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]
|
BBC reports that the European Commission president, Romano Prodi, has been summoned by the European parliament to answer questions on a growing fraud scandal in the EU’s executive.
The EU’s administrative commissioner, Neil Kinnock, has revealed that up until 1999 there was a relatively extensive practice of setting up secret and illegal bank accounts. Millions of euros are thought to have disappeared.
Mr Kinnock told a parliamentary committee on Wednesday there was evidence this “utterly reprehensible” practice was continuing.
As a result, he has ordered an immediate inquiry into other Commission departments and is sending a fraud questionnaire to the European Commission’s most senior officials to assess the extent of the problem.
Are we surprised? No. The growing number of scandals emerging from the EU hints at deep-seated fraud and corruption. Soon it will perhaps become unnecessary to produce an argument against the EU. Just recording it’s blunders should do the trick…
Last night the BBC showed, on Newsnight, a report about why Tony Blair is so well-liked in the USA. He is a persuasive debater and arguer. The USA’s right wingers like him because he stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush over the Iraq war, and the USA’s left wingers like him because when he stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush he makes Bush look like a fool by comparison. That kind of thing.
It was a deft move by the BBC. The government have been complaining that the BBC are anti-Government and anti-Blair. Now they can say: look, here was a piece about how well Blair has been doing.
But exposing Blair to the world as being liked by American politicians is to do him no favours with the massed ranks of the Labour Party, parliamentary and out in the constituencies. Those people, by and large, don’t like American politicians, and especially they don’t Like George W. Bush Jnr. When they could think of Bush as just a joke, he was just a joke. But now he’s bad, bad, bad. With friends like him, Blair needs no enemies.
Two Guardian stories have just been punching home the message. This one points out, for all the usual Poltical Editor type reasons, that Blair is now looking wobbly.
But it was another article by an until-now Blair supporter and true believer, from yesterday, that really caught my attention. This paragraph is especially revealing and bullseye-hitting:
The key issue for Blair seems to be his own sincerity. He is desperate to convince us that he believes in the rightness of his actions. This has been a faultline in his personality from the very beginning. It’s instructive, in this context, to consider the ways in which he differs from Thatcher. Thatcher never claimed to be Good, just Right. Blair’s political personality has always been predicated on the proposition “I am good.” His brilliantly articulate impersonation of earnest inarticulacy has all along been tied to this self-projection as a Good Man. He is careful about not touting his religion in public, but he doesn’t need to, since the conviction of his own goodness is imprinted in everything he says and does. It is one of the things he has in common with the party he leads, and one of the reasons people are wrong when they say that Blair is a natural Tory. Thatcher’s sense of being right fits into the Tory party’s self-image as the home of unpopular and uncomfortable truths. Blair’s sense of being good fits the Labour self-image as the party of virtue: the party we would all vote for if we were less selfish and greedy.
It is Blair’s reputation for goodness, among his own most devoted supporters, which has taken such a knock with this Weapons of Mass Destruction business. To people like me, who never believed in Saint Tony in general or in much of the pre-war hooplah about WMDs in particular, the only surprise was why such a canny operator as Blair should have hung himself on such a nasty hook But for the true Blair believers, this stuff is really hurting.
It reminds me of what I vaguely recall someone saying a thousand years ago about Nixon, just before he resigned. If people like this (i.e. some Nixon true believers the guy had just been talking to) think that something very bad has happened, he’s in serious trouble.
Oliver Letwin, the UK shadow Home Secretary for the Conservative Party, has said he remained “highly dubious” about any move towards a compulsory ID card.
Come on Oliver, you can do better than this! How about saying something more like the following:
The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, forsooth, can try to force me to carry one of these draconian internal passports, in his attempt to turn this former land of liberty, into a socialist police state. But I will rot to death as a prisoner, in the Lubyanka gaol of his choosing, before I ever carry one of these modern forms of an Auchwitz tattoo. I am not a number. I am a free man.
Obviously, you may wish to be slightly less strong than this, as any professional Westminster politician must, I suppose, agree to be bound by any laws ratified by Parliament (except Dawn Primarolo, of course, the Treasury minister who refused to pay the poll tax).
However, I currently possess a full-length poster of you, which I garland every day with fresh flowers, and I need something a bit stronger than “highly dubious”. A Conservative copper-bottomed promise, from you, to abolish ID cards forthwith, the day after an election victory, would do the trick.
I hate to be shameless about this, but a promise like this would also gain you hatfuls of votes. It’s grubby I know, but unless you want me to replace your poster, with one of the eminent Mr. David Carr, you need to show me what you’ve got; what I’ve seen so far isn’t yet good enough.
It has been reported that Iranian dissident TV programmes being broadcast into Iran via satellite from the USA are being jammed… from Cuba! Of course I have no doubt that the Communist Cuban government will deny they are responsible.
Fair enough. As a result, it would be really… interesting… to see some equally non-governmental action to stop them. I wonder how much it would cost to lash up ‘private sector’ anti-radiation missile with just enough range to reach the jammer in Bejucal, (near Havana) from not-too-far-into Cuban airspace? Let’s call it a ‘Rattlesnake’ (as in Don’t Tread on Me)
As tactical surprise would be complete, the ‘Rattlesnake’ would not need to be fast (more akin to a cruise missile than a Shrike or HARM), just so long as it had enough range. A simple aluminum airframe with little wings to minimize the propellant requirement, perhaps a stripped down off-the-shelf GPS unit for cruise guidance and a tuned passive homer for terminal guidance (you know, the sort of gear the US government pays hundreds of thousands for and which can be bought in Radio Shack for a few hundred bucks). If the weapon was accurate enough, a small 10 lbs improvised pre-fragmented warhead would probably be sufficient. If the whole thing could be kept under 250 lbs, it would be easy to modify all manner of private airplanes to carry it.
A 15 mile engagement envelope for a Hi-Hi-Lo stand-off attack would probably be adequate: skirt Cuban airspace, suddenly turn in for the attack, shallow dive for speed to maximise range of the missile, release the ‘Rattlesnake’, then dive for the deck at just under the speed your wings will fall off and run for Key West (or elsewhere) at wave-top level long before you develop any MIG or SAM ‘problems’…but obviously the longer the range of the weapon, the better.
Key West, Mexico and a zillion little islands are only a few minutes flight time away for a low flying private airplane and, as I am sure any trafficker in ‘herbs and spices’ in that part of the world will tell you, there are an awful lot of small airfields in the Caribbean.
It is just an idea, of course… pure fantasy…I would not dream of actually inciting anyone to do this. That would be bad. I mean, if people started doing that sort of thing, folks might get it into their heads that it is okay to shoot at tyrants wherever they are found… and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?
Link via Zem
The Telegraph reports that the Conservatives yesterday joined civil rights groups in voicing opposition to the Government’s proposals to introduce compulsory identity cards and criticised David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, for masking his true intentions behind “spin and obscurity”.
Plans to announce the scheme in the Commons before Parliament rises today have been shelved – officially because of pressure on parliamentary time – but the Home Office said yesterday that the proposals for the ID card were “progressing well”, with an announcement expected in the autumn.
Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said he remained “highly dubious” about any move towards a compulsory ID card.
The issue of an identity card is too important a one, with too far-ranging implications for our liberties, for the Home Secretary to resort to spin and obscurity.
Home Office estimates of the cost of the scheme range from £1.6 to £3.14 billion but Simon Davies, of Privacy International, says the true cost will be very much higher. Mr Davies led a campaign against an Australian ID card in the 1980s. Initially the plan was popular but opposition grew strongly when the scheme was finally unveiled and the government was forced to abandon it.
We know from industry estimates that a ‘smart’ card with biometric information such as the one proposed will cost well over £100 per head, so the final cost will be more like £5.5 billion.
This is a high risk political gamble for David Blunkett. He knows that popular opposition will mushroom once people understand the implications of the card, so he is being meticulous in concealing his ultimate ambitions.
The Telegraph reports the Treasury reacted angrily to a European Commission proposal for simplifying the VAT regime across the EU that would give tax breaks to the French while penalising British parents. Frits Bolkestein, the EU’s Dutch tax commissioner, admitted that the tax on children’s clothing could rise to 17.5 per cent – the British rate of VAT – but that the move was necessary to end what he said was unfair economic distortion.
The scheme unveiled yesterday is part of the continuing attempt by Brussels to force through tax harmonisation – standardising tax rates across the EU. Gordon Brown has rejected the suggestion, claiming that taxation is a matter for national parliaments.
The Commission scheme to “streamline” VAT would abolish zero-rating on children’s clothes and shoes in Britain and Ireland, ending the permanent opt-outs the countries secured when they joined the EC in the 1970s.
But following intense lobbying by Jacques Chirac, the French president, for a special exemption on restaurant bills, the Commission proposes to cut VAT rates for French diners from the present 19.6 per cent to as low as 5.5 per cent. Also, the Dutch will retain a zero rate for their cut-flower industry and the Italian media empire of Silvio Berlusconi will be spared VAT on broadcasting.
One official described the horse-trading behind the scenes as shameful.
Isn’t it interesting that a Dutch commissioner, a French director-general, and the Italian presidency all got what they wanted?
Quite.
Having already done most of my schoolboy sniggering in private (although I reserve the right to indulge it again at a later date) I think I can now bring myself to say a few (semi) serious things about this:
Belgian legislators are hoping to bring that to a close with a parliamentary bill that would draw prostitutes into the legal fold and bring the industry under state control, providing sex workers with labour rights and greater health protection.
But for a fee.
The sex workers themselves would be expected to pay up when the tax man calls – boosting state coffers to the tune of an estimated 50 million euros a year.
It represents an attractive option for a country currently struggling to balance its budget deficit – a means of generating money while affording prostitutes better protection.
Not so much legalisation then as part-nationalisation and while it would be nice to imagine that Belgium’s lawmakers have been driven by a genuinely liberal impulse it is more likely that they have been prompted by the desire to get their sticky mitts on all that revenue.
However, I think complaints would be out of order. The trade in (ahem) ‘personal’ services between adults is not a crime and should not be treated as one, so although they may have to hand over a chunk of their earnings to the state at least the prostitutes (and their clients) will have been freed from the constant threat of arrest and prosecution. That is a good thing.
Aside from the fact that we can now justifiably and factually regard them as pimps, the Belgian government would undoubtedly argue that they cannot legitimise the sex industry without subjecting it to the same taxes that every other legitimate industry is forced to stump up. Nor should it be overlooked that gangster protection may prove cheaper than the Belgian state but tax-inspectors generally do not use razors as a means of enforcement.
I sincerely hope that HMG decides to follow the Belgian example on this issue but I don’t expect they will do so anytime soon. Even in this day and age there is still a deeply-ingrained Sabbatarian disapproval of ‘bawdiness’ in this country that manifests itself as a very noisy and effective ‘no’ lobby at the merest mention of relaxing the laws on prostitution. I wish it were not so because even a taxed-and-regulated sex industry would be an improvement on the current arrangements.
Tomorrow is apparently ID-Day. Big Blunkett is expected to announce plans for compulsory National Identity Cards that will turn the civil liberties clock back fifty years.
To those who say “the innocent have nothing to fear”, look at this Liberty report .
It tells how during the Iraq conflict the Terrorism Act 2000 was systematically used to harass protestors at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire and deny them their civil liberties including freedom of movement and the right to peaceful protest. Police even served an anti-terrorism order on an eleven year old girl!
How much worse will it get once everyone is neatly filed, stamped and indexed?
Cross-posted from An It Harm None
Last evening I attended a seminar hosted by the Conservative Party group, cChange on the issue of civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are being advocated by the present Labour government as a way of enabling gay and lesbian couples to legally formalise their relationships in a number of ways, allowing them to take advantage of some, if not all, of the advantages now accruing to married heterosexuals.
I am not going to rehearse all the various arguments in favour or against such a move. Suffice to say that, unless some overwhelming public interest or danger can be shown to exist, the burden of proof should rest on the shoulders of those who would ban any adult – important qualification – wishing to enter into a lifetime commitment with any other person (s). (Yep, that includes polygamy, in case you are asking).
A number of other bloggers much more qualified than I, such as British ex-pat Andrew Sullivan and the group blog at the Volokh Conspiracy have argued as to why gay marriage, for instance, would be entirely consistent with a broadly socially conservative worldview. Sullivan points out that allowing gay men – like himself – to marry would probably reduce, not raise, male promiscuity and actually strengthen the bonds of civil society, including heterosexual marriage.
Last night’s seminar was interesting for several reasons. Arguing for civil partnerships was Conservative MP for Buckingham, John Bercow. Arguing against was Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips. I was pretty impressed by the quality of arguments on both sides. Bercow gave a broadly libertarian argument, one based on the idea that although ‘traditional’ marriage was a Good Thing, there was nothing so fragile about it that enabling non-straights to marry would send the world spinning out of control. → Continue reading: Civil unions
R K Jones eschews the crudity of opening a can of whoop ass and prefers to see rebellion served up in shot glasses
Those obsessed with fine whiskeys are perhaps already familiar with Malt Advocate magazine. Those with functioning livers may think of it as the Guns & Ammo for the discerning tippler. Each issue contains detailed looks at the international trade in liquor, almost always with an anti-regulatory bent. People expect to see reasoned support for free trade in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, or (sometimes) The Economist, but a drinks trade magazine? One doesn’t expect to buy a glossy, high-end specialty liquor magazine for the political commentary, but the current quarter’s issue (sadly, only teasers are available on-line) is worth a look. Any forum where a prominent American distiller opens his portion of a panel discussion (concerning regulation and taxation of the industry) with the words…
We need another Whiskey Rebellion
…is worthy of support.
Given the international, and free trading character of the liquor industry, I suppose the only real surprise should be that the paper mache puppet head brigade hasn’t yet begun picketing distilleries. Does the tone of the magazine mean anything about a change in attitude in the world? Or am I deceiving myself? I don’t know, but writers of a libertarian bent going back as far as Ayn Rand (and further) have been criticizing businessmen for a lack of ideology. Thus it is nice to see an industry niche publication that ‘gets it’.
Self-deception may be central to the human condition, and not exclusively confined to libertarians. However we often seem to have a particularly wide streak of it when it comes to looking at the world around us for signs that others may some day come round to sensible views. Just the same, it is always pleasant to see indications precisely that may indeed be happening.
RK Jones
Cloning is an understandably controversial subject, and it would appear that all the excitement about cloning humans may have been somewhat premature. But this sounds like a potentially most entertaining application of the principle:
After a six-year search Japanese scientists are preparing to clone prehistoric woolly mammoths from frozen DNA samples found in Siberia.
Inspired by Dolly the sheep – cloned from the cell of an adult ewe in Scotland in 1996 – and the film Jurassic Park, researchers from Kagoshima and Kinki universities and the Gifu Science and Technology Centre began the search in 1997 for sperm or tissue from mammoths preserved in the tundra.
The plan was to find a frozen male, recover samples of its sperm, inseminate a modern elephant and create a mammoth-elephant hybrid. No sperm was ever found. Several mammoths, preserved in the permafrost, have been identified in Siberia but the DNA was degraded.
So how are they doing?
The Japanese scientists collected samples of bone marrow, muscle and skin from mammoth remains found in Siberia last August. Yesterday, after a year fighting Russian bureaucracy, the samples arrived.
The researchers face a series of new hurdles. First, they have to confirm the samples are from mammoths, then see if they can isolate a full set of chromosomes. Then they would have to fuse an egg from a living relative – an elephant – with DNA from an extinct creature. Then there would be the challenge of implanting the embryo into the womb of a host mother.
Doesn’t sound very much like “cloning” to me. And since this is the Guardian, no article about a creature that thrives in a cold climate would be complete without a gratuitous reference to global warming.
If they overcame all these challenges, they would then be faced with the biggest of all: what to do with a lonely ice age mammal in a rapidly warming world.
Oh for heavens sake. Go north. Use a fridge. Biggest challenge of all indeed.
And as to what to do with it, hasn’t the Guardian heard of show business? That’s what all this is about. This is not “pure” science, which pure science seldom is anyway. Think Jurassic Park. Think Elephant Man. Or in this case Elephant Mammoth.
ComputerWorld paints a wonderfully gloomy picture of an IT security meltdown and a complete redirection of current security practises (or lack of them):
Predictions: A Web services security breach will wreck the supply chain. And stolen fingerprints or eye scans will thwart biometric systems.
Bye-Bye Incompetents
The fakers, charlatans and incompetents will be purged from the IT security industry. In three years, 40% of the current gaggle of alleged security professionals will leave the industry—some to other professions, many to prison for egregious misrepresentation of their skills.
XML Catastrophe
In the next two years, there will be a major XML Web services security breach. The consequences will be much more severe than the defaced Web sites and stolen credit cards that caused mostly embarrassment in the early days of e-commerce. Instead, automated production lines will grind to a halt, company bank accounts will be emptied, 100-company-long supply chains will break, and the most proprietary corporate data may be disclosed.
Surgical Strikes
Three or four years ago, hackers were taking a haphazard, shotgun approach to Internet attacks, but now they’re using their tools to penetrate very specific and lucrative targets, especially enterprise networks containing valuable intellectual property. These highly targeted attacks are on the rise, each one more intelligent and harmful than the last. By 2005, targeted attacks will account for more than 75% of corporate financial losses from IT security breaches.
Stolen Fingerprints
Biometrics is perceived as the ultimate in security, but what does somebody do once their bioprint is stolen? Within three years, hackers will have all sorts of scanned fingerprints, retinal patterns, etc., and these will be used to bypass biometric network security. When your credit card is stolen, you phone Visa and have a new card issued. When your bioprint is stolen, do you call God and ask for a new set of fingerprints or eyes?
Firing the Clueless
P.T. Barnum knew that a sucker was born every minute. Since most cyber risk is directly attributable to insider activity, including the social engineering of digital dullards, a renewed focus on background checks is necessary. The chief security officer of the future, working with the HR chief, is going to find and fire digital “suckers” before their dimness puts the enterprise at risk.
There is more. Go and get scared… I am.
|
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.
|
