In my last blog entry I explained how I get a good chuckle from streakers. And, unknown to me, as I wrote that post, such a ballsy act was swinging into action—as ballsy acts do—not far from where currently I sit. So, here is a short follow-on post—not to discuss more nudity, mind you, but, rather, stadiums.

B.C. Place Stadium

In Vancouver, The B.C. Lions play that false variant of football where an oblong “ball” is struck by an actual foot hardly at all and with about as much grace as a steroid needle plunging into buttock muscle. “The beautiful game” it ain’t, but, nevermind: as far as sports go, this one makes about as much sense as any of the others. Now, these faux wildcats normally play in a soulless concrete cavern of a stadium, on fake grass, illuminated by artificial light, beneath a glorified umbrella of a roof. An apparatus of sorts, a noise-o-meter, is employed to elicit the effects of enthusiasm (i.e. cheering noises) with none of the normal causes for such (i.e. something exciting occurring). Imagine the choreographed mass applause for Our Beloved Comrade Leader in some far off dictatorland—minus the actual Beloved Comrade Leader. Like that.

When Rudolf Rocker wrote of “the tuning of all human feeling to one note, the rejection of the rich diversity of life, the mechanical fitting of all effort to a designated pattern”, he might have been discussing a B.C. Lions game. Is it any wonder that brawls in the stands have been common? I attended a game years ago and left half way through. I heard on the radio later that “we” had won.

But the other night, from one account anyway, it appears the sorry status quo was turned on its head. The team was the same; the rules of the game hadn’t changed. But a mood of great festivity had overwhelmed the fans. Cheering happened spontaneously and naturally. Laughter rained down from the stands for the nude fellow rushing across the field. Some sang for no particular reason other than good mood, and still others stomped their feet. Hundreds built a “beer snake” from their empty plastic cups and wriggled it around the stadium. Inevitably the noise-o-meter made its ugly appearance, and fans thrashed it with their silence. What brought on this infection of good cheer, this organic sprouting of the best of human feelings? Quite simply: the venue. Gone was the cavern, changed to an outdoor arena, with real grass, a blue and white sky, wind and sun.

With a little reflection, I might wonder whether these football games say something about human nature. How do the physical surroundings affect the mood of individuals and the behaviour of crowds? Are people, when allowed to behave naturally, innately good? But maybe that is meat for another post.

By the way, the outcome of the game this particular day? The home team lost. I wonder if anyone minded?

Advertisements

Aren’t naked people something else? I’ll admit I get a hearty chuckle from them. But, no, I’m not thinking of the nudity that comes from sleazy, peeping-tommery, from the sordid dank-alley flasher, from the military monsters of Abu Ghraib. But, instead, I hold in mind honest, wholesome, public nudity, perhaps that streaker at the Queen’s garden party, no doubt a fine sort of chap who’s having a light-hearted bet with his pals one day and is showing off his crown jewels to Her Highness the next. He, I raise a glass to.

Enjoying the Olympics Curling

I’d like to unzip the breeches restraining my thoughts and expose a few naughty anarchist comments to the world, comments on clothes, costumes, uniforms, and the lack of such. Now, I’m certain an army of academics must have studied, analyzed and written on clothing, its role in cultural identity, its conveyance of rank and position, blah, blah. I bet a few curious professors have even been down to the nudie beach for the purpose, sirs and madams, of scientific exploration, you know. But when was the last time you heard an anarchy angle on this?

The nudists are easy to speak about, for they so obviously challenge society’s norms and the authority of the Church whose residual influence still coats our minds. The pre-Christians couldn’t have been as prudish as we. From the appearance of all that ancient art, the Greeks must have needed will-power of a Herculean proportion just to keep their togas on. And in more modern times, some “primitive” peoples hardly thought to wear a stitch at all—well, unless they were cold. Could it be that the more we layer society, the more we stack levels onto levels, growing the ponderous hierarchy, then the more we feel a necessity to add cloth and metal adornments into the mix? Robes, gowns, starched uniforms and polished Oxfords, three-piece suits with neckties, tiaras, medals, rolex watches, cuff links. Can you imagine Christ in a top hat and tails? Has the Pope ever skinny-dipped?

Nudists or naturists certainly have a liberatory spirit, not exactly of an anarchist nature but more in line with modern liberalism, a simple minority that want an additional right. But, nonetheless, they must be admired for their egality, their rejection of propriety, their ballsiness (I couldn’t resist). So, what appearances would the dress in an anarchist society have? I have three thoughts, one that I’ll dismiss right off. First, they wouldn’t wear a uniform like the Black Bloc anarchists. In this case, the uniform is part of the tactic that, I can only hope, is not a communal identity.

Second, the dress might be an assortment of working clothes. Let’s look at Barcelona, Spain in 1936. George Orwell writes in “Homage to Catalonia”, his greatest work:

The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing… Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no ‘well-dressed’ people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls, or some variant of the militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. (Chapter 1)

It appears the attire, at least in a transitionary period, would be very workman-like. None would want to come across as the sort of individual who puts on airs. And even the fighting forces would be imbibed with this sense of (clothing) equality:

Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. (Chapter 5)

Third, I’ve argued before that a good example of modern anarchism at work is the free software movement (I even wrote a fairly lengthy and, I was told, lively essay on the subject.) What is the stereotypical dress of computer geeks? We might think of ill-fitting jeans and Star Trek t-shirts. But to be fair, the dress is more complex as described in the Jargon File: tie-dye shirts, hiking boots, khakis, and “a very low tolerance of suits and other ‘business’ attire.” Simply put: wear what you will.

The wear-what-you-will freedom unfortunately vanished in Catalonia just a few months after Orwell’s initial observations as hierarchy reasserted itself :

The militia uniform and the blue overalls had almost disappeared… [T]here was a definite social difference, expressed by the difference of pay and uniform. The men wore a kind of coarse brown overalls, the officers wore an elegant khaki uniform with a tight waist, like a British Army officer’s uniform… (Chapter 9)

And the revolution was over.

Clothes don’t make the person; they make the society with all its stratification, coercion and domination. Emperors need clothes. None would take orders from a man in a loincloth or less.

Traditional journalism is dead. We all know it. The body is still warm, to be sure. Stinking gases still noisily leak out of the orifices; reporters write columns –but with fewer and fewer readers. Online articles, blogs, and reports now dominate our information delivery. Media analysts scratch their heads in an attempt to discern the reasons. Most websites are free to view they reason; this trumps quality. The masses are too ignorant to understand the importance of professional writing anyway. Don’t they get that the health of democracy depends on a “reputable” journalist class? But the public does get it. They get it in a deeply intuitive manner. The commercial media does not have their interests at heart. But the internet: now, there’s something they can believe in.

As I wrote in last week’s blog entry, in 1988 Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky published “Manufacturing Consent”, describing how the Western media conforms to a model of propaganda comprising five elements that filter and distort the news stories: 1) ownership, 2) funding, 3) sourcing, 4) flak and 5) ideology. The power structures in society –chiefly corporations (including the media firms and their advertisers) and governments –pursue their shared, overlapping interests while propagating only a narrow spectrum of thought that supports their values. And it has worked –until recently.

But then along sauntered the internet, that completely incoherent techie marvel with its cacophony of muddled messages. Ask it a question, any question whatsoever, and listen to the chaotic jumble of answers it produces. It’s as if God Himself has returned to Earth in the form of your eccentric ol’ Uncle Hank. It’s hard not to be seduced by Uncle Hank: liked by all, understood by none, and always generous with his rambling, sometimes self-contradictory, opinions on any subject under the sun. The internet’s truly sublime traits are its lack of condescension that it knows best, its non-possession of an ideology, and the freedom it gives us to form our own threads of understanding. It supplies the information; make up your own mind.

Wikileaks exists in this online territory as a revolutionary news agency. And the propaganda system described above contains it about as well as a shoe box would hold a mongoose. Being a non-profit outfit with no advertising, wikileaks runs off donations and has no particular compulsion to surrender to flak or abide by any ideology other than the one of bringing naked information to the public. However, its true genius is its sourcing. Not only doesn’t wikileaks rely on official pronouncements by the elites for its information, but it exposes information that the elites specifically do not want exposing, their non-official views.

Other alternative news agencies will dodge the elite sources of information and bring news from the grassroots, but their information always comes with element of speculation. Maybe the interpretation of what the powerful are doing is wrong. Or when we are sure that the interpretation is correct, we’re never certain that the government or business leader isn’t just committing a mistake and really, truly means well. However, a wikileaks leak can remove all speculation about interpretation and may even reveal shameful lies. A mongoose is just the thing for snakes-in-the-grass.

Clearly the future of reporting will rely on the internet with its independent thinkers and whistle blowers. It will exist as a product of all of humanity and not as an item for mere consumption by us. And wikileaks fulfils the role of greatest importance, for it most effectively makes the elites’ propaganda impotent.

There’s been some talk that professional journalism is dying as newspaper and magazine sales plummet, and news rooms lay off reporters. But, no, journalism was never alive to begin with. It was all a big ruse. Certainly, stories were researched, written, edited and published. But the industry’s vitality was faked, its Stepford news reporters unable to break their programs. We’re realizing this slowly day by day, year upon year, as the sorry newsprint is contrasted with the vigour of free thought issuing forth from the craniums of millions of online reporters, bloggers, and opinion writers.

Now, Michael Hastings’ story, “The Runaway General,” in Rolling Stone has gained much attention recently. To be sure, it slightly pushes the bounds of what a good reporter “ought” to write and even succeeded in getting its subject, General McChrystal, sacked. But was this article proof of the freedom of the press? Hardly –not if freedom of the press has any relationship to freedom of thought as opposed to mere freedom to write within a narrow band of opinion.

Twenty-two years ago Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky published “Manufacturing Consent”, thoroughly discrediting the commercial media in the West characterizing it as a propaganda device for the power-elites. Despite the media’s claim that it exists as a valuable public service for providing objective news and facilitating public debate, Herman and Chomsky showed that it closely conforms to a model of propaganda comprising five elements that filter and distort the reported stories.

  1. Ownership: a bias due to a focus on profit by the large corporate media businesses.
  2. Funding: a bias due to competition for advertising revenue.
  3. Sourcing: a bias due to reliance on government and business officials for information.
  4. Flak: organized negative responses attack certain stories.
  5. Ideology: an anti-communism bias in the day; anti-terrorism bias today?

In brief, the media organizations, their fellow corporate advertisers, and government and business elites possess overlapping interests which they pursue by propagating various mutually beneficial ideologies and values ensuring a narrow spectrum of public discourse.

Good professional journalists will search for a little wiggle room within the confines of the propaganda system as Michael Hastings has recently demonstrated. But a little wiggling is all it is. To be sure, Rolling Stone conforms to the model (although, it is not a publicly traded company which might give it more licence regarding item #1 above.) It is inconceivable that this magazine could consistently take a position in conflict with its advertisers, their industries, pop culture, the consumerist society, or corporate domination of the economy. The journal is hardly an underground outlet for radical politics. In this way, the Rolling Stone is dangerous, for it gives the illusion that a mainstream outlet is widening the spectrum of discussion when in fact it is only pressing against the edges of the narrow band of permissible “reputable” opinion. In the particular instance of “The Runaway General” story, we can glean some insights into just how narrow the allowable debate is, and just how closely the journalism industry conforms to the model.

Hastings’ story was fairly mild. The story was strictly sourced from official sources –even if they let their guard down somewhat. No Afghani was interviewed, no aid agency, no peacenik. The story did not explore the morality of the war. Torture was described as something merely toxic for one’s career, “a political swamp,” not fundamentally immoral. Civilian casualties were described as “insurgent math”, poor strategy. The war itself might be a “bad idea” because it is not of “vital interest” to America, because the strategies of counterinsurgency have “fundamental flaws”, because “[i]t’s expensive; we’re in an economic crisis.” No mention of its criminality.

According to the reactions of much of the mainstream media, the only “crime” being committed is the one by Hastings himself when breaking some kind of “ground rules” in relation to the military brass. Quite simply, Hastings should not have revealed information that General McChrystal would not want published. Since the article went to print, the Washington Post and ABC have quoted anonymous military sources attacking Hastings’ article. New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a column indicting Hastings on charges of being a “product of the culture of exposure” which has “undermined public faith in institutions.” How remarkable is this that a NYT columnist believes the media must be a cheerleader for public institutions, must not expose negative information about them?

CBS New’s Lara “Stepford” Logan added to the assessment of Hastings’ un-professionalism by referring to an “element of trust” that a beat reporter needs to have with the generals and went on to say: “Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.” Ah, yes, the country, public institutions, generals: the media must act in the best interests of all these. How dare Hastings report that McChrystal and his staff posses a good deal of disdain for Obama, Biden, or Eikenberry the U.S. Ambassador!

Of course the debate did not end there. A response to the response soon followed. Take, for instance, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi’s column, “Lara Logan, You Suck”, a righteous diatribe against “reputable” journalists who do not actually work for the people. Yes, Taibbi is correct, but his service to the public is little better when he ends his column with the question on whether the Afghanistan war is “worth all the bloodshed?” Ah, yes, let’s ask the dead if the war is worth it, shall we? General McChrystal is quoted by Hastings as saying, “The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn’t work.” Is that the debate? How many dead is the war worth? What if killing 2 million Afghans were to work?

Instead of this juvenile bickering among journalists regarding the appropriate amount of sycophantic behaviour and just how much boot licking is too much, why don’t we have real debate on the issues at hand? Below are a few quotes from Hastings’ article and some questions that occur to me.

“[S]ince Karzai is not considered credible by his own people, McChrystal has worked hard to make him so.” And: “the Afghan people do not want us [U.S. soldiers] there.” And the attitude of the civilian population “towards U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile.” The Afghan people do not want the Americans in Afghanistan propping up Karzai. Is this worthy of a public debate? Should we discuss the anti-democratic nature of this occupation?

Al Qaeda has shifted its base of operations to Pakistan.” Is this significant? Pakistan has 177 million people and nuclear weapons. Pakistan is practically at war with India over Kashmir. Al Qaeda has been driven into that mess by the American occupation of Afghanistan.

In the first four months of this year, NATO forces killed some 90 civilians, up 76 percent from the same period in 2009…” And: “In February, a Special Forces night raid ended in the deaths of two pregnant Afghan women and allegations of a cover-up” And: “in April… U.S. forces accidentally shot up a bus, killing five Afghans.” Lastly from McChrystal: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people,” Dead pregnant women and other civilians? Will anyone be held accountable for this?

Says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville: “It’s not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win.” So, a loss?

Private Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?” What does war do to the mentality of the people fighting it?

A senior adviser to McChrystal says: “If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.” What does this say about the American people? About the nature of American democracy? Does this say something about the degree of the media coverage, the fact that Americans don’t know more about the war? Suppose real pictures of the war appeared on T.V.?

In summary, an occupation props up a puppet regime that the Afghanis don’t want, kills enough civilians to drive others to reciprocate the hostility, creates terrorists in semi-stable Pakistan, and corrodes the psyche of the young Americans fighting a war that the American people disapprove of and that cannot be won. And our concern should settle on this event of Hastings revealing one General’s disdain for the civilian administration? The propaganda system lives.

Incredibly, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had a news story on Who are the Anarchists Thursday where several anarchists, including a “soccer dad” and “a midwife and a mother,” actually had a voice in front of a camera on national television. Something very significant is happening in the consciousness of society when a news story –even one of just six minutes –can appear in the mainstream media portraying this political philosophy in a favourable light. But this was before Saturday’s vandalism by the Black Bloc in protest of the G8/G20 summits in Toronto.

The media continue on their natural course of representing the positions of police chiefs, security experts, business owners, and the Prime Minister. Consequently, the Black Bloc are simple “thugs” and “criminals,” and their behaviour is violent. “Violent” is curious word considering the Black Bloc didn’t actually hurt anyone. Are the media and the PM confusing vandalism with violence?

But now a more serious question needs to be asked: have the Black Bloc been counter-productive? The average Joes and Janes, moms and dads, are not so receptive to unruly behaviour. And they are correct to be disturbed by it. Therefore it appears that the Black Bloc are, indeed, counter-productive; I won’t lose sleep over a couple burnt police cars and smashed bank windows, but you have to consider and respect your audience, the Canadian public in this case.

Having said that, however, consider one favourable outcome of the last day.

I’ve heard the word “anarchism” used on the TV more in the last 10 hours than I have in years. That’s good. Youngsters across Canada will be tapping it into Wikipedia just to see, like, what is it anyways? And what they’ll discover is that it is a legitimate political position with hundreds of years of history. They might also discover:

  • how the father of modern anarchism, Godwin, was supportive of his pioneering feminist wife, Wollstonecraft, in the late 1700’s.
  • that the Spanish anarchists were the first Europeans to fight Fascism when England, France, and the US were (in)directly supporting Hitler, Franco and Mussolini.
  • that anarchist, Bookchin, was warning us about global warming in the mid sixties.

So perhaps something good will come out of the headlines after all.

The World Cup of Football. The biggest sporting event on earth. The beautiful game. Anarchy by the French squad. Yes, all of this. But not anarchy in the mere silly sense of chaos. Something else. The Sun newspaper of England called it “French Revolution II”, a wild exaggeration to be sure, but perhaps closer to the truth than even the author of that article understands.

Reports had already surfaced that coach, Raymond Domenech, and others on his staff, were not getting along with some of the national players when striker, Nicolas Anelka, verbally lashed out at Domenech during half-time of the squad’s second match. The French Football Federation (FFF) subsequently scurried to the defence of their head man sending Anelka packing back to France after he refused to apologize. The footballers, in turn, rallied behind their team mate by boycotting a training session and calling a traitor the one among them who had blabbed details to the public. At this point, the dominoes fell only in one direction with increasing clatter.

The team was chastised in public discourse. Television pundits denounced the players’ behaviour as disgraceful, a “suitcase of shame” as my tele-snubby labelled it. Corporate sponsors dropped their support. The French Minister of Sport was dispatched to address the players, and, predictably, that sickly, cloying sentiment, Honour of Country, was spooned out as caramel over a burnt crêpe. One final match against the host country, one more horrible performance by Les Bleus, tournament over, regrets and apologies voiced by the players. Never mind, let this be a lesson to footballers to shut up and “do their talking on the pitch” in future.

Professional athletes the world over are bought and sold as chattel. Of course they often receive ludicrous wages, a fine sum of hush money to be sure. But is it really the duty of players to acquiesce to that authority figure known as the head coach? Or even more radically: is it writ in stone that the team even needs this field marshal with his cadre of officers? Obviously the entire game –and virtually all sport –is organized this way. But does it need be? Is it legitimate? Suppose the players decide that their coach is a clown (and this one might be, for he refused to shake hands with the South African coach after his team’s loss)? Could they organize their own affairs? Do they need someone to tell them how to train? Clearly they have trained a good deal for much of their lives. They probably have it figured out already.

Self-organizing teams. No bossy coaches. No hierarchy. A flat peer structure. Just imagine it. Not in my lifetime, but when it happens, I bet it’ll be the French who will kick it off.

According to anarchist revolutionary, Mikhail Bakunin: “Man is not only the most individual being on earth, but also the most social.”i Proof of this assessment of humankind is seen in the free / open source software (FOSS) movement where individuals participate in the production of program code in a community enterprise and then share it with the world as has happened with WordPress, Firefox, Open Office, Linux and thousands of other applications for sharing files and photos, sending emails, creating websites, writing blogs, connecting socially, mixing music, and editing video.

The more prominent proponents of FOSS (when they are not talking to Boards of Directors or the business press) often emphasize the social value of this communal computing. They may talk about the goodness of emerging economies using FOSS due to its zero cost. They may discuss the threats to cultural or national sovereignty that result from software created in the corporate model, and how FOSS can be the solution.ii They may criticize today’s form of capitalism where profit is valued over efficiency, and the two are not always in agreement.iii They may even dream of a post-scarcity future when non-productive activities such as bureaucratic meddling and “isometric struggles against competition”iv are eliminated, when humans will work just ten hours per week making a living tending to “required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting” with all the others hours freed for fun activities (such as programming!)

Naturally, with all this talk of free software and communities sharing and helping one other, disingenuous critics will conflate the FOSS phenomenon with communism.v This tactic is nothing more than FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), a form of propaganda using false information and logical fallacy. Of course, the counter-response is not too difficult to devise. To be sure, a culture of positive liberty can be ruinous in a hierarchical, authoritarian system and can lead to anything from unreliable cathedral-type software to liberalism’s social contract to state communism at the extreme where “sharing” is forced. But the required action is not to abandon the positive liberty piece of the equation in favour of “free markets”vi where capital always wins (e.g. Microsoft), but rather to abandon the authoritarianism piece, to abandon the cathedral, to de-commodify software and remove the market, so the powerful lose interest in ownership.

(This post is a short extract from: On the Nature of Software Anarchism)

i A. Lehning, 1973, “Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings”, page 125

iv Richard Stallman, “The GNU Manifesto

v Eric Raymond, Communism and Free Software, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69ZyX5sN2NA#t=0m40s

vi If we are to believe Torvalds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTWCPoUt8w#t=36m22s) that none of us know what we’re doing all the time (and that’s why open source software works), then the markets cannot behave rationally. There is no such thing as an invisible hand as Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz would say. Guardian newspaper Friday, 20 December, 2002

According to anarchist revolutionary, Mikael Bakunin: “Man is not only the most individual being on earth, but also the most social.”i Proof of this assessment of humankind is seen in the free / open source software (FOSS) movement where individuals participate in the production of program code in a sort of “communal computing” enterprise and then share it with the world as has happened with WordPress, Firefox, Open Office, Linux and thousands of other applications for sharing files and photos, sending emails, creating websites, writing blogs, connecting socially, mixing music, and editing video.

The more prominent proponents of FOSS (when they are not talking to Boards of Directors or the business press) may talk about the goodness of emerging economies using FOSS due to its zero cost. They may talk about the threats to cultural or national sovereignty that result from software created in the corporate model, and how FOSS can be the solution.ii They may criticize today’s form of capitalism where profit is valued over efficiency, and the two are not always in agreement.iii They may even dream of a post-scarcity future when non-productive activities such as bureaucratic meddling and “isometric struggles against competition”iv are eliminated, when humans will work just ten hours per week making a living tending to “required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting” with all the others hours freed for fun activities (such as programming!)

Naturally, with all this talk of free software and communities sharing and helping one other, disingenuous critics will conflate the FOSS phenomenon with communism.v This tactic is nothing more than FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), a form of propaganda using false information and logical fallacy. Of course, the counter-response is not too difficult to devise. To be sure, a culture of positive liberty can be ruinous in a hierarchical, authoritarian system and can lead to anything from unreliable cathedral-type software to liberalism’s social contract to state communism at the extreme where “sharing” is forced. But the required action is not to abandon the positive liberty piece of the equation in favour of “free markets”vi where capital always wins (e.g. Microsoft), but rather to abandon the authoritarianism piece, to abandon the cathedral, to de-commodify software and remove the market, so the powerful lose interest in ownership.

i A. Lehning, 1973, “Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings”, page 125

iv Richard Stallman, “The GNU Manifesto”, http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

v Eric Raymond, Communism and Free Software, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69ZyX5sN2NA#t=0m40s

vi If we are to believe Torvalds (see end note 19) that none of us know what we’re doing all the time (and that’s why open source software works), then the markets cannot behave rationally. There is no such thing as an invisible hand as Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz would say. Guardian newspaper Friday, 20 December, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/20/highereducation.uk1#article_continue