103 thoughts on “Sandpit

  1. @may

    PO’s shouldn’t have to ‘cover costs’. Just like footpaths, they are a service that’s paid for from taxation. And yes, the CEO (ffs) is an overpaid douchebag.

  2. This book is a good start for understanding complex systems.

    “The study of complex systems in a unified framework has become recognized in recent years as a new scientific discipline, the ultimate of interdisciplinary fields. Breaking down the barriers between physics, chemistry and biology and the so-called soft sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology, this text explores the universal physical and mathematical principles that govern the emergence of complex systems from simple components.

    “Dynamics of Complex Systems is the first text describing the modern unified study of complex systems. It is designed for upper-undergraduate/beginning graduate-level students, and covers a wide range of applications in a wide array of disciplines. A central goal of this text is to develop models and modeling techniques that are useful when applied to all complex systems. This is done by adopting both analytic tools, from statistical mechanics to stochastic dynamics, and computer simulation techniques, such as cellular automata and Monte Carlo.

    “In four sets of paired, self-contained chapters, Yaneer Bar-Yam discusses complex systems in the context of neural networks, protein folding, living organisms, and finally, human civilization itself. He explores fundamental questions about the structure, dynamics, evolution, development and quantitative complexity that apply to all complex systems. In the first chapter, mathematical foundations such as iterative maps and chaos, probability theory and random walks, thermodynamics, information and computation theory, fractals and scaling, are reviewed to enable the text to be read by students and researchers with a variety of backgrounds.”

    There is a free downloadable pdf and the place to start is with the Overview.

    “http://necsi.edu/publications/dcs/DCSchapter0.pdf

  3. @GrueBleen
    Your #50

    Yeah, and I guess that’s why I described it as “entertaining” rather than “interesting” or “informative”. I’m trying to see if I can develop a sense of humour in J-D 🙂

  4. Oh yeah, those “complex systems”.

    So now we have Yaneer Bar-Yam and the New England Complex Systems Institute. Whatever happened to the Santa Fe Institute – wasn’t it going to solve all the “complex systems” problems ?

    Besides, when I read – as the first sentence of the overview – that “The study of complex systems in a unified framework has become recognized in recent years as a new scientific discipline, the ultimate of interdisciplinary fields.” then I know we are in the midst of pseudo-academic hubris.

    Besides, it didn’t mention ‘consciousness’ even once.

  5. @James Wimberley

    You can have a very successful society. Then something happens that can’t be tackled with the normal way of thinking in that society. And the society can’t think differently to fix the problem. As soon as anyone does think differently, they will have contravened the rules that led to the success of the society, and will be shouted down. After all, if the exact conditions for success aren’t known, then removing any one of them might cause disaster – who can say?

    We will run up against that problem when physical expansion is no longer an option. Its been so fundamental to our thinking for so long that we can’t handle the idea of having to do without it. And I guess the proper pricing of externalities is the start of this, and its so threatening to some that they will fight incredibly hard against it.

  6. I’m wondering if the federal government will lend me $1bn to put a railroad to a large pile of used tyres I have. I plan to set them alight. There’s no profit in it. It’s for the lols. If Adani can get the money then I should get it too.

  7. @IKonoclast

    Your #36

    ‘There is no hope of any improvement until the capitalist system can be got rid of’ is indeed a version of the same argument which you write in the context of many topics.

    It can be annoying. IMO, it is annoying not because it is a dissenting view (as you seem to assume) but because you fail to characterise ‘capitalist system’ sufficiently (not at all it seems to me), which makes your statement lacking content.

    To the best of my knowledge, there is no precise theoretical model of ‘capitalism’. Hence I don’t know what ‘the system’ is that you maintain has to be changed. On specific issues, your point of view is, IMO, not as dissenting as you seem to assume.

  8. @Ernestine Gross

    I have offered definitions of capitalism many times on this blog; both my definitions and those of various writers and theorists. However, I have not been able to satisfy anyone here that I have offered definitions. I am continually taken to task for using the word “capitalism”. I have not noticed myself being taken to task for using words like “democracy” or “corporatism”. One would these words are as hard to define and as impossible to mathematise as complete phenomena.

    I can only wonder at the strange blind spot which makes the word “capitalism” so hard to understand for so many people. Methinks they protest too much. however, it is pointless me using the word or concept or any related concepts on this blog. I will try to avoid it.

  9. “I think it important, for instance, in the era of the Anthropocene, to see the close links between neoliberal economic politics and a system of disenfranchisements and exclusion of entire layers of both the human population and the non-human agents of our planet.

    “The way to handle these issues is to start from the project of composing a “we” that is grounded, accountable and active. This is the collective praxis of affirmative politics, which Spinoza encourages us to embrace against the toxic negativity of the social context.

    “In the midst of our technologically mediated social relations and in response to the paranoid rhetoric of our post-truth democratic leaders, how can we labor together to construct affirmative ethical and political practices?

    “How can we work towards socially sustainable horizons of hope through resistance? What tools can we use to resist nihilism, escape consumeristic individualism and get immunized against xenophobia? The answer is in the doing, in the praxis of composing alliances, transversal connections and in engaging in difficult conversations on what troubles us. “We” need to re-radicalize ourselves.

    “And it is high time that the Left – or what is left of the Left – listens respectfully and seriously to the thought and the practices of feminists, the LBGTQ community, anti-racists and trans-national justice movements. It is time to re-radicalize also the politicians on the Left, by making them understand the enduring effects of their own sexism and their violent dismissal of feminist affirmative politics.”

    http://conversations.e-flux.com/t/rosi-braidotti-don-t-agonize-organize/5294

  10. @Julie Thomas
    Your #64

    Hmmm. So does this mean that “feminists, the LBGTQ community, anti-racists and trans-national justice movements” are not OF the Left but are mere petitioners of the the Left ?

    Not that I’m disagreeing – back when I was young enough to notice, females weren’t considered to be a real part of the “revolution” (but they could be allowed to make the tea and sandwiches for the radical revolutionary meetings). As to LBGTQs, anti-racists and trans-national justice movementeers, well … at least they came way ahead of females. Until bed-time, that is.

    Has anything changed ?

  11. @Ikonoclast
    Your #62

    Well when even Ernestine is not into it, I can only suggest that your efforts are not noticeably successful, Ikono. This is one of the problems of not having a site of your own – if you did, you could post your various definitions and subsequently just point to them. Not that this would be any more effective – for most “definitions” – or even just “descriptions” – of something so variably vague but personal and emotionally powerful as “capitalism”, there never will be an effective definition. Any more than there can be an effective definition of “game” as Wittgenstein so “definitively” showed us all.

    But as to “democracy” and “corporatism”, well … “democracy” is just that system which comprises government by elected direct and indirect representatives voted on by a broad constituency in which any representative who is ‘dis-elected’ stays dis-elected (even if they are John Winston Howard or Stanley Melbourne Bruce). And that’s all I need to know about “democracy”. And “corporatism” ? well that’s all about the rights, privileges and malpractices of (large scale) corporations – which is again all I need to know.

    But one thing I have learned, Ikono, is that “truth” can wear many, many repetitions – something that those who propagate lies know only too well. So say on, give us your “definition” of “capitalism” again (and again and …). We might even agree with you in the end.

  12. @GrueBleen

    It is difficult to tell when you are disagreeing or being disagreeable and I don’t want to be warned by JQ again so I’m dubious about responding to you. I think he did misunderstand the last time that we were not actually being snippy enough to deserve to be chastised but whatever, it’s his blog. So could you try not to be funny in your idiosyncratic way that confuses me.

    I do think things are changing but things are always changing – things are changing in a way that I think is for the better and my evidence for this is that I see it happening in a small way in my small community.

    We are self-organising to start with on the basis of a shared goal which is simple enough for everyone to agree is the right thing to do the aim without any overt policy statement is to provide the best we can for each and every child in town.

    It’s the young mothers and the husbands and/or men (like my sons) who are not wanting to be alpha males, who do want to be partners with women rather than the boss, have taken a chance and moved out here away from the city and the aspirational life.

    Left and right has never been an adequate way to categorise people and their politics and preferences. The futile attempts to define things and people as a way of solving problem is agonising.

  13. @Julie Thomas
    Your #68

    So could you try not way that confuses me.

    Ok, well I’ll do my very best, however, I am grateful that you do understand that I try “to be funny in [my]idiosyncratic way”. Quite a few other people seem to have no idea of this at all.

    As to ProfQ, well, no I don’t think he quite appreciates the nature of our (yours and mine) interaction, but I have never been particularly concerned by either what you’ve said, or how you’ve said it – which may appear as trivialisation, but at least I don’t react to you as others have.

    But I kind of get ProfQ’s point: if we just carry on in a generally less than well mannered way, he may think that this gives a false impression to others as to what is acceptable in what you quite rightly point out is his blog. Even though many others quite frequently display worse behaviours, IMHO, than you or I. But then he did finally ban Ivor permanently, for possibly the most obvious example.

    But the main point, from ProfQ’s position, as best I can understand it, is that he sees this blog as a place of rational debate about substance, and not a therapeutic theater for us lot, so posts that “degenerate” into mostly/purely “personal interactions” are contrary to his intents and purposes.

    Or so I think.

    Otherwise, yes, there is some progress I sincerely hope, but it often seems so glacially paced as to be non-existent. What little I understand about ‘feminism’ I learned from Betty Friedan’s ‘Feminine Mystique’ back in the late 1960s – despite having read quite a bit of Simone de Beauvoir – especially ‘The Second Sex’ some years earlier. Somehow, I never got a sense of ‘feminism’ from de Beauvoir and had to wait to get it from Friedan.

    It all just seems that, as Gisela Kaplan says, it’s been way too meagre a harvest so far with only the very easy targets pursued (which doesn’t even include remuneration equity !).

  14. Hmmm I’m not really that into feminism, Grue Bleen.

    The point of the article that I was impressed by was the “organise not agonise” bit; if people really want to make a better world they should do it, do something different.

    It’s just more of the same patriarchal bs to sit at home or in an office and pontificate, fondly imagining that a definition can ever be ‘true’ or is ever going to make a real difference to real people.

    But assemblages? Now they are interesting. It seems that it is an art form that has been happening for decades.

    “In the 1950s and 1960s assemblage became widely used. Artists Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg adopted an apparently anti-aesthetic approach to making art, using scrappy materials and found objects alongside messily applied paint to create expressionist reliefs and sculptures (earning them the name neo-dada).

    “While artists of the arte povera movement, such as Mario Merz, made artworks using an assemblage of throwaway natural and everyday materials including, soil, rags and twigs in order to challenge and disrupt the values of the commercialised contemporary gallery system.”

    http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-resources/glossary/a/assemblage

    There are some wonderful assemblages to look at in the link above.

    Actually Mondrian said something profound if only I could remember it properly but the gist of it was that one day all life will be art. I’m working for that day.

  15. @Julie Thomas
    Your #71

    I’m not really that into feminism, Grue Bleen.

    Yeah, it seems you have a lot of fellow travellers in that. Probably all sympathise with Gloria Steinem when she said: “I look forward to the day when we no longer need a special word for women’s humanity.” Or summat like that.

    the “organise not agonise” bit

    Yep, it’s all the old formula, isn’t it: “give me liberty or give me death“. Malala would understand that totally.

    fondly imagining that a definition can ever be ‘true’ or is ever going to make a real difference to real people.

    So basically anybody for whom a definition makes a difference is just fooling themselves. For instance, the difference between the definitions of “christian” to Martin Luther and to the Pope were never of any relevance to “real people”.

    assemblages

    Ah yes, a modern variant on the ‘objet trouve’ variety of art made famous by Marcel Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ back in 1917. Let me see; ok yes: “Marcel Duchamp is thought to have perfected the concept several years later when he made a series of ready-mades, consisting of completely unaltered everyday objects selected by Duchamp and designated as art.” And then of course there are the composite sculptures made from various lumps of driftwood.

    But maybe the “assemblages” transcend all of that. Ok, yes, I’ve followed your link and some of them are “interesting” and may even go on to be “classics” once the artistic foundation has moved on again. To what, I know not, only that it will, sooner if not later.

    in order to challenge and disrupt the values of the commercialised contemporary gallery system.

    Yep, that’s exactly what Duchamp said back in 1917. Do you think he succeeded ? Do you think the assemblagers will ? Let me see what Wikipedia says about ‘objet trouve’ art: “The idea of dignifying commonplace objects in this way was originally a shocking challenge to the accepted distinction between what was considered art as opposed to not art. Although it may now be accepted in the art world as a viable practice, it continues to arouse questioning, as with the Tate Gallery’s Turner Prize exhibition of Tracey Emin’s My Bed, which consisted literally of her unmade and disheveled bed. In this sense the artist gives the audience time and a stage to contemplate an object. Appreciation of found objects in this way can prompt philosophical reflection in the observer.

    Says it all, dunnit.

    Actually Mondrian said something profound

    From a not too diligent search, all I could find was this: “If the universal is the essential, then it is the basis of all life and art. Recognizing and uniting with the universal therefore gives us the greatest aesthetic satisfaction, the greatest emotion of beauty.

    Hmmm. And what do you think of the works of Christo Vladimirov Javacheff and Jeanne-Claude ?

  16. @hc
    I think the idea was that when two (or more) people got involved in an off-topic dispute on a regular thread that threatened to derail it, they could be given the metaphorical instruction to ‘go and play in the sandpit while the adults are talking’.

  17. From CT

    “Among the many problems of comments threads, here and on other blogs, is the tendency for them to devolve into long debates between two, or a few, commenters. That often kills off any possibility of new comments coming in. On the other hand, people may want to continue these discussions, but get stopped when the thread is closed.

    At my personal blog, one response I’ve tried, with some success, is the Sandpit, a post open to ” for long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on”. Anyone who feels that they have something to write that fits these categories is welcome to post here. I’ll also invite participants in long side discussions on my posts to move them here.

    There isn’t a general CT policy on this, it’s just an idea of mine, so we will see how it goes.

    Remember that the rest of the comments policy applies. Particularly, in the context of debates with one other person, please be civil and avoid personal attacks.”

  18. @GrueBleen

    “So basically anybody for whom a definition makes a difference is just fooling themselves. For instance, the difference between the definitions of “christian” to Martin Luther and to the Pope were never of any relevance to “real people”.”

    No, more like anybody who fondly imagines that *the*definition will make a difference for anybody in the real world is just fooling themselves or …… they could be making art – performance art perhaps – and it is as relevant to real people as Tracey Emin’s bed.

    And about that bed and the sharks in formaldahyde, only capitalism could create a space and a market for that sort of art.

    Surely it was not arguments over the definition of ‘christian’ that caused the problems for the ordinary people? The real story, the real dynamics that created problems for ordinary people came from the machinations of people seeking power and privilege who believed that their definition was better than the other definition and used this belief to justify their personal ambitions.

    Spinoza said that to see the truth, you need to have no opinion; it is a mistake to set up what you like against what you dislike; is a disease of the mind.

  19. @Julie Thomas
    Your #76

    … long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on”. Anyone who feels that they have something to write that fits these categories…

    That just about covers everything for everybody. Spinoza aside, doesn’t just about everybody have “idees fixes” about pretty much everything.

    But I would say that, even in the “Sandpit” ProfQ is envisioning rational discussion about “substance” and not just therapeutic theatre.

  20. Lol and you imagine that you are rational and I am not? That is a disease of the mind that keeps you searching for the word or definition that will be the truth to end all irrationality?

  21. @Julie Thomas
    Your #80

    Why on Earth do you still imagine that everything I say is about you ? Hardly anything I say is ever about you, and in this case it was about its obvious subject matter: ProfQ and his intent for the Sandpit and his blog in general.

  22. John Pilger’s latest film “The Coming War On China” will be streamed live on RT at various times on 9, 10 and 11 December.

    It won’t be available “on demand” so best to check the live schedule for screening times on those dates.

  23. @D
    Wow, that was fast work. Six months ago Pilger was predicting WWIII with Russia under Hillary Clinton. Presumably with Trump about to become President and reputedly approved of by Putin, that’s no longer sufficiently plausible, so it’s China instead. Mind you a decade ago Pilger was predicting WWIII with Iran. I guess it makes good fodder for his target audience, who will neither notice or care that the prediction doesn’t pan out, but will move, goldfish-like, on to the next topic.

  24. @Julie Thomas
    Your #82

    Aah, I see your problem: perennial confusion between “to” and “about”. You really need to pay much more attention to the extensional definition of English words so that you too can be a disinterested participant in the Spinoza mould. lol.

  25. @Tim Macknay
    Your #84

    Something that mystifies me about this “war with China” trope is, if it isn’t going to be remote nuclear via missiles, where would a “hot war” with China be fought ? Can anyone point to anywhere that both China and America occupy so that they can engage in military engagements ?

    Or will it be a purely naval engagement all around and about the South China Sea islands ? Or is any nation(s) up for proxy war ? Will the Chinese get the North Koreans to maybe invade Australia ? Or maybe the Phillipinos if the North Koreans are too weak from starvation ?

    I look forwaard to Pilger’s solution of this consuming problem.

  26. @Julie Thomas
    Your #77

    anybody who fondly imagines that *the*definition will make a difference for anybody in the real world is just fooling themselves or …

    Hmm, well this “fooling themselves” idea is just a little strange – it means that we can lie to ourselves. But how then is that possible when we are ourselves ?

    they could be making art – performance art perhaps

    Oh yes, “Life of Brian” perhaps, or “Fawlty Towers” maybe ? Or even “The Annual General Meeting of the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things”.

    only capitalism could create a space and a market for that sort of art.

    Then all praise to capitalism (I hope Ikono isn’t reading this) for being our primary source of the Art of the Absurd.

    came from the machinations of people seeking power and privilege who believed that their definition was better than the other definition and used this belief to justify their personal ambitions.

    Ah yes, lots of “self-interested overreach” I guess.

    Spinoza said that to see the truth, you need to have no opinion;

    Well, you can tell Spinoza from me next time you see him that he’s an ass.

    it is a mistake to set up what you like against what you dislike

    Goodo, then you have neither like nor dislike for Tracey Emin’s bed, but you will seek the one true definition of art.

  27. Actually, Pilger has been working on this film for over a year. He considered both Clinton and Trump to be dangerous on confrontation with and aggression against, particularly, China and Russia. And there have been numerous acts of war committed against Iran in the last decade (e.g. assassinations, cyber-war with Stuxnet, attacks on military installations, economic warfare with sanctions etc..).

    It might be better for critics to see the film themselves and then point out any factual errors afterwards.

  28. @D
    I was being facetious about the timeframe. Obviously it usually takes more than six months to make a documentary.

    And there have been numerous acts of war committed against Iran in the last decade (e.g. assassinations, cyber-war with Stuxnet, attacks on military installations, economic warfare with sanctions etc..).

    This is playing word games, and pretty much reinforces my point that Pilger’s target audience doesn’t really care whether it’s true or not. That it “feels” true is what matters.

    It might be better for critics to see the film themselves and then point out any factual errors afterwards.

    It depends what one is trying to achieve. If the aim is to understand some complex factual issue (such as the likelihood of war with China, for example), my recommendation would be to avoid documentaries and audiovisual media entirely, whether made by Pilger or anyone else. Audiovisual media don’t really lend themselves to dispassionate analysis. But if you want to watch Pilger’s doco, knock yourself out.

  29. Word games?

    Facetious or not, your point required a quick about-face by Pilger (i.e. since 8 November) in order to support your dig at him.

    Presumably with Trump about to become President and reputedly approved of by Putin, that’s no longer sufficiently plausible, so it’s China instead.

    As for word games about war on Iran: The point is that there is, and has been for much more than a decade, a very strong lobby for war on Iran. Perhaps you don’t accept that as true, but there have also been several acts of aggression against Iran (which you don’t appear to deny), and many in the period since the Pilger wrote the piece you lampooned.

    Of course a documentary isn’t in-depth study material for any topic. Presumably that statement of the obvious wasn’t intended to be facetious, too. The best documentaries present facts in context in order to educate and inform a general audience about a topic or issue.

    You attack Pilger’s entire body of work as being untrue and his audience as ignorant fools.

    That “feels” like an outsized reaction to the mere mention of a new film coming out.

  30. @D

    Facetious or not, your point required a quick about-face by Pilger (i.e. since 8 November) in order to support your dig at him.

    I’ll concede that the dig was facetious as well. I don’t really believe that Pilger has done an “about face” – I imagine his views about the probablity of war with both Russia and China predate Trump’s election. But I do think his claims about wars with Russia and China are exaggerated, and I think he probably knows it, too.

    The point is that there is, and has been for much more than a decade, a very strong lobby for war on Iran. Perhaps you don’t accept that as true, but there have also been several acts of aggression against Iran (which you don’t appear to deny), and many in the period since the Pilger wrote the piece you lampooned.

    I disagree that the point was about the Iran war lobby. That point could have been made without claiming that large-scale war was imminent. I note that you’re being rather non-specific about the ‘acts of aggression’. The reason I said you were using ‘word games’, was because, as I suspect you know, most of the various unfriendly activities that have gone on between the US and Iran (and Israel) in the past decade don’t remotely resemble the claims of a large-scale attack and possible annexation of the oil-rich portion of Iran that were foreshadowed by Pilger and a number of other commentators a decade ago. Whether or not various acts undertaken by any of the parties (including Iran) constitute “aggression” or “acts of war” is debatable. The Israeli assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists perhaps comes closest.

    The best documentaries present facts in context in order to educate and inform a general audience about a topic or issue.

    Perhaps, but whether or not they achieve that aim is open to debate. Documentaries, even good ones, use cinematic techniques to engender emotional reactions in the audience. Audiovisual media are particularly effective for this purpose – far more so than text. When the subject matter is politically charged, this tendency inhibits the educational aims of the communication. Documentarians often distort or ignore facts because they get in the way of the storytelling aspect of the process. Even good documentarians do this (good documentarians are good storytellers).

    You attack Pilger’s entire body of work as being untrue and his audience as ignorant fools.
    That “feels” like an outsized reaction to the mere mention of a new film coming out.

    Well, I think your characterisation of my comment is a rather outsized reaction itself, to be honest. 😉

    I didn’t “attack Pilger’s entire body of work as being untrue”. I pointed out that he has a record of making claims about imminent wars that have turned out to be false (and were recognisably exaggerated at the time they were made, IMHO). Numerous other commentators have made similar exaggerated predictions of that kind and I tend to be impatient with those as well, not just Pilger (Paul Craig Roberts springs to mind).

    FWIW, I think Pilger’s work in drawing attention to the plight of various marginalised groups of people who are generally ignored in mainstream discourse (such as the Chagos Islanders) is valuable, although I do think that (like many documentarians) he puts communicating the theme ahead of factual accuracy. That’s hardly unique to Pilger but, as I said before, I think it makes documentaries an unreliable source of information on complex and contentious subjects.

    I also didn’t characterise Pilger’s audience as “ignorant fools” (OK – “goldfish-like” was pretty dismissive 😉 ). I did say that Pilger’s audience were essentially indifferent to whether or not his prognostications turned out to be true, and would treat each new prognostication as valid without taking into account the fate of previous prognostications. As far as I’m concerned, you yourself have demonstrated that I am correct on this. But I don’t think you are an “ignorant fool”. I think this tendency is due not to ignorance, but to a determination to make the facts fit within a particular worldview. Whether or not that is “foolish” is a matter of perspective, I suppose. We all have biases and we’re all “foolish” to some degree. I am no exception.

  31. To be fair to Pilger (assuming we are talking about his column from 10 February 2006) he qualified the “prospect of a American attack on Iran” being, in February 2006, real and “imminent” with: “probably”.

    At that time, “probably” was a pretty fair assessment.

    He didn’t anywhere state it as inevitable. And context is important. His piece was responsive to Blair’s comments a week prior in the House of Commons using the same language as was used to preface the (real) Iraq war less than 3 years before, about (this time) Iran.

    I’ll concede the headline was dead wrong: “Iran: The Next War”

    They should have at least used a question mark. The “next” wars were against Somalia, Uganda, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq again, and a few others depending on how you define “war”.

    Your criticism of Pilger, by extension from your view of his audience is, put simply, untruthfulness. That’s not a fair criticism because you present (in this case) a 2006 view of “prospects” and “probability” of war as a rock-solid prediction, which it wasn’t.

  32. To be fair to Pilger (assuming we are talking about his column from 10 February 2006) he qualified the “prospect of a American attack on Iran” being, in February 2006, real and “imminent” with: “probably”.

    At that time, “probably” was a pretty fair assessment.

    He didn’t anywhere state it as inevitable. And context is important. His piece was responsive to Blair’s comments a week prior in the House of Commons using the same language as was used to preface the (real) Iraq war less than 3 years before, about (this time) Iran.

    I’ll concede the headline was dead wrong: “Iran: The Next War”

    They should have at least used a question mark. The “next” wars were against African Countries like Uganda, and Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq again, and a few others depending on how you define “war”.

    Your criticism of Pilger, by extension from your view of his audience is, put simply, untruthfulness. That’s not a fair criticism because you present (in this case) a 2006 view of “prospects” and “probability” of war as a rock-solid prediction, which it wasn’t.

  33. Pilger does have a habit of getting these things wrong, at least to some extent.

    In a piece from April 2002 he wrote:

    The next American attack is likely to be against S o m a l i a, a deeply impoverished country in the Horn of Africa.

    Liar!

    The next war was of course Iraq. So ma li a came a few years later.

    But, he did say “likely” not “definitely”.

  34. @D
    No, I reject the accusation of untruthfulness. I think the most you could say is that I obviously regard his articles about an imminent attack on Iran as exaggerations of the risk, and you think that they were reasonable. But I think my characterisation of him as having predicted an imminent attack on Iran is a perfectly fair interpretation of his articles on the subject from a decade ago. For example, his article of 1 Feb 2007 entitled “Iran: a War is Coming”, begins with the sentence “The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran”. Talking about a ‘rock solid’ prediction versus ‘probabilities’ is more word games, IMHO.

    There also seems to be something of a marked shift from your earlier comment in which you appeared to be arguing that Pilger was essentially correct and that the US has, in fact, gone to war with Iran in the last decade. Now you seem to be saying that the US didn’t go to war against Iran after all but against Uganda, Libya etc and at Pilger wasn’t making any kind of prediction but was just talking about probabilities. Why the shift?

  35. @D
    Your #94 – I’m glad you can concede that Pilger does have a habit of getting these things wrong. But you still want to preserve him as a useful source of information on these kind of topics. To me, the habit of repeatedly making predictions (or whatever you prefer to call them) of this kind and getting them wrong pretty much disqualifies the predictor from being treated as a reliable source. And yet treated as a reliable source they are. Hence the eye-rolling tone of my comment back up at #84.

  36. No shift. I said it depends on how you define “war”. These days the US president kills a bunch of kids every week on his Tuesday death list in faraway countries that Americans haven’t heard of. I consider that “war” but the US Congress hasn’t declared a war for ages, so technically the US hasn’t been in a war since WWII.

    We may be getting down to the nitty-gritty here, which might be a good thing. But I doubt we’re going to agree on anything about this anyway.

    The US has not just “planned” an attack on Iran in any recent year but has a history of actually attacking Iran. And has done so in the last decade (see examples above).

    I’ll stand to be corrected, but I strongly suspect that there was truth to the statement that the US was planning an attack on Iran in 2007, it would be an unusual year if the US wasn’t.

    My concession about Pilger getting “these things wrong” was facetious (obvious, when you see that what I was pointing out was that his “next” US war was out of order, not wrong about the war itself).

    Anyway, I’ll watch the doco and perhaps you won’t.

  37. @D
    So more word games then (you haven’t actually given any examples of the US attacking Iran in the past decade at all, btw). Suit yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s