Month: March 2010

by Chris Bodenner

Gabe has footage of the film critic with a new Hawking-like device that uses hours of audio from his TV and DVD commentaries.

by Alex Massie

There is something almost admirably bold or shameless* about Labour's campaign in this election. Douglas Alexander who combines the roles of Gordon Brown's Mini-Me and Labour's general election co-ordinator, spoke at the LSE yesterday and outlined, one understands, some of the "core" principles dividing lines upon which Labour plan to base their attack. These are:

1. Security versus Tory Risk

2. Protecting Frontline Services verusus Tory Cuts

3. New Industry and Jobs versus Tory Recession

4. Many versus The Few

Selling this to the electorate is a risky business. In the first place it asks punters to forgive all that is past and consider it of no account while threatening an even worse future if the Conservatives get in. To take these in order:

1. There is no security at present because the government is running out of money. Sure, Labour suggest, the patient has cancer but imagine how much worse it would be with a different doctor? Some consolation, given that the existing doctor's misdiagnosis has exacerbated the situation in the first place.

2. A simple untruth. Alistair Darling will be forced to deliver an austerity budget later this month. Cuts are coming regardless of the election result and all that remains to be decided is the extent and nature of said cuts.

3. Anyone listening to this argument might have to pinch themselves. Haven't we just been through a recession the Chancellor himself said was "the worst in 60 years"? Why, yes, we have.

4. Students of American politics will recognise this as a classic piece of Shrumism. And that's no surprise given that Bob Shrum is an old friend of Gordon Brown's and one of his closest advisors.

This latter leads one to wonder whether the Curse of Shrrum can cross the Atlantic. Shrum, who has, if memory serves, worked on eight losing Democratic presidential elections, plays an amusing cameo in Andrew Rawnsley's new book, The End of the Party, an aptly-titled chronicle of Labour's second and third terms.

Rawnsley, who is impeccably-connected in Labour circles, tells the story of Brown's speech to the Labour party conference in 2007. This came at  time when it seemed as though Brown might call an early election  – one that, at the time and in retrospect, he would probably have won:

Gordon Brown opened his speech to the conference with a jab at humour. "People say to me: 'Would you recommend this job to anyone else?' I say: 'Not yet.'" He continued with the projection of himself as a "father of the nation". "Tested again and again," he said of the summer terror plots, floods and outbreaks of animal diseases. "The resilience of the British people has been powerful proof of the character of our country." What he hoped to suggest was that his handling of them was powerful proof of why he should remain as Prime Minister. The speech was rewarded with a prolonged standing ovation from a Labour party currently happy to worship the man who had put them back ahead in the polls. The overall media conclusion was that Brown was a leader in command of his party and ruthlessly preparing the ground for an election.

Rupert Murdoch, though, did not think there should be an early election and was using his biggest-selling daily organ to try to prevent one. "Not his finest hour" was the verdict of the Sun, which attacked Brown for dismissing the calls for a referendum on the EU treaty. Brown's anger about that was as nothing compared with his reaction on Wednesday evening, when he learnt of the coverage in the Times. Danny Finkelstein, the paper's comment editor, a former speech-writer to John Major and a keen student of American politics, had been struck by the familiarity of many phrases in Brown's speech. Finkelstein confirmed his suspicions by Googling any line that sounded like a speech-writer's phrase. Brown said: "Sometimes people say I am too serious." That was awfully similar to a sentence used by Al Gore in 2000 when he accepted the Democratic nomination: "I know that sometimes people say I'm too serious." Finkelstein identified several examples of phrases recycled from speeches by Gore and Bill Clinton, both former clients of Bob Shrum, adviser and speech-writer for Brown. When Finkelstein posted it on his blog that afternoon, the deputy editor of the Times, Ben Preston, thought it would make "a great splash" for the next morning's paper.

When Brown learnt that the Times planned to lead its front page with how he had rehashed American phrases, he was "incandescent", says a member of his inner circle. From his suite at the Highcliff, he rang complaining to Preston and Robert Thomson, the editor of the Times. "It's a Tory plot," he raged, trying to bludgeon them into pulling the story. "This won't be forgotten." He was maddest of all with his own team. Brown went berserk with Bob Shrum, whose long friendship did not protect the American from a ferocious blast of Brown's temper. "How could you do this to me, Bob?" Brown screamed at a shaking Shrum. "How could you fucking do this to me?" Then the Prime Minister started yelling at the other aides present: "Just get out! Just get out of the fucking room!" Sue Nye became so alarmed that she felt compelled to come into the room to protect the unfortunate Shrum.

Brown continued to rage about it in private for days afterwards. "It totally threw Gordon off," says one of his inner circle. "When he should have been thinking about the election, he was boiling about this."

(See Danny Finkelstein's column today for more on this. As is always the case Danny's column is a must-read and if you're interested in British politics you should follow his stuff. His blog is here.)

But, my, poor Shrum! Blamed for poor Gordon fluffing and funking the moment that was, as was apparent at the time and is even more so now, his best chance of winning a popular mandate of his own. Such, you may say, are the wages of sin and all that and perhaps Shrum's exhausted, flabby rhetoric deserves to be put in the mouth of a charmless misanthrope** such as our current Prime Minister. But still, even Shrum might deserve a break from time to time though we should also be thankful that he's not, you know, a racing tipster or holding down a serious, valuable job like that.

*Saying this should not be construed as an endorsement of the Conservative party, nor as a suggestion that they might be shamelessness-free themselves. 

**Is there such a thing as a charming misanthrope? You tell me at alexmassieATgmail.com

by Patrick Appel

David Ropeik analyzes global warming polls:

Nearly five times as many people in the United States are more worried that climate change will affect polar bears and plants than are worried about themselves. Small wonder, then, that the study found more support for generic ways of dealing with climate change, like funding renewable energy research, and less support for ideas that suggest concrete personal costs, like increasing the gasoline tax by 25 cents.

by Chris Bodenner

"My goal is to get attacked. If they notice me enough to attack me I will declare victory," – blogger and former high school president Mickey Kaus, on his decision to run against Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

by Jonathan Bernstein

Yesterday was election day in Texas, and I voted.  And I voted.  And then I voted some more.  If my count was correct, I voted fifty-two times.  I voted for Governor, and I voted for U.S. House and Texas House and Texas Senate…OK, I didn't actually know the candidates for the state legislature, by I did feel a bit guilty about that.  I voted for Lt. Governor (which is a big deal here in Texas).  I voted for Attorney General, and Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Commissioner of Agriculture, and Railroad Commissioner.  I don't know what the General Land Office is, no.  I voted for judges — judicial judges, and the county judge, who is the head of the county government, not a judicial judge at all.  I voted for more real judges.  We know someone who is running for "Judge, County Probate Court No. 2."  I voted for her.  I voted for District Clerk.  I don't know what kind of district the District Clerk is clerk for.  I'm pretty sure it's not pronounced the British way, though.  I voted for party chair…actually, Party Chairman, although I voted for a woman, but what do I know? 

Fifty-two times.

There are democratic nations in which you can vote every time they let you, and you might not reach fifty-two marks on a paper your whole life.  Here in Texas though…well, no candidate reached 50% in any of these elections, there will have to be a run-off election.  If Kay Bailey Hutchison really resigns as she's promised, now that she was drubbed in her attempt to be Governor, well, that'll be another election (or two?  I don't remember how Texas handles it; I lived in California last time Texas had a Senate special).  I have no idea whether there will be any other elections, but of course in November we'll have the general election, and I'll get to vote another fifty-one times (everything, I assume, except the party office). 

There are a lot of democratic nations in which you can vote every time they let you and not reach one hundred marks on a touch screen your whole life. 

In the two-year cycle here in Texas, we also have municipal elections in the odd-numbered years, plus local school board elections, various authorities and boards (including local school boards) elections, and elections in which we vote on very obscure changes to the state constitution, which generally get no publicity and hardly any voters.  In other words, something like 150 circled-in bubbles over a two year cycle. 

And Texas isn't bad at all!  I've voted in both Arizona and California, which have pages of judges to vote on and often a dozen or more initiatives and other ballot measures (although there are states, I know, that aren't nearly as bad).  

I love elections, and I do believe that one mark of a strong democracy is keeping the politicians, and not bureaucracies, in charge of lots of things.

But this is ridiculous.  The correct word for most of the elections that happened in Texas today, and that happen in primary elections around the nation all spring and summer this year, is farce.  No one has any idea what they're doing (especially in primaries, and in nonpartisan elections, in which you don't even get a useful cue about what to do).  I like the idea that Americans vote more often and for more things that just about any other nation, but we could vote for about a third of what we vote for now and still be very high on the scale, and people wouldn't have to fee like idiots on election day.  I've never heard a good defense for most of it, and I really think we should cut it out.

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

So let me get this straight: the D.C. archdiocese’s opposition to marriage equality trumps its affirmative commitment to celebrating marriage writ large? I thought marriage was sacrament. Shouldn't the Church's policies at a minimum support and affirm the sacraments?

And how come the other marriages that the church considers invalid didn't cause such a stir? Another reader:

I note that Catholic Charities chose the cheapest option on the table, which not only avoids providing benefits to same-sex spouses (and roommates, parents, and other adults as under the Archdiocese of San Francisco's plan) but to any spouses at all. Great way to trim the budget in a recession. Way to go! And note that employees' children apparently will still be covered, even if one of their (legally married) parents is not. That will do wonders for the Church's stated purpose of strengthening the institution of the family, I am sure.

The irony is that Catholic Charities has several programs providing health care to the uninsured, which will now include spouses of the agency's employees.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Whenever I read about Cheney and her ilk's galling demands that the government abdicate due process of law because they're more frightened of people in caves than our forebears were of the Soviet Union or Axis powers, I always think of John Adams and the Boston Massacre. I can only imagine what would be said today of someone who defended alleged terrorists if they were to run for high office. Adams' infamy over defending, and winning, a case for the hated British was eventually seen for what it was: a defense of liberty.

I couldn't find a clip of the courtroom scene from John Adams, the HBO miniseries, but the speech above hits all the right chords. And below is a diary entry of Adams recounting his feelings about defending the eight British soldiers – murder suspects that no other lawyer in Boston would represent. It's a must read for anyone interested in learning from a true Tea Party patriot:

Before or after the Tryal, Preston sent me ten Guineas and at the Tryal of the Soldiers afterwards Eight Guineas more, which were. . .all the pecuniary Reward I ever had for fourteen or fifteen days labour, in the most exhausting and fatiguing Causes I ever tried: for hazarding a Popularity very general and very hardly earned: and for incurring a Clamour and popular Suspicions and prejudices, which are not yet worn out and never will be forgotten as long as History of this Period is read…It was immediately bruited abroad that I had engaged for Preston and the Soldiers, and occasioned a great clamour….

The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.

This however is no Reason why the Town should not call the Action of that Night a Massacre, nor is it any Argument in favour of the Governor or Minister, who caused them to be sent here. But it is the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies.

by Alex Massie

Isaac Chotiner has a nice piece at TNR on Michael Frayn's classic Fleet Street novel, Towards the End of the Morning. Among his observations:

The most astonishing aspect of Frayn’s novel [published in 1967] is that so many of the dilemmas and complaints of the characters are easily recognizable today.

“He looked anxiously at the rack of galley proofs behind him. He had only seven ‘The Country Day by Day’ columns in print, and he had sworn never to let the Countries drop below twelve. He had a ‘Meditation’ column for each of the next three days—unless Winters had made a cock-up about immaculate conception, in which case he had only two and a half pieces—but he should have had a running stock of fourteen Meditations…But then what about the crosswords? He counted them up miserably. God Almighty he was down to his last eight crosswords! Day by day the presses hounded him; with failing strength he fed them the hard-won pieces of copy which delayed them so briefly. On and on they came! They were catching him up!”

So the hyperactivity of the blogosphere is not completely unprecedented. Nor is the temptation to comment on things about which you know nothing:

"Bob brooded over his book review. ‘Mr. Berringer knows his New York,’ he wrote. A wave of honesty passed over him, and he altered it to ‘Mr. Beringer appears to know his New York.’ The wave of honesty was succeeded by a wave of professionalism, and he altered it back to ‘Mr. Berringer knows his New York.”

Amen to that. I suspect the curators of the Daily Dish will recognise that first point. The second is simply beautifully, and truthfully, made. 

Frayn's novel was published towards the end of one kind of newspaper life and today we're reaching the end of another. Newspapermen, mind you, have a weakness for imagining and pining for the glories of an always just-past Golden Age. Why, recently, I luncheoned with a former editor of mine and we mournfully agreed that the late 1990s were, though we did not appreciate it at the time, years of fat and fun the likes of which we fear we shall not see again. We should have made more of them.

Then again, I suspect there must be many people working in other declining trades for whom journalists' constant reflections upon the evaporated glories* and shabby romance of bygone times must be exceedingly irritating. They'd have a point, too, about all this special pleading. (This self-indulgence, incidentally, was one of the things that made the fifth and final series of The Wire so much less satisfying than each of its predecessors.)

And times change. The old papers weren't necessarily as good as we like to think they were and the internet is as much an opportunity (for the reader at least) as it is a paper-killer. Cacophonous too, of course, but also expert and entertaining, to say nothing of affording opportunities to many who might never have received such a chance had the old closed-shop been maintained. On balance this is more than a good thing, even if it would still be nice to find easier ways to make it all pay…

*I mean lavish expense accounts of course. At the end of my first week in newspapers I (nervously) submitted my expenses only to have them rejected by my section editor. This was disconcerting since I'd made some effort to minimise them. This was not, I soon learnt, the problem: "This newspaper does not travel by bus; it travels by taxi." My first upbraiding and a lesson swiftly learned, I assure you. These days, alas, it travels by bicycle. 

You can email me your newspaper stories or whatnot at alexmassieATgmail.com