To err is human, to ignore errors is political

Jenni Russell's article (here) about Theresa May's (UK minister) problems with admitting a mistake highlights something important and paradoxical about modern politics - the combination between wanting a human leader, but also an infallible one. As the power of the label 'flip-flopper' shows in the US, there is little that can do more damage to a politician's reputation than admitting a mistake, or performing a u-turn.

But, this is in stark contrast to normal life, where mistakes are accepted, and it is the willingness to acknowledge, learn from and rectify them that is what really matters. Indeed even in areas of expertise it is readily admitted that one learns most not from what one does right, but from what one does wrong.


Of course the power involved in politics means errors have real human cost, and so must not be treated lightly, but this still doesn't mean that when a course starts to go wrong, we value more highly leaders who stick to their misguided guns than try to change direction.


What is needed is the ability of both sides, public and politician, to appreciate that there are many kinds of mistakes, those that are rooted in the past, and those that portend for the future. Mistakes arising from incompetence, negligence, and even through fixed ideologies, do indeed say something about the person involved, and how likely the mistakes are to re-occur in the future. But mistakes made due to trying to solve a probem with incomplete information, or a plausible misinterpretation of th facts, are not necessarily something which means the person involved cannot be relied upon, or, more importantly, that someone else would do better. What is important is whether that person will do better, and admitting mistakes is part of that.



Bill Clinton is someone who has impressed me more and more since he left office, in large part I think because without the need to constantly cover himself politically, he can reveal some of his qualities which may have been misinterpreted as a politician. For example to hear him talk about subjects without caging his words, reveals how he is actually very thoughftul and intellectual, but had hidden this under a 'good old guy' demeanour. So I am not that surprised to see him espouse exactly the sort of mentality that is needed (in all walks of life) :

Bill Clinton has a new mantra. Once a day, as he told an audience this week, he makes it a rule to find a reason to say "I didn't know that" and "I was wrong". He takes it so seriously that if the opportunity doesn't come up naturally, he creates one.

We could all do worse, then being honest about needing to do better.

Letting the lunatics run the economic asylum

It is true that a dominant theme in the recent economic crises is how stupendously misguided the economist 'powers that be' have been, and so it is slightly worrying that they are now being handed even more power.


Whether they were blinded by group think, or simply delusioned masters of an uncontrollable science, a lot of the world's problems have been precisesly caused, and exasperated by governments being devoted to 'accepted' economic policies, not disregarding them. Not spotting the mortgage and building bubbles, or the impact of one-size-fits-all interest rates on diverging economies, is the equivalent to a aeronautics engineer assuming once a plane manages to take off, it  can there keep flying indefinitely (no more boom and bust land-and-takeoff cycle) and almost as devastating.

It is good to see many articles on the subject at the moment (e.g. this one in the guardian today, which interestingly points out that in countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea economic policy has been largely set by engineers and lawyers, or this editorial yesterday) but it does seem a bit like the journalists on the sidelines screaming about clothes while the economists parade past after their emporer.

While of course to avoid total collapse the economic system needs economists to rectify it, it also cannot be left solely to the economists. Otherwise it will be like the situation after the 2008 crisis when it was asked why all the financial whizkids weren't fired from the banks they'd brought to ruin, and the response was that it was exactly at a tough time like that when those whizkids were needed. The logic being if you're dog leads you into a swamp, then you're best way of getting out is to keep following him. It is worth remembering that this is the industry that lays claim to the best and brightest of society.

Now that I think about it, we're doomed...

Unprecedented, but not very presidential

Another presidential election dominated by guns,god and gays...but no Toto, we're not in Kansas now...

I admit I haven't being paying much attention to the Irish presidential election (to be held tomorrow), since I don't live there anymore, and the office itself is largely ceremonial. However having been exposed to the finale of the campaigns on a recent visit to the country,  it does seem worth at least briefly commenting on.

I don't really believe the hype about it being a particularly important election in itself. The country is of course still reeling from the economic and political implosion of the last few years, and hence it is indeed a time for plotting a new direction, and choosing an appropriate head of state is a part of this, but at the end of the day such a figure-head position is hardly going to make too much practical difference. What does make this election interesting however, is the type of candidates involved, and what this says about the current mood of the country.

The first thing that comes at to mind when one surveys the field is how lacklustre it is. Times of national crisis are when new dynamic leaders are most needed and also, given the fall from grace of those at the top making room for new blood, normally most likely to make an appearance. When an old mindset has been discredited, then the time is ripe for people with a vision for the future to come forward, but this seems to be remarkably lacking in the current election. There is an air of staleness to it all, at least to me as a transient observer, something which could be interpreted as indicating widespread disillusionment and apathy in the country. Whereas the Greeks man the barricades, the Irish seem to have breathed a national sigh of resignation, muttering stoicly 'we are where we are', but with no inflamed passion to change that.

Ironically one candidate, Martin McGuiness, is no stranger to manning (and blowing up)  barricades, and even though he could at least be admitted to be bringing a vision to the table, it is his same old one which is even less relevant than ever in the current situation.

the lacklustre seven

However, even if the candidates are less than interesting politically, on a personal level they actually are. In a country long dominated by both the church and the issue of the north  it is indeed amazing that among the seven candidates is a divorcee, an openly gay man, and an ex-terrorist. If the US republican right is as obsessed as they say with 'Guns, God, and gays' then this collection would surely interest them. Of course not everything is new, Ireland's fame for Catholicism and Eurovision success is eerily manifested in Dana, but apart from that it is almost amazing how a widely divergent bag of individuals could so collectively fail to rise to the moment.

What follows are my own first impressions of this unimpressive bunch, but I must stress I am probably as lacking in understanding in what is really needed for Ireland, as they themselves seem to be. I've listed them in their current order of poll standings, though it also works roughly out as in decreasing order of comedy value.

Dana
Yes, that is Dana-allkindsofeverything-Dana, the 1970 Eurovision song contest winner. As an ex-pat it is bad enough to have foreigners assume all us Irish have an intimate knowledge and love for Johnny Logan, but I can't imagine how excruciatingly embarrassing it would be if we actually actively send someone from the eurovision stage onto the world one. Thankfully she comes across as someone who has had a frontal lobotomy, staring unblinkingly as she delivers one incoherent and vacuous statement after another, so even the apathetic Irish should resoundingly reject her. Which is just as well, since the knowledge that she is a bit of a fundamentalist catholic is made deeply disturbing by that unblinking stare. Why is it zealots don't blink? Is it that they see through this mortal world to some higher reality? You can almost picture them shooting you mercilessly while they calmly assure you it is God's will and for your own benefit. She definitely inhabits some other reality, though I sincerely doubt a higher one.

Mary Davis
Presumably relying on the fact that after Marys Robinson and McAleese Ireland will elect another Mary, given how little sense or impact this she seems to make, I would think her only hope of not being decimated at the polls is the intervention of a rather more holy Mary (though presumably any helping hand from above would first go to Dana). I admit my only knowledge of Davis is from watching one presidential debate (and unfortunately her comments were so inane and vague I immediately forgot them) and from sitting through a rather eerie campaign advert, which consisted of a succession of random people mouthing her words. I guess the intended message was she was 'one of us' but instead seemed to perhaps more accurately reveal her either as as some face changing robot woman, or as someone without absolutely nothing to distinguish her from the crowd. At a time when the country is in desperate need of strong leadership, I am not sure why people would be moved to vote for someone who claims to be the same as both some random fisherman and that bloke who sold them their TV.

David Norris
The first 'gay' in the group, and the only authentic one.  It is good that an openly gay candidate can stand for such high office, but I do think that while the controversies that have surrounded him might indeed be worthy of debate, one has to at least ask if unresolved prejudices play a role in their intensity. Regardless of his sexuality, his excruciatingly irritating Basil-Fawlty-impersonating-an-ex-british-army-major accent definitely isn't an asset, and despite claiming to be some kind of long term independent politician, again he didn't appear to me to be exactly presidential material, even in Ireland.

Gay Mitchell
Gay by name but not by nature. It is illustrative of how utterly forgettable this man is that I had actually finished writing this article before I realised I'd actually forgotten him. Now he's been mentioned, I think we can safely forget him again.

Martin McGuinness
The joke doing the rounds is that with McGuiness Sinn Fein are giving southern politics 'their best shot' , but despite being third in the ranking, I think their day has not yet come (nor ever will).  As with catholic-eurovision Dana, he can also claim to bring to mind two of the things that Ireland is well known for abroad - Guiness and the IRA; and like her he has an unsettling habit of not blinking, but in his case any unease is well justified since this is a man who is actually no stranger to having people shot (if not going so far as to claim it's for their own benefit). I always thought McGuiness eerily reminiscent of Damien in the Omen, something to do with those cold and calculating steely blue eyes, and always found it funny that he was made minister of education, of all things; though that said, if there ever was someone scary enough to act as the ultimate threatening principle, then it would be him - even back in the days of corporal punishment the worst one could expect was a few lashes of a cane, not a knee capping.
My personal removed-from-it-all opinion is that between the developments of the peace process in the North, and the recent (if temporarily subdued) growth in prosperity in the south, the 32 county battle call is even less relevant, or cared about, than ever. Especially during a crisis which so obviously requires a global collective solution, surely nothing could be less appropriate than trying to make Ireland literally completely insular.
I also have serious reservations about a man with such a violent past contending for public office in the south, not least due to his involvement in the killing of individuals representing the very state he wants to represent (e.g. the killing of Garda McCabe by the IRA during a robbery).  The argument seems to be that if he can be included in the political process of the north, then why not 'down here'. I have no time for this argument, since in my view while it might be necessary in the north on utilitarian grounds to ignore past deeds and move on, since otherwise things would never improve, this was never a full moral rehabilitation, and in no way applies by default in the south as well. Much, much more (and probably un-resolvable) debate and discussion would be needed, regardless of what the realities of the situation demand north of the border.

Michael D Higgins
Michael D, as he is known, is I admit my favourite of the lot. His record seems excellent, and as poet and author brings some much needed intellectualism to Irish politics. Furthermore, at a time when Ireland is suffering from the excesses of capitalism run rampant, then I think a left-wing Labour candidate is quite suitable. In fact, ranked against the other candidates, his main weakness is he comes across as a bit of a doddery old man, an image not helped by having hurt his leg and hence literally doddering at times. Another problem, and the reason why even he with an obvious intellect fails to stir my imagination, is that I perceive his campaign as having been a bit too gentle and respectful. While these are qualities suited to the office of president, it unfortunately fails to galvanise people. Some rousing is needed, if not of the rabble variety.
While he may not be exactly a strong leader, at least he is someone cultured, decent and respectable, and given that no one else brings anything more to the game, then this I think is the best we can hope for.

Sean Gallagher
The current front runner however is Sean Gallagher. Again I know very little about the man (as do seemingly a lot of people) but my crash course of the last week has told me he is a successful businessman, was a judge on the TV show Dragon's Den, and despite at times distancing himself from the party, has at least some connections with Fianna Fail. Oh, and he looks like a bouncer. Maybe it's the latter that subliminally turns me off him, due to subconscious images of some shaved head ape in a monkey suit saying 'not tonight' , but I actually do think he is a very questionable candidate. Despite the obvious appeal of a 'businessman' at times of economic trouble, it is exactly in this particular economic situation that the word 'businessman' occurring in the same sentence as 'Fianna Fail' is a cause for concern. Of course he distances himself from the previous (now disgraced) administration, but I find it hard to believe someone who seems now to have done at least some fundraising can claim to not have some moral responsibility, however minor, for the fiasco that ruined the country. Even if not directly involved, and just along for the ride (since Fianna Fail were the dominant party then it would make business sense to have been 'in with' them even if you didn't agree with the policies), then surely he is at least tainted by association. And of course we might not know the half of it, since a lot of this stuff seems only to have started coming out recently.
Speculation aside, I also don't see how his business prowess is at all relevant in such a ceremonial roll, a minister/adviser for industry or something maybe, but president?  And surely immigration isn't such a problem we need a bouncer as our head of state?

No A candidate, but better a D than nothing

After discussing the lack of relevance of Gallagher's business prowess to the situation, I realise maybe it isn't such an issue that there is no strong leader, since the president has no real power anyway, so what could he do? If one thinks about it, what one really wants is a sort of father (or mother) figure looking benevolently over the country, and not making a fool of us abroad. I also like the idea of the job going to an elder statesman, almost as a kind of political life-time-achievement award,  an honour bestowed on a politician who has served his/her country well, and can be liked by all. In these terms, I think Michael D Higgins is by far the most preferable candidate, since I think of all of them his integrity is most beyond doubt. It is a distinguished role, and doddering is no hindrance, indeed almost fitting with the avuncular aspect of it.
And, as has been pointed out as a final plus in a time when the state is bankrupt, as the eldest candidate (70), he won't cost the country much in post-office pension payments.

Politically incorrect

Yet another survey has come out showing the disillusionment people have with politicians. This was from the UK, where the atmosphere is particularly bad after the expenses scandal, but these ‘they’re all the same’ and ‘only in it for the perks’ sentiments can be found in any country, and is often held as the reason for voter participation is so low, the opinion being that if they’re all the same, what point is there in trying to choose between them. It just struck me how ironic this is, since it means the more politicians misbehave, the less accountable or scrutinized they become. Surely there is no other public domain where misbehavior is rewarded with being left to get on with it?

People get so riled up about so many things that ‘others’ do in their society, even when these ‘others’ have very little to do with them, so it is amazing why there isn’t the same level of excitation when it comes to the group of offenders that actually have a duty to them. This is probably due in part to frustration at the hopelessness of doing anything about the system, but possibly also has roots in a submerged inclination for deference to those in charge. Whatever the reason, this apathy is perhaps the most dangerous mood in society, since as they say, for evil to triumph all that is required is for good people to stand by and do nothing.  And the problem is that while few politicians might be really worthy of our respect, they vary in how they underserving they are of it.

Churchill was on the mark when he said democracy was only the best of a bad lot, and depressing as this may be, it is still a valid principle to apply to who should run it. They may not be great, but there’s always worse, and why can’t people get motivated by that?

left, right, redwood

One of the few half-positive things to come from the recent London riots were they at least triggered some discussion about the nature of a society where such things can happen, and how best to react to it.
From both sides of the supposed left-right divide there have been constructive comments and analysis, but unfortunately all too often these are overshadowed by indirect and subtle evocations of underlying value systems, which are just as rigid as ever.

The conservative MP John Redwood, provided in this article I think a revealing example of what i think is a classic 'rightwing' view - that the poor are some how to blame for their situation, the rich are deserving of theirs, and that the only way to help the former is to make things easier for the latter.

What I think is interesting in this piece is how the language he used reveals a true position completely contrary to the claims stated. The expressions are so contradictory I would almost assume it was self-parody, but I think it is completely unintentional. So although he seems to be really trying to convince us of his (at least what he thinks counts as) 'liberal' and charitable nature, the underlying tone of his piece is the opposite.

For example, he says "Like all members of the main political parties I support taxing the rich more to help pay for the lifestyles of the worse off."

Simply read, this represents him as a committed member of the political mainstream, committed to re-distribution of wealth, but this is belied by the use of the word 'lifestyle', which implies superfluous if not outright luxurious non-necessities. It's unbelievable that someone could refer to support which help keep some people's heads above the financial water as 'lifestyle' elements - or maybe Redwood considers being able to send your kids to school, or even feed and house them, as part of a certain kind of 'lifestyle'. Maybe that consumerist 'living in a house lifestyle' which so many people gubbily grasp for. And of course 'lifestyle' implies choice, it is the way you choose to live life, bringing out the chosen-and-therefore-deserved notion. It's hard to believe Redwood is really just so far removed from reality that he doesn't realise the reality of living the life you have to live, so it more probable that it is just his ingrained assumptions about the moral relation of the poor to their position coming through.

But even if he thinks the poor choose their 'lifestyle', surely even he can't think the same about the handicapped? He continues with "I am a softy when it comes to more public money and facilities for the disabled." While he might be trying to convey the idea that he is more liberal than most when it comes to supporting the disabled, the term 'softy' indicates this in a shockingly derogatory manner. Softy when it comes to helping the disabled? He might as well say he's a softy when it comes to helping someone fallen on the road out of the way of an oncoming car - a soft squishy irrational teddy bear of a man out of place in the brutal world. Public money to help part of the public that needs it most to be part of the public? How soft.

He then goes on to claim that along with his awe enspiring charity in wanting to fund poor lifestyles, and not keep disabled people effectively locked out of society, that he also wishes the poor to prosper and their living standards to improve, and that the only disagreement with the left is about the means. This might be true, since he probably doesn't actively want to keep down the poor, but the means he mentions again I think highlight how it is not these aims which are at issue in this whole debate, but his beliefs about why people are rich and poor, and which I think are the real problem, since they are in my view wrong headed and nasty. He may not want to keep them down, but in refusing to help in an effective way, the result is the same.

The crux of his argument comes when he says "I do not believe you can make the poor rich by making the rich poor. The problem is the rich do not have to hang around if you seek to make them too poor." There are so many buried assumptions and falsehoods tied into this statement that I find it hard to know where to start.

This 'make the poor rich by making the rich poor' is a famous right wing motto, and it is I think highly revealing. Firstly it again implies the riches of the rich are deserved, achieved unaided, and only hindered and never helped by the state, which can only make them poor, and never helped made them rich. But of course this ignores not only the luck involved in being at the top of society (place of birth, inheritance, connections) but also the fact that wealth accumulates exponentially, and that the set-up of society does a lot to make the rich rich, and then richer. Apart from the fact that people with some initial wealth are best positioned to make more out of it from the tangible infrastructures and institutions of society (from roads to colleges to banking systems to development), there are also the intangible conventions that mean there is no linear correlation between ability and earnings, and hence removes any real notion of deserved rewards. Otherwise, excepting some genetically modified CEO tribe, from a generation of prodigies who could work tens of times faster and smarter, there is no reason why the average executive to worker pay ratio saw an increase from 40:1 to 500:1 since 1980.

Secondly, it is a perfect strawman argument, since no credible politician has ever suggested making the rich 'poor', rather simply limiting , or actually just slowing down, how rich they can get. But it makes a great soundbite, and its notion of dashing and punishing those who (again deservedly) have succeeded, appeals to what I think is one of the best ways to describe the difference between leftwing and rightwing views. It is not about a difference in moral values overall, but a major difference in priority and focus. In my view, a plausible simplification in many areas is that rightwingers are worried most about the undeserving getting what they shouldn't, whereas the left are worried about the deserving not getting what they should. It's a bit like that famous dilemma as to whether it is better one innocent man goes to jail or 9 guilty go free. This plays out in many seemingly unrelated areas, for example in the welfare debate,whether it is more important that no one gets benefits they shouldn't, and the most important thing is to stop the cheating, or should the primary concern be to ensure no deserving claimant loses out, even if 9 cheats 'go free'.

Of course it is a grey area, with shades and degrees of emotion on both sides. Indeed probably no one, even the most ardent leftwinger, really would be ok with someone completely undeserving getting something for nothing. This can be illustrated by the case I read about recently regarding a homeless drunk in an American city. The costs involved every time he fell down drunk in the street - the police time and effort, the medical attention at an A&E ward were staggering, and since his condition wasn't improving, it all kept on happening again and again, and the burden to society just kept on rising. It was worked out that compared to this expense, it would actually be much cheaper overall for the state to just give him a free flat and provide him with therapy. But of course there's hardly anyone who would feel comfortable with this - why should a drunk get a free flat


when many non-drunks are just as in need of one. So indignation at undeserving gain is always present especially in the particular case, but I think the difference between right and left is how much they care about it, how much it dominates their thinking at the general level. It reminds me a bit of the description of a puritan as someone who is worried that someone, somewhere is having fun, what worries the right is someone is having fun they shouldn't, and what worries the left is someone is missing out on the fun they should.

There seems even to be some psychological evidence for this. This Scientific American article reports on a study that indicated "political right showed more of a “bad is stronger than good” bias than those on the left." which would fit well with this notion of the right being driven more by reaction against, and the left by action for.

And the problem is, as the Redwood article I think shows, without paying attention to and resolving these conflicting attitudes in, it's hard to make progress in the debate. It is not the ends that are the problem, or even fundamentally the means, it is the priorities and the relative valuations, and unless some progress can be made in reconciliation and compromise in this area, then all the good intentions in the world or only all so many more paving stones to hell, and balast for a handcart to head there in.

it was a riot

There were some pretty shocking scenes from the London rnd of course the sheer feral criminality on display in the looting which seemed to be the main driving force. While sparked by what could probably only tenuously be called a racial incident , it is probably true that it triggered some real and perhaps even valid racial grievances, but what followed had little to do with this in justification. To avoid misunderstanding, there is no doubt that most of the violence and all of the looting was just criminal opportunism, and completely inexcusable. But that doesn't mean that the people involved were just criminals (although they of course are now) and that it is completely inexplainable. In my view what we saw was an deprived and discarded underclass, with no hopes for or from society, taking advantage of a break down in law and order to help themselves. And of course the looting of televisions and trainers showed it wasn't a fight for survival, but enrichment. It was wrong behaviour, and of course should not be tolerated.

But, that said, while it is worrying that a 'rich' and developed country such as the UK might have such a simmering class ready to rip off what they can, what's more worrying to me is how people in the UK, and especially abroad, responded to it. I can understand outraged calls for vengeance from those directly, or even indirectly, affected, but what shocked me was the level of moral indignation, and venom, from people who had absolutely nothing to do, and importantly to lose, from the situation. Lock them up and throw away the key, teach them a lesson, were the standard responses. Why did people care so much about a few vagabeonds stealing things? Especially as in the current scheme of things, there are people a lot more deserving of our ire - for example the corrupt and incompetent politicians and bankers and developers who have brought the western economic system to the brink of collapse. In terms of impact (billions), excusability (rich already) and consequentialism (most likely to affect us again if we don't do something) surely people should be getting and staying a lot more het up about this international cadre than a few localized yobs? How come a co-worker here in Austria might rant to me about how the rioters are 'getting away with it' and not ever mention the catastrophe unfolding in famine hit Africa, or the ongoing collapse of our economies?

It points again to what I believe is necessary, but unpredictable element of our moral systems. Morality in a society is about the community as a whole, and this requires it to be more than simply a network of reciprocal tit-for-tat calculations. If individuals just took umbrage at what affected them or their kin directly, then it would not count as a moral system. What is needed is a sense of outrage and indignation at general 'wrongs' - even if they don't affect us. Only if every node of the system is disposed to react, can any violations be suppressed, and violators clamped down upon, before they and their methods spread. This is why I think moral indignation, the emotional drive to blame and see punished, evolved. A rational cost-benefit analysis would always be superseded when push came to shove, which is why group selection I think caused the reactions to be evolved in the gut.

But, just as we have natural drives which we rationally keep in check to maintain society, so these drives must be consciously and rationally channelled. It is I think insightful that contrary to its modern connotation of animal revenge, the rule of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was actually in its origin an exhortation to limit revenge to the scope of the original offence, and avoid excessive reactions.

So if he urge to react to the 'bad' is so basic, why do these distance rioters provoke such a disproportionate response? Apart from the very important and serious investigation needed into why the rioters acted as they did, and what can be done to stop such phenomenon in the future, just as important is to understand why they achieved such disproportionate relevance in the news and public discourse, and what can be done to temper and better direct the anger of people such as my co-worker. Because although moral indignation against perceived violators is needed, it is a slippery slope from there into vilification and dehumanizing segments of society. if someone is 'just' a criminal, then they are nothing else. And such prophecies have a tendency to become self fulfilling

a right royal state of affairs

Having been subjected to the whole palaver of the “will & kate” wedding, and also listening currently to some lectures on the US and French revolutions, I’m not exactly in a favourable mood to royalty at the moment, so had mixed feelings about the Queen’s visit to Ireland.

First of all let me make clear that I don’t harbor a grudge against the British (specifically the English) , since they are not individually responsible for the previous acts of their country, nor have I any issue with Britain itself, since while as an enduring entity it does have ownership of prior deeds, it has not only stopped it’s policies against us, but does and has done many things for our benefit (stopping the Nazis being the most notable, while we could cower in protected neutrality).

So if this was a state visit, by the Prime Minister, then I would consider it nothing but a good thing, a normal act between neighbours. The problem is, as Sir Humphrey might say, a question of hats, specifically a pointy metal one. Although the Queen is the head of state, she also is the living embodiment and defender of the institution of British Royalty. Now while royals from anywhere will always get my goat up, and might be welcomed as irrelevant wasters but still treated as guests, a lot of the worst things that happened in Ireland could be blamed more on the British royals than the British state. Not the invasions, or occupation, or taking of resources, or even the lasses faire cruelty in the famine, which could have been done by any state with any government, but the anti-catholic measures which were a direct result of the English crown wanting to remain protestant, and which inflicted the most objectionable hardships on Ireland, and sowed the seeds for a lot of the sectarian troubles that have racked the land ever since.

Since for most of our history ,catholic and Irish were pretty much synonymous, then I think the royal family, as distinct from the British state, have a specific debt and guilt when it comes to Ireland, which is why I think there’s something wrong about the Queen’s visit, unless it’s accompanied by acts of apology not for the acts of Britain, but the ideology of the crown that drove those acts. The problem is, there has been to my knowledge no symbolic renunciation of that ideology, and until there is I find it very out of place that the defender of that tradition, should lay a wreath for those who fought (and would still fight) against that tradition. Perhaps a slightly stretched analogy would be if a German chancellor were to lay a wreath at the cenotaph, without Germany having acknowledged that it was in the wrong in WWII. It’s not that countries can’t honour each other’s dead – I see no problem in paying tribute to dead german soldiers, since even though they fought for an evil cause, in most cases they were just swept along by that cause. But if the cause is not denounced, then the tribute is meaningless - the crown is on the one hand honouring people killed , but since the reasons behind the killing are not dealt with, in principle they’d be killed again if necessary, which defeats the purpose of it.

No one seems to mention that the hypocrisy with having the head of an insitution which explicitly discriminates against catholics, visit a catholic country, and express "sympathy" with the problems her insitution caused for them through said discrimination.

Ultimately all that’s needed is a symbolic act of contrition and denunciation of the tradition that caused ireland’s problems, but none seems forthcoming. On the contrary , the British Royalty preserves the rule that forbids a catholic ascending to the throne, then it would seem that the tradition lives on unchanged.

Of course there is pragmatism too, and in principle it is good and important that Britain and Ireland can focus on current and future partnership, and base our relation on that and not harking back to the unchangeable grievances of the past, and since that was probably the intention of the whole visit then there is a lot to be said for it. But if the Queen, who people praise always for handling things so well, and being so dignified etc. etc. really was dedicated to that mission, then surely she could make some form of apology for the 2nd institution she represents? Royals want to inherit by birth the rights and powers of the predecessors, but that means they also inherit their sins and responsibilities. Hat’s off to the queen, but only if she acknowledges the one she’s wearing.

terminate, with extreme prejudice

That apparently is the US army euphemism for assassination, and given that prejudice is never held to be a good thing, it would seem to be a self-condemning label. And in general it is, since extra-judicial killings while not only being outside of the workings of the courts, can easily be beyond the realm of justice as well, devoid as they are from the normal safeguards and procedures on which the rule of law depends.

So was the killing of an unarmed Bin Laden an assasination? And if it was, was it justified? It's interesting that the event came in the same week as Nato bombed a compound of Gadaffi's, killing his son in what was obviously an attempt to kill Gadaffi himself. Are the cases any different, or both ,or one, or neither justified?

While few people would mourn either's demise, I think Bin Laden would for sure receive least sympathy. Here was the self-confessed, proud perpetrator of an act which killed thousands of innocent people, and who remained a dangerous threat to society. Surely he would have been convicted easily, and would have received the death penalty in the US - so if both judgement and sentence were foregone conclusions, could it be so wrong to just take him out?

Gadaffi on the other hand is the head of state, and in principle the conflict there is a war between the Libyan state and NATO forces. But the very fact that the attacks on the sovereign country are to prevent 'war crimes' surely means the rules of war must be applied, and specifically the rules , i.e. the UN resolution, by which the war is being justified in international law. To put it in context, while no one considers it a war crime for Gadaffi to fire on Nato planes (just stupidity), I am sure he would go from leader to terrorist very rapidly if he somehow managed to successfully fire a scud (or whatever he uses) into 10 Downing Street or (miraculously) the White House. But if it's war, then surely the same rules apply to both sides?

Of course they must, and I think it highlights just what a paradoxical idea the notion of 'rules of war' is. The problem is, some rules are justified, but they can't operate independently of the grounds for the war itself. You can't have an unjust war fought justly, and neither can a war that is fought unjustly, ever be just. I believe there are unfortunately times when war is necessary, to preserve human life and rights, but the ends can never out rank the means - it is not morally coherent to kill civilians to save civilians, to trample human rights to further human rights. Of course war is always going to be bloody, so some utilitarian calculus will need to apply, but the whole point of rights is they can't be simply totted up and compared - the rights of each individual always count for something. This is what I think went wrong with the Iraq war - the allies were blind to the possibility, and then the reality, that the cure while not being anyway was bad as the disease, was similar to it - and not just abstractly (the general suffering and death unleashed) but also sometimes specifically - e.g. when Saddam's torture facility Abu Ghraib became infamous under it's new ownership. And this is what made it questionable - the very things that justified the war, arose in different forms because of it.

On the other hand though, if the war is justified, then I also believe there's no point being restrictive about what one can and can't do. War is war, and if necessary, then there can be no half measures - since it if justified at all then has to be completed, and completed quickly. Thus, in my view, if it's ok to kill the soldier manning the gun, then it's coherent to consider it ok to kill the commander whose order keep him there, or the leader who planned it. In fact, the commanders and leaders, since they have more power and possibility to change the situation, are in fact more culpable than the solder who is following orders. In addition, taking out 1 leader involves less bloodshed and would have more effect then taking out 10 commanders or 100 grunts.

So in fact far from being beyond the fringe in war, i think targeted assassinations are not just acceptable but even preferable, given that they have to involve less collateral damage and overall death than a clash of armies.

So I think they should be targetting Gadaffi, and I hope for everyone's sakes, the rebels, the civilians and even his soldiers, that they get him.

But what about Bin Laden? My own personal view is that if he was really just a criminal, then it would have been wrong to assassinate him, since it must be society that deals with criminals, not armies and not politicians. And crucial to the justice of society is that it follows procedure, since it is what holds the entire edifice together, and the whole is worth the occasional inefficiencies of some of its parts. But he claimed himself to be a 'at war' with the West, so surely then the rules of war apply, and make him fair game.

And even if he didn't claim to be a 'soldier' , the crucial difference between a terrorist leader and a criminal, is the terrorist leads an organization, which magnifies his intent, like Gadaffi and his army. And from this perspective, taking out the leader is again the best option, morally and practically.

Finally, it might not have been a pure assassination at all. It has been said that given the risk of him having a vest bomb to take some US troops with him (not so unlikely given the fact that he was prepared enough for an assault to have a 'getaway' robe with cash sewn into it) then the orders were to take no risks , and to kill him if 'he's not naked'. This I think would be completely justified, and a whole lot more responsible and just of the Americans than dropping a bomb from a B2 bomber.

So he's gone, and it was a good riddance. But of course we shouldn't rejoice about anyone being killed, just relieved he's gone. And just to be sure, once the initial debate has died down, let's keep him gone by denying him 'the oxygen of publicity' even in death, especially now he's under water.

society settling scores

So they got Osama. Think the only proper response is - about time. While killing him will make probably very little difference to world affairs, indeed in the short run might actually result in some retaliatory terrorist attacks, it needed to be done, and it was unbelievable it took so long.

Satisfaction on some form of justice having been done is definitely in order - but celebration? I guess in the US especially it's more a release of pent up frustration, and maybe an eruption of the a hope that maybe the new and dangerous world has been somehow put back in balance, but unfortunately this isn't the case; the world is as dangerous as it was before OBL met his demise, and if it is to change for the better, then the needed causes would have effect even if he was still around. Osama rode a wave of a certain type of feeling, and while he may have for a while acted as a focus for it's crystalization, it was always bigger than him - arising of it's own, and maybe even dissipating on it's own, neither raised nor subdued by any one man or group.

To celebrate is to be rejoice about something positive, something above the normal, but removing one mad dog from the world is not a plus, it is simply the cancelling of a minus, and it's a sad state of affairs if the only hope we can look forward to, is the removal of fear. It also isn't the most moral or ethical of reactions- since it shows the whole event is more about revenge, than justice. A society settling its scores rather than settling matters.

But while we shouldn't get carried away, either for practical or ethical reasons, the event still does count for something in both domains. Practically, it does show something that such a criminal is eventually hunted down, despite his connections and wealth. And ethically, while it has to be held in check, I think there is something telling about the need for revenge, the human drive for pure punishment, and not just justice. Rationally looked at, as long as Osama couldn't hurt anyone anymore, and his treatment served as an example to others, then we shouldn't really care what happens him, since the point of our rule of law is mainly to preserve and protect. And of course, a civilized society needs to make this the main pillar of our legal system. But to look at it just in these terms is to miss something. It overlooks the effect not on the culprit, or even on the victim, but on all those who are technically uninvolved, but still on the victim's side. For a moral society to work, these people, who might otherwise be 'disinterested' need to be made emotionally involved. And it is the desire for punishment, to inflict discomfort on those who violate the rules, that I think is the evolved mechanism which allows this involvment. It is of course based in a sense of righteousness, but coupled with a crucial desire for action, and this relies on triggering I think our most basic 'fight' response.

The problem of course is, this powerful and necessary fuel, needs to be kept in check, since otherwise can lead to the uncontrollable barbary of mob justice and vigilantism. And seeing people rejoice in crowds about the killing of another human being, while maybe necessary in this case as a release valve, and as an indicator of that retributive glue that can bind a society together, is somehow disconcerting. When passions are inflamed by the idea of justice, and revenge, then care is needed that things don't get out of hand.

So i have no problem with raising my glass to the death of such a cruel and insane individual, but only as a mark of respect to the forces for good that could put a stop to him. But celebrate? celebrate that there are such people in the world, even if now one less? Surely we've more to be glad of than that...