I would TOTALLY cut school for this...

Obama writes an absence note for a 10 year old girl whose parents took her out of school to attend his Wisconsin town hall:

First, President Obama called on Corpus to ask a question about his plans for health care reform. As he posed his query, he let drop that his daughter was skipping school to see the president.

Does she need a note? Obama asked.

Playing along, Corpus said he would take Obama up on the offer. To his surprise, Obama was serious.

"What's her name," Obama asked, reaching in his suit pocket for a pen. When Corpus answered "John," Obama repeated: "Her name?"

"Kennedy," Corpus replied.

"That's a cool name," Obama said, as he started to compose the missive.

"To Kennedy's teacher," read the note, written in black ink over the president's distinctive signature. "Please excuse Kennedy's absence.... she's with me."

Voting from Abroad - Iranian Expats In USA

Having worked so hard to register US voters living overseas to vote in our own Presidential election, I can't help but smile at this report of Iranians in the US voting from abroad for their own Presidential election:



Ain't Democracy grand?

Today's Iranian elections are just about the most interesting thing happening in the world right now, with incumbent President Ahmadinezhad (I'm going with Juan Cole's spelling on that one) facing an enthusiastic surge from supporters of his opponent Mir Hussain Musavi. Apparently, Musavi's campaign has been characterised by excitement among young people seeking change and feeling disgraced by their current leader. They've been taking to the streets in rallies of many thousands, and driving the campaign through innovative use of the Internet and neighborhood organising.

Sound familiar?

Musavi is a moderate in Iranian turns - not a flaming pro-American, but someone who has signalled an interest in taking up President Obama's offer of renewed negotiations between the two countries.

It is very difficult to determine what the likely outcome of this race will be - polls suggest it may be close, but they have been very sporadic and unpredictable.

The big question is what happens AFTER the result is announced. If it goes to Ahmadinezhad, will we be able to validate the integrity fo the voting process? Already there are scattered reports of extensive vote tampering.

If it goes to Musavi, will Ahmadinezhad's people allow the peaceful transfer of power?

IF all goes smoothly (a big if) this election could be long-term great news for Iran, no matter who wins. The Middle East is unused to the kind of intensely faught elections, but a demonstration that the nation can thrive while still allowing open political dissent, even if the reformers do not get their way, could be a great step forward.

Or not - Ahmadinezhad has hinted that if he wins narrowly he may make moves to declare himself "President for Life". Ah well. Democracy: easy come, easy go?

Holding my breath on this one...

The Fierce Urgency of Healthcare Reform Now

This past weekend, Organizing for America kicked off a massive public effort in support of health care reform. I had hoped to host an event in support of the Administration's important work here, but I was unable because (as you have learned in my last post) I was suffering from poor health. ("My name is Irony, king of kings. Look upon my works ye mighty and despair.")

Of course, were I in the US right now I would not have access to medical insurance. And I don't just mean that I would have to pay a lot for it (though I would) but that I could not get coverage at all - this isn't the first time my back has gone out, so any US insurer would consider this a pre-existing condition and my coverage would be denied. Since I took voluntary redundancy from my full time job back in February and started working free lance, I've been counting my blessings that I at least will never go bankrupt due to a health crisis.

But I wouldn't suggest that the US adopt a UK style National Health System - the NHS does provide universal coverage but hasn't been able to match other countries in terms of quality of care (although, the UK system does consistently beat the US one on most measures of health outcomes - at half the price! Bargain!).

Instead, I'd like to see a system that focusses heavily on reducing costs and achieving virtually if not completely universal access to health COVERAGE - who does delivery of care doesn't have to change at all.

Our for-profit health system has made care in the US more expensive than anywhere else in the world WITHOUT a compensating rise in quality (read this excellent Atul Gawande article in the New Yorker for a better perspective on how and why this is so).

And most Americans now agree that something fundamental has to change - this is a big change from the 1990's and means this is the best chance we've had to solve the problem in many a year.

I think it's pretty clear something is going to happen in this area. But in legislation, as in needlepoint, the devil is in the details.

The bulk of the shouting is likely to be around what is constantly referred to as "the public option." You may have heard this phrase bandied about and perhaps, like me, you had a vague sense what this was all about but were unsure specifically what it meant or how important it might be.

Well, as best I can figure out, the short version is this - healthcare reform has two basic goals:

1) Reducing costs.
2) Ensuring full universal (or near-universal) coverage.

Both are essential, and doing the former will not only greatly reduce the burden on those who currently have care, but will also make it much easier to achieve the latter.

Although the government could simply regulate strict conditions for existing private insurers (setting prices, for instance) this is a pretty market-unfriendly practice and may in fact ultimately result in not achieving the full measure of cost savings that would potentially be achievable. A better solution is to create market conditions that put strong pressure on private sector firms to be very innovative in finding cost savings as well as providing low cost and appealing options for those who are shut out of the private system.

That's what the inclusion of a public plan will do. Because a national public plan can negotiate lower prices with providers it has a big advantage in finding cost savings.

There are lots of different ways of delivering this, however. Check out this hugely helpful Marc Ambinder article for more info:

For most advocates, the purpose of a public option is to create an "ideal" health insurance plan that can experiment, can decide to pay doctors what it wants, can use what Rep. Henry Waxman has called "creative tension" to compete with private plans, and one that will ultimately serve as a mean toward which all the private plans move. A strong public plan would force private plans to negotiate lower rates with doctors and hospitals, which would reduce health care costs. A "weak" public plan would provide some competitive pressure, but would not be big enough to force the private plans to drastically change their models. Between these two ends, there are many options. Here are five:

It's All About ME - the Self Obsessing Post

Hello friends,

Apologies for the blog silence for the last week and a bit. I think I might has well come clean and let you all know I've been having a bit of a mope. For nearly 3 months now I've been suffering from intermittently sever lower back pain that makes it hard for me to travel, to sit down, to stand still, or pretty much to do anything except lie on my back and occassionally walk slowly. I've had lots of very kind advice and recommendations from many folks about what might help, and I've tried almost all of them. But right now there's no relief in sight and... to be honest, it's been tough.

So I thought I ought to let you all know.

In my life outside this blog, I've been working as a free-lance consultant offering communications and campaigning advice as well as activist training to organisations here in the UK. I'm loving the work, and I'm meeting some wonderful people through it. But, again, my health issues are limiting the amount of time I can spend on it - and I can't sit through even a simple lunch meeting without a lot of pain. So obviously, developing my little business isn't going as well as it might if I were able to do exotic things like going to restaurants and typing at a desk. (Right now, as most of the time these days, I'm lying on the floor with my computer on my knees. It's not dignified, but my cats like it.)

I really love writing this blog. As you all have no doubt noticed, I'm sort of an opinionated person, and it's been really fun to get my thoughts out there in pretty close to real time for my small but loving group of readers. I'm not giving up on it, and hope to do more with it in the very near future. But for now, I can't promise the same level of frequency in the posting as I've been used to doing in the past. Que sera sera. I hope you'll stick with me for when the good times return.

Earlier today I was trying to remember when I started this blog - I went back and dug out the very first post, and it turns out it was a little over a year ago - May 18, 2008. So I missed my own first Blogiversary. Curses.

Here's a reminder of how this blog got started - from the very first post:

There is a longstanding tradition in online debates that as soon as one party in a discussion invokes the spectre of Nazi-ism, the discussion is over and the other party may claim victory.

http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
So I am ready to claim victory over the Republicans today in the ongoing discussion about US foreign policy. In case you missed, it the double-act of George W. Bush and John McCain have this week decided that Barack Obama's foreign policy approach of active engagement withour enemies through robust diplomacy is somehow equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. Uh huh.

How do we even begin to unpick the levels of nonsense in this thinking? (In this analogy, does W somehow fancy himself standing the place of Churchill? Because apart from the thousand other ways in which they differ, there's also the small point that Winston actuallywon his war.... But never mind.)

Happy belated Blogaversary to me. And many moooore...

The Death of George Tiller and the Hard Choices

Yesterday, Kansas doctor George Tiller was assasinated in his church, apparently by an anti-abortion activist offended that Tiller conducts late term abortions.

Tiller was shot while distributing the church bulletin at the 10AM Service he was attending with his wife. This was not the first time he has been attacked by abortion opponents - 16 years ago he was shot in both arms by another anti-abortion activist. His clinic has been the target of bomb threats, obstructive protest action (blocking the doors, clogging ventilation shafts etc.) and a series of lawsuits alleging illegal abortion (none of which have ever been found to have merit).

Dr. Tiller was the fourth abortion provider to be murdered since 1993, but the first since 1998.

I'm taking a deep breath now.

OK. A few facts that are worth bearing in mind.

1) George Tiller was one of only 3 doctors in all of the US who was still willing to perform late term abortions. Now there are 2.
2) Kansas (where Dr Tiller practiced) is the only state in which such procedures are legal.
3) Late term abortion is subject to far more restrictions than first or second trimester abortions, and are typically only granted if there is a serious threat to the life of the mother, or if the baby is very sick indeed.
4) Because of this, the profile of women who recieve late term abortions is very different than those receiving early pregnancy abortions - typically these babies were wanted and the parents who make the decision at this late stage suffer from enormous grief.

George Tiller's murderer must be a very disturbed person - and to their credit I think only a vanishingly small minority of anti-abortion activists would in any way condone his actions.

But I also think that an awful lot of anti-abortion activists do believe that George Tiller must have been a wicked man - a "baby killer" - whose determination to keep conducting late term abortions must, to them, seem like a perverse insistence upon evil.

To those who disagree with abortion, and those who are especially offended by late term abortions - I can understand their point of view. I really can. By 20 weeks, a fetus is nearly viable - a little person ready to grow - and it makes a lot of sense that you would have tremendous sympathy for that little person.

What I would ask you to consider, however, is that your sympathy for that baby is likely to be no less strong than that of the baby's mother - who most likely carried her child for months believing it to be healthy and excited about her pregnancy. That mother - and father - have most likely been decorating nurseries and picking out names.

I'd ask abortion opponents to believe that they don't have some special moral sympathy for these babies that their parents somehow lack. Instead, I'd ask them to consider the possibility that after agonising and suffering, these parents made a medical choice that they saw as a loving choice. If you find that hard to imagine or understand, try reading a few of these first hand accounts from women who have been through it.

And I would FURTHER like you to consider the possibility that those mothers, having been through 6 kinds of hell, often with their own health deteriorating, nevertheless firmly believing that the best thing they can do for their child is to spare its suffering, deserve a qualified medical professional who will respect their decision.

In all of the US there were only 3. Now there are 2.

You may think George Tiller was a monster. Some think he was a hero. I think he was a doctor. And from the sounds of it, a very brave one.

Rest In Peace, Dr. Tiller.

Rush: Republicans are Like Blacks in Jim Crow Era

I rarely pay much attention to the pile of bile that is Right Wing radio host, Rush Limbaugh. For me, it s kinda like a boycott - his product is outrage therefore if I buy into his deliberately outrageous provocations I become his customer. I have no desire to buy anything from El Rushbo.

But sometimes, even the picketers outside the store have to tip their hat when a retailer stocks an especially remarkable bit of merchandise. And so, I feel force to break my self imposed discipline to report to you that apparently Republicans in America are being lynched by angry mobs of Democrats. Or something:

If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. If ever we needed to start marching for freedom and Constitutional rights, it's for the Republican Party. The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority. It knows how to behave as one. It shuts up. It doesn't cross bridges, it doesn't run into the Bull Connors of the Democrat Party. It is afraid of the firehouses and the dogs, it's compliant. The Republican Party today has become totally complacent. They are an oppressed minority, they know their position, they know their place. They go to the back of the bus, they don't use the right restroom and the right drinking fountain, and they shut up.

Ah. Right, then. If EVER a civil rights movement were needed, claims Signor Rush, it is needed for the mildly mentally repressed Republican party. Certainly it was not needed for the group of people who were actually being forced to the back of the bus, treated as legally unequal, deprived of voting rights and violently murdered in appallingly high numbers by men in hoods.

Indeed no. For THAT, you see, was merely an example of the glories of our federalism in which we recognise the inalienable rights of the state.

Rather, we should have held fire at the time and saved our organising for the inevitable moment when, 40 or so years on the Republican party would peacefully lose an election because they have so badly screwed up the country that almost no one still agrees with them about anything. That, apparently, is what it means to be an oppressed minority.

Ya know, Rush, just because you're a minority doesn't mean you're being oppressed.

But furthermore - why is language like this allowed to persist? Slavery and the later civil rights abuses perpetrated against African Americans in this country were an American atrocity - an original sin of the nation that we have fortunately begun to overcome. I'm not saying that we should hang our heads every day for shame, or that those of us who were born after the worst moments of oppression had ended necessarily bear personal responsibility for it.

But surely, we owe more to those who were its victims than this kind of glib comparison, yes? People were rounded up by angry mobs by moonlight and beaten then cut, then hung and then set on fire. Thousands of them were. In living memory. Even generations after we had to fight a war to ensure their ancestors could no longer be enslaved.

When people make these kinds of facile comparisons between whatever is the current Outrage Du Jour and the Holocaust perpetrated against Jews, the Anti-Defamation League has made it a habit to object in the strongest possible language, on the grounds that this cheapens the memory of the real victims. I can't see any reason why it should be acceptable to treat the real victims of the Jim Crow South with any less consideration. Even if you are a professional merchant of slime.

Oppression? I'll show you oppression. Oppression right on your behind. Crazy!

Sotomayor Pictures

And by the way, if you're looking for some good pictures from throughout the life of our hopefully-next Supreme Court Justice, the New York Daily News has some good ones.
For instance, here she is at a baseball game with her nephews:

Here she is graduating from High School:

Not So Dumb

On the one hand, you have a group of people who are arguing in favor of supporting a candidate for the Supreme Court. They point out that this candidate graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton University (accompanied by an undergraduate award for outstanding academic merit). They mention that the candidate went on to Yale Law School where she became editor of the Yale Law Journal and earned a Juris Doctorate degree. Further, they add, after graduation the candidate worked for five years as a Prosecutor, taking on challenging cases including many murders. Her advocates remind you that after leaving the prosecutors' office the candidate took a partnership in a lucrative private practice, specialising in intellectual property law. The candidate has been an appeals court judge for 12 years, where her notable cases included a dramatic intervention to end an ongoing baseball strike, and was a federal judge for 6 years before that.

She was also, as her supporters have not yet gotten around to mentioning, an adjunct professor of law for both New York University and Columbia Law Schools. She is a trustee of Princeton University. Her supporters point out that in addition to all of these CLEARLY relevant displays of intellect and experience, the candidate also happens to be the child of a widowed mother raised in modest circumstances whose achievements are all the more impressive for not having been backed by familial wealth or priviledge. In summary, her supporters conclude, the candidate has met or surpassed every conceivable qualification for the Supreme Court posting for which she is being nominated - in terms of proven academic merit, in terms of depth and breadth of legal experience, in terms of applied legal reasoning, and finally in terms of her ability to provide a valuable new perspective based on her unusual-for-the-Court but not unusual-for-America background.

On the other hand, those who oppose her suggest that might be kind of dumb.

I'm working REALLY hard to find any way of thinking about that particular argument that doesn't rely upon Sotomayor's opponents being blatantly sexist and/or racist. The only thing I can come up with so far is that maybe they were just totally misinformed about her actual credentials. But that seems unlikely since she's been talked about as a likely pick for quite some time.

And so, I am at a loss. I have no desire to "play the race card" still less "the gender card" (although I would gently suggest that there's something unseemly about talking of females as if they represent a small minority before whom the Democrats quaver when in fact we're a slight statistical MAJORITY...) since someone somewhere decided that even raising the possibility of sexism or racism automatically invalidates any other arguments you may make... So I'm not sure where to go here.

Perhaps I could just politely suggest that those who suggest she is somehow an intellectual lightweight could point to specific opinions or writings that they consider in some way deficient?

Morgenthau on Sotomayor

Legendary Manhattan DA Bob Morgenthau weighed in to the discussion of (now) Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor a few weeks ago with a strikingly strong letter in the Wall Street Journal:

Some have suggested that the judge is "liberal," and that allegation makes me smile. Judge Sotomayor was a fearless and effective prosecutor while she was here, and I am sure that none of the defendants in her cases thought of her as a "liberal." To be sure, she is in favor of civil rights, in the sense that she believes there should be no discrimination against minorities. And she understands poverty, and does seem to favor government action that will provide a safety net to the poor. Those are, however, not exactly radical positions.

As is very evident from the opinions she has written, Judge Sotomayor believes in the rule of law. Some notice that she is Hispanic and female, and would typecast her as an "activist." But I look at her record, and see an able champion of the law serving with great distinction on the second most important appellate court in the world. Judge Sotomayor is highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets.

Robert M. Morgenthau New York Mr. Morgenthau is district attorney of the County of New York.

Sotomayor was a prosecutor under Morgenthau for five years, early in her career. Indeed, one of the striking things about her is how very much she is a New York success story - hailing from the Bronx, working for the DA's office, serving on New York's Federal bench. And, of course, endearing herself to Yankees fans in the 90's by saving baseball from a crippling strike...

More on Sotomayor (Loving SCOTUS Blog...)

SCOTUS Blog has an excellent post summing up likely Conservative attacks against the nominee and why, ultimately, they do not expect these attacks to be successful.

Republicans cannot afford to find themselves in the position of implicitly opposing Judge Sotomayor. To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future.

Equally significant for not only Hispanics but all Americans, Sotomayor has an extraordinarily compelling personal narrative. She is a first generation American, born of immigrant parents. She grew up in a housing project, losing her father as
an adolescent, raised (with her brother) by her mother, who worked as a nurse. She got herself to Princeton, graduating as one of the top two people in her class, then went to Yale Law. Almost all of her career has been in public service–as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name.

(...)

Objectively, her qualifications are overwhelming from the perspective of ordinary Americans. She has been a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge. No one currently on the Court has that complete package of experience.

Read the whole thing - it's fascinating.

Sotomayor: Her (Legal) Opinions

There will no doubt be a hurricane's worth of hot air blown about Sonia Sotomayor as Republicans attempt to position her as a liberal extremist who hates puppies, and Democrats as utterly mainstream, so conventional in her views as to be practically tedious (for this appears to be how Supreme Court nominations go...). But in the midst of wading through this shout fest you might find it useful to get some facts.

The invaluable SCOTUS Blog has a long series taking a detailed look at Sotomayor's actual rulings on matters before the Federal and Appeals courts on which she has served.

Here's a rundown of her opinions in civil cases.

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor’s opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court’s more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor’s views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter.

Here's lots more on a wide range of cases.

Supreme Court Pick to Be Announced Today: Expected to be Sonia Sotomayor

Today at 10:15 AM Eastern Time, President Obama will make a live address from the White House in which he is expected to announce his appointment to the US Supreme Court.

Both the New York Times and CBS News are reporting that the nominee will be Sonia Sotomayor, appeals court judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Born in the Bronx to Puerto Rican parents under very humble circumstances, Sotomayor certainly appears to meet Obama's expectation for a Justice who can empathise with the struggles of ordinary citizens. She would be the first Hispanic ever to be appointed to the Court, and only the third woman (the second on the current Court, joining Ruth Bader Ginsburg).

Confirmed to the Appeals court by President Clinton in 1997, she has also in her career gained support from major Republicans as well - her first Federal court appointment was made by President George H. W. Bush in 1991.

Ask Not For Whom the Soldiers Died...

they died for thee.

Today is Memorial Day in America - the day we set aside to remember the soldiers who fought and died in all US wars.

Apparently, the custom of setting aside this day for remembrance began with local ceremonies in honor of the fallen after the Civil War, and was made an official federal holiday in 1888.

Many of the American men and woman that the country honors today died in heroic fashion, for inarguably noble and successful causes. (All of us in Europe are especially grateful to them for their decisive role on the final victory over Germany in WWII.)

But not always. As painful as this is to admit, some of these men and women died pointlessly - in friendly fire incidents that could have been prevented, for example. Some of our soldiers died because of terribly mistaken orders from our own military or civilian leaders. Some died because they didn't have the right equipment, or necessary medical supplies, or good information when they needed it.

Whether they died as heroes, or as accidents, they died for us. Even if they died in a war you opposed, they died to for you. It's relatively easy to honor men and women who died under unequivocally admirable circumstances. Everyone's chest can swell with patriotism and pride unmitigated by doubts and the need to improve.

But we owe our veterans more than a "well done" and the satisfaction of pride. We owe them the hard work of looking hard at what goes wrong, when things do go wrong. We owe them a commitment to making sure that every military engagement we send them on is necessary, that we have a plan to win, that we know how to secure the peace, that we give our men and women the arms and equipment to do the difficult jobs we ask them to do, and that they will always get the best treatment available when they are injured in the line of duty (whether that injury be physical or emotional). We owe them a guarantee that their families will not have to live in poverty because they served their country.

We owe it to them to remember them every day, not just memorial day.

Or to put it another way,

"Our fighting men and women — and the military families who love them — embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us," Obama said during his radio address.

Encouragingly,

Obama and his wife, Michelle, have made veterans and military families a priority during his young administration. Obama's budget proposed the largest single-year funding increase in the last three decades to revamp the Department of Veterans Affairs.

So thanks to every service member living and dead, and to their families and loved ones. I hope that we don't let you down.

The Way I Live Now...

Every once in a while I watch something like this cool video on urban design...



And I get insufferably smug. Because, yes - this is how I live. In a small row house in a cozy part of East London, with shops, restaurants, schools, libraries, postal services and fitness facilities all an easy walk away. Plus, when I do feel like getting out of the area I've got the Underground, frequent buses, and overground trains all in easy reach. I haven't owned a car since High School and, although it's not for everyone, I really don't feel like this lifestyle in any way a hardship that I endure as some sort of self-sacrificing environmental penance. I like it. It's pretty low stress (I love that I never have to worry about parking), safe (motor vehicle accidents are the 3rd most likely cause of death for folks my age), and healthier (I do a lot of walking).

I grew up on a cul-de-sac. It was nice there, but I'd never go back to it.

A New US Ambassador to Britain?

Today a number of British papers are reporting the expected announcement of Louis Susman as US Ambassador to the Court of St. James.

Susman is a long-time Democratic party fundraiser and early supporter of Obama's

The British media - a strange beast at the best of times - has responded extremely oddly to this (not yet confirmed) posting. For instance, here's the Telegraph writing back in March when the idea was first being mentioned:

The appointment of a crony of the President rather than a diplomatic high-flyer will be a disappointment for Gordon Brown who has already had to come to terms with the fact Britain now only has a "special partnership" with America rather than a "special relationship".

Really? The appointment of a successful businessman and good friend to the President is a sign that poor old Britain gets demoted to a mere "partner" rather than having a "relationship"? And in some way that's to be considered a demotion? (Partnership < Relationship?)

The Guardian, after much Kvetching and hand wringing that Susman does not come from the diplomatic corps, finally reports in its bizarre article that:

The president's choice of Susman could be viewed as a snub to the UK.

I suppose it COULD - but you'd have to be trying really, really hard.

Wherefore this profound insecurity in Britain that wants to believe with every reading of the entrails that there is a secret snub to be found. It reminds me of something John F. Kennedy once said when the government of West Germany kept asking for assurances of US support:

"It was, the President once said, like a wife who asks her husband every night, 'Do you love me?' and when he keeps repeating that he does, nevertheless asks again, 'But do you really love me?' - and then puts detectives on his tail."

Gordon Brown was the first foreign leader that President Obama met with in Washington. He was the first foreign leader that President Obama visited overseas. Britain, you really are our closest ally. Honest. We REALLY DO love you.

Louis Susman is, I have no doubt, a supremely competent leader (and I've heard good things about him from those who worked with him during the campaign) and I'm sure he'll be a fine Ambassador in line with the tradition of fine politically appointed ambassadors here. But it doesn't seem to me that there is a desperate need for an ambassador with strong State Department experience here PRECISELY BECAUSE our relationship is so close.

A lot of the work that would normally be conducted by the Ambassador will be done through direct Presidential level discussions. Plus, although I have no doubt that there will be areas of disagreement, I don't think the Obama administration is worried about managing contentious trade agreements, or military engagements here in Britain. We're allies - there's a level of mutual trust and respect.

And finally, Britain, please remember in the midst of all the lunatic hand wringing over whether our relationship is REALLY special, whether it's special ENOUGH, whether it will ALWAYS be special... We're not with you because you nag or trick us into it.

It's very much in America's best interest to be closely allied with Britain. Even if the President and the Prime Minister didn't like each other personally (although there's every evidence that they DO), even if the Mayor of London arrests the US Ambassador for non-payment of fines (which he might), even if we never succeed in giving you a properly functioning DVDs - the US will always love you. Promise.

Those other countries meant nothing to us.