"The French": 2 for 2 as far as I'm concerned
Amid the justifiable anger at French military unreliability in Operation Anaconda, I'd like to throw in two things I realized during the "9/11" documentary:

I am not personally acquainted with any French people.

The two I saw in front of me seemed like the best kind of people you would ever want to get to know. I was impressed with their seriousness, and won over by their friendship and respect for the firemen both before and especially during and after the Trade Center attacks.

Sure, you'll say, it's their government I'm really mad about. Or the culture, with its odd fear of English words, its apparent fastidiousness about McDonald's hamburgers, etc., etc.

So I'll add another observation: lots of people take their countries and cultures personally. I know I do; I suspect many French people do too. I'll date myself here: I was on a "year abroad" to Germany back in 1980. The Iran hostage crisis consumed me then as 9/11 does now; I devoured German papers and the International Herald Tribune to learn as much as I could.

As I headed to a class one morning, a guy I considered a friend stopped me and told me about the failed hostage rescue attempt. I was taken aback both by his air of triumph and his words, "I stand on the side of the Iranian people," accompanied in the ensuing, shall we say, discussion, by a disquisition on the various wrongs the U.S. had committed: Viet Nam, etc. Over beers, at another time, I might have agreed with him about some of this, but at that moment, for the sake of making inconsiderate political points -- and regardless of any grains of truth in them -- a friendship ended. Which was a shame. (And one of the few unpleasant memories of that time for me.)

The example doesn't fit the present case perfectly, I know. But still, I suggest we all take a step back and remember that "the French" include people like these two filmmakers. They produced something superb for New York City and the country (and I'm glad they were reasonably well paid for it). They were also great ambassadors for their own country and culture, showing a natural friendship, respect, and bravery that undercut every foolish prejudice I've often shared about the French.

You're right: it's a sample of two. But let's be willing to suspect there are more like them. And let's not imply those French friends need to choose between friendship for America and Americans, and pride in their country or heritage. At minimum, next time you're tempted to France-bash, think how you'd tell it to the Naudet brothers.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:53:00 PM -- |    

 

Would you like your partisanship steely or fabricated?
Glenn Reynolds professes disinterest, but then writes an extended article pooh-poohing the steel tariffs issue. If he doesn't care, why bother to write one of the longer posts of the last week or two? Maybe this:

Actually, as I look at the reaction to the steel issue I'd say that a lot of people are piling on Bush extra-hard because this gives them the chance to show their independence after supporting him on the war more than they're generally comfortable supporting a President, and perhaps especially a Republican one.

Beneath the jibe, Reynolds is right about something here. I, for one, don't support the President per se, but the war effort and the United States of America. And I don't go around looking for "chances to show my independence," that's a given.

While Nick Denton has combatively stressed the steel issue, I stressed the textile issue because it undercut the war effort by pulling the rug out from under Pakistan (so to speak), when ending textile tariffs could be justified both by elementary economics and by expedient, immediate war effort considerations. Al Qaeda reinforcements from Pakistan during the Operation Anaconda fight demonstrate that these considerations remain important.

Possibly more important, the Bush administration may have made promises to Pakistan, and then broken them. According to Foer, in the New Republic article I cited below:

...Commerce Under Secretary Grant Aldonas told Musharraf's deputies that the Bush administration would neither push Congress to cut tariffs nor raise quotas for vital Pakistani exports like cotton trousers. Instead, the administration's most substantive gesture was [an offer worth about] $140 million--one-tenth of the value of Musharraf's initial request. Not surprisingly, Pakistani negotiators considered it an insult. "The [Pakistanis] said that they had nothing further to discuss. They accused Aldonas of breaking promises," says one source familiar with the proceedings. "It got quite personal and ugly."

Coupled with the all-but-Clintonian "depends what the meaning of arms reduction is" ploy in the ballyhooed Crawford, Texas Bush-Putin summit, it's beginning to look like the Bush administration can't be relied on to keep its word in foreign policy. I'd be appalled if promises made to even North Korea or Iraq were broken; it's worse yet when it happens to foreign allies (even if they're "just" Russia or Pakistan).

This undercuts the credibility of my nation, and that's one more reason I object, not to reassure myself I haven't gone all "Bushy." It's also a worrisome sign that Bush and his advisors may think that nothing can stop them these days, not even their own principles, not even their own word. Depending on the meaning of "their word," or course.

The tariffs issue goes beyond the often-boring issue of tariffs themselves; it speaks to the credibility of a President who's succeeded until now in projecting an "anti-Clinton" image of a straight-shootin', plain-talkin' fella. Here's Bush in his own words not even a year ago:

...And there's another mistake we won't repeat -- the mistake of putting artificial barriers in the way of world trade. When economy slows down, protectionist pressures tend to develop. We've seen this happen before, and it could happen again. So I want to say this as clearly as I can: Trade spurs innovation; trade creates jobs; trade will bring prosperity.

If our trading partners trade unfairly, they'll hear from us. This administration will always speak for American interests. But free and open trade is in our national interest. (Applause.) The world will know this, that I strongly, and my administration strongly supports free trade. Twenty years ago, hundreds of millions of human beings were walled off from the global economy by the policies of their own governments.

And those walls are coming down. And people in Mexico and the Americas and Asia and Africa and Eastern and Central Europe are being set free to join the world, to understand the promise of market-oriented systems. It's a big change, and change isn't always easy. But trade lifts lives and trade furthers political freedom around the world. And it will build the wealth of our nation.

I believe this. I believe I must speak straight with the American people. ...

There is a real question here of which principles govern the Bush administration as its approval ratings soar in to the stratosphere (in fact, especially when they soar in to the stratosphere). To take up my joky headline: if anyone is showing "steely" partisanship, I'd say it's the Bush administration, its apologists on this issue, and those who "fabricate" charges of narrow partisanship against Democrats or anti-globalizers.

=====
Sidebar: For an interesting article corroborating Foer's article, and detailing who else Bush, Zoellick, et al are willing to sell out for textiles (pharmaceutical industry intellectual property concerns), see this New York Times article by Lael Brainard, republished on the Brookings Institute site. Apparently, Bush's textile protectionism comes not just at the expense of far-off Pakistanis and unorganized American consumers -- and really, no one's interested in that -- but also (via Doha Trade Summit choices) at the direct expense of the pharmaceutical industry, surely more of a 21st century asset than textiles are. (Full disclosure: registered Democrat, Pfizer shareholder).
=====
Postscript: I don't care whether this opinion is "liberal" or not; folks like Dave Bonior probably think it's not, folks like Nick Denton think it is. I consider myself "often liberal," but generally take a kind of "dim sum" approach to politics and issues: a little of this, a little of that. More on that some other time. I do care about writing well, so I'll keep trying to improve. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:39:00 PM -- |    

 
A bow shock near a young star


Via Hubblesite:

The material in the fast wind from LL Ori collides with slow-moving gas evaporating away from the center of the Orion Nebula, which is located to the lower right in this Heritage image. The surface where the two winds collide is the crescent-shaped bow shock seen in the image.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:13:00 AM -- |