Untitled

It’s the 30th anniversary of John Lennon’s death. What a nasty, conceited, self-absorbed man he was.

Back to Wikileaks. Amazon recently ended its agreement to host Wikileaks, citing that it failed to adhere to its terms of service as Wikileaks was unable to ensure that it "wasn't putting innocent people in jeopardy". That means Wikileaks has to prove a negative – which is logically impossible and an argument which is the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt - or those being heavily leant upon by the irresistible might of the American government.

In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested in this manner. If Amazon is assuming that lives are at risk (which it is by demanding proof to the contrary), then it is incumbent on Amazon – as the accuser – to validate the assumption; something that even the US government is demonstrably unable to accomplish, much to its chagrin.

I’d boycott Amazon if it wasn’t so damned useful. Same with PayPal. However, were I to boycott them I’d have to go back to the Bronze Age system of visiting some hideous cathedral to the god Retail, spending half an hour trying to find a parking place a mile from the emporium I want to visit (and possibly having a fist fight with some arsehole over a parking space in the process) and jostling with huge crowds of ghastly faithful intent on filling up their credit cards. I’d rather stick pins in Sarah Palin’s eyes – actually I’d rather do that than anything.

The husband of the bride recently murdered in South Africa has been arrested on suspicion of incitement to murder. The alleged murderer has done a plea bargaining deal – i.e. say what we want you to say and we’ll reduce your sentence. Who wouldn’t perjure themselves in the same position? May as well reintroduce trial by fire and trial by combat; it certainly has no place in any civilized system of justice, having more to do with cost saving than the search for truth.

The British government, in its infinite wisdom, is threatening to withdraw benefits from drug addicts who don’t co-operate with rehab programmes. What they are doing is to create the seed of a crime explosion, as drug addicts who cannot fund their habit from benefits will definitely turn to crime – or increase their existing levels of crime. Since the government also wants the police to reduce their costs (and hence number), I cannot see this as evidence of joined up thinking – or even adult thinking for that matter. To quote an expert: “I have never seen a drugs problem. I have seen people with problems and using drugs to deal with them."