Skip to main content

We Need to Talk about Kelvin

My friend Marcus Chown has an excellent popular science book by the name of We Need to Talk about Kelvin. But this isn't the Kelvin I had in mind. I mean Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of the Sun 'newspaper'.

This particular Kelvin was on last night's BBC Question Time to balance out Matthew Parris (nasty journo/nice journo) - don't you just love BBC balance?

At one point they were discussing the Israeli attack on the aid convoy on the high seas. Our Kelvin pointed out that if he were on a British street and someone attacked him with an iron bar, then if he had a gun, he would shoot the attacker, just as the Israeli soldiers did. They were entirely in the right, he suggested.

I can't understand why no one pointed out that his analogy was flawed. Try this. If he were sitting in his open topped car and a gunman from another country dropped down into the car from a helicopter, then he would have defended himself with an iron bar if he had one. That seems a lot closer to the truth.

I'm not anti-Israel. I support their right to defend themselves. But attacking a boat on the high seas - in international waters - just in case it has weapons on board is not acceptable behaviour.
Labels:

Comments

  1. laurasdad4 June 2010 at 13:59

    I'm sympathetic to Mathew Parris who said that as he's now over 60 he's no longer worried what people think of him. He then said he's bored with the whole Palestine/Israel argument, and that if the media left them to themselves for a while more progress might be made. He didn't say it but Schrodinger's Cat sprang into mind and I wondered what consequences would follow if we didn't open the box for a while - perhaps the cat might just die from boredom!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more