text:
Save the Institute's Treasures: Stevens Committee Restores and Preserves University's Rare Historical Collections
Today, in the world of new inventions, it seems that there are no new great ideas outside of Silicon Valley that are leading to innovative products and ground-breaking inventions. But this is precisely the story of Stevens Institute of Technology's legacy since its founding in 1870.
When it comes to historical distinction, few universities can claim as many varied and technologically significant inventions as Stevens. The Stevens founding family—nicknamed the "first family of inventors"—were a dynamic force in the Industrial Age, responsible for some of the nation's most influential transportation innovations.
In order to safeguard the university's distinctive history, Stevens is proud to introduce the Historic Preservation Committee, chaired by the first lady of the university, Hoveida Farvardin. The committee aims to restore and preserve the many extraordinary historical artifacts the university has collected throughout its 143 year history, and raise the awareness of the historic legacy of the university and its founders, so future generations can fully appreciate the university's storied past.
The impetus for the Historical Preservation Committee came during the first few visits by Farvardin to the S.C. Williams Library at Stevens. She was guided on her library tours and oriented to the rich history of Stevens by Adam Winger, former director of special collections, Richard Widdicombe, the long-time Stevens friend and former library director, and Ourida Oubraham, library director.
Introduced to an awe inspiring collection of historical treasures and inventions, which instilled a great sense of pride and dedication to the university's legacy, the visits and conversations confirmed to Farvardin the need to better preserve the history of Stevens. She was inspired to form the Historical Preservation Committee to ensure the restoration, preservation and showcasing of all of the precious historical items of an institution she likes to refer to as "the hidden gem on the Hudson."
Among Stevens' most valuable and prized artifacts are: Leonardo da Vinci Books, Fredrick Winslow Taylor Possessions and Stevens Family Patents.
Through the efforts of the founding members of the Historical Preservation Committee—Farvardin, Winger, Widdicombe, Oubraham; Michelle Roscitt, wife of Richard Roscitt '73, an alumnus and current trustee; and Zef Ferreira '00, director of operations and development services—the first initiative of the committee, called Save the Institute's Treasures (SIT), is well underway.
Generous donations from Mary Jane and Frank Semcer '65, Michelle and Richard Roscitt '73, Lisa Mascolo '82, Joseph Schneider '46, Stevens Professor Emeritus Donald Merino '60, Richard Magee '63, M.S. '64, and Sc.D. '68, and a group of Stevens students led by Class of 2013 alumnus Owen Jappen—as well as the enthusiastic support of the Stevens family and the Stevens administration, trustees, students, alumni and friends—have driven a number of notable accomplishments since the launch of the Save the Institute's Treasures initiative.
"Stevens has a wonderful heritage—rich in innovation, technology and engineering," said Frank Semcer. "Our library is full of collections from the Stevens family and memorable gifts from our alumni and friends, and we believe it should be proudly displayed. The recognition of this collection, the impact of the Stevens name and the opportunity for historical research with these artifacts supports the wonderful gem of a university sitting in Hoboken."
The first major effort began in 2012 to create a digital inventory of the university's historic items. A group of Stevens students worked tirelessly to complete phase one of this project, and today, all historic items of the university that are outside the library have been tagged properly to allow for better inventory and monitoring.
In fall 2012, a gift from the Semcers allowed a master bookbinder to complete the restoration of a rare 1509 first edition copy of De Divina Proportione, a famous book of geometry, art and architecture by the Renaissance scholar Luca Pacioli which was illustrated by famed artist and inventor Leonardo da Vinci. The book was donated to the university by John William Lieb, a member of the Stevens Class of 1880 and the inventor of hydroelectric power plants.
"I spent an afternoon at the library and was overwhelmed by the treasures that were housed there—none of which were properly displayed due to lack of funding and interest," said Mary Jane Semcer. "When I saw the Da Vinci Room, I was awestruck, and the restoration of soon De Divina became a reality."
Stevens also maintains numerous other first edition da Vinci books originally owned by Lieb in the S.C. Williams Library. The Historic Preservation Committee recently received a donation gift from the Roscitt family to enable completion of a project to clean, restore and properly store two valuable da Vinci books: the Codex Leiscester, one of da Vinci's most well-known scientific journals; and the Codex Atlanticus, a multi-volume set of da Vinci drawings and writings. The committee will soon unveil and present these newly restored, valuable artifacts at a special viewing event hosted by the Farvardins and the Historical Preservation Committee.
Engineering certificates, publication drafts, journals, business correspondence, family photographs and personal belongings of Frederick Winslow Taylor, who graduated from Stevens in 1883, make up another of the university's most cherished historical collections, which draws international researchers to view these rare items. Taylor, who is known as the "father of scientific management," pioneered the application of engineering principles to shop management, and forever changed how people think about business management.
A gift from Stevens students enabled the university to frame a set of Taylor patents in spring 2013. The Historic Preservation Committee also recently repaired a set Taylor's 19th century glass lantern slides that depicts the implementation of scientific management in American factories.
"The slides show images of factory life in America during the time when Taylor's management methods were first introduced," said Leah Loscutoff, Stevens' archivist and special collections librarian and a member of the Historical Preservation Committee. "They are incredible visual evidence of the impact of Taylor's management theories."
Another crucial preservation project that was recently completed was the digitization and proper storage of the original construction plans of the USS Monitor, which were drafted by 19th century Stevens Professor Charles MacCord, the chief draftsman for famed ship designer John Ericsson. The USS Monitor is a Civil War icon which played a significant role in shaping U.S. naval history. She was the first ironclad warship commissioned by the U.S. Navy during the Civil War and is most famous for participating in the first-ever battle fought between two ironclads.
In addition, the Historic Preservation Committee has completed invaluable conversation treatments of original patents created by Stevens family members, ensuring they can be stored flat in their own drawers to prevent the fragile pieces from warping or disintegrating. Hand-drawn on linen, these patents are primarily related to steam engine technology and railroad innovation.
Another key historical figure from Stevens' history is Alexander Crombie Humphreys, the university's second president who is also known significantly, as the "father of engineering economics." Merino, the Alexander Crombie Humphreys Professor of Economics of Engineering Emeritus, is sponsoring work to organize existing material in the Humphreys archives, as well as to expand the collection. Merino has donated texts from 1905 and 1912 used by Humphreys to teach engineering economics to Stevens' undergraduates. Work is also underway to make these impressive materials available on the web, and to produce a short video history of Humphreys' accomplishments.
"Stevens has a truly inspiring tradition in engineering and entrepreneurship which needs to be shared with the Stevens community," said Merino. "For students to achieve at Stevens they need role models and examples. Heroes like Edwin A. Stevens or Humphreys could serve as these role models."
Finally, Farvardin has dedicated the entryway of Hoxie House – the traditional home of Stevens' presidents since 1929 – to exhibiting the history of Castle Stevens, the ancestral home of the Stevens family. Built in 1854, Castle Stevens was one of the most noted homes in mid-19th century America, and is the site where numerous momentous inventions were conceived – from the commercial steamboat to the T-rail to the ironclad warship. An architecturally stunning venue popular for hosting extravagant social events, Castle Stevens was later used as a dormitory, cafeteria and office space until its demolition in 1959.
With the help of the Historic Preservation Committee, Hoxie House now documents and safeguards the rich history of Castle Stevens, displaying the castle door, wallpaper from the castle and photographs of what the castle looked like in its heyday. In a parallel effort, alumni John Dalton '60 is producing a video documentary about Castle Stevens.
"Every visitor to Hoxie House can now learn about Stevens' place in 19th and 20th century America," said Farvardin.
With such a large and unique collection— it even includes a Japanese suit of armor worn more than 500 years ago and Viking swords found in Castle Stevens—the Historic Preservation Committee has plenty of work ahead of them. There are countless rare books, Stevens' family belongings, artwork, furniture and other items worthy of preservation.
There are also opportunities to collaborate externally—with the City of Hoboken, the Hoboken Historical Museum, Hoboken Public Library and other organizations—to educate the public about the university's incredible historic legacy.
"The Stevens family and Stevens alumni have made many tremendous contributions to innovation throughout history and it is our duty to preserve and safeguard that history for future generations," said Farvardin. "We have taken significant steps forward but have much further to go."
"I admire Hoveida's vision and selfless commitment to this huge project and hope that others will soon take up this exceptional cause," added Mary Jane Semcer.


text:
Local researcher volunteers will give 30 minutes of time to research information located in the Laramie County Library Genealogy Room. Additional time needed to research data outside of the Genealogy Room may be billed per an agreement with the research volunteer. E-mail queries should be directed to email@example.com
Please include the surname to be researched in the subject line of your e-mail and list the specific information you want the volunteer to research in the text of your e-mail. If you know them, please provide full names and birth, marriage or death dates of the individuals you are researching. The more information we receive, the easier it will be to complete your request. We will make every attempt to complete your request in a timely manner. If we need further information we will contact you.
Written requests can be mailed to:
Cheyenne Genealogical & Historical Society
P. O. Box 2539
Cheyenne, WY 82003-2539
Please write 'Research' on the front of the envelope.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Report Ad
Expired! This ad has expired. tQTUt9a8
Baltimore Orioles vs Toronto Blue Jays [09/30/2015] Tickets on StubHub!- Lower Reserve 85 - seats: G
- Price$0.00
Baltimore, Baltimore City
Maryland, USA
Toronto Blue Jays at Baltimore Orioles Tickets
- Posted on: 2015-02-11 13:53:26
- Classified ad views:
Map location: 21202, Baltimore, Baltimore City, Maryland, USA
Contact Seller


text:
Looking for design inspiration? Browse our curated collections!
Join our billboard contest! Enter by July 31st.
Shop our new kids collection!
Pillow Insert
Image Size
The image is near the edges of the product but doesn't cover the entire product. Some of the background color may appear around the outside edges of the image.
Background Color
Our throw pillows are made from 100% spun polyester poplin fabric and add a stylish statement to any room. Pillows are available in sizes from 14" x 14" up to 26" x 26". Each pillow is printed on both sides (same image) and includes a concealed zipper and removable insert (if selected) for easy cleaning.
Ships Within
2 - 3 business days
View All & Comment
Canvas Print
Framed Print
Metal Print
Acrylic Print
Wood Print
Greeting Card
Phone Case
Throw Pillow
Duvet Cover
Shower Curtain
Tote Bag
Round Beach Towel
Carry-All Pouch
Beach Towel
Weekender Tote Bag
Portable Battery Charger
Bath Towel
Yoga Mats
Spiral Notebooks
Fleece Blankets
Thanks Mariola, David, and Geraldine!
wow, the colors are awesome, the details are wonderful l/f
Congratulations, your work is featured on the homepage of "Created by my Hands"
Congratulations on your outstanding artwork! It has been chosen to be FEATURED in the group �500 VIEWS.�
Thanks Constantinos and Donika!
CONGRATULATIONS! Your artwork is featured in Facebook BEST ART EVER >> https://www.facebook.com/pages/BEST-ART-EVER/631924416828476?ref=hl If you want to add some of your artworks in FACEBOOK's BAE Album just write me.
Wonderful work and colors Kendal ! L/ Tweet
Thanks Pamela!
wonderful colour and brush strokes
Thanks Marlene!
As always-I like your colors and brushstrokes. very interesting painting. Thanks for your encouragement regarding my art, Kendall.
Thanks Joyce! You are so kind!
Another stunning artwork Kendall; what an amazing talent - I love everything about this! jd
Thank you, Jennie! Color and light is mostly what I am about!
Beautiful colors and light!
Thank you so much for the great compliment! Evening Flight is one of my favorite paintings. The surface is extremely complicated which is what I aim for in my work.
Such energy, yet harmony....really lovely......
Beautiful piece, Kendall! I love the colors, the texture you created! Thanks for your comment!
the right to enjoy your pictures...full of strength and inspiration...
Kendall, I agree! Excellent work... You have great style and I LOVE the colors. Shine on, Anne
Average Rating (4.86 Stars):
Bonnie Sheridan Jaremka
October 23rd, 2019
Susan Onetto
October 17th, 2019
Susan Onetto
October 17th, 2019
Evening Flight is a small impasto oil. The colors are vivid and the texture is complicated. This is a painting for people that like elevated brushwork and a continual modulation of color. The painting is on stretched canvas and is un-framed. I married the Bird Man, Clyde Kessler. He has taught me a lot about Southwest Virginia and, particularly, about birds. He has studies birds since he was very young and has uploaded over 20,000 wildlife records to Cornell University. He hopes they will be useful to future generations in their quests to preserve his beautiful mountain home. WATERMARKS WILL NOT BE ON PRINTS PLEASE PRESS THE PINTEREST BUTTON AT THE TOP! THANK YOU! ARTIST RETAINS FULL COPYRIGHT OF ARTWORK AND IS PROTECTED BY US AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAWS My paintings have been seen throughout the United States in national, international, and group shows. I have won numerous awards, including awards from Dorothy Gillespie, May Stevens, Frank Webb, and Daniel Greene. M...
Kendall Kessler Art is the online portfolio of Award Winning Professional Artist Kendall F.Kessler and former Asst.Professor of Art at Radford University. If you are interested in purchasing an original I ship the painting four days after I receive the check by UPS Ground service which takes 1-5 business days to arrive. I have over thirty years of experience shipping my artwork all over the U.S. with no returns! Just compliments! My paintings were in two group shows on Broadway and my biography is in the original Marquis Who's Who in America and has been in Who's Who of American Women, and Who's Who in the World. I primarily create large impasto oil paintings, but I also work in pastels. I have artwork in private collections in...
Our return policy is very simple:
If you're not happy with a purchase that you made on Pixels.com, for any reason, you can return it to us within 30 days of the order date. As soon as it arrives, we'll issue a full refund for the entire purchase price. Please note - Pixels does not reimburse the outgoing or return shipping charges unless the return is due to a defect in quality.
Pixels sells thousands of pieces of artwork each month - all with a 100% money-back guarantee. We take great pride in the fact that hundreds of thousands of artists have chosen Pixels to fulfill their orders, and we look forward to helping you select your next piece!
All throw pillows ship from our production facility within 2 - 3 business days of your order.


text:
fojol necesitaba un nuevo diseño de logotipo y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 172 diseños de 38 diseñadores freelance.
meeteem is a non-profit organization that will be somewhat of a neighborhood version of big brother/sister. i want this to be a design that will look really good on apparel. they want it to be retro/70's, colorful (a bunch of neons) but also have some edge (some black as well).
i grew up in the inner city of DC and want to give back to a community that needs help. older, more seasoned meeteem folks can pass on their skills, knowledge and creativity to at-risk youth. in the end, the youths will also teach something to the meeteem volunteers. it should be a give and take on both sides. we are trying to get these youths ready for life in a new way...learning a wide range of real life skills with both parties experiencing life in ways they never imagined.
i want inner city youth to gravitate towards the brand. i want the word to be retro 70's looking (maybe NYC in the 70's). i want the word to be as symmetrical as possible. i want the "e's" to be facing the "t" (i.e. so the 2nd second set of "e's" are facing backwards). i want the "m's" to just be two humps. i want it to be relatively simple but be interesting, fun, edgy and colorful (an image that inner city teenagers relate to) from 13-18 years old will gravitate towards/relate to (and hopefully see happiness/good times ahead in the design but also some edginess).
don't want any capital letters.
Descubre cómo funciona un concurso de diseño u obtén más información sobre nuestros servicios de diseño de logo.


text:
libbypdx on Family Tree Circles
view: full | list
Journals and Posts
I have gotten as far as JOHN HENRY MOBLEY who was born about 1834. The information I have says that he was born in MOBERLY, RANDOLPH, MO, maybe, maybe not. He marrien MARY ELIZA PHILIBERT 25 Jun 1866, she was the widow of Mr. HORN, his first name has been recorded as OLIVER, as LINUS & as LIVE. He died, leaving MARY ELIZA with three children, PHILIBERT (or PHILLIP)born 8 Nov 1857, ADAUNT PENINAH, born 30 Apr 1859 & JOSEPH FRANCIS, born 10 Jun 1861. JOSEPH FRANCIS has also been listed with the surname MOBLEY.
MARY ELIZA married JOSEPH HENRY MOBLEY and they had two sons, WILLIAM ADOLPHUS in 1866 and LEMUEL HENRY in 1876. On the 1870 census for JAMES TWP, STONE COUNTY, MO, MARY is shown living near her father and JOHN HENRY is nowhere in sight. On the 1880 census, she and the children are living with her father and she is divorced. No more news, so far about JOHN HENRY.
- Displaying 1-1 of 1 Journals
- 1
- of1


text:
I would like to follow up on the May 12 letter by Paul Huber. I, too, was at the May 2 Spartanburg County Council meeting and also attended Monday's meeting, and I would like to make a few observations and propose a few questions.
I would like to follow up on the May 12 letter by Paul Huber. I, too, was at the May 2 Spartanburg County Council meeting and also attended Monday's meeting, and I would like to make a few observations and propose a few questions.
At a time when everyone else is having to cut spending and be more frugal, council members O'Neal Mintz, Michael Brown and Jane Hall and Chairman Jeff Horton think it's perfectly fine to raise our taxes to spend more money on something they think we desperately need: more parks money. I will have to give Mr. Mintz credit — he is determined to get our taxes raised. He has said in the past that the General Assembly needs to raise the gas tax, so I guess he thought while no one was watching he would try to get our property taxes raised.
We are now spending more of our budget on quality-of-life projects (parks) than we are spending on public works. And Mr. Mintz wants to spend more money to build and maintain more parks? Do we have our priorities misplaced?
Doug Cobb
I am writing to address the recent article concerning food trucks in Spartanburg. Two and a half years ago, I approached the city about having a mobile food stand downtown and was told in no uncertain terms that mobile food stands and trucks were not allowed in the city. So I invested in downtown by opening a restaurant, which means I pay hospitality taxes, license fees, encroachment fees, DHEC fees, trash removal fees, parking fees and personal property taxes to the city.
Now I am told that six potential sites around town have been designated for food trucks, whose financial commitment to the city will be minimal, and that somehow this will benefit existing restaurants while encouraging the opening of new restaurants downtown.
I think having food trucks spread out all over the city will have the opposite effect. They will draw business away from every restaurant that has invested in downtown Spartanburg. Why would someone want to open a new ice cream store, for instance, when an ice cream truck would be allowed to park within a few blocks of it? The problems experienced in Greenville and Asheville, as stated in the article, will be mirrored in Spartanburg.
I am not against food trucks in the right venue. It would be fun to have an occasional food truck rodeo. A spot such as Barnet Park could be designated for such an event. This seems more logical than having trucks set up at six different sites in the city on a daily basis.
I know I am not the only small-business owner who is disappointed in the direction the city is going regarding food trucks.
Bob Beauvais
Owner, Hub Diggity Dogs


text: Prwa101 94 Report post Posted September 11, 2012 finally somebody else from sandy:headbang: hope to see your rig around:brow: theres a guy with a 83 silver brat that he just put the 2.2 in who also lives hear in sandy Dude! ive seen your post, just keep forgetting to say hi! oh theres a pretty good chance youll see it along with many more creations to come! theres a pretty good chance i know you, or you know my brothers haha which is funny, small towns are awsome! ive been here for about 15 years, i love it, close to 4x4ing, th MTn, everything awsome. i Think ive seen it! ill keep my eye peeled for it though! Where abouts in sandy do you live? I live up on Colman RD, down Tynike PRWA AAE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text:
Light Up the Night
With the Perfect Flame Grill Light ($25) and its 16 LED bulbs, you won't squint in the dark to see if your steak is perfectly cooked. Cordless, it has a clamp and powerful magnets — attach it to your grill or stand it on the side table. Lowe's stores or lowes.com.
Use the Power of Attraction
One gust of wind and your pair of tongs or a half-full soda can go flying. Keep things well secured with the Char-Broil Magneto Series, which includes a magnetic paper-towel holder ($20), drink cozy ($13), tool rest ($10), clips ($10 for two), and tool hooks ($10 for two). 866-239-6777 or charbroil.com.
Get a Lot for Less
Living Home's 20-piece stainless steel tool set ($30) has everything you need for barbecuing — a fork, a spatula, a basting brush, tongs, corn holders, skewers, and a cleaning brush with replacement heads — all packed in a solid case. BJ's Wholesale Club or bjs.com.
Put a Lid on It
Pile veggies into the stainless steel Mesh Chef's Pan ($50), and use the long handle to flip them — the pan's cover locks, so no strays fall in the fire. 877-812-6235 or williams-sonoma.com.
From: Good Housekeeping US


text:
Meeting Notes 2010 10 12
The 131st Meeting of Noisebridge
Get someone to grab the membership binder now. Get someone to take notes.
- Moderator: Stevie K
- Note-Taker: Nils
Introduction and Names[edit]
- What Noisebridge is about: "Noisebridge is a 501c3 nonprofit that provides a space for creation, collaboration, and learning about technology and creative projects. Noisebridge provides space, power tools, and infrastructure to help the public learn new skills and create cool things. Noisebridge continues to exist through and depends entirely on membership fees and donations. Our code of conduct is 'Be excellent to each other'."
- Round of introductions: What's your name, what do you do, and if you are new, how did you hear about Noisebridge? Start with the moderator and go left.
- A brief primer on consensus process: We agree and so should you!
Brewing class tomorrow at 6
Financial Report[edit]
Funds in bank:
Roughly $10k bank balance
Kelly requests for people to say what the deposits are when people deposit money to the noisebridge account
Membership Binder[edit]
- Read off any names from the binder for the past month.
- Anyone up for join this week should introduce them selves then leave the area in search of gifts for the rest of the group.
no one present who is up for membership
What's Going On at Noisebridge[edit]
One short sentence about each of the following:
For locations at Noisebridge, see a map of the 2169 location of Noisebridge.
- Circuit Hacking Mondays (Monday, 7PM, E Lab)
- Iphone Dev Meetup -- (Monday, 6PM, A. Church)
- Pyclass - Mondays (Monday, 7PM, A. Turing)
- Tastebridge cooking class - (Tuesday, ~5PM, NoiseKitchen)
- GameDevelopment - (Wednesday, 7PM, E Lab/Main Hall]]
- Tastebridge culturing - (Wednesday, ~6PM, NoiseKitchen)
- SCoW craft group - (Wednesday, 7PM, SCoW area)
- Machine_Learning - (Wednesday, 7:30PM, A. Church)
- Linux System administration certification study group - (Wednesday, 6PM, A. Turing)
- Spacebridge - (Sundays, Main Hall)
- Knots, Go, and Locks! - (Sunday afternoon, Main Hall)
Project Updates[edit]
Isky is working on an English paper.
Francis is putting together an intensive food program in the next couple weeks to do food hacking and workshops and food. He is looking to put together dates right now.
Mitch is going to lead an introduction to Arduino class on the 27th of October.
Consensus items[edit]
- Blocking Sai from being a press liason.
Is a discussion item, not a consensus item.
- Stevie k proposes: Impose a 1-week on hiatus on any member being nonexcellent
Lots of drama occurs. Mitch is going to coordinate the group hug.
Mitch is ordering more shirts
Discussion Items[edit]
- can science hackday have a meetup on oct 23rd (at nb)?
Yes, between 2 and 30 people expected
A movie night will be appearing on the mailing list soon.
Mitch is hosting a video series on hackerspaces, and the video people are coming tomorrow at noon to film, and then again on Friday elsewhere.
(Add any new items for consensus to the Current Consensus Items page.)
End of Meeting[edit]
- PGP Key Signing could happen now, check the list to see who wants in on the action.
- Put back the membership binder by the Shrine at the northeast corner.
- Save the meeting notes to the wiki.
- Send a copy of the meeting notes to the discussion list.
- Copy the Meeting Notes Template for next week's agenda and update the main wiki page's link to it.
- Enjoy a cocktail with your fellow hacker or robot.


text:
Not long ago, in Paris, I met a young Muslim woman named Djamila Benrehab, who, at the age of twenty, had donned not only a black head scarf but a billowy black abaya and, under it all, a tight black bandanna to her eyebrows that left only the circle of her face exposed. Djamila is a big, apple-cheeked, endearing person. She speaks a beautiful lilting French, and is intelligent and quite charming. Her dream is to leave Paris and go to Brooklyn, where, she has heard, Muslim girls go veiled and nobody minds, and, in any case, "it can't be worse than here." She wants to study international relations at Brooklyn College, and to qualify she is learning English at the University of Paris 13, six and a half miles from the housing projects of Garges-lès-Gonesse, where she lives with her parents, her two brothers, and a teen-age sister. But when she "made my choice . . . to announce my identity," she wasn't thinking of Brooklyn. She was married to a Muslim boy whom she knew from high school—and will not discuss except to say that his behavior was "not with God." She was so unhappy, she says, that she bought her first Koran and started to read, nights, while he was out drinking. It wasn't long before she left him and moved back to her parents' apartment. But she kept on reading. When she came to one of the passages about veils—which many Muslim feminists maintain do not so much prescribe veils as record that the wives of the Prophet went veiled and in this way were able to recognize one another and to be honored by other women for their distinction—she prayed and fasted and decided to wear one, too. Her mother, who comes from Algeria and had never been veiled, was horrified by her new clothes. "You'll waste your youth," she kept saying. But Djamila persisted. "I just said to my mom, 'I'm going to wear them.' I was attached to my decision. She didn't deter me, and now she's veiled, too."
It hasn't been easy for Djamila. She left her first job, as a teacher's aide, after parents complained that a woman in veils was not a good role model for little girls. She asked for a week off to think this over, and then offered to compromise by wearing a high rolled collar and her scarf, "just something that would cover my neck and hair," but the complaints continued and she had to quit. She went for job interviews and was always turned down. But her robes got longer and more concealing. People swore at her in the Métro. Strangers accused her of carrying bombs in her book bag. ("I said to myself, 'Tant pis! I am not a terrorist.' ") Once, when we were leaving a Paris café, a man at the next table reached up and stroked her robe, though, it being a Left Bank café, he said "Chic!" and she said, "Thank you." The only job she could get, finally, was with a telemarketing service—where, of course, she was simply a nice French voice selling something on the phone.
By last year, she was going to mosque several times a week, and her life, by her own admission, was narrowing. The police told her that they couldn't renew her identity card with her head covered in the picture. (She uncovered it, crying, but, like the Strasbourg schoolgirl, much featured in the French press, who shaved her head rather than show her hair, she had taken the precaution of clipping hers so that no one who checked the card would see it.) Then the amateur theatre company where only a few years earlier she had starred as Andromache in Racine's tragedy and as Desdemona, in "Othello," said that she couldn't continue acting if she was veiled onstage. (She says that Othello, being a Moor in Venice, might easily insist that his wife be veiled and that Desdemona, being a loving, dutiful wife, might just as easily want to prove her loyalty by obliging him; it is, at the very least, an interesting interpretation.) Then the women's basketball team in her neighborhood said that she couldn't play unless she put on a uniform of shorts and a T-shirt. And then she heard that you couldn't marry in city hall in Muslim clothes, and that distressed her, too, although she has no plans for getting remarried. The men she sees are her imam and the men in her family, and I suspect that any marriage she makes now will be arranged. She has found a Muslim women's basketball team and even a Muslim women's karate group, but she misses acting. She still rehearses in her sleep. "We are not the same as other people," she said, when I asked how she felt "excluded," but the truth is that, from the perspective of most other Frenchmen and Frenchwomen, she has excluded herself.
What does a secular Western society like France do with a woman like Djamila? The French tell you, as President Jacques Chirac told me when we talked at the Élysée last spring, that it begins with school, that "France" is an idea of citizenship, an identity forged in the neutral space of its public schools—in what Jules Ferry, the nineteenth-century father of French secular education, is said to have called the "école sanctuaire." There is really no place for religious expression or exceptionalism in those public schools, but this is precisely what many of the country's Muslims—and there are five to six million of them, nearly a tenth of the population—are demanding. Muslims today are part of the biggest labor migration in Europe since the great migrations of the Roman Empire; some analysts at the European Union say that in fifteen years they could account for twenty per cent of its population. They are part of a vast post-colonial diaspora—uprooted, often recruited, and for the most part unwelcome, unassimilated, and poor—and in France today they are also part of a social revolution: "the war between Islamic fundamentalism and secular fundamentalism," as people on both sides say.
Four years ago, when Djamila began to follow Sharia, or traditional Islamic law, she was, according to French law, an adult, capable of choice. Her sister, who is seventeen, is by law a child. She isn't veiled, but she goes to high school with girls who have been since the age of twelve, and who see no reason that they shouldn't stay veiled in a French classroom. By last year, as many as two or three thousand girls were said to be going to school veiled in one manner or another in Islamic head scarves, and as often as not were told to remove them or be sent home. France's public-school teachers had been complaining for years about veils, and Chirac himself—normally a cautious President—was getting impatient. In August of 2003, he asked a highly respected former cabinet minister by the name of Bernard Stasi, who serves as his official ombudsman in matters involving French secularism, to put together a commission on what the President called "the application of the principle of laïcité in the Republic." Stasi selected nineteen members, among them three Muslims, three Jews, and six women. (Djamila's last mayor, Nelly Olin, was one of them.) What they had in common was a belief in the separation of church and state; they were chosen to determine whether the laws on that were sufficient or needed to be clarified.
Chirac clearly felt that the time had come to make a tough, resoundingly "French" statement on secularism. He wanted to seal his leadership in the spring elections (regional in March, European in June; both routs, as it happened). And he wanted to do it well before the school year that began this fall, with hundreds of thousands of Muslim children enrolled in the country's public-school system—if for no reason other than that the school year will end on the centenary of the law that formally and, everyone then assumed, irrevocably established the separation of church and state in France. Of course, in 1905 it was also assumed that the only possible challenge to the "sacred secularism" of a French public education lay not in the cut of a Muslim's scarf but in the size of the cross on a Catholic schoolgirl's gold chain.
The politicians of 1905 had celebrated the end of a long struggle for reconciliation between the values of a republican state and its mainly Catholic citizens. When they thought about Muslim schoolgirls—assuming they thought about them at all—they kept those girls at some safe, imaginary remove, studying their Voltaire and their Balzac and their French rivers in the public schools and Catholic mission schools of the country's North African empire. (Most French Muslims are North African in origin.) No one then expected that by the turn of another century there would be millions of Muslims at home in France. Or that a lot of those Muslims would be young, angry, alienated, impressionable, and demanding their particular French "identity" in ways that not even the great prestidigitator of French identity, Charles de Gaulle, would have been able to accommodate. Or that a French President called Jacques Chirac—who got his start in a Gaullist cabinet and went on to become a Gaullist prime minister and then a Gaullist mayor of Paris, and was even now conducting a very Gaullist war of words with his American counterpart on just about every subject from the war in Iraq to the size of the European Union—would sponsor a ban on veils in French schools. But this is precisely what the President did. On March 15, 2004, he signed into law two sentences culled from the Stasi Commission's report, passed by both houses of France's parliament, and known officially as Article 141-5-1 of Law No. 2004-228 of the national Code d'Éducation: "In public elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools, it is forbidden to wear symbols or clothes through which students conspicuously"—ostensiblement—"display their religious affiliation. Internal rules require that a dialogue with the student precede the enforcement of any disciplinary procedure."
With those two sentences, as short and slippery as the Second Amendment, the French opened a box of troubles that flew onto the front page and the evening news. The British, congenitally anti-French, were pleasantly horrified by the law. The Germans—for years France's closest European allies—were embarrassed by it. Some Americans assumed that Satan was involved. Antonin Scalia, writing the dissent in a U.S. Supreme Court decision, in February, to uphold the right of states to deny public scholarship aid to Bible-ministry students, took the occasion to add that the French were "invoking interests in secularism no less benign than those the court embraces today." Not long afterward, Attorney General John Ashcroft, pointedly challenging France's godless example, filed an amicus curiae on behalf of a veiled Muslim twelve-year-old who had recently been suspended from an Oklahoma elementary school.
In France itself, there were demonstrations of veiled women, demonstrations of unveiled women, endless television debates, rap wars on the Muslim hip-hop circuit, and windy discussions in all the important papers. (Libération, on the left, and Le Figaro, on the right, were for the law; Le Monde, always contrarian, was against it.) The arguments began months before the law was passed and went on long after the President signed it. They made for a good deal of inadvertent comedy, most notably from a couple of adolescent schoolgirls—daughters of an agnostic Jewish father and a Berber mother—who had scrabbled together a book of their own pensées and were making the talk-show rounds wrapped up in color-coördinated pastel scarves, cashmere cardigans, and cowl-neck sweaters. But there was also a good deal of defiance. There were threats of schoolgirl strikes, threats of huge sympathy strikes, threats of mass lawsuits, and, with them, of years of judicial snarl. And there were serious threats of violence—terrorist threats, threats of Islamist reprisals—as well as warnings that came in the form of carefully coded messages to the country's Muslim women's-rights activists. One was an open letter from Hani Ramadan, the head of a Geneva group that tracks the heresies and blasphemies of the Islamic diaspora in Europe. Ramadan is the grandson of the Egyptian cleric Hassan Al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, and, as it happens, the brother of Tariq Ramadan, a celebrity scholar who travels the European lecture circuit promoting what could be called Islamism Lite for the Western world. (Tariq is best known in the United States as the professor whose visa to teach at Notre Dame was revoked by the Administration, for reasons suggesting that the government got the two Ramadan boys confused.) Hani Ramadan's letter was addressed to Nadia Amiri, a French feminist and former nurse with a master's degree in sociology. It said that a Muslim who forgets her duty to "submit entirely to God and only to God . . . turns ineluctably toward idolatry." Amiri was already on a police hot line. Today, when she gets a message like that, a police car patrols her street.
Still, despite, or maybe because of, the reactions, there turned out to be a genuine, if fairly conflicted, desire on the part of the French to affirm the principle of secularism in their public schools. (And the law is only about those schools. It isn't about people on the street, or people at work, or people praying, or, for that matter, about people at universities, where all but a handful of students are over eighteen and, legally, adults, and perfectly free to come to class in anything they like; it is about minors who, by law, enter the protective custody of the secular state when they walk into a public-school classroom.) At least, enough people thought that an affirmation was necessary. Maybe the timing was wrong. Maybe the law was cynical. Certainly, it touched on only the surface of France's problems, doing nothing at all to redress a long history of indifference to the millions of French Muslim citizens still referred to mainly as "the immigrants." Even some Stasi Commission members complained that, of the twenty-six proposals in their report, many addressing significant social and economic inequities that Muslims in France face, only the one about head scarves was actually adopted. "There was this rush to implement," one of them told me. "We'd seen all the notables, and all the people with problems, but most of the real people, the real part of our work—that was shrunk to the minimum. We had proposals on teaching religion in schools, on hospitals, on jobs. We weren't in such a hurry to focus on the veil." The "rush to implement" a veil law had effectively tabled those other proposals, but the commissioners also knew that passing along to the legislature a package of twenty-six complicated, costly proposals would mean a debate that could last for years, and nobody wanted that.
In the end, people said: Do it. Ninety-four per cent of the deputies who voted said yes to the new law, if not with enthusiasm then with a certain relief in being able to slip under the cover of such huge numbers. "We are world champions at lawmaking," Christine Ockrent, who has anchored the evening news on two channels, run the weekly L'Express, and, as she says, "seen everything," told me a few days after the law was signed. "We proceed not by consensus but by crises and fake collective agreements. . . . Yes, nearly everyone voted for the law, but the most lucid said, 'This law only revealed the basic incapacity of the system to integrate our immigrants.' "
To say that France rejects what it sees as America's persistent impulse toward a theocratized state—and even regards the rhetoric that drives our policy today as unnervingly close to the rhetoric of jihad—is merely to say that France was savaged by wars of religion for hundreds of years and that those wars have left most of the French, the President among them, with a dread of mixing government and God. Not that this guarantees fraternité, or even égalité, but it does go some way toward explaining the peculiarities of French public life, such as the fact that political candidates do not make speeches or pose for campaign posters in front of a church (or for that matter a synagogue or a mosque); or that state funerals take place in deconsecrated churches, like the Panthéon, and not in Notre-Dame; or that the state absorbs eighty-five per cent of the costs at qualifying parochial schools precisely in order to keep the church out of the public classroom. "I'm not saying to export it, but laicity is part of the social contract in France," President Chirac said, simply, when I first asked him about the veil law. "The state does not put a foot in any belief. It is a very French conception, and we hold to it. . . . Religion is not a subject we impose on French children. The law is because of that." Most French people—including mainstream French Muslims—would agree, at least in principle. It is mainly foreigners who are mystified that a country which has tried as single-mindedly as France to avoid any unnecessary confrontations with the Muslim world would risk its obviousadvantage with a law essentially about scarves on schoolgirls.
In a way, Chirac personifies that inscrutable French logic with which his countrymen have identified so often and so predictably that it's almost redundant to state it. He is a prickly nationalist who, at the same time, wants to set the agenda, and reap the benefits, of Europe. He is an internationalist who nevertheless believes that "the world is little by little evolving into grands blocs," each of them utterly and perhaps irremediably itself—which is to say not French. He is a very successful politician with no notable achievements beyond the remarkable one of building the machine that has kept him at the center of power for nearly forty years, and President for nearly ten. He is an eloquent, agile, and frequently moving statesman who has nurtured an idea of France—an idea of high civilization and moral purpose—while fielding accusations of the most venal sorts of corruption at home, and who will in all likelihood be indicted for some of them once he is out of office and no longer immune from prosecution. (One accusation had to do with his padding the family food bills when he was mayor of Paris by what amounts to more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.) He anoints dauphins, then turns on any of them who presume that they might succeed him. He is thick-skinned, seemingly impervious to attack, but unforgiving in matters of deference and respect. (One minister, none too useful to begin with, mentioned a Presidential hearing aid and was out of the cabinet in a matter of months.) He is personally quite appealing. Women like him, the possible exception being his wife, Bernadette, who talks wryly to reporters about her husband's infidelities, and told the Times that she turns off her cell phone on busy days, to keep the President from disturbing her "every fifteen minutes."
And Chirac is full of surprises, as his veil law proved. One diplomat told me about the "hidden" Chirac, a man who slips off to Japanese digs and is an enthusiast of Taino art and corresponds with Jiang Zemin on the subject of classical Chinese poetry. Never mind if the Chirac most people see is an old fox who thrives on the exasperation he inspires, especially if it involves the United States. His distaste for George W. Bush is shared. Two years ago, with an Iraq weapons-inspection extension on the Security Council table, he dispatched his Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, to the United Nations to tell a startled Colin Powell that, inspections or not, there were never going to be French soldiers fighting in Iraq unless the U.N. sent them, thus forcing the Security Council stalemate that ended with America's invasion. This summer, he sent Michel Barnier—the man who took over at the Quai d'Orsay when Villepin left to become Interior Minister—to call on Yasir Arafat at his compound at a moment when most European leaders had joined America in trying to replace him.
The French, however grudging, do not misread their President. Nor do they find him inconsistent. They may not love him. They may consider him imperious or ineffectual or wrong. But most of them raise a glass when he takes the high ground and scores a point for France, as he did at the D Day ceremonies this summer, welcoming Bush to Normandy with such cool good manners and gracious solemnity that Bush was reduced to a kind of glazed rage in his eyes and clenched fists. The French do not expect their Presidents to be honest or good, only that they be Presidential.
"To give you my vision of France, it's necessary first to give you my vision of the world," Chirac told me, when I asked him about French secularism. He wanted this clear: he does not believe that the world can be remade in France's image (and certainly not in anyone else's image), and this wasn't an unreasonable assessment, since France does not own large chunks of the world anymore or, indeed, have anything like the power to remake it. Nor does he doubt that most of the world holds values that are radically and perhaps irrevocably different from Western values. "The time when we imposed our values is over," he said, when I asked about his ongoing argument with America, and America's with him. He talked about the lessons of colonialism. "We made bad mistakes, we did many good things, but it's over." Given his map of the world as grands blocs with little in common except an urgent need to avoid collision, and given the tensions among them now—with America, to his mind, playing the rogue bloc—he clearly feels that France's, and indeed Europe's, historical role will be to mediate those tensions. (He thinks that America would also do well, as he put it, somewhat more grandly, "to privilege dialogue over force.") The bottom line is that he will not bend France to anybody else's values, either. He is very precise about that. A Frenchman, and this means also a Muslim Frenchman, accepts that at home the values of France, and certainly its secular imperatives, are not up for negotiation—which is why, now that the veil has come to be what he calls "the siege of a politics of Islamization," it has no place in a French public classroom.
Most people in France know Article 141-5-1 simply as the veil law—la loi contre le voile—or as the head-scarf law, or the chador or burka or hejab or jalabib or abaya or nikab or even bandanna law, or anything else they choose, mostly inaccurately, to call the clothing with which an increasing number of French Muslim schoolgirls had been covering their heads, and often their faces and bodies, and attempting to come to class. ("Veil," in France, is the catchall word.) And never mind that, as of the latest hermeneutical negotiations, the veil law also applies to the Jewish skullcap, the Sikh turban, and to any cross that looks ostensiblement religious—a term that could be said to describe any religious symbol that's simply visible, or there.
"It is a small price to pay for tranquillity" is how Michael Williams, the chief rabbi of the Synagogue Copernic, the oldest reform synagogue in France—and, in 1980, the first to be bombed by extremists—explains the fact that most French Christians and Jews, while not precisely in favor of laws like that, were quite willing to accept one. In much of Europe today, a veiled girl in a public-school classroom is considered a provocation, and not always by her own choice. In the French Republic, with its huge Muslim population, she also stands for a very particular contemporary Islamic-diaspora politics having to do with the application of Koranic law (which is to say one narrow interpretation of Koranic law) to the comportment and rights of minors in the public spaces of a secular state. Ten years ago, young French-born Muslim women were seldom veiled, and the few who were veiled were often, like Djamila, expressing nothing more political than piety or modesty or virtue. Today, they are more apt to be expressing subservience to (or fear of) the radical indoctrination of young French-born Muslim men. The politicians call it the "communitarian recruitment" of those young men—many of them born and raised in the huge housing projects, just across the ring roads of central Paris and the big industrial towns of the northeast, that the French call _les cités—_by Islamist provocateurs, protection racketeers, and preachers.
I saw my first Islamist recruitment in the mid-eighties in Dreux, a town near Chartres with a small but decent measure of assimilation. Dreux was losing its factories to the long attrition of a global oil crisis about twelve years earlier, and to the end of another kind of recruitment—the recruitment of unskilled labor that had already brought some six thousand Muslim workers to a town of twenty-four thousand people. With steadily rising unemployment, Dreux was having to deal with what amounted to an angry redneck generation of men thrown up by the seemingly unstoppable drift of labor from farm to factory. And this meant dealing with incursions not only of radical Islamist preachers but also of anti-immigrant agitators, from Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front party, into the projects where most of Dreux's workers, Christian and Muslim, lived. One of the North Africans I knew there was recruited by an itinerant holy man, a Muslim Brother who appeared one day at the gate of his factory. In no time at all, he had forsworn his chess nights, and even his nights out at the local café, for a men's group then devoted to studying the Koranic criteria for cutting off robbers' hands, and he was making plans to send his wife and three small daughters back home to a town in the Algerian desert, out of the way of wanton Western influence, their own small freedoms, and, of course, the National Front.
The Islamist network was fairly simple then. Saudis funded the Brotherhood through its leadership in Egypt; the Brotherhood, in turn, trained Algerian and Moroccan preachers and sent them off to conquer the diaspora in towns like Dreux. Those preachers were self-styled vigilantes. They stalked the North African schoolboys, demanding recruits for their after-school Koran classes—threatening and often beating the ones who refused, but always offering free textbooks to the ones who came and "protection" to their parents. Within a few months, those boys were the vigilantes, exhorting their classmates to embrace the kind of Islam they had always mocked as something that, in France, only illiterate peasants from Anatolia practiced. The recruitment spread, acknowledged but as often as not ignored, since, from the point of view of the government, and certainly of the police, the preachers seemed to be serving a useful purpose: policing their own neighborhoods, keeping them quiet, and keeping violence contained and crime "disciplined." The veil made an easy symbol, perhaps because only women would have to wear it. And it represented another kind of discipline—the discipline of a profound revolt. In 1989, when no more than a few hundred schoolgirls were reported by their teachers or principals to be wearing head scarves, three Muslim girls were put on probation and sent home from a middle school in the working-class cité of Creil, north of Paris, for refusing to remove them. Their fathers, backed by the local Islamists, went to court. The court ruled for them. But the case itself, the first of its kind in France, got so much lurid attention—one manifesto, published in Nouvel Observateur, called the ruling "a scholastic Munich"—that Lionel Jospin, then the Education Minister in a Socialist cabinet, asked the Conseil d'État for teachers' "guidelines," thus sidestepping the problem of setting some himself or embarrassing his President, François Mitterrand, by demanding that he set them. The Conseil tossed the problem back to the schools, telling the principals to address the problem case by case, saying that it all depended on whether a principal found the clothes in question to be acceptable or defiant. (The term used then was ostentatoire, or ostentatious.)
No one was much guided by those guidelines. The left, whatever its old claims to being the guarantor of a secular state, was adrift in a sea of unforeseen (and almost comically unsettling) new imperatives having to do with multiculturalism and diversity and political correctness, unable to decide the relative merits of freedom of religious expression and freedom from religious expression. (Louisa Ferhat, an actress who tours the country speaking for an organization of French Berber women, told me that whenever friends on the left would say, "Ah, but we must understand the culture of the veil," she would have to remind them that nearly two million of France's Muslims were Kabyle Berbers, not Arabs, and that Kabyle women were "culturally" never veiled in their own villages in Algeria, and only occasionally in the Arabs' cities.) Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a former Socialist Finance Minister and a shrewd observer of his party's wafflings, describes this now as a kind of Sophie's choice between "the democracy solution," which acknowledges differences, and "the republic solution," which says that when you're a citizen you behave like one. He told me that even in those comparatively tranquil days you were never going to be able to solve the problem of social neglect and Islamist subversion by reducing it "to a matter of a few thousand schoolgirls with a little piece of cotton on their heads."
No one, of course, knows what would have happened if a law like Article 141-5-1 had been proposed and debated and passed in 1989, though it's probably safe to say that the scarf in France was then the sign of a local problem, not a global one. France had lost thirteen people to terrorist bombings in the mid-eighties, and had since put a frankly self-serving—and fairly successful—purchase on safety, infuriating its European allies by negotiating that safety with Muslim groups and even Muslim governments. It was no secret that France was courting Middle Eastern clients, though the preference was clearly for states like Algeria and Iraq, where the power, however despotic, was secular, and where France had had a historical influence. Its dealings in the Middle East were hardly savory (though it has to be said that no one's were). By the first Gulf War, in the winter of 1990-91, the French had built a nuclear reactor for Iraq (Israel bombed it in 1981), and had sold Saddam Hussein more than twenty-three billion dollars' worth of arms and a fleet of Mirage bombers (including the intercept codes, a gesture of friendship which kept France's own bombers off the ground for the critical first two weeks of that war). By the time the current war in Iraq started, Saddam's debt to France amounted to upward of four billion dollars—one obvious reason for Chirac's reluctance to join it, as he had joined the first one and the war in Afghanistan in 2001. (There is now a French commander of nato's Afghan occupation forces.)
I was in France during the first Gulf War, and the remarkable thing then was how calm the country stayed—which is to say how calm its Muslims stayed, how French their loyalties were, how marginal the Islamist preachers still seemed. That changed. In December of 1991, France stood by while its old colony of Algeria, a police state by anybody's standards, cancelled the results of elections that would have put a coalition of imams and Islamist parties in power—and then, covering its bases, accepted the Algerian Islamists who fled to France as religious refugees under the Geneva Convention. They arrived just as a new generation of French Algerians were starting high school in the cités where they were born—young citizens with French expectations and, maybe because of this, not much patience for French promises and French intolerance and French exclusion camouflaged by a very French rhetoric of equality and integration. That generation had no claims on a colonial past. What they inherited were the bitter myths of their parents' past, untempered by any of their parents' nostalgia or desperate gratitude. What they lived were the bitter realities of the present.
The cités themselves were a failed fantasy of a new life, a misbegotten experiment in social planning that began with Le Corbusier's famous Unité d'Habitation, in Marseilles, and spread through France and into the rest of northern Europe. Nothing that should have happened in the cités happened. Big businesses did not arrive; bourgeois families did not build housing estates next door; the projects themselves deteriorated, victim to construction boondoggles. The children of immigrants who had moved in, expecting a new life, became the prisoners of that life. The future they wanted shimmered across the ring roads of urban France, always receding into someone else's neighborhood. In their own neighborhoods, there was not much to look forward to besides a thwarted education (only four per cent of them make it to university) and no jobs (sixty per cent unemployment in some of the cités today) and the strained services of the welfare state and, of course, the immigrant imams with their new promises, telling them that the world was theirs. They were going to take back their communities "for God," starting with the community of their own families—with the women, with the veil. As an exercise, it was not so different from what the Marxist psychiatrist Frantz Fanon described, forty-four years ago in French-colonial Algeria, when he wrote that the last "property" of a desperate man, a man who had lost everything, was his family—that to own a family was to own something. Fanon's patients, in the middle of another revolution against the French, had recurring nightmares of their wives and daughters and sisters spinning out of the orbit of their control, and it was nightmares like those that the Islamists tapped in France.
Then, of course, September 11th happened and, more to the point, the invasion of Iraq. It didn't matter that France stayed out of the war; France was the West, regardless. This was when the recruitment of young French Muslim men into the terror network feeding the Chechen and Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies picked up in earnest, with Osama making his début as a start-up image on cell phones and Islamist Web sites—an action hero brandishing a Kalashnikov. It was also when an increasing number of Muslim schoolgirls started attempting to enter classrooms draped in clothing that had less to do with the places their families came from than with a kind of global ur-Islam, which may be why it was dismissed, for a while, as some sort of adolescent fad. Sometimes it was. But more often those girls were under orders from their fathers and uncles and brothers and even their male classmates. For the boys, transforming a bluejeaned teen-age sister into a docile and observant "Muslim" virgin was a rite de passage into authority, the fast track to becoming a man and, more important, a Muslim man. For the girls themselves, it was the beginning of a series of small exemptions from Frenchness—no sports, no biology, no Voltaire—that in the end had nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with isolation. It was also a license for violence. Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out "Islamic justice." Sometimes, the girls were gang-raped. In 2002, an unveiled Muslim girl in the cité of Vitry-sur-Seine was burned alive by a boy she had turned down.
Jacques Chirac turns seventy-two this month and will be nearly seventy-five when the next Presidential election is held. But, by all evidence, he is determined to run for what would be his third term, and many of the people who swept him into office last time now feel that his last dauphin and latest rival, Nicolas Sarkozy—a self-made lawyer who claims to come from "reality," which is to say not from the icy heights of the École Nationale d'Administration, where most French leaders, including the President, are groomed and stamped "ruling class"—would do much better at maneuvering the country through its new Islamist thickets. Sarkozy was, at any rate, the one government minister to speak publicly against the veil law, perhaps because he was already courting the Muslim vote in his own Presidential bid. That vote has been pretty much untapped since the end of the Algerian War, in 1962, brought the first great wave of North African immigrants to France. No Muslim candidates from any of the big parties have been given a shot at election districts they might actually win; there still isn't a French Muslim in the National Assembly or the Senate. And, given the alienation of the Muslim poor, not to mention the fact that French law forbids census questions about religious or ethnic affiliation, it is impossible for anyone (except, presumably, the secret services) to know how many Muslims vote anyway.
Sarkozy spent two years as Minister of the Interior, and it was from that post that he started his run for the Presidency, in 2003, sponsoring and then accrediting a Muslim umbrella group called the French Council of the Muslim Religion. He argued, with some justice, that French Catholics were already represented by the Church hierarchy, and that Protestants and Jews had independent consistories to represent their interests, whereas French Muslims had been represented, if at all, only by Dalil Boubakeur, the aging rector of Paris's Grand Mosque, and a group of state-vetted imams. (Within the government, he argued that this was really a way to monitor Islamist activity.) Boubakeur, as France's senior Muslim cleric, became the titular president of the new council. Not much later, he testified to the Stasi Commission on behalf of "school peace." (When I visited him at the mosque, he told me, "I see these girls in veils, I ask them, 'What do you know of Islam? Nothing? Not even the Islamic dates?' I say to them, 'Learn something about all this. Learn your religion before you go out and make a spectacle of yourselves in the streets.' ") But Boubakeur was not a neutral party. He owes his job to the government in Algiers, which supports the Grand Mosque and underwrites his salary. He is paid to be diplomatic and accommodating in Algeria's interests, and from the point of view of the Islamists—and not only the Islamists—that compromised whatever claim he had to authority over the Muslim community in France.
The real power in the new Muslim council was easily seized by a French-educated Islamist named Fouad Alaoui, the secretary-general of a large, well-financed fundamentalist group, the Union of French Islamic Organizations, which was planning to support the lawsuits of veiled schoolgirls. Alaoui called for a moratorium on defiance a few days after two French journalists—Georges Malbrunot, of Le Figaro, and Christian Chesnot, of Radio France—and their Syrian driver were kidnapped on the road to Falluja, on August 20th, by Islamists demanding the revocation of the veil law in exchange, presumably, for their lives. And he was much in the news in September, when he joined a delegation of French Muslim clerics sent to Iraq to try to free them. But there is not much doubt about Alaoui's agenda. "The French have always had a problem with religion—it's a reflex action," he told me when I visited him at his offices, above a La Courneuve mosque, off a long hall full of men waiting around, talking, and secretaries in long gray head scarves moving silently past them, taking orders and running errands, never smiling, their eyes trained on the ground. "And they have a huge problem with women. They think that their model of emancipation is the emancipation. But girls who want to stay in school, girls who want to be doctors—that's not the only model." Alaoui has followers all over France. He claims that a hundred thousand people came to the last yearly meeting of his Islamic union, in Le Bourget, and that both men and women had been invited to participate. But the women who did come were seated apart from the men, and most of them were enveloped in caftans and shawls.
Alaoui is not a particularly pleasant character. He is a French Moroccan with none of the grace or humor of a Moroccan host and most of the arrogance of a French bureaucrat. He had a list of grievances, some of them true, and some of them shared by other Frenchmen: Chirac, before putting together his commission with Bernard Stasi, had essentially cancelled funding for the part-time high-school jobs that thousands of students counted on for a small salary (true); the commission itself had called a hundred and sixty-nine witnesses, but "only ten or fifteen were against the veil law" (false). He neglected to mention that when one veiled woman was called to testify a man in her family whispered instructions in her ear, insulted the commissioners, and then accused them of harassment. And Alaoui had nothing at all to say on the subject of veil enthusiasts like the French-Tunisian writer Fawzia Zouari, who maintained, improbably, that the veil wasn't a sign of religious submission but an emblem of feminism, a way of saying "Je m'en fou d'hommes!" and "like Islamic architecture, a way you can see out but no one can see in." Or, you could say, the veil as a bad hair day. A month later, she insisted to me that there were no laws forcing women to veil in Iran, only "advisories."
There has been a good deal of discussion about the veil law among women who consider themselves to be strong French feminists. Ségolène Royal is a popular Socialist deputy and the new governor of Poitou-Charentes, and a refreshingly outspoken presence in the sniffy male sanctum of French politics. She has reservations about the new law, although she voted for it. She says she is more concerned about the effect of pornography on children than she is about scarves (which, to her mind, can be "very pretty . . . like the bonnets in Africa"). She told me, "Yes, I would say that the veil is a symbol of the oppression and segregation of women, but how do you resolve the problems of Muslim women in a society like this, where all the bus kiosks have advertising posters with naked women on them?" She worries about what will happen to those Muslim women if there is a blanket enforcement of sexual integration. But many feminists would argue that the Islamist obsession with covering up women's bodies is a deeper form of pornography than an obsession with uncovering them.
Anne Hidalgo, the deputy mayor of Paris, whose portfolio includes women's rights (the French say "equality between men and women"), has no reservations about the law. She told me about some of the storefront prayer rooms she has helped open in immigrant neighborhoods—neighborhoods where Muslims had nowhere to pray but the sidewalks—and said that she worries about new preachers coming in and trying to undermine the law, and even preventing girls and women from taking part in mosque activities. She and the mayor, Bertrand Delanoë, are Socialists, though they have been much more inventive than most politicians in their party in making French Muslims feel welcome. They sponsor Friday lunches at high schools in Muslim neighborhoods, so the girls and their teachers can get together and talk things over. They throw a big party at city hall to celebrate the end of Ramadan each year. But they believe that head scarves in schools are only the beginning of Islamist demands for exceptional status within French law. (Hidalgo's friend Martine Aubry, the Socialist mayor of Lille, has stretched the law to meet Islamist sensibilities by closing municipal pools to men for several hours a week so that Muslim women can bathe alone.)
Hidalgo, who is the daughter of Spanish Republican immigrants, said, "We've been very perturbed about the veil. To see those very young girls veiled . . . The 'evolution' of the veil here isn't about choice, or religion. Perhaps the veil once said something religious, but now it's a sign of oppression. It isn't God, it's men who want it." Last year, Hidalgo had to suspend a Muslim woman who worked at city hall and was not only demanding to wear her Islamist robes and head scarves but refusing to shake hands with or even look at any of the men she was supposed to greet and help. "There are rules about public space," Hidalgo told me. "It was unthinkable that a person representing the collectivity go veiled."
On the other hand, Françoise Gaspard, a former Socialist deputy who is now France's representative for women's rights at the United Nations, came out publicly against the veil law, claiming that it would keep the daughters of Islamist families from getting to go to school at all, and they would end up "martyrs" to the Islamist cause. Her companion, the feminist writer Claude Servan-Schreiber, talks about visiting schools and being told by one Muslim girl after another: If you forbid the veil, my parents send me away to North Africa to be married off. (Those girls are much in demand among older men looking for access to French visas and work permits.) "It changed my mind completely," she said. "I decided we had to fight so that those girls were not excluded." Other feminists point to the alternatives. There are accredited correspondence courses. There is monitored homeschooling. There is the possibility of Muslim parochial schools—Lille now has one—which by meeting state education standards would be eligible for state support. Most feminists acknowledge that, whatever the law, there will always be some attrition in an education system. Gaspard shocked those feminists by militating against the veil law, especially because she had been the driving force behind a political parity law that went into effect in France in 2000. "I was very alone," Gaspard said, when I asked about the reaction, adding that France's own record on women's rights was hardly splendid, and that even the Jacobins of the French Revolution had outlawed pants on women. Other feminists reminded me that Frenchwomen couldn't open bank accounts or apply for passports until the late thirties, and couldn't even vote until 1945. For a long time in France, le citoyen meant mainly the rights of men.
The feminist philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, who wrote a book about parity and lobbied for it (she is married to Lionel Jospin, who was Prime Minister when the parity law passed), told me that, unlike Gaspard or Servan-Schreiber, she had become convinced that a veil law was necessary. "Today, clearly, the criteria of the rights of man are the rights of women," she told me. "The law was made to protect the bodies of girls, of minors. It's easy to be against it in retrospect, and to say that now those girls will be 'twice victims'—victims of Islam, victims of French exclusion. But the veil here isn't Islam, it's politics." One extremely exercised Muslim feminist had told the Stasi Commission that the parents of veiled schoolgirls deserved to be put in jail for child abuse, and Agacinski thinks that, however egregious arguments like that are, especially when no serious attempt has been made to integrate those parents, there is an argument to be made that the veil is as much a challenge to France's laws on human rights as it is to France's laws on secularism. She finds it a sad irony that, at a time when Muslim women are claiming, and winning, some of those rights in countries like Morocco—even in the face of a harsh Islamist revival—French Muslim women have been sacrificing theirs to archaic religious strictures. "All fundamentalisms pretend that religion is ahistoric, but religions evolve," she said. "Islamist boys today come to school in bluejeans." Agacinski counts as something of an expert on what people, in the name of religion, wear. She has been writing about veils—beginning with the Christian women who wore them for five hundred years, long before there were any Muslim women to put them on—and has spent the past four years reading Augustine, Tertullian, Paul, and all the other Christian fathers who demanded that women wear them, as a sign of their subordination to men. The wedding veil, of course, began as an oblation—a ritual offering of bride to husband. Today, not even most nuns, perpetual brides of Christ, wear them. In Germany, nuns are now forbidden to wear their wimples if they are teaching in a public school.
The veil, of course, is only one skirmish in the battle between Muslim practice and French law. There is the problem of divorce, consensual in France but, for some Muslims, simply a matter of a man repudiating a wife. There is the problem of polygamy, illegal in France but often, in older Muslim families, a social given. There are the welfare laws requiring the state to maintain poor households at acceptable French family standards—which, in the case of a Muslim polygamist, can mean four households, four wives, four sets of children. Then there is the problem of female genital mutilation. In France, the _exciseuses—_women who traditionally remove the clitoris and labia from little girls—are illegal, but many still practice secretly. Most of their clients are African Muslims, and the operation has come to be incorporated into "acceptable" Islamist practice—which, of course, it's not. A feminist lawyer named Linda Weil-Curiel has argued more than thirty excision cases as a partie civile before the Cour d'Assises. And in the process she has managed to get the practice reclassified as a high crime, carrying a prison term for the exciseuses and often a damages penalty of thirty thousand dollars for the fathers—who invariably pay for the operation but whose liability had almost always been waived on their claim that excision was "women's business." (Genital mutilation used to be handled by local correctional courts.) Weil-Curiel began her crusade in the early eighties, after a baby girl bled to death from the operation because her father refused to call an ambulance for two days. The baby arrived at the hospital, Weil-Curiel said, without a drop of blood in her body. That was one of her first cases, though by no means the first death. Most genital mutilations go unreported; damaged children are rarely brought to hospitals unless they are quite sick. And Muslim women often suffer the same neglect, either because they are not brought to a hospital at all or are quickly removed from the hospital if no female doctors can see them. Alaoui had told me, "A patient has the right to refuse and choose her doctor. A hospital is a public service." Weil-Curiel said, "I'm for the veil law because it all starts there, it indicates a comportment. . . . And I'll take Chirac, with all his casseroles, because his position on that"—on the veil—"has been, well, noble. The women I see in court, the African women, were never veiled. They are now."
It's clear to anyone, after a certain amount of time in France, that the veil involves a much broader politics than French domestic politics. It has to do with the Middle East and the war in Iraq and the Palestinian intifada. People in France have come to regard the veil through the lens of their own response to conflicts having very little to do with schoolgirls. There have been at least three hundred attacks on Jews and Jewish property in France this year, many of them said to involve Muslims, and Chirac has had to walk a tightrope between Jewish fears and Muslim sensitivities. Some six hundred thousand French citizens are Jews—roughly one-tenth the Muslim population—and it is to Chirac's credit that there has been no "Jewish" position on the veil or, for that matter, on the Middle East, or on France's role in the Middle East. (Many prominent Jews have come out against the veil law and against the President's Iraq policy, most notably Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Médecins du Monde and today one of the country's most popular Socialists.) But the attacks on Jews have continued, to the extent that the Interior Ministry now calls this wave of anti-Semitism a threat to French society. And, in part because of the attacks, some Jewish boys and girls have begun reclaiming their "identity" with as much intensity as the Muslim schoolchildren, though arguably with less violence. If you go to the bottom of the Champs-Élysées—the Häagen-Dazs stop, kids call it—at noon on Saturday, when school gets out, you will sometimes see the boys from Betar, which is a kind of Jewish Defense League, and the Muslim boys from the cités squaring off on opposite sides of the avenue, shouting insults at each other and sometimes flinging themselves into a brawl in the middle of the punishing traffic. The Jewish boys are performing for the Jewish girls—known, in the argot of the day, as chales, or shawls—who stand on the Häagen-Dazs side of the street, licking their ice-cream cones and flaunting enormous designer scarves. The Muslim girls are not invited, but that, along with the sadly obvious poverty of most of the Muslim kids, is the only difference. The hatred is now the same.
Rémy Schwartz, the conseiller d'état who in effect ran Stasi's commission and oversaw its hearings, told me about the first veil hearings, in 1989. "There was one common thread," he said. "We were there to judge law, not souls. But this time I was reinforced in my conviction that a new law was necessary. The older laws were not applicable to the situation now. What we have now is part of a global politics of anti-Semitism, and it had to be limited." Schwartz reminded me that in six years the majority of citizens in Holland's four biggest cities will be Muslim, and even so there is still no common policy on secularism in Europe. There is not even a common policy on schools. (Germany, like France, wants the veil out of public schools, but, unlike France, permits religious education in those schools; Britain, where the majority of Muslim families are Pakistani, allows the veil as traditional dress.) Schwartz thought it was time for France, at least, to determine its own policy. My friend Tahar Ben Jelloun, the French-Moroccan writer, told me about being invited to speak at a Muslim public high school in Amsterdam—the Dutch, resolute multiculturalists, have opened thirty-two—and arriving to find that all the girls and teachers in the room were wrapped in scarves. "When I protested, one girl said to me, 'I've come back to God. Don't you believe in God?' I said, 'My beliefs are private.' " Ben Jelloun thinks that all those veils are really "a transfer of the Palestinian drama to the schools and the cités," where the Islamists can exploit a confusion of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment that is by no means limited to teen-age children. He worries that those children will exhaust themselves in Islamic politics and that, if nothing changes, the exclusion they suffer now in France will only get worse.
Ghislaine Hudson, who sat on the Stasi Commission, is the principal of the Lycée Joliot-Curie, a few miles from both a large cité and a middle-class suburb, about an hour and a quarter from Paris. It is really two lycées—a vocational high school with eight hundred students, about half of them children of North African immigrants, and a classical lycée with eight hundred students, nearly all of them "French"—and she and her husband live in an apartment above the administrative offices. "This is a tough school," she told me, when I drove out to see her. It was an understatement. Last year, somebody tossed a homemade Molotov cocktail into the vocational dean's office in the middle of the night, destroying most of the building. (There was no arrest, and Hudson is glad about that.) Hudson was sleeping next door when the explosion came, but it left her, if anything, more determined to stay in a job that she finds at least as gratifying as her last one; she used to be headmistress at the Lycée Français, in Manhattan. Hudson is a beloved educator. Her teachers have presented her with a homemade légion d'honneur (she has a real one) commending her for her "contributions" to the cause of French education—yellow curtains in the reception room, flowers, plants, Christmas decorations, beds for teachers between apartments. It hangs in her office, along with a list of professors' birthdays and a big poster called "Intolerance," which is half black, half white, with a pair of scissors ripping through the middle. Her twin schools are like that poster. The students do not—she says will not—mix. Not at all. It was obvious when we walked through the two buildings, and even more obvious when a buildings inspector turned up for a surprise visit. The lycée students filed out, talking. The vocational students milled about in their corridor, sullen and even hostile, and some of the boys stood their ground when Hudson tried, smiling, to shoo them out. One gave her the finger and swore. She kept on smiling.
"The problem is I don't see a difference in France since I came home," she told me, back in her office. "Not in France, not in the police. These children are not integrated. I see the veil as more about social exclusion than about this revival of 'communities.' We've had veils, but our rule has been that once children come into the administration buildings and the schoolrooms—no veil. Occasionally, you bump into a girl who's kept it on. It's hard to convince her. She'll take it off, and there's a bandanna under it." Hudson voted for the veil law. "School, at least, should be free," she said. "The time you're in school should be free. Muslim girls should be given the choice to be free young women. And the law was aimed at protecting the minds of those girls."
In some ways, it protects more. For girls, the burden of choosing not to veil is gone, too, and with it the fear of punishment at home. ("We had this fear of our brothers," a French Muslim woman who fled Lille for New York at eighteen, once told me. "There were a lot of murders in my city.") For teachers and principals like Hudson, another burden is gone: the decision to say yes or no to a veiled girl is no longer in their hands. Hudson is pleased, though, that the law will come under review at the end of the school year—the Socialists' condition for supporting it—and be open to revision. She thinks that it needs review. She thinks that questions of what is or is not ostensible belong as much in the talks you have with students as in the middle of a statute. "We've always managed to solve the problem with dialogue, with talking," she told me, but she sounded uncertain, saying it. As it turned out, only about two hundred and fifty girls defied the veil ban after public schools opened in the fall (along with a handful of Sikh boys who arrived in turbans). And, at any rate, none of those girls came veiled to Joliot-Curie. For a while, Alaoui's moratorium on defiance held. By mid-October, after some seven hundred "dialogues," fewer than eighty girls were still arriving at school in head scarves. Sixty-two of them were spending their schooldays sitting alone in empty offices or unused classrooms. Nine had been expelled.
France's Islamists, faced with the kidnapping of French journalists by other Islamists, were clearly worried about reprisals, given the kidnappers' demand. Their moratorium was about that. But by late October, with the hostages still missing, the moratorium was over. Alaoui's Union of French Islamic Organizations had cancelled it, announcing that the country's Muslims would no longer be "blackmailed" into silence. The group took up where it had left off, urging schoolgirls to defy and sue. Guy Canivet, the president of the Cour de Cassation and, as such, France's senior jurist, had told me when the law was signed, "With the fixation on veils"—he meant on both sides—"we will not come out of this easily." He said that there were bound to be legal questions raised, questions of prejudgment—the prejudgment, say, that every scarf is a religious symbol—and that from the point of view of French law those questions were important. Most people expect that, one way or another, the veil will be back at the door to the classroom and the court. ♦


text:
Agent Phil Coulson's vintage Corvette may be soaring ever upward, but the ratings for ABC's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. are continuing a slow decline. After debuting with some of the highest ratings in recent history for the network, the show managed to pull in 7.1 million viewers during Episode 5, "Girl in the Flower Dress" - with a 2.6 rating among the key 18-49 demographic, down from the previous week's 2.8.
Those numbers are still a far cry from trouble on their own, but as Marvel's first venture onto network television continues to slip in both viewers and demographics, the trend could become problematic. Fast.
To reiterate: being able to pull in 7.1 million viewers without a lead-in on a Tuesday night is nothing to scoff at (and clearly, enough to warrant a full-season order). But while the 34% drop in viewers from the series premiere to its second episode was somewhat expected, the fact that AoS can't seem to hold steady in its fifth week is a sign that it may be charting troubled waters.
A rocky start is to be expected (even if Disney's marketing and promotion for the show was hoping to smooth things over), but by this point in the season, most procedural dramas tend to have hit their pace both in structure and audience. And while we would argue that Episode 5 seemed to cement the formula AoS will be following, the show continues to bleed viewers in demographics they need to retain.
One of the luxuries afforded the studio by bringing their shared movie universe to TV (with a fan-favorite character leading the charge) was the existing fan base: a healthy viewership who would give the show more time than most out of a simple desire to see how the S.H.I.E.L.D. fiction would be expanded (and which comic book characters might appear). That assumption may or may not be accurate, but if loyalty is helping boost ratings, that enthusiasm seems to be waning.
So although the downward trend may not be drastic enough to panic ABC execs, it is also certainly not the kind of foundation Marvel was hoping to launch 4 new TV shows on top of. Details on those projects haven't been released, but if AoS's ratings don't bounce back soon, those plans might need to change.
Of course, lapsed viewers might be brought back into the mix if the show's writers decide to counter fan criticism by letting the cat out of the bag concerning Coulson's resurrection, or simply addressing our most nagging issues with the series. Even if that's the case, it will still take time for viewer feedback to be implemented. Where the ratings sit at that point remains to be seen.
What do you make of the slipping ratings? Does this come as no surprise, or do you think a rebound is coming soon? Sound off in the comments.
Catch Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. every Tuesday @8pm EST on ABC.
Follow Andrew on Twitter @andrew_dyce.
Source: EW


text:
Some condominium owners in Wildwood, N.J., near the Boardwalk's southern end, are not happy campers since the city announced plans to possibly allow access on the wide beaches to recreational vehicles, the Cape May Herald reported.
"To use Cresse Avenue as egress for the RVs to come on and off (the beach) is not going to work," said Mike McCardy, an Ocean Towers condominium owner. "There is too much traffic, there are too many children, there's too many people. It's going to create a public safety hazard."
McCardy voiced concerns about allowing beach access to recreational vehicles during the June 27 City Commissioners' meeting.
"We're not here for campgrounds. It's going to be an RV park, which is trailers. There is plenty of support within our community that we want to work with the city to find an amicable solution to not have RVs parked in front of us."
McCardy also stated if an "amicable solution" could not be reached the condominium association would petition the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as well as filing an injunction to stop recreational vehicles from accessing the beach at Cresse Avenue.
In many places throughout the city vehicular access to the beach is limited by the width of openings. Cresse Avenue, however, allows trucks and other large vehicles to be taken onto the beach. According to Mayor Ernest Troiano, over 200 tractor-trailers used during the recent Kenny Chesney concert were brought onto the beach via Cresse Avenue.
"We want to work with the city to make everybody happy," said McCardy. "But make no mistake, there is enough support within our community to hire a study and file an injunction against the city for the allowed use. We don't want them. We want them on the southern side of the Convention Center."
McCardy told commissioners the southern end of the city is a residential area. "We are residential. It's more residential than towards the center where the piers are."
"All the hotels across Ocean Avenue are not residential," responded Troiano. "They are commercial."
The city is looking at the possibility of bringing recreational vehicles on its beaches to help generate revenue.
Click here to read the entire story.


text:
Bettie Grind - Ciroc Money aka (Hello) (Produced By Dumma Boy) [Unsigned Hype]
"Bettie Grind | Directed by: Leonidas Films | Produced by: Drumma Boy | " [m]
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
(with apologies to Sports Illustrated NFL writer Peter King)
1. Cats are great city animals.
At one time, Baku was rat country, so I've been told. Someone decided to fix the problem by either introducing cats to the streets or firing all the cat-catchers. You don't see many rats around nowadays.
Cats are everywhere. They stand guard outside the markets, scurry beneath the tables inside the posh furniture stores, sleep atop parked BMWs, pick through garbage, and mew in the hallway of my apartment building. A friend here started adopting street cats and now has seven in her flat.
Coming from New York, I've always held up pigeons (and to a lesser extent, squirrels) as the best city animals. And I've always taken rats for granted. But cats, quiet and clean, are, to me, the new gold standard.
2. Traffic laws are outstanding.
As a car owner, I have some ambivalence about traffic laws. I hate parking tickets. Sometimes I find a 65 mph speed limit to be — idealistic. And I've sent the occasional text message at a red light.
So I write this fully aware that I am a hypocrite: traffic laws are outstanding.
I've been in countries with bad drivers before. The drivers of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh don't deserve any medals. But there, because it's generally poorer and warmer, the streets are jammed with every sort of vehicle: hand-pulled, bicycle and motorized rickshaws, scooters, buses, trucks and cars, not to mention a variety of livestock.
So bad driving is mitigated by 1) self-preservation (as you can get thrown from a rickshaw pretty easily) and 2) weak engines. It's hectic, lawless traffic, but it's not that fast.
Azerbaijan, in contrast, has hectic, lawless, fast traffic. People are generally driving cars, buses or trucks, and good cars, too, not Tata Nanos, but Benzes.
And because cars are the only thing on the road and cars are expensive, if you're driving at all here, you're a big deal. That, in turn, means you shouldn't have to break for any commoner on foot. Nor should you approach a blind turn through a narrow, residential alley at less than 50 mph.
It's not that right-of-way is ambiguous here: the cars have it. I guess I've been spoiled living in places where cars break for pedestrians, but I find the traffic here beyond aggravating. Everyone uses their car horns constantly to express anger, and tricked-out horn upgrades (the "air horn" and the "Godfather theme" being ubiquitous) are mandatory.
What's optional? Seatbelts. Headlights at night. Child safety seats. Staying within the solid double-lines on a highway. Most people with kids have them ride on their laps in the front passenger seat, their little faces pressed to the windshield.
On a recent road trip, we passed a roadkill horse (!), two dead dogs, and a brick truck that had lost its bricks on the way out of Baku. On the way back, we saw a dead person in the road (!!). No wonder everyone stops at the mosque just outside of town to make an offering to Allah thanking Him for a safe ride!
3. Russian is hard.
Three genders? Six cases? I've been studying for two months and still don't know what a case is.
4. All politics is local.
So said Tip O'Neill, long-serving Speaker of the House.
Case in point. In America, we fought a "cold" war with Russia from the mid-1940s to 1991. There is still hatred and fear of Russia in some parts of our political sphere (ask Sen. John McCain how he likes the Russians).
We also have as our enemies the "Axis of Evil": Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Iraq, of course, is now are ward. North Korea is flirting with giving up the bomb. But Iran appears to be carrying on as a threat, with worried talk in the news magazines and Sunday morning talk shows over when it will get nukes and what it will do with them.
So here I am in Azerbaijan, sandwiched between Putin and Ahmadinejad. Azeris don't care. There's nothing too frightening about either. They may not always have nice things to say about their neighbors to the north and south, but Americans aren't always that charitable with Canada and Mexico, either. Anyway, Azeris have reserved 100 percent of their negative energy for their neighbor to the west: Armenia.
The cause is a dispute over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which took the form of a war in the late '80s and '90s and now is the source of much saber-rattling, but little fighting. Some 800,000 Azeris were displaced by the loss of the territory, and bettering their lives is a major part of microfinance here.
It's less of an axis and more of a singularity of evil. And, sadly, it's no exaggeration to say that dislike of the Armenians is nearly universal and is strong. I don't know, there's some axiom here that fits, one man's jelly is another man's jam or something…
5. Bribes suck.
I finally paid one, last week. Sixty manat (about $75). It wasn't, like, spiritually degrading or anything, but it was 60 AZN that I'm not going to be spending on candy and DVDs.