Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
How is King condemned out of his own mouth as unprincipled? He supports a new nuclear power programme. He said he would resign if he came under political pressure to modify his views. I think you're just biased against the Guardian George.
Speaking of which its new 'Berliner' format and stunning print quality make it a contender for best newspaper on the planet imo. Two brilliant articles over the weekend
by Princeton University History professor Linda Colley on American and British imperialism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1669330,00.html
and a piece by Ian Cobain on British a torture centre in Germany which made me feel thoroughly sick and ashamed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1669544,00.html
I was referring to Mr. King's overwrought protestations of his unsullied scientific integrity, coupled as they were with his odd, somewhat out of place, affirmation that, though he recognizes the utility of nuclear power as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he steadfastly opposes any government aid or subsidy for it. This was a bit incongruous coming from one who, at the same time advocates (and in some cases oversees) government aid to other "sustainable" forms of energy production. Clearly a sop thrown to the loonie greens who are his most important public constituency (and whose opposition to nuclear power is equally illogical). I am also aware of Mr. King's other attempts to silence contrarian views from within the scientific community as they relate to the orthodox cult of accelerating global warming. In short he is a hypocrite and, to paraphrase the Bard, 'doth protest too much' an innocence whiich I believe he lost long ago.
I readily accept your charge that I don't like the Guardian. I see it as far more a trumpet for certain fixed points of view than the guardian of truth that it purports to be. The clarity and beauty of its typeface may well be all that you claim. It's what is printed that I generally don't like.
I took the trouble of reading carefully the two pieces you linked.
Linda Colley's piece on comparative imperialism was a typical product of our liberal academic establishment, fit only for the Guardian and favored liberal journals, but not able to withstand even moderate intellectual scrutiny. Armed only with the observation that there were/are altruistic components to both the European imperialisms and the American one which she seeks to associate them, she concludes that they are equivalent. This is a both a tortured stretching of the meaning of words such as "empire" and "imperialism", and a laughable non sequitor. Though it is delivered with suitable academic piety and pretense, it is sophistry. There have been no analogues to Rhodes or Raffles in the American postwar "imperialism' (unless you consider Liberia to be the model for it all). While we sought reliable overseas sources for needed commodities, we did not attempt to regulate their trade or prevent the development of indigenous industry as in the European model -- and, most importantly, we did not attempt to directly govern their lives. On the contrary we have (during this period at least) been consistent advocates of free trade, and (unless we thought our security was seriously threatened) free political development. Nothing in India, Africa, Southeast Asia or the Americas threatened the security of England, France, Spain, Portugual, or The Netherlands in any way at all. There is no real analogy here.
I can't really comment on the piece about the 1947 British prison in Germany, except to note that its publication is presumably intended to associate these events with allegations currently afoot about American treatment of detainees. However, taking the descriptions offered of the treatment of the prisoners in this camp as literaly true, one can note that the accusations levied against the United States in this area aren't even in the same league with them. What then is the point?
