Fast cars, clean bodies...

Kristin Ross is a good writer:

"And women...as the primary victims and arbiters of social reproduction, as the subjects of everydayness and as those most subjected to it, as the class of people most responsible for consumption, and those responsible for the complex movement whereby the social existence of human beings is produced and reproduced, are the everyday: its managers, its embodiment." (Ross 77)

Reaction in France

France is reacting overwhelmingly positively to the American election, but the French political class is also doing some introspection.  The youth, children of immigrants, are saying things like "I'm going to put my picture on my CV now" [In France, one attaches a portrait to a CV].  Not all are optimistic, but, still they see the elections as a positive step.

Recent French elections have some strong parallels with Nixonian and post-Nixonian identity politics.  Sarkozy, for one, managed to send out clearly racist messages while sounding the alarm about "personal responsibility," "delinquance," etc.  It is/was classic dog-whistle politics.  Like some American administrations, though, he as been innovative in not always promoting the elite-school technocrats but rather universitaires and minorities.  His actions, like George Bush appointing Powell or Rice, show the cognitive dissonance of his public policies and personal ones.

Lessons of The Immoralist

A student wrote me last night about L'Immoraliste by André Gide.   We're using it in our paired course on "Modern French History" and "Riots and Revolutions."  We chose it because it paralleled in a lot of ways turn of the century thought, and after reading Barrès' work and especially Jeunes gens d'aujourd'hui by Henri Massis and Alfred de Tarde, boy were we ever happy with our choice.

Now of course André Gide's politics had nothing in common with the proto-fascist, Catholic renaissance Youth of Today.  Yet, Michel's self-absorption, his movement away from the "sedentary," "intellectual," "unpatriotic," "defeatist," "universalist" generation of 1865 towards a "physical" "action-oriented" new generation overlaps Massis and de Tarde's (primitive and unscientific) poll of the youth born around 1890.

Massis and de Tarde is infinitely more obsessed with patriotism, war and Catholicism compared to Gide.  They write:

L'héroïsme et la guerre.
Et voici qui est plus significatif encore. Des
élèves de rhétorique supérieure à Paris, c'est-à-
dire l'élite la plus cultivée de la jeunesse, déclarent
trouver dans la guerre un idéal esthétique d'énergie
et de force. Ils pensent que « la France a besoin
d'héroïsme pour vivre ». «Telle est la foi, dit encore
M. Tourolle, qui consume la jeunesse moderne. »
Combien de fois, depuis deux ans, n'avons-nous
pas entendu répéter : « Plutôt la guerre que cette
perpétuelle attente ! » Dans ce vœu, nulle amer-
tume, mais un secret espoir. (31)

So the youth of the day (and by that they mean the youth of the Ecole Normale Supérieur and Henri IV--the important youth, the leaders of tomorrow...) say "[Let's have] War rather than this perpetual waiting," or "...the most cultivated elite says it finds in war an aesthetic ideal of energy and force."

On sport and travel, Massis and Tarde relate that

Le sport a exercé, lui aussi, sur l'optimisme
patriotique des jeunes gens une influence qu'on ne
saurait négliger. Le bénéfice moral du sport, j'en-
tends de ces sports collectifs, comme le foot-ball,
si répandu dans nos lycées, c'est qu'il développe
l'esprit de solidarité, ce sentiment d'une action
commune où chaque volonté particulière doit con-
sentir au sacrifice. D'autre part, les sports font
naître l'endurance, le sang-froid, ces vertus mili-
taires, et maintiennent la jeunesse dans une atmo-
sphère belliqueuse (1).
L'habitude des voyages, enfin, loin d'affaiblir
l'idée de patrie, l'a transformée et précisée. Ceux
qui voyagent sentent le mieux l'opposition des
étrangers à eux-mêmes : ils prennent conscience de
leurs différences : «Chaque fois que je me suis
trouvé à l'étranger, nous déclarait un jeune étu-
diant de lettres, j'ai éprouvé en moi la vérité et
la force du sentiment patriotique.»

Sport inspires discipline, "military virtues" and, to their delight, a "bellicose atmosphere." Unlike for Michel, though, travel is not linked to understanding otherness, to a quest for universal ideas, rather it is an opportunity to reaffirm the "truth and the force of patriotic sentiment."  Michel's need for the Other in his path of self discovery, as well as his more nuanced understanding of the world in general (with the exception of the lacunae regarding women and most practical matters), lead him away from the Nativist and Catholicized tract by Massis and de Tarde.  Yet, Michel's narrative abounds in words like "life," "energy," "force," etc.  His growing taste for self-realization and "action and thought" as Massis and de Tarde would say, clearly falls in line with the pre-war generation of the turn of the century.  [On a side note, it is truly incredible how much Young People of Today sounds like the republican party of the last 30 years.]

Thus couched, Michel's self-absorbed reality, though clearly a pathway to figuring out his marginal status, can also be seen as a symptom of larger societal ills and contradictions.

So my student writes:

Another work that I have read that really contrasts with those traditional views of The Odyssey is The Immoralist by Andre Gide. It is basically about a young man who gets married, contracts TB, decides the only way he can get better is to focus completely on himself, gets better, discovers he's attracted to men, creates a doctrine that despises morals as social conventions and stifling to individuality, and ulitmately is responsible for the death of his wife when she contracts TB from him and he drags her around the world wearing her out to satisfy his wander lust. Obviously, this is not a good guy (I could have guessed by the title). One thing that I found particularly infuriating about this book was the main character's (Michel) view on honesty.

"I detest these honest folk. I may have nothing to fear from them, but I have nothing to learn from them either. And they have nothing to say...Oh, these honest Swiss. Where do their good manners get them?...They have no crime, no history, no literature, no art...They are like a sturdy rosebush without thorns or flowers."

Here, Michel equates honesty with good manners, and makes incredibly broad generalizations about a people he honestly has very little contact with. First of all, good manners often leaves little room for honesty, so right away his hypothesis that honesty is a social convention is thrown out the window. If he actually paid attention when he was in society he would realize a lot is left unsaid or twisted, and that honesty is not so much an actual convention of society but just a front used to make people think we are all getting along and being adults. Isn't honesty supposed to be a particularly adult quality? All kids lie about brushing their teeth and how old they are and whether or not they snuck out. Adults are supposed to grow beyond that, yet I feel that most just grow more skillful in their facade. They have the seeming of honesty to allow them to function respectably in society and this is what Michel detests though does not articulate well and causes him to confuse honesty with social convention. After all, his attraction to evil and bad dealings is partly because he believes criminals have more sincerity than those that follow rules, those people he believes are just cookie-cutters from society's mold. However, you can say the same generalizing prejudices against criminals. In a criminal society, lieing, cheating, and stealing become the conventions. And how is one murderer different from another? If it is actions that define the person (like praying in church, stealing a pair of scissors) then aren't we all from one mold or the other? Can we ever be surprised at what someone does? No, especially in this day when we have witnessed countless wars, watched film of the atom bomb dropping, or studied the holocaust. Unlike Michel, I believe that what breaks molds are not actions that can be labeled as anti-social or the anti-citizen, but actually thinking and developping beliefs that do not autimatically reject morals because "everyone" seems to have them. I feel like this is what Michel does: he rejects what is perceived as "moral" because he wants to be an individual. However, the author prefaces the story by saying that "I don't pretend to have invented this "problem"--it existed before my book came along. Whether Michel prevails or not, the "problem" continues to exist, and does not in the author's view terminate in triumph or defeat." (8). Therefore Michel is coming from a mold whether he likes it or not. He is a part of the tradiotn of a "problem" of society and therefore cannot reject society completely or live comfortably outside of it. His philosophy, his doctrine and dogma, are pointless, because by trying to break his idea of the mold he is merely fitting himself to another: that of the marginal character. I think the title of the book says it all: The Immoralist, not Michel. He has become an archetype and is no longer a person, but an example of what is "bad." Is this not like Jesus, the Christian archetype of what is "good"? Marceline's death may be seen as Michel's final effort to kill that "good" inside him.

Okay, so to wrap things up: Michel's modern quest for individuality versus Odysseus's traditional values of goodness. Neither is a relativist. While Odysseus is a part of a large and predominant faith, Michel scorns faith. His quest for individuality is modern, but it is not relativist because he most certainly judges those who do not feel like him. He does not allow other people to have the comfort of their own beliefs but ridicules them for their blindness and "comfortable happiness." In this way, both characters judge, Odysseus with the bow, and Michel with scorn. So, at this late date I can barely remember what my point was, just that I was thinking about Whitney's contemplation of goodness and thought I would throw in my own contemplations. I can honestly say that I mostly despise Michel (I have some pity for him, though it is very little), and I admire Odysseus. However, I also despise the cookie-cutter and molds as Michel does, I just choose to see rebellion in a different light. For me, rebellion does not mean falling in with criminals and despising people for their goodness. Rebellion means adapting those old and powerful traditions to modern times. How can I be hospitable, or pious, or just plain good in 2008? Now I've gotten myself all tangled up because I wrote "For me" which is a very relativist beginning to a sentence! Oh well, I'm done for tonight. I've spent way too long on this and need to get to homework. I will be surprised if anybody reads this through.

 I have to say I was thrilled that she was processing a lot of the various issues surrounding Michel's development.  He is frustrating.  So I replied the following:

This book is indeed infuriating, and I think you strike the right note when you touch on the book's title.  He's not amoral, which would imply someone who is simply contrary to a certain moral framework, a binary framework.  Rather, he chooses "immoral," which is somehow slightly different and perhaps "less moral" because it posits the idea that perhaps there exist no morals at all, only conventions, politeness, social graces--all of which in his eyes become increasingly empty.  Ménalque (and perhaps Moktir, though we can only guess at what his philosophy of life may be), are iconic in the novel, but are they solutions to the problem?  I guess the questions this raises for me are the following: does Michel become Ménalque, or is something stopping him--a wariness perhaps that by trying to break out of the mold, he is, as you point out, "merely fitting himself to another: that of the marginal character"?  Is this why, in spite of his self-centered outlook, he still has a need to at least tell himself that he is dedicated to his wife?  Is this why he is stuck in Biskra and can't leave? I don't know the answer, but, again, I think you are on the right track when you say "he rejects what is perceived as 'moral' because he wants to be an individual."

His problem is a problem of becoming.  To become who he really is he cannot follow the typical pathways offered by society.  He is marginalized by definition, so then, how can he become a full-fledged person when rules and conventions already define and constrain him? (Of course, his striving for a total accomplishment of self is really that of all of us, but it is all the more pronounced given his "extreme" difference from others.)  Sloughing off the shackles of convention does not necessarily mean a total rejection of everything, though, and, on some level it is an immature and childish dream to think that one can accomplish such a feat.   But Michel, so focused on himself, on figuring out who he is, is not unlike a child. 

Can one totally reject language and still communicate?  Can one reject all morals and still be human since humanity is in part defined by the artifices of culture and relationships?  No, this is the price we pay to be social beings.  As a novelist and a homosexual, I think Gide was acutely aware of this.  He knew that "originality" was an impossible pipedream, that original novels like original individuals were, at best, only occasionally so, not intrinsically so.  As the author references the Bible, ancient history, etc., his is entering into a dialectic with them--defining himself, but with seeds planted long ago by others.  I think he recognizes himself as a torch-carrier rather than a "pure" creator.

The other part of the equation, of course, is not whether Michel has a problem, but whether in fact society does.  Are Michel and Marcelline not both victims of an "arbitrary" sickness as they are of "arbitrary" social conventions that put them in this relationship without really knowing why?  (I'm not trying to excuse Michel, but one does have to recognize his difficulty of becoming fully human in a society which defines him as grotesque and therefore, to some degree, forces his hand in pushing him away.)  Here, to me, is where colonialism offers some possible insights.  Outside of France, Michel can just "be" without restraints, but he can't just "be" because he is cut off, seperated, without the social ties that make him fully who he is.  He is caught.  Likewise, these colonial subjects are caught in a power trap as well, as they find themselves marginalized, objectified and imprisoned by a dominant system (culturally, in the French eyes, and militarily).  One can try to avoid the system, to live outside of it, or, more poetically, beyond it, yet it always comes back to define the potential escapee.  The "desert" is mere refuge, a mirage, not a permanent home, and I'm sure you get my reference here.

So it seems that Gide is exposing a problem where all the solutions are imperfect.  On the one hand, these problems are very real and regard the oppression of minorities and the very deep repression that those minorities develop.  On the other is the problem of the social individual, especially the Westerner, the Artist, who is locked in a battle to fulfill his/her true Self, to be unlike any other before.  The latter is futile, vain in both senses of the word, which is why the constant act of becoming and reinventing of the self and the retelling of stories become so important to us, why the process can eventually surpass the product.

Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts.  I really appreciate the time you spent thinking about this difficult novel and I think you have some really important insights....

And so ended my email.  Isn't it exciting when students are engaged!

Anyway, I have now written far too much and must, like my student, "go do my homework."

Recommended reading: The Immoralist and The Counterfeiters (Les Faux-Monnayeurs).

Oops, We Forgot the Missiles

French Soldiers came under fire in Afghanistan and left without taking their anti-tank missiles.   They are reassuring themselves that the missiles are hard to use and require training.

Une unité française a été "cernée par des tireurs [et] il fallait faire reculer ce groupe", "un poste de tir et deux missiles n'ont pas pu être récupérés" lors du désengagement des militaires français, a indiqué le capitaine de vaisseau Christophe Prazuck, porte-parole de l'état-major des armées à Paris, interrogé par ces chaînes. Le porte-parole a reconnu que de tels missiles pouvaient "être efficaces contre des postes avancés" tout en assurant que "pour autant ce n'est pas une arme très facile d'emploi, elle nécessite une formation, elle nécessite un entretien".

Clichy Sous Bois

Very cool.  You can see a fictionalized account of the riots in France a couple of years ago which started with the electrocution of Bouna and Ziad.

Reconstitution de la mort de Ziad et Bouna 1/4 Larabe-Strait
by Nhomme-Beur-One

I'm always pleased to see France leading the way again--well, not always. Case in point: this amusing list of insults. What can a French professor do? I could get mad, but instead I will just laugh and fight this battle elsewhere. Luckily for France, I think the term "blogger" is close to becoming the single most potent insult in the English language. While that does not help me, it will help France, and for that I am happy, for few other "peoples" get insulted as much, especially by those ninny-hammers on Capitol Hill.

Here's the list:

1. FRENCHIFY (v)

Definition: 1) To make French in quality or trait 2) To make somewhat effeminate, and 3) To contract a veneral disease (a 19th century slang).

Analysis: We have the English to thank for this word. Most people implicitly understand that it means to become more like the French, but not a lot know the second or the third meaning. We’re still not sure which is more insulting.

2. BESCUMBER (v)

Definition: To spray with poo.

Analysis: Actually bescumber is just one of many words in the English language that basically mean “to spray with poo”. These are: BEDUNG, BERAY, IMMERD, SHARNY, and the good ol’ SHITTEN. In special cases, you can use BEMUTE (specifically means to drop poo on someone from great height), SHARD-BORN (born in dung), and FIMICOLOUS (living and growing on crap).

Alternative: If that is too vulgar, you can use BEVOMIT and BEPISS, which meanings should be obvious to you, as well as BESPAWL (to spit on).

Oh, and if you want to say poo without looking like you're saying it, you can use ORDURE, DEJECTION, and EXCRETA. To mean something more specific, you can use MECONIUM (first feces of a newborn child), MELAENA or MELENA (the abnormally tarry feces containing blood from gastrointestinal bleeding), LIENTERY (diarrhea with undigested or partially digested food), and STEATORRHEA (fatty stool that's hard to flush down).

Here are some words along the same line that may one day prove to be useful for you: TURDIFY (turn into turd), COPROPHAGIA (eating of feces [wiki]), and COPROPHILIA (Think 2 Girls 1 Cup [wiki - don't worry, SWF], if you don't know what this is, I shan't corrupt you any further).

Let's end entry number two with these two amazing words COPREMESIS and MISERERE, both of which mean fecal vomiting. Yes, fecal vomiting. It's a medical emergency caused by the obstruction of the bowel (source).

3. MICROPHALLUS (n)

Definition: An unusually small penis.

Analysis: Self explanatory.

Alternative: Insulting a man’s private part is a very reliable way to put him down (if he’s smaller than you) or to get beat up (if he’s larger than you). Usually, even a dimwit can decipher the meaning of this word, after all, it’s just a combination of “micro” and “phallus”.

So, to insult a physically larger opponent, we recommend you use these words instead: PHALLOCRYPSIS (retraction or shrinkage of the penis), CRYPTORCHID (undescendend testicles), and PHALLONCUS (tumor of the penis).

4. COCCYDYNIA (n)

Definition: Pain in the butt.

Analysis: It's a real medical term: coccydynia is pain in the coccyx or tailbone. Most people simply call it "buttache."

Similar: PROCTALGIA, PROCTODYNIA, PYGALGIA and RECTALGIA all mean pain in the butt.

Alternative: CERVICALGIA (pain in the neck), PHALLODYNIA or PHALLALGIA (both mean pain in the penis), and PUDENDAGRA (pain in the genitals).

The word "butt" is highly versatile in its vernacular use - you can say "butt face" or "hairy butt" - dem are fightin' words - but it's much better to use these instead: ANKYLOPROCTIA (stricture of the anus, the state of "tight-assity"), STEATOPYGOUS (fat-assed), DASYPYGAL (having hairy buttocks), and CACOPYGIAN (having ugly buttocks).

nbsp;

5. NINNYHAMMER (n)

Definition: A fool or a silly person.
Analysis: The word "fool," unless you're Mr. T, is sometimes woefully inadequate to express the stupidity of the person you're talking about. So use Ninnyhammer. Or at least NINNY.

Alternative: The English language is chockful of colorful words meaning stupid person, such as: DUMMKOPF, IGNORAMUS, JOBBERNOWL, GOWK, and WITLING.

For mental retardation, eschew the ubiquitous 'tard - rather, use AMENTIA (extreme mental retardation because of inadequate brain tissue), CRETINISM (mental retardation associated with dwarfism, caused by the deficiency of a thyroid hormone, a person with cretinism is a CRETIN), and MORONITY (used to mean mild retardation of having a mental age of 7 to 12 years, now it's an obsolete term though we still use the word moron).

There's more!

Le Pen: Gas Chambers are a "detail"

Ah, fascists:

Selon Jean-Marie Le Pen, les chambres à gaz sont décidément bien "un détail de l'histoire de la Seconde guerre mondiale". Revenant dans le mensuel Bretons du mois de mai, sur sa déclaration faite le 13 septembre 1987 au grand Jury RTL-Le Monde qui lui a valu d'être condamné à 1,2 millions de francs (183 200 euros) d'amende, le président du Front national lance : "J'aurais parlé, même de très loin, du génocide vendéen, personne n'aurait été choqué. J'ai dit que les chambres à gaz étaient un détail de l'histoire de la seconde guerre mondiale : ça me paraît tellement évident. Si ce n'est pas un détail, c'est l'ensemble. C'est toute la guerre mondiale alors."

Aux journalistes, Didier Le Corre, rédacteur en chef, et Tugdual Denis qui lui rappellent "le processus : déporter des gens, les amener dans des camps juste pour les faire tuer", Jean-Marie Le Pen répond : "Mais, ça, c'est parce que vous croyez à ça. Je ne me sens pas obligé d'adhérer à cette vision-là. Je constate qu'à Auschwitz il y avait l'usine IG Farben, qu'il y avait 80 000 ouvriers qui y travaillaient. A ma connaissance ceux-là n'ont pas été gazés en tout cas. Ni brûlés.

On semicolons

If you really want to hurt your parents, and you don't have the nerve to be a homosexual, the least you can do is go into the arts. But do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites, standing for absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.
Kurt Vonnegut

An interdisciplinary course

I am offering, along with a professor in history, a new "pair." We're asking students to be enrolled in both of the courses, which will be conducted, in some ways, as a single course.

Here's the flyer:


I won't deny that I "stole" the picture of the CRS officer with the baton from an advertisement for a large supermarket chain. (Of course, they stole it from a Mai 68 protest poster.)

The irony is the the supermarket is asking you to fight for your right to maintain your purchasing power, which is, of course, their right to have cheap imports. I won't even begin to go into all the contradictions this involves, especially since seizing on rebellious energy is something corporations do regularly and well.

Anyway, I can't wait to start this class. We're talking about the reading list now and reading new stuff at this point of the semester feels so refreshing.

Economics 101: Le Monde Diplomatique

Brought to you by the folks at Le Monde diplomatique:

In theory, the United States is all for free trade and is the leading advocate of the system. But, faced with a recession and a colossal trade deficit, it is reconsidering, as everyone knew it would. The US military contract for 79 refuelling tankers, co-produced by European Aeronautic Defence and Space (EADS) at a cost of $35bn, is no exception. US national interests are well protected. This “European” aircraft will be equipped with General Electric engines, produced in partnership with the US company Northrop Grumman and assembled in Alabama. More than half the added value will be generated in the US. Much of the equipment on offer from the main competitor, Boeing – less readily available, with a more limited refuelling capability and range – would not have been produced in the US.

Editorials in newspapers and the business press assure us that it is wrong to take strong measures to protect national companies and their employees. But history shows that most developed countries owe their prominent positions to trade barriers. Britain, France, Korea, Japan and Prussia did not acquire their industrial power by obeying David Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage. And in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the US had the highest growth rate in the world, its customs tariffs were around 50% (44% in 1913). President Ronald Reagan inveighed against protectionism but set limits on imports of cars, steel, sugar and textiles. His administration increased duties on cars with big engines (by a factor of 11) and on motorcycles, to rescue Harley-Davidson. And it pressured Japan to revalue its currency, just as President George Bush is asking China to do now (1).

The monetary policy pursued by the Federal Reserve with the tacit approval of the White House, although not openly protectionist, has obvious implications for trade. A weak dollar is good for exports and will reduce the impact of the current recession in the US. The European Union is almost alone in calmly allowing central bank policy on interest rates – high interest rates – to threaten major industries established with considerable injections of public money. Groups like EADS are relocating their activities to the dollar zone to escape the dire effects of revaluing the euro (2).

The deal with the Pentagon also has political and strategic implications. What price did Europe have to pay for the honour of refuelling US aircraft with equipment co-produced in the US because the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates down? When it was announced that the contract had been awarded to EADS, Democratic congressman John Murtha complained that the Europeans were not pulling their weight in Afghanistan. By coincidence, President Nicolas Sarkozy is about to send 1,000 more French troops there. Celebrating his new diplomatic entente with Washington, Sarkozy said: “It would have been unthinkable for EADS to win the contract for refuelling tankers in the previous climate of tension between France and the US” (3). Enough said. The Pentagon decision is a superlative lesson in free trade.

Racisme, SOS.

A bloody pigs head, swastikas, a dead (Muslim) soldier. A sad day.

On a trouvé la tête ensanglantée d’un porc sur une tombe. Et sur la stèle de pierre blanche, recouvrant le nom du soldat Younès Ben Mohamed et l’inscription «mort pour la France le 16 janvier 1916», le mot «HALAL» (sic). Quand les journalistes, les anciens combattants et les représentants musulmans sont arrivés sur les lieux, il restait une tache de sang de l’animal sur la stèle. Une croix gammée, pas loin. Entre autres, un profanateur a inscrit une injure à l’islam, qu’il a traduite en chti sur les stèles suivantes.

If you're wondering what chti is, it's the local dialect in Picardy. Read about it on wikipedia.

Vigi-pirate, vigilance, fear

Is any context necessary to explain the following?

The introduction of Plan Vigipirate (1) in France imprinted the equation “vigilance = security” on the national consciousness and made it everybody’s business. The government information service says that “Vigipirate calls upon all French men and women, whatever their occupation or level of responsibility, to participate in this state of vigilance that allows us to make an effective collective response to the threat of terrorist acts” (2).

Since a terrorist threat can come from anywhere – from where it is least expected – vigilance is a state of mind with no specific object. It bears upon everything. Whereas surveillance requires a specific object (a prisoner, a student, a warehouse, a rogue state) at a specific place and time, vigilance is a state of continual attention diluted through space. Vigilance only persists while the threat remains indeterminate, vague and abstract. We must remain vigilant, all the time, day and night.

“Plan Vigipirate allows all us to remain vigilant without unnecessary disruption to administrative and economic activity, or social norms” (3). While surveillance is an activity, with a beginning and an end, vigilance is a permanent state that creates a new relationship between the individual and the world. Even if the exact nature of the threat is unknown, its existence is certain and it is, at any moment, imminent. Every object, every person, every micro-event could be part of or a precursor to this vague threat. (Link)

Vigilant societies are distrustful and suspicious, and their members are simultaneously on the look-out and terrorists. Obsessed by a threat that never actually materialises, people will settle for the nearest suspect if they can’t find a plausible one.

If drinking, fat food and sex don't kill you...

then what does? The answer here:

French Elections

The Conseil Constitutionnel has finished and the official nominees are out. You can read all about them here:

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/3/19/12453/9251
http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002927.html#more

And, of course, in any French newspaper (http://www.lemonde.fr, http://libe.fr)

And for your viewing pleasure, the sad state of affairs at the PS. This is unfortunate, but so is their centrism à la Clinton.



If anybody is wondering, je déteste Sarkozy autant (presque) que je déteste Bush.

Wanker of the month

Dan Goure:

Listen to him here.

This is one of the most misleading opinions I have heard on NPR, and reminds me why N(Nice) P (Polite) R(Republicans) is a network to be deeply discounted. It is why I wrote them an email (which I am posting here in modified and lengthened format in the form of this blog entry).

Goure's overt opinion--that audacity almost always trumps caution--is a red herring which hides subtler and more troubling accusations. Goure praises Bush for invading Afghanistan, and then for invading Iraq despite the lack of international consensus. Goure also lauds Rumsfeld, for insisting, "audaciously," that the war in Iraq could be won with fewer soldiers and weapons than many experienced members of the military believed. Most surprisingly, Goure states that the U.S. invaded Iraq and won.

Really, now, that is silly. If we had won the war, congress would have actually spent the 20 million it allocated for a victory celbration in 2006. If we had won the war, the Whitehouse would not have doctored the famous "Mission Accomplished" speech so as to eliminate the banner saying...well, "Mission Accomplished."

So, how does Mr. Goure accomplish his mission? He uses half-truths worthy of the "I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-young-lady" kind.

Could it be said that we won the war in Iraq? Yes, if you think the war lasted three weeks. Was Rumsfeld right? Yes, but again only if you limit his responsibility to a few weeks or months. I mean, where is Ken Starr when you need him?

But to engage Mr Goure on these points is a waste of time. The real question here is why is Goure bring this up now? Well, with a Middle East in turmoil, with increasing gas prices, with nuclear weapons in North Korea, with larger and larger swaths of Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban, with Iraq on the verge of all out civil war, someone is going to bear the blame. Mr. Goure's goals become clear at this point: shift the blame. Instead of telling the truth, say instead that America is losing in Iraq because we are not audacious enough. Instead of facing up to a failed foreign policy, say that Bush, Rumsfled, Cheney are bold and "fearless" leaders and that if only the American people and Democrats had the stomach, we could win this thing.

Stop there. Blame anybody but the Bush Administration? Hell no. They are the sole criminals in a criminal war. Moreover....


America and Americans have shown themselves to be tough, valorous and willing to stomach the realities of war time and again. And, indeed, many soldiers have died in this current conflict. But the realities of war are different from real war, and only a real war should justify those realities. A real war is faught for reasons of necessity and dire need, not because of supposed WMDs or non-existent terrorists. A real war comes after an attack, not a pre-emptive strike. A real war is not a choice, but a necessary reaction to imminent and possibly overwhelming danger from a credible adversary. Americans know this is not a real war, and they had the audacity to kick out as many Bush enablers as possible.

That is the reality of a democracy, even one in its current condition.

So, Mr. Goure, please stop telling Americans that it is their fault if we lose this war. The Bush administration stage-managed this bloody intervention from the very beginning and is responsible for a mountain of failures costing countless lives. Moreover, the Bush administration used fear to sell their program from the very beginning--and Americans stood up to it. Vive la démocratie. [end of email to NPR]

Of course, Goure is from the Lexington Institute, a conservative thinktank. I suppose that gives him some credibility in the mainstream media, but it does little to persuade me, especially when he spouts inane falsehoods in order to spread propaganda, not "deep thought."

Ugh.

When I did a little more research on Monsieur Gouré, I came upon this little gem of an article, from which I will quote:

What France really wants
A medium-sized power with super-sized ambitions

WASHINGTON, March 13 - Sigmund Freud is reported to have once exclaimed in sheer exasperation, “What do women want?” The same question can be asked today about France. [...]

Ok--I get it: France is a little girl! That's funny! And women are second-class citizens and therefore should be discounted. I mean, how dare they be uppity? Monsieur is clearly establishing himself as one of the deeper thinkers, isn't he? What else does he say?

[...] Jacques Chirac not only opposes any effort to declare Iraq delinquent according to 1441, it has organized the opposition to U.S. efforts to bring the current crisis to a definitive conclusion. Paris has lobbied the non-permanent members of the Security Council against the Anglo-American second resolution. It even has declared its willingness to veto that resolution if it achieved the nine votes necessary for passage. France also sought to block NATO assistance to one of its own members, Turkey, forcing the other members of that organization to neutralize France’s obstructionism by moving to an alternate venue. And on Thursday, the French rejected the new British effort at compromise, beating even Iraq to the punch.

WHAT’S GOING ON?

It is entirely too easy to ascribe to the French actions motives such as great power envy, an excess of Gallic pride or revenge against an American administration that France feels has paid insufficient attention to French interests. Yes, it is true that Washington and Paris differ on a number of issues, some serious, such as global warming, missile defense, genetically modified agricultural products and the humor of Jerry Lewis...

Though Freud has been largely discreted by all but a few psychologists, Goure invokes him as a reference to his deep thoughts. Power envy=penis envy, France=disgruntled woman, the French are snobs and when they do like Americna culture, it's Jerry Lewis. Clearly they are deranged and should be ignored.

My point here is not to go through every disengenuous argument Goure makes. Indeed, that is the trap he is setting. He want's us to get bogged down in his interpretation of details.

Don't do it.

Rather, understand Goure for what he his. A shill that wants to shape the argument of a "real-man," real-politik agenda in spite of overwhelming evidence that this has failed.

He's a shill that wants to blame others for his (and the administration he loves) agenda.


He's a darling of our media. He's an...

Yes, he's an...

asshole.


Did I mention that he misquoted the Jim Webb-George Bush incident?... Go listen.

Cafferty puts Blacks in their place...

I hope everyone caught the Situation Room yesterday. Cafferty really let into Black people.

Let's go to New York, Jack Cafferty with the Cafferty File.

CAFFERTY: NAACP president Bruce Gordon says that despite his objections to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, he would listen to calls for help from Washington. The question we asked is how can African Americans help the United States end the war in Iraq?

Richard, "Blacks could confront the administration with the need to face reality and confront them and confront them and confront them. It may not make an impact on the Alice-In-Wonderland leaders of our government, but it would be nice to see some backbone, some consistent standing up to them, unlike most of our Congress.

Ger in Seaside, California, "They can't. This is our problem. I don't see how they can do anything but make it worse for themselves and I'm sure Black people will let their government know that they disprove of the idea." Paul writes, "Every warm body in the trench will help stabilize the situation. This is a good opportunity for George Bush to end the era of unilateralism and cowboy diplomacy. He should ask for and accept the assistance. Every non-U.S. soldier over there decreases the odds of our family members getting killed."

Eric in Chicago, "No thanks NAACP. We must look at this from their perspective. What's their incentive? Obviously it's more than just a peaceful world as they have passed on promoting peace on multiple occasions. Blacks being such a self-serving people, maybe we should dig a bit deeper before we decide to accept the offer."

James in Fresno writes my favorite, "What say we send a few busloads of Blacks to Baghdad? I can't think of a better way to help the Iraqis realize that there are indeed things less tolerable than the presence of American troops."

And John in Madison, Wisconsin, "It's about time. Blacks could teach al Qaeda how to surrender.:

If you didn't see your e-mail here you can go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile and read more of these online, Wolf.

BLITZER: See you in New York tomorrow, Jack. Thanks very much, Jack Cafferty. Let's find out what's coming up at the top of the top of the hour. Paula's standing by. Hi Paula.

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi Wolf, Jack didn't enjoy those last two e-mails at all, did he?

BLITZER: No, not at all.

ZAHN: His laughter said it all. Thank you...

If Cafferty says it, it must be true, right? I mean he's a straight-shooter, an everyman, and an insightful journalist who can cut through the newspeak.

I should mention that I adapted the above transcript and replaced the word "France" with "NAACP" and French with "Black." Sorry, Jack, it was just so easy to do, sort of like your form of commentary.

French Racists and the 10 Condiments!

Note: This is an essay covering topics of geopolitical import. Please read it carefully, for it explains in intricate detail how, starting with the Bryant Gumble Revolution, America overcame its demons. Because of a poll that was recently conducted, the essay begins with France, a country that has failed miserably because it lacks the ability to act upon its introspection. This leads the essay to a thoughtful examination of the crucial period of the early 80's. I then develop and conclude with a significant insight into what historians will call the Condi Rice Era.

The essayist apologizes for following the strict structure of the essay form. (Essay comes from the French word "essai," which can be loosely translated as "trial," "attempt" or "experiment." And this essay is just that. It is a trial, an attempt at understanding the present and predicting the future. So, dear Reader, your patience is appreciated, as is your open mind.)


Part I: The French Problem
I was shocked to find out today that French people are racists. And this news doesn’t come from a Bush administration official, PNAC or the Wall Street Journal, but from the French themselves. Indeed, a recent poll indicated that 30% (or something like that) of the population (of that former Roman territory) considers itself racist.

You know, while living there, I kind of suspected this. There were the tell-tale signs: I saw mostly white folks stores like the Bon Marché, yet there were just a few chez Tati. I also noticed that even in France's capital city there are poor, non-white people living in sub-standard conditions. (Now, to be fair, they do provide the poor with health care and numerous childcare options, but that doesn’t make things alright with me. I don't care how much you help people--it's the thought that counts. So, even if French people are helping poor African immigrants, it doesn't matter because their heart is in the wrong place, as the survey says.)

Part 2: A New Age Dawns
Television news has always been a progressive reflection of society, so a lot can be learned looking at how France and America® do things. For example, when I was in France, another thing I noticed was that French TV hosts are almost always white. That’s a problem because TV hosts can and do change the world. Luckily for us, America solved its racism problems a long time ago. This was known as the Bryant Gumble Revolution. This was when all Americans quit being racist because we finally understood that people with colored skin were not always like Richard Pryor or Malcolm X. Rather, they were just like us! Since then, we've had people like Barack Obama. He transcends race, as do most people who don't talk about it much.

But let's leave Barack aside a moment, for I do believe we are at a crossroads: America (and the world) are currently in what serious historians will probably call the Condi Rice era. It is an age of glory, truth and justice for all creeds and colors. History is over and race is an afterthought. What proof do I have of this? Well, though we are still awaiting the arrival of the Ten Condiments, we do still know that the present era represents a profound change. How profound? Well, for the first time, the Senate heard a black woman’s testimony without challenging her veracity.

Getting back to France and the poll that shows they are racist... I think this poll represents an important step in American journalism: the AP did, for once, report what a French person thinks rather than what an American person thinks a French person thinks. Really, this is important, so I checked with my contacts at CJR, FAIR and Media Matters and they agree. (Does that make me a reporter now, like Ben Domenech, and not just a blogger? Gosh, I hope so!)

This new pollalso really just confirms what those car burnings were all about. Now, you think I’m going to say "because racism exists in France, that ’s why those disaffected youth took to the street to protest that (as well as the sinister forms of institutional racism that frame their lives.)" Well, this time you’re right. Racism--and class difference--exist in France, that ’s why those disaffected youth took to the street to protest. What do you expect, France is still socialist and now the people are revolting against the sinister forms of institutional racism that frame their lives. Luckily, in America, we no longer have to worry about government repression because neoliberalism and capitalism have brought us all the freedoms we need.

You may also remember that last weekend one million (1,000,000) French youth marched peacefully to protest a new law that allows employers to fire young people pretty much at will. While the car fires showed how disorderly French youth could be, this protest shows how spoiled and utopian the French are. Fighting for your rights is so passé, and now it may get you fired! (“You’re fired!” That’s so classic!)

Part 3: Confronting Our Demons
Now, you’re thinking: “what about Katrina?” I’m here to report that there was, kind of like for Karballah and Fallujah, a lot--a lot!--of false reporting. For example, all those reports about violence in the SuperDome, they were false. Really--even Voice of America says so! Those people, mostly African American it appeared to me, were not as disorderly and violent as it might have seemed. It was just an impression, thank goodness, and that really reminds me of why the Bryant Gumble Revolution was so important to our country and why Condi Rice is proof of the absence of racism in America. It’s all very logical if you think about it and that is why the 10 Condiments (whenever they come and whatever they say) will be so very revolutionary.

In conclusion, I think I understand why the French are racist and, more importantly for today’s news, why they consider themselves such. France has prosecuted numerous territorial, imperialistic wars. Think Napoleon, South-East Asia, North Africa, West Africa, Canada, and a dastardly (and successful) pre-emptive strike on Wallis and Futuna. This did not just come from the blue (or should I say Le Grand Bleu), but from a deep-seated belief that they were not just equal to, but better. The Best. The Best. They have HUGE egos.

Now me, I'm a huge--HUGE!--Lee Greenwood fan (I own “God Bless the USA/Proud to be an American”--I even have the American Idol version of the song that came out after, well, you know). Anyway, I think that Lee and I agree that there is a difference between pride and thinking you’re the best. I really don’t think he is trying to say America is “The Greatest.” He’s just saying we’re great, really great, but not necessarily The Greatest.

And that’s why Condi Rice is such an important figure in this essay and, dare I say, in the whole world. She’s now our Secretary of State and has John Bolton (he happens to be white so she’s not racist either) working for her at the United Nations. Since America is a land of equality and opportunity, we will be able to convey those and other ideals (democracy and freedom, for example, and our greatest gift, representative capitalism) to the world. Maybe we can spread a little humility, culture and tolerance for other races too, because, obviously they need it! In fact, I suspect that one or several of the 10 Condiments will focus on this and they will actually replace the UN Charter. Furthermore, they will be written in English Only, and French will no longer be one of the official diplomatic languages, precisely because the French are racist.

Part 4: The Final Countdown
In a final conclusion, I feel compelled to address those critics who say I'm leaving out our own history when I don't mention Native Americans, Latinos, Asians and other people whose skin is not white. My point is that things have changed and that Americans need to have a different mindset. Back in the day, we used to send people of color away. For example, we sent Josephine Baker and James Baldwin to Paris not because they weren't welcom here, but to show how amazing these black folk could be. And though the Liberal Left will say they were fleeing oppression here, that's just not true. They were sent to the even more racist country of France as punishment and show them how life was actually pretty darn good here. This recent poll just proves my point again. Furthermore, if any residual racism lingers here after the pronouncement of the 10 Condiments, it will no doubt dissapear quickly. (My concern is that the Condiments will not appear until the burning Bush. I know that this may be as worrisome to you as to me, but rest assured: anonymous sources tell me that Barbara's hair spontaneously combusted several weeks ago.)

So, in my last conclusion, , I will say, without equivocation, that France is racist and the age of the 10 Condiments lies just around the corner. This will be much better than the Teresa Heinz 57 (so verbose that Kerry clan) or heavy racist French fare such as the Hollandaise 11, the Dijonnaise 24 and Beurre Blanc for Dummies .