Left in Dark Times

The life of the unemployed is surprisingly busy. I feel like the aimless protagonist in Hornby's "About a Boy" who wonders how people ever found the time to fit work in. I could feel quite fulfilled retiring....now, I'm not going to lie. I just started to look for a job this week, unfortunately.

Anyone want to hire an over-educated under-experienced under-achieving girl? My greatest work strength: Coordination of outfit with accessories.
My greatest work weakness: procrastination, laziness, disorganization, general malaise, internet time-wasting, tardiness....

Do hire me. I've been trolling the Goodwills looking for socially acceptable work outfits (since I realized that not one of the 75 or so skirts and dresses I own extends past mid-thigh, I would definitely not pass the fingertip test at a Catholic school). Somehow, I've spent my entire life up until now totally unaware of how to dress "business professional" and "business casual". I keep calling my mom and describing outfits to her and asking if it says what I'm trying to convey: that I'm not the type of girl who frequents dive bars until 5 AM on a Tuesday. So, I'm looking for a costume. Speaking of costumes, does anyone else find their favourite outfits in the Goodwill costume section? It's my favourite next to the little girl dress section. Speaking of costumes, I'm trying to make this exact outfit for Halloween:




Yes, I'm going as Dawn Weiner for Halloween:



Onward and upward:



I went to see the French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy last week on his book tour to promote his latest release, "Left in Dark Times".

The title is an approximate translation of a Sartre quote and, in English, works as a pun: the "left" can refer to the liberal movement he is criticizing.

BHL, as he's known in France, has been both acclaimed and derided. I haven't read the book yet since I'm still on hold at the library, but I've read quite a bit about his argument. The New York Times review ishere. His argument in this book has been misunderstood, in many ways, if the irate sixtysomethings in the audience were any indication of the general consensus. All of the baby boomers, understandably, get rather testy when there is a perceived attack on the liberal cause. I am left wing, more so than the American democratic party, but some of his critique did resonate with me.

Although he generally aligned himself with the left and protested over the Vietnam war, his support of the American intervention in Iraq (which, obviously, I was always against, not that I have any kind of say) has been particularly controversial.

The book begins with a call from Nicholas Sarkozy, the now-French President, asking for Levy's endorsement (in his speech, Levy did take a bit of a jab at North American culture when he suggested that, true enough, no American politician would ask for a writer's endorsement) in his campaign for the presidency.

Levy refuses and explains that the left is his family, and Sarkozy offers a few valid criticisms of the Left movement, at least in France.

Anyways, the Times can explain it better than I can, but, I did agree with his suggestion that the Left tends to get trapped in the prevailing or trendy paradigm or dialectic of the time, which influences their perception of current events and causes them to ignore events that do not fit into that dialogue.

According to Levy, the defining dialectic right now has to do with (all interrelated) globalization, anti-Americanism, post-colonialism, and anti-Imperialism.

For example, he suggests that the liberal cause is, albeit mostly justifiably, quick to blame American imperialism for all the evils in the world, and, regardless or whether this assertion is correct, it doesn't explain everything.

Levy critiques the left for being too laissez-faire by not wanting to interfere and impose western ideals onto other nations. By allowing, in his assessment, immoral governments the right of unchecked self-determination, we do the subjugated groups in that country a disservice. Levy suggests that this liberal resistance to globalization and cultural American-imperialism is responsible for the lack of "universal values" today. His belief is that we should impose our ideals of democracy, equality, freedom of expression, and justice onto developing (for lack of a better term, I realize that one is controversial) nations that mistreat their population.

I agree with this to a certain extent. I agree with the sentiment at the heart of it, but if we have someone like George W. Bush imposing their values on other nations, it always seems to be a cover for oil interests, no? Advocating for political intervention in other nations, not like it doesn't already exists is kind of a dangerous justification for......any number of of economic and political interests.

We do have international intervention, with the International Monetary Fund, hahahahah. Joking.

Also, I don't really know if the American government, for example, is preferable to that of socialist-communist countries. I'm really not sure. For example, the American news coverage of Venezuela is so biased, but Chavez also engages in some pretty heavy press censorship himself. Same with Cuba.

But I do agree that humanitarian intervention and prevention of genocide and subjugation is important. Levy suggests that Republicans have co-opted humanitarianism as a cover for their economic interests and, consequently, the same kind of humanitarianism has become distasteful for leftists.

I do agree that humanitarianism should be universal, not political, but I'm not sure if it's possible.

It is interesting to listen to Levy's critique of the post-colonial paradigm, and how that whole mode of thought is severely outdated, and the same argument is prevalent in current critiques of Latin America. Those critiques generally suggest that post-colonialism defines a country by oppression, whereas, in order to progress (another loaded term) and become more self-reliant, the country needs to develop its own identity (and well, pay back its IMF debt, hah).

Here is an article by Levy in the New York Times discussing his point of view more eloquently than I can:‘Left in Dark Times’: The First Chapter

I know Levy's so famous, but I first took notice of him when I was a preteen reading an interview of him and his wife in, I believe, Vanity Fair. To me, they seemed so lovely and French, that it precipitated a life-long desire to move to France and become chic.

I don't think he's the most brilliant writer/philosophe ever, if anything, he is a good speaker and self-promoter, but I did like how he said how strange it was that Americans are all obsessed with the Stock Market.

That does make me feel a little better about my total ignorance about such matters. Even in light of yesterday's stock market crash. In my defense, I do have ADD, but somehow my total lack of concentration only really manifests itself when I find something boring. Oh, I know the stock market can be interesting once you consider all of the contributing factors, but the issue is that these stock and financial people are usually shitty writers. I mean, accountants aren't universally praised for their communication skills. That's what I tell myself to make myself feel better about my lack of academic/work prowess: that I have "people skills". Except I don't really, I'm kind of a condescending jerk sometimes (hopefully in a somewhat charming way?) and I'm totally cynical. Oh, and I don't really like that many people. I'm working on it. My mom says that's "discerning," which is partly why I love my mom.

One of my life goals is to become a nicer person. I sort of am.


One day, I hope.

And only related in that she epitomizes that French "je ne sais quoi" that I, sadly, will never quite possess, and I have a strange love for French pop music, Francoise Hardy: