Another Perspective

Ruckus on Embassy Row

Beware the wrath of the angry rajahs.

By 12.23.13

The brouhaha over this Indian person in the diplomatic corps who is alleged to have reneged on the wages she promised her domestic help and then proceeded to pay the help illegal wages and then continued in her life of crime by submitting false green card info so the slave-labor person could work legally despite being an illegal working at illegal wages, it is what you might call a case in point, as is the duck brouhaha wherein this Louisiana backwoodsman who became a TV person made some remarks to a magazine that hurt the feelings of the politico-correcto majority.

I say it is a case in point to make it look as if I know whereof I speak, but the truth is I cannot figure any of this out. I am at loss to understand the meaning of it all. It is a shame, because it is a damn sight more interesting, or at least more fun, than worrying about an imminent trip to a rotten hellhole of a country where when they get mad at you they do not stop at bouncing you off a TV show, they slit your throat and sometimes they also slit some other body parts and stuff them in your mouth, which is filled with the blood from your throat wound, you get the picture.

The Indian person is not doing anything wrong by American Spectator lights other than being a cheap scumbag, but this is America and we believe in the rule of law. We believe in respecting the law. If you do not like it you can vote the rascals out and elect a Congress committed to abolishing minimum wage laws, instead of raising the minimum, as the President proposes, thereby helping cheap scumbags to help the working poor advance upwardly while stimulating the economy by putting more money into circulation. There is a school of thought that says these laws discourage hiring, which can have adverse effects of the economy.

However, the Indian person, according to the New York Times, is a dalit, more popularly known as an untouchable, which is a social hindrance and more. In our terms, it compares to being a colored person in Louisiana in the days of Huey Long, although the strong minded governor, assassinated in his prime by a deranged individual, supported state intervention to stimulate the economy, invested tax revenue in schools and hospitals. He was not a proponent, as far as I know, of Hueyhealthcare, but we may safely surmise he might have got around to that had he lived. Given his turn of mind he must have thought of it. He was of the caring cast of mind. But he was felled by an assassin’s bullet. He was only 42. Considering that Harry Truman proposed a plan for universal health care in 1946, it is likely Huey Long would have too.

It is a tragic story and I recommend a biography of the great populist — also considered a demagogue by many for his opposition to the Federal Reserve — by T. Harry Williams (a specialist in Southern history), as well as a novel by Robert Penn Warren which, while not the whole true story of Huey Long, is true writing. Although a fine film version of this book was made at the time, I have sometimes wished I could be in a remake wherein I play the role of Jack Burden, the reporter who becomes the governor’s confidante and flak, and Nancy Pelosi plays Long, called Willie Stark in the novel. Haha, just kidding, the part should be taken by Bill Clinton, a great ham, and Mr. Pleszczynski ought to take the Burden role, because he is the kind of moral and crusading journalist with a tragic view of history that Warren created.

The untouchables are rather of darker complexion, in general, than other Indians, and color plays a role in Indian prejudices, which are many. Indians are prejudiced, which of course is in itself a prejudicial statement, but you know what I mean. The Indians have legislation that favors reverse discrimination as a way to break the ancient barriers of caste. This diplomat may have benefitted from South Asian affirmative action, or she may have made it on the merits of her character, but then why would New York’s police treat her like a habitual criminal?

Observe that it is not impossible that some Americans of the upper class type hire domestic help and pay them lousy wages. It is not inconceivable that they hire i.i.’s, illegals. They are called i.i.’s because if you ask them, Want a job?, they answer, aye-aye, mister, or ay-aye, lady. (Observe TAS’s gender-indifferent style, almost as sensitive as the New York Times’.) However, just because some of our fellow-citizens give low pay jobs to willing and able individuals from downtrodden economic zones does not mean members of the diplomatic corps should. They are here because we let them in as the representatives of foreign powers. They are not here to exploit people or, depending on the economic school you follow, give them a shot at the American dream.

They are here to set an example of high moral and social standards, which is why they spend so much time in starched clothes drinking socially, pinkies raised and mouths set in a permanent smile through which they speak words that conceal their thoughts, when they have any. That is all we ask of them. If they cannot abide by our laws, they should be kicked out, or jailed, preferably both in quick succession, I mean first jailed and then kicked out. This dalit untouchable person, member of the diplomatic corps, was jailed all right, and released, I hope with a high bail. Now they should dismiss the case and just send her home, and good riddance, and the domestic, cruelly abused but now mercifully free, should be given a good job, one of those shovel ready jobs the wizards of the government promised, though they no longer say much about them, nor about a weird scheme they had to trade your jalopy for a new car. If there is no shovel ready job, this person can join the custodial staff at the Pentagon, get a decent wage.

But, as always, it is easier said than done. The Indians got mad. I gather they have been expressing venomous hatred of the U.S. due to the humiliation their gal was subjected to by the New York cops. Why should they care how we treat one of their untouchables? I suppose it is sort of the way Southern slave holders used to feel about escaped slaves: hands off my property! So they are saying hands off our property and she can do whatever she wants with her property.

But that is not all. The Indians, though very big on affirmative action and multiculturalism, at least in theory, are not in the vanguard of diversity laws and legislated diversity etiquette. They have laws on the books against h*m*s*x — as do Uganda and Russia.

To its credit, the Obama administration has not made public pronouncements denouncing the axis of homophobia. That would be grandstanding. On the other hand, one may question the wisdom of the State Department’s policy of replacing embassy wives with embassy significant others or partners. They really have overstepped on that one. Everyone knows the diplomatic corps of most countries include homosexuals, but the better part of foreign affairs was always to agree to stay mum about it. The issue, from the national interest perspective, was that these folks were supposed to be susceptible to blackmail. They no longer are, since no one in the U.S. is going to object to their ways of life and love.

But there remains a consular problem. If the Indians can threaten our embassy staff with expulsion or even arrest for violating blue laws, can you imagine what this is going to do for the torts bar? Why, the taxpayer is going to be hit up for serious money when suits go viral against the U.S. government for putting our young men (and women) into dangerous places where their rights to life and love under standards and methods of their own choice cannot be guaranteed.

The Duck Dynasty is not known to me, because I spend my TV time watching the tennis channel and Shahs of Sunset Strip, it reassures me that we really have nothing to fear from Iran, which is producing even worse top ranked tennis players than we are, and although the Israelis are basically right — hit ’em at the first false move, better safe than sorry — it must be acknowledged that the Persians have nor posed a security threat to anyone since the days when Herodotus was the leading war correspondent in the civilized world’s media. It escapes me just what the issue was then, but the Greeks, though outnumbered, gave those savages what they had coming and went on to write great drama until they fell out among themselves and wrecked their preponderant position in the Classical World. There is a lesson here for Republicans and Democrats, but I am not sure what it is.

However, I read about these hillbillies in a book called Deliverance by James Dickey, which is maybe not quite up there with All the King’s Men or Light in August but is still a top novel of American literature, which figures since James Dickey is one of our great poets, as is Robert Penn Warren, and William Faulkner wrote some of the great prose poetry in our language. Notwithstanding what this Duck person is alleged to have said, which warns against one of the sordid events that takes place in Mr Dickey’s book, I would not want to get too close, though as a foreign correspondent I guess I would have to mutter the old refrain, Somebody’s got to do it, and head into the terra incognita of the Louisiana bayou or wherever these primitives — according to the bien-pensants — live and get the real scoop. Who knows? My prejudices could be all wrong and, in that case, I would so report. But meanwhile, I have a question.

The question is this: if the bien pensants in our culture are piling on an entertainer for freely expressing his ideas and notions, are they not endangering our free society? Why not instead offer reasoned arguments and let the better idea win.

Meanwhile, however, you notice that while they assail this poor untouchable woman for keeping her domestics in conditions of de facto slavery, what about her countrymen, whose behavior is much worse than the bearded Duck man’s? He has never proposed to do any harm to inverts, whereas they, like the Ugandans and the Russians (and the Iranians), have laws against them that can lead to hanging, or even jail time. I mean let us be serious. If you are going to be outraged by some harmless comments, then why are you not going to demand that the U.S. stand up to the Indian government and tell them if they cannot treat their alternate lifestyle types with the same respect and dignity that we do, then to hell with embassies. We are closing ours and giving them five days to vacate their premises on Mass Ave., or wherever they congregate.

Frankly, I think everybody is a loser in this one, and the best might be to say sorry, take it back, no harm intended, start over. Mr. Duck Bayou is given a new TV show, Miss Untouchable India is named ambassador and we offer to pay for a year of rent-a-maid — this is not a placement ad for a thriving industry in the Washington, D.C. metro area — which, face it, is a better bargain for our foreign aid programs than pissing money away in nation-building boondoggles dreamed up by folks at U.S. AID with nothing else to do, and enough already, let us get on with serious matters like whether the NFL is showing adequate sensitivity to everyone who might be exposed to its Super Bowl halftime entertainment.

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article
About the Author

Roger Kaplan, a Washington-based writer, covers the Middle East and Africa (and tennis) for The American Spectator.