Drake's Drum

2004-05-02T17:16:00.000+01:00

Hiatus
The pressures of work and family mean I can't justify setting aside enough time to post here regularly for the time being. I will however be posting when I get the time over at England's Sword. As and when I have more time to blog I'll post here too, and I'll let everyone know via a post at England's Sword.

2004-04-03T23:08:00.000+01:00

Decline and Fall
Its official. The Spectator has now completed its mutation into John Kerry in print. I have a slight hope that the excrescence of an editorial they published this week owes something to the fact that it was published on April 1st but given the increasingly erratic directions of Boris' political thought I doubt it. It reads like something out of the Independent circa January 2002 - idiotic and badly thought out but before the 'Angry Left' psychosis took hold. It is too bad to just summarise, it requires a good old fashioned fisking.

We are not at war

As day broke on 11 May 1941, Londoners could survey the devastation wrought by 100,000 incendiary bombs. Whole streets had been razed. More than 1,400 Londoners had been killed; many thousands more were lying terribly injured beneath the rubble.

The difference between this and the killing of 200 railway passengers in Madrid three weeks ago is more than one of scale; the difference between the Luftwaffe officers who masterminded the Blitz and the suspected al-Qa’eda bombers arrested in London, Crawley and Luton this week is more than one of accents and costumes. The Blitz was war. The activities of al-Qa’eda terrorists over the past few years are straightforward murder. For anyone lying bleeding in Madrid, the difference may seem academic. But for Western leaders contemplating a strategy to defend our cities against the terrorists, the distinction is crucial.

This first section manages to define 'war' to mean 'the Second World War', which is an interesting definition. Obviously, if that is the working definition of war these days, then no, we are not at war. I mean, if we are to concede that point then we may as well give up and go home, consigning 'war' to the same scrap-pile of devalued words and phrases, along with 'imminent threat', 'unilateral' and 'quagmire'. However, since I define 'war' a little more broadly I will continue, for what is worst about these paragraphs is not the Blitz comparison but the claim that the Madrid bombing was 'straightforward murder'. After the past two and a half years the Spectator is now advocating a return to the failed terror-as-a-law-enforcement-problem template - which shows that the editorialist has failed to grasp the point that we are not dealing with an enemy that will be content to blow up a few dozen people per year, an enemy whose objective is something rational and an enemy who we can make a deal with. For this enemy, killing us is enough - it is the objective.

Schools, buses and telephones, as we have argued in these pages over the years, all tend to work better when they are removed from the hands of the state. War, however, is the one thing that by definition cannot be privatised. To conduct a war it is necessary for your opponents to recognise you as a political entity: if not a state then at least a tribe or a dispossessed people. The loose network of al-Qa’eda operatives in grubby west London bedsits possesses no such identity. Their activities may reasonably be called a campaign, an uprising, an outrage or any of about 50 other suggestions in Roget’s Thesaurus. But to say that they amount to a war is to argue that al-Qa’eda has a chance of defeating Western regimes. This is ridiculous: Osama bin Laden is no more likely to march triumphantly down the Mall than is a little green man from Mars. Al-Qae’da has means but no end — at least not in this world. Its ‘war’ cry is not ‘lebensraum’ or ‘freedom’, but the defeatist ‘you love life and we love death’.

Our esteemed editorialist has now decided to vary the definition of a war to one where the enemy has a sporting chance of winning. I guess anything else just would not be cricket. [What status this places the myriad of colonial wars the British Empire's Spectator-reading Generals fought in the nineteenth century pitting spears against the Maxim gun is unclear].

That al-Qa’eda’s murderous campaign should be awarded a dignity it does not deserve is not the fault of its sympathisers. It was the American President who opted to call his response to the attacks of 9/11 a ‘war against terror’. The philosophically minded have already made the point that it is hard to go to war against an abstract noun, unless one has in mind the sort of linguistic battle waged by Lynne Truss.

Some of us have been banging on for years about this one, noting the rather successful Wars Against the Slave Trade tend to contradict the oh-so-clever assertion that you can't fight an abstract noun. But then again, that was the might of the British Empire (again) ranged against some West African merchants and a bunch of ne'erdowells in some leaky sloops so I guess it doesn't meet the new definition of 'war'.

But there is a more serious reason why George W. Bush’s declaration of war was ill conceived. It is not possible for the West to achieve an outright defeat of a terrorist organisation. With or without bin Laden’s head, and no matter how many swarthy men are caught with Semtex on their hands, there will always be one more evil figure beavering away over bundles of fuse wire in a London bedsit. Terrorism is a threat which cannot be defeated, only managed.

"Chin up old chap. You've just got to accept that you might get blown up one day." Certainly back when the terrorists limited themselves to a dozen or so deaths at a time this made some sense from the viewpoint of the state. To seriously go after the terrorists would have required an immense effort of willpower (and the taking of steps which would be deemed internationally unacceptable). When the terrorists want to kill as many as possible its not an option, and certainly not if and when they get a working nuke.

Yet the language employed in the fight against al-Qa’eda makes us wonder whether the authorities still possess the presumption in favour of liberty which they did when defending London against the IRA at the height of that organisation’s bombing campaign in the 1970s.

It obviously has not dawned on the editorialist that the aims of the IRA were quite simple and rational in terms of western political thought. For the IRA to kill a hundred or more at one sitting would have been counter productive. For Al Qa'eda it is the objective. The means is the end in itself. So, given the stakes are higher, is it any surprise that the authorities are a bit more skittish? Not to mention that there are some who would suggest that an innocent Irishman coming into contact with the wrong part of Special Branch in the mid-seventies was rather worse off than Mohammed al-Mohammed will be when he's picked up in Guildford next week... However I digress.

We salute the efforts of intelligence staff and police officers which led to the arrest of eight terrorist suspects this week. Yet already there are suggestions that ammonium nitrate — the fertiliser seized in the raids and which is capable of being used as an explosive — might be banned or controlled. Farmers forbidden to grow GM crops in response to public paranoia may find themselves unable to grow economic quantities of conventional crops as well.

Ah, the straw man. What great editorial would be complete without one. I'm sure someone who did not know better suggested this (though I missed any reference to it), but even a government as agriculturally illiterate as this one would not actually do such a thing.

We can discount conspiracy theorists who suggest that this week’s arrests were staged by the Home Office to deflect attention from the embarrassment over immigration policy. But what of the deployment of armoured personnel carriers — useless in a confined space — to Heathrow on the eve of the debate on the Iraq war in February 2003? If the aim was to provoke fear in order to swing public opinion behind the war, it was a very grave wrong.

And now the patented Howard Dean "Tinfoil two-step". Oh and is that followed by a baseless allegation of malfeasance levelled at the government with no supporting evidence? Have they given Gilligan the password to Boris' computer?

he invasion of Iraq was a war; we supported it; it was won and Iraq is a better country for it. The defence of London against al-Qa’eda terrorists is something different. It requires intelligence, skilled policing and common sense on the part of the public. It does not require the armoury or the emergency restrictions on freedom associated with war. In order to protect our liberty it is necessary for citizens to maintain vigilance on our leaders as well as on the terrorists.

Note how the support for the Iraq war is now used by some on the right in the same way the left used to claim they supported the ouster of the Taliban. "Oh yes, but...". And excuse me but I don't recall anyone suggesting we use the same tactics as used in Iraq to root out the jihadis in our midst (though some Israeli tactics would be nice: a blotch on the pavement in Finsbury Park, the mangled remains of a hook the only recognisable item remaining...). But this is just another straw man, for I don't see any sign of nasty emergency powers in effect. The government wants ID cards, (something I oppose resolutely) but at the end of the decade, and I think they'd be after them regardless of the war. There has been no introduction of censorship and no arbitrary internment (something that I seem to recall was tried during that hayday of the oh-so-successful 'management' of Irish terrorism, the mid-seventies!)

This is a very different war to any we have fought before but it is a war nonetheless. We are the enemy's targets and we will be until either we convert to Islam or we kill enough of them for them to give up. To adopt the law enforcement approach, the defensive and passive assertion that for want of a better phrase the bomber will eventually get through is foolhardy. The enemy don't have nukes yet (or they would have used them) and extreme elements of Britain's muslim communities are not yet raising arms against their government, but if people don't wake up soon all such bets are off.

2004-04-03T23:05:00.000+01:00

Light traffic
Have been pretty busy this last week, so haven't been able to post much, but I've done a couple of posts over at England's Sword that you might be interested in.

2004-03-30T13:28:00.000+01:00

The Uxbridge Cuckoos
A few weeks back, Peter Cuthbertson got quite a bit of stick for daring to point out that there might be some questions about the loyalty of some proportion of Britain's Muslim population. Well:

More than half a tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser - a key bomb-making ingredient - has been recovered during a series of terror raids across England.

Police said the bomb-making material was seized from an industrial storage unit in Hanwell, west London.

Eight suspects were arrested in the dawn raids, which involved more than 700 police officers and 24 addresses around the country.

...

The men are all British citizens aged 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21, 22 and 32."

In the light of this I bet we're all feeling reassured that those "Guantanamo Brits" are home and free.

2004-03-28T22:28:00.000+01:00

Surely someone has read their Clancy?
I ask that because it was evident watching Sky News last night (i.e. before the clocks changed) that no one in the Sky newsroom had the faintest idea what Zulu Time means. NASA were preparing to do their air speed record attempt and Sky cut to a live shot of a B52 on the runway at Edwards Airforce Base. It was about 8.15pm. They seemed to be convinced that the plane was about to take off, when a voice cut in on the NASA channel explaining they would be ready for take-off "around 21:47 Zulu" or words to that effect. The newscaster then got excited thinking the plane would be taking off in about 30 minutes time. We turned the channel soon after, but turned back at half past, to find them still showing the runway at Edwards - the newscaster wasn't the only one affected, clearly no one at Sky knew that Zulu = GMT!

2004-03-23T22:55:00.000Z

Budget
In the Budget last week, Gordo promised a 'real terms increase' in Defence spending. Does anyone know a) how much that is going to be and b) what its going to be allocated to, or has that not been announced yet? That's a genuine enquiry as I've not managed to find an answer yet.

2004-03-23T22:09:00.000Z

Well said that man!
"The killing of terrorists, like the hiring and firing of bureaucrats, is a proper function of the state. We all need to start saying so." - Peter Cuthbertson

2004-03-22T22:59:00.000Z

Result!
Others are covering the elimination of the founder of Hamas this morning in far more detail than I need to, but other than saying "huzzah" at the news, I thought I'd share the text of a note I sent to the Israeli Embassy in London.

We are sure that you have received many comments over the past few hours following the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, but my wife and I wanted to write a brief note to congratulate your government and Prime Minister for taking this brave and necessary step. Please be assured that despite the relentless bias of most of the British Press and the extreme distortions of the BBC there are people in this country who support Israel's right to defend itself and its right to kill those who threaten the security of its people. An evil man was despatched this morning and the world is a better place as a result. In the days ahead, as his supporters inevitably seek revenge, please be aware that our prayers are with you and your people.

Oh, one other thing. Any event that upsets Yasser Arafat has to be good news:

The Associated Press quotes an anonymous Arafat aide as saying of the boss: "He is like a man who was hit on the head because they killed Yassin and now they could kill him. He feels his turn is next and he is sad and worried."

[Via Best of the Web]

2004-03-21T16:32:00.000Z

The Abolition of the Grammar Schools...
...is my nomination for 'decision that should never have been made' over at England's Sword.

2004-03-16T12:23:00.000Z

48%
Irrespective of the other stuff in this poll, the thing that should stand out as most important is that 48% of Britons still support the liberation of Iraq, and still believe we did the right thing. Personally I wish that number was much higher, but considering the relentlessly biased news coverage most people have had to put up with I find the figure heartening.

2004-03-14T22:01:00.000Z

Challenge for UK Bloggers!
Over at England's Sword, I've proposed a challenge to UK bloggers. If you could change one domestic policy, decision or law since the 1945 General Election - which would it be?

2004-03-14T17:55:00.000Z

Can we call it appeasement now?
I've noticed a really insidious meme creeping into TV news interviews over the past two days. When talking about the Madrid bombings and the Spanish elections all kinds of commentators say things like "Of course if it does turn out to be Al Qaeda this might cost Sr Aznar's party votes given his strong support for the war in Iraq". Spain has just suffered a violent attack, and the media think that a perfectly normal and understandable way to react would be to give the terrorists what they want. And a year ago they complained when we called the pro-Saddam side appeasers.

UPDATE: Well s**t. I guess that goes to show that cultures react differently to this sort of thing. The IRA always timed their blasts for the day after an election, lest their attack win more votes for the Tories. While I draw some comfort in that I don't believe the British or American electorates would react the same way, I can barely believe the Spanish have done what the terrorists wanted and voted out the Popular Party. As Plastic Gangster says, "It goes against every rule in the anti-terrorism book". Rightly or wrongly, the enemy now knows that attacking European countries just before they hold elections is a good way to achieve their objectives. There will be more attacks to come.

2004-03-12T14:09:00.001Z

Europe's Demographic Collapse: 1 - The Pensions Timebomb
This is the first issue anyone thinks of when the demographic collapse is brought up. Europe's state pensions will be bankrupt over the course of the next fifteen years and apart from the UK there is little private pension provision. The drivers of the pensions bankruptcy are obvious - state pensions are little more than Ponzi schemes, with the next generation of workers paying the costs of the one that went before it. As each country ages the pension age population becomes larger and larger relative to the working (and therefore tax paying) population. Sooner or later this will reach the point of unsustainability (as tax takes fall and pension outgoings increase). A number of unsavoury options then present themselves:

1. Borrow the money.
2. Raise taxes.
3. Cut pensions.
4. Cut other spending to refocus the money on pensions.
5. Increase the retirement age.

Now of these five, 2 and 3 are essentially non-starters. Certainly in the short term taxes can be raised but sooner or later the Laffer curve will come into play and the revenue increases will start to be insufficient. Furthermore the economic damage inflicted will begin to make the problem worse by reducing the working population through high unemployment. Pensions could probably be cut in the long term, and that is a policy area that should be addressed now (just because everyone ignored it for the boomer generation doesn't mean they should continue ignoring it); but that will not be a viable option for those who have been told all their lives that they will get pensions, and more importantly it is not an option at all for the COntinent where hardly anyone has a private pension.

4 is viable in the short term, as is borrowing the money. Both ought to be used to manage a transition to a full solution to the problem but you can bet that both (and particularly borrowing) will be used to avoid solving the problem as long as possible. This in turn will delay the crisis point but make it a bigger crisis.

Increasing the retirement age is the most sensible option - for 65 was set in stone in the late 1940s and really is not appropriate today. Unfortunately doing this would be extremely unpopular and it is likely to be adjusted very slowly and in a very minor way.

So the effect of public opinion (and in an aging population, guess who pulls the levers of power) will make a government level solution impractical to say the least. But back in the real world people with dwindling pensions have to eat, and therefore I suspect one will see the retirement age fade away as a clear division in society, with those who can afford to retire doing so, but those who can't continuing to work until they have saved enough, or they become unable to. The government pensions will remain however, and will remain being paid to people who are in fact working to augment their pensions - its just those people will also be paying higher taxes to pay for their pensions!

Thus the aging population will not cause an economic collapse (though it will burden the economy through increased taxation) because long before that point is reached the aging population will be forced by market forces to work - thus maintaining a certain level of economic output. This however will in all likelihood produce discontent (from increased poverty) , malaise (older workers unhappy at not being able to retire) and envy-politics being directed at those older people who have prepared for their own retirement (expect confiscatory raids on private pensions funds by the finance ministries). The combined effects of all of this will be enough to stave off a serious crisis, but will probably set Europe's lethargic economies in stone. The rest of the world will grow economically, Europe will not.

2004-03-12T14:09:00.000Z

Europe's Demographic Collapse: Modelling from First Principles
One of the memes that is frequently alluded to all over the press and particularly the right-wing blogosphere is the European Demographic Collapse, which is due to take place over the next half-century and beyond. There is no question that it is coming, but the problem with demography as an influence in politics is that it is so slow and rarely manifests itself as an obvious driver. Rather demographic changes tend to throw up a number of problems and opportunities which are dealt with on a piecemeal basis and only when looked at from the viewpoint of history can a unifying theme be identified.

That is not to say that predictive modelling is impossible, far from it. What it means is that in order to get some handle on how a demographic collapse like the one Europe is currently facing will manifest itself in the current events of the future one must think broadly and laterally and attempt to find individual and understandable areas where the population changes effects can be predicted. Having done this it will become possible to tie the various threads together to work out some potential scenarios.

I have seen little sign of this being done (apart from undoubtedly in the sort of academic literature I don't have access to at present). All that I see is occasional allusions to the population issue with vague predictions (none good) for what it means. And instinctively I tend to agree: unless Europe reverses its suicidal course bad things will happen. But that is not good enough because 'bad things' spans the gamut between economic ruin and continent-wide war.

Therefore I've decided to do some thinking on this topic and try to work out some of the individual areas that will be affected, and attempt to identify what those effects will be. As I am not a social scientist some of these conlcusions may be wrong or wide of the mark, so comments are heavily encouraged. And as I'm not an academic, this will have to be done one bit at a time, therefore I'll be posting occasionally on this topic, and identifying each post as part of a series. Depending on how far I get with this, I'll aim to eventually tie all these threads together to have a go at predicting a range of future Europes.

2004-03-12T10:31:00.000Z

Defence sense?
Been meaning to post this for a couple of days. Firstly, Labour are now looking to cut defence spending as well - which as Plastic Gangster says would be a total disaster. Taken on its own that would look like meaning I had no choice but to sit out the next General Election.

However, following my non-reply from Michael Howard's office which I posted a few days ago I queried Nicholas Soames' people about it and the reply I got was encouraging. It didn't say so in as many words but the impression I got was that the argument within the Tories is not over yet and that Soames is fighting against the proposed cuts. Unfortunately I can't post the message as it disappeared from my webmail account after I read it (I think the ISP had a problem with a virus outbreak, because I lost a load of other messages).

In any case, with the battle still ongoing, if anyone has not yet contacted either the Conservative Party or Nicholas Soames about this, please do so using the links provided below. If the Tories don't hear from those who care about the nation's defence they will assume we don't exist. Blog based lobbying in the US is becoming extremely effective - take a look at any pro-2nd Amendment sites archives from a couple of weeks ago when the "Assault Weapons" Ban was up for renewal to see an example - and there is no reason why it shouldn't be here too.

Conservative Party

Nicholas Soames MP (Shadow Defence Secretary) - email

Contact your PPC / MP

2004-03-10T08:22:00.000Z

What sort of a man is John Kerry?
I think the issue of 'character' does sometimes get overplayed in importance in elections, but at the same time it is not irrelevant. Voters look at candidates and will tend to be more open to the more trustworthy ones, the more decent ones and the more likeable ones. And that's more true in Presidential contests than in legislative ones because the voter is in part hiring someone to react to events and the unexpected on their behalf, and therefore this becomes important. (Some might cite Bill Clinton and disagree, but would argue that one of the things that made Clinton so electable was precisely this wider definition of 'character' that includes likeability. Clinton basically seemed like a regular guy (for all his foibles) and that's in part what made him such a successful politician).

All of which makes life very tough for John Kerry, given that Bush is generally liked, even by those who don't support his policies. Kerry needs to work on his 'nice guy' image. Unfortunately, things like this don't help.

In what is almost certainly a case of mistaken identity a small Illinois company called Riverfront Media has been cast as the producers of Kerry's ads and is getting a lot of complaints. The Kerry Campaign has stated that Riverfront Media of Illinois made these ads, but this company is the only one of that name in Illinois. So they've asked for a retraction / clarification on the matter. And the Kerry campaign has done nothing in response to the request, even though it's their fault and even though it's hurting someone's business. Such class, Senator, such class.

Incidentally, there's more information here, where the owner of Riverfront goes into some detail about what's happened and points out that as a result of this screw up Kerry is in breach of campaign spending reporting laws. Maybe that will provide the 'man of the people' with the incentive to clean up a mess he's caused for some of the 'little folk'. Or maybe that will provide some journalists with a hook to cover this story. Yeah, right.

Via Polipundit.

2004-03-09T16:56:00.000Z

Classic!

2004-03-09T13:49:00.000Z

Another one for the blogroll...
...is The England Project which I have been visiting rather a lot lately. Lots of good stuff over there, including the best comment on Lords reform I've ever heard (well apart from when that chap jumped up on the woolsack during the final debate in the old House of Lords):

"What benefit have you personally felt to date from all this erosion of our traditional safeguards by New Labour?"

With any luck a lefty-blogger will have a go at an answer!

2004-03-08T10:40:00.000Z

Good News
This looks like good news. How good is hard to gauge as the modern Greek right has not held power apart from a brief and unspectacular spell a decade ago. Promises from New Democracy about a rapprochement with Macedonia and Turkey will need to be seen to be believed but if real can only be positive. At the very least, comfort can be taken that PASOK - one of the most thoroughly corrupt and ugly mainstream political parties in Europe - has taken a severe drubbing. Perhaps the new government might be able to dig up some more information on the links between the PASOK hierarchy and the November 17 terrorist group too.

2004-03-05T16:52:00.000Z

Pumped?
So the Democrats are energised and fixing to vote out Bush at all costs are they? A quick comparison of the California Primary in 2000 with this year reveals a different picture. The picture in 2000 when the Democratic primary was basically a coronation and the GOP's was contested is reversed this year with an uncontested GOP primary (at the Presidential level) and a hard fought Democratic one. So how do the numbers compare? Well GOP turnout is unsurprisingly down and Democrats are up, but its the amounts of difference that are interesting.

You see the 2000 GOP race drew 30% more voters than this year, while this year's Democratic turnout is up only 13% on the near-coronation in 2000. Obviously its a case of comparing apples with oranges, but I don't think there's much evidence here for the fabled 'energised base' we keep hearing about.

2004-03-05T13:55:00.000Z

A successful prediction!
A while back, I said:

So with Gilligan leaving the BBC, how long before he shows up at the Spectator?

And lo and behold, there he is in this week's Speccie, droning on about how we should have left Saddam's rape squads in place, his sons alive and the mass graves unopened.

2004-03-02T23:19:00.000Z

Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-an FMA!
I know this is about a week behind the rest of the web, but I've spent some time thinking about this issue and have finally managed to put into words how I feel. I also noticed via Ace of Spades that someone else was thinking along the same lines (though to a different conclusion) but since at that point I'd already written much of this, I'm going to post it anyway!

I'm in favour of Gay Marriage, on the whole. I have to say that in the annals of injustice in the world the inability of gay people to get married to one another does not rank near the top of the list, but I think that it is unfair and something should be done about it and if I were a politician and in a position to vote on the matter I would vote for it - nay actively push it. I appreciate that some people disagree, and unlike far too many people on the pro-gay marriage side I am not going to class them as 'bigots'. However, when it comes to what sort of laws a secular state should pass, I'm afraid religious objections to something of themselves are not enough to oppose it. So there you have it, I'm in favour of gay marriage. So why do I find myself increasingly sympathising with the pro-FMA crowd? We've heard a lot about liberals and libertarians who supported Bush but are reconsidering it over the FMA, but we've not heard much about conservatives and independents who support gay marriage but are reconsidering their position in the light of the debate now happening. We should, because I think its probably a bigger group than is generally thought.

So why am I wavering. Well lets establish where I stand first of all:

I reject (or until last week rejected) civil unions, because I saw them as a form of marriage-lite. Something the state should not be encouraging and which if instituted for gays would soon be instituted for straight people as well. On balance I think I still hold to that point of view, but an excellent point which I had not considered before has been made by several people. Once civil unions are in place, everyone will refer to Mr X and Mr Y as 'married' even if the state does not, and before anyone knows it that little semantic difference will be excised to the good of all. [I do not think that western civilisation will fall if gay marriage is introduced, and articles claiming the end of marriage in Scandinavia are I think mistaking two independent outcomes of change in modern culture for a cause and and an effect].

But above all I reject activist judges. I'm not actually all that bothered by the mayor of San Francisco (or the half-dozen other towns) issuing illegal marriage licences. A little civil disobedience never hurt anyone. In the same way Roy Moore was well within his rights to put the Ten Commandments in that Alabama courthouse - the First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court is grotesque and getting worse (of which more anon) and he was right to challenge it*. Getting back to San Francisco, the Mayor had every right to 'follow his conscience'. But what should have happened next did not, and that is where the problem lies. For instead of having an injunction slapped on him in days (as it is clear from statements when the stunt started the City of San Francisco was expecting) several judges of the California court have effectively refused to rule - because they know the law is clear. And lets be honest, if the relevant official were issuing concealed carry permits to everyone applying in contravention of California law, even if the court felt he had a case, he'd still have been injuncted.

So, the decision of the California judiciary to derelict its duty on this forms part of the background to this debate. The second part is the previous decision in Massachussetts. The ruling in Massachussetts, ordering the State Legislature to create Gay Marriage based on a superficial legal argument is a classic example of judge-made law. Sadly it is what many have come to expect from liberal justices. However Massachussetts is Massachussetts, and it also has on its books an inbuilt reverse-Defence of Marriage Act that makes Massachussetts marriages only valid in states that would recognise them already. Thus, on its own the Massachussetts decision is also just a local problem.

But there is another aspect to this discussion, one which the pro-Gay Marriage types are well aware of but refuse to mention. For the Federal Marriage Amendment is not being proposed to stop judges in Massachussetts or California abusing their positions. If that were all, state-level solutions would be followed, and afterall there is the Defence of Marriage Act to prevent the nationalisation of gay marriage so the amendment would certainly not hae received presidential attention. No, the amendment is proposed because of the fact that no one, from the religous right to the loony left believes that the current federal judiciary will allow DOMA or its state-level equivalents to stand. By hook, or by crook if this ever reaches the Supreme Court the outcome practically writes itself:

A 5-4 ruling, withering dissent from Scalia, O'Connor the swing vote.

And this problem is not confined to Gay Marriage. If it were then, frankly I think that this amendment would join the other 11000-odd failed amendments and die somewhere in the coriddors of the Capitol. People with a religious objection to gay marriage could simply assert that 'those gays aren't married, no matter what the government may say' and that would be that. But it is not just about Gay Marriage. The Supreme Court is not 'turning away from activism' or 'becoming more conservative'. Far from it! The activism is getting worse. In the past few months they have ruled, that Equal Protection can be twisted to allow the state to ignore the provisions of the Constitution if it so wishes and that Free Political Speech can be regulated by the state. And then there came last week's monstrosity. On first reading of it, I thought that it was horrible but acceptable because it was limited in effect, but continued consideration of this ruling just bothers me more and more.

For in Davey v. Locke, the Supreme Court has held that it is OK for the state to discriminate against a religious group. For the details of this, read Justice Scalia's dissent, and see the legal opinion of Volokh and Bainbridge. The essence of the case was that Washington State funds a scholarship that winners can use to fund any course of their choosing. Any course at all. Except Theology. The unfortunate would be Theologian (who has since completed his studies, self funded and enrolled in Law School) was stripped of his funding. Naturally he thought that a certain sacred piece of text about not interferning with the free exercise of religion would come to his aid, but no. A part of the ruling (i.e. the excuse to enable another strike on religion) was that Theology degrees are non-fungible. I.e. you can study Law and get a job in the construction industry, or Physics and a job in Computing. But Theology is only for religious training and therefore amounts to something the state should not be subsidizing. This unbelievable logic (refuted by the complainant's own choice of career!), though is just a fig leaf. The lines of attack on it are so obvious that it is not worth detailing them, because after all I doubt even the Justices who voted this way give it much credence. It was merely the cover provided to allow them to endorse outright discrimination on the grounds of religion.

So, this is the backdrop against which the Gay Marriage issue has arisen, and those who seek to describe the President's endorsement of a Federal Marriage Amendment as a product of 'hate' or 'bigotry' conveniently ignore this point. If it were possible for those who oppose Gay Marriage to win the argument in the states, then that is where this battle would be being fought, but everyone knows that if you wish to stop Gay Marriage there is only one way of doing so: amend the federal constitution in some way. And that is where I start to waver.

Because quite frankly the suggestions of the pro-Gay Marriage side of the debate that their opponents should play nice and leave it to the states at the same time as they themselves set the ground for a judicial campaign is disingenuous in the extreme.

Because the hysteria from certain people on this issue in effectively maintaining that anyone who opposes Gay Marriage does so out of hate and is no better than a segregationist is disgusting. I repeat, I support Gay Marriage, but I accept that its opponents have some valid arguments - I think they are wrong, but not hateful.

And because the way that the President's statement in favour of 'a' FMA (without specifying which one) has been relentlessly and wilfully miscast as being in favour of one particular proposal which would bar states from introducing Gay Marriage and Civil Unions. Should the amendment in fact simply constitutionalise that no state should have to recognise another state's gay marriages then will these new found friends of Federalism endorse it? Don't hold your breath.

So I look around. I see the people who I supposedly agree with on this issue, and I wonder if maybe I've picked the wrong team. And then there is the question of what happens if no Federal Marriage Amendment is passed? Simple: Gay Marriage by judicial fiat, with all the attendent anger, trauma and simmering hate that will cause for decades to come. Marriage as it is popularly understood in our culture right now is between a man and a woman, and the only legitimate way to change that is through legislative activity. And after all, why is it so difficult for the Gay Marriage movement to do it that way. Everyone else has to fight battles state by state so why can't they? Being a minority seeking a new privilege that is initially viewed with suspicion by the general populace does not preclude success - after all how many states allowed Concealed Carry fifteen years ago?

Nevertheless I oppose the currently touted draft amendment, and if that is what finally gets proposed it deserves to lose because it imposes a definition of marriage on all the states. But if the amendment is watered down to a guarantee that this matter will be decided on a state by state basis then I'm inclined to hope it passes. Not that Gay Marriage is the real issue here, but as Justin Katz points out it seems a pretty good place to make a stand. A cultural conflagration is pretty well unstoppble now, with any luck the trend to judicial invention will be overturned in the process (and I would not be surprised if as Katz suggests come the end of it this amendment is repealed and Gay Marriage is generally accepted). Furthermore it would teach liberals two lessons: firstly that the judiciary does not have untrammelled power and secondly that to overturn this they would have to fight the issue the way they were supposed to in the first place: on propositions, ballots and election platforms. Re-introducing the left to the mechanisms of democratic government would be a wonderful thing. But my mind is open to be changed back - if someone can give me a convincing reason to believe that this will be decided on a state by state basis without an amendment I am ready to hear it.

*Essentially my view is that officials are quite at liberty to ignore the law if they are prepared to take the consequences. Judges are different in that they enforce the law. Therefore in their official capacity they should enforce the law (even if they disagree with it). The case of Moore is complicated by his being a judge, but that does not really matter as the Decalogue was put in the courthouse by him, rather than him sitting in judgement on a case on the subject. In the former case he would be right to do what he did, in the latter case he would have been under an obligation to enforce the law as it stood.

2004-03-02T13:06:00.000Z

Changes
Iain Murray of The Edge of England's Sword has kindly invited me to post over there. So postings might become a bit sparser here from time to time. And while I imagine most visitors to this site would already know about The Edge, it is possible that a few of you haven't. So if you've not checked it out before, do pay it a visit.

2004-03-02T12:57:00.000Z

European Foreign Policy 101
Plastic Gangster neatly sums up Europe's options on the subject of US militarisation of space (which the usual suspects are bitching about):

1) Fight (literally) to prevent it happening.
2) Try to develop similar capabilities and beat the Americans in a space race, then dominate earth orbit yourself.
3) Accept the inevitable and buy into a slice of the action by combining forces in the project.

However, in order to put any of these three options into effect, one has to be operating in a world of harsh realist politics, as opposed to the fluffy pink marshmallow world in which the EU now resides. We can therefore expect the EU to adopt one of a different selection of three options, all of which are well rehearsed in the field of EU diplomacy and strategy:

1) Cry and stamp feet.
2) Shout "Stop, or I'll shout "Stop!" again!"
3) Offer to give the country in question enormous amounts of money in exchange for not doing something they shouldn't have been doing in the first place. If they take the money and keep doing it, look to plans 1 and 2 for a fallback position (and keep giving them the money anyway).

2004-03-01T15:06:00.000Z

Bravo
This is spot on.

"If there's one thing that actors know, other than there weren't any WMDs" -- he added impishly --"it's that there is no such thing as best in acting. And that's proven by these great actors that I was nominated with," Penn said. The actor received a standing ovation. . .
. . .the "standing ovation" only goes to show how isolated and deluded were the audience inside the theater.

But, actually, in a way, Penn was right. . .

. . . After all, "actors" obviously didn't know about mass graves.

2004-03-01T09:58:00.000Z

Two unrelated points
Number one: What I said about Ms Gun from GCHQ. Double that for Claire Short. Please Tony, have the balls to have her tried and convicted. She deserves to go to prison for undermining British National Security (by the damage this is inflicting on the reputation of the Security Services). For a former Cabinet Minister and Privy Councillor (a position I trust she will be forced to resign, after all Jonathan Aitken was, and he was a perjurer not a traitor) to behave so irresponsibly beggars belief. Lock her up.

Number two: Going through the daily spam in my inbox I noticed two messages with titles like 'The economy is much better now'. I think thats a sign of sorts!

2004-02-27T09:49:00.000Z

Take care of what you endorse
Here's a question for all those on the right crowing about the bugging row (this means you, Daily Mail):

Next time Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness are in the USA and GCHQ sends a request to the NSA to monitor them, how do you think the NSA will react? Will the actions of the GCHQ traitor* make it more likely or less likely that the NSA liaison (particularly if they are from, say, Boston) will do as we request? And how would you react if said NSA liaison then leaked the request to the New York Times?

Thats what I thought.

* While the obnoxious Ms Gun's behaviour may not fit the textbook definition of Treason, I think it certainly constitutes it morally. She was motivated to break the Official Secrets Act by a loyalty to a foreign organisation (in this case the United Nations) which overcame her loyalty to her country. On that matter, I'm with Sir John Keegan in today's Torygraph:

The great Duke of Wellington, reflecting on his life, took a harsher view. Admitting that he had earned enough to be independent of "employment or office", he went on to explain why he felt the obligation of loyalty. Using a term learnt during his service in Mogul India, he explained: "I am nimukwallah. I have eaten the king's salt." A great deal of salt has been eaten in recent years by half-informed government servants, some of whom do not seem to feel any loyalty to their country at all.

2004-02-23T22:40:00.000Z

An incoherent reply
Yesterday I linked to the Conservative Party's feedback form. A couple of days before that I used it to send in a brief note complaining about the grotesquely irresponsible proposed Defence Cuts. I got a reply today. It defies rational interpretation:

"First of all, I would assure that Mr Howard recognises the importance of maintaining a sound and credible defence policy - and especially at the current time when many of our troops are stationed in Iraq."

Words. They're very cheap. Lets get onto the substance.

"More generally, he firmly believes that the crucial role of NATO in maintaining peace throughout most of Western Europe since 1945 needs to be emphasised. It is against this background that he is concerned about the various proposals to construct a European-based defence organisation that is likely to develop as a rival to NATO."

Well, I too am suspicious of the proposed Euro-Army. But that's not what I complained about.

"Whilst the end of the Cold War has inevitably shifted debate away from superpower confrontations and more towards defeating international terrorism, it would be short-sighted to assume that defence expenditure can be easily cut. And, of course, our troops have every right to expect that the equipment that they use is effective."

Oh good to see they agree with me. No explanation as to why the Party is now advocating those 'short sighted' defence cuts.

And thats it. A string of platitudes followed by a conclusion that fails to answer my original comments (which in the politest way possible were basically 'What the hell do you think you're playing at?'). It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

2004-02-23T14:19:00.000Z

What's the big deal about evolution?
One of the favourite and recurring sneers of the European left involves attacking those Americans who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. Peter Cuthbertson is on top form taking on the latest incident of this:

"I'm a Darwinist, and I am about as sure as I can be of the validity of evolution. Further, as I noted last month, I think evolution has enormous cultural implications of which conservatives should more and more start to take notice. But I must confess to feeling none of the bile against believers in Adam and Eve, forbidden fruit and Eden. I do not think they are crazy or malign or even ignorant in a way distinct from, for example, those who do not understand photosynthesis.

What is even more puzzling is the set of beliefs that seems to go hand in hand with this incredible condescension. I can understand a well grounded, commonsensical and sceptical thinker scoffing at the idea of a six day creation. But it's not grounded, commonsensical or sceptical thinkers who do scoff. It's the ones who believe that state schools are better now than forty years ago. It's the ones who think a slap on the wrist for crime works but prison doesn't. It's the ones who believe political bureaucrats are generally much better qualified to spend the money you earned than you are. It's the ones who think Britain will in a decade and a half have a climate like Siberia's. It's the ones who think fathers are superfluous to the raising of children. It's the ones who see in the United Nations and the European Union enlightened and progressive governace. Against sensible judgement and overwhelming evidence Oliver James and his fellow travellers hold to such ideas as if they were carried down as stone tablets from mount Sinai, yet they still feel fit to sneer their nostrils clear at those with a comparably credible view of the origin of species. Forgive me if I find that odd."

Now I too am fully paid up on the Evolution front - heck I had to write essays about it in my finals at University - but I do not understand why this is taken to be such an important issue. As far as I can see someone's views on Evolution only become an issue if they are applying for a position that involves the teaching of Biology or Geology (and perhaps some of those subjects' practical applications). Otherwise it is completely irrelevant.

2004-02-22T21:56:00.000Z

Rumours of distant battle
Seems that its not just bloggers who aren't happy with the proposed Tory Defence Cuts. This Telegraph story refers to discontent in the Shadow Cabinet:

The Conservative leader has been told by several senior colleagues that they are particularly angry at proposed defence cuts of £1.5 billion that, they fear, could badly damage the party's standing in the Tory heartlands.

and

Major General Peter Currie, a former Ministry of Defence chief of staff who has been advising Mr Soames, spoke out angrily last night.

He said that he and Mr Soames had been assured by Mr Howard that defence finance would be ringfenced. The Tory leader now appeared to have gone back on his word. Mr Soames had been frozen out of Mr Howard's inner circle in the run-up to Mr Letwin's announcement last week.

"In real terms, a freeze is a savage cut," said Maj Gen Currie. "The inevitable impression now given is that the Conservative Party has abandoned defence as a priority - a cause traditionally associated with it.

"Defence may not be as hot a political potato as hospitals or schools, but this apparent shift in the political landscape will still be deeply disappointing. At a time when the Armed Forces continue to be so heavily committed, this is a chilling prospect."

Life may be about to get a bit difficult for Michael Howard over this. Good. This is a bad policy and it needs to be backed away from while it still can be. There is no harm in admitting a mistake was made. And a retreat can even be spun as a 'clarification' to minimise the damage done by the episode.

Meanwhile, please follow this link to the Conservative Party website to pass on feedback about this dreadful idea to try to push them in the right direction. Otherwise we face an unpleasant choice on who to vote for at the next election. Commenter Alex says it best under an earlier post:

"Vote for the final destruction of our Constitution or vote for the ending of Britain as a serious player on the Global stage."

2004-02-21T08:40:00.000Z

Not just the BBC
Sky News is far far less biased than the BBC - or mabe jut far far more professional. Somethimes however, the same old media-elite prejudices show through. Last night they were running a poll on whether the Guantanamo traitors should be arrested on their repatriation to the UK. As it had pretty much all day, te poll was running at 70% in the 'yes' column - something which seemed to come as a surprise to the anchor who clearly lost her train of thought as she was reading out the result. As they do every day when reporting the polls they encouraged people to participate but this time as she invited viewers to phone in with their positions, whatever the actual words she was using, from her tone the subtext was clear:

"Oh you silly little people, don't you understand that's the wrong answer. Never mind, you still have time to get it right."

2004-02-19T22:58:00.000Z

Cambridge Blog
Its been noted in the past that the British part of the (political) blogosphere is rather Oxford-heavy. Well, here's a blogger from the Other Place redressing the balance a bit.

2004-02-19T22:39:00.000Z

More Defence
Go read Plastic Gangster. Again, I fully agree.

In particular his point about the International Development budget is a vital one. If ID spending were repatriated from Brussels (or if we just created a parallel fund under our control) and directed it to our friends and nations or regions we were attempting to achieve something in it would help us immensely in other areas. (An effective and well-run aid budget would also be the right thing to do - far more moral than our present policy of shovelling money at problems and not really tracking whether it gets used properly).

Now, I know that we're just two blogs banging on about this, and I know the Defence vote is not huge, but I am amazed that no one at CCO has yet grasped that this is a serious problem for the credibility of the party.

2004-02-19T21:46:00.000Z

I could do better
A few days ago I was watching Sky News and they were doing one of their chats with their US correspondent. It was in depth piece about the Kerry-Intern flap and its implications for the race. The reporter also touched on Kerry's war (and antiwar) record and last week's GWB-National Guard non-scandal. Then came a series of predictions, and nestled in among them was a gem:

(Paraphrasing) "...but the election campaign proper is not going to be about National Security, Iraq or the War on Terror..."

To be clear, he was referring to the main phase of the election campaign in totality, not Kerry's specific strategy. With a straight face he was telling his viewers that this election will not involve National Security. At which point it was clear that his opinions were utterly worthless since he did not have a clue what he was talking about.

Whatever else is discussed there is no doubt that National Security will be one of the dominant issues in this election. Anyone who has been following US politics for the last few years knows that (there will be other issues certainly, but anyone who thinks that the Bush campaign will not play this one up should check themselves into detox forthwith).

This is more than a whinge about a particular reporter, because this problem is not limited to Sky News. If you read articles about US politics in the Telegaph or the Guardian and you have more than a passing interest in US affairs you will find yourself correcting the journalist on a regular basis. Sometimes it will be little things, sometimes major ones, and sometimes you'll have read this story two weeks earlier on Fox or the New York Times. Furthermore the feature-style pieces - covering a trend or an overlooked issue- tend to play to the prejudices of their readership back home. (A classic example would be sending the hack to the boondocks and have them write a sneer-piece about evangelical Christians or homeschoolers).

Now I'm unusual, in that a) my wife is American so I follow US politics as closely as British politics and b) I'm a political junkie anyway, but even just reading CNN or Fox for ten minutes every few days would give you more of an idea about what is happening in the US than reading the foreign pages of your broadsheet of choice. It therefore seems to me that there is increasingly little point in the British press operating bureaux in the US, because the web has opened up the US media to us instead. And visa versa. And in fact the same applies to the rest of the Anglosphere - indeed why stop there as there are English language dailies in most countries.

This then becomes the potential twin theme of the new-media age. Punditry will be universal but actual reporting will become more distributed, local (either geographically or by subject), and syndicated by hyperlink. That, combined with decentralised fact-checking should improve the quality too.

2004-02-17T00:32:00.000Z

(Political) Spam Trolls
The latest technique of the lunatic left, as described at Clayton Cramer's blog, involves phoney e-mails and blog comments posts from lefties pretending to be disaffected conservatives running down President Bush. Apparently this is a crude attempt at demotivating Bush's base. The thing is, these comments are blatantly phoney to anyone who actually is a conservative:

A lot of email seems to be appearing lately claiming something like, they are a "Life Long Republican," and usually then goes on to note they are a big a big admirer or Rush Limbaugh or they voted for Bush.

They remind me not of comments from truly irritated conservatives but instead of Nigerian spam mail or fake virus warnings. OK, so they aren't written in block capitals, but you have the same near miss on the language. Just as the well established e-mail hoaxes are almost but not quite grammatical, so these are almost but not quite authentic - "a big admirer of Rush Limbaugh" indeed. At risk of fueling Jonah Goldberg's bette noire - Conservatives in the Mist - it seems that Liberals are losing the ability to share a common political language with Conservatives.

Lets start a sweepstake on some 'close but no cigar' phrases we are likely to see if this practice continues. I'll start by nominating:

"I'm a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and even want to own Assault Weapons and all"

2004-02-16T21:50:00.000Z

Colour me unimpressed
Damn, damn, damn. I'm not one of the Death Before Electability brigade. I can forgive ideological failures by the Conservative Party. I appreciate that you have to triangulate, and reach a consensus in order to win elections.

I'll lay it on the table.

I want out of the EU, I think that vile organisation is destroying Britain. I am unpersuadeable of its merits and even if you could convince me it had any I would not care, for in my opinion a little economic damage would be a price worth paying for the restoration of our freedom to write our own laws. That said, I can live with a Tory party that supports our being 'in' Europe, because I recognise that right now that argument can't be won.

I want to see the NHS privatised. Completely. Along the US model. It doesn't bother me though that the Tories advocate spending taxpayers money on it. I'm a realist. I know we can never be rid of the NHS.

"Tory Cuts" I hear you say. Damn right. I like hearing sob stories about "indispensible public servants" like Gypsy Outreach Co-ordinators, or Gender Studies lecturers being shown the door. You see, when I hear 'cut' I think, not of the poor overworked Recycling Assessor, desperately in need of the extra staff members, but instead I think of cuts in my taxes. Hurrah!

But (and you could tell that was coming couldn't you?), I do have a bottom line. Until today, I thought that, that bottom line was a pretty secure one. After all I could trust the Tories to behave responsibly on my top issue:

The small matter that, you know, we're AT WAR! And that in this time of war, Defence policy actually matters. So what is my bottom line? Well, there are two answers to that question.

1. What do I actually want?
Big increases (of the order of 30-40% in Defence expenditure). We are more likely to fight than during the Cold War, and we have more clout than we did in the Cold War. This isn't about "punching above our weight" (such a horribly defeatist phrase), this is about "punching at our weight".
2. What is acceptable to me?
Holding expenditure relatively steady, with some salary increases for the troops to try to address retention issues.

The Tories (who have been making political hay from the logistics failures in the Gulf, caused by persistent underfunding) seem to be proposing Defence cuts. That is unacceptable. I never thought I would see a time when the Labour Party was more trustworthy on Defence and National Security. Never.

Plastic Gangster has beaten me to the punch on this one, and I endorse everything he says:

"It seems pretty clear that the Tories are not going to be going into the elections as the party of real term defence spending increases. This was probably always too much to hope for. Bah. However, I'm not quite sure what the programme outlined today is going to mean for defence. From what I can tell, it mostly seems to be Labour people putting words in Letwin's mouth, but if the worst case scenario is true then it is actually now quite conceivable that far from offering anything extra, the Tories could actually go into the next election with what amounts to a programme of real term defence cuts - indeed, quite possibly (unless Vincent Cable's reported ideas for slashing defence spending actually pan out) as the least defence-friendly of any of the three main parties.

In the present circumstances, my personal view is that this would be unforgivable."

The Tories are beginning to sound like the Democrats. Which is an important analogy. I am quite dismissive of US conservatives' complaints about Bush's profligacy and his so called 'betrayals' of his base. The reason for that is quite simply that when the Democrats are unfit to be entrusted with the defence of the West, conservatives can't afford to quibble. I abhor the Labour Party - its collectivism, its class envy, its political correctness etc. But so long as Blair is in charge I actually trust them to defend western civilisation. I had thought that the Tories could not only be trusted but would do a better job. Sadly that seems not to be the case.

The rest of Letwin's proposals were quite good, though the 'civil service hiring freeze' smacks a little of identifying the problem but not knowing how to fix it (and would result in things like hiring no new secretaries at GCHQ while not sacking a single Anti-Smoking counsellor). But 'quite good' on public services does not make up for 'criminally irresponsible' on National Security.

Message to Howard, Letwin et al: fix this please.

2004-02-12T23:10:00.000Z

215 years later and still no idea about Liberté
Plenty of ink, both physical and electronic has been spilled on the subject of France's hijab ban, so I'm not going to go into the details of the matter (In one sentence: I personally think the hijab is pretty repugnant for a variety of reasons, but it is not my place, and it is not the state's place to ban people from wearing it to school). The point I want to make, is one that I haven't seen anyone else make so far, and that is the Eurosceptic angle.

Lets step back from this a bit. In the space of a few months, the French have gone from discussing this harebrained idea to enacting it by an overwhelming majority (494-36). Meanwhile, the Belgians are talking about following suit. As are the Norwegians. As are the Germans. And there will be more to follow.

Meanwhile, in Blighty, we look on aghast, unsure whether to laugh at their stupidity or scream at them to step back from a course that will inevitably make their problems worse. But what is striking about it, is the universality of the views on this, on both sides of the Channel. Because this is an idea which simply would never even get proposed in the UK. From High Tories to the Trotskyite fringe, no one here wants to do this, but in Euroland left and right are pretty united on it.

And right there you have the divide. While our current masters try to emulate the Europeans on such matters as tax and spending, and our middle classes buy up holiday homes across the continent the fact remains: beneath the veneer we are as different in our understanding of liberty as we ever were. This is a unique moment to reach out to the Guardian reading classes, and gently remind them that we Eurosceptics have far more in common with them than their good friend Jacques after all.

2004-02-11T22:49:00.000Z

Self Defeating
The New Republic supports a liberal interventionist foreign policy. The trouble is, its doing its best to prevent one being adopted.

Now that Joe Lieberman is out of the race, The New Republic is kinda lost. After all, despite its leftward drift over the past couple of years (understandable now that the Democrats are out of power), it is the house journal of the New Democrats. If a Democrat pundit is pro-war, chances are they are from TNR. But the way the primaries have been going, that wing of the Democratic party has been routed, so TNR's influence is somewhat diminished.

Nevertheless, they really don't like Bush. In fact, last year they ran an article by one of their main columnists entitled "Why I hate President Bush". Which means that in a week or two, once John Kerry has the Democratic nomination sealed, and Dean and Edwards have dropped out of the race, TNR will loudly and consistently start putting forward the case for...a man who voted against Missile Defence, who voted to cut the CIA and FBI budgets during the 1990s (there was this peace dividend you see), who voted against the B2 bomber, who voted against the First Gulf War etc etc - you get the point.

And so we will shift into rationalisation time. People at TNR who've been critical of the reconstruction policy in Afghanistan or Iraq will ramp up their attacks. We'll hear what a mess the Bush team have made of International Relations. And we'll also hear (in muttered tones) how much better a Kerry administration would be at doing all of this.

Now, I'm not saying that some of TNR's criticisms of Bush's policies in the Wars Against Terrorism aren't valid. What I'm worried about is that after November the chaps and chapesses at TNR are going to wake up and find their credibility on foreign affairs shot. There's a very simple reason for this. TNR supported the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq. TNR will also be telling us how wonderful John Kerry is. Yet it is patently obvious to anyone who isn't smoking crack that if John Kerry were president now, the Iraq war would not have happened. Kerry might have invaded Afghanistan, but frankly I am not convinced he would have done.

Now there are plenty of areas the Bush guys have not lived up to their rhetoric about democratisation and freedom, but its early days yet and that doctrine is steadily taking shape (and being vigorously fought by the incompetent reactionaries at State). If Bush wins re-election there is a chance that the liberal, pro-liberty, TNR-friendly side of the agenda develops real substance and becomes its backbone. If Kerry wins, whatever else happens, that agenda will die. No ifs, no buts, it will be gone, and it will be back to interminable debates at the UN and mended fences with the Quai D'orsay.

Maybe the New Republic thinks that the liberal-interventionist foreign policy it has been arguing for for years is less important than getting a Democrat into the White House. But I bet they won't admit as much in the articles they publish over the next few months.

2004-02-10T21:49:00.000Z

Convergence
I was in London yesterday, and paid a visit to a store called Lush - for those unfamiliar with it it sells all manner of wonderful soap and bath products. My wife had asked me to go and buy some things there, but I did not have a list. So naturally in the store I phoned home to find out what to buy.

At first things did not go too well. Having been directed to the items I was looking for, I realised there was a problem. In front of me were about a dozen different brightly coloured "soapy things". They each had a name, and I could describe what they looked like but then the dread question, for which the male of the species is unprepared:

"What does it smell like?," asked my wife.

Smell like!! How should I know? It smelt like soap. OK, maybe a hint of lemon or something.

"Err, citrus soap...?" I replied.

And so onto the next one. Sadly, it also smelt of soap ... and lemons. I could see a pattern emerging, and in fear of being asked to pick one based on it smelling of (say) oranges I began reading out ingredients. It was going to be a difficult business.

Fortunately, this is the broadband age not the dial-up decade, so in addition to mobile technology we were able to 'leverage the power of the internet' to solve the problem, without hanging up the phone: my wife visited the Lush website and identified what was required. Everything became simple and managable again: I had a list!

I offer this tale, not as anything particularly profound but simply as a recognition that a society loaded with technology can solve unexpected problems almost before you even realise they occur. For which, men everywhere can be grateful.

2004-02-10T21:45:00.000Z

Q and A
Plastic Gangster also poses a question:

P.S. John Derbyshire reports than conservative Christians are swinging in behind Bush. Well, that's the election sorted then, eh?

No. But given 4 million such voters didn't show up at the polls last time when they had been expected to, I'd say that that's item number one on Mr Rove's checklist sorted out.

2004-02-10T13:48:00.000Z

Recommended reading
Via Plastic Gangster, two articles of note. Mille Collines pt1. Mille Collines pt2.

2004-02-09T23:28:00.000Z

Peter Cuthbertson is having wicked thoughts
Careful Peter, or its off to the re-education camp for you!

2004-02-08T17:04:00.000Z

They called it National Socialism for a reason...
Paul, over at Voice of the Future points out something about the BNP that does not get mentioned all that often - that far from being 'right wing' in the way the Conservative party is they actually stand for a wide range of leftist positions. Anyone who is prepared to give the matter a little thought can see this - after all the BNP's main recruiting grounds are not leafy suburbs full of Tory voters but the inner city strongholds of Labour. A friend of mine put it very well when he said [paraphrasing]:

While the Tories say "government is not the solution to your problems", Labour says "government can solve all your problems". The BNP in turn says "yes, government would solve all your problems if it weren't for the [insert scapegoat of choice] taking everything that's rightfully yours".

2004-02-06T22:04:00.000Z

An important picture
It is quite easy to take things for granted once they become routine. Thus in this age where we can guide a bomb to its target via a radio signal from space it is relatively easy for people to forget how far we've come. Nowadays we have seen so many shots of a single targetted bomb taking out a bridge that we find such footage unremarkable. This picture of the Bielfeld Viaduct, in western Germany, in 1945 shows why we should not be so blase.

War is a constant of the human experience - present to some degree or other through all of recorded history in all civilisations the world over. After the carnage of the 20th century we should be thankful that when we wage war, our civilisation is able to do so with such precision and consequent minimal loss of innocent life. That is a luxury which has rarely been afforded even the strong.

That picture is one of millions of Allied Aerial Reconnaissance Photos which have been digitised at Keele University. They will all be available online via a searchable map, once the archive have built a website that can cope with the interest that their launch generated. In the meantime they have small selection of photos available. The site is definitely worth a visit.

2004-02-06T17:41:00.000Z

I suppose, given the new definition of the word now in use, that this means the UN LIED!!!!

2004-02-05T10:42:00.000Z

Arghh!
It seems I've gone over my monthly bandwidth allocation for hosting the graphic and .css file. Things should rectify themselves soon, so in the meantime please bear with us.

2004-02-04T13:41:00.000Z

Split
Last night's results mean the campaign goes on for another week or two, but I can't see it lasting any longer than that. While Edwards won handsomely in South Carolina, and came second in Missouri, Clark pipped him in Oklahoma and came second in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota. The result (once this filters into the conventional wisdom) is that there is no clear un-Kerry. Thus we move on to Michigan (where Kerry will win big) and Washington, where neither Clark nor Edwards is strong. Washington is probably Howard Dean's Waterloo - its a state that fits well with his demographic (among Democrats at least) and if he can't win there then he can't win anywhere. Then we come back south next week.

The end result of this is that Kerry is winning states everywhere while his opponents are holed up regionally and splitting votes between each other. If one of them can do unexpectedly well on Saturday then they might be able to build enough momentum to keep going but I'm inclined to think its too late for that - because even if someone gets enough movement to stay in the race they need even more momentum on top of that to actually beat Kerry. The DNC is going to recognise that and begin pressurising people to quit.

2004-02-04T09:39:00.000Z

Oops!
OK, so much for predictive power. Am fairly busy today, but will try to post something a little later.

2004-02-03T14:08:00.000Z

Kerry, Kerry, Kerry...
OK, here goes, with the predictions for today. I'm going to be an outlier from the pack and predict a Kerry sweep which all but locks up the nomination.

Primaries
AZ: Kerry, Clark, Dean, Edwards
MO: Kerry (with a majority), Edwards, Dean, Clark
OK: Kerry (squeaker), Clark, Edwards, Dean
SC: Kerry (squeaker), Edwards, Clark, Dean & Sharpton in a 3 way for 3rd
DE: Kerry, Lieberman, Dean, Clark, Edwards

Caucuses
NM: Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards
ND: Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Dean

Mandatory hedge: Remote possibility of polls being wrong and delivering a big Edwards victory in South Carolina

Conclusions: Assuming things go as above, Edwards and Clark will have prevented each other from becoming the un-Kerry, and will promptly run aground, leaving a horribly mauled Dean to make his last stand in Michigan on Saturday.

2004-02-03T09:36:00.000Z

Inquiries, WMD and the Tories
Mark Steyn, as usual, hits the nail on the head:

The Left is remarkably nonchalant about these new terrors. When nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, the Left was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute, and the handful of us who survived would be walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now anyone with a few thousand bucks and an unlisted number in Islamabad in his Rolodex can get a nuke, and the Left couldn't care less.

The Right should know better. If he wants, Mr Howard can have some sport with Mr Blair. But, if he aids the perception that Blair took Britain to war under false pretences, the Tories will do the country a grave disservice. One day Mr Howard might be prime minister and, chances are, in the murky world that lies ahead, he'll have to commit British forces on far less hard evidence than existed vis à vis Saddam. Conservatives shouldn't assist the Western world's self-loathing fringe in imposing a burden of proof that can never be met. The alternative to pre-emption is defeat. If you want a real "underlying issue", that's it.

2004-02-02T13:30:00.000Z

Excellent piece exposing the myths of the Patriot Act

2004-02-02T12:43:00.000Z

The wrong answer
One of the recurring errors of the pre-9/11 world was our tendency to treat terrorists as criminals, rather than saboteurs and spies. One reason for doing this was laziness. From the point of view of the state it is far far simpler to set the police on the terrorists and push them through the court system than to utilise a military process, which would require the admission that enemy agents (or indeed armed rebels) were at large in the country. This would also require a thorough review of things like border controls. For a few isolated losers this really did not seem worth it.

The scale of the threat has changed dramatically (or rather has revealed itself) and attempts are being made to adapt the judicial process to cope. In the UK this has resulted in a typical New Labour assault on ancient English Liberties:

Home Secretary David Blunkett has outlined wide-ranging proposals that could lead to secret trials without juries.

Judges would be allowed to convict if they think the defendant is probably, or on a balance of probabilities is guilty - a lower burden of proof than proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as is adhered to in regular trials.

This is the wrong answer to the problem, rooted in the continued assumption that we are not really at war, and that police and courts are the way to handle the problem. They emphatically are not. There are many ways in which we can handle the threat of Islamist mass murderers and their human bombs, but undermining the British judicial system is not the way to do it.

I personally think the US is closer to the right approach with its proposed military tribunals, since they separate suspected enemies of the state from the general criminal justice system. [How best to deal with domestic terrorists and terror-enablers is a separate issue since they should enjoy their basic freedoms as deserved by their passport. I would suggest a treason trial followed by a short drop and a sudden stop]. As to criticism of this process from the proponents of 'international law' I have to say that we should bear in mind that under 'international law' (the Geneva Conventions to be precise) the aforementioned saboteurs and spies can be summarily shot without trial. Furthermore, criticisms of Camp Delta from continental countries with no habeas corpus or jury systems in their standard justice systems do not sit well at all.

Pulling terrorist-related prosecutions out of the criminal system and into a military court is the best way to fight the War on Terror without doing irreperable damage to the system of justice reserved for the rest of us.

2004-02-02T10:48:00.000Z

Oh, in that case...
This has to be the most pathetic whine yet:

British airline pilots are questioning US intelligence that has led to the grounding of six transatlantic flights, including London to Washington services.

Why on earth should the opinions of pilots on whether the terror threat is valid be listened to? Do they have access to the Echelon decrypts? Has BALPA been tracking suspected terrorists leaving the Middle East? No. If the Met Office issued a weather advisory that called for the cancellation of some flights would BALPA send a spokesman out to question the accuracy of the weathermen? I doubt it somehow. This surely is a case of "you do your job, and let the analysts do theirs".

2004-02-02T10:05:00.000Z

Democrats Update
A quick perusal of The Note for yesterday, reveals Kerry in North Dakota, and Edwards in South Carolina, as was Sharpton. Dean was in none of the Tuesday states, flitting between Michigan and Wisconsin. Clark is doing Oklahoma and Arizona. I'll pop back later for an update of today's schedule, but I'd say its looking like "Plan B" from Kerry with Edwards bottled up in the Palmetto State. Dean has obviously given up on getting a win on Tuesday and is hoping to hold a solid position based on his core supporters.

Update #1:
I didn't mention that Lieberman was putting masses of effort into Delaware. Well I should have done because it seems he's in a strong second place there - admittedly he's polling 16%, but getting into double-figures is quite an achievement for him.

Meanwhile, Missouri doesn't look like it will be the showdown after all: Kerry has a lock on it, polling in the forties. Therefore attention for the showdown shifts to the South West.

Update #2
Well, nothing really new. The show down is definitely in the South West, which is where everyone is, except notably: Edwards (Sharpton is also in South Carolina, but there really is no point in him going anywhere else at this stage). That Edwards is sitting in South Carolina means one of two things: 1) he's in trouble or 2) he figures the best chance to go forwards is to win South Carolina massively. Dean is actually doing some campaigning down in the South West, but with all the indications and talk being about him keeping his powder dry I think he's just doing the minimum to avoid dropping down below third place in each state.

We will see what the overnight tracking polls say about all this, and then post some predictions tomorrow.

2004-02-01T13:09:00.000Z

Read the small-print
Andrew Sullivan links to a poll which shows George W. Bush only leading 45-43 in South Carolina, and implies it is bad news for the White House. Well to be fair, right now South Carolina is being carpet-bombed with Democratic TV-spots in advance of Tuesday while the White House is doing no campaigning, but nevertheless the poll bears some looking at. Specifically, looking at the small print at the bottom:

"This poll was conducted among a statewide random sample of 807 registered voters, including 365 likely Democratic primary voters, sampled from lists of registered voters and supplemented by voters interviewed from a random sample of South Carolina telephone numbers that are unlisted. Interviews were conducted January 28-29, 2004. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus four percentage points for results based on the full sample of registered voters and plus or minus five percentage points for results based on likely Democratic primary voters."

365 likely to vote in the Democratic Primary, out of 807 is 45%, which means two things: 1) the poll is heavily skewed to the Democrats, and 2) 4.5% of Democratic Primary voters do not intend to vote Democrat in November!

2004-01-30T22:48:00.000Z

A sorry spectacle
So with Gilligan leaving the BBC, how long before he shows up at the Spectator? Seriously, I'd lay money on it. It seems the Speccie has decided to compound the mistake Michael Howard made and come down against Hutton. Making common cause with the loonies at 'Al-Independent'* is not what one would normally expect from Boris and co but then the war has made for some strange bedfellows. Thus expect the absurd spectacle of Sir Max Hastings complaining about establishment plots, while Steven Glover and Matthew Paris whinge about the need for a new inquiry as a sort of betweeded parody version of the left's long campaign for a new Bloody Sunday inquiry. Perhaps in 25 years time we can count on a Law Lord to hold a rematch and pronounce the right verdict, rehabilitating the aged Gilligan and appointing him to the Director-Generalship of the BBC.

Or maybe not. After all, given that the 'bring back Gilligan' campaign is centered on the Spectator, there's a good chance no one will notice.

Britain's only right-wing weekly is, I have to say, a sorry sight. Now this is not necessarily a criticism of Boris Johnson (despite his becoming unhinged over Hutton), though the time pressures of being an MP clearly show from the Speccie's, how shall we say, variable quality of late. The likes of Hastings and Paris may be insufferable but they can string a sentence together which is more than can be said for some of the other authors who sometimes appear there. The problem of the Spectator goes deeper than publishing articles by the sort of person who thinks fighting the abolition of hunting is worth everything up to and including a revolution, but that its OK to leave an entire people to be ground into the dust. In essence it boils down to the question: "What is the Spectator and what is it for?"

If you asked most people that they would probably tell you that its the house magazine of the Conservative party. And to an extent that is true. Most articles are written by rightists and its editorials are pretty staunch Tory stuff. But if that is what the Spectator is trying to do, it has to be said, that it does a shockingly bad job of it. Now, to be fair it boasts on its website of following no party line, so I guess they would argue in their defence that they do not seek to be this, stating rather:

"The Spectator's taste for controversy, however, remains undiminished. There is no party line to which our writers are bound - originality of thought and elegance of expression are the sole editorial constraints."

But I do not think this is a good enough excuse. There is no question that the magazine is right wing. There is no question that it markets itself as right wing. Join the Tory party, and the first thing you'll receive, along with an advert for hearing aids or stair lifts is a flyer pushing the Spectator. It may not masquerade as a party publication but there is no doubt that it claims to be a small 'c' consevrative, small 'u' unionist title. Which begs the question - why given the superabundance of leftist media in the UK does it sometimes run pieces by left wing Labour MPs and other avowed socialists?

The trouble is that they are trying to have it both ways. They have a right wing readership. They market themselves to the right, but they see themselves as an agendaless journal of politics, arts and letters. Which is fine - except that it does not explain why they have an editorial column. Furthermore, if this is how the Spectator sees itself, it should be more honest about it, because if it is unwilling to be the mouthpiece of the British Right, the British Right needs to stop reading the Speccie and find one.

The contrast here with America is stark. For the US has a diverse range of serious political titles which span the intellectual gamut from left to right such as the liberal Village Voice, New Democrat New Republic, Neocon Weekly Standard, Conservative National Review, not to mention the palaeocon titles like the American Conservative or Chronicles. Despite their diversity of thought all of these titles have something in common: a clear editorial direction. For sure, they will run dissenting pieces - National Review will happily criticise the Bush Administration on some issue or another, similarly the New Republic is excellent when attacking the institutional prejudices of the liberal wing of its preferred party. But when you pick up a copy of a magazine you know what you are getting. National Review isn't suddenly going to run a guest article by Hillary Clinton. Jonah Goldberg won't suddenly have a piece in the Village Voice. Some might criticise this narrowness, but I would argue that it fosters better thinking and more cross party debate (particularly given the extension of these titles onto the web).

Following a tighter editorial line certainly limits each title's appeal but is more than made up for by the coherence of their content and the influence they are able to exert on the political process and agenda - something that the Spectator achieves only rarely. And most of them do this without making money, raising funds through donations, merchandising and books, which demonstrates that it is possible to adopt a narrower view and find a survivable niche.

The Spectator's lack of direction is symptomatic of a wider problem with British conservatism. There is no 'Conservative Movement' in the UK and conservatives have come to rely too heavily on the Tory party. For sure when it has fallen on hard times the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph have taken up some of the slack, but that is about it. Right Wing think tanks have very little clout and rarely attempt to make their positions known to the general population, preferring to concentrate on Tory MPs. And this over-reliance on the Tories has been a disaster elsewhere: conservatives have sat and watched institution after institution (the National Trust, the RSPCA, the Church, the Bar Council to name but a few) be wrenched from their grasp and have done nothing in reply.

Overcoming this is the key challenge for conservatism in Britain in the early 21st Century, which is where we return to the Spectator. That that magazine has been unable to make more of an impact despite the backing of a hitherto successful newspaper group is disappointing. That the Spectator's website is so dull and unimaginative is a scandal. Hollinger's present difficulties represent a unique opportunity for change, for the development of a truly focused right-wing magazine that knows what it is trying to do. As I said above, this goes far beyond the issue of who edits the Speccie: someone needs to completely overhaul the magazine, and set some clear objectives to pursue. The magazine should focus on creating a true conservative movement to provide footsoldiers, philosophers and funds to the Tory party - and crucially to those sypathetic to the Right in other parties large and small. If this cannot be done, then a new title is needed - but it would be easier to start with the Spectator. This should all of course have been done years ago. It wasn't, but the excuse that the hill has therefore grown too big to climb is wearing a little thin.

*The Indy's claim to be a quality newspaper is looking more risible by the day: first they start emulating the tabloids with front page editorial screeds, and then they decide to issue that ridiculous stunted version - clearly they think their readers are too stupid to know how to fold a newspaper. That the Times has followed suit is pitiful.

2004-01-30T20:29:00.000Z

3
Things just get better and better - 3 down!

2004-01-29T15:50:00.000Z

Ho Ho
Another one down! And an apology! The past 24 hours have been fantastic. Watching the BBC get its just desserts is too sweet for words. Sadly I fear Tony will be wanting to mend fences now that honour is satisfied, rather than kicking them while they are down. We can but hope though.

2004-01-28T21:44:00.000Z

Misjudgement
The Conservative Party's misjudgement on Hutton (which is something we have been talking about for some time) is unfortunate. Blair was right to go to war, and did nothing wrong over the Kelly affair, but his government is bad for the country in many other ways.

A Tory government would still support the war so it is possible to think about those other issues . However after this week, a Tory government is a distant prospect. By pushing the focus of Hutton onto Blair the Tories have created Tony's 'nadir moment': from here its an upward trajectory for him all the way to the election.

2004-01-28T21:26:00.000Z

Blogroll
I've got round to adding a few blogs I've been reading more of lately to the blogroll - Jay Manifold's A Voyage to Arcturus, Poliblog, Slublog, Rand Simberg's Transterrestrial Musings and Ace of Spades HQ.

2004-01-28T21:16:00.000Z

Prediction
After the initial post-Hutton shock subsides, I bet that BBC coverage of war and WMD related stories becomes even more slanted, innacurate and snarky.

2004-01-28T15:57:00.000Z

Democrat Roleplay
No, this post isn't about the classic post of a couple of weeks ago over at Ace of Spades. What this is about is entering the fools pastime of predictions, namely trying to work out what the Democratic hopefuls are going to be up to over the next week. We've seen lots of polls over the past few days and will be seeing many more, but polls are but one weapon in the armchair pundit's arsenal. Another thing to look at is what the campaigns think. Obviously, if you ask them they'll tell you they are winning, but you can look at what they are actually doing - where they are, what issues they are picking up on to get a better picture. In order to do that effectively we have to have something to measure them against, so that we can get a feel for whether they think things are going better or worse than planned.

So, lets look at next week. All the press coverage treats it as if it were just South Carolina voting, but its not. In addition there are primaries in Missouri, Delaware, Oklahoma and Arizona and caucuses in New Mexico and North Dakota. I would hazard that we will see all the candidates in South Carolina for appearances sake, but the actual key battles will be elsewhere. My reasoning is based on looking at the contenders and what I would try to do if I were they. I'm concentrating mainly on the three surviving major candidates: Kerry, Dean and Edwards, but because of their potential spoiling impact there is a nod to Clark and Sharpton as well. Kucunich and Lieberman are dead in the water, but then you knew that.

Kerry:
If I were Kerry I would be thinking as follows: I'm now the frontrunner. That means some bad things (everyone is after me) but it also gives me momentum and the opportunity to lock this up. The ideal scenario would be to beat Edwards in South Carolina - effectively knocking him out of the race. Therefore I would dip a toe into the waters down there. However, that may be too much to hope for, and therefore if it is apparent that there is little chance of victory there I would move on to plan B. Plan B is the "South Carolina doesn't matter" approach, and consists of winning all the other states voting on February 3rd. If that happens my people can spin it that "Of course Edwards won in South Carolina, he was born there and is Senator for the neighbouring state. Edwards was always going to win South Carolina, but we've won everywhere else." An Edwards win in South Carolina means next to nothing if I win everywhere else.

Edwards:
If I were Edwards I would recognise this too, and my goal would be to win one other state at minimum and therefore stall Kerry's plan B. Obviously losing South Carolina means its game over so I have to campaign there to lock it up, but I'd be looking to get out of South Carolina and into a friendly state as soon as I can. Missouri, Arizona or Oklahoma fit the bill for that.

Dean:
Ouch. This week is looking tough. Again I'll do the obligatory trip to South Carolina. It might be worth pulling some stunt there to boost ratings with liberals elsewhere while writing off the state - e.g. slam Bob Jones University or intervene in the Confederate Flag debate. Then I'd need a win. Any win will do. But a win is needed. If I can get through this week and into the following one things start to look up: before the Virginia primary on February 10th, Democrats Abroad will vote (probably for me) - OK its only 7 delegates but its a potential small boost. Maine will also vote, along with Dean-friendly Washington and then there is Michigan which I have been working really hard. But in order to have a chance in those three I have to seem viable after the 3rd. Therefore a win is needed. Somewhere out of the way that no-one else is bothering with. Like North Dakota.

Clark:
Ok, I'm nuts and so I might not do this, but if I take my meds I'll recognise that I have to win this week or it is all over. (It may even be too late for that). I need a win more than Dean does. I'll probably try and duke it out with Howard in North Dakota, or I'll stick closer to home and go for Oklahoma or Missouri.

Sharpton:
OK, I shouldn't even be being considered for this, but for some reason the media has overlooked that. Thing is, its pretty obvious that I'm nowhere near the operator that Jesse Jackson was in '88 and I'm trailing badly. South carolina is my best hope (and somewhere I can potentially cause an upset by coming second). After that, I guess I might head over to St Louis for some heavy duty demagoguery, now that local boy Gephardt is out of the running.

So based on the above, and bearing in mind that campaign appearances matter, but advertising spend matters more, watch where the campaigns go this week. In particular watch Edwards. If Kerry is going for South Carolina, then he can't afford to leave, and if Kerry gives up on it its possible Clark or Sharpton might hold him back there. So if you see Edwards shift his campaigning attention to Missouri, then you can tell South Carolina is in the bag. And don't forget Dean. If he can survive this week, the one that follows will be kinder to him. Finally, Missouri looks like the primary to watch, as it is on the routemaps of Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton and Clark - and Dean may be unable to resist it.

2004-01-28T10:04:00.000Z

Ha Ha
Hutton Report Leaked! Doubtless people will be complaining that it was leaked by Downing Street, but I doubt it. My bet: someone at the printers just made several (tens of?) thousand pounds.

And even better, it seems the BBC gets stitched up and Tony gets let off the hook, which is the best result for everyone who supported the war (which is what this sideshow was really all about). The Tories have made a huge tactical error in joining the 'get Blair' bandwagon on this.

2004-01-27T11:36:00.000Z

Visited States
This is a fun little tool and I've filled it out to show which states I have been to. The second version limits it to states I have actually spent the night in:

create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide

create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide

2004-01-27T09:21:00.000Z

Ouch
I think this is the diplomatic equivalent of a slap in the face. And from Powell no less.

2004-01-26T11:37:00.000Z

Note Kerry's words
Even as John kerry campaigns for the Democratic nomination claiming the mantle of electability, he demonstrates why he is unelectable. Of Dean he said this:

At one stop, Kerry told David and Diana Frothingham that Dean is weak on foreign policy issues, and favors bolstering taxes on middle-class voters.

"The Republicans will just kill us on this," Kerry said.

Note - he didn't condemn Dean's statements on Iraq (e.g. his latest, that the people of Iraq are worse off than they were under Hussein) as wrong. He didn't say "Gov. Dean's proposed tax hike would hurt the economy." He objected on the grounds that they were vote losers - implying that he agrees with Dean on substance, and only has a problem with presentation.

Meanwhile he apparently is unaware of the notion of irony (my emphasis):

Even as he warned that Dean would be a GOP target, Kerry defended himself against Republican accusations that he has a liberal voting record in the Senate. "That dog won't hunt," he told about 2,000 people who came to hear him and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

2004-01-23T12:43:00.000Z

Proof
The statements by Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tonge in sympathy with Palestinian mass murderers demonstrates unequivocally that the Lib Dems are now the natural home for idiotarians, communists, islamists and others of that ilk. Somewhere the shades of Lloyd George and Gladstone are weeping.

2004-01-22T22:05:00.000Z

Tin foil alert
After successfully predicting the loonies claims of oil on Mars, lets have another go. How long before they start muttering about why Bush was in Roswell, NM today? Perhaps Madeleine Albright will suggest he was personally interrogating Osama Bin Laden and claim the US is hiding him in Area 51!

2004-01-22T21:34:00.000Z

Equipment Problems
Over the past week, hardly a day has gone by without some new report of logistical failures in the British Army during last year's Iraq War. While it is true that there is a long tradition of such incompetences - in the heyday of the Empire it was not unusual for a regimental commander to equip his troops with proper footwear out of his own pocket - it is hardly something to be proud of, particularly since we now fight a more logistics-dependent type of warfare than ever before.

These scandals result in calls for public enquiries, and questions in parliament from opposition MPs, but really their cause is plain as day. Since the end of the Cold War the Defence budget has been cut almost every year. Since the world not obliged by becoming more peaceful, and since Britain retains the responsibilities of a great power (not to mention the standing commitment of 20,000 troops to Ulster and outrageously a similar number to defend Germany) these cuts have been achieved mainly through streamlining the tail. Medical facilities have been axed, logistical corps merged and equipment stores consolidated. And the end result of this is that the Army is unable to provide its soldiers with basic kit.

As more of these stories emerge, there will be a desperate blame game and the usual parliamentary pursuit of pin the blame on the minister will ensue. It should be remembered that the real blame for this does not lie with one minister or another or one government or another. Rather it is Parliament itself's own fault for not having passed enough money into the Defence budget, and for failing to hold governments of both parties to account when their budgets weakened the national defence. For over a decade we have had campaigns for a penny on tax for teachers, or for doctors, or for the railways. But no one has called for a penny on tax (or better a mass sacking in town halls up and down the land) for the sake of the military. That must change.

2004-01-22T21:12:00.000Z

Hurrah!
A great British eccentric completes his endeavors...

2004-01-20T23:13:00.000Z

Rebel Yell
I'm sure someone's already pointed this out but with Dean's roar sounding like something from a WWF smackdown, maybe it was a last ditch attempt to secure the votes of those fabled voters - "the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks."

2004-01-20T14:05:00.000Z

Steyn
Must read article by Mark Steyn about the threat to a free press in the UK:

Now I'm sure Ms Nathan didn't reach her present eminence [a member of Ofcom, the communications regulator] by not being good at this line of work. But suppose she stepped down and some showboating commissar like Trevor Phillips took her place, and he took the same inventively elasticated view of his remit as he does in his current position.

Suppose he demanded to know from the Messrs Barclay whether they proposed to carry on running certain columnists, and whether, say, Barbara Amiel and Mark Steyn mightn't benefit from a course in Islamophobic electrotherapy treatment. This isn't entirely theoretical on my part, since a couple of pals and I had been mulling over a bid for The Spectator. It comes as a shock to discover that the entire British newspaper industry is now sorta semi-nationalised.

Of course, once government assumes responsibility for everything, it generally ceases to be able to perform the functions for which it ought to be responsible. When the Violent Crimes unit is tied up investigating Robert Kilroy-Silk, that's great news for anyone planning a violent crime.

2004-01-20T13:58:00.000Z

Oh Joe
As we move on to New Hampshire it occurs to me that while Dean, his emulator Clark and his pseudo-emulator Kerry are fighting it out for the liberal votes only Edwards and Lieberman are seriously going after the conservative Democrats. Lieberman's campaign was based on ignoring Iowa. Edwards now has momentum (he already had money) and a buzz. I reckon there's a better than even chance that Edwards sinks Lieberman next week.

2004-01-20T13:43:00.000Z

Wow!
Last night's Iowa result certainly took me by surprise, though I guess the evidence of the wheels coming off Dean was there for those who cared to look. Dean deserved to get trashed, so it is quite satisfying that he did. I don't think Kerry is much better, but Edwards is. [I think Edwards would still lose to Bush though, but his strong showing implies that the sane wing of the Democratic party is still there]*. Hopefully New Hampshire will follow suit and defenestrate Dean and Clark. Meanwhile, I had a look at some of the kool-aid drinkers over at Dean's blog - enjoy:

PARANOIA:
"How is it that the number of princincts reporting in keep going up, but the percentage for each candidate remain the same. The odds of that happening is rather slim, right? Just seems weird to me. Bring on New Hampshire!"

"Funny how Carville predict exactly to order of this caucus. For heavens sake EVEN Dole doesn't believe it!!"

DENIAL:
"We will win in NH....we got Vermonters!"

"Kerry and Edwards are insiders - Dean has had the DNC, the RNC and the Press against him - aggressively. Dean has TRIUMPHED. Now Kerry can pick buckshot out of his rear!!!!!"

"The people in Iowa must not be aware that Kerry and Edwards have both run two of the nastiest smear campaigns ever. Edwards is admitting right on LKL now that he and Kucinich made a deal. On to NH!!!"

RAGE:
"like i said...if we lose N.H. lets start a third party.....screw the democratic party.....they voted for the war.....which means they voted for bush....."

"kerry in the lead........but if kerry gets nominated i will stay at home why vote for kerry when you can have bush.. if dean loses N.H......i think its time to start a third party"

CRAZY:
"F*&^ Iowa and f*&^ the media! We'll change this country even if it means we have to raise arms!"

To be fair to them though, one of them did have one of the best analyses of why Kerry won that I've seen, if you could be bothered to fish through the bile:

"People; We were smoked tonite. I hope our campaign takes a long hard look at what happened. Because we were just beaten by a friggin statue. If you ask me, we found all these votes, and through our mismanagement of our message and good work by Kerry's people, he got almost all of them to vote for him."

* Edwards voted to defund the occupation of Iraq, which was particularly galling as he had up till then been steadfast in his support of the war. The reason for that vote was basically to buy some primary support - proof that the Democrats have a long way to go before they can be trusted on National Security, irrespective of who they nominate.

2004-01-15T14:39:00.000Z

Libertarian 'Space Hounds' and Buchananite Closed-Border-Cons - the similarities
It falls to me, I guess, to come out fighting on President Bush's side over his Space Policy speech. I am astonished at the pessimistic commentary around the web on this subject over the past 24 hours. The Professor is 'lukewarm', Rand Simberg is unimpressed, Jay Manifold also. And everyone else seems to take their cue from that. And I find this hard to understand.

But then, there is something called "being too close to the problem". You see there's lots and lots of stuff that wasn't in Bush's speech that it would have been nice to see. Explicit encouragement of private exploration of space for example or tax breaks for those investing in space. Or half a dozen other things. But then, I'm interested in space travel. I like space probes, I like pictures beamed back from other worlds. When some demagogue whinges about the cost of space travel ("while we still have homeless people") I tell 'em to piss off. You see I'm already on board with the programme - and so are all the other space-geeks of the blogosphere.

So that just leaves 99%+ of the US population to convince.

In some parts of the web (particularly libertarian leaning sites) there already is consensus that we need private enterprise up in orbit, and exploring the moon. And I agree, I'm convinced. But we forget that most people haven't heard of the X-prize, and therefore to expect Bush to stake the US' space policy for the next generation on an unknown group of companies versus a flawed but well known and (when run properly) proven Space Agency, it really is no surprise that he's gone with NASA. We might disagree but right now for all the pipe dreams of the libertarians there is no alternative to NASA*. And comments about NASA beiong met on the moon by private companies already being there are laughable. There will one day be a space market, but a big and organised NASA programme will do more to create it than a handful of keen entrepreurs.

The complaints about Bush's speech remind me of the palaeocon rantings in response to last week's immigration policy: Demanding purity over practicality. Picking at the suggested way forward rather than welcoming it over inaction. (After all, Bush could have just stuck with the status quo and mouthed off some platitudes. Instead he sees a problem and proposes to do something about it).

And a couple of the whinges are just absurd. Take this from Manifold:

"Specifying that the next destination after the Moon is Mars omits obvious intermediaries, namely the L₁ and L₂ points of the Earth-Moon and Sun-Earth systems, respectively; low-
Dv near-Earth asteroids; and possibly Phobos and Deimos as well, though it may be inferring too much to assume that they have been precluded as destinations. This introduces quality/technical risks into the Mars mission by skipping several ideal test environments, and cost risks by launching the Mars mission from the lunar surface rather than, say, L₁."

Huh? Does he really think that Bush's roadmap of Orbit-->Moon-->Mars is the entire plan, or is he being facetious. Of course this sort of thing will be part of the planning and testing for the Mars mission. Bush didn't mention that there would be some testing of the Mars lander on Earth but, you know, I'm pretty sure there will be. To expect the US President to start blathering on about Lagrange points in a 30 minute high level policy address suggests that the space programme is unnecessary - some people are already on another planet.

Another whinge as made by some commenter on Simberg's site berated the lack of mention of a space elevator. For goodness' sake. Not only is elevator technology unproven, and according to some the basic mechanics needs work, but we are again in the realm of geekery. I know what a space elevator is, and if we can build it great. You had me at "wouldn't it be cool if...", but that's not good enough for the vast bulk of the population who have never heard of the idea. If you want one built, lobby your congressman when this comes up for a vote, convince them to add it into the plan, or hell, given the amount of stuff thats going to be going into orbit for the rest of this project, convince Bill Gates to invest in building one.

OK, so I've laid into some of the negative comments floating around, and I could set out on a point by point rebuttal of some of the other objections, but that defeats the objective here. I am not saying that Bush's plan is perfect - the White House isn't either. This is a starting point. The point of the speech is the laying out of objectives, so I'm now going to say out what I think is so good about it.

The most striking thing about the speech was how it reminded me of project management. Or specifically getting-out-of-a-mess project management. NASA has essentially flailed around for thirty years, doing things very inefficiently, having its budget salami sliced away and achieving little at great cost. Along the way it has picked up projects which have outstayed their usefulness (the Shuttle) and projects which should never have been agreed to in the first place (the Space Station). And NASA would be quite happy to pooter about in low earth orbit for a further thirty years, playing with space stations and just throwing probes at anything further away.

What Bush has done is say, 'enough' and give them new goals. But in doing so he's not messing around apportioning the blame for signing up to things like the ISS, he's just getting on with the job. So, we have a space station, and we have binding agreements to do it, so we can't just walk away from it. Fine, says Bush, and imposes a deadline after which it will consume no more resources and in the meantime assigns it a task (study of long term weightlessness) which will come in handy in the next phase of the new project. Turning a useless waste of money that we can't get out of into a useful waste of money that we can't get out of. I call that progress even if the purists don't.

Then we go back to the moon. And that starts soon, with preparatory survey probes being sent in the next few years, followed in due course bythe builders (a whole generation of uninvented robots right there).

Meanwhile the shuttle gets phased out (in 2010, when the Space Station is finished). The CEV will be in place in 2014. Now lots of people have bitched about the four year gap. I suspect they are overreacting. Because the new system sounds pretty complicated: for use as a launcher and for Earth-Moon activity. Therefore I suspect some kind of modular plan, which would allow for the Earth to Orbit feature to be available sooner. In any case, we will see. Maybe this will be something to be tidied up later, maybe there will be a four year gap in space activity. In the context of the wider programme that can be lived with. Better a four year hiatus in a thirty year programme to put us on Mars than always having astronauts up there, but not doing anything with them.

Once all of that is in place, the moonbase gets built. The frickin' moonbase folks. Not a pipe dream, not a forlorn wish, not science fiction, but actual US policy.

And then, with all the associated spin offs and sub-projects for all of that happening (and undoubtedly stimulating a new space industry), we start work for Mars.

Its all achievable, its a leisurely timetable to be sure, but that makes it affordable and there is an awful lot of work to be done - we could not built another Apollo system today - so we have to pay for our failure in the 1970s to do this then.

And fundamentally, remember this: its Bush. When he says something, it actually happens. For 12 years we talked about how good it would be to be rid of Saddam Hussein. Now he sits in a US cell. In assigning the task to NASA, its true Bush is taking a risk. But he doesn't have a real choice in the matter yet. And while he is giving NASA a chance to redeem itself, remember, this is the guy who walked away from the United Nations when it could not do the same. If in three years time NASA is talking about pushing the schedule back to 2050 and bickering over the design of the lunar survey pods, expect Bush to come back and hand it all over to the DoD (or if the fabled libertarian space industry has actually managed to raise some money and appear by then, maybe to them).

In closing, I accept there are things that are not to like or to be suspicious of in the plan, but people need to sit back from the issue and look at it in the round. 2 days ago US Space Policy was directionless and things like Moonbases and Mars Missions weren't mentioned at all. Now they are at the heart of the plan, and great things are going to happen. That is down to Bush. We can quibble over the details when the Presidential commission gets underway but for now all friends of space should be rejoicing.

* Some of course want NASA gone, because they think it gets in the way of private enterprise. All I have to say to that is that while there are areas in which NASA needs to sort its attitudes to commerce out, no one can seriously expect us to believe that if NASA simply vanished overnight there would be anywhere near the current amount of activity in space. Long term I would like to see NASA broken up and turned into a kind of space regulator, but that is just not practical yet.

2004-01-14T10:07:00.000Z

Lift Off!
We'll have the full details later, but so far I like what I hear about the Mars and Moon projects.

The administration said part of the funding for the moon-Mars initiative would come from reallocation of money already in NASA's budget, including phasing out of the space shuttle and quickly concluding the U.S. obligations to the International Space Station (search). The shuttle now costs NASA about $4 billion a year and the station about $1 billion.

Firstly, if they are planning a manned Mars mission and a permanent lunar base, at the same time as phasing out the shuttle that means that they must be planning to invest in alternative launch technologies. That alone would be good news for the independent space sector. Secondly, knifing the ISS is not only sensible from a scientific viewpoint (it doesn't do much more than Mir and Skylab did) but also has the added benefit that because of the word 'international' in its name scuppering it will drive the usual suspects nuts! (Of course, in accordance with my prediction, they are already claiming that the Mars mission is about oil so they already are nuts, but you get the point).

2004-01-12T16:43:00.000Z

We are the people of England, and we have not spoken yet
The backlash against the BBC's suspending of Robert Kilroy-Silk for his recent article about the Arab world seems to be enormous. Just have a look at this Sky 'have your say' page. [These things do tend to get edited over time without telling anyone but when I looked it was overwhelmingly on his side]. Beneath the Blairified, Islingtonised veneer, a more traditional England lives on - now if only the Tories could tap into it somehow. Best quote:

I have immigrated from Africa where free speech is not allowed to the UK where I thought you were allowed to say anything to anyone about anything. I don't necessarily agree with what was said but it's his view and he should be allowed to say it.
Yvette

N.b. For those readers outside the UK, who have been following this story, it should be pointed out that Free Speech is not dead in Britain. The definition of 'inciting racial hatred' is actually pretty strict, which is why after the police have wasted man hours and money better devoted to catching criminals on this, there will be a little reported decision "not to take the matter any further". That the police are 'investigating' at all is a testament to how badly they are run.

2004-01-12T13:36:00.000Z

Zero-sum
The Hutton Enquiry is apparently about to disgorge its contents all over the news media (i.e. now would be a very good time to take a quick holiday) and from the events of last week the Tories are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of hurting Blair. This is a catastrophic mistake.

The Conservative Party supported the War, and in spite of all the details for the political anoraks, all that Hutton is really about is the War. It is a zero sum game. A binning for Blair and the media story will become 'war was unjustified', and those who supported the war will be damaged. Worse, it will make it harder for us to join in any future major operations that might be coming down the pipeline for next year. Worse still, it will be used to inflict damage on President Bush.

Furthermore a bad result in this for Blair means a good result for the BBC - which is bad for the country and bad for the Conservative Party. Labour without Blair will be in trouble, but with the flagrant open bias of the modern BBC can look to hours of free advertising every dayof the next election campaign. On the other hand, if the Tories joined with Labour and blasted the BBC, the chances of a chastened BBC, in fear of its Charter toning down the bias are good. Blair will fall soon enough, over something else, but this is a one-off opportunity to get the BBC.

2004-01-09T23:43:00.000Z

Immigration
There are an excellent series of posts about the Bush Immigration proposal on this site, which pretty well sum up my views on the matter. Follow the link and keep scrolling down.

2004-01-09T23:22:00.000Z

Its all about the OIIILLLL!!!!!
How long before the antiwar whackos claim there must be oil on Mars?

UPDATE:
I was only joking when I wrote that. However, it seems nothing is beyond parody these days, because they are claiming the Mars project is about oil!

2004-01-09T23:05:00.000Z

Oh goody
Am I the only one a little ticked off by the chirpy little headlines floating around like "Guantanamo Brits May Be Home 'In Weeks'"? They always sound so upbeat, but why exactly should that be a positive thing? Sorry, but I really don't have much sympathy for traitors picked up fighting alongside the Taliban. Oh wait, I have no sympathy at all. If they stayed at Camp Delta they'd get what they deserve; if they come to Britain they'll probably be released under the Human Rights Act. What a great achievment, eh? Despite Blair's undoubted political courage in going to war this issue is a reminder of why we need a Conservative Government that doesn't need to buy off its backbenches by importing terrorists.

2004-01-07T14:08:00.000Z

Good for Rummy!
It seems that Time's original choice for person of the year last month, was Donald Rumsfeld, and that he suggested that the men and women of the US Military deserved the honour more than he did. Yet another reason to like him.

2004-01-06T10:01:00.000Z

Miller Time
Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) hits out at the leftists and incompetents who are destroying the Democratic Party. And he's taking no prisoners:

Al Sharpton did a pretty good impression of the "Godfather of Soul." Of course, the rotund reverend has long been the "Godfather of Con." He's slick as a peeled onion. In just one short primary season, his timid fellow candidates and the even more timid media have erased the criminal Tawana Brawley shakedown. They've given this trickster who has never been elected dogcatcher a legitimacy he does not deserve: their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval as a bona fide presidential candidate. So, get ready to start counting Rev. Sharpton's delegates. They will be impossible to ignore on national TV when the Democrats take center stage in Boston. Memo to Democratic Chairman Terry McAwful: It's called "reaping what you sow."

Another quote:

...Howard Dean is a hard man to feel sorry for, he's just so cocky. But I'm feeling bad for him. He's worked hard to get where he is, including finding an honorable way to raise a lot of money. But there hasn't been a leader since Julius Caesar who's had more conspirators pretending to be his friend--but really wanting him dead--than suddenly Howard Dean has today. They want his Internet contributor list. They want his energy and spontaneity. They want his secret for tapping the young antiwar crowd. So they'll endorse him, pat him on the back with a few "atta boys," and secretly hope he loses.

I'm not sure what Al Gore will contribute. Is he going to advise Mr. Dean to roll down his shirtsleeves and put on a coat, preferably in earth tones? Will he teach him to speak in that stilted highfalutin way? Maybe he'll teach him how to win a Southern state. Like Tennessee.

Ouch. As they say, read the whole thing.

2004-01-04T22:10:00.000Z

Stop Press!
Peter Cuthbertson is reporting on the 1964 General Election Special they've been showing on BBC Parliament. Good stuff, and the vague bittersweet sensation of what might have been:

UPDATE III: Speaking of which, seeing Anthony "I'll abolish every f---ing grammar school in England" Crosland win in Grimsby with a majority of around 4,000 was strangely moving. It really is striking to think that if just a couple of thousand people had voted differently on that night some of the best schools anywhere in the world - and Britain's education system along with them - might not have been destroyed.

2004-01-04T15:52:00.000Z

Welcome!
Well, I'm still dealing with a few teething problems - don't be surprised for instance if the banner refuses to load properly. However those should hopefully sort themselves out over the next day or so and some content will then start to appear here.

In the meantime, you might be wondering about the title. Well, there is a legend that if England is ever in peril, if you bang on Sir Francis Drake's drum, he will return to save her in her hour of need. Given the current assault on Anglosphere sovereignty and values by the likes of the EU, UN and other transnational progressives, it seemed an appropriate title. I'd also call attention to Newbolt's poem of the same name, which is reproduced on this site, but for those who don't want to scroll down, here it is again:

DRAKE he's in his hammock an' a thousand mile away,
(Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
An' dreamin' arl the time o' Plymouth Hoe.
Yarnder lumes the island, yarnder lie the ships,
Wi' sailor lads a-dancin' heel-an'-toe,
An' the shore-lights flashin', an' the night-tide dashin'
He sees et arl so plainly as he saw et long ago.

Drake he was a Devon man, an' ruled the Devon seas,
(Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?),
Rovin' tho' his death fell, he went wi' heart at ease,
An' dreamin' arl the time o' Plymouth Hoe,
"Take my drum to England, hang et by the shore,
Strike et when your powder's runnin' low;
If the Dons sight Devon, I'll quit the port o' Heaven,
An' drum them up the Channel as we drummed them long ago."

Drake he's in his hammock till the great Armadas come,
(Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?),
Slung atween the round shot, listenin' for the drum,
An' dreamin' arl the time o' Plymouth Hoe.
Call him on the deep sea, call him up the Sound,
Call him when ye sail to meet the foe;
Where the old trade's plyin' an' the old flag flyin',
They shall find him, ware an' wakin', as they found him long ago.