Weekend links and hiatus.
In the papers, or at least their websites, Howard Zinn also considers Obama's win, Marina Hyde reflects on the Strictly race row, Charlie Brooker attacks the BBC's awful Radio 1 promos, David Blancheflower is decidedly unconvinced by the Tories' economic policies, Matthew Parris is already worrying about the problems Cameron might have with his backbenchers, Janice Turner provides easily the finest piece of the weekend in noting that the Tories' policies on taxing alcohol seem to be based on social snobbery just as much as practicality (take note Graun and Indie: she's far too good for the Times, although the same could probably be said about Parris), Andrew Grice thinks the Tories still need to flesh out their policies, Yvonne Roberts is yet another person critical of Michael Gove's education plans and lastly Howard Jacobson provides his usual take on something completely different, this week on art and privilege vis-a-vis Tracey Emin.
As for worst tabloid article, it's one of those weeks when we're treated to a whole host of potential winners. The Daily Mail out does itself in deploring a "happy slapping" video posted on Facebook, then helps to propagate it by providing six all action screen shots (via Tabloid Watch). Elsewhere in the Mail Amanda Platell has her usual go, this week wondering what all the fuss surrounding someone saying something racist is about, as well as providing an especially paranoid conspiracy theory "explaining it". She also naturally thinks Gove's education plans are wonderful. Meanwhile the Sun has fallen victim yet again to Maddie-balls, this time convinced that a photograph of a girl that looks slightly like Madeleine might look now that she's six could be her. Let me confidently predict that it isn't. The winner though is the Sun's leader column, which launches a quite extraordinary attack on Rowan Williams for daring at yesterday's memorial ceremony for those who died in Iraq to wonder whether "freeing" the country was the right thing to do. If a religious leader can't explore such questions of morality without fear of being monstered politically, who can? Would they attack the Pope in such a way, who has also expressed highly similar sentiments and when the previous one also opposed the war? Or is it, to remember Stalin's question of how many divisions did the Pope have, that the Sun can get away with it when it's Beardie?
And with that, I shall be indisposed until next Monday. Have fun.