It's not something I'd looked at, Jamie. I assume you've seen this:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2099529,00.html
Obviously, both John Lloyd and Charles Moore are pretty central to the British neo-conservative network in its various guises.
jesus christ, this is someone who should never have been let anywhere near a social sciences research project. I had looked at the PX report and thought "what a sad example of how sensible people can work hard and come up with something absolutely useless because they don't know about research methods" but this actually makes it look rather more sinister.
As it happens, there's a remarkably relevant thread over on Pat Lang's blog:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2o6u4b
Posted by: Tom Griffin | December 14, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Tom, as a matter of interest, have you any opinions on who invited Nick Cohen to meet Paul Wolfowitz, and who they were representing?
Posted by: jamie | December 14, 2007 at 11:00 PM
It's not something I'd looked at, Jamie. I assume you've seen this:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2099529,00.html
Obviously, both John Lloyd and Charles Moore are pretty central to the British neo-conservative network in its various guises.
Posted by: Tom Griffin | December 15, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Hey, and look at this:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1504430,00.html
Posted by: jamie | December 15, 2007 at 01:49 AM
jesus christ, this is someone who should never have been let anywhere near a social sciences research project. I had looked at the PX report and thought "what a sad example of how sensible people can work hard and come up with something absolutely useless because they don't know about research methods" but this actually makes it look rather more sinister.
Posted by: dsquared | December 15, 2007 at 12:41 PM