DEAR MISS MANNERS: A relative of mine will soon be moving to Europe. She is unhappily anticipating all kinds of disparaging questions about American politics, having had these unpleasant exchanges when she lived in Europe before.

The questions typically run along the lines of "How can Americans vote for that candidate?" or "How can they support such a policy?" -- yet are delivered in such a way as to imply that Americans are stupid or naive.

We were hoping you could suggest a way to respond to unkind opinions masquerading as curiosity that would neither indicate that she agrees with the opinions nor open the subject to an unpleasant disagreement about politics.

GENTLE READER: Your relative should be studying the politics of the country in which she will be living. This is not only a responsible thing to do, but it will give her the information to make delicate inquiries about the state of her hosts' satisfaction with their own politicians.

Miss Manners has yet to find a country where everyone is fully satisfied with the leaders, no matter how much electoral support these people received. A few polite and neutrally worded questions about the host country's issues of the day should turn the conversation from country against country to the universal harmony of citizens complaining about their own politicians.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the hospital that I work in, many of the patients and their families are not fluent in English. We use translators or ask various staff members to translate for us.

My question is about eye contact. In a recent scenario, the doctor only looked at the nurse (who was also the translator), both while the doctor told the nurse what to translate and while the nurse was translating to the patient's mother. I thought that the doctor was being rude to the mother by not looking at the mother at all during the exchanges.

Who are we supposed to look at when we are speaking to the translator: the translator or the patient/parent? When the translator is speaking to the patient/parent, do we look at the translator or the patient/parent?

GENTLE READER: The doctor made the intuitive choice, which is to look at the person who is in the physical act of speaking. It is the wrong choice, as you point out, but the right choice is a complicated one.

Miss Manners agrees that the doctor should be looking at the parent, because it is the parent with whom the doctor is having the conversation, however indirectly. But it is also rude to talk about someone, even a child, without acknowledging that person's presence, and to accept the services of a translator without acknowledging that person's presence.

Doing all this, and eyeing the medical records as well, is a skill that has to be learned. You might suggest at a staff meeting that this is one of the skills needed in a hospital that serves patients who do not speak English.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My fiance and I are in a predicament. We are getting married and have pretty much everything we need for household items. We don't have room for more towels, sheets, etc. I don't need china; I'll inherit the family china someday. We could, however, use money (I know that's tacky). How do we let our guests know that we would prefer money rather than gifts we don't need? Is there a proper way to do this?

GENTLE READER: There is no proper way to be tacky. Miss Manners hopes this doesn't come as too much of a shock to you.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I broke up with my serious, long-distance boyfriend of two years about 1-1/2 years ago. Our relationship was a good one, no cheating or massive fights, but it just fizzled out in the end.

He was a bit mad about the breakup, but I figured that we could still be cordial. We made all the noises about staying friends, but contact has been sporadic at best, although I mail postcards to his parents when I vacation, and on birthdays, Christmas, etc.

I recently had a bad dream that his father died, and erring on the side of caution, I wrote my ex a text message inquiring as to his dad's health. He responded that his father is (thankfully) fine. The point of his response was, however, that he is now dating an acquaintance of mine, and I should therefore cease and desist all contact with him.

Having been asked so directly, I will (happily) oblige and stop all contact in the future, but that is not my question. My etiquette question is whether or not my response was up to your standards. I didn't go with my first impulse, which was to write an insulting message back. I felt that you would not approve.

What I wrote was this: "OH! Congratulations to both of you! I hope that you will always be happy. Please say hello to her for me!"

Was my response appropriate, or does my unladylike disdain for his callousness show through? Should I have not written anything at all? I am sorry to say that I could not resist a (hopefully small) jab at him.

GENTLE READER: Jab? What jab? All you did was to congratulate them, wish them happiness and greet an old friend.

Well, Miss Manners knows that is not all you did. You know that's not all you did. And they know that's not all you did.

But that is the beauty of behaving well on the surface; you cannot be charged with rudeness. This loophole enabled you to send the message that however bitter, jealous or frightened they are about your effect on the gentleman, you have nothing but the blandest feelings of goodwill toward them.

Now -- aren't you glad you didn't send that insulting message?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the proper procedure of a couple entering a movie? Should the man go first and the woman follow, or visa-versa? What about if they are entering a church?

GENTLE READER: Chivalry, with its ladies-first system, nevertheless kindly assigns the gentleman the role of canary in the coalmine. He is required to go first if there is a possibility of danger ahead.

Thus if the movie theater is dark, it is he who should risk slipping on drinks spilled in the aisle and bear the consequences of attempting to sit in a seat that was not as empty as he had supposed. If the lights are on, however, the lady goes first.

Although churches are presumed not to be dangerous, Miss Manners must point out a notable exception: A gentleman who is going to church to be married is in danger if he does not enter well ahead of the arrival of his bride.

: