I've been listen to the radio on some mornings recently. This is a song that's been playing and growing on me:
It's "Places" by Martin Solveig, a French DJ, and features Ina Wroldsen, a Norwegian singer and songwriter. Good songs like this one remind me of what I'm missing by rarely listening to the radio.
The radio edit can be found here.
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Saturday, 13 May 2017
Sunday, 7 May 2017
French presidential election, 2017
The French election results are in and Emmanuel Macron, of the En Marche! party defeated Marine Le Pen of the National Front:
On the surface, this seems like a good result, as Le Pen is a far-right candidate and given recent far-right successes in certain Western nations, this is a victory against hate. Unfortunately, Macron isn't exactly a stellar candidate himself, although it's not because of any hatred on his part.
No, the problem with Macron is his political positions and his former job. He used to be a banker, so it's absurd to think that a banker is going to support policies to help the poor. With regards to his policies, he is a supporter of neo-liberalism and the discredited "Third Way" economic policies, both of which are heavily responsible for the rise of the far-right in the West in recent years. Indeed, in 2015 he pushed through economic reforms in France to make it it more "business-friendly" rather than beneficial to workers and residents.
Le Pen might have lost this time around but if Macron doubles-down on the failed policies that have caused the recent far-right resurgence in the West, he risks her or someone like her winning sometime down the road.
On the surface, this seems like a good result, as Le Pen is a far-right candidate and given recent far-right successes in certain Western nations, this is a victory against hate. Unfortunately, Macron isn't exactly a stellar candidate himself, although it's not because of any hatred on his part.
No, the problem with Macron is his political positions and his former job. He used to be a banker, so it's absurd to think that a banker is going to support policies to help the poor. With regards to his policies, he is a supporter of neo-liberalism and the discredited "Third Way" economic policies, both of which are heavily responsible for the rise of the far-right in the West in recent years. Indeed, in 2015 he pushed through economic reforms in France to make it it more "business-friendly" rather than beneficial to workers and residents.
Le Pen might have lost this time around but if Macron doubles-down on the failed policies that have caused the recent far-right resurgence in the West, he risks her or someone like her winning sometime down the road.
Sunday, 20 November 2016
Development in the next French presidential election
There has been a development in the next French presidential election, which is next year:
The Republican party of France held a primary, in which former President Nicholas Sarkozy was defeated, losing to Francois Fillon, a former prime minister. This makes the 2017 French presidential election the first since 2002 that Sarkozy has not been a main candidate. He was elected president in 2007 but defeated for re-election in 2012.
France is likely to have a right-wing president. The Socialists have suffered from poor poll ratings, so the incumbent president is unlikely to make it through the first of two main presidential elections: the primary and the second round. The second round is expected to be a contest between the right and the far-right.
The Republican party of France held a primary, in which former President Nicholas Sarkozy was defeated, losing to Francois Fillon, a former prime minister. This makes the 2017 French presidential election the first since 2002 that Sarkozy has not been a main candidate. He was elected president in 2007 but defeated for re-election in 2012.
France is likely to have a right-wing president. The Socialists have suffered from poor poll ratings, so the incumbent president is unlikely to make it through the first of two main presidential elections: the primary and the second round. The second round is expected to be a contest between the right and the far-right.
Saturday, 10 October 2015
Americans and their passports
The world enjoys mocking the United States regarding how supposedly a low percentage of Americans hold passports (ranging from 10-30% by some estimates). It feeds the stereotype that Americans are uncultured and ignorant of the world beyond their borders while believing that the United States is the center of the planet. It's argued that the American government and media declaring that the United States is the "greatest country in the world" discourages Americans from going abroad. That might be one explanation but how about a good-faith, less hateful reason?
Look at the geography and climates of the United States. It's one of the few countries that has a massive array of landscapes and terrains. Do you want forests? The Pacific Northwest is the place for you. Deserts? The Southwest. Beaches? California and Florida. Mountains and snow? Alaska is the answer. Surfing? The Golden State again and Hawaii. Flat and farmlands? The Great Plains states. Places with an "old" feel to them? New England, parts of the mid-Atlantic and Virginia would be safe bets. With all this tucked into one giant country, is it any wonder why many Americans don't see the need to travel abroad? Why bother with the hassle of international airports when you have everything you need and want within your vicinity?
It could be argued that exploring a foreign country opens you up to a new culture. That is true but honestly, how many other international travelers go to another country "for the culture"? Many people have to travel because it's a part of their job, much as it was for my father; his time in other countries was for work-sponsored tasks, not for pleasure. In addition to him, people such as diplomats, military personnel and aircraft crews are all required to travel by the nature of their jobs. They're not going there specifically to absorb local cultures, although it can sometimes still be possible for them to simultaneously work and experience another country. Immigrants usually choose to move to another country for economic reasons; learning the new culture is a part of immigration rather than the cause of it; take my family - our international moves stemmed from economic motives.
And, of course, let's not forget the thousands of British people who visit Spain, Italy and Greece every year. Are they going there because they harbor deep desires to learn about the Reconquista, Leonardo da Vinci and the Cradle of Western Civilization? No, they go there for the beaches, the hot weather and (sometimes) for intentional intoxication. Who does more harm: somebody who visits Spain, gets drunk and ends up committing a crime or a family who travels from Ohio to Florida on a family vacation?
Not visiting other countries does not mean that you know nothing about them: Thanks to the Internet and easy communication, I know about French politics despite having never set foot in France. I haven't been to Iran yet I have conducted some studying of its cities and while I've never been anywhere near New Zealand, I have learnt that its terrain is similar to that of Oregon. Granted, it would be an amazing opportunity to visit these places and I would benefit from that but, at the same time, I lose nothing by not traveling. I would never criticize Americans who don't engage in international travel and I would be a hypocrite if I ever were to: during my family's fourteen-and-a-third years living there, I never left the country during that time (except when we moved away) and I have yet to travel from the United Kingdom since we came here in 2010. Only Dad travelled - because it was required of him for his work.
It's not shameful to not travel provided that you don't hate other peoples simply because they're different. The problem isn't people who don't travel - it's people who don't take the time to learn, understand and appreciate others, and such close-minded individuals can be of any nationality.
Look at the geography and climates of the United States. It's one of the few countries that has a massive array of landscapes and terrains. Do you want forests? The Pacific Northwest is the place for you. Deserts? The Southwest. Beaches? California and Florida. Mountains and snow? Alaska is the answer. Surfing? The Golden State again and Hawaii. Flat and farmlands? The Great Plains states. Places with an "old" feel to them? New England, parts of the mid-Atlantic and Virginia would be safe bets. With all this tucked into one giant country, is it any wonder why many Americans don't see the need to travel abroad? Why bother with the hassle of international airports when you have everything you need and want within your vicinity?
It could be argued that exploring a foreign country opens you up to a new culture. That is true but honestly, how many other international travelers go to another country "for the culture"? Many people have to travel because it's a part of their job, much as it was for my father; his time in other countries was for work-sponsored tasks, not for pleasure. In addition to him, people such as diplomats, military personnel and aircraft crews are all required to travel by the nature of their jobs. They're not going there specifically to absorb local cultures, although it can sometimes still be possible for them to simultaneously work and experience another country. Immigrants usually choose to move to another country for economic reasons; learning the new culture is a part of immigration rather than the cause of it; take my family - our international moves stemmed from economic motives.
And, of course, let's not forget the thousands of British people who visit Spain, Italy and Greece every year. Are they going there because they harbor deep desires to learn about the Reconquista, Leonardo da Vinci and the Cradle of Western Civilization? No, they go there for the beaches, the hot weather and (sometimes) for intentional intoxication. Who does more harm: somebody who visits Spain, gets drunk and ends up committing a crime or a family who travels from Ohio to Florida on a family vacation?
Not visiting other countries does not mean that you know nothing about them: Thanks to the Internet and easy communication, I know about French politics despite having never set foot in France. I haven't been to Iran yet I have conducted some studying of its cities and while I've never been anywhere near New Zealand, I have learnt that its terrain is similar to that of Oregon. Granted, it would be an amazing opportunity to visit these places and I would benefit from that but, at the same time, I lose nothing by not traveling. I would never criticize Americans who don't engage in international travel and I would be a hypocrite if I ever were to: during my family's fourteen-and-a-third years living there, I never left the country during that time (except when we moved away) and I have yet to travel from the United Kingdom since we came here in 2010. Only Dad travelled - because it was required of him for his work.
It's not shameful to not travel provided that you don't hate other peoples simply because they're different. The problem isn't people who don't travel - it's people who don't take the time to learn, understand and appreciate others, and such close-minded individuals can be of any nationality.
Tuesday, 1 September 2015
Two dismissive responses that need to go
I propose that the two following terms be eradicated from the vocabulary, except for educational purposes:
"Butthurt"
"IT'S JUST A JOKE!
Both terms are often obnixously used to dismiss people who are complaining about something, such as a stereotype-ridden joke that is directed at a particular demographic group. For example, take a joke that mocks bad driving in Arizona or the supposed "surrender tendencies" of the French; if Arizonans or French people object, other people disruptively pop up saying "stop being so butthurt" or "it's not offensive, it's just a joke!". No...if someone finds a joke offensive, the correct course of action is to apologise; it's fine to clarify that you intended to be humorous as long as you give a sincere apology.
Evidently, "it's just a joke" is solely used to put down people who object to a particular joke but I've witnessed "butthurt" be used outside the boundaries of humour. A theoretical example of this would be someone calling my post evidence of my being butthurt over the word butthurt. Another example would be pedestrians being told to "stop being butthurt" about cyclists hitting them. The word is used whether or not the complaint is valid.
I also argue that butthurt contains veiled offense and shaming towards people who engage in
certain sex acts, which should not be shamed provided that they occur
between consenting adults. Unfortunately, people who believe such acts are shameful behaviour would regard it as further justification for use of the word.
To summarise: I regard "Butthurt" and "It's just a joke!" to be rude, trolling and dismissive responses used to silence complaints, and such responses need to stop. If you consider a complaint to be unjustified, say so in a constructive manner.
Thoughts on this?
Thoughts on this?
Monday, 25 August 2014
"Prayer in C" - Lilly Wood, the Robin Schulz remix
This is the Robin Schulz remix of "Prayer in C":
"Prayer in C" is by French pop band Lilly Wood (also known as Lilly Wood and the Prick). The song was originally released in 2010 from the band's first studio album, Invincible Friends. This year, German electronic producer Robin Schulz remixed the song and now it's number one here on the music singles chart I listen to.
Prior to hearing the remix of "Prayer in C", I had never heard of Lilly Wood, so I'm can't say that I know much about them! I will have to listen to the non-remixed version of this track.
"Prayer in C" is by French pop band Lilly Wood (also known as Lilly Wood and the Prick). The song was originally released in 2010 from the band's first studio album, Invincible Friends. This year, German electronic producer Robin Schulz remixed the song and now it's number one here on the music singles chart I listen to.
Prior to hearing the remix of "Prayer in C", I had never heard of Lilly Wood, so I'm can't say that I know much about them! I will have to listen to the non-remixed version of this track.
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
Results summary of the European Parliament election, 2014
The European Parliament election is over and all of the results have been declared. Across Europe, eurosceptic and anti-establishment parties, made the most gains; these parties can be left or right-wing (or neither). This was the anticipated result.
In the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Independence Party (one of the strongly eurosceptic parties), Labour, and the Green Party of England and Wales were the winners. UKIP won 24 Members of the European Parliament (+11) and 27.5% of the vote, and Labour won 20 MEPs (+7) on a 25.4% popular vote share. The Greens, while experiencing a minor vote share decline and coming in fourth place behind the Conservatives in MEP count and the popular vote, won an additional MEP, which brought their count up to three. The British National Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were all defeated: they lost two, seven and ten seats, respectively.
In the continental European Union, mainstream parties lost ground while several far-right parties performed strongly; the most notable of the latter was the Front National in France, which topped that country's poll. At the same time, several left-wing parties also made gains, such as SYRIZA in Greece and Feminist Initiative in Sweden; on the other hand, the Green parties experienced some moderate losses in the European Parliament. Anti-austerity and eurosceptic parties from every shade of the political spectrum increased their presence in said parliament. The overall turnout was estimated at slightly over 43%.
The rise of the far-left and far-right parties across Europe can be attributed to several governments' use of austerity as a response to economic crises and the perceived failure of politicians from the major political parties to listen to people, as well as increasing opposition to European Union bureaucracy. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about politics outside the US and UK, but to me the best way to halt the progress of these other parties is for the mainstream parties to listen to people and address their concerns.
In the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Independence Party (one of the strongly eurosceptic parties), Labour, and the Green Party of England and Wales were the winners. UKIP won 24 Members of the European Parliament (+11) and 27.5% of the vote, and Labour won 20 MEPs (+7) on a 25.4% popular vote share. The Greens, while experiencing a minor vote share decline and coming in fourth place behind the Conservatives in MEP count and the popular vote, won an additional MEP, which brought their count up to three. The British National Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were all defeated: they lost two, seven and ten seats, respectively.
In the continental European Union, mainstream parties lost ground while several far-right parties performed strongly; the most notable of the latter was the Front National in France, which topped that country's poll. At the same time, several left-wing parties also made gains, such as SYRIZA in Greece and Feminist Initiative in Sweden; on the other hand, the Green parties experienced some moderate losses in the European Parliament. Anti-austerity and eurosceptic parties from every shade of the political spectrum increased their presence in said parliament. The overall turnout was estimated at slightly over 43%.
The rise of the far-left and far-right parties across Europe can be attributed to several governments' use of austerity as a response to economic crises and the perceived failure of politicians from the major political parties to listen to people, as well as increasing opposition to European Union bureaucracy. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about politics outside the US and UK, but to me the best way to halt the progress of these other parties is for the mainstream parties to listen to people and address their concerns.
Monday, 5 May 2014
Love locks
Until today, I had no idea this existed:
I think that love is beautiful and should never be underrated or undervalued, but there are better ways of expressing love than attaching a padlock with a couple's names engraved onto it to a bridge and then throwing the key into the underlying water. As the article states, left unchecked, the combined weight of all the padlocks can cause structural damage to the bridge and the water can become contaminated from the keys rusting.
I am, of course, pleased that the couple highlighted at the beginning of the article are still married. It would have been disappointing if they had attached a love lock to the Pont des Arts bridge in France only to get divorced a few months or years down the line.
I think that love is beautiful and should never be underrated or undervalued, but there are better ways of expressing love than attaching a padlock with a couple's names engraved onto it to a bridge and then throwing the key into the underlying water. As the article states, left unchecked, the combined weight of all the padlocks can cause structural damage to the bridge and the water can become contaminated from the keys rusting.
I am, of course, pleased that the couple highlighted at the beginning of the article are still married. It would have been disappointing if they had attached a love lock to the Pont des Arts bridge in France only to get divorced a few months or years down the line.
Monday, 9 December 2013
A profane - albeit censored - signature?
While this issue has existed ever since I began blogging, I'd like to address the matter of my comment signature here on Blogger, which looks like this:
It's meant to be "Andrew-L'autre" (L'autre being French for "the other"), but for some reason Blogger translates the apostrophe in L'autre into either ASCII or HTML code whenever I comment, displaying the above text. It recently occurred to me that my signature could be interpreted as censored profanity, which it is not.
This is an error on Blogger's side, but just in case it was an error with my computer's browser, I viewed my comments on my phone and saw it repeated there. That being said, please do let me know if you don't see the error.
As for why I use the handle "Andrew-L'autre", I explained this particular subject here. It's also to differentiate me from other Andrews on Blogger. At any rate, I'm definitely not swearing in a censored manner whenever I comment!
I'll also be updating my FAQ page to cover this.
Andrew-L'autre
It's meant to be "Andrew-L'autre" (L'autre being French for "the other"), but for some reason Blogger translates the apostrophe in L'autre into either ASCII or HTML code whenever I comment, displaying the above text. It recently occurred to me that my signature could be interpreted as censored profanity, which it is not.
This is an error on Blogger's side, but just in case it was an error with my computer's browser, I viewed my comments on my phone and saw it repeated there. That being said, please do let me know if you don't see the error.
As for why I use the handle "Andrew-L'autre", I explained this particular subject here. It's also to differentiate me from other Andrews on Blogger. At any rate, I'm definitely not swearing in a censored manner whenever I comment!
I'll also be updating my FAQ page to cover this.
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Voting times
In the recent first round of elections in the French presidential election the voting times were from 8:00am up to 6:00pm, with a two-hour extension in the larger cities. For the United Kingdom general election in 2010, the voting times were from 7:00 in the morning until 10:00 at night. As for individual states in the US, there is no consistency in the poll times but 7:00-7:00/7:30 seems to be common.
Back in 2010 during the UK election, a significant amount of voters were turned away merely due to running out of time. As a potential solution to this problem, I think that voting should begin at midnight on election day and end at the subsequent midnight at the earliest. Having a minimum window of 24 hours helps give all the people who want to vote the time to do so, and even then the polls should only close when people stop turning up to vote: if there is a long line of people waiting to vote, they should be given the chance to rather than turned away because of an arbitrary time limit.
I recommend "midnight" as the opening for voting because if crowds of people frequently queue until then for a book release, a movie, or a concert, I think they will do the same when it comes to their votes. After all, while movies and concerts are valued as entertainment, people who do vote consider their votes to be highly important and they do not want to miss out. Giving them a greater amount of time gives everyone interested the opportunity. Evidently I do believe there should be some sort of a cut-off, as it would be ridiculous for someone to vote a week after the election, but no one should be turned away if they are already standing in line.
I do not think that any political party would be hurt if the voting times were extended in this way: for close races it would be helpful for as many people as possible to vote in case the outcome can be determined more clearly; and as for landslides, well, the victor merely receives an even greater amount of votes. The idea is only meant to ensure the best turnout possible, not to create a new method to rig an election.
This idea could be applied to any democracy, regardless of the size of the country. In fact, countries with larger geographic sizes and population would benefit from having more time for their people to vote.
I welcome any input on this solution to voting times.
Back in 2010 during the UK election, a significant amount of voters were turned away merely due to running out of time. As a potential solution to this problem, I think that voting should begin at midnight on election day and end at the subsequent midnight at the earliest. Having a minimum window of 24 hours helps give all the people who want to vote the time to do so, and even then the polls should only close when people stop turning up to vote: if there is a long line of people waiting to vote, they should be given the chance to rather than turned away because of an arbitrary time limit.
I recommend "midnight" as the opening for voting because if crowds of people frequently queue until then for a book release, a movie, or a concert, I think they will do the same when it comes to their votes. After all, while movies and concerts are valued as entertainment, people who do vote consider their votes to be highly important and they do not want to miss out. Giving them a greater amount of time gives everyone interested the opportunity. Evidently I do believe there should be some sort of a cut-off, as it would be ridiculous for someone to vote a week after the election, but no one should be turned away if they are already standing in line.
I do not think that any political party would be hurt if the voting times were extended in this way: for close races it would be helpful for as many people as possible to vote in case the outcome can be determined more clearly; and as for landslides, well, the victor merely receives an even greater amount of votes. The idea is only meant to ensure the best turnout possible, not to create a new method to rig an election.
This idea could be applied to any democracy, regardless of the size of the country. In fact, countries with larger geographic sizes and population would benefit from having more time for their people to vote.
I welcome any input on this solution to voting times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)