Multiculti - no comments

Another new word is born. The knives do seem to be out for multiculturalism in the West. For example, this has done the rounds recently:



The Cox & Forkum cartoon comes with a blog entry too.

Précis: liberals support multiculturalism because they're in denial about "their own culture", and through fear of offending those from other cultures (sorry, fear of offending anyone).

The implication is that British liberals are aware of "British cultures" but hate/fear/deny that which created them, and yet are unable to criticise the "market of cultures" they themselves have created/allowed to exist.

Furthermore, the fact that a culture can break the ground rules of civil society (for example: your favourite and mine: female genital mutilation) apparently means:

• that culture can be judged to be less worthy.
• this implies a failure of, and negligence within multiculturalism.
• Finally, it isn't possible for the law to step in and set limits that apply to all cultures.

To me, the fact that people feel trapped or alienated 'within their own culture' (cultural group would be more accurate) is not a fault of multiculturalism, but a fault within that cultural group (no, by implication, this does not necessarily extend to the religion/ethnic group the group is based upon), and a problem of economic and social mobility. It certainly doesn't imply that some other culture is better, and, for liberals, we allow multiple cultures to coexist because there is no way to externally judge that any one culture is superior to any other, whether it is indigenous or not.

However much a particular culture is attached to practices like forced marriages, if these are in clear breach of British law and the principle of consensuality, those elements shouldn't be tolerated. It doesn't follow that the culture is inherently bad, or that some kind of ill-defined British culture be actively promoted by the State instead.

I'd agree that immigrants ought to learn English, and about British history (if it must be taught at all...), but why should they be forced to give assent to things ("the flag") that British-born people didn't have to?

What I would add, however, is that, if cultural diversity is something to be cherished, and cultures that have developed over hundreds of years can disappear in a matter of decades, then it's damaging to merely adopt a laissez-faire attitude and 'let the market decide'. What an ironic position to find oneself in! So it may be that the State, while being ostensibly neutral, nonetheless finds it must defend threatened cultures in the name of diversity. How, though? The destruction of the old East End could serve as an example not to follow.

Anyway...

Here's another bit of tripe from The Times. Their conclusion?

Multiculturalism turned the bombers into members of the underclass, with no stake in society and no prospect of rescue. The policy must be ditched.

I think I'm rambling now, so will call it a day...

Update: David T on Britishness at Harry's.

Pro-Total-War / 3 State Solution - 3 comments

The discussion that follows today's Shot by both sides post is not an encouraging one. Still, it's worth seeing some of the better-known names in blogdom chucking mud at one another ("John the Tourette's victim, Peter the Tory Boy and Andrew the Very Solemn Bore") and being juvenile. Conservative Commentary Peter does make this point, however:

... for all the noise the pro-Bush/decent left [I'm taking this to imply the pro-war left] makes in the blogosphere - so much of it sensible and right - your numbers are so small that there just aren't enough to fill two slots of comments in any Question Time. You might ask why that is and reflect on the departure from reason and from a sane understanding of human nature that the left you belong to is determined to uphold.

This, by Jeremy from My Way of Thinking is also a worthwhile point, not often heard (though quite why, I don't know):

If you had read one single history book on Iraq, like I had before the war, and worked out it was made up of three religious groups who hated each other you might have been able to predict religious violence post invasion.

Is Iraq really viable as a single state? Ought we to avoid trying to centralise this 'Iraq' entity, if it only makes it more likely that the eventual fragmentation of the Iraq will be more bloody than otherwise?

Update: Much more on the prospects for Iraqi democracy at Talk Politics.

Austin Mitchell Hacked - no comments

I've been informed that Austin Mitchell MP's blog has been hacked.

Sure enough, it's true.

I didn't want to supply a link here, for fear that the bunch of tossers (or, "independent network threat analysts", as some of them might call themselves) who perpetrated it will get more publicity, but why not take a look to see what the less socially-adjusted get up to on their Friday nights in?

If anyone fancies taking us on, give it your best shot. For those of you who don't lay on your backs at the bottom of ponds, your appendages undulating in the dark, stagnant depths, we'll see you tomorrow!

BlogMap - no comments

I wouldn't normally aim to extend the ubiquity of Microsoft technology, but (just for fun) I've added added a BlogMap to the sidebar so that all can gaze in wonder at lovely Hove.

Steve Bell - 4 comments

I can't remember the last time I saw a funny Steve Bell cartoon. Perhaps it's all too close to home now that the Tories are gone and I find myself on the side of the evil Bush/Blair axis (or perhaps my memory's just going). Still, I found this amusing:

BNP - no comments

Pub Philosopher writes about the demonising of the BNP by the Left. Are they the cause of racism, or merely a symptom? Are they uniquely awful? Do they get far more attention than they deserve? How should we react to people who vote for them - are they deluded, dangerous, or do we just think they're stupid?

Bombers on benefits - 4 comments

It was surely only a matter of time before one of the "buy it and chuck it" newspapers exposed one of the terrorist bombers as a benefit scrounger. Pity the life of the journalist whose job was to research this. Pity the Middle Englander who these revelations enrage (now, if there's one thing worse than blowing up people indiscriminately...)

Here's the Mail, and here's The Sun.

Update: Jonathan's take on today's Daily Express headline.

I'm waiting for: "Sick: Loony Lambeth funds terrorist night school course with our money!"

New Europe - no comments

Protests disrupt Latvia gay march:

Latvian police have arrested protesters after they shouted insults and threw eggs at people taking part in the Baltic state's first gay pride march...

Prime Minister Aigars Kalvitis had opposed the event, saying Riga should "not promote things like that".

"For sexual minorities to parade in the very heart of Riga, next to the Doma church, is unacceptable," he told LNT television on Wednesday.

Specious, self-exculpatory and hypocritical - 7 comments

Are we letting the big beasts of the Labour blogosphere trample us? Who are the pro-war left, and what right do they have to assert a moral and intellectual superiority over the rest of us? If you think this is a fair representation of the situation in 2005, read on. If not, let us know what you think.

Is there a level playing-field, or is one side running away with the ball?

Talk Politics has a long, detailed, and defiant post about the pro-war left - or, as some would dub them, the pro-war right. For him (and others), "root causes" is not a needle with which to sew up the mouths of dissenters. There's no doubt that millions of people are unsatisfied with the answers they have heard thus far. Likewise "fascist" - a term to be used with the utmost care.

There is a very good reason why we should, indeed we must, try to understand and explain terrorism. Why we cannot ignore the complex chains of cause and effect upon which it feeds and from which it draws both its ideological and material sustenance.

That reason is to be found not in modern political analysis and certainly not in the sophistry, rhetoric and propaganda of the pro-war left but in a single statement contained within a treatise on the subject of war written more than 2,000 years ago, a book entitled, prosaically enough, 'The Art of War'.

"Know your enemy and know yourself and in a hundred battles you will never be defeated" - Sun Tsu

You cannot defeat terrorism through ignorance of its drives, motives and objectives, by dehumanising the terrorist and turning them into a bogeyman, or by denying even the possibility, let alone reality, that own own actions have, in a multiplicity of ways, contributed to and, in some instances, created the context in which terrorism exists.

And, to conclude:

Ultimately the pro-war left's position on Al Qaeda and on the recent terrorist attacks on London is wrong, fundamentally wrong, because their goal is not just to oppose terrorism but to try to channel public anger over these attacks into support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, an invasion which remains as illegal today as it was on the day it was launched irrespective of their efforts to rewrite history and sell Bush's great desert adventure as an act of 'humanitarian interventionism'.

Their position is, at once, specious, self-exculpatory and hypocritical, a product of intellectual dishonesty, propaganda and a blind refusal to accept any shred of accountability or responsibility for the mess created by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

So tell me again - just who are the apologists here?

Let us see a proper debate, which means us bloggers making the effort and taking the time to consider one another's arguments (point by point - no stereotypes or magniloquent flourishes), walking around the block with them bouncing about in our heads, and then expressing an honest opinion on the basis of actual thought, rather than the rhetorical viagra that so often passes for "thoughtful" (or even worse - "insightful") commentary.

Get this right and you might have the chance to take a section of the population with you (or rather, us). It's vitally important that we do this. With the conservatives a pitiful, moribund, huddle of social reactionaries, Thatcher-fetishists, and "Bell Curve racists", now is the time for the left to get its act together.

UPDATE: I've struck out the last couple of sentences - they were pompous and unhelpful.

UPDATE II: I probably ought to clarify that this isn't about my personally coming down on the side of either a "pro-war" or an "anti-war" position. One issue is: are we open to one another's views? Another is whether or not support for/opposition to the Iraq war is inextricably linked to some of the issues bloggers often associate it with. For example, does supporting the war really put you on path that involves you supporting Blair, supporting Bush, and celebrating the power of the US military? Does opposing the war really make you a pacifist, an enemy of Israel (or worse), a tolerator of terrorism, a Guardianista?

UPDATE III: James Hamilton and Rob Newman have now contributed good articles on this topic.

Happy Birthday to me - 4 comments

Another one down...

Dilpazier Aslam leaves Guardian - 5 comments

According to the Guardian news blog:

"Mr Aslam was asked to resign his membership [of Hizb ut-Tahrir] but has chosen not to. The Guardian respects his right to make that decision but has regretfully concluded that it had no option but to terminate Mr Aslam's contract with the company."

I bet if he'd been caught pilfering pens he'd have been shown the door more quickly than that. Well, I guess that's all the discussion we're going to get on the subject: no need to review what the guy wrote, to either condemn the implications he drew, or to defend his right to tell his own story despite a furious blog backlash. Just treat it as a slip-up in Human Resources.

66-4 - 4 comments

Like the way this is going!

66-3 - no comments

Woohoo!

"Tories still in decline" - 5 comments

Another day, another think-tank. Defeated Hove candidate, Nicholas Boles, is back with Conservatives for change.

They argue - in today's Guardian (hat tip: Neil) - that "Tory gains at the general election have masked the party's continuing decline", especially among young, urban, professional and female voters.

Their message seems to be "reach out" which is, of course, (a) easier said than done and, (b) what every single beaten party says. Makes you wonder how Ted Heath ever won a General Election. Perhaps don't reach out this far, though. Or this far.

The party as a whole seems so brain-damaged it's hard to see how they could come to power in the near future, short of revolutionary cloning technology producing a Boles in every constituency. The upcoming leadership battle doesn't seem as if it'll produce anything but the same old cabbage.

What does the Bible say? - no comments

The Old Testament has a breathtakingly simple answer to the problem of prisoners of war, and here it is, brought to 'life' through the immortal medium of LEGO. Click "Next" to see the rest of the advice.

In a similar vein, some advice on religious toleration (click "next" for the bloodthirsty conclusion).

Then, a thoroughly unwholesome case of "death by misadventure".

And finally, the fate of Paul Daniels (and the lovely Debbie McGee) - a grim vision of the future in a land under the rule of the Old Testament.

More links - no comments

From a frankly pathetic one, I've increased the number of links to other blogs (non-B4L affiliates, that is) to a magnificent ten.

Let me know if there are others you'd like to see.

Ashes in the mouth - no comments

Should have posted this earlier. Norm is running a competition for anyone brave enough to correctly predict the England / Australia Ashes series scoreline - he or she who getteth closest to the eventual scoreline gets signed copies of two of Norm's cricket books (or a prize of equivalent value, if such a thing were possible).

Anyway, you have until noon today to get your prediction in. Well, noon GMT, so is that 11 am BST? More details here,

You'll also need to predict the result of each of the 5 Tests. So, my prediction (if I remember rightly, as I left it on a postit at work) was:

England 2 - Australia 2: A, E, A, D, E

One participant, "DB", has been brave enough to go for a 4-1 Australia series victory. I really can't see anything like that happening:

5 results out of 5 seems a bit much to expect, given the strength of the batting on show and England's recent ability to pull draws (and sometimes wins) out of pretty iffy situations.

That being the case, I think Australia would have to play out of their skins - or many of England's stars would have to fail - for England to be beaten more than twice. Bell would have to turn into a Ramprakash, Harmison would have to become a Malcolm, Pietersen would have to be exposed in the longer-form (something I don't anticipate), or Flintoff injured (god forbid). That's not to say England will earn their 2-2 by performing as well, but I think it's a result they can achieve.

BNP founder Tyndall dies - 2 comments

My fellow Hove dweller, John Tyndall, founder of the British National Party, died this morning aged 71. Not by his own hand, which would perhaps have been a positive step, but from natural causes.

Not content with being active in organisations as diverse as the League of Empire Loyalists, the White Defence League, the National Socialist Movement, and the "Spearhead" army, Tyndall was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in 1986 and has been jailed three times.

No flowers.

Unite against Terror - no comments

Everyone's at it nowadays, but Lisa's post finally encouraged me to pop along and put my name down.

http://www.unite-against-terror.com/

At the last count there were 621 signatories (my figures) - probably a lot more now.

To be honest, you've got to wonder why anyone with 2 minutes on their hands wouldn't sign up (they'll need a pretty good argument, that's for sure), but I guess now's not the time to be antagonistic.

Counter-tourism campaign - no comments

Yet another Iraq war support 'put UK at risk' report highlighted by the BBC.

Just as I was about to remark on the report's use of "Riding pillion" to ridicule the UK's role in the Iraq invasion, I spotted something that makes the entire article even more laughable. Here's the entire paragraph in case they change it later:

"Riding pillion" with the US as a junior partner in the Iraq invasion had damaged the counter-tourism campaign, the report said.

Frankly the rest of the article's a waste of time, so I'd stick with the typo.



Update: 10.40 and it's still there! What fun we're having.

Gmail sucks - 1 comment

Well, another week, another 400 spam messages to my Gmail account. The killer, though, is that only about 80% of these were correctly identified as spam. The remaining 80-100 messages I had to manually remove from my Inbox.

Now, as I also have POP access (i.e. normal email client, rather than "web mail") to my Gmail account, all 400 will, at some point, have had to run the gauntlet of the spam filter of my Microsoft Entourage (Windows users: think "cross between Outlook and Outlook Express"). I doubt more than 1 or 2 messages made it through (when set to maximum), which works out at a 99% + detection rate. And only a handful of false positives.

Surely it's not beyond the brains of Google to at least match what the Microsoft applications can do (let alone solve the problem at source)? As far as I'm concerned, their system is unusable at the moment.

"Infants are not immune..." - no comments

Infants are not immune to nuclear, chemical, and biological agents, or so it seems. Luckily a mere £995 buys your infant "an extremely high level of protection of six hours or more under certain conditions."

Not at all unsettling, that.

Getting one's fingers burnt - no comments

It always seems a bit pointless citing one of Norm's articles - there are so many fine ones you can rely on people to go there first of all. I suppose his latest, Apologists among us, represents the "definitive" response to those who, having grudgingly wrung their hands at the death tolls from suicide bombs, tell us to be more careful in future lest we incur the wrath of the world's terrorists and get our fingers burnt again (or our entire bodies).

It's never sufficient for them to lament the tragedy at Falluja, or the loss of any human life. No, there always has to be a reason and a justification for revenge. Besides, the Americans are too big for their boots - just look at their big cars and decadent culture - let's see them lose just enough, and have things difficult enough, for us to feel that a kind of balance is being restored, even if the "underdogs" - who we barely spare a thought about - would destroy our way of life if they had the chance.

Anyway, read the whole article, not just my ramblings.

The Psychology Behind Suicide Bombing - no comments

An excellent article from James Hamilton on what (as far we ever can know) drives people to, in many cases, strap on explosives and detonate themselves in a crowded place. Why suicide? Why does it so often seem to be young, relatively well-educated, men? Can we ever really understand, and is there really an argument to win? If not, how can suicide bombing be stopped? Just to cull from the last paragraph:

What we have seen in so much western analysis of terror has been a determination that, in some way, the terrorists' thought shared roots with our own. Because some of us felt anger at - the occupied territories, Iraq, Afghanistan - they must feel the same anger in the same way, and this assumption has been misleadingly presented as an attempt at cross-cultural understanding. And what might mollify us - a Kerry election victory, withdrawal of the troops, the return of occupied land, Kyoto, the peeling back of globalisation - must therefore mollify them; I doubt, very sincerely, that it is this way even in the vaguest, most shadowy form.

I'm glad that we're at least able to discuss some of these 'root causes' of suicide bombing, without a stale debate about poverty and Israeli security forces, the similarly lifeless one about use of the terms "terrorist" and "bomber" (the week's hot topic), and without (hopefully) appearing to tolerate or excuse the actions of the bombers.

'Blair's war to blame' - 2 comments

According to some peace protesters in the Morning Star. Yawn. Perhaps I should pay £1 to read the entire article, but I'm not going to. I'm no fortune teller, but I have a funny feeling that I know what it'll say.

You may hate us - no comments

... but you can't do without us. The BBC, that is, and I don't even watch BBC1.

Terrorists and Militants - 2 comments

Before too many people use coverage of 7/07 to fuel their own pre-existing theories about the BBC (liberal bias; social democratic bias; anti-Israel bias; poor value for money; etc.), in the light of observations like this at Harry's, perhaps it's worth thinking whether terms like "terrorists", "militants", and "bombers" really are interchangeable:



Before I get any complaints, that's not to any scale whatsoever.

Clearly, any "militant" who participates in a bombing campaign is involved in terrorism ("terrorist"), but this presupposes political aims, rather than, say, the deliberate and indiscriminate slaughter of people from one particular town or country, or merely intending to cause widespread terror. It's 100% clear that we have bombing and murder, but it's not 100% clear that it was carried out for political motives, even if everybody has convinced themselves of this. Of course I'd rather not be blown up, but I'm sure I wouldn't care whether it was done for political reasons or not.

Take this: "Passenger believes he saw bomber" - what would we gain by pressurising the BBC to change it to "Passenger believes he saw terrorist"? You'd be replacing something that was demonstrable, and also specific to 7/07, with something that was unproven (terrorist status) and unspecific (any old terrorist?), albeit with added emotive value. It'd be nice to think the editors thought along the same lines.

Does it really make us feel better to see a threat from terrorists under some kind of banner, rather than an indiscriminate threat from bombers and potential murderers which is ever-present, even if it has become more likely in recent years? I thought we were supposed to have zero tolerance for their excuses for political ideology. Does this stop us being vigilant, weaken our resolve, or our commitment to eradicating the threat at source?

It shouldn't. After all, the "terrorist" label makes it more likely that some will see "freedom fighters", gives manipulating governments and media handy bogeymen, and, especially if there is Islamicist involvement, reinforces the idea that everything can be put back to normal once the "Palestinian situation" is "resolved" (those apostrophes again!!)

What shall we call it? - no comments

letsbesensible has given some thought as to the "christening" (OK, funny word to use) of Thursday's disastrous events in London. Just as the United States has her 9/11, would 7/7 both sufficiently evoke the day and avoid confusing people who use a different date order? I concede it's not a huge deal.

Personally, I'd back the use of 7/07 (pronounced: seven-oh-seven): it's also a family of planes, a song, a drum machine, and a pretty slow year.

Tribute to London - no comments

Here's a new site that's just been set up to gather messages of condolence/support for London and her inhabitants: http://tribute.r8.org

Socialist Worker's statement - 2 comments

Via Norm. Socialist Worker starts their latest statement with a few warm words:

Our thoughts are with all those killed and wounded in this morning's terrible attacks in London... London is a centre of peace, the most multiracial city in Europe

... before delivering the payload:

A majority of those killed and wounded will have opposed the war in Iraq; some will have joined the huge marches for peace.

Well, that's the main thing; got to get your priorities right. And then, the inevitable:

The British government [got to detach this (bad) from The British People (good)] cannot avoid its responsibility for these terrible attacks, which are a consequence of its support for war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to ensure that there are no more such terrible attacks is for British troops to be withdrawn from there immediately.

Or in other words, we brought this upon ourselves, we "asked for it", and all we have to do to make it stop is to learn our lesson, be more tolerant of terrorists, give them more respect (sorry, Respect), and perhaps then we may be allowed to keep our lives and our limbs.

Cordoned-off - no comments

Great, now we're stuck in the office - Pindar Street's cordoned-off. The police guy can't give a time as to when it'll be lifted, and we're being advised to keep away from the windows as long as we're outside.

Cans of soup being auctioned for £25 a go (OK, joking about that)

Trouble in London - 1 comment

Well, here I am in Broadgate in the City of London, with seemingly bombs going off all around (Aldgate, Houndsditch, Liverpool Street).

Managed to get into work OK: noticed a few huddles of people around Bank and Moorgate tubes, but didn't think too much of it until I spotted the news. Now I hear there are emergency operations taking place on the concourse at Liverpool Street, which I walk through every day on the way to Tesco on Bishopsgate.

Scary stuff. Fatalities already, I'm informed - who knows what's planned for the rest of the day...

No doubt the blogosphere is going to glow red-hot if (once?) this is confirmed as a terrorist attack - still very early days.

Conservative clear-thinkers - no comments

All our stereotypes are confirmed on Conservative Monitor (I was originally looking at their review of an oafish piece of propaganda for the unfortunate children of American conservatives). Here's a banner I spotted:



An extra mark for long-standing CM readers who notice that Luke's surname is also spelt incorrectly. It's like those posters you do when you're about 10, where you find yourself running out of space with several letters left, eventually having to shoe-horn the final 'S' against the side of the page.

With many on the British Left believing (sometimes secretly) George W. Bush to be the bitter medicine they must take in order to be ideologically renewed and placed on the one true path to democracy and free markets, perhaps they will similarly see an iron-willed, home-baked man of principle within the dim-witted exterior of this sign's creator.

London wins! - no comments

London gets the Olympics (courtesy of CNN - BBC site is down).

That should annoy a few people!

Strong stomach required - 1 comment

Courtesy of a joyous Stephen Pollard, Budapest's city council has approved plans to erect a statue to former US President Reagan. I think that would fill most Labour people here with horror. Apparently the idea was promulgated by the publisher of the Budapest Business Journal (and Human Events, the Conservative newspaper), Stephen A. O'Connor. I wonder what the tariff for wanton destruction of public property (with a sledgehammer) is in Hungary?

Stephen also links to this article that describes the use of the death penalty for treating corruption in Nigeria.

It would be a shame if the Free Trade / "Let Africa Compete" campaign really was just a cover for "multinational" companies with no interest in developing economic life, or investing in Africa, and under the guidance of conservative and right-wing politicians determined to destroy the continent's social infrastructure (such as it is) and thwart the growth of a democratic trade union movement. Frankly, though, I have more doubts the more of these horrible, conservative American websites I come across. With the right rules and structures in place, a democratic Africa should be able to make a go of things, economically, and the fewer Americans and Europeans involved, the better.