The Debatable Land

What do they know of cricket who only play it well?

It is not, right now, saying much to observe that Kevin Pietersen is England's best batsman. His century against New Zealand today has not been the stuff of legends but it has at least rescued England from the perilous position they had put themselves into at 86/5. But if Pietersen is England's best batsman, we must hope that he is also be their most ignorant. How else to explain his prediction that Monty Panesar "will be the best finger-spinner the world has ever seen"?

Of course there's no reason to suppose that test cricketers might also have some appreciation for the the game's history. But it would be nice to think they did, that they appreciated that they're playing in the shadows of giants from the past, carrying on a tradition that reaches back into the sunlit meadows of the past and all the rest of it.

Yes, the game changes and today's players face some challenges their predecessors never had to wrestle with (by the same measure, of course, they also have it easier in other respects), but are they really so arrogant, so bolstered by a collective narcissism, to suppose presume that they're greater performers than the stars of yesteryear? Apparently so, if Pietersen's ignorance is any indication.

If one were to restrict the competition just to English slow left arm spinners then any sane observer would rank Panesar, right now, some distance behind, among others: Wilfred Rhodes, Hedley Verity, Tony Lock*, Colin Blythe, Derek Underwood, Johnny Briggs and Johnny Wardle.

Apart from that, then, yes, Monty is right up there.

*The startling fact about Laker's match at Old Trafford isn't that Laker took 19 wickets, but that Lock took only one.

Parliament of Fools

Further to this and this, I see, thanks to Mr Worstall, that no fewer than 72 Members of Parliament have put their name to this Early Day Motion:

EDM 982

FIDEL CASTRO

20.02.2008

Burgon, Colin

That this House commends the achievements of Fidel Castro in securing first-class free healthcare and education provision for the people of Cuba despite the 44 year illegal US embargo of the Cuban economy; notes the great strides Cuba has taken during this period in many fields such as biotechnology and sport in both of which Cuba is a world leader; acknowledges the esteem in which Castro is held by the people and leaders of Africa, Asia and Latin America for leading the calls for emancipation of the world’s poorest people from slavery, hunger and the denial of human rights such as the right to life, the right to shelter, the right to healthcare and basic medicines and the right to education; welcomes the EU statement that constructive engagement with Cuba at this time is the most responsible course of action; and calls upon the Government to respect Cuba’s right to self-determination and resist the aggressive forces within the US Administration who are openly planning their own illegal transition in Cuba.

Department of Political Slogans and Charlatanry

If you need a quick explanation for why Hillary Clinton is about to lose to Barack Obama, consider that her chief strategist is Mark Penn and that he boasts of this:

I have won about 70 major elections around the world, including many presidents, and I devised the simple message for Tony Blair in his last successful campaign: ‘Forward, Not Back.’

That's why Mr Penn is paid the big bucks! (More than $4m from the Hillary campaign alone, IIRC). "Good Stuff, Not Bad Stuff!" But if he thinks this is why ACL Blair won the last election then he's even more deluded than the average bloated political consultant.

Also: American readers still prepared to give Mr Penn the benefit of the doubt might remember that Blair's last victory came against the unelectable Michael Howard (and his previous election triumph was against the equally unelectable Iain Duncan-Smith; who, exactly, did Tony Blair ever beat who was in any way any good?). Secondly, voters could plump for Blair happy in the knowledge that he'd be gone in a year or two.

Now, it's true that there may be an element of Sellers Remorse now that we've been lumped with Gordon, but that's another matter entirely...

The Brideshead Fantasy: Union Division

It mystifies me why so many Americans - even those blessedly untouched by any tedious Yankee Brideshead fetish - still seem to view the Oxford Union as a barometer of all that is sweet and holy upon this sceptered isle. I would suggest that, with all due respect to those friends of mine who have been Presidents or office-bearers in that splendid society, this is the most desperate tommyrot. If the Oxford Union were ever a meter by which one could measure the thinking of the great and the good (sic) then those days died in August 1914.

Nevertheless, National Review's Mona Charen complains:

A few weeks ago I was approached by the Oxford Union and asked to debate the proposition “Resolved [sic - no British debating Union uses this clumsy "Resolved" formulation] : This House Would Torture to Save Lives.” Sensing an ambush, I declined but offered instead to debate, for the negative, “Resolved: This House Would Grant Terrorists all the Protections of the Geneva Conventions.” No reply was forthcoming.

Now I see that the Oxford Union has found an even more tendentious topic: “Resolved [sic, ibid]: This House Believes that Israel has a Right to Exist.” So Israel’s presence in the world, the right of seven million people to a sovereign existence, is a fit topic for debate? Is there any other country in the world whose right to exist the privileged young men and women of Oxford would think open to question? Jordan? Her sovereignty dates to 1946, just two years before Israel. Is that up for grabs? How about Great Britain? Bangladesh? Cuba? In fact, there is no other country whose very existence is considered debatable. Now what does that say?

That the Oxford Union would have chosen this topic now is not entirely surprising. As Melanie Phillips has documented in Londonistan, and as Barbara Amiel has recounted (she quoted an ambassador at an ostensibly polite dinner party vilifying “that shitty little country Israel”) anti-Semitism has made a roaring comeback in Great Britain. It isn’t just a matter of intellectual fashion. Physical attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions are scarcely noted in the press. And every aspect of British life is colored by the BBC’s relentlessly anti-Israel reporting.

Where to begin? First, the ambassador Ms Charen quotes is the French ambassador and not a Briton; secondly  if anti-semitism has made a "roaring comeback" in Britain then that is regrettable; but the actions of a relative handful of lunatics - the BBC's reporting notwithstanding - should no more be taken as proof of a national sentiment than should the bumptious prejudices of a handful of taxi drivers or barmen such as are the reporters tried and tested and truest friends in foreign parts.

More to the point, the future of Britain - and whether it merits continued existence or not - is indeed a hardy perennial for the Oxford Union and other debating societies in Britain and Ireland. For that matter I recall organising debates myself upon the idea of whether the "Six Counties" of Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or not - a debate that, all too wearisomely turned on the matter of whether or not they deserved to exist as a quasi-legitimate entity at all. (Occasional suggestions that we should  debate the proposition that Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal be returned to Britain fell upon stony ground I am afraid to report).

(If I'd been able to muster sufficient interest on the matter I'd have been happy to organise a debate on the proposition "That this house believes Togo has no right to exist". Alas - o tempora, o mores - there were no takers...)

Equally, if physical attacks upon Jews are "scarcely noted" upon in the press that might be because a) they are actually quite rare or b) because not every mugging is an anti-semitic statement. (Are there anti-semites in Britain? Sure there are. Are they over-running the public discourse? Only in your fevered dreams, Ms Charen. Is it disconcerting that there are some signs of a more virulent anti-Semitism? Sure, but let's not get carried away and start seeing intifadas where there are none.)

In any case, as I know full well myself and from past, personal experience, one of the things a debating society needs to do is find topics for debate that are, well, controversial. That's the way you get folk to turn up. Sometimes that leads young minds to debate sensationalist topics or invite disreputable guest speakers (David Irving, Jorg Haider etc) because that's the way you earn publicity and when you're running an undergraduate debating society that's often what you think is as important as anything else...

But really, the notion that the Oxford Union matters anymore is the sort of nonsense that, with the best will in the world and all necessary charity, only an American could believe.

Shakespeare: Fascist! Virgil: Fascist! Ovid: Un-Roman! Marlowe: Government Goon!

I suppose one should probably read Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism before criticising it. On the other hand, why do the dreary work when Spencer Ackerman's prepared to highlight the juicy bits for one? For instance, Spencer draws my attention to this:

Indeed, it is my argument that during World War I, America became a fascist country, albeit temporarily. The first appearance of modern totalitarianism in the Western world wasn't in Italy or Germany but in the United States of America. How else would you describe a country where the world's first modern propaganda ministry was established; political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon, and thrown in jail simply for expressing private opinions; the national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous "poison" into the American bloodstream; newspapers and magazines were shut down for criticizing the government; nearly a hundred thousand government propaganda agents were sent out among the people to whip up support for the regime and its war; college professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues; nearly a quarter-million goons were given legal authority to intimidate and beat "slackers" and dissenters; and leading artists and writers dedicated their crafts to proselytizing for the government?

Yes, "albeit temporarily" has to do a lot of work there. But so too does "modern". Because, really, propaganda ministries and political prisoners and loyalty oaths and the silencing of dissent have been around for quite some time. I mean, strip the references to the United States and the numbers from this remarkable paragraph and one might be forgiven for thinking that Mr Goldberg was referring to either (to pluck just two examples from history) Elizabethan England or Augustan Rome.

After all, leading artists" such as Virgil and Shakespeare "dedicated their crafts to proselytising for the government". If Goldberg is correct then fellows such as Walsingham and Maecenas would also have been right at home in Woodrow Wilson's America. And perhaps they would have been. But what of it? How many regimes or institutions can be considered "fascist" before the term loses any meaning? His argument, as outlined in this example at least, does not seem to be much more advanced than the rather silly notion that because A Hitler was a vegetarian anti-smoker, all anti-smoking and vegetarian zealots are Nazis. (Obviously, I think they're vindictive fools, but that don't mean they're in quite the same league as the SS). Alternatively, one might suggest that a society can share certain characteristics with fascism (People! Air!) without necessarily being a fascist society. This seems a fairly elementary point.

If Goldberg's definition stands then most political regimes in history should be considered "fascist" to one degree or another. Does he really mean to water down fascism to the point at which it becomes a meaningless catch-all phrase? Probably not. So why is he doing so? If everything is fascism then, really, nothing is. I suppose I'll have to a) read the book myself to find out or b) hope that Spencer gets beyond page 24 pretty soon.

Assassination of JFK also a mystery...

Good grief. The Washington Post reports:

Still looking for that last-minute Christmas gift for White House press secretary Dana Perino? May we recommend a gift certificate for the forthcoming book on the Cuban Missile Crisis by our colleague Michael Dobbs, "One Minute to Midnight: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro on the Brink of Nuclear War," due out next summer?

Appearing on National Public Radio's light-hearted quiz show "Wait, Wait . . . Don't Tell Me," which aired over the weekend, Perino got into the spirit of things and told a story about herself that she had previously shared only in private: During a White House briefing, a reporter referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis -- and she didn't know what it was.

"I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about . . . the Cuban Missile Crisis," said Perino, who at 35 was born about a decade after the 1962 U.S.-Soviet nuclear showdown. "It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure."

So she consulted her best source. "I came home and I asked my husband," she recalled. "I said, 'Wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?' And he said, 'Oh, Dana.' "

Oh Dana indeed. Equally, hiring a press secretary who doesn't know anything ensures they can't risk blurting out the truth by mistake...

[Hat-tip, Isaac Chotiner]

But how can you be sure?

Mitt Romney, leader of men, sage of our time:

"I believe, of course, that there are thousands of people who are not of faith who are moral."

[Hat-tip: Mr Larison, who also points out that a) Roger Cohen has a confused view of history and b) sub-editors at the New York Times know no better.]

The Fall of France? (Again?)

So, unsurprisingly, Time Magazine's cover story (international edition) on The Death of French Culture is making waves on the eastern side of the Atlantic (once upon a time, Time might have devoted space to French culture in its US edition: that it wouldn't dream of doing so now tells us as much about the United States as it does about France).

Given that all countries enjoy introspection - what's the subject of any attempt at writing the fabled Great American Novel, if not America herself? - it's not shocking that Le Figaro should devote three pages to responding to Don Morrison's silly, exaggerated article. Silly and exaggerrated and irritating, I mean.

It can be disconcerting to find oneself agreeing with Bernard-Henri Levy but his analysis of this foolishness seems, in its guts, right to me. In this instance the portrait tells us as much about the artist as it does his subject. And it's not a pretty sight. The most striking aspect of Time's foolishness is its provincialism. Americans don't think of France as a home of culture anymore (where do they think might be then?) so obviously the Frogs have gone to the dogs.

Consider these alleged proofs of French decline:

1. "Only a handful of the season's new novels will find a publisher outside France. Fewer than a dozen make it to the U.S. in a typical year, while about 30% of all fiction sold in France is translated from English."

2. "France still churns out about 200 films a year... [but]... the only vaguely French film to win U.S. box-office glory this year was the animated Ratatouille — oops, that was made in the U.S. by Pixar."

3. "In an annual calculation by the German magazine Capital, the U.S. and Germany each have four of the world's 10 most widely exposed artists; France has none. An ArtPrice study of the 2006 contemporary-art market found that works by the leading European figure — Britain's Damien Hirst — sold for an average of $180,000. The top French artist on the list, Robert Combas, commanded $7,500 per work."

4. "France does have composers and conductors of international repute, but no equivalents of such 20th century giants as Debussy, Satie, Ravel and Milhaud. In popular music, French chanteurs and chanteuses such as Charles Trenet, Charles Aznavour and Edith Piaf were once heard the world over. Today, Americans and Brits dominate the pop scene. Though the French music industry sold $1.7 billion worth of recordings and downloads last year, few performers are famous outside the country. Quick: name a French pop star who isn't Johnny Hallyday."

To take these in turn:

1. This is a damning assessment of American (and, to some extent, British) literary circles, the French, by contrast, might be complimented on their embrace of non-French writers.

2. Only a fool would assume that the health of the French movie industry is determined by the number of French movies (which don't even have the decency to be in English!) that prove popular at Cincinatti or Tulsa multiplexes. Equally, French movies are so terrible that Hollywood keeps remaking them... (Hang on, maybe that's true...but then that would say as much about the studios as it does about the French).

3. If the French have no Damien Hirst or are unprepared to lavish absurd sums of money on his sort of art then so much the better for them. Measuring art's worth by box office alone would force one to conclude that writing doesn't get any better than JK Rowling or that the Impressionists must have been useless because their work didn't command huge prices immediately. Then again, almost nobody bought Tender is the Night. Does that mean it was rubbish?

4. French culture is dead and unpopular abroad except where it isn't. But where it isn't doesn't count.  If you can't name a French pop star other than Johnny Hallyday then that's fine, but again, this probably says more about you than it does about French music. Besides, music peeps know that French hip-hop and rap is where the action is and that lots of that stuff is, or so my little sister tells me, excellent.

And so on and so on. It may be that French novels don't travel well, but it's hard to say that absent an opportunity to read them. Then again, French literary culture is, in many respects, in a much healthier state than its British or American equivalents. Perhaps the subsidies given to French artists have made artists lazy or encouraged introspection (though oddly, no-one ever bothers to condemn, say, Ireland for ts generous subsidies for artists), but I'm not sure the case is quite as clear as Mr Morrison suggests.

But, really, culture isn't some vast international pissing contest, no matter how attractive it is to turn it into some sort of artistic Olympiad. It seems much more significant that, as Time acknowledges:

French media give it [culture] vast amounts of airtime and column inches. Even fashion magazines carry serious book reviews, and the Nov. 5 announcement of the Prix Goncourt — one of more than 900 French literary prizes — was front-page news across the country. (It went to Gilles Leroy's novel Alabama Song.) Every French town of any size has its annual opera or theater festival, nearly every church its weekend organ or chamber-music recital.

Aye, that's a cultural desert right enough. To return to novelists' experience: even small provincial papers are happy - nay consider it their duty - to carry features on foreign writers whose work can't help but be all but unknown in France. Try imagining the Yorkshire Post or the Tennessean interviewing a French or Italian novelist publishing in English for the first time. Yeah, doesn't seem likely does it?

Given that they're a nation of hypochondriacs it's scarcely surprising that the French spend much time fretting over their supposed decline. Some of that is obviously real, forcing a reappraisal of what it means to be French. But so what? The notion, which Americans seem weirdly insistent upon believing, that France can only hope to succeed if it becomes more American (and hence, in some respects, ceases to be France) is very strange. So what if their cultural protectionism seems odd to the anglo-saxon mind? Let the French be French for crying out loud! Or, vive la differance!

Morrison concludes by conceding that French culture can be replenished by its immigrant population. Well, sure, but that's always been the case. The idea that France is some sort of monolith or that there's only one sort of Frenchness is absurd. Hyphenated Frenchness - whether that's from immigrants or parental blood or simple regionalism - has been around for a long time and continues to thrive today. Witness, for instance, the career of a novelist such as Andrei Makine. Born in Russia, sure, but living in France for 20 years and writing in French and, in my view, as fine a novelist as anyone alive today (and so, of course, is not mentioned by Mr Morrison).

Makine's story, like those of the hip-hoppers in the banlieues (to mention just a couple of examples) is just one more reminder that French culture is as moveable as ever and still a feast to be enjoyed.

[Via, Clive]

Nothing Except World Leadership...

More Romney, I'm afraid. But this is less about him than it concerns a general American trend. Daniel Larison has already touched on how Romney seems to share Fred Thompson's odd belief in the uniquely generous nature of American military sacrifice. This reminds me that I'd meant to comment upon this passage from Romney's speech:

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty."

Oh please. To listen to this you might think the United States' sole concern was that the people of Europe and, for that matter, south-east asia, had a proper supply of apple pie. No war aims here! Not so much as a single strategic objective!

To say this is poppycock does not detract for a second from the heroism and sacrifice of American soldiers on Omaha Beach or the sands of Iwo Jima (or for that matter of the workers in the factories who made trucks for Uncle Joe).

America took nothing from the Second World War, unless you consider being the world's most powerful  - and richest - country nothing at all. As collateral benefits go you'd have to rank these pretty highly. 

Except of course it wasn't a collateral benefit. I know that Americans are wedded to this view of their involvement in WW2 (precipitated of course by Japan and Germany) as a selfless, reluctant act. But if this story has any truth it's only part of the matter. Right from the beginning there were other fish being fried.

The Americans were shaping their notion of the post-war environment even before they entered the conflict. The ennobling element of Britain's wartime story is not so much the defiant days when she stood alone (though those, natch, reflect well upon us) but the fact that Britain sacrificed an Empire and, consequently, much of its power to help ensure that the Americans could be persuaded into the war. Victory was impossible without America; but more than blood - or treasure for that matter - was needed to pay the price the Americans demanded. So be it.

For instance, the American view of post-war trade would be, as Cordell Hull put it, "a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire". At their first meeting, at Placentia Bay in August 1941, Roosevelt viewed Churchill as "A real old Tory, of the old school" but predicted that there'd be plenty of talk about India "And Burma. And Java. And Indo-China. And Indonesia. And all the African colonies. And Egypt and Palestine. We'll talk about 'em all."

The destruction of the British Empire was every bit as much an American war aim as was the defeat of Hitlerism, even if, for obvious reasons, it was rarely explained as such in public.

All of which was, of course, fair enough. The United States can hardly be faulted for acting in its own interest. And its own interest was a post-war world in which it was Top Dog. If that meant doing its best to shut Britain out then so be it. As I say, the only thing wrong with this is pretending that it didn't happen.

(I should perhaps point out that in the grander scheme of things, the American view of unfettered free trade (though good for American industry) was probably preferable to the British hankering for Imperial Preference. But that's not the point really.)

Nor does it - to repeat - detract from the valiant service of American troops to point out that the United states has indeed demanded fealty and, for that matter, sovereignty. What else are US bases around the world if not the outposts of Empire?

The US military guarantee to defend western Europe was both noble and self-serving.  There isn't necessarily a contradiction between the two. In return for protection against the Soviets western Europe endorsed an American view of the world and its institutions. Still, in important respects NATO is an "alliance" in name only. Until recently Europe's low defence spending suited America (and perhaps still does): after all, if European countries lack the ability to project force then they are al the more dependent upon the US. That's a high-ranking card to have in your hand.

Still, it's not unreasonable to remember that the American guarantee of liberty was a guarantee that would only be observed on American terms. To take but one example, the Italian elections of 1948 could not be "free and fair" because they carried the risk that the Communists might do well. Now Italian politics might have been corrupted anyway, but the US-backed 40 year installation of the Christian Democrats certainly helped pollute the Italian body politic. You may argue that this was better than the alternative but that doesn't mean you need pretend that all this was perfect or that it somehow matched American rhetoric. Hypocrisy is, of course, an old imperial vice. (Or, if you prefer, virtue).

Just because th US involvement in Europe (and elsewhere) has been, overall, beneficial doesn't mean we shouldn't pretend that drawbacks and unfortunate consequences don't exist. On the risky assumption that we can be grown-up about these things there's little need for pretense or humbug.

Equally, Romney's "no fealty" line is complete hokum. Perhaps he has forgotten that much of the fury directed towards Jacques Chirac in the lead-up to the Iraq War was predicated upon the idea that, after all we did for France it's outrageous that they don't support us now that we ask them to 60 years later. That sounds like a demand for fealty to me.

So sure, America took nothing from the last century's terrible wars. Nothing, that is, except the American Century itself.

Is Europe a Country?

I'd like to think this is made up. Favourite bit? Hard to say, but "I heard of Turkey" is pretty good.

[Via, Larison]

Ron Paul's Non-Existent Jewish-Anarchist Problem...

I was going to write something about this post over at Jewcy's new politics blog (splendidly named The Cabal) but when I saw that the author describes himself as a "libertarian socialist*" it seemed rather pointless to continue. How much headway can you make with someone as confused as that?

Suffice it to say that "Ron Paul's Jewish problem" amounts to some of his supporters having highly unpleasant views and his campaign's suspicion that there's no real need to return money given by racist supporters. In a saner world that would be quite sensible: it's their loss of cash after all and accepting money from someone is no sort of endorsement of their views on any given issue. Indeed, given his track record in Congress I suspect there are few members less likely to have their opinions or votes influenced by campaign contributions.

But this is of a piece with the emerging anti-Paul theme. "I'm not saying that Ron Paul's a racist/anarchist/threat to America but, you know, some of his supporters are and therefore, by jiminy, it looks like Ron Paul actually is a racist/anarchist/threat to America. Can't lie with dogs and not wake up with fleas/no smoke without fire don't you know?

For another example of this nonsense, see this  unflattering piece from Dean Barnett at the Weekly Standard  in which we learn that Ron Paul is that rara avis - an anarchist who "has no taste for anarchy." It follows then that Paul's anarchism is so dangerous even though he's not an anarchist that he must be opposed because some of his supporters own a couple of black flags that, next thing you know, will be flying from the Capitol Dome. Or something. But then, Mr Barnett seems to think Guy Fawkes was an anarchist, so how can you - and what's the point of trying to - reason with that sort of ignorance?

*A friend suggests: "Presumably he believes in a limited government; the state has no valid function except to confiscate your property and give it to other people, and only that."

Imagine how confused they must be in Liverpool?

A sign of the times. Hell in a hand basket and all that. The Manchester Evening News reports:

A LOTTERY scratchcard has been withdrawn from sale by Camelot - because players couldn't understand it.

The Cool Cash game - launched on Monday - was taken out of shops yesterday after some players failed to grasp whether or not they had won.

To qualify for a prize, users had to scratch away a window to reveal a temperature lower than the figure displayed on each card. As the game had a winter theme, the temperature was usually below freezing.

But the concept of comparing negative numbers proved too difficult for some Camelot received dozens of complaints on the first day from players who could not understand how, for example, -5 is higher than -6.

Tina Farrell, from Levenshulme, called Camelot after failing to win with several cards.    

The 23-year-old, who said she had left school without a maths GCSE, said: "On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the machine said I hadn't.

"I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it.    

                       

When Morons Attack

It's the baseball play-offs. Hurrah. Let's Go Yankees! But that also means it's time for America's sportswriters to be even dumber than is customarily the case. For the sake of your sanity as well as for proper hilarity, trot on over to the lads at Fire Joe Morgan. Recent highlights include: how your mother probably has a better understanding of the value of "wins" than the average Hall of Fame voter, why yes of course you'd be better off packing your team with people who aren't very good at baseball come the play-offs because, hey, they're plucky! And gusty! and, today, yet another welcome takedown of America's worst gasbag, Mr William Plaschke who is still, mystifyingly, employed by The Los Angeles Times and who thinks Vladimir Guerrero has some 'splaining to do [bold, in what follows in Plaschke, regular type the FJM commentary]:

Guerrero just keeps smiling and swinging and disappearing.

This is just an odd way to talk about a guy who has carried the Angels' offense on his back for so many years now. I mean, come on. I know Plaschke's talking about the playoffs, but honestly: Vlad's EqAs with the Angels over the past few seasons are .327, .318 .335 and .334. He's a yearly MVP candidate. Now you're angry that he smiles too much in the playoffs? You're a pretty dicked up guy, Bill.

It happened again in the Angels' 4-0 loss to the Boston Red Sox on Wednesday in the first game of the division series.

Would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that what Josh Beckett did two days ago was one of the best post-season pitching performances by anyone, ever. 19 straight retired. No extra-base hits. No walks. And that doesn't even begin to convey his utter dominance.

Guerrero hacked at 11 of 14 pitches and managed two singles. Even though that was half of his team's output against Josh Beckett, it wasn't enough to make a dent in Guerrero's October angst.

You're criticizing a guy for going 2-4 in the face of one of the all-time great playoff games by a pitcher. Think for just one goddamn second about that.

In four seasons since joining the Angels, he has dragged them into three postseasons, but stumbled once they arrived.

In 14 postseason games, he has one extra-base hit. He has driven in runs on exactly three hits. He has twice as many double-play grounders (two) as home runs (one).

He has a career .204 postseason average, more than 100 points lower than the October average of former Angels hero Troy Glaus, whose void he needs to replace for the Angels to return to that glory.

His playoff numbers are atrocious. They also represent 54 at bats. In his other 1701 at bats as an Angel, he has been splendiferous, wonderbarfuelous, and a whole bunch of other made-up words. Which do you trust more? Don't answer that. I know what you're going to say because you are an insane person. He is one gajillion times the player Troy Glaus is (unless we're talking about super-roided up Glaus).

Fred Thompson's message to the world: your dead don't count

Many years ago now, I had occasion to change trains at Pisa en route to Perugia and it was there, I think, that I first became aware of the Ugly American phenomenon. The station was pretty quiet as I recall, or rather it would have been had the air not been filled with the screeching complaints of a well-upholstered middle-aged American lady, dressed in the standard issue kit for European expeditions: too tight t-shirt, loose shorts, white socks and sneakers, complaining loudly about the station masters' reluctance or inability to confirm that the reservation she held for her party was valid or not.

So far so normal. This was Italy. The trains run on time because the timetables are generous and so on. Nonetheless, this was, I believe, the first time I ever heard the phrase "Saved your sorry asses". In her furious exasperation at the Italian's inability to speak English - a shocking offence to be added to what was evidently a litany of grievances that demonstrated Europe's hideous difference and inferiority to the United States - it became apparent that Italians were insufficiently grateful to the United States for, yes, "saving" their "sorry asses" half a century ago. These people, I ask you, you think they'd remember to show some respect? But no, not at all.

Fast forward a decade and recall the New York Post's assault on France in the run-up to the Iraq war. The Post despatched one its star writers to France to write a disgraceful piece arguing, if memory serves, that the bodies' of dead American soldiers should be brought back to the United States in protest at the French government's cowardly and ungrateful reluctance to support President Bush's plans for war. The French, you see, owed it to United States on account of having their "sorry asses" saved in 1944. It seems that for some Americans there is no statute of limitation that applies to these things. 60 years on the rest of the world should remember to tug a forelock before American idealism and goodness.

Because, as Fred Thompson constantly reminds us, Americans are unique. Only Americans fight for ideals and the liberty of all mankind. It is America's sacred duty to save the world time and time again whatever the cost and even if doing so rather regrettably ensures that the United states becomes the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world. Such squalid, materialistic concerns are the province of lesser nations.

Here's Thomson:

"This country has shed more blood for the liberty of other countries than all other countries put together."

Because, of course, the US fights for principle alone! Need one point out that, though fighting for liberty was part of the American war effort in the battle against fascism, it was scarcely the inspiration for it. Had it been so the US might not have waited to be attacked before entering the lists. No, the US came into the war for reasons of national interest and national defense little different (in theory if not in exact practice) to those imposed upon other combatants. To say this is not to diminish the nobility of the service rendered by those young boys from Oregon or Oklahoma; Alabama or Pennsylvania. But to pretend otherwise is to ignore the truth.

Still the idea that the American sacrifice is unique is powerful. If it's true then it also amplifies the grandeur of the glory won by America's best and bravest wherever they may give that final, full measure of devotion to their country. Sometimes, indeed, it seems as though there's not enough glory to go round, so the script must be rewritten.

A couple of examples: the movie U-571 was not a great hit (or a great film for that matter), but it was notable for another reason. It told the story of how an Enigma machine was captured from a crippled German submarine - and thus set in train a sequnce of events that was vital to winning the Battle of the Atlantic. The film was a conflation of a number of true stories with one significant exception: the submariners who captured the code machine and carried out other operations were in real-life British  - in the movie they became American.

This was not a new phenomenon. Errol Flynn's 1945 movie Objective Burma was not released in Britain after an outcry over the fact that it gave the impression that the Burma campaign - a largely* British-Australian venture - was actually an American operation.

The point is not that movies should emphasise or even acknowledge the allied nature of the war effort (though it would do no harm if they did. Yes, that means you Mr Spielberg). Nor do I mean to denigrate or cheapen the sacrifices made by American soldiers. I merely make the suggestion that Hollywood could surely find enough genuinely American stories to tell without having to pinch acts of heroism that properly belong to other countries.

The more this happens, of course, the more the impression is fostered that the US carried the day alone. As a Briton, I'm duty bound to observe that our role in the war effort is remembered more frequently than other nations'. The poor Canadians, despite their valour in two World Wars, are overlooked entirely.

No, instead there is this niggardly, bean-counting approach that declines to recognise the horrendous sacrifices made by other countries in what was, after all, a shared cause. An American President once recognised this. Heres Ronald Reagan speaking at the 40th anniversary of the Normandy landings:

I think I know what you may be thinking right now--thinking, "We were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.'' Well, everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

Lord Lovat was with him--Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry I'm a few minutes late,'' as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

There was the impossible valor of the Poles who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold, and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet'' and you, the American Rangers.

Not the least of Fred Thomson's disqualifications from the Presidency is that one cannot imagine him speaking with anything like this generosity of spirit.

Then again, much of the American right seems to prefer Thompson to Reagan these days. (Sure, they speak of Ronnie but only in the most superficial fashion). Here, for instance, is National Review's David Freddoso arguing - complete with the required sneer - that Thompson is right. If it ain't the Americans who top the league table of Sacrifice for Noble, Disinterested Reasons and Other People's Freedoms, then:

The alternative is the "British Commonwealth." So ANZAC and Indian soldiers — and even soldiers stolen by force from occupied Ireland — are to be counted as British? Well, that's interesting.

Ignoring the sophomoric crack about "occupied Ireland," perhaps Mr Freddoso should remember that there was no conscription on the island of Ireland during the First World War and none in Northern Ireland either. Perhaps he might also remember the thousands of Irishmen - from north and south, catholic and protestant alike - who fought in both world wars. And he might also recall that many of the thousands of the southern Irish who volunteered for service in 1914 did so because they believed a swift conclusion to the war would advance - nay be necessary to - the cause of Home Rule for Ireland. In that respect, then, these soldiers were indeed fighting for their own liberty and that of brave little Belgium. (The same might be said of the Indian Army in WW2: their service advanced the argument for Indian Independence no end). But these matters are complicated and, in any case, I digress.

The point is that these men's sacrifices are snubbed by Thompson's yahooism. Look, when Mark Steyn is moved to write:

Sorry, guys, if that's the level of bragadocio required, include me out. It should not be necessary in "supporting our troops" to denigrate everybody's else.

then you should realise you have a problem.

No-one  who has visited the cemeteries of northern France or stood on the cliffs of Normandy is ever likely to forget the heroism of the American soldiers who played such a vital part in winning the war. Nor has Europe forgotten. But that does not mean that even the most pro-American of us need swallow or put up with vulgar claims to American superiority that denigrate and diminish and insult the memories of those who served from other countries. Indeed, Thompson's know-nothingness could almost be designed to increase anti-American sentiment. Certainly it must foster resentment amongst anyone unfortunate enough to have come across this blundering buftie.

Ye gods, this post has rumbled on long enough. But for more on all this - including other references to Reagan's Pointe du Hoc speech - see Douthat and Larison here and here.

*Updated for clarity: there were American troops in Burma - think of Merril's Marauders in the northern campaign for instance - but the Flynn movie simply wrote the British and Australian troops out of the theatre entirely. It wasn't shown in Britain until 1952, and even then screenings were prefaced by an apology.

Dishonesty and ignorance at any cost

Daniel Larison as already done yeoman work dismantling elements of David Gelernter's appalling piece in The Weekly Standard. But more needs to be done and, that being the case, let's have at it in this and a number of posts to follow.

Gelertner's piece, cheerily headlined "Defeat at Any Price" makes the case, natch, that Democrats and liberals in the United States want to see America defeated in Iraq. Of course, they're devilishly clever and never actually come out and say this (Gelertner declines to buttress his case with any quotations from Messrs Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al that would support his claim that they believe "America would be better off if it lost"). Nonetheless, being in thrall to "Appeasement, pacifism and globalism" Democrats want to see America laid low. These, he says, "are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left" - a left wing (and hence, by definition, a minority of Democrats) that, we might note, has thus far done precisely nothing to end the war in Iraq. We may argue whether Congressional Democrats are damned for being too cautious or too ambitious another day. Nonetheless, any outside observer might conclude that they're a rather ineffective bunch of Fifth Columnists...

Anyway, we can deal with some of this later. Gelernter then moves on to the usual euro-bashing. A brief excursion through World War One concludes that it was wrong to learn any lessons from that conflict at all, let alone let it influence your thoughts on the desireability of future wars.

Pacifist globalism was so popular it lost World War II for the tragically underprepared French and nearly lost it for the British. The British pulled themselves together and made a heroic stand, but the French will never live down (least of all in their own minds) the humiliation of being overrun by German armor in a matter of weeks; of choosing not even to defend their beloved capital city. Poland put up a stiffer fight than France in the Second World War.

Because, yes, it would have been sensible for the French to acquiesce in the destruction of Paris. This vile paragraph simultaneously manages to insult two peoples, slighting the Poles with the slimmest praise available to people of Gelernter's ilk while, conveniently, ignoring what actually happened during the Battle of France.

This pretty well-sourced Wikipedia article usefully catalogues casualty figures from WW2. No-one, I think, would pretend that 1940 was France's finest hour. But the notion that the French waved the Germans in to Paris is unsupported by the facts. Nearly 100,000 Frenchmen were killed in the Battle for France alone. A further 60,000 died in subsequent battles between 1940 and 1945. Those figures do not include the 20,000 or so Resistance fighters killed, nor the much greater number of civilians killed in 1940 and, later, as part of Gestapo and Wehrmacht reprisals. Indeed, proportionally (for whatever little this may be worth) more Frenchmen than Americans died during the Second World War.

I know it is now too much to hope that the happy warriors on the American right might occasionally remember this. But they would be better men - and better historians - if they did.