The Dish

[Daniel]

What do you buy for the person who has everything?

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?

[Andrew]

Coming to Baghdad, as described by the Onion.

[Clive]

Another musical bites the dust. The Broadway adaptation of Nick Hornby’s novel, High Fidelity was due to be put out of its misery today after a pitfully short run. That ever-readable theatre-blogger, The Playgoer, had a hard time finding any positive reviews. (Twyla Tharp’s Bob Dylan show suffered a similar fate.) There’s a touch of unintentional humour in the comments section as a reader waxes indignant about this line in one of the very few raves:

…Impressive last year as the best of the Lennon‚Äôs in the musical "Lennon," he sings and acts with a truthfulness that makes you want to jump right up and buy a 45.

It’s obviously a generation thing. Most of us know a 45 is a record, right? I don’t know why that makes me laugh, but it just does.

[Alex]

The most predictable yet idiotic response to Augusto Pinochet’s death was the notion that "well, shucks, he was iffy on human rights but at least he believed in free markets and lots of lefties like Fidel Castro who is even worse, so motes and beams and all that, you know."

As though that makes everything ok!

So, credit to the Weekly Standard for publishing  John Londregan’s article "Don’t Cry for Pinochet":

Are we to admire Pinochet because his murderous regime was more efficient than tyrants on the left at producing higher GDP? Without the torture, rape, and killing, would economic and political freedom have been impossible in Chile? Hardly! But this is the argument insinuated by Pinochet. He successfully appropriated the utilitarian fallacy to which many on the left fall prey: that murder and torture are acceptable if they hasten the advent of the utopia implied by one’s ideological model.

[Of course, it’s a depressing commentary that the Standard merits praise simply for being decent.]