Have Paris' bistrots and brasseries lost it?

I remember when you could go into almost any street Brasserie, Cafe, Bar or Bistrot in Paris and get a 'Biftek au frites', pay a reasonable amount and walk out saying: "They know how to do this, these French. Delicious".
We tried to find the old atmosphere at a recent 1-day trip to Paris, made possible by the only 2 ½ hour Eurostar door to door journey at £60 for a return ticket.
It was a mixed experience.
A confused and dirty Gare du Nord, a long queue at the single ATM in the arrivals hall followed by an even longer queue to obtain the obligatory carnet for the underground, was not a good start. It didn’t help that the EU-blessing of free travel for everyone seems to have filled Paris with hordes of begging Romanian gypsies, not to mention beggars on every street corner.

If this is Van Rompuy’s, Baroso’s and Schultz’s EU anno 2013, we don’t need it.

At previous visits we have begun the day with a simple petit dejeuner: cafe au lait, a baguette with jam and the breathing in of the atmosphere. We shouldn’t have done it this time.
A disinterested waiter did everything he could to tell these “Anglais” that they were not welcome. He managed to ignore us, forgetting to deliver jam and butter, ignoring the need for cutlery and plates and serving the cafe au lait as if it were a badly produced cappucino.
Apparently they charge 15% for service as standard on the bills in France these days! But not only that – the prices are roughly 50% above corresponding meals in the UK, even with a falling Euro.

My wife's omelette was the only star of the show. Clearly some French chefs have retained a little self respect - but there certainly were no extras for the waiter (which is what they seem to expect on top of their 15%).

So if you happen to pass Brasserie Sarah Bernhard around Tour St Jacques, don’t feel tempted to enter.

Later we had a more elaborate dinner, trying to convince ourselves that one bad experience shouldn’t be allowed to taint French cuisine and hospitality.

At the square next to the Metro Maubert-Mutualite there is a string of typical French shops selling wine, charcuterie, cheese and fish. It is like a little market and a very attractive one at that. Next to the shops, on the corner, there’s a fairly simple small Bistrot. We have been there before some years ago and had pleasant memories of our visit.

To make a long story short, if the food there is representative of what they can produce these days in France, at an exorbitant price, I can promise you that France will not last much longer as a leading EU-country. Perhaps it is too late anyway, as apparently the Muslims in Marseille and Avignon are having some success scaring charcuterie (pork!), wine merchants and lingerie sellers away. France without wine and sausages?
Mon Dieu!

Nevertheless, Paris has a “Je ne sais quoi” and we enjoyed our 8 hours cruising Paris on foot, walking ourselves an inch shorter – even while some of the time we had to accept a light drizzle.

My personal enjoyment could of course be because of my memories from many trips to the city of cities – or Mother of all cities in today’s parlance - but we agreed it would ‘vaut le voyage’ to return.

Perhaps bringing our own sandwiches this time - - - -

Change, Society and the Credit Crunch

I recently fell into the 1992 film with Mel Gibson, Forever Young. The film is about a guy, who is deep-frozen in 1939, waking up 50 years later as a couple of kids pilfer with the power supply to his long forgotten cryogenic coffin. In real life there are many people who pay for this delusionary “treatment” in the hope that future medical research can cure them from whatever fatal illness they carry in their body.

The major fallacy in this hope is not even the fact that their cells explode and are destroyed by the freezing process. The real rub is: will there be stability and continuity in society for even the foreseeable future – let alone the required 50, 100 or 200 years ahead? Or will the object of their efforts drown in war, broken energy supplies or something else?

I think I can say with 100% security:They have wasted their money.

This brought me to think about where else we make this mistake: that life will just go on and on and that the changes we experience will be manageable and arrive piece-meal, giving us plenty of time to adjust. In other words, how many years will pass between major societal discontinuity points?
West European people being up to 67 years old have lived through the longest period of stability ever experienced by anyone. Until recently this part of the world has had a voice with a lot of weight, i.e. “we write the history”, as we were the winners of WWII.

But even within the W. European borders there has been massive change, in some cases for the better, in other cases containing the seeds of massive disasters – we just forget. Spain and Portugal shook off their dictators. We (almost) got rid of 3 rather terrible ideologies: Fascism, Nazism and Communism.
Unfortunately we imported a fourth, a desert culture that preaches as much hate to people of a different belief as the old monsters. The European Union was established, as it grew out of the Coal and Steel Union, an attempt to establish free trade coalitions and the idea that the EU could create long term peace in a historically war torn Europe. (I shall deal with that fallacy at a later time). The technologies developed during WWII have been refined into peace technologies, applied in medicine, physics, electronics, communication and general infrastructure. This has created rich and prospering societies that seem to have become immune to the danger signals.

European overseas colonies became autonomous in the 1940s-70s, leading to mass immigration into Europe. Poverty and wars elsewhere send more people on a migration path, changing populations and religious demography beyond recognition. The effect is dramatic, as the original populations are forced to rethink or even abandon (change) their 1000 year old cultures while trying to accommodate the incoming hordes.

Two major political parties in Sweden, a country of ca. 9mill inhabitants, are now suggesting a complete opening of the borders, expecting a population growth through immigration to 40mill. They are obviously totally blind for the fact that Sweden has moved from being one of the richest states in Europe to a level, where social costs has eroded this position dramatically and immigrant criminality is rampant.
Then imagine free growth from 9mill. to 40mill. - uncontrolled!
The European Union has become a federal state, where laws are made centrally, while the national state concept actively is being discouraged. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are basically bankrupt, only kept afloat by the other EU members, the ECB and the IMF. As this happens without a well structured plan to bring their economies back on track, it can only get worse.

At the borders of Western Europe change becomes more violent: in Yugoslavia KZ-camps and ethnic cleansing as bad as seen in Nazi Germany could be experienced during the war of the 1990s, when new countries were established. East Germany (DDR) collapsed in 1989 as did the Berlin wall resulting in a united Germany, which again has become a European economic superpower. The Warsaw pact countries switched side to NATO and many joined the EU. In 1991 Ukraine became an autonomous country for the first time since Volodymir and Jaroslav in the 11th and 12th Century and immediately collapsed economically, even twice, within 5 years. For the populations of these countries such changes have been massive both culturally and economically, as national assets and personal fortunes came, went or changed hand.
And now the world has become global.

The clerical regime in Iran and the continued attempt by the Arabs to throw Israel into the Mediterranean must range top on the danger list, when we look at potential time bombs under world peace. Next time around it will not be as easy for Israel to repel an Arabic attack. The danger of a nuclear war has moved several paces closer.

But how do we assess the jihadist Islamisation of the world and the fact that one of the world’s richest countries, Qatar, has embarked on a major shopping spree for European brands? With increased economic influence it will be much easier for them to support the accelerating implementation of Islam. It already happens. Secular dictatorships in North Africa and Syria are now being replaced by Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood with Sunni/Shia infights and persecution of Christians as a result. Yet, we still look at Islam as a religion. It is not. It is a culture, a thoroughly different lifestyle that clashes violently with classic Western European values. It is very sad to see how easily we denounced these values, including the right to thinking, believing and speaking freely, just to accommodate a culture that so far is in the minority.

Or what will be the consequence of the march of the Chinese world-wide as they take over Old Europe’s manufacturing role and access to raw materials?

There are many more examples of dramatic change and the trouble is, that we look at it as step-change and not as discontinuity jumps. It is the “Boiling Frog Syndrome” again. We are caught asleep and our traditional piece-meal reactions to change only make things worse, as we let it happen as if life will go on as before.
It won’t.

Have we learnt anything from all this and from the past?
Public amnesia is rife, so quite frankly, I doubt it.

Does change (=improvement) mean that we are now able to do things better, more efficiently?

Not if you look at the UK’s National Health Service, which is a shambles, or the Falklands. We would not be able to defend these islands against an aggressor today, 30 years after we threw the Argentineans out.

More pertinently, are we in better control of our finances today? Have we learnt from disasters within living memory?
Definitely not.

Labour brought the UK to its knees economically through 13 years resource squandering, so that we now owe close to 10 times the value of our economy and the public debt stands at £1.5 Trillion – whatever that means!! The Conservatives are not improving anything despite firm claims. In fact borrowing is going up.

In the 1970s inflation was close to 30%. We seemed to get this under control and we have tried to alleviate the indebtedness and cost of loans for our businesses by holding the interest rate at 0.5% at the Bank of England. Our loans from the ECB and the IMF are just manageable – if we stay at an AAA credit rating.
The problem is that it has been too cheap to borrow money – and we did.

But what now if the interest rate goes up?

If I remember correctly, England was bankrupt after WWII and in the 70s under Callaghan, who had to ask the IMF to bail us out. Loans were charged at 18% interest, property was repossessed and the mood in the country was very pessimistic.
It happened again in 1987, when interest rates went from 9% to 15% and back to 12% in a day, showing that we really understood what was going on. Or?

And now a new financial crisis has played havoc with us for almost 5 years.
It happens again and again, but this time it is dangerous and hard to get out.

The government now guarantees everyone that their bank deposits up to £80,000 are safe. Not much of a consolation if you have a couple of million in the bank and it crashes. Could that happen?
Yes it could.
Do I have to guess that assets/ investments are leaving the country?

Remember Northern Rock in 2008 with queues outside the bank of people who wanted to withdraw their money. How could the Government guarantee your money, if the state’s debt is of dinosaurian proportions and interest rates went up?
Exactly – they couldn’t.

Since the credit crunch began, our economy has balanced on a knife’s edge and it is getting sharper and sharper. In my opinion there is a 99% chance that it will get worse. David Cameron is lying through his teeth, when he says that everything has improved and that the debt has been brought down by 25%. Eh? While increasing borrowing?

If Greece and Spain collapse, the shockwaves will be immense.
The question is then: what will the government do?

If the past is anything to go by – and I am not an economist – I think the state will take over and control every penny you own, try to withdraw, your pension payment, your investments and some foreign financiers will be called in to save the shreds.
Qatar? At what cost?

So, is there no way out?

There always is – and one way is a total collapse of the economy, as the past has shown us (Germany in the 1920s, USA in the 1930s), followed by rebuilding. This is probably the least preferable and most painful method.
But we can minimise the pain for a while – and perhaps long term, if we are willing to wait 25 years – which we may have to!
Stop our membership of the European Union circus!

This would be a sound alternative.

It will save us £55mill a day and take us out of the ridiculous tariff system the EU imposes on its members. A renewed free trade with e.g. the Commonwealth would be an immediate boon. Since Britain joined the EU, Commonwealth trade has become a trickle. This is an obvious place to start.

It would also bring law-making and administration back where it belongs and we would be free to design our own saving plank. Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein have shown that you may have all the benefits of the European Economic Community with economic growth at the same time as having the freedom of self-determination. It would give us the option to define our own way back to prosperity without disadvantages.

I think Britain’s exit from the EU will happen! Over 60% of the UK population is against the EU as a federal state, which is committed to the elimination of the national state, while running a gravy train for a select few and increasing its own power. EMPs receive Euro 12,000/month. It costs £600Bill/year to keep it running and the trade benefit - according to EU's own accounts - hover around "120Bill. If that doesn't say it all.
A plebiscite within the next 2 years is an absolute must, before things become totally uncontrollable.
As a result, the EU will break up - and not even the dirty trick with repeating the plebiscite to change the result, like in Holland and Ireland about the Lisbon Treaty, will help.

It is interesting to see how all the big-wigs with their snout in the jam-jar are now warning the UK: don't leave the EU. EMP and Commissioners, as they will lose millions when this dinosaur breaks up; the USA, because the 'special' friendship provides the Americans with a lot of inside knowledge and access; and all the misinformed, because they think the UK will lose access to a market of 500 mill. customers. Rubbish. Did Norway and Switzerland lose access? NO!!!!
The UK will become rich again.

Baroso, Schulz and van Rompuy will have to seek proper work and all the organisations that receive big handouts, keeping them in-line, as well as the money grabbing, un-elected commissioners, may have to find more productive ways to generate an income.

This would be a very desirable side effect of a collapsed EU.
Because collapse it will.

And then you will know what societal change is!!
.

Change and Social Survival

Change, like time, is an almost uncontrollable concept. Whether we like it or not, we are being dragged more or less consciously, sometimes screaming, along.

For most of us change is dealt with reactively, as it often is impossible proactively to direct change. The main reason is that change is systemic: the planned transition from A to B more often than not becomes a move from A to K to Z, avoiding B at all – and then landing us with the issue of coming from Z to B, etc.!!!

There is another reason: many philosophers claim we have no free will; free will is an illusion. I don’t agree, but prefer to leave that discussion for later.

For most of us, the daily changing parameters of life concern small decisions such as shopping for dinner in the Supermarket. A clear plan for the day may change into something totally different, once we are under the marketing influence of the shop’s display. Fine, this can be termed “opportunity knocks” and as such it provides us with a feeling that we have a choice. There you go: Free Will!

Real change, the next level up, may be either social or societal.

Let me describe a few examples of social change first in this essay. To this group belongs a move of house, change of job, divorce, having children, fighting the neighbour and other issues, that will hit most people in a lifetime. These are problems, with which we all must learn to deal while remaining mentally healthy and fulfil our roles in life. We learn the necessary skills from early on in childhood, where at the same time we enjoy the parental protection. As we grow older through our productive lives, we have to use our practised ability to learn in order to control the 1000s of parameters that may lead us astray, so that we can find the fastest way between A and B.

Between 25 and 60 most of us have a major advantage: we generate assets – or money – which are the underpinning for most of our decisions. Money creates freedom. Decisions and change become driven by our attitude to the balance between cost and priority. We use the assets to lead our lives in the direction we want. This includes directing, guiding and paying for our dependants. If there’s any meaning with life, this is probably the main purpose: propagation of the species while securing the take-over by our descendants.

At the moment of writing a law has been introduced in the UK, which eliminates child benefit payments for families above £50k income p.a. For most of these families it seems to be the end of the world. They have become accustomed to a choice of several holidays every year, upgrade of their iPads every 6 months and a choice of restaurant visits. Suddenly £25/week/child delimits these choices. In other words, the feeling of freedom and ability to choose (i.e. the option of being able to change) has been curtailed. I leave it to the reader to ascertain how realistic this feeling is.

Social change also encompasses the flux in values, e.g. political correctness, freedom of speech (or not). Believe me: if someone had told me 30 years ago what our society would look like in 2013, I would not have believed them and asked them to stop the clock in order to get off the train. This is a good example of “the boiling frog” syndrome – we accept change, even when it is rather negative, as long as it is slow! – but these concepts demand a special treatment, too long for this little essay.

Time goes.
You survive.
And then we hit older age.
We have fulfilled our role and are essentially not of any real use any more.

The politicians call it the “burden” of the elderly – a rather disgusting characterisation, but typical of highly materialistic societies, where money has replaced family values, wisdom, experience and other “soft” values.

Do we not have the responsibility to include the elderly in an active society?
Are they not a part of or a significant consequence of our medical progress and technology? We spend a lot of money on longevity, so it appears illogical to me not to focus on an improved life quality of older people.

If the word “burden” is accepted, should we not choose to get rid of the elderly at a given age?
If so, I suggest the age of 75.
It is a compromise between some sort of nostalgia and family feeling and the rising maintenance cost after that age. Most children would probably agree, as any inheritance due would be available to them at a lifetime, where they could still enjoy the proceeds.

It has often hit me, that there is very little learning that transcends from one generation to the next. In the technologically accelerated world of the 2000s, living conditions and the need to follow and be totally updated on the complex composition of our society, have created an “ability-gap” which for many people is becoming an insurmountable chasm. The ubiquitous “iPhone, iPod, iPad, I Paid!” boomerangs on the productive generation in its later years by a demand to live with the consequences of what they created: one cannot just call a friendly tax advisor any more, a bank manager, talk to a utility customer services clerk or find a high street shop that can repair a wrist watch. On-line, automated, press 1/ press 4/ press 3 ending up with 20 min music before being cut off are on the menu of the day. A new form of 1984 has arrived, a technological and de-humanised society where those without the required android phone, broadband connection and the latest PC are ostracised by default.
Even 6-year olds have a better chance of matching the demands of the daily grind than a 70-year old person, who has contributed to this society with hard toil.

The consequence of entering Charon’s anteroom is often a feeling of isolation.

You don’t produce anything any more – neither children, new knowledge or money. No one expects you at work. If you have done a good job, your off-spring doesn’t need you. This need was the major objective, in particular when the human species tended to die at the age of 25. You have become an artifice, a product of medical technology, keeping you alive well above your shelf life, rather than a depository of answers to the eternal repetition of the questions that each generation asks. The delusion repeats itself: every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.

As you age, your friends may begin to disappear. As a 75-year old said: “I don’t need Facebook to stay in contact; I’d rather have a Ouija board!”

When Orwell said: “The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness. For the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better”, he might have thought of old age as much as of our political and societal mismanagement. At any rate, for most people it is a fact, that freedom disappears with age, either because of failing health or because the money flow has dried up. Learning to live – happily – in these circumstances is mentally at a par with bereavement. Unfortunately our present social structure fails miserably here compared with the families of the past, who saw several generations staying together in large groups.

There is probably only one alternative, or solution, to what Zappfe called “suicide as a logical consequence”: “make sure you prepare for enough activities to keep you occupied for the next 40 years after retirement!”

In Coptic (Ptolemaic) Egypt, families lined the ‘Triclinium’ with the mummy-coffins of their departed family members, until such time where no one remembered who they were. The coffins were then dumped in the dry desert sand, later to be found by Flinders Petrie, the English archaeologist, reducing these artefacts to demonstrations of a highly developed skill of painting.
The content has lost its significance.

Well, perhaps this ritual is a bit far fetched in a dining room of 2013 and as few of us believe in the Roman concept of the "Lares", we had better concentrate on life here and now.

So, I have an idea for people to take on board, namely Christopher Hitchens’ words during an interview with Jeremy Paxman just before he died: “If you wonder whether to call someone or not – chose call. Always”.

And just a thought: the meaning of the Chinese phrase “May you live in changing times” is normally completely misunderstood.

It is actually a curse.