Pupil Barrister
The Independent‘s Saturday front page is shockingly, embarrassingly hypocritical.
Chief Scientist warns bigger rise in world’s temperature will put 400 million at risk.
And an advert above:
WIN Return Flights to New York
More at Chicken Yoghurt, from where the illustration was pilfered.
The Euston Manifesto proposes a fresh political alignment. Their suggestion that their viewpoints are bing under-represented in the mainstream media doesn’t ring true for me: Everyone, of every political persuasion is saying that! Nevertheless, it is an interesting document with sentiments I support.
From Clause 11:
Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the “anti-war” movement with illiberal theocrats)…
After Mark Lynas’ lecture last week, I am convinced that climate change will be just as disatrous for humanity as Stalinism, Maoism, and Nazism. I am also convinced that in a generation, the shame of our inaction on this issue will be comparable to the Left’s shame over communist ‘apologetics’, and European soul-searching over our inaction during the Holocaust.
Global warming is a ‘meta’ issue. It is likely to be a catalyst for many future conflicts, as different countries, groups and ideologies fight for control over scarce resources. Climate Change will emphasise the political divides we see delineated by the Euston Manifesto group. The group makes statements on particular issues (such as Iraq, and Israel/Palestine) so one on global warming, or rather, “a shared responsibility for the earth’s resources”, needs to be in there too. It is the elephant in the room, one that must be ejected before I will sign the manifesto.
Updates: Mike Marqusee has posted an interesting critique of the Euston Manifesto at Comment Is Free; Devil’s Kitchen calls me a hippy… plus further interrogation of the climate change/global warming premise at PooterGeek.
Revisiting old songs and exploring new ways to sing them is something of a Will Oldham/Bonnie ‘Prince’ Billy trademark. Three of his last four album releases have been covers of pre-existing songs. Summer in the Southeast is a live album, The Brave and the Bold is a collaboration with Tortoise, consisting of 10 cover songs, while in Bonnie ‘Prince’ Billy Sings Greatest Palace Music, Oldham and friends perform updates of music he composed earlier in his career.
It was a delight to see another iteration of Bonnie ‘Prince’ Billy last night, this time performing with the folk band Harem Scarem. Hearing tunes I know quite well re-arranged to fit with Harem Scarem’s fantastic female harmonies became another reason to enjoy Oldham’s music. In performing with four other voices, a couple of violins, a flute, an accordion, a banjo, a guitar and an enthusiastic drummer, it is clear that everything has been carefully rehearsed. Nevertheless, he meanders around the beat (and indeed the notes) of each song, as if he is experimenting, trying out a new version. The sheen of uniqueness and immediacy remains.
Yawn. I disagree with Tim Worstall that The Observer is being particularly interesting when Andrew Anthony asks: Are You a Universalist or a Relatvist?.
I know Anthony’s article is tongue-in-cheek, but it betrays a sneering attitude to the relativists which I find unhelpful, and certainly not in the true spirit of objectivity that the ‘universalist’ would presumably claim as a defining trait.
When someone says that things are “relative”, many people hear “we should not question”. But that is a crude form of (if you like) ‘fundamentalist’ relativism. I have no wish to defend this position, but in suggesting that these people have the exclusive preserve of the whole ‘relavitist’ side of the political divide Andrew Anthony is just plain wrong (on that point, I guess I must be a universalist). Much larger is the group of people who think that while some practices do fall into the ‘universalist’ morality (i.e. we cannot countenance that they could be right for anyone) there surely exists a whole slice of moral or political decision making for which different answers may be different for different people. This is especially true of religious faith, where different people find different medicines for the soul effective… and the political effect can be positive too. Simply asking “that is right for you, but is it right for them” does not automatically entail an endorsement of clitoridectomy (unless of course, you are specifically asking about clitoridectomy itself). Part of being a relativist is that one must choose to ask the question about specific cases an political decisions, not a blanket “everything is relative, nothing can be condemned” approach.
I recall the old adage:
There are two types of people in the world: Those who constantly divide the world up into two types of people; and those who do not
Or its more amusing and pithier equivalent:
there are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary; and those who do not
Anthony’s article is thinly veiled attack on fundamentalist Islam, with no new insight, repeating Simon Schama’s analysis from a few years back, but with a tenfold word count:
Put another way, the fight is between power based o revelation (and thus not open to argument), and power based o persuasion, and thus conditional on argument; militant theocracy against the tolerant Enlightenment
In taking Anthony’s little test (of the “Mostly A; Mostly B; or Mostly C” type) we unfortunately find the questions so loaded that everyone falls into the ‘universalist’ camp. Its a biased premise with a truism for a conclusion, which then allows him to declare the victory for ‘universalism’ over wooly thinking. In fact, he is simply declaring that there is a black-white, binary political argument to be had. The relativist denies this, and it is this stance that separates them from the universalists, not support for fundamentalist Islam.
From Tim Worstall’s commentary on the same article:
Public choice theory shows that the people who make such decisions are not [omniscient]. They are human beings, with all of the faults and foibles that encompasses, and they act out of rational self-interest, just as everyone else does.
What might be right for one person might not be right for another. People know how to allocate their resources far better than the State ever could.
That’s all relativism, isn’t it?
This is actually the March blogroll, but I have not actually had the time to make the post until now. The best laid plans…
How convenient it is to have people on hand to scrutinise your blog posts. Both The Pedant General at Infinitives Unsplit and Clarice have been taking me to task recently, for woolly thinking, careless throwaways and gaping leaps of logic. Banter here has inspired dear Clarice to update her site at Conceptual Reality to a WordPress blog. She’s already taken a few people to task, namely those that ask for kisses, idolise iPods or watch Star Trek. Perhaps that’s why she’s been quiet at this place.
Doctor Crippen the NHS blog doctor is compelling. Several friends and members of my family are doctors of varying specialisms. I keep forwarding his posts onto them, and his dissection of the NHS management culture is truly clinical.
Both Tim Worstall and The Daily Dish are both well established, and hardly need my endorsement to boost their statistics… However, I read them both daily, and they are always linking to interesting pieces elsewhere. Furthermore, Tim has pioneered the weekly Britblog Round-up, which has been a primary channel for people coming here. Cheers Tim!
© 2026 Robert Sharp
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑