Intelligence Squared
By IQ2
To listen to an audio podcast, mouse over the title and click Play. Open iTunes to download and subscribe to podcasts.
Podcast Description
Intelligence Squared is the world's premier debating forum, providing a unique platform for the leading figures in politics, journalism, and the media to contest the most important issues of the day. As well as its quick debates.
| Name | Description | Released | Price | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Energy Game Changers | Ever wish you could hear about some more positive ideas on how to tackle climate change? Well, here is your chance. At this event on energy game changers organised by Intelligence² in partnership with Shell and the International Herald Tribune, we will put aside for a moment the gloomy predictions about climate armageddon and look into the exciting solutions being offered by the world of science. We're bringing you five brilliant technical innovators who will be describing a scenario decades into the future when the desert will bloom with solar panel farms, nuclear reactors will produce energy from their own nuclear waste, people will travel in low-emission driverless car trains, coal will have been made clean and green, and high-tech, small-scale homesteads will be feeding the 10 billion. Not that we have to take the experts’ word for it. This is Intelligence², where debate and challenge are sovereign. But whether you’re a believer or a sceptic, this is the event to be at if you want to learn about our energy future | 3/28/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
2 |
Faramerz Dabhoiwala on the origins of sex | Rising star historian Faramerz Dabhoiwala describes how the permissive society arrived in Western Europe, not in the 1960s as we like to think, but between 1600 and 1800. It began in England and is now shaping and challenging patterns of sexual behaviour all over the world. For most of western history, all sex outside marriage was illegal, and the church, the state, and ordinary people all devoted huge efforts to suppressing and punishing it. This was a central feature of Christian civilization, one that had steadily grown in importance since the early middle ages. Three hundred years ago this entire world view was shattered by revolutionary new ideas – that sex is a private matter; that morality cannot be imposed by force; that men are more lustful than women. Henceforth, the private lives of both sexes were to be endlessly broadcast and debated, in a rapidly expanding universe of public media: newspapers, pamphlets, journals, novels, poems, and prints. In his account of this first sexual revolution, Dabhoiwala argues that the creation of our modern culture of sex was a central part of the Enlightenment, intertwined with the era's major social, political and intellectual trends. It helped create a new model of Western civilization, whose principles of privacy, equality, and freedom of the individual remain distinctive to this day | 2/15/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
3 |
What hope for the economy? Capitalism in crisis | In this new Intelligence² format the BBC's Evan Davis will take to the stage in the role of roving inquisitor. There'll be expert witnesses in the audience and a chance for everyone to put their question to the panel. We're lining up eminent economists and leading figures from the worlds of business and finance for Evan to grill on the most pressing issues of the day: Just how bad an economic mess are we in? Is this the end of capitalism as we know it or just one of capitalism’s periodic upheavals that we have to survive as best we can? And what if anything can and should be done to put things back on track | 2/7/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
4 |
Beware of the dragon: Africa should not look to China | We all know that the Chinese are the neo-colonialists of Africa. They’ve plundered the continent of its natural resources, tossing aside any concern for human rights and doing deals with some of the world’s most unsavoury regimes. The relentless pursuit of growth is China’s only spur. But is this picture really fair? In Angola, for example, China’s low-interest loans have been tied to a scheme that has ensured that roads, schools and other infrastructure has been built. China has an impressive track record of lifting its own millions out of poverty and can do the same for Africa. And is the West’s record in Africa as glowing as we like to think? After decades of pouring aid into Africa, how much have we actually achieved in terms of reducing poverty, corruption and war? So which way should Africa look for salvation – to the West, to China, or perhaps to its own people | 11/28/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
5 |
Stephen Bayley: A circular saw, a Gauloise and a little red wine | http://www.iq2if.com In this talk, design guru Stephen Bayley argues that we need to reinvent Britain as a workshop. Cultures which manufacture are more socially cohesive, respectful and they acknowledge hierarchies. Most important of all, manufacturing teaches, at a fundamental level, the relationship between effort and reward - a moral connection that has been lost in the financial industry. The inaugural If Conference, from debate forum Intelligence Squared, took place on November 25-26th November in London. More than 30 celebrated scientists, award winning architects, farsighted futurologists and other brilliant minds shed light on the excitements and the dangers of tomorrow's world. Visit http://www.iq2if.com for video and picture highlights and to sign up for information about If Conference 2012. | 11/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
6 |
Jeremy Myerson: Yo-yos, see-saws and other dynamic design challenges of ageing | http://www.iq2if.com Catering for YoYos and accommodating See Saws are just two design challenges created by the UK's ageing society, says Jeremy Myerson. Getting old is as disruptive as adolescence: moving home, changes in health, confusion over new technology and sexual diseases - all require design solutions. The inaugural If Conference, from debate forum Intelligence Squared, took place on November 25-26th November in London. More than 30 celebrated scientists, award winning architects, farsighted futurologists and other brilliant minds shed light on the excitements and the dangers of tomorrow's world. Visit http://www.iq2if.com for video and picture highlights and to sign up for information about If Conference 2012. | 11/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
7 |
Christopher Choa: The New Silk Road: Camels, Air Routes, and the Rise of the Aerotropolis | http://www.iq2if.com Christopher Choa, the award-winning urban designer and native-New Yorker, argues that in the 21st century the most successful cities will grow up around airports rather than vice-versa. Living in an "aerotropolis", we will relate to neighbours thousands of miles away. There will be winners and losers -- cities that will thrive and some that could fail. The inaugural If Conference, from debate forum Intelligence Squared, took place on November 25-26th November in London. More than 30 celebrated scientists, award winning architects, farsighted futurologists and other brilliant minds shed light on the excitements and the dangers of tomorrow's world. Visit http://www.iq2if.com for video and picture highlights and to sign up for information about If Conference 2012. | 11/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
8 |
Sarah Harper: Extreme longevity | http://www.iq2if.com Sarah Harper is Oxford University Professor and world-expert on ageing. In this talk she asks whether we want to enter a world where we live for 200 years? Maybe we do, maybe we don't, but it is certainly something we should be discussing, because it is looking like being scientifically possible within a couple of generations. The inaugural If Conference, from debate forum Intelligence Squared, took place on November 25-26th November in London. More than 30 celebrated scientists, award winning architects, farsighted futurologists and other brilliant minds shed light on the excitements and the dangers of tomorrow's world. Visit http://www.iq2if.com for video and picture highlights and to sign up for information about If Conference 2012. | 11/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
9 |
Mark Post: Meet the new meat | http://www.iq2if.com 'A vegetarian in a hummer is much less damaging for the environment than a meat-eater on a bicycle'. Today's techniques for rearing livestock are unsustainable, particularly if global meat consumption doubles - as it's predicted to do - by 2050. Artificial meat, argues Professor Mark Post, could be the answer. The inaugural If Conference, from debate forum Intelligence Squared, took place on November 25-26th November in London. More than 30 celebrated scientists, award winning architects, farsighted futurologists and other brilliant minds shed light on the excitements and the dangers of tomorrow's world. Visit http://www.iq2if.com for video and picture highlights and to sign up for information about If Conference 2012. | 11/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
10 |
Patrick Blanc: The vertical garden, from nature to cities | http://www.iq2if.com In any city, anywhere, says Patrick Blanc, a naked wall can be turned into a Vertical Garden and be a valuable shelter for biodiversity. Drawing on travels to Taiwan, India and Malaysia, Blanc began developing his living walls inside using mainly tropical plants. Today his green tapestries are being planted externally in an increasing number of cities including New York, London, Madrid, Paris, Tokyo... The inaugural If Conference, from debate forum Intelligence Squared, took place on November 25-26th November in London. More than 30 celebrated scientists, award winning architects, farsighted futurologists and other brilliant minds shed light on the excitements and the dangers of tomorrow's world. Visit http://www.iq2if.com for video and picture highlights and to sign up for information about If Conference 2012. | 11/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
11 |
Iain Sinclair: Ghost Milk - Calling time on the Grand Project | http://www.iq2if.com In this talk, urban shaman Iain Sinclair argues that we live in the age of the Grand Project, when political and economic elites decide that big visions are required to improve districts and cities. The London 2012 Olympics encapsulate this trend towards "retro-futurism" and they will be extremely damaging to East London. The inaugural If Conference, from debate forum Intelligence Squared, took place on November 25-26th November in London. More than 30 celebrated scientists, award winning architects, farsighted futurologists and other brilliant minds shed light on the excitements and the dangers of tomorrow's world. Visit http://www.iq2if.com for video and picture highlights and to sign up for information about If Conference 2012. | 11/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
12 |
Amanda Renshaw: The Art Museum. A resource unparalleled in any medium | http://www.iq2if.com Phaidon's Amanda Renshaw introduces us to the Art Museum: 10 years in the making; open 365 days a year, 7 days a week and 24 hours a day; it houses 3,000 exhibitions, 650 collections from 60 countries; and is 992 pages long... Take a tour through Phaidon's latest creation. The inaugural If Conference, from debate forum Intelligence Squared, took place on November 25-26th November in London. More than 30 celebrated scientists, award winning architects, farsighted futurologists and other brilliant minds shed light on the excitements and the dangers of tomorrow's world. Visit http://www.iq2if.com for video and picture highlights and to sign up for information about If Conference 2012. | 11/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
13 |
Umberto Eco in conversation with Paul Holdengräber | CONSPIRACY, PARANOIA 8 THE NOVEL A Conversation with Umberto Eco. * Writing fiction about the real * Exploring the persistence of conspiracies * Adapting "The Name of the Rose" for the internet generation * Grasping the infinity of lists * Exploring the future of books * Losing yourself in a 50,000-volume library These are some of the topics Umberto Eco will be discussing with Paul Holdengräber, Director of LIVE at the New York Public Library. Their wide-ranging conversation will in part focus on Eco’s latest work of fiction, The Prague Cemetery. The book is an historical pseudo-reconstruction set in a 19th-century Europe teeming with secret service forgeries, Jesuit plots, murders and conspiracies, and covering everything from the unification of Italy, the Paris Commune, the Dreyfus Affair to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It has been criticised by both the Vatican-backed newspaper the Osservatore Romano and the Chief Rabbi of Rome | 11/19/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
14 |
London’s policy on climate change should begin in Beijing | If a windmill is about to blight your cherished view of the green English countryside, you might start to wonder why on earth the Department for Energy and Climate Change thinks it is a good idea to subsidise the monsters at vast cost to the British taxpayer. Why not retune some boilers in Guangdong instead? Or encourage the booming cities of China to power themselves with gas, not coal? There’s a whole raft of practical, carbon-saving steps which can be more cheaply achieved in the growing, bustling emerging world. After all, a ton of carbon saved in China is as good in global terms as a ton saved in the UK. So why ever spoil our green and pleasant land? Hang on, though. Wasn’t the “green new deal” all about creating jobs in a new sort of economy? Making Britain a leader in an industry of the future? Not to mention making us just a little less dependent for our energy on geopolitically unstable regions of the world. Make China the focus of all our policy effort, and it will be China that reaps the knock-on benefits. Why would we realistically agree to that | 10/20/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
15 |
The art market is the best judge of good art | Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves and Bust became the world's most expensive painting last year when it sold for £65 million. A stupendous price, but one that reflects Picasso's status as one of the giants – if not the overriding genius – of 20th-century art. But do the high prices fetched at auction always indicate artistic merit? Aren't they often the result of a fraught bidding war between two super-rich collectors? Doesn't the $25 million stumped up for Jeff Koons' giant balloon model say more about the power of hype than the merit of the work itself? What's more, the market itself can easily be rigged. When Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull was purportedly sold for £50 million in 2007, rumour had it that Hirst himself was part of the consortium that bought it in order to drum up publicity and raise the market value of his other work. So does the art market tell us only about fads and fashion and the egos of multimillionaires? Or should we overlook the hype and remember that in the long run the market rights itself and reflects the consensus on what great art really is | 10/7/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
16 |
Jimmy Carter in conversation with Jon Snow | President Jimmy Carter is a Nobel Prize winner, author, humanitarian, professor, farmer, naval officer and carpenter. In this special Intelligence² interview with Jon Snow from Channel 4 News at the Royal Festival Hall, President Carter will talk about his career as president, and the past three decades as a senior statesman and ambassador for the Carter Center. Jimmy Carter was U.S. President from 1977 to 1981. His administration's main foreign policy achievements include the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. After stepping down, he decided to establish the Carter Center along with his wife Rosalynn in 1982 to wage peace, fight disease and build hope worldwide. He was a pioneer in what has now become the widespread practice of putting prestige and status to good use in the world. The Center’s programmes have operated in 76 countries to resolve conflicts, advance democracy, human rights and economic opportunity, prevent disease, improve mental health care and teach farmers to increase crop production | 10/5/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
17 |
Democracy is India’s Achilles’ heel | We assume that democracy is what every country should have. But what has democracy done for India? Easy. It has stimulated corruption on a massive scale, and if you want to get rich in India the most direct way is to run for parliament and reap the payoffs businesses are obliged to make to the local MP. Caste, that Indian curse, becomes more entrenched as politicians exploit caste allegiances to win votes. Bombay may be booming but it’s hardly Shanghai. A country that is striving to be an economic powerhouse is being pulled down by its political system. Democracy is India’s Achilles’ heel. So say the pundits but what would they put in democracy’s place? Would they prefer India to be ruled by a Mubarak or an Indian version of the Beijing politburo? Democratic politics is always messy and often corrupt but it is the inevitable price of seeking the will of the people, which will always be preferable to the will of the dictator | 9/27/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
18 |
Cycling festival | Two wheels, a frame, and two pedals. Nothing could be simpler than a bicycle. People start cycling for practical reasons or for fun but before they know it, it's become a passion, an obsession, a career, an instrument of self-torture. It's an antiquated mode of transport, and yet hundreds of thousands take it up every year in Britain. Clean, green and cheap, it can turn your journey from A to B into a flight of inspiration, give you a sense of speed, grace and limitless potential, and add a frisson of danger to your otherwise humdrum existence. Intelligence² are bringing together the most articulate amateurs and professionals from the world of cycling to celebrate the endeavour and endurance, the risk and reward of this extraordinary partnership between man and machine. Taking part will be: Bella Bathurst, author of "The Bicycle Book", who will introduce us to the diverse and unpredictable world of the bicycle with stories from the past and quirky anecdotes from her more recent observations. Vin Cox, record holder for circumnavigating the globe by bike, will argue that the bicycle is the fastest and slowest form of transport you'll ever need. Geoff Dyer, novelist and keen amateur cyclist, will discuss how photography can capture the romantic allure of two-wheeled bliss – and nowhere is that bliss more ecstatically displayed than at the Burning Man festival in Nevada. Patrick Field, founder of the London School of Cycling who’ll be proposing a city cycling manifesto for the 21st century. Graeme Obree, Scottish cyclist who twice broke the world hour record on a home-made bicycle who'll be talking about design and innovation. Will Self, writer and keen amateur cyclist who’ll expand on his love of the bicycle’s purity and simplicity | 9/8/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
19 |
The war on terror was the right response to 9/11 | Let’s face it, Al-Qaeda was never a proper enemy. It was and is a terrorist organisation, not a nation state, and the right way to deal with terrorists is vigilance and high-grade intelligence. Declaring war on them only fuels the flames of hatred and violence. That’s the standard charge laid against the administration of George W. Bush. But it neglects the realities of 9/11, which was itself a declaration of war. And besides, Al-Qaeda had essentially merged itself with a government – the Afghan Taleban – and its capacity to disrupt the muslim world was and remains a threat that requires aggressive counteraction, not a bunch of policemen back home looking at screens. For all the cost in money and lives, the Iraq invasion toppled a tyrant and brought its people democracy, however imperfectly. Left alone in their hiding places in Pakistan and Yemen, the militants of Al-Qaeda will continue their training and plotting and America is quite right to be stepping up its drone and jet attacks against them. That’s what the defenders of the war on terror say. Come to the debate and see if you agree | 9/6/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
20 |
New technology is creating more serious problems than it’s solving | We live in a time when the Internet and a forever flowering industry of gadgets and machinery has allowed humans to interact and share ideas with untold speed, reach and intimacy. Technological innovation is not only the bedfellow of the economic growth which we need, but also offers our best shot at tackling today’s biggest challenges: climate change; poverty; despotism. At least, this is what the tech-topians and cyber-lovers would have you believe. But whilst they’ve been queuing to get their hands on the latest iPad, another breed – of slow cooking, off-grid, deep-thinking back-to-basics types – have been pushing their vision of how the world should work. They feel that people today are too busy staring at the computer screen to see what’s going on around them, that children are ignoring the real world in favour of computer games, that family and work life is being blurred by BlackBerrys, that our ability to focus has been corroded by endless tweets and ‘Urgent’ emails. So, do we live in a world which is dangerously addicted to being ‘switched on’? Are Twitter and Facebook a threat to our privacy? Should the unbridled advancement of all things robotic, electronic and web-based be reigned in before it tears at the very foundations of civilisation | 8/14/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
21 |
Don’t let the eco-warriors ruin your fun | Cast your mind back five years to 2006, to when environmentalism gripped the world. We were all shocked into buying different lightbulbs by the apocalyptic forecasts of the Stern report, and Al Gore, with the aid of an array of impressive scatter charts, was King Green. It seemed that we were all on course to become bona fide tree huggers. But it hasn’t quite happened – not yet at least – and if anything, the public appetite for the fight against global warming seems to be waning. In the current economic gloom, everyone seems to have reverted to their more immediate priorities; we’re happy to wallow in the reassuring belief that consumption drives growth, as we click “confirm” on another short haul flight. So perhaps we’re now suffering from environmental fatigue, and perhaps we’re fed up with being lectured to by a bunch of lentil-munching cyclists. Have the eco-warriors pushed us too far in their attempt to amend our ways? Have we discovered that, when all is said and done, we’re just not that bothered about rising tides in the Maldives? Of course, there are those who dissent from the consensus that we’re headed towards a catastrophe, and advise us to ignore the people they feel are doom-mongers peddling pseudoscience. How then, should the threat of global warming influence our behaviour? Should we heed the warnings of floods, droughts, burning forests and a world of environmental refugees and change our ways? Or should we maintain that we’re not going to allow the polar bears and our grandchildren to ruin our lives while we rev up our engines and revel in and the pleasures of unabated consumption | 8/14/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
22 |
Great minds: Slavoj Žižek | Modern radical thinker Slavoj Žižek spoke on the 1st July 2011 as part of the ‘Great Minds’ series, and affirmed his status as a great mind of modern philosophy and social, cultural and political theory. Starbucks, social solidarity and self-commodification were among the varied and enlightening topics touched upon by Žižek, all grounded by his interpretation of ideology and its continuing importance. One of Europe’s foremost Marxist theorists, Žižek criticised modern leftist groups who, he argued, didn’t really know how to cope with the upheaval of the ‘sublime’ moment (revelation that an assumed state of total happiness is actually non-existent). The question of ‘what happens next’ has been asked since the dwindling exhaustion of modernism into postmodernism. Žižek asks us to put ideological pressure on modern life, confirming the presence of ideological symbolism even in blatant popular culture (such as two Oscar-winning films, The King’s Speech and Black Swan [2010]). His manner was sometimes serious, sometimes comic and vaguely apocalyptic (he is a self confessed pessimist), which all together made for an engaging talk, dense in historical, anecdotal and political references. The combination of issues allowed the modern audience member to examine their own behaviour alongside Hegelian optimism, Freudian self-commodification and Marxist ideas of social roles, in a non ‘academic’ sense, referring to the purchasing of Starbucks coffee as a subconscious purchasing of social solidarity built into the price. An audience member asks ‘isn’t it the case that people know that what they’re doing is buying a coffee that will then, in some sort of self-serving way, make them feel better about themselves?’, thus showing that ideology is no longer a ‘smokescreen’ of sorts. Žižek answers by claiming that we follow things, knowing that they are ideologies, and this does not necessarily make them ‘right’ or true. This is where the notion of ideology seems to be headed; to a total self consciousness – as with a Hegelian resolution of the ‘Zeitgeist’ (Žižek is actually close to the publishing of an 800 page book on Hegel). In his relatively brief talk, Slavoj Žižek managed to expose our susceptibility to certain ideologies, thus proving their ever present role in modern society - not bad for a Friday night in West London, perhaps the capital of the British bourgeoisie | 7/1/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
23 |
Ten years after 9/11: The world remade | Ten years after 9/11 a new era of beginnings and endings is upon us. The Arab Awakening and Bin Laden’s death, the rise of China, the perils of Pakistan and emergence of Africa, the power of social media and the promise of a new global order all herald a world remade. In this special Intelligence² event, former Foreign Secretary David Miliband and other leading experts from Oxford Analytica, the global strategic analysis and advisory firm, will chart the tumultuous path since September 11th and show how it will shape tomorrow’s volatile global order. Why did the hunt for Osama bin Laden take so long? Is counterterrorism counterproductive? Have the “Wars of 9/11” been worth the money and lives expended? What has their effect been on the Middle East and the Muslim world? How have Russia and China responded and, in Beijing’s case, managed to strengthen its geopolitical standing during the decade following the attack | 6/27/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
24 |
Museums are bad at telling us why art matters | Museums are our new churches, as is commonly agreed. Millions of people flock to them to be uplifted, inspired, or distracted from everyday cares for an hour or two by encountering magnificent art. But while churches know exactly how to present art in order to foster faith and remind us of the Christian virtues, couldn't our museums do a better job at displaying art in a way that fully engages our emotions? Aren’t all those academic categories – “the 19th century”, “the Northern Italian School” – dry and dull? Aren't museums just places where great art goes to die? Why can't museums organize their collections in such a way as to convey art’s life-enhancing possibilities and even inspire us to become better people? But isn't that taking the "art as religion" line a bit too seriously? It implies that museums have a social function, even a didactic role to play. Do we want to visit museums in order to be told by invisible curators to think and feel in a certain way? And while it may be the case that religious art was created to instruct the minds and improve the souls of the congregation, can that be said of modern art whose purpose is to challenge, question or shock the viewer? And don’t ever soaring visitor numbers prove that our museums are already doing a brilliant job | 6/21/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
25 |
If you want fidelity, get a dog | Let’s face it, the French are more clear-headed on certain issues than the English. On marriage, for a start. It’s not that they have anything against it – on the contrary, their discretion when taking a lover is intended to preserve the institution's many virtues. But restrict all one’s sexual energies to just one person? Sacre bleu! "Si vous cherchez la fidelité, achetez un chien." Or so our cousins across the Channel like to have it. But are they fooling themselves? Is it possible truly to love your wife on Sunday, if on Monday you’re sleeping with your mistress? Come and hear the arguments from the Canadian owner of a dating agency for married people, a best-selling Australian author and comic talents from Iran and Britain as they debate just who is fooling whom | 6/14/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
26 |
Western parents don’t know how to bring up their children | Why are there so many Chinese maths and music prodigies? Because Chinese mothers believe schoolwork and music practice come first, that an A-minus is a bad grade, that sleepovers, TV and computer games should never be allowed and that the only activities their children should be permitted to do are ones in which they can eventually win a medal – and that medal must be gold. These methods certainly seem to get results, so perhaps western parents should start being more pushy with their children. But is it defensible to cajole and bully one's offspring to success? Isn't it better to be raising happy, rounded individuals rather than burnt-out brainboxes? Who's right and who's wrong? Come and hear the arguments presented by Amy Chua, author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, set to be one of the most talked about books of 2011, and on the opposite side Justine Roberts, co-founder of Mumsnet, the phenomenally successful parenting website | 6/8/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
27 |
Tales from the Deep | http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/tales-from-the-deep This event, part of the Project Ocean series, took place at Selfridges, on 2nd June. An evening of true stories of passion, adventure and disaster told by four very different ocean-going explorers. David de Rothschild will talk about his mission on board Plastiki, Surfers against Sewage champion Chris Hines will relate his journey from beach bum to MBE, Philip Hoare, author of Leviathan or, The Whale will explain his fascination for the giant mammals of the ocean, and Willie MacKenzie will tell stories from the frontline of Greenpeace. | 6/2/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
28 |
Ideas to change the world | The pioneering work done by the scientists at the Oxford Martin School promises to transform our world – to prolong our life-spans, enhance our brains, conquer food scarcity and solve the climate change problem. How do they propose to take us to this Brave New World and what nasty surprises might they unleash as they prise open Pandora’s box? In this conference, organised jointly by the Oxford Martin School and Intelligence Squared, four of the school’s most brilliant experts will be showcasing their vision of the future before addressing challenges from you, the audience, about the potential perils that such visions may bring with them. After a scene-setting presentation by Dr Ian Goldin, in which he will lay out a vision for the world in 2020, the evening will be divided in to two halves: TRANSFORMING HUMANS Why accept frailty as part of the human condition when science is poised to keep us healthy and sane? Dr Bennett Foddy will present the case for biological enhancement of the human body. Should we embrace therapeutic cloning and genetic manipulation so that we can live longer and healthier lives, or is this eugenics by another name? As for the human brain, Professor Gero Miesenböck will tell us how his cutting-edge work in the new science of optogenetics – developing genetic strategies for observing and controlling the function of brain circuits with light – can help us understand our brains and potentially manipulate them. What are the ethical problems we’ll be facing if these visions of ‘mind control’ are fulfilled? TRANSFORMING THE ENVIRONMENT No less revolutionary are the ideas being put forward to transform the world in which we live. Professor Liam Dolan will be arguing that new techniques for manipulating crop genes hold the key to increasing yields and alleviating concerns about global food security. Professor Gideon Henderson will explain how the global warming problem could be solved by manipulating the natural system of the oceans to make them take up more carbon. GM crops. Altering the patterns of nature. Are these our route to survival or will we be unleashing unstoppable changes in the environment that we – or future generations – may live to regret | 6/2/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
29 |
Germany no longer needs Europe – the dream is over | “Even before it began, Europe’s moment as a major world power in the 21st century looks to be over.” So says Richard Haass, President of New York’s influential Council on Foreign Relations. And you can see where he’s coming from. The “no” votes on the EU constitution in 2005, the subsequent rise of nationalist and centre-right governments across Europe, the grudging bailout of Greece, the fumbled bailout of Ireland and all the sharp divisions exposed by the financial crisis. Europe? What Europe? In any case the Germans have got what they wanted – reunification – and feel increasingly disenchanted with the bargain they had to make to get it – accepting the euro. But that which does not kill us makes us stronger. And if Europe does survive the euro crisis it could well be that its leaders will strengthen economic policy coordination across the EU to ensure there’s no repeat performance – a fresh impetus for the dream of Europe. Pie in the sky? Come to the debate and see what a former French president and five other big hitters have to say on the issue | 5/17/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
30 |
The Jasmine Revolution will wither in North Africa | "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!" So wrote William Wordsworth at the start of the French Revolution, and that spirit of euphoria still broadly infects the young people who massed in their tens of thousands in Egypt and Tunisia to oust their hated rulers. But in countries with no tradition of democracy, where corruption is entrenched and jobs are scarce, the political and economic aspirations of these youthful revolutionaries are likely to be disappointed. Add to that the fact that the Islamists are far better organised than the liberal groups and are set to come out on top in the forthcoming elections, and things begin to look very gloomy indeed. But is this view all too pessimistic? The fundamental barrier of fear has been removed and the new democrats are mobilising themselves to make sure that the benefits of change trickle down to all. There's even talk of a possible split amongst the Islamists between the reactionary old guard and a more open-minded younger generation. As one of the two young Egyptians taking part in this debate will argue, if their demands aren't met, "the Egyptian masses know their way back to Tahrir Square!" | 5/16/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
31 |
Vote for AV | Citizens of Britain, be afraid. Be very afraid. On May 5th we risk committing a grave crime against our democracy. We are being asked in a referendum, to ditch the system of voting – First Past the Post – that has served us so well as a democratic nation, and to adopt the system known as the Alternative Vote, that will allow MPs to be elected to parliament even if they are not the first choice of the majority of their constituents. Instead it will be the second and third preferences of those who vote for no-hope or extremist parties – “the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates", as Winston Churchill put it – which will in many constituencies determine whether or not an MP gets in. By thus giving an outlying group of voters what is essentially a second chance to vote, AV will kill the hallowed principle that each person’s vote is of equal weight. That at any rate is the view of 26 eminent historians (Professors Niall Ferguson and Antony Beevor included) expressed in a recent letter to The Times. But in a subsequent letter, their view was given a good kicking by 20 eminent lawyers (including Baroness Kennedy QC and Michael Mansfield QC) who argue that it is precisely because your vote is so seldom given equal weight in practice, that we need AV. Look at all those MPs who, under First Past the Post, regularly get well below 50% of the local vote, yet still get returned to Westminster even though a majority of their constituents don’t want them there. AV will create genuine contests for seats that sitting MPs at present take for granted as “theirs” – a situation that empowers a few thousand voters in "marginals" to decide elections. Is that the hallowed system you really want to keep? So are the academics right? Or the lawyers? Or – whisper it quietly – is it all a lot of fuss about very little | 4/26/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
32 |
John Gray and James Lovelock in conversation | The Artangel Longplayer Conversation 2011 introduces two of the world’s foremost modern thinkers: climate-scientist and ‘futurologist’ James Lovelock and political philosopher and author John Gray, who will embark on a discussion inspired by the philosophical implications of long time | 4/18/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
33 |
Sam Harris on the Science of Good and Evil | Where do our ideas about morality and meaning come from? Most people – from religious extremists to secular scientists – would agree on one point: that science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, science's failure to explain meaning and morality has become the primary justification for religious faith and the reason why even many non-believers feel obliged to accord respect to the beliefs of the devout. Sam Harris, the American philosopher and neuroscientist, comes to the Intelligence² stage to argue that these views are mistaken – that amidst all the competing arguments about how we should lead our lives, science can show us that there are right and wrong answers. This means that moral relativism is mistaken and that there can be neither a Christian nor a Muslim morality – and that ultimately science can and should determine how best to live our lives. Sam Harris will be discussing his latest book The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values with Revd Dr Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral | 4/11/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
34 |
Look West not East: South America will be the 21st century’s superpower | Conventional wisdom tells us that a new star will rise in the East and over the past decade all eyes have been looking towards China or India to witness the emergence of the 21st century’s new superpower. But on 22 March 2011, the IQ2 debate challenged this assumption and suggested that we look to the West. Quietly, the economies of South America have also been transforming themselves, only in their case unburdened by the dead weight of caste politics or communism. It is they, the motion suggested, that will emerge as the Superpowers of the 21st Century. Parag Khanna asked why it was that South America has been so perennially excluded from the conversation of geopolitics? This came down, he suggested, to the naïve assumption that hegemonic power moves in cycles from East to West to East again. To the view of South America as predominantly a resource provider rather than a resource deplorer and to the continent’s historic subservience to the United States. The US has realised that South America is ‘its turn-key solution to it’s two greatest challenges: energy security and economic competitiveness’. What is more, Asia – the world’s crowded arms bazaar – is turbulent and wracked with divisions along national and ethnic fault lines. The advantage of South America, explained Roberto Jaguaribe (Brazil’s Ambassador to the UK), was that we are ‘living in the most extensive, cohesive, and homogenous region of the world’. The region is prospering, much like the US was in early 20th century, in a context of splendid, (safe and stable) isolation. Alright, conceded the other side of the panel, progress in South America has been spectacular, but we must recognise the weaknesses that plague the continent. After all, explained Bill Emmott, ‘Argentina is usually one president away from its next default. It is the world’s champion sovereign debt defaulter. Anyone looking for worries about the Euro and future models for how you do a sovereign debt default always reaches for the file marked “Argentina” in their file.’ What is more, suggested Gideon Rachman, while we might regard Brazil as the ‘cuddly BRIC – the one that everybody likes and they give all the tournaments to,’ we mustn’t ignore the drug wars raging in Mexico and the questionable Human Rights record in Venezuela. Take no comfort from the fact that Hugo Chavez was the 2009 winner of the Muammar Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights. ‘That’s not one that you want to keep on your mantelpiece.’ Rana Mitter and Oscar Guardiola-Rivera took the debate to the question of culture. Mitter, against the motion, pointed to the permeating influence of Mandarin and the ‘universalising cultural phenomenons’ of Bollywood and Japanese Manga anime. He suggested there simply wasn’t a South American equivalent. What about Shakira? shot back Guardiola-Rivera | 3/27/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
35 |
A Journey into Outer Space, with Brian Cox | Are we alone in the universe? How will we ever find out? How did the universe begin? Will we ever find the mysterious "God particle"? What would it mean if we did? How soon will we all become space tourists? These are some of the big questions surrounding man's existence....and Intelligence² are bringing together some of the world's leading scientists, astronomers and space pioneers to attempt to answer them. Particle physicist and BBC presenter Brian Cox will talk about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva, and specifically about what the world's largest scientific experiment might tell us about some of the great questions in cosmology. What is dark matter? Why is gravity so weak? What happens in the heart of neutron stars? Charles Simonyi, the former Microsoft technology architect and space tourist, will tell us what it's like to be aboard the International Space Station, focusing in particular on weightlessness: What does it mean? What would Newton have said about it? And how does it actually feel? He'll illustrate his talk with images from Newton’s books and video taken aboard the space station. Royal astronomer Martin Rees will outline how a mysterious 'big bang' gave rise to atoms, galaxies, stars, planets – and at least one biosphere. Having introduced us to the exciting discoveries that suggest there are billions of planets orbiting other stars in our galaxy, and that there are billions of other galaxies, he will speculate on whether our 'big bang' is just one of many, on the probabilities of life on other planets, and on the long-range future for life, here on earth and far beyond. Biographer Richard Holmes will lead us back in time for an historical overview of space – from Ptolemy to Galileo to Herschel. How did astronomers of the past understand the cosmos? What impact did they have on poets and writers such as Shakespeare and Keats? And planetary scientist Colin Pillinger will talk about space exploration past, present and future using manned and robotic spacecraft. As the man who led the Beagle 2 project to send a spacecraft to look for evidence of life on Mars, he will be asking the big question: Is there life elsewhere in the universe? The event will be chaired by Rick Stroud, film-maker and author of The Book of the Moon | 3/16/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
36 |
James Watson in conversation with Brenda Maddox | On February 28th 1953, James Watson and his collaborator Francis Crick made a momentous discovery at the Cambridge laboratory where they were working. They had determined the double-helix structure of the molecule DNA, of which all living matter is made. Watson and Crick became world famous, sharing the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine with Maurice Wilkins. Their discovery revolutionised the study of biology and genetics, making possible the DNA techniques used by today's biotechnology industry. Watson is known as the enfant terrible of molecular biology. In 1968 he published his account of the DNA discovery, The Double Helix. The book became an international best-seller, but some in the scientific community were scandalised by Watson's portrayal of the faults and foibles of his colleagues and the snipings and rivalries of the scientific world. Since then he has frequently been embroiled in controversy for his views on genetic screening and genetic engineering. But Watson insists that devotion to the truth as he sees it is as essential in dealing with the general public as it is in scientific research. James Watson will be in conversation with Brenda Maddox, biographer of Rosalind Franklin, the scientist who made a significant contribution to learning about the structure of DNA but whose role was largely unacknowledged in her lifetime. | 3/9/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
37 |
Let the bad guys be: David Aaronovitch and Rory Stewart on the perils of foreign intervention | Taking on the Arab tyrants: Is it any of our business? The democratic convulsions now rocking the Arab world have forced us to confront anew the key question driving western foreign policy: how far should the West be involved in the democracy promotion business? Perhaps the lesson of the Arab Spring is that toppling oppressors is better left to the oppressed. Maybe Iraq would have had its own Arab Spring if we’d just let Saddam be? But then what about Saudi Arabia? Little sign of an end to autocracy there. Do we just keep cosy with the Saudi king, or do we take steps to push him to democratise? And once the dictator is falling or has fallen… what then? Do we just stand back and hope that democracy will flourish in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and elsewhere? If not, how should we intervene to promote the spread of democratic ideals and institutions? These are some of the questions that two of the sharpest debaters on the subject – Rory Stewart and David Aaronovitch – will be crossing swords over this Thursday. Why not come and join the fray | 3/3/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
38 |
Niall Ferguson on the six | Niall Ferguson is the most brilliant British historian of his generation. In his latest book, Civilisation: The West and the Rest, he asks how Western civilisation, from inauspicious roots in the 15th century, came to dominate the rest of the world. His answer is that the West developed six “killer applications” that the Rest lacked: competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the Protestant work ethic. The key question today is whether or not the West has lost its monopoly on these six things. If it has and the Rest of the world can successfully download these apps, we may be living through the end of Western ascendancy | 2/28/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
39 |
Iran is a Paper Tiger | Listen to what President Ahmedinejad of Iran says about Israel: “The world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime.” Here he is on the West: “We thank God that our enemies are idiots.” Does this man sound like a serious threat? The Islamic regime in Iran loves to bare its claws and snarl, but isn’t this all just am dram posturing? It may suit Israel to portray Iran’s sabre-rattling as an existential threat and it may suit the US to play up that threat. But even if Iran does acquire a nuclear strike capability won’t it be primarily for exhibitionist reasons? And won’t that threat be dwarfed by the far more sophisticated weaponry that Israel and the US could muster in response? That’s the argument of those happy to dismiss Iran as a paper tiger. But have they got it horribly wrong? Would Arab governments really have beseeched the US to bomb Iran – as revealed by Wikileaks – if its regime were no more than a duff joke? Could it be that a nuclear-armed Iran is every bit as bad as the scaremongers say it is? http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/ira | 2/24/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
40 |
John Gray and Adam Phillips on Immortality | John Gray and Adam Phillips will be discussing themes raised in Gray's forthcoming book The Immortalization Commission: Science and the Strange Quest to Cheat Death. In the late 19th century the implication of Darwin's theories was that humans were animals like any other, alone in an uncaring universe. The refusal to accept this and to insist instead on our immortality resulted in a series of experiments. Gray examines two major examples: the belief that the science-backed Communism of the new USSR could reshape the planet, remaking humanity and freeing us from death (and in the process return Lenin back to life), and the belief among a group of Edwardian intellectuals that there was a form of life after death accessed through mediums and automatic writing. These attempts may seem deluded to us in the 21st century but can we claim to be no longer gripped by the hope that somehow science can make us invincible? http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/immortality | 2/21/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
41 |
Interview with Eugene Rogan | Tony Curzon Price interviews Eugene Rogan, Director of the Middle East Centre at Oxford University and author of The Arabs. | 2/16/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
42 |
Turmoil in the Arab world | Is democracy dawning in the Arab world? Or does the fall of Mubarak signal the start of military rule? Do the uprisings in North Africa mark the end of Arab authoritarianism? Or are they merely revolving doors for the next autocracy? Could…. or should… Western governments intervene to help push the democratic agenda | 2/15/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
43 |
Interview with Nabila Ramdani | Tony Curzon Price interviews Nabila Ramdani ahead of the event at the Royal Geographical Society on the 15th February - Turmoil in the Arab world: is the genie of democracy out of the bottle? Nabila is a well-established commentator for the BBC's Woman's Hour and Today programme, Al Jazeera, France Inter, France Télévisions, Canal +, and the Sky News press preview. | 2/14/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
44 |
The financial crisis only proves the strength of capitalism | How badly wounded is modern capitalism by the financial crisis? Is it mortal or just a flesh wound? Will the state have to expand its powers and take on new responsibilities for jobs, investment, financial regulation and redistribution as we limp out of recession? And was the success of laissez-faire of the last 30 years just illusion built on unstable mounds of borrowing? Or was real wealth-creation unleashed? Does the crisis just point to the work that still needs to be done to make the capitalist-democratic state more nimble, smaller, less bureaucratic? Will that finally demonstrate the superior values of freedom and decentralisation over authoritarian economic models to the East? Crossing swords on these pivotal issues are Anatole Kaletsky, principal economic commentator for The Times and Will Hutton, Observer columnist and author of The State We’re In.... and of course you, the Intelligence Squared audience | 2/9/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
45 |
Interview with Anatole Kaletsky | Economist Anatole Kaletsky interviewed by Tony Curzon Price | 2/9/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
46 |
Interview with Will Hutton | Tony Curzon Price interviews Will Hutton ahead of next weeks event with Anatole Kaletsky. The financial crisis only proves the strength of capitalism on Tuesday February 8th, 2011 How badly wounded is modern capitalism by the financial crisis? Is it mortal or just a flesh wound? Will the state have to expand its powers and take on new responsibilities for jobs, investment, financial regulation and redistribution as we limp out of recession? And was the success of laissez-faire of the last 30 years just illusion built on unstable mounds of borrowing? Or was real wealth-creation unleashed? Does the crisis just point to the work that still needs to be done to make the capitalist-democratic state more nimble, smaller, less bureaucratic? Will that finally demonstrate the superior values of freedom and decentralisation over authoritarian economic models to the East? Crossing swords on these pivotal issues are Anatole Kaletsky, principal economic commentator for The Times and Will Hutton, Observer columnist and author of The State We’re In.... and of course you, the Intelligence Squared audience. | 2/3/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
47 |
Simon Sebag Montefiore on Jerusalem | Jerusalem is the Holy City, the capital of two peoples, the shrine of three faiths, the prize of countless conquerors, the site of Judgement Day and the battlefield of today’s clash of civilisations. In this talk historian Simon Sebag Montefiore will take us on a 3000-year journey through Jerusalem’s many incarnations, through the wars, adventures, love-affairs and messianic revelations of the men and women who created, destroyed and left their mark on the city – from Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad to Cleopatra, Herod and Caligula, from Saladin to the Kaiser and Churchill, from Disraeli and Lloyd George to Moshe Dayan, King Hussein and Yasser Arafat | 2/1/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
48 |
Interview with John Gray | Interview with John Gray | 2/1/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
49 |
Interview with Geoff Dyer | Interview with Geoff Dyer | 1/19/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
50 |
Science will have all the answers | Is science the only path to truth? Does it have all the answers? Join actor and writer Jack Klaff of Intelligence Squared for an evening of informal, intelligent and exciting chat. | 1/17/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
51 |
Quick Debate: The oil sands are good for Canada and good for the world | The Canadian Oil Sands, located primarily in the prairie province of Alberta, are the world’s largest oil reserves outside of Saudi Arabia. Counting 170 billion recoverable barrels of oil, they are in Canada the embodiment of a global debate: how do we balance the economic boons of oil production with its environmental impacts? Canada is the largest importer of oil to the United States, shipping 2.5 million barrels across the border every day. These shipments alone account for close to 5% of all global oil exports. And with Oil Sands production expected to grow to almost four million barrels per day by 2020, Canadian citizens are having to evaluate the worth of the Oil Sands to their country’s development, just as the world grapples with the place of oil consumption in its future | 12/22/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
52 |
Short extract from North Korea debate | Short extract from the IQ2 audio debate "Engaging Pyongyang is pointless". It was clear, even before the smoke cleared over the tiny South Korean island bombed by North Korea on Tuesday afternoon, that this would be one of the most serious crises the peninsula has faced. Some 200 North Korean artillery shells killed two marines, and later the bodies of two civilians were found on Yeonpyeong Island. Dozens of locals and military personnel were injured, and villages burned. South Korea retaliated, firing some 80 shells back across the border, and scrambling jets. The event reawoke the anger that followed the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel earlier this year, killing 46 sailors – almost certainly caused by a North Korean torpedo, although Pyongyang denied responsibility. And it also stoked the fears caused by the totalitarian state’s recent exhibition of its nuclear facilities to a small group of invited American experts, who reported that Pyongyang has some 2,000 impressively high-tech centrifuges capable of producing the fuel for nuclear power stations – and nuclear weapons. Some see the seeds of new global tension in the conflict - the US, Japan and Europe have declared strong support for Seoul, and America embarked on military exercises off the coast of the peninsula. But both South Korea and the US have been careful to avoid immediate threats of retaliation which might escalate the conflict, the US has not repositioned its 29,000 troops in the South, and nor has it explicitly agreed to provide South Korea with nuclear protection. Meanwhile China – a longstanding ally of North Korea – held back from any strong statements, with a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman yesterday urged both sides to "do more to contribute to peace and stability in the region". Although Beijing has distanced itself from the Pyongyang regime in recent decades – in the 1980s the two countries previously claimed to be “as close as lips and teeth” – it is concerned about instability in the North and the prospect of a unified Korea dominated by the US. But while the superpowers pussyfoot around the crisis, discussion and doubt has centred on North Korea’s motivation for such a blatant act of provocation – and the question of what can possibly be done about it. Simon Tisdale argues in the Guardian that “North Korea uses military power, or the threat of it, where others use diplomacy. It is the only real leverage the regime has.” It wants respect, an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation and no more threats of regime change. The leaders want “food aid, electricity, financial assistance, investment, trade. Finally, the ailing dictator wants backing for the postulated dynastic succession of his youngest son, a scheme that could yet collapse amid acrimony or worse.” What are they offering in return? An end to their troublemaking. This may not be popular in the west, but in the end, Tisdale argues, a deal is “doable and desirable”. Writing in the Times, Bronwen Maddox argues that “preparations for the succession to Kim Jong Il, the Supreme Leader, are the root cause of rising tension. Kim Jong Un, his son and presumed successor, needs the support of the army – hence, many think, the upsurge in military provocation this year.” She also argues that the regime has been destabilised by the recent increased availability of international television to North Korean viewers, which lets them see that “another life could be – and should be – theirs.” On her reading, then, the attacks are a show of strength intended for North Koreans as well as the enemies on the peninsula. In the Financial Times, Robert Kaplan also interpreted North Korea’s behaviour as an internal issue, a way of shoring up the splintered leadership. As he wrote, “the heightened aggression shown by North Korea therefore may be a sign that the regime is in deep trouble. A sudden implosion could unleash the mother of all | 12/20/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
53 |
ExplicitQuick Debate: Writing about sex is impossible yet irresistible | "Like a lepidopterist mounting a tough-skinned insect with a too blunt pin he screwed himself into her". This year, the Literary Review's Bad Sex Award, set up in 1993 by Auberon Waugh to draw attention to the "crude, tasteless, and often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in contemporary novels, and to discourage it", was given to Irish novelist Rowan Somerville for The Shape of Her. Another scene goes like this: "He unbuttoned the front of her shirt and pulled it to the side so that her breast was uncovered, her nipple poking out, upturned like the nose of the loveliest nocturnal animal, sniffing the night. He took it between his lips and sucked the salt from her." And it seems that not even the biggest superstars of contemporary fiction are immune from occasional lapses into purple prose. Salman Rushdie once wrote that "[Boonyi] pulled her phiran and shirt off over her head and stood before him naked except for the little pot of fire hanging low, below her belly, heating further what was already hot." Philip Roth, whose novels like Portnoy's Complaint and Sabbath's Theatre are amongst the horniest in the English language, wrote that "It was as if she were wearing a mask on her g******s, a weird totem mask, that made her into what she was not and was not supposed to be." In Jonathan Franzen's Freedom, a character's c******s is described as a "protuding pencil of tenderness". Negotiating the rocky path between ham-fisted metaphors and dull mechanics of the "he unbuttoned her top, she nibbled his ear" sort is certainly tricky. And the sniggering ridicule of those who judge - and comment on - the Bad Sex Award may well play some role in discouraging writers from writing about sex. Indeed, no less a writer than Martin Amis, whose debut The Rachel Papers revolves around a series of adolescent bedroom antics, recently said that writing about sex was practically impossible. "It's not that surprising," he said, "Of all human activities this is the one that peoples the world. With that tonnage of emotion on it, if there is going to be one thing you can't write about then that would be it. It's a bit like why it's so difficult to write about dreams." Many readers feel that contemporary authors aren't taking the risks they should when writing about sex; the sort of risks which DH Lawrence took in Lady Chatterley's Lover. "She clung to him unconscious in passion," Lawrence wrote, "and he never quite slipped from her, and she felt the soft bud of him within her stirring, and strange rhythms flushing up into her with a strange rhythmic growing motion, swelling and swelling til it filled all her cleaving consciousness, and then began again the unspeakable motion that was not really motion, but pure deepening whirlpools of sensation swirling deeper and deeper through all her tissue and consciousness, til she was one perfect concentric fluid of feeling, and she lay there crying in unconscious inarticulate cries." So, writing about something as profoundly personal as sex is difficult but doable. We invited Sarah Duncan, whose Kissing Mr Wrong has been longlisted for the Romantic Novel of the Year award, and Guardian journalist Susanna Rustin, to debate what they thought was the way to do it. | 12/16/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
54 |
Free speech sample | Terry Jones, the Florida preacher who angered Muslims around the world when he planned to commemorate 9/11 with a mass burning of the Qu'ran, has been invited to speak at a rally in Luton by the English Defence League, a far-right Islamophobic group. Should Jones be banned from entering the country under incitement laws? Or is it best to let him exercise free speech, however despicable his opinions? The Home Secretary, Theresa May, is considering that decision today. Where do you stand on this? The law limits in all sorts of ways the harms that one can do to others. Intentional physical harm is criminal; harm to people's interests through theft, for example, is illegal. But in the USA, you can cause a great deal of emotional and mental harm in the exercise of your free speech rights. Not so in the UK, where hate speech is much more subject to control. Which is the better system? Listen to American writer Wendy Kaminer, an ardent critic of censorship, clash with Femi Otitoju, a British equality campaigner. This is the short 2.45minute version. Visit http://www.intelligencesquared.com for the full version | 12/13/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
55 |
Quick Debate: Feminism has nothing to fear from Darwinism | This weeks quick debate. | 12/10/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
56 |
Don’t eat animals | Steak and kidney pie. The Sunday roast. Mmm, delicious. In fact more than delicious, part of our way of life. Part of our common humanity, too, since eating meat is probably what allowed our brains to grow big enough to become fully human in the first place. So how could anyone be persuaded to give up eating it? Easy, say the vegetarians. Go to an abattoir. Listen to the shrieks, look at the fear in the eyes of the cow. Then go to a supermarket and look at the results of that bloodfest all neatly packaged up to disguise the cruelty and suffering that preceded the shrink wrap. No one with a streak of compassion, no one who calls themselves human could then stretch out their hand, plonk the slaughter in their shopping basket and feel they were doing right. Or could they? Come to the debate and find out. Speakers for the motion - Abbas Daneshvari, Heather Mills and Peter Singer Speakers against the motion - Julian Baggini, Robin Dunbar and Paul Levy | 12/9/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
57 |
An elected House of Lords will be bad for British democracy | Event information: An elected second chamber. Who could argue with that? Surely it’s what all good democrats would like to see in place of the present House of Lords with its party appointees and hereditary rump? Or is it? Never forget the overweening dominance of political parties in British political life. If members of the Lords have to submit to the same electoral cycle as MPs won’t they just suffer the same fate as MPs and become entirely dependent for advancement on the party leadership? Become the Cabinet’s creatures? Elections may confer the patina of legitimacy to political arrangements, but in Britain’s elective dictatorship, as Lord Hailsham called it, they simply end up reinforcing the power of the executive in parliament. And since the purpose of a second chamber is to serve as a check on the arrogance of executive power, since an independence of spirit is required whenever members of that chamber revise legislation and use their suspensive veto, then open elections to the Lords are surely the last thing we need? Appoint them; elect them indirectly; choose them from pre-selected professional categories; any system you like, but not direct elections. Or so those resistant to reform like to argue. Are they just being ante-deluvian diehards? Is this just cover for the retention of existing privileges? Or are they right? Speakers for the motion - Vernon Bogdanor, Shami Chakrabarti and Sir Simon Jenkins Speakers against the motion - Lord Adonis, Billy Bragg and Polly Toynbe | 12/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
58 |
Quick Debate: Royals | Prince William’s wedding to Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey next April will be attended by hundreds of foreign dignitaries and marked by street parties, a concert in Hyde Park and a national Bank Holiday, at a cost of more than £10 million. Our monarchy is the most expensive monarchy in Europe and the most cosseted. More significantly, it is the one with the strongest vestigial political role. Although the Swedish royal family was flung into controversy recently, when a new book, Carl XVI Gustaf - The Reluctant Monarch, alleged that the eponymous King enjoyed wild sex parties and whirlpool liaisons with strippers, for years the Scandinavian royals have been known for their modest style; the term the “Bicycling Monarchy” was coined following the former Danish Queen Juliana’s fondness for bicycling, and her often unscheduled interaction with the public. Here, we invite LabourList columnist Paul Richards and writer Jerome di Costanzo to debate if Britain would benefit from a modernised Royal Family, or whether the pomp, ceremony and constitutional fudge is | 12/2/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
59 |
Quick Debate: Engaging Pyongyang is pointless - North Korea is an aggressive regime | It was clear, even before the smoke cleared over the tiny South Korean island bombed by North Korea on Tuesday afternoon, that this would be one of the most serious crises the peninsula has faced. Some 200 North Korean artillery shells killed two marines, and later the bodies of two civilians were found on Yeonpyeong Island. Dozens of locals and military personnel were injured, and villages burned. South Korea retaliated, firing some 80 shells back across the border, and scrambling jets. The event reawoke the anger that followed the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel earlier this year, killing 46 sailors – almost certainly caused by a North Korean torpedo, although Pyongyang denied responsibility. And it also stoked the fears caused by the totalitarian state’s recent exhibition of its nuclear facilities to a small group of invited American experts, who reported that Pyongyang has some 2,000 impressively high-tech centrifuges capable of producing the fuel for nuclear power stations – and nuclear weapons. Some see the seeds of new global tension in the conflict - the US, Japan and Europe have declared strong support for Seoul, and America embarked on military exercises off the coast of the peninsula. But both South Korea and the US have been careful to avoid immediate threats of retaliation which might escalate the conflict, the US has not repositioned its 29,000 troops in the South, and nor has it explicitly agreed to provide South Korea with nuclear protection. Meanwhile China – a longstanding ally of North Korea – held back from any strong statements, with a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman yesterday urged both sides to "do more to contribute to peace and stability in the region". Although Beijing has distanced itself from the Pyongyang regime in recent decades – in the 1980s the two countries previously claimed to be “as close as lips and teeth” – it is concerned about instability in the North and the prospect of a unified Korea dominated by the US. But while the superpowers pussyfoot around the crisis, discussion and doubt has centred on North Korea’s motivation for such a blatant act of provocation – and the question of what can possibly be done about it. Simon Tisdale argues in the Guardian that “North Korea uses military power, or the threat of it, where others use diplomacy. It is the only real leverage the regime has.” It wants respect, an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation and no more threats of regime change. The leaders want “food aid, electricity, financial assistance, investment, trade. Finally, the ailing dictator wants backing for the postulated dynastic succession of his youngest son, a scheme that could yet collapse amid acrimony or worse.” What are they offering in return? An end to their troublemaking. This may not be popular in the west, but in the end, Tisdale argues, a deal is “doable and desirable”. Writing in the Times, Bronwen Maddox argues that “preparations for the succession to Kim Jong Il, the Supreme Leader, are the root cause of rising tension. Kim Jong Un, his son and presumed successor, needs the support of the army – hence, many think, the upsurge in military provocation this year.” She also argues that the regime has been destabilised by the recent increased availability of international television to North Korean viewers, which lets them see that “another life could be – and should be – theirs.” On her reading, then, the attacks are a show of strength intended for North Koreans as well as the enemies on the peninsula. In the Financial Times, Robert Kaplan also interpreted North Korea’s behaviour as an internal issue, a way of shoring up the splintered leadership. As he wrote, “the heightened aggression shown by North Korea therefore may be a sign that the regime is in deep trouble. A sudden implosion could unleash the mother of all humanitarian problems, with massive refugee flows toward the Chinese border a | 11/28/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
60 |
Quick Debate: Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech | In the US, militant Christians protest with signs reading “God hates fags” at military funerals. In the UK, hate speech law forbids this abhorrent behaviour. So should we ban it? Wendy Kaminer, a US free speech absolutist clashes with Femi Otitoju, a British equality campaigner | 11/26/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
61 |
Quick Debate: Children deserve better than Harry Potter | Parents everywhere are having to decide whether to encourage the final throws of Potter-mania as they give in to Christmas season pressures to see the last and latest film. Are the Hogwarts adventures good for our children? Writers Amanda Craig and Matthew de Abaitua disagree. | 11/26/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
62 |
P.J. O’Rourke: The funniest man in America | P.J. O’Rourke is America's premier political satirist and has more citations in The Penguin Dictionary of Humorous Quotations than any other living writer. In this live appearance for Intelligence Squared he’ll be discussing his new book, Don’t Vote – It Just Encourages the Bastards, a brilliant, hilarious and ultimately sobering look at why politics and politicians are a necessary evil—but only just barely necessary. Moving from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman to a late-night girls’ boarding school game called Kill-F*@k-Marry, O’Rourke will explore the nature of the social contract. For him the essential elements are power, freedom and responsibility: the people like the freedom part, politicians like the power part, and hardly anyone wants to hear the responsibility part. This leads him to postulate the “Death, Sex and Boredom Theory of Politics.” | 11/22/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
63 |
The week in debate | Ireland nears the brink; biological determinism; how do we stop prisoners from reoffending – and Wills and Kate make plans for a royal wedding. Our round-up section, summarising the unfolding story of the debates behind the big news of the past seven days | 11/19/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
64 |
Quick Debate: Twitter | Be careful what you tweet. This week, the law come down on a Twitter user who'd jokingly threatened to blow up an airport. The site is reshaping what it's acceptable to say in public. Shouldn't we, in Britain, so famed for our reserve and restraint, be doing more to resist it? | 11/19/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
65 |
Quick debate: Protectionism | The temptations of protectionism are strong right now – both to the US with its dreadful trade balance, and China with its undervalued currency. Is it not the time to re-visit the economic dogma that free trade is unambiguously good | 11/19/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
66 |
Quick Debate: Its only fair that students should pay | Proposing the motion is James Groves, Head of Education at think-tank Policy Exchange. Opposing the motion is Reni Eddo-Lodge, a student and Guardian blogger. | 11/18/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
67 |
Quick Debate: Workfare works | This week the debate on workfare was provoked by Iain Duncan Smith’s white paper on welfare reform, which promises to put long-term benefits claimants in 30-hour-a-week work placements. Duncan Smith said he hopes that the placements will get jobless adults back into “the habits and routines of working life,” as well as flushing out those who are doing cash-in-hand work but continuing to claim benefits. The first targets for the scheme would be the 1.4m adults on jobseekers’ allowance who have been out of work for at least nine of the past ten years. The plans will emulate an American model, pioneered in Wisconsin, where the welfare state was overhauled in 1987, time-limiting benefits and forcing the unemployed to undertake unpaid community work. The news – announced to the press before being discussed in Parliament – has been greeted with approval by many on the right. Tim Montgomerie, writing on Conservative Home, welcomed it as a move that will “threaten [the] workshy,” while The Sunday Times reported that “Layabouts who have become so dependent on benefits that they do not know how to work are to be forced to take jobs or be stripped of their benefits.” Melanie Phillips argued in The Daily Mail that the reforms did not go nearly far enough – the coalition should have introduced a time-limit on benefits alongside the work placements. Some on the left have also given the reforms a cautious welcome – Jackie Ashley wrote in The Guardian that “it's right to admit that in some families morale collapsed long ago, leaving two or three generations in a passive, depressed no-man's land, outside the rest of society,” and that if placements get them back on their feet, they are to be welcomed. James Purnell, a former Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, wrote in The Times that there is a “covert consensus” on welfare – a cross-party agreement that welfare needs to be “supportive enough, otherwise poverty becomes a trap; but it must also be tough enough or the support itself becomes a trap.” However, Purnell warned that there are good and bad ways of reforming welfare – and many people believe that the coalition plans fall on the bad side. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said in a radio interview that forced work could push the unemployed into "a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair." Meanwhile, Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group said, “Doing a job should always mean getting paid. | 11/11/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
68 |
The most groundbreaking contemporary art is from the East | Since the 1990s, New York galleries have witnessed an unprecedented 78% increase in exhibitions of Asian art, the bulk of it contemporary. Precipitated by the circumstances of their rapidly expanding economies, daily life for many in the East is undergoing something of a revolution. Contemporary art is part of this revolution. It realises the East’s rapidly evolving tastes, aspirations, and categories of consciousness, whilst articulating the accompanying anxieties about loss of identity and cultural specificity. Contemporary Art from the East both grapples with, and typifies, the problems of globalised modernity. Should we see this new cultural outpouring as the spoils or the victim of rapid globalisation? Speakers for the motion - Alexandra Munroe and Iain Robertson Speakers against the motion - Matthew Collings and Richard Wentworth Chaired by Tim Marlo | 11/11/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
69 |
Quick Debate: The France-UK military pact will harm our national security | The France-UK defence pact will see British and French special forces join together in a 10,000-strong force, it gives the UK the right to borrow the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier during the next ten years (when we will no longer have one of our own), and offers sharing and collaboration on unmanned drones and other advanced military hardware. The two countries will also combine the testing and maintenance of their nuclear arsenals and collaborate on nuclear warheads for the next 50 years. This is mainly about budget tightening here and outre-Manche. The economic crisis has made the entente become frugale. The deal has shocked many former military officials and some Tory backbenchers, and the right-wing press has enjoyed bringing up historical disagreements such as Agincourt and Trafalgar. Colonel Tim Collins, a leading figure in the British army during the Iraq war, has said he is skeptical. “The truth is that for years, the French have punched below their weight.” True? Does moving the entente from "cordiale" to "intime" threaten the security of the nation? Philip Barber wrote in The Telegraph letters that it will, whereas George Grant, of the Henry Jackson Society, feels more cocorico about it. Listen to them debate the matter out | 11/11/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
70 |
Quick debate: Great books are edited, not written | The writer wrestling words onto the page in a lonely attic, or the editor in his office wielding a red pencil – which image is the most attractive, the most poignant, the most, well, literary? Recent revelations have suggested that, while much of the perceived glamour may be with the writer, the real work of literary production rests with the editor. It could be that the sword is mightier than the pen. We invited literary agent David Godwin and writer and researcher Catherine Humble to discuss who we really have to thank for the books we enjoy. Research by Oxford academic Professor Kathryn Sutherland has found that Jane Austen, famous for her polished prose, in fact produced rambling manuscripts studded with errors that had to be pruned into shape by her editor. And last year, the publication of a collection of Raymond Carver stories in their original form showed the startling contrast between Carver’s intentions and editor Gordon Lish’s interventions. Catherine describes the contrast as between “ellipsis and waffle,” although she prefers Carver’s versions partly on the grounds that using a lot of words can reveal more about the painful difficulties of communication than using very few. In defence of the judicious editor, David discusses Maxwell Perkins, the legendary New York editor who worked with F Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway among others. Both our debaters agree that a good editor is something very similar to a good reader: attentive, understanding and attuned to the writer’s voice. So are we right to be disappointed to discover that favourite novels were collaborative enterprises rather than the work of one brilliant soul? Or is it, perhaps, our emphasis on the romantic image of the literary genius that is at fault? See what you think after you’ve heard David and Catherine discuss the various editorial relationships of Raymond Carver, DH Lawrence, Philip Roth and others. Literary agent David Godwin and writer Katherine Humble discuss the motion 'Great books are edited, not written. | 11/11/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
71 |
Stop bashing Christians! | The live Intelligence Squared debate packed out the Royal Geographic Society venue on an evening when the London Underground was on strike. The performances – Dom Anthony Sutch as the utterly compelling modern-day portly Abbot asking for the right kind of bashing; the angry intensity of Peter Hitchens; the panache of Howard Jacobson’s eulogy for language; the cut and thrust of Geoffrey Robertson; the sweet reason of Matthew Parris and the calm, measured performance of the former Archbishop of Canterbury – were a plentiful reward for any tribulation of the journey. Underneath the brilliance of the performances lies some of the most serious questions of our time: should the state be neutral when it comes to religion? how far from neutrality is Britain today? and what special dispensations from the laws of a secular liberal society can we contemplate in the name of religious belief – how far does tolerance require us to tolerate intolerance? You can read tomes of political theory on this. Or you can watch and listen carefully to this beautiful set of performances and find embedded in them encapsulations of almost every position taken on these tricky, subtle and crucial questions of our time. Speakers for the motion - George Carey, Peter Hitchens and Howard Jacobson Speakers against the motion - Matthew Parris, Geoffrey Robertson QC and Dom Antony Sutch Chaired by Jonathan Freedlan | 11/3/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
72 |
Photography will always be a lesser medium than paint | The great Henri Cartier-Bresson, a man who captured a thousand moments, once said that “photographers are the hunters, not the cooks.” But does that make photography a lesser medium? Are the likes of Robert Capa, Robert Frank and Cartier-Bresson himself always going to be inferior artists to Michelangelo and Monet? In this Intelligence Squared debate, AA Gill concedes that photography “revolutionised the nature of art,” but interprets the motion as implying otherwise. Was it not, Gill asked, fundamentally about the exclusivity, about “who is allowed into the club and who is merely a snapper?” Stephen Bayley disagrees. He opened his argument by saying that, “questioning photography would be like questioning sight, but the motion is about the medium, not what is art.” As such, paint is more subtle, wider in “scope and variety…far more susceptible to human interference and therefore allows for a better message.” In contrast, photography is “powerful but limited in expressive range,” as it depends most of all of on technology and equipment: “photographers are ‘dominated by their medium, not masters of it.” The photographer, Bayley concluded, is “more passive, less creative. He has to wait for his great moments; he cannot create them. Speakers for the motion - Stephen Bayley, José María Cano and Michael Mack. Speakers against the motion - A A Gill, Chris Steele-Perkin | 11/1/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
73 |
Quick debate: Its hard to find God in a megachurch | The Crystal Cathedral, a 10,000 plus mega-church in Orange County, California, filed for bankruptcy this week. The Crystal Cathedral was the original tele-evangelical church, and its "Hour of Power" television show is broadcast all over the world. Last month, the Reverend Eddy Long, star pastor of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, who preaches family virtues and has been feted by George Bush at the White House, was accused of sexually harassing three young men. Ted Haggard, who disbanded the massive New Life Church of Colorado Springs when a gay prostitute revealed their rapport, briefly became an insurance salesman before announcing this summer that, cured of his homosexuality, he was starting again. The mega-church movement is closely associated with the rise of American evangelical styles of worship in Latin America and Africa. When the Chilean miners emerged from the mine two weeks ago, they were wearing T-shirts sent to them from a megachurch in Georgia. Evangelical churches have been credited with - or implicated in - re-building the grass-roots of the American right over the past 15 years, with the Tea Party being the latest vehicle for that coalition. The evangelical movement has a globally influential role, and the megachurches are an important element of it. They have huge congregations with inspirational, charismatic pastors. They are run like businesses and, it might seem, often with rather business-like objectives of raising funds and satisfying customers. In this Skype debate which brings together a London audience and speakers from the US, we wanted to hear from insiders to American Protestantism. This is not a debate about the rights and wrongs of religion, but rather a very specific debate from within Protestant Christianity about the form of worship found inside the megachurches. | 10/29/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
74 |
The Great Explorers | Is the great age of exploration over? Has the modern traveller swapped Ulysses’ quest for the Happy Isles for a short break at the Holiday Inn? Maybe. But most of us still yearn for the rough, rugged and romantic places of the explorer’s imagination, places where no travel company has been before us…. And some of Britain’s greatest explorers and travellers will be taking us there, in mind if not in body, as they examine the past, present and future of great exploration | 10/28/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
75 |
Quick Debate: The only friend you make on Facebook is the machine | “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.” So goes the strapline of David Fincher’s new movie The Social Network, the dramatisation of the birth of modern social networking that chronicles the rise of Facebook from Harvard bedroom to globe-straddling corporation. It’s not quite the same message as Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto but then Facebook never claimed to have a personality. It was just a vessel for users to interact through supposedly allowing each of us to impose our personalities on the site. The Social Network movie portrays the birth of Facebook as a Shakespearian tragedy, with love, betrayal, greed and more than a few bodies left on the stage. But as we become more and more entwined with the fabric of our Facebook existence are we really being exposed to the brave new world where everything and everyone is there at our fingertips? Or are we being distracted from true engagement with the world and simply herded into appropriate marketing boxes? Are we working for the machine, turning our social lives into the greatest Tupperware party in history, or are we learning to use a freedom-enhancing tool | 10/20/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
76 |
Assisted suicide should be legalised | Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide is legal in the US state of Oregon, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and more than 90 British citizens have taken advantage of Swiss laws that allow them to die with help from doctors and nurses at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich. But in Britain, the 1961 Suicide Act states that while suicide is not illegal, "a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years". Debbie Purdy, a woman from Bradford who suffers from multiple sclerosis, has led a high-profile campaign to change the law. She took on the Director of Public Prosecutions in the High Courts, seeking clarification that her husband wouldn't be prosecuted if he helped her to travel to Dignitas. But despite her best efforts, the realities of ever-ageing politicians and public support, so far politicians have been squeamish about changing the law. Many of our audience were swayed into changing their mind over the course of this debate. Will you be? Speaking for the motion - Emily Jackson, Debbie Purdy and Mary Warnock Speaking against the motion - Alex Carlile QC, Richard Harries and Patrick Stone | 10/19/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
77 |
Quick Debate: The Canon should be at the heart of school life | “Bring back the canon” sounds a bit like a call to return to some unspeakably violent backward social educational practice. But this is about the literary canon - those works that are so clearly central to culture that they have been “canonised”. At the Conservative party conference, Education Secretary, Michael Gove urged; “the great tradition of our literature – Dryden, Pope, Swift, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Austen, Dickens and Hardy – should be at the heart of school life.” This front in the culture wars pits conservatives and traditionalists against a diverse army of feminists, multiculturalists, anti-colonialists and other proud minorities. Another skirmish in this war has been unfolding around Katharine Birbalsingh, once a Marxist teacher who delighted the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham with her very traditional educational opinions. She argued that children are “lost in a sea of bureaucracy”, that teachers are “blinded by leftist ideology” and that children love nothing better than to be told what to do by an authoritarian teacher. She won Michael Gove’s friendship but lost her job as deputy head of a South London academy for her comments about the shocking failures in the school system. So, should the government - or indeed the State - be behaving as super-head-teacher and telling us what to read? And if so, should it be the Govian canon | 10/19/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
78 |
Quick Debate: The 1010 ‘No Pressure’ video is funny and useful | 10:10, the climate campaign group, have been forced to apologise after their No Pressure video, which was scripted by Richard Curtis and featured guest appearances from David Ginola and Gillian Anderson, attracted widespread complaint. The video showed children, workers and footballers being exploded for refusing to cooperate in making lifestyle changes to reduce their carbon emissions, and 10:10, a group trying to persuade individuals, schools, businesses and organisations to take simple measures in a bid to cut their carbon emissions by 10% in a year, were forced to admit that they'd overstepped the mark and issue a public apology. The affair has become known as Splattergate. The intention of the film was to use slapstick comedy (the exploding children die in a blaze of ketchup-like gore) to shock viewers into reassessing their lethargy on climate change. Headed by Franny Armstrong, the documentary filmmaker behind The Age of Stupid, 10:10 are concerned that climate change is no longer receiving the emphasis that it should from either the media or the public, and they wanted to get people talking about it once again. Global warming sceptics, who claim that the media is saturated with stories on climate change, have seized upon the video as a spectacular own goal by the environmental movement, and claim it betrays the underlying anti-human sentiments of 'eco fascist' green leader. One of the criticisms levelled at the video is that, in a few years time, there may well be an eco-terrorism movement. On the other hand, many environmentalists, often accused of failing to see the funny side themselves, believe that with the world teetering on the brink of ecological calamnity, No Pressure is both funny and deeply necessary. | 10/7/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
79 |
William Gibson on ‘Zero History’ | ‘I don’t get the feeling that nothing is happening,’ replied the father of Cyberpunk. ‘I just get the feeling that more and more of it is happening on a different field.’ This Intelligence Squared event at Cadogan Hall in London saw the coming-together of two great believers in the vibrancy and power of the present: William Gibson and Cory Doctorow. Despite the discussion covering topics unrestrained by time - reaching back to the age of the Victorians and stretching, via 1940 and our ‘increasingly interesting’ present, to 2060 - or location (we were taken from the Far East to western Canada, with stop-overs in Shoreditch and Brooklyn), Gibson repeatedly underlined the centrality of the present in his work. He stressed that good science fiction writing is based on looking at ‘all the things around you’ and finding ‘the ones with the most obvious legs to carry you into the future.’ What sort of a future that will be, however, remains a mystery to Gibson. There are simply ‘too many wild cards in play,’ he said, for us to casually erect accurate futures. One thing that seemed certain was the sustained threat to any genuine subculture. We are now left, he lamented, with only ‘splinters of Bohemia,’ the violation of which seems almost complete in a world where ‘the way D. H. Lawrence looked is ... much more important than what D.H. Lawrence wrote. | 10/4/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
80 |
Quick debate: We have a duty to make space for travellers | Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to order the demolition of gypsy camps across France and to expel many Roma travellers back to the countries where they were born has attracted widespread criticism. So far, French police have deported more than 1,000 Roma to Romania and Bulgaria and dismantled more than 100 camps. A leaked interior ministry document told police to focus on the Roma "as a priority". This behaviour has led to a threat of legal action from the European commission, and comparisons with Nazi persecution of gypsies - some half a million travellers died in concentration camps during the Second World War. But although Europeans have lined up to criticise France, can other countries - and particularly the UK - feel any pride when it comes to our own treatment of travelling communities? In the UK, where Irish travellers are the largest nomadic group numbering around 300,000, recent research has shown that the average traveller has a life expectancy of about 50 years – some 25 years shorter than the settled population. Infant mortality is three times higher among travellers, and a traveller mother is nearly 20 times more likely to lose her child before their 18th birthday than the UK average. Some see in these facts a manifestation of Europe’s ongoing prejudice against travellers, a form of racism which, they believe, perpetuates stereotypes about dirt, crime and illiteracy, holding back travellers who would like to work or integrate and pushing the community into further isolation. Others, however, say that travellers must take responsibility for their own plight, and argue that the problems travellers face can be blamed – at least partly – on their failure to educate their children, respect the planning codes, work for a living and obey the law. Beyond such chicken-and-egg arguing - which came first, the prejudice or the exclusion? – lies more abstract questions about whose way of life has primacy. Should the settled community acknowledge that travellers have different attitudes and approaches to home, property, family and ways of life, and make space – physically and culturally – for the travellers to live in their own way? Or should travellers – and their politically correct, over-indulgent supporters - acknowledge that gypsies cannot live on land without planning permission, and that if their lifestyles are incompatible with the world today, they must change them? In this Intelligence Squared audio debate, barrister David Watkinson of London’s Garden Court Chambers, who regularly acts for travellers and recently fought on behalf of the travellers encamped on the site of the London Olympics, will argue for the motion, maintaining that Britain has badly let down its own travelling community, pushing them into unstable, unhealthy ways of life by depriving them of the space and the legal protection that they need. The motion will be opposed by journalist Harry Phibbs, who writes for The Mail and is a Conservative councillor in West London, who argues that British and European law is too generous to travellers, who should be expected to abide by the same rules as the settled community – and who claims that Sarkozy’s decision to eject France’s foreign-born Roma is justified | 10/1/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
81 |
General Pervez Musharraf in conversation with Sir Christopher Meyer | "Many people are asking that I should come back". Fresh from launching his own political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League, in June this year, and expressing his desire to re-enter the turbulent world of Pakistani politics, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, a Londoner since 2008, will appear in conversation with Sir Christopher Meyer for Intelligence Squared this September. Musharraf hasn't always been so pally with the West. When he came to power in a military coup in 1999 he was shunned by many as a dictator. And his tenure in what TIME Magazine described as “the most dangerous job in the world” was not without its difficulties. He had to face the escalation of hostilities with India over Kashmir, which brought the two countries to the brink of war in 2002, a 2005 earthquake that killed over 73,000, the threat posed by the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network and two assassination attempts on his life. | 9/29/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
82 |
Crisis and Recovery: Ethics, Economics and Justice | During the ongoing global financial crisis, the values on which our society and economic structures are based have been called into question. In a new book to be published by Palgrave Macmillan, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of The Guardian, have brought together a collection of leading commentators to examine the role of morality and ethics in business. At this event, both discuss these fundamental themes together with Zac Goldsmith MP, Editor of The Ecologist, and Robert Skidelsky, professor of political economy, politician and historian. | 9/28/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
83 |
Quick Debate: Its time to put an end to death | “I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.” - Woody Allen “Singularitarianism”. Remember the name. It is the most respectable of the quasi-religious movements to come out of Californian techno-libertarianism. Its basic beliefs are that: * computers are about to become better problem-solvers than humans * humans, still in charge, will get the computers to make nano-robots that can repair organic tissue * we will also direct them to the problem of downloading our consciousness onto digital back-up systems *our conscious selves will then be able to replicate, be uploaded into other physical devices, etc * nano-technology, consciousness engineering and old-fashioned big iron computing will solve any problems of energy supply and climate control that might limit the infinite plenty ahead * humanity will thus create the kingdom of heaven and live eternally in a world of plenty, all of it built by the people and technologies of Silicon Valley The movement's Pope is Raymond Kurtzweil, an otherwise thoroughly bona fide inventor and entrepreneur. Its Mecca is in the area between the Stanford University campus in Palo Alto and Mofett Field airbase, with Google's headquarters a stone's throw away. There, Kurtzweil presides over the Singularity Institute, which, like the early Church councils, is busy working on the details of eternity. What if they were right? Should we want eternity on those terms? Is it really time to put an end to death | 9/24/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
84 |
The Middle East Peace Process is a Charade | This event took place at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster on 21st September 2010. Highlights of the debate will be available on this page soon, and full video for our Premium Members will follow soon after. Arguing in favour of the motion are Shlomo Ben-Ami, Mustafa Barghouthi, and Edward Luttwak. Shlomo Ben-Ami believes that there is a very serious asymmetry in the positions of the two parties. Whenever Zionism is faced with the choice of more land without a Jewish majority or less land with Jewish hegemony, they choose the latter. Mustafa Barghouthi states that the talks are taking place between unequal sides. Israel is strong and Palestine is weak; in the absence of any serious international pressure on Israel, the peace process has become the substitute for peace. Edward Luttwak says that throughout history it has been war itself that has brought peace, not Swedish diplomats, US senators and former British prime ministers. The peace process perpetuates the illusion of peace. Arguing against the motion are Manuel Hassassian, Jonathan Paris, and Martin Indyk. Manuel Hassassian concedes that, for some Palestinians, the very idea of making peace with the perpetrators of so much Palestinian bloodshed and misery is hard to fathom, but that without peace, their suffering will only be prolonged. Jonathan Paris is “cautiously optimistic” that, this time round, the peace process has a chance. Among his reasons he lists the threat of Iran, the slowed rate of settlement building under Netanyahu’s government, and the popular support for the peace process among Israelis and Palestinians. Martin Indyk agrees with Luttwak that peace has to come out of the “education of war”, but he says that this is exactly what is happening. He points to certain encouraging new factors in the case for peace, most tellingly an uncharacteristic willingness in right-wing Netanyahu to support the process. First vote: 407 For, 315 Don't know, 332 Against Final vote: 543 For, 521 Against, 40 Don't know The motion is carried by 22 votes | 9/21/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
85 |
Quick Debate: Lady Gaga is bad news for feminism | Infamous feminist contrarian Camille Paglia has caused controversy again recently by describing everyone’s favourite pop goddess Lady Gaga as a “plasticised android” whose popularity heralds the death of sex. Numerous fans in the media have come to Lady Gaga’s defence – she’s clever, she’s funny, she’s a great performer. Meanwhile, the internet has been a-flutter with responses to the ‘meat dress’ Lady Gaga wore to the MTV Video Music Awards, which has been variously interpreted as a protest against the objectification of women and a meaningless fashion statement. Whatever your opinion on Lady Gaga – and even if you have none at all – her music, her videos and her public persona have become battlegrounds for debate around porn, pop culture and the status of women in the music industry | 9/17/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
86 |
Elizabeth Gilbert on ‘Eat Pray Love’ | You've seen the billboards for the movie 'Eat, Pray, Love' showing a pensive, questing Julia Roberts. The author of the book that inspired the film gave an exclusive talk in London for Intelligence Squared on 15th September 2010, in which interviewer Paul Holdengräber brought the intellectual side of Gilbert to the fore. Gilbert’s childhood evenings were peopled by eccentric, drunk, and competitively outrageous family members, who made Elizabeth Gilbert realise that when it comes to storytelling 'no one’s going to give you the floor...you have to earn it by telling the best story'. Gilbert recounts how she literally 'married' writing when she was a teenager in a ceremony in her bedroom, and also how, since the success of her globe-trotting memoir ‘Eat, Pray, Love’, she has become a more sedentary creature, like Candide nowhere more content than gardening at home in New Jersey. Gilbert and Holdengräber share a delighted reverence for Balzac, Calvino, Tom Waits, and their conversation turns into an unashamed worship of good writing | 9/15/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
87 |
Sex, bugs and videotapes:the private lives of public figures deserve more protection from the press | Are you entitled to your private life? Or do you think the News of the World has every right to make it public? Should you just take it on the chin when prying newshounds inform the world of whatever details, true or false, they rake up on your private life, leaving you to clear up the inaccuracies only after your reputation has been trashed? That would appear to be the case in Britain, given that - unlike say in the USA or France - there is no right to privacy here, only a “right to confidence”, and the tabloid press have allegedly been tapping the phones of prominent figures for years. But Max Mosley and many who support him think this is wrong, which is why he is applying to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for a change in the law that would make it compulsory for journalists to inform people before publishing private information about them. Has he got a good case? Or is he making an outrageous assault on press freedom | 9/7/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
88 |
Quick Debate: We should imitate the Portuguese model of drug market liberalisation | The CATO Institute's report in 2009 entitled 'drug decriminalisation in Portugal: lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies. To discuss whether imitating these policies would benefit others is Tim Lynch, who was closely involved in producing the report from the CATO Institute. Arguing against the motion is Anders Ulstein, the Secretary General of Europe Against Drugs, a European not-for-profit drug policy foundation. | 9/7/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
89 |
Ben Goldacre on science in the media | “Science is value free. So is a gun.” And similarly, science writing is used instrumentally towards political and social ends, exemplified most clearly in the Daily Mail’s schizophrenic reporting of the cervical cancer vaccine; they were ferociously negative in Britain where the vaccine is legal, yet wrote with impassioned outrage that the drug was not available in Ireland. Here, British science writer and medical doctor Ben Goldacre describes the problems with science coverage in the mainstream media. In the Times Literary Supplement there are plenty of references to authors you’ve never heard of, yet with scientific pieces editors insist on dumbing down the content. Goldacre laments the lack of challenging and interesting science writing and points to the approach of Radio 4, in which the vast majority of material comes from the scientists themselves, as the correct approach. Clearly in the case of the cervical cancer vaccine, the reports were not about the suitability of the trial process or the validity of the scientific conclusions but about political agendas; this is Goldacre’s main grievance with science writing not by scientists. He does, however, identify the huge potential of the new mass media to change the way science is reported. Whether it be a lecture recording that goes viral or a fantastically entertaining and eloquent blogger, there are many channels to bring great science to the public sphere | 9/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
90 |
Quick debate: The hatred of Blair has been much overdone | Tony Blair has had to cancel the Tate Modern launch party for his memoirs, A Journey. A crowd of anti-war campaigners, and artists including Tracey Emin and Brian Eno, had signalled their intention to protest outside the event. But after facing similar disruption at a book-signing in Dublin, Blair called the night off. "I don't mind going through protesters...but for others it can be a bit unpleasant and frightening," he said. "It's sad in a way. You should have the right to sign books or see friends. Some of them are not political at all." Evidently, the man who led Britain between 1997 and 2007, perhaps the most prosperous period in its history, still inspires enormous ill-feeling from both sides of the political spectrum. Gideon Rachman, columnist for the Financial Times, defends the motion that "Hatred of Blair has been much overdone". He approves of Blair's record on domestic and economic policy and feels that Blair was wrong, but not blameworthy on the decision to invade Iraq. Clare Short, who resigned from Tony Blair's Cabinet two months after the invasion, responds. By trampling on international law, Blair not only condemned the Iraqi peace to failure but also did long term damage to security in the world. | 9/3/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
91 |
Quick Debate: Iceland is catching too much mackerel: it should be stopped | Scottish fisherman have barricaded their fishing ports in protest at Iceland and the Faroe Islands' decision to drastically increase their mackerel catch. It feels like the Cod Wars of the 1970s. Iceland has increased its catch from 363 tonnes in 2005 to 130,000 tonnes this year. The Faroese have increased their take from 26,000 tonnes to 85,000. A 20 year-old agreement between Norway, the Faroes and the EU to limit mackerel catch has fallen apart. Norway banned Icelandic and Faroese trawlers from its ports. Scottish fishermen prevented a Faroese boat from landing its catch at Peterhead, and Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, denounced the mackerel grab as “anarchic”. But is Iceland really endangering mackerel stocks? Have the mackerel moved to Icelandic waters, where they are properly Iceland's property? And is the EU really such a good guardian of the ocean's fish stocks? Ian Gatt, fisherman and chief executive of the Scottish Pelagic Fisherman's Association, argues the case against Iceland | 9/3/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
92 |
Quick Debate: The license fee is an anachronism | Is the BBC a moribund institution? Rigged competitions, obscene phone calls, allegations of ‘dumbing down’ and huge executive salaries suggest it’s time for change. What has happened to their promise to ‘inform, educate and entertain’? Does Auntie still deserve her licence fee | 8/20/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
93 |
Quick Debate: Happiness should not be a matter of government policy | After the Great Depression the government's of advanced democracies started to systematically collect data on the state of the economy. Since the end of World War Two the economic performance of the government of the day has become a yard stick for success. President Bill Clinton immortalised the general sense that growth was a pre-condition for electoral victory in his now famous campaign slogan "it's the economy stupid" but there is a growing body of work suggesting that we are measuring our government's performance by the wrong standards. Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen were appointed by President Nicolas Sarkozy to a commission tasked with recommending a new set of measures for policy evaluation in France. Bhutan measures its nation according to national happiness accounts, not economic ones. This week saw the launch of LSE's mappiness project - a hi-tech attempt to measure the happiness of the UK in real time. The new science of happiness measurement is getting closer to shaping government policy - is this just the sensible replacement of bad measure, gross domestic product, for a better one, gross national happiness? Or is it getting too close to brave new world for comfort? To debate that happiness should not be a matter for government policy are economists Paul Ormerod and Juliet Michealson. Paul Ormerod, arguing that happiness does not play a policy role is best-selling author of many books and papers, including, Why Most Things Fail. He is a founder and director of Volterra Consulting, he has co-authored a pamphlet for the Institute of Economic Affairs called, Happiness, Economics and Public Policy. Juliet Michaelson arguing that happiness does have a role in formulating and prioritising policy, is a research at the Centre for Well-being of the New Economics Foundation (NEF). She has worked on NEF's National Accounts of Well-being and a Happy Planet Index. | 8/20/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
94 |
Quick Debate: Deepwater has been more political theatre than environmental catastophe | As scientists continue to debate the severity of the Deepwater Horizon spill and the likelihood of lasting damage to ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico, questions are being asked about how politicians have responded. Some have accused Barack Obama of wild over-reaction to the spill, and of using it as a vehicle for anti-corporate propaganda. They argue that he was playing to the gallery in order to win back some popularity ahead of the mid-term elections. The finger has also been pointed at green groups who, some say, are deliberately playing up the scale of the spill in order to discourage us from using oil at all. Others argue that it was a huge catastrophe, and that the Gulf of Mexico and the Louisiana coastline have been devastated by the spill, and will continue to be so for years to come. | 8/13/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
95 |
Quick Debate: Tony Hayward was right: the BP oil spill was a drop in the ocean | After the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April 2010, killing eleven oil rig workers, some 200 million gallons of crude oil gushed into the gulf before it was finally capped more than three months later. Many fear that sensitive ecosystems such as mangroves and oyster beds will be ruined forever, and that the spill will cause terrible damage to fish and birds as well as the area’s beaches and its fishing and tourism industries. So, what is the science behind the current situation in the Gulf? Is the damage from the spill likely to be long-lasting and severe? And did BP’s actions make matters worse | 8/13/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
96 |
Quick Debate: Toy Story is Sexist | Toy Story 3 has been a huge box office hit. It has already grossed almost $400m world wide, and made £40m in its first fortnight on screens in the UK, making it very likely that it will become the biggest grossing animated film ever in Britain. Several reviewers – male as well as female – have admitted to finding themselves weeping at its ending. But some feminists have accused it of being sexist for its low ratio of female toy characters, and for the fact that they display stereotypical feminine behaviour. The comments provoked outrage from many who had enjoyed the film. Do they hold water | 8/11/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
97 |
Quick Debate: Good Riddance to Speed Cameras | Like it or loathe it, we’ve all become well accustomed to the speed camera. The most common type, which came to be known as the Gatso, was invented in 1958 by the Dutch rally driver Maurice Gatsonides for the purpose – ironically enough – of helping him speed up his cornering. Since 1992, when Britain’s first speed cameras were introduced in West London, these distinctive yellow boxes have become a feature on British roads. Their number ballooned under the Labour government, and some motoring organisations estimate that they have grown to 6,500, more than in any other European country. Britain’s 33 million motorists now run the risk of picking up a £60 penalty notice almost every time they drive. But now the Conservative-led coalition, anxious to implement austerity measures, think that by gunning for Gatsos, they have alighted on a popular way to cut spending. Mike Penning, the road safety minister, has announced plans to cut back drastically on central funding. “This is another example of this government delivering on its pledge to end the war on the motorist,” he boasts. The impending cuts have already led Oxfordshire County Council to announce that it will do away with its 72 fixed speed cameras, with Wiltshire and other counties likely to follow suit. Road safety groups have responded to the news with dismay. The debate over speed cameras seems to divide people between right and left. Libertarians and individualists believe that safe driving should be solely a matter of personal responsibility; speed cameras are symbols of the nanny state. For their supporters speed cameras represent the benevolent state in an unambiguous form. And then, at the base of the argument, there are the road safety statistics on fatalities and injuries, which both sides claim support their case | 8/9/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
98 |
Quick Debate: Britain is anti-semitic | Anti-semitism is in the headlines, after 87-year-old Israeli President Shimon Peres made comments which many people have interpreted as accusing the English of anti-semitism. "Our next big problem is in England,” Peres said in an interview with historian Benny Morris. “There are several million Muslim voters. And for many members of Parliament, that’s the difference between getting elected and not getting elected.” "In England,” he continued, “there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment." These comments came after David Cameron compared Gaza to a prison camp while on a visit to Turkey. Though Peres’s spokesman later issued a statement partially retracting his comments, many people do believe that there is a deep-rooted strain of anti-semitism in Britain - and not just in the explicitly racist far right | 8/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
99 |
Pakistan is guilty of supporting terrorists and David Cameron was right to point it out | Two leading Pakistan experts, Professor Shaun Gregory and Dr Farzana Shaikh, debate whether Cameron was right to accuse Pakistan of “looking both ways” on terrorism. Is he merely playing bad cop to Obama’s good cop? And what exactly is Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan? Professor Shaun Gregory, Professor of International Security at Bradford University, and Farzana Sheikh, Associate Fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs Asia Programme, debate the motion "Pakistan is guilty of supporting terrorists and David Cameron was right to point it out" | 8/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
100 |
Quick Debate: Bret Easton Ellis: Master Satirist or Yuppie Clone? | Quick debate between David Punter, Professor of History at the University of Bristol and Stephen Llano, Professor of Rhetoric and Debate and St John's University, New York. | 8/4/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
101 |
Quick Debate: String theory is unravelling - it shouldn’t monopolise funding | Since the late 1960’s, string theory - which conceives of fundamental particles, such as electrons or quarks, not as point-like objects but rather as minuscule filaments of energy called "strings" - has gained in acceptance among scientists. Initially a marginalised area of study, it has now attracted many of the world's leading quantum physicists. They believe that string theory could provide the answers to some of the biggest remaining questions in physics, revealing what the universe is made of, bringing together the fields of relativity and quantum mechanics, and thereby uniting gravity with the other forces. Now, after three decades of tireless work on the part of more than a thousand brilliant minds, the question has become more insistent: does string theory actually work | 8/1/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
102 |
Quick Debate: John Le Carre is seriously overrated | Theo Tate and Charles Cumming debate the caliber of John le Carré as a novelist. Tate argues that le Carré’s success is firmly confined to the thriller and crime novel genre. He does praise some of his work, in particular Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, and he too deems him a ‘very good writer,’ but he argues that le Carré has failed to cross the boundary into serious fiction. He heavily criticises the limited scope of his story lines and highlights examples of his work which he finds ‘pretty awful,’ The Naïve and Sentimental Lover, for instance. Cummings on the other hand, attacks the pretention of the literati and sees the very notion of genre to be ‘nonsensical.’ He maintains that le Carré is an all-rounder and has produced ‘several masterpieces.’ Tate and Cummings debate the quality of le Carré’s sentences, but, as Cummings points out, they could play that game all day. Cummings praises le Carré’s ability to illuminate the secret political world of the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Yet, Tate dismisses the idea that his writing was any true reflection of the reality of the situation. He criticises the simplicity of his conclusions and suggests that George Smiley was merely a clever counter-piece to Bond – the anti-Bond. Summary of the video as it will appear on the front end | 7/13/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
103 |
This House would rescind the UK invitation to the Pope | This debate took place at the Hay Festival on the 5th of June 2010. Arguing in favour of the motion are Johann Hari and David Aaronovitch. Arguing against the motion are Helena Kennedy and Phillipe Sands. | 7/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
104 |
You don’t need a good education to lead the good life | Speakers for the motion: Lynn Barber Sunday Times journalist and author of "An Education", a coming-of-age memoir which was made into an Oscar-nominated film last year. Kelvin MacKenzie Media entrepreneur and former editor of The Sun. Speakers against the motion: Professor Germaine Greer Feminist author, academic and broadcaster. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto Professor of Global Environment History at Queen Mary, University of London, and William P. Reynolds Professor of History, University of Notre Dame. Formerly a history master at Charterhouse School. Chair: Dr Anthony Seldon Master of Wellington College. | 7/3/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
105 |
Free market economy has failed the former Soviet States | The debate was recently held in Kiev, Ukraine, discussing the motion a 'free market economy has failed the former Soviet states'. Speakers include: Andriy Shevchenko - member of the Parliament o Ukraine and journalist Katerina Yushenko - Chairman of the Ukraine 3000 Foundation and wife of the Third President of Ukraine, Victor Yushenko David Aaronovitch - British journalist and broadcaster Irina Khakamada - Economist and former Russian Presidential candidate | 7/2/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
106 |
Quick Debate: The rise of Australia’s “hairy-legged femocrat” should dismay the liberal left | The once wildly popular Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, has been toppled by an internal Labor party rebellion, to be replaced by Julia Gillard, his Welsh born deputy, who becomes Australia’s first woman leader. Unmarried, proudly pro-abortion and happy not to shave her legs, there has been much joshing about the incongruity of such a Sheila taking charge in the land of hairy handed machismo. But more significant than her rise, in many ways, has been the fall of a man whose anti-fat cat, green agenda had inspired many on the left. Yet neither Rudd's emissions trading scheme, nor his retro-active 40% super-tax on mining, nor many other of his cherished schemes ever saw the light of day. Should the left rue the departure of an idealist, or welcome the more pragmatic Gillard, learning to recognise that in a capitalistic system there are limits to how far you can go in antagonising capitalists | 7/2/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
107 |
Quick Debate: Retirement should become a thing of the past | Today’s middle aged workers could be the last to enjoy a leisurely retirement before their health declines – many believe that demographics and economics will force today’s young to toil on into their dotage. Should we, like the Greeks, take to the streets to fight this | 7/2/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
108 |
The Future of Medicine | Four speakers from the James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford University will describe how they are pushing forward the frontiers of medical science, seeking solutions to some of the critical medical problems of our age – in particular diseases associated with greater life expectancy. Turning back the clock: Dr Paul Fairchild will explain how a breakthrough in stem cell research – enabling pluripotent cells to be harvested from the patient’s own cell tissue rather than from embryos – has brought us much closer to the point where we will be able to replace or regenerate diseased and worn out tissue. Beating Alzheimer's: Scientists at the Institute for the Future of Mind have come up with an important new theory to explain how brain cells degenerate. Professor Susan Greenfield will argue that this could be a crucial step to finding a cure for two of the most widespread neurodegenerative diseases: Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. A cure for cancer: Professor Bleddyn Jones and his colleagues at the Particle Therapy Research Institute are working on a new form of radiotherapy – known as CPT – which targets cancer cells while avoiding the damage that conventional radiotherapy does to healthy tissue. As Professor Jones will show, this could prove a highly effective way of dealing with cancer. Combating the superbugs: A major problem confronting modern medicine is the spread of “superbugs” resistant to all conventional types of antibiotic. Dr Sonia Contera will show how by creating a completely new form of antibiotic made out of nanoparticles, she and her colleagues at the Institute of Nanoscience for Medicine are on the verge of cracking the problem | 6/28/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
109 |
Quick Debate: We need deep public spending cuts now | Even George Osborne’s fiercest critics would have to admit he was between a rock and a hard place when he set out the new budget on June 22. Britain has its biggest fiscal deficit since WWII – and, according to May’s IMF forecasts, it faces the toughest recovery of all the G20 countries. No one doubts that austerity is needed to reduce the deficit. But it’s less clear whether it should come sooner or later, and how public spending cuts should be balanced with tax rises | 6/25/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
110 |
IQ2 Interview: Simon Schama | Award winning journalist, author and academic Simon Schama compares the tension and sentiment building in Europe and the United States to that prior to the French revolution in 1789. The development from Keynesian policy to that of public sector reductions and brutal cuts in real wages and social services is a delayed trigger for anger at those responsible for the financial mess. He calls it 'a recipe for serious indignation', one that will lead to the reawakening of the long-forgotten issues of local chauvinism and militant nationalism that will feed off a perceived lack of accountability in the EU and United States. Schama ends with an analysis of one of the original 'shock-jocks', Father Charles E Coughlin, who in the Roosevelt era exploited the power of radio to deliver an anti-Semitic, anti-FDR message, and states his belief that the philosophical grandeur of the political elites clouds their ability to recognise the power of these orators. | 6/25/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
111 |
Fashion maketh woman | Woman is born free, but everywhere is fashion's slave. Her choices are an illusion: the fashion companies and magazines dictate her purchases to her. She feels compelled to own the latest must-have handbag, believes the key to happiness is the new bondage boot; they've told her she's worth it and without her fashion fix she feels worthless. This, at least, is the story told by those who scoff at fashion. But isn't that just sour drapes? Isn't it rather the case that the world of fashion defines the spirit and mood of the age? That the brilliant designers in the fashion houses bring vim and vigour to an otherwise pedestrian world? And that those who somehow think they¹re above it all just end up looking drab and dull? Speakers for the motion: Madelaine Levy, Britt Lintner, Paula Reed Speakers against the motion: Stephen Bayley, Susie Orbach, Grayson Perry Chair: Peter Yor | 6/17/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
112 |
Quick Debate: Fashion is bad for us | Dressing decoratively is as old as human civilisation, and archaeologists regularly discover beads and ornaments among artifacts left by even the most basic societies. But disapproval is equally ancient - the Roman writer Seneca took exception to men who wore togas that were slightly transparent or too loose. Today, fashion is a trillion-dollar industry, followed avidly by catwalk-watchers, magazine-readers and, of course, shoppers. Some consider it a sort of communal art which we can all get involved in, and others value it as an outward sign of identity and group allegiance, allowing people to present themselves as goths or skaters, slackers or business-people. But many also criticise it, claiming that it puts pressure on women to aspire to unrealistic ideals of beauty and thinness, and that developing-world garment manufacturers are paid pitiful wages. But what the world be like if we cast off concerns with fashionability? Would it be puritan and bland, with millions of people in poor countries out of work? Or would it be greener and happier, allowing us all to concentrate on the things that really matter, rather than this season's colour-scheme or hemline? | 6/14/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
113 |
Quick Debate: South Africa will not win in this World Cup | It is unlikely that an African team will win the World Cup, particularly the tournament’s hosts, South Africa. Their national team, the Bafana Bafana (the boys, the boys) failed to qualify for the 2006 event, missed out on this year’s Africa Cup of Nations and are ranked as low as 90th in the world – ahead of only one other team in the competition: North Korea. Bookies are offering 50/1 odds on an Ivory Coast victory, and 150/1 on South Africa. Indeed, no African country has ever reached a World Cup semi-final, even though Brazilian footballing hero Pele famously predicted that one would win the tournament by 2000. But such international sporting jamborees are never just about the games themselves. They are a chance for nations – and even continents – to host the world, attract tourism and investment, and generate national pride. The flip side is that they are also a chance for the hosts to bankrupt themselves, pursuing dreams of sporting grandeur which cost billions but bring little public benefit – a risk that South Africa, with its impoverished population, can ill afford. In the long run, when the flags, trumpets and face-paint are packed away, will Africa have lost out by hosting this World Cup | 6/11/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
114 |
Quick Debate: Israel’s flotilla attack was entirely justified | When Israeli commandos boarded a ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was part of a flotilla attempting to breach its blockade of Gaza on Monday 31st May, the result was a firefight. Nine passengers died and dozens more were wounded, sparking fury about the behaviour of both sides. Another ship, the Rachel Corrie, immediately set off to make another attempt to reach Gazan ports. It was stopped by the Israeli navy and diverted to Ashdod, a port in Israel, without violence on Saturday. The 11 activists on board were repatriated. The following day, at least four Palestinians were killed when Israeli navy commandos opened fire on what they said was a squad of militants in diving suits off the coast of Gaza. These events have provoked international controversy about the legality of Israel's actions and its treatment of Gaza - but also about the protesters' intentions and the long term consequences of this week's events. | 6/8/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
115 |
Obama’s foreign policy is a gift to America’s enemies | He came to power promising that his outstretched hand would heal the rifts with other nations; that engagement, not belligerence, was the way to solve the world's problems. Since then Iran and North Korea have continued with their their nuclear programmes, Afghanistan is in turmoil and the countries of Eastern Europe feel he has deserted them. Has President Obama's 'softly, softly' policy made America look feeble in the eyes of its enemies? Is his much vaunted 'nice-guy' approach just appeasement in another guise? Speakers for the motion Con Coughlin, General Jack Keane, Bill Kristol Speakers against the motion Philip Bobbitt, Bernard-Henri Levy, Simon Schama. The chair is Zeinab Badawi | 6/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
116 |
Jane Bussmann - ‘Worst date ever’ | In this full version of her critically accliamed one-woman show, Jane Bussmann explains the absurdity of real life and how the indirect route, one that took her from Hollywood to Uganda, is often the most interesting. Bussman gives a one hour live performance of her book The Worst Date Ever (2009). The book begins with Bussmann working as a celebrity journalist, interviewing Ashton Kutcher and falling foul of celebrity agents, follows her through various attempts at feature writing for broadsheets and eventually sees her applying to work as a teacher in Uganda as a cover for her desire to know more about about two men: one a symbol of war, another who fights for peace. | 6/2/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
117 |
Quick Debate: Obama’s foreign policy is good for America’s position in the world | This Debate of the Day was written to accompany our live debate "Obama's foreign policy is a gift to America's enemies", which took place in London on Thursday 27th May. The debate will be broadcast by BBC World News on Saturday 5th June at 09:10 and 21:10, and Sunday 6th June at 02:10 and 15:10 (all times in GMT). Video highlights are now available on the Intelligence Squared website where the full video will also be available on-demand from 5th June. For many on the liberal left who scorned George W Bush's gung-ho foreign policy, Barack Obama's more dovish, multilateral approach is far more likely to make headway. Ever since his inauguration, Obama has been offering an extended hand of friendship to America's enemies. But his detractors say that all he gets in return is a fist in the face. Is too much accommodation - to China, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Iran and others - just capitulation in another guise? Is Obama simply hastening American decline? | 5/30/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
118 |
Quick Debate: Politics is sexist | When women are underrepresented across public life, could it be because they don’t want to be there or simply aren’t up to the jobs? And would any of us – male or female - really want to put more women at the Cabinet table if the result was worse government and the stigma of positive discrimination | 5/28/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
119 |
Edward Tufte: Beautiful Evidence | Edward Tufte has been described by the New York Times as the “da Vinci of data” and by Business Week as the “Galileo of graphics.” He has written, designed, and self-published four books on visual thinking and analytical design: “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information” (1983, 2001), “Envisioning Information” (1990), “Visual Explanations”(1997), and “Beautiful Evidence” (2006). These books have received 40 awards for content and design and have 1.8 million copies in print. Tufte has had solo shows of sculptures and prints at Artists Space in New York and the Architecture and Design Museum in Los Angeles, and in 2009 - 2010 a major sculpture show at the Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum. Since 1999, he has completed 50 large-scale outdoor pieces, 150 table pieces, and many steel engravings and digital prints. In this rare appearance in England for Intelligence Squared, Tufte will discuss his theories of visual thinking and analytical design | 5/19/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
120 |
Quick Debate: Powerpoint Corrupts | If PowerPoint was a drug, says Edward Tufte, a globally acknowledged expert in graphic communication, it would be subject to a "worldwide product recall". The program, he believes, is a hopeless and, indeed, a damaging communication tool which "routinely disrupts, dominates, and trivializes content," making millions of people’s working lives less productive and efficient but also undermining our culture and even endangering lives. But can hundreds of millions of PowerPoint users really be so wrong | 5/14/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
121 |
David Starkey on English history and English law | Historian David Starkey explores the inherent individuality of English Law relative to rival European systems. | 5/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
122 |
Anthony Sattin on Cairo | Cairo. The facts say one thing: the biggest city in Africa and the Middle East and now so chaotic and polluted that most visitors to Egypt prefer to avoid it. This same city also speaks to us of history and humanity - Moses and Jesus, Arab poets and Napoleon's scholars who were here beside the Nile. It speaks of brilliance, beauty and power, of Europeans looking on in amazement at a Cairo that was the trading partner of Venice and of such importance that the Arabian Nights narrator called it the Mother of the World. More recently, through writers such as Nobel prizewinner Naguib Mahfouz and Alaa Al-Aswany, it has spoken of humour amid hardships, of both compassion and corruption. Having seen Cairo shift and grow over the past twenty-five years, former resident Anthony Sattin invites you to examine the streets, the stories and the history of Cairo in an attempt to reconcile the myths with the facts. Writer and broadcaster who has spent much of his adult life travelling in and writing about the Middle East and North Africa. He fell in love in Cairo in the 1980s and has been a regular visitor ever since. His books include the highly-acclaimed The Pharaoh's Shadow, an account of his search for surviving ancient culture in Egypt, and The Gates of Africa, the story of the 18th century search for Timbuktu. His forthcoming book, A Winter on the Nile, tells of the journey Florence Nightingale and Gustave Flaubert made in Egypt in 1849-50. | 5/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
123 |
Quick Debate: A hung parliament would be hell | Intelligence Squared's Quick Debate is a For and Against analysis of the week's most hotly disputed public issue. This week's debate looks at the prospects of a hung parliament on the traditional two-party system. | 5/5/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
124 |
The beautiful game? You’re having a laugh! | Money, violence, hate, cheating: that is the face of modern football. Once the so called “beautiful game” represented something precious and important about English identity. But from a mixture of greed and appalling incompetence, the British football authorities have encouraged foreign oligarchs to take over the game – and this, say the traditionalists, has destroyed all that was valuable in the national game. But are the traditionalists right? Haven’t mercenary values and unsporting tactics always been part of the spirit of English football? Isn’t the truth rather that the foreign fortunes poured into our football and the foreign players they have attracted have made the game infinitely more exciting, skillful and pleasurable to watch? Speakers for the motion are Tom Bower, Dominic Lawson, Ed Smith Speakers against the motion are Garth Crooks, Hunter Davies, David Sheepshanks The Chair is Angus Scot | 4/29/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
125 |
Quicke Debate: Goldman sucks | Intelligence Squared's Quick Debate is a For and Against analysis of the week's most hotly disputed public issue. This week's debate looks at Goldman Sachs | 4/29/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
126 |
Quick Debate: Football is beautiful | Intelligence Squared's Quick Debate is a For and Against analysis of the week's most hotly disputed public issue. This week's debate coincides with the live debate "The beautiful game? You're having a laugh!" which is available live online at www.intelligencesquared.com/live at 6.45pm on Thursday 29th April. England's national game excites fanatical loyalty and passion from its millions of followers, many of whom make lavish claims for its aesthetic appeal, its underlying moral qualities and its positive effects on society. But there are those who see this very adulation as evidence of the stupidity of football's legion of fans and followers. Can they not smell the stink of rotten money and rotten morals. The so-called "beautiful game", say the malcontents, is spectacularly corrupt and decadent – and it isn’t even that much fun to watch | 4/22/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
127 |
Quick Debate: Google Books will be better than Gutenberg | Intelligence Squared's Quick Debate is a For and Against analysis of the week's most hotly disputed public issue. This week's debate looks at the possible effects of search giant Google scanning and digitising some ten million books | 4/17/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
128 |
Quick Debate: Tolerance should be granted to homophobes… as well as homosexuals | Intelligence Squared's Quick Debate is a For and Against analysis of the week's most hotly disputed public issue. This week's debate looks at tolerance. Gay rights are back on the agenda after a gay couple, Michael Black and John Morgan, were prevented from taking up a booking they had made at a B&B in Berkshire: the owner, Susanne Wilkinson, had disapproved of their relationship for religious reasons. The row was further inflamed last weekend when Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling sympathised with Wilkinson's views. Is such dislike of gay sex always an unacceptable prejudice? Or should homosexuals learn to tolerate the limits to other people’s tolerance of their lifestyles | 4/12/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
129 |
Quick Debate: Legalise Highs? | Intelligence Squared's Quick Debate is a For and Against analysis of the week's most hotly disputed public issue. This week's debate considers drug legalisation after recent calls for the popular street drug, Mephedrone, to be banned. | 4/4/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
130 |
Quick Debate: Politicians’ private lives should be privatised | Intelligence Squared's Quick Debate is a For and Against analysis of the week's most hotly disputed public issue. This week's debate considers whether politicians' domestic lives should be privatised. | 3/29/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
131 |
David Eagleman in conversation with Will Self | American neuroscientist David Eagleman and British novelist Will Self discuss death and its possibilities. | 3/25/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
132 |
Future of News | Speakers: David Elstein Chairman of DCD Media plc and the Broadcasting Policy Group, formerly Chief Executive of Channel 5. Claire Enders Founder of Enders Analysis, a research service focusing on technology, telecoms and media across Europe. A. A. Gill Journalist and author, currently the Sunday Times's restaurant and television critic. Turi Munthe Founder of Demotix - www.demotix.com - a street-journalism website and newswire. Andrew Neil Former editor of the Sunday Times; publisher of Press Holdings and Chief Executive of the Spectator, broadcaster and business consultant on media matters. Matthew Parris Times newspaper columnist, television and radio broadcaster. Jacob Weisberg Editor-in-chief of the Washington Post's Slate Group of online magazines. Chair: Simon Jenkins Columnist for The Guardian and the London Evening Standard and former editor of the Times newspaper. He is also Chairman of the National Trust. | 3/24/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
133 |
Art fairs are about money, not art | Art fairs, scoff the critics, have become shopping malls for the super-rich. They are giant marketplaces for the wealthy to buy, invest and speculate on the commodity of art. Galleries pressure artists to churn out 'safe', sellable works, which are not so much looked at as bought in bulk. But are art fairs in fact the perfect format for visitors to see art from all over the world which they wouldn't otherwise see? And by allowing artists to show their work to potential buyers en masse are these shows a crucial lifeline for artists today? Chaired by Simon de Pury. Arguing for the motion are Louisa Buck, Jasper Joffe, and Matthew Collings. Arguing against the motion are Richard Wentworth, Matthew Slotover and Sir Norman Rosenthal. | 3/20/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
134 |
Europe is failing its Muslims | Has Europe fallen into an "us vs them" mindset? Have Europeans nurtured the perception that Islam is alien to the continent? Do they know what to make of people who don't conform to their Enlightenment values? Speakers: Tariq Ramadan, Zeinab Badawi, Petra Stienen, Douglas Murray, Flemming Rose | 2/23/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
135 |
Joseph Stiglitz in conversation with Evan Davis | In this interview Joseph Stiglitz will be discussing his new book "FREEFALL: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy", a whodunnit account of how America exported bad economics, bad policies, and bad behaviour to the rest of the world, only to cobble together a haphazard and ineffective response when the markets finally seized up. Stiglitz will outline his remedies for the future, building on ideas that he has championed his entire career: restoring the balance between markets and government, addressing the inequalities of the global financial system, and demanding more good ideas (and less ideology) from economists. Joseph Stiglitz Chairman, Brooks World Poverty Institute at the University of Manchester. Winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001 and Chief Economist at the World Bank until January 2000. He is currently University Professor of the Columbia Business School. Evan Davis Presenter of BBC Radio 4's Today Programme; BBC Economics Editor from 2001-2008. | 2/9/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
136 |
Public schools are a blight on British society | Is it simply envy that inspires hatred of public schools? Should we not applaud them as the standard bearer of all that is best in a free meritocratic society - as academies of excellence whose pupils receive not just a first class education, but also a sense of discipline, good manners and social responsibility? Or is it more accurate to view them as little citadels of privilege, sucking the talents and energies of the middle classes out of the state system? And shouldn't we acknowledge that it's not only the children of the excluded majority who get hurt in the process but also the pampered inmates of the citadels themselves, whose limited social horizons and cut-glass branded accents cut them off from the mass of their fellow citizens and make them resented strangers in their own land? Speakers for the motion: David Aaronovitch Author and columnist on The Times. Martin Rowson Satirical cartoonist and novelist. He was London's Cartoonist Laureate under former mayor Ken Livingstone. Francis Wheen Author and broadcaster. His latest book is "Strange Days Indeed: The Golden Age of Paranoia". Speakers against the motion: Mary Beard Professor of Classics at Cambridge University and author of the blog "A Don's Life" which has recently been published as a book. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto Professor of Global Environment History at Queen Mary, University of London, and William P. Reynolds Professor of History, University of Notre Dame. Formerly a history master at Charterhouse School. Barnaby Lenon Head Master of Harrow School. Chair: Francine Stock Broadcaster and novelist. She presents BBC Radio 4's "The Film Programme". | 2/3/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
137 |
Pakistan: what next? | Pakistan is the world's tinderbox: a nuclear-armed state, riven by ethnic and religious conflict, home to the Taliban and al-Qa'eda, poised on a knife edge between secularism and Islamicism, an ally of America yet seething with anti-Americanism. Can America help it achieve stability, or has US intervention proved to be more of the cause of Pakistan's problems than its cure? The distinguished panel of speakers for this event includes Imran Khan, William Dalrymple, Jaswant Singh, Anatol Lieven, Farzana Shaikh, Jonathan Paris and Sir David Richards. This is the first of eight IQ² events planned for the first half of 2010, all of which will be broadcast live on this page over the coming months | 1/14/10 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
138 |
Everything a man does he does to get laid | Rod Liddle begins the case for the proponents of the motion. He highlights the attitudes of different genders towards sex, noting that whilst women have become less chaste in recent times, men are more single-minded in their will to sleep with as many different partners as possible. Liddle sees the concept of 'romantic love' as a veneer used by humanity - and by men in particular - to convince ourselves that we are not biologically and mechanistically driven towards sex, but insists that ultimately men are gentically driven towards this pursuit. In opposing the motion, Rowan Pelling targets the British man in particular in her argument, noting that in Britain, it is frustrated women who will do almost anything to get laid. She begins by outlining the British male's characteristic ambivalence toward sex in literature and other media, from Sherlock Holmes to Dr Who. At heart, she says, men want to live with their best friends, not with women - just look at all the things men do to make themselves less atrractive to women - trainspotting, computer games, etc. All of Britain's great historical figures, from Shakespeare to Churchill, achieved what they did because they deliberately avoided spending too much time with women. Seonding the motion, Satoshi Kanazawa points out that as humans are no different to any other species in being governed by the laws of nature, they too are driven, through evolutionary urges, towards 'reproductive success'. However, the fact that mating is essentially a female choice means that males are driven to great lengths to impress women, by writing symphonies, authoring books, or conquering lands. Rejecting the motion, Howard Jacobson begins by stating that in Britain, men do not "get laid' - "they make love". He makes the point that if all you wanted to do was "pull a bird", then there are easier ways to do it than painting the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel. Humanity has also discovered sexual activites that hold no possibility of reproduction - a man having sex with another man is not striving for reproductive success, for instance. For men, sex is something that has to be done only so it is over with, leaving them free to do other things. David Buss draws on his experience of teaching evolutionary psychology to suggest that, for females, there are many variables to consider when choosing a mate - males look for a more limited range of qualities. Men are also more inclined to sleep with strangers, and often exaggerate their athletic, intellectual, or physical prowess to impress women. Buss suggests that these differences arose because men can afford to sleep with as many mates as possible - indeed, it is in their evolutionary interests to do so. However, whilst the male's contribution to a pregnancy might only last minutes, the female has to consider her choice of mate carefully before beginning a nine-month pregnancy. This difference in attitudes towards reproduction means that men try to propagate their genes as frequently as possible. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic argues that the motion is impossible to prove or disprove scientifically. He suggests that it has no predictive value, as most of the time when people do things with a view to get laid, they don't end up achieving their goal anyway. As Chamorro-Premuzic points out, Sigmund Freud suggested that Leonardo da Vinci achieved so much because he was asexual. | 12/10/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
139 |
It is time to lift sanctions on Burma | Whilst the detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy are said to be in favour of maintaining international sanctions against the Burmese military junta, many argue that the existing ones have had no effect on the government's anti-democratic stance, and have only contributed to the suffering of the Burmese people. A panel of experts debate the effectiveness of the sanctions, and suggest alternatives. Arguing in favour of the motion are Derek Tokin, Frank Smithuis, and Thant Myint-U. Derek Tonkin proposes the motion by suggesting that, whilst the sanctions against Burma are supposed to be targeting the regime, they are making no difference. He calls for all sanctions against Burma (except the arms embargo) to be lifted, as they are harming Burma's ordinary citizens more than they are harming those in power. Frank Smithuis draws on his experience of working in Burma to suggest that sanctions have had no effect - only negative side-effects. Not only have trade sanctions led to a decrease in jobs in the textiles and tourist industries, but development and humanitarian aid has also decreased, leading to increased poverty and disease. Thant Myint-U outlines how sanctions have decimated 'employment-generating' industries such as textile manufacture and tourism in Burma. The upshot of these sanctions is that the poorest people and the middle classes have suffered, not the generals. If the West continues to isolate Burma, it is China who will shape the future of the country, and Myint-U questions whether the Chinese are the most desirable state to be in that position. Arguing against the motion are Benedict Rogers, Mark Farmaner, and Brad Adams. Benedict Rogers outlines the shocking brutality that the Burmese government is capable of, and suggests that lifting sanctions would send out the wrong message to the Burmese government. We should only lift sanctions, he says, when the government agree to measures such as releasing political prisoners and declaring a ceasefire on the ethnic nationalities. He proposes more targeted sanctions - on oil, gas, and financial institutions - to hit the generals where it really hurts: in their pockets. Mark Farmaner points to the strong support that sanctions have from Burma charities and the Burmese population themselves. Sanctions were originally introduced in response to human rights abuses, and are still in place because these abuses have not abated. He also points out that there are no sanctions on humanitarian aid – levels of aid to Burma have decreased since 1988 because of fears that it will fall into the hands of the corrupt government. Brad Adams acknowledges the failure of previous sanctions such as America's trade embargo, but says that what advocates of sanctions are calling for are more specific measures designed to force the generals to the negotiating table. Adams also advocates putting pressure on China and India to enforce sanctions on Burma. First vote: Agree 106, Disagree 98, Undecided 91 Final vote: Agree 120, Disagree 157, Undecided 23 The motion was defeated by 37 votes | 12/2/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
140 |
Atheism is the new fundamentalism | The motion proposes that "atheism is the new fundamentalism", i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community. Speaking for the motion are Richard Harries and Charles Moore. Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today's atheists. He portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity – the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for ‘the grand perhaps’ (Browning). Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding. He criticises Richard Dawkins for embodying this crude and narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else. Opposing the motion are A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins. Professor Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore's suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community. Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism | 11/29/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
141 |
The threat to our civil liberties has been much exaggerated | In the name of combating terrorism, keeping public order and often just plain old efficiency, the modern state is slowly but surely depriving us of our fundamental freedoms. That's the common lament of self-styled lovers of liberty. But is there any truth to it? Since 1997 we've had the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and many other pieces of legislation designed to strengthen our civil liberties. Isn’t there a case for saying our freedoms are more secure than they've ever been? Speaking in favour of the motion are David Aaronovitch, Sir Ian Blair, and Conor Gearty. David Aaranovitch explains that over the past half century the state has become weaker, not stronger. Power has steadily been decentralised, and the government is under more scrutiny than ever before. For Aaronovitch, the citizens are the mighty, not the state. Ian Blair assesses the changing nature of contemporary crime, explaining that the collection of information via surveillance is a necessity that has solved, and will continue to solve and prevent, serious crimes that threaten society. Conor Gearty discusses different ways civil liberties can be approached. He refutes the notion that the yard stick 'golden age' ever existed and explains in detail how protective legislations have often been misunderstood. Speaking against the motion are A C Grayling, David Davis, and Shami Chakrabarti. A C Grayling discusses the fine line between civil liberties and security protection. He looks at the nature of crime and proportionality and questions the threat to society posed by terrorists, compared to the threat posed by bankers. Grayling lists the intrusive measures and Acts that the government has introduced in recent years. David Davis assesses the risk and effects of terrorism and counterterrorism laws to the individual. He criticises the detainment policy, explaining that it is no longer about security, but about politics, and that this reductionism has had dire effects of innocent people. Shami Chakrabarti explains that the motion is not simply a choice between security and liberty. She asks which is the greater risk – hyperbole or complacency, and explains that even if laws are passed with positive intentions they can be used to negative effect. First vote: 137 For, 291 Against, 106 Don’t know Final Vote: 220 For, 281 Against, 22 Don’t know The motion is defeated by 61 votes | 11/19/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
142 |
Free-market capitalism is so 20th century | The panel debate the motion that free-market capitalism is so 20th century. Arguing in favour of the motion are Paul Mason, Ian Bremmer and Jean Pisani-Ferry. Paul Mason begins by explaining his definition of free-market capitalism. He focuses on the ideology itself rather than the actual system of capitalism as, surprisingly; true free-market capitalism has never been put into practice. He states that actual free-market states are ‘rigged and un-free’, and believes that capitalism has been empirically proven wrong, due to its failure to warn of impending crisis. Ian Bremmer continues by stating that non-western countries are ‘moving on’ economically, yet the west is not. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are experiencing ‘state capitalism’, where the state is the principle actor and arbiter of the economy. Therefore, power is shifting from the commercial to the political. Jean Pisani-Ferry finishes by arguing that markets and governments are both imperfect institutions. However, they must be effectively combined to promote our collective values. He also notes that western nations are entering into an economy of scarcity, which will be further affected by climate change and an aging population. Arguing against the motion are Stephen King, Kim Campbell and Vince Cable. Stephen King begins by stating that free-market capitalism did not exist in the 20th century, yet did in the 19th, as the size of the state has increased massively over the last one hundred years. He also notes that the huge tax revenues from risky bank practices encouraged governments not to intervene before the financial crisis. Kim Campbell argues that the free-market principles of Adam Smith have never been properly implemented. Furthermore, Adam Smith was deeply committed to notions of public morality, and firmly believed that capitalism should operate within an ethical framework – the kind of framework that was totally deconstructed during the Bush administration. Vince Cable argues that free-market capitalism is the world form of economic system – except for all the others. He believes that capitalism does not have to be laissez-faire, and does have a role for public goods and government intervention. The answer lies in breaking up institutions that are too big to fail and force them to compete. Cable believes that the ideal models of free-market capitalism are the systems used by the Scandinavian nations. First Vote: 178 For, 281 Against, 156 Undecided Final Vote: 162 For, 419 Against, 35 Undecided The motion is defeated by 257 votes | 10/29/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
143 |
The Catholic church is a force for good in the world | Chair Zeinab Badawi introduces the motion 'The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Initial Vote: 678 For, 1102 Against, Undecided 346 Final Vote: 268 For, 1876 Against, Undecided 34 Arguing in favour of the motion are Archbishop John Onaiyekan and the Rt Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP. Archbishop Onaiyekan begins by insisting that if the Catholic Church were not a force for good, he would not have devoted his entire life to serving it. He says that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church exists because of its 1.6 billion members worldwide, rather than in spite of them. He points not only to the spiritual assistance that his Church provides, but also to the tangible aid that is given internationally through Catholic projects. Finally, he admits that Catholics are not infallible, but are by necessity sinners trying to improve themselves through their faith. Ann Widdecombe suggests that in trawling all the way back to the Crusades to find something to blame the Catholic Church for, Christopher Hitchens merely demonstrates how flimsy his argument really is. Why would the Pope have hidden 3,000 Jews in his summer palace during the Second World War if the Catholic Church was an antisemitic organisation? Admittedly, the New Testament does blame a Jew for the death of Christ; but it also blames a Roman, Pontius Pilate. Are we to infer then that Catholicism is anti-Italian as well as antisemitic? Widdecombe insists that the actions of the Catholic Church in the past should be judged with a degree of historical relativism; they were not the only people to murder and torture those deemed guilty of wrongdoing. She entreats us to imagine a world without the benefits of the Catholic Church, which provides hope, education and medical relief all over the globe. Arguing against the motion are Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. Christopher Hitchens asserts that any argument trying to identify the merits of the Catholic Church must begin with a long list of sincere apologies for its past crimes, including but not limited to: the Crusades; the Spanish inquisition; the persecution of Jews and the forced conversion of peoples to Catholicism, especially in South America. He illustrates the vacuity of recent Catholic apologies by drawing on the case of Cardinal Bernard Law – shamed out of office in the US for his part in covering up the institutionalised sexual abuse of children – whose punishment from the Vatican was to be appointed a supreme vicar in Rome, and who was among those assembled in the 2005 Papal Conclave to choose the next Pope. Hitchens concludes by reminding the Archbishop that his own Church has been responsible for the death of millions of his African brothers and sisters, citing the Church’s disastrous stance on Aids prevention, as well as the ongoing trials in Rwanda in which Catholic priests stand accused of inciting massacre during the 1994 genocide. Stephen Fry concedes that his opposition to the motion is a deeply personal and emotional one. He criticises the Catholic Church not only for the horrors it has perpetrated in the past, but also for its ideology, and for its sinister temerity to preach that there is no salvation outside of the Church. With two words he refutes Anne Widdecombe’s suggestion that the Catholic Church does not have the powers of a nation state: “The Vatican”. As a homosexual, Fry reflects how bizarre it is to be accused of being “immoral” and “a pervert” by an institution that has persistently hushed up the rape and abuse of children under its care, and whose leading members, abstentious nuns and priests, all share an attitude towards sex that is utterly unnatural and dysfunctional. He concludes by questioning whether Jesus, as a humble Jewish carpenter, would have approved of all the pomp and excess of the Catholic Church, and whether he would even have been accepted by such an arrogant organisation | 10/19/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
144 |
William Dalrymple on Delhi | William Dalrymple, a twenty five year resident of Delhi, discusses the city that he describes as the ‘most complicated city he knows’. Dalrymple divides his lecture into two parts. Firstly, Delhi in the time of his 1994 travelogue City of Djinns which, he argues, is a Delhi which vanished long ago. Today it is a city diametrically at odds with its historical reputation, and a deeply uncultured philistine city. He asks the question ‘where is the city of the Mughals?’. The Delhi of today is instead, a massively vibrant media centre, and a magnet for people from the south and Mumbai seeking employment. He reads from City of Djinns about meeting the author of Twilight in Delhi, which he describes as one of the great examples of Indo-Islamic culture in Delhi, and the lifestyle of the old Mughal elite. Secondly, he discusses the Delhi of his 2006 historical book The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857. He begins by reading an excerpt which describes 1850’s Delhi – that being a place lacking in any real political power, yet still having a strong sense of its own self-confidence and power as a centre of manners, poetry and civilization. He continues by discussing the role and history of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, and concludes by outlining the the anti-colonial revolts, and the final downfall of the last Mughal | 10/5/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
145 |
The world in 2050 | Four members of the James Martin 21st Century School discuss the School's work and highlight four key areas that are likely to have a huge impact on the sustainability of the world's population: global risk; energy; human modification; and population growth and demographic shifts. Dr Ian Goldin asks why predictions about the future often turn out to be wrong. He argues that the recent history of globalisation has been an incredible coming-together of humanity, and an explosion of innovation, surpassing anything seen in the last 1000 years. He claims that the biggest uncertainly is fertility, as the world is converging below replacement levels. While the ageing population will be a major burden on the youth, they may be replaced by migration. He continues by discussing the ‘information big bang’, specifically the evolution of computer power. He believes that whilst risks will continue to come from nature, they will increasingly come from human activity. The biggest threat is climate change, but these risk also include also pandemics such as H1N1. As globalisation continues to shrink the world, the frequency and severity of these threats is only likely to increase. Another great risk we face is that we are stuck with a global governance system that that has not changed since the Second World War. Finally, Goldin believes that it is in our power to eradicate poverty and disease by 2050 - but it also within our power to destroy ourselves. Dr Malcolm McCulloch notes that human energy use is rapidly increasing, and that we are on a climate change trajectory that is far worse than the worst-case scenario predicted five years ago. He notes that in nature there is a cyclical system, whereby one animal's or organism’s waste is another’s nutrition. However humanity is addicted to single use resources. If humanity continues in the manner in which it previously has then energy use will increase by three times and the temperature of the earth by six degrees. The cost of transport and food will rise massively and humanity would likely not survive past 2100. Professor Julian Savulescu discusses the human genome, personalised genomes, cloning, stem cells and purely artificial life. He believes we will see radical biological modification of humans. Any genes in the plant or animal kingdom can potentially be used to enhance humans – the vision of a hawk; the hearing of a dog; the sonar of a bat. He states that humans are altruistic, but only to about 150 people - their immediate and extended family and their friends. Yet the problems humanity faces, such as climate change, require humans to cooperate and act altruistically in ways they are not disposed to behave. In order to make progress we have to understand our own biological limitations. Savulescu believes that by 2050 there will be hope in bio-liberation, but that the root of bio-threat will remain large. Professor Sarah Harper discusses the problems that are likely to arise as the world's population continues to age. By 2050 the global population is likely to swell to 9 billion people, but 3 billion people will be aged over 50. As we witness increasing age, we will also see falling fertility in most parts of the world. As medical science constantly progresses and even chronically ill people begin to live longer, generational succession will be an issue, as wealth and status will not be handed down the family line until much later in life. Harper's greatest concern is in human longevity becoming the new global inequality - the West must ensure that a child born in Africa has the same potential longevity as a child born in the West | 9/22/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
146 |
Churchill was more a liability than an asset to the free world | Winston Churchill is often held up as a champion of freedom and a symbol of Britain’s determination to defend the world from the threat of Nazism, but do we see Churchill through rose-tinted glasses? Are we forgetting his authorisation of the RAF’s ‘terror-bombing’ of German cities in World War 2, or his starvation blockade of Germany during the Great War? And what about the military catastrophes he masterminded at Gallipoli (1915) and Norway (1940)? An esteemed panel debate Churchill’s true legacy. Arguing in favour of the motion are Pat Buchanan, Nigel Knight, and Norman Stone. Pat Buchanan opens the case for the motion by acknowledging Churchill's role during Britain's 'Finest Hour' in 1940, but goes on to state that for the rest of his career, "no other career of a western statesman was more calamitous for his country and civilisation than that of Winston Spencer Churchill". Buchanan lists the gravest British military disasters of which Churchill was the architect (Gallipoli in WW1, Norway in WW2). He also cites Churchill's role in establishing the starvation blockade around Germany in WW1 and the RAF's 'terror-bombing' of German cities in WW2 as evidence that Churchill helped to precipitate the West's descent into barbarism. Nigel Knight criticises Churchill for his decision to put Britain on the gold standard - a decision which worsened the effects of the Great Depression when it eventually came. Knight also criticises Churchill's underestimation of the significance of aircraft carriers and the threat of U-boats in naval warfare, and his failure to recognise Japan as a major threat to Britain's naval superiority. Norman Stone decries the 'myth' of Churchill as a dangerous thing, and condemns Churchill's disastrous imperialist attitude, such as trying to salvage the Empire in the east whilst only just hanging on in a European war. He also questions the wisdom of the RAF's bombing of German cities in 1944-45 when Britain was shortly to become allies with Germany. Arguing against the motion are Andrew Roberts, Anthony Beevor, and Professor Richard Overy. Andrew Roberts begins by praising Churchill for ensuring that the British fleet was ready for action at the start of the Great War. He also warned Britain in the 1930s - at great political cost to himself - of the threat that Adolf Hitler posed, and in his famous 'Iron curtain' speech in 1946, warned the world of the threat that the Soviet Union posed . Roberts concedes that Churchill made mistakes but, he says, Churchill's political career spanned nearly two-thirds of a century, and he was only flesh and blood - of course he made some mistakes. Anthony Beevor focuses his argument on World War 2, beginning by stating that Churchill was correct to delay D-Day, allowing the American Army to gain experience fighting in the Mediterranean. He also notes that Churchill championed the freedom of the central and eastern European states. Firstly, he wanted to push through the Mediterranean and out of Italy to save the central and eastern European states from the perils of the Soviet Union, and secondly, at the end of the war he asked his chiefs of staff to assess the possibility of pushing the Red Army back out of these states, a measure that they decided would be impossible. Beevor lays the blame for Stalin's carving up of central Europe squarely at Franklin Roosevelt's door. Richard Overy says that Churchill cannot be blamed for all of the things of which he is accused because all of the decisions he made were as part of a committee. He decided policy by committee and he waged war by committee. Also, unlike some other leaders, such as Hitler, Churchill was amenable to advice. But most of all, Overy says, Churchill was a man driven by a love of liberty and a deep-seated hatred of tyranny. First Vote: 118 For, 1167 Against, 422 Don’t Know Final Vote: 181 For, 1194 Against, 34 Don’t Kno | 9/3/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
147 |
Happiness lies in making do with less, rather than always striving for more | The panel discuss what actually constitutes happiness, and whether we should simply be happy with what we’ve got. Speaking in favour of the motion are Rosie Boycott and Dr Anthony Seldon. Opposing the motion are Dominic Lawson and Christine Hamilton | 7/9/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
148 |
Can art be taught to the facebook generation? | Antony Gormley, Alain de Botton, Camila Batmanghelidjh, Grayson Perry and Stephen Bayley share their views on whether the 'facebook generation' can be taught art. | 7/1/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
149 |
Psychotherapy has done more harm than good | The panel discuss the theory that psychotherapy has done more harm than good. Arguing in favour of the proposal are Theodore Dalrymple, Dorothy Rowe and Jeffrey Masson. Theodore Dalrymple begins by arguing that the negative cultural effect of psychotherapy outweighs any potential good done to individual patients. He believes it elevates feelings over objective evidence, and treats human life as a technical problem to be solved - standing in the way of human happiness. Dorothy Rowe states that therapy can help, on very rare occasions; however, nobody really knows how this occurs. Whilst therapists must take account of everything in a person’s life, any therapy that is unable to do this causes harm. Finally, Jeffrey Masson states that the prejudices of the therapist affect the participants; however, participants cannot know the background of the therapist. Therapists' abilities are also deeply limited as no one is an expert when it comes to sorrow, happiness, or love. Arguing against the proposal are Andrew Samuels, Lorna Martin and Professor Lord Layard. Andrew Samuels begins by arguing that psychotherapy does not create a victim mentality - in fact, it has the opposite effect. He states that growth and risk are connected, while anti-psychotherapy belief comes from upper middle-class repression. Lorna Martin believes that psychotherapy is not a cure for the human condition, but it helps you understand what your “default position” is. She rejects the notion that it has caused the human condition to become medicalised - this has occurred from outside influences. Professor Lord Layard states that therapy is exactly the same as medicine – meaning there are good and bad practitioners. He believes that Cognitive Behaviour Therapy saves lives, and strongly supports the increased role of mental health services offered through the NHS. First vote: 167 For, 304 Against, 195 Don't Know Final vote: 204 For, 421 Against, 35 Don't Know Motion defeated by 217 votes | 6/17/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
150 |
The future of parliamentary democracy in Britain | In the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal (May - June 2009), a panel of politicians and journalists discuss the merits and pitfalls of the current system of democracy in Britain - is the system rotten to the core, or was the expenses scandal simply a storm in a teacup? In a departure from the usual debate format, the seven panellists each present their views on the current state of affairs and suggest if, and how, the system needs to be reformed. David Cannadine begins by to growing unrest with the government in Britain, fed by scandals such MPs' expenses and the 'cash for honours', as well as the perception that both New Labour and the Conservative Party are responsible for the economic crisis. Cannadine argues that this short-term outrage is not the basis on which to base long term reforms, and that this period of transition - in all likelihood from a New Labour to a Conservative government - is not the time for radical reform. He also runs through the possible parliamentary reforms - a written constitution, a second elected house, reform of the Lords - and suggests why it is unlikely that any of them will be implemented. Helena Kennedy agrees that the public is currently disillusioned with politics and politicians, as evidenced by low voter turnouts. Politicians, she says would have us believe that these low turnouts are down to voter empathy, but surveys reveal that people feel that their votes don't count and are frustrated at the homogeneity of the political parties. In this sense, the outrage caused by the expenses scandal is symptomatic of a deeper mistrust of politicians. Kennedy calls for a great public input in the political process in Britain, and a system of representation that allows people to feel that their voices are heard even when they do not vote for a majority party. Peter Oborne accepts the fact that there is something wrong with British politics but refutes calls for root and branch reform. He emphasises the significance of the expenses scandal, suggesting that it is indicative of a higher level of fraud and corruption in the House of Commons, and that the sackings in the wake of the scandal are token gestures by Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Oborne suggests that, in the short-term, we need to clean up British politics, by making sure that individuals who defraud the taxpayers are brought to account. After a short break for questions, Vernon Bogdanor resumes the debate by citing public disillusionment as the reason for low voter turnouts in Britain, pointing to the fact that a large number of Britons regularly participate in voluntary activities and attend voluntary organisations - the problem is more people are members of, for instance, the National Trust or the RSPCA than all the polticical parties put together. Bogdanor suggests that this points to disillusionment with British politics, and calls for a more inclusive democratic system - one that does away with safe seats and makes more use of mechanisms such as referendums and primary elections. John Keane calls for a greater degree of 'monitary democracy' in British politics. He suggests that Britain has fallen behind other democracies in this respect, and cites the extra-governmental agencies used in other countries to keep parliament in check and crack down on fraud and corruption, such as the Australian 'Integrity Commissions' or Canada’s 2006 Federal Accountability Act. He parallels the current state of British politics to that of late nineteenth century America where public disillusionment at state corruption was high. But he also suggests that, like in that period of American history, positive changes can emerge from the public anger at the corruption of politicians; this will take a greater degree of public engagement with the problems, from journalists and citizens' assemblies, to blogs, and political satire. Referring again to the expenses scandal, Sir Malcom Rifkind suggests that new technologies - the internet and email - will | 6/15/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
151 |
The future belongs to India, not China | India, a democracy of over a billion people, has a rate of growth almost as impressive as China's, a burgeoning middle class, a highly skilled work force and an abundance of raw materials. More important still, it operates under the rule of law not the rule of the politburo. Could it be that India ends up the dominant power of the eastern hemisphere? Arguing in favour of the motion are Deepak Lal, Sir Mark Tully, and Gurcharan Das. Arguing against the motion are Lord Powell, Danny Quah and Sir David Tang. | 5/12/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
152 |
Ruskin vs Palladio | Andrea Palladio freed European architecture to the full glories of the classical Renaissance, founding a style that is fresh and vigorous to this day. To John Ruskin he was a hidebound traditionalist who buried the soaring inspiration of European Gothic in out of date rules and pagan temples. Who was the most influential architect? Arguing for Palladio are Robert Adam and Dr Manolo Guerci. Robert Adam begins the defence of Palladio by criticising the way in which Ruskin prioritised architectural theory over architecture itself. Adam sees this as the main reason why architects are now marginal figures in the construction process. He argues that it is the 'practicality' of Palladio's architecture that has ensured Palladio's place as the 'Godfather of the greatest period in British Architecture'. Palladio's four books, Adam argues, contain a combination of lessons in classical architecture, examples of ways to design up-to-date classical buildings, and a method of using these principles for any design. Dr Manolo Guerci declares that Palladio has been misunderstood. Beginning with an examination of who Palladio was and his beginnings in 16th century Veneto, Guerci emphasises that he epitomises a balance between practice and theory, while Ruskin represented theory only. That he invented a formula was a reason for his success, but his architecture was hardly ever formulaic. According to Guerci, Ruskin's charge that Palladio's architecture does not work in its context is wrong: without the context you can't have Palladio. Arguing for Ruskin are Robert Hewison and Simon Jenkins. Robert Hewison begins the defence by criticising Palladio's desire to impose his own vision on the world, when he himself often deviated from his own strict rules governing that vision. Whilst Palladio was just an architect, he argues, Ruskin was also a critic, an artist, a geologist, a botanist, and a naturalist. But above all, Ruskin saw the Classical architecture that Palladio championed as an attempt to cut mankind off from ‘God's creation’, and tried to use Gothic architecture to reconnect people with nature. Simon Jenkins explains how he has never looked back since his personal discovery of Ruskin's Venice. He says the debate is not about whether Palladio is a bad architect, but about preference. For him, Palladio is unexciting, dreary, and rule-bound, and is about the mathematics, not the magic, of building. Jenkins uses Parliament Square as an example of gothic imagination, excitement and liberation. It is not rule-bound like Palladianism, which is at its best only when the rules are broken. He ends with the suggestion that Palladio is the forbear of the least exciting elements of architecture, and asks that we vote for Ruskin and beauty instead. The Final Vote was declared a draw | 3/25/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
153 |
Britain has become indifferent to beauty | The panel debate the idea that beauty has lost its value in British society. Championing the motion are David Starkey and Roger Scruton. Arguing against the motion are Germaine Greer and Stephen Bayley. | 3/19/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
154 |
Rory Stewart on Kabul | Rory Stewart OBE provides an insight into the richly varied cultural and architectural history of Kabul, created by its prominent position along the Old Silk Road. He describes how the great heritage of Kabul has been decimated over the course of history, not only by figures like Genghis Khan in the 13th century, but by the British occupation in the 19th, and then by the Soviets in the 20th century. Stewart’s courageous solo walk across Afghanistan in 2001-2002, combined with his existing expertise in the politics, history, art and architecture of the region, has made him one of the foremost authorities on Afghanistan. Having given a brief outline of the history of Kabul, including the Afghan revolt against the British, Stewart brings us all the way forward to the present, to the Turquoise Mountain Foundation, the hugely successful urban regeneration programme that he founded in 2005. The project operates exclusively within the Murad Khane district of Kabul, and aims not just to improve the living conditions of Afghanis, but to enhance their own sense of cultural and historical identity, by repairing old buildings and restarting the teaching of traditional Afghan trades. At one point, Turquoise Mountain employed every man of working age in the Murad Khane district. Stewart’s message is clear: in order to give Afghanistan any chance of successfully developing in the future, we must be aware of of the responsibilities we bear from the destructive British engagement there, and should encourage a natural, gradual reconnection of Afghanis with their cultural identity. Any approach which is heavy handed, or oversimplifies the sheer complexity of creating a climate conducive to legitimately rebuilding this nation, is bound to fail. Following his lecture proper, Stewart fields questions on the culture of Kabul, as well as on US and British strategy in the region. He refers to troop surges as “positively noxious”, and insists that we must try to find a political solution in Afghanistan, but that it requires the international community to create a realistic space for that to happen | 3/12/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
155 |
Afghanistan - The Future | In this discussion on the future of Afghanistan, seven politicians and journalists offer their thoughts on the current situation in Afghanistan and suggest the strategy that Coalition countries should pursue in the future. Matthew Parris begins by arguing that Afghanistan has nothing to do with Britain – that it is beyond our sphere. He believes that the money spent on waging war in Afghanistan would have been more effectively spent, and Britain would be safer as a nation, if we had invested in anti-terrorism projects and policing. Lord Inge believes that we must have clearer aims for what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. He believes that the aim should not be to create a democracy, merely a more stable nation. Therefore, we must increase western military levels, and improve the Afghan army. Clare Lockhart argues that the ‘war’ was supposed to be a global partnership. She states that western governments funded the aid effort rather than the Afghan government. She believes the West must invest money in developing the skill of the local population, improving and developing their universities, and equipping Afghans to establish their government and civil society. Rory Stewart states that the West lacks power, knowledge and legitimacy in Afghanistan. He believes the approach we should take involves a light footprint, fewer troops and less money – as this is more sustainable. Christina Lamb now believes that we must not increase troop levels, but argues strongly that Afghanistan is the West’s problem. She states that Afghans are stuck between a vicious Taliban, who they fear and respect for their swift justice, and a slow, corrupt and useless government. She believes that if we cannot send enough troops then we need to think about other ways out of the situation. Anatol Lieven argues that Pakistan is more important than Afghanistan, due to their population, army and nuclear weapons. He believes that the main driving force of radicalisation is our presence. We should study the Russian experience in Afghanistan, train their army and then get out. He believes that if we do withdraw troops from the country, the Afghans will start thinking about what they need to do to secure their own future. Paddy Ashdown strongly disagrees that it is nothing to do with Britain - he believes it is about our security. If you turn your back on a lawless state, where the destroyers of peace can operate, then retribution is possible. Our aims must be consistent with the desires of the people of Afghanistan, even if we feel that the society that they create is somewhat offensive to our values. Furthermore, we must speak to the Taliban. At the end of the debate, chair Richard Lindley asks the audience to vote, with a show of hands, for each of the following propositions: 1. All foreign military forces should leave Afghanistan now; 2. Foreign forces in Afghanistan should negotiate a deal with the Taliban; 3. Foreign troops should remain in Afghanistan until the Taliban have been defeated. Interestingly, all three propositions are defeated, with the third garnering only a few votes | 3/10/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
156 |
The era of American dominance is over | The panel discuss the theory that the era of America's role as the 'World's Policeman" is coming to an end. Arguing in favour of the motion are Oliver Kamm, Pankaj Mishra and Professor John Gray. Oliver Kamm begins by arguing that the financial crisis has affected America’s desire and ability to play their traditional role as head of the international order. He believes that there will soon come a point where Asia will no longer invest in low yielding dollar assets, and the dollar itself will be rivaled by the Euro. He states that the factual reality of the motion far outweighs its desirability. Pankaj Mishra argue that America was never really dominant in Asia and India, as dominance requires consent – which was never present. He believes that the Chinese economy will rebound much sooner than America’s, specifically because it is less capitalistic. Finally, Professor John Gray argues that America will remain the most dominant power, but less dominant than it has been in the past. The decline will be both bad and good, he claims, as we move into a world without a dominant power. The likely outcome of this is a far more dangerous world. Arguing against the motion are Sir Christopher Meyer, Sir Lawrence Freedman and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. Sir Christopher begins by arguing that the world economy cannot improve until the American economy does, as no other nation has the consumers and resources to protect the global economy. He argues that other global economies are intrinsically linked to America’s, and that their economies are currently faltering. Sir Lawrence continues by stating that American dominance never began, so it cannot be over, as an external force has always contained US power. He believes that no one else is going to take over the role of defining the world order, as there is no potential challenging ideology. Finally, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto states that we should not judge America by the iniquities of its government, but by its people. American dominance is actually intellectual, due to their investment in learning, research and culture. Therefore, he states that American dominance is increasing. First Vote: 223 For, 334 Against, 162 Undecided Final Vote: 103 For, 527 Against, 89 Undecided The motion is defeated | 2/12/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
157 |
Clive James on Florence | Clive James delivers a lecture on Florence, the city he calls his third university, and the place that opened his mind to European culture and history. | 1/28/09 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
158 |
An evening with Bernard-Henri Levy | Bernard-Henri Lévy discusses the meaning behind his book Left in Dark Times (2008) | 12/2/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
159 |
It’s wrong to pay for sex | The panel discuss the moral and legal aspects of prostitution. In favour of the motion are Joan Smith, Jeremy O’Grady, and Professor Raymond Tallis. Arguing against the motion are Germaine Greer, Rod Liddle, and Belinda Brooks-Gordon | 11/11/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
160 |
We were wrong to recognise Kosovo’s declaration of independence | A decade on from Kosovo's declaration of indepence from Serbia, the panel debate whether or not 54 out of the UN's 192 member states - including America, Britain, France, and Italy - were correct to recognise their declaration. Arguing in favour of the motion are Sir Ivor Roberts, Mischa Glenny, and Dragan Županjevac. Sir Ivor Roberts begins by criticising the US for removing any incentive for a Serbian-Kosovan consensus before their talks had even begun, by telling Kosovo that the US would support it whatever the outcome. President Bush’s argument that this support was necessary to bring stability to the region was also specious, given that Serbia’s democratic government was clearly destabilised by international support for the Kosovan declaration. Finally, Roberts argues that multi-ethnicity has failed in Kosovo, and that temporary partition would be the best interim policy. Misha Glenny argues we must accept the political reality that European countries will not reverse their decision to accept Kosovo’s declaration of independence, but he criticises the flawed process by which this acceptance was made. The resulting confusion caused by European disunity means that Kosovo has not even been properly recognised by FIFA, let alone the UN. Glenny even suggests that the recent territorial adventurism from Russia in Georgia is linked to Kosovo’s treatment: that their actions have been legitimised by the free-for-all created by countries recognising Kosovo’s independence without full agreement from Serbia or the UN. As the only Serb on the panel, Dragan Županjevac wholeheartedly supports the motion. He insists that any recognition of Kosovan independence without agreement from the UN directly contravenes international law. He supports the notion that the ruling on Kosovo is a “toolkit for separatism worldwide”, and draws attention to some often “forgotten” victims of the conflict: the 200,000 Serbians who have been forced to leave Kosovo to live in refugee camps. Opposing the motion are Wolfgang Ischinger, Paddy Ashdown, and Veton Surroi. Wolfgang Ischinger insists that, with all other options exhausted, Kosovan independence was the only satisfactory course of action remaining. Subjecting Kosovo to Serbian rule once again would have been unthinkable after the horrific events of 1999. Ischinger rejects Ivor Roberts’ support for partition within Kosovo, insisting that Europe must remain true to an ideology that always permits multi-ethnic spaces. Paddy Ashdown argues that there are important parallels between the secession of the Republic of Ireland from the UK and of Kosovo from Serbia: through prolonged misgovernance and finally brutality, both ruling countries lost the moral and practical right to govern. Ashdown strongly rejects the parallels drawn by Misha Glenny between Kosovo and South Ossetia, as well as Roberts’s idea of creating partition in Kosovo. Any attempt to impose mono-ethnic regions in the Balkans will, he says, lead inevitably to conflict and further bloodshed. Veton Surroi brings to bear his personal experience of Milosevic’s regime on this debate; he explains exactly how Milosevic divided up different ethnic groups into first and second class citizens in Kosovo, and how this discrimination even extended into the classroom. He praises the intervention of the UN, who for the first time in the 20th century, actually prevented genocide from occurring. First Vote: 171 For, 184 Against, 275 Don’t Know Final Vote: 311 For, 364 Against, 22 Don’t Kno | 10/28/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
161 |
Heathrow needs a third runway | The panel discuss the merits and pitfalls of the proposed third runway at Heathrow. Arguing in favour of the motion are Tom Kelly, Lord Soley and Colin Stanbridge. Arguing against the motion are Mark Lynas, Sir Peter Hall and Vince Cable. | 10/1/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
162 |
Georgia and Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO | The panel debates the motion that Georgia and the Ukraine should be allowed to join Nato. Arguing in favour of the motion are Oleg Rybachuk, Denis Macshane and Giorgi Kandelaki. Arguing against the motion are Lord Skidelsky, Alexey Pushkov and Sir Christopher Meyer. | 9/25/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
163 |
Paths to peace: Proposals to resolve the Israeli-Palestine conflict | The panel debate whether it is possible to achieve a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. They discuss the measures that can be taken, who should be involved in brokering peace, and what kind of a peace can be achieved. Dan Gillerman begins by stating his optimism that the Israel-Palestine conflict can be resolved, and cites the 2007 Middle East peace conference in Annapolis as a turning point. He suggests that Islam has been hijacked by fundamentalists and that the only way for peace to be negotiated between Israel and Palestine is if the Muslim and Arab worlds can unite. Dr Hanan Ashrawi is also optimistic, she states that unilateral or bilateral negotiations will not work, and that a multinational approach involving third parties is the only way forward, and stresses the need to include the Arab countries if they are prepared to be involved. Efraim Halevy is less optimistic about the chances of reaching a settlement in the near future. He first lists the conditions that are necessary for a resolution to the conflict and then how far we currently are away from them. He diverges from the previous speakers in saying that this is a problem that is to be solved bilaterally - by Israel and Palestine together, without third party intervention. Mustafa Barghouti cites a lack of political will as the main reason why the Israel-Palestine situation has not been resolved. He suggests that a one state solution will result in a state with unequal rights for Palestinians and Israelis, and suggests that in resolving the situation we should go back to basics - the Israeli occupation must end, Arab initiatives must be discussed, and there must be an international peace conference. Yael Dayan begins by saying that she doesn't want to talk about who is to blame, but instead wants to focus on the future. However, she believes that there is no way that Israel can justify a 40 year occupation, and suggests the only way forward is a two state solution, with Israeli forces ending their occupation of Palestinian territory. Sir Malcolm Rifkind suggests that we have good cause to be optimistic about resolving the conflict - firstly because of historical precedents such as the settlements reached between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan, and also because the majority of Palestinians and Israelis agree to a two state resolution. He also cites the 1955 treaty that saw Austria, by pledging to remain neutral, become an independent nation, as a possible model for a Palestinian peace treaty. This would allow Palestine to become an independent state whilst guaranteeing Israel's security. A show of hands at the end of the debate showed that the overwhelming majority of the audience did not think a settlement could be reached within the next five years. However, a show of hands among the panellists revealed that they were more optimistic, with five out of six of them believing a settlement could be reached in that period. | 9/16/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
164 |
Prince Charles was right - Modern architecture is still all glass stumps and carbuncles | An Intelligence² debate with the RIBA Trust, as part of the London Festival of Architecture 2008. Speakers for the motion: Simon Jenkins, Leon Krier and Roger Scruton. Speakers gainst the motion: Sean Griffiths, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton. Chaired by Anna Ford. Roger Scruton opens the case for the motion arguing that the debate concerns the rule not the exception - the modern office and apartment block are not made for the city but against it. Simon Jenkins reaffirms the motion highlighting the changing history of modern architecture; Le Corbusier and the Utopian 1960's-70's new society were a form of social engineering through architecture; examples of which are being demolished across the world. Finally HRH The Prince of Wales' Poundbury architect, Leon Krier, defends the motion, and calls for a return to tradtional architecture. In opposition to the motion, Stephen Bayley warns against HRH's criticism of advancement, and describes him as fearful for the future and dismissive of the present. Alain de Botton defends modern architecture on its cultural and social merits celebrating design and architecture's great achievements. Finally, architecture professor at Manchester University Sean Griffiths proclaims the motion as the swan-song of a debate that has been running for 24 years, calling for a closer examination of important issues concerning the government of Britain over the last two decades. First Vote: For 199, Against 365, Don’t know 119. Final Vote: For 266, Against 391, don’t know 29 | 6/30/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
165 |
Tax the rich (more) | The panel, under chair Evan Davis, debate whether imposing higher tax rates on Britain's highest earners would be an appropriate solution to increase revenue for the state. Arguing in favour of the motion are John Kay, Polly Toynbee, and Anthony Hilton. Arguing against the motion are James Bartholomew, Lord Anthony Jacobs, and Kelvin MacKenzie. | 6/24/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
166 |
America has lost its moral authority | In light of America's involvement in controversial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the American government's use of torture and rendition, the panel question America's moral authority. Speaking for the motion are Professor John Gray, Matthew Parris and Will Self. Arguing against the motion are Simon Schama, Martin Amis and Howard Jacobson. | 4/29/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
167 |
The West is provoking a new Cold War with Russia | The panel debate whether the West is provoking a new Cold War with Russia. Arguing in favour of the motion are Alexey Pushkov, Anatole Kaletsky and Norman Stone. Alexey Pushkov begins by arguing that Russia has been extremely supportive of the US since 9/11, yet the Americans have not reciprocated. He suggests that by encouraging other members to join NATO, pulling out of the ABM treaty and interfering in Moldavian politics the West has shown itself to be the aggressors. Anatole Kaletsky argues Russia no longer believes it holds the moral high-ground, and it no longer wants to impose its values on the rest of the world. He believes that Russia’s issues are internal, and that its choice not to live by our political standards, whilst regrettable, is understandable, and should not be interpreted as a hostile act. Norman Stone argues that in the late eighties, at the height of its failure, the West had no plan for Russia. Now, however, Russia is succeeding again, yet it is no longer oppressing other people. Furthermore, he believes that the West is constantly provoking and criticising Russia. Arguing against the motion are Edward Lucas, Dr Lilia Shevtsova and Ronald D. Asmus. Edward Lucas begins by describing a ‘thought experiment’ using the Third Reich as a model, to demonstrate the relationship between modern Russia and her neighbours. He suggests that eastern Europeans are rightly worried about their futures considering Russia’s desire to dominate its empire and divide and disrupt the Atlantic alliance. Dr Lilia Shevtsova continues by suggesting that Russia wants the West to not meddle in their domestic affairs and endorse their regime, recognise their areas of influence and allow Russia to play according to its own rules. While recognising that both sides are responsible for a revival in Cold War attitudes, she suggests that Russians are not anti-Western – as demonstrated by the elite’s desire to ‘live in Kensington and send their children to Cambridge’. Finally, Ronald D Asmus argues that the motion is based on a historical fallacy. He believes that the United States has not broken any of their promises to Russia. Arguing from his own experience in the Clinton administration, he believes that the US wants to consolidate democracy in central Europe, reach out to Russia and try to ‘pull it West’. First Vote: 158 For, 359 Against, 236 Don't know Final Vote: 181 For, 528 Against, 43 Don't know The motion is defeated by 347 votes | 3/18/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
168 |
Britain should have a referendum on the European Treaty | Speakers for the motion are Lord Lamont, Neil O'Brien and Andrew Roberts Speakers against the motion are Vernon Bogdanor, Sir Stephen Wall and David Aaronovitch Chaired by Andrew Neil | 3/5/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
169 |
It’s better to bomb Iran than risk Iran getting the bomb | Proponents of the motion argue that the risk of Iran obtaining, and possibly using, nuclear warheads, justifies pre-emptive strikes by the West; its detractors say that only diplomacy should be used in international disputes and that the risk of Iran having nuclear warheads is not sufficient to justify a preventative strike. Chaired by Richard Lindley. Arguing in favour of the motion are Emanuele Ottolenghi, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Bruno Tertrais. Arguing against the motion are Professor Ali Ansari, Sir Richard Dalton and Simon Jenkins. | 1/22/08 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
170 |
The future of Iraq | The panel present their views on the current situation in Iraq, and discuss which strategy, out of three motions proposed, the Allies should pursue in Iraq. The panel include William Shawcross, Lt. Peter Hegseth, Sir Christopher Meyer, Ali Allawi, Tony Benn and Rory Stewart. | 12/11/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
171 |
Britain doesn’t need Trident | Whilst some argue that Britain has no need for the American nuclear missle system Trident, others argue that the maintenance of a modern nuclear arsenal is the only prospective deterrent that Britain has to protect itself from future threats. Chaired by Jonathan Freedland. Arguing in favour of the motion are Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Angus Robertson MP and Dr Rebecca Johnson. Arguing against the motion are Sir Michael Quinlan, Oliver Kamm and Sir Malcom Rifkind MP. | 11/20/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
172 |
Capitalism can save the planet (carbon trading can save the climate) | The panel debate whether capitalism offers a viable solution for the challenge of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and whether carbon trading can solve the climate change crisis without damaging economic growth. Arguing in favour of the motion are Tim Harford, John Redwood, and Eric Bettelheim. Arguing against the motion are Lord Lawson, Frances Cairncross, and David Rieff. | 10/30/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
173 |
We should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of Western values | The panel examine the controversial topic of the perceived culture divide between the West and 'the rest', debating whether or not the West is justified in asserting the superiority of its own values. Proposing the motion are Ibn Warraq, David Aaronovitch, and Douglas Murray. Ibn Warraq proposes the motion by pointing out some of the bases of western civilisation - rational thinking, self-criticism, the search for truth, the ability to separate cultural and secular values and so on - and how these values have improved the societies that have imported them, such as in China and Japan. His main argument is that Western civilisation respects the rights of women, homosexuals and members of non-western religions, whereas other cultures, and particularly those influenced by Islam, do not. The Qur’an is not, he says, a document that promotes equality. David Aaronovitch argues that Western values may not always be applied very well by all Western societies, but that the conduct of, for example, the British and American governments in allowing imprisonment and torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, is not advocated by the majority of the population. Douglas Murray draws a distinction between asserting values peacefully, as in this debate and asserting them violently. He suggests that there are no Islamic governments that Westerners would choose to live under. The West endorses a dialogue, he argues, that is not reciprocated by the non-Western world - if we do not assert our Western values then there is no help for those people suffering civil and human rights abuses in other parts of the world. Opposing the motion are Charles Glass, Tariq Ramadan, and William Dalrymple. Charles Glass suggests that the West does not so much assert or export its values as 'shove them down people's throats' and that a culture which gave the world two world wars and colonial rule all over the world has no right to assert its superiority. Tariq Ramadan argues that the West asserts its own values because it is scared of losing its 'European' identity, and that, anyway, perceiving 'The West' and 'The Rest' as separate worlds is an historical and scientific mistake. He notes that Western values are often misused in the West, and points to the way immigrants are often treated badly even in Europe. William Dalrymple points out that the concept of 'Western' values is in some way flawed, as they are based on Judeo-Christian ideals, which are not Western at all. The first law codes, he notes, were laid down in Iraq, and the concept of reason originated with Arabic philosophers. The West also perpetrated such historical events as the Spanish Inquisition, and western ideals such as Marxism, Fascism, and Nazism, have caused millions of deaths. By asserting 'western' values, he argues, we are cherry-picking our favourite values and claiming them as our own. First Vote: 313 For, 221 Against, 207 Don’t Know Final Vote: 465 For, 264 Against, 18 Don’t Kno | 10/9/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
174 |
Britain has failed Zimbabwe | This debate comprises a discussion of the history of Zimbabwe, focusing on how successive British governments have acted in relation to Zimbabwe and in what way future British policies can offer a solution to the current economic and political crisis. Chaired by Richard Linley. Arguing in favour of the motion are Peter Godwin, Tendai Biti MP and RW Johnson. Arguing against the motion are John Makumbe, Chenjerai Hove and David Coltart MP. | 9/19/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
175 |
Let’s hear it for Big Brother | Is British popular culture really in such dire straits? Arguing in favour of the motion are Toby Young, David Elstein, and Tim Gardam. Arguing against the motion are Stephen Bayley, Lloyd Evans, and Howard Jacobson. For more details click here | 6/21/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
176 |
Prison Works | The panel discuss the pros and cons of the prison system and examine the effectiveness and plausibility of alternatives. Speaking in favour of the motion are Dr Charles Murray, Theodore Dalrymple, and Dr David Green. Charles Murray begins by pointing out that, whilst prisons are not entirely effective as rehabilitation facilities, they do reduce crime rates. He points to the fact that England in the 1950s was one of the safest countries in the world, and that it is no coincidence that it also had one of the strictest legal systems in the world. He also notes that the people who choose to let prisoners go free (i.e. judges) are often not the people who have to live alongside them. Theodore Dalrymple points out some of the horrific crimes that reoffenders are capable of committing. He points out that it is often not the poor who suffer from criminals or reoffenders: "Failure to imprison is", he says, "a regressive tax imposed upon the poor by the wealthy". David Green highlights the ineffectiveness of community programmes, and suggests that the way to reduce reoffending rates in prisons is to keep prisoners inside for periods that are sufficient to effectively rehabilitate them, and to improve the quality of education and vocational training they receive. Arguing against the motion are Lords Woolf and Ramsbotham, and Juliet Lyon. Lord Woolf begins by disagreeing with Charles Murray's comments, stating that prison is not working because people do not feel safe. He points out that 67% of criminals reoffend within two years of being released. His suggestion, in light of the government’s dwindling resources for dealing with criminals, is to make our approach fit the resources, tackling the problem at source, and focussing attention on the worst offenders. Lord Ramsbotham suggests that we are imprisoning the wrong people. Too many prisoners, around 70%, have underlying psychological conditions that could be treated. Similarly, many people are imprisoned simply for breaching ASBO's. For these individuals, prison is not always the right answer, says Lord Ramsbotham. He goes on to argue for a system whereby prisoners are integrated more successfully into their local community, not imprisoned hundreds of miles from home. Juliet Lyon suggests that prison should only be used as a last resort. Instead she advocates better supervision by parents, treatment for drug addicts and alcoholics, and mental healthcare for those that need it. She also points out that aftercare can be effective: reoffending rates are much lower when individuals have a job, stable housing, and a good contact with their family and the community. First Vote: 170 For, 288 Against, 249 Don’t Know Final Vote: 351 For, 337 Against, 38 Don’t Kno | 4/25/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
177 |
We’d be better off without religion | The panel discuss the pros and cons of religion, and pose the question: would the world be better off without it? Proposing the motion are Christopher Hitchens, Professor Richard Dawkins, and Anthony Grayling. Christopher Hitchens begins by making the case for religion being at the root of many conflicts that have shaped the 20th-21st century world, citing the current situations in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. Here, it has been intra-faith disputes that have caused or aggravated the conflicts and slowed political and social progress. Professor Richard Dawkins focuses his support for the motion on the blind faith that leads even intelligent people to deny key scientific principles, citing many American students' opposition to the theory of evolution as an example. Anthony Grayling illustrates how the Bible's view of what constitutes a good person is at odds with the modern Western view of what constitutes a good person, arguing that it is possible to appreciate the natural world and feel such emotions as empathy, sympathy, and love without holding religious views. Opposing the motion are Dr Nigel Spivey, Roger Scruton, and Rabbi Julia Neuberger. The case against the motion is mainly focussed on religion being a force for good in the world - a force that empowers people spiritually and seeks to provide answers to humankind's purpose and position on earth. Dr Nigel Spivey opens the opposition by offering an archaeological and anthropological perspective. Pointing to the "Creative Explosion" of 40,000 years ago, he suggests that religion is a concept that is part of the human nature, and that a world without religion would be one without such fruits of human creativity as Venice, the Taj Mahal and King’s College Chapel, Cambridge. Rabbi Julia Neuberger argues that whilst atheism preaches certainty and disrespect of other religions, religion preaches uncertainty and tolerance. She suggests that it is certainty and conviction – not religion – that produced the Crusades, fascism, and Jewish, Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism. Roger Scruton argues that rejecting religion on some of its irrational principles does not make sense, and that science is just as capable of producing disasters as religion is. Religion, he says, offers help to people who are affected by man-made or natural disasters, and provides "why" answers – the reason why things happen and what life is for –whilst science can only provides causal explanations. First Vote: 826 For, 681 Against, 364 Don’t Know Final Vote: 1205 For, 778 Against, 103 Don’t Kno | 3/27/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
178 |
Our mission in Afghanistan is destined to fail | The Panel debate the motion that our misson in Afghanistan is destined to fail, and that NATO should withdraw. Chaired by Matthew Leeming. Arguing in favour of the motion are General Charles Vyvyan, Michael Griffin, and Clare Short. Arguing against the motion are Christina Lamb, Dr Whitney Azoy, and Lawrence Freedman. | 2/22/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
179 |
Too many people go to university | The panel debate the motion: Too many people go to university. Chaired by Sir Clement Freud. Arguing for the motion are Claire Fox, Jenna Nicholas and Anatole Kaletsky. Claire Fox begins the defence by suggesting that the university education students are now given access to is a 'pale imitation' of what universities formerly offered. Going to university, she argues, is now treated as a means to end, a way of boosting a student's CV and employability. Jenna Nicholas argues that the government's numerical targets for graduates must not be allowed to get in the way of providing high quality education. She suggests that many university students would be better suited to vocational training, and that too many graduates are leaving university without the qualifications necessary to prosper in the workplace, or even to find employment. Anatole Kaletsky declares from the outset that he differs in opinion from that of his colleagues. He does believe in 'prizes for everyone' and does indeed have a rose-tinted view of university. However, taken from an economic perspective, the exponential growth in numbers of people attending university must surely have negative impacts. Arguing against the motion are Baroness Onara O'Neill, Ceci Mourkogiannis and Mary Ann Sieghart. Onara O'Neill argues that the role of the university has changed over the last fifty years. They are now valuable institutions for poviding students with the correct skills to improve their chances of attaining a job. Even if students do not leave university more qualified, they will at least be more educated. Ceci Mourkogiannis argues that, far from denying people the chance of attending university, we should be allowing more people to attend. University offers individuals a chance to improve themselves, and, by improving individuals' knowledge and employability, provides a valuable service for the economy and scoiety in general. Mary Ann Sieghart compares the UK to other leading global powers, noting that the three most economically prosperous countries of the last decade have a highly educated workforce. She states that we are increasing participation only half as fast as our competitors. First Vote: 458 For, 144 Against, 120 Don't Know Final Vote: 453 For, 280 Against, 3 Don't Know The motion is passed by 173 votes. | 1/30/07 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
180 |
Foreign aid to poor countries has done more harm than good | The panel discuss the wisdom of the West’s continued donation of aid to developing nations. Arguing in favour of the proposal are Aidan Hartley, Frederik Erixon, and David Rieff. Arguing against the proposal are Ian Goldin, Marucs Manuel, and Rory Stewart OBE | 12/5/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
181 |
Let’s legalise cocaine | The panel debate the motion: Let's legalise cocaine. Chaired by Dame Joan Bakewell. Arguing in favour of the motion are Rosie Boycott, Jamie Whyte and Camilla Cavendish. Arguing against the motion are Dr Mark Collins, Julie Lynn-Evans and Joe Studwell. | 11/14/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
182 |
The Tory party is no longer Conservative | Has the Conservative Party lost its values? Proponents of the motion argue that the party has moved away from the conservative tradition and switched to a more liberal, “soft”, position, betraying its electors in the process; its detractors say that the Party is well tied to its traditions and strengths. The panel, chaired by Polly Toynbee, share their views. Arguing in favour of the motion are Peter Hitchens and Jeremy O’Grady. Peter Hitchens begins by explaining how, from his point of view, the Tory Party has lost sight of its core values. Furthermore, he continues, the change within the party will determine the results of the next elections. Jeremy O’Grady explores what he perceives as changes in the party's interpretation of conservatism. In particular, he argues that floating voters such as himself do not care if the Tory Party should be seen as conservative or not, and provokes his opponents by asking “Can a jellyfish be conservative?”. Arguing against the motion are Charles Moore and Michael Gove MP. Charles Moore starts by making a clear distinction between what is to believe in a religion and a political party – “A political party is not a faith”. He adds an interesting comparison with modern leadership candidate David Cameron and the 1980s leader Margaret Thatcher, apoint returned to throughout the debate. Michael Gove provides a critique of Hitchens’ position earlier in the debate, defining him as “a reactionary, not a conservative”. Using a useful comparison with the English Civil War, he explains the different points-of-view held inside the Party. Finally, reversing the title of the debate, Gove suggests that, under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservative Party is back in the main stream of conservative tradition. First vote: 248 For, 196 Against, 247 Don't know. Final vote: 285 For, 338 Against, 94 Don't know. The motion is defeated by 53 votes | 10/24/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
183 |
We should never negotiate with terrorists | The panel debate the motion: We should never negotiate with terrorists. Chaired by Richard Lindley. Arguing in favour of the motion are David Trimble, Frank J Gaffney Jr and Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi. David Trimble draws on his experiences as a Northern Irish politician to propose the motion that we should never negotiate with terrorists. He states that we shouldn't see terrorists as deluded, and that instead of responding with repressive measures we should try to win the ideological war. This involves intelligence and penetration of terrorist organisations, but not negotiation. Frank Gaffney Jr then explores the context of terrorism in the modern world. He states that negotiation is especially ill-advised given that terrorists use it as a tool for a political purpose, and discusses the characteristics of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, stating that the movement is more about power than faith. He then outlines four main reasons why we should not negotiate with terrorists and ends with the warning that negotiation entails real costs we cannot afford. Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi admits that the global 'war against terror' is not working. However, he still maintains that we should never negotiate with terrorists for several reasons. First, that terrorist groups have been defeated in the past, and while there has sometimes been a heavy price, it can be done. Second, that while addressing the complex grievances of terrorism – something that is difficult in itself – we should maintain the fight against the reality of its acts of violence. Arguing against the motion are William Sieghart, Colonel Lior Lotan and Jason McCue. William Sieghart begins with the assertion that most terrorists are driven by a sense of grievance often shared by many. Therefore, we should negotiate primarily for the simple fact of realism. A war against terror has been shown to be extremely difficult while repressive measures clearly did not work in Northern Ireland. Not negotiating therefore justifies perpetual war, while dialogue with the most implacable of enemies usually proves fruitful. Lior Lotan begins by debunking the myths of negotiation upon which the proposers of the motion rely. He then puts forward the benefits of a pragmatic and practical approach to negotiation, such as the opportunity to gain access to more information, or the moral value it grants the negotiating party. Jason McCue declares that it is time for a wholesale review on the policy of fighting terror, suggesting that we need to deal with the causes rather than the effects. He draws from his legal experiences of negotiating with terrorists to put forward several reasons for dialogue. These range from a legal analogy that illustrates the importance of out-of-court settlements, an illustration of the hypocrisy shown by Western governments and the idea that common sense surely shows there must always be a preference for dialogue. First Vote: 241 For, 247 Against, 201 Don't Know Final Vote: 289 For, 381 Against, 55 Don't Know The motion is defeated by 92 vote | 10/3/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
184 |
Long live Tesco | Should Tesco be subject to more stringent regulations, or does its large share of the market merely reflect its popularity, convenience, and friendly approach? Arguing in favour of the motion 'Long live Tesco' are are Dominic Lawson, Lucy Neville-Rolfe and Emma Duncan. Arguing against the motion are Simon Jenkins, Joanna Blythman and Giles Coren. Click here for more details | 9/12/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
185 |
Enough money has been spent saving Venice | The panel debate whether it is financially and culturally worthwhile to maintain attempts to prevent Venice from subsiding. Is it possible to put a price on preserving such a beautiful and historic city? Arguing in favour of the motion are Professor Sir David King and Professor John Kay. Arguing against the motion are Professor Joseph Rykwert and A N Wilson. Click here for more details | 6/12/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
186 |
Freedom of expression must include the license to offend | Nine months on from the 'Danish Cartoon' controversy, the panel discuss the limits of free speech - should it include the licence to offend ? Arguing for the motion are Kenan Malik, Lisa Appignanesi and Alain Finkielkraut. Arguing against the motion are David Cesarani, Francesca Klug and Tariq Ramadan. Click here for more details. | 6/7/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
187 |
We are all feminists now | The panel debate the motion: We are all feminists now. Chaired by Jonathan Freedland. Arguing in favour of the motion are Tim Lott, Philip Norman, and Howard Jacobson. Tim Lott suggests that the vast body of secular opinion holds that women are equal to men. He then runs through examples of inequality, and takes them on individually. He states that there are few societal restrictions left on women and that any remaining inequalities stem from much more than just gender discrimination. Philip Norman declares himself to be a male feminist and explores the reasons why that is possible. He points out how the feminist strategy has changed throughout the ages – female independence is now expressed in clothes that were previously the targets of feminist outrage. In short, he believes the fight is now clearly over. After pointing out that the more persuasive the male panel's argument, the closer the motion edges to defeat, Howard Jacobson sets out to lose the battle, but in so doing, win the war. What follows is a humorous concession to the victory of women: he points out that he has always been losing to women, apologises for the behaviour of men in the past and concedes to the power of the opposing panel. Arguing against the motion are Kathy Lette, Mariella Frostrup, and Beatrix Campbell. Kathy Lette launches a humorous assault on the idea that we are all feminists. She insists that it is still a man's world, before outlining numerous situations in which this is plainly obvious. They suffer from facial prejudice and ageism, as well as the long-suffered accusation that women have no sense of humour. Mariella Frostrup begins by exploring the global inequalities and abuses suffered by women. The fact that women's rights are restricted globally suggests that the men on the other side of the panel offer a picture of misguided new manhood. She says we need a society in which both sexes can flourish, but we remain stuck in a patriarchal world. Beatrix Campbell reaffirms Mariella Frostrup's examination of global inequality suffered by women and suggests the issue is far more serious than many take it to be. Campbell ends by stating that the journey towards equality has stalled and that we now live in a neo-patriarchal world. First Vote: 218 For, 293 Against, 196 Don't Know Final Vote: 238 For, 447 Against, 31 Don't Know The motion is defeated by 209 vote | 5/9/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
188 |
The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated | The panel discuss the threat that Iran poses to democracy, the Middle East, and the world at large. Arguing in favour of the motion ‘The threat posed by Iran has been greatly exaggerated’ are Iradj Bagherzade, Professor Ali Ansari and Martin Woollacott. Iradj Bagherzade believes that the demonisation process of Iran is self-defeating and explains how the powers of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are actually extremely limited. He suggests that Iran poses no immediate danger of obtaining nuclear warheads. Bagherzade would encourage a policy of involvement, not isolation, in Iran, and asserts the importance of the Iranian self-perspective. Ali Ansari highlights the importance of addressing situations without hysteria and heightened emotion. He explains that in the absence of evidence, we invent threats, and that in the case of Iran, there is a sensitive issue at stake, but by exaggerating it we trivialise it. Martin Woollacott explains that weapons don’t make wars, confrontations between nations do. He asks that cool heads be maintained and threats be measured, not inflated. Woollacott believes the real threat is anxiety in Washington, not the situation on the ground in Iran. Arguing against the motion are Dr Mehrdad Khonsari, Dr Patrick Clawson and Roey Gilad. Mehrdad Khonsari believes Iran is a bastion of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism – the two largest threats to the modern world. He explains that the Islamic regime in Iran is an intimidating, blackmailing, brutalising and torturous force that should not be underestimated, as they will stop at nothing to remain in power. Patrick Clawson discusses the potential of Iran to set off a Nuclear arms race, not only in the Middle East but across the world. He explains how foreign money and advice can make a productive – and positive – difference. Roey Gilead outlines the history of terror since the revolution in Iran and the Iranian involvement with the Hezbollah in Israel. Gilead, unlike some other panelists, takes the President’s words seriously and believes Iran to be a threat to the region and to the world at large. First vote: 253 For, 268 Against, 214 Don’t know Final vote: 387 For, 293 Against, 77 Don’t know The motion is passed by 94 votes | 4/25/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
189 |
The European Union is now dying before our eyes | Speakers for the motion: Tom Kremer: Born and raised in Transylvania, he was deported to Bergen Belsen, escaped to Switzerland and in 1945 emigrated to the land that emerged as Israel. A philosophy graduate of Edinburgh and the Sorbonne, he became involved in child psychology and then turned his talents to inventing games, including the Rubik's Cube. He is the author of "The Missing Heart of Europe: Does Britain hold the key to the future of the Continent?" Larry Siedentop: A fellow of Keble College, University of Oxford. In 2000 he published 'Democracy in Europe', which immediately became a classic essay on European Integration. Anatole Kaletsky: Associate Editor of The Times and one of the country's leading commentators on economics. Anatole was previously Economics Editor of The Times, and has won many awards for his financial and political journalism. Before his appointment at The Times, he worked for 12 years on the Financial Times in a variety of posts. Speakers against the motion: Giscard D'Estaing: Former President of France. A strong supporter of the European Economic Community, while in office he played a crucial role in several international initiatives including the creation of the European Council, the European Monetary System, the Disarmament Institute and the North-South Conference. Robert Cooper: Director-General for External and Politico-Military Affairs at the Council of the European Union in Brussels. His most recent publication is "The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century" (2003), a book that builds on his earlier essays on Europe and the post-modern state. The Rt Hon Kenan Clarke MP: Former President of the Union and Chairman of the University Conservative Association at Cambridge. He was also the National Chairman of the Federation of University Conservative Associations and served on many of the national committees of the Conservative Party. He was elected to the House of Commons as the Member for Rushcliffe in 1970, gaining the seat from Labour. He has held it ever since, increasing his majority at the 2005 general election. He has held ministerial office in no less than seven government departments. Chair: John Kampfner Editor of the New Statesman. He has just finished touring the country promoting his latest book, Blair's Wars - the inside account of how the Prime Minister has taken Britain into conflict five times in six years. | 3/1/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
190 |
All schools should select their own pupils | A distinguished panel considers the advantages and disadvantages of allowing all schools - not just independent schools - to choose their own pupils. Speaking for the proposal are Chris Woodhead and Dr Martin Stephen, and endorsing it is Lord Tebbit. Arguing against the proposal are David Blunkett MP and Fiona Millar, and endorsing it is William Atkinson. | 2/26/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
191 |
The time to quit Iraq is now | The panel debate the motion: The time to quit Iraq is now. Chaired by James Naughtie. Arguing for the motion are Dr Rosemary Hollis, Alastair Crooke and Sir Simon Jenkins. Rosemary Hollis argues that the military contingent in Iraq should immediately prepare a military exit. She suggests that Britain should now switch the effort to a more positive, ‘hearts and minds’ emphasis on the civilian sector. Alastair Crooke points to two key developments: the perception everywhere that the US (and therefore UK) is on its way out and that the Shia victory has granted the tools of influence to the government of Tehran. Cooke breaks down the arguments in favour of staying and ends with a call for diplomacy, pointing out that we need to establish a dialogue with all countries involved. Simon Jenkins says we need to give Iraqis what we promised them, but that, at the moment, we are not doing this. Overall, he suggests that the Iraqi government will be undermined if it is seen as a puppet of the west – if it is regarded in this way, democracy will never take root. In Jenkins’ view, this is surely grounds enough for a complete military withdrawal. Arguing against the motion are Amir Taheri, Tim Spicer and William Shawcross. Amir Taheri hasn't heard requests for coalition forces to quit Iraq, either from Iraqis or from other coalition countries. Even those who opposed the invasion are not saying we should leave, but rather say that if you have broken something, you have to fix it. The only group that would benefit from immediate withdrawal of Allied forces is the insurgents. Tim Spicer notes the horrible suffering experienced by Iraqis under the rule of Saddam Hussein. He says that the insurgency comes as no surprise, describing many insurgents as no more than criminals. He suggests that, until a proper police force is in place, insurgency will continue to flourish. Spicer emphasises that there is no civil war waging in Iraq, that the Iraqi army are making great steps forward, and that we need to give them the breathing space in which to prepare. William Shawcross believes the idea that we should quit now to be frivolous. This is not an imperial venture, but a liberation. Iraqis have made an extraordinarily good start; why then are we running scared and why have we so little patience? Shawcross suggests that we should look beyond the Iraq seen in news reports and remain there until the Iraq behind the scenes is able to slowly rebuild itself. First Vote: 246 For, 283 Against, 198 Don't Know Final Vote: 272 For 431 Against, 36 Don't Know The motion is defeated by 159 vote | 1/17/06 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
192 |
Apart from chavs, the British have no class | The panel, under chair Sir Clement Freud, debate the influence of class in modern Britain. Do we now live in an egalitarian society, or is British society still governed by the class divide? Arguing in favour of the motion ‘Apart from chavs, the British have no class’ are Deborah Moggach, Boris Johnson, and Howard Jacobson. Arguing against the motion are Kate Fox, Ferdinand Mount and Simon Fanshawe. | 12/7/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
193 |
Better rough justice than another 9/11 | In the face of terrorism, should we abandon some of our hard-won freedoms? The rules of the game are changing, but should they? Are these new measures necessary to improve our defence or do they in fact represent the real threat to society? Chaired by Richard Lindley. Arguing in favour of the motion are The Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP and Alasdair Palmer. Arguing against the motion are Sir Jeremy Greenstock and Edward Fitzgerald QC. | 11/24/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
194 |
It’s the journalists, not the politicians, who have fouled our political culture | The panel, under chair Martyn Lewis, debate whether it is the journalists, not the politicians, who have fouled our political culture. Arguing in favour of the motion are John Lloyd, Denis Macshane, and Clive Soley. Arguing against the motion are Peter Oborne, Lance Price, and Robert Fisk. | 10/11/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
195 |
Tyrants should be left free to tyrannise their own people | The panel debate the motion: Tyrants should be left free to tyrannise their own people. Chaired by Jonthan Freedland. Arguing for the motion are Edward Luttwak and Lord Skidelsky. Edward Luttwak uses the example of Sicily as a place of strong resistance to foreign intervention or liberation. He then discusses Iraq, exploring the different ways in which the invasion has been seen by Iraqis, above all stressing that democracy in Iraq is not understood in Western terms. He believes that the one thing you cannot achieve with military force is political change. Lord Skidelsky claims that, contrary to the opinion of James Rubin, we are indeed talking about military intervention, since sanctions do not put pressure on tyrants. He doesn't believe that tyrants should be allowed to get away with anything, especially genocide, but thinks there are many ways of bringing pressure against tyrants, including sanctions. Arguing against the motion are James Rubin and Ian Buruma. James Rubin asserts that this debate is about whether one should do anything at all to prevent tyranny, not just about whether we should intervene militarily. He believes the debate is not about the Bush administration, and has nothing to do with whether you like George Bush's aim of spreading democracy. Rubin suggests that if you supported sanctions on South Africa against apartheid, or support sanctions against the military junta of Burma, then you have to vote against the motion. Ian Buruma says the panel all agree on a number of things, including the opinion that Iraq was a mistake. He reminds the audience that the West also has a history of toppling democratically elected leaders. However, he argues, not only are there other ways of getting rid of dictators, and that American support/ intervention is often supported by local people and can achieve success. He says we cannot act aggressively against all tyrants (not dictators) in the pursuit of democracy, but do need to take action against some. He ends with one simple word of warning: Munich. First Vote: 178 For, 291 Against, 224 Don't Know Final Vote: 245 For, 393 Against, 78 Don't Know The motion is defeated by 148 votes. | 9/14/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
196 |
The sixties weren’t the beginning of sex but the end of civilisation | Speakers for the motion: Professor Laurie Taylor: Professor of Sociology, University of York. Author and broadcaster. Howard Jacobson: Author, critic and broadcaster whose latest novel is entitled "The Act of Love". Leonie Frieda: Translator, historian and biographer whose books include the biography of Catherine de Medici. Speakers against the motion: Christopher Booker: A weekly Columnist in the Sunday Telegraph and author of "The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union" and "The Seven Basic Plots: Why we tell stories". He was the founding editor of Private Eye, to which he still contributes. Rosie Boycott: Former Fleet Street editor, author and founder of Spare Rib. She has recorded her new life as a smallholder in the book "Spotted Pigs and Green Tomatoes: A Year in the Life of Our Farm" and has been appointed the capital's "food champion" by the Mayor of London. Claire Fox: Director of the Institute of Ideas, a panellist on BBC Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze' and comments on developments in culture, education and the media on TV and radio. Chair: Joan Bakewell Journalist and broadcaster. Final vote: 319 For, 333 Against | 6/21/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
197 |
Putin is the best hope for Russian liberalism | The panel debate the motion: Putin is the best hope for Russian liberalism. Chaired by Edward Lucas. Arguing for the motion are Michael Binyon, Christopher Granville and Mary Dejevsky. Michael Binyon states that liberalism is not something bestowed by a government on a people, but a much more organic process. He believes that Putin's enemies are nationalists crying out for a stronger state and that there are no opposition liberals waiting in the wings. Christopher Granville believes that legitimacy and the oligarch system are incompatible. He suggests that an individual occupying a majority position as president is by definition the best hope for Russian liberalism. Elections in Russia, he argues, are much fairer today than they were in Yeltsin's day. Mary Dejevsky suggests that elections have been free, fair and democratic under Putin. She claims that it’s the presence of the opposition which places constraints on Putin's ability to plough a reformist furrow, because this opposition comes from conservative and nationalist forces. Arguing against the motion are Dr Boris Berezovsky, Andrew Jack and Dr Alex Pravda. Dr Boris Berezovsky declares that Putin destroyed independent parliament, media and business. While he promised reform, he did not deliver it, and the people are not prepared to fight for freedom as in the UK. For Berezovsky therefore, Putin put an end to the fight for democracy in Russia. Andrew Jack believes that Putin should have stood down after his first term; now in his sixth year of rule, Putin's excuse that he has inherited such a long and difficult history is no longer viable. Though he concedes it is difficult to replace Putin, Jack feels that media centralisation has now gone too far and that parliament has become captive. Dr Alex Pravda says that while Putin is committed to modernising Russia, his attachment to liberal economic ideas is highly pragmatic. He suggests that Putin is not just illiberal and creating an authoritarian culture, but that he is also not performing well as measured by his own criteria. First Vote: 168 For, 299 Against, 265 Don't know Final Vote: 277 For, 377 Against, 98 Don't know The motion is defeated by 100 votes | 5/25/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
198 |
Nuclear energy must power our future | The panel debate the motion: Nuclear energy must power our future. Chaired by Martyn Lewis. Arguing for the motion are Bruno Comby, Bishop Hugh Montefiore and Lord Parkinson. Arguing against the motion are Mycle Schneider, Zac Goldsmith, and Tony Juniper. | 4/19/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
199 |
The West must stay friends with the House of Saud | Speakers for the motion: Sir Andrew Green: Former British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Syria. Former Director of the Middle East at the Foreign Commonwealth Office. Robert Lacey: British historian who has lived in Saudi Arabia and is the author of the international bestseller (banned in Saudi Arabia) "The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud". Senator Wyche Fowler: Served in the US House of Representatives and as US Senator from Georgia before his appointment by President Bill Clinton as US Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1996. Speakers against the motion: Dr Mark Heller: Principal Research Associate, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, and author of numerous works on Middle Eastern political and strategic affairs, including The New Middle Class and Regime Stability in Saudi Arabia, Harvard Middle East Papers No. 3 (co-authored with Nadav Safran). John R Bradley: Lived in Saudi Arabia for 21/2 years and has written extensively on Saudi and wider Middle East issues for many publications, including The Economist, The New Republic, The Daily Telegraph, Prospect and The Independent. He is the author of "Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis" (Palgrave-Macmillan, May 2005). His website is www.johnrbradley.com. Jason Burke: Chief reporter of The Observer and the author of "Al-Qaeda: the true story of radical Islam". He has been working for British national newspapers for 12 years, spending much of that time in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Burke lived in in Pakistan in the late 90s and covered the rise and fall of the Taliban and has spent much of the last two years in Iraq. He is a regular contributor to television and radio in the UK and overseas. His book has been translated into seven languages. Burke graduated from Oxford University in 1992. Chair: James Naughtie Presents Today on BBC Radio 4. His most recent book is 'The Accidental American', an account of the relationship between Tony Blair and George W Bush. Final vote: 328 For, 269 Against | 3/23/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
200 |
Let’s keep Turkey out of Europe | The panel debates the motion: Let's keep Turkey out of Europe. Chaired by Francine Stock. Arguing for the motion are Dr John Casey, Dr Michael Stürmer, and Kevin Myers. Arguing against the motion are Dominique Moisi, Mark Leonard and Norman Stone. | 2/22/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
201 |
Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews | Speakers for the motion: Professor Jacqueline Rose: Writer and presenter of "Dangerous Liaison - Israel and America", Channel 4 (2002) and author of "The Question of Zion" (Spring 2005). Professor Avi Shlaim: Professor of International Relations and Fellow of St Antony's College, Oxford, and author of "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World". Amira Hass: Correspondent of Haaretz Daily in the occupied territories. She lived in Gaza for 3 years and has lived in Ramallah for the past 7 years. She is the author of "Reporting from Ramallah". Speakers against the motion: Melanie Phillips: Daily Mail columnist, panellist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze and author. Her 1996 book "All Must Have Prizes", a study of Britain's educational decline, provoked the fury of educationists and the delight and relief of parents. Her latest book "The Ascent of Woman" is a study of the suffragette movement and the ideas behind it. Shlomo Ben-Ami: Former Israel Foreign Minister during the last phase of the peace negotiations. He has written extensively on Israeli affairs, and has just completed a book on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Professor Raphael Israeli: Professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Professor Israeli is the author of 15 books and some 80 scholarly articles in those domains. A member of the Steering Committee of the Ariel Centre for Policy Research (ACPR), his work in Hebrew, French and English frequently appears in leading international publications including NATIV, a bi-monthly publication of the ACPR. Chair: Richard Lindley Former journalist with ITN and BBC Panorama, who now writes about television journalism. Final vote: 355 For, 320 Against | 1/25/05 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
202 |
Monogamy is bad for the soul | The panel debates the motion: Monogamy is bad for the soul. Chaired by Joan Bakewell. Arguing for the motion are Rod Liddle, Jack Klaff, and Anthony Grayling. Arguing against the motion are Rowan Pelling, Taki Theodoracopulos and Howard Jacobson. | 11/23/04 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
203 |
Maggie Thatcher saved Britain | The panel debate the motion: Maggie Thatcher saved Britain. Chaired by Martyn Lewis. Arguing for the motion are Charles Moore, Lord Bell and Sir John Nott. Arguing against the motion are Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, Billy Bragg, and Diane Abbott MP. | 11/2/04 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
204 |
The NHS is broken, it needs reinventing | The panel debate the motion 'The NHS is broken, it needs reinventing'. Arguing in favour of the motion are Professor Kenneth Minogue, Harriet Sergeant, and Dr Maurice Slevin. Arguing against the motion are Lord Hunt, Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, and Professor Raymond Tallis. | 10/5/04 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
205 |
A pre-emptive foreign policy is a recipe for disaster | The panel debate the motion: A pre-emptive foreign policy is a recipe for disaster. Chaired by Francine Stock. Arguing for the motion are Senator Gary Hart and Sir Simon Jenkins. Arguing against the motion are Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovitch. | 9/13/04 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
206 |
Western intelligence is now causing more harm than good | Speakers for the motion: Tom Bower: A distinguished investigative historian, and an award-winning television producer and journalist. His books on "The Nazis - Blind Eye to Murder", "The Paperclip Conspiracy" and "Blood Money" - are regarded as groundbreaking, as are his two books on British intelligence, "The Red Web" and his biography of Sir Dick White. Andrew Gilligan: Journalist best known for his report, while Defence and Diplomatic corresondent for BBC Radio 4's The Today Programme, about the British Government's dossier on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Anthony Glees: Reader in Politics and Director of European Studies at Brunel University. He is the author of "Reinventing Germany", "The Secrets of the Service" and most recently "The Stasi Files - East Germany's secret operations against Britain". Speakers against the motion: Sir Lawrence Freedman: Professor of War Studies at King's College, London since 1982. He has written extensively on nuclear strategy, the cold war and military intervention, as well as commentating regularly on contemporary security issues.His most recent book is "A Choice of Enemies: America confronts the Middle East". Oleg Gordievsky: One of the highest-ranking KGB officers ever to work for Britain. For 11 years he acted as a secret agent, reporting to the British Secret Intelligence Service while continuing to work as a KGB officer. He is the author of "KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev (1990)" co-written with British academic Christopher Andrew. Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Former Conservative Foreign Secretary and currently Member of Parliament for Kensington and Chelsea. Chair: Nik Gowing The main presenter on BBC World's news programmes and a regular presenter for Dateline London. He also chairs BBC World Debates, including Nobel Minds, Stockholm and the World Economic Forum, Davos. Final vote: 198 For, 366 Against The debate took place at: Royal Geographical Society, Ondaatje Theatre. Speaker bios correct on date of event. | 6/12/04 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
207 |
The British Empire was a force for good | Lawrence James: Author of "Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India", "Rise and Fall of the British Empire" and "Warrior Race: A History of the British at War". Professor Niall Ferguson: Writer and presenter of 'Empire' for Channel 4, a 6-part series on the history of the British Empire and Professor of Political and Financial History at Oxford University. Andrew Roberts: Historian who has spent 20 years researching, writing and broadcasting extensively about both Churchill and the Second World War. Speakers against the motion: Dr Richard Drayton: University Lecturer in Imperial and extra-European History since 1500, Cambridge University. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Senior Researcher at the Foreign Policy Centre and a leading commentator on race, multiculturalism and human rights. David Washbrook: Reader in Modern South Asian History at Oxford University; his special interesting lying in the history of southern India between the 18th and 20th centuries. Chair: Richard Lindley: Former journalist with ITN and BBC Panorama, who now writes about television journalism. Final vote: 321 For, 233 Against | 6/1/04 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
208 |
The best way we can help Africa is to leave it alone | Speakers for the motion: Richard Dowden: Director of the Royal African Society. He was born in Surrey and educated at St Georges College, Weybridge, Surrey and London University (BA in History). From 1970-72 he was a volunteer teacher in Uganda and between 1972 and 1975 he was Secretary of the Roman Catholic Justice and Peace Commission for England and Wales. He was a reporter then Editor of the Catholic Herald newspaper 1975 - 1980 and Reporter on The Times, specialising in foreign affairs 1980 - 1986. From 1986 - 1994 he was Africa Editor of The Independent and then in 1994 became Diplomatic Editor of The Independent. From 1995 - 2001 he was the Africa Editor of The Economist and he has been the Executive Director of the Royal African Society since 2002. He continues to work as a freelance journalist and has written for all the main national dailies and weeklies except The Daily Telegraph. I have also made three full-length documentary TV films about Africa for the BBC and Channel 4 and several smaller ones. Matthew Parris: Times newspaper columnist, television and radio broadcaster. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem: General Secretary of the global Pan African Movement since 1994 and is resident in Uganda and London. Tajudeen is Nigerian by origin. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford where he gained his DPhil in political science. He was a founder member of the Africa Resource and Information Bureau, London, and has been at the centre of numerous initiatives to promote peace and democracy in Africa. Tajudeen writes and lectures on Africa for several journals and universities. He is Chairperson of the Centre for Democratic Development and the Pan African Development Education and Advocacy Programme. Tajudeen's "Thursday Postcard is widely read throughout Africa. Speakers against the motion: The Rt Hon Clare Short MP: Member of Parliament for Birmingham Ladywood since 1983. Secretary of State for International Development from 1997-2003. Author of "An honourable Deception? New Labour, Iraq and the Misuse of Power" (2004), an attempt to explain why Tony Blair did what he did on Iraq so that the lessons can be learned and things put right. Resigned the Labour whip in Parliament in October 2006, but remains a member of the Labour Party. Anthony Sampson: Keenly interested in South African affairs since 1951 when, after leaving Oxford, he first went to South Africa to become editor of the black magazine Drum in Johannesburg. He met Nelson Mandela that year in Soweto as Mandela was preparing for the Defiance Campaign against apartheid, which Drum covered extensively. In 1956 Anthony Sampson published his first book - a hugely entertaining account of his four years as editor (Drum: An African Adventure) - and frequently revisited South Africa thereafter. Subsequently he wrote a book about the treason trials in 1958 and reported Mandela's own trial before he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964. In London Sampson worked for the Observer for six years before publishing (in 1962) his groundbreaking, bestselling Anatomy Of Britain (later updated four times and read by Mandela in prison). He followed it with a succession of major books about international business, including Seven Sisters, The Arms Bazaar, Black And Gold (an account of the relations between business and apartheid) and Company Man. He has been chairman of the Society of Authors and a member of the Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian and Observer. His most recent books include Mandela: The Authorised Biography and his new Anatomy of Britain, "Who Runs this Place?" which will be published by John Murray in April. Sir Marrack Goulding: Educated at St. Paul's School, London, and Magdalen College, Oxford, where he received First Class Honours in Literae Humaniores (Greek and Latin Language and Literature, Ancient History, Greek and Modern Philosophy). He worked the British Diplomatic Service between 1959 and 1985. He served in the Foreign Office from 1964 - | 3/4/04 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
209 |
GM crops are good for us | The panel debate the motion: GM crops are good for us. Chaired by Peter Sissons. Arguing for the motion are Vivian Moses, Kerry Preete and Conrad Lichtenstein. Arguing against the motion are Sue Mayer, Michael Meacher and Devinder Sharma. | 1/22/04 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
210 |
New Labour has failed | Arguing in favour of the motion are Michael Heseltine, Jerry Hayes, and Simon Jenkins. Arguing against the motion are Matthew Evans, Peter Hitchens, and David Aaronovitch. | 11/27/03 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
211 |
The American Empire is a force for good | There is no arguing with the fact that America is the global superpower of recent times - but does the 'American Empire' perform a vital role as the 'World's Policeman', or pursue an aggressively imperialist policy to protect its own interests? And does the 'American Empire' even exist? Arguing in favour of the motion are William Shawcross, Anne McElvoy and Bernard-Henri Levy. Arguing against the motion are Charles Glass, Clyde Prestowitz, and Sir Samuel Brittan. | 10/30/03 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
212 |
State education is a comprehensive disaster | The panel debate the motion ‘State education is a comprehensive disaster’. Chaired by Sheena McDonald. Arguing for the motion are Professor Chris Woodhead, Melanie Phillips, and Claire Fox. Professor Chris Woodhead argues that the state has failed to discharge its duty: the education system has failed and radical change is necessary. He suggests that international models of competitive education would drive up standards quickly and reduce costs, but the political will required appears not to be shared by all parties. Melanie Phillips states that educational standards have comprehensively collapsed, and that the state has played a leading role in this process. She argues that, through grade inflation, the level of attainment has dropped, and the examination benchmark is now worthless. Philips suggests that with the professionalisation of education, theories that were inimical to education became overly important. Claire Fox recalls favourably the pioneers of state education, whom she says had a clear project in mind that has since been corrupted. She believes that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake should not have been derided as elitist, and feels that teaching today is no longer focused on knowledge but on social policy. Inclusion in education, she suggests, leads to a contempt for knowledge. Arguing against the motion are Sir Tim Brighouse, Professor Anthony Giddens, and Fiona Millar. Sir Tim Brighouse looks first at higher education, noting the increase in the number of women who attend university, as well as the important success of the Open University in establishing itself as a leading institution. He believes that state education has innovated and plays down – and even disputes – the statistics used by Chris Woodhead. Professor Anthony Giddens believes that education is more crucial to our society than it has ever been before. This is because education is a civilising device and the knowledge economy is an increasing reality, with 80% of the UK population now in knowledge or service-based occupations. He therefore thinks it absolutely imperative that we expand education. Contrary to Melanie Philips, Gidden's feels that students today are better prepared and more competitive than previous generations, and that the whole level of achievement has shifted upwards. Fiona Millar hopes to represent the many parents whose children attend state schools and see nothing but success, declaring that to do well in school today children have to work extremely hard. While she admits there is room for improvement, the way to produce this is to make our state schools even more comprehensive. She has seen no evidence that returning to selection will help students attending failing schools. First Vote: 188 For, 102 Against, 66 Don't know Final Vote: 227 For, 122 Against, 19 Don't know The motion is passed by 105 votes | 10/9/03 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
213 |
The roadmap to peace is leading nowhere | Speaker bios correct on date of event. The debate took place at: Royal Geographical Society, Ondaatje Theatre. Speakers for the motion: Karma Nabulsi: Fellow of Nuffield College and teaches at Oxford University. She is the author of 'Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance and the Law', and writes on the history of democratic underground movements in 19th century Europe. She was a PLO representative at the UN, Beirut, Tunis, and London. Dr Ilan Pappe: Senior lecturer of Political Science at Haifa University and Chairman of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian and Israeli Studies. Author of 'The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-1951', 'The Israel/Palestine Question' and, soon to be published, 'The Modern History of Palestine'. Amos Elon: Journalist and writer. His most recent book is 'The Pity of it All'. Among his 14 previous books are 'A Blood-dimmed Tide', 'Between Enemies' (with Sana Hassan) and 'Herzl: A Biography'. He was chief editorial writer and columnist for the Israel paper Haaretz, and is a frequent contributor to The New York Review of Books. Speakers against the motion: Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Former Conservative Foreign Secretary and currently Member of Parliament for Kensington and Chelsea. Lord Weidenfeld: Worked for the BBC Monitoring Service and as a News Commentator. He was political adviser and Chief of Cabinet to Chaim Weizmann, (President of Israel 1948-52). He is also Governor of Tel-Aviv University and Vice Chairman of the EU-Israel Forum. Dr Sa'eb Erakat: Elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 1996 and is currently Head of the Palestinian Side of the Steering and Monitoring Committee (pending acceptance of his resignation). He is the former Minister of the local Government, Palestinian National Authority and the author of numerous books and researches on foreign policy, oil and conflict resolution. Chair: John Simpson The BBC's World Affairs Editor and senior member of a team of London-based foreign and specialist correspondents. In a BBC career spanning more than 30 years - he joined as a trainee journalist in 1966 - John has earned a reputation as one of the world's most experienced and authoritative journalists. | 9/10/03 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
214 |
Globalisation puts corporate profits before people | Speakers for the motion, George Monbiot, Caroline Lucas and Will Hutton Speakers against the motion, Martin Wolf, Steve Hilton and Alec Chrystal: Professor of Money and Banking, CASS Chair: John Kampfner Editor of the New Statesman. | 3/27/03 | Free | View In iTunes |
| Total: 214 Episodes |
Customer Reviews
Good material, horrible audio
The topics are great. The debating is top-notch. The guests and speakers know their stuff. But the audio quality is horrible. There are pops and hisses through out all of the podcasts. Listen to the secod half of the episode of "Britain is anti-semitic" and you'll hear the annoying whistle and breath of the host's nostrils the ENTIRE time the guest is talking. You can also frequently hear sirens and traffic noise on a couple different podcasts. Would be five stars, if not for the horrible quality audio.
Intelligent, topical and witty
Another insightful, wry and throughly entertaining offering from England. You will want to concentrate during this podcast least one of the constantly occurring witicisms flash by unremarked.
Meeting of minds
What a pleasure to listen to minds challenge each other ( usually respectfully) over substantive or currently relevant resolutions. Also nice to hear heavy hitters from universities participate in these.
