Dear Mr President: A Few Words about Acrimonious Partisan Debate

You said recently that “we” must stop arguing from partisans’ standpoint and come together on what’s good for the country. I am not completely sure who the “we” refers to. It probably includes the media, citizens, and the politicians they elect.

In what follows below, I would hate to sound supercilious; I am trying to be compassionate, in fact. I hope you will appreciate, not hold it against me although I confess I am a conservative Republican who did not vote for you and probably will not in the future.

We are having acrimonious “partisan” discussions because Americans don’t all agree about what works or about what’s moral. Those are two excellent reasons to disagree loudly. Disagreeing loudly is how it’s done in a democracy. It’s hoped two good things will emerge from loud disagreements:

1 The nature of the disagreements will be better understood than otherwise would be the case. In other words, unseemly partisan discussion is expected to help us fight over real issues, rather than over misunderstandings,

2 When each party voices its viewpoint loudly and clearly, it’s easier to reach an agreement than would be the case if everyone stayed politely quiet.

To summarize: The political arena is not your bank vice-president grandmother’s living-room. Oops ! I should not have mentioned the fact that your grandmother was a middle-class person. That was a low blow. I am very ashamed.

When it comes to the parlous economic situation of this country, there is a Grand Canyon separating you and your team from people like me. I am glad to be able to help you measure the chasm.

You seem to believe in heaping more debt on our children’s and grand-children’s heads, and perhaps beyond. We believe that public borrowing interferes with the normal economic forces that create both income and jobs. This is not a minor difference of opinion. If one of us is right, the other is terribly wrong. There is no smoothing this over.

Your actions and statements of members of your team, and of your party (not so much your own statements) lead me to believe that you think the expansion of government is a good thing. People like me think it’s a bad thing. This for two reasons. The first reason is that letting the government do for people what they should do for themselves is debilitating. It’s injurious to their moral fiber. When I say ; “…people should do for themselves,” I mean singly or through their free association for limited purposes. I also refer to the things they can just buy on the open market if they are allowed to.

The second reason I think the expansion of government is a bad thing is that it entails government taking from people by force what they acquired through their efforts. That’s always immoral, of course although it may be necessary for a limited time and for limited purposes.

So, referring to the speech on jobs you are going to make in a few days, here are examples of some of the things you should say if you wanted my side to talk less loudly and with less acrimony. Those are just examples. I will give you a longer list if you ask.

1 Declare that you eliminate the federal Environmental Protection Agency or, at least pare down its budget. That’s not because we are against pure water, unpolluted air, or the Valley Salamander. It’s because my side has become convinced that the EPA’s main job is to interfere with the creation of jobs. Besides, I can’t find the place in the Constitution that puts the federal government in charge of protecting “the environment.” To be precise, I would not necessarily be against it. I think there should be a constitutional amendment allowing this.

2 Declare loud and clear that public employees unions have become too powerful. Even if we accept the dubious “right” of public employees to unionize, there is a big moral question about whether it should be combined with the job tenure public employees in fact enjoy today. Of course, I am thinking about teachers’ union but not only of them.

3 Declare unambiguously the American “right to work.”

If you don’t do these things, or similar things, there is no reason for you to expect that the partisan clamor will subside on my side. And, of course, if you don’t join us, we will try to defeat you in the next election to replace you with someone whose ideas about what works and what’s moral are closer to ours. That’s the way it works in a democracy.

Thank you for your attention. Don’t hesitate to call on my again, Mr President.

Sincerely.

The Hurricane Wasn’t; Tropical Storm Saves Lives

It happened again. The mass media used three whole good summer days to waste my time. As I write, Sunday late afternoon, the networks are still trying to extract some unlikely catastrophe from….What was the name of that tropical storm, again?

Don’t misunderstand me, I am all in favor of mobilizing the mass media to protect people and their belongings from the ravages Mother Nature sends us frequently. It would be good if we could count on the networks to do a prudent, rational job of warning those who need warning of dangers that are both serious and probable. That’s not what we get, in fact. The major networks are actively competing to put on the ground drama queens of both sexes clad in rain-gear, some with hip-waders, trudging in half a foot of surge water. By the way,  hasn’t anyone told those effete urban reporters that if your waders fill up with water, there is a good chance you are a goner? If you are wearing jeans, on the other hand, and the water rises more than expected, you are just wet, that’s all!

I spent three days without coverage of the important events in Libya and in Syria, also without sports coverage, because the airwaves were occupied by  meteorological events and non-events taking place thousands of miles from where I live. Here, on the West Coast, for millions of Americans, it was a normal, sunny, warm end-of-summer day.

What’s the idea, anyway? Am I supposed to gain some merit, some moral stature, from being kept aware twenty-four/twenty-four of the coming and actual misfortunes of my fellow Americans a continent away? Or is the exaggerated coverage part of the political culture of this country? Was it the case that the Obama administration was hoping for the worst so that it could demonstrate its superior ability to handle and master a Katrina-like disaster? I almost wish this cynical supposition were correct. It would imply that the mass media have something like a collective brain. But, it is not to be: Fox News was right there on the front-line of the hoped-for horrors, elbow-to-elbow with CNN and MSNBC.

And, if you are tempted to think me insensitive, a monster, get this: America is a country exposed to the capricious actions of the old bitch, Mother Nature. There is nothing new about this. Americans have always coped. The fact helped forge the national character. Yes, there has been loss of property, maybe much loss of property. I am sorry for those who lost theirs. I hope they are insured.  That’s one of the things insurance is for. The other thing is to replace many functions of government. This will be for another time.

And how about the loss of life, some of you are thinking with bitterness? Well, here is a little more cynicism and here is another instance of the mass media’s mass mindlessness: As of late Sunday afternoon Pacific Standard Time, there seems to be media agreement that the tropical storm was directly responsible for a little under 20 deaths. I will bet the first five volunteers  $25  the following:

If you consider all the states with an Atlantic shoreline, the number of deaths they  will have experienced between Friday 1 am and this evening, Sunday, 12 midnight will turn out to be inferior to the number of deaths for the same period last year, or the year before.

The winnings to go to Doctors Without Borders to be paid by check with losers’  names and addresses. Please, no cheating. This is a matter of honor. I swear I am making the bet without having looked up the facts. I will abstain from doing so for the next 24 hours. I don’t need to anyway, so sure am I of my prediction.

UPDATE: UNFORTUNATELY, THE CASUALTY COUNT HAS RISEN TO NEAR FORTY SINCE  MONDAY. MY BET STANDS, NEVERTHELESS.

Tripoli, Libya: What’s not Discussed in the Media; Augmented: Looting.

The Libyan revolutionaries are taking too long to catch Gadhafi. Already, they have been upstaged by a hurricane; there will be other events and non-events occupying our screens before they wrap up this business. They should care more for the 24-hour news cycle!

Here is what the conservative media are avoiding saying: In this particular case narrowly defined, the Libyan Spring, the Obama doctrine paid off. There were no American boots on the ground or very few. The President did succeed in talking allies, especially the UK and France, into doing most of the heavy lifting, what with Libya being in their backyard and what not! The NATO allies did most or much of the bombing. The US supplied intelligence, and the initials strikes. The Libyans did all of the dying, so far. There would have been less dying if we had intervened earlier or more vigorously. Don’t expect the liberal media to take the administration to task for this. It will never happen. There is subtle undercurrent of racism or xenophobia in liberal foreign policies: Let the natives die; it’s their job or isn’t it?

The major military role the NATO allies played may induce good consequences beyond the liberation of Libya. Reading the French press, and a little of the British press, I am forming the impression that the political classes of both countries are shocked to discover how thin their national defense establishments really are. They find that they are straining to complete this very limited mission against a half-disarmed enemy that is nearby.

There is a group that’s been keeping its mouth tightly shut. That’s the Libertarians with a capital “L” (as opposed to libertarian members of the conservative branch of the Republican party like me). They have become rigid pacifists. They don’t like it when a war ends well without major expenditure of American treasure and with no American casualties. They don’t have the graciousness to say: OK, this one worked out although we were against it. This rigor mortis, and this principled but ultimately unthinking pacifism is why Ron Paul will never be President. I will vote against him, I will not vote for him. So will millions of conservatives who have much in common with him but who recognize that the US historically does what needs to be done, including militarily. (Allow me for once to speak as a European who grew up during the Cold War, two days-march from Soviet tanks.)

Here is what the liberal media have trouble thinking about and commenting on: Educated and media-connected young Arabs everywhere know and knew that Iraqis were voting. The Libyans who are holding guns now in the streets of Tripoli were ten and twelve and fourteen when Iraq’s own Gadhafi was hung by the Justice of his country. Of course, they must have asked themselves at some point: Why not us?

And, as usual, the media are not asking the obvious questions about what did not happen: Did the Libyan insurgents ask for Russia’s help, for China’s help? Were they not simply saying to us six months ago: If you removed Saddam Hussein, why not help us? The Libyan freedom fighters are obviously the children or the grandchildren of Georges W. Bush. What rank-and-file Arab ever contemplated the possibility that representative government was also for the Arab world until Bush’s neo-conservatives showed it to be the case?

And here is what no one wants to say aloud: Overweight Libyan shopkeepers, elementary-school teachers, and accounting undergraduates, all without military training, have restored Arab military honor. That’s the same honor that had been dragged in the mud of fratricidal wars and sacrificed in vain and vainglorious attacks on Israel. It ‘s not the first time a citizens’ army acquits itself better on the battlefield than gladiators in red berets and impeccably ironed camouflage uniforms. Ask the Israeli. We keep forgetting this simple truth.

For me, the most striking political observation of the past week is how the American media organs fell on one another lamenting in advance the post-Gadhafi era. Pundits, with the notable exception of my guru Fouad Ajami, an Arab, were pushing each other out of the way to be first to point out how many divisions existed in Libya, suggesting that the aftermath would possibly, probably, be horrible None wanted to be the last to make pessimistic predictions. Either this is more underlying racism or it’s one more proof that we have become a nation of old ladies (and that’s not fair to many old ladies).

I can just imagine, in late 1944, the American press worrying aloud about the possible horrors of post-Hitler Germany. Crazy, man!

The horrors of post-Saddam Iraq, you say? Yes, it was done badly. Yet, if there were no way to do it better, if it were my decision, I would do it all over again. It’s not difficult decision: Just count the numbers of mass graves that were not added.

8/25/11 Two afterthoughts:

I often worry about what should be there but isn’t. In the context of the Arab Spring, I worry about Algeria, next door to Libya. It’s a large country of 36 million. It has oil wealth but also a great deal of corruption and inequality. The existing regime is a unique mixture of democracy through elections with stewardship by a large military. It has an honest  President who rules largely bey decrees pretty much at the pleasure of the military. Military  stewardship there is tolerated and even encouraged by Western countries, including the US and France, the former colonial power. The reason is that in the nineties, that same military prevented an electorally  victorious Islamist coalition from taking power. This does not make Algeria a happy country. I suspect that most Algerians, who all learn French, want to move to Europe, to France, to Belgium, anywhere in Europe. There is not much of a reason to believe that Algeria will not explode too.

Much of the media, including the press  I read regularly  is looking for evidence of looting in liberated areas of Libya and making tsu,tsu noises when it finds it. It seems that unimaginative journalists are trying to will upon Libya a repeat of the liberation of Iraq. This is silly and unwarranted. First, of course, “looting” guns and ammunition is a rational act of self-defense. Beyond this obvious fact, I  think looting the dictator’ personal belongings is a healthy thing to do after forty years of dictatorship.  Parading in the street wearing one of the tyrants many headgears and wrapped in his bedspsread signifies to others, and especially, to yourself, that you have begun to not fear him. Long live looting!

French Sleaze-Bag Walks!

As we almost all know by now, the DA asked the judge to let go of all the charges against French banker DSK. The reason given was that the alleged victim was too unreliable to allow the case to proceed. Not much commentary on the fact that the DA’s office seems to think that there was a brief sexual encounter involving no violence. And the reports to the effect that the DA’s office had “physical evidence” has been nearly forgotten. To me, this spells casual prostitution. I suspect it’s routine in expensive hotels.

 

Early on, I had pretty much described what the DA seems to think happened: No rape or rape attempt because a bureaucrat in his sixties is not likely to have to capacity to subdue a robust woman in her thirties whose job requires physical endurance. Probably a mercenary quickie that turned bad at some point. Perhaps the chambermaid realized too late to cash in what a big fish she held. That’s speculation on my part, of course.

 

As I have also said, I have no doubt DSK is a sleaze-bag. Nevertheless, I regret that hasty prosecutorial actions forced him to abandon his very important and well deserved position with IMF. I regret even more that the next French presidential election will not be as hotly disputed as it would have been had DSK been in the race.

 

Ideological prejudices are not innocent; they have consequences in the real world. Had the alleged victim not been black and not been a poor immigrant, had the alleged perpetrator not been a white man, I wonder if he would have been yanked from a flight reserved days in advance.

Polar Bears Multiply: Global Warming Faulted

From Live Science, accessed 08/19/11:

“Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, (BOEMRE) was placed on administrative leave on July 18 pending the conclusion of an Inspector General investigation into “integrity issues,” according to the suspension order. Monnett had been questioned by the Interior Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in February about a 2006 research article published in the journal Polar Biology, in which he reported observations of drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. In the article, Monnett and his co-authors speculate that bear drownings could increase if continued climate change resulted in less ice cover in the Arctic. The work was cited in the 2006 Al Gore documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” [Gallery: Polar Bears Swimming in the Arctic] “

Here is what my own inquiry shows: Monnett and Gleason in their 2006 article abstract and introduction list at length diverse kinds of damage global warming might have on polar bears’ welfare. They present the fact that they had noticed four carcasses of polar bears off-shore incidental to a study of something else. They comment that similar studies conducted in the same general area in the past had turned up no polar bear mortality. They say that they “speculate” (their word) that continued warming would probably have bad consequences for the polar bear population. Nowhere is there any suggestion, in the abstract or in the introduction, that the warming in question is long term or, especially, man-made.

I have no objection to any of the above as a scholar although I can summarize my environmental position as follows:

Algore in Wonderland should be imprisoned at hard labor for his dishonest movies. There, he should be forced to make luminescent light bulbs.

Of course, the expected sources rushed to take Dr Monnett’s suspension as evidence of persecution of Dr Monnett and persecution of polar bears:

Here is what green reporter Kassie Siegel said in the Huffington Post:

“Since Dr. Monnett published his paper, bears have continued to starve, drown, and even resort to cannibalism as the Arctic sea ice melt has accelerated, and many more papers documenting these impacts have been published. Some, like Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, have jumped on the investigation to attack protection for the polar bear and the science of global warming. But even were there some credible complaint regarding Dr. Monnett’s paper, which there is not, that paper is but one drop in the tsunami of evidence showing that unchecked global warming will drive polar bears to extinction. “

Kassie Siegel

Director, Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute

Ms Siegel is the kind of person one loves to dislike on sight. First, she is the lawyer. That’s from UC Berkeley, of course. It’s easy to dislike lawyers’ ignorance because they seem to be giving themselves blanket permission to be ignorant: “I passed the bar, they appear to say. There is nothing harder, therefore I know everything and what I don’t know is probably unimportant.” Of course, there is no evidence that I could find on the Internet that Ms Siegel has any competence in biology or climate science, or any science at all. I suspect she is a virgin that way. In her PR pictures, she wears one of those annoying cute wool hats with an arctic motif. (If that anyone turns up any evidence of any scientific training for this person, including an AA degree – a junior college degree – in biology, I will immediately publish the fact here).

Correspondingly, Ms Siegel parades her ignorance of zoology without provocation. Polar bears do not “resort” to cannibalism because they have nothing normal to eat. (Like I would, say, “resort” to vegetarian pasta if no prime steak were unavailable). Cannibalism is one of their normal behaviors. All large carnivores do this. Bears even share with lions a predilection for dinning on babies of their own species. Everyone who watches “Animal Planet” knows this.

Ms Siegel further invokes a “tsunami” of evidence about global warming, polar bears, and their extinction. Of course, there is no such tsunami. If you are an average working stiff with children and a mortgage (under water or not), you might take her word for granted. If you are anyone under 20, almost certainly, you will take her word for it. Personally, I think there is no such evidence at all, just more or less informed speculation, some of which may be worth reading.

I am waiting form Ms Siegel, the lawyer-guru-authority, to give me a reasonable reading assignment, or any of her followers, drawn from the “tsunami.” Go ahead, if you are reading this, give it your best shot. Begin with two references. Please!

In the meantime, do I think it’s impossible for a federal bureaucracy to persecute one of its employees that is a whistle blower? To ask the question is to answer it. It’s certainly plausible but plausible is not the same as sure. Here is what the AP reported recently on Dr Monnett’s suspension:

By BECKY BOHRER, Associated Press – Jul 29, 2011 

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — The recent suspension of Alaska wildlife biologist Charles Monnett is unrelated both to an article that he wrote about presumably drowned Arctic polar bears or his scientific work, a federal official said Friday.

The director of the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation, told agency staff in Alaska via email that it instead was the result of new information on a separate subject that was recently brought to officials’ attention.

The email, written by Michael Bromwich, was obtained by The Associated Press.

The Anchorage-based Monnett was placed on administrative leave July 18, pending final results of an inspector general’s investigation into “integrity issues.”

Monnett coordinated much of the agency’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology and had duties that included managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to a complaint filed with the agency. The complaint was filed on his behalf by the watchdog group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

A memo dated days before July 18, sent to Monnett by contracting officer Celeste H. Rueffert, said that information raised by the investigation “causes us to have concerns about your ability to act as the Contracting Officer’s Representative in an impartial and objective manner on the subject contract.”

That same day, July 13, a stop-work order was issued for a polar bear tracking study, entitled “Populations and Sources of Recruitment in Polar Bears.” [That's a different study. - JD]

In the meantime, I am reaping again the benefits of multilingualism. It’s not that I get better treatment in a foreign restaurant, or in any French restaurant here, or in France, or in any Chinese restaurant anywhere (See my story “Life With an Accent….” recently published on this blog. There is another essay on the topic whose title I don’t remember.) I don’t; none of the above. Rather, I get info on the same topics from disparate sources with different frames of mind. So, I am watching a French documentary about a crew of French people who are traveling on a large sailboat from Norway to the Pacific through the northwest passage.(“L’odyssée climatiques du Sout,” caught on TV5, on 8/19/11) Now, let me tell you things about the French you probably don’t know: They tend to be good at adventure and bad at commentary. They make original documentaries that are often excellent from a visual standpoint to which they add feeble-minded voice-overs.  The rarely do their reading before they leave for such a trip. Often, there is no reading available in French. Monolingualism in languages other than English is a sort of informational prison. It may be hard for you to believe but I believe that the average middle-class French person has a poorer general culture than his American counterpart. (And if I don’t know this, who does?)

So, the French crew is stopping over in Pond Inlet, a small arctic village in Nunavik, Canada. To a man and woman, they believe in man-made (woman-made?) and worrisome global warming, of course. Their journey is meant to illustrate its ravages. The expedition captain does his job well. He makes it a point to interview (in his halting English) Inuit hunters and others with official or informal connections to hunting. What he finds is a general complaint that there are too many polar bears and that the Canadian federal government does not deliver enough permits to hunt them. Let’s be fair as well as discerning: The Inuit up there are not environmentalist sissies. And what, with the price of groceries being three or four times higher than in California, bear stew is a valued option.  One professional hunter opines on camera that the increase in polar bears results from a new abundance of seals. The seals themselves have multiplied in unprecedented ways because the water in the vicinity of their village is ice-free for a longer period than used to be the case. Let me summarize:

Global warming > ice-free sea > more seals > more polar bears !!!!

Now, I would be the first to doubt the accuracy of traditional people in recording cold facts (no pun) over any but short periods. To a large extent, modernity means learning how to count and taking numbers seriously. However, you can be sure that if it were the case that Inuit hunters reported a new shortage of polar bears in their area because of a decrease in ice cover, the report would be exploited by the likes of Ms Siegel, officiating on the Huff Post, and in other Greenleftie outlets. Algore in Wonderland would say again, “I told you so “ instead of having a meltdown on television (no pun) as he did recently.

Incidentally, another hunter waxed enthusiastic about the incomparable beauty of tundra flowering in recent seasons.  I know it’s neither here nor there but it was nice to hear.

Why bother, you might ask? After all, the belief that human activities have been causing significant warming of the planet with predictably catastrophic consequences has receded considerably in the past couple of years. Algore’s meltdown is proof that this cult belief may not be much of a danger to our economy or to our welfare in general anymore. My answer is that I have the time, the leisure to study the morphology of collective delusions, of which global warming fear is a late manifestation. There will be others. The more we know about collective delusions the better we will be able to guard against the next ones.

 

Somalia and Famine: Déjà Vu

Tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands in danger of starvation according to several United Nations agencies. Where? In Africa, in Somalia exactly. Sounds familiar? Yest, it happened before, in your lifetime if you are over 20. That’s famine, of course. It occasioned an ill-planned US intervention that ended in disaster with this country running with its tails between its legs. Now as then, the famine’s cause is not Mother Nature’s sudden anger. It’s man-made through war and possibly a deliberate tactic of war. (I am not sure of the last one.)

If you are only about twenty and the name “Somalia” sounds familiar, it may be because that’s the country from which pirates prey on international shipping. Some operate hundreds of miles from shore and take large ships and their crews to ransom. Speaking of tails, the major powers combined plus China, Turkey etc have not had what it takes to put an end to this. The country that has acted most energetically so far appears to be India. Once, just once, the US Navy blasted some Somali pirates out of the water (Or one pirate). It won’t happen again: too decisive, too normal, too rational, too politically incorrect.

One thought leads to another. So, now, I am on to political correctness. Until 1960, Somalia was under British administration with different administrative formulas for the north and the south of the country. Does anyone remember famines under British colonial rule? Is there any record of famine under British rule? Was there any famine? In the sixties most of sub-Saharan Africa was freed from European colonial rule. With a small number of interesting exceptions (interesting exceptions), “freedom” has been an unmitigated disaster for those countries. This is the case in spite of billions upon billions in foreign aid. I mean that both quality of life and the life chances of ordinary people have worsened since Europeans stopped “exploiting” those countries. Life chances include such things as dying as a baby of easily preventable infection or of hunger. Public commentaries on this horrible state of affairs are rare because the people in that part of the world are mostly black. It would be racist to point out the obvious: They have not been able, by and large, to manage their affairs as well as the colonizers managed their affairs for them.

Somalia itself does not seem to me, subjectively, a country that worth respecting as an independent entity. I mean the country, the polity, not the people. People everywhere are brothers. Aside from famine and piracy, it’s the kind of country where nearly 100% of little girls are subjected to violent and grotesque sexual mutilation. (You can find pictures on line if you have a strong stomach.) Violent jihadists are fighting for control of the country with brave but inadequate troops from the African Union. That’s another manifestation of political correctness, of course: It’s OK for black soldiers to kill black Islamist extremists at great cost in blood to themselves. It would be unseemly for soldiers with white faces to do the same with minimum casualties.

Of course, we have to help again. You can’t let people starve to death. Yet, there is blackmail involved; we all know it. One small step in the direction of calling off the blackmail is to name things accurately: Black Somalis are, through their actions, causing black Somali babies to starve to death. They are savages.

I hope my Libertarian friends (capital L) who are on a “no war at any cost, in any case” kick are paying attention to developments in Somalia. It’s a country with truly minimal government. That’s a fact neither they nor libertarians (with a small l) like me can ignore.

Panache

Here is something I wish I had written but haven’t:

 My deepest personal regret is that I have never done anything with panache. I have never shot a lion or driven a Porsche to Dakar or run a line of credit in a brothel in Dar es Salaam. Just once in my life it would have been nice to do something with panache. Anything. Preferably in the company of Sophia Loren.

From Joe Queenan’s “Requiem for a Dream,” Weekly Standard. August 8^th 2011.

Life with an Accent*: Twenty-Five Unimportant Complaints From a Happy Immigrant plus One Confession

I am a very happy immigrant, practically a poster-boy for American, and especially for California, immigration. Nevertheless, there are some recurrent irritants in my life as an immigrant, specifically. I have held my peace for forty years; in the end, I have earned the right to vituperate a little.

Since I was born and lived in France until I was twenty-one, it’s not surprising that many of my complaints have to do mostly with language and food. Here they go:

Statements that irritate me:

“I just love your accent.”The same accent I have tried to get rid of for forty years.

If I limped, would they just love my limp?

“I get my French and Spanish confused”.

They never know either.

“My French is rusty”.

They are lying to themselves. There was never enough metal to rust.

“I only know conversational French” (always a woman, saying that).

“I be American. I would wanted ate French,” isn’t conversation, honey; its baby-talk.

“I know someone who speaks six languages fluently.”

How come it’s always Lower Slovobian, or Eastern Macedonian, rather than an obvious language such as Spanish, German or French? How would those who just know someone know what that someone knows, anyway?

* Title by my student and fellow immigrant Miriam Kojnok.

Statements proudly listing fifteen different national origins.

in one’s ancestry.

How can they possibly know? Most of their putative ancestors – always Europeans for some reason – were busy slaughtering one another for most of history; they did not have the inclination to marry one another. The braggers could easily be the products of multiple rapes of course but then, they would be even less likely to know their ancestry.

Chinese immigrants, mostly from the mainland, who refer to me in their language as a “ghost,” rather than the more polite, “ghost-person.”

Conversations that make me squirm:

White, US-born individuals telling me about their favorite French restaurant, after I have tried politely to escape three times.

If there were any real French restaurant near where I live or work, it would have come to my attention. Their restaurant owner has a Persian name (not “Parisian”); the cook is Mexican, like ninety per cent of all cooks around here. Neither has any idea of what the dishes listed on their menu are supposed to taste like. All these dishes taste alike. The menu itself is in a sort of French larded with spelling mistakes that no French speaker could make if he tried. Why do their “French” restaurants never carry any basic French dishes, such as blanquette de veau aux morilles, lapin en civet de sang, or simply pot-au-feu (the latter, too hard to spell)?

Why “white” individuals (above)? I give Americans of Chinese extraction the benefit of doubt because they come from superior stock, cooking-wise.

Yuppies discussing the merits of different wines in front of me because I have a French name.

I don’t know the vocabulary (in any language). I did not take the $800 wine appreciation course. When I was growing up, we had three kinds of wine: wine for summer, wine for weekdays, the rest of the year, Sunday wine (always the same). I am still not rich enough to buy wines worth discussing. I am a Californian: I co-own a house with a bank, instead.

Connoisseurs explaining to their children in a loud voice that the French eat “escargots”.

It’s very bad to lie to children, especially one’s own. Using foreign words to do so is downright vile. Those are just snails, the garden variety, to be precise.

Anglos parents seeking my approval to send their children to Europe for two quarters so they will become fluent in a foreign language (sometimes two).

They won’t. They will go to the beach or skiing with other English- speaking kids, like nearly all study-abroad students. They might pick up some rare words in a foreign language though, such as “sunscreen” and “antifreeze.”

Any conversation or monologue that includes the words, “coup degrâce,” invariably pronounced, “cou de gra”, without an “s” sound at the end. That would mean being hit with a piece of animal fat. Even the French are not so heartless as to finish off the condemned that way.

Incidentally, “Mardi Gras” does not mean “Fat Tuesday”.

It means the last Tuesday before the first Wednesday when good Catholics must refrain from eating meat during Lent.

Solemn discourse by famous university professors (you would be amazed if I named names) who assure me that I don’t understand Quebec French because it and the French I know are not mutually intelligible, being completely separate languages.

It matters not that I assure them that I never get lost in Quebec, that I read Quebec newspapers and even watch Quebec television without stressing out. The professors are like twins separated at birth to fifty million French people who are convinced that English and American are utterly unrelated languages and that, therefore, the claim that I often watch BBC television series is delusional.

Any conversation that includes the words “ugly American”.

Where shall I begin? First, it indicates a significant lack of general culture. (See below.) Second, the use of these words constitutes a tremendous suggestion of collective insanity: The words are drawn from the title a novel of the late fifties whose hero was a kind, rational and culturally sensitive American expatriate who happened to be an ugly son of a bitch. This 180-degree distortion is what suggests collective insanity. Third, the whole idea is presumptuous: Tourists are often clumsy, more often pitiful. They are almost never really offensive (except rich Germans in large groups and they, only at airports). If tourist were in any way bad, what would give you the right to claim that American tourists are especially good at being bad? (You need proof.) Finally, you are not fooling anyone: By deploring the imaginary bad behavior of other Americans, you think you are subtly setting yourself apart as a person of breeding and delicacy. This is the perfect mark of a boor, of course.

Behavior that puts me off:

Extending a secret handshake in my direction, although I am obviously not a frat boy, nor a Chicano, even less a gang member.

Motioning “quotation marks”, mid-air with two fingers of each hand.

(Should have their frigging fingers cut off the next time they try it.)

Sweet young things who call me “Monsieur” when they hear my last name.

I know your intentions are nice, but sorry, speak French to me if you must, or speak English. “Monsieur” means exactly “Mister” and “Sir”. I know these two words; I don’t need them translated. You are unwittingly segregating me.

Other college professors who solicitously explain to me the meaning of difficult English words, such as “malapropism”. (Comes from the French, “mal à propos”.) Don’t bother: English is mostly ungrammatical French mispronounced by Saxon peasants.

Terrorists who sabotage foie gras-producing establishments.

I am against the death penalty, but I am also flexible and willing to consider exceptions.

Like all immigrants, I have suffered from racism. Here are some examples:

Chinese waiters who maintain that their restaurant does not serve beef tendon when there are at least five Chines families within thirty feet of me having beef tendon.

Frigging racists! Compare with the gracious behavior of Mexican waiters who, when they are sure this gringo really wants menudo – cow stomach stew – smile broadly and get me an extra helping.

Narrowly avoided a brutal and demeaning death: The Chinese restaurant manager who brought me beef brisket, after my Shanghai-reared and educated Chinese lunch companion ordered beef tendon for me.

The manager alleged that she had mispronounced the Chinese character for “tendon.”

Countless, Indian, Thai, Mexican, Chinese cooks who deliberately overspice my food, just because I am a white man.

Deep down, I know I should be tolerant. It’s their only revenge for centuries of colonialism and oppression by the White Man. In reality, I think this kind of behavior would fairly justify re-colonization.

People I shun:

English teachers who say, “No one does exactly what they want.”

If no (zero) one is not singular, what is? I took the trouble to learn English. So should they.

Anyone who says, “Mexican people,” “Jewish people,” or “international,” instead of “foreign”.

“Mexican”, “Jew” and “foreign” are not dirty words. Those who do this are liberal racists, liberal anti-Semites, and liberal xenophobes.

Almost all francophiles.

They seldom know anything true about French culture. Their love of all things French is just an indirect way to set themselves apart as more refeeened than regular folks. I am tolerant of those who are under twenty-five. Here are two vignettes to help them understand French culture and snap out of it, once for all:

Traditional French culture: I got up early, went out and shot that hare I had been keeping an eye on. I don’t have a permit and the hunting season is closed but I got it with a single shot, so, I am probably alright. On the way home, I picked up some chanterelles mushrooms in the woods, on my neighbors’ property. (They are away for two months.) At home, I made coffee, peeled some onions, and dressed the hare while preserving its blood. I fried the onions, sautéed the hare hindquarters, poured on the blood and let it simmer while I took a nap. After that, I adjusted the condiments and added the mushrooms. I let simmer some more. In the afternoon, I walked to the café and played cards with my friends. We argued about politics. Before I left, I talked dirty to the barmaid for a while, so she wouldn’t think I was cold-shouldering her. (Pour qu’elle ne soit pas vexée.) Then, home; I ate my hare with some new potatoes and a glass of my own wine. It was delicious. And to bed early.

Contemporary French culture: I am going to bed early because there is nothing good on TV. There is a two-day bridge between the General’s Holiday and the week-end. We are taking advantage of this, my wife and I, to go to our country house in the boondocks, and to relax. Only two months before my five-week summer vacation. This year, we are doing Greece. Three more years and I will be fifty-five. I will retire on my government pension. Then, I will really be able to relax.

Finally, humble pie I need to eat:

For thirty-nine years, I was asked about ten times a year, “Why do the French hate Americans?” That’s practically four hundred times. I always used to reply either, with distemper, that they did not, or with an elaborate sociological explanation about collective, shared and mutual misperceptions.

Then came the spring 2003 war against the Butcher of Baghdad and the French government lined up squarely with the Butcher, with much popular approval, I am forced to admit.

I was wrong. I have to think about a true answer to this question.

I am reading about 1942-43 Vichy France.

 Jacques Delacroix 2003 – 2008, revised lightly 2011

Sore Winners and the Debt Ceiling “Mano a Mano”

In the past couple of weeks, our system of government showed us against how well designed it is. The two parties played at brinkmanship the way they are supposed to. The confrontation helped clarify considerably what separates the two parties. It did so by showcasing the extremes inside the two parties. The so-called “tea party” Republicans want greatly enhanced fiscal restraint. Leftists in the Democratic Party want above all to punish the rich for their luck and/or for their talent. After a lengthy mano-a-mano, arm-wrestling bout, the moderates in both parties took control and a compromise was achieved. (As I had firmly predicted would happen in time or almost in good time.)

I know the compromise is a good compromise because the extremes of both parties express great unhappiness. As the House was passing the vote that sealed the deal, I spent a wonderful morning listening to the lefties on “Democracy Today.” They were announcing the end of the world as they do every morning but I could easily detect a special poignancy in their calls that is usually missing. Those people were hurting deep in their hearts because the compromise involved no new taxes. (Lefties love taxes as a second best to confiscation of goods and deportation of the kulaks to Siberia.)

At the same time, Rush Limbaugh, the clearest anti-statist voice in American was explaining on the radio how the compromise was a fraud and a dud. So, here again is the proof: When the main parties walk away pissed off, you know it was a good negotiation.

I was expecting it but I am surprised at the disappointment expressed among conservatives. True, we did not get a balanced budget amendment. (Incidentally, I am not sure I am for it, another story.) It’s not clear technically that the agreement will lead to absolute declines in federal spending or merely to a reduction in the rate of increase of spending. I too don’t like the fact that the debt ceiling rises immediately but that any spending reduction, absolute or relative, will be spread over years. Having listened to Judge Napolitano, the Fox News legal expert, I am also less than certain that today’s Congress can legally bind any future Congress. There are plenty of causes to assess the current agreement as giving me less than everything I wanted. However, this is not Christmas and people like me control only a fraction of one of the three decision-making bodies. What do you expect, I ask?

How can I feel good when I wanted a six-course meal and I was served only an appetizer, you ask?

The answer is that the activist conservative minority of this country had won the last partial election with one clear message and several much smaller ancillary messages. The big message was this: The federal government is too big and it’s too expensive. (Note that the two statements are only partially overlapping: I might find the Federal Government inexpensive and still think it’s too big, for political reasons, for moral reasons, in the end.)

In July 2011 and in the first two days of August, the most conservative wing of the Republican Party succeeded in doing something I never saw in my life, something that I did not not think could be done:

The agreement transformed radically the general framework of the American political discourse. In the past few weeks, it went from: “What new taxes do we raise, what new tax do we devise to help what long suffering and deserving groups?” to: “How are we going to reduce federal spending?”

The national conversation on deficit spending is finally on-track. Note that I am not dead-set personally about deficit spending. I just think we need to have the broadest possible talks about it.

The loud partisan debate preceding the agreement drew the churlish and ignorant condemnations of the many media commentators who don’t understand democracy (plus the crocodile tears of some members of Congress who may not understand it much better). To my mind, the debate had big educational merits. I know for a fact that it brought to the attention of several people I know the fact that the feral government normally operates on borrowed money. I was not aware that it is not the case that everyone in America knows this. I was wrong or naïve. Two of those people are 18 year-old college freshmen. Those two guys are going to vote in the next election. Instead of being delivered hogtied to the ear-rape of their liberal professors, they will enter their sophomore year with an important piece of knowledge about our government. Don’t take this kind of advancement for granted. After 25 years of exposure to college sophomores, I surely don’t.

If you are a conservative and you don’t rejoice at the fact that the conversation has finally switched to the topic that interests you, if the incidental education the debate has provided doesn’t please you, you are just a sore winner.

If you are a liberal that has stumbled on this blog, don’t start sobbing, after the habitual manner of liberals. Tell yourself that Rush Limbaugh was loudly angry this morning. Anything that pisses off Rush Limbaugth has got to be a victory for you, at least a partial victory.

And here is something you did not read here, that you did not hear from me, not at all: The agreement to raise the debt ceiling has not forestalled a reduction the the federal government’s credit rating. That was an obamesque red herring all along. The US was not going to default, or not for long. The credit rating agencies know their job. They know full well that the markets are less worried about some politically determined debt ceiling than about our government’s indebtedness in genera. They are familiar with the idea that many investors know that the US federal government owes about as much as the whole American economy produces in one year. (This number is good enough for most purposes and it’s easy to remember.)

 

Update: In one of my recent blogs, I talked about the “46%+” who don’t pay federal income tax. A stranger on Facebook assured me that the figure had been debunked a long time ago. Very politely, I asked him for references. He told me he would look for them. The next day, I re-iterated my request. The stranger vanished from the relevant Facebook free-for-all. That’s how I find liberals argue, par for the course, so to speak.