To the U.S. Constitution Worshipper.

Having a personal interest in national myths, I found this week's opinion column Lexington in the Economist totally right on. I wish more people had this perspective. Maybe something that can also help restore sanity....

The perils of constitution-worship : One of the guiding principles of the tea-party movement is based on a myth, from Lexington.

.... there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century.

(.../...)

The constitution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, of course). But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

More to the point is that the constitution provides few answers to the hard questions thrown up by modern politics.

(.../...)

Pace Ms Bachmann, the constitution is for all Americans and does not belong to her party alone. Nor did Jefferson write a mission statement for the tea- partiers. They are going to have to write one for themselves.

The Politics of Fear.

Should I feel ashamed of my country because my government does shameful things?

That's a question that both French and Americans can ask at different times. G. W. Bush gave a bad name to the U.S. just like Sarkozy is giving a bad name to France these days:

Following a riot of a few "Gypsies" against French gendarmes in the south of France, French president Nicolas Sarkozy decided not only to "severely punish" the rioters but also to expel all the (illegal) Romani gypsies from France.
The French government gave assurances that no ethnic group was singled out - which would be illegal under European law and a breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But a leaked instruction from the Interior Minister to the Police showed that the "Romani" were indeed actually specifically targeted.
So it appears that France has actually violated a document which (oh the irony....!)President Nicolas Sarkozy pressured others (like Ireland or Poland) to sign up to the Lisbon treaty.
Faced with a wave of criticisms in Europe - which may even take the form of legal action against France by the European Commission - France's official position has remained defiant, thanks to Sarkozy's inflated ego. Condemnation was not limited to Europe, it went from the Pope to the United Nations, and marches against "hate and xenophobia" were organized throughout France (here).
The French president did not back down and his quick temper even turned the summit meeting of E.U. leaders that followed into a circus of mud-slinging and division.
This comes in a context of a French president weakened by one of the lowest presidential approval rates in the last 50 years - a mere 32% (not even close to Obama's at 42%) so he has been trying to revive his popularity by cracking down on crime and illegal immigrants which made him popular with his electorate in the past.

The interesting point is that just like the American right these days (i.e. the Tea Party), the French government has been using fear to regain popularity and votes. This politics of fear is nothing new but with it seems to be working really well with older white folks.
In the last few months, French Minister of the Interior Brice Hortefeux who smacks of racism has been keen on playing this dirty trick, blaming the immigrants, the Romani (and confusing Romanians with Romanis) or even the Judges (here) when new figures show the Sarkozy's crackdown on crime doesn't work (it has doubled in the last decade).

“Nationality should be stripped from anyone of foreign origin who deliberately endangers the life of a police officer, a soldier or a gendarme, or anyone else holding public office. We are suffering the consequences of 50 years of insufficiently regulated immigration which has led to a failure of integration,” said Sarkozy.

In addition, this government has been making all sorts of populist moves as attempts at diverting the French from recent political scandals and a bad economy. Examples abound : the ban on the full Muslim veil, the two-year jail sentences for the parents of minors convicted of crime, an unnecessary debate over national identity (with the implied idea that foreigners may be a threat to the French identity) a number of tough security laws, including laws to restrict the Internet (called Loppsi 2 which may potentially undermine freedom of expression), and the alleged attempt to stifle freedom of the press.

While comparing France's removal of Romani the plight of Gypsies during WWII and France to a fascist state is ridiculous.

Yes, like most French people I am sensitive to France's image in the world because it has repercussions on me when I travel or when I meet foreigners and no one likes to be given a bad name, but more importantly, there is a question of collective responsibility as I am associated with Sarkozy even if I didn't vote for him, but what can a citizen do? Vote him out, I guess, but takes another election... and the agreement of a few other million people.

As much as I may disagree with the right over the economy, there is room for discussion (I also disagree with the left), but what is unforgivable and non-negotiable is the tactic of fear and populism to get elected. Unfortunately, it seems that this is something very easy to do these days that the right both in France and in the U.S. is very good at. That tactic may take different forms, but it is basically the same strategy. Not only is it a morally wrong, it is also dangerous. One the best is out and has been fed, there may be no way to control it!

Grading the Teachers.

The start of the school year holds a lot of similarities between France and the U.S. but it also underlines huge differences between our two countries in how they see the teaching profession - and no, I am not even talking about the French teachers' strikes -

When I was in California this summer, the Los Angeles Times came up with a series of article on education, but it was not about the grades of the students this time, it was about grading teachers. The series was about "exploring the effectiveness of public schools and individual teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District.". LATimes.

Since I'm a teacher myself, it got my attention.

Here's how the assessment was made:

The reporters requested and received seven years of students’ English and math elementary-school test scores from the school district. The economist then used a statistical technique called value-added analysis to see how much progress students had made, from one year to the next, under different third- through fifth-grade teachers. NYTimes.

Or put it another way , "Value-added modeling"....

... looks at each student's past test performance and uses it to project his or her future performance. The difference between the child's actual and projected results is the estimated "value" that the teacher or school added (or subtracted) during the year. LA Times.

But that was not the end of it, the newspaper actually published a list of names of some of the teachers, along with their value-added performance, they be very good or very bad results, and they eventually released the rankings of all teachers and their rankings in the LA district. That's about 6,000 teachers.

The "value added" score is actually nothing really new, and a few states have even adopted legislation which mandates that teacher evaluation be linked to student test data.

Legislation adopted in states like Colorado, Louisiana and Kentucky and legislation vetoed in Florida follow a template of requiring that teacher evaluation for pay increase, for retaining tenure and ultimately for dismissal must be based 50% or 51% on student “value-added” or “growth” test scores alone. That is, student test score data could make or break a salary increase decision, but could also make or break a teacher’s ability to retain tenure. Schoolfinance.101

This may please a lot of parents with unquenchable worries about their kids' teachers and schools and it will give them a simple tool to measure their kids' teachers' performance but the problem is that it is precisely too simple to be true.

As Kevin Drum pointed out, assessing teachers' performance isn't just hard, it's even harder than any of other professions. I don't want to get too technical here but there are reports (see here or here) that have seriously questioned the methods used in this VA modeling :

VA modeling is not an exact enough methodology to justify identifying individual teachers as “effective” or “ineffective” based solely on a particular VA score. UCLA.

Any teacher will tell you that tests can easily be questionable and it is really hard to make a test that will reflect all the skills necessary in acquiring a certain competence :

While the math and reading California Standards Tests (CSTs) capture some math and reading skills, these tests do not measure the full range of skills, attitudes, and behaviors students should learn over the course of a school year.UCLA.

And I'm not even talking about teachers that may not be so good but may have good VA results because they're teaching to the test.

While I won't deny there is a problem of accountability in the teaching profession- a problem especially acute in France where teachers cannot be fired - assessing most teachers' true performance is impossible. You may have a good idea of the very bad ones, and in my opinion, those should be fired, but the average or even the very good ones are much harder to assess That is because teachers work with complex beings who are very sensitive to anything happening in their lives, including but not exclusively what happens in the classroom with the teachers but also with the other students.

Now of course in this day and age, it seems rather fashionable to model teachers' evaluations after what supposedly happens in the private sector, expect that... it does not :

In truth, although payment for professional employees in the private sector is sometimes related to various aspects of their performance, the measurement of this performance almost never depends on narrow quantitative measures analogous to test scores in education. Rather, private-sector managers almost always evaluate their professional and lower-management employees based on qualitative reviews by supervisors; quantitative indicators are used sparingly and in tandem with other evidence. Management experts warn against significant use of quantitative measures for making salary or bonus decisions. EPI Report.

Kevin Drums states the obvious: "teachers work alone in a classroom, and they're usually observed only briefly and by one person. And their output — well-educated students — is almost impossible to measure.".

The thing is that students, and especially children and teenagers cannot be reduced to commodities or mere products that one can fashion one way or the other. They are complex beings..... very complex.

I can't help feeling sorry for those teachers whose names were made public by the L.A. Times but this should not come as a surprise in a country that has so little regard for teachers anyway. I once considered teaching in the U.S. but I am now so glad I changed my mind. Between the pressure of the parents, the politics of school boards and their sometimes biased decisions, the neon-lit classrooms with no windows in many schools.... and the overall despise of many Americans, it is a very hard profession to have. Of course, this is no surprise in a country which values jobs according to the money you make. It is really too bad since after all, teachers play an important role, even if not exactly measurable, in the well-being of the next generations and the future of the country.

France still No. 1 for tourists

According to the UN’s World Tourism Organisation, just 25 million people travelled abroad for holidays in 1950. Today, the figure is more than 800 million, representing an annual growth rate of about 6.5%.

Just as it’s been for the past 15 years, France remains the world’s favourite destination, attracting just under 80 million visitors in 2008 (the most recent year for which full data is available). The United States is second, with about 58 million visitors from abroad, while Spain is third, with just over 57 million.

NOTE: France has more tourists -80 million - than its population - 65 million - .

Shrinking Sarkozy.

I love the cover of the Economist this week. Very well put. Sarkozy must hate it though - he has such a complex with his size. Funny, isn't it?

Here are extracts of their pretty good analysis of the French presidency:

The man who urged the French to reconcile themselves to globalisation later declared that “laissez-faire capitalism is finished”. The man who implored the French to stop knocking wealth creation then vowed to stop French carmakers building vehicles in low-cost countries for the French market. His own voters have been left thoroughly confused.
His failure to delegate has also created a clannish atmosphere at the Elysée, in which advisers hesitate to tell Mr Sarkozy, who has a fearsome temper, when he is wrong. “It’s very difficult to talk to him as an equal,” comments one old friend. This has led to some staggering errors of judgment.

The French did want a leader who would shake things up, he argues, but he went too far in the wrong places, touching sacred elements of the presidency: dignity in office, a respect for parliament and judicial independence, the separation of private and public life. The clubbish links between the Elysée, certain business and media bosses, even the judiciary, are troubling. In a country where public life has traditionally stopped at the bedroom door, many French people are dismayed to hear the president’s advisers comment publicly on the state of his marriage to Carla Bruni. Nobody wants a return to the hypocrisy of the past. But something of the solemnity of office has been damaged.

Perspetive on Islam and the United-States.

By Mark A. Schmidt.

Eating a burger with a conscience at IN-N-OUT.

Whenever I come to California, I make sure I always have a bite at an IN-N-OUT, definitely the best hamburger restaurant on the planet.

It has become an institution here in the Golden State since the first restaurant opened in 1948 and there are good reasons why that is.

Not only do they use natural, fresh ingredient, but they also have a great employee policy, so you can eat a burger and have a good (social) conscience.

The other day, I went to the IN-IN-OUT on Sunset Blvd (between La Brea and N Highland)....

... and I talked to the manager for a little while. A very nice guy. He has been working with them more than 20 years and one of his employees has been there 18 years. Not something you see in any other fast-food chain.

The meat is fresh, not frozen, and you can see the potatoes they use for the fries in the back kitchen. It is actually one of the only positive mentions in Fast Food Nation - a fascinating book on an investigation of the fast food industry that everyone should read -

The manager there also told me that it is difficult for IN-N-OUT to expand out east because it takes a lot of logistic to get the right fresh meat.

What I did not know though was that it is still a family business - owned by the grandchild of the founder. The manager there told me that they have a great employee policy, and indeed, unlike other fast food chains, they pay their employees significantly more than state and federally-mandated minimum wage. They also have all sort of positive incentives for their best employees - the guy told me he made a few trips to Europe thank to the company.

The other good thing is that their menu is very simple: three burger varieties: hamburger, cheeseburger, and "Double-Double" (or 2X2) - with or without onions and french fries.

But then, there's also their "secret menu" - the stuff that is not on the menu but that you can still order. I was told about it a few years back by friends here in CA, and it is fun because it makes you feel really special, like you're a local or something, which is always good when you're not.

NOTE: One thing I had never noticed before is that they also have discreet bible references at the bottom of their paper utensils, written in very small prints.

Times and Languages

This is what Benjamin Franklin wrote on the French and English languages more than 200 years ago :

French seems in point of universality to have supplied its [Latin’s] place.

(…/…).

This gives a considerable advantage to that nation. It enables its authors to inculcate and spread throughout nations such opinions and sentiments , as are more conducive to its interests or may contribute to its reputation by promoting the common interest of mankind.

(…/…)

Our English [language] bids fair to obtain the second place.

(…/…)

And if we were to endeavour the facilitation its progress, the study of our tongue might become much more general.

Letter by Benjamin Franklin to Noah Webster: on The English Language - Universality of the French language, 26 December 1789. (in The Works of Benjamin Franklin)

Today's Civil Right Issue.

Yesterday, the guest on Larry King Live (which I usually don't like) was American comedian Kathy Griffin. She was on the show not for her Emmy Awards controversial speech but for her activism in favor of gay rights - what is often called LGBT here in America (standing for Lesbian Gay Bisexual people).

The topic was Prop 8 - a very much discussed topic here in California. For those who may notknow, Prop 8 is a ballot proposition that would restrict marriage only to a man and a woman in the state of California and a majority of Californian voters (52%) agreed with the proposition, but it was recently struck down by a Federal court on the basis that it was discriminatory. The decision has been appealed and gay marriages have not resumed.

Griffin is not necessarily my cup of tea - she is too much out there, although she has the right personality for TV, but I liked that she said that the issue is not a gay issue but a civil rights issue. And when Larry King asked her about "Civil Unions" she rightfully said that for one thing, civil unions do not guarantee the same rights.
I think the legal issue is the most important one. Clearly history shows that the right things are not always the popular things.

That being said, a recent CNN poll suggests that more Americans are in favor of gay marriage :

This is only one poll, but what is even more interesting - and I believe very telling is the generation gap :

Nearly 60% Americans under the age of 50 say gay rights are protected under the Constitution. Only 38% of Americans over the age of 50 say the same thing.

And as can be expected the split is pretty clear between Democrats and Republican but this is one of the few instances when independents side with Democrats :

56 % of Democrats and 57 % of Independents think the Constitution conveys the right to marry to same-sex couples. Only a quarter of all Republicans agree.

These are interesting figures because they show that society is changing and is becoming more tolerant. But then again, rights take precedence over popularity - which is why it is actually very sad so see so many African Americans against gay marriage.
One argument I often hear from people opposing gay marriage is that "marriage" has always been with a man and a women. Well, yes, but it was also only between people of the same color for almost 200 years - in part of the country at least. Things change and as long as it goes towards more rights for individual, and that those changes do not take anyone's freedom away, change is good.

What I do not understand is why people are so worked up about it - giving more rights to people does not take away the rights from others.
Of course, a lot of the opponents are opposed on religious grounds - it turns out the Mormons had a big influence in the Prop8 campaign - but marriage does not have to be religious. And when people come up with the argument of the "sacredness of marriage," one can just point out the divorce rate or even better, the quick cheap weddings performed in Vegas. (Watch The Hangover, if you want to see why that's actually laughing matter!). Who are we kidding here?
Unfortunately, if the case goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Prop8 will be be upheld - most justices are conservative ... and old, and very unlikely to see it as a right. But it wouldn't be the first time that a Supreme Court would be on the wrong side of history!

It make take some time, but it'll happen and it is now just a matter of what side of history you want to be on.

In France :
Interestingly, polls in France show an even greater majority in favor of same-sex marriage and a slight majority of people in favor of gays adopting kids, but even though France has civil unions for people of the same sex, marriage is still illegal.

In Europe:
But that is bound to change fairly soon. Many countries in Europe already have it: the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland.

And people are ready for it :

A poll conducted by EOS Gallup Europe in 2003 found that 57 percent of the population in the then 15-member European Union support same-sex marriage. (Wiki)

Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in Europe Same-sex marriage Other type of partnership Unregistered cohabitation Issue under political consideration Unrecognized Constitution limits marriage to man–woman

How Many Morons are there exactly?

In case you're not convinced of how stupid people can be, (and how those are more easily found among Republicans) here are some rather telling figures for you :

- More than a third of conservative Republicans now say Obama is a Muslim, nearly double the percentage saying so early last year.

- Independents, too, are now more apt to see the president as a Muslim: Among independents, 18 percent say he is a Muslim, up eight percentage points.

- The number of people who now correctly identify Obama as a Christian has dropped to 34 percent, down from nearly half when he took office.

- Among those who say Obama is a Muslim, 60 percent say they learned about his religion from the media, suggesting that their opinions are fueled by misinformation.

But the shifting attitudes about the president's religious beliefs could also be the result of a public growing less enamored of him and increasingly attracted to labels they perceive as negative.

In other words, the less they like him, the more it means he's got to be a Muslim!

But I suppose that this must be put into perspective, since 21% of Americans also believe in witches.
And, 73% of Americans believe in at least one of the 10 items listed above, while 27% believe in none of them. (Thinkprogress)

Time: Is America Islamophobic?

Well, I do not seem to be the only one who has this concern, if it makes the cover of Time Magazine. Hell of a good question!

American Islamophobia bending the Constitution.

Whenever I come to the U.S. in the summer, it seems there is some collective hysteria or another - last year it was the health reform and "the government pulling the plug on grandma" (and Obama comparison with Hitler in insane town hall meeting)

This year, it is "the building of a Mosque on Ground Zero" or rather the building of a religious community center in downtown Manhattan, a few blocks from Ground Zero.

This has led to the most unbelievable islamophobic rhetoric I have ever heard in this nation.

Because this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution (Oh, the irony!) freedom of religion is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. So it has been fascinating to see how the fear-monger right-wing politicians and media pundits have been able to argue around it. Essentially, it goes something like this: it is not about whether Muslims have the right to build a mosque but whether they should :

Jon Boehnet House Minority Leader "The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't make it necessarily right to do so" (LATimes)

Sarah Palin "We all know they have the right to do it, but should they?"

In other words, they agree with the principle but not with the practice, which makes the principle totally irrelevant.

And then, there's Newt Gingrich who thinks we should lower our standard to those of Saudi Arabia!

This of course comes in the context of the mid-term elections coming up and has been a great opportunity for GOP leaders to use more of the politics of fear to win votes. (that along fears that the country was being swamped by a tide of illegal immigrants, etc...). What has been really creepy is to see that this particularly case has allowed people to raise questions about Islam itself without knowing anything about it. This is not just about fear, it is about ignorance and laziness - a lot of Americans do not know anything bout Islam and are not in the least bit interested.

They equal Islam with radicalism and even terrorism and that's that. Who cares if most of the victims of radical Islams - including terrorism - are Muslims themselves. (As a republican friend told me recently, they should just police themselves - whatever that means)

In a few conversations I have had with Republican friends in Orange county (CA), I have been just baffled by the extremism of their rhetoric - if you listened to them, we should really start seriously considering a 10th Crusade! (although they mentioned the 6th crusade without knowing that one already took place!). It makes you wonder if Samuel Huntington was onto something with his Clash of Civilization after all. But now what? Go to war with 1.5 billion people?

Unfortunately, this nonsensical reasoning has not been limited to the far-right wing nuts. Here's what Harry Reid the House majority leader said on this"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else" (LA Times)

As always, it seems the Democrats are pretty much shitting in their pants (Excuse my French!) and show no political backbone.

This has gone so bad that for the president to reaffirm the fist Amendment has become a "political liability" and the media ponder over he may be politically hurt by his stance. (which makes you think that G.W. Bush's statement "Islam is a religion of peace" would be really radical today) .

The greatest disappointment is certainly the Anti-Defamation League which has used a similar (crooked) line of thought:

"ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain — unnecessarily — and that is not right." (Boston Globe)

A few hopeful notes though:

• NY Mayor Bloomberg has shown some very impressive courage in the face of criticism from his own political allies (and even hateful mail). (This NYTimes article has a very good analysis as to why).

Of course, his view is completely in line with a laissez-faire principles of old Republican ideaology - which the new right seems to have conveniently forgotten :

“If somebody wants to build a mosque in a place where it’s zoned for it and they can raise the money, then they can do that,” he said. “And it’s not the government’s business.”

Another note of hope is that a lot of the families of the victims of 911 have shown support for the religious center. (NYTimes)

It does make sense for them to support this project - as Bloomberg nicely put it in his speech - (notwithstanding the fact that many Muslims died on 911).

“We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights — and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.”

And of course, there is Jon Stewart - phew!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

NOTE: Interestingly Thomas Jefferson explicitly included Islam in his defense for religious freedom in America mentioned Muslims (whom he called Mahometans) when writing about the movement for religious freedom in Virginia.

In his autobiography Jefferson wrote "[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan , the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. (Source)

Resuming activity on this blog.

Sorry to my readers for this long silent due to family matters and a long needed vacation. Activity on this blog will resume shortly.

The United States of Europe?

The Europe Union is often - wrongly - understood by Americans as the equivalent of the United-States (at least in its infancy).

Here's a good European perspective as to why the comparison does not stand, in this week's The Economist .

Americans who compare their two centuries of union to the six decades of European integration may think they are paying Europe a compliment. But it often comes across as condescension. Yes, it took America a while to form a federal government and issue a common currency, and America did fight a civil war. But European differences, whether of language, religion or history, go back millennia. Europe’s conflicts were not civil wars.

On numerous measures, Europe is more diverse than America.

Per-capita wealth in Mississippi, the poorest state, is almost two thirds the national average. But the poorest EU member, Bulgaria, stands at 38% of the union average.

Mississippi is also the most religious state: folks there are three times more likely to go to church weekly than in Vermont (the most secular state). Well, three quarters of Maltese and two thirds of Poles go to church once a week: just 3% of Danes do the same.

Mississippians are less likely than Californians to think global warming is a “very serious” problem, by 56% to 73%. Try Estonia, where just 42% think climate change is “very serious”, compared to 84% of Greeks.

Of course, there might be other differences too ...... ;-)