Mort aux ordiphones!

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Pierre Lescure, formerly the head of French TV channel Canal Plus. You may be agape right now at the fact that, in the middle of over a week of massive Washington scandals, I’m reserving my harshest criticism of the week for a French media executive. Well, that’s because we need a laugh, preferably from a foreign country, after being so thoroughly disappointed with the American government. And, by God, did Lescure – and, by extension, French President François Hollande – ever bring it. Allow me to quote the great Al Bundy:

A toast . . . to the French. It’s a foul little country, but they sure do know how write a check, don’t they?

They sure do, and that check will come from a new tax on companies that manufacture any device that links to the Internet: smartphones, tablets, e-readers, gaming consoles and, presumably, laptops and desktops. Hollande tasked Lescure with coming up with a list of “recommendations on how France should adapt its commitment to preserving French-language culture in the . . . digital era.” The tax would initially be set at 1 percent, possibly raised to 3 or 4 percent later, with the money funding “the production of French art, films and music.”

My feelings on government arts funding in general haven’t changed a bit since I first wrote about it. But the idea that this tax would correct the “excessive imbalances” posed by the availability of digital content is absolutely ludicrous. People from all over the world come to France to see its artistic contributions up close and personal. That element of its national identity hasn’t changed just because it’s easier for French citizens to look at other countries’ art. There’s no “threat” to traditional French arts; there is only competition.

The weird part is that not all of Lescure’s recommendations are terrible. One is to scrap a holdover from President Nicolas Sarkozy’s administration that bans Internet connections and imposes penalties on anyone guilty of illegal downloading. Another is to reduce the delay in the release of movies and foreign TV series to video . . . which isn’t as good as realizing that the government has no business setting delays like that, but it’s a good start. And a levy on French telecom operators to subsidize filmmaking will now be based on revenues, instead of being a flat amount. Yeah, that’s considered an improvement by their standards.

I’m sure neither Hollande nor Lescure would ever want to be caught saying French culture is so weak that international culture needs to be discouraged. But that’s what they’re saying, without even trying.

Is the eurozone too big to fail?

Here’s why the euro never made any sense: The 17 countries that have adopted it have retained sovereignty over their fiscal policies and have different economic capabilities, resources and preferences, not to mention politics. With such a system in place, it was perhaps inevitable that one country whose straits were particularly dire (i.e. Greece) could pull the entire bloc down, despite the considerably better straits of another country (i.e. Germany). The solution? Less sovereignty, apparently.

That’s the proposal from, oddly enough, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – perhaps because she knows that everyone would take their cues from her under this plan. A fiscal union would give European Union (EU) institutions more control over how each country taxes and spends, for the benefit of the entire region (in theory). French President François Hollande, the only other EU leader anyone bothers listening to, is fine with the idea as long as it’s accompanied by debt reduction tools beyond austerity, to assuage concerns of citizens.

Assuage, maybe. Eliminate? Doubtful. A poll from earlier in the month reveals that Europeans are becoming increasingly cold to economic integration and blame it for their own countries’ problems. However, no majority in any country wants to drop the euro. Nobody can blame them, seeing as this would most likely create an initial economic shock that would do little, at least at first, to improve their lot. That’s why you don’t see Western countries encouraging this.

So, with that and “doing nothing” off the table, we have two choices: Pay down the debt by . . . most means necessary (those of us outside the eurozone don’t want to bail it out) before beginning the process of disintegration, or integrate some more. This would certainly improve fiscal stability in the short run. But what happens if an external economic shock drives the entire region into this level of debt again? Would they demand a global fiscal union so they can hurt less?

As I see it, the solution to the eurozone crisis is much like the solution I would have preferred for the 2008 banking crisis: bail them out with strings, and then break them up. Earlier legislation, like the Glass-Steagall Act, might not have stopped the banks from declaring bankruptcy, but it would have mitigated the overall impact of the crisis. The banks would be smaller, with fewer people’s accounts affected. That obviously hasn’t happened for U.S. banks. There’s still time for it to happen to the eurozone.

In the meantime, since the global stock market is apparently as fragile as a Hummel figurine on a windy day, it’s probably best that this discussion stay confined to the independent blogosphere.

Lament of the Bayrouiste

How many candidates in the French general election can you name? Chances are, unless you haven’t read an international section in weeks (in which case you’re the type of person that I mock passive-aggressively on Twitter), you were able to name one or more of the incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy, Socialist François Hollande and the Old Right-style Marine Le Pen. There are six others (three small-s socialists/Communists, a Green, a trade protectionist and an adherent of Lyndon LaRouche), plus my favorite: François Bayrou.

The above link from The Economist doesn’t spend much time talking about Bayrou, but they did describe him as a centrist who should have polled well above fifth place in the first round of France’s ranked-choice vote (the second will be on May 6). A review of Bayrou’s profile reveals that this is his third presidential campaign, that he formed his Democratic Movement party, that he is pro-EU and pro-national growth, and that he describes himself as a centrist and a Clintonian. My type of candidate in most respects, except for the pro-EU stance.

I don’t know enough about Bayrou personally to judge whether or not he actually deserves to win. But his ideas deserve much more of a hearing than they’re getting, especially when you consider that most indications support a victory for Hollande, now that the field has winnowed down to him and Sarkozy. The idea of another socialist European president should be chilling to anyone even remotely worried about a regional fiscal collapse.

As The Economist points out, Hollande is not a reformer; he is more concerned with keeping the welfare state intact than about making hard choices to revive France’s economy. But they disapprove of Sarkozy’s preference for the German approach, which they view as counter-productively restrictive, as well as his pandering to the far right. True, Sarkozy is more willing to embrace reforms – just the wrong ones.

None of this should come as much of a surprise, seeing as 64 percent of French disapprove of Sarkozy. This election seems to reflect their feelings perfectly: They are the ones unwilling to embrace reforms, and Hollande is capitalizing (pun intended) on that sentiment. Perhaps Bayrou does not inflame political passions the way his opponents do. What is the solution to a problem that repeats itself across oceans? Do centrist candidates simply need sharper teeth, or whole new mouths to put them in?

Or perhaps voters dislike Bayrouisme because it calls out the waste they have allowed to continue. Nobody likes a stern lecture. But how often have you realized how much sense that lecture made later?

They work in Ms.-terious ways

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the government of France. Oh, believe me, there are plenty of reasons I could give them the fail: their bloated bureaucracy, President Nicolas Sarkozy’s swagger, their near irrelevance on the international stage. But their decision to eliminate the word “Mademoiselle” from administrative documents, thus making all the women “Madame,” wins it precisely because it’s so obvious. My new rule around here is to leave everything requiring actual policy discussion to the rest of the week.

Anyway, the change came after a heavy amount of lobbying from French feminists, complaining that multiple honorifics for women place too much importance on their marital status. To some extent, I agree. I’ve been calling myself Ms. since high school; hell, I was reading Ms. in high school. Is the Miss-Ms.-Mrs. trifecta outdated and unnecessary? Yes. Is it worth being “phased out” as per government policy? No. Is it worth all the celebratory rhetoric that followed? Definitely not. Is this a sign that the French government spends way too much time thinking about what social interest groups want? Yes.

Perhaps the term would have died of natural causes eventually, seeing as marriage in France is a shade on the low side, as the article notes. Or perhaps it would have just been relegated to personal choice status. After all, no government declared war on “Miss” or “Mrs.” in government documents in the U.S., where the term “Ms.” originated. It rose to popularity through the media. Now it’s considered polite to default to Ms. unless otherwise informed. That doesn’t keep the woman in question for selecting her own honorific when she has the opportunity.

This is the proper way to dispose of vocabulary you find objectionable: find an alternative and make it a trend. By going the other way, the French government is telling the Mademoiselles of their nation that they are sexist and out of touch for not defaulting to Madame. Why couldn’t they have come up with a new word of their own? Here’s a possibility: “Mafemme,” or “Mf.” for short. A word like that might catch on if they were willing to think that hard.

It’s a worrying trend I’ve noticed in countries like France: Wait for the government to get the ball of change rolling. If there’s anything we’ve learned from Greece, aside from mathematics and democracy, it’s that this behavior can blow up in your face one day.

My big fat Greek debt load

In my CKUW days, more than one show covered the possibility, which apparently was and still is very strong, of a North American Union and subsequent conversion to the amero. Of course, that never happened, and they were often getting their info from alarmist anti-globalizationists with dubious credibility. But if it did, as the Greek debt crisis shows, that would only do any good if the world economy were constantly growing. Then hard times come and you’re all in the shit together, even if you don’t deserve it.

Greece got a small break today when Germany, arguably the most economically successful nation in the eurozone, agreed to import its solar-generated electricity. Since Greece has already been on the receiving end of many bailouts, trade may be its last frontier. Monetary policy is out of the question, as Greece, along with every other eurozone country, has no independent currency to revalue. There’s been talk of temporarily switching back to the drachma, then switching back to the euro when they’re ready. That says it all, doesn’t it?

Arguments I’ve found in favor of the euro are as follows: 1. It would make Europe, as a whole, economically competitive on the level of the U.S. and Japan. 2. It would save individual European countries from having to navigate each other’s exchange rates and tariffs whenever they want to trade. Arguments against: It eliminates economic sovereignty. That should suffice.

As of 2006, the eurozone economy (with 17 countries) falls short of the U.S. economy, in terms of their share of the global gross domestic product (GDP), by 5.1 percentage points, despite having 17 million more people. That gap tells me the eurozone has missed something in its attempt to measure up to the U.S. My conservative friends will argue that it’s their dependence on public services; that’s partly true. But the mere existence of the eurozone can’t help.

Other parts of the world – namely, North and Central America – have dealt with this by a series of trade agreements which, while problematic in other ways, solve much of the tariff problem. They don’t seem so inconvenienced by currency differences that they wish to eliminate them altogether. They recognize that when a country drives itself into debt, it is their responsibility to get out, however painful. They do not force stronger countries to solve their problems.

The principle behind weaning Europe off the euro is the same as the one behind the last financial crisis. When an economy, or economic sector, has so few large players, one failure sends everyone else toppling over. It makes more sense to have more and smaller players to keep the effects minimal.

I, for one, welcome our new rioter overlords

On behalf of sane people the world over, I would like to send a message to everyone who has participated in the London riots since Saturday: Bravo. I salute you.

Why do I say this? Well, I’m sure many of my Canadian readers will think back to last year’s protests at the G20, which also resulted from whatever causes were convenient for individual demonstrators and also led to moments of senseless destruction. The difference is that the actual riot only went on for a day or two before everyone realized how much trouble they were causing. This one will have gone on for five days as of tomorrow! That takes serious stamina. It also takes serious dedication to your utter lack of principles. I wholeheartedly approve of your intransigence. It never fails.

Now I don’t know how many of you are still rioting over the killing of Mark Duggan, but if you are, bravo! We’re all aware that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. This will be especially beneficial to you, since you don’t want anyone with their eyes open wide enough to see your failure to peacefully and respectfully demand an inquiry. I mean, that’s something Canadians would do, and that’s never good. I’m sure Duggan’s family appreciates your actions very much.

As for those of you who have forgotten about Duggan and are rioting over cuts in social spending: Bravo again! How dare the British government take away decades’ worth of government bloat from you? What do you British call them – wankers? They are wankers, aren’t they? The nerve of them to incentivize you to pay your own way once in a while. That’s super-haaaaaaard. But risking your own imprisonment and other people’s livelihoods is easy as shepherd’s pie! (Which is gross, by the way.)

And to all of you who are rioting over other problems with law enforcement, or just general disgust for the profession, well, the mother of all bravos to you! You’ve put them in such a tight spot: You’re so hard to control by now that any action they take to suppress you will only make them look needlessly brutal! It’s a stroke of pure genius. I know cop-haters here in Winnipeg who are probably sobbing with pride.

But a special bravo to all of you for thoroughly rejecting “the system.” Emma Goldman said it was a bad idea to work with it, so you know it’s the right thing to do. So keep fighting the . . . fight, and when you’re finished, just go to hell. Everyone else will stick with the system, so you might as well.

Des gens unis ne seront jamais battu!

Over the last week, there have been protesters blockading airports and highways, students hurling bottles at police and barricading their own schools, strikes followed by endless protests. It’s gotten so bad that Lady Gaga has had to cancel shows because her traffic is being obstructed. A G20 summit in Toronto? No, a vote on raising the retirement age in France.

Yes, you heard right. Frenchpeople all over the country are rioting because President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to raise the national retirement age from 60 to 62. His justification is that because of economic downturn, they need to conserve more money for the pension fund, which means some of its recipients will have to wait two years before seeing anything. I’d think the French would accept this theory, which at least somewhat jives with the concept of economic equality.

Not so, according to one union representative who says he wants to retire at 60 because his parents and grandparents fought to make happen. You think it’s just them? The article makes it sound like it’s the entirety of France:

. . . social benefits such as long vacations, state-subsidized health care and early retirement are more than just luxuries: They’re seen as a birthright — an essential part of the identity of today’s France.

See? This is what happens when a past government raises people to suck at their teat throughout adulthood. A current government is politically bound not to change things up, even when, fiscally speaking, the change may be in everyone’s best interests. Then that current government has to deal with people like the previously quoted union rep, who says he will protest “as long as it takes.” What a kick in the ass it would be if, when he decides to give up, he’ll have lost a year of income.

In my arguments with Winnipeg activists, I tell them their efforts haven’t brought about true divergence from the original plan in years, perhaps decades. But France is a horse of a different color. It seems to be in their nature to take to the streets whenever someone does something they don’t like. Depending on the government of the day, which has been more socialist than other governments throughout most of the 20th century, they have gotten what they wanted. But considering the resulting inefficiencies, it’s still not a productive use of time.

If Sarkozy wants any hope of getting these activists to calm le hell down, he will have to wrap his justification in socialist rhetoric, no matter how much it makes his teeth hurt.

Disposal Day #18: Meanwhile, across the ocean . . .

STORY #1: Everybody hates Greece

It is unfortunate that incredibly poor planning by the Greek government led to its austerity measures. Just as big banks put the U.S. government in a bind, so has the Greek debt put the country’s workforce in a bind by forcing them to accept wage and pension cuts. But the way the Greeks are responding to it makes the Tea Party look like the Berkeley chapter of Students for Obama. One writer at my old university gave legitimacy to a “growing” anarchist movement in the region. Yeah, they’re that pissed.

I can’t pretend to understand the causes leading up to the Greek debt crisis other than to note that bad deals with Goldman Sucks were involved, allowing the above writer to lob a grenade at fiscal conservatism itself. But the fact that it’s taken place at all has given me more ammunition against the euro, which more fiscal conservatism may have prevented. At least the U.S. depends on its own taxpayers to accept a bailout; Greece needs everyone else’s taxpayers.

STORY #2: And Spaniards hate Spain

The situation isn’t much different in Spain, where the General Workers Union is promising that a civil servants’ strike will take place next month in response to wage cuts. I will give Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero credit for trying to explain the necessity of the cuts to union leaders, but when does that ever work? He should have told them to be happy the government is paying them at all.

STORY #3: Bye-bye, Brownie

Did anyone who even casually observed the UK election expect former Labour leader Gordon Brown to win? Media showed Brits welcoming Conservative David Cameron with mild enthusiasm, simply because he wasn’t Gordon Brown. But at the Gender & Women’s Studies forum on Yahoo! Answers, where I remain a regular, some of the UK men have a different theory: that Labour was voted out because of its acting leader, hyper-feminist Harriet Harman.

Wrong, gentlemen. If you read serious journalistic articles printed about this election, you will note that Harman is a minor player at best compared to Brown. Voters weren’t all that happy about fiscal policies out of his office that led to the nationalization of a number of banks and a considerable debt load, not to mention the release of the Lockerbie bomber. All of these have been more relevant than any gender-relations policy, and Brits are smart enough to vote on their basis.

The Vatican: A case study in issues mismanagement

For all of its good qualities, the Vatican has a serious PR problem. My class hasn’t begun the unit on crisis communications yet, but I imagine it will include something about not being overly defensive and spewing blame on every external non-factor in sight. They really should consider hiring one of us to handle the media for the summer.

As you are likely aware, Pope Benedict XVI has been accused of doing little to halt pedophilia by a number of Catholic priests in his own constituency, or whatever the Catholic term is, while he was previously a cardinal and an archbishop. This seems like a bad time to bring it up now that he is the bloody Pope, he is, but you can’t control when victims choose to come forward.

When accused of covering up child abuse – which, as we learned earlier in the year in Journalism, is the worst thing anyone can ever do by the standards of convicted felons – your first instinct is to deny it categorically, right? Say you didn’t do it and challenge your accusers to prove otherwise. That would actually keep you away from digging yourself into a deeper and deeper pit. Let’s see what the Pope’s people have done instead:

• Cardinal Julian Herranz has accused “powerful lobbies” of attacking the Pope because of his positions on abortion and homosexuality.
• Vatican Radio compared the accusers to anti-Christian mobs in the Middle Ages.
• Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, said no bishop was responsible for the mistakes of a priest – not an unreasonable point – but then compared that priest to Judas and the bishop to Christ.
• And let’s not forget that yarn about similarities between this and ”the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism” made by Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, the Pope’s preacher.

This whole problem could have been solved if the Pope just swallowed his pride and admitted that he wishes he could have done more to stop these actions on the front lines. There are examples of major companies who have been saved by saying things of that nature; the Tylenol poisoning scandal is the best example. Besides, that statement is probably true. But don’t take the Palin approach and simply accuse them of opposing your values.

In the meantime, victims in their families have only been left with more questions than ever, and those questions will have to be answered straight out eventually.

Objects in photo are smaller than they appear

It’s about time that somebody came up with this idea. I don’t think I can stand another photo of Audrina looking like she never ingests any of that fast food they make her fellate on camera.

The proposed French law would require photographs of people whose images have been digitally enhanced to come with a warning label to the same effect. No word on exactly what the label would say or look like, but it would be there, in the interests of assuring everyone else that bodily perfection is indeed unattainable. Just look at the photo accompanying the above article. Nobody’s legs are that milky white, unless they’re made of cardstock.

This law would also require a fine of $50,000 to be paid for non-compliance. Well, France does have a single-payer health care system (which you will never have – got it, Americans?); maybe this would help them pay for all the eating-disorder-related hospitalization.

I had to laugh at this quote: “fashion photos that are digitally enhanced to make models more appealing.” Does anyone really think models are all that appealing? More often than not, the women have the body shape of their five-year-old selves, their eyes are sunken halfway back into their heads, and the only expression they can muster is one that says “FEED ME.” The guys, on the other hand, are so ridiculously cut that only steroids or those weird liquid vitamins are responsible, and their overly full lips make them even prettier than the women. And take it from me: few things are uglier than a pretty boy. But I digress.

I have one small criticism of the law, though: because the models have the largest stake in the photos, shouldn’t they have the ultimate decision over whether or not they get Photoshopped? I propose that the labels are only applied with their discretion, after all of the flaws – real or perceived – have been removed from the image. And if they don’t want them applied, well, they can take the blame for any inconvenience it may cause to the women and men who gaze upon them with envy.

We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the fashion industry as a whole stopped treating women with a little bit of stomach flab as “plus-size.” What do they get out of treating models the way they do now? Is it all in the interests of saving on the cost of materials? I’m sure that upgraded Parisian penthouse is real expedient, Anna. Now get a Twix bar.