The Obscurer

Thursday 11th November 2004

Smack Habit

The recent proposal to change the law on smacking saw the same old arguments trotted out on both sides of the debate. I imagine we will see a re-run of this argument year on year until smacking is finally banned, as I imagine it eventually will.

Personally, I hope I never smack my son. I certainly don’t intend to, although I guess you should never say never. It is not that I think it is a terrible thing to administer a light smack now and then; I just think that if a child is to learn right from wrong they should understand why doing something is wrong. I feel that if a child behaves itself just because they fear they will get a slap if they misbehave, then they will not really learn anything other than that violence and the threat of violence is a useful tool in life.

The usual argument against a ban is the old nanny state argument; that it is not the job of Government to interfere in the family. This seems a very poor argument to me. The Government does interfere in the family already; to put it crassly, you are not allowed to stab your child for example, and I would imagine that pro-smackers would not suggest the state should not be involved at all in the family; it is just a matter of where the line is drawn. Some people believe that the law should allow them to act in a certain way with their own children; if they were to do the same to an adult, or someone else’s child, it would be considered either criminal or common assault. Funny then that a great many criminal assaults could, put another way, be considered the result of a fight between 2 consenting adults; it could be argued that the state has less right to interfere in these circumstances than in the case of a adult hitting a child, where the child does not consent and is effectively powerless to hit back.

An argument put by Janet Daley amongst others last week was to say “what else other than a smack will teach a child a lesson when they have run into a busy road?”. The pure wrongheadedness of this defence of smacking I find mindboggling. If you are unable to explain to a child why running into the road is dangerous, then you have to worry about the communication skills of the parent. Too often it seems to me that smacking is just the lazy option. Pro-smackers will talk of how a light smack admistered in a loving family environment is perfectly all right; but how often have you seen a smack administered in a supermarket, say, which is nothing to do with loving family discipline, and everything to do with a rattled and stressed parent losing it with their child, often because the child, though perhaps a bit noisy, is not obviously doing something wrong?

However, for all these points, I cannot support a full ban on smacking. Despite my own preference, I feel uncomfortable with legislation which would prevent other people from administering corporal punishment. The reason I think is purely cultural. I was smacked as a child, and to use the popular cliche, it never did me any harm. I really cannot agree that a smack is tantamount to child abuse, as some people seem to be saying, and I would doubt there are many, if any, cases where instances of actual child abuse can be traced back to a parent first smacking a child, then beating their child, and developing to other forms of violence over time. Such things surely have other root causes.

There also seems to be no great public pressure for all forms of smacking to be banned, and I am always wary when the Legislature is trying to run ahead of public opinion, although I am quite happy to be a total hypocrite on this matter when it suits me (for example, on Capital Punishment). But I think public opinion on this matter will change over time; I would imagine that most people of my generation were smacked. I would bet (and I have nothing to really back this up other than a hunch) that far fewer of my sons generation will have been smacked, and so they may grow up viewing the common law defence of smacking children as we now view the common law defence of smacking wives and servants. When public opinion backs a full ban, then maybe things will change.

But that will be a while off yet. Should the new bill pass through the Lords it will be reviewed in 2 years time, but as the vote on a full ban was defeated by 424 votes to 75 I cannot see there being much change. So I think we will be waiting at least a generation or so until a full ban can implemented; plenty of time, you would think, for those ardent supporters of smacking to think up better arguments than they currently rely on.

Leave a comment
Thursday 4th November 2004

Bad Impression

I will never forget the time I went to see Frank Sidebottom at Bradford University. He was to be supported by Phil Cornwell, known at the time for being the voice of Mick Jagger on Steve Wright’s terrible Radio 1 show. Anyway, after around half an hour or so waiting for the support act to bother to turn up, Frank obviously thought “bugger this”, and went on to do his act anyway, and very amusing he was too.

That would have been the end of it, a simple story of the support act not turning up; except halfway through Frank’s act, Cornwell (as he shall now be known) bundled himself onto the stage and proceeded to try to do his act, thinking I guess that Frank would vacate the stage. Frank, presumably under the correct impression that he was the headline act, declined to leave the stage, and carried on with his set. Cornwell was not put off however, and tried to carry on despite the booing that was beginning to emanate from the crowd. He then tried to interrupt Frank and acted as if he was part of a double act; if he was, then there was no doubt who was the straight man. The abuse from the audience grew in volume, and finally culminated in someone shouting “Hit him Frank” about 5 seconds before I was about to; the crowd then erupted in cheers. I think Cornwell finally got the message. We hear sometimes of speakers trying to incite crowds in acts of violence, but I suspect this was the first time it has happened the other way round, especially when the person being incited is wearing a papier mache head.

I mention this because it appears that Cornwell is still being gainfully employed, and at licence-fee payers expense no less, on the TV show “Dead Ringers”. Tragically, I was freezing my bollocks off on Monday watching a dire attempt at Premiership football, and as a result I missed the “Dead Ringers US Election Special” on BBC2. I believe this is the first of a new series, and so I will have to come up with a different excuse not to watch it next week. Perhaps I will just go back to the City of Manchester stadium; match or no match it would be preferable to watching “Dead Ringers”.

Now I know we are in deeply subjective territory when we walk about sense of humour, but for me the failure of “Dead Ringers” shows a problem with impressionist shows in general; “Bremner, Bird and Fortune” is similarly weak. The problem I think is that so much effort goes into getting the impressions right that often the jokes simply get forgotten; it often seems as if the writers think it is enough just to refer to something that has happened in the news to show that they are being topical. With that they think the job has been done.

What is more surprising is the acclaim both programmes receive; it is very rare you ever read a bad word about “Bremner…” Or “Dead Ringers”, and I just can’t fathom it. Perhaps it shows the lack of satirical programmes on the television; in the absence of good satire, bad satire will just have to do. Or maybe there is some conspiracy in favour of impressionists; “Stella Street”, another show “starring” Cornwell, also got rave reviews, despite the fact that not only were the jokes appalling, but so were the impressions themselves.

Alistair MacGowan’s “Big Impression” illustrates perfectly the problem with impression shows; it can be genuinely funny, such as in a sketch where Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn are running a mobile cafe; it is directed in the Hitchcock style, complete with a Bernard Herrman-like score to emphasise the drama of running out of Kit Kats. But this is an example of where the comic scenario comes first. In contrast, when he does David Beckham or Sven Goran Erickson, the result is usually poor; he does it because he feels he has to do it, because they are people in the news, and then the joke has to follow on from that need to be topical, rather than coming from true inspiration.

Contrast this with Harry Hill, whose “TV Burp” has recently returned to ITV1, and is almost the only watchable programme on the channel (other than repeats of “Inspector Morse”). He may not be to everyone’s taste but at least for him the joke comes first. He does impressions, and they are generally terrible, but it doesn’t matter because the jokes are funny anyway.

I will continue to watch Harry Hill because he has me in stitches; “Bremner…” And “Dead Ringers” drive me up the wall, so I will leave them to the TV reviewers. Phil Cornwell at least is able to say that he makes me laugh; but only when I recall that day supporting Frank Sidebottom, 14 years or so ago.

Leave a comment
Thursday 4th November 2004

And More

Chris Bertram, writing in “Crooked Timber” about the recent study published in The Lancet, which claims there have been nearly 100,000 additional deaths in Iraq as a result of the war, wonders if “there is some figure which, if verified, would lead the enthusiasts for this war to conclude that it was a mistake.” I suspect that there isn’t, and the reaction to the report shows why; any figure produced which casts a negative light on the invasion will simply not be believed by the supporters of the war.

Now I am not going to get into a lengthy debate about statistics; if I had a decent understanding of them then I would have a better job than I currently do. In any case, if you get hung up on any particular statistic, you are likely to come unstuck fairly soon when a conflicting statistic is produced, as almost inevitably it will. But I found some interesting reading in a number of reports critical of the study, in particular Fred Kaplan in Slate and Tim Worstall in Tech Central Station. If I have understood correctly, then one of the main concerns expressed is that the report suggests the number of deaths since the war lies between 8,000 and 194,000, and so may be well short of the headline figure of 100,000. Of course it may well also be much higher that 100,000, but those supporters of the war are unlikely to want to believe that figure, and understandably so. But what struck me was that if we take the lowest, most conservative figure of 8,000, that this is still 8,000 extra deaths compared with the number of dead in the equivalent period prior to the war, when Iraq was under the brutal and murderous dictatorship of Saddam’s regime. To put that in perspective, that is still more than the highest estimate for the number of deaths that occurred in Halabja in the terrible gas attack of 1988. It is still a considerable figure.
A number of reports, (see “Lenin’s Tomb” and Tim Lambert for examples) rebut these complaints of the study and in some quarters there has been a certain amount of rowing back. Tim Worstall has subsequently said that he “completely bollixed the statistical part of my argument”; however he still insists there is “something fishy” about the study. Natalie Solent is generous enough to include links to both Lambert’s article and Worstall’s apology, but still says it is her “gut feeling” that the Lancet study is wrong.

Well, in relation to gut feeling, none of us are experts on everything, and we often rely on our gut feelings to inform our opinions; I am no exception. I am certainly not qualified to say whether the Lancet is right or wrong, and scepticism towards any statistic is healthy I feel. But if the supporters of the war are unlikely to accept the figures in the Lancet, perhaps the study may achieve something, as is shown at the end of Kaplan’s article.

Here, in attacking the Lancet, he praises the work of Iraq Body Count, whose “count is triple fact-checked; their database is itemized and fastidiously sourced.” Their figure for deaths in Iraq is currently between 14,219 and 16,352. Perhaps the lasting result of the Lancet report is that more credibility will be given to the Iraq Body Count; after all, 14,219 additional deaths sound bad enough to me.

Briefly on the US election, and the electorate’s choice of the dunce over the dullard, I don’t think I can put it any better than in this post in “Shot By Both Sides”. As I’ve said before, the American public had an uneviable choice; I’m just glad it’s all over.

Leave a comment
Sunday 31st October 2004

The Human Brain

The human brain is an amazing thing, don’t you think? Amazing in its complexity; in the way that different sides of you brain perform different tasks, how each part of each side of your brain specialises in certain complex functions.

As an example, let’s look at my brain and its attitude to The Peel Centre in Stockport. There is a part of my brain which is convinced that it has a free car park, despite all empirical evidence to the contrary, starting with the fact the free car parking policy was abandoned around 8 years ago, and supported by the evidence of the 2 parking fines I have received there in the past few years for not buying a pay-and-display ticket.

This is a different part of my brain to that which operated yesterday at The Trafford Centre; then, when I realised that I couldn’t find anything suitable to buy my niece for her birthday in any of its shops, I decided I would have to go to Toys ‘r’ Us at the Peel Centre, and I checked that I had the 40p car parking money in change.

It is also a different part of my brain to that which was working as I entered the car park, and I thought I would try and park as near to the ticket machine as possible, before seeing how full the car park was and deciding that parking anywhere at all would be just have to do.

Clearly then something happened, probably when I was transferring my sleeping son from the car seat into his pushchair whilst trying (successfully) not to wake him. Somewhere along the line the “no, don’t worry, this is a free car park” part of my brain kicked in, and off I went around Toys ‘r’ Us without a care in the world, and 40p in change still happily jangling in my pocket.

Why was it that an hour and a half later, whilst failing to find basics like salt and rice in Asda, that the other “you fucking idiot, you’ve forgotten to get a pay-and-display ticket for The Peel Centre car park. Again” part of my brain reared up and slapped me across the chops? I do not know. The brain is like that. (Incidentally, I decided to shop at Asda for a change; another big mistake. Something that would take me 10 minutes in Morrisons, a shop I know like the back of my hand, took 45 minutes in a store whose layout I was totally unfamiliar with). That is why the great saving of £5, on a “buy 3 for the price of 2” offer at Toys ‘r’ Us, was largely overshadowed by the £40 parking fine I received; or £60 if I don’t post it within a week.

Of course, I should have realised; there is no such thing as a free car park.

Along with the parking fiasco, yesterday included trivial but cumulatively more irritating incidents involving snapping carrier bag handles, mislaid Tippex, CBeebies, an intermittently working oven and our dog who barks everytime a firework goes off, at a rough ratio of 3 barks per firework. I was not in the best of moods, so hats off to Portsmouth F.C. for their 2-0 victory over United, which along with a bottle of Hardys Bankside 2003 Cabernet Sauvignon certainly took the sting out of an annoying and somewhat self-pitying day.

4 Comments
Thursday 28th October 2004

Don't Look Back

I have considered The Guardian’s kind offer for me to interfere in the US Election, and I have decided to keep my nose and my bad English teeth out of it. For one thing, I know how I would react if I received a letter from an American telling me how to vote; for another I just have no enthusiasm for Kerry, no matter how much I may dislike Bush. Quite frankly, I am glad I don’t have to choose between them. In any event, I have little idea about their individual domestic agendas; I don’t believe British politicians much when they start quoting statistics and criticising their opponents policies, so I am not going to start on Americans. And on foreign policy, if this article on BBC News is to be believed, there may be little difference in practice whoever wins next week.

In case you can’t be bothered reading the link, the gist of it is that there has been some criticism recently within Republican circles, led by former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, that the neo-conservative experiment under the Bush administration has run its course, and that it is time for the United States to operate a more pragmatic foreign policy, more akin to that which Kissinger was so associated with.

To some extent this is a bit harsh on the neo-cons; as William Kristol explained on Newsnight last week, many neo-cons are as annoyed as anyone about the way Bush has enacted their ideas, and the quagmire (well, everyone else is using that word, so why shouldn’t I?) in Iraq reflects unfairly on their theories. Just because Iraq hasn’t worked out (yet) according to plan, doesn’t mean that the neo-con theories themselves are dead.

The problem I believe is that even if I agreed with the idea of unilateralism which is intrinsic to the neo-conservative agenda (I don’t), and even if I thought its motives were entirely honourable (I don’t), the idea that the USA and whichever allies decide to tag along will go around benevolently knocking nasty regimes off their perches is totally unrealistic, as I argued in “The Next War”. The theory that an altruistic America would democratise the world has much appeal, but even America doesn’t have the resources to do it; I don’t believe for one moment that I am the only person to realise this, and to that extent the war in Iraq was in some ways as pragmatic a decision as those made during the Kissinger era. Whatever the claims of the pro-war supporters, I believe that if Iraq had less oil, was in Africa, had a more fearsome armed forces and hadn’t pissed-off the President’s Dad and his old buddies in the new administration, then the war would not have happened, no matter how deep the mass graves in Halabja. Pragmatism still allows us to cosy up to nasty regimes such as the one in Uzbekistan, where the British Ambassador was recently suspended.

But at least there is some sort of moral compass buried deep in the heart of the neo-cons ideas (although always near the surface when they run into difficulties on Iraq) about involving ourselves in other countries when the ugly side of humanity gets busy. In contrast the Kissinger-Scowcroft ideology has no such redeeming feature; it is purely driven by American self interest, and if that means supporting mass-murdering dictatorships in South East Asia and undermining democracies in South American then that is what it will do. Sorry, that is what it did do.

Now it is entirely understandable that the USA, like every other country, is going to be driven largely by self interest, and it would be unrealistic for it to be any other way. And of course pragmatism is often a very good idea for many obvious reasons. But I find it deeply depressing to hear John Kerry in the States, and the likes of Menzies Campbell in this country, getting massive rounds of applause when they say that if they were in Government they would not commit troops under any circumstances unless it was in the national interest. That wasn’t why I opposed the war; I wasn’t thinking just of the national interest.

Whatever the faults of the neo-con agenda, to return to a Kissinger-type policy would be a retrograde step. I know it may sound idealistic, in fact I know it does, but is it not possible to combine the idea of pre-emption against dangerous and despotic regimes with a genuine multilateral approach, perhaps under the UN but under a new organisation if required, which could be housed in a framework of fair International Law? Can we not get an independent body, free of national interests, perhaps guided by the likes of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch to decide which are the most abusive regimes currently in existence, and where the most pressing current human rights crises are, and then to methodically bring them to book? Perhaps then we could actually intervene meaningfully and swiftly in the worlds troublespots, with the richest countries leading the UN’s work rather than leaving it to the poorest countries as we often do now.

Naive ideas, I suppose, and naively put, but at least it shows the direction I think we should be going in.

Leave a comment