Blue Laws, French-style

BLUE LAWS? Most in the U.S.  have either been repealed, declared unconstitutional, or are not enforced, but they haven't all disappeared. They persist, in the U.S. and all over the Western world. Even in post-Revolution guillotinons-les France, where separation of church and state is, in theory, sacrosanct.

Blue laws were created to enforce religious (Christian) standards and ensure the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and to that end, restrict Sunday shopping.

I'm most familiar with the Massachusetts Blue Laws, which place restrictions on business openings on Sundays and holidays. In the past, retailers weren't allowed to open before noon on Sundays, but a 1994 change to the Massachusetts' laws permits retailers to open at any time on Sundays without specific approval by the Department of Labor, and without a special local police permit.

[Amusing aside: click on the link dumb laws in Massachusetts to go to a web site listing laws such as the following, not necessarily Blue Laws, but well deserving of a brief aside: 

At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches. 
Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked. 
An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public. 
Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts. 
All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday. 
It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath. 
A woman can not be on top in sexual activities. 
No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car. 
Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder. 
Quakers and witches are banned.

A few comments: 1) even though I love a good Manhattan chowder, if you don't get the tomato-chowder law, you're clearly not a Yankee; 2) the law banning witches probably has no real impact on the activities of those practicing the craft (my brother can verify); 3) the ban on going to bed without a full bath is eco-insensitive; and 4) the law permitting snoring in premises where the doors and windows are locked down tight should in fairness be extended internationally to protect those inside the premises as well. Snoring is not culture-specific...sigh.] End aside, back to France.

A semblance of Blue Laws exists in France, as well as in other European countries. If you've ever visited France, you know that most retailers are closed on Sundays, especially in the tiny towns and villages around the countryside. They close up shop at 7 p.m. on Saturday and don't re-open before Monday or Tuesday morning. Sunday shopping is supposedly a no-no. However (surprise, surprise) there are exceptions in certain zones and municipalities of larger cities like Paris, Marseilles, Lille, Nice, Bordeaux, and in numerous smaller cities that have been declared as tourist sites. And most major stores across France open on the Sunday just before Christmas. Are you noticing a trend here? "Money, money, money...it's a rich man's world"

French supermarkets are allowed to open on Sunday mornings but have to close by 1 p.m. En principe, hypermarkets are not allowed to open. In 2009 French laws were relaxed to allow all stores to open in tourist areas; pre-2009 only sports, toys and cultural shops could open. Now clothing stores open every Sunday in hot spots such as the Champs Elysées and La Défense in Paris, for example...  

So why can supermarkets open Sunday mornings but not hypermarkets? Because French laws governing Sunday shopping are convoluted. Articles L.3132-13 and R.313-8 of the code stipulate that only establishments whose exclusive or principal activity is the sale of retail foodstuffs have the right to open on Sunday mornings.

The French hypermarket Cora, similar in size and style to a Fred Meyer/Walmart store in the U.S., is testing that law in the south of France, and the CGT (Confédération générale du travail = French trade union) is taking legal action. If you read French, check the article in last week's Midi Libre: "Bataille de procédure autour de Cora Alès" 

CGT attorneys are requesting that Cora cough up facts and figures concerning employees and sales affected by the Sunday openings, which continue despite the legal action underway. Cora is countering by arguing that it doesn't need to provide any such information since the request is inadmissible and illegitimate. Their attorney is claiming that the requested data is highly sensitive information.

One figure Cora is willing to share: 53% of its sales are alimentary. Will this suffice to successfully challenge the current selective Blue Law allowing benefits to some establishments while barring others? Apparently the law does not clearly state exactly what percentage of sales must come from foodstuffs to qualify the establishment as one whose primary purpose is alimentary. I warned you: French laws are convoluted. Legalese is legalese; like witchcraft and snoring, it is not culture-specific (mes excuses to all my attorney friends, whom I hold in the highest respect). 

The court date is set for early September. Meanwhile, Cora Alès remains open Sunday mornings and the Alèsiens are shopping. They don't look particularly blue about it either.

Take a look at the employees, though: Sunday shoppers require Sunday employees. The rise of establishments open on Sundays is provoking a devaluation of life outside the workplace. That's the real bottom line. Social benefits fought for hard and long are being lost as France backs up to a world of privileged power, where too many of its citizens are forced to play a hardball game of work or sink.

Blackmail in D.C.

Le Monde diplomatique's Serge Halimi recently published an insightful analysis of President Barak Obama's back-peddling during recent debt negotiations between the White House and right wingers. My translation of the editorial appears below, along with the original French.

août 2011: Chantage à Washington

August 2011: Blackmail in Washington D.C.

by Serge Halimi

Where the reduction of the American national debt is concerned, the dispute placing President Barack Obama in opposition to the Congressional Republican majority conceals what’s really at play: giving in to adversarial blackmail.  Mr. Obama immediately conceded that more than three quarters of the budget for the next ten years – 3 billion dollars – would come from budget cuts to social programs. The American right wing could have settled for this win but it always wants more, even at the risk of losing popularity.

Relative à la réduction de la dette américaine, la querelle qui oppose le président Barack Obama et la majorité républicaine au Congrès dissimule l’essentiel : cédant au chantage de ses adversaires, M. Obama a concédé d’emblée que plus des trois quarts de l’effort budgétaire des dix prochaines années, soit 3 000 milliards de dollars, proviendraient de coupes dans les budgets sociaux. La droite américaine aurait pu se satisfaire de ce triomphe, mais elle veut toujours plus. Y compris quand son intransigeance risque d’entamer sa popularité.

In December 2010, in a first buckling to pressure, the President of the United States opted to maintain the very unequal tax cuts of predecessor George W. Bush, for a period of two years.  Four months later, sounding like Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama delighted in “the biggest annual reduction of expenditures in US history.” He continued negotiations with the Republicans of the Congress, announcing that he was prepared to be reprimanded by his party in order to get results. Result: more White House back-peddling…

En décembre 2010, cédant une première fois à sa pression, le président des Etats-Unis avait prolongé de deux ans les baisses d’impôts très inégalitaires décidées par son prédécesseur George W. Bush. Quatre mois plus tard, parlant cette fois comme Ronald Reagan, M. Obama s’est réjoui de « la réduction annuelle des dépenses la plus importante de notre histoire ». Il a ensuite enchaîné les cycles de négociations avec les parlementaires républicains, annonçant : « Je suis prêt à me faire taper sur les doigts par mon parti pour arriver à un résultat. » Résultat : de nouveaux reculs de la Maison Blanche…

The right wing is opposed to any debt reduction that would call for tax hikes. This preliminary condition may seem odd in a country where the avalanche of fiscal privileges heaped on the wealthiest results in a level of global deductions at its lowest point in fifty years. In reality, beyond a determination to target expenses only, Republicans want “to starve the beast,” that is, in the words of one of their strategists, “to reduce government to the size where [we] can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

La droite s’oppose à toute réduction de l’endettement qui passerait par un relèvement des impôts. Ce préalable pourrait sembler farfelu dans un pays où l’avalanche des privilèges fiscaux déversés sur les plus riches fait que le niveau global des prélèvements n’a jamais été aussi bas depuis cinquante ans. Mais, au-delà d’un entêtement à ne cibler que les dépenses, les républicains veulent en réalité « affamer la bête » — c’est-à-dire, pour reprendre l’expression d’un de leurs stratèges, « réduire la taille de l’Etat de façon à ce qu’on puisse ensuite le noyer dans une baignoire ».

How can the recent soaring of the American public debt be explained? Firstly, by the economic crisis, largely provoked by decades of financial deregulation. Secondly, by the consistent renewal of temporary tax reductions voted in 2001 (2,000 billion dollars income loss). And finally, by the post-September 11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (1,300 billion dollars). The party of Reagan and Bush nonetheless claims to resolve the debt problem by protecting both the rich, whom they call “job creators,” and the Pentagon budget, that has increased (in real terms) by 67% in ten years.

Or comment s’explique l’envol récent de la dette publique américaine ? D’abord par la crise économique, que la déréglementation financière des dernières décennies a largement provoquée. Ensuite, par la reconduction régulière des baisses d’impôts provisoires votées en 2001 (2 000 milliards de dollars de manque à gagner). Enfin, par les guerres de l’après-11-Septembre en Afghanistan et en Irak (1 300 milliards de dollars). Le parti de Reagan et de M. Bush prétend néanmoins résoudre le problème de l’endettement en protégeant à la fois les plus riches, qu’il appelle les « créateurs d’emplois », et le budget du Pentagone, qui a augmenté (en termes réels) de 67 % en dix ans.

Last April 5, Paul Ryan, president of the House Budget Commission, in fact outlined Republican projects for the coming decades. His plan proposes that public expenses, presently equal to 24% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), will not move beyond 14.75% of the GDP in 2050, with the maximum tax rate moving from 35% to 25% (the lowest level since 1931). All the tax havens for the privileged would be preserved, but health benefits for the elderly and the poor would be frozen.

Le 5 avril dernier, M. Paul Ryan, président de la commission budgétaire de la Chambre des représentants, a d’ailleurs détaillé les projets des républicains pour les décennies à venir. Son plan prévoit que les dépenses publiques, actuellement égales à 24 % du produit intérieur brut (PIB), n’atteindront plus que 14,75 % du PIB en 2050, le taux d’imposition maximal passant de 35 % à 25 % (niveau le plus bas depuis 1931). Toutes les niches fiscales des privilégiés seraient préservées, mais les remboursements de santé destinés aux personnes âgées et aux pauvres seraient gelés.

If Mr. Obama continues to avoid this battle, the social missions of the American government may very well soon look like the cadaver in the bathtub.

Si M. Obama continue à esquiver ce combat-là, les missions sociales de l’Etat américain risquent bien de ressembler sous peu au cadavre dans la baignoire.

Serge Halimi on the Western Intervention in Libya

Serge Halimi's editorial "Révoltes arabes, chaos libyen : Les pièges d'une guerre" appears in April's online edition of Le Monde Diplomatique.

Click on the above link to read the original article in French. Continue here to read my English translation.
---
Arab Revolts, Libyan Chaos
The Snares of War

by Serge Halimi

For several months now, the Arab revolts have been reshuffling the political, diplomatic and ideological cards of the region (read “Une région en ébullition”). Libyan repression was threatening this dynamic. And the UN authorized Western war has just added to the landscape a factor with unpredictable consequences.

 

Even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day. That the United States, France and the UK have taken the lead in the Security Counsel resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan regime is insufficient in and of itself to object to it. An unarmed movement rebelling against a regime of terror is at times reduced to calling on disreputable international police forces for aid. Focused on their own problems, they will not refuse this aid, even though it comes from who turn a deaf ear on the pleas of other victims – the Palestinians, for example. The rebellion will even forget that the international police force is better known for repression than for support.

That which logically guided the Libyan insurgents facing extreme danger is not enough to legitimize this new war by Western powers on Arab soil. The intervention of NATO member countries constitutes inadmissible means for trying to reach a desired end (the fall of  Muammar Qaddafi). If these means seem obvious, a “choice” between Western bombings and the crushing of Libyan rebels, it is solely because other possibilities – the intervention of UN, Egyptian or Pan Arab forces alongside the rebel forces – were rejected.

Past results of Western armies prevent us from regarding them them as motivated by the generosity they claim today. Who believes that States, no matter which ones, consecrate their resources and armies in order to accomplish democratic objectives? Recent history is enough to remind us that if wars claiming such motivation initially achieve dazzling success, with equally dazzling media attention, what follows is more chaotic and sober. In Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting has not ceased, although Mogadiscio, Kabul and Bagdad “fell” years ago.

The Libyan rebels would have preferred toppling despotic powers on their own, as their Tunisian and Egyptian neighbors did. Franco-Anglo-American military intervention threatens to force them into a debt towards those never before concerned themselves with Libyan freedom. The responsibility of this regional emergency, however, lies with Qaddafi. Without the repressive rage of a regime that, over the space of forty years, moved from an anti-imperialist dictatorship to pro-Western despotism, without his tirades treating all opposition as “Al-Qaida agents" or "paid moles and informants working for foreigners,” the fate of the Libyan uprising would have depended solely on the Libyan people.

The 1973 Security Council Resolution authorizing the bombing of Libya will perhaps prevent crushing a revolt condemned by the poverty of the insurgents. It resembles nonetheless a dance of hypocrites. For it is not because Qaddafi is the worst or the most murderous of dictators that his troops have been bombed, but because he is also weaker than others, with no nuclear arms or powerful friends likely to protect him from a military attack or defend him in the Security Council. The intervention against him confirms that international law does not lay down clear principles, the violation of which, in every case, would lead to disciplinary measures.

The same goes for diplomatic and financial whitewashing: the moment of righteousness permits the erasing of decades of turpitude. Thus the French president has his former business partner bombed, the partner he welcomed in 2007 and while everyone knew the nature of his regime – we will be grateful to Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy for not having proposed to Mr. Qaddafi the “savoir faire of our security forces” offered last January to Tunisian President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali… As for Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, the “close friend” of the Libyan Guide who made eleven visits to Rome: he is rallying the righteous coalition by dragging it by its feet.

A majority of old men contested by the democratic thrust are headquartered in the heart of an Arab league that joins the UN movement then pretends consternation when the first American missiles are fired. Russia and China held the power to veto the Security Council resolution, to amend it in order to reduce its reach and the risks of escalation. Had they done so, they would not have had to “regret” the use of force. Finally, to size up the honesty of the “international community” in this affair, it must be pointed out that the 1973 resolution reproaches Libya for “arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, tortures and summary executions,” naturally things that do not exist in Guantanamo, Chechnya or China…

The "protection of civilians” is not simply an indisputable demand; in times of armed conflict, it also imposes the bombing of military targets, that is of soldiers (often civilians obliged to wear the uniform…), mingled among the unarmed population. Control of a “no-fly zone” for them means that planes patrolling the area risk being shot down and their pilots captured, which will then justify their liberation by the ground commandos. Scrub the vocabulary as you will, war cannot be eternally euphemized. 

And in a final analysis, this war belongs to those who decided it and who lead it, not to those who recommend it, dreaming that it will be short and joyous. Drawing up spotlessly clean plans for a war without hate, without “blunders," is a charming notion, but the military force to whom falls the task of executing the plans will do so according to its own inclinations, methods and requirements. It may as well be said that the corpses of Libyan soldiers machine gunned during their retreat are, as the joyful crowds of Benghazi, the result of the 1973 UN resolution. 

The progressive forces of the entire world are divided on the Libyan affair, according to whether they stress their solidarity with an oppressed people or their opposition to a Western war. Both standards of judgment are necessary, but one cannot always demand simultaneous satisfaction of the two. When there has to be a choice, it remains to be determined just what an internationally obtained “anti-imperialist” stamp of approval authorizes its people to be subjected to each day. 

In Mr. Qaddafi's case, the silence of several leftist Latin American governments (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia) on the repressions ordered by him is disconcerting, just as much as the Libyan Guide's opposition to the “West” is pretense. Mr. Qaddafi denounces the “colonialist plot” against him -- after reassuring the former colonial powers that “we are all in the same fight against terrorism. Our information services work together. We have helped a great deal these past years.”

Like Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, the Libyan dictator claims that the explanation for the attack against him lies in the desire to “control oil.” And yet the oil is already exploited by the American company Occidental Petroleum (Oxy), the British BP and the Italian ENI (read Jean-Pierre Séréni’s article on this subject: “Le pétrole libyen de main en main”). A few weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was hailing “Libya’s strong macro-economic performance and its progress in the reinforcement of the private sector's role." Mr. Ben Ali, Qaddafi’s friend, had received comparable compliments in November 2008, served up personally by IMF’s General Director, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, arriving straight from... Tripoli. 

 

Mr. Qaddafi’s antique revolutionary, anti-imperialist spin, fed in Caracas and Havana, no doubt equally escaped Mr. Anthony Giddens, a theoretician of Blair’s Third Way. He announced in 2007 that Libya would shortly become a “Norway of Northern Africa”: prosperous, egalitarian, turned towards the future.” Compared with the very eclectic list of his dupes, how is it still possible to believe that the Libyan Guide is as crazy as he is purported to be?

There are several reasons for some leftist Latin American governments' mistakes about Mr. Qaddafi.  They wanted to see him as the enemy of their enemy (the United States), but that should not have been enough to make him their friend. A mediocre awareness of Northern Africa – Mr. Chavez says he informed himself about the situation in Tunisia by calling Mr. Qaddafi… – led them to position themselves opposite the “colossal campaign of lies orchestrated by the media” (according to Mr. Castro). All the more so because this campaign took them back to personal memories whose pertinence was questionable in this particular case. “I do not know why this is happening and has happened in Libya, the Venezuelan president declared to me. It reminds me of Hugo Chavez on April 11.” On April 11, 2002 a coup d’état had attempted to overthrow Chavez; the media supported it through manipulated information.

Other factors leaning towards poor analysis of the Libyan situation include: a model for reading events that was forged by decades of armed intervention and violent domination on the part of the United States in Latin America; the fact that Libya helped Venezuela gain a foothold in Africa; the role of the two States at the heart of OPEC and Africa-South America summits; the geopolitical approach of Caracas aiming to re-balance its diplomacy towards closer relations between Africa and South America.

To this one must also add the tendency of President Chavez to consider the diplomatic ties of his country as a personal, close relationship with chiefs of State: “I was a friend of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, I am a friend of King Abdallan, who was here in Caracas (…). A friend of the Emir of Qatar, a friend of the president of Syria, who also came here. A friend of Bouteflika.” When Qaddafi’s regime (“my friend for such a long time”) engaged in the repression of his people, this friendship weighed in the wrong direction. In fact, Mr. Chavez missed an opportunity: of presenting the rebellion on the African continent as the younger brothers of leftist Latin American movements he knows well.

Beyond this error, diplomacy is no doubt the domain that best reveals, in every country, the flaws of exercising a solitary power made up of opaque decisions, no parliamentary control and no popular deliberation. Moreover, when diplomacy pretends to defend democracy through war, as in the Security Council, the contrast is necessarily striking.

After having exploited, and not without success, the geopolitical, anti-Occident recourse and the progressive argument of the defense of natural resources, the Libyan director did not long resist the temptation to play the ultimate card of religious confrontation. “The big Christian powers,” he explained last March 20, "have engaged in a second Crusade against the Muslim people, with the Libyans at their head. Their objective is to wipe Islam [off the map].” Thirteen days earlier, Mr. Qaddafi had nonetheless compared his work of repression to the repression suffered by one thousand four hundred Palestinians.” “Even the Israelis in Gaza had to resort to tanks to combat such extremists. It is the same for us.” That must not have increased the Guide’s popularity in the Arab world.

At least this last about-face has one virtue. It recalls the political noxiousness of the approach that reproduces, by inverting it, the neoconservative thematic of crusades and empires. The Arab uprisings, because they mixed the religious and secular – and because the religious and secular were opposed therein – may announce the death of a self-proclaimed anti-imperialist discourse that is nothing more than anti-Western.  In its hatred of the “West,” it confounds what is the worst in it – gunboat diplomacy, the disdain of “indigenous” people, wars of religion – with what is best in it, from the Enlightenment philosophy to social security. 

Barely two years after the Iranian revolution in 1979, the radical Syrian thinker Sadik Jalal Al-Azm scrutinized, in order to refute them, the characteristics of a “backwards orientalism,” that, refusing the path of secular nationalism and revolutionary communism, was calling for a fight against the West through a return to religious authenticity. The main postulates of this "culturalist" analysis, summarized then submitted to criticism by Gilbert Achcar, stipulated that “the degree of emancipation of the Orient must not and may not be measured by the yardstick of Western values and criteria, such as democracy, secularism and the liberation of women; that the Eastern Muslim cannot be understood through the epistemological instruments of Western science; that the factor that moves the Muslim masses is cultural, that is to say, religious, and that its importance surpasses that of economic and social factors that condition Western political dynamics; that the only path of Muslim countries towards rebirth is through Islam; and finally, that the movements brandishing the standard of a “return to Islam" are not reactionary or regressive, as perceived by the Western eye, but rather progressive, in that they resist Western cultural domination.”

 

Such a fundamentalist approach to politics has perhaps not had its last say. But, ever since the shock wave that began in Tunisia, one senses that the relevance of such an approach has been shaken by the Arab people who do not want to position themselves “against the West, nor in its service ." They prove this by sometimes targeting an ally of the United States (Egypt), and sometimes one of their adversaries (Syria). Far from fearing the defense of individual freedoms, freedom of conscience, political democracy, unionism, feminism as constituting as many “Western” priorities dressed up as emancipating universalism, the Arab people take hold of these things to mark their refusal of authoritarianism, social injustices and police states that treat their people like children, all the more spontaneously since they are lead by old men. And all this – recalling other great revolutionary upsurges, that day after day make social and democratic gains being lost elsewhere – is undertaken energetically, at precisely the moment when the “West” seems split between its fear of decline and its lassitude in the face of a dead and stagnant political system. A UN resolution as much for the struggles of Western peoples… 

Nothing says that this Arabic energy and courage are going to continue to score points. But they are already revealing unexplored possibilities. Article 20 of the Security Council’s 1973 resolution, for example, stipulates that the Security Council “declares itself resolved to insure that (Libyan) holdings frozen (by a previous resolution) are at a later date, as soon as possible, made available to and used for the people of Arab Libyan Jamahiriya.” It would therefore be possible to freeze financial holdings and return them to the citizens of a country! Let us wager that this lesson will be remembered: States have the power to satisfy the people. For some months now, the Arab world has been reminding us of another lesson, just as universal: the people have the power to constrain States.

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/04/HALIMI/20379 - avril 2011 

  

In my secret life...

…there are times when I hate France. Here’s why:

Up until a few months ago, the only Internet option in this village was a pokey dialup. Dropped connections, unreliable phone lines, frequent outages, fried modems. Then France Telecom installed DSL. Hallelujah?

Not so much. Every time a new customer’s hooked into the system, someone else is bumped out, disconnected. Yesterday it was our turn. Again. No phone, no Internet. No Customer Service you could count on either. Modern times, modern angst – French style. No wonder they so frequently take to the streets here.

Which is what I did: with research to do, online lessons to teach and promises to keep, the wretched and the weak (aka me) gathered up heart and France Telecom file, hiked over to the Post Office and called 3900 (Customer Service) from the PO phone. The odds are there to beat…

An accent from northern Africa answers. At least we both speak French and he seems to have a sense of humor. He runs through the list of standard questions, the last of which: “Are you calling from your landline?” I hear the edge in my voice as I tell him again that the reason I’m calling is because our phone is OUT, as in “it does not work,” so no, I am not calling from our home phone because it does not work. I am calling from the village Post Office phone. “Are you near your computer and router box?” he asks. No, I am not, because I am not at home, I am at the Post Office, I politely reply.

He asks for my cell phone number and tells me he’ll call me at home, on my cell, in five minutes. Twenty minutes go by before my cell rings. Pretty good, almost record time in fact and I appreciate it. He asks me to turn off the router box, wait three minutes then turn it back on. This, he says, will re-boot the system and all will be fine. I tell him that I’ve already done that, twice, before calling Customer Service. He decides to test the line. Announces that it’s not functioning normally. I don’t say that it's a good thing he’s on the other side of the Mediterranean.

Next, he proposes that we uninstall and re-install the router box. He is trained to assume the customer is in the wrong. He is trained to avoid confirming that the problem lies with FT’s phone line or Internet service. I do not share his illusion. Still, perhaps a reinstallation will fix the problem, so I follow his rather odd and lengthy instructions. Over an hour later, nothing has been repaired and now the router box is not working at all.

Mr. Customer Service calmly concludes that there “may” have been an “incident” and that, according to the report he’s reading on his computer screen, our phone service will be re-established in two weeks. Two weeks. No phone service, no Internet service for two weeks. This is unacceptable, I tell him with equal calm, explaining that I work online, that this is far from the first time our service has been interrupted and that I will be sending a very large bill to France Telecom. He gives me the appropriate department number and asks if there is anything else he can do for me, to which I reply: “What else can you do for me?” He can check back in the morning to see if the system is working (he doesn’t call).  Bonne fin de journée, au revoir, madame. No wait, I need you… I don’t need you… I need you… I don’t need you…

I need music. Now. At least the electricity’s still working (not always the case). I put on The Essential Leonard Cohen. There is no Essential Guide to France Telecom. No one would know where to start. So I’m counting on Leonard. Nothing can kill you in his tower of song.

He’s wrong though about that “ain’t no cure for love” thing. There’s a cure for Francophile love: going toe to toe with France Telecom on a regular basis. Descartes be hanged; these are Post Modern times and logic is dead. Even the French are pulling their hair out. Especially the women. Ever notice older women in France? Thin hair. Thin. Their service provider is probably France Telecom.

I listen to Cohen through both CDs then head to bed. As I drift off, I’m hearing France Telecom chant, “give me absolute control over every single living soul.” I punch back with: “I’ve seen the future, it is murder.”

When I wake up, I glance at the router box. Nope, the Internet angels have forgotten to pray for us. So I get dressed and head for the Mairie, where I ask Monsieur le Maire to call someone important, use a little muscle to rectify this mess once and for all (it’s election time). I learn that ours wasn’t the only line disconnected yesterday. But ours is the only line still out. The secretary tells me she’ll call France Telecom, give them our info and have them call me on my cell. Hours later the Mairie is closed and no one’s called. Sublimating, I eat M&Ms by the fistful, including the blue ones. Living in France sometimes drives you to drastic measures.

I make a command decision, to do exactly what France Telecom tells you never to do without their assistance: un-install and re-install our router box. The Customer Service guy from yesterday probably did something wrong, left out a step. He’s the expert (ah-hem) but who knows, maybe he screwed up. I glance through the manual, toss it on the floor and go to work.

Fifteen minutes later, it’s V-day in the trenches. We're back on boogie street.

In my secret life, I can count on Cohen.

 

Pour les nuls

The For Dummies folks are celebrating ten years of success. Back in the 90s, an American editor had the brilliant idea of publishing a practical manual for those who knew absolutely nothing about computers, at a moment when personal computers were not quite a household fixture, but were rapidly becoming so. They started in 1991 with DOS for Dummies by Dan Gookin, and now cover a wide range of topics. The collection is published in France under the title Pour les nuls, .

The French title was a brilliant translation coup: the word nul is as omnipresent in French life; it conveys a variety of meanings, from the obvious "null/nil/invalid" to "useless," "hopeless" and even "worthless"; it's a catchy word that rolls off the tongue as easily as dumb and dummy, with the same double edge of humor and disparagement.

Initially the books were translated into French for the French speaking market. Then in 2000, Vincent Barbare of Editions First was given the green light to expand the collection, using French authors on subjects culturally specific to the French. According to an interview with Barbare in last Friday's Midi Libre, success was modest at best until, in 2004, L'histoire de France pour les nuls exploded on the market.

Not all that long ago no self-respecting librarian in France would consider putting a Pour les nuls book on their shelves, whereas today the series is highly visible and collaborates with icons such as the Louvre (Le Louvre pour les nuls). Barbare attributes the Nuls' success to an interesting, fun approach that lets curious, modest French souls learn without knocking themselves out.

In the beginning, it was difficult to find authors to pen the French books, but now experts are clamoring at the gates. Some even consider a Nuls collaboration a veritable feather in their cap, un titre de gloire, as Barbare  puts it. So much so that Barbare, reluctantly, is forced to refuse proposals by some very well known authors. Obviously being an authority on a subject does not suffice; to be a Nuls writer, you have to know how to adopt the right tone, a nul voice that explains the subject matter with both expertise and humor.

The For Dummies collection is published in thirty-three languages, but its greatest sales -- and by far -- are in France. Why the French are "the most nuls" is an inviting question. Are they more curious than other cultures? Are they lazier readers (shorter chapters) or -- ahem -- are they more into efficiency (shorter chapters)? Is there a connection to the emphasis that French culture places on personal responsibility? Is it tied to the French tendency to claim (some) knowledge on (almost) every topic? To the French aversion to saying je ne sais pas ?

I don't know. Perhaps someone should propose the subject to Pour les nuls.

A "Barque de Poste 1818" is Reborn in the Cevennes

With the very passionate and eloquent Robert Mornet at the helm, local fans of the 1818 model boats that used to run on France's famous Canal du Midi banded together in the Cevennes to build their own 1818 barque. No real vestige of the historic wooden vessels remain. 

At Mornet's request, ship builder Alain Dorado recreated construction plans for the 1818 barque. Blueprints in hand in 2007, Mornet began to build an exact replica of the boat in his backyard, under the protective cover of an agricultural greenhouse. This weekend -- four years later -- the nearly complete vessel is being unveiled in order to paint it and finish the roof. Supporters gathered last night in the Médiathèque Intercommunale in the small town of Le Vigan, to honor the historic moment and the man who made the dream come true.

The Barques de Poste were canal boats, similar to stagecoaches in function: they were water coaches harnessed to one or two horses that pulled them from a towpath running along the canal. The same type of towing system was used along the famous Chesapeake & Ohio canal in the United States; many other examples exist worldwide. 

The French system was put into service in 1681, between Toulouse and Agde; other routes were added later. In the beginning, the journey took 4 days, traveling at a speed of 8 kilometers per hour. There was a boat change at each lock, to save both time and water. In all there were nearly 25 locks and a fleet of 40 Barques de Poste. The number of passengers transported on the canal reached 100,000 a year. Each boat could hold up to 50 passengers; there was no meal service, nor any sleeping accommodations. Travelers either brought food aboard with them or ate and slept in inns (auberges) along the way. The advent of the rail system spelled the end of the canal transport system: unable to compete with the speed and efficiency of the trains, Barques de Poste service was terminated in 1858.

Voyages on the new Barque de Poste will maintain historic authenticity: the crew, coachman (postilion) and all personnel will be dressed in period costumes. The boat will be pulled by horses when possible along the towpaths. For stretches where that isn't possible, a motor will be used.

The maiden voyage plans to make the historic Toulouse-Sète trip in 8 days, and if possible, go as far as Beaucaire in 8 more days. Round-trip. Under no obligation to book passage for the entire trip, passengers will have the option of getting on at one lock and off at the next. As in days long gone by, transportation will be charged by the kilometer: if you ride for 10 kilometers only,  that's the distance you pay for. In the spirit of supporting local tourism and businesses,  meals will be taken in local establishments along the route. The same goes for overnight lodging, for passengers and crew alike. 

The Barque de Poste plans to offer daily on-board activities, with musicians, story tellers, historic commentaries and exhibits. Monsieur Mornet refers to the presenters as "clandestins" (illegals), in a gesture of open criticism of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's hotly contested campaign against illegal immigrants.

You can find more information about the Barque de Poste on the web site for the project: http://www.barquedeposte.org/index.html  It's in French, but even if you can't make sense of the text, you can still enjoy the numerous photos!