An archive of quotes on the topic of Nationalism.
This first selection comes from an essay written by William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies. He is trying to describe the ideas and impulses rattling around in his head when he set out to write the book. It is a beautiful piece of writing, and contains a lot of trenchant commentary on the ills of chauvinism.
The essay is titled 'Fable' and I encountered it in a collection of Golding's writings called The Hot Gates.
"There are always enough silly people in any country to form a sizeable mass movement."
"... my point is that however pathetic or amusing we we find these lesser manifestations of prejudice, when they go beyond a certain point no-one in the world can doubt that they are wholly evil. Jew and Arab in the name of religion. Jew and Nordic in the name of race. Negro and white in the name of God knows what."
"... one lot of people is inherently like any otherlot of people; and the only enemy of man is inside him."
"I condemn and detest my country's fault precisely because I am so proud of her many virtues. One of our faults is to beluieve that evil is somewhere else and inherent in another nation"
"But I know why the thing rose in Germany. I know it could happen in any country. It could happen here."
"Ugly nationalism raising its Gorgon head."
"... what I am trying to do is add together these elements, some horrible, some merely funny, but all significant ... they are a failure of human sympathy, ignorance of facts, the objectivizing of our own inadequacies to make a scapegoat."
"If humanity has a future on this planet of a hundred million years, it is unthinkable that it should spend these aeons in a ferment of national self-satisfaction and chauvanistic idiocies."
"Thepoint about off-campus history is that it is alway dead ... it is a cloak of national prestige which the uneducated pull around their shoulders to keep off the wind of personal self-knowledge."
"it is a dead thing handed on,, but dead though it is, it will not lie down. It is a monstrous creature descending to us from our ancestors, producing nothing but disunity, chaos. Disorder and war prolong in it the ghastly and ironic semblance of life. All the marching and counter marching, the flags, the heroism and cruelty, are mere galvanic twtches induced in its slaves and subjects by that hideous parody thing."
"People do not much like moral lessons. The pill has to be sugared ... also, the moralist has to be out of his victim's reach, when the full impact of the lesson strikes him. For the moralist has made an unforgivable assumption; namely, that he knows better than his reader; nor does a good intention save him. If the pill is not sufficiently sugared it will not be swallowed. If the moral is terrible enough he will be regarded as inhuman; and if the edge of his parable cuts deep enough, he will be crucified."
"So many people liquidated - lovely, elegant word."
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Monday, 2 April 2007
Just Repeal Section 59, Please
I wasn't going to say anything about the so-called 'anti-smacking' bill, because I am sick of hearing about it. I think I might have been sick of it before I even heard of it, who knows? But it is impossible not to hear about it. It seems to haunt the media like the ghost of old Hamlet, or the notorious hob-goblin that . Enough, I say! Repeal section 59, because it is the only way to lay this unquiet spirit. If we don't repeal, it will rise again.
I am entirely in favour of the repeal of Section 59. But every time it is debated or discussed, something pecculiar happens. If some one advocates its repeal, I find myself arguing against them. Then someone demmands it is retained, and I launch into an internal tirade about why it has to be scrapped. The reson for this is simple - both sides of the argument seem to be inhabited by idiots, incapable of summoning a good reson in support of their position. Most of them are just plain wrong, either through stupidity or wilful dishonesty.
Sue Bradford's private members bill seeks to repeal Section 59. Let's look at Section 59, first of all. It reads as follows: "Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances."
Bradford's bill is intended to excise this, so parents will no longer be able to justify their actions with a defence of 'reasonable force' if they are charged with assaulting their child. That is all. It does not mean that every lightly administered slap will result in parents being jailed, or even charged, just as they are not currently jailed or charged at police discretion. Police will investigate a complaint made - but they do this anyway. If I see you slap your child in the suprmarket, and I am sucha hopeless busybody as to complain to a police officer about it, he will investigate the incident, whether Section 59 is repealed or not. The police officer will have the same discretion to charge the parent as they do now, and in cases of trivial smacking, they won't charge, just like they would not charge. The only difference would occur if a charge was laid - and whether or not Section 59 is on the books, that would require more than a typical smack. Then a parent won't be able to claim they thought the force used was 'reasonable' - it will be at the discretion of the court. But (to re-iterate) a parent who lightly smacks a naughty child is no more likely to end up being charged if Section 59 is repealed, than they are now.
So the endless stream of people on TV and the radio claiming that this bill will 'criminalise good parents' are talking nonsense, knowingly or otherwise. I was not surprised to see the usual suspects, the inhabitants of rightwing thinktanks and pressure roup howling their opposition to the bill. I was somewhat disappointed to see Bill English joining in with this, but I suppose he has a job to do. Polls were taken showing that 84% of New Zealanders supported a parent's right to smack a naughty child - no mention of the fact that parents will be just as safe doing so when Section 59 is repealed, as they are now.
Given the hysterical but inaccuracte nature of the opposition to Bradford's bill, one would have thought the argument would be over and the bill passed by now. Alas, not so. No matter how pathetic and shoddy the arguments put forward by the pro-Section 59 faction, the Repeal faction always managed to stoop to some new low to make their case look weaker than the (non-existant) case of their opponents. First of all, Sue Bradford offered her opinion that her bill would lead to a total ban on smacking. This was duly seized upon. Bradford's opinion, of course is irrelevant. What matters is what is on the statute book. Bradford might believe her bill will convert the moon into cheese, but if that is not what the law says, it doesn't matter. Then Labour masterfully weighed into the debate, forcing all their MPs to vote as a block in favour of repeal, which simply gave the clamouring hordes more ammunition, and damaged Labour's image further (another part of their masterplan to lose the next election, perhaps?). Finally, jus twhen it seemed that common sense might prevail, Helen Clarke started claiming this bill would ban child abuse, at which point any chance of serious discussion was lost forever.
The pro-59 camp state, rightly, that repealing section 59 won't stop savage thugs brutalising children. Coral Burrows would still be dead if Section 59 had been reprealed before her despicable swine of a step-father brutally murdered her, because scum like him don't care. This sort of argument was effectively used to make the repeal camp look hopelessly stupid and bumbling, and, frankly, they deserved it. Of course the repeal of Sction 59 will not stop the unspeakable murder and abuse of children, no more than it will criminalize caring parents who lightly smack their children. Neither extreme will be toched by the repeal, the abusers because they will simply ignore the repeal, and the responsible parents because no police officer would charge them, just like they elect not to charge now. The only people who would be affected are those in the gray area in between - the one who think thrashing a child with a cane for spilling a drink is 'reasonable force' - the sort who's behaviour all those responsible parents who will NOT be criminalised by repeal, would find shocking and abhorrent.
So please, please, put away the toys and lets be sensible about this. Repealing Section 59 will not criminalise everyday parents. It will not stop vicious thugs from being vicious thugs. But it will force those inbetween to reconsider where they stand, and what they do to their children.
ADDENDUM - 4/4/07
When the repeal of section 59 is passed (and it will be, sooner or later) the only noticable consequence will be this; a sharp increase (a spike or surge, to borrow from George Bush) in the number of complaints laid with the police about children being smacked.
What will have caused this? Not, contrary to instinct, the repeal of Section 59. That will only come into play once the complaint has been laid and followed up by the police, and charges laid.
What will cause the increase in complaints will be public ignorance; the fact that people don't understand how the law is being changed, and how this will affect them.
As a stay-at-home father, I am a member of a coffee group, which meets weekly. At the last wmeeting, this topic came up. Not one of the others present understood what the change in law actually meant to them as parents. They all seemed to be under the impression that the bill set out to ban smacking entirely. I explained this was not so, and what the bill actually entailed, and what differences this would mean compared to the current situation (short answer, none, unless you are a parent who beats their children so savagely that a police officer would consider it assault).
How can it be that a bill can be so widely and vocally debatded, and somehow people are left off knowing less about it than before?
The answer is in the populist button-pushing of the right, and the craven complicity of the mainstream media in New Zealand. The fact that the repeal bill is almost universally referred to as the 'anti-smacking bill' is an example of how the rightwing opponents of the bill have set out to deliberately misrepresent the bill, appealing to the perfectly natural fear of responsible parents that they are somehow going to be criminalised.
In doing this, the National, and those allied with National, hope to embarrass the government. In this they are suceeding very nicely. The government is starting to look very foolish indeed. But by setting out to scupper the bill, campaigning on lies and misrepresentations, they are leaving children at risk, the middle group I mentioned above. National and its allies should be ashamed of their opportunism, trading the health of children for political gain.
I am entirely in favour of the repeal of Section 59. But every time it is debated or discussed, something pecculiar happens. If some one advocates its repeal, I find myself arguing against them. Then someone demmands it is retained, and I launch into an internal tirade about why it has to be scrapped. The reson for this is simple - both sides of the argument seem to be inhabited by idiots, incapable of summoning a good reson in support of their position. Most of them are just plain wrong, either through stupidity or wilful dishonesty.
Sue Bradford's private members bill seeks to repeal Section 59. Let's look at Section 59, first of all. It reads as follows: "Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances."
Bradford's bill is intended to excise this, so parents will no longer be able to justify their actions with a defence of 'reasonable force' if they are charged with assaulting their child. That is all. It does not mean that every lightly administered slap will result in parents being jailed, or even charged, just as they are not currently jailed or charged at police discretion. Police will investigate a complaint made - but they do this anyway. If I see you slap your child in the suprmarket, and I am sucha hopeless busybody as to complain to a police officer about it, he will investigate the incident, whether Section 59 is repealed or not. The police officer will have the same discretion to charge the parent as they do now, and in cases of trivial smacking, they won't charge, just like they would not charge. The only difference would occur if a charge was laid - and whether or not Section 59 is on the books, that would require more than a typical smack. Then a parent won't be able to claim they thought the force used was 'reasonable' - it will be at the discretion of the court. But (to re-iterate) a parent who lightly smacks a naughty child is no more likely to end up being charged if Section 59 is repealed, than they are now.
So the endless stream of people on TV and the radio claiming that this bill will 'criminalise good parents' are talking nonsense, knowingly or otherwise. I was not surprised to see the usual suspects, the inhabitants of rightwing thinktanks and pressure roup howling their opposition to the bill. I was somewhat disappointed to see Bill English joining in with this, but I suppose he has a job to do. Polls were taken showing that 84% of New Zealanders supported a parent's right to smack a naughty child - no mention of the fact that parents will be just as safe doing so when Section 59 is repealed, as they are now.
Given the hysterical but inaccuracte nature of the opposition to Bradford's bill, one would have thought the argument would be over and the bill passed by now. Alas, not so. No matter how pathetic and shoddy the arguments put forward by the pro-Section 59 faction, the Repeal faction always managed to stoop to some new low to make their case look weaker than the (non-existant) case of their opponents. First of all, Sue Bradford offered her opinion that her bill would lead to a total ban on smacking. This was duly seized upon. Bradford's opinion, of course is irrelevant. What matters is what is on the statute book. Bradford might believe her bill will convert the moon into cheese, but if that is not what the law says, it doesn't matter. Then Labour masterfully weighed into the debate, forcing all their MPs to vote as a block in favour of repeal, which simply gave the clamouring hordes more ammunition, and damaged Labour's image further (another part of their masterplan to lose the next election, perhaps?). Finally, jus twhen it seemed that common sense might prevail, Helen Clarke started claiming this bill would ban child abuse, at which point any chance of serious discussion was lost forever.
The pro-59 camp state, rightly, that repealing section 59 won't stop savage thugs brutalising children. Coral Burrows would still be dead if Section 59 had been reprealed before her despicable swine of a step-father brutally murdered her, because scum like him don't care. This sort of argument was effectively used to make the repeal camp look hopelessly stupid and bumbling, and, frankly, they deserved it. Of course the repeal of Sction 59 will not stop the unspeakable murder and abuse of children, no more than it will criminalize caring parents who lightly smack their children. Neither extreme will be toched by the repeal, the abusers because they will simply ignore the repeal, and the responsible parents because no police officer would charge them, just like they elect not to charge now. The only people who would be affected are those in the gray area in between - the one who think thrashing a child with a cane for spilling a drink is 'reasonable force' - the sort who's behaviour all those responsible parents who will NOT be criminalised by repeal, would find shocking and abhorrent.
So please, please, put away the toys and lets be sensible about this. Repealing Section 59 will not criminalise everyday parents. It will not stop vicious thugs from being vicious thugs. But it will force those inbetween to reconsider where they stand, and what they do to their children.
ADDENDUM - 4/4/07
When the repeal of section 59 is passed (and it will be, sooner or later) the only noticable consequence will be this; a sharp increase (a spike or surge, to borrow from George Bush) in the number of complaints laid with the police about children being smacked.
What will have caused this? Not, contrary to instinct, the repeal of Section 59. That will only come into play once the complaint has been laid and followed up by the police, and charges laid.
What will cause the increase in complaints will be public ignorance; the fact that people don't understand how the law is being changed, and how this will affect them.
As a stay-at-home father, I am a member of a coffee group, which meets weekly. At the last wmeeting, this topic came up. Not one of the others present understood what the change in law actually meant to them as parents. They all seemed to be under the impression that the bill set out to ban smacking entirely. I explained this was not so, and what the bill actually entailed, and what differences this would mean compared to the current situation (short answer, none, unless you are a parent who beats their children so savagely that a police officer would consider it assault).
How can it be that a bill can be so widely and vocally debatded, and somehow people are left off knowing less about it than before?
The answer is in the populist button-pushing of the right, and the craven complicity of the mainstream media in New Zealand. The fact that the repeal bill is almost universally referred to as the 'anti-smacking bill' is an example of how the rightwing opponents of the bill have set out to deliberately misrepresent the bill, appealing to the perfectly natural fear of responsible parents that they are somehow going to be criminalised.
In doing this, the National, and those allied with National, hope to embarrass the government. In this they are suceeding very nicely. The government is starting to look very foolish indeed. But by setting out to scupper the bill, campaigning on lies and misrepresentations, they are leaving children at risk, the middle group I mentioned above. National and its allies should be ashamed of their opportunism, trading the health of children for political gain.
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Richard LittleJohn: fat, wrong, racist, homophobic ... plagarist?
Richard Littlejohn is a class-A knob. If he knew me, he'd be very pleased to know I think this. He''s a rightwing scribbler with the British Daily Mail. He exudes a bargain basement blokeishness and purports to scorn what he perceives as political correctness.
Recently he published a rant in typical style, rambling on about ... well, I'm not sure really. Work-shy shirkers in Britain or some such, and then he veered off onto the topic of single mothers getting helped back into the work-force. I can't fathom his logic here at all. First, he thins too many people are sitting on their arses not working, then he complains if some action is taken to try and get them back to work.
Anyway, that isn't my point. My point is that Littlejohn seems to have lifted parts of his article from the work of another Daily Mail writer, Nigel Green. Here is Littlejohn's piece, in full:
Through some random google blasting, I happened to discover that Littlejohn's article had some striking resemblances to another, written by Nigel Green, also in the Daily Mail, a few days before:
I've highlighted the similarities. True, Littlejohn has changed a word here or there - "any single parent" becomes "any out of work single mum" and so on, but it looks like Littlejohn has simply 'borrowed' parts of Green's work and is passing it off as his own. I don't know if Nigel green would care about this - given that they both work for the Mail, he might have (blokeishly) asked, 'Oi, Nige, can I use a bit of that guff you wrote about slags getting their nails filed?' But he is presenting the work as if it is his own. He's too fat and lazy to even bother writing his own column any longer, he cobbles it together from other people's (unacknowledged) work.
Recently he published a rant in typical style, rambling on about ... well, I'm not sure really. Work-shy shirkers in Britain or some such, and then he veered off onto the topic of single mothers getting helped back into the work-force. I can't fathom his logic here at all. First, he thins too many people are sitting on their arses not working, then he complains if some action is taken to try and get them back to work.
Anyway, that isn't my point. My point is that Littlejohn seems to have lifted parts of his article from the work of another Daily Mail writer, Nigel Green. Here is Littlejohn's piece, in full:
Why should we pay for Vicky Pollard to have a manicure?
23:24pm
12th March
2007More than one million immigrants are working in Britain, according to
official figures. Double that, add in the date of your mum's birthday and your mobile phone number and you'll probably be somewhere nearer the truth.We are told that we have to import all these foreign nationals to fill the avalanche of jobs created by the Gordon Brown economic miracle.
These are vacancies which the British can't or won't fill, it is alleged. Why
not? At the last count there were estimated to be five million people under
the age of retirement who are classified as "economically inactive".This includes the unemployed, the unemployable and those claiming to be incapacitated. But there is absolutely no reason why anyone should be
out of work in Britain today.There are jobs aplenty, even if it means - in Norman Tebbit's memorable term - getting on your bike.
Is there no one of British birth living in the Morecambe Bay area who is capable of picking a cockle? When I worked in East Anglia, the sugar beet managed to get harvested without the aid of the Chinese.
There must be someone signing on in South London who could manage to push a
mop round a hotel bathroom. Why aren't able-bodied young men queuing up to
train as plumbers and bricklayers instead of collecting the dole?Eastern Europeans seem to have little difficulty finding work on building sites. It was claimed yesterday that you can't get a plumber for love nor money in Poland
because they've all moved here.I don't blame any immigrant who wants to come to Britain for a better life and is prepared to get his hands dirty. But there wouldn't be so much work for them if so many of the indigenous population weren't bone idle.
We used to have a word for the long-term unemployed - workshy. And as for all those claiming incapacity benefit, they can't all be off with bad backs. Let's acknowledge that there are some people physically unable to work. But I simply refuse to accept that there are five million of them.
The real problem is the dependency culture, which has removed any incentive for people to work. It's all carrot and no stick.
Take the latest daft idea to tackle the "self-esteem issues" of unemployed single
parents. They are being given free manicures and massages to "boost their
confidence".As part of a pilot scheme in Hereford, Worcester, Northumberland, Durham and Greater Manchester, any out of work single mum can choose from a range of treatments, including reflexology, a facial, a new hairdo and even ear-piercing.
When the post-war Labour government established the welfare state, did anyone ever imagine that its provisions would extend to giving Vicky Pollard and her
mates free council estate facelifts and nails like Barry White's girlfriend?Was piercing the ears of unemployed teenage mothers part of Beveridge's great vision?
I shouldn't be surprised if they're not throwing in tattoos, too.
A girl who works in one of the salons chosen to participate in the scheme said: "They didn't look like they needed their confidence boosting -they were all very loud.
"They seemed to have a really good time. One of them was talking into her mobile phone and laughing and joking with a friend about how she was still drunk from the night before when she woke up that morning."
At least £60,000 has been blown on this ridiculous exercise already and there are plans to extend it across the country.
There is no reason why anyone on benefits should receive any more than someone working for the minimum wage, yet being an unemployed single mother is a pretty lucrative full-time job these days.
I repeat, good luck to any immigrant who comes here to work. But it is a national
disgrace that while people from all over the world are flocking to Britain to fill all the jobs on offer, the State is paying five million to stay at home playing daytime TV quiz games and bankrolling gormless trollops to loll around beauty salons.
Through some random google blasting, I happened to discover that Littlejohn's article had some striking resemblances to another, written by Nigel Green, also in the Daily Mail, a few days before:
Now the jobless get manicures, massages and facials ... all thanks to the taxpayer
By NIGEL GREEN - More by this author »
Last updated at 21:37pm on 10th March 2007
Unemployed single parents are receiving free massages and beauty treatments - paid for by taxpayers.
Under the Government-backed scheme, being tested around the country, they are being given the treats to 'boost their confidence'.
So far, more than 1,000 people, mainly women, have taken advantage of 'pamper days' at salons as part of the project, called Big Brother. It has been justified on the grounds that if jobless people are happier and more presentable, it will be easier for them to find work.
But critics say the project is a waste of public money. So far the cost to taxpayers is at least £60,000, but the figure is likely to spiral.
The scheme - in operation in Hereford, Worcester, Northumberland,
Durham and Greater Manchester - is open to any single parent over the age of 18 who has been unemployed or on disability benefit for at least six months. They can choose from a range of treatments, including a massage, a haircut, new make-up, a facial, a manicure and even ear-piercing.
They can also claim a separate £30 handout to spend on a shopping trip for new clothes, and are eligible for free lunches and childcare.
The Big Brother scheme is run by Inspire2Independence, a private company based in York. It is backed by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and the European Union. Neither the DWP nor Inspire2Independence would say how much public money was being spent on the scheme.
A teenage girl who works in a salon used by the single parents was
critical of the initiative. 'They didn't look like they needed their confidence boosting - they were all very loud,' said the girl, who did not want to be identified.
'They seemed to have a really good time. One of them was talking into her mobile phone and laughing and joking with a friend about how she was still drunk from the night before when she woke up that morning. Many of them had tattoos and were wearing crop-tops.'
(Continues: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441445&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source)
I've highlighted the similarities. True, Littlejohn has changed a word here or there - "any single parent" becomes "any out of work single mum" and so on, but it looks like Littlejohn has simply 'borrowed' parts of Green's work and is passing it off as his own. I don't know if Nigel green would care about this - given that they both work for the Mail, he might have (blokeishly) asked, 'Oi, Nige, can I use a bit of that guff you wrote about slags getting their nails filed?' But he is presenting the work as if it is his own. He's too fat and lazy to even bother writing his own column any longer, he cobbles it together from other people's (unacknowledged) work.
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Monbiot attacks climate change scare tactics
Recently, Channel 4 in Britain aired a program called 'The Great Climate Change Swindle.' I have not seen it (C4 in Britain is not quite the same thing as C4 in New Zealand ...) but I have been involved in arguments about climate change before, during and after the program was shown.
This is what George Monbiot made of it, in The Guardian:
This is what George Monbiot made of it, in The Guardian:
Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the dark ages. All the great heroes of the discipline - Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein - took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today's crank has often proved to be tomorrow's visionary.
But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed Aids can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have "any measurable effect" on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo.
The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address.
The film's main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil
Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data". The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes - in this case in their arithmetic.
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data
which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of
Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover". This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. "We've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work," Schmidt says, "but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation beyond reasonableness that we have seen." None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the Earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the denial industry, some of them, like the film-makers, shriek "censorship!". This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have come across. If you demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Wunsch says he
was "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" by the
people who made it.
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director Martin Durkin. In 1998, the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing". Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour.
But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question. But for the film's commissioners, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited - such as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2032570,00.html)
Mr. Steven GreenHead of Production
Wag TV2D
Leroy
House
436 Essex RoadLondon
N1 3QP
10 March
2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?
I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides.To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.
I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
Sincerely,
Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida
Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
First (and final) thoughts not really on the Rickards affair
I'm not going to get into the whole Rickards, Shipton and Schollum vileness. I don't know if all of them, some of them or none of them raped one or two young wome two decades ago. They know, their accusers know, or at least they all think they know - subjectivity and all that.
I'm not going to talk about whether or not Rickards should have his old job back.
What I am going to talk about is the strange intellectual practices of ideologically motivated people. Today I was listening to National Radio - Waytne Mowatt or Jim Morra's show, I can't keep track of which one is broadcasting in the afternoons. Towards the end of the programme, the discussion turned to the Rickards affair, as it seems to have at every opportunity, in every programme, every day.
A female campaigner called in. I can't recall her name. She was identified as a student campaigner against rape. It was put to her that the existance of a few bad cops did not equate to the whole police force being corrupt. She retorted that this was not the opinion of most New Zealanders, and their opinion could be seen in ther ferocity of the response to the verdict. This is faulty reasoning. The revulsion expressed stems from the disgust felt at the actions of these three officers, and the inentisty of debate from the wrangle over whether or not the jury should have been told that Shipton and Schollum were convicted rapists. It was centered on the two rape trials, and the three police officers in question.
She made another comment, that she personally felt hostility towards the police. She recounted how she had been insulted by a drunken police officer outside a police station, while she was waiting for a friend to be released. Apparently, the policeman said, "If you get raped, don't call us, we won't come."
Indefensible, of course. But think about the background here. We were told the commentator hwas waiting for her friend, who had been arrsted on a demonstration. Think about that for a moment. I twasn't clear from what she said which demonstration it was, but I'll hazard a guess that it was the demos surrounding the Louise Nicholas trial, when campaigners were breaking the story about Shipton and Schollum's previous conviction. Assume that police officer had been out there, that day, policing the demo. He might have seen something like this:
I'm not going to talk about whether or not Rickards should have his old job back.
What I am going to talk about is the strange intellectual practices of ideologically motivated people. Today I was listening to National Radio - Waytne Mowatt or Jim Morra's show, I can't keep track of which one is broadcasting in the afternoons. Towards the end of the programme, the discussion turned to the Rickards affair, as it seems to have at every opportunity, in every programme, every day.
A female campaigner called in. I can't recall her name. She was identified as a student campaigner against rape. It was put to her that the existance of a few bad cops did not equate to the whole police force being corrupt. She retorted that this was not the opinion of most New Zealanders, and their opinion could be seen in ther ferocity of the response to the verdict. This is faulty reasoning. The revulsion expressed stems from the disgust felt at the actions of these three officers, and the inentisty of debate from the wrangle over whether or not the jury should have been told that Shipton and Schollum were convicted rapists. It was centered on the two rape trials, and the three police officers in question.
She made another comment, that she personally felt hostility towards the police. She recounted how she had been insulted by a drunken police officer outside a police station, while she was waiting for a friend to be released. Apparently, the policeman said, "If you get raped, don't call us, we won't come."
Indefensible, of course. But think about the background here. We were told the commentator hwas waiting for her friend, who had been arrsted on a demonstration. Think about that for a moment. I twasn't clear from what she said which demonstration it was, but I'll hazard a guess that it was the demos surrounding the Louise Nicholas trial, when campaigners were breaking the story about Shipton and Schollum's previous conviction. Assume that police officer had been out there, that day, policing the demo. He might have seen something like this:
(http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/43453/index.php)
He might have been insulted, spat at, called a rapist. He would have been very aware of the hostility being directed at police by the demonstrators. He might have felt shamed to be tainted by association with Rickards, Shipton and Schollum. He might have felt angered by the attempt to influence the jury in the Nicholas trial. Then, tired, with a few drinks inside him, he rolls out the bar to see a group from the demonstration outside the police station. He vents his fustration by saying something stupid. And it was stupid, and inexcusable, but not something that can be used to impugn the reputation of the police in the way that the commentator did.
9/3/07 ADDENDUM
On the TV news tonight, there was an item about a demonstration showing anger at the Rickards-Shipton-Schollum verdicts. It was noteworthy because the police opted to deploy female officers to maintain order. Even then, it was startling to see the hostility being directed at the officers. One demonstrator snarled, "You ought to be ashamed of yourself" at an officer. For God's sake, why? Because she chose to join the police force so she could put wife beaters, murderers and rapists in jail? I'll bet that officer does more to help women who have been assaulted, violated and tormented by evil bastard men that most of those on the demonstration do. And in payment, she gets a mouth full of abuse from a supposed sister.
Monday, 26 February 2007
Muslims: the presumption of guilt
Posting on MSN's News discussion group, (http://groups.msn.com/News), as lala, I often find myself locking horns with a small but vocal group of posters who demonstrate a strong anti-Islamic bent. Now, let me clarify one thing immediately - I am not pro-Islam. I am an athiest with a dislike of religion in general, and the Skygod religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) in particular. So it feels abit odd for me to be finding myself defending Islam and Muslims, day after day. I feel I have to do so because there are very few other voices raised on that community to counter the tirades of the anti-Islamic crowd. Ironically, I have been chided for this, ith complaints that I am always eager to defend Muslims. I don't start the threads, so my 'eagerness' to defend is more a response to the zeal with which others attack.
So why do I do it? Two reasons, well, three reasons, but the third one isn't very good. First of all, and most importantly, is speaking up for truth. In the three cases I'm gonig to mention here, the attacks were not based on sound evidence. Second, I am always uncomfortable when a minority ethnic group is targetted. Jews in Nazi germany, blah blah blah ... but at the bottom of it, people are being picked on. Last of all (this is the bad reason) I do like a good argument, particularly if I can infuriate rightwing knee-jerk bigots.
I've already commented on the story about King Fahad academy in London, and how they were alleged to be teaching students to regard Jews as monkey's and Christians as Pigs. If you want to read the (extensive) argument about that one, follow this link:
http://groups.msn.com/News/general.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=2242306&ShowDelete=0&CDir=-2
Two other examples of recent jousts on News, where Muslims have been criticised, where I have felt the evidence has been weak or misinterpreted:
First, this horrible tragedy:
Basically, my position was that there was no reason to assume the man's religion caused him to commit this horrible deed. if you read the article in full, you'll find out that he had been unable to find a decent job, was probably lonely and isolated due to his limited English and his son was dying of cancer. All of this suggests that he might have been depressed, and his mental illness might have led to his deplorable action. His family's drift away from what he saw as true Islam might have been the last straw, and might have influenced the form of his break down, but a cause? Unlikely. Millions of Muslims don't murder their families, every day. This point was ignored or attacked by the usual suspects, however, who chose not to look beyond the word 'Muslim' when looking for a reason for something happening.
And another one:
Once again, some people decided that it was enough that this young man was a Muslim. Ergo, he was crazy, and on some blood thirsty Jihad. it was suggested there might be more of them, a terrorist cell intent on shooting up the malls of America. But, think about that one for a moment. If you want to kill as many infidels as possible, would you grab a gun and head down to the mall? look what happened to this fellow: he got gunned down quickly enough. Terrorists operating within the USA would look to more effective means of causing death an panic.
The anti-Islam briade overlooked two important points in their ranting: first, 'Bosnian Muslim' is an ethnic category, not necessarily a religious one. Also, this kid was a refugee. Background investigation soon uncovered that he had fled Bosnia as the horrors of the 1990s ethnic strife unfolded. It was possible he had seen terrible things and been traumatised by them, which may have been the cause of his breakdown. As for the way he expressed it, well, getting a gun and shooting up a nearby school or mall is, sadly, the American way.
So why do I do it? Two reasons, well, three reasons, but the third one isn't very good. First of all, and most importantly, is speaking up for truth. In the three cases I'm gonig to mention here, the attacks were not based on sound evidence. Second, I am always uncomfortable when a minority ethnic group is targetted. Jews in Nazi germany, blah blah blah ... but at the bottom of it, people are being picked on. Last of all (this is the bad reason) I do like a good argument, particularly if I can infuriate rightwing knee-jerk bigots.
I've already commented on the story about King Fahad academy in London, and how they were alleged to be teaching students to regard Jews as monkey's and Christians as Pigs. If you want to read the (extensive) argument about that one, follow this link:
http://groups.msn.com/News/general.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=2242306&ShowDelete=0&CDir=-2
Two other examples of recent jousts on News, where Muslims have been criticised, where I have felt the evidence has been weak or misinterpreted:
First, this horrible tragedy:
Father killed family for being too western
By Nigel Bunyan
Last Updated: 1:58am
GMT 22/02/2007
A father killed his wife and four daughters in their sleep because he could not bear them adopting a more westernised lifestyle, an inquest heard yesterday.Mohammed Riaz, 49, found it abhorrent that his eldest daughter wanted to be a fashion designer, and that she and her sisters were likely to reject the Muslim tradition of arranged marriages.
On Hallowe'en last year he sprayed petrol throughout their terraced home in Accrington, Lancs, and set it alight.
Caneze Riaz, 39, woke and tried to protect her three-year-old child, Hannah, who was sleeping with her, but was overcome by fumes. Her other daughters, Sayrah, 16, Sophia, 13, and Alisha, 10, died elsewhere in the house.
Riaz, who had spent the evening drinking, set himself on fire and died two days later.
Story continues here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/21/nmuslim21.xml
News discussion thread here: http://groups.msn.com/News/general.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=2247705&ShowDelete=0&CDir=-2Basically, my position was that there was no reason to assume the man's religion caused him to commit this horrible deed. if you read the article in full, you'll find out that he had been unable to find a decent job, was probably lonely and isolated due to his limited English and his son was dying of cancer. All of this suggests that he might have been depressed, and his mental illness might have led to his deplorable action. His family's drift away from what he saw as true Islam might have been the last straw, and might have influenced the form of his break down, but a cause? Unlikely. Millions of Muslims don't murder their families, every day. This point was ignored or attacked by the usual suspects, however, who chose not to look beyond the word 'Muslim' when looking for a reason for something happening.
And another one:
Again, the News debate on this story was extensive. I (lala) get into an amusing shouting match with New Yorker about 200 posts in. We have a 'difficult' relationship. Here's a link to the discussion: http://groups.msn.com/News/general.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=2244389&ShowDelete=0&CDir=-2Police identify gunman as 18-year-old Bosnian
By Linda Thomson, Deseret Morning NewsPolice Tuesday identified the gunman accused in Monday night's Trolley Square shooting as Sulejman Talovic, an 18-year-old Bosnian refugee who lived in Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank said Talovic drove his car to the mall, parked in the west parking terrace and encountered two people who he shot before entering the mall.
There, he encountered a female who also was shot right away, then went into a gift shop where there were five people, all of whom the young man shot. Moving through the mall, the gunman tried to shoot others, Burbank said. The chief said he could not say now how many shots were involved in the entire episode.
Burbank praised an unnamed Ogden police officer who took action at the mall to intervene in the incident, and praised the many law enforcement and other agencies that responded quickly and professionally to the crisis.
Until Salt Lake police arrived, it was "basically a shoot-out between the Ogden individual and this individual," Burbank said.
Once again, some people decided that it was enough that this young man was a Muslim. Ergo, he was crazy, and on some blood thirsty Jihad. it was suggested there might be more of them, a terrorist cell intent on shooting up the malls of America. But, think about that one for a moment. If you want to kill as many infidels as possible, would you grab a gun and head down to the mall? look what happened to this fellow: he got gunned down quickly enough. Terrorists operating within the USA would look to more effective means of causing death an panic.
The anti-Islam briade overlooked two important points in their ranting: first, 'Bosnian Muslim' is an ethnic category, not necessarily a religious one. Also, this kid was a refugee. Background investigation soon uncovered that he had fled Bosnia as the horrors of the 1990s ethnic strife unfolded. It was possible he had seen terrible things and been traumatised by them, which may have been the cause of his breakdown. As for the way he expressed it, well, getting a gun and shooting up a nearby school or mall is, sadly, the American way.
Friday, 23 February 2007
Stale Thoughts on the Iraq War
Again, this is an old piece I've found in the files. It deals with the alleged 'sexing up' of the dossier that Downing Street used inflame opinion against Iraq - the one that contained the infamous '45 minute claim'.
The Gilligan Affair
Oscar Wilde declared that it is a terrible thing for a man to find out that for his whole life, he has been telling nothing but the truth; truth must be a terrible thing, as the fate of Andrew Gilligan bears witness. For telling something like truth, he has been forced to resign from his position of defense correspondent at the BBC. Heaven only knows what would have become on him had he told the whole truth.
It’s a witches brew, alright. The British government plagiarizes an out of date thesis from the web; Colin Powell offers a slickly packaged but empty presentation to the UN; the British government foregrounds a rather unlikely sounding piece of intelligence information about Saddam being able to deploy WMD within 45 minutes, which is repeated, without explanatory detail, in the House Of Commons, and drags Britain into a war.
Afterwards (If we can talk about ‘afterwards’ in the context of the Iraq invasion) no WMD are found, what-so-ever. No substantial evidence of development programs is found, even. We learn that George W Bush now wants to examine the evidence that he used to justify invading Iraq.
Yet, at the last count, Greg Dyke, Gavyn Davies and Andrew Gilligan have lost their jobs; on the government side, Blair’s snake-in-the-grass, Alaisdair Campbell, has been forced to take his services else where. So the score is 3-1 to the government. Teflon Tony survives another attempt by the envious and the invidious to do him down.
Dyke, Davies and Gilligan have come out of this with their careers ruined. Campbell, if anything, has enhanced his reputation. Whereas before he was described as a ‘Prince Of Darkess’ or a ‘Spin Meister’, now he gets to pretend to be the plucky soldier who throws himself on a grenade. An appropriate comparison, as British and American soldiers are dying because of their leader’s lies.
Lord Hutton is a very careful and sedulous man, by all accounts. If Tony Blair is innocent of the charges that Tony Blair asked him to investigate, I am sure he is. Alas, Lord Hutton’s very scrupulousness meant that the inquiry would never look at anything beyond the very strictest – and limited – interpretation of its mission.
What it all boils down to is what was said one morning when one BBC journalist, the avuncular John Humphries, interviewed another, Andrew Gilligan. It was 6.07am, that’s right, 6.07am, and Gilligan stated that “The government probably knew that the 45 minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in.” By the time he was interviewed again by Humphries, Gilligan corrected his statement to “They [intelligence agencies] thought it was … not corroborated sufficiently and they thought it was wrong, they thought the informant concerned had got it wrong …”
The British government might not have invented the story, but they they must have thanked whatever dark deity politicians pray to, for its existence.
Not only did Tony Blair foreground the claim in his foreword to the controversial dossier, but the claim appeared three further times within that document. Not bad for one little uncorroborated story from an unreliable source.
One of the claims that the scrupulous Lord Hutton made was that Tony Blair’s desperate need to find something to pin on Saddam might have subconsciously influenced eager to please diligent intelligent wonks drawing up the dossier:
“the desire of the prime minister to have a dossier which ... was as strong as possible in relation to the posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD may have subconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment”
Forgive me for sounding skeptical, but are we to believe that John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Service, is really as intellectually malleable as all that? And if so, are we to be in any reassured by this frailty?
How does one measure subconscious influence, anyway? Might the naïve Lord Hutton, shielded by the walls of his ivory tower, have mistaken conscious intent for subconscious influence? Thomas a Becket was murdered because some knights with nothing better to do with their time overheard Henry II wishing himself rid of the turbulent priest; after the foul deed, his Majesty enjoyed complete deniability. Times have changed, but means haven’t.
On the 24th September Tony Blair stood up in the House of Commons and announced that “[Saddam] has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”. He described the report as “Extensive, detailed and authoritative.”
He was speaking not to the house but to the nation watching at home, who were skeptical of the reasons being advanced for war. He didn’t give any detail. He didn’t explain that the weapons referred to, if they existed, were minor battlefield munitions, not SCUD missiles crammed with Anthrax or mustard gas.
At best we have a prime minister who doesn’t know what he is talking about; more likely, one who misled the British people as to the nature of the threat Saddam Hussein posed.
Now we learn that WMD are perhaps in Syria. Strange that Colin Powell’s eagle eyed spy satellites didn’t pick them out. He made it look like a camel couldn’t fart in Iraq without it being picked up. But so far, what has been found?
Dick Cheney brings us up to date: “We've found a couple of semi-trailers at this point, which we believe were in fact part of a [WMD] program … I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction.”
Excuse me? Cheney calls this conclusive evidence. In a world where lies are true and where arrant nonsense is accepted unquestioningly as proof, it is no surprise Andrew Gilligan had to go for almost telling the truth.
The Gilligan Affair
Oscar Wilde declared that it is a terrible thing for a man to find out that for his whole life, he has been telling nothing but the truth; truth must be a terrible thing, as the fate of Andrew Gilligan bears witness. For telling something like truth, he has been forced to resign from his position of defense correspondent at the BBC. Heaven only knows what would have become on him had he told the whole truth.
It’s a witches brew, alright. The British government plagiarizes an out of date thesis from the web; Colin Powell offers a slickly packaged but empty presentation to the UN; the British government foregrounds a rather unlikely sounding piece of intelligence information about Saddam being able to deploy WMD within 45 minutes, which is repeated, without explanatory detail, in the House Of Commons, and drags Britain into a war.
Afterwards (If we can talk about ‘afterwards’ in the context of the Iraq invasion) no WMD are found, what-so-ever. No substantial evidence of development programs is found, even. We learn that George W Bush now wants to examine the evidence that he used to justify invading Iraq.
Yet, at the last count, Greg Dyke, Gavyn Davies and Andrew Gilligan have lost their jobs; on the government side, Blair’s snake-in-the-grass, Alaisdair Campbell, has been forced to take his services else where. So the score is 3-1 to the government. Teflon Tony survives another attempt by the envious and the invidious to do him down.
Dyke, Davies and Gilligan have come out of this with their careers ruined. Campbell, if anything, has enhanced his reputation. Whereas before he was described as a ‘Prince Of Darkess’ or a ‘Spin Meister’, now he gets to pretend to be the plucky soldier who throws himself on a grenade. An appropriate comparison, as British and American soldiers are dying because of their leader’s lies.
Lord Hutton is a very careful and sedulous man, by all accounts. If Tony Blair is innocent of the charges that Tony Blair asked him to investigate, I am sure he is. Alas, Lord Hutton’s very scrupulousness meant that the inquiry would never look at anything beyond the very strictest – and limited – interpretation of its mission.
What it all boils down to is what was said one morning when one BBC journalist, the avuncular John Humphries, interviewed another, Andrew Gilligan. It was 6.07am, that’s right, 6.07am, and Gilligan stated that “The government probably knew that the 45 minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in.” By the time he was interviewed again by Humphries, Gilligan corrected his statement to “They [intelligence agencies] thought it was … not corroborated sufficiently and they thought it was wrong, they thought the informant concerned had got it wrong …”
The British government might not have invented the story, but they they must have thanked whatever dark deity politicians pray to, for its existence.
Not only did Tony Blair foreground the claim in his foreword to the controversial dossier, but the claim appeared three further times within that document. Not bad for one little uncorroborated story from an unreliable source.
One of the claims that the scrupulous Lord Hutton made was that Tony Blair’s desperate need to find something to pin on Saddam might have subconsciously influenced eager to please diligent intelligent wonks drawing up the dossier:
“the desire of the prime minister to have a dossier which ... was as strong as possible in relation to the posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD may have subconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment”
Forgive me for sounding skeptical, but are we to believe that John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Service, is really as intellectually malleable as all that? And if so, are we to be in any reassured by this frailty?
How does one measure subconscious influence, anyway? Might the naïve Lord Hutton, shielded by the walls of his ivory tower, have mistaken conscious intent for subconscious influence? Thomas a Becket was murdered because some knights with nothing better to do with their time overheard Henry II wishing himself rid of the turbulent priest; after the foul deed, his Majesty enjoyed complete deniability. Times have changed, but means haven’t.
On the 24th September Tony Blair stood up in the House of Commons and announced that “[Saddam] has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”. He described the report as “Extensive, detailed and authoritative.”
He was speaking not to the house but to the nation watching at home, who were skeptical of the reasons being advanced for war. He didn’t give any detail. He didn’t explain that the weapons referred to, if they existed, were minor battlefield munitions, not SCUD missiles crammed with Anthrax or mustard gas.
At best we have a prime minister who doesn’t know what he is talking about; more likely, one who misled the British people as to the nature of the threat Saddam Hussein posed.
Now we learn that WMD are perhaps in Syria. Strange that Colin Powell’s eagle eyed spy satellites didn’t pick them out. He made it look like a camel couldn’t fart in Iraq without it being picked up. But so far, what has been found?
Dick Cheney brings us up to date: “We've found a couple of semi-trailers at this point, which we believe were in fact part of a [WMD] program … I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction.”
Excuse me? Cheney calls this conclusive evidence. In a world where lies are true and where arrant nonsense is accepted unquestioningly as proof, it is no surprise Andrew Gilligan had to go for almost telling the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
For reasons cryptical, I can't log in directly, and can only access this blog by replying on an existing thread. So this is the thread ...
-
It looks like David Irving has been treated very unfairly. He's been tried and convicted and jailed (for 400 days, as he points out seve...
-
Someone cited two alleged climate experts, messrs Cliff Harris and Randy Mann in an I had argument recently. The graph below was referred ...