Big Sticks and Small Carrots

So, what conclusions can be reached about attempts to have an honest debate with Donal Blaney?

My own efforts have been hampered by the fact that the two comments I’ve submitted have not been published. Would I be paranoid to believe that Blaney is aware of this but has no intention of doing anything about it? Well, about an hour after I submitted the second comment, Blaney wrote:

I’m trying to get a venue for quarterly debates between leftists and rightists. The debates would be held according to traditional British debating rules. I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.

There is no other Garry in the thread. As such, there seem to be two realistic explanations. The first is that Blaney has read my comments but not allowed them through moderation. The second is that he has read my post linked above. Either way, the evidence strongly suggests that Blaney has consciously decided not to engage with me on t’interwebs.

It could be argued that Blaney’s decision is due to his distaste for “anonymous blogging”. Well, it could be if I blogged anonymously. But I don’t.

It could be that he thinks I “cower behind the written word”. My first comment started with an attempt to question the thinking behind this baffling concept and we know that that wasn’t hugely productive. Personally, I believe the written word can be a very pure form of debate and countless philosophers and scientists throughout history seem to have held similar views. Blaney, however, appears to have an aversion to debating in written words. Strange considering that Iain Dale dropped by to assure me that Blaney is a much better writer than I am. Willy waving isn’t really my thing so I can’t say that bothers me one way or the other.

I do feel confident that I have a basic level of ability to explain and debate in written words. In the absence of any sort of explanation from Donal, I can only presume that he is not confident in his own ability to do the same.

And that brings us on to the kind of debate he does want to have. I have no qualms about admitting that I’d be hopeless in a filmed public debate. I’ve not had the training for it and am not naturally good at it either. It’s part of the reason why I blog.

As chief executive the Young Britons’ Foundation, an organisation which “provides unique one-day training workshops around Britain that focus on developing activists’ public speaking, debating…”, Blaney is undoubtedly aware of the importance of training in these skills. The sort of debate he wants would put me at a huge disadvantage against someone with his background and experience. Maybe its my paranoia but I have a feeling he understands this all to well.

Interestingly, the YBF also do training in “internet activism”. At first glance, this makes Blaney’s reluctance to participate in honest debate in written words even more puzzling. On reflection however, “internet activism” doesn’t necessarily involve engaging with those who want to challenge your views in an honest and transparent manner. For some, indeed, training in “internet activism” might well include the teaching of methods to avoid this sometimes awkward predicament. It would, however, be speculative to suggest that such techniques are taught by the YBF.

In any event, it’s fair to say that my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Donal Blaney has been spectacularly unsuccessful. While acknowledging that an attempt was made, he has refused to participate and has provided no explanation for this refusal.

Quinn, of The Obscurer (who, for the benefit of conspiracy theorists I have never met or communicated with in any way), did have a tiny bit more success. His first comment was not published but his second attempt was. He said of his first effort that “I left a comment on this post yesterday that appears to have got lost, so I will try again”. That is the sum total of Quinn’s expressed opinion as to the missing comment

Blaney’s reply:

Quinn: your paranoia as to the fact that your supposed original comment wasn’t posted is rather disturbing. As are the threats that I have received from some people in the past 48 hours (which I have been left with no alternative but to report to the police). I’m happy to debate people on here in a civil manner but when it comes to threatening me and my family, that sums up quite how unpleasant blogging can get.

Regular readers here or of Bloggerheads will recognise this type of response immediately.

Undeterred and calm in the face of this provocative reply, Quinn responded:

No paranoia required; my previous comments didn’t appear, that is a statement of fact. I’m truly sorry that you have received threats, that is disgraceful, but from the off I have conducted myself in a polite manner and asked reasonable, straightforward questions directly pertaining to things you have personally said; in response you said that I “clearly fall into the group of people who wish to attribute different motives to me”, a group you previously wondered about as being onanists, intellectually weak, deeply unhappy, insecure, lonely, bitter and “better off ending it all”. I didn’t much appreciate being lumped in with such a bunch, and now you accuse me personally of paranoia; and this from someone who charges others with using terms that close down debate?

So, I am glad you are happy to debate with people in a civil manner, as that is all I have done. Now, is there any chance of you responding to my previous questions?

That was posted the evening before last but Blaney has not responded. The answer to Quinn’s question would appear to be “no”.

Conclusions? Given that the post that both Quinn and I attempted to engage with was an attack on those who Blaney said refused to participate in honest debate, it’s not looking good for him.

If he’s not confident of his ability to defend his views in written words he may want to consider publicly admitting to the fact. As is, it appears that Blaney is the one who refuses to participate in honest debate on a level playing field. Unless it involves a method of debate which is likely to give him a substantial advantage over his opponents, he doesn’t want to play.

What this says about the “robust” nature of his views, I leave to the reader to decide.

PS. Having switched off comments for a couple of days, comments are back on in his most recent posts. I wouldn’t be “paranoid” enough to suggest that he was playing silly buggers in the hope of provoking a certain type of response. Instead, given the absence of an explanation, all we can do is guess as to the reason.

I don’t often write about my own life here but the most extraordinary thing happened to me yesterday afternoon and I want to share it with you. It was a lovely crisp sunny day, the sort of day which reminds you that spring is on the way, so I went for a stroll around town. With the light twinkling off the granite buildings, Aberdeen city centre looks good in the sunlight.

Passing by HMV, I decided to pop in and pick up some Blackadder DVDs. I’d been meaning to get the full set for a while now so I was pleased to see that they were all available. They also had the Planet Earth DVD box set so I got that too. All things considered, it was turning out to be a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon. (It’s the small things in life…)

Unfortunately, my good mood wasn’t to last long. As I attempted to leave HMV, I appeared to trigger their security alarms. As the  beeping and flashing continued, two rather burly security guards hurried over and blocked my path. With forced politeness, one asked whether I’d paid for the DVDs I was carrying. “Yes, of course” I replied, “now if you don’t mind…”

That didn’t satisfy the security guards though; they demanded that I produce a receipt for the DVDs. A receipt? Why on earth would I have a receipt? Are the BBC going to charge us twice for watching their programmes now? First the license fee and then again for the DVD?

When I told the security guards that I didn’t have a receipt but could go home and then return with my TV licence if it was absolutely necessary, they laughed in my face. When I argued that Iain Dale said I shouldn’t have to pay again for something I’d already paid for, they said they didn’t know who Iain Dale was and didn’t care either. They accused me of shoplifting and called the police. I was arrested. Arrested! All because I didn’t want to pay for the same thing twice. I can think of nothing more outrageous!

If there was ever any doubt that the BBC is run by Stalinists, Leninists and Trots, this travesty of justice surely proves the point! These leftists are destroying our way of life and must be resisted at every turn. Next thing you know, there’ll be a tax on totally spurious blog posts. I remember when this country used to be great, you know…

PS, Iain really was caught stealing from the BBC. Maybe if he understood that bandwidth costs money, he’d be on his way to answering the question in his update*. He might even spare himself further embarrassment instead of causing even more.

* A I understand it, there are other reasons why iPlayer programmes are only available for seven days. As well as bandwith costs, there are storage costs to consider. Without the limit, what would soon become an essentially infinite archive would have to be stored in a format which would allow for streaming; the costs would soon mount up.

There is also the issue of licensing and repeat fees (or rather the avoidance of repeat fees). Similar fees are certainly an issue when the BBC sells permanent copies of programmes. When content is made available to download from the interwebs, the introduction of a small charge might help to cover these costs…

Last week, as you might remember, the Sun published a story about the RAF’s ability to  intercept radio traffic in Afghanistan. The consequences of publishing such a story were unwittingly revealed in a caption accompanying the article:

Unaware… terror mobs don’t know their words can be heard by RAF

It’s a stunner, alright.

If the story is true, the Sun have revealed an important military secret and consequently put the lives of British troops in Afghanistan at greater risk for the sake of a Muslim bashing headline and Rupert Murdoch’s bank balance. If it isn’t true, that opens up a whole other set of questions.

My attempt to raise these issues by submitting a comment under the story on the Sun website was not successful. Many other comments were published but mine was not. As yet, my attempts to find out why my comment wasn’t published have been equally unsuccessful. My email was apparently passed to the relevant department a week ago but that’s as much as I know at the moment. I’ve sent them another email. Just in case they forgot about the first one. I’m sure I’ll be receiving a satisfactory reply any day now…

To have your views airbrushed out of existence by the supposedly free speech loving media is unpleasant but not unexpected. It’s a common tactic in the “battle of ideas”.  You could say they’re fixing the playing field. You could say that they’re choosing to engage with only only those opponents they think they can beat. (The Sun did allow a couple of not very well considered critical comments through; these easy targets were then attacked by other “right thinking Sun readers”.) You could say this is cowardly, dishonest and unscrupulous.

Others will argue that it’s the Sun’s website so they have the right to maintain it as they see fit. True on the face of it, but having the right to act like a bastard doesn’t automatically mean that you should act like a bastard. It also doesn’t provide a free moral pass.

Anyway, I was wondering what could be done to get the media to more fairly my views and decided that some sort of organisation to promote them is the answer. In this media savvy world where people are constantly bombarded with information, the name is going to be all important. After spending £500,000 on consultants and PR firms, we’ve finally come up with a winner. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

An Influential Think Tank 

Guaranteed media coverage, no matter what dross we come up with.  ”An Influential Think Tank said today that multicoloured swapshop has eroded our cultural moustache in the jellied eels”.

Brilliant! But there’s still a problem. If An Influential Think Tank’s first press release was about the damage done to society by irresponsible reporting in the media, it’d create a standing wave paradox which would threaten the very existence of the universe.

Drat.

There are two posts on Bloggerheads which are part of the vast left wing conspiracy which I recommend reading if you’ve not already done so.

1. Iain Dale: I bet you think this song is about you…

Contrary to what that propagandist would have you believe, I do not obsess over Iain Dale.

I do, however, worry a great deal about the potential that’s being pissed away by Dale and others like him who declare themselves the masters of the blogosphere while rejecting everything that makes blogging valuable to the electorate.

I often heard Dale claim that the UK is/was “4-5 years behind the Americans” with regards to political blogging, when this simply wasn’t the case at the time. Unlike the Americans, a couple of short years ago we enjoyed cross-party dialogue that actually involved elected officials. Take-up was slow because of the challenges involved (tricky things like transparency and accountability) but we had something valuable that the Americans did not, and it was growing.

Then a whole bunch of carpet-baggers came charging in with Iain Dale and Paul Staines at the head of the pack. They mimicked the counter-productive shouty and tribal approach used in the US and declared themselves pioneers.

Suddenly, certain elected officials, activists and media controllers felt free to run faux-weblogs because accountability no longer appeared to be a defining or requisite factor. [more]

2. Nadine Dorries and what she has (and has not) learned from Iain Dale

Like yet *another* graduate of the Iain Dale School of Blogging, she has cleverly made a false claim and run away when it has been challenged.

Nadine made a claim which was, if anything , even more ridiculous than Iain’s suggestion that 4:3 format is a vast leftwing conspiracy. In any honest debate in which she attempted to defend her allegation, she’s obviously going to end up looking like a complete laughing stock.

Everyone makes mistakes, of course. It’s what happens next which is the real test.

Nadine could have allowed her claim to be challenged on her “blog”. She would then have had to swiftly concede that she had unjustly attacked Ben Goldacre and falsely accused an unnamed member of the committee of agenda driven leaking. The next stage would have been an apology and a retraction. This is the way you would expect advocates of honest debate to behave.

But Nadine didn’t do that. Instead, she refused to allow the evidence to be presented on her “blog” even going so far as to remove the comment function altogether. Nadine has made absolutely no effort to inform her readers of the erroneous nature of her claim. Quite the opposite, in fact. There was no retraction, no apology and certainly no honest debate.

What possible argument could be mounted in support of this sort of behaviour? It’s her blog so she can falsely accuse respected journalists of improper behaviour if she wants to? If Ben Goldacre doesn’t like it, he doesn’t have to read it? She’s not in government so it doesn’t matter if she lies?

The distinctive values of blogging as a medium are under threat from behaviour such as this.

Clearly, ignoring this sort of mendacity will not make it go away. Those like Nadine who complain about a lack of honest debate while stifling honest debate on her”blog” will only be emboldened if people don’t make their opposition to such behaviour absolutely clear.

It’s up to us, all of us, to decide which path UK political blogging goes down. I make no apologies for arguing for a different path to the one chosen by Iain Dale and Nadine Dorries.

Bloggerheads: Fasthosts and UKreg: why you should look elsewhere

Dear oh dear.

I’m currently thinking of getting a domain name and some hosting sorted out so that’s at least one potential customer they’ve definitely lost.

I’ve just been having a wee poke around with the Wikiscanner. For those who’ve not seen it, it allows you to track anonymous Wikipedia edits through IP addresses.

See if you can see what all of these edits from the last 28 days have in common. Deep breath…

1. Conrad Black
2. John N. Gray
3. Gustave Courbet
4. Ingmar Bergman
5. Cobalt Bomb
6. Travels in the Scriptorium
7. The Lay of the Land
8. Martin Amis
9. The Mission Song
10. John le Carre
11. J. G. Ballard

Have you guessed what it is yet? OK, I’ll tell you. Every one of the above edits was to add a link to articles from either The Times or the TLS.

And can you guess who the IP 143.252.80.100 is registered too? Go on, have a guess…

This almost clever spam turned up in my inbox today.

Unity 08 - Your Voice in Politics

Unity08 has launched a unique online study that allows you to rank the presidential candidates and the issues facing the country.

To start the study, click here.

We’ve invited you to take and publish this study because we’ve seen that your site actively discusses politics and the state of the nation. It is crucial for us to include as many American citizens as we can so that we can truly start discussing the “crucial” issues facing the country and how to resolve them… before it is too late.

So near and yet so far.

Apologies for the lack of activity here recently. There are a number of real world reasons for this which I won’t bore you with. Normal service will resume shortly.

In the meantime, here’s a little something for you. I started writing this last weekend before the offline world so rudely interrupted. This is a reworked version.

The question which has been on my mind recently is, can there ever be objective reality in political debate? (For a deeper discussion as to whether there even is such a thing as objective reality, you’ll need to go to a philosopher. For the purposes of this, it is enough to accept that a tree in the woods has either fallen down or it hasn’t. It’s status can be checked and an objective reality can be agreed.)

Politics is all about differences of opinion of course but it seems to me that more and more time is spent arguing over the facts rather than the policies which address the facts. This is, I believe, one of the reasons why so many people are disillusioned with politics. The economy is booming/on the verge of collapse, crime is rising/falling, we’re winning/losing the war and so on. It’s not an edifying sight so see politicians squabbling over the facts in this way. Who wants to live in a world where nothing is real and everything is a matter of opinion?

Here’s an example. Rather than tackling a big issue, I thought I’d start with an inconsequential one. The opportunity arose when Dizzy wrote a response to Tim’s post on Dizzy. I felt no need to leap to Tim’s defence, he’s a big boy and can certainly look after himself, but I did decide to try to make a wider point.

Dizzy had written this:

Where [sic] Gore invented teh Interweb (All Praise the Gore!), he invented the blogosphere.

The “Gore claimed he invented the internet” meme is pretty widespread, it has to be said, but is it actually true?

On the face of it, it appears unlikely. Why on earth would a politician make such an extraordinary claim, one which was certain to be subject to endless ridicule?

Objectively, we can say that Gore never said the words “I invented the internet”, What he actually said is recorded here.

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

And, as Snopes points out, what Gore meant was that “he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet”. In context, this is obvious; he just said it very clumsily. Indeed.

As to whether that claim was valid, here’s what two of the “founding fathers” of the internet had to say about Gore and the claim:

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

And he won an award for it too.

So, although it may be a matter of opinion as to the extent of Gore’s contribution, his claim certainly wasn’t entirely baseless. Essentially what we have here is a politician bigging himself up clumsily but with some amount of justification for the part he played in promoting the internet.

Objectively, we can say that Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet in the way that was claimed by Republicans.

I decided to see whether Dizzy would agree so I submitted this comment:

“Where Gore invented teh Interweb…”

Urban myths are neither clever nor funny.

There is, I think, a difference between being politically partisan and being a truth distorting propagandist.

That was a bit rough but it’s my understanding that Dizzy’s a big boy too. Dizzy’s response:

Curious Hamster, urban myth are funny if their intended target audience is Adam from Cross Pond who is, of course, simple great.

I have to admit to not understanding fully what he’s saying here (and I’ve not had the time to find out about Adam and what he has to do with this) butDizzy does at least seem to accept that the Gore claim is an urban myth. Fair enough.

Not everyone was convinced though. Since PragueTory also appeared in the comments to that post, I also had a go at asking him the question that he’s gone through hoops to avoid answering recently. Slightly cheeky perhaps but I couldn’t resist:

Apologies for going off-topic but since PT is here, I would like to ask he ever got round to looking at the evidence of Guido’s “beyond the pale” activities? (I won’t “spam” the relevant link. PT knows what I mean.)

I only ask because people may be starting to think he’s a coward who runs away when he’s not got any answers and I’m sure none of us wants that.

Anyway. Must dash, Got stuff to do this afternoon. I’ll check back to see if any answer is forthcoming later.

And, when I came back later, PT had responded. Of sort:

Stop giggling at the back. He only said he created the internet. Oh forget it. Let’s all laugh and point.

Oh, how I laughed.

The effortless way he avoided the question is evidence of a real master at work. I did reply but, alas, although my comment was submitted well before Dizzy shut the thread down (due to a discussion between him and Tim, it seems), it never appeared. It has, I’m afraid, disappeared into the interweb ether.

In any event, attempts to get PragueTory to answer a straightforward question are probably doomed to failure from the very start. Perhaps that’s why my comment didn’t get through; maybe Dizzy realised that I was wasting my time with him. And what chance do you think I’d have had of getting PT to accept that Gore never actually claimed to have created the internet if the thread had remained open?

No, me neither. For PT, reality can go whistle. It’s certainly not nearly as important as the opportunity to take cheap shots against political opponents. And there are more and more bloggers who do this. The accepted granddaddy of this sort of thing, “Guido Fawkes”, likes to claim that Tim Ireland’s exposés of his behaviour are somehow part of a Brownite plot orchestrated by Tom Watson. Anyone who’s read Bloggerheads for any length of time will know that that’s utter bilge of course but repeated often enough, some will start to believe it. And with that, objective reality in politics becomes just that little bit further away.

George Orwell famously wrote that “politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia”. Sadly, the political blo****ere now looks to be going the same way.

It could be argued that this invasion of partisan spin and bull onto the interwebs is an unstoppable and inevitable result of modern politics and human behaviour. Perhaps it is but we’ll never know for sure if we don’t at least make the effort to stop it. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m on the blogroll here (not the bogroll) and why I think you should be too.

(By the way, in the interests of transparency I should also say that I think Al Gore is a bit of a git. But not because he claimed he invented the internet. He didn’t.)