To save cost and effort whenever the Prime Minister does a re-shuffle, how about the signage for all government buildings is from hereon in made from a white, A2, printed laminated piece of paper supporting the organisation's name?
Or better still, why not put a fridge outside the front of each government building, complete with magnetic letters with which could be written the department's name? Saves dumping them in landfill.
Just a thought.
I bring you potential future US Vice President Sarah Palin.
Oh my days.
Thanks to Francis for pointing this one out, Katie Couric's CBS interview.
"We're not going to give up our country for a mere X on a ballot. How can a ballpoint pen fight with a gun?"
Robert Mugabe, 16 June 2008
The headline on the front of today's Daily Express reads:
Immigration soars to record levels.
…with a sub-heading of:
It's no wonder so many Britons have moved abroad.
It's interesting to note their stance that inbound immigration is unacceptable, while outbound immigration is understandable.
Four years ago, I did some analysis of the voting of US states by their average IQ. It found that John Kerry won the 16 most "intelligent" US states, while George W. won the 26 least intelligent.
A similar analysis of the Democratic voting this time around is less conclusive. Of the 25 states that Barack Obama has won to date, the average IQ ranking is 24.6, compared to 21.7 for the 16 that Hillary Clinton has won. (The averages for Bush and Kerry were 34.7 and 10.5 respectively in 2004.)
Obama won Connecticut, the "most intelligent" state, the next four intelligent states being taken by Clinton (Massachusetts, Jersey, New York and Rhode Island). The top ten for which elections have taken place have been evenly divided between the two candidates.
At the bottom end, of the states whose elections have taken place, Obama has won the four least intelligent states (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, South Carolina) and seven of the bottom ten.
Obama now needs to walk away with at least 44.5% of the remaining delegates to reach the 2,025 winning post, this being the lowest this figure has been in the entire election. Should be an exciting run home.
The BBC yesterday reported the Tories' claim that the number of children in schools of more than 2,000 pupils has trebled in the last ten years, the Tories linking such schools to discipline problems.
It's certainly a headline grabber, but the truth behind it is unlikely to be as significant as the headline suggests.
Having an arbitrary cut-off of 2,000 pupils defining a large school is dangerously powerful. There were 12,650 such pupils in 1997, rising to 47,540 in 2007. Such an increase could be explained by 18 schools each increasing their register by two pupils, from 1,999 to 2,001 pupils. It's doubtful that this extreme scenario is indeed what has happened, but the reality is also unlikely to be as momentous as the highlighted statistics suggest.
This evening, the BBC's ticker informed its readers that President George was giving a warning to Iran.
I think it's quite nice that we're done with the formalities of politics. He almost sounds like a hurricane, which some would argue is accurate: unfathomable power leaving nothing but destruction in its wake.
From now on, we should refer to all our leaders in this way: President George, Prime Minister Gordon, France's duo of President Nicolas and Prime Minister François), Germany's Chancellor Angela, Prime Minister Stephen of Canada and China's General Tso. (This last one was a red herring: China's leader is actually President Hu.)
Andrew Marr: can you remember and do you recall what you felt when you heard David Kelly had gone missing?
Alastair Campbell: I certainly can remember it and I do recall it and it was, I'd say with the possible exception of family deaths [glib] and erm, possibly my own breakdown in the 80s it was, it was the worst period of my life, without any shadow of a doubt.
The combination of "possible exception" and "without any shadow of a doubt" weakens his stance inordinately. The full interview can be found here.
I echo Rob's view that the release of Alan Johnston is a blessing.
After 114 days, or at least after the momentousness of Johnston's release has died down, the BBC will finally be compelled to return to its objective media remit.
I can't help but feel that his captivity has attracted a much greater focus than other captives' plights might attract simply because of the BBC's position as arbiter of news. The BBC's role as a journalistic organisation has been blurred with its role as employer, to its detriment.
Would Johnston have been released safely if the BBC had not kept up its relentless focus? We will never know. And this is where the argument gets difficult. Nonetheless, the BBC has lost a degree of credibility as a result of the elevated status the story has received.
I do of course share Rob's delight for the fella himself, along with his family.
I just caught the 87 bus past Downing Street and the media lawn outside Westminster. Both are teeming with media - camera crews, reporters, bright spotlights and umbrellas to keep them all dry.
I swear: something's going on today, and I won't sleep until I find out what. You'll be the first to know, so stay tuned...
The report by Sir David Varney last month prescribed a reduction in the number of departmental websites, instead using Directgov and Businesslink as the primary information and transactional channels for citizens and businesses respectively.
Finally!
And it seems the report has developed an impetus, the BBC today reporting the Cabinet Office's decision to close down 551 sites, with "hundreds more ... expected to follow". They estimate the total number of sites currently out there at 991, although this seems woefully low, especially if you bring in local government.
This makes me happy because (a) the government web-presence is currently chaotic and (b) I project managed the implementation of Directgov. So it's nice to see its ever-increasing profile. However this news has been a long time coming.
In the UK, our late-December festivities are completely focused around the word Christmas. In the US, it's simply The Holiday Season, which is way more inclusive, given that Christmas is, well, Christian, and given the diversity of cultures and religions that exist within the US. This despite the US deeming itself a very Christian country. I like this inclusive attitude.
In this morning's Metro, I read of a group of parents in the UK who are going to complain to their local education authority because their school changed their children's Christmas Party into a Winter Party. The school (Hill View Primary School in Bournmouth) doesn't appear to be denominational, so I'm bemused by the parents' issue.
In the UK, little is actively done to embrace the mutli-culturalism that our immigration policies have brought us, and such stories only serve to highlight this failure.
One parent, Penny Turner, defended her stance. "I'm not prepared to bring my child up in a school that regards political correctness as that important." Meanwhile local councillor Claire Smith waded in. "It's very easy to offend people's sensibilities but, as far as I'm concerned, this is a Christian country and most of us are still happy to celebrate the birth of Christ."
It shows ignorance on the part of the parents, and a lack of understanding of the wider issues by the local councillor.
As an aside, the main menu (turn your sound down if you follow the link) shows further evidence of the dying apostrophe, with its "Childrens Area".
Yesterday, I backed up my blog, albeit in a rather backward way. I changed the setting such that all posts display on the homepage, copied all of the content and pasted it across into Word, without any formatting.
It gave me 270 pages of ten-point text. 675 posts accounting for a total of 141,000 words. Estimates indicate that the number of Iraqi deaths is anywhere between 150,000 and 650,000.
For the next day or so, I'm keeping the settings as they are, to display all posts on the homepage. It will take a little longer for the page to load (1.3Mb), but once it loads, please scroll up and down a little, and think of the fact that every word you see represents at least one innocent death in the conflict.
At last, sone sense has prevailed in the US. It was saddening to be there in 2004 when the American public voted to keep Bush in power, to the detriment of the country and the world. In yesterday's mid-terms, it seems that the tide has changed, and hopefully it will stand them in good stead for the Presidential elections in two years' time.
Thanks, America.
It seems bizarre in today's world that schools are still 'affiliated' with religion: All Saints C. of E. school, for example, the one that I attended.
Schools are a public service, paid for by the British tax-payer, regardless of their religion. It is as absurd as having religion-specific hospitals, or tips, or policemen. (Places of worship are fine, as they're privately funded.) Surely we need to get rid of these now-meaningless labels, to promote equality and a more diverse, welcoming society.
There was an article in today's Metro (and so no doubt the weekend news) about the sorry educational state of today's school-leavers, and the need for them to grasp the basics of maths and English, including useful stuff like percentages.
The fact that a higher percentage of people each year are achieving the top grades is undermining the currency of school qualifications. This year is the 24th successive year in which the A-level success rate has gone up.
A Metro-published letter from Platteen Tsang (no doubt a recent A-level success story) suggests that critics of this are "jealous of the teenagers' performance". I have to disagree.
In my view, the examination boards themselves need to use applied knowledge of percentages, assuming they have such knowledge of course. Given that the overall intelligence of the population isn't likely to change significantly from one year to the next, and given the importance of a stable currency in the field of education, wouldn't it make sense if across the country, the percentage of papers receiving a given grade for a given subject were standardised? The top 15% of A-level English papers should receive an A, for instance?
That way, each grade would measure its recipient against his or her peers, as opposed to against an ever-sliding and ever more meaningless scale.
The sex offenders' register has been in and out of the news for some time now. Recently, John Reid made the vote-winning decision to make the register publicly available, which is dangerous. I'm not sure what benefit this has to the general public. The fact that a 16-year-old who is found guilty of having sex with someone one year his or her junior is given the same status as Jonathan King makes the single-tiered nature of the register nonsensical.
And which crimes should have an associated register and which should not? Should there be a murderers register? A rapists register? A burglars register? If its purpose is to flag people who put the general public at risk, then this suggests that the government has failed in its rehabilitation of these people, an element of the sentence that is sadly overlooked.
Also, alas, the British public is not sufficiently competent to use the data appropriately. A household in Scotland recently suffered untold abuse because it was found to contain a paediatrician.
On a related point, the BBC punctuates the register such: the sex offender's register. I think this implies that it is a register for the sex offender. I would argue that it is a register of sex offenders, so the apostrophe should succeed the S. Or else it has become sufficiently prevalent a term not to warrant an apostrophe at all.
It seems that Blair's cabinet is crumbling around him, with Charles Clarke's failure to deport freed, foreign, former prisoners, and John Prescott's new label of "two shags" to go alongside his "two jags" and "two jabs".
With regard to the Charles Clarke issue, I'm not sure I fully understand. Among other things, imprisonment is meant to ensure the safety of the general public, and therefore release from prison should only be done at a time when there is minimal risk to the general public.
The fact that the former prisoners were not deported merely means that the victims of any future crimes they commit are likely to be British as opposed to foreign; if the former prisoners were deported, it wouldn't affect their likelihood of re-offending.
While deportation may have been a pre-condition of their release (which would be a separate matter), it seems that people are focusing on the wrong issue. The argument for deportation is somewhat similar to Bush's argument for fighting terrorism before it reaches US soil. It's almost making a case for British people being better than foreigners.
I understand the home secretary's remit to ensure the safety of the British public, but this should not be done at the expense of other countries' people. If the criminals were a significant risk to the public, British or otherwise, then they should not have been released from prison.
I've long known that Matt Frei for being staunchly political, specifically anti-Bush. It often comes through in undertones in his articles.
But today's article about the effect of rising petrol prices and the president's response takes this to another level. It is almost as if it has been written by a Democrat out to oust Bush. And it's not just Bush that he takes a pop at; the third paragraph targets the whole of America:
Bewailed in country songs and popular ballads, it is forcing ordinary people to do extraordinary things - like car pooling, riding the bike to work, selling their second SUV, or doing a "walk-thru" at their local burger joint instead of a "drive-thru".
This isn't where the BBC should be, and this article, while containing elements of truth, will only serve to weaken American/British ties. It could have been so much better without the emotive phrases that belong in the red-tops, not in the world's most respected news organisation.
A quote from tonight's Fox 5 News sums up the US media's attitude towards arrested people, particularly in relation to high-profile cases.
"He's not been charged with her murder. Not yet, at least." Lisa Evers, Fox 5 News
Apparently, the innocent until proven guilty concept is not specifically included in the US Constitution, but having come from English jurispudence, it has been around so long that it is considered common law. Apparently not.
It seems that terrorism has given the US government license to do whatever it pleases. Every time there is something seemingly unethical or illegal, it's in the name of counter-terrorism.
The scandal in Guantanamo Bay seems to have fallen by the way-side recently from a news perspective; I haven't heard mention it for a few weeks now, ever since the UN declined a visit due to restrictions that would have been imposed by the US. The only possible reason for the decline in news coverage is that it's old news, despite the fact that the associated scandal hasn't gone away.
And last week, Condoleezza Rice defended America's position with respect to secret CIA prisons in Europe, and the treatment of people under investigation.
For the past couple of months, rumour has been rife about Bush's stance on a proposed new anti-torture law, reports suggesting that he would use his presidential status to veto the measure. Fortunately, he has backed down on his previous veto threats, even if this back-down has been forced by overwhelming political pressure as opposed to common sense.
And today, Bush is defending his position on secretly monitoring communications in the US. In so doing, he criticised the New York Times for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech, indicating that their reporting of this has resulted in enemies learning information they should not have. It seems naïve to think that if a journalist can find out such information, then al-Qaeda cannot.
It seems that by justifying a policy by referring back to 9/11 and terrorism, anything can be accepted. All of this from a president who allegedly recently referred to the Constitution as just a god-damned piece of paper.
About time. I was shocked that this issue seemed to become yesterday's news so quickly, with no heads rolling as a result.
The police presented a case in which Menezes jumped over the barriers at Stockwell, was wearing a large coat and in which the police repeatedly shouted for him to stop, all of which have since been thrown into question.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of this, and the formal inquiry into his death.
I've just read the letter from the Metropolitan Police to the Home Secretary requesting an increase to the time allowed for the police to interview terror suspects.
Apart from Andy Hayman's inability to spell Morocco (why would he know?), the overall message is that the evidence collection and analysis process is complex and time-consuming, so can we have more time?
The fundamental change in the circumstances is that usually, a bunch of evidence has been collected and analysed in advance of the arrest. The argument here is that with the new mentality of terror organisations, by necessity the arrest happens earlier in the process, essentially before a traditional arrest would have been justified.
For some reason, the document is penned by the Assistant Commissioner as opposed to Sir Ian Blair. (Not sure if this is a political move, given Blair's track record in this area.) In it, he lays out the various reasons for the extended time needed, before giving a theoretical case study which looks like it might require longer detainment than the 14 days currently allowed.
The problem with the argument is that although the document is requesting an increase from 14 days to three months, at no point does it give any justification as to why three months is an appropriate length of time. While the reasoning may be justifiable, the conclusion certainly isn't, at least within the confines of the communication.
Today's news that the recent fatal shooting at Stockwell Underground station was unconnected to the bombings and the attempted bombings will come as a huge blow to both the police and the Muslim community, as well as the family of the murdered man.
The anxiety that is no doubt an undercurrent throughout London's transport network has been the cause of a seemingly innocent death. The British police, who are not renowned for their race relations, will face some serious questions over the next few weeks, and the Muslim community must be concerned about the possibility of racial stereotyping being the main driver - if a white man had acted in the same way, would he be dead now?
The fact that the man was wearing a large coat in the middle of summer, along with the allegation that he ignored the police's earlier calls to stop, would likely put him under some level of suspicion, but for him to die as a result seems so wrong.
Something quickly needs to be done about the security of the Underground to ensure that Friday's death is not repeated. If that means more security at ground level, then so be it. Given the extreme mentality of the guilty few, everything needs to be done to prevent them from getting into the Underground in the first place. How to deal with the analogous situation aboard buses is another story.
George W. made another primetime address to the nation this evening, amid declining support for the war on Iraq/terror.*
Once again, there is a conflict between his words. In one breath, he is saying that the human sacrifice is worth it, for the sake of this nation's security. The next minute, he is saying that when this war is over, people will look back on the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq safe in the knowledge that they were vital for the liberation of the respective countries.
It seems bizarre that these two completely different arguments for war can be used interchangeably, or at least in such close proximity, without causing confusion and concern among the audience. No wonder the support for the war, and as a result Bush, is sliding. It's just a shame that this didn't happen a year ago, in advance of last year's election.
* delete as applicable
Once again, it seems that Bush's foreign policy is limited to smokin' out those terrorists and alleged hoarders of weapons of mass destruction (as long as there is an oil interest in the latter).
While Blair and Brown have made some seemingly significant steps to alleviate Africa's debt to the developed world, Bush has indicated that a key part of the plan "doesn't fit our [the US's] budget process". This rationale never seemed to get a mention when the US government kept returning cap-in-hand to the Senate requesting more funding for the war in Iraq.
When Bush was counting on Blair for his support in the Middle East, it was there, at the detriment of Blair's reputation back home. When Blair requests similar support from across the Atlantic, it fails to materialise.
While it's true that Africa has less political clout in the US than it does in Europe (and Bush doesn't have the likes of Geldof to contend with), I struggle with the selective respect for humanity that Bush shows: we'll help out/intervene, as long as there is mileage in it for us. Kyoto will not be signed because it's too tough on the US; African debt will not be addressed because there would be no political benefit in the US.
While this country has a number of positive elements, its selfish, arrogant, insular view on the rest of the world is both scary and depressing. Unfortunately, in November, America voted to keep it going for a further four years.
As part of today's commemorations, Bush is quoted as saying "Freedom is the birthright of all mankind", which seems at odds with the situation he has engineered in Guantanamo Bay...
A few points worthy of mention:
- C-SPAN is providing a Simulcast of the BBC coverage of the election results coming in. I have to say that the time difference certainly works to our advantage, as watching the results start to roll in at 8pm is much better than a 1am start
- I've seen a quick glimpse of Paxman in action, which is a wonderful reminder of his resolute, if somewhat childish, style of questioning
- There is something quite quaint about the fact that many of the election results are announced in school halls and leisure centres around the country. Certainly less glamorous than the American equivalents, possibly making the results seem more credible
- Absolutely appalling that for every four Liberal Democrat voters in Blackburn there is a BNP voter. Idiots.
I rarely read the Guardian, either online or otherwise (partly because it costs $8 over here). Apart from the historical download of the Telegraph's crossword, I've never developed a loyalty or become a regular reader of any online newspapers, mainly because of the sheer quality of the BBC's site. However, I definitely appreciate that this somewhat insular approach has limited my exposure to, and appreciation of political insight.
Here is a wonderful example of such insight, from David Aaronovitch at the Guardian. The news of Michael Howard's playing of the race/immigration card (delete as applicable) in the lead up to this year's election passed me by on this side of the Atlantic. This article is a great dissection of the reality behind the policy. If you've not read it, read it. Unfortunately, the people who should read this are those very people who will go through life blissfully unaware of the article, with their heads buried in the Express or Mail.
A beautiful piece of analysis showing the way in which each of the 50 US states voted in the 2004 election. The states are ranked by their average IQ. The Bush-voting state with the highest IQ is Virginia, ranked 17th - seventeenth - on the IQ scale, and Bush has won all of the dumbest 26 states. The word seventeenth is necessarily spelt out in the style of the BBC vide-printer, when teams score sufficient goals to put the validity of the score into question.
Perhaps in 2008, the ballot paper could include a mensa-style test, the resulting IQ score acting as a vote weight which could be applied together with population to determine a state's electoral votes. If the state-wide IQ had been applied as a weighting this time around, Kerry would still have lost, but by ten weighted electoral votes as opposed to the 37 electoral votes that he lost by. (Neither of the above analyses includes District of Columbia, whose IQ is not available.) If the IQ weighting was applied at the individual level as opposed to the state level, then evidence suggests that this would swing the result even further (further downgrading a Bush person's vote) and would possibly have changed the result. I can't see it getting into the constitution somehow.
While the overall trend is not perhaps surprising, the level to which the divide presents itself is quite startling.
So, the election is over, although I have to say I didn't see much of the closing stages, as I'm heads down in the midst of training (receiving) at the moment. Caught a little bit of the analysis last night and woke to see the somewhat cautious TV networks suggesting that Bush may have won (without actively saying so) given the situation in Ohio. Apparently Kerry conceded later that morning. (BTW, Kerry dined at the Union Square Oyster Bar in Boston on Tuesday, the same place that we visited the previous night. Trend-setters or what?)
I've found that the iPod FM transmitter is a particularly useful little gadget in hotels. You can just plonk down your iPod, tune the radio to an unused station (there are way less gaps in the frequency range than is the case in the UK), and listen to your music, which I have to say is nice - others would disagree.
Taxis in Boston have to be double the price of those in New York, and can't be far off the price of those in London. Maybe New York just has the critical mass (12,053) of taxis needed to keep the price sufficiently low.
I think Britain has a good balance between the work-shy Europe and the workaholic Americans (the latter of which I join tomorrow). I struggle with the TUC's drive to bring the UK further in line with Europe, particularly given the derision which continental Europe is awarded by the rest of the world in this regard.
Interesting article on the International Herald Tribune site comparing Blair's recent comments on the drivers behind Iraq with Bush's gung-ho approach. While Blair has not apologised for the act of waging war, he has apologised for the mis-information that led up to this. Given that the former was wholly dependent on the latter, I don't quite see how this works. The article itself was featured in Google's world news - no such article would be likely to appear in the American section.
The US has been far less bothered about the drivers behind Iraq (to the extent that Giuliani tried to justify the war by referring to Saddam Hussein himself as a WMD at the Republican National Convention), and Bush seems to have avoided the spotlight that Blair has been under for over a year. I think this is down to the British public being better informed than the Americans, although I also think that the American public is more easily swayed by sound-bites and diversion tactics. The questioning of Kerry's Vietnam record is a good example of this, as is the recent CBS debacle over Bush's history, prompting a great quote from Jay Leno - "Dan Rather put the BS in CBS". The American media loves the tabloid-esque stories that this sort of material generates, and with six weeks left until the election, the focus is still on the candidates' histories (both recent and less so) as opposed to their underlying policies.
Talking of Leno, he's given five years' notice for his job hosting NBC's The Tonight Show. I quite like Leno, although the format of these shows - Letterman included - grates with me somewhat. The sad, sad news is that Conan O'Brien will be replacing him. While we all have five years to prepare for this, Conan's comedy skills are non-existent, and his manner is irritating to say the least (to a similar degree to Paul Shaffer, the annoying musician on Letterman). Apparently, he (O'Brien, not Shaffer) has his followers, but there again, so does Bush.
I'm now as tired of the Republican National Convention as I was about a month ago of the Democratic equivalent in Boston. Lots more Kerry-bashing this time than there was Bush-bashing in Boston. Also, some Europe-bashing by Giuliani which I was surprised at.
The insular nature of America is at its greatest at this time, when everyone is focused on terrorism (fight it outside the US before it gets to our shores being the mentality) and during the presidential run-up. The Russian hostage situation hardly got any airing on the news, while no doubt on BBC, it got top billing. So the mentality of the American people is pretty much driven by the media, as you can imagine.
Some sad news for Lebanon, MO in that their cab service went out of business last night. (Not sure which night that was, but I assume it was last night at the time of writing.)
There is no reference on their site, however, to the special nature of their zip code or their rivalry with Plymouth, FL. Florida is bracing itself for hurricane Frances, which is bigger than Charley and heading straight for its east coast. Fingers crossed it heads northwards.
