The Dish

I’m struck in chatting with British friends by how rare it is to find many in England currently rejoicing over the humiliation of the BBC. It’s not that the Beeb is well-loved; or that the criticisms aren’t valid. It’s that the Blair government has become extremely unpopular – and its vindication might actually intensify that. Here’s a typical email:

Everyone I have spoken to here who is not directly involved in politics (but who keeps a “watching brief” on events as they affect our daily lives) is horrified. We seem effectively to live in an elected dictatorship: over-reaching powers of Tony Blair without any check whatsoever; supine parliament (whose powers of scrutiny have been wrecked by said Prime Minister); pliant judiciary; and a commercial media hamstrung by regulation preventing any form of political partiality. The inquiry seems to have suddenly clarified the unease that a number of us here have felt deep down for some time.

The Hutton inquiry was a joke. Procedural lapses in the BBC news department were seized upon as examples of the worst sort of behaviour. But hardly a word was said about the fact the the Prime Minister held high-level meetings at 10 Downing Street on the two days before the MOD released Kelly’s name WITHOUT ANY MINUTES BEING TAKEN (at least, that is what we are told). None of those present at those meetings were ever questioned about this, shall we say, procedural lapse, and it remains the greyest area about the whole affair.

The damage of trust to such an institution as the BBC, is damage to the fabric of trust in Britain. It was threadbare last week: now it barely exists. A Guardian poll today shows that 30 percent of people regard the BBC to be more truthful than the government. only 10 percent believe the opposite. We cannot continue to have an active polity with such disgust and contempt swilling around: things will have to change or it will spill over into something nasty.

We’ve had the Hutton bomb-shell. The fallout has only just begun and may be far bigger than any of us realise. Now that you’ve got your sacrificial lambs, please think about those of us who actually have to live here and have suddenly found our country even less pleasant and comfortable to live in.

Worth pondering. Sometimes, American love of Blair reminds me of British fondness of Clinton in the 1990s. The closer you get to both men the more loathing you find. And vice versa. (There’s more feedback and criticism of yours truly on the Letters Page.)

Now Rush is in on the act. Does Bush think that Tony Kushner is going to vote Republican now that the NEA is getting more money? Or is this purely a favor to Laura and a tribute to the great work Dana Gioia has been doing? Who knows? All I know is that the Bushies seem to have lost their political touch to a worrying degree. But this quote is worth passing on:

There is not even the smallest thing “conservative” about tax cuts and spending increases as far as the eye can see. Republicans who pretend otherwise are selling a “free lunch” that wastes wealth, decapitalizes the country and burdens the next generation with a massive negative compound interest problem. All that is being done is a con job on public in which the people are fooled into thinking they and the country are wealthier than they really are – and that govenment goodies are a costless “free lunch”. Well, there is no free lunch. The classic “unseen” cost of this “free lunch” shell game is the cost which will be borne by later generations who will be burdened with the massive weight of government debt, rather than advantaged by the wealth stream made possibly by private sector capital goods investment.

My feelings entirely.

A KURTZ PARALLEL: A Reason reader comes up with an identical form of argument to the one Stanley Kurtz deploys in his recent Weekly Standard article. It’s worth throwing into the debate:

The rate of interracial marriage in the United States has boomed during the last thirty years. Over the same time period, rates of divorce and premarital sex have climbed, and marriage rates have dropped, abortion has surged, and the number of children born per couple has declined. Ergo interracial marriage is to blame for divorce, promiscuity, abortion, low rates of childbirth and the decline of marriage.

Of course! And if you had the existing prejudice against inter-racial marriage, you’d overlook the fact that no causation has been proved at all.

Altogether now – awwwww:

This is the hardest e-mail I’ve ever written.
In a few minutes I’ll be announcing to the outside world that I’m leaving after four years as Director General [of the BBC]. I don’t want to go and I’ll miss everyone here hugely.

However the management of the BBC was heavily criticised in the Hutton Report and as the Director General I am responsible for the management so it’s right I take responsibility for what happened.

I accept that the BBC made errors of judgement and I’ve sadly come to the conclusion that it will be hard to draw a line under this whole affair while I am still here. We need closure. We need closure to protect the future of the BBC, not for you or me but for the benefit of everyone out there. It might sound pompous but I believe the BBC really matters.

Throughout this affair my sole aim as Director General of the BBC has been to defend our editorial independence and to act in the public interest.

In four years we’ve achieved a lot between us. I believe we’ve changed the place fundamentally and I hope that those changes will last beyond me. The BBC has always been a great organisation but I hope that, over the last four years, I’ve helped to make it a more human place where everyone who works here feels appreciated. If that’s anywhere near true I leave contented, if sad.

Thank you all for the help and support you’ve given me. This might sound a bit schmaltzy but I really will miss you all. I’ve enjoyed the last four years more than any other time in my working life.

Raines. Boyd. Davies. Dyke. Does it get any better for fair journalism? The Beeb’s spoiled brats, meanwhile, are livid.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “It is wrong for the United States to force other countries to become democratic. True, facism and tyranny are the opposite of what we believe in, but going over to another country and deposing facist dictators or tyrants to replace them with our political system is nothing but American imperialism, which runs contrary to democracy. As a Salvadorean who lived thru the turmoil of Central America’s communist insurrection in the late 70’s and early 80’s, I can tell you that revolutions are never imported; they rise from within. Going over to Iraq and bombing the hell out of that country because our misguided prez thought that there were WMD’s there aimed at our shores is almost justified; but saying that we went to Iraq to depose a dictator and ‘free’ the Iraqis so that they could become a democracy is shameful and a crime.” Yep, for some on the left, the liberation of people from tyranny is indeed now a shame and a crime. More feedback on the Letters Page.

“My friend said, ‘I’m for the UN and international law, and I think you’ve become a traitor to the left. A neocon!’
I said, ‘I’m for overthrowing tyrants, and since when did overthrowing fascism become treason to the left?’
‘But isn’t George Bush himself a fascist, more or less? I mean-admit it!’
My own eyes widened. ‘You haven’t the foggiest idea what fascism is,’ I said. ‘I always figured that a keen awareness of extreme oppression was the deepest trait of a left-wing heart. Mass graves, three hundred thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Baathist boots stomping on their faces-that is what fascism means! And you think that a few corrupt insider contracts with Bush’s cronies at Halliburton and a bit of retrograde Bible-thumping and Bush’s ridiculous tax cuts and his bonanzas for the super-rich are indistinguishable from that?-indistinguishable from fascism? From a politics of slaughter? Leftism is supposed to be a reality principle. Leftism is supposed to embody an ability to take in the big picture. The traitor to the left is you, my friend…'” – Paul Berman, fighting for sanity, in Dissent.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “In a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made [Iraq] a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate,” – David Kay, honest hawk.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY III: “Criticising the conduct of US and British policy towards Iraq is legitimate, as is disquiet about the effectiveness of the two countries’ intelligence operations. But impugning the honourable motives of those who sought to defend their countries, by dealing with a threat they believed they could not ignore, is not.” – The Financial Times, yesterday.

CLASSIC KERRY: Noam Scheiber unearths two constituent letters John Kerry wrote before the first gulf War. Kerry’s position? Pro and anti. Just like this time. Can you imagine if he actually has to make a call as president?

This is a bit of a shocker from Sandy Rios, of Concerned Women for America:

An amendment that protects marriage in name only is troublesome to us and does not go far enough… I would also like to say that we don’t think an amendment has a chance of passing at all in this Congress. And so we prefer holding back a little bit until we have a different Congress, different people sitting there before this issue’s even raised.

I think this means they don’t have the votes to push this through. It’s also clear that the hard right will not be satisfied unless the amendment bans civil unions, domestic partnerships and any benefits for gay and lesbian couples.

“Above the neck, nothing but his mouth moves.” – Will Saletan, observing the new Botoxed Kerry on the stump. Yes, I think it’s obvious. I bet it was Theresa’s idea.

SPOT THE MISSING PIECE: Josh Marshall has written an engaging and artful essay about the notion of an American empire for the liberal New Yorker magazine. I read it yesterday and then re-read it. Josh manages to write about the Clinton era “soft-imperialism” and the Bush era “hard imperialism” with nary a mention of a certain even that occurred on September 11, 2001. Maybe I missed something. I doubt if his editors noticed the lacuna. Why should they? For the Clintonites, 9/11 didn’t really happen. Everything the Bush administration has tried to do in foreign policy is perverse, neocon imperialism – despite the fact that Bush ran as less interventionist than Al Gore in 2000. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that this administration’s hard line against terror-sponsoring regimes and those developing WMDs was not some ideological plot – but a reaction to events. It’s important to remember that Marshall isn’t some namby-pamby dove. In contrast to many Democrats, he takes national security issues seriously, and is not averse to the use of force. At one point, he even seemed to favor action against Saddam, until it appeared it couldn’t be accomplished under perfect and optimal circumstances. After that, he deferred to president Jacques Chirac. So if Marshall hasn’t noticed 9/11, what chance is there that the rest of the Democratic foreign policy establishment has? Look, I know I’ve been critical of the president’s domestic shortcomings recently. But in the larger choice in this war there really isn’t a choice. It’s self-defense or winging it. When the consequences of winging it could be a biological/chemical/nuclear catastrophe in one of our cities, I’m not sure we have any real option but Bush.

“Such [civil union-style] statutes point to a future in which couples will have many options, from ‘covenant marriage,’ in which both parties sign a contract pledging not to divorce, to a number of less binding choices.” – gay leftist, Richard Goldstein.

“People thinking of living together would then have three choices: civil marriage, religious marriage, and household partnerships. In effect there would be a competition between these three institutions for their custom.” – National Review’s John O’Sullivan.

The much awaited Hutton report is an absolute vindication for Tony Blair and a catastrophe for the BBC. So the BBC Chairman has now resigned. Yay! Here is the BBC’s summary of the findings:

* Dr Kelly killed himself because of a severe loss of self-esteem as he felt he had lost people’s trust and as he was subjected to the media glare.

* BBC governors should have properly investigated Downing Street’s complaints as they defended the corporation’s independence.

* Tony Blair’s wish for the dossier to make a persuasive case might have “subconsciously influenced” Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett to put the document in stronger words than usual intelligence reports.

* But Mr Scarlett had acted to ensure the dossier was consistent with reliable intelligence

* There was no “dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous strategy” by the government to leak Dr Kelly’s name covertly to help its battle with the BBC.

* The Ministry of Defence was, however, “at fault and to be criticised” for failing to tell Dr Kelly that his identity as the suspected source would be confirmed to journalists who suggested it.

It doesn’t get more definitive than that.

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ NEW BEAT: They’ve discovered a new species that they’re featuring in Science Times and elsewhere in the paper. And they even have a new reporter for it specifically. The new species is called a “conservative.” New York Times editors and reporters have long heard that such creatures exist, but, under the new aegis of Bill Keller, are determined to actually find a few. They’re even going to talk to some on the phone! There’s no limit to the lengths to which the NYT will go to provide the most comprehensive treatment of the world for their readers.

MORE ON SCANDINAVIA: I’m guilty of an error in my posting about same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia. I thought they were open to gays and straights. They’re not. Straights have the option of another marriage-lite option, opposite-sex cohabitation (“samboerskap” in Norway, “samboskap” in Sweden, “samboskab” in Denmark), as well as old-style marriage (“ekteskap” in Norway, “äktenskap” in Sweden, “ægteskab” in Denmark). The cultural significance of these institutions is bound up in language and cultural expectations, which is why it is difficult to make crude cross-cultural claims. RPs, however, are still not marriage (which is the critical point) – and don’t have all the rights that married couples have. They have a different name and are more like California’s civil unions but not as generous as Britain’s civil partnerships. This gets a little confusing after a while. And that’s the point as well: by creating a smorgasbord of civil options for gays and straights in different ways – civil unions, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil partnerships, marriages, etc – the clarity and social power of marriage is deeply diluted. That’s what makes me a conservative on this issue. Some gays disagree with me on this – especially on the left. What’s striking is that the traditional right is now in alliance with the left on supporting all sorts of marriage-lite options in order to prevent marriage for gays. The right worries that gays will contaminate marriage; the left worries that marriage will contaminate gays. What a consensus!

Most of the day, I thought that Edwards was going to be the un-Kerry from now on. Dean was too damaged after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Edwards’ disappointing fourth place showing – behind the nutcase Clark – after such a big win in Iowa has to make his candidacy more suspect. Dean did a little worse than the exit polls suggested. But his concession speech was easily the best of the night. It was authentic, uplifting, and red meat to the Democrats. It actually rang true to me as Dean’s real view of the world. It isn’t one I entirely share, to say the least, but it is genuine, represents a lot of people in this country and deserves a hearing. He seemed more affable than recently as well. He smiled more. He spoke more calmly but not ineffectively. He’s real. Kerry is so fake, in contrast, I cannot believe that Democratic primary voters will continue to support him in such numbers. Dean gave arguments. Kerry spoke in packaged Shrumisms. Dean has a vision. Kerry has ambition. If I were a Democrat, I’d vote for Dean over Kerry in a heartbeat. To my mind, this is a battle between the Democratic party’s soul and its fear. The exit polls showed how Kerry won by seeming more electable – thus trashing an old golden rule of American politics. But the more you see of Kerry the less appealing he is. I’m not sure he really is less electable than the dreary Kerry. Maybe Dean needed this early drubbing to make him more tolerable as a candidate. Maybe it’s too late and Kerry is way too far ahead to be caught. I don’t know. All I know is that what I saw in Dean’s speech – and the extraordinary crowd that accompanied it – was more authentic than anything I have ever seen Kerry say or do. That must count for something.

BUSH IS IN DEEP TROUBLE: I’d say something else. The huge turn-out in New Hampshire; the electability factor for Kerry; the passion of the Dean people: all this shows how thoroughly energized the Democrats are to win back the White House. Bush is in the Rove-Cheney cocoon right now. From the SOTU, it looks like he’s going to run on 9/11. Bad, backward-looking idea. His coalition is fracturing; his reach out to Hispanics seems to have hurt him more with the base than won him new votes; his spending has independents deeply concerned; Iraq is still a wild card; prescription drugs pandering hasn’t swayed any seniors; the religious right wants him to attack gay couples in the Constitution – which will lose him the center. More worrying: I’m not sure he even knows he’s in trouble.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Physically, Kerry’s repertoire is painfully limited. He thrusts his index finger at the audience in an overhead arc again and again, as though launching a projectile. He seems to be trying not to animate his thoughts but to expel them. Above the neck, nothing but his mouth moves. If you showed anyone a video of Kerry with his lips blacked out, they’d never know he was speaking. On television, it often seems as though Kerry is looking at you but not seeing you. In person, you realize he is looking at you but not seeing you. His words are even more stilted, particularly when he ruins a good line by adding prepositional phrases-“in this country … as a fundamental commitment … to all our citizens … regardless of circumstance”-until everyone is silently begging him to stop.” – WIll Saletan, devastatingly persuasive, on the awfulness of John Kerry.

John Ellis thinks so – unless Kerry kills his candidacy off fast.

THE BBC, NOT BLAIR: A stunning victory for Blair in the Hutton report. According to a leak, the report is harshest on the BBC for its role in the affair of David Kelly. I’ve said it before: the BBC must be radically dismantled or privatized. It has gotten out of control.

THE JOBLESS RECOVERY: The Washington Post makes a cogent argument that it can be a good thing. After listening to the pure populist bilge spouted by the Democrats, this editorial is a pleasant nugget of sanity.

THE TRUTH ABOUT ECSTASY: Yes, there are some serious side-effects.