Miscellaneous stuff in the news

[snorkackcatcher]

Logging of phonecalls and text messages now law in the UK, with the information available to quite a range of public bodies. Web pages accessed have been recorded in the same way for years (one reason I'm twitchy about comms that link to borderline material). It's to stop the Terrorists and Paedophiles, don't you know -- the criticism-shielding magic words of today, just like Communists, Anarchists, Jacobins and so on in previous years.

This sucks, but it's the sort of thing that comes in by default -- it can be done, so governments do it, unless they run into a shitstorm of protest as in 1844. Which is why the spokesman's claim of "(To say) that all of a sudden anyone and everyone's information is available, that all these authorities somehow have the right to go fishing and snooping, simply isn't the case" isn't especially meaningful. You'd expect any safeguards to slowly dissipate with the usual mission creep until fishing and snooping are common -- in the way that, for example, police officers have used vehicle registration data to track down ex-spouses and so on (as I recall).

-----

The rhetoric against Iran seems to be ramping up in the US. Is anyone really supposed to take the details of these motions seriously? It's the same create-a-war-buzz playbook used for Iraq, presumably on the assumption that they won't get called on it. Because the war with Iraq was such a resounding success, there's no way a war with Iran could not be totally successful in creating a stable Middle East, right? I hope Gordon Brown has more sense than to get us involved in this potential new fuck-up, but I don't have too much confidence on that score.

-----

Something lighter: a survey shows that chocolate can be good for you. This is the best health survey EVER.

Comments

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

I shouldn't worry too much about anything happening in Iran, rhetoric or not. Bush hasn't got the support either in Congress or in public that he'd need to pull that off before leaving office. Everyone's more or less counting the days. And any Republican who runs on a pro-war platform will be flattened.

(At least that is my very great hope; otherwise my home country will have gone even farther down into the pits than I'd have thought -- and I can think very deeply down.)

[snorkackcatcher]

Worryingly, I don't think he actually needs support, or cares about it. He's not personally running for re-election, after all -- but doubtless he wants to pull something out that he thinks will make him look good to history. And since AFAIK Congress just voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- you know, their national army -- a terrorist organisation, commentators seem to think that will already be enough for him to claim to be able to take action under that earlier 'the President has authority to do anything he likes to stop terrorism' motion.

The USA under people like the current lot is ... well, alarming actually, considering their power to screw things up for others, as are the possibilities for where the country could go over the next 25 years or so if things really start going badly militarily and/or economically. Let me add hastily that Third Reich analogies are of course wildly overblown, but there's a hint of Second Reich paranoia and belligerence in current attitudes.

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

Oh wow, I hadn't heard about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard thing -- I've been a bit out of touch for the last few days and I just heard about the Prime Minister at Columbia, which was in itself very disappointing.

Bush definitely either doesn't genuinely believe he lacks support, or is convinced he doesn't need it (Cheney certainly doesn't think he needs it -- that man is Satan), and he's content to do whatever the hell he wants between now and next November. What I hope is that Congress will stonewall, especially on the war issue. Will they do that? I don't know. If they don't, the Democratic candidates will feel the burn when election season comes up. They did, after all, run their entire 2006 campaign on an anti-war platform.

And yes, I completely agree that the current administration is terrifying. I find them terrifying and I have a US passport. Economically, we're already in a mess (the current exchange rate plunge speaks to that effect) and we need to get out of it. Unfortunately, nobody in Washington seems to be listening.

[snorkackcatcher]

I believe about half the Dem senators voted for the Revolutionary Guard motion -- including Hillary Clinton -- so my confidence in their willingness to stonewall is sadly limited. D:

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

Oy. Oh dear. I had no idea. This is very discouraging.

[mrstater.livejournal.com]

I just love how our policy of democratizing the world also involves refusing to meet with the president of one of the countries we would like to democratize. But don't even get me started...

[snorkackcatcher]

A rather childish style of 'diplomacy', isn't it?

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

If we'd done that 1844 scandal in A-level history, when we seemed to cover everything _boring_ that happened in C19 government, I would have enjoyed it much more. And now I know where "Graham wafers" come from.

I find it hard to believe that Brown would get involved in any attack on Iran. It would be instant political suicide.

[snorkackcatcher]

I'm impressed you've heard of the Graham wafers! (I'd like one on cover for my collection, but they run to about £300 at auction.)

And I hope you're right about Brown, but some of his political moves -- such as inviting Maggie to tea -- have been questionable.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

'Twas in my usual context os "some novel or other". Beyond that, I've no idea!