Category: News and politics

Two weeks ago, I mused on how news was being presented to the public by the media in the context of the "war on terror" and used the reporting on the Kamil Bourgass case as the example. In that piece, I referred to an article, written by Duncan Campbell, that appeared in the Guardian that day.

Now it appears that the article has been pulled from the Guardian’s web site "for legal reasons". At least, that’s what Justin McKeating over at Chicken Yoghurt is claiming. And just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean to say that they’re not out to get you.

Well, at least the article by Jon Silverman is still there on the BBC website, and the article published on the 14th April by The Register makes for interesting reading.

And over at Europhobia is the definitive list of responses to idiots who mouth that tiresome variant of the "If you’re not with us, then you’re against us" rubbish. Absolutely right.

Over at Chicken Yoghurt, Justin McKeating documents the whole sorry tale. Read it and weep. And then politicians wonder why people lose their trust in them…

According to a story in the Seattle Times today, it does seem as though Microsoft has been "surprised" at the strength of the reaction to its decision to switch from a position of "support" to "neutral" on an anti-discrimination bill in Washington State.

Only goes to prove what I thought earlier – they were asleep at the wheel.

However, this may not yet be the end of the story, over at AMERICAblog, there’s a claim that Microsoft has been paying $20,000 a month to Century Strategies, a consulting firm headed up by the less-than-attractive figure of Ralph Reed. Methinks this story has a few more twists and turns to go before it is played out.

Well, the inevitable has happened, Steve Ballmer’s internal memo over the Washington State anti-discrimination bill has been posted to the Internet.

And, while I have some sympathy with what Ballmer is trying to say, another part of me basically says: either you don’t get it, or you are just spouting political bullshit.

Let’s look at some extracts from the memo:

"As long as I am CEO, Microsoft is going to be a company that is hard-core about diversity, a company that is absolutely rigorous about having a non-discriminatory environment, and a company that treats every employee fairly.

I’m proud of our track record on diversity issues. We were one of the first companies to provide domestic partner benefits, or to include sexual orientation in our anti-discrimination policies. And just this year, we became one of the few companies to include gender identity or expression in our protection policies."

This is good stuff. Microsoft does have a right to feel proud of what they have done in this field, and I have no problems in acknowledging that fact.

"When our government affairs team put together its list of its legislative priorities in Olympia before the Legislative Session began in January, we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are more directly related to our business such as computer privacy, education, and competitiveness. The anti-discrimination bill was not on this list and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a letter of support for similar legislation."

Yes, Mr. Ballmer, but as I’ve said elsewhere, did no-one realise that the change of stance on such a sensitive issue would not go unnoticed? This is such a jaw-dropping change, that if you and your people did not realise the effect, then all I can say is that someone was asleep at the wheel. He goes on:

"On this particular matter, both Bill and I actually both personally support this legislation that would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But that is my personal view, and I also know that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me."

It is very good to hear that Ballmer and Gates would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Three cheers for that. But then, of course, comes the depressing kicker: many employees and shareholders would not agree with me. While on the one hand I recognise that people hold deeply held beliefs, when push comes to shove, some of those beliefs are responsible for much of the evil in this world. And it is the mark of a man, or woman, that they are prepared to stand up and say that.

He goes on to say:

"It’s appropriate to invoke the company’s name on issues of public policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but it’s much less clear when it’s appropriate to invoke the company’s name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry – and on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost to a broad group of shareholders. On some issues, it is more
appropriate for employees or shareholders to get involved as individual citizens. As CEO, I feel a real sense of responsibility around this question, and I believe there are important distinctions between my personal views on policy issues and when it’s appropriate to involve the company."

I can appreciate what Ballmer is saying here. But, alas, from my perspective, he has been weighed and found wanting. Perhaps I have high ideals. Perhaps I want a Mandela, when all I get is a Ballmer. Pity that, what the world needs is more Mandelas – or at least people who aspire to be such.

The rumblings from Microsoft’s decision to drop support for an anti-discrimination bill in the state of Washington continue. Now the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, which four years ago presented Microsoft with an award for its progressive stance on diversity issues, has asked Microsoft to hand the award back.

In addition, the Human Rights Campaign has sent a letter to Steve Ballmer (Microsoft’s CEO) expressing their profound disappointment over Microsoft’s decision.

Apparently, Ballmer has issued an internal memo to all employees putting his side of the case, but this has not been made public outside of the company. What Microsoft has said publicly, has come through their PR people. Tami Begasse, a senior corporate spokeswoman for Microsoft, said yesterday that the company’s stances on diversity and nondiscrimination had not changed and noted that Microsoft issued a letter in support of the Washington legislation, which has been introduced annually for many years, as recently as the last session.

However, the simple fact of the matter is that Microsoft has indeed switched its position on the bill from one of "support" to one of "neutrality".

Begasse said Microsoft’s government relations specialists chose to focus their legislative efforts this year on more central priorities “that have a direct impact on our industry and our business,” specifically computer privacy, education, competitiveness and transportation.

What I find most dismaying about the whole affair is that Microsoft management appears not to have had the nous  to realise that any change of position on such a sensitive issue would have major reverberations. I mean, d-uuh!  John Aravosis over on AMERICAblog makes the same point with somewhat more colour, but then, I’m just a diplomatic brit. 

There is a storm brewing in the blogsphere and beyond over Microsoft’s action (or rather inaction) over a recent attempt in the state of Washington (Microsoft’s home state) to include reference to sexual orientation in anti-discrimination legislation.

While there’s a lot of "he said, she said" noise foaming up at the moment, once you blow the foam away, it does appear that Microsoft stepped back from supporting the legislation in the state senate. The outcome was that the legislation was lost by one vote, and many are blaming Microsoft’s withdrawal of support for that. 

In the past, Microsoft has been very supportive of diversity and inclusiveness in its company policies, and that extended to its GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered) staff also. It is regrettable that their internal support can no longer be counted on when it comes to society at large.

I was watching the report by BBC Home Affairs editor Mark Easton on the BBC News last night. I was struck by his language, both verbal and body, that seemed to me to be exaggerating the threat of al-Qaeda. Yes, we can all agree that Kamel Bourgass was a dangerous individual, and it is better for us all that he is now behind bars. But was he a highly-trained individual in an al-Qaeda ring, who manufactured poisons? Mark Easton’s report certainly came down heavily, one might say, unrelentingly, on that side, with his theatrical brandishing of jars of Nivea and his language, which seemed to me to be more redolent of the Yellow Press, rather than sober reporting from the BBC.

Because there are still some awkward aspects in the case that Easton played down or skated over completely:

• Four other suspects in the "UK cell" were acquitted this week of any part in a conspiracy, and the trial against a further four has been abandoned.
• Despite Easton’s jars of Nivea, no trace of ricin was ever found in the flat where the arrests were made – in fact, only recipes were found.
• The recipes themselves are apparently direct copies of recipes concocted by the US survivalist Kurt Saxon, and readily available from an Internet web site based not in Afghanistan, but in Palo Alto, California. 

A much more sober assessment of the facts, written by Jon Silverman, is buried away on the BBC News web site. It probably does not make such good tub-thumping television as Easton’s over-the-top report.

As Duncan Campbell, writing in today’s Guardian, puts it: "I do not doubt that Bourgass would have contemplated causing harm if he was competent to do so. But he was an Islamist yobbo on his own, not an Al Qaida-trained superterrorist."

I’m referring, of course, to Michael Howard, leader of the UK Conservative Party. During the press session to introduce the Conservatives’ manifesto, he came out with:

"On May the fifth you can let the sunshine of hope break through the clouds of disappointment we all feel!"

The soundbite is worthy of a particularly oliagious Hallmark card. No wonder many of the assembled hacks of the Press started laughing out loud in an unseemly fashion.

Today is the day when one of the great spectacles of showbiz will be played out in Rome. Amongst all the thousands of broadcast hours and acres of newsprint pouring unctuous praise on the former pontiff are a few quiet voices of reason and balance.

One such belongs to Polly Toynbee, writing in today’s Guardian.

"The Vatican is not a charming Monaco for tourists collecting Ruritanian stamps or gazing at past glories in the Sistine Chapel. It is a modern, potent force for cruelty and hypocrisy. It has weak temporal power, so George Bush can safely pray at the corpse of the man who criticised the Iraq war and capital punishment; it simply didn’t matter as the Pope never made a serious issue of it or ordered the US church to take strong action.

The Vatican’s deeper power is in its personal authority over 1.3 billion worshippers, which is strongest over the poorest, most helpless devotees. With its ban on condoms the church has caused the death of millions of Catholics and others in areas dominated by Catholic missionaries, in Africa and right across the world. In countries where 50% are infected, millions of very young Aids orphans are today’s immediate victims of the curia. Refusing support to all who offer condoms, spreading the lie that the Aids virus passes easily through microscopic holes in condoms – this irresponsibility is beyond all comprehension."

Amen to that.

… and you takes your choice*.

According to Radio Netherlands press review, the Dutch Authorities were "generally pleased" with the results of the disaster exercise held recently.

But according to the BBC, the Dutch are "not prepared for an attack".

I think this is one of those situations that I really would prefer not to be a "glass half-full or glass half-empty" kinda thing… In these situations, I want to feel that "my cup runneth over", thank you very much.  

* Cockney speech recorded in Punch, vol. 10, no. 16, 1846. 

Now that the worst-kept secret in UK politics has finally been revealed, Paul Stamp asks the question: who are you gonna vote for?

Quote

Election

Well we now know when the election is going to be 05/05/05

BBC Election special >> 

So who are you gonna vote for ?

End Quote

Well, if I still had a vote in the UK, it would be for Labour, but through gritted teeth. I, and my parents before me, have always been socialist. However, over the years I have come to dislike and distrust Blair with a passion. While Old Labour, with its deals done in smoke filled rooms, had plenty wrong with it, at least at its best it had solid principles and a belief that there was such a thing as society. Noo Labour, with its emphasis on focus groups and image seems to me to be more show than soul. 

I find the Conservatives’ campaign, with its creepy slogan: "Are you thinking what we’re thinking" simply pandering to people’s prejudices. Michael Howard still has more than "something of the night" about him as far as I’m concerned. I think Andrew Marr got it spot on when he said last night on the BBC that the Conservatives’ campaign had more to do with the message of "vote for us, because that will be one in the eye for Labour" than a message of "here’s all our great policies, and that’s why it makes sense to vote for us". It’s interesting, as Marr pointed out, that the Conservatives have appointed Lynton Crosby as their election mastermind who ran an extremely effective campaign in Australia along precisely the same lines. It puts me in mind of magicians, who are the masters of misdirection ("don’t look at my left hand, concentrate on the right"). People continue to be fooled because they simply can’t keep their eye on the real ball…

Lib-Dems? Nice people, hearts in the right place. I also think that they speak more honestly – about the need to raise taxes where necessary, for example. Perhaps a cynic might claim that they can afford to be honest because deep in their hearts they know that they won’t form the next government. Could they be effective in government? I doubt that we will find out this time either.

Labour has done well with the economy, and that comes down to Brown. It seems to me that Labour has to persuade their voters to swallow their distaste of Blair and look beyond him to the handover to Brown, and ideally that should be to pass on to him the office of prime minister, rather than the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

I discovered today that Bill Clinton is also blogging. Naturally, his blog is in a different universe to mine, and all the better for it. Surprisingly, for a politician, he doesn’t seem to pull any punches, take for example this entry on the assassination of Rafiq Hariri.

Update 5th April 2005: I had a feeling it was too good to be true. The blog has vanished, and this entry in the Language Log suggests that it was a fake. First rule of the Internet: No-one knows you’re a dog.

Brian Sedgemore MP tearing into the complacent British government over the eroding of civil liberty by using the false spectre of terrorism.