So that’s it then. As Mark Steyn says at the start of this, the surprise is how long it lasted.
Here is how this guy sees it:
Thanks to Patrick for spotting this, but only in the original immobile version.
|
|||||
|
The campaign to impose the Olympic Games upon Paris and the French taxpayer, rather than upon London and the British (and London – i.e. me) taxpayer, is lunging strongly towards the finishing tape:
That is the most eloquent “nevertheless” I have read recently.
Allez France! Allez neo-colonialism! And an interesting reminder, I think, of how different the world can look when viewed from somewhere . . . different. My guess would be that all this talk of democracy that has been bubbling up in the world lately must be quite a nuisance to a number of the regimes listed there. Which might explain why France, despite being democratic itself, is not that keen on the idea spreading. April 14th, 2005 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Incoming email from Sean Gabb:
I could attend but do not want to. I am going through a quietist phase just now. But I am happy to pass it all on:
Sean adds the following:
Good luck gentlemen. I look forward to viewing the DVD. April 13th, 2005 | 26 comments - (Comments are closed)
Here is proof that Jeremy Clarkson and his fellow petrolheads have definitely got under some green skins, if you get my meaning:
Yes, that will pack them in. Greenies: try to understand. Most drivers spend their lives driving sensibly in sensible vehicles, except when you lunatics have stuck bumps in the road, in which case they are obliged to drive senselessly, accelerating and decelerating and generally spoiling the air and the neighbourhood. The idea that TV’s premier driving show should surrender its position as TV’s premier driving show by doing nothing but reflect this dreary reality is crazy, and cruel. Kill Top Gear, and you will have alienated yet another big brick in the human wall that is Middle England.
Personally, I am in favour of the “social effects” of transport, the main ones being that because we are able to travel, we can get to see interesting places and appealing people, and get and do far better jobs than would otherwise be possible. And as for the environmental effects of transport, I know what they mean, but once again, I think transport makes the environment far more congenial, not least because we can travel about in it and see what it all consists of. Obviously the most environmentally friendly thing, in the sense these people mean, that humans could do would be to drop dead en masse. But most of us, thank goodness, are not these people. For most of us, life is for living, and life would be very lifeless if we were to do away entirely with exciting cars, and drove only sensible ones, and worse, if we were not even allowed to watch crazy cars being driven crazily on TV. April 12th, 2005 | 32 comments - (Comments are closed)
A Guardian headline spotted today:  The complete story is here. Basically, and especially in recent months, things are improving. The story ends thus:
So, whatever happens, the West is still wrong. It would not be the Guardian if there was no defeat to snatch from the jaws of the victory they dreaded, but are now having to concede. April 9th, 2005 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
How long Economics in One Lesson has been available to read free, online, I have no idea, but since she only just heard about this, I feel entitled to say with similar lack of shame (unless of course a fellow Samizdatista has already flagged this up and I missed it) that her posting was how I finally found out about this myself. It has been a while since I read this book. The bit I recall with the greatest vividness concerned the broken window fallacy. This fallacy says, fallaciously, that broken windows are good for the economy because they are good for the window-mending business. What the broken window fallacy neglects to mention is that broken windows are bad for all the businesses that the window mending money might have gone to instead, but now cannot. The most extreme statement of this fallacy is the claim that the ultimate window breaker, war, is good for the economy, because that way lots of work is “created” in all the industries that subsequently set to work to repair the destruction. When Keynesian economics was in its pomp, you did hear people actually saying this. Maybe, if those are the kind of circles you still move in, you still do. Yet war is creative, in a back-handed way, and provided that you lose. It destroys wealth, but it can also destroy certain impediments to future wealth creation. Mancur Olsen, in his book (alas not available on line so far as I know) The Rise and Decline of Nations (lots of five stars out of five reviews here), says that, yes of course, losing a war does destroy wealth, but that it also destroys what he calls “distributional coalitions”. In plainer language, losing a war breaks up politically well-connected rackets, like state-enforced cartels and trade-unions. Thus the post-WW2 economic miracles of Germany and Japan. This is what you would call a high risk strategy for achieving economic dynamism. I mean, just for starters, be careful who you lose your war to. Pick the wrong country to surrender to and you are liable to end up with an even huger, politically even better connected racket, in the form of your rapacious conquerors. In other words, broken windows followed by more broken windows, and nobody ever mending them. April 8th, 2005 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
My good friends who run the Big Blog Company do not like to use Samizdata to promote the Big Blog Company as much as they might, because this is not cool. It is not good blogging practice. But I am only doing this incidentally when I link to the latest posting on their blog. My main purpose is to promote myself, which I suppose is not all that cool either, but there you go. Said I, here:
And, back from her tBBC promotional trip to LA, Jackie D said, this very morning, this:
That is a classic description of how a genuinely new market (as opposed to a made-to-sound-like-a-market governmental rearrangement of a non-market) starts out by working – i.e. not working. Stay with it guys. In the long run, you will get rich. If you can still be there when the long run starts to run. Eventually all those corporations will start to really understand blogging, and to want help to do the real thing. To continue my own quote:
Or, to put it another way:  April 5th, 2005 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
This sounds like it could have an affect on the forthcoming election, not just on the numbers of votes that go this way or that, but on what gets said during the campaign. It makes our Labour government look bad.
The lawyer representing the accused in this case has just been on Newsnight, and he came as close as you can (with the look on his face rather than with his mere words) to saying that his clients are a pack of liars. That was a fun moment. This is a ticklish matter for the media, because the people doing these frauds are … er … ethnic. Now Sion Simon, a local MP right next to where this happened, and something of a Labour attack dog in the Norman Tebbit mould, is saying that there is no systemic problem. Paxman is being quite rough on him. Simon Hughes for the Lib Dems, and a Conservative whose name I did not catch, are saying that there is a systemic problem. And of course, although this row has been simmering for some time, there is now no time to do anything to the system except urge vote counters and returning officers to be extra-vigilant. Just how bad this will be for the government, I do not know. Maybe in a couple of days it will all be forgotten by almost everybody. But however this particular story plays out in the next few days, I get the feeling that, in Britain now, a political corner has been turned, some time during the last few months. Whether the electorate as a whole has any plans to vote differently remains to be seen. Many of my friends, such as regular Samizdata commenter Paul Coulam to name but one, have said to me that Blair is about to be re-re-elected with a similar majority to last time around, just as Thatcher was. Coulam certainly said this to me a few weeks back. But governments take a long time to unravel, and what does seem to have happened is that the metropolitan media of Britain have got bored with Labour. They are now more bored with Labour than they are disgusted and embarrassed by the Conservatives, which was not true a year ago. Michael Howard may disgust many Samizdata readers by being just another opportunist political hack, but he is nevertheless, I would say, a much more impressive and consequential figure than his two predecessors at the head of the Conservative Party. Now, Paxman is talking about what life is like in North Korea. Apparently people who have tried to escape from that hell hole, to heaven, otherwise known as China, are being executed in public, with everyone else in the town rounded up and forced to watch. Someone even managed to film one of these horror shows, and the BBC showed it. “Worst human rights record of any country in the world.” Count your blessings time. April 4th, 2005 | 27 comments - (Comments are closed)
Dale Amon is too busy to blog about this himself, but emails the rest of us with news about this, from Novosti:
Quite where the Energia corporation now sits in the public-private spectrum, I do not know. I suspect that both state money (bad) and the desire for commercial gain (good) are involved here, a lot. But most of all, I suspect that the plain old-fashioned desire to (best of all) fearlessly and braving all dangers get out there and to courageously explore new frontiers and to ruthlessly (and whatever is the Russia equivalent) split infinitives, etc., is what is really going on. Good for them. The Russians have not had much to cheer about lately. This kind of thing may be expensive, and “irrelevant”, no answer to poverty, blah blah, but it will surely make at least some of them a bit happier. It makes me think of that moment in 10 Things I Hate About You, one of the recent-ish Hollywood products that I did like a lot despite these Hollywood moans, when, after a surprisingly successful date with the object of his affections, that young guy who was also in Third Rock from the Sun, thinks about it all, and then grins hugely and smacks his steering wheel with both hands and shouts: “And I’m back in the game!” April 4th, 2005 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
At Australian wineries it is possible to buy port in ten litre containers. Alas, I found the prospect of getting this onto the plane and through British customs a little daunting, so I did not buy one. Which is a shame, as I would have been delighted to have been able to serve port out of a plastic container that looked more suitable for engine oil at my next dinner party. April 3rd, 2005 | 19 comments - (Comments are closed)
Michael Blowhard’s latest posting is one of his link fests, to video clips this time. He says he now prefers internet video bits to regular Hollywood movies.
I know the feeling. I do not indulge in internet video clips, but I am finding the movies duller and duller as the years go by. But I do not think this is because the movies are necessarily any worse. It is just that I have learned all I want to from the movies, and I have seen all the stories. I know the formulae. I now actually tend to prefer clever movies from Europe with subtitles, because I do not know how they are going to end, and because the people in them now seem more interesting and more real. Time was when it was the subtitled movies that were dull and the Hollywood stuff that was exciting. So has Hollywood changed? I doubt it. Have I changed? That seems far more likely. Friedrich, the other Blowhard, has a similarly low opinion of current Hollywood mainstream fare, and reckons it may be something to do with the fact that the big studios now make their real money not in the cinemas, but from DVDs, and other spin-off products such as video games. But a launch platform, to do that job well, still has to be good, does it not? If so many other kinds of business rest on these platforms, all the more reason to do them well, surely. I tried a few of Michael’s links to video clips, although I fear that investigating the porny ones too enthusiastically would be to invite all kinds of nasty Dark Side forces to encamp themselves on my hard disc. My favourite one was the first one linked to, which features a most unusual species of octopus:
Apparently, this is a fairly recent discovery:
Although, I have to say that one of the best things about this item was how little time it took to enjoy it, unlike a Hollywood movie like Miss Congeniality 2, which is the one that Friedrich Blowhard was especially complaining about. I really liked Miss Congeniality 1. If Miss Congeniality 2 is boring tripe, no more amusing than being told the same joke all over again, this should be no particular surprise. The surprise is when Whatever It Is 2 is really good, like with Godfather 2 or Terminator 2, or with James Bond number 2. Why? Because making a film good enough to have a sequel is very hard, and for the follow-up to be as good or better is a huge coincidence. I reckon Friedrich B was just particularly angry about MC2 and blamed all of Hollywood, instead of just the people who made MC2. Relax, mate. Pour yourself a drink and have a look at the walking octopus. April 2nd, 2005 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
And yes, it is eternally annoying that statists can’t tell the difference between introducing competition and outsourcing a monopoly. – Squander Two comments on this and it is then copied into a further Blognor Regis posting April 2nd, 2005 | 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. |
|||||