Fillon is not the first and will not be the last.The guy in the presidential election (highly symbolic moment in our Republic) and is surprised that his choices in life are explored.He is a politician for over 35 years and comes from the same mold as Balkany, Sarkozy and others, soaked to the bone in habits that no one dared disturb until Cahuzac and his hidden account.And the entire political class (right wing mainly) takes offense to this witch hunt without even notice the vigilance of the media (and other citizens) on the integrity of elected officials. Continue reading “Fillon, symptom or disease”
If you don’t understand French, you probably don’t know Psikopat. It’s a monthly satiric publication with fascinating articles. In the June 2016 issue, Jean-Luc Coudray (an excellent writer) has written an interesting article about the universal income. For those who don’t know the concept, the idea is to give a revenue to every single people even if they don’t have a job. This “salary” will allow them to have a decent life and a home. Switzerland tried to make this concept a reality, but the majority of the population voted “no”. Note that they rejected a proposition which would give them two additional weeks of holidays… I guess they are not ordinary people.
The universal income is what a State is meant to do. A government has to guaranty happiness and good health to the people. Jean-Luc Coudray says something more here. What will happen when the incomes rise? One thinks that prices will rise too. This money will go in the pocket of big bosses and probably partly in the Bahamas. The purpose here is not to make the rich richer. This universal income implies control over prices and a maximum income (the excedent will be given to the poorest).
That is not fantasy. The universal income can work, and there are some studies from economists that shows this is possible. Can we accept being amongst the richest country in the world and having poor people?
The next presidential elections in France are in May 2017. That’s far from now, but not so far for the politics who are running for this. Politics in France (and in other countries like the USA) is no more a question of living together but is about living with people of the same colour as us. It seems that there is no more money for everybody, it’s time to make rations. As “normal” people don’t want to have less, they prefer to put the others outside the country because sharing seems not to be possible. What can we do concerning the poor? They just have to die.
Bankers, politics and all the 1% (the richest) are afraid of having less money. So they decide to cut off in social help (medical care, unemployment allocations) to keep the money. One of our famous politics here in France is Nicolas Sarkozy. He has announced that if he is President (again), he will abolish the taxes for the high revenues and give less money to the poorest.
Of course, if you listen to these politics, France has many significant problems like burkini, immigrants, and Muslims for example. It seems that taking care of the helpless without regarding the country they are coming from is not a priority in France.
Money is the only goal of the politics in this World. The primary objective should be happiness and a “better life” for humans. All the humans.
Considering a photography without its subject is hard. On one hand, you have the technical and artistic point of view and on the other hand the interest of what is photographed. For instance, you can have an excellent picture of a trash can and with the same technical skill a picture of a top-model Obviously the impact on the viewer won’t be the same partly because of our tendency to go from one thing to another without actually watching it. A photograph of a beautiful, cute model (possibly nude) will be more viewed than anything else. I guess this is subjective, and the pic of a muscular guy can be more successful depending the audience but there is no equality on the websites dedicated to photography (500px, Flickr, Instagram…).
In my opinion, you’d better choose a beautiful woman (a nude is a good option) than a good idea for your picture. Have you noticed how invisible the male models are? You will only see them in magazines to sell underwears. Don’t tell me that the body of a man is not so photogenic than a woman’s one. The different websites have understood that, and it’s difficult to show a nude male without being censored. A naked woman will be considered as “erotica” as a nude man will be “pornography” maybe because of the external genitalia, that’s unfair. Is that because the audience only wants female nudity or because the people in charge of those websites are men?
I supposed that body wouldn’t be a taboo anymore with the abundance of nudity over Internet. Human beings are all the same, and there is no surprise when you see a naked body, you know what you will find out. If we omit obscenity and then pornography, I think that is a shame that photographers have a so “male” point of view and only take pictures of women.
In France, there is an article in the Constitution that allows the Government to make a law applicable without the vote of the National Assembly. The French Government wants to change the rules concerning the rights of the workers and as it failed to have a majority of voters it has decided to use this particular article. So this law will be approved unilaterally when many French did not agree. This situation is a denial of democracy.The Government is not elected but nominated by the Prime Minister; himself decided by the President. They have no legitimacy because they don’t represent the French people. How can they determine on significant changes in the life of many workers when they have not even been elected by them? The Parliament seems to be useless but it’s the only representation of the will of the population. The use of the article 49 part 3 is a disconnect between the people and the Government. It’s a new proof that our Republic is outdated and has to be reformed.
A comment on Facebook gave me the urge to write about how I love meat. I do respect vegetarian and vegans but I don’t agree with the majority of their arguments. Of course, I condemn cruelty towards animals. The slaughterhouses have to be strictly controlled., but the idea we breed animals to kill them and eat them isn’t a problem to me. “How can we kill living beings?”… some people try to make the others uncomfortable concerning killing animals, but these people can crush a spider if the see one but a spider has lungs, and heart, and maybe feelings. Yes, a calf can be cute, but its meat is good too. The size of an animal does not make him more or less able to be eaten. I think that many of these extremists think animals are like humans. Human being is an animal, but animals are not human. Humanity does not need to kill for food nowadays a balanced diet is possible without meat. The only argument I could admit is that producing meat is really expensive in resources. But it seems that we can’t entirely replace proteins from animals.