Fisk this - Jack Straw on oil and Al-Megrahi

In the Telegraph and other papers:

Mr Straw also claims today that Mr Brown had nothing to do with his change of heart over the PTA [Prisoner Transfer Agreement], adding: “I certainly didn’t talk to the PM. There is no paper trail to suggest he was involved at all.”

Even if literally true, the above statement is consistent with the possibilities that:

- Mr Straw communicated via a third party with the PM on oil-for-Lockerbie-bombers (or, the PM raised the matter with others)
- Mr Straw communicated directly with the PM, but not through speech
- There were once paper-based records to show the PM's involvement, but they have been destroyed
- There were, or still are, records held in other form (e.g. email)

A good example of a "non-denial denial"?

PM to quit?

Peter Hitchens speculates that Gordon Brown may resign soon:

What will all these people do for a hate-figure if Mr Brown quits, as I think he will probably do on ‘health grounds’ before the Election?

I reconfirmed our electoral register details by phone yesterday; but I really don't know whether I will be able to vote for any of the candidates. Have we got to the point where mass abstention sends a stronger signal than positive choice?

It occurs to me that even using the phrase "sending a signal" reveals how much the political class has lost touch with us.

UK public debt worse than USA

It's reported in the Press that UK national debt will reach c. £1 trillion by the end of the year, and when the Office of National Statistics adds-in the cost of bank bailouts to Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland, the total should be £2.5 trillion. This will make our position worse than that of the United States, as shown in the graph below.

Lone wolves and the herd instinct

When Tony Butler worked as a football radio presenter for BRMB, I heard him comment on the news media: "They hunt in packs." (His Black Country accent, part of his charm - there's a beautiful, musical suite of accents in the Dudley/Wolverhampton area - sounded the word as "hoont".)

It's true even now. British PM Gordon Brown is down, heir-presumptive David Cameron is up. We shall see what Balloon Head makes of the economy when he gets in.

The problem with Brown is that he is, in my (educationally experienced) opinion, mildly autistic. He's the kind that academically dumber, normal kids pick on and wonder why he doesn't fight back. He hasn't helped himself by aiming obsessively at a job which requires quite different skills, which the flashy Blair has in spades; but self-knowledge comes hard for ASD types. Star Trek fans will understand that Scotty could never take Captain Kirk's seat in the Starship Enterprise; but maybe he harboured ambition, all the same. Had Kirk made Scotty his deputy, it could have lit the touchpaper.

The autistic child senses his vulnerability, and will make compromises to be part of the flock. Desperate for acceptance and respect, Brown has paltered with the truth throughout his political career, as commentators on his time as Chancellor have often noted. The brawling pit of the House of Commons has never been the place to nurture an inner-directed, analytical man's integrity.

But the pack is blind, too. Unrestrained, the instinct to group-bully the outsiders, the different ones, would send the human race well back into the Stone Age. And then look at the ones they instinctively, collectively follow. How many years was it before the Press revealed what they must have known all along, that the overjoyed crowd that greeted Blair in Downing Street after the 1997 General Election, was a handpicked mob of Party members? I shall believe in journalistic independence when a new incumbent is promptly probed and criticised.

And what is the pack now saying about Afghanistan? Are they correct? Would it solve our problems to withdraw and concentrate on more achievable aspects of domestic security (some British Army regiments stationed by our ports, airfields and the Channel Tunnel might not go amiss); or would it be a sign of weakness, the crumbling that in ancient times not only ceded the provinces formerly under the Pax Romana, but at last saw Alaric's Visigoths rampage through Rome itself?

Income mobility and income structure

A chewy piece from Professor Perry about the widely-held perception that the American middle class has essentially gotten nowhere since 1980. The research he discusses purports to show that large numbers of individuals have moved up and down between income brackets.

Elsewhere, I've read that the middle earning bracket as a whole has not advanced, and the top end has become wildly richer. But if individuals can progress up this ladder, does it matter that the gap between the rungs has stretched?

A heavy golden straw in the wind?

Many deride "gold bugs" and their increasing insistence that for safety's sake one should have the tangible stuff and not trust third parties; but the Chinese have now called in their gold from London and parked it in Hong Kong.

(htp: Max Keiser)

Evolutionary Dead End?

Please forgive the digression, but all of this discussion of financial and social breakdown, overpopulation and impending water and energy shortages, lead me to make the following observations.

As a scientist with interest in just about everything, I have come to the conclusion that the underlying cause for most, if not all, of these problems is that our psychology and cultures have not caught up with the Scientific Revolution.

I will begin with that statement that science has emerged as the most useful method of determining fact, if not truth.

However, like our cousins the Great Apes, we still waste resources when they are plentiful, with no thought of the future. We still generally pick our leaders as the most virile male, i.e. the silverbacks, rather than their ability to actually solve problems.

And we still insist on pre-Enlightenment thinking, as is demonstrated by this piece from DC's Improbable Science 'blog:

A recent report by the King's Fund in the UK on complementary medicine contains the following passage:

“This report outlines areas of potential consensus to guide research funders, researchers, commissioners and complementary practitioners in developing and applying a robust evidence base for complementary practice.”

In other words, if we spend enough money, we will find the stuff that works, and best way to use it.

However, the US National Institutes of Health has spent over $1 billion in the past decade on carefully researching these practices. Not a single one was found to be of benefit. This was so distressing to some there, that each new report resulted in a slew of resignations.