Alex Massie

Alex Massie

Sod You, Broon…

Ah, the tabloids... Bless them. Just when you think no newspaper can keep a healthier stable of high horses than the New York Times, Fleet Street reminds one that humbug and sanctimony are both alive and well in London. Gordon Brown just made his life more difficult. If he does renege upon Labour's promise to hold a referendum upon the EU constitution treaty - even in its revised "non-treaty" form- he's made an enemy of Britain's best-selling paper, The Sun. Good. Here's what The Sun says today: GORDON Brown last night took the fatal step of breaking his word to Sun readers. Over dinner with 26 other EU leaders, he allowed the momentous EU Constitution to be approved — without a referendum. The unspoken toast was to a European superstate.

Admittedly it’s not a crowded field, but…

James Poulos asks an excellent question, perfect for parlour-game speculation: Yesterday or the day before I was hanging out in the grad lounge with a sane Americanist who was scrolling through a polling compilation of Our Presidents Ranked By The Experts. Blithely I asked after the top ten Commanders-in-Chief, knowing damn well why I asked it like that, and sure enough in came the returns: War Heroes all. So then I asked who was the highest-ranking President who didn't see us through a war..? So, yeah, tell me who you think deserves the medal for Top Peace-Time President?

The problem with targets

Merit pay, eh? Normally I'm all for hopping on the teachers-unions-are-spawn-of-the-devil bandwagon. But they're right to think that performance-related pay, or at least any form of it likely to be introduced by bureaucrats, is likely to be a disaster for exactly the same reason as most government-mandated teaching requirements offer exactly the wrong incentives. Neill Harvey-Smith explains: If one in twelve children sitting their GCSEs in 2010 raise what would have been a D to a C grade, in just one subject, and everything else stays the same, then the government will have met its supposedly tough new target for secondary education. Would your kid have got 5 A to Cs anyway? They don't need extra help. They are doing well enough already. Will your kid get way below 5 A to Cs?

Derbyshire voted off the island…

John Derbyshire on fetishisation and Islamophobia (which does, of course exist, even if it is much less widespread than muslim "community leaders" would have you believe): Speaking of which, I have been voted off the New English Review site for being insufficiently Islamophobic. Fair enough. NER has now settled down as a definitely and strongly Islamophobic vehicle, and I'm a poor fit for it, being Islamophobophobic. In matters editorial I am anyway a believer in totalitarian despotism. I've seen enough of magazine and newspaper editors tearing their hair to know that it's a wellnigh impossible job—"herding cats" is the merest approximation—and am content to leave them to it, so long as they don't grossly infringe on my rights as a contributor.

Scots wha hae with Cumberland bled…

James Fallows' blog is normally a treat. But in the midst of slapping Congress for the supposed foolishness and self-indulgence of the Armenian genocide resolution he writes this (emphasis added): Why not go all the way? How about a resolution condemning China for the millions who suffered in the Cultural Revolution and the tens of millions starved during the Great Leap Forward – right as we’re seeking China’s help on Burma, North Korea, the environment, etc? I mean, for each Armenian the Ottoman Turks slaughtered, at least ten Chinese citizens perished at the hands of the regime whose successors still rule the country. And the government's official stance of denial is just about as strong. So, why not just tell them they were evil?

Hold the foreign page…

Matt Yglesias writes:              People often note that there appears to be a more vigorous debate over Israel's approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict in the mainstream Israeli press than there is in the mainstream American press. This is, however, the kind of judgment that it's hard for a casual American observer to make with much confidence. Writing in International Security, however, Jerome Slater takes a more systematic comparison of coverage of the conflict in The New York Times and in Haaretz and concludes that, indeed, Israelis debate this matter more freely. To which Megan responds: 1)  No one in Israel is worried about being called anti-semitic.

Any port in a storm: or more odd reasons for forgetting the Armenians again.

Amidst suggestions that Nancy Pelosi will in fact put the Armenian Genocide resolution in her pocket, it's been quite something to see so many self-styled liberals shake their heads and mutter that, you know, while we feel for the poor Armenians - and please, don't for a moment doubt the seriousness of our compassion - that feeling does extend to doing anything other than cave to Turkey' desire to muddy historical waters that are plenty clear enough (and have been for 90 years) to most reasonable observers. Still, it must be reassuring to be told, We'd like to help, we really would, but it's just too difficult. For some reason the Washington Post has run a number of pieces taking this brave stand.

Marie Antoinette: Under-Rated!

Foreign Policy's Blake Hounshell deplores knee-jerk contrarianism and lists 10 Contrarian Arguments He Never Wants to Hear. Among them: Let Them Eat Cake: How a Delicious Dessert Could Save the World's Poor. This seems unfair. Marie Antoinette's famous advice was, if memory serves, given out of compassion and understanding, not aristocratic contempt for the urban poor. As I say, if my recollection is correct  -perhaps readers can help? - it was occasioned by protests over the shortage - and hence increasing price - of bread in Paris. That being so, she said, perhaps the people might consider changing their diet until the price of bread returned to a more comfortable level. Perfectly sensible stuff, really.

Do I hear Texas? Vermont? Any other takers?

Reading this post from James Poulos left me wondering: What would happen if a US state decided to leave the Union? Would they be permitted to do so? How would you go about seceding anyway? Would it be legal to do so? What would be the consequences? Bonus questions: Which state would be most likely to seek to secede? And upon what grounds?

Who are the Evil Geniuses that Really Control Washington?

Via Marc Ambinder, here's what the new Politics of Hope* has to say for itself: *Of course Hillary Clinton really is the candidate favoured by much of the Democratic establishment. But that's at least partly because, for better or worse, she's something of a known quantity. Beyond platitudes and an apparently limitless belief in the transformational power of his personality (something that might concern some people) it remains hard to say exactly what Barack Obama is for. He's a great symbol and he might well prove a better President than Clinton (not necessarily such a high bar to clear, granted), but...

The New British Invasion: Or, Thoughts on the Duty of Opposition, the Responsibility of Newspapers and Why the Netroots are Just Like the London Tabloids

Via the admirable Mr E, I find Matthew Parris offering some sound advice to the Tories. Parris, one of the most urbane journalists working in London, found himself making an argument he didn't, on reflection, quite believe: Here was the wise argument: “David Cameron and his Conservative colleagues were entitled to their half-hour of fun at Prime Minister’s Questions, at Brown’s expense. They landed their punches. But they should not think this will serve as opposition policy for the next two years. ‘Hah-nah-nah’ does not add up to a manifesto, and the British electorate dislike knockabout. “After a deserved week of crowing, the Tories should now return to fleshing out their own policy platform.

Swing Low, Sweet Chariot* (I think)

Rugby World Cup blogging: well, that was a disappointing weekend wasn't it? For the second tournament in a row both semi-finals went the way I didn't want them so. Such is life. So England vs South Africa it is. Both semi-finals demonstrated that it is easier to win games form a defensive posture than was the case even four years ago. The balance between defence and attack, out of kilter for much of the last decade, has been restored. One could add France's victory over New Zealand and Scotland's at home to England in 2006 as other examples of this trend. On the whole this is healthy for the game.

Three Yanks and you are out?

So, yes, the bloody New York Yankees came a cropper. Smirk all you like. They remain my American League peeps. It is, as I explain, all Dubya's fault. Give me death before you give me more Boston gloating...

Cameron vs Brown

Video of yesterday's assault on Gordon Brown. A friend emails: By god, Cameron destroyed Brown. Michael Howard on the Newnight panel astutely pointed out that Blair would have made a self-deprecating remark that would have admitted the charge, but defused the pressure. It is so true. Remember Blair's remark about Cherie and the allegation that she shouted 'That's a lie' whilst watching GB's speech last year where he paid tribute to TB? Blair came out with the line 'At least I don't have to worry about her running off with the next door neighbour.' It admitted the fundamental truth, but killed the story dead.

Who remembers the Armenians?

I'd been quietly, if feebly, sympathetic towards some of the realpolitik concerns about the forthcoming Congressional vote on recognising the Armenian genocide. Then the Washington Post came out fighting. Apparently the resolution is "Worse than Irrelevant" The Post chuntered that Congressman Adam Schiff, the driving force behind the resolution thanks to the vociferous lobbying of US-Armenians in his California district (mere parochialism according to the Post because of course it's stupid to listen to one's constituents...) is up to no good. Worse still, the paper sneered: How many House members can be expected to carefully weigh Mr. Schiff's one-sided "findings" about long-ago events in Anatolia? Apparently given: the high risk to vital U.S.

Those Damn Yankees, cont…

A friend emails me some more George W Bush-New York Yankee parallels: Blowing 3-0 lead [in the 2004 ALDS] = Squandering of good will after 9/11 Signings of Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright = Nominations of Bernie Kerik and Harriet Miers A-Rod in October = "Heckuva Job Brownie" during Katrina Mike Mussina degrading from 6 pitch force to junkballer = Colin Powell Cheng Ming Wang game 1 starter = $3 trillion debt owned by China Torre giving playing time to Bernie Williams long after his skills were gone = Bush sticking with Alberto Gonzales Overmatched Marlins in 2003 = Iraqi insurgency Firing of Torre = Firing of Shinseki Do add your own in the comments.

A (Rather Good) Bit of Fry…

Stephen Fry has a blog? Ye gods, whatever next? That said, he may not have quite mastered either the brevity or the frequency elements of the gig. Still, absorbing stuff. Or something.  Certainly it ain't your average celeb-blog. What may be the world's longest post on Smartphones ever written by a Cambridge Footlight, concludes: As the General Confession in the Book of Common Prayer has it, “I have followed too much the devices and desires of my own heart.” Amen. Then there's a lengthy - but very warm and very wise -  rumination on fame which, well, you'll just have to read for yourself. But here's a fun story: I’ll start with a story that illustrates exactly one aspect of that point.

They don’t like it up ’em, you know

The House of Commons returned today with the first Prime Minister's Questions since the party conference season. And, as expected, it was a corker. Sometimes the Punch and Judy show remains great entertainment - and provides a telling snapshot of the respective health of the major combatants. This was one of those occasions. The first Tory to ask a question drew attention to his local council's excellent recycling record and asked the Prime Minister if he fancied visiting "some of our bottle banks". Ha! Then it was David Cameron's turn: could he capitalise on the Prime Minister's embarrassment over the election-that-never-was and his pilfering of Tory proposals on inheritance tax?  It turns out he could. Cameron pummelled Gordon Brown mercilessly.

The Lady Wasn’t For Turning (Thank God).

Tyler Cowen takes a look at Paul Krugman's book and says Krugman isn't prepared to think broadly on the question of why conservatism triumphed in the 1980s: Conservatism rose in the 1980s in large part because the mid to late 1970s were such an economic mess and because American had lost so much relative status internationally.  Krugman won't face up to that; instead he blames the Republican manipulation of "the race card," even though at the time racial tensions arguably were lower than ever before.  Of course in a relatively close election any single factor can be called decisive but I found this discussion well below the standards of the political science literature, even the popular political science literature.