 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
TALLRITE BLOG
You can write to me at blog2-at-tallrite-dot-com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| July 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #83 - 25th July 2004 [150+180=330]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lord Butler's 200-page review of WMD intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war zooms in on Tony Blair's dossier of September 2002 entitled, “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction - The Assessment of the British Government” (pdf, 427 kb). This was, of course, the (in)famous “dodgy dossier” which claims, no fewer than four times, that some Iraqi WMD were deployable within 45 minutes. Riddled with repetition, Lord Butler's report asserts that
Lord Butler then concludes that “making public that the JIC had authorship of the dossier was a mistaken judgement ...[which] had the result that more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear.” This is a non sequitur. Why does revealing authorship do this ? Surely the mistakes reside in the content ? Revealing authorship makes the content neither more nor less flawed. It just shows that the fault lies with the authors rather than somewhere else. Butler's underlying assumption seems to be that the JIC is incompetent to write up its own intelligence. This incompetence relates to over egging the pudding and leaving out caveats that it would have included had it been for internal consumption. In other words, the authors of the dossier deliberately misled their public readership. Let's be quite clear about the situation. Lord Butler tells us that the intelligence produced by the JIC under Scarlett was flawed. Mr Blair accepted this intelligence and used it as a basis to go to war. If Mr Blair knew the intelligence was flawed, he is accountable and should go. Yet Lord Butler indicates that he acted in good faith, ie he didn't know it was flawed. Therefore the person responsible for the producing flawed intelligence should go. According to Lord Butler, that was Mr Scarlett. Yet the review says he shouldn't be sacked, for the simple reason that Lord Butler and his team “have a high regard for his abilities and his record”. Not only that, but they endorse the proposed promotion to head of MI6. A man who has shown he cannot even be trusted to string together a reliable 55-page report for public consumption ! He'll be a laughing stock in and outside of MI6. No wonder many people believe that “Military Intelligence” is an oxymoron. Some say that Mr Scarlett was leaned on to produce a suitable dossier. This, even if true (which Lord Butler says isn't), is no excuse. He was Chairman of the JIC. He should not have buckled. If he couldn't stand the pressure, he should have resigned, preferably publicly. Big-shot bosses don't have the excuses of minions. Guys like John Scarlett are happy to accept the top jobs, take the big pay and perks, bask in the glory of seniority and respect. And who can blame them ? But the flip side is that they are personally responsible for serious flaws in their organisations, whether or not they personally participated (as Mr Scarlett did) in those flaws. Thus,
What's so hard to understand ? You're the boss, your organization screws up, you're history. You take the gain, you take the pain. It's not a question of “I did my best”, but that your best wasn't good enough and so you're no longer to be trusted. John Scarlett should resign or be sacked. Good riddance.
The EU Constitutional Treaty and Smuggling I've been opposed to the EU's new Constitutional Treaty for some time, ever since I learnt that it was a device not merely for tidying up existing treaties - an excellent idea - but for smuggling in countless other provisions that wouldn't stand on their own legs. For example, the 2½-year appointed president, the new foreign minister, the charter of human rights, the redistribution of voting rights, the elimination of many national vetos. This and more are all designed to inch the EU towards becoming a federal superstate, with existing countries relegated to the status of local parishes (subliminal plot - to poke a stick in America's eye).
Although the 25 prime ministers surprisingly agreed the Constitutional Treaty last month, the ratification process will involve referenda in at least ten countries, including Eurosceptic Britain, Poland, the post-Fortuyn Netherlands and even France. So, happily, ratification is more than likely going to fail. There are some who say a country which fails to ratify should leave the EU because it is excluding itself from the new rules of the club. Indeed, some say that the referendum campaigns should be conducted on this basis, ie ratify or get out. This approach doesn't make sense to me. The club will be deciding whether to adopt new rules, and under its existing rules 100% of member state must ratify the change. Therefore, if the result is no, then the old rules simply stay in place. The club is still the club. Of course, if 24 vote yes and only one member state votes no, its prime minister is going to be pretty unpopular. But the others can't make him leave and why should they ? Moreover, he is paid handsomely to look after the interests and wishes of his own country's electorate, not to be Mr Popularity at EU summits and photo-opportunities. But he'll certainly need a thick neck ! However my bet is that nearly all the ten referendum states will vote no. That will thankfully kill the Constitutional Treaty stone dead, and result in an EU that its 350 million people can continue to feel reasonably happy about. Then, perhaps after a year for over-eager EU politicians to lick their wounds, a more modest treaty whose sole purpose is to tidy up existing treaties and agreements, will emerge and be quickly ratified. After that, further changes will have to be negotiated above-board and on their own merits. No more smuggling.
John Kerry as Commander-in-Chief ? Last February, I wrote about John Kerry's “accidental
heroics”
in Vietnam, whence he I had a niggling feeling about the three wounds. If they were serious enough to merit purple hearts and an early discharge, why don't we know more about them ? He's always telling everyone about his military prowess - it's a cornerstone of his campaign - so why isn't be bragging about his wounds ? John McCain certainly did.
The bronze star came from rescuing a man overboard whilst under fire - though some say it was Kerry's bad driving that caused him to fall off the Swift boat in the first place. The army doctor who treated the first of his injuries says he simply removed a metal fragment 1cm x 3mm embedded 4mm in Kerry's arm, and then stuck on a band-aid. The fragment didn't look like a bullet. Moreover, Kerry's shipmates said it was caused not by enemy fire but a ricochet when Kerry mortared some riverside rocks. His other two wounds, one to the leg and another to the arm, seem to have been similarly superficial, and there is no record of any follow-up treatment. You can expect Kerry's enemies to denigrate his heroism in this kind of way, just as you can expect his supporters to defend it. However, it adds a certain credibility when those who are denigrating him loudest seem to be drawn from his own wartime colleagues and shipmates, his so-called “band of brothers”. You would think they would be delighted that one of their own might end up as President. Instead they question his fitness to become commander-in-chief, based not only on his anti-war activities, which amounted to cheering for the enemy, but also on his brief period of active service. A new website, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, tells us that only two of his nineteen fellow Swift officers support his presidential bid. As well as questioning his heroics, the site says that his early discharge was prompted not, as claimed, at his own request, but by the desire of Tom Wright, his senior officer, to get rid of him because he “had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders”. But their main objections are to his anti-war stance once he got back stateside. Not only did he oppose the war, which in itself was not dishonourable, but in 1971 he accused his fellow soldiers or systematic war crimes backed up by no evidence other than that of stooges engaged for the purpose. It is significant that no-one was ever prosecuted for these so-called war crimes. His anti-war antics and consistent support of North Vietnamese negotiation positions certainly, in retrospect, came close to siding with the enemy in wartime.
So it would seem that John Kerry, despite his determination not to release his complete military records, should be very cautious about how he parades his war hero status. Surely it is only a matter of time before he is going to have to publicly confront what the veterans who knew him are saying about him. He will have to defend his fitness to become Commander-in-Chief. His erstwhile comrades believe he is not fit.
Speaking as someone bombarded daily with irresistible offers, I think Motley Fool's recent advice is worth repeating :
You may have encountered some or all of the above scams already. If not, you can be sure they'll be coming your way soon. Press the delete button.
His new “A-Bike” weighs just 12lb and folds away into a package that can be stored under a desk or in a bag. Singapore was chosen for the launch because it's affluent but also because, like the bike, it's small and compact. Retailing at around £170, it will go on sale there shortly, followed next year by the UK, the US and Japan. It takes only twenty seconds to unfold or to fold away into a package of just 1.1 cubic feet This makes it only slightly more cumbersome to carry than an umbrella or a laptop. It's made mainly of plastic and lightweight aluminium, used in aerospace technology. Can't wait to buy mine for wobbling home from the pub on a Saturday night. Late Note:
It's April 2007, almost four years after I wrote this post.
From Dental Practice, May 2004 (not available online)
Quote : “I don't understand why Britain and the United States are systematically increasing pressure against us and not operating through the United Nations. This pressure closely resembles the increased pressure that was put on Iraq [before the war] ... We don't need any [UN] resolutions. Any resolutions from the Security Council will complicate things.” Sudanese Foreign Minister, Mustafa Osman
Ismail, The Minister should pay heed to the effect of this
pressure ______________ Quote : “There are magnificent things that exist in the US as well as some fairly horrific things. I hate their arrogance, I hate their unilateralism.” EU
Commission President-designate José Manuel Barroso If
he thinks this is US unilateralism, But
if he means that the US should not take military action ______________ Quote : “[Ireland's current finance minister and newly appointed EU Commissioner Charlie] McCreevy is one of the most right-wing finance ministers in Europe ... he gives incentives to the rich – and he has incentivised the poor by giving them a kick in the arse. You [MEPs] should not allow Charlie McCreevy to get behind the economic levers of the European Union.” Ireland's Labour MEP Proinsias De Rossa
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| See the Archive and Blogroll at top left and right, for your convenience | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It was my Second Blogiversary on 14th
July. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #82 - 11th July 2004 [180+117=297]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Palestinians Deserve Regime Change I've sometimes asked myself where my feelings truly lie in the Palestine/Israel conflict. I'm pretty much pro-Israel because I believe it, like all other countries, has a right to exist and prosper in peace within secure boundaries. Moreover it's a vigorous democracy, governed by the rule of (independent) law, which periodically changes its government as its people change their views on how to deal with problems. But I am also pro the Palestinian people; I believe they also have rights to peaceful existence and the the pursuit of prosperity, and that they are entitled to a second Palestinian state (the first being Jordan). What I am strongly opposed to is the Palestinian leadership under the thug Yasser Arafat. It is
Above all it is illegitimate; it has no mandate from the Palestinian people whom it claims to represent. Arafat claims to have been elected to his current position as President of the Palestinian Authority in January 1996 (he's been PLO Chairman since 1969). But he has never been fairly elected the leader of anything, let alone the Palestinian people. The elections of 1996 for PA president and the 88-seat Palestinian National Council, were a sham where, under threat of violence (often delivered),
Arafat himself was opposed only by a token 72-year-old woman. Yet, despite remaining virtually invisible throughout the campaign, she still garnered 9% of the vote, which tells you something. There has been no further voting by Palestinians in the past eight years and there are no plans for any. So what the leadership says and does cannot in any meaningful sense be said to represent what the Palestinian people want. (It would be very depressing if it did). Contrast this with Israel, where through free elections over the same period, governments have shifted leftward (Peres), rightward (Netanyahu), leftward (Barak) and rightward (Sharon). Love them or hate them, the Israeli leadership is undoubtedly representative of the majority of Israelis. Last February I wrote in some despair of the Palestinian's lack of a true leader, meaning someone with
When Mr Arafat (reluctantly) appointed Abu Mazen as Prime Minister in March 2003, I viewed him as a great new hope for Palestinians. Not only had he earned a great deal of credibility by a long and honourable association with the Palestinian cause as well as by having Mr Arafat's ear (ugh), but he utterly rejected the use of military force to advance the Palestinian cause. This was for purely pragmatic reasons -
“We must be statesmen in order to obtain achievements diplomatically that we cannot obtain militarily” he had lectured Fatah officials and commanders. They didn't like it but they listened. And to other states he said, “Many Arab and Islamic countries want to fight Israel through us, or, as they say, they want to fight Israel to the last Palestinian, and through us achieve what their armies could not.” Palestinians had never had a leader of remotely his calibre. Yet after only 129 days he resigned. Why ? He was sick of Messrs Bush, Sharon and Arafat, reckoning they'd all betrayed him by their unfulfilled promises. But there was another, more sinister, more brutal reason for departing. Mr Arafat, jealous of Mr Mazen's influence and wary of his desire to act without Mr Arafat's interference, wanted to kill him. Newsweek recently interviewed him (hat-tip, Not a Fish) :
So once more, the Palestinian people were left captainless and rudderless, as they are to this day. Their self-appointed leadership junta has over the years turned down offers of a state three times - in 1948, 1967 and 2000. So in the absence of anyone to talk business with, Israel just ploughs ahead and makes its own decisions for the future.
Whatever's inside the wall/fence, including disputed territory, will become de-facto part of Israel, right or wrong. Whatever's left outside will be a de-facto state for Palestinians to make what they will of. The International Court of Justice in The Hague may scream all it likes about the illegality of Israel's construction. But as long it - still only 30% complete - is already reducing successful suicide attacks by 75% and the Palestinian side shows no interest in serious negotiation, the project will continue regardless, following a route that suits Israel, constrained only by its own supreme court. And who can blame them. Moreover there is even an upside for the Palestinians. The fewer successful terrorist attacks in Israel, the less the need for Israeli retaliatory and defensive operations. Lower Israeli casualties will translate into lower Palestinian casualties. Not that the Arafatish leadership cares. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that an injustice is being perpetrated on the Palestinian people. It's just that the prime perpetrators are not the Israelis but the Palestinian thugocracy that rules and oppresses and deceives them. This is the very regime that most pro-Palestinian groups and “charities” in the West support, which is why they deserve nothing but disdain. Personally, I support the Palestinian people as well as the people and and democratic government of Israel, and these are not incompatible views. But Palestinian regime change is the only long-term hope for the Palestinian populace, and the sooner the better. For the sake of the Palestinian people, Mr Arafat's demise is to be fervently desired. As Mark Humphries has often remarked, all dictatorships should be ended, to be replaced by democracy. Iraq is beginning, let us hope, to set an example.
New Zealand Quashes Cruise Missile Development A year ago, I wrote about the curious project of Bruce Simpson, a model aircraft enthusiast in New Zealand. He had started to build his own cruise missile capable of delivering a 10 kg warhead for just $5,000, using information, materials, electronics, and components freely available in the public domain. Among his early purchases were a GPS system, flight attitude control system and radio control flight pack that he simply bought on e-bay and had mailed out to him. He calls it his Low Cost Cruise Missile, or LCCM. He wanted to demonstrate that if he could build such a weapon in his garage at such low cost, then so could terrorists also. So the West better be aware of the threat. What added spice to the project was that he vowed to keep an online project diary where he would explain what he was doing, why and how, complete with photographs, drawings, video clips, etc. More detailed plans would be available to subscribers. Last week, I thought it was time to check progress.
For he has meanwhile run into an entirely non-technical problem that has almost ruined him personally. The publicity his project attracted brought it to the attention of the New Zealand and US governments. Though the project has broken no laws, they found it embarrassing and apparently the US has persuaded NZ to close it down.
As a result, he's had to sell his six-bedroom luxury house and move his family to run-down rented accommodation. Though he is continuing with the project as best he can, he is also putting himself on the market to anyone outside NZ, other than a terrorist, who wants a personal missile (or UAV or RPV) designed, built and tested. Unless he can soon find a foreign sponsor or employer, it looks like the sad end of a fascinating project and a creative man. But if nothing else, he has demonstrated that, if free and private enterprise is allowed full rein, you don't necessarily need to spend the billions on aerial systems that the Pentagon's defense contractors have become accustomed to over the past sixty years. Another illustration of this is that just two weeks ago in California, the first-ever non-government manned space flight took place for something over $20 million - mere small change as far as NASA is concerned. A private investor put up the money (Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen), civilian engineers built the craft and a 59- year-old civilian pilot flew it. These two examples may portend a major change in the way aerospace development is conducted in the future. A privately run, Ryanair-style no-frills, fit-for-purpose approach could have the same galvanising effect on the traditional, bloated aerospace contracting industry as the low-cost airlines have had on the traditional state-owned behemoths of the air. This will drive costs down and quality up. The aerospace establishment must be feeling a little queasy.
Protect Workers, Not the Public, from Smoke Legislators in Britain and Northern Ireland, inspired by the Republic of Ireland, are getting worked up about possibly introducing a ban on smoking in public places. The subliminal object is to eliminate cigarettes from pubs. Meanwhile, Northern Ireland has decided to ban ciggies in all government offices as from 2005 and close all smoking rooms. But these efforts won't succeed and won't capture the public imagination because their approach is wrong-footed in one vital respect. Their stated purpose is to protect people from the potential ill-health/death caused by environmental tobacco smoke, ETS. However admirable the intent, however, governments have no business regulating people's personal, voluntary, if dangerous behaviour. This applies equally to riding motorbikes, climbing mountains, eating MacDonalds, smoking cigarettes or walking into smoky atmospheres. And it's not as if smoking costs money. It doesn't. Tobacco taxes and early deaths well exceed the cost of extra medical care for sufferers. The Irish approach has been much cannier. Its smoking ban applies not to public places (ie pubs) but to work places (which happen to include pubs). The vital distinction is that the protection is focused on the humble workers who have no choice but to be where they are and no control over their workplace environment. Unlike customers, who sit in a pub, smoky or otherwise, entirely voluntarily. The fact that the ban also protects customers from ETS is a bonus but not the target. Last week a Galway pub, with the delightful name Fibber Magees, defied the ban by reintroducing ashtrays to boost trade. Ronan Lawless, the owner, got very little sympathy from the general public and within days backed down when a judge said she would otherwise immediately withdraw his late-night liquor licences in another of the five other pubs he owns . His defence, that he was trying to give customers the freedom to smoke, was trumped by the ETS he was forcing his bar staff to inhale. The UK should take a similar approach if they are serious about tackling ETS. Protect the workers not the public.
In Ireland, Portmarnock Golf Club has been in trouble because it does not allow women to become full members. It reckons that a private club can choose whoever it wants to be a member or not a member. Such a right is, the club believes, protected by the freedom of association provision in the Irish constitution. But a (female) judge has ruled that the club's stance breaches an anti-discrimination law and has threatened to suspend its liquor licence, which would be the kiss of death. For who would play eighteen holes if there were no nineteenth ? The club has appealed and the case rumbles on to the autumn. (Note how withdrawal of a liquor licence is the ultimate sanction in Irish society.) Elsewhere, the Southern Trace Country Club, a golf club in Shreveport, Louisiana is also in trouble over women members, but for a slightly different reason. Of its three restaurants, the “Men's Grill” is reserved for men only. Not only that, but the dress code for the boys, “casual but appropriate attire”, is often interpreted as, er, nil. That's right, they like nothing better than sitting down together for Sunday Lunch stark naked. So rather than offend the ladies by letting them observe this proliferation of manhood and whatever frolics go on under the lunch table, they ban them. The guys just don't want their privacy violated. The judge doesn't agree. He thinks it's archaic to stop women from enjoying “the sights and sounds of a locker room environment” and so the club better let the girls in or else. So the club has said it will comply. And as the new arrivals walk in the door, dutifully observing the dress code, no doubt the gallant male members will, ahem, rise. Let us hope that everyone then enters into the full spirit of Sunday Lunch.
Last week Manolis Andropoulos, a Greek tourist, The next day, Martin Ryan brought him cruelly to earth in the same pages. Mr Andropoulis had been driving in County Waterford, whose hurlers have been electrifying the annual all-Ireland championship. Their county colours ? Blue and white of course. And to add insult to injury, he suggests that many of the teams in Portugal could have done with the aerial prowess and ruthless finishing of Waterford's star player, big Dan Shanahan. Though not, of course, the eventual victors Greece. Or will it be Waterford ?
Quote : “The CIA must not be ‘risk averse’. I can think of nothing that would be more effective in generating aversion to risk than to hold an individual personally accountable for a mistake that might have been made by hundreds of people around the world”. CIA Deputy Director John E McLaughlin, Quote : “We're here to build a strong military and lead strong alliances, so that our military is never overextended and young Americans are never put in harm's way because we decided to go it alone” Would-be
US president John
Kerry, Quote : “We cannot depend on the security system of Saddam Hussein. In the name of law [the security forces] performed criminal actions. Before, security meant the security of the dictator, now, it means the security of the people. We must have another concept, another definition of security, a new system. We have to start from zero. We have to start with a small number [of soldiers]. We need people of quality not quantity” Dr Ibrahim Jaafari, one of Iraq's two new vice presidents, Quote : “We swear to Allah that we have started preparing ... to capture [Zarqawi] and his allies or kill them and present them as gift to our people... This is the last warning. If you don't stop, ... we will do to you what the coalition forces have failed to do.” A
shadowy vigilante group making clear
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| See the Archive and Blogroll at top left and right, for your convenience | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Irish
bloggers held their first
ever meet-up in Dublin's Market Bar on Saturday 10th July as from 6 pm. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #81 - 4th July 2004 [163] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reparations for American Slavery Detroit, Los Angeles and Chicago are enacting legislation that requires companies seeking municipal contracts to disclose any profits they received from slavery as a pre-requisite for being awarded municipal contracts.
So said Detroit City Councilwoman Barbara-Rose Collins, a black lawyer and former Democratic congresswoman from Michigan. The concept of reparations for the undoubted evils of American slavery raises some interesting points, but with no clear answers, at least none that point towards the case for reparations. Firstly, there are the firms, who either themselves profited from slavery, or whose antecedents did. It is one thing to uncover a link that shows that a company engaged in slavery 200 years ago, such as uncovering a receipt for the purchase of slaves. It is quite another to objectively determine a figure that reasonably represents the extra profit earned by the company as a result of slavery. Indeed, it is probably as easy and arbitrary to calculate that a company
Establishing that a company has benefited from slavery, and then quantifying by how much, are almost impossible tasks, no matter how just it may feel to make them pay reparations. Secondly, there is the undoubted pain, distress and hardship suffered by the slaves during their (usually all too short) lives. They deserve untold compensation; no amount would suffice to right the wrong. However, this is not straightforward either. If someone close to you undergoes suffering, you and his/her other loved ones also suffer, if only in empathy at what you see. And though all the original suffering comes to an end with death, the empathetic suffering continues in some form until all the loved ones have also departed. The last American slaves were freed back in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States ...”). Thus they are all long dead; but so are their friends, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. There is no-one left alive who has suffered in any degree the anguish of slavery. Therefore, there is no-one who deserves compensation. Brutal but true. Thirdly, there are the material damages. Slaves lived out their miserable existence working for food and shelter, of whatever rudimentary sort, and no payment whatsoever.
|
emerged after active service
in command of a Swift (
And indeed that's how the North Vietnamese Communists viewed it, which
is why to this day Kerry is honoured with a photograph in the War Remnants
Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), which shows him meeting the General Secretary
of the Communist Party of Vietnam. 
Sir
Clive
Sinclair, inveterate inventor of strange if intriguing devices that lose
money, has just come out with
another one, the world's smallest, lightest, weirdest 
Technically, the project has certainly
advanced. Mr Simpson has built 1½ missiles, but of his fifteen
project phases, he has unfortunately documented only 
wrote
effusively to the Irish Times of his recent visit to Ireland when, after
his country had defeated the Czechs 1-0 in the Euro 2004 semifinal, he found
the road from Youghal to New Ross 