Whatever!

I've already mentioned this story but I just have to bring it up again.
The BBC report:

Mrs Blair gave an inside account of life in Downing Street in her speech, for which she was billed as the UK's "first lady". All tickets for the lecture - billed as the inside account of the "First Lady of Downing Street" - at the 2,500-seater Kennedy Centre were believed to have sold at between £33 ($60) and £52 ($95) each.

It would be against the ministerial code for Mr Blair to receive money for such an engagement. The ministerial code does not impose these same conditions of behaviour on the spouse of the Prime Minister. One might speculate that the authors of the code did not feel it was necessary to explicitly state such a condition. After all, one can expect a certain amount of integrity without having to formalise it in the ministerial code.

From the Guardian (PA Report):

The Conservatives have accused her of exploiting her husband's job and urged her to hand her fee - thought to be £30,000 - to charity.

I don't know what standard fee a QC might expect for a public speaking engagement, but I'm reasonably certain it isn't £30,000. What irritates me the most about this story is that the Prime Minister and his wife don't even seem to understand why people might be unhappy about it.

Questioned on the row during his visit to Washington the Prime Minister gave an exasperated shrug and told reporters: "I don't think there's ever anything I can say on these things that can make it better."

Yeah, like, whatever!

Update: From The Scotsman

In the lecture, Mrs Blair complained that she was the victim of sexism about her money-making activities, comparing her situation to that of Baroness Thatcher's husband.
"Denis Thatcher also had a number of outside interests. No-one found anything wrong with that," Mrs Blair said.
But although Sir Denis served as a director of several companies while Lady Thatcher was prime minister, there are no recorded instances of him publicly speaking about his life as her husband, much less being paid to do so.

Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but, what happened was, right...

(I have to say it's a sad day when I'm holding up Denis Thatcher as a paragon of virtue. It does say a great deal about our current "First Lady".)

Feed the Egos

I've put one of those poll thingys in my sidebar. Your opinions are always welcome. Remember, it's just a bit of fun.

Edit: I've just cast the first vote. It might not last long.

Update: It didn't. It's gone. Pop-up ads, I can't be doing with them.
This post has become entirely redundant. I'm going to leave it here as a testament to an experiment which lasted less than an hour.

Half Baked Philosophy Pie

The First Slice

This might be the start of an irregular series of introspective posts. On the other hand it may be part 1 in a series of 1. We’ll see how this one goes for a start. I’m not well read when it comes to philosophical issues so I’d advise anyone reading to prepare for extreme naivety. I’ve been thinking over my political compass test results among other things. In the test I came out as somewhere between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama and although I’d like to claim that these comparisons are justified, I have to admit that they are not. This post is an attempt to examine why this is the case.

As a starting point, I’ve been considering the conflict between my intellectually reasoned opinions and my normal modes of behaviour. In some wonderful utopian future there would be no conflict and humanity would be at peace with itself. Today, in June 2005, conflict certainly exists. I often criticise politicians for their inability to live up to their own rhetoric, but how often do I apply the same conditions to my own behaviour? Perhaps the answer is not often enough.

Bearing in mind my intellectual position as a libertarian leftie (of which more later) it might be useful if I try to explain a little about myself and how I interact with other people. I don’t do it well. Well, that’s not strictly true, I can do it well, but I don’t do it well very often. It generally depends on my frame of mind. My problem is that I tend to find interacting with individual people irritating, intimidating, and confusing. I seem to be impatient by default and naturally suspicious of the intentions of others. I can be judgemental, quickly categorising people in order to provide a framework for the interaction. I often become intensely irritated with my own behaviour in social situations and this then exacerbates my impatience and discomfort. I find that people can be just so difficult to predict, so inconsiderate, so irrational even. In essence, I can lose a perfectly happy and optimistic state of mind just by going to the corner shop to buy a litre of milk. Five minutes in a queue at the till and I’ve decided the entire world is doomed (and probably not worth saving) due to the inherent stupidity and selfishness of the human race. I should add that I do include myself in all these criticisms. As a result of the above I spend a great deal of time alone. I’m not good at keeping in touch with my friends, not because I don’t like my friends, but because I don’t find it easy to talk to people.

I could try to explain why I think my default positions are this way but it’d be lengthy and speculative and probably not very interesting. The point is that this is the way I behave when I’m not consciously thinking about the way I behave. Wherever you stand on the nurture versus nature debate, I believe most people would accept that by the time we reach adulthood we have developed a set of predispositions in our behaviours. (The nurture versus nature debate itself can keep for another time.)

I should imagine that the difference between my behaviour and my political opinions is fairly apparent. In abstract, I think the world would be a better place if we all took the time to be a bit nicer to each other, but if you were to walk past me in the street I wouldn’t even look in your direction. In abstract, I believe that many of the problems in 21st Century society are caused by the disconnections which exist in society, but I’m one of the most disconnected people you’re ever likely to meet. In abstract, I believe that the rehabilitation of criminals is better for society than punishment, but if I caught you trying to break into my house I’d not be overly concerned with your circumstances or rehabilitation programme. There are many more examples but I’m sure you get the point.

There are those who might say that this highlights a problem with my intellectual position. Perhaps my position is pie in the sky woolly headed thinking based on an unrealistic view of humanity. In some respects I can see that this argument has a lot of weight. The libertarian left view of the world requires empathy and cooperation at a local, national, and international level. Maybe this is just asking too much of people. Perhaps the truth is that selfishness and intolerance have to be accepted and adopted into our world view.

It’s a strong argument, especially given my own day to day reactions. So, should I rethink my intellectual position to accommodate these realities or should I attempt to overcome my predispositions in order to accommodate my intellectual position? It is here that I feel we have reached the root of this little investigation. Are we, as human adults, pre-programmed robots following a proscribed set of behaviours, unable to consciously alter our actions? It isn’t an easy question and I won’t even begin to attempt to pretend to know the answer. On the one hand, the fact that I’m writing this makes me a conscious being, but on the other, my everyday reactions to events appear to be beyond conscious control.

My feeling is that we should not accept that our behaviour is predetermined. For me, this would be an acceptance of defeat, an acceptance that humanity cannot change for the better. Whether it is true is almost irrelevant, the important thing is that we continue to try. It may be true that my intellectual positions are based on idealism but that shouldn’t stop me from trying to live according to them. The conflict might continue until the day I take my last breath, but if I’ve won just one battle over my predisposed behaviours, then at least I’ll die knowing it was possible. And perhaps, just perhaps, the world will be the tiniest fraction better than it was before the conflict started.

Not Much Continues to Happen

I've just put a new post up at my blog about Anne Begg. It looks like my previous prediction on Anne's official interweb activities were overly optimistic.

In news about me, there isn't much of it. I've fallen a bit behind keeping up to date with the blogs I normally read. I'm hoping to spend this evening catching up.

Celebrity Hissy Fit

The bigger the star the less considerate they are towards their fans. It seems to have become written in stone as one of the celebrity 10 commandments. Diva's, of both sexes, continually let down their fans at the drop of a hat. It's just one small facet of the vapid celebrity obsessed cultural scenery of the early 21st Century. I find it all rather distasteful.

There are a small number of respected public figures who are able to rise above such self-obsessed posturing. Tragically, one such figure has recently succumbed to the pressures of fame and let himself slide down the slippery slope which comes from believing one's own media hype. This is particulary shocking given the high regard with which I had previously held this once great public figure.

You can read the story of another sad decline into the shallow world of the celebrity here.
It's not hard to imagine the scene as it unfolded in the luxury custom built engine shed trailer:
Manager - "Come on T, they're all waiting for you out there."
T - "I don't care. These people make me sick!"
Manager - "But they've paid a lot of money to see you. You can't let them all down."
T - "I don't give a flying monkeys how much money the great unwashed have paid. I will not do anything until you've brought me 500 blue M&M's and a British Rail tuna and cucumber sandwich!"
Manager - "Now T, you know that BR was sold off years ago.."
T - "GET OUT! How dare you speak to me like that!"

It's enough to bring a tear to the eye. Where have all the role models gone?

What Would Jules Say?

I've decided to try to avoid politics in my weekend posts as a general rule of thumb. Here's a science story from the Guardian:
Journey to the centre of the Earth

Japanese researchers are going to "bore through 7,000 metres of crust below the seabed while floating in 2,500 metres of water - requiring a drill pipe 25 times the height of the Empire State building."
Is that cool or what? They're going to try to break through the Earth's crust and take samples of the mantle. Far out dude!

I'm not a scientist but I think I can add a little to the research:

The team wants to retrieve samples from the mantle, six miles down, to learn more about what triggers undersea earthquakes...

Here's my prediction. Scientists will discover that drilling a sodding great hole in the crust will be one of the triggers for undersea earthquakes.
I'm joking. I'm sure they know what they're doing.

Update: Another interesting *ahem* science story. It's World Jump Day. Holy leaping environmentalists, Batpeople! Are you up (and then down) for it?
Link via the Gurn.

Late Night Navel Gazing

I'm not actually sure if the phrase "navel gazing" is in widespread use or not. I've ripped off taken my inspiration from Nick Barlow who uses it as a post category. Here's some of it.

I've just received delivery of my new pet. He came all the way from the Arizona desert. Thank you.

I've also taken the test at the political compass today. I'm a left of centre libertarian (not a huge surprise). I fall somewhere between Nelson Mandela and the Dalia Lama, which is nice. Thanks to Stuart for pointing me at it. I'd seen it before but had never actually got round to doing the test.

Today was also the day when this picture became the most viewed in my Flickr photostream. I'd like to think this is due to the brilliance of my satire. Alas, I have the feeling other forces may be at work. Almost no-one clicks the link to the blog post it relates to, and without an explanation I dread to think what people make of it. Ah well.

In other blog news, the May award for the creepiest keyword search visitor goes to:
"2005 email contact director small arms ammunition company"
Yikes! I'm glad it was a short visit.

Finally, a quick mention of my proxy blog for Anne Begg. To be honest, nothing much is happening. It's been 4 weeks since Anne was re-elected and still no official word on the interwebs. The latest available news still comes from Anne's campaign blog. It's not quite as relevant as it could be. I'm reasonably sure Anne's new website and blog will be up at the beginning of next week. We shall see.

Update: I forgot to mention that I'm still not smoking. I've lost track of exactly how long it's been but it must be around 3 months or so. My doctor said this was probably why I had that sinus infection. I suggested I should start smoking again but he didn't seem overly enamoured by the idea.

Moving On

The Washington Post is reporting on an announcement by the Iraqi Interior Minister, Bayan Jabr: Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000

BAGHDAD, June 2 -- Violence in the course of the insurgency over the past 18 months has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks.

At first glance this seems a low figure given that the internationally respected Iraq Body Count organisation is reporting a much higher death toll. Reading the article, the difference is readily explainable. The 12,000 figure refers to the last 18 months only, and only includes deaths caused by the insurgency. The article goes on to comment on US policy with regard to civilian casualties. It casts more light on the disparity.

No official totals have been released for those dead, or for the total number of civilian casualties since the start of the war. The U.S. military says it does not keep a comprehensive tally of people it has killed in combat, although it has released numbers of dead in major operations and has acknowledged civilians it has killed if it has become generally known that those people died during a U.S. firefight or attack.

There we have it. It seems that US military policy is to admit to killing civilians only when it has already become generally known. If it's only the US military themselves who know, well, they just aren't going to bother telling anyone else what they've done. You can see their point, why should they? It'll only cause bad publicity.

A quick reminder of the words of our great leader.

In addition I know that Iraq has been a deeply divisive issue in this country - that's been very, very clear. But I also know and believe that after this election people want to move on; they want to focus on the future in Iraq and here.
Tony Blair, 6th May, 2005

That's right, move on, nothing to see here...

Live8 - Has anyone actually thought this through?

I'm with Justin at Chicken Yoghurt for the most part. What's the point? I do have to say that I think Sir Bob probably has good intentions although I've really got nothing to back that up.
The whole Live8 event just seems like a masive distraction from the actual point of the G8 protests. It's looks like a last minute, ill conceived idea.

Justin has most of the bases covered (although I actually like Coldplay, and enough to admit to liking them too). Here's another reason why it isn't a good idea.

Sir Bob called for everyone to make their way up to Edinburgh after the Live8 concert in London on July 2nd. This has caused a lot of fuss and bother in the media. To be honest, I think the idea that safety and security will be an issue is sideshow. I'd like a million people there, Edinburgh is a big place. What I'd really like is for them all to be there at the Make Poverty History demonstration on the 2nd July. It's a demonstration for which plans are well advanced. In an earlier post I mentioned that I'd like to go but have an important wedding to attend that day. Sir Bob doesn't seem to have considered that it might have been better to have coordinated his plans with the organisers of this demonstartion. If anything, the Live8 concert in London will actually reduce attendance at the official MPH demonstration. That doesn't seem like very good idea to me.

Has anyone actually thought this through?

Comment Policy

Update - 06/04/06

I'm currently switching back to Blogger comments. Please use the Blogger comment system please. The Haloscan system is only going to be there till the older comments drop off.

Update off

Comment policy? I know. I write one marginally interesting post and it's all gone to my head. What am I like?
In fact, I actually felt the need to edit a comment for the first time the other day, so I thought this might save me the bother of having to do it again. Here we go:

Comments are welcome. I like comments. Feel free to express your opinions. I'm always interested to know what people think. Generally, I prefer not to have swearing in the comments unless the post also contains swearing (which happens only occassionally). I could explain why I prefer it this way, but it'd be dull. I just do. If you must, why not use the ar**ing star method?
Comments containing personal insults aimed at myself or other commenters will be deleted. I'm happy to discuss issues and argue different points of view, but I find mud-slinging tedious.

Your email address will never be posted on this blog and will never be passed on to a third party. I hate SPAM.

If you want to leave your homepage URL, especially if it's a blog, that's just fine and dandy. People can then read more of what you've got to say, if they're so inclined.
It should be a personal webpage URL of some kind though. The edited comment I mentioned above left a URL for an online Casino. I just deleted the link.

OK, that'll do. This page may be edited further if I feel the need.

If I could get a meme

It's a new meme from Blair.
This is how it works. I will answer five of the questions below. In return, I will tag three people who will highlight, copy and paste into their blogs who will answer five questions below and pass it on to three other bloggers.

If I could be a scientist... I'd invent cool stuff to save the planet (and grow a big beard).
If I could be a painter... I'd paint the living room. It really needs freshening up.
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer... I'd have something more useful to write here.
If I could be a llama rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be an astronaut...
If I could be a world famous blogger... what do you mean, if?
If I could be a justice on any one court in the world...
If I could be married to any one famous political figure...
If I could be a circus star...
If I could be a poet...
If I could be a musician... I'd be a drummer.
If I could be a chef...
If I could be a rodeo star...
If I could be a spin doctor... I'd be filled with doubt and self loathing.

I've just added one question.
I'll pass this on to Oscar, and we'll see if doctorvee wants it too. That's only two. One more applicant needed, apply below.

Choo! Choo!

The gravy train currently departing from Number 10 complies entirely with the relevant regulations. It does go some way to explaining how the Blair's are going to pay off that enormous mortgage.
A Downing Street spokesman said:

Mrs Blair's engagement has been arranged for some time. It is a private engagement and she is travelling independently of the prime minister's party. If she and the prime minister are in Washington at the same time it is a coincidence.

Yet another conformation, as if it were needed, that a Downing Street spokesman can avoid the actual issue with breathtaking ease.
Concerns over unethical behaviour? Our great leaders wife exploiting a grey area for money?
Not to worry. Just wheel out the Downing Street spokesman to make a denial based on a triviality only marginally connected to the controversial behaviour of Mrs Blair.

Nice work if you can get it.

Activities for Insomniacs 1

What time wasting activities can be pursued when you can't sleep? As someone from Aberdeen I find it inadvisable to count sheep. Instead, I like to explore the wonders of the interweb in a semi-functioning shambolic meandering stroll. Snopes.com is one of those places which lends itself brilliantly to this activity.

Did you ever wonder whether eating carrots really does improve your eyesight? Snopes has the answer. It really surprised me. Who would have thought it? (Obviously that's a rhetorical question not aimed at those who already knew.)

What about those mad suicidal lemmings? Do you know what Darwin would have to say about them? Who cares when you can read all about those leaping lemmings on Snopes. Well I never.

Hours of educational fun to be had if you're suffering from insomnia. I'd imagine it might also be quite useful in the office, not that I'd encourage that sort of thing mind.
I've got an "If" meme I could be doing but it's just too late to attempt anything even marginally thought provoking right now. I will do it tomorrow.

EU What?

I have Listened and I have Learned

Selective hearing is a condition which appears to afflict an ever increasing number of people. In the days when I spent too much time hanging round in bars it was easy to spot. A number of my friends would immediately respond to the question "do you want another beer?" but saying "it's your round, isn't it?" never seemed to elicit quite such a hasty response. I suffer from the condition myself to some degree. I'm far more likely to hear "would you like a cup of tea?" than "I think the dishes need doing". It does seem to be mostly, but not exclusively, a male condition.

Our great leader has developed selective hearing into something of an art form. The general election result is a case in point. Labour's share of the vote dropped by 5.5%. The Tories share increased by a tiny 0.6%, and the Liberal Democrats share increased by 3.7%. Mr Blair hears this as an endorsement of his policies and a sign that he needs to step further to the right.
That goes beyond selective hearing and reaches a whole new level. I call it twisted listening.

Here's another recent example. The Independent commisioned a poll which showed that 62% of people favoured a switch to a fairer voting system. Our great leader's response was to send out his old flatmate, Lord Falconer, to tell the nation that there was no "groundswell" of support for changes to the system. Blair also put John 'Herod' Prescott in charge of the committee examining the case for electoral reform. Here we see a further evolution to the listening strategy being employed. I think of it as the "not listening but talking" strategy or alternatively the "I'll continually tell you what you think in a loud irritating voice " strategy. I believe this can be used to best effect when you've already made a cast iron commitment to listen on a particular issue. Like this, for example:

We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.
Labour Party manifesto, 1997

I suppose this could also be called the "selective willingness to listen when listening might mean your grasping fingers will be removed from the levers of power" strategy (not really a catchy one that though).

The latest piece of news to reach our great leader has travelled all the way from France. The French have said no to the EU constitution. There are a number of reasons for this "no" vote but it seems partly due to the fact that many French people believe the constitution is full of Anglo-Saxon liberal free market ideas. It is a very complex problem and it will require some careful and considered listening in order to understand where the EU goes next. Our great leader is currently on holiday in Tuscany (I wonder if he has bruschettas for breakfast?) but here's what he had to say:

"The problem is there is another debate going on in Europe, among the people of Europe, which is to do with jobs, economic security, public services and welfare reform in an era of globalisation, illegal immigration, organised crime - issues to do, in other words, with the economy and security that seem to them the issues they want to see leadership from Europe on."
He argued that the constitution was a "perfectly sensible set of rules to govern Europe", but added that there was a "bigger debate now in Europe....
How do we give our citizens proper protection, proper welfare and public services and at the same time remaining strong and competitive and prosperous in this modern world? Now that, in my view, is the question that we need to debate in Europe, alongside whatever decisions are made about Europe."
The Guardian

The Guardians says: "Mr Blair's response is a bit like offering a child a vindaloo curry after they have just said they don't eat spicy food."
The Times says:
Tony Blair seized on the French “no” vote yesterday to back his case for greater economic reform, telling EU members the result showed they must face up to the challenges of globalisation.

Mr Blair takes over the EU presidency in July. It will be a difficult period. The future direction of the EU is up for discussion and many views will have to be reconciled. I hope our great leader takes the time to listen to the debate. Unfortunately for our European friends, I feel it may be beyond him.

Gunboats

The title of this blog is a reflection of the workings of international relations between nations. These relations are often said to be conducted in an environment of Realpolitik. In the days of British Empire it was called Gunboat diplomacy; a heavily armed gunboat at the mouth of the harbour would soon get the natives in line. In these more enlightened times we like to believe that international politics has progressed beyond such actions. The story of the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands puts this belief into perspective.

Last week, the Guardian Weekly reported on the fact that a number of Chagos Islanders are to be allowed to visit their former home islands. These visits will be for a period of no more than 12 hours. No journalists will be allowed to accompany them.

The full story of how the British government has treated the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands shows how far international relations have progressed since the days of Gunboat diplomacy. The Information Clearing House has put the documentary "Stealing a Nation" online.

The Blair government once talked of an "ethical foreign policy". Sadly, it was no more than talk.

Respec' to my PM

The Independent has word on our great leader:
Blair steps in to end 'yob culture' feud

Tony Blair will chair the first meeting of the cabinet committee on antisocial behaviour to end a turf war between ministers who are battling for control of the "yob" agenda.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, and Hazel Blears, who is responsible for the police and antisocial behaviour orders, have been battling to seize control of the agenda...
There have been continuing reports from Whitehall that Mr Clarke was being "highly obstructive" by refusing to give up responsibility for antisocial behaviour.

Yob culture? You're not kidding. There's obstructive behaviour, a bit of battling, and a freaking turf war going on in the mofo cabinet office. I'd say Clarke packs an Uzi, Blears goes for a Glock. That's just speculation though. I'm sure our great leader will bring out the big guns and whip them into line.

In other news, the Independent also reports that Brown's supporters are calling for him to make an early push for the leadership. One nameless former minister says:

"Blair is going to continue messing up the health service with the private sector and education with city academies. That is sufficient reason for Gordon to start manoeuvring."

Now that's what I call respect. Bo!

Dumb Database

I'm against ID cards. I think they're an infringement of my right to privacy.
But some people tell me "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear".
It sounds sensible, and I understand why people say it, but is it really true?

Do you mind if the government wants to record every phone call you ever make?
Do you mind if the government wants to fit a CCTV camera in every room of your house?
Do you mind if every civil servant with a computer terminal has access to your medical records?
After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

You might have nothing to hide, but I'm guessing you'd still feel very uncomfortable with any of the above. One of the three is about to become passed into law.

The NO2ID campaign is the first port of call if you'd like to register your discontent.
And if you think ID cards are a stupid idea, here's a pledge you can sign.

Quick, I'm on the Telly

Real world interference means I have to be extremely brief. I can't not mention this though. It's another hit count frenzy!
That'll really please the conspiracy theorists mentioned here. Pure coincidence but rather amusing.

Good Times, Bad Times

Here are a couple of posts which I felt the need to comment on.

The first, $70 Million for Whitewater, $0 for Downing Street Memo, points out a slight double standard in US politics and links to a new pressure group which aims to do something about it.
The memo in question was first published in the Sunday Times. It's the one from July 2002 which said:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

This wasn't what Mr Bush was telling his country in July '02 though. Many Americans, quite understandably, aren't too happy to have been lied to by their leader over such important issues. Unfortunately, I have to add that I know the feeling.

In the second post, Nosemonkey highlights a spectacularly wrong headed statement. The author proudly assures us that it will be printed in the Times. And it has been. Remarkable.

BBC Bias (or lack of)

Normally I try not to comment on the sites who believe the BBC has a left wing bias. I did write a spoof post about bias in TV media and I think it makes my feelings reasonably clear. Anyway, I just couldn't stop myself from commenting on this post about the BBC radio show, "Off the Ball".
Self described as "the most petty and ill-informed sports programme on radio", I'm amazed that people can get so worked up about it. I left a comment, I couldn't restrain myself. I wasn't trying to be a troll.
Just in case I do get any new visitors, I thought I'd do a quick post to pose three questions. Be honest now:

1 Do you believe privatised news sources tend to have a right wing bias?
2 Have you read this story?
3 The water mentioned in Qu2 is no longer available in the UK, but do you know if it's still available in other countries?

It's worth reflecting on. I'm happy to have at least one mainstream news source which is not subject to the pressures of advertisers.