I see that "torture" is back in the news again this morning after George Bush talked about his memoirs and has said that his decision to condone the technique of "water boarding" was because the White House lawyers advised that it was legal under the US Constitution.
Now, naturally, there will be those in the US that dispute that on the basis of an alternative interpretation of the Constitution, but then there will also be those who dispute it on the basis that the practice is "illegal" under "international law", however I wanted to throw a thought out for a second.
If you were to pop along to Hereford for a chat with the SAS, or perhaps contact the likes of Andy McNab and ask them about many of the alleged "torture" techniques (we're talking sleep deprivation, wall standing here as well as water-boarding), I'm guessing, based on reading McNab's Immediate Action that they'll tell you that they train for them.
Now, you could argue that they do this because the enemies they face are not as enlightened as ourselves so we have to assume that they'll resort to such thing, however, isn't the reality far more that we train our very best soldiers to be prepared for this sort of thing because we know only too well that we'd use the similar techniques to break someone if we really needed to break them?
Anyway, I digress. The real question and thought I have is this. Why is it we are so quick to condemn ourselves and call for legal recourse sometimes on an international scale in respect of the likes of George Bush and "war crimes", yet at no time was there ever a call for a war crimes trial for the likes of Saddam Hussein who authorised far worse in his time?
is the outrage when our own soldiers have been subjected to these techniques
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Monday, November 08, 2010
History - amazing how it affects political discourse
Most people who's spent a brief time online will be aware of Godwin's Law, which states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."The same is of course true in political arguments in general, on or offline, and I couldn't help notice that it had come to fruition over Iain Duncan-Smith with this t-shirt after he said - gaffe or otherwise - that work would set people free.
Now, just in case you're an ignoramus, or you were to busy sniffing Tippex thinner during history lessons at school, the phrase "work sets you free" is a rough translation of the German, "Arbeit macht frei", which is what it said over the gates of Auschwitz and other assorted Nazi concentration camps.
Anyhow, the reason I mention this is because it's occur ed to me that the reaction to the notion that "work sets you free" from the Left is a bit odd, because the notion that work leads to freedom is, in fact, a core elements of Marx's theory of historical materialism.
Yes yes, I know, I just essentially said that Hitler's phrase of choice was Marxist in its origin, but whilst this might upset some, I find it fascinating how a single philosophical phrase can be vilified by those on the Left when it is, the same philosophical argument made by the father of the Left.
You see, if you take the time to read Marx (yes I have, it's true) the whole basis of materialist history is that man produces through labour. Crucially, the means of production changes over time through small revolutions, from tribal production, to feudal, to guilds, to bourgeois, and then eventually to the wondrous free utopia where the proletariat own the means of production and are lifted from the false consciousness of capitalism and finally achieve true freedom.
In other words, work sets you free. Nah, it is a necessity if you are ever to be free for Marx.
Funny how four words that perfectly illustrates the ultimate left wing endgame are no longer associated with them because of history huh?
Note: Before anyone gets excited thinking I'm saying Marx or people on the Left are secret Nazis, I'm not. I'm just making an observation about how Marx's theory of history is completely in keeping with the notion that work leads to freedom, yet it is not something that you ever likely to hear because of the historical connotations around the phrase.
Bribery is not "official" policy in Afghanistan
Put your hand up if you believe this?
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on offering incentives to (a) tribal leaders and (b) other individuals or organisations in Afghanistan to secure the safe passage of convoys./me keeps his hands firmly down.
Dr Fox: Ministry of Defence policy is not to offer incentives to any individual or organisation in Afghanistan in an attempt to secure the safe passage of its convoys.
Working for the dole - sound idea, poor on detail
Every now and again you find yourself wanting to smack your own face with the keyboard in frustration. For me it usually occurs after reading the obsessive rantings of my favourite online loonies, but more often these days it occurs when the Coalition trailed a new policy which in principle is a good idea but falls flat on its big arse in implementation and detail.
Only a few weeks ago I blogged about how unemployment benefit ought to come with a responsibility to do a few hours work each week for the state. Nothing to big just litter picking, cutting grass, keeping the local community tidy. They do it in other countries, many with socialist governments.
It seems that such an idea is in the offing from Iain Duncan-Smith, which means I'm either well in there in the influence stakes or far more likely I've been lucky with my prescience. Anyhow, enough of how fabulously brilliant I am because it seems that that brilliance has not rubbed off on IDS as the implementation and detail of the new plan looks to be yet another of those "take gun, shoot oneself in the foot" moment.
You see, the principle of making the long-term unemployed get off their arse and do something is not a bad thing. In fact, for all the supposed "fury" that will come from the usual quarters it's another of those sort of policies that will resonate very well with the vast majority of taxpayers who, on the occasion they may be sick from work, find themselves swearing at the "scum of the earth" slackers that appear on Jeremy Kyle.
The problem though, is that the plan, allegedly, intends to make the long-term unemployed do a four week work programme at 30 hours per week for their £65(ish) dole money - that's less than half the minimum wage so it doesn't take a genius and in fact a complete spaz would probably be able to spot the problem.
Now of course, one might say "fuck it, they're lazy and shouldn't expect more" but this is politics, and in politics you need to be clever and not give your opponents ammunition. This si why the policy would be far more sensible if they said the long-term unemployed at to work the relevant number of hours that matched the minimum wage.
Hey ho, let's watch and see if they backtrack.
Only a few weeks ago I blogged about how unemployment benefit ought to come with a responsibility to do a few hours work each week for the state. Nothing to big just litter picking, cutting grass, keeping the local community tidy. They do it in other countries, many with socialist governments.
It seems that such an idea is in the offing from Iain Duncan-Smith, which means I'm either well in there in the influence stakes or far more likely I've been lucky with my prescience. Anyhow, enough of how fabulously brilliant I am because it seems that that brilliance has not rubbed off on IDS as the implementation and detail of the new plan looks to be yet another of those "take gun, shoot oneself in the foot" moment.
You see, the principle of making the long-term unemployed get off their arse and do something is not a bad thing. In fact, for all the supposed "fury" that will come from the usual quarters it's another of those sort of policies that will resonate very well with the vast majority of taxpayers who, on the occasion they may be sick from work, find themselves swearing at the "scum of the earth" slackers that appear on Jeremy Kyle.
The problem though, is that the plan, allegedly, intends to make the long-term unemployed do a four week work programme at 30 hours per week for their £65(ish) dole money - that's less than half the minimum wage so it doesn't take a genius and in fact a complete spaz would probably be able to spot the problem.
Now of course, one might say "fuck it, they're lazy and shouldn't expect more" but this is politics, and in politics you need to be clever and not give your opponents ammunition. This si why the policy would be far more sensible if they said the long-term unemployed at to work the relevant number of hours that matched the minimum wage.
Hey ho, let's watch and see if they backtrack.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Dear Chris Morris... this is your fault!!!
This surely has to be bullshit? (excuse the semi-pun)
ISLAMIC terrorists tried to down a US cargo plane using exploding BULLDOGS, it emerged yesterday. Two animals, stuffed with bombs and detonators, were found by US officers at Baghdad airport. The bombs had been primed to explode during the aircraft's flight to LA.If it isn't nonsense then the only person to blame is Chris Morris, right?
Friday, November 05, 2010
Thursday, November 04, 2010
I saw Saw 3D
Last night I went to my first Orange Wednesday and watched Saw 3D. It was also my first proper 3D film with the "dark glasses" technology, although I did once see some Michael Jackson short at EuroDisney back in the 1990s that used the same technique.Anyhow, I have but one question. What's the bloody point in it? There are scenes that are so obviously created just for the 3D "magic" whilst the rest of the film isn't. Think blood splattering out, weapons of death flying out of the screen etc, but other than than that the rest of it is basically 2D.
Don't get me wrong, when it's done well I imagine it's great, but frankly the best bit of 3D was the bit before the film where they told us to put our glasses on and effective "showcased" the technology. That was real "wow" factor stuff, same the film wasn't.
Oh, I;m sorry, you want to know about the film? Standard fare really. Starts with random unconnected trap with excessively graphic gore. Moves onto where Saw VI left off, people get trapped, people die horribly, you wait for the twist and unlike the early days you go "oh yeah, like I didn't see the coming".
Blast from the Past: Abortion
Given it seems there is talk about abortion again going on in the political discourse, with the usual rabid lunatics on each side generally calling the other stupid, I thought I'd revisit a post from 2008 for any new readers (I'm also being lazy):
Dipping a toe into the abortion question? - May 2008
This whole abortion debate has become very odd. Apparently it seems that if you support reducing the time limit on abortion from 24 to say 22 or 20, you are, invariably, just a secret anti-abortionist, in bed with anti-abortionists, or worse still are not being honest with scientific knowledge or what the 'medical profession' says. Oh yes, you're probably a God Botherer too.
Now you may be wondering why I chose to use quotations around 'medical profession' and there is a simple reason to be honest. The phrase, just like the language that is used when talking about climate change, is being thrown out in this argument with the subtle subtext that there is that mythical type of knowledge called 'scientific consensus'. If you listen or read the things being said about abortion you will always see the phrase trotted out as if its presence alone can make an argument right.
The problem is, having read too many articles in the last few days on this subject, what I can see is not the overwhelming view of the 'medical profession' being in agreement. There have been things said and things written which do not all sing from the same hymn sheet. As such whilst one should read and assess what is being said, it would be unwise to stand up and say the medical profession says X, when evidently they don't.
Of course equally I'm not saying either side is right per se. Just that to pretend there is consensus is to misrepresent the reality of the diversity of view amongst doctors and their peers. The question we should be asking therefore is why the differences? Can it all really be explained away by the easy and lazy ad hominen arguments of 'pro-life loony', 'religious nutjob', or 'secret anti-abortion agenda'? I don't think so, because there are some of us in the middle who actually have views that are based on the ethical questions of 'how do we define viable?' and 'what rules should apply to our actions when we have defined what viable means?'.
Laying my cards on the table I should say that I have always been rather proud of the settlement that Britain achieved on abortion. Rather than muddying the waters like Roe vs Wade does in the US, the matter was resolved by agreeing that abortion should be illegal if the child can survive outside of the womb (as well as some other exceptional circumstances of course). The argument today for me as it stands is about that question, not about whether some of the people supporting a reduction in the time limit secretly want to end it altogether.
We have heard over the past few days, from the likes of Dawn Primarolo and assorted commentators, that the 'survival rate' for a child at 23, 22 or 21 weeks has not changed since 1990 when the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks. In today's Times David Aaronvitch argues that if 'viability' has not changed then people supporting a reduction just "don't like abortion". I'm not sure anyone could be more wrong if they tried frankly, because there is a slightly more sophisticated way of looking at this.
The way to look at this is best illustrated, ironically enough, by an anti-death penalty argument. Given that the most ardent of pro-choicers (who incidentally wind me up just as much as loopy pro-lifers) tend to be ardent anti-death penalty advocates as well, so it seemed rather fitting. You see, when it comes to capital punishment, the miscarriage of justice, the mistake, the hanging of just one innocent man is a powerful argument against its presence. The argument is made that the risk of that happening, and we know it has, is to great for the state to commit homicide.
Now take that principle and think about viability in conjunction the 'survival rate' of premature babies. Surely, unless the rate is zero, then that is evidence that a foetus can be viable. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that all are viable, after all, not all babies are even viable when they're born normally, although the majority are of course. The thing is, if we take the principle that one mistake in the matter of capital punishment is a risk to far, then should we not be applying that same principle to how we define the very notion of 'viability'?
If just one premature foetus survives at 21 weeks, then is it not correct to say that a foetus can be viable at 21 weeks and as such the state cannot take the risk of making a mistake like it does with its fully developed adult population when it comes to criminal justice? You don't have to be anti-abortion or a pious religious nutjob to support reducing the limit at all. After all, if it is better to let a guilty man go free than to execute an innocent man, shouldn't we take the same view on the matter of whether a foetus is viable?
Dipping a toe into the abortion question? - May 2008
This whole abortion debate has become very odd. Apparently it seems that if you support reducing the time limit on abortion from 24 to say 22 or 20, you are, invariably, just a secret anti-abortionist, in bed with anti-abortionists, or worse still are not being honest with scientific knowledge or what the 'medical profession' says. Oh yes, you're probably a God Botherer too.
Now you may be wondering why I chose to use quotations around 'medical profession' and there is a simple reason to be honest. The phrase, just like the language that is used when talking about climate change, is being thrown out in this argument with the subtle subtext that there is that mythical type of knowledge called 'scientific consensus'. If you listen or read the things being said about abortion you will always see the phrase trotted out as if its presence alone can make an argument right.
The problem is, having read too many articles in the last few days on this subject, what I can see is not the overwhelming view of the 'medical profession' being in agreement. There have been things said and things written which do not all sing from the same hymn sheet. As such whilst one should read and assess what is being said, it would be unwise to stand up and say the medical profession says X, when evidently they don't.
Of course equally I'm not saying either side is right per se. Just that to pretend there is consensus is to misrepresent the reality of the diversity of view amongst doctors and their peers. The question we should be asking therefore is why the differences? Can it all really be explained away by the easy and lazy ad hominen arguments of 'pro-life loony', 'religious nutjob', or 'secret anti-abortion agenda'? I don't think so, because there are some of us in the middle who actually have views that are based on the ethical questions of 'how do we define viable?' and 'what rules should apply to our actions when we have defined what viable means?'.
Laying my cards on the table I should say that I have always been rather proud of the settlement that Britain achieved on abortion. Rather than muddying the waters like Roe vs Wade does in the US, the matter was resolved by agreeing that abortion should be illegal if the child can survive outside of the womb (as well as some other exceptional circumstances of course). The argument today for me as it stands is about that question, not about whether some of the people supporting a reduction in the time limit secretly want to end it altogether.
We have heard over the past few days, from the likes of Dawn Primarolo and assorted commentators, that the 'survival rate' for a child at 23, 22 or 21 weeks has not changed since 1990 when the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks. In today's Times David Aaronvitch argues that if 'viability' has not changed then people supporting a reduction just "don't like abortion". I'm not sure anyone could be more wrong if they tried frankly, because there is a slightly more sophisticated way of looking at this.
The way to look at this is best illustrated, ironically enough, by an anti-death penalty argument. Given that the most ardent of pro-choicers (who incidentally wind me up just as much as loopy pro-lifers) tend to be ardent anti-death penalty advocates as well, so it seemed rather fitting. You see, when it comes to capital punishment, the miscarriage of justice, the mistake, the hanging of just one innocent man is a powerful argument against its presence. The argument is made that the risk of that happening, and we know it has, is to great for the state to commit homicide.
Now take that principle and think about viability in conjunction the 'survival rate' of premature babies. Surely, unless the rate is zero, then that is evidence that a foetus can be viable. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that all are viable, after all, not all babies are even viable when they're born normally, although the majority are of course. The thing is, if we take the principle that one mistake in the matter of capital punishment is a risk to far, then should we not be applying that same principle to how we define the very notion of 'viability'?
If just one premature foetus survives at 21 weeks, then is it not correct to say that a foetus can be viable at 21 weeks and as such the state cannot take the risk of making a mistake like it does with its fully developed adult population when it comes to criminal justice? You don't have to be anti-abortion or a pious religious nutjob to support reducing the limit at all. After all, if it is better to let a guilty man go free than to execute an innocent man, shouldn't we take the same view on the matter of whether a foetus is viable?
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
The world is not going to end...
Apologies for not posting yesterday, was a little busy, and may will be today, however, just wanted to pass a little comment on VAT. I heard someone this morning bemoaning the rise in VAT to 20% saying given that the reduction in VAT under Labour in the recession "worked" and got people spending it stands to reason that the rise in VAT to 20% in January will have the opposite effect.
To this I call bollocks.
Look, something that cost £1.175 that suddenly cost £1.15 didn't make people rush to buy it. Likewise a rise to £1.20 from £1.175 won't stop people buying it. Yes, the more expensive the item the more the VAT, but let's be serious for a second, we're talking in most case a few pence more on the cost.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support a VAT rise, in fact I think VAT is annoying in general, I'd prefer it didn't exist at all, but lets drop the hyperbole. No one goes is going to go into a shop on January 1st and say "oh no, I can't buy that because it's £2.50 more than it was yesterday.
To this I call bollocks.
Look, something that cost £1.175 that suddenly cost £1.15 didn't make people rush to buy it. Likewise a rise to £1.20 from £1.175 won't stop people buying it. Yes, the more expensive the item the more the VAT, but let's be serious for a second, we're talking in most case a few pence more on the cost.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support a VAT rise, in fact I think VAT is annoying in general, I'd prefer it didn't exist at all, but lets drop the hyperbole. No one goes is going to go into a shop on January 1st and say "oh no, I can't buy that because it's £2.50 more than it was yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)