Begin
Day One of the rest of my life
It already feels good. I went online and read some of the comments underneath George Monbiot's recent columns about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It seemed to me that the response was fairly evenly balanced between loud, incensed supporters of Monbiot's line (whose go-for-it tone echoed that of Goldacre's supporters when he stuck McKeith's head on a stick) and calm, methodical dissidents. Of course, it quckly descended into a firefight, but from what I read, the rationalists ie. those that accept the official account of what happened on September 11, 2001 (four planes hijacked by Muslim extremists, three crashed into buildings, one crashed into wood due to heroic passenger action, two buildings fell down due to impact and fire, and third fell down due to fire) came across as much tetchier and hysterical - and abusive - than those who question the official account. I'm sure you can find me examples of comments that disprove my observations, but that was the feeling I got from ploughing through hundreds of postings. You operate no door policy, above and beyond simple registration, you cannot complain about who comes barging in. The difference, I realised, between my blog, and the online Monbiot columns is that the author of the original piece does not get involved with the discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see Monbiot weighing into the 9/11 discussion. This also appeared to be the case with the Gillian McKeith thread on badscience.net - Goldacre himself is probably too busy to get involved. He does have a job, after all.
And that's the main difference between me and George Monbiot and Ben Goldacre, apart from size of online community. They both publish in a national daily newspaper read by potentially tens of thousands of people; their pieces are automatically reprinted online, where comment is invited, sometimes a trickle, sometimes a flood, either way upholding the double-headed torch of interactivity and democracy. I don't have a column in a national daily newspaper. What I write here is written exclusively for the blog and is thus a lot more off-the-top-of-my-head and free-form than something I'd write for publication. However, once the discussion starts, trickle or flood, I join in. How nice it must be to step back and let the debate rage on its own. I wish I could.
I support the idea of free speech. I just wish I could stay away from some of it, as it makes my ribcage vibrate with ire. This is a shame, as I am actually at peace with my instincts about food and health. Anyway, I have decided to desist from publishing any more posts on this blog from people just prodding me in the chest and telling me that homeopathy doesn't work or that Vitamin C can't prevent cancer or that [insert name of nutritionist here] is killing people. They come dressed as hard fact, and leave no room for counter-argument. The superior tone that comes with their iron-certainty just makes me cross, and I'd rather not post these comments up on my wall. I freely admit to this change in policy. I've never done it before, but this is self-preservation. I have spent so much of the last week feeling pent-up and preoccupied I need to make some changes if I am to live a full and happy life. I hope you will respect that wish. If you want to tell me that homeopathy doesn't work, I can't stop you - good heavens, there's a direct email link on this site. I'm all too accessible. But why not instead hang around churches and try to talk people who believe in God to pull themselves together? Remember, my original post about McKeith was as a counter-argument, on my own wall, to a piece published in the newspaper. I didn't start the argument. Nor will ignoring a few lingering posts about it finish the argument. It's in the public domain. I had two perfectly sensible people I work with tell me why McKeith was a menace to society, both of them quoting what they had read in the paper. The power of the print media there.
Unfortunately, I am one of those people who distrusts the official line. There is so much propaganda in this media-saturated world it's impossible to take anything at face value, whether it's what the drugs companies tell us, or what newspapers tell us, or what our leaders tell us. We live in a post-BSE world and we live in a post-WMD world. Two good reasons to take the official line with a pinch of salt? I say: question everything. Ask: who benefits? Who stands to gain the most? Whose interests are being protected? There's a fantastic, calm, clear, non-hysterical appraisal of biofuels in the latest Ecologist, which pretty much dismisses the Ethanol revolution, giving reason after reason, backed up with figures, why it does not offer a viable alternative to fossil fuels. And it reminds us who stands to gain from its promotion as the quick environmental fix: the biotech companies who can't make us eat GM food but might be able to convince us to put GM fuel in our cars, and the industrial agribusiness lobby (especially in the US, where the subsidised switch to growing profitable palm oil and beet for fuel has already pushed the price of meat up, as there's less cattle feed being produced). My guess though is that we'll hear a lot about ethanol as the miraculous answer to climate change over the next few years, when the real, unsexy answer, which does not benefit the big corporations, is to use less petrol.
Hey, I was only going to publish the cover of the Independent. All comments welcome. Well, nearly all. I'm going to make a supreme effort to get back to blogging about TV programmes and goldfinches. Is it possible to put the genie back in the bottle?
posted by Andrew Collins @ 4:10 PM
23 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
23 Comments:
I think you should take each issue and examine in on it's own merits and not blindly accept it. Whether it be 9/11 conspiracies or UFO's
My only real comment in the whole of homeothapy-gate (hehe sorry) was that homeothapy was 'utter bollocks', which on reflection was flippant and glib. I looked into it some years back and came to the conclusion that it was unlikely to work. I think poster 'mike' quite eloquently provided scientic reasons with reference to empirical experments et al..
Since I looked at it nothing has ever given me any reason to change that view, and so I won't be spending any of my money on these remedies. (why/how does it work? - no need to answer, the debate will only rage again!) As for vitamin C.. different subject.. we could spend our lives trying to work out what's good/bad for us.
Right I'm off to bury my head in the sand and play in the sunshine..
When are you going to tell us what you think of Heroes?
Hope you saw Sundays Conspiracy Files on BBC2. It was a reasoned and well produced look at 9/11 conspiracy theories. It did sort of conclude that there wasn’t a conspiracy before the attack but there was one after, as Bush’s Government tried to cover up the total incompetence of the FBI and the CIA who had a couple of the terrorists virtually under their noses.
The ‘Loose Change’ makers were there as were a couple of other ‘doubters’. I’m afraid that they did come over as being unable to even comprehend they could be wrong. Dylan Avery did only appear to be interested in promoting his film and surprise surprise a ‘Hollywood’ version is on the way.
But a very interesting programme and next weeks on Dr David Kelly should be good.
Ian
PS Just read the 3rd Edition of your Billy Bragg Biog. Very enjoyable and one of the best Music books I have read, when is your next tome due?
That’s it praise over let the arguments, sorry debate begin!
Andrew, hope your changes to the blog (and newspaper) make you happy - you've been a brave man responding to all the abuse you've had in the last week. As a reader (but not much of a comment maker)of your original BBC blog and this one I'd like to say thanks for keeping it going. Now, back to music and telly.
Andrew,
I respect your decision - it's your blog and you're the one who runs the door policy. I can't help thinking though that your argument cuts both ways.
You say you're fed up of being bombarded with messages of "iron-certainty" delivered with a "superior tone" - but you don't go a long way to the middle ground yourself (your comment that they might as well go and shout at churchgoers for their beliefs implies that they, and you, are not for moving) and some of your words for those whose views you doubt or disagree with could also be seen as superior.
You choose to believe the evidence re. biofuels in the Ecologist that you've cited (not read it, so couldn't comment - though I am led to believe the stats re some biofuels don't stack up from my own professional work), but were you to read an equally well argued piece in, say, the Lancet, which didn't align itself quite so closely with your general world view, would you be so outspoken on it's behalf?
At the end of the day, it's about views, and the differences therein are what makes life interesting. I'm sure you have felt overwhelmed by the weight of opposition to your views in previous posts (who wouldn't feel a little put upon?) but with very few exceptions I thought points were thoughtfully and, more importantly, politely put (even if forcefully - there is a difference). For my own part, I happen to disagree with some (but by no means all) of what you said in those debates, but it hasn't stopped me posting or checking back to see your latest posts. An ultra-sanitised "AC-world view only please" forum might well do that, but it would be a sad loss.
Keep at it, please!
Steve, my seemingly pathological scepticism always falls down on this side of the fence, with those who have the most to gain on the other side. In matters medical, the all-powerful drugs companies have the most to gain. In matters biofuel-related, the governments and the lobbies of biotech companies and industrial agribusiness have the most to gain. With September 11, again, the Bush administration had the most to gain from it being an attack by "evildoers" on America that unleashes all that is has neatly unleashed. With mobile phones, clearly the telecommunications companies have the most to gain from there being no link with cancer. We're always the last to know. Do you see where I'm coming from. I hope that doesn't make me a nutcase. I don't simply discount everything I read or hear, I just leave the door open. That isn't cast-iron certainty. I wish I had cast-iron certainty.
To repeat, the reason one or two persistent contributors won't see their comments up here is that I am sick of reading them. I still invite debate. Just no more fucking homeopathy or Vitamin C. It's getting us nowhere.
As you already know, once the genie has been unleashed, it can't be put back in the bottle (try to think of it as squirty cream from Anchor*)
The Guardian has in recent months(oh who am I kidding-YEARS)become less radical with every re-positioning. Much like the Labour Party. I suppose for myself I should have known it was going wrong when Jeremy Hardy and Mark Steel(your very own looky-likey) were bumped from their regular columns. And then GMG decided it knew best when it came to radio stations too.
I don't want to be spoon fed ideology at the best of times, and certainly not from the "newlabourguardiandailymail-lite" of recent months.
Sorry, I'm rambling now.
I've found the debate of the last week interesting on a number of levels. Not least because it seems to embody the issue of how to balance 'pathological scepticism' and hopeful idealism, both of which can (and often do) co-exist in equal measure within the individual.
Personally I'm pathologically sceptical enough to question whether governments and big business EVER behave within a moral framework resembling my own (and can they even be expected to? Another debate altogether...). But I've also ( until relatively recently) been 'hopefully idealsitic' enough to expect, for example, that a paper which has always broadly aligned itself with the Left might continue to reflect that alignment editorially. Since I decided that The Guardian no longer performed that function, I've continued to read it, but on a different level; ie, largely for the cartoons. A reductionist approach, but it works for me. I had to look elsewhere in my reading for inspiration.
Sorry, Andrew, that you got so battered around in the 'knockabout' of the last week; I can appreciate that you probably need a break now!
By the way am I the only person in the world to never have seen a single minute of The Sopranos, The Wire, The OC, ER, or The West Wing?
I know that this is a little off topic but the following comment raised a few issues for me:-
But why not instead hang around churches and try to talk people who believe in God to pull themselves together?
I go to church on a regular basis but am fascinated and very open minded about all religions. So my first thought on reading this was - How awful to picture someone standing outside my church and telling me I am wrong to go. But of course there are certain sectors of my own religion (not the church I go to I hasten to add) that stand on street corners and preach to the Saturday Shoppers. I have to say that I disapprove of such practices as my belief is that everyone has a right to believe what they want and no one has the right to try to forcibly change their minds.
My point here is that there will always be people on this planet who believe beyond all possible doubt that they are right and who also believe that it is their right to enforce this point on others. We then choose whether we keep our beliefs, keep an open mind or be led off in another direction entirely.
Well done and respect to you Andrew. I wish I had whatever you've got. I stopped having The Guardian delivered a couple of years ago and stopped buying it everyday over 6 months ago, but I still read online(everyday), still buy it ( and the Observer) at the weekend and still choose it when I actually buy a paper.
Despite an increase it what I don't like about it, there remains stuff I do like. I've dabbled some alternatives, but nothing feels right and I can't shake the feeling that it's My Paper... and I like having a a paper....maybe I'm lacking in moral fibre, maybe I need to go cold turkey and give it time? are there any tried and tested withdrawal methods out there? And is it worth trying given that my partner is at a job interview at GMG right this second? (and he gets every job he applies for, the annoying swine!)
Anyway, this is not life and death so on to more important things....
Nice sunny day here and in spite of 2nd floor flat location I have several goldfinches frequenting my window feeder as I type. Hurrah! Genie be gone......
"To repeat, the reason one or two persistent contributors won't see their comments up here is that I am sick of reading them. I still invite debate. Just no more fucking homeopathy or Vitamin C. It's getting us nowhere. "
I think thats fair enough.
On the subject of blogs, my favourite blogs are:
www.thismodernworld.com
By a very funny New York comic strip artist.
www.DaveGorman.com/news
By the writer and comedian.
www.RichardHerring.com/warming up
Herring is the guy who does the news reviews on the 6music show.
Well done you, Andrew.
I think you've done well putting up as many posts as you did. Everyone kept going over the same things time and again, and all repeating each other. Whether they were politely written or not, it gets to be quite boring for some of us.
I enjoy your blog and the comments by all because it is light-hearted with a small dash of serious in there. I don't mind who thinks what about stuff. If it's different to me then fine. I may add a comment about it, I may not. What difference does it make?
Had it been me who had been bombarded with all those comments, I would have ignored most of them ages ago. That would have probably annoyed most of the posters more than your replies did! And you wouldn't have suffered in the process.
I personally feel that some of the comments were abusing your good nature - knowing you would air them just out of fairness.
I'm glad things are going to return to normal around here. I hope you have a very relaxing weekend (but please, not too many bird stories!!!!!).
Andrew I agree with Clare H's comments. I hope you have a lovely relaxing weekend.
Somebody who had been reading my blog reported back to the 6 Music Message Boards and, seemingly concerned for my welfare, described me as "a bit eccentric"! (Is it that easy?)
I think it's sad that you feel the need to pull contrary comments Andrew. I think that's what yr saying anyway, correct me if I've got it arse about tit.
I always feel that as long as it's not abuse it should stand, no matter how belligerent and entrenched the views are. I always find it best to have a bit of fun with these guys, take a different tack and try to puncture their pomposity with a few gags and a bit facetiousness.
That said, are you serious about McKeith? She should have stuck to the books, her TV persona is utterly vile, even if the message is well intended (Eat fruit and veg and cut out excess salt and fat for a healthier lifestyle. No! Really?)
I keep saying it. Don't let the bastards grind y...."snip"
Re: My last comment.
Just read the thread. It helps sometimes...
Ok, monomaniacs who won't shut up about something. I think that would probably drive the sanest of people to the edge of madness.
I still think you should mock them and act the goat. A sure fire way to stop them coming back.
I think that you care very passionately about certain issues which is not in itself a bad thing as long as your health doesn't suffer over it. However I don't think that that in itself makes you eccentric.
I love the way you phrased that Andrew, "Reported back to the 6Music message boards".
I can imagine them having a meeting each morning "Ok guys, you go and tap Tom Robinsons phone, you check Gids mail and you go and check Andrew Collins message board, between us we will bring those pesky DJs down..."
Or something.
I have just read the 6 music message boards and have realised that the eccentric tag related to food/health choices. In the past there used to be an eccentric tag applied to people using some of these more natural alternative remedies but such foods and treatments are becoming much more mainstream now and have been for quite some time. I would therefore feel that it was not entirely appropriate to use the term in this context.
I enjoy your poorly written TV reviews, Andrew, but I've got to pick you up on this: there's no such thing as genies. Scientific fact.
I hope you've seen the four letters in today's IoS in favour of complementary/alternative medicine.
Missed those letters, Dave, but I don't much care for the IoS. I swapped it for the Sunday Times at the end of last year. Plus the Observer simply for something pretty to look at. I find myself stuck into Friday's New Statesman at the weekends anyway, so the Sundays are there as tablecloths.
Fair enough, I prefer the Observer too. I couldn't buy the Sunday Times though owing to a Murdoch aversion. I find it hard enough buying Fox DVDs.
The letters - obviously in response to a Goldacre-style attack last week - were well-argued and reasonable. Nutters though, obviously.
Some things in Simon Hoggart's piece in Saturday's Grauniad which you, lucky man, will not have read, almost convinced me to ditch the whole paper once again. I'm taking some 'cool-down time' and have ranted about it on my own blog page rather than clog up yours. But it was a very close call. Very.
Just looked again at the 6 music message boards. Please now go back to my comment from 9.04am on Sunday morning. Oh this is just too much for me. I can't keep up. I'm away for a lie down!!
Post a Comment
<< Home