The BBC is carrying a story on several of its outlets about recruitment at MI5 and MI6 (the UK’s domestic and international intelligence services). They are part of an attempt to increase recruitment to both services, which seems like a good idea – one of the problems of being a secret(ive) service is that people don’t automatically think of you when it’s time to find a job.

The article mentions an attempt to increase the number of ethnic minorities working at both organizations. In general that’s something I support, as it increases the variety of insights that can be brought used beyond the traditional variety (Oxford or Cambridge). But in a radio interview I heard as part of this push one of the participants claimed this was because the organization should better reflect diversity in the UK. This struck me as profoundly flawed. I have no idea what the correct balance should be, but if the head of MI’s 5 or 6 told me that they needed 90% Muslims to be most effective I’d nod and say go for it, just as I would if they said they needed no Muslims but 90% Arabic speakers, or 100% redheads. Diversity for diversity’s sake is fine, but always secondary to the primary objective of doing the job, which is protecting all of us, however diverse we may be.

It appears that the President has appointed two judges who donated to his campaign while they were being considered for their judgeships.

There are two sides to justice, embodied in the saying “Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.” Clearly this has nothing to do with the first part of that; I’ve no doubt the President is happy to hand out positions to friends and supporters (one has only to look at the former horse judge who was put in charge of FEMA to understand that), but a thousand dollars or so just isn’t enough to sway his decision one way or another (100 grand maybe). But the President tramples all over the second part of the saying. There is nothing illegal about these men making a contribution while under consideration, but it is entirely antithetical to the idea of justice. That would be bad enough if this was an appointment to the Forestry Commission or some-such, but we’re actually talking about the justice system!

(HT: ThinkProgress)

It turns out the US has given something like $10 billion to Pakistan over the last 6 years. The basic plan seems to be that we give them vast pots* of cash, and then hope that they will help us out. There are a few flaws with this idea:

1. $10 billion is a significant amount of cash
2. We’re giving it to a military dictatorship
3. We’re not, it appears, setting targets in return for the cash
4. But then we’re not tracking progress anyway
5. Which is good, because bin Laden is STILL free, and apparently living in Pakistan
6. Did I mention that Pakistan is a military dictatorship?

The sad fact is that you don’t get to choose your friends when you lie yourself into a war, and that’s only exacerbated by the Western World’s propensity for picking its friends based on short-term expediency rather than on wishy-washy ideas like principle or morality.

(*Pots used for illustrative purposes only, actual transportation method is not publicized)