The Edge of England's Sword

Exposing a Kroc

You may remember the contempt I displayed for the Morgan Spurlock film that attempted to prove that eating McDonalds is bad for you. On Monday I had the pleasure to be interviewed by independent filmmaker Soso Whalley, who is making a film in which she plans to lose weight by following a sensible McDonalds-only diet. I'm sure she can do it and I'll upate you if I hear more of her progress.

Non-Oxford Union People Look Away Now

As a service to my friends (and enemies) from student politics in the 80s I have resurrected my review of where the various hacks, backstabbers, lowlifes and the occasional talent from The 1980s Oxford Union are now. This will mean little to those not involved, so I apolgize for the inside, er, cricket.

No Way to Run a Railway

This is amazing. The House of Commons Transport Select Committee has just issued its report, on the state of the railway industry. Yet it's emphatically not privatization that gets blamed, it's the regulators:

Economic regulation of the railway, as presently organised, has largely failed. However, if the private sector continues to be involved, there will be a role in future for a measure of independent economic regulation to 'hold the ring' between the infrastructure provider and the private sector companies. But the Government must take back into its own hands decisions about the sums which will be spent on the railway. This will correct the present absurd position in which the Government simply underwrites the Regulator's funding decisions. Economic regulation should be removed from functions which are properly those of Government.

The Rail Regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the Health and Safety Executive are all strongly criticized. It should be noted that two of those are creations of the current government, and one (HSE) had its role vastly strengthened by John Prescott, to the detriment of the industry.

The committee even goes so far as to say that ownership is irrelevant:

The travelling public do not care who runs railway services; their concern, quite properly, is with efficiency and value for money.

Of course, the Committee, I am sure, intends this to be read as an argument for possible renationalization, but it cuts the other way. The Committee has essentially admitted that the reason why the privatized railway has failed is due to its strangulation by regulation.

The full report is 105 pages long, and I am skeptical of the Railway Agency they propose, which would seem to go further than British Rail in imposing direct government control of operations, a really stupid idea if you ask me, but I haven't read that in detail yet.

But in identifying that regulation and government failure are the problems here, not market failure, they have done the privatized industry a great justice. This deserves wider play.

Apologies again

By the way, apologies once again for the paucity of posts from the Murray household, although I'm impressed by the way Sir Francis has kept the flame alive and also hope to see a little more of Peter Cuthbertson, whose latest contribution here was particularly fine, I thought. A heavy workload and exhaustion combined are not conducive to blogging.

On the other hand, a blogging-related enterprise had some very good news today. I hope we'll be able to announce more soon.

Finally, this, noticed by Laban Tall, has to be the final word on the "cricket test" issue.

Rigging the reefs

Just popping in to add a little to what Sir Francis Drake said below. A little while ago I attended a very interesting presentation by marine biologists and underwater wildlife photographers (one of whom seems to hold most free diving records going) on the subject of the marine life that has colonized oil rigs around the American coastline. A lot of that information is at the Towers of Life web site (there's also a couple of things about North Sea rigs there). It's fascinating, because these rigs provide habitats for life at a variety of depths, something that natural reefs generally don't do.

Yet these new habitats are hated by a certain breed of "environmentalist." I put the word in inverted commas because it seems to me that no-one deserving of the title would ever say what one of them said to one of the biologists, the splendidly-named Dr Love. The good doctor had been explaining the value of the habitats to a group campaigning for the complete removal of all artificial structures. He told them that 10,000 animals depended on one particular site. The campaigner's reply was, "I don't care how many animals die. I want those structures gone."

Reefer

In an admirable trashing of the "Toxic Ghost Fleet" story in today's Telegraph, Neil Collins recalls the Brent Spar debacle of about ten years ago and proposes a novel approach to fisheries management.

Well, we should rejoice at a sinner that repenteth. Remember the Brent Spar? Greenpeace would rather you didn't. It pulled a similar stunt by boarding this redundant oil platform en route round Scotland to be sunk in deeper water in the north Atlantic. The television news boys loved the story, especially when Shell tried to drive the warriors off with fire hoses. The platform, we were told, was awash with horrid chemicals which would pollute vast areas of the pristine ocean. Shell crumbled before the onslaught, and the Brent Spar was taken off to a Norwegian fjord. It was only later that Greenpeace quietly admitted that its estimates of the contents were wildly exaggerated. What pollutants it did contain would disappear naturally within weeks at the most - as the Braer demonstrated when it broke up in a gale with a cargo of crude oil off the Orkneys. By the time the wind died down, there was barely a trace of the oil to be found.

There is still no convincing argument for breaking up old oil platforms on land. Shell was on the right track with the Brent Spar, and the finest solution to the scores of North Sea structures nearing the end of their lives would be to tow them into the area of the north Atlantic where fishing rights are disputed between Iceland, Greenland and the European Union.

There, they can be sunk in a pre-determined pattern and cut off below the waterline to avoid being a hazard to shipping. The 20-mile nets that are destroying the world's fish stocks would be unable to operate near them, thus providing a sanctuary and some hope of regeneration.

I've heard this idea proposed a few times but nothing ever comes of it. Which is a shame because the idea of creating artificial reefs to restore fish stocks is an astoundingly good one and one which ought to be applied to the North and Irish Seas. Research in the Philippines revealed that in an area where there is a reef, fish stocks stay at a higher level than in similar areas without one. Furthermore so great is the effect of reefs on fish populations that stock levels are raised in open areas adjoining them. At a time when the European Union is attempting to salvage the North Sea fisheries this is an idea which should be adopted in preference to destroying what is left of the fishing fleets of the British Isles.

The balkanised bigger picture

Thoughtful leftie Norm Geras asks that we bring back John Stuart Mill as he reports on the following story:

FOR more than 100 years it stood proudly as the centrepiece of England's oldest public park before being decapitated during a Second World War air raid.

Now a row has broken out after plans to replace Derby's historic Florentine Boar statue were abandoned for fear of offending Muslims, whose religion considers pigs to be 'unclean'.

In one sense, this is just another classic case of political correctness in action; pathetic and nasty in equal measure, but ultimately a small thing. 'Same old, same old' is a reasonable enough response.

But the thought also occurs that in the blink of an eye we may have established a precedent that will outlive our great-grandchildren, that all of a sudden we have reduced to almost nothing the chance of any work of art involving something as harmless as a pig ever again being displayed in a public place in this country. From Christmas lights which dare highlight the significance of the moment to hot cross buns in school canteens, innocent and creative symbols of our culture and nation are disappearing while landmarks and ceremonies with history and meaning are being torn down and wound up.

On their own, none of these events is going to bring life as we know it in Britain to an end. But these little things do matter. I recall Peter Hitchens once writing very insightfully of what he had always imagined would be worst about trying to live in an invaded and occupied country. For him it would be passing a foreign flag every morning on the way to work, seeing harmless and homely customs brought to an end, witnessing the demolition of precisely those little things that bring together a community and a nation. As the months and years go by, we are all getting a flavour of just what he means.

Although I have opposed mass immigration for some time, I have also long dismissed the "invasion" talk one sometimes hears from the Daily Express or Pat Buchanan as emotive, inaccurate and scarcely more than scaremongering. But perhaps there is in such rhetoric a more subtle point than is intended by those who use it. Certainly the millions who come to this island every few years do not impose themselves on us, the only force of arms that of our own government. But once here, their effect is to give apparent legitimacy to Panglossian social engineers whose arrogance and short-sightedness allows them in good conscience to do so much that chips away at our culture, that takes from us what an invasion would. Every year, minority groups swell in size and our response is not to assert the need for integration, but to reassure their self-appointed lobbyists that they have an absolute right never to be offended. Could we, in our unwillingness to demand from minorities any susceptibility to reason and any degree of tolerance for majorities, be making conquest of ourselves?

Scary Carey

Good editorial in today's Telegraph about former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey's "attack" on Islam last week:

Lord Carey's speech revealed that he is after all a man of strong views, many of which he evidently suppressed when Archbishop of Canterbury. The question remains, however: why was he so paralysed by caution when actually in the job that would have allowed him to make a difference?

To be fair to Carey, he was quite vocal about the situation in the Sudan - causing a minor diplomatic incident at one stage I seem to recall. But that was very much the exception which proved the rule.

The explanation?

From An Englishman's Castle, we have a possible explanation for why so many left-wing Europeans dislike Israel. It's not anti-semitism, simply world-shattering ignorance!

'"This wall is so stupid, why have they put it up, the bastards I hate them." As she carried on a bit I meekly suggested that the Jews might feel it was for self defence. She rounded on me "But the Israelis have put it up to drive the Jews out". I was a tad perplexed by this, until I discovered that she believed that the Israelis were the Arabs and the Palestinians were the Jews.'

What do the Brits think about Iraq?

I have an article up at In The National Interest about avery interesting BBC poll about British attitides one year after the invasion of Iraq. I conclude that the low opinion in which Blair and Bush are held over the issue masks a basic belief that Britain did the right thing.

The Guardian? A fine paper...

After all, CP Scott was a magnificent editor, whose maxim, "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" is an excellent reminder of journalistic ethics.

All this is leading up to the revelation that I've been quoted, by Brendan O'Neill, in The Guardian's opinion pages...

Corrected. The first iteration said CP Snow, not CP Scott. Thanks to a commenter for pointing out the silly mistake.

Science soundings

I hae a new article up on TCS. Why We Need Sound Science Rules looks at how politicians and their hangers-on abuse science for political ends.

We're all screwed

According to the Medicare Trustees' report, the financial outlook for Medicare has substantially worsened and the program's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2019, seven years earlier than projected last year.

Oh, and the Social Security Trustees' report also looks bad. Total benefits from the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) accounts totaled $471 billion in 2003. Income to the OASDI accounts totaled $632 billion. For the combined OASDI accounts, benefits will exceed payroll tax receipts beginning in 2018 and “trust fund” balances will be exhausted by 2042. This means that starting in 2018, like in the Medicare HI account, the Social Security program will have to start redeeming U.S. Treasury securities to pay benefits (these dates are unchanged from the 2003 Trustee’s report).

Euphemia

By the way, if this looks weird to American readers, it's because of the British libel laws. You can't necessarily say someone was drunk, for instance, so you say they were "tired and emotional." You can't necessarily say two people had a sexual encounter, so, in the memorable phraseology of Private Eye from the early 70s, you say they "discussed the situation in Uganda." This is more of the same, I'd guess.

Politics in the US is refreshingly honest by comparison...

Official news sources of the lunatic fringe

I meant to mention this a while ago, but I have been too busy with work and domestic matters to blog as often as I'd like (in case you hadn't noticed). There's an interesting little tidbit in Lawrence Kaplan's brilliant deconstruction of Hollywood bigmouth Tim Robbin's squalid little conspiracy play, Embedded, Devious Plot in The New Republic. What news sources does Robbins recommend for those who know that the New York Times is a right-wing plot?

I'll give you two guesses.

Questions of standards

Here's a wonderful piece of sense from the Telegraph:

Towards the end of last week, there were two health scares. Coca-Cola announced that it was temporarily withdrawing its new brand of purified and bottled water, Dasani, after it was found to contain slightly elevated levels of bromate, chronic exposure to which has been linked with cancer. And at the European Breast Cancer Conference it was revealed that as many as 70 per cent of British breast cancer patients are compromising their chances of survival by using alternative remedies which either do not work or are actually harmful.

There are no prizes for guessing which of the two scares gained the most media attention.

The Telegraph goes on to point out the free ride the public gives to potentially very dangerous "complimentary medicine" on the mistaken principle that primitive societies know more about medicine than we do. They don't. That's why they have a tendency to drop like flies. And the Telegraph is also right to gently upbraid Christopher Booker for the first article this week in his normally excellent notebook, which really is a piece of tripe.

The second article, however, is up to his usual standards:

How country life is changing. For years the citizens of Sturminster Newton in Dorset have joined together in an annual "spring clean", with scores of volunteers fanning out through the streets to pick up every scrap of litter. Now North Dorset council has told them they must pay £150 for public liability insurance in case anyone cuts a finger while picking up bottles. This year's clean-up has been abandoned.

Meanwhile John Mills, regional policy director at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, recently startled the National Farmers Union annual conference by boasting that Britain's countryside is now home to eight times as many civil servants as farmers. Only 3 per cent of rural inhabitants are farmers or fishermen, he claimed, whereas 25 per cent are on the public payroll, working in "rural administration".

Mr Mills did not point out that the first of these groups is rapidly diminishing (according to official figures by 140,000 in the past six years), while the other has been expanding - let alone that these facts might be connected.

And Booker also reminds us that one of the metric martyrs now bears that title with more poignancy:

Last weekend, at five in the morning, Steve Thoburn died of a heart attack, at the age of 39. His family and the defence fund (at PO Box 526, Sunderland SR1 3YS) have received thousands of messages from all over the world, including a £1,000 cheque from a firm of New York lawyers saying "keep up the fight".

Last Wednesday Mr Herron went to Sunderland council offices, and retrieved the scales seized from Mr Thoburn on July 4, 2000. Tomorrow large crowds are expected to line the streets for Mr Thoburn's funeral. He was a well-known and popular local figure. A memorial service will be held in due course, including a place for the world's most famous set of scales.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Thoburn, a canny lad from my neck of the woods, was killed by this unbelievably pointless, pettifogging law. All Mr Thoburn wanted to do with his life was sell produce to local people in the manner they had done for centuries, but this law saw fit to criminalize this harmless practice. Those who let it pass through the Commons unquestioned and, worse, those trading standards bureaucrats and police who thought it worth enforcing (why? for Heaven's sake, why?) and, ultimately those judges who failed to see the breach of natural justice here have Mr Thoburn's blood on their hands.

Dr David Kelly had an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his death. Where is Steve Thoburn's?

Junk food science

I have serious problems with this research. How can they be sure that the 62 episodes sampled are representative of the entire corpus? There may also be a serious problem with confounding factors -- are the instances of unhealthy food merely by-products of another, more serious problem? And shouldn't we recognize that obesity and alcoholism are diseases? These researchers are essentially blaming the victim.

Or they're just complete tosspots. You choose.

Button

How about this for a button to be made by 'Democrats for Bush' or the GOP in Massachusetts?

I voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him.

Turning the clock back #2

Sorry this has taken all week - I've been rather busier than I expected over the past few days. I'm quite pleasantly surprised to see that the choice of "decision that should never have been made" I had in mind - the abolition of the Grammar Schools - was the clear favourite. In the 59 years since the election of the post-war Labour Government there have been hundreds of atrocious decisions by governments of both parties so choosing one to reverse ought to be difficult, but I think that more and more the introduction of Comprehensives will be seen by posterity as the worst.

I can see the argument that decries the foundation of the NHS, but have to reject it. Whatever the NHS is now, and how it has got that way it is undeniable that Britain's public health provision prior to its foundation was appalling and a national disgrace. The NHS as founded solved most of those problems, but as treatments became more effective and more expensive it never kept up, leading to today's problems.

(The suggestions of joining the EU and the Firearms act I wholly concur with, but since the one was a foreign policy decision - at least initially - and the other was before 1945 I'm leaving them to the side).

And I wholly sympathise with arguments in favour of decimalisation, the death penalty, the loss of the right to silence in the 1994 Criminal Justice Act or the gutting of the Lords among others. But as I have said there are legions of bad ideas being proposed everyday. To make the grade as the number one bad decision of the post-war era, a policy has to be exceptionally poor, its effects enduring, and the damage it inflicted growing worse over time. The destruction of the Grammar Schools fits the bill perfectly.

[For those who are unfamiliar with the British Education System, the school population used to be divided by ability at age 11 or 12 following an examination. The academically gifted were placed in the 'Grammar' schools, the remainder proceeding to 'Secondary Modern' schools. The policy was designed to ensure that those with ability gained the education they deserved, irrespective of their place in society. Inevitably, the system as designed meant that those who 'failed' the 11+ or 12+ exam were treated to a substandard education, and often felt stigmatised as 'failures'. The Labour government of Harold Wilson in the 1960s decided to fix this problem, but instead of finding ways to improve Secondary Moderns, or enable those who became academically able later to transfer to the Grammar Schools, it was easier to decry Grammar Schools as divisive, elitist and the cause of the problem. Legislation was introduced which allowed the closure of the Grammar schools and over the following two decades Education Secretaries of both parties (including, to her shame Margaret Thatcher) closed most of the Grammar Schools in the country. A few areas fought hard to protect their schools and thus to this day there are a few pockets of the old system left, but for the most part the system of dividing by ability was replaced by a 'one size fits all' alternative: the Comprehensive].

The damage this decision wrought pervades almost every area of the education system. The merging of academic and non-academically inclined children (often combined with the abolition of streaming by ability within the schools) created classes where the brighter students are held back while the less able are frustrated and don't get the attention they need. Education standards for everyone fell, and the upper middle classes promptly withdrew their children from the state system. It is no accident that Oxford and Cambridge took more state school students in the 1960s than they do today.

The 'quick fix' of abolishing the Grammar Schools has spawned more such manoeuvres - replacing O-Levels and CSEs with GCSEs, dumbing down A-Levels (and now abolishing them altogether) and finally 'fixing' the problems of too-few state school students at University caused by this policy by threatening to regulate who gets in. The terrible collapse in educational standards in the UK can be traced back to the abolition of the Grammar Schools.

Given the further damage that has plainly done to the country it is hard to think of a single decision which I would rather have never happened.

Just a quick question

If this had happened in the US, rather than France, wouldn't British and European media be full of stories about American ignorance of the world, American violence, reasons why Americans can't be trusted to lead the world etc etc?

Shoot 'em All And Let God Sort 'em Out

This article discussing how the US Congress"self-polices" its wrongdoings really bothers me. I find it disgusting that American citizens are not able to clearly see what their elected representatives are up to.

I have more than half a mind to call for an open investigation of each and every representative and senator to screen them for ethic wrongdoings. As far as I'm concerned, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

The Spanish are not cowards

In my latest TCS column, A Setback, Not a Defeat, I dispute the idea that the Spanish people fled for cover en masse in the face of terror. Some people who should know better have failed to take the actual voting figures into account. I also draw attention to a very interesting UK poll, on which more later.

Murray on the EU Constitution

I have an article on the wretched document on the cover of the January-February Edition of CEI Monthly Planet. The thrust shouldn't surprise anyone...

Turning the clock back

Via Plastic Gangster, I see Oliver Kamm has written an excellent post on the "Worst Ministers Since the War", which is bound to provoke lots of good debate around the British Blogosphere. Drawing inspiration from this and thinking laterally, I've come up with a challenge for UK bloggers - or indeed anyone else via the comments box:

If there is one thing you could change about modern Britain that can be traced back to a single policy, act of parliament or ministerial decision since the last war, what would you choose. What vote would have gone the other way, or which decision would have been avoided? Which development would you most like to undo? And why?

You are at liberty to change one thing since the 1945 General Election. There are just two rules:

1. It has to be a domestic matter.
2. It has to be something within the power of the state or politicians in the first place, which means no changing outcomes of General Elections, or reversing cultural changes.

I know what my answer is, and I'll post it in a few days time. In the meantime, over to you! [Let me know of nominations via e-mail at drakesdrumblog - at - hotmail {dot} com].

Slapped Around

I have to say I am enjoying the media elite getting bitch-slapped around by the American people over the movie The Passion.

Boy, did they get it wrong. Boy, are they out-of-touch.

I will be honest. We haven't seen The Passion yet. George requiring a breastfeeding seemingly every 15 minutes means I won't get a chance to see the movie in the theaters - Iain and I do intend on renting it as soon as we can.

But from what I've read about the movie, the media elite/liberals seem to be wringing their hands over supposed anti-semitism and the violence. I will withhold judgement on the anti-semitism charge until I see the movie but I suspect it is overblown (BIAS ALERT: unless the entire Christian faith anti-semitic which I don't believe it is).

As far as the violence is concerned, well what the heck did they expect? Gibson wanted to show us exactly what Christ went through. From what I understand, he is reasonably historically accurate. And really think about it, Christ suffered for the sins of the world. The whole world - anything less that a whole lot of suffering kinda misses the point.

But what really gets my goat are hypocrites like Stephen King who wrote about The Passion in his back-page column in this week's Entertainment Weekly (article not up yet but here's the link). He appears to like the movie but becomes queasy because a mother who brought in young children sat next to him. (Gibson himself does not recommend that children under 12 see this movie.)

Stephen King describes how this little girl covered her eyes for 10 minutes but watched 50 minutes of Christ's suffering, how bad he feels at the images she must seen, and how could Gibson do this? The hypocrite. This coming from a man who's first movie (Carrie) features the now iconic image a woman covered in blood! He's made a fortune out of horror books and films and is worried that Gibson's religious film is a problem? No pun intended but what the hell is he thinking?

It's not Gibson's problem that a parent was warned not to do something and does it anyways. It's not Gibson's problem that his film got an R rating and parents who bring their children into it are taking a risk they are going to see some fairly adult material. It's theirs.

It's called personal responsibility people. Deal with it. Christ did.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

It's not

Not worth commenting on, but gonna

An Edge Reader asked me to comment on this NRO article.

Personally, I think the article is shamefully biased as a piece of journalism. The writer (Pia de Solenni is director of life and women's issues at the Family Research Council) is clearly anti-abortion and has skewed her entire article about this hearing to reflect her personal bias.

She mentions the millions of abortions that have been performed since Roe vs. Wade yet spends most of her time emphasising two womens' bad experiences. Now it breaks my heart that these women suffered but I would never base social policy on such a ratio as 40 million to two.

Now, while I agree these hearing to determine if it is worth studying the long-term medical effects of abortion on women is a good thing, this exchange is also worth considering: "When asked by Senator Brownback, "So you don't want to know the data?," Dr. Nada Stotland, professor at Rush Medical College in Chicago, replied, "It's hard to impute [the effects] to a procedure that they had for five minutes."

I would never belittle the emotional impact of an abortion nor the medical risks (albeit remote medical risks), but the doctor has a point too. Is this hearing about getting a clear idea of the medical impact of an abortion or is it a fishing expedition to cast about for a scientific scare tactic as a new line of attack?

Finally, why is it the same people who trot out the 25% of all pregnancies end in abortion, never mention that another 25% of all pregnancies are "aborted" naturally - indeed sometimes the woman doesn't even know she is pregnant until she has two menstrual cycles in a month (which happened to me once). Who aborted those pregnancies, surely not God?

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

Murray on CNN tomorrow

Well, Headline News to be precise. They're interviewing me at lunchtime for a taped discussion that should see different bits airing at 2:45pm, 3:45 and 4:45 (all EST). I hope not to make too much of an idiot of myself.

A Chick Thing?

As many Edge Readers know, I am a registered democrat with almost precisely centrist views. What you may not know is that the night of the 2000 election, I was up at 3am breast-feeding Helen and sobbing hysterically while watching election returns come in saying Bush had won. I cried so hard I woke Iain up.

That's how much I dreaded a Bush presidency.

I dreaded it because I staunchly believe I can never vote for anyone who is anti-choice (for clarification I am not pro-abortion or pro-life, just pro-choice).

So while I am certainly NOT going to vote for Kerry, I'm also not going to vote for Bush this election. However, I have to say that at least right now if Bush were to win, I would not cry, at least not as hard as I did.

Why?

Because while I still strongly disagree with the President's stance on choice, I must applaud his administration's consideration of changing the handling of political asylum cases regarding abused women as published in today's New York Times.

To quote the article, "The Department of Homeland Security, which took on the function of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, is proposing rules that would allow for political asylum in such extreme cases, opening the door to women fleeing countries that condone severe domestic abuse, genital mutilation and other forms of acute violence against women."

This is a good thing. And I'm very glad to see it. Now if only America would impose trade sanctions against countries that condone behavior such as genital mutilation of women and sex slave trade, I'd be even happier.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

First Things First

Now that we're back and running I want to try posting again but please bear in mind, I've lost my mind. Sleep deprivation coupled with seemingly near constant breast-feeding compounded by care of a three-year-old and Iain has eroded much grey matter.

In short, I'm not at my brightest or best. So please be patient.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife