The Dish

An English reader writes:

As you recently mentioned, immigration is a growing concern in England especially. This is not due to intolerance of outsiders (although there is always a small intolerant minority). Most Brits recognize that our culture has largely come about over the last few hundred years due to the melting pot of different races, religions and ethnicities – especially from the Commonwealth.

The issue is simply one of numbers, leading to pressure on housing, welfare, health and education services – England (not the UK) is the most densely populated country in Europe. It has 50m of the UKs 60m population, in a size of about 50,000 square miles. That would make it smaller than 31 of the States in the US. Imagine putting the population of New York [state], Florida and Illinois in space smaller than Louisiana. Now suggest adding the population of Nevada over ten years….this is what people are reacting to.

If the underlying problems (e.g. jobs, housing, education etc) are resolved, then the concerns would likely dissipate (except for the intolerant minority).

An American reader's thoughts:

You wrote:

In three critical areas the Labour Party is seen among significant layers of working class people to have ignored their anxieties and denied them a voice: economic globalization, European integration, and mass immigration. Each subject has been declared off political limits.

In the US, the white working class has been affected mainly by the first but not the second and third.

Obviously not by the second, but if your policy is to deliberately import large number of manual laborers (blue collar) you will of course lower the cost of that labor. If you don't believe this to be the case please come and visit me in Columbus, Ohio, and we'll do a quick tour of the ruins, on my nickel. (You can even bring the dogs). Huge number of jobs (construction comes to mind) that were once overwhelmingly done by working class whites (and blacks, I might add) are now done by illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America.  Employers can pay them less, treat them like dirt, and know that they won't have to deal with unionization or safely complaints, as these employers can always threaten to report them to the authorities.

Two big reasons why our political class is disinclined to do anything about this:

1. The right side of our.political ruling class enjoys its fat checks from the corporations that profit by the lower labor costs.

2. The left side of our political ruling class gets a steady stream of new voters.

 

Women Without Men – Trailer from IndiePix on Vimeo.

Lauren Collins reviews Iranian film maker Shirin Neshat's "Women Without Men":

The world is a different place than it was three years ago, especially in the eyes of Iranians and those who care what happens to them. Neshat used to say that she was not a political artist, or, for that matter, an especially political person. The events following last summer’s contested election in Iran changed that. Neshat organized hunger strikes by mass e-mail. She and the cast of “Women Without Men” wore bright green on the red carpet in Venice, and flashed the V-sign. Neshat’s film begins with an image of a suicide: a girl named Munis, forbidden by a devout brother to leave the family compound, jumps off the roof, her shirtwaist billowing against a blue sky. She floats to the ground like a feather, landing on her back. Munis, for Neshat, became a Neda. The film was done by June of last summer, but, at the end, Neshat added a message:

This film is dedicated to the memory of those who lost their lives in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Iran, from the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 to the Green Movement in 2009.

A reader writes:

Grayling is very correct, but neglects to mention that even the physical component of the mind is not restricted to the brain. Hormones play a huge role in how we feel, as well as are vastly influential in how we process information. I would argue that the mind does not physically reside in that spot behind the eyes, but it is merely concentrated there. There are diffuse components throughout; feeling something in your gut, loins, or heart aren't merely figures of speech. Ask a post-operative transgendered individual whether the new reproductive organs and hormone therapy are a part of a change in thought, or an ophidiophobe whether adrenal glands matter to logic and reason when a snake is encountered.

Minds are a diffuse thing, most heavily concentrated in our brains, but with diffuse components that extend throughout our bodies, into our friends and neighbors, into our libraries and interwebs, and even into pets and inanimate objects. They are like gravity wells, where the lines are blurred and matter (or thought in this case) is largely considered to be in one well, but is really influenced by many at once.

French Gilles Grall and Argentinian Alejandro Luna pose holding their marriage booklet after getting married at a registry office in Buenos Aires on April 30, 2010. By Juan Mabromata/AFP/Getty Images. 

Leah Garchik takes note:

Yoo Toilet Paper, the creation of Los Angeles artist Matt Cornell, was installed temporarily and very unofficially in restrooms at UC Berkeley's law school last week. Each roll contained text of the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

E.D. Kain would like to have real immigration reform:

Unlike Conor, I think building a wall is a very bad idea, doomed to failure. A ladder is a simple enough solution to the problem of a wall. A shovel is nearly as good. Opening up legal immigration to many, many more immigrants is the only thing that will reduce the influx of illegal immigrants.

To combat the problem of drug smugglers we need to rethink our policies on drugs, and begin to dismantle our enormously foolish war on drugs – beginning with the truly insane approach to marijuana.

Lexington had related thoughts a few days ago:

[It] is impossible to secure a 2,000 mile land border against economic migrants. So long as there are jobs to come to, they will find a way. The only way to relieve pressure on the border is to allow a realistic number of migrants into America, ie one that bears some resemblance to the demand for their labour. When demand falls, (as in the current recession) fewer come, and many go home.

In the medium term, trying to secure the border before you address immigration reform is like trying to stop dust flying into your vacuum cleaner without turning off the suction.

Reacting to the Guardian endorsement of the Lib Dems over Labour, Tim Montgomerie hopes:

Gordon Brown may end up with only The Mirror's backing. The FT is also certain to jump ship after four successive endorsements of Labour.

Massie warns Clegg:

There's danger for Clegg in all this jockeying for position and influence too. One way to become just like the "two old parties" he lambasts might be to behave just like any other horse-trading, in-it-for-his-own-advantage politician. Novelty, like any other sheen, can wear off quickly.

Michael Tomasky thinks this happened in yesterday's debate:

I think the thing that happened here is that – and this, lo and behold, is something I did predict accurately after the first slugfest – the novelty of Clegg wore off by round three. And since most people are tired of Brown anyway, and especially in the Duffy aftermath, the post-glow Clegg support went to Cameron not Brown.

Jacob Weisberg has the same take:

Clegg's act wore thin in the third. He did not succeed in establishing himself as a responsible choice, as opposed to a protest vote. He avoided further swithering on the question of a hung Parliament only by evading the issue entirely. What on previous occasions came across as a Bill Clinton-like gift for engaging with ordinary people felt too slick. "Tonight's debate is about you," he announced a little too giddily at the outset. And Clegg's sucking up to every questioner was smarmy enough to elicit laughter and groans in the press room.

So does Rachman:

I thought some of the gloss came off Clegg tonight. In the first debate, he seemed affable, cheerful and above-it-all. In this debate he was clearly riled by the attacks on the Lib Dem policy of a partial amnesty for illegal immigrants – and got aggressive with Cameron. Regardless of the merits of the argument, that was a tactical mistake. Voters seem to be turned off by Westminster-style point-scoring.

James Forsyth looks at tactical voting:

Labour supporters in Lib Dem Tory seats will vote for the Lib Dems to try and keep the Tories out. But, interestingly, I hear that Lib Dem supporters tactically voting in Labour in Labour-Tory marginals is unwinding. Lib Dem supporters who have voted tactically in the past are now conscious of how significant it would be if the Liberal Democrats finished second in the popular vote and so are backing their own party.

Nick Wood loves Cameron's Contract With Britain:

Right now the strongest reason for voting Conservative is a negative: Cameron is not Brown. That has long been the main source of Cameron's political strength. But as polling day nears, he needs to ensure that the public go to the ballot box with a few big but simple reasons for switching to the Tories. They need to know why they are backing Cameron.

That's why his Contract with Britain is essential.

People won't vote for a Big Society. But they will vote for concrete policies that bring the Tory manifesto to life.

Tim Montgomerie has more details:

Two million copies of the contract will be distributed to households in battleground seats – three-and-a-half million people in total. Another one million will be distributed at railway stations and on the campaign trail. Key components of the contract will be highlighted on each day of what's left of the campaign.

Peter Mandelson, Labour’s Head of Election Strategy, isn't as pleased:

With days to go it's vital that voters take a close look at the small print behind the Tories' PR. David Cameron is trying to sell people something without revealing that his plans mean cuts to tax credits, cuts to Child Trust Funds, cuts to schools, cuts for manufacturing, and cuts to the police. David Cameron might think he can fool the voters with a glossy leaflet but he should give them more credit than that.

Massie explains why Cameron's task is so difficult:

it's the failures of the past and that he inherited that make Dave's task so difficult. If 2005 hadn't been such a ghastly failure perhaps the Tories wouldn't need to win an extra 130 seats to win a majority. In other words, they essentially need a landslide just to win a small victory. That's what Cameron inherited and his critics might care to remember the abject failure of their kind of Toryism. If three thumping defeats don't demonstrate that the Tories "own original and successful coalition" has disappeared then I don't know what does.

Mike Smithson analyzes the above Labour poster. Dizzy's feelings about last night's debate:

The general feeling was that Clegg got hammered on immigration by the other two, personally, I thought that whilst he did get hammered by them his argument was actually the most sophisticated because it essentially comes straight out of the drug decriminalisation playbook about how the criminal gangs rely on prohibition or illegal immigrants by operating in a black economy – starve the black economy, solve the problem.

Whilst I say it's the most sophisticated of the arguments, it doesn't really play well with most people, just as the decriminalisation of drugs argument doesn't play well either. The other two rightly hammered him on the assumed logical conclusions of an "amnesty" that you just send a message that if you come to Britain illegally then disappear for long enough you'll be allowed to stay eventually.

Labour strategist Alastair Campbell -surprise!- calls yesterday's debate for Brown:

The polls are not great for Labour. True. But the sheer number of undecideds is good news for Labour. It means despite all they have seen and heard, despite all the posters, despite Murdoch, the Mail and the rest, they are still holding out against a Cameron premiership. And last night [Gordon Brown] did a very good job of giving them the very good reasons why they are right to hold out, and right to keep asking the questions Cameron and Clegg don't want to answer.

And the betting markets are predicting a greater chance of a Tory majority after last night's debate:

I wrote that Laura Bush was "the most decent person in the White House for eight long years." That inspired Mistermix at Balloon Juice to complain about "the journalistic elite who justify their shitty journalism by saying that some monster is actually decent 'in person'." Julian Sanchez searches for a middle ground:

I think there’s a real problem of source capture in D.C. journalism, even bracketing the shady quid-pro-quos involved with high-level access. But I doubt a press corps composed largely of snarling misanthropes would be much better. If you want to really understand a particular beat, and be good at covering it, you ultimately have to spend a lot of time socializing with the people you cover. A good reporter isn’t going to become best buddies with the folks he’s writing about, but some minimum level of amiability is going to be required if you expect to get wind of scuttlebutt or know what people in a particular industry or agency are thinking.

A reader writes:

I've never seen you reference this before and so I'm not sure you're aware of it, but the sensory deprivation of prisoners was used by the United States before with those who were charged with conspiring with John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. You can rather readily Google this information via Wikipedia and other articles on the assassination, treatment of the conspirators and, most notably – and regrettably, since we're related – the actions of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

The actual hoods used were sufficiently sadistic – putting physical around-the-clock pressure on the eyes and ears, since they were hooded all of the time – that there were concerns that some of the prisoners were driven mad. It was Stanton who pushed for harsh treatment and military commissions and a rather weak-but-new President, Andrew Johnson, who pushed in the other direction.

Intriguingly, Johnson is the one who has been consigned to obloquy: he tried to treat prisoners, and the South generally, the way Lincoln likely would have, but his motives were too mixed up with sympathy for the racism of the South for him to receive any moral benefit from his approach.

On the other hand, Stanton was confirmed to be a Supreme Court Justice (dying before he could actually join the Court).

The use of hooding in this case certainly seems to me to be an example of gratuitous abuse -  stigmatizing, dehumanizing and revenge-driven – that is founded on a particularly emotional crime against the state. In my view, that's what history's judgment will be on the Bush administration and its largely superfluous acts of sadism against already defenseless prisoners.

Images taken from a resource site by the University of Missouri – Kansas City.