Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1089)
Barack Obama to back Middle East democracy with billions in aid

President pledges cash to support Egypt and Tunisia after criticism US has been too slow to support uprisings Barack Obama is to announce that the United States and the west will pour billions of dollars into the Middle East in support of Egypt, Tunisia and other countries embracing democracy, a move the White House portrayed as being on the scale of aid to former communist countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Speaking in Washington, the president will attempt to reposition the US as a champion of the newly-emerging Arab democracies. His speech comes amid criticism that the US has been too slow to support the uprisings, and has adopted contradictory approaches in its dealings with different countries. It is his most important speech on the Middle East since Cairo in 2009, when he called for a new beginning in relations between the US and the Muslim world. The support for Obama in the Arab world in 2009 has since dropped sharply. The speech will deal mainly with the Arab spring, hailing the benefits of democracy and respect for human rights, in spite of America’s long-time support for authoritarian regimes in the region. Senior Obama administration officials, briefing on the speech, said he will take a fresh look at the Middle East after a decade of tension and division. With the winding down of the Iraq war and the death of Osama bin Laden, “we are turning a page”, one official said, adding that the democracy movements reinforced this. The official suggested that the best way to support democracy was through economic reform, and drew comparisons with the massive injection of American aid to Europe after the war, and with the support given to central and eastern Europe in 1989. The US is to relieve Egypt of up to $1bn in debt and lend or guarantee up to $1bn. The World Bank, the IMF and other multilateral institutions to provide a further $2bn-3bn. The official described Tunisia and Egypt as beacons, models to encourage others to pursue democracy. “It is the beginning of a long-term effort,” an official said. The speech is expected to last 45 minutes, a long one by Obama’s standards. He is to devote a big portion to castigating countries such as Iran and Syria. The US Treasury announced sanctions on Wednesday targeted for the first time at Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad over the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters. Six other Syrian officials were also added to the sanctions list. “The actions the administration has taken today send an unequivocal message to President Assad, the Syrian leadership, and regime insiders that they will be held accountable for the ongoing violence and repression in Syria,” said David Cohen, the acting Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. The European Union on Tuesday imposed fresh sanctions against Syria but did not include Assad. The US assets freeze on Assad is mainly symbolic as the Syrian leader has few assets in the country but it is a sign the US has lost patience with a president it once hoped might initiate reforms. The US is facing criticism for engaging in military action to bring down the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, but refusing to become sucked into similar action in Syria. It has also faced criticism for being slow to cut ties with traditional US allies such as the former Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak. The US issued only a mild rebuke over the violent suppression by another ally, Bahrain, of pro-democracy protesters. Obama’s speech comes after intensive debate within the White House between those arguing that the US should be at the forefront of the democracy movement, and those whose concern is US national security and protection of oil supplies. The few billion dollars proposed so far is not comparable to the vast sums the US sent to Europe after 1945, and some of it has already been announced by the World Bank and the IMF. Obama will next week urge the leaders of the G8 rich countries to provide aid when he meets them at a European summit. On Tuesday, Obama pledged several hundred millions of dollars in aid to King Abdullah of Jordan, even though that country has not been at the forefront of the democracy movement. This could raise questions about the value of the billions of dollars to Egypt and Tunisia as incentives to the democracy movement. The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said that the president saw a historic moment of opportunity. “In the last decade, our focus in the region was largely on Iraq, which was a military effort, and on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the fight against al -Qaida,” Carney told reporters. “That fight against al-Qaida continues, but there is an opportunity in that region to focus on advancing our values and enhancing our security, and that’s what the president looks forward to discussing in his speech.” As part of the attempt to portray the US as fully behind the reform movement, the White House yesterday released details of a call between John Brennan, a White House adviser on national security, and President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, urging him to sign a political agreement that would allow Yemen “to move forward immediately with its political transition”. Obama will also express his continued hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. He will discuss the issue with the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, at the White House tomorrow, and is to address the conference of the Israeli lobbying organisation Aipac on Sunday before leaving for Ireland and Britain. A poll published on Tuesday by the Washington-based Pew organisation found that President Obama remains unpopular among countries polled in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, except Indonesia. US foreign policy Barack Obama Arab and Middle East unrest Egypt Middle East Tunisia United States Africa Aid Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Job Creation Over Deficit Reduction – Traditional Media Keeps Missing The Point

enlarge Credit: Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Website Derek Thompson from the Atlantic is pushing back a bit against recent series of posts from Greg Sargent at the Plumline arguing that the political media establishment in the Beltway bubble are trapped in a “Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop .” Sargent’s case was bolstered yesterday when the National Journal offered up datapoints that supported contentions that increased traditional media obsession with deficit is lurching our national conversations on economic issues to extreme right. Thompson essentially offers the argument that the traditional media should get a pass for not covering unemployment issues because no one is trying to fix it. There are number of problems with Thompson’s argument. First, his argument that no one is trying to fix the job issues is just of base. Congressional Democrats for their part have remained focus on the jobs. He should specifically look through the “ Make it in America ” section of Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s website and learn more about the Democratic agenda which is all about jobs . The “ People’s Budget ” presented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus , which was described as a “ courageous ” by the Economist , also focuses how to “ put America back to work .” He should pay close attention to leaders such as Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) one of the most effective spokesperson for progressive vision in U.S. Congress have been hammering away on how to make “job creation” the “number 1 focus” for our Congress. And just days ago President Barack Obama tied trade pacts to aid for US workers who lose jobs . So the insinuation that our elected officials – specifically Democrats in Congress – have not focused on how to fix jobs issues does not fly. More after the split. Second, he fails to note Americans are more concerned about jobs than anything else . This is not some kind of convenient Democratic and progressive talking point. This is backed up by recent poll numbers. As noted by the Pew Research Center on May 4, while most Americans “see addressing the deficit as a top priority, concern about jobs and prices remains more widespread among the general public.” PEW specifically noted the following: In fact, only among Staunch Conservatives and Libertarians do even half rate the budget deficit as the economic issue that worries them most (50% and 49%, respectively). While 34% of Main Street Republicans rate the deficit as their top concern – which is higher than the national average – about half cite either jobs (24%) or rising prices (26%) as their top concern. Not surprisingly, given how hard they were hit by the recession, Disaffecteds are mostly concerned about the job situation (43%) and rising prices (36%) – just 9% cite the deficit as their top concern. Similarly, nearly as many Hard-Pressed Democrats say the job situation (33%) worries them most as say rising prices (42%). New Coalition Democrats and Solid Liberals are more worried about the job situation than other national economic issues (42% and 46%, respectively). Get that – even a sizeable chunk of “Main Street Republicans” are more concerned about jobs as their top concern. Yet somehow we don’t see these concerns being fleshed in today’s traditional media coverage which is completely obsessed with deficit reduction. Third, Thompson forgets that it has been his colleagues from the traditional media, who have a track record of building their coverage based on right wing frame that has never been really concerned about the jobs. Many of us remember the right wing traditional slanted media coverage from two years ago when despite warnings from many economists that stimulus package being debated on the Hill was too small, the networks rarely raised the issue. So I don’t think the excuse that traditional media should get a pass for not covering unemployment issues because no one is trying to fix it has a lot of merit. I hope for the sake of majority of Americans who are concerned about getting back to work and keeping our country’s economy moving in the right direction, the beltway media wake up and cut through the their echo chamber all framed within extreme right wing talking points.

Continue reading …
‘Ethicist’ Columnist Thinks ‘Character’ In Marriage Is ‘False’ — But If You’re a Cheating Conservative, ‘Go Straight to Hell’

The topic was Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it sounded a lot like the Year of Monica Lewinsky on NPR's Diane Rehm Show on Wednesday morning. Randy Cohen, the former writer of “The Ethicist” column in The New York Times Magazine, mysteriously announced that “I would argue against this notion of character” when it comes to the marital fidelity of politicians. “There are many people who would've preferred a philandering JFK to a monogamous Richard Nixon. That I think this notion of character that we're purveying is sentimental but false.” That is, unless the unfaithful one was a social conservative, like Newt Gingrich. Then Cohen pounced: “If you had an ounce of integrity, you would have to withdraw from public life or burst into flames or go straight to Hell and, you know, reserve a spot for simply being flamboyantly dishonest.”

Continue reading …
David Brooks: What’s the big idea?

His theories on society were fashionable 200 years ago, so why are British politicians such fans of this New York Times columnist’s new book? When David Brooks was a boy, he had two turtles named Gladstone and Disraeli. How come? “There’s a New York Jewish culture that has a saying ‘Think Yiddish, act British’,” says Brooks. “My background was filled with Anglophile Jews. Jews of a certain generation, really my grandfathers’ generation, gave each other names they thought would help them fit in – Irving, Sydney, Milton and Norman – and now in the US those are not English names any more, they’re Jewish names. And I was brought up in that culture. Hence the turtles.” Hence much more than that. Brooks, though a 49-year-old Canadian-born, suburban New York-raised, Chicago university-educated and now so much of a stellar New York Times columnist that the White House sometimes rings him to ask what he’s planning to write about, is deeply Anglophilic. “I am very British in that I’m reticent. There’s a survey of how many times people in different countries touch each other during an hour over coffee. In Rio it was 180, in Paris 120. London, zero.” How about new York? “Maybe 40? I feel very at home here.” We’re sitting in the Cinnamon Club, an Indian restaurant in Westminster frequented by policy wonks, and he looks more diffident than the only Englishman at our table. I resist the counter-cultural urge to play footsie. But what’s important about Brooks is not so much that he acts British, but that he thinks British. His new book, The Social Animal: A Story of How Success Happens, is steeped in the anti-rationalist philosophical reflections of the British Enlightenment. And this is no ordinary book: even before publication this week it has become, according to Times columnist Rachel Sylvester, “the must-read text for politicians searching for a new prism through which to examine the apparently intractable challenges of social immobility, school dropout rates, welfare dependency and crime”. Education secretary Michael Gove believes it contains vital clues for turning around failing schools; universities minister David Willetts reckons it may help define modern Conservatism; policy minister Oliver Letwin thinks it articulates the cherished Tory notion of the Big Society. The book is so hot that both David Cameron and Ed Miliband are meeting Brooks this week, and Steve Hilton, the PM’s top strategist, has invited him to hold a

Continue reading …
Libya: Nato bombing of Gaddafi forces ‘relying on information from rebels’

Diplomat says Benghazi committee plays key role in air strikes, fuelling suspicions British officers are ‘target-spotting’ on ground Nato’s bombing campaign against the Libyan regime is relying strongly on information supplied by rebel leaders in Benghazi with advice from a growing numbers of British officers, according to a senior European diplomat. Nato denies the rebel military has any target-spotters on the ground to direct the air strikes against Gaddafi. But the diplomat, familiar with the situation in Benghazi, said the main function of the rebels’ military leadership committee, the joint operations centre (JOC), was to help the Nato campaign. “The JOC is just below the [supreme] military council,” said the diplomat. “Its main job is to co-ordinate and make more effective the processing of military and tactical information back into Nato so air operations are based on the best information available.” The UK mission in Benghazi, inaugurated last month by Christopher Prentice, a former ambassador to Iraq and Jordan and currently the British envoy in Rome, started with a staff of six. This has expanded to around 40, most of them military officers advising the rebel leadership. In a sign of the struggle which still lies ahead for the rebels and the Nato mission, Gaddafi’s forces have intensified their campaign to take strategic ground in the western mountains. A road used by many of those fleeing the fighting was targeted, forcing the temporary closure of the border crossing into Tunisia. Jaber Naluti, a volunteer who has been trying to assist people in the area, told the Associated Press seven rebels had been killed. Other reports said that some shells fell inside Tunisia. Much of the fighting centred around the town of Yafrin, where locals said rockets and missiles were fired. In nearby Zintan, rebels repelled an advance by Gaddafi’s forces, killing eight and taking one prisoner, a local activist said. Disclosure of the growing British role in Benghazi is likely to reignite warnings of mission creep from those worried about David Cameron’s hawkishness and may fuel suspicions that British officers are acting as Nato target-spotters. Nato’s spokesman, Wing Commander Mike Bracken, said: “We do not have boots on the ground in Libya.” France, Italy and Turkey are also active in advising Benghazi’s government-in-waiting. Despite its deep reluctance to get involved in Libya, the German government said this week it was also sending a “liaison team” to Benghazi. Amid mounting exasperation among the UK’s military top brass that the bombing campaign has proved ineffective and may be helping to entrench a stalemate, Nato officials and European diplomats familiar with Libya are cautiously optimistic. TThree months after the first student protests in Benghazi were bloodily suppressed, triggering a mass revolt against Gaddafi, the western sources spoke of increasing “disarray and dissent” in the capital, Tripoli, and said the balance of morale had tipped strongly in favour of the revolutionaries. The rebels had “more people wanting to fight than they had weapons”, said the diplomat, while “Gaddafi increasingly has to resort to mercenaries and possibly conscripted schoolboys”. A Nato official said the Libyan leader was utterly dependent on a shrinking military and security apparatus whose days were numbered. “The sense of strangulation of the regime is there,” said the diplomat, although he conceded that Gaddafi loyalists were showing “remarkable resilience”. Arming the rebels was not a central factor in turning the tide, the source said. “Military supplies won’t be the key. More important will be a comprehensive push on strangulation of the regime politically and economically.” Despite the perception that the US was taking a back seat and leaving the anti-Gaddafi campaign to the Europeans, Nato officials said this was for public consumption and that the US remained the sole indispensable force in the operations. Around half of the 7,000 Nato sorties flown since the end of March were said to be by US forces, including attacks on ground targets, especially air defence sites and surface-to-air missile batteries. “The Americans are the rear end of the cow and we are the front end,” said a European Nato officer. Libya Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Africa Nato Foreign policy US foreign policy Europe Military Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Area 51 as Cold-War Espionage: Believable or Conspiracy Theory?

Journalist Annie Jacobsen has shocked even the most devoted conspiracy theorists with claims regarding a U.S. military installation in the Nevada desert, known as Area 51. The base, which is 75 miles north of Las Vegas, has been discussed for decades because of the government’s secrecy regarding what exactly goes on there. What really crashed

Continue reading …
I learned Mandarin in two days (well, almost)

It’s a notoriously difficult language, so no wonder Tom Meltzer was daunted by the prospect of learning Mandarin in just two days. And then there was the road test in the Chinese restaurant ‘In theory,” says language teacher Paul Noble , forming a steeple with his fingers in true professorial style, “you should learn Chinese today and tomorrow quicker than anyone has ever learned it on the planet.” In theory, because I’m the very first student to take his intensive two-day course in Mandarin , which he is teaching me with his wife, native speaker Kai-Ti Chou, in the basement of a north London art gallery. If their prototype course works as well as they are hoping, then two days from now I will, as the spiel on Noble’s website boasts, “have learned to speak Chinese the way it is really spoken”. It’s a bold claim. Mandarin has a reputation as one of the hardest languages to learn. For one thing, it is tonal – each word has a variety of possible meanings, all dependent on the subtlest differences of pronunciation. A downwards, chastising inflection converts the word for “buy” into “sell”, while the incredulous falling and rising third tone transforms the word for “mother” into “horse”, and the same word, ” ma “, used for horses and mothers, is appended to statements to transform them into questions, like a spoken piece of punctuation. The idea that any language, let alone one so notoriously difficult, can be taught in just two days struck me first as laughable and later, when I realised that I would be the guinea pig, terrifying. I approached the first class expecting to find myself face-to-face with the language-learning world’s answer to Sue Sylvester from Glee , a megaphone-wielding, militaristic maniac forcing Chinese words into my head by rote until I curled up in a foetal position, wept blood and begged to go home. What I did not expect was a warm, soft-spoken man with a bright blond beard who reminded me less of a barking linguistic drill sergeant than a youthful Gandalf the wizard. Noble’s teaching, it turns out, is entirely the opposite of the brain-straining I had envisaged. “The important thing is to forget everything and make mistakes,” he explains. “I don’t want you to try to remember what I teach you. In fact, I want you to forget it.” This is going to be easy, I tell myself. Easy and, since I am going to forget it all, useless. My plan is to test Noble’s teaching, when we’re done, in conversation with native speakers. I have booked a table at a Mandarin-speaking restaurant in London’s Chinatown, where I’m hoping that my authentic Chinese accent will dazzle waiters and fellow diners alike. Ideally, an astonished waiter will ask: “How long have you been learning Chinese?” and I’ll reply, nonchalantly: “Oh, you know, just a couple of days, for a laugh.” In Mandarin, of course. The lessons Noble’s method, it turns out, is Socratic and simple, a variation of what’s called the Lexical approach, which teaches language not as long lists of words but as a relatively small selection of set phrases – chunks of language that convey implicitly the rules of grammar and sentence structure. He teaches a handful of words and phrases to use as building blocks – I want, she wants, you want a sandwich – and we add prepositions, rules and verbs one by one. Pronunciation I learn from Kai-Ti, who repeats each sentence I say back to me, slowly and subtly correcting my often inventive pronunciation. Just as the chunked approach taught structure and grammar without making them explicit, by copying Kai-Ti I learn to use the four tones organically. Day one begins in the present tense, progresses to questions and then on to the past and future. By day two I am playing fast and loose with pronouns, possessives and conditionals, albeit with a very limited vocabulary. I can’t help but see the process as a montage scene from a film, a time-lapsed conversation between master and pupil growing rapidly weirder and more complicated: “I want to go to Beijing.” “Do you want to go Beijing?” “I want to go to Beijing but you want to go to Shanghai.” “Do you want to go to Shanghai because your mum went to Shanghai?” “I will go to Beijing because I don’t like your mum.” “If you want to go to Shanghai I will go to Beijing and buy your mum.” The narrow set of nouns and verbs is an integral part of Noble’s technique. “One of the worst things you can do with language teaching is teach someone a massive number of words. It’s back-to-front – teach them to speak and then add to their knowledge. You have to become very fluent in a very small amount of the language.” Many students, he says, are led astray by learning numbers, colours or days of the week before they’ve learned any kind of framework with which to use them. “The nouns are almost irrelevant. That’s stuff you can learn yourself.” Though his approach emphasises relaxation and experimentation, there are rules. Writing anything down is banned, as is all technical jargon – talk of participles, perfect tenses and the subjunctive makes Noble wince. “The mistake with language learning is that it’s seen as an academic subject, but it isn’t; it’s a practical subject. What you need is to be trained in them.” He laments the state of language teaching in schools. “I was naturally particularly good at languages but when I went to school they did German and I was utterly confused by it. I spent about eight years trying to learn and failed.” It was only after leaving school and experimenting with commercially available language courses that he hit upon methods that worked for him and, he hoped, would work equally well for others. Though Collins has now published his courses for the public in French, Spanish and Italian, Noble’s goal remains to change the way languages are taught in British secondary schools. “If I had four years with kids in schools they would walk out fluent. Instead, I have 10 hours in a classroom on a weekend.” After a hushed discussion in Mandarin, Paul and Kai-Ti give me one last crash course in preparation for my trip to the restaurant. They have chosen what I should order in advance, outlining a selection of standard dishes: Singapore chow mein ( Shin-ja-poor chow me-en ), Yang Zhou fried rice ( Yan-Jo chow fan ), Peking duck ( Bei-jing kao ya ) and, at my request, a glass of orange juice ( Ju-tze shui ). They teach me how to ask for the bill, how to ask the waiters whether or not they speak Mandarin (as opposed to Cantonese), and how to respond, when asked about the food, that it is tasty or, if the occasion warrants, delicious. I will not, Noble warns me, understand precisely what the waiting staff are saying to me. “You cannot translate the words as they’re being said. It’s impossible. You just have to get a general sense.” He returns to his notion of language learning as not academic but practical – less a quiz to be answered carefully than an assault course, to be fumbled through at speed. “It’s like using the force,” he tells me. “Don’t try and understand; try and feel.” The restaurant Six days later I am loitering nervously in the New World restaurant in London’s Chinatown , its black-and-red exterior a willing embrace of stereotype, adorned with twin gold dragons and a pagoda-style roof of corrugated tiles. With the notable exception of China itself, it doesn’t get more Chinese than this. I have spoken to the staff in advance – in English – and been assigned a Mandarin-speaking waitress, who agrees to indulge me while I road test my two days’ knowledge of the language. As I wait to be served I mutter to myself in Chinese, and, to my surprise, it’s all coming back to me. ” Ni hao ,” she says, as she approaches. It’s the standard Chinese greeting, which Noble tells me translates approximately as “Y’allright?”. He suggests I use ” hao ” – the equivalent of “fine” – as a sort of catch-all response to any questions I don’t understand, as it can mean yes, no, OK, good, bad, whatever. ” Hao ,” I respond. She asks for my order. This is the part I’ve been practising longest, and I reel off my intended menu from memory, even managing to improvise successfully around the photographer’s last-minute request for a can of Coke. Coca-Cola (in Mandarin, Ke-kou Ke-le ) is a word taught early on in Noble’s course, as a demonstration that the student already understands at least a little Chinese. She repeats the order in English so I can check that I’ve said what I meant. It’s correct. ” Hao ,” I say. “You speak very well,” she tells me. ” Sheh sheh ,” I respond: thanks. So far, so good, but then again, so on script. Ten minutes later, when she returns with the food, I resolve to move the conversation into bolder territory. “Do you like him?” I ask, indicating the photographer. She laughs, then looks confused and a little panicked. I replay what I’ve just said in my head. What I’ve actually asked, I realise, isn’t, “Do you like him?” but “Would you like him?” A mistake which is definitely entirely my fault. “Not would you like,” I correct myself, “Do you like?” Which, while it is fairly simple, is not a phrase I’d thought about in advance, or constructed in the lesson at all. It’s a sentence I’ve made up on the fly, suggesting that I have, against the odds, achieved some tiny degree of fluency. There are obvious deficiencies in what I have learned. Chief among them the fact that I know so few nouns; not even, for example, numbers, or months, or farmyard animals, which school language classes had conditioned me to think of as essential. I can, however, convert a verb into the past and future tenses, and say that I, you, we, they, he or she did it, and add an if, a but or a because, and offer, when the situation demands, to buy a stranger’s mother or sell them a photographer. Which is more than I ever managed in five years of French at school. Have I really learned Mandarin in just two days? Well, yes and no. Mostly no, but sort of. Hao . For details of the Paul Noble Language Institute, visit paulnoblelanguages.com . Collins French, Spanish and Italian with Paul Noble are available from collinslanguage.com/paulnoble Languages Language courses Tom Meltzer guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
I learned Mandarin in two days (well, almost)

It’s a notoriously difficult language, so no wonder Tom Meltzer was daunted by the prospect of learning Mandarin in just two days. And then there was the road test in the Chinese restaurant ‘In theory,” says language teacher Paul Noble , forming a steeple with his fingers in true professorial style, “you should learn Chinese today and tomorrow quicker than anyone has ever learned it on the planet.” In theory, because I’m the very first student to take his intensive two-day course in Mandarin , which he is teaching me with his wife, native speaker Kai-Ti Chou, in the basement of a north London art gallery. If their prototype course works as well as they are hoping, then two days from now I will, as the spiel on Noble’s website boasts, “have learned to speak Chinese the way it is really spoken”. It’s a bold claim. Mandarin has a reputation as one of the hardest languages to learn. For one thing, it is tonal – each word has a variety of possible meanings, all dependent on the subtlest differences of pronunciation. A downwards, chastising inflection converts the word for “buy” into “sell”, while the incredulous falling and rising third tone transforms the word for “mother” into “horse”, and the same word, ” ma “, used for horses and mothers, is appended to statements to transform them into questions, like a spoken piece of punctuation. The idea that any language, let alone one so notoriously difficult, can be taught in just two days struck me first as laughable and later, when I realised that I would be the guinea pig, terrifying. I approached the first class expecting to find myself face-to-face with the language-learning world’s answer to Sue Sylvester from Glee , a megaphone-wielding, militaristic maniac forcing Chinese words into my head by rote until I curled up in a foetal position, wept blood and begged to go home. What I did not expect was a warm, soft-spoken man with a bright blond beard who reminded me less of a barking linguistic drill sergeant than a youthful Gandalf the wizard. Noble’s teaching, it turns out, is entirely the opposite of the brain-straining I had envisaged. “The important thing is to forget everything and make mistakes,” he explains. “I don’t want you to try to remember what I teach you. In fact, I want you to forget it.” This is going to be easy, I tell myself. Easy and, since I am going to forget it all, useless. My plan is to test Noble’s teaching, when we’re done, in conversation with native speakers. I have booked a table at a Mandarin-speaking restaurant in London’s Chinatown, where I’m hoping that my authentic Chinese accent will dazzle waiters and fellow diners alike. Ideally, an astonished waiter will ask: “How long have you been learning Chinese?” and I’ll reply, nonchalantly: “Oh, you know, just a couple of days, for a laugh.” In Mandarin, of course. The lessons Noble’s method, it turns out, is Socratic and simple, a variation of what’s called the Lexical approach, which teaches language not as long lists of words but as a relatively small selection of set phrases – chunks of language that convey implicitly the rules of grammar and sentence structure. He teaches a handful of words and phrases to use as building blocks – I want, she wants, you want a sandwich – and we add prepositions, rules and verbs one by one. Pronunciation I learn from Kai-Ti, who repeats each sentence I say back to me, slowly and subtly correcting my often inventive pronunciation. Just as the chunked approach taught structure and grammar without making them explicit, by copying Kai-Ti I learn to use the four tones organically. Day one begins in the present tense, progresses to questions and then on to the past and future. By day two I am playing fast and loose with pronouns, possessives and conditionals, albeit with a very limited vocabulary. I can’t help but see the process as a montage scene from a film, a time-lapsed conversation between master and pupil growing rapidly weirder and more complicated: “I want to go to Beijing.” “Do you want to go Beijing?” “I want to go to Beijing but you want to go to Shanghai.” “Do you want to go to Shanghai because your mum went to Shanghai?” “I will go to Beijing because I don’t like your mum.” “If you want to go to Shanghai I will go to Beijing and buy your mum.” The narrow set of nouns and verbs is an integral part of Noble’s technique. “One of the worst things you can do with language teaching is teach someone a massive number of words. It’s back-to-front – teach them to speak and then add to their knowledge. You have to become very fluent in a very small amount of the language.” Many students, he says, are led astray by learning numbers, colours or days of the week before they’ve learned any kind of framework with which to use them. “The nouns are almost irrelevant. That’s stuff you can learn yourself.” Though his approach emphasises relaxation and experimentation, there are rules. Writing anything down is banned, as is all technical jargon – talk of participles, perfect tenses and the subjunctive makes Noble wince. “The mistake with language learning is that it’s seen as an academic subject, but it isn’t; it’s a practical subject. What you need is to be trained in them.” He laments the state of language teaching in schools. “I was naturally particularly good at languages but when I went to school they did German and I was utterly confused by it. I spent about eight years trying to learn and failed.” It was only after leaving school and experimenting with commercially available language courses that he hit upon methods that worked for him and, he hoped, would work equally well for others. Though Collins has now published his courses for the public in French, Spanish and Italian, Noble’s goal remains to change the way languages are taught in British secondary schools. “If I had four years with kids in schools they would walk out fluent. Instead, I have 10 hours in a classroom on a weekend.” After a hushed discussion in Mandarin, Paul and Kai-Ti give me one last crash course in preparation for my trip to the restaurant. They have chosen what I should order in advance, outlining a selection of standard dishes: Singapore chow mein ( Shin-ja-poor chow me-en ), Yang Zhou fried rice ( Yan-Jo chow fan ), Peking duck ( Bei-jing kao ya ) and, at my request, a glass of orange juice ( Ju-tze shui ). They teach me how to ask for the bill, how to ask the waiters whether or not they speak Mandarin (as opposed to Cantonese), and how to respond, when asked about the food, that it is tasty or, if the occasion warrants, delicious. I will not, Noble warns me, understand precisely what the waiting staff are saying to me. “You cannot translate the words as they’re being said. It’s impossible. You just have to get a general sense.” He returns to his notion of language learning as not academic but practical – less a quiz to be answered carefully than an assault course, to be fumbled through at speed. “It’s like using the force,” he tells me. “Don’t try and understand; try and feel.” The restaurant Six days later I am loitering nervously in the New World restaurant in London’s Chinatown , its black-and-red exterior a willing embrace of stereotype, adorned with twin gold dragons and a pagoda-style roof of corrugated tiles. With the notable exception of China itself, it doesn’t get more Chinese than this. I have spoken to the staff in advance – in English – and been assigned a Mandarin-speaking waitress, who agrees to indulge me while I road test my two days’ knowledge of the language. As I wait to be served I mutter to myself in Chinese, and, to my surprise, it’s all coming back to me. ” Ni hao ,” she says, as she approaches. It’s the standard Chinese greeting, which Noble tells me translates approximately as “Y’allright?”. He suggests I use ” hao ” – the equivalent of “fine” – as a sort of catch-all response to any questions I don’t understand, as it can mean yes, no, OK, good, bad, whatever. ” Hao ,” I respond. She asks for my order. This is the part I’ve been practising longest, and I reel off my intended menu from memory, even managing to improvise successfully around the photographer’s last-minute request for a can of Coke. Coca-Cola (in Mandarin, Ke-kou Ke-le ) is a word taught early on in Noble’s course, as a demonstration that the student already understands at least a little Chinese. She repeats the order in English so I can check that I’ve said what I meant. It’s correct. ” Hao ,” I say. “You speak very well,” she tells me. ” Sheh sheh ,” I respond: thanks. So far, so good, but then again, so on script. Ten minutes later, when she returns with the food, I resolve to move the conversation into bolder territory. “Do you like him?” I ask, indicating the photographer. She laughs, then looks confused and a little panicked. I replay what I’ve just said in my head. What I’ve actually asked, I realise, isn’t, “Do you like him?” but “Would you like him?” A mistake which is definitely entirely my fault. “Not would you like,” I correct myself, “Do you like?” Which, while it is fairly simple, is not a phrase I’d thought about in advance, or constructed in the lesson at all. It’s a sentence I’ve made up on the fly, suggesting that I have, against the odds, achieved some tiny degree of fluency. There are obvious deficiencies in what I have learned. Chief among them the fact that I know so few nouns; not even, for example, numbers, or months, or farmyard animals, which school language classes had conditioned me to think of as essential. I can, however, convert a verb into the past and future tenses, and say that I, you, we, they, he or she did it, and add an if, a but or a because, and offer, when the situation demands, to buy a stranger’s mother or sell them a photographer. Which is more than I ever managed in five years of French at school. Have I really learned Mandarin in just two days? Well, yes and no. Mostly no, but sort of. Hao . For details of the Paul Noble Language Institute, visit paulnoblelanguages.com . Collins French, Spanish and Italian with Paul Noble are available from collinslanguage.com/paulnoble Languages Language courses Tom Meltzer guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
And Then There Were Five. Tom Coburn leaves the Gang of Six, er, Five

Click here to view this media This is such good news. I was pleased when Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday that this Gang hadn’t gotten very far in their negotiations, and now Tom Coburn has quit the bipartisan group of Senators trying to negotiate a budget deal altogether. Washington Post: The most outspoken Republican member of the Senate’s “Gang of Six” abruptly dropped out of bipartisan debt-reduction talks Tuesday, declaring negotiations at “an impasse.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told reporters that the group, which until Tuesday had three Republican and three Democratic members, was talking “about the same things over and over and not getting any movement.” “It’s just a recognition that we can’t get there,” Coburn said, suggesting that the emerging debt-reduction plan doesn’t do enough to control spending on federal retirement programs. Coburn spokesman John Hart later issued a statement saying Coburn “is disappointed the group has not been able to bridge the gap between what needs to happen and what senators will support” and has decided to take “a break from the talks. “He still hopes the Senate will, on a bipartisan basis, pass a long-term deficit reduction package this year,” Hart said in an e-mail. “He looks forward to working with anyone who is interested in putting forward a plan that is specific, balanced and comprehensive.” Coburn has come under fire lately for his role in the Ensign scandal, but most of the Beltway media are more interested in their bipartisanship fetish than looking deeper into Coburn’s activities. In any case, Andrea Mitchell almost couldn’t keep a straight face when she talked about the new Gang of Five on MSNBC earlier today. The remaining members of the group made plans to meet again Wednesday, saying they will keep trying to agree on a plan to reduce projected borrowing by $4 trillion over the next decade. But the departure of Coburn, the most prominent of the three conservatives, deals a severe blow to the effort. And it puts additional pressure on the two remaining Republicans, who have already come under fire for their willingness to discuss a plan that raises additional tax revenue. As I’ve said, no news is good news on a deal that will hurt American families — and if raising taxes is not on the table, then it’s impossible to have an adult conversation about fixing deficits.

Continue reading …
And Then There Were Five. Tom Coburn leaves the Gang of Six, er, Five

Click here to view this media This is such good news. I was pleased when Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday that this Gang hadn’t gotten very far in their negotiations, and now Tom Coburn has quit the bipartisan group of Senators trying to negotiate a budget deal altogether. Washington Post: The most outspoken Republican member of the Senate’s “Gang of Six” abruptly dropped out of bipartisan debt-reduction talks Tuesday, declaring negotiations at “an impasse.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told reporters that the group, which until Tuesday had three Republican and three Democratic members, was talking “about the same things over and over and not getting any movement.” “It’s just a recognition that we can’t get there,” Coburn said, suggesting that the emerging debt-reduction plan doesn’t do enough to control spending on federal retirement programs. Coburn spokesman John Hart later issued a statement saying Coburn “is disappointed the group has not been able to bridge the gap between what needs to happen and what senators will support” and has decided to take “a break from the talks. “He still hopes the Senate will, on a bipartisan basis, pass a long-term deficit reduction package this year,” Hart said in an e-mail. “He looks forward to working with anyone who is interested in putting forward a plan that is specific, balanced and comprehensive.” Coburn has come under fire lately for his role in the Ensign scandal, but most of the Beltway media are more interested in their bipartisanship fetish than looking deeper into Coburn’s activities. In any case, Andrea Mitchell almost couldn’t keep a straight face when she talked about the new Gang of Five on MSNBC earlier today. The remaining members of the group made plans to meet again Wednesday, saying they will keep trying to agree on a plan to reduce projected borrowing by $4 trillion over the next decade. But the departure of Coburn, the most prominent of the three conservatives, deals a severe blow to the effort. And it puts additional pressure on the two remaining Republicans, who have already come under fire for their willingness to discuss a plan that raises additional tax revenue. As I’ve said, no news is good news on a deal that will hurt American families — and if raising taxes is not on the table, then it’s impossible to have an adult conversation about fixing deficits.

Continue reading …