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]
|
So if hippophobia is a morbid fear of horses… what would a morbid fear of hippototamii be known as?
The European Union is making soothing clucking sounds to try and calm the outraged Muslim masses with plans of a ‘media code of conduct’ designed to prevent a repeat of the Jyllands-Posten incident with the ‘Satanic Cartoons’.
EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show “prudence” when covering religion.
“The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. “We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.”
Who is this “we”? Does Frattini think he is speaking for the British and European on-line community? If so then perhaps I can spell out the “consequences of exercising the right of free expression” that “we” are aware of… it makes us free, that is the consequence of free expression. Are “we” clear now? These non-enforcible guidelines are just a worthless sop to people who need to be confronted, not treated as though they have a legitimate argument.
And yet later he seems to take a strangely different stance…
The chairman of World Islamic Call Society, Mohamed Ahmed Sherif told a press conference in Brussels on Thursday (9 February) that the cartoons of Mohammed published first in Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, fuelled extremism.
“Nobody should blame the muslims if they are unhappy about the images of the prophet Mohammed,” Sherif said coming out from a meeting with EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini in Brussels. “It’s forbidden to create a hate programme to show that the prophet is a terrorist while he’s not,” he stated, “Don’t ask us to try to make people understand that this is not a campaign of hate.”
EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini repeatedly nodded and mumbled “yes” in front of cameras and microphones during Mr Sherif’s statement.
Mr Frattini also denied wanting to create a code of conduct for journalists reporting on religious matters, as indicated by earlier media reports.
“There have never been, nor will there be any plans by the European Commission to have some sort of EU regulation, nor is there any legal basis for doing so,” the commissioner stated.
So in the space of two days, Frattini seems to have done a U-turn and stated his commitment to freedom of expression whilst simultaneously looking like an appeaser. That takes some doing!
Let’s hear it for ‘nuanced’ European diplomacy! 
A Danish blogger and columnist, Henrik Føhns, alerted me to a post on his blog, Mondofunza about a letter to ‘Muslim citizens’…
A letter from Another Denmark
Dear Muslim citizens in Denmark and the World
I wish to state the existence of another Denmark: A Denmark that wants to live in peace with the Muslim world. There is another Denmark, which hopes for and believes in respect and tolerance between religions and different groups of people.
As a Dane I have no responsibility for what a single and privately owned Danish newspaper chooses to publish. Even so, I strongly condemn the actions of Jyllands-Posten that have offended muslims around the world, and I understand the need for an apology from the newspaper.
We all have a responsibility for treating each other, our religious faiths, and
convictions with dignity and respect. By publishing the caricatures of Muhammad, the newspaper Jyllands-Posten failed their obligation to exercise with care and consideration the right of freedom of speech.
I condemn all kinds of discrimination, prejudice and racism, whether it is directed against Muslims, Jews, Christians or other groups in a society. Therefore, I reject the hostile and prejudicial way of speaking that has marked several Danish,political parties and media within recent years.
I want to make a request to all parts involved, that opinions and protests may be conducted in a respectful and peaceful manner. Attacks on and threats against individuals and assets only make the situation worse for all of us.
I believe in a world, where religions, ethnic groups and various political and cultural opinions can coexist in an atmosphere of dialogue, tolerance and mutual respect.
I wish to state the existence of Another Denmark that conceives itself as a part of such a heterogenous world and humanity. In the sincere hope of international tolerance and respect.
Despite some agonising, Henrik’s response is unequivocal:
I have not signed the letter and do not intend to do so. I too want to live in peace with the muslim world, but I want to live by terms set by a modern democratic society. Not by rules set by autocratic, fundamentalistic, religious regimes. The outrage about the Danish cartoons have other roots than the cartoons themselves. The cartoons and Denmark have just become scapegoats for social and political disorder in the Middle East…
… I have nothing against christianity, islam or other religions. But when they start to preach and act against basic human rights – count me out.
Note: Also, Happy Birthday, Henrik!
Sir Freddie Laker, the man who took on the nationalised airlines in the 1970s with his cheap “Skytrain” airline, only to go bust, has died at the age of 83, according to this report. Laker was, despite the failure of his venture, a hugely influential figure in the airline industry by daring to suggest that flight need not be the preserve of the wealthy. He laid down the model to be copied by the likes of Southwest, Easyjet and Ryanair. His tough business battle with BA also inspired Sir Richard Branson to have a crack at the privatised national carrier’s transatlantic business.
The economics of airlines has fascinated me, not least because as a business it has attracted some of the largest egos and some of the few remaining examples of buccaneering entrepreneur. Perhaps that is why we like them or even if we don’t, find them fascinating. They stand out from the grey suits. None more so than Sir Freddie.
On the subject of cheap airlines and their globalising impact, here is an excellent piece from a year ago by Matt Welch in Reason magazine.
Governments are not know for being truthful, but it would seem sensible to tell lies that have a reasonable probability of being believed – and I do not agree that the “biggest lies are the most likely to be believed” (at least if by ‘biggest’ we mean thing that are most obviously false).
However, the British government seems to have adopted a policy of telling obvious lies. In the last few days alone we had (for example) the claim that “violent crime has fallen by 23%”. This was duly reported by the Independent newspaper (a newspaper that hates the current government, but hates truth even more – and so was glad to support the claim). This was brought out in support of the government policy of allowing “24 hour drinking”, I am not much interested in the policy (other than like so much ‘deregulation’ it has turned out to mean a lot more form filling and other such), but the claim of vast drop in violent crime was obvious nonsense.
If the government had said “contrary to people’s believe that violent crime is rising, it is actually saying much the same” that might well still have been telling lies (as violent crime is, most likely, on the up) but they would have been more likely to be believed.
But to say a “23% drop in violent crime”? They might as well have said a 123%.
Then there was the recent launch of a new navy destroyer – “The most powerful ship built since World War II”… actually it is an extremely expensive (£1 billion pound) grossly under-armed ship (part of the government’s ‘buy European’ policy – a policy exposed by Christopher Booker and Richard North). But why say “most powerful ship built since World War II” – an obvious lie even to people who nothing of Booker or North?
Lastly we had yet more claims of super educated school children “the best ever” – almost needless to say the Universities (hardly strongholds of free market people) reported today that the students they are getting are as ignorant as sin.
What is the reason for all these wild lies?
This item from America’s satirical Onion site is too funny for words. Would advocates of “intelligent design” get the joke?
The Danish media has taken note of the Buy Danish campaigns that have sprung up spontaneously over the least week or so in response to the boycott from Islamic countries. Danes seem to be quite willing to stoutly resist the pressure to limit free speech but it is important they realise that millions of people worldwide are urging them to stand firm and so although buying Danish goods or putting a supportive graphic on your site may be a token, it is by no means pointless. Below is a translation of an article in Børsen.
Buy Danish campaigns in large markets like the USA and Germany might give Danish companies enough increased turnover to cover the losses from the Arabian boycotts.
Companies like Arla, Lego, and Carlsberg believe in increased sales when they check their books next time, and Dominique Bouchet, professor in marketing and sociology at the University of Southern Denmark also expects a plus.
“It just might give a good effect. Normally there is a greater effect the other way around, when you signal disgust and irritation through a boycott. But the present situation is completely unusual, and many dislikes the Muslim boycott and the extremists reactions to the drawings. It is expressed through the buying of Danish goods”, says Dominique Bouchet.
He emphasises that there has never been comparable situations, so it is difficult to predict how large the effect will become.
Denmark is, as most people are aware, caught in the middle of a Middle Eastern sandwich, where the hateful reactions to the Prophet drawings have become so extreme that the crisis is going straight on to front pages in media around the world.
This releases a counter expression via buy Danish campaigns, where the customers are encouraged to buy Danish goods to support Denmark in the conflict. A simple search on Google gives more than 100.000 “buy Danish” pages.”
With thanks to Kristina for the translation.
I wrote to the Department of Culture, Media & Sport (!) back on 10th January to nominate the CCTV camera as an ‘icon of England’… and they have just written back accepting the nomination.
Interesting.
Muslim Action Committee are calling for changes to the law in Britain to implement an aspect of sharia law and they want the British state to do it for them. What they want is to legally ban people from displaying pictures of Mohammed, the seventh century warlord who founded their religion, because it annoys them. Never mind that showing images of this historical figure does not threaten them with violence or prevent their exercise of religion, they want to make it illegal to annoy them.
They are planning to stage a protest march in London on 18 February, expecting to attract 20,000 to 50,000 people. I hope the number is considerably larger because I am sure as hell going to be there expressing my views as well.
If they get their way, we will undoubtedly be prosecuted as Samizdata’s response to this islamo-fascist proposal will be a “Mohammed Picture of the Day”, each day and every day until hell freezes over or we run out of server space. Intolerant Islam does not like being annoyed? Well guys, you ain’t seen nothing yet, I promise you that. Our Dutch friends at The Amazing Retecool are a fairly good place to start for interesting interpretations of Mohammed’s image.
If this ever becomes law and I personally get dragged into court over what Samizdata will most certainly do, rest assured that as we are hosted in the USA we will remain on-line and ‘expressive’ regardless, even if I have to ‘host’ myself in the USA a few years earlier that I expected. So to all your intolerant Islamic fascists out there who think it is within your power to silence all the voices you dislike, with all due respect (i.e. none), you are very much mistaken.
Those who have felt left out by the various cartoon demonstrations recently, and fancy getting out on the streets in support of something they care about have a chance on Monday lunchtime. In my capacity as General Secretary of NO2ID, may I extend an open invitation:
NO2ID and Liberty will be holding an emergency lobby of Parliament on 13th February 2006, when the Identity Cards Bill returns to the Commons for consideration of Lords’ amendments. Mr Blair will be wielding the whip for MPs to assent to the nationalisation of the people with as little fuss as possible.
The lobby will take place from 12 noon until 1:00pm on the sundial in Old Palace Yard. This is opposite the St Stephen’s Gate entrance to the Houses of Parliament. [Location marked ‘H’ on this map (pdf)]
This will be your last chance to make a visible protest against the Bill before it goes into the final stages of negotiation between the two houses. And for Samizdata people, it is a rare chance to make common cause with a true rainbow coalition – the fabulous collective of security professionals and technologists, business-people and anti-capitalists, spooks and mooks, great and good, lefties, ultra-lefties, Greens, red-greens, nationalists, internationalists, peaceniks, Old Labourites, New Tories, LibDems, Europhiles, Euroskeptics, Muslims, evangelical Christians, not-so-evangelical Christians, outright pagans, constitutional wonks, geeks, babes, and Trots that are backing the NO2ID campaign.
As always, we shall be laying on some props, but please do bring your own (death-threat-free) banners and placards – the bigger and clearer the better.
To get an idea of numbers, for our own comfort and the helpeful people from Charing Cross police station. we’d appreciate a note to events@no2id.net to let us know if you’re intending to come, though it is not obligatory.
End of commercial. Here’s the musical version.
I have always had a particularly soft intellectual spot for David Friedman, the economist, for it was he who wrote the first book I ever read which seemed really to describe for me how I wanted to think about the world. It is called The Machinery of Freedom. (David Friedman has a father, called Milton, who also dabbles in economics.) And I now like David Friedman’s blog, which he calls simply Ideas.
However, I do not always agree with David Friedman. Here are some recent thoughts of his:
Finding presents for friends and relatives is often a problem, made harder by the economist’s puzzle of why one should give presents instead of giving cash and letting the recipient, better informed about his own preferences, decide how to spend it. A possible answer is that although I know less about the recipient, I know more about the gift. Acting on that principle, I occasionally pick a book that I and my wife particularly liked, buy a bunch of copies, and give them out as Christmas presents.
What giving money and giving the same book to several different friends have in common as present giving strategies is that they both exhibit an unwillingness to think about the individual desires of the person receiving the gift. “It’s the thought that counts” is no empty slogan. And the particular thought that matters is: “What particular kind of person is he, and what might he really like?”
In one of my very favourite movies, The Apartment, the Shirley MacLaine character’s rich and uncaring married man lover, chillingly played by Fred MacMurray, gives Shirley MacLaine a twenty dollar bill as a Christmas present. He does not even put in a pretty envelope. He just gets it out of his wallet and hands it over. Soon after that, she dumps him, and quite right too. Why? Because this moment proved that he did not care enough about her to give any thought, before meeting with her, to getting her a real present, of the sort that she would like, and which would show that he had thought about what she would like. He simply hadn’t been thinking about her.
Were I one of David Friedman’s friends and I got the same book last Christmas from him that several of his other friends had also got, I would feel ever so slightly slighted, and for the same reason. “He has thought about his own opinions, but he has not thought about mine.” (A copy of The Machinery of Freedom with a carefully composed and hand-written message inside the front cover would be another matter entirely.)
Blog postings, however, are different. Those, like Christmas presents, also come free of charge to the receiver. Yet I do not feel in any way slighted because a blogger has failed to craft an individual thought entirely for me, but has instead given the same thought away to all his readers. On the contrary, incoming emails full of individual thoughts, just for me, can be rather scary, because, like Christmas presents, they can imply an obligation to reciprocate, also individually, which may be unwelcome.
However, notice that a similar principle applies, and in a good way, to blog postings with which one happens to disagree, by thoughtful people like David Friedman, as applies to Christmas presents. A present that shows that the giver has done some thinking is welcome, even if one already has that CD or that book, or happens not to like that kind of chocolate. The “wrong” thing is still right, because it’s the thought that counts. I feel the same way about David Friedman’s occasional wrong (as I think) thoughts in his blog. These mistakes, if mistakes they be, show that he is at least always thinking. Far better lots of thinking, and the occasional consequent disagreement between me and him, than no thinking, and a mere string of truisms.
As the years pass, I am finding the term ‘terrorist’ grating more and more on my sensibilities. While this word might still be useful in some contexts, it has been so abused, mis-applied, mis and over-used that we should mostly just drop it.
As a starter, we are not fighting a war on terrorism. I repeat. We are not fighting a war on terrorism. Yes, that is what I said. There is not and cannot be a ‘war’ on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. You do not fight wars on tactics; you use tactics in wars. You fight wars against enemies.
We are not fighting ‘terrorists’ in Iraq and around the world. We are fighting and killing enemies of our nations and our way of life. ‘Enemy’ is a good, descriptive and lately underutilized word. It says just what we should mean. An enemy is the guy on the other side who wants to kill you. He is the guy you want to kill first. His use of certain tactics might make you wish his demise all the more, but that is not why you are fighting him. You are fighting him to prevent him from achieving his victory conditions.
When you confound tactics with goals and opponents, you leave yourself wide open to rhetorical traps. Is it a terrorist act if our enemy blows up an Abrams tank with an IED? Was it a terrorist act when we blew up German Tiger tanks in WWII? Of course not. A mine is a weapon. Blowing up material and killing members of the opposition is how you wage war. IED’s are part of a tactic which almost any of us would use if we were in a conflict and in a similar position.
Does that statement bother you? If it does, I would ask, “Why?” The enemy in Iraq uses IED’s. We are not trying to kill them because they use IED’s. An IED is a home-made land-mine. We are out to kill them because they are the enemy and because we are right and they are wrong. The enemy firmly believes they are right: if they did not they would not be dying for their cause. Because of their belief they will apply whatever tools and ideas and strengths they have to killing us. We have the luxury of overwhelming force that allows us the rare in historical annals additional luxury of decrying the use of some tactics. If the idea of making a value judgement in favour of your own beliefs worries you, it is your problem, not mine.
So let us just get on with crushing the enemy.
|
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.
|
