FREE LUNCH FOR FRENCH OLD FOLKS

TANSTAAFL

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

I first learned that acronym through my reading of the sci-fi novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. But the phrase probably originated in the 1800s in American bars that offered 'free' lunches. The lunch was, of course, not really free. You had to buy a drink, and the drink cost more than necessary in order to underwrite the lunch. The lunch itself, often composed of salty foods, enticed further drinking.

TANSTAAFL

What has this to do with old folks in France? Well, I've just attended my second free lunch for folks born before a certain year who reside in our village. This year, that year was 1951. So everyone in the room was 69 or older. And there were about 170 of us in the room. No kids. Just lots and lots of grey hair, white hair, bald pates, and red hair. (I don't know why bright red hair is a thing with older French women. But it is.) The occasion? An annual day to show appreciation for the contributions of time, talent, and treasure by the village elders.

The mayor gives a speech. Short and respectful. Then comes the food. And the wine. And more food. And more wine. Simply stated, I have never had a better catered meal and have had very few better restaurant meals, free or otherwise.

This year, we started with a glass of sweet muscat as an aperitif. Then came the salad. On a bed of lettuce with a spritz of balsamic were arranged a finger of brioche covered with cheese and smoked salmon, a couple of slices of smoked duck breast and a slice of a creamy mousse de canard.

While that was being served, bottles of water, red wine, white wine, and rosé were distributed and replenished as necessary.

After the salad came the langoustine, the European equivalent of lobster, crawfish on steroids, complete with Russian salad, a hard-boiled egg, and aioli (garlic mayonnaise).

After a bit of sherbet to clear the fish course, pintade or guinea fowl in a mushroom sauce with potatoes au gratin arrived. None of us could wait. Here's a picture anyway.

Finally, sparkling wine, dessert (red fruit and custard pastry with a scoop of ice cream), and coffee.

Then came the entertainment. I won't go into detail but it included a man and a woman singing traditional French songs in between dance numbers by a quartet of young women in costumes that were mostly composed of feathers and string bikinis.

We pay our taxes, so the lunch was not free. But it lasted more than four hours and it certainly was interesting.

BERNIE, BLOOMBERG, AND GEORGE SANTAYANA

You know Bernie. You know Bloomberg. Who the hell is George Santayana?

Santayana was a very interesting guy. He came to the USofA from Spain at the age of eight shortly after the US Civil War. Although he spoke of himself as an American, he lived a Euro-centric life, spending his last years in Italy. A poet, novelist, and philosopher, Santayana taught philosophy at Harvard with T. S. Eliot, Robert Frost, Gertrude Stein, and W. E. B. Du Bois among his students. Very influential.

Santayana had one of those minds that translated thought into pithy turns of phrase.

"There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval."

"The Bible is literature, not dogma."

"Sanity is madness put to good use."

What does all of this have to do with Bernie and Bloomberg? Here is the relevant Santayana quote:

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I like a lesser famous part of that line. When experience is not retained, infancy is perpetual.

American Progressives loved Hubert Humphrey. As a US Senator in the 1940s, he successfully argued for the first plank in a Democratic Party platform that called for an end to racial segregation. He was in on the beginnings of the Peace Corps and the Civil Rights Act, Then Humphrey made the mistake - in the eyes of Progressive young Democrats - of accepting LBJ's offer to be his VP. The Vietnam War was a deal breaker for Progressives. They didn't consider the loyalty that Humphrey exhibited to POTUS as in any way explainable. They made a circus of the Chicago convention in 1968.

It can reasonably argued that Progressives gave us Nixon.

When experience is not retained, infancy is perpetual.

Toward the middle of the 2016 Democrat primary season, it became clear that Bernie couldn't win. He did quite well in caucus states, but he simply couldn't make a dent in the early primary states and Hillary rolled up big numbers. What did his supporters have to say about that? The rules are unfair and need to be changed, they said. Primaries should be open so that Republicans who would prefer Bernie can vote for him. And towards the end of the primary season, when the math was insurmountable? We have to change the rules regarding Super Delegates, they said.

Why did Bernie's supporters think that it was OK to change the rules in his favor? Their rationale was simple. Bernie's strength was unexpected. He had almost derailed the Hillary juggernaut. If the rules were just tweaked a little bit in recognition of that strength, Bernie could win. But the rules weren't changed, Bernie lost, and the scorn heaped on the Democratic Party by disappointed Progressives continued right through the general election.

Did Bernie give us Trump? It can be reasonably argued.

When experience is not retained, infancy is perpetual.

Fast forward to today. Bloomberg has propelled himself to the top tier of candidates, current polling placing him third or fourth nationally. His strength is unexpected. He threatens to derail the Bernie juggernaut. If unexpected strength would have been sufficient to change the rules in 2016, why is it not sufficient in 2020 to put Bloomberg on the debate stage?

Bernie's supporters will argue that if the rules weren't changed in 2016, we shouldn't change the rules in 2020, no matter what our position had been four years ago.

That could be called hypocrisy. Or, to be charitable, Bernie's supporters may have simply forgotten their previous positions. Or 2016. Or 1968.

When experience is not retained, infancy is perpetual.

DO YOU NEED A SHOT OF BLUES AND SOUL?

LATEST USA IMMIGRATION NEWS

 I've said it before. My liberal friends think that I'm way too politically conservative and my conservative friends think that I'm a wild-eyed progressive. I must be doing something right.

The latest bone of contention involves immigration. The US Supreme Court has allowed implementation of Trump's plan to require that all prospective immigrants demonstrate that they will not need certain forms of public assistance after entry. For something like 30 years, American immigration rules have forbidden recent immigrants from receiving cash payments. The new rules would include such benefits as SNAP, formerly Food Stamps.

I'm conflicted.

Americans can visit France for up to 90 days without a visa. If we want to stay longer, or want to stay more than 180 days in any one year, we have to apply for a long-stay visa. That application includes proof of medical insurance throughout the stay and the demonstration of sufficient financial resources so as not to become a burden to the French state. Folks like us who intended to become permanent residents had to renew our paperwork annually, providing similar proofs each year.

At the time that we began the process in 2014, we thought nothing of it. It's what the French demanded. We had sufficient income and savings to pass the tests. So, while it was an expensive pain in the ass, we trooped to Beziers every year for five years, presented our paperwork, paid what seemed to us to be an exorbitant amount of money, and so were allowed to stay in France for another year. After five years, perhaps in recognition of nothing more than the persistence of having gone through the process, we were granted a full ten years of residency before our next renewal.

Should we have been upset? I didn't think so and I don't think so. Although the right of free movement exists between the 26 countries that make up the Schengen Area of Europe where passport controls at borders have basically been abolished, the French still think of themselves as special and that living in France is a privilege. There's even a test that you have to take during your interview in order to obtain that multi-year residency card that includes knowledge of the language and understanding of the culture, not dissimilar to the test that you have to take to become an American citizen. The difference is that, having passed the test, you don't become a citizen of France. You just get to live there.

So why should it be any different if you want to live in the USofA? Well, I'll tell you why. The French don't have a statue in the harbor of their major port of entry that has a poem tacked to its pedestal that reads: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Do you suppose that when Emma Lazarus wrote that poem, she expected that the huddled, wretched refuse would arrive with medical insurance prearranged? Of course not. 

The United Sates was founded on the proposition that taking in refugees from around the world and giving them a chance to add their talents to our American experiment strengthened us. In practice, that concept sometimes meant that those refugees had to travel a rocky road. Irish, Chinese, Jews, and others often learned that the words of Lazarus' poem were more welcoming than the immigrants who preceded them. Because after all, we are all immigrants, all except those who were in North America before the Europeans arrived and those brought to America's shores by force. Their stories are different, of course. Darker.

My point is that the new rules are not in and of themselves egregious in the modern world. It can be argued that the new regulations are merely sensible precautions. But if they are going to be implemented, it will mean that Americans have decided to change who we are, what we want our country to represent. Having held the door open for the better part of four centuries, admittedly with certain caveats, we have to be comfortable with putting up new barriers to admittance to the American dream. 

It's a simple question. Are you OK with changing what America means to itself and to the rest of the world? Because the new regulations don't take us back to some previous, idyllic America. They don't make us great again. Rather, they create a new, smug and self-satisfied America. (Kinda like France!) And that's an America that I don't find particularly appealing.