Entries Tagged 'democracy' ↓

Like the rest of you, I’ve read a lot of stuff about Sarah Palin in the last couple of weeks (annoyingly positive and grotesquely negative), as well as a lot of stuff that tries to account for the reaction she has unleashed (in the commentariat and in Liberal Elite Land—you should see my email!).

Bradley Burston, writing in Ha-aretz,comes closest, I think, to explaining why Palin resonated immediately (as I noted here, a day after she burst onto the scene) [e.a.]:

I get it. I get that millions of Americans have a crying need for someone to stand up and say the things that Sarah Palin has been telling them.

I get that many, many Americans are fed up with big government and shame in patriotism and energy dependence and media condescension. I recognize that there are many on the right who are galvanized by a woman addressing the nation in condemnation of gun control and abortions. It’s clear that many in the heartland and even on the Blue State coasts have been waiting years to hear someone take a take-no-prisoners verbal lash to Beltway waste and liberal political correctness and, by implication, to cultural pluralism and tree hugging and the very mention of the word Washington.

That Palin had struck a nerve with certain Americans who were fed up and couldn’t take it anymore was clear from the reaction at the RNC, where one woman was quoted by the New York Times [e.a.]:

Delegates said they were enthralled by Ms. Palin. “I think she’s great; she’s giving it back to the Democrats for all the sorry things they’ve said about her and about America,” said Anita Bargas, a delegate from Angleton, Tex. “She’s a conservative, and she has a great sense of humor.”

So there was that. But there’s something else in the Amazing Mrs. Palin (other than shades of The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard, a delectable British TV film that I suggest you rent and watch***), and a piece in the Rocky Mountain News nails it:

It’s class as much as gender. When you hear women say she’s just like them, they’re talking about someone who’s gone through what they’ve gone through - and made it. They don’t think Palin is average. They think she’s talented - and talented enough to start where they did and make it to the top, even if she had to go to five colleges to get there. [e.a.]

Yep—just like Mrs. Pritchard—and she had problems at home, too:

———–
*** Here’s what I wrote in October 2007 about The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard:

The other day, I was watching a silly but diverting British series, The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard, which puts a sensible woman who’s fed up with politicians’ incompetence into 10 Downing Street to succeed Tony Blair. (Yes. I did say it was silly, didn’t I?)

The screenwriter is not at all sympathetic to Blair or to the war in Iraq, but she is sensible. She shows, for example, just how many decisions, large and small, a political leader must make every day. It occurred to me that if only more people would watch this show, they would have a glimmer of understanding beyond their pet theories about BushHitler and the Vulcans.

But when people want to judge, to condemn, to castigate, and to punish, no amount of understanding will stop them. Their fury has a life of its own.

So it goes.

It’s fun to be a detached observer of the Incredible Campaign of 2008, which has galvanized a nation. Our “mass of niches” culture seems to have coalesced in these past two weeks into a genuine mass audience. It’s probably temporary and of course there’s no guarantee that getting our attention will lead to our doing something (or even voting), but we are riveted to the political soap opera unfolding before our eyes.

The viewership for various segments of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions was huge.

As a television draw, John McCain was every bit the equal of Barack Obama.

The GOP presidential candidate attracted roughly the same number of viewers to his convention acceptance speech Thursday as Obama did before the Democrats last week, according to Nielsen Media Research.

It marked the end of an astonishing run where more than 40 million people watched political speeches on three nights by Obama, McCain and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Republican convention was the most-watched convention on television ever, beating a standard set by the Democrats a week earlier.

Three times in two weeks, political speeches were watched by more people than the “American Idol” finale, the Academy Awards and the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics this year.

“It clearly suggests that a great number of Americans think that who will be the next president is important and worthy of their time,” said Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter and director of the Project for Excellence in journalism.

One day, this will be seen as a watershed—the moment that the world of politics, borrowing from the world of showbiz, inspired the Couch Potatoes of Amercia to take a good, hard (though, possibly, brief) look at their country, their neighbors, and, most of all, themselves and to see if maybe we all couldn’t do a little bit more to get along, goddamnit, and while we’re at it, to do more for ourselves—individually and collectively.

But I must be dreaming, because that would be true progress.

However, I do have some hope that something better will result from the election of 2008, regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats win the White House this time around, because all of the candidates are dedicated—and inspiring—public servants (even if they are politicians and thus by nature suspect. Every one of the current crop has sacrificed something and done good things for others. Along the way, we unruly American, with our crude democratic system, shoved aside some folks who had already had their turn and we got rid of at least one rotten apple and we rejected alarmism as a way of daily life).

Well, goddamn!

Ain’t that America somethin’ to see, baby!

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, agree with ‘em or disagree with ‘em, we’ve finally got some great role models (new heroes and villains, as JFK memorably referred to them in 1959,***) that people are paying attention to.

And so we sail into uncharted waters.

————–

*** Admirably, JFK warned the people not to believe in the false idols launched by the new TV era. Then he proceeded to become one of them. He succeeded beyond his wildest imagination, because politicians are still emulating his style, and Democratic politicians all covet the imprimatur of the Kennedys and … but that’s a story for another day. Let’s just say for now that the imprimatur will long outlive the Kennedys.

Politicians cannot possibly accomplish everything they promise the people. They are ambitious above all else. John McCain knows this and is torn up about it, as the NYT reported the other day; nevertheless, he’s running for president for a second time. And he is using war strategies (such as surprise) in his political campaign. He means to win—with honor and within the rules of the arena.

Longtime readers know how cynical I am, so it won’t come as any surprise to them to read that I’m impressed by the immediate, visible impact Sarah Palin has had on the McCain campaign. Jonathan Martin reports:

The Palin effect: crowd size

17,000+ today for the McCain-Palin rally outside of St. Louis, according to a Secret Service magnetometer count provided by the campaign.

As one veteran of Missouri politics said, that’s the sort of crowd usually seen in October for a president — not in August for a candidate.

Call me a simpleton, but that looks like evidence of a bounce.

I am not a fan of John McCain for president (though I am a big John McCain fan). In fact, I find myself leaning toward Obama now. But I do admire McCain’s moxie and his mental toughness, and, purely from a political point of view, his decision to pick Palin.

Noemi Emery laid out the items in the plus column of the decision three days ago (impressive!), and it looks like many of her predictions are coming true—against all odds, since she didn’t take Gustav into account, and even that is figuring to put the GOP at a (relative) advantage: Bush and Cheney won’t be speaking at the convention due to the weather, and yet the worst of the storm happens to be bypassing New Orleans. [Who is stage-managing this show? This dude or dudette is even better than the guys who handled the Beijing Olympics and Obama's acceptance speech performance! ---ed.]

1. Steps on the story of Obama’s speech (and convention), and possibly the bounce coming from them, and wipes them off the news cycle. [ see today's NYT ***---ed.] The Sunday news shows will be all-Palin, all of the time.

2. Sends Republicans into their convention on a huge head of steam. [ Not really, but you can blame Gustav, and/or the media, whichever one is more politically convenient ---ed.]

3. Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing, and the genuine person. [true dat; see the first paragraph of this post ---ed.]

4. Revs up the base AND excites independents, which no one else in the party, or perhaps in the world, could have accomplished.

5. Puts youth, change, and history on both of the tickets. [yep. I think that's why Obama's fans are so incredibly upset. Palin is, undeniably, an agent of change---both in her actions and her image. She makes Obama less special. Plus: she's fresh meat. We're tired of him. He has used up all his material. She gives us a new character to root for or to deride---or, if you're Andrew Sullivan, to try to ruin. Sorry if you're offended, but that's the way it is in our democracy. It has always been like this. The only difference now is that we're attuned to it. The curtain has been pulled back to reveal fully the behind-the-stage machinations on both sides of the aisle and in the newsrooms of the MSM. The means to report---and to reveal formerly closely held secrets---has been spread to anyone with an internet connection. Likewise, the means to make up lies and spread them instantly across the globe.

And that's as true for Daily Kos diarists as it is for the Russian prime minister, Dmitri Medvedev, who is taking advantage of the three-ring circus that is our election cycle to declare a new era, in which Russia has a sphere of influence to compete with America, which isn't so exceptional. Take that! ---ed.]

6. May detach some young people, especially women. [Meghan McCain gave Palin a big endorsement as a "cool role model." ---ed.]

7. May attach some women pissed off about Hillary. [Hmmm. That's complicated. ---ed.]

8. As a pro-life super-achiever, puts feminists in a tizzy.

etc.

Read the whole thing.

Obama built a very impressive organization from the ground up, and created the impression of a pro-Obama movement, which in turn has sparked an interest in politics the likes of which this country (and Europe) hasn’t seen in decades (if the interest of the under-30 crowd around me is any indication … but I have to say that the jury is still out on that, because I live in an unrepresentative bubble in downtown Manhattan and cannot extrapolate much from my immediate surroundings).

McCain, however, seems to have ignited a movement. If indeed he has been mulling over this choice for a long time, you have to tip your hat to his boldness (or recklessness … take your pick). The Republican Party needs a shake-up not only for McCain to have a shot at the White House but in order for the Republicans to have a shot at staying relevant in our fast-moving society.

John Podhoretz hinted at this immediately after McCain picked Palin last Friday:

For the first time this year, there will be some pop-cultural interest in a Republican. Her family story — a conservative Republican with a blue-collar worker of a husband who takes primary responsibility for childrearing with a special-needs baby — is like a dream People Magazine cover.

And indeed, here is People’s immediate coverage.

Podhoretz continued:

Even though her pro-life views will make her anathema to New York City women’s-magazine editors, the possibility of huge newsstand sales in Red State Wal-Marts is just going to be too tempting for them to ignore her or belittle her.

It won’t swing an election, but it’s the kind of thing that can help change the narrative of the election.

It can do more than change the narrative of the election. McCain is confronting the culture war head-on. Suddenly, it’s a little hard to picture rural folk as bitter gun-and religion-clingers now, isn’t it?

Crazy!

A rejuvenation of both brands—Democratic and Republican—would be really healthy for our Republic. Long live the founders!

———–

*** The Democrats’ best-laid plans for a post-convention honeymoon have been derailed, Jeff Zeleny writes:

The Obama-Biden tour, officially branded “On the Road to Change,” drew far less attention than the campaign had envisioned. Before their plane took off Friday from the Democratic convention in Denver, Senator John McCain dropped the bombshell news that he had chosen Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. Then, as Hurricane Gustav churned toward the Gulf Coast, Mr. McCain turned up in Mississippi on Sunday.

If I were in the Obama camp, I would quit trying to sell the idea that the “change” he’s offering is generational, because, as I recently noted, the Clinton generation (of which I’m nominally a part) is not exactly ready to hand over the reins (and Obama’s tendency to talk like a punk doesn’t help matters).

But generational change is how some Dems are painting the “differences” between the Clinton and Obama camps—differences that are being elided as Obama “Moves to the Center,” claims Thomas Edsall in the HuffPo [e.a.]:

In the international relations policy arena, sources in and out of the Obama camp described a more subtle process taking place, as Obama is forced to decide which Clinton experts to add to the team, and at what level in the hierarchy.

“While there are exceptions on both sides, one of the key differences between the Clinton and Obama foreign policy gurus is generational. And this generational split has significant consequences,” one knowledgeable expert said, speaking on background. “In the main, the senior folks in the Clinton administration (1993-2001) went with Hillary, while many of the less senior people went with Obama.”

Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy advisers came of political age during the Cold War, in many cases during in the Carter administration, and tend to see the world in terms of states and state conflicts, this source said. In addition, many of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers “spent eight years dealing with Saddam [Hussein's] intransigence in the 90s,” making them more receptive to the arguments for invading Iraq.

Conversely, this expert argued, many of the Obama advisers are post-Cold War theorists who tend to see the world in terms of failed states, the influence of technology, food crises, non-state actors like Osama bin Laden, the spread of nuclear weapons, and the uneven distribution of the benefits of globalization.

Another way of seeing this “generational difference,” of course, is this: having experience (aka coming of political age is a form of experience, which the Clintonistas have) versus having smart-(ass) ideas (aka being post-Cold War “theorists”—which the Obamabots think they have).

Meanwhile, one prominent California family lives out a different kind of drama at home, where it’s not a left-sectarian fight but rather a GOP-vs-Dems debating (sorta) society:

Of all the supporters behind the two presumptive nominees for president this year, none are quite as intriguing as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has thrown his support behind Senator John McCain, and the governor’s wife, Maria Shriver, a Democrat and vocal backer of Senator Barack Obama.

The lawn of their Brentwood home has dueling campaign signs. The breakfast table has become a casual debating society. Ms. Shriver is even threatening to bring a life-size cutout of her preferred candidate into the house, something the governor has seen her do in other elections. “When one of the candidates screws up,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said of the cutouts, “the kids carry them outside.”

And to my great relief, the Dem side in this battle is represented by a fair-minded person—a “little-d democrat” [e.a.]:

“I think there are great benefits to having kids grow up understanding that we do not live in a one-party system,” Ms. Shriver said. “That there are two ways at looking at an issue. To be patient, and to compromise, those are good lessons not just in politics but for life. I grew up believing there was only one way to think. There isn’t.”

All hail the friendly enmity between people with different politics!

Joseph Epstein was raised in blissful freedom in the Midwest, by parents who tended to their own lives—and to him and his brother—without making much of a fuss:

When I was a boy my parents might go off to New York or to Montreal (my father was born in Canada) for a week or so and leave my brother and me in the care of a woman in the neighborhood, a spinster named Charlotte Smucker–Mrs. Smucker to us–who was a professional childsitter. Sometimes an aunt, my mother’s sister who had no children, would stay with us. We seldom went on vacation as a family. When I was eight years old, my parents sent me off for an eight-week summer camp session in Eagle River, Wisconsin, where I learned all the dirty words if not their precise meanings. None of these things made me unhappy or in any way dampened my spirits. I cannot recall ever thinking of myself as an unhappy kid.

Not surprisingly, little Joseph became quite sturdy and self-sufficient:

After the age of ten, I made every decision about my education on my own. The one I didn’t make, at ten, was to go to Hebrew school in order to be bar-mitzvahed; this was a decision made for me and was nonnegotiable. But my parents felt no need to advise me on what foreign language to take in high school, where I ought to go to college–though my father paid every penny of my tuition and expenses–or what I ought to study once there. …

When I began my modest athletic career, my parents never came to any of my games, and I should have been embarrassed had they done so. My parents never met any of my girlfriends in high school. No photographic or video record exists of my uneven progress through early life. My father never explained about the birds and the bees to me; his entire advice on sex, as I clearly remember, was, “You want to be careful.” …

I did not seek my parents’ approval. All I wished was to avoid their–and particularly my father’s–disapproval, which would have cut into my freedom. Avoiding disapproval meant staying out of trouble, which for the most part I was able to do. Punishment would have meant losing the use of my mother’s car, or having my allowance reduced, or being made to stay home on school or weekend nights, and I cannot remember any of these things ever happening, a testament less to my adolescent virtue than to the generous slack my parents cut me.

Now, having retired from teaching at Northwestern University, Epstein reflects on the “Kindergarchy”—the well-meaning but toxic child-rearing style which has produced the many insufferable students he has known. His (tongue-in-cheek) conclusion? Too much love in the home:

As a teacher at Northwestern University (not long retired), I found the students in my classes in no serious way I could discern much improved for all the intensity of home and classroom attention most of them received under the Kindergarchy. A very small number, those who had somehow found passion for books and the life of the mind, were remarkable, a number proportionally probably little different than in any generation of students; the rest were like students everywhere and at all times: just wanting to get the damn thing called their education over with and get on with life with the best start possible.

The most impressive students I had over my 30 years of university teaching were those I encountered when I first began, in the early 1970s, who almost all turned out to have been put through Catholic schools, during a time when priests and nuns still taught and Catholic education hadn’t become indistinguishable from secular education. Many of these kids resented what they felt was the excessive constraint, with an element of fear added, of their education. Most failed to realize that it was this very constraint–and maybe a touch of the fear, too–that forced them to learn Latin, to acquire and understand grammar, to pick up the rudiments of arguing well, that had made them as smart as they were. [Could this account for the vociferous and influential Irish Catholic "mafia" in the MSM? Just wondering.---ed.]

So often in my literature classes students told me what they “felt” about a novel, or a particular character in a novel. I tried, ever so gently, to tell them that no one cared what they felt; the trick was to discover not one’s feelings but what the author had put into the book, its moral weight and its resultant power. In essay courses, many of these same students turned in papers upon which I wished to–but did not–write: “D-, Too much love in the home.” I knew where they came by their sense of their own deep significance and that this sense was utterly false to any conceivable reality.

Then Epstein lowers the boom [e.a.]:

Despite what their parents had been telling them from the very outset of their lives, they were not significant. Significance has to be earned, and it is earned only through achievement. Besides, one of the first things that people who really are significant seem to know is that, in the grander scheme, they are themselves really quite insignificant.

Uncharitably, I can’t help but think that a lot of whippersnapping Obama lovers are going to learn that lesson in the coming months. And Paul Krugman, for one, isn’t above advising BHO on that score:

Mr. Obama, who has been dismissive of the boomers’ “psychodrama,” might want to give the generation that brought about this change, fought for civil rights and protested the Vietnam War a bit more credit.

We are tough, capable, high-achieving, well-adjusted, and secure baby boomers! Hear us roar!

What a difference 12 hours makes. This morning, Candy Crowley was downplaying the significance of the NAFTA story. Now, 12 hours later, she’s talking about the “incoming” that Obama is getting, and they’re playing video of a very hostile “press avail” held by the Candidate this afternoon.

In the worst single day of his campaign—a day on which all the goodwill toward him in the media simply vanished—whoooosh!—Obama was raked over the coals all day long on CNN—I saw it on the 8 o’clock hour with Campbell Brown; then on the 9 o’clock hour with Larry King. The Obama supporters who only a few days ago had proudly been flying their colors looked shell-shocked. Now the melancholy tune continues on Anderson Cooper’s show.

Transcripts aren’t yet available, but the reporters or anchors have now mentioned every negative thing bubbling under the surface about Obama—some of which should have been expected (Rezko, Farrakhan, Wright, non-oversight of Senate committee); some of which the Obama team never should have allowed to develop (Canada/NAFTA, Farrakhan); and some of the downright creepy stuff that’s out there (is Obama a Muslim?—the CNN crew is obsessed with showing a piece from 60 Minutes where Steve Croft insistently asks Clinton the question a second time: are you sure he’s not a Muslim? is what he implies).

Earlier today, I see from the available transcripts, Wolf Blitzer pulled no punches in his language:

BLITZER: What do you make of this embarrassment, this memo that has now been released from the Canadian Consulate in Chicago to the Canadian government in Ottawa, saying they did meet with a top economic adviser to Obama who basically said to them, don’t pay attention to what Barack Obama tells the voters in Ohio on NAFTA, he really doesn’t mean it, it’s only politics? This is potentially a significant embarrassment to your candidate.

Now, as I write, hours later, Cooper is conducting a segment on “media bias.” He says he takes the subject very seriously.

He’s so sincere-sounding that I almost believe him.

Until I hear him invoke “the best political team on television.”

Which reminds me: read Christopher Hitchens on the vast emptiness of our discourse.

Take “Yes We Can,” for example. It’s the sort of thing parents might chant encouragingly to a child slow on the potty-training uptake.

Wait! That’s not all!

Pretty soon, we should be able to get electoral politics down to a basic newspeak that contains perhaps 10 keywords: Dream, Fear, Hope, New, People, We, Change, America, Future, Together. Fishing exclusively from this tiny and stagnant pool of stock expressions, it ought to be possible to drive all thinking people away from the arena and leave matters in the gnarled but capable hands of the professional wordsmiths and manipulators.

[update: here's a nice piece, similar in feeling to mine, from Robert Poole at Reason]

Back when I was a snotty whippersnapper and I was contemptuous of anyone who didn’t think like me and my obviously morally superior cohort, I worked in the same down-at-the-heels prewar building on East 36th Street where the National Review had its offices.

When I read this tribute, I was reminded of just how culturally out-of-favor the NR was back then in the post-Vietnam era:

Before Rush Limbaugh; before conservative talk radio; before Fox News Channel; before the Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, the Heritage Foundation and even Ronald Reagan, there was Buckley and his magazine. He burst upon the scene in the early 1950s, articulating concepts and ideas that were largely dismissed in that era–and even more out of favor in the 1960s. Still, Mr. Buckley never wavered, and his brand of conservatism became part and parcel of the Reagan Revolution that followed.

I’m no Republican. Having grown up among Republicans, I had a lifetime’s worth of exposure. I don’t even visit the Corner unless I’m sent there by a link. I’m just not interested in what conservatives are saying. I’m interested in my own tribe, not theirs!

Nevertheless, I admire William F. Buckley for his style, his wit, his erudition, and his persistence and faith, with which he built a place where the loyal opposition could talk amongst themselves. My hat’s off.

The Daily Mail attacks the British Olympic Association for its ourtrageous coddling of the Chinese with a vivid reminder of Britain’s shame and dishonor in the run-up to World War II:

National disgrace: In a picture from a German archive never before published in Britain, the England football team give Nazi salutes in Berlin in 1938  [e.a.]

Here are the facts, from the Mail:

British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China’s appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing.

The controversial clause has been inserted into athletes’ contracts for the first time and forbids them from making any political comment about countries staging the Olympic Games.

It is contained in a 32-page document that will be presented to all those who reach the qualifying standard and are chosen for the team.

From the moment they sign up, the competitors – likely to include the Queen’s granddaughter Zara Phillips and world record holder Paula Radcliffe – will be effectively gagged from commenting on China’s politics, human rights abuses or illegal occupation of Tibet.

Here’s the argument against, from David Mellor, also writing in the Mail:

The Chinese have no right to a free ride this summer. And it isn’t just because China isn’t a democracy or that basic human rights and fundamental freedoms are denied to its citizens.

China is a menace to the civilised world for many other reasons, ranging from its support for renegade regimes such as the government of Sudan, who used Chinese weaponry to commit the Darfur massacres, to its shameless emergence as the number one polluter.

The Chinese deserve as much criticism over their contributions to global warming as over their suppression of human rights.

Long live the British tabloid media!

[reposted to correct a typo in the title] 

Will sharia come to Britain? The notion certainly has a lot of people up in arms.

Ali Eteraz makes the case against (in case you need to hear it).
As for me, I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon. For one thing—though it’s not PC to bring this up, but it does reflect reality—there most certainly is a supernationalist streak in Britain, most obviously represented by its soccer hooligans. Potentially violent, uncontrollable “Islamophobia” is a real concern among this demographic, and it is not to be ignored.

Perhaps it was those, er, “blokes” who the otherwise sharia-loving (and enemy of culture) Tariq Ramadan was thinking of when he nixed the Archbishop’s idea:

“These kinds of statements [about the addition of sharia in Britain] just feed the fears of fellow citizens. I really think we, as Muslims, need to come up with something that we abide by the common law and within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles.”

For another thing, on one side of the front page of its website, the Daily Mail tears to shreds the sharia-embracing Archbishop of Canterbury:

Officials at Lambeth Palace told the BBC Dr Williams was in a “state of shock” and “completely overwhelmed” by the scale of the row.

It was said that he could not believe the fury of the reaction.

On the other side of its front page, the Daily Mail goes about its business, advertising its other typical features:

Femail

Bedraggled and bra-less: Britney back to her old tricks after hospital release
A spell in a psychiatric hospital seems to have done little to change Britney’s lifestyle - or her dress sense

Cheek to Cheeky…the girls bare all for a good cause
Cheeky Girl Gabriela Irimia has never much cared for the twinset-and-pearls image of an MP’s consort - but this pose with her identical twin sister Monica - is risque by even her raunchy standards

Rehab star Amy is all smiles after getting her teeth fixed ahead of Grammy performance tonight
Amy Winehouse is all smiles these days after finally being granted a US visa - and getting her teeth fixed

‘Sadistic Wife Swap nearly cost me my sanity’ says TV presenter Anna Courtenay
On last week’s Channel 4 show Wife Swap, businesswoman Anna Courtenay, 42, was seen trading her privileged expat life in Marbella for nine days with another family on an ‘eco-friendly’ tugboat. She was not prepared for the lengths to which producers were prepared to go in the name of entertainment

When the Mail is forced to clean up its lurid act, let me know. Likewise, satellite TV in Europe (which is a mixture of lecturing imams and soft-core pornography). Then I’ll get nervous about sharia.

In the meantime, I take comfort from the sensible attacks on the mental defective masquerading as the Archbishop of Canterbury:

The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.

He said it would be “simply impossible” to bring sharia law into British law “without fundamentally affecting its integrity”.

Sharia “would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

“This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy.”

The strong counter-terrorism efforts undertaken by the British government are announced by officials and covered by the press, and so it’s logical to assume that the British people are aware of the various programs, right?

Probably not, Timothy Garton Ash suggests:

This has got to stop. Britain’s snooper state is getting completely out of hand. We are sleepwalking into a surveillance society, and we must wake up. When the Stasi started spying on me, as I moved around East Germany 30 years ago, I travelled on the assumption that I was coming from one of the freest countries in the world to one of the least free. I don’t think I was wrong then, but I would certainly be wrong now. Today, the people of East Germany are much less spied upon than the people of Britain. The human rights group Privacy International rates Britain as an “endemic surveillance society”, along with China and Russia, whereas Germany scores much better.

What degree of infringement on our freedoms are we willing to tolerate in order to feel secure?

It seems quaint now (shamefully so) to think of how outraged I felt only ten years ago when, in conversation with friends, I heatedly accused Rudy Giuliani of being a “fascist” for his Orwellian installation of surveillance cameras in Washington Square Park (in an effort to keep out drug dealers and other undesirables).

Like many people, since 9/11 I’ve traveled a long road in search of answers to these questions—without success so far.

John Podhoretz [e.a.]:

If the exit polls hold up and Mitt Romney wins, that will mean three different Republicans have won the first genuinely contested state contests — Huckabee in Iowa, McCain in New Hampshire, Romney in Michigan. It is possible Fred Thompson will win South Carolina next week. And all these results make it even more plausible that Rudy Giuliani will hold on to win Florida two weeks from now, because there will be no frontrunner and therefore no one will benefit from momentum in the effort to prevail in Florida.

Five contests. Five different winners. All going into Super Tuesday. It sounds like chaos, but maybe it’s the best thing for the GOP, because the party is going to have to generate some kind of news excitement if its candidate is to have a chance in November.

Michael Cohen [e.a.]:

If the Mittster wins tonight you will have three contested primaries/caucuses won by three different candidates. With Rudy and Thompson still alive in the South the chances of a consensus frontrunner emerging on February 5th seems slim indeed. Let’s say hypothetically that Rudy win Florida or maybe New York and McCain, Romney and Huckabee split the rest of the states voting on the 5th. With no frontrunner, a brokered convention becomes a real possibility. And can you imagine Romney dropping out for the good of the party or McCain stepping down so his bete noire Plastic Man can get the nomination or the GOP establishment acquiescing to the Huckster?

Woohoo!

And why not? If the country is indeed looking for a change, let’s work through all the issues and put all the candidates through the grinder. Let’s make them work for our votes, damnit! And let’s show the young ‘uns democracy in action.