The Mid-Atlantic Blog

Judicial Smackdown

2006-03-08T07:10:00.000+00:00

A lovely ruling by the Supreme Court, saying that the fact that a law school may lose federal funding if they don't give the military the same ability to recruit on their campus that they give the private sector doesn't breach their first amendment rights.

The key line, by the new Chief Justice...

"Nothing about recruiting," Roberts wrote, "suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters." Besides, "We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy." Then, Roberts's tartness: "Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

A great piece about this by George Will this morning. The fight back of rationality and good sense in the legal system continues.

Honesty In The Church Of England

2006-03-08T06:42:00.000+00:00

A terribly sad story last night about Julie Nicholson, the vicar who lost her daughter in the 7/7 bombings, and who has now resigned her parish because of the effect on her faith, and in particular her inability to forgive.

A short piece on this story on BBC Online, but the segment on the news at 10 last night went into the story in more detail.

Three things jump out at me on this.

First, as her bishop said, this lady has shown great courage in admitting her feelings. Her reaction is terribly human, and very understandable, and her insight that it might damage her ministry is sobering.

Second, (and oddly enough not covered on BBC Online) her most powerful statement last night was about the attitude towards the killers. I don't have a transcript to hand, but her statement went something like the following

There has been a lot of talk recently of people being offended. Well, I'm deeply deeply offended that someone killed my daughter for their idea of God

This was a powerful statement, and a sentiment that has been notably missing from the public discourse in recent times.

Finally, in her temporary failure to forgive, this lady has given us a much more potent and impressive message of the importance and centrality of forgiveness to the gospel that she has dedicated herself to spreading than you get from most of the trite pablum that comes from the Church. Forgiveness is hard, not simply a form of words in a press release from Lambeth Palace, and pretending it is not cheapens it. By emphasising that forgiveness is hard, that as flawed humans we are not always able to get to it immediately, that it is key to the Christian message, and that it is not simply pretending that the wrong that was done was not wrong she has also emphasised the value of it.

I'll be praying for her.

Update: I've just noticed this piece in the Times today, which covers the issue very well.

Dangerous Ground

2006-03-06T06:50:00.000+00:00

Sometimes society just decides to run off the edge of a cliff, shouting "I'm a teapot, I'm a teapot". I worry that we're in danger of doing it again.

What on earth am I talking about?

Three things all spotted in ten minutes this morning.

An Oscar for George Clooney for Syriana
An Oscar for Rachel Weisz for The Constant Gardner
This piece in the Washington Post about the next "Dubai Ports" problem

The single common factor is the willful denial of reality.

While Oscars themselves don't determine the views of society we can't forget that the drip drip drip of the message being sent from Hollywood can be corrosive. In these two pictures you see pictures of reality that are so different from the truth as to be actively damaging, but which go along with some preconceived prejudices that are already out there. The US is currently engaged in trying to spread democracy, not stop it. Corporations are possibly the single most important societal invention for broad-based prosperity - and despite the fact that all corporations make mistakes pharma companies save millions of people every year. The Dubai ports issue, and the highlighted one over China raise the danger of protectionism, which could cause huge damage to us all. And exacerbating tensions with China has other dangers as well...

I'm probably just being pessimistic because it's Monday morning. But that doesn't stop me from feeling a little uncomfortable about this.

March For Free Expression

2006-03-05T21:29:00.000+00:00

On 25th March there will be a march for free expression in Trafalgar Square.

I don't know anything about the organisers, but on the assumption that they are accurately representing their speakers this appears to be a genuine, non-partisan, non-offensive attempt to support free speech in the face of the recent cartoon nonsense.

Unless it turns out between now and then that there is a nasty undercurrent with this march, I think I may break my usual rule of indolence and try to potter along. Pop along to their site and see what you think... and if you agree with the basic idea of freedom of speech put the date in your diary. This stuff matters, and people have died for it in the past. A stroll through central London can't be too much work, can it?

Abortion In America

2006-03-05T12:06:00.000+00:00

Over the next few years the American polity is going to move beyond Roe vs Wade. That much is certain. How it does so, and what that means, will be fascinating.

The underlying problem here is simple. The pre-Roe environment was one where abortion was a state-level issue, decided as part of the political process. Pro-abortion activists had (and have) a firmly felt belief that this was inappropriate, and that the right to abortion was one that should be available to all.

Now, the traditional approach to this type of problem was two-fold. First, pro-abortion activists could mount political campaigns in the states that banned abortion, attempting to change the law through the political process. Second, they could attempt to have a constitutional amendment passed.

The hurdle they faced? There wasn't enough support for their views amongst the voting population.

That poses a problem in a democracy, of course. However, instead of simply stepping up the attempt to change minds, a novel approach was taken. A "right" to abortion that no-one had noticed before was discovered in the constitution.

The result? The effect of a constitutional amendment, without the awkward "getting the agreement of the country" downside.

The effects of this have been deeply corrosive, and it has taken a long time for the conservative movement to react effectively. In fact, it has been one of the key elements of the conservative rebuild.

It is, however, poorly understood on this side of the Atlantic. "Anti-abortion" activists come in all shapes and sizes: from those who want abortions totally abolished, through strict-construction constitutionalists to those who want greater decentralisation. Many of them want restrictions on abortion, sure. But many simply want essentially political issues returned to the people. The one thing that certainly isn't true is that the current key demand from the anti-abortion movement is the actual abolition of abortion. Instead, their core demand is for the return of abortion to the political sphere, allowing it to be legislated upon by politicians, rather than simply by lawyers. At that point, many may fight for abolition - but most of their supporters will focus on limits... and limits that most even in the UK would likely find reasonable.

The irony, of course, is that the approach of the pro-choice movement has been deeply damaging to them, and to the Democrats (a party which they have essentially captured). The removal of abortion from the political process has invigorated the right, and has led (in significant part) to a grand alliance of various interest groups that have created the political movement that at the last national election to Republican majorities in both House and Senate, and the White House. At the same time the Democrats becoming a single issue party on this issue has caused the immense problems, and lost them both talented politicians and significant votes.

Now the appointment of Roberts and Alito to the Court may be acting as a watershed for the pro-choice movement, making them think beyond their current unsustainable attachment to Roe v Wade, and trying to find new approaches to attain their goals. This will take some time , of course, but a good example of the type of thought process they'll have to go through to adjust to this new world can be seen here, in the Washington Post today.

Of course, even this type of discussion doesn't go far enough. This issue will eventually return to the people, and the pro-choice campaign will need to engage the people at last if they are going to win their cause. But that's democracy, and it's certainly how we do it over here in the UK.

And that's the real point to remember about this. Over the next few years the coverage of this issue is likely to be deeply distorted. Whenever you hear it discussed, remember this one fact. The House of Commons can change the abortion rules in the UK. Neither Congress nor the states can in the US. The fight going on today is a fight to correct that imbalance.

It Is Traditional, And Therefore Right

2006-03-04T08:42:00.000+00:00

A small push back against the tide: Oxford students save sub fusc!

Oxonian brows around the world are a little less wrinkled today. We need more harmless traditions like this, not fewer.

Only On The BBC

2006-03-03T19:49:00.000+00:00

Perception vs Reality time.

In this ICM survey last year people were asked what religion they belonged to. Maybe not the best proxy for belief in God available, but only 22% of the respondents said that they were a member of "No Faith". Regular worship attendance was quite poor, as we all know, with 32% going at least once every few months, but with more than 50% attending a few times a year.

Evidence of a widespread absence of belief in God? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's fair to say it's evidence of a general belief in God of some kind, but of a theologically wooly nature.

Now we turn to this story from this evening, describing Blair interview with Parkinson.

Headline?
Blair 'prayed to God' over Iraq

As though his belief in God was unusual.

So, yet again, BBC perception (normal people don't believe in God) clashes with reality (most people in the U.K. do seem to, in fact, believe in God). No change there, then...

General Ignorance

2006-03-03T07:22:00.000+00:00

Depressing story from the US here, showing that people in the US know the Simpsons better than their constitution.

Sadly, we're no better... Here is an old story from the BBC about our historical knowledge, or rather lack of it.

Depressing, isn't it?

George Clooney

2006-03-03T07:00:00.000+00:00

A useful corrective this morning to the laudatory coverage of George Clooney that we've seen over here (Newsnight and Culture Show interviews, and so on).

The perception that he's tried to put across, and which has been backed broadly, is one of political activism against repression expressed through his films, in particular the two on release at the moment, with that action causing people to attack him without reason.

Charles Krauthammer points out that the problem with "Syriana" is that it presents a picture of US policy that is in fact diametrically opposite from the truth: rather than attempting to overthrow democracy and freedom around the world, Bush has regularly used the full force of the military to promote it.

And as for "Good Night And Good Luck"? Economical with the truth is probably the best that can be said for it. Covering the US government and Congress attempts to avoid infiltration by Communists during the Cold War is hard to do accurately if you work on the basis that there wasn't any such attempted infiltration, against the evidence that has been released since the end of the Cold War. You don't have to love Senator Joe to know that there was a problem... and Eisenhower was publicly challenging the witch hunts before Murrow was. Not a huge amount of bravery there, then.

Opposition to Clooney, then, isn't just because of his point of view politically: it's because he doesn't present the inconvenient facts that disagree with his view, and by doing so produce ideas that are further from reality than can be justified by artistic interpretation.

Incidentally, Mark Steyn, as always, is also good on this point here.

Iain Dale Hits The Nail On The Head

2006-03-01T07:44:00.000+00:00

A good first person write up of the DC "Built To Last" speech, making some key points about the document. However, Iain gets it exactly right when he says the following, which I think sums up exactly the importance of this document...

The emphasis now is on what it is changing to, rather than what it has changed from. And that is certainly progress.

That is spot on. Marketing is largely a question of narrative, of direction, of story arc. The key thing this document does is not create a "Fight With The Right", but that it continues to emphasise the story arc that has been established: Conservatism is the future.

Modern Britain Described

2006-03-01T07:11:00.000+00:00

Anne Applebaum writes today in the Washington Post about Ken Livingstone's suspension - worth a read on those grounds alone. Two particular things jump out.

First, the dark comedy of the author of "Gulag", the best modern description of the Soviet camp system being lectured by Ken as he defends Stalin.

Second, Applebaum's description of modern Britain. As an American who used to live and work here, and who has extensive contacts on both sides of the Atlantic, she has the requisite distance and closeness to be able to say the following...

Here we have, in a nutshell, evidence of the breakdown in relations between the British media and British politicians; the increasing incivility of British public life; the nasty strain of anti-Semitism on the far side of the British left (Livingstone has just called Ariel Sharon a war criminal, clearly a favorite insult, as well); and, to top it all off, the growth in the power of undemocratic, unelected "quangos" -- quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organizations -- of which there are now hundreds in Britain.

This rings pretty true, unfortunately, as do her further conclusions. Worth a read.

Health News

2006-03-01T07:03:00.000+00:00

This is great news: Chocolate lowers blood pressure. It's not just a food group, it's a medicine!

Life Moves On

2006-02-28T06:56:00.000+00:00

It's easy to forget how much things change.

Anyone with a child knows how many questions they ask. My daughter is no exception - coming up on 5 years old, just starting school, and asking questions nineteen to the dozen. I must admit that I find it one of the most fun parts of being a parent, seeing the interest kindle in a huge range of subjects, and the clear enjoyment she finds in learning new things.

Those questions at the moment focus on topics like "where do aliens live" (the answer to which, it turns out is in houses at the bottom of the craters in the moon - and interestingly they co-habit with Mickey Mouse. Who knew!), and how electricity works. But the topics are gradually getting broader, and there will come a time soon enough when they encompass how things used to be, and more political issues.

The differences between the world she's in and the one I was brought up in were brought into sharp relief for me by this film (Protect & Survive). The famous mid-70's public information film covering what to do in the event of a nuclear attack brought home to me both the climate of my childhood (I can vividly remember from quite a young age being aware of the fact that the large number of strategic naval bases close to our house meant that we had a pretty significant quantity of Soviet hardware pointed at us at all times), and the differences from that climate today.

That world came to an end, of course and I can vividly remember the moment I was told that the Wall had come down (a generation specific reference again). We're still not through the other side of the aftermath: the Islamist movement were given training and motivation because of the Soviet attack on Afghanistan, while the public discourse, especially in academia, has not yet adjusted to the realities of Communist crimes, still refusing to put the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, and their successors, as well as those of Mao and his cronies on a par with those of Hitler. We'll know we've left the final stages of that War behind us when wearing a Che shirt isn't acceptable, and when communism is no longer excused.

But on all of these issues we're in the mopping-up phase of the engagement, no matter how long it takes. We have new challenges, and new fears, and if I'm not sure how much safer we are now than then that's beside the point.

This film is, when you come down to it, from a totally different world - and it's that of my childhood. That's a very strange feeling. Watch it, and feel yourself fly backwards to the strange world of 1975.

Giving Credit Where It's Due

2006-02-28T06:43:00.000+00:00

Expectation vs reality again this morning, with this piece highlighting the fact that Bush has, again and again, failed to live up to the perception some have that he's a small minded bigot.

The particular topic is, of course, the Dubai ports deal. A huge commotion over very little, especially on the right where there were initial concerns over security (which have since then mainly been mitigated because of further information becoming available), and where some of the reaction has been unquestionably based on the Arab origin of the company involved - if not racism, at least regionalism.

Concerns over security from the right, though, are expected, and it was bad political antennae not to think this one through more carefully, at least as to presentation.

Bush, however, has done the right thing, defending the deal in clear and unequivocal terms. Key quote...

"What I find interesting is that it's okay for a British company to manage some ports, but not okay for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror,"

Exactly.

A Climate Of Fear?

2006-02-26T21:02:00.000+00:00

A short, but necessary corrective to views about fly-over land.

The common view, particularly in the UK, of red-state America is pretty negative. In particular, there is the perception that the view of the ordinary member of the population is effectively simple racism, and that this drives both votes for Republicans and attitudes towards the Iraq war (and the Middle-East as a whole).

This story, then, should be given wider publicity. In Toledo, Ohio over the course of a single week an Islamic charity is closed down by the Feds (under suspicion of funneling money to Islamist terror groups), and then three Moslem men are arrested for suspicion of involvement in Islamist terrorism.

The reaction?

Not race riots. Not violence against the large local Moslem community. Not an upsurge in Mosque burnings. No calls in the local press for suspicion of local Moslems.

Nope. Instead, we get stories on ABC.com headlined "Ohio Muslims Say They Don't Fear Backlash" (and you can be sure that if there were suspicions of the opposite ABC would have been happy to cover them).

I guess those small-minded racist red-neck Ohio hicks aren't quite as bad as might be thought.

Oh, and by the way. The leading contender for Governor on the Republican side? Ken Blackwell, the current Secretary of State of Ohio. And those damned racist right-wing Ohioans are clearly playing to their prejudices again, what with him being African-American, and all. Small-minded intolerant bigots, the lot of them...

Al Gore Is Richard Nixon

2006-02-25T22:55:00.000+00:00

Well, that may be putting it a little strongly, but this piece in the New York Observer (a publication which is always worth dipping into both for the occasional gem like this, and as a reminder of why I'm glad I live in London not New York) makes a good case that there are strong parallels between Nixon and Gore in respect to the 2008 election.

His case rests on differentiation from the key competitors on the war in Iraq. He makes the valid point that with the current left-wing of the Democrats out there it'll be tough for someone deeply involved in national elected politics both to be rational in action, and at the same time to maintain support on the anti-war left.

To win, Mr. Gore must run on a simple proposition that puts him at direct odds with Mrs. Clinton: Within 24 hours of taking office, he would withdraw all troops from Iraq and redirect national resources to crush Al Qaeda. The election of 2008 may become like 1968, with war protests wracking the country and the President sticking to his guns.

It's an interesting piece, and makes a good case, although I'm not sure it's a wholly accurate prediction. Worth a read though.

By the way, the one thing that I'm pretty sure of is that it won't be Hillary! in the White House next time. Too many negatives, for one thing, and also that she's running from the Senate. Kennedy was the last one to manage that trick, and to coin a phrase, she's no Jack Kennedy.

Newsnight And Blogs

2006-02-24T23:46:00.000+00:00

So you come home, and do some surfing to see what's been going on. Check the Newsnight site. Notice that the Editor has his weekly column up: the graphic is Ethical Man, about which you've done a post earlier in the week, and that you know from your site logs a number of BBC people have read. Have a look... and discover that your post is one of the topics of discussion (no link though, even with the usual BBC external sites warning, which is a bit of a shame). Well well.

A few points on this.

First, it shows you the difference between the different media of blogs and broadcast. I was expecting the usual Gaian nonsense from this story, which is what you get regularly from the Beeb. The package was rather like that, the discussion wasn't. I thought there was enough of a difference from my preconceptions to post an update, which I'm glad he quoted in part. And I linked to the site. That process is common with blogs. It's not quite as common with broadcast...

Second, and leaving aside that it's a post from here being commented on it is, I think, very good news that the Editor of Newsnight is reading comments from the blogosphere - and caring about them, even if he disagrees with them. The BBC is starting to get more used to interaction both ways with blogs. Sometimes they'll be positive, sometimes negative. But they're usually not designed just to be mean - and you can tell those blogs a mile away and not read them. The rest of us, particularly those who comment on BBC News regularly, do so partially as commentary, and partially in the hope that the things that we see as errors will be corrected, or at least addressed. Sometimes we're angry, sometimes we poke fun, but underlying it is a genuine hope that BBC News will produce top quality, well thought out output. Every news editor should be running a Technorati search multiple times a day and reading the results where possible, and Peter Barron (or his colleagues) should be commended for doing so.

Third, this Ethical Man segment is the type of segment ideally designed for this new type of interaction. Sure, get inputs one way from people via blogs and email. But why not also post preliminary findings / issues for exploration on the Newsnight web site a few days before broadcast and let the blogosphere (of all opinions) stress test the ideas. Do a trawl of the web, and email 50 or so blogs that you know care about Newsnight, the BBC output, or the issues you're covering, and send them an email letting them know about the content: even give them access to a password protected mini-site for this purpose. I'll bet every time they did it they'd get at least one new avenue of thought or improvement to the story, and maybe more. This type of open ended issue is ideal for it because it's so broad, and it's an area where conventional thinking is easy to fall into. It would improve the stories, would build links for the BBC in the blogosphere, and spark discussion. Why not give it a try, chaps?

Finally, and in the spirit of the request for comments on the specific issue, when you're looking at carbon budgets and household efficiency you have to look at nuclear power - pushing for the newest type of reactor (pebble beds) to be developed, improved and installed, and recognising the many benefits that come from nuclear power in general in terms of carbon usage. It's the one technology that may have the chance to make real substantial changes in the short term, and it has been unfairly maligned, significantly by the same people that make up the "ethical" movement. The degree to which "ethical" pressure groups, by pressure against nuclear, have caused excess carbon emissions, and thereby global warming according to standard environmental theories would make a fascinating element of this investigation.

Oh, and by the way, it wasn't just Mr Rowlatt who was likeable - all of his family seemed to be, composting toilets or not.

Cartoonists Discuss Cartoons

2006-02-24T07:38:00.000+00:00

You should have a look at this piece in the Washington Post this morning, where they've interviewed UK cartoonists about the Danish cartoons. It's an amusing exercise. The suggestion today seems to be that the cartoons attacked the "powerless", while they should attack the "powerful". Bearing in mind the cartoons were designed to make precisely the point that free speech was under threat from the powerful movement of global Islamism (not Islam as a whole, or Muslims individually), and that they have demonstrated precisely that, this excuse seems to be just a touch self-deceptive.

The strong note of "apres nous la deluge" is emphasised by the final chap interviewed, who comes the closest to giving the real answer.

"As a cartoonist, I have quite a few views about it," he said. "But as a human being, I'm not going to put me and my family in danger. So you might say they're winning."

Yup. You could. They are.

Empty Threats

2006-02-24T07:24:00.000+00:00

Amusing news from Europe, with leaders of the right telling David Cameron that they won't talk to him if he goes ahead with his plan for withdrawal from the EPP. A few thoughts.

First, this is delightfully unrealistic. Is he really supposed to believe that this group, who collectively will "work" with representatives of some of the worst behaved countries on the planet, will cut him off because of a simple political move like this? The mere idea is, of course, nonsense. Being sensible, grown up, politicians they will of course work with him. The threat is self-evidently toothless.

Second, it's rather emblematic of the way that European politicians have treated their own people and the UK: go along with us or we'll bully you into line. There is only one response to that, of course, which is defiance.

Third, they must be worried. The concern, of course, is that a sensible right wing agenda opposed to the ever closer union approach will spark interest in their own polities, and possibly create new power structures that they don't control. I'd take that as a sign that we may be onto something, myself...

Fourth, it's great for Cameron, helping support his right flank at a useful time.

Good news, then. Roll on the day we leave.

A Failure Of The Press

2006-02-23T07:07:00.000+00:00

If there is only one thing you read today (with the notable exception, of course, of this blog...) it is this piece in the Washington Post. It is written by Alan Dershowitz and William J Bennett - hardly soulmates, as they recognise themselves. It articulates the way that the press has failed us over the Danish cartoons, making the case by comparing the behaviour in this case with others.

A few key paragraphs:

We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities

Later, the heart of it:

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind -- images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the
Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.
The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects -- stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.
In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts -- and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike -- the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.

And then their conclusion

What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities.

They conclude with this

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.

This is a top quality article which summarises the situation extraordinarily well. A must read.

Ethics & The BBC

2006-02-22T20:56:00.000+00:00

This poor chap, innocent journalist that he is decides to move job. He's delighted to join one of the premier news shows on the BBC: Newsnight. What does he get as his first major assignment?

He's told he has to become "ethical man" for a year.

Now, this isn't "Judeo-Christian ethical man": do unto others and all that. No, this is the Church of Gaia "ethical man": the established Church of the BBC. Listen to him describe his current lifestyle...

I reckon my family already tick a few "ethical boxes" - admittedly, largely thanks to the influence of my wife, Bee.
We get organic fruit and vegetables delivered each week (by an LPG powered vehicle, the company assures us). The same company supplies us with locally sourced eggs, bacon and milk. Other food and household supplies we get from the supermarket and I'll pick up a few extras from a convenience store on the way home from work. By the end of the week our council recycling box is usually full.
We do have a car - a two litre petrol estate - but we hardly ever use it; just for shopping and trips on the weekend with our two young daughters, Eva and Zola. My wife and I take public transport to work and the girls walk to school. We usually have two foreign holidays a year but, since the girls were born, more often than not these will be in Europe.

Ah, but you see, he's not a true adherent to the faith. No, Mr Rowlatt has discovered an expert, Leo Hickman. Now, children, let's guess what Mr Hickman does in the real world? Yup, that's right, he's a journalist. At which newspaper I hear you ask... ? How about I let his bio tell us:

Leo Hickman is 31. He grew up in Cornwall about 400 metres away from what was to become Eden. He is a journalist, editor and the consumer expert at the Guardian. He lives in south London with his wife, two small children and 3,000 worms. He is also the author of How to buy and the editor of A Good Life: the guide to ethical Living.

Of course. The Guardian. Silly me: I had presumed it would be the Telegraph. And he lives with 3000 worms. Shame the Beeb didn't tell us all of that of course (although, come to think of it I'm not sure which is worse: writing for the Guardian or living with 3000 worms). And it gets better. It turns out that Mr Hickman had a project on the go for a while, around the beginning of 2004. Can we guess what it was? I quote from the first article in the series he wrote about it:

It was against this backdrop that I was set a challenge by the Guardian. Could I - someone living a typically comfortable and routine life in a city suburb - take a step back from my daily habits and consumer choices, and try to understand their true impact? Could I, over the course of a few months, start to lead a more ethical life, in which I reduced, to use a popular axiom, my footprint on the earth", as well as being a more positive force both to myself and those around me?

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the poor BBC journo has been asked to rehash a Guardian idea of 2 years ago. Apparently advised by the journalist that did it at the Guardian. Without mentioning to us that this is a direct rip-off of an idea from a newspaper with a somewhat, shall we say, ideological take on the issues concerned.

And somehow I don't think that the idea of reducing his footprint on the earth means that he should only walk on the tarmac, so he doesn't leave footprints...

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. The ethics that this poor chap are going to be asked to live by are no doubt the usual mish-mash of well-meaning but ineffective and universally-agreed good sense and idiocy that you find on the left. On the right, of course, we disagree with many of them: in fact we tend to work on the basis that many of them are actively damaging. Saving energy in sensible ways is a great idea, for example. However, over-regulation to meet over-high safety standards or, worse, harmonisation across the EU can increase costs and price goods out of the reach of the poor: products made under those regulations are hardly ethical, are they? How ethical is organic food produced within CAP - doesn't CAP produce huge disparities in the global farming market that have the result of killing thousands of people a month in the third world from under-development? Isn't promoting the advance of capitalism and the rule of law the best (non-religious)ethical approach that any individual could take? Does that mean he should model himself on George W who, love him or loath him, does seem to spend most of his waking life trying to spread capitalism and the rule of law? You get the general idea.

The problem is that the BBC have gone that extra mile, and they've asked us to contribute ideas to suggest how he could best perform an ethical audit of his home - and over the course of the year on each area of his life. Hmmm...

You can find the link here. A modest suggestion to everyone reading this: go to the site and make some suggestions (positive ones, mind you), as to how he might improve his life ethically. Some suggestions:

In his job as a journalist look at the funding and political activity of the NGOs, and whether they end up, by promoting economically foolish policies, causing thousands of deaths around the world. Talk to both sides of the argument for once.
In his job as a journalist look at the behaviour of the scientific community on global warming research. To what extent is the environmental change community able to quash research that they disagree with, and are their proposals really the best way forward? As part of this, look at the Copenhagen Consensus, and similar approaches.
Rather than continuing to accept employment as a public sector employee, why not try setting up his own company, or becoming freelance, thereby contributing to the economy directly?

I'm sure you can think of many many more. Go for it!

My favourite part of the whole darned thing, though, comes from his bio from his Panorama days, where he did a programme on drugs. I quote...

Making the programme involved a journey into his own past as he was a regular dope smoker when he was a teenager. The evidence the programme uncovered made a very convincing case that that cannabis can have much more profound psychological effects than most people believe.

Really? You couldn't make it up, could you.

UPDATE (23:35 Wednesday Evening):

Well, I've just watched the segment on the show this evening. My reactions?

First, Mr Rowlatt is clearly a likeable chap: you couldn't help but warm to him (and indeed his family, who featured significantly in the package). A minor point, but quite important in an area that's too full of pomposity.

Second, a surprisingly good discussion in the studio - much better than the package. Lomborg was there, so my comment on the Copenhagen Consensus above was already in the mix. The dilemmas involved were given a good airing, and the benefits of free trade were at least discussed seriously (although the chap from Innocent smoothies appeared somewhat, er..., innocent).

Third, some delightful moments during the conversation - certainly the first time I've seen Gandhi and composting lavatories being compared to each other, for example.

Fourth, nice to see the BBC actually referring to viewer opinions. About 20% of the hits on this site between the time I finished the above post and the start of the package were from the BBC searching for Newsnight. They referred to a range of views from viewers from the internet during the discussion.

My conclusion? If he gets out of his comfort zone, and explores all sides of the arguments, then Mr Rowlatt could, in fact, produce some memorable television. If he stays in the Gaia-zone, without confronting the much broader issues of free markets, free trade and the wide range of serious opinions in this general area then it will be a wasted opportunity.

Women More In Favour Of Sharia Than Men: Further Analysis Of ICM Data

2006-02-21T23:40:00.000+00:00

I've just had a very interesting evening. At least, the results are interesting, not the 6 hours of manual data entry and checking that led up to them. What have I been doing?

Well, over the weekend I (and everyone else) wrote long pieces about the ICM poll of Moslem attitudes. Particular focus was paid by us all to the data about the possible introduction of Sharia law for various purposes. Those that expressed a preference were split evenly down the middle.

A lot of the commentary about this focused on the attitudes of the women interviewed, and quite reasonably assumed that they would have different attitudes to the men, and would be less likely to back Sharia law.

Today, ICM published the full results on their web site. Lots and lots of tables of data, which actually allow us to answer some of the questions posed: about how attitudes change according to gender, age, social class, voting intention and location. And it turns out that that analysis shows up some interesting stuff.

The Analysis
A note about the analysis that I've done. Nothing complicated, of course. What I have done, though, is to build some "net" statistics: the difference between those in favour and those against a proposition. It's the equivalent of the statistics produced on politicians on a regular basis.

So, if 21% of the sample group of 500 people think that the moon is made of green cheese, while 20% disagree, the net result is 1% in favour.

This approach has the benefit of ease of analysis. The sample is split according to a number of groups: men vs women, age, class, voting intention and location. Obviously these are separate analyses: the women are included in each other group, as are the Tories, the people from the Midlands and so on.

Helpful suggestions about additional approaches that might be useful always appreciated, because with this amount of data there may be some more posts on this topic coming out.

On to the results. I'll take the issues one at a time...

Sharia Law
As discussed above around 40% of the total sample were in favour, with an equal number against. Look at it on the segmental basis, though, and things change. Women, for example, turn out to be net in support of the introduction of Sharia law in certain circumstances (a net of 3% in favour) while men are mildly opposed (a net of -6%). Those under 35 are in favour (+5%), while those 35 and over are opposed (-9%). ABC1s are strongly opposed (-12%), while C2DEs are quite strongly in favour (10%). Voting intentions are interesting too, with Tories (-33%) and LibDems (-21%) very strongly opposed, but with Labour supporters actually neutral on the issue (a net of 0%, believe it or not). There is quite strong support in the Midlands (+8%), with opposition in the South (-7%)

Radicalisation
Next we look at whether Moslems have become more radical over the last year. Remember, here the total figure showed 46% thinking that they had (a net of +13% over those disagreeing). But again, there is lots of detail. Women (+20%) feel this much more than men (+7). The young feel it more than the old (+21% vs 4%). Class is less split (+18% for ABC1s, and 10% for C2DEs). Voting intentions don't change things much (nets of +16% for Tories, +13% Lab and 23% LibDems). Interestingly, the Midlands supports this idea much less (+3% only, vs +16% for the North and +17% for the South).

Are Women Covering Up More?
Here we see some interesting differences too. The "No Difference" responses are the majority across the board: so let's remember that for most it hasn't changed. However, where there have been changes perceived, men feel significantly more strongly that women in their family are more often covered up in public (+24%) than women do (+14%). Are Moslem women telling their families "Yes dear", leaving the house covered, and then ripping off the veil when they turn the corner, one wonders? No real difference by age, here (+18% and +19%). Class does matter: a net of +25% for ABC1s compares to a 13% for C2DEs. Tories have seen the least changes (+6%, compared to +16% for Lab and +17% for LibDems), and there has been much less difference in the North (+7%) than the Midlands (+22%) or the South (+25%).

Are Relations Getting Better?
Mostly people responded to this one that relations between Moslems and others were about the same: around the 50% mark for each group. Women were markedly more pessimistic, though (-10% vs -2% for men), as were those over 35 (-14% vs -8% for the younger group). Identical net figures for the two class groups, but Tories (-27%) much more strongly negative than Labour (-5%) or LibDems (-17%). Oddly enough, while the North and South are both negative (-16% and -12%), the Midlands are actually positive (+1%), suggesting that relations there have actually improved.

I'll stop there, for now. I've got some more to do to this data set, and some pretty charts too, if I can get Blogger to co-operate. Tomorrow evening, if I can rouse up the courage.

What does this initial analysis tell me? A few things, I think.

First, we can't make assumptions about the thoughts of these groups. The women interviewed certainly don't appear to be taking a much softer view (although their answers about violence tend to be marginally less belligerent than the mens'). There certainly doesn't seem to be a major attack on Sharia from them. And let's note that this was done by phone, which is probably the most likely to get an unbiased response from this group (any fear of pressure from husbands is minimised by the fact that the husband can't hear the questions).

Second, there seem to be significant differences in perception between political groups (although there are many more Labour supporters in total). This is good news for Tories: support we're getting from this community appears to be based on a group with distinctive views, which may make it less under threat. However, some of the attitudes of the Labour and LibDem voters could raise some concerns in those parties...

And third, though we may find it difficult to understand, there is strong and genuine offense across the board caused by these cartoons: the only group where this figure drops below 80% of the respondents being offended is the Tories, and there it's in the high 70's. This isn't an argument for changing our views about the cartoons, by the way, but more one for better explanation of why free speech is in all of our interests. But that's for another day.

Admit Israel To NATO?

2006-02-21T06:43:00.000+00:00

Sorry this is yet another post about the Middle East... but there is an interesting suggestion today in the Washington Post, with some merit. It would, at least, make the current position (that the West would broadly come to Israel's aid in the event of an attack from Iran) into an explicit one. Worth a read.

Divestment, Anti-Semitism & Israel

2006-02-20T07:51:00.000+00:00

The divestment row rumbles on.

For previous comments on the decision of the Church of England's General Synod see here...

The story on Monday is a piece from a chap described as follows:

Paul Oestreicher was a member of the Church of England's general synod and director of the Centre for International Reconciliation, Coventry Cathedral; he is now a chaplain at the University of Sussex

Inevitably the piece is in the Guardian, and demonstrates all the sterling qualities you might expect of a piece in that paper by a chap described in that way. He tries to make the case for the motion... but let's look at the highlights.

First, a remarkable statement:

If, as some now think, today's Jews are the Muslims - hatred transferred -

What on earth is he talking about? One is a race, the other a religion. There is no systematic attempt to wipe Islam from the face of the earth outside the paranoid ramblings of some of the most extreme Islamist leaders, well on the fringes of mainstream Islam. The major campaigns undertaken by the west in the last 20 years (The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq 1 and 2) had at least one common goal: at least in part they were about the protection of the rights of Moslems being oppressed. Not because they were Muslims, of course: just because they were people. We don't discriminate (when we actually pull our fingers out and get around to doing something).

Let's be clear about this: disagreement with the political purposes and behaviours of Islamism is not bias against Muslims, nor against Islam. There is in fact very little of the latter. There is a lot of disquiet about the political aims of Islamists but there is very little about the religion itself, or the people who follow it. Comparing the Jews over the last 2000 years (with specific reference to 1930s and 40s Germany) to current Moslems is just nonsense, and patently so.

Now we have a demonstration of what passes for political insight:

Peace cannot be made by building a wall on Palestinian land that makes the life of the miserably conquered more miserable still. A Palestinian bantustan will be a source of unrest and violence for ever

Now, I thought that the facts were that the wall had, in fact, been quite effective at cutting the current problem faced by Israel: suicide bombs. And I also thought that Israel had been in negotiation to try to create a 2 state solution - not a bantustan (but notice that he's now managed to compare Israel to both Hitler's Germany AND Apartheid South Africa without really trying. Clever, huh!), but that Arafat had continued his games throughout much of that process, having failed to fully engage in that process, and in particular refusing a settlement offer generally recognised since as being much better than could have been expected. I had thought that there was bad behaviour on both sides, and that the power balance in the region was rather complicated. Oh, and that within living memory there was an attempt to wipe Israel off the map by the surrounding countries, which failed. I must be wrong.

And then this

But the main objective of my writing today, is to nail the lie that to reject Zionism as it practised today is in effect to be anti-semitic, to be an inheritor of Hitler's racism. That argument, with the Holocaust in the background, is nothing other than moral blackmail. It is highly effective. It condemns many to silence who fear to be thought anti-semitic. They are often the very opposite. They are often people whose heart bleeds at Israel's betrayal of its true heritage.
I began with the recognition that the cancer of anti-semitism has not been cured. Tragically, Israel's policies feed it - and when world Jewry defends Israeli policies right or wrong, then anger turns not only against Israel, but against all Jews. I wish it were mere rhetoric to say that Israeli politics today make a holocaust the day after tomorrow credible. If the whole Muslim world hates Israel, that is no idle speculation. To count on Arab disunity and Muslim sectarian conflict and a permanent American shield is no recipe for long-term security.

Let's be clear. You don't have to be anti-semitic to agree with divestment. You just have to display the high quality of clear thinking demonstrated in this article. And you have to be comfortable that your actions will be seen approvingly by those who are anti-semitic. But no, you don't have to be anti-semitic, and I am quite certain (removing all irony for a moment) that the author is not, in any way, anti-semitic. He's just wrong. And badly wrong. And so are the people he is discussing. Not bad. Not anti-semitic. Just wrong.

And, by the way, the hook on which this article was hung (the Jewish Chronicle article by the Chief Rabbi, found here in the Times weblogs section) doesn't, to my reading, mention anti-semitism as the cause of the divestment motion once. Nor does much of the commentary I've seen. Some does, but only because the poor quality of the arguments in favour of divestment lead commentators to come to the conclusion that there must be something more behind it. Personally, I subscribe to the sloppy thinking argument. I'm sure some of them are anti-semites, but they're probably the tiny minority. Mostly they're just not terribly smart, or able to deal with the nuances of the arguments involved.

There is, of course, more. Look out, for example, for the cute comparison between the Israeli "peace" movement and the German resistance in WWII. (Minor difference, of course, is that one group were systematically rounded up, put in concentration camps and/or killed, while the other wasn't. Guess which is which...).

This article must be read. It comprehensively demolishes the case for divestment all by itself.

Sexual Abuse & The United Nations

2006-02-19T14:15:00.000+00:00

You can tell a lot about people by what they choose to do.

John Bolton, the baddest man in the whole damn town if you remember the accusations levied against him during his hearings for the job of US Ambassador to the UN, has just taken over the rotating presidency of the Security Council.

What's he gone and done? He's scheduled hearings into two main issues: sexual abuse committed by UN peacekeepers during their peacekeeping mission, and procurement fraud.

Now, last time I heard, I thought that sexual abuse was bad, as was fraud? But turns out that there is something worse! Yup, the worse sin than committing sexual abuse or stealing money that's supposed to benefit suffering people is...

encroachment by the council on issues which clearly fall within the functions and powers of the assembly

This is from a letter sent by the Non-Aligned Movement to the General Assembly President. Now, I'm sorry, but this exemplifies rather the whole problem with the UN at the moment. If peacekeepers are committing sex crimes on the UN's money, or people are stealing from the procurement budget then everyone should care. I note that there is no suggestion of immediate hearings in the Assembly on these issues, by the way...

I love this final quote from Bolton reacting in part to this additional story, about a couple of letters from Congressmen on other UN issues...

"The United States believes in taking action and being effective, and we don't apologize to anybody for that," Bolton told reporters. "The Security Council is acting, and other bodies can act as well."

We have all got a growing problem at the UN. But this stuff is exactly what Bolton's supporters wanted him to do: start to clean the stables. It'll take some time.