Saturday, August 09, 2003

Reporting standards at The Irish Times
It's a shame that The Irish Times doesn't have better resources, because then they wouldn't have to rely for Iraq news on professional axe-grinder Michael Jansen, who routinely treats readers with undeserved contempt by not backing up assertions with facts, expecting we'll just believe whatever crap she files so long as the political slant is right. Her story in today's paper deserves a Fisking.

US troops shoot to kill at market in Tikrit
Michael Jansen

As distinct from what - shoot for show?

IRAQ: Two suspected Iraqi arms dealers and several innocent bystanders were shot to death yesterday by US troops at an open market in the town of Tikrit, an hour's drive north of the capital.

According to Iraqi reports, the slain civilians included a woman and child.

Why can't Jansen verify these reports like a real reporter? Could it be that if the slain civilians were men, it would cast suspicion on the 'innocent bystanders' claim in the first par? And by Iraqi reports are we to understand Iraqi people on the scene, on the street, at the hospital or in some position of authority? A suspicious elision.

The shootings took place as the weapons merchants opened the boot of their car and began to unpack their wares - assault rifles, ammunition clips and bomb making equipment.

US troops have adopted a shoot-to-kill policy for dealing with all Iraqis carrying illegal arms and have warned parents that children should not go into the streets with toy guns.

As far as Iraqis are concerned, the unprovoked firing showed that the softer line proclaimed by Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the occupation forces, was either not yet operative or had not been communicated to officers and troops on the ground.

As far as which Iraqis are concerned? Jansen doesn't have a single quote to back up this assertion, which I suspect is her own take on the situation lamely ventriloquised through a phantom univocal Iraqi people. Anyway, the firing was not unprovoked. It was aimed at men unloading illegal arms which identified them as hostile combatants.

Lt Gen Sanchez said that the military would be limiting the number and scope of sweeps in civilian areas. He has been warned by Iraqi political figures that these raids were alienating the public. In mid-July US forces conducted 143 raids in the central and northern provinces of the country and seized 700 loyalists of the former regime, 64 of whom - less than ten per cent - were, in his estimation, "high value targets".

What a bizarre sneer. By definition, 'high value targets' will always make up a small percentage of those captured. How could, say, 90% of a group possibly be construed as high value?

The downside of this campaign is that innocent Iraqi civilians are being killed, wounded and affronted and their property is being damaged during many of these raids. The most striking example was the recent killing of five Iraqis during a US special forces raid on a house in the western Mansur district of the capital.

A little more specific information would help us understand what Jansen is talking about here. Were the five Iraqis innocent or unarmed, or were they guerrillas? What were the circumstances of the raid? Was there a massive firefight? Who shot first? Any Americans die?

The re-assessment of US strategy for rounding up violent opposition elements and capturing key figures from the ousted regime may have come too late.

Thursday's car bomb attack on the Jordanian embassy, which killed 17 civilians, and a well planned ambush on a US patrol vehicle on a commercial street in Baghdad indicate that Iraqi resistance cells are improving their targeting capabilities. A US trooper was also shot and killed Thursday night in Baghdad, boosting the number since May 1st to 57.

A sly conflation of the 'late' strategy re-assessment and the embassy bombing, as if one had anything to do with the other. 'If only the Americans had more cop-on, the embassy wouldn't have been blown up.' The timing of the American strategy change has nothing to do with (continued) attacks in Baghdad - or if it does, Jansen doesn't demonstrate the connection, she only asserts it.

Not so incidentally, the reason American soldiers continue to act aggressively is precisely because 57 of them have been killed since May 1st. They're in hostile territory a lot of the time.

US officials have suggested the embassy bombing may have been the work of al Qaeda, the Islamist network held responsible for the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

While most of these attacks are believed to be mounted by supporters of the ousted regime, Islamic militants, and criminals, others are almost certainly staged by Iraqis seeking revenge against US troops for harsh and humiliating treatment.

Another unsupported assertion that says more about Jansen's opinion than it does about facts in Iraq. How could Jansen possibly know that these attacks are being staged by Iraqis who feel humiliated? If she has spoken to any of them, why aren't they quoted? In the absence of any concrete information to the contrary, it is far more likely that the attacks are being conducted by the well-trained remnants of Saddam's forces and perhaps by Al Qaeda freelances. The notion of humiliated Iraqis rising up against the occupiers is just an article of faith we're supposed to accept or a merely fantasy cooked up by Jansen's overheated imagination.

A US raid on an Iraqi home often involves kicking down the front door, pointing weapons on an entire family, a destructive search of the premises and placing bags over the heads of menfolk before taking them away for interrogation. In some cases, Iraqis do not discover where their loved ones are being detained for many days or weeks.

They should knock politely, like they did when looking for Uday and Qusay. And then they should get shot, just to be fair.

Lt Gen Sanchez said that his forces are adopting a more measured approach to security, relying on co-operation with local and tribal leaders, clerics and political figures and depending on the public for information on wanted members of the toppled regime and the resistance.

This policy line has been endorsed by the US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, who said, on one hand, that US forces in Iraq should "stand back a little and rely on local forces".The Iraqi police, only 30,000 strong in Baghdad, a city of five million, cannot assume the burden of providing security for Iraqis, foreigners and US troops.

New York City, with a population of eight million, has 39,110 police officers. There have been 339 murders so far this year in New York. Baghdad doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

On the other hand, Mr Powell seemed to be sending conflicting signals when he said that the military would "use whatever techniques appropriate," apparently endorsing the sort of aggressive action taken yesterday by the troops in Tikrit.

Where's the conflict? We're going to rely on locals and use appropriate techniques. Seems logical to me. This should improve the accuracy of any aggressive action. Isn't that a positive outcome, Ms. Jansen?
posted by Jon Ihle at 1:48 PM | link |


Risk perception
A sensible little blurb in the NYT today tells us what we know, but somehow can't perceive.
posted by Jon Ihle at 1:08 PM | link |


--------------------

Friday, August 08, 2003

You can't hate the sin and love the sinner
Having failed to provoke everybody's favourite libertarian lapsed Catholic atheistic architect from the border counties by basically agreeing with him, I'm going to have to nitpick his reluctant defense of the Catholic Church in his latest response to Dick. A cheap tactic, I know, but give these Louthy godless architects an inch...

Now, I've got no truck with hate speech laws, and I'd cringe to see the ICCL have it's way with any priest who speaks the Church's mind on homosexuality. If the whole Vatican freakshow wants to go right up its own ass on this one, that's fine with me. They're doing a bang-up job on their own. But just because a) hate speech laws are dumb and b) the church is being doctrinally consistent doesn't meant that c) calling homosexuality 'evil' is not an incitement. It plainly is, just as calling Jews 'Zionazis' is an incitement, just as calling GW Bush 'Bushitler' is an incitement.

Still, we should make a legal distinction between speaking from the pulpit and speaking, say, from the front of a seething mob. There is an important difference between calling homosexuality 'evil' in a sermon and shouting 'kill the fags' while standing outside the George with a hurley in your hand. What the priest is doing is wrong, but shouldn't be illegal, however provocative; the queerbasher is simply a criminal. So there's incitement and incitement. This is where Dick and I diverge.

But I can't give the Church a moral pass on this one simply because their most vocal opponents are legal idiots. And I certainly won't let the Church squirm away from charges of incitement (as Frank does) by falling back on that most preposterous of 'theological distinctions': hate the sin, love the sinner. This is a distinction without a difference akin (ironically, considering the history of this discussion) to the anti-Zionist defense Jew-haters trot out when someone calls them on their own particular bullshit. 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' is a tranparent fraud, a displacement of hate into a socially acceptable linguistic form. Seriously, what sort of love announces itself by calling its beloved 'fundamentally disordered'? The shame of it.
posted by Jon Ihle at 5:23 PM | link |


Where are we?
The Back Seat Drivers trans-Atlantic merry-go-round continues. I'm off to New York first thing in the morning and will be there for most of next week. Posting will probably be very limited at best, so forgive me if I don't respond to people's emails and comments.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 5:22 PM | link |


Re: Suing the church
Frank's back with further comments on my last post and I hope we may be able to reach some sort of compromise. Neither of us agrees with the church's position and for the most part I'm inclined to just ignore it, as is Frank. I've no problem with the church saying that homosexuality isn't Catholic, just as contraception isn't Catholic, however it was the language used in the pope's letter that causes the problem. The word 'evil' is used in such a way to imply that homosexuals are evil. As reported in the Irish Times, the document in question stated:

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimisation of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalisation of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil."

As for people protesting outside the Israeli embassy, as Jon pointed out earlier on, opposition to policies of the Israeli government is a different thing to opposition to the very existence of Israel and its people. If someone is using such a protest as a platform for anti-semitism, then by all means the ICCL should condemn it and call for prosecution.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 5:16 PM | link |


A reason to send US troops to Liberia
Someone needs to keep an eye on the Nigerians. TNR has the goods. (Free four week digital subscription available.)
posted by Jon Ihle at 4:28 PM | link |


Re: Wi-Fi in Ireland
Another discovery from the referral logs is a new Irish weblog, Irish Eagle. It's one I think I'll be adding to my daily reading.

John at Irish Eagle makes a few comments on my recent Wi-Fi post. For the record my scepticism about commercial Wi-Fi networks doesn't translate to scepticism about the technology. My take was that because it's relatively cheap to set up a hotspot, commercial networks charging people high fees for usage could be undercut by those offering a free service. Such a free service in many cases could be subsidised by an increase in business at the host venue.

As for the Digital Ireland piece on Wi-Fi, I write for Digital Ireland myself and I wouldn't disagree with my colleague John Kennedy's take on the Forrester figures. Forrester are looking at the market from a corporate perspective and I think they're right in saying you probably won't make a huge amount of money from a commerical network, percisely because of the reasons outlined above. I reckon if anyone wants to make money from Wi-Fi, a different business model may be called for. Providing a service which sets up a wireless hotspot for business owner and charging a comission for doing the job might be more fruitful in the long run. The way people are approaching it now is all wrong. O2 were the first people to launch hotspots here and they're expecting people to pay up to €10 an hour for it. That doesn't exactly encourage use. I've travelled a bit in the States over the past year and have used a good few hotspots. Most were free services in cafes. For that, cafe owners gained by selling me a hell of a lot of coffee while I surfed the web. I did use some commerical networks, but fees were more like a dollar a day, which is more like it. Cheap or free services are what's making Wi-Fi so popular in the States.

With regard to the Eircom/Independent thing, it doesn't really work like that. I've written about telecommunications and technology for the Indo for years now and no one ever told me to boost Eircom just because Tony O'Reilly is a stake holder. Aside from the fact that it would be unethical, I don't think he'd be stupid enough to go for such an obvious ploy which may damage the credibility of a newspaper.

As for Wi-Fi's prospects in Ireland, there are a few things to be taken into account. A big boost is the fact that Intel's new notebook chip Centrino comes with built in Wi-Fi. The upshot of this is that most new notebooks will soon have Wi-Fi by default and people won't have to get any additional gear to use it. The other thing is that in a fairly stagnant PC market, notebook sales are very strong, which means we have a growing number of notebook users. The downside is that to run a hotspot you need a broadband connection at the backend for fast, always-on net access. However, in Ireland we've been very slow in moving to broadband, primarily because of Eircom's initially overpriced service and subsequent wrangles with the regulator. Things have picked up in recent months and the introduction of relatively affordable DSL is heartening.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:52 PM | link |


The quirks of search engines
A quick glance at our referral logs for the last couple of weeks shows a large amount of people coming here from search engine queries on the California governer's race. It's something I've commented on a bit, mainly in relation to Schwarzenegger running, but since neither of us is Californian or lives there, it's a little bizarre that we're getting so many hits. Even more bizarre is the number of people searching for pictures of Ann Coulter's legs. Now if that's what they get their jollies from, fair enough, but you ain't going to find it here.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:14 PM | link |


Re: Suing the church
Time to respond to Frank, who's taken issue with my interpretation of this Samizdata post. I don't think I was missing the point. In the light of his comments, I think there are two issues here.

First of all, I felt there was an underlying assumption in the comments of both Percy de Havilland and Dale Amon that such an action against the church would cause a ruckus in Dublin. The fact that Amon lives in Belfast doesn't excuse his estimation about the amount of fur that will fly in Dublin. After the number of dumb things the church has done here, this one will hardly be a drop in the ocean. While many people are nominally Catholic, the developments in Irish society are proof enough that they don't go along with the more radical elements of church dogma.

Secondly, Frank questions the validity of incitement to hatred legislation. He makes a good point on the issue of free speech. However, I think there is such a thing as taking liberties with one's liberties. Firstly, we should live in a society where you have the freedom to say what you want to say. However, it's also desirable to live in a society where you can be a member of a minority group and not be singled out for persecution. You're thus faced with having to balance the two freedoms. Preaching that the gay community is evil I believe is incitement to hatred and I think that the ICCL is right in saying that it shouldn't be tolerated.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:08 PM | link |


Anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism
You'd think all we ever do at BSD is pick fights with Frank. The truth is, we hate architects, especially libertarian lapsed Catholic atheistic ones from the border counties. They think they're great.

Now even though some of our best friends are libertarian lapsed Catholic atheist architects from the border counties, I'm going to have to disagree with Frank again, this time about anti-Catholic bigotry.

Frank's post was inspired by two separate issues: the oppostion to the nomination of (Catholic) Bill Pryor to the US Appellate Court and the suggestion by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties that the Church's stance on gay marriage could be legally construed as hate speech. I don't think either is an instance of bigotry.

Pryor's opponents are concerned that his 'deeply held beliefs', especially regarding abortion, might conflict with his required commitment to render judgements based solely on US law. As Juan Non-Volokh pointed out, these beliefs are not exclusive to Catholics, so to oppose Pryor's confirmation on these grounds reflects a quite legitimate ideological difference. Believe me, Catholics aren't the only ones who run into this sort of trouble with pro-choice Senators. The worst thing that can be said about these Senators is that they are anti-anti-abortion bigots, which is a nonsense since one's position on abortion is a matter of opinion, not a matter of being. A difference of opinion doesn't qualify as bigotry.

Regarding the ICCL: sure, they're over-reaching and trying to score cheap rhetorical points at the expense of the Church, but their interpretation of Irish hate speech laws is within the realm of validity. That says something about the stupidity of hate speech laws ('you mean they can repress freedom of religion?!'), but it says nothing about whether the ICCL maintains or promotes an irrational hatred of Catholics. Let's not forget how this started: the Vatican released an anti-gay statement instructing practising Catholic legislators to vote against the legal normalisation of homosexual relationships in democratic societies. It was a statement of doctrine, sure, and as such permissible and protected in a free society such as ours, but it was also shockingly bigoted. I don't think the Church is entitled to any special protection from attack when they come out with that kind of miserable crap.

Having said all that, I do acknowledge that valid opposition to Church doctrine and ideology can easily morph into anti-Catholic bigotry (e.g. observant Catholics are all stupid monsters who can't think for themselves and do whatever the Pope tells them). It's obvious that in practice Catholics do think for themselves and exercise their own free will - they're not automatons. It's easy to see, though, how opposition to a belief can turn into distaste for the person. If one is a Catholic by choice, what does it mean to call oneself a Catholic and not adhere to the Church's doctrine? Is it not reasonable to expect that self-identified Catholics will act in accordance with Vatican statements? Is it also not reasonable to understand that to a great, if not total, extent religious beliefs constitute being? How is it possible, then, to legitimately oppose Catholicism without also opposing Catholics? I'd sincerely like to know, because I don't think bad ideas should get a free pass simply because they arise from religious belief.

All of which brings me to the analogy Frank makes between 'new' versus 'traditionalist' anti-Catholicism and anti-Zionism versus anti-Semitism. If I understand correctly, the new anti-Catholicism claims to be against a repressive ideology but is really just old fashioned bigotry masquerading as liberation, in the way that so-called anti-Zionism pretends to be against the excesses of the Jewish state of Israel, but is really just a cover for old fashioned Jew hatred.

I don't actually think there are two forms of anti-Catholicism: both assume that Catholics will be loyal to Church law above secular law. The dual loyalty smear hasn't changed, it's just less explicit now, which I suppose is Frank's point. So what we're really talking about is anti-Catholicism, which isn't what's happening to Pryor or with the ICCL, but which is a real phenomenon which I will define as ascribing certain nefarious traits or practices to Catholics, even when Catholics do not exhibit those traits generally or when other people engage in those practices. So while it is true to say the Church is anti-gay, it is bigoted to say that Catholics hate homosexuals.

Likewise I don't think anti-Zionism is really distinguishable from anti-Semitism, except in very specific cases. To be anti-Zionist is to be against the formation and the preservation of the Jewish state. Practically, an anti-Zionist believes Jews are not entitled to a national homeland, which is another way of saying they do not deserve to exist. Hence anti-Zionism=anti Semitism. The only anti-Zionists who can dispute that they are anti-Semitic are those who believe that no nation is entitled to a national homeland - so no Irish Republic for the Irish, no Germany for the Germans, etc. For the record, I am not talking about opposition to the policies of the Israeli government; I am talking about opposition to the very existence of Israel and its people.

So that simplifies things: Frank contends that anti-Catholicism is akin to anti-Semitism. Yes and no, says me. Yes in the unfounded ascription of nefarious traits way, no in that anti-Catholicism is sometimes about freely chosen beliefs and sometimes about a state of being founded in those beliefs, but anti-Semitism is always about a state of being which the victim did not choose. Jews are just born that way, which is what makes us a nation - or a tribe - more than a religion. And those that hate us do not hate what we believe (since by being Jewish we have not all chosen a common set of beliefs, as Catholics have) but who we are. Anti-Catholic can mean either opposition to Church doctrine or hatred of Catholics; anti-Semitism always means hatred of Jews.
posted by Jon Ihle at 1:53 PM | link |


--------------------

Thursday, August 07, 2003

Re: Suing the church
This post on Samizdata is hugely entertaining, primarily due to the ignorance exhibited on Ireland. The catalyst for it all is the news that the Irish Council for Civil Liberties has warned that the language in the pope's recent pronouncements on homosexuality is so strong it could be interpreted as being in breach of incitement to hatred legislation (something I posted on a few days back).

Percy de Havilland has this to say:

"You see, what I see here is that sooner or later, the Irish state is going to find itself confronted by a Catholic Priest who loudly proclaims in unambiguous language what the state defines as 'hate speech' by strongly depreciating homosexual relationships... and the state will be faced with in effect prosecuting someone for being a Catholic and following ex cathedra Catholic doctrines to the letter."

Now, the way I see it you can practice whatever religion you like. However, your religion is not an excuse for breaking the law. So if someone were to be prosecuted, it's not for being Catholic, but for incitement to hatred. The same would apply if the Catholic church were still preaching anti-semitism or, if god-forbid, your religion demanded human sacrifice.

Dale Amon adds this:

"If there is a place on Earth not to pick a fight with the Catholic Church, Ireland is it. Boy is the fur gonna fly in Dublin. It seems highly likely a priest will stand up against the State. You do not last long in Irish politics by going head on with the Church."

So what would happen? I suspect shoulders would be shrugged and eye-brows would be raised. Holy Catholic Ireland where the government took council from Archbishop McQuaid is long gone, although it may have taken us longer to get there than most. Most of the Catholic influence on the Irish state is gone. We have divorce and contraception. You're allowed to be gay. Abortion laws have been rolled back somewhat. Heck, our Taoiseach (prime minister) is (shock, horror) separated from his wife and living with another woman. Does anybody care? No.

Making the assumption that such a prosecution would cause convulsions in Irish society is well off the mark. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to cook up a big pot of potatoes to feed my 15 children before we say the rosary.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 6:35 PM | link |


The madness of marketing departments
This piece in the Irish Times today makes for illuminating reading. German telecom's provider Deutsche Telekom recently sued a Team-Konzept, an IT advertising agency in Berlin because it had the letter 'T' in its logo. Deutsche Telekom has branded subsidiaries with the letter 'T', such as T-Mobile and T-Online. They lost their case because the logos in question bore no real similarity to one another. Sadly, the said logos don't accompany the online version of the story, but you can see them here and here.

However, not content with the judgment, Deutsche Telekom has gone one step further:

"But now Telekom has taken on a so-called "precedent case", to decide whether or not Telekom has exclusive rights to the letter T in the world of German advertising. The court has suggested a survey to see whether the German people really associate the letter T with Deutsche Telekom."

In otherwords, it's trying to trademark a letter of the alphabet. Purveyors of T-Bone steaks won't be terribly happy about this. I thought this kind of carry on was on the wane. One of the downsides of writing in the middle of the technology boom was people branding and re-branding to beat the band and, what's worse, taking huge liberties with the English language. This of course was a sub-editor's nightmare and I remember several meetings where we actually tried to formulate some sort of policy on company names. For a start there was the vogue for having your company name entirely in lower case, e.g. Eircom or 'eircom' as they preferred to be called. That one didn't make it. House styles usually dictate that company names should be capitalised. Nor was the vogue for replacing the letter 'a' with '@' very succesful. Random capital letters in the middle of a company name didn't cut the mustard either, although we were a bit more sympathetic to those that made some sort of sense, e.g. eBay. However, you could forget about it if we were going to put eBay at the start of a sentence. If you wanted to put '.com' or '.net' at the end of your company name, fine, but it was amusing to see the rush to remove it once it lost its caché.

It was all harmless enough except for the fact that people could be so pushy about it. Several marketing departments issued advisories to journalists on how their company name should be portrayed in print. Most of these went in the bin. Then you'd get the phone calls complaining about it. The thing is they never really had a leg to stand on, but it didn't stop some people being very rude. At the time I thought that in the case of some people, it was an attempt to get branding into a story. Have a weirdly formatted company name and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Voila, free advertising.

Someone should tell Deutsche Telekom to give it a rest. It's one thing protecting your name and logo, its quite another trying to reshape a language in your own image.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 4:07 PM | link |


Embassy bombing
News just breaking is that the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad has been bombed. Initial estimates are that 7 to 10 died and anything from 50 to 230 were wounded. Apparently the bomb was concealed in a truck or minibus (there are conflicting versions). The BBC has a story here and the Washington Post has this AP story.

The location of the attack would seem to indicate that it was ex-regime people behind it. Saddam Hussein was none too pleased that Jordan changed tack in recent years regarding Iraq. Another factor to bear in mind is that it was probably an easy target.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 2:50 PM | link |


Re: What bias?
Tyler Cowen at the Volokh Conspiracy has also noticed the study I posted on a while back and posits an alternate explanation:

"...everyone is dogmatic, but that Democratic administrations waffle more on the content of policy, and thus receive a more mixed reaction from their journalistic allies."

It's creative thinking at least.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 2:25 PM | link |


Using DDT
One of the blessings of living in Ireland is the absence of mosquitoes. New York is a less fortunate place, and I've got the bites to prove it. I think the city must be reaching some sort of tipping point, too, now that the NYT op-ed is carrying pieces calling for the reassessment of DDT. Bravo.
posted by Jon Ihle at 12:53 PM | link |


On a lighter note
The New York Times has this round up of urban myths now going around Iraq. Top of the charts is that soldiers' wrap around shades have x-ray vision and that they keep cool by means of irrigated underwear.

Meanwhile, the BBC has this (serious) story on bodily fluids, which you probably shouldn't read before lunch.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 11:14 AM | link |


California governer's race
I see Arnold Schwarzenegger has finally stopped procrastinating and decided to run in California. Blog Irish is sceptical about the chances of people like he and Larry Flynt. While I'd be inclined to agree about Flynt, I think Schwarzenegger is in with a shout. I'd even be willing to enter into a friendly wager. It's a first past the post election and with an already crowded field, someone could win with a fairly small percentage of the vote. He wouldn't be the first movie star to become governer of California.

Something I was planning on doing was a post on how Schwarzenegger as governer would be a sub's dream. Think of the headline potential. However, Brendan Loy (via InstaPundit) has gotten there before me and even has some I didn't think of.

UPDATE: According to CNN, Gary Coleman is also running. Whatchu talkin' 'bout

UPDATE: Lileks today also reckons that Arnie's in with a shout. While he may not have any qualifications, he reckons people trust him and he'll bring new voters to the polls.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 10:12 AM | link |


--------------------

Wednesday, August 06, 2003

Wi-Fi in Ireland
Regular readers will know that I'm rather a fan of Wi-Fi (or wireless ethernet), since I've posted on it before. I don't get excited about too many technologies these days, but this is one I genuinely believe will have a huge impact down the line. So, I was pleased to see that Adrian Weckler, my sometime partner in crime, devoted a long piece to it in this week's Sunday Business Post. It's something that also caught Bernie's eye too.

In his opening editorial, Adrian calls for a public network to be built at strategic locations around the country, such as bus and railway stations. During this time of fiscal rectitude, I don't think that would be a runner. Nor do I think it's something the government should be expected to do.

Otherwise, the piece had some good bits of news. For example, there's now two hotspots in Dublin city centre that I was unaware of, in the Globe and the Front Lounge. Both of them are free and both are in places I'd be likely to frequent, which means it's time I started bringing a wireless card into town with me. He also speaks to the manager of the Leixlip House Hotel, who also has a free wireless network. It's very refreshing to hear about hoteliers doing this, since most of the time they'll fleece you on something like this. A while back I spoke to the manager of the Stillorgan Park Hotel who brought DSL into all his rooms and decided to charge nothing for it. While travelling, I've sometimes been charged up to twenty quid a day for similar services. The irony is that it's no great expense to the hotel, as both hoteliers pointed out. If you've already got a broadband connection for the business, the costs are fractional in allowing customers to use it. What's more, it generates repeat business. It certainly motivates me to go back to a particular hotel, and if the guy in Leixlip is to be believe, I amn't the only one.

All of this is one of the reasons why I'm very sceptical about commercial Wi-Fi networks. O2 have one, Eircom and Vodafone have similar ventures in the pipeline. Wayport, who're big in the US, are also coming to Ireland. The problem is that its so easy for competitors to undercut you. It's so cheap to do, they can give it away as a value added service. The costs invovled aren't that much. It would probably be about €200 - €300 for initial equipment. After that you're talking about €80 to €200 a month for bandwidth, something you may already be paying for anyway.

Meanwhile, Aer Rianta are only just beginning to think about it for Dublin Airport. If I were the airlines, I'd start giving it away for free in the lounges. Once again, they might get a bit more repeat business.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 8:55 PM | link |


Re: Two can play at that game
Frank's back with more on my last post on the topic. First of all I'm not criticising the utility of the markets per se, rather in this particular context. Nor do I think using the converse argument is a valid point. Bureaucrats aren't there to predict the market, as the market isn't suited to predict acts of terror. Nor do I think intelligence agencies are your typical bureaucrats. The CIA is known as 'the firm' after all!

It may very well be the case that a freelancer could garner useful intelligence. But for a freelancer to compete on a global level is a far different prospect. How many freelancers have the resources to launch satellites? Secondly, spooks would never have been let bet on the market. It's a conflict of interest. The vast majority of people would be armchair pundits. (Kind of like me!)

Simply saying something is a 'casual' link doesn't dismiss an argument. Overheated markets have happened before and they'll no doubt happen again. When precedent suggests something, it can't be ruled out of hand. However, as Jon's pointed out, the trading of goods and services is different to trading in events. When you bet wrong in the former you lose your shirt, when you bet wrong in the latter, lives are lost.

To conclude, and to perhaps be conciliatory, Frank believes market forces are far more efficient than bureaucrats in sorting out the wheat from the chaff. On the whole, that's true. I believe there are exceptions to the rule and this is one. I feel there are better grounds on which to make this argument rather than this particular instance. It does seem rather futile after all to be arguing about a scheme which had the plug pulled the minute Paul Wolfowitz heard about it.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 8:20 PM | link |


Re: Two can play at that game
Frank wants to turn a concrete discussion about the Pentagon's proposed Political Analysis Market into a theoretical discussion on markets in general. I'll meet him halfway.

A market for purchasable goods, services or commodities will function very differently from a market for events. First of all, nobody buys or sells events - and they can't be said to have utility value - so people won't buy political futures contracts to cover their existing financial positions, but rather to score speculative windfalls. So we're not talking about a market in the conventional sense, since there is no underlying good being traded.

More significantly, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the investors in a political market would include powerful agents of the events on which the contracts would be based, creating a significant element of human distortion. Such agents could easily effect counter-intuitive outcomes that the market couldn't possibly predict. Would you put it past the Pentagon to pump a certain political futures index in the hope of determining a favourable outcome by making it financially attractive to the relevant parties to act in a certain way? Me neither.

Then there is the likelihood that a political market would be driven by far less than perfect information. In a stock or commodities market, investors can be reasonably sure that accounting statements or production estimates are pretty close to accurate (with occasional exceptions). However, a political events market would depend almost entirely on the opinions of people with a) varying and imperfect access to information b) varying ability to assess that information accurately or effectively and c) varying ideological interpretations of such information, including but not limited to errors, wishes, delusions, bad metaphors, and the like. We already know that people invest emotionally, even in the purely economic sphere; surely subjective desires would have a tremendous influence on positions in a political futures market.

Now, Frank's point that such a market may be just as good or better than a bureacracy at predicting the future is well taken. However, he's overlooking the impact of observation on the 'system' of political events. The very act of financially motivated observation may make world events less predictable or more extreme. Worse, geopolitical decision-making might become totally unmoored from national or institutional self-interest and instead derive from the desire to take profitable positions in a speculative market.

I also think Frank dodges Dick's trenchant criticism about the tech bubble: the distributed intelligence allegedly manifest in the Nasdaq and Dow Jones indexes did a very poor job of predicting which companies would be successful. I'd wager their predictive capacity was poorer than random selection.

Remember: the real value of a political futures market would be its capacity to predict specific events better than intelligence analysts. If it can't do this, it's just another variable in a very complicated system. As with financial markets, the no brainers will always be no brainers, but can distributed intelligence separate the Microsofts from the Netscapes?
posted by Jon Ihle at 5:05 PM | link |


Re: Two can play that game
Frank's come back with further comments on my earlier remarks. I'm finding Frank's line on this a little hard to pin down. First of all he says that he doesn't want to 'suggest that freelance punters on a terrorist futures market could compete with, or replace, the extensive intelligence gathering capabilities of the CIA.' However later he's saying the market is a 'better reflection of considered opinion than that which emerges from a large hierarchical organisation.'

Now, if the market was correct in reflecting the hysteria at the time of the internet bubble, it still doesn't address my market related reservation. Hysteria about something unfounded may be a valid reflection of people's views. However, it does nothing to stop terrorism. In fact, it may hinder efforts to stop terrorism elsewhere by diverting attention.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 4:36 PM | link |


Re: Crime and headlines
While I agree with Jon's assertion that the decline in crime and not the minister's welcome of said phenomenon is the real news, I'd take issue with this statement:

"...nor do I remember any editorials counseling us to put the worsening statistics in the context of the overwhelming improvement in crime in the late 1990s or to consider that much of the purported increase could be attributed to improvements in reporting and recording systems."

If memory serves me correct, there was some comment about the impact of new recording systems. This Irish Times op-ed from last year acknowledges the fact:

"As if all of this was not complicated enough and more than justified Mr McDowell's proposal to examine and revamp the official compilation of crime figures, the present situation is further confused by the current phased introduction of the computerised PULSE system and the change of nomenclature from indictable to headline. The latter seems to be an unnecessary cosmetic exercise that is inviting sensationalist treatment, but it has also been accompanied by minor adjustments to the coverage of the serious crime category. In this context of change, it is highly likely that the system will throw up occasional statistical anomalies. For example, the 90 per cent increase in assaults in 2001 follows an almost equally dramatic 70 per cent decline in the previous year. This suggests that some form of readjustment has been made to correct a procedural problem of definition or classification in the system."
posted by Dick O'Brien at 2:09 PM | link |


Re: Two can play that game
With typical speed, Frank at Internet Commentator has responded to my remarks questioning the accuracy of markets in assessing a terrorist threat. I'm not inclined to agree with him.

First of all a terrorist futures market would not be better than a bureaucratic organisation in identifying major risks. I don't think the designers of the scheme would even believe this. It was intended as a supplement to regular intelligence gather efforts, not a replacement. Why? Because an intelligence agency is devoted full time to assessing risks. It has trained people who often speak the language of people their monitoring. It has expensive communications equipment. It has spies, it has informers, it has lots of money. How is this inferior to people taking a punt on what they believe to be the next terrorist attack?

Secondly, people's jobs aren't safe in US intelligence agencies. George Tenet is widely believed to be on the way out precisely because of the below par performance of the CIA in recent times. Former director James Woolsey was forced to resign in 1995 because of his poor handling of on an incident where a Russian spy was unveiled within the organisation. Frank Anderson, another senior CIA official was also demoted over the affair.

Thirdly, drawing comparisons between Communist bureaucrats and intelligence personnel hardly works. Investigation and economic management are hardly the same thing.

Finally, on the fallibility of markets, the issue isn't whether there are people buying pet food on the internet, but whether there are enough buying it to justify a massive market capitalisation for the company selling it. The fact that the internet has largely avoided regulation has nothing to do with the fact that the market got it very wrong for a very long time.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 1:30 PM | link |


Crime and headlines
The Irish Times is obviously mortally allergic to reporting news that redounds positively to the Government, hence today's front pager noting only that Michael McDowell has welcomed this year's decline in serious crime. (The decline, not the welcome, is the real news, of course.) The editorial inside tries to persuade us that we shouldn't be too pleased about improving public safety, though, because the preceding two years featured a sharp spike in crime.

Funny, I don't remember any stories in the last two years reporting that the Minister deplored the increase in violent crime, nor do I remember any editorials counseling us to put the worsening statistics in the context of the overwhelming improvement in crime in the late 1990s or to consider that much of the purported increase could be attributed to improvements in reporting and recording systems. No, we just got the unmitigated news that crime was getting much, much worse.

UPDATE: Incredible! An analysis inside argues that the drop in crime is not as good as it looks. Where was this thoughtful contextualising when the crime rate was increasing?
posted by Jon Ihle at 8:38 AM | link |


Iran and North Korea to collaborate on nuke development?
It seems that North Korea may be about to start exporting missiles to Iran. The Washington Post has this Reuters report today:

"North Korea is in talks to export its Taepodong 2 long-range ballistic missile to Iran and to jointly develop nuclear warheads with Tehran, a Japanese newspaper reported on Wednesday. The conservative Sankei Shimbun, quoting military sources familiar with North Korea, said that the communist state planned to export components and Iran would then assemble the Taepodongs at a factory near Tehran."

There are lots of qualifiers to this story, i.e. it's reporting what another paper reported, also noting that Sankei Shimbun is known for its hardline stance on North Korea. The prospect of Iran having the bomb isn't very palatable. While the country does seem to be slowly moving towards reform, it's still at the stage where it could go either way and the possibility exists of an ultra-hardline regime.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 8:26 AM | link |


Re: Bomb in Jakarta
Apparently the authorities in Indonesia were forewarned about yesterday's bombing. The Syney Morning Herald is on the case:

"Police today said they seized documents last month showing terrorists had planned to target the area around Jakarta's Marriott Hotel that was devastated by a powerful car bomb... 'There was a warning that there were some targets and we have been anticipating an attack,' said Jakarta police spokesman Prasetyo. Prasetyo said the documents were seized in the central Java town of Semarang last month, when police arrested four alleged members of the al-Qaeda linked terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah. 'In the documents there were some strategic areas including the location of the Marriott,' Prasetyo told The Associated Press. Prasetyo said security forces had increased their patrols around the area of the Marriott in response to the seizure."

Being aware of the plot and not stopping it isn't something to crow about, even if you did increase police patrols.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 7:39 AM | link |


The wedding
The papers were were all full of it at the weekend and now it's on the front page of the Irish Times. Who cares? I suggest a new headline: 'Man and woman get married.'
posted by Dick O'Brien at 7:31 AM | link |


--------------------

Tuesday, August 05, 2003

Bomb in Jakarta
There's been another bombing in Indonesia today, this time in Jakarta. The New York Times has this AP story, while the Irish Times (subscription required) has the Reuters one. The bombing comes two days before a verdict in the trial of one of the suspects in the Bali nightclub bombings last October. The dead are estimated at 13 and 149 are said to be wounded.

POSTSCRIPT: Speaking of the Bali bombing, one thing struck me at the time. Michel Houellebecq's novel Platform provided an eerie presentiment of it. Admittedly the fictional bombing takes place in Thailand but other similarities were striking. A black satire on the holiday industry and the sex trade, the book was first published in 1999.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 9:52 PM | link |


Testing times
It's just my luck. A while back I posted on having the misfortune of arriving in New York on the day the smoking ban came into force. I'm due to go there again on Sunday and I read on CNN that airport security is to be tightened up even further:

"Homeland Security officials have told CNN that an advisory will be issued directing the aviation industry and all federal screeners and local authorities to pay particular attention to electronic items like remote key locks, and specific brands and models of cell phones, boom boxes and cameras. Recent raids of al Qaeda safe houses overseas turned up evidence that the group was trying to modify electronic devices to carry small weapons or explosives, administration officials told CNN. For instance, a camera flash was being modified to convert to, or carry, a stun gun, the officials said."

First of all, anybody with a basic knowledge of electronics can turn a camera flash into a stun gun, you don't have to be a terrorist mastermind to do so. My real beef is that security is already insanely tight. Business travellers get the brunt of it too, because we're the ones with laptops, mobile phones and lots of other electronic do-dahs. I've already had my laptop tested for explosives twice in US airports. I've had my bags searched and my stuff scrutinised. On more than one occasion I've had to surrender my belt and shoes and go through security in my socks while holding my pants up. Last week in Gatwick, I picked up my bag from the carousel only to find that the locks had been cut off it, despite the fact that the bag wasn't locked and there was nothing in the pockets the locks were attached to. Recently I spoke to a woman who had a nail file confiscated. There has to be a better way to do this.

I realise this may sound like whining from someone who's lucky enough to have a job that takes them abroad from time to time, but I just had to get this off my chest.

POSTSCRIPT: IMAO (via InstaPundit) has this hugely amusing guide to dealing with airline terrorists.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 9:38 PM | link |


Re: Two can play that game
I never commented on the proposed terrorist futures market while it was still alive. Seem as how it's come up again here, I might as well add my two cents. I was surprised that the Pentagon came up with such a smart idea. At the same time I didn't think it was a good idea. First of all I thought it was morally wrong to bet on people's deaths. That's what terrorism's all about after all.

Secondly, and here I agree with Jon, it would give people incentives to commit acts of terrorism, 'insider trading' as it were. If memory serves me right, I think a good few people fielded that objection.

Finally, I don't think markets are quite as smart as some people may think. There's a tendency for the herd instinct to develop. While the futures market may have been cheap to run, investigating unfounded speculation would be a waste of intelligence resources. While markets often reflect reality, they also sometimes reflect what people believe to be reality or even sometimes what people want to believe to be reality. If the markets were so right, say back in 1998 and 1999, I'd be sitting here buying pet food on the internet right now.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 8:34 PM | link |


Re: Two can play at that game
I think both the Pentagon and AAM ideas are very clever. Anyone who uses distributed intelligence to solve complex problems is very smart in my book. Of course, the AAM is engaging in high stakes satire meant to draw attention to the Pentagon's violation of some unarticulated principle. It's the old shoe on the other foot trick. Feels fine to me.

But in principle the Pentagon had a great plan - tap global intelligence at virtually no cost - so I just don't understand objections like AAM's. The criticisms of the Policy Analysis Market seem to be entirely aesthetic: it's wrong because it feels wrong or will look wrong. Very strange considering the serious problems the Pentagon would encounter if they were actually to follow through with the plan. Perhaps I've overlooked it, but nobody has complained that a geopolitical futures market would set up massive financial incentives for objectively bad policy outcomes.

In a typical futures market, say for commodities such as corn or pork bellies, your 'investor' is often somebody who is trying to protect themselves financially by purchasing an investment instrument that will cover their losses if something should affect their primary financial interest (e.g. buying or selling corn or pork bellies). Essentially, the buyer of a futures contract is betting that things won't go his way. Obviously there are speculators who have no interest one way or another - and there are options and derivatives on standard futures contracts - but basically this is what a futures market is all about.

What makes these markets act like markets (for the most part) is that no one farmer or investor can control the conditions that determine the price of corn or pork bellies to such a degree that they can force prices to move in counter-intuitive directions. This is not true in geopolitics, where superempowered individuals can massively influence events contrary to the prevailing wisdom. Adding the promise of a big monetary payoff would add tremendous distortion to this 'market'. If Kim Jong-il sees the markets predicting North Korea to do one thing, he can make a killing by buying against market wisdom and then acting decisively against it. Do you want to live in that world? And if you think it's hard to predict the behaviour of the World's Craziest Dictator, how can the market account for unknown assassins who are activated by the very market meant to predict their behaviour?

I presume the answer is that many investors are just as wise as I am and will adjust their investments accordingly. This might produce a valuable market for speculation, but I fail to see its value for tracking the actual likelihood of world events, since the real betting will be on which direction people in power might be betting rather than on which direction they might be moving. The permutations of unintended consequences would appear more or less impossible to track effectively.

Any economists care to help out with this one?
posted by Jon Ihle at 5:14 PM | link |


Niger's uranium
Elsewhere in the Times today (subscription required), Declan Walsh (who really does get around) has been to Niger on the trail of the bogus documents purporting sale of uranium to Iraq. Not surprisingly nobody knows nothing and if they do, they ain't saying nothing. What is illuminating is Walsh's account of Niger's uranium industry:

"France effectively runs Niger's uranium industry. The only two mines are run by Cogema, a French state company, and the entire output - currently about 3,000 tonnes a year - is sent to France, Japan and Spain. From mine to port, the shipments are closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Cogema officials say that not one barrel of yellow-cake has gone missing in 40 years of operations."

This ought to be reassuring news for anyone worried about Niger's uranium falling into the hands of the bad guys. And if it ever does, they can blame it on the French!
posted by Dick O'Brien at 4:10 PM | link |


What bias?
No doubt Eoin is probalby throwing his eyes up to heaven, but here it goes. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post today provides further evidence (if it's needed) that allegations about liberal bias in the US media are unfounded:

"A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages are to take on a Democratic administration...Tomasky examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable. He did not include extraordinary events, such as the Lewinsky scandal or 9/11. Everyone knows that virtually all papers, of every political stripe, whacked Clinton over his Monica dissembling. No surprise there, and there's no similar Bush scandal. More interesting is how the papers handled run-of-the-mill political controversies. The liberal papers criticized the Clinton administration 30 percent of the time, while the conservative papers slapped around the Bush administration just 7 percent of the time. The liberal papers praised the Clintonites 36 percent of the time, while the conservative papers praised the Bushies 77 percent of the time. One more set of numbers: The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time; the conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time."

Someone should tell these guys to stop wasting their time.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:58 PM | link |


Two can play that game
While plenty of people got their knickers in a twist about the Pentagon's proposed terrorist futures market, one group of academics came up with a novel response. Wired reports on the American Action Market which has been set up by a group of academics:

"The American Action Market will offer various Washington 'futures' that can be bet upon and traded. Examples include: Which country will the White House threaten next? Who will be the next foreign leader to move off the CIA payroll and onto the White House's 'most wanted' list? Which corporation with close ties to the White House will be the next cloaked in scandal? The AAM will begin registering traders in September and plans to open for business Oct. 1 -- the same launch date proposed for the Pentagon's terrorism market, until it was shelved."

At least they're not betting on deaths.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:40 PM | link |


Death at Hyundai
One piece of news that seems to be slipping under the radar is the suicide of the Hyundai chairman. It's reported in the Irish Times (subscription required) here:

"South Korea reacted with shock yesterday to the suicide of Chung Mong-hun, the Hyundai Group chairman accused of secretly funnelling cash to communist North Korea. The death of Mr Chung threw the Hyundai business empire into turmoil and knocked shares in its listed companies sharply lower. It also deepened the controversy surrounding allegations that Seoul had bribed Pyongyang to take part in the historic Korean summit three years ago."

It provides further evidence that Kim Jong-il is only in it for the money. However, Hyundai has been at the centre of reconciliation efforts for some time. Chung's father, Hyundai founder Chung Ju-yung made several visits to the North and also gave gifts to the North Koreans. In his case it was cows and not cash that was handed over.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:28 PM | link |


Finally...
InstaPundit went and bought the damn car. I was getting very tired of hearing him bang on about it and badger Mickey Kaus for a review of it.

POSTSCRIPT: I just got an email from InstaPundit. "Glad you're happy. So am!" That's what I get for being a smart alec.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:02 PM | link |


Blair man admits Walter Mitty remark
The Guardian today reports that Tony Blair's spokesman owned up to a remark comparing David Kelly to Walter Mitty:

"Tony Blair's official spokesman, Tom Kelly, last night put his hands up and admitted that he might have used the expression 'Walter Mitty' when discussing what could have driven the Iraq weapons scientist, David Kelly, to his apparent suicide. But as Downing Street distanced itself from the remark, Mr Kelly let it be known that he was simply mulling over the possibilities with a reporter who misinterpreted his remarks as a calculated effort to smear the man at the heart of the row between No 10 and the BBC."

Yes, it's insensitive, but mainly it's just dumb. How on earth did he believe that he could say something like this, even if it were just 'mulling over possibilities', in the presence of a journalist and not see it in print? Did he not notice the journalist's eyes widening with glee? The other plausible explanation would be that it was a deliberate, but unsanctioned tactic. Which is pretty dumb too.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 12:58 PM | link |


Soccer in America
I have to agree with Frank that the purported USA Today story suggesting Man Utd avoided MLS teams on their recent tour because they were afraid of being shown up must have been tongue in cheek. MLS has many fine players, some of whom had very successful World Cup performances last year, but apart from Tim Howard, most wouldn't even make the bench at United.
posted by Jon Ihle at 10:57 AM | link |


Report from America
Lots of trees fell in the forest while I was away, but I'm just going to pick up here as if nothing happened. I think I only read a total of two newspapers in 20 days of vacation. It was nice.

New York is still a big bad-ass city, I'm happy to report. Friends inform me that the post-September 11 love that permeated the place disappeared by the time everyone started arguing about Iraq, and I understand they argued a lot in New York. That's fine. Everyone knows American optimism depends on American amnesia. God help us if we develop a tragic historical consciousness like the Germans.

Nonetheless, I'm happy to leave the city of my birth at arms length for now. People talk about Ireland of the rip-offs. Dude you ain't seen nothing 'til you try to park your car on W. 45th St. at showtime. Very pricey hotels don't include breakfast in the price of the room (even if the shampoo is fantastic). A round trip journey from my mother's place on Long Island into Penn Station costs $14.50. The subway is $2 a ride. They should pay you to use the subway in July. They've even closed the Tramway to Roosevelt Island! Blessedly, some things are free.

Other highlights of my trip included the wedding of two old friends in a successful and moving multicultural ceremony. It's easy to snort at multiculturalism, but I consider it the mark of a successful society when a family of Filipino Catholic immigrants will put on yarmulkes and pray with a New York rabbi. Or, to turn it the other way, when a secular Jew like me is happy yoke the couple together by the neck with a yugal, a silken cord tied in a figure eight and draped over the shoulders of the bride and groom, signifying fidelity in the Filipino tradition. (Incidentally, the number of interfaith/inter-racial/international couples at this event was very high.) At the end of it all, Aaron and Christine were married in both faiths. And people think Americans have become radical binarists - us/them, with/against, either/or. Feh!

But if Americans are encouragingly tolerant, they are also troublingly F-A-T. This is not just a condescending rumour concocted by superior Europeans denied the pleasures of Krispy Kreme. Joking aside, this is one problem that I think can be blamed partly on American consumer culture. Obesity has a lot of causes, but where those causes are supported by supersizing (i.e., getting more food than you asked for whether you want it or not because buying larger quantities is cheaper per unit), you get a health crisis. An anecdote: on a long road trip in upstate New York, I stopped for a snack at McDonald's, the only restaurant for many, many miles. After ordering a small McNuggets, small fries and coke, the cashier told me it would cost less for me to get a McNugget value meal, which features the same combination of foodstuffs - only in larger quantities. In economic terms, McDonald's was delivering value: I was getting at least what I asked for, but paying less. Consumer logic dictated that I take the deal, and I did. Of course, I ate the extra food. Now, this was a departure from my normal dietary regimen of nuts, twigs and grasses, but for millions of Americans it isn't.

Obviously nobody is forcing fat Americans to eat this way, but somebody is providing real financial incentives to do so. This, I think, is where fast food chains remain vulnerable to class action lawsuits. Yes, I could have ordered the delicious California Cobb Salad for only $1.99. I needed a grease fix, though. Give a guy a break!

Oh, and seeing all those fat people made me stop supporting national public healthcare. In a society where the individual has priority over the community (which is fine), fat people will suck up all the health resources leaving the twig eaters at the end of a long waiting list when they get sick.

Coming soon: European supermarkets gain ground on American supermarkets, except for Wegman's.
posted by Jon Ihle at 10:19 AM | link |


--------------------

Sunday, August 03, 2003

Suing the church
Much has been made of the Pope's latest pronouncements on the issue of homosexuality, but this report in yesterday's Irish Times caught my eye:

"Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican's latest publication describing homosexual activity as 'evil' could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has warned that the language in the 12-page booklet is so strong it could be interpreted as being in breach of the Act."

What amuses me about the Pope is that he seems to be labouring under the impression that people are still listening to him.

While I'm on the topic, I'll relate an anecdote. Bizarre conversations with taxi drivers are par for the course in Dublin, but this one took the biscuit. About a year ago I was running late and took a taxi to a press conference in town. The big picture of Jesus on the dashboard should have warned me, but it didn't. For reasons that are about to become obvious, I never tell taxi drivers what I do for a living, but I got a phone call on route and, overhearing my conversation, the taxi driver put two and two together.

"So you're a journalist?"
"Yes"
"What do you write about?"
"Technology mostly"
"Do you know what you should write about?"
"What?"
"The age of consent."
"What's wrong with it."
"Do you know that its the same for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals."
"That sounds fair enough to me."
"It isn't. It allows perverts to prey on young people."
"Homosexuality is perfectly natural. If people are old enough to make up their minds about heterosexual sex, the same should apply for homosexuals."
"But it isn't natural at all. Do you know that years ago there were far less homosexuals than there are now. Do you know why that is?"
"No."
"The contraceptive pill."
"What?"
"Yes, women have been taking the contraceptive pill and the female hormones are getting back into the water system and men are drinking them."
"That's rubbish."
"No, it isn't. I went to see a scientist who spoke about the problem."

At that point I thankfully arrived at my destination. I had to admire the ingenuity of someone who could link the twin evils of contraception and homosexuality. Nevertheless I was relieved to get out of the cab.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 10:00 PM | link |


Daddy's girl
This report from Sky News had me bemused. Saddam Hussien's daughter Raghad gave an interview to Al-Arabiya TV claiming that her father was betrayed by his aides. She was speaking from Amman, Jordan where she and her sister Rina were granted asylum by King Abdullah. The piece is accompanied by the famous photograph of Saddam portrayed as mending the ten year old Raghad's dress.

What's so strange about Saddam's offspring saying things like this? Because they have reason enough to feel aggrieved with their father. Nor is it the first time they've sought asylum in Jordan. Senior positions in Saddam's regime were often occupied by family members. Saddam strengthened these bonds even further by the institution of marriage. Raghad and Rina were married off to Hussein Kamel and Saddam Kamel, sons of Kamel Hassan al-Majid, Saddam's cousin and also brother of Ali Hassan al-Majid. One doubts if they had any choice in the matter.

In 1995 Hussein and Saddam Kamel, both powerful figures in the regime, decided to defect to Jordan and brought their wives with them, much to the displeasure of Saddam. Rather bizarrely, both were persuaded to return to the fold after a few months in exile. They were killed shortly after arriving back in Iraq. Subsequently both sisters lived in seclusion in Tikrit and it was reported that neither would speak to their father. Things have certainly changed since then.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 9:39 PM | link |


Dude, where's the love?
Blog Irish is feeling left out. Noting that I seem to be very agreeable these days, what with making nice to Eoin and William, Bran's wondering if he's ever going to get a piece of the action. On the topic of Cuba, he has this to say:

"The problem is not with American attitudes towards Cuba, but with Irish attitudes towards assumed but non-existent American attitudes towards Cuba."

He also points this out, something I was heretofore unaware of:

"American fat cat Republicans eager to make grain and other sales to Cuba were lobbying to end the embargo when Castro decided to throw 75 rights activists in jail for up to 28 years and execute three people who were trying to hijack their way to Florida."

So here it is Bran, I agree with you. Having said that, I'm not sure if we had that much to disagree on with this topic in the first place. It was foreign policy, i.e. the attitude of the government I was moaning about, not public opinion. And, in fairness, I did mention the sizeable Cuban lobby as a factor in that policy.

Finally, having suffered the affliction of a bad back in the past, I wish Bran a speedy recovery.

POSTSCRIPT: On the topic of bloggers not writing to the Irish Times, Blog Irish suggests a new feature of publishing unpublished letters to the Times. In this we may have stumbled on a new definition of weblogging, i.e. letters to the editor that will always be published. I've written to the Times in the past and some have been published, the most notable being a series of letters in which I had an ongoing spat with the Charge d'Affairs of the Nigerian Embassy. I haven't written in in ages, preferring to sound off here instead.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 9:16 PM | link |


--------------------

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com