Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's racist when you make it clear that you're only interested in black abusers, and paint the problem as being entirely aboriginals abusing their own.
Yes it would be but the Wild/Anderson report details all sexual abuse no matter the ethnicity of the offender and providing security in aboriginal communities would act as a deterrent no matter the ethnicity.
The report does conclude that just as with any community in the majority of cases the victim of sexual abuse knows the offender, they come from the same community. It's hardly racist to point out and deal with something that one would not call racist if it was said about a white community.
-
Hone Harawira takes after his mother. I can't help but feel certain revulsion at alpha males beating their chests and calling everyone they disagree with a racist when the central issue is of men preying on women and children.
-
Al Gore was a bit of a stage hog. A shame his son let him down, but I can't help thinking he was thinking he could use this event to 'reluctantly' be dragged back into the '08 presidential campaign.
He seems to be good at this sort of thing, better than playing the dying Tinker Bell. Let Clinton and Obama scrap with Reps I say.
But just think if he ran and lost. Being forever known, not for saving the planet, but for kneecapping the chances of both a first woman pres and a first black pres. Last time he got depressed he grew a beard. Next time he might stop at the moustache.
-
...I would rather like to emphasise that psychologists are typically far better trained in statistics and methodological rigour than man, many others. Including the kind of people who are experts on the gut, immmunlogy and genetics, who will receive a far more token nod to study design and statistics than a psychology graduate. It's something medical schools are attempting to address, but I think there is some kind of fundamental conflict between what has been the massive rote-learning of knowledge by medical students, and the much more subtle information integration that is really now required of doctors and researchers.
I think you're confusing two different types of training. Practicing medics are one thing, medical research scientists are another. The latter are highly skilled in epidemiological/statistical techniques. And even if they weren't its normal practice to have professional statistical input into any health study.
Also, I think the "the massive rote-learning" as opposed to "more subtle information integration" is a false dichotomy. Being a doctor is essentially about pattern recognition which does need to rely on having a lot of facts at hand, hence all that rote learning.
-
So why, when the centre is doing such fascinating and important research work across a range of disciplines, from psychology to genetics and neuroscience, has The Observer led with "new health fears" that are simply old allegations from an associate of a discredited researcher who is about to face serious ethics charges?
While there probably are many more worthy stories I think you're going too far in your criticism. There is a real story her - that a major study on autism by Cambridge University included people well known to be cranks. Was this some sort of attempt at "even-handedness"?
I didn't get the impression that the Observer coverage was pushing the Wakefield line. This is a major study and those that set this up included 2 people with strange views. The Observer is just reporting what happened. These are old allegations but by including the likes of Stott and Scott this gives these views a current platform and The Observer is hardy to blame for that.
The story form me is not The Observer's covaerage, which does lack some background, but what on earth was in the minds of the people who set the study up.
-
but the picture of a smiling Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam is pretty damning
Agreed, I'm not arguing the US comes out of this looking like an angel. Chirac considered Saddam a personal friend and was indeed the very man who sold Saddam a nuclear reactor (for peaceful purposes of course). Not many countries come out of that period looking good.
I don't think it's accurate to say the Mujahedeen morphed into the Taliban. The Taliban were always a quite separate and initially very small group which came out of the (Saudi funded) Pakistani madrasas. The Mujahedeen comprised a large range of tribal groups some of which weren't very wholesome in their own right.
(The best book I've read on all of that is Steve Coll's Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden. It was recommended to me by an American who was no fan of Bush and is pretty scathing of US policies towards Afghanistan through the 80s and 90s. And no, the US did not support bin Laden but they did make other mistakes).
I'm not sure what deals that Condi is supposed to have made with the Taliban. I know the US was looking at providing funds to help stop opium production but that money wasn't going to go to the Taliban.
-
The tired old anti-American myths come out. The US supported bin Laden. The US supported the Taliban. The US sold chemical weapons to Saddam. All untrue but endlessly recycled by those needing to demonise the US. And imho such demonising of the US plays into the hands of the very worst enemies of liberal values.
The bulk of the material Saddam used for chemical weapons came from European countries and China, not the US. Mainly in the form of "dual use" chemicals and technology and often illegally. One of the most important enablers of Saddam's WMD was the Dutch businessman Frans van Anraat.
James has a point, legitimate criticism of the US has morphed into something quite ugly and not based in any way on facts.
-
Go through that list again and highlight the ones that the US got rid of, after helping put them in their positions of power/selling them chemical and conventional weapons/etc.
I presume you are talking about Saddam as the others in the list don't fit and are all examples of US power being used for good.
OK, the US did provide some support to Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war. Even though the degree of this support is significantly exaggerated by critics of the US it was certainly a very bad thing to do.
But continue your logic for a bit. The countries that did actually do what you allege - helping put them in their positions of power/selling them chemical and conventional weapons/etc - were France, Russia and China - the very countries that opposed the war and prevented it from being carried out under the auspices of the UN (of course - they wanted to restart business with Saddam).
Who is worse, the US that aided Saddam in a minor way and got rid of him or those countries that really did enable his regime and didn't want to see him go?
It's worth remembering that prior to the invasion Saddam was kept in check only by the US and British military. When they decided that that situation could not continue no other country stepped up to say they would take over being Saddam's warder. It's all very well to criticise the US for unilateralism but the other side to that argument is that the international community has to have a credible alternative.
-
There is an argument at least, that US actions, generally but not exclusively outside the US, have had a worse impact on global human rights than Castro could ever dream of.
On the other hand the US has got rid of Milosevic, the Taliban, Saddam, keeps North Korea at bay, has recently pressured the Sudan govt to allow an increased UN force in Darfur.
Sure there's been Abu Ghraib but since the world demands that the US fixes the world’s problems then maybe the international community should come up with some alternatives if it dislikes the US so much.
-
The importance abouit addressing lies told about us is to address lies we tell about ourselves.
yeah, but have some sympathy for Al Gore. In the Circus of Spoilt Brats Going off the Rails his son does it in a Prius. Can't help his presidential ambitions. I prefer the High Bad Tatse of Paris - she woudn't let a trail of fine white powder lead her into a Prius.