how very dare they?

hat-tip James Hallwood via Mark Ferguson

the LibDems the nice people's party?  I think not.  A lot of them are racist (not so much so as the Greens, obvs) and the lyrics pictured left are what they think is amusing to sing at their conference.  But why, as Labour List and I both wonder, is Nick Clegg not being asked to distance himself from this vile and hateful doggerel, as Labour were asked to distance themselves from the "Thatcher Death" T-shirts at the TUC?   Anyone got an answer? *sound of tumbleweed*

you can't read this book

I am a huge admirer of Nick Cohen, and yet I was a little disappointed in this book of his.  It reads like a collection of newspaper articles, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I just found it a bit slick.  He is wrong on the English libel laws.  He is against them as they currently are, on free-speech grounds.  Of which, possibly, more later.  In general terms though he is good in this book.  On blogging and so on, which some of us do quite often, he says "politically active Westerners can find that the Web seduces them away from the public they need to influence - it gives them unrestricted freedom, and then denies them the audience that makes that freedom effective".  This I think is right, and is the downside (there is always a downside) of the internet debate, dialogue, call it what you will.  This is why the Reading boys are wrong to be solely in broadcast mode in their online presence, because they have not understood that others can say exactly what they like - their own denial of a platform does not mean that the platform is not there.  You really can say what you like, and no-one (almost) can stop you saying it, but equally, no-one is reading.  Or, most of the time, most people are not.  So what is the alternative?  Ah, well, there is the rub.

He appears to be a sound interventionist: (here on Belarus) "if the men with guns do not want democratic change it takes other men with guns to make them change their minds."  I do not think this can be faulted. Go on then, if you think you can.

Thanks Nick for this book, ,and I'm sorry I was a little disappointed.  This time.  But you are a sound man.  And I am sorry I refused you a cigarette that time in the Strangers' Bar at the Commons, because you were not Blairite enough for me.  And nearly nine years ago I gave up smoking, so I can't offer you one now, even if you still wanted it.

your predictable caption here

well, these pictures already have them.  I pinched them from Facebook somewhere.  But look at the body language, and compare and contrast.  Bush and Blair are doing the photograph stance, i.e. standing closer together than they would probably be comfortable doing in real life, but they are looking into each other's faces and clasping each other's hands with apparently genuine warmth.  Also notice there is no dominant partner, despite the nonsense on the stupid left.  Blair is a little taller than Bush, which helps of course.  Now the second picture.  Cameron and Obama are not actually looking at each other, and Cameron does not appear to be smiling.  Obama's smile is a little distracted and the two men are a "normal" distance apart, which in a photograph is a long way.  But the key point is Obama's hand on Cameron's arm.  Politicians should never do this, unless they actually want to give the impression they are trying to sweep the person aside so they can go on their way to more important things.