Filed under: Everyday Life, Politics | Tags: democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, Katharine Hepburn, Pennsylvania, The Philadelphia Story
I was very disappointed in January when Fox canceled the whole new season of 24 because of the writer’s strike. I was going to to miss Jack Bauer’s adventures and my Monday night adrenaline shot. I now realize that it was a typical French thought. One should always believe in America’s resources and imagination to quickly replace a weekly exiting and addictive show by a more exciting and more addictive show: the Presidential Primary.
The casting is amazing, with such great actors as a former First Lady backed by a rising star from the suburbs of Chicago and a life-long honored American war hero. Their performance is wiping out almost all the Academy Award winners for best actor since James Stewart in 1940. Back then, Stewart won an Oscar for his performance in “The Philadelphia Story”. Ironically, the latest episode of the “Primary Story” took place in Philadelphia this week too. The 1940 movie is a romantic comedy about a bride-to-be (Katharine Hepburn) whose plans are complicated by the simultaneous arrival of her ex-husband (Cary Grant) and a handsome journalist (James Stewart). The unofficial 2008 remake is not as romantic, but the president-to-be (Clinton) is also struggling to control her (almost-ex) husband Bill while being under constant fire of a bunch of (not so handsome) journalists.
The show was about to end this week. The president-to-be was expected to run out of money and support, and the Pennsylvania primary should have been her last appearance. But someone once told me that one should never consider a Clinton dead before (s)he’s buried. Someone was absolutely right. With a double-digit margin (well, let’s agree that 9.9 is almost 10), Hillary won the PA primary last night and pretends to be back on track, once again. And she’s pulling out the guns! Opposing the “Yes We Can!” slogan of hope chanted by Obama’s supporters, she came out last night with a “Yes We Will” slogan of realism, which certainly WILL be chanted too in Indiana over the coming weeks.
Cheers! The season continues!
Filed under: Culture Shock, Everyday Life | Tags: life in america, neighborhood
I live in a “pedestrian-friendly community”. Those two words are enough to explain one of the largest cultural gap between French and Americans. Tell a French that you’re living in a “community”, and he’ll stare at you thinking that you’re a follower of some kind of sect living in a lost region of Utah. Tell him that your community is “pedestrian-friendly”, and he’ll think that your under the influence of a guru lauding hard daily exercise to save your soul. But no one would understand that you’re simply living in a neighborhood that maintains wide and clean sidewalks keeping pedestrians safe from cars.
For the sake of “social diversity”, the French banned the word “community” from their politically-correct vocabulary because of its reference to racial grouping and ghettos. Communities would be called neighborhoods – a way of referring to geographical proximity rather than social closeness – although everyone is aware of what it means to live in Paris’ 7th Arrondissement rather than in the 20th, socially.
But more surprising for the French is the concept of pedestrian friendliness. You really need to live in a city like Pittsburgh that rarely offers a chance to survive for more than 15 minutes outside your car to fully understand the concept. As a matter of fact, sidewalks are luxury in most parts of the city. But even more surprising, the happy few who are living in sidewalk-equipped areas rarely use them to walk around. Moving from Paris to my pedestrian-friendly area of Pittsburgh, my first impression was to enter a Spielberg movie where the kids would cycle around, throwing newspapers into yards. But after two years, all I could see were iPod joggers and a few dog walkers. Having no dog nor any inclination for jogging, I find myself quite lost wandering around in regular jeans and without a pet!
Lately, as I was walking down the street to the hairdresser, one of my neighbors stopped his car next to me to tell me “how brave (I was) to go shopping by foot”. He must be thinking that I am an ecological activist, follower of some kind of guru lauding the renunciation of modern life 
Filed under: Culture Shock, France 0 - America 1 | Tags: Brigitte Bardot, first amendment, justice, racial hatred
Chris asked me today how far does France infringe the freedom of speech. At first, the question seemed terribly offensive to me. How dare anyone suspect France of flouting the most basic right brought by democracy? Do I need to remind her that my country is the author of the Declaration of Human Rights? As a precautionary measure before the charge however, I tried to figure out what led her to ask such a ridiculous question.
Actually, Chris was referring to the former film star Brigitte Bardot being recently prosecuted in France for her controversial remarks about Islam. While complaining in a letter to the French President about the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha and the the slaughter of sheeps that it involves, Brigitte Bardot, a vocal animal rights campaigner, stated: “I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts.” Prosecutors are seeking a two-month suspended prison sentence and a $23,900 fine against the actress for having said that. “What is this country where the courts are entitled to prosecute people for their opinions?” Chris tells me.
Incitement to racial hatred is punishable by law in France, as in most European countries. Until now, I have always considered that it was a step forward in the fight against racism. I was even convinced that a country that respects human rights, like the United States, proabably adopted a similar bill also! As a matter of fact they did not. And if Chris has reacted that way, it is not because she is a racist but because she was surprised that a country that respects human rights, like France, does not have a law similar to the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which protects above all the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship of American citizens.
We could discuss for hours whether it is legitimate to limit the freedom of speech for the sake of the fight against racism. Bottom line, I ended up changing my mind on the subject and here is why. The French law is aimed at punishing the incitement to racial hatred. And it sounds fine when you put it this way. But the trial of Brigitte Bardot shows that it may ends by judging the racial statement for itself, rather than the incitement to hatred. Bardot made her statement in a letter to the French President, and I doubt that her intention was to encourage Mr Sarkozy to hate Muslim voters. Plus, Islam is not even a race. So virtually all the French who might occasionally express exasperation with respect to a particular community practice may now be sued based on Bardot’s trial.
Yes, Chris’ question is legitimate: to what extent is it now forbidden to express one’s opinion about race in France? And the most scary about it is that I did not even notice there could be anything wrong about that law before she asked about it…
Filed under: France 0 - America 1, Politics, anti-Americanism | Tags: Afghanistan, anti-Americanism, France, USA
It seems that anti-Americanism has never been so strong in France that since Nicolas Sarkozy – the newly elected French president – unashamedly demonstrated his solid pro-American views. Not that there are more “anti-Americans” in France than before, but it has forced them to speak up, and louder than ever before!
Thus, as Sarkozy recently announced his intent to strengthen French military presence in Afghanistan, anti-Americanism entered the French parliament. Arguing that the decision to send new troops (in addition to the 2,000 soldiers already involved) was “more political than military”, the socialist opposition called for a non-confidence vote against the French government. In other words, according to the French socialists, one can’t imagine a reason to step in Afghanistan other than just to please the American administration… and pleasing the Americans is disgraceful enough to censure the government! I may add that the same congressmen argued a few years ago that the only legitimate fight against terrorism was taking place in Afghanistan, not in Irak. Obviously for them, the only “legitimate” stand is to stay away from America, whatever it takes.
It’s a French specialty to look away from actual issues for the sake of ideological conservatism. There might be good reasons not to further involve French troops in Afghanistan. But the French socialist party has spoiled a “legitimate debate” with its basic anti-American ideology.
Of course with such poor arguments, the motion against the government fell short. “The opposition accuses us of ‘Atlanticism’, a pleasant way of saying we are in the pay of George Bush. Everyone understands that their aim is to surf on one of our most questionable failings: basic anti-Americanism,” Prime Minister François Fillon told congress.
Let’s stay positive after all. A country where the Prime Minister remains popular after having deliberately stated that anti-Americanism was a “failing” of its people must be a true pro-American country!
Filed under: France 1 - America 0 | Tags: Europe, France, Polls, stereotypes, USA
Checking out the news on France24 today, I came across a clue that might help explain why Americans misunderstand (not to say worse) the French thinking so often: they get their information from the British! Unfortunately, one can’t imagine farther from Continental Europe than the United Kingdom.
A recent poll by France24 and Harris Interactive asked both Europeans and Americans which European country they would think is the most influential in Europe today. Not surprisingly, Germany is seen as the leading country among a majority of the Europeans polled. But that’s not the case for the Americans, who believe – at the overwhelming rate of 63% – that Britain embodies leadership in Europe. Even the British do not view themselves as such a leader, although the tight results are showing how painful it has to be for them to give up!
Oh, by the way, 68% of the French are favoring Germany rather than their own country as the European leader. My thoughtful American friends might call it “surrender”. I call it “open-mindedness”. But we should all agree that this is anything but “arrogance”
I offered a new keyboard to my computer. But now, it is an American keyboard. I tried to explain to the seller that, the world being what it is, there would certainly be a model better suited to the native speakers of those barbaric languages that require accented characters to be written correctly. But no way to get a French or even a Spanish keyboard. “All keyboards are like that” he says, with the assurance of the technician, who won’t tolerate another argument. Giving up the “French exception”, I pay the “universal” keyboard proposed, without further arguing. The price of universality is that it is now a nightmare to write simple e-mails to my French friends without misspelling each accented word (and French uses a lot of those!). On the other hand, I do not need to change my habits when leaving my office for my home computer, and this is enough to make me happy about the keyboard.
Assimilation is gaining ground. After almost two years in America, I don’t fight anymore to find a French keyboard, a DVD player compatible with European standards, a camcorder able to record videos in both PAL and NTSC standards, a hairdryer with dual voltage 110/220V, or a thermometer with Fahrenheit and Celsius scales. After a few more e-mails in French, I’m sure I’ll be resigned to hit Option+E to type an “é” and Option+A to make an “à”.
Waiting for the next technological challenge!
