Eisenhower, Part 1

I wonder what it says about contemporary America that there are suddenly so many scholarly reassessments of Eisenhower. At least part of it must be a nostalgia for an era when the terms "liberal Republican" or "moderate Republican" were not nonsense decriptions.

Rather than start with Jean Edward Smith's Eisenhower in War and Peace, I opted for the Jim Newton book, Eisenhower: The White House Years. About a month ago, Evan Thomas brought out yet another book, Ike's Bluff: President Eisenhower's Battle to Save the World.  I think, since I'd been sitting on the Newton book for a few months, intending to read it but never doing so, it was the publication of the Thomas book that spurred me to finally just do it. I didn't want to get even further behind the curve in the Eisenhower revival.  I chose not to start with the Smith book, because I really have no interest in reading about war.

Newton, is clearly an Eisenhower admirer, but he does recognize that Eisenhower had something of a blind spot (my words, I think) when it came to Civil Rights. He did implement the integration of the armed forces, which had been declared by Truman but not put into effect, and he did end segregation in Washington DC, something the Democrats had neglected to do for strictly political reasons (you will remember that their used to be a very powerful animal called a Southern Democrat).

One of Eisenhower's strengths was his ability to always search for middle ground between conflicting policies and personalities. I gather, from just now reading his obituary in the NY Times, that was (no surprise) also an aspect of his personality that featured prominently as a commander in WWII, but that part of Eisenhower's career doesn't figure very much in the Newton book.  In the area of Civil Rights, that strength became a weakness. As Newton wrote:

Seeking his "middle way," Eisenhower routinely deplored "foolish extremists on both sides of the question," suggesting moral equivalence between those who sought equality and those who denied it.

He even threatened to boycott the 1956 Republican convention if the platform committee insisted on stating that the Eisenhower Administration supported the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. A compromise was proposed, suggesting that the platform should say the administration and party "concurred" in the Brown ruling. But, even that wasn't good enough for Eisenhower, who eventually signed off on the phrase that the administration "accepts" Brown.

This is a good reminder that the middle ground doesn't always represent the high ground.

It doesn't diminish Eisenhower's strengths to recognize his shortcomings. And, whether his heart was in it or not, doesn't really matter I guess. When push arrived at shove, he was still the first (and only) president since Lincoln to send federal troops into the south (Little Rock) to enforce the law of the land.  Juan Williams, in a biography of Thurgood Marshall, analyzes the events in Little Rock almost hour by hour, and argues that Eisenhower should have acted sooner. I don't know where the truth lies, but it would not be inconsistent with someone always trying to find the reasonable compromise, someone considering both sides to be extremists, to wait a little to long to act.

One other Eisenhower tidbit. He was the first president to start his second term as a lame duck. The amendment limiting presidents to two terms had only been enacted in 1951. Truman could have chosen to run in 1952, but opted not to do it. Eisenhower was the first president whose second term was known by all to be his last.

Like it or not, more about Eisenhower to follow.

Go Over Grover

Finally we are reading about isolated Republican office holders who are willing to defy Grover Norquist. That is certainly hopeful.

I read somewhere recently that the current Houuse of Representatives only has 13 Republican members who have not taken "the pledge." The good news is that is up from 6 in the last Congress.

I'm still not sure it is time to celebrate, as the LA Times headline does, that "Grover Norquist, ayatollah, is losing his grip on the party."

More From Emily Litella

Nick Kristof's  column yesterday really does capture the way in which the shift of wealth upward has created a vicious cycle of national failure, in terms of infrastructure and basic public services.

According to Kristof, the World Economic Forum now ranks US infrastructure 25th, down from 8th in 2003-4.  In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our national electric grid a grade of just D+.

But, as Kristof, points out, if you have enough money, you don't have to give a shit. The electrical grid is a disaster? The hottest new must-have items after hurricane Sandy for home owners who have the money are $10,000 backup generators. Companies can't produce them fast enough.

Bothered by crime? Move into a gated community.

Public schools are failing? Send your kid to a private school; you can afford it.

Public library budgets and hours are being cut? Public libraries are for losers who can't afford their own books.

Cuts to our National Park System as well as city parks have forced a cutback in hours and services? Get a 2nd or 3rd home in the country and make your own park. Join a private club.

Unfortunately, poverty, income inequality, and failing infrastructure were not of much interest to either candidate in the election we just suffered through. Yes, the Democrats talked about income inequality, but only insofar as it affected the nebulous, and shrinking, middle class. The only mention of poverty was the Republican assertion that Obama was trying to buy the votes of poor people with food stamps, and their division of the country into makers and takers. Neither candidate dealt with poverty as a growing problem that needs to be addressed as a national issue.

I know, there have always been private schools and some people have always been able to afford 2nd or 3rd homes. But that's not the point. It is the magnitude, the scale of inequality that is so extreme, and getting worse. According to Kristof, the latest census data shows that a full 1% of people in Los Angeles and New York City work as private security guards. That 1% is a really large number if you think about it. (The 1% protecting the assets of that other notorious 1%.)

Kristof titled his article "A Failed Experiment." I think he was referring to the half-century process of redistributing wealth upward, reducing taxes and cutting back on the most basic of public services.  For those more pessimistic of us, it might as well refer to the whole U.S. political-economic experiment.

I don't think the obstructionist Republicans are the only ones at fault. I haven't heard much talk about it lately, but I still believe Obama squandered an opportunity at the beginning of his administration (the supposedly crucial first 100 days, I guess) to bring the country behind him in a commitment to some real fundamental change, ala FDR.

It probably wasn´t original with him, but Rahm Emmanuel is supposed to have observed that a crisis is a terrible think to waste; despite his many accomplishments in the face of rigid obstructionism, I think Obama didn´t take full advantage of the crisis that Bush handed him, at least in the sense of rallying the people behind some significant changes/programs.

Because...LEADERSHIP

I Love Tom Tomorrow

Brasil Is a Land of Many Rules

I am going to have my annual checkup on Monday morning. Here are the rules for preparation in the order in which they are printed:

No alcohol for 72 hours
No ejaculations for 48 hours
No bicycle riding for 48 hours (stationary or otherwise)
No riding on a motorcycle for 48 hours
No horseback riding for 48 hours
No use of suppositories for 72 hours
No urethral probes or digital rectal exams for 72 hours
No cystoscopy for the last 5 days
No transrectal ultrasounds in the last 7 days (not sure of that translation)
No colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy in the last 15 days
No urodynamic exams (again with the translation) in the last 21 days
No prostate biopsies in the last 30 days
No urination for 2 hours

Along with the usual fasting.

Now I definitely don´t want to cross over that line of too much information, but I will just say I have no intention of following all of these rules.

Here is the amazing part. Along with all of the normal bloodwork, and a few tests I don´t recognize, this exam will involve a full abdominal and prostate ultrasound, as well as an electrocardiogram.

It will cost me a little less than $150. This is not through the public health system, but with Brazilian insurance that Heitor and I recently purchased. It will cost me another $30 to meet with the doctor to discuss the results.

Steamed (about) Rice

Let me see if I understand this.

Condoleezza Rice, in her first crucial months as National Security Adviser ignored all of the CIA's warnings about counter-terrorism as well of those of Richard Clarke, the NSC's counter-terrorism director, and instead remained absorbed with her own comfort zone specialties as an expert on  the USSR (a bit outdated even then) and ballistic missile defense. Four years after arguably the second most fatal security lapse in our history, she was promoted to Secretary of State.

Now, Susan Rice, who spoke on Sunday morning talk shows about the Benghazi attack on the basis of information provided by the intelligence agencies is under assault by Republicans like McCain and Graham in the Senate, who threaten to hold up her confirmation if Obama names her as the next Secretary of Defense.

These guys are loony tunes....not to say crazy motherfuckers.

By the way: All of the Brazilians who wanted to talk to me about the election results, to a person, were for Obama, even my two entrepreneurial friends. Two different people, whose English is pretty limited, still were able to appreciate my description of Republicans as crazy motherfuckers. I chose to share that bit of hyperbole because they had each already volunteered to me that they saw the Republicans as "greedy" and "selfish." Both of these guys were men I know at the gym. One is about 70 and the other about 19.

Miraculous Images

Every time I see this face on the  building, which appears crisper and more precise in this photo than it does in life, I think about the French Toast Virgin. At least she doesn't have any graffiti...just a missing bite.

Black Friday

I  think it is very funny that the big retailers in São Paulo are getting ready for their Black Friday sales with newspaper promos and pop up ads on the internet, even though today is not a holiday.  Heitor asked me this morning if I knew the significance of the term Black Friday. Perhaps I´m wrong, but I would imagine most Brazilians don´t have any idea. Why would they?

By the way, it is the only instance I can think of in which the word "black" is used in a positive sense.

Nobody Listened to Emily Litella Either

Bill Keller has a good opinion piece today, called "Honey, I Shrunk the Pentagon." It should be clear by now that much of what we spend on defense is really a combination of corporate welfare and a joint public/private jobs program. It has long been curious to me when conservatives defend defense spending because cutting it would cost jobs in their districts, but will turn right around and vote against a stimulus bill with the argument that the government has never created a single job. We have Defense Department Socialism.

Has everyone by now seen the report on the tank refurbishing program that the Army told Congress it did not want, because it wasn't needed, but which Congress refused to cut?  Why, if the Army said it was a waste of money? Because key committee congressmen get a lot of money from General Dynamics, the holder of the contract, and because of the jobs that would be lost if the refurbishing didn't continue.  Oh yeah, and because it's cheaper to spend the hundreds of millions now rather than shut down the plants and have to get them up and running in a hurry because of some future emergency that called for refurbished tanks. Anyone remember how fast American industry redirected its production from civilian to military ends after Pearl Harbor? Ok, me neither; I'm not that freaking old. But I've read about it.

There are 2 or 3000 tanks sitting in a lot in the California desert that were functioning perfectly at the time they were shut down and parked there because they weren't needed. No doubt General Dynamics is counting on them all needing another half billion dollars worth of work by the time they have finished the first refurbishing cycle and sent the tanks back out to bake in the Mojave desert sun.

If the the money we waste on these kinds of pork-barrel defense contracts were spent on public infrastructure projects, we would at least have something to show for it at the end of the day besides a ludicrous number of expensive and unneeded tanks waiting for the day when we finally admit that they're just scrap metal.

This is a good example of the point made in Eugene Jarecki's 2005 documentary, "Why We Fight." It is virtually impossible to kill defense projects, as we have seen time and time again, because they are deliberately designed by those with a vested interest in them to be spread across the widest possible geographical area, in as many states and congressional districts as is possible.  Too many people have an interest in the projects for them to be evaluated honestly on the basis of need or cost effectiveness. We are living the reality that Einsenhower warned against in his final address, and which is the starting point for Jarecki's documentary.

Yes, I know that cutting "defense" spending to a sensible level (instead of more than the next 14 countries combined...and that doesn't include what the Energy Dept spends on nuclear weapons) is not in itself an answer to the long-term debt questions. But if Romney can talk about Big Bird, I can talk about General Dynamics, General Electric, McDonnell, Grumman, Lockheed, Raytheon ad infinitum, and ad nauseam too.

Petraeus's Ego

I knew I read it somewhere. It was Maureen Dowd's column from 4 days ago.

Even when he was the C.I.A. director, Petraeus’s ego was so wrapped up in being a shiny military idol that, according to The Washington Post, he recently surprised guests at a D.C. dinner when he arrived to speak wearing his medals on the lapel of his suit jacket.

It must have been a hell of a big lapel.  Maybe under the lapel? Or half under?

While searching for this story, that I knew I'd read somewhere, I found another one about how one of Petraeus's supposed areas of special focus as CIA director was China. Whenever anyone talks about threats to our cyber security, the first country mentioned is China. And yet this guy thought his gmail account was secure. As I said a few days ago..INTELLIGENCE!

A Phony General for a Phony War

The title of this post is from opinion piece by Lucian K. Truscott IV in the New York Times. If you're a fan of WWII history, you may have already recognized that name. I admit that I did not.

 It looks beyond the popular story of the brilliant general brought down by a tawdry affair and a series of unfortunate accidents, and it looks at the man and the myth that was built up around him over the past several years.

 

Truscott's Petaeus is/was an image-conscious "self-constructed hologram emitting an aura of preening heroism for the ever eager cameras."

I read recently, but will have to hunt for the source, that Petraeus recently appeared at a party in Washington DC in civilian dress with this array of medals on his suit!! Can you imagine? 

As Truscott says, "I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he’s not doing his job..."

Truscott's essay reminded me of a book just out that I'm not going to read, and which I only know about because it was mentioned to me by a friend, called The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today, by Thomas E. Ricks. As the Amazon review says, it is about an army leadership culture that no longer punishes mediocrity, and which is strategically obtuse. One quote I like, from a Colonel (envious?) is "a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war."

Actually, you'll have a hard time convincing me we have had any winnable wars since WWII, whether the generals have been incompetent or not, but I like the quote.

The Illusion of Justice

My first reaction on reading that BP has agreed to pay $4.5 billion in fines and penalties and to plead guilty to 14 criminal charges related to the gulf disaster, was one of satisfaction. After all, this is a sizable figure, the largest fine ever, and there are still other charges pending against the company and criminal charges will be filed against the three top people on board the drilling rig. Criminal charges will also filed against one former VP for obstruction of Congress because of his false testimony.

I wouldn't like to be in that VP's position since BP, as part of its settlement, admitted using him to mislead Congress.

It is all less satisfactory on a closer look, and basically that has to do with the fact that the criminal charges were filed against the corporation and not against the top executives. For me the heart of the matter is summed up in the fact that the corporation has admitted using the VP to mislead Congress. They're not saying he acted on his own. No, he was carrying out the policy agreed upon by the leaders of the company. And those leaders are the ones responsible, not just for lying to Congress, but for the whole culture that existed for years of sacrificing safety to profit.

If this were any other type of criminal investigation, the justice department would be using the three people on the drilling rig to get at the king pins. But that apparently applies to the drug business and not to corporations.

Robert Reich, in the Christian Science Monitor makes a strong case why this settlement is merely the illusion of justice, and that the free pass to BP's top executives does absolutely nothing to deter this type of criminal behavior.

He also explains how going after the corporations not only lets the guilty executives off the hook, but punishes lots of innocent people. He gives the example of Arthur Anderson which was convicted of obstruction of justice in the Enron debacle and went out of business when its clients abandoned it en masse.
The vast majority of the employees who ended up losing their jobs had nothing to do with Enron. But the executives who were responsible all moved on very smoothly to the next rung on their career ladder.

Perhaps the most offensive thing in the NYT story about the settlement was a quote from an investment analyst in London. Of course the only thing equity analysts and investment managers want is for things to get back to normal. But this particular analyst admitted regretfully that there is still uncertainty hanging over BP's future and concern about pending claims and the fact that "lawyers might yet have their day at court."

That's right. It's all about lawyers having their day at court. Screw him!

Not Too Bright

The more I think about the Petraeus story, the more I think it is right that he resigned. After all, he was the head of the Central INTELLIGENCE Agency, which should be on top of the cyber threats we supposedly face, and yet he was so naive as to think his gmail account was private.

Prosecute Bad Prosecutors

I've written before about the need for prosecutors who abuse their offices to be prosecuted.

Joe Nocera wrote today about Ken Anderson, a district judge in Texas who faces prosecution for actions he took as a prosecuting attorney in the late 1980s which sent Michael Morton, an innocent man, to prison for life. Put simply, Anderson suppressed evidence that would have exonerated Morton...who was released a year ago after serving 25 years for a crime he didn't commit.

But Anderson's prosecution is still not certain. He will go before a Court of Inquiry (an institution unique to Texas among the states), which has the power, as I understand it, to pass the case along to a prosecutor, who could then take it before a grand jury etc.

Anderson's attorneys argue that the statute of limitations expired three years after the alleged withholding of evidence. The attorneys for Michael Morton argue that Anderson's crime never ended until Morton's release from prison in October 2011, that the statute of limitations begins then. I like the logic of that argument. Every day Morton was in prison, Anderson was committing a crime.

I'd like to see Anderson go to jail for 25 years. But I believe the maximum he could get is 10 years. Even that would be a measure of justice.

Equally reprehensible were the actions of Anderson's successor as prosecutor, John Bradley. Bradley fought for years to prevent DNA testing on a bloody rag, which testing was finally done and exonerated Morton and proved guilty a second man who later went on to commit and be convicted for another murder. So the prosecutor's misconduct not only convicted an innocent man, but helped allow the guilty man to remain free to commit another murder.

Bradley's actions in fighting the DNA testing, as incomprehensible and indefensible as they are, don't rise to the level of a crime because it was all done openly and he was within his rights to do it. The only justice for him is that the primary voters rejected his bid for reelection by a large margin a few months after Morton was released from prison.

This Is All So Unnecessary

Stuck out here so far away from Sarah Palin's Lame Stream Media (or at least the television version of it, which is what she must mean, because we all know she doesn't read), I don't know what is being discussed. Thanks to my friend Fred for sending this link suggesting voter fraud in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). I have since found that the internet is full of charges about voter fraud, not only in Ohio but in Philadelphia and spots of Florida. Unfortunately, they tend to be on websites which have zero credibility because of their obvious partisan bias.  It is clear that there are some people on the right who simply will not admit that their guy lost, or more importantly, that Obama won. 

But it is also clear that there never needs to be a question about the counting of votes. Sure, we like to sit up (until 5 in the morning in Brasil!!) and see the results start coming in seconds after the polls close, flipping among the channels to see how they compare. But I would gladly wait until the next day or even later to guarantee certainty and avoid these allegations of impropriety.  I know there are Federal election laws, but one of the problems is still our fucked up system that leaves the states in charge of their own processes. Remember Katherine Harris's rush to certify Bush the winner of Florida in 2000? The same Katherine Harris who was the Florida chair of Bush's campaign.

There are allegations, again on websites whose partisanship is showing, that Republican poll watchers were forced out of certain Philadelphia precincts. I have no idea what happened, or if that is true or false. But I do know it is 100% ridiculous that we have these uncertainies.

We should automatically know that people who question the validity of the elections are as loony as the mofos who are signing petitions in states around the country to secede from the Union. According to one of the same crazy websites which says Obama was reelected fraudulently, these petitions have now been filed in 34 states.

As an alternative, I recommend another petition called "Deport Everyone Who Signed A Petition  To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America."

Who Won the Election Again?

It is not negotiation when one side has preconditions that are set in stone. It is blackmail, while holding the country hostage.

There is still time for reasonableness, but it´s hard to be hopeful with all the little Republican Ayatollahs in the House who think they´re on a mission from Gawd to reduce the size of government.

Another Gem from Car Talk Plaza

The I Word

In New York City, police would stop and frisk him. If he lipped off, they'd run him in.
 


In San Franciso, he is one of the stars of the Giants' World Series victory parade, closer Sergio Romo.

From Our Friends at Car Talk Plaza

The Nine

If this book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, by Jeffrey Toobin (2008) were nothing more than what the subtitle asserts, I wouldn't bother recommending it. But, in telling the story of the Supreme Court from the Reagan years through the first couple of years of Roberts and Alito, it highlights how much is at stake in the election next week. It also highlights how much smarter "movement" Republicans are about the importance of the Supreme Court than are Democrats.

And, although I put the word in quotations, Toobin, who writes about the Supreme Court for The New Yorker, gives a glimpse into the history of the right wing movement and its process of taking control of the Republican party beginning with the Reagan years. (The process began earlier, but Toobin's book begins with the Court during the Reagan presidency.) As an example of this right wing awareness of the importance of the Supremes, before the Court intervened in the Florida certification process and handed the election to G. W., there was already an official committee at work to prepare a list of acceptable Supreme Court nominees for Bush to choose from...before there were any retirements or even hints of retirements. Eventually Roberts and Alito both came from that list.

The right wing were very smart during their years in the desert, as they planned for their eventual victory.  They knew the importance of controlling not just the Supreme Court but all of the layers of the judicial process. The Federalist Society, which now dominates right wing judicial thinking on the courts and in the universities was only formed as recently as the 1980s by Ed Meese, Robert Bork, Ted Olson and others. Now a Republican president would not dare nominate anyone for any court at any level who wasn't a member.

There is a right-wing concept of the Constitution in Exile, a term first used by Federal Appeals Court justice Douglas Ginsburg to define the period before FDR's New Deal. The belief is that the growth of the Federal Government is unconstitutional and needs to be rolled back to that earlier time. You may not remember (I jussssst barely did.) that Ginsburg was nominated by Reagan to replace Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court in 1987, and he would be on the court today (instead of Anthony Kennedy) if not for the fact that his regular marijuana use became public. This extreme Federalist belief, which would expand Executive power almost without limit, decimate all affirmative action programs, all civil rights programs, all distinctions between church and state, all court rulings based on the Commerce Clause, not to mention Roe v. Wade is gospel to the people who now control the Republican Party. (Douglas Ginsburg, by the way, is no relation to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)

Toobin, and I suspect he is right, points out that there will not be any more surprises, like Earl Warren was to Eisenhower, Byron White was to Kennedy (or would have been if Kennedy were around to see him in action) and Souter was to Bush Sr. The focus that the movement conservatives have put on the records of Supreme Court nominees virtually ensures against it, because the left now finally gets it as well. Unfortunately, it almost surely guarantees that future nominees will all come from the appeals courts, and with a written record that can be examined before confirmation.  That's too bad.

Toobin's book suffers from the fact that it is based on interviews with Justices and clerks who cannot be identified, but the Supreme Court is the most secret of government institutions, and there isn't any other way to get around the fact that nobody is going to talk for attribution. It is easy enough to guess which Justices talked to him; at least we can know for a certainty that O'Connor did, and probably Breyer. Toobin's profiles of the various Justices are illuminating and insightful, and his writing style is very accessible. The book, despite what I have chosen to focus on above, is very balanced and is something of a page-turner.

My favortie gossipy story:  One summer, after the end of the session, David Souter was driving alone back to his home in New Hampshire and he stopped along the way to eat. A couple came up to him and the guy said "Aren't you on the Supreme Court?" He said, yes, he was. "You're Justice Breyer!" Not wanting to embarrass the guy, the shy, reclusive, just barely social Souter said, yes, he was Justice Breyer. The conversation continued for a while and the guy asked, "Justice Breyer, what is the best thing about being on the Supreme Court?" Souter grew pensive and eventually replied, "I'd have to say it is the honor of serving along side Justice David Souter."

One last thing. Many commentators were so foolish as to interpret Chief Justice Roberts' vote upholding the Affordable Care Act as a liberal position.  But remember, he did not find the ACA constitutional on the basis of the Commerce Clause, but on the basis of Congress's power to levy taxes.  Roberts is smart enough to know that he needs to move slowly with his agenda so as to "preserve the integrity of the institution." But he and the people who think like him abhor the Commerce Clause and that will yet come back to bite us in the ass. Roberts is not a liberal.

Human Nature and Stereotypes

I wrote once before about the time I lost a coin purse at SESC, the cultural organization where I use the gym, eat lunch, sit and read etc., and then finding that it had been turned in to lost and found with money intact.

I had similar experiences there recently on two consecutive days. First I left my back back, with my kindle inside, in a locker that I forgot to lock. I have become so confident in how things work here that, when I was finished in the gym and realized what I had done, I showered leisurely before going down to lost and found, where it had been turned in, just as I expected. The very next day, I left my ipod in a locker and didn't realize what I had done until I got home. I took the bus back, and went to lost and found. There it was. Now in these cases, I knew that the articles were found by security personnel who regularly patrol the locker rooms. But these are people who are probably paid a bare minimum, and yet I have no doubts about their honesty.

My latest experience, in the same vein, although somewhat different, was yesterday. I stopped at a small store in our area to buy another fan, so we don't have to keep moving the ones we have around the house with us.  When I entered the store, the young guy who greeted me was wearing sandals, a long white ankle-length tunic and a white skull cap. He sported a long, thick black beard. A regular bin Laden. He was very friendly and, after listening to a few of my fractured sentences said, "You're Dutch?" No. "German?" No. American. "Ah, America. New York!" No, Los Angeles. Close. "Ah...only thing I know about Los Angeles is Lakers." And Hollywood, right? "Yes. Hollywood." He said "Everything we sell is from China. It's junk. In America you can buy better quality things." Yes, but they're probably still made in China.

So I picked one of his junk (but cheap) fans and went to the register to pay with my credit card. Alas, the system was down and it might be for a few hours. He had called half an hour earlier and had been told he would hear something within five hours. I didn't have enough cash, and said it was ok, I'd come back tomorrow. The young man said "no, take the fan and pay me later." I wasn't even sure I trusted my portuguese to believe what I had heard. But I had. I took out my Brazilian national i.d. card and told him he should write down the number. He said, no, it's not necessary. Gesturing upward, and clearly knowing he was making another American allusion, he said "Hey...in God we trust, no?" Only later did I wish I had told him, yeah, but in the U.S. all others pay cash.

Today when I went back to pay, I told him that I had told a friend (one of my students) what he had done, giving me the fan without payment, and that my friend had said "no, that's impossible, no Brazilian would do that." He laughed and said, "but I am Brazilian." He explained that his father was born in "the Levant" (I didn't ask which country) and his mother was born in Spain, but that he was born and raised in Brasil. "What English I know, I learned in Brasil too."

I had met his mother the first time, but today I also met his father. It is interesting to me that both parents, probably in their sixties, were dressed in regular western style, but the son was the one who adopted the traditional Arab garb that is so scary to us Americans.

The store is one of the ubiquitous stores that sell cheap shit from China. Heitor and I just refer to them as Chinese stores, and we don't very often buy things at them, but we will both make a point of patronizing this one when we can. In fact today, I bought a second fan at the same time as I was paying for the first one, because I think his brand of trust needs to be rewarded.

As I was getting ready to leave, the father said "Obama!" And I said "Yes, but I'm worried." He said, using a particular Brazilian slang I had never heard before, "no problem, he's a batata (potato)," which Heitor tells me means something like "he's superior." Amen to that.