World

Michael Ledeen despairs over Condi Rice’s condemnation of Robert Mugabe: This is Darfur all over again. And Iran all over again.  And Syria all over again.  Stern language, with the threat of even sterner language if the recipient doesn’t behave better.It’s an embarrassment.Once upon a time, we had leaders who supported freedom and did everything possible to bring down tyrants.  But not today. Today we give feel-good speeches full of politically correct slogans, wrapped in the mantle of multiculturalism and multilateralism. [Emphasis added]. When did the United States enjoy these leaders? This seems a questionable assertion to say the least, certainly in the post-WW2 era. And, of course, Ledeen doesn’t

James Fallows has a very interesting post about what it’s like to be a foreigner in China, in which he writes: I think I now can explain why, despite the pollution and congestion and overall ceaseless hassle of big-city life in China, I always tell friends or visitors that I “like” Chinese people in general. The reason is that, most of the time, people in China treat me as … a person. Not always and in every circumstance as a foreigner, though I obviously am that. I hear the Chinese words for “look, a foreigner!” and feel the general ripple of outsiderness much less often than I hear or sense

This isn’t a criticism of Tim Russert, per se, rather an anecdote that, though trivial, is also rather revealing. From Mark Leibovich’s nicely-judged piece in the New York Times: My last encounter with Mr. Russert was at a Democratic debate in Cleveland, which he was moderating. I was with his colleague Mr. Matthews — I was writing about Mr. Matthews for the New York Times Magazine — and we ran into Mr. Russert in the lobby of the Cleveland Ritz Carlton. He had just worked out and was wearing a sweaty Bills sweatshirt and long shorts and black loafers with tube socks. An MSNBC spokesman who was with us tried

A few years ago I had to take my pet rat, Heydrich, to the vet’s after my youngest son threw him head first at the bedroom wall. After that, Heydrich walked oddly and began acting in an unpredictable manner, certainly not in a fit state to, say, quell unrest in Czechoslovakia. The vet prescribed a course of antibiotics and some painkillers — total cost about 50 quid — and said even then Heydrich might not regain his former glory. And then he fixed me levelly and added: ‘But, um, he is just… you know, a rat. For five quid I could…’ I paid for the treatment and Heydrich spazzed around

Astonishingly, Barack Obama returns Scarlett Johansson’s emails. Equally charmingly, Miss Johansson professes herself surprised by this: “You’d imagine that someone like the senator who is constantly traveling and constantly ‘on’ — how can he return these personal e-mails?” she asks. “But he does, and in his off-time I know he also calls people who have donated the minimum to thank them. Nobody sees it, nobody talks about it, but it’s incredible.” She adds, “I feel like I’m supporting someone, and having a personal dialogue with them, and it’s amazing.”

In broad terms I agree with Will Wilkinson here: Should you be a state-smashing radical or a milquetoast piecemealer? I don’t know. The debate over reformism versus radicalism is never-ending. For my part, I have a fairly radical ideal theory of a cosmopolitan liberal global order of trade, migration, and peace. I think the “nation state-as-primary-moral-community” assumption at bottom of most modern liberal arguments for the welfare state (and in many libertarianism-in-one-country arguments, for that matter) is morally backward. But I also have a fairly conservative theory of incremental social change. Whether or not all our institutions are legitimate — and certainly they are not — they are also very

Never having watched Jonathan Ross, I have no opinion as to whether he is worth £18 million over three years, which is what the BBC is said to pay him. But the news that the BBC Trust had just reported that the BBC was not distorting the market with its huge payments to such stars happened to come on the same day that I was telephoned to ask if I would appear on a BBC television programme. Having discussed the subject matter, I said, perhaps in rather a sarky tone, ‘Will I be paid for this honour?’ ‘Oh!’ exclaimed the researcher, rather as if I had asked him to remove

Dan Drezner thinks that the Clintons are probably right to suppose that the press has favoured Barack Obama this year. Still, he says, they probably shouldn’t read the UK papers and cites this piece by the Times’ Tim Reid which begins: Seventeen months after she sat regally in her New York living room and calmly declared: “I’m in and I’m in to win,” Hillary Clinton stands on a stage in a stifling hot shed in South Dakota, coughing and spluttering, as her daughter, Chelsea, grabs the microphone from her hand to take over the show. “A long campaign,” the former First Lady chokes out between sips of water. Her husband,

All sorts of speculation as to what Hillary Clinton will do once the primary season ends this evening and even her doughtiest supporters might begin to realise it’s unlikely she’s going to be the Democratic party’s nominee. Some of them doubtless want her to “fight on” all the way to the convention. For what little it’s worth I’d hazard that this is unlikely. Self-interest demands that she concede this week and that she does so graciously. At the risk of looking too far down the road (why bother with this election when we can have fun with one to come?) let’s just say that it’s all about 2012. Assume that