Melanie Phillips has a theory concerning defecting Tory MP Robert Jackson: he’s left the Tories because he’s an antisemite.

Her logic [*] is that he supports the EU and defended the Palestinians in an Economist debate. Therefore he must be an antisemite; therefore he must have left the Tories because he can’t stomach Michael Howard. The fact that Michael Howard has been in the job for years (and is likely to be out of it within months) is but one of the many glaringly wrong things in the analysis [*].

Unsurprisingly, the dribbling right are taking the fact that nobody sane has mentioned this theory as evidence that the liberal establishment is inherently antisemitic.

Update: as Simon suggested in the comments, I’ve now emailed Mr Jackson to let him know about Mel’s article and to ask him if he has any comments on it.

[*] This word is used in the most tenuous possible sense.

Q: Is it possible to be unfair to Christopher Hitchens? A: Who cares?

The South Waziristan Institute of Strategic Hermeneutics has produced a second report for the al Qaeda Strategic Planning Cell (SPC) concerning the progress of the group’s campaign. You can read it here.

Hardcore neocon Mark Humphrys has an excellent [*] exposition of neocon beliefs as part of his Open Letter To Richard Dawkins.

He breaks down neoconservative doctrine into 13 simple points. All of these take broadly true empirical statements (eg ‘Democracies tend not to go to war with each other’; ‘An individual Christian or Jew is more likely to be tolerant of gays than an individual Muslim’; ‘bad leaders criticise things by which they feel threatened’), and turn them into false generalisations (eg ‘all war is caused by non-democracy’; ‘Christianity and Judaism allow freedom of religion and sexuality while Islam does not’; ‘the most criticised societies are the best ones [**]’).

Reading Mr Humphrys’ points is a great way of understanding both what neocons believe, and how they’ve managed to end up believing it. It seems that – not for the first time – ignorant nonsense has taken hold in the realms of the powerful because of powerful people’s inability to comprehend basic logic.

And of course, the fact that this list is meant as an attempt to persuade a prominent scientist and rationalist to abandon his liberal beliefs and move over to the neocon side adds a particularly delightful irony to the proceedings…

[*] But, as Mr Hutton rightly points out, very tedious.

[**] Presumably this means that the EU and the BBC are both pretty groovy, while the Nazis and Al-Qaeda are absolutely awesome.

At the risk of over-using the Guardian letters page for material, Shoreditch ‘community chair’ Anissa Helou is also silly.

The part of Shoreditch around Hoxton Square, which Ms Helou claims is "one of mayhem, where anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder and vandalism are rife", has gone from dying and deprived to one of the world’s most happening and dynamic places, almost entirely through the impact of the club and bar scene. It’s not a rough, violent area like some provincial town centres allegedly are: aside from a bit of shouting and pissing in the street, there’s literally no evidence of any of the things Ms Helou suggests.

Shoreditch is a testimonial to the power of nightlife to reinvigorate horrible areas and turn them into agreeable ones, as well as a living advertisement for liberalised licensing laws. Ms Helou’s comments imply blind puritanism bordering on lunacy, which appears to be a common trait among people who oppose licensing extensions.

What do Sarita Malik and the late Enoch Powell have in common? They both appear to believe that non-whites aren’t capable of co-existing with liberal democratic values.

I hope Dr Malik’s letter misrepresents her beliefs; as an eminent academic in black and Asian studies, she presumably doesn’t actually hold any views that are quite so witless. Although from a brief Googling of her published work, she appears guilty of the annoying habit of using the word ‘black’ to mean ‘black, South Asian, Arab, East Asian, Romany, Irish, and anyone else we’ve forgotten about’. This doesn’t make me confident.

Update: Dr Malik responds here.

Why are the British people who most strongly oppose European integration also the people most likely to vigorously stand up for American interests?

I can understand the "The English, the English, the English are best; I couldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest" view. I can understand the liberal internationalist view that nation-states are a bit silly and that consensus between institutions and individuals is what really matters.

What I can’t understand is why people get massively pissed off by the limitations the EU puts on our government (you know, outrageous impositions like banning us from imprisoning people without trial or exporting beef that causes people’s brains to rot, and suggesting we should allow other Europeans to work in our country), but don’t mind the fact that America runs our army and largely determines our foreign policy. And unlike the EU, where we’re one of the most influential members, it’s become increasingly clear Britain has no say or influence whatsoever over American policy.

Come on, Eurosceptics: it’s time to start hating the Septics just as much as you hate the Frogs, Krauts, wops, spics and gippos. Alternatively, you may wish to consider growing up.

Dell CEO Kevin Rollins isn’t impressed by the iPod. He uses a clever comparison: "When I was growing up there was a product made by Sony called the Sony Walkman – a rage, everyone had to have one. Well, you don’t hear about the Walkman anymore."

His point seems perplexing. The Walkman has sold 300 million units, still ships around 20 million units per year, revolutionised the way we listened to music, and built Sony into the world’s most respected consumer electronics firm. Should the iPod have similar effects on consumer behaviour and on Apple’s business, then this would appear to be a moderately significant development.

Sell Dell; buy companies not led by morons. In the unlikely event that you can find one.

"There are several tens of millions of Muslims out there who would be considered fundamentalists by any reasonable standard. The whole thesis of the war on terror (and certainly of any more general thesis of "Islamism") is that these people think that their religion obliges them to kill us. This means we have a choice of either a) talk to them and convince them it doesn’t or b) kill them.

"I’m up for making a real effort at a), not only because b) is what they call "genocide", but also because under b) they are quite likely to have a go at killing us back, which carries the risk that I get caught in the crossfire." – D^2 at Crooked Timber.

The only questionable bit of this analysis is whether there are actually a significant number of Muslims who believe that their religion obliges them to kill us. If one accepts that there are, then disagreement with D^2’s conclusions would appear to be 100% batshit crazy…

"I, as a woman, have the innate ability to tap dance. I have chosen to do other things with my life than learn how to tap dance, and tap dancing will probably continue to feature quite low on my ‘must-do’ list for several years to come. However, there may come a point when I am old and reflecting upon the things I have achieved and come to the conclusion that my life would be much enhanced by being able to tap dance. I now very much want to be able to tap dance and although it may not be easy, because I can do it, I therefore have right to demand others help me tap dance. I insist that a person dedicates his or her life to help me tap dance, and I am under no obligation to consider the effect upon this person if I kick the bucket half way through my training. What, after all, is a woman’s life worth if she has not made full use of the tap dancing potential she was born with?" – the ever-excellent Green Fairy, on this.