January 18, 2010 • 11:00 am 0
- Left Foot Forward – No Shock Doctrine for Haiti: The poverty which made this earthquake so devastating is no accident. It is the result of two centuries of oppression of the world’s first black republic. It is the result of enforced neo-liberal policies that have prevented Haiti developing the only way any country has – through investing in infrastructure and people. Friedman’s ideas are so popular with the mega-rich because they have only ever succeeded in doing one thing – making them
- Further Haiti reading: The Staggers on disaster capitalism; The Nation on the IMF’s role in Haiti’s current financial position. Fistful of Euros on Haiti’s Government by Acronyms. Washington Post on rebuilding Haiti.
- Luna17 asks who profits from child detention: ‘These children have already had their worlds torn apart and witnessed their parents in turmoil and in stress. No wonder that paediatricians and psychologists report that child detainees are confused, fearful, unable to sleep, suffer headaches, tummy pains and weight loss and exhibit severe emotional and behavioural problems.’
- Chris Dillow blames the 1980s: For many years, I’ve thought that the 1960s generation, with its vacuous hippie narcissism, was largely responsible for the decline of the left. Reading John Denham’s speech, however, raises another possibility – that it’s my generation, the one that came to political consciousness in the 1980s, that is responsible for the Labour’s intellectual disarray.
There has been a renewed recognition of the importance of class…it is no longer enough to make simple judgements or assumptions which equate ‘race’ with disadvantage.
No shit, Sherlock. If Denham’s powers of perception remain this acute, he might eventually figure out what religion the Pope is, or where bears defecate.
- Devil’s Kitchen draws out attention to a shocking lack of fact checking from the New Scientist and the IPCC: Now, it seems, The New Scientist hacks are horrified to find that maybe the AGW alarmist sources aren’t quite as honest—or, indeed, “peer-reviewed”—as that magazine’s naive hacks might have hoped.
Sifting climate facts from speculation
It was a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report—and it turns out that our article is the primary published source.
- Anton Vowl muses on why the mainstream media hold twitter and blogging in such disdain: It’s the same with journalists’ frequent disdain for blogs, bloggery, bloggers and the blogosphere. Occasionally – or you could even say often – blogs are a source of tedious repetition, infantilism, ranting and poo-chucking; but that’s not to say that, in being so, they’re any much worse than what you might read from certain columnists. And yet, and yet… there’s a sense in which columnists don’t like taking potshots at each other, at their ‘craft’, for fear of denigrating their profession, their beautiful life. And who can blame them? But the trouble is, blogs and Twitter are here. They’re here now, and they’re getting bigger, and better.
- Tom Freeman has serious policy critiques of David Bumface Cameron. With pictures if you know what I mean. Highly recommended