lifestyle leader

A controversial topic deserves a second-, and third-look:

-A shock poll out of the UK says one in five Britons would 'seriously consider' voting for the BNP following Griffin's Question Time appearance. This underlines my major point: Wake up, Britain.

-Lest you confuse my support for freedom of speech and political assembly with approval for the BNP, I give you the blokes at The Bugle and their take on the BNP.

'Nick Griffin is a man with a face that screams out, 'hit me with a plank of wood.'

Many of our readers will be familiar with the controversy in Britain over the appearance of the British National Party's (BNP) leader on the BBC's Question Time program. In short, the political and media establishment has rounded on the BBC over its decision to let Nick Griffin appear on the Thursday evening show, in my opinion the best political television program in the world. They argue that by granting the BNP a mainstream platform alongside the three most prominent parties (Labour, Tories and Lib Dems), the BBC is legitimizing the far-right party and providing its incendiary leader with a national audience to direct his 'fascist' message. The BBC has held its ground, and Griffin appeared on the program just hours ago while protesters clashed with police outside.

I have a few quick thoughts on this whole ordeal. One, Question Time is over and the constitutional monarchy stands (that was a close one!). Two, it is a slippery slope between between banning hate speech and repressing the legitimate political views of organized, well-supported parties. Griffin's views are despicable. But that does not mean he should be refused the opportunity to sit down at a table and debate those issues. That is what separates us from the animals. And as prehistoric as the BNP's views might be, they are a modern political party with a real, and growing, base of support in Britain.

Three, I recognize that there is a chance the BNP will incite violence or intolerance amongst its supporters or impressionable minds. But that is an insufficient test of whether they should be allowed on a program like Question Time. In my own country, members of the Republican Party have likened my president to Stalin, claimed he was a foreigner lacking the birthright to hold the office and warned that his government was coming to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens. There was a disturbing spike in gun purchases prior to Obama's inauguration. They have also labeled immigration over our southern border an 'invading army', leading private citizens to patrol that border with weapons (rhetoric likely to find a home with the BNP). But no serious political mind would argue that these elected representatives should be denied a chance to speak on any of our news networks. In fact, they have a whole network devoted to them!

Most representatives of the Republican Party wouldn't utter these words if they didn't resonate with their supporters. Likewise, the BNP's recent success at the polls is but a symptom of the growing resonance of its message. Disillusionment with Westminster has likely played a role in this as well, as the performance of smaller parties in the last elections demonstrated. If more and more people were not drawn to the BNP, there would be no demand for its leader to debate the political establishment on issues like immigration and European integration.

That is the real issue that the British establishment has conveniently ignored, instead directing their anger and insecurity at the BNP itself. I was disappointed that much of the panel debate and most of the audience questions this evening focused on the legitimacy of the BNP itself, as a political party, instead of forcing Griffin to openly debate its platform with members of the more established parties. It seems much easier, and more convenient, to attack the BNP than to debate why this party's support is growing. Those answers are likely far more difficult to deal with, and cut directly to the national character and social contract.

The BNP is a deplorable party. But Nick Griffin was on Question Time for a reason tonight. For his invitation, the BBC deserves enormous credit.

Following a not-so-brief sabbatical from these fine pages...your Wednesday quick hits and pink picks:

-While the financial markets are cautiously optimistic the US economy may be stabilizing, some prominent figures are still anticipating Armageddon: John Taylor, of Taylor Rule fame, thinks the Fed is dangerously loose with its monetary policy and has "caused, prolonged, and worsened" the financial crisis. He challenges the Fed's assurances that it can quickly shrink its balance sheet to prevent an inflationary tsunami on the upswing. In a potent dose of IPE, he points to the likely, and severe, political constraints such steps would face. If Taylor is correct, the Fed has little room left to stimulate credit/growth before a rapid, and sharp, tightening of monetary policy is necessary. A second alarm has been sounded by David Walker, formerly director of the Government Accountability Office, who warns the US' triple-A credit rating is at serious risk. He identifies two primary risk factors: health care reform and poor post-crisis fiscal constraints. Walker acknowledges that health care reform is critical to correcting the country's fiscal imbalance and driving down the cost to individuals, but contends that we should focus on reforming the massively unfunded liabilities we are already living with, namely Medicare. Second, like Taylor he worries that political constraints will limit the political will to impose fiscal discipline after the flood. There's also that tricky little issue of tax increases.

-In an admittedly lightweight piece for Vanity Fair.com, Matt Pressman identifies four reasons why Newsweek and Time will never be The Economist. The US newsweeklies are looking to the emulate the print media's shining star, a sentiment so widely held in the industry that Pressman likens it to the ever-present "10 secrets to perfect abs." While the analysis could be much better, the article does identify a critical gap in the US media landscape, intelligent international affairs reporting, and in a way challenges the print media's death knell. There are publications, like The Economist and FT, both of which have seen US circulation numbers steadily rising over the past decade, who are still growing amidst print's great decline. While Pressman is correct that "do as The Economist does" has become an industry cliche rarely realized in circulation or quality, he is wrong to suggest that The Economist's reporting/analysis/"snob appeal" cannot be emulated. Much of the US media talks to Americans like they are their worst stereotype: isolated, ignorant, superficial and uninterested in the world around them. Newsweek and Time should thus be applauded, not mocked, in their efforts to emulate The Economist, whether ultimately viable or not. A final point: is it a coincidence that thriving print publications are seemingly all British?

-It is once again the CIA v. Congress, a battle seemingly waged once every other decade. Isn't blame/failure in such instances always systemic? And is this stunning reversal related?

-Over the past year, we have tried to highlight some of less visible victims of the credit crunch, be it sport or contemporary art. Yachts and independent films could be added to list, as this year's Cannes Film Festival kicks off under a cloud of financial uncertainty.

-The Finnish government is merging the country's top three universities to form a single, new institution of higher education: Aalto University. The new school will endeavor to approach innovation from a multidisciplinary track. Seed Magazine examines its vision.

The NYT takes a look at the fortunes of, and controversy surrounding, CNBC. In a slightly less antagonistic manner than I did last week.

(h/t Liz)

I've been traveling for the past week, and have thus spent a lot of time in lobbies and hotel rooms watching CNBC. I have always preferred Bloomberg as a source of financial/economic news and analysis, but it is a fact that CNBC is the business channel of record in the financial world (both within and outside of the US). They have unrivaled access, and so I tend to watch the network more than I do the decidedly better Bloomberg.

But recently, I, like many people, have simply become fed-up with CNBC's self-righteous, failed paradigm clinging, dancing on the deck of the titanic posture. The now infamous Rick Santelli spectacle on the floor of the Chicago Merc was but the tip of their hypocritical iceberg. The network's pundits have not only been cheerleaders for the financial industry bailouts, arguing incessantly that the systemic risks posed by the failure of large institutions dramatically outweighed any moral hazard or popular considerations, but now rally behind Santelli's bizarre and hypocritical admonishment of the Obama administration's efforts to provide less than 10% of US homeowners with less than one-billionth of the financial support provided to the banks. The debate over mortgage relief is a nuanced and important one, and both sides of this debate have merits to their argument. However, no one can possibly deny that the systemic implications of the mortgage market are any less important than those posed by the financial system. Remember, the practical foundation of the banking crisis is arguably the mortgage-backed securities that are still destroying confidence in the banking system and strangling credit, particularly inter-bank lending. Note to Santelli:

Your neighbors' (well, probably not your neighbors) mortgages matter as much to the recovery of the global economy as the profits of the trading firms you stand amidst daily on CNBC.

So, to limit the rant that this post has inevitably descend into, I will sum up my perspective on CNBC in this way:

CNBC has no credibility. Period.

Yet, because of their stature, access and unrivaled ability amongst business television outlets to influence the market, the network goes largely unchallenged in both its viewership and clout. In fact, the economic and financial downturn has boosted CNBC's ratings to record levels, as the amount of people looking to better understand their economic and financial circumstances increases. It is great that people are looking to educate themselves on the economic and financial forces impacting their lives, but unfortunate that they are turning to CNBC for that information (although, I am pleased to learn that the FT has been steadily increasing its circulation for some time).

Enter The Daily Show. Rick Santelli, who was scheduled to appear on the show last night, apparently cancelled at the last minute. The show was not, um, happy, and thus took it upon itself to, as only it can, call CNBC on its b*llsh*t. Enjoy.

From Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fischer:

"Let me just be blunt. Protectionism is the crack cocaine of economics. It may provide a high. It's addictive and it leads to economic death"

Editor's note: the provision in question has been alternately referred to as "Buy America" or "Buy American." I started using "Buy America" because Reuters (the source of my initial post on the provision) does. However, it seems "Buy American" is more widely used.

Legendary journalist William Safire has a weekly column in the New York Times Sunday Magazine called, "On Language", in which he explores the origins, meanings, and uses of popular words or phrases. I think the "Buy America"/"Buy American" distinction would be an interesting case. While the essence is the same, does the addition of the 'n' alter the implied scope or meaning in some subtle way? Sadly, I can't answer that.