Also, on the subject of British elections: Tony Blair remains the man that I hate myself for loving, but God, he gets me every time. He lies! He goes to war! He’s a Bush in Clinton clothing… except he’s not, not really, and all he’s had to do is get up and “apologize” and acknowledge the pain he’s caused and suddenly I want to cuddle up to him again. Toooooony. He uses the word “relentlessly” without following it with “bombing” or “fucking up the environment.” Oh yes, he’s still better than what we’ve got.*
Actually, I suspect that Tony Blair is the politician I would have been (had I gone into British politics, back in the day). Subtract the religion-on-the-sleeveness that I get from him and you get realist governing that looks like it’s driven by idealism. Then again, I say this with the authority of one Blair-government book and a few magazine and newspaper articles behind me, so I could be all wrong.
Something I am not wrong about: Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has perhaps the best name EVER.
*Also, I want to say that the New York Times reporting of the British election was shoddy. Basically, I’m going to rate any article that quotes two other newspapers as sources — and in fact uses a quote from a columnist that’s over two paragraphs in length — as craptastic journalism, but this really hacked me off for some reason. Maybe it was the part where they cited the Daily Mirror’s front-page mock-up of Blair’s opponent as Dracula. I understand that the article was probably rushed into print and everything, and the later versions on the Web site are much better, but… come on!
And yay, the story “In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More” is the #4 most e-mailed article on nytimes.com at the moment. This goes right along with the letter in today’s local paper about how this national attention is devaluing my degree. I really need to get that “What’s Next, Gravity?” bumpersticker.