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]
|
What’s that old saying? ‘A week is a long time in politics’? If that’s true then what about 6 years? That must be a really long time in politics. But, maybe, not long enough:
“Hillary Clinton is emerging, among Democrats and political observers, as the favourite to be the candidate for the 2008 presidential race.
Until recently, Senator Clinton had maintained a fairly low profile in Washington but she is now being identified as the most likely opponent to the Republican challenger.”
Now Democrats I can understand but who are these ‘political observers’? Just a polite euphamism for the Independent editorial staff? I smell a bit of early British-left campaigning.
“Most observers worry, however, that Mrs Clinton, who has been manoeuvring to portray herself as a centrist, remains a highly polarising figure. While she may have won the affection of many New Yorkers, in more conservative corners of the country she attracts emotions verging on outright hatred.”
It’s those ‘observers’ again. The ‘worry’ is a dead give-away. That combined with the understatement. If our US readers are anything to go by then the above-mentioned emotions go way beyond outright hatred.
Still, can anybody put their hand on their heart and tell me that the thought of Hilary Clinton in the Whitehouse doesn’t send a cold shudder down your spine?
You’ve heard the name Al Arian recently I’m sure: the Florida professor alleged to have assisted with Islamic Jihad fundraising? It seems he also has some connections to the “Not In Our Name” fundraising as well:
“For its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to “advance the struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination,” IFCO was originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a variety of activist organizations that lacked the resources to raise money for themselves.
In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization called the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their partnership ended when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt foundation). Founded in 1997 as a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, the coalition says its function is to oppose the use of secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions.
Until recently, the group’s president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for alleged ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition’s board.) According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is accused of having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by another charity he runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also reported that FBI investigators “suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated ‘a fund-raising front’ for the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from the late 1980s to 1995.” Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan Abdullah Shallah to the University of South Florida to raise money for one of Al-Arian’s foundations – a job Shallah held until he later became the head of Islamic Jihad. “
The courts will have to decide if the charges against Al Arian are true, but the connections are interesting nonetheless. The far left looks to be nearly as incestuous in its’ interconnections as the spacer community…
And that’s going some.
Currently watching on Sky News a massive fire on a propane barge which exploded off New York’s Staten Island. So far it is not clear what the cause is, either an accident or something more sinister. So far no reports I can link to on the Web.
Andrew Sullivan has some rather sharp things to say about George W. Bush and the ballooning budget deficit.
About time! Sullivan has tended, I think, to give the President a fairly easy time on a lot of issues, perhaps on the basis of natural loyalty to a conservative pol and hatred of the other side. But there’s no getting away from the fact that the US budget deficit is set to grow at an alarming pace.
At the core of the problem is the raft of domestic programmes Bush feels obligated to support or which the GOP in the House and the Senate refuse to kill off. At least the defence spending aspect to the budget can be justified by the war. But although I support Bush’s tax cuts, especially the abolition of tax on dividends because of the economic benefits, he could be storing up trouble unless some discipline is imposed.
Why am I, as a Brit, fretting about the US deficit? Well, given the enormous importance of a vibrant US economy, it is in my interests that Bush doesn’t fall asleep at the wheel on this issue. There are no excuses.
A Canadian Samizdata Reader writes in to alert us about the state of privacy & civil liberties in Canada.
The Canadian Privacy Commissioner yesterday released a damning report of the Canadian federal government with respect to its approach to the privacy of the citizens of Canada. According to him, fundamental human rights are at stake and September 11th is being used as an excuse for the infringements. Frankly, as a Canadian, I have been consistently dismayed with Ottawa’s response to all matters related to September 11th.
There are articles in the major Canadian newspapers – including the National Post.
“The government is, quite simply, using Sept. 11 as an excuse for new collections and uses of personal information about all of us Canadians that cannot be justified by the requirements of anti-terrorism and that, indeed, have no place in a free and democratic society.”
[…]
Mr. Radwanski also took issue with proposals that would allow the government to monitor Internet activities and cellphone calls, stating: “I do not see any reason why e-mails should be subject to a lower standard of privacy protection than letters or phone calls.”
[…]
Mr. Radwanski’s complaints about anti-terror measures relate primarily to “function creep,” when information collected ostensibly to stop terrorists is subsequently used for a host of other purposes.
Additionally, you can go directly to the source, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
I don’t expect isolationists who oppose George W. Bush’s policy of pre-emption to be converted by his State of the Union address last night, but this paragraph helped to tilt my mind in favour of the view that taking Saddam Hussein down is the right, if perilous, course:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restratint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Exactly.
All is not well in the Golden State of California these days as the citizens of that fine place continue to struggle under the governorship of Gray Davis, the man who helped acquaint Californians with the sort of power blackouts we Brits used to get in the unlamented 1970s.
This article (link courtesy of Virginia Postrel) shows how bad the tax revenue situation is on the West Coast, but also points out that the public sector there is as bloated as ever.
My recent trip to California last year confirmed such reports. One thing I was struck by was the poor quality of the freeways, in contrast to the smooth fast roads of neighbouring Nevada.
California could certainly use someone like Ronald Reagan, its last great governor, to shake it up and kick some ass in that state. Many political and economic trends seem to start on the West Coast, like the internet and tax revolts. A place for we Anglospherists to watch.
There is an interesting post by David Kenner over on An Age Like This complete with pictures he took, of the pro-Saddam Hussain protests in Washington DC. It is good to see a bit of blog primary reportage.
Also David has a picture of Protest Awards!: Most Offensive Banner.
Those concerned with legislative attempts to alter society may find this article on cnn.com interesting. It concerns recent and current efforts to have toy guns outlawed because they are sometimes used to commit real crimes. Even worse, the perpetrators of toy gun crimes sometimes end up really dead when their victim turns out to be a cop who reacts by defending himself with lethal force.
Surprisingly, the idea was discussed that the real issue is not the prop used but the criminal intent of the assailant. Personally, I take that as a given. If a perpetrator knowingly engages in an illegal activity it does not matter what is chosen as the crime enabler of choice. While it may engender discussion, the issue is not the criminal misuse of toy guns.
The real issue is why do lawmakers want to remove toys resembling guns from society?
The immediate answer is social engineering. This is a conclusion reached not only through logical thinking, but also through the words of the two city councilmen who have introduced a bill to ban toy guns in New York. One likens toy guns to toy cigarettes. Given the increasingly pervasive and invasive bans on smoking, it is not hard to see where that leads. The other, Albert Vann, is even more blatant when he states
“If they use toy guns there’s a greater chance they’ll graduate to the real thing when they grow up.”
Clearly, it’s not about the toys. It’s not even about the crime. It is about changing society one culturally legislating law at a time.
According to this report in the UK Times (not linked as subscription required for non-UK readers), President Bush is forging ahead in his confrontation with American trial lawyers:
“President Bush opened an assault on America’s litigious culture yesterday, saying that a deepening healthcare crisis could be solved only by curbs on patient lawsuits.
Calling for caps on jury awards to patients injured by doctors, Mr Bush said that the American instinct to sue was breaking the system.
“There are too many lawsuits in America, and there are too many lawsuits filed against doctors and hospitals without merit,” he said.”
From what I understand, trial lawyers in America are only marginally more popular than the Taliban so Mr.Bush should have ample public support in his showdown with them.
Whilst putting a mandatory cap on jury awards (which is the proposal) perhaps Mr.Bush might do as well to look at the entire concept of ‘punitive damages’ which can be awarded against a Defendant in negligence claim on top of the actual compensation paid to the Plaintiff. As far as I can tell, punitive damages are a means of punishing a Defendant for the negligence and lead breathtakingly high jury awards in medical damages cases.
Genuine cases of negligence, be they medical or otherwise, should always be actionable but it is my view that the concept of punitive damages constitutes a zealous over-egging of the pudding. Negligence is not crime and should not be ‘punished’. Similarly, a Plaintiff who has suffered loss and damage should be rightfully compensated but not rewarded. Recourse to law should be a matter of both necessity and justice not a warped form of entrepreneurship for both claimants and their legal representatives.
In my view that situation in the UK preferable. Whilst it is true that the litigious culture has blossomed in this country over recent years, nonetheless damages awards are maintained at only a fraction of their US equivalents. This is because there is no recognition of ‘punitive damages’ in the UK system. The purpose of a claim here is to ‘make the Plaintiff whole’ i.e. to put the Plaintiff into the position he or she was in immediately before the negligence occurred. There is also a compensation element for pain and suffering as a result of medical or other negligent damage but these are awarded on the basis of the Plaintiff’s provable condition not as a means of penalising the Defendant.
The further advantage of the UK system is that there is no jury for civil trials (except Defamation cases) and therefore both the verdict and damages are decided upon by a Judge. This does not entirely remove the ‘sympathy’ element influential in many claims but does keep it in some sort of check as all Judges are bound by both guidelines and precedents. Judges can push at this envelope but not discard it altogether.
That said, I wish Mr.Bush the best of luck in his campaign. As a lawyer myself, I am concerned that the popular view of the legal system as a kind of ‘get-rich-quick’ lottery to be, at best, distasteful and, at worst, socially and economically damaging.
I have long wondered whether anti-Americanism can be regarded as the last acceptable form of racism among our chattering classes. Of course, “racism” might be stretching things a bit far but when it comes to reflexive bigotry, anti-Americanism fills the space once reserved for non-whites, Jews, Catholics, dissenters, atheists and others. Of course anti-Semitism is still around these days, as many bloggers have sadly had cause to state.
Michael Gove in the Times on Wednesday says the toughest challenge of Tony Blair’s rule would be to challenge and face down the anti-Americanism of the Left.
Because the Times’ website archive is a paid-for one, I will quote one of his most telling paragraphs here in full:
Why then do the myths of America the Hateful take such powerful hold? Because anti-Americanism provides a useful emotional function which goes beyond logic and reaches deep into the darker recesses of the European soul. In centuries past those on the Left who wished to personalise their hatred of capitalism, who sought to make it emotionally resonant by fastening an envious political passion on to a blameless scapegoat people, embraced anti-Semitism. It was the socialism of fools. Which is what anti-Americanism is now.
Gove makes a number of excellent points, although I would add that hatred of the U.S. is sadly not a monopoly of socialists, since there have sometimes been elements of knee-jerk dislike of Uncle Sam from the political Right. There is a generation of conservatives (either of the lower or upper case C variety), mostly in their middle age, who dislike America for its post-Englightenment secularism, entrepreneurial gusto, popular culture and challenge to the old British Empire. But in the main these days hatred of America is a left-wing phenomenon.
I am not sure how to attack this prejudice. But for my part I tend to adopt a deliberately reflexive support for the U.S. in most things, even to the point of giving the U.S. the benefit of the doubt in cases where a strictly dispassionate person might not. This can take trivial forms. I make a point of marking the Fourth of July, proudly tell my friends that I have American relatives serving in the U.S. Air Force, and will often stick up for George Bush in pub chats about the world at the slightest opportunity. (I once caused a lady at a dinner party to go very red in the face by saying how pleased I was that Dubya had stiffed the Kyoto Treaty).
The America has a lot of noisy enemies. No harm in making some noise on its behalf. And may God rot Harold Pinter and other opponents of Jefferson’s Republic.
No one seems to have mentioned the death of Joe Foss (who died on New Year’s Day) here yet. As I have just read his obituary in the Daily Telegraph (link to article is currently down) I had better write something.
Joe Foss was a true American Hero, “Ace of Aces” in the struggle against the Japanese in the skies over the Pacific, destroying at least 27 enemy aircraft personnally. He was a fine officer and an inspiration to the men who served with him. He survived being shot down and spent hours drifting in shark invested waters. Joe Foss was also a fine thinking officer who never let his aircraft be tricked into hunting enemy fighters – if this meant letting enemy bombers through to attack U.S. air bases.
For his bravery and skill Joe Foss won the Congressional Medal of Honour and many other decoratons.
However, Joe Foss was not just a good Marine – he was also a man of grit in civilian life, helping to save his families’ farm in Depression hit South Dakota (after the early death of his father) by hard slog. After the war Joe Foss turned down a vast sum of money for the film rights to his life (he was to have been played by John Wayne) because the film company wished to include a love affair that did not occur.
From running a flight school in Sioux Falls South Dakota Joe Foss served his State as Governor and in the United States Congress – before being defeated by George McGovern.
Joe Foss then became an outstanding broadcaster famous for such long running series on American rural life as “Joe Foss Outdoorsman”.
Joe Foss’s commitment to liberty did not weaken with age and he was President of the National Rifle Association from 1988 to 1990 and was staunch in his belief that Americans had the right to be armed to defend themselves and others “period”.
|
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.
|
