The Filter^

Why Politics?

I know it's easy for a non-partisan pundit to point score, but now that we've got television again I watched a couple of interviews with Gordon Brown this morning (firstly with Andrew Marr, then with Adam Boulton). I also saw interviews with Alan Duncan and Chris Hughn. What i'd really like is to meet someone who (a) isn't a libertarian; and (b) intelligent enough to realise that Labour, the Tories, and Lib Dems are comprised of egits willing to lie in order to appear to be what they deem as being popular. I'm frustrated because The Filter^ is frequented by people who fit into both categories, so please help me out...

I won't pretend that I have a quick-fix solution to rising food prices, but I know that the Competition Commission's investigation into the UK grocery market has nothing to do with it. The fact that Gordon Brown used it as an example of how he's solving the "silent tsunami" is ludicrous. Following the local election results the PM said that he'd "listen and lead". A journalist asked if he'd have a cabinet reshuffle. Brown repeated "i'll listen and lead". If only the journo had enough nous to say "will you have cabinet reshuffle?" to which Brown would answer "I'll listen and lead"...

I'll pause. And alliterate.

I've been challenged recently about my claim that Central Bank Independence is a highly politicised matter, and yet Brown defended his record on the economy by saying that "we've cut interest rates and injected liquidity". Who is "we"??

In the US John McCain's economic advisers are reassuring supporters that despite his public rhetoric he's in favour of lower taxes. The Tories here are similar, "we'll say what needs to be said to get elected, but rest assured when in office we're on your side". Even if you trust politicians who are willing to lie to get office, how can you support the democratic system that requires them to do so?

It'd be lovely if we could all agree to disagree, but the BBC won't let me. Even though I try my utmost never to watch their channels, if I wish to utilise the services of their competitors I am forced by law to pay for the BBC. Well at some point the level of service gets so frustrating, so bad that I'm willing to fork out for the BBC and their rivals. It's like buying a Dell laptop just for the right to then also pay for a MacBook.

Today I'm annoyed by all intelligent non-libertarians, because it's due to my deep and genuine desire to believe that government provision of fundamental services is right that has meant that I continue to subscribe to them. But any person unfortunate enough to rely upon those services knows that central planning is riddled with information and incentive calamities. I'm ashamed that I've been so willing to settle for the best that socialism can provide, and will in future work hard to ensue that I can buy MacBooks. I know full well that those who can't afford MacBooks will be left with inhumane service, but I no longer see the point of sitting at 3am in the waiting room of a crumbling building alongside them. Rest assured, your waiting lines will be quicker because I'll be elsewhere. Rest assured, i'll be arguing for economic freedom for all.

Income inequality is a contentious issue, but as someone who's relied on public services I am grateful that many people are wealthy enough to afford to opt out. It's precisely because of those who remain in the clutches of socialism that motivates me to make the case of economic freedom, because when I do opt out I want as many pragmatic people as possible to join me. Socialism should be for ideologues, not the poor,.

Who Cares About Heathrow's T5?

I don't, but the media seem to. Why? The coverage is similar to the passport backlog, but notice one key difference - it's possible to travel by plane without suffering from the T5 calamity. I was supposed to be traveling to Vegas on Friday, but far from panicking about whether I'll get there (and if my Rimowa Topas will join me) if I was still going I'd be relaxed. Why? Because I bought a ticket with Virgin. So why do we care about T5? Is it purely because it's the previously nationalised airline, who still retain their "Britishness" in their name? Is it because of the state-fueled racket run by BAA that's turned our airports into disgusting shopping centers? Seriously, should I - as an Englishman - be feeling embarrassed?

Holden on Potts: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!

A slice of ITV cultural debate caught my attention on Saturday night - a profile of the talent-contest-winning singer Paul Potts, in which music critic Rupert Christiansen was invited to give his opinion on Potts' vocal qualities, only to be shot down by that well-known music critic, Amanda Holden.

Holden's point was that the opera world is too pretentious to embrace and accept Potts' talents. Yes, the opera world is often depressingly snobbish and un-embracing, but the problem here is that Potts genuinely has no talent. It's not about snobbishness, it's about a very poor voice and a seeming inability to exercise informed critical judgement on behalf of so many in the entertainment business - all these are rife in the 'crossover' recording market. 

I respect Amanda Holden as an actress and as an entertainer. None of her performances on screen have provided me with any reason to believe she is anything other than a talented performer. I'm no TV/theatre critic, so I wouldn't trust that judgement to hold forth on it in front of the nation, but I doubt she's got where she is without talent, understanding of her art form, and commitment.

I don't often agree with Rupert Christiansen's operatic critiques, but on Paul Potts he hit the nail on the head. The voice is ugly and has no sense of colour or dramatic direction, whilst Potts' performances are almost entirely lacking in musicality. Singing opera is a tough business, even tougher than stage and screen acting Amanda. Wonder into the Leeds Grand and ask any Opera North chorus member to sing Nessun Dorma and you'll get a far superior account to that of Potts. These people sing and act their behinds off for three hours a night, after over ten years of training, and earn a modest salary for it. They combine quality voices with dramatic principles of communication; their business is singing opera on stage, in costume, with no amplification and communicating it to whoever is sitting in the audience with no less than 100% commitment. I wouldn't mind inviting Potts to try this for a week or two. He wouldn't pass the chorus audition of course, but I fear that would be the least of his trials. 

Holden claims that Potts is educating the people about opera. I wish that were true. He's actually lining the pockets of a record label. If you want to educate people about opera, pick a young, enthusiastic, non-upper-class trainee opera singer from any UK music college. They'll teach you about drama, music, communication, vocal technique and the art of performance. I wouldn't mind betting they'd be unpretentious and likeable in the process - which from what I hear, are two qualities that Potts can't boast either.   

Front page of the week

This front page image from the Daily Mail almost made me buy the paper. Almost. An incredible image.

Everything's really pissing me off!

Anthony keeps badgering me to post something on The Filter. It's quite nice of him really. And, you know, I've always thought it important that The Filter doesn't become a ranting board, descending to the level of a tabloid editorial where some moneyed right-winger moans about a hotel receptionist who couldn't speak English to them. The Filter is about expert opinion, considered scholarship and rational thought - and with that in mind, here's a list of things that are just really pissing me off:

1) So, you can't go to Sainsbury's Local anymore without inane pop music being played at you over speakers in between audio-adverts. It's cultural totalitarianism through the seemingly unavoidable, capitalist, 'inoffensive' art form that is shit commercial pop. I'm very offended.

2) I've been failed by the system and can prove it - my grammar is crap.

3) BBC Breakfast is now beyond a joke. It's become an on-screen Closer magazine, with regular surrepticiously placed slots for fashion, celebrity, gossip, the ridicule of serious culture, amateur philosophy, amateur anthropology and even amateur medecine. See if you can spot the weak political analysis and shameless product placement in between. And don't say 'you don't have to watch it', that's not the damn point!

4) I love Scandinavians but they don't love me.

5) The only thing that Facebook is doing is informing me when people are having more fun than I am, in more meaningful relationships than I am and in more exotic countries than I am.

6) The water in my bath is draining ever-more slowly, and I can't seem to do anything about it. It now has a drain-time longer than 24 hours, which means bailing water out after use. Every unblocking chemical that says 'industrial strengh' just seems to make it worse.

7) When will the media learn that an opera singer is someone who sings and acts in live operas, not someone who mimics an opera singer's vocal qualities for ten minutes at a time and then brings out an album.

8) There are so many wonderful countries, works of art, people and ideas out there, but thanks to the fact that I have to work for 45 weeks a year, I won't even scrape the surface of discovering them.

9) Channel 4's view of a 'teenager' reaches a level of decadence which is so far removed from any resemblence of my teenage years that I'm convinced they're just trying to rub it in.

10) My best mate is looking worryingly like he's about to move to Seattle.

11) I so often say to people, 'we really must meet up soon, honestly, we really must', and yet still never get around to organising it.

12) There's so much more, but I know you'll have stopped reading by now, and besides, I suddenly can't think of anything, which is also really annoying.

13) The whole concept of people listing things that annoy them is creatively lazy and self-centered and I've just been sucked in. I blame the media.

Once more at the fore: The city of Liverpool

A fascinating article in the Observer about the murder of Rhys Jones. 

It has been mentioned, eloquently by his father, that his new uniform now sits untouched in the wardrobe, and the image is powerful: for me, though, the shocking ease of transition from life, from hope, to endless nothingness was somehow summed up by the fact that Rhys died with his shin-pads on.

The differences are not just between the council wastelands Croxteth/Norris Green and the private primnesses of Croxteth Park; they are between neighbouring houses, between neighbouring individuals.

The bans have, here in Croxteth, perhaps contributed to teenage crime [my emphasis]

Yesterday morning - is it just me that finds this weird? - Sky had an interview with Maddie McCann's father, asking him to say what he thought about Rhys's shooting

Harry Potter: I just don't get it

I was in WH Smith yesterday to buy a copy of The Guardian, and saw copies of a new Harry Potter book everywhere. I was aware that some sort of Potter mania was going on, but wasn't sure if it was a new book out, or a new movie [and as i've subsequently been told, it's both - does anyone else find that self-defeating?] As part of the "Pottermania" series in said Guardian, Megan McArdle (an economics writer) expresses her frustrations. In doing so I've realised precisely why i've never *got* Harry Potter: it conflicts both with my economic and political beliefs. According to Meg:

• Magic must have rules and limits in order to leave the author enough room to tell a story. In economic terms, there must be scarcity: magical power must be a finite resource.
• To the extent that there is any system at all, it is the meanest sort of Victoriana, ... There is a hereditary aristocracy of talent, and I [Harry] am secretly at its apex. There is an elite school almost nobody can go to, and I am one of the chosen. People fall quite neatly into the categories of good, bad, or clueless, we are the good ones who get to run things in the end.

Not only does this show why I found the couple of Harry Potter films I saw a let down, but it also explains The Guardian's infactuation - it's bad economics and illiberal!

Update: Matt contradicts some of these points in the comments

Smoking Ban

Just who is the new smoking ban intended to help?

• As a piece of Health and Safety legislation it purports to protect the rights of employees, by acknowledging that passive smoking is akin to having to have fire extinguishers, fire exits, etc. But workplace safety can be incorporated into formal contracts - a smoky environment one of many aspects of a job that people are free to decide whether there's sufficient compensating wage differentials. Some people get up at 4am, some work on an oil rig, others at Heathrow airport. Provided you're not forced into slavery, blanket legislation simply prevents some people being able to command a higher wage for doing "unpleasant" jobs. How can the smoking ban be said to benefit people who voluntarily accept smoking? If "they" are now fighting the ban, aren't we violating their rights?
• The burden of proof used to be on smoke-free pubs to advertise as such. Although plenty of smoke-free establishments exist, the fact that most pubs remained hospitable to smokers suggests that the new legislation is the result of people failing to get their preferences through the market, and therefore turning to government. If people aren't willing to freely satisfy your demand, better force them to instead. This is democracy. But the justification on health grounds is completely bogus. There is an absence of evidence to link sporadic exposure to cigarette smoke with adverse health effects, so there are no rights violations, just inconvenience. The fact that people don't like their clothes smelling of smoke is the driver here, not their susceptability to lung cancer. But the ban is excessive because there is a perfeclty reasonable middle ground: the smoking policy  of bars/pubs/restaurant is at the discretion of the owner, but it must be clearly signposted if smoking is allowed. That way "Earl's Cigar Bar" isn't criminalised. And people who work from home, or hire staff, are legally allowed to smoke in their own home.

The bottom line is that bars/pubs/restaurants are not public places. They're enclosed private places that are open to the public, and a place of employment. The issue would be a lot clearer if people acknowledged the simple fact that the only "rights" that are relevant are those of property owners. If you only hire people willing to work in a smoky environment, and clearly mark that you have a smoking section, you are now a criminal. It might be right, it might be wrong, but since it denies freedom of choice; freedom to contract; and freedom of diversity, it is illiberal.

To be logically consistent the anti-smoking lobby would also be trying to outlaw nightclubs. Oh bugger, here we go...

Political correctness and freedom to joke

What's black and doesn't work?
Bernard Manning's kidneys

Legendary comic Bernard Manning has died, offering an opportunity to question the role of offensive humour. One of the main cultural differences between living in America versus the UK, is that over here people tend not to make a distinction between personal preferences and preferred policy. For example the current ban on smoking has demonstrated that people's tastes clearly influence their policy prescription. This undermining of a liberal order of tolerance and freedom is a shame, so it's nice to hear people that geniunely respect the rights of their foes.

On a 5 Live phone in discussing Bernard Manning, a caller made an erudite attack on his brand of humour, but it's majestic to hear her horror when the presenter assumes that this attack suggests she'd want to ban him or curtail his freedom to tell jokes. In fact, not only does she defend his right to offend, but points out that he's been the victim of this decision to offend. Not only is a liberal order morally just, but it delivers effective results! (click here for the audio, it's on 16mins 30sec)

Those who celebrate Manning's anti-PC stance simply don't understand what PC means. The fact that we laugh at The Office (and to a lesser extend, Little Britain), and shudder at Manning, is because of how they present themselves. Humour based on minority groups is dangerous ground, and can be mined for cheap gags, or approached with caution. Stewart Lee has it spot on in this Guardian article:

I am a great fan of political correctness, even though, as one of the writers of Jerry Springer the Opera, I was routinely praised for apparently attacking it, and feel that any indignities we suffer from PC's overzealous policing are a small price to pay for all that it has achieved.

Last Night's Newsnight

The Filter recently launched some invective at Newsnight for its Ethical Man project, perhaps justifiably so. But last night's analysis of the ten-year rule of Tony Blair on Newsnight was hewn from an altogether different rock, and was television of extraordinary quality. There were some genuinely fascinating opinions from the panelists who included Alan Milburn, David Hare, Alastair Campbell, Michael Howard, Polly Toynbee and Charles Kennedy. One-time Filter contributor Toynbee echoed what many in the Labour party and in the UK as a whole probably believe deep down: that whilst Blair's domestic record has been good, his international one has been something of a disaster. Playwright David Hare offered some fascinating ideas on Blair's unflinching support for George Bush's desire to invade Iraq.

But as the specially extended episode trundled towards midnight, there was something of an explosion. Michael Howard prefaced a savage attack on Alastair Campbell with a sort of care-free pre-cursor: 'Well, I've already written this in The Spectator so I might as well say it now...you [Campbell] are responsible for lowering the tone of politics in this country' [I paraphrase]. Campbell seemed remarkably laid-back in the face of this, but it still made gripping television - reminiscent of Michael Howard's previous Newsnight moment, 'Did you threaten to overrule him [x 18]'. Of all the panelists, Howard seemed the most keen to export his own qualities and credentials, and he added that he instructed his own 'spin-doctors' to 'never lie' - insinuating that Campbell did the opposite.

More heart-warming, and not on the circulated clip that you can view below, was how the debate parked itself into a cute, informal cul-de-sac as the programme neared its end. Campbell suggested that 'no-one's watching us anymore, they've all switched over...', whilst Charles Kennedy had the last word: 'You know, I'd love to know if Tony Blair is sat at home watching this...'.

Love Blair or hate him, we're nearing the end of an era, and this debate threw some fascinating shafts of dazzling light on significant aspects of that era. Watch it again here.

Virginia Tech Tragedy

Brian Hollar is providing a personal and detailed report of the news coming out of Blacksburg. I've just received an email from GMU's Office for International Students, evidently some news agencies aren't specifying which university in Virginia was the scene.

This is a constitutional moment in its worst sense, but as so many seem to take glee from the opportunity to discuss gun control, I want to add some thoughts:

• This isn't about the inevitability of a tragedy due to the sheer prevelance of gun ownership. If that were the problem we'd be focusing on stories of children accidently killing themselves, not on college shootings
• The right to bear arms is a libertarian tenet, but it's unsound to judge this in isolation. To some extent non-libertarians have to accept that we don't live in a libertarian society, and therefore events are a mixture of causes. Liberal gun laws is a factor, but we shouldn't underestimate the wider, anti-libertarian reasons for gun crimes. I think drug prohibition plays a massive role here
• Europeans must accept the constitutional grounding of this debate. It is a cultural issue with phenomenal significance, and goes far deeper than being a simple policy instrument

Some peoples instinct on hearing this news is sadness and fear. Some people think you reap what you sow. For shame.

Why I'd like to be a smoker

I was quietly, peacefully reading about David Moyes' reaction to the Aston Villa penalty incident (where, once again, Andy Johnson gets denied a blatan penalty) and started to hear odd noises. It wasn't until I scrolled down that I realised an advert suggesting I played "I Spy".

For those of you who aren't sure of the rules for "I Spy", it's relatively simple: one person "spies" something, tells you the first letter, and you have to guess what it is. With this in mind I made my guesses...

Seat
Sauce
Slaphead
...err...

At this point I gave up, and the answer was revealed. Smoke. Apparently, "the correct answer is smoke. You can't see it because 85% of cigarette smoke is invisible."

WELL IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT, IT'S NOT "I SPY". KNOBHEADS.

The advert then provides a link to http://www.gosmokefree.co.uk/. For every cigarette you don't smoke, I'm going to smoke 3.

Walking on Eggshells...

“ Brits will on average be enjoying over 3.5 eggs each over the Easter weekend alone. But over a quarter don’t know why handing them out symbolises the birth of Jesus. . . .” Press release from Somerfield, April 3

“ Brits will on average be enjoying over 3.5 eggs each over the Easter weekend alone. But over a quarter don’t know why handing them out symbolises the rebirth of Jesus . . .” Revised press release

“ Brits will on average be enjoying over 3.5 eggs each over the Easter weekend alone. But over a quarter don’t know why handing them out symbolises the resurrection of Jesus” Second revision

Courtesy of The Times Online

Royal British Broadcasting Corporation

For once they weren't discussing a forthcoming BBC programme on Breakfast this morning. No. They were discussing a Channel 4 programme aired last night, focussing on the meddlesome Prince Charles. And who did they get on to discuss it? Two arch-Royalists in the form of Dickie Arbiter, a Royal hanger-on wheeled out by the BBC at every opportunity, and another pro-Royal, Eve Pollard. The former made some rage-inducing comments such as 'Prince Charles can't make choices like the rest of us, he can't decide, I'm going to go and be a solicitor...' (I paraphrase). Well, actually, he could, couldn't he? Haven't some minor royals dallianced with business in the past, and hasn't Charles himself forayed into the organic food industry? The only difference is, he wouldn't have to try very hard at playing solicitors, because if Charles, Wales and Prince Limited went tits up, he wouldn't have to sell the house (well, houses...no, hang on, palaces) to pay off his debts. Moreover, he wasn't faced with the prospect of having to find a job as quickly as possibly after study to avoid living on the streets, like most of us.

I have to say that Prince Charles, of all the royals, is the one that I come closest to not loathing, probably because he's a man of principle, and some of those princples are aggreable and quite cute (OK, not the one where you're allowed to tear a fox apart with hounds for fun...). But what I find baffling is that the corporation felt they could assemble a 100% Royalist panel to rubbish Channel 4's argument. And don't pretent that Dermot and Sian's interrogation was in any way challenging to these two pundits -it wasn't: it was all comfy-sofa talk, and Dickie is sat on that sofa so often he's probably got a pair of tweed slippers underneath it (with his family crest on them, naturally). There was a disturbing air of, 'So, we're all in agreement that Channel 4 were wrong are we? Marvellous. Over to Carol for the weather.'

on Global Warming

The current global warming debate fits neatly into the framework developed by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky in "Risk and Culture", and I do believe the alarmists are inherently religious. Replace the wrath of God with the wrath of Nature, and the concern for the afterlife with concern for future generations, and you can translate pretty much directly. All cultural voices are evident at the moment: the egalitarians (the environment is unstable, cut emissions immediately and decisively with behavioural responses); the hierarchists (the environment is tolerant within limits, appeal to experts to alter incentives and provide a technical solution); the individualists (the environment is benign, entrepreneurs will solve the problem because fixed resources aren't finite resources); and finally, like myself, the fatalist (whatever).

Reading through Russ Robert's recent piece on "The Political Economy of Global Warming" tempted me to go beyond a sociological analysis, and actually express an opinion on the substance of the debate. On Thursday I walked outdoors into the snow and glibly muttured "blooody global warming" to a student. Her response was that global warming wasn't just about the planet getting hotter, but developing more volatile weather patterns. Therefore hot temperatures are a sign of global warming, and so are cold temperatures.

This immediately set alarm bells ringing, because both sides must agree that the debate is underpinned by uncertainty. And one of the key insights of uncertain phenomena is that the greater the number of observations we have, the greater the likelihood of patterns being random. The  concern over global warming has fuelled (and publicly funded) more and more measurement, and therefore we should expect an increase in volatility, and an increase in patterns, purely because of randomness. The issue over the coming years isn't whether such weather patterns exist, but whether we can disentangle the randomness. I'm not sure at all that climatologists are even asking this question, let alone seriously trying to answer it.

And that is why I'm a fatalist: I don't respond to religious hysteria; and I don't think the measurement techniques are sufficient.

Celebrity Big Brother and Little England

It's hard for me to avoid Celebrity Big Brother, not because every single media outlet is obsessed by the racism controversy, but because our local Tesco backs onto the house. Still, I have found the row interesting as an example of common unknowledge. Can anyone seriously be shocked that Danielle would say:

If she doesn't like it she can go home

Are we all *really* sickened to see three similar girls gang up on another one? Aren't these intrinsic human characteristics, occurring everywhere, just rarely explicitly analysed? I think so.

The sanctimony with which the BBC in particular are reporting this issue is ironic given two recent statements by their journalists. Less than a week ago as Sylvester Stallone left the Everton match prominent football commentator Alan Green suggested he was:

going to see whether his Limousine was on bricks

Green has failed to apologise for these offensive remarks -- a type of racism --  whilst his colleagues lament Danielle's implicit racism. The fact that she's a scally herself makes it so circular, so ironic...

Scouse bird: Indians are unhygienic
[Moral outrage from the BBC]
Alan Green (on the BBC): scousers are thieves

To be honest I do think this has more to do with culture than race, and is therefore a clash rather than an unprovoked assault. But these attitudes run deep, since the same 5 Live journalists who express moral outrage are just as bad as Danielle, Jo and Jade. This morning Nicky Campbell mentioned how some people pronounce leisure as "lee-sure" (i.e. Americans), to which Sheila Fogarty replies (and I quote from memory)

They don't in this country

Is that of fundamental difference to the girl's attitude toward Shilpa's pronunciation? I don't think so, but the difference is that Jo, Jade and Danielle have/will all express regret when they watch the tapes. They don't consider themselves to be racist, and (Jade aside) their friends/family are deeply saddened by all this. By contrast the BBC either refuses to apologise, or even recognise their hypocrisy.

p.s. Personally, having experience both, I find American tv is higher quality than in England. Does that make me a cretin or what?

Pit Bull Terror

If the most recent example of the dangerous dog cascade wasn't bad and tragic enough,  it appears that the owners of the dog had previously been warned about it's behaviour, and it was a banned breed (a "Pit Bull Terrior type").

Dear Sir/Madam
It has come to our attention that you own a creature [so dangerous it was made illegal in 1991]. As you were.

My instincts say that whether or not a dog is dangerous has more to do with their training than their breed, but i'm sure there are extreme cases where this hardly holds. It's the perennial debate afterall, and therefore unsolvable.

So (as usual) rather than solve it I'd like to study it, and I find it interesting that I haven't yet heard from the conservationists. I know that some groups favour the elimination of a dangerous type of dog only bred for it's viciousness, whilst some groups blame the owners and deem the elimination of a breed excessive when licensing would do.

I know that conservationists typically focus on species, but it seems to me that the arguments for the conservation of a particular type of tiger are also applicable to the case of Pit Bull Terriers. My instinct is that plenty of people are against extinction but unlikely to criticise the forced castration of "dangerous" dogs. Is that right?

15th December: Anticipation

When I was [more of] a kid, my favourite day of the year was 21st December. Not my birthday (too much attention), nor the last day of school term. Christmas was the magical highlight of the year, but I was conscious that it went past too quickly. Christmas Eve contained too much of it's own excitement, so it was always the 21st that I longed for. It was that pause before triumph, the final surveyance of a peak before your conquer it.

More recently (and probably due to the Toilet Roll Hypothesis), it's no longer December 21st. For some intuitive reason my favourite day of the year has become December 15th. My time horizon has lengthened, I'm content right now.

So it's entirely apt that I spent a deliriously restless night last night, with the forces of sleep battling the hushed tones of Radio 4 (LW). I'd be sparodically woken for updates, and slip into a half hour limbo between consciousness and the wafting Swan. At 119-1 the 3rd Test is paused poignantly, with Australia right on the verge of the required third victory that would seal the Ashes. Watching the highlight's this evening in a hermit's autonomy captured the anticipation of the 15th December, along with that unique sporting thrill of counting down the minutes until victory. You've now reached that point where you know you're about to win. The Champagne's on ice. There's no alternative scenario. It's inevitable. It's happening. Nothing can go wrong. Just wait, and anticipate: (the opposite of longing).

Joanne Lees, and the Proof of Truth via the Courts and via the Media

Objectivists have a hard time explaining why people ever disagree (surely we'd all just confer to experts), but subjectivists have a hard time explaining why we ever agree (inherent meaning needn't be common). This is why much of my own research features on culture:

Between private, subjective perception and public, physical science there lies culture, a middle area of shared beliefs and values.
Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982:194

A vivid reminder that a middle area between objective fact and subjective interpretation does exist, is a criminal trial: some individuals claim to possess the truth, some don't. Some are lying, some aren't. We randomly select a group of strangers, and the individual's powers of persuasion determine their fate.

The intention is to converge on truth, but spare a thought for the person who possesses the truth all along. They have nothing to gain from the trial (they know what happened), but everything to lose. The system of justice attempts to ensure that they gain the objectively defined "truth", but there's enough room for subjective interpretation and misunderstandings to threaten this.

Spare a thought for Joanne Lees, the backpacker who hid for several hours in the Australian outback being hunted by the man who'd just killed Peter Falconio (her boyfriend) - and for some inexplicably sexist, sensationalist, and evil reason she became a prime and public suspect.

A criminal trial is specifically designed to deliver justice, and it's tempting to conclude that "the system works, what's all the fuss about?" (See inset) But don't neglect another institution that operates in the middle area between objective truth and subjective perception: the media.

I've spoken previously about Duncan Ferguson, and how the press hate him because he won't play along:

"The media refuse to accept that anyone can be a hero without their permission. It erodes their authority, and hence the attempts now to attack the man

...

it's not good enough for a journalist to think that a man's refusal to make their life easy, permits them to use prejudice and inference. If you don't know the facts, then don't write the article"

Big Dunc didn't want to play the media game, and ultimately didn't have to: his livelihood didn't depend on it, and he didn't care much for his public reputation. This option wasn't really available to Joanne Lees, however. Being a witness in a murder trial across the globe makes it impossible to earn a normal living, so her livelihood is involuntarily tied to the case. But more importantly her reputation was being questioned in a far more personal, meaningful, and destructive manner
- sitting back and taking it isn't an option.

So Joanne Lees finds herself in an unenviable and unwanted position: thrust into a media spotlight and subject to speculation and deformation. Effectively blackmailed into participation because the only way to respond to such attention requires engagement.

Consequently she's written a book, "No Turning Back", and is once again opening herself up to public attention as she seeks to publicise it. She is more cynical now, and has learnt from the mistakes made (rather than worry about the boyfriend you fear is dead you should worry about what choice of clothes best conveys "grieving", even though at this point (a) you're not grieving, you're searching; and (b) you can't bare what it'd do to your ailing mother to see you break down so far from home. Another mistake is to trust that cunt Martin Bashir, although you acknowledge it won't be the first or last time a journalist abuses your integrity and your trust).

Listen to "Today" on Radio 4 on Monday morning, for what promises to be a deeply moving interview. Keep a look out all this week for her interviews with the British media (which began with a book serialisation, podcast and Q&A qith The Times), and which i've been told Simon Mayo treated her with the most compassion (Monday 7th October 2pm, BBC 5 Live).

Already the frenzy is in action, as Australia's media pick up on the book release and prepare for the round of interviews and publicity she'll be doing Down Under next week by openly questioning her experience. Shameful.

But at least now - with a warmly written, humurous, yet achingly chilling account of her side of the story - she's provided the world with what she's needed to say. She's documented the two crimes she's endured: firstly at the hands of Bradley Murdoch, secondly at the hands of the media. And as she winds down the pact with the press she can put this sorry episode behind her, with her integrity intact, and a fitting account of one of the most disturbing crimes of recent years.

Such a shame that these two forms of culture are less than perfect mechanisms to deal with subjectivism.

Aborigines Given Ownership of Perth

Tuesday's historic Federal Court granting of native title over Perth to the Noongar people of southwest Western Australia has stunned all levels of government and caused confusion and uncertainty across the country (The Nation)

I don't know enough about this case, but on the issue of forgiveness more generally, it's fitting to quote a Bruce:

"the demand for justice, if given full play, can undermine the fragile political conditions for the powerful development of a liberal constitution. The better part of wisdom is to keep the demand for corrective justice under control while channelling energy toward the construction of an enduring constitutional order"
Ackerman (1992:4)

The Worst Get on Top: Religion and Politics

It's hard to know what to make of the backlash to the Pope's comments on Muhammad:

• it seems childish, ironic and self-fulfilling. The reaction of some simply confirms the point of that original quote: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (Manuel II Palaiologos)
• it seems scary - Huntington's thesis being fuelled by blood-thirsty media
• it seems hypocritical: "we're" capable of mobbish overeaction irrationalism too - remember this?

Unfortunately these events - by their nature - are divisive, and our media aren't capable of representing the issue down the middle. On the one hand we have those who report that the Pope is placating all Muslims - and that Islam itself is responsible for the reaction. Then the voices of "moderate" Islam seek to distance themselves from the violence and terror, whilst sympathising with the motives. Both positions seem flawed to me - this is "merely" a subset of Islam, but it *is* a subset nevertheless. Therefore this isn't really about religion at all.

Owen made a good point (a while back) when he identified the real clash: "the battle of ideas is not between Christian and Islamic religions and cultures. The real battle of ideas is between rational, reality-based thought and religions of all kinds." This subset of Islam - those who murder non-members, declare war on non-believers, force conversions, and stifle debate by threats of violence, need an enlightenment, and religious tolerance is a keystone. At the end of the day, tolerance is all it takes to create peace.

But let me be clear: it is only this subset that i'm talking about - not Islam itself. It should be painfully and blindingly obvious that the most violent, irrational and disgusting reactions to the Pope's speech is occuring in countries without political freedom. We cannot complain that rational thought isn't met with reasoned debate within civil society (the proper channels of public discourse) if civil society is outlawed. If these people have little voice, violence is their only audibility. Again, this isn't about religion - it's about the social instruments of peace that make rational discourse possible.

Over the weekend I was asked to be a god father, and treat this role with thrill and honour. I've tried resolving this paradox, since I'm (somewhat) overtly atheist, and asked the childs parents why they chose me. Their reply is a true sign of the times, but flattering nevertheless - Should they become unable to take the child to church, they wanted to appoint someone who would take her - *if* she wants to go. They chose me because I have "an open mind" about that sort of thing.

It makes me think that Owen goes too far with his views on the clash of ideas, because according to him:

All religion is bad

in other words, he's not just an atheist, he's an anti-theist. This neat seperation between science & religion makes me uneasy, what would we have if we got rid of religion? (Clue: Only the USSR came close to achieving it), and the words of Vincent Ostrom still echo:

“We have the potential then of those who reject religion becoming the prophets of new secular religions"

Tim Garton-Ash has a wonderful line about the difference between being a Christian atheist and a Jewish atheist - the acceptance of this point undermines any neat rejection of religious influence. All ideas have a theological componant*, and there's an important interplay between vision and analysis**.

No, I don't think that "all religion is bad", because if it was I wouldn't be a god parent, and our grandparents - those who fought the war and now go to church to talk to God before they join him - aren't being bad. Religious people aren't bad, and in large part that's down to their religion.

To resolve this dillema, enter Friedrich Hayek, who can explain to us Why the Worst Get on Top. The village vicar and those s/he serves - like the local councillers - tend to be good, decent, honest people. It's their leaders who make a mockery of their efforts, by sucking power and serving their own agendas. The more authoritarian the system, the worse it gets - leaders trampling over their naive followers.

In politics, as in religion, as in life. The response? Preach tolerance, preach freedom, and reduce the advantages of office.

---

* See my paper "The Spread of Economic Theology: The Flat Tax in Romania" Romanian Economic and Business Review, forthcoming

** See "Analysis and Vision in the History of Modern Economic Thought" Robert Heilbroner
Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sep., 1990), pp. 1097-1114

 

the old certainties... II

I heard on the radio this morning that a chap with HIV (who happens to be an asylum seeker, and black), has slept with "scores" of women at a holiday caravan park. I wondered if the old certainties (still) remain, and they do.

The Daily Mail headline:

Asylum seeker gave six women HIV

Best of all though, "readers comments":

I feel so sorry for these women but Why on earth did they not practice safe sex? It is well known that there is an extremely high rate of HIV in Africa.
- M. Beattie, Plymouth

just some quotes I like...

careful measurement of self-response is a way of generating new ideas
Alex Tabarrok on Seth Roberts

Galileo was offered a chair at Harvard University
quoted by Tyler Cowen

surely the best schemer is the one you don’t think is scheming
Quinn on Blair/Brown

Everton handed local rivals Liverpool a 3-0 Merseyside derby mauling
Reuters

Steve Irwin RIP

"He was the Australian we all aspire to be. He touched my heart. I believed in him. I'll miss him,"

Russell Crowe's turn of phrase might be unfortunate, but the sentiment is real and worthy - Steve Irwin's death is deeply tragic, but what makes it all the more horrible is the reaction by rival broadcasters, and some of the media.

Irwin's methods have got the goat in the past, with Terry Nutkin's once saying: "He's put himself up as the star with animals as extras. It's dreadful television". If there's two things that we all know about Irwin it's that he's down to earth, and he loves animals. This image of an egotistical superstar, exploiting nature is perverse, but is sadly prominent amongst the reaction. According to The Mirror: "TV presenter Chris Packham said Irwin's style was to use animals as a sideshow to his own showmanship", and last night I heard Packham claim that if you constantly provoke dangerous animal, you'll eventually be bitten. He seemed to be saying that Irwin got what was coming to him. Ray Mear's has also played this card: ""Dangerous animals, you leave them alone, because nature defends itself - it isn't all hugging animals and going, 'Ahh'. You have to be sensible and keep a safe distance."

But Steve Irwin wasn't a television presenter who played with animals, he was a conservationist - a good one - who stumbled upon a career to make wildlife accessable for kids. The insinuation that he was reckless is insenstive and probably false, "At the time of his death Mr Irwin was interacting with a sting ray on the Great Barrier Reef, there is no evidence that Mr Irwin was intimidating or threatening the stingray. My advice is that he was observing the stingray." (Police Superintendent Mike Keating). But it also smacks of envy, as if Steve Irwin's enthusiasm and affable nature detracts from his professionalism. Why do British people find it so hard to respect popularity? It's like an instinctive assumption that to be popular implies that you cater to ignorance. I suspect that Nutkins, Packham, and Mears can't see beyond the caricature, and that is their fault. We shouldn't belittle those we envy, we should tax the envious.

And why can't the media report this tragedy without feeling the need to search for controversy, and undermine Irwin's achievements? Once more the non story about him feeding a crocodile with his baby son surfaces - it is ludicrous to criticise him, and outrageous to think it's in any way similar to the Michael Jackson incident. People who say it is are offensive and vindictive morons.

So i'm gutted  by all this, and disgusted by those who seek to portray Steve Irwin as reckless and somehow deserving of his fate. Those sentiments are driven by envy, and a snobbish attitude that seeks to monopolise learning and curb enthusiasm. I have recurring nightmares about crocodiles and always enjoy watching Steve Irwin demonstrate how man and nature should coexist - with respect but without fear.

Water Landing

Tyler Cowen provides evidence for my oft-used assertion that "no airplane has ever landed on water". When I fly with Faith she interprets it to mean "don't worry, we're not going to crash on water". Of course if she ever replies "so what happens if there's engine trouble over water" i'd be forced to renact Gavin's hilarious outburst made in a dark Bucharest nightclub last summer "you're all fucked! hey mate - you're fucked, hey you - you're fucked too, you're all fucked!"

Fortunately, though, several airplanes have crash-landed on water. Phew.

The News

Quinn saw the news, and makes two excellent points. Firstly he points out how old the footage is that the BBC uses to accompany stories on crime:

If the BBC has so little evidence of crime on film that they have to
rely on a blurred and grainy image from yesteryear, then perhaps the
justice gap isn’t as wide as some people fear

Exactly: it's all information cascades. Notice how the headlines on the stories about Michael Lynch all mention knives. Five years ago it wouldn't have been.

Secondly Quinn points out the blatant homophobia inherent within the way the media has reported the story of a foster couple who've been found guily of sexual offences

looking through the story, I cannot see how the sexuality of the
offenders is relevant, other than to perhaps confirm some people’s
prejudices. Indeed the judge stressed that "this is not about
homosexuality, it is about abuse of trust", so what does the fact that
the offenders are gay have to do with anything?

Nice one Quinn!

5 Things

• Reason on why we read fiction
• Using roulette wheels to aid decision-making
• Photos of North Korea: here and here etc
• How I miss Fox News
  
• Mosquito - kids strike back

From MR, ASI, BHS & MFI

Common Law Marriage

The Guardian report that:

Unmarried couples will have the right to make the same financial claims after a break-up as those who have gone through a marriage or civil partnership ceremony, under proposals to be unveiled today.

This proposal is horrible, and worrying too because as Tim Worstall points out this comes from the Law Commission and therefore (according to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act) would become law without debate or votes in Parliament. The reason I say it's horrible is very simple: it's bad and unecessary.

It's bad because (Tim again):

By insisting that those who wish to shag and share a bathroom with another person on a long term basis also share their worldly goods with them, this is a reduction in the opportunities and possibilites available to free people

I cohabit and am not married, and the issue of common law marriage arose a few years ago (which I wrote up in this article on Ideal Government). In my experience people cohabit for a wide number of reasons, sometimes instead of marriage, sometimes as a prelude. Sometimes financial reasons play a part, others it's for the sheer thrill of a blissfull domesticity. The problem is if you legislate to help a certain type of cohabiters, you inevitably harm those others who are just exercising their (supposed) freedom to live how they choose. It is abhorent to think that if someone tries to do their partner a favour by letting them move in with them, they become financially liable should the relationship end.

It's unecessary because the current problem - cohabiters who make an active choice not to be married but desire the recognition of their relationship in front of the courts of law - already has a solution. We become too absorbed in the religious connotations of marriage, because after all it's just a contract. A will is another contract, and can be used to ensure that whoever you want to recieve your possessions will do so.

The solution is not to force people unwillingly into a deeper commitment than they desire, but to support free individuals to use contractual relationships that are applicable to their own wishes.

In Praise of the Magna Carta

There's little more I wish to add to the excellent thoughts of Chris Dillow:

England stands for freedom, Britain for conquest. England stands for quiet dignity, Britain for glory. England is grown and natural, Britain is imposed by the ruling class.

Like him I think the fact that our new "national day" will be celebrated on the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta is a positive and enlightened decision, honoring a legal document that underpins not only our own constitutional culture but also that of the free world. The fact that it's "English" rather than "British" is a further reason because it errs toward patriotism rather than nationalism.

I remember whilst at Sixth Form going to a conference on the European Union, and the topic of debate was "Do you feel British of European?" The organiser's hopes of an enthusiastic debate on the virtures of European integration were quickly dashed when my teacher replied "I don't even feel British, I feel English". I tried to go one step further (I was born in Yorkshire, a "national" identity itself) and quickly the debate descended into a wonderful discovery of federalism and regionality.

Oxenholme

On Saturday on my way back from Edinburgh something happened. It has been reported in the press, and I don’t wish to go into my own experiences of it here, largely because I think they would be unhelpful, such is the way when a large body of people witness something.

This morning I received a letter from Virgin trains. During the event I felt that the company and the members of the staff performed brilliantly. Just before the incident happened, whilst dealing with a passenger without a ticket, I had heard a guard say how hard his day had been so far, and I was thinking how well he was representing the company in dealing with her.

However the letter today has increasingly concerned me. To start with, I was a little surprised that the company felt it should offer me compensation at all. Had the two hour delay been caused by some error on their part, I naturally would have taken them up on their absurdly generous offer of refunding my outward and return journeys, but this obviously was outside of their hands. What really troubles me, however, is the following paragraph in the letter:

I would like to reassure you that this type of serious crime is extremely rare on our trains. However, in an increasingly violent society the potential for this type of incident is, unfortunately, always present.

They have moved me from wanting to write a letter of thanks for their handling of the situation, to one of complaint. Increasingly violent, indeed. Perhaps then I should take to living on their trains where such things are 'extremely rare’.

Lech Walesa in Liverpool

Solidarity leader Lech Walesa is in Liverpool tonight, becoming an honorary fellow from the Moores. Head down to the Met, since I doubt tickets for the lecture are still available (try Mrs.Mace: b.mace@ljmu.ac.uk 0151 231 3852).

Ryanair and Dispatches - The Musical

If that title got you very excited then I'm afraid the bad news is there's no musical planned (yet) to convey the fascinating spat unleashed earlier this year between airline Ryanair and Channel 4's Dispatches programme. Still, I'll continue to hassle Andrew Lloyd-Webber.

Anyway, if you're bored with Eastenders then the full correspondence between Ryanair and Steve Boulton Productions (the company that made Ryanair Caught Napping) is readable on the Ryanair website here. It's quite fascinating really - just like a good episode of Inspector Morse you're constantly torn between sympathy for both parties whilst learning some fascinating facts about the airline industry (none more so than the fact that rubbish on board aircraft is referred to as 'gash').

An open letter to Lowri Turner

Dear Lowri,

Oh how we used to love you on DIY SOS, how you used to help us decide between our black and cream sofas on Housecall, and how you aided us through the myriad of complexities involved in matching the right kitten-heel to handbag on Looking Good. These were surely the only issues which mattered to us then, but now my dear you have set us all straight with your right thinking and good common sense. If you could now advise us on getting our Labrador into a decent school, we’d be astonishingly grateful.


Yours with due respect,

The Gays.
xxx

on James Frey

In case you've missed it (or live in England - I assume this is only big news in the US), ABC news nicely summarise the controversy:

Oprah Winfrey has changed her mind about James Frey and his memoir, A Million Little Pieces. Shortly after The Smoking Gun investigated Frey's memoir and found it was full of "a million little lies", Oprah - who had hawked the memoir through her book club - told Larry King "that the underlying message of redemption in James Frey's memoir still resonates with me" and that she would still recommend the book.

But now Oprah has had Frey back on her own show, and told him: "I really feel duped, but more importantly, I feel that you betrayed millions of readers."

It's reminded me of the following:

It reads: QUARTET - SKOKIE, ILLINOIS
      Kujan's eyes flash all' over the bulletin board. He finds a
      picture of Rabin in the far corner. He stands beside a scale
      in fishing gear. He proudly holds a hand out to his freshly
      caught marlin. His eyes skim quickly over and stop on an
      eight and a half by eleven inch fax sheet of what must be a
      THREE HUNDRED POUND BLACK MAN. Kujan glazes over his name, it
      is irrelevant. His aliases stand out.

      Slavin, BRICKS, Shank, REDFOOT, Thee, Rooster...

      KUJAN'S EYES WIDEN with sudden realization. He runs for the
      door.

Cronulla Kicking Off

on the one hand, in my experience, Australia is a vastly and successfully multicultural country.
on the other, Pauline Hanson and "that boat"

on the one hand, they're (we're) all immigrants
on the other, they fought wars against these people

I missed this, but it all kicked off in Sydney on Sunday. Drunken white thugs were whipped up and started kicking off against Lebanese immigrants - the worst race riots seen Down Under... ever (BBC). What to make of it? I wonder what Germaine will have to say, perhaps something as profound as Donald Fisher:

If you go back far enough, we're all immigrants, really

Maybe the alcohol-fueled fighting is just preparation for the trip to Germany next summer?

Civil Liberties - Who Needs Them?

The word in Westminster is that Tony Blair is closer than ever to standing down as PM. How do I know this? All my contacts in the corridors of power of course - you might know them, they come into my living room every night after half past ten, and dish out all the gossip under the banner of Newsnight and This Week.

All this talk got me thinking about what exactly Tony and his 'New Labour' administration have done for us. Seeing Alistair Campbell and Jeremy Paxman thrash it out on Tuesday's Newsnight put me in mind of the great strides forward this government has made in the field of media relations. Now editors don't even have to waste time on journalism, they just get stories straight from the Downing Street press office, ready packaged and spun, and that's got to save time and resources and keep cover prices down.

Then the sad sight of poor old David Blunkett made me think of those ID cards, and how much I'm looking forward to having a nice shiny new piece of plastic in my wallet. It will mean that every time I get asked for ID in a bar, I won't have to produce my 'Provisional Driving License' - it was always an embarrassment revealing I haven't yet passed my driving test. What's more - it means that you can indulge in the old 'laughing at the passport photo' pastime every day and not just when you're at the airport, even the Al Qaeda terrorists can have a good laugh when they forge their own - 'You don't want to see my photo, it was taken the day after Osama's 30th birthday bash'.

But even more than this, I'm so pleased that the government is taking a stand against these pesky terrorists by introducing the new anti-terror laws. Who cares about the presumption of innocence and fundamental principles of no detention without trial established in the Magna Carta? After all, Tony keeps telling us that these terrorists are trying to attack our way of life and our principles of freedom, so it's a good job that he's stepping in there and doing that for them before they get a chance. The terrorists must be laughing all the way to the annual Al Qaeda Year of Achievement Dinner - 'I'd like to thank Tony Blair for helping us achieve our aims through the British legal system'.

The Capital Remembers its Dead (well, most of them)

The reaction amongst 'community leaders' and politicians after the tragic events of 7 July was encouragingly non-vengeful. Many in London society immediately sought to look to the root of the problem - asking how four British men had been driven to carry out this hateful act, rather than the most effective and satisfying way of making someone pay (which may have been the reaction of certain other 'administrations'). Dissapointing then was the decision by the organisers of yesterday's moving service of rememberance at St Paul's Cathedral not to invite the families of the four suicide bombers - as if they would somehow prove offensive. Maybe those positive sentiments in the aftermath of the bombs are wearing a little thin - we're still referring to the '52 dead' which doesn't include those four who perished when they detonated the bombs. It seems to me that the families of these four men are as much victims in this terrible situation as anyone. We must be aware of the anger these men must have felt about global political situations (which this is - a political conscience magnified and distorted by al qaeda chiefs into an evil desire to kill), and wake up more readily to the fact that the only way to deal with terrorism is by changing our attitude towards that which is alien to us; and inviting the isolated, victimised and entirely innocent families of these bombers would have made a nice start on that little project. Whilst I cannot imagine the pain and suffering of those affected by the bombs themselves through injury or bereavement and the effects that pain must have, I still wonder when will we all learn that forgiveness is the only way to begin an effective process of reconciliation - whether you're a christian, a muslim, a hindu or a humanist. Never, I guess. Otherwise the world would be that bit too sensible.

Hawkish Sentimentality (2)

An unsual story from the Liverpool Echo:

A MAKESHIFT shrine has sprung up in Liverpool - in memory of a dead chicken.

Story continues

Bouquets of flowers, teddy bears and handwritten cards have been laid outside an angling store in Anfield's Oakfield Road by people who believe a baby's body was found there.

The confusion began last Tuesday when a woman telephoned police to report the discovery of a baby's body.
The corpse was taken to a nearby hospital where it was later identified by medical staff as a chicken.

The Daily Telegraph reported the events:

Among the dozens of bunches of flowers laid by well-wishers was a card reading: "RIP Little Baby. Safe in the arms of Jesus. From someone who is a loving mother xxxx."

and couldn't resist reminding us that

Conservative MP and Telegraph columnist Boris Johnson was forced to apologise last year after the Spectator magazine, which he edits, claimed that Liverpudlians typify "the mawkish sentimentality of a society hooked on grief".

I commented on the Johnson saga here, here and here.