As we like to remind you every 5th of November, Guy Fawkes was the only man to ever enter Parliament with honest intentions…
|
|||||
|
If only we had a Samizdata Freedom-Fighter Award then I would resoundingly nominate this man:
And, while we are about it, perhaps we should have a ‘Posturing Political Prat Award’ as well. [P.S. For our US readers, ‘two fingers’ is the British version of ‘flipping the bird’ and a time-honoured gesture of defiance.] November 5th, 2007 | 24 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Well, actually, no. For their information. You have been warned, however. Statewatch notes:
You recall that famous passage from The Wealth of Nations?
It applies with even greater force when the ‘people of the same trade’ are states and their governments. November 5th, 2007 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
Good luck, Mr Dodge. Andrew’s recent diagnosis has reminded me – I am 41 – to get a health check done once a year and catch these gremlins early (I have been remarkably lucky with my health, but no point in taking it for granted). What a way to mark Guy Fawke’s night. November 5th, 2007 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
Exciting news for British schoolchildren. Early leavers ‘will not be jailed’ (PA). Except of course they will be under control orders, in effect; incarcerated and enslaved part-time. “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance,” ran the old slogan. This policy is pretty clear evidence that what’s offerred to many in the state school system is not education. If you have to force people to take something, then it is not plausiible that it is of use to them. There is no problem selling education and training to those who want it. Even very poor parents in London often find money for extra lessons or private day-schooling on top of the taxes they pay to imprison other people’s children. The prison function of the system reduces its value to others. Put aside for the moment whether it should be paid for from taxes or not. How much more cost-effective would state education be if it were voluntary, and the classes were full of eager participants and even the grumpiest teenagers present were those whose parents or peers had persuaded them it was worthwhile? How much better would the curriculum be if it had to attract an audience by being interesting or useful, rather than prescribed by bureaucrats? How much better would teachers feel about their work if it didn’t include the roles of commissar, bureaucrat and gaoler?
Since if you are at school you are barred from employment without the permission of the authorities, I imagine they will pay the fines with the proceeds of robbery and prostitution. Well done, Balls! November 5th, 2007 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
Patrick Crozier and I have taken to meeting up on Monday evenings to have recorded conversations. How long we’ll do this is anyone’s bet, and how many people listen to these conversations apart from us I have no idea… though perhaps Patrick knows? But a good time is had by us, and the mere possibility that others may be listening tightens up our conversation and makes it a lot more satisfying than if we merely chatted in complete privacy. This coming Monday, we will be talking about World War I: how it was fought, and why it was fought. This has long been an interest of Patrick’s, particularly the how bit. He thinks, or so I expect him to be saying, that Britain’s military commanders have been criticised too much. As for me, it is my (unclear) understanding that for all its exaggerations, the Blackadder version of WW1 is basically correct. The end did not justify the means. The prize was not worth the price. Germany was temporarily subdued, but at a cost in blood and subsequent political mayhem that was out of all proportion to any good that was achieved. But is that true? In particular (Patrick and me both being Brits) what might been the outcome of this war if it had still proceeded, but if Britain had sat it out, either by not forming a special relationship between Britain and France, or by not sticking to that deal in August 1914? What if Britain had left Germany to do its worst? Presumably the argument of Britain’s WW1 warriors was that sooner or later there would have been some kind of military reckoning between Germany and Britain, involving interests that all Brits (including me) would have regarded as vital, and that the longer such a confrontation was delayed the worse it would be for Britain. But is that right? Comments about all these and related questions would be greatly appreciated. Last week, Patrick and I talked about Northern Ireland, and the comments on this Samizdata posting proved very useful in suggesting various reasons why peace has broken out there, if peace it proves to be. Maybe something similar may happen again. November 5th, 2007 | 77 comments - (Comments are closed)
About 120 years ago, Mme. Cadolle figured out that it made more sense for women’s breasts to be suspended from above than cantilevered from beneath. That is, she invented bra straps. So instead of walking around wearing the lingerie equivalent of the London Bridge, women could slide themselves into a Golden Gate. This was a huge relief – as anyone who has worn a strapless bra can tell you – because the London Bridge pretty much always falls down. – Belinda Luscombe in the course of asking Warren Buffet for better fitting bras – spotted by Amit Varma November 4th, 2007 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
A big hello to any fellow fans of the late Robert A Heinlein enjoying a lazy, low pressure Sunday afternoon. Jim Miller, commenting on a book review by Nisi Shawl, is about to end all that. November 4th, 2007 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
There is a direct connection between this:
… and this:
The answer to the problem of gangsters terrorising unarmed populations is, and I know there are many who genuinely think that this is a cure worse than the disease (hence all the benign support for this malign UN repression): let the populations be armed. November 4th, 2007 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
I have a theory about gadgets, which is that we all get fixated on a particular type of gadget, on account of the particular sort of life we lead, or were leading when the fixation struck. I now live a very settled life, so, although I love my favourite sort of music considerably more than life itself, the iPod now holds no appeal for me. When on the move I prefer to read books. But when I first got bitten by the computing bug (which rapidly became the computing necessity), I lived a very unsettled life, and I thus became fixated on the idea of a really good, but really portable, computer. My first computer was an Osborne, which I could just about shift from one work surface to another, or move from one house to another, every few months. But, not surprisingly, I yearned for something lighter. Much lighter. Laptops as currently understood have never enthralled me. Too expensive to take everywhere, and risk losing, to accident, forgetfulness or thievery. And still too big and heavy for my feeble arms. So it is that I have been tracking the Eee PC, ever since they first announced that they were working away at it to the point where they would be able to announce it for real, with things like specs, a price, and somewhere you could actually go and buy it. The trouble with all ultra-portable computers up until now is that the smaller they have been, the more expensive they have been. What I have always wanted is a proper computer small enough to fit into a big pocket – and by the way why don’t they make pockets bigger? – yet cheap enough to be purchasable out of semi-petty cash, and hence, at a pinch, if someone does pinch it, or if I drop it or something, I can just about afford to buy another without severe financial meltdown. So anyway, the news now is that I am apparently not the only one on this planet thinking like this. The Eee PC is about to become a runaway hit:
There’s nothing as cheap as a hit, and when you have a hit, make ’em queue round the block. Bloggers groaning? My oh my. But yes, me too. However, I will not be buying an Eee PC until I can physically handle one, either owned by a friend or in a shop. Or, you know, maybe I’ll meet a stranger with one and ask to have a go on it. I hope the keyboard is very small, so that it is. I have very small hands, and you know what that means. Finally, this may be of some advantage to me. November 3rd, 2007 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is like a compass-that-faces-south… always wrong but useful nevertheless because as long as he is dependably wrong, he can still be used when plotting a course. His latest pearl of wisdom is the solution to reducing the numbers of children acting irresponsibly by engaging in violent crimes: Stop holding them responsible. His logic is hard to fault. If you deem than a child cannot be responsible for their actions, clearly they cannot therefore be irresponsible… voila… less children acting irresponsibly. In fact by definition no children can be said to have acted irresponsibly because the very notion of judging responsibility is disallowed. In a political and law-enforcement culture in which ‘that which is not measured never happened’, I can see the attraction of this approach. But then again Britain’s welfare state treats everyone regardless of their age like an irresponsible child, incapable or unwilling to look to their own pensions, medical care, etc. etc, so perhaps there is a bigger meme at work here.
… the Archbishop says, and then promptly weakens the seriousness of what they do by suggesting a child can cause the death of someone and get away with it, whereas an older person cannot. So how is that not weakening the seriousness of what the child has done? Also I am curious, how is taking away responsibility going to encourage more responsibility? Perhaps the following is what the Plod will be told to do:
Oh, and mothers too, they also should not be held responsible for some reason. It is all down to too many bad movies and Britain’s ‘gun culture’, whatever the fuck that means in a country which probably has less civilian guns in total than almost any single US state other than the very smallest ones. I wonder of God’s Idiot would describe a nation without much in the way of musicians or musical instruments as having a ‘musical culture’? However would we manage without the Church of England to guide us, eh? November 3rd, 2007 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
Most people in the UK, and many abroad, are familiar with the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian who was shot dead by Metropolitan police as a suspected suicide bomber on 22nd July, 2005. The latest in this saga is that the shooting was ruled a breach health and safety laws. Well, okay, I am fairly sure that Jean Charles de Menezes would have felt his health and safety were not well served by the people who shot him dead. But surely coming to that conclusion cannot have taken more than two years of deliberation. The Met screwed up big time and killed an innocent man in a horrific way, that was clear fairly soon after the event. But at the risk of seeming heartless, mistakes happen. I am not saying the Met should not be raked over the coals for this horrendous error (indeed they should be), but one can still take the view that the principle of shooting dead suicide bombers who are in public places is still a rather good one, just so long as the people doing the shooting have a bloody good reason to think the people they shoot are indeed suicide bombers. That is not a casual qualification of principle… if the decision-making processes used by the Met to make such calls is always likely to be as defective as it demonstrably was on 22nd July, 2005, then we need to be convinced that this is no longer the case if we are to ever trust the police to make that sort of decision again. But that is a fairly straightforward managerial question… it seems to me that the real issue that needs to be settled is not ‘did the police screw up’ (clearly they did) but rather was the police’s response to its dreadful mistake criminal? We were fed a stream of completely baseless lies in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Jean Charles de Menezes looked middle eastern (he did not), he was wearing an unseasonable padded coat that could have hidden a bomb (he was not), we was running towards the train (he was not), he ran when challenged by armed police (he did not), he jumped over the turnstile (in fact he used his god damned travel card)… The CCTV footage? It was not turned on. And then it was but it did not record. And then it cannot be found. Lie after lie after lie. The real questions which need to be answered are not “were the health and safety laws violated?”… An innocent man was shot in the head seven times by the police for Christ’s sake! Of course it was a mistake, no one thinks the police intentionally shot the wrong man just for the hell of it. The question is, why are the people who then tried to cover it up not looking AT THE VERY LEAST at the end of their careers and more reasonably, prosecution for conspiring to pervert the course of justice? What were the names of the people behind each of those falsehoods? Presumably the people who said those things are still working for the Met. Otherwise what? Did journalists just invent those claims? I would really like to know. I have watched the coverage waiting for these things to be asked and not seen anything along those lines. Instead, we hear about ‘health and safety laws’. Amazing. Mistakes happen and that is tragic. But if the police (who exactly?) then try to cover that fact up, lethal mistakes will continue to happen, which is a catastrophe. That is the real issue. November 2nd, 2007 | 35 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. |
|||||