Salam Pax, as always, full of juicy goodness interspersed with a sobering discourse. Just go and raed.
|
|||||
|
…or how to ensure your kids are more technologically literate than you. One of the best ways to motivate someone is to present the person with a challenge. For children, forbidding something works equally well, if not better. So when I came across this product in one of those little catalogues that come with Sunday newspapers, I immediately realised its potential to do an amazing service in further advancing the technological awareness of the young generation.
So far, so good. But if parents led by the desire to curb their children’s TV-viewing habits succumb to the advertising and purchase such devices en masse, pretty soon many a technologically gifted whizkid will be popular, spots or no spots. Not only ways to disable the screenblock will be devised, but kids will be ‘instructed’ in how to do that themselves without their modifications being detected. Part of the solution will have to be the inability of parents to notice the ‘adjustment’. Aren’t you just grateful to the screenblock inventors for broadening your children’s technological horizons? January 20th, 2003 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned the British public today in a television interview that Islamic terrorists linked to al-Qa’eda remain at large in Britain and pose a continuing security threat. He believes that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are seeking to make use of existing terror networks in plans for further attacks.
Presumably, this has nothing to do with Britain’s policy on asylum seekers that allows a Taliban soldier who fought British and American troops in Afghanistan to be granted asylum here because he fears persecution from the new Western-backed government in Kabul (as already mentioned by Perry in the post below). Although this is the first known case of a Taliban soldier being granted asylum in this country, I have no doubt that many have entered Britain with false documents and identities. They may need not bother anymore. Unless the policy changes, the successful application may open the doors to hundreds of other similar requests. I wonder whether in few months’ time the police chief will insist that his officers are ‘on top of’ the situation. It seems that the left hand does not know what the right is doing. Indeed, the state is not your friend. January 19th, 2003 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
As the potential military conflict with Iraq draws near, all sorts of weird things come out of woodwork. For example, some of them are planning a D-Day for the ‘peace’ movement in Europe and United States on 15th February. Andrew Burgin, spokesman for Britain’s Stop the War Coalition expects record numbers on the day at the biggest anti-war demonstration London has ever seen, all marching under a “Don’t attack Iraq” banner.
I am aware that the public opinion in Europe is at best divided over an attack on Iraq and in most countries – Britain and France included – is against by a wide margin if an invasion is not supported by the United Nations. However illogical that position might be, I have grown used to fighting it and nowadays it leaves me cold, merely a reminder of human stupidity. But “no war, for any reason”?! Who are these people?
When I looked at the list of supporters of the Stop the War Coalition, I found many of our old ‘friends’ from CND, assorted Marxist trade unions, and other institutions where ‘idiotarians’ like to congregate. Just a few rich pickings:
These are just a few whose names have either been pilloried on this blog or the names of institution they belong to speak for themselves. What really gets me going is that these people confidently claim and occupy the moral highground in protesting against war with Iraq (notice how even the phrase ‘war on Iraq’ suggests aggression from our side; as far as I am concerned Iraq is at war with us and has been for some time, thanks to its megalomaniac leader). They will satisfy their flaccid social consciences by making themselves ‘feel good’ about having the courage to stand up for things that everyone else is against like peace and justice and brotherhood… [hums the tune to Tom Lehrer’s song: We are the Folk Song Army, Everyone of us cares, We all hate poverty, war and injustice, Unlike the rest of you squares…] It’s an old communist, leftist, tranzi…etc technique. Grab them by their emotions and you are sure to be followed by those without reason. What would these people say about fighting Hitler and the Nazi Germany or indeed about any aggressor attacking its neighbours and posing threat to the world? How do they square history with their idiotic demand to oppose war against Iraq for any reason? I fear that security and defence are meaningless concepts to such ideologues, what matters is that they get to call demonstrations against the US and be anti-American with a ‘noble’ message to boot. What joy! On the other end of the table, we have the likes of Major Peter Ratcliffe, who won the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his role in the Scud base attack leading the crack Alpha One Zero squad behind enemy lines. He believes Britain should support any American military action in Iraq and describes anti-war critics in Tony Blair’s government as traitors:
Soldier’s words, honest and direct. They also carry far more weight as they are uttered by someone who fought to protect us and the society we live in. January 15th, 2003 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
Bill Clinton is the favourite candidate for the office of Chancellor of Oxford University. He is facing growing opposition from dons who fear that his election would endanger the reputation of the institution and the virtue of its undergraduates. The arguments against his candidacy are many and varied:
Mark Almond, a fellow of Oriel College and a lecturer in 20th-century history, added that Mr Clinton would face “endless allegations of sexual scandal”.
As far as I know, the main argument for is Mr Clinton’s fundraising abilities. Since leaving office he has embarked on a series of lucrative foreign tours, giving lectures for a reputed £1,200 a minute. Oxford University being starved of state funds and facing transatlantic competition for its academics, grossly underpaid in the British academia, is desparate for more cash. And I suppose some dons are reasoning – if he brings more money, sod the dignity of the office or the potential damage it may do to the university’s image. I can see how that happened – during my university days we came to appreciate the unique tutorial system at Oxford that the government has been threatening to scrap as it is five times more expensive per student than the usual seminar/lecture style of university education. Both Oxford and Cambridge are constantly under attack for their allegedly ‘elitist’ admissions policies and forced to fulfill quotas for students from ‘state’ schools. I do have a problem with Clinton being the next Chancellor of Oxford University. I also want the university to raise enough funds to continue in its distinguished tradition, without the need to force change because of a lack of them. However, there must be better candidates for the post, both morally and academically more accomplished as well as able to attract sufficient funds for this ancient institution.  January 13th, 2003 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
America is to award the Congressional Medal of Honour, the equivalent of the Victoria Cross, to a British Special Boat Service (formerly Special Boat Squadron) commando who led the rescue of a CIA officer from an Afghan prison revolt. It will be the first time the medal has been awarded to a living foreigner. The Queen will have to give permission for the SBS soldier to wear it. The SBS senior NCO led a patrol of half-a-dozen SBS commandos who rescued a member of the CIA’s special activities section from the fort at Qala-i-Jangi near Mazar-i-Sharif, last November. The fort was holding 500 al-Qa’eda and Taliban prisoners, many of whom had not been searched and were still armed. An exchange of fire developed into a full-scale revolt and two CIA officers who had been interrogating the prisoners were caught in the battle in which one was killed. The uprising went on for three days and the SBS commandos remained throughout, bringing down aerial fire to quell the revolt. The battle was one of the most contentious episodes in the war last year with human rights groups raising concerns over air strikes against prisoners, some of them unarmed. The eagerness of the Americans to recognise the courage of the NCO contrasts with suspicion within the regiment that two SAS soldiers being considered for VCs for an attack on the al-Qaeda cave complex will not get them. 
Not by strength, by guile January 12th, 2003 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
A commenter, who might otherwise buy a moral case for making war on communist regimes, has pointed out that the local citizens should do their ‘job’ and overthrow the nasty regimes. The argument seems to be that the locals should do it, if they are in favour of freedom and democracy, and thus demonstrate that they are worthy of our support. Such suggestion can only be made with certain assumptions. As a self-appointed champion of the individual facing a totalitarian state, I shall respond to them.
With respect, that is utter nonsense. The assumption here is that ‘the people’ are a collective entity with the ability to act unanimously. In reality, it is a large number of individuals against whom monopolised and institutionalised violence is used on a regular basis. After a couple of decades of propaganda and control of information by the state, the system needs only an occassional tweaking and a careful monitoring of the non-conformist elements of the castrated society.
No, the power is not there, the choice is not there. You can have as many Iraqis as possible, individually knowing that Saddam is a vile creature and yet not be able or ready to fight him. Unless there is an organised resistance, it is impossible for a ‘nation’ to ‘free itself’ from tyranny. The more brutal a regime is, the more difficult is to dislodge it. You need a critical mass of individuals each one of them willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The more brutal a regime, the more it has to loose and the more determined and vicious those supporting it are.
Hmm, if the roots of liberty are spreading within the hearts and souls of each individual Iranian, then I’d better move to Iran because it is the only country where this is happening. Don’t you think that Iranian resistance has something to do with the Western life style and freedoms it offers, such as mixed-sex parties and alcohol and other goodies that the islamic kill-joys don’t want young Iranians to have. The professor, who may be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, is doing so in a situation that puts the government at the disadvantage. Why has the situation arisen in the first place? Because the Iranian regime doesn’t want to look illiberal to the western world. And so we have the external influence again, getting in the way of the neat image of ground-up liberty blossoming in the heart of each Iranian patriot…
Yes, I will point to Germany where there was the tradition of freedom as much as any other European country at the time. But the Germans did not overthrow fascism and the internal opposition to Hitler had been squashed ruthlessly well before the war. Japan on the other hand, had no tradition of freedom before fascism, hence the need for 7-year US ‘presence’ in the country. The Soviet Union did not collapse because of its citizens rising against their oppressors. The country had never had a tradition of freedom, they went straight from serfdom to er, communism… Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, on the other hand, had been democracies before communism. Dissident movements existed and none of the old-style communists resurfaced in post-Cold War governments like in Russia.
Yes, overthrowing the communists and Saddam will create freedom. No magic, just logic. If you take away the root of oppression, you get freedom. The question is what the people will do with it. If you expect nothing less than recognition of individual natural rights and a spontaneous societal order, that seems rather harsh. I don’t think it’s fair on the poor oppressed population to hold them to a standard much higher than that reached by the assorted lefties polluting the Western societies. One thing you can be sure of, though, is that their will love property rights…
Are you saying that the socialism of the EU is comparable to the Stalinist totalitarianism of the North Koreans?! No one can accuse Samizdata.net to be pro-EU but such suggestion is preposterous. All statisms are not equal. Some are bad and some are even worse.
I don’t see why it is such a tragedy that Kuwaitis are ungrateful. Perhaps they realised that the US ‘liberation’ was not out of love of Kuwait but because it was in the US national interest. Nothing wrong with either.
Why should they? I certainly don’t expect them to! Their role is to protect their citizens and remove tyranny if it threatens their liberty. They are to uphold the framework within which freedom can flourish. To remove tyranny from top down means just that, it does not mean an imposition of freedom. I advocate the use of the army and the state to do the former and reserve the latter for the individual. January 6th, 2003 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
Here the interesting part of the story ends. What comes next is dangerous, lonely, depressing, and often pointless.
My question to all those who believe in liberty and the rights of the individual and all things beautiful: would you really fight for them? Would you be willing to put your life and perhaps the lives of your loved ones at risk and do so without any guarantee of success? Would you be ready to shed your blood in the name of liberty without knowing whether you are making history or just adding to the list of nameless victims of the tyranny? Would you be able to remain certain that you are right and that everybody else is wrong when the only world you know is the one where they are right? Because those are the choices you have before you, not one of clarity and moral certitude, supported by intellectual arguments and discourse. Every act of resistance, however insignificant on the large scale, is a small victory for sanity and human spirit. But more often than not, it is not enough to defeat the enemy. The nature of tyranny in places like Iraq and North Korea is one of unrestrained brutality and although they may collapse economically one day, like the Soviet Union did, ultimately it is not just a matter of brave local people standing up for what is right: in such places to do that is tantamount to suicide… the state must be decapitated and realistically that will only happen via foreign military action of some sort (either military aid or outright invasion). One could argue that it is not the responsibility of foreign taxpayers to free others from tyranny and perhaps this is true, but do not kid yourself that this is a ‘pro-liberty’ response. The US and British Armies cannot impose liberty in Iraq, only the Iraqi’s can do that, but foreign armies can destroy tyranny. Free Iraq.  January 5th, 2003 | 21 comments - (Comments are closed)
Perhaps not the best feel-good title for my first posting and certainly not the usual New Year’s Eve admonition but it concerns the aspect of reality that urged me to blog in the first place. It is also just too horrible to pass on in the interest of New Year’s festivities. There are many living hells in the world today but North Korea deserves a special mention. According to Anthony Daniels, one of the few journalists to have visited North Korea, no other regime comes remotely as close to annihilating the human personality as North Korea’s does. Never in history have human beings been so dragooned into uniformity and blind obedience as in North Korea. The regime is one of bread and circuses: but attendance at the circuses is compulsory and the bread has been replaced by rockets. I know most people realise that North Korea is a ‘bad guy’ although Bush mentioning it as part of the Axis of Evil will certainly prompt some anti-American idiotarians into defending it. In some vague way, we know North Korean are oppressed by a Stalinist-type regime, have been starving for some time and now the North Korean leadership have hit the headlines with their nuclear weapons antics. But just as during the Cold War we didn’t know what communism really meant for the individual citizen in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, now we don’t know how exactly the North Korean variety of communism continues to crush human creativity, spirit and dignity. It doesn’t help that an alarmingly high number of other useful idiotarians who have encountered the evil there either cannot or refuse to see it. The former US President Jimmy Carter managed to see in Pyongyang a second Manhattan. Anthony Daniels calls it not blindness, but hallucination. He concludes: The only question, then, is how to destroy it once and for all: whether to let time take its toll (for all things pass); to offer little fat Kim a gilded retirement in Monaco watching the pornographic films that he is said to like; or to threaten war. I know which option I’d take. December 31st, 2002 | 10 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. |
|||||
