1) Song of the week: "Paris" by Dido 
2) Slate/Dear Prudence: Girl, Uninterrupted [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court : Devrais-je organiser une fête d'anniversaire de mariage pour ma mère et son deuxième mari que je déteste ? Dois-je continuer d'essayer de m'entendre avec ma soeur ainée ? On homme peut-il porter une casquette de baseball dans un resto ?]
3) The Economist: The housing market [Fausses idées sur le marché immobilier résidentiel]
4) The Economist: Offshoring services [Dell rapatrie son centre d'appels de l'Inde]
5) Slate/Explainer: Is Miss Universe Miss World's Boss? [On vous explique qui est Miss Univers et qui est Miss Monde]
6) The New York Times/The Ethicist [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie : Puis-je signer une lettre écrite par mon agence de relations publiques ? Puis-je souscrire une extension de garantie après une panne ? Puis-je profiter de la formation proposée par mon employeur alors qu'il ne servira pas dans mon emploi actuel ?] 
7) NBC Channel 4: Students Disagrees With 'F' Word Assignment [Un prof donne comme devoir aux élèves de dire "fuck" à toutes les sauces]
8) On the Media radio interview: Tabloid Wars [Entretien radio sur la guerre des tabloids anglais sur le major-dome de Diana] 
9) The New York Times/Domains [Portrait éclair de la romancière Diane Johnson]
10) Newsday: Student Charged in American Indian Prank [Un élève fait irruption dans une classe sur les Indiens d'Amérique habillé en guerrier indien]
11) The Washington Post/Miss Manners: Guess When Dinner's Coming?  [Conseils sur les bonnes manières : Pourquoi fait-on attendre des heures ses invités pour dîner !]

Coming back from Paris on the train
I really didn't care if the journey took all day
Trying to turn the pages of my magazine
While trying to keep a hold of your hand
And ordering an coffee that I wouldn't ever drink
Just to keep you and Paris on my mind
Just to keep you and Paris on my mind
I didn't know it would be the last time 
The last time I saw you

At Waterloo we went our separate ways
When i got in my cab I didn't turn and wave
Didn't go to work just went to bed
Trying to keep you and Paris on my mind
Trying to keep you and Paris on my mind 
I didn't know it would be the last time 
The last time I saw you

I phoned your office this afternoon
They said they hadn't heard anything from you
It's been seven days without a word
I have to keep you and Paris on my mind
I have to keep you and Paris on my mind
I didn't know it would be the last time
The last time I saw you

Going back to Paris on the train
Raining and without you it's not the same
I have to do this journey one more time
Just to keep you and Paris on my mind
Just to keep you and Paris on my mind 
I didn't know it would be the last time
The last time I saw you

The last time I saw you

The last time I saw you

The last time I saw you

RETURN TO TOP

Dear Prudence,
As a regular reader, I've come to admire your levelheadedness, straightforward advice, and your ability to cut to the heart of an issue. That's what I need now. My mother is pressuring me to throw a big shindig for her 30th wedding anniversary. The problem is that her husband is an abusive, loud-mouthed jerk whom no one in the family (except my mother) can stand. Additionally, 30 years ago Mom abandoned my dad to be with this jerk. I would rather not hurt my mother's feelings, but I think she's got some nerve putting me in this position. Is there any way around this issue, short of telling Mother what I really think? Help me, Prudie! Please! 

—Party-Averse

Dear Part,
Prudie guesses your mother already knows how you feel about The Jerk. If you've miraculously managed to keep it to yourself for three decades, tell your mom—gently—that your heart would not be in throwing such a party. Do not offer too many details along the lines of, "And nobody likes him!" If she insists, offers to pay for it, and your back is up against the wall, let her use your name on the invitation—but with the understanding that she do all the planning. If this happens and people ask you if you are really throwing the party, finesse it by saying that your name is on the invitation as a courtesy to your mother. Your best hope is that if very few people respond affirmatively, there probably won't be a party. If you are close to your mother and it means a great deal to her, you might consider sucking it up for her sake. Should it not be a close relationship (Prudie's hunch), go back to plan A. Some people will no doubt say you should do it simply because your mother asked you. Prudie, however, never votes for phony. Disclaimer: This advice is predicated on the guy really being a jerk, and not a lovely man whom you never gave a chance because your mother left your dad for him!

—Prudie, candidly 
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Hi Prudie,
I am in need of some advice about a bitter older sister. She is almost 20 years my senior. Our parents are deceased, and there are no other siblings. Despite a little help during my formative years and, later, through difficult pregnancies, my sister and I have been at odds several times during our lives. The most recent dust-up occurred this summer with my sister stating that she wanted no further contact with me or my eldest daughter—ever. I have grieved over this but have come to realize that my sister has an inherent lack of respect for me and my children, so I'm going to go along with her wishes. I know it will be difficult during the upcoming holidays, but I also know that if we resolve the problem this time, it will be temporary. My sister is getting on in years, and I am sure she isn't going to change. I am tired of walking on eggshells and trying to keep peace. Does this make me a terrible person because I plan to go through life without any contact with my sister? 

—Twisted Sister

Dear Twist,
Reminder: It was not you who requested no contact. Your use of the word "bitter" is probably the key. Your sister sounds like a foul-weather friend since she offered some support during your growing-up years and then at the time of complicated pregnancies. The overall pattern, however, suggests that her personality is prickly to begin with and that her life has not gone the way she would have liked. With an exception here and there, it is the disappointed people who take it out on others—quite often family members. Prudie agrees with your decision to allow things to drift with your sister. If relatives cannot behave like friends—and they bring you anguish in the bargain—life is easier for everybody if you call it a day. Do remember that being related is merely a function of DNA. The age difference, by the way, could certainly be a factor. Chances are that the elder sister feels like your mother and possibly envies you your youth, your place in the family, and … you fill in the blanks. It didn't have to be this way, but it is. Try not to beat yourself up.

—Prudie, pragmatically
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I was dining out at a casual restaurant recently with my parents. Several gentlemen in the restaurant were wearing baseball caps while eating. My mom said this behavior is inappropriate. I, however, don't think it matters in this day and age, especially in a casual dining atmosphere. So who is right?

—Younger and Wiser?

Dear Young,
When you say "casual," Prudie imagines you mean Denny's or Burger King or someplace along those lines. Your mother is probably right about no hat indoors in the strictest sense of what is proper, but your referencing "this day and age" trumps formal etiquette ... at least in a Burger King. Even some expensive restaurants allow casual clothes—though one would not see baseball caps. And perhaps these hat-wearing diners are still jazzed about the World Series? Prudie only hopes that the hats were not on backward.

—Prudie, conventionally
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Prudie,
I love my boyfriend fiercely, and we're engaged to be married this December, but I am worried because practically everyone I know hates him. (And HE wants nothing to do with my friends.) They all feel he's controlling and whiny and that he oftentimes makes me feel bad for things that are not my fault, though he swears this isn't his intention. We've had long drawn-out discussions and fights about this. Other than that, he's a deeply committed, loving, compassionate boyfriend. He sends me cards when I'm sick and almost always fits his life around mine. My friends also take THAT as a bad sign; they say because he's made me the center of his life, in some ways, they're afraid of what he might do if for some reason we broke up. I'm honestly at a loss about what to think because I don't see him as the domineering, controlling jerk my friends do. How should I think about this situation? 

—Sincerely,
S. 

Dear S.,
Very carefully. This is one of those hard-to-figure two-handed problems. On the one hand, one should not necessarily buy into other people's take on a personal situation ... on the other hand, there is the old axiom that 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong—in your case, the 50 million being your collection of friends. The fact that he wants little to do with your friends is worth thinking about. Not only is that a sign that he is trying to control you, but think about it: Could you be married to someone who liked none of your friends? The business about making you feel bad is called blaming, and you need to evaluate that, as well. Prudie's instinct is that this would not be a successful marriage. However ... maybe you could split the difference and postpone the wedding while you seriously assess how the relationship makes you feel. 

—Prudie, explorationally

RETURN TO TOP

Nov 27th 2003 
It is time to expose some popular fallacies about buying a home

IN 1929 John D. Rockefeller decided it was time to sell shares when even a shoe-shine boy offered him a share tip. During the past week The Economist's economics editor has been advised by a taxi driver, a plumber and a hairdresser that “you can't go wrong” investing in housing—the more you own the better. Is this a sign that it is time to get out? At the very least, as house prices around the world climb to ever loftier heights (see article), and more and more people jump on to the buy-to-let ladder, it is time to expose some of the fallacies regularly trotted out by so many self-appointed housing experts.

One common error is that house prices must continue to rise because of a limited supply of land. For instance, it is argued that “house prices will always rise in London because lots of people want to live here”. But this confuses the level of prices with their rate of change. Home prices are bound to be higher in big cities because of land scarcity, but this does not guarantee that urban house prices will keep rising indefinitely—just look at Tokyo's huge price-drops since 1990. And, though it is true that a fixed supply of homes may push up house prices if the population is rising, this would imply a steady rise in prices, not the 20% annual jumps of recent years. 

A second flawed argument is that low interest rates make buying a home cheaper, and so push up demand and prices. Lower interest rates may have allowed some people, who otherwise could not have afforded a mortgage, to buy a home. But many borrowers who think mortgages are cheaper are suffering from money illusion.

Interest rates are not very low in real, inflation-adjusted terms. Initial interest payments may seem low in relation to income, but because inflation is also low it will not erode the real burden of debt as swiftly as it once did. So in later years mortgage payments will be much larger in real terms. To argue that low nominal interest rates make buying a home cheaper is like arguing that a car loan paid off over four years is cheaper than one repaid over two years.

Fallacy number three is a favourite claim of Alan Greenspan, chairman of America's Federal Reserve. This is that price bubbles are less likely in housing than in the stockmarket because higher transaction costs discourage speculation. In fact, several studies have shown that both in theory and in practice bubbles are more likely in housing than in shares. A study by the IMF finds that a sharp rise in house prices is far more likely to be followed by a bust than is a share-price boom. 

SAFE AS HOUSES?
Another curiosity is the popular claim that investing in property is safer than buying shares, for bricks and mortar are here forever. But that says nothing about relative value. Buy at the peak of a property bubble and your investment is not “safe”. To an investor, the value of a house also lies in the rents that a property can generate. If your tenant unexpectedly moves out, you will suddenly find that your income drops to zero. 

This leads to a fifth falsehood: it is always better to buy a house, because “paying rent is money down the drain”. Thanks to a growing glut of rental properties in many cities, from Sydney to London, the cost of renting is currently cheaper than the cost of paying a mortgage. Only if (a big if) prices continue to rise does buying always make sense. 

Myth number six is that, even if houses are overvalued, their price is unlikely to fall because interest rates will not rise to the double-digit rates that burst previous housing bubbles. Again, the experience of Japan suggests that prices can fall without a big increase in interest rates. All that is needed is a change in sentiment. First-time buyers may balk at sky-high prices, for example, or if rents fall and prices stop rising investors may sell as their expectation of capital gains disappears. 

The seventh fallacy is to believe that, even if prices have overshot, they will not fall, but just level off. When inflation was high, real house prices did indeed adjust in this way. But, if inflation remains at 1-2%, it will take years for real house prices to return to normal levels. So today prices are more likely than ever to fall in nominal, as well as real, terms. 

Each of these seven arguments may contain a small grain of truth in certain circumstances, but they should never be the articles of faith they have become. The more often they are invoked, the greater the risk that prices are headed for a crash.

RETURN TO TOP

SO CHARGED have the politics of offshoring become that reports that Dell might move a handful of tasks from its call-centres in India back to America have quickly escalated into a diplomatic incident. Indignant Indians are fuming at the suggestion that it was their “thick accents” and “scripted responses” that persuaded Texas-based Dell to move some customer-service jobs for its corporate customers back to America. In America, protectionist pressure groups are claiming the first victory in a long campaign to bring jobs back home. Even Dell seems divided by the issue. Different statements from different company officials have left outsiders wondering what, exactly, the company plans to do.

On November 22nd, the Austin American-Statesman, a local Texan newspaper, ran a story claiming that Dell would be moving some technical-support jobs from India back to its call-centres in Texas. Two days later, the Associated Press confirmed the story. The reason for the move, according to a Dell spokesman quoted by the AP news agency, was that “customers weren't satisfied with the level of support they were receiving.” The following day, a brusque-sounding official at Dell India in Bangalore denied the story. “No, we are not shifting the work,” the spokesperson told PTI, an Indian news agency. As the mystery deepened, further reports suggested Dell's “full commitment” to India, where it employs 2,000 people, and explained all job shifts (if indeed there had been any) as “part of Dell's normal business operations.”

Dell laid off 5,700 workers during the recent tech recession, most of them support staff in Texas. Most of the growth in its workforce since then has been overseas. It may be that its customer service has become genuinely poorer as a result—though multi-regional, multi-racial America has its fair share of different accents, too. Dell may be the victim of well-organised e-mail and bulletin-board campaigns by pressure groups and customers who have allowed their politics to cloud their judgment. Which customers, after all, can claim happy experiences with Texan call-centres? By using Indian ones, Dell does at least keep its computers cheap—which is the main point about its products.

Those Indians who are not now desperately practising their Texan drawl, meanwhile, have begun to plot their revenge. “Imagine what would happen if we moved our techies out of the US back into India,” wonders Arunava Sinha, in a column for the Economic Times of India. “Oops. There went Silicon Valley.”

RETURN TO TOP

One hundred ten young women are touring China in preparation for the Miss World beauty pageant, to be held Dec. 6 on the island of Hainan. What's the difference between Miss World and Miss Universe, and where does Miss America fit into the pageant puzzle?

Miss Universe and Miss World are separate business enterprises, with the former far more successful at the moment. Miss Universe is a joint venture between real-estate tycoon Donald Trump and NBC, which began broadcasting the annual contest this past June. (The reigning titleholder is 6-foot-1-inch Amelia Vega of the Dominican Republic.) Prior to NBC's involvement, Trump partnered with CBS, which co-owned the business with the Donald until NBC bought its rival's share in 2002. 

Miss Universe makes considerable money off TV ads and international broadcast rights, but it also rakes in franchising fees; countries or states that wish to hold qualifying pageants must pay for the privilege. This year's Miss Venezuela almost didn't make it to the finals in Panama because her nation's franchise, the Miss Venezuela Organization, couldn't come up with the necessary $80,000 fee. (Fortunately for fans of Mariangel Ruiz, a good Samaritan stepped in at the last second to pick up the tab.) In the United States, state franchises raise the cash by asking hopefuls to pony up a $695 fee, and some franchises additionally require that their families take out a $350 ad in the pageant program. 

The Miss Universe contest, first held in 1952, has experienced something of a renaissance of late; last year, for example, the finals even beat an NBA playoff game in the Nielsen ratings. Miss World, by contrast, has been having a tough go. The most high-profile incident was last year's debacle in Nigeria, when news of the pageant's arrival inspired mass riots in the Muslim north. The London-based Miss World Organization also had its assets temporarily frozen last year, during a legal dispute with a Nigerian promoter. Confusingly, American delegates to both international pageants are called Miss USA.

Until this past September, there hadn't been a national qualifying pageant for Miss World in the United States for years, and the franchising situation was a mess. Last year, an American franchisee named Miss World Holdings Inc. summarily crowned Rebekah Revels, 24, as Miss USA and shipped her off to Nigeria. (Those who follow minor scandals may recall that Revels is the 2002 Miss North Carolina winner who lost her title—and thus her slot in the more prestigious Miss America pageant—when an ex-boyfriend revealed that he had nude pictures of her.) This past June, the U.S. franchisee, renamed Horizon Talent Inc., issued a press release stating that it would hold a Miss USA contest in Las Vegas in September. But Horizon couldn't find anyone to broadcast the pageant and was forced to move the event to smaller digs in Los Angeles. The winner, now the U.S. representative in China, was Kimberly Harlan, a red-haired Georgia native and former "prize girl" on the Italian version of Wheel of Fortune.

As for Miss America, it has absolutely nothing to do with either Miss Universe or Miss World. Rather, it's run by a not-for-profit organization that prefers to call the contest a "scholarship competition" rather than a beauty pageant. There's no international division for the winner; it's strictly a domestic affair.

Bonus Explainer: International pageant hopefuls who don't make the cut for Miss Universe or Miss World needn't despair. There's also Miss Earth, founded in 2001 by Carousel Productions and ostensibly dedicated to promoting worthwhile environmental causes. This year's finals in Manila attracted a fair amount of publicity, largely because of the controversial participation of Miss Afghanistan. Like Miss World, Miss Earth has hit some rough patches: The 2002 winner, Bosnia-Herzegovina's Dzejla Glavovic, was dethroned six months into her reign, after she failed to show up at several environmental fund-raisers.

Next question?
Explainer thanks Jean Renard of Horizon Talent.
Brendan I. Koerner is a fellow at the New America Foundation.

RETURN TO TOP

If the customs of your business are such that your recipients will take your signature to mean you wrote these letters, then that's what you must do -- write them. If they'll assume someone wrote them for you, then no problem. Your obligation is to avoid being deceptive. And so it's fine to employ a P. R. firm to help with your communications skills, but it's not fine to do what amounts to plagiarizing. 
-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
Our two-year-old oven broke down just a month after the warranty expired. A few days later, the store where we bought it happened to run a promotion for extended warranties. My husband immediately signed on. The next day I called the store to have the problem fixed free. I now have the gnawing feeling that we were a bit unethical. My husband disagrees. Which of us is correct? Jill G., Framingham, Mass. 
A:
You are. Insurance is for future contingencies, not retroactive mishaps; you can't take out a fire-insurance policy on a house that's already burned down. Regardless of whether it was legal for your husband to pounce on this goofball offer, it was not ethical. And you could have resolved the doubts you and he had in one candid phone call to the store. 

It is the essence of an honorable bargain that both parties have access to all significant facts. Opinions may differ about their implications, but transparency prevails. The rest is trickery or opportunism. 
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Q:
After many years editing books, I have ended up in a job editing accounting literature, which is as exciting as mayonnaise. My company will pay my tuition while I attend law school at night and continue to work full-time for them. Is it ethical to accept this aid if I have no intention of studying forensic accounting or tax law, but instead become a civil rights lawyer? K.E. Price, Jersey City, N.J. 
A:
As I gather you know, this ought to be discussed with your employer. If he or she is willing to pay for these classes, fine. Some companies take the broad view, believing that it's in their interest to have happy, educated employees. 

Others underwrite only classes directly related to the job. If your employer is reluctant to finance the training that will prepare you to quit the firm, that's reasonable too. Just ask. For you to play fast and loose with the financing of your legal training would be either an apt or a paradoxical start to your career, depending on your opinion of lawyers. 

RETURN TO TOP

The book is has been known as a "coming of age book," but it's also remembered for its use of the "F" word. 

"My teacher decided that it would be best to have the students go home and say in private the phrase 'F-U,' 10,000 times in different dialogues and different ways and tones and stuff, so that we'd become desensitized to it and wouldn't have to worry about it," said Chantilly High School student Jeff Daybell. 

Most of the students in English teacher Rich Tucker's class weren't bothered, but Daybell -- a Mormon -- said he was offended. "Some of the students lean more toward my teacher because they see him as the victim in all this and that he really didn't do anything wrong. But, they weren't raised with the same kind of upbringing as I had that those kind of words or expressions are immoral and not proper," Daybell said. 

He posted his objections in an article on an Internet site, while his parents e-mailed school officials. Jeff's Mother, Nancy Daybell, told News4: "As long as it's come to their attention that it's offensive to some people, maybe they'll make some changes. That's all we'd like to have happen." 

The school system issued a statement that read: "The teacher didn't want the students to be alarmed by what they read. There may have been better ways to handle this." Fairfax County school officials said they are still investigating the incident. They have not said whether they will discipline the teacher or institute a policy change at Chantilly High School.

RETURN TO TOP

BOB GARFIELD: In London last year the former butler of Princess Diana, Paul Burrell, was arrested and charged with stealing 300 items belonging to the late princess. Many months later he was exonerated after the Queen and Prince Charles came to his legal aid. The aftermath has been tabloid heaven. Chris Horrie is the author of "Stick It Up Your Punter: The Rise and Fall of the Sun," and an expert on the English tabloids. He told us that the butler was given 300,000 pounds sterling by the Daily Mirror for his life story even though he was offered far more money by a rival tabloid. 

CHRIS HORRIE: Three million pounds sterling is the, is the figure that he reputedly was offered by the News of the World which is the number one Sunday kind of scandal tabloid here. They call it the News of the Screws -- "screw" being a, a [LAUGHS] rude word for the sex act of course. Every Sunday it's got the-- kind of sexual revelations about some public figure or celebrity or other -- that's its, it's kind of entire business. But Burrell turned this down claiming that he was doing all this in the public interest. He said that he trusted the Mirror more and that he didn't really trust The News of the World. 

BOB GARFIELD: Unaccustomed as Americans are to seeing newspapers, even tabloid newspapers, pay for a story, the spectacle of watching the other tabloids in the UK begin smear campaigns-- 

CHRIS HORRIE: [LAUGHS] Yeah. 

BOB GARFIELD: -- against Paul Burrell is truly astonishing for us. 

CHRIS HORRIE: Yeah! They've even got a word for it; it's called a spoiler. The Daily Mirror has done business; they've signed up Paul Burrell and they've been selling newspapers by the shedload as a result of this. So the Sun, which is its rival, and The News of the World, the two Murdoch papers, have been running this knocking campaign to pour as much scorn and castigate Burrell and punish him for [LAUGHS] giving his story to a commercial rival and turning them down. 

BOB GARFIELD: Why do the readers buy the papers and put any credit in what is being reported? Why isn't it just dismissed as rampant commercialism that has undercut any claim to journalism that these papers might have had? 

CHRIS HORRIE: I think long term people are turning away from the tabloids; their aggregate circulation over the last ten years or so is about half what it once was. But in the short term, these scandals, particularly about figures in the royal family provide a massive boost to circulation, and there's a great deal of hypocrisy amongst readers. On another occasion, the Daily Mirror photographed Diana in her gym! They had concealed cameras on exercise machines and took pictures of her crotch! Those were all printed in the paper. There was enormous fuss, and it sold like hot cakes. So there's a certain amount of hypocrisy here. Perhaps it's part of the, the, the British character - their attitude toward the royal family. 

BOB GARFIELD: Well let me ask you something else then, and it gets to a, maybe a secondary benefit of this kind of reporting. The story of the royal scandal has found its way into more substantial broadsheet papers like the Times of London and The Guardian and the BBC, bringing to light some genuine issues of scandal and potential misbehavior and corruption within the royal palaces, maybe going as far as the royals themselves. Is this a story that never would have found its way to The Guardian absent the Mail and the Mirror and the News of the World? 

CHRIS HORRIE: Perhaps not. Perhaps the tabloids are doing a good job in, you know, throwing some light on to the-- on to the Windsor family who do seem to be quite an odd bunch of people. [LAUGHTER] The thing is that it's always legitimate to report on the royal family's sex life in the public interest because of the principle of the hereditary monarchy. If they're not going to have children because they're homosexual or you know if they're engaged in in--acts that might lead to having illegitimate children, then that creates a constitutional crisis! So there's a very po-faced [sp?], hypocritical stance that the posh papers, the Times and the Guardian as well as the tabloids can, can fall back upon - that they're -- whereas reporting anybody else's sex life might be just like nobody's business, the sex lives and sex careers of the royals are ipso facto public information! 

BOB GARFIELD: One last question, Chris: your book is called Stick It Up Your Punter. If you can tell us on this family program-- [LAUGHTER] what is a punter? 

CHRIS HORRIE: Punter is London slang for the client of a prostitute, and all tabloid journalists in every newsroom I've ever been in routinely refer to their readers as the punters. So you can work it out for yourself. 

BOB GARFIELD: [LAUGHS] All right. Chris Horrie, thank you very much. 

CHRIS HORRIE: Okay. 

BOB GARFIELD: British tabloids expert Chris Horrie is the author of Stick It Up Your Punter: The Rise and Fall of The Sun. 

RETURN TO TOP

Diane Johnson, who is known for her novels about Americans in France -- 'Le Divorce,' 'Le Marriage,' 'L'Affaire' -- and her husband, a medical professor, spend half the year in San Francisco and half the year in Paris, where they have an eight-room apartment across the river from the Louvre. 

Morning routine: 
I make coffee. We read the papers: Le Figaro and The International Herald Tribune. Then I slide into work around 9 or 10 a.m. Sometimes I work in my little workroom at home; sometimes I go to the Bibliotheque Mazarine, which is the oldest public library in France. Then I write for a couple of hours. After that I might go to the gym or do my errands. Being a French housewife takes a certain amount of time, because you do your errands on foot, which I enjoy. But it takes time.

Prewriting ritual: I have a mantra. 
I was stuck in the writing of my latest novel, ''L'Affaire.'' So I got the name of a guru, a lovely woman, who gave me this mantra, which is based on the initials of the things I need to do to get to work. I find it very helpful. I don't know if I should tell it to you, because it might diffuse it. But it begins with E for energy. 

Evening routine: 
We go out most nights, to somebody's house, to a restaurant, to a movie. I have a dinner party once or twice a week. We try to spend one evening a week with our daughter who lives in Paris -- we have seven kids between us, all grown. If you are a writer and sit alone all day, you want to be gregarious in the evening. 

Her perfect party: 
I like a dinner party with people I know well, plus a few people that I don't know so well. I usually have about 10 people. I serve simple food. Last week, I served a roast of veal stuffed with prunes and apricots. 

Cooking for the French: 
French people are born cooks, so it is slightly tense to make dinner for them. But they are always very gracious and encouraging. I used to make the mistake of trying to introduce the French to American dishes. They just don't like it. But I have succeeded in making a triumphant chili by making a beef bourguignon and adding some beans. Then they say, ''Hmm, tres bien!'' 

Collections: 
I go to flea markets and buy things for the table. I recently bought some asparagus dishes and a set of fish plates. I'm fussy about the table. I insist on cloth napkins, that sort of thing. 

Exercise routine: 
I go to a gym. I go on the aerobic machines, or if there's a class when I arrive, I take that. Once I was at my gym and the instructor left, and all the people began speaking English. So I have the impression that lots of people in my gym are American. 

How she writes: 
I own two computers, but I write on yellow, unlined paper, which I have to bring on the plane from America. I don't like French paper; it's a slightly different shape than ours, and I like ours better. 

What's in her workroom: 
My desk is a sort of metal thing. It isn't a real desk, just a cart that holds my computer, a printer, a phone. Things are always falling on the floor, because there's not really enough space to hold them. 

Guilty pleasure: 
Eating Rocher chocolates. Or buying an item of clothing I don't need. But frankly, I feel I have a very pampered life, so there's almost nothing that doesn't make me feel a little guilty. 

Favorite object: 
I love the chandelier in the foyer. It is in the shape of a hot-air balloon and made out of rusty wrought iron. People always admire it. 

Best recent gift: 
A gold bag, from a really wonderful bag maker here in Paris called Upla, that I got from a friend. It was out of the blue, so I was thrilled. 

On her night table: 
Several books, some sleeping pills that I rarely use but have as a talisman to ward off insomnia, a clock and some earplugs. 

What goes wherever she goes: 
I have a pre-Colombian figure that I wear around my neck. It has no particular significance, except I like to have some archaeological object with me. 

What's in the fridge: 
A pot of caviar, grated carrots, a piece of foie gras, leftover moussaka and charcuterie, V8 juice -- very hard to find in Paris -- orange juice, beer and cocktail sausages. This shows that I'm a rather disorganized person with unhealthy eating habits. 

Car: 
I don't drive in Paris. In the states I drive a BMW. I hate that to get places in America you have to take a car. It is the ruination of society. But I do like to drive. I think next I'm going to get a RAV4 two-door. It is a small Toyota S.U.V. 

Book she's read most often: 
''The Three Musketeers.'' I just reread it again. It was my first literary passion when I was a child. 

Favorite chore: 
I rather enjoy ironing, though I never do it. I like that you get instant results. 

Political cause: 
The upcoming presidential election in the United States. I consider it so upsetting that America has gone from an admired to a detested nation in two years. It is a horrible thing, which I hope will reverse itself. 

What she misses most about Paris in San Francisco: 
Not having to drive and my Paris apartment. 

What she misses most about America in Paris: 
Caesar salad. 

Where her passport lives: 
In a drawer in the dining room in a Sheraton sideboard. The sideboard belonged to a man who was in one of my books: Henry Wallace, a minor pre-Raphaelite. I bought it from his family. 

Pets: 
We had a beloved cat named Walter, who died last February. So we got two new kittens. They're about 4 months old now. They are called Watson and Babbage. They are American cats. 

Family artifacts: 
I have a couple of nice objects made by my French grandchildren. One is a primitive mask that I am very fond of, made by Luc, 10. And a couple of nice tiles that Noe, 9, just gave me that I think will become part of the permanent collection. I have a lot of child art. 

Favorite foods: 
Caviar and popcorn. 

What she takes with her on a plane: 
I have a terrible panic of getting on the plane and finding that I don't like the book I've brought, so I have to have several. I'll have a nonfiction book, a novel by an author that I know I'm going to like, perhaps a mystery and the fourth one might be anything. 

At age 5, what you wanted to be when you grew up: 
I never had any idea of being anything. I grew up in a small Illinois town, where none of my female relatives had paying jobs. They made quilts and jam. 

RETURN TO TOP

November 21, 2003

It was a Halloween prank, but for the teacher and students at State University of New York at Oswego it was anything but funny.

Michael D. Johnson, 20, of Calverton, a sophomore at the college, was charged with disorderly conduct Tuesday for bursting into a Native American studies class Oct. 31 wearing a headdress and shooting a toy suction- cup arrow at teacher Kevin White, while making mock American Indian whooping noises and shouting, "Go back to your own country."

The arrow hit a shocked White in the chest, causing him to run after Johnson in an attempt to capture him. White failed and reported the incident to campus police instead, he said. The incident took place at 11:35 a.m. in Lanigan Hall, where more than 80 students were taking a test, said Julie Harrison Blissert, a spokeswoman. 

Johnson told police that he didn't know that White is an Akwesasne Mohawk, which is why police did not treat it as a hate crime, Blissert said. "Police said ... he just intended it as a Halloween prank and he didn't know that the teacher was a Native American," Blissert said. With the disorderly conduct charge, a violation, Johnson faces up to 15 days in jail or a fine. His court date is set for Dec. 2.

White, who is teaching the class at Oswego for the first time, said he was shocked and disturbed. "I'm frustrated that it disrupted my exam and that it's problematic because it speaks to a lack of education and a lack of awareness about Native American issues," said White, who is an academic planning counselor and American Indian recruiter on campus. Many of the students were too upset to continue taking the test for another 15 to 20 minutes, White said.
White said this is not the first time he and other American Indians have encountered open discrimination on campus. "This class is very much needed," he said. "The small-mindedness of the statement and the ignorance of the statement is very profound."

White said he has received no apology from Johnson. Johnson could not be reached for comment. Blissert said the incident is also being investigated by the college's judicial affairs system. Ruth Gleason, 20, a junior in the class, said she's not convinced the incident wasn't a hate crime. "I was shocked that somebody would still do something like such a hate crime." 

RETURN TO TOP

Dear Miss Manners: 

How long from the time you're invited to one's home for dinner should the dinner be served? Every dinner invite from my in-laws or sisters-in-law tends to cause an argument. 

Generally we are lucky if it is under 90 minutes after the invite time. I refuse to think that somewhere north of 30 minutes is acceptable unless there are finger foods supplied or it's stated what to expect. There have been times upward of two hours that people just sit there while the turkey or roast continues to cook -- once 21/2 hours, when they forgot to turn the oven on. I do not even have to go as far as saying the turkey was done 70 minutes prior to the actual time dinner was served; that would be another story. 

My remedy is to show up 30 to 45 minutes late; however, that could be taken as being rude. Furthermore, if we do not show up on time, they call at one minute past the invite time to make sure we are on our way. Generally we are very prompt for every invite, but we see the caller ID when we get home and find out they called. 

Then we get there and dinner is still 90 minutes late. I've been polite, making minor jokes, or even not so polite, but it doesn't seem to faze any of them. Dinner at our house for guests is generally within 30 minutes or less so we can socialize in a relaxed environment after dinner. All it does is cause more arguments. This isn't about who's right or wrong, but what is the proper etiquette. 
A:
No, it's about who is right or wrong. Family questions always are, in Miss Manners' experience. Contented relatives don't stake their good-natured bets on matters of etiquette.

Propriety requires only that guests should know when to expect to be fed so that they can adjust their stomachs accordingly. Ordinarily, this should not have to be spelled out. It is supposed to be understood that dinner is served in about half an hour after the stated time, just as you say, allowing a bit of leeway for last-minute adjustments ("That's not what you're wearing, is it?") and traffic.

Unfortunately, this understanding has been seriously damaged by the cycle of guests arriving late, dinner thus being served late, impatient guests vowing to arrive even later next time, and so on. Nevertheless, the rule remains in effect, and guests who violate it should expect to find dinner in progress and to be told, "We knew you wouldn't want us to wait."

However, Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners are often served in the afternoon. Football schedules aside, this is a custom left over from the early 19th century, when everyone ate the main meal during the day. It is still necessary to schedule time for relatives to sit around needling one another, but this could be after dinner, when they are cross because they feel stuffed, or before dinner, when they are cross because they are focused on the food to come.

The only way to mitigate this is to alert people when the meal will be served -- "Come at 2, and we'll eat at 4." This does not allow you to skip the socializing and arrive when you can get straight to the food, but it does allow you to fortify yourself with lunch before you set out.

And are you sure that those missed calls were not to say, "If you haven't left, hold off, because we're running late"?

RETURN TO TOP