We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Tony Blair now does not even feel the need to hide the fact he intends to introduce summary ‘justice’ in Britain without the inconvenience of a trial or other for of due process.
He cited the example of a police constable who saw someone throw a brick through a window or abuse an old lady. “If you have got to take that person all the way through a long court process, you are not going to do it,” he said. Mr Blair said he had introduced fixed penalty notices to try to get round the problem. Offenders who disputed such a notice issued by the police could fight the case in court. “Summary justice is tough, it is hard, but in my judgment it is the only way to do it,” he said.
So in other words, rather than just arresting the person and then determining the facts in a trial, we are just supposed to trust that the police will always act in good faith and impose summary justice only against the truly guilty and with only the best judgement. Calling Judge Dredd, please report to Scotland Yard to collect your warrent card. Courts? Bah! Who needs ’em?
So I have been an alarmist all these years, eh?
My contempt for the Nobel Prize for anything grew dramatically today when I read that Harold Pinter won the award for literature. The fact he is an apologist for Europe’s most prolific mass murdering socialist since Joseph Stalin, namely Slobodan Milosovic, is apparently is not something which bothers the worthies in Sweden.
A contemptible prize for a contemptible man.
No prize for now guessing why not much blogging got done today…As Paul Marks got his review up first, I will content myself with just a few observations about Joss Whedon’s magnificent Serenity.
It is what the last three Star Wars movies were trying to be but failed. Serenity has an engaging story, good direction and brilliant writing (it is a tour de force of quips and memorable one liners) and as Paul points out, it is extremely sound politically.
It is also very well cast, with Nathan Fillion truly marvellous as the charismatic Captain ‘Mal’, playing it every inch the Wild West hero (for this movie is nothing if not a Western which just happens to be set in outer-space). Also convincing is the bizarrely named Summer Glau, whose strange looks and lithe moves are well suited to the demented character she plays.
Highly recommended! Run, do not walk, to your nearest cinema. Do not wait for the DVD!
So is GWB really facing ‘rebellion‘ by conservatives over his choice of nominee to the Supreme Court? It has long puzzled me why he has been cut so much slack for so long given that his conservative credentials were never very strong to begin with. I guess just not being Bill Clinton was enough for the GOP’s supporters to stomach his significant expansion of Big Government and clear lack of any interest in trying to revive the squandered Reagan legacy.
But is this the straw that breaks the camels back or just a storm in a media teacup? Are there really enough people in the GOP willing to derail his latest nominee to the Supreme Court on ideological grounds and do they think there is any chance of them getting someone more to their liking from a Big Government statist like George Bush Jr.? Is this ‘outrage’ on the right going to make a difference? I will be curious see how this is really going to play out.
The uses of nano-technology will be many and revolutionise pretty much everything. Micro-circuits? How about nano-circuits!
It has been claimed by the BBC that George Bush has said he was “instructed by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan”, not “inspired by his Christian beliefs” mind you, actually “instructed”, presumably via some sort of celestial Red Telephone in the Oval Office. Now he may or may not have actually said that (the BBC is rather prone to run with whatever story fits its world view), but I can certainly believe he might have said those things.
As the guy is a practicing Christian, it is to be expected that the G word is something that might come easy to his lips. Now I am all in favour of the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan but I really do wonder if he has any idea how utterly bonkers that sort of thing sounds to non-believers such as myself?
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying he should deny his faith if he thinks he has a personal relationship with God. If that is how he sees things, why should he not say so? I realise than many of my utterances about liberty and the world generally strike many of a different bent as equally bizarre. But I am well aware how negatively my remarks are often received even though I may not actually care a great deal… but at least I know.
But I wonder if GWB actually has the slightest idea how he sounds to some people when he invoked his deity in such a manner? Is the President of the United States really saying he hears voices in his head and acts on what he hears?
Just curious.
So the Iranian government is assisting insurgent to attack British troops in Iraq. No real surprise there, methinks.
However Tony Blair ‘warning’ the Iranians with remarks like…
I want to be very, very clear about this – the British forces are in Iraq under a United Nations mandate. There is no justification for Iran or any other country to interfere in Iraq.
… exactly what sort of response from Iran, other than a blanket denial, does he expect? Sack your advisers Tony and try something along the lines of:
Dear Mr. Ahmadinezhad,
I assume it has not escaped your notice but there are quite a few people in your country who hate you and we don’t much care for you either. Lots of Iranians want a secular government and seeing as how you are peeing on our parade in Iraq, one good turn deserves another. We will be sending SAS teams to train, assist and supply pretty much anyone in Iran who wants to oppose you. If you want to reach an accomodation with us before one of your fellow countrymen puts a bomb, that we supplied, under your car, well, you know where to find us.
Tony
The trick here is not to do it covertly but to be quite open about it and why it is being done. I rather doubt he has the stones for such an approach, but hey, Blair has surprised me in the past.
No, another one quite separate to the festivities in Iraq…
Chief Inspector of HM Prisons Anne Owers has declared that the national symbol of England, the Cross of St. George, is racist and must not be worn by prison guards in case it upsets Muslim prisoners.
And it seems Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, agrees, saying that the Red Cross of St. George was “an insensitive reminder of the Crusades”, adding: “…that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with.”
Who is “we”? Perhaps Chris Doyle and his Council for Dhimmitude should spend more time getting Arabs to understand the British rather than the other way around.
I wonder how this organisation would react to calls for Muslims to abandon the crescent moon, the green flag and all other overly Muslim symbols as being offensive to some English people who may associate them with slavery? I mean, if it is ok for Muslims to be offended by English people in England wearing English symbols that remind some people of a series of wars that ended in 1300, how can anyone mind if I object to Muslims in England wearing Muslim symbols that I choose to associate with Muslim atrocities against English people which ended practically yesterday… i.e. when Lord Exmouth destroyed Algiers in 1816?
Completely daft of course but if we accept the logic of the likes of Anne Owers and Chris Doyle, it seems inevitable. Are they sure they want to go down that path?
I cannot tell you how happy this makes me:
Ms Spelman, who is shadow local government minister, said the public were increasingly taking their cue from Mr Paxman when dealing with politicians. She said the reception she received from the public while out canvassing in her West Midlands constituency was the most unfriendly she had ever experienced. The public had clearly lost trust in politicians and thought they were only “in it for themselves”, she added.
No, really? I wonder what gave them that impression…
Perhaps you think I am talking about Venezuela under the thuggish Chavez?
Nope. I am talking about Britain.
Perhaps you think I am talking about Venezuela under the thuggish Chavez?
Nope. I am talking about Britain.
And now, for something completely different… In the last four years since I started blogging, the world of blogs has evolved beyond recognition. So I decided to offer a peek into the other corners of the blogosphere far from Samizdata’s illuminating glow. This, however, does not suggest that these blogs are unenlightened.
As the first in an intermittent series of interesting blogs, let me present something which will strike many as an odd choice on my part.
Baukjen & Vanessa’s Diary is a blog that blurs the dividing line between what is a commercial blog and a what is a private blog. The company Isabella Oliver designs stylish maternity clothes and the two principals behind that venture set up a blog that both chronicles events germane to their company and as well as elements of their private lives. This makes quite a lot of sense as spending time engaging potential customers in a conversational manner can be a much better way of getting people’s interest than interruptive advertising, which I often think is a waste of money, particularly on-line… and blogs are nothing if not about engaging people if you have a story to tell or opinions to share.
I also find this approach interesting as it helps to break down the notion that private and professional lives are perforce completely separate things. I have always suspected that if people saw trade and commerce as the social activities they are, they might be less willing to see them as something to be regulated politically. Blogs… they are not just for geeks anymore.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
