Don’t blame us!

Christine Happel sent me this delicious picture.

The subversion of language — contd.

For decades one of the most objectionable aspects of British tabloid journalism has been its sanctimonious determination to ‘name the guilty man/men’ whenever there’s been a disastrous accident or a horrific organisational cock-up. This always seemed to me (and my academic colleagues) as a desperately wrong-headed way to look at complex issues. Often, these large-scale failures reflect not so much the deficiencies of individuals as the complexity of the systems in which they are enmeshed. So (we argued) they are more productively viewed as systemic failures.

But now, guess what? The phrase ‘systemic failure’ has been picked up by the government’s spin machine — and used in a novel way: to ensure that nobody has to take responsibility for what goes wrong. It’s not clear when this started but my colleague Ray Ison thinks it may have begun with the Butler Inquiry into the failure of UK Intelligence services in the run-up to the Iraq war. I’ve just looked at the report and can’t find the word ‘systemic’ in it anywhere, but Ray’s right in one respect. Lord Butler decided that the cock-up over intelligence about WMD was a “collective failure” and then used that to argue that it would be inappropriate to fire John Scarlett, the Chairman of the Joint Intellegence Committee which cleared the infamous (and ludicrous) dossier on which Blair took the country to war.

Whatever its provenance, though, it’s clear that ‘systemic failure’ is now synonomous with “nobody’s responsible, Guv.”

Politics and the English language — again

New Labour has finally decided to ban smoking in public places, including most pubs and all restaurants. In this they are copying the example of the Irish government, which has had an actual smoking ban in place since last January. The result there has been (in my experience) much more pleasant pubs into which one can now safely take one’s children. And in case you think I’m a priggish non-indulger, think again: I’ve been a keen cigar smoker for decades!

It will be interesting to see how the tobacco and drinks industries combine to fight the proposed legislation. If they follow the Irish example, they will form a lobby group with the word ‘hospitality’ somewhere in its name. (The Irish version was ‘The Irish Hospitality Alliance’.)

This attempt to capture language is an old stunt, well known to George Orwell, who wrote a wonderful essay (“Politics and the English Language”) about it. “Political language”, Orwell wrote, “… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. Political speech and writing, he says at another point, “are largely the defense of the indefensible”.

So it is with the tobacco lobby. It cannot say outright that it desires to make profits by giving young people lung cancer and heart disease, so it talks about the consumer’s “freedom to choose”. And it suborns words with attractive connotations — like ‘hospitality’ — to serve in its sordid cause. To an Irishman (and indeed to people from many other cultures), hospitality is a sacred thing: it means welcoming people, including strangers, in a generous spirit, and sharing with them what you have. The idea of that a pub owned by a faceless brewing multinational could be ‘hospitable’ is absurd. Strangers are welcome in such establishments in proportion to the amount of money that can be extracted from them. No dosh, no ‘hospitability’.

Fenced in

At the top of the Connor Pass in Kerry on Saturday.

Why is so much software so flaky?

Basically because software companies are able to escape liability for the flaws in their products. Imagine what it would be like if automobile companies could escape liability for lethal defects/features in their cars. Well, that’s the position with software today. It follows that if we wanted to make Cyberspace safer the quickest and most effective step would be for governments to legislate to change this. Nice essay on this subject by Bruce Schneier.

Microsoft’s ‘peace offensive’

You may have noticed that Gates & Co have been shelling out cash to companies that had complained about its monopolistic practices. Dan Gillmor has written an acute analysis of this phoney amicability. Quote:

“Microsoft’s $536 million settlement with Novell, which had sued on antitrust claims, was big money for Novell. It was less than pocket change for Microsoft, which at last count had nearly $65 billion in cash and short-term investments — and not a dime of debt.

In a slew of financial settlements with companies Microsoft has trampled over the years, the payout for wrongdoing is roughly $3 billion to date. That represents about three months of profit for a company that literally can’t spend its cash fast enough, and is giving shareholders a one-time bonus of $3 a share early next month. That payout will put only a temporary dent in the cash hoard.

What does all this mean? Simple. When governments fail to enforce the rules of capitalism, monopoly profits can buy one’s way out of almost any kind of trouble.

When the Bush administration made its odious deal to let Microsoft off the legal hook in 2001, it was giving the company an essentially free pass to do whatever it wishes in the future. There was no other way to look at it.

The administration’s cave-in was a relatively clear statement. Under this president, competition policy is industry’s job, not government’s, even if that means a dominant lawbreaker can buy itself out of antitrust troubles with a small dollop of profits recycled from its monopoly.

Promises to the contrary, there’s precious little evidence that Microsoft has made truly meaningful changes in its business practices — or that its leaders see their legal battles as anything but the frustrations of competitors defeated in a tough marketplace. The company continues to dominate almost all of its customers, ‘partners’ and competitors, while the government is at best indifferent, at worst a cheerleader.”

Next parish America…

… is what they used to say about Slea Head in Co. Kerry, the westernmost part of Ireland. We went there yesterday, and it was easy to believe it.

More from the you-couldn’t-make-it-up department

A Manchester publican who is scared of flying has bought a decommissioned RAF Vulcan nuclear bomber on eBay.

He paid £15,102.03 and is going to park it outside his pub in the hope of er, drumming up custom. My daughter’s comment upon hearing this: “Wonder what the post and packaging charges were.” And did he pay by PayPal?

Donald Knuth’s letter to Condoleeza Rice

“[the following letter was mailed in September 2002; I’ve had no response]

Dear Condi,

I’m 99.99% sure that my writing this letter will have no effect, but my conscience tells me to write it anyway. Danziger’s cartoon has pushed me out of my lethargy.

[His cartoon shows her banging on a grand piano, saying “War! War! War!”]

When I knew you at Stanford I had the greatest admiration for your abilities and good sense. (And I was disappointed that we never were able to get together to play four-hands music.) But now I cannot help but express to you my chagrin that the warm feelings I once had have basically evaporated. I hope you can pause to try to understand why this might be the case.

Fundamentally I don’t see how the government of my country has done anything whatsoever to address and correct the root causes of international terrorism. Quite the contrary; every action I can see seems almost designed to have the opposite effect — as if orchestrated to maximize the finances of those who make armaments, by maximizing the number of people who now hate me personally for actions that I do not personally condone. How can I be a proud citizen of a country that unilaterally pulls out of widely accepted treaties, that refuses to accept a world court, that flouts fair trade with shameful policies regarding steel and agriculture, and that almost blindly supports Israel’s increasingly unjustifiable occupation?

And worst of all, I find that my leaders, including you, are calling for war against a sovereign nation that we suspect to be corrupt, thereby (even if our suspicions are correct) undermining all precedents against unilateral action by other countries who might in future decide that our own policies are wrong. If we peremptorily strike country X, why shouldn’t country X have a right to do the same to us, and to our children and grandchildren in future years?

On my trips to Europe all I can do is hope that my friends there can help their governments try to make somebody in my own government act responsibly.

Sincerely, Don Knuth

P.S. This is the second time in my life that I have written a letter to a U.S. government official. The first time was during the Vietnam war.

For readers outside the computing world who don’t know why Don Knuth is a revered figure, see here.
7:04:41 PM    

Ten by Ten…

… is an extraordinary website which collects 100 words and pictures summarising what three leading international news sources (BBC, Reuters and New York Times) are saying and showing and presents them as a single image, taken to encapsulate that moment in time. Over the course of days, months, and years, 10×10 leaves a trail of these hourly statements which, stitched together side by side, it is hoped will form “a continuous patchwork tapestry of human life”.

Each hour is presented as a picture postcard window, composed of 100 different frames, each of which holds the image of a single moment in time. Clicking on a single frame allows one to peer a bit deeper into the story that lies behind the image. It’s beautifully crafted web design and a lovely use of RSS.