International Women’s Day 2017

International Women's Day 2017Today is International Women’s Day, a day to acknowledge the power of women in the world. In my view, the day is celebrated much more in other parts of the world than in the U.S. — I had never heard of it until I worked in Kazakhstan and stayed on a street named “8 March” — but there’s nothing like a cause to make a day more relevant.

Today many women in the U.S. and elsewhere will be taking the day off work as a way to show people — and the man in the White House in particular — how important women are to everyday life. Life won’t stop, but their lack of presence in their usual places will be felt: many classes have been cancelled because of requests for the day off.

I, for one, will not be joining them. Not because I don’t think the cause is worth it, or that I am uninterested, but the fact is, if I don’t work I don’t get paid. My hard work over the course of my career has never paid off: I’ve given everything in me to every job I’ve ever had, and it’s never been enough. I’m back to making an hourly rate I made 22 years ago. I’m not working in the field of my choice, event planning, but I am working  — and I am grateful for that. Maybe someday someone will give me a chance, but being an older woman whose most immediate experience isn’t event planning doesn’t exactly make me the most viable candidate. Employers don’t understand that event planning is in my blood: it’s like I was born to do it.

Perhaps I don’t have the power to take the day off, but I have lived through many ordeals in my life. And I’m still standing. I keep moving forward. In that way, I am powerful. I am woman.

Salut !

Trump, Putin & Climate Change: Could It Be A Matter Of Quid Pro Quo?

Is there a secret agreement between Trump and Putin regarding climate change?

Is there a secret agreement between Trump and Putin regarding climate change?

While I write about traveling to Paris and France in general, I also write about political and cultural issues that are important to France. It is only natural that France is the leading voice against climate change since Claude Lorius, a French glaciologist, was instrumental in proving man-made global warming. [See the trailer for the documentary about his work, “Antarctica: Ice and Sky” (2015) by clicking here.] France also does not deny what is right in front of them. As a supporter of France and an American horrified by what I view as an assault on American values coming out of Washington, I feel it is my duty to add my observations and questions to the discussion. I hope I am dead wrong about the suppositions I write about here.

There is evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin had a hand in electing Donald Trump as U.S. president this past November by conducting a widespread cyber operation directed at the election. In fact, some believe the Russians changed voter counts, and while this fact has been disputed, as a former election judge, it wouldn’t surprise me after seeing firsthand just how temperamental voter machines can be. Computerized machines are supposed to do what people program them to do; these machines seemed to have a mind all their own. Whatever the method, it is clear the Russians are guilty. The expected response from Trump by many is that he would be outraged over outside influence in our election process, even if he is the declared winner; after all, he has alleged that the Clinton Foundation illegally received millions of dollars from foreign powers in exchange for special treatment. One would think Trump would want to avoid similar accusations. But instead of condemning Russia’s unlawful actions, he wants to ease U.S. financial sanctions against Russian individuals and groups, such as those put in place in 2014 after Russian military aggression in Ukraine. Why would Trump do this?

Images like this of a lone Polar Bear floating in the Arctic are not faked. How can they be denied?

Images like this of a lone Polar Bear floating in the Arctic are not faked. How can it be denied?

Perhaps the answer can be found in Trump’s climate change policy: he flatly denies it exists. He has called climate change “bunk” and a “hoax” and has said that taking measures to halt its pace would “make us noncompetitive in the manufacturing world…” Photographs of melting Arctic ice, estimated to be melting at rate of 13.3% per decade, are not a hoax, nor are images of starving polar bears who can’t find food. How do Trump’s denials about this help Putin? As 60 Minutes reported on October 2, 2016 in the segment entitled “The Arctic Frontier,” the melting Arctic ice means ships will be able to pass through the once-impassable Arctic Ocean, specifically the Northern Sea Route, a possible alternative to the Suez Canal that could mean a decrease of as much as 28 days from northern European markets to Asian markets. The savings for the shipping industry would be a “big boon to business around the world.” The Northern Sea Route runs along Russia’s Arctic coastline, and Russia now has a strong military presence along the route. When 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Philip Breedlove, a retired four-star general who most recently was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO with responsibility for the Arctic, what would happen if the Russians gained control over the Northern Sea Route, Breedlove responded, “If the Russians had the ability to militarily hold [it] at ransom, that is a big lever over the world economy.” By denying that climate change is real, Trump has ceded his leadership role to challenge any country on whether this shipping route should even be used, much less challenge Putin on Russia controlling it. This all but guarantees the United States will remain silent as the Arctic ice melts into the ocean and numerous species go extinct – and while Russia gains control over the Northern Sea Route. Russia as a superpower would be reborn.

Unfortunately, unlike Antarctica, which is governed by an international treaty that bars countries from owning or exploiting its land, the Arctic has only a council that meets every six months and issues a non-binding declaration of its business every two years. Only states with territory in that region can be members with voting rights. So if it is in a member state’s best economic interest to allow the Arctic ice melt so as to open the Arctic Ocean to trade ships, no observer state on the council can vote against it. The U.S. is a member state on the Arctic Council due to Alaskan territory contained within the Arctic, so it has the power to be a dissenting voice. But it seems the U.S. is just as anxious to see the Arctic ice melt as Russia. When Lesley Stahl visited the temporary U.S. Navy base in the Arctic for the 60 Minutes segment, the Navy was there to map the bottom of the ice and was “amassing…research to prepare for an expanded presence in the Arctic, as the ice continues to melt.” If U.S. policy prior to Trump being elected was indeed to halt the march of climate change, would the Navy have been there gathering data on how to maneuver beneath the ice? My guess is they would say they were there so they could eventually match Russia’s military presence within the Arctic region, not that they were there to prepare for the U.S. to send commercial ships through the Arctic. It feels like U.S. climate change policy is a kind of doublespeak: Take some actions to show we’re against climate change, but don’t do too much if it impacts us economically in the short term. Remember, this segment aired on October 2, 2016, while Obama was still in office; Trump was elected on November 8. I freely concede, however, that with ExxonMobile CEO Rex Tillerson as Trump’s Secretary of State pick, whose company stands to profit from oil deals in the Arctic region, Trump isn’t double-speaking his climate change policy, he is screaming.

Unless Trump completely changes course, he will likely lose the chance to prevent a climate change tipping point that scientists predict will happen between 2020 and 2030: the defrosting of the Arctic permafrost. Billions of tons of plant material frozen for centuries and containing carbon are slowly thawing out from within the permafrost, but as time passes and more carbon is released, the thaw rate will increase. Excess carbon in the atmosphere heats the planet; excess carbon in the ocean makes the water more acidic and therefore deadly to marine life. Once the plant material has thawed, there is no putting back the permafrost. The cycle will continue, and the earth will continue to heat up at an accelerated pace.

I have to wonder what prevents world leaders like Trump and Putin from seeing what is right in front of them. Is it that they don’t care because they won’t be around to experience the worst effects of climate change? Besides being world leaders and seem to be scratching each other’s back, there are three other things Trump and Putin have in common: They are both older, rich, and have adult and young children. Trump will be 71 years old this year, while Putin will be 65. They are both billionaires, though Putin is far richer than Trump. Trump has four adult children; Putin has two. Trump’s son Barron will be 11 years old this year, while Putin reportedly has three young children under the age of 10 with Alina Kabaeva, who may or may not be his wife. Because of their respective ages, Trump and Putin will unlikely be alive to suffer the full effects of the heating earth. But their young children will – and their adult children are witnesses to their respective father making choices that will impact their lives, and the lives of their children. The earth will one day belong to the children of today. Will it be habitable for them? Do Trump and Putin think their billions will somehow save their children from having to live with the full effects of an overheated planet?

If that is the case, they fail to understand an ancient proverb: “Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money.”

Salut.

 

Image of U.S. & Russian Cooperation by CanStockPhoto. “The Last Polar Bear” by Gerard Van der Leun, Flickr, CCBY 2.0.

References:

“The Arctic Frontier,” 60 Minutes segment, aired October 2, 2016. “Arctic Council” from Wikipedia, CCBY 3.0. “Claude Lorius” from Wikipedia, CCBY 3.0.

“Global Warming Climate Change Forecasts – 2030” from Global Warming Forecasts, http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/2030-climate-change-global-warming-2030.php.

“Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle,” by NASA Earth Observatory,
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php?src=share.

 

 

 

Today Women March on Paris and on Washington

Women's March in Paris logo.

Copyright Women’s March on Paris.

As a Washingtonian woman concerned about the direction the U.S. is taking with a Trump presidency, I will be marching in Washington, D.C. today with my fellow concerned-sisters. Women in Paris and elsewhere will be marching in support of us. While I appreciate the efforts of women worldwide in this endeavor, to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure what good the march on Washington will do.

It is against my nature to sound so pessimistic; I consider myself to be a realist with idealist tendencies. But a successful march would involve changing powerful people’s mindsets and behavior towards our new president, and I don’t see that happening. Many Republicans and others have decided to embrace President Trump and disregard, at least to themselves, his horrible rhetoric and actions, if only for their own self-preservation. I suppose I can’t blame them, lest they not have a seat at the power table — or even work, for that matter. But what I can’t get over is…many working women support him.(!) How can this be? Does a man who says he feels he can “grab women by the [crotch]” deserve to be president of the United States? Would any of the women who voted for him allow him to grab them — or their daughters — by their genitals? (To be technical, that wouldn’t be the same thing, since they would be giving him their consent.) Joking about sexually assaulting women is nothing to laugh at or to take lightly. I agree with what Meryl Streep said in her acceptance speech at the Golden Globes, that seeing someone in such a position of power do such horrible things creates a culture in which it is acceptable to do what formerly was unacceptable. She was citing Trump’s mocking of a disabled reporter when she said this, but it still applies.

I don’t know what scares me more, a U.S. president who displays unconscionable behavior, or one who might disregard any and all previous international agreements. Trump has said he wants to evoke Nixon’s unpredictability, but the world is a very different place than it was in Nixon’s time. The U.S. is not the only nation with nuclear weapons. A global economy exists today that didn’t exist in Nixon’s time; economic trouble in one nation will eventually be felt around the world. And Nixon was a peacemaker: He opened the door to trade with China, and it was during his administration that the Vietnam war ended. Say what you will about Watergate, but I felt safer with Nixon as president, even if I was just a little girl. And President Nixon sent me a lovely press kit when I wrote him a letter telling him how much I admired him. President Trump, on the other hand, wants to build a wall at the Texas-Mexico border, and he wants to force Mexico to pay for it. He has spoken of “bombing the [censored]” out of a nation whose policies he disagrees with. And he wants to ban reporters at the White House. I somehow doubt that if I were a child now and wrote a letter to President Trump, that he would send me such a lovely press kit; more like an apple with a razor blade in it. Trump is the bogeyman I was warned about when I used to go trick-or-treating. Only he’s not the creepy man living in the corner house; he’s the leader of our nation, living in the same White House as Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan lived in. That’s enough to give me nightmares.

When I think back on what is surely the most successful march on Washington — Dr. Martin Luther King and his followers for equal rights for African-Americans — I marvel at the changes Dr. King helped to bring about, the crowning achievement being the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But before the Civil Rights Act, and before “separate but equal” restrooms, water fountains, and schools were outlawed, Dr. King changed people’s minds. Perhaps even more importantly, he changed people’s hearts. Maybe it came a little at a time, even grudgingly at first, but people of all races came to understand that African-Americans deserved the same human and civil rights that Caucasians and others took for granted. And along the way, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the youngest person to have received that award up to that time.

Does it look like Donald Trump is on the road to being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? He’s on a road all right: the U.S. is going to hell, and he’s driving the bus.

For the record, I was a fan of Donald Trump at one time. Many years ago, I saw him interviewed on Donohue, a popular talk show at the time. While I don’t remember specifics, I do remember walking away from that program being impressed. Donald Trump came across as well-spoken, well-mannered, insightful, and terribly smart. His sense of himself was powerful without being arrogant; I thought he was sexy. What I want to know is, what happened to this man who made such a positive impression on me? I didn’t think it was an act, for he seemed genuine. Never could I have guessed he would turn into the bogeyman of my nightmares.

I’ll be marching in Washington today in an effort to keep the bogeyman at bay. I want to thank my sisters in Paris and elsewhere for supporting this march today. May your efforts not be in vain.

Paris location details:
Where: Human Rights Square at Trocadero, 75016 Paris
When: Today, 2:00 P.M.

Washington DC location details:
Where: Independence Avenue SW & 3rd Street, SW
Washington, DC  20024
When: Today, 10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M.

 

Salut !

Some French Expats Fed Up with NYC Singles Scene Head Home

Had a disappointing Valentine’s Day? Some French expats know exactly what you mean.

Source: Fed Up with Being Single in NYC, Some French Expats Head Home – French Morning

When I was teenager and confiding in someone, I said something to this person about how “dating is to find a mate for life, after all,” and he reacted like I said something incredibly intelligent. I looked at him blankly: “You’re joking, right?” He said not everyone makes that connection. As much as I respected him, part of me thought he was wacko. I thought it was obvious.

Now that I am older, I believe I see what he was talking about.

The above article from French Morning talks about how some French singles relocated to New York City for career advancement and who believed, reasonably, that they would find an American to settle down with, but who got so fed up with the singles scene in The City That Never Sleeps that they have packed it in and returned to France. Sure, they understand that just returning to France doesn’t guarantee they’ll find someone to love, but as Maud, a 32-year-old French woman put it so succinctly, “In France, the men that I meet will share my values, my culture, my codes.”

Intriguingly, it’s what the article doesn’t talk about that caught my attention: French people seem to have a much stronger expectation of marriage than Americans do. Regardless of what the statistics say in both countries — I am all-too-aware a skilled person can make statistics say whatever they want — articles like this one paint a picture whose canvas cannot be denied: French people want to marry, or at the very least, be in a committed, exclusive relationship, as opposed to being in several non-exclusive relationships at once.

Though perhaps non-exclusive dating is found mostly in big cities like New York. A psychologist cited in the article specializing in human sexuality, Professor David Buss, believes that when there is a surplus of women — or even a perceived surplus — “the whole mating system tends to shift towards short-term dating. Marriages become unstable. Divorces increase. Men don’t have to commit, so they pursue a short-term mating strategy. Men are making that shift, and women are forced to go along with it in order to mate at all.”

He believes modern technology — dating sites — only reinforces the surplus idea. I wonder: Is it that there seems to be an endless supply of women on dating sites, or are Americans so obsessed with their phones that their relationships suffer? Perhaps both?

I can only say this: As an older, single, American woman, seeing people so engrossed in their smartphones that they nearly walk into traffic is not a step in the right direction for American culture. Nor is surfing the internet rather than talking to the person you’re with having a latte with. Is this part of America’s problem? Are we so engrossed in technology that we miss noticing the available man or woman sitting nearby? Sounds like a script for a modern sit-com: A man cruises dating sites on his smartphone while an available woman sits next to him, wishes he would talk to her, and she eventually gives up and leaves.

A French couple wait out the rain at Jardin du Luxembourg, Paris

A French couple wait out the rain at Jardin du Luxembourg, Paris.

I certainly haven’t seen French citizens, smartphones in hand, nearly walking into traffic or brick walls. Let’s hope technology won’t take over the City of Light Love and start playing cupid. I’m no expert, but somehow, that doesn’t seem very French to me.

 

Au revoir!

 

Blue Bar Silo by Jason Kuffer, Flickr, CCBY 2.0. Under the Rain by Vincent Anderlucci, Flickr,
CCBY 2.0.