Armando Iannucci suggests some new bills for Charles Clarke, including The Anti Anti-Terrorism Bill Bill. Speaking of Charles Clarke is something I try and avoid for the good of my sanity. Liberal Dissenter is a braver man than I.
This deal would annoy the French, which almost makes it worthwhile in itself (an amusing re-run of the Unocal takeover paranoia in the comments, too…). This thread is a transatlantic counterpart to Melanie Phillips Watch. And I’m glad I don’t work in an American university, otherwise I might get fired (rather than merely annoying my girlfriend with my alleged lack of taste) for posting pictures like this one:
Finally, why are the Guardian running Norm’s hackneyed pram-toy-throwing instead of something interesting from the UK blogworld?
I think that the French have been having a difficult enough time of it already of late. No need to add insult to injury by selling the Petit Suisses to the Yanks. Taking away the comfort foods would just be unnecessarily cruel.
Surely it’s not normal for someone’s ribs to stick through like that?
To be honest I could do without the cheesecake pictures too.
Hey hey we’re off again; Sky News is reporting that there was something up on the Vic line at Warren Street. Eyewitness report on that one is that he barely blew the top off his rucksack and looked "dismayed". Not sure about the rest …
Wow that’s fucking pathetic. Apparently no casualties on any of the bombs (btw, one in Oval, one in Sheperd’s Bush, one in Warren St, all very consistent with a Beau Geste bomber at KX with a handful of timers spooky ooky). I almost feel sorry for the suicide bomb guy, pressing the button, hearing a feeble bang and left sitting there trying to pretend it was a fart.
Yeah, Norm’s article was so hackneyed. You read that sort of thing in the Gonad every day.
Well, just for starters.
Hmm, I’m not sure about you getting fired John. After all, I think there’s quite a difference between posting pictures of Hollywood stars on your blog, and posting descriptions of ones students on a blog. The equivalent (roughly) would be you posting a photo of one of your collegues, which would be fairly reasonable grounds for a sacking…
And, yes, we do appear to have been attacked by the world’s lamest terrorists…
What is this Beau Geste theory you keep going on about, my Googling only reveals a film with Gary Cooper about the life of a Bengal Lancer, is it something from the script?…….
From Norm’s article:
The fact that something someone else does contributes causally to a crime or atrocity doesn’t show that they, as well as the direct agents, are morally responsible for that crime or atrocity […] even when what someone else has contributed causally to the occurrence of the criminal or atrocious act is wrong, this won’t necessarily show they bear any of the blame for it.
Hackneyed it may be, but pram-toy-throwers are seldom so coolly logical.
Prosecutor – "He handed him the gun and said ‘shoot her’."
Norm to the rescue ! – "The fact that something []contributes causally to a crime [] doesn’t show that they [] are morally responsible for that crime!"
And they all lived happily ever after…
or "Dr Norm, I lied to a racist Neanderthal meathead that I’d spit-roast his wife with a black man, and he beat the living shit out of me. Is it my fault?"
Dr Norm: "No, not at all. Don’t worry, the fact that something []contributes causally to a crime [] doesn’t show that they [] are morally responsible for that crime!"
Must be comforting to the relatives of Derek Bentley
The above examples would be powerful proofs against an argument that states: "the fact that someone contributes causally to a crime shows that they are not morally responsible for that crime."
However, the fact the nobody is making such an argument (the words "not necessarily" are important to note), makes the examples both irrelevant and misleading.
Well I’m glad to observe at least that you and Norm both seem to accept that the war in Iraq did contribute causally to the London bombings. That is the fact of central interest to me. The rest is disingenuous word-play.
The question is, why should it be "the fact of central interest" to you? Was it a central motivation for the atrocity, or a peripheral one? And how do you know?
"… instead of something interesting from the UK blogworld?
": Such as what, for instance? One of your posts?
Poor john b – so angry, so envious, so useless.
The words "not necessarily", which he himself also described as essential, makes the whole argument moot.
That is, someone makes an argument and concludes "moral responsible", and Mister N. sez "not necessarily so". Why? because, well generally speaking it is not always so. But in this specific case? Wel generally it isn’t always so. Interesting. So what about the argument in this case? Etc.
But he tries to pass it of as an argument against those who hold Blair responsible for wrongheaded policies.
Besides, theres just few that say Blair is "morally responsible" for the London terror. Most keep it at the fact that the Iraq war caused an increased risk of terror.
Poor john b – so angry, so envious, so useless.
It’s handbags at dawn round here lately, isn’t it?