Has something happened?

Bill Turnbull and Natasha Kaplinsky were both wearing black suits this morning on BBC Breakfast: something that usually points to someone famous or royal dying. I waited for the national anthem to be played but nothing. And no mention of it on my top news-source, the PB Board.

So what I want to know is: did the BBC think something was going to happen? Obviously they receive alerts and information that are newsworthy but go unreported for whatever reason. The black suits pointed to something fairly serious (I don't think I've seen black suits since the Queen mother died)… anyhow, I'm keeping my eyes peeled today. Maybe an old royal is on their way out?

September 29, 2005 | Filed Under General | 2 Comments 

Stupid Design

A court case opened on Monday which at last promises to challenge the decision of the Dover Area School Board to force teachers to present 'Intelligent Design' as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory.

The case is being brought by a group of eleven parents unhappy that the school board seems to be promoting a form of Biblical myth as 'another theory' which has as much place in Biology lessons as Darwin's theory of the origins of species. Many Christian supporters of the school board argue that evolution is 'just a theory' and that so called Intelligent Design deserves the right to be taught in Biology classes because some people believe in it.

Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne wrote an article published on September the 1st explaining that while it may seem reasonable to give equal place to two competing theories, that is not the case with Intelligent Design. The crux of the matter is that no scientists support his theory, no scientific data or investigation backs it up, and that you can't allow religious beliefs to be taught as reasonable science simply because some people believe them. This links in nicely with what I've written here before about religion. I think it's important to understand that just because someone has a religious belief in something, it doesn't follow that their belief deserves challenge-free acceptance from everybody else. It would be easy for me to claim that I believed anything at all, but I should never have the right to see those beliefs unquestioned. In this way, evolutionary theory must be questioned as part of normal scientific debate.

Conversely, it is absolutely right that scientists dismiss Intelligent Design for what it is: a rebadged version of creationism. It has no place in a biology classroom because it is not based on any scientific investigation or genuine theory. Next thing they'll be asking to teach that George Bush invented flying. Or drinking.

September 28, 2005 | Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment 

We are not a nation

I just read a well written blog article criticising a variety of responses to hurricane Katrina's destruction. While I agree with the geographical points made – they are usually forgotten by people over here – the article has switched me on to something that as been cropping up an awful lot over the last couple of years. OK: I'm slow on the uptake.

When I talk about the USA, I talk as an Englishman living in Barcelona. I'm not a 'European' because I don't know what that means. No one that I've ever met in my travels describes themselves as 'European', but it is a term almost universally employed by Americans I've met.

I feel that this points to something of a misconception. While it is correct to style citizens of the USA as 'Americans' because they live in one country, a nation with one central government, there is no sense in trying to refer to all citizens in the European Union as 'Europeans'. People in Cordoba have as much in common with people in Copenhagen as people in New Orleans have with the citizens of Cape Town. It's a meaningless term, used to bunch together a group of wildly differing cultures and races to make a lazily constructed argument work.

The natural response to this may be "Oh come on, there is a lot of shared ideology and culture in Europe – you know that, Tom!" – and this is true. But no more than there is between us and Americans. So if we refer to 'Europeans', there is no real way the term works except as a description of people from a huge area with varying cultures and races, not united in any real sense.

Perhaps this (like most things) is the fault of the European Union? I get the idea that a lot of people over here have been keen to explain to Americans they meet, how close the European Union has brought us together. It's true that I can work in Cordoba or Copenhagen without applying for a special work permit. It's true that a factory can close in Peterborough and move to Prague without much being done to stop it. But it doesn't mean that I understand a word of Danish, Czech, Dutch or most of the other languages spoken here.

And this is the point: when Americans use the term 'Europeans', they put a sort of onus on EU citizens to act like Americans do. That is to say, we're all members of one Union, so we should work together instead of fighting all the time. I don't think that many Americans realise just how little we have in common with eachother, and how important our individual national traits and traditions really are to us.

We are not one nation, but dozens of nations, with impossibly inter-connected histories for sure, but with very powerful and often clashing interests. Americans like to bemoan the fact that Europeans can't stop fighting amongst themselves for more than 50 years or so. Christ, we don't like that either. But it happens sometimes because we are not one nation – and when you have dozens of nations in a small area, conflicts will occur.

As Alan Partridge noted, "Shit happens".

September 24, 2005 | Filed Under Language, Politics | Leave a Comment 

Handbook for bloggers and cyber-dissidents

September 22, 2005 | Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment 

Kate Moss: C'mon, rip her to shreds!

The big celebrity gossip story of the week is of course the 'revelations' about Kate Moss and her alleged use of cocaine. I say alleged because that seems to be a way to avoid getting sued… even though frankly I would have been far more surprised – nay shocked – if she was found not to be taking the drug.

What has really shocked me though is the way that the tabloid newspapers have gone at her Рquite literally Рlike a pack of baying hounds. I have made my views on fox hunting pretty clear in these pages, and Kate is most certainly a fox. What confuses me is whether the story is actually in the public interest in any way, or whether it was nothing more than a money making exercise from a failing newspaper's coke-addled hacks desperate to ignite some genuine controversy after their last major expos̩ was found to be a complete fraud.
The only possible argument for this story being of genuine public interest is that Kate Moss sets some sort of moral example to the youth of England – and that she might therefore be a corrupting influence. Now, I'm not the hippest cat in town, but I'm pretty sure that anyone who really styles themselves after Kate Moss is pretty aware that supermodels do drugs. Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them. And anyone who didn't know was blissfully ignorant of the fact.

So what the papers have done with this story is make sure everyone in the world knows that Kate takes drugs. What they've done is shatter the illusion that was enjoyed by dozens of fans across England that Kate Moss, girlfriend of crackhead Pete Doherty, original poster girl of heroin-chic, is a clean living angel. Anyone who lived in that imaginary world deserves to be taken for a fool. And where's the value in bringing her down? I just can't see it. If anyone really believed that Kate was clean, then all the newspapers have done is make it more likely that (a) teenage girls around England will learn that their idol does loads of coke and (b) ensure that a popular hero of English fashion loses all her jobs. Oh I nearly fogot about (c): SELL LOTS OF NEWSPAPERS.

Kate Moss never set herself up as moral guardian of the nation. But hacks at the Mirror do exactly that. What I would like to know is: how many of these shitty journalists are themselves cocaine users or heavy drinkers? How many have illicit affairs, drunken punch-ups or two day benders? I would bet that at least 75% of them do any or all of these. I wouldn't be surprised if it was every single one of them. These lowlives, scum of the earth, who claim to be the conscience of the nation, are nothing but bottom-feeding, mysoginistic, jealous hacks who need taking down. The Mirror is a particularly hateful newspaper: it is just as low-brow as The Sun but assumes a sort of intelligent-prole image that is always shattered when they print either this sort of scurrilous gossip, or the made up bullshit they call cover the rest of the time; also it is hateful because it employs Tony Parsons, the most irritating and useless man ever given a job.

Anyway, my point really is this: Kate, if you ever get to read this, or if someone mentions my brilliant rant, do this: Get Out Of England. It's a shit-hole, take it from me.

September 22, 2005 | Filed Under Rants | Leave a Comment 

The police are bad

David Mery's column about being falsely arrested by the police in London is pretty worrying. Basically, he was arrested for: not looking at some police officers, being in the station at the same time as two other people, looking at people on the train platform and taking a piece of paper out of his pocket. While many will say "hanging's not good enough for 'im" I have to admit that even I am surprised by the lengths the police will go to, if only the government allows them.

This reminds me of the story of a friend who was stopped at Bournemouth airport for nothing more than looking 'a bit black'. The police have allowed their new powers to go to their heads. But what can you or I do to stop them?

September 22, 2005 | Filed Under UK | Leave a Comment 

Strokes new single: Juicebox

Heard the next single by The Strokes today… and it's pretty good. I like the shift in style away from the last two albums; they needed to freshen up. So to speak.

At the same time, it's not quite the Dub sound I was hoping for. Can't always get what you want.

I hope this confounds plenty of people. People need to be confounded as much as possible.

September 21, 2005 | Filed Under Music | Leave a Comment 

Middlesex update – university uses brutal tactics yet again

Keith Shilson – head of Middlesex University's student union has been kicked out of the uni by its Vice Chancellor because of his refusal to cancel a talk to be given by Hizb ut-Tahrir.

This classic example of a university using draconian methods to resist freedom of speech represents yet another attempt to silence a dissenting voice. This story should be watched closely: it's imperative that Middlesex don't get away with this.

September 21, 2005 | Filed Under UK | Leave a Comment 

Middlesex SU to defy Islamist ban

The students' union of Middlesex Uni is going to defy orders from the university's Vice Chancellor who has tried to ban a meeting involving the controversial group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The group has been proscribed by the prime minister, banned by the NUS and described everywhere as extremist for its alleged support of terrorism. I think that the SU has done the right thing by not bowing in to administrative pressure to cancel debates of this sort. I'm not convinced that there is a justification in banning Hizb al-Tahrir but not banning other groups (like American students groups) who openly supported the illegal act of war on Iraq. The failure to correct this dichotomy is key to the reasons for not trusting a single word we are told by the government on these issues.

September 20, 2005 | Filed Under 'Terror', UK | Leave a Comment 

'War on terror', linguistics and logic

Sometimes we all need reminding of why we hold something to be true, even if we are repeatedly advised that we're wrong.In a brief lunch-break chat with a colleague, we talked about security and the infringement of civil liberties. The claim made by those in government these days is that we all have to sacrifice some of our freedom in order to be safe from the terrorists. I said to my colleague that I never asked for this extra security, and that I'd rather have my liberties. We talked about this and agreed that the so called war on terror is a myth – insofar as it is patently impossible to wage a war against fear, and that the concept of terrorism is flawed because it cannot be defined without also defining the actions of our governments in supposed opposition to terrorism.

I found an article here by Philip Kuchar which manages to crystallise my point. These extracts make for particularly good reading:

"The standard response to these facts [concerning the huge numbers of civilian dead in Iraq and Afghanistan] is that the terrorist differs from the antiterrorist, since only the terrorist intentionally kills civilians. When the antiterrorist kills civilians, this is "collateral damage." Since, however, this unintentional damage is typical of US and NATO military operations, the civilians must be killed as a means to a certain end. To say that the antiterrorist engages in a war knowing that these deaths will occur is to say that the antiterrorist approves of these deaths as a way of achieving this end."

I.E. – civilian deaths are an aim of our governments' actions in Iraq, because our governments realise that civilian deaths bring us closer to the planned victory.

"Many people take a leap of faith in uncritically accepting the Bush administration's obscure notion of "terrorism." Sometimes the war on terrorism is mythologized and said to be against "terror," which is a kind of fear. There is, of course, not even a potential military response to fear; the notion of attacking fear itself with tanks and helicopters is incoherent. Although a cause of fear may be so attacked, the hope of ending terror by any means at all is quite utopian."

There is a failure of logic so great at the heart of the claims made to us about terrorism (never mind its connections with Iraq) that it seems impossible that our governments could be making a mistake. If I accept that, then I must also accept the implication that our governments are pushing this story in the full knowledge that it is fallacious. Therefore, either our governments are so inept that they can't spot the key logical problem at the centre of their argument, or they are intentionally peddling falsehoods to us in order to convince us to support the insupportable.

""Antiterrorism," … is an organized, faith-based campaign of practically indiscriminate violence. By "faith-based" I mean that elite antiterrorists, such as members of the Bush administration, trust that only their opponents are ever evil and that the US deserves and can handle imperial power; meanwhile, the followers of antiterrorism cling to empty slogans. The war on terrorism is a massive exercise in trust with murderous consequences, which means that there is no significant difference between the antiterrorist and the terrorist."

Indeed, we are asked not only to suspend our disbelief and criticism, but also to give up our freedoms. A key claim in this war is the 'let freedom reign' argument which states that we love freedom, the 'terrorists' hate freedom and that is the difference between us. But at the same time, we are told that we must give up our freedom if we are to beat the 'terrorists'.

It seems to me that what we're told is: you must give up freedom to stop the people who want you to give up freedom. Or, if a 'terrorist' is described as someone who wants to steal my freedom from me, and my government steals my freedom from me, does this make my government essentially 'terrorist' in nature?

September 19, 2005 | Filed Under 'Terror', Politics | 2 Comments 

'Islamism' in Swansea University

The Guardian reports today that many universities across the UK house extremist and Islamist groups which 'pose a threat to national security'. Swansea University is listed as one of the institutions where Islamist groups have been found to operate by professor Anthony Glees, head of Brunel University's centre for intelligence and security studies.

While I haven't been a student at Swansea for some time now, it's true that there was a fair degree of student activism on campus. I took part in campaigns for the abolishment of university tuition fees, to prevent the closure of university departments and on behalf of the Socialist Workers' Party against the war in Afghanistan.

At around the same time, a motion was put before the student union council to boycott Israeli academics and institutions because of acts being committed by the Israeli state against Palestinians. These were the days of Ramallah and Jenin where crimes against humanity were carried out by the Israeli army.

The main critics of the motion to boycott Israeli academics and institutions were American and Jewish students, understandably fearful that the left wing of the student body were turning to an anti-Semitic position. A synagogue was damaged in an attack in 2002 – and though it was never proven that this was connected with Muslim or socialist students – the suggestion was that the socialists had helped to create a culture of hatred in the town.

Naturally, I think that this was the wrong conclusion. At a time when the BNP were trying to claw their way into local politics, race riots were taking place in Bradford and Leeds, the US had started its racist war against Muslims in Asia, there were a lot of violent and malicious incidents occurring. I believe that the intellectual boycott brought about by the student union was one of the best considered political acts I have witnessed. It was absolutely not anti-Semitic, and I find it personally insulting that whenever there is any discussion of the wrongs that have been committed on either side of the Palestinian conflict, accusations to that effect will be made.

The reason I have brought this up is that I have a sneaking suspicion that Swansea's 'extremism' and 'Islamic' will be found to be intrinsically linked with the boycott of Israeli academics and institutions – which just isn't the truth. As ought to be expected in the climate of fear that the British government is doing its best to create, any free thinking or direct action is automatically challenged as a threat to security.

Anyone familiar with Swansea university, Swansea City Council and the Swansea Police's attitude towards leftist student activism will already be aware of the attempts made to silence lecturers, terrorise students and prevent demonstrations. It seems that the next attempt might be to refer to Muslim student activists as 'terrorists'. This is exactly the sort of thing warned about before, throughout and after my brief time in Swansea.

The defamation of any politicised student or worker body has reached such a degree of acceptance in the UK that we may well have gone beyond the point of no return. It's imperative that anyone who can, speaks out against this attitude.

September 16, 2005 | Filed Under 'Terror', UK | 1 Comment 

Bush: Bathroom Break?

Photo of the year! And it's genuine!

George Bush has been pictured writing a note to Condoleezza Rice at the UN's 60th General Assembly. The note reads "I think I MAY NEED A BATHROOM break? Is this possible…".

Apart from the obvious point that it could be construed as 'asking' Ms Rice for permission to go to the bathroom, Mr Bush's writing style is quite telling. The floating question mark, for example, as well as the STRANGE use of UPPERCASE lettering.

September 15, 2005 | Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment 

C'mon England!


picture from the BBC

Australia, you've lost the Ashes!

September 13, 2005 | Filed Under General | 1 Comment 

299: The internet is based on a bad consensus

In today's Observer, Rafael Behr worries about how the internet is facing a 'clampdown' which will alter its special role as an alternative world built 'on trust'.

I disagree. The internet serves many purposes and has many benefits (my job, for example!) but it's not utopia, and it's not inherently good. The most important service it provides is for unenmedi-ised (like unenfranchised, but referring to access to the mass media) citizens to voice their opinions, fears, uncertainties and joy to an almost limitless potential audience. This is obviously an interesting facility that the internet has presented us with, but in some ways it underlines the flaws in modern society that gave birth to the Blogger (et al) community.

It seems obvious to me that the key reason for the explosion in the opinion based internet of the 2000s is naked vanity. The main content of most personal homepages is based on the assumption that someone is interested in what the author says. In the same way, the very nature of modern culture implies that we ought to value the personal expression of anyone with little judgement, criticism or caution. I find this situation pretty untenable. It's absolutely wrong that anyone can publish whatever views they like and not face criticism.

While freedom of expression is a right fought hard for and correctly prized, much of the internet's freedom of expression seems to benefit only those whose expressions are troubling. The squatting of right-wing Americans on The Guardian's blog messageboards is representative of a general malaise on the internet: the use by unpleasant people of rights to air their unpleasant views.

Now, it's obvious that some people will say 'Well, who's to judge what's pleasant and unpleasant, Mr Tom?', and my answer won't satisfy them. I do believe that there is a form of morality that needs to be applied to the internet. I believe it's unacceptable to voice your thoughts if your thoughts are racist, fascist or discriminatory in any other way. I believe it's wrong to support the business of prostitution. I believe it's wrong to steal music and any other property from the people who made it. And yes, I'm guilty of it all (except the racism, fascism and discrimination bit). That is to say, a liberal, socialist point of view free from hatred or party affiliation: that's who should say what's right and wrong.

I suppose that my point is this: there have been a lot of liberties taken on the internet, but not all of them are deserved. While it's obviously wrong for China to block any weblog (or my website, as they did previously) – it is absolutely imperative that organisations and individuals shouldn't be able to hide behind freedom of speech and anonymity in order to espouse discriminatory opinions and other unpleasant material.

Muddled and bloated as it looks, this is something I am thinking about a lot at the moment. I'm on the verge of nailing my fucking protest to the church door.

September 11, 2005 | Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment 

Feliç Onze de Setembre!


Visca Catalunya!
September 11, 2005 | Filed Under Catalonia | Leave a Comment 

Next Page →