Yesterday I noticed that the Peter Cushing Doctor Who film Dr. Who: Daleks Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. was on one of the cable channels so we started to watch it. This film is in the so bad it is good category, but the missus made a comment about the plot, such as it is that I have the urge to share.
If you think it would matter to know the plot of the film you'd better stop reading now.
The central idea is that the Dalek's have invaded earth and are building a mine in Bedfordshire. The location of this mine will allow them to place an explosive device that will turn Earth into a space ship and they can then fly it back to their home sun and park it next to Skaro, their home world.
No really.
Anyway, the Doctor stops this by rerouting the bomb to a convergence of the Earth's magnetic North and South poles, and this sucks the daleks to their doom.
The Dalek's under the influence of magnetism is hilarious, and comes complete with comedy sound track. (Why is the noise of a piano falling from a height being played when a Dalek falls down a mine shaft precisely?).
Anyway the key point my wife made was that these were possibly the worst Dalek invasion fleet ever, and she thought they were the Dalek equivalent of the Golgafrincham B Ark. The Daleks identify the useless members of their planet and tell them that Skaro is doomed ("a mutant star goat I heard") and send them off to Earth with a hare brained plan. The real intention is to annoy the Doctor and remove the useless Daleks when the bomb goes off.
Suddenly the plot holes are filled and all is well.
(One question: the Dalek ship has spinning sections, and I noticed that the recent Dalek ships do the same. Is this the current series recognising this unbelievable legacy, or is their a common ancestor?)
Good to see Bernard Cribbins enjoying himself though.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Hurd and Young: Choose Your Weapons
At the Hay Festival this year one event that I went to was Douglas Hurd and Edward Young talking about their book Choose Your Weapons: The British Foreign Secretary 200 Years of Argument, Success and Failure. It was a brilliant discussion, with Hurd showing a level of knowledge and understanding of foreign affairs that was impressive, and also making his arguments with great clarity and thought.
One nice moment was when the panel were asked if they felt that the Iraq war was still damaging the United Kingdom in Eurovision. Edward Young replied that he felt we lost this year because the song wasn't very good to general murmurs of approval.
More poignant was Hurd's response when the New Labour "ethical foreign policy" (or "foreign policy with an ethical dimension") was raised in the discussion. This is also included in the book. The authors make the point that "it is sometimes the duty of a Foreign Secretary to deal courteously with villains" (p312) and observe that meeting and talking is not "an act of surrender but of good sense" (p369). It should be noted that the UK engaged with people that could be described as villains throughout the Labour government. I do remember feeling that change was needed in 1997, but looking back I can't see a great improvement that Cook claimed he could make. Hurd was quite clear at Hay that he felt the Conservative foreign policy had an ethical dimension, but that this is not a simple matter.
I found the book very interesting. Hurd and Young's style is very readable. It could be said to be dry, but there is enough human interest to make up for this.
I would strongly suggest that you don't drop this book on the foot of your wife (or anyone else you care about). I think I've been forgiven, but the book hasn't.
The centrepiece of the book is a comparison between (Conservative) constructive diplomacy and (Liberal) interventionism and adventure. Or to put it another way between Castlereagh's attempt to create a system of treaties after the Napoleonic war and Canning's wish to intervene. Hurd looks at appeasement as sometimes positive.
The initial discussion at Hay set up Hurd as the defender of quiet diplomacy, and Young as the advocate of loud interventionism. In fact reading the book, although it is clear that Hurd has a preference for joint working and avoiding conflict, and a suspicion of intervention and threat of intervention, it is clear that both authors see the need for both strands of foreign policy. The epilogue which looks at recent developments and events makes this clear.
On a small scale I learnt the origins of the word Jingo (p145), and came across the original meaning of filibuster (p195; odd this I hadn't ever heard it in the freebooter sense until about a week ago, and then I heard it several times). At a more significant level I found the discussion of the role of the British, and in particular Canning as then foreign secretary, in the origins of the Monroe Doctrine very interesting. The fact that the US could only issue this due to the power of the British is neatly compared to later situations where the British needed US support.
The chapters usually set up a contrast between two people, usually rivals for the position of foreign secretary. This is usually seen as a variation on the two strands outlined above, sometimes more convincingly than others. The problem with this is that, as the authors make clear, it often isn't that simple. Lord Aberdeen seems to be destroyed by the failure of his quiet policy leading to the Crimean war, whilst louder interventionists might have their bluffs called.
Another theme that is looked at quietly, and perhaps could have been made louder, is the role of the cabinet and the Prime Minister. Derby used the cabinet to block Disraeli over intervention in disputes between Russia and Turkey. Eden resigned in 1938 when he couldn't persuade the cabinet to block the PM's (Chamberlain) personal diplomacy with Italy. The unspoken message is that the Cabinet should be powerful enough to check the PM, and that the PM should give the Foreign Secretary space to run foreign policy is clear. The latter belief would appear to come from, or be strengthened by, Hurd's time under Thatcher, the latter from experiences under Blair. We can but hope that coalition might have the effect of reinvigorating cabinet.
This book has made me consider what should be included in foreign policy, and there are several points raised by it that I shall return to in other posts. A good read. Can anyone suggest any other books about British foreign policy to compare and contrast with?
One nice moment was when the panel were asked if they felt that the Iraq war was still damaging the United Kingdom in Eurovision. Edward Young replied that he felt we lost this year because the song wasn't very good to general murmurs of approval.
More poignant was Hurd's response when the New Labour "ethical foreign policy" (or "foreign policy with an ethical dimension") was raised in the discussion. This is also included in the book. The authors make the point that "it is sometimes the duty of a Foreign Secretary to deal courteously with villains" (p312) and observe that meeting and talking is not "an act of surrender but of good sense" (p369). It should be noted that the UK engaged with people that could be described as villains throughout the Labour government. I do remember feeling that change was needed in 1997, but looking back I can't see a great improvement that Cook claimed he could make. Hurd was quite clear at Hay that he felt the Conservative foreign policy had an ethical dimension, but that this is not a simple matter.
I found the book very interesting. Hurd and Young's style is very readable. It could be said to be dry, but there is enough human interest to make up for this.
I would strongly suggest that you don't drop this book on the foot of your wife (or anyone else you care about). I think I've been forgiven, but the book hasn't.
The centrepiece of the book is a comparison between (Conservative) constructive diplomacy and (Liberal) interventionism and adventure. Or to put it another way between Castlereagh's attempt to create a system of treaties after the Napoleonic war and Canning's wish to intervene. Hurd looks at appeasement as sometimes positive.
The initial discussion at Hay set up Hurd as the defender of quiet diplomacy, and Young as the advocate of loud interventionism. In fact reading the book, although it is clear that Hurd has a preference for joint working and avoiding conflict, and a suspicion of intervention and threat of intervention, it is clear that both authors see the need for both strands of foreign policy. The epilogue which looks at recent developments and events makes this clear.
On a small scale I learnt the origins of the word Jingo (p145), and came across the original meaning of filibuster (p195; odd this I hadn't ever heard it in the freebooter sense until about a week ago, and then I heard it several times). At a more significant level I found the discussion of the role of the British, and in particular Canning as then foreign secretary, in the origins of the Monroe Doctrine very interesting. The fact that the US could only issue this due to the power of the British is neatly compared to later situations where the British needed US support.
The chapters usually set up a contrast between two people, usually rivals for the position of foreign secretary. This is usually seen as a variation on the two strands outlined above, sometimes more convincingly than others. The problem with this is that, as the authors make clear, it often isn't that simple. Lord Aberdeen seems to be destroyed by the failure of his quiet policy leading to the Crimean war, whilst louder interventionists might have their bluffs called.
Another theme that is looked at quietly, and perhaps could have been made louder, is the role of the cabinet and the Prime Minister. Derby used the cabinet to block Disraeli over intervention in disputes between Russia and Turkey. Eden resigned in 1938 when he couldn't persuade the cabinet to block the PM's (Chamberlain) personal diplomacy with Italy. The unspoken message is that the Cabinet should be powerful enough to check the PM, and that the PM should give the Foreign Secretary space to run foreign policy is clear. The latter belief would appear to come from, or be strengthened by, Hurd's time under Thatcher, the latter from experiences under Blair. We can but hope that coalition might have the effect of reinvigorating cabinet.
This book has made me consider what should be included in foreign policy, and there are several points raised by it that I shall return to in other posts. A good read. Can anyone suggest any other books about British foreign policy to compare and contrast with?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Graduate tax?
I must confess I'm a little worried about how Britain will pay for Universities.
I'll start by coming clean. In some ways I am unashamedly elitist: for higher education to be worthwhile it has to exclude some people, whether through admissions processes or by people failing or dropping out. The Open University is open to all but a challenging route to a degree which some will not complete, at the other extreme the Oxford and Cambridge admissions lottery thins out many. In some sense it is unfair that not everyone is able to benefit from a university education but for it to be useful it has to be that way. I am a huge fan of the Open University and the work it does to provide access to those who can't by other means. We need to be sure that access is as fair as possible to people: those who'd benefit from it can access it and aren't put off by issues beyond that.
I take it as a given that both the state and individuals benefit from education. At the crudest level it keeps a number of 18-21 year olds off the street and off benefit (at my most cynical I have thought this might be the reason that the government was so keen on the 50% figure). At the other end it provides people with skills and expertise the state needs.
There is an argument that rather too many jobs demand a graduate when all they really need is someone who could get a degree, and they might be better recruiting based on A-Levels. But there are many benefits to a university education.
I do think there is another argument around whether as many as 50% would benefit fully from a university education, but that is for another day.
Given that there are benefits what is the best way to pay for it?
Vince Cable has recently reopened the idea of a graduate tax, and prior to that most expected the Browne report to suggest increasing fees and loans. The idea behind both is that students should repay the benefit they receive in part which seems attractive at face value. I've had a look at the full text of Vince's speech.
Firstly, Vince rightly points out that under the current system the amount of the education people pay for is the same for a teacher or care worker at one end, and at the other end a doctor or a merchant banker. This means someone earning £20k a year ultimately pays the same overall as someone earning £200. This is regressive. A graduate tax could redress this issue.
However the concern I have is with the argument behind it. In his speech Vince says
This is where the problem can be seen. Let us accept the £100,000 figure, then this means that over life time then the person is paying £20,000 in extra income tax if they only pay basic rate or more if they pay higher rate. Those who pay higher rate will be paying £40-50,000. This is, of course, not all the tax they pay. This is ignored in his example.
Let me turn this round as well. Suppose we have two postmen. Both earning the same. Should one pay more tax because he has completed a degree? Is education something we wish to discourage? Or consider two people, one a nursery teacher (a graduate, average of £18,875 pa) the other a car salesman (£26,584 pa). Both basic rate tax payers. Why do we want the nursery teacher paying a higher rate of tax? Or take Bill Gates who dropped out of his university to part found Microsoft: imagine a British version of Microsoft where two people set up a company at the end of the final year of one, and the second year of the other. Why would one be paying more tax than the other? Did one really benefit more than the other from their university experience? If so how?
Another argument is that it puts people off applying. However the poor economic climate means we have no idea if this is true. The overall numbers applying have risen steadily over the last five years. What we don't know is if this rise is in the brightest and best, or just the middle classes. I would like to see figures on applications from deprived areas, and if anyone could show me those I'd be grateful.
Here a graduate tax would continue to be problematic. Would we put off people who didn't know if they need a degree? Would some groups of people select careers to avoid the tax?
I can see the argument that people should pay the cost of their education as not all people get that education. I disagree as it ignores the wider benefits, and will put off people from disadvantaged backgrounds, but I can see a consistent argument.
I can see arguments for paying from general taxation: the same principle as with secondary and further education, we need as a society to have people educated. I can see the argument for providing the service people will benefit from free at point of use as in the health service.
The problem with the graduate tax is it is neither. It says you should pay for the service, but this payment should not be linked to the cost of it. It says that some should pay vastly more than the cost, some much less. In the election we, as Liberal Democrats, campaigned to say it was wrong to have high earners paying less of his income proportionally than low earners. Now we are saying that we want to introduce a new tax that can and will do the same.
Maybe the graduate tax is the way to bridge a gap between Liberal Democrats who want it to be from general taxation, and the Conservatives who want individuals to pay. If so then maybe it is a reasonable compromise, but I need a lot of convincing of this.
I'll start by coming clean. In some ways I am unashamedly elitist: for higher education to be worthwhile it has to exclude some people, whether through admissions processes or by people failing or dropping out. The Open University is open to all but a challenging route to a degree which some will not complete, at the other extreme the Oxford and Cambridge admissions lottery thins out many. In some sense it is unfair that not everyone is able to benefit from a university education but for it to be useful it has to be that way. I am a huge fan of the Open University and the work it does to provide access to those who can't by other means. We need to be sure that access is as fair as possible to people: those who'd benefit from it can access it and aren't put off by issues beyond that.
I take it as a given that both the state and individuals benefit from education. At the crudest level it keeps a number of 18-21 year olds off the street and off benefit (at my most cynical I have thought this might be the reason that the government was so keen on the 50% figure). At the other end it provides people with skills and expertise the state needs.
There is an argument that rather too many jobs demand a graduate when all they really need is someone who could get a degree, and they might be better recruiting based on A-Levels. But there are many benefits to a university education.
I do think there is another argument around whether as many as 50% would benefit fully from a university education, but that is for another day.
Given that there are benefits what is the best way to pay for it?
Vince Cable has recently reopened the idea of a graduate tax, and prior to that most expected the Browne report to suggest increasing fees and loans. The idea behind both is that students should repay the benefit they receive in part which seems attractive at face value. I've had a look at the full text of Vince's speech.
Firstly, Vince rightly points out that under the current system the amount of the education people pay for is the same for a teacher or care worker at one end, and at the other end a doctor or a merchant banker. This means someone earning £20k a year ultimately pays the same overall as someone earning £200. This is regressive. A graduate tax could redress this issue.
However the concern I have is with the argument behind it. In his speech Vince says
for our students there are on average good rates of return to HE qualifications,
which have held up despite large increases in participation: over a £100,000 net
of tax over a working life relative to a non-graduate. This suggests employers
continue to see additional value in graduate skills, knowledge and capability.
[...]
My generation had the remarkable privilege of being
educated free. There was an implicit assumption that we paid for the graduate
premiums in our income through higher income tax. But there was also a sense of
unfairness articulated by Alan Johnson when he was Minister: why should a young
postman contribute through his tax to pay for an already privileged group to
avoid earning a living for three years and then emerge with higher earnings
potential?
In any event, a model designed for 10% of the population
could not be applied to 40%: hence the move to a graduate contribution.
This is where the problem can be seen. Let us accept the £100,000 figure, then this means that over life time then the person is paying £20,000 in extra income tax if they only pay basic rate or more if they pay higher rate. Those who pay higher rate will be paying £40-50,000. This is, of course, not all the tax they pay. This is ignored in his example.
Let me turn this round as well. Suppose we have two postmen. Both earning the same. Should one pay more tax because he has completed a degree? Is education something we wish to discourage? Or consider two people, one a nursery teacher (a graduate, average of £18,875 pa) the other a car salesman (£26,584 pa). Both basic rate tax payers. Why do we want the nursery teacher paying a higher rate of tax? Or take Bill Gates who dropped out of his university to part found Microsoft: imagine a British version of Microsoft where two people set up a company at the end of the final year of one, and the second year of the other. Why would one be paying more tax than the other? Did one really benefit more than the other from their university experience? If so how?
Another argument is that it puts people off applying. However the poor economic climate means we have no idea if this is true. The overall numbers applying have risen steadily over the last five years. What we don't know is if this rise is in the brightest and best, or just the middle classes. I would like to see figures on applications from deprived areas, and if anyone could show me those I'd be grateful.
Here a graduate tax would continue to be problematic. Would we put off people who didn't know if they need a degree? Would some groups of people select careers to avoid the tax?
I can see the argument that people should pay the cost of their education as not all people get that education. I disagree as it ignores the wider benefits, and will put off people from disadvantaged backgrounds, but I can see a consistent argument.
I can see arguments for paying from general taxation: the same principle as with secondary and further education, we need as a society to have people educated. I can see the argument for providing the service people will benefit from free at point of use as in the health service.
The problem with the graduate tax is it is neither. It says you should pay for the service, but this payment should not be linked to the cost of it. It says that some should pay vastly more than the cost, some much less. In the election we, as Liberal Democrats, campaigned to say it was wrong to have high earners paying less of his income proportionally than low earners. Now we are saying that we want to introduce a new tax that can and will do the same.
Maybe the graduate tax is the way to bridge a gap between Liberal Democrats who want it to be from general taxation, and the Conservatives who want individuals to pay. If so then maybe it is a reasonable compromise, but I need a lot of convincing of this.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
I write like...
Nwhyte (over at From the Heart of Europe) posted a link to I write like. He did the nice idea of chucking real published authors at it to see what happened.
So I thought I'd be boring and stick in a few of my posts and see who I write like.
So my world cup final preview is Isaac Asimov
OK fair enough. Not sure where the robots are but I can live with that.
My Simak post would fit Asimov better but...
Not sure why.
Worryingly my rant about Alan Johnson was said to be
Lovecraft? Really?
But worst of all was the first bit of my post on the Iranian stoning case.
James Joyce. I didn't think it was that bad!
So I thought I'd be boring and stick in a few of my posts and see who I write like.
So my world cup final preview is Isaac Asimov
OK fair enough. Not sure where the robots are but I can live with that.
My Simak post would fit Asimov better but...
Not sure why.
Worryingly my rant about Alan Johnson was said to be
Lovecraft? Really?
But worst of all was the first bit of my post on the Iranian stoning case.
James Joyce. I didn't think it was that bad!
Saturday, July 10, 2010
World Cup Final
I'm cheering for the Netherlands following my "Arsenal players" policy: Van Persie has played more than Cesc, and van Bronckhorst used to be a Gunner.
It has been a good tournament overall. A very slow start, but we've had some cracking games since. Germany's demolition jobs were impressive, but they weren't enough to get rid of the Spanish. We've had controversy and cheating (Uruguay's last minute handball versus Ghana, which the ref got spot on). We finally had goals from free kicks and range as people got used to that ball. (Japan's two against Denmark will live in the memory.)
Better yet is a final that guarantees a new name on the trophy and between two teams playing football worth watching. The final could be disappointing (they often are), but the best teams got there.
It has been a good tournament overall. A very slow start, but we've had some cracking games since. Germany's demolition jobs were impressive, but they weren't enough to get rid of the Spanish. We've had controversy and cheating (Uruguay's last minute handball versus Ghana, which the ref got spot on). We finally had goals from free kicks and range as people got used to that ball. (Japan's two against Denmark will live in the memory.)
Better yet is a final that guarantees a new name on the trophy and between two teams playing football worth watching. The final could be disappointing (they often are), but the best teams got there.
Clifford Simak binge: Catface, So Bright the Vision etc
My English teacher at school made me read Clifford Simak's novel Way Station. It made a big impact on me, and I really enjoyed it. I've had a soft spot ever since for that book, but somehow never managed to read anything else by him. On a previous visit to Hay I purchased a few books of his to see if they were as good: City and Cemetry World. I'll confess that neither is quite as good as Way Station, but they were good enough for me to try some more.So on my last trip to Hay I aquired Catface, a novel, and So Bright the Vision, a collection of four long short stories. They are described as novellas on the blurb, but that is a little grandiose. After being thoroughly depressed by the Short History of the Liberal Party, I've spent this week on a binge reading of Simak.
So Bright The Vision is a collection of stories about human contact with alien intelligence/life. Oddly most of them seem to want not a lot more than to tidy up for us, although the twists are fun. The story telling is compelling. Alongside cleaning there is a theme about the links between untruth and story telling and business. Good fun.
Catface is in many ways quite dated, which is ironic for a book about time travel. It suffers at the start from some unconvincing dialogue, but nothing bad enough to make me give up. If you are more sensitive in your literary tastes I'd avoid the first chapter. The book sets up nice problems to consider, and raises interesting questions about the power of state and individual, if only to pretty well ignore them.
Like Way Station the action takes place in rustic America, and celebrates the romantic view of a hardy, independent small community America. There is an element of idealism in the view, but then this is SciFi, not social commentary. I found the ending of Catface rather disappointing.
I then re-read Way Station. It remains one of my favourite books, although I can't quite say why. I love the premise: that a federation of aliens have set up a temporary transit point for their teleportation network on Earth. The lead character is set up so that he bridges alien and human in a believable way (by making him come from the nineteenth century we already have a distance from him used to some effect). Definitely a book that I'd recommend to anyone.
(I have absolutely no idea why the picture ended up turned round. I am blaming blogger for this one. I'm sorry but I gave up when the fifth different attempt to fix it didn't work.)
Friday, July 9, 2010
Executions and criminalising sexuality
A cheery topic I know and in the news because of the dreadful Ashtiani case in Iran. I am worried that Iran expects us to be satisified that death by stoning will instead be replaced by another method of execution.
To a huge extent the method is irrelevant. The issue is far simpler: why does the state feel the need to kill someone for a consensual sex act?
I am viscerally opposed to the death penalty in any form. I was really pleased when, as part of the Human Rights Act, the last Labour government scrapped the few remaining theoretical death penalties on the UK's statute books. A real Labour civil liberties win, albeit in a theoretical area. Even for murder I prefer life imprisonment, which in some cases will mean full life.
In opposing it I understand that the campaigners have to get emotional play to convince some people, but concentrating on the barbaric method seems an own goal. Iran can now say "we've banned stoning" (which they have) and claim to have improved their record. Which they haven't. The issue isn't that their hanging method is also a cruel, painful way to die (which it is), but that this killing is even being considered by the state.
To be honest there is even the question why is adultery even a crime, never mind a capital one? I'm going to invoke Mill here and look for harm.
The harm in adultery is to the other partner. Maybe in a medieval environment the harm of raising another's child might be significant, however in other circumstances this is encouraged by religions so it seems unlikely to be that. The betrayed trust is a huge emotional hurt (I really want to be clear that I'm not downplaying this) but we don't criminalise other emotional hurts.(To take a trivial example we don't criminalise giving someone the hard shoulder, or insulting them; at less trivial the damage done by poor exam results doesn't criminalise the teacher who set the test.) If there is no other partner (as in this case, the adultery emerged at the trial of his alleged murderers) is there a harm? Consequentially there isn't.
To move to a wider ethical view, is deceptive adultery morally wrong? Yes. Does that mean the state should legislate against it? In many cases we make deception a civil matter, even when substantial harm may be involved. Some cases we do make criminal, such as obtaining goods or services by deception.
The question whether this hurt is sufficient for state intervention is an interesting one. My gut reaction a clear no, however my arguments here are not strong. I think my argument comes down to seeing marriage as a contract, albeit a very special one, and thinking that violations of the contract should therefore be seen as a civil matter. In that I think I may be underplaying the potential emotional damage as equivalent to an insult. I could play a privacy argument: but this falls down by comparing it with domestic violence where most would like to see action taken even if the victim doesn't complain. I'd like a better argument.
On an easier area, even less defensible is criminalising homosexuality. There simply is no harm here. (I am very pleased that the UK Supreme Court has decided that homosexual asylum seekers shouldn't be asked to be more discreet, and should not be deported. It always seemed odd to accept political activists (who could also be discreet) but not people persecuted for something they have less choice over.)
Last year Iran executed more than 388 people according to Iran. That is at least 1 in 185000 people. (Src Amnetsy and World Bank, via Google). The second highest per capita rate in the world after Iraq.
To a huge extent the method is irrelevant. The issue is far simpler: why does the state feel the need to kill someone for a consensual sex act?
I am viscerally opposed to the death penalty in any form. I was really pleased when, as part of the Human Rights Act, the last Labour government scrapped the few remaining theoretical death penalties on the UK's statute books. A real Labour civil liberties win, albeit in a theoretical area. Even for murder I prefer life imprisonment, which in some cases will mean full life.
In opposing it I understand that the campaigners have to get emotional play to convince some people, but concentrating on the barbaric method seems an own goal. Iran can now say "we've banned stoning" (which they have) and claim to have improved their record. Which they haven't. The issue isn't that their hanging method is also a cruel, painful way to die (which it is), but that this killing is even being considered by the state.
To be honest there is even the question why is adultery even a crime, never mind a capital one? I'm going to invoke Mill here and look for harm.
The harm in adultery is to the other partner. Maybe in a medieval environment the harm of raising another's child might be significant, however in other circumstances this is encouraged by religions so it seems unlikely to be that. The betrayed trust is a huge emotional hurt (I really want to be clear that I'm not downplaying this) but we don't criminalise other emotional hurts.(To take a trivial example we don't criminalise giving someone the hard shoulder, or insulting them; at less trivial the damage done by poor exam results doesn't criminalise the teacher who set the test.) If there is no other partner (as in this case, the adultery emerged at the trial of his alleged murderers) is there a harm? Consequentially there isn't.
To move to a wider ethical view, is deceptive adultery morally wrong? Yes. Does that mean the state should legislate against it? In many cases we make deception a civil matter, even when substantial harm may be involved. Some cases we do make criminal, such as obtaining goods or services by deception.
The question whether this hurt is sufficient for state intervention is an interesting one. My gut reaction a clear no, however my arguments here are not strong. I think my argument comes down to seeing marriage as a contract, albeit a very special one, and thinking that violations of the contract should therefore be seen as a civil matter. In that I think I may be underplaying the potential emotional damage as equivalent to an insult. I could play a privacy argument: but this falls down by comparing it with domestic violence where most would like to see action taken even if the victim doesn't complain. I'd like a better argument.
On an easier area, even less defensible is criminalising homosexuality. There simply is no harm here. (I am very pleased that the UK Supreme Court has decided that homosexual asylum seekers shouldn't be asked to be more discreet, and should not be deported. It always seemed odd to accept political activists (who could also be discreet) but not people persecuted for something they have less choice over.)
Last year Iran executed more than 388 people according to Iran. That is at least 1 in 185000 people. (Src Amnetsy and World Bank, via Google). The second highest per capita rate in the world after Iraq.
Animation at Hay - probably last post
As well as the five that I've posted about so far (Yellow Sticky Notes, The Pearce Sisters, Pigeon Impossible, El Empleo and John and Karen) there were five others at the event which I haven't managed to find online.
Fog (if I recall correctly) was an odd story about a mountain village being revived by capturing sheep that fly in the sky. The exploitation of the sheep brings affluence to the village, but then the sheep depart leaving the village depressed again.
I can't recall the title of the film about a daughter who waited for her father to return from a rowing trip. A very sad but beautiful animation.
Another animation which I don't recall the title of appeared to be a music video. A matchstick man travelled from a house, and ends up on a boat at sea. If anyone can find this animation from the description I'd like to know as I'd like to see it again. That actually goes for all four of these.
Finally was Operator. Our here calls directory enquiries to get God's number and is put through. A lovely little conceit. Very nice little short that raises interesting questions and makes you smile.
Fog (if I recall correctly) was an odd story about a mountain village being revived by capturing sheep that fly in the sky. The exploitation of the sheep brings affluence to the village, but then the sheep depart leaving the village depressed again.
I can't recall the title of the film about a daughter who waited for her father to return from a rowing trip. A very sad but beautiful animation.
Another animation which I don't recall the title of appeared to be a music video. A matchstick man travelled from a house, and ends up on a boat at sea. If anyone can find this animation from the description I'd like to know as I'd like to see it again. That actually goes for all four of these.
Finally was Operator. Our here calls directory enquiries to get God's number and is put through. A lovely little conceit. Very nice little short that raises interesting questions and makes you smile.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Alan Johnson's arguments for Stop and Search
Read this BBC article on the Supreme Court ruling on the abuse of anti-terrorism law by the police. Good news (well a start anyway).
Then I get to Alan Johnson's bit. Alan Johnson shows Blair and Brown's Labour's attitude to Civil Liberties. They still don't understand why people got annoyed with police abusing powers.
The BBC gives two of Johnson's arguments against the Court ruling and May's position on asking for reasonable suspicion. These need to be looked at, as they are... interesting.
"The number of stop and searches under Section 44 has reduced considerably over the last two years"
This is an argument to keep the powers? Where? How? Did I miss something?
So it was wrong then and it is wrong now. It would actually suggest the power isn't much use: they used it more when it was new but didn't find it as useful as they'd like. Hardly an argument against the judgement or for the power. Barely even relevant.
Second the BBC says he "said the decision would restrict the powers of the police."
Let me take this to the ridiculous extreme. The police could stop a lot of crime if they could shoot to kill anyone outside after dark. This is a restriction on the power of the police. Just because it is a restriction has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.
I'm not a fan of (Liberal Democrat) Lord Carlile. I feel since he was given his job of reviewing terrorism law he has gone native. He was given this job by Charles Clarke in 2005, not the coalition. He points out that the powers were simply not effective: so the restriction is not significant. Pennie Quinton, who brought the case was interviewed on PM this evening, and she said that Section 44 had not led to a single charge.
I have had a quick browse round the web to see if he had better arguments, but when the Guardian only give the Labour view a paragraph then it may be seen as a bad sign.
I think the need for reasonable suspicion is hardly an insurmountable barrier for stopping someone the police reasonably suspect to be up to no good...
Then I get to Alan Johnson's bit. Alan Johnson shows Blair and Brown's Labour's attitude to Civil Liberties. They still don't understand why people got annoyed with police abusing powers.
The BBC gives two of Johnson's arguments against the Court ruling and May's position on asking for reasonable suspicion. These need to be looked at, as they are... interesting.
"The number of stop and searches under Section 44 has reduced considerably over the last two years"
This is an argument to keep the powers? Where? How? Did I miss something?
So it was wrong then and it is wrong now. It would actually suggest the power isn't much use: they used it more when it was new but didn't find it as useful as they'd like. Hardly an argument against the judgement or for the power. Barely even relevant.
Second the BBC says he "said the decision would restrict the powers of the police."
Let me take this to the ridiculous extreme. The police could stop a lot of crime if they could shoot to kill anyone outside after dark. This is a restriction on the power of the police. Just because it is a restriction has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.
I'm not a fan of (Liberal Democrat) Lord Carlile. I feel since he was given his job of reviewing terrorism law he has gone native. He was given this job by Charles Clarke in 2005, not the coalition. He points out that the powers were simply not effective: so the restriction is not significant. Pennie Quinton, who brought the case was interviewed on PM this evening, and she said that Section 44 had not led to a single charge.
I have had a quick browse round the web to see if he had better arguments, but when the Guardian only give the Labour view a paragraph then it may be seen as a bad sign.
I think the need for reasonable suspicion is hardly an insurmountable barrier for stopping someone the police reasonably suspect to be up to no good...
Everyone likes a penguin
From the BBC: A penguin has been found wandering the streets of Dublin after she was
stolen from the zoo in a suspected prank.
The big story in the news today just leaves one question: did the penguin enjoy it's trip?
Actually two questions: if it was wandering the streets, was it wearing a hoody? OK Three questions: has the local council done nothing to keep penguins off the street? Where is the Penguin outreach worker? (OK four.)
I'm done. Honest. Penguin pic taken from Wikimedia Commons.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Extra-solar planets
When I was a child there were no extra-solar planets known about. People assumed they may exist but we had no evidence that they did. This allowed us to continue to believe that there may be something special about our solar system. Indeed I remember arguments of the form that there may be no other solar systems, and this was an argument for the Earth as a special case in a special solar system.
What boggles is me is that the since the first planet was confirmed in 1992 is the speed with which this argument has been effortly demolished!
There are now over 464 confirmed extrasolar planets according to Wikipedia, and more possibles. This boggles my mind. What is amazing is the variety that we are able to determine.
In December 2009 GJ 1214 b was confirmed as "the first of a new class of planets with small size and relatively low density", which could be a large rocky planet and seems likely to have water. A very significant fact as water means that life would be possible. The presence of liquid water remains one of the special features of Earth. Of course at the moment we don't have direct evidence of water yet, but it looks likely.
Given the speed at which different types of planets are being found and in different ways, including by visual observation (with the Hubbles space telescope).
This is a real revolution in our knowledge about our place in the universe since 1992, but it has gone by relatively quietly. The chances of our solar system being unique before the first planets was real, now it seems unlikely in the extreme.
It struck me that the appeal to exceptionality was a really appealing argument intuitively, it feels like a strong argument but has a big problem. If the exceptionality is lost the argument falls. However it was always a weak argument: This has convenient special properties does not mean there are reasons for the special properties.
The fact that "why is our planet capable of intelligent life" can only be asked by creatures living on planets capable of intelligent life, given the scale of our galaxy, and the number of planets found in a tiny fraction of it, it seems highly like that there is another planet with people making similar arguments to this. Better arguments are needed.
What boggles is me is that the since the first planet was confirmed in 1992 is the speed with which this argument has been effortly demolished!
There are now over 464 confirmed extrasolar planets according to Wikipedia, and more possibles. This boggles my mind. What is amazing is the variety that we are able to determine.
In December 2009 GJ 1214 b was confirmed as "the first of a new class of planets with small size and relatively low density", which could be a large rocky planet and seems likely to have water. A very significant fact as water means that life would be possible. The presence of liquid water remains one of the special features of Earth. Of course at the moment we don't have direct evidence of water yet, but it looks likely.
Given the speed at which different types of planets are being found and in different ways, including by visual observation (with the Hubbles space telescope).
This is a real revolution in our knowledge about our place in the universe since 1992, but it has gone by relatively quietly. The chances of our solar system being unique before the first planets was real, now it seems unlikely in the extreme.
It struck me that the appeal to exceptionality was a really appealing argument intuitively, it feels like a strong argument but has a big problem. If the exceptionality is lost the argument falls. However it was always a weak argument: This has convenient special properties does not mean there are reasons for the special properties.
The fact that "why is our planet capable of intelligent life" can only be asked by creatures living on planets capable of intelligent life, given the scale of our galaxy, and the number of planets found in a tiny fraction of it, it seems highly like that there is another planet with people making similar arguments to this. Better arguments are needed.
Coalitions and Liberal Parties
As I said on Monday I've just finished reading A Short History of the Liberal party 1900-1988.
One thing that has become clear is how bad coalitions were for the Liberal party. Of course we aren't the Liberal Party, we're the Liberal Democrats. Totally different. But a quick recap is sobering:
1915-1922 Coalition under Asquith and Lloyd George saw us go from 270 seats in 1910 election to 36 seats in 1922. Having split into Liberals and Coalitions Liberals.
The 1931 election elected 72 Liberals (split into Liberals and National Liberals). The National Liberals were in coalitions with the Tories (and Labour for some of it), and by the end of the crisis in 1945 we were down to 12 seats.
In case you think it is just a Tory thing, don't forget in 1974 we had 13 seats, and the Lib-Lab pact cost us 2 seats net. (over 15%!)
One thing that has become clear is how bad coalitions were for the Liberal party. Of course we aren't the Liberal Party, we're the Liberal Democrats. Totally different. But a quick recap is sobering:
1915-1922 Coalition under Asquith and Lloyd George saw us go from 270 seats in 1910 election to 36 seats in 1922. Having split into Liberals and Coalitions Liberals.
The 1931 election elected 72 Liberals (split into Liberals and National Liberals). The National Liberals were in coalitions with the Tories (and Labour for some of it), and by the end of the crisis in 1945 we were down to 12 seats.
In case you think it is just a Tory thing, don't forget in 1974 we had 13 seats, and the Lib-Lab pact cost us 2 seats net. (over 15%!)
Mind you it has to be said that this does knock the idea that coalitions are unstable on the head: both coalitions lasted over the length of a modern parliament. Didn't do us much good electorally though.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Hay festival animations 5: John and Karen
This is a beautiful and sweet little animation.
However, much as I enjoyed it and especially the little details (the biscuit bending, the reflections, Karen walking round at the crucial moment), I was left wondering if there was anything in it once you got over the cuteness. Nicely observed however, and both John and Karen feel suprisingly real.
Other 4mations animations are also on Youtube.
However, much as I enjoyed it and especially the little details (the biscuit bending, the reflections, Karen walking round at the crucial moment), I was left wondering if there was anything in it once you got over the cuteness. Nicely observed however, and both John and Karen feel suprisingly real.
Other 4mations animations are also on Youtube.
Monday, July 5, 2010
A Short History of the Liberal Party (1900-1988)
Another of my Hay purchases was Chris Cook's A Short History of the Liberal Party 1900-1988.This was the third edition of the book, the first being 1900-76, the second 1900-1983. Since 1988 there have been editions for 1900-2001 and oddly enough a new edition is due out later this year.
It is a well written book for the most part. If I was to be very critical I'd comment on three things:
- Often Cook mentions some important controversy without explaining the detail. Whilst this is fine for the Thorpe scandal (say), it is a bit more of an issue when talking about (say) the Taff Vale decision.
- The book does gloss a little over the scandals of Liberalism: we don't get much on the Lloyd-George honours scandal, and the Thorpe conspiracy trial isn't mentioned at all.
- The later sections aren't as detailed as the early sections, becoming catalogues of by-elections.
The third one is probably inevitable. The sources for the details on the spats and controversies of the earlier chapters is presumably private papers that only become available over time. Except for the merger talks, where the fighting was so public, the details of these since the 1970s weren't available in 1988.
I'm quite inclined to buy the new edition when it comes out, partly to see if the 1970s onwards bits have improved, however I'd imagine the bits about the Kennedy and Campbell era will be short of the important details about knife wielders...
I could summarise this book (or, to be fair, the subject matter) with three sentences. For each era pick one...
- The performance of the Liberals at the general election of XXXX failed to live up to the promise of the by-elections or polls; or
- Then the party split into two or more parts; or
- Both of the above
The second one particularly happened when we had coalitions with the Tories. I'm just saying.
Overall it was an enjoyable quick guide, but just a starting point. Definitely worth the £2.50 I paid at Hay.
Good news on 66% and does 1 Consituency = 1 Isle Of Wight?
In Nick Clegg's statement today:
In 2010 the electorate was 103,480, so that gives a range of averages from 98552 to 108926 if the IoW is one of the two extremes:
Of course the Isle might be a middle value. These sizes will also make Orkney & Shetland, and the Western Isles even more anomalous.
Nick Clegg's statement will hopefully put to bed the ridiculous fake misunderstandings about the55%66%. Just to be clear he says:
The rise from 55% to 2/3 for dissolution is good news. It takes the power to dissolve parliament out of the hands of most Governments. That power gave Thatcher and Blair a huge advantage in picking the timing of the election that they used well. Brown didn't.
Looks like good stuff. Annoying that the news cycle is rightly dominated by something far nastier.
No news on Lord Reform expected before Summer it appears.
Update 16:47
Nick has just said he anticipates the average size being around 75,000. So what will the arrangements around the Isle of Wight be?(Or Ynys Mon at 49831 come to that)
The Bill will require the Boundary Commissions to set new constituencies within 5% of a target quota of registered electors, with just two exceptions: Orkney and Shetland, and the Western Isles.So given that it is very hard to combine the Isle of Wight (or part of it) with the mainland, does this mean that it will be our size indicator for new constituencies? If so then the size must have the Isle of Wight within 5% of it.
In 2010 the electorate was 103,480, so that gives a range of averages from 98552 to 108926 if the IoW is one of the two extremes:
| Minimum | Average | Maximum |
|---|---|---|
| 103480 | 108926 | 114373 |
| 93624 | 98552 | 103480 |
Of course the Isle might be a middle value. These sizes will also make Orkney & Shetland, and the Western Isles even more anomalous.
Nick Clegg's statement will hopefully put to bed the ridiculous fake misunderstandings about the
First – traditional powers of no confidence will be put into law, and a vote of no confidence will still require only a simple majority.I do hope Labout ranters note this: at the moment if a government loses a confidence motion it doesn't legally have to go. It will of course, but it doesn't have to. Nick goes on:
Second – if, after a vote of no confidence, a Government cannot be formed for 14 days, Parliament will be dissolved and a General Election will be held.It wasn't unusual to change executive and even party without a new election in the twentieth century: Conservative Balfour, for example handed over to Liberal Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 as Asquith could form a government in the exisiting parliament.
The rise from 55% to 2/3 for dissolution is good news. It takes the power to dissolve parliament out of the hands of most Governments. That power gave Thatcher and Blair a huge advantage in picking the timing of the election that they used well. Brown didn't.
Looks like good stuff. Annoying that the news cycle is rightly dominated by something far nastier.
No news on Lord Reform expected before Summer it appears.
Update 16:47
Nick has just said he anticipates the average size being around 75,000. So what will the arrangements around the Isle of Wight be?(Or Ynys Mon at 49831 come to that)
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation -- Ooooh pretty
Lots of news sources have the pictures of the CMB from the Planck telescope.
See
See
- Independent
- BBC
- and even The Sun
Same pic each time, although the Beeb did add a "show known features" option.
The ESA web site has lots of pictures, and more on the science.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Suddenly...
For some reason I don't feel so embarassed by the 4-1 defeat by Germany.
Overall it's been a good knock out and quarter finals, with plenty of shocks. You have to feel sorry for Ghana, especially for Gyan. Gyan had been the best player for the (limited) parts I saw, but then missed the last second penalty.
The round of 16 saw 22 goals in 8 games, the quarters 9 in 3. Although the Spain-Paraguay game looks determined to make it 9 in 4. This is almost certainly enough to lift the tournament above Italia'90 (currently it has reached 2.2 assuming I'm right about the second half).
The dominance of South America has evaporated following the German and Dutch wins over the two favourites. I can't see Uruguay beating the Netherlands given they scraped past Korea with a late goal, and needed luck and a shootout to beat Ghana. The Dutch are the only team with 100% record.
Don't forget that the Dutch are the Unofficial World Champions (this tournament will reunify the titles for the first time since 1998 (in 2002 and 2006 the UWC's didn't qualify)).
Overall it's been a good knock out and quarter finals, with plenty of shocks. You have to feel sorry for Ghana, especially for Gyan. Gyan had been the best player for the (limited) parts I saw, but then missed the last second penalty.
The round of 16 saw 22 goals in 8 games, the quarters 9 in 3. Although the Spain-Paraguay game looks determined to make it 9 in 4. This is almost certainly enough to lift the tournament above Italia'90 (currently it has reached 2.2 assuming I'm right about the second half).
The dominance of South America has evaporated following the German and Dutch wins over the two favourites. I can't see Uruguay beating the Netherlands given they scraped past Korea with a late goal, and needed luck and a shootout to beat Ghana. The Dutch are the only team with 100% record.
Don't forget that the Dutch are the Unofficial World Champions (this tournament will reunify the titles for the first time since 1998 (in 2002 and 2006 the UWC's didn't qualify)).
Friday, July 2, 2010
Animation at Hay 4: Yellow Sticky Notes
Latest animation is Yellow Sticky Notes. Which seems to be a documentary drawn on ... yellow sticky notes. Or PostIt(TM) notes.
The creator has posted a little film about it as well...
This was the first film of the evening, and the one I was most ambivalent about. It was interesting but I'm not sure that there is much beyond the initial idea that he was being limited by his todo lists. I am open to argument though.
The creator has posted a little film about it as well...
This was the first film of the evening, and the one I was most ambivalent about. It was interesting but I'm not sure that there is much beyond the initial idea that he was being limited by his todo lists. I am open to argument though.
The stubborness of Mr Kawczynski
On Today this morning the Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham was talking about the referendum on changing the voting system. The BBC seem to believe they know the date: 5 May next year with the local elections.
Daniel Kawczynski seems to prefer the current system because he thinks it unfair on him.
You get two votes...
He wants to know why people who vote for minor parties should get two votes to his one. On face value this seems a fair comment: after all they get to vote Monster Raving Loony, then for someone else. However as an argument it is just plain daft.
Let us consider an election under FPTP
Mr Kawczynski 1000 votes
Miss Smith 900 votes
Miss Looney 800 votes
Mr Bob 600 votes
Not an impossible outcome under FPTP in local elections. Now it looks like everyone got one vote in the outcome. However in fact 2300 votes were not counted, and they got no vote. More than twice the number who did get a vote.
This is bad for democracy as Miss Smith next time will try to squeeze Miss Looney and Mr Bob, saying that only Smith can beat Kawczynski here. Those who support Looney might be persuaded into voting for the lesser of two evils out of Smith and Kawczynski rather than the party they support.
Now suppose we had AV. Not a perfect system by any means. Then we'd transfer Mr Bob's votes:
Mr Kawczynski 1150
Miss Smith 1050
Miss Looney 950
Untransferred 150
(even split between the three others and deciding not to).
Now it is true that 150 people have no vote now. That is because they chose not to.
They made a choice not to transfer. They haven't been prevented from voting. Note that all 1000 people who voted for Mr Kawczynski initially find that at this stage have one vote. As do all the people other than the 150 who opted out.
Noone has two votes at this stage.
This goes on until we get to a head to head. At which point the people who voted for the final two still have one vote each in that decision.
... and I don't
Mr Kawczynski says it is unfair that he, who only ever wants to vote Conservative, has only one vote.
He can chose to not transfer his vote, and that is his democratic right. As it is the democratic right at the moment to spoil a ballot paper or stay at home. It isn't true to say he has less votes: he has the same vote as everyone else but is chosing not to use it. Just like the current abstainers and ballot spoilers.
I also don't believe him. I would imagine that he has preferences. Suppose he found himself in a Labour LibDem marginal. Currently he has two options.
Daniel Kawczynski seems to prefer the current system because he thinks it unfair on him.
You get two votes...
He wants to know why people who vote for minor parties should get two votes to his one. On face value this seems a fair comment: after all they get to vote Monster Raving Loony, then for someone else. However as an argument it is just plain daft.
Let us consider an election under FPTP
Mr Kawczynski 1000 votes
Miss Smith 900 votes
Miss Looney 800 votes
Mr Bob 600 votes
Not an impossible outcome under FPTP in local elections. Now it looks like everyone got one vote in the outcome. However in fact 2300 votes were not counted, and they got no vote. More than twice the number who did get a vote.
This is bad for democracy as Miss Smith next time will try to squeeze Miss Looney and Mr Bob, saying that only Smith can beat Kawczynski here. Those who support Looney might be persuaded into voting for the lesser of two evils out of Smith and Kawczynski rather than the party they support.
Now suppose we had AV. Not a perfect system by any means. Then we'd transfer Mr Bob's votes:
Mr Kawczynski 1150
Miss Smith 1050
Miss Looney 950
Untransferred 150
(even split between the three others and deciding not to).
Now it is true that 150 people have no vote now. That is because they chose not to.
They made a choice not to transfer. They haven't been prevented from voting. Note that all 1000 people who voted for Mr Kawczynski initially find that at this stage have one vote. As do all the people other than the 150 who opted out.
Noone has two votes at this stage.
This goes on until we get to a head to head. At which point the people who voted for the final two still have one vote each in that decision.
... and I don't
Mr Kawczynski says it is unfair that he, who only ever wants to vote Conservative, has only one vote.
He can chose to not transfer his vote, and that is his democratic right. As it is the democratic right at the moment to spoil a ballot paper or stay at home. It isn't true to say he has less votes: he has the same vote as everyone else but is chosing not to use it. Just like the current abstainers and ballot spoilers.
I also don't believe him. I would imagine that he has preferences. Suppose he found himself in a Labour LibDem marginal. Currently he has two options.
- Vote Conservative and get ignored
- Vote for the lesser of two evils.
This is wrong. He should be able to vote Tory to show his true views, but that statement should not disenfranchise him. He still has to be represented by the elected official.
He may not have a strong preference between Labour and LibDem, but suppose he found himself in a seat where the BNP have been fighting Labour. He probably doesn't want either to win, but most people would want to avoid a BNP councillor. If I faced this situation I'd be worried: I do not support Labour, but could my LibDem vote be better used to stop the BNP?
The fact we have to address that issue and make that decision is anti-democratic.
Democratic crisis?
In fact across the country currently many people have a grim choice: vote for the lesser of two evils (there are very few three/four way marginals) or be uncounted. The fact that despite this the percentage vote for the big two parties has fallen in every election since 1992 ('92 76.3%, '97 73.9%, '01 72.4%, '05 67.6%, '10 65.1%. In 1979 it was over 80%. It doesn't look much prettier if you include the third party vote.) and the turnout has fallen to the point where I thought the 65.1% in 2010 was good, from 1945 to 1997 it was never below 70%.
In 2005 more people stayed home than voted to reelect the Labour government. The first time this happened.
This must show that something has gone wrong: I think we are facing a democratic crisis.
69.1% of the vote is the most that a government has had since 1945 but even so that is only about 44% of the voters.
Not that I doubt Mr Kawczynski but...
He has claimed he has had no consituents contact him about the electoral system. I find this hard to believe given the Power 2010 campaign to mobilise people this year. Could it be that he didn't see the post as it was filtered for a form response by staffers? Or is it really the case that noone in Shrewsbury wanted the change. From people I know who were LibDem candidates I doubt it.
I will be campaigning for a yes vote on May 5, because AV is an important step towards getting a fairer system and trying to unpick the disenchantment that 30%+ of the population have with government and politics.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
I saw an odd headline on the BBC saying "Blair to receive US peace medal", so I investigated. An sure enough our ex-PrimeMinister is getting the US's National Constitution Centre's Liberty Medal. From their press release:
Reaching the goals of peace?
Peace? The Prime Minister who had more wars than elections.
The goals of freedom and liberty from the man whose legacy he wanted to be 90 days detention without trial?
The main justification is his work in Northern Ireland leading up to the Good Friday agreement. That was a major achievement, and his style worked for it (if in doubt leave it out and lie about it, which in this case got us to the point were the blocking issues seemed less significant than losing the progress. It worked.). Should be remembered that the work was started by John Major.
However mentioning the middle east is taking the proverbial. Iraq ought to be enough to say. And I don't see major breakthroughs between Israel and Palestine at the moment.
Blair put military intervention back into British foreign policy in a way that had gone out of fashion. I fear because he was remote from the costs of war, and lacked the imagination to see them. It should only be used if there is no alternative, which was certainly not the case too often.
What are they thinking?
Philadelphia, PA (June 30, 2010) – David Eisner, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, announced today that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will receive the 2010 Liberty Medal in recognition of his steadfast commitment to conflict resolution.The spokesperson goes on to say
“This award recognizes both his dedication to and his success in building understanding among nations and creating lasting solutions in areas of conflict.”Then they give a quote from the Democrat Governor of Pennylvania, Edward G. Rendell:
“Tony Blair, both in his time as British Prime Minister and in the work he has
done since leaving office, has been one of the world’s most important catalysts for reaching the goals of peace, freedom, and liberty."
Reaching the goals of peace?
Peace? The Prime Minister who had more wars than elections.
The goals of freedom and liberty from the man whose legacy he wanted to be 90 days detention without trial?
The main justification is his work in Northern Ireland leading up to the Good Friday agreement. That was a major achievement, and his style worked for it (if in doubt leave it out and lie about it, which in this case got us to the point were the blocking issues seemed less significant than losing the progress. It worked.). Should be remembered that the work was started by John Major.
However mentioning the middle east is taking the proverbial. Iraq ought to be enough to say. And I don't see major breakthroughs between Israel and Palestine at the moment.
Blair put military intervention back into British foreign policy in a way that had gone out of fashion. I fear because he was remote from the costs of war, and lacked the imagination to see them. It should only be used if there is no alternative, which was certainly not the case too often.
What are they thinking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)