We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A group of Harvard and MIT professors, spearheaded of course by MIT’s Noam Chomsky, is calling for the Harvard endowment to sell its investments in a variety of companies which “benefit from or support the Israeli military.” (If the Harvard-MIT Divestment Campaign has its own website, I cannot find it; but this story in The Harvard Crimson cites IBM, General Electric and McDonald’s as examples of such firms targeted by the Campaign.)
What exactly does the Campaign hope to accomplish? Even if they got their way, this action would not cause the slightest bit of economic harm to Israel. This would be the case even if we were talking about an institution with vastly greater holdings than the Harvard Endowment trust. The only way for Harvard to sell its shares of IBM or McDonald’s is for some other investor to purchase them (duh!) Perhaps they spend too much time listening to the empty suits on MSNBC and other “instant analysts” on the tube, who attribute every dip in the stock market to a “sell-off,” never considering that every share traded on the floor of the NYSE is both purchased and sold at the same time.
Maybe you can chalk this up to delusions of grandeur, or the mistaken notion that Harvard holds as much sway in the financial world as it does in the intellectual realm. One of the most important (and under-reported) trends in the economics in the last 20 years has been the rise of “institutional capitalism” — financial institutions such as pension funds and mutual funds now own an outright majority of all corporate equities, rendering bit players such as the Harvard endowment largely irrelevant. In any case, this represents an awfully strange way to try to pressure the Israeli government.
So why are they doing it? I can think of two reasons … essentially they must believe that the Campaign serves some political or propagandistic purpose, because it is difficult for me to believe that they think their actions will directly punish Israel in any way.
Symbolism — elevating the cause to the level of the anti-apartheid movement. In the 1980s, there were a variety of disinvestment campaigns leveled against South Africa, and the Campaign wants their own cause elevated to the level of the global struggle against apartheid. I don’t think that I need to explain why such a comparison is preposterous, but they are trying to create that linkage in people’s minds. (This makes even more sense in light of the protestor I met in Washington a few weeks ago, who told me that the Palestinians were ‘the N
Natalie. This time I’m going to fall into the trap of taking your obviously humorous posting seriously.
The point is, it’s for portable computers. Although now still somewhat clunky, the new gismo will soon get very small and then be very easy to carry about in your pocket, probably soon as part of your portable. You try carrying a keyboard around with you on your travels, unless it’s a foldable one like mine.
Keyboards compatible with your portable computer are hard to find, but plain flat surfaces are pretty common, all around the world.
And as for non-portable computers, we must understand, Natalie, that not all people are like us. For some strange corporate beings, a computer keyboard is clutter, and one that can be switched off would be ultra-cool.
Next: VKB must do the same for the screen. Then, answering Natalie’s objection, they may want to supply the clear desk space for the keyboard and the screen for the screen themselves, so that the thing can sit on top of the festering pile of junk that is permanently between Natalie and the top of her desk, just like a regular portable computer or computer keyboard now.
The new standard portable computer is: four white (or whatever turns out to be the best colour for receiving projections) bricks, 12 inches by 3 inches by ¾ of an inch, joined at the long edges by three hinges. The outer two hinges enable the white bricks to flatten out and form the keyboard surface and the screen surface, while the central hinge is like the one hinge on a portable computer now. The keyboard is projected towards you from a little hole in the bottom brick of the screen. The screen is projected upwards from a little hole in the far brick of the keyboard surface (or maybe fownwards from a thingy that sticks out from the top of the screen, and doubles up as part of the case).
I’m glad that’s clear.
Note that different keyboards will be projectable at the press of a key, just as “different screens” are already presented to us all now, ditto, which is not possible with a hardware keyboard. I’m an inventor.
Richard Barber: thanks for this link, which is an improvement even on the one I finally got around to supplying. We weren’t inundated with link info, so far as I know, following my failure to include any in the rare first edition of my original posting. It is Sunday. You and I, Richard, are stuck at our old-style mechanical computer keyboards, making our peculiar lifestyle choices. Most people are out doing … what? Things, I suppose. Who knows what normal people get up to?
Meanwhile, as Richard says: “Ain’t capitalism grand?” It is indeed.
…that project-a-keyboard one you just mentioned, Brian, is the daftest. You’d have to clear your desk before using it.
Tomorrow’s World is a BBC TV show that features gadgets that may or may not be about to change all our lives for the better. I watched it last Wednesday (May 8th). The BBC being the BBC there was much talk about impractical and expensive looking electric cars which will probably never catch on unless forced on us by politicians, and there was a machine featured which told you just how much damage you were doing to your respiratory system by smoking, thus motivating you to stop. Be still my heart. (This being what will inevitably happen to you, they kept helpfully reminding us, if you insist on smoking. Cue lying statistics about “smoking related” diseases.)
But one gadget they showed did truly impress me, and I meant to pass it on that evening but something else must have got in the way. (Oh yes, my computer modem stopped working.) This impressive gadget was a new kind of very-portable computer keyboard.
I already possess a folding (“Targus Stowaway”) keyboard with which I type stuff into my Hewlett Packard Jornada 548, which when folded fits into a space hardly any bigger than that occupied by a Hewlett Packard Jornada 548 (i.e. my jacket pocket), and I had supposed that this was as small as a keyboard big enough to type on properly could get. Not so.
On Tomorrow’s World they showed something quite new, at any rate to me. Instead of offering you a physical keyboard, what the new gismo does is shine a keyboard onto your desk, and then watch you while you type on it. The thing itself is no bigger than a cigarette box, and soon all portable computers may contain such a thing inside them. Superb. In an earlier version of this posting I did an hour ago, I did the BBC a semi-injustice. I said they didn’t say who make this midget miracle. They didn’t on the TV. But follow the link above and you get to VBK Ltd. This is an Israeli company, and I don’t remember them saying that on the TV either.
Just thought I’d tell you. What with assassinations, European Unions, train crashes (another one here in Blighty on Friday), and all the usual politically administered misery, it’s as well to remember that some things in our flawed but fascinating civilisation are being done extraordinarily well, and ever better as the years go by.
It is not often that I use this blog as an advertising medium. In fact, I cannot remember ever having done so. So this is a first.
We Brits at the Samizdata require some help from our American readers (we know you’re out there, we can hear you breathing). We have decided that we need a change of political representation, our own having chucked its lot in with Soviet EUnion. We need to ‘clean house’ and begin again and we think we can best do this by appointing a US Senator for Britain
We think this is a marvelous way of reconnecting us with our Anglo-Saxon heritage and of bringing the two most dynamic lynchpins of that community closer together. As well as that, it will help in the drive to get Britain out of the EU and, without Britain, the EU will not survive.
We should make it clear that we do not have the time or resources to mount any sort of election campaign so we simply intend to appoint the said Senator without he/she having any say in the matter. It may be somewhat presumptuous but these are interesting times and they call for interesting measures.
We have already pledged that we will not bother add to their administrative burdens by sending letters to their office but we do intend to write open letters to them on this blog for time to time as occasion requires.
However, we being Brits and all that, have no idea to appoint and this is where our US contributors and readers come in. If you really want to stick it to the Euro-snots, then unzip your trusty computer keyboards and mail us with your suggestions for a suitable Senator for Britain and the reasons why he/she would be suitable.
Mock not. We are serious.
The worst enemy of truth and freedom in our society is the compact majority. Yes, the damned, compact, liberal majority.
– Henrik Ibsen, in An Enemy of the People
One of the things that the blogosphere provides is stories, for the mainstream media. And I’m starting to believe that the multinational pharmaceuticals corporation Pfizer – best-known in the UK, if known of at all, for producing the world-renowned wrinkly recreational drug Viagra – is a story.
The thing is, Pfizer supports the free market, with arguments and with money. The magazine Prospect, for example, now contains, on the inside of each front cover, not mere adverts for Pfizer, but essays under the heading “Pfizer forum”, frequently of a decidedly pro-free-market persuasion. In September of last year, for example, they had one by Milton Friedman.
Go to the Pfizer website. Look there under “public policy” and you get the Pfizer forum website. It turns out that one of those pro-free-market essays is by Johan Norberg and is called “In Defense of Global Capitalism”. So they’re not making much of a secret about being in favour of capitalism, are they?
I have already passed the question on through a mutual friend, of mine and of Pfizer. (He wrote one of the Pfizer forum essays.) I repeat the question here: What if the global anti-capitalist left decides to “expose” Pfizer? What if they try to turn them into corporate demons, the way they demonised Dow Chemicals (napalm, if I remember it right), and then Monsanto (genetic engineering)? What if anti-capitalist stirrers start showing up at Pfizer annual general meetings? Maybe this has been tried, but hasn’t worked.
Pfizer must have thought about this because like I say they are not supporting capitalism in secret; they are advertising that they support it. Yet if you type “Pfizer” into Google, you have to wade through a ton of pro-Pfizer material before you encounter anything remotely critical. (The first anti-Pfizer thing I spotted was Oxfam complaining about Pfizer’s attitude to their patents. I guess Pfizer believes that their patents are theirs.)
It is because most multinational corporations do not like the answers to questions like the one I am asking that they do not support capitalism other than in apologetic whispers. How come Pfizer thinks it’s good business to support it out loud? I am delighted they do. Nevertheless, why? I am sure some of this story has already been written, but not so I have noticed. And written or not, like I say, it is a story.
“If you can’t see a woman in a bikini that’s your problem. You can’t force them to cover up just because you can’t control yourself.”
-Malaysian Tourism Minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir blasts Terengannu’s state government, which is led by the Islamic party, PAS, for its “Taliban-like” plan to ban tourists from wearing bikinis.
Hello again. I’ve had a long day. I had to get up early this morning to welcome The Man Who Was Coming To Mend My Computer, but as it turned out he overslept and only got here two hours later than he said – although to be fair, when he did get here he did mend the computer or you wouldn’t be reading this masterpiece of the blogger’s art. But he took all day and as soon as he’d finished I had to depart for a Putney Debate. These are the second Friday of the month events run by Tim Evans. This turned out very good. I’ve just now got back, and would in the normal course of things be going straight to bed. But Samizdata’s Big Cat Perry is away, and he gave strict e-mailed orders that we mice must play a lot in his absence.
I was going to do something about how the new Euroflag is a big mistake, but I fear that this is wishful thinking. True, the new flag won’t be as easy for school-children to draw (which was going to be my heading for this), what with all the different coloured pencils they’ll now need, but I don’t suppose that will stop them and they might even like that. And in general I think the new design could prove very clever. You can imagine all kinds of variants. Sticky tape. The Union Jack done with strips of the thing. All sorts of Euro-objects dancing about in front, with the stripes as a background. No, I think it could work very well, more’s the pity. And it will adapt very prettily as more nations are engulfed.
Adriana, please could you add some links from this to the two previous flag articles, i.e. this one and that one. Thanks. If she hasn’t done it yet, they were, I don’t know, whenever they were. Scroll down and find them.
This is better, although a complete change of subject. The Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen’s husband, is famed in these islands for saying something offensive every time he opens his mouth in public. But I came across this item of dialogue from the Queen Husband which I thought genuinely amusing. It was from a book I was reading (while waiting for the Man Who Was Going Eventually To … etc.).
The D of E has just got home from an airplane journey, and one of his flunkeys asks him obsequiously:
“And how was your flight, Your Royal Highness?”
The Duke sighs. You know how it is when you’re really tired. Everything seems harder to deal with. Even the simplest question can only be answered with a great effort. Finally HRH says:
“Have you ever been on an airplane journey?”
“Why yes, Your Royal Highness, many times.”
“Well it was like that.”
It is interesting how things are developing economically in Croatia now that people in the rest of the world have finally figured out it is safe to come here again. Plans have been afoot for some time to develop various regions with businessmen like famous Italian developer Richard Mazzucchelli prowling around Dalmatia and Istria looking for opportunities. I have long thought the best way to treat such unspoiled places was to develop them with the high end of the tourism market in mind rather than the mass tourism planned in places like Split or Dubrovnik. Never being an optimist by nature, I rather expected the truth of what would happen would result in the ghastly Disnification of Croatia’s magnificent coastline and islands, with a MacDonalds dishing out vile industrial food to the great unwashed of Europe in every village.
Well it seems that in spite of my lapsed Catholicism at least a few of my prayers are being answered. Apparently Princess Caroline of Monaco is going to be investing in an exclusive development in the national park island of Brijuni. Hopefully this will just be the first of many. It is a tricky thing balancing the need for development with not destroying the very thing people would want to see, namely the extraordinary, historic and unspoiled locations that make up so much of the country. One excellent way would be to allow more foreign investment and easy land ownership restrictions for overseas investors. The Adriatic and Mediterranean are filled with low end tourist destinations with far more infrastructure and easier communications than is going to be available in Croatia for quite a while so clearly the added value this country can provide is the very fact of its unspoiled nature for more discerning (and higher spending) foreigners. Lower impact higher value markets are surely where a good portion of our future in tourism should be and it just might be working out that way. Let us welcome ‘The Beautiful People’… they have lots of money!
Patrick Crozier, writer of the excellent blog UK Transport finds the issue of how parents treat their children a complex one for libertarians
On television (Powerhouse, Channel 4) just now were calls for banning parents smacking their own children.
I have to say I find myself divided on this issue. I used to just accept it as one of those things that parents needed “just in case”. But there has recently been a debate in libertarian circles – largely ignited by a talk Sarah Lawrence gave at one of ‘Brian’s Fridays’ (a monthly libertarian meeting in London hosted by regular Samizdata contributor Brian Micklethwait).
Sarah says that children are people too and are entitled to exactly the same rights as adults.
“Ah” I say “But what if a child is determined to cross the road and get run over? Got you there.” Apparently not. After all, if an adult stepped in front of a bus most of us would make some attempt to stop them. The more I heard about this line of thinking the more I liked it. It would no longer be possible to “send” children to schools – so no more juvenile prison camps. Would we end up with a generation of illiterates? Probably not. Those children who are home schooled tend to do very well. And anyway, the present system needs little help in raising children who can’t read.
But back to smacking. If it is illegal to hit an adult it should be illegal to hit a child. Unless, of course, it is consensual. Boxers knock seven bells out of one another but no one gets arrested. Likewise sado-masochists. OK, so some of them do get arrested but they shouldn’t.
So, do I think children will consent to boxing matches with their fathers or engage in sado-masochism? Probably not.
But there is an issue here. If children have rights so do adults. One of these is to throw their children out on the street. In fact this is about the only fallback that parents have if children have rights. This is pretty unpalatable – especially for parents. This is where smacking in a consensual form may come in. Rather than throw the child out the parent could offer a compromise in the form of a consensual punishment. Of course, it doesn’t have to be smacking or even physical but the point is that in a libertarian world smacking could exit.
This is not, by the way, what the anti-smacking brigade want. They do not want parents to have the power of eviction. They are quite happy to force parents to house, clothe and feed little hooligans. Indeed, it may well be the intention.
Patrick Crozier (London)
Because in the end, even Germaine Greer calls the cops, not Simone de Beauvoir, when she’s personally, physically threatened in the real world.
– Jack Robertson
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
