SUGGESTATION

I’m trying very hard to refrain from writing a few lines about everything Justin twitters - very difficult though, he’s a cornucopia of interesting links.

This time I couldn’t resist. Daniel Davies has a CiF article up proclaiming the death of the Euston Manifesto.

The Euston Manifesto had a big impact on me when I first encountered it. I’d stumbled from blog to blog reading diverse opinions on the Iraq war, interventionism, and foreign policy in general - the EM was supposed to be a consolidation of ‘decent’ opinion - neither neocons nor islamists. Ho ho. I left a few comments around the blogosphere trying to get a handle on what this manifesto meant, but only slowly came to the dawning realisation that this group had a wildly different political outlook to my own.

The biggest impact (revelations of Jherad,2:1) to me was in highlighting the very real divides in lefty politics. I’ve learned to be a little more cautious these days - I’m almost afraid of commenting on something good a journalist writes in case they turn out to be a raving loon.

These days, the word ‘decent‘ carries a nasty connotation for non-Eustonites in the know. Lines were drawn in the sand, but it isn’t just them and us - plenty of other lefties get my back up. I’m glad the Euston Manifesto is dead or dying - though there are big divides in the right wing of politics, they always seem (at least to me) to pull together when it comes to elections. The EM was a very visible sign of the rift on the left.

To me and my nephew :)

Disappearing for the weekend - Celebrating my *cough*th birthday, and my little nephews 1st! Big excuse to buy lots of toys. Have a great weekend all, catch you on the flipside.

Update: Yay, back. Got a great digital camera for my birthday, so I may publish random pics at some stage. Then again, I may not.

Site may be up and down somewhat for the next day or two - I’m getting my blog migrated to a newer server (more space, more bandwidth, etc etc - not that I need it, but hey! Upgrade!).

Many thanks to Tim for his plug of the site.

(via Chickyog)

An incredibly moving post by Rachel North on the 7/7 bombings. First, as PDF notes in the comments there, it is important for everyone to put down harmful conspiracy theories. I am possibly the least known blogger on the planet, but if I can get one friend, work colleague, relative or random browser to read this, then great.

There is a lot we don’t know about the events on 7/7 (and indeed 9/11) - but we are also starting to hear the good, documented evidence. Conspiracy theorists often dismiss outright any evidence which contradicts their viewpoint, and in doing so debase the search for truth - something which hurts the very real survivors and bereaved relatives of those lost in these terrible events.

There are very good activists who question establishment narratives, and push for deeper investigation into events. The difference between these people and the conspiraloons is that they base their opinion on an objective view of evidence, rather than looking for evidence to support a proconceived opinion. We’ve all heard stories on how evidence was gathered, shaped and accepted or discarded in order to make a case for for the war in Iraq - conspiracy theory is constructed in the same way. Fitting that some of the most anti-establishment nuts adopt some of the worst examples of establishment behaviour.

Rachel’s piece is moving as it tells the story of one of the bombers, Mohammed Siddique Khan, saying goodbye to his two year old child before leaving. We must remember that we are facing human beings with human motives, hopes, fears and ambitions. When we devolve those we fear into some biblical ‘evil’ force, we cannot hope to understand. We do not have to agree with, appreciate, or in any way condone their motives - but without understanding, we cannot hope to succeed.

Recent reports suggest that the Information Commissioner Office may force Phorm to be opt-in.

Good news then it seems, although it does appear that both the ICO and the home office have refused to clamp down (so far) on Phorm using current interception laws. The ’service’ has yet to start trials, and more may be decided once these are ongoing.

Phorm is obviously keen to press ahead. In a statement to The Register:

We’re very confident, as has been the case with the DPA and RIPA, that closer scrutiny will demonstrate that the way in which we obtain consent will substantially exceed any legal requirement.

Hah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7339380.stm

In a last minute switcharoo, the San Francisco leg of the Olympic torch relay was rerouted, leaving behind both supporters and protestors.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told Reuters news agency: “We assessed the situation and felt that we could not secure the torch and protect the protesters and supporters to the degree that we wished.”

Instead, a muted closing event took place on a motorway fly-over well away from the planned location, says the BBC’s David Willis in San Francisco.

After being loaded onto a bus and driven to a new starting point a mile away from the original start, the relay took place under heavy guard, away from inconvenient obstacles (ie. the public).

Time to end this farce now. Any point in continuing this relay?

Apologies for the ramble - a little bit under the weather today!

In one of my first posts on this shiny new blog, I wrote that I was fed up with the obsession with ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ in politics. Now, admittedly, it sounds like a throwaway line, but I’d like to continue with that thought for a few sentences.

I’ve just read a little comment-is-free Guardian piece (a few days old, I’m slow) which notes ‘Libertarianism’s leftward shift’. Apparently because some Libertarians have left the Republican party in the US. Obviously if liberals were to join the Repubs en-masse, then that would denote a shift of Liberalism to the right. Right?

I have a big problem with broad political labels. One can spend hours trying to work out what the difference between a ‘Liberal’ and a ‘Libertarian’ is. Have fun with that… Are you talking about Liberalism in the US? Europe? Classical Liberalism? Neoliberalism? Chalk and cheese.

One thing I hope that can be agreed upon is that we all have a belief, to one degree or another, in the right to social freedoms for the individual. This belief transcends left/right divides - though those divides often dictate how freedoms are provided for (positive vs negative freedoms, society over the individual etc). Party politics however tend to focus more on socialism vs conservatism. What surprises me is that liberalism seems to be an add-on. Something nice to have on certain occasions, but not a core value. For me, Liberalism is the single most important quality I look for in a political party - other aspects combined may turn me off a liberal party, but one I deem to be illiberal, or outright authoritarian will never get my vote.

/end rant