Category: News and politics

"There was an overwhelming view expressed by stakeholders involved in this Report that the proposals are too complex, technically unsafe, overly prescriptive and lack a foundation of public trust and confidence."

Steeph, over at his blog, has a truly disturbing entry: News about Iraq the mainstream media won’t give you. The third link in particular is simply mind-numbing. I want it not to be true, but it probably is. Either way, this is powerful propaganda – and one that pushes towards an even worse situation. A story in today’s Guardian about a CIA report seems only to confirm that.

…about this story in today’s Observer? Really it’s not about the Bush administration against Blair’s administration, it’s about the Bush administration against the rest of the world… So, with a few removals of UK-feelgood spin, quotes from the story become that much starker:

The documents obtained by The Observer represent an attempt by the Bush administration to undermine completely the science of climate change and show that the US position has hardened during the G8 negotiations. They also reveal that the White House has withdrawn from a crucial United Nations commitment to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions.

The documents show that Washington officials:

• Removed all reference to the fact that climate change is a ‘serious threat to human health and to ecosystems’;
• Deleted any suggestion that global warming has already started;
• Expunged any suggestion that human activity was to blame for climate change.

Among the sentences removed was the following: ‘Unless urgent action is taken, there will be a growing risk of adverse effects on economic development, human health and the natural environment, and of irreversible long-term changes to our climate and oceans.’

Another section erased by the White House adds: ‘Our world is warming. Climate change is a serious threat that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. And we know that … mankind’s activities are contributing to this warming. This is an issue we must address urgently.’

Earlier this month, the senior science academies of the G8 nations, including the US National Academy of Science, issued a statement saying that evidence of climate change was clear enough to compel their leaders to take action. ‘There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring,’ they said.

It is now clear that this advice has been completely ignored by Bush and his advisers. ‘Every year, it (local air pollution) causes millions of premature deaths, and suffering to millions more through respiratory disease,’ reads another statement removed by Washington.

Bush = The Emperor Nero?

A fairy story this time: the tale of Princess Tony and the Ugly Face Man. Like all good fairytales, there’s a serious point being made in it. In this case that the liberties of UK citizens seem to be more often eroded than strengthened by Blair’s government.

I mentioned Margot Wallström a couple of weeks ago (pay attention at the back!). She’s just added a new entry on her blog that also mentions the EU Consitution post-referendum survey in The Netherlands – something I need to download and digest – so I will. Thanks, Margot!

This is the sort of thing that I mean when I say that Blair’s New Labour has lost it… Margaret Hodge, Minister for Work and Pensions in Blair’s government, said later that she didn’t mean to say that the skilled workers from the closed Rover plant could work in Tesco’s supermarket. Well, sorry, Mags, but that’s how it came across. Of course, she’s no stranger to controversy. Clearly not a person I would ever choose to have as a friend, he said, knitting furiously.

As you may have noticed, every now and then I have a little rant, to get something off my chest. I do enjoy having a rant, there can be something quite orgasmically satisfying about doing it well. However, it’s not often that I can reach the heights achieved by No More Mr. Nice Guy in this little gem.

Taking a leaf out of Blair’s book, now it’s the White House who re-write reports to make them align with their politics. It’s emerged that a White House official edited government reports in ways that played down links between global warming and emissions. More information available from the BBC news site and the Guardian today.

Why am I not surprised?

If you’re not familiar with the reference, Dr. Pangloss is a character in Voltaire’s novel Candide, who is a hopeless optimist. "All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds".

I was reminded of this when I read the Dutch press reports on the debate in the Dutch Parliament over the outcome of the referendum on the EU Constitution. The Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, was quoted as saying that he even saw a "ray of light" in the outcome: he told MPs that people are finally "thinking and talking about Europe." Well I suppose that’s one way of looking at the situation – immediately after the Dutch electorate have delivered a metaphorical punch to your face leaving you with a very bloody and broken nose…

Chances are, you’re asking: "who is Margot Wallström?" Well, if you’re from outside Europe, then you’re forgiven – but if you’re European, then you should know that she is one of the EU Commissioners. (Confession time, I didn’t know that either until today)

Whatever, I think it is significant that she has her own blog, and one that is integrated into her official web pages within the EU Commission web site. She also appears to read the comments pages on her blog as well.

I found the link via the Europhobia blog which has a random roundup of reactions to the EU referenda so far.

Over at A Fistful of Euros is a good summary of the background to the Dutch Referendum on the EU Constitution.

I see that Emily May Blatch, Baroness Blatch of Hinchingbrooke has died. I know I’m being uncharitable, but I can’t say I’m sorry to see her go. She willingly took up the torch of homophobia and anti-gay prejudice from Baroness Young following her death in 2002.

Reading the words of these Baronesses in the records of House of Lords in debates over, for example, Section 28, is a salutary experience. However, bit by bit we move into the 21st Century, and hopefully towards more enlightened views. Though I fear the process is slow and easily reversed.

So the French have given a resounding thumbs-down to the Constitution. I suppose it was only to be expected. I have a feeling that it got caught in the crossfire of at least two opposing groups: those patriotic French who thought that it was anti-France, and those who thought that it did not go far enough.

I expect also that we’ll get a repeat performance this week in The Netherlands, and probably for much the same reasons. Although I said last week that I would vote Yes! (that is if I were to be allowed to vote), on reflection, perhaps it’s not as straightforward as I made it appear. I’ve been reading the full text (available as a PDF from this page). The first thing to say is that it is clearly a camel (i.e. a horse designed by a committee) and overlong (probably because it’s a camel). There are good things in it, but there are some things in it that prickle the socialist hairs on the back of my neck – e.g. the uncritical extent to which privatisation is believed to be a "good thing".

I came across this entry on Steeph’s Blog about the constitution, and I agree with his list of "good things" and "bad things". His conclusion was that the constitution doesn’t go far enough, and hence he will vote No. I suppose I’m more of a "let’s take what we can and work further on it afterwards" sort of person, but I can see where he’s coming from. 

Who knows, a resounding "No" vote may indeed make the politicians wake up and address the shortcomings, but somehow, I’m cynical enough to think that they ain’t going to do any radical surgery.

If you’ve read my profile, you will know that, while I hold a British Passport, I have lived in The Netherlands since 1983. I dutifully pay my taxes, I contribute to the society, I’ve even married a Dutchman. But, in return, does the Dutch Government give me a say in the running of the country?

No way, José.

In the forthcoming vote of the EU constitution, I don’t have the right to vote. Never mind that I believe in Europe and would gladly vote yes! if given the opportunity. Never mind that prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende would like us all to vote yes!

Earth to Jan Peter: your stupid bloody system has prevented me from giving you my vote, so you can go down the toilet for all I care.

Curious Hamster takes a sly dig at Tony Blair with a Thought Experiment. It brought a grin to my face, anyway.

Nope, not Dubya, but George Galloway yesterday, in his appearance before US senators to dismiss allegations he profited from oil dealings with Saddam Hussein.

The BBC has a recording of the complete hearing. And the Daily Kos has the transcript of his opening statement.

A masterful performance. Staring straight at Senator Coleman, and without notes, Galloway absolutely skewers the committee with his opening statement. The resulting cross-examination never really recovers from this opening blast (how could it – the allegations are, as Galloway says, "utterly preposterous"). I wish that there had been some video of senator Coleman’s face – I bet it would have been rather like a rabbit caught in car headlights.

While I don’t necessarily agree with Galloway’s politics, he is not the bogeyman that the media would like him to be. And on the strength of this performance, the knockabout politics of the Mother of Parliaments is more than a match for the milquetoast mewlings of the US system.

…the triumph of Faith over Reason. NBC did a telephone survey recently in the US on religion and American life. I find the answers to question 14 more than a little alarming:

Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on earth: evolution or the biblical account of creation?

Evolution                                  33%  
Total biblical account of creation  57%  
Don’t know/none of the above   10%   

So, let me get this right, nearly twice as many Americans surveyed thought that the book of Genesis is literallly true as opposed to the demonstrable facts of evolution?

Now, that’s scary…

Following the publication today of the Attorney-General’s advice, this should be an interesting show to watch…

Excerpts from a February 2004 letter from Microsoft’s manager of government affairs in the state, DeLee Shoemaker, to Rep. Ed Murray (my emphasis):

"Our employees know that they will be treated fairly, without being subject to prejudice or discrimination. An essential element of those policies includes the company’s anti-discrimination policy that expressly states that it will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

"Unfortunately, not all Americans experience this basic protection in their employment. It remains legal in 38 states to fire someone because of their sexual orientation. This is not only bad for business, it is bad for America. House Bill 1809 would simply and fairly extend to Washingtonians the fundamental right to be judged on one’s own merits. And it does so without any undue burden on our business environment.

"Microsoft strongly supports passage of HB 1809 and the additional protections it provides in our state’s law against discrimination. The principles it fosters are consistent with our corporate principles in treating all employees with fairness and respect."

All good stuff, except when the bill came up again this year, Microsoft switched its stance to one of neutrality, claiming it wanted to focus on issues more directly related to its business. Somehow the statement in the letter from 2004 that discrimination is "bad for business" got lost in the rush to focus.

I find it interesting that, despite Microsoft switching its stance, there were other big-name companies in the Washington area who saw no difficulty in continuing to support the bill. Companies such as Boeing, HP, Nike, Coors and Levi Strauss.

Microsoft folding up its tent in this fashion has left a very nasty taste in my mouth. My MSDN subscription comes up for renewal next month. It’s not going to be renewed. A small gesture, but mine own.

It would have been nice to have been proved wrong.

It would have been good to be able to say, mea culpa, I got it wrong about good old Tony. Forget about the fact that I’ve previously written that I’ve come to dislike and distrust him with a passion – he really is the man for the job of Prime Minister; someone who holds himself to the very highest of standards and who would not, ever, mislead the country.

Except that, it would appear that not only did he mislead the country on the legal basis for taking it into the war in Iraq, he also misled his own cabinet and parliament colleagues. Today, The Guardian has published a leaked version of the summary advice from the Attorney-General given to Tony Blair on March 7. As the Guardian states in its leader today:

It is little wonder the government struggled so hard to keep secret the attorney general’s March 7 advice on the legality of war. It is, in more ways than one, an extremely troubling document. The extracts we publish today bear little relation – in tone or content – to the so-called summary which was presented to both cabinet and parliament as they weighed up the morality and legality of going to war in Iraq just 10 days later. The March 17 document was stripped of all the nuances, qualifications and caveats contained in the March 7 opinion. It could not conceivably be regarded as a summary of the earlier advice. Both cabinet and parliament were – to put it at its mildest – kept unforgiveably in the dark. It looks rather worse than that: it looks as if they were deceived.

As a result of this damning charge, Blair has now released the complete March 7 document – something that up until this point he has adamantly refused to do. And indeed, it is "an extremely troubling document". It bears precious little relation to the dumbed-down final version that was put before the cabinet and parliament on March 17. Something happened in those ten days that changed the almost obsessively careful language of the original document into one that essentially said: "Nothing to worry about, chaps – let loose the dogs of war"…

So, previous Labour voters, the choice is yours – do you ignore the smell of Blair and vote for Labour with a clothes-peg clamped to your nose, as Polly Toynbee advises, or do you look at the alternatives, as Frances Beckett suggests? Increasingly, I would be drawn to the latter (as long as it’s not of a Conservative, BNP or UKIP flavour).