Random picture

Five public intellectuals

Foreign Policy magazine is running a poll of the top 100 public intellectuals. The list of candidates is here - you get to choose five. I must admit I hadn't heard of half of them and most of those whose work I do know, I wouldn't vote for (Noam Chomsky, Al Gore and Peter Singer spring immediately to mind).

Here's the five I've gone with (in no particular order): Amartiya Sen, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.

I feel I should qualify a couple of my choices by saying that although I agree with much of what Richard Dawkins has to say, I'm not a great fan of his general approach or his style of writing (though I must say I found "The God Delusion" to be better written than his previous books). Christopher Hitchens, I confess, I have always found insufferably smug though obviously tremendously well read (perhaps the two are in some way connected). And, if I had to choose just one it would be Steven Pinker, not because I believe him to be "topper" than the others in a public intellectual sort of way, but because I've read more of his work than anyone else's and I have a lot of sympathy with his views.

Which five would you choose?

Killing time

These painkillers are paying merry hell with my sleep pattern. They don't leave me feeling too great, either. They dull the pain (most of the time) but leave me incapable of doing very much at all. And I really don't like how fuzzy and lethargic they make me feel. I really can't understand why people would want to use opiates as a recreational drug - being dosed up doesn't feel like recreation, it's just debilitating.

Plus they make me drowsy but I can't sleep more than two or three hours in a row. So, I'm sitting here at gone four in the morning, drinking tea, talking to the cat and lazily scanning the internet until it's time for my next dose and then I can maybe get some sleep.

That's a big "maybe".

Craven acquiescence

Via Normblog: Sam Harris writing in the Huffington Post sums up the Western reaction to Geert Wilders' "Fitna" and the Danish cartoon controversy:-

Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

Unfortunately, Harris is right. And I'll plead guilty to being a craven coward.

About a year and a half ago, I felt forced to stop blogging after one of my posts (concerning an Islamist with a large UK following) resulted in ominous daily telephone calls from someone who made it plain they knew where me and my family lived. I took the implied threat very seriously indeed and so, rather than remove an individual post, I closed down my blog site (accidentally deleting my online archives in the process).

I like to tell myself that if I had been single and childless I wouldn't have acted the way I did, but I know in my heart of hearts that I wasn't just concerned about the safety of Mac and the boys, I was worried about my own safety, too. I live in a city with a sizable Muslim population and a significant Islamist presence.

Why did they pick on a low profile blog like mine? I don't know. Have other bloggers received similar phone calls? Once again, I don't know. What I do know is that had something happened as a result of my not acquiescing and removing the offending post, few people would have given a rat's ass about me and my family. That much was clear from the lack of response I got from those I tried to confide in.

I don't blame people for wanting to steer clear of trouble, I know I'd be very reluctant to get involved if other people (especially those I had only met online) were facing similar difficulties. Solidarity is only likely to be forthcoming in situations where people have little to lose by expressing it. When the stakes are high, it's every man for himself.

Anyhow, things have moved on since then. I moved my blog back to Blogger (minus the offending post) and the phone calls stopped a while back. As a result, I don't think I have cause to worry. I am, however, still embarrassed by the incident: embarrassed that I gave in to verbal intimidation; embarrassed that I confided my fears to others and embarrassed that I was naive enough to think other people might be interested.

Like I said, in such situations, it's every man for himself. I know that now and, as a result, I am much less likely to want to stick my neck out on certain issues. As I said at the start: Craven acquiescence - I plead guilty.

Rising prices

Tuesday roundabout

Tim Worstall looks at asset sequestration and the "War on Drugs".

Britblog Roundup #168 is available at Liberal England.

Baroque in Hackney has some thoughts on Gorky, the dangers of political correctness, and the London mayoral election.

Armed Liberal at Winds of Change looks at the suicide rate amongst Iraq war veterans in "Stupid, Innumerate Reporters (With An Agenda)".

Savage Minds has a web roundup of articles on anthropology, including a "scifi-inspired universal translator".

And finally,

Zoe Brain posts on "Truth, Fiction, and Spiders".

Linky goodness

I've added a couple of blogs to the links in my Blog Round (over in the righthand sidebar):

Pickled Politics is a group blog focusing on current affairs from a progressive viewpoint with "an Asian (meaning South Asia) tinge".

xkcd is "a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language" by Randall Munroe.

Evolution Blog is the work of Jason Rosenhouse an associate professor of Mathematics at James Madison University (where he just got tenure). He covers a wide range of topics but tends to focus on the debate over evolution and creationism.

A quick word about the blogs I link to in the sidebar: Just because I link to a blog in the sidebar doesn't mean I endorse their politics or philosophy. I mostly link to blogs that are well written, and which I think have a distinctive voice and a thoughtful approach. Some are less than thoughtful but stand out for different reasons, others I just find funny or interesting.

Anyway, they are all worth visiting for one reason or another, so if there's nothing of interest here, cursor over to the sidebar and check out some of the fine bloggers you'll find there.

Update
On the subject of blog links: I just discovered Pootergeek has had a makeover - he's redesigned his site and is now blogging with WordPress 2.5.1. Go visit but be warned, Pootergeek "contains scenes of moderate fantasy menace".

Black comedians

The Telegraph has a review of Chris Rock's stand-up performance at Madison Square Garden. I'm not a fan: his comedy is a little too broad for me (maybe "broad" isn't the right word, I don't know) and he shouts a lot. I prefer Dave Chappelle - he's more laid back and his chicken sketch is one of the funniest race routines I've seen in a long time.

Understanding violence

The Guardian reports that Metropolitan Police Commander Robert Broadhurst, the man in charge of policing last month's Olympic Torch procession through London, has been defending the action taken against protesters by members of the Chinese Red Army:-

Faced with allegations that the Chinese security guards pushed, shoved and punched protesters, Broadhurst said it was "a natural reaction" by people who thought their "hugely significant" torch was in peril, and who were in danger of losing face publicly.

Oh, okay. So, according to the Met, punching people is all right, as long as you've got a reason for it.

Terror talks

The BBC reports that attempts by Pakistan's new government to deal with Islamic militancy through "dialogue and development" aren't working:-

At least four people have been killed in a suspected suicide attack in north-west Pakistan, amid signs a truce with militants may be breaking down.

The blast in the town of Bannu would be the first suicide attack since March when Pakistan's new government indicated it would talk with militants. In another attack in the north-west gunmen shot dead two policemen outside a bank in the Swat valley, police said. Last week top militant Baitullah Mehsud suspended talks with the authorities.

That's hardly surprising. Last month, the BBC's Barbara Plett noted it would be difficult for the government of Pakistan to agree to the extremists demands:-

They want President Pervez Musharraf to stand down and they are demanding that the government abandon its pro-American policy and implement Islamic law in the tribal areas along the Afghan border.

They are also committed to continuing their fight against Nato in Afghanistan.

And they want the government to leave them alone while they get on with it. That's just not going to happen.

Beau Sia

I realize that last month, when I posted a number of performances (mostly taken from Mos Def's poetry series on HBO and collected here) I didn't include anything by Beau Sia, who is, for my money, amongst the best of the performance poets out there.



Sia achieved widespread exposure after his video response to Rosie O'Donnell's "ching chong" moment. He also caused a bit of a stir when he took issue with Hip Hop in one of his HBO performances. I couldn't find a video of that online but I did find this short video of Sia talking about his work.



Other notable performances from Beau Sia include "I'm so deep", "Back To The Now" and "Asian invasion". Check him out.

Shilling for Ken

Natalie Solent is back (briefly and intermittently, at least) and draws attention to a Guardian article by Zoe Williams published the day of the election for London's mayor:-

Be afraid. Be very afraid
Unbelievable as it may seem, Boris Johnson has a real chance of being elected London mayor today. Zoe Williams and other Londoners imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal capital.

I understand the Guardian is a strongly partisan newspaper but blatant hatchet jobs like this do its reputation for sound journalism no good at all.

Williams compounds her tatty treatment of Johnson by appending to her article (under the heading "Don't choose the clown!") a long list of anti-Boris quotes from such notables as Alan Rickman, Vivienne Westwood, Will Self, Arabella Weir, Blake Morrison and Inayat Bunglawala mixed in with comments from a hairdresser, an IT worker and some guy called Dave (?), who says, amongst other things, "I used to enjoy watching him cycling through London without his helmet, but he is just a massive Tory." How insightfull.

I imagine the Guardian paid Zoe Williams for this article, they really should consider passing on the cost to Ken Livingstone's election campaign.

Against atheism

I've been listening to DJ Grothe's Point of Inquiry interview with Chris Hedges, author of "I Don't Believe in Atheists":-

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, acclaimed foreign correspondent Chris Hedges shares his criticism of the New Atheists, calling them "fundamentalists" in their own right. He responds to their account of the origins of Islamic religious extremism, and he accuses the New Atheists of racism. He explains his view that the New Atheists are proponents of the Neo-conservative agenda and how the American Left does advance secular values in the Muslim world. He also criticizes what he calls the "utopianism" of the New Atheists, detailing his skepticism about moral progress for humanity.

Hedges' arguments are tendentious and he does his best to portray outspoken atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins as utopian fundamentalists hell bent on violence to promote their views.

Hedges gets a lot of criticism from commenters at the CFI forum, some of which veers widely off topic but it's worth reading as an antidote to Hedges' confused diatribe.

[Via Ophelia Benson]

Opposing the BNP

As a result of the recent elections, the British National Party has gained its first seat on the London Assembly. Johann Hari writing in the Independent offers a few words of advice on dealing with the rise in support for the far right.

Firstly, on ways of dealing with the 5% of Londoners who voted for the BNP:-

How do we persuade these voters to make better choices? The first step is the easiest: expose the party for what they really are. The BNP has tried to rebrand itself, hoping we will forget its founder declared “Mein Kampf is my Bible”, and its current leader attacks even David Irvine for admitting some Jews died in the “Holohoax.” This leads to the second step: stop trying to silence them. The trial of Nick Griffin for hate-speech wasn’t just immoral – he has a right to free speech, no matter how foul – but also dumb politics. The way to discredit the BNP is for people to hear what they say. No more no platforms: take them on. Read out their pro-Hitler quotes. Watch them implode.

Hari also suggests taking seriously the impact immigration has had on the living standards of the low-waged:-

It’s true that immigrants boost the economy overall, and boost public services and pensions because they pay back £6bn more than they take from the Exchequer. But it’s also true that British people don’t benefit equally from it. It’s simply a fact that if you significantly increase the supply of cheap labour, the hourly rate for it comes down: that’s why wages for builders and waitresses and cleaners have barely budged for ten years now. For people on the lowest wages, immigration does depress their wages, and it is wrong to deny this, or wave it away as unimportant.

Unfortunately, dismissal and denial have been the common responses to the problems caused by high levels of immigration. Regrettably, I don't think much is likely to change and I therefore expect support for the BNP to continue to grow.

As Hari notes, ethnic divisions are becoming increasingly entrenched in British society. Sadly, the identity politics and racialist thinking that promote such divisions receive considerable support from government and significant sections of the media. I have long thought that people will only begin to realize what a collosal mistake this has been when a significant number of people start organizing around "white identity".

We may be beginning to see the start of that process in the growing support for the BNP and, like Johann Hari, I find that deeply troubling.

Weekend reading

"Not Black and White: Rethinking race and genes" by William Saletan at Slate.

Jason Rosenhouse at Evolution Blog: " Ayala on Evolution and the Problem of Evil".

Amy Reiter at Salon looks at how Che Guevara's face ended up on all those T-shirts.

Fraser Nelson blogging at the Spectator on Gordon Brown and Labour's future.

Walken's story

The picture quality is extremely poor but the sound is fine and Christopher Walken's reading of "The Three Little Pigs" is a piece of sublime self-parody.

Online law

It's eighteen year's since Mike Godwin formulated Godwin's Law:-

I can't say I anticipated that Godwin's Law, which states that, "As an online discussion continues, the probability of a reference or comparison to Hitler or to Nazis approaches 1," would last this long or that it would propagate into popular culture to the extent that it has. But I'm mostly gratified that it has done so. Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.

[Via Britblog]

Brown flounders

Watching Gordon Brown being interviewed by Andrew Marr on BBC television yesterday morning, it's obvious that not only is the British Prime minister in deep denial over the causes of Labour's disastrous performance in the local elections, he is also completely and utterly out of his depth.

The video is here, but be warned - at times, it's uncomfortably like watching a clip from "The Office" with Brown seemingly failing to grasp the magnitude of the problems he faces ( "You're tested in leadership by how you deal with adversity", "I feel optimistic") and continually blaming Labour's decline on a troubled economy - I lost count of the number of times he said we were living through "difficult times".

The Guardian dubbed it Brown's "clunking fightback":-

Mr Brown is in denial if he thinks Labour lost last week because the media have been unkind or because voters are suffering economic pain. Yesterday he returned obsessively to the ground on which he made his name as chancellor. But his attempt to seek excuses in the downturn left him in the strange position, for a prime minister, of claiming that the country's economic problems are more serious than they actually are.

And Ann Treneman in a sketch for the Times commented on Brown's lack of substance:-

Actually, we could have done with more of a plan. He refused to tell us any details of how he’s saving our economy. Indeed, his only actual plan seemed to be that he wants to get out more and meet us. He wants to listen. He wants to empathise. He also wants to apologise. The man for whom sorry has been the hardest word now, suddenly, can’t stop talking about his mistakes, about the 10p tax cut, the general election that wasn’t, blah blah blah.

All in all, it seems Brown's media appearances over the weekend have only served to deepen Labour's sense of malaise.

Will there be a leadership challenge? There's been talk of it but it's difficult to see how Labour could replace Brown and be in any condition to face the electorate in two years time: there is no obvious candidate for the leadership and the process of electing one could tear the party in two.

I keep thinking if it wasn't for Iraq, Blair might still be in power and Britain would have been spared Brown's premiership. Brown might then have gone down in history as Blair's "Iron Chancellor" and perhaps been thought of as the best prime minister Britain never had. Reality is quite the opposite.

Me and the Devil

Robert Johnson (played at the wrong speed according to some).

Election message

Matthew Parris writng in the Times on Labour's defeat in the local elections:-

The general wisdom that Labour politicians will anticipate and themselves propose will be, in short, that on Thursday large parts of the British electorate told their Labour Government to pull up its socks, and put it on notice of a general election defeat if it failed to do so.

Sadly, this is a total misreading. On Thursday the voters told Labour to - well, let us say “push off”. By their votes and abstentions they indicated that they don't like the Government any more. They said they've gone off the new Prime Minister in a big way. They didn't mention anything about being ready to change their minds and I don't for a moment believe they are disposed to.

It's over. There was nothing constructive in the voters' message. These elections were not an invitation to change. They were a big two-fingered salute, a raspberry, a pressing of the de-trousered national buttocks to the window of the polling station.