Showing posts with label sauce for the gander. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sauce for the gander. Show all posts

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Diego Rivera monostich (resartus)




Two    great             elongated  ellipses

crosseEd AC otHher

in the center of the wall




[--Bertram Wolfe,  A Life in Two Centuries (1981), p. 600.
Describing the mural “Man at the Crossroads”, painted 1934 in the foyer of the RCA building, then destroyed by order of Nelson Rockefeller.]

Note:  Rocky is invariably cast as the bad-guy here;  but as with most of the leftie causes-célèbres of the period (Sacco & Vanzetti; the Rosenbergs; Alger Hiss), their perspective is blinkered.   Wolfe himself -- Rivera’s primary supporter and biographer -- gently admonished the Mexican painter, who had been content to take Rockefeller gold, then was indignant when his patron objected at Rivera’s sneaking in Lenin at the last minute, as the centerpiece of the whole mural, at the intersection of those two ellipses.  “Have I not the right, as painters have always done, to paint into my mural  people I know?  To use any model which seems suitable?”
Wolfe observed:  “Yes, Diego, but the great painters of the Renaissance painted either the patron or somebody related to him… Do you think that if Pope Alexander VI or Lorenzo di Medici had commissioned a painting, he would expect the central figure to be Girolamo Savonarola?”

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Bank Robbery (erweitert)


[1 November 2015]  A new wrinkle has appeared, in the matter of transAtlantic economic strong-arming.  Excerpt from a richly detailed report, on a site that is nowise salonfähig  but which apparently sometimes does its due research:

Der VW-Skandal hat nicht nur Wolfsburg erschüttert, sondern wird als Rammbock gegen die deutsche Wirtschaft insgesamt missbraucht. Der Skandal ist medial inszeniert und hilft einzig der maroden Supermacht USA bei der Schwächung eines Konkurrenten.
Die Bild-Zeitung gab, wie so oft, den Takt vor: «Das Beben bei Volkswagen – warum tut es uns allen so weh? Weil es eben nicht nur um ein Auto geht. Es geht um Made in Germany.» Die Londoner Times, eines der Sprachrohre der dortigen Börse, stieß ins selbe Horn: «Unmittelbar ist der Skandal ein schwerer Schlag für einen zentralen Pfeiler der stärksten Wirtschaftsmacht Europas.» Auch in Italien wurde kolportiert, dass der VW-Skandal «den guten Namen von ganz Made in Germany zu untergraben» drohe (La Stampa).
Aber was war eigentlich geschehen? Der Börsenexperte Dirk Müller («Mr. Dax») war einer der Wenigen, die kühlen Kopf behielten. Unter der Überschrift «Volkswagen-Skandal ist gar keiner» schrieb er auf n-tv: «Volkswagen hat die Tests für Diesel-Abgaswerte manipuliert. An dieser Stelle ist es völlig unstrittig, dass dies intolerabel ist und Konsequenzen haben muss. Aber es sei noch einmal betont, dass wir über geschönte Abgaswerte reden und nicht etwa über funktionslose Airbags, versagende Bremssysteme, über die die Fahrer nicht rechtzeitig informiert wurden, oder wissentlich defekte Zündschlösser, die zu zahlreichen Todesfällen geführt haben.“ Im letzten Fall war General Motors der Schuldige gewesen – der Anlasserdefekt kostete 174 Menschen das Leben.

Ein anderes Beispiel: Seit Jahren ist es bei allen Automobilherstellern gang und gäbe, dass der Kraftstoffverbrauch unter Testbedingungen im Labor stark von dem unter alltäglichen Verkehrsbedingungen abweichen kann. Die Softwaresteuerung, die dafür verantwortlich ist, entspricht jener, die jetzt bei der Manipulation der Abgaswerte durch VW aufgeflogen ist. Die südkoreanischen Autobauer Hyundai und Kia mussten für die Angabe des falschen Spritverbrauchs 100 Millionen Dollar Strafe bezahlen, General Motors kam mit 900 Millionen Dollar für die 174 Toten im Zündschloss-Skandal davon. So billig wird es für VW nicht werden: Der Absturz seines Aktienkurses vernichtete zwischenzeitlich Papierwerte in Höhe von 30 Milliarden Euro – und von der US-Umweltbehörde droht ein Bußgeld von 16 Milliarden Euro. Es ist offensichtlich, dass hier mit zweierlei Maß gemessen wird.
Interessanterweise gab es nach dem Auffliegen der Manipulationen bei VW kurzzeitig auch Spekulationen über ähnliche Tricksereien bei anderen Automobilherstellern mit Sitz in Deutschland, nicht aber bei US-Herstellern wie Opel oder Ford. Auch die mehrheitlich im US-Besitz befindliche Daimler-Benz AG blieb verschont. (…) Beschäftigen uns etwas ausführlicher mit dem amerikanischen Hintergrund des sogenannten VW-Skandals. Die USA stehen wirtschaftlich mit dem Rücken an der Wand:

Da sie für ihre Staatsanleihen kaum noch Abnehmer finden, drängen sie diese europäischen Notenbanken auf oder kaufen sie selbst. 500 Milliarden US-Dollar, die die Volksrepublik China seit Frühjahr abgestoßen hat, wurden von europäischen Notenbanken übernommen und etwa bei der Banque Nationale de Belgique «zwischengeparkt».

Das jährliche Handelsbilanzdefizit von Uncle Sam ist auf annähernd eine Billion US-Dollar angewachsen, weil seine Exporte auf dem Weltmarkt immer schlechter abzusetzen sind. Hinzu kommen die Verteuerung der für die heimische Automobilindustrie nötigen chinesischen Importgüter durch die Yuan-Aufwertung und die Tatsache, dass die US-Industrie weiter Marktanteile an europäische Hersteller verliert.
Die US-Wirtschaft insgesamt kommt trotz Nullzinspolitik – sprich: kostenloser Kreditvergabe – nicht in Schwung. Die seit Langem angekündigte Erhöhung des Leitzins durch die Notenbank Federal Reserve (Fed) wird immer wieder verschoben.
Selbst die alles dominierende US-Rüstungsindustrie fällt als Lokomotive aus, da ein großer Krieg, der ausreichend Nachfrage generieren könnte, entweder nicht in Sicht ist, oder das Pentagon davor zurückscheut.
Beispiele hierfür finden sich zur Genüge. Im Sommer 2014 verpflichtete die US-Justiz in einem zweifelhaften Verfahren die französische Großbank BNP Paribas zu Strafzahlungen von rund neun Milliarden US-Dollar, weil das Geldinstitut Handel mit Staaten wie dem Iran, Kuba oder Sudan getrieben habe, über die Washington Sanktionen verhängt hat. Der Schlag traf Frankreich an seiner derzeit empfindlichsten Stelle, dem überschuldeten Bankensektor. Im August 2015 verursachten amerikanische Hedgefonds den größten Börsencrash in der chinesischen Nachkriegsgeschichte. Über Leerverkäufe – sogenannte short sales – setzten sie einen Abwärtsstrudel chinesischer Aktien in Gang, der von der Regierung in Peking nur mit Mühe aufgefangen werden konnte. Die Folge war ein regelrechtes Börsenmassaker in Shanghai und Shenzhen.

[Reposted below, our original take on the Paribas affair, from May 2014]

 
We earlier commented on the improvised foray into foreign policy on the part of the NYPD, backed by an unlikely alliance of local Erinnyes and the New York Post.   The result was a tremendous disruption of French politics, of which most Americans are unaware, nor do they care.
This week, another drama has been playing out, scarcely reported save in the usual bland manner of the fleeting financial bulletins (BNP stock falls on the news; meanwhile in Malaysia …), and analyzed from a political and legal perspective, almost not at all.   

In brief:  The Justice Department is demanding payment from the French bank Paribas, roughly equal to twice its annual income last year (and enough to tip it into the red for the present), for conduct that was quite legal in Europe, where the transactions in question were conducted, but which runs afoul of US regulations.   The purported legal basis for this:  the transactions were denominated in dollars (libellés en dollars).   That is rather as though we were to demand damages from some Indian pop-star, claiming jurisdiction simply on the grounds that the song in question was sung in English, over which we claim a kind of worldwise conservatorship.

Outre l'amende, BNP Paribas a fait appel aux meilleurs avocats de Wall Street pour éviter une autre sanction potentiellement lourde: la suspension temporaire de son droit à mener des transactions en dollars. Une telle limitation, outre son caractère humiliant, affecterait sérieusement nombre d'activités de la banque, pas simplement aux États-Unis. La loi de l'État de New York interdit à une banque de maquiller la documentation de transactions en dollars qui viennent se dénouer auprès de la Fed de New York, même si elles ont eu lieu hors des États-Unis. Or BNP Paribas est accusée d'avoir caché aux autorités américaines de multiples transactions en dollars, pourtant conformes au droit européen.

Adding spice to the ragout is the detail that the regulations in question, far from being an application of generally recognized ethics or equity, were pushed through by particular political lobbies, whose agendas are purely their own, and do not align with American interests save now and then by accident.   To wit:  the pariah status of Nation X (pushed through by partisans of what, during Iran-Contra, might not be named, other than as “Country A”), and of Nation Y (in obeissance to an even tinier but quite violent core of operatives bent upon restoring the Casino Culture to Country C).
Upon these narrow fanaticisms, the tip of the world’s inverted financial pyramid  now wobbles.


 “Nice little bank y’got there…
Be a shame if somefing was to happen to it.”


That this development goes uncommented at home -- a nation with a historically casual attitude towards breaking other people’s china -- is unsurprising; but foreign reporting has likewise been surprisingly muted.   We must delve into the Readers Comments section  to find opinions of the sort we might seek on the editorial page, though they be mentioned only to refute them:

Wie lange noch wollen sich die Banken der Welt von den USA vorführen lassen, und mit welchem Recht? So lange jede Bank für sich kuscht, werden die USA ihre Erpressungen fortsetzen können. Vielleicht hören wir ja aber bald mal: Banken aller Welt, vereinigt Euch...

Il y a une chose très pourri sur le fond (indépendamment que certaines transactions de la BNP soient condamnables ou non).
Les Américains nous ont imposé dans le passé le dollar US comme monnaie de référence après l'abandon du standard or (Bretton-Woods) en forçant ainsi, tous les banques de travailler en USD. Maintenant, ils prétendent que toute transaction en USD tombe sous le coup de leur justice. Le moindre chose qu'on puisse dire, que cette manipulation est extrêmement hypocrite.
Monsieur Hollande ferait bien d'annuler l'invitation officielle de M Obama pour le 6 Juin (s'il veut venir à titre privé, c'est son affaire). C'est la seule chose qui ferait réfléchir tout le monde.


There have long been grumblings about replacing the dollar as the unique reserve currency;  this sort of overreach may hasten the day.

A Suisse financial journalist comments here:


"We'd like to make a withdrawal."


~
~  Posthumous Endorsement ~
"Seems like I had it all backwards:
Don’t rob a bank from the sidewalk like I did;
rob it from the boardroom.
Oh well, too late now.
But never too late for an exciting mystery --  "
(My name is Jesse James, and I approved this message.)
~         ~
~


Ten billion big ones  is not chump change.  One reader puts it in perspective:

10 Milliarden Dollar, das entspricht dem Jahreseinkommen von 400.000 arbeitenden Otto-Normalverbrauchern.

 [Note:  "Otto-Normalverbraucher" = Joe Bloggs.]


Ah well -- A deadbeat raises the lolly however he can.  And ten billion is just about what Britain has just awarded itself, with some creative accounting:

The British Government has just announced, through the statistics office the ONS, that they will be adding around £10 billion to estimates of what the UK’s GDP actually is. This is to account for the activity going on in the drugs and prostitution sectors.



[Update]  It now appears that, in addition to a whopping fine, the U.S. is demanding that Paribas fire certain employees that have displeased their foreign masters.   The demand seems extraordinary -- what possible jurisdiction could apply? -- but a parallel does spring to mind, from the current offering of “24”, “Live Another Day”.  Here, some terrorists have hijacked a fleet of drones and have threatened to incinerate thousands unless U.S. President Heller give himself up.
Not a pleasant parallel.



[Flash update]  This just in!
The Supreme Court of China has found the U.S. banking sector guilty of doing business with Taiwan, and has assessed damages of ten trillion yuan.  Failure to promptly comply will result in an immediate cessation of Chinese purchase of T-bills, and calling-in all its loans, resulting in a swift collapse of the American economy.
In other news, OPEC has determined that the United States is guilty of commercial dealings with Israel, contrary to Islamist law.    Oil exports have been halted until the guilty parties are turned over to Hizballah for trial.



Sauce for goose, is gander-sauce


In another unexpected development, the Neighborhood Association of Monogamy Lane, Littletown USA, where Dr Justice and his bride and their companion-hamster make their home, has assessed the worldwide media the round figure of 10 quadrillion euros, for having repeatedly violated the airspace above their sylvan cul-de-sac with unauthorized transmission of electromagetic waves.  Early analysis suggests that the Association might be willing to settle for a lower figure in return for lifetime free streaming of “Leave it to Beaver”.


[Classroom assignment:  Figure out which portions of this post are satire, and which are straight news.  Harder than you might think.]


[Update 1 June 2014]  Finally, some politically alert commentary is appearing in the mainstream press, to probe beneath the lid.  Turns out the Credit Suisse shakedown was also questionable:

In Europe, people are beginning to question the continual stream of investigations, indictments and regulatory fines involving European banks. Some even go so far as to accuse US regulators of pursuing a “vendetta” against European banks to appease public anger about the banking industry without harming the US industry. The dominance of European banks on the US regulators’ hit list is indeed noticeable, and not just for sanctions-busting: European banks also feature prominently in regulatory investigations into rigging of benchmark rates.

But the US regulators don’t need to be “picking on” European banks for those banks to feature prominently in criminal prosecutions for sanctions breaking and tax evasion. Internationally, there is no consistency of law. The offenses for which these banks have been fined are not necessarily offenses in their countries of origin.

Consider Credit Suisse’s recent conviction for “conspiracy to evade taxes”. Credit Suisse helped US citizens to evade tax. Under US law, both Credit Suisse and the customers involved were guilty of a crime. But Credit Suisse is a Swiss bank, and tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland – but disclosing customer information is.


In these two cases,  then, the United States is not merely acting as international traffic cop, but as enforcing its own local regulations abroad -- ticketing Englishmen for driving on the left, as it were.
Now, I am not arguing from any position of blanket anti-interventionism. There are indeed a few unfortunate nations that seem perennially incapable of managing their own affairs.   But France and Switzerland are not among them.


[Update D-Day]   A disparity in press coverage across the Atlantic:

Une amende atteignant 16 milliards de dollars a été évoquée dans le cadre des débuts des négociations entre BNP Paribas et les autorités américaines, rapporte ce vendredi Reuters. De son côté, la presse américaine continue d'évoquer un montant compris entre 8 et 10 milliards de dollars.

And an interesting reader’s-comment on that page:

Déjà le 16 avril 2014 (www.latribune.fr) Le "diktat" du président américain oblige Renault à cesser toute activité en Iran. Faute de quoi, l'Alliance Renault-Nissan risquerait de ne plus pouvoir commercer avec les Etats-Unis. Renault a produit à travers ses partenaires 100.000 voitures en Iran l'an dernier... Déjà, PSA avait dû se retirer en 2012 sous la pression de GM. Un manque à gagner pour l'industrie tricolore!
Après 14 ans à l’Elysée et juste avant de mourir Mittérand écrivait:
« la France ne le sait pas, mais nous sommes en guerre avec l’Amérique. Oui une guerre permanente, une guerre vitale, une guerre économique, une guerre sans mort, apparement.
Oui, ils sont très durs les Américains, ils sont voraces, ils veulent le pouvoir sans partage sur le monde.
C’est une guerre inconnue, une guerre permanente, sans mort apparemment et pourtant une guerre à mort ». 27/1/97 le dernier Mitterand de Georges Marc Benamou.


~

We commented here on the bizarre American mishandling of the reparations and interallied-debt question after WWI.  (Usually this issue is depicted with France as the intransigent, and Wilson as the voice of reason.  Wilson was the voice of reason on this issue, but the rest of the country was not.)  This was more than a fleeting kerfuffle;  a distinguished chronicler who worked much of his life in France and Germany during the crucial years, summarizes the matter thus:

For more than a decade, the wrangling over war debts blew ill-feeling to and fro across the Atlantic.  By the time Hitler came to power in Germany at the beginning of 1933, the great alliance of the three Western democracies, which had humbled the Nazi dictator’s predecessors in 1918, was in ashes.  It was not to be revived, so far as the Americans were concerned, until Hitler had conquered France, put Britain in mortal peril, and declared war on the United States.
-- Wm Shirer, The Collapse of the Third Republic (1969), p. 152

Have a care, gentlemen;  have a care …

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Wannabees


Rachel Dolezal : the “Caitlyn” Jenner of racial politics.
“Caitlyn” Jenner : the Rachel Dolezal of gender politics.

... nor good red herring.



What’s sauce for the goose,
is sauce for the gander.”


Tuesday, April 21, 2015

What’s Sauce for the Goose, is Sauce for the Chimpanzee

[Note:  The following observation is merely illative, and should be skipped by the general reader.]

Awhile back I posted an Aristotelian exercise,  whose effectiveness  if any, depended upon the reader’s holding, or at least being able to entertain  for the sake of the argument, two views:

(1)  that a certain Singerian illation, of the familiar form “if A then B” (for the instantiation, vide infra), has some claim to being valid -- at all events, that it suffers from no internal vice of logical form, and might be entertained (or not) by a reasonable person, such as that Princeton philosopher;
(2) that many reasonable people (sociologically, probably most) would not, however, embrace the apodosis.

From this, something would follow -- at least for the logician;  though for extra-logical reasons, it must remain sine nomine. 

Yet this morning we find (like an ominous portent, at the bottom of our driveway) “B”  emblazoned and celebrated, in full color, taking up the whole of the front cover of the large-format New York Times Magazine.   From thence stares out at us, uniformly hirsute, but suitably suited and necktied, such a one as addressed the learnèd gentlemen in the Bericht für eine Akademie, purportedly from the witness-stand.   A sotie?  No;  an actual case, currently sub judice.   Whereby said simian brings an action at law  against parties named (or rather, it has been brought in his/its behalf, the plaintiff himitself  having not the wit to do it -- wherein lies the greatest potential for legal mischief).   And so cowed is The Times by the potential imprecations of the hyperzoöphiles, that it immediately reassures its readership, that no beasts of field or forest were harmed “or even used” in trumping-up that photograph.   They did not even dare photo-shop in an authentic hominoideal face, but dressed up a human (consent-forms duly signed, no doubt) in a costume.

Such antics are barely worth comment, as a society sues itself into insensibility.  And satire is beggared -- the very next development on the ground  will render any raillery O.B.E. 

~

Well;  I hope that has been sufficiently obscure (caviary to the Boeotians), for I am fond of my own skin.   For (comparatively translucent) comments on a work far more obscure, cf. our newly-updated essay on Finnegan’s Wake.

 ~

[Update 21 April 2015]  As noted above, satire and dystopian fantasy have a way of being overtaken as reality continues to devolve.   And now, we have sunk to this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/04/21/chimps-given-human-rights-by-u-s-court-for-the-first-time/


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Banned in France


We earlier reprinted the cover of a comic book parody, Banned in Belgium.  And you are all by now familiar with the French-condemned gesture of la quenelle.

Here is the latest forbidden image;  tweeting it in France  brought a hefty fine and a prison sentence to the satirist.


[Trigger Warning:  very very bad !!]
[Disclaimer:  If you lie within the long reach of French law, you are strictly forbidden from viewing this.]
.
.
.
.
.
.

Bike-time for Bonzo

 
(That one gives a whole new meaning to the expression “dirty French postcards”.)


Some French observers objected to the harsh sentence handed down (though many bien-pensants objected that it was too lenient):

Alors que nombre d’hommes politiques se voient ridiculisés de la même manière par des dessins agressifs voire odieux (Le Pen, Sarkozy, et autrefois Mitterrand par exemple).
http://medias-presse.info/repression-policiere-les-meandres-europeens/15328

That objection, however, ignores the Fundamental Tenet of the French Legal System:

Un Poids -- Deux Mesures

(Translation:  Don’t you dare put the goose-sauce on that gander!)

Since, however, we ourselves are not subject to Gallic interdictions, we herewith reproduce some other pleasant depictions of our primate cousins astride a bike.












Appreciate your American freedoms, while they last.   In France, those could land you in jail.


*
Si cela vous parle,
savourez la série noire
en argot authentique d’Amérique :

.

Friday, September 5, 2014

Banned in Belgium


In our earlier essays,

     La quenelle

     Al-Rabiah

we examined some widely popular, stylized or semi-humorous images, banned owing to their political edge.   And now this:

.
.
.
[ Trigger  Warning !   E.U.-forbidden image follows.]
[ All citizens of the Schengen Zone are required to exit this page NOW. ]
[  BRUXELLES IS WATCHING YOU  ]
[ Offenders will be prosecuted. ]
.
.
.




Read more here:


[Note:  The Telegraph and the WSJ also reported the story, but since they were too pusillanimous to reproduce the actual offending cartoon, I shall not link to them.]

In a curious coincidence, the later publication has also been banned in Riemannistan, though not for political reasons, but simply because the artwork of the parody is so inferior to the original, particularly in the rendering of the enchanting Wiske ….


~

There has also been a major development in the P.C. campaign against the French comic & commentator Dieudonné.   His career has already been strangled -- his traveling shows and his TV appearences banned -- and now he may be facing serious prison time ….   Based on this:

Dieudonné sur feu Foley !!

in which he discusses the execution of James Foley by the ISIL.  His presentation is being represented in the media as an endorsement of terrorism.   That it is, in exactly the same sense that Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was an endorsement of cannibalism.

Take a look at it.  Even if you don’t understand a word of French, his demeanor will tip you off that he is no rabble-rouser for violence -- nor, indeed, is he taking the matter lightly, as fodder for comedy.   It is purely a moral commentary, perhaps misguided, but well within the limits of civilized discourse.  
His basic point is, “What’s sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.”  And again, you can grasp this, even without understanding the verbal monologue. Fast-Forward to 4:48 ff; note especially 5:03.  

[Update 25 septembre 2014] And now this:


.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Phrase of the day: “Euro-Tartuffe”


Time was, in this country, and around the world, when idealists used to dream of an End to All Wars -- to be enforced (a necessary codicil, though not spoken so loud) by a One World Government.   Americans were among those in the forefront of this, signally Woodrow Wilson, who garnered a Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy of the League of Nations (la SDN), the first step towards such a new order, established as the dust was settling from the Great War.   But when push came to shove, Senate Republicans and prairie populists  would have none of it, and Wilson’s brainchild was a prophecy unhonored in its own country.

The ethos of that time  is now impossible to re-experience, though students of history may imagine it.   The Release 2.0 of the League, the United Nations, is mostly a debating shop, for harangues that few heed.   Not a bad thing;  good that it’s there;  but no shadow or echo of the original vision of One World Government (whose aftershadow lives on only in the nightmare imagination  of the prairie populists).

~

Europe, however, shaken to its foundations by the deeper trauma of the Second World War, which no-one ever imagined to dub “the Great”, and which turned out even worse than our fears, adopted a more regional version of the original vision, one which actually has some teeth to it:  what is now known as the European Union.   The average American has probably not even heard of the thing (indeed, I almost wrote “EEC” by anachronism), but it is very real.   And its existence has no doubt contributed to the one big spectacular fact of the past nigh-on seventy years, what must astonish any student of European history (which has been bloodier at every level, than the non-devotee has any idea):  unbroken peace among nations belonging to that Union.  An astonishment that grows with each passing year of No World War Three.  And if there have, in the course of those decades, been occasional instances of fussy Brusselian bureaucratic overreach -- in one actual, notorious case, regulation of the length and curvature of bananas -- this pales beside the Holocaust (to take one example, hm, at random).  

In time though, the freely adopted multiheaded yoke  has come increasingly to chafe certain individual withers;  and resistance to further EU encroachment has become a key issue in the upcoming pan-European elections:


In part, this swell of opposition comes as a result of actual EU overreach, such as the dismanteling of borders at a time of a great “inwash of the unwashed” (see essays here and here), in part because, from a more zeitgeistlich perspective, the diktats of Brussels have encouraged fresh overreach by, for example, the misandrists of Paris and Stockholm, who mean (and here I write hyperbolically, though only barely) to police and limit (with a ruler, of the sort once used by nuns to smack the palms of naughty boys) the length and curvature of erections.


[Update Memorial Day 2014;  from the NZZ:
Europa und die EU, das sind Klischees über Normen aller Art, etwa diejenige über die Krümmung der Gurke, die zwar längst nicht mehr gilt, aber an Stammtischen unvermindert als Beispiel einer fehlgeleiteten monströsen Bürokratie angeführt wird.

OK, so maybe it was cucumbers, not bananas.  Same idea.

Gurke mit Attitude


Anyhow, the people have spoken, in the Européennes, “un séisme europhobe”, avec percée du FN.]

~

~ Recommendation posthume ~
“Si j’étais encore en vie, et que je désirais un bon whodunnit,
que lirais-je?"
(Je suis le Président Wilson, et j’ai approuvé ce message)

~


Anyhow, all that is but by way of dilettante kibitzing;  I am not among those solons such as Thomas Friedman or George Will  who are licensed to pontificate  each Sunday, across from the editorial page.   I do, however, carry an official Linguist’s License, and am a paid-up member of the Global Sociophilological Association (QG:  Genève -- it is actually a subunit of the WDJ).   And hence am permitted to observe this new coinage, reported in this morning’s press:

L'écolo Durand s’en prend aux "Euro-tartuffes"
"Plus forts que les euro-sceptiques ou les euro-béats, voici venu le temps des euro-tartuffes", écrit-il. Soit, à en croire Durand, ceux qui tiennent un discours à Paris et un autre à Bruxelles.

Which, being Englished for the convenience of our obligate-anglophone friends, is no more than to say:  A prominent Green politician has coined a category to join the extant extremes of the Euro-sceptics (those who oppose further EU encroachment), and the euro-béats (difficult to translate exactly:  it refers to those bobo-bisounours, who embrace the Union and all its present and potential works, with a great big smoochy kiss):  the opportunist Euro-hypocrites (after Molière’s character Tartuffe), who, speaking alternately out of either side of the mouth spout one thing in Brussels  and another thing at home:  here to butter-up the goose, there to flatter the gander.

[ Updated here/ Mise à jour ici / Hier auf den neuesten Stand gebracht:]

Monday, March 17, 2014

Gander, Goose, Duck and Drake, each served in a different sauce


There have been many examples in history of national boundaries being altered following a plebiscite.    To take one example unlikely to rouse my readership to an instant foaming wrath:  in 1920, Denmark received northern Schleswig  following such a referendum.

It’s politics, and power politics at that.   All the blather about yesterday’s vote in the Crimea being “illegal” in the view of (a shadowy, unspecified) “International Law”  consists just of syllables, sub-semantically strung together.   If the geopolitical playing-field were momentarily tilted slightly differently, you’d have Congressmen standing on their chairs shouting for the inalienable rights of the freedom-loving Crimean People to determine their self-determination themselves  (pop, pop, pop  go the flashbulbs.)    As it is, both sides would have it their own way:

Putin:  The 1981 referendum that led to the Ukraine breaking away from the Soviet Union, was illegal.
The 2014 referendum, that may lead to the Crimea breaking away from Ukraine, is legal.

The West:  (simply reverse both judgments)



[Update 14 September 2014]  A very perceptive article in today’s Neue Zürcher Zeitung, pointing out some overlooked similarities between goose and gander:

Allzu oft wird weggehört, denn gross ist das Bedürfnis, im Kampf gegen Putins rabiates Expansionsbedürfnis nur noch Gut und Böse gelten zu lassen. Kriege vernichten intellektuelle Grauzonen. Das ist ein fataler Fehler. Nicht alles, was auf ukrainischer Seite kämpft, ist gesättigt mit europäischen Werten und demokratisch. Sogar in der Selbsteinschätzung Odnoroschenkos ist das Asowsche Bataillon eine «rechtsextreme, nationalistische» Organisation. Dies zu bemänteln, ist schädlich, denn es diskreditiert die solide, westliche Argumentation gegen Putin.



Saturday, December 7, 2013

La sauce au jars


One of the less endearing media manifestations of vox pop is the game of Blame Obama -- for just about anything:  the weather,  your messed-up lovelife, the fall of the Roman empire …  Well, turnaround is fair play;  so although this one, targeting Gingrich, may be a mite far-fetched, still, let us dunk him in this vat of gander-sauce, and see how he likes it.

As the Obama administration continues to unsuck its health care website, one questions lingers: How did this important government project get so screwed up? If you ask technologist Clay Johnson, the insurance exchange's problems began, in a way, in 1995, when "Congress decided to lobotomize itself."

Johnson was referring to a specific action lawmakers took then: They killed a tiny federal agency called the Office of Technology Assessment. Established in 1972 as Congress' nonpartisan in-house think tank, the OTA studied new technologies and offered recommendations on how Washington could adapt to them. But then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) turned off its lights.
"An OTA review might have prevented some heartburn and embarrassment" associated with the Healthcare.gov rollout, argues Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), an astrophysicist who has previously introduced legislation that would resurrect the agency.

Warning Congress about problems with Healthcare.gov—and explaining them—would have been right in OTA's wheelhouse. The office, Rep. George Brown (D-Calif.) dryly remarked in 1995, was a "defense against the dumb." During its 24-year existence, the agency developed a reputation for sharp, foresighted analysis on the problems of the new information age: It called for a new, reinforced tanker design a decade before the Exxon-Valdez spill; emphasized the danger of fertilizer bombs 15 years before Oklahoma City; predicted in 1982 that email would render the postal service obsolete; and warned that President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (better known as "Star Wars") would likely result in a "catastrophic failure" if it were ever used.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/office-technology-assessment-gingrich-obamacare

For further dish about Gingrich, and his various Gingrettas, click here.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Laws and Light-mindedness


One of the more settled and satisfactory of the human sciences  is the history and theory of the Law.  It has a foot in Logic, a foot in Natural Theology, and (think tripod here) another in Sociology:  it is well-braced.  And throning at the apex of this edifice is the field of Constitutional Law, one of whose practitioners now resides in the White House.  Each weekend on the radio, you can hear a broadcast from earlier years, of arguments before the bench of the Supreme Court:  these are invariably intelligent and to the point.   That in itself is remarkable, for so happy a state of affairs does not widely prevail in the world's legislatures and parliaments.  Our own Senate does insist on decorum, though not substance;  in the Supreme Court, you get both.  For no matter how outlandish, self-interested, or yokelish may be one party to the case, as an attorney representing them, once you step through the portals of the Court,  scholarship and analysis reign, and you have to play by those rules.  So this should be a Renaissance moment for public discussion about the law.  But alas not so.

One reason that legal reportage tends to be scanted in the MSM (Nina Totenberg is an honorable exception) is the inherent difficulty of presenting what is  a complex historical and logical construct of ideas.    A case that has wound its way through the lower courts, all the way to the top, is as difficult to summarize and analyze for the layman, as a chess tournament:  which is why both tend to get reported as though, rather than a matter of shared case-law (for chess as well has an analog -- the lore of openings and “chess precedents”) and clashing analysis, they were a football match, or a lottery, or a Broadway musical.   Politics and personalities are trumps.  In the recent Obamacare decision,  Roberts’ vote is oohed and aahed and wondered-over, as though it were the latest escapade of Tom Cruise or Charlie Sheen.   Otherwise-sensible commentators  speculated that the vote was merely a cynical, tactical move, so that next time around he could savage affirmative-action, or what have you.


(An example of the personalistic, legal-reasoning-free treatment, from the reliably middlebrow Tom Friedman:

Here is an alternative hypothesis:  The guy went to law school;  maybe he learned a thing or two.  And one of the first things you learn when you set out to become a judge, is that your normal role is to interpret and apply existing laws, not to overturn them on a whim.   Especially when the law was passed by both houses of the highest legislative body in the land: after significant and extensive debate, and that quite recently.
(That last proviso is relevent in light of the rare case in which some old forgotten law is still on the books -- say, one antedating the Civil War, stipulating that negroes shall wear a yellow bandana when straying more than a mile from their owner’s plantation.   The will of the contemporary legislature would get short shrift today.  Or, occasionally a legislature will pass a clearly misconceived law without debate, to pander to the moment, knowing that the law will be overturned.  That is not the case here.)
[Update 26 VII 2012]  This morning, NPR broadcast an enjoyable interview by Ms. Totenberg with Justice Scalia, upon the occasion of the publication of his new book.  During the course of this, he said:  "Read my lips :  stare decisis."
(As the former Editor of Pronunciation for Merriam-Webster dictionaries, I must report:
He pronounced it STAH-ray de-SIGH-siss.)

That sets a high bar.   And here, the question was not one of interpreting an existing law in light of new circumstances (say, some lab revives Neanderthal DNA;  so does the law now apply to the newly-numerous Neanderthals?), but rather, whether to strangle it in its cradle.

Before proceeding, a logical note:   The argumentation here is entirely independent of whether this particular law is wise or well-drafted.   Such factors sometimes do enter (as, whether a law is “unconstitutionally vague”), but they were not the gravamen here.   The principal accusation here was that the law is tyrannical -- the government usurping powers it does not have and should never have.

And that is a difficult case to make out. For:

(1)  The Federal government has long been permitted to conscript able-bodied young men, upon pain of imprisonment, and send them off to be killed or maimed or captured in foreign wars, even in cases where the United States was not itself under attack -- Korea --, and where, in addition to the lack of threat to CONUS, the war itself was launched under false pretenses  -- Vietnam (the Tonkin Gulf charade; and the ignoring of the lessons of the French experience before us).  Indeed, the latter episode was extraordinary, since the U.S. did not actually even declare war in that case, both parties cravenly complicit in a conspiracy to wage war while not daring to step up to the plate and say so;  in light of this, the legality of the draft was problematic, but it went unchallenged.
Against such a background, who can cry “Tyranny” for a piss-ant matter like requiring health insurance? Puh-lease ...

(2)   Suppose, bracketing the argument in (1),  you somehow decide that requiring citizens to take out health insurance is indeed an unjustified tyranny.  But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  What about the requirement that all drivers take out automobile insurance?  The arguments for the requirements are virtually identical;  yet the latter goes uncontested.  (This simple and intuitive comparison seems so obvious, it's a wonder it has not become a commonplace in this house-of-mirrors debate.)
Indeed, given the uncontested validity of the auto-insurance requirement,  the logical step would be, if anything, an expansion of such  requirements:  say, to require those who build homes (often vacation homes) in harm’s way -- floodplain, seashore, wildfire country -- to take out flood or fire insurance, since they regularly troop off to Washington with their beggar’s-bowl, demanding that taxpayers pick up the tab.


(3)  Averting our gaze from such arguments from analogy, and focusing strictly upon the matter of paying for health-care, let us consider one of the principle objections to the law:  from healthy young persons,  complaining that purchase of such insurance does not make economic sense for them personally, and that it should be up to them.  (On similar grounds, I regularly decline offers of, say, lawnmower insurance.)   To this, two counter-arguments.
            (a) Their objection is rather like that of motorcycle riders who demand the freedom to ride without a helmet, and conceals a similar duplicity.   For, so soon as the previously healthy person comes down with cancer or whatever, and so soon as the biker sustains brain-damage, they too will be out at the doors of the taxpayers, demanding to be made whole.
            (b)  More strikingly : Historically (pre-"Obamacare"), your health-insurance payments store up against the day when you -- healthy though you presently be -- may need care; for flesh is grass.   The benefits, when needed, accrue to you.   How then is this an imposition, compared with the taxes and surcharges you already pay, not for your own potential future care, but for the present care of others, unrelated to yourself, namely those who do not pay their bills?  No-one has, to my knowledge, challenged the legality of that.