1) Song of the week: "Autumn Leaves" by Johnny Mercer 
2) The Economist: Antitrust and Microsoft [Pauvre Bill Gates! Snif!]
3) On the Media: Single factor analysis  [Interview radio : les reportages sur les bourses attribuent toujours les mouvements des cours à une seule raison : pourquoi ?]
4) Forbes: Music's Zero-Sum Merger [Fusions chez les majors du disque]
5) The New York Observer: My problem with 'no problem' [Critique de la généralisation du terme "no problem" à la place de "you're welcome"]
6) The New York Times/The Ethicist: Purse grab [Conseils sur l'éthique : Avais-je le droit de faire fracturer une portière pour récupérer mon sac à main ? Dois-je accepter un boulot pour la reconstruction de l'Irak alors que j'étais contre la guerre ? Ai-je droit d'utiliser les étiquettes gratuites que les charités m'envoient même si je ne leur envoie pas de don ? Puis-je empocher l'argent que me clients me donnent pour la taxi alors que je prends le métro ?]
7) National Post (Canada): Saudis halt sand exports - and not a moment too soon [L'Arabie séoudite manque de... sable (c'est pas une blague)]
8) US House of Representatives: Congressman Houghton creates the Congressional French Caucus [Création d'un groupe d'amitié France-USA au Congrès américain] 
9) The Economist: Clothing sizes [Les tailles des vêtements ne veulent plus rien dire]
10) The Onion: Americans demand increased protection from selves [SATIRE: Les Américains demandent à l'Etat d'intervenir pour les protéger d'eux mêmes] 
11) The Washington Post/Miss Manners: A Lethal Lesson [Conseils sur les bonnes manières : Une dispute sur la précédence débouche sur une mort ; ma copine propose de fêter son anniversaire dans un resto trop cher pour moi] 

The falling leaves drift by the window
The autumn leaves of red and gold
I see your lips, the summer kisses
The sunburned hand I used to hold

Since you went away the days grow long
And soon I'll hear old winter's song
But I miss you most of all, my darling
When autumn leaves start to fall

I see your lips, the summer kisses
The sunburned hand I used to hold

Since you went away the days grow long
And soon I'll hear old winter's song
But I miss you most of all, my darling
When autumn leaves start to fall

RETURN TO TOP

IS THIS the endgame? Microsoft's antitrust battles in court and with regulators seem to have been dragging on forever. But they may now be entering their final stages. Though focused on narrow issues, how these battles play out will still have big implications for the firm and the software industry as a whole.

This week, the European Commission held closed-door hearings on whether the giant American software firm abused its dominant position in personal-computer operating systems in two ways: by failing to provide smooth interoperability with server software from rival firms and by tying its Windows Media Player to its operating system, thus extending its dominance into an adjacent software market. A week earlier, an appeals court in America heard arguments by the state of Massachusetts and two trade groups that the punishments imposed on Microsoft last year fail to protect consumers from further anti-competitive behaviour.

Both cases spring from the belief that Microsoft has faced penalties, but not remedies. In both, there are two main issues: the alleged need for greater disclosure of technical information so rival products have an equal chance of working well with Microsoft's operating system. Second, how to resolve the perceived problem of “co-mingling” software code—that is, integrating bits of software from an application such as a web browser or media player into the operating system. Though Microsoft says this practice leads to greater functionality for users, its rivals say it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage, helping it to expand into other products.

On the latter, the solution agreed in the American case that is now being appealed is to allow PC makers and users to remove the icon for Microsoft applications, but not the underlying software. The objection to this approach is that, although it can superficially give competing products a vaunted place on the PC screen, it does not alleviate a deeper concern that the mere presence of Microsoft's software provides an incentive for the wider industry of developers and content providers to use it.

The European Commission could yet impose far tougher sanctions on Microsoft than America has done. European antitrust law allows violators to be fined as much as 10% of annual revenues worldwide. Furthermore, two proposed remedies the commission says it may choose from are the removal of co-mingled software code, and a “must carry” provision for all new PCs to carry the media software products of rivals alongside Microsoft's. 

If Microsoft loses in America, this would not unravel previous settlements with the federal government and many states. Instead, the matter would return to the district court for additional remedies to be placed on Microsoft. It could try to challenge new remedies all the way to the Supreme Court. Likewise, if Europe imposes remedies Microsoft dislikes, it can appeal at the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, which has overturned several antitrust decisions. The endgame may yet take a long time ending.

RETURN TO TOP

BOB GARFIELD: This is the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. [AMBIENT SOUND] Amid the hustle and bustle on Wednesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 87 points, or just under one percent of its value. Why? CNBC seemed to know. [PROGRAM MUSIC] 

MAN: Welcome back. A busy news day. The market's moving a little bit lower today...word of a new tape from Osama bin Laden causing the markets to sort of fall off the table there. 

BOB GARFIELD: Got that? Over a period of 6 and a half hours, millions of investors traded billions of shares of stock because of word of a new tape from Osama bin Laden. The day before both the Dow and the Nasdaq were down because, according to the Associated Press, of a disappointing revenue outlook for Nokia and investor profit-taking. The day before that, according to USAToday.com, the Dow was up 83 points due to optimism about the economy. Really?! 

RAY GOLDBACHER: That's as reasonable as anything. 

BOB GARFIELD: Ray Goldbacher is the money editor at USAToday.com. 

RAY GOLDBACHER: You know every day 3 billion shares change hands. Who knows why? I mean the best you can do is try to take the temperature of the predominant trend. Analysts and journalists find ways to explain the market no matter what it does -- or try. 

BOB GARFIELD: They do try. Every trading day, reporters at the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Reuters, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and a dozen other news organizations are expected to distill millions of discrete financial decisions and divine a single motivating factor! Some days it's a Commerce Department report on business inventories. Sometimes it's a jump in IBM's earnings. Sometimes it's the mysterious "technical factors" or dropping oil prices or terrorism jitters or investor optimism or the magical, all-encompassing "profit-taking." Dan Gross covers Wall Street for Slate.com. 

DAN GROSS: Of course there's profit-taking every single minute of every single day. It's a very convenient shorthand for-- "Oh, well gee --we don't know why the Dow went down 70 points." 

BOB GARFIELD: But, Gross says, his colleagues do know how to find someone to float a theory. 

DAN GROSS: You have a number of sources -- guys you know you can call for a quote -- and the guys on the other end have a limited number of things that they will say. It was down on profit-taking, up on optimism, concern about profits -- you know, there are a set number of factors that everybody will say. 

BOB GARFIELD: One source often turned to for the daily analysis is Hugh Johnson, chairman of asset management for the investment banking house First Albany Corporation. With his more than three decades of market experience, Johnson carefully considers corporate fundamentals, external news events, trading patterns known as technicals, the push and pull of other markets such as commodities, bonds and currency trading, and his long-cultivated instinct for the psychology of the trading floor. And then-- he guesses. 

HUGH JOHNSON: It's a real giant leap of faith to say this is what's been on the minds of investors and made them make decisions, cause you obviously don't survey every investor. But you get a sense that the markets tend to respond or react to new in a fairly -- fairly predictable way. Having done this for a while, it's probably a pretty good guess that these events do in -somehow - some manner - affect investors. 

BOB GARFIELD: Or-- you know -- not. [BAR AMBIENCE] We are in the Irish Punt Saloon, a favorite hangout for brokers and traders, shortly after the closing bell on a sultry summer afternoon. We approach a young Wall Streeter named Anthony Piocosta (ph). 

BOB GARFIELD: I need your expert analysis. Nasdaq was down 21 points today - a little over 1 percent -why? 

ANTHONY PIOCOSTA: Oh, there's a few reasons actually. One of the reasons was that Cisco came out with earnings and their expectations were as great as said to be, and Cisco is pretty much one of the largest of the Nasdaq composites, so it pulls down the average very easily. 

BOB GARFIELD: Quick followup question. Are you sure? 

ANTHONY PIOCOSTA: Am I sure? Positive. 

BOB GARFIELD: Then we collar his pal, Dieter Uber (ph). The Nasdaq was down about 1 percent today. Why? 

DIETER UBER: The Nasdaq's down now because technicals are taking over - there's - it's like 16-5, 16-90 we're sitting at. Once it broke that level, now technicals on the Nasdaq are actually taking over, and the traders will just fight to sell, because they're up. 

BOB GARFIELD: You sure about that? 

DIETER UBER: Yes. As for the Nasdaq being down today, it's because of technicals. 

BOB GARFIELD: Then finally we turned to their colleague, Kieren Lockhern (ph), who crunches the same numbers on Nasdaq's dip and draws an entirely different and stunning conclusion. 

KIEREN LOCKHERN: It's probably just overheated. You know? Numbers have come out; there's nothing to take us up any further. Now people eventually look at the profits that they have and realize--either take 'em or-- got off the pot. 

BOB GARFIELD: So a little bit of profit-taking. 

KIEREN LOCKHERN: Yeah. Sure. 

BOB GARFIELD: Ah. Profit taking. But if single factor analysis sometimes seems silly or worse, at least one Wall Street watcher staunchly defends the practice. He is David Wilson, managing editor for global stock markets at Bloomberg News, the organization that revolutionized financial journalism with up-to-the-second reports delivered to your desktop. Wilson insists that trading days do follow miniature trends and themes with certain critical events assuming disproportionate influence. 

DAVID WILSON: There are days when it's pretty straightforward - you, you get a figure - you know it might be a company earnings, it might be an economic report -- and that really does set the tone for the day! And, and you see it even before trading begins, because you're looking at what's happening overseas with the futures markets, with U.S. stocks traded there, and it may be that whatever the theme is at 8:30 in the morning carries all the way through the day. 

BOB GARFIELD: Hence, on Wednesday, according to Bloomberg as well as CNBC, what really mattered was the latest video from Osama bin Laden. Or-- you know -- not. 

LOU DOBBS: I'm very suspicious of anybody who looks at a market monolithically. 

BOB GARFIELD: Lou Dobbs of CNN's nightly Lou Dobbs Tonight is among the most influential and respected financial journalists in the world. He rolls his eyes at the simplistic art of the Wall Street Market Wrap, but he also acknowledges his occasional complicity because of the time constraints of broadcast television, and, he says, the demands of the audience. 

LOU DOBBS: There's not enough space in newspapers, there's not enough time on television or radio to give the explanation as it's deserved, and frankly the audience wouldn't want it anyway in most cases -- the broader audience. Because it is complex, and it takes far too much time. So we revert to traditional shorthand that while wrong is-- expedient. 

BOB GARFIELD: What if the press covered Congress the way it covers the Street? 

LOU DOBBS: They do. [LAUGHS] 

BOB GARFIELD: Well-- [LAUGHS] not really. Although you can certainly say this: this week the House and the Senate blocked a proposed new Labor Department rule that would have limited overtime pay for millions of workers -- on concerns about -- profit taking. 

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Coming up, a loving look at the once and future VOA. Also -- when is it okay to break the law in pursuit of a story? 

BOB GARFIELD: This is On the Media from NPR. 

RETURN TO TOP

How do you fix a sick business in an ailing industry? The answer, according to Sony and Bertelsmann: a merger. 

The two media giants today announced plans to combine their two music companies into a 50/50 joint venture, to be called Sony BMG. The letter of intent lays out a structure featuring an equal number of board members from each company, which will be run by Sony (nyse: SNE - news - people ) music boss Andrew Lack and chaired by BMG boss Rolf Schmidt-Holtz. 

In theory, the merged company will benefit from reduced overhead and bigger market share, and may also prevent rivals EMI Group (otc: EMIPY - news - people ) and Time Warner's (nyse: TWX - news - people ) Warner Music Group from consummating a deal of their own. Conventional wisdom is that European Union regulators may sign off on a Sony/BMG deal, which would reduce the number of major record companies from five to four, but might balk at a second deal to shrink the industry even further. The two companies would hang on to their respective publishing, manufacturing and distribution businesses. 

"We are optimistic that a partnership between Sony Music and BMG would provide significant opportunities to both companies--and invigorate the music marketplace overall," Lack told Sony employees in a companywide memo. 

But industry skeptics wonder how much better a combined company will be in tackling the problems that beset the entire music business: declining sales; difficulty developing new acts who can last more than album; and piracy, both digital and traditional. "I think these are pathetic Band-Aids that don't do anything in the long run," says an attorney who represents artists signed to both labels. 

How effective a Band-Aid will it be in the short run? The merger is predicated in part on cost cutting, but all five major music companies have already been shrinking their headcounts through the industry's three-year slump: BMG cut staff in the fall of 2001, though the company subsequently bought Zomba, home of 'N Sync and Britney Spears, last year. 

Sony reduced its head count by 10%, to 9,000 employees, this year after bringing on Lack from NBC. Howard Stringer, who heads up Sony's U.S. arm and its entertainment group, plans to trims another 1,700 jobs in the next three years from his music and movie divisions. 

"The people at Sony are maxed out. They're working their a---- off," says a manager who represents one of Sony's music acts. "At what point does working you're a-- off become burning out?" 

To date, however, the cuts have improved Sony's margins. This week the company announced that while Sony's worldwide music revenue of $5.268 billion for fiscal 2003 would continue to decline over the next year, it expected adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization to improve slightly from last year's $454 million. 

Another vote in favor of the merger: the potential benefit of pairing Sony's Lack, a hands-on, budget-conscious manager, with BMG's Clive Davis, a legendary impresario respected for his ability to pick hit songs and develop promising artists. This week, BMG owns five of the top 10 albums in the U.S., bolstered by acts like American Idol runner-up Clay Aiken and veteran crooner Rod Stewart, both of whom worked under Davis' eye. 

A successful deal could also bolster Sony's plans to launch its planned digital music download service, referred to internally as Music Box, in April. This week Stringer told analysts and reporters that the service was designed as an answer to Apple Computer's (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) successful iTunes download service, which has spurred sales of 1.3 million iPod players. 

Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs "is not making much money off of our music, but he's making a lot of money off iPod," Stringer said, arguing that the Sony service would benefit both the company's hardware sales and its content sales. 

RETURN TO TOP

Almost a year ago, I moved. I hired movers who specialize in transporting art and antiques, movers who will pack fragile belongings in a pleasing, delicate way and transport them without event to your new apartment, where they will unpack and place everything just as it was. After walking up and down two flights of stairs for hours, the six men were red-faced and soaking wet. There was no air-conditioner installed yet, and what I live with is neither light nor modern. When they finished, I thanked them. They all said, "No problem."

I was immediately made aware—in a way that I would not otherwise have been—that I could have been responsible for all kinds of problems, including but certainly not limited to heat exhaustion, back pain, muscle tears, nausea and the loss of a Saturday that might have been spent at the beach. I had to remind myself that this was a business arrangement, that I had not truly been at risk of causing a "problem." I had hired them and they had arrived; they had carried things and I had paid them for it. All the same, having "No problem" thrown in my face gave me pause. What might have happened if I had caused a problem?

I didn’t think about the movers again until a few weeks ago, when, walking downtown, I was caught in a sudden flash of rain. As I made a spastic, high-heeled dash for the Frick Collection, a man walking by insisted that I take his umbrella, holding it over me until I relented, thanking him profusely, to which he responded, "No problem." He wasn’t very convincing, standing there drenched, but at least this time I knew I hadn’t commissioned his suffering. In this particular case, the "No problem" felt like a joking nod to cinematic street flirtation: Man with umbrella saves woman in improper shoes. It’s all in the tone, really.

And so I hate to be too hard-line about it, but I’ve come to believe that "No problem" is a seemingly benign expression run terribly amok, to the point of destroying what vestiges of civility we have left here at the beginning of the 21st century. The man with the umbrella notwithstanding, the pitch of "No problem" is narcissistic: It changes the nature of the arrangement between myself and another person. Whereas once I might have said, "You’re welcome" (to my services, kindness, etc.), I now say it’s "no problem" (for me to do something for you). So I was unsurprised to discover that, according to the O.E.D., the term appeared in its current usage at the dawn of the Me Decade. With its feel-good group-therapy sessions and forced casualness, the pre-eminent personal-style statement of the 70’s was a kind of nonstop expectorating confession. While I remain convinced that the pop utopia created in that decade was almost entirely about hair, we in the new century still bear the burden of far-out 70’s language.

I was curious to know if the insidious rise of "No problem" was a documented linguistic phenomenon, so I phoned Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University and the author of such books as You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. She told me that a general casualization of language is responsible for the expression.

In Ms. Tannen’s view, "No problem" is dismissive, overcasual and makes light of a favor. She herself draws the following distinction when acknowledging thanks: If she has given something to someone and that person thanks her, she says "You’re welcome." If she has done something for someone else and that person thanks her, she says "My pleasure" or "Don’t mention it." Although she warns that we shouldn’t overinterpret the literal meaning of common expressions, Ms. Tannen does believe that ultimately such language is a byproduct of the breakdown of the barrier between public and private that has occurred over the past 30 years in this country.

Indeed, with every other book published these days a tell-all, several thousand surveillance cameras monitoring New York City and "reality" everything all the time, we no longer know how to handle strangers, because none exist. The social "How are you?" has, in many instances, given way to an insincere, searching "How are you?" 

Then there is the deadly "How are you [pause] really?" I rapidly respond to these with "I’m fine, thank you." I have, in other words, "no problem"—no problem I would like to discuss with you, Oprah Winfrey, nor with you, person next to me on the train, nor with you either, stunning bore at the cocktail party. Is "No problem" our only defense against the onslaught of those running at us with self-help books?

In language, as in dress and courtship, things are at present so humorlessly lax that one runs the risk of sounding antiquated—or worse, a snob—for trying to maintain some formality. I was taught that it’s impolite to make others uncomfortable in any way, and it’s easy to do by dressing them down with the manner of one’s speech. Growing up, we made fun of people who used long, ridiculous, flowery expressions; they tried too hard. But nobody should feel like a great democrat by saying "No problem." "You’re welcome" is a perfectly good phrase that everyone understands. If anything, "No problem" is more condescending.

Ms. Tannen, in any case, seemed resigned to "No problem." Americans, she said, have shunned "You’re welcome" because they "do not like to feel they are saying something that is standard." And yet, of course, alongside that linguistic prejudice there’s also the American need to believe we’re all the same, to disregard the real differences between people in favor of soothing but meaningless political correctness.

Our mad rush from civility shows no signs of abating. Already, "No problem" is giving way to the painfully current "No worries," a phrase common in Australia and New Zealand. Even worse is the smug, New Agey "It’s all good." Both seem to take offense at the very act of being thanked by someone. I first encountered these phrases in boarding school, where we were spoon-fed the curriculum of indifference. When someone says either of these phrases to me, I immediately translate that into "How weird that you are thanking me, you insane thanking freak." These expressions are so generalized that they make no sense anyway, but their studied insouciance conjures—for me, at least—creepy memories of preppies with hats on backward swaying at Phish concerts. The people who say "It’s all good" are as baffling to me as vegans, the smoking ban, and those who choose the pink checks with bunnies printed on them.

Maybe, in the end, "No problem" is an appropriate expression for a country populated by people with no problems, only "issues." Problems are collective and well defined—the drug problem, homelessness, unsolved problems in science and engineering—and by definition are meant to be solved. Issues are never resolved: One just speaks about them endlessly until the guests get bored and go home. 

RETURN TO TOP

Q:
Driving home through a state park, I stopped to use the restroom and accidentally left my purse behind. I drove back an hour later and found it on the floor of a parked car. I called Emergency Roadside Assistance. When they arrived, I told the driver it wasn't my car, but it was my purse. He opened the car and retrieved it. I put an explanatory note on the seat, relocked the car and drove off -- outlawish but efficient. Ethical? Nicole Young, Bolinas, Calif. 
A:
And it was only when you got home that you realized: this isn't my purse. That's the accidental-robber ending I was hoping for. And that you fell in love with the dreamy cop who arrested you. 

If there was no alternative to waiting around all day for the car owner to return -- no way to contact him or perhaps a Park Ranger? -- then I'd describe you as ''resourceful in a crisis.'' I'd feel different if you'd lost a sweater or pair of sunglasses, but you did need your license and money to get home. I am comforted by your having left a note -- presumably not just to reassure the car owner about the purse's whereabouts, but also to accept responsibility for any damage you may inadvertently have done to his car. 

What is disconcerting is the alacrity with which roadside assistance broke into someone else's car. But I suppose it's good to know that if I ever need a burglar, I can just call a tow truck. 
-*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
I was extremely opposed to the American war on Iraq. However, I have taken a job working on the reconstruction for the United States government in Baghdad. The reason I came is that I would like to help make people's lives better. And I fully understand that most of this damage was inflicted well before American troops set foot here. Can I, with a clear conscience, contribute to the rebuilding effort when I don't agree with the way I got here? Anonymous, Baghdad 
A:
It is sometimes difficult to discuss the ethics of a situation without venturing into its politics, about which people differ, and which is beyond the purview of this column. However, if you were in fact ''extremely'' opposed to the war, then that is enough to disqualify you from this job. You are not simply undoing the effects of a policy you revile; you are furthering that policy. The United States might have been -- and in the future might be -- more reluctant to undertake controversial actions were it unable to count on its critics falling into line after the fact. 

While your actual work is benign and your desire to relieve human suffering admirable, that can also be said about military doctors or chaplains. Both are noncombatants, but both are an essential part of military operations -- thus, the very different moral position of a physician or priest in Pizarro's army in 1532 and those among the Incas (assuming Atahualpa even bothered with chaplains). 

A lamentable consequence of this advice is that it inhibits your engaging in work that could improve people's lives. Fortunately, if it isn't too perverse to say so, the world abounds in misery; there is no shortage of humanitarian tasks to be undertaken. You'd do better to find one less implicated in military ventures you disdain. It may make you feel better to know that in this, you'd fall into the camp of many nations, traditionally our allies, who have till now largely declined to participate in rebuilding Iraq, too. 
-*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
Once in a while we receive in the mail a solicitation from a charity, for example, the North Shore Animal League. Included are personalized address labels. Is it ethical for us to use them if we do not make a donation? By using them do we falsely represent ourselves as great lovers of the cute cats and dogs on the labels? Sharon Collins and David de la Nuez, New York 
A:
While those stickers are meant to induce you to contribute to a charity, they come without obligation. They are a gift; you are perfectly free to use them, contribute or not as you choose. To do so is not to declare that you've made a donation. And there is certainly no harm in your using them. In fact, when you do, you advertise the cause that sent them. 

Using these stickers, however, does imply that you admire cute cats and dogs and the charity that helps them. If you do not, honesty requires you to hand-letter your return address. That's why I happily emblazon my mail with the new Thurgood Marshall postage stamp but eschew the Lt. Gen. William Boykin stamp (that, and its nonexistence). 
-*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
I am a university student. I baby-sit through an agency that requires parents to pay for my cab home after 9 p.m. If I accept this additional money, must I take a cab? I'd rather take the subway and add the extra money to my savings. T.H., New York 
A:
The after-9 money is not a bonus; it's meant to provide you with the safety of a cab ride home. If you'd rather spend that money on, say, inexpensive jewelry, your employer needn't finance those baubles, bangles or beads. (Many companies reimburse work-related expenses after the fact rather than front the money in part to track how the funds are used.) There is another option: talk to your employers. Even if they know you're not taking a cab, some may still give you cab fare, but the choice is theirs: you should not take the money under false pretenses. 

RETURN TO TOP

The precious commodity is plentiful in the Middle East, but booming industry demands have caused one country to ban its export, creating a high-priced black market. The commodity isn't oil. It is sand. There is a sand crisis in the Middle East.

A recent Saudi Arabian decision to clamp down on sand exports has pushed the construction industry in neighbouring Bahrain into a calamitous state, according to a report published by the Bahrain Economic Development Board. "This threatens to slow down the development of Bahrain by 60%," said Adel Hassan Al A'ali, head of the construction committee at the tiny island nation's chamber of commerce. "It is a disaster." Sand is a key ingredient in concrete and mortar in the Middle East, and the commodity is also needed to restore Bahrain's eroding 160-kilometre coastline.

The economic report last month suggested industry leaders had decided to call upon King Hamad to ask the Saudis to meet their sand needs, but a report in the Arab News yesterday said the House of Saud is concerned its own industries will face shortages, particularly when they are needed for reconstruction in Iraq. The Saudi-based newspaper said while the desert kingdom has vast resources of sand, transporting it to construction areas is costly.
Mr. Al A'ali said Bahrain needs at least 6,000 tonnes of sand each day to meet its construction demands, and industry there has turned to dredging the sea floor to fill the sand void -- but the sea sand contains high levels of salt and must be treated with equal parts of water to cure it. "That is an enormous quantity of water," Mr. Al A'ali is quoted as saying.

Bahrain has relied on sand imports from Saudi Arabia for more than 20 years, and the crackdown comes as the smaller country is in the midst of building several real estate developments and an international trade centre -- Bahrain Financial Harbour -- to lure Western business.

The economic development board says prices of marine sand have doubled since Saudi Arabia began border checks to stop exports. Mr. Al A'ali said truck drivers who transport the sand from the dredgers to the builders are responsible for jacking up the price. "It is because of the middle men," he said.

Construction industry officials in Saudi Arabia believe the ban will remain as materials are needed for the U.S.-led rebuilding in Iraq. "At present not too many things are being sold to Iraq, but sooner or later, [Saudi Arabia] will be supplying all the construction requirements," Abdul Rahman Al-Furiah, a construction company owner, told the Arab News.

RETURN TO TOP

Houghton formally announced the creation of the Caucus at a luncheon with former French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur and French Ambassador to the United States Jean-David Levitte.

"It’s no secret that relations between the United States and France have been less than ideal lately. It’s time to get on with life and start rebuilding our ties," said Rep. Houghton, a member of the House International Relations and Ways & Means Committees. "The purpose here is to bring people together. Both countries need to clear up misunderstandings between our two great nations and, in the process, build up personal and professional relationships between legislators. Both the United States and France have too much at stake to permit our relationship to deteriorate further."

The Congressional French Caucus will focus on the issues surrounding the bilateral relationship between France and the United States by working in conjunction with the members of the "U.S. Friendship Committee" that currently exists in the French National Assembly and Senate.

Before his election to Congress in 1987, Rep. Houghton was Chairman and CEO of Corning Incorporated, a Fortune 500 company. Rep. Houghton currently serves as House Co-Chair of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, Chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, and was appointed by President George W. Bush as a congressional delegate to the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Houghton is also one of the founders of the Bipartisan Congressional Retreat Planning Committee, a group aimed at promoting civility in the House of Representatives by having Members of Congress from both parties attend a weekend retreat together with their families. 

Rep. Houghton’s father, Amory Houghton, Sr., was U.S. Ambassador to France appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, and served in Paris from 1957 to 1961. 

RETURN TO TOP

WE LIVE, it is said, in a world of standardisation: a place in which increasingly you can buy the same things—cappuccinos, food, cosmetics, fashions—in similar shops, in similar malls, in similar cities. The heart laments this and hopes it isn't really happening. The head, though, has to accept that it has advantages, for standardised products save time, reduce confusion, and may be cheaper and more predictable, especially when attached to a trusted brand. There is one market, however, in which hearts and heads alike are forcing things in a different direction: women's clothing. There, the customer is queen, and she seems to prefer confusion.

It is not the fashions themselves that are flouting standardisation. It is the sizes in which they are sold. Once upon a time these were predictable and numerological, even if the numbers used varied from country to country. It did not matter if a size 12 dress in Britain was called a 38 in Germany and a 44 in Italy, for a simple conversion chart would suffice. No longer. Increasingly, size is a matter of vanity not of measurement, for women have, well, become larger in various ways (see article). Not surprisingly, they would like to have their cake, eat it, and stay exactly the same dress size. Some clothing firms have accommodated such delusional desires by sticking to the same sizing numbers but making the clothes larger. Others have resorted to therapeutic words—petite, regular, “missy”. In America, it is even possible to buy women's clothes in size 0; presumably negative sizing cannot be far behind. 

Men are, of course, going through the same dimensional change. They are not, however, encountering, or inviting, the same confusion. Occasionally it may be hard to work out what exactly is meant by “medium” or “extra large”, but mainly real measurements still rule. This may be because men have another option: for suit-wearers the best trick is to buy not the right new size but a size too big, for then the suit looks loose and people may be fooled into thinking you are getting slimmer, not fatter. Or perhaps their vanity is of a more primitive sort. A (possibly apocryphal) story about Winston Churchill has the great man recommending that among aid shipments sent during the second world war should be packages of British condoms, all large size but labelled “small”.

But for women, meanwhile, shopping is becoming harder: more things must be tried on, taking more time, and buying online is a poor option. Central planners, ignoring the fact that this is the result of expressed female preferences, would want standardisation reimposed. Here's an alternative suggestion for our freer era: clothing firms could agree a standard sizing to be put on some sort of bar code or tag. Then those who want speed and clarity could buy (or be given) an electronic reader to find out the easily comparable truth. Those who would rather fool themselves can continue to do so by reading the written labels. Such are the workings of invisible hands. 

RETURN TO TOP

Americans demand increased protection from selves

NEW YORK—Alarmed by the unhealthy choices they make every day, more and more Americans are calling on the government to enact legislation that will protect them from their own behavior.

"The government is finally starting to take some responsibility for the effect my behavior has on others," said New York City resident Alec Haverchuk, 44, who is prohibited by law from smoking in restaurants and bars. "But we have a long way to go. I can still light up on city streets and in the privacy of my own home. I mean, legislators acknowledge that my cigarette smoke could give others cancer, but don't they care about me, too?"

"It's not just about Americans eating too many fries or cracking their skulls open when they fall off their bicycles," said Los Angeles resident Rebecca Burnie, 26. "It's a financial issue, too. I spend all my money on trendy clothes and a nightlife that I can't afford. I'm $23,000 in debt, but the credit-card companies keep letting me spend. It's obscene that the government allows those companies to allow me to do this to myself. Why do I pay my taxes?"

Beginning with seatbelt legislation in the 1970s, concern over dangerous behavior has resulted in increased governmental oversight of private activities. Burnie and Haverchuk are only two of a growing number of citizens who argue that legislation should be enacted to protect them from their own bad habits and poor decisions. 

Anita Andelman of the American Citizen Protection Group is at the forefront of the fight for "greater guardianship for all Americans."

"Legislation targeting harmful substances like drugs and alcohol is a good start, but that's all it is—a start," Andelman said. "My car automatically puts my seatbelt on me whenever I get into it. There's no chance that I'll make the risky decision to leave it off. So why am I still legally allowed to drink too much caffeine, watch television for seven hours a day, and, in some states, even ride in the back of a pick-up truck? It just isn't right."

The ACPG has also come out in favor of California's proposed "soda tax," which addresses unhealthy eating habits.

"The legislation, if approved, would establish a tax on sodas and other beverages with minimal nutritional value, and the money would be used to fund programs that address the growing epidemic of childhood obesity," Andelman said. "If our own government doesn't do something to make us get in better shape—or, for that matter, dress a little nicer—who will?" 

Rev. Ted Hinson, founder of the Christian activist group Please God Stop Me, said he believes that the government will listen.

"For years, legislators have done an admirable job of listening to constituents who want the dangerous, undesirable behavior of their neighbors regulated," Hinson said. "That is a good sign for those of us who wish for greater protection from ourselves. But you should see the filth I still have access to, just by walking into a store or flipping on my computer. There is still much work to be done if we are going to achieve the ideal nanny-state."

Bernard Nathansen, an attorney for the Personal Rights Deferred Center in Oakes, VA, is one of many individuals working to promote "governmental accountability." His organization arranges class-action lawsuits on behalf of Americans who have been hurt by the government's negligence, including individuals who suffer health problems related to overexposure to sunlight.

"We can all agree that many choices are too important to be left up to a highly flawed individual," Nathansen said. "Decisions that directly affect our health, or allow us to expose ourselves to potential risks, should be left to the wiser, cooler heads of the government."

"But things like food and drug labels are half-measures," Nathansen said. "The regulations, however well-intentioned, often allow citizens the choice of ignoring the instructions. Many current laws were written primarily to protect others from our dangerous actions, with no concern for the deleterious effect our actions can have on ourselves. The government must do more."

To this end, Personal Rights Deferred has compiled an action list of more than 700 behaviors it wants regulated by state or federal authorities. The list includes such risky behaviors as swimming in cold weather and staying up all night playing video games.

"The fact is, personal responsibility doesn't work," Nathansen said. "Take a good look at the way others around you are living, and I'm sure you'll agree. It's time for the American people to demand that someone force them to do something about it." 

RETURN TO TOP

Dear Miss Manners: 

Last year, my ex-husband was waiting in line at a supermarket checkout when someone cut in front of him. Words were exchanged and this led to one punch being thrown. The punch put my ex on the floor with massive head injuries, from which he died the next day. All over a place in line at the supermarket! 

My son's anger at the loss of his father was subdued somewhat when he saw the store's security tape and it showed his dad had said the first impolite words. Still, two lives are lost, one to death and one behind bars charged with involuntary manslaughter. At least part of his sentence is anger-management classes. Maybe we all need to look inward for anger management in today's world and practice more etiquette toward each other. 

A:
Indeed. When people dismiss etiquette as trivial, they forget how easily feelings over minor offenses turn lethal. Miss Manners offers her sympathy that your family had to learn this so tragically.

Such fights, if not deaths, happen with enough frequency -- not only to etiquette vigilantes such as your ex-husband, but on the part of street thugs who are quick to feel that they have been shown disrespect -- as to suggest that rudeness has become dangerous. This should give pause to those who believe that rudeness is best cured by punitive rudeness, when that only escalates the antagonism.
-*-*-*-*-*-
Dear Miss Manners: 

A friend recently invited me to a non-hosted dinner at one of our city's finest restaurants in honor of her birthday. I had to work that evening, and so declined her invitation gracefully (I hope), with a promise of taking her to lunch at a more, shall we say, proletarian eating establishment. 

However, she knows my work schedule is somewhat flexible, and seems hurt that I haven't made arrangements to be there. 

The truth is, an evening at that restaurant would simply cost far too much without me making a spectacle of myself by ordering a starter salad and glass of water (tap), and saying, "No, really, I'm not that hungry." Most of us in our group of friends are on limited budgets, and I know others who genuinely like this person and are attending somewhat grudgingly. 

Is there any way to politely inform her that we would enjoy celebrating her birthday in a manner that doesn't require a month's grocery budget? 
-*-*-*-*-*-
You did, and she didn't take it well. Miss Manners finds it a bit of a stretch for a non-host to be offended when a non-guest declines a non-invitation. Besides, you were gracious enough to indicate an interest in celebrating her birthday another way. We can only hope that your friend will mature enough to figure out the problem before next year.

RETURN TO TOP