And I chose to go there. I had been Catholic-schooled all my life, but in less-pretentious neighborhoods. This one was "out west," had a high price tag and my sister had gone to it, left it like a nightmare and went to where she was more at home in the public school. But I was interested, out of the pick of all the Catholic schools, I liked it best.

And it's true, it had its good share of rich, careless kids, and its self-serving fundraising and push for sports importance really chaffed on me, but you could get that in many schools, Catholic, public, or what have you.

It wasn't really the abundance of riches (like anywhere else, not everyone was rich), but the (to me) hypocrisy of it - the Catholic raison d'etre seems (to me) to be about charity. At least that's what I was taught by various teachers, families, and other religious folk throughout my upbringing. I became ashamed of my educational label, of everything it stereotypically represented.

But then, but then. I look at my Facebook friends who were my friends in high school, and I'm in awe of the kindness, selflessness, and hard work they put into their everyday, activist lives. And I think : maybe it was this phase of privilege that lead them to feel the injustice in the world. Maybe it was some of the many caring teachers we had. And I think - I chose this school because of the schooling, the education I could have there, not it's reputation. And it's the reputation I detest, and detested, but the teaching I admire - as I see the fruits of it in the wonderful people who've come out of it. Some people who really care about the world.

but someone posted this link ( http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/546939-presidentielle-hollande-president-les-20-menaces-qui-nous-guettent.html )against it on Facebook, and one of the "don't come crying when what I told'ya so'd happen does" arguments made me laugh.

"12. Qu’il ne vienne pas se plaindre lorsque derrière la belle formule "je ferai payer les riches" apparaitra la plus réaliste "je fais payer tout le monde sauf les pauvres"."

Which means: Don't come crying when Hollande's promise that he will make the rich pay (taxes) becomes: I'll make everyone pay, except the poor people.

I know that he means that the middle class should fear that they will be paying more too, but the way he put it makes me think that the poor just indulgently get off scot free.

Oh those conniving, spoiled poor people!

I'm pretty interested though to see the results of a Socialist-run country on this:

"13. Qu’il ne vienne pas se plaindre lorsqu’il réalisera que le prix de l’essence continue à grimper, que la délinquance ne baisse pas, que le pouvoir d’achat reste désespérément atone, que trop de SDF demeurent sans toit au dessus de leur tête, etc."

He talks about: gas prices rising, delinquency not getting any better, weak purchasing power (is that what he call it in English? I could never think of a good translation...), and still too many homeless.

What do you think? How will Socialism impact these things? To be continued, alors.

I do think though that having socialized medical care is really a breather in life. Having to see the doctor is not a painful stress like it can be in the states. I've met doctors in the states that (surprisingly to me) were for it, and those that were against it. I can't speak for the doctors, their work is tough, but as a citizen, life is more pleasant without the can-I-afford-to-get-help worries. Then there is the question of whether the care is good under socialized medicine. I think so for general public, but it's true that in the States you can get more unique and intensive care, if you can pay. There's also the elderly's worries that the socialize system prefers them dead. I don't think it's so severe as that, but the elderly can probably get more intensive care and operations in the states, if they can pay.

So it goes down to this: under a Capitalistic system there's much room for competitive growth, some really interesting ventures can be made, some really creative endeavors. But how much human dignity do we have to sacrifice for it?

There was quite a welcome-gathering at the Bastille for Francois Hollande tonight. It was packed and some people may have been squished from crowd bulge, but it wasn't unruly, it wasn't violent, and people were sincerely celebrating. And during the walk home too. And the streets were alive - celebrating.

But online those who "lost" were despairing, which is the usual and understandable reaction. But I mean, people were REALLY despairing. And often in pretty poorly written French...

I'm an outsider, I'm not French, whatever happens in these elections affects me only indirectly then - but still it affects me because I'm a human being (or even just a being in general). What affects me is this attitude that kept sticking out and bothering me most : makes me think of the racist US attitude, both old and new versions.

Old racist US attitude would be around when the Civil War results brought an end to slavery and a shift in societal norms. Many white people despaired over the "miscegenation" that this would bring about - a loss of the old ways and a merging that would bring a new "hybrid" nation, which was repulsive to them.

When we looked back over this period in class, read documents, saw documentaries, talked about it, the general feeling was a kind of shame or aghastness (aghastitude?... :-) ). In the US we are taught that this attitude was racist, mean, dangerous, wrong, horrifying, etc.

And we did become, more or less, a hybrid nation, and I think we should be proud. The US's history and philosophy can lead to nothing but a hybrid nation, a varied and mixed nation. And there are still people who fear this. But as we evolve we will become even more mixed. It is, as we say, a country of immigrants, and logically these immigrants will mingle. If they were to stay in their own corners with their own customs and not sharing anything at all, well, they would probably have to stay in their old countries. But once a family becomes American, their offspring will become freer and freer to connect with other Americans, regardless of the cultural bagage that separated them before.

Anyway, that's the US. And the US, France is not. But there is still this attitude here that makes me cringe thinking of lynches and pogroms. It's the attitude that other peoples (in the French case, Muslims and Africans) will either intermingle with and change your people or usurp you entirely. The fear of the loss of the "old ways," and a despair for the future.

Maybe it's also different here because the France "patrimoine" is so important - a sentiment that's led to some pretty heavy-duty cultural protection (I heard once of a very small, rusty old fence in Bordeaux that was protected under French patrimony laws). And I don't critique the French of wanting to preserve their culture, as they have much to be proud of and pass on, as warn them that this attitude can go very violent, very wrong (think of US History, but also think of Anders Breivik).

Long ago France began colonlizing in various corners of the earth. In that case the French culture altered or pushed off the native cultures. If there are many immigrants in France now it seems to me also a natural result of colonialsim. You can't change the past, but you should consider its effects on the present and future.

And today we should think of it too. The French, the non-French, everyone will be affected, because you never know when small burning attitudes could blaze into collective infernos.

What I'm saying is racism and xenophobia aren't answers, but symptoms. The cause and cure are yet to be explored and discovered.

One of my Facebook "likes" let me stumble upon this:

http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Riot

is almost the word that means this:

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/connard

in French.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/romneys-former-bain-partner-makes-a-case-for-inequality.html?_r=1&hp

I haven't yet read the whole article, just felt like being a lil juvenile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/books/review/pamela-druckermans-bringing-up-bebe.html

Hm I don't know, it's probably good to consider and compare all sorts of practices (in this case, parenting), but rating them for superiority sort of grates on me.

It's true the French women seem more ready to take back their pre-child freedom/body/appeal, and to stay as young as they can for as long as they can, ever the mother all the while, but it gets a little excessive for an American girl.

What I know is what I was raised with - a very loving mother, though I'm left with a saturated memory of me as a girl who wished my mother was more present than she could be because she worked and had other interests. Apparently the child should learn to accept this.

I don't think attention from the mother and the father could be a bad thing, unless it's a pushy and greedy kind of attention - the demanding kind: be this, do this, love me because of this, be perfect because I'm perfect.

One problem that I see with the French method of child rearing is something I witnessed working in the high school last year in Bordeaux : mini-women. High school girls who imitate in every way the very-mature and sophisticated French ideal of womanhood. Makeuped, high-heeled, designer-branded, insouciant. Lolitas. Perhaps the French girl sees her mother as an equal and equally wants to please the men around her as her mother does. This coquettery can be fine at a certain age, but the high school teacher can see the limitations here : pressure to fulfill the female stereotype instead of feeling free to explore her true interests and actualize herself. Anyway, the same could be said for American girls who are exposed to oversexed media and entertainment but are expected to remain (at least in the imaginations of the family, friends, neighbors...) virgins. As if she slips - slut! The French way is maybe a bit less hypocritical, but I don't see that either culture has the upper hand on teen pressure.

And I've witnessed at least one lovingly devoted French mother who takes the time to make her daughter a fresh lunch each day, and takes her home from school during lunchtime to enjoy it together. Maybe something is being overlooked here. Perhaps it's the importance of food in the French society. They are raised with the belief that taking time to prepare and enjoy food is crucial. French women seem to have more time to share this cultural trademark with their children. Could it be that the American nutritional trademark is McDonald's then? Perhaps preparing and sharing true meals in the French family is a deeper sort of bonding. I think so. But this doesn't just have to be French.

This was good:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/30/motherhood-vs-feminism

And I don't have much else to say, as I'm not a mother. I doubt the majority of American or French children have much (seriously) to complain about in terms of their rearing. They each form a very different kind of child. The main problem for the American method is the turning-out of selfish, self-centered children, and for the French it's making fearfully restrained children. I hope whatever and whatever way I raise my children (whenever and wherever and if ever they are...) they will be neither the selfish nor the scared.

I think children should be loved (personally I feel that the more loving and motherly the better, but that's just a personal choice, whatever's clinically better I don't know), and be better educated in general - be encouraged to have a curious spirit. But each person has his/her personality, some will take to it and some won't. Basically children should be raised to not be haters, to bring good to the world.

How can we do that?

I'll leave you with a French movie suggestion: Les Bien-Aimés (The Beloved)

Quite good! I felt (made me cry...). And circles around the mother-daughter theme...

about to cross the street to go to the bank to take out money for rent,

when I felt a soft pressure on my left arm,

and then that pressure turned into a hand,

and then that hand turned into a boy,

and then that boy turned into a blind boy with springs of curly hair,

who turned into a blind boy with his Arab father leading him across the street,

and he now held my hand, and kissed it, and rubbed it on his face that held his violet, blank eyes, and kissed it, and held it, and we crossed the street:

the boy, me, and his father, who apologized with his sad explanation: He's blind,

and he wouldn't let go, and he kissed it, and eventually his father prised him off,

and like that once again he was gone.

I went to my market coffee man to buy some more chocolate he's been offering in home-done shrink wrapping, a casing that made me that that he processed it. This quite excited me because me too, I make chocolate from beans. Not now (though I did consider transporting the boulder-heavy juicer I use to grind the beans into cocoa liqueur with me when I came back to Paris over Christmas Break), but when I'm back in NE I'll pick up where I left off - with my pounds of roasted beans I bought off of Chocolate Alchemy (www.chocolatealchemy.com). I will shell what's not shelled and push them through the juicer my mother magically had from her juice-making to help her sickness. They will turn into a smooth brown goop. I will add sugar and spices and HOPEFULLY (for this is a new part), be able to refine it all in my new chocolate melangeur (refer to prior post...). This should then make a smooth chocolate.

The chocolate I've made before was gritty like Ibarra chocolate discs, because like Ibarra, I made it to be a drinking chocolate. And it made some interesting hot chocolate.

But anyway, back to the coffee man. It turns out he doesn't process his chocolate from the beans, but buys the cocoa mass, and makes them into bars. Ah. He also talked about how most French chocolatiers don't process their own beans. They, like him, get the mass pre-processed. At any rate, French chocolate is mostly known for its truffles and chocolate creations (Christmas, Easter chocolate formations, sculptures...). So the chocolatier's job is mostly her/his taste (I put the "her" first just to put the girls forward a bit, but actually, from what I've noticed, there don't seem to be too many female chocolatiers...). S/He will taste all various cocoa masses to use, mix and mold and - create. They are "createurs."

Which is all fine, but to tell you the truth, chocolate goes deeper for me. It goes to the blood or bone. I'm not sure why, but such is such. I have this unquenchable desire to know more about chocolate, not just how to work with it, not just how to blend it. I want to know how to make it. Not just how to use it as an ingredient, but to understand as an element that you respect.

Among the French chocolatiers that make their own chocolate, there is Pralus:

http://www.chocolats-pralus.com/fr/francois-pralus.html

And I've been trying to figure out who else does. Valrhona seems to be the main supplier of cocoa mass (I don't have any hard fact about this, just things I've read). Maybe Bernachon (which I admit to have missed in Lyon, but the boutique was a little out of my roaming way...)

http://www.bernachon.com/accueil_en.html

En tout cas, I have been to Bayonne, and I was in Bayonne twice - once because of chocolate, twice because of accident (a little story about a train that split in half...), but lucky for that accident, otherwise I wouldn't have tasted:

http://www.chocolats-bayonne-cazenave.fr/atelier-chocolat-bayonne-cazenave-i-3.html

Because the first time I was there I was on my first French travel alone and was a little intimidated by the last leg of my trip (harsh rainy weather, unwelcomingness, swine flu...). I had gotten some bars of dark chocolate, but didn't stop into the chocolate/tea houses. But the second time I did, and it was Cazenave, and I tasted the truest cup of chocolat that I've had anywhere other than by my own making.

Because the history of chocolate fascinates me. Whoever was first to concoct it, it's known that it had a very important part in Mayan and Aztec cultures, such is why the Spanish were the first to bring it to the "Old World." And before various experiments and machinery were made, chocolate was a drink. For ages and ages it was a drink. Even when it was taken to Europe and appropriated it was still - a drink. It was still made by grinding roasted beans on a heated metate, as was done in the "New World," to make a paste. But the Europeans did away with some of the traditional spices, added sugar and their own flavorings, and milk. Hot cocoa - that thin-liquidy drink, was in the making (once they figured out how to separate the mass into cocoa powder and cocoa butter).

Hot chocolate often offends me. Sorry. I grew up with it - Swiss Miss, with marshmallows. Every winter we had it, after sledding, romping in the snow. We'd come back wet like we'd been swimming from the melted snow, strip off the puffy outer spaceman layers, make some cocoa and watch a movie. We usually heated the milk in the microwave, added the scoopfuls of the cocoa mix, threw in the mallows - et voila.

I don't have anything against these childhood pleasures. But childhood is childhood, and what perturbs me is the state of hot chocolate in French cafes (in my limited experience, because I try not to order it anymore...). It's usually thin cocoa milk. And when I think of the voluptuousness of what a chocolat can be, I cry a little... (maybe not really)

Anyway, Cazenave is the only place I've found it to fit my imagination. Maybe the problem for me is that people prefer it made with milk. And I admit sometimes I enjoy it that way too. At Cazenave I had it made with water.

What I'm skating around is that I want to get as close to the bean as possible. I want to make chocolates "à l'ancienne," but not the kind of chocolate I've gotten à l'ancienne in French cafes. I don't use a metate, I've got a Champion Juicer, which simplifies the process a bit... And soon I'll have a melangeur to make eating chocolate and hopefully to smooth out some of the un-conched chocolate flavors (which can be pretty sharp).

I was reading the chocolate edition of "Artes de Mexico (numero 103)" that I got at the chocolate salon in Paris this winter. There was a Mexico stand, and they were selling chocolates made from beans from Tabasco and Chiapas, and also this magazine. In it they talk about how to the Mayas, chocolate was most likely symbolic of blood (colored red even with annatto). The whole blood-drinking Catholickyness of it is interesting, not that there was any influence in either direction, but just the unsuspected parallel. Drinking blood, sacred/symbolic drinks (chocolate, wine). People are passionate about wine too. And I'm passionate about chocolate - and blood is symbolic of passion anyway. It is something to be explored. Something to be learned.

http://chocolatealchemy.myshopify.com/products/chocolate-melanger-by-ultra

This may look like a lot of money to you, and it is. But for some reason my internal stoplight is shining green on me...

The only thing stopping me would be the guilt of forking over so much money at once for a reason that doesn't have to do with rent or travel.

And kind of the fear of needing that money in the future.

Anyhow, once I'm back in town, this will be my next lump-sum buy:

http://www.amazon.com/VE-Valley-Electronics-GmbH-Germany-LCF1001/dp/B000NOKX4Q

I decided.