Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

Today's Web Grab

You might enjoy:

• Hendrik Hertzberg in Notes on politics, mostly: W.F.B. R.I.P
• James Forsyth in Americano: The recriminations start
• Wife in the North: Cover story
• Michael Dobbs in The Fact Checker: Pinocchios for John McCain
• Mick Smith: Have we made Harry a marked man for the rest of his life?

Referendum rows and Shirley Williams

Tucked away in one of Dominic Lawson's (almost always excellent) columns is this story:

I'm told that after Gordon Brown had decided to abandon the Blair commitment to a referendum Shirley Williams, now Baroness Williams of Crosby and former leader of the LibDems in the House of Lords, had threatened to resign and rejoin the Labour Party, unless Ming Campbell likewise abandoned the dangerous policy of giving the British people a vote on the Lisbon treaty.

Maybe you all knew that, but I didn't.

Amusingly, Mrs (as she then was) Williams was incandescent when David Owen decided not to join up with the Liberals. She thought him a splitter.

Now she seems prepared to quit the party over a single (frankly medium sized at best) issue.

Who do you want to answer the phone?

That's the question asked by the latest Hillary Clinton ad.

As Real Clear Politics suggests, there are shades of the infamous Daisy ad by Lyndon B. Johnson

Why Boris could win it

I must say, I had always airily assumed that Ken Livingstone would win his campaign for re-election. Why? Because of second preferences. The Libs, I thought, would go Labour.

Now I am not so sure.

And now...McCain the 'liberal' Republican

Whoops. Here's one slip-up that might come back to haunt John McCain. Even now Rush Limbaugh is probably rubbing his hands with glee...

Alice Fishburn

A day in the life: What the lives of the Beatles tell us about their art

I should have known that teasing Oliver Kamm about reading a book was a dangerous thing to do.

In an earlier post I urged readers to enjoy Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, a book about the music of the Beatles. Incautiously I added: "Even you Oliver Kamm".

One of my reasons for encouraging the purchase of the Beatles book was that MacDonald argues - I think convincingly - that the politics and culture of the era, the views of the participants and their personal experiences shaped their music. And that it can't be properly understood or appreciated without it.

I knew Oliver - who strongly disagrees with me about the importance of personal experience - would not have read this book because popular music is not his bag. Hence the tease.

It turns out - how could I think it wouldn't have done - that while Oliver has not read Revolution in the Head he is, nevertheless, familiar with MacDonald's argument. Why? Because he has read MacDonald's book on Dmitri Shostakovich. And he regards it as unconvincing.

Oliver finishes his posting with this:

We can't gain direct knowledge of an artist's intentions, and even if we could then it still wouldn't necessarily be a reliable guide to the art. Art is independent of politics; we can make sense of a work of art only in its own terms, and not by inferring from it the intentions of the composer, author or artist.

These points have force. Few bodies of work have been as carefully examined as the songs of the Beatles. And few artists have given as many interviews about their work. Yet in many cases their intentions when writing a song remain obscure and the songs are enjoyed and understood without explanation.

Nevertheless I think Oliver, while having a good point, is being too dogmatic.

We can (and must be able to) make sense of a work of art in its own terms. Yes. We can make sense of a work of art only in its own terms. No.

Learning the context in which a work was completed helps both understanding and appreciation.

Using the - admittedly in Oliver's eyes lowbrow but also accessible - example of the Beatles, it is clear that, for instance, realising that Tomorrow Never Knows is the first example of an LSD influenced Beatles song aids understanding. And knowing that Sexy Sadie is an attack on the Maharishi aids appreciation.

There are countless other examples in Revolution in the Head.

I simply can't completely agree with the suggestion that art and politics are completely independent or that a composer's intentions are entirely irrelevant.

Magazine Rack - Issue 176

You might enjoy:

• Fraser Nelson in The Spectator: Made in Sweden - the new Tory education revolution
• Alma Guillermoprieto in The New Yorker: Fidel's farewell
• Jonathan Alter in Newsweek: Hillary should get out now
• Robert Boynton in Columbia Journalism Review: Checkbook journalism revisited

And the winning US Slogan is...

Bid farewell to 'E pluribus unum'. Gone are the days of 'One nation under God.'

According to Freakonomics, the new American motto is:

Our Worst Critics Prefer to Stay

Hardly morale-boosting but as Stephen J. Dubner goes on to point out, it:

is, while perhaps not outrightly uplifting, a wonderfully concise acknowledgment of the paradox that a capitalist democracy inevitably is: a place that is often well worth complaining about, and which allows you to complain as loudly as you wish.

And complaining, of course, is what it's all about. The patriotic propensity to moan was captured in our own competition to find a slogan for Britain. The Freakonomics motto now joins these illustrious Comment Central ranks:

No Motto Please, We’re British (Britain)

Chips for tea, chips on shoulders (Scotland)

And a host of Australian suggestions

So...Who's up next?

Alice Fishburn

The media remember Medvedev's name. But who are his rivals?

Hillary Clinton might struggle with his name but the Russian media has no such difficulties.

This Economist chart outlines Medvedev's considerable press presence at home.

As the darling of Putin, his media mentions clock in at six times more than his opponents. One possible explanation? The revelation that Medvedev chairs Gazprom, major stakeholder in most media outlets. As the article notes:

The head of the electoral commission admitted on Friday that coverage had been “fair but not equal”.

Alice Fishburn

Friday's comment from the papers in...

Today in Times Comment

• Gerard Baker: Luke Skywalker v Darth Vader
• Martin Samuel: 1,726,400,000 free-range birds?
• Ben Macintyre: The thief and the collector
• Mick Hume: Nature is bunk. Man is king
• Natalie Haynes: Propose on Feb 29? Am I crazy?
• Bronwen Maddox: A bad time for mixed messages to Turkey
• Sandra Parsons: Forget Happy Meals, let's focus on happy families
• Ann Treneman: Ruffians melted by rare candour
• Peter Riddell: Public spending outlook tight whoever is in charge

And from the rest of the papers...

• Iain Dale: (The Telegraph) - The Tories' £28bn NHS pledge
• Allan Mallinson: (The Telegraph) - Prince Harry can look every soldier in the eye
• Martin Vander Weyer: (The Telegraph) - Will Britain's financial future get any worse?
• Polly Toynbee: (The Guardian) - Fairness is forgotten in a culture of tax avoidance that shames Britain
• Simon Jenkins: (The Guardian) - Rip out the traffic lights and railings. Our streets are better without them
• Mark Lawson: (The Guardian) - Nothing for something
• Dominic Lawson: (The Independent) - An absurd tactical ploy – and the paradox of the new Liberal Democrat leader's position
• Terence Blacker: (The Independent) - It no longer pays to be a loyal customer
• Professor Alan Smithers: (The Independent) - Lessons of the Soviet Union should have been learnt
• Quentin Letts: (The Daily Mail) - The vultures are already circling defiant Speaker Martin

And from around the world...

• David Brooks: (The New York Times) - Remembering Buckley the mentor
• Michael Gerson: (The Washington Post) - Words aren't cheap
• E.J.Dionne Jr.: (The Washington Post) - The last 'Yes, we can' candidate
• Peggy Noonan: (The Wall Street Journal) - May we not lose his kind
• Viktor Erofeyev: (International Herald Tribune) - Dmitri's choice
• Christian Neef: (Der Spiegel) - Russia's dangerous double act