The Daily Ablution

Peter Preston, Wizard of Detail, in Competence Crisis

Peter Preston combines gracelessness, bizarritude and stunning sloppiness in today's hatchet job on Ronald Reagan's reputation, "Towering he wasn't."

Preston begins by castigating "Lady Thatcher, Michael Howard, George W. and all who scurried yesterday to bury Ronald Reagan in an oleaginous ocean of tribute." One wonders why Preston doesn't personally attack Mikhail Gorbachev, who called Reagan an "extraordinary man" and a "true leader" who "has earned a place in history and in people's hearts." Perhaps naming Gorbachev wouldn't suit Mr. Preston's apparent agenda of portraying everyone with something nice to say as a loony right-winger.

At times Preston's writing veers into the realm of the surreal, as when he makes the laughable assertion that the reputation that he has set out to destroy includes that of Reagan as "wizard of detail." Ron would no doubt find that hilarious - but would probably take offense at the gratuitous reference to his religious faith as "Christianity stillborn again."

And consider this sentence:

"Since the Warren Harding and Coolidge disasters 30 or more years ago, America had expected and wanted more: a Roosevelt to be revered, a Truman to be sustained, an Ike of experience and Kennedy filled with hope, a cute LBJ and clever (if tricky) Dicky."

A 'cute' LBJ?! And can someone please tell me what "a Truman to be sustained" means?

But here's my favourite part, a passage that completely dissolves any claim of Preston's to being taken seriously:

"There was one hero of Ronnie's two terms, one really strong fellow who held everything together: but his name was Jim Baker, the brilliant political manager and mate of Vice-President George Bush, who became chief of staff ... when Donald Reagan (no relation) bailed out and the Oval Office turned pear-shaped. James A Baker III was, for a while, the best president America never had; and Ronnie, upstairs snoozing or watching TV, was a passenger riding his luck."

How helpful to point out that "Donald Reagan" [sic] was "no relation." Had Preston known how to spell his name (Regan), such clarification may not have been necessary (The Guardian website has corrected this embarrassing error). And Preston gets his history exactly backwards: Baker was the original Chief of Staff, replaced by Regan in 1985! Regan was followed in 1987 by Senator Howard Baker, a very different Baker indeed. Such ineptitude is unacceptable in a junior reporter, let alone a former editor who is keen to let us know that "I travelled campaign trails with him [Reagan]."

Most delicious of all is the phrase I've replaced with an ellipsis:

"when a crisis of competence threatened everything,"

A crisis of competence - now there's something that Peter Preston can comment upon with authority.

Guardian Application Sent

Some of you may be interested to learn that I have submitted my application to the Guardian training programme, as previously discussed. While much of my submission consists of answers to questions about personal experience and background, and is consequently of little interest to Ablution readers, I thought that perhaps my responses to these two consecutive questions might raise a chuckle:

"What would you add to The Guardian newsroom?"

Ideological balance and accurate research.

"Please describe issues of the moment in Britain and the world that most interest you. Why?"

I’m greatly interested in the issue of ageism in the workplace. One has the impression that many employers pay mere lip service to avowed policies of welcoming applications “regardless of age,” and “on merit.” All too often, organisations that would be horrified to learn of racism or sexism in their ranks display blatant ageism - by, for example, implementing special training programmes clearly designed to attract only youthful applicants, despite ritual protestations to the contrary.

As an American living in Britain, I can’t help but also be interested in the way in which Americans, their society and their government are perceived – not only in Britain, but throughout Europe. While many of the negative opinions expressed by Europeans are no doubt valid, others seem to be based on crude stereotyping of the sort that is rightly condemned when applied to other national, ethnic or religious groups. I’d like to help bring some balance to the way Britain and the rest of Europe view my compatriots, not only through my writing, but also by presenting myself as an intelligent, articulate, and non-obese example.

In addition, I have a strong interest in environmental issues, as well as the problems facing a world that will have to feed several billion additional people by the time global population peaks this century. That’s why it’s distressing to so frequently encounter blanket condemnation of GM agricultural technology as an unmitigated evil. While there are certainly some dangers to be considered, there are significant potential benefits to be reaped as well – opposition to all such research is shortsighted at best.

Similarly, unequivocal resistance to all nuclear power generation could be catastrophic with respect to climate change, as long-time environmental scientist and campaigner James Lovelock pointed out last week. Unfortunately, opponents of such technologies – who seem at times to be driven by quasi-religious motives – seem to be prevailing in today’s “marketplace of ideas,” at least as far as the general public is concerned. I’d like to help change that.

---

When do you suppose they'll be getting back to me?

Surprising Story: Multicultural Campaigner Criticises Racism

A row has broken out in Britain over something called the "Ethnic Multicultural Media Awards," which, according to the founder, Asian PR executive Bobby Syeb, are designed for "people who have promoted multiculturalism in their work."

A prominent representative of the grievance industry, black artists, and several ethnic minority newspapers have taken exception to the fact that some of the recipients (notably David Beckham, who shared an award with black Arsenal star Thierry Henry) had white skin. Beckham was given the award for his strong statements condemning racist football fans, and for allowing an Asian film director to use his name and image - apparently at no cost - in a film addressing multicultural themes (and, no doubt, for publicity value).

The film director in question criticised the award show's organisers, an act that seems graceless given Beckham's strong support for her film, and some audience members booed winners simply because of their skin colour. Piara Powar, director of a campaign to reduce racism in English football, summed up the feeling thusly:

"It's an insult to those of us who are from an ethnic minority or are black. The way he [Beckham] defines himself, as a young, urban, hip lad, does not make him an ethnic minority."

This remark clearly shows that Powar has no idea what the award was meant to honour, and the broader reaction reveals the mindset of what could be called "extreme multiculturalists" - namely, that white culture and ethnicity have no place in the multicultural Britain they're promoting. Hence, these "extreme multiculturalists" could also be referred to as "racists."

That's why it's so refreshing to note Mr. Syeb's furious reaction, which includes remarks like:

"Racism doesn't just mean insults to black and Asian people, we must not let anti-white remarks go without challenge."

Mr. Syeb also referred to "anti-white racists," and has asked the Commission for Racial Equality to investigate criticism from some of the ethnic minority press.

While I would personally prefer that the CRE didn't exist, and hope that the papers in question are not punished for their criticisms (which they should be allowed to make, as part of a free press), I can't help but be pleased to recognise an antiracism campaigner who not only admits that anti-white racism exists, but who also gets so worked up about it.

Revealed: Public Sector Staffing Crisis

A look through today's Guardian employment adverts reveals the gravity of the UK's current shortage of public sector Equality and Diversity Officers. No fewer than six councils and government agencies are scrambling to fill these critically important posts.

For example, Salford ("A city under transformation") desperately needs an "Equality Officer - with special responsibility for disability." The council will pay as much as £26,000 for the person who can best help "Create an inclusive community based on equality and inclusion." Salford also needs several "Cleaning Operatives."

The Norwich Probation Area, part of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, will happily pay up to £20,648 for someone to spend 25 hours a week "co-ordinating our network of Diversity Champions," and "promoting a holistic integrated approach to managing and developing diversity across all our employment and service delivery activities." Do not apply unless you "have a demonstrable commitment to eradicating all forms of discrimination within an organisation."

The Lincolnshire and Rutland office of Learning + Skills Council, "an organisation that exists to build a 'learning society'," is using £27,910 (+ benefits + final salary pension + bonus) of the national organisation's £9 billion budget to attract a Diversity Advisor, who will "ensure that we embed equality and diversity into all procedures, plans, targets and allocation of resources." Not only does the equality and diversity have to be "embedded," it must also be "mainstreamed," according to the ad.

The Greater London Authority ("Taking pride in a diverse workplace") also needs someone - preferably disabled, as "disabled people are currently under-represented in the GLA" - to do some mainstreaming. Ken's budget allows £36,218 for a "Senior Equality Co-ordinator - Gender," who "will work closely with the Mayor's office to develop and implement strategy, policy, training, and action plans that make sure equalities is [sic] mainstreamed throughout the GLA."

The Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator for the Ealing Primary Care Trust (part of the National Health Service) is on maternity leave. The "Partnerships and Diversity Team," which is "responsible for taking forward the PCT's strategies on diversity, race equality and patient and public involvement" founders leaderless. The "Race Equality Scheme" is in jeopardy. "If you want to influence the development of services that are sensitive and culturally appropriate," then you can step in for 6 months, and collect £12,750.

Finally, the Derby City Council ("Equalities in Action") is looking for a "Cultural Diversity Arts Officer for Derby." The post, which pays up to £20,469 a year, is for "a creative and committed arts professional to take a lead role in the development of Black Arts in Derby."

Expect the Derby Council to be overwhelmed with applications from modern-day devotees of Aleister Crowley.

The Sixties Remembered (Again); Red Ken, Euro Parliament Achievements Chronicled

I've belatedly come to a distressing realisation, one that seems obvious enough after you've hit upon it: those of us that are over 40 will be repeatedly subjected to ever older and ever more boring people "sharing" their memories of "The Sixties" until we die.

For instance, the BBC is planning "a massive season with over 80 hours of programming both from and about the sixties," according to the corporation's in-house newsletter Ariel. I was at first heartened to note that one of the programmes on offer is to be called "I hate the sixties" - until I read the article by that programme's producer, Gerry Dawson. Dawson's claim seems to be that the sixties were not all they're cracked up to be - because the era wasn't left wing enough! ("It was an ideal chance to start to build an open and inclusive society. We blew it.")

Not to be outdone, The Times felt the need to devote the entire Sunday magazine to the endlessly fascinating subject, and followed up yesterday with yet more trite recollections, like this from novelist Jilly Cooper:

"The Sixties were so joyful, so naughty. Everyone behaved simply appallingly. It was such fun. Having a baby out of wedlock was suddenly possible without the shameful guilt and cruelty of the 1950s."

Having babies out of wedlock! What fun!

---

The tabloid supplement in yesterday's Guardian was devoted, not to the Sixties, but to assisting Ken Livingstone's re-election campaign ("Hugh Muir on the remarkable renaissance of Ken Livingstone ... These are the happiest of times for Livingstone ..." etc.). In it we learn that:

"The congestion charge is Livingstone's most obvious first-term achievement. Londoners have now become accustomed to the charge, which Livingstone introduced three years after coming to power. Up to 70,000 fewer cars now travel into central London each year."

That's right - Ken's most obvious achievement to date is to reduce the number of cars entering central London by "up to" 8 an hour. Way to go Ken!

---

The Grauniad is also keen to promote the EU Parliament, and does so today by devoting most of page 3 to an article headlined:

What has the European parliament ever done for us? Well, quite a lot, as it turns out

A subhead notes that while "MEPs can list many achievements for their parliament," they're such a self-sacrificing bunch that "they don't expect any credit, let alone that voters should know who they are" (cynics might suggest that MEPs deliberately court anonymity in order to avoid having their expense accounts scrutinised).

A close reading of the article reveals the glorious achievements of the EU Parliament to be:

• Requiring sell-by dates on pineapple juice
• Driving water quality standards
• Puttting blue flags on beaches (as an indicator of water quality)
• Making sure certain football matches are televised
• Replacing a telephone box in Kilcorney, Ireland

Not to mention:

"Tough laws on animal testing, and on GM food labelling, and a legal obligation to recycle old TVs I throw out."

Oh wait - "these things weren't the parliament's ideas" after all! All the MEPs did was to "whip up concern" and "stop them being watered down."

So it's well worth the €1 billion a year it takes to maintain them.

---

A Personal Note: Regular readers may be interested to know that I am applying for this job. As I'll almost certainly be hired, readers are advised to quickly inform me of any competing employment opportunities they'd like me to consider.

Ablution in Bath

The Daily Ablution will be enjoying the Bank Holiday in the lovely city of Bath and will return on Tuesday.

Thoughts about ablutions and Bath have me wondering about something. I was perusing the latest installment of the hilarious account of the "ethical makeover" of Leo Hickman, a Guardian reporter who has the hangdog look one would expect of someone forced into such a venture by his boss. I've written about his ordeal here and here (I love the picture and caption at the latter link).

Anyway, in the latest article, the environmental "auditor" is berating Leo for his family's water consumption:

"Why not place a plastic tub of stones in the cistern to reduce the volume of the flush? And why not ask the Centre for Alternative Technology (www.cat.org.uk) for advice on compost toilets, or on installing a grey-water system to channel your old bath water to the toilet and garden?"

At first blush, the superiority of the compost toilet seems obvious, and I'm on the verge of ordering one and installing it in the garden of my London home (driving up the property's value considerably, one hopes). But now I'm thinking: Is there any benefit to be had by Londoners like Leo and me saving water? It's not like the water disappears after use - it's processed and then recycled back into the ecosystem, isn't it?

So the question I hope you'll ponder - and comment upon - in my absence is this: "Is there any reason for residents of damp climates like London to take positive steps to save water?"

I honestly don't know, and my decision regarding the compost toilet awaits. Please share your thoughts below.

Polly Toynbee's Faux Fat 'Facts'

Not only have The Guardian editors and Lord Tebbit weighed in on the causes of the "obesity epidemic," today the inimitable Polly Toynbee enters the fray. It turns out that neither evil corporations nor a government eager to promote buggery (see yesterday's post) is responsible for the problem, and it's certainly not caused by people eating too much and exercising too little.

So what is the real cause? Well:

"It is inequality and disrespect that makes people fat"

Polly offers precious few facts to support this extraordinary conclusion - although she does say that:

"obesity took off 25 years ago, up 400% in the years when inequality has exploded."

Unsurprisingly, she offers no evidence for this assertion, nor any that would support a causal link.

She continues:

"The inequality/obesity link is mirrored internationally. America has by far the most unequal society and by far the fattest. Britain and Australia come next. Europe is better and the Scandinavian countries best of all ... the narrower the status and income gap between high and low, the narrower the waistbands."

Absolute statements invite scrutiny, especially when they're backed by - well - nothing at all. So I did some scrutinising, with the following results:

"America has by far the most unequal society..."

No it doesn't. Latin American and African countries have the most unequal societies - by far. A quick look at the Gini Index figure (a measure of income inequality) for countries worldwide shows that of the 30 most "unequal societies," only three (Phillipines, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia) aren't in Africa or South/Central America. The United States comes in at number 41, with a Gini index of 40.8, very close to the worldwide average of 39.48.

"... and by far the fattest."

No it doesn't - Pacific Islanders have by far the fattest. Among non-Pacific Islanders, residents of Greece, Jordan, Palestine, Panama, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are also fatter than Americans.

"Britain and Australia come next."

No they don't. The following countries rank ahead of England (which has the highest rate in Britain):

Albania (urban), Argentina, Bahrain, Barbados, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Malta, Mexico and Paraguay.

"... the Scandinavian countries best of all."

No they're not. Finland is in a statistical dead heat with England (22.5% each). If we define "Scandinavian countries" as Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, and average the obesity rates in those countries, we see that the following countries are slimmer (I have excluded countries where famine and starvation are endemic):

Austria, Brazil, China, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Looks like oriental countries are actually "best of all" - and, interestingly enough, Denmark ranks third worldwide in "Mortality: Obesity (per capita)," with a rate nearly double that of the US, according to the WHO.

"But the narrower the status and income gap between high and low, the narrower the waistbands."

Again, false. Comparing Gini figures and obesity rates, we find that:

• Brazil is third in the world in income inequality, but has an obesity rate below that of any Scandinavian country.
• Hungary, ranked second in income equality, has an obesity rate just 1.7 percentage points less than that of England.
• Finland - 7th best in equality - has the same rate as England, as noted above.
• The Czech Republic, despite being 6th best in terms of income equality, has a higher obesity rate than England.
• Malaysia, which ranks second in inequality outside of Africa and Latin America, has a minuscule rate of about 6%.

Unfortunately, no statistics are available as to the obesity rate in Belarus, which leads the world in income equality, and therefore represents Polly Toynbee's vision of heaven on earth.

Polly is correct about one thing, though. As she puts it:

"This obesity debate is full of humbug and denial."

I couldn't have said it any better.

Sources:
Gini figures are from the CIA world factbook, and are presented here.
Obesity rates are from the International Association for the Study of Obesity, and are presented here.

---

UPDATE: Just for fun (sad, I know) I decided to make a scatterplot of income inequality and obesity levels. I took the female data (because there were more of them) from the IASO figures, and correlated them to the Gini figures whenever I could - eliminating sub-saharan Africa, Haiti and one or two places where I assumed a high incidence of malnutrition due to low caloric intake (incidentally, places that would usually have low obesity levels and high inequality levels). I ended up with data for 61 countries.

Behold, The Polly Principle!

.

---

UPDATE: More on Polly's Scandinavian miracle:

Norwegian men fattest in Europe

Norway has the highest percentage of overweight men in Europe, according to a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO). The report indicates that more than half of all Norwegian men are too fat.

Obesity, Buggery and Aryan Superiority

Today's headline news here in the UK is the "obesity epidemic," as a Parliamentary report on the topic was released today - it's the lead story in both The Guardian and The Telegraph, front page news in The Times, and was heavily covered on the Today programme.

The Guardian predictably emphasises the culpability of wicked corporations - its front page coverage addresses this factor alone, and consists almost entirely of an attack on Kellogg's and its method of marketing "Real Fruit Winders." This product is particularly evil because "sugars make up over a third of the product."

Worrried Guardianista mothers will no doubt be switching to ideologically correct alternatives, like fair trade dried apricots (50% sugar) and healthy raisins (70% sugar).

---

Meanwhile, over on Radio 4, Lord Tebbit speaks for the right wing (RealAudio, today only), ingeniously linking the obesity problem to a government "trying to do everything it can to promote buggery."

---

In other alimentary news, The Times reports that Princess Michael of Kent is left with one less dining option this morning. It's doubtful whether she will be welcomed back to Da Silvano, an "upmarket restaurant" in the West Village, after feeling it necessary to espouse the virtues of colonialism to a group of rowdy black customers - which, unfortunately for the Princess, included a PR consultant, a reporter and a lawyer.

The former Marie-Christine Anne Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz was later at pains to make it clear that she did not tell the other diners to "go back to the colonies," but merely said:

"You should remember the colonies. Back in the days of the colonies there were rules that were very good. You think about it. Just think about it."

So that's all right then. Still, one can't help but wonder exactly which "rules" the Princess - the daughter of an SS member - was referring to.

---

UPDATE: Friday - Polly Toynbee weighs in, with her customary regard for accuracy.

Devilish Details Damage Guardian Credibility

It's becoming quite evident that one simply cannot trust any statistic published in The Guardian (or The Observer - see the post below for some egregious examples from last Sunday's edition). Their journalists, perhaps unaware of the Internet's existence, seem incapable of even the simplest fact checking.

Today's case in point comes from an environment column demanding that Britain's gardeners "take more resonsibility for the social impact of their planting." Discussing "the tragic loss of peat bogs," the article claims that:

"... according to a report by WWF last year, 2,000 hectares of [peat] bog ... is destroyed in Ireland each year."

Like all polemicists, the reporter is spinning the statistics here. One could just as easily write:

"At the current rate of depletion, Ireland's peat bogs - the vast majority of which are, surprisingly, not natural features, but the result of human interaction with the environment - will continue to provide fuel, garden soil and employment for the next 600 years."

But spinning like this seems acceptable (if only barely), since papers in the UK traditionally make no pretense of being balanced, and readers are well aware of the proclivities of each. What's unforgivable is the blatant misstatement of fact, as seen in the phrase I omitted in the above passage (emphasis added):

"... according to a report by WWF last year, 2,000 hectares of [peat] bog - an area 20 times the size of Monaco - is destroyed in Ireland each year."

The area of Monaco is 195 hectares.

It should be added that this is not a typo - the "statistic" comes directly from the WWF. What's offensive is that no attempt is made to verify the claim, especially given the dubious source.

Why is this important? It is, after all, only a tiny detail that doesn't really affect the gist of the story.

I think it's important on two levels. Once an assertion like this is printed in a newspaper - especially a serious broadsheet - it becomes a sacrosanct fact, to be hauled out and repeated in support of arguments:

Guardian Reader: "Did you know that Ireland loses 20 Monacos of peat bog every year?"
Concerned Citizen: "Wow, no I didn't! I knew it was losing some, but that's, like, twice as much damage as I would have expected!"
Guardian Reader: "Well, it's a fact. And something must be done!"

If Concerned Citizen happens to be, say, a Government Minster, inappropriate action could result.

The cumulative effect of such lapses could be significant, particularly if - as seems quite possible - several such errors go unnoticed for each one that's corrected (of course, corrections usually lack the prominence of the original error).

From The Guardian's perspective, the importance of this endemic inattention to detail is graver still. Each such example represents another tiny piece taken from the edifice of trust - which is in the final analysis the most important asset of any serious news source. When that structure is sufficiently damaged by constant chipping away, the Editors may find that peat bogs regenerate faster than lost credibility.

Monday Odds and Ends

Hearty congratulations to The Independent, which today leads with a discussion of environmentalist James Lovelock's urgent call for a massive expansion of nuclear power, and also runs an opinion piece written by the Professor. The rejection of this suggestion by professional lobbyists like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth helpfully illustrates their true agenda - which is not merely to reduce greenhouse emissions, but to oppose virtually any manifestation of modern technology.

This mentality was evidenced by another notable story this weekend, concerning the development of salt-tolerant plant strains, which could significantly increase worldwide agricultural yield. Predictably, critics complain that "scientists are throwing technology at a problem" - an odd accusation, as many would hold that that's precisely what scientists are supposed to be doing. But to the enviro-Luddite, all technological development is to be opposed as a matter of religious principle, no matter how clear the benefits may be.

Incidentally, The Guardian's article on the salt-resistant plants contains the curious - and unsubstantiated - assertion:

"40% of the world's water is used for irrigation."

Given the extent of the world's oceans, this "fact" strikes me as unlikely. Of course, The Guardian's legendary inattention to detail borders on the criminal - The Observer ran the following correction yesterday:

"London gains an edge in Olympic chase' (News, last week) said China 'will become the first Asian nation to host a games in 2008', yet Tokyo hosted the games in 1964, Seoul in 1988 and Sapporo and Nagano the winter games in 1972 and 1998 respectively."

One really must ask how any credibility can be given to a paper capable of so gross an error.

---

Kevin Myers, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, beautifully sets forth an important thought that I've been trying for some time to properly articulate. Discussing the deification of Argentine murderer Che Guevara - which continued last week at Cannes - Myers says:

"... the militant Left appeals to the adolescent Oedipus complex in insecure, immature artists for whom the status quo is a resented father-figure, and the socialist revolutionary is the liberator who will expel paternal authority."

[...]

"... these solipsistic infants drink from the mythic wells of "liberation", and revere a serial-murderer from Argentina. The poster of Guevara on an undergraduate wall is an echo of this fatuity, a historically-ignorant and adolescent rejection of the poor devil who is paying for the flat. Above all, Guevara's enduring status in film and populist imagery is proof of mankind's pathetic inability to recognise evil when its guise is beauty and its lie is love."

I wish I'd said that.

---

Londoners are advised to cancel any weekend engagements, as Sandra and Daniel Biskind will be conducting workshops this Friday and Saturday at the Four Seasons Hotel. The Biskinds, who have "received the gift of enlightenment and healing, and the ability to transfer this energy," are offering the opportunity "for you take the biggest leap forward in the evolution of consciousness since the devolution from Earth angel to human."

In order to participate, "all you need is positive intention." Oh, and £125. See you there.

---

Despite all of the above, there was in the end only one story of note in the UK this weekend, covered extensively in almost all the papers and on Radio 4. I'm referring of course to the controversy surrounding the intentional termination - with extreme prejudice - of three robins that were nesting in a Glocestershire garden centre.

The management of the establishment had received the required dispensation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to kill the birds - ostensibly for reasons of human health. But controversy over the true motive of the killers has resulted in ongoing investigation by that agency. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the RSPCA have also joined the fray, and a Liberal Democrat MP has reportedly vowed to address the issue in the Commons today, thus ensuring the continuing attention that a matter of such gravity warrants.

---

Quote of the Day:

"This is against my religion."
Delectable but dim soap actress Jennifer Ellison discusses her conversion to Jainism, after being forced by Gordon Ramsey to plunge a knife into a lobster's similarly minuscule brain.

Green Spreads Rubbish

The UK media frenzy surrounding Rupert Murdoch's The Day After Tomorrow continues in yesterday's Evening Standard. "Leading Green campaigner" Zac Goldsmith - whose inherited £300 million fortune is an effective tool in his struggle against global capitalism - demonstrates an all too common disregard for intellectual honesty in an article (apparently unavailable online) headlined:

Can this film really save the planet?
We must heed the message of a new disaster movie, says a leading Green campaigner

After some brief background on the film, Zac asks "but how realistic is its scenario?" The only evidence he presents to support his belief that it can't be ruled out - and in fact is inevitable, if action isn't taken - is a grossly misleading summary of the infamous "Pentagon report"(PDF) that was supposedly "leaked earlier this year."

Actually, Zac gets it right, at first:

"...global warming may trigger dramatic, rapid shifts in weather patterns in a matter of years, as the Gulf Stream ... is curbed by increased flow from melting Arctic glaciers."

Note the word "may." The report does indeed refer to such an event as "plausible" - "once temperature rises above some [unspecified] threshold" - but its authors leave no doubt that they are presenting a scenario whose risk is "quite possibly small."

In fact, as one of the study's authors subsequently elaborated:

"We were imagining the unthinkable, a worst-case scenario ... There's nothing secret about it, there's nothing Pentagon about it and there's no prediction in it ... We were playing a little bit with where science ends and speculation begins."

Zac doesn't tell us that, though. In his next paragraph, he switches from a single "may" to repeated use of the word "will":

"Within a few years, the report continues, rainfall in northern Europe will have dropped by nearly 30 per cent, and its climate will take on the characteristics of Siberia. In North America, meanwhile, average temperatures will plunge by up to five degrees, with violent storms becoming the norm. Fertile areas the world over will be transformed into deserts.

"Because of the speed and breadth of these changes, technological progress will offer little in the way of solutions. Instead the world will revert to a state of perpetual war over food, resources, water and energy."

That is the extent of Zac's discussion of the document. In the next paragraph he pointedly refuses to dismiss the even wilder scenario of The Day After Tomorrow, saying that we can't be sure of its implausibility - "We simply know that there is serious trouble ahead."

How do we prevent this trouble? Zac has the answer - and it won't cost much at all!

"If we want to avoid the film's nightmare scenario, we have to take matters into our own hands. We need to campaign."

Note the progression of the argument. First a worst-case scenario - on the extreme boundary of plausibility - is presented as what "will" happen. Next - on the strength of that source - a far worse scenario is accepted as possible, and finally it's asserted that the latter is inevitable, unless we "campaign!" Of course, this rhetorical dishonesty is all too common in Green circles.

Mr. Goldsmith continues, elaborating on the nature of the "campaign":

"For instance, there is no good reason preventing us from replacing our energy infrastructure with clean, decentralised alternatives ..."

Those who fear that replacing our entire energy infrastructure would entail significant costs are simply wrong, Mr. Goldsmith asserts in an ineptly worded concluding paragraph:

"The costs of change are negligible. The costs of not changing are almost incalculable. That way we can insure The Day After Tomorrow remains just a piece of Hollywood fiction."

Given the paltry costs involved, it seems probable that £250 million of Mr. Goldsmith's money would go a long way toward achieving that goal. He can probably eke by on the remaining £50 million.

Fashion Writer Clarifies Constitutional Misconceptions

In today's Guardian, Hadley Freeman uses her lofty position - assistant fashion editor - to offer grateful Brits a one-paragraph lesson in US Constitutional law.

Discussing protestors against gay marriage, the noted jurist reports:

"... protestors outside the gates sang 'God Bless America - the Pervert's Home', which certainly sounds anti-constitutional to me."

Freeman thus elucidates a constitutional principle which has up to now eluded less careful scholars, who have been misled en masse by a careless reading of the First Amendment's free speech clause.

Two sentences later, she corrects the President as well, taking him to task for the statement ("daftest of all"):

"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges."

Until the appearance of Ms. Freeman's commentary, Constitutional scholars had - like the President - generally held Congress, not judges, to be responsible for lawmaking in the US. This misconception seems to have been based on a misreading of an obscure and admittedly opaque clause; namely, Article I, Section 1 - "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

Fortunately for US jurisprudence, Ms. Freeman deftly clarifies the matter:

"Funny, I always thought judges were precisely the kind of people who did make and change laws in America."

Ms. Freeman assumes her professorship at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, this autumn.

Tuesday Culture and Arts Report

The Daily Telegraph reports that Gilbert and George will once again represent Britain at the Venice Biennale, "the art world's version of the Olympic Games."

According to the report: "their newest exhibition features pictures of their own pubic lice," a fact which will no doubt thrill the British taxpayers, who are funding the appearance.

---

Noted critic Christopher Ricks has been appointed to the prestigious post of professor of poetry at Oxford. By way of introduction, today's Guardian publishes an extract from his most important recent work, in which we learn that:

"... rhyming is sure to be crucial to any song that begins with words such as "Lay, lady, lay...", where "lady" feels like or feels for a relaxedly languorous and open and welcoming expansion of "lay". Expansion and contraction constitute the movement of the phrase "Lay, lady, lay" and of the song that bears those words as its title. Less common than you might think, in Dylan, to have the words of the title be absolutely identical with the opening words of the song. A perfect congruity is intimated, as it is in one of the other instances, If Not For You, which begins, yes, with the words "If not for you"."

Last year the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation awarded Ricks $1.5 million for "significant contribution to the humanities."

---

Meanwhile, at Cannes, The Telegraph reports that a British entry "consists almost entirely of real sex scenes." Offended? You're a Liar!

---

Also at Cannes, Michael Moore shows laudable self-awareness. Asked if there was any difference between himself and revolting peasant José Bové, the portly Michigander replied: "He grows food and I eat it."

Never one to avoid a camera's attention, Moore marched with protesting theatre workers last Saturday - an appearance that points to a significant shift in his attitude towards the help. In January of last year, the champion of the proletariat went on a tirade because he was only making £500 a day. By way of emphasising this point, the aggrieved cinéast:

"... stormed around all day screaming at everybody, even the £5-an-hour bar staff, telling us how we were all conmen and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public." Enraged staff, the Standard continues, refused to work on Moore's final night until the comic apologised, delaying the start for over an hour. After the last show, Moore apparently left the venue in high dudgeon."

Monbiot on Film, Pitt on Homer, Burrows Between Bill and Hillary

Not content with yesterday's efforts, The Guardian steps up its PR support for the Murdoch media machine today, with more positive coverage of the The Day After Tomorrow. While yesterday's output totalled a mere 1892 words, today's comes to a robust 2581 - 1227 of them penned by the up-and-coming young movie critic George Monbiot.

In addition to its textual exertions on behalf of the right-wing Antipodean, the ostensibly leftist journal graciously prints two more publicity stills from the Fox feature - bringing the space devoted to such images over the last two days to 241 square inches - nearly a full broadsheet page.

---

In what is perhaps a bid to position itself as a Variety for the British left, the Grauniad finds room for more important movie news - this time in "National news," under the headline:

Troy stars speak out at 'futility of war'

As a subhead elaborates:

A western alliance's war in the east and an ugly lust for power - Brad Pitt compares current events and Homer's epic of 700 BC

"Brad Pitt, speaking in Cannes about his latest film, Troy, was not alone in perceiving some acute parallels between Homer's epic Iliad, composed around 700BC, and certain current events in the Middle East.

"If you read the Iliad there's no way you can't make comparison," said Pitt. "War produces tragedy; people die."

While no doubt wide-ranging, Mr. Pitt's Homeric expertise is rather recent, as "Ephraim Hardcastle," writing in yesterday's Daily Mail, reports:

"Asked what he knew about Troy prior to making the new sword and sandals epic about ancient Greece, Brad Pitt is commendably candid: 'Not a ******* thing.'"

---

Pitt's co-star Saffron Burrows - who, given her mother's socialist activism, may be the only movie star with a name inspired by Donovan - would apparently not be averse to a menage-a-trois with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In a 2002 interview with the Observer, the spicy Ms. Burrows pointedly declines to deny "dates" with the satyriac former President - but has indicated that she "fancied" Hillary before she even met Bill.

Disclaimer: The Daily Ablution assumes no responsibility for any mental or physical trauma that may result from visualising the above scenario.

Guardian Happy to Shill for Murdoch

Today's Guardian goes out of its way to maximise the free press given to Rupert Murdoch - devoting 2 columns, three reporters and an additional leader to Fox Studios' ludicrous The Day After Tomorrow.

Page three is dominated by a misleading headline spanning the entire page:

Never mind the weather overkill: scientists praise Hollywood's global warning

After a precis of the film, which apparently "preys ruthlessly on the irrational fears of the average American," the article admits that it has "a scanty relationship with scientific fact." However, since mere veracity is unimportant to committed Gaia-worshippers:

"The Day After Tomorrow won praise from both the British research establishment and the environment movement."

The Guardian website goes even further, claiming that the film "wins over" the groups mentioned.

A close reading of the 1,037 word article - seemingly a Fox press release, but actually requiring the combined effort of three reporters - reveals "the British research establishment" to consist of three scientists willing to credit the film for raising awareness of climate change - on the grounds that "any publicity [factual or not] is good publicity." As the article hilariously puts it - with no apparent irony - "there had not been enough [climate change publicity]."

The contention that the film "won praise from ... the environment movement" is completely unsupported, but it wouldn't be a surprise, since an often used strategy of that religion's adherents is to:

"Exaggerate the threat of climate change in an attempt to raise more money from public donations, according to a report by Oxford University academics."

As well as to:

"Offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

---

A second item, printed in the tabloid supplement, provides Murdoch's company with yet more free publicity, including a 6x8 inch photo of a man caught in the rain. This article, headlined:

Can a film change the climate of opinion?

describes skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg as having "a reputation as a greenhouse contrarian." This may come as a surprise to readers of the Times and Telegraph, both of which have printed opinion pieces by Lomborg in the past week restating his long-held view that global warming is both real and anthropogenic:

"There is no doubt that mankind has influenced atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and that this will increase global temperatures.

"I don’t believe that the scientific data supports anything other than that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperatures."

Perhaps Lomborg's reputation derives from being falsely characterised as a "debunker of global warming" in the pages of The Guardian.

---

Meanwhile, the Grauniad's hapless "ethical makeover" victim (Leo Hickman) has the Eco-Gestapo inspecting his kitchen this week. One of the "auditors" - Hannah Berry of Ethical Consumer magazine - notes that Leo really shouldn't have a fridge at all - "just a larder and a water-containing pottery vessel as a cooler." But she lets him off the hook here, as there's a baby in the house, and therefore the pottery vessel option "might not be practicable for you" as, she implies, it would be for others.

Leo's dishwasher is a big problem, though - it's made by Siemens, a company that's "involved in nuclear power." In the very next paragraph Hannah inadvertently reveals why Siemens should be applauded for their involvement, referring to "the inherent inefficiency - 30% at most - of conventional electricity production." It's doubtful whether many Guardian readers will note the irony.

Hannah is also confused about microwave ovens. While she admits that they "save quite a bit of energy," she's glad Leo doesn't have one, because they "require lots of energy to make and ship." As does Ethical Consumer magazine.

Of course, Hannah's real problem with microwaves is that they represent modernity and technology (bad) - the antithesis of the pottery vessel (good).

As eco-stormtroopers inspect Hickman's dishwasher, his wife and child cower in fear