July 21, 2016--CoiffeurGate

French President Francois Hollande, how shall I put this, on his head, at best, has a rim of hair.

But the socialist president has had it tended to by a private though publicly-paid-for hairdresser, Olivier Benhamou, otherwise known as Monsieur O.

Hollande's popularity could hardly be lower--he failed to deliver on all his election promises. The French economy is worse than when he took office four years ago, youth unemployment hovers at close to 25 percent, and of course there have been a series of hideous terrorist attacks.

But because of CoiffeurGate Le President's numbers have declined even further.

We in America, frequently looked down upon by the French because of their self-proclaimed superior culture, life style ("soft power"), food, language, and politics have had our own grooming flaps.

Remember back in 1995 when Bill Clinton tied up air traffic in Los Angeles for more than an hour to have his hair done on the tarmac onboard Air Force One. Embarrassed, Clinton forked over the cash to cover the cost and avoid another count of impeachment.

And of course there was John Edwards, the Two-Americas John Edwards, who in 2008 had the campaign pay for two $400 haircuts and thereby was exposed as the millionaire phony he was.

Then, also in 2008, the McCain campaign dolled out thousands for Sarah Palin's hair, makeup, and fancy outfits.

But there's a difference--Clinton and Edward's, whatever one thinks of them (me--not much), unlike Francois Hollande, had hair. And Sarah Palin, if nothing else, was something to look at.

And compared to President Hollande, they were modest. He had the French government pay Monsieur Olivier in euros about $10,000 a month. Every month since assuming office in 2012. About what a senior minister in France is paid.

He may be worth it but Monsieur O needs to hold back a bit on the dye. On Hollande's hair it looks to me like black shoe polish.

Speaking of hair, we do have Donald Trump. The French as you might imagine are loving his candidacy, very much including making fun of his coiffeur.

I can't help but wonder how much The Donald's  haircare costs. I mean, its upkeep and styling. But who cares--the taxpayers aren't paying for it. He's self-funding his campaign. And I assume his hair.

June 30 2016--Little England

Until recently I never thought much about what the Great in Great Britain meant.

Of course I knew about the British Empire where the sun never sets, though by the time I was a young adult coming into political consciousness, most British colonies had broken away and were linked mainly though trade agreements, immigration policy, and as members of the British Commonwealth. With emphases on common and wealth.

Now, after the Brexit vote I am understanding that what is likely to remain of Great Britain or the United Kingdom will no longer be so united or so great.

Scotland and Northern Ireland, the major components with Wales of what is united and left of that kingdom, will figure out ways to secede and on their own, either, as in the case of Northern Ireland, unite with the rest of Ireland, while Scotland is likey to form an independent nation of its own and in both cases will, one way or another, affiliate with the E.U.

What remains will coalesce into just England, which wags and British haters (there are many on the continent, which compounds the problems) are now referring to gleefully as Little England.

From Great Britain to Little England. What a comeuppance. Or comedownance.

The European Union in its inception was supposed to accomplish a number of things.

First--and this attracted most of the ultimate E.U. countries to affiliate and for many of these adopt the euro as the common currency--first, there were the obvious economic advantages. To create the ultimate free trade zone and in that way, though far from forming a true United States of Europe, forge the world's largest trading block and collective economy.

Then there were the political reasons to build an E.U. Many of the future members had made war with each other at various times over many centuries. Most dramatically the First World War (which up to that time produced the most military and civil casualties in history) and then the even bloodier Second World War which were fueled by collapsed economies and rampant, virulent, and rivalrous nationalisms.

The thought was that if these historic enemies could become entangled for mutual advantage in an integrated economy and open their borders to commerce and people, making money together (not love) would overcome their seemingly genetic impulse to make war.

With many caveats, what was envisioned by E.U. founders such as Jean Monnet, up to now has worked. There are many spats to be sure, especially in recent years, as prominent examples, about the admission to the E.U. of Islamic Turkey and immigration and refugee policy (not unrelated), there have been no wars (trade or military) and relative prosperity, especially for the countries with the largest economies--Germany, England, and France.

But enmities remain and have been largely papered over. Xenophobic nationalistic inclinations persist and historic rivalries lurk just below the surface.

The Brits voted to leave the E.U. just a week ago and already German and French leaders, among others, are pushing the UK to leave the E.U. by the end of next week, not next year or two or three years hence.

I am exaggerating to make the point that not only do Germany and the current French leadership want to set an example of harsh and unyielding treatment of Britain to discourage others from thinking about following suit (including France where an emboldened Marine Le Pen is already calling for France to exit--Frexit), but also because of a still vibrant dislike of things British. Especially perceived English arrogance, moral superiority, and--this is important and closer to home--having served since at least the early 20th century as the United States' poodle.

For us that poodle has been important. With much of Europe suspicious of America's agenda, the UK has served as an essential bridge for us to the continent. Our "special relationship" with Britain has included not just an almost always willing partnership in global adventures and interventions (including support for the Vietnam and Iraq wars) but also as an eager partner in intelligence gathering and fiscal and cultural policy.

If as many say (fear as well as look forward to) Great Britain's fall in status and stature, the prospect of Little England, is both real and confounding. For us, there will be estrangement and thus less influence as Russia and others grow restive and flex their muscles.

Which means that over time we may be also heading to become Little America.

Jean Monnet

November 16, 2105--ISIS in Paris

I may have a different perspective after I, perhaps, cool down.

God knows there have been much worse cases of barbarism, evil during my lifetime. Even quite recently. By the numbers, ISIS's blowing the Russian plane out of the sky over the Sinai killed more innocent people than the seven or eight coordinated attacks in Paris.

Numerically, the terrorist bombings in Mumbai, Spain, Beirut, and of course on 9/11 killed and maimed more people, but there is something different about ISIS than al Qaeda. Something different for me about Paris than even New York.

That tells you how in a rage I am about what happened Friday night.

OK, I used the e-word. Evil.

All of these terrorist atrocities, including the pubic beheadings, are more than "cowardly acts." If there is such a thing as evil, this is it. Have there been worse examples? Of course. Including in France.

The French, among other "civilized" people, during the Second World War rounded up and shipped many thousands of their Jews to certain death in Nazi Germany.

A special definition of evil is necessary to categorize the various holocausts of the 20th century.

But what was perpetrated Friday still qualifies as dastardly. Unspeakable. All too human in its inhumanness.

Words fail.

French president Hollande says this was an act of "war." The Pope said we are in "World War III." Both may be right.

If we are, what then does that mean?

France is a linchpin of the NATO alliance. NATO's charter in effect says that "an attack on one is an attack on all." That includes us. The United States.

That charter was written well before al Qaeda and ISIS existed. It was for a time when there were credible threats of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. What does it mean now when the definition of war had shifted? Does it mean that the U.S. is also at war? That because France was "attacked," that it experienced more than an evil act of terrorism, we too have been attacked and thus are obligated to act accordingly? To join them in waging war?

I do not know how to think about this. What I do know is that this has struck me deeply. I have even been gathering information about going to France, Paris, this week. As an act of solidarity and defiance.

Rona thinks I'm crazy. She's right. I am.

Minimally I am trying to think about what France should do, more appropriately, as an American citizen what we should do because I do think we are at war.

Yes, I know how we got there. Not solely as the result of President Obama's weak leadership--though he has been weak and that hasn't helped, feeling that the "Arab Spring" would help bring about versions of democracy to the region. This just as naive in its own way as George W. Bush's delusion that toppling Saddam Hussein would do that for Iraq and surrounding dictatorships.

What matters now is what to do going forward.

Drone-guided bombings will not get the job done. Depending on lightly-armed Kurd forces on the ground will not defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Russia's involvement, even if it shifts to confront ISIS rather than Syrian rebels, will not get the job done.

Nothing this simple, this limited will work.

I can hardly believe I am thinking this, but only a massive, boots-on-the-ground force of American troops has any chance of succeeding. Perhaps 100,000 are required. Maybe more.

This would mean many casualties, even the beheading of captured U.S. soldiers. But does anyone have a better, more realistic idea?

I hate this. Hate all of it. But I am feeling radicalized.

ISIS has to be shown to be a failure in order to stem the flow of young lunatics to its "cause." Disaffiliated youth from the Islamic world as well as from Europe and the United States are partly drawn to ISIS because it is perceived to be winning. This encourages those with distorted minds to believe that the apocalypse they seek is near at hand. Defeat ISIS, devastate it, and that belief system will crumble.

I am sorry. I wish I could believe in the effectiveness of diplomacy and financial warfare, including bombing the oil fields and petroleum distribution system in ISIS-controlled territory.

I don't.

As long as they feel they are winning, ISIS fighters can live on fumes. They are that motivated and tenacious.

So they have to be killed. All of them would be ideal. As many as possible is imperative.

Again, I can't believe these worlds are coming from me. I have up to now considered myself to be moderate, essentially pacifistic. Not any more.

Paris on Friday changed that.

When will we too again feel the pain and fear?

February 12, 2105--Lust for Life

The French can be, well, so French. Take Dominique Strauss-Kahn for example.

Perhaps the last time you were aware of him was in 2011 when he was under posh house arrest in New York City awaiting trial for allegedly forcing a chamber maid at the Sofitel Hotel to perform oral sex.

There was some of his semen on her blouse but he beat the rap, claiming the DNA evidence was not conclusive and that she had a checkered past, having accused other rich and powerful men of sexually assaulting her and attempting to cash in.

He, on the other hand, did not deny that they had sex, claiming it was consensual, which appeared to be all right with his America heiress wife, who said at the time something like, "That's the way men are."

Subsequently, back in France, Strauss-Kahn, who had been Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and was preparing to run for the presidency of France, was accused of raping a journalist and having been involved with a ring of prostitutes. This was too much for his long-understanding wife, who finally dumped him.

And now, in Lille, a trial is underway in which Strauss-Kahn and 13 others are accused of pimping and abetting prostitution. If convicted, he could go to prison for up to 10 years.

According to a report in the New York Times, earlier this week, there was testimony about "sex parties with high-flying power brokers and prostitutes." Outside the courtroom topless protesters threw themselves at the Strauss-Kahn's car. For what reason I do not know. But, vive la France, it made for more juicy headlines and vivid video in a country that could use some diversion after last month's Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Though that testimony itself would have been enough to provide some schaudenfreudian relief, from the witness stand Strauss-Kahn offered up even more salacious fun--his defense.

It is that lust is no crime.

He acknowledged having been at sex parties (though as he put it during his testimony--it was only "four times a year") but claimed he had nothing to do with organizing the orgies nor hiring prostitutes--both crimes in France.

On the other hand, prostitute witnesses such as Mounia (no last name) authoritatively offered, that "it was obvious that those at the party were prostitutes," even though she acknowledged that she never discussed money with Strauss-Kahn.

His defense is that since at least the 16th century, there is a long tradition in France, libertinage, that makes legal "freewheeling sex and pleasure among multiple and consensual partners." But Mounia, when asked about the consensual nature of their activities, said that was not the case--Strauss-Kahn had forced her to engage in "a brutal act," she said, "I felt like an object."

Jade agreed, admitting she had engaged in prostitution but not libertinage, "I was not a person but a thing that was supposed to complete a task."

Duh.

But Strauss-Kahn had the final word--when insisting that at the quarterly orgies he was unable to determine who were prostitutes and who were non-working girls, he shrugged his Gallic shoulders and declared, "I dare you to distinguish between a prostitute and a naked socialite."

C'est tout.

January 19, 2015--Headscarves

At his joint news conference Friday with British Prime Minister David Cameron, with unusual public candor, Barack Obama said--

Our Muslim populations, they feel themselves to be Americans. There is, you know, this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition that is probably our greatest strength. There are parts of Europe in which that's not the case, and that's probably the greatest danger that Europe faces.

He could have added, getting himself into more trouble for truth-telling, that if we think about just France, which includes Europe's largest Muslim population, French ideology also contributes to the danger.

They live with the assertion and the fiction that theirs is a non-racial society. That Muslims, for example, who migrate to France from one of their former colonies are French citizens (no need to live in the shadows) with a full set of rights that derive from a belief system that claims that these rights are universal and are a natural benefit of the very fact of being human.

Thus, in an act of avoidance and social absurdity, France does not even gather statistics about how its various ethic minorities are faring--income numbers, educational-attainment levels, family size, religious affiliations, and so forth. All citizens are equally French and there is no need to make any divisive distinctions.

They do not even point out that though Muslims make up a full 10 percent of France's population, in the 577-seat French Assembly only about 10 are Muslims. And this, hypocritically (since France is supposed to be a fully secular society and data about religious affiliation is not actively gathered), is only because by recent action these seats were specifically craved out to assure at least some "minority" representation since until a few years only one member was Islamic.

And most Muslims in France, though they have documented, legal status, do in fact live in a Gallic version of shadows--in banlieues, isolated and segregated Muslim suburbs that surround all French cities where lack of education, jobs, and hope are endemic.

To make matters worse, the French authorities, by clinging to these illusions, take aggressive action to forbid any public display of ethnic or especially religious affiliation. For years controversy has raged around the issue of women wearing full veils and girls wearing headscarves (hajibs) in schools and other state institutions--l'affaire du voile. They are banned and this contributes to the tension between the Muslim and more secular French communities.

Meanwhile in Florida where immigrants legal and undocumented are not always welcome (I am trying to be kind) headscarves are common.

The other day, we needed to do some banking for my mother and at Wells Fargo, about a mile from where she lives, many of the women on line or waiting to see bank officers were wearing headscarves and seemed comfortable in the mix of Anglos and others from various Caribbean islands.

Later the same day, at Foodtown in multiethnic Davie, many of the customers and half the cashiers were wearing hajibs and, as at the bank, seemed totally assimilated in the polyglot mix.

So I think Obama had it right--many in Europe could do much better and isn't it good that we are as welcoming a society as we are. Far from perfect, but on the world stage, impressive.

October 7, 2013--Peacemakers, 1919

If you've been following this, you know about my obsession with geography.

Specifically, how leaders of the great powers at the end of the First World War redrew the map of the world and, ignoring history, religion, culture, and tradition, created more new countries than any tyrant or conqueror at any previous time in history.

And, you know, this has not been just an idle curiosity of mine, but grows out of an interest in the contemporary world and the problems the leaders of England, France, Italy, and the United States in 1919 bequeathed to us.

Also, I have been commenting here how that map is now in an accelerated way being undone, redrawn by seeming chaos in the Middle East, Africa, Asia Minor and even in some parts of South and Southeast Asia.

I was reminded again about this ongoing interest and the consequences while reading A. Scott Berg's recent, rather decent biography of Woodrow Wilson, Wilson.

Wilson, obsessed by the notion of a League of Nations, which he envisioned giving voice to and representing the interests of peoples whose national aspirations had been subsumed by the colonial reach of England, France, Italy, and Japan, a League of all countries that would stand for self-determination and the protection of human rights for all peoples worldwide.

He was thwarted by partisan politics back in the United States where Congress never voted to endorse the League and, as a result, as Wilson foresaw, the world inexorably drifted toward a second cataclysmic world war.

In Wilson there is a vivid picture of how the leaders of the Big Four powers in Paris in 1919 literally redrew the map of much of the world, insensitive to issues of culture, history, and national aspiration, focusing instead on their own geopolitical territorial self-interest.

Prime Ministers Georges Clemenceau of France, Lloyd George of England, Vittorio Orlando of Italy, and American President Woodrow Wilson.

Here from Berg--

The Big Four often worked from a map in the [French] President's room, one too large for any table to accommodate. Whenever it was needed, they spread it on the floor. One morning Dr. Grayson [Wilson's personal physician] entered the salon, only to find the four most powerful men in the world on their hands and knees, studying the chart. "It had every appearance," noted Grayson, "of four boys playing some kind of game." 

In the spring of 1919, that quadrumvirate on the floor erased more boundaries and created more new nations than had ever been drawn at a single time. And whenever Clemenceau and Lloyd George fell into another argument, scrapping over patches of Asia Minor, Wilson reminded them that they were engaged in the "bargaining away of peoples. . ."  

While the United States had no direct interest in most of the territorial settlements, Wilson continued to involve himself as the others tore at the Habsberg Empire. Austria and Hungary (then in the midst of a series of revolutions) would be divided into two separate landlocked countries, neither of which would ever be powerful enough to rise to any significant stature. The Treaty sanctioned a union of Czechs and Slovaks into a sovereign independent state. Similarly, the Independent Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro joined the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs as well as much of Dalmatia and Bosnia and Herzgovina to form Yugoslavia. Parts of the Habsburg Empire--Bessarabia, Bukovina, and Transylvania--joined the Kingdom of Romania. 

The Ottoman Empire offered a map with more blank space on which to draw. Out of secret treaties and mandates and assurances to Arab leaders, new nations would be built in the sand. They proved problematic because they too bundled diversified populations, often with ancient ethnic and religious differences. Tensions naturally rose in the area as each of these disparate peoples sought self-government and independence while they were in conflict among themselves and well as with their mandatories.

Four boys playing some kind of game, indeed.

September 16, 2013--Win-Win-Win-Win-Win?

Even before sitting down John said, "What do you think about what's happening in Syria?"

"Let's get that out of the way," Rona said, "so we can turn to more pleasant subjects."

John slid into the booth and ordered Eggs Benedict. "I mean," he said, "Obama's a smart guy, right?" We nodded. "Not perfect. We support him, yes?" We continued to nod. "From our perspective he's made mistakes and is too quick to compromise, but about the big picture, especially anything that has to do with history, he generally gets it right. Wouldn't you agree?"

Yes," I said, "I agree. What's your point?" My eggs were getting cold.

"First he draws red lines, then he threatens to bomb Syria because they used poison gas, but then he asks Congress to authorize military action, and after that goes along with a proposal from Russia of all places to have Syria give up its weapons of mass destruction. I'm all confused." He looked over at me and shrugged.

"Here's what I think may be going on," I said. "For certain Obama is smart, very smart, and has a big picture view of the world, especially where civilization clash as well as where there is clashing within civilizations. No better example of both being the Middle East."

"I knew I could count on you to set this in context." From his tone I wondered if he was having a little fun with  me.

I was on a roll, fully caffeinated, and so undeterred I continued, "With Syria you have a situation where everyone, every interested party is backed into a corner.  Bashar al-Assad is facing a civil war that's two years old and going nowhere. Except that his country is largely destroyed and he is justifiably seen as a mass murderer of his own people. Now by using sarin poison gas.

"The remaining big powers--England, France, Russia, the U.S--are backed into corners of their own. Russia, really Vladimir Putin is Assad's chief backer, supplying him with weapons and protecting him from being sanctioned by the UN. In turn, everyone in the so-called civilized world is looking at Putin as  a new kind of Soviet-style dictator who is proceeding to snuff out all forms of dissent while attempting to contain his own internal Muslim extremists.

"Greater Syria--including Lebanon--for many years has been a part of France's anachronistic sphere of influence; and then southern Syria, including Israel and Palestine were governed in the same way by England. The Brits this time opted out of becoming involved and thus, according to Middle Eastern calculus lost standing; while France egged Obama on in an attempt to reassert their own influence in the region."

No one interrupted me so I rattled on, "The United States appears to be in the most compromised and contradictory position of all. John Kerry and Barack Obama draw red lines and threatened to attack Syria because of their use of sarin gas. They each trumpeted that, 'The United Staes doesn't do pinpricks'; and then almost instantly took back the threat so as not to alienate doves in Congress. Kerry, for example, assured his former colleagues and the world that whatever we do in Syria would be 'unbelievably small.'"

"And then there's Israel," Rona joined in, "They didn't know how to react, right, first deciding not to say anything about America's potential involvement but then feeling isolated when the U.S. seemed to back off. They began to wonder out loud about the U.S.'s red line when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. Would Obama back off from that too?"

"So far I'm with you," John said, well into his Eggs Benedict, "But I'm not seeing how this is evidence of Obama's strategic smarts. It all sounds like quite a mess to me. Half of it his making."

"A mess it is, always has been," I said. "I'm right now toward the end of Lawrence In Arabia, and though I didn't know that much about Arabia during the time of the First World War, minimally, things there were so internally tumultuous as the result of culture, history, and outside interference that there were no easy answers then, much less now."

"And so?" John asked. "I need to leave in a minute so tell me how any of this makes sense and why I should think Obama knows what he's doing."

"I think we agree that he's no hawk. He was elected to end two wars, not to start new ones. He, though, is no pushover when it comes time to approve dangerous missions. Ask Osama bin Laden about that. Or, for that matter, much of al Qaeda's original leadership. So he must be very conflicted about getting involved in Syria, even after they used sarin. Therefore he sends out mixed signals. Some inadvertently, some intentional, and sets in motion a complex set of reactions.

"The Brits look prescient and regained some of their independence and moral standing. They are no longer Bush's or Obama's or any American president's poodle. France gets to look engaged and retains a portion of its traditional role in Greater Syria. All without having to do or risk anything. Very French.

"Putin, who needed rehabilitation in the community of nations gets to look like a statesman and Russia regains some stature and--after the collapse of the Soviet Union--looks again like a version of a superpower. Which, ironically, might help make the world a safer place.

"And Israel gets what it wanted all along--the civil war in Syria will continue unabated for years and thereby reduce the threat they feel from Hezbollah and their Syrian sponsors. If the poison gas there actually is eliminated (and I think it will be--it's in everyone's best interest) that's one more thing Israel will not have to worry about."

"And what about us? What about Obama?" John asked, "How does he come out looking good and not wimpy? As someone who has credibility and needs to be taken seriously? Doesn't he feel diminished to you?"

"Yes he does," I said, "And that may be the most brilliant thing of all. And the most courageous. To be diminished."

"You're losing me," Rona interjected. "I thought we'd get to other things by now. About how beautiful the weather is and how Monday is Bristol County tax day.  I wanted to ask John a few things about our real estate taxes."

"One more minute," I said. "What's potentially courageous in what Obama initiated--and I am speculating he initiated most of these moving pieces--is taking the risk to cool a hot situation by making it appear that America is, in Syrian circumstances and perhaps all of that region, to make it appear that we are weak.

"If so, that would be very Middle Eastern. That's one of my takeaways from Lawrence In Arabia--how among tribes and clans there at times to be strong one has to act or appear to be weak. Everyone knows who''s in fact weak or strong; and when it comes to the United States they know no one is more powerful. So a president can use some of that awareness, that political capital to get things done through subtle as opposed to bellicose behavior. At times, maybe as now, a mix of both is best."

"This is not uninteresting," John said.

"Beyond this, maybe this is also a way for Obama to say that during his remaining time, at least, we're disengaging. We and the rest of the West made enough of a mess already and perhaps it's time to try something new. Let others work things out. Locally. It will be messy, but what else is new?"

"And now about the taxes," Rona was doing her best.

John said, "I have to run. One of our granddaughters is having a birthday today. She's five. Let's hope she'll grow up to live in a better world."

"Amen to that," Rona and I said simultaneously.