The Golden Strawberry

As the UK lecturer's union prepares to vote on an academic boycott of Israel.......

......Iran bans its lecturers from travelling to international conferences, and arrests academics on suspicion of spying.

Now, should British academics be concerned with a silly, unnecessary boycott, which, as Stephen Pollard says, makes them the "useful idiots" of anti-semites? Or should they instead defend the rights of academics around the globe - like the freedom to go where they like and engage in academic debate, without being accused of espionage?

It's their choice...

Cory

Blears - the shortness is actually an advantage - makes her memorable compared to the others.

If that's what her supporters are counting on, they have problems. I will post on the hustings debate - promise - but rest assured Hazel Blears was as cringingly awful as she usually is.

Cory

Libby Purves:

The launch of Irn Bru flavoured sausages is a cause for serious celebration.

Deep fried Irn-Bru flavoured sausage, anyone?

Cory

Idiots for Labour are back. This is the best news I've heard in ages.

Cory

Read this, and then think for a moment.

Some schools would be able to select pupils by race in order to improve community relations under plans being considered by the Conservative Party.

Now, how the frig is selecting pupils according to race going to help community relations?

Cory

Are any of the G2 columnists worth reading? Only Charlie Brooker, probably because he's the only one who doesn't take himself that seriously and doesn't come out with mind-numbing, supercilious, hurried, ill-thought out claptrap.

Like this Marcel Berlins article:

I have no doubt that the antics surrounding the Brown succession (I won't use the word coronation, which usually denotes a joyous event, and is therefore inappropriate here) have added a further layer of public cynicism and discontent about our system of alleged democracy.

I haven't said anything of substance yet on the Labour leadership. Exams are taking over, and I'm trying to restrict myself to tidbits for the next ten days or so. But this can't go without comment.

Britain is not an alleged democracy. IT IS A DEMOCRACY! It's not a perfect one, and of course there are problems, but maybe Marcel Berlins would like to live somewhere else.

Like Zimbabwe, for instance?

The country's economy is crumbling and its people are struggling to survive in the face of nearly 4,000 percent inflation, food and fuel shortages and the prospect of power cuts for up to 20 hours a day. Yet longtime Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is spending almost $4 million on a grandiose project -- a monument to himself.

And you may not like New Labour's stance on free speech. What about Hugo Chavez? He is not renewing the licence of a TV station critical to the government, which receives around 40% of the market share. And although Chavez seems to style himself as a "man of the people" running on a popular mandate, polls suggest the move is opposed by 70% of Venezuelans.

And before lots of lefties start saying that this TV station supported a 2002 coup against Chavez, may I remind you that the party most stridently pro-Chavez in the UK (taking Ken Livingstone out of the equation for a moment) is the Socialist Workers Party. A party dedicated to overthrowing the present social order. If that's not a coup I don't know what is. Yet I don't see everyone's favourite imperialist Tony B.liar closing down the SWP. Well, that's FREEDOM OF SPEECH for you isn't it? And that's why Britain's still a democracy, no matter what Guardian columnists with their heads up their arses or stupid twatting Blair haters say.

I really can't believe this post ever had to be made. But some people are so damned stupid that sometimes the obvious needs stating. The next person who denies that Britain is a proper democracy, not some fascist imperialist Zionist hole, should be sent to North Korea. I might even pay for their flight. One-way ticket, of course.

Cory

Ever been told by your parents that if you eat too much you would burst. Well, maybe they were right....

I definitely wouldn't have put money on the snake though. What a strange world we live in.

Cory

If you missed or were unable to see BBC2's programme on the CIA's extraordinary renditions, please do so.

Cory

Via Norm, via Clive Davis:

Richard Schickel, who is apparently a "distinguished film writer", has written this not-too complementary piece about bloggers reviewing:

Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book... I don't think it's impossible for bloggers to write intelligent reviews. I do think, however, that a simple "love" of reading (or movie-going or whatever) is an insufficient qualification for the job. That way often leads to cultishness (see the currently inflated reputations of Philip K. Dick or Cornell Woolrich, both easy reads for lazy, word-addicted minds).

 

And we have to find in the work of reviewers something more than idle opinion-mongering. We need to see something other than flash, egotism and self-importance

Both Norm and Clive have decent things to say on the matter, but if I could add my tuppence worth...

Criticism is a democratic activity. It is 'a good thing', surely, to have reviewers who bring learned criticism to the latest film/novel/whatever, highlighting its social significance and its fitting into this or that school of film-making (or whatever).

It is also essential to have the other side of the coin - 'normal' people who just simply enjoyed a good romp, and want to spread the word.

Why can't potential cinema goers hear these voices as well - which are judgements often by bloggers nearer to their taste than professional film reviewers?

On all of these attacks on bloggers (including the Melissa Kite/Iain Dale saga which has been getting right-wing bloggers' knickers in a twist for a while now) there seems to be one uniting theme. People who get paid to write for a living don't like people doing as good a job for free. Well, forgive me if I have little sympathy with them....

Cory

Tim Hames on why Harriet Harman shouldn't be Labour's deputy leader:

The essence of the Harman pitch is the argument that the deputy leader “has to be a woman” or, at a minimum, “should be a woman”. I have spent many (pretty dull) hours carefully reading the Labour Party rulebook in a vain attempt to obtain evidence for this supposition. Indeed, I have shown the sort of diligence that a Biblical scholar might have for the Dead Sea Scrolls. No hint of such a requirement has manifested (or womanifested) itself.

There's more:

Not that it is only about listening. Ms Harman recently enlightened the Young Fabians (both of them) with the insight that she wanted Labour to be “dynamic, committed and confident” (does Mr Johnson want Labour to be slothful, ambivalent and gripped by a crisis of self-esteem?). She is also dead keen on supporting “active campaigning” (is Mr Benn into passive campaigning”?) and favours a party that is “democratic” (John Cruddas will be surprised to learn that he must, therefore, be aching for dictatorship).

I don't think Tim should be worrying though. On the home page of the Harmon Campaign website at present, there is a message of endorsement from, wait for it....that skilled election winner, Neil Kinnock! She is sunk.

Cory