Canker

The savaging continues

2007-11-22T21:08:00.000Z

Attacks on the incompetence of the Government are coming in from all sides. Even from ComputerWorldUK:

Jonathan Armstrong,partner at international law firm Eversheds, warned: "The breach is likely to give birth to a number of phishing scams. Even if the data on the CDs does not get into the hands of fraudsters it is likely that even now a large email campaign is being planned to prey on the British public.
"We have been involved with a number of major multinational breaches and have spoken with clients after the event to help others learn from their experience," said Armstrong.

"In many cases the consequences of the data breach are worse than first anticipated."

Fred Piper, a professor at Royal Holloway University of London, said it was extraordinary that the data loss occurred.

"It shouldn't happen. It beggars belief as to who authorised this, and whether they had authority to send the data or just did it," he said.
...
Bob Ayers, associate fellow at Chatham House's International Security Programme, said any inquiry needed to get to the bottom of how this happened.

"But you have to ask: what kind of data protection regime is there in place in which highly sensitive information is stuffed in an envelope and given to guy on a motorbike to courier across London? What kind of protection regime treats such vitally important information in such cavalier fashion?"
...
"We are getting a lot of head-patting from the government reassuring us that they are in charge and are trying to figure out what happened. We are being told not to panic and not to change our bank accounts," he said. "I would want to know how this happened. I'm not talking about the mechanics, but how did we get to the position that such critically sensitive information is being treated like a package of fish and chips and moved around London?

"Until we understand the answer, there can be no assurance that this is not going to happen again and again and again."

FBI fraud expert, Frank Abignale said:

"It was not just a mistake. I truly believe that someone paid for information to be stolen. It's what happens all the time, that someone acted in collusion with somebody else to steal this data," said Abagnale, author of Catch me if you can and a fraud expert who has worked extensively for the FBI over the past 32 years.
Governments, corporations and local authorities do a "horrible job of protecting data" said Abagnale.

"Don't send sensitive records by courier or through the mail. It's just common sense, and good business practice that someone should not have done that. The UK government needs to do a much better job of protecting the information of it citizens," he said.

"The government would not ship gold bullion via an unsecured courier or method and in today's environment, one needs to understand that sensitive personal data is worth just as much as gold bullion."

He added: "This is what scares me about the concept of UK ID card. Taking all of this information, including biometrics information, and putting into one place is dangerous. It is allowing one weak link in the chain, for instance, a criminal to approach someone to steal information," said Abagnale.
...
If the data was stolen, then it is likely the thief would sit on this information for a number of years before harvesting identities, said Abagnale.

"Because the records are for younger people, many may not have a credit record yet. Once they reach adulthood, they could find their identity has been sold before they've even started on life."

HMRC's data loss highlights the difference between data breach notification laws in the US and the UK, said Abagnale. The UK government waited more than 10 days to notify parliament and the public of the breach. But n the US, under current laws, the government would have had to notify everyone affected immediately.

And Nick Robinson of the BBC says about the exchange of emails between the National Audit Office and HMRC:

The key thing we learn comes not from the detail but the tone of all the exchanges. They demonstrate little concern from either the NAO or HMRC about data protection. The NAO wants, it would appear, simply to reduce the size of the files it is sent. The HMRC is worried about the cost of filtering information in order to send the smaller files the NAO request. What about our privacy and our rights? No mention is made of them.

And now the good news:

New measures to increase government data sharing are included in bills announced in the Queen’s Speech.

The gift which lasts-incompetence

2007-11-21T23:59:00.000Z

With over 10,000 comments on the BBC Have your Say page, the Beeb is catching on about the scale of the data-loss scandal.
Now they're actually quoting some experts:

Children whose personal data has gone missing could be at risk of identity fraud for many years, credit reference agency Experian has warned...
Compliance director Helen Lord said this could have a "catastrophic effect" on their ability to buy or rent a home or obtain a loan or credit card.

According to a director of RSA security:

What also made the data attractive to fraudsters, said Mr Moloney, was that much of the data in it, such as names of children and birth dates, cannot be changed and will be valuable if it reaches criminals in the next week or the next year.

No doubt we'll be told again that there's no evidence that the data's fallen into the wrong hands. It's equally clear that the Chancellor's career hangs by a thread. The PM will cut that thread if he thinks it will help him at all.

A cataclysmic error

2007-11-20T22:08:00.000Z

Today we heard Alistair Darling admit that

"Two computer discs holding the personal details of all families in the UK with a child under 16 have gone missing... with name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number and, where relevant, bank details of 25 million people."

For this, HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the amalgam of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise) are to blame, and the chairman, Paul Gray, rightly resigned.

Thereafter, we had the usual covering of portions of anatomy with Darling blaming all and sundry at HMRC and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Jane Kennedy , stating on BBC's PM that it had no relevance to ID cards because the computer systems "would be more modern and single purpose unlike the HMRC's" completely ignoring the fact that the fault was entirely people-driven and unrelated to HMRC's computer system [Listen Again, Radio 4, PM Tuesday 20 November, about 28.20 mins in].

The chancellor defended the government's plans to introduce ID cards. He said that "without the protection of the scheme, information was more vulnerable than it should be."
He announced the usual investigation and plans to stop "this ever happening again".

The shadow chancellor told Darling to "get a grip" and described the incident as "catastrophic".

And they all missed the damn point. Again.

If this data is out there, in some criminal's hands, it's the most valuable data set ever lost in this country.

This is exactly the sort of personal data that enables criminals to claim successfully that they've forgotten "their" password. So that's seven and a half million bank accounts at risk. There's a bad start.

What is far worse is the opportunity for 25 million cases of "identity theft". 25,000,000 fraudulent ID cards. 25,000,000 fake passport applications.

This data isn't going to go away and no-one can change it [25 million applications for a change of name by deed-poll, anyone? Anyone know how to change your date of birth?].
This is a one-off irreversible loss of security for 25 million citizens.
If this data is in the hands of criminals, it's going to be on sale on various websites for the next forty years.

This is not a cock-up. It's not even an administrative catastrophe.

What this is is a cataclysmic failure by the state in its highest priority: the job of protecting its citizens.
Let no-one blame just the civil servants who boobed-they shouldn't have been in a position where this could happen. Let no-one blame just the chancellor-he's just one member of the cabinet which is collectively responsible for the largest loss of civil liberties and privacy we've seen outside the second world war.
This farce, this farrago, this most obscene of gross derelictions of duty should be a cause for wholesale sackings in the civil service and the dismissal of the government. It should be the cause of mass demonstrations outside Parliament. Oh sorry! Of course, that's illegal now.

Of course it won't be a cause of anything much. We'll all go along with it. We'll moan and wring our hands and think bitter thoughts for a few hours or days at the most and then we'll forget it.

Why? Because we don't expect any better from our politicians. We expect neither honesty nor competence, merely a bit of a show and the occasional simulation of contrition.

Rough Justice

2007-11-01T17:27:00.000Z

So, Sir Ian Blair had another close shave as the Jury finds the Met guilty but Cressida Dick innocent in the De Menezes shooting case. The Met mounted a defence of the most cynical variety, continuing their character assassination of de Menezes which started on the day of his shooting just before they shot him: he ran when challenged, he vaulted the barrier, he came towards the police. This was followed by photo-shopping his picture to make him look more like the suspected terrorist, saying that he had taken cocaine (implying he was still under its influence, when he wasn't) and pointing out that his visa had expired (presumably a capital offense).

A sorry picture of incompetence, dishonesty and lack of principle emerges and you hope that the public sees through it. Then, if you read the Have Your Say feature on the BBC website, it is quite clear that mud sticks. Half of the commenters are mouthing these half-truths and lies as defense of our glorious police.

The truth is simpler. Individual police are usually brave and most are doing their best in difficult circumstances, but their organisation is deeply flawed at the deepest (and highest) levels. The fast track graduates with little on the street experience and heightened political sensitivities who run our police forces shouldn't be trusted with organising a milk-round let alone armed police and counter-terrorism.
For a BBC timetable of the whole glorious cock-up go here.

An ever sillier union

2007-10-28T14:46:00.000Z

So, Malcolm Rifkind thinks that we ought to have an English Grand Committee.
However,

...Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman told the BBC the government would not support plans that threatened the UK and that what people really wanted was more "regional accountability".
She added: "I think this is a very, very dangerous line of argument that the Conservatives are pushing.

Well, she would, wouldn't she. Labour only retains power thanks to the Scots and the Welsh and without the whole of parliament deciding on taxation they won't get the subventions from the English to continue their mass bribery of the other nations of the UK. Simple electoral calculation tells us that with an English Grand committee, the NuLabour hacks would be hamstrung. No surprise then that they resist with this sort of language?

The European Union is disgusting and depraved

2007-10-21T09:39:00.000+01:00

There is nothing new in this statement. For anybody who cares to exert even a small amount of effort to check a few things, it's obvious. What you should be wondering is how all the politicians are recruited into this glorious, free-wheeling, continent-spanning scam. The answer can only be the power of the `inner circle'. It's a bit like one of those conspiracy/freemason/illuminati thingies.

`Now listen Gordon. It's very simple. All you have to do, Gordon, is walk backwards around a pentagram, chanting `respect the red lines, respect the red lines' and smiling for the cameras and you will become a member of the innermost Jean Monnet club. You will mingle, nay, you will hob-nob with the political stars of the Project. You will speak words of power unto the peons of Europe. No more geek boy, Gordon. No more Mr Referendum. No more waiting for power. It will be yours. And we'll teach you the secret signal. You know, the complicated one with the feet.
Go on. You know you want to. Do it. Sign now.[cue insane laughter, the sound of thousands of marching boots and crowds screaming "Gor-don, Gor-don, Gor-don"].'

Well, Brown's day has arrived. The geek from the manse did us proud.

To quote Richard North:

But what do you do when your politicians tell you bare-faced, brazen lies and, against all the evidence, keep repeating then and repeating them and repeating them? How long can we continue calling them liars, before we ourselves get sick of the sound of our own voices?

How galling!

2007-10-18T09:22:00.000+01:00

Somehow, when one tries a silly pop quiz like this one, one doesn't expect such a goody-goody result.

What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Hat tip: Done With Mirrors

The state is your dietician, not your friend

2007-10-17T22:43:00.000+01:00

Individuals can no longer be held responsible for obesity and government must act to stop Britain "sleepwalking" into a crisis, a report has concluded.
The largest ever UK study into obesity, backed by government and compiled by 250 experts, said excess weight was now the norm in our "obesogenic" society.
Dramatic and comprehensive action was required to stop the majority of us becoming obese by 2050, they said.

Clovis looked at his watch: 6.32. That meant only another 28 minutes on the treadmill and then he could eat his Primaroloburger. After that it was 25 minutes handwashing the bedclothes and then a sprightly walk to work at NISA (the National Institute for the Suppression of Alcohol). He ran a little faster as he thought about the bonus he’d get from reporting his neighbours. He was almost certain he’d seen the husband sipping a sherry last night. Well, fairly certain. Anyway, if he was wrong it didn’t matter much. The man would only get a mandatory extra eight hours on the treadmill.

He laughed as he thought about the fusses over green issues there’d been before NuLab sorted it all out. God, but Millibland was a genius. Who else would have thought to solve both the obesity crisis and the CO2 targets crisis by getting everyone to generate their own (and the nation’s) electricity.

And he’d never felt so fit. The left knee was a bit dodgy, though. Best not to mention that to the doc at the annual fitness review. Everyone remembered Smithy. Fit as a fiddle one day, then gone the next. Failed his appraisal.

There’d been a good turnout for the secular service afterwards. Several people, including the Assistant Reserve Secretary for Exercise, had said nice things. How thin Smith was. How he never touched a drop of alcohol. How he’d never been a drain on the State until his last few minutes.

The policy came in after the last election. Such a good slogan. `Six weeks to save the NHS’. So clever. Peter Sandalman’s idea. Of course he’d had to go later. High health risk. What did they call it? An insufficiently risk-averse lifestyle choice.

Clovis remembered the sound of the shots from the doctor’s office and shivered. Always two. There’d been some talk recently of stopping it. He was against it. There were limits, after all. Pol Pot may have been a great moderniser and a real `fresh-slate’ man, but using the rifle butt to save on ammunition was going a bit far for a liberal democracy like the EU(UK region).

Not that Clovis was against progress. He was all for it. He remembered when things had been different. Obese people on every street corner. Washing machines. Dishwashers. Waste. People driving everywhere. Foreign holidays. Aircraft. Pate. Claret. Stilton. Disgusting really. All that indulgence. All that fun. Bad for you, though. And Mr Brown really didn’t like fun. He liked saving money though. All that money freed up from the pension funds. Massive reductions in the cost of the NHS. Lucky they had such a prudent president for life. With the worldwide depression after Kyoto 2 and the obliteration of Israel, they’d needed some savings.

Anyway, enough running. Perhaps he’d skip the burger. He was sick of the taste of soya and he thought he’d seen a rather lethargic rat in the garden. If he got a move on, a barbecue might be on the cards. And if the rat was sick, well, as he always said, `you only die once’.

Why do I still listen to the BBC?

2007-10-13T11:59:00.000+01:00

It's the absence of ads.

There are interesting paradigms for free-to-air media, but they mostly involve advertisements. I can't take the audio ones. It must be inadequate filters in my ears. I'm fine at whiting out the visual noise but someone gabbling about the latest must-have silver-plated electronic dog-hair clippers drives me insane.

Of course the BBC is not immune. Despite the enormous income it gets from a captive audience, it still has awful trails and puffs. Then it spends a significant amount of time threatening people with dire consequences for not buying a television licence. Generally however, the quantity of such ghastliness is smaller than commercial media.

However, in contrast to many of the commercial media, it increasingly does an appalling job. We (the audience) actually find it quite easy to disentangle positive bias (of the `this man is not called Adolf, but he does look rather like Hitler and, although he's not frothing at the mouth now we'll light him so that he looks like he is' style). What we can't deal with is the `missing data' bias. If the Beeb chooses not to report something, we have to work to find it. That's difficult both because it entails extra work and because you have to look for what isn't there.

All this is a long wind-up to this from Biased BBC (and Newswatch):

Newswatch spent fourteen weeks prior to the European Council meeting in June monitoring Radio 4's Today programme for balance in their coverage of the run up to the EU reform treaty ...involving minute analysis of over 240 hours of material.
... it turns out that Today's coverage of the EU Reform Treaty was far from comprehensive, and that what coverage there was was biased, unimaginative and plain sloppy.
Some highlights from the Newswatch summary:
This was a period of major EU activity, But coverage of EU affairs on the Today programme slumped to a record low of 2.7% of available airtime for most of the 14 weeks, despite high profile promises by BBC news management in the wake of the Wilson report that EU-related output would be boosted, and claims by the Director General that it has been;
On June 23, the day that agreement was reached, Today devoted four times more airtime to the Glastonbury Rock Festival than to coverage of the eurosceptic case against the revised working arrangements. Coverage of the eurosceptic case amounted to only seven interviews (22 minutes and 40 seconds of airtime) over the entire 14 weeks;
UKIP, a main conduit of views about withdrawal and further growth of EU powers, was not asked any questions at all during the survey about the revised working arrangements. Remarks by UKIP spokesmen in four appearances by the party occupied only around five minutes out of 238 hours of programming. On the sole occasion when there was a debate about UKIP concerns – relating to whether the EU brought benefits to the UK - the UKIP spokesman was treated unfairly;
BBC correspondents, in their reporting of the moves towards the new treaty, regularly articulated the negative sentiment within the EU about Britain’s reservations, but very rarely explained or even mentioned eurosceptic concerns. On some occasions, BBC Europe correspondent Jonny Dymond, the biggest contributor to Today’s coverage of the revised treaty document, appeared to push the EU perspective on events disproportionately, to the point of bias;
The case for a referendum on the new working arrangements – which, according to polls was supported by 80% of the UK electorate - was handled sparsely, unfairly and ineptly. There were only two dedicated interviews on the topic. In each, there were elements that contravened BBC editorial guidelines. James Naughtie treated Ruth Lea, the guest who put the case for a referendum, more toughly than Professor Jo Shaw, who argued against one being held.
Coverage of EU affairs in general
in the 14 weeks of the survey was mainly outside peak programme listening hours, with evidence that negative EU stories were regularly placed in the 6am-7am slot.

It's a sad comedown for a once great institution that this sort of rubbish goes on. Having said that, it's been going on for some time. You might read Human Voices by Penelope Fitzgerald to get an idea.

Cat kills at least nine in Nigeria

2007-10-11T19:39:00.000+01:00

I read this online and wondered what was going on.

At least nine Christians were killed, churches set on fire and businesses and homes destroyed in the Tundun Wada area of Kano State, Nigeria, over the weekend. The violence was committed by Muslim youths and followed unspecified allegations that Christians had blasphemed the prophet Mohammed.

No mainstream reporting, no explanation of what constituted the blasphemy, no context.
Then I found this at Isaac Schrodinger:

Offensive Cat Leads to Death
News from last week:
Over nine people have been reported killed while churches and houses owned by Christians have allegedly been burnt down. Shops belonging to Igbo traders were reportedly set on fire while three pastors have been arrested and kept in custody.
Later:
He said an internet cartoon emanating from a 20-year-old Muslim boy from Bangladesh had apparently sparked off the crisis.

Salifu said, "Information available to me is that almost all the churches within that local government area have been razed down and shops belonging to Christians have been razed down and in houses where they dwelled in, we have been told that they have been ejected and their property brought out and burnt.
3rd World View via Gateway Pundit:

Still somewhat cryptic. What, after all, has a cat to do with it?

Next we have to go to Mahmud's Weblog and the light begins to dawn:

I can't reproduce the cartoon -- after all, it is banned. But here's the exchange it depicts. A tall man in a cap asks a young boy holding a cat, "What is your name?" The kid says, "Babu." The man says, "You're supposed to say Mohammed before a name." And he asks the boy again, "What is your father's name?" The boy says, "Mohammed Abbu." Then pointing at the cat, the man asks, "What's that in your hands?" You can guess the rest.

It is a cartoon drawn by a young (Muslim) cartoonist in Bangladesh. But what's the business with every name having to begin Mohammed?
Enlightenment is available in one of the comments:

we should recall how the most south Asian Muslim name bears Mohammad as first name. During British rule in Indian subcontinent, Muslim and Hindu cultured mixed together and Muslims were taking Hindu names. That’s why scholars at time suggested keeping “Mohammad” as first name. So, it was purely religious matter to distinguish from Hindu. You won’t find this trend in Middle East countries.

Now the why question. Why does this stir up the Muslims in Northern Nigeria?
Here's The 3rd World View's take on it:

Good question. Because quarters like Hizbut Tahrir tries to keep this issue alive with protests in London apparently to amplify their demands like estabishing Sharia rule and Khilafat.

The brief article goes on to give a link to this in Ummah News Links:

The question is: how could a cartoon, allegedly offensive to Muslims, drawn in a far-off land―that too, by a Muslim―anger Muslims of Nigeria to such an extent that they go on killing any non-Muslim come within their reach? A similar savagery by Muslims took place in India in 1921 CE. When the Ottoman caliphate was facing the prospect of collapse, the Muslims of India, then under British rule, started the Khilafat Andolon (Caliphate Movement). Its aim was not only to protect the integrity of the Ottoman caliphate, but also to integrate India into that caliphate, after ousting the British rulers. And unsurprisingly, our Mahatma Gandhi happily joined this movement.

However, as the Ottoman caliphate faced a definite collapse, it hurt and angered Indian Muslims so much that the Mopla Muslims of Malabar (Kerala) vented their anger upon their Hindu neighbors. They went on a barbaric spree of killing, rapes and pillage leading to thousands of deaths and rapes of the Hindus. This episode became known as the Mopla rebellion.

The 3rd World View describes this commentary as `a bit harsh against Muslims' but predicts more such `because of these opportunists who are destroying the image of Islam.'

Scots away!

2007-10-10T22:35:00.000+01:00

Well, maybe not. We haven't heard much about this in England recently but, according to the SNP's leader, the referendum on independence for Scotland was to be in 2010. Now things seem to be changing:

The white paper sets out what the SNP sees as the three main realistic choices for Scots.
These are:

The present devolved set-up;

Redesigning devolution by extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament in specific areas;

Or full independence.

The white paper also includes the draft wording of the ballot paper for a referendum.
This asks voters whether they agree or disagree "that the Scottish government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of a United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state".
However, Mr Salmond said he was relaxed about the possibility of a multi-option referendum, even though he admitted that "might not" be his preference.

Then again, the subtext in this Independent article is that it's all a power play:

Scottish independence was put back on the agenda yesterday by Alex Salmond, the First Minister for Scotland, in a White Paper paving the way for a referendum on the break-up of the Union.

Opposition parties accused Mr Salmond of using the White Paper for " nationalist propaganda", while the SNP leader himself claimed the " tectonic plates" were moving in Scotland and said he wanted a referendum for voters by 2010 on the Union.

But Mr Salmond may already be close to achieving a compromise, which will see more power devolved from Westminster.

I'm more inclined to believe this. Salmond is well aware that the majority of the Scots aren't behind him on independence. Moreover I think he knows they enjoy being the tail that wags the dog as far as British politics are concerned. Why seek independence when you can have the best of both worlds?

Global Incident Map

2007-10-10T21:10:00.000+01:00

Here's a link to a realtime (updated every eight minutes) map of `Terrorism Events and Other Suspicious Activity'.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Dutch Government

2007-10-10T20:20:00.000+01:00

It seems that the Dutch government, and in particular former deputy PM Gerrit Zalm and current PM Jan Peter Balkenende, really know how to keep their promises:

Hirsi Ali was persuaded to run for Parliament, and to become the world's most visible and imperiled spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women, on the understanding that she would be provided security for as long as she needed it. Gerrit Zalm, in his capacity as both the deputy prime minister and the minister of finance, promised her such security without qualification. Most shamefully, Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, has recommended that Hirsi Ali simply quit the Netherlands, while refusing to grant her even a week's protection outside the country during which she might raise funds to hire security of her own. Is this a craven attempt to placate Muslim fanatics? A warning to other Dutch dissidents not to stir up trouble by speaking too frankly about Islam? Or just pure thoughtlessness?

Some other points of view have been aired (this is Dymphna at Gates of Vienna):

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a formidable woman, but she isn’t perfect. Her mistakes have been costly to herself and others. I do not think any government has an obligation to provide security for her — this protection would not be necessary if she had not, of her own free will, made that mediocre movie. Actions have consequences, and this one is hers.

Though I don’t agree with her socialist political philosophy and I find her militant atheism without nuance, I would be willing to donate money to a private fund designated for her protection. However, it is not a government’s job to protect its citizens from their own folly. If any such fund is started, I’ll be glad to publicize it and to make a donation.

Personally, I don't agree. Perhaps, if she was allowed to bear arms, I might.

Climate Change and the IPCC

2007-10-07T21:34:00.000+01:00

Here's how modern intergovernmental politics is done. Lie.

Kevin Trenberth, coordinating lead author of IPCC 4th Assessment Report, WG1 Chapter 3, says:

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all… they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents…
…none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.
Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge.

My suspicion, as a statistician, is that they merely sought for doomsday scenarios even though the most loopy computer models couldn't get them there from current conditions. Then they fixed the initial conditions so that those outcomes were attainable.
Oh look, that's exactly what he says:

The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.
Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

Why are we taking this stuff seriously, never mind skewing whole economies on the basis of it?

Vicar machine-gunned gently

2007-10-07T18:06:00.000+01:00

I'm not surprised that Richard Dawkins' campaign of malevolence and dishonesty is bearing this sort of fruit:

National Churchwatch, which provides personal safety advice, says vicars are attacked more often than professions such as GPs and probation officers.

Why do I suspect that, yet again, no one on the `atheism is bright' side of the argument will pause to check their constatntly reiterated statements about religion being the source of violence? It's not about truth, it's about bullying.
Of course it could be that some of the vicars are a little unworldly:

One vicar, from Willesden, north-west London, said his vicarage had been machine-gunned - but still did not believe he had experienced violence.

Presumably it would require a small thermonuclear device to constitute `violence'.

If men are from Mars, I must be from Uranus

2007-10-06T17:30:00.000+01:00

I have been much distracted over the past few days by things like the start of the academic year and students not knowing whether to call me "Professor Clovis", "Mr Sangrail" or "hi, i'm your tutee and I need you to sign this cheque" (I don't know how I know that these ones don't use capital letters but I just do). First lectures have been perpetrated, timetables torn up, vice chancellors abused (in absentia) and secretaries canonised.

Somewhere, in a galaxy far, far away, politics has been happening.

I know this because this afternoon, Gordon apparently "bottled it".

What he has bottled is not quite clear. Coming to the matter rather late in the day, my conclusions are weak. I observe that, since he's a son of the manse, he won't have included alcohol. As a father, he may have used fruit. I'm sure that prudence dictated that it should be bottled. Tinning or otherwise preserving it, whatever it is, is clearly right out. Unfortunately, this doesn't pin it down much (if one can pin down something which has been bottled). I'm guessing a home-made chutney, but only time will tell. Perhaps we could call it Brown sauce?

In other recent news, Brown is, we are told, considered a "feartie" by those north of the border. Some of them also confirm that he is bottling it.

Having been educated entirely in England I'm not quite clear what this `feartie' word means. Some sort of relative of the kelpie, perhaps? A strait-laced water sprite with a hint of pooka? Someone on the wrong side of the West Lothian question? I don't know. It's all Dutch to me.

I've also learnt that, in a massive split with tradition (and one which, I am sure, will confirm him as the arch-moderniser) David Cameron has said `let the people decide'. This unashamed descent into crass populism is a real departure for Cameron. Heretofore he's been known as `one of us' and `pretty dry', and it's obvious that this approach is unlikely to win much approval from the electorate. Most sensible politicians will obviously distance themselves from this radical position. After all, it would never have worked with Europe, and I'm guessing he'll be eating his words in the near future.

Anyway, I've clearly missed a lot and need to do some serious catching up.

Who's suffering from a brain-eating amoeba?

2007-09-30T17:03:00.000+01:00

This is a very sad and somewhat weird story:

What was bothering Aaron was an amoeba, a microscopic organism called Naegleria fowleri that attacks the body through the nasal cavity, quickly eating its way to the brain. The doctors said he probably picked it up a week before while swimming in the balmy shallows of Lake Havasu.

Such attacks are extremely rare, though some health officials have put their communities on high alert, telling people to stay away from warm, standing water.

...According to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], Naegleria infected 23 people from 1995 to 2004. This year health officials say they've noticed a spike in cases, with six Naegleria-related cases so far — all of them fatal.

Beyond the immediate obvious reactions when reading this, two things struck me. First was the knee-jerk reference to Global Warming:

"This is definitely something we need to track," said Michael Beach, a specialist in recreational water-born illnesses for the CDC.
"This is a heat-loving amoeba. As water temperatures go up, it does better," Beach said. "In future decades, as temperatures rise, we'd expect to see more cases."

Incidentally, what kind of weirdo acquires a recreational water-born illness? "Why did you get hepatitis?" "Oh! I was bored and it seemed like something to do."

The second was rather more cheering. Contrast the sense and reasonableness of this comment:

Texas health officials also have issued news releases about the dangers of amoeba attacks and to be cautious around water. People "seem to think that everything can be made safe, including any river, any creek, but that's just not the case," said Doug McBride, a spokesman for the Texas Department of State Health Services.

with the sort of `something must be done, the state will buy everyone a full-size cocoon, a gas-mask and a sherbet lemon'-type statements we now get regularly from British politicians.

Abandon all hope

2007-09-29T16:07:00.000+01:00

I fear that Richard North at EU Referendum is right when he says:

As election fever intensifies over the weekend, however – with a torrent of coverage expected in the Sundays, an air of gloom descends on the Tories in the certain expectation of two things: an early election, and a complete wipe out. We would like to think that the Tory support for a referendum could make the difference and salvage Cameron's declining fortunes, but life ain't like that. The Boy has completely blown it, as we always knew he would.

But, not only will a Tory defeat mean the end of Cameron, it will also mean the end of any hopes we ever had of a referendum. Not even Lady Thatcher can change that dismal prognosis – it will be the end of hope.

I don't know about anybody else, but the dismal end of hopes that sanity might prevail makes me feel despairing. In particular I feel that a moment of triumph for Antonio Gramsci is upon us:

To few ... is Antonio Gramsci a familiar name. That is to be regretted because the work of the late Italian Marxist sheds much light on our time. It was he who first alerted fellow revolutionaries to the possibility that they would be able to complete the seizure of political power only after having achieved "cultural hegemony," or control of society's intellectual life by cultural means alone. His was an incremental, rather than an apocalyptic, revolution-the kind, that is, that we have been witnessing in the United States, and the Western world generally, since the 1960s. With this in mind, we ought not to treat the contemporary "culture war" lightly; the fate of what remains of civilized life may well be decided by its outcome.
Few Leftists now adhere strictly to the original tenets of Marxism, or even to those of Marxist Revisionism, but, what is every bit as dangerous, they, like Gramsci, often succumb to a temptation that appears to be irresistible to those who dream utopian dreams: the passion for negation that often shades into nihilism. Utopianism and nihilism may seem to be antithetical, but they are not; both derive from the same source-undying hatred of the world as it is.

Brown, whatever his religious background, is a true child of Gramsci. No other intellectual heredity is possible for a man who says that

"We've moved our schools from being below average to being above average. We've now got to make them world class."

when this sort of thing goes on:

The Schools Secretary Ed Balls is writing to all head teachers setting out priorities for the new school year.
Mr Balls says he wants to tackle the "devastating impact" of absenteeism and poor discipline.

and this:

A-level maths standards have dropped to the point where B-grade students score little better in a basic university test than they would if they were randomly guessing, according to a new study.

The study, which monitored the performance of first-year electronics students at York University in maths tests over the past 15 years, also shows that if today's A-grade students had sat the test 15 years ago, they would have come bottom of the class. The researchers said their findings were replicated in York's physics department.

The findings come just a week after A-level results showing overall pass rates of 96 per cent and record numbers gaining A-grades. They will lend weight to claims that A-levels are no longer the academic "gold standard".

and this:

12m workers have the reading age of children
Up to 16 million adults - nearly half the workforce - are holding down jobs despite having the reading and writing skills expected of children leaving primary school. MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee claim that a major government scheme costing billions of pounds has done little to improve the quality of adult literacy and numeracy teaching.

These all say to me that Brown is talking through his hat. Again.

Burma

2007-09-26T22:44:00.000+01:00

I don't lay any claim to special knowledge or understanding, but here's a link to a summary of several people who do.

The big question is Tienanmen Square or the Berlin Wall?

Getting Brown to details

2007-09-25T21:18:00.000+01:00

Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have had a two stage plan to liberate the UK from excessive bureaucracy. It went:
1) take all power away from corrupt and short-sighted local ward bosses and local civil servants and give it to central government;
2) give it back to the people and truly representative local institutions.
Many conservatives and libertarians say that stage 1 happened but stage 2 did not.

Perhaps that was where the rot started. Maybe that was when national politicians spotted that the British public was so gullible, so naive, and above all, so lacking in perspective that they (the national politicians) can get massive credit for saving Tiddles the kitten from being drowned by forming an action plan to do away with water-butts.

Whether or not that is true, am I the only one to be mortified by this:

In his interview with The Sunday Times, Brown ... announced new measures to improve the health service, including:

— Introducing a programme of “deep cleaning” of hospital wards, in which all beds, doors, fixtures and fittings are scrubbed and steam-cleaned with high-strength disinfectant at least every 18 months.
— All cervical screening test results will be issued within 14 days, benefiting 4m women every year. At present, more than half of patients wait six weeks or more for their results.
— Extending the age range of women eligible for routine breast cancer screening to 47 to 73. The current age range is 50 to 70, meaning an extra 200,000 women a year will be routinely screened.
— Extending the upper age limit for routine screening for bowel cancer from age 70 to age 75 by the end of 2009. As a result, about 1m men and women will be added to the screening programme.
— Delivering the 2005 manifesto commitment to ensure an appointment with a specialist within two weeks of referral for all patients with breast problems.

Is this really the level of detail a Prime Minister should be concerned with? Does this not show how moribund is the political process? Doesn't it also demonstrate why the NHS is totally screwed?

Critics, however, are likely to claim that Brown still lacks a “big idea” to distinguish himself from his predecessor.

You're telling me!

I have a few action points for Mr Brown. I offer them in all humility. I feel confident that one or more of them will address the BIG IDEA issue.

create a Ministry for Paper
appoint a weights and measures czar
institute a weekly national shoe inspection. Don't just check the uppers, either. Who knows what may lurk on the nation's soles.
create a Task Force for the Delivery of Waste Collection
make compulsory the monthly cleaning of mouse-balls on all publicly owned PCs.
require daily multiplication tests for the over-seventies
permute the words of the title of the Task Force
nationalise Polly Toynbee
invite Margaret Thatcher to tea. Oh sorry! You've done that.
make everyone stay at school until they're clever
introduce capital punishment for losing national sports' teams
privatise Tony Benn
institute weekly lessons in schools on `How to remove your money from a failing bank'
outsource tea-drinking to Mumbai
avoid the row about the upper house by populating it entirely with contestants from Big Brother (apart from Jade, of course)

The Prime Minister - Gordon click

2007-09-24T13:58:00.000+01:00

My brother-in-law always used to refer to Rabbi Lionel Blue as `Rabbi Lionel click' since, whenever he came on the radio to give his Thought for the Day, said brother-in-law would turn it off.

I was reminded of this this morning when listening to the Today programme on Radio 4. The key ten past eight slot was devoted to an interview of our blessed leader by the equally blessed John Humphrys, whose first question was, as I recall: `What are you going to tell the Labour Party in your conference speech?'

I cannot faithfully reproduce the Prime Minster's reply since I turned it off after not very long. You can go and check on Listen Again at the BBC website if you like, but what I remember is a long list of feel-good points with absolutely no description of how they were to be achieved or who would do the achieving:

Brown said:
"Improved health care;
better services;
safer streets;
less gun crime;
motherhood;
improved education;
jam today;
life in the fast lane;
apple pie;
social justice;
us and them;
opportunity;
money, money, money;
soak the rich"

or something like that- as I explained, I'm a little hazy.

This seems to represent a new low in politics-when a politician admits to planning to tell his colleagues a list of sound bites and nothing else. It's understood (bouffe, c'est normale, as my French colleagues would say) that politicians will treat the general public like this. In addition, one suspects that Brown treats his family in the same way ("breakfast, cornflakes, jam and toast, delivery, kiss, briefcase, official car, duty, bye" seems to cover much of it), but surely not his colleagues?

The infantilisation of the British public is a long-running project. How nice it is to hear that the Labour party are not being left out.

Is the Pope a Catholic?

2007-09-23T22:41:00.000+01:00

Here's a link to a link/quotation but never mind. If you follow the link you get not only this and more:

The pope has generated a bit of controversy.

First, he permitted congregations to go back to the old custom of praying in Latin. (More about that later.) Then he announced that only the Catholic Church qualifies as a real church. Protestants, as far as the pope is concerned, simply don’t make the grade!

And with that, over 40 years of ecumenical dialogue go down the tubes. Protestant leaders are offended. The churches whose founders long ago broke away from the Catholic Church feel they are considered less-than-Christian by an institution they previously rejected as “too Christian.”

No doubt, in short order, a multitude of Jewish leaders will express their own concerns over the pontiff’s lack of tolerance for those whose beliefs are different from his own. After all, a spirit of cooperation fostered by the Second Vatican Council back in 1965 has allowed people of diverse faiths to share their beliefs in mutual respect. Why, we’ve even witnessed the intriguing phenomenon of cardinals, in full “uniform,” visiting rabbinical students to observe the study of Talmud. How, many are asking, could the pope jeopardize this détente with his bigoted condemnation of non-Catholics?

I have one thing to say to the pope: “Hear! Hear!” What do his critics want from the man? He’s got a religion to run!...

but also this:

Interesting... It never occurred to me that as a Protestant, I count as gentile and worship Baal, as long as there's a Catholic next to me that "does God"...

It's got to be worth it.

Umbrella blog

2007-09-22T23:34:00.000+01:00

My small number of regular readers may have noticed substantial changes.
The most important is that I've joined Umbrella Blog. To quote Richard North:

It aims to provide easily accessible reference to a "family" of blogs, allowing the reader to see at a glance what has been posted, and to give enough information about each post to enable readers to decide whether they want to read more.

That way, Umbrella Blog is a convenient time-saver and a quick source of information, removing the need to trawl through a large number of blogs yet enabling readers to pick up information they might otherwise have missed.

As the "family" of bloggers expands, we aim through them to cover a wide range of subjects, providing a complementary overview of the issues of the day, with analysis and insights that the MSM rarely offers.

For a fuller explanation go here.

I hope readers will approve.

Peregrines, pesticide and plasmodium

2007-09-22T14:57:00.000+01:00

What is it about modern man, that human deaths overseas are less important than Nature at home?

We're talking the use of DDT to kill malaria-carrying mosquitos here. You may think DDT is not used any more- I did. Like most people, you may have believed that the 1972 US ban was a worldwide prohibition, whereas

DDT has not been banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic.

Nevertheless,

the fact that DDT is not formally banned in developing nations does not necessarily mean that those nations have the option to use it. Developing nations are typically heavily dependent on aid from agencies that made the aid contingent upon non-usage of DDT. The British Medical Journal of March 11, 2000, reports that the use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT." Many African nations have been dissuaded from to using DDT in part because the European Union has said that their agricultural exports may not be accepted if spraying was "widespread."

`What has this to do with me or you?', you cry.

Well, not very much, if I'm being honest, but a little. I shall explain.

I have a young colleague, let us call him Tom. He has a very interesting career trajectory. He trained as a vet-qualified even. Then he became interested in statistics , so did a Master's degree and then a PhD in stats. We were talking the other day, initially about the latest Foot and Mouth outbreak, but somehow the topic turned to malaria and DDT. I had recently read that

Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007 that "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."

and was expressing my shock and dismay at this figure when he said, rather sharply, `they'll spray it everywhere and kill the peregrines again!" When I taxed him as to what he meant, he expressed very strongly the opinion that peregrine numbers had boomed since DDT was banned
and he did not wish to see its return. Taking a deep breath, I asked him whether the peregrines were more important than 20 million children and he hedged a little, weakly implying that I wasn't describing the choice that actually confronted us. Another colleague bitingly suggested that perhaps peregrines offered more tourist appeal than children so this was obviously the right choice for developing countries and still Tom did not relent. For him, peregrines at home were more important than dead children overseas.

It's hard to know where to begin in analysing this story. One could pick on the willful ignorance:

this species can be found everywhere on Earth, making it one of the world's most common falcons

yet DDT would only be used in South America and Africa and is now used only inside houses to
prevent malaria so is unlikely to poison peregrines (or any other bird) significantly; one could pick on the choice of peregrines over people; or one could pick on the subtext: that there are enough people anyway or perhaps, too many.

For me, it seems to be an example of the unspoken and unspeakable position of a significant proportion of the new left-wing intelligentsia: whatever we say, people `over there' are not important - unless they're `trophy classes' like the Palestinians - whereas animal rights and the environment matter deeply. There are too many people in the world. I want me and mine to live so why don't all but a few of the people a long way away just conveniently fail to survive.

You'll probably think I'm being much to harsh, but have you been listening recently? Underneath the surface (and particularly amongst a proportion of the under thirties), this is the message: dolphins and peregrines have a right to live but children do not.

Evidence

2007-09-21T23:25:00.000+01:00

I keep on saying to people that a hundred years ago it was excusable to advocate communism and many other things but that the last century was the greatest experimental laboratory the world has ever known and at the end of it there's absolutely no excuse for much of the nonsense which is still advocated.

It occurs to me that another instance of this is the argument about `gun control'.
Here's a quote from the article by Richard Munday:

" Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain)."

Here's some more:

" In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones."

Do I really need to say any more? Do the liberal, intellectual types with whom I spend my days have a leg to stand on? No, but it won't stop them telling me how stupid and violent and fat Americans are.

"We hate America"

2007-09-14T17:47:00.000+01:00

I don't know what to say about The Independent's front page this morning:

An assassination that blows apart Bush's hopes of pacifying Iraq

Last week: George Bush flew into Iraq to meet Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, leader of Anbar province.
This week: General David Petraeus told the US Congress how Anbar was a model for Iraq.
Yesterday: Abu Risha was assassinated by bombers in Anbar

but the gloating is impossible to ignore (as is the lack of judgment and perspective). Perhaps the paper should be renamed The Daily Schadenfreude.

Call me Pollyanna-ish but I'm feeling optimistic

2007-09-13T23:06:00.000+01:00

Here's some reasons.
When Der Spiegel says

"Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq -- not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn't hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious "Sunni Triangle," is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.";

when Barroso cocks-up again:

"With a new draft of the treaty due out tomorrow, it seems that there have been some 200 changes to the original draft, some of which involve serious additions to EU powers and some directly challenge Mr Brown's fabled "red lines".

Some of these issues relate to jurisdiction over foreign policy but Britain's "opt-in" over justice and home affairs is also being challenged, while other details – yet to emerge – may have profound popular impact.

On the back of this - with a maladroit sense of timing which could only come from an apparatchik totally divorced from the realities of politics – Barroso has announced that he is to carry out a fundamental review of the EU budget, including a "close look" at Britain's rebate.

"We will have a discussion on this with no taboos. I will talk to Mr Brown," says el presidente. "The two go together. It is not a coincidence that we are talking of a reform treaty and reform of the budget."

and pours petrol on the flames;

when the TUC votes for a referendum;

when the Belgian politicos overstep the mark amidst a country tearing itself apart;

and when the BBC starts to feel the pinch ;

you know that things could be a lot worse.

This is where I came in

2007-09-12T21:04:00.000+01:00

My last post, long ago, was about F&M and now here we are again.

The previous outbreak was, according to the HSE, the responsibility of the government lab. at Pirbright (FT report):

"Because Merial handles far larger quantities of foot-and-mouth virus for vaccine production than the IAH does for laboratory science, the investigators concluded that the escaped virus probably originated with the company. “But this in no way implies any culpability by Merial,” Mr Podger [the chief exec. of the HSE] told a press conference.
Indeed, the IAH was responsible for all the specific breaches in biosecurity identified in the HSE report."

Now here's the good old Beeb:

"But the Health and Safety Executive said it was not clear which of the two labs which share the site - Merial, a private pharmaceutical company, and the Institute of Animal Health (IAH) - were responsible."

Presumably, the Beeb plays it this way because it doesn't want to drop the line that it was all the fault of evil private industry. I had hoped to give a link to their initial surprise at the finding but I've lost it.

Foot and Mouth

2007-08-04T23:36:00.000+01:00

Here's the latest from Warmwell:

Professor Hugh Pennington interviewed on BBC News 24 gives as his opinion that the source virus is identical to that in vaccine work being done at Pirbright and very possibly excaped from there. The latest statement by DEFRA :"The FMD strain found in Surrey is not one currently known to be recently found in animals. It is most similar to strains used in international diagnostic laboratories and in vaccine production, including at the Pirbright site shared by the Institute of Animal Health (IAH) and Merial Animal Health Ltd, a pharmaceutical company. The present indications are that this strain is a 01 BFS67 - like virus, isolated in the 1967 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in Great Britain.
This strain is present at the IAH and was used in a batch manufactured in July 2007 by the Merial facility. On a precautionary basis Merial has agreed to voluntarily halt vaccine production.

You might also read this cheery article by a former president of the RCVS:

March; lambs leaping among the shining tussocks of young grass. But it was not so just five years ago.

In the name of veterinary disease control, we were about to embark on the greatest unnecessary slaughter of healthy animals in the history of our profession. It cost £10 - 12 billion and involved, to the European Parliament, the slaughter of 10 million animals.

Since fewer than 25 per cent of the pre-emptively culled premises were actually infected, and since the consequent mass killing probably impeded control, the money wasted was of the order of £1 - 2 billion: say £100 per household. That sort of money could have financed the MRC’s research expenditure throughout those five years.

EU constitution

2007-08-04T23:16:00.000+01:00

Speaking as someone who has a real down on the EU, I thought this might be a helpful link:

Away from the foetid smugness of the self-referential "big hitters" in the so-called (British) political blogosphere, individual bloggers are beginning to stir on the EU referendum. And, as the political temperature increases, we expect that more and more bloggers will join in the fray.

For Art's sake

2007-07-29T22:28:00.000+01:00

For Art's Sake

And I walked beneath the grass
Into a cavern beside the sea.
And the sound was that of brass,
As I went upon one knee.

I cried out in tones of grief,
With a catch upon my breath
`I am come to seek relief,
For we are troubled near to death.'

And arose a mighty clamour
And a bearded face looked forth
Amid the clash of armour
(And the sound of one who snored).

`Had you come when William's knights
Landed on pebbled Pevensey's shore
And Harold's bold, sad wights
Charged wildly down once more;

Had you come when Europe's forces
Answered to the call of one small man,
When the hussars' brave, swift horses
Were the Grande Armee's van;

Had you come in 1940,
With a tyrant at your gate-
A madman shrill and haughty
Filled with dreams of blood and hate-

Then, then we might have helped you,
In your trouble and distress.
As it is, we who whelped you
Contemplate a sorry mess.

What is it, this your trouble?
It is not a few bad men.
Sad though the slaughter, double
Would not bring us back again.

We have seen in dreams unending
The many turning from their lives.
They pursue their hobbies: spending
And the deception of their wives.

We have heard in slumbers tortured
The screaming of their youth;
The abandonment of nurture;
The infanticide of truth.

We have heard your wise men braying
(In our sleep we see them cower)
It's not to God that they are praying
And all they ever want is power.

Alas, your journey's wasted,
And your efforts all for naught.
`Tis a bitter cup you've tasted,
But we'll leave you with a thought.

When means are fair, not outcomes fudged,
When all are responsible, even fools,
When effort's rewarded, ability judged,
When truth's supreme and justice rules:

Then, if you still want us, we will come
And beard your monsters in their den
And vanquish dark, like the heavenly sun.
But I somehow doubt you'll need us then.'

UPDATE: minor edits 2.50p.m. BST 31 July.

Snark!

2007-07-18T19:35:00.001+01:00

Now I understand why Callimachus at Done With Mirrors was so exercised about snark:

There's the snark - a horrific snake/shark incarnation that not only swims, but chases you up the beach when you try to flee the water. And the worst one? The tird - a slimy, burpy, warty toad crossed with a bird - which combines my two worst fears into one huge flying, pecking amphibious wretch. Hitchcock could've had a field day if he'd introduced a few of those to the set of The Birds.

Bless Auntie, and all who sail in her.

2007-07-18T14:12:00.000+01:00

It seems that Mark Thomson (the BBC DG) is frantically rearranging deckchairs on the deck of HMS BBC:

He said the "very significant plan of action" would affect all BBC staff.

He's just come out with a ~~guilty plea~~ statement to the BBC Trust about ~~defrauding~~ misleading the public on Blue Peter and ~~libeling~~ misrepresenting the Queen. He ~~asked for nineteen other offences to be taken into account~~ `said further "serious editorial breaches" had been uncovered in a recent audit of the corporation'.

The story on the BBC website makes no mention of the ~~Paddington Bear~~ Brown press-officer incident.

UPDATE 5.29pm
The Beeb has produced a new lead on their website entitled: BBC to suspend phone competitions

The BBC is to suspend all competitions after an inquiry unearthed a fresh batch of faked phone-ins.
Serious editorial breaches were found in six shows, including Comic Relief. Director general Mark Thompson said the incidents were "totally unacceptable".
Mr Thompson has outlined a "zero tolerance" approach to any future lapses in editorial judgement.
He also ordered an independent inquiry into footage that wrongly implied the Queen walked out of a photo session.

They're still spinning though:

He has also called for a workshop involving other broadcasters to discuss issues surrounding editorial standards and training.

That translates as `it's everyone, not just us'.
The horrifying bit is that he then felt it necessary to say:

"There is no excuse for deception. I know the idea of deceiving the public would simply never occur to most people in the BBC.

"If you have a choice between deception and a programme going off air, let the programme go. It is far better to accept a production problem and make a clean breast to the public than to deceive," he added.

UPDATE 19:47 pm
OK, make that six more programmes.
We're talking about an admission of endemic lying.
How do they expect us to take their much-vaunted impartiality at face value now?

The blessings of a closed mind

2007-07-16T08:52:00.000+01:00

These comments by Anthony Jay make me want to weep with a mixture of frustration and relief:

Jay says:

I think I am beginning to see the answer to a question that has puzzled me for the past 40 years. The question is simple - much simpler than the answer: what is behind the opinions and attitudes of what are called the chattering classes? ...Let's call it "media liberalism".

Frustration because this sort of thing goes on (and on and on and on) and relief that someone on the side of the (in modern UK terms) big battalions has actually owned up to this peculiar closed-minded attitude/world-view/social milieu.
We met over coffee, lunch, drinks and dinner to reinforce our views on the evils of apartheid, nuclear deterrence, capital punishment, the British Empire, big business, advertising, public relations, the Royal Family, the defense budget - it's a wonder we ever got home. We so rarely encountered any coherent opposing arguments that we took our group-think as the views of all right-thinking people.

Part of what frustrates me so deeply about this is that it's like some Fantasy novel. All you have to do to step outside this closed and airless setting is to take an unexpected quarter turn, a half-pace out of step, a dive when the others duck and you're somewhere (very) else. Somewhere where you can talk to a plumber, a policeman, a farmer , a dustman, a labourer, a factory worker, and see them as a human being with opinions and desires and standards and moral positions just like, or (how much more revealing and liberating, much more liberating than organic yoghurt or free-range meat or sun-dried tomatoes) not like yours.

I have a younger colleague who thinks like this. He's extremely intelligent, one of the deepest mathematicians I've ever met, but he can lay down the law from a left-leaning position like some philosopher king without ever, ever having met anybody (apart, perhaps, from me) who challenges his assumptions. In a fit of irritation at some particularly naive political pronouncement, I once asked him- `Jim, surely you must have talked to people like this? Didn't you have any vacation jobs as a student?' His answer simultaneously appalled and enlightened me. He explained that he'd only ever had one vacation job, and it was helping a statistician.

Now that's not his fault, really. However, he lives in the cocoon. Father an academic, mother a pillar of the (old) Labour party. No historical knowledge, no ability to see the enormous, ghastly, evil, vicious, vileness perpetrated by the Left-in-power in so many places for so much of the 20th century for what it was - a giant failed experiment. No context provided by those around him, no one asking him whether, as an avowed empiricist, he might do well to think twice about socialism as a practical means for achieving Man's happiness.

To conclude, I am delighted that Anthony Jay has seen a little bit of the light, but perhaps he could go back and shine some more on the staff of the BBC and The Independent, for a start, as they're some of his spiritual descendants who continue to perpetuate evil by suppressing knowledge of its history.

Tagged-but no ankle bracelet

2007-07-14T18:33:00.001+01:00

I've been electronically tagged by Joshuapundit. No electronic bracelet, but I have to reveal eight things about myself (I would say random, but as a probabilist I can't use that word in the vernacular sense) then I have to tag eight others (there's the hard bit).
The rules (courtesy of Joshuapundit):

I have to let you know who tagged me.
I'll need to list 8 facts or habits about myself that you might not otherwise know.
I have to tag another 8 people and leave comments on their sites letting them know that they've been tagged, so they can likewise make the requisite revelations.
I have to reproduce these rules.

OK, the facts:

I practise Tae Kwon Do (ITF version). I'm currently training for my second dan and it hurts.
I'm not a citizen of the UK - although I am a long-term, resident Anglophile.
I gave up smoking two years ago and that hurts, too.
I like cooking, but have not the slightest interest in writing about it.
I never liked team sports. But I'm perfectly happy for you to like them.
Nevertheless, I love collaborating. I'd much rather write a paper with a colleague than the same one on my own.
I find the world a very frightening place without the protection of tobacco (does that count, or is it merely a repetition of (3)?).
I don't have a television, as I really didn't want my children to be enslaved by it.

Now for the others:

That was hard, and now I have to ask them all!

Here's a list of antecedents from the co-tagged Kobayashi Maru.

Don't be surprised that people don't care.

2007-07-14T18:12:00.000+01:00

Joshuapundit is more on the ball than me. Here's a link to his post on the decision to drop Winston Churchill from the History curriculum:

Sir Winston Churchill has been dropped from a list of key historical figures recommended for teaching in English secondary schools.

Apparently, this is part of a radical `overhaul' of secondary school curriculum for 11- to 14-year-olds, supposedly to make it more `relevant' and `up to date'.

Sir Winston's grandson Nicholas Soames, a Conservative Member of Parliament, described the move as "madness."

"It is absurd. I expect he wasn't New Labour enough for them ... this is a Government that is very careless of British history and always has been...if you're surprised that people do not seem to care that much about the country in which they live, the reason is that they don't know much about it."

Have you thought of a career as a doctor?

2007-07-14T17:11:00.000+01:00

How are you feeling?

How are you feeling today?

Fast car, DVD,
Good education, good degree.

Little struggle, less love,
Bird is flown, heavenly dove.

Where did it come from, all this glitz?
Newton, Weishaupt, Hume, Leibnitz

Broadband connection, MP3
Gangsta rappin', MTV

Food is provided, day by day,
Your life's purpose taken away.

You got it, that whole ball of wax,
Go on, smash it, use an axe.

God-shaped hole in your life,
Fill it with death and blood and strife.

Good grievance and good hate,
Who's here to obliterate?

Man is an animal, sure enough,
You be a tiger, really rough.

There's some pain, in your head.
World's impure, s'better dead

Meaning lost, mystery gone,
Suicide belt and nail bomb.

If your life feels empty, have you thought
Of a career as a doctor?

The blessed NHS

2007-07-11T20:26:00.000+01:00

This is a snippet from an old James Bartholomew article I just came across:

Incidentally, all sorts of American hospitals - especially the not-for-profit ones - receive large sums of cash from charitable benefactors. And if you think all the above is confusing, that is hardly even the beginning of the bewildering diversity and contradictions of American healthcare. It is a muddle.

Actually, the British system was a muddle, too, until Aneurin Bevan came along in 1945. As Secretary of State for Health he set about un-muddling it. We, too, used to have local government ("municipal") hospitals like America until he took them over. He took over the charitable hospitals too - like St Mary's and Moorfield's and many other famous ones. He made it not confusing at all. What could be simpler than the central government being in charge of everything? Over time, the government put itself in charge of all the doctors, too. So all was made simple and clear.

But the curious thing is, the new, improved, simple state system of Britain does not work as well as the American muddle. You have a better chance of living to see another day in the American, mish-mash non-system with its sweet pills of charity, its dose of municipal care and large injection of rampant capitalist supply (even despite the blanket of over-regulation) than in the British system where the state does everything. It is not that America is good at running healthcare. It is just that British state-run healthcare is so amazingly, achingly, miserably and mortally incompetent.

`EU - an empire' says Barroso

2007-07-11T19:54:00.000+01:00

This is all covered by the inestimable EU Referendum:

Like a tsunami, Barroso's surprise claim that the EU was an "empire" is spreading out from its epicentre at Strasbourg, to crash against the shores of the British print media.

First in line is The Times which is running a lengthy piece today – and many more are to follow.

David Charter does the business for The Times, focusing on the British perspective, writing that, "Britain was told yesterday that it was part of a new European empire", styling Barroso as, "the Brussels bureaucrat who would be emperor".

I can't resist the description, though. The EU is the Empire of the Senseless.

Added later:
I just noticed this from a post of Stephen Pollard's:

...a very senior - EU official ... told me, that Britain has now 'crossed the line' and 'will not be allowed to block further progress'. The view is, he said (and he was talking about other Member States rather than just Eurocrats) that the UK has 'blackmailed the rest of us for too long, and we have lost patience.' If we don't agree to the development of a deeper, full on political entity then 'they can go away and link up with the Faroe Islands'.
Here was the really chilling aspect of it: 'Look at what nearly happened on Friday to Poland. Who the hell do they think they are, threatening to disrupt everything. They should be grateful we let them in in the first place. Well, we taught them a lesson on Friday. If you don't sign up, we'll go ahead anyway and build a new structure without you. And guess what - they signed up.' That, I was told, was how the UK would be treated from now on, not least because while there was room for doubt over Tony Blair, who was felt to be 'a good European', there was no doubt about Gordon Brown, 'who makes clear what he thinks of the EU every time he comes to ECOFIN - he issues a press release and does his paperwork for two hours then goes home'. So he won't be allowed to impede further deepening.

It's not the war

2007-07-11T14:24:00.000+01:00

This (from Augean Stables) rather explains what I meant in my post about Pilger:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

A son of the manse or a son of a ...?

2007-07-08T21:59:00.000+01:00

Did I say Brown was a liar?
I did!

Here's a quote which might help (Christopher Booker's column in the Telegraph):

One of Mr Brown's excuses for not having a referendum was that the new treaty doesn't give away as many powers as Maastricht, on which there was no referendum, But up then pops his new Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, to blurt out that it in fact gives away much more power than Maastricht...

As the think-tank Open Europe and others have pointed out, it is truly astonishing that Mr Brown should begin his premiership, while promising to be "open" with the British people, with a deceit so shameless as to make his predecessor look like an honest man.

When one reads this sort of thing, I suppose one should learn not to be surprised by all the lying about AGW, but I still am.

Brown's bombs

2007-07-08T19:24:00.000+01:00

John Pilger used to be an interesting left-wing journalist. It's instructive to see what he has become. Here's a sample:

Just as the London bombs in the summer of 2005 were Blair's bombs, the inevitable consequence of his government's lawless attack on Iraq, so the potential bombs in the summer of 2007 are Brown's bombs. Gordon Brown has been an unerring supporter of the unprovoked bloodbath whose victims now equal those of the Rwandan genocide, according to the American scientist who led the 2006 Johns Hopkins School of Public Health survey of civilian dead in Iraq. While Tony Blair sought to discredit this study, British government scientists secretly praised it as "tried and tested" and an "underestimation of mortality". The "underestimation" was 655,000 men, women and children. That is now approaching a million. It is the crime of the century.
In his first day's address outside 10 Downing Street and his statement to parliament on 3 July, Brown paid not even lip service to those who would be alive today had his government - and it was his government as much as Blair's - not joined Bush in a slaughter justified with demonstrable lies. He said nothing, not a word.

It's rather a pity to see The New Statesman publishing this stuff as journalism, though. I leave the fisking as an exercise for the interested reader.

A gnat's chuff of difference

2007-07-07T22:48:00.000+01:00

I just logged in with some trepidation to see the popular comments on the BBC's website on the Live Earth concerts.
I was pleasantly surprised. People are not as stupid as politicians like to believe.
Here are the first few (most recommended) comments:

I have serious doubts as to whether man (and women !) are having such am impact on the environment through carbon emissions as we are led to believe.

The Earth goes through natural climatic cycles - that's why we've had ice ages in the past and we don't have one now. How else do we explain things like isostatic readjustment ? (increasing obesity causing the over populated south to dip ? Maybe !)

I'd like to see a more balanced debate, rather than bandwagons. And global initiatives.

[CeeofGee], Oxford, United Kingdom

Recommended by 332 people

If global warming is a natural phenomenon, does that still make it okay to pollute the planet? If the scientists are wrong, does that mean we should stop recycling? I think we all have a responsibility to make positive changes whether global warming is our fault or not.

Darren, Leicester

Recommended by 290 people

The main problem with the climate change debate is there is no data older than 250 years to compare the current "warming" with, however polar ice samples suggest warming and cooling has been going on for thousands of years, which would suggest that climate change is a more natural occurance than the greens and the Government want us to believe. "Climate Change" cannot be blamed on humans alone on only 250 years of data.

Chris E, Norwich, United Kingdom

Recommended by 270 people

I will not be changing my lifestyle one iota, it won't make a difference as the whole Global Warming thing is a scam dreamed up by enviro-fascists and the government. If they want to live in a cave, fine, but don't expect me to adopt their holier-than-thou attitudes. It's called the SUN, and piddling about on this dirtball is not going to make a gnats chuff of difference to the climate.

Steven Thompson, Ayr

Recommended by 249 people

This is less of a distrust of Climate change in particular but more a general distrust of Government. People believe that the Government are simply using Climate Change as a way to impose more stealth taxes. The Govt also seem to allow big business to sell products that are clearly damaging to the environment, whilst criticising and taxing the public for buying them (witness the debate around "chelsea Tractors"). Until such issues are resolved the public will remain sceptical

Jon G, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Recommended by 217 people

The BBC has closed down all significant debate with regards to Global Warming - this forum is just window dressing.

I would like to see some of the worlds leading MMGW Heretics given the same prominence as the High Priests of MMGW on the BBC.

What are you afraid of?

The debate or the actual truth?

Righty Rightwing

Recommended by 213 people

Time

2007-07-06T23:22:00.000+01:00

The Speaking Clock

On the third stroke,
It will be 1789,
Precisely.

Robespierre and Danton will preside,
As the Bastille falls
And seven old men are released.

Later,
Citizen Capet will be taken
To the Place de la Revolution.
And on the third stroke
God will be created
In man's own image,
Precisely.

On the third stroke,
It will be 2001,
Precisely.

Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri will preside,
As the twin towers fall
And three thousand are `released'.

Later,
Ateqeh Rajabi will be taken
To the place with the crane.
And on the third stroke,
Death will be created
In religion's image,
Precisely.

On the third stroke,
Your head should come off,
Precisely.

Brown's dilemma

2007-07-03T22:58:00.000+01:00

I missed this one.
Rather a nice article by Stephen Pollard on Brown (El Gordo) and the EU ~~constitution~~ treaty:

There is no constitutional requirement in Britain for a referendum. Mr. Blair's promise of one on the earlier treaty was unprecedented, and Mr. Brown could argue that this year's version is not as extensive and thus doesn't require a popular vote.

He could do that. If he did, however, he would confirm at the very outset of his premiership all the electorate's worst images of him as a Stalinist control freak, as a man contemptuous of opposing views, and as a politician unworthy of the country's highest office.

...

A referendum defeat -- the certain outcome -- is, after all, a defeat. Even if his support for the treaty is lukewarm, Mr. Brown will not want to begin his time in office with a humiliating loss at the polls. He could not, after all, call a referendum seeking support for a treaty and then distance himself from it. If his support were anything other than wholehearted he would look vacillating and weak. And the opposition would run rings around him, accusing him of foisting on the country a treaty which he did not back.

New possibilities

2007-07-03T22:22:00.000+01:00

According to Augean Stables, new possibilities are appearing in the Middle East and the Arab world. Here's the concluding paragraph:

I’m not sure what the author meant, nor what his readers derive from this. On one level (my hopeful projection?) this is a call to get on with life and start dealing with things like Israelis and Kurds in a positive-sum way. The obscure and allusive language may reflect the inability of Arabs to say such things explicitly… yet, and this excursion in exploring the Arab world when it’s free of the standard excuse for not growing up, is already huge. Sophisticated Arab readers, accustomed to reading between the lines, may well see this; while others, accustomed to screaming bloody murder when they are offended, may not have enough to seize upon here so that they can take it to “the street.”

Who knows what this all means?

Melanie Phillips-as usual

2007-07-03T21:52:00.001+01:00

Just read this. It's a bit of a rant, as Melanie Phillips' articles usually are, but with great justification:

The most fundamental failing of all, however, is the Government's counter-terrorist strategy itself. Known as Project Contest, this refuses to acknowledge that the true driver of Islamist terror is religious fanaticism.
Instead, it attributes its causes to Muslim poverty, discrimination and grievances over foreign policy. In other words, it blames us.
The analysis is demonstrably absurd. Many of these terrorists are prosperous, middle class and well-educated. Indeed, two of the suspects who have been arrested are doctors. Muslims are being murdered in vast numbers in Iraq not by us, but by other Muslims.
And as Mr Brown said yesterday, the first attempt to blow up the Twin Towers occurred as long ago as 1993; Islamist terrorism is taking place all over the world and in countries where there is no connection with Iraq or the Middle East at all.
The fact is that the Islamists have always used any and every grievance - Bosnia, Kashmir, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Palestine, Salman Rushdie (twice) - to recruit to their cause.
But the real source of this terror, as former extremists have told us, is the aim to conquer the West and Islamise the world.

Hat tip: Joshuapundit.

Two interesting posts

2007-07-03T19:05:00.000+01:00

The ever-reliable EU Referendum has two interesting posts.
First is "futuritis" in which Dr North discusses the weird attitude of the E U and most of the UK's senior military to the current war(s).
Here's the peroration (which neatly sums up the terrible danger of this attitude):

Thus there seems to be a collective determination to avoid thinking about what is, ignoring the real and present danger, in order to focus on the much more entertaining and rewarding task of writing "Capability Development Plans", to deal with hypothetical wars of the future, against mythical foes in far off lands which, as yet, do not exist.

So we lose this war, but hey! We can always win the next one!

Next up is a post about Ed Husain: who has recently published The Islamist.
Here'sa quote from his article from which Helen Szamuely quotes:

Second, we need to realise that Muslim communities recognise the extremists in their midst long before they show up on the radar of our intelligence services. We observe their condemnatory rhetoric, rejection of mainstream mosques, sudden change in dress code. Yet whenmoderate Muslims seek to complain, they are told that nothing can be done because of "freedom of speech". It's time we got real about ho libearl we're prepared to be. Preventing terrorism is a civic duty, just as preventing murder and rape is, but we need to facilitate that process.

Where is Tommy Atkins when you need him?

2007-07-03T08:20:00.000+01:00

Some cheerful news from the Commons public accounts committee:

There are not enough servicemen and women to meet the demands placed on the UK armed forces by the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, MPs have said.
The Commons public accounts committee said the overall shortfall in personnel stood at 5,850, or 3.2%, of full strength in April.

Now that's bad enough, but then read some of the comments:

I don't think operations in the Middle East are a major factor in people leaving, people join up to put into practice what they train to do, the problem is the length of deployments, the lack of correct equipment, the lack of working equipment, and most importantly pay. For the job they do, members of the armed forces, particularly amoung junior ranks are not very well paid.

Jamie
Well they shouldn't have sacked us all in the mid 1990s should they. They knew there was a demographic trough comming but did nothing. Now we are wrapped up in two wars and they are still closing RAF units and mothballing Navy ships. Prehaps if we went back to the same proportion of national income being spent on defence as we did at the beginning of the 1990s we wouldn't be in this awful mess right now.
Simon, Farnham
As a former infantry officer, consider how the military is structured versus the tasks its carries out. Out of 100,000 soldiers, there are 30,000 infantry. About 1 third are immediate support staff - leaving 20,000 fighting troops; of which a fifth will be sick/downgraged/training; leaving about 16,000 fighting troops. The army is used as HMG's reserve not only for war but other emergencies (eg Foot and Mouth/fire strikes) So that's 16,000 fighting soldiers for Iraq, Afghanistan and very very little left over. The result is that soldiers are usually multi-roled; multi toured; immensely busy and hugely underpaid for the hours they work. No suprise that they are leaving in droves.
GTL, London

Perhaps if Gordon Brown didn't take most of our money in taxes already, we wouldn't mind spending some more on our armed forces.

Blood and treasure

2007-07-01T18:56:00.000+01:00

Richard North at EU Referendum, has it about right, as usual. If we can't care enough about winning we shouldn't be there:

...that the military – no less than the nation in general (each for their own different reasons) – is not committed to the current wars. As we listened to the RAF commentator coo and gasp at the performance of the Eurofighter, delivering a torrent of propaganda in favour of the new "toy" as it went though its paces (admittedly impressive), one's impression was somewhat reinforced that fighting wars in distant fields were regarded as an irrelevance at best, and a distraction, from the real business of constructing that mythical beast, the "balanced force".

Frankly, if neither the military nor the population – to say nothing of the media and the political establishment – are committed to winning these wars then (no matter how vital it is that we do win them) we have no business sending out troops there, some of them to die and many more to suffer horrific injuries. We might just as well bring them home to play with their "balanced" force and forget all about the untidiness and inconveniences of real fighting.

Read it all here.

Not forgetting the basilisk

2007-06-29T20:13:00.000+01:00

We were six
(Not forgetting the basilisk).

How did he join us?
Hedgehog says we asked him,
Badger says he just came.
Basilisk says he flew
On the wings of the injustice
Our forefathers
Did to his.

We five voted,
The day he looked at fox
With his special look.
Badger said `go',
Hedgehog said `stay'
And Basilisk got three votes,
Because of the vote denied his father.

After he ate Hedghog,
Basilisk said
That his practices
Were not to be criticised.

`They are' he said,
`The result of profound
Cultural differences,
Not to be comprehended
By stupid woodland creatures'.

We were four
(Not forgetting the basilisk),
when he gutted Badger.
`A slip of the claw'
He said. ` A reflex.
The cockatrice coughs like Badger,
And she's a dangerous beast.'

We were three
(Not forgetting the basilisk),
before he froze Snake.
`Nasty stripy thing'
said Basilisk.
`Trying to be me
And failing.
At the end,
The stones cried out
When she slithered.
Best she was gone'
said Basilisk.

We were two
(not forgetting the basilisk),
when I started this.

End of the (academic) year

2007-06-29T19:46:00.001+01:00

Here I sit, glass of wine in hand, contemplating the end of term. Graduates classified; firsts awarded, fails regretfully announced, cheers audited, groans heard; students comforted, encouraged, consoled, congratulated, mopped-up, dressed-down, dried-off, dried-out, calmed down, geed up, praised, primped and pruned.
Next year, the same again.

Meanwhile, Brown is finally in, the world has not ended, but the worst is yet to come. Another liar and a cheat running the UK. We move on from Blair- who tried to be `nothing to all men' to Brown- who is the second-greatest purveyor of `the big lie' the world has known.

Sometimes I don't know why I love the place. Or the people.

Poverty linked to lack of education

2007-06-24T21:57:00.000+01:00

This headline from the BBC obviously reflects somebody's amazement, but it's not mine:

Poverty linked to spoiled ballots

Of course it's referring to the enormous number (c 140,000) of spoilt ballot papers in the recent Scottish elections.

I like the last sentence:

The Strathclyde report's authors said action was needed to restore public confidence in the Scottish election system.

I suggest reintroducing banishment as an electoral option might do the trick.

That's entertainment

2007-06-20T12:47:00.000+01:00

OK. As the report on BBC bias has now been published, I thought I might give a link to comments on Biased BBC.
If you want an explanation of the title, it's because `entertainment' is the section on the BBC's website under which the report is available.

BBC bias report due

2007-06-17T18:35:00.000+01:00

The Sunday Times covers the report which is due next week and is expected to be fairly damning. Here's the start of the article:

THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.
It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.

I would cheer, but I fear that it will be quickly supressed and equally quickly forgotten.

Israel only became illegal when it did not go away.

2007-06-15T11:00:00.000+01:00

The title is from a long piece by Howard Jacobsen in The Independent (of all unlikely places) about the UK academic boycott of Israel and Israelis (h/t The Augean Stables).

Some highlights:

To rub it in - and this would be childish were it not villainous - the UCU resolution includes proposals to "organise a UK-wide campus tour for Palestinian academics/educational trade unionists". In other words, we will hear them, we will not hear you. Anyone familiar with the emotional politics of the campus will be able to imagine the rapturous applause awaiting these Palestinian educational trade unionists - given free rein to vent their grievances while the other side of the argument is gagged;

(about the Six Day War):

It is probably futile to imagine what would have happened had victory gone the other way. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that had the Arab countries won decisively Israel would not exist. Annihilation has, after all, been (as it continues to be) the declared aim of most of the states and organisations that surround it;

about a boycott were the shoe on the other foot:

Whether the enlightened Universities of Birmingham and Brighton would have enforced an academic boycott of these conquering Arab countries, we can only guess. But since there are many Arab countries, in actual as opposed to imaginary existence, whose practices one might think deserving of a boycott but who have so far escaped one, I think we have to guess not;

about Israel's behaviour:

In the present climate, however, it is almost impossible to make the case that some of Israel's most detested actions (I do not say all) are themselves responses to provocations. At a certain stage the pieces are pushed from the table. Israel can make no legitimate response to a provocation because Israel is not itself legitimate.

about `rights of audience' for Israeli academics:

An Israeli scholar dare not be in even the most partial agreement with his government. For an Israeli academic not to think exactly as they think on the campuses of Birmingham and Brighton is to be guilty of a crime for which the punishment is expulsion from the international community of thought.

It is the last of these which makes me most ashamed as an academic and scholar. Unfortunately, I am unable to resign from the UCU as I have never been a member.

Physics fiasco

2007-06-15T08:26:00.000+01:00

I know about Maths, and I was coming to realise the degradation of the GCSE Physics syllabus as my younger daughter is going to take the exams this summer and next but this skewers the whole nonsense:

The thing that attracts pupils to physics is its precision. Here, at last, is a discipline that gives real answers that apply to the physical world. But that precision is now gone. Calculations — the very soul of physics — are absent from the new GCSE. Physics is a subject unpolluted by a torrent of malleable words, but now everything must be described in words.

In this course, pupils debate topics like global warming and nuclear power. Debate drives science, but pupils do not learn meaningful information about the topics they debate. Scientific argument is based on quantifiable evidence. The person with the better evidence, not the better rhetoric or talking points, wins. But my pupils now discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power plants, without any real understanding of how they work or what radiation is.

We have a severe shortage of physicists in the UK. This crap will not address it, in fact, it will do the opposite.
Hat tip: Devil's Kitchen.

Speaking with your mouth full

2007-06-15T08:12:00.000+01:00

The EU has always taken away national soverignty bite by little bite. But now there is an explicit admission of this by Giscard d'Estaing:

"public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly".

A quotation to remember

2007-06-14T22:55:00.000+01:00

As we eagerly await the anointing of Gordon Brown, let us recall this quotation:

at least he knows he is an unprincipled unscrupulous ruthless villain, whereas Blair does not.

Wonders will never cease

2007-06-10T22:16:00.000+01:00

I suppose it is no surprise that it takes someone who grew up under communist rule to spot the fingers itching for the feel of the levers of power amongst the environmentalists: nevertheless, Vaclav Klaus speaks more sense in his response to the American Congressional committee on energy and commerce than any three UK politicians in the past decade.
Try this:

It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom;

or this

...policymakers should under all circumstances stick to the principles free society is based on, that they should not transfer the right to choose and decide from the people to any advocacy group claiming that it knows better than the rest of the people what is good for them. Policymakers should protect taxpayers’ money and avoid wasting it on doubtful projects which cannot bring positive results.

or this

I warn against adopting regulations based on the so- called precautionary principle which the environmentalists use to justify their recommendations, the clear benefit of which they are not able to prove. Responsible politics should take into account the opportunity costs of such proposals and be aware of the fact that the wasteful environmentalist policies are adopted to the detriment of other policies, thus neglecting many other important needs of millions of people all over the world;

or this

The developing countries will be forced to accept irrational targets and limitations because “earth is first” and their needs are secondary. The environmentalist argumentation gives ammunition to protectionists of all colors who try to eliminate competition coming from newly industrialized countries.

or this

My recommendation ... is ... to protect and foster fundamental systemic factors without which the economy and society cannot operate efficiently – i.e. to guarantee human freedom and basic economic principles such as the free market, a functioning price system and clearly defined ownership rights. They motivate economic agents to behave rationally. Without them, no policies can protect either the citizens or the environment.

To which I say hoo-bloody-ray.

Aid? Oh good.

2007-06-09T10:11:00.000+01:00

It seems good to remember this just after the latest G8 summit: ... for God's sake, please just stop:

"The main reason for poverty and unsustainable development in Africa, Asia and South America is oppression by incompetent, violent, and corrupt governments – and an attendant lack of property rights and the rule of law."

I still exist (just)

2007-04-08T21:06:00.000+01:00

I apologise for the non-existent posting for the past week. I've been `in the tank' trying to fix the proof of a theorem in a 38 page paper. Anyone who knows about doing research in maths will realise that that's a fairly monstrous paper. It's a bit of a nightmare when you discover a mistake right in the middle. So...it had to be fixed. I think it's done now and the world is safe for mathematics once more. And tomorrow I go on a week's holiday.

See you when I get back.

Bring on fluffy government

2007-03-29T22:46:00.000+01:00

I would like to thank samizdata for pointing out one of the most appalling bits of self-serving nonsense it has ever been my misfortune to read. To think that the nation which but a century or so ago produced Winston Churchill can produce this arrant knave makes me want to weep.
It would be unfair to the equine race to describe this man as a horse's ass. Dogs would puke if forced to break their fast on this fare. It is pure mashed potato. It is worse than vacuous. It is a farrago. A tissue of lies . A spiel of porkies.

He writes (I would rather have my teeth extracted with a lawn mower than quote this, but someone has to do it):

Since 1997, Britain has changed in some ways more fundamentally than new Labour promised. It is a different country - richer, fairer, more confident. I also think it is being driven forward by a new spirit. I call it the politics of "I can". The era of "I can" is the culmination of the long decline of deference and automatic authority. It is the late flowering of individual autonomy and control.

This from someone who might most kindly be described as a New Labour apparatchik. A man who salivates at the idea of automatic authority. An intellectual runt. A man who could give a goldfish a run for its..whatever it had a minute ago but has now forgotten. A spavined mule in the horse-race of intellectual creation, a moped amongst racing cars, a sway-backed, gap-toothed ninny, dribbling and mewling and saying `I can' when not only can he not but the contemplation of the independence of mind and spirit necessary to honestly make that claim would leave him shivering and white with fear. The man is a skipjack, a witless jack-in-office with one eye to the main chance and the other on the lowest common denominator of the voters' aspirations. I say to him `a pox on your ambitions, a pox on your sententious drivel and a pox on your asinine article!'

Iran continues with a rerun of 1979

2007-03-29T22:33:00.000+01:00

A second letter from `Faye Turney'. I very much doubt it.

Meanwhile some form of condemnation has been forthcoming from the UN.

Iran and the Geneva conventions

2007-03-28T22:56:00.000+01:00

It's so gratifying to see Iran breaking them one after another. No film of prisoners, no charges of spying when in uniform, no interrogation of captured soldiers, no hostage taking.
No doubt it's all ok because it's Iran, not some ghastly western power.

Why I'm not a Tory

2007-03-28T22:33:00.000+01:00

I may have quoted this before. If so, I don't care. If a thing's worth quoting, it's worth quoting a lot.
The quote is from the `Standpoint' section at wayofthewest: an extraordinary resource that Keith is building. There are so far twelve essays about the history of western civilization which everybody should read.
Anyway, here's the quote:

In 2000 AD Britain was not the core of an Empire, and it was a Monarchy in name only, being a crypto-republican province of the European Union. And the EU is not a Western-style constitutional polity, but a post-Enlightenment Socialist -- and therefore anti-Western -- State.

Several decades back the people of Britain were conned by their rulers, fraudulently persuaded into agreeing to a profound constitutional change: the handing over of national sovereignty to the European Union, whose remote and unelected committees now make most of the rules and regulations which increasingly and minutely constrain our lives.

The grandees of the Tory Party and the Civil Service were the agents of this demise of British sovereignty, and the consequent nationwide diminution of individual selfhood. ('Treason' is the appropriate word for this kind of action.) Their motives were manifold, but all were covert and none were admirable. With many of them it was a case of après nous le déluge -- but meanwhile the good life, as hedonistic members of a nomenklatura.

The biter bit

2007-03-26T23:57:00.000+01:00

Whilst we're on the subject of the BBC, they don't seem to like being on the receiving end of FoI requests:

The BBC has been accused of "shameful hypocrisy" over its decision to spend £200,000 blocking a freedom of information request about its reporting in the Middle East.
The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards Palestine.

The Grey Lady stabs Auntie

2007-03-26T23:43:00.000+01:00

When the editorial pages of The New York Times accuse the BBC of anti-Western bias it is worth taking notice. It is a little like Osama bin Laden accusing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of being a bit harsh on the Jews. It suggests that in other, even pretty unlikely, parts of the world, people are waking up to the menace to our values represented by the BBC. The British sadly, seem curiously content to remain in thrall to it.

This is from a lovely little piece by Gerard Baker in the Times Online.
Hat tip: Spiced Sass.

More on Iran

2007-03-26T13:35:00.000+01:00

The BBC reports

Dr Ali Pahlavan, the executive editor of Iran News - the only independent paper in Tehran - told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the "ultra conservative" Revolutionary Guard believed that Britain and the US needed to be challenged.
"This could be part of the strategy to challenge British and American supremacy in this part of the world - which is troubling, because this could lead to confrontation and this could be a trigger and could lead to escalation".

Here's a link to an interesting JWR/Political Mavens article by Dr Walid Phares. Phares sees the kidnap as planned as part of what he calls `chess playing' by Iran i.e. an integral component in its strategy to deal with the last few months of effective power by Tony Blair and George Bush.

The capture of British Navy servicemen by Iranian forces is not simply an incident over sea sovereignty in the Persian Gulf. It is a calculated move on behalf of Teheran’s Jihadi chess players to provoke a “projected” counter move by London and its American allies. It is all happening in a regional context, carefully engineered by the Mullahs' strategic planners.

Here is how: The Iranian regime’s master plan is to wait out the remainder of Tony Blair’s mandate (few more months) and the remaining “real time” of President Bush (till about the end of 2007). For the thinking process in Tehran, based on their Western consultants, believe that Washington and London have reached the end of the rope and will only have till 2008 to do something major to destabilize Ahmedinijad regime. As explained by a notorious propagandist on al Jazeera today the move is precisely to respond to the Anglo-American attempt to “stir trouble” inside Iran.

This contrasts strongly with the BBC journalist's take that it was essentially an impromptu act by the Revolutionary Guard:

Our correspondent said in part this could be because the personnel were taken by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and the Iranian government as a whole may not yet have developed a unified position on how to proceed.

Why am I more inclined to believe the Iranian commentator?

Eat my car

2007-03-25T22:49:00.000+01:00

This gives us all food for thought!

A very slow escalation

2007-03-25T22:43:00.000+01:00

And slowly it escalates:

Iran's detention of 15 Royal Navy personnel is "unjustified and wrong", Prime Minister Tony Blair has said...
Iran says they were trespassing in its waters, but speaking at an EU summit, Mr Blair denied this was the case.
"It simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," Mr Blair said...
Students belonging to the paramilitary Basij group, which is close to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have called for the Britons to be put on trial.

I wonder how long before the hostages (for that is what they are) are displayed on television.

Iran seems to specialise in hostages; I wonder what in their culture encourages them to do this?
It doesn't seem very healthy or honourable.

Meanwhile I hope the (Royal) Navy has had a very quick review of its rules of engagement.

I am not a slave-trader...

2007-03-25T17:18:00.000+01:00

so I don't see why I need to apologise for slavery:

Slavery predates writing and evidence for it can be found in almost all cultures and continents.

We live in nearly the first times in recorded history when slavery is internationally banned. The slave trade was stamped out by the Royal Navy. Thanks to the 200th anniversary of abolition we nearly all know that.

Why then, has the Archbishop of York

...called on Britain to make a formal apology for the slave trade?

Why then does the BBC propagate this piffle:

As a 14-year-old black British male, Reece Gittens is vulnerable. School exclusions, gang culture, knife and gun crime, and mental illness all disproportionately affect black boys in their early to late teens.[?]

It's the old victim-culture rubbish. It's demeaning, obstructive and patronising. It's disempowerment at its worst, and the media love it.

People often attribute things to the legacy of slavery, for instance. But many of the things that are attributed to the legacy of slavery really were not as bad a hundred years ago as they are today. In the book I mention marriage rates and rates of labor-force participation.

An enthusiast speaks...enthusiastically

2007-03-24T23:11:00.000Z

You might try out the following post (or many others) from The Devils' Kitchen.

Rage against the baby machines?

2007-03-24T13:44:00.000Z

Where did that title come from?

A new wave of anti-feminism is taking hold of Germany. Former career women-turned-housewives are spreading the word about a "new femininity" which encourages women to stay at home and embrace motherhood...

With the birth of her son ten years ago, the three-times divorcee transformed herself into a devoted wife and wannabe mother of the nation. Since then she's been spreading her new-found wisdom in literary oeuvres like "The Joy of Breastfeeding" (2003) or "My Child Sleeps Through The Night" (2005).
Last year Herman graduated from child-rearing to sociology with "The Eva Principle" -- and became the target of scorn from all sides of the political spectrum. Critics accused her of sending women back to the 1950s and said that she, as someone who successfully combines her career with child-rearing, was guilty of hypocrisy. Several German women have written their own books in response, damning Herman's thesis.

Hmm. Children need love, stability and stimulus in their early years. The mother is an obvious source. But provided child-care is stable (i.e. not more than three different carers and no `disappearing carers') I don't think it has to be the mother. Having said that, the state usually provides creches or similar forms of childcare and it's appalling. No stability, inadequate communication, an emphasis on socialisation with and by other infants when they need adult stimulus. All in all a rolling disaster. But it's all about your ideology, not about bringing up healthy children. So let's keep all the mothers out at work and let them come home late, tired and above all guilty about the crap care their children are receiving. Better still, let's not have any children. After all, in the UK we need both people in a couple to be in paid work in order to afford the tax and mortgage payments.

Sick as a canary?

2007-03-23T15:35:00.000Z

`The canary in the coalmine.'
That's how many commentators refer to Israel when it comes to the health of western democracies.
Here's a list of the problems, raised by David Harris at the Jerusalem Post in response to the usual ignorant maunderings by an NYT columnist.
Let me just quote the closing paragraph:

When a serious and determined Palestinian peace partner emerges as the examples of Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein amply prove, the Israeli people will not need coaxing from an American journalist. Rather, they will embrace that partner in their deep and abiding quest for peace and an end to the decades-long conflict.

Iran kidnaps British sailors

2007-03-23T13:42:00.000Z

The title says it all. The BBC reports 15 sailors from HMS Cornwall abducted in Iraqi waters by Iran:

The Ministry of Defence said: "The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level.

The last time this happened, the Iranians wanted the sailors for a "hostage swap" (according to MEMRI). One wonders how closely related this is to the claim this morning by the British Army, that their operations in Basra were entirely against Iranian funded, supplied and advised militias:

Col Justin Masherevski told BBC News that Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents.
"Iranian agents" were also paying local men to attack British troops, he added.
PM Tony Blair has previously said weapons used were of "Iranian origin". The Ministry of Defence (MoD) says any Iranian links are "unacceptable".
Col Masherevski said "local information" indicated that "the vast majority of the violence against us is inspired from outside Iraq"...
The standard of weapons being used against British troops was such that it could only have come from outside Iraq, he said.
"These are not old munitions being used from the Iran-Iraq war, they're much more modern - some of them produced in 2006.
"The locals are telling us these are coming in from Iran."

I notice that, in the spirit of joined-up thinking, this item has now disappeared from the News front page on the BBC site. I suppose they're just trying to avoid causing a panic. After all, the 300 has already hit relations with Iran badly, the last thing we need is this on top.

UPDATE
No further news on the sailors and marines, but Freedom Fighter at Joshuapundit has many more details.
Even the BBC thinks this might be a ploy by the Iranians! Will wonders never cease?
UPDATE 24th March 2007
The BBC says they've been taken to Tehran. It's clear that the Iranians are following form by claiming that the sailors and marines were in Iranian waters. It's equally clear that the seizure was planned. The sailors were picked up by six boats!
The main worry now is that the Iranians are claiming that the sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters. This means they stand to lose a lot of face if the sailors are released and then deny it.

UPDATE
24th March 2007 11.50 GMT
And now the UN vote for further sanctions.

We, the people

2007-03-22T22:34:00.000Z

Here's a link which combines two of my favourites: Joshuapundit on a Fjordman post.

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, (fill in the blanks) demand that the following steps are taken immediately:

We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don't as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes.

We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian networks for "Euro-Mediterranean cooperation" between European countries and Arab countries since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye'or's work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilization - should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations.

There's more.

Bolton confuses the BBC

2007-03-22T16:27:00.000Z

I've just read one of the most confused articles I've ever seen on the BBC website.
Prepare yourself for some shocking revelations!
First:
A former top American diplomat says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
Have you got that? It didn't accidentally resist calls for a ceasefire, it did it deliberately.

Second:

Britain joined the US in refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.

In other words, as you might say, Britain also deliberately resisted calls for a ceasefire!

Third:

The war began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, but it quickly escalated into a full-scale conflict.

Of course the Israeli soldiers must have been doing something terrible in Lebanon when they were `captured'.

Fourth:

BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says the US-UK refusal to join calls for a ceasefire was one of the most controversial aspects of the diplomacy.

Controversial indeed, to fail to call on your ally to arrange a ceasefire with a terrorist organisation sworn to destroy Israel and America. What weird hayseeds these Americans are! Oh! I was forgetting. And the British.

Fifthly:

Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire.

Also in the BBC programme, several key players claim that, privately, there were Arab leaders who also wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah.

"There were many not - how should I put it - resistant to the thought that the Israelis should thoroughly defeat Hezbollah, who... increasingly by Arab states were seen as an Iranian proxy," said UN special envoy Terje Roed Larsen.

What Mr Bolton seems to fail to understand is that anyone calling for a ceasefire, no matter how advantageous to the aggressor, no matter how deleterious to the innocent party in a conflict, is a saint, I tell you, a saint! If they happen to be in the media as well, then they are divine.

And lastly:

More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict.

How do we know that? Since we can't tell how many of the so-called civilians were Hezbollah terrorists, how do we know that over 1000 civilians were killed? Oh, I'm sorry. We're not supposed to check such facts. Convenient assertion is entirely adequate. I must have lost the plot briefly there.

EU funding for Hamas to resume?

2007-03-21T22:15:00.000Z

EU Referendum has an excellent post on this topic.
First the author (Dr Richard North) excoriates France:

In his latest book “Betrayal”, David Pryce-Jones, the eminent and much disliked by the FCO expert on the Middle East shows in some detail how the self-deluded French policy in that area and the Gulf has led to a completely intractable situation, not least because succeeding French politicians pressurized the EC (later EU) and other transnational organizations to recognize and give succour to the PLO (later PA) and, in particular, is monstrous leader, the late unlamented Chairman Yasser Arafat. This has led to a situation where peace in the area and freedom and prosperity for the Palestinian people have become well-nigh unattainable goals.

then he moves on to Italy:

Yesterday, Open Europe referred to an article in El Mundo [general link in Spanish supplied by OE], which seems to say that Italy intends to “break ranks” with the rest of the European Union and resume political ties with the Hamas-led Palestinian government...
the Palestinians cannot be left without aid, it is assumed, whether that aid ever reaches those who might need it or not and whether it does anything useful or not. Even if we assume that the aid reaches the Palestinians, the inevitable result will be that the Palestinian government will be relieved of its welfare responsibilities, leaving it with more money to spend on extensive military equipment and the payroll of militias. Is any of that helpful to the Palestinian people in this “delicate period”, as Foreign Affairs Commissar, Benita Ferrero-Waldner puts it?

And finally, Norway:

Allowing for some linguistic problems, however, this seems clear enough, unless the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs will deny any of it:
Following the meeting, Johansen told the reporters that Norway decided to normalize its political and fund aids to the Palestinian people that would be presented through independent Finance Minister Salam Fayyad.

He also called on Israel to release frozen tax revenues to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), while Haniya thanked Oslo for its support.

Mr. Hohanson said that his country sees the political platform of unity government live up with the triple conditions of the international community and called it to deal with the unity gov't.
Well, that should make Salam Fayyad’s job slightly easier. As he himself has pointed out the Palestinian budget, in so far as it exists, is a considerable mess with no money left in the kitty and no evidence as to where it has all gone.

Mr Johansen (here described as Hohanson) might also like to explain to those of us less enlightened than himself and his government how are those triple conditions being met. After all, Hamas has not changed its article of faith that Israel must be destroyed. When Hamas (and, to a great extent, Fatah) refer to occupied territory they mean the whole of Israel.

North concludes by quoting extensively from

an article that was published in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. Its author, Khaled Abu Toameh, himself as his name implies, a Palestinian, is the Palestinian Affairs Editor of the Jerusalem Post and a very knowledgeable commentator on matters Middle Eastern.

He seems to think that five European countries are prepared to do business (rather a one-way business that would be) with the new “unity” government. He, further, points out that the statements made by both Hamas and Fatah are far too equivocal to amount to show any intention of living up to the “triple conditions of the international community”.

I urge you to read the whole thing.

Why do the names Mussolini and Quisling come to mind?

Some links

2007-03-21T20:10:00.000Z

A couple of nice links I picked up from The Bookworm's post You Ain't Never Had A Friend Like Me are here.
First, Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker:

Sometimes a serious proposal emerges which is so stupid that it stuns me. Other times, proposals anger me. Rarely, both qualities are combined in one legislative proposal, but the California State Senate currently has such a bill, introduced with bipartisan support.

The idea: give $500 to every infant born in the State of California, regardless of immigration status of the parents. The aim: supposedly to encourage habits of savings and thrift...

It makes me think of something similar in the UK.

Secondly, this rather nice debunking of a BBC AGW scare story:

"Man-made global warming!?" When was that proved? No qualifications? Really? Was not even a teensy degree of it caused by well-established natural climatological cycles?

Then, a couple inches down, this:
The southern polar ice sheet holds 90% of the world's fresh water.

If it all melted, global sea levels would rise by 200 metres. (650 feet).
Ninety percent? 650 feet? Just in Antarctica? Never having heard those stats before, off to Ask.com I went. It didn't take long to find less sensationalistic stats...

Salmond leaps at independence for Scotland

2007-03-18T19:27:00.000Z

Alex Salmond is still talking big about the 100 days after the SNP win the election! And Gordon Brown is still worried:

Chancellor Gordon Brown said the SNP's policies were not properly thought out

We'll see soon enough, I suppose.

BBC continues waffling

2007-03-18T19:16:00.000Z

In further coverage of the lying about the Blue Peter 'phone-in, the new Director General, Mark Thompson claimed that

there had been "serious errors of judgement", but there was no "intention to deceive".

You could have fooled me. It seems like an intent to deceive when a visitor to the programme is passed off as a 'phone-in caller.

Further lies have also been spoken in relation to another 'phone-in:

Cookery show Saturday Kitchen is also under investigation by the premium phone line regulator Icstis, following an incident last month which Mr Thompson attributed to "sloppiness".
Viewers were encouraged to call in for a chance to appear on the following week's show - even though it was being recorded minutes after the live programme went off air.

Perhaps I just don't have proper understanding of what words mean. I would have described it as `lying, but perhaps inadvertent lying'.

BBC: sustaining the image of class warfare

2007-03-14T19:59:00.000Z

Here's an article supposedly about faith schools from the Beeb. Let's look at the lead:

Faith schools get competitive

Competition could raise standards - and widen social divisions

Faith schools which operate their own admissions get better results when they have competition, research suggests.
An institute at the London School of Economics has published a study of school choice, using a sample of 200,000 pupils in England.
Faith schools - outside local authority control - were compared with community schools to measure the impact of parental choice.

Where did that caption come from? Is it just standard BBC kneejerk? No, here's the quote , from about half way down:

The research is published as the ATL teachers' union attacks faith schools for a lack of accountability - and calls for them not to "discriminate" in their admissions process.

God, I hate it! The constant knocking of what the left doesn't like. The trotting out of the standard attacks on education (oh ,sorry, I mean divisive education). The self-satisifed relegation of a significant proportion of the UK population to an underclass simply to satisfy some Fabian agenda. The complete lack of concern for the academically able in favour of what? A vicious, anti-education, beer-swilling, soap-watching, self-reinforcing anti-culture.
Pah!

Raise the Jolly Roger Blue Peter

2007-03-14T19:41:00.000Z

The BBC has been caught out again.

The hosts of BBC children's programme Blue Peter have apologised to viewers after the results of a competition were faked last November.
A technical problem meant viewers calling for the Whose Shoes contest did not get through to the studio.
Instead, a visiting child was asked to pose as a caller live on air.
Host Konnie Huq said: "We'd like to say sorry to you because when this mistake happened we let you down." The BBC did not profit from the calls.

Don't you just love that distancing `when this mistake happened'. Not `when we lied to you' nor even `when we made this mistake' but `when this unexpectd and gratuitous act of God which no- one could have foreseen came to pass'.

So

The contest, on 27 November, was raising money for children orphaned by Aids in Malawi.
Callers were asked to phone in and identify a mystery celebrity's shoes. More than 13,800 people entered, with calls costing 10p each, including 3.25p for the Unicef charity.

What do they do about it? Well first they investigated

An internal investigation confirmed the error and a separate independent review will be carried out into the circumstances surrounding the competition.

OK? Just an error. Not an error of judgment.

Then they

"...apologised directly to the child involved and her family for this incident."

The poor traumatised child.

The poor traumatised presenters.

Mr Deverell called the faking of the competition an "exceptional incident", and said the person responsible had acted "in a panic".

But speaking to Radio Five Live, he refused to rule out the possibility that staff would be sacked over the incident.

I should jolly well hope not! Lying to the public is not what the BBC charter is about.

Melanie Phillips-speech

2007-03-13T14:34:00.000Z

Here's a link to a rather good speech by Melanie Phillips. Here's a nice section:

There is a persistent refusal to accept that we are in the throes of a holy war waged upon the western world for more than 25 years without our even recognising it because it doesn’t fit our definition of war. It is a world war being fought in many disparate theatres with many proximate causes, but all with one single coherent aim: to defeat western civilisation, establish Islam as the dominant power in the world and restore the medieval Islamic caliphate.

We can see the outcome: in the daily violence in the French suburbs, sanitised by the French government but described by French police as a permanent intifada; in the similar violence in Belgium; in the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands and the terrorisation of Dutch politicians who speak out; or in the global riots, kidnappings and murders after the re-publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

Yet little of this is reported, and when it is, it is generally presented as the fault of those being terrorised. Thus the French riots are blamed on French prejudice towards immigrants; the cartoon riots on media insensitivity towards Muslim feelings; and moves by the ultra-liberal Dutch or the Danes to ban the burqua or restrict immigration as racism or xenophobia.

Beeless in Gaza

2007-03-11T22:48:00.000Z

This could be important. We're much more dependent on bees than most people realise.

All over America, beekeepers are opening up their hives in preparation for the spring pollination season, only to find that their bees are dead or have disappeared.

Varroa has not turned out too badly so far but could get much worse. Look for an almost complete absence of fruit in that case.

C4 and AGW

2007-03-10T13:06:00.000Z

Not having a television, I didn't see the C4 programme: The Great Global Warming Swindle. Here's another reference.

My own view is that it's all going to last another 5 to 10 years. Then the scare will be over but the taxes will remain. So will the indoctrination at school. Of course, by then the EU will be unable to produce anything at a cost at which anyone else wants to buy.

Hat tip: Brian Micklethwait. He has a great take on the programme maker.

Five a day

2007-03-10T12:38:00.000Z

Have you eaten your chicken today?
The sacred cows are obviously coming home to roost.
Hat tip: Done With Mirrors.

Snake-Oil and self-esteem

2007-03-06T13:51:00.001Z

A Polly Toynbee article from long-ago. But I'll bet nobody remembers it!

Occasionally a new piece of research demolishes a myth with one fell blow. It does not happen often (social research tends to run along familiar tracks), but once in a while an iconoclastic study changes ideas. No one reading Self-Esteem - The Costs and Causes of Low Self-Worth by Professor Nicholas Emler of the LSE, should feel quite at ease again using a modern piece of psychobabble that has infused the language of sociology, criminology and education without real scrutiny until now.

Here is the whole thing.

Ethical living-it's all about Gaia

2007-03-05T17:45:00.000Z

Spurred on by Ethical Man, I give my own top ten tips for ethical living:

Fly less - scientists have shown that flying kills many plants each year and is cruel to others.
Use washable nappies. This means you will go to the lavatory less, thus reducing your use of precious water.
Also, use wine instead of water. Jesus started this, of course: an early and unrecognised green, and a martyr for the cause!
Insulate your mind - even a small chink has exposed many right-thinking people to disturbing ideas about morality entirely unrelated to the environment. Keep it green, cocoon it now!
Kill unwanted friends - it's amazing how large people's carbon footprints are. Turn them into a green whole-body outline instead.
Start composting unwanted portions of your anatomy. Meat makes really good compost and you'll never miss your left foot.
Eat babies, not plants. You know it pollutes less. Farm them in isolated and uncontroversial places that the UN has no interest in, like Darfur.
Eat more vegetarians. There are lots of recipes available and remember, the more people you eat, the more room for you on this overcrowded planet.
Use conventional, not nuclear, explosives. Much cleaner!
Try emulating the Khmer Rouge. They rarely used bullets (as they are highly polluting) preferring to bludgeon people to death with their rifle butts.

The SNP are flexing their muscles

2007-03-04T22:45:00.000Z

In response to criticism of independence plans by a Scottish businessman, Alex Salmond says:

"The growing numbers in the business community who are positive about the SNP and independence shows support is gathering ground significantly.
"And poll information indicating an SNP lead among AB voters, as well as every other category, points to very substantial business support."

Marriage and the Tory politician

2007-03-04T12:34:00.000Z

Dave's wrong of course. He always is. Family breakdown is not the central factor in social breakdown in Britain. It's a symptom, not the root cause. This is not to seek to minimise the knock-on effects, but this post gives a better clue as to what is at the root of such phenomena.

Conservative leader David Cameron is expected to strongly defend marriage at the party's Welsh spring conference in Cardiff later
It is understood he will warn that family breakdown is the central factor in social breakdown in Britain.
Closing the conference, Mr Cameron will warn that 70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families.
He is planning to say that he does not care if some people say singling out marriage in this way is wrong.
Mr Cameron will say that he is not suggesting single parents do a bad job, just that "kids do best when mum and dad are both there for them".

That is not to say that there hasn't been a sustained and virulent attack on the family. After all, families are about consideration for others-a willingness to put their interests above yours. It's all so Victorian, so 1950s! Honestly, Dave. Don't be such a tired old hack.

Multiculturalism and entitlement

2007-03-04T12:19:00.000Z

This is fascinating:

Members of the Cherokee Nation of native Americans have voted to revoke tribal citizenship for descendants of black slaves the Cherokees once owned.

Opponents said the amendment was racist and aimed at preventing those with African-American heritage from gaining tribal revenue and government funding.

One half of me says `sad', the other half is jumping up and down shouting `no honour among thieves, no honour among thieves'.

The right to sexual freedom

2007-03-04T12:13:00.000Z

I have so many things I could say about this:

A German brother and sister who live as a couple and have four children are going to Germany's highest court to try to legalise their relationship.
The 29-year-old brother has already spent more than two years in prison for sleeping with his sister, and could be incarcerated again, his lawyer said.
The pair are currently drawing up an appeal to take before Germany's constitutional court.
They argue they are being denied the right to sexual freedom.

Modern attitudes seem to hold that laws against incest are merely the relic of outmoded attempts at eugenics, so they should go. It's a victimless crime, right?

Comments?

UK v USA

2007-03-04T10:42:00.000Z

There is a longstanding (and despicable) tradition in the UK of knocking the Americans. It is almost entirely restricted to the ruling classes (journalists, politicians, chattering class, celebrities) but there it is widespread.

The trick is to focus on a small number of ingenuous and unrepresentative (and preferrably loud) Americans and to pretend that they represent the whole of America (perhaps with the exception of a few righteous but tasteless denizens of Hollywood). It's a totalitarian trick, and maybe that's why the right plays it in public slightly more than the left (nobody does it more than Labour party voters in private).
Richard North at EU Referendum is particularly good at spotting and skewering this phenomenon.
Here are a few of the latest examples:

Said Hague, "supporters and opponents of the Iraq war must make sure the lessons of the invasion and its aftermath were learned", which then became criticism of Tony Blair's "sofa style" of foreign policy decision-making. As an alternative, the Tories were examining proposals for a National Security Council.

But what seems to escape Hague is that, as far as the aftermath of the Iraqi war goes, we are, in a sense, facing unknown territory. As such, we are facing a steep learning curve and are not in a position to talk about "lessons learned". Some we are still devising and, for others, we have not even completed the lesson plan.

Thus, while Hague is talking blithely about doing "our utmost to ensure that lessons are learned for the future," we need to be learning lessons now, and applying them now. If we do not, we may well not have a future.

And like it or not, the single nation most engaged in this issue is the United States. Mistakes the Americans most certainly have made but, when it comes to "learning the lessons", nowhere is the debate and the experimentation more vibrant than in the USA and in the US sectors of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It thus seems wholly inappropriate for Hague to be talking about the need for better "management" of the UK's relationship with the US. Even less appropriate is the suggestion that we need to "recover the art of managing the relationship well and making it one of permanent friendship coupled with honest criticism."

Given how far behind the curve we are in our prosecution of the war in our sectors, it seems that we are not really in a position to offer much by the way of criticism, honest or otherwise. Rather, we might be better served if we spent some time in criticising our own performance. We might perhaps benefit from a little more listening and learning, and much more humility, before we rush to the White House to offer our views.

and

That "collective realization", however, barely extends to the British military, and has completely eluded the British media, whose defence correspondents seem blissfully unaware of a military revolution going on right under their noses. Thus, in the fullness of time, the US military will have replaced every one of its Hummers engaged on tactical duties with a new breed of vehicles, without the media even noticing.

And still, I suspect, the British politico-military establishment - as it continues to send young men to their deaths in wholly inadequate vehicles - will be preening itself on its intellectual superiority over those crass Americans.

and

It is rather typical of the left-wing press to salivate over the prospect of a Vietnam-style meltdown in Iraq, hence the enthusiasm displayed by The Guardian this morning in elevating to its front page the comments of "an elite team of officers advising the US commander, Gen. Petraeus" that they have six months to win the war in Iraq.

But if that is the case, at least the United States is still looking at a recoverable situation, where it is working for a winning solution. It is prepared to put the resources and, as importantly, the intellectual capital, into beating the enemy. And, amongst the tangible measures the US is planning to take, we learn from The Guardian is that they are preparing for the possible southwards deployment of 6,000 US troops to compensate for Britain's phased withdrawal and any upsurge in unrest.

Disasters made to order

2007-03-03T13:43:00.000Z

Here (hat tip: Samizdata) is a wonderful article on military (non-) intelligence by William Lind.

Sometimes, single words can say more than whole essays. The Swedish captain in the Fourth Generation War seminar I lead at for the U.S. Marine Corps at Quantico, Va. recently introduced me to such a word. It is the Swedish word for military intelligence: underrättelser. The literal translation of underrättelser is "correction from below."

Now there's a principle that could be applied to almost all management. Learn to listen to the people who see what's happening. The world might be an awful lot better if our politicians worked like that too.
Can you imagine how education could improve if politicians talked to the countless people who had not learned to read at school?
Now, what about this:

The question facing any military is how to deal with the inevitable difference between what military intelligence thinks about the enemy and what is actually the case. Our approach, the wrong one, is to seek ever-increasing amounts of "information." That information is funneled into various intelligence "functions" and "fusion centers," almost all of them remote from the fight, where the intel weenies sit around in their purple robes embroidered with moons and stars, staring into their Palantirs. They wave their wands labeled "IPB," and presto!, out comes -- well, for the most part, garbage.
Regrettably, in this Second Generation War model, the garbage cannot be acknowledged as such. The motto is, "Garbage In, Gospel Out."

Again, do you know a single politician who doesn't (at least sometimes) practise `Garbage in, Gospel out'?

Making the news (not reporting it).

2007-03-03T12:11:00.000Z

Help us make the news, with your pictures, views and st ories

That says what's wrong with modern journalism, doesn't it? It's from the BBC main news page.
Why should I complain? After all, the BBC is a crusading, news-generating, left of centre machine, isn't it? That's why all its reporters joined. They wanted to change the world for the better, not put up with that crappy right wing Thatcher/Reagan swine.

A worthwhile rant

2007-03-02T23:06:00.000Z

Apologies for the light posting. As I said before, I got carried away by commenting on post at Done With Mirrors. Let's see if I can tempt you (this is from the comments):

I am a power-mad, convert-hungry, cloak-snatching, sheep-denuding, one-person, vast, right-wing, conspiracy. I also make house-calls.

All I really want to do is to spend my waking hours watching vast lines of sweating, worshipful acolytes count my cookie-cutters, build my pyramids and stoke the flames of my wrath (think LGF’s Charles Johnson with attitude).
I have no true interest in politics beyond the pursuit of power. My long-maturing plans for world domination will shortly come to fruition, just as soon as I can convince people that `conservatism’ (or whatever else I decide is more appealing), coupled with the aim of making me world president, is the one true path.

Lunar eclipse tomorrow

2007-03-02T23:02:00.000Z

I don't need to say much more: there'll be a lunar eclipse on Saturday.

Conservative? Up to a point, Lord Copper

2007-03-01T23:02:00.000Z

I have recently been involved in a discussion of a post by Callimachus at Done With Mirrors. The post, entitled All Liberals Now, explains why Callimachus thinks that for most of us, it's impossible to describe ourselves as conservative now:

What would a conservative manifesto call people back to? Standing astride the path of history and shouting "stop!" appeals to everyone on one issue or another. But very few want to take it as an overarching philosophy of politics or life.

The problem, as I see it, is that, whatever labels we choose to use for ourselves and one another, we're all liberals now, in one or another of the the philosophical senses of liberalism -- and we all believe in changing the world for the better -- as we define "better."

Or, to put it more bluntly, what kind of idiot would want to conserve the ghastly state of the body politic now?
I urge you to read the post and the comments as I think both are illuminating.