Left book club

If you’re writing a book about the state of progressive politics, and you’re casting around for a catchy title, the rule of thumb seems to be: find a stock phrase that includes the word ‘left’ and suggests a punning reference to your topic - then add a sub-title that explains what your book is really about. The locus classicus, in Britain at any rate, is of course Nick Cohen’s What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way - where the main title neatly alludes to the two meanings of the word ‘left’: what exactly is the left these days? and what remains of the left?

The nearest US equivalent is Michael Tomasky’s Left for Dead: The Life, Death and Possible Resurrection of Progressive Politics in America (American publishers love long sub-titles), where once again, there’s a clever play on the double meaning of ‘left’. However, my favourite example of the genre is Michael Sean Winters’ book about the falling-out between progressives and the Church: Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats (an even longer subtitle). You can imagine some editor dancing round the room when s/he came up with that one. 

But with these three stock phrases spoken for, where are new authors to find eye-catching titles for their explorations of the condition of liberal politics? Here are a few back-of-the- envelope ideas I came up with, which prospective scribblers should feel free to borrow. On the other hand, if you want to join in with this little diversion, you're welcome to add suggestions of your own. Here goes:

'Left on the Shelf: Socialism and the Single Person'

'Left Out: the Gay Voice in Progressive Politics'

'Left in the Dark: Labour and the Energy Crisis'

'Left Back' (or Outside Left, or Inside Left): Soccer and Socialism (with its companion volume: 'Outside Right: Extremism on the Terraces')

And, on reflection, I think Tomasky’s choice of title is a waste. Surely ‘Left for Dead’ would be much more appropriate for a book about radicalism in the undertakers’ union?

Finally, to get really cheeky:

'Left Behind: Pippa Middleton’s Radical Past'

Don't say you weren't warned

(Via)

Where's the internet?

Another normlink: the always spot-on South Park imagines a world without the internet. I watched the clip with a shudder of recognition. We experienced a brief broadband outage of our own recently, and we were that family. Even worse: that panicked, powerless and ridiculous-looking dad in a dressing-gown - that was me.

Where is the Internet? - Click here for more amazing videos

Links: from fascism to flashmobs

Not much time for posting this week, but here are some links to be going on with:

• A great piece from Peter Tatchell on the need for (and lack of ) western left-wing solidarity with progressive, secular forces opposing theocratic rule in Iran
• Sarah Franco on worrying reminders of fascism in Berlusconi's Italy
• And altogether more frivolously, these photos from Andrew suggest I was premature in my dismissal of flashmobbing - it's morphed (pardon the pun) into something else.

Finally, as if you needed reminding, the new issue of Democratiya can be found here.

My funny Valentine

File this under 'things that are hard to believe'. Is it really possible that a certain TV comedy writer and atheist campaigner didn't receive a Valentine's card this year? What's wrong with all these younger non-believing fellas? If I were twenty years younger, etc etc...

This is a bit out of date now, but still worth watching as an illustration of how to stand up to silly religious spokespeople, using reason and humour:

Old school self defence

After all the fulminating of my last few posts, here's something a bit more light-hearted for a Friday: a demonstration of jujitsu for women from the 1930s (via). That Miss May Whitley is quite something....

LEGO NY

If you liked this (and I know you did) and you like this place, then you'll love this.

Lowering the tone

Is that your stimulus package or are you just pleased to see me?

Legobama

Still three more days of the Bush era to go, but in Legoland the inauguration of Barack Obama has already taken place.

New blog links

Added to the blogroll: 

For her sterling work on the atheist bus campaign, and for being funny to boot, Ariane Sherine.

And for his tireless agitation for a democratic secular Iran, Azarmehr.

Noises, colours, shapes, feelings and flavours

A propos of this post, this made me chuckle. (Via)

Did 'SNL' show us the 'real' John McCain?

John McCain was genuinely funny in his Saturday Night Live appearance (alongside Tina Fey, reprising her Sarah Palin impression, one hopes for the last time) at the weekend. He demonstrated that if (as I fervently hope) this presidential thing doesn't work out for him, he could have an alternative career as a comedian, or at the very least as a genial chat-show host.

Perhaps it's simply that McCain performs well when he's given a good script, and the role allotted to him in this campaign by Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis is one that runs counter to his real strengths. Anyway, as Andrew Sullivan wrote after McCain's equally hilarious performance at the Al Smith Dinner, it's of no consequence: this amiable, self-mocking version of John McCain isn't running for office this year. Instead, the American people have been presented with an increasingly erratic, impulsive and shameless politician who doesn't deserve to win.

Wrongs and rights

Julian Baggini makes a useful point with regard to Terence Koh's 'blasphemous' statue. He argues that saying we have a right to offend doesn't mean that we are right to offend. This distinction can get lost in the heat of debates about religious offence, though more often than not it works the other way round. In the case of the Danish cartoons, those who took offence, and their supporters in the media, frequently muddled up a moral judgement that publishing the pictures was unwise and gratuitous, with declarations that it should be prohibited by law. So the reverse of Baggini's dictum is also true: saying that someone is foolish, rude or unkind to cause offence to a particular group doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the legal right to do so.

I'm less comfortable with another of Baggini's points. He argues that 'you just can't ignore the background against which lampooning takes place'. He goes on:

Christians, for example, are not oppressed, despite what some wannabe martyrs would have us believe. British Muslims, in contrast, are a somewhat beleaguered minority. We should think twice before mocking them because, while comedy speaking truth to power is funny, the powerful laughing at the weak is not.

I agree with his first sentence, but not with the second, if only because everything he says about Christians could be applied equally to Muslims. Recent events have taught us that there are as many (if not more) 'wannabe martyrs' (both literal and metaphorical) among Muslims as there are among Christians. I notice that Baggini refrains from describing British Muslims as 'oppressed', perhaps fearing that this wouldn't quite wash, but I think even the weaker word 'beleaguered' is questionable. Muslims enjoy complete freedom of religion and expression in Britain (unlike the truly beleaguered religious minorities in some majority-Muslim countries). And despite the part played by political Islam in recent terrorist atrocities, no restrictions have been placed on the practice of their faith and there have been remarkably few attacks on Muslims because of their beliefs. If some people of Muslim heritage are economically or otherwise disadvantaged in Britain, this has more to do with social class and with racial rather than religious discrimination. 

Moreover, who gets to decide which (religious) groups are 'weak' or 'beleaguered' ?Fundamentalist Christians might argue that, in an increasingly secular and sceptical society, these adjectives also apply to them. Jehovah's Witnesses are a minority group with very little social power: does this mean that their beliefs should be off-limits for artists and humorists? Surely it's possible to lampoon the ideas without attacking the people who believe in them?

Norm adds a further point:

By his choice of example Julian makes life too easy for himself. Mockery of the weak is an egregious practice of course. But what if someone makes a criticism of Islam - or any religion - in perfectly measured terms and some take offence, perceiving this criticism as mockery? What if the satirical treatment of a sacred figure in a work of fiction arouses anger, pleas for censorship, death threats? What if it is disputed between difference parties whether certain images or statements are offensive or not? In such cases, the right to say what you think - within the usual limits concerning incitement to violence and defamation - trumps what any of us might believe is the right way to behave.

No longer a joke

Bob, in a post about the long-held belief that no black man will ever be US president, quotes this old joke:

I firmly believe that, one day, a man in a kippa and prayer shawl will sit in the Oval Office...Unless, of course, he's Jewish.

Which reminded me of this line, repeated by Eliot Weinberger in the LRB piece I mentioned here:

If there's a black or woman president in the Oval Office, it means an asteroid is about to hit the Statue of Liberty.