[the political spectrum] any ideas

Have you ever had to explain the western political spectrum to a foreigner? I was found sadly wanting at this today. If you start with Left, Centre, Right, what exactly do they mean? Where do you put the BNP, the Communists, the Finance [monopolists] and other extremists?

Then the term Classic Liberal [e.g. Tim Worstall]. What does that mean? John Stuart Mill type free or Libertarian? And what is a Libertarian? Does that mean licentious, as in indiscriminate sex with anything that moves, with Stern Moralists at the other end or does it mean 'believing in Freedom of Association, Trade, Religion' and all that?

Where do you put the average small to medium businessmen? I already know where to put the big ones - behind bars. Where does a truly charitable Christian go? Or a 'regulate everyone and tax the hell out of them' PC devotee? I've devised a working model which might work:

Centrists: Believe in family, small business, free trade, value system etc.

State altruists: State regulates people's altruism e.g. there must be 50% women on all football teams.

What do you think?

[courageous faith] church rises in arabia

Work has begun on the construction of Qatar's first purpose-built church in the desert outside Doha. Although the country's native inhabitants are entirely Muslim - and are prohibited by law from converting to another faith - the new Catholic church will cater to the large number of Christian migrants who have come to the Arabia Gulf state in search of work.

It is costing about $15m and overseeing the work is Paul Hinder, the Catholic Church's Bishop of Arabia. A Christian in the heart of the Muslim world, his diocese is the entire Arabian peninsular, encompassing six countries.

He oversees churches in Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen and even in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam where Christianity is practised behind closed doors. Speaking about the Christian communities in Saudi Arabia, he said: "It's not an open church. Privately the Christians may gather in their houses in a very discreet manner."

Hinder told Al Jazeera that often people are more active Christians during their one or two years labouring in the Arabian peninsular than they are when they are back home. The majority of the two million expatriate Christians who attend these services are Filipinos, Lebanese and Indians who have come to the Gulf for work.

Jesus would surely approve of the church but would he approve of the Church and its $15m price tag? Still, if the congregation is paying out of their own pockets, why not? It would be more than interesting to have a chat with Paul Hinder about things. Has he been on national television in Britain or America, does anyone know?

[just] a word which has no place at work

On the way to work

How are you at saying: "No?" I'm terrible at it and here's the story:

I have a lot of sympathy for John Prescott. Not possessing any particular talent one way or the other, he's the Minister for being a Minister and my level of usefulness is about the same at the DTI over here, Ian McCartney sometimes the target of my interest, sometimes not. It's fair to ask what the heck Higham actually does for his few shekels.

Regular readers will smile, given my last few, largely ignored posts on the bankers, that I also moonlight as a bank spokesman. It's true. I'm the voice [in English] of the 5th largest bank, although in recorded form they usually modify the noise emanating from my lips. I used to work for Mercedes. That's all the revelations for now.

The point of this post is that even though it's not necessary to have every hour of one's day paid for, still … seven of those hours, actually face to face, need to be earners. That's why I've come to greatly dislike the word 'just'…

… Like in the situation of a man I don't know from Adam who comes up to me with a sheaf of documents and asks me to 'just' have a 'quick look' through these. I usually say I'd be delighted to and then I just flick through them, see there's two and a half hours work in there and hand them back.

"No, no," he says, "Could you 'just' check them, see if they're all right. It won't take you long." That last bit always elicits a smile, telling me how long the work will take.

This necessitates a move to Stage 2. "Would you like me to look at them 'quickly' or do you need them done 'properly'? They constitute a bid, don't they?"

Naturally he sees he's up against it here and tries again. "No, no, just a page or two."

"I counted seven and a half, excluding the graphs."

"Well could you …?"

"Not a problem." I quote my going rate.

"No, no, 'just' a look."

"Yes, I've 'just' had a look," I smile as innocently as I can manage. "Would you like me to take the job on?"

He sums me up, scowls and hastens away.

I dislike the word 'just'.

Regulars are another matter and with them you have to give 110% and then some, 'just' to stay ahead of the pack.

So how do you say the word: "No?"

[segie and sarko again] the pendulum swings slightly her way

Segolene Royal, the French Socialist presidential candidate, gained two points on Nicolas Sarkozy as she said she wanted to "reconquer'' patriotic symbols from the "far right and the National Front.''

Saying that all citizens should know the national anthem and hang a French flag at home echoed themes emphasizing values she'd struck earlier in the campaign. Early proposals called for a return to compulsory military service for unruly teenagers and mandating education for parents of troubled youths.

Values such as order and parental authority "are as important as political issues,'' Roland Cayrol, director of Paris-based polling company CSA, said in interview. ``It was important for Segolene Royal to go back to those themes.''

I don't consider myself an expert like Croydonian, say, on the subject of the French Presidential race and yet I've been following it as you have. Seems to me that voters would like to have Segolene - she's pretty for a start and that goes a long way in France. People admire how she looks in a bikini at over 50.

If her policies weren't so loony and if she hadn't made such gaffs, she'd possibly be viable. Sarkozy is not liked. One of my clients is a French interpreter and she spends considerable time in the country. This was her feeling from speaking with French academics but on the other hand, there does not appear to be a viable alternative just now.

Sarkozy doesn't appear to have done anything terribly wrong lately. It seems to be his connection with the UMP and I wonder if Chirac's 'kiss of death' has cost him the two points. I wonder if Chirac knew this all along. I wonder a lot of things.

Stealing Sakozy's patriotic ground might turn out to be a good move.

[unpopular opinions] why not, if they're true

This post is about the Holcombe Syndrome.

Whether you re studying the early Eutychians who believed the Logos preceded the Trinity or the 4th century Collyridians, [AD, not CE, which is not historically accurate], who offered cakes to the Virgin Mary; whether you are fascinated by the Persian Koh i Nur or why Ben Jonson was called Horace by Dekker, the most important thing is to approach them with an open mind.

Sherlock Holmes has always been a hero of mine for his pragmatism and open mindedness, his refusal to follow the majority opinion and for his ability to clear the mind of all prejudices and judge by what he observed, in the light of what he had earlier observed.

Miss Marple was always a hero of mine for her ability to see what was likely to be the case, shorn of all popular reputation or clever manner. If a man was of a type which could do murder and there had been a murder, then there was a likelihood that it was him.

I've just been making myself obnoxious over at Tiberius' site by countering climate-scepticism and the notion that moderate Muslims do not hold strong views and that 12th century thinking does not have relevance today. This flies in the face of popular opinion amongst the thinking class of blogger, which I'm more than comfortable with, as it is not germane to the issue of its essential truth or no.

Surely one should always seek truth, wherever it might be found, however many toes it might step on socially but it does condemn one to the outer shadows, where there is a weeping and gnashing of teeth. What can one do?

Just as the aeroplane disappearing into thin air over the Bermuda Triangle may have an elderly scientist aboard who is claiming it is not happening because it's not scientifically possible, so the argument over climate change, which is happening for the following reasons:

1] measurable records of atmospheric and temperature changes over the last decade showing a much greater fluctuation than the norm;
2] vastly too many humans, cars, factories, cutting down of forests, atmospheric experimentation by the elite [e.g. HAARP and Woodpecker] and coal burning in China and elsewhere;
3] simple observation - it's not just temperature rises but a shift in the seasons and the poisonousness of the atmosphere we're now breathing, coupled with strange goings on in the earth with more frequency than hitherto.

One can get tied up in a debate over whether CO2 is the result of warming or whether it's a minor fluctuation over some decades, a mere blip on the charts or whether this scientist or that is to be believed or not or whether Exxon has paid scientists to come out with sceptical opinions - these come to nothing against observation and simple logic.

Ditto with the comment by one commenter on Imams, paraphrased: "I don't know which Muslims you've been dealing with, James; the ones I know are not like that." This might be so but it doesn't alter what was said from what had been observed, for either of us.

When things are said in the English language, some of us have receptors and can decode the sounds into lexical meaning. "The Jews have no right to be in Palestine" does not present semantic difficulties - it seems to indicate that others of the faith are being exhorted to accept this point of view.

These opinions are expressed. So what should I do? Tell me what to do. In order to remain accepted by the thinking blogosphere, should I pretend they've never been said?

I'm always terrified of falling for the Holcombe Syndrome, which dislikes a factual snippet which doesn't accord with its theory and simply ignores it. Terrified of blind prejudice. Of dismissing the veracity of something just because I don't like it.

This is where the pursuit of truth is pure science - it has regard neither for fashion, theory nor prejudice - it simply takes what exists and deals with it. Surely that's what we should be doing.

[blogging on blogging] a bit incestuous perhaps

There is something a bit 'in-house' about blogging on blogging, I know and yet Norm's post, via Cleanthes, makes some good points:

Has the blogging phenomenon passed its peak? According to this piece in the Sunday Times, maybe. It focuses on the number of blogs that go dormant - 'because their authors run out of things to say, have not got the time to write' etc. - but in any case it's an impression I've formed as well.

Some of the earlier enthusiasm of both bloggers and readers of blogs seems to have cooled; several debates that occupied the political blogosphere have been gone over so many ways there's less life in them now, even if they haven't fully run their course; the very abundance of online comment may well discourage potential participants by suggesting that their voices are lost in the crowd.

Cleanthes himself concludes:

To say any more is to commit the unforgiveable sin of “blogging about blogging”.

Personally, I feel it has neither died nor is dying and to this end, I've noticed Thersites and Daily Propaganda have returned, whilst the number of relatively new blogs turning up during the trawl for the Blogfocus is encouraging. Just hope we can get some of them into Blogpower.

If you look at Westminster Wisdom, for example, it seems very much alive and kicking, even if I am currently getting a kicking over there. But that is the joy of debate.