(0) (40)

I am going to have to find some new term to adequately describe the condition of ignorance that renders its sufferers unable to comprehend the inevitable truth that state-control means political control.

A shining example of this tragically far-too-common form of myopia can be found in one of today's letters to the UK Times [note: link may not work for non-UK readers]:

Sir, Once again the NHS is set fair to become the filling in the Labour and Conservative policy sandwiches, and yet neither party recognises that the biggest problem besetting the service is the very political control each espouses.

Health, like broadcasting, is too important to be the political football of major parties during the first skirmishes of an impending general election. The NHS needs a charter, it needs sensitive management, it needs to value and cherish its long-suffering staff and, above all, it needs to be isolated from the political process.

The man who wrote this letter is a doctor and is, therefore, unlikely to be either dim-witted or uneducated. Yet, he passionately demands (and no doubt expects) a government-run health service that is somehow 'isolated from the political process'.

I have penned a letter of response to the Times pointing out that the only way to get politics out of healthcare is to de-nationalise it and allow provision to be bought and sold on the free market. However, I do not expect the editors of the Times will be inclined to publicise such heretical and 'extreme' views.

(1) (14)

Harry Browne overstates the case against Ronald Reagan and makes himself look small.

There are plenty of libertarian criticisms of Ronald Reagan, from his refusal to veto tax increases, for failing to cut spending, or his support for the 'War on Drugs'. Where Harry Browne goes well overboard is when he dismissed the effect of Ronald Reagan's spending cuts rhetoric and on the Cold War.

Browne actually admits that Reagan made the dialogue of spending cuts possible and the mainstream debate. He accuses Reagan of not acting on his words. But what about Harry Browne himself?

In his excellent 1973 book: How I found freedom in an unfree world, Harry Browne claims:

You waste precious time, effort and money when you attempt to achieve freedom through the efforts of a group... I came to see how foolish it was to waste my precious life trying to make the world into what I thought it should be.

Yet by 1996, Browne was writing:

I don't want to be a politician. I just want our country back.

He then sought the nomination twice as the Libertarian Party candidate for the US federal presidency. Now unless Browne had a grotesquely over-estimated sense of his on importance, he must have realised that the LP candidate was not likely to win. If not to win, why stand for office?

The answer I would give is that the Libertarian Party argues the case in public for reducing the federal government. So words do matter. And in any case, Harry Browne has some explaining to do about his 180 degree turn since 1973.

American libertarians hate their government so much they often make barmy comments about the rest of the world. So when Harry Browne suggests that there was no need to engage in an arms race with the Soviet Union, he uses the following argument:

Reagan’s military and Cold-War policies seem to be the least controversial. It’s simply taken for granted that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War — bringing down the Soviet Union by pushing the Soviets over the edge with increased military spending.

The idea is that the Soviets couldn’t keep up with Reagan’s new arms race.

Okay, suppose that’s true. So what?

Switzerland couldn’t keep up either. And neither could China nor New Zealand nor Tanzania. But those nations didn’t collapse simply because their military budgets weren’t as large as that of the United States.

So what Harry Browne seems to be saying, is that there is no difference between the ideology of worldwide Communist domination, and the political ethos of Switzerland. The reason that the Swiss economy did not collapse in the 1980s under the strain of miltary spending is that the Swiss government was not trying to achieve world wide conquest. If the Swiss government had intended to conquer the planet with a Socialist economy, then I am sure that the attempt would have failed and that the Swiss régime would have collapsed much as Soviet Communism did. If he really cannot tell the difference between Switzerland and the Soviet Union in 1980 (which I doubt), then Harry Browne is a twit.

Rather than admit that Ronald Reagan's policies brought the Cold War to a positive end, Browne prefers to promote Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who voluntarily joined the Soviet Communist Party when Stalin was still in charge, authorised military actions in Afghanistan that may have included the use of chemical weapons, and who sent tanks into Lithuania to enforce Soviet rule. Yet Gorbachev seems to express a more pro-Reagan view himself.

Of course it is always easy to denounce a policy one disagrees with by deliberately mis-stating it. Ronald Reagan did not set out to cause the economic collapse of the Soviet Union by an arms race. His re-armament policy was designed to prevent the Soviet Union from making further military gains. He did this by upgrading the nuclear capability, increasing the fire-power of the conventional forces. This meant that by 1985 the numeric superiority of the Red Army was no longer relevant. The dramatic US victory in Kuwait against largely Soviet-equipped Iraqi troops in 1991 shows how far re-arming America worked.

Consider the record of the 1970s against the 1980s. In the 1970s Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, South Yemen, Afghanistan all became satellites of the Soviet union and none of them did so by peaceful means. In the 1980s no country fell to the Soviets and Grenada was liberated. In Afghanistan US support allowed the resistance to force a Soviet withdrawal, the only one since 1920 without direct foreign armed intervention.

So the evidence is that Soviet expansion stopped in the 1980s, and like all imperialist systems, once expansion is stopped there is only one way to go.

What Reagan offered was the moral certainty of the justice of resisting the Soviet Empire. Reagan knew that for all its imperfections, the USA was a better place to live than the USSR. What Browne seems to offer is equanimity between Switzerland and and the Gulag, whilst denouncing the USA as worse then either.

As for Reagan the politician, he seems to have had a knack for choosing to fight on issues where he would win. He did however engage in that debate, it is extremely unlikely that his politicial rivals (George Bush I, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale and others) would have spent less. As a self-help writer himself, Harry Browne should recognise that the way to effectiveness is to concentrate on one's own circle of influence. Reagan may not have slashed federal spending, because resisting the USSR was the big issue that he could do something about.

(0) (7)

In that marvellously bonkers publication Pravda, it is being reported that the Ukrainian sports authorities are blaming their lack of medals at a gymnastic event on the fact their Russian rivals brought in people with paranormal abilities to sabotage the Ukrainian competitors.

According to the federation's governing body, evil-minded Russians hired psychics, people with extrasensory abilities in order to paralyze free will of Ukrainian gymnasts during competitions. Such statement of the federation received wide publicity among Ukrainian media sources, reports PrimaNews.

[...]

The federation also informs that "Russian mobs" brought fifteen paranorms to Kiev, including famous Russian medium Alan Chumak. They were seated in VIP seats on the stadium and somehow paralyzed the will of Ukrainian sportswomen; that is why the latter lost.

To hell with the gymnastics! If they can do such things, then they simply must organise special events in which paranormals compete to see who can paralyse the will of the other first!

No Officer, I am not drunk, I had my will paralysed by Russian paranormals!

(0) (10)

The occasional refrain here at Samizdata is that we are relentlessly pessimistic. Even though the recent series on Burt Rutan's space adventure was anything but, our political writings rarely highlight good news. Alrighty then, two items that should brighten your long-term outlook for liberty:

First, Mark Steyn reviews recent history in Latin America and notes how it might apply to the Middle East.

If you think the democratization of Arabia is a long shot, so was the democratization of Latin America. But it happened.

Second, the Iraqis are showing more spine than most, maintaining confidence in their pending government in hte face of terrorist brutality.

The first survey since the new government was announced by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi about three weeks ago showed that 68 percent of Iraqis have confidence in their new leaders. The numbers are in stark contrast to widespread disillusionment with the previous Iraqi Governing Council, which was made up of 25 members picked by the United States and which served as the Iraqi partner to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

Connect the dots.

(0) (35)

Surprise, surprise:

President Robert Mugabe's rosy forecast of a bumper harvest in Zimbabwe was contradicted by his own government yesterday, when an official report said 2.3 million people needed immediate international food aid.

The seizure of white-owned farms has combined with drought to cripple agriculture in Zimbabwe. But Mr Mugabe's official message is that his land grab has markedly increased production and made Zimbabwe self-sufficient. Last month, he refused help from the United Nations World Food Programme, saying: "Why foist this food upon us? We don't want to be choked."

He brushed aside the fact that Zimbabwe has lived on food aid since 2001 and that 6.5 million people, more than half the population, depended on international help last year. By contrast, his office forecast a maize crop for this year of 2.4 million tons, more than enough to meet domestic needs.

Yet a report from the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee provides a strong antidote to the president's optimism. It concludes that 2.3 million people in rural Zimbabwe "will not be able to meet their minimum cereal needs during the 2004/05 season".

The report adds that food aid "for the most vulnerable people" should be sought immediately. The UN, aid agencies and Zimbabwean government departments compiled the assessment based on a survey completed in April. Mr Mugabe's officials appear not to share his optimism.

Food aid be damned. Someone should invade the place. Almost anyone would now be an improvement. Handing food aid over to the existing regime will not feed the "most vulnerable". It will merely feed the existing regime, and allow them to shove some more people into the most vulnerable category.

(6) (43)

A few weeks ago when we culled the so-called race realists (neo-fascist racists) that were camping in Samizdata.net's comment section, it became clear to me that if you let ill mannered loud mouths use your venue to try and shout down discourse and endlessly turn unrelated topics to their pet thesis, all you do is attract more ill mannered loud mouths who will do the same.

Everyone has their techy days in the comment section but when a person makes a habit of being obnoxious and immune to rational argument, I see no reason to indulge them or tolerate them. This is not a forum and this is not a chat room, it is a blog, which is quite different. Many blogs do not even have comment sections.

When you open your house to visitors, you do not give up the right to kick people out if they start insulting other guests and spray painting their opinions on the wall. Of course some people would say, "Oh but that is censorship if you stop them". Er, no, it is just maintaining control over what is and is not acceptable on your private property... but of course some people, the sort that I am now far quicker to ban, do not actually believe in private property (not when you pin them down), and often cannot see that censorship by the state of private media channels and editorial control over a private media channel (such as a blog, for example) are materially different things. But then to someone who thinks all interaction should be political (the usual term used is 'democratic' these days), such distinctions make little difference to them. I am not referring here to specific people but rather the general class from which our 'problem commenters' tend to spring.

Some cannot see that they are not being 'censored' because of whatever their views are, any more than a man who gets on a table in a restaurant, drops his draws and starts calling for the darkies to be thrown out of Britain or for the middle class to have their homes confiscated is being 'censored' when he gets thrown out by a bouncer for being an jackass.

If I have any regrets it is that I have been too indulgent of endlessly poorly argued and often off topic drivel posted by a small minority of serial commenters in the past. I have no objection to vocal dissent from the 'Samizdata.net world view' (whatever that is), I just object to a constant stream of unsupported contentions delivered by megaphone that makes no attempt to actually engage in discourse. We have lots of dissenters who comment here regularly that I would not dream of banning.

So yes, there is a new hard line. Trolls and blogroaches will not be indulged and will be ejected rather swifter in future.

(1) (7)

In Saudi Arabia the government's response to attacks on foreign workers is to allow them to carry firearms. Any chance of that happening in London? I can get a foreign passport if necessary.

However, foreign contractors for the Saudi government will not be allowed to carry weapons because they are under the protection of the State. Good luck to them.

On balance, I think I would swap the British Home Secretary for his Saudi counterpart: less fascism, less victim disarmament, more effective law enforcement, and slightly less political correctness.

(0) (18)

Very interesting appraisal of Bill Clinton. I confess I loathe the man and his wife, who strike me as distilling the worst elements of their generation and of the New Ruling Class in America into two near-sociopathic personalities.

Also apropos Clinton and the current President, one of the mysteries of their terms:

The mystery of Clinton is that he was an essentially conservative president -- perhaps the most conservative Democrat in the White House since Grover Cleveland -- and yet he was loathed by conservatives... I'm not sure I can explain it either -- any more than I can explain why George W. Bush has inspired such antipathy from the Al Franken wing of the Democratic Party even while so abjectly pandering to them with his Medicare expansion, No Child Left Behind Act, campaign finance reform and budget-busting spending increases. Here's Dubya expanding the Great Society, and yet he gets accused of dismantling the New Deal. Go figure" -- columnist Max Boot, writing in the Los Angeles Times. (link not provided due to odious registration process, which pissed me off).

Clinton (despite his tax increase and failed nationalization of health care) has a domestic policy legacy that most Republicans would be proud of, and Bush's domestic policy has been largely scripted to satisfy his Democratic opponents. Yet both are vilified by the very people whose policy positions they advanced. Something to ponder.

Of course, neither has done much to increase liberty within the four corners of the US of A.

(3) (18)

The eight British sailors arrested by Iran have been paraded on television and forced to make public confessions. It just occurred to me that these are both violations of the Geneva Convention, which I believe applies in this case because the British sailors were in uniform, etc.

So why have I not heard any screams of outrage from the Usual Suspects? There are, after all, interest groups out there so enamored of the Convention that they want it followed in cases (illegal combatants, nonstate actors, etc.) where its provisions clearly do not apply. You would think they would be double-extra hot to have it followed where its provisions do apply, but apparently not. I guess we can file their complaints under Outrage, Manufactured Selective Partisan, Discount and Dispose of Soonest.

(0) (5)

The Barclay brothers have won the fight for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph (the leading Conservative newspapers in Britain), I welcome this victory as the leading counter bidder (at least the one that made the most noise) was the company behind the Daily Mail - a fanatically anti-American newspaper.

My attitude towards the victory of the Barclay brothers (or rather the defeat of the Daily Mail) may suprise those people who think that my doubts about the policy of war and my dislike of President Bush indicate anti-Americanism. However, a good look at the Daily Mail would show such people what real anti-Americanism is like.

By the way, the Daily Mail is not a socialist newspaper (at least not in the way the word 'socialist' is normally understood) it is part of a different tradition of statism.

(0) (14)

One last thought: Fahrenheit 9/11 is many things, but for pity's sake let's not call it a documentary.
- Ty Burr, Boston Globe

(6) (49)

Canada's Conservative Party has some new blood. Belinda Stronach recently left a $10 million/year job as CEO of international auto parts manufacturer Magna International. Belinda is 38, single, brilliant, gorgeous, an experienced senior manager and capitalist to her DNA base pairs.

Some other Conservative Party members expect she will be a part of any Conservative government elected in Canada and eventually be Prime Minister.

From the look of things, Canadian Conservatives are on the winning side of history.

(2) (7)

The reason why academic politics are so vicious is because the stakes are so low.

This quote from Henry Kissinger could easily be applied to Australian federal politics. And, with a Federal election in the offing, the stakes are getting lower and lower. Australian politics, more then ever, resemble drug-gang warfare- there are two gangs, both eager to secure the lucrative cash flows that come with the commanding heights of the Treasury Benches.

This may surprise the casual observer of the political scene. On the surface Australian public life seems to have a frantic flurry of debate, on foreign policy, on health, and on values. But a closer inspection reveals that this is just surface froth, designed to sate the appetites of the media machine and the political junkies. Beneath the scenes, one sees that the purpose of all these debates are simply designed to enjoy the power and perquisites of office.

In Australia the time and date of the election is at the choosing of the Prime Minister, and he studies the signs, looking for the opportune moment to strike. The opinion polls suggest that the ALP has a slight lead over the governing Coalition, but the bookmakers, who have the edge in accuracy in predicting Australian elections, have the Government as firm favorites to retain office (for what it is worth, Bush is just ahead of Kerry, although prices vary from firm to firm).

So what is this government that is, if you believe the bookmakers, about to be elected for a fourth term?

John Howard has been Prime Minister since 1996 and everyone has a clear view about him. His strengths are obvious, as are his weaknesses. His most obvious attribute is determination. He has been written off so many times and yet bounced back to defy all his critics. Even now it seems difficult for him to win. However, his come from behind election win in 2001 was a more impressive comeback win then what would be required from him now.

Howard is not, and never was, fashionable- he rarely has ever been popular with the gatekeepers of the media, those valiant seekers after truth. But he is widely seen as a 'safe pair of hands' and a competent administrator. That is certainly true and it counts for a lot in these uncertain times. It counts enough to keep him in with a fighting chance despite his shameless populism and rampant dishonesty- like Tony Blair, he has squandered what credibility he had so the political class as a whole generally believes nothing he says.

You can believe one thing he says- he really does want to continue as Prime Minister. He is a social conservative, and he would have it be known that he's an economic liberal and small-government man, but these latter attributes do not have any relation to the truth. He is in fact a classic right-wing statist.

He dominates his government- like Blair in Britain, he overshadows his main finance minister and internal part rival, Peter Costello, but while it is plausible to think that Gordon Brown might one day unseat Tony Blair, it is quite impossible to think Costello could do the same here.

The Howard government is nominally a pro-business, tax-cutting, small government party. Its actual record here is poor- the tax system has been fiddled with at the margins, and half the phone company has been privatised, but that is all - a poor outcome indeed after eight years in office. Part of this is because the Australian Senate is a permanent stumbling block to reform, and the minor parties that hold the balance of power there are generally left-wing. But fundamentally, Howard is a statist, who has faith in government programs of various natures to deliver useful outcomes.

In addition, he has learned that government money, carefully directed, is a wonderful way to bribe key parts of the electorate. Many of these dollars have flowed to the interests of the National Party, the partner in his Coalition government, which is a party of agrarian socialism and social conservatism. (I have complained about farmers before.)

Is this government irredeemably useless? In my view it has been okay in the response to the terrorist threat that has become a global menace. Australia has in effect occupied the Solomon Islands in a bid to prevent it becoming a failed state, an act which it did unilaterally and without the support of the United Nations. However, since this has been a very successful operation, even the local media have not opposed it.

In terms of keeping the local economy out of trouble, it has done a middling job- but the Australian economy is still hampered by regulatory handicaps, crony capitalism (which often has legal protection, most notably in broadcast and media industries) and subsidies. Future generations will rue the lost opportunities of this government.

*

Against the government is the Australian Labor Party (ALP). There is, it must be said, not much in common between the British Labour Party and the Australian version, beyond a shared trade-union heritage. The ALP is a wide ranging centre-left party in principle, but it is fact no more 'socialist' then the governing Coalition is 'free-market'. It is simply a vehicle for several ambitious men and women to indulge their taste for power.

In fact it must be said that the most free-market government in Australian history was the ALP government led by Bob Hawke which was elected in 1983. Michael Jennings's recent post on aviation policy gives an example of how that government went about its deregulatory business. It nevertheless has a taste for left-wing statist ideas, and in no sense could it be described as libertarian, unless those liberties have a self-indulgent slant to them.

Because Australia is a federation we do in fact have a very clear idea of how an ALP government might look like, because the ALP actually is in office in every state and territory government in the country.

The main characteristic of these governments is that they are populist, and socially authoritarian. The party has to balance economic management with social activism. The Australian electorate is one of the more economically literate electorates in the world, a searing recession induced by interest rates on mortgages rising to 17% in the early 1990's having made the Australian public keenly aware of the importance of balanced budgets and the like.

But the ALP has to satisfy its own activists who worship on the alter of state spending as the cure for all the ills of mankind. This can lead to tricky situations but the activists are usually satisfied with high office, and are usually pragmatic enough to ignore their social consciences when their electoral interests are involved. (In contrast, the Liberal Party activists, having no conscience at all, can pillage the Australian taxpayer and sleep soundly at night.)

In general, the ALP State governments are very good indeed at this balancing act. They are able to appease the public sector unions in the most part without blowing out budget deficits. And they are in the happy position of enjoying a windfall of money courtesy of GST tax,(the Australian version of VAT, introduced in 2000) which in Australia goes into state government coffers rather then the Federal governments. Hilariously, the Federal ALP bitterly resisted this tax which has benefited their State colleagues so much.

The challenge for the Federal ALP in government is in managing the economy and foreign policy. I suspect that they will defer to their departments on both, as they will be keen to appear competent in these factors- meanwhile, I expect some sort of 'initiative' somewhere else to be developed as a rallying cry to satisfy the activists- possibly (hopefully) a renewed push on making Australia a republic

*

What do the electorate make of all this? Not much. The Australian public is for the most part famously apathetic to politics, which is why we have compulsory voting in Australia. It is an amusing diversion to guesstimate what the turn out would be if it was not compulsory to vote in Australian elections, but no one seriously suggests that it would be above 50%.

Generally, the elevation of the mercurial Mark Latham to the leadership of the ALP has seen a revival in that party's electoral fortunes, but it must be qualified that Latham is a polarising figure. He is seen by many as a loose cannon, and his style as a man and a political leader is felt to be a turn-off by women. It must also be remarked that much of the revival of the ALP in the opinion polls is in the ALP's own seats- with Latham having less bite in the marginal seats that is required to win the election.

There are also significant regional variations in the different Australian states. Latham has revived the ALP position most strongly in Queensland, somewhat less strongly in South Australia, and has actually lost support for the party in West Australia. In the most populated state, New South Wales, there has actually been little change.

The main issue of the day, the war in Iraq and Australia's involvement in it, is a very volatile issue. It is not that Australians worry about the course of events in Mesopotamia, but rather they care about the honesty of the government in dealing with it. This is not surprising, and is a issue in the US as well. There is also the vexing question of terrorism. After the political impact of the Madrid blast, it is possible that al-Queda's South East Asian affiliate, Jemiaah Islamia (JI) might fancy its chances of doing a repeat performance.

Although the political effect of the Bali attack on Australia was to strongly rally people behind the government, the truth is, no one knows what the political effect of a terrorist strike during an electoral campaign might be. It remains the deadly wildcard in the election brew.

*

From a libertarian point of view, it is irrelevant who wins the election. Neither political party has the slightest interest in libertarian ideas, and it must be said that this is merely a reflection of the mood of the electorate. Taxation is quite high in Australia but a well organised individual with a good accountant can avoid most of the worst of it. (although wage and salary earners can not).

Both sides of politics are running on a nannyish social agenda, a high tax and spend agenda, and there is not a hint of a promise to wind back the state. Increasingly I'm inclining to the view of Perry de Havilland that democracy is nothing more then kleptocratic populism. Certainly, the way parliamentary politics is practiced in Australia can be characterised as such.

I am loathe to tip against the bookies, but I predict that the voters will toss the Howard Government out of office, and the ALP will enjoy the benefits that accrue from a thumping landslide win. The general rule in Australian politics is that when the party of government changes, it changes in a very big way. It seems to me that all the signs are there this will happen again.

(0) (1)

Indeed, according to this survey, Ronald McDonald House is twice as trusted as Amnesty International and more than twice as trusted as the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace.
- The Australian news site Crikey.com.au, reporting on a survey of Australian opinions on the trustworthiness of various charities that was conducted by the Australian edition of Reader's Digest.

(0) (13)

Given that Ireland is almost a poster boy for 'before-and-after' for what liberalising an economy can do, it is a pity that the people who argue for continuing that process have to couch their words in defensive language. Nevertheless, the Progressive Democrats seems to be making a far better case in Ireland for freeing markets than the pointless British Tories are.

Progressive Democrats president, Mr McDowell, last night issued a rallying call to fellow Ministers to hold to the Government's liberal economic policy agenda, saying tax-cutting and deregulation have helped transform the State.

[...]

He rejected the accusation that supporters of this way believed in the unleashing of unbridled market forces. "It is the essence of the liberal, republican tradition that the market is the servant and not the master of the people. No one I know argues that Ireland is or should be an economy rather than a society."

"Market is the servant and not the master of the people"... but what does that actually mean? It seems to me that an economy can be social, but only when it is not political... and Ireland can only 'be an economy, rather than a society' if politics (i.e, manipulation of the state) has so much control over what is done as to make the economy simply an adjunct of the state and its political processes, wiping out the economic underpinnings of society and the social underpinnings of markets.

So yes, I am all in favour of people in Ireland living in a society, and the only way to do that is to have a free social market rather than a politically regulated economy.

(6) (21)

The big news in the London architecture scene just now is the fact that Ken Shuttleworth has left Norman Foster and is branching out on his own, with a new practice called simply: Make. And Make are making a huge public splash already, with this:

The Vortex, it is already being called.

"Ken Shuttleworth", I realise, sounds like one of the barmier characters in The League of Gentlemen - but believe me, if you know who this guy is you soon forget that. He was the creative brain behind the Erotic Gherkin. He was also the creative brain behind the Millenium Bridge, the one which so famously wobbled when it was first opened. But the wobbles have been long fixed, and that, like the Gherkin, is now an instant London landmark, with the view of it from Tate Modern with St Pauls in the background now being a favourite London picture postcard.

Just as the Gherkin could have, the Vortex could end up looking horribly kitsch, like a giant lamp fit only for a car boot sale. But I hope and trust that, if Shuttleworth does get it built, he executes it as well as he executed the Gherkin, which all of London (that I know of) reckons is superb.

The design rationale of The Vortex is twofold. First, although the shape is beautifully curvy, it is a shape made entirely out of straight lines, which makes it a whole lot easier to build than it looks. Not easy mind, just easier. And second, the big rents in buildings like this are charged at the bottom and at the top, apparently, so the logical shape for such a beast to be is thick and bottom, thick and the top and thinner in the middle. The Vortex obliges perfectly, and as an intrinsic result of its shape.

But the most interesting thing of all about this building, to my way of thinking, is the fact that Shuttleworth has designed it, and announced it, before he knows where it will go.

This is fascinating. Design the building, in rough outline. Then advertise it. Then get the money together and get the politicians excited, and sort out where to put the thing. This makes perfect sense. It also flies in the face of much architectural orthodoxy about how the building has to blend into its surroundings, which I rather like. Because this thing will, if done well (Shuttleworth style), blend in with anything.

No doubt there will be Americans commenting here to the effect that edifices like this spoil Disneyland-London, which exists entirely for their amusement by being the opposite of New York and Chicago. They should know that I vehemently disagree. The business of London is business and it always has been, and you can't do business only in cutesy little historical type buildings. London is a living city, and plans like this are all part of why it is living particularly vivaciously just now.

The idea is, of course, that the Vortex should be built in London. But since they haven't fixed on a particular place for it yet, there is no reason why it couldn't be built in Shanghai instead, or in Shanghai as well, and bigger. I could live with that.

(0) (53)

A commenter to this blog has dismissed the recent achievements of Bert Rutan's Spaceship One flight as being a waste of money, money which the commenter believes should not have been 'wasted' on such a venture and devoted to causes the said commenter no doubt deems a worthier object. We have been here before with this sort of criticism, of course with the Moon landings, with the rather obvious difference that the Apollo missions relied on taxpayers' money, and not funds provided voluntarily by businessmen.

More generally, any innovative endeavour, or venture which may yield benefits not immediately graspable, can be dismissed and attacked as wasteful. The trial and errors of capitalism were dismissed by early socialist thinkers as wasteful, in contrast to their dreams of an efficient, centrally planned order. We know better now, of course. It hardly needs to be pointed out that on that logic, the first man who discovered how to make fire and spent hours chipping flints to make arrowheads was 'wasting time' in the eyes of his fellow cavedwellers, who no doubt wondered if he should be doing something more important.

And I am sure I speak for my fellow Samizdata contributors in hailing the excellent and sustained coverage by Dale Amon of the latest space flight ventures. It is a positive and exhilarating development and frankly, a tonic at a time of so much depressing news out there. So my message to the Luddites who carp, is simply this - you ain't seen nothing yet.

(0) (26)

Christopher Hitchens has a fantastically (in a good way) written review of Moore's latest creation Fahrenheit 9/11. This is my favourite bit:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Hitchens extracts from the turgid and self-righteous on-screen heap of non-sense six points that he then proceeds to fisk with brisk ruthlessness they deserve. Read the whole thing as they say...

(0) (56)

It seems astonishing that the state still gets involve with the content of TV programming in the USA. I expect this sort of crap in Britain and Europe, but in the USA?

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved a measure to crack down on indecency on radio and television by sharply raising fines. The Senate also took steps to rein in the growth of U.S. media companies by invalidating new, more relaxed ownership rules.

Can anyone tell me, do these absurd rules in the USA also apply to other non-terrestrial broadcast media companies, such as cable and satellite TV or even internet 'radio'?

(0) (112)

The seizure of eight British sailors and their small patrol boats by Iranian forces means it is time for the British government to show that unless a swift accommodation is reached, the consequences will be severe for the Iranian state. If the UK forces did indeed stray into Iranian waters, nothing more than a curt apology is due the Iranian state, and only that if they return the British sailors and their equipment without delay. The Iranian state is a vile tyranny and the sooner they are put under real pressure the better.

Of course I would like to see as much instability as possible within Iran regardless of the incident with the sailors. There is no shortage of people in Iran who would love to see the end of theocratic Islamic rule and now would be a good time to start taking advantage of the fact UK and US forces control the Iraqi side of the border. Surely there must be some fairly large stockpiles of weapons from Saddam's army that have not been blown up and are just sitting around in Iraq...

But if the Iranians want to turn this into a hostage crisis however, the only response should be to use whatever force is required to resolve the situation, not just via anti-regime dissidents but directly by Britain against the Iranian state, and as soon as it is practical. If the theocrats want to engage in brinkmanship, I hope the UK and US will be prepared to not just go to the brink but to step straight over it very forcefully indeed. A nice opening move to the 'negotiations' would be to redeploy a division right up to the Iranian border.

Update: Hopefully this will all be over by tomorrow (Thursday). Perhaps the Iranian state decided it was unwise to push things too far. It will be interesting to see if there is any long term fall out from this incident.

(1) (16)

I am now back in Redondo Bearch and waiting until it is time to pick up the CD's from the developer. In the meantime, I thought I'd pass on a few other items about today's flight.

• Patti Grace Smith of the FAA was on hand to give Pilot Melville an award which recognizes him as the first civilian astronaut.

• There may have been some re-entry damage affecting roll controls. I have heard incomplete and contradictory information. SpaceShipOne did come into the landing a bit hotter than expected. I have heard numbers like +5 mph.

• The candies banging about inside of the cockpit were definitely M&M's. The brand name has been withheld (other than a slip of the tongue by Melville that was edited out later) since there has so far not been any brand placement payments made. I will leave it to your imagination the bad jokes floating around the XCOR hanger...

• SpaceShipOne was about 26 miles outside of the box it was supposed to be in during the re-entry. Because of this the sonic booms on re-entry were barely audible from the airport. There is scuttlebutt about some control problems. This is to be expected in a test vehicle which is being used for a fast-track learning process in a particular flight regime which has never been explored before.

• The engine burn was a bit shorter than was expected. It was 1:15 min rather than 1:30 which was expected.

• I have heard the Governor was not there. The high DOT official was not the Secretary of the Department, it was Patti Grace Smith, the woman in charge of FAA launch and spaceport licensing and regulation.
  

(0) (6)

Our Glorious Leader is seeking the Holy Grail of truth:

The political debate over the new EU constitution will be a "battle between reality and myth", Tony Blair has said.

For sure, but from which side of the battlefield is Mr Blair going to lead his charge? The massed ranks of reality or the dark legions of myth? Successive British governments have spent the last four decades lying like tinkers over the European Union, so I think it rather optimistic to expect any defections to the forces of light at this late stage.

For genuine reality-seekers, there is the EU Referendum Blog:

Mr Blair would be very pleased to know that we started the battle between myth and reality some time ago. We have been collecting, analyzing and disproving EU Myths and we intend to go on with that task. As soon as there is a round dozen, we shall send Mr Blair a copy of the collection in either electronic of printed format. We think he might find it useful.

I think he may consign it to the shredder. However, I expect the stout yeomen at the EU Referendum Blog will make their findings available to the rest of us in early course.

I cannot recommend the EU Referendum Blog highly enough. They dissect and analyse the absurdities and the cant of the European Union in meticulous and compelling detail. Right now, it is the most important blog in Britain (after Samizdata, of course!).

(8) (21)

With the ship back on the ground and the speechifying in progress, I now have a bit of time to pontificate on the importance of this event.

Some of you understand intuitively. Few outside a small circle of friends fully comprehend the magnitude of the breakthrough. Getting into space is not about technology. It is about money. It is about risk, markets, business plans, insurance, and raising capital. It is about the metacontext. The metacontext which died in the desert sun this morning carried built in assumptions that space is for governments; space is expensive; space is too risky for business.

Now we know differently. Paul Allen funded Rutan's two craft from concept to suborbital space flight for around $20 million. In the aerospace world this is pocket change. Design studies cost that much, let alone TWO working vehicles.

The media came. The coverage has been beyond my wildest expectations. This is the second element required. Not only has the metacontext been smashed; everyone knows it.

Two more flights are required to collect the X-Prize. Today's did not carry the extra weight to simulate two passengers, at least not to my knowledge, so this flight does not count for the prize. Scaled Composites has said they will give the media 60 days notice. If true, that is August at the earliest. This makes the Apollo Landing anniversary of July 20th an unlikely date.

SpaceShipOne is not a Commercial tourist spaceship. It is the pre-cursor. The success we have seen today makes it clear to the investment community that the regulatory problems are manageable; the risk is manageable... Most importantly they now know we are not all stark raving bonkers. We really can do this.

The investors will come now. The decades of the Pyramid builders is nearly at an end. Linear growth via government funding will now be replaced by the exponential power of the market.

This is indeed what free men and women can do.

(0) (6)

I am unfortuneately not quite enough of a VIP to make it into the Scaled Composites area, or at least I have not yet seen anyone I know who could get me in. I have heard it is quite an affair... I cannot confirm, but rumour has it Arnold Schwarzenegar is there and perhaps the US Secretary of Transportation. Paul Allen will certainly be there. Oh, and an astronaut flew in, in his NASA T38.

I will just play it by ear this afternoon.

(2) (3)

As of a minute ago, everyone is back on the ground and over at Scaled Composites. SpaceShipOne rolled out a fair distance but not quite past where I was standing at the XCOR hanger. The White Knight did a low pass before doing a sharp turn to come back and land; then the three chase planes did a formation flight. Among the three was Paul Allen's Alpha Jet and Rutan's Beech Starship.

It has been a long wait. We have finally done it. The road to the stars opened today.

Private industry develops on an exponential and we have just gotten to the fun part of the curve.

Now to celebrate!

(0) (5)

Unofficial... they hit 100km. They are on approach now.

(0) (4)

White Knight with SpaceShipOne slung under it took off on schedule and is circling ever higher with the chase plane. Going back out to wait for the drop, should be another 15 minutes or so...

(4) (4)

A lovely quick breakfast of eggs, bacon and fruit in the hanger, cooked by the XCOR management... and now we wait a little bit before the roll out. Rand Simberg and Michael Mealing have been posting from here as well; I've seen a couple others who might be blogging stories as well.

And Dr. Pournelle is running about preparing to connect here in the XCOR office, so perhaps there will also be stories on his site.

I am almost surprised to not see Glenn out here since he knows almost all the same people I do and should be kicking himself for not running out on students for two days to join us here.

Meanwhile, I have to get busy on my second coffee!

(0) (0)

It is now 0430 and most of the bodies are stirring from their sleeping bags and airbeds. Bacon is crackling in the hanger as Aleta prepares to feed the multitudes while simultaneously giving radio orders to volunteers around the airport,

The air seems calm, but I have not been outside the hanger yet. This is as I expected or at least hoped. I have done some flying myself and remember the glorious morning calm.

We will be headed for the VIP stands after breakfast and I will not be posting from then until our return.

(0) (6)

I have just returned from the National Space Society and Space Frontier Society's' outdoor disco's. They have a light show projected on a hanger wall and a corral of RV's enclosing and sort of protecting the party area from the wind-blown sand. There is a thumping beat of good loud 21st Century music, food, talk and dancing. I'll supply photos when I get them developed... assuming my camera managed to take something from which image enhancement can recover something useful.

The party looks like it will go on most of the night, but I am sleeping in the XCOR office, so I thought it best to get back here and get a couple hours of sleep. The wakeup call to travel to the viewing area will come all too soon.

Aleta Jackson is one of the people organizing 'the show' and deserves kudos for her awesome job on short notice... although I expect sleep would be more appreciated. It does not look like she will be getting any tonight. She is out in the hanger taking care of people as they wander in from the NSS party or wherever, and has to have breakfast organized for the XCOR guest locusts after the flight.

Earlier there was a barbecue outside the XCOR hanger. It was like a high school reunion party; I saw people I had not seen in years. I also met a few people I have known for years over the internet but never met face to face. I also got to watch and be deafened by the XCOR teacart engine. They ran several shows just outside the hanger door.

Everyone who counts in private space is here or else will be in tomorror... er I mean later this morning. Takeoff if 06:30 PST if the bleeding wind drops off. The current conditions are not what I would call conducive to safe landings in a glider. There are hours to go though, and dawn is usually a period of calm so I am hoping for the best. If worst comes to worst, I have planned my return flights with several day's of leeway. I have been around the rocket scene for far too long to have done otherwise.

I will post again in the morning, probably after the flight.

(0) (2)

Rand and I arrived at the Mojave Civilian Test Flight Facility about an hour ago and I have had time to run about and snap some candid photos of the crowd at the XCOR hanger. Dr. Pournelle is here, Elon Musk is around somewhere as are others in the commercial space flight field.

I got Jeff Greason's attention just after an interview and have my network connection sorted from inside the office. Now I must go and be sociable... and Rand is pushing for me to unload the airbed and other stuff from his car. I will try to post more later.

Yes, there will be photos, but not until after I get my film developed on return to Redondo Beach.

(0) (1)

When I was in my native Australia a couple of months back, I was pleased to discover that it is at last possible to fly around the country on Australia's airlines for something like the at times very low cost of flying around Europe. Traditionally, domestic air tickets in Australia have been mind blowingly expensive due to truly astonishingly stupid over-regulation of the industry. (Just as an example, for several decades only two airlines were licensed to fly domestically in Australia, one state owned and one privately owned. These two airlines were required to charge identical fares, operate identical aircraft, offer an identical number of seats on each route, honour each other's tickets, and operate to identical timetables. This meant that if one airline wanted to fly an 9am flight to Sydney, the other airline had to agree to do so before it would be permitted). Getting rid of this asonishingly stupid over-regulation has been a slow and painful 20 year experience. Thankfully, though, it is largely gone. Although there is still far too little competition, the competition is now clearly on its way.

In any event, I was explaining this to Brian Micklethwait last month over a cup of tea, and he suggested I should write it up. I started doing so for this blog, but the story was sufficiently long and esoteric that by the time I had finished I discovered that I had written 6000 words, and it was a little too long and esoteric. Therefore, I have posted it to Transport Blog, where it probably more belongs.

And if you have ever wondered how Australia got from being the richest country in the world at the beginning of the twentieth century to being substantially behind the pack (although still a rich country) in 1980, and how it has managed to catch up substantially again since then, the answer is quite a lot of this sort of regulation and protectionism, followed by a substantial (and it times quite hesitant) about turn in the early 1980s, and this story captures most of the key details.

(0) (15)

David Smith, the economics editor for the Sunday Times, has a splendid article on his personal blog, Economics UK, about why the Eurosceptic approach is the economically rational one.

Britain’s unemployment rate, on a comparable basis, is 4.8%, against 9.4% in France and 9.8% in Germany. Unemployment stands at under half the EU average. Per capita gross domestic product in Britain, according to a new report from Capital Economics, is higher at $30,200 (£16,440), than Germany’s $29,200 or France’s $28,500.

The economic momentum is with us. Britain has been growing continuously for 12 years, during which time other EU countries have suffered at least one recession and in some cases two. The sick man of Europe has made a remarkable recovery.

Of course the economic argument for Britain being in the EU (as opposed to some EFTA-like agreement) was always tosh. Switzerland anyone? It is now highly visible tosh.

Here on Samizdata.net we may decry the regulatory idiocy of the Labour government but clearly things are even worse in Euroland, and at least if more sovereignty is maintained at the UK level, more of the damage can be undone at the UK level rather than locked in by remote stasis oriented Europe wide institutions. All the EU has to offer is corruption, stagnation and regulation. No thanks.

(0) (25)

For those who insist that the lack of an Al-Qaeda/Iraq link means Saddam should have been left to mass murder his own people unmolested, Melanie Philips has some measured words for you.

The excitement was over a preliminary assessment of evidence about al-Qa'eda by the US commission investigating September 11. The only problem was that the press coverage was untrue. The report does not rule out links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'eda. On the contrary, as the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'eda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." As so often in the coverage of Iraq, those who make the (illogical) claim that there was no such contact and therefore no cause for war saw in this report only what they wanted to see.

[...]

Bill Clinton's administration was absolutely certain that Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qa'eda. It was a given. That is surely why, after September 11, Pentagon officials were obsessed with Iraq. Whether Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 was irrelevant; if he was aiding al-Qa'eda's terror, he had to be stopped. But this has been obliterated from the collective memory in order to place the most malign interpretation possible on the motives of the Bush administration.

Nothing new and from my point of view, so what... that Saddam was a tyrant was enough of a reason for me... but seeing as how people keep repeating 'there was no link' (I was highly sceptical myself at first), continue to oppose the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime if you like but please find another approach because 'that dawg don't hunt no more'.

(0) (10)

In common with many classical liberals, I find the case against allowing the physical punishment of children by their parents to be a compelling one. After all, if assaulting an adult is wrong then why is it any less wrong to assault a child? In fact, it is arguably a greater wrong to assault a child since an adult (well, any adult outside of the UK at any rate) can at least make a decent fist out of defending themselves, whereas a five year-old has no such capability.

I am also aware that most parents who resort to physical chastisement do so by means of a light smack on the rump and therein lies a whole world of difference from that tiny number of parents who hospitalise or even kill their children by the application of sustained and quite brutal force.

In other words, the whole issue is messy, complicated and shrouded in grey arears. However, and that said, I do not approve of state intervention:

Ministers are preparing to help outlaw smacking in return for guarantees that parents are not prosecuted for giving children "a playful tap".

The Government is desperate to avoid defeat at the hands of a powerful cross-party alliance building behind moves for an outright smacking ban.

Without having had an opportunity to peruse the proposes legislation, I am already deeply sceptical about the claim that 'playful taps' will not be acted upon. As with most law enforcement, it is rarely the most heinous that are punished but rather the most vulnerable and, therefore, the easiest targets.

The Association of Directors of Social Services recently wrote to its members supporting the proposed change to the law. "We believe children can and should be disciplined and made subject to clear parental controls but that this can be achieved without inflicting violence."

However, the organisation did admit that the introduction of a smacking ban would have "resource implications".

Yes, those old "resource implications". Therein lies the key. For it is all very well to announce that assualts on children will no longer be tolerated but the real questions are, who enforces this measure and how?

The answer is, who else but for Social Services, the Police and the various child-welfare agences? Provided the "resource implications" are addressed to their satisfaction it will be up to these newly-appointed Guardians to investigate claims of child-assault and prosecute the offending parents.

This is a very bad idea. Quite aside from the extra powers that will be granted to these agencies (and they already have a cartload), the implication behind that investment is that thse public servants are wiser, more relaible and and more humane that those dreaful abusing parents. The record does not bear this out.

Because I live in a nation without memory, I very often find myself reminding people of what happended in the late 1980's when all of the above agencies became convinced that parents all over the country were engaged in serious child abuse as part and parcel of 'Satan-worship' rituals. It was a flagrant and rank absurdity but nonetheless this hysterical fabrication shot through the entire public sector and fourth estate like an outbreak of the plague.

Eventually, (and only after these fictions became unsustainable) calmer heads prevailed and 'Satanic child abuse' canard was quashed. But nor before several families had been effectively destroyed by what was, to all intents and purposes, a witchhunt.

Far from being infallible, or even reliable, the agences of the state have proved by their track record that they are mendacious, self-serving and pernicious. To hand them even more power over family life than they have now is to invoke a 'cure' that will prove far worse than the disease.

(0) (1)

'The Space Show' will be supplying a live audio show during the SpaceShipOne flight:

The Space Show is pleased to announce that it will carry live (audio only) the Space Ship One historical launch scheduled for 6:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time (weather permitting) on Monday, June 21, 2004 in Mojave, California. Events unfolding at the Mojave Airport up to and including the launch, plus special interviews and much more, will be reported live to listeners of The Space Show by our special reporter on the scene, well-known space advocate and leader, John Carter McKnight Mr. McKnight is a regularly appearing guest on The Space Show and is also a space analyst and commentator whose work has appeared in Space News, SpaceDaily.com, SpaceRef, Space Times and numerous other industry publications.

Further:

The live broadcast can be heard on the internet at [link]. In addition, an additional streaming site has been provided Space Show listeners by Jeff Birk at Pioneer Radio in the UK. The tentative URL for this additional site is http://usa.rolo.net:8008/listen.pls.

It will be the next best thing to being there.

(0) (9)

Those who follow its coverage know that BBC "impartiality" usually means not favoring Hamas over Islamic Jihad.
- CAMERA (Committe for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) reporting that the BBC's correspondent in Gaza reportedly declared at a recent Hamas event that reporters and the media are "waging the campaign [against Israel] shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."

via Instapudit and Free Will.

(0) (4)

I've spent a great deal of 2004 either on the road or preparing to be on the road. That is why my postings have been a bit scarce these last six months. I hope to be a bit more visible the next few days. This trip is not as business intensive as most have been. Yes, I am transacting and meeting with people, but for one day I will be an on the scene reporter for one of the most important historical events since Kittyhawk.

I arrived in Redondo Beach yesterday afternoon after two days of travel. My luggage finally caught up with me this morning: socks will be buried shortly. It was a very, very long journey.

Due to severe financial constraints I cut corners on this trip every which way. I left my flat in Belfast on Thursday afternoon, dragging a luggage trolley behind me. It was great fun getting the luggage onto a bus heading into the City Centre. After a brief stop at the bank where I turned my meager balance into dollars, I pulled the luggage through town and along the Laganside... where I promptly took the wrong side street shortcut to the train station. So... train to Dublin Connolly, and then a Dublin bus with an even narrower aisle.

My overnight stop in Dublin was at the house of a close friend and a meal cooked by her guitarist Graham Dunne. He cooks as well as he plays and that is saying something! Another trad musician was visiting and so we drank wine and talked until at least 1am... and I had to be up at 5am. Niamh Parsons, kind and wonderful soul that she is, got up and drove me to the airport at that ungodly hour.

The next leg was from Dublin to Paris. No, I am not kidding. The cheapest flight I could get on short notice was an Air France flight. I had a very tight window in Charles De Gaulle (CDG) Airport to find my gate for the international flight, but this went smoothly. A literal walk on.

CDG is big. We took so long from landing to parking I thought the pilot was taxiing us directly into the Paris City Centre. The airport is also very unfinished. Airplanes stop at places where there are probably going to be terminals some day. For now, you get a lift on a bus. (Advice: hang on for dear life.)

The food on the Paris to LA flight was good. I expected no less from Air France and they lived up to my expectations in spades. I managed to keep myself busy on this long flight over Greenland, Hudson Bay and down the West Coast. I brought a lot of reading material of the sort you would expect of someone who blogs. A case document on the Kennewick Man case; a Physics Today article on Hafnium explosives; a report to Congress on the state of China's defense... things like that. It kept me busy except when it helped me to nap...

I was not feeling all that bad when I deplaned in LAX. Good thing too. First came the INS. Not really a problem... but the form for Customs has lines which must be filled in telling them where you are staying. However I did not have Rand Simberg's street address (I did not think they would accept his URL). Every time I have been to Rand's house he has picked me up. I never needed to know the address and had not thought of bringing it. The guy at Immigration insisted that something must be written on the still blank line... not because he wanted it but because Customs would send me back to him. Finally, in exasperation (and he didn't want to wait while I tracked Rand down on mobile) he suggested I was actually staying at a nearby hotel. I filled that in on the offending line and voila, problem solved. He told me he is getting out after many years with INS because he is fed up with the way things are going.

Then the wait for luggage... except mine never arrived. My name was listed along with perhaps a dozen other people on a clipboard held by a very helpful lady agent on duty.

Even the lady in front of the customs desk was nice when I told her why I had no luggage.

An hour later I had as good a picture of the situation as I was likely to get. The connection was so tight they could not get the luggage across in time, so it would come over on the next flight... in late evening. I was given a free courtesy kit with a t-shirt, shampoo, razor and such so I could at least freshen up.

So I only had my carry-on shoulder bag with the laptop, camera and papers. Heavy enough but not like hauling luggage. I lucked out then: Rand was home rather than off at his aerospace customer's facility. We agreed to meet just outside the airport, so I had one final bus ride to endure. I got packed into the parking lot bus so tightly with a bunch of end of shift TSA employees I had to stand on the steps and hold on for dear life to whatever I could find. I got off at the parking lot, rang Rand to let him know and walked to the street.

It was good to see Rand pull up instants later.