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]
|
I have always had a soft spot for Camille Paglia. I am not sure how much I agree with her (on a number of issues, not at all), but I always find her entertaining and stimulating. You do not often find lefty gender academics with a taste for guns and (American) football.
Her last bout as a columnist for Salon came to an end several years ago when she took time off to write a book, but she is back, and as acerbic and idiosyncratic as ever. A few tidbits:
On Hillary Clinton:
Does Hillary Clinton have a stable or coherent sense of self? Or is everything factitious, mimed and scripted (like her flipping butch and femme masks) for expediency?
On capitalism and leftism:
Last year, Global Exchange, a San Francisco human rights group, pressured Hershey to disclose the sources of its cocoa beans and to take further steps to ensure proper working conditions.
This kind of outreach to expose and remedy injustice represents the finest spirit of leftism, a practical, compassionate activism – not the pretentious postmodernist jargon and sanctimonious attitudinizing that still pass for leftism among too many college faculty. Capitalism, which spawned modern individualism as well as the emancipated woman who can support herself, is essentially Darwinian. It expands any society’s sum total of wealth and radically raises the standard of living, but it leaves the poor and weak without a safety net. Capitalism needs the ethical counter-voice of leftism to keep it honest. But leftists must be honest in turn about what we owe to capitalism – without which Western women would have no professional jobs to go to but would be stuck doing laundry by hand and stooping over pots on the hearth fire all day long.
Prickly and provoking, its good to have her back.
Enjoying a bit of time off work this afternoon, sitting outside on my back terrace in deepest Pimlico (oh, the wonders of wireless!), I decided to stop bothering about the patronising berk who leads the Tories and came across this story:
NASA’s Cassini spacecraft has found evidence of huge seas — one of them bigger than any of North America’s Great Lakes — on Saturn’s largest moon, scientists said on Tuesday.
Big seas? I wonder if yachting or swiming on the beach is possible?
Scientists studying the images taken by the probe, which blasted off a decade ago, said the seas on Titan were likely filled with liquid methane or ethane and that the discovery reinforced previous theories.
All that liquid methane – do they have cows on that planet?
Seriously, the material being discovered by these probes is astonishing. At a time when our horizons appear to be shrinking in a fear-mongering political climate, it is nice to remember that some organisations, even state ones like NASA, are making discoveries like this. I guess a libertarian purist might object to the NASA funding model, but I am sure privately-funded ventures could pull this sort of thing off, if not in quite the same scale initially.
In having another bite at the Green issue, one thing struck me as I surfed around the Net looking at some of the comments made by people about the idea of the Tories’ trying to stop people from flying to holiday and business destinations. Some people genuinely seem to feel that a crackdown on global warming, and hence a halt to rising sea levels, is good for the poor. So we capitalist zealots should stop trying to argue that Tory leader David Cameron or Labour’s Tony Blair are acting out of snobbish disdain for Essex Man and the latter’s desire to go to Malaga for a cheap holiday. Oh no.
I guess it is true that if sea levels do rise as much as the gloomier scientists suggest, and the Earth gets progressively hotter, that poor people will suffer disproportionately from that. Air conditioning costs money. Buying a home away from a flood plain also costs money. I recall that about 3 years ago, hundreds, in fact thousands of French elderly people died because all the pharmacies were shut for the August holidays and they could not get treatment. That is what poverty does – it cuts your optiions and means of escape from trouble. So maybe David Cameron is acting out of paternalistic concern for the poor — in the future.
And that is the kicker. Even if global warming is man-made and can be reversed, the benefits of such an expensive exercise will not come through for decades, centuries, or even longer. How can the interests of a guy who cannot afford an expensive flight be set against the interests of someone living in 2300? Why should a politician, answerable to an electorate, sacrifice or ask to sacrifice its interests for the interests of people in such a long time to come, and over a theory or set of theories that are, at best, not proven to the standards of a court of law?
We have been beastly to Cameron and his ilk on this site lately, and with ample justification. If Cameron wants to explain quite why the ordinary citizen should be shafted, yet again, by some grand project to make the world a better place in centuries to come, let him make that case.
Meanwhile, my boss, not the most excitable of men, said, in a quite unsolicited moment of rage this morning, that Cameron was a “communist”. He is not even a rightwing Tory voter. I wonder if this view is starting to spread.
Tomorrow is national No Smoking Day. Whoopeeeeeeee!!!!
I shall mark the occasion by puffing my way through at least one pack of my favourite Belgian cigarettes (not contributing to the cavernous coffers of HM Treasury makes the experience so much more enjoyable) while blowing great, billowing clouds of grey, acrid, carcinogenic fumes into the air.
I shall consider quitting if and when we ever have a national No Nagging, Preaching, Hectoring, Finger-Wagging, Pecksniffing, Condescending, Nannying Or Sanctimonious Sermonising Just Bugger Off And Mind Your Own Fucking Business Day.
The ninth cricket World Cup commenced today, As I write this, the West Indies are playing Pakistan in Jamaica. Sixteen teams will play a total of 51 games between now and the final in Barbados on April 28. My recently neglected personal blog shall be turning into World Cup Central for the next seven week. I shall be blogging every match, and fellow Samizdatistas Scott Wickstein, Brian Micklethwait, Philip Chaston and Jonathan Pearce shall be joining me as guest bloggers for the duration of the tournament. As well as match commentary there shall be analysis of the teams, the format, the points system, the politics of the International Cricket Council, the cricketing cultures of the participating nations, and whatever else comes to mind. I did this also four years ago: people who are interested might want to look here (and scroll down). However, wheras four years ago there was a lot else on the blog as well, this time it is going to be mostly or entirely cricket.
However, a brief primer for the tournament.
- The World Cup is a one day cricket tournament. This form of the game was invented in the mid 1960s in England, and has been played internationally since 1971. The traditional form of the game is played over five days. Whereas in test cricket each team bats twice and there is no limit as to how long each can bat for (other than the time limit of the game), in one day cricket each team is allowed to bat for a maximum of 50 overs (300 balls) and is only allowed to bat once. This means that the game takes a total of seven hours playing time. One day games often start mid afternoon and are played (under lights) until about 10pm. Players in one day matches wear coloured uniforms and play with a whilte ball. Traditional test cricket is played with both teams wearing white and with a red ball. The more serious a cricket fan, the more he is likely to prefer traditional five day test cricket to one day cricket, particularly if he is Australian or English. Australians would probably rather win the Ashes than win the World Cup. (Australians certainly hate losing the Asehs more than losing the World Cup). On the other hand, if India win it will will be a huge event for more than a billion people. If India make the final, the entire Bollywood entertainment industry will decamp to Barbados in the hope that some of the glamour of the victory will rub of on them if India win the tournament. (This happened when India made the final in Johannesburg four years ago, but alas for them, India did not win).
- One day cricket in recent times has been dominated by batsmen, with scores of 300 or even 400 runs becoming more and more frequent. The conditions in the West Indies should suit the bowlers more than has recently been the case in Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. This means the strong batting sides (Australia, South Africa, India) make find themselves brought back to the pack by sides with canny bowling and clever tactics. This may favour sides such as New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and perhaps the West Indian hosts, none of who would not be favoured if the tournament was in South Africa. Conditions at times will also favour spin bowlers, which will make the tournament interesting, and may allow sides such as England and Sri Lanka to surprise a few of their opponents.
- There are 16 teams playing in this year’s tournament: West Indies; Pakistan; Australia; Sri Lanka; South Africa; England; New Zealand; India; Scotland; Canada; Kenya; Bermuda; Ireland; Zimbabwe; Netherlands; and Bangladesh. Only the first eight of these teams have an chance of winning the tournament. It is unimaginable that any of the other eight could win it. The tournament organisers know this, which is why the second round consists of eight teams and the first stage is relatively short. It is extremely unlikely that any of the second eight teams will make the second round. It is quite unlikely that any of the second eight teams will win a game against any of the first eight, although such events have occurred in previous tournaments. Previous World Cups have had formats in which the lesser nations have stayed in the tournament longer, and have had many one sided mismatches. However, there is very little between the eight first named sides. It would not be a huge surprise if any of the eight won the tournament. Going into the tournament, the World Cup seems one of the most open on record. This is completely unlike the last tournament, where Australia were obviously the best side from day one. (Their performance in winning eleven games straight in that tournament was awe inspiring, but it did not make for an exciting tournament
- At seven weeks and 51 games, the tournament seems endless. The two finalists will each play a total of eleven games. The reason for this is that television rights for the World Cup is the major source of income for the International Cricket Council, the sport’s governing body. The vast majoirty of other cricketing events make money for the sides participating and in particular the side that hosts them. When the ICC is making the money, they milk it for all it is worth.
- The World Cup has been played eight times before. Australia have won it three times (1987, 1999, and 2003), the West Indies twice (1975 and 1979), India (1983), Pakistan (1992) and Sri Lanka (1996) once each. The tournament has been hosted by England four times (1975, 1979, 1983, 1999), South Africa once (2003), India once (1987, with some games in Pakistan), Pakistan once (1996, with some games in India and Sri Lanka), and Australia once (with some games in New Zealand). No side has ever one the tournament at home, unless you count Sri Lanka in 1996. (They played all their important games away from home, so I personally do not). The tournament is being played in the West Indies for the first time.
- For team by team analysis, you have two choices. Either look below the fold, or head over to my blog. You will find the same in either case.
→ Continue reading: The cricket world cup: a primer and a brief plug
Thanks to my investigative reporting skills, I came across the following draft of the Conservative Party manifesto for the next General Election. It makes for fascinating reading:
“A Tory Party will be a Green government. Global warming, along with terrorism and capitalism, is the greatest threat to our lives. Today’s Tory Party has shed its outmoded addiction to markets, freedom and selfish individualism. Instead, we pledge to shut down industrial civilisation during the course of our first term of office, although we realise that this goal is an ambitious one. Flights will be banned, along with cars, buses, trains, central heating, electric power stations, ports, ferries, factories, foundaries, shipyards, computer stations, everything.
We do of course accept that this policy is a radical one. However, under the funky leadership of David Cameron, a man who has already been prepared for the big challenges of life by his career as an old Etonian and executive for Carlton Communications, we believe our policy of returning to a glorious pre-industrial age is one that is sure to capture the public’s imagination.
Vote Conservative.
Sounds like a real winner to me.
Some of the so-called faithful are shamefully unwilling to put up with just a teensy-weensy bit of discomfort for the sake of Gaia:
World-renowned polar explorers and educators, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, today suspended their historic expedition to the North Pole seven days in, citing severe safety concerns due to a combination of damaged gear, frostbite and extreme cold.
The goal of this year’s expedition has been to raise awareness among students and adults worldwide on the impact of global warming on the Arctic region.
Mind you, it could have been worse. If there was such a thing as global cooling they would have died from heatstroke.
Gordon Brown or David Cameron was alarmed at the possibility of their rival stealing a march in the first media fistfight between both camps. The two politicians needed to punch their green credentials at the public. Cameron’s nonsense on aircraft taxes was launched on Sunday to derision and environmentalist applause. An early headline that can be reversed if the public’s tolerance for more tax withers: a likely outcome under Brown.
How did the Chancellor respond, now that he has appropriated Bambi’s teeth prior to his seat? He promised to phase out old-style lightbulbs and subsidise home insulation:
The Chancellor promised that grants will be available to have every home insulated in the next 10 years.
He also wants to phase out wasteful old-fashioned lightbulbs by 2011 and remove ‘standby’ functions from TVs and DVD players that use electricity when left on.
The prudent Chancellor, ever unwasteful of political manure, was recycling spin from Europe and Australia.
Following measures recently adopted by the Australian government to scrap incandescent light bulbs from Australian homes within three years the Spring Summit on 9 March urged the Commission to “rapidly submit proposals” on:
* Energy savings from office and street lighting “to be adopted by 2008”, and;
* “incandescent lamps and other forms of lighting in private households by 2009”.
Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern was quoted by Reuters as saying: “We are very impressed by the Australians and before we came to the summit, we had already been in touch with them and looking at the issue.”
The old story of European projects repackaged for domestic consumption, as ignored by your mainstream media. The Chancellor was quite clear that his green policies were designed to set new regulations and taxes within a European framework, extending and affirming our regulatory state in verdant wrapping.
Jesus did not say, “I was hungry and you lobbied the government to tax others to feed me.” He said, “I was hungry and YOU fed me.”
– W. E. Messamore. Read the whole thing.
People will bet on anything these days.
My inestimable thanks to the commenter who linked to this exquisitely germane wiki in the comments section of my post below:
Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) were laws that regulated and reinforced social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures. They were an easy way to identify social rank and privilege, and were usually used for social discrimination. This frequently meant preventing commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats, and sometimes also to stigmatize disfavored groups. In the Late Middle Ages sumptuary laws were instated as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the up-and-coming bourgeoisie of medieval cities.
I was wrong about Cameron. He is not trying to drag us back into the 19th Century, he is making a bid for the 14th Century!! I suppose it may be to some advantage that we know exactly what is driving him and his ilk. Of even more advantage is to accept that the struggle for freedom, prosperity and progress is necessarily going to encompass some degree of class war.
Watching cricket is one of the best ways of avoiding working known to man
– Someone from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) is worried about the impact the Cricket World Cup will have on the economy.
|
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.
|
