicians earn about twice as much as French physicians. That, however, is somewhat compensated by the facts that there is hardly any practice liability (the legal system is tort-averse) and medical school, however competitive is tuition-free. Finally, there is usually no non-medical personnel – the billing goes directly to the Sécurité Sociale and reimbursement is now electronic.

There is no waiting list and if you go to the Emergency, and if you are seriously ill, you’ll be taken care of immediately without filling in papers or being asked anything. (however, if you go to the ER for something minor, you may have to wait for a while).

This is not to say that the system is perfect - its greatest drawback is cost :

France’s medical costs have been rising sharply, which has led to higher taxes on employers and workers and the national insurance system has been running deficits since 1985 — it currently stands at $13.5 billion. (Wall Street Journal)

Reimbursement of some medication is not as good as it used to be and some people have been complaining. I tend to think that it is also because the French have been pampered and they may need to toughen up. But they will defend their current system at any cost because it has produced results!

Access to health care appears to have produced a healthier nation: France’s infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with seven per 1,000 in the U.S.. The country has more hospital beds and doctors per capita than the U.S., and a markedly lower rate of mortality from respiratory disease. And France spends less (10.7% of gross domestic product) on health care than the U.S. (16% of GDP). (WSJ)

With the rising cost, there will definitely need to be some adjustment to be made but I believe that the French are very attached to their healthcare because it has proved to work well, and there will be ready to support it, even it becomes very costly. In the long run though, it can save a lot of money, if nothing else, because people don't wait to be entirely sick or old to get treated.

It is basically a question of priority for a society and what it values as most important. To the French health and education are priorities above any other.

Jon Stewart vs. Betsy McCaughey - a Must-see!

2009-08-24T19:02:00.004+02:00

In ase, you missed it (but how could you!), here's the great exchange between Jon Stewart and Betsy McCaughey, the former Lt. Gov. of New York, who is the originator of the death panel myth which claims that covering consultations about living wills is a plan to kill the elderly.

What I like about this is that it is typical of people who have an agenda and don't even read what's the actual text says.

One of the great oucomes of this exchange is that is that McCaughey was forced to resign from her position on the Cantel Medical (a New Jersey medical device company). Who says she may be working for the bad guys.....

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

Town Hall Meeting Madness

2009-08-24T18:27:00.009+02:00

I always thought of town hall meetings as one of the greatest features of New England politics and of American democracy at large (the principle of direct democracy is nothing new of course; it was practiced by the Greeks and has been in use in Switzerland for centuries). They are supposed to be a place for debate, to hold politicians accountable, to express one’s views and to listen to other views.

This summer, however has proved me wrong. Those meetings have been disrupted by people shouting at each other, calling each other names, impugning the integrity of any elected official and not listening to anything that they are told. In fact, if anything, those meetings have worked against democracy by spreading disinformation, fear and rumors. They have shown the worst side of populism.

The worst part I think has been the Nazi comparison.

It is an insult to the millions who actually suffered and died under the Nazi regime and the people who compare Obama to Hitler or the government to Nazism (or even the Soviet Union) should learn a few things about history – and by the way, I felt the same way when left-wing extremists compared Bush to Hitler, although it was much less visible.
The anti-Obama rhetoric started with the “birthers”, and then it was the “deathers”, or “the death panel-ers” – those who believed that the Medicare covering consultations about living wills is a plan to kill the elderly. In most cases, they have been started by corporately funded lobby groups (see here) and partisan Republican strategists (see here for instance) and fueled by politicians (Sarah Palin for one).
The strangest thing is that so many people seemed to actually buy it. But of course, when fear-mongering videos by conservative advocacy groups like 60plus, or the so-called “Citizen for Better Medicare” both fronts for the pharmaceutical industry, are played to seniors, it is easy to understand why it may scare them (older people are easily afraid of change in the first place).

It is the whole concept of town hall meetings that I’m beginning to doubt – at least when it comes to healthcare. Public opinion is so ill informed and shouting and violent disruptions create unease and anxiety. The whole topic of healthcare is a complex one and people often don’t even know their own system. (like when they claim they don’t want to be under socialized medicine because of their fear of the government but are with Medicare and love it.).

In those meetings, it is whoever shouts the loudest that gets the attention, and has the upper-hand not the one who’s right. It also forces the politician talking to take a defensive posture (one against many) and they appear weak which reinforces the impression that they may be lying. It take someone with a strong personality like Barney Frank to not be swayed.

The problem is also that the narrative is framed by the way the media cover the issue and it is up to them –not only Jon Stewart or Rachel Maddow – to correct the narrative, talk about the real issues, and putting the whole supposedly angry dissenting reaction into context. Don’t count on foxNews for that of course. They’ll fuel the anger. But the other more credible media should be more aggressive in debunking the myths and the lies.

From watching a few of the Sunday talk-shows yesterday (Meet the Press, or better yet, George Stephanopoulos’s This Week), there is hope and it seems that they are beginning to tackle the core of the issue. It’s about time…..

The Mzungu Lightning NYC Marathon Training Video

2009-08-09T17:49:00.003+02:00

We're going to do something unusual by publishing this video made by a friend of a friend's.

First, because we'd like to help, then, because it has to do with crosscultural differences (albeit not Franco-American per se), and finally (and maybe most importantly for our readers) because it's a fun video.

Oh, and Africa (The Congo) is also the place where both members of this blog - the Joker and the Thief - first met and began their friendship, so it speaks to us....

Enjoy and feel free to donate at Unicef.

Sea, cars and sun.

2009-08-08T18:58:00.009+02:00

I just spent 2 weeks off in Southern California and it really is the best place to be on vacation – it’s convenient, laid-back and most importantly the climate is really the best in the world (even compared to Europe) in summer and so your body can rest fully.

The temperature in the midsummer goes from an average high of 77°F (25°C)to a low of 65°F (18°C) at night. It has the advantage of maritime and Mediterranean climates. Of course, I’m talking of just the few miles by the coast, from the Santa Monica bay to San Diego, not the Central Valley or the desert which can be hell (and often is).
No other place on earth has such an ideal climate in the summer months and it is the best in the country in the winter, which may explain why so many people live there and why it is so expensive.

But like anywhere else, there’s another side to the coin and in California, I think it is the high dependence on cars. More than the earthquakes or the fires when the Santa Ana wind blows, I think the car culture in California is what would be the hardest for a European like me to get adjusted to.
One the one hand, the road system is very convenient of course. Once you have figured out the freeway system, you don’t even need a map. And then, there’s always parking no matter where you go, even if you may have to pay for it. (However, you often find free parking if you are willing to walk 10 minutes which most people don’t seem ready to do). In fact, pretty much everything can be drive-thru so you don’t even need to park (Too much work!).

In many ways, Californian drivers are really pampered which may be why they are … the worst drivers! Of course, it all depends on your conception of a good driver but when you come from the East Coast or Europe, the way people drive in SoCa gets really REALLY annoying.
For one, they have absolutely no concept of faster traffic on the left lane and slower traffic on the right, which makes it very difficult to drive fast enough (and I’m not even talking really fast, just barely above the 65 mph limit) even on a six-lane freeway, and I suspect they just don't care (the "whatever" mentality so tyical of SoCa has its drawbacks) or that they simply have too many lanes.

Then, they take forever to turn, park and maneuver, even if it’s totally safe and if there’s plenty of room for them to do so. And they get totally freaked out if you are less than 30 inches (50 centimeters) from their car when you park. God forbid you may scratch their beautiful monstrous SUVs!

Of course, those are things that most Europeans experience when they come anywhere in the United-States but Californian have turned them into an artform.
I know it is cultural, I know it is because they are so used to having much more space than we do, but it is nonetheless annoying. I mean, it is perfectly okay when you’re on vacation, but I think it would take some time for me to adjust if I lived there and had to hurry to work in the morning for instance.
And then there’s the very fact that with a very few exceptions, you need a car to go anywhere. It is the worst place with this density of population for public transit. Everything is so spread out. You might think it is only natural that people decided to spread out and use their cars since they had so much space to begin with. Besides, Americans have always cherished personal freedom and mobility, rugged individualism and masculine force - look at the size of those SUVs!.

Surprisingly this has not always been the case. There was a time when an efficient mass transit system in Southern California using streetcars, light rail, and buses existed. It was the Pacific Electric Railway better known by the locals as “Red Cars” and the “Yellow Cars”. It interconnected system interconnected cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and also connected to Riverside County and San Bernardino County in the Inland Empire.

You might think such a system was doomed to fail with the rising of cars, but it turns out that the demise of the electric railway system was given a little push by the car and the oil industries. Basically, General Motors (along with Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum and a few others) created a holding to secretly buy street cars companies and dismantle them or replace them with buses manufactured by GM. In 1947, they were charged with conspiracy. It was known as the Great American streetcar scandal.

Granted, the demise of the trolley system was probably a matter of time and it disappeared in many other countries, including France. The environment was certainly not a concern back then – in fact, at the beginning, cars were seen as improvement over the horses and their dirty manure. Yet, it is a cautionary tale for the present when you consider new urban initiatives such as Platinum Triangle in Anaheim (CA) and its more transit-oriented environment or the expansion of Metrolink, the rather new (1991) regional rail system that serves Southern California. There is a real war going on with lobbyists of all kinds and in this economic crisis, and budget crisis, the way money is spent on infrastucture will shape the future of the rgion.

One thing that might help is people’s concern for the environment (even if it has slightly decreased recently) and the continuing congestion in the region. A strong and efficient transportation infrastructure is needed but it will take years.

In the meantime, and despite its car culture, traffic congestion, earthquakes and fires, Southern California is probably still one of the best places to live and definitely the best for a relaxing vacation.

The First non-American U.S. President.

2009-07-23T18:54:00.009+02:00

In the last 7 months, we have witnessed the growth of a new species in the United-States: the Birthers.

In short, the Birthers are just a new kind of conspiracy theorists who claim that the president isn't actually president because he is not an American citizen.

Well, conspiracy theories are nothing new in this country (and elsewhere) and God knows Americans have always loved a good conspiracy (think of the 9/11 Truth Movement for one), probably more so than any other people.

But this one is different as the claim is clearly tainted with anger, hatred and racism under the disguise of patriotism. (see video below)

The funny thing is that it doesn't even matter whether Obama was born in the U.S. His mother was a U.S. citizen which makes him a "natural born" citizen as required by the Constitution anyway. So clearly this is not about the law but about him being a black man with a funny name.

Those people are an embarrassment to the Republican party who'd better diassociate itself with the Birthers more clearly as well as with the other crazies out there like Rush Limbaugh or Lou Dobbs. But unfortunately, when 10 members of the House actually propose legislation to compell any future Presidential Candidates to prove that they are a natural citizen, it only adds fuel to the bonfire! What is frakking wrong with those people??

Well, since you cannot reason with the Birthers anyway, we'd better humor them off as Jon Stewart does so well:

"Barack Obama is not only the United States' first black president --
he's also the first non-American president"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Born Identity

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

Americans... BIG ?

2009-07-22T19:17:00.007+02:00

Whenever I come back to the States from France, I am always struck by how big people are. Then, after a few days, I just get used to it and feel the exact opposite when I go back to Europe. Quite often, "big" is a nice way of saying "fat" though..... but that's exactly it, Americans are essentially big. There's no denying that more people are overweight and even obese in the U.S. than anywhere else. In fact, studies show that a majority of Americans are at least overweight.
But frankly, you don’t need them to see it, it is striking if you come from aboard and start looking around. What is particularly striking is that the very obese are huge – absolutely humongous.
The numbers are outrageous :

More than 60% of all adults in the United States are now medically overweight, and nearly 30% [34%]of those same adults are now obese, and just under 6% are "extremely" obese. (figures by the National Center for Health Statistics - here, here and CDC)

Even though there’s no possible denying that this country has a huge (no pun intended) problem with food, weight and obesity, the figures may have to be taken with a grain of salt.

All those statistics are based on body mass index which compares a person's weight and height. It is highly controversial because it ignores the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body.
Keith Devlin, the “math guy” on NPR had an interesting (yet short) exposé on as to why the body mass index is unreliable - simply because it ignores the waist or the density.

It makes sense to me because the average American is not only fatter but also bigger than, say, the average French or Belgian (The BMI was invented by a Belgian mathematician in the early 19th century). When I say bigger, I really mean “bigger” as in bigger bones and bigger muscles. The fact that many people also do intensive sports means that those (few) who are in good shape are often very muscular and impressively large – and not just the men but some of the women too.
One last note is that in my observation, people in New York city seem to be in better shape than in the rest of the country. That’s probably because they take the public transit and walk around a lot more.

Ironically, the newly nominated Surgeon General (offcial leading spokesperson on matters of health in the United-States) is herself obviously clearly overweight, which of course does not mean she shouldn't get the job and do it well. Still, I kind of like the irony.

Burggie on the Daily Show.

2009-07-06T16:13:00.003+02:00

For a more fun take on the Burka ban question (or else see our previous post)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Burka Ban

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

Liberté and the Burka?

2009-07-05T11:03:00.014+02:00

As Jon Stewart pointed out last week, there's been serious talk in France about banning the "burka" (which is mostly the niqab, i.e. the full body veil worn by some Muslim women) in public places in France.

It all started with a call by 65 French MPs to create a parliamentary commission to study a small but growing trend of wearing the full body garment in France.

Then last week, president Sarkozy himself said that the burka cover for Muslim women is "not welcome on French soil".

"The burqa is not a sign of religion. It is a sign of enslavement. It is a sign of subservience."
"I want to say officially, it will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind netting, cut off from any social life, deprived of any identity.This is not the idea the French Republic has of a woman's dignity", he said. (BBC news)

The wearing of the niqab/burka is probbaly growing in some places in France (on all accounts, you see more of them than before for sure, but just one in your neighborhood will get your attention).

However, it remains miniscule even though there is not clear study on the extent of this new trend. You certainly see fewer of them in France than in Great-Britain for instance - probably because the French Muslims tend to be more integrated in France.

Needless to say that just like anyone else, I was in shock the first time I saw this garment in France (previously, you'd just see the niqab worn by rich Saudi tourists in Paris). Covering the face and hands cannot be compared to any other form of clothing. In this respect, it cannot be compared to a nun 's habit or even the hijab (the 'regular' veil). Covering the face makes communication very hard if it doesn’t prevent it at all. It also causes all sorts of issues with regard to identification.
That being said, does my malaise justify a ban by the law? Is the law the proper response to something that remains marginal and is not yet well understood?

There are different speculations as to why some women have begun to wear them.
What is certain is that neither the burka nor the niqab belongs to the tradition of north-African and African cultures (from where most Muslims in France originate). The former is worn in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the latter in the Gulf States. So it is easy to see this as a sign of import from extremists in the Gulf region (from the Wahhabists and Salafists).

The center of the debate has been about whether these women are forced to wear the full garment (by their husbands, fathers or family) or whether it's a choice of their own.

French president Sarkozy has made up his mind by framing the topic as an issue of women's right and not as a religious issue.

Two possibilities : either those women choose to wear the niqab or they are forced into it. However, in this (latter) case a ban on burkas/niqab would most likely only confine those women to their homes which would be counterproductive and might only alienate them even more.

Martine Aubry, leader of the Socialist Party, says: "If a law bans the burka,
these women will still have it but will remain at home; they will no longer be
seen." (source)

If, on the other hand it is a choice, then a ban would not be about "them" (the women wearing them) but about our discomfort and our fear that Salafist and Wahhabist extremist views might take hold. Can a law really change that? I doubt it. My take is that only education and integration can. In fact, all French Muslim leaders have taken strong stances against the garment :

Dalil Boubakeur, the moderate head of the main Paris mosque, described the burka
as a radical import that is alien to the tradition of Islam. (USA Today)

At the same time, French Muslims fear that a law would stigmatize Muslims. French Muslims are overall very moderate and in fact, it is suspected that most of them are not even practicing Muslims:

A number of surveys indicate that a solid chunk of Muslims [in France], possibly the majority, do not go to the mosque regularly or observe Ramadan, the holy month of fasting. (USA Today)

In any case, Sarkozy has rejected the notion that the niqab/burka is religious expression. If it is a question of women's rights, he said, and if most of these women are not forced but choose to wear it, then, what would be the legal base for a ban?

If the niqab is a means of expression (of values or ideas, however offensive they might be) then it is and should be garanteed by the law. And indeed, rights are only meaningful when they garantee views not supported by the majority.

As John Stuart Mill argued, (see On Liberty) freeedom of speech should not be constrained by "the limits of social embarrassment" but only by "the harm principle" :

"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member
of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to other"

What is interesting though is that very few French people see the issue as one of the state encroaching on the rights of individual.

But what sort of society should give the state the power to tell people what to wear and what not to wear?

In this particular case, I agree the niqab is not simply a garment like any other because it covers the face. But the only limits for someone to hide her face should practical and moslty situations in which identification is required

For instance, a teacher should be able to legally ask the woman who comes to pick up her kid at school to show her face so he can be sure she’s the right person. This right should be extended to the administration, banks, etc… and of course the police.

Those circumstances in which a woman must show her face must be defined by the law, and other than those it is not the business of the government to tell people how to dress or to show their faces if they choose not to - unless their clothes represent a clear danger to society.

I am afraid most French people do not really see the issue this way, and it seems that many other European countries have taken considered similar bans (in Belgium, the Netherlands, for instance).

No doubt that such a law banning the burka/niqab will have to be in accrod with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which both guarantee the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".

That's going to be an interesting debate.....

Obama, Sarkozy, and the meaning of "friendship" in France and the U.S.

2009-06-07T11:02:00.013+02:00

What is interesting when you see Obama abroad is the reaction of world leaders who he visits.

Obama is actually the cool guy on the block that everybody wants to be friend with and seen with because it makes them cool and popular.

It is to the extent that there is a competition as to who is the best friend of the cool guy. And no one in Europe has been more eager to compete for Obama than French president Sarkozy - as boyish if not childish as he is. Of course, the French media have played along, spending hours of live coverage of every move of Obama during his visit for the D Day commemoration. (Sadly,the European elections today don't seem to get the same attention!)

There has also been a lot of speculation in the French and German media as to why the U.S. president was spending so little time in Europe, the French press making ironic comments about how Sarkozy's ambitions was thwarted by the White House.

But finally, Sarkozy got his much anticipated "Obama moment" when the two presidents gave a joined press conference yesterday-.

Very important things were said about Europe, Turkey and North Korea but that's all in the news media. I'd like to focus on something that President Obama said, which I find culturally interesting -

Asked about the alleged snub of President Sarkozy, he said this:

The United States is a critical friend and ally of France and vice versa. I personally consider Nicholas Sarkozy a friend. I think he feels the same way. And so since I know I can always pick up the phone and talk to him, that it's not necessary for me to spend huge amounts of time other than just getting business done when I'm here. (Fox)

What is interesting in this short quote is that it defines very well how American see friendship, which is very different from the way the French see it, even though the term has apparent very similar meaning in both cultures.

Americans tend to emphasize reciprocity and balance ("vice-versa") as well as a strong sense of independence. Distance between friends is not a problem ("no need to spend huge amounts of time") and in fact, it may be guarantee of good friendship which needs not to be proven by constant reminders of its existence. On the contrary, depence is perceived as a problem which could become "co-dependence", a term that simply does not translate into French and means that the relationship is unhealthy and should be terminated.

The French have a very different view of friendship. For one thing, the term "friend" is not as lossely used as in American English. (as an example, a lot of French people find the use of "friends" on Facebook a bit... excessive). Contrary to the U.S., you don't call someone you hardly know a "friend". The reason is that friendship in French culture implies more intimacy to the point that it may even be ok to burden your friends with your problems without expecting reciprocity. In fact, the French tend to think that true friendship should weather just about anything including the feeling of invasion, being teased, discussions bordering disputes, etc... - things that would be unbearable to most Americans.

Raymonde Caroll - a French anthropologist who wrote about French-American cultural misunderstandings - argues that American friendship is similar to love: your friend are there to support you, approve of you, give back to you a confirmation of yourself", while French friendship is based on family relationships, and resembles a family circle - the only difference is that it is freely chosen. In fact, friends in French culture can be seen as a substitute for family ties which I think, is very telling about the central role of family life in France, even today.

This difference partly explains some problems in international relations and why so many Americans find French criticism at odds with their sense of friendship, while the French think that only criticizes people precisely because they're your friends (which you would not do with strangers).

Raymonde Caroll also makes another observation which, in my experience rings ver true :

A French person without friends would be [considered] asocial, an American without friend would be [considered] anti-social.

This whole topic may seem trivial to you but I believe if world leaders took intercultural crash courses before they meet, the world might run slightly more smoothly. Personally, as it turns out, if I had been told about some of those differences, I might have avoided a lot of unpleasant moments of embarrassment and misunderstandings - if not downright conflicts - with a number of "friends" on the other side of the Atlantic, the trick being precisely that appearance of commonality can be all the more deceiving that our cultures seem similar enough, only the same words sometimes carry totally different connotations and meanings.

Latino or Hispanic?

2009-05-30T18:45:00.003+02:00

Sonia Sotomayor - President’s Obama nominee to the Supreme Court - (in case you have lived in a cave in the last 2 weeks) has been accused of racism by some conservative pundits - Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh to name the most famous ones - for saying:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,".

As expected the Republican party is divided between its most extreme wing and its more pragmatic members who understand quite well that the GOP needs the Hispanic vote.. well, excuse my French, the Latino vote…. Well, actually which one is it?

Obviously, Sotomayor refers to herself as “Latina” and while the L.A.Times talks about the “Latino population” the New-York Times uses the word “Hispanic”. What to make of it? Slate had an enlightening article (Is Hispanic the Same Thing as Latina ?)on this topic :

Hispanic is an English word that originally referred to people from Spain and eventually expanded to include the populations of its colonies in South and Central America. Latino is a Spanish word—hence the feminine form Latina—that refers to people with roots in Latin America and generally excludes the Iberian Peninsula.

While both terms are accepted, they seem to carry different connotations for different people. For some, “Hispanic” is too “Euro-centric”, while for others “Latino, Latina” is not gender-neutral enough.
Well, it gets even more complicated, if you start digging into the history of labeling the Latino/Hispanic population in the U.S.:

In the 1970 U.S. census, for example, people were asked whether they were Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or "other Spanish." (The question caused much confusion because many Americans from the middle or southern regions of the United States identified themselves as "Central or South American.")
The word Hispanic was not used until the 1980 census, after the Office of Management and Budget imposed rules standardizing ethnicity statistics. (The change came after a federal committee on minority education complained about the lack of useful data.)
In 1997, the OMB changed its classification to "Hispanic or Latino," explaining that "Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion.".
Today the U.S. Census Bureau makes no distinction between the two terms and defines Hispanics and Latinos as “persons who trace their origin or descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spanish speaking Central and South America countries, and other Spanish cultures.".

Now of course, as Slate pointed out, what about if you’re from Brazil? You are from South America but not Spanish-speaking…. Ideally, they should be called Luso-Americans and evenhough they may be referred to as “Latinos” they are certainly not “Hispanics”.
In the end, classifying people only makes sense as much as it is about how people perceive themselves or are perceived by others.

It is one problem that the French certainly do not have since in France it is illegal for the state to categorize people according to their alleged ethnic origins or their religious membership. The idea is to avoid possible discrimination but it is also is in line with the non-essentialist French Republican ideal based on the right of the soil and not on affiliation (or bllod right) as in Germany.
This egalitarian approach may be great on paper but it has not stopped racism, and in fact, it may qomewhat make matters worse as it has made it harder for the French to face the reality of racism in France (particularly for people of Arab or African descent). Getting rid of the thermometer has never cured a disease.
Recently, the French government has considered changing the law but that has created so much controversy in France that I don’t think it’s going to happen soon. Old taboos die hard….

Les Malentendus

2009-05-27T17:35:00.009+02:00

The previous post on the French state strikes at one of the fundamental differences between French and American society, one that lies at the heart of many of the misunderstandings between the two countries: American individualism vs. French solidarity. Understanding this difference is key to representing each other without resorting to caricatures.

This difference of which we write was already encoded in the nineteenth century and being taught in schools in little school books on moral and civic instruction. The American version went by the name of The McGuffey Readers and promoted virtues associated with the "self-made man" especially as it pertained to individual rights. G. Bruno's Tour de la France par deux enfants, on the other hand, taught several generations of French school children the virtues of solidarity in society, in particular one's responsibility to other members of society. Bruno narrativized the republican moral code. Other texts were more explicit about it. The image above comes from the table of contents to Louis Liard's nineteenth-century Morale et enseignement civique. Notice the emphasis on responsibility and duty (devoirs). There is only one section in the entire book on 'rights.' That section starts out by noting that "In exchange for the duties imposed on the citenzry, the citizens must receive from the State a guarantee of their individual rights." Thus does the State exist, to protect these rights. These civil rights are enumerated as freedoms:

1. Individual Freedom: the right to do as I please (in accordance with the laws of the State and the rights of others to do likewise).
2. Domestic Freedom: the right to live where and how I please (in accordance...).
3. Freedom of thought: the right to think/believe as I please (in accordance...)
4. Religious Freedom: the right to believe or not in whatever I choose and to practice these beliefs (in accordance...)
5. Worker's rights: the right to work in whatever profession I choose.
6. Freedom of Association: the right to join my intelligence, work and money with likeminded individuals for a common goal (in accordance...)
7. Political Freedom: the right to elect officials and be elected.

The French emphasis on responsibilities and duties stands in stark contrast to the American emphasis on rights. While the American Bill of Rights was enacted as a guarantor against injurious action by the State toward the individual (thus the emphasis on "freedom from"), the French moral code was predicated on the State's role as guarantor of those rights ("Cette garantie est la raison d'être de l'Etat). The State exists to provide these rights to its citizens. So while Americans tend to view the State with suspicion, the French tend to view it as a protector.

Such a difference helps to explain the vastly different views on many issues including, for example, taxation. Americans view it as the State taking what is rightfully theirs, while the French view it as their responsibility toward a State that provides for all. Entrepreneurship is another area of difference. The American desire "to get the government out of the markets" speaks of a desire for innovation and individual initiative but leaves the individual bearing the risk of failure and corruption. The French approach mitigates risk for the individual (health care, unemployment, social security, etc.) but his potential wealth as well. Hence, the dampening of individual initiative.

This means that in the US the wealthy are wealthier and the poor poorer. The French are generally shocked at what they see as horrible disparities of wealth in the US while Americans often mock the regulation that kills initiative and potential wealth in France. These are the caricatures that pundits resort to because they refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any other form of society.

The French and L'Etat.

2009-05-21T15:53:00.007+02:00

On of my FB friends had this video on his wall :

Then my friend - we'll call him M - made this comment which really blew my mind :

Why do people vote with their feet and line up behind the US embassy? Why does the US grow faster than France? Why does the US have more millionaires than anywhere else?May seem like small issues but over couple decades to couple hundred years, these small changes will make a huge difference. If we are concerned about preserving civilizations, we should do a better job than France.
It's an issue of where we as humans can propagate memes (ideas) in the most efficient manner and at the same time take advantage of these ideas. only in free societies! at some point the french culture may need to be saved from France.

So of course, I had to say a 'few' things back and decided to go into some details :

First of all this woman is an ideologue with a clear agenda. (I checked her out on the internet – quite a resumé). I'dbe curious to see where her figures come from – no source quoted. Some seem ok, others a bit off. But in any case, “per capita income” is rather meaningless. By that account, Lichtenstein or Qatar or Luxemburg has the highest “income per capita”, but what does that mean?

Her conclusion that “Americans are FAR wealthier” is just as meaningless. It depends where you are in the social spectrum. Every measure shows that over the last 25 years, those at the top have done better than those in the middle so it is those at the top who have benefited from this new wealth. Your argument that the US has more millionaires is certainly good for those that are, but for the vast majority of Americans, I don’t think they care. In fact, that should be cause for concern.

People line up behind the US embassy, but they also do so at other embassies or other wealthy country. What is certain is that the US is more a land of opportunity. I give you that, but it is also a tougher country where you can win big and lose big. So the best part of the video is really when she says that “by any comparison, the American way makes EVERYone better off”, (she insists on “everyone” as you may notice on the video). This must be a joke!

The United States is the country with the highest inequality level and poverty rate across the OECD, Mexico and Turkey excepted. (OECD report)France is one of only five OECD countries where income inequality and poverty have declined over the past 20 years.

Finally her use of the argument that “it is one thing to visit France, it’s a whole other thing to live there” is all the more ironic that she lives in the U.S. Besides, since when being born and raised somewhere makes you right about economics.

Your concern about “preserving civilization” is mind-blowing…. Where does that come from? What’s your point? It sounds like a Dick-Cheneyish argument of fear.

As far as freedom is concerned, there are freedoms other than economic freedom – the freedom to have access to healthcare for instance. What’s your point when you talk when you say “benevolent dictators have delivered better economic results than those that have embraced capitalism.”? What’s the link with our topic here? France is a capitalist country but with more regulations than in the US, that’s all. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the French model should be followed by Americans. That would be irrelevant. The two countries are two distinct. Comparisons are impossible.

Just the way the French generally make false assumptions about the US, you, like most Americans, make false assumption about France. The meaning of the word “état” in France is so particular that it doesn’t translate. It defines the country and is at the core of its identity. “L’état” has not only guaranteed stability and common good (a very important concept in France) in the last few centuries in France, but it actually created France out of a much divided culture. Most countries favored federalism to accommodate the populations, but the French solution was centralization. You may not like it but that’s because it is foreign to you. It is thus part of the French identity and it is a concept entirely alien to Americans (and to most non-French people). (As a result, the French don’t want their politicians to promise tax-cuts, they want that the état do more and better.)

By the way, this must not have worked so bad for the French – it is the only European society that never emigrated en masse to America at some point in history, a fact that has been much discussed by historians. I am not saying France is better than the US. It is just different.

The French and the Americans have made different choices : The French emphasize equality, (a pillar of the French Republic) and common good, when the Americans emphasize individual freedom, self-interest and prosperity.

There are some things I prefer about the US not because they are intrinsically better but because they suit my personality and my aspiration, and in the same way, there are other things I prefer about France. But comparison requires a level of understanding that most Americans simply can’t have (not speaking French does not help). If you think France is like Communist China or India, think again.

DADT Sucks!

2009-05-21T12:02:00.006+02:00

In the last couple of weeks, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has made the headlines as it seems that everyday the U.S. army is losing more valuable people simply because they're gay, as if the military could afford to.

first a linguist in Arabic, Dan Choi was fired after announcing that he was gay on television. The reason for firing him was that he had "negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard" (ABC News)

.. as if the army had too many translaters of arabic to start with.

Then, even more troubling is the case of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a F-15 fighter pilot with nine air medals, including the medal of heroism. The reason why it's more troubling is that it is a cruel situation - this man served for 18 years and was only 2 years away from full retirement. Because of this discharge, he will not even qualify for retirement benefits. (Air Force News)

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is more than 15 years old, society has changed and it is time to repeal that law. I understand that Obama made that promise in his campaign. I also understand that the Obama administration has a lot on his hands, and I can even understand that the president wants to change the law through regular channels (by asking Congress to repal it) for the long run - and clearly that's a break from the previous administration that ignored the law. However, in this particular case, it seems a but of urgency to at least stop implementing it until it has been reviewed.

Jon Stewart had the best argument to give those conservatives hung up on this principle that gays cannot be in the military - play the fear factor, it'll work.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Moral Kombat

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

The "French Model" (2) : the Downside...

2009-05-21T11:32:00.007+02:00

Like any economic 'model', it's always a trade off, and as the Economist shows it well in their report, there's always the other side of the coin (even if of course, the Economist supports an ideology closer to the so-called 'Anglo-Saxon model', the following facts are undeniable.).

So after the upside in our previous post, (and to be fair) here's the downside :

- More endemic unemployment

A generally disappointing macroeconomic performance, with low growth and high
unemployment
One reason why French workers are more productive per hour than Americans is that firms employ so few of them. Many make widespread use of rotating interns and temps. France’s jobless rate (8.6%) may now be the same as America’s (8.5%). But, unlike America’s, it never falls much below 8% even in good times.

- Too much dirigism from the top for some things :

The Colbertist engineering culture is on the whole much better at devising and managing big planned projects than it is at dealing with bottom-up ideas and uncertain markets. France lacks start-ups, and its small firms have difficulty growing.

- A discriminating school system (even if it's a bit more complex that the following sentence seems to indicate):

In reality, France has two-tier higher education: its world-class grandes écoles cater to a tiny elite, and its broadly second-rate universities fail the masses. Tuition at universities is free. There is no undergraduate selection at entry.

- More protection and Less dynamism

As for the state as regulator, it may have protected the French economy from extreme volatility, but that goes for the upside too.

A more stable economy in a recession also means a less dynamic, less innovative economy in good times. For all its positive elements, the French model has not yet not incorporated enough flexibility, leaving it with the task of ensuring solidarity, but not the dynamic growth needed to sustain it in the long run.

So in the end, it's just a matter of choice. you can't have your cake and eat it too. My take is that there is no such thing as a 'model' for everyone to follow anyway.

Even if both France and the United-States are essentially capitalistic, each country handles its local economy differently and that's just fine because that's their prerogative. The US will never be France and France will never be the U.S. and in fact, comparisons are fultile since economic systems are also highly cultural (hey're the results of historical particularisms) and you can't expect people to adopt a paradigm that's alien to them. So let's just enjoy this diversity.

The "French Model" (1) : the Upside...

2009-05-21T11:20:00.008+02:00

Just a few interesting figures and points found in last week's The Economist, in their report called "Vive la différence"on the French economic 'model'.

First the upside :

[France's] GDP is expected to shrink by 3% this year, according to the IMF, against 4.1% in Britain, 4.4% in Italy and 5.6% in Germany.
The government, usually reprimanded for profligacy, is set to have a deficit in 2009 (6.2% of GDP) well below those in America (13.6%) and Britain (9.8%).

- Living less on credit and borrow what you can pay back :

The French are great savers and most have not taken out unaffordable mortgages or spent heavily on credit. Household debt as a share of GDP is less than half that in Britain or America.

- More equality, less disparity

The income gap between the top 10% and the bottom 10% is far smaller than in Britain or America.
[.../...]
Even Peter Mandelson, a former European trade commissioner whom the French regard as a high priest of economic liberalism, recently turned up in Paris to learn more about what he calls industrial activism. “We have something to learn from continental practice,” he said, identifying French long-term strategic planning in such sectors as energy and transport.

- Safety net of l'Etat :

Across France, 5.2m workers, or 21% of those with jobs, are employed by the public sector. If you count others whose incomes or jobs are not exposed to the economic cycle, 49% of those either in work or retired are only moderately vulnerable to the recession,.....

- Better cheaper health system

France’s health system, a mix of private and public provision, manages both to guarantee universal coverage and produce a relatively healthy population for half the cost per person of America’s, and with shorter waiting lists than Britain’s somewhat cheaper version. The French have higher life expectancy than both the British and Americans.

- More regulated banking system .

France’s big banks may have lost plenty of money, but they have certainly performed better than their British or American peers, and most are still in profit. One reason is tighter regulation. Take the mortgage market. French banks have generally been far more wary about lending to homebuyers.

In 2007 French mortgage debt represented only 35% of GDP, according to the European Mortgage Federation, less than in Germany (48%) and way off that in the housing-bubble economies of Britain (86%), Ireland (75%) and Spain (62%). French house prices did rise strongly. But the Bank of France argues that this was as much because of demographic growth, higher real disposable income and limited housing supply as speculative buying.
The French government has not yet had to rescue any big French bank from collapse, let alone nationalise one.
[.../...]
Banks are under a legal obligation not to push borrowers into more debt than they can manage, and cases are regularly brought to court. So caution is built into the system.

What is certain is that the French "model" has raised the attention of the U.S. (granted, mostly 'liberal') media in the last few months :

Time ran an article entitled “How we became the United States of France”. Newsweek published one claiming that “The last model standing is France”. When Christine Lagarde, France’s finance minister, appeared recently on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show”, an American comedy programme, she joked that “maybe you are moving in our direction.”

Europe's New Pecking Order?

2009-05-17T12:15:00.004+02:00

Last Week The Economist had a very provocative cover whichI think is worth putting on this blog :

Of course, The Economist has normally always been a pro-free market, pro-globalisation and free-immgration magazine, hence the shock. But this cover, as often with the Brits, should be taken with humo(u)r and a grain of salt (even hough lately, they have indeed been a bit self-critical of their philosophy).

This cover acknowledges some modest philosophical change, but in their editorial, they still claim that with respect to models, Anglo-Saxon capitalism remains the best one.

The strengths that have made parts of continental Europe relatively resilient in recession could quickly emerge as weaknesses in a recovery. For there is a price to pay for more security and greater job protection : a slowness to adjust and innovate that means, in the long run, less growth …
The United States and Britain could rebound from recession faster than most of continental Europe.

France and Freedom of Speech: the HADOPI case AGAIN!

2009-05-10T19:56:00.010+02:00

This is not the first time that we have called into question freedom of speech in France, but this is a pretty 'good' one.

Here's "le premier martyr d'Hadopi." - a man sacked by a French tv channel for criticizing HADOPI to his Member of Parliament(see our previous post)

A Web executive working for TF1, Europe's largest TV network, sends an email to his Member of Parliament opposing the government's "three strikes and you're out" proposal, known as Hadopi. His MP forwards the email to the minister backing Hadopi, who forwards it to TF1.

The author of the email, Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim, is called into his boss's office and shown an exact copy of his email.

Soon he receives a letter saying he is fired for "strong differences with the [company's] strategy" — in a private email sent from a private (gmail) address. French corporations and government are entangled in ways that Americans might find unfamiliar. (Slashdot)

This should not be a surprise given the "incestuous relationship" between French president Sarkozy and Europe's largest TV network

TF1's owner, the construction billionaire Martin Bouygues, is godfather to Mr Sarkozy's youngest son, Louis. Mr. Bouygues suggested to Mr. Sarkozy that he ought to ban advertising on TF1's rival stations in the public sector, which was done in January.
Laurent Solly, who was deputy director of Mr. Sarkozy's presidential campaign, is now number two at TF1.
Last year, TF1 sacked Patrick Poivre d'Arvor, the station's star presenter for the previous 21 years. Poivre had angered Mr Sarkozy by saying he "acted like a little boy" at a G8 summit. He was replaced by Laurence Ferrari. Mr. Sarkozy reportedly told Mr. Bouygues he wanted to see the young blond on the news.

(Irish Times)

France and Due Process : the case of HADOPI.

2009-05-10T19:24:00.008+02:00

What would you say if a country decided to create a state agency that would have both judicial and police powers and no accountability?

What would you say if this new state agency could decide to cut off internet connections after 3 warnings without proof or trial simply because your IP address has been pointed out to this high authority by a business group that holds Copyrights and accuses you of illegal downloading?

What about if there was no substantial burden of proof on your accusers to show that you committed the alleged piracy?

What about if you were unable to contest the decision before the connection is cut off and if the contestation did not lead to a suspension of the sanction anyway?

What if there was no appeals process for addressing those piracy accusations anyway?

What if you would not only be cut off from the internet but you’d still have to pay your internet connection to your provider for up to one year?

It sounds like China could be doing this, but, no, it is France, the country of “freedoms and human rights” that is trying to pass this anti-freedom bill called HADOPI (name given to state agency in question). This is of course totally contrary to the way justice normally works in France, where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and where, as in any democracy, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

But then, if you read the details of this bill, you quickly see that the law, if passed, would open the door to loads of issues that would make it hard to enforce anyway – both technically and legally.

Once more the incompetence of this government blows my mind - they don’t seem to have figure it out all those problems before – not even the technical problems. Someone in this government must know that there are always technical alternatives to circumvent the law.

Finally, there is Europe, and that’s no small problem to Sarkozy.
On Wednesday, the European parliament voted in favor of an amendment to the Telecoms Package (by 404 votes, – 57 ‘no’ and 171 abstentions) which goes as follow:

“Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a “prior ruling by the judicial authorities,” notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.”

The problem for the Sarkozy government is that they intended to use a state agency instead of regular judges to cut off “a thousand connections a day” (which would, by the way, leave only 25.20 seconds for the three members of the HADOPI to make a decision). Regular judicial process, on the other hand would not only delay the mechanism (with already overburden judges as it is), and it would also be more costly. That would be the price for due process – a concept used in England since Magna Carta in 1215.

The Telecom Package with the new amendment must still be approved by the European Council of Ministers and France may block it. If they do, it will be another showdown between Sarkozy and the rest of Europe as it will generate delay for a Telecom law that addresses great economic interests. Not something worth a fight given all the other problems generated by the law.

But then, you never know with Sarkozy, he’s so stubborn and cocky that he can be really idiotic about it. That would not be the first time!

The Torture Debate.

2009-05-02T20:51:00.022+02:00

The debate about torture has been raging in the last few weeks in the U.S media.

The most interesting (and real) discussion was between Jon Stewart and Cliff May (president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies) on The Daily Show last Tuesday. The conversation ran longer than the show and an unedited version is available online. It was an opportunity for some great exchanges (see videos below).

One thing to notice is that those who more or less support the use torture - ‘in some cases’ at least -tend to use semantics to divert attention from the moral issue - 'where do you draw the line between torture and duress or coercion' (used for instance by the police in their interrogations) they say?

One of Cliff May’s answers was that water boarding as used by the CIA operatives does not qualify as torture because ... a doctor was present. What kind of argument is that? What about, say, Mengele? He was a physician too, wasn't he? Since when have scientists been a guarantee of moral behavior?

No matter how you cut it, few people of good faith will deny that water boarding IS torture. In this respect, the “torture memos” are fascinating - they are all about semantics and the manipulation of words and concepts. According to the memos, “torture” is constituted by the level of pain that “would ordinarily be associated with a sufficiently serious physical condition or injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions” (see here). No one quite knows where that definition comes from….

Here’s a a more objective international definition of torture (as agreed by the United Nations) :

the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. (UN)

Thanks in part to Mr Cheney, the topic of torture has mostly evolved around the more “pragmatic” question of efficiency. In fact, that’s where Cliff May tried to go too: wouldn’t you torture to save a thousand lives? The problem is that the assumption that you CAN save a thousand lives by torturing a suspect – a sort of Jack Bauer ticking-bomb situation – is precisely….fiction. Cheney or even Tenet who claim torture works have little - if any - credibility when it comes to truthfulness or even competence:

Vice President Cheney and the administration have mistaken information gathered via torture for valuable intelligence at least once before. In 2002, the CIA turned a detainee named Ibn Shaykh Al Libi over to Egyptian security forces for questioning. Al Libi provided his interrogators with details of a connection between Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons manufacturing capacity and Al Qaeda. (Huffington Post)

If nothing else, history shows that torture does not work, and the French would know something about that. Even, Churchill thought it was not a good idea.

Byt then there is a the legality question. If torture works, then why not make it legal and thus change the law?

The moral argument is definitely the better argument against the use of torture in any discussion you may have. It is one used successfully by Jon Stewart.
“Defining where we push the boundaries of torture has nothing to do with the person that we have with custody, it has to do with who we are”.

If a country has values, it is when those values are tried by difficult times that you know the real greatness of a country.
Praise Jon Stewart. He has also underlined the contradiction (that has always been obvious to me and that I’ve died to hear someone say) that if this is a “war on terror”, the suspected terrorists should be treated as enemy combatant.

The most important point is that what is at stake here is no less than the soul of a nation.
As Jon Stewart put it :

The country overstepped its boundaries after 9/11 only to come back later and say that was a mistake. Countries that can do that proved themselves to be great countries.

And indeed it is what made America great after the failure of Vietnam and what can make it great again after Abu Ghraib and Iraq.
Contrary to Stewart, however, I tend to believe that those who concocted this madness should be prosecuted. It may divide the country in the short run but it may be unavoidable in the long run, especially if you consider the legal obligation of any country in breach of the Geneva Convention.

Here are the videos of the discussions between Jon Stewart and Cliff May :

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 1

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

First 100 Days

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

First 100 Days

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 3

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

First 100 Days

The Cost of Small Derrières!

2009-04-26T16:00:00.007+02:00

A report by France's National Institute of Demographic Studies (INSEE) compared body mass indexes in western Europe and found French women had the lowest average body mass index, at 23.2.

This will not really be a surprise to any one who's travaled around the world but the funny twist is that, as The Independent notices :

The typical French woman is slim and thinks that she is fat. The typical British woman is plump but is convinced that she is thin.

Of course, the question may be: are French women thinner precisely because they worry about their weight and conversely are the British women fatter because they don't?

On the other hand, isn't it better to be fat and happy than thin and stressed? Well, it depends... Another study found that being overweight is bad for the planet.

The researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine say overweight people cause excess greenhouse gas emissions because they eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car. (CTV)

Some suggest we should even go back to the 1970s lifetyle.... (without the bell-bottomes, let's hope..)

As for the European men :

Unsurprisingly, the research found that men across the EU are less concerned with their weight than women. Only French and Dutch men are, on average, within the ideal weight band.

Phew!

As for the American men and women, I won't even go there.... ;-)

The Poison in American Politics.

2009-04-25T18:45:00.005+02:00

Last week, Lexington, in the Economist, encapsulated quite well the main problem in U.S. politics in the past decade...

What is clear is that the rapid replacement of Bush-hatred with Obama-hatred is not healthy for American politics, particularly given the president’s dual role as leader of his party and head of state. A majority of Republicans (56%) approved of Jimmy Carter’s job performance in late March 1977. A majority of Democrats (55%) approved of Richard Nixon’s job performance at a comparable point in his first term.
But today polarisation is almost instant, thanks in part to the growing role of non-negotiable issues such as abortion in American politics, in part to the rise of a media industry based on outrage, and in part to a cycle of tit-for-tat demonisation. This is not only poisoning American political life. It is making it ever harder to solve problems that require cross-party collaboration such as reforming America’s health-care system or its pensions. Unfortunately, the Glenn Becks of this world are more than just a joke.

Clearly, one of the reasons for this divisiveness in American politics is the 'culture war' launched by the religious right in the late 1980s. Thank you, Mr Pat Robertson. Of course, culture wars are nothing new. In the 1920s, it was urban vs. rural values, 'progressive' policy vs. 'laissez-faire', the 'Roaring 20s' vs. 'Normalcy'.

It started again in the 1980s and took momentum throughout the 1990s and 2000s on issues like 'abortion, guns, separation of church and state, privacy, gay rights, censorship, drugs' that have been the hot button issues with the help of the right-wing media (The O'Reillys and other Becks, to name the most influential figures). In that period, the left and the moderates showed little capacity to get to more political issues or simply to respond with any force as if intimated by the topic.

Well, of course it is not easy to change the paradigm. Besides, how can you even argue moral absolutes and issues supported by God himself? Hence the danger of mixing politics and religion.

Unfortunately, the Republican party let itself be hijacked by the religious right (cf. the Christian Coalition) and people like Pat Buchanan who in his famous 'culture war' speech at the 1992 Republican convention said :

There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.

So today, the far right may have conceded it has 'lost' the culture war (Thanks Mr Dobson for acknoledging the obvious!) but it has damaged America's ability to solve issues for years in the process and its poison will have a long lasting effect.

Thank God, so far, Europe has been able to avoid culture wars.

Capitalism and Tea-Bagging.

2009-04-18T09:14:00.015+02:00

So what has become of the love affair between America and capitalism?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey has some surprising results :

only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
27% are not sure which is better
20% say socialism is better.

If you consider that most Americans equate "socialism" with "communism" (and not the European version of social-democracy), the results are actually shocking.

Of course polls by phone only mean so much, but even if these results are exaggerated, they show that there is great doubt in the minds of many Americans that the type of capitalism of the 90s and 2000s is "good" for America.

So it seems that the tea party protesters this week were really out of touch with grassroot America, despite claimming precisely that they were (a grassroot movement).

[for our non-American viewers, tea-parties are protests held to protest increased taxes and government spending under the Obama administration, and the name is of coruse used as a reference to the Boston Tea Party in 1773 against taxing tea. Of course, back then, it was "no taxation without representation" which is hardly the case today, but who cares about dubious historical parallels if it sells the whol package]

Just for the fun of it, I have made a "fair and balance" selection of photos of the signs in the protests (found online) :

A very tactful sign.... when you have the first black president in US History

Of course, there is always worse....

This last one is actually mt favorite - since tea-bagging (as a verbal form) actually carries sexual inuendos.

France is loved by most Americans.

2009-04-14T11:38:00.006+02:00

According to this poll by Research 2000 (published by the left-wing US blog Daily Kos) Europe and France are almost universally loved by Americans. (66% having a favorable view)

Not surprisingly, more so if you live in the Northeast, if you are black, if you are a woman, and if you vote Democrat. But in all segments, including Republican voters, the majority view is positive. Only one exception: the South but even there, opinions are simply split.

One interesting thing is that this represents a major shift from what polls said in 2005 when 57% of Americans had an unfavorable view of France. It shows that people’s views are flexible and probably depend on international affairs. (2005 was in the wake of the crisis between France and the U.S. over Iraq). Most Americans have come around.

This may also show that the Republican party should reconsider its agenda and shift to the center a little bit more if they want to win elections. It shows that their usual spooks (France, Europe, or even large liberal cities) won’t get them very far. In fact, the Research 200 poll shows precisely that most Americans also hold positive views of SF and NY, with strikingly similar results.

So much for divided America....

French Obama.... not yet!

2009-04-13T18:22:00.003+02:00

As we have mentioned before on this blog (here and here), Obama’s election has resulted into some soul-searching in France with regard to racial minorities and their lack of political representation.

This New York Times article sums up the real issue here: the reason why French minorities do not have access to political leadership is not racism, it is cronyism (also called “copinage” in French). Although cronyism is not exclusively French (and does exist in the U.S. - read here, or here) and the holding of leadership positions by the old guard.

Their [the French minorities’] frustration stems not from an electorate open-minded enough to vote in a gay mayor of Paris, they say, but from their own political parties, whose lack of transparency is a tool that the old guard uses to retain its grip on power.
(…/…)
Their situation is compounded by the absence of party primaries, with candidates selected instead “on the basis of alliances, networks and intrigue,” according to Mr. Sabeg. That disadvantages minority politicians, who lack the contacts of those who have passed through the elite colleges that forge the French governing class.

Sarkoy, Bush and Words

2009-03-29T18:35:00.006+02:00

Even though this may seem very trivial to most Americans, the idea of a French president not speaking properly may irritate a lot of French people, and lately much has been said about Sarkozy's butchering the French manguage :

Mr Sarkozy jangles nerves with colloquial tics such as dropping the “ne” between pronoun and verb in negative sentences. “J'écoute mais je tiens pas compte,” he said the other day. (I listen but I don't take notice).
He often uses the slangy “ch'ais pas” for “je ne sais pas” and “ch'uis” instead of “je suis”.
Like Tony Blair with his pseudo estuary-speak, Mr Sarkozy is a lawyer with a posh education who uses low-class tones as a way of endearing himself. The style grates because of France's attachment to language as a unifying force. Most previous leaders have cultivated a literary side, including military ones such as Charles de Gaulle and Napoleon Bonaparte.
The President stands accused of setting a bad example when he is trying to stem a
decline in literacy. (Times)

His language mistakes are even compared to those of George W.Bush (An insulting comparison in France,) with a smilar goal of trying to reach "everyday Joe". There is for sure a comparison to be made in the divisive nature of both presidents' rhetoric.

".... the visceral dislike of Sarkozy that is so widespread in France [is likened] with the Bush phobia that was until recently so rampant in the US." More interesting, is the idea that "one of the reasons Obama won was that he never ceded to the facility of Bush-bashing. I think there's something to this observation."

On his blog, Arthur Goldhammer says...

[he] has been struck at times by Sarkozy's fluency without a teleprompter. Bush could never have survived if presidential debates in the French format were a part of American campaigning. He could occasionally read a speech well, but on his own he was helpless, and his face always revealed his panic. Sarkozy is never at a loss for words, and he doesn't always "parler peuple" when on his own. He is an actor, who knows how to control his effects and his voice. His body language needs work, as does his superego: his greatest vice, it seems to me, is his inability to conceal contempt without great effort. He likes to let people know how little he thinks of them.

As for recognizing that reasonable people may disagree with what he says, yes, but with one caveat: he has a (lawyerly) habit of reducing complex issues to a stark alternative: it's either X or Y, and Y is so clearly inferior that what would you have me do, if not X? I've remarked on this before, and on the often obvious R,S,T, U,V,W, and Z that might be discussed as alternatives. It's a lawyer's trick, but one that he uses well, unlike Bush, who occasionally tried it ("You're either with us or against us" comes to mind), but so crudely that the gambit was pointless.

As for the penchant for "parler peuple," times change.
Roosevelt could become a secular saint even with his patrician accents, but I don't think any American politician with that accent could be elected today (think of how Bush Sr. was ridiculed whenever he showed patrician touches). Even Obama does it. Even I do it: I don't speak with the same grammar or diction to the UPS deliveryman or the carpenter as I do to my colleagues. It's instinctual, not calculated. And I am more likely to think of an American-born professor who affects an Oxbridge accent as a hypocrite than I am of a politician who modulates his tone to what he believes his audience expects. And as for literature, Richard Poirier thinks that the distinctive mark of one of our greatest literary stylists, Saul Bellow, was his unparalleled ability to veer from the high-flown to the demotic in mid-sentence. In a sense this pliability is the essence of the American language, and in this respect, perhaps, the epithet "the American" really does attach to Sarkozy. Destarching official French has its virtues.

I agree Sarkozy is more convincing than Bush ever was and he is in his own way a master of (populist) rhetoric, but even though Sarkozy's speeches appealed to the French when he was a candidate for the presidency, they have made people really tired. The French expect more from a man who represents their country anyway.

Besides, however powerful it may be, Sarkozy's habit of reducing complex issues to binary solutions is something that makes me uneasy. I suspect it is not the sign of good pedagogism (as in Obama's case) but that it reflects his lack of understanding of the complexity of many of those issues. This binary view may be the reasons for many of the hasty decisions and the ill-conceived laws he has initiated.

2009-03-22T10:39:00.003+01:00

As a note on our previous post on "Optimism in the American news", here's a not so-surprising study : optimists live longer, healthier lives than pessimists.

It makes sense as optimists are also less likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes or smoke cigarettes but of course there's more to the secret of long healthy life. Indeed, the French live longer and healthier than the Americans... so pessimism may not be so bad after all.

I also suspect that the French like the idea they're pessimistic and cynical because that's the way to be cool in France, but really they aren't.

But, shush.... don't tell them or they might take offense!

Optimism in the American News.

2009-03-22T09:24:00.007+01:00

It is often assumed that one of the major differences between France and the United-States is that whereas the French are a pessimistic or even cynical people, the Americans are always more upbeat and optimistic - and in many respect it is true.

Of course, the current economic crisis offers a very serious challenge to that old time American optimism......Or does it? You wouldn't believe it anyway if you've been following NBC news this month.

Only in America do people write their news anchor to complain that the news is too depressing and the anchor (Brian Williams on NC) actually responds by giving people what they want : more positive news!
Even he [Brian Williams] was shocked at the thousands of responses he has received in less than two days after asking viewers to suggest some good news to report.

"I'm looking at a stack of printed e-mails," Williams said Friday. "We have more stories than we could humanly cover if we combined all three network newscasts. It's hit an unbelievable nerve."
Williams said he's been hearing it repeatedly from people he meets on the street or viewers who send e-mails: The news is so bad every night that it's a burden to watch. Wrote one viewer: "We all know it's bad, but the news makes us feel like crawling under a rock." (NBC)

I have often been very impressed with American optimism. A lot of French people may see it as naive, but I find it more helpful than cynicism which is so pointless and makes things just a little bit tougher to go through.

Of course, the French have many perfectly valid reasons to feel a bit cynical and our different histories have shaped how we see the world - the French have had revolutions, the Enlightenment, world wars and have somehow managed to make sense of it all and find comfort in their reverence for those intellectuals and philosophers who have helped them to put it all into perspective. Hence the high suspicion of the French towards idealism. (of course, this is all gross generalisation)

The Americans, on the other hand, have been busy settling the land, fighting indians and building a new country isolated from any threat with great military superiority. In a nutshell, it has escaped some of the worst disasters of Europe and its success has given its people many reasons to be optimistic. (and this is also gross generalisation as things are necessarly more complicated about it, but let's not be too French here).

But as much as I can appreciate optimism, it can also sometimes amount to denial, and I think that's exactly what Brian Williams has been condoning here. The news should not be feel-goodism. It is just the news - period. If you don't like it, or think it's too depressive, find something else to do. God knows there are plenty of ways of being entertained these days - go watch Foxnews for instance!

The stories Williams has run like "nominating people doing good work, perhaps a random or regular act of kindness in a cruel economy" may "FEEL GOOD" but those are just cheap anecdotes, NOT NEWS.

The problem is precisely that people see the news as a form of entertainment and they judge its value by how they feel about it. That's why (some) conservatives watch Foxnews. - not because it is "fair and balance", but because it re-enforces their political bias and makes them "feel good" about it (even by making them feel angry at times which feels good at times).

So I am disappointed that a great journalist like Brian Williams should into into such a cheap trap.

Happy B-Day!

2009-03-15T20:09:00.002+01:00

While the U.S. invented the Net, the Europeans invented the World Wide Web (at the the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or Cern, in Geneva), which just turned 20 last week.

Definitely, the one European-American invention that changed our lives the most!

Note : Cruel irony; Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, fell victim to online fraudsters who set up a bogus store on the Internet.

Are Americans from Mars and Europeans from Venus?

2009-03-15T19:36:00.007+01:00

I may disagree with them on many points, even on their basic political-economical pro-free trade/globalisation phislosophy but at least The Economist offers very well-informed news, sharp arguments, and consistancy, and that's why I read it.

This week, they tackled the arguments of many right-wing thinkers in America that the Obama's policy is turning the U.S. into Europe (read "freedom-killer socialists").

Roger Cohen, a liberal New York Times columnist, worries that “one France is enough”. Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist, says “I take the 2008 US elections as marking a turn toward continental Europe.” Six years after Robert Kagan claimed that “Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus”, there is a growing feeling that the two planets are destined to merge.

Because their editorial is (really) fair and balance they disproved that right-wing argument that you hear these days.

There is nothing particularly “European” or “socialist” about Mr Obama’s stimulus package. Countries the world over are spending public money in a bid to boost demand and shore up the banks. Indeed, some of the most stubborn resistance to deficit financing has come from Europe, particularly from
Germany and the EU finance ministers. Messrs Gingrich and Romney might note that the man who set this ball rolling was not Mr Obama but Mr Bush, the most
un-European politician imaginable.

What about Mr Obama’s plans to raise taxes and redirect policy? There are plenty of plausible criticisms of these (such as the fact that his numbers do not add up), but the idea that they entail “full-scale Europeanisation”, as Mark Steyn, a columnist, argues, is one of the least persuasive. Mr Obama’s budget will return the top tax rates to 36% and 39.6%—back to where they were during Bill Clinton’s administration.

I would ad that whenever right-wing conservatices use this argument (that the US is becoming dangerously European), ask they what they mean exactly, ask for specific examples , and ask what they know about Europe, and you'll soon find out about their abyssimal cluelessness of European politics and economics.

Just for the beauty of it and because I think the last part of the article reflects in the best possible way the vision of this blog, here's the end of it:

The fury about “European socialism” is not just wrong as a matter of fact. It is foolish as a matter of policy. Europe has plenty of things to teach the United States (particularly about running a welfare state), just as America has plenty to teach Europe (particularly about igniting entrepreneurialism). Indeed, a more telling criticism of the Obama administration is not that it is borrowing too much from Europe but that it is learning too little.

(.../...)

Europeans and Americans are never likely to coalesce: their cultural traditions are too strong and their solutions to the problem of regulating capitalism too distinctive. But they nevertheless have plenty in common—ageing populations, exploding entitlements and above all, at the moment, a wrenching recession. Europeans have thankfully toned down the America-bashing that was popular a few years ago. Americans might consider returning the compliment.

Shakeaspeare's True Portrait

2009-03-12T16:06:00.009+01:00

According to scholars, this is what Shakespeare may have looked like after all.... more a handsome bard than the "hippie uncle — balding, moustached, longish hair in back." we usually imagine. This is may be no less than "the only true likeness we have of the greatest writer of the English language" (Time)

(looks smart too - must have to do with the large forehead....)

Deregulation and the Economic Crisis (part 2)

2009-03-08T18:14:00.012+01:00

I am baffled by how so many conservatives (see CPAC or the comment by one of our reader on a previous post) continue with same old “cut tax” and “less regulation” remedy as if nothing had happened. Their denial that deregulation is at the core of the current economic crisis we are in is beyond reason to me.

Their argument can be summed up in these few points: it is the fault of the FED (who of course regulated too much), Freddie and Fannie (which are institutions created by the government and worse originally created by the Roosevelt administration), as well as the Community Reinvestment act of 1977 (“which encourages lenders to lend to uncredit worthy borrowers”) and the “too big to fail institutions which became too big because of regulatory capture”.

The culprits may be the right one (the Fed and F&F for instance), but the reason is not too much regulation, it is not enough of it added with much encouraged greed.

1. Yes, the Fed and Alan Greenspan are largely responsible for a lot of the subprime mess but it is because he encouraged bad mortgages and refused to reign in. Here’s a good example:
"American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage," Greenspan recommended in a speech to the Credit Union National Association in February 2004.
(Greenspan, by the way, has been a proponent of Ayn Rand’s political philosophy of “Objectivism” which is basically a glorification of the right of individuals to live entirely for their own interest).

2. As for Freddie and Fannie, the main problem was indeed that profits were privatized but the risks were socialized – a bad combination if there is no regulation. It is the need for more profits (and the pressure of shareholders) that caused them to push for unreasonable measures. The Clinton administration is also partly guilty as they pushed for more mortgages for poor(er) people. Their intention may have been good but the consequences, not so much. However, it is in 2004 (under the Bush administration) that the problem got worse and got us into this mess. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of the risky lending and got F&F into that sort of business they previously shunned – and that was a political decision. Not only did HUD not play its regulatory role over Fannie and Freddie but it forced them to take risks.

3. As for the idea that the 2007 mortgage crisis was the result of a 1977 law, it is obviously ludicrous. Besides, most subprime loans were made by firms that were not subjected to the CRA anyway (which is not surprising since the CRA program required higher supervision)

4. There’s been a coherent path towards deregulation in the last 8 to 10 years so I am curious to see how the argument of “too much regulation” may be even remotely used to explain the current mess.

Before deregulation banks were restricted to certain businesses and could not for instance enter into the insurance or brokerage business. Regulation also obliged banks to evaluate risk and the creditworthiness of borrowers (loans could not be sold to the secondary bond). So banks could not package the subprime loans into complex financial instruments.
Not only did deregulation eliminate all the firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms but it also resulted in dangerous mergers.
It is also the lack of regulation in the loan industry that allowed all sort of dubious people to “sell loans” without any background check - no state or federal regulatory body required a license. The pizza guy could become a loan officer!

In the banking industry, it is because the FEC did not do its job (since it relied on “voluntary” supervision program) that banks could run amok.
Competition and free-market are good but just like anything else in human nature, there needs to be a balance. For competition to work, you need fairness. When companies become too big, they disrupt the market. (hence the need for anti-trust laws such as the Sherman laws of the 19th cent.).
The market alone does not have the “the discipline ensued from competitive forces would allow things to be put in check”. With freedom comes responsibility and when companies become too big, the risk they take has ripple effect onto the community at large, and they know it (indeed they become “too big to fail”).

Back to the Farm... or to the Show?

2009-03-08T11:36:00.012+01:00

Last week French news was marked by the success of France's Agricultural Fair. To put it a nutshell, it is as if the biggest American state fair were hosted in Manhattan. This year it reached an all-time record with 670, 000 visitors over 9 day.

This week's The Economist suggests that this success may be partly due to the recession and the desire to go back to something reassuringly tangible (le terroir) as the "French remain intimately tied to the produce of their local terroirs through reguional cuisine and open-air markets."

With its roots in the soil, farming is everything that complex financial capitalism is not. You know what you put in—and what you get out usually ends up on the dinner table.

That may true, but as they also did not fail to notice : "there are 80,000 unfilled farming jobs, even though unemployment in France is 8.3% and rising". Will French now flock to these jobs and back to the countryside? Maybe, but the Paris Farm Show seems so much better when you can dream of an ideal past without doing the hard work.

The New Media

2009-03-03T17:51:00.002+01:00

I was jogging on the treadmill this morning (something about preferring not to run on ice and slush that pushes me indoors in the winter) listening to a podcast of one of my favorite shows (On Point with Tom Ashbrook). The topic was television and new media. I learned that Americans on average watch 151 hrs of television per month. Not just on the television, of course, but through a variety of media: podcast, H ulu, TiVo, etc. I'm a fan of Hulu myself. We watch Battlestar Galactica, SNL and The Office online. Rarely do I watch anything anymore on the actual television screen, mostly just sports and political broadcasts.

The manner in which we get our news and entertainment is fundamentally changing. Newspapers are closing their doors left and right in the US. I was on the receiving end of some criticism recently for my viewing habits, something about ruining the good ol' American newspaper. I read all my news online. I read my hometown paper online rather than buying the print version. That paper is now in bankruptcy court. I readily accept my role in the paper's demise. And to be honest, I have no regrets. There is an evolution going on in media right now. While the content remains largely unchanged, the delivery of that content is the subject of much speculation and negotiation. Print newspapers are going to die. It's as simple as that. Certain family members disagree with that prognosis, but mostly because it's an uncomfortable reality for them. Large regional papers cannot survive when so much of what they print is redundant by the time of its printing (which is, paradoxically, why smaller local papers may survice, because they provide local coverage that local readers can't find anywhere else). Television provides immediate coverage of events and issues. Magazines survive by providing a narrative to these events and behind-the-scenes access to the players. Newspapers trying to find some middle-ground are left with nothing. As the generation of print subscribers dies off, fewer and fewer people are willing to pay for a physical newspaper. And as connectivity improves and news content moves to centralized sites of distribution on the internet, print papers will cease to exist.

The NY Times may survive the longest given its important status. I'm certain that its cultural role will survive, if only in modified form. USA Today, the McPaper of the America press, survives for now based on its non-local coverage and its contracts with the many hotels that distribute it for free to their guests. Already in the last two weeks we have heard that the Rocky Mountain News, Colorado's oldest paper, has folded and that Hearst has put the San Francisco Chronicle on the chopping block. Every newspaper of note has had to build its web presence. Some have tried to charge for access to this web-based content, most notably the NY Times, but none has been able to make that revenue model work for them. It remains to be seen what sort of model will come from this. We can complain all we want about declining international coverage in the news media, but unless it provides revenue what is there to motivate its inclusion?

Ten years ago who could have imagined the ways in which news media would have shifted? We may not have even seen the new new media. My bet is that within ten years the majority of American newspapers will have either closed their doors or migrated online. Any takers?

Environmentally Friendly Consumption.

2009-03-01T22:59:00.006+01:00

Doing what is right for the environment can be complicated if you want to take everything into account. Here are some surprising numbers I just read in this week's The Economist :

Consumers may already be aware of the environmental impact of producing goods in terms of energy or pollution, but they might be surprised to learn how much water is needed to create some daily goods.

A cup of coffee, for example, needs a great deal more water than that poured into the pot. According to a new book on the subject, 1,120 litres of water go into producing a single litre of the beverage, once growing the beans, packaging and so on are measured. Only 120 litres go into making the same amount of tea. As many as four litres of water are used to make a litre of the bottled stuff. Household items are even thirstier. Thousands of litres are needed to make shoes, hamburgers and microchips.

(click on the picture to enlarge)

Picture of the week.

2009-02-27T16:20:00.003+01:00

Don't you love it?

A carnival float depicting a flying U.S. President Obama with Europe being dragged along is seen during the traditional carnival parade in Duesseldorf, Germany, on Monday, Feb. 23, 2009. Rose-Monday-Parades in the carnival strongholds of Duesseldorf, Mainz and Cologne are watched by hundreds of thousands of revelers and mark the highlights of Germany's carnival season. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein)

Deregulation and the Economic Crisis (part1)

2009-02-27T13:11:00.021+01:00

In case you are also getting fed up with the anti-government-intervention/anti-regulation rhetoric of the conservative free-marketer Republicans who have nothing better to offer as a remedy for the economic crisis than more of the same (tax cuts, and tax cuts and even… more tax cuts! - where does it end, no one knows...), here are a few facts and dates that show the correlation between deregulation and the current financial meltdown to throw at them :

- 1982 : The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 : deregulated the Savings and Loan industry and allowed adjustable rate mortgages.

-1999 : the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act eliminated the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which controlled speculation and separated investment and commercial banking activities, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies (law was passed to legalize mergers like Citibank and Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998)

Other restrictions which prohibited bank holding companies from owning non-financial institutions were also repealed by the same law.

-2000 : The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act, “regulatory relief” provided deregulation for products offered by banking institutions. The law was partly written by Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, the free-marketer Republican chairman of the Senate Banking Committee AND lobbyists for Enron (the bill also exempted from regulation energy trading on electronic platforms - see the Enron scandal)

- 2004 : On April 28 the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) ruled that investment banks got rid of the Net Capital Rule which allowed "voluntary" inspection of the SEC and also meant that banks could essentially determine their own net capital. (In late September 2008, the commission decided to end the 2004 program of voluntary regulation.).

In fact, corporate self-regulation was the philosophical cornerstone of the Bush economic (and environmental) policy. But following the meltdown, even Christopher Cox, the former U.S. Securities Exchange Commission Chairman and longtime proponent of deregulation admitted lack of oversight helped cause the financial crisis.

"The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work," Cox said in a statement, adding that the program had been shut down and authority to regulate investment banks had been transferred to the Federal Reserve. (NYTimes)

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for capitalism (since there is no alternative anyway) and freedom but not free-market anarchism. Regulated capitalism is and has always been the right way to go and it suits our philosophy on this blog that true solutions come with moderation and that excess is often bad.

I’m always wary of incongruous and easy historical parallels but nonetheless I find it somewhat ironic than the Great Depression also followed a period of more laissez-faire economic policies in the 1920s (doing away with the regulations of the Wilsonian progressive era) during which the top tax rate was lowered to 25 percent and the stock market began its spectacular rise.

It is basically the same recipe and only the ingredients have changed a bit: too much borrowing, too much speculation with other people's money, and too little regulation.

Small and for Rent.

2009-02-23T11:26:00.002+01:00

In 2006 we wrote a post on the now-famous derogatory term McMansions and how the size of American homes had more then "doubled since 1950 with a median single-family home at 2,349 square feet (218 sq meters) against 1,570 square feet in 1980."

This increase in house size is also true in Europe but to a lesser extent (927.85 square feet or 86.2 m² in 2000- a rise from the 731.9 square feet or 68 m2 in 1970).

Well, it looks like the current economic crisis is taking its toll on big houses. According to this week's Economist, "Small is now Beautiful".

The trend is to scale back. According to the Census Bureau, the median size of home starts dropped to 2,114 square feet in the fourth quarter of 2008, down more than 100 square feet from the first quarter of the year. And 100 square feet is a significant slice of space.

The other trend in housing may be to favor renting over owning homes.

That was the interesting theory I heard on NPR Week-Edition Saturday in the discussion with Richard Florida who also wrote an article in The Atlantic this month about How the Crash Will Reshape America.

Here the word "reshape" should be taken literally in its physical and geographical sense for Mr Florida makes a link between the economy and geography :

To a surprising degree, the causes of this crash are geographic in nature, and they point out a whole system of economic organization and growth that has reached its limit. Positioning the economy to grow strongly in the coming decades will require not just fiscal stimulus or industrial reform; it will require a new kind of geography as well, a new spatial fix for the next chapter of American economic history.
He even sees the end of suburbanization and low-density sprawl and because "the economy is driven by key urban areas; a different geography is required".

Mr Florida also sort of debunks the myth of ownership as part of the "American Dream":

If anything, our government policies should encourage renting, not buying. Homeownership occupies a central place in the American Dream primarily because decades of policy have put it there.

I don't necessarily agree with him on this. I think it has been part of the American Dream since the Letters of an American Farmer and Jefferson's dream of an ownership society. However, faced with this crisis, the Americans may have to reshape their Dream indeed and be a bit more creative and flexible with regard to their "pursuit of happinness" .