Josh's joshings 'The buck starts here' Josh |
|
|
"The finest and most perceptive blog in the entire Universe" - Jayson (not Tony) Blair Email me * 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*
A. Pedant 
|
Monday, December 31, 2007
On getting 'it' right During the nineteen forties, India was given its independence; its constitution was secular. Meanwhile, the dual Pakistan states were created for Muslims. At the time, this partition was seen as a wise move in that it reduced the terrible bloodshed at the time. Until recently, despite the rise of India's BJP, an aggressively conservative, religious party, I would have been inclined to agree that partition was, on the whole, a fine piece of judgement, even though some of the detail, e.g. Kashmir, may not have been handled correctly at the time. Faced with the current deteriorating situation in Pakistan, one wonders whether, after all, it might have been better to stamp on religion and encourage secularism in a larger India, without a separate Pakistan. (I mean, what civilised country would, these days, call a major/capital city after a religion? Well, I suppose there's Stalingrad, now Volgograd, and Leningrad, now Sankt Petersburg, but Islamabad…What sort of nonsense is that?) Whether or not partition was a mistake, it would now indubitably be better for the West to be dealing with a unified, albeit fractious, monolithic India, than with two nuclear-armed countries, where one at least is full of antipathetic religious zeal. As the Irishman said, 'I wouldn't start from here, if I were you'. Quite! So how did we get here? Many years ago, I watched a fascinating documentary – I guess it was in the late seventies or early eighties - about Afghanistan under Najibullah, supported by the Russians. I wish I could remember more but the part that made the biggest impression was seeing girls going to their new school and sitting down learning sensible things. Unsurprising to us, but then, in an Islamic country, that was absolutely unacceptable. In researching this piece, to help my memory, I read several articles that indicated that Afghanistan was moving in a democratic direction under Najibullah. If there's one thing that Communist countries have a name for, it's for educating their children, both boys and girls. And they do it very, very well. Their literacy rates are excellent. The UK currently has many examples of these people, brought up under Communism, from behind the former Iron Curtain. Their countries having joined the EU, these young people have come here to work. (And I'm not talking about legendary Polish plumbers but about Slovenians, Slovakians, Czechs, Estonian and Lithuanians.) They work as opticians, receptionists, shop assistants, even as wine waiters. They are competent, well-educated, polite, and they have the most beguiling accents. Faced with a Communist regime running an Islamic country, what's the best thing to do? Apart from cheer, that is. All you have to do is wait: no need for invasions or anything of that sort. You simply wait for education to do its work, and for the educated masses to dump the religious straitjacket, ditch the Communism and join the consumer society. It's easy when you think about it. The film I saw was optimistic about Afghanistan, despite its troubled history. So, what did the Americans do? They provided the religious fundamentalists, the Mujahideen, with arms and support with a view to expelling the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Such strategic naivety! What on Earth could have motivated such a crazy strategy? All they had to do instead was sit back and wait, perhaps without even providing the Afghani government with discreet material help. America is a country where Communism, Socialism and even Atheism are dirty words. The fear of egalitarianism is fostered by the very rich who have so much to lose. Socialism can't be allowed to work anywhere in the World because people might want it in the US. This explains why America is so keen to stamp on a less tribal, less religious, gender-equal Afghanistan. D'you know, I once heard a US politician go unchallenged on UK TV when he claimed that there had never been a democratically elected Communist government in any country in the World. I was thinking of Chile… The lie should have been rammed down his throat with a remark such as: 'No democratically elected Communist government has ever survived naked political interference from the US.' So this is what brought the Taliban and Al Qaeda, morphing from the Mujahideen, to power in Afghanistan. This is what led to 11/9 and other horrors. Here we have two Islamic states next door to each other, with their contiguous mountain areas and backward tribes. There is a vast area where it is a crime for a woman to be unveiled, and where the highest forms of excellence are to memorise the Koran and/or to die fighting in the name of Allah. Total effing nonsense. Not content with creating a monster in a misjudgement about the nature of 'the World-wide Communist conspiracy', (e.g. Vietnam: more Nationalist than Communist), the US finds itself faced with a religious hydra, that it has created, that suddenly turns its rage on America itself. To put it down effectively in its homeland, Afghanistan, it was essential to have done something about the adjacent tribal areas of Pakistan but this was unacceptable, if not impossible. To compound the error, they attack Iraq, a sophisticated state where religion was discouraged, probably on the way to democracy given some help, as a method of dealing with terrorism. At the time, there was no anti-Western terrorism in Iraq. There is now, though. It takes spectacular incompetence to create terrorism where there is none; step forward the entire US administration. The best we can now hope for Iraq is that it will emerge as a semi-democratic theocracy. Not only was the invasion of Iraq a catastrophic adventure in its own right, it meant taking the eye off Afghanistan. Having created the Afghanistan problem in the first place, the administration virtually abandons it midway through an attempt at reform. Here's a short piece about the situation in Afghanistan. It begins After two years in which the violence in Afghanistan has become worse, it is hard to see signs of hope in 2008.Is it likely that Afghanistan will survive as a democracy of any sort? Currently unthinkable without an occupation force five or ten times its current size. Here's Paddy Ashdown: He comes with experience from a similar role in Bosnia, but Afghanistan is a far larger task as he acknowledged recently, going as far as saying, "We have lost and success is unlikely".And what about Pakistan? A basket case I fear. A nineteen year-old, Oxford-educated student in line for PM? Absolute lunacy. It was my intention to start this year-end round-up of the World situation with a quote from Winston Churchill: Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities.Apposite enough, but this time they've painted themselves so far into a corner that it's difficult to know what 'The Right Thing' is. It was possible once, but that was in Najibullah's time. I was going to conclude with another quote, this time from Eisenhower: Only Americans can hurt America.Quite right, Ike, but they can do an awful lot of harm to the rest of us, too... Labels: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, US administration, year-end Saturday, December 22, 2007
Hitch's challenge Christopher Hitchens, in his atheistic perambulations around US chat shows, news studios, and other modern versions of the bear pit, has issued the following challenge to all and sundry: "Can you name me a good action done or a good thing done by a believer that couldn't have been said or done by a non-believer?" As I write this, I'm just hearing that Tony Bliar has, at last, been received into the Roman Catholic Church. This gives me the opportunity to let everyone know that, to compensate, I've just started to worship Satan (Have I got that right? I have such poor vision these days that I may have committed a typo. I was also reading recently that 'Satan' is an anagram of 'Santa'). Now, where was I? I wonder if we could apply Hitch's test, suitably modified, to Blair's behaviour. We should ask "Do you think that Blair's behaviour exhibited, in any way, the sort of thing you couldn't find in a non-believer?' I'm thinking particularly of his passing off the Iraq decision as something that could only be judged by god. Yes, I think that is something that only a believer could do: completely avoid responsibility by arrogating a vital matter to 'god'. A non-believer would have put such a decision down to his/her own poor judgement – no hiding in anyone else's beard/church/cloud cuckoo land – and move on, trying to dodge the brickbats from people (like me) who predicted the debacle. So good luck in your new religious home, Tony Bliar. I wonder how you'll cope with the legacy of your worthwhile achievements: support for abortion and stem cell research for a start. Then there's the crap you'll be letting yourself in for, beside virgin birth, the trinity and resurrection that you're already stuck with. Transubstantiation, eh? No women priests; no female popes… I hope you get a nice, cheap indulgence. Cheaper than a peerage, I'll bet. Don't you still wish you had Campbell to tell Ratzinger that you don't (really) do god? Finally, here's someone else with something to say about the Church of Rome. Click here. (Sound needed.) Hmm, I think I may well lose my entry on the list of UK 'God Blogs' for this little bit of petulance… Labels: Catholic, Hitchens (C.), Iraq, religious belief, Tony Blair Sunday, December 16, 2007
Creationism comes to Britain I was astounded to read this in today's Observer. The latest salvo in creationism's increasingly ferocious battle with evolution is about to be fired in Lancashire. Not in a fiery sermon preached from the pulpit, but in the form of a giant Christian theme park that will champion the book of Genesis and make a multi-media case that God created the world in seven days.We mustn't assume that nonsense like this is confined to the US. Peter Jones, one of the Lancashire theme park's trustees, said the emphasis would be on multimedia rather than the costume re-enactments of famous biblical scenes favoured at Holy Land [Experience]...We all know, don't we, that Peter Vardy has partly financed a city academy that teaches Creationism. The majority of the money comes from the UK taxpayer. Aaargh! I guess that normal planning rules would apply and that the planning application would be decided on the impact of the development on the area. However, I was pleased to read this bit. The theme park's anti-evolution bias and its emphasis on Genesis has raised eyebrows among planning officials, according to Jones, who originally wanted to build the park at the site of an old B&Q store but was refused permission by the council.The buggers will keep trying though. They're bound to find somewhere they can put it. 'Wigan council slammed the door in our faces. You mention the C [Christian] word, and people don't want to know,' Jones said.Well that's an interesting comment, isn't it? In this case, the aversion is bugger all to do with Christianity. People don't want to know because Creationism is still regarded as lunacy in the UK. But for how much longer…? Labels: "Christian Theme Park" Evolution, Creationism, Vardy More about bishops A few days ago – well, 10th December to be precise – I was bemoaning the fact that Fresno had elected to secede from the Episcopalian church on the grounds that the established church was too tolerant of homosexuality. Well, Rowan Williams is standing firm, at last. This is from The Grauniad The Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the worldwide Anglican communion, yesterday condemned attempts by conservative church leaders to undermine the US Episcopal Church for its support for gay rights and effectively refused calls to disinvite American bishops from next year's Lambeth conference of all the church's bishops.I have often argued that those who oppose progress are inconsistent in that they no longer, for example, permit the selling of family members into slavery (Exodus 21:7), or make slaves of citizens bought from neighbouring countries (Leviticus 25:4), or even kill people who work on The Sabbath (Exodus 35:2). If it's possible to dump some previously acceptable practices, going against biblical teaching, why all the fuss about homosexuality? It isn't as though being gay is implicitly (or explicitly, come to that) mandated for church membership. The bigots are not expected to be gay themselves, merely to accept it in others. Apparently, the ordination of women presents further difficulty. Well, if we can let men box, then women should be allowed to do so, too. Similarly, if men are allowed to become bishops, then so should women; they should be eligible for the position of pope, too. Mind you, I'm not sure that I approve of popes and bishops per se but it's only when you've removed the sex restriction that one should think of a ban. It is surprising that it has taken so long for this split to come about. Rowan Williams first tried very hard to persuade the liberals to back down. He's now on a loser in confronting the secessionists; he'd be better off kicking them out and controlling the schism that way. In fact, he should have done it years ago. None of his fence-mending has worked. All we've had is the sorry spectacle of the Archbishop persuading a gay, but celibate, applicant to refuse the offered position of Bishop of Reading. Here's what Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford wrote about the incident earlier this year. This extract is from Harries' article in The Grauniad dated 8th April 2007. …the pivotal point was [Rowan Williams'] refusal to go ahead with the consecration of Jeffrey John, whom I had nominated as Bishop of Reading. In retrospect, the archbishop and I could have handled things differently … the Anglican Communion was already dividing on the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson in the United States, and opponents, quite wrongly in my view, put Jeffrey John in the same category (because Jeffrey had been celibate for a considerable period of time)Clearly Harries believed, along with the rest of the sensible Episcopalians, that this would have been a corner worth fighting at the time. By delaying, Williams has made a mess of his hand. By attempting to appease the bigots, he has antagonised both them and the more moderate wing of the C of E. The church will now fall apart more messily than it could have done. Labels: archbishop, bishops, Church of England, Richard Harries, Rowan Williams, schism Thursday, December 13, 2007
At the swimming pool Imagine a group of children at the swimming pool. They've all been a bit careless about where they peed – too often they'd just go right where they were, instead of going off to the loo, properly. Now, the pool chemicals can cope with a certain level of impurity but there is a limit. After that limit, the pool becomes irrevocably foul. Most of the children come to the conclusion that peeing in the pool is a pretty disgusting habit and that they'll not do it any more, in the interests of everyone. They can see that it's rather inconvenient to traipse all the way to the toilet but it's something that just has to be done. If everyone acts together (or forbears from acting selfishly), the chemicals will have less work to do and the pool will stay fresh and healthy longer, perhaps almost indefinitely. A few of the kids are reluctant to join the co-operative community. John, a notable pisser, is banned from the pool and replaced by Kevin, a notable continent. Unfortunately, though, George, the biggest of the boys, and rather a bully, thinks selfishly and decides to carry on peeing in the pool. What's more, he decides to add even more pee. What clever, co-operative children to look after their pool so responsibly but how nasty and selfish George is. He is freeloading on the good nature of the more perceptive and responsible children, George is effectively saying 'I can forever go on peeing in the pool and you poor mugs who've stopped doing so will, by your forbearance, permit me to do that because I'm the biggest and I'll thump you if you complain'. (Well, he would say that if he were a bit more articulate; actually, he may be big but he's remarkably maladroit and out of touch.) George doesn't have it completely his own way, though – someone from his family: big Al – who's not really big enough to control George - keeps on pointing out to the bully the error of his ways. This reminds me of another story I read today: The EU was in a showdown with the US over climate change policy today, demanding Washington "wake up" and describing next month's US-led talks on emissions cuts as "senseless" without binding targets…Of course, there's no similarity at all. The problem with the pool is that the civilised kids could always find another pool, just for the hygienic among them; there's no similar possibility with our lovely World, though… Labels: Bali, climate-change, G W Bush, greenhouse gas, Kyoto, targets Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The tragedy of Conrad Black I have followed the trial, in the US, of the saintly Conrad Black. Now that the unjust sentence has been handed down, I spend much of my time weeping for this maligned man. This is how The Grauniad described it Conrad Black was sentenced yesterday to six and a half years in an American prison for abusing shareholders' trust through a sophisticated plot to embezzle $6.1m from his Hollinger media empire.I was interested to discover that she fined him $125,000, the merest fraction of the amount embezzled. This is slightly puzzling but, I suppose, it can be attributed to one of the more cynical views of American justice, surprisingly left unexpressed by the victimised Black: that it is retributive rather than restorative. In thinking about poor Black's fate, the image of him that comes most to mind is that of him dressed as Cardinal Richelieux, accompanying his wife, Barbara Amiel to some fancy dress function (Although I found the picture, the link doesn't work. Sorry.) It reminds me of nothing so much as another of our business worthies, the equally maligned and late, lamented Robert Maxwell arriving at a function, dressed as a sheikh. (Alas, I am again unable to provide a link for you. Such inefficiency!) Both men shared a similar, justified view of their own importance, inviolability, and perhaps a touch of folie de grandeuer, too. Yet both came to grief in different ways. We can only mourn their passing and hope that it will not be long before we see their likes again, cutting their confident swathes through the finance and media worlds without a thought or care for the next person. I wish them both well, wherever they may go/have gone. Labels: "folie de grandeuer", Black, embezzlement, Maxwell, prison Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Culture rules Following the nonsense with the teddy bear in Sudan, a Sudanese Official has said, according to the BBC that Westerners going to live and work in Sudan should pass an exam on the local culture…Well, that's interesting. Let us, today at least, with respect to the teddy fiasco, put aside the knowledge that none of the parents complained of the way Ms Gibbons gave the teddy assignment to their children. (I happen to think that it was an imaginative project.) Let us also set aside the knowledge that the complaint to The Ministry of Education was made by a disgruntled employee of the school at which Ms Gibbons taught. And let us not dwell upon the consequential loss that Sudanese society will now inevitably suffer in its education of the young, for to do so would suggest that Mohammedanism is backward and that it, at the slightest opportunity, embraces archaic notions rather than attempting to engage with living in the modern world. Instead, though, let us consider the modern world, exemplified by the United Kingdom, in its relationship with resident or 'home-grown' Mohammedans. Let us also wonder if the wise words of Khalid al Mubarak have any relevance to this relationship. Perhaps we could 'advise' British Mohammedans that polygyny is a criminal offence and remind them that 'honour' killings are murder. We might also remind them that exhortation to suicide is also criminal as, too, is child abuse. I am thinking of female genital mutilation here, or even non-medical circumcision. Then there's the matter of wife-beating – criminal again. Of course, there are many other things that are 'local culture' here. I would suggest it's worth being aware that things like eating pork and drinking alcohol are part of our local culture. And perhaps I might point out that the strongest stricture against alcohol in the Koran amounts to 'Do not go drunk to your prayers'. So, Khalid al Mubarak, perhaps you would be good enough to consult Mohammedan leaders and communities in this country and let them know what is expected of them – for some of them seem to be remarkably ignorant. Or, at least, they behave as though they are ignorant: I suspect that they do know and ignore our laws and customs in a calculated way. This is far worse than anything Ms Gibbons inadvertently did. I think an exam for these people might be appropriate for your co-religionists here, don't you? D'you fancy giving it a try? God is grott, merdeiful. Labels: culture, Gibbons, Islamism, Khartoum, Sudan, teddy Monday, December 10, 2007
Episcopalianism starts to fray There used to be a special place in my heart for Fresno CA. Sometimes referred to as the worst place in the US, partly because of its very hot summers, cold winters and accompanying fogs, I nevertheless found it pleasant there. I spent New Year at an anonymous motel, completely alone there, some twenty years ago. I can't remember much of the detail, except that it was cold and foggy but it was 'nice'. I was therefore rather disappointed to find the following piece, relating to Fresno, in The Grauniad The conservative Diocese of San Joaquin voted Saturday to split from the liberal-leaning Episcopal Church, becoming the first full diocese to secede from the denomination in the debate over the Bible and homosexuality.I hold no brief for religion/faith of any sort. I have often rejoiced at the number of bishops sacked or refused official confirmation, not at the homophobia relevant to the decisions, but because bishops, Richard Harries excepted, are 'a bad thing'. Anything that undermines religion, that places the bishopric under siege, is 'a good thing'. It is therefore with mixed feelings that I express my disappointment at the split reported. I am content to see the C of E falling apart, but I am sad about the cause and the reasoning. I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality; it's not for me but that's no reason to refrain from criticism of institutions that use biblical references to endorse their prejudices. If we were all literalist about the bible, we'd still be selling women into slavery – see Exodus 21:7. [What's that: we still do?] Yesterday, I argued that boxing was a bad thing. That was based on incontrovertible evidence that the 'sport' causes brain damage. I didn't do it because of some dubious piece of bronze-age writing, allegedly about a vicious psychopath called 'God', but because it made sense. We have legislated on crash helmets and safety belts in the interests of people's safety. We should legislate about boxing according to the same principle, unpopular though such a move might be. Citing scripture as authority is dubious, particularly when it comes to matters that are strictly personal. It isn't as though homosexuality does any harm. And if people have a predisposition towards falling for people of the same sex, why should we try to stop them doing so? Fresno, I'll not feel quite as favourably disposed to you as I used to. Labels: Anglican, C of E, Episcopal, Fresno, gay, homosexuality Sunday, December 09, 2007
Boxing I was extremely disappointed to read this piece of savage nonsense about/from the current UK Sports Minister … Gerry Sutcliffe is determined to increase the number of schools offering boxing to pupils.The report comes from the BBC. A few years ago I argued that women's boxing should be allowed on the grounds that, if men are allowed to do something, women should be, too. During last week, as the hype for the Hatton-Mayweather fight grew, I was tempted to argue about boxing again; this time, it would be to argue that the sport should be banned. Yet I find nonsense like this, from the Sports minister. So, here it goes: Boxing is a savage sport that inflicts deliberate injury. Indubitably, it causes brain injury. Other sports sometimes cause injury but never deliberately - it is always accidental. It is about time that the bloody sport was banned. We've progressed to the extent of banning bear-baiting, cockfighting and dog-fighting. We should really stop people abusing each other by boxing, even though supporters might claim that boxers have free choice. Nor is it character-building to teach children – or anybody – to batter each other. I never understood Tony Banks' support of this barbaric activity. I understand Gerry Sutcliffe's advocacy even less. One wonders is he could be prosecuted for incitement to inflict grievous bodily harm. Do we really want children (or even grown men) taught to batter each other? To inflict injuries that are very likely to cause brain damage? As Woody Allen said 'My brain - that's my second favourite organ'. And are we really so uncivilised that we want people to inflict damage on each other for our entertainment? Ban it immediately! Labels: Boxing, brain damage, entertainment, Hatton-Mayweather, school sport Monday, December 03, 2007
More on the missing discs Further to my piece The missing discs, dated November 26th, here is a bit from an Observer article dated December 2nd …two discs were found at the home of a former contractor to the Department for Work and Pensions.You can read the full article here. This is appalling. Firstly, why employ contractors? With an organisation like Work & Pensions, dealing with sensitive data, you need to have the data under control at all times. This means doing all computing in-house. I suppose they outsourced the stuff to save money but look where it's getting us! It's the same with the HMRC data that disappeared; it's all to do with making false economies. Like employing Blackwater in Iraq. Aaaargh! Will these bloody people never learn? Morons! Friday, November 30, 2007
How to respond to Khartoum Here's the slightly edited text of a letter I've just sent to my MP Whatever the government does to express its disapproval at the disgraceful treatment of Gillian Gibbons, one measure would be easy and effective: repeal the blasphemy laws, immediately . This would send a strong message about how civilised nations behave. It would provide a level playing field for all religions and, incidentally, undermine any attempted prosecution of 'Jerry Springer - The Opera'.I wonder if this will fall upon deaf ears or become buried in the sleaze pile. Labels: Gibbons Khartoum prison sharia blasphemy teddy Thursday, November 29, 2007
I have been entertained by further reports of political payment shenanigans and it makes me refer to what I wrote here on 24 October Individuals would be allowed paid membership of political parties, but there would be a ceiling (say £20 p.a.) on individual membership [fees]. Group membership would not be permitted. Individual donations would be permitted but only to a maximum of £10 p.a. Union members would have their individual 'political contribution' payments treated as being membership fees, but of their nominated party, and they would each be limited to the ten pound donation. Other than that, unions would not be permitted any political contribution.One thing I omitted to make absolutely clear in that piece is that any donation to a political party greater than £10 will be regarded as a criminal offence. Only bona fide UK citizens who are taxpayers would be permitted to make such a donation. Kenneth Clarke, the former Conservative Chancellor, has been saying similar, although not such restrictive, things. There's a study on at the moment by Haydn Williams and I do hope that he comes to a very similar conclusion. However, capped limits in the thousands are far too high. As a further limit, groups raising cash for a political party would have to pay that money into a central fund for distribution pro rata to all parties. What's that you say? That would stop group fundraising altogether? So what? It brings nearer the day of state-funding. People don't like that but they don't like people buying influence, either. On balance, though, it's better to make it impossible (that means illegal) to influence politics with a donation than to keep public money out of politics. I'd rather have clean (and cash-strapped) politics at the expense of a farthing on income tax than tranches of questionable money coming from mysterious sources. However such rules are phrased, unless there's a very low cap, people will find a loophole. Labels: financing politics cash state-funding donation limits Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Judge abuses power and punters... I have often felt that courts deal unfairly with your average punter. Take this, for example: A US judge has been removed from the bench after jailing 46 people when a mobile phone began ringing during his court session and no one would own up.You can read the full story here. There is, as far as I know, a statutory offence of Contempt of Court within most legal systems. It's about time 'Contempt of the Punter' was instituted, too. Another brilliant idea for the Manifesto… Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Teddy bare-faced nonsense A story, covered in every UK news source is having quite an impact. Here's the BBC on the subject. The Guardian has a bit to say about it too: It seemed the most innocent of school projects. To encourage her seven-year-old pupils to learn about the animal kingdom, Gillian Gibbons asked them to find a name for a teddy bear. Unfortunately, they chose Muhammad.The Grauniad doesn't say but, apparently, the children voted, 20 of 23, for the name 'Muhammed'. Further, this was in honour of the most popular child in the class, also called 'Muhammed'. Now the 54-year-old teacher from Liverpool is being held in a Sudanese jail facing charges of insulting Islam's prophet. She was detained at her residence at the exclusive British-styled Unity High School in the capital Khartoum on Sunday after a number of parents complained to the Ministry of Education.Words fail me: this is the sort of thing the crazies want here and we've got quite a lot of religion-protection already. Fearing reprisals, the Unity's governors decided yesterday to close its doors until January. Robert Boulos, the school director, said he was "very worried for Miss Gibbons's safety". "This was a completely innocent mistake. She would have never wanted to insult Islam."Well, I want to insult Islam and I want to do it as loudly as possible. In addition to uttering cries of 'God is grott' and 'God is merdeiful', at every available opportunity, I'm seeking advice on how I can be even more insulting. My dog's called Fred. I'm wondering about renaming him Muhammed. Still, perhaps it might be just as good to let him stay 'Fred' and call his arsehole 'Muhammed'. I'm just going to pop down to the Bagshot mosque to get a ruling. What do you think, Myfanwy? Labels: bear Islam lunacy religion sensibility Sudan Monday, November 26, 2007
The missing discs I have followed the saga of the missing discs with increasing incredulity. Here's a paragraph from a short article on the matter The personal records of 25 million people, including their dates of birth, addresses, bank accounts and national insurance numbers, were lost in the post on October 18, leaving half the British population at risk of large scale fraud. An official at HM Revenue and Customs' offices in Washington, Tyne and Wear, downloaded the entire national database of child benefit claimants on to two CDs, and posted them, unrecorded, to the National Audit Office in London, via the internal post system. They never showed up.As I understand it, much data processing is outsourced by HM Revenue and Customs and that it would have been too expensive (£5000) to create the subset of data needed. I don't know very much more about this because it hasn't been made public but I do know quite a lot about the technical aspects of this sort of exercise. Firstly, I cannot conceive how the system would not already have a utility to enable the extraction of subsets of data fields. If it really doesn't, the person(s) responsible for the design should be fired. Secondly, if they really had to ask an outside software house to do the relevant extraction then, again, the person(s) responsible should be sacked. Thirdly, to carry out such an extraction, if no utility exists, is such a trivial matter that £5000 is daylight robbery as a charge. A few hundred should have covered it. This appears to be an attempt to milk the client or, if it was a matter of internal accounting, then this is an example of 'fund' transfer that doesn't make – or save - anyone any real money. If there is guilt here, shooting rather than firing is appropriate. There are many other suspicious characteristics about this whole matter. Take it from me, as a retired systems designer, that this is a mess of gigantic proportions. It is something that none of my departments, nor I personally, would have got wrong. Someone else might have lost the discs but they wouldn't have been able to blame us. The important part of this fiasco is not that the discs could have been lost but that much more detailed information than was required was provided. I'll bet, though, that blushes will be spared and someone may even be knighted. Incompetence is a noble virtue and should always be rewarded. Labels: discs disks Customs data Benefit security Thursday, November 15, 2007
The tragedy of Iraq, pt. 172 For several years, there have been dribbles of evidence from Basra that suggest all is not well. One has always hoped that this Shia area, formerly under 'softer' and more careful British control, might be an exception to the general disaster area that is post-war Iraq. This report chops the legs off this hope that has first run, then staggered, and finally crawled: it can be advanced no longer. The chief of police in the southern Iraqi city of Basra has warned of a campaign of violence against women carried out by religious extremists. It has, Maj-Gen Abdul Jalil Khalaf said, included threats, intimidation and even murderThis is not simply a matter of incompetence in the management of the occupation; it is an indictment of the whole bloody enterprise. Women interviewed by the BBC said they no longer dared venture on to Basra's streets without strict Islamic attire…This is truly horrific. One of the things that define civilisation is the way that women are treated. I do not mean that they should be cosseted or otherwise regarded as delicate inferiors. I mean that they should have the freedom to do as they wish, without prescription from men - in particular those citing scripture – without fear. The number of refugees in Iraq, the number of deaths, and the appalling sexism of post-war Iraq, can leave no doubt that Iraq is now far worse off with 'democracy' than it was under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein only turned to religion when he was under severe political and military pressure. If one looks back to before the war, Iraq was basically secular and it may well have been stumbling towards democracy. The war has unleashed and empowered the religiosi. It has to qualify as the greatest misjudgement of the last hundred years. Blair and Bush are responsible. No argument. Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Cash for peerages Tom Bower has an interesting article in today's Grauniad about the parliamentary inquiry into the 'cash for honours' investigation. It begins like this Aficionados could smell the stench of rottenness pervading the Westminster committee room after Assistant Commissioner John Yates completed his testimony in Westminster yesterday. No one expects justice in banana republics, and backscratching among aristos in Ruritania is always amusing, but yesterday's farce in the mother of parliaments was worse than bewildering.Elsewhere in the paper, the editorial concludes Everyone involved in this affair - the police, the prime minister and the public - has some reason to feel angry. But the fault lies with the way politicians have conducted themselves. The system of party fundraising was rotten, they knew it and now it must be changed.So they're both nearly there. Here's my very quick analysis and solution: At the root of the 'cash for honours' problems lies party finance. In other words, let's start from the other end and restrict severely how political parties get hold of money. One of the solutions is state funding only, with limits on individual contributions. When I hear proposals for caps on individual contributions of £50,000, or even £10,000, I fume. The situation in the US, with virtually unlimited spending possible, ought to make us very careful here. AC Yates suggests a change in the law on donations/loans. The answer might well be to make loans and donations completely illegal, except in very tightly controlled circumstances. If a party were to go bankrupt - tough; if they can't run a whelk stall, why trust them with the country? Individuals would be allowed paid membership of political parties, but there would be a ceiling (say £20 p.a.) on individual membership. Group membership would not be permitted. Individual donations would be permitted but only to a maximum of £10 p.a. Union members would have their individual 'political contribution' payments treated as being membership fees, but of their nominated party, and they would each be limited to the ten pound donation. Other than that, unions would not be permitted any political contribution. The effect would be a greater interest in party politics: parties would be forced to take more account of their memberships. They would have to increase their funding by casting their nets more widely and popularly. People would become more generally involved with consensual political choices and we could do away with referendums. Only bona fide UK citizens/taxpayers would be eligible to join political parties or to make donations. Tranches of cash from foreign millionaires would be treated as criminal money. At a stroke, one might stop the 'buying' of political parties. It remains a problem how to decide the basis of state funding, but it wouldn't be insoluble. Again, a healthily low limit (e.g. one million pounds) for the major parties doesn't seem unreasonable. Of course, there would be many details to work out, but the individual limits and the state contribution must be kept very low. The answer to the dismal ruperts who don't want state money spent on political parties, is that it would be a small price to pay for graft/sleaze/corruption-free politics. And, I suspect, these would be the same well-heeled ruperts that would see low limits on individual contributions as 'unfair'. Thursday, September 06, 2007
Polly and the burka I don't, as a rule, recycle old articles I've blogged, However, the recent (July) appointment of Polly Toynbee as President of the British Humanist Association made me read her Wikipedia entry and I reread her 2001 article 'Behind the burka'. This, in turn, reminded me of an incident that happened a few years ago. I was changing aircraft at Kingsford Smith (Sydney) airport. Here's how I blogged at the time: A group of passengers was waiting in a boarding lounge when an Arab couple and their two children joined us. The man was much bejewelled, with rings on most fingers. He wore the most fashionable of smart suits. His wife was dressed from head to foot in a heavy, black burka. It was a very hot day and the children, aged about five and seven, were being particularly fractious.I wonder if I would be quite so restrained were I to have a similar experience today. Had I had a female companion with me, we'd probably have helped. Now, I think I'd do it alone, willy nilly. Here's Polly's article that reminded me. Monday, August 27, 2007
A paean to god(s) Further to my last piece, I was asked recently why I don’t believe in god/allah/yahweh. My very brief answer went as follows: • God is grot (1) merdeiful (2): clearly man-made and a vicious bastard to boot. • There is no evidence that such a being can exist/has ever existed. • I do not accept things without reasonable explanations. • ‘Faith’ is not a virtue; it is gullibility. • The ‘first cause’ argument always leads to the question ‘Who made god?’ • Two thousand year old texts are inevitably suspect. • Human knowledge, underpinned by science, has pushed back the ‘unknown’ frontiers. • Theistic explanations, e.g. of our Solar System and the Universe, are wrong. • The supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution explains our existence, elegantly. • The concept of an afterlife is absurd. • There is no heaven; there is no hell. There is only an inevitable death. • We derive moral rules without sticks and carrots from imaginary sources. • Finding the idea of god ‘comforting’ does not make it true. This is a very short summary of my reasons for finding belief in god/allah/yahweh ridiculous. The more I look at the issue, the more convinced I become. And I haven’t even started on the organised religions yet… (1) From British slang ‘grotty’: 1. unpleasant, nasty, or unattractive; 2. of poor quality or in bad condition, unsatisfactory, or useless. [Not bad, eh?] (2) From the French ‘merde’: shit. [Even better!] Labels: God yahweh allah atheism faith religion belief reason The Danish 'Mohammedan' cartoons I got into a discussion recently about the Danish cartoons and whether or not we should have published them. Here's my contribution. Of course we should have published at least one of the Danish cartoons: Figure at the gates of paradise saying to large numbers of approaching dead suicide bombers: ‘Stop! We’ve run out of virgins!’It’s very funny and makes a serious political point. We have been appeasing the nutters ever since the fatwah on Salman Rushdie. I was working in W. 23rd St, New York in 1989 when the original Satanic Verses furore began, just a few doors away from Viking Penguin, Rushdie's US publisher. The police were doing a good job of keeping the demonstrators under control, so I had no hesitation in going out to harangue the mob about the nastiness of Khomeini's fatwa and Mohammedanism's ridiculous 'sensitivities'. I told them to grow up. I was livid. But a group of US writers, Norman Mailer among them, went further: they held public readings of The Satanic Verses in a Manhattan hall. I was unable to get in, such was the demand. The general attitude in the US was one of robust confrontation. And what was the reaction in the UK? Virtually blaming Rushdie for the whole business and hoping that it would just go away. John le Carré, by comparison with Mailer et al, was pathetic. I have wondered why the UK authorities were so craven, ever since. What they did was create an environment in which Mohammedan extremism could flourish. To confront it now is far more difficult than it would have been in 1989. I am often critical of the US tendency to be 'in your face', but I have to say that they got it right, then. They now seem to have a lesser problem with home-grown Islamism than we do in Europe, with our 'more diplomatic' approach. Subsequently, Iqbal Sacranie, one of Rushdie's principal persecutors, got a knighthood! The shit should have been imprisoned. For too long, governments have listened to those who would have Mohammedanism dictate what we should and should not do in this country. I do hope we've learnt the lesson about encouraging this dark-age relic; it should be robustly confronted. The knighting of Salman Rushdie may be one indication that we have at last realised that a more robust stance is warranted but we've had it wrong for nearly twenty years. There are two similarities between The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons. The 'blasphemous' nature of Rushdie's book was highly debatable but it was seized upon by Khomeini as a political focus; the Danish cartoons were exaggerated by the inclusion with them of two very crude and unfunny drawings, that never appeared in print. They were obviously included as a rabble-rousing device. We create problems for ourselves when we let allow religiosi of any sort to lie, explicitly or implicitly, about any aspect of our society. We compound the problem by appeasing the liars; it only emboldens them and it makes it far more difficult when we ultimately decide to react. If we had reacted properly in the UK when there were 'kill Rushdie' threats in the UK, we wouldn't need to be having this debate about the Danish cartoons. Labels: Islam Danish Cartoons Rushdie Religion Sacranie Monday, July 30, 2007
Iraq v Darfur I have just heard Gordon Brown, in a joint press conference with George W. Bush, refer to Darfur as (one of ?) the greatest humanitarian problems of our time. He spoke of the two million refugees, the four million undernourished and, I think, deaths in the hundreds of thousands. For heavens sake, what about poor Iraq? Two million refugees in Syria and Jordan, another two million ‘internally displaced’, and well over half a million killed. Still, he didn’t mention that Iraq has won a footballing trophy, so that’s all right then… An Oxfam report goes on to mention: ...that 70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% percent prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation [and] nearly 30% of children are malnourished.Read the short summary here. Gordon was also asked about mistakes in Iraq and dodged the question. Isn’t it about time he started to take responsibility for Western atrocities, while condemning comparable ‘misjudgements’ by others? Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Inciting murder It has just been announced that four British mohammedans have been sentenced to imprisonment for inciting murder and/or inciting race crime. The prosecution related to demonstrations outside the Danish embassy in London - remember the cartoons controversy? Placards carried included the delightful 'Behead those who insult Islam.' Three of the demonstrators were sentenced to six years' imprisonment; one to four years. I can't wait for the detailed reports. I'm not sure that mohammedans will take this punishment meekly. Meanwhile, my contribution to the debate is the usual 'God is grott, merdeiful.' Labels: God, Islam Murder Atheism Friday, July 13, 2007
Conrad Black I cannot contain my * In case you think you understand the meaning of this word, please look it up in the dictionary. National pride A few days ago (1 July), I suggested that the recent (unsuccessful) car bombs in London and the attack on Glasgow airport were manifestations of rage at the English smoking ban. I have another observation, courtesy of a friend’s text message. I’ve added my own embellishments: A group of foreign doctors, working in the UK, has achieved the following: two failed car bombs, a burnt out Cherokee, one broken leg, the Smeaton effect, and no deaths.I wonder if we could make a serious contribution to ‘honour’ killing, too. Come on Brits, atheists especially, get killing! And while we’re on the subject of balance sheets, I’m working on one about the Iraq war. No prizes for guessing the answer in advance but I’ve found some very interesting stuff. It’ll take me a few days to get it together, though. Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Siesta Day Today is Siesta Day and, to celebrate, I’m updating my manifesto in case there’s a snap election. The new items concern siestas (of course), imprisonment policy, and driving tests. 1. Prevention of noise & nuisance. It shall be illegal to manufacture, import, sell (or otherwise distribute), use or activate any mobile phone with a ring tone. All phones must therefore only work soundlessly, e.g. on 'vibrate alert'. It shall be an offence to manufacture, import, sell (or otherwise distribute), or use any vehicle fitted with a working horn. All vehicles must be modified immediately if they are to be used in any way at all. No burglar alarm may be permitted other than those that operate soundlessly e.g. by telephoning a remote call centre. 2. The reporting of real news. It shall be an offence to report on any of the following: The behaviour of footballers and other sportspeople other than on the field or when they are being sentenced/executed for loutish behaviour. The behaviour of actors other than directly in performance. The plots of soap operas. The behaviour (or even the existence of) the Royal Family and their hangers on. This applies to official as well as private activities. The official secrets act shall be suitably amended to cover these offences. 3. Freedom of information. All information must be readily available and the presumption must be that nothing is secret. The onus will be on any complainant to prove that the release of information, before or after the event, is not in the national interest. All emoluments, of everyone in the land, shall be made public. There will be no exceptions. 4. Religion. Religion will be limited to consenting adults in private. Any person attempting to Tell a young person that any religious story is trueshall be guilty of a criminal offence. 5. The Royal Family. Royal Residences shall be made public buildings and their former occupants housed in suitable alternative accommodation e.g. 3 Hoxton Villas or First Landing, Pentonville. 6. Capital punishment. The British public, having a continuing appetite for this form of punishment, shall be given the opportunity to watch the public execution of ringing mobile phone manufacturers, tabloid journalists and editors, drivers who park in cycle lanes, all religious officials (except perhaps the odd Quaker), new age advocates, astrologers and other bullshitters, believers in life after death **, misusers of the English Language, and, of course, Jeremy Clarkson. 7. The siesta. The siesta will be a mandatory part of British cultural life. It will be an offence to stop anyone having a siesta should they so wish. Clearly, abuse of this facility may be a problem and the practice will be carefully regulated. I mean, we can’t have people getting up to hanky-panky in the middle of the day, can we? 8. The driving test. All motorists must cycle for at least six months, before they are allowed to take a driving test and drive a car. Each potential motorist must cover a substantial mileage before they can sit the test; all current motorists must fulfil this cycling test, too, before they are allowed to resume driving. The purpose of this change is principally to teach motorists of the extreme vulnerability of cyclists on today’s crowded roads. If they survive this cycling test, motorists will then definitely be more aware of other, less cocooned and more fragile road-users. 9. Prison sentencing. Because it is clear that judges and magistrates only get a cursory idea of what prisons are like, yet they have the power to sentence people to long periods of incarceration, this measure will give sentencers a real idea of what it means to lose one’s liberty and spend extended periods in foul, inadequate surroundings. Accordingly, before being granted the right to sentence anyone to loss of liberty, all sentencers must spend six months in prison themselves. This ‘six months’ is to be regarded as a minimum sentence. Should the judge or magistrate be ‘rumbled’ at any stage during the incarceration, the period must start again, in a different institution. Only when they have served a full consecutive six months and remained undetected can they be released. There are several reasons for this new policy: the undetectable period is designed to safeguard the sentencers from harm from other inmates; it is also designed to ensure that the toffs do not receive special treatment – they must experience life as ordinary prisoners do – and it is the best way to get a massive and general improvement in our prisons. Prison sentences are about deprivation of liberty, not of deliberate degradation. **This will have the dual, beneficial effect of bringing purveyors of nonsense face-to-face with the logic of their position and ridding the rest of us of these idiocy-mongers. Labels: Manifesto, news, noise, policy, religion Sunday, July 01, 2007
Glasgow attack No-one has recognised it yet but it's absolutely clear that yesterday's attack on Glasgow airport was an extreme protest about England's ban on smoking in public places. That ban comes into force today, 1st July. You may think that this is stretching things a bit, for two reasons: 1. Glasgow is in Scotland, not England and 2.Scotland's ban on smoking came into effect on 26 March 2006. They'd have to be bit idiotic to make that sort of mistake, wouldn't they? Still, they are idiots, as well as being nasty. Thursday, May 17, 2007
Rev Jerry Falwell RIP Today, one must sadly report the death of Rev Jerry Falwell. Here is a link to one of the obits. To save you the trouble of reading the piece in full, here is one of the Rev’s attested utterances, made immediately after the demolition of the WTC, that appear in all the obits I have read so far: The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularise America - I point the finger in their face and say: 'You helped this happen.'Please note that this comment was made very soon after the attack so one might, perhaps, excuse a measure of hyperbole; but not this much, surely? Now, as it happens, there is a group of atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens (C), Dennett, Harris, et al, promoting their books in the US and Canada at this very moment. Many insults have been hurled at them: bigots, liars, intolerant, strident, shrill, abrasive, fundamentalist – you name it. Having read some of their books and followed a lot of the interviews, I can only say that the terms apply much more to the dear departed. Richard Dawkins, in particular, has been the most criticised, probably because he has the highest profile. In one quite disgraceful interview, Bill O’Reilly of (US) Fox news interrupts Dawkins at every turn, to express his (O'Reilly's) opinions. Dawkins remains equable and does not show the slightest sign of intemperance. You can watch here. At a rough count, O’Reilly gives his views for two-thirds of the 'interview'. Is Dawkins strident and bigoted, even given some provocation? Not on this showing. But let’s contrast Dawkins with Falwell. As it happens, Dawkins wrote an article in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001 – it was published on 15 September. Here’s the link. Even if one cannot accept his whole thesis, one has to admire the sang-froid of Dawkins’s argument. Let’s conclude with his most trenchant statement, from the final paragraph: To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.What a notable contrast in the way ‘a man of God’ and a prominent atheist interpreted that awful event. And with the benefit of several years of analysis, Dawkins's explanation looks so much better, don't you think? Saturday, February 24, 2007
’Blair has had his chips’ Here is a full quote of a Press Association statement: Blair 'sacrificed career over Iraq'Just one observation on one sentence, supposedly spoken by McCain: "That is a great testament to his political courage." Absolute bollocks; that is an irrefutable testament to his [Blair’s] pisspoor judgement. Wednesday, January 31, 2007
An update for the manifesto It isn’t very often that one finds much of interest in The Daily Telegraph - it’s lines are often boringly predictable and not very well written. However, I am pleased to find an idea, albeit expressed in rather sneering terms, that will have to go straight into my manifesto. Here‘s how the news section reports it: In a country renowned for its long lunches and 35-hour working week, establishing the legal right to a siesta might not appear an overriding priority.There’s another paragraph after this, in the same vein; here’s the link. Remember, that was ‘News’; now this is 'Opinion' (and I quote the whole piece): Do the French never work? Not only do they put in a maximum of 35 hours a week, but now they are considering bringing back the siesta, or la sièste as they call it.Here’s the link, in case you don’t believe me. Which is News and which Opinion, eh? I’m not sure that I can go along with the Churchill analogy. It's likely the whiskey had something to do with it; and anything Reagan did was probably because Nancy’s astrologer told him to. As for the suggestion that the French retire to bed for other reasons, this ancient codger cannot pass comment. Nevertheless, the afternoon snooze is thoroughly invigorating and I heartily recommend it; it will be in my next manifesto, in suitable terms. And if it undermines the Telegraph’s normal exhortations (to others, of course) to work harder, ’So what?’ |