87 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/18/07 4:00am)
AIX-EN PROVENCE, France – We’re in the thick of election fever here, and the watchword for the French elections this year has been “change.” After 12 years of rule by Jacques Chirac, the French want something new, and the candidates’ messages have delivered, each one proclaiming new ideas, new ambitions and a change to a stagnant system. \nSure, there are the requisite fringe candidates from any European election, some of whom veer toward traditionalism. (My favorite? The Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition party. From their presidential candidate: “If I could be reincarnated, it would be as a duck.” Now that’s a party.) Still, all the parties show dissatisfaction with track France is taking these days. Certainly no one, not even Nicolas Sarkozy, from the incumbent president’s own party, offers up any platitudes about the delightful Chirac years.\nSo, let’s take a look at the main players. Ségolène Royal is the Socialist Party candidate and considered by many to be a bit of a policy lightweight. I detailed Sarkozy’s curious political identity in a column last semester, but he’s still the Union for a Popular Movement candidate and a hugely divisive figure in France. The newcomer to the front-runners is François Bayrou, a center-right candidate who calls for a unity government to achieve an end to partisan bickering for a new future. They all have pretty posters, nice slogans and some rather unattainable proposals (eliminating all homelessness comes to mind).\nAlas, while all the rhetoric parades around the idea of change, the fact remains that not one of the candidates has presented the radical transformation necessary to save France’s welfare state and social protections. France’s system of social aid is crumbling, dominating the budget, with increasing payments and diminishing returns. France’s brain drain is growing, and despite all its claims of social protections, the ghettoized suburbs are ignored. Even with such an elephant (or flaming car) in the room, no one seems willing to do more than acknowledge that a problem exists. \nEveryone wants to hear about change, but the change itself elicits reactions ranging from shrugs to violent protest. This paradoxical atmosphere makes it tough for politicians to enact reform. Remember the mass civil disobedience caused by the proposed changes in employment law last year?\nFor all their talk of change, the cautious major candidates have not strongly distinguished themselves from previous regimes (or each other) except through style. All three are EU-backers, support retention of France’s massive public aid, and 35-hour workweek reform, just like the previous administration.\nWith none of these guys providing the real change that the bulk of French people need, it’s no surprise to see the rise of xenophobe Jean-Marie Le Pen and McDonald’s-bulldozer José Bové, signs of frustration with a system that refuses to adapt. Current poll favorite Sarkozy comes closest to a radical shift in France’s stagnant politics, but his reactionary anti-immigrant shtick harkens to France’s darker past. As a friend here told me, “No one expects anything from the elections.” \nFirst round of voting starts April 21, and every candidate promises change for France. \nBut I’m not holding my breath.
(04/04/07 4:00am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France – At this point, no one can doubt the revolutionary effect that the Internet and in particular, blogs, have had on traditional news media. From the unceremonious damning of established journalist Dan Rather to the naming of “You” as Time magazine’s person of the year, Web content’s importance in the national consciousness is unquestionable. \nStill, there remains debate as to how much this online content fits into the erstwhile mass media scheme. Some blogs, particularly those run by major “old media” organizations like newspapers and magazines, choose to identify themselves as “the media.” Others wish to be separate, making a sort of “bloggia” separate from traditional news media. A few others, most journalists who have since forayed into blogging, have blurred the line.\nStarting with a few blogs during the party conventions of 2004, Internet journalists have steadily gained credibility to rival major news sources. However, with so many different conceptions of the medium, it’s hard to judge blogs on traditional media standards. The vast freedom of the medium, which makes it enticing to writers and readers, also makes blogging ethics a perplexing problem. \nFor example, what happens when bloggers try to become journalists? Web video of police brutality has led to serious investigations, yet here in France, a new “happy-slapping” law will punish purveyors of videos depicting violence. Such a law levies a large fine and jail time for someone who is not a professional journalist distributing images of violence. Certainly, the law is well-intentioned and fits with the rest of France’s nanny-state meddling, but as the line between journalists and bloggers blurs, it’s difficult to simply lump all online amateurs as “the bloggers” and lump traditional news media as “professionals.” Would the amateur bystander who witnessed the Rodney King beating have spent more time in jail than the police officers? \nAt the same time, simply handing the keys to “old media” establishment over to Internet content outlets is hard to do, as blogs can often take on a free-for-all, polemical atmosphere, with none of the editing oversight of, say, The New York Times. The demand of many bloggers for more access is impeded by its raucous attitude; one is unlikely to read “douche bag” in a typical broadsheet daily. You might read it in the Indiana Daily Student, but then again, it’s not your typical paper. Lumping legitimate reporting with tabloid sensationalism as “the bloggers” may be unfair of newspapers, as it diminishes the many important contributions of blogs to the public discourse, but it’s easy to understand the uneasiness.\nAt its core, the blogosphere is torn between two equally enticing goals: true legitimacy as journalists and commentators, and anti-establishment “fight-the-man” insurgency. Alas, you can’t claim to be a true citizen journalist while insulting enemies, nor can you demand the access and legal protection of journalism without having higher standards. If we demand accountability of the bloggia as strictly as we should demand it of our traditional media sources, what we call it won’t matter and legitimacy will be a no-brainer.
(03/21/07 4:00am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France – No one can pinpoint exactly where it began, but sometime in the last quarter-century, a culture of scorched-earth politics was born that scourged our country. Mudslinging has become more important than policy, and culture wars stole civility from public discourse. As a Democrat, I unsurprisingly blame Republicans for the wrestling match, just as I’m sure they blame Democrats. \nI know, I know. Such as it is; such as it has ever been. It’s just politics as usual.\nPerhaps though, our shrugging tolerance has reached a breaking point. The gridlock in our government has degraded to a point somewhere between laughable and revolting, while pundits seem gleeful at the prospect of more enemies and battles to fight. Displeasure with the fearless leader’s job performance is only rivaled by displeasure with the democratic Congress.\nDon’t think this disgust with politics as usual is limited to the United States. Here in France, people are about as enthusiastic about the two major-party candidates as they are about eating Velveeta.\nYet instead of showing more indifference, a number of agitated citizens have had enough. In America, Barack Obama’s emerging policy directives may not be particularly revolutionary, but he practices a revolution in style that promises a country of reconciliation rather than constant backbiting. His credentials are definitively on the liberal democratic side, but he has no qualms about working with Republicans to achieve the ends of the moderate majority of population. People who knock his meteoric ascendancy don’t realize that his appeal would be nonexistent if not for the forgotten middle, which has been shunned in favor of pandering to special interests and fringe groups.\nSome in the middle have gone even further than Obama, renouncing the de facto two-party system entirely. The Unity08 party, for example, built a coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans who reject that either party stands for the majority of Americans. Similarly, in France, Francois Bayrou has taken his center-right UDF party and transformed it into an outlet for moderate dissatisfaction with either major candidate. \nI’ll be honest, I am wary of such developments as another excuse for political fence-sitting. In times of moral crisis, the last thing we need is a committee consensus. Nonetheless, I think it has become increasingly clear that unless voters in the moderate-center unseat the existing power structure, we can expect gridlock to continue.\nWe can’t agree on many issues, so let’s stick to the ones we can agree on. How about fixing an inefficient overpriced health care system or seriously considering the ticking time bomb of Social Security? Instead of leading us to turn away from politics, our frustration should turn us back toward it, to make politicians act on the issues we care about.\nFolks derisive of such centrism often cite the line: “the center cannot hold.” They forget that in the Yeats’ “The Second Coming,” the center’s collapse plunges us into apocalyptic terror. I am not wild about mere anarchy loosed upon the world. I’ll take an active, vital center, even if it does mean some politics as unusual.
(02/28/07 5:00am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France – I was fairly excited about going to the Communist Party meeting. After all, the French Communist Party has long held significant influence over the political environment of France, and to be honest, I’ve never really hung out with 5,500 communists before. (There was this whole Cold War thing that made communism in America fairly unpopular, I hear.)\nThese days, though, the left in France is in dire straits. Marie-George Buffet, the French Communist presidential candidate, is polling poorly, and the once solid left has become disorganized and split into multiple factions, none of which can pass the first round of presidential elections.\nAt a superficial level, the Marseille mass meeting had all the marks of the once-proud party. Talking points ranged from global class struggle to social equality for all, while red banners and flags fluttered at every denunciation of the capitalist system in a packed auditorium. The whole affair had the air of a joyous, chaotic commie carnival. \nAlas, closer inspection yielded more unfortunate truths. The demographics were undeniably skewed toward the aged, and for all the talk of winning, it seemed clear that their candidate had no chance to make a dent in national policy. While “radicalism” and “new changes” to France were bandied about, the meeting seemed more concerned with shoring up old victories rather than forcing a new revolution. \nSigns of weakness were everywhere. A sincere presentation detailed as a major victory the protection of a sugar plant in Marseille from outsourcing. Some kids carried a Communist flag in one hand and a Coca-Cola in the other. And while all the other speakers expounded upon the strength of Buffet’s programs, her own speech rendered the polite applause one expects from John Denver concerts, instead of the energetic radicalism I expected.\nI guess I received more timidity than tumidity. As a party with almost no chance, why not go out on a limb like fringe parties in America and throw out bombastic, radical ideas in florid oratory? Instead, the staid speeches roused a few instances of excited applause, but mostly hewed to a conventional dogmatic line. So much for radical change. \nThe woes of the French Communist Party demonstrate the growing weakness of the left in postindustrial countries around the globe, and particularly in Europe. The constituents the left aims to aid are still there, but its political power is in disarray. Those who have faced job loss due to outsourcing, those who are homeless, jobless or voiceless in the political system need the left to speak for them.\nInstead, the anger and desperation of the left has paradoxically led to an unadventurous campaign. For all her tough talk of a campaign of combat against the right, Buffet seemed unwilling to say anything new, going through the motions. \nNow, I’m no commie, but we need a vital, vocal left, to fight a potentially xenophobic, corporate right-wing future. We need new ideas and new blood, or the left can count on a long, flag-waving party to nowhere..
(02/14/07 1:34am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- He also hates Tavis Smiley and Jim Lehrer, too.\nBut mostly, he hates public money being spent on broadcasting quality programming of an educational and worthwhile nature to an America glutting on "American Idol" and "Deal or No Deal." (Note: they have "Deal or No Deal" in France. It's just as bad). \nOur fearless leader, Bush, has proposed his budget, and to no one's surprise, public broadcasting has taken a huge hit. Whereas last year's proposed plan amounted to a 13 percent decrease, this year's could amount to a 25 percent cut in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's budget. At a time when all broadcast stations have to upgrade to digital television, thereby incurring further heavy costs, Bush wants to further cripple public broadcasting.\nApparently, if our tax dollars are going to fund broadcasting, it had better be propaganda. While Bush's proposed budget slashes public broadcasting again, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which broadcasts American propaganda overseas, finds its budget boosted. That's right: We would rather pay to send public broadcasting to Iran than to our own citizens.\nI don't need to trot out all the old arguments, do I? PBS takes a chance on unconventional programming (Antiques Roadshow, anyone?) that no commercial station would consider. The best documentary on TV this year, "Street Fight," which detailed the gritty mayoral race in Newark, N.J., was shown on PBS's program P.O.V. While others race to the bottom to see whose infotainment polarizes people more, PBS provides varied opinions and reasoned analysis on issues that would be lucky to get a three-minute blurb on any other station. \nThis is my first column from France that isn't about France and that's for good reason. I believe that when the Bush administration targets programs for elimination, it should look at broken programs rather than working ones. I'm going to stand up for public broadcasting, even if I have to stand up every single year to do it. I'm going to stand up for "Live from Lincoln Center" and NPR's "Morning Edition." I'm going to stand up for "Arthur" and "Reading Rainbow." I'll stand up for "Mystery!" "The American Experience" and I will stand up for "Elmo." Who among us can say that these sorts of shows are not a valuable use of public money? And exactly none of them would be on the air if not for public broadcasting.\nFor some perspective, the CPB's 2006 budget of $460 million would pay for little more than one day of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. It's a small, effective government program that benefits any household in America with a TV. Such exemplary government expenditures deserve to keep running, and it's repulsive to watch public broadcasting used as a Republican hostage for which we have to beg every budget cycle.\nRemember, we won last time. We can do it again. Write your representatives and donate to your local stations. Make it clear that public broadcasting deserves long-term funding. With your help, I hope that by this time next year, I'll have something different to write about.
(01/31/07 4:10am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- On the cold night of Jan. 31, 1954, a woman froze to death on the streets of Paris, clutching in her hands the eviction notice dated one day before. It was a forgettable tragedy, one in a million of the small tragedies that pass daily. But the next day, a 41-year-old priest barged into the studios of Radio Luxembourg to issue a plea that such tragedies should not be forgotten, that we can and must do more. "Friends, help!" he cried across the airwaves, and in that moment, the legend of Abbé Pierre began. His career built affordable housing, raised the poor out of poverty, and brought change to a frozen French government. \nBorn to wealth but renouncing it all, sworn to serve God through saving the poor, Pierre was France's conscience for years, reluctantly accepting media celebrity to spread his simple message: "Serve first those who suffer most." \n I've found the popularity of Abbé Pierre confusing in a country moving ever further from religion. Possessing a voice that was unpredictable, prophetic and undeniably religious, Abbé Pierre strangely found a place in the hearts of the French. The French adulation with Pierre seemed to draw forth from his reminder of how much good one determined Frenchman can do, but also how little the countless others in France were doing. Nothing like strength of character and a massive guilt trip to appeal to the French. \nIn an age of religious strife the world over and increasing indifference toward religion in France, Pierre seemed almost anachronistic, but that's precisely what made him so important. Others could only see religion as a wedge to separate groups of people, as another sticking point in an endless war. Yet, here was a man who was just trying to take people in from the cold on a freezing February night. \nPierre called his organization the Ragpickers of Emmaus, after a story in the Gospel of Luke. Luke tells how Jesus, after his resurrection, was met by two disciples who couldn't recognize him on the road to Emmaus, a decent hike from Jerusalem. As night fell, they invited the stranger, the resurrected Christ, under their roof to dine with them and stay the night, where he revealed himself to them. Being homeless isn't a sign of social deviancy or incompetence, just a sign of not having a home, whether the homeless person in question is an anonymous Parisian woman or the son of God. \nAs a fairly unreligious guy, I'm struck by the wealth of feeling the supposedly atheist French feel for this man. As a country that finds its religion on social fault lines, maybe America would also do well to remember what the point of religion on Earth is in the first place. It doesn't matter to which sect, church or creed you belong. The message of the Pierre is incontestable, "Serve first those who suffer most." We lend our hand to those who need it and God will take care of the rest, if he or she is there
(01/16/07 1:15am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- President Jacques Chirac earned the nickname "Le Bulldozer" for his boundless work ethic and implacable commitment to get things done. \nNow increasingly a lame duck, it appears Chirac will be the one bulldozed by history. His former protege, Nicholas Sarkozy, and Socialist candidate Segolene Royal are fighting to see who can brush his legacy aside fastest. Chirac suffered a stroke in 2005. He is also 74 years old. For many reasons, 81 percent of the French public doesn't want him to run again. By all accounts, this is a man finished in politics.\nNevertheless, this cantankerous old sorcerer just won't quit. In his New Year's address he proposed corporate tax cuts and eliminating homelessness. Again, he tossed an "I told you so" to the world about the war in Iraq, and he's trying to stimulate a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. These are the words of a man who isn't done fighting, and despite an ensuing election focused on his two energetic younger candidates, the big question in France is: "Will Chirac run again?"\nWith the election less than five months away, Chirac has watched Sarkozy's coronation at the convention of the party he founded, the Union for a Popular Movement. He has presided over two recent rounds of civil unrest and one disastrous referendum on the EU, as well as numerous scandals. This guy doesn't stand a chance, and if he runs, it's entirely possible that he will cripple his own party. Nevertheless, speculation continues to grow that Le Bulldozer will go for it. \nThe reason most cited by French folks to whom I've talked center around Chirac's bitterness toward his former trainee, Sarkozy. They suggest that Chirac would doom his party and country if it meant hurting Sarkozy. Others mentioned Chirac's immense ego and a hope that presidential immunity will save him from prosecution in various scandals.\nMaybe those are contributing factors, but I don't think he's running again simply to satisfy his ego or deflate someone else's. I see an old bulldog doing the only thing he knows how: fighting to say the things that need to be said. He can't retire; he can't even comprehend the possibility of leaving his beloved country in the hands of anyone else. After the life he has led, as interior minister, prime minister, mayor of Paris, and president of the republic having been a landmark of French politics for more than 30 years how can he just slink off into obscurity? \nIt's hard for me not to draw comparisons to another unpopular lame-duck president who wants to keep spending his empty political capital. Furthermore, Chirac should probably recognize that his times and opportunities have come and gone. Like Ali in his "Last Hurrah," Chirac would probably leave an election pitifully, not knowing when to quit. By running again, he could sabotage not only his legacy but also the national unity he tried so desperately to foster. For all these reasons, I don't think he should run. \nBut if he runs, I hope he wins.
(12/07/06 3:20am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- As a commercial culture, France closes on Sunday. Supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores, department stores -- on Sunday, all their doors are closed. What's even more disconcerting for an American coming from the land of 24-hour stores, sometimes these closings extend to Monday, too. And good luck shopping on national public holidays.\nOne wonders how the country can continue to function. Stereotypes of lazy beret-wearing Frenchmen dozing in cafes dance in the mind's eye. Just how lazy are these French layabouts? \nYet change is coming to this land that has so militantly opposed it. Last year, the bastion of socialist labor law, the 35-hour week, was rolled back by the National Assembly, allowing employers to keep workers past 35 hours as long as they are paid for their overtime work. \nIn a recent survey, 57 percent of French workers said they would rather work and receive more money than have more leisure time.\nGaullist presidential candidate Nicholas Sarkozy is even campaigning on a slogan that seems ridiculously obvious from the American capitalist perspective: "Work more to earn more." \nNowhere but in France would that be a radical statement.\nTo be fair, the French have never actually been that unproductive. They work fewer total hours, but their production per person per hour has consistently ranked among the highest in the world. This means that while we American chumps toil endless hours, the French are more efficient. Then they spend the rest of their time eating cheese and drinking wine while we're still working nights. The term "workaholic" has no place in France.\nAll the same, such cliches as "Americans live to work; Europeans work to live" seem unfitting in light of reality. No country has built a leisure culture quite like America and, clearly, the French wouldn't mind working a little more for some extra dough. \nWhat has changed the French government's mind so quickly? Surely, the problems mentioned above have existed for awhile, so why now?\nIn a country whose bureaucracy is legendary, globalization is forcing the government's hand. Attracting foreign investment with the proper, productive image drives this new commitment to work. And they want to get no one's attention more than the dear old US of A. The forces of change in France see the American model as something to emulate for keeping its capitalist engine chugging along with no end in sight. \nIn truth, our system of grinding the worker-slave into the dust for every last penny has problems. In America, many minimum-wage workers struggle to make ends meet, and children suffer from a lack of parenting in families in which both parents work. We're so committed to work that we yearn for a little more vacation time and a day off. As a result, it's strange to see a country slowly dismantle the pieces of legislation, like restrictive work contracts and the 35-hour week, that almost forced laziness upon the nation.\nFor better or worse, it might not be long before the French hear that glorious American chant: "Sunday! Sunday! Sunday"
(11/16/06 3:58am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- In America, my relatively liberal views ensure that I am called "un-American" a decent amount. It does not help that I don't "look American," a fact that French folks have mentioned to me numerous times. With my English major, political views and slanty eyes, I might as well be from Canada.\nBut truth be told, I am an American through and through. And nowhere has my patriotism been challenged and reinforced like it has in France. As you might know, the French have a teeny bit of anti-Americanism in their blood. (I'm pretty sure it's in the constitution of the Fifth Republic somewhere.) While America-bashers here assure me they only hate George W. Bush and not all Americans, it's not long before they crack out good ol' "American empire" chestnuts or use "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" as an example of American foolishness. \nI find myself on unusually defensive turf in discussions, standing up for everything from Condoleezza Rice to the merits of the Southern barbecue. I actually had to convince a few anarcho-Marxists that it was, in fact, wrong to suggest the assassination of President Bush. (I, for one, would rather have a big national dunk tank with Bush on the perch to raise money for Iraqi reconstruction.)\nIt's a little bit like being a metaphorical big brother who picks on his little brother all the time but defends him against the onslaughts of others. \nYet it's deeper than that simplistic analogy because there are few countries on earth whose citizens hold their national identity as highly as Americans. For example, in France, there are no flags. There's one hanging out in front of city hall, but that's it. In America, we stamp the flag on T-shirts, coffee mugs and tattoos because, above all else, we are Americans first. For me, at least, being American is central to being who I am, and when someone starts flinging around "America this" and "Americans that," it's hard not to take it personally.\nFor years now, the media and foreign policy experts have worked to combat the "ugly American" mentality. Yet I would like to remind people that in the 1958 book "The Ugly American," it is the physically "ugly" American abroad, engineer Homer Atkins, who listens to the locals, responds with open-mindedness and eventually defends America by example. The last thing we need is more "pretty Americans," all smiles and handshakes, who traipse the world through photo ops and promos. \nPerhaps that's what makes the overwrought anti-American sentiment most distressing is: the knowledge that at its center is a grain of truth. American foreign policy nightmares have eroded our image abroad, but it is possible to get it back. We have to dare to be "ugly" Americans who listen and try to understand foreign cultures instead of trumpeting our own and gently assure the world that we are not monsters. We are Americans.
(11/02/06 4:38am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- Whenever I ask people in the posh city of Aix about last year's riots, they'd usually rather change the subject. Those who do talk tell me all about how the riots don't really represent France as a whole, how the media blew things out of proportion. Despite all the images of flaming Peugeots, the mostly upper-class French folks with whom I've spoken don't see it as a big deal. Saving the slums seems like the last thing on everyone's agenda.\nDespite some special coverage of the one-year anniversary, most people seem more concerned with preventing repeat incidents than stopping the root problems of economic stagnancy and political impotence. The two leading candidates for the upcoming presidential election, Socialist Segolene Royal and Gaullist Nicholas Sarkozy, have demonstrated no real plans for the banlieues (suburban ghettos), except vague crackdowns on criminals. People just don't care.\nI can't say I'm entirely surprised. Certainly, my scope of the situation is limited by my placement in one of France's richest cities. I mean, if you asked people in an upper-class Chicago suburb, like my hometown of Naperville, what they thought a year after the 1992 Rodney King riots, they'd probably shrug their shoulders, too. After all, how much can a person so removed from poverty and desperation discern about life in a welfare-state slum?\nWhat strikes me is the total lack of urgency that locals feel toward this problem. It seems that the approach to the banlieues' problems involves crossing one's fingers and hoping that another spark doesn't go off. Each new bus burning sends a shiver down the white, upper-class spine of France's ruling class, yet no one is willing to do anything about the underlying causes in France's stagnant political climate. \nWhen mostly white, privileged French students and unions march in the streets, they get exactly what they want. When the mostly African immigrant, unemployed French poor lash out against the government, they get nothing, except thousands more police descending into their neighborhoods. Incidentally, a police station is the only commitment the epicenter of the riots, Clichy-sous-Bois, got from the central government. \nChanging minds in such a conservative culture is difficult, though. Instead of opening up a dialogue after all the promises in the wake of November's riots, the French response has been one of further isolation. While the suburb powder keg remains explosive as ever, leading French newspapers such as Le Monde to print stories about the semantic use of the word "riot" in describing November's car torching.\nSo what should France do? I'm not sure. Opening up public transit to the slums and unlocking the strict labor laws (that result in 50 percent unemployment in some areas) would be a start, but the real problem is psychological. The French need to see these kids as their countrymen, not dirt to be swept under a rug. Otherwise, the calm of this anniversary will be a mere reprieve in a tempest of discontent.
(10/19/06 1:31am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- OK, so the French don't actually smoke that much. I mean, really. According to World Health Organization figures, 34.5 percent of the population smokes. Compare that to Indiana, where 27 percent of adults and 39 percent of high school seniors smoke, and the stereotypical Frenchman with baguette in hand and cigarette in mouth seems more archaic. \nUnlike America, where smoking is often regarded as shameful, the French smoke publicly, happily and unabashedly. They gleefully puff under no smoking signs and extract their Marlboros, like true rebels, from packs that declare in giant bold letters, "Smoking Kills." (The American Surgeon General's got nothing on these anti-smoking warnings.) French smokers smoke everywhere, anywhere, any time. From photos of French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre with his omnipresent cigarette to the clouds of smoke in French New Wave movies, smoking is ingrained in French culture as intellectual, admirable and chic. \nAll these attributes make France's impending public smoking ban more astonishing. In 2007, France will ban smoking in most public places, followed in 2008 by a ban in bars, restaurants and cafes. Needless to say, this ban has riled up some French smokers to a true lather, yet they are confronted by overwhelmingly supportive public opinion. It would appear that the nonsmoking French public wouldn't mind never seeing -- or more accurately, smelling -- their smoking countrymen ever again.\nAlas, the French have arrived at a conflict between two great French loves: smoking and telling their citizens what to do. While smoking bans in Ireland, Italy and even good ol' Bloomington have worked despite strong local smoking cultures, France is the smoker's romantic, symbolic home. David Sedaris commented in his Bloomington show that he lived in Paris so he could smoke wherever he wanted. The French smoker is so entrenched that no amount of dissuasion can kick the habit. \nDespite concerted efforts toward achieving a smoke-free university, the stairwells and hallways here at the Université de Provence still marinate in ubiquitous clouds of smoke. People try to be courteous about smoking in general. Nevertheless, as the comical nonsmoking partitions in your local Applebee's demonstrate, smoke gets around no matter how courteous you are. \nAs far as I can tell, smoking is happily tolerated here. In the survey mentioned above, the one question they failed to ask is how much respondents care about it. Sure, people generally support banning it, but nonsmokers have been sucking secondhand ash for so long I doubt they'll notice much difference when the ban takes effect in January.\nIn France or in Indiana, the troubling effect of smoking bans is the conversion of smokers into criminals. Smokers are about two steps above lepers and lawyers in American culture these days. It'd be a shame if France, a proud bastion of liberty, further marginalized and criminalized nearly 35 percent of its population. \nSitting in an Aix-en-Provence cafe surrounded by happy smokers and nonsmokers alike, I'm not too worried.
(10/05/06 2:50am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- \nWhen the times challenge our values and perspectives as much as they have the last five years, it's hard to believe anything. We are too close to the events at hand, deprived of an ability to stand back and observe from a distance, to build educated opinions in full.\nSo where do we turn for help? We have only our myths, and all nations have them. Look at the first Thanksgiving, or consider how often we invoke our "Founding Fathers" as holy figures in political debate.\nBy far the most powerful myth in our culture, especially in this time of war, is "The Good War": World War II. President Bush imagines himself Churchillian in nature, standing alone against the growing tide of tyranny. Conversely, opponents of the war demand "justification" for it, hearkening to a day when wars were fought for some deeper values; hence, the "Good War" fought by the "Greatest Generation." \nYet, myths must constantly be reinterpreted to fit the current mode, and World War II is no different. \nHere in France, the issue of the day is immigration and integration, and a superb new film, "Indigènes," tells the story of North African colonial French troops who fought for a country that had killed their ancestors, only to get the cold shoulder from the French government. These days, suggesting that the French government abuses and neglects its immigrant citizens may get you in a fight over here. By reframing the problem within World War II, however, the movie makes its case against institutional prejudice forcefully and decisively. Who can argue against the bravery of soldiers maltreated by their own government?\nBack in America, Clint Eastwood is making a pair of films about the battle of Iwo Jima, one from each side's perspective. The first, "Flags of Our Fathers," concerns the American soldiers who raised the flag on Mt. Surabachi. When American GIs sit at the forefront of our psyche -- as warriors, assailants, or diplomats -- we need to understand their situation in the mythical vocabulary of beach landings and flag-raisings with which we're familiar.\nThe story of our manipulation and exploitation of these soldiers and their photo to further propagandize sends shivers down the modern spine. Just take a look at Bush's "Mission Accomplished" dress-up or the Democratic campaign to rustle up Iraq war veterans to run for Congress. \nThese films demand we ask: "How good was 'The Good War' anyway?" How righteous can we really be about anything? Our illusions, of the French patriot against the Nazi racist, of the good Americans against the evil Japanese, will find themselves increasingly in question. Our reconsideration of this most powerful myth, though, signals the seriousness of our current position. We're without direction, so insecure that we are now being forced to reassess our greatest myths.\nWe shouldn't forget that myths are unifying forces, even when they reveal our failings. At the end of the screening of "Indigènes" that I attended, the crowd erupted in applause. Maybe by acknowledging our sins in myth, we can finally find redemption in reality.
(09/21/06 2:21am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- \nNick Sarkozy, meet America. America, meet the new face of French centrist politics. \nBefore introductions, though, note that Sarkozy is not what you generally imagine when you picture a French politician. For one thing, he can't seem to stop talking about how much he admires America. You may remember him calling the fire-starting gangs of last November "scum," and he recently spoke out adamantly against Turkey's admission to the European Union. (As a result, Sarkozy's right-of-center ways have earned him the nickname "Sarkozy the American," which isn't exactly a boon in a country where the Bush administration is only slightly more popular than salmonella.) \nThus, when Sarkozy visited America last week, it was hardly a surprise that he spoke warmly of our fair nation. What was surprising was the reception for a guy who currently runs the French Interior Ministry. (Can anyone even name our Secretary of the Interior?) Yet Sarkozy, the current favorite to win the ruling party's nomination and the presidency of France, got to speak to Bush and Condi. Presenting medals to New York City firefighters and smiling in a photo-op with King George , Sarkozy clearly demonstrated his desire to be close to America.\nDespite this, Sarkozy is immensely popular here in France. His latest book, "Testimony," a rather straightforward account of his political life and beliefs (remember Bush's book, "A Charge to Keep?"), has been a runaway bestseller, selling more than 275,000 copies. And even many of his most controversial comments are viewed positively, despite his purported aversion to "populist" politics. \nIn many ways, he runs against the grain of traditional French politics. In a country that refuses the hyphenated multitudes of America, Sarkozy boasts of his Hungarian and Jewish heritage. He has begun a not-so-stealthy campaign to discredit his current party leadership, a party whose nomination he still has yet to receive. He's a doer when compromise and endless debate are the norm. Whether or not this is a good thing, I can't really say, but his popularity among many French voters makes clear that they are ready for change in a country notoriously resistant to it.\nAfter years of bumbling by the Chirac government, with mounting immigration troubles and the crushing weight of its social programs, France has grown worried about its future, only further accentuated by the social unrest of November 2005 and March 2006. Unfortunately, as with most centrists, Sarkozy must pander to the extreme of his side of the aisle, in this case kowtowing to the disgusting, racist Front National with anti-immigrant stunts and the placement of Turkey's EU membership at the forefront of his campaign. \nYears of political stagnation have left France with a remarkably conservative political environment. Recall that the demonstrations of March 2006 were to keep the old laws in place. Sarkozy will undoubtedly be marked a "conservative," but think about what that means. A conservative is, at its core, someone who represents traditional and conventional values. In France, Sarko the American is anything but.\n(By the way, our interior secretary is Dick Kempthorne.)
(09/08/06 2:37am)
IX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- "Time is money." "I'm out of time." "I wish there were more hours in the day." \nSuch statements indicate the kind of attitude Americans have toward time. Time is a commodity -- to be bought and sold at the cost of dollars and cents. When we go to McDonald's, we're not buying a Filet O'Fish. We're buying time by way of the convenience of not shopping for groceries, or cooking.\nThus, coming to France has been a bit disconcerting. Twenty-four-hour pharmacies -- 24-hour anything -- are nonexistent. The snail's pace of life here strikes me as strange, especially in a country that invented the Concorde, the TGV train (loosely translated as the PDQ) and the strongest coffee imaginable. Lunch brings everything to a standstill for a couple of hours in the middle of the day, while more are whiled away in the cafe, most of these spent waiting for the check. \nTo boot, everyone is late for everything ever -- although this is not entirely different from life in Bloomington.\nComing from fast-paced, convenience-based America, it's easy to chalk up these experiences to mere laziness or Gallic discourtesy, but in truth, we simply have two markedly different attitudes regarding time. While we are selling much of the world on the time-money archetype, France has militantly rejected it. \nThe alternate French perspective generates a surprising upshot. You might not get your consumer goods as quickly, but French folks don't seem to have the same impatient irritability that sits in the gut of every stressed-out American. Perhaps the most intriguing outcome is the consequent enshrinement of good ol' family values. Family vacation time is extended, maternity and paternity leave is mandatory and large nuclear families sit down to dinner together daily. Rev. Jerry Falwell would be proud.\nThis is not to say that the French model of time is without fault. To be sure, perennial tardiness and long midday meals dull the competitive edget. No one has ever accused the French of having a relentless work ethic. What we see here is a fundamental restructuring of priorities. The American capitalist mind might value an hour as a dollar, but the French mind values an hour as an hour, to be spent with friends and family rather than slaving away for a marginal benefit.\nSocialism might have saddled France with an impenetrable bureaucracy and impossible-to-maintain budget, but it has given the average Frenchman all the time in the world with the 35-hour work week. Besides, America hasn't exactly been doing too well in the bureaucracy and budget department either. \nI'm not saying the French way of seeing time is the best way; it's just a different way. America's insistent productivity has given us fantastic wealth in goods but desperate poverty in time. \nYet, despite my love for sitting in a cafe for hours and lying about on a Sunday afternoon, little is more deflating than wandering around at 3 in the morning trying to find somewhere to buy a Butterfinger. Oh well, I guess I'll have time when I get back.
(04/25/06 3:49am)
The next time you go to fill up your car, you will probably gulp at the price. "Three bucks a gallon?! It wasn't that long ago that gas was less than a dollar! This is outrageous!"\nSome are already crying foul. Blame has been thrust variously upon a host of scapegoats, such as: President Bush's War on Terror, environmental additives and oil companies, our new favorite villain.\nIn truth, gas prices today aren't insanely high when compared to inflation-adjusted historic figures. We've been spoiled all our lives with a truly blessed period of relative stability in the Middle East and a slew of new oil discoveries. Consider that we make significantly more money than we did a half century ago, so an increase in gas prices doesn't hurt us as much per gallon as it once did. Spreading alarmism about gas prices, at this point, is downright misleading. \nPainting oil companies as the villain du jour only serves as a cheap tool to clear us of any blame. How are their tactics different from other major corporations? They are in the business of making money, and when your business is a resource that has rapidly increasing demand and rapidly decreasing supply, you become extremely profitable. I am not advocating blind acceptance of gas prices. What I suggest is that rather than blind outrage, we ask ourselves just what it is we are paying for.\nNo matter where you sit on the political spectrum, oil runs your life. Trucks bring every commercial product to Target, and you drive there with gas to get it. And because gas matters to you, gas matters to our government. Cries of "No Blood for Oil" might be foolhardy, but no one can deny that the availability of oil has affected American foreign policy significantly. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Indonesia and Nigeria are huge oil producers and, unsurprisingly, hot spots of diplomatic activity. As Bush so belatedly put it, our "addiction to oil," and more importantly, our addiction to cheap oil, drives our economic growth.\nAll of which brings me to the title of this column: Raise gas prices. For too long, we have lived without understanding what things truly cost. We entered a war thinking that we would never have to sacrifice anything. We've entered a truly obscene state of deficit spending, both in our government and in our personal accounts. We have scoured our earth to suck it dry of its natural resources as quickly as possible.\nWe in America have never tasted the cost of our recklessness. Let this be our penance. How will we ever break ourselves free of our oil addiction if we keep expecting cheap gas? No major advances in technology will come along until we really need them, so let's speed up the process.\nRaise gas prices, raise them significantly, enough that financial strain follows up the ladder of corporations until even the most insulated corporate boardroom feels the pinch. We'll use the revenues to pay down our debt for the war and for research into alternative energy. Until gas prices get so high that we can't stand them, we'll never change our ways.
(04/18/06 4:57am)
Every week, it feels like there's a new "hot" issue to pursue, whether it's immigration or biotechnology or the war in Iraq. \nNevertheless, in the face of all these exciting, flashy topics, the things that most directly affect us are the dull, boring things that we'd rather have someone else handle. We want to talk about "important" issues, but it's dreary, dry subjects that actually run our lives. After all, what has more effect on your life: immigration reform or potholes? \nCase in point: the United States tax code. \nNo one wants to talk about tax code, until this time of year when we rush to H&R Block to chaotically get our returns in on time. It's the single most boring piece of government code. It's 66,498 (!) pages long. It's hideously labyrinthine and full of loopholes for those of us rich enough to hire people to find them. And now that our tax code has begun regressing under the Bush administration, the middle class has to pick up the slack of the richest 1 percent of Americans. \nLook, I know you're already bored, but our government has taken our apathy as a sign that it can manipulate the tax code as much as it wants. Anyone can make statements about tax cuts and extra deductions, but these grand policies must be made real through the nitty-gritty inanity of the tax code. While I think Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever, at least he managed to reform the tax code to some extent. With the complexity of the code reaching obscene levels, it seems that everyone agrees that the tax code needs reform. Alas, no one is actually willing to do it. \nSimilarly, IU students, though we complain about cops busting parties and sweatshop labor, don't seem to care much about the tuition increases that will affect us most directly. \nFrankly, budgets and accounting are quite boring, and we've resigned ourselves to letting someone else take care of it. Unfortunately, "someone else" doesn't really care what we think. We're so lazy we couldn't even get off our asses to go to an open forum on the subject at the Union last week. \nNow, our apathy can either be read as slothful or satisfaction with the tuition increases. Budget politics might not be sexy, but they determine how much we pay for school, which determines how much money we have left over, which could be the difference between Sam Adams and Keystone Light. \nThe "important issues" aren't necessarily grandiose or widespread. Oftentimes, they are dull, tedious problems toward which we turn a blind eye. As has been observed many times, talk is cheap. I'm surely guilty in all of this, too. I can fill this column every week with international politics and cultural criticism, but the real changes we can make are oftentimes the least interesting. Immigration reform might dominate the headlines, but properly organizing our tax code to pay for social services affects far more people. \nWe're so caught up with big ideas that we can't appreciate the enormous importance of the enormously dull. For just a moment, consider the vastly uninteresting forces that run your life, and dare to be bored.
(04/12/06 5:14am)
Regionalism happens. As long as there are people, there will be regional factions. We always need to have an adversary. Every green lawn needs the other side of the fence. Every Cub needs a Cardinal. Every IU needs a Purdue. Unfortunately, when these differences become the grounds for any conflict more than a playful jest, we have a serious problem. \nYou can't make hard and fast judgment calls unless you put things in perspective. If you're a Midwesterner accusing a New Yorker of being stuck-up and privileged, consider this: You both live in the United States, the most powerful, privileged nation on earth. If you're an East Coaster accusing a Hoosier of being a slack-jawed yokel, don't forget that you both got accepted by and chose to go to the same university -- this one. \nRed state, blue state? East Coast, Midwest? Cubs, Cards? It doesn't matter. We should consider character first. \nP.S. Go Cubs!
(04/11/06 5:51am)
Is it still a leak if the president does the leaking? This seems to be the question many are asking in light of recent testimony from I. Lewis Libby, in which he indicated that President Bush declassified information to give to a New York Times reporter. Libby, in case you don't recall, used to be the vice president's chief of staff before the FBI arrested him on charges of perjury. Libby states that Bush declassified part of a classified report in July 2003 that described Saddam Hussein's alleged connections to al-Qaida in order to bolster his case for war.\nAs a result, many have cried foul, labeling Bush's leak in contradiction with his normally tough stance against leakers. On Oct. 9, 2001, Bush declared that "(w)e can't have leaks of classified information." About the motivations of those dirty, self-serving leakers, Bush guessed that leakers did what they did "either to make you feel good, and/or to make themselves feel good." And of course, Bush has used the same number as many presidents before him: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."\nDespite his tough talk against leakers, Bush has remained unsurprisingly silent about the latest revelations. His administration has \nsuggested that it wasn't really a leak, since the president declassified it before giving it out. And despite all the rumbling from the rabble, most have correctly avoided describing Bush's actions as illegal. \nHis leak was fully legal, and he believed it to be in the best interest of this country. After all, the president can decide what's classified and what isn't, so it makes sense that he can leak whatever he feels like. There have been leaks as long as there have been secrets, and leaks are a tool that administrations need to release sensitive information without formally holding a press conference. \nThink about it: Let's say a friend of yours has confided in you a terrible secret that he feels suicidal. Fearing for his safety, but not wishing to break his trust, you anonymously inform someone who can directly help him. Most people would probably support that leak. \nMy concern with Bush's action, however, has nothing to do with whether the leak was positive or legal. It has everything to do with his style of governing. When someone else leaks information, in the name of national security or anything else, they are self-promoters, incompetents or traitors. When the president does it, the administration doesn't even call it a leak. Rather than acknowledging any sort of benefit from leaks, the Bush approach is simply to deny that it was a leak at all.\nBush has made this disturbing mentality a common problem in his administration's activity. To make sure that we don't torture, let's redefine what torture means. To make sure that Iraq's not having a civil war, let's not call it a civil war. To make sure that we never leak, let's just say it wasn't a leak. \nSplitting hairs with the language demonstrates a lazy dishonesty about the facts at hand. Weren't Republicans crying foul when Slick Willy Clinton tried to redefine the word "is"? If it was a leak, call it a leak. A leak might be justifiable, but sacrificing honesty for the sake of saving face is not. The president's tough talk has come back to bite him, and it should cost him dearly.
(04/04/06 5:09am)
After weeks at No. 1, "High School Musical" has finally relinquished its title as top-selling album in the nation.\nTo which everyone older than age 12 asks, "What the hell is 'High School Musical?'" Well, "High School Musical" is the most popular Disney Channel original movie ever. It's the first full-length film ever to be sold on iTunes. Its soundtrack has unleashed six top 100 singles and a platinum album. \nAlso, it's pretty terrible. For one thing, the songs are cookie-cutter pop drivel, and the characters in the movie are as up-tempo, clean-cut and bland as the wannabe show tunes. The movie is so loaded with clichés -- the big game, warring cliques, jock-guy-brainy-girl-romance -- that it wanders into self-parody. I mean, the big production number is called "Stick to the Status Quo." How much more conformist could you ask a \nmusical to be?\nNevertheless, there's something altogether likable about this movie, and its democratic, Web-based rise from iTunes and Amazon makes it a Digital Age model. Because of its bright color palette and cheery songs, I feel like I should despise "High School Musical," but it comforts me somehow.\nWhy does America, myself included, find it so irresistible? Even before the allegedly catastrophic events of Feb. 1, 2004 (a.k.a. "Nipplegate"), America wanted good, clean fun, even if it didn't resemble reality at all. With the news pumping in nonstop images of evil and deceit at every turn, the conservative return to "values" has prompted a similar turn in popular culture. We want our battles fought bloodlessly in fantasy worlds, our pop stars born without nipples and now, our teenage musicals drained of sex and hurling colorless pop tunes. \nMainstream pop culture has suffered some serious whiplash since the oversexed '90s, and "High School Musical" represents part of a movement back to benign themes. Generation-defining musicals used to be sexed ("Grease") or at least violent ("West Side Story"). The raciest thing happening in "High School Musical" is a peck on the cheek.\nWhere Frank Rich sees a veil of "truthiness" laid across America, I see a veil of "cleanliness," an attempt to cover up the unseemly truth of the world around us. One might think that pop music's darker rap and rock alternatives were obscenity-riddled, but thanks to a crackdown on obscenity laws in popular music, all radio play has been bleeped into incomprehensibility. Truly subversive songs have been replaced with censored copies of "Laffy Taffy."\nThe return to the cultural security blanket of bland pop like Barry Manilow and "High School Musical" extends to other realms as well. We're sweeping everything unpleasant under the carpet to keep it out of sight, out of mind. Guantanamo detainees? Corruption in Congress? Deteriorating social programs? We're shocked -- shocked! -- to find such malfeasance. Instead of real outrage, we have resigned to feeling a mild discontent before switching back on a simpler, plainer, nicer world. \nIs all hope lost? I'm not too worried. The blandness of 1910s pop music gave way to the glory of jazz, and the pasty boredom of the 1950s was broken by the hip-swiveling insurrection of Elvis. The grit and dirt of discontent will overflow soon enough, and the moment of "High School Musical" will come to pass. \nEnjoy the peppy, cheerful addiction while it lasts.
(03/28/06 5:29am)
I know we're not supposed to stereotype. Here at the most super-duper diverse campus ever, we should never pigeonhole someone based on his or her beliefs. \nBut what am I supposed to do when French students protest and French unions strike? Seriously, folks, this is more than a little ridiculous. As soon as young Muslim français took to the streets last year, everyone said France needed to increase youth employment. As a result, France tries to pass a reform law helping jobless youths, at which point, young non-Muslim français promptly protest. \nOstensibly, the students and unions are marching against the new labor law that would loosen restrictions on hiring under-26-year-old employees. What kind of restrictions? Well, if you're a French company and you want to hire anyone, you can't fire this employee without a good case and a substantial severance package. And if you're hiring some kid right out of college, oftentimes the risk is greater than the reward. So, invariably, French employers pass over young employees. \nThe new law would give the employer a two-year trial period during which they could fire under-26 employees without significant restrictions. You know, just like we do here. Every student here at IU will inevitably have to find work and keep it through performance. Yet, the majority of the French people have come to expect lifelong employment and, so, they protest. \nHow ironic that the French protesters, who pride themselves on their radical liberalism, are decrying reform laws and asking for a return to the good ol' days. They want the government to provide more jobs, but socialism already shows its cracks. Everywhere, governments have found themselves needing to reform programs and cut spending. "Job creation" costs money and productivity, and more bureaucracy stymies growth, something with which France has enough problems. \nThough commentators have noted France's addiction to socialism, I find France's addiction to revolution more distressing. Every time a problem arises, a host of protests, strikes and riots appears as the solution. Last year's riots immediately come to mind, but massive general strikes and protests are regular occurrences in France. And here, at the intersection of these two addictions, the situation has grown quite ludicrous. French students have gone from protesting for human rights to protesting for a pension and the promise of a free job. On top of that, most of these protesters go to universities and will remain largely unaffected by the law. \nThe cries of "To the barricades!" might ring on the Champs-Elysées, but this is hardly "Les Miz." It's a nation at a critical point, frustrated with its inability to sustain its socialist system. The misguided protesters who call for revolution don't understand that the revolution has already been won by the revolutionaries. With a 35-hour work week, extensive benefits and a massive bureaucracy, the revolutionaries have gotten exactly what they asked for. Yet, this system has proven itself untenable, and it needs change. \nToday, the well-educated elite who protest the new laws don't realize that they are France's next generation of leaders, rather than extreme revolutionaries. Protesters are standing up for the status quo, while the government desperately cries for change, without any options. France threatens to become an anachronistic joke unless its youth exchanges Romantic "revolution" for realistic change.