Salocin

Italy's nomination for its member of the European Commission has announced that he will stand aside in order to ease the passage into office of the new European Commission. In this astonishing, shallow and unfortunate way has the European Parliament asserted its new strength. This is an exercise in politics, not in leadership, and indicates that in the future, the European Parliament will continue to assert power for the sake of proving that it has it, in blocking actions and interference rather than leadership and advancement. This ending, and the events, brinkmanship and political-interest hostage-taking that have led to it, are a terrible poison to Europe, and serve to illustrate a weakend Union and a newly-powerful, incoherent Rottweiler in the form of powerful parliamentary interest groups.

Buttiglione has been painted as a terrible man. In the eyes of the indignant few, he was considered a backward, repugnant, biased idiot. To a man whose life is deeply affected by moral values that far surpass those of his detractors, the statements made about him by narrow-minded self-interested political power-mongers must seem a terrible injustice.

The homosexual lobby must feel that they have won a victory. Narrow-minded as such interest groups often are, they do not notice that they have been used as an excuse to assert power, to slap Italy in the face and to demonstrate that Parliamentary groups will quite happily hold the functioning of the European machine hostage, threatening everything in order to win a point they justify with values they wouldn't give a second thought to were they not leveragable.

This is what you get when national apathy results in morons being elected to the EU Parliament. This was most ably demonstrated by one of the more high-profile additions to the European Parliament. Mr. Kilroy-Silk, of the UKIP, made a complete ass of himself during a recent debate. A complete lack of decorum, hundreds of incompetent and inexperienced delegates who joined what they hoped would remain a gravy-train, elected by ignorant and apathetic communities, and justifying their presence by screaming ill-thought-out points at the top of their voices, bringing the organization they have joined into jeopardy through their embarassing contributions.

Add to that political lobby groups who seek to obtain massive power in order to achieve narrow aims, and push the entire European edifice in one direction or the other, by grouping large numbers of votes in Parliament, and you get a nightmare vision of Europe. Parliament is supposed to be the direct representation of the European people in the European political institutions. It is not supposed to be a means by which large parties can consolidate national powers, ignore the individuals they represent and play party politics at the expense of the advancement of the Union they are a part of.

The Commission has always been staffed by carefully chosen experts: Politicians who have the maturity, knowledge, experience and intelligence to understand the complex machine they are being brought in to lead. Individuals who know where the stress points are, where the Union can move forward safely and where it cannot. This is why the Commission has the power of initiative and the Parliament has not : otherwise we would be drowning in a sea of self-important, poorly reasoned legislative proposals, each suppporting a political party's personal agenda and passed into law through political horsetrading, rather than on the merits. Europe's institutional setup avoids this, the structures are there for very good reasons, and this is why Parliament is not supposed to have the power to reject an individual commissioner.

If Parliament were visible enough, and its parties identifiable enough, and their actions sufficiently publicised in the countries and communities from which its delegates are elected, then the electorate would be able to react to the actions of the EU-MPs and stupidity would be rewarded with electoral loss and embarassment. They would then think more carefully about their actions and behaviour. But no-one cares about their elected representatives because no-one understands what they do, what issues they influence or why its important that their voice be heard in the EU Parliament. If they did understand, they wouldn't be hiring imcompetents to go there on their behalf.

Bringing Mr. Buttiglione's personal beliefs into the arena, and using that as a pretext for refusing his nomination, Parliament then enacted a strategy of brinkmanship, saying that they would reject the entire College of Commissioners if this one commissioner was not replaced, thus using a vast and unsubtle power to achieve a change they were deliberately not given the ability to influence. A terrible abuse that - one can only hope - those European leaders who sign future treaties will curtail, for fear of it's being used under other circumstances, in areas even more damaging than a personal attack on a Commissioner and his country's Prime Minister.

More of us need to vote, and we need to be more careful who we elect. The individuals who currently populate the European Parliament are not experienced politicians. Were there only a few of these novices, the remainder would be able to hold them in check for the time it takes to learn how to change the boat's direction without capsizing it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of parliamentarians are idiots in this respect, and often think their own ideals are so important that it's worth threatening to sink the entire enterprise to get their way. Let's vote on experience for a while, and keep the TV presenters where they belong. (I know Kilroy used to be in politics, but based on his recent performance, there's a reason he went to TV).

European naysayers who fail to understand the benefits of the Union, and who want the advantages without the contributions, will seize upon such political crapulence as the embarassing indictment that it is. If the parliamentarians cannot grow up and act responsibly, using their power with reason and moderation, then they need to be either replaced or their power curtailed.

I don't often post jokes because I have a pretty high threshold before I think something is both funny enough and original enough to be posted. But this came to my attention today (provenance and authenticity unknown) and I thought that for once it was hysterical enough to share. Perhaps my sense of humour will be mysterious to you, I make no excuses.

Dear Mr xxxxxx,

I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more than prompt reply to our latest communication, and also to answer some of the points you raise. I will address them, as ever, in order. Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a "begging letter". It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a "tax demand". This is how we, at the Inland Revenue have always, for reasons of accuracy; traditionally referred to such documents.

Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily through the letterbox on to the doormat" has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not seen the other letters to which you refer I would cautiously suggest that their being from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses and pissant gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies" is at best a little ill-advised. In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin" or, come to that, a "sodding charity". More likely they see you as a citizen of Great Britain, with a responsibility to contribute to the upkeep of the nation as a whole. Which brings me to my next point.

Whilst there may be some spirit of truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay "go to shore up the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Public Services", a moment's rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion that the government in any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned party" yourself. The estimates you provide for the Chancellor's disbursement of the funds levied by taxation, whilst colourful, are, in fairness, a little off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent on "junkets for Bunterish lickspittles" and "dancing whores" whilst far more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for example, "that box-ticking façade of a university system."

A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:

1. The reason we don't simply write "Muggins" on the envelope has to do with the vagaries of the postal system;
2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrows of those with nothing else to give" has never been considered as a practice because even if the Personal Allowance didn't render it irrelevant, the sheer medical logistics involved would make it financially unviable.

I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or the other, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to "give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in India" you would still owe us the money. Please forward it by Friday.

Yours Sincerely,

xxxxxxxx

Customer Relations

Not long ago, Have you read The Da Vinci Code? was the question on everybody's lips. A work of fiction, its heavy research created a church-based storyline that nevertheless struck a chord with enough people that an entire new genre of books arose to comment on the allegations of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" itself. Deception Point is Brown's fourth novel, and contains the same easy-to-read, multiple-thread style in a new adventure that reads (once again) more like a movie than a book.

Rachel Sexton has been dispatched by the President of the United States to a remote location to report - in her capacity as a CIA analyst - on a top secret find made by NASA. A find that arrives at a propicious time for an agency that is drawing harsh criticism for its squandering of US funds, and is dragging the President down with it in an election year. But even as she prepares to add her weight to the voices already endorsing this as the greatest discovery of all time, doubts about its authenticity begin to surface. The more she doubts, the more her life appears to be threatened by mysterious agents, but who is to blame in an election year where all minds are focused on this one discovery, and everyone has everything to win, or lose?

The Washington Post apparently said this book was "Unputdownable", and "A true study in suspense". You won't need to put it down because it's readable in a single sitting. You're not getting depth here, but adventure. It's fun, it's lightweight, it managed to consume 4 hours out of a 10-hour flight back from Johannesburg. It managed to stretch my bedtime slightly, and you should definitely grab a copy if you, like me, find Air France's selection of movies out-of-date and poor.

Dan Brown's style has certain elements to it that remain consistent, and one is a desire to share with the reader the fact that he has done research into his subject. It isn't enough to pique the readers interest by alluding to conspiracies, or giving us a portion of knowledge in a given subject. He insists that we receive as many bits of information as he has been able to bring to the fore. Government-watching conspiracy theorists will therefore love this book because in it, he describes a veritable plethora of secret military technologies that have somehow come to his attention (through various magazines, government indiscretions in their public budget documents and declassification exercises). From guns that manufacture their own ammunition to super-planes that apparently need to file no flight plan, there's plenty to go around. In fact, he seems to slightly obssess on the bond-like technology employed by his characters (another thing that gives the book a movie-like feel to it). What the weapon/device does is insufficient information, he always backs it up with at least two paragraphs on how it works also, just in case you thought he hadn't gone the last mile in his research.

I liked the Da Vinci Code without liking its popularity - I felt it was unworthy of being the surprise winner of the popularity prize for worldwide literature. Captain Corelli's Mandolin by Louis de Bernieres was a far more worthy winner when it became a huge seller on word-of-mouth alone. This new book is in the same vein, cheap thrills for speed-readers. That's fine, so long as I don't have to put up with another hundred people asking me if I agreed that this was "just fantastic literature, mate".

I read this book and a few others besides on a recent trip to South Africa. This one certainly gave me the most to think about, while using the fewest words and the clearest exposition.

Paulo Coelho stays true to his parable-telling style, while venturing into the more traditionally fraught territory of sex and relationships. His heroine, a Brazilian prostitute in Geneva, provides the lens through which the spirituality of relationships is unwrapped and examined, providing an elegant expose of Coehlo's views on subjects which are quickly taboo if mishandled. Without pulling his punches, Coehlo manages to navigate these dangerous waters with poise, without seeming to lecture or resorting to clichés. This story provides enlightening (though sometimes disturbing) insights into human nature and our masochistic search for suffering, as well as an inspirational take on how a more pure love might be felt, expressed and experienced. Simple and quite unpretentious, Coehlo's books remain as accessible as always, even when dealing with issues that often threaten to polarise opinion. He has a delicate touch with words.

The Scotsman is currently reporting that juries are to be told of a defendant's record as a matter of procedure in courts in the UK from today forward. What's the big deal?

I've often wondered about that rule that states that every thing you've ever been found guilty of in the past is irrelevant if you're on trial for a similar offense today.

I understand where the supporters of this rule are coming from, but I disagree in principle with their premise. That somehow this might prejudice the jury against the defendant in a bad way. In some ways, this assumes that the defendant wasn't guilty of the first crime.

The real threat is that the police pick on someone with a heavy record so that they can nab someone for the crime and their candidate for the guilty seat has a greater chance of being convicted because they've done it before, but this kind of flawed logic is just as flawed for a jury at the time of the trial as it is for the policymakers when they define the trial procedures.

Take a couple of extreme examples - a person who has been caught and convicted of stealing 25 times in the past 2 years to feed a drug habit, is accused of stealing, is known to have purchased drugs 3 hours after the crime, is known to have been in the neighbourhood, is matched by a next door neighbour (but in poor light), and killed the old-age pensioner (s)he stole from. Is the fact that this person has been stealing as a matter of routine for the past 2 years relevant? Absolutely!

At the other end of the scale, someone who stole from a shop 2 years ago is accused of stealing again. The evidence is flimsy and the strongest thing about the case is that they stole 2 years ago. Is that enough to get them convicted? No.

In some cases, the past record may be enough to tip the balance from reasonable doubt into "so damned unlikely I'm pretty sure they did it". My argument is that that's a good thing.

I'm all for the rehabilitiation of criminals and their reintroduction into society, but there's also a substantial mass of evidence that supports the thesis that those that have offended in the past are more likely than others to offend again, and the whole point of reasonable doubt is likelihood. Probability.

• In many cases, this is relevant information.
  
• There should be stigma attached to being found guilty of a crime.
  
• This may be a step away from the philosophy that we'd rather have guilty people go free than innocent people get punished, but in the petty crimes this is most likely to impact on a daily basis, the number of additional criminals this will deter is worth the social cost.

Unpopular opinion (especially with the words "social cost" in there), but it's mine.

From Wired News (via Slashdot), scientists in Florida have taken cells from a rat's brain, grown them in a petri-dish, hooked them up to electrodes and taught them to fly an F-22. Somewhere in the world, some animal rights activists are desperately trying to get their brains around how they're going to justify being against this.

I don't often review things here - that's not really the point of the site, but every so often I come across something that I think everyone should know about. For the record, I get nothing for this little endorsement (in fact, they don't know I'm going to plug them) but it's a fantastic service and I thought I'd share it with you. It's Skype - Free Internet telephony that just works. Looks a lot like Microsoft messenger, except that it works. And the quality is amazing. Strongly suggest that you install it yourself and replace all the ICQ/Yahoo/AOL/MSN rubbish once and for all. Just have trillian as well so that the people left behind in the stone age can still contact you.

If you impose a democracy on a country, they'll use it, and a recent poll reported in the Washington Post indicates that the US's favourite candidate, Mr. Ayad Allawi, is not guaranteed to win the election, and would possibly not win one were it to be held today. In other bad news, more Iraqis blame the occupying forces than terrorists for the violence in the country, and more believe the country is going in the wrong direction than in the right direction.

President Bush said Tuesday that he would be "disappointed" if free and fair elections in Iraq led to the seating of an Islamic government, but that the United States would accept the results. "Democracy is democracy," he said. "If that's what people choose, that's what the people choose."

Hero (or Ying xiong) is dated 2002, according to IMDB. No doubt due to the staggered release dates used by studios to maximize revenues, I only saw it recently. I was expecting great things - IMDB have rated it 8.2 out of 10, and Rotten Tomatoes gave it 94%. Based on this, I was expecting a visual feast, poetry, story and above all - that it be accessible to all audiences. While I loved Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, I felt that it came a bit close to being overly enamored of its own visuals at times. This film crosses that line, and in defiance of pretty much all of the reviews I've read, I'm going to say that I didn't enjoy it all that much.

Jet Li is Nameless, a master swordsman who, after 10 years of training, defeated 3 assassins who sought to murder China's greatest warlord. As a consequence of this achievement, he is granted an audience with the warlord, and the film is a series of flashbacks to the battles between the swordsman and the assassins, narrated through the conversation between himself and the warlord. It is apparently the retelling of a Chinese legend, and a decent story in its own right.

Unfortunately, it is not a story that can carry a 2-hour film. At best, it could have managed 45 minutes. The rest is filled with visuals and drawn-out combat sequences.

When I decided to watch the film, I was aware that what I would see would be more art than substance, and I was therefore prepared for the lack of story. Unfortunately, there is a higher standard to art than there is to action movies, and by attempting this, the film set itself a difficult task, which in my opinion it failed to completely achieve. There has to be more to art than a woman holding a sword, dressed in flowing silk, standing in the desert. The visuals, while pretty, often seemed facile, and having decided to make it art rather than story, the mysticism implied by much of the dialogue (entire battles happen spiritually, with two opponents facing each other and the fight happening in their imaginations) seems misplaced, and was that little bit too much to ask of me as a viewer.

When a film that breaks the mould gets reviewer ratings in the 90% range, one of two things is happening: Either the film is truly groundbreaking, and we are in for a real treat, or the film is different, and while some people may truly love it, a crowd effect causes each successive reviewer to rate it highly so as to prove that they too can appreciate this new art form. Unfortunately in this case, the ground was broken by Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Hero falls through the cracks.

In spring 2004, I was in the Windward Islands sailing with 15 friends on two catamarans. The year before, a very similar but larger group of friends went sailing on 3 catamarans and a keelboat in the British Virgin Islands.

Now that autumn has set in and I'm feeling the chill of a European winter that is set to challenge our global warming fears, I am missing the sun, and missing the ocean, and missing the warmth, more than ever. Here's one of our (many) photos from the sailing trip.

Depressed? Let the fly guy cheer you up.

This kind of thing really frightens me. When I say that, I don't mean the fact that this person got off without a censure, although that of course is repugnant, but the fact that a 13-year-old schoolgirl should have been shot 17 times for walking in the wrong place should indicate that perhaps there are some unreasonable things going on in the occupied territories.

Kudos of course to the Israeli officers who denounced the man himself, although I believe he wasn't the only one shooting the girl. What is clear here though is that for whatever reason (fear of child bombers, hatred of Palestinians and so on), someone felt it necessary to shoot this girl dead without knowing if she was a threat.

She was a long way away from the nearest Israeli, and she was not warned.

She was shot once in the leg (not a warning shot, a direct hit), and dropped her satchel and tried to hobble away. At this point, she was shot over and over. Then an Israeli soldier walks up to her, shoots her, begins to walk away, turns around and empties the entire clip of his gun into her dead body. Alternatively, the Guardian is making it all up, which I personally think is unlikely.

It's an all-too-common perception of the situation that Palestinians hate Israelis, and Israel is therefore constrained to defend itself using every means at its disposal, including this latest offensive which, by some accounts, has killed 85 Palestinians, with Israel claiming at least 45 were militants. When I hear about a story like this, in which a soldier will shoot repeatedly into a dead 14-year-old girl's body, and the Israeli establishment - despite testimony from his unit - acquitting him of any wrongdoing, I wonder who hates who the most.

It's amazing how many 419 Scams I receive these days. I snapped and sent something back (via a disposable address) this time. The latest one is below, preceded by my reply.

My Reply:
To: mrwomenka@mighty.co.za
Subject: Re: DUE DELLIGENCE: DEAR BAIN,

Dear William,

First of all, I would like to point out that the 419 scam has had its day, and that you would be better served getting a real job.

Should you persist in trying the 419 scam, let me give you a few pointers.

- It's spelt "Diligence", making a spelling mistake in the subject line of your email is really tacky, you can do better than that.

- Professionals punctuate their messages in a certain way: Leave a space after commas and full stops. Your English also leaves a fair bit to be desired - get someone who writes the language better than you to proof-read your emails.

- Professionals do not write their emails in block capitals.

- If someone was approaching me for a business endeavor, they would take the trouble to let me know how they found my name and information, because this builds trust. To leave that out builds suspicion.

- Honest people do not use disposable email addresses in countries they don't come from (.za is a South African IP address).

- My name is not Bain. You are clearly using a list of emails you probably bought from someone. That was a really stupid mistake.

- What's the comma doing on the end of the Subject line? What's DEAR BAIN doing on the subject line?

- Strangers contacting me without references for shady deals involving millions of dollars and that require absolute confidentiality do not inspire confidence.

Finally, two points : First you should know that many of us receive 5 or 6 of these emails a week, and can spot a scam a mile away. Do us all a favour and stop buying these lists of emails off people, because whoever is giving them to you is scamming you too. Second you should also know that we report such messages to the 419 scam offices of the United States department of Justice, and the British Fraud Office, which liaise with African nations to catch people like you and put you in prison. I therefore once again suggest that you find a better line of work.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Omenka [mailto:mrwomenka@mighty.co.za]
Sent: 19 October 2004 08:15
To: mrwomenka@mighty.co.za
Subject: DUE DELLIGENCE: DEAR BAIN,

DEAR BAIN,

WITH DUE RESPECT,MY NAME IS MR WILLIAM OMENKA.DEPOSIT
MANAGER,REGIONAL HEADQUATERS FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE
BANKING SERVICES INCLUDING DEPOSITS TRUST AND COMPANY
MANAGEMENT ECOWAS MONETRY UNION (E.M.U) WITH HEAD OFFICE IN
LOME TOGO. I AM CONTACTING YOU IN CONFIDENCE BELIEVING THAT
YOU ARE MATURED IN BUSINESS AND CAN KEEP CONFIDENTIALITY OF
THIS TRANSACTION.

THE BUSINESS IS THAT RECENTLY AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THE
YEARLY AUDIT REPORT FROM OUR BANK, ECOWAS BANK PLC
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ECOBANK, I DISCOVERED A FIXED DEPOSIT
AMMOUNT OF $10.5 MILLION DEPOSITED WITH ECOBANK LOME TOGO
SINCE YEAR 2000. AFTER MUCH INVESTIGATION I DISCOVERRED
THAT THE DEPOSITOR OF THIS MONEY IS LATE (MR LIU CHONG WONG
61 YRS FROM SEOUL KOREA) A KOREAN NATIONAL WHO DIED IN A
PLANE CRASH INVOLVING EGYPT AIR FLIGHT 990. LATE MR LIU
CHONG WONG IS AN IMPORTER OF FAIRLLY USED CARS/SHARE HOLDER
WITH "SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY SARL" HERE IN LOME TOGO AND
HE MENTAINS A CODED ACCOUNT WITH ECOBANK.

I ALSO DISCOVERED THAT NONE OF HIS ASSOCIATES OR RELATIVES
KNOWS ABOUT THIS DEPOSIT HENCE NOBODY HAS COME FOR THE
CLAIM OF THE MONEY,THE ONLY PERSON WHO
HAS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS FUNDS IS ME BECAUSE OF MY
POSITION IN THE BANK I HAVE MADE SEVERAL EFFORTS TO CONTACT
ANY OF HIS RELATIONS BUT ALL MY EFFORTS PROVES ABORTIVE.
FOR THIS REASON I AM LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO PROJECT AS THE
NEXT OF KIN TO THE DECEASED WHOM I WILL USE HIS NAME TO
TRANSFER THE MONEY OUT OFFICIALLY WITHOUT RAISING EYE BROWS
IN THE BANK. I WILL USE MY POSITION IN THE MONETRY UNION TO
TRANSFER THIS AMOUNT TO ANY PRIVATE ACCOUNT OVERSEAS WHICH
YOU WILL PROVIDE FOR SAFE KEEPING TILL MY ARRIVAL FOR
DISBURSEMENT.

RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS I NEED SOMEBODY TO TRANSFER THIS
AMOUNT INTO HIS/HER ACCOUNT, SOMEONE WHO WILL NOT STAND ON
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SIT ON THE MONEY.I NEED SOMEONE TO
TRUST AS THIS IS A LIFE TIME OPPORTUNITY FOR ME. I HAVE
AGREED TO OFFER YOU 40% OF THE TOTAL SUM AFTER THE SMOOTH
EXECUTION OF THIS MUTUAL TRANSACTION. CONFIRM YOUR INTEREST
AND READINESS TO ASSIST ME MOVE THIS FUNDS AND I WILL GIVE
YOU DETAILS OF HOW TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS. WITH ANTICIPATION
TO GET YOUR RESPONSE URGENTLY,REMAIN BLESSED AND HAVE A
WONDERFUL TIME.

YOURS RESPECTFULLY,
MR WILLIAM OMENKA.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez's latest book has been pirated ahead of publication and is available for $4 in Bogota. Marquez is a Nobel-prize winner and his books are hugely anticipated by loyal fans. My question is - if you're a defender of music downloading for free, what do you make of this? Is this Ok? What if they were giving the book away for free, or making it available for download for free? Would that be Ok? What would be the difference between that and making music available for free? Surely if you think it's Ok for music to be obtained without payment, this is acceptable too. Maybe if they like the book, they'll go and buy it? Does anyone really believe that?

You may have heard the hassle over in the US about Sinclair Group forcing their local subsidiaries to air the anti-Kerry "documentary" during prime-time as an interruption to their normal services. It's pretty disgusting to see this kind of thing happen, but what's more disgusting is support based on partisan narrow-mindedness such as can be found over at Precinct 333. The comments are really nauseating, because they show a real partisan interpretation of the events and situation. You can click below to read the my comment - the weblog in question wouldn't let me post over 1000 characters in response so I had to do it here.

It's very interesting to see the bickering. Especially as a foreigner who's lived in the US for a while.

It's amazing how you guys are so partisan that neither side is willing to ever criticise anything that might promote its political aims, while mindlessly seeking arguments to defeat opponents, without ever really listening to what they have to say. I have yet to hear a Bush supporter say the slightest negative thing about Bush, and the same applied to Kerry. As far as their supporters are concerned, their candidates are the Angel Gabriel Made Flesh.

Frankly, from an outsiders point of view (and I don't like either candidate for different reasons), this particular issue is pretty clear cut.

1) The timing. This is clearly, unambiguously an attempt at influencing the elections.

2) The content. It focused on a single individual with the goal of proving a single thing. Reading who it was made by, and based on its intentions (given when it's being released), it's clear that they had decided what they were setting out to prove before they even started filming or investigating, this is therefore not impartial. Any effort to say this is providing information that is in anyway impartial is disingenuous and dishonest.

3) The workaround. They seek to circumvent campaign restrictions by allowing Kerry to "participate" which means showing an unambiguously biased propaganda film, followed by putting Kerry opposite a hostile panel, in front of a hostile audience, having to defend himself against 40 minutes of non-stop attack. They know full well that if they offer this he won't take them up on it, because it regardless of the truth or the facts it would be electoral suicide, and Precint333's question as to whether Kerry has the "guts to speak to the American people on this matter" is once again disingenuous.

This is not documentary. It's the rich sponsors of a political party seeking to broadcast propaganda to the influencable in order to assist in an election campaign, and it's nauseating no matter how you look at it.

But this all misses the bigger picture. As an attempt to influence the vote, Sinclair's actions have already partly succeeded (and the fact that some Americans will celebrate this as a success is a sad indictment). Even if they don't broadcast it now, they've achieved what they want, because it can't be taken off the internet, and by raising such a ruckus, they've managed to get better advertising than even their money could buy.

Calling this "protected speech" and hiding behind the constitution isn't a valid defense. It's a demonstration of how the rights in the constitution can be abused, and therefore an argument against unrestricted, uncontrollable free speech. As such, it is dishonourable, and does a disservice to all those who fight for those rights to be maintained, and who fought so hard for them in the first place. The founding fathers must be turning in their graves.

I don't care if Bush or Kerry wins, but Sinclair deserve censure for this.

UPDATE : More on this. It gets worse. The information that follows is from this article from CNN.

• Sinclair Broadcasting's top executives are public supporters of the Bush campaign. They have donated at least $58,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign or the Republican National Committee for the 2004 election.
• Hyman said the broadcasting group's goal is to "get John Kerry to sit down and talk with these guys." If that's your goal, why time it for a few days before the election? Besides, why can't we have President Bush talking to families of bereaved Iraqis or Palestinians, chosen by Democratic supporters? Do you think they would make him look good. It's a set-up, pure and simple.
• Sinclair Broadcasting in April ordered its ABC affiliates not to air a "Nightline" program that included a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. A Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest." - So they're willing to work both ways in their manipulation of the press for electoral gain.

As you may have noticed, I'm not very good at being personal on this weblog. Most of the people who read it and know me know far more about me than any stranger could by reading it. I suspect, in my more honest moments, that very few people read this, and perhaps that's why I don't put all that much effort into the language I use and the subjects I choose to comment on. The world hardly needs another "rant of the moment" blog, but it's often what this seems to be. I won't stop yet, it's still cathartic at the time, and so serves a purpose at least for me, even if my more individual frustrations, personal emotions and reflections are somewhat taboo for a public weblog.

There are, however, a few "bloggers" (God how I hate that word) who actually manage to bare their soul on the net. One such is the Everyday Stranger, I call her that because she says her real name's not Helen, which is the name she uses online. Her posts are personal, no-holds-barred, guts 'n all emotional honesty. What's more, she takes the time to write well, which is more than can be said for most of the rest of us sorry timewasters. So I encourage you as strongly as a printed word on an anonymous webpage can, to check out this entry from her Blog. And come back someday, every once in a while, I get bored talking to myself.

Paris Hilton won't do nude scenes. Studied acting. Wants to be taken seriously.

The French have installed equipment that blocks cellphone signals inside cinemas, concert halls and theatres. In a quick straw poll on the BBC, preliminary results [to the right] indicate that this problem appears to have bothered quite a few people in the past few years. With this simple move, an entire category of anti-social behaviour becomes extinct. Now all we have to deal with are crisp eaters, sweet unwrappers, screaming kids, chattering couples, drunk louts and the rhythmic thumping of a couple having at it in the back row in the middle of "Attack of the Clones", which accounts for the two people who said the movie was "good fun".

Who believes government officials are ever candid about what they believe? Here's an example. A few weeks ago, we get a report claiming that there were no WMD in Iraq. It's written by the US, with full access to all documentation about the search for weapons. We also get Rumsfeld questioning whether there was ever a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But going back to a widely commented CNS News article published October 4th 2004, we are told that there were links, and there were weapons, and that they've known this for a while. Some commentators believe this proves the case for war, although with one unconfirmed report in favour and an official US/UN report against, I don't think the balance of evidence supports this, I'd argue that it proves once again that we are being misled, and that whatever the truth is, we are not being told. That's a bad thing, in a democracy, by the way.

The EU Civil Liberties committee has delivered a (non-binding) snub to Rocco Buttiglione, the Italian choice for the college of Commissioners in Brussels. They did this on the basis that he expressed his personal beliefs in public, and they don't like his personal beliefs. Apparently, one needs to not only toe the moral line, but agree with every aspect of it in order to be a legitimate choice for a political position. Once again, petty, narrow-minded politics gets in the way of judging a person on their merits.

I'll get to my point, but let me digress a bit first...

I've never been a fan of European Politics, I think they're what stand in the way of European integration. It's a sad fact that the national politics of nation states consistently destabilises the smooth functioning of the European machinery.

It's pretty clear why this happens : France free-rides the CAP, and therefore stands in the way of its reform. England wants the benefits but none of the costs of participation, and so negotiates opt-outs to everything by threatening to bring the entire project to a grinding halt unless they get their way. The initial momentum of the Treaty of Rome (and to a certain extent Maastricht) is constantly sapped by such considerations, as everyone tries to gain from Europe in every situation.

Europe is an averaging mechanism. It can be used to transfer wealth and the burden of growth among member states as this burden becomes harder or easier to bear by specific nations. Through the common market it allows for gains to be made by exploiting the economics of comparative advantage, and all that needs to be acknowledged for this to happen is that everyone can't have everything. We will all be better off if we allow certain adjustments to happen, painful though they may be at the time. Unfortunately, the willingness to submit ones country to such changes is fading, and we are back in a world where we would like to be able to grow at the expense of our neighbour, by playing with relative interest rates, tax regimes, currency valuations and the like.

Europe is also a great peacemaker, and this was the reason for its initial creation. It has succeeded admirably in this respect, and will continue to do so as more countries are brought in and share in the growing wealth of this fantastic entity. Sure, the entry of new countries causes exogenous shocks as our economies adjust to absorb the new economic parameters, but these shocks can be smoothed, managed, predicted, and they lead to the greater good of all the nations concerned - there is no reason why a deep union cannot continue to grow, provided it does so with competent people in the leadership. Unfortunately, competent or not, our leadership is partisan. The bias is not in political orientation (though that also exists), but in terms of which nations it favours and which it does not - this turns Brussels into a big trading center where one political desire is traded in return for another. Votes and vetos as political currency - the big unsolved problem with multilateral and multiparty democracy.

So back to my point - why does this rebuttal of Mr. Buttiglione piss me off? Largely because of the political currency being made of it in Italian domestic politics. I'm no great fan of Mr. Berlusconi, but its pathetic to see his opponents descend to this level to get at him.

I'm also annoyed because of the premise under which he has been rejected. He is a devout Catholic - in a secular organization, this should mean nothing. It should be ignored. His beliefs are a function of his faith and background, and that also should be ignored, unless it is believed that he is unable to separate his beliefs from the defense of the treaties and regulations he is being sworn in to uphold.

The role of Commissioner is an administrative one - it is not a representative one. It is also supposed to be impartial when it comes to nation-states (which is why Italian gloating in this case is damaging and unwelcome). His job is to perform the duties required of him by the Parliament and Council of Ministers, to propose directives and uphold the laws and previous directives of the Commission. I cannot imagine anything better than having a deeply moral and committed man in this position. He has made it clear that his personal beliefs with regard to homosexuality, marriage and other matters of interest are exactly that: personal beliefs. These beliefs do not interfere with his duty and ability to uphold laws that may not dovetail nicely with them.

The real difference between this man and other potential candidates for the role is that he wears his internal state on his sleeve (probably because he is such a moral person). He does not hide his beliefs, but tells people that he can maintain them despite the fact that he is required to uphold processes and regulations that are sometimes in conflict with them. A more politically cynical candidate wouldn't have admitted to that, and would have been accepted, thanks to his lack of candor, with much greater ease.

I like candor, I like honesty, this man should not have been insulted in this way, certainly not as a means to get at Mr. Berlusconi. People's political careers are not a currency to be spent. Let Mr. Buttiglione prove himself, or not, but do not judge him before he has had a chance to do so.

UPDATE: Doing a technorati search for his name, I've found large steaming piles of venom written on numerous (mostly homosexual-rights) weblogs about him and his views. While I personally disagree with his views, I find that he expresses them in a moderate, polite and respectful manner, even if the views themselves offend certain parties. These same parties are not moderate, polite or respectful in return. It is also in their interests that individuals be able, in the future, to recognise that their personal views are not relevant when it comes to their duties in upholding laws that may not be completely aligned with those personal views. The gay lobby (which I generally have nothing against) seems to believe that anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they want them to believe, regardless of this aspect of their professionalism, should not be allowed to hold any position. Get a life, people. Individuals are entitled to their views, even if you believe them to be backward. Your vision of a gay-utopian world in which everyone believes what you want them to is not something you should have a right to impose. If he had said he didn't believe in sex before marriage, this wouldn't have raised the slightest whiff of disagreement, even though far more people disagree with that viewpoint that his perception of homosexuality as a religious sin, and painting people who hold this opinion as "evil" or "unfit for office", or "morally wrong" is a narrow-minded judgement based on a narrow issue that represents less than a fraction of one percent of his responsibilities. You may disagree with him on this, but accept that he is capable of doing his job - even to your standards - while holding whatever opinions.

Another BBC Article has arisen, which summarises some of the reactions to this vote. Here's a quote :

Mr Berlusconi said: "It reflects the crude propagandist nature of the personal arguments put forward by the leftist faction of Italy's parliamentary delegation.

The vote smacked of "fundamentalism if not obscurantism" because it called into "question the freedom of conscience and opinion of a Catholic commissioner, contesting the distinction he makes between morality and the law", the Italian prime minister added.

German conservative MEP Ewa Klamt said the vote against Mr Buttiglione was "discrimination against a man who has a personal religious belief".

"He made it very clear there should be no discrimination for anyone, not for homosexuality, not for race or for religion," she said.

I just spent the better part of 2 hours coding a referers sidebar so I can see who arrives from where on my weblog, and automatically link back to the people who so kindly forwarded someone to me. Admittedly, the link only lasts for 24 hours, but if I get a number of referrals from them, I'm sure it'll stay up there more. So it's been about 2 hours now, and .. er.. it's kind of still not saying anything. The saddest part of it is, of course, that when it does say something, it'll say "Google". In the meantime, I'm becoming painfully aware that the people who link to me get even less traffic than I do. I'll just keep talking to myself then. At least, according to my apache logs, I'm keeping dozens of webbots entertained.

Reuters reports that South Korean music retailing is being pushed to the brink of extinction. Slashdot.org's reference to the article suggests it's just "natural progression", and perhaps not a problem, although it actually more to do with how it happened and the slowness of legal procedures to protect copyrights. At least now the downloaders are no longer in a position to say that they're hurting nobody.

The South Korean retailers interviewed in the article are fairly resigned to the fact that their industry is in terminal decline. It's clear that new companies that focus on retailing are far more likely to succeed than historical bricks and mortar establishments.

South Korea is a good example of what happens when this downloading goes unchecked. Websites appear that give music made by others away for free. Artists, shops and pretty much everyone else in the supply chain are knocked into touch by a youth culture that cares little about the legality of the act, especially when the courts are extremely slow to do anything about it, and are unwilling (for reasons I don't understand) to sigfn injunctions preventing the damage while they consider the question.

I personally enjoy browsing the shelves at my local music store, and so am happy that the RIAA and others have managed to at least slow down the transition process here in the west, otherwise we might have the same kind of abrupt decline in physical music retailing as they've seen in South Korea.

It's also quite interesting that these downloaders are willing to shift to whatever end of the political spectrum provides them with what they want. They rationalise their downloading behaviour using political arguments from the left when it suits them (information should be free, liberalism for all) and then from the right, in the same breath (they should have adapted and changed the business model). The irritating thing from a business point of view is that there is no business model that can compete with a delivery channel that lets people get their music for free. The only "business model" they'll accept, now that they're used to downloading their music with Gnutella, Shareaza, Grokster, Emule and the rest is one that costs them nothing, and they don't seem to understand the deeper ramifications on music production that this implies.

It's useless to try to explain all this to the downloaders from a business point of view, because their cognitive dissonance refuses to acknowledge the possibility that without revenues, there would be very little music (some, I'll grant you, but not the way they have it today). When you start this argument, you have to listen to people with everything from Sting to Bon Jovi, Metallica to the Dixie Chicks in their collections claim that they would be happy with "local artists" that had never benefited from the recording facilities, loans and marketing help of the recording industry. That this music is somehow "better". They point to one or two acceptable artists as examples and claim everything mainstream is rubbish.

Surely if it was rubbish, there wouldn't be so many people downloading it? Such simple arguments just don't seem to get through.

Not that the industry shouldn't adjust, but it has - check out Rhapsody or ITunes. But to justify their continued downloading, these same people who clamoured for such services 3 years ago now claim that they are "too complicated", "don't have enough choice" and "cost too much". I use them, they're not complicated at all, 99 cents per song, or 25 dollars per month for unlimited playing is not too much, and if they don't have enough choice, then why don't you at least use them for the choice they do provide, and only download those tracks unavailable through legitimate means? At least that would encourage the hold-out artists to relax the limitations they've placed on the distribution of their music.

The truth is, downloaders are allergic to paying for anything they can get for free. They are the free-riders will be subsidised by those who are willing to be good citizens. Their arguments will shift and change every time the industry moves to respond, because if it's not free, it's not good enough, and any argument will do, repeated often enough, to allow them to claim they are guiltless.

This guy really hates weblogs. But writes better than most webloggers.

In the UK, the music industry is now taking dowloaders to court over their illegal copying of music. The BBC has some reactions from the downloaders themselves. It's interesting to watch how opinion has evolved. Not so long ago, most downloaders were arguing that is was legal, that the record companies were getting what they deserved, that it was unfair to sue them, and a bunch of other ill-conceived arguments.

What for me really nails the issue is the comment made by Cerise (page 6).

I might download for free but I would never shoplift from a record store. The risk of being caught is much greater, and the punishment is far worse. Downloading is not as bad.

What it all comes down to is "the risk of getting caught", and what the use of that phrase implies is that although she downloads, she knows that it's illegal, and that she's better off not getting caught. While it's less calculated than the approach of a career criminal, the same tradeoffs are going through these kids minds : how much do I get out of breaking these rules? What are the odds of getting caught? Is it worth stealing these songs then?

Richard thinks that since he's paid for his broadband connection, he's already paid for the songs. Hard to even credit that with a response, but I'm going to go steal a car because I've already paid my road tax, so it's justified. Once I've done that, I'm going to demand all my telephone calls for free, because I already pay a fixed price per month for the landline, and then I'm going to steal lots of playstation games from a store because I already bought the playstation. Moron.

Kharis thinks legal music sites are too complicated to use. I use both Rhapsody and iTunes and they're frankly simpler to use than most p2p clients. I expect the most challenging bit for most downloaders is the part where they put in their credit card number.

But the interesting thing here is that most of these quotes have a very different tone to what we used to hear. Before, all was very accusatory - kids had discovered this new freedom: the ability to own any piece of music they heard, just by typing the artist's name into a search box and waiting 10 minutes. When that was challenged by the artists, they clung to their new freedom with a fair degree of intellectual violence, and through spurious justifications such as the price of CDs (as I've always said, you don't have to listen to it, you don't have to own it, if it's too expensive, then don't buy it, don't own it and make your statement about the price that way, rather than stealing it and feeling that this is somehow justified.

There's now a gradual understanding, probably due to the fact that people understand the courts will systematically uphold the claims of record companies, that this is illegal behaviour, that it's in the same category as petty vandalism or shoplifting from the point of view of society, and that when you get caught, it's going to hurt, and you'll just have to suck it up. I think the RIAA and its equivalent organizations across the world are going to win this fight.

Sex & the City rerun adverts parody political ads, are placed on political weblogs and take you to a fake political site. Smart. And Funny.

I was reading this weblog [hot abercrombie chick, good name], and the first article I saw (and the reason I was there in the first place) was a discussion of who had won the second Bush/Kerry debate. Now the author claims not to have a political affiliation by virtue of a disdain for both candidates (and perhaps politics in general), but it's going to be an uphill struggle to convince me of that when there is a permanent skyscraper advertisement on the left of the site seeking to help conservative girls find right-wing boyfriends, ostensibly to appease their parents, and to stop arguing politics on dates. While I tried to read the article, I couldn't stop thinking about the advertisement. It's really very very funny.

The ad, which you can see to the left (click to enlarge) starts with "stop dating liberals". Is "Liberals" a dirty way of saying Democrats, by the way? I'm not American so I don't know, but the right-wingers keep calling them that, so I'm curious. It goes on to suggest that the difference in political viewpoint is the sole reason why you don't get along. Ha! Good excuse.

Here's some of the silly stuff going through my head.

• I wouldn't have called it "conservativematch.com", I would have called it "dateright.com", which I think is far catchier.

• If you argue with everyone you date, based on their political affiliation, perhaps you respect them enough (you are dating them after all) to listen to what they have to say (at least one of them) and seek to find things you can agree on. Plenty of couples have opposite political viewpoints, it's only because the present administration has so polarised opinion that the left and right want each other's heads on platters these days.

• It's remarkably like a politician to seek to only speak to audiences that are already on your side.

• Maybe the link takes you to a Republican recruiting site? Just a thought, but what an incredibly creative way to get young people to become politically active rather than just rant at their partner of the opposite sex. (Well it isn't going to be a same sex partner, is it? Bush wanted to outlaw gay marriage).

• Ahha - subconscious advertising... they're suggesting that democrats are bad at sex.
  

I was in a strange mood and just needed to get that out of my system.

There is a general fear [BBC] that the elections in Afghanistan will have been to a certain extent compromised by the discovery that badly-applied ink on the voters fingernails could be rubbed off, potentially allowing some to vote more than once. Opponents are seeking to make political currency, and are casting a shadow over what was supposed to be Afghanistan's finest hour since before the Taleban.

It's tragic to see political figures willing to tear down an establishment if they can't be in charge of it.

While there is no doubt that there were some issues with ink coming off, what this clearly demonstrates is opposition groups desperately seeking any excuse to stand in the way of Afghanistan's path towards representative democracy. One look at the voters (and there are many pictures around) and it's easy to see how happy they are to regain some control over how their country is governed.

It's also disappointing to see how something so simple could have been overlooked, although the actual extent of the problem remains to be seen.

What is apparent is that politicians in Afghanistan, much like politicians anywhere, are extremely unwilling to admit defeat, and would rather find some excuse to boycott the polls, so claiming they never participated, than accept that the process couldn't be perfect, but that it is likely to nevertheless be representative.

One would have thought that if any party was going to be taking advantage of the ability to vote multiple times, it was unlikely to be Hamid Karzai's organization. It seems extremely shallow and unfair to point the finger in this way, and thereby seek to undermine a leadership in a country that deserves a government with a strong mandate more than anyone else.

It is also clear that this country is unlikely to be able to afford a second attempt at an election, the organizational effort required is huge and extremely costly, and therefore impossible to reproduce. By calling this election into question, they push the country away from stability, and it is sad to have to acknowledge that this is probably what many of the candidates want. Unable to govern through force, private armies, spurious religious authority or historical coincidence, they found themselves as candidates in the election because it was the only way to retain their power, a step back to a weak government with a challenged mandate allows many of these individuals to fall back on old positoins of power, challenging the authority of the ruling party by casting this illusory doubt over their election.

Representative democracy works, but its politicians that screw things up. How long before they discover gerrymandering in Afghanistan?

News websites accidentally publish Bush election victory test article.

I was thinking about why it is that in the west, people hardly ever admit to having been wrong about something. When a mistake is made, we go to the most amazing lengths to recast the situation in such a way that blame is never attributable to us. While at first a slight sensation of guilt may exist, we quickly come to the point where we believe our own interpretation of events (and sometimes even our own facts) and refute all alternative points of view in which we could be perceived as having done wrong. Apparently, this is sometimes called cognitive dissonance.

The most obvious examples are to be found in politics, probably because that's the most public forum in which individuals are groups are constantly challenged about their views and decisions.

• President Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky because what he did isn't defined as "sex".
  
• The evidence on WMD in Iraq was conclusive enough to mobilise the worlds biggest army, invade the country, throw the political establishment into turmoil and turn Iraq into the new crucible of world terrorism. When we discovered that the evidence didn't exist, the message became "The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, we did the right thing".
  
• It makes perfect sense to some politicians to reduce the working week to 35 hours while forcing employers to not lower wages, and expect the economy to not suffer a cost as a consequence.
  

So what makes us this way? Well here's my little theory :

Imagine a young politician, trying to get noticed, who makes some mistake in some situation, and gets challenged on it. While it's clear that the mistake was his, he has two choices at this point: Collapse under the pressure, admit he made a terrible mistake, thus impugning his judgement and setting in stone a version of events that will be used against him every time he stands for an elected position? That's the first option. Alternatively, he could claim that, under a certain perception of events, or given a certain interpretation of the rules, or due to any number of other reinterpretations, his decision was justifiable, intelligent, understandable, perhaps even laudable.

Basically, if you cry mea culpa, you're admitting in western society that you're spineless, quick to surrender, too slow on your feet to adjust to shifting arguments and circumstances, lacking in conviction, and basically not cut out to be a leader. The honest people who seek to learn from their mistakes get weeded out along the way, and we're left with leaders who will make decisions completely at odds with logic, public opinion, worldwide interests and common sense.

Croatian teenager uses dad's police uniform
to fine motorists.

It's a sad truth that it is now very difficult to trust anything said by politicial figures when the "facts" they quote are helpful to their cause. Luckily we have entities such as factcheck.org, but what really bothers me is that there should be a need for such organizations. After all, these individuals whose words so often appear to be misleading, out-of-context or plain conscious lies are our elected representatives. They are not god-like figures whom we should all look up to, they are the servants of the electorate that gave them their title, and their absolute lack of respect for that fact reflects poorly on our morals, ethics, values and the integrity of our way of life. And while I may have used an American example for this comment, if you're not American and you want to point the finger, check your not in a glass house before you throw any stones.

The European Commission recently raised the bar on accession, in a move clearly designed to appease detractors of Turkey's accession bid. Turkey wasn't happy, and the new policies will give ammunition to those seeking to stall or prevent a Turkish accession bid. But what's the fuss about? To the layman, it looks like those who would keep the Turks out of the union do so for reasons of religion, geography, discrimination and a host of other potential problems and apparently morally unjustifiable discrimination.

There are many reasons, I probably can't cover them all, and I'm probably wrong in a few cases, but I can certainly try to bring my understanding of the issues to light. Let's start with a controversial issue...

Turkey's a Muslim country. Won't that have negative effects?

Interesting question. There are people who immediately claim religious discrimination when they hear this, but the truth is that it's a real fear among some Europeans, born not of discrimination, but of recent events and a sense that there are significant and influential elements in the Muslim faith that want either bad things to happen to members of other faiths, or who believe that the Muslim faith has a duty to spread, convert and grow. You don't deal with such fears by labelling those who are afraid as bad people, that will just make things worse.

Turkey is indeed 99.8% Muslim, but one needs to get away from the perception of the Muslim faith that we get as a consequence of seeing pictures of Palestine and Baghdad, and hearing the news every day. Turkey has evolved over time as a consequence of being geographically proximate to Europe, because of it's own progressive reforms (including universal suffrage, over 85% literacy, heavy involvement with international organizations, etc), and also because of a successful tourist industry which saw 14 million foreigners visiting Turkey in 2003. This evolution has made it far more western than most people realise, and although one will find deep (and precious) traditions relflected in many areas and aspects of the country, it is not as religiously, culturally or politically different from the west as many seem to believe.

Of course were Turkey to join, there would be an inflow of Turks as the labour market adjusted, and the cultural adjustment that comes with that. This is largely a good thing, as there is a shortage of certain types of labour (unskilled, mostly) in the Union, and this will help fill those gaps, thus increasing our productivity. It will also allow Turks to more easily join European firms, benefiting from the training provided by such jobs, and integrating them faster and more successfully into a European way of life.

This picture may be too rosy for some, but consider the alternative... Leave them out, thus slowing the progress their country is making, and creating resentment, slowing international integration, reinforcing religious boundaries and differences and forgoing the opportunities represented by accession.

But there are so many of them...

Yes, they are indeed numerous. A 2000 census put their population at 67.8 million. Their projected population growth would make them the largest country in the Union by the time they joined in 10 to 15 years. This poses some problems, and has some benefits. First the problems...

The EU constitution contains a principle called double majority voting. [iht.com] This principle means that Turkey would have a huge vote in EU affairs due to the size of its population, which gives rise to a great deal of resistance regarding its accession from current large member states.

This volume of people joining the Union and having the automatic right to travel, live and work freely within any member of the Union, would give rise to significant labour market adjustment. While in the long run such adjustment may lead to a better situation for all, the adjustment itself is bound to be difficult and painful, especially for countries where trade unions have traditionally had significant strength.

And now the benefits...

The EU has an aging population, and Turkey's demographic pyramid is the other way up. Their accession would rejuvenate (in demographic terms) the population of the EU, which helps in a number of ways, most specifically with the pension problems faced by most member states. Of course this also implies that they would represent a growing proportion of the Union's population over time, and that causes concern in some people's minds, but this is a problem we will have to deal with as a planet sooner or later anyway, and the sooner we deal with it, the smoother the transition will be.

As far as the problems above are concerned, the simplest question cuts to the core of the voting argument. So Turkey would have a vote in proportion to its population size... So What? Is anyone saying that they should be allowed to join but be placed in an inferior position to other member states? Should their larger population be proportionally under-represented? Of course not. The voting problems are not new and we have only just recovered from those caused by Spain and Poland getting too many votes as Chirac forced through a bad deal so that he could appear to have succeeded in getting a deal at all. Voting issues are not new, and are merely a difficult linear programming problem to solve. The end solution will always be the same : strategic blocs of countries will be able to veto, the UK will whine until it gets an opt-out of every single binding decision (while claiming to lead from the front) and the Union will march reluctantly forward so that 20 years later, they can claim credit for the success, or say "I told you so" if it all goes pear-shaped.

But Turkey has borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria!!

So what? As the Union grows, this was bound to happen sooner or later. The only real fear is that we might have to actually get involved if something bad happened down there instead of waiting until it gets so bad the Americans decide to do something about it (vis. Croatia and Serbia). It would do the union some good to grab some of these regional problems by the horns and decide to manage them proactively instead of watching entire countries go up in flames and then be the reluctant partners of a NATO coalition or UN peacekeeping force that goes in to mop up the dead bodies and protect what remains of the population.

What is more, as Turkey adjusts towards EU membership, so this adjustment reflects upon its neighbours to the east. As Turkey demonstrates how a fully Muslim country can have universal suffrage, solid democracy, peaceful co-operation and integration with western countries and economic and social improvement all at the same time, so the countries to the east will have that as an example of what they could do. Far better to induce social and political change in this way than by sending in armies. The example being set by Turkey is of inestimable value, because it is undergoing a voluntary self-induced change, rather than coerced conversion imposed by the west. As such it demonstrates that such changes can bring vast benefits without destroying values or traditions, rather than the current middle-eastern perception that the west seeks to forcibly change other countries to match the western mould, disrepecting their religions and traditions in the process.

Conclusion

So should Turkey be allowed to join the EU? Well there's no doubt that it will be difficult, and that there are a lot of problems to solve along the way, but that's why everyone quotes a 10-15 year negotiation period. But it's the Union that needs to adjust - the CAP has to be dismantled, the Textile protections will also have to be reviewed, voting rights will have to be adjusted, labour markets prepared, and populations educated. I think Turkey is almost ready.

If Turkey can't be part of the EU, then something else needs to be done, rather than just walking away from this integration opportunity. A "collaboration agreement" or anything of the kind doesn't cut it. Maybe the EU isn't ambitious enough anymore, and we need a new regional grouping that can be bigger, with less integrative luggage and a clean slate, that can start as a shallow union, but also with the principle of becoming "ever deeper". If the ultimate goal is peace and prosperity for all, then we need a vision that goes beyond the next commission decision, and Turkey is the first step in this vision, not the final frontier.

More info :
Yet another BBC News link
EU Enlargement Reports

Toyota's new environmentally friendly car is made from potatoes. Partly.

So there's no WMD in Iraq. Big deal, that hardly classifies as news anymore, some of us have been saying that since before we went to war in the first place. Nevertheless, the BBC News Website, along with much of the rest of the press, have felt obliged to communicate the news now that the bleeding obvious has been made official. Nothing like red tape and an enquiry to legitimise the truth. So what do most people make of the news that Saddam was as dangerous as a cat with it's claws pulled?

The BBC News (a different article) reports Jack Straw (The UK's foreign secretary) as saying that Saddam posed a bigger threat than previously imagined. I'm not sure what previous imaginings that refers to, but if it was the Prime Minister's celebrated public imagining of Saddam being able to strike in 45 minutes, I wait with breathless anticipation to find out what has been discovered to substantiate this claim.

No such luck, Jack Straw is referring to the fact that Saddam had "plans" to develop weapons and to build his army back up. What a shock - after being utterly humiliated in the first Gulf War, his army in tatters, he felt the need to build it up again - so would I, given his relations with some of his neighbours. How those plans are worse than the former belief that he could strike worldwide within the hour is something that no doubt makes sense only if it serves your political purpose that it should do so.

On the other side of the argument, we have the peaceniks who claim this proves that Saddam was never a threat, that containment was working and that we shouldn't have gone to war. Although I am closer to this argument than I am to the hawk point of view, there are clearly lots of flaws in this too. It appears fairly clear that Saddam's intention was to tie the inspectors up and generally impede the United Nations by leveraging that body's inability to act decisively on anything at all. From the US Department of Defense...

Powell presented considerable evidence that Saddam Hussein is actively discouraging people from cooperating with inspectors and trying to keep inspections from being effective.
 
He said Iraq has a "higher committee for monitoring the inspection teams," which includes Iraq's vice president, Hussein's son Qusay, and several notorious generals.
 
"This effort to hide things from inspectors is not one or two isolated events. Quite the contrary," Powell said. "This is part and parcel of a policy of evasion and deception that goes back 12 years, a policy set at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime."

Now I know what you're going to say about that source, but I think it's fair to say that, from the above and other sources, Saddam was deliberately stalling the UN and seeking to end the embargo, dodging their obligation to give the world some reassurance that their aggressive regime didn't have the weapons to make them a real threat.

The point is that Saddam was playing the UN game where you ignore the resolution, but yield as much as is required, and only when required, to keep at least one ally willing to veto any action against you, while never getting a critical mass of the Security Council mad at you. He should take a page out of Israel's book, they've been doing it for years with far greater success. He didn't manage it because he didn't have the allies, no-one trusted him, his intentions were unclear and his malice proven, so stretching the UNs permissiveness wasn't going to end well for him, and perhaps had he known he couldn't get away with it, he wouldn't have tried, and this would all have been avoided.

So what's the end result? Well, the hawks say one thing, which is clearly in their political interest and a very biased interpretation of the facts. The liberals say another, which is equally biased, especially given election and popularity angst among the Americans, and the UK Conservatives fear that they are about to be relegated to the political scrapbook. Where do we, the confused, uninformed masses that they all represent, end up?

Confused and uninformed, I am afraid. There is no agency, representative or organization on this planet capable of giving a perspective and analysis of the situation in Iraq, including the benefits, costs, new and averted dangers (if any) arising from the decision by the US to go to war, that is untainted by a western or international political point of view. Those of us hungry to understand will have to trade off the misinformation of the present with the history books of the future, which will as always have been written by the victors - our governments. These will be based on information available in the archives, which means reports from biased media outlets and the documents that these same governments have chosen to file outside of their secrets acts, and which will be declassified after the accepted version of events has sunk so deeply into the popular psyche that the truth will be an interesting sidebar on some future news website.

How does one live in this world and not become a cynic?

America's ruling classes and networks depicted by They Rule - an outstanding democratising use of technology.

Fruit sweet wrappers too fruity - depict apple having sex with cherries. Students complain.

It's Zombo.com. Don't ask, I have absolutely no idea.

Oh happy day. After liberally and crassly gloating over Dan Rather's embarassment at his use of documents which later proved to be false, Fox News have managed to publish an article on their website (which has since been removed, but was archived here [masstort.org]) that used a bunch of made-up quotes to allege that Kerry had gloated over his performance during the first election debate. Predictably, mediamatters.org is foaming at the mouth over the issue, and other news outlets [nytimes.com] are making hay while the sun shines.

Some funny excerpts, this one from the New York Times article referenced above :

Fox News quickly retracted the article, saying in an editor's note on its Web site that the article "was written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast.'' It said, "We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."

Of course Fox News (that great impartial defender of the political process) couldn't possibly have meant any malice, and this in no way illustrates the prejudice that exists within that organization, or its lack of respect for someone who may potentially be the next President of the United States. They use their vast influence over the American people's thoughts and beliefs in a perfectly fair and balanced manner.

While I'm on the subject, have you seen some of Fox's advertising? There's this great picture that they have where it says "Real Journalism" at the top, a great 3D logo of Fox News in the middle, and "Fair and Balanced" at the bottom. I remember seeing it while I was in the US, but the only copy I've been able to find on the internet was this one, which has been defaced, and therefore doesn't really serve my purpose, since I wanted to do the defacing. Adopting the "where there's smoke there's fire" approach that was so successful in the decision-making on whether or not to go to war in Iraq, one might argue that if there are people willing to write such articles for their own pleasure and in their own time, perhaps their personal opinions are a little too strong for them to claim to be part of a "fair and balanced" news organization?

What really frightens me are the people who claim that Fox News is the only fair and balanced news source. I've met them, they exist.

SpaceShipOne wins Ansari X-Prize with a perfect flight to 112km alititude

5x2 [cinebel.be] (Cinq fois deux) took me by surprise, but given the nature (and emotional brutality) of the opening scene, in which a couple are going through a mutually agreed, but strangely cold and painful divorce, that's hardly surprising. Directed by Francois Ozon and starring Valeria Tedeschi and Antoine Chappey, the movie deconstructs a relationship by looking at five defining moments in reverse order, leaving us with a sense that perhaps the warning signs of the divorce in the opening scene were present in the visible character traits of the protagonists from the day they met.

Gilles and Marion are getting divorced, and after their divorce, they are going to make love for the last time, although one wonders what must be going through their heads.

Starting with the end of the story, we know that they are doomed to failure, and the audience's attention is therefore drawn to the signs of that gradual decline, which become ever fainter as we go backwards in time towards their initial happiness. Nevertheless, since we know what we are looking for, we see it in each look, in each action, in each decision and in every character trait. A tragedy carved in stone, waiting to happen, and of their own making.

It's painful to watch, and Ozon certainly never pulls his punches when it comes to the visualization of their declining relationship, and their few but critical character flaws. This is characterization with purpose - gentle caricature that brings out those traits the director wishes the viewer to take notice of, and he collaborates excellently with his actors to ensure that everything hits the screen with its impact undiminished.

This strong film makes for very hard viewing, and points the finger at the hairline cracks in the most beautiful of relationships, demonstrating how human weakness can allow those cracks to grow until the entire edifice comes tumbling down, emotionally crushing its inhabitants in the process.

A good film, to be watched when you're feeling strong. You have been warned.

Many moons ago, I decided to run a little script called a GCache. It was supposed to help people using filesharing services to find other clients on the network and so bootstrap their connection. I deleted it 18 months ago, but still receive insane amounts of hits from it. I've complained to the makers of the different clients, but they never answer, and there seems to be nothing I can do to prevent what, according to my logs, looks like a distributed denial of service attack.

Take a look at this...

219.140.141.18 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:04:15 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=GNUC&version=1.8.4.0 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
24.199.178.209 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:04:21 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=1.1.0.7&get=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
208.230.87.25 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:04:32 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=1.1.0.8&get=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
4.181.131.124 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:04:33 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.1.1&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.1"
80.142.232.207 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:04:34 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=LIME&version=2.9.6&urlfile=1 HTTP/1.0" 404 162 "-" "LimeWire/2.9.6"
81.17.197.5 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:04:42 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MLDK&version=2.5-28 HTTP/1.0" 404 162 "-" "MLdonkey/2.5-28"
221.137.190.102 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:05:08 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?urlfile=1&client=GNUC&version=1.8.4.0 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
193.251.190.203 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:05:11 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=LIME&version=2.9.7&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.0" 404 162 "-" "LimeWire/2.9.7"
206.77.0.156 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:06:11 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=0.9.1.5 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
206.77.0.156 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:06:11 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?ip=10.13.33.136%3A12255&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paonet.org%2Frpao%2Fpub%2Fgwebcache%2Fgcache.php&client=MRPH&version=0.9.1.5 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
172.172.155.249 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:06:21 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.0.35&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.0"
65.54.98.112 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:06:24 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=1.1.0.7&get=1 HTTP/1.0" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
172.130.42.151 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:06:47 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.8.2&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.8"
168.8.208.3 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:07:22 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=1.1.0.7&get=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
172.146.216.180 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:07:30 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.7.8&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.7"
218.247.207.95 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:07:33 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?urlfile=1&client=GNUC&version=1.8.4.0 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
222.216.236.138 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:07:43 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?urlfile=1&client=GNUC&version=1.8.4.0 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
172.140.78.141 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:07:55 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=0.9.2.6 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
172.140.78.141 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:07:56 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?ip=169.254.205.111%3A8529&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcadatacenter.com%2Fgwebcache%2Fgcache.php&client=MRPH&version=0.9.2.6 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
80.181.5.130 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:08:11 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.8.1&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.8 [IT]"
172.156.167.34 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:08:18 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.4.8&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.4"
69.156.36.105 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:08:31 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=LIME&version=3.8.10&urlfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "LimeWire/3.8.10"
82.122.108.100 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:08:44 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.6.0.56&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.6.0.56"
172.196.45.76 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:08:46 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.5.11&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.5"
172.177.236.116 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:08:51 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.4.11&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.4 [DE]"
211.144.174.173 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:08:55 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?urlfile=1&client=GNUC&version=1.8.4.0 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
218.83.179.139 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:08:56 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?urlfile=1&client=GNUC&version=1.8.4.0 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
81.173.190.28 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:09:08 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=LIME&version=4.0.4&urlfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "LimeWire/4.0.4"
67.160.204.73 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:09:12 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.3.2&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.3"
172.161.183.193 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:09:13 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.6.7&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.6"
172.141.167.12 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:09:30 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.7.13&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.7"
200.193.64.150 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:04 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=1.1.0.7&get=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
66.216.148.64 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:17 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.8.2&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.8"
81.86.244.212 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:34 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MLDK&version=2.5-28b HTTP/1.0" 404 162 "-" "MLdonkey/2.5-28b"
192.240.72.54 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:35 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=0.9.2.6 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
192.240.72.54 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:35 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?ip=192.240.72.54%3A10159&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-gera.net%2Fgwebcache%2Fgcache.php&client=MRPH&version=0.9.2.6 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
24.169.128.49 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:43 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.4.6&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.4"
172.195.48.98 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:43 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=LIME&version=2.9.8&urlfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "LimeWire/2.9.8"
144.216.124.126 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:57 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=0.9.2.6 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
144.216.124.126 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:10:57 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?ip=144.216.124.126%3A9410&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.lycos.co.uk%2Fwheelzoff%2Fgwebcache%2Fgcache.php&client=MRPH&version=0.9.2.6 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"
66.203.191.25 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:11:08 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=LIME&version=2.9.10&urlfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "LimeWire/2.9.10"
81.66.122.75 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:11:12 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MLDK&version=2.5-28 HTTP/1.0" 404 162 "-" "MLdonkey/2.5-28"
194.125.181.88 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:11:22 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?client=BEAR&version=4.2.4.11&hostfile=1 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "BearShare 4.2.4"
213.40.67.66 - - [05/Oct/2004:14:11:34 +0100] "GET /gcache/gcache.php?hostfile=1&client=MRPH&version=0.9.2.6 HTTP/1.1" 404 162 "-" "Mozilla/4.0"

As you can see - they all get 404's back, which is the internet equivalent of a "nobody's home, stop knocking", it's not just one client but all of them, and somehow they fail to see that my website hasn't had a GCache in over 18 months. Does anyone have a solution to this? Can I do something that will crash the Gnutella client when it tries to connect or something to disincentivize people from doing this? Who wrote software that could be so incredibly antisocial, I thought these people were under the impression they were writing software for the common good?

Erwin and Lucija cycled across the US for the American Lung Association's Big Ride. Yes, they're bonkers.

Ever been coding a web page when all the text in a DIV is mysteriously invisible - until you highlight it that is. Or perhaps it just disappears when you scroll, or chunks of it become transparent. Maybe it only vanishes when you hit the ALT key, and sometimes it vanishes or reappears when you resize the window. Why can't Microsoft fix this bug?

It happened on this website for absolutely ages, and I tried recasting the CSS again and again. I knew this was where the problem was because every time I changed the CSS, the problem would manifest itself in a different way. Unfortunately, there was no pattern or logic behind the mysterious disappearing text.

Finally, I tried changing the CSS positioning of the DIVs to relative, and lo and behlod, everything became visible all at once. A few Google searches later and I knew that the name of this problem is the guillotine bug [webfrustration.com], that it's endemic to IE 5.5 and IE 6, and that it's been around for ages, but Microsoft have yet to patch it.

That bastion of deep-thinking journalism, the Sun, reports that it's intellectual equal, Billy Bob Thornton, has claimed Sharespeare is bullshit. Well there you go then, it's hard to argue with someone who's crowning achievements are Armageddon and his many over-reported divorces. I suppose it's a bit much to ask for Billy to understand how the constraints of theatre production in Shakespeare's time might have forced great writers to develop a quality of work that generated immense emotions in audiences without the need for 400 computers, a blue screen, a crew of 200 to produce the crap, along with enough uneducated morons in the world to pay and go see it, thus financially justifying the offal so often produced by the major studios. There's a difference between timeless drama and shallow entertainment, and a place for both, but it takes an idiot to try to claim the former is somehow inferior to the latter. Sharespeare's work has had enduring appeal over 400 years, good luck matching that, Billy Bob.

Apparently, Donald Rumsfeld has, in recent off-the-cuff comments, cast doubt [BBC] over whether there was ever any link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. It's amazing how opinion migrates over time - when everyone was yelling "lets go show them who's boss", the naysayers were screaming at the top of their lungs that there was no proof of any link. Now that Iraq is the epicentre of global terrorism, people are dying daily and there are doubts over whether it will ever get any better, the US administration is finally admitting that one of the subconscious premises used by the hawks to sell the need for war to the people was probably flawed from the start. There can't be many potential scapegoats left in the intelligence administration at the rate they're ploughing through them.

That having been said, I'm not sure I was anyone to think my position was unambiguously against the war. I'm very upset that the premises for war were based upon a sense of paranoia arising from the twin towers tragedy, and that this willingness to go along with anyone leading the charge against the terrorists was abused by those in a position to be that leader.

On the subject of leadership : There's a lot being made during the US election of what it means to lead America in the "war against terror". Great leadership isn't about going to war, it's about being considered, coherent, logical, effective, targeted and focused under pressure. It's easier to lead a charge than to refrain from charging when everyone you lead is baying for blood, it takes a true leader to show restraint in the face of a vengeful and angry population (and justifiably angry, I might add). If, everything considered, going to war is the right thing to do, then a great leader will do it. My problem is that the decisions made seemed anything but considered, and that if history tells us it was the right thing to do (which I don't think it will), it will still be by accident rather than by design. But then the victors write history, and so as the BBC euphemistically put it, the US will probably "declare victory and leave" after the elections. It's probably for the best, the coalition of the willing has probably figured out by now that it's hard to impose democracy and values by the sword.

Anyway, so they've finally admitted what we all knew all along, and the only real benefit that arises from it all is that when I'm talking to my right-wing friends and I claim there's no link between Al Qaeda and Hussein, they will no longer be able to throw up their hands and say, "oh come on", as though it's obvious that they're both cut from the same cloth, and therefore collaborating in some devious plan that we have no evidence of, the goal of which is to terrorise the United States. Hussein was too busy running rings around the UN, and had too much to lose by pissing the US off, although he still got it wrong and gave them the reason they were looking for.

Mark David Chapman is up for parole [BBC]. Over 2000 people have now signed a petition [petitiononline.com] to make sure he doesn't get freed. Because the best way to remember a pacifist is to ensure that his killer gets to pay for the crime for ever and ever..?

This falls nicely and squarely into one of the boxes labelled "putting things in here will really tick me off". The sheer hypocrisy of remembering a pacifist by punishing his killer ad infinitum nauseates and disappoints me, and is probably, in some way, a symptom of one of the infinite number of things wrong with the human race. But let's not broaden the subject too much.

Reading through the comments attached to the "digital signatures" is quite demoralising. I suppose this is largely because I believe in rehabilitation whereas many of the signatories do not, and that fundamental difference in beliefs is demoralising. Nevertheless, seeing the concentrated force of thousands of people lending their names and influence (such as it is) to the single purpose of keeping a human being in jail, with little or no real knowledge (and certainly no impartial information) about the condition, state of mind or attitude of the person they are seeking to harm, is quite distasteful.

It is hard for me to believe that it would be what Lennon himself would have wanted.

Woman has sex in park, thief steals clothes, house keys in stolen jacket, boyfriend isn't home to let her in...?

Frank Zappa names his daughter Moon Unit. Yes, that makes her Moon Unit Zappa.

I post fixes to computer problems I have that takes me ages to fix, in the hope that someone else might be able to find the solution and so save themselves the pain. In this case, I couldn't send outgoing email via my SMTP server on port 25 despite the fact that I could receive email fine. It all came down to transparent proxying, but it took a while to find out. If this helps you, please drop a note to let me know, otherwise I feel like I'm writing for the web-bots.

Basically, when I tried to do a send/receive with Outlook, everything went well until it tried to send my outgoing messages, at which point it would hang for a while, and after the pause, I'd get error number 0x80042109, with some problem connecting to my SMTP server. But this would happen only through some connections and not through others.

Microsoft's online help service, which is frankly usually quite good, was completely useless in this case. It has some blurb about MSN messages that doesn't really help at all.

What it turned out to be is that my ISP is using something called "Transparent Proxying", which they didn't bother to tell us they were doing. It's part of a spam-prevention toolkit that prevents anyone who subscribes to this ISP from connecting to any machine's port 25 other than the ISP's own SMTP server. Annoying? Oh yes. Especially since it took me 2 days to work out what the damn problem was.

In my case, my email provider has a workaround. They've set up another port on which the SMTP server will respond, and their authentication system requires that I log into the POP3 server before the SMTP server will acknowledge my existence. This conveniently bypasses the port 25 block my ISP has set up. That's all this problem really was - my ISP was blocking connections to port 25 on any machine other than their own SMTP server.

If you're struggling with something similar, try TELNET to any SMTP server you can find outside of your own ISP's address range (port 25) - if it doesn't work there, but it works on your ISP's SMTP server, then this is your problem - scream at your ISP, and much good may it do you.