"It is 1934 and I am Churchill"

I really don't want to raise false hopes of this blog coming out of cold storage, but you know how we always joke that the motto of Standpoint is "It is 1934 and I am Churchill"? Well, its editor has written a long piece on exactly that theme. Themes include:

* "The crime being prepared against Israel and the Jewish people in the name of the jihad", which is literally to be considered on the same scale as the Holocaust.

* "Today, we need to recall that resolve never to appease or compromise with those who mean to destroy us."

* "The threat of a nuclear attack from a theocratic regime in the name of Islam is more spectacular but no less insidious than the degradation of the human person in the name of medical science or human rights what the fuck?". (Emphasis and words "what the fuck?" added).

* "When we wonder why our budget deficits are now strangling our economies, or why our personal liberties have been circumscribed in so many ways that the individual feels impotent and crushed by the burden of the leviathan State, surely we can date the moment when we crossed the Rubicon to 1945"

* "Three score years and ten later, it falls to us to prevent the overthrow of those temples today. Once again it is the Atlantic alliance that defends these temples of freedom and honour against those who would tear them down, who dream of a global caliphate ruling over Rome, Athens and Jerusalem."

And much more. Ye gods.

Paradoxes of self-reference

A novel describes a country as a cesspit of antisemitism, said country awards same novel top prize, thus proving that it isn't. If the novel is right then it wouldn't have received the prize; if the novel is wrong then it shouldn't have received the prize. But maybe the novel is actually set in a another possible world, resembling this one only in some respects? Its literary virtues, expressed in its depiction of this non-actual but possible world, more than merit the award. Or something. Whatever.

Another Decent Front?

Harry's Place can't leave well alone, can they? Via Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, I've come across a body calling itself Student Rights. (Its website is currently down, though it seemed OK when I looked at it earlier today. The error notice says "Please try back Monday ." Hello? Also, love the space before the period. PHP concatenation gone bad, there.)

There's an 'About' section, and I always read those (I'm waiting for some blogger to out himself as single, pimply, balding, drunk, angry etc; so far, no deal). Their aims as I recall, are fair enough: apart from the question why does this need a body at all? If a student organisation using university funds or premises is doing something offensive, isn't it the union's job to sort it out? Student Union officials are elected, and, if you have any faith in democracy, they seem like well-placed people to deal with such matters. And then there's the NUS, which I don't know how many universities are affiliated to these days. That seems likely to provide a sort of 'court of appeal.' (I haven't been a student for a long time, so have little idea how these things work.) Student Rights doesn't seem to have any connections with actual student bodies - but I can't check this, because the site is down.

What I do remember are the people on its board. Chair: Denis MacShane. Not a student, or a recent graduate, but a 60-year-old full time MP. Others, that bloke from Standpoint, Brian Brivati, I *think* Shiraz Maher. None of them connected with higher education at all. [Update: thanks to commenter CCK: Brivati is a professor at Kingston. I should have been clearer: none are students or recent students. I believe students are adults, and they have democratic systems. In short, I don't believe they need protecting by either professors or MPs.)

They seem worried about Muslims. Are there no students who support the EDL? There have been students who were pro-apartheid. (*Cough* Seaman Staines *Cough) Didn't Cambridge award a degree to Nick Griffin? *Sits back and awaits outrage at that*

Friday Prediction Thread

Since so many of you are still commenting, how about having a go at predicting Nick Cohen's Sunday effort? I think the Shadow Cabinet is a pretty safe bet (going by Twitter, there won't be a dinner party in the country that doesn't at least mention it).

I detect the unmistakable odour of 'eau-de-spin' here. Is it just me?

Also worth discussion: I'm starting to think that electing the Shadow Cabinet isn't a good idea. Specifically, I think voting for people for given positions makes sense; voting them onto a committee - like the NEC or the Supreme Court - also makes sense; but saying Candidate X would be a good cabinet minister depends very much on which department she is minister for.

To come back to the original subject, I also think Nick will venture strikes at Ed Balls and Charlie Whelan. I'm underwhelmed by the Shadow Cabinet. I suspect it shows greater concern on Ed Miliband's part for not allowing any of his cabinet the opportunity to build a power base than for pyrotechnical debating. But then, the Tory cabinet is pretty unimpressive too. Osbourne particularly so, positively embarrassing when you consider that he's been preceded by Howe, Lawson, and Clarke how could at least have argued their ways out of a wet paper bag. Oh, and don't call him Gideon. Doing so is the mark of a wanker.

Clearing up a loose end

Following up a tip from Phil in comments a while back, I have now established to my own satisfaction that there are two Michael Goves, and that the former chairman of the British OS/2 User Group is not the same person as the current Education Secretary and man of Decency.

Did some say "conspiracy theories"?

hmmmmmmmmm.

Of course, the idea that an Iranian spy with a conviction for bank fraud managed not only to convince liberal journalists that he was the authentic voice of democracy, but to convince the CIA that he headed a credible nationalist movement would be ludicrous enough. The idea that, having been exposed as such, he could nevertheless remain powerful enough to gain the post which allowed him to disqualify his political opponents from standing in elections, still more so. The idea that someone who the Decent Left first lionised, then defended, then finally more or less refused to talk about, could be the kingmaker in the Iraqi elections, seven years later, is pretty far fetched.

So I guess Ahmad Chalabi must just be a very popular politician after all.

Our work here is done...

Thanks to BenSix for finding Don’t go for a drink with Nick Cohen. Yes, a real link to La Place de Harold (kerching)!