|
|||||
|
Or more accurately, the day after the night before. Two separate parties yesterday involving a large contingent of Samizdatistas has resulted in rather meagre output today. 
Proper decorum was observed at all times
Brian Linse, our pet pinko from California crashed
Sober discourse was the byword at this gathering as usual Normal output will resume tomorrow… January 18th, 2003 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
 I came across this little comment on man’s foibles in the middle of the chaos known collectively as “the holidays”. At the time I couldn’t do more than check the validity of the article which, I’m sorry to say, was accurate. While the date would now classify it blogospherically speaking as an archeological anecdote, I felt the issue it addresses is still poignant. This article appeared in a local US newspaper on Nov. 15, 2002 but it’s importance may well be global.
As with any criminal act, there is something we as a society can learn. The lesson here is obvious: the bruised male ego can be a violent thing. The more tickilish question, and the one we must answer if we are to prevent future attacks of this kind, is what finally triggered the assault? Was it ridicule (ha ha. your butt’s hairer than mi-ine!) or was it envy (my butt’s hairer than yours! nah na nahna na.)? Its a sensitive issue. January 18th, 2003 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
This is a terrific idea, and this is how nytimes.com reported it (scroll down to where is says “Sam’s blog”):
Gyford started this project on January 1st of this year. Pepys himself started on January 1st 1660. To make a start yourself, go here and scroll down. I have a small personal link to all this through the late Robert Latham, one of the editors of the latest edition of the Pepys Diaries, and, it seems pretty generally agreed, the best and most complete one. Before going to Magdalene College Cambridge to work on Pepys full time, Robert Latham, a memorably jolly man as well as a great scholar, was a Professor at Royal Holloway College, Englefield Green, which was a walk away from my childhood home, the Lathams and Micklethwaits being good friends. Robert Latham’s son went to the same preparatory school as me and my elder brother. I wonder what Robert Latham would have made of this project. He might have had mixed feelings, because the edition that Gyford is using is, alas, not his, but an earlier and less complete one, simply because only the earlier one is now out of copyright. I’ve always meant to read Pepys but have never quite got around to it. This is my chance. All sorts of people are congratulating Gyford for having embarked on this project, but Pepys himself kept at it for nine years, and I will save my heartiest congratulations for the year 2012 when Gyford is scheduled to complete the job. So far he’s managed just over a fortnight of it. January 17th, 2003 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
Those concerned with legislative attempts to alter society may find this article on cnn.com interesting. It concerns recent and current efforts to have toy guns outlawed because they are sometimes used to commit real crimes. Even worse, the perpetrators of toy gun crimes sometimes end up really dead when their victim turns out to be a cop who reacts by defending himself with lethal force. Surprisingly, the idea was discussed that the real issue is not the prop used but the criminal intent of the assailant. Personally, I take that as a given. If a perpetrator knowingly engages in an illegal activity it does not matter what is chosen as the crime enabler of choice. While it may engender discussion, the issue is not the criminal misuse of toy guns. The real issue is why do lawmakers want to remove toys resembling guns from society? The immediate answer is social engineering. This is a conclusion reached not only through logical thinking, but also through the words of the two city councilmen who have introduced a bill to ban toy guns in New York. One likens toy guns to toy cigarettes. Given the increasingly pervasive and invasive bans on smoking, it is not hard to see where that leads. The other, Albert Vann, is even more blatant when he states Clearly, it’s not about the toys. It’s not even about the crime. It is about changing society one culturally legislating law at a time. January 17th, 2003 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
According to this report in the UK Times (not linked as subscription required for non-UK readers), President Bush is forging ahead in his confrontation with American trial lawyers:
From what I understand, trial lawyers in America are only marginally more popular than the Taliban so Mr.Bush should have ample public support in his showdown with them. Whilst putting a mandatory cap on jury awards (which is the proposal) perhaps Mr.Bush might do as well to look at the entire concept of ‘punitive damages’ which can be awarded against a Defendant in negligence claim on top of the actual compensation paid to the Plaintiff. As far as I can tell, punitive damages are a means of punishing a Defendant for the negligence and lead breathtakingly high jury awards in medical damages cases. Genuine cases of negligence, be they medical or otherwise, should always be actionable but it is my view that the concept of punitive damages constitutes a zealous over-egging of the pudding. Negligence is not crime and should not be ‘punished’. Similarly, a Plaintiff who has suffered loss and damage should be rightfully compensated but not rewarded. Recourse to law should be a matter of both necessity and justice not a warped form of entrepreneurship for both claimants and their legal representatives. In my view that situation in the UK preferable. Whilst it is true that the litigious culture has blossomed in this country over recent years, nonetheless damages awards are maintained at only a fraction of their US equivalents. This is because there is no recognition of ‘punitive damages’ in the UK system. The purpose of a claim here is to ‘make the Plaintiff whole’ i.e. to put the Plaintiff into the position he or she was in immediately before the negligence occurred. There is also a compensation element for pain and suffering as a result of medical or other negligent damage but these are awarded on the basis of the Plaintiff’s provable condition not as a means of penalising the Defendant. The further advantage of the UK system is that there is no jury for civil trials (except Defamation cases) and therefore both the verdict and damages are decided upon by a Judge. This does not entirely remove the ‘sympathy’ element influential in many claims but does keep it in some sort of check as all Judges are bound by both guidelines and precedents. Judges can push at this envelope but not discard it altogether. That said, I wish Mr.Bush the best of luck in his campaign. As a lawyer myself, I am concerned that the popular view of the legal system as a kind of ‘get-rich-quick’ lottery to be, at best, distasteful and, at worst, socially and economically damaging. January 17th, 2003 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
The wonders of capitalism, or the false needs of the alienating consumer society? This gadget is designed to fulfill a role which is obviously important in badly ventilated homes and offices. The question I would like to know is, does this methane filter reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore should it be made compulsory under the terms of the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty? Three pints of gas a day for an average person? You mean it’s more for politicians? January 17th, 2003 | Comments are closed
For the last month or more I have been paying occasional visits to Michael Jennings‘s blog. One day a picture of him appeared at the top, making him look alarmingly like the bearded bloke on They Think It’s All Over. And then it was there at the top the next day, and the next, and I jumped to the conclusion that he was on holiday and not blogging, because if he was blogging, the photo would have moved down, and have been replaced by further entries. Or so I deduced. But, I do sometimes get matters intenetted slightly wrong (see the comments). It turns out that under the picture he’d been blogging away like a mad thing. Yesterday, for example, with an unerring eye for the main story, he focussed in on the alleged doom facing the banana. Apparently, bananas are all clones of each other, which means that they can’t do evolution properly, which means that they are now about to be completely wiped out. This was national news in Britain yesterday, and for all I know, everywhere else that bananas are cared about. Michael notes the supposedly ferocious consumer resistance in Europe to genetic engineering, but goes on to note that banana-wise Europeans – Germans in particular – may face an agonising choice.
Michael also had a posting at the beginning of the month about cricket. For Zimbabwean mass murder reasons I want the entire blogosphere immediately to become fascinated about this strange game, and it can plug itself into an elaborate discussion via Michael’s posting about which international cricket side was the best ever, who the all time best Australian (and English and West Indian) side(s) would consist of, and so on, also involving Iain Murray. And then when all of blogdom everywhere is lusting to watch the World Cup, others whom we have also been instructing, but this time on the political dimension of this tournament, can dig up all the pitches. January 17th, 2003 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
Back when I was running an ISP here in Belfast, I was a regular reader and occasional poster on an email list about business in Eastern Europe. Steve Carlson, the list founder, moved with the times and the list expanded to general European internet business discussions; it spun off First Tuesday meetings all over Europe; then it became nowEurope, a more tightly edited Digest… And now it’s a blog. They’ve got some good writers who have been involved with it from the beginning. I sort of dropped out as I moved on to other things. Well, truthfully, 90% of my writing goes to Samizdata now. So there! The nowEurope blog looks interesting, but I hope they soon learn how important cross linking is: they currently are pretty stand-alone. So visit them and urge them to join the community. January 17th, 2003 | Comments are closed
It is certainly true that modern civilization has created environmental problems, but the key enviromental issue is addressed in this one question. Is our technology’s ability to solve environmental problems advancing faster than are the environmental problems themselves? January 16th, 2003 | 2 comments - (Comments are closed)
In some cases, it is a heavy price. The Swordsman, Iain Murray, one of the brightest stars in the blogging firmament, has just been summarily dismissed from his job:
It sounds like he has been treated very shabbily indeed. He has a wife and a small child so, if you can, please make your way over to his blog and leave something in the tip-jar. If you unable to do that, then at least let him know that you care. January 16th, 2003 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
This is the first occasion upon which I have picked out a comment for further comment, as it were, but this comment from Natalie Solent sharply claimed my attention:
The ‘miracle’ that Natalie is referring to is the appearance of a vigourously pro-gun essay by Professor Joyce Malcolm on the website of the BBC and which I have blogged about euphorically here. The part that Natalie might well have played in this moment of glory is set out in greater detail on Biased BBC:
Well, perhaps Professor Malcolm had already decided to write her essay and perhaps the BBC had decided, in any event, to make some concession to the other side of the argument. But I prefer to think that Natalie’s efforts did not go unrewarded. It gives me a delicious frisson of satisfaction to think that maybe one of us Lilliputians tied down the broadcasting Gulliver if only for a brief while. It also illustrates the importance of communicating ideas and weaving the gossamer fine networks between sane, intelligent people who, whilst still acting individually, can eventually set off an avalanche. From the BBC to Natalie to Joyce Malcolm and back to the BBC. Thanks to the net, those degrees of separation get smaller all the time. January 16th, 2003 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
As the potential military conflict with Iraq draws near, all sorts of weird things come out of woodwork. For example, some of them are planning a D-Day for the ‘peace’ movement in Europe and United States on 15th February. Andrew Burgin, spokesman for Britain’s Stop the War Coalition expects record numbers on the day at the biggest anti-war demonstration London has ever seen, all marching under a “Don’t attack Iraq” banner.
I am aware that the public opinion in Europe is at best divided over an attack on Iraq and in most countries – Britain and France included – is against by a wide margin if an invasion is not supported by the United Nations. However illogical that position might be, I have grown used to fighting it and nowadays it leaves me cold, merely a reminder of human stupidity. But “no war, for any reason”?! Who are these people?
When I looked at the list of supporters of the Stop the War Coalition, I found many of our old ‘friends’ from CND, assorted Marxist trade unions, and other institutions where ‘idiotarians’ like to congregate. Just a few rich pickings:
These are just a few whose names have either been pilloried on this blog or the names of institution they belong to speak for themselves. What really gets me going is that these people confidently claim and occupy the moral highground in protesting against war with Iraq (notice how even the phrase ‘war on Iraq’ suggests aggression from our side; as far as I am concerned Iraq is at war with us and has been for some time, thanks to its megalomaniac leader). They will satisfy their flaccid social consciences by making themselves ‘feel good’ about having the courage to stand up for things that everyone else is against like peace and justice and brotherhood… [hums the tune to Tom Lehrer’s song: We are the Folk Song Army, Everyone of us cares, We all hate poverty, war and injustice, Unlike the rest of you squares…] It’s an old communist, leftist, tranzi…etc technique. Grab them by their emotions and you are sure to be followed by those without reason. What would these people say about fighting Hitler and the Nazi Germany or indeed about any aggressor attacking its neighbours and posing threat to the world? How do they square history with their idiotic demand to oppose war against Iraq for any reason? I fear that security and defence are meaningless concepts to such ideologues, what matters is that they get to call demonstrations against the US and be anti-American with a ‘noble’ message to boot. What joy! On the other end of the table, we have the likes of Major Peter Ratcliffe, who won the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his role in the Scud base attack leading the crack Alpha One Zero squad behind enemy lines. He believes Britain should support any American military action in Iraq and describes anti-war critics in Tony Blair’s government as traitors:
Soldier’s words, honest and direct. They also carry far more weight as they are uttered by someone who fought to protect us and the society we live in. January 15th, 2003 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
