Linkblogging For 16/03/10
Firstly, an update on Print PEP! for those who are wondering why it’s taken so long:
Simply, my Scribus problems escalated – at some point a system update replaced a load of my fonts with similarly-named ones, and confused it enough that I didn’t just have to redo the last 15 pages and add in a missed line from Plok’s article, but had to redo the lot – and not only redo it, but try to redo it so it still looked more-or-less like what I’d done the first time. I should be getting – soonish – the proof copy though. This *WON’T* happen with PEP! 2, so expect the print copy of that not long after the print copy of PEP! 1…
Anyway, links…
Millennium gives a very thorough look at the Lib Dem Conference, while Jennie, who isn’t named Sue no matter what her latest subtitle thinks, has the first in a series of posts on why you should vote Lib Dem.
(I’ve actually taken two weeks off in April/May – a week for sleep and reading, to try to overcome my current exhaustion, and a week for non-stop pre-election campaigning for any cause I can find – Lib Dem, No2ID, Hope Not Hate, whatever…)
Double Articulation is back, and Jim has reposted this, on Steve Gerber’s Thing…
George Monbiot thinks if we name more plants and animals, we might think twice about making them go extinct.
James Graham absolutely eviscerates a recent Fabian leaflet over on the Social Liberal Forum.
LessWrong have a very good piece on ‘undiscriminating skepticism‘ – which sums up a lot of my problems with a lot of the darlings of the ‘new atheism’ very well.
And some of Ronald Searle’s drawings as a court artist in the trials of John Bodkin Adams and Adolf Eichmann.
Linkblogging For 26/11/09
Apologies for the lack of new contend. I do have a few posts planned for the next few days: HELP! tomorrow, James Bond on Saturday, a review of Bryan Talbot’s new graphic novel Grandville on Sunday, but I’ve been quite tired for the last few days and also planning stuff for PEP! – my new magazine, out next month, as well as planning my contribution to the Mindless Ones’ zine.
In the meantime, have some links:
Jazz Hands Serious Business is unimpressed with the Lib Dems’ new social network ACT (I’m on it myself, but haven’t found a real use for it, and suspect it, like a lot of online campaigning stuff, is preaching to the converted. But we’ll see).
Millennium talks about how the banking ‘loans’ were more like outright fraud, and reviews The Empty Child, from the first series of the Welsh series.
Laurie Penny thinks that there should be no feminism without trans feminism.
And a couple more people have come up with reworkings of classic characters – Gavin B has done Doctor Who, as has pillock, while Rab has done a Tarzan.
Linkblogging for 28/09/09
Sorry there’s no real content here for the last few days… I’m utterly, utterly exhausted by work stuff at the moment. I’ve started three posts (one on Darkseid, one on Big Finish, and a playlist) but not had anything like the energy to put what I want to say down. Hopefully that’ll change soon, but in the meantime, some links…
One of the big stories at the moment is Andrew Marr asking the Prime Minister if he’s mentally ill on TV. Anton Vowl says all there is to say about this, although Jennie has a good go, partly in response to Mark Reckons getting it very, very wrong…
Charlotte states what she thinks is our most important policy.
Jazzhandsseriousbusiness continues hir look at Lib Dem activism.
Eddie Campbell responds to James Robinson attacking Alan Moore.
And Lesswrong have a post on The Anthropic Trilemma
Linkblogging For 27/09/09
I’ve got a few things I want to write about over the next couple of days – I want to do a Wednesday Comics review, a Spotify playlist and a Doctor Who post, just for a start – but for now here’s some links (one or more of the above will be posted tonight).
My friend Jazzhandsseriousbusiness (I haven’t had a chance to ask him/her yet if s/he is hiding hir real name for good reason a la ‘Costigan Quist’ or has just not posted it yet) is starting a series of posts aimed at Lib Dems who are disengaged from the party, telling them how to get more involved. I’ll definitely be reading this, as since I moved from my old constituency to the one next door my involvement has dropped down to almost nil (one constituency meeting, one delivery round for a local candidate who’s also a friend, and a couple of days’ volunteering for the Euro elections, in the last six months, not counting non-party activism like No2ID and Hope Not Hate), but I suspect it’ll be handy for anyone who wants to get more active within the party.
Jonathan Calder asks “Will the real Nick Clegg please stand up?”
Anton Vowl on the Mail’s disgraceful attack on ‘comedy Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik’ for having a great-uncle who was evil scum.
And some non-Lib-Dem links:
J.H. Williams III walks us through the stages of composing a Batwoman cover. It’s a cliche, but nonetheless true, that Williams’ work is enough by itself to justify the continued existence of the Big Two comics companies.
David Mitchell argues, quite rightly, that the current plans to fund only ‘useful’ research are the acts of barbarians and savages who want to make *absolutely certain* that Britain develops absolutely no new ideas and anyone with two brain cells to rub together will emigrate as soon as possible…
Absurdist literature seems to make people better at pattern-matching.
The New Yorker has an excellent, if harrowing, essay on how Texas executed an innocent man a few years ago. Of course, with Supreme Court Justices like Scalia saying guilt or innocence shouldn’t matter when it comes to execution, it’s amazing that any guilty people get executed. And even if everyone who was executed was guilty, it’s still a barbaric, inhuman practice. Join Amnesty and help put a stop to it.
And Gavin Burrows talks about girls’ comics of the 1970s.
99.873% of statistics are made up
Today I was involved in a Twitter argument with two Prominent Liberal Democrat Bloggers. I’ll leave their names and the precise details of the argument out, because it’s not germane (and also because I may inadvertantly misrepresent one of them in the very abbreviated precis that follows), although anyone who really wishes can look it up on Twitter. But the argument went something along the lines of:
Prominent Liberal Democrat Blogger 1: Sign this petition banning the distimming of doshes!
PLDB2 : But that says that studies show that distimming causes gostaks to go blind. In fact all the studies show it causes them to grow an extra foot!
PLDB1: That doesn’t matter! Just sign the damn petition! Distimming is wrong!
PLDB2: I’m not signing a petition with things in it that are demonstrably untrue!
PLDB1: But you can never be 100% accurate, so just sign the damn thing! Anyway, you can prove anything with statistics!
Me: Are you seriously saying that just because absolute inaccuracy is not possible, you shouldn’t make any effort to remove obvious falsehoods?
PLDB1: Don’t sidetrack the discussion! This is about distimming! Anyway, people will argue over anything, no matter what you do.
And then on, for many more 140-character responses, essentially going round in circles.
Now, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this attitude recently – a couple of weeks ago there was a storm in a teacup over a famous campaigning organisation running a campaign for an excellent cause, but with a headline figure that was not very accurate. I won’t link to anything about that (although most politically-minded people reading this will have a good idea what I’m talking about), because I don’t want to give ammunition to the kind of people who will use the inaccuracy against the cause itself.
But the thing is, I shouldn’t have to do that. I shouldn’t have to choose between telling the truth and discrediting a worthy campaign. Using misleading or outright wrong facts is the kind of thing we excoriate the Mail or Express about, and we shouldn’t be doing it ourselves. Were the Mail to headline “75% of people think immigrants should be hanged!” then we’d be all over the article, tearing it to shreds, but the same people would be silent if they saw something saying “75% say ID cards are wrong”.
Citations of studies and statistics can be very useful, as can using raw numbers. Amnesty are currently campaigning to stop 128 executions in Iraq., for example, and that’s an important campaign. But it stands or falls on the 128 number, so they’ve ensured they’ve got it right. If it turned out there were only five people being executed, and the other 123 were being given free chocolate instead, Amnesty would quite rightly argue that the death penalty is still wrong, and that any executions are too many. But they would look idiotic. (Sadly, this is not a case where the numbers are wrong…)
We need, as ‘progressives’ (whatever that very devalued word still means) to be at least as strict with ourselves as we are with the other side. In particular, we need to acknowledge unpleasant evidence. We can’t say, for example “Cannabis should be legal, as it’s harmless” – it’s clearly *not* harmless, as the many people suffering from cannabis psychosis would attest. But we *can* say “Cannabis should be legal, *even though it can cause harm*, as the harm it causes is less than the harm caused by denying adults the right to do as they wish with their own brains”. Saying “the minimum wage doesn’t have any negative effect on jobs” is wrong – the minimum wage clearly prevents the creation of some small number of very low-paid jobs. But saying “the overall positive effect of the minimum wage – which prevents workers from living on starvation-level incomes – more than offsets its small negative effect” is truthful.
If our arguments are right, we don’t need spurious pseudo-evidence to back them up, and if they’re wrong we shouldn’t be making those arguments in the first place. Using factoids, rather than facts, is one of the things that makes people think ‘they’re all the same’ – because sooner or later one of those factoids will contradict the listener’s personal experience, and s/he will write the source off as a liar.
We can’t get everything right, but it’s not difficult to find a reliable source for any statement of fact you make (if it can be done for Wikipedia it can be done for a political campaign or petition) and if you do find such a source, at least you can then say “It was in reliable newspaper X or peer-reviewed journal Y”, rather than imitating Reagan and saying “facts are stupid things”.
I Despair…
This is, I’m afraid, another political post. There’ll be both comics and Doctor Who ones tomorrow, all being well – I’m acutely aware that whenever I write a long stream of posts on one subject, a whole chunk of my ‘audience’ (such as it is) switches off (my only consolation here being that comparatively few of you are *only* interested in my opinions on one of the things I write about to the exclusion of the others. I am lucky to belong to a political party where if you say “Be pure, be vigilant, behave!” or “Your ideas are too narrow, too crippled. I am a citizen of the universe, and a gentleman to boot!” people will be able to join in…) and I do try to balance what I post here, but sometimes one thing is in my head more than other things.
My pet peeve today is Liberal Democrat communication skills.
The Lib Dems include some extraordinarily talented writers, experienced designers, and intelligent thinkers, so why is it never them who are put in charge of communicating messages both from the party and from groups within the party to the public? Individual Lib Dems can produce blog posts that could serve as manifestos for change that could inspire the world. Put two or more of them in a room together though and they turn into the Committee For Equitable Plebiscite Administration and start producing badly-photocopied pamphlets full of misspellings, exclamation marks and clip art.
Now, as anyone reading this can see, I’m all for content over form, but there comes a point where the form is so bad that the content can’t be understood, and this happens all too often.
As an example, I decided today I’d like to find out more about Land Value Tax. This is one of those ideas that seem to preoccupy Liberal Democrats (roughly speaking you can split the party three ways into those obsessed with Land Value Tax, those obsessed with decriminalising or legalising all drugs, and those obsessed with electoral reform) but it’s not something I know a great deal about – I understand the basic concept (the name Land Value Tax is fairly self-explanatory) and something of the history of the idea (at least to the extent I associate the concept with the name Henry George and so on) but I certainly don’t know what the answers are to the immediate intuitive objections (I presume they do have answers – immediate intuitive objections almost always do).
So I decided to visit the website for Liberal Democrats ALTER (Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform – an unwieldy title but one that is at least a reasonable acronym), the pressure group within the party for Land Value Tax. Now this is an ‘independent’ pressure group, but one that has as its President Chris Huhne (our Home Affairs spokesman) and as two of the Vice Presidents Nick Clegg (the party leader) and Vince Cable (our economics spokesman and deputy leader), so it would be reasonable to expect this to be a strong effort to persuade the party (and the general public) of the ideas of Land Value Taxation.
Go and have a look at the website. I’ll wait.
Now, there are a myriad small problems with the site, but a few major ones – so major, I decided to take the very unusual step (for me) of emailing info@libdemsalter.org.uk , the address given on the front page of the site. This is the email I sent:
Just thought I’d pass on a small (well, actually, rather large) criticism of your site. I’ve been a member of the Lib Dems for a few
years, but have never been hugely interested in economic ideas (I joined primarily because of civil liberties concerns, with
environmental causes a close second). However, I’ve heard a number of people talk about the idea of Land Value Taxation, and I was interested enough to look at your site to try to find out about it. I couldn’t. The front page has news that is only of interest to people who already agree with you, while the FAQs are split into several sections with no indication as to which section should be read by someone who wants to discover the basics of your ideas. Not only that, but they’re apparently in PDF format – a much more cumbersome format than plain HTML. However, that doesn’t matter, as they’re not actually
there – I get file not found errors when I try to look at them.Please understand, this is not meant as an attack in any way – I am genuinely interested in finding out about your ideas, but your site as it is provides me with no way of finding out what they are. It appears designed for those who already agree with you, and who already know they agree with you, rather than being aimed towards informing people of your ideas (which may well be good ones – I am an admirer of several of the politicians you list as supporting your cause). If you actually want to increase support for your views, perhaps you could replace your home page with a simple summary of what they are, and
keep the news about Lib Dem policy motions on a separate news page?
And here is the reply I got:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at www.r-hosts.com.
I’m afraid I wasn’t able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I’ve given up. Sorry it didn’t work out.info@libdemsalter.org.uk:
This address no longer accepts mail.
Sometimes only this post by Jennie can really sum things up…
(ETA Not *all* Lib Dem communication efforts are at that level – the Social Liberal forum I linked to the other day is pretty much exemplary in that it has a single paragraph explanation at the top of every page, and links to “Who we are” and “what we stand for” prominently displayed on every page, as well as some other useful navigation features without appearing overly cluttered. But it’s definitely in the minority, sadly…)
Linkblogging for 17/01/09
I’m still far busier than I expected this week, so I’m still behind on my email correspondence – apologies to those who’ve emailed me recently.
Anyway, in lieu of a longer post, here’s some links:
Debi writes about Thomas Hariot – the most pioneering scientist you’ve never heard of.
Bobsy shows us his pants.
Over on Lib Dem Voice they’re talking about what the ‘liberal attitude to immigration’ should be. Some of the comments there make sense, but some are horribly, nastily racist. Let them know what you think…
People buying tube tickets will soon be automatically giving their consent to be searched by transport police. Well, that’s one more reason for me to avoid That London…
An interesting post about the Einstein/Bohr dialogue about quantum physics.
Cerebus: A Diablog continue their reading of the greatest comic series in history.
Andy Partridge discussing how Jack Kirby influenced one of his songs. (Surprising, because Partridge has always struck me as more of a DC person, and here he’s talking about Ant-Man. Still, it’s another example of XTC and comics, two of my favourite things, overlapping).
Free comic stories by Rick Veitch and Mark Evanier and Tom Yeates and some others.
And pillock has an excellent post on From Hell.
Why the Liberal Democrats? Part 1 in an occasional series
Several of my political posts may seem like they’re attacking the party I belong to, the Liberal Democrats (especially those posts that have been reposted and ‘improved’ over on Labour ‘Liberal’ Conspiracy). This is the prerogative of members in the Lib Dems – get two Lib Dems into a room together and you’ll have three opinions, and unlike the other parties, who put great stock in the appearance of unity and in the ‘party line’, Lib Dem policy is created by the membership, in public, and public debate is part of the culture of the party.
But having said that, since I started this blog a few months ago I’ve never explained in any sort of coherent way exactly why I support the Lib Dems, and why I think you should.
As this may be an election year (it would probably be suicidal for Brown to call one, but he’s done enough bizarre things in the last couple of years that it wouldn’t surprise me) I’m going to do a series of short posts whenever the mood takes me on why you should vote Liberal Democrat. I’m assuming when writing these that the ‘you’ reading this are eligible to vote in the UK, an undecided voter open to persuasion, and with political views at least within eyesight of the mainstream. If you believe that elections can change nothing and we need a violent proletarian revolution, or conversely if you believe that the main thing wrong with the country is that there are too many brown-skinned people in it, then the Lib Dems probably aren’t for you (and if you’re in the latter of those groups, please stop reading my blog now, thanks). Given that, each of these posts will be an ‘assuming all else is equal’ argument
The first of these arguments is that Liberal Democrat elected representatives work harder. There are very few Lib Dem ‘safe seats’, and Liberal Democrats, unlike members of the Big Two parties, can only keep their positions by working hard. There’s also the fact that no-one goes into Liberal Democrat politics to seek power – it would be an absolutely insane thing to do – with very few exceptions Lib Dem elected representatives went into politics out of a desire to help people or to advance a political philosophy, not for personal gain.
A couple of examples (out of many) of Lib Dem representatives going further to help me than I would have expected. These both involve my MP, but I could tell similar stories about my local councillors and MEP:
When I first moved here, I was not a member of the party, but had voted for them in every election since I was eligible to vote (except one council election where I voted Green). I had, however, never had a Liberal Democrat representing me.
I have opinions, as you may have noticed, and one of the things I do on a regular basis is to write to my MP expressing outrage at whatever outrageous thing has outraged me that week. My previous MP (Graham Stringer, Labour MP for Manchester Blackley) had never bothered to respond to anything I’d written to him. I’d thought that this was because of my intemperate writing style, til I saw on writetothem that he had a 0% response rate to constituents at the time (this has now improved to around 50%, a few years later).
So when I wrote to John Leech, the MP for the area I moved to after I got married, a little under three years ago, about some abhorrent bill that was going through Parliament, I didn’t expect any reply from him, either. In fact, I didn’t even need one – I’d looked at his voting record (on the excellent website theyworkforyou and knew he was almost certain to vote the way I wanted him to, and the letter was as much as anything a way of letting him know the issue was important to at least one constituent. So I was pleasantly surprised to get back a form letter along the lines of “Dear Mr Hickey, I agree with you that the Widows and Orphans (Torture and Murder) Bill currently going through Parliament is very wrong, and wish to reiterate that I am in full agreement with Liberal Democrat policy, which says that torture of widows and orphans is something to be avoided wherever possible, and murdering them very naughty indeed. As such, I shall be voting against the bill”.
That basic acknowledgement was more than I’d expected, and I was satisfied with that, but then two weeks later an envelope came through the door containing a huge wodge of documents – it was copies of a set of correspondence between Leech and the minister responsible, chasing him up on all sorts of fine points about the bill in question. Having an MP who was putting that level of attention both into the policies he was voting on and into keeping constituents who had expressed an interest informed was what changed me from being a passive voter to joining the party and becoming active in the local party – he has a slim majority and I want to do all I can to keep him in.
A couple of years later, I wrote to him again (having written to him, of course, several times in the interim – although not that often, because I was fairly sure he was doing his job properly). A Lib Dem front bench spokesperson had made what I considered to be an astoundingly moronic and illiberal statement about a possible future policy. This is nothing new – every party has at least one front bencher per week say something stupid (it may even be that I have said stupid things myself upon occasion) but this statement hit a couple of my buttons, and I fired off an angry email – “Absolute disgrace, as a representative of the same party how can you stand by and listen to this nonsense, rhubarb rhubarb” – just because that’s the kind of thing I do. I got an email back asking for my phone number.
He then ‘phoned me up a few days later, and spent an hour talking over the policy position that was being spoken about (and which he’d helped come up with) in great detail, explaining how the spokesperson had misspoken (a relatively trivial error of the kind we all make when speaking extemporaneously, but which had changed the meaning of the sentence quite significantly), talking about the nuances of the policy in question, and persuading me that what was actually being proposed was, while imperfect (and he acknowledged the imperfections as well, as political necessities), a reasonable response to the situation in question, and one I could accept, if not wholeheartedly support.
Remember, for the first of these stories I was someone who Mr Leech had never heard of, and who wasn’t even yet a registered voter in his constituency. The second time, I was someone who’d met him for two minutes a couple of times who he might be vaguely aware of as a Focus-deliverer and person who sent stroppy emails. Neither time was I anyone ‘important’.
And I don’t think John Leech is exceptional as a Lib Dem MP in this regard – Lib Dem representatives at every level go out of their way to work for their constituents, in a way that members of the other two parties don’t. If you want to be sure that when you actually need your MP to take up a case for you, or when you need the council to sort out the pavement in front of your house, or any of the other myriad reasons you could have for needing your local representative to do something for you, they’ll actually bother to help, then consider voting Lib Dem. Because Lib Dems work harder.


3 comments