Blog

While the media agonise at length over the Butler Report the real scandal doesn’t seem to be getting quite as much coverage (via Tim Blair):

It’s intriguing, in its way, to trace the clues back and forth, trying to piece together the biggest jigsaw puzzle of graft, fraud and theft in the history of humanitarian relief. But wouldn’t it have spared us all a lot of grief had the U.N. chosen to run this program not as a private consulting arrangement with Saddam, but as an open book? Just this week, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric reiterated to the San Francisco Chronicle what has clearly become Mr. Annan’s party line–that the Secretariat, which collected a $1.4 billion commission on Saddam’s oil sales to run this program, was “not mandated to police the contractors; it’s not the way the program was set up by the Security Council members.”

Interesting how Mr. Annan bowed to the Security Council when it was the ordinary people of Iraq being robbed, but now that his own office is under fire, he feels free to let his subordinates run around blaming the Security Council. Wasn’t anyone at the U.N. paid to think?

mpact on those beliefs depends on such touchy-feely concepts as trust. There was a time when philosophers would have been content to point all this out, and then sit back with a smug smile. No longer…

The subjectivity of scientific knowledge has been proved with mathematical rigour? Eh?

On reading the article it becomes clear that the author, Robert Matthews, who was attending a meeting in Seville (“organised jointly by the Group of Policy Advisers to the European Commission and the London School of Economics, with the aim of showing what philosophers could contribute to the vexed question of dealing with risk”) doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Take the trade disputes that flare-up between America and Europe over the alleged risks posed by some or other product. One such dispute, concerning Europe’s de facto moratorium on approval or marketing of genetically modified (GM) produce, is currently in the lap of the World Trade Organisation and shows no signs of being resolved any time soon.

On the face of it, the way to do so is simple: just call in the scientists, and ask them for an objective view of the evidence. Which seems perfectly reasonable until one considers the issues involved with philosophical rigour. […]

A study by a team led by Dr Erik Millstone of Sussex University showed that trade disputes are ultimately the result of American and European policy-makers unwittingly buzzing round different fly-bottles. In the case of GM products, the Americans focus principally on the commercial risks posed, while the Europeans fret about the risk to human and ecological health.

As such, the scientific data each side wheels out to support their case is irrelevant: as their pre-existing beliefs about what is important are so different, data alone can never bring a consensus.

So he takes the entirely banal point that people approach complicated questions about the application of science according to their particular interests, and comes up with a ludicrous conclusion about objectivity being impossible. This is an old line: people differ in their interpretations, therefore there can be no correct interpretation.

Matthews also manages to bring in weather forecasting:

The mathematician Dr Lenny Smith of the LSE and Oxford University pointed out that while Mr Rumsfeld was widely ridiculed for distinguishing between “known knowns”, “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, scientists and policy makers would do well to follow his example.

While science is often seen as a repository of known knowns, the discovery in the 1960s of phenomena such as chaos revealed the existence of “known unknowns”: measurable but ineluctable limits to the accuracy of, say, weather forecasts. Yet scientists and policy-makers alike have still to come to terms with the equally unavoidable “unknown unknowns” that necessarily dog any attempt to model reality.

According to Dr Smith, the consequences can be seen in the climate change debate, where scientists are routinely forced to deal with policy questions that simply cannot be answered with any real confidence.

Well no. It’s a bit complicated, the climate.

I suspect a Scoop-style mix-up here. Due to editorial confusion the Local Affairs correspondent was sent to cover the conference by mistake. Or, more plausibly, the author fancied a few days in Seville, exaggerated his philosophical credentials to the Telegraph editors, and sought the advice of an old hack. “Science and philosophy? Piece of piss, son. Just throw in a quote from Wittgenstein and a mention of Chaos Theory and you’re home and dry.” In between visits to the tapas bars our hero managed to cobble together a few sentences in line with this advice, but then, feeling pleased with himself after a few drinks, he decided to be more creative and came up with the line about the “subjectivity of scientific knowledge having been proved with mathematical rigour”. It was to prove a fatal mistake. It’s back to covering council meetings from now on.

the ten hired participants were Iraqis. The themes, then, are the Iraq war, chemical warfare and the torture of Iraqi prisoners.

Despite being toxic, polyurethane is commonly used for household insulation, so it has connotations of both safety and danger — a nice metaphor for the combination of defence and aggression that motivated the invasion of Iraq.

A video projection documents the entire process. Lined up in groups, jets of polyurethane spattering over their backs, the participants have to wear chemically resistant clothing — whole body suits that leave only the eyes visible behind goggles — and a thick sheet of plastic draped over their backs and heads. Given the context, it comes across as a kind of militarised, updated version of the veil, that most stereotypical of ciphers for Islam, emblematic of a range of Western anxieties about the Middle East. […]

The Iraqi workers are evoked only by their absence, where the plastic hardened flat against their backs. It’s a microcosm of how capitalism works: like any commodity, this sculpture is of greater worth than the labour involved in its manufacture.

In contrast to these impeccably aesthetic forms, the rest of the gallery floor is scattered with rubbish: empty canisters, sheets of black plastic, discarded spray-gun nozzles and bits of polyurethane shrapnel. It feels like a stage set. Or maybe something more sinister; the scene of a crime, perhaps, or a debris-littered battlefield. There is a sense of past violence, of something obscene — a hidden horror that remains unseen, off-stage.

What is hidden, as regards capitalism, is the issue of exploitable labour. A parallel can be drawn here with the hidden atrocities of warfare: war crimes and torture. The idea is that war, and certainly the Iraq war, is a continuation of capitalism’s inherent violence. Sierra also makes us aware that, as consumers of aesthetic objects, it is violence in which we are complicit.

Well yes, we are indeed complicit if we’re foolish enough to go along and pay to see Sierra’s work, thus enabling him to produce further pieces exploiting more vulnerable people. We are also complicit if we write fatuous articles recycling the usual artworld cliches about him.

The reviewer gets close to the mark with this:

By exploiting his participants’ poverty in order to make works of conceptual art, Sierra raises questions about an art business which, as part of a capitalist system, colludes in its exploitation of labour.

but fails to answer those questions. It would similarly raise questions about the art business if someone exhibited a large heap of manure entitled “This is a Worthless Pile of Shit”. Now that’s what I’d call a challenging work of art.

Ken is, typically, unapologetic for the welcome he’s given to Sheikh al-Qaradawi:

Ken Livingstone has created a fresh round of controversy over controversial [sic] Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi by inviting him back to Britain.

Ignoring the growing outrage over Dr al-Qaradawi’s presence, Labour’s London Mayor hugged him and offered a personal invitation to return for a three-day conference in October, saying it would be an “honour”.

And in angry defiance he rounded on opposition leader Michael Howard and the press claiming they have helped stoke up the alarm over the cleric’s London talks with Britain’s Muslim community.

Ignorance and political point-scoring have fuelled the damning “hysteria”, Mr Livingstone insisted. […]

Mr Livingstone said: “On behalf of the people of London, I would like to apologise to the Sheikh for the outburst of xenophobia in sections of the media.

Not on behalf of this Londoner, Ken. To dismiss as xenophobic the entirely legitimate expressions of revulsion at the views of this cleric is dishonest and shabby. He keeps on digging, and the hole keeps getting deeper.

d Great Britain opposed it. This is the thanks afforded the United States by the German media and its leftist allies in the German government.

The most ironic and sickening aspect of it all is the deafening silence to be heard from the German left on the issue. No one is out beating drums, screaming “blood for oil” or waving rainbow flags in the streets. No one is angry that Germany’s big industry has priority over human rights when it comes to Russia. An ocean of ink has been spilled in the German media on Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Guantanamo. But articles on the shocking situation in Chechnya and abuses throughout Russia are a rarity by comparison.

They link to an article by Jeffrey Gedmin, describing a debate he attended in Berlin (with Bianca Jagger) where the most applause was reserved for the opinion that the US was heading toward a fascist state, with any adverse opinion being ruthlessly crushed. How do they know this, these Germans? Well, they’ve seen Michael Moore; they read Chomsky, Eric Alterman, Susan Sontag, Al Franken……

ian towns and cities, including the capital Tehran. At the same time a stream of visitors from Iran, including many clerics, are received by the ayatollah in his mud-brick home in downtown Najaf each day. Ayatollah Sistani’s Persian-language Web site is attracting more than three millions visitors each month from Iran.

“Today, Sistani is probably the most influential Shi’ite [religious] leader in the world,” says Sabah Zangeneh, who was Tehran’s ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Conference until last year. “Many Iranians see in him a revival of the mainstream Shi’ite theology.”

Many clerics agree. “It is now clear to most Shi’ites that Khomeinism is a political ideology and a deviation [from the faith],” says Ayatollah Mahmoud Qomi-Tabatabi. “Those who represent authentic Shi’ism cannot speak out in Iran. This is why the Najaf clergy, especially Sistani, are emerging as a pole of attraction for Iranians.”

Another Iranian cleric, Hadi Qabel, says that Khomeinism should be regarded as “a political ideology” while Shi’ism, as a religious faith, is represented by “theologians like Sistani who do not seek power.” […]

Khomeinism, however, is a totalitarian ideology in which the clergy have a monopoly on power. They name one of their own as “Faqih al-Wali” (“theological guide”) who is given absolute power for life. Designated as “The Supreme Guide,” he could even order a suspension of the basic rules of Islam.

Khomeinism describes the people as “mustazafeen” (the feeble ones) who are incapable of discerning good from evil for themselves. Although Khomeinism uses part of the Shiite mythology, religious vocabulary and iconography, it must be treated as a distinct doctrine. The key slogans of Khomeinism make this clear. Everywhere in Iran one sees giant slogans reading: God, Quran, Khomeini!

Mainstream Shiites, as well as other Muslims, see these slogans as forms of “kufr” (impiety) because they associate a mortal, in this case Khomeini, with God while making no mention of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. Inspired by North Korean and Maoist models, images of Khomeini have been carved in mountains or grown as mini-forests, visible even from the skies — a cult of personality bordering on idolatry.

Khomeinism is a cocktail in which Shi’ism is an almost accidental ingredient. Its basic ingredient is a hatred of the West, especially the United States. It is also influenced by Marxism, with such ideas as thought control, single-party rule and the command of the economy by the state.

Well….you go to all the trouble of buying and installing a freeview box (thanks, Martin), tune in for the Saturday stage…..and it’s not there! Instead it’s some lame programme with Carol fucking Vorderman. [Normally this blog is an expletive free-zone, but I’ll make an exception for Carol: especially as Hitch has now gone some way to legitimising the word.] Still, what a great show it is when they do show it, even though the theme tune is a poor substitute for the old Channel 4 one.

It’s early days of course, and the Tour doesn’t hit its peak until the mountains when people really start to suffer, but I’m enjoying it. No British riders after Millar’s self-destruction, which should prompt me to moan about why we miss out so completely on this sport, but I can’t summon up the outrage. In fact it might even be a plus. When we did have a rider involved they would inevitably be summoned for an interview after each stage, and would just as inevitably whinge. Millar did it, Chris Boardman did it – “God that was hell, I was really suffering there…” Oh shut up already. No one’s pointing a gun at you. If you hate it so much, don’t do it.

Would it be better if they had national teams instead of these ridiculous Rabobanks and the rest? Maybe part of the appeal is the entirely arbitrary nature of the teams (who are these people? Cofidis? CSC? What do they do?) and maybe having these commercial organisations that nobody cares about allows the focus to stay on the individuals, but a national competition would add an extra dimension. My guess is that the US would win this year even without Armstrong, what with Bobby Julich, Tyler Hamilton et al. The obvious problem is that France and Spain would need A, B, and C teams, while Jaan Kirsipuu of Estonia would be left out in the cold.

I have other sporting suggestions to make (yep, what with my recent thoughts on football I’m on a bit of a sporting roll here), which aren’t worth a post in themselves, so I’ll include them here as a postscript:-

Rugby Union: the flow of the game is constantly interrupted by arbitrary and opaque refereeing decisions. Is a ref really needed here? After all, this is a game played by gentlemen.

Basketball: a height restriction, nobody over 5′ 6″.

American Football: abolish it.

Via Dhimmi Watch, a piece on anti-semitism in Belgium (also mentioning Abu Jabah and the Arab European League, who I posted about here):

[M]ore than the constant violence, there is also a growing malaise for Belgian Jews who are afraid to live their Judaism fully and openly. Kids attending Jewish schools are frequently harassed and need to be protected by the police. The Member of Parliament and Mayor of Forest, a town in suburban Brussels, Corinne De Permentier, is appalled that two Jewish organizations had to leave her town because of the constant threats. She added that:” It is crazy that a community needs to be permanently protected by the police in a democratic country.”
A couple of other politicians are complaining that the Belgian government is not doing enough in terms of protection because in most of the cases, no arrests have ever been made….

Obviously, in such an environment, it is not a good time to be a Jew in Europe. That is surely why, when Elie Wiesel was in Berlin a few months ago for a conference on anti-Semitism, he was asked by close Jewish European friends a revealing new question. For the first time ever, it was not “Should we leave Europe?” but “When should we leave?”

More on the controversial Al-Qaradhawi at MEMRI where they excerpt from an article by Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi, a Jordanian intellectual residing in the US, who’s written a critique of Al-Qaradhawi’s claim that “democracy is in the essence of Islam.”

Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi is the highest religious authority of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the spiritual leader of most of the religious movements that have become bloodthirsty terror organizations. He is religious and financial advisor to over 20 financial companies operating according to Islamic financial tenets, which are known to have destroyed the businesses of most small investors in Egypt. It was he who came up with the idea of establishing the Al-Jazeera cable channel and he who has been the spiritual leader and senior religious advisor of this channel.

What Al-Nabulsi makes clear is that Al-Qaradhawi is a smooth political operator, who knows which buttons to push when it comes to pleasing an audience of Western liberals. Islam and democracy? Sure, no problem, “true democracy is in the spirit of Islam”. Mmm, sounds good. But look a little closer and it’s not quite so pleasant:

In his speech, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi said: ‘Some say democracy is an imported innovation. Any innovation is a deviation from the path of righteousness, and any such deviation will lead to Hell. I [Al-Qaradhawi] say, No! The essence of democracy is not imported. The essence of democracy is the Shura, the religious council, the obligation to promote virtue and eliminate vice. It is freedom of expression and criticism.’

and:

Referring to Western democracy, Al-Qaradhawi said in his speech: ‘There are those who maintain that democracy is the rule of the people, but we want the rule of Allah.

The essence of democracy is the Shura? Well, it’s not quite my definition of democracy. Freedom of expression and criticism? Certainly: under Shura the world will be entirely free of any dissenting expression or criticism. Just redefine democracy to mean the rule of Allah and, hey, no problem: of course Islam and democracy go together. This is pure religious totalitarianism of the most terrifying kind; the sort of fundamentalist beliefs that should make any liberal shudder; that, in fact, liberalism arose in defiance of in the first place. But then Al-Qaradhawi comes out with something like this:

We want real democracies based on transparency, human rights, and freedom of expression and opposition. We want the Muslim countries to be truly free of the rule of despots and oppressors…

and many on the left go weak at the knees. Hey, here’s a leading muslim who talks about human rights and freedom of expression, and hates Bush.

On his visit here:

Supported by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, the Egyptian-born Dr al-Qaradawi told an audience at City Hall: “People whose land is occupied have the right to resist the invaders. People have the right to use in their resistance all weapons and tools in their capability approved by the rule of Islam.

“Martyrdom operations are the weapons to which the weak resort in order to offset the balance. They have been driven into a no-option situation; they have no other means of resisting and liberating their land.”

He took only three questions after the conference, breaking off after being pressed for his views on suicide bombers. Mr Livingstone refused to condemn the cleric and criticised the British media for its “Islamaphobic outcry” over his guest.

apons capability, certainly now, under the current mullahcracy, and into the foreseeable future. As elucidated recently by Dr. Michael Ledeen, encouraging peaceful regime change in Iran is not only plausible, such policy “…is a life-or-death imperative”