Press Bias: are blogs in danger of repeating it

Press Bias is something that we on blogs talk about endlessly: its interesting to note in that connection what Dan Bartlett, George Bush's speechwriter said recently about press bias:

I don’t think they’re purposely doing it. Look, I get asked the question all the time: How do you deal with them when they’re all liberal? I’ve found that most of them are not ideologically driven. Do I think that a lot of them don’t agree with the president? No doubt about it. But impact, above all else, is what matters. All they’re worried about is, can I have the front-page byline? Can I lead the evening newscast? And unfortunately, that requires them to not do in-depth studies about President Bush’s health care plan or No Child Left Behind. It’s who’s up, who’s down: Cheney hates Condi, Condi hates Cheney.

Bartlett is entirely right: the real problem with press bias isn't a bias to either side but a bias towards the contemporary and the relevant- and away from the complicated and the historical. Consequently almost all reporting on the Israel Palestine crisis is wrong because it never sets the conflict within a context. If a journalist has to choose a story- they would rather write as Bartlett says about Cheney and Condi and how they dislike each other or in the UK about how Mr Blair can't stand Mr Brown and finds his decline funny, than analyse the precise reasons for the collapse of Northern Rock. The real bias in journalism is not towards the left or the right but towards the headline.

That prompts though a worrying reflection about blogging. Because we are often told that blogging will wipe away the sins of the mainstream media- but often it seems to me we don't. For instance of the four top UK blogs reported by Peter Franklin, two of them Guido's and Iain Dale's are concerned mostly with following the press, following and seeking headlines. The political world is of course fascinated by the undulations of particular political careers- and many blogs are so closely tied to the political world that all we get is the Westminster Village- valuable yes but how does that really supplement the media that we already have. Ultimately blogging has to offer something more than Nick Robinson does- and I wonder whether part of the answer is in Bartlett's formulation- that what blogging can offer is analysis- whether through fisking or normal analytical writing- of the kind that journalism driven by headlines can't offer.

And that makes me wonder about audiences for blogs. The Iains and Guidos of the world are lauded for their vast audiences- and that's fair enough- but in reality they should be compared against what their real competitors which is the gossipy bits of the rest of the media are providing. Analytical work requires more patience on the part of readers and writers so I wonder if analytical blogs will be the tortoises in this race- slowly building up readers rather than avelanching them at the beggining. Definitely I think that blogs should now be judged by genre and not against each other- Devil's Kitchen is much more similar to Ministry of Truth than either are to Iain Dale. Chris Dillow has more in common with Matt Sinclair than Matt has in common with Guido. Perhaps when bloglists are done in the future- genre of blog rather than persuasion of blog ought to be the way that they are listed- that might create more diversity and also allow people to search out sources of information that don't just do what the mainstream media does.

Facebook and Privacy

Reading James's latest post about Facebook and having seen a recent Bloggingheads episode between Jim Pinkerton and David Brin, I think that Brin is right and that there is a changing attitude to privacy on the internet symbolised by the fact that my generation are relaxed in sites like Facebook and MySpace. Privacy is obviously a problem in these sites- I realise what James is talking about- ultimately you are committing information about yourself to the internet where anyone can access and see it and where others can monitor it, save it and store it for the future. The real question though is what kind of information you are submitting and how worried should you be about another person knowing that information about you.

Facebook is a website for those who don't know it which basically provides a social linkup service- a facebook page provides a list of people who have accepted being your friends (that list may not be contiguous with those who are your friends in real life- or even those who are on facebook and are your friends) and allows you to keep in touch with them. I've used facebook to meet people that I haven't seen for years and years and years- and its often been quite fun to reactivate friendships. Facebook can if you want it to hold other details about you for others to look at- things like your favourite film and favourite book and there are a variety of ways that the site can take more information from you (you can do a test to establish your film taste) and you record there basic demographic data- your relationship status. People put photos up there too- I had one of myself with Hans Blix for a while- some of the photos are more embarrassing, taken when people are drunk etc. I hope though that everyone gets the idea- Facebook is basically like a University common room noticeboard which documents the activities of all its members- some are juvenile, some are embarrassing but through providing contact details it facilitates social contact.

James and others are worried about privacy. There is some reason to suspect that Facebook has been installing cookies on its members' computers tracking their activity around the internet and tailoring their advertising to meet the activity seen therein. Obviously there was a lot of anger about that amongst those who use the site. But its worth getting things in perspective: Facebook may indeed have violated corporate ethics (it admits to having done so), but that's a seperate issue to the whole point of a social networking site. Ultimately the thing about Facebook and Myspace and other sites like them is that they symbolise the growth of a new attitude to privacy I think amongst a new generation. Basically people don't care anymore about their antics being broadcast. Part of this has to do with the growth of celebrity culture- if I am willing to comment on Princess Diana's marriage then why should I care if my own love affairs are out there. Part of it is a sense that if everyone is doing it, it doesn't matter as much- ultimately there is anonymity in quantity. There is also anonymity in quantity of information- talk to most modern historians and they throw their hands up in despair about what historians of the future will do with all the information contained on the internet, how will anyone ever work out how to categorise or understand it.

The last point I suppose is James's real point, which is that by providing the information to the world on Facebook, information which will not be deleted (either by Google cacheing it or by Facebook retaining it) the government has automatically more knowledge and hence more power over us all. I'm not sure that is actually true. Governments have always been able to find out about their subjects- and more about their subjects than their subjects have known about each other. Yes this probably makes it easier for the government to know whether you had a lesbian fling when you were 19 or that you got horribly drunk when you were twenty two and embraced a lamp post and declared ever dying passion to said lamppost (don't laugh one of my mates at Oxford was once left hugging a lamppost on St Giles!) but the point is so does everyone else. Information is now not solely the governments- it is the collective's and I suggest that makes things slightly different. Furthermore just as in the 18th Century society evolved to meet the new needs for the defence to be made more powerful after the creation of a police force, so do I beleive society in the twenty first century will evolve to meet the facebook phenomena. We can see it already happening: David Cameron will be I think the first of many politicians to argue that his youthful indiscretions are of no matter besides his later claims to office.

We'll see but in general like David Brin I am an optimist about the transparant society- I don't think that we will end up in Big Brother partly because we all have this information about each other- there isn't a monopoly of information handled by the state and partly because I think information becomes less powerful as there is more of it out there about everyone. I might be wrong- but human life is a grand experiment and the internet is part of it. Ultimately the internet facilitates this kind of exposure- whether through blogs, facebook, myspace or whatever other kinds of website you think about- and I think that society will evolve ways to cope with it.

Peter Franklin on Blogs

Peter Franklin has written an article on blogging for Conservative Home. He says that there is an elite of blogs, defined by whether politicians read them. He lists Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale and Conservative Home- with a couple of media blogs as being that UK political elite. Well he may be right about those blogs being the ones that politicians read- but that has nothing to do with the idea that they are actually the best blogs out there. Indeed one of those blogs- Guido's- is very far from one of the best blogs out there, imitating the actions of Matt Drudge, the fact that the political elite follows it tells us more about the elite than it does about the qualities of Guido's blogging. (Incidentally the best one on that list is Conservative Home- but given that Franklin excludes CIF on the grounds of its sprawling nature- I wonder how he navigates the site that he works for!)

There are some great blogs out there- Mr Franklin and his chums should start reading. There is interesting intellectual thought being done throughout the internet about the problems of politics- not the problems of whether Gordon Brown picked his nose or not. Harry's Place for example is at the heart of any internet discussion about the interface between religion and politics. Pickled Politics is a great group blog for getting into Asian politics. You'll see better rightwing commentary than Guido has ever written on the Devil's Kitchen and Mr Eugenides and you'll understand the intellectual foundations of the right much more if you read Matt Sinclair. Peter Franklin thinks that the left isn't doing well on the sphere- well Chris Dillow and the Ministry of Truth would disagree, as would Not just a Hippy and they'd be right. I could go on naming blogs that inspire thinking about politics- could go on ad infinitum but I won't, I think most people reading this blog are aware of the good stuff that is being put out there on the net- and know that there is far more to the British blogosphere than hand me down gossip from Westminster and fake revelations from Nick Robinson. Afterall two of the biggest campaigns of the last year- Dan Hardie's for the Iraqi interpreters and the campaign against Usmanov had almost nothing to do with the Franklin's elite (though Dale was involved in the second).

Lastly the idea that the gossip blogs are radical is about as stupid as it comes- they aren't radical at all. They are the work of insiders- insiders who are purveying stuff that used to be leaked to Westminster correspondents. The more interesting work is going on outside of those blogs- is going on when Conservative Home analyses an issue, when the EU blogs get hold of a report, when political betting works out where the market stands on an election- that's the interesting bit of political blogging and its the new bit. And based on the American example its the bit hopefully that will grow and grow.

Political Experience

Simon Heffer isn't happy. Well Simon Heffer is almost never happy- as any regular UK readers will know, Simon Heffer's very existance is premised upon his unhappiness with the modern world and everything in it. Today his unhappiness is focused upon our political classes- and his article took my attention for it crystallised something. We often talk about the ways that politics is different now from how it was 'then' though we never define the 'then'. Of course in some part we are wrong in our definition of 'then'- career politicians aren't an invention of the modern age- the younger Pitt, Gladstone, Peel, Liverpool, they were all career politicians. But there are differences- and I wonder whether in one way we do make a chronic mistake.

At the moment in the UK, politicians seem to have a shorter and shorter lifespan. Maybe this is an illusion created by my own youth- but I can think of no politician now who was in the front rank in 1990, twenty years ago, bar the Prime Minister and Margerat Beckett. There are almost no senior figures in the conservative party who were senior in 1997- indeed should the Tory party take office at the next election they won't have anyone bar William Hague who served in John Major's cabinet. Labour in 1997 were in a similar position- only Jack Cunningham and Margerat Beckett had been around in 1979. This lack of ministerial experience means that the Labour government and probably the next Tory government spent lots of their time trying to work out how the system worked before they could start actually doing things.

That's not a good thing. It has something to do I think with Heffer's critique of politicians today. If ministers seem callow, it is often because they are. Partly that is the responsibility of the electorate- we have grown used to electing parties in very long chunks going back to the thirties (1931-45, 1951-64, 1979-97, 1997 till now). Unlike in the US as well there aren't alternative routes to political office- Condi Rice might become an advisor in the UK but would never attain the foreign secretaryship, Gordon Brown's attempts to change that haven't really succeeded. There is something systemic about the way that the British system creates governments and political careers very swiftly from a sole group of people- MPs in Parliament. That prioritises certain skills though and its worth thinking lastly about what skills our politicians cultivate.

It is silly to say that our politicians aren't bright. Tony Blair, David Milliband, David Cameron and William Hague are all bright and interesting men- none of them are thick. However all of them might be described as shallow- they are all bright and used to working quickly to come to opinions. But there is this lingering doubt- take George Osbourne the shadow chancellor. Osbourne is effectively holding his first really big job- and his second could be to take charge of the nation's finances. Its not that Osbourne is a bad guy- but that he is only in his mid thirties- his career could easily be over by the time he is in his mid forties. That worries me too- thinking of the names discarded over the last few years- from Portillo to Blair, Dorrell to Forsyth- political careers seem to start and end young. They don't last long- if you get to the top increasingly you do it quickly, and once there if you don't survive you are out very quickly too. We don't seem to have patience and that means that our politicians are rough diamonds, to be shaped in office, but once shaped kicked out the door. The exception that proves the rule is William Hague- who seems so much abler a politician since his failed stint as leader of the Conservative Party- as shadow foreign secretary Hague has matured into the older statesman of the Tory party.

I'm not sure what you do about this- perhaps though the solution to Heffer's dilemma is for us not to feel like Heffer. Perhaps we need to be more patient with our politicians and allow them time to mature on the job- perhaps as well we ought to expect more people to reach the top at the age that say David Davis has- in their fifties rather than in their thirties. Speaking for youth means that you ultimately end up with people like Hague getting to jobs before they are ready. Maybe its time to give experience a chance...

Republican Primaries

I've just put an article up about the Republican primary over at Bits of News. It doesn't say anything particularly interesting- only explains a recent Rasmussen poll which has all the Republicans levelpegging more or less.

What blogging can and can't achieve

Never Trust a Hippy has a good piece on what blogging can and can't achieve over at his place. He suggests that blogging in the UK has only managed to do two things. There are rumour and scandal mongering blogs like Guido Fawkes- who are attempting to become a British Drudge report. Then there are blogs which lead intellectual discussion- Matt Sinclair, Chris Dillow and others come to mind. Its an interesting point and to be honest I agree in part with Paulie about this- the best blogging I have come across has not been partisan but has been the thoughtful bloggers who work on a more interesting brief than those digging up new email systems in Downing Street, dodgy donaters to any party or racist activists. All that stuff is to me of limited interest- it has its place- because of Watergate and subsequent events the political landscape is obsessed with scandal. Actually scandal is pretty boring compared say to the discussions about how we can and should govern ourselves.

So I agree with Paulie largely- but I differ from him in one perspective and its something I don't think anyone in the UK blogosphere has really thought about. The Americans are obviously years ahead of us in readership and in the influence of blogging- and there are big differences in the market for political blogging- there is no Guardian website equivalent in the states- furthermore the British newspaper market has always provided partisan commentary in a way say that the New York Times or Washington Post in the States have never sought to provide. But the American example is fascinating- because its interesting to reflect for a moment on where and on what the blogosphere has had a real effect on politics.

To stick to one site on the left for a moment, consider Daily Kos. Kos performs a number of functions on the American left- but to caricature his biggest successes in terms of influencing politics have come in sponsoring or promoting candidates who are second tier in the states and have been neglected by others. You could think of Howard Dean's Presidential campaign, you could think of Ned Lamont's challenge to Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut senatorial primary, of Jon Tester's run for the Montana senate and of a number of other races. Kos and others like him have been effective at promoting people who were second tier, not known much and creating a momentum behind them. The Democrats have raised vast amounts of money and got large numbers of volunteers to work through the web. You could say the same thing has grown on the right behind the 'no hope' candidacy of Ron Paul: Paul would be nowhere without the millions raised on the net, the volunteers that he has produced through the net and is now running in high single figures in New Hampshire and Iowa.

It is hard to see how that might work in the UK. Central party organisation means that there is much less space for a grassroots campaigning support for people on the web. We can overestimate the degree of centralisation in British politics- local campaigns can work (say in Wyre Forest) and on both sides millions have been donated directly to the campaigns in marginal constituencies particularly between elections. I'm not sure though how directly this model will work in UK politics- constituencies aren't like states- politics in the UK is far more centrally directed than in the US. The donation of a thousand individuals might effect a local campaign, but they are nothing when compared to the money that a Mittal or Ashcroft can pour in to the central party coffers. Local MPs often lack identity beyond their position as lobby fodder- though again one can imagine mavericks or charismatic individuals getting support from the blogosphere which would help them in marginal seats. In general though the structure of politics is much less hospitable for bloggers in the UK- much more centralised, much more national than politics is in the US.

Obviously things can and might change- and will have to change if the British political blogosphere is to have more of an impact- but at the moment the British blogosphere is a pale shadow and imitation of its American cousin.

Crossposted at the Liberal Conspiracy.

The merits of Conservatism

Having spent my last post berating young Mr Sinclair, it feels appropriate to commend him and this post gives me a worthy opportunity. Matt argues that political competence can be defined thus

I would call someone incompetent if they make a policy decision that led to problems that could easily have been foreseen but that took them unawares (expected problems aren't incompetence, more often they are trade-offs).

Matt is entirely right and what he has captured here is a key strength of conservatism- caution. One of the main intellectual attractions of conservative thinkers from Burke to Popper is the emphasis on caution and thinking through change rather than implementing it swiftly. Amongst the major curses of Mr Blair's government and previous British governments have been their neglect of process, a good conservative understands that process is vital because it means that you go through checks so that hopefully you do think through the things that Matt discusses. Rule by whim exposes you to more of these errors- its not a good thing and Matt is entirely right to call it incompetence.

Public Sector Rich Lists

Matt Sinclair has gone on the attack about the Public Sector Rich list and my criticisms of it on his blog. I must clear up one thing- Matt points out quite rightly that the report got a heavy amount of media attention- I hadn't remembered that it had got that media attention and apologise to anyone who was offended by my statement that it hadn't. To be honest I viewed that as the least significant sentence of my argument- its far more important to be right than to be noticed but I retract that statement fully and realise that whatever the public sector rich list was, it was well covered.

Ok lets turn to Matt's more substantive points- the article is uncharacteristically full of sneers and jibes- more worthy of a lesser blogger than Matt who is more often a polite and interesting interlocutor. The average private sector CEO is paid less than many of the individuals on the public sector rich list- but ultimately that average is not comparable to some of the big organisations we are talking about here. Take the Royal Mail, it is a reasonably large organisation delivering to 27 million addresses in the UK. Its not exactly a small manufacturer- its chief executive deserves to be compared in terms of wages with the boss of a FTSE 100 company which undoubtedly it would be if the thing was privatised all together. The average FTSE 100 chief executive takes home 737,000 pounds worth of salary but added to other benefits takes home almost 3.2 million pounds.

If we believe that FTSE 100 chairmen have skills which make them good leaders of large organisations than we ought to be employing them in the public sector. If we argue they don't, it calls into question the fact that they are paid these massive wages to begin with. Now Matt can argue quite rightly that there is no obvious link between a large salary and good performance in the public sector, but neither is there necessarily such a link in the private sector- despite the fact that shares have only gone up 7.5% in the last year, salaries according to the Daily Telegraph have leapt 40% for the same period. The Remuneration committee at the Royal Mail seems to have as much of a good idea as how this functions as that of any major company. Ultimately if you believe that these guys make up 120 times the average worker in what they can add to a company, there is no reason not to recruit them to work for the state at the same wages. If you disagree with the salaries you must disagree at some point with the principle that these salaries are necessary to attract the best executives to run these companies both privately and publicly.

Lets put this in a more sensible form- Matt is completely right that just because someone is paid millions wrongly that doesn't mean it is right to pay another person millions. But that applies in both sectors- unless Matt is arguing that the public sector doesn't require the skills to run its extensive bureaucracy that a large company requires- and across many jobs. Perhaps the TPA should do some more focused work on where the wage of a particular public employee isn't justified- suggesting alternative models for recruitment that would produce a better person in the job. Perhaps the government doesn't need to employ the best lawyers, accountants, consultants, hospital chairmen, company directors, perhaps the public can settle comfortably for second best and pay that way- but doesn't that call into question whether the best really are the best.

In a society which awards high wages for particular jobs and skills, if the public sector wants to use those skills ultimately it will pay the appropriate market price. I'm not sure what bit of that sentence that Matt disagrees with.

Civilisation- the teaching aide

The game Civilisation for those who don't know it is incredibly addictive and great fun. In it you take charge of a civilisation- from a set of options including such noted civilisations as the Persians, Babylonians, Chinese, French, British and even Americans. You take your civilisation through the course of history, from the demise of nomadism to the age of the fighter jet. Its a wonderful game and has built into it all sorts of ideas about forms of government and economics and all sorts of things, it provides quite a useful intro for anyone playing it to all those ideas and to the idea that history could well have taken a different course- once you have built the Great Wall of China in Egypt and taken Mongolia to the space race you reall understand the idea that history is contingent, there is no plan and everything could have happened differently.

It is unsurprising therefore to me to find that educationalists have picked up on this and there are increasing efforts to use games like Civilisation and its cousin Simcity (where you build and govern a city) as teaching aides in the classroom. Aaron Wechel writes interestingly in the current issue of World History Connected about the way that teachers can use the games- both to introduce kids to concepts used in the game that they might not come across in other ways, and in making them think as though they were world leaders. Of course as Wechel notes there are problems with the whole concept of civilisation- world leaders don't choose to have Newton discover the laws of gravity and democracy doesn't emerge in a society just because someone says it ought to (if it did Donald Rumsfeld would still have a job!) There are additional detailed problems that Wechel doesn't really deal with- are the effects of particular governments and systems right for example- indeed kids need to realise that the effects of particular systems aren't neccessarily understood and are often a matter of dispute. Wechel rightly doesn't want teachers to teach kids to uncritically absorb the games they play but to critique them as well.

But I think what this whole discussion brings out though is the fallacy that many people still hold to, that computer games have no beneficial effects for children in terms of education. I think that they do- Civilisation is an obvious example where a game can teach kids about some historical concepts. But other games too are interesting in the way that they breed better cognition- for instance SimCity makes you really think about how to be a City mayor in America- how rising crime effects economic performance and prosperity for instance. Even a game that might seem not to have so much educational merit- Championship Manager (a game in which you are the manager of a football team and buy and sell players in order to create the perfect team) actually has benefits. The game teaches you to analyse massive databases of players- filter them- deal with psychology and most importantly deal with a budget. All of that is important for kids to learn. Of course all the games have presumptions built into them which maybe and often are faulty- but they shouldn't be dismissed.

Sometimes we can be too focused on being Jeremiahs, actually there is plenty of good in computer games and plenty that people can learn from them- especially when the game itself is treated with caution.

The History Carnival

Historians like to think that we are doing something for other people when we research- and to a large extent we are. Writing for a blog about history involves teaching others about their own histories and telling them why this particular story. Most of us emerged as historians when we first realised that stories were fascinating and that some of them were true, when we first as MarthaQ did with Alexander the Great thought about the differences between accounts of the past and tried to reconcile them. Martha's original questions might be naive, but soon historians and students of history begin to probe even greater questions- questions about whether people in the past felt about things in the same way as we do, or whether they even understood themselves in the same way. Well any reasonable history carnival ought to present some posts that consider some historical stories and their relevance to the modern day. This month's carnival is no exception- and in addition to the posts above there are plenty more which will make you think about your place in the world.

Place is a keynote for any historian, wondering around the streets of local towns or cities you can get a real sense of the past. Any historian of New York must know that he walks the streets that Alexander Hamilton once strolled. Sometimes that sense can be illusory, who would imagine wondering modern London, particularly Camden, that only sixty years ago those streets echoed with bombs. Historians though also need to look at things that stay the same- Poland's history has been shaped as David Frum argues by its geographic position. The shape of Poland has been used in different ways by different rulers: but the same goes for words, whose history tells us something about the history of the societies that use them- consider for example the word Tiger and the related Tigris river. Familiarity can often jolt us into understanding both the past's continuity with and difference from the present- moments of epiphany in which empathy seems stronger. For instance, dates are crucial in this. Over the last month, we have seen a number of anniversaries of executions pass us by, those of the murderer Dr. Crippen, six Greek politicians and an unknown allied airman. Each story has something vivid to contribute to us, because each story allows us to enter into a piece of the past.

Individual stories are often the best way of entering into history. They provide us with someone to directly empathise with. For years Americans recalled the events of the revolution whenever they saw Benjamin Franklin's ghost appear. We ourselves can have our own Franklin's ghosts to remind us of the past. The history of women for instance in the nineteenth century is illuminated this month by two wonderful articles about great women of the past: one about the French courtesan Ninon de Lenclos and the other about the early life of Emily Chesley. Entering into the past via a person often requires a hook for us to hang our thoughts on, sport can provide an interesting hook for comparison and thought about cultural differences between our times and times past. The great player revolt in Baseball in the late nineteenth century led by Fred Dunlap stands as one supreme example of sporting change accompanying cultural change. And of course the evolution of British culture can be charted in the videos of the teams that almost won the footballing treble (FA Cup, League and European Cup) over the course of the second half of the twentieth century. Without understanding the times in which people lived, it is very difficult to work out what they were doing- even the dates of marriages and births can be hard to comprehend, unless you appreciate that for instance in 18th Century America many wives went pregnant into the churchyard. But that is not the end of it, for understanding the way that culture and individuality interact gets incredibly complicated- as this paper by Eileen Joy on Saint Guthlac demonstrates.

So from the individual, we turn as historians to the collective, to the grand narratives, the grand frames into which we fit the individuals that we study. In order to start understanding the life of a medieval West African, it is vital that you know this kind of outline of West African history before you start. Evidence though sometimes is a problem- archaeologists for years made a mistake about how North America was peopled but are now going back to new types of evidence and reconsidering their earlier verdicts. Automatically as soon as we get into these broader questions, we get into issues which are even today political. The American Indians suffered greatly from their White Conquerors and at the Washita Massacre Indians were particularly cruelly killed by a future American hero. A genocidal hero- surely not, but the same thing is happening in Russia at the moment where Joseph Stalin is being used in advertising campaigns. History though can be inspiring- its worth remembering that there were Europeans who didn't massacre the Indians but instead met and engaged with them as human beings- worth remembering because it tells us a lesson treat your opponents as individuals and you stand a much greater chance of being merciful when they are in your power.

Political thought arises naturally from history- history is the only experimental ground for political philosophers and there are plenty of subtle ones out there. Take for example Ashok who provides this month an inciteful reading of Jefferson's inaugural. Some argue that we are approaching another crisis period in American history- if so strap your seatbelts tight. Others suggest that democracy itself depends on certain presumptions and that the modern West looks very like Rome in the late Republic.

All of those ideas depend on a historical basis- but of course historians disagree all the time- indeed the only thing that historians do more than read is disagree. At the moment there has been a right battle going on about English Civil War historiography- David Underdown took a shot at John Adamson and the blogs have been responding in force. Chris Bray is openly contemptuous of any argument that America was anti-military in the first decades of its existance and David Frum aims his guns at a series of second world war targets from Western Generals to Russian commissars, in a review of Max Hastings' latest book on the subject. However the outcome of a conference on gender and diet in the middle ages- did women eat differently from men- reminds us that much about history remains inconclusive- history is less about answered questions than unanswered ones, get ye back to the libraries. You can see this as well in the fact that we still don't understand whether a meteorite blew up in the atmosphere only a ninety nine years ago- if we don't know that, then its no surprise that we are ignorant of other things.

History, as I hope you are aware through surveying these links, is very much an alive subject. Money is being poured into lots of areas of the subject- Canada is seeing millions of pounds being spent on a new history of science network for example. Courses are now being constructed using the web and blogging as a tool, whether for discussing history or historiography. And the power of history can be seen in the way that others are reevaluating documents like the Bible in the context of historical discovery.

Whatever history is, it isn't history!

Israel

A very interesting bloggingheads on Israel between Daniel Levy, a former negotiator under Barak, and David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, and very well worth watching and listening to.

Public Sector Rich Lists

I have just taken a look at the concept of a public sector rich list over at the Liberal Conspiracy- its an interesting idea and worth taking seriously, especially as regards its implications.

Moral Failings of Hearts and Minds

In a Yes Minister episode, Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker debate whether it is better to be heartless or mindless. The Minister argues for mindlessness, the civil servant for heartlessness. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Hollywood films have tended to laud the heartless over the mindless- but they and Sir Humphrey have a point. Its a point that goes all the way back to theology from the seventeenth century and earlier- where the leading argument was that anyone who was mindless risked losing their mortal soul, whereas heartlessness in the acheivement of God's purposes was a virtue to be encouraged. The great Hollywood film noir enables us to understand some of the virtues of such approaches- it enables us to see the contrast between a failed human and a flawed human.

The Big Heat is one of the great films made in the fifties, that came out of the film noir and gangster traditions. The film counterpositions the lonely cop, played by Glenn Ford against a vast criminal organisation. At its most fundemental though it plays off different types of moral behaviour, different types of moral individual against each other. I want to concentrate on two of those individuals- the main male and female characters, played by Glenn Ford and Gloria Grahame, the cop Rick Bannion and the gangster's moll Debbie. Both encapsulate different forms of good character- Bannion is righteous, the kind of policeman who has no cares in the world except to locate and destroy criminals. Bannion's wife is killed during the film to leave him almost without adult ties. Bannion doesn't care whether he survives or not, heartlessly he is determined to destroy the criminal gang that he faces.

Debbie isn't heartless but she is mindless. She can see perfectly well that she has created a gilded cage, but she seeks to enjoy the cage and the moment. She is vivacious, mocking the gangsters even as she sleeps with one of them to make her way in the world. She is caring enough to know that when a gangster beats up a woman its a bad thing, and to talk to Bannion afterwards, but she still goes back to the gangsters. She lives in the world, sister under the mink, to anyone who lives in that world. She is one of the most lovable femme fatales in film noir because of that naivete and that feeling. She cares and ultimately she joins in with Bannion to destroy the criminals, ultimately she does that though through an act of heartfelt rage and she is the one that breaks the gang. But Bannion of course survives the film.

After Bannion's wife dies, he loses his heart, he cares for noone, manipulates a series of people to their individual disasters in order to destroy the villains. And these are no ordinary villains, a corporation of hoodlums produces sympathetic people- bosses with daughters, thugs who have a kindness about them. Bannion doesn't care- for him they are scum, he never even gives them names he just calls them thief. He identifies them by their job and by their evil, for him there is no forgiveness, for him there is no compromise. Debbie though is different, for her there is always compromise- thanks friend she says to a kind gangster and she is willing to talk to a policeman who is trying to put away her boyfriend. She takes risks and yes she is mindless in the way that she gets in bed (literally) with the gangsters, but she has a heart and sympathises with people. Bannion doesn't care- doesn't care when Debbie gets hurt, when people get shot, for him there is only the certainty of righteousness.

And how about the film. Well the film leaves us with an interesting contrast. Ultimately we don't like Bannion, too ferocious and too hard, he leaves a sharp taste in the mouth- he gets 'his kicks out of insulting people'. We like Debbie, she is fun and flirtatious, vivacious and friendly. But Bannion gets the decisions right- Bannion is uncompromising enough to see that the gangsters are gangsters not human beings and deserve to be put away. He sees that the murderer is a murderer- Debbie thinks he is a human being and 'you gotta take the bad with the good'. In that sense the distinction between heartlessness and mindlessness becomes a distinction between two moral vices- the vice of indulgence and the vice of self righteousness. Debbie ultimately is over indulgent to her boyfriend and the others- perhaps for selfish reasons as well as unselfish ones. Bannion's crusade is irresponsible, leading others to their deaths, veers into self righteousness but is impecably moral.

The film illustrates the way that heart and mind must work together- to beleive in either on its own is to make a real moral mistake. Debbie makes one, but she redeems it by the end when she turns against evil and brings it down. Bannion makes one, but at the end of the film killing the evil outside enables him to rediscover the human within. Debbie though loses her life because of her compromises, Bannion is guiltless for losing other people's lives- I wonder if that's an image of the price of sympathy.

Screen Violence

Both Fabian and James have posted articles over the last few days about screen violence. I was meaning to respond immediatly but have been busy applying for jobs so left it. Both of them make interesting points. Both of them are worried about what violence does to the watcher. I learn some responses to others off the screen and so am more likely to repeat them. Casual violence breeds a culture in which casual violence is accepted- and possibly there is a truth to that. However I do think its worth in this context putting in two comments- the first is a historical one and the second a partial defence of violence.

Firstly it is worth recognising that as violence on screen has risen, society has got less violent. That might seem odd to many who see levels of crime which are higher than they were fifty years ago. But going back a hundred or two hundred years, violence is definitely diminished. Partly that is a result of urbanisation- anyone living on a farm is much closer to death than your modern day urban horror fan, they see a lot more of it a lot more realistically. Furthermore domestic violence was more common, though less commonly a crime all those years ago. Partly violence on screen may have replaced violence off screen. Don't forget that violent films began wiht the breakdown of Hollywood censorship in the sixties and seventies, a generation split by the experience of Vietnam came back to watch these films and partly that was an act of attempted remembrance and an act of communication- people wanted to communicate what went on out in the field to those that had not fought.

Secondly, as someone who has written about some of the most violent films ever made, violence can be indispensible to art of a movie. In all three of the cases I have just linked to (Casino, Bonnie and Clyde and Scarface) the violence is neccessary to convey the vision. Its neccessary for very different reasons. Scorsese wants to convey the results of corruption, Bonnie and Clyde is about the narcissm of its leading characters and their callousness and Scarface is about madness and its callousness. In all three cases the violence adds something- without it you wouldn't understand the point as well. One of the most violent films I have ever seen is Downfall- but its also a film for which violence is absolutely neccessary- because without it you don't understand the horror of the Third Reich. Ultimately I think films tell us something, often something important. They can corrupt of course. But the test of that I think is whether the violence is essential to the vision, there are very violent films where it is essential. There are others where it isn't essential and where violence seems to be the only point- the Hills have Eyes 2 would be a great example, a film which should never have been made.

I share some of Fabian and James's concerns but I think they are wrong to aim at all violence. Violence can do good things on screen, reminding us of reality or illustrating an idea. But it can be purposeless and a kind of masturbatory pleasure and then it deserves every denounciation. In truth it is the purpose behind the violence which matters, and whether the violence has a point to it, a context which explains it and something we can learn by it.

New thoughts on Curveball

I've posted a more analytical treatment of the Curveball case at the Liberal Conspiracy. Basically I suggest that what this case shows is that the defects in prewar Iraq intelligence were all to do with a lack of international cooperation and a lack of non-politically influenced discussion at the centre of government. Essentially Curveball demonstrates that we need more cooperation in international affairs, particularly intelligence upon which anything in modern warfare depends and we need to be more thoughtful about the politicisation of our civil service.

Bob Drogin, Curveball

In 2003 Colin Powell laid out to the Security Council a series of facts about the Iraqi program to build weapons of mass destruction that he claimed the United States and its allies had discovered. Powell's statement was at its most convincing when he referred to the construction of numerous trucks by Saddam to carry biological agent around Iraq. All of that depended Powell said upon three sources, but the three sources swiftly became one when it was found that two of them were frauds. Indeed as Bob Drogin proves in a recent book, almost everything Powell said about Biological weapons depended on things that the CIA had inferred from one source. Everything he said about chemical weapons depended on that evidence being so strong and the chemical analysts presuming that if Saddam had a biological program he must have a chemical one. Ultimately the conviction of the CIA and of Colin Powell himself in the case depended upon one source- one solitary man who was held not by the Americans but by the Germans in Munich. The man's name is still a secret and noone knows it- his codename was Curveball. Bob Drogin has just written a fascinating book about the case.

Curveball arrived in Germany in 1999 and claimed asylum. Once there as an Iraqi he naturally gravitated towards the German intelligence service, the BND, who interviewed him intensively about his past in Saddam's Iraq. They had noticed that he claimed on entry to Germany to having been a chemical engineer and when they interviewed him, he told them he had been part of Saddam's biological weapons program and gave them details of it. The Germans were persuaded and told other intelligence agencies about Curveball, though they refused to let anyone else interview him- particularly the CIA. The BND and the CIA had historically had awful relations with each other- since the second world war the CIA beleived that the Germans were filled with communist spies and the Germans resented the Americans' obvious lack of trust in them. Personal matters such as CIA privileges after 1990 in Germany and their efforts to force out a German attache in Washington didn't make things better either.

Bad relations between the intelligence services of the two countries meant that Curveball was interviewed by the Germans on their own- only one American came into contact with him until 2004. The Germans interviewed him over a two year period running from 1999 until 2001, by 2001 Curveball was going through a mental breakdown and his story was unravelling. He was inconsistant and seemed to be confusing things. The Germans told other intelligence agencies about him, they told them that he was unreliable and then let it lie. Things had gone cold- Curveball settled in Germany and everything went quiet.

Until that is CIA officers after September 11th and particularly in 2002 began digging up their own files about Saddam's WMD and came across Curveball. They found his evidence interesting and contacted the BND who were non committal, telling the CIA not to trust Curveball. The CIA analysts pressed ahead, what they saw from Curveball they asserted could work, the idea of biological weapons trucks had been referred to once before in 1995 by an Iraqi, there were other sources (later found to be fraudulent) even if they contradicted Curveball and it could be done. There were battles in Langley between the analysts and the operations people. The analysts asserted it could be done, the operations team wanted to know more about the source. Those battles went right up into the heart of the bureacracy and ultimately George Tenet's immediate staff decided that the analysts won, they needed to produce WMD for a White House which was readying for war and this was the peice of evidence they needed.

Collin Powell arrived in the beggining of 2003 to work over his speech with Tenet and his staff. Powell dismissed almost all the intelligence that he had received from the White House, he and the CIA thought it was laughable relying on evidence from the discredited Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. Powell needed evidence and he wanted it to be rock solid, so he turned to Tenet and Tenet gave him Curveball. Tenet told Powell that Curveball had been checked out, that he had been passed as a good source despite the fact that Tenet's Director of European Operations, Tyler Drumheller, had phoned him that morning to tell him that the source was unreliable. Tenet assured Powell that it could go in the speech and Powell made the famous speech, using artist's impressions to convey the scale of one of these bio warfare trucks.

In the German intelligence agency the reaction was one of stunned fury. They sat there in absolute astonishment as Powell produced evidence that they knew was wrong and furthermore had told the Americans was wrong. The top German spy in Washington had gone as far as to phone his American contact- Tyler Drumheller- to tell him this. But Drumheller had lost the bureacratic battles inside the CIA, lost them because Tenet and his juniors knew that the message that Curveball was a fake would be unacceptable to a White House that was geared up for war. If the Germans couldn't beleive it then neither could the weapons inspectors- especially when they started looking at the sites Curveball had named. Curveball named seven sites and Blix's team went to everyone and found nothing. At the central site he named, they found a wall that prohibited the movement of any large vehicle- a wall that they knew had been there since 1997 because they had satallite photographs.

After the war was over, the US eventually organised a team to start inspecting the sites that they had identified as possible stores for WMD. Some of those sites had been identified from satallite evidence- often the satallite images were just of circular chicken coops- so much so that weapons searchers had t shirts engraved with 'Ballistic Chicken Farm Inspection Team' on the front. At other times steel drums for drying corn had been identified as silos filled with missiles. The Vice President's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby woke David Kay, the chief US weapons inspector, up at 2 in the morning demanding that he search a place in Iraq for WMD- Kay looked at a map and the coordinates Libby had given him were in Libya. Everything kept coming back to Curveball and his evidence but no evidence for his point appeared (save for two trucks originally labelled by none other than George Bush as trucks for the transport of biological agent, and later found to be trucks used for the transport of seeds).

So David Kay and his team started to investigate Curveball himself and what they found stunned them. He hadn't been a chemical weapons engineer, he had been a chemical engineer working in agriculture. He had described meticulously the Iraqi method of distributing seed not anthrax and everything he said about trucks was true only they were never used for WMD, just for agriculture. He had been sacked in the mid nineties and had become a taxi driver. He had a reputation for lying, had spent time in jail for robbery and was an untrustworthy individual. He had made his way to Germany to claim asylum, and wanted to be there to get a mercedes and a nice lifestyle. Everything that they had presumed about him was absolutely and completely wrong. At least one CIA agent almost had a nervous breakdown over the story.

The fact that Drogin has got all this evidence and there is more is stunning. His work is truly impressive as is his skill in telling the tale. Commentators from George Will to Judy Miller have been impressed with what he says. The problem as ever is what it means. Largely Drogin is right in my view to draw attention to the fact that this was a crisis created by an institutional framework. The CIA's heirarchical bureacractic battlefighting meant that people were working towards the will of those at the top. They wanted to impress- finding WMD would impress in the Washington battle. Furthermore the CIA was in constant conflict within itself- operations and analysis despised each other and worked against each other. The Pentagon was seen as the enemy and quite frequently through this the Pentagon and CIA could have seen that Curveball was a fake had they only worked together. Furthermore the CIA was suspicious of the Germans- were they working against the CIA to embarrass it throughout was a question recurring through the minds of various CIA operatives.

This is a fascinating book and story, I reckon there is much more to say about it than we can probe here but it is something that needs talking about. Curveball was a disaster for the CIA, a disaster for the United States because he encouraged a false confidence that WMD were somewhere in the sands of Mesopotamia. The failure of American intelligence in this case not to follow the pictures that they wanted to see, to not fall in love with a story, is something that is very true about the Iraq war.

We are in an uncertain world- and this book reinforces how hard it is to gather good intelligence about that world, and furthermore how much the CIA and Western Intelligence agencies have failed up till now in doing so.

The Dickens Football Team

James Hamilton has just offered up his Wodehouse team, I think though they are good, they would come unstuck against this team that I offer up from the novels of Charles Dickens- it would be a good game, but for creativity and thuggery I think this team would have the beating of anything that the effete cricket playing toff Wodehouse could produce!

The team I have set out plays a 3-5-2 formation.

Goal: Always a difficult position but Joe Gargery seems an automatic choice. Dependable and thoroughly individual, Joe can be relied upon not to make any mistakes and to always take the simple option. A thoroughly modest man, Joe is not one for hissy fits or attempting fantastic saves at the wrong moment.

Left centre half- A problematic position but Ebenezer Scrooge is a natural in it. Miserly in the beggining of the game when he never misplaces a pass in possession, his game becomes more expansive as the game advances. He is always though keen to stop the other side scoring and his grim determination to win means that he is a ferocious competitor and absolutely merciless in the tackle.

Centre-half- Betsy Trotwood fits right in here- she is strong and stubborn and has an innate positional sense. She is also a great captain for the team- a leader of men and women who has the ability both to comfort those in distress and to be ferocious with fraudulent divers. She is tough but fair.

Right centre half- Bill Sikes the thug in this lineup. Sikes is the Norman Hunter of the team- he will bite your legs and leave you on the floor afterwards. He isn't adverse to aerial challenges either and has an ability to intimidate even the most seasoned striker.

Left Midfield- Jack Dawkins, the Artful Dodger, so known because he picks the pockets of opposition fullbacks when they aren't looking, is a skilfull young player, he nips through the midfield and is very creative and cunning. Can send the ball through the smallest gap and is very good at getting away from trouble.

Right midfield- Sam Weller- on the right because of his attitudes to his master Mr Pickwick, this chirpy Cockney can run all day, he is athletic and good at saving situations. But he also poses an attacking threat, he has good vision, he can see the play develop.

Centre midfield- Fagin- the master tactician, Fagin controls the passing of the team, controls the tempo of play and receives the ball. He can pass long ambitious attempts right out into the country, but is happiest with the ball at his feet masterminding intricate moves with the artful dodger on the streets of London. The only player who can control Sikes's temprament, he is vital to the unit.

Centre midfield- Sir Leicester Dedlock stern veteran in the centre of the midfield. Very concerned with the team's shape and maintains tactical discipline. Not the quickest but a very good recycler of the ball from the defence. A traditional style defensive midfielder who minds his estate in front of the defence with the utmost skill. He also serves as Vice Captain.

Centre midfield- Mr Micawber whereas Fagin and Dedlock are masters of the pass and the intelligent positioning, Micawber is the Gerard or Lampard of this midfield. He bustles everywhere always with the same hopeful optimism. Sometimes he can be ineffective- but at his best he can destroy any heep of opposition possession and furthermore surrounded by a supportive team can set moves going towards the Antipodean side of the pitch.

Centre-Forward Ghost of Jacob Marley- a ghostly presence on the field, often people don't notice he is even there but when he arrives he can be absolutely devestating and change the storyline of a game. Has a habit of rising out of fireplaces right onto the pitch into great offensive positions- he is a vital player for the team, motivated purely by a duty to recover his career.

Centre Forward- Mr Tulkinghorn- operates again secretly but a real team player, sometimes too cunning for his own good, he ticks along in the centre of this team with his great authority causing opposition centre backs shock and awe when he arrives on the field. Deceptively fast, deceptively deceitful and always with enough knowledge of the law to bend it using his vast authority to deceive the referees and the courts. Tulkinghorn is absolutely vicious in sending the ball away into goal- he is an imposing centre forward.

Substitutes:

Sub Goalkeeper- John Jarndyce- cheerful and thoughtful Jarndyce is another who is totally reliable even when things are going badly. He always puts in 110% and he has mysterious resources of self knowledge to turn to when things are going badly. Not so good with a high east wind but apart from that curious liability he is a safe pair of hands.

Sub Defender- Ham Peggoty- Dogged and determined, Ham never gives up and is willing to toil against the most skilfull of strikers. He is courageous, rushing into flood and storm in order to get to the ball, he is also a team player, affectionate and friendly in a quiet way.

Sub Defender- Thomas Gradgrind- harsh and dogmatic in his ways, Gragrind is a useful defender. He doesn't regard fancy play as anything other than extravagance and is always able to detect the ball moving and tackle it. Perhaps not the greatest passer of the ball- though towards the ends of games he often improves, he is definitely a traditional stopper and as such can be relied upon.

Sub Midfielder- Nicholas Nickleby always willing to try, always willing to pick himself up after disaster and run towards trouble, Nickleby is a vital substitute who can come on in almost any position from wealthy inheritor to struggling actor in order to help the side. His versatility, knowledge of the game throughout the country and youthful enthusiasm make him the perfect substitute midfielder.

Sub Midfielder- Miss Havisham- one of the most thoughtful plotters of the downfall of men ever to grace the game. She is the mistress of the psychologicla arts, enticing opposition forwards into her imposing lair and then playing balls through to her pupil Estella Drummle. Miss Havisham is one of the great players of her day, if perhaps now a little traditional.

Sub Forward- Estella Drummle- beautiful and skilfull player of the game- if occasionally forgets strategy for tactics, Estella has all the skills you would want a fine player of the game to have. She fascinates centre halves with her intricate footwork before leaving them gaping in astonishment at the beauty of her play, she scores often and a lot and is absolutely heartless in her attacks. She is also supremely confident.

Sub Forward- Amy Dorrit- perhaps too shy and ascetic sometimes but her single minded devotion to the cause demonstrates that she has a talent worth developing. Is a hard worker and a team player and she contributes fully when brought on.

Manager- Jaggers. The formidable lawyer has the personality to intimidate even the strong personailities on this team. By nature he is cautious allowing players to play their natural game but his strong psychological insights into human frailty and his powers of perception are real weapons in the tactical game that modern football is today. Jaggers is quite simply the best in the world at what he does and he knows it.

Team: Gargery; Sikes, Trotwood, Scrooge; Weller, Dawkins, Fagin, Dedlock, Micawber; Marley, Tulkinghorn. Subs Jarndyce, Peggotty, Gradgrind, Nickleby, Havisham, Drummle, Dorrit.

Electability

Reflecting on my earlier post on Ron Paul, made me move to consider something else. Based on this rather interesting article on Powerline concerning how Republican voters should vote in a possible primary made me consider what it is that we actually request from our politicians. For example Paul Mirengoff on Powerline suggests that there are two Conservative candidates running for the Republican nomination (Thompson and Romney) and two Electable candidates (McCain and Giuliani), irrespective of whether you agree with the precise division of the candidates, his point boils down to how a Republican conservative primary voter should choose in such a case. The point could be transposed to the Democratic party too- and furthermore is universal to any political system. Conservatives in the UK in 2005 struggled with whether to vote for the electable David Cameron or the more ideologically hardline Liam Fox and David Davis, the question has bedevilled Labour party politics as well.

Some politicians seem to set a course which leads them to become perfect governors. Bill Richardson on the Democratic side would be a good example of someone whose career has been perfect for attaining high office- a cabinet member, foreign policy experience, a successful executive career and nothing to frighten the voters- Mitt Romney has also spent most of his career proving his competence in a variety of contexts. One thinks of previous Presidents of the United States- Richard Nixon for example or Dwight Eisenhower who brought formidable CVs to their roles. But others don't. The leading example in the UK would be the Labour MP for Birkenhead Frank Field. Field has only once served as a minister, he was number 2 at social security for a year just after Blair came in- but he has always been one of the more incisive and intelligent thinkers about social policy and in some ways has had more effect on UK policy than some of the ministers in that department have had. Field is respected and highly thought of and his contributions are intelligent enough to make ministers stop and think. Field's brand of politician seems to be a diminishing species, but in recent Parliaments investigative thinkers like Tam Dallyel or ideological animals like John Redwood also come to mind as people whose ministerial careers were limited by their influence.

Looking at Ron Paul in the US, what is interesting to me about it is that he looks like this second type of politician. Its probably a reason why he is so popular and it is the reason why inevitably he will fail to get either the nomination or the Presidency. He seems to me to be the kind of candidate who makes other people think. He has ploughed a lonely furrow in Congress- whether you agree or disagree with him. He has also argued with considerable skill for positions which I suspect very few people hold- if so he has perhaps forced people to evaluate why they beleive in the conventional wisdom, even if they still hold to it afterwards. That function is crucial to any political process- and just like Field, Redwood and Dallyel, he is a neccessary part of the political system. It also explains though why I think he could never become party leader- because ultimately following those arguments rigourously to their ends means abandoning the neccessary blindness that goes along with comforting a vast coalition and becoming electable. Paul's virtue is his uncompromising stand for libertarianism as an ideal and that is his ultimate vice as a candidate as well.

Turning back to the Powerline column for a second, it is interesting to think about what this implies for politics. I think what is going on here is a tension between the ideal of what political engagement is and the reality of what a political party is. Everyone involved in politics wants to do what they think is right for their country. That's why people get into politics and don't use their often impressive talents in other ways. But in order to do that people have to form coalitions, and the reality of politics is that none of us precisely agree with anyone else. Consequently most politicians and most people involved in politics look up to the principled evangelists but also look down on them- using words like irresponsible and luxury to describe the way that they express their ardently held opinions. To be consistant is seen as an indulgence because it doesn't reflect the fact that politics is about coalition building as well as being about describing the best way forwards. That tension I reckon will always be with us, so long as we don't slip into dictatorship and the dilemma that Powerline evokes is therefore one that will endure long after Messrs McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Thompson have become obscure footnotes in history.

Internet Fraud

is nothing if not imaginative. Here is a great example of a 419 scam (so called after the point in the Nigerian legal code which outlaws it) about the British National lottery- any British tv watcher will see its a scam, but its worth seeing just to how all these things work, are too good to be true and evaporate with any knowledge of what actually happens, in this case in the National Lottery.

Ron Paul's odd followers

Apologies for sparce posting this week has been in a lot of ways very stressful for me.

Right on to the main agenda of this post, which is Ron Paul. A controversy has blown up in the States about Paul's odder supporters- from white seccessionists to anti-semites to a whole bag of idiots and fools- Paul has attracted his share of weird and sometimes mad supporters. David Bernstein from the Volokh conspiracy and Mona Charen from the National Review certainly think that this support and the fact that Paul hasn't disavowed it create enough of a reason to vote for someone with saner supporters.

Its an interesting objection. To some extent they are wrong- all political movements are coalitions and contain vile and often seriously mistaken people. There are degrees though- and it is worth remembering that one of the best ways to know someone is by their friends. That's why for example the UK Conservative Party was so keen to jettison its former candidate Nigel Hastilow for racist comments and why Ken Livingstone should jettison Miranda Grell. Paul though is in the position of having supporters who he might wish to disavow, a slightly different category- should for instance John McCain or any of the other pro-life candidates explicitly stand up and say that they don't want any violent pro-life enthusiasts to vote for them, should Barack Obama say that he doesn't want the black power movement to vote for him.

To an extent I think Paul is suffering from this partly because he is seen as being an extremist himself. He has positions which he has never explained properly and not been questioned fully on- for instance withdrawing US troops from everywhere around the world that they are stationed at the moment, withdrawing the US from international free trade agreements, abolishing the IRS. Paul has made a career from being an iconoclast- and that's a good career but the point is that then in some cases you need to prove your orthodoxy. Paul hasn't shown himself to be very savvy either in avoiding odd and sometimes racist radio shows and films- as Charen comments- he has allowed himself to appear on them- furthermore he hasn't returned cheques from people operating in the Klu Klux Khan. Partly this is just mischief making from the Republicans as well- Paul is popular because of Iraq- somebody like Charen would scorn any Democratic tactic to use this argument against her 'guy' in November but in this context is quite happy to use the same argument to suppress a Republican insurgency.

I'd be interested to know more about this- whether there are links between Paul and the madmen- I suspect there aren't- how serious Paul is as a candidate- given what he's said I suspect his effect is more of a useful corrective on the Republican party than a serious Presidential prospect.