|
|||||
|
Sometimes you see a set of numbers and they really make you sit up and gasp:
Nice work, Messrs Sarbanes, Oxley and Spitzer. February 21st, 2007 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
 The continuing story of Samizdata people meeting in the USA in order to conspire, drink, shoot and eat… 
The poison of the evening was both delicious and lethal in equal measure, which eventually necessitated…
…the development of some innovative instant sober-up techniques…
… which proved surprisingly popular The following day, we took out our hangovers on the surrounding environment…
…and scared local wildlife by creeping around and pointing basters at them… …large quantities of .40 were expended at metal objects…
…although we did not end up eating a local turkey, we had a sublime lamb dinner I am not a believer but if there is indeed a ‘happy hunting ground’ in the hereafter, I think it will look something going shooting with your close friends followed by a meal of epic quality. February 18th, 2007 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
There has been a lot of talk about ex President Carter getting a ‘grammy’ for the audio verison of his latest it-is-all-the-fault-of-the-Jews book. And certainly he was honoured in the company one might expect. The ‘Dixie Chicks’ were honoured with three awards in spite of their commercial decline (Bush bashing trumps anything else), as was a gentleman whose songs are largely about ‘niggerz’ and his practice of beating up his ‘Ho’. The award ceremony was, as it happens, held on the 28th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution – an event that occurred after then President James Earl Carter sold out the Shah. I wonder how many in the audience noted the irony. However, ex-President Carter is not alone. There seems to be a broader movement in the South (for some time considered generally the most conservative part of the United States) towards something that reminds me of the late 19th and early 20 century Populism. The Populists sometimes operated as a party in their own right, and sometimes as a faction of the Democratic party in the South (after the end of Reconstruction the Republican party virtually ceased to exist in the Southern States – so a lot of politics was between factions of the Democratic party) against conservative ‘Bourbon’ Democrats. The stock in trade of the Populists was hatred of big business, the rich, Roman Catholics and Jews. Ex Senator John Edwards recently got into trouble for having two bloggers on his pay roll who specialized in obscene attacks on (for example) the Virgin Mary. Many were surprised that Mr Edwards did not fire these staffers – but he is no fool, and it not just a matter of fear of revenge from the left of the blogosphere if he did fire them. As long as the attacks can be kept as anti-Catholic as opposed to anti-Christian he may be fine – indeed these attacks may even help him. Although he may be making a mistake, as the principle reason that his staffers hate Roman Catholics is the Catholic position on abortion – a position that many Protestants (and Orthodox Jews and some atheists and others) share. → Continue reading: President Carter and the return of the Southern Populists? February 15th, 2007 | 31 comments - (Comments are closed)
One thing that is really bugs me about the guy or at least the Obama phenomenon is that he and his supporters (definitely his supporters) like to make a big deal about every possible racist interpretation that can be put into what his opponents say about him. Yet it is obvious to Blind Freddy that he would not be in the limelight in the first place were it not for the whole race issue. If Obama were white would anyone really give a damned what he said? He’s milking this mixed heritage business for all it’s worth. How much of his book is about his philosophy and how much of it is about converting his personal life story into a heap of ‘we are the world’ cliches?The hype that has been placed on the guy speaks volumes for the ridiculousness of the media’s patronising attitudes on race. Is there any evidence that he is any much smarter than the average politician? Any wiser or more intellectual? Does anyone know what he stands for besides banal platitudes and a trendy populism? – Jason Soon of Catallaxy enunciates what I suspect a number of Samizdata readers and contributors are thinking about Barack Obama. February 14th, 2007 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
Up until today, I knew very little about Barack Obama except that he is Democrat Senator who has very recently announced that he is going to run for President in 2008. Today, I still know very little about Mr. Obama but I now know a little more than I did yesterday. Specifically, I now know that, although he is now a Christian, he was raised as a Muslim. If that is the case then does that not mean that he has (at some point in his past) left Islam and converted to Christianity? And does that not mean that he is, according to the Islamic faith, an apostate? And is not the penalty for apostacy (again, according to Islam) death? And, if all that is correct, is it not reasonable to speculate that there are, at least, some rather excitable Islamists who regard themselves as being under a religious obligation to separate Mr. Obama’s head from his shoulders? I have no idea as to what his chances are but in the event that Mr. Obama achieves his goal, then I humbly recommend that his very first executive action should be to order a generous salary increase for the staff of the secret service because, oh boy, are they going to be earning it. February 13th, 2007 | 40 comments - (Comments are closed)
I love the BBC TV programme Top Gear but even great men have their weaknesses. Jeremy Clarkson takes the ‘Borat’ route by making fun of folk in America’s Deep South. How jolly original of you, Jeremy. Is not the whole “These guys from the South are thick, whisky-swilling in-breds with mullet haircuts and guns” a bit tired? Oh well, even the good guys have their off-days (thanks to Andrew for the link). Clarkson should stick to driving insanely quick Bugattis and cheering us all up. February 12th, 2007 | 27 comments - (Comments are closed)
A U.S. politician wants to pass a law that would make it a crime to cross the road while listening to an MP3 player or some other device that presumably screens out the noise of approaching traffic. For one’s own safety, naturally. People who wear iPods while walking around are a menace to themselves and this sort of bad behaviour should be banned immediately, naturally (sarcasm alert). Alas, the story I have linked to does not give any examples of where a pedestrian was run over by a car because the person happened to be daydreaming while listening to Mozart or for that matter rocking to ACDC. Music, it’s the new menace. February 7th, 2007 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
These Canadians obviously have no sense of fun:
Bah! Killjoys. February 1st, 2007 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
Other people who know far more about military and security affairs than I do will judge what President Bush had to say about Iraq. I was more interested in what the President had to say about domestic policy. There were some of the contradictions I have come to expect. For example, the words about local control of schools and the words in support of the No Child Left Behind Act (as if the Federal government can keep spending more money on schools without control of those schools ending up more-and-more in Federal hands). How such things as the no-child-left-behind Act are supposed to be consistent with the pledge to ‘balance the budget’ was also unexplained. There was also the odd use of language. For example, although libertarians tend to favour ‘free migration’ it is irritating for the President to say ‘no amnesty’ for illegal immigrants when an amnesty is exactly what he is planning (although he may use some other form of words for it). Still, I suppose, this type of language use is not that odd among politicians. On health care it was good to hear the return of President Reagan’s suggestion that income used by an individual to pay for health cover should not be subject to either income tax or social security (pay roll) tax. Linking tax relief to a particular job (via only employer provided health cover being covered) is silly. It was also interesting to see that the tax relief would be limited to a certain level of spending – so that in this (and other ways) people would have an incentive to shop around for health cover that controlled costs (the one good bit of the Medicare Part D. extension of some years ago). There was nothing on how the existence of Medicare and Medicaid (which started out at five billion Dollars in 1965 and now cost hundreds of billions of Dollars) have had a knock on effect of increasing costs of private health cover – but I did not expect this (Medicare and Medicaid are sacred these days). → Continue reading: The worst part of the State of the Union Address January 27th, 2007 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
It is easier to grumble than to get off one’s backside and do something if a disaster hits and the supposed emergency systems of the state prove to be a joke, as was the case when Hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. Gulf Coast over a year ago. In catching up on some reading, I came across this terrific and highly encouraging story of how assorted groups of volunteers, many of whom had a refreshingly dim view of officialdom, swung into action to help the people of New Orleans and others in the surrounding area. The article also reinforced my view of how the internet is helping fuel voluntarism in a way that feeds into the “Army of Davids” perspective of Glenn Reynolds recently. The article contains this line:
I agree. I think the energy and neighbourliness of ordinary Americans as shown in this article are a welcome corrective to the cynicism many people may have felt when reading stories about looting or disorder in the aftermath of the disaster. (Some of these stories were questioned). I recall reading about the blackouts in New York a year or so ago and about how people banded together to ensure that folk got home safely. American civil society, precisely because of the still-strong ethos of voluntarism that so struck Alexis de Tocqueville 160 years ago, is in many ways in much better shape than here. I was particularly struck when I read the latest reports tonight of how looters scrambled to grab what they could from the cargo washed up on the English coast from the grounded container ship. I wonder how many ordinary people ever bothered to wonder how they could help protect the beach from pollution or ensure that no-one got hurt? Yes, I know that looting goes on after disasters around the world, but there seemed to be no countervailing examples over the past few days of people volunteering to help recover items for their rightful owners, for example. The idea of volunteers helping owners to sort out their property from the wreckage is just too bizarre for we Britons to contemplate. Generalisations are always risky, but I get the feeling that if I was in a natural disaster, I would rather be in America than in Britain. It is a sad thing for a proud Briton like me to say, but I think that in this respect at least, the sort of neighbourliness and willingness to lend a hand has more or less died, although I may be a bit too gloomy here. To describe what might have killed that spirit would take me longer than a blog posting, so I will leave it to the commenters. January 23rd, 2007 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
I am back and have been lurking for a bit. I did not intend to post for another week or two. In my initial post I said that occasionally something would cause me to “blow a gasket”: Habeas corpus is that something. Since King John at Runnymede was compelled to accept the Magna Carta, the right of an individual to demand access to judicial process has been the foundation stone of constitutional government.
While I have been away, I have apparently missed some fun jesting about ‘meta-context’. This is a serious example of it. In its simplest and most fundamental way, this is about tribalism. This is about who ‘we’ are. Who we see our selves as. Are we defined by our geographical boundaries? Is ‘American’ a tribal bond? Or are we the citizens of our constitution? Have we charged our government with protecting its own sovereignty and security by exchanging it for that of its citizens? Or have we charged it with protecting all citizens from violation of their personal sovereignty by all powers. Are we, the citizens, not the fundamental reason for our government? If it will not abide by its contract with us, is it truly still our government? At what point does it become an occupying power? It is babies and bathwater. More than that, it is meta-context. Underpinning assumptions about collectivism vs individualism. Did you happen to notice that Attorney General Gonzales singled out individuals and citizens:
→ Continue reading: A bolt between the eyes of constitutional government January 23rd, 2007 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
Recently, Samizdata’s own Paul Marks had a post about F.D. Roosevelt and considered his reputation, his actions and the New Deal. The blogger under the name Hedge Fund Guy has this scathing assessment of the man regarded by many Britons to this day as a good guy:
Ouch. He then goes on to attack much of FDR’s record, and I don’t have a quarrel with a single word of it. Even so, it interests me that a man who, objectively speaking, was a total failure in cutting the massive unemployment of 1930s America managed to hold the reputation as a saviour of capitalism for so long. I recall my O-Level history classes and how Roosevelt was presented as essentially one of the Good Men of History, while Herbert Hoover, FDR’s immediate predecessor in the White House, was presented as a Republican who did what he could but not nearly enough (in fact, Hoover was a persistent meddler and regulator, and carries considerable responsibility for the scale of the Great Depression, as do the protectionists in Congress at the time). Roosevelt was a great showman. His “fireside chats”, his folksy manner, his ability to surround himself with a loyal and capable grouping of what we would call today “spin-doctors” ensured that the FDR myth lasted a long time. His friendship with Winston Churchill – albeit subject to strains and disagreements such as how to deal with Stalin – also ensured that the man is viewed by some Britons in a positive light. Being entirely selfish, I am glad that the United States entered the Second World War on Britain’s side, and one of the reasons why I am a visceral pro-American is that I believe that Europe today would be in a far worse shape than it is now were it not for the courage shown by America’s airmen, soldiers and sailors (some U.S. folk joined up on the British side even before America joined). I have absolutely no truck with the absurd isolationist view that the United States should have sat back, let Stalin/Hitler do their worst and if need be, come to some sort of accomodation with an entire European/Asian landmass under totalitarian, race-based thugs. So it is easy to see why Roosevelt’s image burned bright for many people. I think the lesson of how FDR managed to hold a high reputation for so long is that a political leader, particularly if he or she is adept in the arts of propoganda and can come across as “doing something” to fix a problem, however counter-productive, can get a fair pass. I do wonder, however, whether FDR would have been as successful in narrow political terms now. This book, written very much from the “Austrian” perspective, has a particularly devastating chapter on the New Deal, the record on unemployment. January 15th, 2007 | 24 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
