Obama: "We tortured some folks"

A pretty remarkable statement for any US President to make, even if it is long overdue and hedged about with many qualifications and "justifications":


A fuller version of his statement is on C-Span:


Although President Obama cautioned against being "too sanctimonious" he also stated that the US had "crossed a line" in some of the techniques - for example in 2009 soon after he took office he referred to some of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" favoured by the CIA (amongst them "waterboarding") by commenting "whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake". His latest comments on these techniques included the statement that "any fair-minded person would believe were torture".

Basically, in advance of the publication of a US Sentate report which is expected to criticise the CIA for its use of brutal abuse of terrorist suspects in its custody and moreover that such methods did not result in any life-saving intelligence. It seems also that CIA personnel have also been involved in spying on Congressional staff preparing the Senate report, something which CIA Director Brennan has already apologised for

Basically, the current US administration is now accepting that its predecessor used torture, something it has studiously avoided doing until now, for fear of the legal ramifications. Although I do not wish to criticise President Obama too heavily, for it is after all his administration that has (at long last!) acknowledged publicly what every objective observer around the world, including some in the US itself, has known or very strongly suspected for years. Nevertheless, President Obama's attempt to jutify or 'place in context' US actions do not really wash with me. The President has stated, for example:
- "It is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.";
- "It is important, when we look back, to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell, and the Pentagon had been hit, and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent.";
- "We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened.".

My reaction to these comments and statements is, to put it brutally frankly: STUFF AND NONSENSE! Torture is wrong. Period. No ifs or buts. No attempts at 'placing in context' are acceptable or justifiable!

Nevertheless, his remarks on Friday are very welcome, as they seem to indicate that the US as a nation is at last finding its way back to reality, rather than trying to rely on making up rules which flouted its international legal obligations:
- "When we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques – techniques that I believe, and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture – we crossed a line.";
- "That needs to be understood and accepted. We have to as a country take responsibility for that so hopefully we don’t do it again in the future.".

One suspects though that whilst the US no longer uses torture, at least since the current administration came to office, it is not part of President Obama's thinking for the US to atone for its earlier crimes under the Bush 43 administration. Will we see those responsible for authorising the use of torture by the US arraigned before the International Criminal Court in the Hague? I doubt it very much, unfortunately, but in an ideal world I would expect the criminals responsible to be held to account (principally President George W Bush, Vice-President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Henry Rumsfeld plus no doubt some others slightly lower on the totem pole of power in the US at the time - the then current Director of Central Intelligence or later National Intelligence, for example, for running the agency which carried out or procured the carrying out of the torture); the verdict of history on this criminal period in US governance is I strongly suspect not in much doubt, whether the criminals responsible are made to pay for their crimes during their lifetimes or not.

To summarise my views about this whole lamentable affair, there is no justification whatsoever, under any circumstances, for torture under the relevant UN Convention on the matter (CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment - you can read it here), although the US when signing the convention inserted a large number of qualifications - see here.

I have written about torture a number of times in the past, so won't repeat all I wrote here, but links to some of the articles most relevant to the latest US developments are linked below:
- Cheney tries to bury Vice-Presidential records (21 September 2008)
- "The Moral Maze" and "Torture" (23 July 2008);
- The truth about 'waterboarding' - it is torture (2 July 2008);
- The US under G W Bush and 'torture' (24 July 2007);
- Torture - is it ever justified? (20 March 2005).
(There are many later and earlier posts - simply put "Torture" into the search box at the top.)

Twelve years on - September 11, 2001 - in respectful remembrance and mourning

With time the pain becomes less raw, but it never goes away.



Terrorism cannot, and must not, ever be appeased.

(My permanent memorial to this and other terrorist outrages is in my personal website here - click on the arrow to see other pages from there.)

Note: comments are disabled for this blog entry.

The Cameron and Obama 'strategy' on Syria

I can't say I understand fully, or even much at all really, what may be going on, but over the past few weeks I have been feeling my way toward a better appreciation of what, I have begun to feel, is some kind of definite strategy.

A couple of weeks ago the media and various 'on holiday' politicians (mainly Labour, but also some of the 'usual suspects' on the Conservative benches) were clamouring for the British government to take no action regarding Syria without a Parliamentary vote. My own view always was that Cameron, of all people, was highly unlikely to rush British troops into some precipitate military action; the idea that he is some kind of gung-ho maverick (as Blair was, to a large degree) results, I think, from a massive misreading of David Cameron's whole way of doing business, not forgetting that his main 'sidekick' George Osborne, despite the mockery heaped upon him by the left-wing press and parts of the unthinking right-wing press, is a mean political strategist. These two, and a number of others in the Cabinet (both Conservative and LibDem) are often derided for being mere 'posh boys' who are arrogant and out of touch with 'the public mood' whatever that is - or at least that is the narrative that Labour would have one believe, sadly lapped-up and bought into by some on the Conservative and perhaps Lid Dem benches. It's true that the coalition government does seem sometimes to lurch from one policy disaster to another, but this is the political hand the electorate has dealt them; it is obvious that there are going to be more tensions within a government which has to try and square so many political circles. But anyone who thinks that Cameron, Osborne, Hague and Gove (probably the four key individuals on the Conservative side, plus May and Hunt), and indeed Clegg, Alexander and even Cable (from the LibDem side of the government) are not thinking several steps further ahead than I suspect strongly the Labour opposition habitually does (the role of opposition forces this upon them to some degree, even if the current crowd are even more than usually a crowd of clueless individuals - just to be clear where my feelings lie), has probably not thought the matter through accurately. Sadly, too, there are too many people on the Conservative benches, mainly those with rather more right-wing views than the average, who are unable to accept the reality of the compromises being part of a Coalition forces upon those in government. Of course, any individual political party is always an 'internal' coalition, but when two separate parties are involved it becomes rather more stark.

Personally I never believed for one moment that Cameron planned to commit British military forces to action regarding Syria without consulting Parliament, however much folks like (to name but one) Douglas Carsewell may seem to have believed otherwise, but he is (with all due respect) an honest and courageous, but unsubtle, individual whose heart is mostly in the right place, a very different kind of character from someone like London Mayor Boris Johnston (to take another example) who may come across as a bumptious, buffoon, but is just as subtle in his thinking as the more low-key Cameron.

Anyway, so where does this all get us. I think the revulsion that Cameron (and Obama) has expressed for what has gone on recently in Syria, the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population, is perfectly genuine and I am equally certain that a similar revulsion is felt by most on the Labour benches, however much the temptation is to try and expose or foster the impression of political weakness by those in government. However, Cameron is no fool, he is in my estimation a clever and subtle politician and any good practitioner knows that a major factor in politics is never to forget that it is the art of the possible, coupled with sound and decent principles, which is of ultimate importance.

I must admit I did briefly think last week, in the immediate aftermath of the defeat of the government motion on Syria, that Cameron may perhaps be fatally wounded politically and that it could potentially be 50/50 whether he would survive as Conservative leader until the next election, but only briefly - I soon formed the view that he was probably thinking several steps ahead and had realised that whatever his personal feelings, it was clear that the votes on both the government and opposition motions reflected the broad consensus of views across the country, one which I don't happen to share (but that's life). Those who defeated the government motion in Parliament probably expected the government, and Cameron, to splutter and rage that he thought the decision wrong and that he would attempt to change their minds or that he would simply carry on regardless (as strictly speaking the 'Royal Prerogative' would permit). Instead he accepted immediately that the vote precluded any British participation in military action against Syria and indicated that his government did not propose to reintroduce it, since it had already included the proviso that any action was dependent on the outcome of the UN inspectors' report, thus neatly responding directly to the 'public mood' and thwarting the naked political manoeuvring of Labour.

The icing on the cake, for Cameron, is that Obama soon after indicated that he too would consult Congress before deciding whether to take military action.

The basic problem, overall, is that Syria is widely recognised as having a pretty well-trained and equipped military, as well as a pretty ruthless Ba'athist (i.e. 'socialist' secular) effectively hereditary government - one cannot just lob in a few cruise missiles and expect the regime to collapse and besides it has the support of Russia, another 'thug' regime. However disgusting the Syrian government may be, no country which could do something about it, mainly the US of course, but not forgetting France or neighbour Turkey) has the desire to become embroiled in an expensive and probably prolonged military expedition, which even if it did succeed in deposing the Assad regime may only leave a political vacuum or a radical 'Islamist' regime in its place. The stated aim of seeking to 'punish' the presumed perpetrators of the chemical warfare attack (assumed to be the Assad regime, until credible information to the contrary is presented) is unlikely to stop future similar crimes because, in truth, what have they got to lose; if it is as most people (other than the Russians, apparently) believe, the Assad government which has caused this to be done, then a few hundred cruise missiles, however effective they are, are unlikely to stop them in their tracks because the regime knows what fate awaits it if they falter - either being deposed from within, or strung up from lamp-posts by those who might replace them. The Syrian Ba'ath regime, just like the Iraqi Ba'ath regime before it, is ugly and brutal and knows that it cannot survive long without force.

The vote in Parliament against military action has, if anything, provided Cameron and probably Obama with the political cover they probably wanted all along to at the very least delay any action. Despite what their political opponents and some supposed political allies may believe, I think both men and their supporters are quite probably content with the breathing-space events have given them. If circumstances warrant after the US Congress has debated the issue and/or the UN inspectors have issued their report, then perhaps a change in current British policy may happen; the US will no doubt do what it considers in its own best interests, too.

Meantime, I fear that more people in Syria will be suffering in coming days and weeks, or feel forced to try and take refuge in neighbouring countries if they can.

Unusual website searches

I haven't written a blog of this kind for several years, but a visit to my little blog earlier today piqued my interest, specially as the search parameters involved have a definite 'Nairn' connection, as it alighted on a blog article I wrote almost six years ago.

In any case, the item that I noticed originated from a place rejoicing in the name of 'Truth Or Consequences', New Mexico. I must admit I wondered how any place could ever have chosen such an unusual name, even in the generally little-populated western and south-western United States, but that 'fount of all knowledge' Wikipedia (however flawed it may be in its detail when analysed with objectivity) informs me that this place really exists (as indeed does a similar search in Google Maps), having changed its name from its former nomenclature of 'Hot Springs', because of the spas created there, to its present name because of a radio programme called 'Truth Or Consequences' having run a competition in 1950.

One can only assume that someone with Nairn connections has fetched up in this corner of the US - if so Howdy!

(Funnily enough, there is a similarly unusually-named place in Scotland called 'Rest and be Thankful' in Argyllshire [now Argyll & Bute] - read more here.)

Burning Man 2012

I had never heard of Burning Man until a year or two ago, and through the same link in Australia that got me to the really lovely video below of this year's event. Burning Man is a week-long annual event in Nevada (USA) "described by many participants as an experiment in community, art, radical self-expression, and radical self-reliance". Read more here. I'm including this video because it is visually arresting and seems to capture the surrealistic nature of this event:

(thru Brenton at aussielicious)

On the current craze for blaming "greedy bankers"

It is striking how fashionable it has become in the last week or so, indeed since the financial turmoil really got going in 2007 and 2008, to pile blame on "greedy bankers". The latest well-known people to indulge in this, both politicians, are the current Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Leader of the Opposition and Labour Party, Ed Milliband. My motto tends to be: Always beware a politician making 'policy' by talking about 'morality' instead, as it is usually a sign that they have no idea what to do about a particular problem, or don't want to state an obvious truth for fear of upsetting the voting public.

A couple of days ago I read an article in the Douglas Carsewell blog (he is a Conservative MP) that reported on a Coffee House article by Spectator editor Fraser Nelson. Being a politician, Douglas Carsewell, really a sort of Essex 'bovver-boy' with presumably a decent education and defintely with decidedly 'radical' views, focussed on one particular aspect of what Fraser Nelson had actually written, that if one was going to blame bankers, then one should not forget to include central bankers as targets. Fair enough, but that is not the whole story, certainly of what Fraser Nelson wrote and even more so of how I think 'blame', if it is a worthwhile exercise at all (which I tend to doubt), needs to be placed, so I wrote a comment in Douglas Carsewell's blog which I reproduce below, because I think it is probably a fairer and more complete analysis. Politicians, in particular, don't like to tell the truth to their electorates, because they depend on public votes to get elected or re-elected - but sometimes 'naughty kids' (in this case 'the public') do require to be told a few home truths; the comment was my small effort at correcting this omission:

Well, it is convenient for politicians (of all political parties, but specially that of the government of the time), to blame 'greedy bankers' and they must obviously share some of the blame, but as you - and Fraser Nelson writes - the macro-ecnonomic policies put in place by central banks, specially in the US and UK, but even more specifically (as you conveniently forgot to mention) the governments of those two countries carry an even more major part of the 'blame' or 'responsibility'. It would be neglectful and dishonest too, although politicians who need votes always seem to gloss over the matter, not to mention the third major component of what went wrong - the borrowing public, which was very happy to run up enormous credit card debt and think that property investment and the high borrowing which almost always funded it was a one-way bet. No-one forced these borrowers to take on more debt than they could handle and in very many cases it wasn't to fulfil real needs, merely to take part in the consumer-led bonanza going on all around them. Not everyone did this and a few people, such as myself (for example) were counselling anyone who would listen amongst my acquaintances and family not to become swept up in it. And I'm not talking about 2007 or 2008, I'm talking about as early as 2002. - the signs were already very clear then of the way things were developing. All political parties in the UK, including the then Opposition (i.e. the Conservatives), were egging on the public to borrow more, but of course without the idiocy and greed of the borrowers the disaster could not have happened. Most politicians are venal, but then most politicians are no worse than most of the people they represent who, given the opportunity for what seems like 'easy money' will not hesitate to indulge themselves. Politicians (and central bankers) don't like to tell voters the truth, but them most voters don't really want to hear the truth!

Until the borrowing public who fund much of their discretionary expenditure by borrowing on credit cards or loans (for example to fund several foreign holidays a year, or regular clothes shopping for reasons of 'fashion' rather than utility, or to have a new car every year or other year, etc) realise they are just as responsible for the financial mess we are all in and, more importantly, accept they must modify their own behaviour in the light of this, then I am afraid to say it is 'they' the public (and far too many politicians) who still do not get it!

US President Obama 'comes out' in support of gay marriage

It is good to see US President Barack Obama finally affirm what have been thought to be his views on the issue of gay marriage (or his 'evolving' views) - that same sex couples should be able to get married. It has taken him some time to state this plainly, rather than couching his views in decidedly ambiguous language, but this is a sensitive issue in the US and in many other countries and of course it has certainly required some courage in a US Presidential Election year:



Here's a reasoned riposte to the recent passing, 2 days ago, of Constitutional 'Amendment 1' in the US State of North Carolina which outlaws any form of civil union other the marriage of one man to one woman, a very retrogressive step indeed. However, as this video-clip points out, North Carolina has 'form' when it comes to unpleasant legislation as it was only as a result of a Supreme Court ruling (the case of Loving v. Virginia) in 1967 that laws against inter-racial marriage were finally deemed unconstitutional and in North Carolina it was not until 1971 that the first legal mixed-race marriage took place:



One day soon I hope same-sex marriage will be allowed and uncontroversial in the US - and of course of more relevance to me in the UK, too.

PS/ I hope you find my little joke in the title of this article amusing.

"Crazy pilot" forced out of cockpit by co-pilot

No, it would appear this is NOT an early "April Fools" day jest, but a deadly-serious and no doubt (for those involved or who know the stricken pilot) a very troubling event:



According to The Telegraph: "Passengers on-board a US flight from New York to Las Vegas are forced to subdue the plane's captain after he suffered a "meltdown" and began shouting about a "bomb"."
- a most alarming event and illustrative perhaps of the fact that human mental stability can be somewhat fragile. There but for the grace of ...

Just another day in the life of the US President

President Obama attends the White House science fair:

Honesty in advertising, if not at all pretty

I daresay if you're in the market for a "pre-owned" stained, damaged and scummy "trailer-park" home this might be just the thing:



(thru Kenneth in the (212))

Oh, and a Happy New Year to everybody!

UN-BUH-LIEV-ABLE !!

OK, I've been silent here for a few weeks (having too much fun whilst on my current sojourn in Spain - plus possibly some very good personal news - more later perhaps, if things continue to develop positively), but this is really too interesting (and gruesome) not to pass on:



- this image-grab gives the salient details:

- read more from the Las Vegas Review-Journal here

There but ...

(thru Kenneth in the (212), here)

Ten years on - 11th September 2001

It is hard to believe it is ten years already since the horrific events of 11th September 2001 (otherwise known as "9/11"), but it remains vividly etched in the memory.



There have many television programmes in recent days covering different aspects of this terrorist outrage and tragedy. However, I prefer simply to mark the tenth anniversary with this brief message and pictorial story-board.

This and other recent terrorist acts are commemorated permanently in my personal website here.

PS/ I wrote an article entitled "Terrorism and Civil Liberties" shortly after '9/11' in the comment area of my personal website (as I only began this blog 6 months later), as a reminder, still just as necessary today, that the fight against terrorism should not be used as a justification by governments in democratic countries to curtail civil liberties; fortunately we have now got rid of the Blair/Brown/Blunkett/Straw Labour Party 'cabal' of quasi-authoritarians who cynically used fear of terrorism to set about turning the UK into the most watched nation in the world, with the possible exception of North Korea, and whilst many of the worst aspects of their collective mania have since been rescinded (e.g. ID Cards) we are still living with many of their follies. A couple of wise sayings need to be borne in mind here:
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (Wendell Philipps);
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin).

An era of spaceflight ends with the last Shuttle flight scheduled later today

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Later today, if all goes as planned, Shuttle Atlantis will be launched on the last ever Shuttle Mission, designated as ST-135. Full details of all Shuttle missions are listed here, from the first test flights until the later operational flights.

I am lucky enough to have been on vacation in Florida during the time of one of the launches in 1985 and because my itinerary was flexible I extended my stay in the Daytona Beach area for a couple of extra days, staying at an hotel on Cocoa Beach just south of Cape Canaveral (aka Cape Kennedy) so that I could line up on the beach with several hundred others to watch the launch and even although we were in fact some miles away from the launch site it was quite impressive. A couple of days earlier I had in fact visited the Kennedy Space Center on a regular tourist bus picked up through my hotel and enjoyed it very much - quite apart from visiting the various exhibition halls there (for example the displays relating to the Apollo moon missions and the old mission control room used for them) we were taken on a tour of a small part of the base, which is vast, with the various launch sites pointed out in the distance even although for security reasons we were never taken very close to them - but because the assemble halls and launch structures are so huge one never had any difficulty in seeing them.

So that was pretty exciting, but a few months later my memories of watching the launch of mission STS-61-A on 30th October 1985 (the 22nd Shuttle mission) became somewhat bittersweet, because that was the penultimate mission of Shuttle Challenger, which exploded soon after its launch on 28th January 1986 (Shuttle mission 25).

Now the International Space Staion will be reliant on manned flights provided by the Russians and in future it seems possible that the major space-faring nation will be China. Who knows? All of this will probably come when I am far too old to know or care, or perhaps after my demise. Near-Earth flights seem to be what we will be limited to for the forseeable future.

My hope of course is that today's planned launch of Shuttle Atlantis will see its 12-day mission completed successfully and safely.

UPDATE (Friday 08JUL2011 16.40 BST) Shuttle Atlantis was successfully launched about 10 minutes ago, I am very happy to record.

The pitfalls of "anonymous blogging"

(Please see UPDATE at end)

One of the things this blog is not, and never has been, is "anonymous" - there really is a person called "Bill Cameron" and I have been blogging here for in excess of nine years. Enough people in the "real world" (assuming you don't actually buy into the notion that we are all living in some kind of Matrix make-believe world) know both me and this blog for its genuineness to have been established long ago.

What has prompted this now? Well, it seems there has been for some months a blog purportedly written by a lesbian in Syria, a country currently enduring considerable social turmoil, which was revealed a few days ago to have been a completely fictitious creation of an American heterosexual male currently studying for a Masters Degree at, of all places, Edinburgh University. Another false blog profile was apparently created, a male US military person again writing as a lesbian, to 'authenticate' the original fraud.

Many people write 'anonymously' for one reason or another. Often-times, in my opinion, such blogs are written by Walter Mitty types who have no obvious real need to write anonymously, but seem to feel that it adds an air of 'mystery' or 'exoticism' to their scribblings. So far as I am concerned I find such 'coyness' merely tedious - and boring. I could cite dozens of blogs in the UK and US which fall into this cateogry (but won't, or at least not directly) - some do write interestingly, but most are really not worth the time and effort of anyone else to read them. Perhaps they do save some money on therapists for the writers.

The first I heard of the 'Syrian lesbian blog' in question was a couple of days ago in a gay news ['mainstream' in the online gay community] website, based in the UK although the first link I saw to it was in a blog article today, but unfortunately the blog in question has now been restricted only to invited viewers, so I am unable to comment directly on any of the actual articles in the 'offending' blog; I use the word 'offending' ironically. Equally ironically, the linked blog is itself written 'anonymously' - no doubt the person behind it is a person who exists in a physical reality, apparently in Dundee (a city in Scotland), but I have absolutely no means of evaluating this in any way that might be called 'evidence'; the email address provided in the linked blogger profile is decidedly obscure. I have no particular reason to doubt the claim within the blog that the writer is indeed a 'lady of a certain age' living in Dundee, but nor is there any credible 'evidence' to substantiate this, so I have always read 'her' blog with a certain degree of scepticism. There have been certain incidents in the past which have since made me wonder whether my classification of the writer as 'histrionic' (a sort of 'Winifred Mitty' if you like, a female version of the afore-linked 'Walter Mitty') is not so very far off the mark.

I make absolutely no apology for the scepticism with which I view all 'anonymous' blogs; the writers of such blogs may protest their genuineness as much as they want, but I reserve the right to continue to regard them with some suspicion. Even some of those where I have come to know the real identity of the writers seem to me to have suspect motives for continuing to write their blogs anonymously.

More pernicious undoubtedly are those blogs which set themselves up with a completley false 'persona' which purports to be that of a real person - such seems to be the case with this latest "Syrian lesbian" blog imposter; perhaps the original motive of Tom MacMaster for starting this blog was honourable, but it was at best naïve and at worst deeply destructive and dangerous for those within Syria who have apparently been duped into believing in the genuineness of his blog.

The only safe stance on the internet is to be on guard at all times. It has become all too common in recent years for 'phishers' to purport to send emails from genuine companies or oganisations in the hope of gleaning from innocent users of the genuine websites their usernames and passwords, later to be used by the 'phishers' for nefarious purposes. So although my little blog is completely genuine, as could be attested by various friends, acquaintances and family members in the 'real world', most readers of it do not know me personally, so the only completely safe policy for them is to maintain a healthy scepticism.

One of the other links that Subrosa provides is to a Guardian article written by someone called Kira Cochrane, a more contrived load of pseudo-feminist claptrap than which I have not read in a very long time, richly deserving a complete fisking, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do a complete job as I have a life to live. However a couple of examples:

In the case of MacMaster and Graber, sexual gratification doesn't seem to have been the prime motive, although there are certainly signs that the two men may have got some erotic thrill from pretending to be lesbians – "Amina" apparently often flirted with "Paula".

- well, although as I mentioned above I have not been in a position to read the actual exchanges in question, it seems to me that it would be a prerequisite to 'carry off' the deception that the two purportedly lesbian protagonists would have possibly 'flirted' with each other, although frankly any semi-sentient human being might just have smelled a rat - just how 'genuine' and believable were these exchanges? Moreover, unless at least some of the articles in the blog were in Arabic I would have been extremely sceptical as to the blog's genuineness - it is perfectly true that a number of blogs written by Arabs (male and female, gay and straight) exist or have existed with most articles written in English, this was specially true in the run-up to and following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (there was indeed one very well-known blog written by a gay Iraqi man who subsequently became a columnist in the Guardian for a while), but most had at least some content in the Arabic language, either in the articles themselves or in the comments. If the whole thing was in completely perfect idiomatic English, and none of the comment I have read indicates otherwise, then that alone would have been a warning indicator to me.

In fact, as the psychotherapist and feminist writer Susie Orbach says, they seem to have been using these lesbian personas as a "double inversion – exploiting the 'illegitimacy' of the person they were impersonating to give themselves legitimacy".

- am I the only one who thinks this is just so much iname 'gibberish'? It reads like invented pyschobabble to me!

Alomost the only part of this tendentious twaddle that seems to have any validity whasoever is the final paragraph which reads:

While there are worries that this will undermine the lesbian blogosphere – creating a question mark over all who write about gay issues online – Campbell suspects it won't do too much lasting damage. "Internet life is full of hoaxes," she says, "it's full of virtuality. Lesbian bloggers who are embedded and authentic will continue, and all these others will fall away."

- although the bit about internet life being 'full of virtuality' is the kind of trite, pseudo-profound insight that is in reality just the meaningless rubbish that typifies far too much mainstream media writing about the internet. The whole internet IS VIRTUAL - Doh!

There are/were bloggers writing in western countries who have perhaps been justified in maintaining anonymity, either because they were writing about sensitive matters that might have personal ramifications for them from those who know them in real life, or because of their employment if their blogs touched on matters relating to their place of work; indeed a number of such bloggers have been dismissed or forced out of their employment when their identities were revealed.

Finally, I don't pretend to know what it is to be lesbian or to be a lesbian writer from a country where repression and intimidation is the norm. On the other hand I am a gay man who has lived for many years in a number of extremely repressive societies in the Middle East and elswehere, so I think I do have an inkling of some of the pressures involved and certainly a lot more than some of the male and female bloggers and journalists who have been pontificating about this over the past few days, most of whom are neither lesbian nor gay, nor do they have the experience of living under a repressive reigime.

To whose who say "Don't believe all you read on the internet", I can only respond that I may enjoy reading many things on the internet, but I never, ever forget to be sceptical of all I read there - and for you, dear reader, that means this article, too (unless you happen to know me personally, that is).

UPDATE: (Thursday 16JUN2011 08.50 BST) Here's a more wide-ranging analyis and discussion in Slate on the phenomenon of people adopting false personas for their writing exploits - click here; the Google-cache link to the blatantly false apology from the operator of the LezGetReal bulletin board is well worth clicking on, too, from there.

Finally, they got their man! Osama Bin Laden is dead.

It has been announced earlier this morning (White House website) by US President Obama that an operation by US Special Forces had succeeded in killing the terrorist and al-qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden at a location in Pakistan not very far from the capital Islamabad. (see also this BBC news report)



The mastermind behind the terrorist outrages in the US on 11th September 2001 has finally been taken out of action and his victims at least partially avenged. I write this not in a tome of triumphalism, as the death of any human being [even one so misguided and despicable as Osama bin Laden] is not an occasion for rejoicing, but I am certainly not sorry to hear of his death.

Unfortunately with his death it is highly unlikely that the threat of terrorism posed by al-qa'ida and its co-conspirator organisations is at and end. Indeed it is possible there may be retaliatory terrorist outrages in coming days or weeeks. Defending freedom against those who would seek to deprive us of it is never going to be easy - life, unfortunately, is not like that.

PS/ Although I watched most of the events 'live' on television from soon after the aircraft hi-jackings began I did not write about it immediately; this blog began only 6 months later. However in the comment area of my main website I did write an article on the general topic of Terrorism and Civil Liberties a couple of weeks later, once the impact of what had happened had begun to be absorbed. Like many others I sat open-mouthed in horror on that 11th September almost ten years ago, my only immediate analysis being that this was going to change the world in fundamental ways.

At Walmart, the Customer Really Is Always Right

I make no apology for lifting the title for this article and this link from the kenneth in the (212) blog. Four Walmart employees have been 'let go' for having disarmed an armed robber.

I have never before thought Walmart (or its Uk subsidiary Asda) overly afflicted with the dreaded 'political correctness', but I think I will have to reassess that judgement.

You may think it crazy. I certainly think it crazy!

What a depressing tale this is!

"Brothers & Sisters" - series 5 begins Thursday 20th January on More4

At last there are firm details about the start of series 5 of "Brothers & Sisters" on More4. Until Sunday the few announcements about it just mentioned, tantalisingly (and irritatingly), that it was 'coming soon', but I expect that in advance of the TV magazines for the week 15-21 January going on sale today meant that Channel4 could no longer plausibly keep it secret!

According to my Radio Times, purchased today, the series will commence its run at 10pm Thursday 20th January on More4, with a repeat later that night at 12.50am. On past experience it is likely to be repeated at least once more before the next episode airs on 27th January, but I won't know about that until next Tuesday until I get my Radio Times for the following week 22-28 January.

Here are edited excerpts of the final episode of series 4, when 'Senator Robert McCallister' (actor Rob Lowe) was [it would seem] killed in a car accident:



- apart from the 'promo' for series 5, currently being shown on More4/Channel4, I've seen some parts of the coming series 5 episodes online (already shown in the US), so I know some of what is going to happen, but I won't spoil the 'excitement' for others. I'm just looking forward to seeing the gorgeous couple, 'Kevin' (Matthew Rhys) and 'Scotty' (Luke Macfarlane).

US Senate votes to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"!

I break my blog hiatus briefly to report on the historic votes today in the US Senate, earlier to defeat a fillibuster motion sponsored by Republicans (63/33) and later to vote for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (65/31); the US House of Representatives had already voted for repeal. Now the bill will have to be signed into law by President Obama, but he has already indicated he will do so if presented with the bill.

Here is the full text of the statement by President Obama issued to coincide with the Senate vote for repeal:

Today, President Obama released a statement on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 - Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend. By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love. As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness. I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

At long last the US joins most other liberal democracies (such as the UK, Holland, Spain and many others) in allowing all its citizens to serve openly and proudly in the military. We in the UK got rid of the ban on gays serving in the military some years ago, with absolutely no adverse-effects on military effectiveness whatsoever, despite the earlier whining of those opposed to the change. I suspect strongly that in a few years time the US experience will be precisely the same and that they will be asking themselves why they delayed so long and what all the fuss was about.

A good day!

UPDATE: (Sunday 19DEC10 09.10 GMT) Here's a BBC report with embedded video-clip of campaigners celebrating the decision.

New York and its Islamic Center ('mosque') controversy

Amidst all the nonsense I've been hearing from the US about whether a 'mosque' should be permitted at 'Ground Zero' or not, it is a profound relief to have someone like Keith Olbermann come out and say clearly (and as usual quite loudly - that man should watch his blood pressure!) that the US should be a defender of freedom, not its oppressor. Mind you, I've been railing for years about the US's recourse to what most civilised people consider to be 'torture' and 'extra-judicial incarceration' in its response to events since '9/11', a stain upon American deomocracy that will take many years and probably decades to erase. To be clear, the so-called 'mosque' is not a mosque at all, but a multi-purpose cultural centre and although it will have a prayer room it will also have sports facilities, nor is it 'at Ground Zero', but several city blocks away and will not be visible from the old World Trade Center site. Anyway, watch this subject being aired in Keith Olbermann's unique style; incidentally he points out that a small Islamic Center has been operating nearer to 'Ground Zero' without incident since 1970, before the World Trade Center was even built:



(thru Chicken Yoghurt)

US Senate forced to accept its writ does not extend outside the US

So the US Senate has postponed its hearing on whether BP influenced the release of Megrahi from a Scottish prison. I wrote about this last week here.

As I have written at length, I disagreed strongly and fundamentally with the decision of the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') to release Megrahi, a convicted criminal, on grounds of 'compassion'. However, I have always accepted that it had the right to make that decision in accordance with its interpretation of Scots Law, even though that decision was entirely discretionary and wrong in my view.

Scots Law, and I am no 'Scottish nationalist' (that hardly needs saying - Ed), is not subordinate to the English 'Common Law' any more than it is to US law. Scotland has always had its own legal system, prior to and since the Act of Union with England and the fact that since 1999 there has been a devolved Scottish Parliament has not fundamentally changed anything, except that many domestic Scottish matters are now dealt with by the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland within the UK government.

What is really laughable, though, is that a few US Senators seem to think that their writ extends beyond US borders and that they can effectively coerce governments of foreign countries to appear before their committees. The posturing of a few US Senators ahead of their mid-term elections this November is of no moment to me or anyone outside the US, however interesting and indeed important (in some respects) US domestic politics may be in the wider world. I think Senator Menendez of New Jersey is playing to an audience in his home State ahead of elections, and good luck to him - but it is of absolutely no consequence to our Scottish devolved administration, nor indeed to the UK government, which has, as politely as they can, told he and his colleagues to 'get knotted'. I do not agree with the decision to release Megrahi, but I agree completely with the decision of the Scottish Executive to decline Senator Menendez's 'summons' as completely outrageous. The US Senate can of course hold whatever hearings it cares to, and Senator Menendez can verbally 'stamp his feet' in frustration all he likes, it really is none of my business, but neither he nor the US Senate can compel or coerce the government of a foreign country to submit to its authority; it really is that simple.