BBC Blog Network

User Profile

SheffTim

Listed below are comments made by SheffTim between Monday, 23rd November 2009 and Friday, 27th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

My Lai: "Smoke coming from the muzzle" 3:59pm on 27 Nov 2009 The My Lai massacre was a brutally shocking war crime. It is worth mentioning that although the killings and rapes were carried out by a platoon of US troops commanded by Lt. William Calley, the massacre was eventually stopped – and civilian lives saved – by three other US soldiers once they had realised what was happening.

Chief warrant officer Hugh Thompson flew a helicopter over My Lai whilst the massacre was taking place and saw many bodies on the ground.
He landed, realised a massacre by US troops was taking place, confronted the commander of the ground troops (at one point he told his crew to "open up on the Americans" if they continued to fire at civilians) and managed to arrange the evacuation of some Vietnamese survivors.

It was also thanks to Thompson and some other US service personnel, including Haeberle, who refused to let the matter be covered up that the US military was forced to mount an investigation that later led to the court martial and conviction of Lt Calley.

Thompson died in 2006 from a cancer. A biography of him ‘The Forgotten Hero of My Lai: The Hugh Thompson Story’ was published in 1999.

There is a documentary film ‘Return to My Lai’ about Hugh Thompson’s role in confronting Lt Calley, rescuing Vietnamese civilians and subsequent refusal to allow the massacre to be covered up.
It has been shown once late at night on TV. I can’t remember which channel it was on; I hope it is shown again, it is immensely powerful.

There are some accounts of the massacre, Thompson’s role in ending it and his testimony to Lt Calley’s court martial on the pages below.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0129380/events/mylai.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_hero.html#HUGH THOMPSON:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/16/my.lai/

Should Haeberle have published the photographs he destroyed?
Yes, at the very least he should have kept the negatives in case an inquiry occurred. To both bear witness and to apportion responsibility.
Dublin child abuse report published 11:33pm on 26 Nov 2009 Rather than framing the discussion in order to stereotype Catholics it might be better to look at small, closed communities with hierarchical, patriarchal structures whereby those with the power can do whatever they want to those in their charge.

Charles Dickens wrote 'Nicholas Nickleby' in the 1830's in order to expose the cruelty of the so called 'charity homes' for orphans, operated for profit (money came from the parish per orphan housed) by the Wackford Squeers of this world. His every-men were Smike (who dies), representing those that suffered in these homes; and Nickleby, a man from a poor background who is employed by Squeers, but has a strong sense of natural justice.

Dickens was motivated to do so after noticing the large number of graves of young orphans in many Yorkshire cemeteries, and began making investigations amongst those that survived into adulthood.
A few years after Dickens work was published most of these 'charity homes' had been closed, though little more was done to help abandoned orphans.

Thirty years later (1866) Thomas Barnardo, a newly qualified doctor, went to work in the east end of London and found orphans sleeping in the streets.
In 1867 Barnardo set up his 'Ragged School' and starting helping the forgotten and neglected children of east London - the foundation of his later Barnado's Children's Homes.

I suspect that throughout history, across the globe, children have been abused by those with power over them, particularly in societies that believe their live unimportant and allow a few to 'care' for them unsupervised.

Don't believe this doesn't continue today; amongst many countries, cultures and religions; and don't think Protestants (Irish or otherwise) are immune.
Wikipedia on the wane? 11:00pm on 26 Nov 2009 Just a thought that came after reading through the above comments. (Some good points made BTW.)

Put two people into a room and at some point they will find something to disagree with and argue about.
Put three people into a room and at some point they will find something to disagree with and argue about; and two of them will begin to take sides with one another; though with shifting loyalties, obvious and not so obvious agendas, differences of emphasis and always the chance that betrayal might ensue.

The above has been the basis of many a dramatists' work since time immemorial.

Increase the number of people involved and the chances that they will find something to disagree with and argue about multiply, as will the taking of sides, shifting of loyalties, obvious and not so obvious agendas, differences of emphasis and always the chance that betrayals might ensue.

Much depends upon the attitude and responses of contributors. Just as in a family we all respond to argument and conflict in different ways, so too with Wikipeadia.

As for the 'mad, bad and dangerous to know' that try to subvert Wikipedia so as with society and how it attempts (not always successfully) to deal with freethinkers, the envious and jealous, opportunists, self promoters, pranksters, deluded, fraudsters, outright criminals and sociopaths.

I'm not uncritical of Wikipeadia, but I'd rather it was there than not; and it is free. After Wikipedia I delve into a library.

My main criticism of Wikipedia is that for many people it isn't the just start point of a finding out about something, but often the end point too.
Banks: The world is weary of the past, but boy, was it exciting! 11:11pm on 25 Nov 2009 I am concerned that we seem to be betting the farm on propping up a financial system that clearly failed us. How long until it happens again?

Are state bail outs like this comparable to government attempts to prop up nationalised industries (or nationalise failing industries) back in the 1970's? That can hardly be claimed to have been a major success, even by historians.
Turning the tables: Digital Revolution interviewed by the interviewees 11:37pm on 24 Nov 2009 'Becoming the subject, as well as producer, now potentially applies to all of us; the growing ubiquity of digital cameras, now a standard on phones (and with App's that instantly upload to YouTube or Facebook) mean that all of us can help capture news, or equally be the subject of it.'

When I wrote 'news'; it may only be 'news' to a small group of people, but it is public exposure that may not be voluntary or welcomed. It may hang around on the Web for a long time, potentially accessible to anyone that does a name search, or evidence used by gossipers.
Turning the tables: Digital Revolution interviewed by the interviewees 11:18pm on 24 Nov 2009 Becoming the subject, as well as producer, now potentially applies to all of us; the growing ubiquity of digital cameras, now a standard on phones (and with App's that instantly upload to YouTube or Facebook) mean that all of us can help capture news, or equally be the subject of it.

Somewhat chillingly one of the last sights Neda Soltan had as she lay dying in Iran earlier this year was of several people videoing her.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVISORY: This link is to one of the several videos taken of Neda Soltan dying after being shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1f4OLbfFU0&feature=related

I thought a fair bit about whether or not to post the above link.
Not so long ago that would have been considered a 'snuff' video, yet it also ended up on the BBC news-site.
Perhaps another result of the Web is that is lowers the threshold of what is acceptable to watch? For some people that threshold will be much lower than others. e.g. The war in former Yugoslavia produced videos of atrocities (Srebrenica), taken by the soldiers that committed them.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2005/07/srebrenica_the_1.html#

Given that people may not realise at the time they're being videoed (particularly in a surveillance society) it may result in higher levels of paranoia.

People may also may also have develop different public and private personas, depending on context and comfort levels, as Alek's demonstrates in her two interviews.

Those that will be most successful at negotiating a life lived partly in public (Facebook, YouTube etc) may be those that are best skilled at doing this.
Is Cumbria a victim of climate change? 6:21pm on 24 Nov 2009 'SheffTim, that link you give is a disgrace! Why does the red line stop in 1998 on the graph?'

Because it was 1998 when sceptic Patrick Michaels made his testimony (lying by omission remember) before Congress. The data extended up to that time, 1998.
What did you expect, data recorded from the future? D'oh!
Is Cumbria a victim of climate change? 3:41pm on 24 Nov 2009 26 & 27. We’ll all have a clearer picture in a few decades.

26. The Hansen Scenarios. You mean when the same [1988] Hansen scenarios that sceptic Patrick Michaels attempted to deceive Congress about (by omitting two) when he testified in 1988?
That’s called lying by omission.
http://www.grist.org/article/hansen-has-been-wrong-before/
Is Cumbria a victim of climate change? 1:55pm on 24 Nov 2009 The key to this Cumbria and flood events such as those in 2007 in Sheffield, Hull and the West Country is the position of the Jet Stream.
On both occasions the Jet directed a series of belts of heavy rain (much like a conveyer belt) to the same counties, resulting in flooding.

The reason we also had a wet summer (as in 2007) is that the Atlantic Jet Stream was further south than normal and flowing over the UK. If there’s a long term indicator to watch then it is changes to the position of this Jet Stream. (If it had moved north we’d have shared in the very hot temperatures that the Med region had this summer.)

Flood events such as the one at Boscastle in 2004 are due to other circumstances.
I am noting an increase in the number of short, very heavy monsoonal type rain events over the past few years; these can cause flash floods. e.g. There was a nasty one in West Cornwall in April this year when 2 died and St Ives flooded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8019109.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2476363.stm
But I’m sure most regions will have experienced at least one of these in recent years.

It is the long term trends that need to be watched, not individual events.
If you need a reminder of the difference between weather and climate there’s one here: http://sites.google.com/site/weatherandclimate/

A number of people have expressed surprise at towns being built near rivers.
There are good historic reasons for this, going back centuries.
For centuries rivers (often leading to the coast) were the main transport arteries; control of rivers meant taxes could be levied on boats and goods (particularly at the confluence of two rivers), control of bridges was important when local tolls were applied and of course goods also had to be unloaded and stored.
Valleys are also sheltered and often wooded, for centuries wood was the main building material and fuel. The most fertile farmland is often by rivers which supplied both silt deposits (upland areas tend to have poorer soils), water for irrigation and power for mills.

As for the global warming debate. There’s no smoking gun that I can see in the emails. People see what people want to see, as with all other conspiracy theories that get peddled out on these blogs.

In the real world it’s the trends that count, regardless of who claims to have scored the latest point in this increasingly polarised and acrimonious debate (like a perpetual election campaign), and those trends are measured over decades. We’ll have a better idea in a few decades time.

To my mind the base physics of the existence of the greenhouse effect and its importance still adds up. Adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is going to do something.
Information: Have you ever paid for it? 10:54pm on 23 Nov 2009 Day-to-day news can be got from many sources; I'm sure some will remain free whatever happens.

If I had to pay for online news I'd probably go back to paying for an occasional newspaper, but only an 'occasional' newspaper, as I find I little time other than scan headlines and only read a few articles of particular interest.

What would I pay for? Specialist news. e.g. I visit Sciencedaily every day (I hope they not reading this.) and value it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
I'd also pay for the occasional article from Nature or Science etc if it really interested me.

This is why I also think the niche magazine market (hard print) is still thriving, as a visit to any W.H. Smith store demonstrates.

Like Paul most of my reading is non-fiction (and I read a lot) and I still value books above all else for in-depth information and discussion of ideas.
My library service is excellent, I take advantage of inter-library loans (including from the British Library) and also buy from Amazon; particularly having discovered they sell second hand books that can be in 'as new' condition.

Paying for video? Hmm. I use Youtube quite a lot for music, movie trailers and instructional videos etc (as well as 'time wasting'), but am not sure I'd pay for it.
I might not bother upgrading to digital when analogue TV is switched off, but am not sure I'd pay an iPlayer etc subscription as I watch so little, on PC or TV. (Perhaps just for Attenborough and history programmes etc - specialist content.)

BTW. I agree about the under-use of photography on the web. The Telegraph's site has a good photography section for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/telephoto/
but, it stands out by not having much competition.
(And by having some wonderful slideshows. e.g.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/6397103/National-Geographic-Image-Collection-the-world-and-all-thats-in-it.html

I'm unconvinced that news has become wholly social; it has to some extent (e.g. my links above), but like my book choices (and Paul's music choices) perhaps for all of us it has also become much more personal. I can go to one site for one topic, to another for another and so on.
People like having their own private hinterland that they nourish and realize that not all their friends share their interests and passions. The web can provide deeply personal spaces too. Don't underestimate the importance of that too.

PS. I also recognise that I don't represent the majority of the population.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

SheffTim