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]
|
There is an interesting article on New West by Christian Probasco, called California Looms.
California is a trendsetter state. Much like the weather, every Californian fad eventually makes its way over the Sierras and diffuses into the intermountain West. That’s wonderful, and it’s frightening, because there are some pretty disturbing things going on in the Golden State right now. O.K., I’ll admit: disturbing to people who take their civil liberties seriously. But I’m one of them.
His description of California reminded me of… Blair’s ever more authoritarian Britain. Another example of creeping democratic totalitarianism?
I am an avid reader of science fiction, and the use of futuristic fiction as a source of ideas is a welcome development. The best science fiction is that which explores the boundaries of our concepts whether in the mind, the computer or how we relate to each other. This is one of the advantages of defending the freedom of the mind, the expression of which is usually described as freedom of speech
Anti-terror chiefs in the United States have hired a team of America’s most original sci-fi authors to dream up techniques to help them combat al-Qaeda.
Ideas so far include mobile phones with chemical weapons detectors and brain scanners fitted to airport sniffer dogs, so that security staff can read their minds.
The writers have also put government scientists in touch with Hollywood special-effects experts, to work on better facial-recognition software to pick out terrorists at airports.
The Department of Homeland Security has set aside around $10 million – one tenth of its research budget – for projects dreamt up by the best brains in futuristic fiction.
Whilst DARPA is a useful channel for futuristic ideas, ten percent of a research budget handed over to any project is not such a good idea. Once the institutional apparatus is set up, with a secretariat to flesh out the innovative ideas, and the bureaucratic accretions which turn gold to mud, what will be left. A few nuggets from the civil service quicksand.
More useful is the Sigma organisation set up by Andrew Arlen some years ago, if it survives the seductive sirenic call of the public sector:
Mr Pournelle said the facial recognition plan was one of a number that aimed to replicate ideas seen on television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and NCIS, a similar show. "In real life, the computers are still nowhere near as good as they are on TV," he said. "It’s just one of several high risk, high pay-off projects we have suggested.
He is a member of Sigma, a group set up by fellow writer Arlan Andrews to pursue "science fiction in the national interest. Mr Andrews, who predicted handheld, electronic books long before they became a reality, said: “We spend our entire careers living in the future. Those responsible for keeping the nation safe need people to think of crazy ideas.”
How unusual that CSI, paraded as an authentic and naturalistic program, can be classified as science fiction, on the grounds that the technology deployed is probably three or five years ahead of our current capabilities. Yet, the same confusion may dazzle the Department of Homeland Security. The politicians will reach for science fictional solutions when actual success probably stems from incremental graft on current processes and clear procurement and privatisation.
Research is often touted as a PR solution for public sector problems. Treat this with scepticism.
I have been watching as the assortment of bad, worse and sickening candidates continues to grow in this premature election campaign. Amongst them are candidates (or at least a candiidate) who would make me vote for the other party: John McCain. There are candidates I find a little less bad on one issue or another. There are my own party contenders who cannot win, will not get much national coverage and will have an anti-war stance I do not support.
But finally, from out of the blue of the Texas sky comes: RON PAUL!
Ron is no stranger to me. I worked with his 1988 campaign manager a bit and wrote some policy papers for his Libertarian campaign. I also introduced him to a crowd at an ISDC (International Space Development Conference) in Denver after giving him a briefing on the audience. I found him thoroughly likable both politically and personally.
True, Ron carries the same anti-war stance as others, but I could ignore that in someone who may actually make a difference. Unlike my party’s candidate he will be unignorable. He could conceivably pull off a Republican nomination. If that were to happen it might cause multiple suicides amongst the kinder, gentler crowd… but no one would miss them anyway.
If he were to win the election, admittedly a very long shot, Statism’s monopoly hold on our political system would be irreparably damaged.
I am willing to take my risks on enemy forces using a weak foreign policy to attack us here because the policies of a President Paul would so liberate Americans and the American economy that we would be accelerating away from the unfree world at a rate they could not possibly match.
Ron would make us freer than we have been since Abe Lincoln mucked things up for limited government. Increased individual liberty would translate into wealth and national strength. There will never be a perfect candidate for me, but at least in Ron Paul I see an overall set of policies that does not make me want to lose my lunch.
Go here to find out how to support him.
I just saw Barack Obama on television saying that he would introduce Universal Socialist Medical Care in the USA and for people who already have insurance policies, the only difference would be such people would pay less in premiums… everything else would be just as good. Yes, you too in the USA can have something as ‘wonderful’ as our decrepit National Health Service. You lucky, lucky people.
And presumably this conjuring act of creating wealth out of nothing with government impositions will come to pass purely via the Triumph of Barack Obama’s will.
Talk about delusional.
I am not an American (I am British – also watch out for my poor spelling), but I have watched the Republican debate, and the interviews after the debate, on Fox News and my impressions are as follows:
On government spending Congressman Tancredo was impressive. He made the point about most Federal government spending being unconstitutional (which I expected Congressman Ron Paul to make, and he did not) and he made the point that various candidates were now saying they were hostile to expanding government spending but that they did not join him in voting against it when they had the chance (another point I expected Congressman Ron Paul to make – and I do not remember him making it).
On detailed military and security knowledge Congressman Duncan Hunter was impressive (for example in explaining what the present military-political tactics in Iraq were), the other candidates tended to talk in general terms and their grasp of some facts was uncertain. For example, Senator John McCain stated (and stated again in the post debate interview) that the division in Congress on ‘waterboarding’ (in interrogation) was between people who had served in the military (who he said were against the practice) and people who had not.
Whatever one thinks of “waterboarding”, the fact was that Congressman Hunter was sitting only a few feet from Senator McCain and had already stated that he had served in the military (Vietnam) and that his son was serving in Iraq.
On illegal immigration Congressman Hunter was at least as specific as Congressman Tancredo (who has made illegal immigration one of main issues). Libertarian minded people are normally (although not always) free migration people – but if you are interested in things like border control Congressman Hunter seemed to know at least as much about it as Congressman Tancredo did.
On abortion all the candidates, bar one, wished it to be unlawful. The one who dissented was (of course) former Mayor R.G. who stated not simply that abortion was a State matter (which would make him anti Roe V Wade without making him give a position on abortion itself), but openly stated that he wished to keep abortion legal (i.e. if he was running for State, rather than Federal, office that would be his position) – although he did state how much he hated abortion and how he wished to reduce the number of abortions (and claimed that his policy on such things as adoption had done this in New York City).
R.G. also replied to Congressman Ron Paul’s claim that American “bombing of Iraq whilst it was under sanctions” (and other interventions in the Middle East) provoked 9/11. The former Mayor of New York did not go into a detailed examination of Congressman Paul’s claims (as he was speaking without permission, the moderators would not have allowed him to speak long), he simply stated (in a quiet but firm way) that blaming the United States for 9/11 was ridiculous and called upon Congressman Paul to retract his comments (which Congressman Paul refused to do) – this reply got a vast positive response from the audience. The audience had been warned before the debate not to applaud – but Congressman Paul’s words did rather change the situation, making a reply and audience response not something that could really be prevented. Later in the debate Congressman Tancredo stated that he did want to be associated with his “dear friend’s [Ron Paul’s] remarks” which ignored the religious motivation of America’s enemies – i.e. their interpretation of Islam which holds that the main infidel power should be defeated regardless of what policy it follows (other than submission to Islam).
In the post debate interview, on being asked about Saddam Hussain gassing the Kurds, Congressman Paul said “we gave them the gas” (untrue). It did put me in mind of the late Murry Rothbard, with his habit of repeating whatever the latest enemy propaganda about the United States government and military happened to be. It should remind people (such as myself) how rant on about how bad the left are, that not all of the blame America crowd are on the left. And I write all this as someone who opposed the judgement to go into Iraq.
Mitt Romney (former Governor of Mass) was talked of a lot before the debate, but I thought his performance was terrible. He stated that he was “for Second Amendment Rights” but he also stated that he was “for the assault weapons ban”. He stated that he was in favour of getting government spending under control (as all the candidates did – for example R.G. was very strong on this) but also stated that it was a government responsibilty that everyone had health cover, and stated how much he supported “No Child Left Behind” (the extra Federal government funding and regulations that President Bush and Senator Kennedy introduced).
However, after the debate the “text vote” had former Governor Romney comming in second (after Ron Paul) as the winner of the debate – indeed he overtook Congressman Paul in the text voting by the end of the post debate show.
As regards former Governor Romney – those “text voters” must have been watching a different debate to me. Unless his campaign people were doing something.
I know well that the were other people in the debate. The former Governors of Arkansas, Wisconsin and Virginia. But they did not make much of an impression on me – although the former Governor of Arkansas got a laugh from the audience with a joke about former Senator John Edwards. Governor Huckabee also defended his choice to greatly increase road building and education spending in the State of Arkansas. Former Governor Thompson of Wisconsin made a point about how many times he had used the veto (more than all the other candidates of both parties put together he claimed). And former Governor of Virginia Gilmour made the point that he had reached out to racial minorities whilst Governor and also whilst Chairman of the Republican party.
“Well who would you vote for”.
Perhaps it is just as well that I do not have a vote – as I am unsure.
Who will be the next President of the United States?
I do not have a link, but David Brooks was speaking on Meet the Press this morning about the Don Imus affair in the USA.
He says shock-jock popularity is not about racism. It is about cruelty. Institutionalized culturally based cruelty. Indiscriminate cruelty for its own sake.
On hearing the case (allegedly put forth by Snoop Dog in defense of his own misogynistic lyrics) that these particular women, the basketball players should not have been spoken about that way, Brooks said with sad derision, “We can only step on the down trodden.”
Brooks also points out that Imus was very heavily watched and listened to by the power elite. After an appearance on Imus’ show he, Brooks, received a remarkable amount of feedback from the power elite that make made up a disproportionate part of Imus’ audience. So now I ask, what does this say about the souls of those who demand the power and authority to be our masters? What does it mean that the powerful should be so enamoured of deliberate and systematic cruelty that they listen to it for entertainment? Somehow, I am not as surprised as I would like to be.
I think this path to cruelty is one that has been travelled farther in the UK than here, but we appear to be following closely behind you. My personal opinion is that cruelty is a/the clear marker for both the decadence and impotence of a society. Celebrated cruelty is the symptom of a society that has reoriented from protecting its weakest members to baiting them for entertainment. It is historically clear that cruelty, a cultural coldness in the extremities of society, is one of the final signs of its imminent death.
On a positive note, watching this exposure of the internal tensions in the power cabal has provided some interesting moments. For me, the most interesting of all was hearing the market place being praised from the left for having removed Imus from the air (referring to the actions of sponsors). I will take all such statements/concessions as a sign of our strength.
I am glad that things look to have become a bit more peaceful in Northern Ireland.
Would I be correct in guessing that this settlement may be one of the good things to have emerged from 9/11? This would be a pleasing thought, given the grief that Britain and the USA seem to have made for themselves in Iraq, provided its truth will survive serious scrutiny.
What I have in mind is that following 9/11 the USA took its first truly serious look at IRA terrorism, voters as well as just terrorism experts, and all that sentimental and unthinking Oirish blarney support for the IRA, which had over the decades turned into real money and real weapons on a huge scale, no longer seemed like a harmless slice of electoral politics and suddenly looked like a seriously bad idea. (I recall thinking as soon as the Twin Towers came down that the IRA would not like this.)
For, no matter what concessions have been gouged out of the North Ireland Unionists, and even though nobody directly involved in this settlement would dream of saying it out loud for fear of upsetting the new applecart that has now been bodged together, this surely means that the IRA has lost. For the time being anyway. They wanted Northern Ireland to be detached from the UK and to become attached to the Republic of Ireland, but this has not happened.
Or is this just a ceasefire? And will the IRA, Hezbollah style, merely use the settlement and the governmental privileges it gives them to prepare their next offensive? Presumably this remains the Unionist fear. Only time and lots of it will tell, but to an ignorant outsider such as south of England me, this seems real. If so, then the inevitable self-congratulatory noises emerging from the government, and the general media acclamation for the deal, would appear to be justified.
AA Gill, the Scottish columnist and restaurant reviewer, has always come across in my eyes as a man who wears chips on his shoulders like military epaulettes, which for an upper middle class lad seems a bit odd. He does not like the English much, does he? Even so, read the article, as it contains some painful truths as well as some unfair bile. He makes the point that the English/British are not always great adopters of life in New York. I have been to the city many times and saw this clubby sort of behaviour a few times. We Brits do not seem to realise how rude we can strike Americans. When I read of Americans being cut short at dinner parties or insulted by Brit tourists, I cringe, even though I tell myself that I am not responsible for the behaviour of my fellow countrymen and women. I feel much the same way when I overhear some idiot in Paris or Milan refusing to speak the local language and assuming that everyone speaks English rather than French or Italian.
I would be interested to know what Jim Bennett, the Anglosphere man, makes of this sort of behavioural friction. It may be just a matter of Gill being an arsehole. But he may also have a point.
“Where is Karl Rove?” is one of the things the only member of the jury I watched talking to journalists said the jury in the trial of Lewis Libby talked about (although, of course, he stated that they spent most of their time on proper examination of the case).
First some information: And information presented to you (dear readers) by someone who did not support the decision to go into Iraq in 2003.
The man who leaked the fact that Mrs Wilson worked for the CIA was Richard Armitage of the State Department, not Mr Libby, Karl Rove, the Vice President, the President – or the man at the local shop.
Mrs Wilson was an employee – not an agent of the CIA.
Saddam Hussain did try to get uranium from Niger, along with various other places. So the claims of Mr Wilson that the Administration was telling lies about Saddam were wrong. Whether being wrong would concern Mr Wilson (a giver of money to the 2000 Gore campaign) I can not know for sure – but I would be astonished if it did. → Continue reading: “Where is Karl Rove?” : The trial of Lewis Libby
I have been following the Al Gore “carbon offset” controversy with great interest, and if I can get my eight bosses off my neck will try to put up a post on it. However, it just occurred to me that, based on the Gore methodology of buying carbon offsets, my carbon footprint is probably about to go negative.
The reason being, I should be acquiring a parcel of land in North Texas within the next few weeks. Said parcel consists of some meadows, but mostly of youngish post oaks and miscellaneous brush. Heaven, to this country boy, but it seems to me that, if Al Gore can get carbon credit for paying someone else to plant some trees, why shouldn’t I get carbon credit for actually owning well over a hundred acres of growing trees, each of them busily sequestrating carbon?
I should soon be in the rather unusual position of being able to (a) express my contempt for a certain quasi-religious crusade while (b) meeting and exceeding its requirements to be one of the Elect.
And all while driving my SUV back and forth across the Texas landscape! Is this a great planet, or what?
Paul Joyal, an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin has been shot in the USA. Does this remind you of anything?
Of course it could just be another random street crime, but if not and this turns out to be another (hopefully just attempted) assassination of an overseas political enemy living in the west, then it is clearly well past time to start loudly demanding the state does one of the few legitimate things it taxes us for… protecting us all from the armed servants of a foreign government.
Could it be time to start threatening Putin in the most literal way? If he keeps killing people in the west then not only should Russian embassies be closed forthwith, those expensive security services we pay for should start motivating the Russian security services to behave via whatever means come to mind. I can certainly think of a few.
I will watch with interest to see what information comes out about this case. It could, after all, have just been a robbery.
|
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.
|
