"The finest and most perceptive blog in the entire Universe" - Jayson (not Tony) Blair


Email me *
How easy is it to recognise irony.
A. Pedant
Big boys (& girls)


British Journalism Review*
The Guardian*
Melbourne Age*




Worth a look


Charlie's Diary*
The Feral Eye*
Green fairy*
I live on your visits*
Jak - Vancouver*
Junius*
Quantum Tea*
Reflections in D minor*

---

Drabness is a state of mind
A. Pedant

 
Another Australian loss

A few days ago, I was musing on the task I would have ahead of me in restoring the Aussie’s damaged morale after their crushing 20-17 defeat in the Rugby Union World Cup final. However, it appears that they will have even more trouble adjusting to their newfound status as underdogs. Never mind their having won the Davis Cup – there’s another vital national statistic with which they will quickly have to come to terms.

Several years ago, Australians were at the head of the per-head alcohol consumption in the entire known World. That is a statistics of which they could be justly proud: did you ever see an Aussie of any note claiming to be a teetotaller? Did you ever see a genuine Aussie without a stubbie to hand? And did you realise that Fosters only created an export market because they’d reached ‘saturation’ at home? No, I thought not.

Shortly after my arrival down-under, I came across a morose Aussie who gloomily told me that the drinking championship was no longer theirs. According to a TV channel, the Aussies were now ‘nowhere’; the Luxembourgeoisie led the pack, closely followed by the Czech Republic and the Irish. Now, we all know that the Czech Republic is famous for its beers (proper Budweiser, for example) and Liffy Water, although something of an acquired taste, is closely identified with the Irish as a nation, Dubliners in particular. What on earth, though, do the good burghers of Luxembourg wean their infants on to achieve their exalted level of adult performance?

It appears that I shall be able to help the Aussies in two respects: while sympathising with them at their rugby loss over numerous glasses of the amber nectar, I shall simultaneously be assisting their restoration to their rightful position at the head of the table (or even underneath it) of the World’s drinkers.

posted by josh at 12:20 am

 
The smacking debate, again

I shall be too busy to make a considered posting today. However, given the resurgence of the debate on smacking children, I have to repeat part of an earlier blog to make my position quite clear:

There are many common sense reasons for us to continue physical punishment of children. Firstly, the majority of the population is in favour of it so they must be right, mustn't they?

There have been so many occasions on which British legislation has flown in the face of public opinion: race relations, the wearing of crash helmets, the wearing of seat belts, speed limits and, of course, the abolition of the death penalty. These all represent infringements of individual freedom. It's about time we stopped allowing such namby-pamby restrictions on our civil liberties.

There is another, perhaps stronger, reason to keep our laws on punishment unchanged, in particular among the upper classes. How otherwise can we be sure that there is a continuing supply of children that accept, or even like physical punishment? We would not want 'le vice Anglais' to die out, would we? Flagellation is such an integral part of sexuality, that we must, on no account, do anything to suggest that it is wrong. Half the House of Lords wouldn't know what to do in the brothel, otherwise.

I should perhaps have included MPs, as well, given the reluctance of the administration to have a debate on the subject..


posted by josh at 7:09 am

 
Myanmar

Burma next, please...
posted by josh at 7:55 pm

 
So it's war, then...

The second resolution has been withdrawn so there's nothing left now. If there were some state beyond war for the settling of diplomatic disputes, the situation would not be quite so desperate. But war is the last ditch; it is such an extreme "solution" that one should be 100% certain that one is right and that there is no other way, before resorting to it. Some may be certain that there's nothing left; I am not. But let's look at some of the "justification".

Firstly, the legal argument. It would appear that the legal position is unclear; one inclines towards saying that there is no legal justification, despite what the Attorney General has said. This article would seem to indicate that those in favour of the war would have a hard time justifying their positions in a properly constituted legal arena.

Were some future judgement to go against the US and Britain, when Iraq claims "self-defence" as its justification for resisting strongly (e.g. by waging "total war"), things might become tricky. Leaving aside the rather strange idea of Iraq taking legal action against the USA, there's always the possibility that the Americans could simply cite "precedent" (Nicaragua) and ignore any judgement that went against them. What could Iraq or anyone else do?

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this war is wanted for some reason we are not being given. Without spending time trying to find out what the real reasons are, let us look at the current justification. I have blogged frequently about one obvious lie being told - and I heard Iain Duncan Smith repeat it yesterday - that the UNSCOM inspectors had previously been expelled from Iraq. And this despite Hans Blix's explicit statement that the inspectors had been withdrawn

This sort of nonsense sends out warning signals. It makes one wonder: "What other things do not stand up to close scrutiny in the pro-war case?" While accepting that there are difficulties in finding out exactly what is going on in Iraq, it is still necessary to examine all "evidence" scrupulously before offering it as justification for considering opening hostilities. If the people in Colin Powell's and Jack Straw's departments were doing their jobs properly, the evidence presented to the United Nations would not have included several suspect items. For example,

The chief nuclear inspector for Iraq, Mohammed El Baradei, yesterday flatly contradicted Downing Street's and British intelligence's claims of attempted uranium smuggling by Iraq and said that the documents used to substantiate the British claim were "not authentic". (Guardian, March 8th 2003)

I remember hearing El-Baradei make this statement to the UN. A major plank of the "intelligence" dossier was therefore called into question.

One example of faked "evidence" provides a very strong indication - not of what the fakers are trying to prove - but of virtually the direct contrary. This forgery reveals that, in this respect at least, the evidence is insubstantial. It is so thin that it has either been necessary to manufacture it or, more likely, that it has not been examined properly. This example alone should raise enough suspicions to undermine the whole pro-war position. Taken with the Heath Robinson drone that excited so much comment but which turned out to be a joke lash-up, there is no sensible alternative but to insist on more inspections.

So I return to some serious points for the pro-war lobby: if that's the best you can do for evidence, your case must be shaky. Why are you so gung-ho? Do you have a secret agenda or do you just like war? And don't reiterate that Saddam Hussein is a foul fiend; that's probably the one thing we can agree on.
posted by josh at 4:27 pm