This article appeared on the Guardian's comment is free page. I have no idea who James Bennet is, but I would certainly piss in his drink at a party.
Below is his incredible article, as found on http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/23/french-holiday-lazy-work; below that is my response, found on page 4 of the comments if you're interested. Happy reading.... cocksucker....
"Every day's a holiday, if you're French" by J Bennet.
"I love France. I'm half French and bilingual, have a French mother and dual nationality. Every summer we travelled across the channel on the ferry to France to see my relatives in a beautiful time-forgotten Burgundy village, where everyone knew each other and life tasted as a sweet as the freshly baked bread my grandmother sent me to collect every morning. It was the best childhood anyone could ever imagine. As I said, I love everything French.
Or rather I did. A week after coming back from my first holiday in Normandy with my wife, her two sisters and their four children, my affection for the country has been forever tarnished. Why? Because the French almost ruined it for us all, that's why.
Despite the country posting a slight recovery last quarter, France is still well and truly mired in recession. Its unemployment rate is currently running at 8.2%, one of the highest in western Europe, and is expected to go above 10% by the end of this year. And yet among all this financial misery and economic turmoil is a country in which people have rapidly descended into a state of supreme bone idleness but who equally demand second-to-none social welfare, lower taxes, benefits and a high standard of living.
Ever since the 35-hour working week was adopted in February 2000 under prime minister Lionel Jospin's socialist government, France has become a nation of languid retailers, invisible tourism employees and workshy shopkeepers. Try and find a cafe open in peak tourist season on a Monday, Wednesday or Sunday in Normandy and I'll break into the Louvre and deliver the Mona Lisa to you by hand. Even if you do manage to catch someone selling something in a shop or restaurant in France, they'll probably turn you away as they shirk off for a two-and-a-half hour lunch break.
Since the turn of the millennium, France has been on permanent vacances. So much for the 35-hour-week plan devised as a means to reduce unemployment and yield a better division of labour. It had more holes in it than a slab of Gruyere cheese. The then government had envisaged that a 10% reduction in the hours extracted from each worker would theoretically require businesses to hire more workers, and that as a result productivity would rise in line with more personal and family time for workers and an enhanced quality of life. In late March 2005, a glimmer of hope appeared when French MPs voted to relax the 35-hour limit, allowing private firms to increase working hours. But employers at the time all too quietly murmured that it had failed to create jobs and was uncompetitive and the new law failed to destroy what had now become a way of life.
But this was before world markets collapsed, previously resilient global currencies plunged and many thousands across the continent faced mass redundancies. Instead recruitment has fallen faster than the Maginot Line, per-hour production quotas have risen and many firms have in general avoided hiring new workers because French workforce regulations make it difficult to lay off workers during a poor economic period.
Only one man and a handful of his party faithful appear to have tried to shake the French from their slumber. Ever since becoming president, Nicholas Sarkozy's slogan of "work more to earn more" has earned him more enemies than admirers. The Catholic church is forever calling for the preservation of the balance between weekdays, devoted to work, and Sundays, devoted to family life, sport or "cultural activities", while members of his own party, despite assurances that it would improve the economy, have fiercely resisted reform, filing thousands of amendments to the president's original version of the law.
But the battle appears to have been worth it. Following more than 100 years of somnolence, last Sunday (August 14) marked the day finally France woke up. Well, partially. Sarkozy's law narrowly squeezed through the national assembly by a vote of 282 to 238 and now permits shops, department stores and shopping malls to open on the Sabbath in 20 zones of what are called "exceptional commercial" centres in and around three of the country's largest cities, Paris, Marseilles, and Lille. Additionally, 29 areas involving about 500 cities and towns will be added to the list of tourist areas, which already allow some economic activity on Sundays.
In less than a decade France has undone more than half a century's worth of work and gone from being one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe to a nation of comfortable and lazy individuals. Thanks to a bizarre twisted socialist-era government law coupled with a backward-looking Catholic church and a weak-willed public and private sector, a mindset of "work less but gain more" was created and influenced almost every worker in a population of more than 61 million.
If France really does want to recover it has a much longer and more painful journey ahead than the rest of us, and it only has itself to blame.
Enchanting, and highly researched. My comment:
lundi 24 août 2009
vendredi 21 août 2009
So here we are eating stew
Yes, it's summer, yes it's the heatwave and the temperature in Paris hit 38°. But why not eat stew? Cos it's too hot and stodgy for such weather that's why, but god it was good.
Summer beef stew
Serves 4.
600g stewing beef (for bourguignon for example)
3 large tomatoes, 2 carrots, 2 floury potatoes
300g fresh beans in their shells (borlotti, white)
300g mushrooms
6 fat cloves of good garlic
1 large or two small red onions
3 small fresh white onions
at least half a bottle of dry white wine
a few sprigs of parsley and a bouquet garni
a bit of flour, 2tsp paprika, a sprinkle of hot chilli powder, a large pinch of saffron.
1) Heat a couple of glugs of olive oil in a big pan (low to medium heat) and add meat so that it starts to brown all over. After 5 mins or so add 2 finely chopped garlic cloves, stir and let cook for another 5 mins. Do not let garlic burn. Season with salt and pepper, and stir in 2 tsp of flour, stir in and make sure that all the flour soaks up some fat (there must be no more visible).
2) While meat is cooking prepare vegetables: put tomatoes in boiling water for 30 secs, remove skin and white stalk inside and most of the seeds. Peel garlic cloves. Peel and chop carrots and potatoes into half-thumb sized chunks. Chop mushrooms, white and red onions to same size and pod the beans.
3)When meat is ready put in this order:
a)tomatoes (stir), paprika, about half the wine, bouquet garni, chilli powder, onions, 4 whole garlic cloves. Let bubble and stir for a few minutes until the alcohol burns off.
b) Add carrots, potatoes, beans, mushrooms, parsley, saffron and enough wine to cover it all. Stir. Let some of the alcohol burn off again.
4) Leave it for at least 4 hours, simmering gently with lid on, and occasional stiring or it will stick at the bottom and burn. Add more wine if it looks to dry, or boil it up if it looks too wet.
5) Serve on bed of raw baby spinach leaves (soup plates recommended).
Summer beef stew
Serves 4.
600g stewing beef (for bourguignon for example)
3 large tomatoes, 2 carrots, 2 floury potatoes
300g fresh beans in their shells (borlotti, white)
300g mushrooms
6 fat cloves of good garlic
1 large or two small red onions
3 small fresh white onions
at least half a bottle of dry white wine
a few sprigs of parsley and a bouquet garni
a bit of flour, 2tsp paprika, a sprinkle of hot chilli powder, a large pinch of saffron.
1) Heat a couple of glugs of olive oil in a big pan (low to medium heat) and add meat so that it starts to brown all over. After 5 mins or so add 2 finely chopped garlic cloves, stir and let cook for another 5 mins. Do not let garlic burn. Season with salt and pepper, and stir in 2 tsp of flour, stir in and make sure that all the flour soaks up some fat (there must be no more visible).
2) While meat is cooking prepare vegetables: put tomatoes in boiling water for 30 secs, remove skin and white stalk inside and most of the seeds. Peel garlic cloves. Peel and chop carrots and potatoes into half-thumb sized chunks. Chop mushrooms, white and red onions to same size and pod the beans.
3)When meat is ready put in this order:
a)tomatoes (stir), paprika, about half the wine, bouquet garni, chilli powder, onions, 4 whole garlic cloves. Let bubble and stir for a few minutes until the alcohol burns off.
b) Add carrots, potatoes, beans, mushrooms, parsley, saffron and enough wine to cover it all. Stir. Let some of the alcohol burn off again.
4) Leave it for at least 4 hours, simmering gently with lid on, and occasional stiring or it will stick at the bottom and burn. Add more wine if it looks to dry, or boil it up if it looks too wet.
5) Serve on bed of raw baby spinach leaves (soup plates recommended).
vendredi 17 juillet 2009
So here we are thinking about what we are 'due'
I was sitting by the canal the other day having an early evening drink with some friends when I mentioned that I was now officially unemployed until September 14th, date at which my new contract starts at the language school. I was about to launch in to how I would spend this free time (namely start my new business) when all three quipped, almost in unison, "So, have you got your unemployment benefits yet?". "No", I answered, "I've got a job lined up, I live practically rent-free, have an allowance, was paid generously when my contract finished and have got plenty of money in my (three) accounts, I don't think I need it." Stunned silence. "But, but, you've cotised" they explained, as if to a jungle-resident who has just landed in the welfare state.
These three friends have a point. As a French employee, a generous hunk of my salary goes to the State: 327 euros a month to be precise, i.e. around 25% to 30% of my gross salary. In fact 33 euros a month have gone to the unemployment benefits vault and, true, I could claim around 500 euros a month until September (though I have only cotised around 270 euros). The way they see it is this: you've contributed to the kitty, you are entitled to the kitty. End of debate. Is it though?
These friends consider themselves fiendish left-wingers. One of them has already voted communist at a Presidential election. They think the right-wingers (dangerously close to the evil droite néo-libérale anglo-saxonne) are selfish, individualistic exploiters who like nothing better than sending the prolétariat down the mines so that they can afford a fourth annual holiday in the Maldives (a little exaggerated, but that is the gist.) Yet here they are saying that I should milk the State for a bit because, clearly, if I am entitled to it, then it is my due.
I also consider myself a rabid left-winger, but this has left me pensive. Thinking about it, it occured to me that here we have two very different views of taxes and the State. I adhere to the concept of redistribution, you take money from those who can afford a bit to spare and expect everyone to have a slice of it when required. This is true especially when it comes to health and education, but also unemployment benefits, especially when there are 800 000 extra unemployed - mainly unqualified industrial jobs, with mortgages to pay and children to feed - because of the financial crisis.
But there are very finite and limited ressources to share out, so what will there be left for those who need benefits if those who don't use up the money? The French debt and deficit are enormous, increasing and unsustainable. The Social security balance is so deep in the red that there is a serious debate about when the system will crash.
For me, not taking benefits is solidarity; I don't mind paying for those who need beneits and, the other side of the coin, do not expect people who don't need them to profit from them. My friends take a different view: the law says you can, so you should. But this seems to me very close to the pay-as-you-go individualist concept of welfare that is estasblished in the USA: put your money in then take your money out, regardless of whether others need it more, which they rightly criticise and consider non-humanitarian. This is the worst kind of non-individualism: when you see things through the prism of the State and no longer act out your views because you don't consider your individual self to be an actor in the scheme of things.
My moral to this anecdote is this: your views should not change according to whether there is a law in place or not. If you believe in redistribution and sharing out of wealth, you should be prepared to accept that some of the wealth you have is given out. The law is there to give you a right, not an obligation, to have support, and it is up to your political consience to determine who deserves it most- those entitled to it or those who need it. And then act accordingly. Amen.
These three friends have a point. As a French employee, a generous hunk of my salary goes to the State: 327 euros a month to be precise, i.e. around 25% to 30% of my gross salary. In fact 33 euros a month have gone to the unemployment benefits vault and, true, I could claim around 500 euros a month until September (though I have only cotised around 270 euros). The way they see it is this: you've contributed to the kitty, you are entitled to the kitty. End of debate. Is it though?
These friends consider themselves fiendish left-wingers. One of them has already voted communist at a Presidential election. They think the right-wingers (dangerously close to the evil droite néo-libérale anglo-saxonne) are selfish, individualistic exploiters who like nothing better than sending the prolétariat down the mines so that they can afford a fourth annual holiday in the Maldives (a little exaggerated, but that is the gist.) Yet here they are saying that I should milk the State for a bit because, clearly, if I am entitled to it, then it is my due.
I also consider myself a rabid left-winger, but this has left me pensive. Thinking about it, it occured to me that here we have two very different views of taxes and the State. I adhere to the concept of redistribution, you take money from those who can afford a bit to spare and expect everyone to have a slice of it when required. This is true especially when it comes to health and education, but also unemployment benefits, especially when there are 800 000 extra unemployed - mainly unqualified industrial jobs, with mortgages to pay and children to feed - because of the financial crisis.
But there are very finite and limited ressources to share out, so what will there be left for those who need benefits if those who don't use up the money? The French debt and deficit are enormous, increasing and unsustainable. The Social security balance is so deep in the red that there is a serious debate about when the system will crash.
For me, not taking benefits is solidarity; I don't mind paying for those who need beneits and, the other side of the coin, do not expect people who don't need them to profit from them. My friends take a different view: the law says you can, so you should. But this seems to me very close to the pay-as-you-go individualist concept of welfare that is estasblished in the USA: put your money in then take your money out, regardless of whether others need it more, which they rightly criticise and consider non-humanitarian. This is the worst kind of non-individualism: when you see things through the prism of the State and no longer act out your views because you don't consider your individual self to be an actor in the scheme of things.
My moral to this anecdote is this: your views should not change according to whether there is a law in place or not. If you believe in redistribution and sharing out of wealth, you should be prepared to accept that some of the wealth you have is given out. The law is there to give you a right, not an obligation, to have support, and it is up to your political consience to determine who deserves it most- those entitled to it or those who need it. And then act accordingly. Amen.
mardi 23 juin 2009
So here we are indebted to pleasure
The Debt to Pleasure by John Lanchester
In a nutshell : Tarquin Winot is our epicurian, gentleman dandy narrator who, via seasonal menus, gives us a scattered autobiography, food memoirs and a million throaway opinions and comments on life, art, l'art de vivre etc etc etc.
In a nutshell : Tarquin Winot is our epicurian, gentleman dandy narrator who, via seasonal menus, gives us a scattered autobiography, food memoirs and a million throaway opinions and comments on life, art, l'art de vivre etc etc etc.
The blurb : quite dense to read- do not be fooled by the fact it is only a couple of hundred pages long. Tarquin is an incredible narrator, erudite and with a poor opinion of his surroundings (exept good food, southern france, good art and the occasional beautiul woman) and launches in to a monologue on all of this. It does however become increasingly clear that he is completely mad, as he carefully builds up confessions to - haha!- and generally makes clear that he is a megalomaniac, schizo genius. He is oblivious to his own faults and the opinions some may have of him, making him a rather credible character, and it is great (on rereading the book, which is a must) to understand the gap between his opinion of himself and what he actually is.
IMHO this is a brilliant book which needs to be read and reread. Tons of facts on pretty much everything - though mainly food (of course), art, history and travel. In every paragraph he wanders off down another thought path. Taken all together it is a very funny and witty, amazingly constructed, book, that draws you in to the strange mind of the Tarquin Winot and slowly sheds light on what he is really getting up to... Highly recommended.So here we are drinking with Wilberforce
The Irresistible Inheritance of Wilberforce by Paul Torday
In a nutshell: a backwards book that starts with the end, whose main character Wilberforce is a wine-lover (according to him), a hopeless alcoholic. The question is how, and why, did he become so?
The blurb: the book's opening scene introduces us to Wilberforce stepping out of a taxi and about to spend thousands of pounds on Chatau Petrus 1982 in a fashionable restaurant. Soon we understand that he is a wine-lover, and then rapidly realise it's a bit more than that. What is so fabulous about this book is that it is written backwards. Divided into four parts and four years ('vintages' Torday cheekily calls them), the book starts in 2006 and goes back to 2002. As the book progresses [backwards] we go from Wilberforce's terminal alcohol problem to its origins, spanning work, love, family, friends and [still backwards] his terrible decline. Written in the first person narrative, we witness the terrible confusion, paranoia and self-justification of the alcoholic, though progressively slip backwards to discover another character- a shy, nervous man in quest for origins and a circle in which he can belong. Though this is a serious, heartbreaking subject and story, there is a always a wry sense of humour thoughout the book: it is like watching a man who slips on a banana skin only to die of a broken back.
IMHO this is a wonderful, intense, thought-provoking book. Wilberforce's character starts as a big man, a little arrogant, self-assured, similar to John Lanchester's Tarquin character in the Debt to Pleasure (read review here), though clearly haunted by memory flashes of different times. Little by little we learn to distinguish the man from the drink and discover the genesis of the flshback snippets. After Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (read review here) which was simultaneously funny, bittersweet, moving and dark, Torday conjures up another orginal style and story in a similar clean prose. Very highly recommended -more than that!- and Torday is now on my list of favorite contemporary writers.
In a nutshell: a backwards book that starts with the end, whose main character Wilberforce is a wine-lover (according to him), a hopeless alcoholic. The question is how, and why, did he become so?
The blurb: the book's opening scene introduces us to Wilberforce stepping out of a taxi and about to spend thousands of pounds on Chatau Petrus 1982 in a fashionable restaurant. Soon we understand that he is a wine-lover, and then rapidly realise it's a bit more than that. What is so fabulous about this book is that it is written backwards. Divided into four parts and four years ('vintages' Torday cheekily calls them), the book starts in 2006 and goes back to 2002. As the book progresses [backwards] we go from Wilberforce's terminal alcohol problem to its origins, spanning work, love, family, friends and [still backwards] his terrible decline. Written in the first person narrative, we witness the terrible confusion, paranoia and self-justification of the alcoholic, though progressively slip backwards to discover another character- a shy, nervous man in quest for origins and a circle in which he can belong. Though this is a serious, heartbreaking subject and story, there is a always a wry sense of humour thoughout the book: it is like watching a man who slips on a banana skin only to die of a broken back.
IMHO this is a wonderful, intense, thought-provoking book. Wilberforce's character starts as a big man, a little arrogant, self-assured, similar to John Lanchester's Tarquin character in the Debt to Pleasure (read review here), though clearly haunted by memory flashes of different times. Little by little we learn to distinguish the man from the drink and discover the genesis of the flshback snippets. After Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (read review here) which was simultaneously funny, bittersweet, moving and dark, Torday conjures up another orginal style and story in a similar clean prose. Very highly recommended -more than that!- and Torday is now on my list of favorite contemporary writers.
mardi 12 mai 2009
So here we are testing our Europhilia
Turns out I'm a left wing pro-European (yup). In French but a nice little test from www.touteleurope.fr!
vendredi 8 mai 2009
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
First things first: are you criticising the 35 hour week or shops not opening on Sundays? and how do either make us lazy? Concerning the former, you might be surprised to learn that the 35 hour week is not the norm, any cadre (equivalent of a managerial position) or for that matter artisan boulanger could tell you that. Equally, for those it does concern what exactly do you have against having an extra afternoon/morning off a week, or a couple of extra days off a month? There are some things money can't buy, and spending time with your kids on a wednesday afternoon or taking a long weekend to visit the family are obvious examples. It might even be because of a certain equilibrium between work and leisure that French workers have the highest hourly productivity rate in Europe, something you forgot to mention when qualifying us of lazy. It's not all about length I guess, quality does count.
As for the catholics being behind the plot against Sunday shopping I find that very strange, the main argument against it being, as far as I can tell, that it is the most vulnerable workers (women working part time, pour ne pas les nommer) who would be working that day (for no extra pay I might add), when they would normally spend it with the family.
Again, it all boils down to the question of whether a strong(er) economy, fueled by more consumption and more working hours, is really what makes a society happy and healthy. We have good, free, schools, an excellent health service, and awesome transport. Who cares if the train driver works 35 hours a week when you can go from Paris to Marseille in under 4 hours?
France has its problems, no doubt. As you say, high unemployment, sluggish economy , massive debt, (hang on a sec, aren't you also British?) crappy universities, abominable prisons, social and racial inequality, etc. But there is also much to be proud of, not least the fact that we cling to the belief that we are not just labour, but human beings.
Last but not least: waiters will never refuse you for lunch to take a two and half hour lunch break. they geneally eat at about 11.30, before the first rush, or at 3 after the second. In fact the 2 and a half hour lunch beak is a myth today, and when it does last more than an hour, it's not so bad because we usually leave the office around 8, rather than head off to the pub at 5...