Whose Democracy?

An article on how "exporting democracy," the newfound foreign policy goal of George W. Bush, has backfired.

President Bush takes credit for democracy in the Middle East. Maybe he's been the biggest obstacle in the way. Start with Iran. But for our long buildup to the Iraq war, it's Iran that might have been the world's next great democracy...

...Ukraine, by the way, happened without us, though Bush may soon be taking credit for it too. He shouldn't. The "Orange Revolution" owes much more to the soft power of the European Union than the hard power of the U.S. The EU sent in the mediators. While America has the Army, it is really the EU that has been getting the results. At any rate, there'd be no democracy in Ukraine if we had been bombing Belarus.

On the Road to Democracy Without Bush

The Brilliant but Humble Students at Northwestern

I wish we could undo our knowledge that certain types of people exist. Unfortunately, once we learn a small amount about these unfortunate people, we first want to learn even more, the same way we are inclined to reflexively double take when some kind of disgusting sight is in view. It's morbid curiosity. With this in mind, I give you the description posted on the Facebook club of one of Northwestern's fraternities, Delta Tau Delta:

Those guys that you wish you were. All the women want us and all the men want to be us. An elite organization of the most attractive and wealthy men on campus. If you are wondering where all the beautiful girls on campus went, look no further than 2317 sheridan road any night of the week.

Even if there is a level of self-mocking in this description--which is doubtful as this piece comes across as the exact opposite of funny, it represents cockiness and vapidity to an extreme. Thanks Delta Tau Delta for reassuring us that people who have been afforded privilege and wealth can still deem themselves superior through no effort of their own. And your complex understanding of women is moving. It is such people who make me wish I wasn't so inclined to browse the Facebook implicitly looking for things that make me angry. (Does anyone else do this?)

Catching misheard lyrics has become a sport, and tonight I can partake:

Blinded by the light/Wrapped up like a (douche?)/You know they run her in the night.

It's really:

Blinded by the light/revved up like a deuce/another runner in the night

(though a "ch" sound at the end of deuce is so pronounced)

Triplets of Belleville as Metaphor for Franco-American Relations?

I viewed the 2003 French animated film The Triplets of Belleville (Les Triplettes de Belleville) a few weeks ago, and I observed themes that I didn't focus on as much during my first viewing of the film, when I was primarily captivated with the animators' use of caricature.

During the second viewing however, I took more note of the meaning behind the exaggeration: the uninvited development in the French countryside where main character Madame Souza and her biker son live, the enormous skyscrapers of Belleville and the gargantuan stomachs of its citizens as metaphors of the excesses of America, and the symbolism of French bikers being held in captivity and forced to "entertain" American business and mob men. Is this film a critique of an uninvited American influence on France?

I looked on the Internet Movie Database to see if anyone had any similar interpretations. One man interpreted the film as a critique of how American media is run, with the three kidnapped bikers representative of the way in which American business holds hostage the big three television networks. Someone else saw the cavernous Belleville as an amalgamation of New York, Montreal, and Paris, which could represent ironically the idea of New York as headquarters of a supposed "international community."

Although the brilliance of the animation in Triplets of Belleville must be acknowledged, especially since the use of exaggeration serves to communicate significances to the audience in lieu of actual dialogue, I think the animation technique has been isolated as the main appeal of the film to the detriment of the complex themes about Franco-American relations that Triplets offers up.

Type II Diabetes Alert: Exaggeratedly obese citizens of Belleville.

As a viewer, and more specifically a viewer who has thought a lot about Franco-American relations, I am clearly approaching the film with a certain set of experiences that work to construct themes relevant to me, as every viewer does. Still, I find Triplets of Belleville will endure as a quality piece of film because its themes are subtly imparted but deeply understood.
France

On this day of Thermidor...: Revisiting the French Revolution

One lesser-remembered event of the French Revolution was the coup of Thermidor, when Jacobins overthrew Robespierre and his reign of terror and overthrew the traditional Christian calendar (the calendar we know today) as well.




This reordering of time was metric in nature: days would consist of ten hours of a hundred minutes of a hundred seconds. A month was to consist of three sets of ten days, with one day of rest at the end of a set of nine days. The dearth of days of rest made the reform unpopular and sadly, drew attention away from the brilliance and awesomeness of the renaming of the months of the year. The new names were the following:

1.	Vendémiaire	7.	Germinal
2.	Brumaire	8.	Floréal
3.	Frimaire	9.	Prairial
4.	Nivôse	10.	Messidor
5.	Pluviôse	11.	Thermidor
6.	Ventôse	12.	Fructidor

According to a site that explains this system in valuable depth,
The poets contributed the name of the days, choosing the names of plants, domestic animals and tools; the months rhyme three by three, according to the "sonority" of the seasons.

Now first, we can certainly acknowledge that were some mistakes made in how the French Revolution was carried out, as worthy a cause as it was. The Jacobin calendar, however, was not one of them. I mean for the love of god, my birthday would be in the month of Germinal (I think? I believe one can figure out how to convert the months between Jacobin and Christian by associating Thermidor with July and going from there); how cool is that? Lucky people born in or around July would be born in Thermidore. And how about people born in Nivôse (December)? Which of those two possiblities sounds better? I think the answer is pretty clear.

Pushing for a Jacobin calendar won't be easy. Many religious Christians are bound to challenge it, as is represented by this comment, posted in what appears to be a web forum for smug, religious types:
The idea was to stamp out anything felt to be “superstitious,” which took in anything remotely religious. Consequently, Nov. 21-Dec. 20 was renamed “Frimaire,” “month of frost or sleet,” and March 21-April 19 called “Germinal,” meaning “month of seeds.”
We all know where the noble ideals of the early French revolution–"Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite"–led: to the guillotining of Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI, along with thousands of other political “undesirables” during the “Reign of Terror” of 1794-95. A little historical lesson of what can happen all too easily when religion is sneered at and stamped out in the name of “progress.”

Still, I'm willing to sacrifice popularity to achieve a world of metrics and months with names the like of Floréal.


France
French Revolution
Religion

Selectively 'Pro-Life'; Totally pro-Obtrusiveness

Regarding the Terry Schiavo case, the Republican Party has gone and done what they do best: exploit a sad situation for their political gain. The party's involvement in the case violates their own supposed principles of federalism in undercutting the rulings of Florida judges (not the first time this has happened).

It would take a self-deluding Republican loyalist to believe that the Republican party has the best of intentions in interfering between Schiavo's family. Indeed, a memo circulating among Republicans reveals that getting involved with the Schiavo case is a chance to send a symbolic acknowledgement to their "pro-life" base as well as distract from media focus on House Majority Leader Tom Delay's ethics violations. [In my opinion, there is no reason why DeLay's ethics violations shouldn't be on the front page along with the Schivao stories. As usual, the media fails to investigate Republican scandals the way it does with Democrats.] Anyhow, according to a memo circulating among Republicans about getting involved in the Schiavo case, "The pro-life base will be excited...this is a great political issue...this is a tough issue for Democrats."[2] This story also takes the heat off Tom DeLay, who is facing a number of serious ethics charges and legal scandals.[3]

So let's not even engage the Republican party in debate about pro-life, because we know they're not truly pro-life. After all, a person who supports sending young men and women off to die in a war that was nowhere near a last resort to responding to Iraq, that support cutting health and self-improvement programs for men, women, and children who live in poverty like Medicare and Headstart, this is not a person who truly values life; this is a person who disingenuously advocates for life, usually with the intention of preventing rights of certain people (especially women!).

So, to the Democratic Party, call a spade a spade and demand that the Republicans in Congress and the White House get back to working on what we're paying them to do, which is manage the budget and defend our country. Come to think of it, they're not doing such a good job of that either! Damn! Just tell them to take a vacation and let the Democrats do the real work of this country.

For a good opinion article about the true intentions of the GOP, read this, and also note Bill Frist's plan run for President in 2008.

Schiavo
Politics

Paris on the Potomac

Very briefly, I will mention that D.C. is putting on a citywide program called "Paris on the Potomac," spotlighting the French influences on the District. Since French architect and city planner Pierre L'enfant had a similarly strong influence on D.C. as Baron Haussman had in that role on the city of Paris, D.C. has a lot of structural similarities to Paris--big boulevards and roundabouts and a lovely mall.

The wonderful main art museum, the National Gallery, is having several exhibits on French painters in honor of Paris on the Potomac. In the modern East Wing, one gallery exhibits the Fauve artists, artists who used lots of bright color in unlikely places, with a lot of Henri Matisse paintings (one of my favorites!). Another exhibit features small French paintings of different movements from the mid to late 19th Century.

Open Window, Collioure, 1905
A Fauvist Matisse piece at the National Gallery

The other exhibit I made it to was one that opened Sunday called "Toulouse-Lautrec in Montmartre" an exploration of the painting, influences, neighborhood, and friends of the great French painter Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. The exhibit is organized pretty well, with Lautrec's subjects grouped together under a general chronological continuity. Particularly interesting is Lautrec's interest in portraying the loneliness of individuals in group situations, a great paradox of urban life. He has a particular empathy for the prostitutes of Montmartre who he portrays a lot, and his famous advertisements for cabaret acts that have come back in vogue today are on display too.

So glad the great city of D.C. is spotlighting the great city of Paris! I only wish I could be here for the Cherry Blossoms!

Waiting in Line for SupremeCourt Land

This week I have the pleasure of visiting the nation's capital and my many relatives who live in the area. Since I am currently enjoying a brief respite at my aunt's house from an otherwise busy day, I will write of all that I have done today.

First of all, I reprieved a goal that I tried to accomplish back in early 2001: viewing a full oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court, which I find a great fascination with despite its history of problematic rulings tainted by strong ideological beliefs of certian justices on the court, such as Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railrods, Bush v. Gore.

IRRITATING GIRLS
This goal was not without its obstacles however, the main one being getting to the court early enough and then waiting for a long time to get into arguments. At least I was entertained by the people around me. Two girls standing behind me were especially noticeable, mainly because they laughed obnoxiously loud, with the shorter, stumpier of the two letting out a terrible, unending cackle everytime she laughed, which was probably every. other. word.

Fortunately, the conversation revealed these two to be Repulicans, and contrary to the suppositions of my friend who made comments a couple of entries below accusing my party and not his of being the party of hate, these girls were nothing but hateful towards Democrats. One, who came from New York talked of meeting her two senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton reporting that her "skin was crawling" the whole time. The other commented that Hillary was her "least favorite person in the Senate." Then they took pot shots at Hillary for running for Senator of New York soon after taking up residency there (forget the fact that she was elected by a strong majority of New Yorkers!). They had to quit their criticism when it occured to them that Republican Alan Keyes had done a similar thing in Illinois (and Keyes became a resident of beautiful Illinois well into the campaign, a campaign he sizeably lost!).

They later started predictably directing anger--mocking anger with these two cacklers--towards "trial lawyers." Neither young woman could figure out the proper name--(it's personal injury lawyer) though that didn't stop them from ripping on them for only wanting money (since when did Republicans start getting down on people for making money--only when they support Democatic causes, I guess). One of the women even dismissed arguments she had once been given that anyone can face a devastating personal injury from a product or medical error as too sappy. These girls were Republicans through and through. (I couldn't help but notice that one of the girls mentioned her financial aid from school, which is strange because I thought Republicans didn't like "government handouts." Someone should kindly ask this girl to give back her financial aid).

SAVED BY THE LAW STUDENTS
Fortunately, waiting in front of me were two witty law students with whom I eventually struck up a conversation. They had come down to D.C. from Brooklyn University in New York and were eagerly hoping to get into the second case of the day, a case called Cutter v. Wilkinson which called into question the place of religion in public places (specifically, in prisons). The more talkative of the two, when it looked as if we were not likely to get into the arguments, joked that security should screen to let the people with the most interest in the case get in. At another point, the taller, quieter of the two asked his friend: "You know what would be really satisfying?" Friend's response: "Seeing Cutter argued?" They also joked about a crowd of high school students who were goofing off around the plaza of the Court saying, "These are the future leaders of America." I found out from the more talkative of the two that he had gone to Harvard undergrad with the intention of being a math professor. His advice: take time off after college. He had also gotten a masters in philosophy at Columbia and taught in a New York City public school!

Unfortunately for the two law students and for me, there was not enough space for us in the Court, even though we had waited in line for so long and even though we were pretty close to the front. So my proposal is this: increase seating space..maybe the size of an IMAX theater. Sell popcorn. Then Rehnquist and co. can get the salary increases he asks for every year in his annual report.

PRESS CONFERENCE
At least I got to see a press conference given by both sides of the Cutter case up close and wait around as a lot of lawyers who seemed to know each other mingled. That was an interesting spectacle of rites post-Supreme Court arguments. The nice thing though was that everyone, even the seemingly experienced lawyers, seemed excited to be at the Court.

"Cork+Roids=500"

The title of this blog is taken from a sign I spotted at Wrigley Field about two years ago, after Sammy Sosa was found to have supposedly corked his bat. I remember feeling kind of sorry for Sammy, kind of skeptical too, but mostly just feeling incredibly indifferent to the whole "scandal."

Fast forward about two years to the current steroids hearings that took place yesterday in the U.S. Congress, a subject to which I have also been largely indifferent. In fact, I didn't even hear about the hearings, nor Jose Canseco's controversial book about the subject of steroids in baseball, until today when I was flipping channels while waiting for the child I babysit for to wake up from a nap. The hearings surprisingly drew me in: maybe it was the idea of seeing steroid pumping athletes in suits or maybe it was the dearth of TV options--the only other programs on were soap operas and "Matlock." Either way, I was quickly engaged in the hearings, and especially with observing the visible tension that existed between Jose Canseco (the one who got caught, as I've been told) and the other players on the panel (Mark McGwire, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosal, and Raphael Palmero...Frank Thomas was there on videofeed, but for some reason, only at the beginning) and the variance of answers between Canseco and the rest of the ballplayers.

The most useful comment made by anyone during the hearing came from the U.S. Representative who pointed out that he hopes the Congress investigates other travesties in America that afflict youth, like poverty, and he hopes the American people know that Congress does more than just investigate the salacious news like steroids in Major League Baseball. (I'm guessing this man was a Democrat, since sadly, Republicans seem to have a vendetta for people who find themselves in poverty).

Other key moments:

Most shameless moment: Some Republican Congresswoman from South Florida grandstands by lionizing Raphael Palmero for being such a great role model who "fled an evil, Communist dictatorship" and made a good life in America. That's neither here nor there lady, we're talking about steroids in baseball. Clearly, she wanted to shore up her Cuban-American vote by self-aggrandizing. She didn't even ask a question to the panel.

Best understanding of the real issue: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) implicates a culture of succeeding at any cost for a problem that exists not just in baseball, but in the corporate world, the political world, and so forth. We live in a society of people who want to acquire unimaginable power (why?), make a fast buck, etc. This is a mentality that promotes any means necessary to a greed-filled end, and these are societal values many should reexamine.

Most awesome mustache: Raphael Palmero; kind of a Tom Selleck meets '70s disco look.

Worst hair: Curt Schilling

Most annoying player on the panel: Amazingly, it wasn't Jose Canseco...not even close. Congratulations Curt Schilling, you're It again. With your grandstanding about your Zero Tolerance Committee followed by your unwillingness to be forthright about how much scrutiny it will take to get steroids out of baseball and sports in general. Oh, and that little quip about how only Democrats would be interested in regulating MLB was just toolish. Plus the guy's so huge, he's either a 'roid addict or he lifts weights in his sleep.

Worst name of baseball player's wife: Once again, Curt Schilling wins this since his wife is named Shawnda.

Most bitter: Jose Canseco, but at least he was honest. (Oh, what getting caught will do to a person).

Most likeable panel member: Sammy Sosa...Wow, that was a bad panel if Sosa elicits sympathy!!!

Anyway, back to more important things, like the Jacko trial (kidding).

Why the Republican Party is Despicable

Despicable is not a word that should be thrown around lightly; however, in the case of calling the Republican Party despicable, it is an understatement. The Republican Party is despicable because they constantly displays the worst characteristics known to mankind. Here they are:

• Self-pity| Republican self-pity is one of the most disingenuous exercises there is, and yet, many of them believe that they are truly disadvantaged, they face the most adversity, they are up against a media-government juggernaut. This of course, is incredibly warped.
  
• Lies| Republicans lie, partly to bolster their arguments that claim they do face adversity day in, day out, and partly because they have no moral qualms against lying. Why would one have no moral qualms against lying--say lying about war, about the beneficiaries of tax cuts, about social security policy, etc.?
  
• Greed|Because they are greedy. They even admit they are greedy, that people who have a ton of money deserve it because they must have worked hard for it. (Have they never heard of Paris Hilton? Or George W. Bush, for that matter!) How is it possible to possess all of these terrible qualities and go on living?
  
• Hypocrisy| I'll explain this in its most basic form, because it's a pretty basic brand of hypocrisy.
  
• Republicans control all three branches of the federal government. Why are they whining about the government then? Well, according to them, the federal government overtaxes and overregulates. Why do Republicans rail against the government so, acting as if it is the prime oppressor, although they control it? Because they do not want to pay taxes and have their corporations regulated. They do want the government to arrange contracts for them, and they don't mind attaining a position of power in the government themselves. So basically, they want to take as much as they can from the government without giving anything back. They want the tax dollars of working Americans to go to their contracting schemes and ultimately their wallets. And yet, despite all of this, Republicans are still wallowing in self-pity about being the underdogs.
• Republican views are represented constantly in the media and the president of their party, George W. Bush walks through his job with what amounts to a perpetual get out of jail free card. An administration that has involved private energy company CEOs in policymaking meetings at the White House, that bitterly avenges government officials who have dissented from their party line--going so far as to leak the name of a CIA agent to the press in one point, an administration that lied, yes, it's as simple as that lied about going to war by presenting doctored or patently false intelligence, this administration and its supreme leader, George Bush, receives nary a challenging question from the media. And yet, Republicans whine that the media is liberal because of an old survey that has journalists identifying themselves as Democrats. Even if this holds true today, political reporting has become an exericse among these irresponsible journalists to prove how nonbiased they are by bashing Democrats. Remember Cokie Roberts's anti-Gore streak in the 2000 election? In fact, remember the media's energetic engagement in trying to frame Gore as an exaggerator when he merely mixed up the dates of a few visits he made to fire sites? Remember how at the same time, George W. Bush was exaggerating about his plan to cut taxes and keep a balanced budget? You probably don't, because the media failed to publicize it. And yet Republicans, who not only have the mainstream media on their sides, but tons of blatant right-wing radio and TV outlets as well, still complain. Self-pity at its most despicable.
• The new Social Security "reforms" are a prime example of Republican greed. To publicize this radical abandonment of Social Security, the Republican Party has enlisted all of their minions to disseminate propoganda: from the "local folks" who go to town hall meetings and write to their papers to the national organizations' that support Republicans by pumping in millions. This propoganda campaign has far breached what is an acceptable involvement between paritsan organizations and the White House. Sadly and infuriatingly, the Republicans have enlisted people in their grassroots campign who are sure to lose from the Social Security slashing. Head honcho Republicans claim that their Social Security plan will benefit everyone, but these are the same people who believe that CEOs are overregulated, that they should be allowed to profit as much as they want.
  
• Is it possible for corporations who will be involved in managing the new Social Security funds to work with the interests of their customers in mind over their own interests? Almost unquestionably, the answer is no, for in the last several years, we have seen (thanks in large part to New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer) corporate collusion to hike up insurance rates on clients in the insurance brokerage sector and hedging of budgets to prevent investors from taking out their money in just about every big sector (financial, energy, etc.). How can a party that embraces greed say to the American people that their Social Security bill that brings in private money market managers benefits them? Only by being hypocrites.
  

So this is how Republicans manage to represent the worst of humankind. These are strong words, but they must be said, because with each capitulation to Republican lies, with each suggestion to compromise with the uncompromisable, Democrats lose their country and its values to shameless, greedy, right-wing creeps. Think: do you want to live in an America where Rush Limbaugh is the voice of reason? Where your social security payments become profit for Mutual Fund CEOs? Where a war can be started with no truthful justification? Is this the country envisioned by Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington after the Revolution? Is this the country envisioned by Frederick Douglass or Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War? Is this the country envisioned by our great religious leaders who have preached to love thy neighbor or by our great African American leaders who worked to make America live up to its promise of equality? No, it is a country envisioned by greedy, petty, despicable people. In short, by Republicans.

Ironic

Today in my African American Studies course, my professor asked our class why we thought there was a lack of student activism compared to the Civil Rights Movement. I couldn't help but notice an ironic illustration of such a trend, sitting across the room from me: a girl was wearing the Urban Outfitters baseball tee with the phrase "Voting is for old people" emblazoned across it.

The Many Contradicitons of 'Glamour' Magazine

As I lay in bed sick last night, I turned to a few old issues of Glamour to help lull me to sleep. Every time I page through one of these magazines, my reading is burdened by the knowledge that Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Vogue, etc. are superficial and formulaic. Yet, I still find interest in the 100,000th article I read with titles like the "The Best Cheap Makeup" or "What You Don't Understand About Guys."

In fact, last night I found some articles of great use: one about women who are struggling with huge debts called "How will she ever get out from under?" and another about the importance of sleep, "The surprising news about sleep and your health."

I'm going to focus on the debt article in particular, as it represents a huge contradiction in the purpose of this woman's magazine. The article points out how college, credit card companies, and a consumerist culture contribute to debt for young women. It makes a point that is rarely made by the many economists and politicians who only want people to spend, spend, spend to keep the economy growing:

"The explosion of debt is the national crisis you haven't heard about...this economy has been propped up by people speding more than they earn, and many people in the government, the media and corporate America don't want to face the hard reality that this cannot go on forever" (Elizabeth Warren).

The article also points out how college campuses (my school Northwestern is guilty of this) facilitate credit card abundance by allowing those companies to set up booths on campus for money. In light of these good points, this article is one of the most useful that I've read in a long time and is long overdue in exposing all that we hear from those who would encourage Americans to keep on spending their debt to prop up the economy.

Turn a few pages in Glamour though, and you'll encounter articles about makeup, clothes, hair products, and so forth. Even though these magazines always make the claim that buying up the seasonal trends religiously is not a way to be truly fashionable, they consistently promote the new pieces of the season and give prices and locations for the items. And of course, the advertisements throughout the magazines are the most blatant encouragement of consumerism. The three pages of Glamour's warnings against buying one's way to debt are quickly forgotten amidst the hundreds of pages devoted to, well, buying.

Glamour is on the one hand a magazine that encourages female independence from men, healthy eating and exercising rather than dieting, and unique, non-trendy fashion; while on the other hand it prints articles that inherently provoke self-consciousness about relationships (can you imagine Maxim being as focused on how men can please women as Glamour is on how women can please men), preoccupation with one's weight through exercise and eating articles, and, yes, trends.

So do I expect Glamour to change: to disavow consumerism and superficiality and live up to its highest ideals, represented in this article about debt? Nah, because Glamour must profit and its model for making money is most reliant upon the hair, skin, makeup, and clothing compaines that advertise in its pages. Too bad.

Oh, and I'm not even going to get into Cosmo.

A 'Rant'

I once read a magazine article that detailed different types of optimism and pessimism. According to the article, optimism's upbeat positiveness is only beneficial if it was practiced strategically; same for pessimism's uncharming blueness. So if one optimistically expects to go far in life and has plans as to how he can advance, he is a strategic optimist, if he's certain he won't meet goals without going back to school, he's a strategic pessimist. On the other hand, the unstrategic optimist is deluded; the pessimist depressive.

After reading this article, I gauged myself, as an optimist would, as someone who is pretty unfailingly strategic, whether optimistic or pessimistic. This is why I am anticipating, as the strategic pessimist would, my impending dissatisfaction with going back to Northwestern in north suburban Chicago rather than to Paris. Strangely, I think adjusting back to NU will be harder than it was adjusting "forward" to life in Paris. As someone told me, you expect it to be different when you go abroad but not when you come home.

Here are what I plan to be especially noteworthy and probably annoying adjustments upon returning to NU:

• Unceasing devotion to one's extracurricular activities, be it sororities (rush is une grande malade de la tete for me!) to the crazy Christian clubs to theater crap (i guarantee you that of all of the "theater people" that you meet in your life, you will like no more than 10% of them and about that same percentage have any right to be pursuing that field). (Extracurrics are fine but are definitely a little too much at American unviersities. Not to sound like someone's grandpa, but we're first and foremost at school to learn).
• Competitiveness. Grades. The old "I didn't do any reading and still got an A" talk. Isn't it kind of counter-intuitive to brag about not learning for a course that you're paying shitloads of money to take?
• People who consider going to Evanston's Keg as a satisfying evening. Because watching freshman girls drunk from screwdrivers pole dance is my idea of a good time.
• Lack of a city! at my disposal. People who don't set foot in Chicago, which is like 85% of the campus. Alumni David Schwimmer spoke at NU a couple years ago and confessed that he had rarely if ever gone to the city during his four years. He also said that he was a "self-absorbed asshole" back in college. He's not the only one.
• Loud people. I'm now used to the cold, reserved French people, even if I'm not one.
• Hell, I'll even miss living with adults over living in my estrogen central sorority house.

I write so brazenly because I'm confident that no one will read my rants. The advantages of being an unrecognized (underrecognized?? nah) blogger.

What is un biased?

I came across this quote from Andrew O'hehir's new book about the New York Times recent reporting scandals, which defines cleverly what is often (falsely) considered inpartiality as "a point of perpetual, semi-neutral waffledom, halfway across the infinitesimal distance between Joe Lieberman and John McCain." Lately it seems a news organization acts rampantly biased in the style of a Fox News and still disingenuously claim to be unbiased, or it hides behind a tradition of respectability like "the paper of record" does while reporting based on their own skewed sense of what is impartial. (For instance, Howell Raines' Times relentless pursuit of the Whitewater non-scandal). A paper like the Times can hide its clear partiality behinds its relatively small newspaper font and stately masthead, but neutrality is not achieved merely by trying to appear neutral.

France can be funny!

My family used to have this hilarious CD by the comedian--or more accurately, comic singer, but is that a job title?--named Alan Sherman. He wrote funny lyrics to the tune of well-known songs and melodies. As I was reminiscing about my stay in Paris with my parents--which is all that I ever do nowadays!--I recalled a cleverly hilarious song Sherman wrote called "You Went the Wrong Way Old King Louis," about Louis XVI. Alright here are the lyrics to said song. Read them all; they're a riot:

Louis the Sixteenth was the King of France in 1789.
He was worse than Louis the Fifteenth.
He was worse than Louis the Fourteenth.He was worse than Louis the Thirteenth.
He was the worst since Louis the First.

King Louis was living like a king, but the people were living rotten.
So the people, they started an uprising which they called the French Revolution, and of course you remember their battle cry, which will never be forgotten:

You went the wrong way, Old King Louie.
You made the population cry.
'Cause all you did was sit and pet
With Marie AntoinetteIn your place at Versailles.

And now the country's gone kablooie.
So we are giving you the air.
That oughta teach you not to
Spend all your time fooling 'round
At the Folies Bergere.

If you had been a nicer king,
We wouldn't do a thing,
But you were bad, you must admit.
We're gonna take you and the Queen
Down to the guillotine,
And shorten you a little bit.

You came the wrong way, Old King Louie.
And now you ain't got far to go.
Too bad you won't be here to seeThat great big Eiffel Tower,
Or Brigitte Bardot.

To you King Louie we say fooey.
You disappointed all of France.
But then what else could we expect
From a king in silk stockings
And pink satin pants.

You filled your stomach with chop suey.
And also crepe suzettes and steak.
And when they told your wife Marie
That nobody had bread, she said "Let 'em eat cake."

We're gonna take you and the Queen
Down to the guillotine,
It's somewhere in the heart of town.
And when that fella's through,
With what he's gonna do,
You'll have no place to hang your crown.

You came the wrong way Old King Louie.
Now we must put you on the shelf.
That's why the people are revolting, 'cause Louie,
You're pretty revolting yourself!

For some reason, I really find this line funny: "We're gonna take you and the Queen, Down to the guillotine, It's somewhere in the heart of town." I just like that they don't know where the guillotine is. The rest of the song is just incredibly clever.

Just an addendum to my last post. I guess there has been a repsonse to He's Just not that Into You. An excerpt from an article about the book on Salon:

Ian Kerner, a sex therapist and the author of "She Comes First," will publish a response to HJNTIY in February. "Be Honest: You're Not That Into Him Either!" will be released by HarperCollins' ReganBooks. Kerner, 38 and married, acknowledged the fundamental truth of the original book's message, but said it's presented in deeply flawed ways. Kerner objects to Behrendt and Tuccillo's advice about not making phone calls or being aggressive. "It's like they're telling us to sit back pulling petals off daisies: He's into me, he's not into me..."

...

"[The book] felt so prescriptive and so goddamn cocky and like such a simplistic view of life and love," Kerner said. "Any relationship comes down to two people and backgrounds and context and how they meet, and to reduce it to a set of rules ... There's something insidious about it ... It is disempowering and a lot like "The Rules," and it sort of leaves all the power with the guys." As a sex therapist, Kerner said, he finds that both genders fall "prey to complexities and vulnerabilities, and men wonder how to be masculine and what to do. So I would hate for a woman to read that book and think that any guy that doesn't call simply isn't into her. In some cases it might be true but definitely not always."

Why I'm not so into 'He's Just Not Into You'

On it's face, the new "flying-off-the-shelves" book by two "Sex in the City" writers, Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo He's Just Not That Into You seems a wake-up call to all self-deluding women (most of us) about the relationships that we overanalyze to death. I have not read the book but have read several articles about it, and the message is anything but subtle: the relationship or fling or crush that you are over-analyzing, often in your favor ("well he might just be to intimidated to call me") is just not interested. It makes sense. Guys, we are told, aren't complex, as one of them replied to me at a party once when I claimed not to understand them, "we're simple people." Women, the conventional wisdom goes, are the ones who make everything complex, read into things, overthink. Lately, there has even been what I call an over-analyzing backlash. I have wrung my hands over this tendency as much as the next girl, until I figured out that the reason that females engage in this practice is not because we're crazy or neurotic but because men are hard to predict (human beings are hard to predict!). Thus, if for some reason, we are interested in someone who, as is now revealed to us, has been "just not that into" us we anxiously use every sign to gauge his committment-level: see over-analyzing is not some weird thing that girls do, it's an evolutionary response, as legitimate as any other (if we subscribe to the idea that girls are most concerned about finding someone who will committ).

This is my problem with He's Just Not That Into You, however: while it claims to be freeing women from that agonizing spiral of over-analysis, it puts a new and perhaps even more self-conscious phrase into our head, the phrase, "he's just not that into you." As a woman quoted in one of the articles that I've read about the book said, why can't the title to book 'You're Just Not that Into Him?' See, the problem with Behrendt and Tuccillo's approach is that while it claims to take the pressure off the girl--to encourage her to drop the guy who's just not that into her as soon as she detects it--it still suggests that she try to interpret the relationship by trying to read the guy's every moves. Now, however, it's in the name of figuring out as quick as possible how not into you he is.

Here is how I propose Behrendt and Tuccillo could make this book well-meaning instead of just gimmicky: advise a woman to estabish her priorities--are they to go out with a guy who a lot of women find attractive but who maybe isn't that committed (some women find that attractive)?; is it to go out with a guy who will committ? What is it that we want? Or does it even matter, really, especially if we're only in our 20s? (Lord knows guys aren't advised to establish what it is they want). Anyway, my main point is, there must be more talk of what a woman thinks and not how she can detect what a man thinks. Then maybe we will see books written with a title as equally applicable to the modern world of relationships as Behrendt's and Tuccillo's: She's Just not that Into You.

Sarko

Just so I make clear that I am not aloof to the politics of my host country, I want to note the recent election of Nicolas Sarkozy to the position of party head of the main center-right party in France, the UMP. I'll tell you one thing and maybe the only thing that I really like about Sarkozy thus far: that he challenges President Jacques Chirac, even if some of it is a show to get his backers energized--and there are a lot of them, as he is the most popular politician in France right now. The U.S.'s UMP equivalent, the Republican party (well of course, the GOP is more extreme right and the UMP and the GOP obviously disagree on several foreign policy issues, like Iraq) suppresses discord in the party as much as possible. Thus, when I hear people get enthusiastic about the possibility of a McCain or a Giuliani nomination for president in '08, I have to feel bad for their enthusiasm because the Republicans under Bush aren't letting a prominent moderate have any say in running the government and they sure aren't going to let a moderate win the S. Carolina primary or even the Iowa primary in '08. Meanwhile, here in France, Nicolas Sarkozy continues to keep Chirac and PM Jean-Pierre Raffarin on their toes, and even though I may not agree with the guy too often, at least the UMP has multiple power brokers.

U.S. Government to Ukraine: Don't run your elections like we do

The standoff in the Ukraine over the presidential election has been an incredible display of citizens rallying for fair elections, or maybe just for their "Viktor Y." to win. All the same, watching each candidate's supporters on the news, especially Yuschenko's is incredible. A country with such concerned citizens deserves a fair election.

This, of course, is what the Western European countries and the U.S. are demanding, but as the recent U.S. presidential election was mired with unfair voting conditions and partisan election officials like the Secretary of State for Ohio (and lest we forget the most infamous partisan of them all, Katherine Harris of Florida from Election 2000), the government lacks much credibility in its urgings that the Ukraine have a new election, even if these recommendations are correct.

This article goes through all of the problems in Ohio, such as the heavy shortage of voting machines in urban precincts when additonal machines were more than available in that county's board of elections office and the Republican-fielded election chargers who went out to heavily Democratic precincts to challenge voters, remniscent of the poll tests (and taking a cue from the Chief Justice of the United States', William Rehnquist's tactics in Arizona many years ago). So it's time the U.S. Republicans stopped talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to valuing the right to vote.

The Jerk

At the inauguration of former President Bill Clinton's new presidential library, George W. Bush tried to push his way in front of Clinton, even though the protocol was (and decorum would dictate) that Clinton to walk out first. Our current president, what a guy. Bush also reportedly uttered this musing about the library that next to the Arkansas River: "a submarine could take this place out." What??

Line 14

I enjoy ticking off things while I'm here in Paris, that is, keeping track of what I have done. So far, I have been to 18 of the twenty arrondissements and taken nearly every Metro line.

I was at first appalled and later delighted at my most recent Metro line addition: Line 14. Line 14 is basically an underground monorail, so there is no train driver, and the inside of the train cars are the most spacious of any of the lines. Furthermore, there are only 8 stops on the train (compared to what seems like 50 stops on line 7), and the train speeds underground. Because of Line 14, I was able to get from the 16th Arrondissment on the West of Paris to the Bibliotheque Francaise-Francois Mitterand in the 13th, on the East side of Paris in 35 minutes. To quote Larry David, pretty, pretty, pretty good.

At first I thought that Line 14 was frivolous and somewhat defiant of other Metro lines. First of all, there just seems to be too much space in the car. I have gotten used to being crammed up next to my other vacant-eyed Metro compatriots, the concept of personal space withering away from my memory. Line 14 seems to acknowledge, however, that more space can be afforded to Metro riders. I don't know about that.

Also, like I said, there are only 8 stops on the Metro. If you need to go to Pyramides or Bercy, you're in luck, but want to get anywhere on the Left Bank--no Line 14 for you! It seems to both discriminate against Left Bankers or Left Bank destinationers. Still, a friend made a good point: it goes through several key Metro hubs in Paris, so even if you're not necessarily getting off at Gare de Lyon, you can transfer at Gare de Lyon and get there a lot faster than if you were taking Line 1 from La Defense.

Okay, clearly I'm a little too well-versed in le system Metro, so I'll sign off and admit that I have begun to plan ways to take the Line 14 as much as possible. What a gem!

Bush Lackeys "Steering" the Ship

So, with the mass exile of cabinet secretaries from the Bush administration and Bush's subsequent appointments of replacements, we are starting to get a general idea of what Bush wants of his second term cabinet secretaries and its exactly what he wanted of his first termers: the euphemism (though I still think it has a negative connotation) is loyalty, it really is lackeyism or cronyism. Condoleeza Rice, once rumored to have a somewhat reasonable, diplomacy-centered approach in fact proved to be I suppose the term is "hawkish" but most of all an unabashed defender of things that turned out not to be factual but that were nonetheless advanced by the Bush administration, especially the non-connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda.

Porter Goss is another example of a crony who appears to have obtained his job by sucking up to GW Bush. He is in the middle of a semi-purge of the CIA and has brought in some of his buddies and given them new posts.

Of course, any official, when given the chance, will to a certain degree be comfortable appointing people he knows and likes; however, the problem with Bush is that he and his administration have ignored or tried to affect truthful reporting on the part of agencies that are supposed to have a good amount of independence from the president, and every agency, should have that, especially the CIA. The last administration that appeared this bent on loyalty was the Nixon Administration, and we know what turned out from that. Hopefully there aren't enemies' lists being compiled with enemies the likes of Paul Newman.

Cities!

My friend forwarded me a great article that, frankly, emphasized something so painfully obvious that it eludes most people, including me, until now: presidential candidates almost wholly ignore Urban America.

Now, I think a lot of this has to do with our electoral college system, which renders it crucial that a candidate get a majority of votes in a state (rather than try to accumulate votes across the U.S. through popular vote, which would make it more efficient to do as much urban campaigning as possible). Still, it can't be ignored that urban areas go strongly for Democrats and rural and "exurb" areas, well, don't. It also can't be ignored that the Republican party sometimes subtly but usually indiscreetly denigrates urban America, despite the cities' contribution to America's GDP, its tax base, its dynamism and culture, etc. etc. and so on.

Now, I understand that people who live in less dense areas won't see the benefit of taxes for social programs, mass transit, city cleaning crews, etc. the way people who live in urban or certain suburban areas do, but unfortunately, the people out in many of those sprawled suburbs and the southern and western rural areas get back more taxes than they give in the form of government programs and infrastructure (think roads, lots of roads) so those people down south and in certain western states are complaining like ingrates. As the article that I have quoted pointes out,

While red-state voters like to complain about "tax-and-spend liberals," red states are hopelessly dependent on the largess of the federal government to prop up their dwindling rural population. Red states like North Dakota, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, and Arkansas top the list of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid. And who's paying the most? Blue states. Cities--and states dominated by their cities. Welfare states, in contrast, demand federal money to fund wasteful roads to nowhere.

Not that I think this has much of a chance, but it would be great if Congressmen gave these people their wish: tax them less but redistribute the taxes that we urban and semi-urban people pay to benefit US. I call it the Voluntary Taxation for Ingrates plan. Of course, I don't want to exclude anyone in less populated areas who sees the benefit in keeping our air clean, our forests alive, maybe having better national train transport so we can journey from those rural areas to the cities and back, you all can come along! But the rural areas in the South and West, those that tend to offer the least, well, I wonder what they would think if they went without the revenues of productivity that comes from those of us who live in "Gomorrah." As my friend put it "Cities!"

Ladies and Gentlemen, the 44th President of the United States

So this was the candidate that several million people propelled to victory, seeing him as a man of values.

(I think the "one finger salute" is the only salute Bush knows).

In other words, nothing has changed. Mr. Bush's victory onTuesday was not based on his demonstrated competence inoffice or on a litany of perceived successes. For all thetalk about values that we're hearing, the president ran acampaign that appealed above all to voters' fears andprejudices. He didn't say he'd made life better for theaverage American over the past four years. He didn't say hehad transformed the schools, or made college more care to the sick and vulnerable.
-Bob Herbert

Well, first of all, I will admit to my Election Day predictions being wrong. I think this is too bad.

Secondly, I will admit that I was quite depressed by Bush's reelection, and I still am disappointed in it, realizing all that it may portend, but I will say this: none of us know what is going to happen in the next four years.

Unlike some, who logically figure that it is in Bush's best interest to reach out to a divided electorate and an alienated group of international allies, I believe he will not even try, as he has never shown any interest in doing so in the past. He lost the popular vote (and likely the electoral vote) in the 2000 election and proceeded to act as if he had a mandate; in this election he won with a slight majority of the vote. He even declared, as a someone of his pettiness would, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style." This is not the voice of a man who seeks to unite a fractured world, as Senator Kerry gracefully urged him to. This is the voice of a man determined to get his way.

When I think of the great leaders of our country, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, I realize that they all united our country in times of upheaval and crisis. Of course, there were still struggles, nothing is perfect, we cannot imagine a utopia of national unity, but as we try to figure out the 2004 election in its aftermath, it is clear that the victories came at the expense of national unity. We have one political party that is determined to use prejudice and base fear to drive people to the polls and ultimately vote for economic and foreign policies against their interest.

As for what to do now, I am not going to leave the U.S. (unless for some reason circumstances take me abroad) once I get back there in December. More than 55 million people came out to vote for John Kerry, lots of races where Democrats, often challengers, ran against Republicans in "Red" states, came very close, and the Democrats have just begun to mobilize and coordinate our activist groups and so on. Plus, more of the country agrees with us on the issues. We cannot abandon a country with core values as the ones that the Constitution was founded upon, and we cannot let a group of fear-baiters defile the Constitution (or perhaps, at least motivate people to vote for defiling the Constitution--I think the Republicans are more interested in passing their economic agenda than their social agenda).

Alright, just a short word about the election. My prediction is that Kerry will win. Now, to analyze my prediction objectively, I will say that I have read mostly material that is favorable towards Kerry and I do try to tune out positive indicators for Bush. However, it seems that the Democrats have done great job with voter turnout, I have been told pollsters do not call cell phones--a voting demographic that is supposedly Democratic, and that undecideds tend to favor the challenger 3 to 1. However, everything is up in the air. I think Americans really do want a positive change, and I think Kerry has done an effective job in the last few weeks with associating himself with this ideal. I do hope there are no severe voting problems, but one positive to all of this talk about there being voting issues: I think there have always been problems with voting, but the fortuitous aspect of the 2000 election (and there are very few of these!) is that it really attuned our country to monitoring our votes. It seems like people are already much more prepared for everything from mundane technical difficulties to outright denial of voting rights than they have been in awhile. Cheers to that!

The Two Horses of the Apocalypse: My Strange Dreams and What in the Hell they Might Mean

A few things about my sleep patterns here in Paris, for anyone who is curious, and I know that that one person lurks somewhere out there.

Typically, I have a profuse amount of incredibly vivid dreams before and after waking up somewhere around 4 or 5 in the morning and laying in bed awake for an hour. Sometimes I dream about certain aspects of my day. One night for instance, after taking the Paris Metro home late and voyeuristically eyeing a young couple bidding their prolonged adieus, I dreamt about said couple and their domestic life. I do not remember the details of this dream to well, except a picture of the two of them standing in a kitchen.

I have a couple recurring dreams as well. One involves me somehow landing on the Metro railroad tracks. I used to have this dream back in Chicago too, although the tracks in those dreams were often elevated to frightening heights, since Chicago's CTA is an elevated system. Well, in my Metro-related dreams, I usually land on the tracks not by falling unintentionally but by some sort of intentional and logical process. I never get run over or even see a train either. The Chicago railroad track dreams have been more perilous: one time I was hanging on to a pole for dear life as the wind nearly blew me off the platform.

The other recurring dream is framed around me returning to Chicago after my stay in Paris. Since I have had this dream since relatively early into my stay here, my time in Paris has always seemed short. I had the dream again last night and marvelled at how the abroad stay flew by.

A last dream, also from last night, involved me as a passenger in a speeding car on Lake Shore Drive, following behind two horse and buggy rides--the kind that one sees chauffering tourists around Michigan Avenue and surroundings--, in neighboring lanes, speeding down the Drive.

My "Semi-charmed Life," to Lamely Quote Third Eye Blind

Tonight's plan has been to lock myself in my room with the intention of researching away for my health policy project. When I'm at Northwestern, and when I'm here as well, my night feels empty if the only plan is to study. In the U.S., if I have a club meeting, plans for going out somewhere, or selling tickets at our school's cinema and watching the subsequent movie, well, I feel much more motivated work around these plans, even if I end up putting the work off in the end since I'm not one for late nights by the books (must get eight hours of sleep).

Unfortunately, living with a French host family offers no distractions. Snacking is out, because, well there are no snacks (plain bread, anyone?), I have given up on television for lack of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and also because I feel sort of guilty watching some channel that I'm not really interested in when I should be working, and, I have no internet to distract me, as I have no constant internet connection, rather I must sneak into my host brother's room and use it, so I feel like I shouldn't be doing that either. Though I do.

Don't feel too bad for me though. The reason I have planned to work so industriously tonight is because I went to a concert last night (great time) and have a wine tasting tomorrow plus, I leave for a weekend trip to Austria on Thursday. Yes, I've seen worse days.

...We're elated to see the Cards victorious tonight. Now we won't have to endure a final week of campaign coverage that's chock-full of annoying Massachusetts-vs.-Texas baseball metaphors. The best metaphorical part being, of course, that Team Bush has already lost.

I didn't even consider this horrible possibility!!

What's it all about Alfie?

So, I really want to see the remake of the film Alfie. Jude Law plays the title character, originally played by Michael Caine. Maybe it's the idea of Jude Law as a womanizer that piques my interest. Herein also lies the problem with many females: the idea of an attractive, male womanizer is as much a turn-on as it is a turn-off for us, I will argue. The attractiveness of the womanizer is similar to the attractiveness of the latest trend: everyone wants it, because everyone else wants it. When was it first wanted? Well, in Jude Law's case, probably when he hit puberty, but in the case of Kate Spade bags, probably when some marketing executive figured out that it's not that hard to sell bland purses to yuppies and rich high school girls for a pretty penny, as long as the name remains "exclusive" and the price high.

I digress. As I said above, I understand how a Jude Law could be a womanizer, but it's also true that there has been many a homely man who can get away with womanizers. I will propose two reasons for this: (1) The women are equally as homely or (2) The said womanizer is incredibly confident, to the point of being cocky. (Also, I apologize for my tone regarding "homely" people, which could be interpreted as insensitive; in fact, I will only defend myself by saying that the culture of womanization is a culture concerened with superficialities. I know, this is a weak excuse. I guess I'm just insensitive). When does it come to Paris, I would like to know?? I mean the character of Alfie could just as credibly be French, so I think it will do pretty well in a country where adultery is almost an institution. (Not that this deadly sin eludes other peoples!).

Classic womanizer (what d-bags they are!)

Also, hopefully the film's theme song, "Alfie," by Burt Bacharach will be featured in the 2004 remake. Sure, it dates the film, but if you want to touch a 1970s film, you gotta live its song--and there's always a song in '70s films!

So on that note, here's a little reflection on thefundamental shortcoming of the Alfie Male, courtesty of the brilliant Bacharach:

And if only fools are kind, Alfie,then I guess it's wise to be cruel.

And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie, what will you lend on an old golden rule?

...I believe in love, Alfie.Without true love we just exist, Alfie.

Until you find the love you've missed you're nothing, Alfie.

Just have to include this quote, because I find it pretty funny:

Bush, presiding over a deeply divided country, mired in a disastrous war that he misled us into, offers only a bad Reagan imitation. Which could, in fact, describe his entire presidency.

October for Bush has been a slippery slide

I have to admit, I am quite surprised at where the U.S. finds itself today--not so much in regards to the high unemployment rate or the escalating violence and terrorism that the Iraq war has precipitated; here, unfortunately I think myself and many other Americans have become accustomed to the constant bad news--rather, I am surprised to find that the presidential candidate who is saying the smarter things about how to resolve these problems is gaining headway.

Indeed, in all three debates, it appears that Americans have overwhelmingly favored John Kerry. As a candidate, I find that Kerry has come into his own through these discourses. As for Bush, no longer can he ride high on the coattails of his predecessor's legacy of economic growth as he did in 2000. Back then, he enjoyed the luxury of an American public that was in the midst of a strong economy and relatively tranquil foreign policy situation and unending media barrages about the Clinton "scandal," using it to suggest that America was facing a crisis in moral leadership that would be resolved if he were in office. Many of us not realizing how great we had it in the 90s, especially the Ken Starrs and Newt Gingriches who earned a nice wage by conducting a witchhunt against our President, gave Bush a reasoned hearing and found what he said appealing.

Now Bush is without these luxuries, and he must to face a referendum on his leadership. He had a much easier time attacking Clinton and Gore's leadership than he has defending his own, thus he resorts to Republican epithets that only a young, neo-con could love. I wonder if others find it as off-putting as I do when Bush calls Kerry a "tax and spend liberal." Kerry's simple yet pointed response to this tired line in the second debate was to say that such labels don't mean anything. It would be much more useful if Bush would respond with why he disagrees with his opponent, but maybe he doesn't have a good reason, or maybe he thinks the U.S. public should just be targeted with stylized talking points.

In 2000, George W. Bush promised he would be a new kind of Republican, a "compassionate convservative," " a uniter, not a divider." These campaign themes implicitly acknowledged that the Republian party's image needed changing: the rabidly anti-Clinton, anti-social justice mentality that characterized the Gingrichian Republicans of the 1990s needed to be shed if a Republican were to win the White House. George Bush and Karl Rove knew this in 2000, but they seem to have forgotten it in 2004, probably because Bush was never a compassionate conservative and never intended on being one, nor was he a uniter. Now that we have concrete proof of this, well, Bush's defenses are meager, and Kerry's criticisms are resounding widely with Americans.

For more information on instances in the debates when the arguments that Bush has asserted have been wrong, visit www.FactCheck.org. For example, check out the truth behind the false claim that Kerry has voted to raise taxes 98 times.

Stage Three: Increasing Irritation Stage

When the study abroad office held a big meeting last quarter to prepare all of the students going abroad for the following year, I remember sort of admiring them for making a potentially very dull meeting only somewhat dull. What most piqued my interest during this meeting however was not the provisions on how to get requirements for your abroad classes back at Northwestern, nor was it the speech made by the girl who used her abroad experience to get a fellowship (yawwwn), rather, it was this chart that they presented entitled "The Common Stages of Cultural Adjustment."

The introduction on the Common Stages of Cultural Adjustment starts, "studies have shown that when people move to a foreign country, they generally experience a series of emotional stages that fall into a well documented pattern." Then it lists six stages: 1. Pre-departure stage, 2. Honeymoon/Spectator Stage, 3. Increasing Irritation Stage-"Culture Shock!" (cute, eh?) 4. Adaptation Stage 5. Return Anxiety Stage 6. Biculturalism Stage. I found these psychological stages and their subsequent descriptions pretty interesting and sort of humorous. When I got to Paris this fall, I recalled the Common Stages of Cultural Adjustment when I started to miss something about the states and wondered whether my knowledge of these stages would make them a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyway, I think I am beginning to see the viability of this chart. For instance, right now I have been experiencing symptoms of Stage Three, the "Culture Shock!" stage: disenchantment, hostility, irriation. Just like the hypothetical events that accompany this stage suggest, "lots of things seem to be going wrong."

For instance, today I went to the library to try to check out a couple of books for my research paper. I left less one book than I had come with. How does this happen when one goes in with the intention of borrowing two additional books? Well, apparently, I had a book overdue, because books at the Sciences Po library are only allowed to be checked out for one week (thus, my book was six days overdue). My habit of checking out books for three weeks and then three weeks more seemed positively luxurious in comparison. I don't think I have a library fine, but the librarian informed me that he would (a) have to take back my book (b) that I can't check it out for a week or until Friday (I don't know which!) and (c) the use of my library card is suspended for another week. Now if that isn't a by the book example of the "Events" aspect to Stage 3, I don't know what is!

Hmm, let's look at emotional responses now, since I am on a roll: "discouragement"--well I would say this library thing was pretty discouraging, but also, today I had all sorts of time after my trip to the library. My plan was actually to go to the American Library in Paris to see if I could find my books there, until I remember that it's closed on Mondays, thus, discouragement. I toyed with the idea of going to a new park or some other site like the Statue of Liberty, which always cheers me up; nah, I thought, it's too cold, and do I really feel like seeing another site?

And then there's behavioral responses. I'm doing pretty well with the "searching for security in familar activities." For instance, today I decided that I want to start making my lunch before school so I don't have to buy it everday from the cafeteria. I looked specifically for turkey, wonderful turkey. Why hadn't the French caught on to this heart healthy, and I would say tastier alternative to ham? Why is everything jambon, or saucisson, or pate? Sure, all of those are nice, on occasion, but everyday? I also got wheat bread made by a brand called "Harry's" which advertises it's "American bread." In all fairness to myself though, I did buy chocolate covered biscuits, and as I looked up and down the cookie aisle, I thought to myself, wow, the French do have better cookies than we do.

I have to point out one more amusing thing from the description of Stage Three. Their example of the verbal response includes this: "This place sucks! I hate it here. This place and these people are stupid. To make matters worse, my friends at home say the Northwestern football team is doing great and the weather in Evanston is amazing" [emphasis added]. While I think the first part is a bit exaggerated, the second part is true!! It is true! This year, NU has beat both Ohio State and Indiana University, and the weather has supposedly been sunny and in the 70s and 60s for awhile. (Here it's been mostly cloudy and in the low 50s, though I can never find an accurate weather report online). So even though I've never been that into football, so I can't say that would be my first homesick sentiment, I still find it funny that the example has proven true.

Hopefully Stage 4, the Adaptation Stage, is on its way...

Not even one mistake?

When Bush was asked to name three mistakes that he had made in the second, town hall-style debate, it seemed to present him with a chance to invoke his humble, folksy guy routine. However, Bush couldn't even name one mistake, not one. I like this:

One last thought on that "three mistakes" question that Bush ducked.
This is a really basic, standard-issue job interview question that every job-hunting college graduate learns to deal with.

...I was honestly surprised Bush was so obviously unprepared for the question.

...Then I thought about it and realized, gee, George W. Bush is a man who never in his life had to prepare for a real job interview -- one that actually would determine whether he could pay his bills. Maybe he had interviews, but you've got to figure the family name and the pedigree opened the door and sealed the deal. The interview would always have been a formality.

This is a good point as well:
In the course of his answer President Bush said: “Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.”
I don’t think anybody familiar with this president or this White House can have much doubt about the people he was talking about there.
...In the Bush world you never admit mistakes. The only mistakes the president can think of are the times he appointed people who do admitted mistakes --- who put reality above loyalty to the president.

If I needed to be reminded why Bush needs to be voted out of office in November, his answer to the mistakes question, lacking the most basic element of humility, did the job for me.

The Intelligence That Wasn't: 'Cooking the Books' in the White House

Some of George W. Bush's reasoning, at face value, seems to make sense. He has accused John Kerry of not living up to his original vote to approve the use of force in Iraq if Saddam Hussein didn't comply with weapons inspections when Kerry voted against an 87 billion supplementary. This accusation makes sense at perhaps the most superficial of glances, but falls apart at any deeper questioning. First, just to look at the argument logically: if a congressman simply votes against extra spending, one of Bush's favorite things to demonize, this isn't necessarily a flight from his original position but can be a disagreement with how the money will be spent. This is pretty basic. Furthermore, Kerry's vote in Iraq has conformed to his position towards it in the past, which is that it has been necessary to wave the use of force as a possibility so Saddam will comply with WMD inspections, but it has not been necessary to make use of force the policy of first resort that the Bush administration ended up taking.

Furthermore, when Bush accused Kerry of seeing the same intelligence that Bush had, again, this seems to make sense at face value. In fact, it has been unrelentingly revealed since the Bush administration tried to invade Iraq on the grounds of the intelligence that Colin Powell presented to the UN and that Tony Blair presented in a televised address and the intelligence that Bush alluded to in his 2003 State of the Union Address that much of this intelligence was either doctored or patently wrong. A good, short article about this in Salon.

Is it normal for people from Paris--or people anywhere with television, for that matter--to take their cable box over to their friend's house every night? Because this is what Gregoire does: cable box and remote are detached from the TV and presumably hooked up to a TV at his friend's house.

I think as hard as people try, it won't be easy to spin Bush's performance in last night's debate, as was done in 2000. Score 1 for John Kerry.

Initial Impression of Last Night's Debate

I am currently watching the first debate between Kerry and Bush on NY Times online, and I find, just from the most superficial viewing, that John Kerry has been incredibly cool, while, interestingly, Bush has lost his cool more than a few times. Kerry didn't go over his time limit and he looked very composed and confident. Of course, this is a surface reading of the debate, one worthy of the mainstream media, soI think it's even more important to point out that Bush is using some propoganda points repeatedly as well, especially his insistence that saying Iraq is the "wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place" is conceding defeat ( to play a drinking game to the frequency that Bush uttered this line last night would leave someone falling over by the end of the debate!). Of course, this is a line I expect that the campaign will try to use against Kerry because they think it is a good talking point: takes the offense but has no substantive value to its assertion.

I have just found The Best Blog Ever

Vanity Fair Critic James Wolcott has a new blog, featuring perceptive comments that are not said often enough, particularly about the anti-Democratic reporting in the media (yes, the American media is no more liberal than Paris Hilton is classy), but also about abounding evidence that Wolf Blitzer is not real and updates on Star Jones' not so humble announcements about her upcoming wedding, which are hilarious! So read this blog at once!

A particular favorite clip from one of Wolcott's entries:

The last thing the country needs is a president who thinks he's too good for the job and doesn't want to get his cuffs dirty.
I don't think Kerry is that man. I don't see any Stevensonian trace of Fonda in him. You don't earn the medals he did in Vietnam by playing Hamlet in the clutch. The people around him--that's a different story. Unlike Bush, Kerry can't delegate his aggression to Cheney, Fox News, and a yapping band of attack poodles; the Democratic party doesn't have that same threshing infrastructure. He has to go it almost alone and run the risk of being too forceful and coming across as "unlikeable" in the eyes of gardening clubs like The Capital Gang. Pundits prefer their Democrats soft and emasculated, it makes them so much easier to filet.

The following led an article entitled, "Schwarzenegger Governing Like A Democrat":

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger thrilled delegates at the Republican National Convention last month with a thundering affirmation of the party's conservative principles. Back home, though, he has governed more like a Democrat on such issues as gay rights, guns and the environment.

In his first round of bill signings since the end of the legislative session in August, he approved a law requiring health insurance companies to extend to gay partners the same benefits they offer to unmarried heterosexual couples. He allowed the sale of clean needles to slow the spread of AIDS, and he approved an expansion of the state's hate-crimes law to protect transvestites.

To me it sounds like the man is governing like a human being (and sadly, it is generally not a Republican party principle to govern in such a way). Ideally, both parties would share this principle though.

Great Article...

...And I'm not just saying this because the article in question is written by my brother. Read this though, it's hilarious!

Paris against Province?

Today I went to the Palais Elysee, the residence of the President of France (currently Jacques Chirac). The Palais Elysee is only open once a year, for two days. What is special about these two days? They are when the Journee du patrimoine (Day of Inheritance) occurs. On this weekend, government buildings, monuments, and museums of the countries of Europe are open for the public, all for free vieweing. In Paris, this is a particularly exciting day because government bulidings like the Palais Elysee, the Senat, and the Grand Assemblie are not normally open to the public. The Palais Elysee may be the largest draw of the day. Today I waited about three and a half hours to see selected rooms of its interior. The Epcot Center's Test Track ride at Disney World may be the only thing I've waited for equally as long. Of course, the residence of the president of France is pretty different in nature from a Disney World ride.

Anywhow, the line went quite fast for the most part, mainly because I passed my time by text messaging people and then striking up a conversation with a French man who was originally from outside Paris. As most French people have asked me so far, he posed the question of what I thought of Paris. I told him that I thought that it was a great city (I probably said something silly like "j'adore Paris"), that there was so much living history, so much to see, etc. I said that the history, the style of the grand boulevards, the churces, and so forth, is what makes Paris so different from any city in the United States. This Frenchman then said that he didn't love Paris: that it was crowded, that commutes were too long, and that it was expensive. This is all true (well, my commute is relatively short, but whatever), and to judge how liveable a city like Paris is is an entirely different task then assessing it as a city worth visiting.

Now I should say that I am thoroughly glad to be in Paris right now; the experience here is a welcome change from a pretty predictable life at Northwestern. It is pretty nice not to study at a university that places almost an equal level of importance on extra curricular activities without allowing one an equal amount of time to complete one's exra curricular responsibilities competently, where getting drunk is often a focal point for an evening with friends, and where I'm not out in the 'burbs, even with Evanston being a nicer suburb than most.

There are many things I miss about the U.S., but the above aren't any of them. I hope it doesn't seem as if I'm taking my life in the States for granted, because being abroad is cause for appreciating life at home more than anything else: the many conveniences we are afforded from being Americans--not the least of which is that our language is the second language for most people who learn a language at school--are most realized when one is out of the country and gains a certain perspective on this. When theFrenchman in line with me for the Palais Elysee told me he would rather live somewhere like Nantes, that he could do without the Paris life, it cemented the truth of that matter, which is that like any other city, Paris is a place that is home to thousands upon thousands of people who have to get to work or school everyday, who have to eat and sleep in this grande ville. There is a historical rift between the city of Paris and the rest of the country, the "Province," of which we are learning about in EU class. Places like the Palais Elysee and Hotel Deville are home to just one family; everyone else lives in their more normally-sized apartments, and maybe some of them would like to leave the hustle and bustle of city life for greener pastures.

The best stories from Paris aren't the sights, or the cafes...

They all have to do with my crazy "host brother." Some choice phrases from him that are currently out of context for my audience here,

"Je me couche."
"I want to brush my teeth."
"Neelyoong." [Neil Young]
The toaster oven in the salon instance.
"blunt."
"...est exceptionelle!"

Alright, I love this source of stories. If you ever want me to put any of this nonsense into the proper context, ask me. Mme B. at one point said he was going through "delayed adolesence." Oh Gregoire. Let's pray that none of my French acquaintances, especially my host family, ever reads my blog.

Free Martha!

Man, this is just depressing. If Martha has to serve, why aren't Ken Lay or Andrew Fastow doing their hard time?

Stewart asks to serve sentence soon
By Erin McClam
Sept. 15, 2004 New York --
Millionaire executive Martha Stewart announced Wednesday that she had decided to begin her prison sentence for lying about a stock trade as soon as possible. "I must reclaim my good life," she said, adding she hoped to be home in time to plant a spring garden.

Let Martha grow her garden!

Oversimplification of the Day...

...From a member of the international press:

The attractive, witty and affluent elite who support John Kerry cannot bear the idea that the overweight, dull and impecunious commoners of Middle America will give Bush a second term.

Now I'm not saying as a Kerry supporter that I am offended at being classified as "attractive, witty and affluent," (of course me as an elite is pretty milk-streaming-out-of-your-nose laughable, so I won't even include that word in the quote) if the tone wasn't so snide and if the article wasn't so totally unresearched. I cite it to point out that this is the sort of article that is sadly characteristic of what passes for political analysis these days in our ever softer world of the "soft science" of politics.

Why London is the Most Entertaining Political Capitol

This is self-explanatory. There's nothing more I need say, except to clip excerpts from this article:

LONDON - A campaigner dressed as Batman, from the fathers' rights group that pelted Prime Minister Tony Blair with flour-filled condoms, caused a major security breach on Monday as he scaled the front of Buckingham Palace.
...
The campaign group Fathers 4 Justice said police had threatened to shoot a would-be accomplice who was dressed as comic hero Batman's sidekick Robin.
...
"Police threatened to shoot Robin unless he got down from the fence -- which we think is unacceptable because this is a peaceful, non-violent protest. But Batman was able to continue."



Read all about it.

I hope something like this happens this weekend when the residence of the president of France--among many other civic buildings--is open for the public for two days, but only if it is as harmless as flourless condoms. There, that is my way of tying this fun in with my stay in Paris.

In today's New York Times, journalist John Broder glorifies dirty campaigning saying

It just seems that the Republicans are, today at least, more adept at the black art of attack politics, according to historians and flummoxed Democratic partisans.

Broder wastes too much vocabulary when it would simply be more accurate and more expedient to say that the Republicans are just bigger assholes.

McDonalds...

Yes, I went to one here in Paris, and I would like to repent. Still, I think the fact that it is cheap is one point in the fast food chain's favor. The fact that the fries here are worse than the fries in the States is one point against. The special "frites" sauce is another point for McDo, as they call it. If the restaurant were not frequented by Europeans, it would not be here, though I know the American tourists do like McDo as well. That is my sorry defense. Also, I had pangs of homesickness that could only be cured by McDonalds fries. Now I'm ready for more pain au jambon et fromage and crepes au confiture.

Oh, and I will wait at least one month to go to Starbucks; after all, I do really like the French Cafe Creme.

Unnecessary Animosity Towards the French

I was doing an interesting search today, the details of which I will not get into, but I found this incredibly vapid commentary that basically characterizes the French (and seemingly many other foreigners) as removed to the point that they would exploit the events of September 11. The writer suggests that the book Windows on the World by Frédéric Beigbeder exemplifies the attitude of all of France towards the attacks--

The disdain this man - and most of his countrymen - must have for Americans is beyond the grasp of my imagination. Is it jealousy that would make someone take such an event in history and saturate it with sex stories?

Of course, the way he deduces that "the disdain of this man" (regardless of whether Beigbeder really has disdain towards the U.S.--I haven't read the book) must mean the disdain of every person in the country towards the U.S. is quite baseless.

Although I have only been in France for a bit more than a week and am hardly an expert on the French viewpoint (which of course is as diverse amongst the countrymen as are such viewpoints in any country), it seems that this article represents the wistful thinking of the author, who wants to cast the U.S. as a victim of an inconsiderate world ignorant of terrorism (hardly the case, when one consider that in terms of airport security, for instance, European countries like France were much better prepared and defended in the event of an attempted attack than the U.S.). I don't know why a group of Americans likes to believe that the French hate them, but it seems a worthless exercise to me and one founded in little more than baseless logic.

The Paris Metro...

Best train station name: Chatelet
Worst train station name: Gare du Nord (so boring guys, come on!!)

Russian-Germans are Sexy

Remember when Grace Kelly became Princess Grace of Monacco (okay, I honestly don't) or when, say, you met someone at school who was of some really exciting, exotic ethnic background, say half Senalgalese and half Chilean (i don't know!)?

I've always wanted to be one of those people who gets oohed and ahhed at over their ethnicity, and I've always found it sort of interesting the way some ethnicities are romanticized and others, well...aren't.

For instance, there is a student in my program here at the Sciences Po ecole in Paris who is French-Brazillian. When people found that out, they were impressed. Part of the reason I was lured to this crazy city was my romanticization of the French people--beautiful language, style--a romantic ethnicity.

Unfortunately, I can't show-off with my own descent. Wouldn't it be great if my Russian-German ethnicity was the kind that was exciting and mysterious to people? In fact, wouldn't that be funny? Yes, I think that would be very funny if my exotic Russian-German background was one day a hot commodity in the ethnicity department. For now, I will just have to hope I can marry the Prince of Monaaco.

Only Modern Art

Here is a little report from gay Pah-ree:
Today I went to the Centre de Georges Pompidou, which houses a modern art museum on the top floors. While the museum had a solid early-20th century collections, including some of my favorites, Picasso, Matisse, and Dali, they're late 20th century collection was pretty non-stimulating to me, except for one video piece. On one side of the room, a projector showed a film in English about racial problems and on the other side of the room, an image of a guy in a bear costume trouncing through the forest was being narrated in German. It was bizarre and strangely realxing at the same time.

Liberal Media? Nah.

Sometimes the best way to put today's political press coverage in perspective is to contrast it with how an identical event was covered in the very near past. Take the New York Times' coverage of the Republican and Democratic conventions. The morning after the Democratic Convention concluded, the Times published two Page One stories: a straight news piece about Sen. John Kerry's address, and a separate analysis of the themes of the speech. Today, following the Republican Convention, the Times does the same: a news piece on President Bush's address, as well as an analysis. But for the Republicans, there's a bonus dispatch, a valentine of a report ("Buoyed G.O.P. Says It Has Framed Agenda for Fall") on how "confident" and "optimistic" Republican strategists were celebrating their convention, convinced they had "framed the debate for the fall" and "had succeeded in raising significant doubts" about their opponent...
The full article.

I am in Paris now, so unfortunately I cannot read as much about American politics as before, but I found this article about John Kerry's new, well-timed counteroffensive on Bush-Cheney interesting. I recommend this article, especially for the anxious Democrat!