The Daily Mail and its hard core readership aren't exactly brimming with the milk of human compassion. It is all to often a deeply depressing insight into the dark recesses of bigotry and cynicism passing off as pessimistic insight. A gloomy mush of narrow intolerance and mean mindedness. But I swear Richard Littlejohn actually manages to scale newer and higher heights of this kind of shit in his columns. His writing can still create shock in those who thought they were immune to being surprised at the vileness the Mail will stoop to. Like his column piece that attacked the naming of the victims of the Ipswich murders as sex workers. (I mean this etymological nitpicking is in perfectly good taste in regards to women who had been horribly murdered.) Or taking the piss out of netting put down to stop the brutally overworked Chinese workers jumping to their deaths. This article however broadly attacks the decision to have a minutes silence for the victims in Japan at a premier league football game. Now that is fair enough. You can have your own views on whether these things are profound moments of reflections, or just largely demonstrative window dressing. That is the role of newspaper columnists. But he somehow turns it into some attack on the Japanese atrocities in WW2 (which being over 70 years ago means it is really relevant to today's events in Japan.), and that Japan may as well be on Mars as it is so alien and whatever. It is just so bizarre and horrendously bad taste at the same time. I mean how mean minded does he think his readers are? Here are some of the worst bits.
We get a subtle "charity begins at home" dig.
"Our natural inclination is to wonder how we can help. But besides sending specialist search teams and offering heartfelt sympathy, there is nothing we can do. Japan is an advanced, wealthy nation, which will recover and rebuild over time. It doesn’t need our money."
Fair enough. This sentiment is expressed with some glib crudeness. But the CBAH argument isn't really an argument but an attitude. Perhaps an unpleasant one, but many hold it. It is really the second part of the paragraph that sets the misanthropic tone of the article;
"Despite filling our homes with Japanese electronics and our garages with cars made by Nissan and Toyota, despite the vivid images on TV and assorted social networks, it remains a faraway country of which we know little and understand less."
Although not explicitly said out loud. This appears to imply that as Japan is a long way away, then we should care a little bit less or something like that. You see I kind of thought that basic human empathy would kick in at the plight of any group of people who had suffered a huge loss of life in such a tragic event, regardless of whether they were in Manchester or on Mars.
"Anyone who has visited or worked in Japan will tell you it is like landing on another planet. Beyond the baseball caps and Western clothes, the Japanese people have a distinct culture of their own, which is entirely alien to our own values."
So what? It's not that fucking alien. Lots of Japanese people died horribly. Lots have lost everything they had. Whole towns on the North East coast are gone! I've never been to Japan, but I know that they have suffered really badly with this. It's basic fucking human empathy to sympathise with people in this situation. Why bring this up???
"They are militantly racist and in the past have been capable of great cruelty."
First point. It's sort of racist to call a n entire collective people "militantly racists". Secondly this applies to pretty much every nation on Earth. It's just that some of us British weren't on the end of it, which can change your perspective.
This is when he brings up the war.
"It is wrong to visit the sins of previous generations on their modern descendants,"
Yes it is.
"Yet many surviving members of the Burma Star Association still harbour deep animosity to everyone and all things Japanese"
Now I understand their anger, and the horrible suffering that they endured, and no one can tell them that they are not entitled to think that way. But that doesn't mean that this is a good way to feel. The people who died last week were innocent of the crimes their ancestors commit ed. Littlejohn is sort of implying that the one minute silence was inappropriate because of this (he uses the example of his wife's grandad who was tortured by the Japanese in the war.). But the people who died didn't commit these crimes. As I said, I can understand why the victims of such appalling treatment feel this way. But that does not mean it is a good thing. When you cannot divorce your hostility, even to innocent people who were not responsible for what their ancestors did. That most peoples common humanity comes to light in such a dreadful event, and that boundaries and even past hostilities are overridden in times like this. I find it baffling as to what point he is trying to make. At least the victims of Japanese war crimes had reason to feel this way. Littlejohn doesn't.
Littlejohn bizarrely tries to tie it in with the whole death of Princess Di thing:
"Ever since the hysteria surrounding the death of Lady Di, when half of the nation seemed to take leave of its senses, a section of the population seizes any excuse for a sobfest."
Yeah, the Diana thing was OTT. But this was a huge natural disaster. The two events are really incomparable. To say there has been a sobfest is an exaggeration. People see lots of shattered lives and are moved by it. The mawkish bastards! Hell, Diana's death was a tragedy. She was a young women with two young kids. The scenes after her death were OTT, but it was still a tragic event (for her loved ones especially) nonetheless.
"There is nothing more meaningless than seeing highly-paid, precocious superstars linking arms and standing in silent tribute to victims of an earthquake on the other side of the world."
Again this "other side of the world" spiel. whether they live 100 miles or 10 000, it was still a dreadful tragedy.
"Sam Kirkpatrick, a reader from Stanwick, Northamptonshire, saw a woman taking part in a road race this weekend wearing a T-shirt imploring spectators to: ‘Pray for the Japanese people.’
The implication being: not just that she was advertising the fact that she is a caring soul, but if you don’t pray for Japan you must be a heartless bastard."
How does Sam know why she was wearing it? She may have been a Christian charity raiser or something.
There is a certain amount of demonstrative posing that goes on with tragedies like this. I have no doubt about that. But a lot of the spirit behind the silences, and the lady with the "prey for Japan" T-shirt is well intentioned (though the debate about its effectiveness is another matter.). So at least give them credit for trying. I honestly suspect Littlejohn is both envious and genuinely flummoxed that people behave this way. That people actually can care about shit that doesn't directly relate to them. That Richard Littlejohn cannot relate to the basic human empathy most of us take for granted.
Tuesday 22 March 2011
Sunday 13 March 2011
Very, Very Bad Shit Happens.
There seems little more to say than has already been said about the dreadful events that have happened in the Northeast of Japan. The pictures speak for themselves about the immense destruction the earthquake and tsunami have wrought in that region, they look like scenes from some immense Apocalypse. It is truly a horrific reminder that the world may be a fascinating and beautiful place, it does have the power to viciously bite back at it's inhabitants.
The tsunami has naturally been a massive talking point in both every day conversation and in the online world as well, and I have been struck (though not really surprised) by the amount of pseudoscience that gets brought up when events like this occur. I'm not even talking about understandable stuff such as will the nuclear power stations (or the nuclear fuel) explode? No, as the Uranium fuel rods in a power station aren't weapons grade. The "Supermoon" theory is also utterly idiotic. That the fact that the moon is (supposedly) at its closest orbital position to the Earth (it isn't till the 19th March. A little technicality.).means its gravitational power increases the frequency of earthquakes. This is nonsense. The differences in the distances of the moon have so little influence on gravity and tidal fluctuations on the Earth. It would be like standing 100 meters away from a bonfire, and saying "I'm too warm. I'll stand 100.3 meters away instead." The moon can barely lift the oceanic tides about 6 meters. It can't shift trillions of tonnes of the Earths crust. If the moon wanted to harm humans, it would have done so already.
No, the common sentiment of some of the responses to the disaster is that it is some form of penance for the evils the human race has inflicted on the globe. That it is part of some "cosmic plan.". That hey; it's just like "2012", even though it's 2011, and that 2012 was a made up film anyway. The fact that this is the second earthquake in a rich country after the New Zealand quakes (this apocalyptic spiel doesn't seem to get spouted as much when a poor country like Haiti gets hit by a natural disaster.). Both lie in the Pacific ring of fire, where the most unstable tectonic boundaries are, so yes you will get Earthquakes there. Partly human hubris and the desire to turn random events into a conscious narrative, are to blame. It must be God or "Nature" giving mankind a cosmic bollocking, not just that we live on shifting plates over a 8000 mile wide ball of molten (well some of it) rock, and something has got to give every so often, sadly with awful consequences for those who live on top of it. That we are reaping what we sow with our pollution and stuff. Overlooking that earthquakes don't generally make concessions for tree hugging hippies. That nothing humans did can stop what happened, and that we can't stop these things from happening, only to try to ride them out with specially designed buildings and seabreaks if we can. Or perhaps most frighteningly of all, we are at the merciless; unthinking whim of the lethal arbitrariness of the rough end of nature. Whose plan we can never know, as there isn't one. Perhaps thinking there is a plan makes some people make sense of senselessness.
Saturday 5 March 2011
Scathing Letter to Richard Desmond, From a Daily Star Reporter Who Quit Due to Papers Anti-Muslim Stance
"[I] suspect you see a perfect circle. I see a downward spiral. I see a cascade of shit pirouetting from your penthouse office, caking each layer of management, splattering all in between."
I'm not saying his time at the Star is laced with a healthy dose of cynicism!
The letter has a more serious point to make, and it seems the straw that broke this camels back was the dubious EDL coverage the paper gave, stuff about how the EDL was to become a proper political party. (actually all the story was about was Tommy Robinson, the EDL leader - wanted the EDL to become a political party.) and the incessant anti- Muslim sentiment of the paper. And it is here that Mr. Peppiatt hammers the nail squarely on the head:
"You may have heard the phrase, "The flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil sets off a tornado in Texas." Well, try this: "The lies of a newspaper in London can get a bloke's head caved in down an alley in Bradford."
If you can't see that words matter, you should go back to running porn magazines. But if you do, yet still allow your editors to use inciteful over insightful language, then far from standing up for Britain, you're a menace against all things that make it great."
It's not often that I give someone from Fleet Street credit, but kudos to this guy. If a few more have the balls to vote with their feet, who knows?
Monday 28 February 2011
They Blew it All, Because Bronze Age Bigotry Came First.
Eunice and Owen Johns lost their high court case to become foster carers because they refused to say that a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable. The social services feared that this would be a problem (and it would be) if they adopted a child who would later enter into homosexual lifestyles. Of course this is being seen as yet another occasion when the rights of Christians is being superseded by the rights of homosexuals.
Well it isn't. No one can force the more "rigorous" practitioners to like homosexuality, but when they are in a position to actually put this belief into practice, potentially on a child then we have a problem. It isn't the thought police. It is saying that a person may have views that may result in an adverse situation that clouds their professional approach. That you may have views that are considered controversial in a private setting, but may create a conflict of interest in professional situations.
The law that has brought about the court case, currently says that the rights of a person to live free from homophobic discrimination supersedes their right to be discriminated against on the grounds of religious prejudice. That is the right of a person who had their sexual orientation determined by matters out of their control has the right to not be discriminated against by someone who signed up for a religion, who has the opinion that gayness is bad because some book told them it was. I'm sorry but it is a strange moral standard when an opinion has more moral worth than someone being persecuted for something they had no control over. And no amount of strongly worded letters by Dr Carey about how Christianity is being trampled on by gay rights (well you want to be free to persecute, so go figure.) changes that fact.
I think stories like this wind me up so much because of the sheer wastefulness of them. This couple (and I'm sure they were pretty good foster parents in the past, who had a lot to offer.) went to court to try to justify being specially immune from the law because some old book said (about twice) that they had to discriminate against a whole group of people. I hope it was worth it. That they went all this way to defend a biblical issue that on the scale of things isn't that big a part of the Christian faith. That any reasonable person might have thought that wasting all that energy on upholding a "value" that is so irrelevant and blatantly morally wrong. Now a child has lost the chance of having some kind of stable upbringing because upholding some piece of Bronze age bigotry was obviously far more important. What a waste.
It is interesting that they sort of issue a similar statement of regret, but obviously without seeing the inherent irony of what they say:
"'Worst of all, a vulnerable child has now likely missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home at a time when there are so few people willing to foster or adopt."
Wednesday 23 February 2011
"Sceptic of Sceptics" James Delingpole Defends Homeopathy. Uh?
James Delingpole likes to see himself as some maverick voice, alone in the old wilderness. The only one eyed king in a kingdom of the blind, who can see the whole man made climate change thingy for the elaborate fraud that it is. He claims that this is why he is "reviled" and not because of bad methodology. So it doesn't really help his cause when he writes articles defending homeopathy, and wheels out all the straw man arguments all homeopathic apologists are presumably honour bound to wheel out. You know the "scientists have been wrong before." "It's just like a new religion." and so on.
Tom Chivers has a new post debunking the argument Delingpole makes. He makes perhaps the best counter argument to the claim that people who dismiss homeopathy (or CC deniers) are just as bad as the inquisitors persecuting heretics:
"I’m sure some people do get overly aggressive about some of these things (alas, we don’t all have James’s saintly good manners when it comes to dealing with those with whom we disagree). But the point of scepticism – true scepticism – is that it is constantly evaluating. So, I promise you, if Ben Goldacre, or James Randi, or I (to put myself in some serious company), were to be presented with solid evidence that homeopathy worked, we would alter our position. I don’t even know what “evidence” you could present a Spanish inquisitor to convince them that Jewish children shouldn’t be forcibly converted, or what evidence you could give a witchfinder to show that witches don’t actually exist. The comparison is a nonsense one.
I'll have to remember that one!
Tom Chivers has a new post debunking the argument Delingpole makes. He makes perhaps the best counter argument to the claim that people who dismiss homeopathy (or CC deniers) are just as bad as the inquisitors persecuting heretics:
"I’m sure some people do get overly aggressive about some of these things (alas, we don’t all have James’s saintly good manners when it comes to dealing with those with whom we disagree). But the point of scepticism – true scepticism – is that it is constantly evaluating. So, I promise you, if Ben Goldacre, or James Randi, or I (to put myself in some serious company), were to be presented with solid evidence that homeopathy worked, we would alter our position. I don’t even know what “evidence” you could present a Spanish inquisitor to convince them that Jewish children shouldn’t be forcibly converted, or what evidence you could give a witchfinder to show that witches don’t actually exist. The comparison is a nonsense one.
I'll have to remember that one!
Tuesday 15 February 2011
New Blog. Ooooooh
Remember I said I wanted to do a new blog, separate from this one. I hadn't canned the idea, it just got a little delayed (what's new there with me!!) but I am pleased to say it is now up and running. I need to change the colouring of the fonts, some of the sidebar information, and put it on the blogroll here. I would have done this yesterday but Blogger templates is a fucking nightmare to edit (The spellcheck has decided to stop functioning about two paragraphs down. What the hell's all that about?) It is just horrible on my main machine, but surprisingly not as bad to fiddle with on the laptop (paradoxically that is just so old it takes 34 years to load up.) So it is now up, but the design creases will be ironed out. Unless I end up shooting myself first in frustration at Bloggers petulant silicon behaviour.
the Northernbloke blog will still continue though.
Thursday 10 February 2011
Will the Daily Star Start Openly Supporting the EDL?
This headline is an utter misrepresentation of course. All the actual story boils down to is that EDL leader Tommy Robinson (or Stephen Lennon as he is really called) wants to turn his ramshackle mob into an official political party, somewhat in the manner that Nick Griifin did. Apparently one of his key policies will be, [he] is going to outlaw the Quran and make it more compatible with British traditions. WTF??!!* The story may just be a case of if wishes were horses; we would all ride, on the part of Robinson. No, what is striking is that the Star seems to be ratcheting up support for the EDL. This headline is actually not the most tacit of the signs that Richard Desmond may be allowing his paper to support such a dodgy group. The Star claims in the same article that a phone poll they conducted resulted in a staggering 98% (that figure has been revised to 99% in later articles.) of readers agreeing with the EDL policies**. Admittedly a tabloid phone poll is as dubious as a Jeremy Kyle lie detector test, but what about this loaded strapline from another article, this one about two Muslim Respect councilors not giving a standing ovation (though they both claim to have smiled appreciatively) for a soldier awarded a George Cross medal.
Admittedly the colon does imply that it means that is just the stated intent of the EDL (why not word it ....EDL say they will fight for ....?), but it could be interpreted [by the readers] as an endorsement of the group by the Star, and I am certain this was intentionally done.
If that wasn't bad enough, we then get the following editorial piece, that I will paste in full, as it has to be seen in it's entirety.
"Critics say the English Defence League is a racist, extremist organisation that's filled with hate. The group's leader Tommy Robinson strongly denies this. He says members have no problems with race.
But he admits he is against 'barbaric' Islam and the way it affects Britain. Whatever side of the fence you fall, one thing's for sure.
There is a visibly growing support for the EDL. It is attracting people across Britain to its ranks who feel the same way.
This should be a warning to the major political parties. Key voters are so fed up with them that they are looking elsewhere.
And there are real underlying issues here with Brits who feel abandoned by their leaders.
The EDL are now planning to field election candidates. If the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems don't heed this and address key issues they could soon become a political force.
Then, whether you like them or not, Tommy and his followers will have to be taken very seriously."
Hmmm.
Although not quite a "Hurrah for the Blackshirts.". Is this an all but endorsement of the EDL, from the most racist tabloid in Britain? Which I might add has pumped out the most appalling lies that can only be seen as an attempt to shit stir community relations in this country.
I do wonder if Desmond is using his dying papers, now not "pressured" by the IPCC; as vehicles for his own bizarre xenophobic views. I'm not just talking about the rumours of him singing "Deutchland uber Allies" to his execs whilst goosestepping about in his offices. Check out this article from as far back as 1994 pointing out how his pornos were peppered with an obsessive level of racially related material. What with the whole "Pull out of Europe" thing at the Express and now this. All I do know is that as far as I am concerned, the Star and the EDL thoroughly deserve one another.
Twats.
*This isn't an atypical display of Robinsons buffoonish ignorance. This toe curling performance on Paxo's show gives you a clear indication of Tommy's towering intellect.
** Without being privy to the wording of the phone poll, and how broad the level of "agreement" (though not support) with EDL is, we can take such a lofty figure with a pinch of salt. Likewise there is the fact that those who support the EDL are much more likely to ring in.
Sunday 6 February 2011
Steve Coogan Fights the Good Fight
Oh just what we need! More privileged men abusing their status on telly by picking on an easy target. Not women this time as with Gray and Keys, but with the Top Gear trio on the Mexicans. Captain Slow (who should know better) exclaimed Mexican food looked like sick. Hamster, who doesn't know better said they were all lazy and overweight (a lot of Mexican immigrant workers seem to keep a fair few of the cogs nicely oiled in the US service industry from my experience), and Jeremy Clarkson lambasted them for searching for better opportunities elsewhere. Which is a bit rich from a man who fucked off sharpish out of South Yorkshire to move down south when the offer came. The only thing that ever went faster than the Stig was Jeremy heading south from Doncaster on the M1. What is it with wealthy men pissing on those lower down the ladder? There is something so criminal about this I sometimes want to hit someone repeatedly with a heavy shovel? Enough of the impulse towards random acts of violence, it seems Steve Coogan feels the same and takes them to task in this very good smackdown article. Don't know if you'll be around the Top Gear track again though Steve!
But keep the good fight up.
Saturday 5 February 2011
The Pen is Mightier than the Sword
I had decided to myself to not really comment on the whole Sky football sacking thing. I don't know a lot about football and it wasn't really an incident I knew all that much about. However there have been a series of correspondents to the incident who have followed one familiar theme. That football is a mans game, and that a bit of sexist banter (though telling a female colleague to shove a microphone into your pants seems like stepping over the line a bit.) is just something that women should have to put up with. This is a pet hate of mine. It seems that a certain generation of some men (and it is usually men) have the opinion that casual racism and sexism is both trivial and indeed rather daring. Some of those with this world view have sent letters into the Bolton News (my local paper), one from my old friend Arnold Harrison, the stupidest man in Lancashire, and this offering of verbal crud from Colin Higson of Over Hulton.
ONCE again Steve Jones[1], leading exponent of the PC brigade and all things thereto, twists the facts to suit his argument.
First he says Gray and Keys are entitled to their own views (that itself is an astounding admission for one of his ilk).
Then he goes on to say they should keep their views to themselves (he could take a bit of his own advice and stop lecturing the rest of us with his drivel). If he had taken the trouble to obtain the facts he would have known that they were doing exactly that. It was some other PC maniac that decided on his or her own bat to broadcast a private conversation (nice people, these PC nuts).
If Mr Jones (I apologise if it is wrong or sexist to call him Mr) has ever attended a football match he would know that spectators male and female accuse match officials of not knowing the laws of the game, being blind (sorry visually handicapped ) and having all sorts of afflictions.
He should have heard the woman near me berating the referee’s assistant at the Reebok this week.
Was that sexist? No. She was just doing what all football fans including Gray and Keys do all the time and if by some unfortunate circumstance we are to have female officials forced upon us they will get it, make no mistake, every match as their male colleagues do.
If Mr Jones doesn’t like it he should take up his bed and walk to the top of Rivington Pike away from his keyboard never to regale us with his boring comments ever again.
Colin Higson Over Hulton
This is precisely the kind of mentality that get on my royal tits. Notwithstanding that asking is calling someone "Mr" unPC the stupidest rhetorical question in the history of the universe. No it is that this, and the comments lie it is just blatant apologism for sexist bullying. So I e-mailed this response to the letters page, trying to articulate as best as I can my distaste for this kind of attitude. Hopefully they may actually print it as well.
There have been some worrying letters on this page (Colin Higson “All football supporters have a rant” Feb 5th 2011) and others, as well as in general discussions about the nature of Sky football pundit Andy Grays sacking and Richard Keys resignation in regards to the whole off air furore about their comments about referee Sian Massey. It seems that some people seem to think that blatant sexism is just “something women should put up with.” Because as Colin Higson et al can tell us, just because something like arbitrary discrimination on the basis of someone’s gender is one of this biggest insults to female dignity and liberty going – doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a bad thing[2].
Let us summarise what happened, and why Gray and Keys left. Gray and Keys dismissed the competency of a referee of who they knew nothing about, almost purely on the basis of the XX composition of her chromosomes. How, may I ask; is that any more morally justifiable than when I overheard a guy I once worked with; who upon seeing the new manageress (she was a black lady) sneered “they’ll promote anyone these days.”[3] That comment and this incident highlight why racism and sexism are such moral evils. Writing off the collective worth of a whole subset of humanity on nothing more than them being “the wrong sort.”
Prejudiced comments in (supposed) privacy may be one thing. But school bully boy Grays compounded the sin by making lewd comments about placing a microphone to a female colleague, whilst his trusty little sidekick Keys cackled along like the snivelling little toady he is. Anyone who made these comments would have been disciplined by their boss in any workplace in the UK.
I am sick and tired of chauvinistic bigots dismissing their abuse as a “bit of friendly banter”. Spineless bullies who victimise easy targets always “justify” it in this way.
So let us not say these two buffoons are martyrs to the PC brigade, because they aren’t.
[1] Steve Jones isn't me by the way, and his letter was very good and well argued IMHO.
[2] Yes I blatantly nicked that pun from Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" book.
[3] I have to confess that this never actually happened in the way I said it did. It is a retelling of a quip Tory MP and twat David Heathcote Amery reputedly exclaimed when he saw the black MP Dawn Butler in the members gallery at Westminster. I changed the details as there is a tiny chance that the letters editor might have got cold feet about printing something potentially seen as libelous. But the sentiment of my argument still stands.
ONCE again Steve Jones[1], leading exponent of the PC brigade and all things thereto, twists the facts to suit his argument.
First he says Gray and Keys are entitled to their own views (that itself is an astounding admission for one of his ilk).
Then he goes on to say they should keep their views to themselves (he could take a bit of his own advice and stop lecturing the rest of us with his drivel). If he had taken the trouble to obtain the facts he would have known that they were doing exactly that. It was some other PC maniac that decided on his or her own bat to broadcast a private conversation (nice people, these PC nuts).
If Mr Jones (I apologise if it is wrong or sexist to call him Mr) has ever attended a football match he would know that spectators male and female accuse match officials of not knowing the laws of the game, being blind (sorry visually handicapped ) and having all sorts of afflictions.
He should have heard the woman near me berating the referee’s assistant at the Reebok this week.
Was that sexist? No. She was just doing what all football fans including Gray and Keys do all the time and if by some unfortunate circumstance we are to have female officials forced upon us they will get it, make no mistake, every match as their male colleagues do.
If Mr Jones doesn’t like it he should take up his bed and walk to the top of Rivington Pike away from his keyboard never to regale us with his boring comments ever again.
Colin Higson Over Hulton
This is precisely the kind of mentality that get on my royal tits. Notwithstanding that asking is calling someone "Mr" unPC the stupidest rhetorical question in the history of the universe. No it is that this, and the comments lie it is just blatant apologism for sexist bullying. So I e-mailed this response to the letters page, trying to articulate as best as I can my distaste for this kind of attitude. Hopefully they may actually print it as well.
There have been some worrying letters on this page (Colin Higson “All football supporters have a rant” Feb 5th 2011) and others, as well as in general discussions about the nature of Sky football pundit Andy Grays sacking and Richard Keys resignation in regards to the whole off air furore about their comments about referee Sian Massey. It seems that some people seem to think that blatant sexism is just “something women should put up with.” Because as Colin Higson et al can tell us, just because something like arbitrary discrimination on the basis of someone’s gender is one of this biggest insults to female dignity and liberty going – doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a bad thing[2].
Let us summarise what happened, and why Gray and Keys left. Gray and Keys dismissed the competency of a referee of who they knew nothing about, almost purely on the basis of the XX composition of her chromosomes. How, may I ask; is that any more morally justifiable than when I overheard a guy I once worked with; who upon seeing the new manageress (she was a black lady) sneered “they’ll promote anyone these days.”[3] That comment and this incident highlight why racism and sexism are such moral evils. Writing off the collective worth of a whole subset of humanity on nothing more than them being “the wrong sort.”
Prejudiced comments in (supposed) privacy may be one thing. But school bully boy Grays compounded the sin by making lewd comments about placing a microphone to a female colleague, whilst his trusty little sidekick Keys cackled along like the snivelling little toady he is. Anyone who made these comments would have been disciplined by their boss in any workplace in the UK.
I am sick and tired of chauvinistic bigots dismissing their abuse as a “bit of friendly banter”. Spineless bullies who victimise easy targets always “justify” it in this way.
So let us not say these two buffoons are martyrs to the PC brigade, because they aren’t.
[1] Steve Jones isn't me by the way, and his letter was very good and well argued IMHO.
[2] Yes I blatantly nicked that pun from Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" book.
[3] I have to confess that this never actually happened in the way I said it did. It is a retelling of a quip Tory MP and twat David Heathcote Amery reputedly exclaimed when he saw the black MP Dawn Butler in the members gallery at Westminster. I changed the details as there is a tiny chance that the letters editor might have got cold feet about printing something potentially seen as libelous. But the sentiment of my argument still stands.
Tuesday 1 February 2011
The Expresses "Pull Out of Europe" Crusade is Just Like that Bit in Braveheart, But Quite a Bit Shitter.
The Daily Expresses petition to Downing Street about pulling out of Europe has taken a distinctly "you will not take our freedom" sort of slant, but considerably more shitter than Braveheart was. They had Mel Gibson and a huge army pretending it was the olden days, standing in a field. The Express had to make do with a load of gaudy bin bags full of petitions and a self conscious looking man pretending to be St George and holding a shield made out of cardboard (and I bet this was what he went into media for.). Hollywood this aint! To be fair though they recruited a small army though. They may not have had woad smeared over their faces, or dirty hair and mucky beards (though they should have done this in fancy dress, it would have been well funny.), and an Irish guy with pluck. No all we got was a few dowdy looking Eurosceptic MP's, an Express columnist who was probably there on pain of sacking, and one of the readers who had obviously been paid to turn up and offered a free pub tea into the bargain for showing up.
So far so shit. Why do I even comment on this ridiculous PR stunt? Well it is the wording of the article that tickled me. The Express bigged up the whole thing with this ludicrous comment that shows they haven't quite figured out how this democracy thing works.
"DAVID Cameron was yesterday given the clearest message yet that the UK should leave the European Union."
Hell, we aren't going the way of Egypt are we?
"Editor Peter Hill led a delegation to hand over the bulging sacks of petition coupons signed by 373,000 of our loyal readers."
Er. No. Cancel the threatening flybys of the capital.
373,000. Fucking hell I mean a skateboarding cat on youtube can get more hits than that! I actually checked to see what sort of thing could get 373,000 people to be vaguely interested in something, by getting a comparative viewing figure on youtube, and a video called "I'm Nicki Minaj!! Ask Shane #26" actually topped that by a few thousand. (It's well over 400,000 at the time of writing.) Yes a spoof video of a Noel Gallagher lookalike wearing a Lady Gaga wig, and dancing to a comedy rendition to the tune of "Video Killed the Radio Star" with some camp Jango Fetts as backing dancers (honest) drummed up more interest than a political campaign by a piss poor national newspaper. Why doesn't Richard Desmond ask Shane to do a comedy video of himself dressed up as Gwen Stefani, accompanied by some Hobbits, who take it in turns to shit on a large pretend Euro, whilst dancing to backing music of Hazee Fantasees "John Wayne is Big Leggy" that has had the lyrics changed to "Fuck you, Hermann Van Rumphoy" It could work.
I mean seriously for a national paper crusade, 373,000 signatories for a petition is pathetic. the Express has a daily circulation of around 640,000. That's just circulation. It is reckoned total readership is roughly 2.5 people per single paper. So about 1.6 million perhaps saw this crusade. There were apparently four petition cut outs per paper, so it isn't a case of to few slips to go round. Hell one person could potentially post all four to have four fake signatories. How the hell is this a clear message to David Cameron that we should cut our losses and leave the EU? On the basis of a petition signed by 0.74 percent of the UK population aged over 18. That's the level of popular support the Monster Raving Loony party had for it's policy to paint grey squirrels red to balance the numbers out a bit! Not a monster blow to the establishment that the Express editorials are claiming was it?
I had to laugh at this comment by a Downing Street spokesmen:
"A Downing Street spokeswoman said: “We will respond in the usual way.”
Which translates to "We'll wait till you've gone home and then we'll burn the bloody lot of them."
Monday 31 January 2011
Meet The Sceptics (Those Ones that are Supposed to Have Been Silenced)
If you want proof that the BBC, the supreme mouthpiece of the New Socialist World Order is suppressing the AGW deniers and silencing them in a Inquisition like manner, then look no further than BBC 4's "Meet the Sceptics" where the evil Communist mouthpiece silences the dissidents yet again by giving them an hour long documentary on the forbidden topic. That's pretty impressive for a "countertheory" that has never been able to publish a peer reviewed paper. So forgive me if I don't really buy all this "were silenced" stuff.
I haven't seen it yet, (gonna watch it now. Yikes.) but I'm sure it'll be called "a stitch up" or a "character assassination", the usual stuff.
I haven't seen it yet, (gonna watch it now. Yikes.) but I'm sure it'll be called "a stitch up" or a "character assassination", the usual stuff.
Sunday 30 January 2011
James Delingpole Makes a Grade A Tit of Himself on Horizon Pt II
As we know in part one, Climate "sceptic" James Delingpole was made to look rather silly on the Horizon documentary about "Science under attack" by the royal society president Paul Nurse. Delingpole has been quite slow to respond on his blog about the affair. It really went belly up a bit for him and I think he has been stumped a bit by how badly it backfired for him* and has put up a few articles criticising Ben Goldacre for calling him a "penis" and attacking him for being an "intellectual coward" by supporting the consensus on AGW. Which I think is out of line against a man who could have been taken to the cleaners by the notoriously litigious poo lady and by exposing the murky underworld of the big medical companies and the AIDS denial in South Africa in the "Bad Science" book. He then attacks the mathematician Simon Singh** for being a bit of a bully for tweeting about our lone crusader:
Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate
Oh bloody boohoo. Delingpole, who ironically is not averse to resorting to a bit of playground abuse (libtards) is trying to set himself up as the victim of some kind of Twitter smear campaign of abuse for his noble stance on climate change. Now let me make it clear, I don't approve if he has received threatening messages, but bloody hell he can't half give it but is incapable of taking it. He has essentially used his blog to promote the idea that climate scientists are colluding in a scam to extort trillions of dollars from a gullible Joe Public. That he somehow has somehow he has seen through the tissue of lies that some of the most qualified climatologists in the world have failed to notice. These are big claims, so you might expect to get a bit of flack for stating it. Sorry James that's how the cookie crumbles mate. As I said he has taken a metaphorical cricket bat around the chops, and as everyone knows when the debate goes tits up resort to straw man arguments. Let's take a look at some of Jameses.
"Yet in the opinion of Singh, the worldwide Climate Change industry is the one area where the robust scepticism and empiricism he professes to believe in just doesn’t apply. Apparently, the job of a journalist is just to accept the word of “the scientists” and take it as read that being as they are “scientists” their word is God and it brooks no questioning or dissent"
This shows James has little understanding of how either to critically appraise scientific research properly and what scepticism is. Possibly it is the result of those with a journalistic background being attracted to holding contrarian views from what they perceive as an aloof "elite" Delingpole appears to believe "scientists" are some monolithic cult who dictatorially decide from on high what is scientifically orthodox and what isn't. The vigorously researched evidence for AGW was simply not obtained in that manner. It is not unreasonable for a qualified scientist to take at face value the "views" of an unqualified layman who doesn't appear to know what science is.
"There’s a “consensus” on global warming. It’s immutable and correct. And anyone who disputes it is a vexatious denier informed by nothing but ignorance and who deserves nothing other than to be hounded and bullied and abused by the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, Simon Singh’s Twitter mob, Ben Goldacre’s Twitter mob, and the shrill nest of paid-for trolls who infest the comments below this blog not to present a reasoned case but merely to disrupt and offend."
There is a consensus amongst scientists, a very rigorous one supported by shitloads of evidence to back it up. I shall repeat this again loud and clear.
SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM OR DOGMATIC ORTHODOXY. NOT AT ALL!!!
Thanks for listening!
Well you can split hairs over what you think the motives of the AGW sceptics may be, but I take the philosophy of Johann Hari. All people deserve respect, all ideas don't. Oh and don't accuse your opponents of trying to rubbish the cause; and then do just that in the same paragraph.
"Well I’m sick of it."
Blog about something else then.
"What sickens me is the hypocrisy of people who claim to be in favour of speech, claim to believe in empiricism, claim to be sceptics yet refuse to accept room for an honest, open debate on one of the most important political issues of our time."
Nurse had a debate with you my friend. Horizon asked you on to do that and you fucked it up. Want some credibility, stop relying on shitty research.
**"My case is not that I “James Delingpole have taken a long hard look at the science of global warming and discovered through careful sifting of countless peer-reviewed papers that the experts have got it all wrong.”
If you are going to accuse the folks who wrote these papers of some sort of cover up, I suggest you start swatting up a bit. Bloody hell if you want to stick your neck out, do the homework.
"What I am saying, and I say almost every day, is that the evidence is not as robust as the “consensus” scientists claim; that there are many distinguished scientists all round the world who dispute this alleged “consensus”;"
How would you know? You haven't read the bloody evidence. You just bloody admitted it!
"that true science doesn’t advance through “consensus” and never has;"
Well quite possibly. But it's a bloody good sign of an accurate theory. Newtons third law works just as well today as it did in old Isaacs time.
"that there are many vested interests out there determined and able to spend a great deal of money by making out that the case for catastrophic, man-made global warming is much stronger than it is."
Yeah because high petrol prices and and end to cheap flights have always been real vote winners. Anyway if a scientist did discover that AGW wasn't occurring it would be the find of the century. You'd be lauded, showered with cash and grants from the oil companies. There sending the Nobel Prize your way as well. Real life isn't like a Michael Chrichton novel.
"and because they are not issues which require an exclusively scientific knowledge to understand. They just require the basic journalistic skill of being able to read and analyse."
But a sciencey background sort of helps. Anyone can read a scientific paper, but an unqualified journalist can make mistakes with scientific papers. Melanie Philips for instance didn't realise that Cochrane papers were specifically designed to criticise scientific papers, so she jumped to the wrong conclusions over what was said about the quality of Andrew Wakefields detractors findings. That is why I am all for opening science up to the greater public and journalists who have to report scientific stuff to their readers, but often fail to do so very well.
"Yet despite apparently knowing nothing more about me and what I do than he has learned from a heavily politicised BBC documentary, and maybe heard from his mob of Twitter bully chums or read in the Guardian, Singh feels able to decide that Paul Nurse is right on this issue and I’m wrong. Well I don’t call that an evidence-based argument. I call that dishonest, thoughtless and – given the high ethical standards Singh claims to represent – outrageously hypocritical."
Yes, as just because you haven't actually read the peer reviewed papers on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean you can't loftily proclaim that it's all one huge con by the people who wrote them, and have people give you a round of applause for it.
"“If my cause is really so powerful and right and true, how come its response to any kind of criticism is not to engage with it through argument but merely to try to silence it with censorship, appeals to authority, crude character assassination and establishment cover ups?”
This reasoning is how; inevitably- these kinds of things can self sustain themselves. If they do take you on, they are the scary "establishment" trying to bully the heretics. If they don't take you on, they are trying to hush you up and censor you. The MMR causes autism and Intellegent Design proponents trot this very same argument out, and because it is so superficially plausible on one level, that is why pseudoscience can be so persist ant on the flimsiest of evidence to actually support it. So it is with trepidation that I quote Delingpoles closing words on the whole affair*
"This has been a bruising week for me. But in the long term, I have a strong suspicion, it is going to do far, far more damage to the BBC, to Sir Paul Nurse (and, by extension, to the integrity of the Royal Society) than ever it has done to me."
Pseudoscience, the gift that keeps on giving.
Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate
Oh bloody boohoo. Delingpole, who ironically is not averse to resorting to a bit of playground abuse (libtards) is trying to set himself up as the victim of some kind of Twitter smear campaign of abuse for his noble stance on climate change. Now let me make it clear, I don't approve if he has received threatening messages, but bloody hell he can't half give it but is incapable of taking it. He has essentially used his blog to promote the idea that climate scientists are colluding in a scam to extort trillions of dollars from a gullible Joe Public. That he somehow has somehow he has seen through the tissue of lies that some of the most qualified climatologists in the world have failed to notice. These are big claims, so you might expect to get a bit of flack for stating it. Sorry James that's how the cookie crumbles mate. As I said he has taken a metaphorical cricket bat around the chops, and as everyone knows when the debate goes tits up resort to straw man arguments. Let's take a look at some of Jameses.
"Yet in the opinion of Singh, the worldwide Climate Change industry is the one area where the robust scepticism and empiricism he professes to believe in just doesn’t apply. Apparently, the job of a journalist is just to accept the word of “the scientists” and take it as read that being as they are “scientists” their word is God and it brooks no questioning or dissent"
This shows James has little understanding of how either to critically appraise scientific research properly and what scepticism is. Possibly it is the result of those with a journalistic background being attracted to holding contrarian views from what they perceive as an aloof "elite" Delingpole appears to believe "scientists" are some monolithic cult who dictatorially decide from on high what is scientifically orthodox and what isn't. The vigorously researched evidence for AGW was simply not obtained in that manner. It is not unreasonable for a qualified scientist to take at face value the "views" of an unqualified layman who doesn't appear to know what science is.
"There’s a “consensus” on global warming. It’s immutable and correct. And anyone who disputes it is a vexatious denier informed by nothing but ignorance and who deserves nothing other than to be hounded and bullied and abused by the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, Simon Singh’s Twitter mob, Ben Goldacre’s Twitter mob, and the shrill nest of paid-for trolls who infest the comments below this blog not to present a reasoned case but merely to disrupt and offend."
There is a consensus amongst scientists, a very rigorous one supported by shitloads of evidence to back it up. I shall repeat this again loud and clear.
SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM OR DOGMATIC ORTHODOXY. NOT AT ALL!!!
Thanks for listening!
Well you can split hairs over what you think the motives of the AGW sceptics may be, but I take the philosophy of Johann Hari. All people deserve respect, all ideas don't. Oh and don't accuse your opponents of trying to rubbish the cause; and then do just that in the same paragraph.
"Well I’m sick of it."
Blog about something else then.
"What sickens me is the hypocrisy of people who claim to be in favour of speech, claim to believe in empiricism, claim to be sceptics yet refuse to accept room for an honest, open debate on one of the most important political issues of our time."
Nurse had a debate with you my friend. Horizon asked you on to do that and you fucked it up. Want some credibility, stop relying on shitty research.
**"My case is not that I “James Delingpole have taken a long hard look at the science of global warming and discovered through careful sifting of countless peer-reviewed papers that the experts have got it all wrong.”
If you are going to accuse the folks who wrote these papers of some sort of cover up, I suggest you start swatting up a bit. Bloody hell if you want to stick your neck out, do the homework.
"What I am saying, and I say almost every day, is that the evidence is not as robust as the “consensus” scientists claim; that there are many distinguished scientists all round the world who dispute this alleged “consensus”;"
How would you know? You haven't read the bloody evidence. You just bloody admitted it!
"that true science doesn’t advance through “consensus” and never has;"
Well quite possibly. But it's a bloody good sign of an accurate theory. Newtons third law works just as well today as it did in old Isaacs time.
"that there are many vested interests out there determined and able to spend a great deal of money by making out that the case for catastrophic, man-made global warming is much stronger than it is."
Yeah because high petrol prices and and end to cheap flights have always been real vote winners. Anyway if a scientist did discover that AGW wasn't occurring it would be the find of the century. You'd be lauded, showered with cash and grants from the oil companies. There sending the Nobel Prize your way as well. Real life isn't like a Michael Chrichton novel.
"and because they are not issues which require an exclusively scientific knowledge to understand. They just require the basic journalistic skill of being able to read and analyse."
But a sciencey background sort of helps. Anyone can read a scientific paper, but an unqualified journalist can make mistakes with scientific papers. Melanie Philips for instance didn't realise that Cochrane papers were specifically designed to criticise scientific papers, so she jumped to the wrong conclusions over what was said about the quality of Andrew Wakefields detractors findings. That is why I am all for opening science up to the greater public and journalists who have to report scientific stuff to their readers, but often fail to do so very well.
"Yet despite apparently knowing nothing more about me and what I do than he has learned from a heavily politicised BBC documentary, and maybe heard from his mob of Twitter bully chums or read in the Guardian, Singh feels able to decide that Paul Nurse is right on this issue and I’m wrong. Well I don’t call that an evidence-based argument. I call that dishonest, thoughtless and – given the high ethical standards Singh claims to represent – outrageously hypocritical."
Yes, as just because you haven't actually read the peer reviewed papers on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean you can't loftily proclaim that it's all one huge con by the people who wrote them, and have people give you a round of applause for it.
"“If my cause is really so powerful and right and true, how come its response to any kind of criticism is not to engage with it through argument but merely to try to silence it with censorship, appeals to authority, crude character assassination and establishment cover ups?”
This reasoning is how; inevitably- these kinds of things can self sustain themselves. If they do take you on, they are the scary "establishment" trying to bully the heretics. If they don't take you on, they are trying to hush you up and censor you. The MMR causes autism and Intellegent Design proponents trot this very same argument out, and because it is so superficially plausible on one level, that is why pseudoscience can be so persist ant on the flimsiest of evidence to actually support it. So it is with trepidation that I quote Delingpoles closing words on the whole affair*
"This has been a bruising week for me. But in the long term, I have a strong suspicion, it is going to do far, far more damage to the BBC, to Sir Paul Nurse (and, by extension, to the integrity of the Royal Society) than ever it has done to me."
Pseudoscience, the gift that keeps on giving.
Thursday 27 January 2011
James Delingpole Makes a Grade A Tit of Himself on Horizon (Part I)
It's unbelievable! I go away for a few days (hence why this one follows on a bit later than the actual interview I am posting about) and I get confronted with a feast of fertile blogging fodder that I had no idea was going on as I haven't been on the web at all during the duration, (not always an entirely bad thing to do now and then.) or looked at a newspaper the whole time. Melanie Philips has pissed off almost everyone on Twitter with a bizarre and ill thought out column about the "gay agenda" pushing homosexuality to schoolkids via special awareness topics in their lessons, designed to "destroy the concept of traditional sexuality". Jesus! Two sports pundits given the boot for slagging off a lady ref. A hard line Christian GP who has been appointed to the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs. This is a pretty impressive list of potential topics, but old news is no news, so I have decided to retrospectively comment on the story that has the most personal interest to me of which I have only just found out about this past day as a result of my self imposed news blackout. A story involving a well known climate change skeptic who ended up looking like a complete berk on a BBC documentary. This was one of the most embarrasing interviews ever to grace the box that didn't involve Bill Grundy and any member of the Sex Pistols.
The Horizon documentary titled "Science Under Attack" was presented by the President of the Royal Society; Sir Paul Nurse. In it Nurse was concerned about the discrepancies between what Scientific consensus has to say about - in particular -climate change; GM crops and the nature of the HIV virus, and the general views about these issues in the eyes of the lay public. The programme was good and I genuinely encourage you watch it on I-player (link provided) if you haven't seen it. It focused primarily on climate change, and I was a bit disappointed the other topics took perhaps as much of a backburner as they did as they are all interesting topics in themselves. But as I said climate change is probably the most obvious contemporary scientific topic that creates a controversial divergence between the scientific consensus of climate scientists (around 97 percent agree man made climate change is occurring) and the layperson (half of Americans and a third of Britons think ACC is being deliberately exaggerated) It is unsurprising then that Professor Nurse interviews a climate change denier to find out why this is so, and into this steps James Delingpole, the Daily Telegraphs resident "ACC is bollocks" blogger. The interviews with him in the documentary are stunning, not because Delingpole puts in a good performance, but because; in American parlance - he got his ass handed to him on a plate, a big silver platter even. It is pure car crash stuff. Delingpole is edgy and clearly out of his depth even before the fun starts. Delingpole dismisses "scientific consensus" as unscientific (I presume he makes the mistake of thinking it is just the same as conventional wisdom. Delingpole makes broad sweeping statements throughout the interview but never elaborates, so you can see why we may have to speculate on what he means). Nurse disagrees and says that this amount of consensus over such a long period of time is a healthy sign that the evidence is very strong, and that as scientific superstardom results from demolishing established theories, it must have been pretty robust or it would have been disproved. The killer blow is landed when Nurse proposes a hypothetical scenario to Delingpole and his "consensus is not science" stance. Say he was suffering from cancer and the doctors had come to a unanimous consensually conclusion about his treatment plan, (which happens often) would he reject this treatment for one that hadn't, as happens every once in a blue moon, if that? Delingpole is floored by this. He visibly looks like he wants to stop the interview and hastily tries to change the subject onto the East Anglian e-mails thing. I know some editing goes on with this kind of thing, but my god Delingpole comes off badly on this one. Nurse has stumbled upon what i think is the best way to combat pseudoscience, or conspiracy theories. Point out the bleeding obvious flaws in their logic. People like Delingpole cherry pick data (and ACC involves lots of figures to selectively shove into an article), and quote figures out of context to bolster and inflate the validity of their "stance". They never go for the biggy, disprove the warming effects of carbon dioxide, demolish the whole ACC theory to a chorcoally pile of dust at it's root. They can't. Nurse however is in the position of being able to quietly and calmly attack the major flaws of their arguments without turning it into a slanging match involving the "evil establishment" against the lone Galileo figure in the eyes of a layperson, or looking like a dusty old don being one upped by a polemicist pulling out all the logical fallacies to make his point look one hundred times better than it actually is. It's like calmly explaining to a moon hoaxer who says they had to remove all the stars from the photos, thus why they are not visible; that thinking that not one astronomer or scientist looking at those photos would notice that the stars suddenly being missing was a bit dodgy - is so monumentally fucking stupid that anyone who thinks this shouldn't comment on opening a loaf of bread, let alone expect anyone to take them remotely seriously. The interview also shows (and I am aware of post production editing) to some extent that Delingpole can dish it out on his blog (sometimes in quite a dubious manner) with the largely receptive audience, but is a little squeamish at taking it himself. Hell if as a non-scientist; you want to dismiss 97 percent of respected climate scientists as liars, expect to have to face the harsh questions from a critical point of view. Let us hope we are reclaiming some of the "war against science." Point out the major flaws of the key arguments the pseudoscientists are peddling, and not let them cherry pick on their own terms, and perhaps; perhaps popular perceptions of science will improve. Here's hoping anyway.
Turn in to part II tomorrow where we look at James Delingpoles take on the whole interview.
*POSTSCRIPT. Although the hypothetical question posed by Paul Nurse and Delingpoles response are the point the interview jumped the shark, this doesn't even take into account the lofty claim on his behalf that the entire peer review process has been trashed by the "climategate" affair. How? Again he makes lofty announcements and never backs them up with evidence, or indeed anecdotes. He even admits that it is really a political and not a dispute about scientific research. The admission that he hasn't the time or the scientific know how (Mr. Delingpole has a degree in English) to read peer reviewed research papers on climate change is astounding for a man who spends about 95 percent of his blog "proving" how ACC is made up by communists or whoever. How can he know that the peer review process is irrevocabally damaged by the East anglia broohaha if oh... he hasn't read a fucking peer reviewed paper on the damn subject. Christ in heaven, what was he thinking in this interview? Then he pulls the coup de gracé by saying his job isn't to interpret the data, it is to interpret the interpreted data. Or as it is known in every day terms, "Just having an opinion on stuff". Watch it, it truly has to be seen to be believed.
Friday 21 January 2011
Baroness Warsi and Anti Muslim Bigotry in the UK
I found all of the pictures above just by typing Daily Star / Express Muslims, no loaded terms like racism etc. I also found that what the front page images were saying was either untrue or completely distorted in every item I have put up above. With this in mind it is interesting to hear what Baroness Warsi had to say about anti-Muslim prejudice in the UK today.
Baroness Warsi's speech has been pretty controversial to say the least. If you look on the Telegraph blogs which is generally a good place to find varying right wing conservative opinion (Warsi is a Tory after all.) you get a mixed response to what she said, from the ghastly Lord Tebbit basically saying she should shut her mouth, to Peter Oborne agreeing with her, and lots of comments on his article... er not. As I said the debate is rather confused and seems to fall between two issues, the first being whether or not Muslims are particularly singled out in the prejudice stakes. The second is whether the British have a legitimate reason to fear of Islam / Muslims in the UK to "justify" that fear. Let us look first at argument number one, are Muslims particularly susceptible to prejudice in the UK? In my opinion this is pretty straight forward and I agree with Baroness Warsi that it is pretty widespread and in some ways the acceptable face of prejudice these days. The sentiments around the headlines I have shown imply that British Muslims demand special treatment; that they as the minority expect the majority to confirm to their values. Muslims are ungrateful and unpatriotic towards Britain; no - they actually hate the UK, and that they have a sense of victim hood (listen to Jon Gaunt's claim of "bleating" in this heated interview on the Jeremy Vine show, about 13 minutes in.) and that they have the audacity to claim to be victims of prejudice, a claim no one in the majority should indulge at face value. The sense that the Muslim minority are the recipients of special treatment at the expense of the white majority was in some part a triggering point in the Burnley race riots 10 years ago. Again as with the headlines, this seems t6o be more a case of here say than actually having any basis in objective truth if you care to sift through the evidence. All of which is mixed in with urban myths and misunderstandings over individual anecdotes blown out of proportion and falsely repeated as truths. Anecdotally I do a few hours in my local pub on a Thursday night, and I overheard two separate patrons grumbling about these very things in relation to the Warsi speech, that was in one five hour shift. Then there are those stupid chain posts on facebook, things like "you can't do X in case it offends minorities [aka Muslims], that do the rounds with depressing regularity. So on these levels yes, Muslims in the UK are more vulnerable to facing prejudice in relation to other people.
The second argument revolves around whether Islam, or at least the radical forms of Islam are a threat to modern Britain and the West itself, and is Islam uniquely incompatible with western values? Well in the case of radical Islam yes it is a threat to western values, but that doesn't make it unique. The founding doctrines of Islam like the other Abrahamic sects are a product of their times, which aren't our times. They were written in a rougher tougher age when justice was rough and justice was done by hitting people with swords. Where women's rights were unheard of. Where enslaving your fellow man was just "stuff that happened". It is therefore no surprise that religious fundamentalists of all the major religions will end up clashing with the liberal pluralistic values of the democratic west. The old testament and the harsher end of the Quran is about as far removed from what we would call "western values" as you can get. If Islamic fundamentalists take this stuff at face value then it is unsurprising that some will denounce the west as decadent and whatever. However let us not forget that right wing Christian authoritarians regularly denounce the west, and sectarian organisations like the EDL clearly loathe pluralism and democracy though they claim to be patriotic.
It is often claimed that Islam is uniquely evil and incompatible with western values. This really isn't true. Religions sort of sawtooth in the violence done in their name, at present radical Islam is peeking all over the world, and violence is done in the name of Islam, even on the streets of London in 2005. But let me stress that religious violence is not just confined to Islam, all the major religions will resort to bloodshed if taken to extremes. That when people resort to a combination of dogma, adherence to violent medieval codes of practice and supremacism, then the shit will hit the fan. But that was part of Baroness Warsi's point. Muslims are a diverse group of people, some take it too literally, most pick and choose what to believe. Most probably haven't even read most of the Quran, like most who say they are Christians, who haven't even read most of the Bible. Most modern people either couldn't or wouldn't be able to follow them totally to the letter these days anyway. All Muslims seem to be far to often lumped in as one monolithic group of ultra excitable fanatics who want to burn and stone stuff at the drop of a hat, and that is just removed from reality. As for Islam being uniquely incompatible with a liberal democratic society. Take a look at the protests in Iran in 2009, and the people of Tunisia rising up against a grasping kleptocrat. Seems the people in those countries aren't to keen on living under authoritarian regimes, both countries that are Islamic majority ones.
I would be naive to say that Islam has it's fair share of problems, all human organisations do. The Abrahamic faiths will always struggle to find their place in a modern democratic society that increasingly seems to reject the influence they once had (and a good thing that is too.) and contradicts the archaic doctrines they hold dear. But when I see the horrible comments about Muslims on the Telegraph blogs, and some of the casual racism spouted off as truth, we have to remember that these are human beings we are talking about. Muslims aren't some monolithic alien species who are wholly incompatible and irreconcilably different from the rest of us, a point I believe Ms. Warsi was trying to make, and a point that sometimes needs to be made a lot more.
Wednesday 19 January 2011
Ed West Tries to Tame the Telegraph Blogs Comments (Good Luck!)
Some of the comments on the Torygraph Blogs have to be seen to be believed. The mean mindedness, the stupid conspiracy theories, the dreadful racism, or even just the fact that even the most innocuous of posts seems to end up descending into an argument about holocaust denial. Just the simple lack of humanity of some of them are enough to make you want the end to come that bit quicker. I don't know if it just the luxury of anonymity that produces comments such as those, or we have some pretty fucked up people out there? It is sometimes like peering into some dark dark abyss, when you think to yourself what sort of mindset spews this kind of stuff out.
I also think it must be rather a both embarrassing and unpleasant bit of baggage for the bloggers themselves, and this was sort of confirmed by a blog entry by Ed West today appealing to the people leaving comments to perhaps tone it down a bit. Read what he has to say and not just mouth off all the racist garbage you can think of for once. It seems he has been spooked a bit about a previous post about what he sees as the problem of ghettoism in Muslim communities in Birmingham. The post is a little intellectually lazy, drawing on second hand anecdotes to come to sweeping conclusions, but he is entitled to write about what he likes and community relations are after all an important issue that should be raised. It is the tone of some of the comments that bothers him (and me), they are pretty hard core and some revolve around hints of ethnic war and parts of Britain being ethnically cleansed. Trying to restore some sanity and perspective to the points he was originally making West appeals to the better angels of those leaving the extreme comments:
"People who type “why can’t we discuss this issue?” and then write underneath “WE NEED TO KILL ALL MUSLIMS” don’t seem to understand that they’re the problem, not the solution. The Standpoint story is depressing enough without the comments underneath adding to it. So for God’s sake, try to remember it’s human beings we’re talking about here – don’t kill debate with hatred, and if you have any hatred, save it for me."
I have a feeling that his appeal will largely fall on deaf ears. You will often hear; say a Mail columnist missing the point by claiming that no-one can discuss immigration or race relations without being deemed "racist" by the "liberal elite", that's not really the case. As this appeal unintentionally admits, a lot of it is down to the fact that racist comments have a nasty habit of derailing even the most innocuous of debates on this issue, not always just a fear of some elite howling "racist" at anyone who dares mention the topic. It is little wonder that those on the mainstream tread warily in this area.
I also think it must be rather a both embarrassing and unpleasant bit of baggage for the bloggers themselves, and this was sort of confirmed by a blog entry by Ed West today appealing to the people leaving comments to perhaps tone it down a bit. Read what he has to say and not just mouth off all the racist garbage you can think of for once. It seems he has been spooked a bit about a previous post about what he sees as the problem of ghettoism in Muslim communities in Birmingham. The post is a little intellectually lazy, drawing on second hand anecdotes to come to sweeping conclusions, but he is entitled to write about what he likes and community relations are after all an important issue that should be raised. It is the tone of some of the comments that bothers him (and me), they are pretty hard core and some revolve around hints of ethnic war and parts of Britain being ethnically cleansed. Trying to restore some sanity and perspective to the points he was originally making West appeals to the better angels of those leaving the extreme comments:
"People who type “why can’t we discuss this issue?” and then write underneath “WE NEED TO KILL ALL MUSLIMS” don’t seem to understand that they’re the problem, not the solution. The Standpoint story is depressing enough without the comments underneath adding to it. So for God’s sake, try to remember it’s human beings we’re talking about here – don’t kill debate with hatred, and if you have any hatred, save it for me."
I have a feeling that his appeal will largely fall on deaf ears. You will often hear; say a Mail columnist missing the point by claiming that no-one can discuss immigration or race relations without being deemed "racist" by the "liberal elite", that's not really the case. As this appeal unintentionally admits, a lot of it is down to the fact that racist comments have a nasty habit of derailing even the most innocuous of debates on this issue, not always just a fear of some elite howling "racist" at anyone who dares mention the topic. It is little wonder that those on the mainstream tread warily in this area.
Tuesday 18 January 2011
Upward Mobility Gets a Bit More Elusive.
I'm glad I am not embarking on a degree course this coming year. The obstacles in just getting through all the rigmarole towards a degree these days just seem so much steeper. Especially if you are a student from a poorer background, or even a conventional middle class background as well. I mean when the tuition fees are hitting nine grand a lot of sixth formers are going to seriously question whether it is all worth it. I'm not even talking about the so-called "soft subjects" whatever they may be. I mean even traditional degrees that were seen as gateways to well paying careers (not that should be the be all and end all of studying) such as medicine or finance; law and IT, and so on. Nine grand is a potential huge risk especially in the more competitive areas where jobs may be scarce to start with and perhaps less well paid at the beginning. Sadly I think there are many who are just going to throw the towel in before they even fill in the UCAS form. I'd like to see some sort of brighter side to all this, but then I read this story about three out of five of the more prestigious graduate recruiters planning to filter out graduates who will not or more importantly [for this post] cannot perform unpaid or very limited paid internships to get a bit of work experience. (and lets face it or the employer a free staff member into the bargain.) On the face of it this seems rather sensible. Firstly there are more graduates for fewer posts, so bump up selection criteria. Secondly it can go some way to solving the studying / experience paradox. That is you can't get experience as you are studying, and you can't do the studying whilst you are doing the experience, so you end up having to study for the job, only to not have the experience for the job because you don't have the experience for the job you have to study to get. Lastly it's good CV fodder. However these placements have the downside of being more difficult to do if you don't have much in the way of cash. If you have your own cash or a well off family that/they can see you through the costs of doing unpaid or poorly paid work (some pay the lavish sum of £2.50 p/hr), all those trains, taxis, fuel and buttys and pop start totting up, not to mention the money lost through a gap in earning. Many of these internships may continue after the degree is over and the student loan is drying up. Lower income people are further disadvantaged by possibly having to supplement their income with a paid part time job. Balance this with study, a reduced amount of time available for out of curriculum internship, the possibility of cutting the hours of paid employment (likely needed for household income) to complete the internship. Then the fact of having reduced mobility as you have no savings for a flat or something near the internship, or running a car, or paying for buses. The problems in having to continue unpaid or below minimum wage internship after qualifying is much more pressing for someone of limited means who really needs to start earning decent money that bit more urgently. It is highly depressing to think that many less well off people are going to see the odds so harshly stacked against them, and it will enter their minds "Is this really all worth it?", and I hate to say a fair few are going to think yes.
All in all not a great sign for a future spurt of healthy upward mobility.
Saturday 15 January 2011
The Perfect Stick With Which the Mail Can Use to Beat the NHS
Swine flu has had a great deal of coverage this past few weeks, and none more so than in the very tragic case of young Lana Ameen (3 years old) who died of the illness shortly after Christmas. This has led to some people including (understandably) her grief stricken parents to question the wisdom of the governments scientific advisers advice not to vaccinate children under 5 who showed no outwards symptoms of the illness this time around, unlike last years outbreak. (sadly Lana fell under this category.) There have also been reports of a shortage of flu vaccines (not always just the H1N1 strain. The media always fudge these kinds of technicalities) in some areas, either the result of bodged forward planning or people surging to be vaccinated after they have seen the new criteria for those who should be inoculated (i.e carers etc.) and reacting to the narrative string of deaths from flu that have been reported from around Christmas time, or by stories of left over vaccine from last year being handed out. Concerns about the reasons why the advisers changed the criteria have compounded the issue. The perceived "overkill" in response to the last outbreak (though there was nothing trivial about it to the estimated 457 who were believed to have died of swine flu) may have led to a "dropping of guards", or that some kind of herd immunity from last years inoculations should see this year through as well. Or that procuring massive amounts of vaccine for the under 5's was objectively economically unsound after it was estimated that only one in four under 5's had received the previous call to have the jab last time around. We still live in a society that has a fair amount of suspicion towards vaccination, another wonderful legacy of the MMR scare. Though there are reports of worried parents paying over the odds for private inoculations in the aftermath of Lanas tragic death.
It would be an invidious task for anyone to oversee. To decide how vigorously to respond to an outbreak before it has happened, with a finite amount of money to deal with the problem. If we had Star Treks replicators we could perhaps afford to magic medicine up for everyone with no need to bean count. But sadly we don't, and it is devastatingly hard to know where to draw the line. My own hunch is that under 5's should have remained eligible for the vaccine. But I don't have either the full facts about budget restraints or the medical expertise to really expand on this other than perhaps a theory of being over prepared than under. But as I said I don't have the medical knowledge to expand on that. Amanda Platell of the Daily Mail probably has less knowledge about medicine than I do (and that aint a lot), and probably thinks disease is spread by Satan farting in your face like 15th century folk believed. Unlike me she isn't afraid to make sweeping generalisations and give her uninsightful tuppenceworth;
"One can only imagine the courage it must have taken for Zana and Gemma Ameen to release a picture of their three-year-old daughter Lana in the final hours of her pitifully short life.
Lana died from swine flu on Boxing Day, and now Dr Ameen, a hospital registrar, has spoken out to expose the cruelty of a system that refuses vaccinations against this deadly flu to children under five. Had Lana been given the £6 jab, as her parents had requested, her father is convinced she would still be alive.
Lana died from swine flu on Boxing Day, and now Dr Ameen, a hospital registrar, has spoken out to expose the cruelty of a system that refuses vaccinations against this deadly flu to children under five. Had Lana been given the £6 jab, as her parents had requested, her father is convinced she would still be alive.
Not only does this needless tragedy expose the flawed reasoning behind who is entitled to the inoculations, it also highlights the shameful way the £110billion we now spend on the NHS is used. Or rather, wasted.
Where is the morality in a public health system that removes tattoos and performs boob jobs, yet denies children protection from a known killer?
In a week when we’ve learned that some doctors are getting £100,000 overtime pay, on top of their £96,000 salaries, and that nearly a thousand GPs are on salaries of £200,000, how can it possibly be justified?
The UK’s NHS system still allows wide, free access to patients from anywhere in the EU. Other countries, quite rightly, prioritise their own citizens. Why on earth don’t we?
The truth is that all political parties are terrified of admitting the truth — the NHS needs a complete overhaul. There must be priorities and surely a life-saving drug for a child is more important than vanity procedures and gastric bands for those who can’t control their eating?
Dr Ameen is right when he says the decision not to give children the jab is not about saving lives but saving money.
Dr Ameen is right when he says the decision not to give children the jab is not about saving lives but saving money.
‘Everyone — from her health team to the Government, to me, her Daddy who loved her more than anything in the world — let her down,’ he wrote in this paper yesterday.
And until we stop treating the NHS like some sacred cow, and face up to its failings, children like Lana will continue to be its innocent victims."
And until we stop treating the NHS like some sacred cow, and face up to its failings, children like Lana will continue to be its innocent victims."
This article is revealing in many ways. Firstly it shows that Platell knows nothing about what she is spouting off about. You can't really make direct comparisons between such differing health care procedures such as how far a blanket vaccination program should go and providing gastric bands for a start. The second is that this article is not just an attack on the vaccination program, but a launchpad for a broader attack on the NHS itself, hence all the stuff about treating our own etc... This is perfect material to attack the NHS regardless of what it does. Attack them for being under prepared as this article does, or attack them for wasting money if they over prepare as Lidljohn did in this article . It is win-win for armchair pundits who can safely attack from the office, without ever having to face the responsibility of allocating funding for potential pandemics which no one can ever wholly predict. With this kind of story the NHS can be painted as a bloated incompetent socialist bureaucracy which either wastes taxpayers money, or lets kids die by penny pinching. This is the real point of these polemics, not any sort of insightful critique of the way our health care is funded. So forgive me if I won't be lectured by someone like Platell about facing up to the "failings of the NHS"
Thursday 13 January 2011
Who on Earth is Writing Sarah Palin's Speeches?
The exact nature of the content and theme of Barack Obama's official speech about the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson has been the subject of extreme speculation in the days running up to it. Would he use it to directly attack the Tea Party and Sarah Palin? No. Would he call for unity in the wake of the shootings? Yes. Would he attempt to capitalise politically on it by smearing the more vocal of his opponents and claim they were actually responsible for it and not just some lone nutter? No. The speech I think went down pretty well. He obviously highlighted on calling for national unity and an opportunity to restore debate to bringing people closer together not further and violently apart. Of course his speech focused heavily on the victims of the attack. Such as news that Gabrielle Giffords had actually opened her eyes for the first time since the attack, and then onto the less fortunate victims especially Christina Green who was born when 9/11 occurred and was sadly killed in the shooting. Now it is fairly obvious that Obama is a cool and analytically minded man with a process based legal mindset. Not counting that due to the violent nature of the crime that led to the speech would be difficult for anyone to find the right words to say - this was from a speech perspective not Obamas strongest area (and in a nation that requires a lot of emoting from a leader this has worked against him), however he pulled it off pretty well. The speech was moving and a celebration of the victims lives and the spirit of the nation, not an angry opportunity for a polemic to name names and point fingers. It never seemed either overly sentimental or forced, which is a difficult act to pull off for someone who is not a naturally emotive person. It was as fitting a tribute to the victims and to the country as could have been expected by the head of state. The same can't be said for another speech given by Sarah Palin.
Palins speech; the first one she has made on the shootings since the attack happened wasn't before a live audience but pre-recorded on her website. This makes the biggest gaffe in it totally unfathomable. But let's look at the speech itself. In contrast to Obamas, there was a much greater sense that she used her words to help her own ends into the bargain. A bit of back peddling on her behalf to distance herself from the affair. (Note she wasn't directly responsible for what happened btw) One particular example that stuck out for me was when she quoted something Ronald Reagan had said about rejecting the notion that when a law is broken, society is not at all assumed to be to blame, but the lawbreaker is, and that lawbreaking begins and ends with the lawbreaker. Whether you believe this or not, it is awfully handy to use to distance oneself from the accusations that incendiary rhetoric is fanning the flames in the minds of gunmen with an axe to grind. The speech had a much more self indulgent theme than Obamas did, his was largely an appeal to unity and a memorial to the victims. Palins seemed primarily some kind of damage limitation exercise on her behalf. But the biggest gaffe of all had to be the use of the term "blood libel" to describe the liberal medias attempts to link herself and the Tea Party (I presume that is who she meant) to the shootings. Now let us leave aside that this was supposed to have been a speech lamenting the deaths, and; oh - not about lamenting the bad PR you have been getting from it, I mean who the hell thought using the term "blood libel", a biblical phrase first used to describe the collective guilt the Jews would have to carry the can for for killing Jesus, and was then used to justify the pogroms the Jews faced at the hands of vengeful Christians, was a good idea? Did Palin (or whoever wrote the speech for her) really think that the flack she got was on a par with the victims of these purges? That the fact that Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish should have perhaps raised questions about the suitability of the analogy? That it displayed a staggeringly crass lack of perspective? You really have to ask who put this into the script, a pre recorded one at that; so it can't be dismissed as a slip of the tongue either (admittedly it would have been a very strange one as well). We really have to ask is this women actually more ignorant and gormless than we already suspected. And is it time someone so monumentally unfit for high office should perhaps shuffle off back to her day job sometime soon?
Sunday 9 January 2011
Who Was to Blame for the Massacre in Tucson?
A few of the Telegraph bloggers are suddenly very keen to point out that "the left / liberals" are a bit too eager to pin the blame on the Tea Party and people like Glenn Beck, for encouraging the terrible shootings that have led to six deaths and thirteen injured when lone gunman Jared Loughner opened fire at a meeting where the right wing Democrat congress woman Gabrielle Giffords was holding a meeting, an apparent assassination attempt which has led to Mrs Giffords needing life saving treatment for a bullet to the head, and has caused the deaths of a 9 year old girl; Christina Green*, and several elderly people dead as well. The Torygraph bloggers who have been pretty supportive of the Tea Party are keen to highlight that the left are trying to politicise the massacre for their own ends, and to discredit the Tea Party itself for their own ends. Obviously the blame ultimately lies with the Loughner himself. He fired those shots, he decided to murder people for whatever twisted "reasons" he may have had. But the controversy around Palin and Becks antics on the part of "the left" and others in relation to the shooting is not a politicising act as such, but (IMHO) serious questions about the nature 0f the kind of rhetoric emanating in some right wing; anti government; libertarian circles. Now there is no evidence that Lolughner was a Tea partier, and if you can stomach reading the self pitying incoherent drivel he has posted in the past, he comes across as an unbalanced anti-government paranoid conspiracy theorist who is attracted to both hard left and hard right sentiment, a classic self pitying fanatic with an axe to grind who thinks the system is spying on him and is to blame for his own failings as a person, and that all us schmucks are too thick to see what he can.
Now back to the criticisms of Beck and Palin. Obviously they aren't responsible for the massacre, and should not take direct blame for it. However, and this is where I'm sorry to say - mud sticks. The level of some of the sentiment from their supporters has been geared towards implied violence. Some of the more fringe extremes have been echoing sentiments in the mould of the placard above. There has been rather a lot of use of metaphors relating to aggression and violence and an inability to even entertain the notion of listening to the opposing side. Not even taking into account the innocuous "Mama Grizzly" thing. Stuff like the rattlesnake poster saying "don't step on me!" or Palin using the "gunsight map" to make a stand against the 20 reps who voted for the healthcare reforms (including Gabrielle Giffords herself). Palin has been keen to remove it from her website since the attack occurred. Now let me emphasise again, Sarah Palin did not guide the hand that fired the bullets, the killer is to blame for what happened. But that does not excuse the harsh incendiary rhetoric that has been doing the rounds. To quote the republican David Frum (so it isn't just leftys who have condemned the militant language):
"Conservatives have been quick to repudiate – to brand as offensive and disgusting – any suggestion that the Tucson shooting was somehow inspired by the extreme anti-Obama political rhetoric of the past 2 years.
In this, conservatives have the facts on their side. By all reports, the Tucson shooter was a very mentally disturbed person. Even if Jared Lee Loughner was aware that Sarah Palin’s PAC had posted a gun sight next to Congresswoman Gifford’s name, that awareness cannot be translated into a motivation. It makes no sense to talk of the “motive” of someone who is fundamentally irrational.
That point should be acknowledged, accepted, and internalized. Yet as we acknowledge that extremist rhetoric did not incite this crime, it should also be acknowledged that the rhetoric has been extreme, and potentially dangerously so. I wrote in April 2009:
A man bearing a sidearm appears outside President Obama’s Aug. 11 town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., under a sign proclaiming, “It is time to water the tree of liberty.”
That phrase of course references a famous statement of Thomas Jefferson’s, from a 1787 letter: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”
That phrase of course references a famous statement of Thomas Jefferson’s, from a 1787 letter: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”
Earlier that same day, another man is arrested inside the school building in which the president will speak. Police found a loaded handgun in his parked car.
At an event held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona last week, police were called after one attendee dropped a gun.
Nobody has been hurt so far. We can all hope that nobody will be. But firearms and politics never mix well. They mix especially badly with a third ingredient: the increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters.
The Nazi comparisons from Rush Limbaugh; broadcaster Mark Levin asserting that President Obama is “literally at war with the American people”; former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claiming that the president was planning “death panels” to extirpate the aged and disabled; the charges that the president is a fascist, a socialist, a Marxist, an illegitimate Kenyan fraud, that he “harbors a deep resentment of America,” that he feels a “deep-seated hatred of white people,” that his government is preparing concentration camps, that it is operating snitch lines, that it is planning to wipe away American liberties”: All this hysterical and provocative talk invites, incites, and prepares a prefabricated justification for violence.
Again: this talk did not cause this crime. But this crime should summon us to some reflection on this talk. Better: This crime should summon us to a quiet collective resolution to cease this kind of talk and to cease to indulge those who engage in it.
Although there is always the risk of a loony with an axe to grind going on a shooting rampage whatever you say, or however eloquently you word your views. The sentiments on Glenn Becks show, and the more militant talk on the murky ends of the tea party are music to the ears of a paranoid misfit with an irrational hatred of big government, or any for of government whatsoever and in any form. When Beck equates firearms control with the rise of National Socialism, or calls Obama a white hater without any evidence to back that up, these kinds of people are going to listen. When suggestive imagery about "gunning" after your opponents may cause someone like Palin to perhaps worry that someone could take her literally, especially when people have been turning up to these meetings brandishing firearms that would not be out of place on a bloody battlefield (why do you need such a large arsenal by the way. How big are the coyotes on your farm?) When right wing news networks totally exaggerate the perceived dangers of social democracy such as health care reform as "some doctors are going to send granny to the gas chambers." or pro abortion as "Stalins USSR". This feeds the paranoia of frightened disturbed individuals who think the establishment is out to get them. Is it not too much to ask that those who may be cynically manipulating this stuff, to see that they may be stirring things up that they may not be able to control. Do they even comprehend where it could lead? The right are often quick to highlight European nations slackness on zealous ultra Islamic preachers using militant rhetoric, and that we shouldn't be surprised if a devotee may take their words to horrific conclusions. The same applies here. For all the talk of liberty, there seems a lot of fascistic violent sentiment doing the rounds. Time for more constructive dialogue with opponents, and less threatening demagogy .
*Christina was born on September 11th 2001. She was at the meeting to highlight the positive things that happened that day. What a tragc irony. Utterly heartbreaking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
