Blogcritics Author: Chromatius

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome to the Arab Street

Chromatius — Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:19:56 EDT

When the latest Israeli-American war crime outrages international and Arab opinion, we're constantly informed of the dichotomy between 'the Arab Street', seen demonstrating its anger, and their leadership, who we are assured are more rational, more considered, more able to understand the broader arguments -- i.e. they are corrupt enough to sacrifice their people's aspirations and wealth to Israeli-American and corporate interests.Leaving aside the obvious condescending racism in this world view, it should be obvious that this is not a purely Arab phenomenon.We here in the UK are overwhelmingly opposed to Israel's crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, and to American and UK crimes in Iraq (and Afghanistan and elsewhere). Much good it does us. Our dear leader, the poodle Blair, is as obviously bought and paid for as the most venally corrupt 'third world' leader.And the tame UK media protects him with the pretence he is a committment politican, braving unpopularity for what he believes to be 'right'.He is clearly not; every aspect of his career screams opportunist and liar - from the early adventures in glam rock to his clearly shallow religiosity, completely immune to moral guidance from those he claims to recognise as spiritual and moral leaders - including the two Popes he's ignored, while pestering them with his boyish aspirations to join the Catholic Church.But the depths of the evil he's prepared to accommodate stand against all this - the illegal assaults on civilians, civilian infrastructure, and the environment in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq; false flag terrorism in Iran (and probably Syria); support for Israeli-American war crimes in Lebanon and Palestine, and implicating the British people in these crimes; domestically, the selling of the UK's health service to American clients of the Bush regime, the transparent military drivers behind his 'discovery' of the 'need' for nuclear power, the sacrifice of an entire generation of children to alcohol addiction... the list is dispiritingly long.So, like other American clients in the Arab world, our leaders, enslaved by fear, greed and ambition, do not represent us.For them, office is just a small part of a career in global exploitation and domination. They look forward to corporate directorships, lucrative lecture tours, prominent roles in criminal think tanks and NGOs, a shining reputation as statesmen and men of peace delivered by the likes of American academics and MediaCorp - and all the other diverse ways corporate, American and Israeli interests repay their loyal servants.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

Software Development and Mimesis

Chromatius — Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:17:17 EDT

Is software development interesting? Most people would say no, I suspect. Certainly most eyes glaze over when I start talking about it with non-developers (which I rarely do).In fact, it's a very strange and interesting meeting point of diverse ideas, some better suited to literature, others to magic.In the industry itself, we haven't got a clue what we're doing -- we call it software development, software engineering, an art, a craft -- what it actually is remains a constant topic of debate. And each term is freighted with meaning, implications and history.Long before I began as a developer, it interested me in quite abstract terms. Schooled in both historicist and philological, as well as Marxian and post-structuralist literary traditions, I was naturally curious what the word 'language' even meant in programming. It seemed to have much in common with the magical languages -- inscriptions which effected change in the 'real world', in reality itself. And not just on human behaviour and thought, but on the actual machineries of our lives.At that point I didn't realise that 'programming' was only part of the puzzle, and that software development is a literary activity, probably most close to drama among the traditional forms. But it's also an interpretive literary critical activity.What do I mean? When we design a modern software solution, we usually follow the 'object oriented' approach.You might imagine we write big pieces of management-style code which coordinate the loading and and manipulation of data in a chronological fashion (i.e. load data, do this then that to it, save the changes, etc.). Historically a lot of development has taken this approach, and it is generally known as 'functional' programming, for reasons you don't need to know.Under the 'object oriented' approach, we actually try to model the 'problem domain' and create an imitation of reality in software. That means we examine the language of the business problem we're solving, isolate the various actors and their responsibilities, and create software versions of them.These are software 'objects' - defined as the data required by each and the associated actions, known as 'methods', to operate on that data - and the only way to do anything in a system like this is to ask them to perform the action for us. Common examples are user, account, institution, invoice, or payment objects.There are different types of relationships that can exist between these objects -- a customer object can contain, or have a link to, its credit card and account objects (this is known as 'composition'). There can also be sub-types - perhaps personalAccount and businessAccount types which share, but customise or add to, the common Account behaviour (this is known as 'inheritance').So the activity of designing a complex software solution begins with the identification and organisation of all the objects involved. The simplest way to understand it is to think of all the nouns and verbs involved in a business situation -- the nouns will be objects, the verbs will be methods. "Purchase a product, pay with a credit card payment" reveals the nouns product, payment, creditcard and the verbs purchase and pay.We have special languages and visual styles for representing this analysis. The most common is UML (the Unified Modelling Language), which provides a range of diagram types for representing the various actors, relationships, and activities.Now this is clearly an interpretative activity like literary criticism. But I want to think about the process of mimesis at the core of the activity.Mimesis is ancient Greek for imitation, representation. For the broader meaning, I'm happy with the definition Erich Auerbach provided in his magisterial Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature: "a lifelike illusion of some 'real' world outside the text by processes of selection, exclusion, description, and manners of addressing the reader." As well as the techniques used to create this literary representation, the conventions required to understand it -- the drama and the audience.Not a small topic. Representation, imitation, similarity, difference -- these are core issues in our relationship with the world, our selves, and language, which is why they have preoccupied philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to your favourite (post-)modern thinker.And this is the proper subject of object-oriented software development. And when we're done modelling reality, we implement it in a magical language that can operate on the real world and creates real, actual representations of these things.A hidden electronic drama, every time you browse the web -- a reflection of your actions, yet paradoxically, possibly the more 'real'. After all, if they don't work, neither can you.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

A Look At The Swamp Fox, Tony Joe White

Chromatius — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:35:09 EDT

As I pointed out earlier, I've been on a bit of a musical journey the last year or two, mainly triggered by P2P and getting a couple of mp3 players. Ignoring taste and popularity, I just listen to stuff I like or find interesting.I'm certainly not alone in having enjoyed the Country Got Soul series, standouts for me including Larry Jon Wilson's wonderful Sheldon Churchyard and Sapele, Razzy's I Hate Hate and Tony Joe White's songs, particularly "Did Somebody Make A Fool Out Of You?".Beyond what's on these albums, I've found nothing else by Larry Jon Wilson so far.Tony Joe White, one the other hand, has been immensely productive: "Tony Joe White, aka the Swamp Fox, has been on a roll these past few years, issuing album after self-released album of quality original material full of deep, dark, blues-flavored Florida vintage roots music." (allmusic.com) Just like that - dark, bluesy, swampy and great, at times skirting self-parody ("I Want My Fleetwood Back," "Old Man Willies," "High Sheriff") but always redeemed by its sheer quality and coolness.His back catalog is huge, and the vast majority are eminently listenable. He has a wonderful laid back vocal delivery and guitar style, which may remind you a little of early JJ Cale. If don't know him at all, you may remember his early 70's hit, "Polk Salad Annie". You may even remember Jim Stafford's seventies parodies of White's style (especially "Swamp Witch", but also "Wildwood Weed" and "Spiders and Snakes"). He wrote "Rainy Night in Georgia", which has charted for Brook Benton and Hank Williams Jr, but his original version of the song remains for me the best. In the early seventies, Elvis charted with two of his songs - "For Ol' Times Sake" and "I've Got a Thing About You Baby". He also wrote Dusty Springfield's hit "Willie and Laura Mae Jones", and contributed four songs to Tina Turner's 1989 album Foreign Affairs. Along the way he's recorded with Ray Charles, Isaac Hayes, Roy Orbison, Hank Williams Jr. and many other RnB and country stars.There's so much music I only have time point out a few landmarks - a very nice, laid back version of John Lee Hooker's "Boom Boom," a swampy Barry White thing on a track called "That Loving Feeling," rootsy, bluesy tunes like "Ol' Black Crow," "Mississippi River" and a whole pile of beautiful songs - "Louisiana Rain," "Nothing I Would Not Do," "Cold Fingers," "Rainy Night in Georgia"...His career never really took off and we have the Europeans, especially the French to thank for keeping the flame alive. Several of his albums were only released there, including the awesome One Hot July (1998) , which was finally released in the States in 2000, his first US release since 1982. The album is a great introduction to his music: more great tunes. Beautiful guitar on the title track "One Hot July", the rambling, rootsy, relaxed "Ol' Black Crow" - introduced with White drawling "the only thing I know is no-one will leave this building until this is through, it's like... law".I really can't do much justice here to his 30 plus years career, but well worth your time is one of his most recent releases: 2004's The Heroines, which includes duets with those queens of Americana Jessi Colter, Shelby Lynne, Emmylou Harris, Lucinda Williams, and daughter Michelle White. Moody country blues and soul, great songs and delivery. "Can't Go Back Home" with Shelby Lynne is absolutely fabulous - both of them singing with that lazy vocal delivery. Also great is "Fireflies in the Storm" with Jessi Colter, muddy guitar, murky bass, the two voices working with and against each other very nicely.Anyway, check him out. And ignore those people who try to say it sounds like Chris Rea, whatever he took from the likes of JJ Cale and possibly Tony Joe White. P.S. I'm also currently enjoying Isobel Campbell & Mark Lanegan's Ballad Of Broken Seas, a sort of modern Lee and Nancy thing born of Belle & Sebastian and Queens of the Stone Age: Ramblin' Man a definite standout.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

Evolution Does Not Equal Progress (Part 2)

Chromatius — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:11:25 EDT

This isn't about the intelligent design debate, although it does consider a driving or guiding force to evolutionary adaptation that I guess some might consider godlike (some mother goddess thing, maybe).The first post was preamble really; ground rules. It's taken me a while to get to the follow up.The point I really want to make begins with this line from that first post: "Generation after generation making the same dumb mistakes in the same way, in the same place; generation after generation of predators exploiting the fact." Or in our case, generation after generation of rulers deploying the same techniques to keep generation after generation of the ruled in line.So how does it work? Is something in the evolutionary process preventing us from progressing, stopping us learning from the past?Firstly, to address this, I think we have to separate the interests of the species and the individual.In the adaptive evolution model (which seems to fit the evidence), it is clearly in the interest of the species for generation after generation to make the same mistakes. The interests of species and individual are not congruent here - the species gets individuals who meet the basic 'fitness' criteria (i.e. they survived), perhaps breeding for luck as much as apparently more obvious criteria like agility and fast learning. Perhaps breeding for traits we can't yet discern.But the main point is this, not only are the species and individual not congruent, they are diametrically opposed. It actually seems to be in the interests of the species that these individuals die. How does that work for human beings? Generation after generation, who keeps dying in the interests of the 'species'?Well, in our 'modern' societies, that's pretty easy - it tends to be the young, same as with the birds. Even more, it tends to be young men - through suicide, drugs, war, violence etc.There are lots of reasons for this, some more obvious than others. In the simplest terms, we are animals with over-developed brains. These brains, and the self and the mind they engender, are not fully survival oriented - they can be hard to live with. Consequently we are afflicted with a range of mental disorders - depression, bipolar, schizophrenia etc.And unsurprisingingly, adolescence is when these problems can be sharpest - the individual, moulded by the ideals and moral truths of childhood literature, often faces the betrayal of their personality as understood to that point, in the service of animal sexuality. Hormonal drives and competition for partners create very different people of us.As do the mechanics of lust. Perhaps nowhere else do the the interests of the species assert themselves more clearly over the individual. Do you understand why you find certain types sexually attractive and not others? We can bang on about parental types and Freud, but really we have no idea. And here I think we see some sign of our quarry. This movement from childhood innocence and aspirations to adolescent betrayal is a major theme in our cultures. I've riffed before on the subject of eusociality - essentially the idea that our species has 'personality' and intent which is nothing to do with our character as individuals, or even groups, and especially not our pretensions to political morality and rationality.To deploy this idea as metaphor - what do we know about this creature, it's aims and methods?Nothing reassuring: disdain for individual life, a preference for violent and military solutions, and a apparent preference for the potential over the actual (evidenced in the killing of individuals to serve future generations).We might even observe signs of our quarry in Elliot wave theory - the apparent fibonacci ratio between optimists to pessimists. Which in electoral terms suggests a reality-oriented pessimism is unlikely to ever win out over optimists in denial.Of course it's obvious that optimism is beneficial for species survival and breeding - you have to be optimistic on some level to build for the future, for future generations. And optimism can also favour future potential over current pain. We see this in child rearing practices constantly, the deferral of hoped for benefit to a notional future, as parents make sacrifices to provide opportunities for their children, for their line. So for those of us concerned with injustice, this supra-organism revealed in evolution is probably the real problem, not politics - certainly not the farcical decaying credibility of propagandised two party politics. Perhaps our problem is not that we are alienated from our animal roots and primitive past, but that we haven't escaped them.For as long as this creature breeds humans who are viscerally addicted to violent solutions - like all those parents so easily swayed by the witchdoctor's skull on a stick - we are completely doomed to a dark and bloody future, regardless of our achievements in the sciences and material culture. We will continue to breed a core constituency, a majority, able to bear and ignore injustice (including against its own) and its wider implications (even environmental catastrophe), by focussing on the good news and mythical future potential.Given all this, it's not surprising that intelligent young idealists and pessimists turn to suicide. Especially since adolescence is also the age of social adapation - the transition from the ideals instilled in childhood to the less attractive reality of social existence and competitive economics.Anyway, just one point to take from this, the interests of the species and individual can be and often are diametrically and violently opposed.I'm hardly the first to notice this, and Part 3 (when I get round to it) will look at insights and strategies from the past on this subject - including the experience and practices of early Christian ascetics, and the institutions they created to pass their values down to future.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

CD Review: Pure Religion and Bad Company

Chromatius — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:03:20 EDT

When I got P2P, I started listening to a lot of old early '70s stuff I hadn't heard for years (separated as I am from my own music collections by geography, time, and theft). I vowed to ignore taste and popularity, and just listen to stuff I liked or found interesting. Come to think of it, my wife's been remarkably tolerant, given what she's been forced to listen to.I began by listening to all sorts of old stuff - psychedelic, progressive, some old Dead, Airplane, Hot Tuna, and Jerry Garcia's first two solo albums. Then I found Garcia's bluegrass stuff (starting with The Pizza Tapes). I also started listening to Jorma Kaukonen's new stuff, including the exceptional Blue Country Heart, and some great live stuff he did with Sam Bush.Of course, all of this with lots of detours into various prog, jam-band, blues, bluegrass, and blue-eyed soul byways. And then old blues pickers, and old acoustic blues in general, with plenty of Son House and Blind Willie McTell.At the same time I seem to have picked up a taste for singer/songwriter types - from the squeaky clean Jack Johnson and Donavan Frankenreiter (I blame the nieces in NZ for those two), through Rufus Wainright, Mason Jennings and the like to Will Oldham. And, like many people these days, a renewed interest in Dylan, especially John Wesley Harding, always my favorite. My tastes have countrified quite a bit. Still, they've always been fluid and I've been there before. And I now have countless versions of songs like "John the Revelator", "Tobacco Road", and "Wayfaring Stranger." And cheesy bluegrass covers of everything from the Dead to Zeppelin and Metallica.Anyway, to the Reverend Gary Davis. If you haven't heard of him, he's a significant figure -- up there with Blind Arthur Blake, Blind Lemon Jefferson, and Blind Willie Johnson.The reason I discovered him was because Jorma Kaukonen studied under him before joining Jefferson Airplane, learning blues picking and a pile of tunes, and the Hot Tuna output reflects this. He inspired dozens of modern guitarists and singers including Bob Dylan, Taj Mahal, and Donovan; and Jorma Kaukonen, David Bromberg, and Ry Cooder, who also studied with Davis.The guy's life was astonishing. In the late 1920s he was one of the two most renowned practitioners of the East Coast ragtime guitar and a major influence on Blind Boy Fuller. He recorded for the first time in the 1930s, then spent two decades playing on the streets of Harlem, recording again at the end of the 1940s. In the 1950s and 1960s he was picked up by the folk revival and performed all over the place, and recorded again, including the wonderfully titled Pure Religion & Bad Company (1957). He died in 1972, and had kept working well into the 1960s.Apparently Gary Davis always mixed gospel songs with his blues and ragtime numbers, because it made it harder for the police to stop him. But in 1937 he actually became an ordained minister, and his gospel blues has heart and soul. His albums are masterclasses in blues guitar and blues picking, and he's got a great voice with the range and vocal delivery from the laid back and broken down to a gospel shout.He recorded a pile of great blues/gospel tracks like "I Saw the Light", "Samson and Delilah" and "Twelve Gates to the City", as well as standards like "Hesitation Blues", "Police Dog Blues", "Cocaine Blues", "Candyman" and a couple of awesome versions of "Death Don't Have No Mercy".All of which Jorma Kaukonen has performed, too. Also well worth a listen, even if you weren't one who liked Hot Tuna in the old days (or aren't old enough), although these days most of his listeners come from the country, blues, and bluegrass side of the fence, but I think he did do Glastonbury in the last year or two.I'm hardly the only person getting into old blues again these days, what with Martin Scorsese's documentaries and Jack White's covers (including the Cold Mountain stuff), but the Reverend Gary Davis is a little off the mainstream radar, and well worth listening to.And if you do know his work, marvel at how long it took me.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

Evolution Does Not Equal Progress

Chromatius — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:43:51 EST

A common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory founders on misunderstanding of the word 'fittest,' as in 'survival of the fittest.' Whole philosophies, like social Darwinism, are founded on this misunderstanding.This does not mean that the fittest as in the biggest, fastest, most intelligent etc. It merely means those most suited to their environment. So evolution is not a ladder that creatures climb, getting fitter and fitter (like they've been working out) until they become some Arnie-like uber-critter with great pecs, big hair, a good smile, and natural camera skills.Nope. The ones that survive are those most well suited to their environment - and that environment changes constantly (which you'll have noticed if you've been paying attention lately).The best 'fit' for one period will not be best for another period and therefore, by definition, creatures don't just get bigger/better/faster/smarter on some kind of endless developmental ladder. Sometimes they get smaller (dinosaur to bird). Sometimes all the big boys die (e.g. mass extinctions), and smaller/weaker animals take over.A few things flow from this, mainly that we are not the evolutionary crown of creation sitting at the top of this developmental ladder, just the creature best suited to the way things are now.One side-effect of the way our intelligence works is that we're changing the way things are now, and are therefore making the world less supportive of creatures like us and furry mammals in general. In an extreme case, we may trigger catastrophic climate change and render the world uninhabitable for ourselves--at which point some other creature will be better suited to the new environment; cockroaches have long been a popular candidate. But if it happens, it doesn't mean the cockroach is better than us, just as our current ascendance doesn't mean we're better than the cockroach.So much for the introduction; now to my point. I was watching Attenborough's spectacular new Planet Earth on the Beeb last night, the Fresh Water episode.As I watched the caiman waiting underwater for roseate spoonbills to fall out of their trees and the dolphin fish night-hunting cichlids, the same idea struck me. Generations of dolphin fish must have learnt every hiding place used by the cichlids. Generations of roseate spoonbills have lived in that tree, learning to fly, and generations of caiman have waited underneath for them to fall. You can see how this works in terms of survival of the fittest, in the simplistic sense of learning to fly quickly and not being unlucky enough to fall when the caimans are below, but progress it's not.Generation after generation making the same dumb mistakes in the same way, in the same place; generation after generation of predators exploiting the fact. Kind of like us and our rulers.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

Reading, Reason, and the Politics of Belief

Chromatius — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:34:43 EST

If all our reading is tendentious, directed, how can we change minds?There's no shortage of information out there, plenty of it exposing the US imperial project and its crimes, yet this weekend we're treated to the spectacle of the right wing blogosphere getting all excited about CMPC-2003-006430 - a decade old Federation of American Scientists document with an Iraqi preface.Why the excitement? Because they're only interested in information that supports a position they've already taken. And they hope to bend this text to that cause.Clearly providing new information can't help in a situation like this.Of course, those of us in the other camp also read in the same way. We also get excited, hopeful on the basis of little information -- of course, some of this is sheer desperation.So how can we hope to change hearts and minds? What kind of intervention using words, images, and ideas can succeed in such a polarised and non-rational situation?Firstly, abandon the reliance on logic and reason.Secondly, realise we're trying to change attitudes -- hearts and minds -- and this is not about reason, but faith and aspiration; belief is a support, a prop, for a lifestyle choice. "I believe this because I perceive myself as this kind of person" is the true nature of political partisanship in America today, not a disagreement about facts or policy.Where can we find successful examples of such an approach? In the Christian religion and its rhetorical tradition.For example, logic and reason are failing for two reasons -- this has become an argument about faith -- individuals know what they believe and want to believe, so reason can't help. Secondly, some of the most sophisticated tools for understanding language, faith and reason -- the analytical tools of structuralism and deconstruction, have been appropriated by faithists to demonstrate the failure of, and the faith at the basis of, reason: e.g., in the intelligent design (ID) debate, the standard uncertainties of science are used to undercut science and reason, and promote a fable.This is not new. Augustine's City of God famously deployed the tools of classical reason and rhetoric to undermine the classical tradition, partly by exposing the unreason and faith in authority at its heart. He undermined the humanist values of the ancient world and showed why faith and submission to authority was a 'reasonable' choice. (And that good careers could be pursued in this new world.)Augustine and the group of bishops he represented (the group around Ambrose of Milan) believed that words and images in a ritual setting could be used to restructure the hearts of men; that human memory, and therefore personality, was structured in a way that was accessible and susceptible to the preacher's tools; that the human mind could be reprogrammed directly by the Christian rhetoric.There's not much obvious encouragement in this line of thought -- we know that our media, already in thrall to corporate interests and the war party, have long since subsumed reason to aspiration and image. And these techniques are well-known to the advertising and marketing industries. The faithists also have an instinctive understanding of this approach, unsurprisingly, given its history.So, in identifying the tools we should use in this debate, I seem to have discovered they are already being deployed effectively by our antagonists.This may not seem particularly useful, but at least it identifies the problem -- the reliance on reason and evidence may be honourable and honest, true to ourselves, but it will not succeed.But if we are faced with such a choice between honour and success, are we capable of making it?Or in our hearts, would we prefer to fail with honour? To become just historical footnotes, impractical but true to our ideals, praised by the occasional historian investigating lost and stolen futures?And not least because we know such success will take a form we do not recognise as an appropriate basis of a just society?This is dangerous territory for other reasons. By examining and codifying such tools and techniques we run the same risk as Niccolo Machiavelli - the analysis itself providing a handbook for princes.But it is a question we should ask, a choice we have to make. For in ignoring it, we make the choice anyway.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

The Jericho Prison Assault: Jack Straw's Comedy Turn

Chromatius — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:48:40 EST

Ten minutes. It's obvious complicity.Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, refused to say whether he thought Britain had colluded with Israel over what he called an "unforgivable crime". But he said that Israeli troops arrived ten minutes after the last three British monitors had left."I'm giving the facts," Mr Abbas said. "They left at 9.20am, and the Israelis came in at 9.30am. How can we explain that?" Saeb Erekat, a senior Abbas aide, voiced suspicion that the monitors had left before the formation of a new government. "If the British and Americans wanted to leave because they don't want to deal with a Hamas government in a couple of weeks then they should have done it in a different fashion," he said. (Times Online)I'm not one to watch the Parliament feed on TV, not least since I try not to allow Blair and company to speak on my TV, but yesterday I caught a few seconds of Jack Straw's comedy turn on this one.Asked about the complicity issue, he said:"The truth is, given the nature of surveillance in the occupied territories, if we had told anybody in the occupied territories we would at the same time, in practice, have been telling the Israeli defence forces." (The Guardian)And (unmentioned by The Guardian) he then laughed with a smug, conspiratorial expression and a raised eyebrow at his fellow quislings.As ever, ignore everything except the basic fact -- he didn't deny it and provided a feeble attempt to distract from the core message -- yes, but...That's a yes in other words. Categoric. The British did tip off the Israelis and were complicit in the assault on Jericho prison.So much to read in that little chuckle and raised brow. "Shh boys, we don't discuss reality here." "Yes, the place is a fucking prison camp, a crime against humanity." "Yes, we're up to our fucking necks in blood, gore, corruption, and crime." "Yes, we're on our knees before the criminal US regime and its Zionist enterprise." "Yes, we're killing our boys for a lie." "So fucking what, take the money and gongs and shut up." And much more besides.And in Jack Straw we have an individual who knows better. Blair never had principles, he just wanted to be a pop star; Straw at least appeared to have principles and understanding at one time, many years ago. A deeper betrayal. Again. Another one for the war crimes tribunal.But the real point to take away is that clear 'yes'.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

English Premier League: Chelsea v. the Baggies

Chromatius — Sun, 5 Mar 2006 13:10:13 EST

The media is full of vain, self-important, lying, and moralising hypocrites, who do a huge amount of damage in many important areas of life - like war, death, and the environment. Football isn't one those areas. (Although I suspect one of its functions as social control may be to innure people to injustice, but that's another story.) And of course, football journos bring a certain aggregate stupidity to the mix. Let's be honest here, it's not a usual career track for big brains.Nonetheless, their behaviour is characteristic of the media in general, so a couple of comments are probably in order in the wake of yesterday's game, which has certainly generated a fair amount of heat (a proliferation of "hated Chelsea" and "Chelsea cheat" headlines). All of it guided by the prejudices and enthusiasms of the sports journalists.First, on the dignity of managers - there wasn't a great deal of edification in watching Robson scream "fucking faggot" over and over again (six times?). Completely ignored in the media, either because of embarrassment or perhaps bias - and after all, the BBC's Match of the Day didn't even mention the Kamara dive in the box. I've found one reference, and that on a forum. None in the media at all, who prefer to bash the Chelsea manager's leadership.Sky's Goals on Sunday, which I just watched, actually cut the sequence when the teams emerge at half time twice, passing it off as a coherent tape, so that you don't get a chance read Robson's lips. Chris Kamara protecting his mate, I guess. At least MOTD showed some of it.Of course, hardly surprising that English football's full of blokes, mates and homophobes covering each other's asses (that's a very intentional pun). And this at a time when they all feign deep respect and outrage on the subject of racist abuse (well, when it happens in Europe, anyway).I also just watched the beginning of Live Ford Super Sunday - and watched another group of football types refusing to notice Robson's abusive and almost certainly illegal behaviour. Yet more blokish, matey ass-covering from Andy Gray and company. Big surprise, after all, these guys learn about alpha males and subservience in the changing room, and it never leaves them. You can see it in Gray's relations with guys like Live Ford Super Sunday host Richard Keys.Maybe some gay group can try to get Robson prosecuted for a homophobic hate crime. That'd be fun.On diving - Droghba has a dodgy knee; when he connected with Greening, it hurt. It was melodramatic, but that that's no surprise; nothing to get worked up about. And hell, at least he wasn't diving in the box, trying to get a penalty. Unlike the Baggies's Kamara, who the referee clearly indicated had dived. Which is completely obvious on the replays. And then Halsey failed to book him anyway.On Robson's incredible outspoken diatribe against Droghba for feigning and cheating - which was also cut in helpful fashion by Sky and the BBC today (but shown live and complete by Sky yesterday). And remember, Kamara had just dived in the box. Mourinho of course was dragged before the FA earlier this season for suggesting Wigan Athletic's Lee McCulloch was feigning injury, and was fined �5,000 last season for alleging that Manchester United players were guilty of "fault and fault and cheat and cheat" in the Carling Cup semi-final clash. No sign of action or comment on Robson's abuse though. No sign of the media agitating for it either, certainly not in the way they do when it's Mourinho in the frame. I'll return to them in a moment.On the dignity of referees - which apparently they think derives from not allowing anyone to criticise them (as their representative stated a few weeks ago). I always assume they're corrupt. Some are just corrupted, and manipulated, by their elevated opinion of themselves, of their 'dignity.' And of course by their monopolistic power. And their friendships, ambitions and hopes for the future. But most will be corrupted in far more prosaic and obvious ways.Nothing else can explain their inordinate resistance to the introduction of technology, their outlawing of criticism, the astonishing decisions, and the constant, slow drumbeat of convictions and investigations (mainly at the UEFA level), including the involvement of dodgy Asian gambling syndicates.Even a short list of recent scandals shows there is a real problem across many countries, but nothing happens unless the police or civil authorities get involved: Germany, Italy, Finland, Turkey, Poland, Belgium (also here). Portugal recently had 171 arrests, including 16 referees, as part of Operation Golden Whistle: In that first day of the process, the League President, Valentim Loureiro, was imprisoned. The list of the 171 people is formed by 27 clubs directives, 110 referees, 28 FA (FPF) directives, 2 mayors and 4 businessmen. The accused referees will keep on working until they are proven guilty. Some VIP names involved are Sporting Lisboa former President Sousa Cintra, FPF Referees Council President Carlos Esteves, Oporto President Pinto da Costa and Boavista President Jo�o Loureiro.Note: the accused referees will keep on working until they are proven guilty. Clearly these people can't police themselves. This corruption is also clearly extending into the UEFA cup competitions, although you have to work through the material to get even a vague picture of the extent of it.And don't expect the sports journalists to be any help, they're very much part of the problem - check this out, how their alliances with players and teams work. And I believe this is why there's all this talk about Chelsea becoming the most 'hated' team in the league - because the stability and operation of these long-standing alliances is disrupted by Chelsea'a success. And that's why today's sports pages are full of "hated Chelsea" and "Chelsea cheat" headlines. There's also a description of a couple of match-fixing mechanisms. And there's more here.And then there's the Robert Hoyzer and Dominik Marks cases in Germany, host of this year's World Cup: Hoyzer told investigators that the gambling ring had the lists of referees and assistants who would work competitive international matches and fixtures in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup about a week in advance of the matches. UEFA does not publicize the officials list until two days before matches. The story also noted that only the UEFA referee manager and the 11 members of its referee commission were supposed to have advance knowledge of these names. (link)Has their been any investigation or cleanup in the wake of any of these scandals? Of course not. All we get is Collina and few buddies (Johan Cruyff, Michel Platini, Emilio Butrague�o, Ars�ne Wenger et al.) sitting a room occasionally, uttering platitudes.So we can't assume anything's changed. I'd need extensive documentary evidence to believe otherwise about any single one of them. And it's hard to track: it's not every game, not even the big decisions, but the occasional game, the little decisions, a few offsides by an assistant perhaps, which really sway games. The sooner we turn it most of it over to technology and computers, the better.And as for enforcement and investigation. I'm with the Australian writer on this: The message is that, when it comes to sleaze and cheating, civil authorities should be allowed, or even invited in, to intervene in sport and in football. Let the police come in, swing its batons and do its thing... It is not the catching of individual crooks by police that football bodies take an issue with. They are more nervous about civil authorities or governments threatening to meddle with administrative bodies, even if they happen to be suspected of being crooked. Maybe in those instances, where graft is suspected, the policy is worth a re-think. (link)Anyway, off my hobby horse, wipe the froth off my lips, back to the Premiership and yesterday's game.Face facts Baggies, you're almost certainly going down, again. Unless you can get your man Robson to stop snapping brains and kicking cats, to stop yelling homophobic abuse like a Tourette's case, and focus on the job in hand.And even then, not bloody likely.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.

Just Say No to NATO

Chromatius — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:50:32 EST

Like many 'lefty' people here in the UK, I've often been pretty generally supportive of the European endeavour, even indulgent, but for completely the wrong reasons. But recent foreign and security policy developments mean I can no longer afford this luxury. Living in the UK distorts your view of the issue. Europe can appear as a bulwark against some of the worst depredations of Thatcher's Tories and Blair's Neo-Tories - for instance the protections offered by the Convention on Human rights and the European Court. This has meant that certain criticisms of the EU haven't really got much attention here in the UK - particularly the European left's view that the EU is too 'American' in its organisational structures and ambitions i.e. is focused on making the world safe for global capitalism and its war-mongering outriders.Another aspect is unelected cabinets - which is how Javier Solana gets to be appointed European foreign policy 'supremo ', rather than being dragged before a war crimes tribunal for his services to American foreign policy. They may be chosen by our elected leaders, but so what? They sure show no interest in reflecting popular opinion when it comes to foreign policy. Just as long as they can placate their political base.And there are suggestions he's assembling an unsettling array of powers which will even elevate him above the EU Presidency, but that's another issue.So he's been responsible for the development of a "more muscular EU foreign policy, including 'last resort' military action to combat terrorism... the strategy recognises that early, rapid and robust intervention may be needed to fend off the most dangerous threats to global security... Mirroring America's preoccupations, the doctrine hammers home the strategic threat posed by global terrorists and weapons of mass destruction - identified as the "single most important threat to peace and security among nations"- as well as failed states." (link) A dead giveaway. Oh yeah, terrorism - not the environment, increasing injustice and repression, or even nuclear proliferation, corporate and NGO subversion of governments, and especially not illegal nuclear proliferation in Europe by NATO and the US.Oh yeah, failed states - they're one's you invade illegally, but it's OK, they were failed states, not really states at all. And of course we will ignore history and whoever had a major role in their failure. And part of this is the Americanisation of Europe and European foreign policy. European foreign and security policy is taking some dangerous turns; and most have NATO at their heart. And there seems to be a perilous blurring of the line between the genuine concerns of the EU and those of NATO.NATO's ambitions have become a real problem; it's extending its grip into areas which have no relation to its ostensible reasons for existence, and as ever is nothing but a tool for American foreign policy. And for the ambitions of those shadowy non-governmental groups who seem to be tightening their grip on our lives. My last post about European nuclear weapons highlights one problematic area. And now suddenly there's a concerted attempt to get Israel into NATO (read Just Say 'No' to Israel in NATO). This is clearly an orchestrated campaign - as the sheer volume of material calling for Israel to join published on the blogosphere demonstrates. We should by now be well aware of the channels that exist for Bushcon agitprop to make its way into the media and blogosphere. In fact one strand of this seems to want to replace the UN with NATO as the main platform for international cooperation. The other main strand in this effort is Iran; there's a surprise. And the Iraqi puppet government is being suggested as a candidate as well; clearly NATO's ambitions are to be deeply involved in the Middle East as an American and global capitalist proxy , giving itself 'relevance', securing the oil, and disrupting Arab and Muslim societies. And the European voter is meant to pay for all this. European foreign policy is being hijacked by unelected individuals whose loyalties clearly don't include the European people's expressed desires - as is evident in their collective policy on Iraq. We have to find a way to stop this, but democratic mechanisms won't work. These people see themselves as above, and in general operate free of, democratic constraints.Looks like the period where we could have some pride in the EU's more diplomatic approach to foreign affairs is fast fading, at best.P.S. I found a blogger who tracks Solana: Constance Cumbey. Interesting.

Disaffected. Dissident. Student of history, literature, religion and the black arts of political rhetoric and persuasion.