Haitian refugees – an unpublicised crisis

More than 200,000 people of Haitian descent are facing deportation in the Dominican Republic. The deportation is certainly in violation of international law, but in a sense that is irrelevant. It is yet another example, along with the Rohingas and others, of the growing effects of climate change, scarce resources, and too many mouths to feed. Large populations are on the move, often discriminated against and trying to improve their lives, but meeting hostility and resistance. Europe and the United States are not alone in wondering how to stem the tide. There are an estimated 10 million stateless refugees in the world, and the number is going to grow remorselessly.

The Epicurean instinct is to try to offer security and more pleasant lives to the refugees. But this clashes with the natural human desire to sustain one’s national culture, one’s job and one’s way of life in the face of the migration of poor, unskilled people.

Politicians don’t seem to have civilised answers. What would you do?

An indifference to gun slaughter

After nine African-Americans were gunned down by a racist as they attended a bible study class in Charleston, South Carolina, Charles Cotton, a board member of the NRA, explained who was really to blame for this horrific act of domestic terrorism.  One of the murder victims, State Senator Clementa Pinckney, had voted against conceal carry guns.  Said Cotton, “Eight of his church members might be alive if he had expressly allowed church members to carry handguns in church.  Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue”. 

For heartless cruelty and stupidity this must take a First Prize.  To put it bluntly, anyone advocating a shoot-out in a church has to be as seriously deranged as the racist shooter. What sort of a person is it that regards guns as more important than the lives of flesh-and-blood human beings? Those who don’t live in America can now better understand how difficult it is to introduce grown-up common sense about guns to some Americans.

How France has changed

France is in the news for the most horrible of reasons. I have just returned from a walking trip in Provence. I discussed with my wife how France had changed over the years (she lived there years ago amd speaks good French). Our impressions are as follows:

– rather good English is now spoken by a very large part of the population. A visit to Paris with sub-par French used to elicit contempt. Now everyone you meet is friendly, helpful, and chatty (in the tourist areas at least).

– the worldwide adoption of scruffy, boring clothing has hit France, where the women used to be chic, and proud of it. Now you can’t tell who is French and who is a back-packer.

– the food has always been excellent; now the service too has improved. But the serving portions have become Americanized, that is, huge. Fortunately, the wine remainexcellent.

– The number of Chinese tourists is already striking. Apparently, France is a favourite destination, and they are going there, not necessarily in large groups, but in pairs and foursomes, showing greater confidence, maybe.

– we were struck by French current affairs programmes, where everyone talks over everyone else, and the men shout down any woman with the temerity to open her mouth. But st lesst they have women in the news studio.

– Lunchtimes are now about 45 minutes, and businessmen in Paris no longer linger. Paris is feeling more like an American city, hurried, restless and more diverse.

In other words, globalization has reached France, which, I suppose, was, inevitable. What hasn’t changed are the strikes and the fact that the banks don’t work (it seems rate to find an ATM that works).

A surprise from the U.S Supreme Court

What is going on in the US Supreme Court? Most people glumly assumed that the conservative members called the shots, but yesterday the Court struck down marriage bans nationwide in a 5-4 decision, thanks to Justice Anthony Kennedy. The decision affirms that same-sex couples can indeed marry in every state in the union, and conforms to public opinion, with several recent polls showing that about 60 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage rights.

Some people understandably think that same-sex couples should have same rights of every other citizen, but they that shouldn’t call a union “marriage”, because that term has a particular religious connotation that causes offense in some quarters.

However, following the earlier decision this last week in support of the Affordable Health Act, it is a welcome fact that poor people and minorities are getting some help, and that life isn’t just about putting more money and power into the hands of the 1%. The next issue should be an end to Citizens United, which gave rise to the Super PACs and the the purchase of elections by shadowy and un-named donors. Epicureans for the restoration of one person, one vote! It would make ourlives very much more pleasant.

Good news from France

Green roofs are popular in Germany and Australia, and in Canada Toronto adopted a by-law in 2009 mandating them in industrial and residential buildings. Now, under a new law, rooftops on new buildings built in commercial zones in France must either be partially covered in plants or solar panels. Green roofs have an isolating effect, helping reduce the amount of energy needed to heat a building in winter and cool it in summer. They also retain rainwater, thus helping reduce problems with runoff, while favouring biodiversity and giving birds a place to nest in the urban jungle.

Initially, French environmental activists asked for green roofs that cover the entire surface to be mandatory on all new buildings. The Socialist government convinced activists to limit the scope of the law to commercial buildings and to require only part of the roof to be covered with plants, giving companies the choice of installing solar panels to generate electricity instead. But at least it’s a step in the right direction.

Compare this with a big mixed commercial and non-commercial development to be started shortly, right opposite where I live. It replaces a rather nice building, built only in the 1980s, with a modern, boring thing with no recognisable advantages. Solar panels? Green roof? Forget it. Just cheap and featureless. What a lack of imagination! We can now expect two years of noise, dust, pile-driving and truck activity without seeing any commensurate improvement in the environment. This is wholly anti-Epicurean, but is o.k’d by conservative local politicians, so it must be good for the economy, yes? (just joking)