The British National Party is selling wine on its website. Wine? Sounds more the kind of thing a French neo-nazi would drink. That’s lost my vote, I’m afraid. An English fascist should be drinking hogsheads of mead, or I’ll simply refuse to take him seriously. A nazi who drinks Chardonnay is not a nazi in whom one can have complete confidence.
|
|||||
|
August 17th, 2006 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Having recently become a struggling podcaster myself, I have been paying a lot more attention than I otherwise would to podcasters who sound like they have got past the struggling stage. And of all the podcasts I have heard, the one that has impressed me most in recent weeks has been this one, in which Russell Roberts interviews Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. At Cafe Hayek, where I first learned about it, Roberts describes this podcast thus:
And at EconTalk, Roberts writes:
King Leopold II of Belgium is a particularly revealing example. August 16th, 2006 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
I have never been to the Edinburgh Festival, which has been, over the years, a launchpad for standup comedians and musicians such as Denis Leary. James Glassman, who went to the event this year, observes that Jew-bashing and “gags” about the Holocaust is going down a storm. Quite what that says about the organisers and the clientele, heaven only knows. Being an ardent defender of free speech, Glassman rightly points out that the way to deal with jerks like the “comedian” mentioned its contempt. I hope a fair amount of contempt is indeed delivered. August 16th, 2006 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
Western Australian Royal Automotive Club (RAC) representative Mike Upton on today’s news that quotes for a Liquid Petroleum Gas conversion in passenger vehicles had jumped markedly from A$2500 to up to $4850 in response to the federal and state governments’ combined $3000 subsidy on the purchase and installation of such equipment. August 16th, 2006 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
Earlier this week I flew into London Heathrow from Athens, having been subjected to a relatively modest amount of incovenience, expense and humiliation as a result of the latest anti-terrorist security measures. Had I been travelling in the opposite direction (i.e. London to Athens), the story would have been altogether different and my trifling miseries compounded by several magnitudes. I truly sympathised with the weary, frustrated wannabe-outbound travellers who were camped on the floor of the terminal going nowhere, thanks to numerous cancelled flights, huge delays and a blanket of zealous security measures aimed at stripping them down to their socks. I wonder if any of those people have been sullied by the experience? I wonder if any of the magic and wonder of modern civilian airline travel has been marred for them? I hope not, but what is certain is that the hidden costs of this latest air-travel crisis, in terms of time, money and lost opportunities, must be huge. Air travel is no longer the preserve of the privileged few; it is a vast mass industry that bestows incalculable economic, social, cultural and even spiritual benefits on us all. And yet, it is all too easily assailable because no amount of security or scrutiny can obviate the basic fact that a pressurised, inescapable metal tube flying some 30,000 feet up in the sky is, and always will be, critically vulnerable to attack from either without or within, the results of which are simply to horrible to be shrugged off. Tougher security measures can make life harder for the Islamists but the fact remains that the security screeners need to be lucky all the time while the jihadis only need to be lucky once. That is why, over a longer time frame, the odds favour the latter. Perhaps that is why the tune has changed. Following the London Undergound bombings in July 2005, there was an instant and comprehensive demand for solidarity. ‘One London’ read the official blazen of the Mayor’s office. ‘We will not allow these terrorists to divide us’ proclaimed HMG. From one end of the country to the other, hands were held, memorials were wept through and communities appealed to for calmness and reason. Everyone who was anyone rushed headlong towards the Totem of Tolerance and hugged it hard enough to squeeze out the sap. In contrast, the airline scares have been just that; scares. Not a single bomb has exploded and (mercifully) not a a soul was taken. Yet the response could not be more different. This time, the message emerging from some official quarters is that it is time for profiling, a measure the mere utterance of which would have been unthinkable a year ago in the wake of 52 dead commuters. Why the difference now? Perhaps it is just the cumulative weariness of one bloody thing following the next and a government that is rapidly running out of other ideas. Or perhaps it is because there is a dawning collective realisation that it will not take too much more of this to bring the whole wonderful, liberating phenomenon of commercial air travel to a juddering and insensible end. It seems that taboos can be easily dispensed with the moment they are no longer affordable. Of course, the threat of profiling has precipitated a chorus of disapproval but, significantly, only from the usual and expected circles. I would wager that those exhausted travellers, stranded in blankets on the unforgiving stone floor of Heathrow’s Terminal 2, would noisily and heartily approve. August 16th, 2006 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
Anyone care to put some their predicted over/under for the Hez/Israeli truce on the record? Personally, I think I will go with six days. Hez has already announced its intention to violate the ceasefire by refusing to disarm. I find it interesting that Hez and the Lebanese government are already conspiring to violate the requirement that Hez disarm, as apparently all Hez will be required to do is refrain from displaying its weapons (with, of course, the knowledge and tacit consent of the French and the UN responsible for policing the cease-fire). The longer this goes on, the more it is apparent that the Lebanese government is the creature of Hez, and the more justified the Israeli attacks on non-Hez assets appear to be. While I was willing to view the Lebanese generally as victims of Hez in July, by mid-August they look a lot more like co-conspirators. With the fundamental condition of the ceasefire – the eviction and disarmament of Hez – already withering on the vine, I would say that Olmert blinked, gave Hez not only the hudna it needed to survive but a strategic victory over Israeli arms, and has guaranteed that the Israeli soldiers who died in this offensive died for nothing. August 15th, 2006 | 22 comments - (Comments are closed)
The latest bloggage from Michael Totten is something a bit different than his previous two offerings. It is about what it is like to be in a war zone for the first time and it brought back some strangely similar echos for me from when I first visited a war zone in 1991… war does indeed warp the mind a little. Check it out. August 15th, 2006 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
A while ago I briefly referred to a book by Simon Winder about Britain in the decades immediately following the Second World War. The book takes the idiosyncratic approach of looking at post-war Britain through the prism of Ian Fleming’s James Bond adventures. I cursorily flicked through the pages and it appeared to be an amusing and quite cleverly-done piece of work. Winder seems to have added something fresh to what is already a crowded cottage history of Bond studies. Winder’s book, at first glance, looked like a zany and rather affectionate recollection of what it was like to grow up as a young English middle class boy in the era of Meccano toys, WW2 comics and James Bond film premieres.I can identify with some of Winder’s own upbringing and views. So I bought the book and sat down to read it to pass away a few hours. What I read was in fact rather different, more serious and more annoying than what I had expected. Winder makes a lot of astute points about post-war British history but a lot of his book is spoiled by an insistent, splenetic hatred of the English upper classes and Britain’s colonial history. He is determined to lay it on a bit thick, in the manner of a rather earnest sixth-former trying to creep up to his leftwing history master. In fairness, he does grasp how Britain, victorious in the war but materially and financially shattered, rapidly lost its global position, overtaken not just by the already-mighty USA but also by France, West Germany and Japan. While Konrad Adenauer was helping to turn the devastated western half of Germany into an economic dynamo – with a little help from Hayek-influenced economics minister Ludwig Erhard – Britain built its ‘New Jerusalem’ of a welfare state, nationalised industries, crushingly-high income taxes, currency controls and a still-heavy military spending burden. Winder gives an easy pass to the Labour government after 1945 and is savage to the Tories under the elderly Churchill and his deputy, Anthony Eden. For Winder, the Tories are a bunch of old pin-stripped duffers more used to shooting grouse in the Scottish highlands than wrestling with Britain’s supposedly rightful position as a meek European power. His attacks on the Tories seem to be more about their accents and backgrounds than on what they actually did or did not, do. He misses the chance to make what I think is the really serious charge against the Tories of the time, as made for example by historian Andrew Roberts in Eminent Churchillians: these men failed to even make the slightest dent in the Attlee socialist creation. They accepted, for example, the trade union legal privileges and regulations that helped pave the way for the economic near-collapse in the 1970s and early 1980s. It is a harsh charge, but Winder does not make it as it would not, I think, occur to him to do so if my judgement of his political views is accurate. → Continue reading: An entertaining but infuriating book about British post-war history August 15th, 2006 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
And now for a story of a nature rarely seen in the pages of Samizdata – that of government policy incompetence resulting in farce. As in the rest of the world, we Australians are starting to rankle about paying the high petrol prices experienced at present. Politicians of all stripes sense votes in this issue, and they are right to do so – I am certain the average Australian firmly believes the government should Do Something about this added financial impost. Consequently, the Australian federal government has announced that it will Do Something About It by spending other peoples’ money. That should come as no surprise to those that watch governments with a w(e)ary eye, however this latest brain fart from the sages in Canberra – to subsidise Australian motorists if they convert their petrol powered cars to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) – is more egregiously stupid and counterproductive than most, and deserves attention. First, some background. LPG is widely available in Australian cities. All of the larger fuel stations sell it. LPG’s price is usually slightly less than half that of conventional unleaded petrol. I estimate that somewhere between 5-10% of cars have conversions enabling them to run on gas. A conversion kit, fitted, costs about A$2500. The federal government subsidy is worth up to A$2000 per conversion. There are a number of fairly simple and certain predictions one can make from such a proposal, given the circumstances outlined above. Firstly, the cost of vehicle conversion will soar due to the massive increase in demand(1). No matter – the increased investment will soon be recouped through fuel savings. That is the whole point of the subsidy; alleviate the political headache of high fuel prices by getting Australians to switch from expensive petrol to cheap LPG. Of course, all things are static – especially prices. Back in the unfortunate realm of reality, it is quite obvious that a return on the conversion investment is unlikely to be realised, because the price of LPG will also be a victim of incrementally increasing demand, as more and more gas-powered cars hit the road. The price of petrol may fall slightly, though oil (and thus petrol) is a global commodity with a more-or-less uniform price. Naturally, producers will sell their fuel in a market that provides the optimum return. Thus, supply will fall in concert with the slump in demand, leaving prices largely unchanged. And another factor to be considered by those who are thinking about taking up the government’s ostensibly generous offer – petrol excise is a major revenue earner for the Commonwealth. If this starts to dry up, lightly-taxed and increasingly-used LPG is going to look like quite an attractive target for the Treasury boys, narrowing the price gap further. The two fuels will probably reach price parity at some not-too-distant point; that is, the price of LPG will rise to meet that of petrol. Simply put, this subsidy will achieve none of its stated aims, create a bunch of unintended negative consequences and is a most elementary economic blunder. The lesson – and it should be well understood by a government that trumpets its sound economic management at any opportunity – is that subsidies do far more harm than good. The big winners will be gas conversion component manufacturers and those installing this equipment. Gas suppliers also stand to benefit. The losers will be the broad pool of taxpayers (again) and those who have invested in a gas conversion kit in the vain hope of cheaper vehicle running costs. What a marvellous outcome. LPG-powered cars do, however, emit far lower levels of greenhouse pollutants than their petrol-powered counterparts. A nation of gas-powered cars may help Australia achieve its assigned Kyoto targets. We sensibly refrained from taking on that ball and chain, however we may as well sign the bloody treaty now – our adherence to it might be the only thing we have to show from the colossal waste of taxpayers’ money that is about to take place. August 15th, 2006 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
The panic ban on books and electronic gadgetry aboard transatlantic airliners throws into relief our terror at being deprived of the means to insulate ourselves from other people. The shock of losing our personal entertainment bubbles should give us pause for thought, and make us wonder if there is a better way of enduring the enforced collectivism of a long-haul flight. Five hundred people is more individuals than most of us can hope to know intimately in a lifetime. It is the population of a small village. If a packed Jumbo is a community, then aisles are village streets. All right, they are a bit narrow for a full-fledged passeggiata, but there is no reason we should not loiter, chew the fat, shoot the breeze – indulge in those unhurried activities that are so out of kilter with the rush of modern life. With a little lateral thinking the jet airliner, the destroyer of worlds, could be the means of regenerating some homely values. If you do not like the idea of talking to your neighbour, and in the absence of printed matter, why not get a tattoo to entertain him or her? Depending on your physique you might be limited to a short story or a few haikus, but less – in terms of skin and stanzas – has always been more. Airport novels are not thousand-pagers out of literary necessity. Or have a random word inscribed on your skin: from an authorised British Airways or United Airlines list, of course. Stewards could ask us our syntactical preference as we get on board, and arrange seating in a narrative way. Even with a 500-word vocabulary there would be the chance of dramatic developments as a YES fell into company with a PLEASE, or failed to see eye to eye with the MAYBE two rows back. We should start thinking about this stuff. The War on Terror is here to stay, and it is only a matter of time before they take things to their logical conclusion and ban us from carrying anything at all onto aircraft beyond ourselves. And would that really be so bad? It is often observed that a series of power cuts in a developed nation precedes a spike in the birth rate nine months later. A planeload of naked adults flying through the night: surely they could all find something to do! August 15th, 2006 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
I’m sorry to say that the latest on carrying hand-baggage on flights to/from Britain is that violins appear to be a no-no. – Jessica Duchen writing today about the difficulties now being faced by itinerant classical musicians August 15th, 2006 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
It seems clear that Hezbollah has, through the inexplicable Israeli unwillingness to commit to a robust ground attack, emerged battered but undefeated and thus as defined by Israel’s own stated war aims, the winner. It did this simply by surviving and by not being pushed north of the Litani river. Although not all the detailed reports on the fighting on the ground have yet become public, one thing seems quite clear: the reason Israel did not destroy their enemy was not Hezbollah’s Kornet and Konkurs anti-tank missiles or their RPG-29s, but was due to the fact Israel did not deploy sufficient ground forces and commit to a full scale attack on Hezbollah until two days before the ceasefire. If Israel had been serious about destroying Hezbollah, it would have attacked at corps level by the end of the first week of the campaign, using 30,000 troops to make a tank supported infantry assault with airmobile blocking forces to isolate and exterminate the enemy. Two weeks of that would have been more than enough to have reduced Hezbollah to a small shattered cadre of dazed activists north of the Litani river. But that is not what happened. As far as I can figure all that Israel committed to until the very last spasm of the campaign was a series of armour and artillery heavy limited objective raids which seem to have been mounted to blast settlements used by Hezbollah rather than to actually isolate and then clear them with infantry. I cannot fathom what ‘end state’ the planners envisaged from these attacks, given that it is a military aphorism that rubble is easier to defend than an intact town. It will be more than many will be able to bring themselves to admit but when you get past the spin, Hezbollah won and they did so because Israel fought what was by local standards a long war without any plan I can identify to actually achieve what they said they wanted. So if the IDF bombarded Lebanon not to choke off Hezbollah’s logistics as part of a battle of annihilation, then why was the Lebanese transportation system trashed? Even if some delusional idiot in the IAF thought Hezbollah could be destroyed purely from the air, in that case surely all the IDF would have done was nothing but hammer tactical targets in the south rather than cripple the Lebanese infrastructure and economy to no good purpose. Even the wider pain inflicted on Lebanon might have been worth it if Hezbollah had been so reduced militarily that their ability to poison Lebanese politics was greatly reduced, but quite the contrary has now been achieved. I can only hope I am very wrong but with Hezbollah both largely intact and politically enhanced, the prospect for a secular liberal Lebanon and a Lebanese state with the strength to contain Hezbollah’s militia are now more distant than ever. It seems to me that Israel lost this war because Israel never had a coherent plan and thus I cannot escape the conclusion that the people in charge seem to have forgotten the basic principles of how to fight a war. To be honest I am astounded that I find myself writing these words about Israel of all people. I predict that once Israelis have some time to mull this over, the government will fall and fall hard. August 15th, 2006 | 47 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. |
|||||