[Clive]
What’s wrong with these people? They don’t want to integrate, they don’t want to learn the language, and they keep mutterng about life "back home". Yes, I’m talking about the hordes of expat Brits who are taking over Spain. (And please don’t get me started on all those braying English voices in the Dordogne…)
[Alex]
Incompetent, stubborn leadership? Check. Baffling personnel decisions? Yup. Lack of tactical flexibility and nous? Sure. Inability to seize opportunities in the fleeting moments they presented themselves? Alas, that too. Victory now impossible? Certainly. Staying the course no longer an option? No, not really. Bring the boys home? Not a bad idea at all. National humiliation? Check.
Yes, another defeat for England’s cricket team in Australia. The Ashes are gone, gone, gone.
Aussie Prime Minister John Howard gloats here .
[American readers puzzled by the greatest game can read all about it at Wikipedia.]
[Clive]
A dissent from a reader:
The Niall Ferguson essay you link to is very interesting and well put. However, it does omit one little fact—that Jeane Kirkpatrick was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq and, in 2003, performed a mission, for the Bush Administration, to several Arab allies, attempting to get their support for the attack on Saddam. Sadly, in this case, she failed to take her own advice, and signed on to an effort to play midwife to democracy, the results of which are all to apparent today. As with so many of the American political figures of the last few decades, it seems, her ideas were absolutely forthright and immutable—until they weren’t.
And here’s another e-mail:
The Kirkpatrick quote about Carter’s efforts to impose liberalization may be correct for some countries (I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but maybe so) but it is factually wrong regarding several in Latin America. I was a very junior US Foreign Service Officer in Latin America during Carter’s Admin, and I had a close-up albeit limited view of a few of those liberalization and human rights efforts. Subsequently, liberalized regimes appeared in Argentina, Brazil & Uruguay. Now this transformation actually took place under Reagan, but the seeds were planted under Carter, and the Reagan Admin’s view of nurturing them was no better than benign neglect.
Kirkpatrick, off the mark again, not unlike her characterization of totalitarian versus authoritarian governments. She had a legitimate point about the latter, as she may also have had with regard to Carter, but she was drawing rather absolute conclusions on the basis of small samples and a limited period of time. I always thought of her more as a well-educated and sophisticated ideologue than as an historian or political scientist.
[Daniel]
These are the five most expensive political souvenirs I could find on eBay
1. Canadian political-maritime artwork – $150,000
For only 150,000 dollars this short wooden sign, containing the name of a Canadian Prime Minister that I’ve never heard of but I’m sure you have, could be yours. It’s been on eBay twice and not found a buyer. I can’t think why since, as the seller points outs, it would adorn any political-nautical collection. This is particularly the case with political-nautical collections that specialise in Canadian campaigns.
2. World’s most famous assassination memorabilia – reduced from only $3.5 million
The seller of this item received "several tempting offers" when advertising it at $3.5m but decided to start again at $1,000 anyway . This is the traffic sign at Dealey Plaza taken from the intersection near the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Brilliant eBay phraseology is used to disguise the fact that the seller doesn’t guarantee that these lights were in use in 1963.
3. Death of a President artefact – $3,999
Always wanted a piece of Presidential funeral cloth? I know I have. A reasonable offer will secure you this, an artefact you’ve doubtless always been looking for.
4. Decorative scandalous ornament – $40,000
At such a bargainous price, who can resist? You can be part of a genuine political scandal, by buying this ornament. It’s original sale was front page news. Alternatively you can put it in front of the television so that the plasma your husband bought doesn’t look so obtrusive.
5. The ultimate collection – $1,800
A bargain. For 1,800 dollars you could have snapped up a virtually complete set of New York assembly autographs. The governor didn’t sign, but you can’t have it all.
Can you find any more expensive items?
(Thanks to Tom Whitwell for a couple of good spots)
[Alex]
It’s long been a staple of the marijuana legalisation crowd that cannabis is America’s biggest cash crop. Conveniently a new report – produced by a pro-legalisation analyst – assures us that it is iondeed the case and that the value of US-produced pot is somewhere north of $35bn – making cannabis more valuable than corn.
No surprise here:
The report estimates that marijuana production has increased tenfold in the past quarter century despite an exhaustive anti-drug effort by law enforcement.
Nor, sadly, here:
Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, cited examples of foreign countries that have struggled with big crops used to produce cocaine and heroin. "Coca is Colombia’s largest cash crop and that hasn’t worked out for them, and opium poppies are Afghanistan’s largest crop, and that has worked out disastrously for them," Riley said. "I don’t know why we would venture down that road."
Good grief. Where to begin? How hard can it be to understand that it’s the illegality of coca and poppy production that is primarily responsible for fostering banditry in Colombia and Afghanistan respectively?
I’m entirely persuaded by the philosophical appeal of the libertarian argument on drug policy, but this battle will only be won on practical rather than philosophical or even moral grounds. Alas, the war on the war on drugs shows few signs of being any more successful than the war on drugs itself.
[Clive]
Down in Texas, that unpredictable, self-styled "Crunchy Con", Rod Dreher has some troubling stories to tell about our obsession with hot-housing our kids. His account of a conversation with local Muslim leaders is depressing, too. No meeting of minds there.
[Clive]
Alex was very complimentary about my taste in music yesterday. (He’s obviously never heard me singing in the shower.) If you’d like to check out my choices of the best world music and jazz albums of 2006, they’re here. Given how the industry works nowadays, the artists probably won’t get much airplay, so every bit of exposure helps. Classical buffs looking for something seasonal might want to consider the L‚ÄôArpeggiata disc recommended by the music blog, On An Overgrown Path. "Great baroque party music", it says, but without drum machines, I suspect.
[Clive]
Hugh Brogan’s eagerly-awaited biography of Tocqueville, receives five-star treatment from the London Observer. I can’t wait to read it:
He was 26 years old when he landed in America, a sophisticated, inquisitive, patronising Parisian so unprepared to find even a semblance of polite society in New York that he had to write home at once for silk stockings, cravats and 24 pairs of kid gloves. The US overturned all his preconceptions. ‘Everyone shakes hands,’ he reported with incredulity. The Protestant religion shocked him deeply, and so did the self-respect of servants who felt they had a perfect right to chat to their employers, and waiters who sat down at table with their customers. In Washington he and his travelling companion were astounded by the simplicity of the presidential palace, where Andrew Jackson poured their drinks himself with no sign of attendant guards or courtiers.
[Alex]
These are entertaining times for fans of political discord and infighting. The Labour government in London seems to be the funniest farce in town right now (or, granted, if your point of view is more elevated than mine, the most depressing).
If Tony Blair and Gordon Brown don’t actually hate one another right now, their supporters certainly do. The Mail on Sunday had the scoop on the latest, breaking the news of a secret Blairite memo that contemplates stabbing Brown in the back in one final, glorious moment of betrayal:
"The Government is seen as a shambles. It is not just Labour internal conflicts but a lack of grip and competence on key issues. Iraq is a potent and raw issue, so is the NHS, immigration and crime. We have lost control of the big issues and are not delivering,’ the memo states.
Nor is the trend likely to change. "This view is deeply held and entering the bones of the electorate. The public are clearly preparing to shift to the Conservatives if they prove themselves credible and likable."
That’s not all, folks!
Extraordinarily, the document reveals that No10 actively contemplated dumping Mr Brown in favour of a younger successor.
"We can rally round…or we can go for total renewal, moving to a new generation, effectively forming a new government while still in power."
It does not name the potential alternative successors but it is no secret that Mr Blair once hoped Environment Secretary David Miliband would mount a challenge against Mr Brown.
Similarly, despite being slightly older than Mr Brown, Education Secretary Alan Johnson, a relative Cabinet newcomer, was also seen as a way of providing a ‘break with the past’.
But the memo warns this tactic could backfire: "Trying to completely renew in office may look as if we are trying to cheat time. And worse – that we are disavowing our record in government.
"Gordon Brown is part of our record. If we disown him, we run the risk of disowning our record. The public will recoil from evidence of disloyalty towards Gordon.
"Whatever people think of him as a [potential] Prime Minister, they still greatly respect him as a Chancellor."
But it shows Mr Blair has serious doubts about allowing Mr Brown to take over without a leadership contest.
The public are ‘not stupid’, says the memo. "They will not forgive us if we foist an unpopular leader on them without a proper democratic process. They just won’t accept it."
Catching up with all this first hand will be one of the pleasures of this holiday season.
[Clive]
One of the liveliest stand-up comedy shows playing in London right now is Reginald D. Hunter’s "Pride & Prejudice & N***as". Actually, that’s not quite the exact title, as Hunter – an African-American who now lives over here – prefers not to use the asterisks. As a result, posters were banned from the Tube, and some newspapers refused to print the taboo word. Hunter got very agitated about this, claiming that nobody had complained when the same posters were festooned all over the Edinburgh Fringe. But as I said in my review, it all comes down to context: Edinburgh in manic festival mode is a very different place from the West End in a sweaty, over-crowded rush hour.
Still, Hunter has a lot of interesting things to say about racial sensitivities. I was thinking of him last night when I came across a clip of the film version of the British sitcom, "Love Thy Neighbour". A hit in the early Seventies (the US version bombed, apparently) the show depicts a working-class racist, Eddie, swapping insults with a hot-tempered West Indian, Bill, who has moved in next door. The battle continues at the factory. Don’t watch if colourful language upsets you …
OK, not exactly "Seinfeld", was it? (Although it beats Michael Richards’ recent effort). I was about 13 when the series was at its most popular. And although I watched it every week (I was a hopeless telly addict in those days) it always made me feel uncomfortable. I’m half-Jamaican, and every morning after the show I could be sure that a couple of tormenters in the playground would give me a barrage of "nig-nogs" (Eddie’s favourite insult). To me, at the time, the jokes in "Love Thy Neighbour" never really seemed, well, even-handed. Eddie had most of the country on his side, and could I really be sure all those people in the audience were laughing at him, or with him?
Yet, looking back, maybe the scriptwriters deserve more credit than they got at the time. TV often does its best to shy away from the realities of race, usually out of the best of motives. "Love They Neighbour" wasn’t classic comedy, but at least, in its clumsy way, it tried to tell it as it is.
On the subject of stereotypes, I also found these wonderfully old-fashioned Peter Sellers commercials for TWA . Would the lecherous Italian be allowed on-air now? And what does Alex make of the parsimonious Scotsman?
The Dish 