[journospeak] just the facts, ma’am

In the article on the new Congress, I put in some stats near the end but I’d like to write a little now about getting those stats. What it involved was a useless and wasteful exercise. Here’s the chronology:

1] Journo reads the list of stats from the Capitol.
2] To make a good article, he chops the list around, leaving some entries out, highlighting others, stating and restating so that the whole comes out as a ‘readable’ journalistic article.
3] Blogger reads the MSM article and decides to post. So he has to reconstruct the list, piece by piece, to where it was before the journo took it apart and then has to surf to find the last little links the journo deemed not worthy of inclusion.
4] The blogger then posts.

How many of us have time for this rubbish? Why couldn’t the journo have simply posted the list as it was, leaving us to draw our own conclusions and then, for those who wanted, there would be an annotated comment for each entry? When there are lists and stats, we don’t want some beautiful journo piece getting in the way. We want ‘just the facts, ma’am’.

A perfect example of this wastage was the work behind this post.

[pres 2008] layman's view of the runners

One who won't be running

Democrats

Matt Frei comparing Obama with JFK.

So, can he win? Can he raise the cash? Can he survive the rough and tumble of the campaign and the tough questions? Will the colour of his skin not count against him? Can he be convincing about security in the middle of an ongoing war? Can he survive the fickle adulation of the media? If the answer to all the above is yes, Barack Hussein Obama will be the 44th president of the United States… as strange as that may sound.”

Against that, he's still unknown in too many places, he hasn't a heavyweight team behind him, he's black.

The Lizard Queen: Immense experience, sympathy over Lewinsky, seems to have done well as Senator, sizable section of the populace love her, she's a woman. Plus she says the Obama threat will 'diminish' and the people who are in with her would know. Against that, McCain would beat her, millions hate her, many don't trust her.

The Democratic darkhorse at present is Tom Vilsack. Early days but looks quite reasonable and might be selected in reaction against the other two.

GOP

McCain’s age [72] and wishywashiness is against him, he's not liked by conservatives but he would beat the Lizard Queen in a head to head.

Giuliani is too soft on abortion, too far left for most but for him is 911 and laura norder. The main problem for Giuliani is that the average voter who elected him mayor in 1993 and 1997 is very different than the average voter who will pick the Republican nominee in 2008.

There seems to be an opening here for a Great Hope to appear but most would probably be in training for 2012, just before the New World Order.

[obesity drugs] absolutely anything, bar exercise

Here goes half my American readership. Why do I write these things?

America, get off your bums, cut out the junk food, halve your portions and exercise.

That’s all. Then there’s no need for this rubbish:

The long-term safety and efficacy need to be documented for Xenical, Meridia and Acomplia before doctors can be certain that the benefits of these anti-obesity drugs outweigh the risks, according to a commentary appearing in The Lancet medical journal.

Xenical (known generically as orlistat) and Meridia (sibutramine) are currently approved for long-term use, while Acomplia (rimonabant) is under review by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, each of the agents carry potentially important adverse effects - frequent gastrointestinal side effects, raised blood pressure and heart rate, and mood disorders.

It’s the mindset which is upsetting – the idea that you can solve any condition with a drug. The idea that a thousand pills are better than natural remedies like actually getting out and walking.

And now I’m going to make another statement:

If the Americans were to take on Russia en masse, say in Prague and if the technology didn’t kill off both populations and if it ever came to hand to hand combat, the Russians would win. They’re in far better condition, physically and they’re more used to hardship.

[exxonmobil] openly faithful to its traditions

The great man himself

So the Union of Concerned Scientists has asserted that ExxonMobil gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005, in a co-ordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming. Last September, The Royal Society wrote to the oil company, asking it to halt support for groups that 'misrepresented the science of climate change.'

ExxonMobil listed $6.8 million in 2005 for 'public information and policy research' distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to 'create the illusion of a vigorous debate' about global warming.

The thing which puzzles me is what’s the surprise? Which group of companies would not outlay money to support conclusions favourable to their industry? And since when has Exxon been expected to be a paragon of virtue anyway? From the days of Standard Oil and the Sherman anti-Trust Acts, the game plan has been hardball.

So what? If anything, the company was being honest when it was renamed from Esso and commissioned Raymond Loewy to redesign the logo to highlight the double-cross, the old Templar logo. And their founder, John D. Rockefeller, made the company’s mode of operation abundantly clear when he stated:

"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets."

And when Exxon Mobil says:

"It is our policy to conduct our business in a manner that is compatible with the balanced environmental and economic needs of the communities in which we operate. We are committed to continuous efforts to improve environmental performance throughout our operations worldwide."

… it is no lie. They really do mean what they say. That’s the essential nature of dualism, which is also true to the tradition of their founder. It may turn the meaning of “integrity” on its head but Oxford’s definition of this word is: wholeness, entirety, soundness, before all other definitions.

Exxon is deeply committed to the dualistic ‘integrity’ of its organization, in these terms.

[freedom of speech] loreena mckennitt and peter wright

Iain Dale has a piece today on the Court of Appeal Ruling this week upholding the right of Canadian singer Loreena McKennitt to ban publication of certain passages in a book entitled Travels with Loreena McKennitt: My Life as a Friend, covering personal and sexual relationships. Iain concludes that:

This really does seem like a landmark judgement, but one which discriminates unfairly in favour of the rich and famous.

I commented that it was hardly a problem, as you could just move to Tasmania to publish. Which was a reference to Peter Wright. Peter who?

1988: Government loses Spycatcher battle The British Government has lost its long-running battle to stop the publication of the controversial book Spycatcher, written by a former secret service agent. The Law Lords ruled the media can publish extracts from former MI5 officer Peter Wright's memoirs, because any damage to national security has already been done by its publication abroad.

With the ruling, injunctions imposed against The Observer, The Guardian and The Sunday Times have been lifted. Outside the court Donald Trelford, editor of The Observer celebrated: "At long last our democratic system has reached the obvious conclusion that these were genuine matters of public importance that the public should be allowed to know about."

Really? I shouldn’t have thought it had anything whatever to do with freedom of the press but about “too late – the horse has bolted”. Oh and Peter Wright died a millionnaire.

[blogpower] my personal james highamish view

The field of sailing is quite esoteric and something like Hawaiian outrigger canoes is as esoteric as it gets. There was once a site, let’s pretend it was about that topic and it was well presented, had lots of good info and had regular guest posting on everyone’s favourite craft.

There was also a forum section where you had to register to comment and there’d be so many requests like: “What foil should I use for my underwater rudder?” [posted by Darren] to which an expert in the field of foils would reply: “Darren, you might like to try the E3016, which was designed for the purpose you’ve just described.” [Tom Speer]

And so on.

But into every idyllic world must come the dirt and first one then another undesirable entered and their combative style turned people off. Now it was: “What foil should I use for my underwater rudder?” and the reply would be: “Darren you’re a small minded twerp. Only an idiot would ask such a question.” To which Darren would reply: “Oh yeah, Greaseball [his commenter nickname], well you’re just a complete moron,” to which Greaseball would reply and Bullrutter would get into the abuse.

And so on. I just yawned and quietly clicked out of the site. Forever.

Therein lies our problem. Someone on our roll makes a deeply offensive remark to most members and we’re in shock. One of us tries to put a nice construction on it: “I’m not sure that’s an appropriate comment. Haven’t you ever seen…” and so on. The first immediately replies: “Thanks for supporting me and our views.”

Whoa! Stop. Who’s supporting what? No one’s supporting anything our pitbull friend said. We’re trying to keep decency and mutual respect going here. So one of our members writes: “Sorry but I can no longer be part of an organization which condones these views.” Another hears about it and begins soul-searching and so on.

Despite its broad scope and undoubted power, Blogpower is a very brittle collection. It’s not robust. In short, it’s finely balanced and is slowly growing on mutual trust, respect and tolerance. Into this comes one pitbull opinion and suddenly the fabric is torn. We have new bloggers and old and the new ones are delicate and easily put off. They came to us for mutual support and for new horizons and find themselves confronted with offensiveness.

This raises all my hackles, all my defensive instincts, particularly for our ladies [call that sexist if you like]. I, personally, will not put up with anyone being offensive to my blogfriends [you can say what you like to me personally – I couldn’t care less] and to lose even one of these friends is more catastrophic than to lose my blog.

So, what to do with our strongly libertarian philosophy, our Voltaire Maxim? If we insist on this maxim, we lose the most valuable friends as they quietly ‘click out’ forever. Their right so to do. They have no desire to get into a bunfight.

So we lose everything we’ve worked for and in the process reinforced the realpolitik that it takes a community to build a sandcastle and only one foot to destroy it.

[congress] first 100 hours

This historic Congress, the first one led by a woman, Nancy Pelosi, has laid out an ambitious agenda for its first 100 hours.

The plans include implementing the outstanding 911 Commission recommendations, raising the minimum wage and providing more federal funding for stem cell research.

Republicans are already angry because Democrats won't allow GOP members to offer alternative bills in the first 100 hours.

The split:

Senate: 49 Rep, 49 Dem, 2 Ind [mostly Dem voting]
House: 233 Dem, 202 Rep

[warmest winter] the ostrich syndrome

Choose any country, any authority – which one would you like? Canada? The NCDC? Russia? And it’s not just the record warm. It’s dangerous natural phenomena as well.

So if Stern is wrong, then what is this thing? As I trudged today through the slush which has never been on these streets at this point of the year since my time in this country, I kept chanting the Telegraph Mantra: There’s no global warming. There’s no global warming. Truly there’s not.

I was wearing a single layer sweat top, light rain jacket and baseball cap. In the fSU? In the middle of winter? No climate change? Give me a break.

[iceland] euro gets its foot in the door

The Iceland Stock Exchange (ICEX) suggested this week that Icelandic companies should have the right to register their stocks in Euros rather than in the Icelandic Krona. Thórdur Fridjónsson, director of ICEX, told Fréttabladid that registering stocks in Euros has both pros and cons.

For companies that mostly invest abroad, Euros are the better choice, but if they have the biggest part of their investments in Iceland, they should stick with the Krona, he explained. As the Icelandic Krona is more prone to fluctuations than Euros, registering stocks in Euros is a tempting choice, and a fluctuating currency does not attract foreign investors to Iceland.

This is precisely the problem which beset Russia [although it was dollars, not Euros] until Yeltsin and Putin took measures which haven’t eliminated it but have at least stemmed the tide. All goods must officially be sold and bought in roubles.

As the rest of Europe and others all flock to the EU, the British people alone stand up for their currency but Tony Blair has long sold them down the drain, behind their backs. This blog believes that at the end of his term in office, Tony Blair should be tried for treason and if found guilty, hanged in a televised ceremony.

[warne] english tactics help him set up whitewash

I’ve stayed out of this until now. Haven’t I stayed out of it, printing ne’er a word, leaving it all to Normblog and The Tin Drummer? Now they’ve gone one step too far, the stupid, inept English travelling cricket circus.

ENGLAND has made another error in judgement. And, as with other miscalculations on this tour, it will come at a cost. The move by England's fieldsmen, most notably Paul Collingwood, to sledge Shane Warne at the crease during his final Test was folly of the highest order. Already motivated to perform well in his farewell to international cricket, Warne's resolve was stiffened further by the barbs fired by Collingwood, resulting in an innings that all but broke the resolve of the tourists and primed Australia for a series whitewash.

That’s the Aussie point of view although, to be fair, Tim de Lisle sees it a little differently. However, none of that excuses what has been a weak, ill-organized and badly thought out campaign which threatens to brand this team the worst in England’s history. They won the Ashes not so long ago. Can this team only play at home and against the old foe?