Magic and language are practically the same thing, they would at least have been regarded as such in our distant past. I think it is wisest and safest to treat them as if they are the same thing. This stuff that you are dealing with – words, language, writing – this is dangerous, it is magical, treat it as if it was radioactive. Don’t doubt that for a moment. As far as I know, the last figures I heard quoted, nine out of every ten writers will have mental problems at some point during their life. Sixty percent of that ninety percent – which I think works out at roughly fifty percent of all writers – will have their lives altered and affected – seriously affected – by those mental problems. I think what that translates to is – nine out of ten crack up, five out of ten go mad. It’s like, miners get black lung, writers go bonkers. This is a real occupational hazard.
July, 2008
23
Jul 08
Words per Minute #6: Moore on Madness
23
Jul 08
Still no black in the Union Jack
The soaraway Sun: touchingly incompetent with Photoshop or just plain racist? You decide.
Not only has The Sun removed the skipper on the left, they’ve also removed the boat’s engine. Prince William, drifting around the Caribbean during a hurricane. Extra laughs:
Prince William’s campaign to try on every uniform Britain has to offer is a wow - next week it’s baker, then butcher, then cub scout, before a week as a traffic warden in Slough, then a few days as a Beefeater before ending the summer as a lap dancer.
23
Jul 08
Karadzic: Giving Beards a Bad Name
Radovan Karadzic was arrested at the weekend – a great day for justice but a bad day for beards. Check out one of the most bizarre before and after shots ever:
Recent posts have exposed me as a big fan of the taste of “international justice” and Karadzic’s arrest fits right into my pot. The destabilising effects predicted by critics of the indictment of Omar al-Bashir in Sudan are minimal in this case; thanks to the passage of time, the Karadzic arrest is unlikely to be much more than another arrow in the political quiver of a particular section of Serbian politics, rather than a focus for mass mobilisation.
The news is more interesting in terms of the timing – shortly after the formation of the new Serbian government and the replacement of Bulatovic as the head of the intelligence services. Karadzic is just a pawn in the chess game of Serbia’s political rehabilitation, which is perhaps the hardest thing for his supporters – and him – to stomach. That’s perhaps part of the role of tribunals such as ICTY – not just providing justice, but also showing people that their “heroes” have feet of clay and their “monsters” are (in the end) a sad old man with a novelty beard.
However the most important aspect of this news is that Karadzic – under his pseudonym of Dr Dragan Dabic – had his own website, which I urge you to visit at http://dragandabic.com/. Turns out that the initial website that circulated via such illuminated truthseekers such as the BBC and Reuters was a spoof - Dabic’s real website was the New Age car crash PSY Help Energy. In spite of that, I still found the homilies at the bottom of the spoof page quite entertaining, this one was particularly poignant in light of his history of hair:
You cannot prevent the birds of sorrow from flying over your head, but you can prevent them from building nests in your hair.
He’ll have plenty of time to reflect on that in the next few years, and possibly to face in court some of the people from Bosnia who had very little choice about where the birds of sorrow built their nests.
POSTSCRIPT: In other news, Karadzic was my neighbour! Human Quantum Energy! Also smuggles endangered animals (in hat)! Ratko to go down swinging!
19
Jul 08
From Exposure To Closure
Chris Blattman disagrees with me on the ICC indictment of Omar al-Bashir, which I think is a defensible position (and one which I would probably have held myself previously). However he links to Alex de Waal’s post All Quiet in Sudan? and suggests that Alex’ arguments may show that the ICC indictments are backfiring. I think this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ICC indictments are intended to achieve.
Although Luis Moreno-Ocampo may well be a loose cannon, as Chris believes, the ICC indictments have one aim and one only: to bring Omar al-Bashir to trial for his role in the conflict in Darfur. While we need to take account of the political realities, the only way that they can backfire is if they put Omar al-Bashir out of reach of criminal proceedings – or possibly if they lead to more crimes against humanity in Sudan. There’s nothing in Alex’ analysis to suggest that this is the case or that it’s likely to be the case in future.
However the points that Alex makes are all dead on – and expose the real fault lines in the international system, cracks which are nowhere near the ICC itself. For example,
The second strand of the [Sudanese] government strategy has been to seek solidarity from regional organizations including the League of Arab States, the African Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. By last weekend, it was clear that the regional organizations all had strong objections to the ICC’s move. Many African states, including Egypt, have been early and strong supporters of the ICC, and their lack of support for this move by the Prosecutor reassured Khartoum. The AU’s new Chairperson, Jean Ping, was particularly outspoken.
It’s often been noted that African leaders have a tendency to turn a blind eye to the excesses of their peers, but at least you can say that they’re consistent. Support for the ICC was always going to evaporate as soon as national governments realised that it wasn’t just going to go after their enemies, so none of this should come as any surprise – nor does it show that the indictments are a mistake. In terms of the remit of the ICC, exposing this is surely the opposite of backfiring – it demonstrates that those regional governments are now aware that they are not out of reach of the law.
17
Jul 08
An easy mistake to make
The biography of George Costanza is five times as long as that of Tim O’Reilly. As Wikipedia matures, there are hard decisions to be made about depth and breadth. Shouldn’t Tim’s entry be many pages long? He’s one of the great thinkers of our time.
Only a marketing guru like Seth Godin – whose livelihood depends on maximising the amount of words written about themselves – could think that the importance of an individual is measured by the amount of words written about them on Wikipedia, or conversely that Wikipedia is a reflection of anything more than the sort of people who contribute to Wikipedia. The real Tim O’Reilly is probably quite happy that his life hasn’t been exposed to the sort of scrutiny suffered by the fictional George Costanza; and who says that George Costanza isn’t one of the great thinkers of our time?
16
Jul 08
All you need to know about Roger Scruton
In a article for Axess entitled The Return of Religion, we are privileged to watch Roger Scruton defend a form of religion that nobody in the world actually practices – a common affliction for academic philosophers and theologians. He’s a pacy rider, but the wheels come off the wagon towards the end:
Yet human beings have an innate need to conceptualise their world in terms of the transcendental, and to live out the distinction between the sacred and the profane.
I don’t have any such innate need, and consequently his entire argument is falsified.
POSTSCRIPT:
There are questions addressed to reason which are not addressed to science, since they are not asking for a causal explanation. One of these is the question of consciousness. [Insert barely-understood and largely irrelevant reference to quantum physics to distract the punters here.] Look for it wherever you like, you encounter only its objects – a face, a dream, a memory, a colour, a pain, a melody, a problem, but nowhere the consciousness that shines on them.
It may be the case that the reason that we haven’t been able to “see” the consciousness before is that we didn’t have the right tools – in exactly the same way as we weren’t able (and in many cases, remain unable) to see the “great tapestry of waves and particles, of fields and forces, of matter and energy” that so impresses Scruton. It may be the case that we may be in the early stages of exploring consciousness, some years behind our journey of exploring the cosmos. It may be the case that consciousness will soon be laid bare, and that Scruton’s metaphysical discourse turns out to be a dead end.
On the other hand, it may not. One thing is absolutely certain, however – consciousness is very clearly and very obviously a question that is addressed to science. If I were Roger Scruton, I probably wouldn’t try to build my house of worship on this particular sand.
16
Jul 08
So you want to leave Pakistan?
It’s not easy.
I love Pakistan; loved it so much, I never wanted to leave. Luckily, the Pakistani authorities felt exactly the same way – they never wanted me to leave either. Let’s take the checks one by one, so you know exactly what to expect:
1. The Bouncers. They check your ticket to make sure that you really have a ticket. Presumably some Pakistanis turn up at the airport with bags packed, but sans ticket – just in case they’re booked on a flight, but forgot. The bouncers also take on the additional responsibility of beating off any members of your extended family who managed to get through airport security.
2. Customs. They rifle through your luggage listlessly; when quizzed, they seem unsure what they’re supposed to be looking for. Once they reach a certain level of uncertainty, they give up. Having removed the entire contents of your suitcase, you must repack everything while the extensive queue behind you grows progressively more bloodthirsty. Once you’ve finished, they’ll scrawl something illegible in your passport and tell you to sod off.
3. Customs (Second Attempt). One pompous ass checks your passport to make sure that his more uncertain colleagues have done their job correctly and scrawled something illegible in your passport. If he’s happy with the level of illegibility, he’ll wave you through imperiously; if he’s not happy, he’ll call all of his colleagues over for a short conference lasting no more than 15 minutes. You may be required to repeat Step 2.
4. Security, Part One. This comprises:
- A large and clearly hazardous scanning machine that occasionally breaks down, leaving your bag trapped inside.
- A scanning machine operator who has come to terms with his mortality and is fully prepared to get inside the radioactive monster to force your luggage through.
- A back-up operator who is ready to take over at a moment’s notice, should his colleague still be inside the machine when it starts again (which would presumably require his immediate hospitalisation, or possibly burial).
- An attractive but unsmiling woman who will check your bag for metal objects, and radioactivity.
5. Security, Part Two. If your bag gets trapped in the machine, it must be dangerous. Therefore it will be searched.
6. Check-in. Finally we get to the actual check-in desks. Service varies depending on the will of Allah. There may be some confusion amongst the airline staff regarding which airline you are flying with, which desk you should check in at, and what they’re supposed to do with this piece of paper you’ve handed them. Use this opportunity to steel yourself for the next series of checks.
7. Embarkation. I hope you remembered to fill out the Government of Pakistan Embarkation Card, because this man wants to take it and stamp your passport. What do you mean, nobody told you about the Embarkation Card? You’ll need to go back to Step 6 (Check-in) and see if they have any left. It is possibly but not likely that your Embarkation Card will be stored alphabetically with the other 8,000 Embarkation Cards he has taken that day.
8. Random Step One. I’m never entirely sure what this guy is doing, and neither is he. Mainly, he wants to see your passport and boarding card. I guess they just gave him a stool and told him to find himself something to do. He seems happy enough.
9. Random Step Two. These guys are in a similar position to Random Step One. The only difference between Random Steps One and Two is that the lucky devils at Random Step Two were given a big desk to be random behind, rather than just a stool. With a dandy flourish, they’ll stamp your boarding card for you, whether you want it stamped or not.
10. Security, Part Three. The scanning machine is smaller, but this is much the same deal as Security Part One (see above). At this point, you will start to experience an overwhelming sense of déjà vu.
11. Security, Part Four. Identical to Security Part Two, above.
12. Clickety-Click. Another stamp on your boarding card AND on your hand luggage tags. What, nobody gave you any hand luggage tags? It’s back to the Check-in (Step 6, above) for you!
13. The Gate. Once you’re into the waiting area, there’s only one gate – but it’s a treat! As per normal airport practice, they’ll check your boarding card when your flight is ready to depart. The catch here is working out when your flight is ready to depart, since announcements tend towards the incomprehensible. At first I thought that this was because the announcements were in Urdu; but when I listened more closely, I realised that they were in English. It was the ancient PA system that made them sound like Urdu.
14. Random Step Three. This man checks to make sure that your hand luggage has been tagged (step 6) and then stamped (step 14). Why does he do this? Who cares at this point. Just let me on to the bus to the plane. No bus today? Fine, I’ll walk. Just get the hell away from me. GET AWAY FROM ME.
15. One Last Check, For Terrorists. You thought you were free. At the steps to the plane, another uniformed guard will check your boarding pass to make sure that you’re not an intruder who has managed to get past the other 14 checks. God knows, if I were a terrorist in Pakistan, I’d pick an easier target. America, or the Moon, or something.
16. Boarding Card, Please. Your soul destroyed, you trudge up the steps to the plane, where an airline steward will check your boarding pass and let you know where to sit. You can breathe a sigh of relief – you have finally managed to leave Pakistan. Unless you’re flying with Pakistan International Airlines; in which case you have another 8 hours to enjoy Pakistan’s rich tradition of service and hospitality.
15
Jul 08
At the boundary of the species
Stephen Law posts an essay on Speciesism, Potential and Normality, largely as a response to the defense of human uniqueness presented by Roger Scruton.1 This is nothing that Peter Singer hasn’t already dealt with, but Stephen’s reasoning is entirely correct. However I argue that reason by itself is insufficient if we wish other people to reconsider their speciesism.
This is because this is not a rights issue in the same way as racism or sexism is – in this case the rights-holders cannot argue for their own rights, and it is therefore up to others to argue for them.2 This being the case, it is critical to deliver a stronger argument that the one than Stephen does here – most people will not be receptive to this reasoning because it goes against such a deeply embedded perspective, and so the case needs to be forceful rather than elegant.
In the comments, Stephen responds:
If you find sexism or racism wrong, my guess is because you find something like this principle plausible: We are justified in discriminating between a and b only if there is some morally relevant difference between a and b that justifies this difference in treatment.
If you don’t sign up to some such principle, why would you consider sexism or racism be wrong? (possibly you would appeal to some other principle) Sexism and racism are wrong, I think, because discrimination that is unjustified by some morally relevant difference = bigotry, and is wrong. And skin colour and sex are not morally relevant when it comes to most racial and sexual discrimination.
Trouble is, this principle then gets us into trouble with other species. Unless there’s some morally relevant difference, our discriminatory practices come out as bigotry – speciesism.
My argument is that the morally relevant difference is that most people consider that humans are the only animals with moral relevance, i.e. that only humans have the capacity for moral judgments. Clearly this distinction breaks down at the borders – a newborn infant has no moral capacity, as far as I can tell – but that is exactly why speciesism makes sense.
It is impossible in practice (and I would argue in theory, although that is a weaker argument) to set up a rule of sophistication that states exactly which humans have sufficient moral capacity to be considered part of the “moral community” and thus subject to moral considerations (such as the right not to be experimented upon).
If you agree that such a rule is impossible, then you must agree that we need a heuristic to decide who is included in our “moral community” or be paralysed by every individual having to make their own judgment every time they meet another person. The obvious boundary is exactly where it is at the moment – with our own species, since this presents an obvious and visible line of demarcation that has the added benefit of being an instinctive human response.
- I don’t think Scruton stands up to scruton-y, ho ho ho – see his recent piece on The Return of Religion for a particularly weak chain of thought. [↩]
- I am one of those people: I favour limited human rights being extended to non-human animals of sufficient intelligence. [↩]
15
Jul 08
Words per minute #5: Abbs on Living
He lives well who lives lightly,
hoards nothing,
lets go the air he breathes—
to draw in more.
14
Jul 08
One step forward, one step back
Last week: Britain and the US have condemned Russia and China for vetoing a draft UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe’s leaders.
Particularly amusing was UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband saying the veto “would appear incomprehensible to the people of Zimbabwe” – surely they’re used to nobody charge to the rescue by now? The doomsayers railed against the inability of the United Nations to address human rights at all – a charge which has some legitimacy when you look at the charade that the Human Rights Council threatens to become, but has less credibility when you remember that the United Nations has usually been the vehicle for those rights in the first place; and it was the UN that approved the Responsibility to Protect, of which this would have been a fine outing.1 The UN (unfortunately) is large, it contains multitudes; the truth is that the Security Council will never be able to address these issues without reforms that the permanent members will never agree to – the removal of the institution of permanent membership itself and the end of their veto.2
This week: The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutor charged Sudan’s president on Monday with masterminding a campaign of genocide in Darfur, killing 35,000 people and using rape as a weapon of war.
For discussion about Darfur, I can’t recommend Alex de Waal et al.’s Making Sense of Darfur blog highly enough and, sure enough, they’ve provided in-depth analysis of what this means. If you wish to understand the situation in Darfur, you will not find better on the web; and their coverage of the ICC decision is as usual excellent, although unfortunately it’s a temporary feature. The main point here is that – regardless of whether you agree with the decision or not (and tragically the blogosphere doesn’t have much more to offer in terms of commentary than those two) - the ICC has taken a major step in advancing the status of human rights on the global stage by indicting a sitting head of state in an ongoing conflict,3 which is also an excellent counter-balance to the continuing bad news from Zimbabwe. It also shows that the future of human rights lies not with the old order – the Security Council, one of the oldest institutions available – but with more recent international institutions such as the ICC.
For what it’s worth, I come down strongly for sanctions against Zimbabwe, combined with more vigorous diplomatic pressure – not on Zimbabwe itself, which remains oblivious, but on Zimbabwe’s enablers, particularly South Africa. It is long past time for African governments to stop defending each others actions at the expense of the well-being of their peoples, and long past time for others to stop tolerating it. I come down weakly in favour of the Bashir indictment, because the threats that Sudan may descend into “mayhem” as a result ring slightly hollow when you look at the actual state of Sudan and wonder if “mayhem” would possibly be an improvement4 and I think the potential benefits outweigh the imagined disadvantages.
The reason that I support the indictment is mainly for the service it does in advancing the debate on human rights globally. While it may in itself be quite toothless, it changes the terms of that debate – and that may indeed be the strategic reasoning behind it. It’s only through these discussions that we advance the cause of human rights, which is after all a series of discussions between different groups about power and responsibility – even if part of the backdrop to those discussions is the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe.
- The irony meter goes off the charts when you realise that Mugabe himself was at that meeting. [↩]
- On the other hand, there’s a case to be made that those two factors are what prevents the Security Council from descending into utter irrelevance. [↩]
- Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor previously, both in circumstances slightly but critically different. [↩]
- Joke. [↩]