How Not to Get a Good Night's Sleep

I was about to go to bed when I thought I'd check up on Lenin. It turns out he's had an article in today's Graun about the Murdoch implosion, which obviously I'm finding satisfying on a number of levels. Specifically he was commenting on Ed 'Twat' Miliband's decision to stick the boot in now the beast is wounded*.

Point is, much though I enjoy Richard's writing, CiF becomes an even worse bearpit than usual under his articles. A brief survey of the comments suggests at least 3 sub-species of Trollus Cryptofascistus.

• The 'cynic'. This is a common troll endemic to CiF threads. Cynics usually acknowledge that something is not good but then proceed to offer up whatever banal platitudes they use to ensure they don't actually have to do anything about it and lets them drown out the little squeals of guilt that occasionally erupt from the dustier layers of their reptilian hindbrains. These trolls' comments usually have the effect of siding with the aggressor against the victim - ach, you see it every day in the playground, bless them. Typical examples include iamaliberal:

Labour - the party with the bravery to kick someone when they are already down.

• The 'clearly a hack'. Typical examples include Ilohan:

Whilst the media, liberal commenators, Ed Miliband etc get in a hysterical tizzy about events that happened years ago and are, in any case, a side effect of having a free press....1000s of people are losing their jobs in Derby cos we have no meaningful industrial policy**...

But some dodgy phone tapping is a national crisis...

I don't know...but have we al lost our minds?

• The 'Sir Thickington Thickalot'. These are generally just your examples of either pig-ignorance or outright barefaced lying. Possibly a witches' brew of both. Examples include flatpackhamster:

Did you know that Richard Seymour, the author of this article, is an active member of the Socialist Worker's Party? Did you know that his party campaigns for totalitarian rule and glorifies the Soviet era?

The last ones do at least have comedy value. However, it brings out the worst in me.

--------------------------------

* For the record, it's great that he is sticking the boot in, long may it continue. However little confidence I have that it will, should Murdoch manage to pull something out of the bag to stop the rot and begin reinflating his rancid bladder of a media empire. Maybe he could do something about his unfortunate tattoo whilst he's at it.

**PS - it's not because 'we have no meaningful industrial policy' - at least, not in the sense I suspect Ilohan means. It is, as ever, because of the way capitalism runs industry. And if you want to stop the job losses, there's a public meeting next Tuesday.

UPDATE: Having grabbed a few hours sleep, I've come to the conclusion that in fact this is a pretty normal CiF crowd. And in some ways, isn't that the biggest disappointment of them all, eh?

In Praise of Chris Bryant

Chris Bryant is coming dangerously close to restoring my faith in elected representatives. Yesterday there was this, and today there was this!

Come the revolution, I for one will aim to miss. His criticisms are so reasoned and substantive that I feel a bit guilty about the following snark aimed at the periphery of his statements.

Here it is: Astonishing - first he works out that the PCC is a fig leaf, then he spots that Burley's 'a bit dim'.

Hmm, you know, reading that back, I feel that I've irrevocably lost any claim to the moral high ground ever.

-----------------------------

There is still going to be a Marxism post. Honest.

UPDATE: Of course, nobody's perfect

Guardian in 'headline that literally cannot be true' oddness

I mean, if you think about it for a second,

'World's oldest person dies aged 114'

can't actually be possible, can it?

Just sayin'.

... and the award for 'Least Convincing Definition of "Everything"' goes to...

Also works for 'triumph'.

And 'treat'.

'Musical' also too. [That's enough "also"s - Ed.]

Hahahaahaaa, pt 94

This is priceless. If you're in the doldrums because the new Labour leader is marginally less ghastly than the one the Graun have been crowning since the election but still nothing to get excited about, at least look at how terrified teh Fail is. First there's this:
Ed Miliband is the Thatcher of the Left, apparently, allowing daring newshound James Forsyth to use 'doomsday scenario' and 'insurgent' to describe the narrow victory of Ed over David.*

But this hysteria is not only confined to the reactionary press. The Graun's coverage isn't much better, with the following making it in at paragraph four:

MPs who supported David Miliband warned that Ed Miliband's reliance on the union vote was a "disaster" for the party – leaving it open to charges that its leader would be in the pocket of its leftwing paymasters, and wide open to attack from the Tories and rightwing elements in the media.

Or, 'you can't vote for Ed, the tories won't like it!' Inspired.**

But by far the best has to be this:
Ed Miliband in Not Married Shocker!
Love the caption under the photo, using the word modern in the way only the Fail can (i.e. as a pejorative)

And check out the opening paragraphs...

As the son of a North London Marxist intellectual, you might expect Ed Miliband to have a less than conventional approach to traditional family values.

And the birth certificate of his 15-month-old son, Daniel, would appear to bear this out, as it includes everything except any mention of the boy’s proud father.

Although the section headed ‘Father’ is blank, Daniel’s mother Justine Thornton is named, along with her Manchester birthplace and profession, barrister.

Daniel was born on June 2 last year and the birth ­certificate was signed by Justine in Camden, near the couple’s London home, five weeks later on July 9.

There is no suggestion that Ed Miliband is not Daniel’s father and when asked why his name is not on the register, a spokeswoman for the new Labour leader suggested he simply had not had time to fill in the form.

'Paul, we've reached the bottom. I think we've scraped our way through the wood. Look, I can see the floor. Can I stop now?'
'No, Daily Mail Reporter, you may not! Scrape, damn you! Scrape! If only we can shriek loud enough, maybe people will start to think this is an actual problem of some kind! Can you find a picture of a saucily-dressed young mother of the kind Ed might well shack up with when his hedonistic sex-crazed mind takes its fancy? The kind that our readers fear will make them go blind if they see, and induces in them a fear of their own repressed and furtive attitudes toward intercourse?'
'Not in time for the first editions, sir.'
'Damn, just run one of him and his partner looking happy and suggest there's something immoral going on beneath the surface, and that this is somehow anybody else's business, then. There'll still be plenty of pics from the X Factor to lure the punters in.'

EPIC FAIL, Daily Mail.

------------------------------------
*Special mention goes to alluding to a fear of 'Ed's willingness to indulge the party' - the Fail's genuine fear of Labour members as feral beasts who do not know their place and will be coming for your Buy to Lets and begonias given the slightest nod from on high.

**In many ways this election is of course an indictment of how far Labour has fallen to Thatcherite nonsense, that the union vote is being seen as a problem for the Party. But there we go. And don't give me any of that 'unelectable' nonsense either. See here (unless you've got the book, which goes into more detail).

The Taunting of Floridian 123

Just because I'm looking for a distraction from doing some actual work, here's a random fucking idiot from CiF.*

Background: Charlie Brooker wrote about the 'Ground Zero Mosque' nutters , in which he pointed out that it's not a mosque and not at Ground Zero, although oddly he didn't do the obvious and make it clear that there shouldn't be a problem if it was either or both of those things, as it would be rather like saying that Oscar Romero is the same as Alexander VI. Anyway, here's a particularly cretinous comment from some stupid bloody wingnut.

First of all that building was close enough to have the falling landing gear of the plane Muhammad Atta was on damage it. Secondly, they said they will hold Friday nite prayers in it so of course it's a mosque. This is not about religious freedom. It's about LOCATION. Do you think the Russians would be happy about a mosque being built in Beslan near the school where over two hundred kids were raped and shot in the back by terrorists? One more thing, I seem to remember a super mosque that was supposed to be built in London just in time for the olympics. The people protested about it and now the mosque isn't being built. Rather hypocritical of you isn't it?

The governor of New York wants to meet with them to suggest an alternative site but they flat out refuse to even consider it. Their present position is "We are going to cram this peace loving, bridge building mosque down the throats of you Americans whether you like it or not."

So, let the taunting commence!

First of all that building was close enough to have the falling landing gear of the plane Muhammad Atta was on damage it.

You're saying that these terrorists were willing to risk damage to one of their own buildings*? How evil is that! Like TOTALLY evil. We're through the looking glass here, sheeple!

Secondly, they said they will hold Friday nite prayers in it so of course it's a mosque.

Or, is it a cultural centre with a prayer room in it?

This is not about religious freedom.

Or, is it? Because it kind of sounds like you're saying that people can't use their own building to worship in their own way and use that building to promote understandings between other people exercising their religious freedom in the way they want to. So, it kind of is about religious freedom really, isn't it? Just a little bit? Maybe?

It's about LOCATION.

Hmm, don't know about you, but if I was trying to think of anywhere for people to build some hope and understanding between faiths, somewhere near an awful reminder of what happens when people have an intolerant attitude towards others might be, oh I dunno, the perfect place to put it?

Do you think the Russians would be happy about a mosque being built in Beslan near the school where over two hundred kids were raped and shot in the back by terrorists?

Hey, Floridian, have a look at this:

Here are some Terrorists:


And here are some Muslims:

P.S. Islam is the second largest religion in North Ossetia-Alania, an independent republic within the Russian Federation, not actually in Russia. But wait, you don't want the great US of A to be judged by the standards of the RUSSIANS, do you, Floridian? Why do you HATE AMERICA?

One more thing, I seem to remember a super mosque that was supposed to be built in London just in time for the olympics. The people protested about it and now the mosque isn't being built.Rather hypocritical of you isn't it?

I have to admit, I'd never heard of this story, but then I don't live in that London, and anyway it does seem a tad racist to assume that Charlie Brooker would have opposed the Mosque because he is British. Presumably the Muslims who wanted to build the thing in the first place were British as were the community groups that opposed it. Not sure this is actually hypocritical in any way at all. Hang on a sec...
Nope, doesn't seem to apply. Perhaps hypocrisy doesn't mean what you think it means?

The governor of New York wants to meet with them to suggest an alternative site but they flat out refuse to even consider it.

What, you mean they don't see why they should move from their own building just because some hysterical racists are shouting at them? They won't back down from a project whose explicit point is to combat idiotic ideas like yours? I wonder why ever not?

Their present position is "We are going to cram this peace loving, bridge building mosque down the throats of you Americans whether you like it or not."

Or, 'we're not going to let a bunch of hysterical racists stop us'? Sounds kind of, you know, courageous to me. Also, Veiled Penis Reference, too.

But anyway, in conclusion Floridian, you thought building a mosque was insensitive? Check THIS out.
----------------------------------
*It's OK to read CiF if it's for Charlie Brooker, it's like eating a sandwich whilst you're walking.

**I just found Floridian 123's dictionary. I see the problem, because under 'Mooslem' it just says 'See terrists'

Must... Resist...

Can hyperlinks be libellous? asks Siobhain Butterworth.*

*In some ways, I am a very simple creature.

Is Alexander Chancellor the world's most pointless human being?

The Guardian employs a lot of idiots in its comment pages. Probably so that gullible fools will write long, angry rants about their idiocy, thereby increasing their webtraffic. But Alex has been writing for years and years - way back when dead tree was the norm and interwebs were for porn, I remember finding his column in G2 and wondering if, having read the title of his articles, it would be possible to sue the corpse of CP Scott to get my time back.

Still, Al, as I'm sure he hates to be called, Al, who has perfected the art of bringing mediocrity to a new middle over many years (sample titles: 'It's looking quite clement out' and 'Everything's all electronic nowadays isn't it?'*) has managed to be quite stunningly offensive today.

Raoul Moat: Why the police should stop flattering him

Fugitive gunman is getting a lot of public sympathy

I have to ask: how is it possible to type this, without your own medulla oblongata realising what must be done for the good of humanity and ceasing respiratory functions immediately? This is the worst thing since Al's autobiography Is it time for tea yet? and other amusing incidents from my life.**

--------------------------------------
*Probably.
**Almost certainly.

Brilliant Headlines, vol 20

The online version is:

Children shipped to Australia to get formal apology

But I think I prefer the dead tree version:

'Children sent to Australia to get Brown apology'

Either way, it seems to be taking detention a bit far. Couldn't he have just grounded them or something?

Guardian Extracts Urine from Readership

Anyone seen this bizarre parody of a Daily Mail columnist over at the Graun's site? As if their readers are going to be fooled into thinking he could win an award for commenting on stuff. I will now proceed to the snark.

The reason Britain has been so attractive is its long tradition of political tolerance. This is history Britain ought to be proud of, even if it has been abused by people such as Karl Marx.

Heh. It's a good opener, 'cos then you just know teh stupid will only get hotter...

Next:

To see what a society looks like when tolerance goes wild, observers only have to look at southern Europe or much of the third world. China shows what a socially tolerant society looks like. While China is not tolerant of political differences, the people are generally tolerant of behaviours that would not be acceptable in Britain.

You're right, it's like a different country or something.

He then proceeds to bollock 'the Chinese' for several paragraphs. I actually think the way that he assumes a nebulous notion like 'tolerance' is going to be a useful analytical tool in sociological assertions is close to cute.

After which, there's some praise for Dawkins-style intolerance for a bit, including some fairly sinister praise for the Inquisition and a barely concealed yearning for torture. Then it's back to China* bashing:

It may well have been the tolerance of traditional China that meant the scientific revolution never took place and hence China did not industrialise.

You're right, that's it - 'tolerance' did it! For better analysis see here or here:

Jacques Gernet notes, 'The age of the warring [Chinese] states is one of the richest known to history in technical innovations', with the 'development of a considerable trade in ordinary consumer goods ... The richest merchants combined such commerce with big industrial enterprises' [...]But the independence of the merchants-entrepreneurs as a class was curtailed. They were unable to establish themselves as a force with their own centres of power, as they were in the cities of late Medieval Europe. Instead, they were increasingly dependent on the state bureaucracy.

(Harman 2008:55, 59)

It's a lot more complicated than that of course, but this is an excerpt from an actual analysis involving the actual material conditions of society, rather than the arrogant fart-gas of a toryboy blowhard, which is the point.

Litter is not unavoidable and should not be tolerated. The waste of billions of pounds in badly designed IT projects is not a fact of nature but a blot on society we choose to accept rather than challenge. We can find our inner Inquisitor and we should express disapproval of behaviour that we do not need to tolerate. Britain can be the tidy, clean and safe place it was 50 years ago if only we, as a society, have the will to embrace intolerance for antisocial behaviour. [Emphasis added]

*Awooga! Awooga!* Reference to 50s utopia detected, commander! Dradis confirms one HYS commenter closing fast! Begin jump prep to SYB immediately!

It's a shame he peters out right there though. The last paragraph is, of all the lame cop-outs he had to choose from, a Tutter's Charter:

So this holiday everyone should express a little mild disapproval when someone cuts you off on the road, or towards a youth who puts his feet on the railway seats or towards a tourist talking loudly in an art gallery.

What kind of armchair fascist are you, MoveAnyMountain? If you want to tell people how to live their lives, you should be indignantly tweeting at the very least...

*And no, this isn't because I have any great love for China. It's because this fool fails to heed the most powerful axiom of our times.

My Awesome Life

Also from Saturday's Graun, this:

I'm thinking of holding a new poll based on 'things I haven't done', as clearly this is public interest journalism*. You know, 'my year without doing handstands on the moon'; 'my month without a blood-soaked proletarian revolution'. Suggestions welcome.

And finally, Adam Curtis has got a new project coming out, which you have to catch upwith if at all possible. Adam Curtis. You know, Adam Curtis. You haven't seen The Power of Nightmares? Or The Trap? or Century of the Self? Go away and watch them. Now.

Right, now that you've done that, go and get Future of the Left's new album. It's OUT NOW.
Future of the Left. You know, Future of the Left. You weren't that into Mclusky? Godsdamnit, go here, listen to this, go get more.

*This has nothing to do with my own sex life of course. How dare you. How very dare you.

Good.

BNP Leader Pelted in Egg Protest.

Update: How can the Graun of all papers get the most bog-standard anti-Nazi chant there is, the wrong way round?

'I say, ruffian there, off our streets you Nazi scum!'

It's like they've never been involved in the anti-racist movement in their lives, or something.

Galaxy Rise

Just how unbelievably cool is this?

Galactic Center of Milky Way Rises over Texas Star Party from William Castleman on Vimeo.

From here, h/t Graun.

Cinema Choices

Until Friday it had never even occurred to me that I would want to see Angels and Demons. I mean, it's a Dan 'Fucking' Brown novel. I picked up the Da Vinci Code once and couldn't get more than a couple of pages into it: it's a worse read - stylistically anyway - than Richard Littlejohn's Magnum Opus 'To Hell in a Handcart'. Which is an achievement of sorts, I suppose.

However, after seeing a couple of reviews, like Xan Brooks', in which we are told that Tom Hanks plays an academic 'with a PhD in expository dialogue,' and most particularly Mark Kermode's vivid depiction of the film, frankly how could I not see it? Anti-matter in the Vatican? That's practically Pride and Prejudice and Zombies territory...

Is This The Most Unimpressive Headline Ever?

'Bank of England believes recession has probably bottomed out,' apparently.

Brilliant Headlines, Vol 16

'Drinking Problems Rife in Orchestras'

Rarely has a headline seemed so mysterious, so seedy, and yet at once so ripe with promise...

Condemned Sight Unseen

As I've said before, I don't like romcoms. I don't like them for a variety of reasons, but you can check out the link if you want to know why. No time to go into all that now!

Because, you see, there's a new one out that looks like a new low. Even the posters look half-arsed: everyone, down to the PR boys, seems to know that this is desperately Tab A to Slot B.

I was first alerted to its existence by an advert on the side of a bus. There is a school of thought that says that anything advertised on the side of a bus is by definition going to be cack, but I don't hold to it: Hot Fuzz was advertised on the side of a bus, if my memory hasn't become completely corrupted.

However, the composition was a dead giveaway. It looked like it deserved to be on Photoshop Disasters for no other reason than its laziness. It used the Rom Com font (the only genre to still use Times New Roman in italics), the Rom Com colour scheme (pink and white) and the simpering photos of the stars - looking like they'd just phoned it in. It probably speaks volumes that those were the best publicity shots they could coax out of Jennifer Aniston.

Anyway, I notice that someone called Tanya Gold has written a rather spiffing piece tearing the original source book a new rear waste disposal point (yes, today is 'Grauniad Column Lazy Blogging Inspiration Day).

She points out some aspects of it which not only confirm my expectations of it to a startling degree (not to mention my prejudices), but confirmed the prejudices of Sidney Lumet from 1976.

Tanya:

This is dating for little girls. Anything less than the childish fantasy of the perfect ever-loving father should be shunned and, because we are indeed those little girls, Greg sets us some homework. "Write down five reasons you have a good reason to call him ... Now put your dialling finger away," he says. And never be cross when it's over. "Always be classy, never be crazy," says Greg. He really means - never be angry. Because angry isn't hot.

Network:

Max Schumacher (about Diana Christensen): I'm not sure she's capable of any real feelings. She's television generation. She learned life from Bugs Bunny.

Max Shcumacher (to Diana): It's too late, Diana. There's nothing left in you that I can live with. You're one of Howard's humanoids. If I stay with you, I'll be destroyed. Like Howard Beale was destroyed. Like Laureen Hobbs was destroyed. Like everything you and the institution of television touch is destroyed. You're television incarnate, Diana: Indifferent to suffering; insensitive to joy. All of life is reduced to the common rubble of banality. War, murder, death are all the same to you as bottles of beer. And the daily business of life is a corrupt comedy. You even shatter the sensations of time and space into split seconds and instant replays. You're madness, Diana. Virulent madness. And everything you touch dies with you. But not me. Not as long as I can feel pleasure, and pain... and love.

George Monbiot: Magnificent

Last week there was some awful flannelly cant by Hazel Blears in the Graun having a go at Monbiot for a previous column.

Rebellion is not the basis for a progressive political outlook. Progressive
politics is about trying to solve the problem, not complaining that someone else
has failed to. It is about coming forward with practical ideas, in the knowledge
that cynics will try to dismiss them. It is about being a participant, not
merely an observer. It is about, in Eleanor Roosevelt's words, "lighting the
candle rather than cursing the dark". By simply cursing the dark, Monbiot
contributes to the very cynicism and disengagement from politics that he makes
his living writing about.

I remember at the time thinking that it was laughable but I long ago stopped paying attention to anything coming from a Labour minister on the grounds that it will tick one of the following 3 boxes
(a)Nonsensical
(b)Morally bankrubpt
(c)All of the above.

George however, has decided not to take it lying down and has devoted his entire column today to a good old bitchslap.

I believe there is a vast public appetite for re-engagement, but your
government, aware of the electoral consequences, has shut us out. It has reneged
on its promise to hold a referendum on electoral reform. It has blocked a
referendum on the European treaty, ditched the regional assemblies, used
Scottish MPs to swing English votes, sustained an unelected House of Lords,
eliminated almost all the differences between itself and the opposition. You
create an impenetrable political monoculture, then moan that people don't engage
in politics.
It is precisely because I can picture something better that I
have become such a cynical old git. William Hazlitt remarked that: "Man is the
only animal that laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal that is struck with
the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." You, Hazel,
have helped to reduce our political choices to a single question: whether to
laugh through our tears or weep through our laughter.

Good old George.

My Very Own SYB

Nelson doesn't seem to want it, so I'm using it myself. Besides, I think it's quite a good one. Oddly it comes from the Guardian's Media Section this week. I say oddly because the Graun's usual correspondents are either preposterous senior figures in the media or the kind of pricks who have been the subject of previous rants (see passim). This guy is a prick in a quite different league.

Aside from the media pundits' handwringing opinions concerning Channel 4, what about the customer (viewer) choice? And opportunities for original freelance contributor/producers? (If there are any left.) Up until now the argument seems to be almost entirely lumped together with the future of public service broadcasting.

Frankly, in this context, who cares? Isn't the BBC enough? Because, by "public service broadcasting", what is actually meant is the same old turgid, leftwing torrent, as shown in the outrageously biased Channel 4 News. Thank God for Sky (apart from its obsession with football). And, to a lesser extent, ITV, for presentation not hidebound by political correctness and endless banging on about global warming, carbon footprints and how women can do no wrong.
Richard Rapkins Calne, Wiltshire

Jonathan Freedland: Pillock

A quite astonishingly patronising pillock at that. Today's CiF fartpiece in the Graun:

As British Jews come under attack, the liberal left must not remain silent
It should be perfectly possible to condemn Israel's brutal
action in Gaza while taking a stand against antisemitism

No shit, really?

To be fair we were just waiting for him to turn up before we got started. I mean, in no way are the people involved in the PSC or Stop The War likely to be involved with the UAF as well. Gods no.

Let's have a look at what he's got to say, shall we (humour me a moment).

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11 2001 and July 7 2005, a noble impulse seized the British liberal left. Politicians, commentators and activists united to say to their fellow citizens that, no matter how outraged they felt at the loss of civilian life they had just witnessed, they should under no circumstances take out that anger on the Muslim community. Progressive voices insisted that Muslims were not to be branded as guilty by association, just because the killers of 9/11 and 7/7 had been Muslims and had claimed to act in the name of all Muslims.

Yes, some people stated the bleeding obvious. Other people didn't. But tell you what, why don't you get on with the backslapping? I mean, what bad things have the liberal left ever done? They've never tried to justify a manifestly illegal and immoral war or anything after all...

Anyway, back to Jonathan:

Blah blah blah blah bet you can see where this is going blah blah blah

Ah yes, here we are:

It's worth stating the obvious - that Operation Cast Lead is not 9/11 or 7/7, that Israel is not al-Qaida - and noting that the silence has not been absolute. In a very welcome move, a group of leading Muslims wrote an open letter condemning apparent Gaza-related attacks on Jews. Meanwhile, Labour's Denis MacShane, in a passionate article for Progress magazine, urged those on the left not "to turn criticism of Israel into a condemnation of Jews".

The silence has not been absolute? Operation Cast Lead is not 9/11 or 7/7? Well, the death toll was slightly higher for 9/11, I'll grant you that. Although notably the office workers of the WTC had not spent the last 2 years cut off from jobs, food, water, electricity and their own country; neither had they been herded into refugee camps for 50 years. But to suggest that Cast Lead was not as bad as 7/7? There's a word for this: Chauvinism.

And 'silence not absolute'? Seriously? When every demo I've been on has been attended by speakers pointing out that the protests are not anti-semitic and/or 'Jews for Peace'? What, did he take a wrong turn in the TARDIS and end up in a parallel world this morning?

According to the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors anti-Jewish racism, the four weeks after Cast Lead began saw an eightfold increase in antisemitic incidents in Britain compared with the same period a year earlier. It reports 250 incidents - nearly 10 a day - the highest number since it began its work 25 years ago. Among them are attacks on synagogues, including arson, and physical assaults on Jews. One man was set upon in Golders Green, north London, by two men who shouted, "This is for Gaza", as they punched and kicked him to the ground.
Blood-curding graffiti has appeared in Jewish areas across the country, slogans ranging from "Slay the Jewish pigs", and "Kill the Jews", to "Jewish bastardz." Jewish schools have been advised to be on high alert against attack. Most now have security guards on the door; some have a police presence.

Hmm. Leaving aside the Community Security Trust issue, let's mention the unmentionable: it turns out that despite the valiant efforts of the liberal left and their battalions, the last few years haven't been rosy for Muslims in Britan. We even have a new adjective to describe it: Islamophobia. Of course, the liberal left also gave us a new adjective of their own: Islamofascism.

Hmm. Anyway, Jonathan's still bleating:

Blah blah blah I have no sense of my own ridiculousness blah blah blah I get given money for this blah blah blah

At the London events, there were multiple placards deploying what has now become a commonplace image: the Jewish Star of David equated with the swastika. From the podium George Galloway declared: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943."

You're right! He's a racist! You've got the smoking gun here Jonathan, I can't believe he compared the sealed off Gaza Strip, which Israel controls all access to, enters with their military at a whim, commits massacres at a whim, etc etc, to a ghetto! And there was one of those semi-mythical Star of David/Swastika placards! Oh noes! They probably want to take Ehud Olmert to Nuremburg and hang him in a bunker or something! On no account must the uniqueness of the holocaust be threatened. On no account must people be tempted to draw parallels with previous events. If you do, you might as well be burning down a synagogue, because we all know that the Israeli government and All Teh Jews are not separate people.*

Blah blah Christ this guy can go on blah blah blah blah is he being paid by the word blah blah blah please just make it stop blah blah blah

I know that some will say that even raising this is an attempt to divert attention from the real and larger issue, Israel's brutality in Gaza and the colossal number of civilian deaths that entailed. I won't accept that. Regular readers know that I denounced Cast Lead from the beginning. But I shouldn't have to say that. These two matters are separate. It is perfectly possible to condemn Israel's current conduct and to stand firmly against anti-Jewish prejudice. And it's about time liberals and the left said so.

Oh, good. Jonathan's capable of telling the difference between Teh Jews and Teh Israeli Government. But no one else is, and unless you YES YOU say that you do in a loud voice at all times, day and night, as opposed to what the Palestinian solidarity movement has been doing, i.e. putting it in leaflets, papers, rallies, marches and speeches, then you are personally responsible for any anti-Semitic violence meted out in Britain.

Luckily, Jonathan's decided to save the day now, so let's all get behind him. Actually, thinking about it, he seems like precisely the sort of person I want to go round telling anti-Semitic thugs his position on Operation Cast Lead.

I have to ask, who exactly does he think he's speaking for?

*For the record, as I have said before, I don't think that the Nazis are a good comparison for Israel. I think Apartheid South Africa fits the bill better. But people are bound to draw comparisons between aspects of Nazi treatment of Jews and Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Because sometimes they're unavoidable.