Latest position on Iraq

I don't normally distribute propaganda from the US State Department, but...

YouTube - MADtv - iRack (including blooper in the end)

Personal beliefs and democratic representation

I see that part of Tony Blair’s recent charm offensive (was there ever a more appropriate phrase?) with Ian Paisley was a regular exchange of religious books and thoughts. Given the explicitly religious basis of Paisley’s politics, then from his point of view this is understandable. But in Blair’s case, one must ask oneself what influence his religious beliefs have over his own actions and decisions. If he was simply adapting to Paisley’s preferred language, then so be it.

If, however, he was allowing his private religious beliefs (which he has never been willing to explain in public) to interfere with his political judgement, then I can barely express how enraged I am at the idea that political power in this country is in any way under the control of individuals whose true beliefs are not open to explicit democratic scrutiny.

Like any other closet belief, this is quite unacceptable in the leadership of a democratic society. How can I possibly anticipate the kinds of decision they might make, and so decide whether I can trust them with political power? Although both freedom and privacy of belief is fundamental in a free society, this does not extent to those who seek office. How would he feel about discovering that a member of his Cabinet was a closet communist or Nazi? It is not that I would dream of equating most religious belief with totalitarianism, but from the point of view of the non-religious, basing political decision-making on a religious basis is simply irrational, which is pretty much the next best thing.

From The Economist: A moment of unaccustomed modesty

I see that The Economist's advertisement on the New York Times site quotes the lovely Larry Ellison to the effect that "I used to think. Now I read The Economist".

So there we have it: The Economist is now actively promoting itself as the journal for people who have given up thinking. Nice to see conservatives coming clean about what the rest of us have suspected for a while now.

House of Lords reform: Part 94

Yet again British politicians are arguing about replacing the House of Lords. The main bone of contention seems to be just how elected it should be: 0%? 20%? 50%? 80%?

Maybe I’m not understanding something here. We are allegedly a democracy, if only of the rather stunted ‘representative’ or ‘parliamentary’ kind. So what exactly is the case for anything less than 100% elected? Beats me.

After all, there’s nothing to stop any government asking ‘Lord’ Putnam or ‘Lord’ Bragg (why aren’t these people embarrassed at the very thought of a title?) for their opinion about an issue if they really want to hear it. But putting them into Parliament with the right to make law, especially without any possibility of democratic recall, is completely barking.

These people do not represent anyone, have no right to govern anyone, have no right to tell me how I must behave, and cannot be given that right by anyone, even if they are the government. Full stop.