Wikileaks and the Arrest of Julian Assange

First let me declare this: rape is bad. All cases of rape deserve investigation. If you do not believe these two statements then you are reading the wrong blog. Now that we have accepted this let us turn to the strange case of Julian Assange. Now I do not know if he is guilty, but nor does anyone else bar Mr Assange and his two accusers. There has yet to be a trial and so I suspend judgement until after this date. However, I object to the reaction of the supporters of Wikileaks (let us call them the ‘Assangists’) toward the arrest of Mr Assange. As I have already stated rape is bad and all cases of rape deserve investigation. Julian Assange is accused of rape by two people, and so I think that Mr Assange should be investigated-after all it is only his word against the two accusers’ at this stage and so it is a very real possibility that Mr Assange could have raped his ex-companion’s. However, the founder of Wikileaks has refused to return to Sweden voluntarily and so that government has issued an arrest warrant. At this the Assangists have declared that Sweden is an American stool, and it is all a great conspiracy orchestrated by the CIA in order to get the Messiah...opps, sorry-Julian Assange into an American prison.

At this point we really need to make some things clear. First Sweden is not and never has been known as an ‘American stool’. There is more chance of Mr Assange being extradited from the UK than Sweden. In other words he is safer from the CIA in Stockholm than London. Second the man is accused of rape. He may be innocent, but while there is a chance that he could be guilty of that horrible crime then he should be tried. However, it is bloody difficult to put a man on trial who refuses to remain in the same country in which the crime he is accused of is committed-hence the arrest warrant. Of course this is where the Assangists point out that St Assange...opps, sorry-Mr Assange will be heading toward a kangaroo court. The problem with this theory is that Sweden has quite a good reputation for education, high living standards etc, but has never really been able to develop a really good corruption problem-I mean to really experience kangaroo courts it is usually customary to head to Burma, or Zimbabwe. This possibility is highly unlikely since it is Sweden that he shall find himself.

This brings me to my third point. Like them or loath them what the documents from Wikileaks have shown over the last couple of years is that there is no conspiracy. What governments say in public tend to be what they do in private plus or minus a fact or two. In other words Mr Assange’s own organisation has shown that a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the American government to slander his name by pressuring two women and the Swedish government in order to get him convicted of rape is not a bet you should make. This kind of thing only happens in cheap airport novels. The far more likely scenario is that the two women genuinely believe that they have been assaulted in some manner and that the Swedish government is doing its duty by investigating a case of possible rape. In other words the Assangists are attempting to prevent the proper investigation of a possible incident of rape. This is utterly wrong even if Mr Assange is found to be innocent.

An Ignorant Lover

In a pre-television age when people where stuck in the house together by adverse weather they would tell stories and poems to each other. In that tradition I have composed this poem. I call it 'An Ignorant Lover':


The Past is a tale which is cold,
Where wrong triumphed over right,
But the future has yet to be told:
A land where everything is still bright.
And even though I am unloved,
And I feel the creeping arm of despair,
Still, let me minister my love,
To that creature with looks so fair.
Even when at the end of days,
In what will be my darkest hour,
I shall be warmed by tender rays,
For unreturned love shall not turn sour.
The Mind is weighed down by the Heart’s chains,
For in life it is the heart which reigns.


I would be interested in anyone's thoughts on the sonnet.

Oh Dear...

Oh dear. I seem to have neglected my duties as a blogger this past little while. I shall endeavour to post more regularly from now on.

Anyway the circumstances which brought this blog to prominence in my mind once more was the snow-I am trapped in the home of my parents unable to return to my flat. While this is not necessarily a bad thing (indeed it is rather like a holiday) all my nice stuff is in my flat. As such cabin fever has set in rather more quickly than it otherwise should have and so, dear reader, I turn to the online community for solace and entertainment.

A rant: why is the comic book genre so under-rated by everyone? I mean we need only go as far as ‘The Watchmen’ (that is the graphic novel NOT that damnable movie adaptation) to encounter quite deep philosophical musing. Indeed ‘The Dark Knight’ is based on the comic book genre (it could not exist without it) and the sociological and philosophical references are everywhere-the Joker’s line near the start of the film ‘What doesn’t kill you makes you stranger’ is lifted from Nietzsche and marks the tip of the ice berg where that particular film is concerned. My point is that while a graphic novel may look entirely different from a novel or a painting this does not mean that it cannot be as deep or as important to the study of art. Of course there is crap out there, but this is the same with every art form and should not detract from the sublime genius of some of the people involved with the genre.

Our New Shadow Chancellor

There are a few people who lived at the heart of New Labour for years, and yet remain unaffected by the proverbial shit which clings to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Balls et al. Let us take Jack Straw: this man is one of only a few who can claim to have been at the Cabinet table for the entire 13 years of New Labour rule. He was a central figure in every major Labour disaster (including Iraq), has been implicated in electoral fraud (some of his campaign officers are serving prison sentences for tampering with voting papers), and has spent over a decade slowly corroding Britain’s civil liberties. Despite all this he has now retired from front line politics smelling of roses. Where is the justice?

Now Alan Johnson may not be quite as bad as Mr Straw, but let us be fair-Mr Johnson has not had the same ministerial opportunities as the old Justice Minister. However, when given his moment to shine Mr Johnson has behaved with all the vindictive, careerist and short-sighted paranoia which defined the New Labour years-does anyone else remember poor Professor Nutt losing his job because he dared to present evidence which challenged Alan Johnson’s view of drugs? But fear not for there may yet be time for Mr Straw to be eclipsed. Alan Johnson MP has been declared Shadow Chancellor. Woe betide you if you happen to disagree with this new power-broker in the Labour regime-you may end up like poor Professor Nutt!

Vote Cashley On Lothian List!

I would like to take a minute to urge all SNP members in the Lothian region to give Calum Cashley their Ist preference vote on the List. He is a dedicated nationalist, and his recent article (follow the link to his blog at the side of the screen) proves that he will make an excellent MSP. Vote Cashley!

Blair and Iran

I never really liked Blair. There was always something a little too smug about him. As if he knew he was right. Of course he did know he was right, and there lies the problem. Too sure of himself by far. Well his autobiography is out now and, with the limelight cast upon him once more, Blair has told an assembled audience that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear capacity. He knows for a fact that Iran cannot be trusted with a nuclear arsenal.

Now I am no fan of the Iranian regime (their human rights record is appalling), but does anyone else think that this ‘Tehran Threat To World Peace’ thing is getting a bit old? At the very least Blair and the rest of the neo-cons are letting some kind of prejudice cloud their judgement on this issue. Say a prejudice to see all issues from a balcony in Tel Aviv. North Korea now has nuclear capacity (which Iran does not) and has threatened to use that arsenal (Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty). From a strategic point of view North Korea has a much greater destabilising effect on its geo-political region that Iran. From a human rights perspective the regime in Pyongyang is the last Stalinist state; despite the executions Tehran isn’t nearly as bad. In other words if we were playing ‘Top Trumps-Axis of Evil Edition’ North Korea would be the winning card. And yet...

And yet Blair and every other high ranking Western diplomat views Iran as a greater threat to the status quo. Why? Principally, I more than suspect, because Israel holds greater influence in Western capitals that its economic clout, military prowess or its population density would naturally allow. When faced with the threat of a nation in its geo-political orbit which could challenge its monopoly on nuclear warheads, Israel’s highly effective lobbying machine spurts into action. Iran is the focus of Western scorn for the principle reason that Japan/South Korea cannot match the Israeli PR machine. I think it is high time that diplomatic circles began to consider situations in their global, not purely Israeli, context.

A Letter

A letter sent to my local MP.


Under the First Past The Post (FPTP) system the Liberal Democrats are not likely to form the sole party of government anytime soon. Likewise another hung parliament at the next election is a rather dim prospect. A far more likely occurrence would be utter rejection by a nation sickened by Mr Clegg’s self-serving betrayal of Liberal values. However, AV is a glimmer of light in an otherwise dark horizon. Under AV far more of Clegg’s MPs shall be returned at the next election than under the FPTP system. As an added bonus hung Parliaments are thrown up with greater frequency, and it is the Liberal Democrats who shall always be the victor in situations warranting a coalition. Nick Clegg can say what he will, but the truth of the matter is that Liberal support for AV is grounded in nothing more than self-preservation.
Sir, you would think me a fool for wasting a letter if the self-preservation of a few Liberals was all that motivated me in my opposition of AV. I think I am with a majority on the left in wishing some vengeance on the Liberal Democrats, but my own dismay at their betrayal is not so strong that I would sacrifice what little chance this country has of escaping the FPTP system. No, it is the precedent set by the only nation on earth to embrace AV which fills me with a dread that the bill will be passed through Parliament. In Australia the National-Liberal coalition has ruled for 40 of the past 60 years. Now, if our own version of the National-Liberal alliance can so easily become bed-fellows under FPTP, what is to prevent such a coalition forming under a new system? Indeed, Australia has shown that Conservative voters placing Liberals as second preference and vice-versa can work as an effective electoral strategy.
Of course, we have our own Liberal Party’s cast iron guarantee that no such electoral pact shall occur, and they have even spread a rumour that they may form a coalition with the Labour Party at the next election (as if a hung parliament were a foregone conclusion). Personally I do not believe that a party which promised the British people that it opposed Conservative policy on immediate cuts, and a party which entertained talks with Labour for the sole purpose of drawing further concessions from their intended partner can be trusted when they talk of guarantees.
Sir, AV in itself presents the spectre of perpetual Coalition rule, but it is what is attached to the bill which makes the threat almost certain: if the bill passes parliament, and if the referendum is supported by the people, the constituency boundaries shall be reshaped in a manner which will make it nigh impossible for Labour, or any other left-wing party, to gain enough seats to form a majority. The gerrymandering of constituency sizes will work to the benefit of the Conservative and Liberal parties.
Sir, I have presented as best as I am able the argument against the upcoming AV bill: in all probability it shall lead to the demise of the Labour party as an effective force of opposition against right-wing dominance. As such I urge you to vote against the upcoming bill on the referendum, and to support a No campaign if the said bill happens to pass parliament.

To Jargon and Beyond

Why does the political establishment insist on referring to itself as ‘progressive’? The Coalition pursue ‘progressive’ policies. Labour is the only ‘progressive’ party left in British politics. The SNP want to join a ‘progressive’ alliance to stop the (presumably) non-progressive Conservatives. The whole idea of ‘progressive’ politics is faintly amusing really. For instance, if the Coalition is ‘progressive’ what exactly is it progressing toward? Electoral oblivion it is to be hoped. And if Nick Clegg is really progressive does this mean Lord Pearson is regressive? Or perhaps we are standing on the platform as the Coalition’s bullet train of progress speeds toward ‘New Politics’?

The point is that the whole idea of progressive politics, like so much else which is birthed in Westminster, means nothing. A sound bite. Meaningless jargon which sounds quite nice. So, dear reader, the next time ‘progressive politics’ is mentioned ask the speaker what s/he what they actually mean by that phrase. Chances are the speaker will resort to the last refuge of the struggling politician condescending jargon-speak.

Dave on the World Stage

I despise the Conservative Party. Living in an area which was ravaged by Thatcher, I see them as the party of the corporations who would destroy the rights of the common citizen if they believed they could survive the ensuing electoral blood-letting. This hatred is why I find it so painful to write this post: God help me, I support David Cameron’s foreign policy! Since becoming Prime Minister he has come out in full support of Turkish membership of the EU; he has reversed the New Labour dependency on the US; he has criticised Israel by calling Gaza a prison; he has strengthened ties with democratic India rather than the Chinese dictatorship, and to cap it off he has realised that the war in Afghanistan must end at some point. All these foreign policy decisions I can happily support. Of course it may become apparent that there is some kind of Tory hidden agenda to all these moves, but so far so good. As long as Cameron keeps this up the Coalition Government may yet prove itself as a far better alternative to New Labour on the world stage. Now if only he could do something about that domestic policy...

The Big Conversation-Justice

The Budget of the Glorious Coalition shall be announced today, and rumour has it that Osborne (henceforth known as the Boy Wonder) has scheduled up to 1 million fewer public service jobs over the next five years. This will not result in 1 million jobs losses (retiring public service workers not being replaced etc) but even taking ‘natural loss’ into account this is still hundreds of thousands more able workers swelling the ranks of the unemployed. Not only is this a further burden on an already stretched welfare state, it is almost inhuman to force hardworking men and women out of work when there is no need to do so: that is correct Boy Wonder, the deficit can be slashed, and society improved without punishing public service workers. The fact the Chancellery does not use alternative means is either evidence of Danny Alexander and the Boy Wonder’s collective stupidity, or their piggish ideological hang-ups. This leads me on quite nicely to the next in my series of posts on where I would allow the axe to fall if I were Chancellor.

Phil Wheatley, the ex-director general of the National Offender Management Service, has come out in support of axing prison sentences that are shorter than 6 months. His comments have the endorsement of the Prison Governors’ Association, the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo), and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Sentences of six months or less cost the Justice Department £350 million a year, and research (by Napo I believe) has shown that 74% of these short-term convicts will reoffend. Now there is a place for such short-term sentences, but in the vast majority of cases they should be replaced by community service and fines. This would cut reoffending to 34%, save £300 million a year (not including the indirect savings of reduced crime rate), and solve the over-crowding in our prisons all in one stroke. Another great saving by the Marquis-now if only someone would listen to me...

Rage Against the Dying of the Light

My internet connection has been down, and so I have not posted for a little longer than I really intended: for this I apologies. This will be a quick post (not related to my series on cuts-hopefully a new post on Friday) about something which came up when I was watching Monarchy with David Starkey. In 1604 King James the VI of Scots and I of England made a speech before the English Parliament outlining his belief on why the nation of his birth and his adopted home (he would visit Scotland only once after 1603) should be joined in political union: a shared language, culture, customs, religion and linked geographical border all meant that the continual independence of his northern kingdom was an anomaly left over from the age of Bruce-at least in the eyes of the ‘wisest fool’.

Obviously James failed to create a British union during his reign, but the same arguments heard in the English Parliament in the 1600s and in the Scottish Parliament in the 1700s are being reiterated by the forces of unionism today. Now I first joined the nationalist cause because I saw it as the only method by which an independent Scottish identity could be salvaged from the hell of tartan tat; for the same reasons as James VI a Westminster government would never more than make a show of protecting the ancient identity of the northern kingdom. However, the light came upon me watching Starkey talking about the politics of the Jacobean regime-the same reason that drove me toward nationalism (namely the slow death of the national identity) is driving many of my fellow Scots toward the cold embrace of British ideologues. Sadly our national character has degraded to the point where only those who spend their lives surrounded by the memories of the dying culture of my people can form enough energy to raise a hand in defence of old Alba, and this is something I think the nationalist movement needs to rectify. Not only will the Renaissance of the Gaels be a brilliant epoch in our history in its own right, it shall inspire the Scottish people to rise up and defend our ancient identity from lethargy. Once this occurs the march to independence will be assured.

I believe we should practice what we preach. As such I intend to work away at learning Gaelic and promoting Scottish culture and customs. I shall report throughout the year on how I am progressing, and encourage all my nationalist companions to attempt to ‘Gaelify’ their own lives in their own way.

The Big Conversation-Last of the Raj

The Cameron/Clegg team have decided that there should be a national conversation on where the cuts (and, we assume, the taxes) will fall. In that spirit I intend to publish a series of posts contributing to that national conversation. Here is instalment one-entitled ‘Last of the Raj’.

With the advent of the Scottish Parliament the Scottish Office was left with very little to do, and now with the new Coalition committed to devolving more powers to the said parliament, the Office is in danger of becoming devoid of all purpose. And yet this particular arm of the government continues to leech £7.2 million (as of June 2009: http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Costs-at-Scotland-Office-39out.5386463.jp) from the taxpayer. I say the Scottish Security should be removed, and all powers reserved for the Scottish Office be devolved to the Scottish Government. A fairly easy saving which harms no-one but Michael Moore and David Mundell.

Of course the Welsh Office and NI Office should follow on the heels of the Scottish Office: give more powers to the regions and cut back on the costs of these last vestiges of colonialism. This would empower the local executive, as well as save millions.

For What Do We Fight?

The SNP has failed. Unionism is not a credible ideological force, and yet nationalism has not achieved the dream of an independent nation. Whereas the national cause is championed by the one party, Unionism has no clear rallying point, no field marshal on whom to rely to direct the grand campaign. Like the Napoleonic armies in the Iberian peninsula, the parties of Union are divided between many generals who are more interested in political point-scoring than any real concerted effort to eradicate the ‘nationalist menace’. Yet the Union flag still flies above Edinburgh Castle: Where is the SNP’s Vitoria?

Unlike Wellington, the party has failed to use the divisions in the enemies ranks to its advantage. The reason behind our woeful lack of success in the field is simple: the nationalist cause is as divided as that of the Union. Some in the national party support the Conservatives in all but one regard: the Scotland question. Others have ideological sympathies with the Liberals, and yet more find affinity within the trade unions or the Greens. The leadership is as divided as the rank and file, and even if this were not the case an SNP leader would never dare set clear ideological policy for the party for fear of watching Scotland’s best hope split asunder. And so the SNP continue to mount charge after futile charge against Unionist cannon, creating an Austerlitz where we could have a Waterloo.

Students of history, I ask you to think back to any and all successful independence movements or revolutionary ideologues (for what is nationalism but a revolution against the British constitutional make-up?) What do they all share? What binds them together? Clear ideological opposition to the ancient regime. The American Revolutionaries had no cultural identity with which to unite dissident, and yet they achieved the unimaginable and drove the most powerful nation on earth from one of her primary colonies. This did not happen through British bad luck alone, but instead it was combined with a clearly defined alternative to Hanoverian rule laid down in the Declaration of Independence. The Covenanting Revolutionaries defeated Anglo-royalist forces by uniting the opinionated Presbyterians behind the National Covenant. The Irish nationalists had their Catholic faith and cultural identity. Even the medieval Scots had their Declaration of Arbroath. The clear pattern is that nationalism only becomes a successful political force once it has a clear ideological alternative to Unionism.

Many of my readers will no doubt object to my proposal: surely this move can only lead to the split in the nationalist vote? Well we have two options, dear reader: carry on as we are, muddling along until the end of time; or we can risk the split in the SNP-and achieve the dream of sending Murphy to his very own Elba!

Israel and the Double Standard

Israel has recently committed a new transgression against the international community by attacking a civilian boat in international waters. The boat was full of protesters intent in braking the siege on Gaza, and so was fair game in the minds of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). More information can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships

At the moment Israel is only allowing its version of events to be heard (journalists having been blocked from achieving full access to the injured protesters), but even if the IDF prove to be entirely within their rights on this matter (that would be a first) the international reaction highlights a double standard in relations. Imagine that it had been Iran, or Hamas, or Saudi Arabia, or Cuba, or Russia, or any other country that you care to think about had performed the same action that the IDF has recently pulled off. What would be the international reaction? Almost certain condemnation followed by swift diplomatic action and perhaps even sanctions. However, when Israel attacks civilians in international waters the Obama administration is ‘working to understand the circumstances surrounding the tragedy’. Similarly weak and non-offensive remarks can be heard in most Western Foreign Offices. Even although 9 people have been killed by an aggressive military not in its own waters the governments of ‘the West’ are paralysed with an indecision which they simply do not show to any other nation on earth-or at least not to the same level. Are victims of Israeli bullets any less dead? Are Israeli wars any less illegal (this is illegal by Israeli as well as international law)? Of course not. European and American governments must end the double standards: once Israel is treated like any other nation a proper peace process can begin.

House of Lords Reform

I was appalled when I learned that the new Coalition government are going to attempt to turn the House of Lords into an elected Senate. So strongly do I feel about this travesty that I was compelled to send letters off to various members of Parliament (both Opposition and Government as well as the Lords). Below readers can find a copy of this agitation. I think it summarises my argument quite well, and I would be interested to read the opinion of anyone who happens to be passing through this section of the blogosphere.


An academic’s first duty is to their subject, and a bishop’s to God. Both roles can be found within the House of Lords, but does the value of these individuals as legislators diminish because of their devotion to their chosen field? Almost certainly not; in my own modest opinion quite the reverse is true; by first serving science, or philosophy, or whatever other subject may be represented in the Upper Chamber, peers such as Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, can bring expertise and a unique insight to a prospective law which would have been lost if he had been a politician alone. No matter how intelligent an MP may be, they simply cannot keep abreast of current developments in their past field as well as fully serving their constituents and going through the rigors of re-election every four or five years. This, of course, does not devaluate the hard work of our MPs, but it does highlight the need for independent life peers in the House of Lords who can scrutinise and debate Bills in a way which the House of Commons cannot hope to emulate.

I am not advocating that the House of Lords does not need to be reformed, but I feel that the creation of a wholly elected Senate would be pure folly; the great tradition of highly qualified independent peers would be lost, and this would be a dismal development for the national character: I find it hard to imagine Lord Rees standing in an election at the expense of scientific enquiry, and it would be incompetence in the extreme to force such peers to choose between the love of their country and the love of their subject; there seems no sane reason why the two cannot be reconciled.

I hope that I have clearly expressed my view on this subject, and I hope that you shall at least consider this view before voting on any legislation which may change the nature of our upper house.

And so ends my political agitating, at least for the moment!

Should the Monarchy Stay or Go?

What are my views on the Queen? There are various people within the nationalist community who believe that an independent Scotland (or a united Britain) should be a republic. The argument goes that the common people should be able to elect their head of state, but this I see as quite pointless. For instance, let us just imagine that Britain became a republic. In the British system at present the Queen acts as our head of state, and so it must be concluded that any elected official would perform similar functions: real power would still reside with the Prime Minister and Parliament with the President used as a figure head with limited constitutional powers. We would have a republic which would almost definitely be closer to the Indian or Polish model rather than the American one, and as such we would be replacing a monarchical figure-head with an elected figure-head.

Now if we conclude that the only difference between a monarchical Britain and a republican one is another election every 4 years or so, then from a philosophical perspective it must be concluded that there must be something special about electing our head of state or there would be no point in replacing the Queen. I would argue that this is not true. Although democracy in the Lower House is preferable to some kind of dictatorship, I would argue that an elected President merely adds extra cost (elections cost money) and uncertainty (will it be the twit who is elected? Do I really need to watch another party political broadcast?) without adding to the sum total of national wellbeing (would another elected official really make me any better off either economically or spiritually?). As such I would argue that on grounds of good governance replacing the already existing monarch with a President is an unnecessary, and quite laborious step which should be avoided.

Of course republicans tend to factor in cost-cutting as a reason to axe the monarchy, but this simply does not float. Almost all of the Queen’s properties (with the exclusion of Buckingham Palace and a few others) are owned by her and her family-if Britain became a republic these properties would remain in the Windsor family. At the moment the government has the right to receive the money generated from these business interests, and with them meet the monarchies various costs. Any money left over goes into the government’s budget. With a President we would have most of the costs (security detail, wage, state functions and the added burden of an election) with none of the added benefits brought out from the Windsor estates-unless that family was extremely generous. The idea that a republic would save the country undue financial strain is therefore ludicrous. As such I conclude that Britain (and indeed an independent Scotland) should remain a monarchy for the foreseeable future.

Are Labour Insane?

Of late I have been a bit of a post-election news glutton. Hung parliaments certainly make for interesting politics. Anyway, Labour last night announced that they would be willing to do a deal with the Lib Dems so as to form a ‘Progressive Alliance’, and Gordon Brown would stand down as leader if this were to happen. Despite the fact that adding the Liberals to the Labour bunch still does not make a majority, this would be utter madness. Although the Labour loyalists doing the TV circuits claiming that there is no constitutional barrier to imposing another unelected PM are correct, this does not mean they are justified in doing so. A Party leader will shape the policy and persona of their party, and as PM is the face of Britain abroad-for instance Thatcher Tory Party and Cameron Tory Party are different in many respects as too would a Milliband or Balls Labour Party. As such I think the electorate should at least have the right to know who they are getting as their leader when they vote for a party at an election. If Labour impose yet another leader on the British people without recourse to an election then I think they deserve to be punished at the polls.

In the personal opinion of this blogger I think that the Lib Dems should side with the Conservative Party. Although I may not like it more people voted Tory than any other single party, and a Con-Lib coalition may take the sting out of some of the worse Conservative policies-perhaps they will be more gentle with a southing yellow at the Cabinet. However, if they form a Lib-Lab pact then we are in for a messy term where nothing much gets done. This is bad in the best of times, never mind when just coming out of a recession. Come on Clegg, side with Cameron!

Brown and 'Bigotgate'

What does ‘Bigotgate’ show? That Gordon Brown does not know how things work in the ‘real’ world? That the PM actually has human frailties? No, what Gillian Duffy showed the British public is that Gordon Brown has run out of steam. He accepted a mike which was not controlled by the Party (and so his aides could control the on/off switch), and then forgot he had it on his lapel. Can anyone really imagine Blair, Cameron, Obama or Clegg making the same mistake? Would Brown circa 1997 have made this mistake? In his 13 years in the chambers of power Brown has lost his edge, and lost his political sense-he reminds me of an overworked, sleep-deprived executive; probably only ever mediocre at the job, but exhaustion have made him almost useless. I predict that if Gordon Brown wins the next election then he shall stumble from gaffe to gaffe until he is voted out or his party pushes him into retirement.

A. Flew

Antony Flew, one of the greatest philosophers of the post-War era, died on 8 April 2010. In the last few years he made headlines with his book ‘There Is A God’ in which the man who established atheism as a viable mainstream philosophical position changed his mind. I have read the book and must say that Flew’s intellect did not dim with age. A great man who will be sorely missed.

Read more about his life at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html

The Problem Of Evil

A little long for a blog post, but here is my solution to the Problem of Evil.

This essay shall examine the Problem of Evil, and attempt to suggest how a theist could legitimately maintain their belief in God in the face of the existence of evil. Some philosophers surmise that the Problem of Evil may prove fatal for the traditional theistic concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving God, but this may not be the case. Indeed there is a powerful argument which appears to counter the Problem, even if it does raise further questions about God and the nature of reality. This is not to say that an omnipotent, omnipresent and all-loving God could exist, just that the Problem of Evil may not disprove the existence of this type of God.
The Problem of Evil holds that if God is omnipotent, omnipresent and all-loving then:
Premise 1: He should be able to prevent all evil He knows about.
Premise 2: He knows about all evil
Premise 3: He wishes to prevent all evil.
Conclusion 1: Therefore evil should not exist.
Conclusion 2: Evil exists therefore one of the premises must be incorrect.
This argument provides a serious problem for traditional theistic thinking, and some philosophers, such as Mackie, have surmised that it forces the theist to either change one of the definitions of God-e.g. remove the omnipotence-or cling on to the traditional concept, but realise that they do so out of blind faith with no support from logic or reason. Some philosophers have come to the defence of the theistic position, and their arguments might defy the challenge of Mackie.
Authority and freedom appears to be something which most humans desire and cherish: as a child grows into an adult they are given increasing freedoms and responsibility, and most adults would resent their parents interfering in their lives with the same authoritarianism as they did in their child’s infancy. What is true for individual adults appears to be true for humanity as a whole: the race would probably grow to resent a being which micromanages its affairs-indeed this micromanagement may stunt humanities creativity in much the same way as a prisoner in chains who could move very little without the guards consent would be unable to fulfil her creative potential. As it appears to be true that authority is a good in itself, this has a profound impact on the Problem of Evil. Imagine Jones had the ability to give Mary a meal or not give her a meal; the worse that could happen is that Mary would become hungry and so it must be agreed that Jones has little moral authority; forcing Mary to go hungry does not have great enough potential consequences to give Jones the responsibility to have moral authority. However, if he has the ability to either give her a poisoned meal and inherit Mary’s wealth or not to give her a poisoned meal and remain poor, then it must be agreed that he has far more moral authority. Also, it is probably safe to assume that Jones’ moral decision not to give Mary poison even though it would have lead to great material advantage is much more commendable than him giving her a nutritional meal because of the greater moral responsibility bestowed upon him. In this instance it could be concluded that the extra authority given to humanity and the moral responsibility that entails far outweighs the evil within the world.
However, Mackie would counter the claim that God must allow evil in order for more good or moral responsibility to come into existence. While what can be called First Order Evils such as war may lead to a Second Order Good like heroism, these First Order Evils can lead to Second Order Evils such as cowardice just as easily. Surely, it is argued, if God is both all-loving and omnipotent He would be able to engineer a world in which only First Order Evils exist? This would mean that War would always lead to heroism, and means that humanity gains all the benefits of these Second Order Goods without involving the evils of the Second Order. That Second Order Evils exist could be taken to indicate that God is either not all-good, or not omnipotent, in that He cannot create, or does not care to create, a world in which Second Order Evils are eliminated.
This kind of argument does not work in light of Swinburne’s defence. The entire reason for evil to exist in the first place is so that humans can choose wither to perform an evil or good act; if Jones can only choose heroism in a war then there is little point of an all-loving being allowing war to exist in the first place-it is having the ability to choose cowardice which makes the heroism good.
This in itself presents a problem for the theist: surely it is possible for an all-loving, omnipotent being to create a world in which an independent human agent could have been created in such a way that the option of doing evil always exists, but they always resist it? This does seem to indicate that the Problem of Evil may have triumphed over the traditional concept of the theistic God; there are people who, when offered a choice between good and evil will almost always choose good. This does not mean that they’re judgment is less praiseworthy; indeed it is probably the opposite. The case seems to be that a person can exist who almost always chooses good, and could retain their responsibility. As such it seems logical that an omnipotent God could create everyone in a way that they almost always choose good; this would afford humanity its cherished freedoms and responsibility, but much reduce the evil in the world. Most people would agree that it is not the case that everyone, or even the majority, almost always chooses good, therefore it might be possible to conclude that as evil is more prevalent than it needs to be, the Problem of Evil still presents a challenge to the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent and all-good God: one of the premises, or God Himself must go.
Oddly enough Nietzsche may be able to save the traditional version of God from this claim. When writing about the possibility of a utopian society Nietzsche claimed that if it ever came to pass that perfect society came into being, humanity would cease to exist: humanity requires the trials presented by imperfection in order to create, strive and survive. What is true of the utopia could be said to be true of the perfect world in which agents could, but never did choose evil: without the trials provided by agents choosing evil, then humanity would lose what makes it human, and sink into lethargy.
Those who protect the Problem of Evil could respond, if they wished, that the existence of so-called ‘non-human’ evils prevents this counter from succeeding. Assume that humanity both needs the choice of evil, and requires that many independent agents do choose evil, this still does not explain the suffering caused by that which humanity cannot control: earthquakes, droughts etc. An omnipotent God may be able to create a world in which none of these non-human (what Swinburne terms ‘Natural Evils’) disasters exist. This would dramatically decrease the amount of suffering in the world, but could leave enough human evil as to allow creativity and authority to remain.
This argument is not convincing. To return once more to Nietzsche: ‘Formula of my happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal...’ Humanity requires the idea of a goal or an aim as much as they require strife. Without evil there is no real goal-an agent cannot aim to eliminate poverty if it does not exist. Without a goal humanity degenerates in the same way as it would if there was no strife. Swinburne illustrates this well when he alludes to the unemployed in contemporary Britain: without employment prospects, but with no real threat of suffering in the same way that a third world unemployed person would have, the unemployed are in real danger of slipping into lethargy. The example need not be the unemployed: those few individuals who inherit a great deal of wealth so that they are secure, and can buy most material objects, yet despite this these individuals rarely sit with their wealth: they search for a purpose, wither that be in politics or philanthropy. Those that do not find this goal are in danger of leading a lifestyle which does little good to either themselves or to their fellow humans-the news is full of rich youths wasting away in the drug dens of Europe. Even when a human agent has everything, or the potential to have everything which could be desired, that agent will continue to seek out a goal: the goal is the thing for which humanity strives.
The question remains as to why God would allow Natural Evil to persist when it seems possible that humanity could ascertain its goals from moral evil alone. However, it seems that moral human evil simply is not possible without natural evil: not only does humanity seem to learn how to commit evil-learn how to brew poison etc-from observations of nature, it seems that moral evil would not be practically possible without natural evil; the consequence and much of the moral authority would be lost from Jones stealing Mary’s bread if there is not a famine-otherwise the lost bread is an inconvenience. Even in relatively rich countries much of the debate over morals revolves around natural functions: should rich countries give aid to poorer ones, should euthanasia become an acceptable way of ending the suffering of the individual? The list goes on, but these two examples are good illustrations of the argument. The first example links in with the natural and moral evils of the poorer nations: the moral debate around giving aid simply would not exist if natural evils did not make that aid necessary. The euthanasia debate is another example of how natural evil affects the moral compass: without suffering there would be no need to contemplate euthanasia, but natural evils such as disease make euthanasia an option for some people. In this way natural evils allow people to choose between good and bad, and creates a grey area in which humanity can grow as morally responsible agents capable of making their own decisions based on the evidence and their own conscience.
The last doubt created by the Problem of Evil over the traditional theistic God is that the nature of reality presented by Swinburne and others may disprove an omnipotent deity. A God which can do anything should be able to create a world in which it is possible for the creative energy created by evil, and the authority of being able to pick between good and evil exists without having the consequences of evil actions. This could indeed prove fatal for God.
Schlesinger quite rightly claims that we cannot expect an omnipotent God to do the logically impossible: God could remain omnipotent while not breaking logic ‘for we do not know what it is we ask of Him’. Perhaps creating a world in which there is less evil that there is now, but that the human condition remains as if there was the same level of evil as before, is logically impossible. This could quite easily be true, and if it is then God can remain omnipotent, omnipresent and all-loving within the confines of the world humanity finds itself. Indeed it seems to be the case that it is logically impossible to change the levels of suffering without altering humanity. As shown in the above arguments, humanity relies on moral and natural evils so that they can become morally responsible and creative individuals, and to reduce the amount of suffering appears to alter either the creativity or the responsibility. As such for God to reduce the amount of evil in the world, but keep humanity unaltered, human agents would have to believe that suffering remained at the same levels as before-this ensures that the search for a goal remains. Surely if humanity must believe that evil remains unaltered, God would have to create a delusion for humanity, and in this act humanities moral responsibility is altered-a madman cannot have the same level of responsibility as a sane individual, hence the plea of insanity. One of the major points of allowing evil in the first place is to give humanity moral responsibility, and taking this away through delusion would defeat the purpose of evil.
Although the Problem of Evil originally seems to discredit the notion of an omnipotent, omnipresent and all-loving God, on close and careful examination it appears that the Problem simply does not provide a challenge to traditional theistic assumptions. That is not to say that traditional theism is right in ascribing these attributes to God, or that God exists at all, but the Problem of Evil cannot be used as a means to deconstruct these assumptions.



Mackie J. L. Evil and Omnipotence [Book Section] // Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy / book auth. Feinberg Joel and Shafer-Landau Russ. - Belmont : Thomson Warsworth, 2008. - Vol. 13 .
Nietzsche Friedrich Master and Slave Morality [Book Section] // Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy / book auth. Feinberg Joel and Shafer-Landau Russ. - Belmont : Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. - Vol. 13.
Nietzsche Friedrich Twilight of the Idols/ The Anti-Christ [Book]. - London : Penguin Books, 1990.
Schlesinger George The Problenm of Evil and the Problem of Suffering [Book Section] // Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy / book auth. Feinberg Joel and Shafer-Landau Russ. - Belmont : Thomson Wadsworth, 2008. - Vol. 13 Edition.
Swinburne Richard Why God Allows Evil [Book Section] // Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy / book auth. Feinberg Joel and Shafer-Landau Russ. - Belmont : Thomson Wadsworth, 2008. - Vol. 13.

Why I Am Not A Tory

I can never vote Conservative because I have a social conscious. Cameron’s party is going to cut tax if they get into power. This means cutting inheritance tax, giving a tax break to married couples and lowering NI contribution. In the middle of a recession there is only one way that a Conservative government could fund these tax cuts-through spending cuts. Indeed Cameron has already announced that he will fund these policies by slashing 30-40,000 jobs in the public services. In so doing the mask has slipped and we once more see the same old Tory underneath.

Dear reader do not listen to Tory rhetoric, for there is only one type of person that a tax cut will help-the rich. You see the poorest sections in society rely on the public services for a decent standard of living, and it is that money which the Conservatives wish to take away which prevents the poorest rung of society from starving. Indeed, Cameron is going to add to the unemployment list for the sake of giving the richest 2% a little more disposable income. Even the claim that a Tory government would preserve front line staff just does not work in practice. The jobs that will be lost in the public sector are secretaries, cleaners and the like-people Cameron has decided are not central to the ‘business’. When these people go it will save millions, but also makes public services completely inefficient. For instance if there is no secretary doing the paper work, taking calls etc it means that so-called front line staff will have to devout the majority of their time doing these jobs. This means that they spend less time doing the job they are paid for and our public services become even more ineffective than they already are. So ,dear reader, because I believe in a living wage for the poor, and because I think our public services should be the best in the world, I am not voting Tory on 6th May. I encourage you to do the same.

The Lords Of Shadow

I dream of a future when the teaming masses break free from the chains which at present enslave them, and when the last links are cast upon the floor the true will of the people shall be expressed. Like a lion escaping from the circus cage, the masses shall roar into the dawn, and the clique which has presided over millennia of imprisonment shall shrink back from the ferocity of the free. I shall fight for this dream until it is reality, or I am no more, and nothing short of death shall silence me.

But what does it mean to be free? When all live without fear of what the next day holds, and when we consider each other brothers under God. When weapons are turned into tools, and when hatred turns to love we shall know freedom. The road will be long and hard, and we may never see the Promised Land, but could we forgive ourselves if we did not try?

And how shall we achieve freedom? Only by shouting long and hard. Only when every man, woman and child knows of the plight of their fellows, and only when they shout in unison shall the chains weaken. Spread the word all who care to listen. Tell your neighbours, tell your friends that the masses are tired of slavery, and are ready for a new epoch in human history. Tell them to have no more to do with ruthless corporations, with corrupt governments and with malignant institutions. Tell them that the Lords of Shadow cannot stand against the might of the masses, and that as long as we stand united there is hope. Who shall join me in the long march to the Promised Land?

The National Anthem

Flower of Scotland is a great song, but it does make us sound like a nation obsessed by one event in our history. Let us replace it with the song ‘Scotland Will Flourish’. This song portrays the Scots as a modern people who respect their heritage rather than as a bunch of Braveheart fans. Much better I feel.

Parliament Hall

Edinburgh has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to architecture. There is New Parliament House, Old Parliament House, the Assembly Building, St. Giles Cathedral, St. Mary’s Cathedral, the Royal Bank of Scotland HQ; the Library on the Royal Mile, Holyrood Palace, most of the buildings on Prince’s Street and around St. Andrews Square and the list goes on and on. However, when it was decided that devolution was a good idea, the Labour Party decided to ignore this fine tradition of great Edinburgh architecture and instead built a monstrosity that would not be out of place in Soviet Russia. Now, I am all for this generation making its mark on the skyline of Edinburgh, but surely we could have done much better for £414 million? The quicker the present parliament building crumbles the better.




Can anyone really compare the top picture with the present Parliament? One is a master piece in Renaissance architecture, the other an ugly testament to the uncultured, barbarous times we live in.

The Good Life

The ancient philosophers were determined to find the Good Life, or more precisely, what made a life good. This should be the purpose, the goal of philosophy, art and science: to discover the Good Life. Everything else is trivial. In this blog I hope to share my journey in search of that elusive elixir. I may never find it, but I will continue to search until my dying day. As Nietzsche once wrote ‘The sum total of my happiness; a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal...’ In this I agree with Nietzsche; a goal is what humanity craves, and it is in the journey that we grow as individuals and as communities; reaching the destination would be a happy coincidence, but even if I never reach my goal that is not to say my search was in vain.

In this blog I shall chart my musings on a host of topics including politics, philosophy, science, theology, culture and travel. Join me as I traverse the long, steep path up the mountain.