Comments by philmillhaven

Comment #133246 by philmillhaven on February 26, 2008 at 1:18 am

The logical conclusion that we are simply another animal, like everything else, and that there is nothing to justify killing and eating, or medical testing on one animal, while we don't on others... I consider myself more moral than someone who beats children, rapes or murders.

Which is worse, a murdering rapist or a dairy farmer?

The harsh reality is that to produce milk, a cow must have a calf. To maximise production, each calf is taken from its mother within 24-48 hours of birth. Calves would naturally suckle for 6-12 months.

Separation is a distressing process as mother and calf form a strong maternal bond. Dairy cow husbandry expert, Professor John Webster described the removal of the calf as the "most potentially distressing incident in the life of the dairy cow". Webster points out that "the cow will submit herself to considerable personal discomfort or risk to nourish and protect her calf". [6] Examples of this are cows that have escaped and travelled several miles to find their own calf after it has been sold on to another farm.
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/animals/exploitation/cows/dairy_cow.php

Male calves are variously castrated, slaughtered for veal or simply killed and thrown away. By your reasoning a murdering rapist of humans is no worse than a dairy farmer. Is that really what you think?

2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130761 by philmillhaven on February 21, 2008 at 8:43 am

There is no 'right' to a referendum.

The Labour Party promised a referendum in its election manifesto and was duly elected to government:

We will put it [the new Constitutional Treaty] to the British people in a referendum.
Labour Manifesto, 2005
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2005/04/13/labourmanifesto.pdf

The French and Dutch voted on the original referendum and delivered one big fat NON and another big fat NIET. The odd word here and the odd para there were switched round a bit. Now the revised document will be passed without a referendum in either France or Holland. And Gordon Brown has rejected a public vote on the treaty as he says it does not change the UK constitution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7214384.stm

So are the Consitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty really the same thing? Yes, according to Parliament's European Scrutiny Committee. Ditto the Foreign Affairs Committee and the House of Commons Library.
http://ukliberty.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/on-the-eu-reform-lisbon-treaty-and-a-referendum/

And European leaders have also claimed that it is for all intents and purposes the same document:

"The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact. - Angela Merkel, German Chancellor

A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties - Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister

The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters the core - is left. - Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister

They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there - Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach

Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same - Vaclav Klaus, Czech President

There is nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed - Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister

The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable. The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success. - Karel de Gucht, Belgium Foreign Minister

It is essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution - Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner

3. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130599 by philmillhaven on February 21, 2008 at 1:26 am

In case anyone is in any doubt about the integrity of MEPs, the following is in the news today:

A secret European Parliament report has uncovered "extensive, widespread and criminal abuse" by Euro-MPs of staff allowances worth almost £100 million a year.

Senior Euro-MPs and European Union officials have tried to hush up an internal audit that found severe problems and endemic misuse of funds worth at least £98.4 million a year, more than £125,000 for each of the 785 Euro-MPs.

Only Euro-MPs on the parliament's budget control committee are allowed to see the report. To do so, they must apply to enter a "secret room", protected by biometric locks and security guards. They may not take notes and must sign a confidentiality agreement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/21/neu121.xml

4. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130595 by philmillhaven on February 21, 2008 at 1:15 am

If you refuse to take part in the democratic process

It is amazing that the UK people are being denied their right to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, which as we have seen Giscard D'Estaing acknowledges as the Constitution in all but name. And here you are, a supporter of the EU, lecturing me about taking part in the democratic process. Irony doesn't even begin to describe it.

I don't think you would understand the term democratic process if we all voted on whether to hit you over the head with a ballot box.

the better to wallow in ignorance and outer darkness

Once again I appeal for the reader to adjudicate. Which of us is wallowing in ignorance and darkness? I have offered a clear position, examples, arguments in support of my case and evidence backed up by dated sources and web links. On the other side there is HughCaldwell who has managed to provide only:

a) Unsubstantiated assertions e.g. "The EU process is more rigorous than than that followed by any member state", "A fund for Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny and procedures as other EU projects"

b) Insults directed towards someone he has never met and doesn't even know but with whom he happens to disagree on something

5. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130103 by philmillhaven on February 20, 2008 at 5:02 am

You'll have to take that up with your MEP. Parliament takes the decision to approve the accounts

I'm glad to see you have given up on your defense of the indefensible. And thank you for finally bringing an end to the torrent of insults thrown my way. Hopefully in the future you will remember that insults are always an ineffectual smokescreen for a lack of arguments.

In answer to your suggestion no I won't be writing to my MEP. I have better things to do than petition a pig to take his snout from the trough. In any event, even if the EU genuinely reformed its dubious accounting practices (which it won't), it would still be left with what is euphemistically referred to in Brussels as the "democratic deficit". Who better to explain this term than the architect of our shiny new Europe, V.Giscard d'Estaing:

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly...All the earlier proposals will be in the new text [of the Constitution], but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

Dishonest, disingenuous, pernicious, corrupt and undemocratic. Oh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali please don't accept a penny from these lying crooks.

6. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #129597 by philmillhaven on February 19, 2008 at 11:05 am

Stop the waffling about the potential for irregularities and point out any specific instances which Parliament has failed to address

I'm waffling now, am I? Ah well, I guess that's what you get when you debate with ignorant, witless people like me.

The whole point is that the accounting system is utterly unable to detect irregularities. And any organisation with a budget running into the billions is necessarily prone to fraud. As Ms Andreasen put it: "it's immeasurable, you don't have a system to record transactions properly".

Since Ms Andreasen was fired not for her accounting skills or lack thereof* but for "disloyalty" the only reasonable conclusion is that our masters in Brussels are more interested in self-preservation than in openness and transparency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/2293519.stm

* On the contrary she was voted Personality of the Year by the readers of Accountancy Age, the UK's top accounting magazine. She won the award by a landslide.

7. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #129546 by philmillhaven on February 19, 2008 at 9:35 am

ignorant Europhobia...silly, even corrupt

For those unfamiliar with UK politics Steve Zara and HughCaldwell offer here an exemplar of the pro-EU debating tactics employed in this country. From what I can make out we are offered two reasons for thinking the EU is a wonderful institution:

1) HughCaldwell asserts that it is so
2) philmillhaven is outmoded, unsubtle, tired, europhobic and spouts illiterate witless nonsense

I'll leave the reader to decide whether or not these unkind remarks are true. But even they are true they do not constitute an argument for surrendering sovereignty to Brussels.

Is there any particular point on which you want to accuse the British government, or the recipient of EU funds, of corruption?

You'll find a couple of examples in this BBC transcript. The discussion also outlines my reasons for my original statement in 102. Comment #128875 in which I referred to the EU's dubious financial probity. Marta Andreasen, former Chief Acccountant for the European Commission states:

The fact that the computer system does not operate properly puts a question mark on the fairness and the legality and the irregularity of all the payments that are being made out of the budget. You cannot be certain if the amounts are correct, you cannot be certain if the beneficiaries correct and you cannot be certain if the purpose of the payment is correct...The scope for fraud was immense.

And Ms Andreasen is not a lone voice. Jules Muis, former Head of the Internal Audit Service is also interviewed:

if you don't get the fundamentals right you have fragile systems and fragile systems lead to risks of malfeasance

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_07_05_eu_fraud.pdf

8. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #129408 by philmillhaven on February 19, 2008 at 4:20 am

I really haven't heard stuff like this for ages...even the Mail is more subtle these days...I am curious about where this comes from - some new, exciting source of europhobia?

Just an individual with a point of view.

The reader will note Steve Zara's attempt to dismiss my view as outmoded, unsubtle, tired and europhobic (let's face it, a phobia is never really a Good Thing is it?).

Nevertheless I honestly don't see how my objecting to a new political system makes me europhobic except to the extent that those who would have all our laws made in Brussels have hijacked the name of the continent I live in. Like most of the non-arguments on this topic they merely amount to condescension and ad hominem attacks.

I have outlined a few of my objections to the EU and therefore my reasons for not wishing Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be funded by it; and you have voiced your disapproval of what I had to say. Since the EU is (quite a long way!) off topic for this website and if you are agreeable I propose we agree to disagree and let the matter rest.

9. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #129363 by philmillhaven on February 19, 2008 at 2:44 am

illiterate nonsense...witless...If you had read the BBC article...Europhobe

Looks like I hit a nerve.

It is the responsibility of the European Parliament to review the auditors' report, make recommendations and approve the accounts.

In other words ignore the auditors' warnings and keep that gravy train rollin'.

the UK government was singled out for inadequate handling of regional aid...In summary, the failings are mainly those of national governments

So the UK government blames the EU and the EU blames the UK government. Stuck in the middle of this farce, and paying for the privilege, are the taxpayers.

One of the most basic objections to the EU is precisely that it blurs responsibility for public expenditure and thus undermines democratic accountability. Our political masters both at Westminster and in Brussels would love confusion to reign. While you and I argue about whether it's more the fault of the UK government or the EU they get away with murder.

In any event it's hardly reasonable to use the EU's unaccountability in its defense!

A fund for Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny and procedures as other EU projects.

These procedures may satisfy you. And they may satisfy MEPs and bureaucrats on the EU payroll. But they don't satisfy professional auditors even when the ones who don't tow the party line are sacked (e.g. Marta Andreasen).

10. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128904 by philmillhaven on February 18, 2008 at 8:48 am

I'll concentrate on this illiterate nonsense 'failing to sign off its accounts'. What are you talking about and what conceivable relevance could it have to a contribution to the protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Christopher Hitchens rightly criticises Mother Teresa for accepting donations from the likes of the Duvalier family in Haiti and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. How public figures get their funding matters.

Re my "illiterate nonsense 'failing to sign off its accounts'". According to the BBC:

The auditors for the EU have refused to sign off the bloc's financial accounts - for the 13th year in a row. A report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) criticises nearly every major area of the EU's expenditure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7092102.stm

I don't think Ayaan Hirsi Ali's cause should be added to the EU's litany of corruptly financed initiatives.

11. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128875 by philmillhaven on February 18, 2008 at 6:34 am

"Maybe those of you in the EU can lobby your Euro MPs?"

I don't think we should be encouraging the EU to help us and we should discourage Ayaan Hirsi Ali from talking to the EU. The EU has a well deserved reputation for squandering money, failing to sign off its accounts and sticking its nose in where it's not wanted. I'll be making my own personal donation to support Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I don't want her case to be sullied by the EU's dubious democratic and financial probity.

12. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #29460 by philmillhaven on April 3, 2007 at 1:58 am

Duff commented:

"It is comparable to christian "music", which I would characterized as being melodiously simplistic, lyrically moronic and pathetically corny."

I take it you're not a fan of JS Bach then? This sort of comment diminishes the case against religion because everyone can see and hear the grandeur of Christian art, architecture and music. You'll note that Richard Dawkins is careful to acknowledge the beauty of the Bible as literature, even as he demolishes it as a source of morality or as an authority on cosmology. Fortunately the world's atheists are represented by him rather than you.

13. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #24333 by philmillhaven on March 6, 2007 at 3:32 am

"we both believe in evidence-based reasoning"

Not much evidence-based reasoning in this article. McGrath argues God is different to the tooth fairy on the basis that lots of adults believe in it. But this isn't evidence-based reasoning, it is an opinion poll.

The rest of the article tells us:

* the Root Of All Evil? was panned for its blatant unfairness
* some bloke "who describes himself as a 'hardline Darwinian' philosopher, confessed that The God Delusion made him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'
* the work has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community

In other words we're presented with not a shred evidence for believing Dawkins is "immune to argument" or that "he behaves as if he's God". Time and again McGrath's reasoning consists of nothing more than an appeal to public opinion. Evidence-based reasoning? He either doesn't know what it is or he doesn't care.