Book #21 of 2020: The Discovery of France by Graham Robb

We think of France and we think of an established, wealthy nation with a long history, not all of it worth celebrating. We think of philosophy, art, and literature. We think of landmarks, wine, and renowned cuisine. We think of the Enlightenment and wars of religion and Crusades both interior and exterior to the country.

But until very recently France was a nothing more than a loose association of tribes, and the spectacular natural beauty of the country was largely undiscovered by residents, let alone tourists. Robb's book shows how "France" was forced upon most of its residents, who often did not speak or read its language into the 20th century. A cartographer on a Royal mission is assassinated by suspicious locals. Beaches are regarded as unhealthy and residents avoid them at all costs. Cats and tripe are common fare in restaurants. Locals don't drink the local wine, which they regard with contempt. Soldiers conscripted into the army at the advent of WW1 have never heard of France and speak only local dialect. Much of France's tourist industry and many of its sports came from English adventure seekers trodding all over mountains and discovering things. It's a very interesting take on nation-building, and very eye-opening. At a time when France had enduring imperial experiments in Asia and Africa, the government had yet to colonize much of its own territory.

The book is full of delightful anecdotes told with humor, deep insight, and warmth. I highly recommend it. There might be lessons here for the current situation in the United States.

Global Discontents

.

Glad to see another Barsamian/Chomsky collaboration. I remember reading 'Chronicles of Dissent' almost thirty years ago. Chomsky is much breezier and less academic in these wide-ranging discussions than in his more serious tomes. Topics include imperialism, propaganda, Trump, the economy, global warming, and hopes and prospects for the survival of our species. Oh, and unlike virtually every other thinker there are these novel things called 'Notes' at the end of the book. In the notes you find sources. Sources mean you aren't just making shit up.

Noam if You Want To

One of the chapters in Chomsky's latest slim volume of ponderings is called "What can we understand?" My response is: MOST of this book.

It's deep.

Chomsky, with elegance, marshals his profound knowledge of science, philosophy, and history and distills all of this down to about 120 pages on problems and interesting avenues for exploration in the cognitive sciences. Hold onto your hat because the first chapter with its scientific linguistic jargon might have you squirming!

I have read dozens of works by Chomsky, but with one exception they were all books about politics. Politics only makes a brief appearance here as a slim chapter called "What is the common good?" This was the most accessible chapter, but the most interesting IMO was "The Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?" Chomsky spends a lot of time explaining the concept of mysterianism and how some attempts to understand the origins of language and consciousness might indeed be doomed as scientific enterprises, with mere speculative "storytelling" taking the place of actual proof.

So if you are up to finding out what one of history's most interesting and sophisticated minds is thinking about--Noam if you want to!

Keith is the word...

Olbermann did a Special Comment last night about the Democratic leadership caving to Bush on Iraq. It's indeed special, and worth a watch. While other networks were discussing the mortal combat of those titantic intellectuals Rosie and Elizabeth on The View, Olbermann was kicking ass and naming names.

I blame this situation on the selection of conservative Blue Dawg Steny Hoyer ("D"-MD) over Jack Murtha as Majority Leader.

Keith is right: throw the bums out.

If the Congress doesn't have the balls to end the war, the people will have to take more direct action.

On the Lam

Oh my goodness. Too bad E. Howard Hunt died early this year. He could have lined up for the hush money likely flowing from Cheney's coffers at this moment.

Reason for optimism

I actually enjoyed Bush's latest presser. One could wear out a copy of the DSM-IV flipping around to diagnose this guy's neurotic ticks: his defensiveness, his hypocrisy, his projection, his anti-social tendencies, his thinly veiled hostility, his martyr complex, his infantile regression, etc. I propose someone craft a Bush addendum to the manual's next edition.

Sure, W's latest performance introduces no character traits unfamiliar to Bush critics, but his approach is tinged with a new desperation. That smirking cowboy confidence is gone. He knows he's in deep shit, and when he contradicts himself (near the end he says that under his proposal his staff will answer questions "out there for everyone to see"--that's not true, as his proposal is that his staff will answer questions behind closed doors, with no transcript allowed) it's clear this is a flailing man adrift in a sea of unreality. W. is assured of only one thing--his place in history as one of the greatest buffoons ever to wield power of consequence.

How long must we wait for W's inevitable Nixonian moment, boarding Marine One a final time in utter disgrace? For the first time in six years I believe it might actually happen.

Mentí, estoy mintiendo, mentiré

It's as if someone in the Cheney Administration is reading about Nixon's demise in order to brush up on how to unravel in the same manner. We've even had CIA guys with hookers again. The parallels grow more uncanny daily. Unfortunately (well, perhaps fortunately) we don't have cable TV at the new place yet. I can't see what kind of coverage the Gonzalez/Rove Justice Department purge of attorneys who would not use their office to suppress Democratic voters is getting. These guys love to purge and surge, they surely do.

Lots of good coverage at Kos (here, here, here). The WaPo and the Times appear to be working the story, almost to the point I'm considering re-subsribing.

It's a serious, serious thing, and yet another in a long list of articles of impeachment that need drawing up should be drawn up for this. Remember Harriet Miers' sudden departure last year? Now Gonzalez' Chief of Staff has resigned as well. Get them in front of Congress and seize their passports post haste.

Speaking of Republican Presidential Hopefuls

There is one liberal in the Presidential race--former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. I saw him say this on one of the cable shows recently, as voiceover to footage of himself jamming out to Born to be Wild with his rock band:

There’s one issue I want to touch on. A key element of education is music and art education. It’s not expendable, extracurricular or extraneous. The future economy of America is going to be a creative economy. I am very passionate about it. Math, science and language scores improve dramatically when the student has music skills. Spatial reasoning is enhanced by music instructions. It is who we are. It defines us as a culture and a civilization. Very few people my age are still playing tackle football, but I’m still playing bass guitar in a rock-and-roll band.

Huckabee perhaps actually has values, instead of merely talking about them all the time. Hence the likelihood he'd win the Republican nomination is tinier than the remaining kernel of Bush's credibility.

There are chinks in Huckabee's warm and fuzzy armor. He has said troubling things about Creationism in schools, and who will go to Hell. But while most of the other 'moderates' in either party swerve rightward for votes, Huckabee swerves left.

Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200

I see that while I was at an office birthday luncheon I missed some big news. Given the rampant criminality of this administration, a mere perjury/obstruction conviction of Cheney's trusted henchman is small consolation.

It feels good, however. And bigger fish may yet fall.

Now the hysterical and breathless condemnation of this verdict by the Beltway punditocracy shall commence. Spinning and likely pardoning will follow. But Patrick Fitzgerald said when he originally announced these charges that he couldn't charge the real crime because of an impenetrable web of dissembling spun by Scooter and Rove and their ilk, so disregard the hot air about this being a non-crime cover-up. You'll hear a lot of that malarky.

Netflix

Since Unforgiven Clint Eastwood has specialized in Hollywood films drained of moral clarity. Remember when Dirty Harry was a darling of the right wing? Harry went after bad guys, and was unafraid of legally questionable means. Reagan said "Go ahead, make my day." Clint served alongside Sly Stallone and Chuck Norris in the '80s conservative entertainment backlash. These days Harry--instead of relying on his partners Smith and Wesson--says "Let me point out the intricacies and question the assumptions of this situation, and I'll get back to you." As a result, upon the release of Flags of Our Fathers the right wing lather machine bubbled over. Eastwood's portrayal of the history behind an iconic and sacred image--the photo of US Marines (and one sailor) raising Old Glory on Mount Suribachi--reeked of course of historical revisionism and Hollywood liberalism. How dare Eastwood question the PR manipulation of the "heroes" of Iwo Jima? Why should the distasteful post-war experience of Ira Hayes get so much focus? Why parse the projection of individual and societal necessities onto three young men who served as little more than blank slates, and who were embarrassed by the idolatry? Can't we have any myths untouched by fact? Must everything be deconstructed? Is nothing clear-cut?

Perhaps Eastwood made this film because of Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch. The same cynical and hypocritical game was played with their images. I'm glad to see a Hollywood conservative making a film critical of democracy at war, during war time. Are there ever really good or bad guys? Not according to the "heroes" themselves, whose words are used in the film. I look forward to Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima, which commits the cardinal sin of telling the Japanese side of the story.

Although worth seeing, I have major problems with the structure of Flags of Our Fathers. The pacing is clumsy, the narrative disjointed, the flashback technique became artificial after two or three uses--and downright tiresome after five or six. The leads are barely given time to flesh out their parts. Perhaps Eastwood intended this; the leads after all are manipulations, and are portraying guys who were wholly manipulated to the point of nearly losing their individuality. Another cost of war.