HOME/ARCHIVES http://www.kazooweb.com/textes/
Merci de choisir un ou plusieurs textes plutôt que d'imprimer la totalité... Les arbres vous sont reconnaissants...

********************************
Week 3, 2006
THE BEST SELLERS (recent popular articles):
1) Le texte plus abordable de la semaine/Scholastic: Rent-a-Tree [Sauver un arbre en louant votre sapin de Noël.]

********************************
THE REGULARS: Summary
4) Le texte plus abordable de la semaine/Kidzworld: Martin Luther King Jr. Day [Le 16 janvier on fêtera l'anniversaire de MLK aux USAl.]
5) Braingle brain teaser: Three strikes [Un casse-tête.]
6) CNN/Global Office: How will your firm survive the future? [Les PME anglaises manquent de dispositifs de réponse en cas de catastrophe.
7) AUDIO/On the Media: Laboratory Diet [Emission radio avec transcription, cette fois-ci sur l'absence de controverse aux Etats Unis sur les OGM.

*******************************
1) Le texte plus abordable de la semaine/Scholastic: Rent-a-Tree [Sauver un arbre en louant votre sapin de Noël.]
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/

Rent-a-Tree
By Gail Hennessey

Why chop down a new Christmas tree when you can rent one? A new program in San Francisco, California, provides an environmentally friendly new way to celebrate the holiday. Alexis Harte, of the San Francisco Department of Environment, told Scholastic News Online that was inspired by the sight of discarded trees by the side of the road after last year's holiday season. He wondered: Why should we throw away Christmas trees when we could plant them to beautify neighborhood streets? "Holidays like Christmas can become anything you want," said Harte. "You can use the holiday to help your community. Getting a tree and giving it to your community keeps the Christmas spirit alive all throughout the year."

The rented trees aren't the usual triangle-shaped evergreens. The seven- to nine-foot trees are fruitless olive, Brisbane boxes, and primrose. And they're in pots. With a narrow trunk and few branches, the young trees look like they belong in a Charlie Brown special. "People with rented trees got very creative and had the imagination to see beyond what a normal Christmas tree normally looks like," said Harte.

The program met with an enthusiastic response. The 100 rental trees sold out quickly, at $90 apiece (including delivery, lights, and pickup). Friends of the Urban Forest, a nonprofit group, were responsible for dropping off and picking up the trees. "Instead of seeing a cut and dead horizontal tree on the sidewalk after the holidays, you can see a vertical tree growing on the sidewalk for many years to come," said Kelly Quirke of Friends of the Urban Forest.

Happy holidays—from Scholastic News Online!

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
4) Le texte plus abordable de la semaine/Kidzworld: Martin Luther King Jr. Day [Le 16 janvier on fêtera l'anniversaire de MLK aux USAl.]
http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p1710.htm

Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is on the third Monday of January and there are a lot of reasons to name a holiday after this guy. But do you know what's so important about this guy that he gets his own day? Here's a very brief look into the life of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King, Jr. - The Early Years
Martin Luther King Jr. was born on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. His dad was the minister of the Ebenezer Baptist Church and his grandfather was the pastor there before that. Martin Luther King, Jr. was taught by his parents to treat everyone with respect, regardless of race. His dad firmly believed that African-Americans should have the right to vote.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Finds His Voice
Martin Luther King Jr. decided to follow in his dad's footsteps when he went to college. In 1954, Martin received his Ph.D and became known as Dr. King. He accepted a job as pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama and organized non-violent protests against the mistreatment of African-Americans. Martin Luther King, Jr. was always peaceful and reminded his many followers that their fight would be victorious if there was no bloodshed.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Has A Dream
On August 28, 1963, 200,000 people gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. It was a peaceful protest for laws to guarantee every American equal civil rights. The march was one of the largest groups of protesters Washington had ever seen. Even more amazing was the fact that there was no violence. During this march, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. One year later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dr. King traveled across America, organizing marches, speaking about world peace and supporting civil rights. In April 1968, he went to Memphis, Tennessee to support sanitation workers who were on strike. On April 3rd, Dr. King gave his last speech. The following day, as he was leaving his hotel room, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed. His murderer, James Earl Ray, fled the country and was later caught in London.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
6) CNN/Global Office: How will your firm survive the future? [Les PME anglaises manquent de dispositifs de réponse en cas de catastrophe.]
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/12/28/disaster.planning/index.html

How will your firm survive the future?

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Despite a year which saw natural and man-made disasters strike at tragically regular intervals, many small- and medium-sized businesses are still operating without contingency plans and effectively gambling on their futures, a new study has found.

The last 12 months has seen turmoil on a staggering scale, from the tsunami that swept across the Indian Ocean region to the hurricanes that battered the U.S. Gulf coast. Terrorists targeted the London transit system, while explosions at a major oil depot north of the English capital also took their toll on the capacity of many businesses to remain trading as usual.

Nevertheless, the study found that little or no planning was taking place in almost half small or medium enterprises (SMEs) surveyed on how they would cope in the aftermath of a disaster or disruption. The study, compiled by Professor Jean-Noel Ezingeard of London's Henley Management College, pointed to the Buncefield oil depot blasts in December as an example of why businesses need better planning.

In the days after the incident, some airlines operating out of Heathrow airport were forced to ration fuel by the airport's operator BAA. This caused delays for some flights, including long-haul routes. But under contingency plans developed by airlines and airport operators, near-normal services was able to be maintained. "[Those plans] enabled us to stabilize supply and demand for fuel and continue operations for the 186,000 passengers that fly to and from Heathrow every day with minor disruption to some passengers and no cancellation of flights," a BAA spokesman said.

Wake-up call

Professor Ezingeard said the blasts should act as a wake-up call for small and medium enterprises.

"A lot of SMEs tend to focus on the day-to-day aspects of the business but never look at risk control. Something like Buncefield, where businesses three miles away were affected, should bring it into focus," he said.

His survey of British SMEs found 46 percent had no planning in place on how to maintain trade after a disaster or during an ongoing disruption, while 37 percent of senior managers admitted to relying on luck. Three-quarters of those SMEs surveyed had not reviewed their provisions against disruptions since the London terror attacks in July.

As it happened, businesses appeared to bounce back quickly after the attacks. A Confederation of British Industry survey found 24 percent of firms reported a loss in sales and orders in the immediate aftermath, but that was down to 13 percent one week later.

But given the potential for a drop in consumer confidence in the wake of such attacks, as well as the cut to transit services for weeks afterwards making it difficult for some firms to keep trading, this was "endemic of a much wider failing" among many businesses to make adequate plans.

The reasons for the refusal to face a possibly fraught future varied and at times contradictory, the research showed. Some SMEs felt potential problems were too big to worry about, or were small enough to be tackled as they arose. Some understimated the impact of a disruption on the business, while others said that if a disaster had not yet happened, it was not urgent enough to plan for.

"Every business owner should be looking at the effect an incident could have," Professor Ezingeard. "Firms should have contingency plans in any event the business can tick over. They need to prepare for the impact on trade, turnover and stock."

He added that 40 percent of affected business fail as a result of an external disruption. "Too many of Britain's SME managers bury their heads in the sand when it comes to continuity planning. [But] for most businesses, the only cost to the business will be their time."

^RETURN TO TOP^

*******************************
7) AUDIO/On the Media: Laboratory Diet [Emission radio avec transcription, cette fois-ci sur l'absence de controverse aux Etats Unis sur les OGM.]
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_121605_words.html

LABORATORY DIET
D ecember 16, 2005

BOB GARFIELD: This is On the Media. I'm Bob Garfield.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: And I'm Brooke Gladstone. We are what we eat, but last month a survey released by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that Americans don't really know what they're eating. According to Pew, the United States has planted more genetically-modified, or GM, crops, than any other country for more than a decade. In 2003, GM crops like corn, cotton and soybeans covered 105.7 million acres of American farmland, yet despite years of worldwide debate, 58 percent of Americans polled were unaware of the GM food in their cupboard. Dr. Michael Fernandez is the executive director of the Pew Initiative. He says that while awareness of GM foods actually is up a little in the last year, attitudes have not changed.

DR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ:: Generally speaking, the attitudes towards genetically engineered foods in this country have remained fairly steady over the period of time that we've looked. There's a small portion of consumers who are adamantly opposed, an also relatively small portion of consumers that are strongly in favor, and the vast majority of consumers appear to be somewhere in the middle.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: And the survey suggests that ignorance is bliss, or at least general complacency. While 50 percent of those who have heard about GM foods believe they've eaten them, only 15 percent of the group who hadn't heard of them believed they'd eaten them. So I guess we don't know what we don't know.

DR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ:: [LAUGHS] That's correct. It seems that there is some correlation between the awareness and knowledge and attitudes, although that correlation is not perfect across all questions that we've asked.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: Do your findings correlate with what you see in the American press, in terms of the amount of coverage?

DR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ:: I think that the amount of coverage has been, to my mind, relatively consistent with what the interest of the American people is. When there is some kind of controversy, there tend to be more stories, there tends to be more attention. In general, this is not an issue that is at the top of the mind of American consumers, and it's not an issue that's been, you know, at the top of the minds of the press.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: Any thoughts on why this issue is so much bigger in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, just generally in the rest of the world?

DR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ:: Probably the predominant reason, at least that many people believe, is that American consumers tend to have a higher degree of confidence and trust in the regulatory system and in our food safety system. So let me just give you one example. In 2003, we did a poll where we asked the question, "Who do you trust for information about genetically-engineered foods, genetically-modified foods?" And the number one, you know, vote-getter, if you will, was the Food and Drug Administration. Eighty-three percent of the people responding said that they trusted the FDA for information.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: Dr. Michael Fernandez is the executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Michael Pollan is director of the Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. I asked him why the GM food issue is such a non-issue in the U.S. press.

MICHAEL POLLAN:: Basically when it comes to a controversial issue, there has to be controversy for it to surface in the media. And the interesting thing about GMOs, genetically-modified food, is it is one issue where both political parties were on the same side right from the get-go. And when you have two political parties in America agree on anything, the space for any kind of debate or politics essentially disappears. And the media is very much at the mercy of that situation. It's very hard for the media to cover an issue that the political parties are not fighting about or there aren't people in the streets about. And there are no people in the streets on this issue.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: And I just wonder why they're in the streets in England, Italy, China, Brazil, around the globe - everywhere but here. Did we just not get the memo or what?

MICHAEL POLLAN:: Well, no. The industry bought silence by essentially enlisting the support of both political parties. We have to go back to the history a little bit. Genetically-modified food kind of comes up for consideration by the government at the end of the first Bush Administration. Dan Quayle is put in charge of regulatory review. And at that point, they essentially decided that genetically-modified food should have no regulation whatsoever; we should encourage it. There is something called "substantial equivalence" between genetically-modified food and other food, and therefore the new genes you're putting in or the new proteins the food is producing is not a food additive. Had they decided that those things were food additives - and, by the way, they are food additives, they're new things that weren't in the food before - but sort of by fiat, they said, no, no, no, this stuff is substantially equivalent, so therefore the FDA doesn't need to regulate it. Right at the end of this process, the Clinton Administration comes in, and they're gung-ho for GMO food too. So you had both parties essentially on board. And that is one sure way to make sure that Americans don't hear about something.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: Now, Michael, I don't want to put you in the position of having to argue the science about this thing, but why so many people in the rest of the world are worried about it and we're not - it's still a puzzling issue. And when you look - [OVERTALK]

MICHAEL POLLAN:: Sure.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: - at the Pew study, it does suggest that America has a thorough-going belief in its regulatory system. Americans seem to be under the impression that the FDA is looking out for us, but you're saying it isn't. It hasn't been asked to.

MICHAEL POLLAN:: No. It's a misplaced confidence, frankly. The FDA is essentially not involved with most of these crops and, in fact, a lot of people don't realize that. Even when I was reporting on Monsanto, there were people there who'd say things to me like, well, it's the FDA's job to assure the safety of this stuff, it's our job to sell as much of it as possible. But, in fact, it was the EPA that was regulating the crops in question. Why? Well, because essentially they're pesticides. These are crops that are designed to produce pesticides. So there's a lot of confusion, actually, about the way the regulation works. But your point is still a good one, which is that Americans generally are very confident in our regulators. They assume that this technology has really been looked at carefully and they assume that there are all these kind of tests. But, in fact, you know, those tests didn't really take place. That's not to say - I don't mean to raise an alarm, because I do think the Europeans can be really hysterical about this issue and have been, and they have their own reasons. And some of their reasons for objecting to GMOs are sound, and some of their reasons are simply protectionism. And some of them is, it's an American technology and part of an American effort to, you know, take over the world's food supply, and that's how they see it. But we have much more confidence in our regulators, whether it's misplaced or not.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: And, of course, a big difference between Americans and Europeans is that they've been burned.

MICHAEL POLLAN:: Well, yeah. I mean, the history of food regulation in Europe - I mean, you have mad cow disease and hoof-and-mouth disease that essentially destroyed European's confidence in their regulators. And we have not had that experience. You know, could the media do a better job informing us about what we're eating and what's going on in our food supply? Sure. But it's very hard to do in the absence of a real political debate on the issue. Dennis Kucinich was the last person in Congress to try to make an issue of genetically-modified food, and he could not get co-sponsors on a bill to simply label the stuff, which, by the way, is the reason we don't know about it. It's not labeled.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: We aren't generally as suspicious of new technology. We don't mind - [OVERTALK]

MICHAEL POLLAN:: No.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: - high-tech food.

MICHAEL POLLAN:: Exactly right. You know, we love technology. Look at what we eat. We're the people who ate Olestra.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: [LAUGHS]

MICHAEL POLLAN:: You know, this is a fake fat. There are warnings on the labels that it causes anal leakage. And - [OVERTALK]

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: I know. [LAUGHS]

MICHAEL POLLAN:: And they still can sell this stuff. So I think that we have a very high threshold for what's going to alarm us about our food. Frankly, I think had the industry been able to come out and say, we're making this food, it's going to mean less pesticide, it's going to mean more nutrition, and whatever, you know, promises they could make, I think we would have gotten on board.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: Well, wait a minute. We have gone on board, haven't we?

MICHAEL POLLAN:: Oh, yeah, but it's one thing to get on board and it's another to just have it slipped into your food supply without knowing it. I - [OVERTALK]

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: Oh, right.

MICHAEL POLLAN:: - wouldn't say - I wouldn't say we've gotten on board. This poll says that a majority of people are still unaware that they're eating this stuff. So, no, it's not fair to say we've gotten on board. I think it's more fair to say most of us don't really realize this is what we're eating. If we did realize, would we object? I'm not so sure. And the reason for that is we don't mind high-tech food, by and large, if you can tell us that it's going to, you know, take the pounds off or taste really good or be really convenient. But the reason the industry could not make that argument is that their products essentially offer the consumer absolutely nothing. These are products designed to help farmers, allegedly.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: If the FDA isn't actually watching over this, if Congress isn't actually watching over this, then doesn't it fall to the media, the mainstream media, to act as the watchdog?

MICHAEL POLLAN:: Wouldn't it be wonderful? Yes, in my fondest dreams, the mainstream media would act on its own authority to question these kind of things, to engage in debate and to counter the silence. I think that they need to come up with a different model. I mean, our model of kind of "on the one hand/on the other hand" journalism leaves you vulnerable, that, you know, the news is essentially what politicians says is news, unless you're talking about natural disasters or tremendous protests in the street. We have planted 100 million acres of these new crops, taking a tremendous experiment with our ecosystem - and possibly with our health - without a thorough examination and thorough testing. That's a scandal. That is a scandal.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: Well, Michael, thank you very much.

MICHAEL POLLAN:: My pleasure, Brooke. Always good to be here.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:: Michael Pollan teaches journalism at the University of California at Berkeley. His new book, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, will be out in April.

^RETURN TO TOP^

*******************************
8) Pittsburgh Channel/KIRO: Washington Woman Suffocates Under House Clutter [Une femme meurt étouffée sous les piles de détritus accumulé dans sa maison.]
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/5950773/detail.html

Washington Woman Suffocates Under House Clutter
Police Chief: Clothes, Debris Piled 6 Feet High

SHELTON, Wash. -- A Washington state woman who was reported missing was later found dead suffocated under a pile of debris in her home, police said. Officers found the body of Marie Rose, 62, buried under clothes Thursday, reported KIRO-TV in Seattle. Her husband reported her missing after he couldn't find her early Thursday morning.

Officers found clothing, dishes and boxes crammed from floor to ceiling in every room of the couple's house. "In some areas, clothes and debris were piled 6 feet high," said Police Chief Terry Davenport of the Shelton Police Department. "Officers were having to climb over the top on their hands and knees. In some areas, their heads were touching the ceiling while they were standing on top of piles of debris." After 10 hours of searching, officers discovered the woman's body. Investigators Friday said she was smothered under the clutter.

The woman's husband told KIRO-TV that she had health problems and may have been looking for the phone when she died. Fire and city code inspectors released the home back to the family after inspecting it.

*******************************
9) Reuters: Save money? Nah, just win the lottery [Beaucoup d'Américains ont plus de confiance dans la loterie que l'épargne pour devenir riche]
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/09012006/80/save-money-nah-win-lottery-survey.html

Save money? Nah, just win the lottery - survey
Reuters Monday January 9, 07:13 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than one in five Americans believe the best way to get rich is to win the lottery, while 11 percent say inheriting money is the way to go, a survey showed on Monday.

Asked the most practical way to accumulate "several hundred thousand dollars," 21 percent chose winning the lottery, compared to 55 percent who thought saving something each month for many years was best, according to a survey by the Consumer Federation of America and the Financial Planning Association. Three percent of those surveyed thought a big insurance settlement was the best way to become wealthy.

The poor were the most likely to say winning the lottery was the most practical way to gain wealth -- with 38 percent of those earning less than $25,000 a year choosing that option compared to just 9 percent of those earning $75,000 or more.

African Americans and those over the age of 65 were also more likely to believe winning the lottery was more practical than saving each month -- at 30 percent and 31 percent, respectively.

Stephen Brobeck, executive director of the Consumer Federation, said it was of "some concern" that so many people thought the lottery was their best chance at wealth. "It appears that these Americans both greatly overestimate their chances of hitting a lottery jackpot and greatly underestimate their ability to build six-figure wealth by patiently making regular savings contributions over time that benefit from interest compounding," Brobeck said.

The survey of more than 1,000 adults also found only about half of Americans understand the meaning of personal wealth -- which includes financial assets plus home equity and other assets minus consumer debts -- and less than half know how much personal wealth they have.

Brobeck said the typical household had a net wealth of $100,000, mostly in home equity. About 5 percent had net wealth over $1 million, while nearly 1 in 10 households had zero net wealth -- meaning their debt exceeded their assets.

While financial planners believe about half of young Americans could accumulate $1 million over a period of 30 years, fewer than 1 in 10 of Americans believe they could save that much money, the survey showed. "Planners know that it is easier for individuals to build personal wealth than they realise," said James Barnash, chair of the Financial Planning Association.

The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

^RETURN TO TOP^

*******************************
10) The Onion: Area Baby Doesn't Have Any Friends [SATIRE: Un nouveau né, ce n'est pas l'ami le plus rigolot au monde.]
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42599

Area Baby Doesn't Have Any Friends

November 16, 2005 | Issue 41•46

TARRYTOWN, NY—Although he's had nearly three months to meet people, local baby Joshua Goldsworthy hasn't made a single friend, according to those who know him. People who have met the quiet, stay-at-home misfit say that, while he's more interesting than he was two months ago, Joshua lacks the warmth, charisma, and empathy of a suitable companion.

"It's not like I hate him—I just don't get a lot out of knowing him," said 32-year-old Gretchen Sperber, a longtime friend of the Goldsworthy family. "He's hard to read. Sometimes he'll stare at you for hours, other times he'll fall asleep right in front of you, like you're not even there."

As Bonnie and Jason Goldsworthy's first child, Joshua is predictably adored and indulged. With a toy-filled nursery, a favorite blanket, and a parent, aunt, or grandparent always close at hand, the blond, apple-cheeked little boy unquestionably receives adequate love and comfort. However, most psychologists agree that familial love cannot replace friendships with one's peers.

Visitors to the Goldsworthy home often report having negative first impressions of Joshua. Out-of-the-blue crying fits, the tendency to yank at loose hair and earrings, and copious drooling are just a few of the antisocial traits he displays. Neighbor Lena Osterberg said that, two weeks ago, she cut a visit to the Goldsworthy home short after the self-interested infant committed a "gross" indiscretion.

"I still can't imagine why he didn't excuse himself and crawl into another room," Osterberg said. "The stench filled the living room, and he just sat there and grinned."

Another acquaintance, who asked not to be identified, described Joshua's head as "bulbous" and "disproportionate," and said the baby has "pudgy, triple-creased legs."

"May God forgive me, I know it's a sin to judge people on the basis of their appearance," the anonymous source said. "But he's like a monster. If you blew him up to normal size, people would scream in horror."

Although he responds to his doting parents, Joshua often alienates those outside of his family circle, according to his pediatrician, Dr. Martin Prushow.

"He seems to take interest only in people who are willing to nurture or 'mother' him," Prushow said. "Once in a while, you can coax a smile out of him, but only if you make a smiling face yourself. He's not a terrible person, but as far as actual depth, nothing."

Among non-relatives, perhaps the most acquainted with Joshua is 16-year-old babysitter Ashley Steinhoff. Though she meets with Joshua as many as three times a week, Steinhoff was quick to distance herself from the baby.

"'Babysitter' sure, but I wouldn't say 'friend,'" Steinhoff said. "I mean, it's not like I hang out with him for free. With my actual friends, I do things just for fun, and have full-sentence conversations—not change their diapers." Steinhoff did not rule out the possibility of a future friendship, but said that Joshua would have to "quit being a baby first."

Although it is more than eight months away, family friends are already concocting excuses to skip "Baby No-Friends'" first birthday party.

"I can already predict what will happen," Sperber said. "He'll smear cake all over himself, throw a tantrum when someone puts a party hat on him, and scarcely acknowledge his presents other than to gnaw on them. I've seen how this kid operates."

^RETURN TO TOP^

*******************************
11) The Economist: Globalization and French discontents [La mondialisation marche bien pour les entreprises françaises.]
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4135718

Globalisation and French discontents: Demon monde
Jun 30th 2005 | PARIS
From The Economist print edition

The French denounce globalisation, but their companies embrace it

A SOUR mood of protectionism has taken hold since French voters said no to the European Union constitution on May 29th. Politicians of all stripes, including Dominique de Villepin, the new prime minister, have been eagerly denouncing globalisation (see article). Yet even as the political class turns introspective, the French economy becomes ever more open and globalised.

France is both the world's fifth-biggest economy and its fifth-biggest exporter, shipping out €450 billion-worth ($560 billion) of merchandise in 2004. Its private sector boasts world-class producers of cars (Renault, PSA Peugeot Citroën), cosmetics (L'Oréal), insurance (AXA) and oil (Total). Renault reported a 43% rise in net profits for 2004, to €3.5 billion. In the first quarter of 2005, Total's net profits soared by 50%, to €2.9 billion.

Its politicians may profess a fear of global capitalism, but France's businessmen are happy to exploit it. A French company (Sodexho) feeds the American army; another (Accor) runs leading chains of American motels; a third (Hachette Filipacchi) is the world's biggest magazine publisher. A Frenchman (Denis Hennequin) has been made head of McDonald's Europe; another (Jean-Philippe Courtois) runs Microsoft International.

This might just be an escape from domestic constraints were it not matched by an openness to foreign investors. The OECD recently reported a sharp downturn in foreign direct investment in France in 2004, from $43 billion to $24 billion, but its figures tend to be distorted by a few big deals, and by the location (often Luxembourg) of holding companies. The French Agency for International Investment, which measures only direct productive investment in industry and services, says that the number of foreign projects in France grew by 7% in 2004. Clara Gaymard, the agency's head, claims that these were worth $5.8 billion, up from $4.6 billion in 2003.

France is making a big effort to market itself abroad. Mrs Gaymard advertises “the new France”, reminding investors of its first-rate infrastructure, health care and educated workforce. Bosses who gathered this week for an annual investment conference in La Baule discussed ways to improve competitiveness; a group has formed an “attractiveness” council to advise the government. Some testimony to France's appeal as a location came when Cadarache, in Provence, was picked this week for the international €10 billion nuclear-fusion reactor. Christine Lagarde, the new trade minister and a former global head of Baker & McKenzie, an American law firm, is keenly promoting French exports. Big firms may sell lots abroad, but she notes that only 5% of all French companies export anything at all.

If France profits so much from globalisation, why is the concept so unloved? The short answer is unemployment. Companies invest in France despite, not because of, its labour laws. GDP per hour worked is higher in France than in America. The trouble is that, thanks to high unemployment (now 10.2%) and a short working-week, the French work fewer hours per head than any other OECD country. A high minimum wage and lengthy redundancy procedures deter job creation. Firms keep payrolls short and invest in mechanisation instead. Foreign investors often create few jobs. Labour-intensive activities are especially vulnerable to competition from lower-cost central Europe or Asia.

The message is getting through. Mr de Villepin is concentrating almost exclusively on jobs. This week, to the indignation of the opposition, he pushed through a law letting him introduce new measures by decree. His main idea is a new two-year employment contract for small firms, giving employers more flexibility. By itself, it will not dent unemployment: in the short run, subsidised work schemes will do more. But the thinking is edging the right way. Unless France can remove obstacles to hiring, and boost job creation at home, globalisation will continue to be seen as more of a threat than an opportunity.

^RETURN TO TOP^

Leasing activity was initiated in India in 1973. The first leasing company of India, named First Leasing Company of India Ltd. was set up in that year by Farouk Irani, with industrialist A C Muthia. For several years, this company remained the only company in the country until 20th Century Finance Corporation was set up - this was around 1980.

By 1981, the trickle started and Shetty Investment and Finance, Jaybharat Credit and Investment, Motor and General Finance, and Sundaram Finance etc. joined the leasing game. The last three names, already involved with hire-purchase of commercial vehicles, were looking for a tax break and leasing seemed to be the ideal choice.

The industry entered the third stage in the growth phase in late 1982, when numerous financial institutions and commercial banks either started leasing or announced plans to do so. ICICI, prominent among financial institutions, entered the industry in 1983 giving a boost to the concept of leasing. Thereafter, the trickle soon developed into flood, and leasing became the new gold mine. This was also the time when the profit-performance of the two doyen companies, First Leasing and 20th Century had been made public, which contained all the fascination for many more companies to join the industry. In the meantime, International Finance Corporation announced its decision to open four leasing joint ventures in India. To add to the leasing boom, the Finance Ministry announced strict measures for enlistment of investment companies on stock-exchanges, which made many investment companies to turn overnight into leasing companies.

As per RBI's records by 31st March, 1986, there were 339 equipment leasing companies in India whose assets leased totaled Rs. 2395.5 million. One can notice the surge in number - from merely 2 in 1980 to 339 in 6 years.

Subsequent swings in the leasing cycle have always been associated with the capital market - whenever the capital markets were more permissive, leasing companies have flocked the market. There has been appreciable entry of first generation entrepreneurs into leasing, and in retrospect it is possible to say that specialised leasing firms have done better than diversified industrial groups opening a leasing division.

Another significant phase in the development of Indian leasing was the Dahotre Committee's recommendations based on which the RBI formed guidelines on commercial bank funding to leasing companies. The growth of leasing in India has distinctively been assisted by funding from banks and financial institutions.

Banks themselves were allowed to offer leasing facilities much later - in 1994. However, even to date, commercial banking machinery has not been able to gear up to make any remarkable difference to the leasing scenario.

The post-liberalisation era has been witnessing the slow but sure increase in foreign investment into Indian leasing. Starting with GE Capital's entry, an increasing number of foreign-owned financial firms and banks are currently engaged or interested in leasing in India.

^RETURN TO TOP^

Lake Superior State University 2006 List of Banished Words

SURREAL – One part opiate of the masses, 13 parts overuse. Oddly, news anchor and television small talk is becoming more surreal. “Dreams are surreal, not daily adjectives.” – Tracy from Murray, Ky.

HUNKER DOWN – To brace oneself, in anticipation of media onslaught. Trotted out in reports about everything from politics to hurricanes. “I have a hankering to ban all of this hunkering.” – Kate Rabe Forgach, Fort Collins, Colo.

PERSON OF INTEREST – Found within the context of legal commentary, but seldom encountered at cocktail parties. “People with guns want to talk with you.” – Melissa Carroll from Greensboro, NC. “Does this mean the rest of us are too boring to deal with?” – Patricia Johnson from Mechanicsville, Va.

COMMUNITY OF LEARNERS – A five-dollar phrase on a nickel-errand. Value-added into many higher education mission statements. “Not to be confused with ‘school.'” – Jim Howard from Mishawa, Ind.

UP OR DOWN VOTE – A casualty of today's partisanship. No discussion on this one; the committee just tossed a coin. “I see a bright future for ex-senators as elevator operators.” — Allan Dregseth, Fargo, ND.

BREAKING NEWS – Once it stopped presses. Now it's a lower-intestinal condition brought about by eating dinner during newscasts. “Now they have to interrupt my supper to tell me that Katie Holmes is pregnant.” — Michael Raczko, Swanton, Ohio.

DESIGNER BREED – Many nominators consider this a bastardization of dog breeding. It may be a good line to use on angry neighbors when an un-neutered dog escapes. “When you mate a miniature schnauzer to a toy poodle, it's not a ‘Schnoodle,' it's a mongrel.” – George Bullerjahn, Bowling Green, Ohio.

FEMA – Dedicated to the memory of a great federal agency consigned to the ash heap of parody. “If they don't do anything, we don't need their acronym.” – Josh Hamilton, Tucson, Ariz.

FIRST-TIME CALLER – Preamble often heard on talk radio. “I am serious in asking: who in any universe gives a care?” – Miguel McCormick, Orlando, Fla.

PASS THE SAVINGS ON TO YOU! – Marketing catch phrase that became a lost-leader long ago. “Read: Pass the markup along to you.” – C. W. Estes, Roanoke, Tex.

97% FAT FREE – Adventures in delusion. “Still has 3% fat . . . accept it.” – Andrew Clucas, Canberra, Australia.

AN ACCIDENT THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN – Best-laid mayhem. “This means some accidents need to happen, for whatever reason, I can't figure.” — Thomas Price, Orlando, Fla.

JUNK SCIENCE – Banished from the Marketplace of Ideas. “It's not scientists who are using this phrase so much as the people who practice junk politics.” – Ron LaLonde, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada.

GIT-ER-DONE – (Any of its variations) It's overdone. “There's no escaping it. It's everywhere, from TV to T-shirts,” says Amanda Tikkanen of LaGrange, Ind. “Please tell me when we're done with this one.”

DAWG – No designer breed here. Someone should wash out this Spot. “Even parents are starting to use it!” – complains Mrs. Swartz's Fifth Grade Class in Church Road, Va. “This is species confusion.” – Rob Bowers, Santa Clara, Calif. “Don't call me ‘dawg'! I'm not your pet!” – Michael Swartz, Albuquerque, NM.

TALKING POINTS – Cover your ears! “Topics which will please those you want to impress.” – Michele Mooney, Van Nuys, Calif. Joe Wonsetler of Swanton, Ohio, believes the phrase was created after PR staffers stopped attending seminars on how to put a positive ‘spin' on their press releases.

HOLIDAY TREE – Many salvoes were fired during this past season's “war on Christmas.” At the risk of jumping into the breach, the committee feels that “Holiday tree” is a silly name for what most folks hold as a Christmas tree, no matter your preference of religion. Thank goodness we all agree on the first day of winter.

*******************************
14) BBC News: French 'haven of politeness' changing [Par rapport à la Grande Bretagne, la France reste un modèle de courtoisie.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4596390.stm

French 'haven of politeness' changing
By Caroline Wyatt, BBC correspondent in Paris

While Tony Blair tackles what is perceived in the UK as a problem of lack of respect in society, France is fighting its own battles. The French government had a simple solution for any lack of respect among the young - send in the riot police. Or at least that was the ambitious French Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy's solution.

Back in October last year, he announced plans to deploy hundreds of riot police in difficult neighbourhoods to crack down on crime, and offer reassurance to householders. "Do you want us to get rid of this trash?" he asked a housewife as he toured the tower blocks of the Paris suburbs, referring to youths who had been causing trouble in the area. "Some thugs act as though they own the neighbourhood. We must change our methods," Mr Sarkozy told the newspapers, saying that around 9,000 police cars had been hit with stones last year alone.

Disrespectful underclass

That was late October. By the first week of November, France's riot police had more than enough work to do in the deprived suburbs of the French cities, as youths burned cars and threw not just stones but Molotov cocktails in a dramatic demonstration of discontent among French youth. The unrest carried on for several weeks, yet the riots were confined to very specific areas - only occasionally straying into city centres. Most of the destruction was limited to the suburbs which were already run-down, and could least afford the damage, especially among the high rise blocks which are home to many of France's ethnic minorities.

The riots did lead to a growing fear in France that this country is increasingly splitting into two separate nations: the "respectful" children of the middle classes, and a growing underclass, including - though not confined to - the children and grandchildren of France's Arab and north African immigrants. There is a feeling that there is rather less "respect" for authority than there used to be - even though some of the middle classes and French authority figures watching the riots may have been taken back to their own stone-throwing youth as members of the 1968 generation.

And yet - to this British observer - France by and large remains a positive haven of politeness and respect. The French may be nostalgic for a mythical time when everyone knew their place, yet even these days some middle-class Parisian children still call their parents by the formal address for you - "vous".

That may be rarer now, but politeness and good manners remain essential to the French way of life, whether in the big cities or the countryside. Enter a bakery or a shop or restaurant of any kind, anywhere in France without a courteous 'bonjour madame' or 'bonjour monsieur' to the person at the till or counter, and your reception will be a frosty one. But try a "comment-allez vous?" and a "bonne journee" or "je vous en prie" and the service becomes much friendlier. And in most schools, French pupils still sit obediently in class and teachers continue to have a certain level of authority.

Respectful society

That again, though, is less the case in France's deprived suburbs, where there is a problem with gang violence, including occasional shootings and stabbings - often caused by territorial rows between gangs. A recent "steaming" incident on a New Year's Day train between Nice and Lyon has caused much soul-searching here, after a gang of up to 40 teenagers ran amok on the train, robbing and assaulting other passengers.

Another incident on an RER Paris-suburban train over the weekend - in which another gang of teenagers stole mobile phones and wallets - has led to further questions about whether France has become a more violent society, despite figures suggesting that violent incidents on public transport are actually down 11% year on year.

In 2002, the French education ministry launched a programme called "le Respect!" to encourage teenagers to report violence or bullying, and the ministry also issued tips to pupils on how to treat each other with increased respect. This year, President Chirac is also looking into measures which would help young people in the deprived suburbs, while calling at the same time for increased respect for law and order.

Despite these exceptions, France remains overall a more courteous and respectful society - one which puts family and family values at the very heart of society. That includes rituals such as eating a family meal together at the table, with no "grazing" or watching TV in between, and parent-child relationships that would seem rather formal to many British families, but which perhaps instil in French children a greater awareness of the boundaries of acceptable public behaviour.

It also makes French society perhaps a more traditional one, and that may be a part of its appeal to the 250,000 Brits who have bought properties in France. Even in the biggest cities, there is no spectacle of Friday or Saturday night binge-drinking. It is still considered shameful for men or women to be so drunk they cannot stand up, or have to vomit profusely in public places.

But slowly, it seems, France may be changing - and the French are not convinced they like the way their country is going.