The Golden Strawberry

Whilst working late yesterday, I was watching BBC News 24's coverage of the primary elections. There was footage of Hillary Clinton shaking hands with her supporters, and smiling that far-too-fake smile; the one that looks as though she's a guppy fish that's just been told that it's won the lottery.

The reporter said something to the effect of, "Hillary Clinton looks very upbeat here. Maybe she thinks she can still win this nomination".

Of course she does. Despite the fact that the numbers are against her. Anyone who thinks they can be named after Sir Edmund Hillary despite being born six years before anyone had heard of him, or who says she was shot at by snipers in Bosnia when she was actually greeted by small children is obviously self-delusioned. Despite it being virtually impossible for her to win the popular vote for the nomination, Hillary still obviously believes she can win. And it doesn't matter if she drags her party down with her.

Cory

And I'm talking about February 29th rather than a few minutes ago:

1) Hilary Clinton is even more of a ruthless, pathological liar than was previously thought. Still, my position still stands that Clinton would be a better President than McCain, and Obama would be a better President than both of them.

2) Nick Clegg is a sex god. Having talked to friends in the Lib Dems about the shenanigans that happen at their party conferences, this does not surprise me in the slightest.

3) Diana was not murdered in a conspiracy perpetrated by the entire British establishment. I don't want to dwell too much on this story; it's boring and unless you've been on Mars there's not much I can add for you anyway. The best thing to come out of all this might be the ruining of Paul Burrell's reputation, who has made too much money from knowing Diana for too long.

4) Moons can have wings too, apparently. Just ask Rhea.

5) Vietnam have banned hamsters. They cause disease, apparently. Even more disturbing is the fact that hamsters have been "a hit with the young population of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, spawning a whole sub-culture of hamster forums and hamster clubs". Hamster clubs?! Spooky.

6) Britain's immigration system is disgusting and disgraceful. And not because they let too many people in, but because the powers that be seem intent on sending people back to their deaths.

7) Robert Mugabe might be Zimbabwean President. Or he might not be. It would help if we had the results, but fingers crossed - he may be gone by the end of the year.

8) The England cricket team are slightly inconsistent. But did at least win a Test series overseas for the first time in yonks, which is pleasing.

9) Oldham Athletic are similarly inconsistent. Manager John Sheridan said after losing 3-0 to Swindon (Swindon! of all teams. Words fail me): "I have to bring in players who are consistent — the magic word — and who will play week in, week out. If we are to go anywhere we cannot have players who only perform once a fortnight." The solution, obviously, is to bring in 22 players, and rotate the teams every fortnight. You get a perfect performance every time.

10) And finally....don't let fat rats into electric power stations. Chaos ensues.

Cory

“Cricket civilizes people and creates good gentlemen. I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen”. Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe said this in 1984. These words now sound hollow – Zimbabwe both as a nation and a cricket team is in dire straits. Since 1999 Mugabe’s “land reforms” involved seizing land owned by white farmers without paying any compensation. This caused food production to plummet, thought to be the chief cause of hyperinflation. Inflation in Zimbabwe is estimated at 5000%. Men’s life expectancy has declined from 60 in 1990 to just 37 years in 2006. Women’s life expectancy is even lower, at 34 years. What was Mugabe’s reaction to this? To build a £2 million museum, the size of a football pitch, dedicated to his life and achievements.

 

Zimbabwe’s best cricketers have left the country, and many now play in the English domestic league. Their replacements are youngsters, only about the standard of average club cricketers. They are due to tour England next in 2009, and the British government may ban the team from touring because of hostility to Mugabe’s regime. This is not the first time this has happened. In the 2003 World Cup England refused to play in Zimbabwe because of “safety fears”, after much dithering from the Labour government and the England and Wales Cricket Board.

 

Zimbabwe have not played Test cricket since 2005, but still play in international one-day tournaments. Some feel that their involvement in international cricket legitimises Mugabe’s rule. It is to be hoped that Brown takes a more forceful role on the Zimbabwe question than his predecessor. For all Tony Blair’s talk of “liberal interventionism”, his government’s spineless attitude to Zimbabwe was another foreign policy disaster. Firm action is needed to help a nation in crisis, and that requires far more than merely banning its cricket team.

Cory

Hullo all,

I believe this is my first post this year, so first of all I hope your 2008 is going smoothly. I hope to be posting more soon (don't I always say that?). Here's something I wrote for Redbrick about the American elections. It's not that long, but they only gave me 550 words to play with. And cut most of that out in the paper. Hey ho, here it is:

The most important event of 2008 is happening thousands of miles away, and we can’t do anything about it. Republicans and Democrats are currently choosing their American Presidential candidate, while the world looks on impotently.

 

Trying to choose a favourite Republican nominee is like trying to choose which debilitating skin disease you’d rather have. John McCain seems the only (relatively) sane one. Rudy Giuliani has been described as “George Bush with brains”. If he’s only half as dangerous as that implies, we should still be very worried.

Mitt Romney is trying to be everyone’s friend and failing spectacularly. He is both for and against abortion, for instance. Romney is also a Mormon, and anyone who thinks that the Garden of Eden is located in Missouri should be ridiculed at length. He has, however, been criticised by some for not being Mormon enough. Only in America…

The final frontrunner is Mike Huckerbee, whose contribution to the religion debate was: “Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t, so I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict”. So stupid it’s hard to know where to start. Its only possible merit is that on reading it Richard Dawkins might spontaneously combust.

It seems very likely that a Democratic candidate will be in the White House come 2009. John Edwards’s grass-roots campaign is stalling, because America doesn’t have a trade union movement worth basing a campaign around. The two main contenders are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

How can Clinton portray herself as the force for change? You wouldn’t see Norma Major or Cherie Blair campaign for Prime Minister on a similar platform. Hillary unexpectedly won the New Hampshire nomination, seemingly because she shed a tear at a question and answer session. It proved she was human, with proper emotions and things. But surely weeping isn’t a basis for a long-term political strategy? If it is, Hillary should just replace herself with a crying statue of the Virgin Mary. It would save her a lot of effort. The statue would at least pull less ridiculous faces.

She is leading a negative campaign against her fellow Democratic nominees, forgetting they are all on the same side. Supporting the Iraq war is one thing. The problem is the fact that she didn’t actually read the CIA’s document on Iraq’s WMD before she voted for war. In all fairness, Clinton would probably be a competent President, maybe even reaching half-decent on a good day.

However, the only credible change candidate is Barack Obama. He may not be the new Messiah, but he makes people feel good about themselves. None of Hillary’s negative campaigning for him. We haven’t seen much substance yet, but Obama’s policies will be tested now he has emerged as a serious front-runner. On foreign affairs he seems sound, at least. He advocates talking to the leaders of Iran rather than blowing it up. And unlike Mitt Romney, Obama believes in ending Guantanamo Bay rather than extending it.

It’s still early days. February 5^th, or ‘Super Tuesday’, is a date for your diary. On that day twenty states vote at once for their nominations. By then we may be in a clearer position to know who will compete for the job of US election. One thing’s for sure: whoever wins has to be better than George Bush. Hopefully.

Cory

I don't know enough to comment, but this at the Daily Maybe looks like a good place to start for the confused and ignorant, like myself.

Cory

Oliver Kamm is getting desperate. He is a good blogger. He has a tendency to sound like the most pompous bloke in the room, but his posts are always elegantly written and packed full of interesting facts. But he really needs to give up on the neo-conservatism. His latest post, which is an attempt to call into question Johann Hari's spot on reading of neo-conservatism here, is the work of a man who is trying to cover up his horrendous misjudgement by nit-picking and needless pedantry. The elephant in Kamm's room is a huge number of dead Iraqis and a failed state swamped with terrorist nutters.

Kamm was wrong, about the whole thing. I think he needs to get of his high horse and admit that, before he digs himself any deeper into a hole. Maybe its harder to do that when you are as obviously amazingly intelligent (he speaks German! and French!) as Kamm is, I wouldn't know. But what I do know is that the invasion he (and I, at the time) backed has killed 500,000+ people.

He can quote as many books about the debates in US foreign policy as he likes, but it doesn't change the facts about Iraq, and about the stupid, stupid bunch of callous psychopaths who launched it. Their incompetence really is breathtaking - I should know, for some reason I've decided to write my dissertation on the whole bloody mess.

-posted by Adam

 

 I'm up for work in less than seven hours, so don't expect anything original from me. Instead, here's this reprinted from Harry's Place as part of a blog campaign:

Since British troops occupied Southern Iraq in the spring of 2003, thousands of Iraqi citizens have worked for the British Army, the Coalition Provisional Authority (South) and for contractors serving UK forces. There is now considerable evidence that their lives, and the lives of their families, are at risk: some former workers for the British have been murdered, and many others have fled to neighbouring countries or gone into hiding in Basra. The British Government, for whom they were ultimately working, has not offered them the right of asylum in the UK. This is morally unacceptable. It is also unnecessary, since we are well able to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees, most of whom already speak English and all of whom have already worked for our country.

The most detailed recent report, by Jonathan Miller of Channel Four news, notes the murder of 17 translators in one single incident in Basra. It cites the cases of hundreds of others who have fled to a refugee existence in nearby Middle Eastern countries or are in hiding in Iraq. The British Government response has come from the Home Office, which has suggested that Iraqis put at risk by their work for British troops 'register with the UN refugee agency'. Other reports provide supporting detail: Iraqis are being targeted for murder because they have worked for British forces.

Marie Colvin's report for the Times of April 8 speaks of desperate former workers for the British Army being turned away from the British embassy in Syria by staff who had orders not to admit any Iraqis. These brave men and women have testimonials written by British officers stating that they are at risk from jihadi violence: and yet we are still refusing to admit them to the United Kingdom.

If you feel that this is unacceptable and that Britain should prevent Iraqis from being murdered for the 'crime' of working for British troops, could you please write to your MP and ask him or her to press the Government for action. You can use the excellent website 'Write to Them' or post a letter yourself.

Please be courteous when writing to your MP. It would be a good idea to read the reports above, and cite relevant facts. We would suggest that your letter could contain the following points:

- It is morally unacceptable that Britain should abandon people who are at risk because they worked for British soldiers and diplomats.
- This country will be shamed if any more Iraqis are murdered for the 'crime' of having supported UK forces.
- Iraqis who worked for British forces should not be told to leave Iraq and throw themselves on the mercy of United Nations relief agencies in Arab countries: these agencies are already being overwhelmed by the outflow of Iraqi refugees, and Iraqi refugees who have worked for British diplomats or troops may well be targeted by local jihadists.
- There is plentiful evidence that armed groups in Iraq kill the families of those they consider 'enemies': for this reason we must extend the right of asylum to the families of those who worked for us.
- It is entirely practical for this country's troops in Iraq, and its embassies in neighbouring countries, to take in Iraqis who have worked for us and fly them to the UK. Indeed, there is already considerable anger among British servicemen that Iraqis are being abandoned in this way.
- This country is large enough and rich enough to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees. Denmark has already given asylum to all 200 Iraqis who worked for its smaller occupying force.
- It does not matter what your MP's views (or what your views) are on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. People who risked their lives for this country's soldiers are now being abandoned by the British Government. Their lives can and must be saved by their being granted the right of asylum in this country.
- This policy should be implemented regardless of whether British soldiers stay in Iraq or are soon withdrawn. But it must be introduced soon: applications for asylum cannot be processed in a lengthy fashion, as the security situation in Basra is deteriorating rapidly, and delay is likely to lead to further killings of Iraqis who worked for British troops.

Please consider putting this appeal on your blog.

Cory

Hot Ginger and Dynamite has some pictures from a recent Middle East rally which are amusing in a disturbing way.

Norm has details of an Engage meeting: Rally Against the Boycott, which is in London on July 11th. The speakers include Jonathan Freedland.

Andrew Miller from Cricinfo on Beefy's much-deserved knighthood.

I might not post on the Middle East for a while, but why not read this marvellous Amer Tahiri article in the Times.

That's enough to keep you lot busy for now, I think!

Cory

Now that Adam is posting again (Huzzah!) I am sure there will be some reaction on the recent fighting between Hamas and Fatah. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of what's going on, and will be catching on some much-needed reading over the summer.

In the meantime, as the possibility of there being an Islamist state on Israel's doorstep increases, here is a comforting picture of a kitten and a duck:

That is all.

Cory

I felt I just had to write something about this continuing farce, which makes a mockery of Academe's supposed dedication to the pursuit of truth and high standards of historical scholarship. I have read both The Case for Israel by the celebrated fraud Alan Dershowitz (who was on OJ's defence team) and Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah.

One book is a well-written, scrpulously researched, utterly devastating and precise work of historical scholarship. The other is a fraud, devoid of any meaningful content and lacking in even basic standards of historical sourcing and footnoting.

Of course, Finkelstein's demolition of Dershowitz should have ruined the latters career. No scholar should hope to hold his place (and at Harvard, no less) when his work has been shown to be such a disgrace. Dershowitz copies entire sections from Joan Peters From Time Immemorial (itself a fraud, as Finkelstein has demonstrated in the past) with impunity. Dershowitz is not a scholar, he is a lackey for the Israel lobby in the United states. His book was not an attempt to write history, rather, it was a dishonest lunge to blacken the historical record and blame the victims for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Now Finkelstein, who (used) to teach at De Paul University, has been denied tenure for the forthcoming academic year. This is an utter disgrace, and it was not motivated by, as the letter which fired him states 'concerns touching upon his scholarship'. No, this a lie. Finkelstein has been part of a witch-hunt, organised by Dershowitz (who is still smarting from the destruction of his reputation) and others, to close down the debate about American Jewry's role in the continuing humiliation of the Palestinian people by the Israeli state.

It is that simple. Finkelstein is a brave man, and I fully support him during this time. I hope another University gives him the full professorship he so richly deserves. Dont let the bastards grind you down, Norman.

-posted by Adam