This one is philosophical

Yesterday a medical officer from the RAF was jailed for refusing to serve in Iraq. Flt Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith claimed that he could not morally justify serving in Iraq because the British involvement in the war was "illegal". Although I am, and always have been, strongly opposed to military action in Iraq, when I first read this story I found I couldn't support the man. A paid soldier has a duty to go to war, even if he/she doesn't support the politics behind it. When one joins the military one must realise that it's a job like any other. All conflicts are controversial and soldiers have to agree to put personal feelings aside when they take on the job. Then I heard a discussion about this on the radio as I drove home yesterday.

Both sides of the argument were discussed. One senior military official said much the same as me, that personnel in the military have to obey orders even if they don't like them. The counter argument was given by an ex soldier who also objected to the war on moral grounds. He said something that made me think. He pointed out that people on trial for war crimes are not likely to be shown any leniency if they claim they had to do something because they were following orders. Would Nazi war criminals on trial at Nuremburg have been found not guilty of their crimes if they had been able to prove that someone ordered them to carry them out? No, of course not, these people would have been expected to refuse to commit these obvious war crimes. If they had refused to carry out the orders however, they would have been tried by their own side, and apparently found guilty if this case is anything to go by.

The moral of this story, you can do anything you like if you pick the winning side, you may find yourself with no options if you bet on a looser.

There is a story today on the Telegraph web site that interested me. It seems that three gay men living together in North Carolina are accused of castrating 6 other men and recording the procedures on video. It gets stranger however. Apparently the six castrated men gave their consent for the operation. Now why on earth would anyone agree to that? Human testicles were discovered in a tin in the freezer. What the hell are they keeping them for, soup? Prosthetic testicles were also discovered at the house. What do men who have agreed to have their goolies cut off want with prosthetic replacements? The three have been charged with castration without malice, maiming without malice, and practising medicine without a licence.

Practicing medicine without a licence I can understand. To an extent I can even understand that North Carolina has a specific law that makes "maiming without malice" illegal, though it does seem strange. However, I cannot for the life of me imagine the set of circumstances that led to the passing of a law making "castration without malice" illegal. I mean, how often does this go on in Morth Carolina? Is there a separate law making "castration with malice illegal", and if so, does it carry a greater penalty? If convicted, the men face 12-15 years in prison.

I don't have much time for the profits of doom masquerading as climate scientists as you know. I've said time and again that these people are more interested in getting research grants from governments than in good science. Consequently, they concentrate on telling the government what it wants to hear. I don't really need to make fun of these people, they do it perfectly well themselves. The most ridiculous report from a climate scientist I have read in ages appeared today however, and I can't let it go.

The government's chief scientist (alarm bells are already ringing) Professor David King, claims that global warming is going to raise temperatures a massive 3C or more. Reading this report however, I can't see any timescale. If global warming is actually happening, it's obviously going to rise by 3C eventually isn't it? I could have made that prediction. Other predictions in the report include:

A drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops. That's quite a big margin of error you've given yourself there, factor of 20!

About 400 million more people at risk of hunger. Hey where has that margin of error gone? Isn't it related to the cereal crop problem?

Between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress. What the hell is water stress? And that's another 150% margin of error there you notice.

Not one of these apocolyptic predictions actually includes any timescale as far as I can see. I'd love to see this guy's working. How did he get to be the government's "top scientist"? It seems all you have to do is pull big numbers out of your arse.

And the Hypocrite of the week award goes to Lib Dem leader, Menzies Campbell. In today's press Campbell is quoted as saying that the Tory party was "unpleasant" to its core. This from the party who's former leader was recently forced out of office when it was discovered he had a secret drink problem after months of denial. The same party which saw Mark Oaten withdraw from the leadership election after it was discovered he was secretly paying rent boys for sex. And the same leadership election which saw Simon Hughes admit he'd been lying to his electorate about his sexuality for years. Well that sounds like a wholesome party.