Moaning about the World Cup ... Wikileaks ... and Christopher Hitchens

S
I see that the UK, the USA and Australia think they shouldn't bid to host a World Cup until the selection process is 'cleaned up' to their satisfaction.

I would have thought the authors of the Washington Consensus should be less proud.  

One could make an argument that the (market friendly) economic policies at the heart of that blight on the last two decades are as good or bad as any other, but the way in which they have been and are being foisted on the weak to the benefit of the rich is more corrupt and more consequential (in my opinion) than anything that might be happening within FIFA.

While I'm at it, let me declare my support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  It seems transparency is fine when we're encouraging developing countries to adopt cartoon versions of best practise governance systems, but not when it embarrasses the American diplomatic set.  

I guess it is possible that someone will get hurt as a result of the publication of 250,000 communications.  When innocents get hurt by the military or other functionaries of those who are now complaining - I think the term is collateral damage.

I suspect this Wikileaks 'to-do' may be thought, in future, to be be quite a historical turning point.  It may even be that a bit of 'collateral damage' is worth bearing if the diplomatic set of any number of countries end up considering more carefully what they say in internal correspondence.

This morning I listened to part of the BBC debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens.  At the point where I decided I didn't need to hear any more Hitch-kins was getting clear support from the Canadian audience and Blair was battling uphill.  I'm afraid I find the militant atheists about as attractive as any other militants.  I know many gentle loving Christians, Muslims and Jews who I would trust to look out for my interests - but perhaps fewer atheists. 

F