Andrew Sullivan, much reviled among conservatives but still someone I consider a friend and whose writing I continue to read (even if I don't always agree with his points) notes this exchange involving new RNC Chairman Michael Steele, on the subject of civil unions:

GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn't something that you just kind of like, "Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage." [...]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What's the difference?...

As someone who actively worked to defeat President Obama last year when he was just plain old Senator/Barack Obama, it will surprise no one to know that I was never quite sold on his candidacy, well-defined by its "change" theme, with which we are now all so well-accustomed.

Watch this space for a couple of longer posts, which I hope will be forthcoming, about my experiences of working at the RNC, to elect John McCain (a man I still very much admire) President, and some more detailed thoughts about the campaign.

For now, let me put this brief missive live: For as much as Obama campaigned on the notion of "change," when it came to matters I consider extremely linked to civil liberties issues (many of which really arose because of the Bush administration's perceived disinterest in protecting said liberties), I never bought what he was selling. The executive branch (and would-be heads of it) tend to want to maintain and, if possible, expand executive power; Presidents tend to consistently treat security as a top concern, often ahead of rights and liberties (not necessarily rightly, but perhaps understandably, given that everyone gets to vote them into, or out of, office and it's easy for the populace to get its head around voting someone out of office who may have been "on guard," so to speak, when lives were lost). As it happens, I'm still not buying what Obama sold, though-- and here's why. [intro]...

A few years ago, when I was still living in the UK, the subject of foreign aid to Africa was a particularly hot topic. The Jubilee Debt Campaign/Jubilee 2000 (often associated with the "Drop The Debt" slogan) was attracting plenty of attention, as was the Commission for Africa, established in 2004, whose report, issued in March 2005, called on the developed world to "increase andimprove its aid" to the continent. Specifically, the Commission called for an additional $25 billion a year in aid to be provided to Africa by 2010, a recommendation that was met with some praise, and also some controversy.

Even though it feels like heavy focus on aid to Africa has diminished since the middle of th decade (and since I moved back to the US, where it has always seemed like less of a hot topic than it has been in Britain), it's fair to say the subject remains one that inspires strong emotions and is steeped in a fair amount of controversy, as is evidenced by this item in this weekend's New York Times Magazine: The Anti-Bono.[intro]

The "Anti-Bono" is Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian who has written a book entitled Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. In it, she argues that aid to Africa should in fact be stopped: A pretty controversial idea that I suspect will ruffle a few feathers when the book is, in fact, released (this St. Patrick's Day, if you were wondering). ...