State's Rights

I was watching some Daily Show clips and came across the recent interview with the despicable Senator Rick Santorum, wherein he discussed his new book on virtues with Jon. My biggest impression from the interview regards a comment he made that is very surprising coming from a conservative of his ilk. Jon asked about virtues today compared with virtues of the segregation era, and part of Santorum's reply was that we had needed a strong federal government to eradicate segregation. This comment may not seem particularly interesting until you consider that most people in his region of the far right use "state's rights" and "local government" as codewords for segregation, in order to woo certain white Southern votes. I think it's no small matter for a uber-conservative like Santorum to admit that strong federal authority was the cure for that ill. The Southern strategy that has stretched from Nixon to Reagan to George W. is one of the most disgusting political tactics of our time, and Santorum is right not to play into it.

From Your Lips to Goss's Ear

This cracked me up. Maybe I'm wrong, but the current CNN QuickVote survey seems like a sharp jab at the CIA:

If U.S. intelligence officials have an ‘excellent idea’ where Osama bin Laden is, should they go get him?

No prizes for guessing how the responders weighed in. It's currently up at the CNN main page.

Titular

British televison documentaries always have titles which are perfectly descriptive of the content, in a way that for some reason I find quite funny: The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off, Sleeping with the Au Pair, The Secretary Who Stole 4 Million Pounds, and tonight...She Stole My Foetus. Seriously, it's on Channel 5 tonight. Just hearing the name I feel that I know all there is to know. Which is to say, too much.

Live 8

Nice to hear from you, Jeff, though I have no idea what that post meant. Boy, it's been a while since I've posted...stretch...

This just in: Bob Geldof encourages every Briton to build a homemade rocket and "fly to the moon against poverty." I laud Geldof for all the reasons he should be lauded, but encouraging amateur British sailors and rowers to re-stage Dunkirk, combined with encouraging a million protesters to converge on Edinburgh before planning or consulting with the city, sounds like a lot of potential disaster. I'm glad I'll be gone for July.

Bolton...

Perhaps the US's own Michael Bolton could help out in the U.K.? I mean, he does a mean cover of "Sittin' on the dock of the bay". Really, someone should look into this.

Howard

So maybe the Southern strategy doesn't fly over here. They've been showing these Tory commercials the past few days in which Michael Howard refers to Britain's "forgotten majority." What with Labour having staked out the middle-ground, the Conservatives are starting to look a bit like the BNP.

Ambassador to UN

Brooks:

I don't like John Bolton's management style. Nor am I a big fan of his foreign policy views. He doesn't really believe in using U.S. power to end genocide or promote democracy.

But it is ridiculous to say he doesn't believe in the United Nations. This is a canard spread by journalists who haven't bothered to read his stuff and by crafty politicians who aren't willing to say what the Bolton debate is really about.

Bolton:

Bolton's bold and often-abrasive style has has earned him many critics over the years. In a now-famous 1994 speech at the World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." He added: "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

Whaaa?

For a sign of how much disarray the New York Times is in, look no further than the headlines of today's op-ed pieces:

What's going on?

Whose team am I on?

Krugman's is worth reading; Brooks brings more fluff. Specifically, the former touches on religious extremism and the Schiavo case specifically. It ties in nicely with Andrew Sullivan's recent quote:

The important point is that religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism. It is the nemesis of conservatism. And it has to be purged in order for conservatism to be revived.

Lebanon and Iraq

The always excellent Dexter Filkins has a piece in the Sunday NYT drawing contrasts between the situations in Lebanon and Iraq, and pointing out how the view of Lebanon being a domino toppled by the Iraq war is too simplistic.

Fatwa

Well this is nice.

Brooks

Is this the most inane NYT op-ed ever? What happened to David Brooks?

Cedar

The last week or so has seen some enormous stories that I would normally be writing a lot on, and my silence shouldn't be seen as significant beyond just meaning that I have been very busy. Hopefully Harmony and Jeff will start making some more appearances too.

The recent developments in the Middle East are stunning, so much so that I would say they are not receiving as much media attention as they deserve (at least not in the British press). Not that Lebanon's or Egypt's slow movements to democracy are being ignored, but if these trends continue then it is just as big of a deal as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I am skeptical, however, of those who would attribute the protests in Beirut to the liberation of Iraq. I think that the correct summation of the situation is that Lebanese protesters are emboldened by the Bush administration's words of support and presence in the region, but it is much too simplistic to say that the Iraq election was the first domino in the region. From the NYT article linked to above:

Another factor, pressure from the Bush administration, has emboldened demonstrators, who believe that their governments will be more hesitant to act against them with Washington linking its security to greater freedom after the Sept. 11 attacks. The United States says it will no longer support repressive governments, and young Arabs, while hardly enamored of American policy in the region, want to test that promise.

John Tierney

I was a bit surprised that the NYT did not snag a bigger name for Safire's replacement, but anyway, Editor and Publisher has the goods on John Tierney.

Broke by 1988

It's interesting that in 1978 George W. Bush was already giving speeches predicting the demise of the current Social Security system within 10 years:

Social Security "will be bust in 10 years unless there are some changes," he said, according to an account published the next day in The Midland Reporter-Telegram. "The ideal solution would be for Social Security to be made sound and people given the chance to invest the money the way they feel."

Comforting to know that some things never change.

Rowan Williams

It's interesting to see the U.S. and Canada standing side by side on a socially progressive issue, when Canada is usually seen as much more liberal on these things than its neighbor to the South. The Episcopal Churches of these two countries risk being expelled from the Anglican Communion as they stand their ground over the issue of homosexuality in the Church (both in the form of gay marriage and the allowance of gay bishops). Frank Griswold of ECUSA should be lauded for not backing down on this.

I certainly take issue with the way the Guardian characterizes the impending split:

The North Americans have precipitated the split because of their progressive stance on homosexuality, still regarded as anathema in many other parts of the communion, particularly in the developing world.

No, it's conservatives and homophobes like the archbishop of Nigeria who have precipitated the split. The North American churches did not intend to split the Communion, though perhaps they should've foreseen such an effect given the rabid nature of people like the Nigerian archbishop:

[Griswold] told the Guardian: "I can't imagine a conversation saying we got it wrong. I can see a conversation saying we should have been more aware of the effect that the decisions we took would have in other places."

He added: "It does not mean that our point of view has fundamentally changed. We have met this week at the level of the heart. There is an integrity we share across the communion, though in quite different forms."

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has lost all credibility in his pursuit of a via media on this. If the Canadian and American churches are expelled, the Anglican Church will surely deserve its remaining company: a collection of homophobes and far-right conservatives. Let them have their communion. Meanwhile, there is the little issue of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion's money coming from the States. Hope they don't miss it too much.

Lincoln

You know it's a divided country when even individual states are discussing an even split. This is of particular interest to me since it's my home-state and I have background on both sides (geographical and political). It's hard to imagine many places with such stark contrasts in proximity to each other. The Cascade Mountains really make a clean cut of Red and Blue as well as desert and sea, and the recent acrimonious and drawn-out governor's election has brought long-standing tensions between the two sides to a head.

There have always been those in Eastern Washington who felt that they were not represented by the powers that be in Olympia, and Dino Rossi's refusal to draw a line under the election seems to be encouraging some of the more fanatical of these folks to propose a drastic solution: partitioning the state into two, with Eastern Washington become the 51st. First things first: the separatist movement, as far as I know, has always championed "Lincoln" as the name for the new state, and this has a much finer ring than "Eastern Washington". We don't want to be like the Dakotas, do we? No, Lincoln it is.

Anyway, the plan is clearly a non-starter, but interesting for a couple of reasons. First, as noted in Jamieson's piece, Eastern Washington benefits greatly from the wealth of the Western side of the state, and separation is probably not in its best interest. Second, the entire issue is indicative of an issue in our country as a whole: what unites us? Why are we one country if there are two distinct sides that often seem to loathe each other? What precisely constitutes the common identity?

I can't say that there is an easily describable over-arching Washington identity that is as well known as, for example, the liberalism of Western Washington or the rural conservatism of Eastern Washington, but I am proud to be from a state of such diversity and would be sorry to lose half of it.

Wead

I think it's interesting that Bush referred to the spinning of his youthful indiscretions as "schtick":

When Mr. Wead warned that he had heard reporters talking about Mr. Bush's "immature" past, Mr. Bush said, "That's part of my schtick, which is, look, we have all made mistakes."

So how much of his cleaned-up, born-again image is really schtick?

Maybe he can make some amends with Old Europe by telling them that the Iraq War was part of his schtick too.

Back and in Effect

Was out of the country for a few days - things should shortly be back to normal.

Culture of Failure II

I thought of another great example of Britain's love of failure: the current London bid for the 2012 Olympics. British papers have been saying for months that London's bid is doomed and doesn't stand a chance compared with Paris's, and this is a loser's attitude that will surely go a long way toward convincing the IOC that London doesn't deserve the games.

Culture of Failure

Apparently a C4 exec's comments regarding Scotland are causing a bit of an uproar:

Scots, once regarded as the most innovative risk-takers in the world, have become an unimaginative, inward-looking people who like to celebrate failure and poverty, according to one of the country's leading broadcasters and cultural commentators.
In a controversial address to be delivered as part of the prestigious Edinburgh Lecture series, Stuart Cosgrove, Director of Nations and Regions at Channel 4, will condemn what he describes as the Scots' 'love and indulgence of the culture of poverty' which, he says, has become deeply embedded in the nation's collective psyche.

This story is interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all, I don't think Cosgrove is wrong, but this phenomenon is certainly not limited to Scotland. I see it in all of the UK and Ireland. They are obsessed with national failure and wallow in misery when the opportunity presents itself. Why do you think the English love Tim Henman? When Ellen MacArthur recently completed the fastest solo circumnavigation of the globe by sail, did the country rejoice? No, there were stories about how she had complained too much during the trip and how it wasn't really possible to love her. As for Scotland and Ireland, there is certainly a lack of dimensionality in current arts and entertainment depicting these countries. For Scotland it's the Trainspotting effect I suppose. For Ireland, Angela's Ashes and a slew of others. There is a demand for these depictions, to be sure; Americans, for example, love their romantic image of dirt-poor, lousy Ireland.

The second interesting thing about this story relates not to the subject matter itself, but to the way the story is presented. In fact, this is typical of British newspapers. They have either an exclusive interview or a guest editorial in their comment/op-ed section, and then they run a front-page article about how said commentary is so controversial, as if that were hard news. Can you imagine the New York Times running a front-page article proclaiming "Krugman Criticizes Social Security Plan"?