Things could be worse

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Things could be worse

Firstly, let's get this out of the way: today's nationwide strike in France is expected to be larger than the one in January. This will gladden the hearts of all those who want to see more and more trouble on the Continent and, perhaps, in Britain, believing against all historical experience that strikes and riots bring about a healthy society.

Unemployment in France has risen above two million (clearly, their way of fudging figures is superior to ours). The strikers, mostly from the bloated public sector, are protesting against President Sarkozy's economic reforms that he had promised in his election campaign. Presumably, continuing to spend billions of euros on the aforementioned bloated public sector will, in these people's opinion, bring about some kind of an economic salvation.

The really bad news is a much smaller item that I picked up via Instapundit. Iranian blogger Omid Reza Misayafi has died in prison, possibly by his own hand, which just might have something to do with the treatment he was receiving.

Iran has many bloggers though periodically the Mad Mullahs and President Ahmadinejad together with their secret police crack down on them. Numerous of our colleagues who try to tell the world and their own countrymen what really goes on in Iran are still in prison.

Periodically, though not often enough, we try to write about journalists and bloggers around the world who get into trouble with authorities. If nothing else, these stories should help to remind us that our own undoubtedly serious problems are in a different category from most around the world.

As I point out to all those idiots who send me e-mails with carefully worked out and completely inaccurate comparisons between Gordon Brown and Robert Mugabe - it is an insult to the people of Zimbabwe.

COMMENT THREAD

You can't just ignore it

Once upon a time, they used to have men who followed up the horses, shovelling up the droppings – for use elsewhere. With the advent of technology, however, this noble profession was thought to have disappeared.

In fact, the breed is alive and kicking. The practitioners simply moved on to become environmental journalists, depositing their garnerings in the media rather than on compost heaps.

Thus do we see a vivid illustration today with Louise Gray’s finest droppings, delivered fresh and warm for our morning delectation.

One can only admire her dedication. She has happily scooped up with her own bare hands David Pollard of Pennsylvania State University – who has dumped in Nature magazine. He has used computer models to simulate Antarctic ice sheet variations over the past five million years. Ah … computer models.

With these wondrous devices, we now learn that "climate change" could melt the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. But … wait for it (a long time) … these computer models show "it is a distinct possibility but it is not going to happen in the next hundred years it will happen over thousands of years".

Nothing, though can possibly compare with Pollard's blind adherence to his creed. "[But] it is something to be concerned about," he cautions. "You cannot just ignore it because it is happening in thousands of years time."

Right! One can just see the panic in the streets … "the ice is going to melt in a thousand years time!", the crowds shriek. Maidens swoon, grown men weep and they have emergency debates in parliament. Meanwhile, Louise Gray andher cohorts continue to scoop up the droppings …

COMMENT THREAD

Forum

Following our attack of the spammers when we were forced to close down the registration process, we've had a number of applications to join. 

However, given the differences in time zones, etc., it is difficult to manage opening up to let people in on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, I'm going to try an experiment. For one week, I'll open up the process at 1500 hrs for one hour every day. If you want to join, e-mail me first with your intended user name, and then register in the time slot when it is open. I'll take it from there.

I'm not generally in favour of capital punishment, but I think I would make an exception for spammers.

Convergence

According to the Press Complaints Commission, via the Press Gazette, there has been a decline in the standard of online journalism.

With journalists and other editorial staff being shed by the bucket-load, chairman Sir Christopher Meyer - who steps down later this month – is concerned that the cutbacks are having an effect on journalism standards. He warns that sacrificing editorial standards in the pursuit of profit was like "selling the family jewellery".

Meyer suggests that the pressure of time and the 24-hour news cycle may have lead people to put up stories which have not been thoroughly vetted, warning that newspaper groups have to find a business model which reconciles high standards with profitability.

The interesting thing is that newspapers, which have so prided themselves on their "fact checking" and the editorial process, are now allowing journalists to post their copy directly online. Amongst these is the Telegraph Media Group, which has begun experimenting with what it calls "post-moderation" of online news stories, a posh name for effectively allowing reporters to write directly to the website.

That puts them on more or less the same footing as bloggers – in fact less so. On our forum, we allow comments without prior moderation and, as readers will know, when I get things wrong, or write arguable pieces, there are plenty of people coming forward to correct me, or dispute my "take".

With most of the MSM, however, not only do they pre-moderate their comments, there is very clear evidence that quite heavy censorship is applied. Try criticising a piece on any of the main news sites and see how far you get. At the very least, therefore, we can perhaps expect a little less of the pompous attacks from the MSM about blogging (although it is a while since I've seen any, not that I'm particularly looking.) 

On the other hand, as we see what effectively is a technical convergence between blogs and the MSM, it might even be an idea if it was actually recognised that, when it comes to content, some of us occasionally do a better job. Perhaps, on this basis, the future is indeed blogging. Whether that is a good thing, though, is anyone's guess.

COMMENT THREAD

A parallel universe

The European Council is meeting today in an attempt to agree a "common position" prior to the G20 summit. And from the BBC we learn that the EU is choking "on cost of economic rescue".

The "colleagues" have been told by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman, that the EU should spend €500bn this year and up to a trillion euros in total over the next three years to revive recession-hit economies. 

At the heart of that is the transfer of very large amounts of money from the richer countries such as France and Germany in an "economic stimulus package" to boost the economies of the less wealthy nations.

Needless to say, France and German are slightly opposed to the idea, which means that the cries of the neo-bankrupts are likely to be in vain. Instead, Sarkozy and Merkel have come up with an absolutely spiffing alternative. They are going to propose that the EU should concentrate on "improving financial regulation".

If there was ever any doubt about the existence of a parallel universe, that must surely be banished for ever. We have before us indisputable proof of its presence. It is called the EU, with two of its denizens amongst us.

COMMENT THREAD

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Well, fancy that!

"Real cost of EU is ten times higher than EC figures show …" says The Daily Telegraph today. 

Fascinating stuff that, although it sounds a bit familiar … which indeed it is. We wrote precisely that in November 2004. But the really interesting thing was that the source was … er … the EU commission.

And how did we happen upon that useful nugget of information? Why, The Daily Telegraph of course, in a piece by Ambrose.

Amazing what you can pick up in the newspapers!

COMMENT THREAD

The sweet smell of retreat

The UN's "climate change chief" is accusing EU politicians of moving the goalposts in global talks on climate change hysteria. 

This is Yvo de Boer, secretary of the UN climate programme (UNFCCC). He is calling in the EU agreement at the Bali climate summit last December, when the "colleagues" promised to bankroll clean technology in developing countries if they agreed to take appropriate actions to curb emissions growth. 

But now, we are told, EU politicians are asking for more action for their money. They want developing countries to produce plans to cut emissions across their entire economy before getting cash help from the EU. 

De Boer complains, "Quite frankly the language from (EU) ministers re-writes some of the fundamental agreements we made in Bali," adding, "I don't think it's constructive to enter into a negotiation by trying to change the fundamental principles on which you've just agreed the negotiation will be based." 

Why is he at all surprised? In fact, why is he complaining? Isn't that what they always do?

COMMENT THREAD