Inside The Tent Pissing Out

Inside the big tent

Best wishes in her new job to Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon who is (like her predecessors at the blog, Ezra and Jesse) moving on to pastures new, specifically to work as web supremo for the John Edwards’ Democratic presidential; nomination campaign. The blog of course carries on – Pam continues as senior member and a new roster of writers has been added.

I’n very pleased for Amanda and that her career is going so well: it’s always nice when nice things happen to nice people and I’m sure she’ll be an asset to the Edwards team. And I’m glad she’s not working for Hillary.

But.

I’ve been very favourably inclined towards Edwards so far, because he at least had something to say for the poor, and I’ve been insisting in argument that an Edards/Obama ticket could be a real possibility and perhaps something that wouldn’t be too bad. I had thought both were the perhaps least venal possibilities of a Democratic party that really is no better than the Republicans when it comes to being beholden to big money and special interests.

Even socialists can see the pragmatic value of opting for the lesser evil.

Bur recently Edwards showed he’s right up there with Lieberman when it comes to supporting Israeli and neocon – and therefore Bush’s – interests in foreign policy.

During a speech via satellite at a security conference last week in Herzliya, Israel, Edwards joined the chorus of those threatening the Iranian government. “Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world,” Edwards said, echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives. “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

A few moments later, he strongly hinted at the need for possible US military action. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table,” Edwards said. “Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”

Oh. Right. So it’s fine by him if Bush attacks Iran. He’s just another corrupt chickenhawk then. But why sabotage his carefully calculated, champion-of-the-little American and the netroots-choice image like that?

Thinkprogress:

There’s a few possible explanations. One, Edwards sincerely believes in a more confrontational Iran policy. Two, he’s pandering to win the support and money of hawkish “pro-Israel” voters and donors. Three, he’s trying to impress the foreign policy intelligentsia by talking tough.

Any of those is enough to make me drop him like a hot brick. But let’s name the real reasons: greed and ambition. Self-interested politrcal triangulation and a willingness to sacrifice lives for his political career. Remind you of anyone?

How could any self-respecting leftist support such a person, let alone work for them?

This goes directly to what I was writing about yesterday, the whole shift in blogging as the presidential campaigns and lobbyists co-opt the power of bloggers:

Power is very seductive, so I’m not at all surprised by the continuing co-option of the big blogs into the political establishment. It’s the way elites always work: co-opt, absorb and neutralise. Just so long as those bloggers co-opted remember that that they are no longer outside the system but within it we’ll all get along fine.

Still, we must all make our own decisions and lets face it, other people’s career decisions are not really my business. From the little personal knowledge I have of Amanda she doesn’t strike me as someone who’d make frivolous decisions. I’ve no doubt she’ll have weighed up the pros and cons of this move before making it. On a personal level I will never wish Amanda anything but well, no matter how much we disagree on politics.

But Edwards and his campaign, after his self-exposure as yet another Democratic stalking-horse for AIPAC, are another matter entirely.

Now Shakespeare’s Sister has joined the campaign too as netroots co-ordinator. Nailing political colours to the mast, (or at least getting paid for blogging) seems to be quite the fashion. Who will be the next to put a paycheck over principle, I wonder?

And if anyone thinks that’s harsh or uncivil, I can only repeat what I said in my previous post.

Liberal blogging is already producing its own insider elites even though it’s that which brought us to this pass in the first place. Although they’re much less well-paid (if paid at all) than the right bloggers, the money is coming. With the ascendancy of the Democrats in Congress and a record-funded presidential race on the way, bloggers are no doubt already anticipating a tasty slice of the ad-spending and political-consultancy pie. The Hillary blogads are all over the place already.

I suppose they might argue that that’s the way the system works and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander., t’was ever thus, blah blah blah, don’t blame us, a blogger’s got to live and so on. Fine, make your living from politics if that’s what you want to do. I’ve no problem with that, it’s your choice.

But remember that the moment you start to make your living from politics you are part of the political establishment, not the counter-establishment, on the inside not the outside, and expect to be treated accordingly

Jews have fundie nutters too

See?

The clothes that were set on fire during the demonstration were collected by a haredi organization in the past few months in a door-to-door campaign held in haredi neighborhoods in Jerusalem. During the campaign, clothes deemed “immodest” were collected. Women rose to the challenge. The organization handed out coupons for “authorized shops” to those who handed over “forbidden clothing” so that they can buy new clothes.

In an announcement published by the rabbis, they clearly define what is forbidden to wear:

  • Tricot shirts
  • Lycra shirts and skirts
  • Open-collared shirts
  • Short and tight skirts
  • Skirts with a slit
  • Skirts with a straight cut
  • Long or bulky earrings
  • Clothes and bags in loud, flashy colors
  • Wigs that are too exclusive
  • Transparent or colorful stockings
  • Clunky shoes

The result: Violence
The war against immodesty has recently descended into violence. Extremists attacked women with various sprays who were wearing clothes that didn’t fit their criteria. Clothing stores in Jerusalem have also been hurt. One of the stores near the center of the city sustained an attack of bleach bottles. Tens of thousands of shekels of damage was caused to the merchandise.

Most of the list of verboten clothing is a variation the same old “that whore with her tight clothes makes me think of sex”, but clunky shoes?

Oh, and it’s not just that these clothes drive lustful thoughts in otherwise pure men; they’re to blame for “the troubles befalling Israeli people”; nothing to do with starting a racially segregated state on an ethnically cleansed territory while keeping a couple of million people locked up in bantustans even the old Apartheid regime would’ve admired while than.

Read more about:
, ,

Didn’t We Have A Lovely Time The Day We Went To Little Chef?

I was at a bit of a loss as to which of Ellis Sharp‘s recent posts to feature today, though I had to feature one because he’s been so good recently.

I was tempted by the wit of his Shakespeare conspiracies post, but in the end I plumped for this one, as I have a soft spot for Little Chef and he’s pricked my nostalgia. Little Chef’s where we used to stop to have cherry pancakes on the way home from the beach at Thurlestone on fading honeysuckle-scented summer Sunday evenings when my sons were small.

So without further ado:

It’s marvellous news that Israeli property firm Arazim has helped saved the ailing chain of Little Chef restaurants for the nation. The Sharp Side has obtained exclusive access to Arazim’s future plans for the chain. These are:

1. All land within a radius of 100 miles of each Little Chef will be seized by troops and tanks under the slogan “After 2000 years, Little Chef comes home.” All residents will be evicted and their homes bulldozed. Businesses will be seized. There will be no compensation paid. The land will be used for car parking and homes for Little Chef employees.

2. Little Chef does not discriminate. However customers of a swarthy complexion may be restricted to the fried egg menu and asked to eat in the Portaloo at the back, next to the waste containers. This is for security reasons.

3. Children who do not finish their meals, who play with their food, or who throw buns will be shot. Little Chef anticipates around 300-500 child fatalities in its first year of operation. The Blair government has agreed to supply free rifles and automatic weapons to all Little Chef employees.

4. All dissatisfied customers will be referred to by the BBC as ‘militants’ and ‘rogue elements’.

5. Visitors who call by just to use the toilets and who leave without buying even so much as a cup of coffee will be pursued down the motorway by a helicopter gunship and blasted from the face of the earth. Little Chef also strongly advises that no customers using wheelchairs attempt to patronise the chain.

6. The exciting new ‘traveller’s menu’ will consist of (i) sliced melon starter (ii) spaghetti and chips with optional grated cheese topping (iii) Black Forest gateau (iv) complementary cup of Nescafe. The ‘kid’s fun menu’ will consist of (i) toast (available cold or lukewarm with optional toppings: marmite, minced pilchard). (ii) bowl of icecream (flavours: Cape white or Venetian mint).

Bon appetit!

No change there, then.

Little Chef’, whatever their ownership may be, will still always be better than the supposed ‘services’ I once stopped at off the M5 just outside Exeter where I watched, boggling, as a slatternly teenager poured a sachet of Cup-A-Soup into a bowl, topped it off with hot water, gave it a perfunctory stir and tried to charge me two quid for what the menu described as ‘a delicious steaming bowl of homemade soup’. The kid’s fun menu sounds quite pleasant in comparison and I’ve always liked toast.

Read more: Little Chef, Motorway services, Zionism, Nostalgia