Well, so much for la rentrée. The Flophouse has fleas (les puces).
How the hell did that happen?
We think that when we went on vacation in August our two cats, Tatou and Minoche, went wandering in search of low company (which they clearly found). Took us a couple of weeks to figure it out and so the entire house has been infested.
Which presents some challenges. Last time I had to deal with fleas, I was a teenager living in Olympia, Washington 30 odd years ago. What do people do about this today? Surely flea fighting technology has evolved, right?
It also presents a linguistic puzzle. How do you say "flea collar" in French? (Where is that damn dictionary?) Hey, I never had any reason to know that up to now; the Alliance française did not impart to me the vocabulary of pest control.
And I'm not the only one who is struggling here. My French spouse didn't know either. He went off late last week to purchase a product for our furry little friends and he blew it. He picked up wimpy flea repellent, not flea killer which means our first pass at it did no good whatsoever. So much for our fancy French and American educations. Book smart, life stupid. Yep, we have been humbled.
So he fired up an Internet search engine and I called the church ladies. Between the two sources, we figured out what we needed and ordered it. Everything arrives today. I will be unleashing flea Armageddon this afternoon so the Flophouse is definitely closed to visitors.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Pew: 7 Facts about World Migration
Check out this article from Pew Research:
7 Facts about World Migration
Here are two that I found particularly interesting:
What country has the most diverse, multi-cultural migrant population?
The United Kingdom
What nationality has the most destination diversity (that means that the emigrants from this country tend to spread out and have the largest global presence).
The French
Pew says:
7 Facts about World Migration
Here are two that I found particularly interesting:
What country has the most diverse, multi-cultural migrant population?
The United Kingdom
What nationality has the most destination diversity (that means that the emigrants from this country tend to spread out and have the largest global presence).
The French
Pew says:
"The French like to live all over the world – emigrants from France live in more countries than emigrants from any other nation. Using the Herfindahl index, the destination diversity of emigrants born in France is 95 on a 0 to 100 scale. It is 89 for American-born people living outside of the U.S. There are at least 1,000 French-born people living in each of 83 different countries and territories; the most popular destinations are Spain (220,000) and the United States (180,000)."
Fancy that. :-)
Monday, September 1, 2014
"Anchor" Babies and "Illegal" Children
I had an exchange recently with a family member here in France and it went something like this:
FM: If it weren't for all those immigrants our social security system wouldn't have a deficit. Foreigners are taking advange of us and we need to do something about it.
Me: You think so? All immigrants?
FM: Most of them.
Me: OK, can we quantify that? Do you have a percentage or a number of those who are cheating the system?
FM: I'm trying to drive here.
Immigration is a topic where feelings definitely trump facts. I was reminded of this when I read on Andrew's blog, Multicultural Meanderings, that some Canadians were getting a bit under the collar over "birth tourism". This is where foreign women come to Canada for the sole purpose of having their children born on Canadian soil and thus becoming Canadian citizens at birth (jus soli).
My first thought when I read that was: Wait a minute, I've seen this before... Oh yeah, people in the US worry about this, too. Well, if two countries in North America are concerned about this, it must be a big problem, right?
To my surprise and delight the Canadian government took the stories very seriously and went looking for evidence. (My goodness, what a sensible thing to do.) And what did they find?
Given that the same kind of arguments and anecdotal evidence appear in both Canada and the US - two counties of immigration with relatively generous jus soli laws (citizenship conferred at birth based on place of birth) - then clearly there is something about it that makes people uneasy and want to either restrict it or to move to a birthright citizenship system based on blood (jus sanguinas).
Those emotions make it very hard for the Canadian government to come up with a politically acceptable response. When human beings feel very strongly about something, law and policy-makers can be as rational and evidence-based as they please, but they can't make their constituents like (or accept) what they have to say. The facts as they stand today will not prevent this myth from coming back in a future news cycle.
Birthright citizenship (both jus soli and jus sanguinas) makes me uneasy but for reasons completely unrelated to "birth tourism" and you can read what I've said about it here and here.
And finally for your viewing pleasure is a wonderful Jon Stewart piece about a recent immigration crisis in the US: tens of thousands of children entering the US illegally causing a humanitarian and security crisis. What I love about Jon Stewart is how he uses humor to make his point. Every episode is a guided discovery where he invites his viewers to come along with him for a ride which almost always ends with "Aren't we being a bit silly about this, folks?"
And that's a damn good tactic. Answering an argument from the gut with facts is, alas, not very effective in changing people's minds about anything. Worse, it can stop the conversation completely; ("Just shut up and let me drive.") Just something to think about on a Monday morning...
FM: If it weren't for all those immigrants our social security system wouldn't have a deficit. Foreigners are taking advange of us and we need to do something about it.
Me: You think so? All immigrants?
FM: Most of them.
Me: OK, can we quantify that? Do you have a percentage or a number of those who are cheating the system?
FM: I'm trying to drive here.
Immigration is a topic where feelings definitely trump facts. I was reminded of this when I read on Andrew's blog, Multicultural Meanderings, that some Canadians were getting a bit under the collar over "birth tourism". This is where foreign women come to Canada for the sole purpose of having their children born on Canadian soil and thus becoming Canadian citizens at birth (jus soli).
My first thought when I read that was: Wait a minute, I've seen this before... Oh yeah, people in the US worry about this, too. Well, if two countries in North America are concerned about this, it must be a big problem, right?
To my surprise and delight the Canadian government took the stories very seriously and went looking for evidence. (My goodness, what a sensible thing to do.) And what did they find?
The proposal, marked “secret” and with inputs from various federal departments, found fewer than 500 cases of children being born to foreign nationals in Canada each year, amounting to just 0.14 per cent of the 360,000 total births per year in the country.Forgive me, but with numbers like that the brouhaha over "birth tourism" which is being used to attack jus soli citizenship law in Canada looks more like a solution in search of a problem and not the other way around.
Given that the same kind of arguments and anecdotal evidence appear in both Canada and the US - two counties of immigration with relatively generous jus soli laws (citizenship conferred at birth based on place of birth) - then clearly there is something about it that makes people uneasy and want to either restrict it or to move to a birthright citizenship system based on blood (jus sanguinas).
Those emotions make it very hard for the Canadian government to come up with a politically acceptable response. When human beings feel very strongly about something, law and policy-makers can be as rational and evidence-based as they please, but they can't make their constituents like (or accept) what they have to say. The facts as they stand today will not prevent this myth from coming back in a future news cycle.
Birthright citizenship (both jus soli and jus sanguinas) makes me uneasy but for reasons completely unrelated to "birth tourism" and you can read what I've said about it here and here.
And finally for your viewing pleasure is a wonderful Jon Stewart piece about a recent immigration crisis in the US: tens of thousands of children entering the US illegally causing a humanitarian and security crisis. What I love about Jon Stewart is how he uses humor to make his point. Every episode is a guided discovery where he invites his viewers to come along with him for a ride which almost always ends with "Aren't we being a bit silly about this, folks?"
And that's a damn good tactic. Answering an argument from the gut with facts is, alas, not very effective in changing people's minds about anything. Worse, it can stop the conversation completely; ("Just shut up and let me drive.") Just something to think about on a Monday morning...
Saturday, August 30, 2014
They Hypocrisy of the Debate Over "Inversions"
What a circus, folks. What a show.
The cross-border marriage between Burger King (US) and Tim Hortons (Canada) with the happy couple opting for a home in the North has really flipped people's switches in the US. The new buzz word is "inversions" and thank God for the Internet because in a paper world way too many trees would have to die just so that every pundit from Paris to Poughkeepsie can throw out his .02.
The Americans in the homeland are screaming for Something to be Done and Obama has come out swinging saying that he will do what he can to "discourage" American companies from marrying out and setting up shop in somebody else's tax jurisdiction. I mean, we can't have that, right?
Do the American People, their elected representatives and their President understand the utter hypocrisy of their position? I doubt it and I'm feeling frisky this morning (too much coffee?) so allow me to have some fun today at their expense.
Here's the argument three US lawmakers (including the now infamous Senator Reed) are making for strongly discouraging US companies from leaving the US :
“Inverted corporations take advantage of all the things American tax dollars provide – from tax credits for research and development, investments in transportation infrastructure, and strong patent and copyright protections..."Now just replace "American" in that sentence with "French", "German", "Japanese" or any other nationality. What about their tax base and talent? Any consideration whatsoever here? Not at all.
So when it's a foreign company (or talented migrant) that wants to set up in the US, then Americans slap themselves on the back and smugly point out that America is clearly still the most popular girl in high school and destined to be Prom Queen forever. But when the girl says, "Mom and Dad, I'm moving to Canada" because she thinks she can have a better HEA (Happily Every After) well, that's just wrong.
I'd have a lot more respect for the American "inversions are perversions" argument if its proponents took their position to its logical conclusion and said this to any company (or individual) wanting to move to the US from abroad,
"You know, that's just not fair to your home country and its taxpayers. You should stay home with your family and friends who have nurtured you from the cradle, invested in your education, and protected you as you grew and become successful. The world really would be a better place if all good boys and girls stayed home where they belong and we want to step up and lead the way. So here's your US certificate of incorporation and/or your Green Card. Thank you for thinking of us. Have a nice life."
For the best article I read about this (one that actually would be worth killing a tree or two), see Megan McArdle's Burger King and the Whopper about Taxes. Her point about the US tax system is well made. The US stoutly defends its unique citizenship-based taxation system in an residence-based taxation world. Frankly there is a certain insanity in the US position on this that says it's the rest of the world that needs to change and not the US. All I can say is, "Good luck with that."
Thursday, August 28, 2014
US Citizenship Renunciation Fees to be Raised 422%
The rumours over at the Isaac Brock Society are confirmed. This morning in my mailbox was this link from a lovely lady in the UK.
Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship About to Get More Expensive: From $450 to $2,350
That is, as the blogger points out, a 422% increase.
And the State Department's justification for this rather outrageous fee raise?
Well, it's a complicated labor-intensive procedure:
Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship About to Get More Expensive: From $450 to $2,350
That is, as the blogger points out, a 422% increase.
And the State Department's justification for this rather outrageous fee raise?
Well, it's a complicated labor-intensive procedure:
"The CoSM demonstrated that documenting a U.S. citizen’s renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases. For example, consular officers must confirm that the potential renunciant fully understands the consequences of renunciation, including losing the right to reside in the United States without documentation as an alien. Other steps include verifying that the renunciant is a U.S. citizen, conducting a minimum of two intensive interviews with the potential renunciant, and reviewing at least three consular systems before administering the oath of renunciation. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done by law within the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, D.C., after which the case is returned to the consular officer overseas for final delivery of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the renunciant."
And demand for this service is strong (yep, they say that). 450 USD, they say, was already below cost and they are just raising the fee in order to not lose (more) money on the service.
Now I'm just an old lady and I don't pretend to be the brightest crayon in the box but if the goal here is to "break even" then they are looking at this all wrong. Read the outline of the procedure again. Does that sound efficient to you? Just the assumption that any US citizen showing up to renounce his US citizenship doesn't really understand what he/she is doing and has to have it explained ad nauseum (intensive interviews?) and then be sent off to a corner like a little kid to reflect on it before being allowed to come back and do the deed, is just ridiculous. Right there I'd say just treating people like adults and assuming that they do know their own mind would save a lot of time, money and hassle all around.
And the narrative that will come out of this fee raise is not likely to focus on "cost recovery" at US consulates around the world but on what is going to be perceived as a punitive act on the part of the US government. It looks like they are so embarrassed by the renunciation numbers and the lines to renounce at the US consulates that they are looking for ways to reduce or slow down the demand. Think about that. Has the state of US citizenship in the world really come to the point where the US government thinks that Americans have to be actively discouraged from renouncing?
That is what people are likely to take away from this news. That the United States is trying to keep it's citizens captive by finding quasi-legal methods to interfere with their right to expatriate under international law.
(And there is a very good post and a lively discussion (as always) over at the Isaac Brock Society here. 79 comments already as I type this. )
(And there is a very good post and a lively discussion (as always) over at the Isaac Brock Society here. 79 comments already as I type this. )
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Why I just One-Starred a Book on Goodreads
Picked up a book this morning with enthusiasm. A non-fiction book (I won't tell you which one) that got a 4+ rating on Goodreads and a mention on a site I respect.
30 minutes of reading and I came to a paragraph that went something like this:
So I closed the book, deleted it from my Kindle and went straight to Goodreads and gave it a one-star rating which means, "I did not like it." What I didn't do was a write a review expressing my feelings and explaining my rating.
Left the house, did my morning shopping and now I'm back and really wondering if I did right.
In fact, I think I screwed up.
Ever see the Christopher Hitchen's talk where he says (paraphrasing here because I don't recall the exact quotation): "How do you know you are right about anything if this is all you've ever been taught and you have never really bothered to let anything challenge your own programming?"
So here I am having a negative visceral reaction to something I've read and I don't even bother to check out the sources cited. That's not very intellectually honest of me, is it? Or terribly courageous.
Was I too hasty? Should I delete my rating on Goodreads and go back and finish the book so I can give it a fair review? Should I go and read what the two sources cited have to say before I condemn them?
Surely I can do better than this. OK, I found it very offensive but feelings aren't facts. If what was said in this book really is utter BS, then surely there are better reasons for criticizing it than just my sense of outrage.
But I'm really torn because I don't want to continue reading the book and I'm not sure I could be fair even if I did finish it.
Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
30 minutes of reading and I came to a paragraph that went something like this:
There is a personality trait that is perceived to be very desirable and very important for getting along in today's world. This personality trait, according to two sources the book cites, is related to DNA and is primarily found in Europeans and North Americans, not in Asians or Africans, because the former are descendants of emigrants.That is just an unbelievable assertion to make and, frankly, that kind of argument for me is pure racism.
So I closed the book, deleted it from my Kindle and went straight to Goodreads and gave it a one-star rating which means, "I did not like it." What I didn't do was a write a review expressing my feelings and explaining my rating.
Left the house, did my morning shopping and now I'm back and really wondering if I did right.
In fact, I think I screwed up.
Ever see the Christopher Hitchen's talk where he says (paraphrasing here because I don't recall the exact quotation): "How do you know you are right about anything if this is all you've ever been taught and you have never really bothered to let anything challenge your own programming?"
So here I am having a negative visceral reaction to something I've read and I don't even bother to check out the sources cited. That's not very intellectually honest of me, is it? Or terribly courageous.
Was I too hasty? Should I delete my rating on Goodreads and go back and finish the book so I can give it a fair review? Should I go and read what the two sources cited have to say before I condemn them?
Surely I can do better than this. OK, I found it very offensive but feelings aren't facts. If what was said in this book really is utter BS, then surely there are better reasons for criticizing it than just my sense of outrage.
But I'm really torn because I don't want to continue reading the book and I'm not sure I could be fair even if I did finish it.
Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Amazon in the Hexagon
The main newspaper in my hometown Seattle recently came out with an article about Amazon's efforts to operate in France: Amazon ignites culture clash over France’s beloved bookstores.
I'm sure that everyone knows what Amazon is (that big on-line retailer) but you might not know that Amazon was founded in Seattle and is part of a number of other international companies that came out of the US Pacific Northwest (some others are Starbucks and Boeing).
There is a long history of American companies trying to break into the European market with uncertain results. Nancy Green's latest book (which I highly recommend) about The Other Americans in Paris (many of whom were American businessmen) has an entire chapter devoted to doing business in the Hexagon. It wasn't easy in the twentieth century and it's not a cake walk now.
From the tone of the article Amazon seems to be annoyed that they actually have to negotiate and adapt to other markets and other business environments. Their issue is not that they are failing internationally, but that they are not as successful as they would like to be. Now what is more likely here, folks? That all these countries are going to see the light and change their ways so that Amazon's business model can stay the same wherever they go? Or, that they are going to have to adapt and stop whining because the rest of the world is not like the United States?
The French want some protection for local bookstores and the Germans want their labor laws respected, and just what in the heck is wrong with that? For that matter, the Pacific Northwest being something of a hotbed of what Americans call "liberalism" (left-wing thinking such as it is in the US), it strikes me that many Seattleites, Portlanders and the like might just come down on the side of France and Germany in this fight.
And it looks like I'm on to something. Powell's Books, which is something of an institution in Portland, Oregon, USA, got a big boost from Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report (a US TV program that is widely watched). Colbert's books are published by Hachette. Have a listen:
So it's not just the Europeans (UK, France and Germany) kvetching and being "unreasonable" - there are bookstores and authors in the United States who have issues with Amazon as well and now some are calling for a boycott.
When I was studying for my MBA (in Europe) one of the classes was on corporate responsibility and a lot was said about the "contract" under which companies operate anywhere. Not the legal framework, mind you, but the social context. The right of any company to do business is conditional (even in "free market" countries) and where a company is perceived as a being a bad actor, they can lose a lot of business and credibility, too. What I've outlined above is a lot of bad publicity for Amazon with some major stakeholders all over the world loudly expressing their discontent. (And is it not ironic that this criticism travels the world using the same technology on which Amazon has based its business?)
Perhaps if they are not happy with their profits in Europe, a better way to go about it is to engage the stakeholders (a group which, by the way, includes, but is not restricted to, shareholders). That is not "cultural exception" logic - it is simply good business practice:
I'm sure that everyone knows what Amazon is (that big on-line retailer) but you might not know that Amazon was founded in Seattle and is part of a number of other international companies that came out of the US Pacific Northwest (some others are Starbucks and Boeing).
There is a long history of American companies trying to break into the European market with uncertain results. Nancy Green's latest book (which I highly recommend) about The Other Americans in Paris (many of whom were American businessmen) has an entire chapter devoted to doing business in the Hexagon. It wasn't easy in the twentieth century and it's not a cake walk now.
From the tone of the article Amazon seems to be annoyed that they actually have to negotiate and adapt to other markets and other business environments. Their issue is not that they are failing internationally, but that they are not as successful as they would like to be. Now what is more likely here, folks? That all these countries are going to see the light and change their ways so that Amazon's business model can stay the same wherever they go? Or, that they are going to have to adapt and stop whining because the rest of the world is not like the United States?
The French want some protection for local bookstores and the Germans want their labor laws respected, and just what in the heck is wrong with that? For that matter, the Pacific Northwest being something of a hotbed of what Americans call "liberalism" (left-wing thinking such as it is in the US), it strikes me that many Seattleites, Portlanders and the like might just come down on the side of France and Germany in this fight.
And it looks like I'm on to something. Powell's Books, which is something of an institution in Portland, Oregon, USA, got a big boost from Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report (a US TV program that is widely watched). Colbert's books are published by Hachette. Have a listen:
So it's not just the Europeans (UK, France and Germany) kvetching and being "unreasonable" - there are bookstores and authors in the United States who have issues with Amazon as well and now some are calling for a boycott.
When I was studying for my MBA (in Europe) one of the classes was on corporate responsibility and a lot was said about the "contract" under which companies operate anywhere. Not the legal framework, mind you, but the social context. The right of any company to do business is conditional (even in "free market" countries) and where a company is perceived as a being a bad actor, they can lose a lot of business and credibility, too. What I've outlined above is a lot of bad publicity for Amazon with some major stakeholders all over the world loudly expressing their discontent. (And is it not ironic that this criticism travels the world using the same technology on which Amazon has based its business?)
Perhaps if they are not happy with their profits in Europe, a better way to go about it is to engage the stakeholders (a group which, by the way, includes, but is not restricted to, shareholders). That is not "cultural exception" logic - it is simply good business practice:
"Employees, customers, suppliers and distributors, other allies and partners, communities where the company locates facilities (or where the supply chain members are located), owners and investors, creditors, and local, regional and national governments are among the stakeholders to whom it makes sense to pay attention..."This quotation is from Total Responsibility Management by Sandra Waddock and Charles Bodwell. It is available here on Amazon. A modest suggestion to Amazon's management - you guys and gals might want to start reading some of the books you sell.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)