back to the future

back in college, I took up a habit where I would wake up in the middle of the night once or twice a week to watch live NBA games on cable. I would lose a precious few hours of sleep, staying awake through a steady munching of krisprolls and diet coke, all the while relishing every second of it. Once I joined the workforce such occurences diminished to the point where I now wake up only for major sporting events, like a baseball playoff game, or Alain Bernard's winning 100m freestyle race in the Beijing Olympics.
So with Election day finally upon us, after what feels like the longest political campaign in history, I initially thought I would turn back the clock and pull an old-school half-nighter. But, having stayed at work past 1am yesterday, and, truth be told, not feeling as spry after 4hours of sleep as I used to, I've decided to take the old-man way out. 1am will probably be enough for me, which means I'll only get to see some early returns, not the nail-biting suspense from the battleground state results. Then again if it means I get to avoid the letdown of four years ago, that's probably a good thing.
And, most importantly, in the spirit of unity I prepared a new, special bi-partisan smoothie for desert: strawberries for Republicans, blueberries for Democrats, and some banana for the independents. Now that's change we can believe in.

pick me! pick me!

while the US presidential elections are still months away, that hasn't stopped the media coverage from shooting into overdrive before the Iowa primary was even held. So far most of the articles have read as so: OBAMA WINS! OBAMA MANIA SWEEPS THE NATION! OBAMA TO BE NEXT US PRESIDENT! HILLARY WINS! HILLARY NOW FAVORITE! OH, WAIT, AND THAT OLD GUY, HE WON TOO!

And that's just in the foreign French and UK media I read. While I was sort of expecting it from the NY Times (whose coverage, it has to be noted, has been pretty stellar so far), it does tend to grate to read almost as much about it in Le Monde or The Guardian, often done in a very personal fashion, as though this directly concerns the audience. Last time I checked, French and British citizens don't vote for the US president. And while it's often a fascinating subject, especially in a country where the political system is so different (get ready for about 14 billion articles on that wild and wacky electoral college system come October, not to mention the voting machines) from ours, there are still plenty of other things going on in the world. Then again, if that means less articles and reports about Sarkozy and his women (ministers of otherwise), maybe it's for the best.

I get it, the United States are still a major superpower, and the last 8 years not having been the best (to say the least) for its stature, there is a sky-high attention to the results from the vote. But it still doesn't change the fact that whatever discourse and analysis is done throughout the world media, 99.9% of their audience will not get a say on Election Day. There's nothing wrong with being interested in this whole circus (I sure am doing my part in my daily readings), but a little added distance might not be so bad.

les professionnels

yesterday was the first round of the Parliamentary elections in France, which saw Nicolas Sarkozy's party take an impressive lead and with it the prospect of having a massive majority in the Assemblee Nationale. This was to be expected. By electing Sarko with such a wide lead during the presidential elections in May, voters had shown they were looking for a new and strong government, and this election was for many simply a confirmation of that choice.

One thing that did come to my attention was that most of the members of the new government were told by their new boss to uphold their candidacies in order to win a seat in the assembly, apparently to show that they had the confidence of their constituents. That even goes for government chief Francois Fillon, who handily won reelection in his native Sarthe. Now campaigning for your party "friends" I can understand, but when you've just been chosen as government minister, what's the point of being a candidate to a seat which you will not occupy if you do get elected? I mean Frankie boy, you're the newly designated Prime Minister. Of the entire country. Seriously, don't you have other things to worry about than making sure yours and your ministers' names are on the winning lists?

The main argument that was presented by Fillon and Sarkozy was that this election would provide their new government members the opportunity to partake in a referendum of sorts on their legitimacy. But they've only been in place for a month, at most, so it seems a tad early for voters to have any kind of informed opinion on what kind of job the government is doing. And if these ministers are going to let their second in command seat at the Assemby anyway (ministers are forbidden by law to hold more than one seat), why go through the travesty of presenting themselves as the main candidates, and have people vote for them? Can they even pretend the election means something? Personnally I'm more interested in learning what sort of solutions to the many problems facing France this team will come up with, than in hearing about their performance in an election that generally feels like an afterthought following the Presidential one. This is probably more of a PR move, to put government members in the best possible light before the sure-to-be tough months laying ahead, but like all campaigns based on image, the underlying message rings disheartingly hollow.

so what now

after a campaign that seemed to go on forever (but don't they always), the centre-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, or Sarko as he is commonly known, was yesterday elected as president of France, winning the run-off against Socialist candidate Segolene Royal with an impressive 53.1% score. And now comes reality: Sarkozy is finally where his ambition pushed him to, the highest post in the national political ladder, giving him the ultimate opportunity to prove he can put the country back on track.
Many things aren't going well in France right now, especially on the economic front. One of the biggest problems I've noticed is how constant opposition to change is. There's always someone to point out the flaws in the government's plans or laws, and too often strikes to go along with it. While public criticism of government is part of the essence of democracy, the unreleting way with which it is done in France gives an overall feeling of stagnancy, of systemic obstacles whenever the country needs to adapt to a new context. Unfortunately the best at this game seem to be the socialist, and the left in general. I say unfortunately because I believe they should incarnate a positive current of propositions, constantly adapting and trying to bring economic progress without too hard of a social impact. Instead they tend to live in the old ideology of the 60s, if not way before, using obsolete terms like "the rich" over and over again. I consider myself a left-leaning voter, if only based on my record, but I found Mrs Royal so vague on many of her positions, particularly the economic ones, that I sort of felt I had no choice but to vote for her opponent. I might not live in France anymore, but it doesn't mean I want to see it keep losing pace in the global economy, even while I'd like it to retain its social values. Vague optimism is okay when you're running for middle-school class president, but in this case the stakes are too high to keep things fuzzy. Of course because this is the country of drama some Royal supporters are acting indignant, comparing Mr Sarkozy to Bush, Putin, and even a nazi (I wish I were kidding but I heard this comparison with my own ears). But all that doesn't really matters now. Barring a surprise socialist win at the upcoming assembly elections, Sarko will have the mandate he wants. And what he does with it is what matters, not all the inconsequential things we might have heard during the past few months.

politics as usual

without getting into what my beliefs in the matter are, I have to say that I've been really enjoying all politics-related discussions lately. I've been with my extended family for a day now (for the annual xmas shebang) and every meal has featured at least one talk on the upcoming presidential election and the various themes that have been broached by the candidates.
As a true believer in the importance of voting (basically, if you don't do it, you're voiceless, however futile your vote might seem), I've enjoyed the act of voting since turning 18, but I guess it really took the 2007 presidential vote for me to get into all of the debates. What I enjoy most about these talks isn't necessarily getting my viewpoint across, though I do try to do that too, but mostly hearing the variety of opinions around the table. My family tends to be more on the intellectual side of things, so it's interesting to listen to what they've got to say about one candidate or the other. Even if the general prognosis isn't very good, the debates still tend to be pretty lively.
Living and traveling abroad, I've often had these discussions with locals, but it seems to me French people have a special talent when it comes to talking about the subject of politics by being both down on the idea and very into the ideas being exchanged. When I was younger I used to shun such talks, preferring to discourse about music or movies, but now I find I love to discuss politics or the economy with friends or family. One part of this change comes from having a job, paying taxes and generally considering myself a producing member of society, but another is definitely from having the right people to talk to. After all, if all you're able to discuss are the talking points you hear repeated ad nauseam on TV, the discussion probably won't go too far. Of course I'm still more inclined to want to talk about Terrence Malick's genius or how Midlake are the closest thing to Fleetwood Mac these days, but a little dollop of "grown-up" subjects is now an acquired taste for me.