21 October 2007

What Brown Really Thinks

Just back from a very relaxing weekend in Hampshire's sun. Three thoughts briefly tempted me to blog but, as you'll have noticed, I resisted. The first and third, taken together, seem to reveal much about what our Scottish Premier thinks about this nation:

1. Yesterday's leader in the Telegraph, MPs must be held to their word on EU treaty:

The Prime Minister is just one man. There are another 645 Members of Parliament, and 637 of them were, like Mr Brown, elected on the basis of a promise that they would give voters the final say.

Those 637 MPs must now decide whether they are true parliamentarians. Are they simply a block vote, agents of one man’s will? Or are they independent legislators, acting in accordance with what they judge to be their constituents’ interests and wishes?
2. Simon Heffer's piece also in yesterday's Telegraph, We should listen to what Watson says, on the controversial comments from Nobel-winning geneticist Professor James Watson on intelligence and race:
But how boot-faced, wicked and totalitarian of the Science Museum to cancel a lecture Prof Watson was due to give there because of the "offensive" nature of this subject.

How, for pity's sake, will we know Prof Watson is wrong if he is banned from airing his claims and having them held up to scrutiny?

Doesn't the museum understand that it is in its way as ignorant as the academic authorities were 200 years ago, when they forbade the teaching of geology because it might provoke the "offensive" idea that the Creation had not been as scripted?

What if that ban had been maintained?

Why does the Left only believe in academic freedom when it suits their own bigotries?
3. The lack of enthusiasm or apparent inability of the Prime Minister to sing the national anthem at last night's Rugby World Cup final. So much for all that talk of Britishness, national pride, and patriotism. Yes, even I, sports unenthusiast that I am, watched the game!


The Blunderer said...

Yes, the indecent haste with which scientific bodies moved to condemn and distance themselves from one of their own, was embarrassing. No opportunity given to Professor Watson to clarify his words or his position or to apologise. Why, you might almost think that the condemnatory voices were afraid their funding might be cut off if they didn't shout out how wrong he was.