Claire,

In order for people to take an interest, they have to be exposed to the subject. Our schools and our media, for different, but not entirely unrelated reasons, don't want us taking an interest in matters so far away. I have in mind a lengthy politically cynical rant of my own to insert here, but I haven't the time. Must get to church on time - how terribly antiquated is that priority?

In closing, I had the good fortune to grow up in Britain at a time when the BBC could be trusted (more or less) to routinely cover events from everywhere on the globe. Thus, I learned to take an interest in the plight of Turkish journalists ... and the like. Thus, I to see you struggle, because yours is one of the few serious efforts by an American journalist to illuminate.

Please, let me, let us, know more what, if anything we can do to help you personally. There's not a much I can or want to do to help the rest of your colleagues outside of the Ricochet family (except Mark Steyn, but he doesn't need my help).

Huh?

Do many people equate Turkey to Iran? That would seem to be a stretch that anyone familiar enough with the world to have an opinion would reject.

What about Thomas Sowell? 

On John Gibson's radio show today, a caller demanded that he name one famous "black person" who supports the Tea Party agenda. Of course, the caller dismissed Herman Cain as irrelevant. When presented with Thomas Sowell, the caller asked, incredulously, "who?" Tells you about all you need to know. One of the smartest men in America is black and the caller had no idea who he is. That's why concerning ourselves too much with the image of conservatism in the African-American community is largely a waste of time. Those who don't understand, don't want to understand. 

And no, Obama is not another of the smartest men in America. I doubt he's one of the smartest men in the White House.

Maggie matters because she was the most effective free world leader in the second half of the twentieth century at a time when it mattered profoundly for her country and ours.

I could go on about particulars, but they would only illustrate, not state, my point. Unfortunately I haven't the time for illustrations. You already know the rest. You wrote a book about it.

They don't need books. They've got the Guardian to start fires.

Who said anything about a husband? Actually, it's worse than you imagine. She didn't care about the past due support. It was as if the father owed the money to the State of Louisiana, not to her. As far as she was concerned, it was entirely between him and the Department of Social Services. When he pays support, which he does most of the time, it's paid to the Department. The Department send her checks. There is no connection in her mind between the one and the other. And this witness was (I repeat) a reasonably sentient human being. I've seen much worse.

Yesterday, our problem was captured in a single, inconsequential bit of testimony. Taking the deposition of a 34 year old, unemployed, single mother of four - a very nice lady, mind you, I asked a simple enough question. My inquiry was for the limited purpose of establishing that the father of one child was behind on his financial obligations in late 2009. I asked if she could confirm child support arrearages noted on a judgment against him. She volunteered that the judgment must be correct. Following up, I asked "do you keep track of child support payments from" the father. "No," she answered, "that's not my job. That's what the department of social services does." This perfectly pleasant and fairly representative member of a significant community believes a responsibility of government is to keep track of her child support receipts. How hard might she be to convince that hateful fiscal conservatives are out to starve her family? 

After George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, Bob Beckel lamented on Fox News that secession might be an appropriate response. I thought then that his was the despicable tirade of a sore loser. I still do and struggle every day to reconcile that with an increasing sense that he may have been right.

My concern has to do with the differing philosophies of a population that could elect first W and then O. I don't need to defend President Bush. He was a fine man but a less than ideal head of state. President Obama is, in my estimation, a petty and thoroughly unlikeable man whose election symbolizes the shallowness of celebrity culture. Thus I am trending toward regretful conclusion that, just as San Franciscans demand we flyover yahoos let them be, I'd prefer that their lunacy not be imposed on my preferred existence. If the federal government cannot or will not respect the sovereignty of the states, then political dissolution may be the only way to make both sides happy. For a while.

Adding a footnote to your observations, note that spendthrifts in Congress want to constrain attempts to address the issue. The "revenue" debate is everything that you imagine - political opportunism and redistributive economics - but it is more. By demanding a dollar for dollar match between budget cuts and tax increases, the Democrats know that meaningful budget cuts are not possible. If the Republicans agreed, it would turn into a perverse death by billions of cuts. It would not be possible for Republicans to get what they need from an economic standpoint and still remain politically viable. They would alienate everyone. The Democrats don't have such a problem because their base isn't unified behind any particular principle beyond hatred for Republicans. This is cynicism on steroids. It also happens to be the real "long national nightmare."

Thanks for posting this piece. Applied learning can be very effective when absorbed as an incident to the matter at hand. It allows one to put detail into context in a way that avoids barriers to comprehension. Much as peripheral vision aids in darkness. Might you recognize similar pathologies in Istanbul for the same reason that I recognize them in Baton Rouge? If we tried to apply the full measure of his description to our own communities, we'd reject the image as, at best, a caricature. But presented as a tragicomic diagnosis of Greek decline, it's easy to see that there, but for the present grace of God, go we.

I'm not sure why you include the "if you so desire" comment. I think it is important to know what we are talking about. Having seen the ad, it is beyond me why it should be given an award. It's not just creepy. It doesn't have any artistic or promotional merit. I don't know that I would call it a pedophilia thing. The teacher isn't pictured in, or imagining, a seductive encounter with a (the?) child. Perhaps he is imaging himself when he is older having an encounter with the little girl when she is older. Admittedly, that is sick enough given her age.  What the award tells me is that some Europeans are so determined to be transgressive, that transgression has become an end deserving of recognition absent any other value. The ad tells me nothing other than that a lot of people are quite mentally disturbed if they are more inclined to buy a Kia because of it..

Is it realistic to hope that instability in Arab countries and, perhaps, Iran will signal to the AKP that Turkey needs to maintain constructive relationships with Europe, the US and even Israel? To put it another way, isn't, for Turkey, the best case result in Syria a more open society (however unlikely that may be) and, therefore, the best policy for Turkey is to remain relatively open? Why go out of one's way to create conditions that are leading to revolution elsewhere?

What will the Jon Stewarts of the world offer as their excuse when it turns out that nirvana wasn't really just an Obamacare away? We're headed for a concrete wall at 120mph and John Stewart wants to talk about Fox viewers' ignorant refusal to believe liberal economists and meaningless CBO numbers!  Really? 

We may avert tragedy, but not disaster. If Jon Stewart were half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd get that much.

Really? Must be another Assad that Hillary assured us is a reformer.  

She's so savvy!