http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 19 May 2007 22:26:34 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, 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. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/19/222634.php Mark Richard AdamsThe best one-liner of the Republican debate was surely Tom Tancredo’s jab about believing conversions “on the road to Damascus, not the road to Des Moines.” It must have hit too close to home for conservative pundits who declared the winner to be Mike Huckabee, who said Congress spent money like John Edwards in a salon.There were many conversions in evidence that night. McCain changed his mind on immigration; Romney changed his mind on… everything; and Huckabee’s governorship of Arkansas made Congress look like Dick Cheney in a hair salon by comparison. Yet the most spectacular conversion was Rudy Giuliani’s transformation to terror warrior. From his performance you would never believe this is a man who, as Mayor of New York, embraced indiscriminate killers.Most of my family came from Northern Ireland to England before I was born. I grew up in Manchester in the midst of the IRA’s murderous bombing campaign. In the '90s the city was gutted by one such bomb. Then, as now, Giuliani was a politician on the make but that was before 9/11 made him “America’s Mayor”. He desperately needed to be more popular and tapping Irish-American sympathy for the IRA was a way to do it. You think Giuliani would embrace the man who led a brutal terror campaign against one of America’s closest allies just to advance his career? You bet. Rudy is a political hack who saw a bandwagon and jumped right on.A quick Google search easily finds evidence of the Mayor’s fondness for mass murderers. Take this article from the New York Times from Sept. 29 1994 entitled "At City Hall, an I.R.A. Leader Gets a Warm Reception." The IRA is a brutal Marxist terror group with links to Columbia’s FARC. Yet New York officials described the organisation’s leader, Gerry Adams, as a “harbinger of peace” and “a civil rights activist”. Imagine if someone were to describe Osama bin Laden as civil rights activist. The remade Rudy would probably blow a fuse but the old Rudy didn’t seem to mind; he had polls to think about [all bold added].A relatively small lunch-hour crowd of a few hundred cheered him, but the domestic political value of Mr. Adams’s official turnabout was demonstrated by the throng of local politicians who crowded about Mr. Adams. They pressed him to accept three different government proclamations, the Crystal Apple award extended by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani to ranking foreign dignitaries, and a private New York Police Department boat tour of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.The man who nowadays denounces anyone who even listens to terrorists, used to treat them as “foreign dignitaries”.“I think President Clinton should greet [Adams]” declared the Mayor, joining the Irish visitor's own campaign for the Clinton Administration to honor him with a personal White House visit, which would add to the pressure on London for peace talks open to leaders of Northern Ireland's militant republican movement.Not only did Rudy support negotiating with terrorists; he wanted the White House to strengthen one’s position. Yet even that wasn’t enough. Giuliani had prosecuted IRA partisans as a US Attorney. Of course he was only trying to advance his career, but a new career required a new position.The Irish group was particularly delighted to hear Mr. Giuliani talk of the North's suffering under an "outside occupation force"I remember shortly after 9/11, before Giuliani’s transformation to terror warrior was complete, he met with Adams again. The event had been quietly changed from an IRA/Sinn Fein fundraiser to a 9/11 victims benefit. Rudy was careful not be photographed next to his old comrade. Later that year Adams visited another old friend, Fidel Castro.Giuliani was quick to remake himself as the man who was mayor on 9/11. Don’t forget that he was also the mayor who broke bread with a brutal killer. Politics64162@blogcritics.org Sat, 19 May 2007 22:26:34 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/25/134230.php Mark Richard AdamsThe only thing more common than bogus science studies are media reports of how we are running out of scientists. We are constantly told that the West is producing fewer scientists than China and India. This is inevitably followed by warnings that we are "falling behind". This is extremely scary because...well I don't know why it's scary, but it is.This morning the front page of my newspaper read, "Just one cigarette 'and you are hooked'". Apparently, if you smoke just one cigarette you will become an addict. Obviously this implies that even passive smoking is going to turn us into forty-a-day smokers. We are all doomed unless the government does something.The scientists have come up with a theory that a single cigarette changes our "reward pathway." Just the memory of your experience has a "sleeper effect" which could be reawakened at any time - up to three years later. All this could be true, or it could be made up. The "scientists" surveyed children at South London schools and found that those who had experienced cigarettes when they were 11 were twice as likely to take up smoking by the age of 15.Now even I, a student of the dismal science, know the difference between an empirical study and a survey. I also know that statistical relationships do not imply causality. What they have shown is that scientists who get a lot of money from the government tend to produce reports that give the government a mandate to do more. If I was a scientist I could call my anecdotal observations a theory and it would get printed in a newspaper.Well, probably not. What scientists and the governments they serve can all agree on is that we need more scientists... and that government needs to do something to ensure this. This raises two questions.What is the correct number of scientists? Is government really the best institution to bring us up to this number?The answer to the first question is: I don't know. For one thing it depends on how many people want to be scientists. Economic growth is about improving quality of life. It's no good if we have armies of scientists but they're all bloody miserable because they really wanted to be rock musicians. The "correct" number of scientists is where supply meets demand.So what happens if China and India have more scientists than we do? The same things that happen if we have more computer programmers than they do. We trade. Everyone ends up better off and no one is forced to have a different career they did not choose for themselves.If we did have a shortage of scientists then we would hardly turn to the government to solve the problem. Thanks to government spending our money to fix an imaginary lack of graduates, universities are giving out degrees in surfing while plumbers can earn £70k ($126k). In fact the only way I can imagine us having the wrong number of scientists is if government sets a target.However there is one thing that government should do that would increase the supply of scientists to industry. Stop employing them to produce pointless scare stories at the taxpayer's expense. Sci/Tech48300@blogcritics.org Thu, 25 May 2006 13:42:30 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/17/163850.php Mark Richard AdamsDespite his constant assurances that he will soon resign, Tony Blair continues to limp on as Britain's longest serving lame-duck prime minister. His government has been consumed by his quest for a personal legacy. He has skipped from one policy area to another, each time promising that he will be held accountable if he does not succeed and each time leaving behind a mess for his successor. After running out of domestic problems to "fix" he decided to move on to the rest of the world.The beasts of burden who have carried him on his globe-trotting adventures have been our military. In his first six years he sent troops to Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Congo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. That is not an exhaustive list -- British troops have been put in harms way around the globe and often not under British (or even NATO) command. Yet while other public sector workers have received large pay rises without being asked to deliver anything more, members of the military have been asked to give much more without even being given the manpower or equipment to do the job, let alone pay rises.The problems have only been exacerbated by Blair's enthusiasm for "modernisation". While he slashed the size of the army he has spent heavily on buying the Eurofighter-Typhoon. The Eurofighter was envisaged as a replacement to the Tornado, itself designed to defend West Germany from the Warsaw Pact. Despite the fact that aircraft is redundant, the government has set about telling us how "state-of-the-art" it is. That misses the point. Blair has confused shiny and new with fitness for purpose in modern warfare. We are increasingly reliant on our army for peacekeeping and counter-terrorism activities while we need warships and dogfighters less. Soldiers need better radios and the current British Army rifle, the SA-80, is sub-standard. Even better boots would make a difference.Part of the reason is political. Boots aren't as sexy as jet-fighters. What is particularly insulting though is the total disregard for our armed forces. At the same time as soldiers in Iraq were asked to spend half a year's salary on basic equipment the Ministry of Defence (MoD) spent £342 million ($644m) on refurbishing their offices including £1,000 ($1,890) on the most comfortable, and expensive, chair in the world. That's each - they bought 3,150.In the latest kick in the teeth the MoD has decided to send retired Sea King helicopters to Iraq. The Sea King was a superb helicopter in its day. It is a big sturdy aircraft that can survive over Britain's North Sea, one of the most inhospitable places on earth. However Iraq is not at all similar to the North Sea, and the Sea King's sturdy build will leave it a sitting duck over the skies of Basra.While Blair is willing to skimp on transport for troops, he is insisting that we should spare no expense in ensuring he travels in style. He has decided that Britain should follow America and provide him with his own jet, already dubbed "Blair Force One" by the UK media. This is particularly absurd because Britain is too small to warrant internal air travel (although one minister did commandeer an RAF plane for a 100 mile trip).When Gordon Brown, the British Treasury Secretary, announced that there was not enough money in the budget, it looked as though Blair's plan had been scuppered. Not so. His ministers have clubbed together and found enough waste in their budgets to pay for this. At a time when we have a burgeoning deficit and our troops are to be put in harms way with ancient equipment, our government has suddenly realised it does waste money...and spent the savings before anyone else could get a look in.The reasoning that Blair gives is that without a dedicated jet, Britain would be "an international laughing stock". This is a strange and disturbing logic. In the first place, he has confused his prestige with that of the entire nation. Secondly he is more concerned with what other foreign leaders think of him than he is with his own electorate.He is starting to sound like a tin-pot dictator. He is spending the nation's wealth to create an appearance for outsiders that is belied by reality. While he tries to demonstrate his machismo by sending troops to every corner of the world, Britain's infrastructure is crumbling. Like any tin-pot dictator, he feels like a fraud, knowing he does not lead the imperial power Britain once was, he fears that other leaders will laugh at him. This latest idea is another ploy to demonstrate his virility.I would not wish any of this to read as though I am not proud to be British. I am. However I also know that Britain is not the power it was the 19th century and never will be. London, which still has the largest international financial markets (though US domestic markets make New York larger overall), can be a global economic and cultural centre. Our military, properly funded and free from political interference, can be a force for good in a volatile world. Before that can happen Blair must make his final legacy one of self-sacrifice. He must resign. Politics47879@blogcritics.org Wed, 17 May 2006 16:38:50 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/13/153634.php Mark Richard AdamsYou do not need to be an economist to realise the U.S. Treasury's claim that China does not manipulate its currency is laughably false. The Chinese government and not the markets decide what the yuan is worth in terms of other currencies such as the US dollar. By doing this the communist government can keep Chinese wages at artificially low levels we cannot compete with in the west. What the Treasury should have said is that China is only doing what everyone else does. In fact she may be protecting us from even worse consequences of currency manipulation by our own governments.Currency manipulation is nothing new. From as far back as people have trusted currencies issued by their rulers, the rulers have abused that trust. The Roman Emperors used to debase the currency by replacing silver with less precious metals.The "inflation tax" is still one of the most common manipulations today. When governments print money to pay for unfunded spending all we notice is that prices are a little higher. Most people do not equate the fact that their money buys less with the reality that the government is taking more.When the Bank of England was created in 1694, a one pound note bore the inscription "I promise to pay the bearer one pound [of sterling silver]". UK bank notes still have that inscription but are worth a fraction of 1% of that value. Such is the extent of this form of manipulation that even the once worthless copper is now worth more than the (US) pennies it is used in (British pennies are now made of steel and coated in copper). It's unlikely this will ever happen with paper money although since more than 99% of notes circulating in London contain cocaine, you never know.After the Second World War, currency manipulation took on a new face. Politicians believed they and not markets should set the price of money for the good of society. Exchange rates were fixed, limits were set on how much money could be taken out of the country, and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund were set up to manage the world economy. This practice continued into the 1970s. In other words, we did exactly what the Chinese are now doing just 30 years ago and on a much more massive scale. In fact we never stopped; western nations are still currency manipulators.After the collapse of the exchange rate system the European Union tried to introduce its own system called the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). They then fixed exchange rates between members completely by introducing a single currency; the Euro. However control over the exchange rate comes at a cost to control over the national economy. No country that has the Euro can set its own interest rates. The rate is the same everywhere even if one country is in a recession and another is in an inflationary boom. When Britain was in the ERM the government was forced to raise interest rates twice in one day from 10% to 12% to 15% to attract foreign money into the country and prop up the value of the pound. Once government stops trying to set exchange rates it is able to use interest rates for other purposes, such a setting a target for growth or inflation. It's still currency manipulation, just with a different goal.Just like the Roman Emperors, our politicians use currency manipulation for their own benefit. The cost to us of having money now is the interest we pay later. By printing more and increasing supply, governments can make money cheaper. They do this around election time to make mortgages or credit card debt cost less and encourage investment and job creation. It makes us feel better off in the short run but the cost of cheap money is that the money we have already saved is worth less too. They are so bad at this that investors have lost confidence and politicians have been forced to hand power over to independent central banks like the Federal Reserve which were once rare but are now the norm. However the manipulation does not stop there. Every major western government is borrowing hand over fist and the central bankers they appoint are printing money to prevent their profligacy from sending the cost of borrowing sky high. The US Congress, although by no means the only offender, is the worst. The only reason that this has not caused massive inflation is because China has so far been willing to take worthless paper in return for real goods. Like all rulers they're not acting out of the goodness of their hearts. A bout of inflation in China's number one customer would threaten Chinese prosperity and stability, and that would be bad for the communists.The people accusing the Chinese of acting unfairly are the very people China is bailing out, i.e. Congress. They charge China with "stealing" jobs. It is true that some jobs that were once done in the west are now done in China but that does not mean that there will be fewer jobs here. China's currency manipulation means that we can have cheap borrowing and low prices. The economic equivalent of having your cake and eating it is behind the most powerful jobs-creation machine in the world. The process of growth is one of old jobs disappearing and new ones emerging which is what is happening here. China will, in time, revalue the yuan against the dollar. This will not happen because Congress talks tough but because it will be in their own interests. China's trade surplus is not as huge as you may have been led to believe. Most of the money made from exporting to the US is spent on importing the raw materials to make those exports. The soaring cost of commodities such as oil, gold and copper means that they will have to pass some of that cost on to their customers by making their currency more expensive. It is better we let them do this in their own time so that we are not hit by rising prices and a rising cost of borrowing all at once. None of this should be read as a support for currency manipulation of any kind. I am merely pointing out hypocrisy by those wishing to divert attention from their own failings. Politics47664@blogcritics.org Sat, 13 May 2006 15:36:34 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/03/144033.php Mark Richard AdamsTomorrow, most people in Britain will go to the polls to elect their local representatives. Local elections in Britain are a strange thing. There are various different types of government, unitary councils, regional assemblies, and parish and county councils. These disparities have nothing to do with local traditions, they are all quirks of a modern system drawn up by national administrators.County borders were redrawn in the 1970s, and to give you an idea of how difficult is to understand the new system, I was born in the 1980s and I don't get it. My address puts me in Cheshire but most government services are provided via Manchester. Even though elected officials in Manchester have power over my area, I can only vote in Stockport. Even stranger, though, the point of a unitary council is to have only one level of government, some people under the same council as me can also vote for the Cheshire county council, which is a higher level of government. As if the system were not convoluted enough, instead of electing one local representative, we have three -- each serving a four year term (creating a year off).It is probably a good thing that none of these people have any real power. Most of their spending is mandated by central government and they can only raise one quarter of their own budget. If a council is inefficient, they get more money from the centre. Thus our supposedly local representatives answer to the civil service rather than the voters.Recently, the mayor of London was suspended by unelected officials for politically incorrect speech. Due to the overall complexity of the system and lack of real power, local elections have become a horrendously expensive opinion poll. Most people don't bother to participate, which politicians naturally blame on lazy voters. Around the time of these elections we are subjected to a barrage of advertising telling us that "politics affects everything" and chastising us for not doing enough. The main parties have even considered making it illegal to not vote.This becomes tiring. Our government is filled with serially incompetent people. They have actually been selling seats in the upper house of parliament to political donors. The Conservative opposition responded to this by saying that political parties need state funding to remove the temptation to be totally corrupt. It is widely believed they have been doing the same thing. Our parties are not only corrupt and incompetent, they have the same policies. All the election literature I have received has been nothing but partisan rhetoric claiming that they are the ones to deliver the same set of promises offered by the other lot.We are being blamed for not voting but are offered no alternatives. Some people are now considering the unthinkable, voting for a fascist party. Naturally, the mainstream establishment is discomforted by this and is calling on voters to pick "any party but the BNP" (the fascists). The BNP are polling at 7% and they will only contest a few seats.Even if they swept the map, they'd still only control a quarter of the seats across Britain and would have no power whatsoever. By raising the spectre of a fascist landslide, the parties are diverting attention from their own failings and raising expectations that will only leave voters disappointed. I believe this tactic will work this time. However, if the political malaise continues, then turnout will fall further and the protest vote will grow.Like most wards, the BNP will not contest my local seat. However, a less extreme party that advocates withdrawal from the EU will. They will get my vote. I could just not turn out, but then I would be dismissed as another lazy voter. Voting for a party the establishment finds unacceptable is the only way to send a clear message to the main parties. I just hope they listen before voters give real power to parties like the BNP. Politics47210@blogcritics.org Wed, 3 May 2006 14:40:33 EDT