Royal runs

 

    Ségolène Royal has finally declared that she is running for the presidency of France. In answer to Frank Schnittger and the others who would like more of the newspaper on this blog, here is the link to a full portrait of Ségo and her campaign that I did for today's Times.

How can she suddenly announce something that the world has known for a year? Royal's declaration last night was a good demonstration of how the media run far ahead of reality -- or perhaps create it. For months we have all been projecting the race as a simple duel between Ségo and Sarko -- Nicolas Sarkozy, the centre-right star.

Yet the elections are seven months away, neither has yet been nominated by their parties and a dozen other candidates of various stripe are jostling in the starting gates. In the eyes of Royal's rivals and even among some of her own entourage, the media coronation of the Socialist superwoman is an act of presumption which risks back-firing. Since 1995, French voters have made a habit of turning against the candidates and issues which the media have prematurely cast as automatic winners.      

In 1995, the media enthroned Edouard Balladur, Jacques Chirac's party junior, in the Elysée Palace for months before the election. He was knocked out by his boss in the first round and Chirac, written off as a has-been, went on to win the presidency. In 2002, Lionel Jospin, the outgoing Socialist Prime Minister, was the media darling. Instead of beating Chirac and taking the presidency, he was demolished in the first round by both Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen of the far right National Front. Chirac was re-elected with over 80 percent of the vote. Last year, the polls, media and mainstream politicians were all certain that France would back the European Constitution in a referendum. Instead, the voters gave it the boot.

It seems pretty likely that Royal will win the Socialist nomination on November 16, but anything could happen after that. Le Pen, 78, is still very much around, prowling at the moment back stage and planning to pounce at the last minute as he did in 2002. He will be helped if left wing voters abandon Royal and spread their choice among the nutty Marxist, Trotskyite and anti-globalisation candidates. 

Royal's party rivals have not given up hope. Jospin surrendered this week, by Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Laurent Fabius, two Socialist barons, are doing their best to burst her media bubble before the party vote. Even if she is endorsed, Fabius, a former Prime Minister, may try to run a renegade campaign against her. Strauss-Kahn's people tell me that they believe they can derail Royal over the next six weeks and that their man will emerge as the new outsider and saviour of the left. That seems unlikely. 

Sarkozy, the Interior Minister and Union for a Popular Majority leader, has established himself as a much more solid candidate than Royal, but he could come unstuck. He polarises and remains disliked by a majority of under 30-year-olds. His manic, furiously ambitious side worries some of his own camp.  Dominique de Villepin, the Prime Minister, is waiting to leap into the race if Sarko shows any sign of weakness.   

And there is the small matter of  Chirac. We all assume that, at 74, the President has no appetite for seeking a third term. But he has yet to announce this and does not plan to do so until the New Year. Not everyone is writing him out of the picture yet. 

Anyway, read on in today's Times   

Comments

[Sandrine]

Hi Mr Bremner, nice to read you again...
Concerning Ségolène, I'm quite happy she finally announced her candidacy. And also that Lionel Jospin disappeared (at last !)...

I hope she'll be able to race against the old elephants, and that she will finally be chosen by the socialists. It's gonna be tough, but she can do it.

I know what I say is totally against what everybody here thinks (n'est-ce pas Robert ?), but anyway, that's my opinion, and we'll see what happen. I definitely wouldn't like Sarko to be elected, but if he is (oh my God !), luckily I can stay abroad for a while !! ;o)

[Tara]

I was so excited the other day when I drove to work to hear on the American NPR (National Public Radio) a report about French politics, and Sarko and Sego in particular! First, it was fun to hear their names pronounced correctly (and not the way I'd been doing in my head), and also to hear some French citizenry state their thoughts about the two of them.

The first half of the report was about Sarkozy. The reporter, Eleanor Beardsley, interviewed a Parisian couple who said they had voted for Chirac, but were disappointed. The reporter called him pro-American (I believe that was her term.)

The second half was about Segolene. It mentioned her partner Hollande, and I was a little irked that when Beardsley first mentioned her, one of the reasons for her popularity was attributed to her looks - - not something a bit more substantial. But the reporter did go on to state one or two of her positions, and I was mollified. I'm not necessarily pro-Sego, but I did hope that there would be more stated about her than her (obviously) good looks. The reporter interviewed a woman who said she was voting for Royal especially because Royal is a woman, even though this woman said she knew this was "sexist." Finally, the reporter said that Sego might be seen as a "Mother Earth" type figure by the voters.

I apologize if I got some of those details wrong, but believe me, it was sort of fun to hear about a topic which I have been reading about for some time. I'll provide a link to the report by Eleanor Beardsley:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6158311

[Robert Marchenoir]

Sandrine, this is not very nice of you: voting for the socialists so the country goes on spiralling downwards, then taking refuge in a foreign country, where presumably some common sense prevails (since virtually no one in the world holds France's warped views on economics, apart form North Korea and a few others), and letting us suffer the consequences of your vote...

[Sandrine]

Héhé Robert, of course I'll vote for the socialists, but I know that they won't win. Your chance is that they're so divided right now and they hate each other so much, that they won't be able to reunite before the election. Sad, but true.

This IS exactly why I'm happy to be abroad (I'm in the USA but I could have been sent somewhere else) before Sarko arrives and shows his real face. You will tell me afterward if Sarko was that good for France... (see the three dots? they mean that I have a strong doubt!! ;o)

"where presumably some common sense prevails " : well it's precisely as you say, "presumably" ! You should come and meet me here one day, you would be surprised...

[Robert Marchenoir]

Mmmmh... Sandrine... now that's puzzling. If I read you correctly, you prefer to live in the USA with Bush as president than in France with Sarkozy as president.

That does not strike me as overtly socialist, see what I mean? At least, you could have bothered to head for Venezuela, headed by that nice Mr. Chavez with impeccable anti-Bush credentials, or even Chile and its socialist leader Michelle Bachelet, who is such a good pal of Ségolène Royal, not to mention Cuba with Castro, who is on back-slapping terms with Le Monde Diplomatique's anti-globalization luminaries like Ignacio Ramonet.

How disappointing to learn that you fell for the United States instead. Are we talking about the same US of A, you know, this beacon of imperialistic savagery, of capitalist greed, of neglect for the poor, this country which locks up its black citizens by the millions because it could not be bothered to create enough jobs for them?

Or are you saying that Sarkozy is not enough of a free-trader for your taste, so you'd rather have a try at the original, the land of the entrepreneur and can-do spirit?

Could it be, by any chance, that America has some mighty advantages to offer its inhabitants, so much so that they would offset any inconvenience of living in France under the evil Sarkozy?

The very Sarkozy that has just been lambasted by the French socialist party for visiting America and saying he loves the United States?

I just don't get it.

[Frank Schnittger]

Many thanks, Charles, for the first substantial portrait of Sego that I have read. Some of our American readers may raise eyebrows at your comment "Under the system created in 1958 for Charles de Gaulle, WINNING THE MOST POWERFUL EXECUTIVE POST IN THE WESTERN WORLD requires what the late general called “a dialogue between a man and the people”!?!

Your analysis seems to confirm the popular consensus of Sego as someone with limited administrative and policy development experience who has not generally been seen as a high flyer by the current establishment. That can be both a good and a bad thing. She doesn’t carry as much baggage as others and leaders of a new order are seldom well got with the Ancien Regime.

The key thing is what kind of a dialogue she can now conduct with the French people. Losing her temper with a young socialist asking mildly provocative questions won’t help. A somewhat authoritarian style (inherited from her father?) may not be helpful now because what she needs most of all is to be able to attract and retain a strong cadre of policy experts, media consultants and political strategists. M. Hollande needs to get over his depression fast if he is to help her.

On the other hand, being criticised by a crusty old uncle general won’t hurt her with the left. Being associated, through her brother, with the Rainbow Warrior debacle won’t help her with the left, but should help consolidate her patriotic credentials with the right. Having to fight her corner with her mother against her father as a teenager demonstrates that she is one tough cookie, and perhaps not to be underestimated. It seems unlikely she would roll over quite as easily as Chirac if some strong vested interests tried to bully her.

All in all a much less substantial track record that Sarkozy, but then Blair had never even been a cabinet minister when first elected. The bottom line is that France seems to be in the mood for change. If the Socialists don’t “get with the program” and nominate her they risk reliving the humiliation of coming third once more and having to vote for someone like Sarkozy (or Chirac) against Le Pen in the second ballot.. They won’t want to go there again.

Your comment about the French electorate rejecting media darlings like Edouard Balladur and Jospin in 1995 and 2002 is well made. But there is a difference. Neither Sarkozy nor Royal are presenting themselves as establishment candidates and both are pitching for some of the anti-establishment sentiment and vote. The criticisms she is now enduring at the hands of the elephants will probably actually help her with the public at large – by helping to distance her from them. She has a lot to do, but a great chance to do it.

[Sedulia]

Funny, Segolene Royal was working as "conseillère technique au secrétariat général de la présidence de la République" (according to Wikipedia) when, apparently, Mitterrand gave her brother the Rainbow Warrior assignment.

The Parisien's special on her also quoted from people in her region of Poitou-Charente who all were afraid to speak with a reporter and who pretty much unanimously said she was authoritarian and didn't listen, and that none of the delegates from Poitou-Charentes (who presumably know her best) were for her any more.

It was pretty damning and changed my opinion of her, I admit.

[John Hornsby]

What I ask of Miss Royal is that she should give her views as clearly and unambiguously as possible on the following:
1° How does she propose to reduce unemployment to 5% in five years?
2° What reforms will she make in education, notably regarding the universities?
3° How will she reduce France's huge public debt?
4° Immigration. At least she has spoken on this: she intends to "negociate with the countries from which the immigrants come". Since in the majority of cases these countries are corrupt dictatorships...
5° The USA: she can negociate with dicatators but apparently is not prepared to do so with an elected President whose views, like them or not, reflect those of a majority of Americans who, like it or not, are our most valuable allies.

Posted by: John Hornsby at 2 Oct 2006 15:57:27

Verify your comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below.

This test is used to prevent automated robots from posting comments.

[john gregory Flinn]

From what I've seen of Mme Royal she seems a tad paranoid.
There was that inverted sexist response to a Times reporter(?)about answering a question on foreign policy.
Then, the clip I saw concerning her brother's involvement with the Rainbow Warrior, showed her angrily claiming the question was a deliberate attempt to disparage her name following her acceptance as a candidate for the PS's nomination.
She may have been correct about the motivations behind the questions, but as an incipient stateswoman she should show how she may rise above it all - so to speak.
M.Sarkosy's hobnobbing with GW may be seen as a negative aspect for his presidential aspirations. His experience in office has revealed his attitude to certain policy issues, which is more than can be said about Mme Royal.
Speculation about M.Chirac's intentions seem to hinge on (another) international crisis occurring. Although a right-of-centre politician by repute, he appears to be a closet socialist in deeds.

[Jess]

Well, IF she stands and IF she's elected that's wonderful. Because of course what France really needs is another socialist...

Not that, in all honesty, it makes a huge amount of difference whom the French elect as their président(e). Modern democracies are too huge to be 'led', in any real sense of the word. They are what their people make them – their leaders just respond to behavioural trends and try to claim credit for inventing them. The French can elect whom they want, but in the end it's their own attitudes that could do with a bit of a change.

For me, it's the state and outlook of French youngsters that most clearly sums up the country's modern ills: a) there are so few of them (even by EU standards, France's birth rate is tragically low – few indices better illustrate the real state of a nation), b) the ones who have any 'go' or ability are all in other countries, and c) the ones who remain seem obsessed by only one thing: fear of the future. An outlook associated almost everywhere else with the old folk.

If the future of a society rests with its youth, France is truly in trouble.

[James]

Thank you John, for your post.

I doubt Mme Royal has any good answers to your questions.

If the French vote her into power, they will get a continuation of their decline.

James

[Sandrine]

Allons allons Robert, comment vous qui êtes si intelligent d'habitude, avez vous pu descendre si bas ?

So because I like the French socialists (read my lips : the F R E N C H socialists) I now should only work in leftist countries, or as you seem to say, communists ones ? Come on, that's a bit surprising from you.

I can also ask you why you're still in Paris... Why don't you just quit France (and go to countries like the USA ? The UK ? Even Germany why not...) ? I love my country, I really do, but I had an opportunity to work abroad, and I took it. If that allows me to avoid Sarko's presidency, then it's just perfect.

Actually, I'm quite happy to be in the USA, life is completely different, but people here are very nice. And it's true that it's GWB's country, so what ? It's not as if I have dinner with him everyday. And if next time they send me to Chili, then I'll go there, no big deal.

I don't really care who runs the country, even if for sure Bush is not my favourite man on Earth, the only thing I have to check, is if the place is safe enough for my daughter (who is 6 as you may know). That's it. So, before you ask, no I won't go to North Korea. ;o)

By the way, living here makes me appreciate what we have in France, I do miss a few things (le RER for example as I don't drive), but that's normal isn't it ?

Anyway, I certainly don't miss Sarko. You wanna elect him ? Well, go ahead, we'll see what happens. This guy really frightens me.

[ndouglas]

Jess, on the contrary, France's birthrate is the second highest in the EU (Ireland wins here). The average in Europe is 1.4 - France's is 1.9.

[Flocon]

Funny how there's always a joker on every blog. Today it's Jess with his ludicrous assertion regarding the "tragically low birth rate of France even by EU standards".
Hmmm... What about some piece of relevant information? Now, let's have a look at Wikipedia (http://tinyurl.com/qywe6) or any other available data file of your choice. In the EU, France is second only to Irland whan it comes to the highest birth rate, ahead of all countries; Even UK Jess...

[Gareth]

If Royal is the one to stop Sarkozy, then so be it - rather a woman who doesn't seem to have any policies than a man whose policies spark riots and involve mass deportations and an increase in the already violent police force.
Personally, I wish people would see sense and look somewhere else, i.e. Bayrou, who is a clever candidate, but of course, he doesn't get the media attention because unlike Royal, he isn't glamorous, and unlike Sarkozy, he doesn't have the newspapers and TV channels in his back pocket.
Shame.
Gareth
http://www.paris-link-home.com

[Robert Marchenoir]

I knew we would come there, Sandrine.

Why I do not leave France, Sandrine? Because it is my country, and I have every right to live here, and try to change it democratically in the way I believe best.

Yours is a well-rehearsed argument of the not-yet-de-leninized French left: if you like England or America so much, why don't you go and live there? (And -- but this is not usually made explicit -- spare us the trouble of trying to come up with rational arguments to democratically discuss your opinion, of which we disapprove?)

Comes up all the time in French blog comments. There should be Godwin points for this, just as when someone mentions Hitler to cut a discussion short.

This does not strike me as either very tolerant or democratic. The French left has its mouth full of words like human rights and respect, but it is their own human rights and respect for them, not for their opponents.

The left keeps blabbing out that horrible word "vivre-ensemble" ("living togetherness"), which is supposed to mean "let's all live together happily whatever our differences, race, creed, sex, wealth or lack of it", but what it really means is "except for the citizens whose opinions do not suit us, especially people supporting Sarkozy and free enterprise".

The left keeps insisting that illegal immigrants from all over the world have every right to settle in France and be granted working papers just because they chose to, without any meddling from the state, but when a sizable number of French citizens begin to expose the fraud that lay behind the whole French left worldview, as is currently happening, they are suddenly deemed undesirable in their own country.

Tolerance and human rights, indeed.

I'm very sorry about it, but I'm staying, I'll keep talking, and I'll be voting. That is called democracy, remember.

[Jess]

Apols to all: I'm out of date with my stats. Should look around me for once before opening mouth!
Some comments, however:
1. 1.9 is still nothing to be proud of – 2.1 is the minimum for population stability
2. There has been controversy over official French birth rate stats since the days when it was a hot political topic. I'm inclined to be suspicious about this particular official figure – rather as one should be suspicious of the official statistics about rates of heart disease in France and the official UK unemployment figure
3. My accompanying points stand.

[James]

"Funny how there's always a joker on every blog. Today it's Jess with his ludicrous assertion regarding the "tragically low birth rate of France even by EU standards"."

---

Well, Jess is wrong in that France's population is not collapsing as fast as those in other European nations.

However, France's population is far, far, far below the rate it needs to support its social welfare state, to grow fast enough to undo its high unemployment, and to preclude its Islamicization.

France's future is grave, and full of social and cultural unrest, if it continues on its present course.

James

[dada]

the monthy pythons , james, the monthy pythons.

[James]

"the monthy pythons , james, the monthy pythons"

---

Hey dada,

Glad to see you've become coherent...

James

[Frankschnittger@hotmail.com]

Speaking as someone who has done his bit for Ireland's fertility rate (3 kids) I always find discussions of national fertility rates a bit weird. It seems that, for some, a Nation's fertility rate is a measure of its virility and the challenge is to outbreed all others.

We live in a world with a rapidly expanding population and rapidly reducing non-renewable resources. Nature normally resolves over-population issues with famine, disease and conflict over scarce resources. Unless people want a future of unimaginably grotesque wars, with Billions of deaths, we have to find more constructive means of halting the population explosion.

Typically, developed countries have less than replacement rate fertility rates and make up the shortfall with immigration. Those countries with the highest fertility rates are also the most underdeveloped, with the highest child mortality rates, and with no social welfare systems to take care of the elderly. Having lots of children becomes an insurance policy in lieu of a pension.

It follows that it is in all our interests to assist underdeveloped countries to improve their economies and health and social welfare systems. We need to reduce the global birth rate, and helping those countries with the highest rates to provide alternate means to care for the elderly is probably the best way of doing so.

So why the urge to compete with other nations through having a higher birthrate? Gross inequalities in wealth and access to technology means there is little enough correlation between a nations power and population in any case. Let's grow up a little and focus on having a sustainable population given global warming the world's rapidly depleting resources. The alternative is a war more terible than any we have ever known.

[Sandrine]

"Why I do not leave France, Sandrine? Because it is my country, and I have every right to live here, and try to change it democratically in the way I believe best."

"This does not strike me as either very tolerant or democratic."

Once upon a time, there was a French man (not that old) who said very proudly : France, you like it or you leave it ! Robert, believe it or not, this guy WAS NOT from the socialist party, this guy was your hero, Nicolas Sarkozy ! From the right !! So tell me now who's not tolerant nor democratic... See, you're starting getting my point on Sarko !! ;o)

Anyway, I certainly don't want you to quit France, but as you seem to always speak of America or Great-Britain as great models for us I just wondered why you haven't tried to live there... (or maybe you've done that once ?) I'm only saying that maybe you would then find that life is not that WONDERFUL in those countries...

And can I just remind you that even if you're abroad, you have the right to vote for the elections ? And to decide for the future of your country ?? Isn't that just great ?

[maggie g]

So, come on, Sandrine, tell us how you find life in the States. What do you like, and what do you dislike? Have your impressions of France changed in any way? What do you miss most about France? What do you miss least?

[Robert Marchenoir]

Sandrine, you are being disingenuous here.

When Sarkozy said "love it or leave it" about France, he was, as you pretty well know, adressing disruptive, law-breaking yobs from immigrant ethnic minorities who benefit from France's social largesse and civil liberties, while at the same time despising France and native French whites as a whole, and rejecting the very values they benefit from.

The political equivalent, if you will, of a self-proclaimed devout muslim locking up his Algerian wife at home and shagging a different white girl as often as possible -- which is common practice in France and in the UK, by the way, as the most honest of them will frankly admit:

http://www.hebdo.ch/indexBlogs.cfm

(See post "L'esprit pratique de Bondy", in French)

You also might have noticed that Nicolas Sarkozy does not like France's current situation and is determined to change it thoroughly; if what he said had the meaning you pretend it has, it would mean he would be intent on kicking himself out of the country, which is obviously absurd.

Of course the way he said it ruffles the feathers of French liberals' delicate sensitivities.

If you think this is far-right stuff, in spite of the telltale fact that Sarkozy is described in The Times as "center-right" by someone as unreasonable as Charles Bremner, maybe you would like to consider the far sterner warning issued by a British Member of Parliament, which said essentially the same thing in harsher words: "If you want sharia law, you should go and live in Saudi".

This MP is from the Labour party, his name is Shahid Malik, and he happens to be muslim.

Food for thought:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2320096.html

As for Sarkozy being my hero, this is a figment of your imagination. He is just a rational choice. He has many weaknesses, but he is the only one around who offers the right solutions.

Of course this is very boring for the French left. Reasonable choice. Pfff... We are revolutionaries, Sir. We are the Light of Nations. We will have nothing of that lukewarm stuff. Sarkozy is a hero to our opponents, and the devil incarnate to us. Certainly sounds more exciting.

These repetitive statements of "Sarkozy is a dangerous man" and "if he wins, I shall take refuge abroad" are as preposterous as the fears voiced by some wealthy French just before socialist François Mitterrand came to power in 1981: Soviet tanks are about to roll on the Champs-Elysées, let us flee to Switzerland or the United States.

Only, this time, it is the left's turn. How ironic.

[John Hornsby]

Regarding the comment of Gareth, Sarkozy did not spark off the riots: the situation was already very tense and violent when he arrived on the scene. What is more, the rioters never made any claims of the government: they were just out "for a good time". As to the "mass deportations" Sarkozy is accused of advocating, that is a gross exaggeration.It is in no-one's interests - be it that of France or of its legal immigrants, or indeed of illegal immigrants - to live in a chaotic State where anything is permissible. The Left tend to take a soft line on these problems, by which I mean the 'bourgeois' left who live nowhere near the suburban tower-blocks.

[Frankschnittger]

Ok c'mon guys, kiss and make up time! Sandrine is entitled to vote for the Socialists if she wants to, even whilst living abroad. She has conceded that Sarkozy will probably win - even if she doesn't like him - just as she has followed a job opportunity to the US - despite not liking Bush. Sometimes (quite often in fact) economic necessity or opportunity or accidents of birth force us to live in countries governed by people we don't like or by policies with which we disagree.

Robert is just as entitled to make his case that Sarkozy would make a better President and in a free world we can all (to a certain extent) choose where we want to live. Let's spare a thought for the Billions of people who don't have the right to vote or economic opportunities at home or the freedom to travel abroad. Whether we live in the USA or France or elsewhere in Europe we have quite a lot of economic and political privileges – which we tend to take for granted.

Telling people they should go and live where they feel most comfortable with the political climate is just a bit infantile; we all have a responsibility as citizens to do our bit for our country even when we are not happy with how it is being run. I know what Robert and Sandrine have been saying has all been at least partly in jest but there is also a serious issue underlying all of this: many immigrants to France feel insecure about their future. Telling them to conform to a French way of life or get out is not necessarily being very helpful. Those that are legally French residents or citizens ARE part of what France is now all about – whether we like it or not. By all means insist that they conform to French law. Within that they are as entitled to express differing points of view as any French citizen.

I do hope neither Sarkozy or Royal stoop to playing the race card. I appreciate many in France feel that immigration has gotten out of hand. By all means tighten up on immigration laws and enforcement if you want to. But don’t take it out on immigrants who are legally already living here. You are only storing up community strife for generations to come.

[Sandrine]

Well, you're quite right Franck (as usual!), I don't think Robert will be able to convince me, and I'm pretty sure that I won't be able to convince him neither. So be it (sad sigh...)

Maggie,
Concerning your questions, here are my answers. These are certainly not exhaustive...

What I like in the USA :
- I do appreciate the way people say "hi how'r u doing?" to each other in the streets or in shops. That's very surprising for a pure parisian (like me !). People always smile here, I like it too ! And (quite surprisingly), they actually do like French people ! I was a bit afraid of their reactions.

- My apartment is big and has the air conditioning. The kitchen is totally furnished, there's a swimming-pool and a grocery in my building. There's a concierge service 24 hrs a day 7/7. What I mean is that, I appreciate to pay a correct rent with no other charges. This is such a luxury, even if I'm not in a luxurious place; I wish we could've that in France.

- the shops open early and close very late in the evening (sometimes midnight). And each day of the week ! That's just perfect for me.

- I love the weather here. Well except when it rains for an entire day, but the rest of the time, the sky is just blue with no clouds ! That's amazing, especially when you come from Paris, where the sky is rarely blue, and most often grey !

- I like the fact that my daughter will be bilingual when we go back to France in 3 or 4 years;

- I also like the (numerous) squirrels here...

I don't like :
- the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches
- the big enormous cars
- the commercials EVERY TEN minutes on TV (yeah I HATE that !!)
- the bikes on the sidewalks. That's so dangerous for the pedestrians...
- the price of the hospitals (15 500$ for two days in my case), is just unbelievable;
- the price of the medicines (for instance : 95 $ for a syrup!?);
- seeing cops in bars. Even if it's after their work time, I think that's just weird, I'm sorry...

I miss :
- the French baguette
- the RATP (ah, yes I do miss this great company) because here if the trains are on time, they don't cover the city the way the RER and the metro do in Paris. The buses are never on time and sometimes you can wait for them for more than 20 minutes !! And the bus drivers are very often not friendly, so don't even try to ask them for the place you'd like to go.
- the French food.

I don't miss :
- the strikes. Yeah, I don't miss them at all.
- my salary in France (;o)

My views on France have not really changed, because I've only been here since the end of August, so you'd better ask me this question next year ! Sure, things will change a lot during this year!!

Charles, I do apologize for using your blog to speak about my life in Washington, I'll try not to do it again, I promise.