Below are the 9 most recent journal entries recorded in chantrel's LiveJournal:

Tuesday, November 16th, 2004
12:58 am	Well... A very long time since the last time I updated this journal. It would seem natural to start this entry with an answer to the question "What's up", but I am a PhD student and as such the answer to that would be embarrassingly short. I guess I will just rant directly then. The only good thing Tuesday 2nd brought me is that I finally can get my life back. I have spent months obsessing about the American political life, now it is all over. As a political junkie, however, this merely means that I can start obsessing about the European political life again. It seems that the new European Commission is taking shape. Fierce opposition in the European Parliament forced a first team to step down a few weeks back. A few changes have been made, but the justice commissionner will still be an Italian and a close ally to Berlusconi. Rocco Buttiglione, a conservative catholic, had to leave after expressing rather outdated views about the role of women and homosexuality. The Italian foreign minister, Franco Frattini, will take his place. Silvio Berlusconi, it should be noted, is highly suspected of murky dealings and corruption (Italian courts have many ongoing trials against him), and has abused his power before to make prosecution in these matters more difficult. Such a conflict of interest would be difficult to explain to a foreigner. Imagine that the American Administration had been tainted in a financial scandal (say Enron) and that the President had then proceeded to nominate a legal counsel in the matter as Attorney General. Oh wait... (Comment on this)
Sunday, June 27th, 2004
10:01 pm	Reagan commemorations It is difficult to be objective about recent history. I have long thought, though, that the objective merits of the Reagan presidency were really overstated in the various commemorations it received. There is actually very little of historic sgnificance that Reagan can claim. He was lucky enough to preside at a time when Gorbatchev's reforms quickened the fall of the USSR, and to benefit from an economic recovery. That is about it. One achievement cannot be denied to him, though. He was the symbol of a general shift of the American political spectrum to the right. The Republicans have seen an ever increasing influence of the religious right, and Reagan was the symbol of that. The Democrats have not equally shifted to the left, so that the net shift is clear. The Republican party nowadays owes its shape to movements that came to a conclusion with Reagan. Is this enough for all he was granted before his death ? I seriously doubt it. He was awarded no less than an airport bearing his name in the federal capital, a USS Reagan, a mount Reagan, and so on. This was the work of a small but dedicated group of activists who worshipped the man and everything he symbolized. My opinion is that the Republicans were actually desperate for an icon of their own. Can you name a Republican president that can do the trick in recent times ? Teddy Roosevelt was the last one. Eisenhower would have qualified if he had been a little more partisan (he was about as much a Republican as Clark is a Democrat). Contrast that with the fact that the Democrats have two icons in the last century only : FDR and Kennedy. Reagan just happened to be the first Republican president in a long time who could even remotely be considered worthy of iconification. This effort went into overdrive, of course, with his death. He was one of only ten presidents to receive a full state funeral. There is talk of giving his name to the Pentagon building (something Eisenhower was not awarded)... I think the american public was just relieved to be able to feel united again, and this coincided with the aims of the reaganites. ---------------------------- On an unrelated matter, I am taking full advantage of the free time a PhD gives. I am just back from two weeks in Russia, and on my way to a few days in Spain. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, May 21st, 2004
8:29 pm	Unconcilable I recently came across an extract from the North Carolina Republicans' platform. Unsurprisingly, they oppose gay marriage and tax benefits for unmarried partners. They also stand fast against "special treatment by law based on nothing other than homosexual behavior or identity." That last bit could come straight from any gay-advocacy group. How are you supposed to reconcile barring gays from marrying "on nothing other than [their] homosexual behavior or identity" and the last bit I cannot fathom, though. (Comment on this)
Monday, May 17th, 2004
11:29 pm	Political Vocabulary I always find it interesting to see how concepts are understood differently in different countries, especially political concepts. Case in point is the concept of "liberalism". Liberalism is of course a well-known political theory, with a distinguished history. But what do we call a "liberal" nowadays ? There are countries with a "liberal" party. The name is often a historical remnant with little ideological value, though. I would be hard pressed to find any liberal position in the manifestos of, say, the Japanese Liberal Democrat Party (Jiyu Minshuto). There are also those, a few intellectuals, for whom liberalism must be taken as a whole. The libertarians claim, with some justification, to be among them. See, for example, fare. No major politician that I know of completely advocates liberalism. People therefore overlook some dimensions when they use the term. What I find interesting is the way they do this in different countries, and thus the meaning the word "liberalism" has taken in different countries. It is difficult to fit liberalism in the simple left/right division inherited from the French Revolution of 1789. Some liberal positions on social matters are rather progressive : support of abortion, of gay marriage, of the legalization of drugs. Some positions on socioeconomic problems are rather on the right : liberals oppose social welfare in almost all its forms. The extreme liberals oppose social welfare and even the very existence of a state. Of course, economic liberalism is difficult to reconcile with leftist positions. In France, when you call somebody "liberal", you think of economic liberalism. It refers then to a part of the French right (though they tend to have rather conservative views on the social front), and to the American model. As these so-called "liberals" are often reluctant to admit the term, it is almost a dirty word in French politics. In the US, on the contrary, when you call somebody "liberal", you think of social liberalism. It refers then to most of the American left (though they tend to have rather anti-liberal views on the economic front). (Comment on this)
Monday, May 10th, 2004
2:03 pm	More timewasters ! After much hesitation, I added another timewaster to my ever-expanding list : I joined the Orkut network. It seems like fun, and it is sure to provide me with hours of pointless surfing... How did we manage before the Internet got popular ? (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, April 28th, 2004
1:49 am	What do you take for granted ? I love bookshops and libraries. The old-fashioned kind, where you just browse through rows and rows of books. Fortunately, my office in Paris is in Saint-Germain des Prés. This used to be an intellectual-friendly environment, and a couple bookshops have not yet been turned into luxury stores. One of them is open until midnight, perfect for a night-dweller like me, I often spend an hour inside when I stay at work late. Last time I went, last week, I bought a few history books. I had an inclination to learn more about Sparta, so I bought a promising book about the city. It was published as a generalist book, with an innocent title, this seemed perfect. Well, it wasn't. Of course, it was interesting. If you happen to know everything already about ancient Sparta, that is. The author goes straight to a discussion about very fine points. He never bothers to give even a short presentation of the specific point he is discussing, though. I have a good knowledge of history. I could understand when he was alluding to, say, "Brasidas' expedition", but most of the time I was lost. Don't you just hate when people take too much information for granted ? PS : to placate my ever-inflating ego, I now use a more flattering icon (the official-looking environment is actually the office of our previous Prime Minister, photo was taken 2 years ago) (Comment on this)
Monday, March 22nd, 2004
5:33 pm	Nationalism and History I am always impressed by the small occurences of nationalism one can notice in the treatment of history. Everybody knows that history textbooks are often not very accurate or balanced. Many countries have at least some bias to make their own nation appear stronger, more virtuous, etc. But this differential treatment is even more widespread. I have another example : the attribution of some inventions. I will not go into the heated debates around the "invention" of mathematics (yes, it does exist). Let's talk of something more recent. At the end of the 19th century, many inventions were developed that have shaped our everyday life since. Photo, cinema, car, plane... Most of these are difficult to attribute. There was not a unique person who one day brought the device out of thin air. Rather, the invention was in the air, many small improvements have been made and it is often difficult to name "the" inventor. This has not stopped people from trying, of course. For the plane, many people over years have done experiences closer and closer to flying as we know it. Yet, each country has chosen (with perfectly objective reasons of course) to commemorate only one. Guess which one ? France dates plane invention to Clement Ader's steam-engine-powered flight in 1890 (50 meters). Of course, americans will tell you that the flight was not really sustained, more a "hop", and that the first real flight is that of the Wright brothers (285 meters in 1903). Other countries have no real candidate for invention, but still remember their own pioneers : brazilian kids have probably heard about Santos-Dumont (first speed records in 1906) more than Ader or Wright, and so on... The same point can be made for the cinema. Who invented it ? The first person to show movement on screen ? The first to use a single camera ? To use celluloid film ? To project in front of an audience ? Depending on your answer, you choose Muybridge, Edison, the Lumière brothers... Guess in what countries those people are best known ? To conclude, a bit of nationalist pride. I am French, and there is at least one area where the French have undoubtable precedence : language ;) We don't remember Muybridge's zoopraxiscope or Edison's kinetoscope. The Lumière chose "cinématographe" and cinema is the word that stuck. Likewise, Ader named his machine "avion", which gave the French term for plane and was derived in "aviation" in many languages. These achievements are of course paramount for a nation so obsessed with language. (Comment on this)
Saturday, February 21st, 2004
4:18 am	Seriously reading My first real entry will be to indulge in some whining. I have no willpower when it comes to books. I know that, and yet I did the mistake of beginning an interesting book : _Carrion Comfort_, by Dans Simmons. An added problem was that I had a few days with no solid commitments, as befits a PhD student. The result is 2 days lost, but the book is finished. No time for further comments on that, it is 4 am and I have yet to get my first decent meal of the day, before trying to see how I can try and sort my working schedule tomorrow. Maybe the authorities in _Fahrenheit 451_ had a point... (Comment on this)
Thursday, February 19th, 2004
10:41 pm	Welcome Well, this is it. After long delaying, I finally gave up and decided to create a weblog of my own. This is probably going to remain empty for quite some time, but my love of time-wasters will win in the end. Welcome, then, whoever you are. (3 Comments |Comment on this)