Walsingham

I think that all this hooha over prteis is balls. Every American voter I have heard from seems to be working on candidates, not parties. Meanwhile all this bushwah about referanda on Obama looks to me like we've got another split Congress as normally happens. Thoughts?

It depends. Do I think that the people of Iraq are better off now than under Saddam? I certainly do. I say they are in the same way a surgeon would describe someone as better off after surgery even if they were now in intensive care battling a secondary infection, rather than hobbling about. Yet the secondary infection and the incompetence leading to it should have been avoided. To pursue the analogy the infection is a result of a failure to deliver on promised regeneration and basic amenities as was our legal obligation and a contracted commitment from the greasy corporations who signed to do it. Unliek the analogy it wasn't a virus that infected the populace, but deliberate destablising violence coming from both Al Qaeda and Iran. I note that throughout this discussion virtually nothing has been said about Iran. Yet the wikileaks material discloses very clearly how much fuel Iran had been pouring onto the fire. Yet I seem to recal strident voices claiming Iran was a scapegoat and a gratuitous target in the war on terror. I'd be much happier about wikileaks if any of the media sources harping on about the torture apologised by the same token. Not because there's anything wrong with condemning torture but because they are so blatantly manipulating the source for their own ends. We cannot have it both ways. Again this comes back to my central developing thesis: that talking about **** doesn't change anything. Surely the defining lesson we ought to have learned from my generation. Yet one we seem to refuse to acknowledge, probably because it would mean that blarting half formed notions out is not going to save the world. Only hard, dangerous work and sacrifice. A hard sell.

Raithe: holy f***ing ****. Man, that is one of the worst stories I've heard in a while. That would have torn me up like an old betting slip.

Now there's a sentence I never expected to see.

Thing is, movies are easy for parents to screen and know about because they're such a big thing and only 90 minutes long. A game? not so much. Interesting point.

Out of interest, Hurlshot, what are her educational no nos?

Damn it. Now you made me think about my EX. You bastard. I can't eat a pound of sausages at this hour.

You come visit some time. We'll see how many you turn down.

Fair question, Krez. However, I think it is both fair and pertinent to ask you to clarify how much torture you think would be going on in Iraq if the invasion had not occurred. And what you think the relative prospects for diminishing torture in the two time lines. I have already said on numerous occasions that I find all torture both inhumane and stupid. From this perspective I cannot possibly excuse it, let alone condone it.

Actually we were discussing something similar here a few days ago. The notion was for tasks at work to earn 'XP', which would empower you in a parrallel strcuture to the company legal one. Levelling up would entitle you to buy things like longer smoke breaks, better coffee, gym access, even the right to address concerns up and outside normal channels. The core point I think is the same as yours, that work can and should be made more rewarding to better motivate a workforce that (outside work) feels very entitled to rewards. Yet not in a way that relies solely on cash incentives that manifestly have a poor return.

Holding an official accountable = good Holding an official accountable to a half informed opinion = ? ~ Seriously. There are some things which the people just don't understand. Having those posts directly accountable is pure wishful thinking. This isn't just political theory. This is decision making and management. This is why I prefer the existing system of having certain posts responsible via the buffer of another elected official or panel. ~ Further point, if you elect judges, then you could see political parties forming. What then for the Separation of Powers?

I don't think I'm ever going to understand how a system designed on the premise of a government which cannot do any work is a good thing.

Sounds like you need to go to New Zealand some day... Mountains, volcanic wastelands, temperate rain forest, you'll find it all most of it (North African type desert might be a bit of challenge) In which case I can only table a motion that we turn it into a giant prison. Like in Escape From New York. Prison is supposed to be a punishment Hav you ever tried to sleep with the knowledge that at any moment a flock of kiwis may descend on you?

I feel surprisingly calm as I write this, just in case it isn't obvious. 1) HRW and Amnesty do NOT rely only on official data. They have their own investigations which also use official data, at considerable risk. The reason they use official data as well is that it is actually quite good in many cases. 2) If you think it is distasteful that you can find videos of soldiers articulating in movie terms - Perhaps you might try talking to returned soldiers about their nightmares - Perhaps you might watch a few videos of terrorist action and after action 3) Whether the whistleblowers get cash is not the point. It matters not at all if they are doing it for cash or (as appears to be the case here) out of an idiotic egocentric obsession with their personal notion of what constitutes right and wrong. Are we blind? Each year we see hundreds if not thousands of terror incidents, and there is every indication that there are thousands more brewing. I'm old enough to remember the era when the IRA, numbering only a few hundred individuals, committed attacks almost every day. But by comparison with the fascistic and suicidal fervour of our current opposition the IRA seem positively civilised. I submit that this is far from an academic debate, and that as citizens (subject in my case) of free nations it is directly our responsibility to decide clearly how we want -compeletly essential - oversight to work. Is oversight going to be conducted within a framework of responsible parties appointed by us, and accountable to us. Or do we believe it should be conducted by vigilantes?

Presumably you were pleased to enjoy the BBC's 24 hour coverage of the festival? I certainly ***ing hope so, because no-one else was.

Since my entire efforts were sabotaged by George Bush I vote for him. There's a joke in here somewhere about vote counting, but I can't put it into words.

Sounds like you need to go to New Zealand some day... Mountains, volcanic wastelands, temperate rain forest, you'll find it all most of it (North African type desert might be a bit of challenge) In which case I can only table a motion that we turn it into a giant prison. Like in Escape From New York.

Certainly they happen and so far since it hasn't affected us we haven't cared. But if atrocities are being committed overseas and covered up then we as a people have a right to know, which we wouldn't if the government was the one that released the report. More over these committees have proven themselves useless when it comes to finding and prosecuting these people. I'm pretty sure that every body that oversees anything is up to scrutiny, specially since they have failed so much in the past. The fact that there are atrocities abroad hasn't reached you via wikileaks though, has it? It's dedicated groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International who got you that information, and (I'll say this again for the people at the back) work constructively to fix it. They do it by gathering first hand reports, investigating them, and deploying the evidence in a concerted fashion. Not by thieving secret data and blurting it out, taking a bow, and sitting back with an insufferable smug look. I'm not saying wikileaks couldn't be good if we were living in some sort of totalitarian craphole. But we aren't. And what's more the tragic irony is that by undermining the effectiveness of our various Forces wiki is actively keeping people living in totalitarian crappiness.

Up betimes and ploughed straight into some good work, like a large hound into a snowdrift. Still in a good mood, but distracted by noticing it's already lunchtime.

What's this gamertag turn up?

Excuse me, but 1) The Shire is - as Bill Hicks definitively stated - England. 2) In what way is Mordor or the enormous chain of the Misty Mountains, or the sunbaked land of the Southrons or still vastness Mirkwood, the small island state of New Zealand? Having said that, I don't know very much at all about this issue. I just think that a Hollywood studio is bilking a union.

Would you stop and actually re-read what you'ev written. You've all got sucked into a fantasy Hollywood land. Oversight, reprimand, control of the various security services happens every single day. Certainly we the people don't see everything. But there are committees and bodies who see massive amounts. For pity's sake, this isn't a ****ing computer game.

You know you're old when... Blast. I've forgotten.

Zoraptor, a decline in coalition casualties could be attributable to anything. Moreover, the principal risk is to unprotected informants. But I asked for anything at all and you hit me with it! I'll have to be more careful in future. ~ Orogun, if we feel we as a people/peoples need certain types of information it's very simple. We go through the democratic process and we demand it. We state that we need certain kinds of data made available to us. What we don't do is rely upon people breaking the law to give us information. Because in rough order: 1. How do we stop them sharing information which we don't want shared? (I assume it's self-evident that such a thing exists) 2. It will stop agencies talking to one another for fear of leaks. 3. We can and will be deluged by unprocessed drivel that isn't acted upon. By contrast if we actually want to prevent abuses then simply printing things doesn't stop them. Prevention requires complex and well maintained architectures of oversight and control.

If you're going to go with a dark beer - and I think you're right - then don't muck about with some half arsed iberian one. Sounds to me like you'd be better off with something a little crisp, but still dark from Samuel Smiths.