Massie vs. Mullan

A restrained but none the less comprehensive rebuttal from Allan Massie of the mawkish piece by Peter Mullan that got my goat a few days back. As spotted by the g-Gnome who seems as restrained as Allan Massie in his description of Mr Mullan as a "patronising nitwit". To lapse into the vernacular of Mr Mullan, I would venture that he is a touch more gobshite than nitwit but there you go. Blame it on it being a Monday.

Never mind the neo-cons, what about the neo-puritans?

I've been indulging in a spot of debate via the letters page of the Scotsman over the past week or so. Maybe I'm just being paranoid but I saw more than some vague concern for animal welfare and tree regeneration behind the letter which kicked the whole thing off.
My initial response was printed a few days later, albeit in an edited form.
What really irked was the claim in the initial letter that

"The way to reduce our deer population is to ban shooting and protect sensitive areas by fencing."

Thereby condemning in the space of a few words a large proportion of Scotland's deer population to slow death & suffering from starvation over winter and probably into early spring. This would be exacerbated by the widespread use of deer fences that he so strongly advocates. Whatever message the letter's author wants to convey, this simplistic and naive proposal certainly manages to demonstrate his lack of knowledge on the topic. It seems all too easy nowadays for the apparently well-meaning to word their message as being motivated out of concern for something that is superficially compassionate e.g. stop shooting deer. This makes it instantly attractive to the vote &/or publicity hungry politicians/lobby groups/charities and before we know it, said activity is banned. Another victory for the neo-puritans.
The argument is continued though I don't think Mr MacMillan fully appreciates the relevance of the word collateral in my labelling the deer as "collateral victims".
A full week after it was submitted, my response finally appeared.
I'm currently reading "Nature's Keepers - The New Science of Nature Management" by Stephen Budiansky. It's relevance to the above debate?

"The almost religious conviction that nature is constant, eternal and self-regulating, except when man intrudes, is fundamentally wrong."

(quote taken from the book's back cover)

Fundamentalist Atheism

Giles Fraser is critical of the high self-regard which some humanists have of themselves and their "creed". He does not appear to have been the first to have done so by any means as he himself acknowledges when he quotes Friedrich Nietzsche, who was not known for holding Christianity in high regard, as saying

"How much boundlessly stupid naivety is there in the scholar's belief in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the simple, unsuspecting certainty with which his instincts treat the religious man as inferior and a lower type which he has himself evolved above and beyond."

Statements from prominent atheists such as

"Total victory is the only acceptable goal in a mind-control war, because humanity is diminished so long as a single mind remains trapped in superstition."

ought to disquiet anyone who regards themselves as a free thinker. Yet it this very ability that atheists gift themselves as having in greater quantity than the "superstitious" religionists. He mocks those self-proclaimed free-thinkers who see themselves

"as agents of some subversive counterculturalism. This is ridiculous to Da Vinci Code proportions."

Why? Because as any fule kno,

"..atheism is about as alternative as Rod Stewart."

He goes on to make the distinction that exists between the ordinary and the born-again.

"While the ordinary atheist remains indifferent to religion and all its ways, the born-again atheist has adopted the worst arrogance of Christian fundamentalists - just in negative."

This is where my only criticism, slight as it is, stems from. In restricting his article to the debate between the dogmatic elements of Christianity and atheism, he misses out the even more radical fundamentalism hailing from Islam. However, almost as if to plug up the gap in this argument comes a piece from Bernard Crick in the very same paper which addresses the need for humanists to work with the religious moderates against the real "enemy", fundamentalism in any creed:

"If we humanists are fully secure in our non-belief, scepticism and secularism, we can work together with those of all beliefs who fight against new or born-again enemies to freedom. We should not confuse the pinpricks of religiosity (religious broadcasting on the BBC) or the specific body blows of even the modern Catholic church with the real threats to democracy, freedom and international law now posed by both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists."

Continuing on in a similar vein, my attention was drawn to this article on the strange fruits of multiculturalism via this blog entry from The Cabarfeidh Pages.

Journalistic bias?

It seems that both the BBC and the Guardian deem a Irish journalist kidnapped in Iraq more newsworthy than the death of a British soldier in the same country(2nd & 6th,2nd & 11th respectively at the time of posting). What does that tell you about journalists sense of collective self-obsession? I can appreciate that the Guardian will have a special interest as the employer of the unfortunate journalist which might partially excuse them. As for the BBC, their sense of priorities is just plain wrong.

Terrorists don't ride bikes - not in Dundee at least

A rather odd heading perhaps. I've been aware for some time of the conflict in Dundee between the Port Authority (actually owned & operated as part of the Forth Port Authority) and pedestrians & cyclists wanting to cross the land that lies under the Port's control.
To cut a long story short (and going by what I can recall from an interminable series of articles in the Dundee Courier), in the post September 11th mood of "something must be done, anything, just as long as it is something" a path that ran through the Port Authority area was deemed a security risk to the port and any ships therein. The Port Authority subsequently announced that the path was to be closed to members of the public. However, this path ran between the outskirts of the city centre and Dundee's affluent neighbour of Broughty Ferry. As such it was popular as a safe means of either cycling or walking between the two locations. After a lot of debate, the compromise/fudge was reached that cyclists would be allowed while pedestrians would remain barred (presumably on the grounds that any would-be terrorist would be rendered "safe" for the duration of his/her time in the saddle).
To bring matters forward a bit to recent days, this report appeared in yesterday's (18/10/05) Courier. Then this morning on going through my bloglines, I saw this at Samizdata and it appears the story has also appeared in today's Times although there is no sign of it in the online editions of the Scotsman, Guardian or the Independent.
Referring back to the Samizdata blog entry, there is an well-populated commentary from various pundits which is one of the most appealing aspects of samizdata. llama's contributions (unfortunately llama doesn't appear to have a blog that I am aware of) hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

[Edited to correct the Times article hyperlink 20/10/05]

Kirk Elder - Give us (y)our daily blog

See Kirk Elder for pithy Presbyterian wit so dry that it makes a mouthful of sloes taste like a juicy strawberry in comparison. I used to thoroughly enjoy Kirk Elder's erstwhile column in the Scotsman (it helped make up for even glancing at Rab McNeill's latest piece of sneering in print political sketch) so his re-appearance in the guise of a blog is a real treat.
The fedora is raised a good few inches to David Farrer of Freedom & Whisky for both the alert and for his apt introduction.

So as one blog link is added, so another one is drop kicked into the cyber-bin. There has been no sign of life from the Scottish Political Blogs Review since July so it's good night from him.

Hoots, jings & help ma' boab - it's Harry Lauder!

It was perhaps tempting fate a little to have blogged an entry on the trials & tribulations of actors & celebrities who "care" the other week.
Just because authors such as Iain M. Banks ("Feersum Enjin") & Irvine Welsh ("Train Spotting") wrote in the vernacular (and some years ago) no doubt Peter Mullan believes that by attempting his piece in today's Herald in a likewise fashion that it will convey an earthy & heartfelt message of humanity. His Beano-esque attempt at Scots however, falls well wide of the mark.
Peter is worried -
"Ah've decided to write this article in mah own clumsy and inconsistent Glasgow Scots/English. Ah'm nervous coz ah don't want to alienate any readers."
Peter, you needn't have worried. The fact that your name was attached beneath the byline did the job all by itself. Not that there is an awful lot in the way of substance other than riding on the coat tails of the Vujac family's forced removal from Scotland some weeks back. Going on previous history, I was surprised that he didn't manage to namecheck his good friends & comrades in the Scottish Socialists.
What was that again about celebrities and quiet dignity?

National registers - bad, national gun owner registers - good!

What can be made of this? Any national register of gun owners will have a negligible effect in reducing crimes involving the use of a firearms in this country. Almost without exception, firearms used in crimes are unlicensed and therefore extremely unlikely to feature on any such database, a fact that I suspect Dr North knows full well. Given the limited practical use of any such database, I find it hard to see why it's delay provokes Dr North to anger.
It seems that a side-effect of being a legal gun owner nowadays is to suffer (albeit ever so slightly) the feeling that you are considered as a criminal-in-waiting. This database, presuming it ever comes into operation, only reinforces this.

Politicians vs Actors: a Greek Tragedy for the modern era?

Being in something of a reasonable mood on Saturday, I nonetheless (or perhaps as a direct consequence) found myself buying the Guardian. Marina Hyde had a rather amusing column about luvvie-darling types who care awfully much about the little people.

"...the most disturbing image in the Hurricane Katrina coverage, a photograph that managed to communicate just how desperate were the straits in which New Orleans' dispossessed found themselves.
To wit: somebody's best hope was Sean Penn in a dinghy."

Well, as ever with celebrities, well meaning or not, protocol of a particular sort must be adhered to:

"In fact, somebody's best hope was Sean Penn, pictured frantically bailing water out of the aforementioned rescue craft, with a red plastic beaker. Think he should be lauded for trying to help? Apologies for not clarifying. The dinghy was sinking under the weight of Sean's five-person entourage. An entourage including, among others, someone referred to as his "personal photographer"."

The whole thesis of the column is neatly put as:

"When celebrities care, they find it excruciatingly impossible to do so with quiet dignity."

Aptly enough, she then goes on to mention Bono, to whom the words "quiet" and "dignity" are clearly alien concepts. Bono was recently accused of being "a stupid turd" by Sinead O'Connor but then that only goes to prove that despite her significant consumption of mariujana, she still has her lucid moments (sourced from her interview in the October edition of Mojo).
It's clearly not just us cynical Brits that are wearied by pontificating thespians. Ms Hyde mentions the welcome contribution of David Letterman when he introduced a Hollwood couple who are almost as famous for being right-on johnnies as they are for their acting:

"Here to present the award are Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins," he drawled. "And I'm sure they're mad as hell about something."

So you might ask the question, what sparked this criticism of actors who dare to care? The words of Alan Rosenberg, the newly elected President of the Screen Actor's Guild seem to have played a crucial role in the conception of her column, namely:

"I have more faith in what an actor has to say, if they're well informed, than any politician."

Not a good start Mr Rosenberg. Spot the glaring mistake - it shouldn't just be actors, it should be actors and rock stars.

Vote for seats scandals

An interesting exchange of views on this train journey. Manners vs chivalry? Manners could be said to be genderless in today's society, provided that you are lucky enough to find someone displaying manners in the first place. The bad manners in the article were displayed by those who rather ungraciously chided the author for not giving up his seat then subsequently harangued him. Misdirected assertiveness perhaps?
I have noticed that women seem to be less likely to hold doors open for anyone else whereas men of all ages seem to pay a little more attention to their fellow pedestrians/travellers. Is this a case of these women failing to notice the people in their immediate surroundings, having withdrawn into some sort of "personal space" or are they just mannerless harpies? Before I incur the wrath of the feminist thought-police, I should make it clear that I believe it to be the former.

Sex & the State

This opens a whole can of worms.
If the prostitute selected by Mr Hansen refuses to provide a service for him, will it leave her open to prosecution for discriminating against someone with a disability? Perhaps there is a fetishism that might lend itself to finding willing female partners for Mr Hansen?
If Mr Hansen is succesful in his claim then it will only a take small step (in defining what constitutes a disbability) to lead to a policy where "ugly" people, claiming sexual activity as a right, could receive the appropriate "treatment" on the NHS. Similarly, refusing to go out with someone on grounds of taste or looks would then, by definition, constitute discrimination on grounds of disability and therefore leave the rejecter open to prosecution.
Beer and other intoxicating beverages, taken in sufficient quantity, have always been regarded as an excellent means of overcoming any aesthetic hurdles although this might not be of much consolation to Mr Hansen.

A challenge

Further to the token outbreak of student radicalism at the Adam Smith College in Kirkcaldy, the reasoning of the students has been disputed. Today's letter page of The Scotsman features a fairly robust defence of Adam Smith and gives the chance for Paul Muirhead, the student activist apparently at the forefront of the name change, to back up his rhetoric with a spot of analysis. Regardless of the fact that the letter's author was Professor Gavin Kennedy, an author of a book on Adam Smith, I cannot see Mr Muirhead doing anything other than dig himself into a deeper hole.
Quite a few other blogs have questioned the motives and reasoning behind the attack on Adam Smith. Here are just some that I enjoyed:
Proportional Belief contains this entry whilst as a balance (of sorts) we travel over to Historical Materialism for this. The latter is satisfied that the students' status as anti-capitalists is sufficient to compensate for their poor analytical skills, which I suppose is to be expected from a practitioner of Historical Materialism.
Finally, The Agitator points out that they Glasgow University tried something similar a few years back but it only lasted for a single day.

Buzzword Bingo in the Guardian

This article from Saturday's Guardian falls prey to the ongoing drive to have the terms "animal welfare" and "animal rights" become one and the same by means of constant repetition, something I briefly touched upon in one of yesterday's entries.
It also highlights some less than objective reporting from the Grauniad but then again perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised at that. The use of phrases such as "blasted from the sky" & "slaughtered" I found particularly jarring in the context of a "broadsheet" article, this terminology being not only false but also more suited to the tabloid ranting seen in the likes of the Daily Record. The Guardian seem to think that links to Animal Aid, the National Anti-Vivisection Society and the Animal Rights Coalition provide a fair and balanced range of interested parties. No links to the Game Conservancy Trust, the British Association of Shooting & Conservation, the National Gamekeepers Association or the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. Just a theory but perhaps this is because none of these latter groups features any of the buzzwords such as "anti-_____" or "______ rights" that no doubt sets the eyes of the incumbents of Farringdon Road ablaze with crusading fervour.
Douglas Batchelor of the League Against Cruel Sports is quoted as saying

"The government's proposed animal welfare bill must tackle this animal cruelty scandal."

These words ring rather hollow when you consider that the organisation which he heads has over a number of years neglected to provide proper care for red deer unlucky enough to find themselves residing on it's "sanctuary" in Exmoor.

Right on kids!

According to this article in today's Courier, Adam Smith's name is unfit to grace the student association of his home town's college because

"He is associated with socio-economic policies that work against the people, that were synonymous with Thatcherite and Reaganite governments"

and

"Adam Smith’s name is linked to exploitation and greed.”

Dearie me, more burblings from someone who has clearly just finished the Ladybird Book of Trotskyism. The use of the words "associated" and "linked" are a bit revealing. Who made these links and associations? Can they be backed up? I doubt it.
Instead of Adam Smith, the student association is to be named after Jennie Lee, the daughter of a local miner who went on to become a socialist MP at the age of 24. You can almost hear the frantic glee as all the right boxes are ticked! Apparently she "inherited" her father's socialist outlook. No doubt this "inheritance" was passed down starting at an early age and consisted of a series of monologues & polemics, delivered as part of nightly diet. Fairy tales of a sort, but not those of the Brothers Grimm.
It's entirely up to the students what they call their association but the muddled thinking and justification in their selection seems rather childish. However the fact that Jennie Lee was only able to receive a university education by virtue of finiancial support from the Carnegie Trust made me smile. The irony of this seems to have escaped the attentions of our zealously socialist student body. Or maybe there wasn't room in the "Socialism for Dummies" book for an entry on Andrew Carnegie?
Incidentally, no prizes for anyone else who notices similarities in prose between the Courier reporter's prose and that of the Wikipedia entry for Jennie Lee.

While we are on the subject....

..of animal rights, a recent post on samizdata proves interesting reading. I have no problem at all with the notion of animal welfare in so far as people have a duty of care to animals that they come into contact with. To put it glibly, animal rights is the invention of people who watched Watership Down and used this as a basis for a philosophy. The two concepts are quite separate and not necessarily as mutually inclusive as the animal rights (i.e. militant vegans) industry declare.

Blogs of interest

I've added links to a few blogs that I've been taking a look through this morning.
samizdata is

A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspective.
I would hope to fit the above description and given it's wide coverage, it is always worth a look.

The Scottish Political Blogs Review looked very promising but on closer inspection seems to be moribund, it's last entry dating back to the 27th of July. Hopefully it will soon churn back into life.

Finally Gun Culture for it's dealing in an area that seems to have been heavily politicised in the last few years in this country. The site gives a definition of gun culture as

A culture where guns are recognised as tools, respected but not feared. Where criminals are punished, but the ordinary citizen is trusted.

Rather obvious but nice to see as nowadays the phrase "gun culture" has so many negative connotations, conjuring up images of gun-toting rednecks clutching semi-automatic rifles or gangsta-rap lyrics glamourising the act of popping a cap in one's ass, or words to a similar effect.

Liars for Animals??

It's a while since I've seen such an apparently blatant misinterpretation as this, even from the animal rights industry.
From even only a cursory reading of the original article, I fail to see how Ross Minnett of Advocates for Animals could get it so wrong. I wrote this letter to highlight his factual error and also dragged in the matter of the Canna rat extermination, on which nothing has yet appeared in the national press from the Advocates for Animals or any of their ilk.

Canna rats update

No more news on the Canna rat project to report. E-mails requesting clarification due to the conflicting news reports were sent off to SNH & the NTS last week and prompt replies received from each. The SNH was a rather po-faced & terse reply to the effect that it had nothing to do with them. A rather interesting reply given their remit but especially their involvement in the actual project. The response of the NTS was more promising, the request for information having been passed on to the actual NTS project manager for their attention.