Reap What you Sow

In 2004 the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. Blair's visit was a culmination of a series of high profile visits by UK politicians, business leaders, and even university Vice Chancellors all willing to tap into business relationships with Libya. These co-ordinated visits all followed Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction in December 2003. Blair even went so far as to welcome Gaddafi in the fight against terrorism (ask the people of Lockerbie what they think about that) and spoke of a "new relationship". People should not forget the past, they should move beyond it, Mr Blair said.

As Mr Blair met Mr Gaddafi, it was announced Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a deal worth up to £550m for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast. And of course, despite denials to the contrary suspicions remain that UK economic interests were behind the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 57; the Libyan convicted for his role in the Lockerbie bomb. 

In the context of current events in Libya, one has to wonder about the wisdom of these visits and how they may have helped keep this vicious dictator in power. Money, power and politics; a dirty combination.

Song: Perfect Day by Lou Reed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYEC4TZsy-Y

Slightly ironic I know, but the chorus of 'You're going to reap just what you sow' seems apt in this context. And Perfect Day, well it will be when the mad Colonel is gone.

Tell You What

Sydney: Buy 2 decent steaks  from a decent butchers and some salad from wherever. Season the steaks; light the BBQ; add dressing to the salad; burn steak due to topping up wine; eat steaks; have more wine; wash dishes = $40 (approx, not including wine).

Go to a decent pub get someone to do it all for you = $30 (not including wine, but pick a byo!).

Eat in, or eat out?...you decide.

The Distillers - The Hunger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3vlE6f3VPk)

Political Conscience

Ok an interesting talk by Ronald Beiner (Political Science, University of Toronto - http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~w3pol/faculty_beiner.htm). Looked at the concept of political conscience (basically freedom of conscience) in Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke and argued that it was largely derived from a commitment to intellectual freedom rather than religious freedom.

Problem is, for Hobbes the idea of free will is an illusion, hence the idea of 'freedom of conscience' would likewise be an illusion; well if consistency is something we value; and it should be. So why would Hobbes be concerned with freedom of conscience? Well although free will (and freedom of conscience) is an illusion, the illusion is real; people really think they are free to think what they want. This gives Hobbes a problem as an illusion can't be controlled. So where does that leave the omnipotent Leviathan? Well, if 'freedom of conscience' can't be controlled, best to say it's not a concern for the Leviathan. After all, if you try and control something that can't be controlled you'll only demonstrate your impotence; ah shame! So best to say that privately people are free to believe just what they want. Publicly however, they can't translate these beliefs into 'practice'; they have to adhere to the public religion. So it's a win-win situation for Hobbes. He gives people some freedom, but stops them from engaging in practices on the basis of that freedom.

Song: Try Frankie goes to Hollywood, The Power of Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zARg_K4jRhA). Figure it out your self, but don't go too far into this you'll end up with the Thompson Twins!

Killing Moon

It's 2.30p.m and I'm killing time (where did that phrase come from; why killing?) waiting to attend a talk on political conscience that starts at 3.00. Made me remember one of my favourite songs by Echo and the Bunnymen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX1PwkgwsG0).

Yesterday I went to the Lowy Institute in Sydney CBD. It was an interesting talk by Andy Mack on the declining level of casualties as a result of war. It was a reasonable argument, and I'm in no position to challenge the data, which comes from the project Andy runs (http://www.hsrgroup.org/press-room/press-kits/20092010-press-kit.aspx). Conceptually, however, Andy seemed to be placing a lot of faith in the trend continuing due to the presence of nuclear weapons. Underpinning most of his arguments, however, was a problematic assumption re state rationality. State rationality after Iraq? Pull the other one.