Someone we all will miss.

I had planned to write a comment on the day that Tony Blair announced his plans to step down as leader of the Labour Party and as Prime Minister, but found that I didn't know how to express my disappointment at something I knew was inevitable, and had known it, like many others, for a long time. He has certainly been my main political hero for the last ten years, and I had fervently hoped that he would stay in office long enough to break Margaret Thatcher's record. Sadly, it was not to be.

I have had the privilege of seeing him 'live' and in person once in my life and, despite the fact that I was already a huge fan, was amazed by his speaking ability, political reasoning and incredible charm. He is, quite simply, the best politician I have ever seen, and I have met Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and George W. Bush. Tony Blair was better and more impressive than all of them.

It is rare to come across a leading politician where one finds that one agrees with the vast majority of their beliefs. Such was, and is, my relation to Tony Blair. It is only on the spiritual question where I would say our paths diverge. Critics would no doubt pose the question: How can you be a fan of his policies when so much of their design is based in Blair's Christian beliefs?

I would answer that his ideas of communitarianism are grounded not only with his Christianity, but also in my beliefs in secular humanism and the joint belief that human values and rights are universal. There is hope for a meeting of the minds when it comes to shared values between those who believe and those who don't, and, in my opinion, Blair is where they met.

As I thought of what I would want to say about his time in office, I found that the posting would be too long. Leave it to the man himself to write a piece in the Economist that covers his ideas far better than I ever could.

Tony Blair will be missed and I suspect far more than his detractors would ever believe. Regardless of who wins the next election in the UK, there will be a noticeable void in British politics. I hope that Tony Blair takes an influential global role that suits his abilities. He may not be Prime Minister for much longer, but the world still needs him.

To believe, or not to believe, that is the question.

I’ve been having a number of interesting debates with a friend of mine about the nature of religion, science and whether there is a God or not (I am an atheist; he is a man of faith). The result of these discussions has not convinced either of us that the other person is right, but, speaking for myself, they have been very illuminating about the thoughts of someone who believes in the ethereal. The discussions have also been very illuminating on the conceptions, and misconceptions, of the nature and role of science. Not only have I had to think hard about why I think the way I do, but I have also had to sharpen my ability to convey, what I think, are self-evident truths about science’s nature and purpose.

I have recently read ‘God is not Great’ by Christopher Hitchens and am in the process of reading ’40 Days and 40 Nights’, which is book describing the events of the Dover, Pennsylvania trial concerning whether intelligent design, or ‘ID’ should have been allowed to be taught in High School science class. Hitchens’ book is a fascinating read and a well-written treatise against religion. I doubt that it would change the mind of anyone of faith due to its basic hostility towards all things religious, but Hitchens makes a brilliant case against the claims of religion as a basis of ethics and morality. I also think he makes the best case of all the recent atheist books (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett) that religion is truly a man-made concept.

’40 Days and 40 Nights’ illuminates the divide of those who rely on science as an ongoing explanation of the world and those of faith who are tied to a static tale of the creation of the world. Some passages describing the view of some on the Dover school board are truly frightening in the sense of how the individuals reveal their hatred of science, modernity, and a seeking of truth and knowledge. Equally frightening are their mistaken assumptions and beliefs about the historical origins of the United States, which are used as arguments for bringing faith into the classroom.

It would seem, judging from the arguments presented by those who were in favor of introducing ’ID’ and from my discussions, that there is a general feeling of a static nature to science and the, not entirely mistaken, belief that some who follow science grant it a religious type of fervor. While there are many who do so, I would argue that they are also missing the nature of science which is that it evolves and that a theory is a collection of facts that have been tested and are observable, experimentally speaking. Most importantly, however, a theory is only as good as the information that supports it. That is, if new information comes along that does not fit the theory and a better theory can be created the old theory is thrown in the dustbin. There is the fundamental difference between science and religion. If there was a theory that could explain our development as a species better than evolution, scientists would abandon evolution quickly. Such is the nature of science.

I end this with a link to an excellent commencement address recently delivered that illustrates the problem of ignorance and the mistaken views of science and of truth.

What history doesn't tell us and why we can't predict anything

Another book tip for readers. I am in the process of finishing 'The Black Swan' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I have to say that it is one of the most enlightening books that I have read in many years. The premise of Dr. Taleb, a former derivatives trader and current part-time professor at the University of Massachusetts, is that we are fooled by randomness in the world. That was in fact the name of his previous book, 'Fooled by Randomness'.

The 'Black Swan' is a reference to those large events, good and bad, that no one sees coming and that defy all prediction. The common view is that people simply miss the causal events that lead up to the unexpected. Dr. Taleb makes the compelling case that this is merely a reconstruction of a narrative that never existed. The events were impossible predict and that our need as humans for linkage and narrative forces us to recreate events and find connections where none exist. It is impossible to make accurate predictions about basically anything, but in particular about things that involve economics and the social sciences.

At first, one gets very disheartened by his argumentation, but Dr. Taleb writes well and humorously and also manages to come with remedies for how one should approach this problem of randomness. A very, very interesting book.

Scoop

Finally, after many years of intending to, I have read the classic comic novel "Scoop" by Evelyn Waugh. It was as good as advertised. An excellent and quick read about journalism and mistaken identity. I believe that many of the characterizations about ways and wills of journalists are as true today as when Waugh wrote it in the 1930's.

Great satirical Easter holiday reading.

Good listening from Oxford

The Times (UK) has a page full of interesting podcasts from the Oxford Literary Festival. Of particular interest are the podcasts from Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

Well worth a view and listen.

Ghosts of Vietnam destroy logic, Part II

It seems like every week I am forced to comment on the same inane protestations of Sweden’s involvement in Afghanistan. In SVD this morning, former Minister of Defense and Palme biographer, Thage G. Peterson wonders when the Swedish government and the Social Democratic opposition will protest against the US’s brutal war.

Once again a relic from Vietnam invokes the ghost of Olof Palme as an argument against “US imperialism”. I have commented previously on the empty rhetoric of comparing the actions of the US following 9/11 to Vietnam, but to no avail to some apparently. Mr. Peterson delights in reliving the well-worn fantasy that Olof Palme had more influence on US policy than was actually the case in the 1970’s. Mr. Peterson also commits the fallacy of lumping together the actions in Afghanistan with Iraq, thereby insinuating that both of these actions are in violation of the UN, when, in fact, the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent security force, ISAF, have a UN mandate and the occupation of Iraq is justified by a number of UN resolutions following the formation of an Iraqi government.

The argumentation of Mr. Peterson displays his flailing sense of being on the wrong side of this debate. In one part of his article, he decries the fact that it is shameful that there has not been more of a debate concerning the egregious behavior of Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe. Obviously, Mr. Peterson in his elderly years has not followed the recent statements by the US and the UK concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. It is also about time that a representative of a number of Swedish governments who sponsored Mr. Mugabe with aid money from Swedish taxpayers for many years in the 1970’s and 1980’s has now come to a realization about his true nature. A realization he still can’t seem to face regarding Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

One can also wonder why this complaint of silence about Mr. Mugabe appears in a piece dedicated to poo-pooing US intervention against other despotic regimes. Is it to innoculate himself against the complaint that he is soft on dictators? Such a throwaway comment does nothing to dispel that well-established notion.

One wonders what is more pathetic; a former member of the government reliving his glory years of opposition to the Vietnam War and his knee-jerk pacifism or that many who will read the piece will agree with his delusions?

The Ghosts of Vietnam destroy logic

In today's SvD debate page, there is a signed op-ed by a number of members of Sweden's left where they compare the situation in today's Iraq to that of Vietnam. It is a curious ailment in Sweden, more so here than in other countries, that the generation that protested the Vietnam War (and rightly so) can't seem to let go of it. In no other country that I have ever been to is the spirit of Vietnam regurgitated as often as in Sweden. One wonders why this is so. Is it because it was the entrance of Sweden on the world stage with Olof Palme making a worldwide name of himself? Is it because of the enemies he attracted, namely Richard Nixon? Whatever the reason, no matter what action the US takes in the world; if there is a military component, there will be a comparison to Vietnam.

The merits of their argument are faulty, to say the least. They commit the common fallacy of comparing a situation in the present to one in the past based on some superficial likenesses. In this case, that many American troops are in a foreign land. It is just as wrong to compare the action in Iraq to Afghanistan or Vietnam as it is to compare modern dictators, such a Mugabe or Hussein with Hitler and Stalin. The cases are very different and one undermines one's argument by making false comparisons for rhetorical points.

It is also an insult to the reader's intelligence to think that we can't tell the difference between the conditions and facts of each case. And it is morally dishonest to even consider the US's actions in Vietnam as the same as what the international community is trying to do in Afghanistan, as the authors would like us to do.

What remains is a pathetic reminiscence of their youth. Their op-ed uses dubious facts and false analogies and what floats up through that murky mix is a desire to see themselves on the right side of an argument as they were in the 1960's. Never mind that the world has changed. Never mind that the US has changed. Never mind that Sweden and Europe have changed. Never mind that their initial call for solidarity 40 years ago was so successful that it has led world leaders today to conclude that oppression in one part of the world will eventually find its way back to our doorstep and that we must help those who suffer under the thumbs of theocratic and despotic regimes.

It has been said that despite one's advancing years most people still have the minds and view of the world that they had when they were 18. The authors of this fallacious piece have proved that point once again in spades.

Unspeak

As a tip to those who are interested in the use of language, particularly the political use of language, a fine book to read is "Unspeak" by Steven Poole. A writer for the Guardian, Mr Poole analyses modern sound bites for what they imply and what they argue for and against with their limited size. Indeed, what is unspoken by sound bites like "pro-choice","pro-life", "climate change", etc.

A valuable book for all interested in truth in the public discourse and seeing behind the tools of spin-doctors.

A well-needed rebuttal

The lead editorial in today's DN is an excellent and well-written rebuttal to the group of five hundred who have called for Sweden to leave Afghanistan. The article points out, quite clearly, the need for a continued international presence in Afghanistan and the morally bankrupt view of those who argue against foreign military interventions of the type in Afghanistan and in the wider struggle for human rights and democracy in the world.

It is pleasing to see a major newspaper defend (Sweden's largest morning daily) what is a noble mission on the part of the world community.

It also exposes the fatuousness and fecklessness of the so-called enlightened intellectuals of the far left. Their calls for solidarity and justice ring truly hollow when calling for the removal of forces that guarantee the rebuilding and promise of a nation wracked by conflict and previously subjected to an inhumane oppression by religious fanatics. The fact that those who claim to be the friends of the third world, of women, of homosexuals and others repressed around the world would deny the freedoms and rights they enjoy in an attempt to score cheap political points against the US and the west is beyond contempt.

Their treason towards the ideals of the enlightenment and the true anti-fascistic left is one that should be condemned by all those who believe in solidarity, social justice, human rights and democracy.

That it takes a center-right newspaper to do what the center-left should be doing is an insult to all of us who believe in social democracy and progressive values.

What do they want? How will they get it?

In yesterday's Aftonbladet, a petition list was displayed comprising of well-known members of the Swedish intellectual and political left demanding that Swedish troops be brought home from Afghanistan. The gist of this pacifistic nonsense is that Sweden is participating in an action "in a war where human rights are violated daily and where civilians are killed in daily bombings." (My translation)

Furthermore, they demand that Swedish troops are withdrawn from the ISAF action, which they erroneously claim is not sanctioned by the UN, and instead use the funds devoted to the troop operations for civilian projects.

The naivety of many of the intellectual left in Sweden regarding foreign affairs is staggering. How will civilian projects even be attempted without security? Why should Sweden, who has had a fine record of support for Afghanistan even when it was not fashionable in the early to mid 1990's, shirk its proclaimed responsibility for human rights and democracy in the one country that is in desperate need of those two things?

How can the intellectuals of Sweden, who highhandedly compare their own men to the Taliban in the interest of feminism, so cavalierly ignore the plight of oppressed women, homosexuals and children in the rest of the world?

The answer to all these questions is, unfortunately, rather simple: any action where US military might is involved is by definition wrong. Such was the case in Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

What is interesting is the lack of objectivity to review each war or foreign policy event on its own merits. Some actions are wrong, some actions are right. They are not all of the same ilk.

What a sad indictment of those who claim to be open-minded and who also claim solidarity with the rest of the world.