Linkblogging For 03/04/11

Still working on two comics posts I hope to have up over the next couple of days – one on Batman and one on High Society. I think I’ll try to make the Cerebus posts monthly – that way there might be some vague possibility of me doing them on schedule. Meanwhile, have a few links:

Two sets of high-quality, legal, free-to-use instrument samples here (link currently down but was working this morning) and here.

Brad Hicks on how those who argue that monogamy is natural are mostly liars (n.b. I am monogamous myself – ‘not natural’ != ‘not good’ or ‘not possible’)

Death To The Universe on Quitely doing Kirby

Alex compares the nuWho story Smith & Jones to a comics classic by Pat Mills and Dave Gibbons

Tim O’Neill on Jack Lemmon

The new Faction Paradox book is available for pre-order. There are some great authors in there (I’m particularly looking forward to Philip Purser-Hallard’s story) and my friend Lawrence Burton did the cover, so buy it.

And Lisa Ansell thinks Ed Milliband should apologise for hijacking last week’s anti-cuts march for the benefit of his pro-cuts party.

This entry was posted in linkblogging and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Linkblogging For 03/04/11

  1. Couldn’t agree more about the Ed Milliband thing. To think that people like Bob Crowe, who’ve actually fought for the rights and conditions of working people, weren’t invited to speak yet… on an anti-cuts march… we get someone who not only isn’t against cuts, but even presided over cuts in the last Government!

    It’s like inviting the National Front to speak at an anti-racist rally because they don’t like the BNP.

    • Absolutely. I have no idea whether the cuts are, as claimed, necessary. I suspect not on a gut level, but know little of economics and people I know who *do* know about economics tell me they are. But what I do know is that all three major parties are agreed on the necessity of them, and thus I consider Labour’s behaviour – supporting the cuts but using opposition to them as political gain – actually worse than that of the Tories or Lib Dems.

    • (Which is not to say that the other two parties are blameless – they are, after all, the ones implementing these policies. But at least they’re honest about it. As always, I am a supporter of the Lib Dems for where they differ from the current consensus, not necessarily where they agree with it, and while a supporter of the party I am not a supporter of the government. I’m finding it necessary to add all these caveats because I’m genuinely confused as to the best course of action, and to whether the cuts are a necessary evil or just evil).

      • “I’m genuinely confused as to the best course of action, and to whether the cuts are a necessary evil or just evil.”

        The Tories have said themselves they won’t be reversing any of these cuts, even if or when the economy recovers. So I’d suggest the second one!

        • Oh, I always work on the assumption that “Tories are evil” is the best working hypothesis. On the other hand Nick Clegg has said in many speeches “at the next election we’ll be the only party going into the election calling for spending increases”. So while the motivation behind most of those imposing the cuts may well be malicious, the cuts themselves may *also* be necessary. Maybe.
          (I really should devote a year or two one of these decades to learning something about economics – I have to make all my political judgements based on civil liberties and social policy, with only gut feel and a mass of contradictory beliefs to guide me when it comes to economics. )

Comments are closed.