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]

Samizdata quote of the day

The UK state sector is two large banks with a medium sized government attached.

John Redwood. Funny, but the UK government is not really medium-sized at all. This is still a big country on most measures. And the government’s share of GDP, our overbearing officialdom, and state colonization of civil society, are each now uncomfortably upper-quartile among democratic states and heading rapidly upwards. We are arguably now more governed than France, the home of dirigisme.

That which I cannot yet report

I am sitting a few feet away from Rand Simberg of Transterrestrial Musings in his home office in LA as I write. I flew in last night partly for some work and meetings having to do with our company (Wyoming Aerospace), and partly for an historic event. Well, more than partly for the historic event… and no, it is not Alan Boyle’s book signing, although I will be seeing him tonight! I cannot actually say anything yet as the press release is still under embargo as far as I know.

I will report on some interesting matters in a few days, hopefully with a lot of photos.

Ah, the embargo must be over!

I will be up at the XCOR and Masten hangers and hope to have access to Scaled as well. I am waiting to hear on that still.

Bumbles of East Anglia

The propensity for libertarians to disbelieve ‘official’, ‘public’ or state-financed work could be viewed on a par with the finger-pointing of anti-capitalists who sniff interest in every corporate donation. Yet, it is not. Those who deride the corporations tend to see no wrong in public action, since the collective is always morally beneficial. The world-weary fighter for freedom is far more sceptical of any agenda promoted by any particular lobby or interest.

Let us not forget that the catechism of climate change is funded from public and private sources. Any lobby faced with the thwarting of its ideology at the expected moment of greatest triumph reveals its limitations. The reversion to denial, verbal assault and language reminiscent of communism:

He [Ed Miliband] said the former chancellor Nigel Lawson and former shadow home secretary David Davis were irresponsible and were acting as “saboteurs”.

Is the answer to throw them into camps? Trends in the groupthink of its political supporters, wedded to the authoritarian apparatus of New Labour, have proven very worrying. The policy has come to be perceived as a sacred duty, the questioning of which becomes a trespass.

The stupidity that characterises their thought extends to their science. I am charmed at the thought that bumbling scientists, taking a ‘string and sealing wax’ approach, proved unable to even set up a programme for data analysis. No audit trail or commercial standards were reproduced within the university, and that oft-quoted British charm of ‘muddling through’ did not work. The CRU thought that something would turn up. It did: the blogosphere.

The only way to salvage any understanding from this mess is the obvious point: outsource the data analysis to a private sector company whose lifeblood depends upon a proven record for reliable data analysis. Not some internal investigation without the wit to understand conflict of interest.

Sigh…

I realise that for any US politician to seriously court the US conservative vote, they have to ‘do the God thing’, but I cannot help wincing when I hear people like Sarah Palin, who I think has much to commend her, say things like “the United States should rededicate itself to seeking God’s will“… whatever the hell that means.

I think what really offends me most about this sort of proclamation is the notion of the need for ‘unity’ rather than just a simple commonality of interests: if I am going to support someone politically, I am damned if I will to seek in that politician an additive “whole world view”. If Sarah Palin wants to trim the intrusive regulatory state, as she seem to want to do, well that is splendid, but I would rather not hear about how she thinks others need to include some anthropomorphic psychological guy-in-the-sky construct in their decision making processes.

Perhaps it is my English sensibilities but I am deeply suspicious of anyone who cannot keep their religious sentiments to themselves. I am willing to tolerate the religious views of others but, like most vices, religion is something best practised behind closed doors with other consenting adults as can be very unedifying when indulged in public.

A book launch discussion well worth your time

Tom G. Palmer has a new book out and he is one of those guys whom I read pretty regularly. He recently talked about the book, its topics, in a panel discussion along with Marginal Revolution blogger and NYT columnist Tyler Cowen. Definitely worth your time.

Gordon Brown supports the burning of Green heretics

This lead item in the Guardian newspaper today, which I read with a sort of grim satisfaction, explains how he has bought into the whole idea that climage change skeptics are not just wrong, they are baaaaaaaad. The reaction to the scandal of the University of East Anglia CRU emails shows that part of the “Green Establishment”, with odd decent exception, to be in deep denial.

Keep it up, Gordon. The more this plodding, revolting disaster of a politician and his friends continues to take this line, the more it justifies what Lord Lawson, former UK Chancellor, is trying to do in re-framing the debate over the policy of how to address real or alleged AGW. Gordon Brown: he’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Update: fresh developments at the UK’s Met Office. (H/T: Counting Cats).

Samizdata quote of the day

“The science is so settled it’s now perfectly routine for leaders of the developed world to go around sounding like apocalyptic madmen of the kind that used to wander the streets wearing sandwich boards and handing out homemade pamphlets. Governments that are incapable of – to pluck at random – enforcing their southern border, reducing waiting times for routine operations to below two years, or doing something about the nightly ritual of car-torching “youths”, are nevertheless taken seriously when they claim to be able to change the very heavens – if only they can tax and regulate us enough. As they will if they reach “consensus” at Copenhagen. And most probably even if they don’t.”

Mark Steyn.

Samizdata quote of the day

So when Peter Mansbridge went on the National tonight to admit what he had surely known for days, we didn’t watch to find out what’s contained in FOIA 2009.zip, for we’d read it for ourselves.

We only watched to see if he had.

For perhaps the first time in the history of mass media, the gatekeepers broke a major scandal to an audience fully 10 days ahead of them.

Small Dead Animals describes how the mass media of Canada finally got around to noticing Climategate. Thank you Counting Cats.

The torment of a frustrated politician

I see that Peter Mandelson, now Lord Mandelson of Post-Industrial Northern Wasteland – or whatever, is frustrated, apparently, that he did not get the job of the European Union’s foreign representative. Indeed. His friend, former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, also failed to secure the plum of the EU Presidency. I can see the charms: no grubby electioneering, lots of nice trips and conferences and armies of lackeys serving your needs, driving you around in limos, etc.

To quote Mick Jagger, you can’t always get what you want. I am sure Mr Mandelson will recover his sang froid eventually. These things are sent to test us.

The blame culture and the UK armed forces

The BBC, as well as other news outlets, is carrying this story about the father of a dead soldier. The father is complaining about the lack of helicopters and other important equipment. It also turns out that a letter that was due to be sent from Downing Street to the man’s father was sent very late. This is a sad and anger-inducing story: the father was interviewed, clearly distressed, on BBC television this morning, and was also making very angry, and to my mind, some pretty shrewd, points about the management, or mismanagement, of the war in Afghanistan.

And yet there is something about these interviews with grieving parents of dead military personnel that bothers me. And it clearly also has bothered the writer and one-time prison doctor, Theodore Dalrymple. Mr Dalrymple was writing about a related recent story of how a letter of condolence, sent by Gordon Brown to the mother of a dead serviceman, contained spelling errors. Mr Dalrymple writes in the Social Affairs Unit blog:

“No one, I think, would take me for an admirer of Gordon Brown, much less an apologist for him; but in the matter of the letter that he wrote to Mrs Janes, mother of the soldier killed in Afghanistan, I feel sorry for him. He has become a victim of the ideological sentimentality so assiduously promoted by his odious predecessor, and now so fully a part of our national character.”

“The letter he wrote to Mrs Janes seemed to me a perfectly decent one. It was legible (perhaps, as a doctor, my standards of legibility are low); the sentiments expressed are decent, conventional ones, without the kind of extravagance that might lead you to suspect insincerity.”

“The offence of the mistake in the name – Mrs James instead of Mrs Janes – does not seem to me a hanging one. Mr Brown is a very busy man (would that he were less busy!) and the mistake is one that we could surely all envisage ourselves making, given the relative frequency of the two names.”

“The grief of Mrs Janes was perfectly understandable, of course; the loss of a child is like the loss of a world. But grief is not necessarily the midwife of truth, and some of the things that Mrs Janes said are simply not true. Surely only someone determined in advance to find the letter disrespectful would have found it so; one might even think that a hand-written letter from the Prime Minister was a sign of respect, when he could so easily have written nothing or have ordered someone else to do it on his behalf.”

I agree. I think it is terribly harsh to say to a person like the father interviewed this morning that he should bear in mind that serving in the army is a risky profession and that anyone who joins up should recognise this, but it does need to be said, by someone. The “victim culture” is spreading its slimy tentacles across the land; when I see any parent lash out and demand that X or Y be blamed or shamed for a train of events happening in a warzone, I can sympathise, even agree with some of the comments. But what I cannot abide is the failure to recognise that the risks are high, and many brave people pay the supreme price.

Are nation states more trustworthy now than in previous times?

Are nation states more trustworthy now than in previous times? I am of course asking a rhetorical question. No, they are not more, or less, trustworthy. People, in particular the sort of people who seek political power or to in some way wield the authority of the state, are essentially the same sort of people who have always sought such things.

And so, when the Scottish state tells us that the venerable prohibitions against double jeopardy, being put on trial more than once for the same crime, must be abolished due to improvements in methods of forensic science, they are actually saying “we, the state, can be trusted with the power to just shuffle the deck and try again if we do not like the outcome of a criminal trial because of course our motives could never be anything less than a relentless search for truth and justice, right?”…

That is in actually what they are saying, because DNA cannot possibly be planted or falsified and our priestly class, sorry, I mean scientific experts are always simply concerned with the dispassionate facts (like say, the good folks at the CRU).

What could possibly go wrong with being able to keep retrying people until the “right” result is gained, eh?

The problem of ordering two drinks instead of one due to linguistic difficulties and/or cultural misunderstandings

(1) A Cathay Pacific Flight between Hong Kong and Sydney – July 1987

Michael’s mother: “I would like a Coke”
Michael “I would like a Coke, too
Flight attendant “Ah… Two”.
(Three glasses of Coca-Cola arrive soon afterwards).

(2) An expat bar in Maputo, Mozambique – February 2007.

Michael: “Two-Em”, please. Michael points to a beer tap marked “2M”. Of course, the name of the beer is actually pronounced “Dos-Em”, this being a Portuguese speaking country. The number “Two” is understood, as English is probably the predominant language spoken by expats in Maputo, which is unsurprising given the nature of the world and the proximity to South Africa. However, the beer is named “Dos-Em”. That is different.

Two beers are thus placed in front of Michael. He smiles, and hands over a large enough banknote to pay for both of them.

(3) A (literally) underground music club, Cluj-Napoca, Romania – December 2009.

A heavy metal band has been followed by a slightly less heavy metal guitar band with a (good) female lead singer. This is definitely Dale Amon’s sort of place. Michael is sitting at a table. He is approached by a waitress.

Michael: “Timisoreana, thanks”. Timisoreana is a beer from the beautiful city of Timisoara, perhaps a hundred klicks away, but the beer is widely available throughout Transylvania.
Waitress: “Da”. Romanian is a Romance Language, but contains a lot of vocabulary from the Slavic languages, including the word for yes. Given the history and ethnic composition of the country, it probably contains a fair few Germanic and Finno-Uguric words too, but I am not expert enough to know for sure. Michael sits for about two minutes. Another waitress approaches. She says something in Romanian, which Michael does not understand but undoubtedly translates as “What can I get you?”
Michael: “I have already been served by somebody else”
Waitress: “Ah, Ursus“. Ursus is a beer produced locally in the city of Cluj Napoca, which (like Timisoreana, and for that matter 2M) belongs to the giant multinational brewing leviathan SAB Miller. The brewery does a rather good dark beer, too. The German ethnic minority have left their mark on this part of Europe. Michael waits another two minutes. Two waitresses return, more or less simultaneously, one with a Timosoreana, and the other with an Ursus. They look at one another in slight confusion. Michael smiles as broadly as possible – not generally difficult when faced with young Romanian women – pays a ridiculously small sum of money to each of them, and finds himself with two beers.

This sort of thing might happen slightly less frequently if I were not a monolingual Anglophone. Or perhaps not. And if it did, I am not sure if it would make things more or less fun. But I love traveling, and one of the most important principles of my kind of traveling is that it is important to have mastered the ancient Confucian principle of going with the flow.

And the problem of having accidentally purchased two beers instead of one is generally a relatively easy one to deal with.