Slashdot Mirror

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

Convert to Islam, or die. So much for freedom of religion.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

Eliminate the separation of church and state, and implement Islamic Sharia law, or die.

To comply we will have to completely revamp our banking laws, completely change the relationship between the sexes, force women into "modest" clothes, kill homosexuals by either crushing them under walls or pushing them off buildings, kill blasphemers, chop off body parts of thieves, severely punish people who drink alcohol, take drugs, publish cartoons featuring Mohammad, and a very long list of other things. They probably won't be happy unless we also oppress Jews, kill pagans and pantheists. We will need to institute dietary laws for ceremonial purity of food, ban some types of food, pray 5 times a day, and visit Mecca at least once. Our marriage laws will need to change to allow men to marry multiple women, and divorce them by saying "I divorce you!" three times. The sex habits of Americans deeply offend them, as do pornography and much of our literature. The Taliban banned kite flying as unIslamic. We'll have to start separating men and women in many activities... at least when we allow women out of the house. The 'Burqini' (not a joke) will be the hot new swimwear.... for those wanting to avoid a whipping for immodesty. Forget concerns about if lethal injection is too harsh under the Constitution because stoning, beheading, and crucifiction will be making a comeback. Democracy is unIslamic.

Sense a pattern there? They don't like our freedoms to worship, dress, eat, marry, work, pray, read, play, and just about anything else, the way to do now, including the way we govern ourselves. If it isn't getting through to you that, yes, they (Al Qaeda) really do hate our freedoms (to live as we do now), it isn't because the evidence isn't there, and it isn't because they don't tell us. Why aren't you listening to what they say?

By the way, New Y

No point mistaking bad intelligence and unquestioning politicians for malice.

Bad intelligence is when Achmed is giving you information, but he is actually secretly working for the Taliban. Cooked intelligence is when there is no Achmed, and the information you supposedly got from him was actually created by the Office of Special Plans out of whole cloth. Basically, black propaganda aimed at your own populace.

Bad intellegence can be incompetence (or it can just mean the other side is better than you), but cooked intelligence is definitely malice.

The US Government Accountability Office compiled a report of genetic testing that is available here, although it's only a smallish snapshot of the current situation.

Both the positive and negative implications for widespread genetic testing are favourite subjects of Ron Zimmern and Muin Khoury, and if you're interested you'll find a lot of discussion of genetic test regulation by searching for them. There's a newspaper report of a study by Khoury here, but annoyingly I can't find the original work.

Probably

From the Grauniad June 16 2008:

Striking similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women have been discovered by neuroscientists, offering fresh evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into our neural circuitry.

Scans reveal homosexual men and heterosexual women have symmetrical brains, with the right and left hemispheres almost exactly the same size. Conversely, lesbians and straight men have asymmetrical brains, with the right hemisphere significantly larger than the left.

Scientists at the prestigious Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden also found certain brain circuits linked to emotional responses were the same in gay men and straight women.

The findings, published tomorrow in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest the biological factors that influence sexual orientation - such as exposure to testosterone in the womb - may also shape the brain's anatomy.

The study, led by the neurobiologist Ivanka Savic, builds on previous research that has identified differences in spatial and verbal abilities related to sex and sexual orientation. Tests have found gay men and straight women fare better at certain language tasks, while heterosexual men and lesbians tend to have better spatial awareness.

True, but since when has rational debate held sway in the realm of reporting science stories?

........ Doh !!

Nuclear Cat crawling out of the bag? The US seems busy throwing the Nuclear Cat everywhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/05/energy.g2

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/03/26/warhead_fuses_mistakenly_sent_to_taiwan/

There's plenty of info on making nukes already in the "wild". So if you give people more details, I'm sure it helps a lot.

Hasn't the supreme court been the voice of reason since 9/11? They don't seem to be able to stop the maniacs in power, but they seem to make sane decisions most of the time.

Not global warming, but several of Africa's presidents have not believed that AIDS is caused by HIV or believed it can be cured by folk magic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/27/aids.badscience

I guess so...eventually. Now for the guys who've been locked up for the past 6 years without charge, that might seem like a long time. Now, about those ships?.

I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain

It's not difficult at all to find substantial differences. At least one was all over the news today:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/fallout_from_the_gitmo_ruling.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mccain-habeas-court/

We've recently discussed some substantial differences in tech policy and in advisor selection on slashdot.

I get it that to some extent, certain political realities force every mainstream candidate into certain positions. But it's wildly wrong to take the further step and equate all their positions, and furthermore, it's dangerous.

Haliburton/Cheney sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/world/middleeast/25reconstruct.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644111,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

Bush sources:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0207/S00104.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/10/qanda.usa

Obviously, you can also just use Google to find other sources.

These are not conspiracy theories. These are fact-supported TRUTHS. You could likely find some of the press conferences referenced in those sources on youtube, if you need video as well.

Got a decent reference? Seriously, that link is to the 'Daily Mail'.

it was an election promise

This being the crucial difference between fox hunting and 42 days.

There is a convention that the Lords does not block legislation in a winning party's election manifesto. But 42 days was not in Labour's manifesto for the 2005 election, which took place shortly before the 7/7 attacks.

But the majority of the public WANT this change. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/08/terrorism.uksecurity

Yes, "only" 650,000 from March 2003 - March 2007. Well done indeed.

PS. Linear extrapolation would give ~800,000 by this March.

A lot of people are complaining about this law. Why do you hate our country so much? Why do you want to make things easy for scumbag terrorists who want to kill us all in our beds or on our world class public transport?

There will be checks and balances in place for this to make sure that the police do not abuse these powers and that no innocent people suffer from the outcomes. I mean, lets be honest here - why would you want to WALK on a cycle path? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579334.ece) That's just dodgy!

As for the bloke who kept all of his belongings close to him on the tube, he did look a little odd and he had far too much techy stuff on him. (http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html).

The 82 year old who got arrested under the terrorism act at the labour conference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm) was a known trouble maker having already evaded one lawful regime's attempts to bring him to justice under their current laws back in the 40's, so he probably deserved what happened.

And the bloke who recently spent 6 days in a cell (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2282045,00.html) for trying to print a document freely available on the Internet should have known better - why do you REALLY need to print stuff these days?
That's killing trees, that is, and deserves this kind of punishment!

In all of the above cases, these people were set free. And it's not like just being arrested can fuck up your life or anything. Or end up with your DNA on file for life. And I'm sure that most of the MPs voting for this bill know what it's like to spend a night or 6 in prison, so they'd never do that to an innocent person, knowing how badly you can come out of that experience.

We actually NAILED on terroristwith this law already - that uppity bitch won't go writing any more bad poetry in the near future, now will she!?

I mean, you have to understand that in a post 9/11 world, things are _different_ now. Al Kayeeda is really really really scary! Ok, sure, there have been fewer attacks than during the IRA years, but that's not the point here! We need this law so that... uhm...

Hang on a sec... This is the UK right, not Iran? Fuck :(

The tragic thing about all this, is that it won't get through the upper chamber and Gordon Brown knows this. His problem was that losing the vote would show him up as a weak leader, and not in control of his own party. This way he'll get to blame the unelected House of Lords (many of whom he and Tony appointed under their People's Peers programme) for the legislation not being passed.

Ironically, we may end up with all the negative effects from such legislation without any of the (supposed) benefits - i.e. actually being able to lock people up. World + dog outside the UK will believe that it's been passed, removing us even further from what little moral high ground we've got left to stand on and eroding UK citizens' perceptions of their own liberty. This is perhaps the first time I've ever said this, but thank god for the unelected, undemocratic House of Lords. Without them, this would already be law.

Am I simplifying this? Probably, yes. It just seems that regardless of the merits or otherwise of this legislation (and no Slashdot, I'm not arguing in favour of it), getting the vote through the House of Commons was more about saving Brown's arse than actually achieving anything.

Wow are you wrong. Hans Blix and his inspections team were in Iraq with what they described as unfettered access for 11 weeks in late 2002/early 2003. Inspectors had been denied access earlier in 2002, but the claim that the UN was never allowed to do inspections is false.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1

please note that, to the best of my knowledge, no one in the Bush administration claimed Saddam was an imminent threat. that allegation started with Democrats.

9/18/2002: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress, "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam Hussein is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certainÂ--we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/ (warning: source is biased, but comprehensive)

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2210259,00.html

Read about the ongoing feud between Radiohead and their former big label here.

I'd bet that the summary article is incorrect and the band itself did not directly approve of the iTunes move.

I know this is a little OT, but it turns out that Murdoch is practically endorsing Obama.

This is totally wrong but I will cite sources to prove my point that the Indiana law DID go into effect already.

http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26725
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/28/uselections2008.usa?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/

Also my local council used the law to spy on a family trying to give their kids a decent education http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/11/localgovernment.ukcrime

Or if you want you can download the forms to apply to spy on someone form here http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/about-ripa/forms/

I think the point of TFA is that the OLPC's security system can be mis-used as an assistive technology for those dictators in their efforts to control their people.

I wonder if you'd be equally glib in your dismissal if this article were about Google filtering content at the request of Chinese authorities, or Yahoo disclosing the identities of people advocating democratic reforms?

EEE PC already has enough horsepower to play movies and music as well as anything else. Battery life could be improved and it already is up to 7.5 hours.

Apple dominates the high end market and GNU/Linux rules the low. Soon the ends will meet and M$ will be squeezed out. Vista is a failure and it has taken M$ down with it.

The change is permenant. Vendors have revolted, M$ won't be able to come back. Good riddance.

In my time at school (late 80s), universities selected their students by looking at their A-level grades. 4 good A levels was enough to guarantee you a place at a top university. Today I read that universities are starting to set entrance exams of their own because they can't tell who the good students are anymore, as they ALL have 4 or 5 A-levels. More details in the story from todays Guardian

EEE PC already has enough horsepower to play movies and music as well as anything else. Battery life could be improved and it already is up to 7.5 hours.

Apple dominates the high end market and GNU/Linux rules the low. Soon the ends will meet and M$ will be squeezed out. Vista is a failure and it has taken M$ down with it.

The change is permenant. Vendors have revolted, M$ won't be able to come back. Good riddance.

"Those tax cuts sure helped me out." Right, and how is $4 gas and an extremely devalued dollar impacting that?

We are spending $4.00 for gas because of Democrats and environmentalists won't let the US drill for oil. Bush and Republicans have been pushing for more domestic drilling and exploration, which would have driven the price of oil down. So don't blame them!

Are you aware that your debt is now astronomical due to the Iraq war, or have you not gotten that far in your finances yet? That's economics you tit.

First, our debt is greater than the amount we have spent on Iraq, which means that our debt can not be attributed solely to Iraq. That's elementary school mathematics. Next, our government has pulled in more money since the tax cuts over the past eight years. That's the Laffer Curve, which is economics.

The ultra rich and welfare corporations are not "opening savings accounts" and investing in America, they're taking their money overseas, hiring foreigners, and selling off assets to China for a quick profit.

I keep hearing that, but no one can provide an example. From personal experience, I can tell you that exact opposite is happening. I work for a publicly traded European company that has operations in the US. They found that they do better in the US, which is why I have a job here.

And "the US has not conquered a single country since the 1800s?" You must not be aware that the US has waged attacks on a variety of countries that it did not make into new states. Hawaii was taken over in the middle of the 1900s, the Philippines were grabbed and lost, Laos was bombed without ever being annexed, and then you have Reagan's legacy of illegal attacks on sovereign countries, followed by Bush's.

Hawaii was a territory that voted to become a state, much like Puerto Rico could do if they so choose. The Philippines were never a state. They have been a sovereign nation since we liberated them from the Japanese. You mention Reagan's legacy of attacks, but conveniently left out Clinton's attack on Bosnia. Tell me, what did Milosovich do that made attacking Bosnia OK, that Saddam Hussein did not?

Bush hasn't turned Iraq into a US state, but it sure is getting more investment than any actual states.

Whats the worst thing you can do to Islamic terrorists? Provide a thriving democracy in the middle of the Mid East. Regardless of what you see on the news, it is working out quite well so far.

Speaking of whom, perhaps you're aware that Bush's grandfather along with other industrialists supported a Nazi-sympathetic fascism in the US prior to WW II. Linking the Bush family fortunes to two eras of military industrial fascism is not a stretch, it's simple reality.

First, that's quite a stretch.

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany...
While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.

So, it's not like the Bushes were Nazi's. And even if it were somehow true, so what? George Washington owned slaves. Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was an "inside trader" that dealt with worthless stocks that led to the stock market crash in the late 20's. He also opposed helping out Great Britain during WWII stating "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here, [in the US]." I don't hear anyone bashing Ted over that. You know, Ted Kennedy? The only man in Massachusetts that takes eight hours to open the car door for a lady. I guess you are more concerned with B

That's simply the current extrapolation based on most recent polling. He wrote a column for the Guardian explaining some reasons why Obama may in fact have a better shot. All are valid arguments, I think the last one is particularly poignant:

5. It's the campaign, stupid
Finally, Obama's camp could point to things like his fundraising prowess and his stable campaign team and make the claim that it has run the superior campaign. Put more crudely, the argument might take the following form: if Clinton had relinquished a 20-point lead against Obama, who's to say she'd hold a two-point advantage against McCain?

The rest: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nate_silver/2008/06/strength_in_numbers.html

This "news" has been around for a long time. Even the summary says so. It's an old story: monoculture -> disease -> no more bananas. Unless you have zero knowledge of bananas, you heard about this years ago. Hmm, I wonder why they'd be raising the alarm now, even when the banana companies like Dole and Chiquita don't care?

Right now, regulations have prevented even publicly funded research organizations from testing more than a handful of transformed bananas in the field.

Oh, I see. Somebody wants to skirt regulations regarding transgenic crops. "Won't somebody think of the bananas!!" ... Suckers.

Great we can then but locally produced bananas! oh wait nvm

Gordon Ramsay has must be loving this latest development
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/open_thread/2008/05/seasonal_disorder.html

"Oh yes, a war for oil. And how great has that worked out?"

Badly.

"Considering that oil is at record highs, I don't think that it was a "war for oil" because had it been a "war for oil" we would have more oil."

You can't use the outcome as evidence, because it is flagrantly obvious that the planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was inadequate and the expectations quite different. There weren't enough troops to properly secure the country. Some military people said so before the invasion, but it's taken years for others to admit they were right. I'm sure Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld expected the oil to be flowing copiously from a mostly peaceful and democratic Iraq by now -- a demonstration for the whole Middle East of how it should be done. That's what they said, anyway.

You've really got to go back and read the bold speeches from the time before or very shortly after the invasion.

"As for it being a war on oil, give your baseless theories a rest and take off the tin-foil hat."

Baseless? Speculative, maybe, but not baseless.

Here's the thing: what were the first things secured in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion? Was it the museum full of priceless artifacts? No. But those could hardly be considered military priorities, so I can kind of understand it, even if it was entirely predictable and unnecessary.

Was it the Iraqi army weapons dumps that would later be raided to make IEDs? No. A big strategic mistake.

Even stranger in light of the concern about WMDs: was it the well-known nuclear facility on the outskirts of Baghdad where the locals were rolling out drums of uranium oxide in the days after the invasion? No.

No, it was the oil wells -- many secured within DAYS of the invasion. Pretty impressive, really, but there was plenty of planning beforehand, and resources devoted to the task.

By what they did and did not promptly secure in Iraq the US made its priorities VERY clear in the days and weeks following the invasion. Actions speak louder than words. You are confusing the FAILURE of US planning for evidence that there wasn't a plan and expectation of how Iraq would work out eventually.

Iraq has the second-biggest conventional oil reserves in the world. It's hard to imagine that is unimportant to the equation. I'm certain the US did not plan to take Iraq's oil overtly. That's too cynical and it's unnecessary. But I'm as certain they were indeed hoping to get it flowing to the world markets after many years of embargo, which would increase competition with other suppliers and allow the US to buy it at a fair price.

In fact, the plan might even work out in the long run, at which point I'm sure Bush and his cronies will take credit, unless the whole thing collapses in on itself in civil war instead.

Software patents are one small but important piece of the IP Empire which demands universally oppressive laws.

• Silencing protest before it happens and then pushing protesters aside where they are not heard and can be abused, arrested and tortured. Need work? Apply here!
• Subordination of local law to US corporate interests.
• Globally depressed wages
• Dangerous genetic modifications and ecological ruin.
• And now, all your Email are belong to US. Why not? we treat everyone like criminals here.
• We should not forget free flow of slave labor for US agriculture. It might be claimed that no US Citizen would take the kind of work mega farms import Mexican citizens to do, but why not pay those people US wages and treat them as immigrants rather than keep them locked up?

The list goes on and on but it has one common theme, your rights mean nothing, shut up and get back to work for the man.

First there was this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/may/17/horseracing

and then just today, the use of illegal search warrants has been frowned upon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7416117.stm

For the benefit of those outside the UK, the police force that covers most of London is the Metropolitan Police. The "City of London" force just covers a small patch of ground to the east of the centre (the historic "City").

Half true. BP at least are investing in alternative energy, while some like Exxon are, well, being fuckwits to such an extent some of their shareholders are up in arms. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/01/exxonmobil.oil

Yep. Though probably you are thinking of the wrong Orwell

After all the church has spent a considerable amount of money on wooing that particular police department.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/22/freedomofinformation.religion

It is the "All animals are equal, some are more equal than the other" bit of Orwell.

Actually, I started off by calling candidates who would support your ideas idiots. So you can cut your half a dozen times down quite a bit.

Your better defense would have been to admit that you don't write well enough for anyone to discern precisely who you are insulting. Given that you have spewed insults on a couple of continents of people it is pretty clear you aren't that discriminating anyway.

Well, first off what did he lie to congress about? Are you talking about the state of the union address that was corrected the very next day and anyone with access to a radio, TV, or newspaper would have known that.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that 2nd sentence was a question. It's as good a place to start as any because it is utter nonsense and fiction, as usual.

Ignoring the significant evidence otherwise, let's assume the Niger uranium story made its way into the speech "by accident". You would be the only person to remember such an immediate correction. I refuse to play the game where you pull something out of your ass and I spend time proving you're lying. So show me the proof. Give me a traceable citation from January 29, 2003 to prove what you say. It should be easy, right?

On the other hand, here is a statement from the White House 2 and 1/2 months later repeating the same lie.

Or are you talking about the WMDs that there was specific inteligence (sic) to support. Hell, All during the Clinton years, the idea was the same and then all the after 2 years in office we are supposed to ignore all that because france said it wasn't true. well, here's a hint. France hasn't won a war in so long, nobody trusts their positions because they know it leads to defeat.

Wow, right out of the right wing lunatic play book. Never admit mistakes. Blame Clinton and the French, instead. Keep running that play for another election cycle or two, please!

Yup, a brilliant Bush move. Ignore the French. So what if they had much better contacts within the Hussein government than the US? They eat cheese! And ignore the Germans. And the UN. And even the British who wanted to wait on the UN. And, god forbid, don't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work - they might report there was nothing to find and we would be denied shock and awe!

And all that "intelligence". You know, the plagiarized student papers, the the forged documents, the blurry satellite photos, and aluminum tubes, among so much other fabricated material. Whoever could have seen through that? Certainly not a Yale graduate or his entire administration and military!

And now, Mr. SumDumAss, who trusts us "knowing" it leads to defeat?

How it is unconstitutional to use signing statements of the law can't be passed to cover him in the first place.

Not that I really understand that sentence but...it isn't unconstitutional to issue signing statements, it's unconstitutional to use them to pretend that the president can ignore parts of the bill to which it is attached because he issued them. The signing statement is a footnote, not a line item veto.

You see, here is where the problems arise, You don't know what all of his signing statements are and you just assum that congress has the ultimate authority over the other branches by passing a law. Well, here is a hint for you. The roles and positions the different branches play can't be don't by another branch because the constitution gives each of those branches the power ha

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. ..... ...

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

"that insane proposal for a law to allow laws to be made and abolished by regulation (i.e. without a vote in parliament)"

It's called the Civil Contingencies Act. And we've already got it, despite the efforts of the House of Lords.

Although you'd not expect the landowning classes to care much about civil liberty, the Earl of Onslow put it all fairly well in an open letter two years ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/apr/23/comment.conservatives