Tony Blair's Riotous Legacy

The grainy black and white photograph on the front page of the New York Times showed firemen silhouetted against a burning building, flames rising high into the night sky.  I had seen similar pictures many times before – of London during the Blitz.  But this photograph was taken not in 1940, but earlier this week, as gangs of thugs looted and set ablaze buildings throughout the capital.

The flames had barely died down before politicians and commentators weighed in with their analysis.  Most cited poverty as a leading cause. Some portrayed it as a racial conflict.  Others cited the austerity measures introduced by David Cameron’s coalition government.  All of this is superficial and unhelpful.

Britain has a structure of social welfare benefits that are generous by most standards; the youths who looted stores in London this week used expensive cell phones to communicate their plans to one another. They targeted not the necessities of life but the luxuries – jewelry, plasma TVs, $200 trainers.  The mob included men and women from all ethnic groups and, it appears, some from well-to-do neighborhoods, with decent jobs. Poverty and race are not the issues here.  Nor is the government’s austerity program.  

It’s all too easy to blame Cameron. His government failed to respond quickly and forcefully to the first wave of rioting. Both Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg were overseas on vacation when the problems began.  So too was Teresa May, the Home Secretary, as was Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London.  Apparently a holiday in the UK isn’t good enough for the likes of them, and it took Cameron and Johnson three days to decide to take a plane home – that’s at least two days too many.  The government’s initial response to the crisis betrayed a startling complacency and ineptitude.  And it can’t have helped that the Metropolitan Police Force currently lacks a Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, both having recently resigned in the wake of the News International phone hacking scandal.

But while the government’s immediate reaction, or lack thereof, clearly contributed to the sense of impunity with which the thugs went about their business, the cause of this lawlessness can’t simply be laid at Cameron’s door.  I believe the rioting was merely a symptom of a condition that has been growing in Britain for years.  And if you want a particular politician to hold accountable, look no further than Tony Blair.

Blair is a lot like Barack Obama. A lot of lofty talk but little evidence of real conviction.  He had some top-notch speechwriters, and did a good job delivering their work product.  They gave him some good one-liners.  For example, who can forget “Tough on Crime - Tough on the Causes of Crime”?  Well Blair apparently did.  If he actually did think about the causes of crime during his ten years in office, he did little to address them.  In fact, he made matters worse.  On a superficial level, for example, his response to the growing problem of anti-social behavior related to binge drinking was to eliminate licensing laws, enabling the louts who commit the offenses to drink all day long. Doubtless it pleased the powerful brewing industry, but it was a foolish move. Blair naively claimed it would promote a "cafe culture" in Britain, but it merely exacerbated the problems of booze-related crime.  But there are other, more profound, factors at work here.

One of Britain’s perennial problems has been its lack of social mobility and the sense of alienation it creates among those toward the foot of the pecking order.  This became more pronounced under Blair.  Not only did Britain continue to languish at the bottom of the list among developed countries in terms of social mobility, but during his period in office the gap between rich and poor (which had actually declined slightly under the Conservative government of John Major) grew again.  Under Blair, earnings of the top 20% rose at twice the rate, in percentage terms, of the bottom 20%, continuing a trend that began in earnest under Margaret Thatcher.  Over the last 20 years, the ratio of earnings of the top 20% to the bottom 20% has grown from 15:1 to 75:1.  How did Blair feel about that?  In an illuminating interview with the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, Blair was asked a simple question – whether it is acceptable for the gap between rich and poor to widen.  This should be an easy question for any Prime Minister, especially one who purports to be a member of the Labour Party; but not for Blair.   Despite Paxman’s persistence (and Jeremy is nothing if not persistent - he asked Blair the question no less than 12 times), Blair simply couldn’t bring himself to say “no”. And after leaving office, in a 2010 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Blair expressly rejected the concept of progressive taxation and redistribution in favor of stimulating the economy by lowering tax rates on the wealthy.  

Blair did indeed slash taxes on capital gains and corporate income, and tax collections as a percentage of GDP fell to their lowest level in living memory during his period in office.  Stripped to its core, Blair’s philosophy, like that of his mentor George W. Bush, is simply that a rising tide lifts all the boats.  It’s not only discredited as an economic theory, but it’s one that one implicitly values personal rights over civic responsibilities and elevates greed from a deadly sin to an essential driver of economic growth. 

Under Blair, this strategy lead (or at least significantly contributed) to the development of a society driven by materialism and short-term self-interest, a society in which it became acceptable, for example, for bankers to pocket obscene bonuses while driving their companies to the brink of extinction.  No one personifies this new paradigm of greed and self-interest better than Blair himself.  He has parlayed his so-called “public service” into a substantial business empire built on lucrative speaking engagements.  A 2010 report in Britain’s Daily Mail disclosed that Blair, since leaving office, had channeled “tens of millions of pounds” through various tax-haven companies he controls, while taking advantage of loopholes in UK corporate law to avoid disclosure. 

Another element of Blair’s legacy was the introduction of university tuition fees, a de facto regressive tax that Blair’s Tory predecessor, John Major, had summarily rejected. True, the rates have increased substantially under Cameron, but it is always easier for a government to raise the rate of an existing tax than to introduce a new one.  At the end of the day it was Blair who opened the door to a structure of tuition fees that will increasingly put quality higher education beyond the financial reach of the less-affluent members of society and thereby ensure Britain remains mired at the bottom of the social mobility table. 

The Britain than David Cameron inherited from New Labour is one in which there is an ever-decreasing correlation between work and reward, between morality and success.  People read about MPs fiddling their expenses and party leaders dispensing honours in exchange for campaign contributions; they read about reckless bankers pocketing huge bonuses. They see a drunken Duchess of York caught on hidden camera attempting to peddle influence for cold cash. They read about the millions in public funds frittered on royal weddings, the purposeless taxpayer-funded junkets of the Duke of York and the tax handouts dispensed to wealthy individuals and corporations, while ordinary people are told to make do with less. They learn how leaders of both major parties cozied up to a crooked news organization in an attempt to gain its coveted endorsement. The hear about police officers taking bungs from seedy journalists in return for inside information. In short, they see greed and impunity at work in all quarters. And in what is becoming a “take what you can get” society, the rioters decided to take what they could get.

David Cameron was right to stress the need for parents to instill in their children the meaning of right and wrong, and respect for law and order.  But the government needs to lead by example.  The thugs who rioted in London and other cities need to be dealt with harshly.  But so too do those of greater rank or wealth who break the law or breach the public trust.  And Cameron should take last week's riots as a salutary reminder of the greater problems that lie ahead if government attempts to balance the budget on the backs of those who already have least, while those with the most get a free ride.  

The Debt Ceiling Debacle

It was Winston Churchill who is reputed to have remarked that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.  Were he alive today and witnessing the great debt ceiling debate, Churchill might well form a different conclusion.  Because there can be little doubt that the best argument against democracy is witnessing a 5-minute cable TV interview with the average member of the Tea Party caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I don’t know whether these people lack the capacity to understand the fundamentals of the economic system we live in, or whether their unrelenting hatred of Barack Obama simply makes them oblivious to the facts.  Whatever the cause, they seem to inhabit a world disconnected from the realities of the economy and of government. They are incapable of even discussing the issue other than through meaningless clichés – about government “living within its means” (which it was doing, by the way, before George W. Bush took office), cutting off “Obama’s blank check”, etc.  Until last night, there was hope that the Republicans in the Senate would finally show some semblance of responsibility and agree to negotiate a debt ceiling increase based on the bill proposed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.  But to the surprise of all pundits, his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell announced he would not negotiate with Reid and that the Republicans would actually filibuster the debt ceiling bill – which has 59 votes in support, 1 shy of the number required to pass almost any legislation in the Senate these days.

What makes McConnell’s action so inexplicably irresponsible is that the Republicans have already won the debate but don’t seem to know it.  In the past, debt ceiling increases have been routine measures, as they should be.  All they do in effect is permit the Treasury to borrow the money necessary to fund the programs Congress has already authorized, and which the President is constitutionally required to carry out.  That’s why all of this talk about “blank checks” is such nonsense.  In this case, the Republicans demanded at an early stage in the debate that a debt ceiling increase be linked to deficit reduction, and Obama’s agreement to negotiate with John Boehner established that the battle would be fought according to the Tea Party rules.  It was the equivalent of taking the “public option” off the table before the health care negotiation had started.  But it got worse.  Rather than demanding that cuts in spending be matched dollar-for-dollar by revenue increases, the White House’s opening gambit was a three-to-one ratio, and over time Obama retreated further, eventually demanding only the repeal of accelerated depreciation allowances for corporate jets and the elimination of largely unspecified tax benefits for oil and gas companies.  There was even talk that Obama would agree to changes in Social Security benefits – an unacceptable prospect for most Democrats and ironic given that the Social Security trust fund is one of the principal domestic creditors of the Federal government.  But none of this was good enough for the Republicans.

For someone supposedly schooled in the art of brass knuckles Chicago politics, Obama has demonstrated remarkable ineptitude and timidity in negotiating with the Repubicans.  Time after time, the velvet glove has concealed merely a velvet fist.  And in this case, Obama lacks any real moral authority to preach against the dangers of a default by the United States, since he also voted against raising the debt ceiling during his short tenure in the U.S. Senate.  Perhaps he did so comfortable in the knowledge that the measure would pass anyway because others would act more responsibly, but that would differentiate him from the Tea Party only to the extent that they can at least can claim the courage of their convictions.

What we now are now left with is a bill proposed by the Senate Majority Leader that gives Republicans everything they had originally asked for, and more.  Trillions in spending cuts, no revenue increases and a mechanism for further deficit reduction down the road.  But it lacks the component that the Tea Party has decided, within the last few days, is necessary if they are to support any increase in the debt ceiling -  a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.  This is a foolish proposal that was last seriously mooted by Ronald Reagan, who, in his eight years in office, never once actually submitted a balanced budget to Congress.  The way to a balanced budget is not by amending the constitution, but by looking at what was done the last time the budget was balanced - by Bill Clinton - and by reversing the measures taken by the inept Bush administration that were responsible for taking it back into deficit.

But back to the debt ceiling.  There is and always has been a simple and straightforward solution.  Obama should instruct Harry Reid to let his compromise legislation die.  He should then act unilaterally, using the authority apparently granted under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and instruct Treasury Secretary Geithner to go out and borrow as much money as needed to pay the bills Congress has already racked up.  This is a post Civil War measure not invoked in recent times, and Obama foolishly questioned, at a news conference some weeks ago, whether it could be used in this case.  But he should heed the advice of Bill Clinton, who knows much more about the art of government than Obama ever will;  invoke the amendment, raise the debt ceiling, and dare the courts to stop him.  The United States would avoid default, the spending cuts would be off the table, and deficit reduction could be addressed in a mature and measured manner.  It might also teach the Tea Party crowd a lesson about the nature of government and the consequences of just saying “no”.

The Greed Factor

As if the Euro Zone didn’t have enough to worry about, the Wall Street Journal reports today that a large European hedge fund has made a massive bet against the Euro by purchasing $1 billion worth of “put” options.  Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP will have the right to require the put counterparty to purchase Euros from it at a predetermined price at a specified future date.  Brevan Howard is betting that the value of the Euro will fall in the meantime, and that it will make a profit by purchasing Euros in the market when the put comes due, and selling them at the price specified in the put.      

      

Financial regulators and tax authorities worldwide need to put a stop to this predatory currency speculation.  When a financial institution publicly bets against a currency, it relies in part on the theory of the self-fulfilling prophesy.  By purchasing puts or selling short, it is telling the market it expects the currency to fall in value.  Other traders, already jittery about the potential default of Greece and the effect such a default would have on the Euro, will see Brevan Howard’s action as further confirmation of the likely fall in value of the currency and will move to exit while they still have time - thereby contributing to the fall in value, and to the speculators’ profits. 

This is not a new game.  In September 1992, the notorious speculator George Soros made a tidy $1 billion by short selling Sterling. His actions contributed to the “Black Friday” crisis when the rapid fall in the value of its currency forced the UK to withdraw from the ERM.  Soros now likes to play the role of philanthropist. He dispenses a few millions of his profits here and there to charities of one sort or another.  He also (and this is perhaps the ultimate irony) gives his financial support to various progressive and left-wing causes.  But don’t be fooled.  He and people like him are vultures, raking in massive profits at the expense of working men and women (and those who would today be working but for the economic crisis brought about by the greed, dishonesty and irresponsibility of the financial sector).  Currency speculation does not help create jobs, and does not contribute to GDP.  It creates no new wealth; it simply redistributes more of the existing wealth to those who already enjoy a disproportionate share of it.

That’s why regulators need to move quickly and in unison to stamp out these predatory practices. Currency derivative transactions can serve an important business purpose, for example by allowing multinational corporations to protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations.  But transactions that are not intended primarily to serve a legitimate business purpose should be illegal, “puts” and “calls” purchased for purposes of speculation should be unenforceable, and any profits derived by currency speculators taxed at 100%. 

It is intolerable that the continued and unabashed greed of currency speculators should be permitted to stand in the way of governmental efforts to clean up the mess the financial sector itself created.  It is equally intolerable that governments continue to let them get away with it. 

Reforming the Voting System

Reasonable people may wonder who chose the week following that of the royal wedding for a referendum the outcome of which could have the most significant effect on the British electoral system since the Great Reform Act of 1832. It was no great surprise that in recent days the subject of the referendum - a proposal to replace the so-called "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" or "AV" process - has played second fiddle to speculation over such pressing issues as what Kate's dress would look like.  But at least discussion over the dress was civilized.  Much of what little discussion there has been over AV has seemingly been intended to scare, rather than educate, the electorate. Politicians of all stripe, but especially those on the right, have done a real disservice to the voters.

Dave and Nick - Is their "Gay Wedding" headed for the Rocks  over AV?

The referendum is the major (and some may say the only) significant concession the Liberal Democrats were able to extract from David Cameron in return for joining in a coalition government with the Conservatives. LibDems have long criticized the current system of single round voting under which a candidate can be elected to Parliament with less than 50% of the vote cast in his or her constituencty. Under AV, voters would rank candidates in order of preference, and a majority - not a plurality – of votes would be required to secure election. If the leading candidate failed to garner sufficient votes on the initial round, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated and his or her votes redistributed based on their voters' preferences, and so on until one candidate passed the 50% mark.

Both systems have merits and drawbacks, but the position of the major political parties appears to be based largely on self interest.

The LibDems strongly back AV, because it would result in their gaining a greater representation in Parliament.  The non-partisan British Election Study estimates that had the last election been fought under AV rules, the LibDems would have gained a net 32 seats, taking their total from 57 to 89.  The two major parties would both have lost seats - the Conservatives a net loss of 22 and Labour a net loss of 10.  The Tories oppose AV for precisely the reason the LibDems support it.  The Labour Party is split between those who take a long-term view and support the existing system simply because, like the Conservatives, they benefit from it, and those who look to derive short-term strategic advantage from the outcome of the referendum. The short-term thinkers are, in turn, divided on how to vote.  Success for "no" would deal a body blow to Nick Clegg, who badly needs to deliver victory on AV to justify to disgruntled LibDem members his decision  to enter into a coalition with the Tories.  On the other hand, success for "yes" would embarrass David Cameron among the Tory rank and file, who never wanted a referendum in the first place.  One Labour politician summarized the strategic quandry facing his colleagues by reciting a joke doing the rounds in Labour circles:  if you come upon a Tory and a LibDem standing side by side on the edge of a cliff, whom do you push over first?  The answer:  the Tory, of course, because business should always come before pleasure!

The arguments have shaped up along the following lines. Supporters of AV claim that the existing system results in unrepresentative government.  The facts support their case.  in the last election the LibDems' tally of 23% of the popular vote translated into less than 10% of the seats at Westminster.  True, their 57 seats were sufficient to gain them a place in the coalition, but had the election been fought under AV, the LibDems could have entered into a coalition with Labour, the party with which they are philosophically more closely aligned. Proponents of first-past-the-post say it is simple and fair; AV, they claim, is more complicated and is unfair because (i) it would permit the election of MPs who gained fewer first choice votes than other candidates, and (ii) would allow some voters to vote more than once (i.e., as their votes are redistributed to other candidates on a second or subsequent round of counting). AV also, or so they argue, favors "extremist" parties.

The facts clearly favor AV.  However, debates are shaped by the terminology used to define the issues, and “first-past-the-post” sounds like an inherently fair and reasonable system.  It evokes images of a horserace (that most British of sporting pasttimes), and who would deny that the first horse to cross the line deserves the winner’s purse?  The problem is that in a parliamentary election, unlike the racetrack, there is no “post” to be first past, at least not a fixed post.  Under the current system, the “post” is whatever number of votes the highest polling candidate happens to get.  If he or she achieves a majority, the post is 50% plus one.  But if the winner is elected simply with a plurality, the post could be 45%, 40% or even lower.  By contrast, AV really is a first-past-the-post contest, with the post fixed at 50% plus one. As it should be.

At the heart of the debate, though I haven’t seen it expressed in these terms, lies a fundamental conundrum about the role of a Member of Parliament in Britain’s constitutional system.  Under the constituency model, the MP is charged with representing the views of his or her specific constituents in Parliament.  The local MP is the person can people turn to if they are having a problem dealing with their local authorities.  A question asked in the Commons, or an MP's letter to a Minister, may influence a local planning decision.  Viewed simply at the constituency level, the existing system probably does make sense - or at least the argument for change is not so compelling as to offset its undoubted simplicity.  But when voters cast their vote for a parliamentary candidate they are also indirectly voting for a Prime Minister, a Cabinet, and the policies they bring with them.  And therein lies the problem with first-past-the-post.  On a national, as opposed to constituency, level, the fact that MPs can be elected merely with a plurality of the vote results in the effective disenfranchisement of a large section of the populace who do not vote for either of the two major parties.  The situation is actually even worse than the raw figures indicate, because many people end up voting for the Labour or Conservative candidate simply because they believe a vote for the LibDems or some other party would be "wasted".  Adoption of AV wouldn't solve this problem, but it would help, and it would better balance the merits of true proportional representation against the benefits of Britain's traditional constituency system.  (A further step forward would be to replace the existing House of Lords, currently crammed - literally -to overflowing with aging party grandees and political cronies, with an elected chamber utilizing larger multi-member constituencies and a system of proportional representation.)

I believe AV would have some ancillary benefits too.  Asking voters to rank candidates rather than pick out a single name could encourage voters to examine the policies of all parties more critically and could foster informed debate.  Candidates themselves would have a greater incentive to reach out to all voters, not merely the party faithful.

Cameron argues that it would be "unfair" if the first choice candidate isn't elected, but that supposed "unfairness" has to be weighed against the fact that two thirds of sitting MPs were elected with less than 50% of the vote.  Is that "fair"? And at a time when public cynicism of politics is the order of the day, voters are increasingly likely to cast votes strategically and vote against the candidate they don't like, rather than in favor of the one they do.  In other words, first choice may not really mean first choice.  I think AV clearly wins the fairness test.  And as a Labour MP pointed out in the Commons last week, if David Cameron believes it is unfair if the candidate with the highest number of first choices isn't elected, he should resign his post in favor of  David Davis, who beat him in the first round of balloting for leadership of the Conservative party.  It took three rounds of voting for Cameron to "pass the post" and secure a majority of votes.  If AV is good enough to elect the Tory leader (and his Labour counterpart), can it really be that "unfair"?

The argument that AV would allow some people to vote more than once is downright silly.  Everyone's vote is counted in each round; those who support the first-round front runner still have their votes counted if a second round is required.  And the suggestion that AV would favor extremist parties is groundless scare-mongering.  In fact the odious British National Party has joined Cameron is opposing a change in the current system.  It is telling that when all's said and done the best argument Cameron can muster in favor of first-past-the-post is its "simplicity".

Whatever the outcome, the future of the coalition looks less than rosy.  The debate over AV has taken on a decidedly nasty tone and the once cosy relationship between "Dave and Nick" (so cosy, in fact, that their first joint news conferece in the garden of Number 10 was likened to a gay marriage) now looks decidedly frosty.  Senior LibDem figures have appealed to Labour supporters to join them in defeating the "forces of reaction" - i.e., the very people with whom they have chosen to join in government.  These comments won't quickly be forgotten quickly, whatever the outcome. Let's be clear. I have no sympathy with the current LibDem leadership, who fought the last election with arguably the most progressive agenda of all three parties, yet sacrificed most of it in a second in return for a handful of seats at Cameron's Cabinet table.  It's easy to understand why many in the Labour party would like to see Nick Clegg humbled.  But the principle is too important to allow the outcome of the vote to turn on short-term political advantage.  Let's hope Clegg & Co. win this one.

Born in the USA

Say what you will about Barack Obama's performance as President of the United States, you have to give him credit for a masterful performance this week in his handling of the "birth certificate" issue.

Memo to Trump - Be Careful What You Wish For

After years of demanding release of Obama's "long form" birth certificate, Republicans finally got what they wanted - or, rather, didn't want.  Tea Party members and the other assorted right wing nut jobs, who seem to comprise an increasingly large portion of the Republican Party these days, have for months been arguing that the "short form" certificate that Obama released two years ago was - for reasons never explained - invalid, even though as a legal matter it constitutes proof of birth in the U.S.  The conspiracy theorists who maintained that Obama was actually born in Kenya, Indonesia or wherever, pointed to the non-disclosure of the long-form certificate as proof of their case.  With a few notable exceptions - Mitt Romney among them - Republican leaders who could have put a stop to the nonsense long ago, didn't have the guts to risk alienating the fringe. They parsed their words carefully.  They conceded when pressed that they "took the President at his word" but suggested in the same breath that others were justified in questioning it.

Then enter stage (far) right Donald Trump, the self-promoting real estate developer and TV reality show performer, who is supposedly flirting with a run for the Presidency.  Trump is a buffoon and has no serious policy proposals to offer, but he knows the "birther" issue plays well to a lot of the people who vote in Republican primaries, not to mention Fox News. Traipsing back and forth across the country with the media in tow, Trump elevated the issue of Obama's place of birth to front page headlines.  He claimed to have hired investigators to go to Hawaii to poke around.  He suggested darkly they had uncovered an lot of interesting information that Trump would reveal "in due course".  In response to a question as to whether he would disclose his tax returns (many observers question whether Trump has anywhere near the "several billions" he claims and the tax returns would throw some light on this) he promised to do so if Obama disclosed his long form birth certificate.  On Wednesday, as Trump prepared to give a press conference in New Hampshire, at which he would no doubt have beaten the "birther" drum yet again, the White House suddenly released the long form certificate and Barack Obama convened a news conference of his own.

The news media carried two sharply contrasting images that night.  The first was Trump, who leads some Republican opinion polls, pontificating in front of a battery of microphones about how he deserved credit for accomplishing something that nobody else had been able to do - securing release of the birth certificate. But without missing a beat he segued immediately into his next conspiracy theory:  how did Obama, who he had "heard" didn't get good grades at school, end up going to Columbia University and Harvard Law School.  The racial sub-text, namely that Obama may have been an undeserving beneficiary of affirmative action, is obvious and repugnant.

The second image was of Obama, behind his Presidential podium, jacket off and sleeves rolled up, earnestly vowing that he won't allow debate over the nations's pressing economic problems to be be sidetracked by "sideshows and carnival barkers".  He didn't mention Trump by name, but he didn't have to.  The reference was dismissive, almost contemptuous, and deservedly so.

Political pundits continue to debate why the White House chose to release the document when it did.  Some say they shouldn't have done it, that it showed weakness and will open the door to yet more demands - for academic transcripts, for example.  Others point to polls showing that a quarter of the electorate doubted whether Obama was born in the U.S.  Some said he should have released it earlier.

But I think Obama handled the release of the birth certificate to perfection.  He allowed Trump and his acolytes at Fox News just enough time to renew the phony debate over the birth certificate issue to remind independent voters how extreme and out of touch with reality the Republican party has become.  The Republicans duly obliged, and Obama cut them off at the knees.  He made them look foolish.  They compounded that appearance by the absurd charge that the White House only made public the long-form birth certificate public in order to distract attention from the nation's economic problems.  And wi

Rather than concede defeat, some on the right (aided, of course, by Fox News) are now questioning the authenticity of the birth certificate or, like Trump, questioning the President's academic credentials.    They apparently haven't heard the old adage that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging.

Another Royal Pain

Wedding guest lists can cause controversy in the best of families, but leave it to the bungling Windsor clan to create a right royal screw-up over theirs.  As belt-tightening Britons prepare to endure the tasteless display of wealth, privilege and social-climbing also know as the Royal Wedding, release of the guest list caused many of them to wonder about the kind of people the groom’s family apparently counts among its friends.  

Invited - King Mswati III

Amidst the usual clutter of B List celebrities, sports figures, and "socialites" (whatever they may be) is an assortment of autocratic despots such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain (who sent his regrets) and the King of Swaziland (presumably with all of his 13 wives).  Zimbabwe’s ambassador to the UK, who represents a regime currently subject to EU sanctions, will also be in attendance.  Meanwhile, President Barack Obama was overlooked – so much for the “special relationship”.  Former Tory Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major made the cut, but their Labour counterparts Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did not.

Snubbed - Pres. Obama

In the face of the predictable public outcry over the welcome being extended to unsavory foreign rulers and the omission of the likes of Obama and Blair, the Palace’s spin doctors stressed that the wedding is a private rather than state function and that the guest list had been largely drawn up by the couple themselves.  Hence the exclusion of Obama.  Really?  That almost makes matters worse.  If the guest list was indeed a function of personal choice rather than diplomatic protocol, inclusion of leaders from places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Swaziland is a damning indictment of the Mountbatten-Windsors' choice in friends.  But as usual the maladroit monarchy can’t get its story straight even on this issue.  For example, the inclusion of Thatcher and Major, and the exclusion of Blair and Brown, was officially attributed to the technicality that the former two hold the anachronistic title of "Knight of the Garter", whereas the latter two do not.  But neither do the likes of Elton John, David Beckam, or the assorted former girlfriends and wealthy foreign “businessmen” that comprise Charles’ personal invitees.  But above all, if this is indeed a “private” function, why is the hard-pressed British taxpayer yet again being stuck with the tab – estimated to reach $45 million – to provide policing and security for the personal guests of one of the richest families in England?

Dotty - Father of the Groom

The standard line among supporters of the monarchy is that these royal events are worth every penny because they add a little color and excitement to the otherwise drab and dreary existences of the hoi poloi who actually end up paying for them.  Such condescension adds insult to injury, especially during a period in which unemployment remains high and public services are being slashed.  David Cameron has sweetened the pot this time around by proclaiming a national public holiday in honour of the nuptials, but according to the latest polls the majority of Britons won’t be spending it watching the overblown event on television.  The government recently announced plans to review the archaic rules regarding the law of royal succession, which date back to 1701. That review long overdue, but why not go a step further and announce a referendum on whether the British people want ANY form of royal succession?

He'll Be Back

When a high profile politician does something that unites in opposition the party bosses from one end of the political spectrum to the other, it's a safe bet he's looking after the people's interests.  Who can claim this rare accolade?  Step forward California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger was one of the moving forces behind a California ballot referendum proposal,  Proposition 14, that was approved in that state's primary election last  week by a majority of 54% to 46%.  Although the political pundits focused on the outcome of a few specific primary contests,  Proposition 14 will likely have a more profound long-term impact on U.S. politics than any individual race, especially if other states follow California's lead.  

Proposition 14 changes the way in which Californians will elect candidates to statewide and Congressional office by replacing the traditional "primary" system with a two-stage general election.  The function of the primary election is to pick the candidates that will represent each party in the general election.   Rules differ from state to state, but the general principle is that a voter has to chose which party primary to vote in, and in many cases must register his or her affiliation with that party on or prior to the primary day.  In many states  a party affiliation,  one registered, can be changed only if the voter complies with certain bureaucratic formalities some time prior to the primary election date.  In place of this system, California will now have a two-stage open election in which anyone that meets the applicable eligibility criteria could stand as a candidate.  The candidates with the highest and second highest votes in the first round would then advance to the second round of voting - even if both were from the same party (or, indeed, from no party at all).

Supporters of the measure claim it will makes politics less partisan and allow voters to focus on the qualifications of the individual candidates.  It will empower individual voters at the expense of party bosses, increase voter turnout at elections and sharply reduce the need for candidates to pander to extremist fringe groups in order to get elected.  It will help open up the system to candidates who are not lifelong professional politicians and aren't beholden to others once they get elected.  I agree, and so apparently do the party bosses - that's why they opposed it, with dire warnings that Proposition 14 will not only increase the costs of elections but will also eliminate freedom of choice and abridge the freedom of speech!  Such threats could only be made in the Kafkaesque world of American politics, where the  "freedom" political parties value most is the freedom they currently enjoy to control the outcome of elections.

To understand the absurdity of the primary system the bosses want to retain, consider the primary election in which I had the opportunity to "vote"last week.  In my electoral district there were seven positions on the primary ballot, ranging from township government to the U.S. House of Representatives (neither of New Jersey's U.S. Senators face re-election this year).  One the Democratic side of the ballot, all seven positions were uncontested - i.e., there was no choice for the voters to exercise.  It was a ballot Joe Stalin would have been proud of.  It was almost as bad on the Republican side; only one position was contested.  The situation was similar throughout the state - which is why the turnout was dismal - only 7 percent in the county I live in.  Although voters seem to be sick and tired of politicians in general, the re-election rate for Congressional incumbents is over 90 percent.  Blame that on the grip that the party machine exercises over the primary process. 

Even where there is a genuine primary contest, primary elections tend to attract a lower voter turnout, and thus the party activists exercise disproportionate influence over who runs in the general election.   True, a politician who loses a primary can run as an independent in the general election;  Joe Lieberman did, and won.  But it rarely happens - challenging the official party candidate in a general election usually signals the end of a political career.  And because middle-of-the-road and unaffiliated voters are less likely to vote in a primary, the major party candidates tend to favor the extreme wing of their party.

This is particularly true in the case of the Republicans, where the party organization has hijacked in recent years by extremist fringe groups like the so-called "Moral Majority" and more recently the Tea Party crowd.  Such is the new found influence of the Tea Party that Republicans are finding it increasingly difficult to pick candidates that appeal to the key swing voters who often decide the outcome of general elections.   Rand Paul's recent victory in the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky is a case in point.  A self-defined libertarian (albeit one now officially disowned by the Libertarian Party), Rand won the primary with the strong backing of the Tea Partiers.  He's an interesting character; in the warm afterglow of his primary victory, he confided to interviewers his view that private business owners should be free to discriminate against minorities because, after all, it's their business.  Following the predictable public outcry, the Republican party dispatched its spin doctors to muzzle Mr. Paul, who has since wisely confined his media appearances to the likes of Fox News, where sympathetic hosts have given him the opportunity to explain how his comments were "misunderstood", "taken out of context" and misrepresented by the "liberal media".  Republican  party bosses may wishing they'd had a Proposition 14-style system in place in Kentucky.  They are now stuck with Rand Paul and Kentucky Democrats must be licking their lips in anticipation of the fall general election.

Democratic bosses in Pennsylvania dodged a bullet when their efforts to clear the way for aging political turncoat Arlen Specter came up short and primary voters opted instead for Rep. Joe Sestak.  The Democratic "leadership" tried everything to keep Sestak out of the race - Obama even offered him a cushy post in the Administration if he would stand aside - but he stood his ground, and the party, despite itself, will have an engaging and well-qualified candidate on the ballot in the fall, someone who represents the Democratic Party's future, not the Republican Party's past.  Sestak's case, unfortunately, is the exception not the rule.

But back to California and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

It's rare for politicians to put the electorate's interests ahead of their own, and cynics may see more than a hint of self-interest in Schwarzenegger's support for Proposition 14.  Now in his second term as California's governor he is ineligible to run again for re-election in November, and will be looking for future employment opportunities.  He may fancy his chances against incumbent U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has to face the voters in 2012.  Schwarzenegger knows he likely could not win the Republican nomination in a conventional primary system - he's said as much.  He's viewed as too liberal by many of the party activists and in particular is no friend of the nut jobs in the Tea Party.  But he does have appeal among moderate democrats, especially of the well-heeled variety, among whom his marriage to a member of the Kennedy family and his status as one of the "Hollywood elite" are seen as positive credentials.  Those moderate democrats wouldn't be eligible to vote in a Republican primary, but in a two stage general election, with a higher turnout, and no voting restrictions based on registered party affiliation, my money would be on Schwarzenegger to advance comfortably, not just to the second stage of the election, but on to Washington D.C.  

It's early days yet, but don't be surprised to hear Arnold reprise his famous catch phrase as he leaves the governor's office early next year.   "I'll be back".

Looking for British Ass (to Kick)

If you still need evidence of the demise of the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the United States, look no further than the irrational torrent of invective now emanating from the Obama Administration over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Let's be clear.  The spill is a major ecological disaster that continues to get worse, rather than better, by the day.  It threatens the livelihood and way of life of thousands of Gulf Coast residents.  But for Barack Obama, it is now also becoming a major political disaster, as more questions are raised about the government's response to the spill, and the lax regulatory oversight that may have contributed to the disaster. It's worth remembering that only days before the explosion occurred, Obama had announced major reductions in the restrictions on offshore drilling.  This change in policy, which shocked many rank-and-file Democrats and delighted and surprised the oil industry, purportedly followed an exhaustive review of safety and regulatory issues.  Subsequent events suggest this review was not nearly exhaustive enough.

Recognizing the mounting public dissatisfaction with his own performance, Obama is attempting to jump on the growing anti-British bandwagon and has ratcheted up the rhetoric against BP and its embattled CEO Tony Hayward.  In an interview this week he laid into Hayward personally, advocated his dismissal, suggested that BP had "cut corners" on safety and added that he wanted to know "whose ass to kick".

It's too bad Obama didn't put on his tough guy act when health care legislation was being debated.  Had he "kicked ass" then, we might have ended up with something better than the insurance industry bailout that was cynically packaged up as a "historic" reform.  But the recent attack on BP was a crude and self-serving performance; it displayed a tone unworthy of a President of the United States, and betrayed the mentality of a politician more interested in popularity ratings than the facts.  This kind of language does nothing to contribute to cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico; but more important, it also assumes that BP is the sole culprit, a fact that is, as yet, far from clear.  So let's start by getting some facts straight.

First, we know that the blowout occurred as workers were finishing the process of pouring cement into the cavity between the side of the well and the pipe, a process known as "cementing".  For reasons not yet clear, the cement ruptured or did not set properly, causing a highly combustible mixture of oil and gas to shoot to the surface.  The cementing was the responsibility of oilfield services company Halliburton, a U.S. public company based in Houston, Texas.  The recent disaster bears more than a passing similarity to a blowout in the Timor Sea in August of 2009, in which tens of thousands of barrels of oil escaped over a ten-week period.  Haliburton was also responsible for cementing that well.  An investigation has not yet determined fault and Halliburton has refused comment.

Second, when the rig crew attempted to activate the blowout valve that is supposed to prevent this type of disaster from happening, the valve failed.  Again, the reasons for the failure are not known, but we do know that the valve was manufactured by Cameron International, another U.S. public company, also based in Houston. 

Third, the rig involved in the the accident, the Deepwater Horizon, was owned not by BP but by a company called Transocean Ltd.  Transocean is also a U.S. company, or at least it was until  December 2008, when it entered into a series of corporate transactions the effect of which was to reconstitute it as a Swiss entity, presumably to benefit from a more lenient tax regime.   However, Transocean maintains its operational office in Houston, and its shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Transocean had flagged the Deepwater Horizon in the Marshall Islands, a "flag of convenience" state where regulatory requirements are less onerous.  Of the 126 workers on the rig at the time of the explosion, only 8 were BP employees.  Questions have been raised as to whether Transocean had crewed the vessel adequately at the time of the accident.

Fourth, BP is not even the sole owner of the drilling concession in question; a 35% share is owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, another U.S. publicly traded company also based in Texas.

As the concessionaire, BP is legally responsible for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon disaster and it has maintained from the very outset that it will honor all legitimate claims.  But liability and culpability are different things, and we may not know for many months who was to blame for the disaster.  It may well be that the accident was the combination of a series of unrelated events, and that all parties bear at least some responsibility.  So why is the Obama administration beating up on British Petroleum, and ignoring the other companies involved?  It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama feels a lot braver playing the role of tough guy when taking on a foreign oil company than he would one of its U.S. counterparts.  He's ready to "kick ass" at BP, but apparently afraid to ruffle too many feathers in the executive suites at Halliburton.

Administration flunkies are marching to the same tune.  Influential Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener asserted that  anyone speaking on behalf of BP with a British accent is lying to the American people.  Lackluster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar proposed that BP be prohibited from paying a dividend that has already been declared, and which it is legally obligated to pay, in order to compensate U.S. oil industry workers who have been furloughed as a result of the Administration's moratorium on offshore drilling imposed following the recent blowout.  That'll show those goddamn Brits, right?  Hardly.  It is in fact an astonishingly stupid and irresponsible suggestion, but one that nonetheless caused a further sharp decline in BP's share price this week.  Salazar and his boss should bear in mind that roughly 40 percent of BP's stock is owned by Americans; it has always been seen a "blue chip" investment, so it's safe to assume that many pension funds - American pension funds - own it.  Many individual investors - American investors - rely on the regular and healthy dividends that BP pays. Of BP's 80,000 employees worldwide, 29,000 are in the U.S., almost three times as many as in the U.K.  Punitive confiscatory sanctions against BP would harm American workers and investors as much if not more than the British.  And as to the moratorium itself, the Deepwater Horizon disaster didn't make future accidents more likely - but it did raise legitimate concerns as to the effectiveness of  regulatory oversight of the oil industry, all of which is the responsibility of - you guessed it - Ken Salazar.

The tragedy in the Gulf raises many questions, not least of which is why there was no contingency plan for such a disaster.  The various containment apparatus used in an effort to stem the flow of oil had to be designed and built after the blow-out occurred.  BP 's Tony Hayward has been his own worst enemy - some foolish comments in the aftermath of the the explosion created the impression that he failed to grasp the magnitude of the problem. But to his credit he hasn't hidden away in his London office leaving U.S. underlings to take the heat.  He has been "front and center" in the disaster response and next week faces the daunting task of testifying before the U.S. Congress.  One can criticize BP's effectiveness in response to the explosion, but I am not convinced any other company would have done better.  If found to have acted illegally or negligently, BP should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. But culpability must be determined by legal process, not Presidential finger-pointing. Obama's recent performance creates grounds for concern that BP may unfairly singled out in the criminal investigation and prosecution that the Administration is apparently already planning.

His public statements suggest that David Cameron is more intent on currying favor with the administration in Washington than in defending a British company against possible punitive and illegitimate sanctions. A performance Tony Blair would surely be proud of.  One can only hope that, in private conversations with the President, Mr Cameron will point out that the same rationale underlying the threatened U.S. measures against BP would justify similar European sanctions against the U.S. financial institutions whose reckless and fraudulent lending practices triggered an economic disaster that will cost many times more to clean up than the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico.  And as to Obama's threat to "kick ass", Cameron would do well to suggest to the President that the current crisis is better addressed with the brain than with the foot.

Keep the Change

Everywhere you look these days, there are politicians promising you "change".  In the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary campaign, Hilary Clinton was "Working for Change", then "Ready for Change".  I guess she didn't work quite hard enough, or possibly she just wasn't ready, because she lost  to Barack Obama.   Obama in turn offered Americans "Change We Can Believe In".  He must have realized that nobody actually did believe in it, because the slogan itself was the first thing he changed; first it was "Change We Need", then "Change can Happen".  Many things happen, of course, including some you wouldn't want to have likened to your candidacy,  so Obama then offered us "Change that Works for You".

Congressional Republicans weren't to be outdone.  They countered with "The Change You Deserve."  It was an odd slogan for a party that had controlled the White House for 8 years, all the more so when it was revealed that the slogan was already in use - appropriately enough, some may say - in marketing a powerful anti-depressant drug.  At least in the ensuing election Americans did get "the change they deserved".  The Republican were overwhelmingly defeated and Democrats regained control of both the White House and Congress.

Across the pond, David Cameron and the Tories pronounced 2010 as "The Year for Change",  assured voters they were "Ready for Change" and exhorted them to "Vote for Change".  The Lib-Dems also jumped on the "change" bandwagon.  But rather than waste time and money  to come up a novel twist on the old theme Clegg at al shamelessly lifted Obama's "Change that Works for You" and tacked on the clumsy non-sequitur "Building a Fairer Britain.  I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when politicians promising "change" can't even come up with an original slogan.

In the event, fewer voters than they hoped took them up on the offer, but the failure of either major party to gain an outright majority propelled the Lib-Dems into a coalition with the Tories.  "Change that Works for Us" might have been a more appropriate slogan.

But with the formation of the coalition, all that talk about "change" took on a new dimension.  The Tories and Lib-Dems, we were told, represented not just a new government but a "new kind of politics".  Does anyone seriously believe this nonsense?  The coalition is not a new kind of politics, at least not one that has any merit or longevity.  It is an interim arrangement borne of necessity that will last only as the Tories determine that it's in their interests to keep it going.  And regardless how long it does last, you can bet that the Tories won't be fighting the next election asking voters to return the coalition to power, new politics or no new politics.

The talk about "a new kind of politics" is intended to evoke images of greater transparency, less partisanship, greater accountability. Nick Clegg may be naive enough to believe in this, but his boss David Cameron certainly doesn't.  Although these are still early days, two recent incidents show that, for Cameron, it's strictly politics as usual - and politics of the worst conceivable kind.  Politics Tony Blair style.

The first example was Cameron's clumsy effort to rig the election for Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the committee of Tory back bench MPs that acts as a conduit between the leadership and rank-and-file MPs.   Cameron demanded that Ministers, contrary to tradition, be allowed to vote in the election.  His assumption presumably was that ministers would show their loyalty to the man who had given them their jobs by supporting his favored candidate.   But his high-handedness provoked anger from many back benchers already dissatisfied over policy concessions (albeit few in number) that Clegg had been able to extract in negotiating the coalition agreement. One MP described Cameron's tactics as a "mafia stitch-up"; another likened him to Robert Mugabe.  Cameron was forced to back down, and his candidate for Chairman was handily beaten by right-winger Graham Brady.  It was the worst possible outcome for Cameron.   It strengthened opposition to him in the parliamentary party and virtually assured defeat for his candidate.

They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it; the 1922 Committee fiasco was reminiscent of Tony Blair's attempt, shortly after taking office, to oust popular Labour backbench MPs Donald Anderson and Gwyneth Dunwoody as chairmen of two Commons select committees.  It triggered a revolt within the parliamentary party, and Blair was forced to back down.  Cameron, like Blair, appears to be afraid of dissent and intent on stifling potential opposition from within his own ranks, but hasn't figured our that respect, even from his own rank and file, has to be earned.  Or perhaps he just shares Blair's view that a "parliamentary democracy" is one in which parliament has to account to the government, rather than vice versa.

The second, even more baffling example occurred this week, when Cameron refused to allow a government minister to appear on the long-running weekly BBC discussion programme "Question Time".  The BBC is scrupulously careful in ensuring each panel includes a representative from each of the major parties.  On this occasion, Labour were to be represented by former Blair spin doctor Alastair Campbell.  When this came to Cameron's attention, the BBC were informed that unless the BBC replaced Campbell with a member of the shadow cabinet, the government would not allow any of its ministers to appear.  The BBC rightly refused to withdraw Campbell's invitation and the government boycotted the show.  The BBC then arranged, independent of Downing Street, for a Tory MP to participate.  Again, the worst possible outcome for Cameron.  After attempting unsuccessfully to bully the 1922 Committee he is now exposed as having attempted to bully, equally unsuccessfully the BBC. 

So this is the "new kind of politics"?  The "Change that Works for Us"?  The fact of the matter is that politicians who promise "change" insult the intelligence of the electorate.  Some change is good, but change for its own sake rarely is.  It's also a disingenuous tactic; it invites voters to make assumptions about what the party or candidate will do, without really promising anything.  A campaign slogan should say something about the party's underlying philosophy. It should tell voters what the party fundamentally stands for. "Change" is not a philosophy, and a party or politician that has to fall back on empty slogans like this either has no real philosophy (put Obama's name in that column) or just doesn't want the voters to know what it is.  Labour's slogan, "A Future Fair For All", may not have been the most artful, but at least it said something about the party.

I hope we've seen the last of this obsession with "change".   The next time one of these meaningless, tired and vacuous slogan is dragged out I hope the voters tell whoever's using it, in no uncertain terms, "Please - Keep the Change."

POSTSCRIPT - Shortly after this was posted, the Daily Telegraph reported that the second-ranking Lib-Dem Cabinet minister, David Laws, has announced his intention to repay $60,000 in "expenses" that he claimed in violation of parliamentary rules.  The improper claims were for rental accommodation in London.  In fact, Mr. Laws was residing with, and purportedly paying "rent" to. his long-term male partner.  Members are not entitled to claim as expenses rental paid to families and partners.  Mr. Laws apparently also failed initially to document claims for utilities and maintenance.  Mr Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, denies being motivated by financial gain and claims he was simply trying to keep his relationship with the man secret.  So why did he claim the expenses in the first place?  Interestingly, David Laws was the minister penciled in to appear on Question Time before Cameron's decision to boycott the show.  Could it be that the Tory-friendly Daily Telegraph had tipped off Cameron's office that the Laws story was about to break and Cameron was more concerned that Laws would be ambushed by a question about his expenses than he was about the appearance of Alastair Campbell?  Nobody caught with his hand in the public till should be permitted to occupy any public post,  let alone as a senior Treasury Minister.  Laws needs to go - today. 

Hypocrite of the Week

Kudos to former Bush White House operative Karl Rove.  By Tuesday he had already comfortably locked up the Hypocrite of the Week Award.

The Republican hatchet-man turned Fox"News" commentator (is there actually any difference?) took to the airwaves yesterday demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate Republican allegations that President Obama violated Federal anti-bribery laws by offering Congressman Joe Sestak an administration post so he would not challenge incumbent Arlen Specter in the recent Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial primary.  Sestak declined the offer and went on to beat the 80-year old Specter, a long-time professional politician, who had switched parties barely a year earlier to run as a Democrat after it became apparent he would be challenged in, and likely lose, the Republican primary. There's a man of principle for you.

When he switched parties, Specter extracted the agreement of Obama and the state party apparatus to support his re-election bid.  It was Sestak himself who revealed that the Obama administration had offered him an unspecified position to clear the way for Specter in the primary.  Obama's support for Specter turned out (predictably) to be less than fulsome, at least when he saw the opinion polls moving in Sestak's favor.  Sestak's victory is great news for the Democratic rank and file; they should be able to select their party's candidate in a free and fair election; they shouldn't have to settle for an aging political turncoat foisted on them by the party brass.  And Sestak, 20 years Specter's junior,  is exactly the kind of Senatorial candidate the Democrats should be looking for.  He is a former 3-star Navy admiral and Director of Defense Policy on Bill Clinton's National Security Council,  a compelling resume for the candidate of a party that the chicken-hawk Republicans like to smear as being "weak on defense". 

Obama's attempt to fix the primary doesn't look good - although he would justify it on the basis that he needed every Senate vote he could muster to pass health insurance legislation.  But the assertion that Obama violated criminal anti-bribery statutes is ludicrous even had it come from someone who understands what ethics is and knows the difference between politics and criminality, i.e., someone other than Karl Rove.  It is well accepted that the President has a broad discretion in picking senior administration staff.  We don't know what job Sestak was offered, but he would have been a first rate candidate for a top job at Defense, or a position on the National Security Council.  But where was Rove's concern about the anti-bribery statute when the Bush Administration was handing out public jobs, including plum ambassadorial posts, to political cronies and deep-pocket contributors who had little or no qualifications?  And Rove himself was the central figure in a series of Bush era ethics violations and scandals.  He was one of those involving in leaking, in violation of U.S. law, the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, apparently in a mean-spirited act of retaliation attack after her husband Ambassador Joe Wilson publicly debunked Administration lies that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium in Niger.  Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby was sentenced to jail after being convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements.  (His buddy Bush commuted the sentence.  All criminals should have friends in such high places.)  Rove himself was  investigated for perjury after e-mail evidence indicated that he had "forgotten" to disclose key information to a grand jury investigating the affair.  Rove was also linked with the Bush Administration's decision to fire seven U.S. Attorneys for no reason other than their perceived lack of loyalty to the Bush crowd, an unprecedented political interference by the White House in the Federal justice system.

Karl Rove epitomizes everything that is bad about American politics; he is a cynical political operative apparently lacking any moral or ethical compass; a shadowy character, never elected to office, who nonetheless exercised enormous power and did so for purely partisan political purposes; someone who believes that might makes right and that the ends always justify the means.  A man with no respect for, and little apparent understanding of, the Constitution.   He's right at home on Fox News where, as in war, truth is always the first casualty.

If Barack Obama were ever in need of refresher course in ethics-in-government, Karl Rove would be the last person he should turn to.

The Sound of Silence

A couple of weeks ago I did something I hadn't done in a quarter of a century, and to be honest never thought I would do again. I bought a vinyl LP, or "record" as we used to call them.

In my youth, that would have been an inconsequential event, certainly nothing worth writing about.  But in this case it was one small step in what became an unexpectedly complicated and time consuming process, but one that brought back many memories. 

It all began when I was reunited with the turntable I had bought some thirty years back.  It's a venerable Pioneer PL-518 direct drive unit, which still seems to command quite a decent price on eBay.  Direct drive turntables were revolutionary in their day; because the motor drives the platen directly, no belts were required and this in theory eliminated the speed fluctuation that could occur with a belt drive turntable, especially as the belt became worn. 

But there were problems.  The first was that I needed to replace the spring loaded feet, because the rubber housings that attached to feet to the underside of the deck and held the springs in place had torn.  Finding a solution required several hours of Internet research.  But in the process, the memories started to return; it's essential to ensure that a turntable is acoustically isolated from any vibration (hence the original spring loaded feet).  For a few dollars I was able to buy some silicone rubber feet designed for just this purpose ("Vibrapods", they're called) and attached them to the original feet to replicate the effect of the springs.  I have to admit, I was pretty pleased with myself.

So now I'm ready to rediscover the sound that music buffs (and I make no pretense to be one) claim is "warmer" that the digital recordings of today.  But then came the next, and rather fundamental, problem.  Although I have been reunited with my turntable, I still don't have my old vinyl collection back.  Rather than wait, I decided a trip to the Princeton Record Exchange was in order.  It's a local institution that specializes in used albums and CDs, and it's a great place to pick up used vinyls for a few dollars.  As I browsed the shelves, I noticed several things that hadn't struck me on prior visits.  First, the vast majority of people in the store were looking exclusively at the vinyl racks.  Second, among the well worn album covers was a decent selection of brand new items - new releases, re-releases - selling in many cases at a premium over the price of a CD.  There were some bargains though. I was able to pick up a new re-release of a Coltrane collection for only $10 and headed home to try it out.

But then I began to have  doubts.  I had no idea what condition the stylus was in.  It had last been replaced about 20 years ago, and I hesitated to risk my brand new LP on a bad stylus.  I decided it prudent to invest in a new one.  But further Internet research revealed that my cartridge (the housing into which the stylus fits, and which transforms the vibrations from the stylus into an electro-magnetic signal) had long since been discontinued.  I found a company in Japan that made a replacement, but it was expensive and I wasn't sure about the quality.  Reluctantly, I decided I would have to get a new cartridge.  Well, I say "reluctantly", but truth to tell I was starting to enjoy what had become a voyage of re-discovery.  And then my luck turned.  I found a website specializing in everything to do with LP technology.  They were offering a "special" on a Shure cartridge (the same brand as the old one); the cost, including stylus, was less than the price of the Japanese stylus.  In addition, it had something called  a "dynamic stabilizer".  I have no idea what that a dynamic stabilizer is - my old cartridge didn't have it - but it sounded pretty nifty.  How could I resist?

Because I didn't spring for the express shipping, it took over 2 weeks for the new cartridge to arrive, but it was worth the wait.  Beautifully packaged in a metal case, with its toolkit of miniature screwdriver and brush, it bespoke quality, craftsmanship, even  (ironically) high tech.  So I set about installing it.  I changed a good many cartridges in my youth, but in my youth my eyesight was much better and my hand a lot steadier.  Mounting the cartridge in the head shell with the tiny mounting screws and nuts took me a long while, but eventually it was done.  Then I noticed something in the box I had previously missed - a small rectangular piece of cardboard covered with grid lines and a hole in one end.  It was the "cartridge alignment protractor".  This was a new one on me, and I searched the instructions in vain for any reference to it.  Again, I turned to the Internet and ascertained that the "cartridge alignment protractor" is designed to help align the cartridge head precisely with the groove in the record.  It seemed close enough.

Having mounted the new cartridge I had to re-set the tracking weight to comply with the specifications for the cartridge - I remembered how to do that  - and the anti-skate force.  I switched the turntable on, and with the aid of the stroboscope (see pic) I adjusted the speed to exactly (OK, more or less) 33.3 RPM.  Finally the PL-518 was ready to resume service.

Attaching the turntable to my entertainment system was no easy matter - it involved moving the unit all of the equipment is mounted on to access the rear of the receiver and untangling the spaghetti-like cables that connect all the components together.  My amplifier/receiver isn't exactly new - 20 years old maybe, but still functioning perfectly - but even a unit of that vintage was built for the post-LP era and it doesn't have a "Phono" jack.  No problem, I thought.  There were a couple of empty inputs, so I connected the turntable to one of those.  I then carefully placed the LP on the platen, delicately lowered the stylus onto the LP, sat back and began to enjoy . . . silence.

The sense of disappointment was almost overwhelming. Then I began to think logically about it and more memories began to emerge from the mists of time.  I recalled that a turntable using a magnetic cartridge transmits a lower signal than a CD player, tape deck or other audio device.  A "Phono" input amplifies the signal to levels comparable to that of the other devices, but if you connect a turntable directly to a standard input the signal is virtually inaudible.  In order to use a non-amplified input I needed to get a "pre-amp".  After a consultation with my son, who happens to be a sound engineer and musician as well as a vinyl aficionado, I returned to the Internet to check out the available equipment.  I was momentarily disconcerted to find that some pre-amps cost upwards of $2,000, but I was able to find something that seems to do exactly what I want for the more modest sum of $30.   I placed the order.   And that's where the story ends, at least for now.  I am waiting for the pre-amp to arrive, but with every confidence that it is the final piece in the jigsaw.

But that really isn't the point of the article.  This process (on one of those TV reality shows, they would probably call it a "journey") made me wonder why they're still even making vinyl recordings.   Apparently sales of LPs are actually increasing, whereas CDs are declining.  I find this encouraging because it's is an entirely consumer-driven trend.  When did you last see an add on TV for vinyl LPs or turntables?  (Turntables are still made, of course, though surprisingly some manufacturers have reverted to belt-driven technology.)  So what is the enduring appeal?  Many will say that vinyls just sound better - warmer, and truer to the original.  For the same reason, the true "high end" amplifiers these days seem to be "tube amps", which most of us thought had be rendered obsolete by the transistor.

But I think in a perverse way the enduring appeal of the vinyl medium lies in part in its sheer inconvenience.

I made the transition to CDs at an early stage and for a good many years enjoyed their convenience and durability, as well as the greater dynamic range that digital music provides. But, let's face it:  at the end of the day CDs are also a real hassle.  First, to obtain a CD you have to schlep over to the record store and buy it, which could take an hour or more, and that's assuming they actually have it in stock.  Alternatively, you could order on line but then you have to wait for 3 days, maybe longer, to get it.  When you want to play it you have to locate the correct plastic case, hope the CD is actually in it (rather than in the entertainment system in the car or a different case), then bend down to put it in the player, which in my case is at ankle height.   It's just too much trouble.  I now keep all my music in digital form on my computer and when I want something new I download it from the iTunes store.  They have my credit card information on file - it couldn't be simpler.  With a couple of taps on my laptop keypad I can send music from any computer in the house streaming wirelessly to my stereo system.  If I can't be bothered to think about which songs to play or in what order, no problem; the Mac will decide for me.  And if I can't be bothered to walk across the room to get my computer, I can open the app on my iPhone and accomplish the same thing.  Yes, it's all so easy; maybe too easy.  We tap the keyboard and forget about it.  Sometimes I don't even notice when the music has finished, or when Mac has moved on from Bowie to Beethoven.

Vinyl technology engages the listener from start to finish;  placing records on the turntable; lowering the stylus, flipping the record at the end of Side 1 and making sure the tone arm retracts properly at the end.  The fragility of the vinyl form demands that it be handled with care, even reference.  We can take pleasure not only in the music itself but also in the artistry of the album cover, the detail of the liner notes; even the sight of the LP rotating slowly on the turntable.  For me, tinkering with my old turntable also brought back memories of events long ago; like those earnest late-night discussions about which speakers or cartridge produced the best sound; or searching the racks at the cramped back-street record shop in Cambridge that sold wonderful and hard to find Supraphon recordings from Czechoslovakia.

The worst - or was it maybe the best? - thing about the old-fashioned "stereo system", as we called it in those days, was that it was only as good as its weakest link, whether it was the turntable, the cartridge, the amp or the speakers.  There was always a piece that had to be upgraded (which in turn created a new weakest link).  So there was always a reason to stay in touch with the the new products. That was part of the fun. I certainly wasn't an expert in he technology,  but I grasped the concepts.  I enjoyed that part of it.  But looking back, I realize that my interest in the technology ended with the purchase of my first CD player.  I never really figured out how shining a bright light at a plastic disk could produce sound, and the fact that it was all "digital" led me to conclude that a CD player was a CD player - period. It was much the same when I bought my first digital camera.

For those who want the convenience of digital music, downloads are the way to go.  MP3 is a better medium for storing digital music and if you ever need to have it on a disk, you can always "burn" one from the computer.  The medium really at risk is the CD.   My layman's prediction is that vinyl will live on, as a niche market for audiophiles and those who just appreciate all the "stuff" that goes with it, long after the last commercial CD has been pressed.  Twenty five years ago, who could ever have imagined it?

Class Act

Surprise, surprise. The royals are in the headlines again, and as usual for the wrong reasons.

This time it's Sarah Ferguson, a/k/a the Duchess of York, caught on tape accepting cash from a tabloid reporter posing as a foreign businessman.  She thought that the $40,000 she greedily stuffed into her purse was an advance on a $500,000 grease payment for introducing the "businessman" to her former husband Prince Andrew, Britain's roving trade ambassador  - and better known to readers of the tablloid press as "AirMiles Andy".  "Take care of me", she assured the News of the World journalist, "and Andrew will take care of you." 

After the news of the scandal broke, Ferguson promptly issued a statement stressing how "devastated" she was.  And I'll bet she was devastated.  The avaricious Duchess had just seen $500,000 slip through her fingers. The royal spin machine immediately cranked into action assuring the world that Prince Andrew had absolutely no knowledge of his former wife's attempt to sell access, while friends of the Duchess rushed to her defense, complaining she had been entrapped by a sleazy journalist.  Some even justified her attempt to cash in on her royal connections, reminding us that, to quote the vulgar Duchess herself, she "doesn't have a pot to piss in". How else can she be expected to make ends meet?

This certainly isn't the first time the classless Ferguson has provided fodder for the British tabloids.  After all, who can forget the occasion when - while still married to Prince Andrew - she was photographed sunbathing topless while an individual she later identified as her "financial adviser" sucked on her toes?  Maybe her financial advisers should have paid more attention to her financial, as opposed to her physical, assets over the years, because  the free-spending Duchess has apparently now fallen on hard  times.    She  has a liking for the finer things in life that far exceeds her ability to pay for them.  She reportedly resents the failure of the royal family to support the lavish lifestyle she aspires to and seems to believe her royal connections are just another thing she is entitled to peddle to the highest bidder.  It's hard to say what aspect of this tawdry episode is the most appalling.  Is it her bewildering sense of entitlement, her naked greed, her brazen lack of morality, or just her plain, utter and unimaginable stupidity?  But one thing is clear. It is time to call a halt to this once and for all.

First, there needs to be a full public investigation.  If laws were broken, the Dodgy Duchess should face prosecution.  The British people, whose taxes support the royal family, also have a right to know whether the money-grubbing Ferguson has tried to peddle access for cash in the past.  If so, from whom did she take cash and how much did she pocket?  Did she pay taxes on it?  And, most important, what  favors did the money buy?

It's also time for AirMiles Andy to be relieved of his so-called ambassadorial role.  If George Osborne is serious about cutting wasteful public spending, Andrew's lavish expense account should be at the top of his hit list.  The Prince may indeed have known nothing about the conniving of his former wife, with whom he reportedly maintains a close friendship, but the cash for access scandal has at best compromised whatever effectiveness he may have had (I personally think he had none) and at worst reduced him to an international laughing stock.  His removal would also send a long-overdue signal that Britain has reluctantly dragged itself into the second half of the 20th century and recognized that diplomatic skills and knowledge of international business are acquired through study and experience - they don't pass by heredity.

A Faustian Bargain

After five days of post-election wrangling, Britain has a new government and, as predicted here, the Liberal Democrats have thrown in their lot with the Tories in a coalition of ideological opposites that has already drawn rumblings of discontent from the rank-and-file of both parties.

Gordon Brown surrendered office on Monday evening with consummate dignity.  It's easy to take cheap shots at a Prime Minister removed from office in the midst of a grave fiscal crisis, but he served his party and the country well, and I think in time history will judge him kindly.  He occupied the Treasury for ten years - more than any other Chancellor in modern history - and presided over a period of sustained economic growth and economic policy reform.  But he became Prime Minister at a difficult time.  Tony Blair's inexplicable obeisance to the Bush administration, and Britain's consequent participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq, had left the country divided internally and isolated internationally.  Brown's low-key and austere manner came as a welcome contrast to that of his flashy, self-righteous and self-serving predecessor, but he inherited the baggage nonetheless.

Pundits can debate why Brown lost the election, but at the end of the day Britain was simply ready for change, not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with Labour, but rather because it had been in office for too long.  British voters have traditionally seen to it that no one party becomes entrenched in office, and it was time for Labour to go.  Nonetheless, after the votes were in, I was amused to hear David Cameron proclaim that the country needed a change "after thirteen years of Labour misrule".   Possibly he used the phrase during the election too.   I am old enough (though Cameron is not) to remember first hand where the phrase came from; it was Harold Wilson, in the 1964 general election, who persuaded voters that "thirteen years of Tory misrule" was enough.  How ironic that in his moment of triumph the suave and smooth-talking Cameron had to turn to a former Labour standard-bearer for a good soundbite!

Details about the coalition negotiations are still emerging, but it seems that Labour didn't bend over backwards to try to cut a deal with the LibDems.  Gordon Brown stood down as party leader in large measure because he perceived his continued presence as a potential stumbling block to a Labour-led coalition, and in so doing he acted as one would have expected - honourably.  But many party activists opposed any deal with LibDems and,  for reasons discussed in an earlier post,  that is probably the best course for the Labour party.  Their challenge now is not just to unite around a new leader and re-tune their message, but also to rethink their fundamental values after the corrosive influence of Tony Blair.  Civil liberties would be a good place to start, but overall I think "New Labour" needs to be a little less "New" and a little more "Labour".  It will enjoy the luxury enjoyed by any opposition party during difficult times - the freedom to criticize tough decisions, without the responsibility to take them.  I hope they exercise the freedom responsibly and in the public interest, but Conservative plans to slash public spending while the country is still emerging from a severe recession provide Labour a continuing opportunity to highlight some basic policy differences between left and right.

The LibDems will have some seats at the Cabinet table for the first time in generations, and a good portion of its parliamentary party will likely land jobs in the lower tiers of government.  Leader Nick Clegg will be the "Deputy Prime Minister".  It sounds very important, but the position is an extra-constitutional one without formal responsibilities.  He will presumably also enjoy the title of  First Secretary of State, which, like the Deputy Prime Minister position, has no specific responsibilities but at least commands a salary.  As Michael Heseltine commented recently, the role of Deputy Prime Minister is whatever the Prime Minister wants it to be.  Heseltine should know; he occupied the office in John Major's government, and boasts that he was the person "through whom Major exercised power."  John Prescott, his counterpart under Blair, would doubtless tell a different story.  Cameron will need show appropriate deference to Clegg for as long as he needs to keep the coalition intact, but I believe Clegg's role will be largely symbolic.   Other LibDems will be appointed to the Cabinet, the most important portfolio going to the LibDem finance spokesman Vince Cable, who reportedly will serve as Trade and Industry Secretary.  He represents the Lib-Dems best hope to advance Lib-Dem policies from a ministerial position.

Events appear to have unfolded as Cameron had hoped.  Admittedly he has had to make some concessions on policy.  The details are still emerging, but aside from his agreement to hold a referendum on electoral reform (which he will campaign against), the most visible concession may be the shelving of plans to increase the inheritance tax threshold.  But Cameron comes out a winner there too. His administration will reap the benefit of maintaining inheritance tax revenues, but he can blame the Lib-Dems for his failure to follow through on a key campaign promise.  The Lib-Dems have signed on to the Tories' plans to slash $6 billion in public spending and appear to have abandoned the pro-Europe stance that has been a hallmark of their policy since the party's inception.

Having signed up to the pact, the Lib-Dems have struck their Faustian bargain.  Today Cameron and Clegg were the toast of the town; both proclaimed the emergence of a "new kind of politics" at a Downing Street event one pundit likened to a gay wedding.  However, it won't be long before the new politics gives way to politics as usual.  If they stick with the Tories for a full five years, as the coalition agreement reportedly envisages, the LibDems will lose all credibility as a progressive party and will share the blame for whatever unpopular measures Cameron takes to reduce the deficit.  If they withdraw from the coalition, they lose what little real influence they have, and face the unenviable choice of either precipitating an early general election by joining opposition parties to oppose major legislation (for which they would be blamed) or continuing to prop up Cameron for the duration of his mandate (for which they would also be blamed).

One can only wish Clegg the best of luck.