|
|||||
|
After a long night of theatre and very loud music I needed something before heading back to the flat. What else but a New York Subway sandwich with Jalapeno’s… yep. In Belfast. But don’t worry. When I was working in Manhattan I drank Guinness before going out for a Subway. Just like I do here. Fair’s fair. February 15th, 2002 | Comments are closed
 Over on the Von Mises Institute site, there is a
Read the whole review. Highly recommended. February 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Between 1937 and 1945, Heinz produced a version of alphabet spaghetti for the German market that consisted solely of little pasta swastikas. [Update: probably an Urban Legend. Too bad, I rather liked the image of little baby Fritz having a tantrum on May 9 1945 “Waddaya mean, no more yummy little swastikas?”] February 13th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Tony Adragna of Quasipundit has some interesting and provocative things to say about Libertarianism. As a Libertarian, I welcome this. Tony is clearly a very intelligent and moral man (and, if he reads this, then I hope he takes those observations at face value because that is how they are meant) and he has done what every intelligent and moral person should do when confronted with any idea or philosophy: he has challenged it and challenged it well. It would be tempting to respond be hectoring him about Libertarian ideas; tempting but unnecessary and probably counterproductive. Tony has obviously been more than a little exposed to those ideas and finds them wanting. As far as rebuttal is concerned, I shall confine myself to a rejection of his use of the term ‘anarchy’ when he really means ‘chaos’. The two concepts are quite different both in theory and practice. But, of all his statements, this, for me, is the most telling:
Whether intended or not, Tony pays Libertarians quite the highest of compliments. He is saying is, your world would be wonderful, if only it were practically realisable. The argument between us, therefore, is not about the worth of Libertarian ideas but about the nature of human beings and the societies they create. But this is not why I applaud Tony. I applaud him because rather than display the reflexive conformity of so many otherwise intelligent people, he has taken the time and trouble to develop a serious critique and that is a good thing. He seeks not to dismiss but to engage. Rather than start a debate with Libertarians, Tony has done something far more significant and laudable; he has started a debate with himself. All philosophy and political thought, of whatever stripe, has one goal: the improvement of the human condition. Welcome to the battlefront, Tony. February 12th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Since I made the reference to Tom Lehrer it is only fair to explain it. Or rather, let Tom Lehrer explain it in his own words.
For those who are unfamiliar with Mr.Lehrer’s work, the preceeding is from the CD “That Was The Week That Was”. He was a solo piano/vocalist performer of his own biting and hilarious satirical songs; wrote music for the TV series “That Was The Week That Was” (Tee Dubhu Three); and who could ever forget his stunning songs for Sesame Street like “Ly”? If you aren’t familiar with him, you should be. Go forth and purchase. Erratum: a reader points out it was “The Electric Company” and not “Sesame Street” for which the “Ly” was written. February 12th, 2002 | Comments are closed
It is the month of black history in the good old USA, and the month that white/Hispanic/Asian students must be committed to black history. Now that is a separate issue from what is underpinning a sub debate of black history month: the nature of confederacy. This issue was raised by my history teacher, when he said, slavery in America was a result of the south’s political system and that had it not been for the Civil War, the issue of slavery would have never been resolved. I asked the teacher if he truly meant confederacy was a system that inevitably led to slavery. Let me try and put the same case I made to him to you: 1. Confederacy is a system of government that gives more power to the states or local government and less power to the federal or higher levels of government. America is a federalist society, whereas, Switzerland is an example of a confederacy. 1a. Non-confederacy type governments have adopted the system of slavery, meaning that slavery is not unique to confederacy. 1b. Confederacy is not about slavery; it is about state’s rights and devolving rather than centralizing power. 2. The Articles of Confederation, which created a system of pure confederacy, were overturned in 1789 by the current US Constitution…nearly a century the US Civil War. 3. Slavery began in Colonial America before the USA even existed. Slavery in Colonial America started in Virginia in 1619 because of the need to find cheap labor to produce cotton, tobacco, and other such goods. 4. The northern states industrialized faster than the southern agricultural states, resulting in no need for slaves in the North, as slaves were needed for agricultural work, but not industrial work, in which paid workers were cheaper. 5. After Lincoln’s nearly 50/50 election there was a great tension between the North and the South about the role of the federal government (Lincoln wanted more federal government, which the Southerners opposed). 6. The US Civil War started over the role of the state versus the role of the federal government – not slavery. Needless to say that when I said this in class…well, let me just say this: I am lucky to be alive. I have presented the facts not a politically popular statement. The fact of the matter is, saying stuff like this does not fly with PC lefties that run the school. This is one opinion (fact based though it be) of the issue, but it is one (fact based) opinion that is never offered in school, and is instantly struck down if a student dares to offer it. To emphasize how large the problem is: The four student collective that consists of Johnny Student worked on this post jointly – all four of us are currently dealing with this in our classes at four different universities throughout the country February 11th, 2002 | Comments are closed
And his name is Will Quick. When Will is in full vitriolic flight, it is a thing of wonder to behold. If, like me, you enjoy savouring the savage directness possible with the English language, then read Will’s latest spleen venting invective regarding all manner of folk that grievously irk his anti-idiotarian sensibilities:
It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Read the whole article and then go put some fuel in the motor of your chainsaw. February 10th, 2002 | Comments are closed
This humourous phase was once used to describe fox hunting but could just as well be applied to the US Congressional investigation into the fun and frolics pertaining to Enron. For a rather more forthright view of this investigation, let me refer you to the blog known poetically as Gut Rumbles:
Not quite how I would have phrased it but I can’t say I disagree. February 9th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Check out a first-class summation of Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia by Alastair Palmer in the latest edition of the British weekly magazine, The Spectator. Very good, particularly in bemoaning Nozick’s failure to give a substantive defence of natural rights. Otherwise Palmer has nice things to say about Nozick, not least the fact that he makes it clear that Nozick was certainly not an apologist for Big Business or the Republican Party. What is so good about this review is how the author manages to draw out the essence of Nozick’s critique of egalitarianism and ‘social justice’ theories generally. February 9th, 2002 | Comments are closed
I thought Microsoft had plumbed depth’s of tastelessness none could match. But the Opinion Journal has pointed me to a cartoon from the Concord (N.H.) Monitor (clipping courtesy of PoliticsNY.com) that takes the prize. Where are the rocks these people crawl from under? Wherever they are, we should build a parking lot there so they’ll be an endangered (or even better an extinct) species. February 9th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Thanks for all the kind reactions to Brian’s Lament. No-one said, American style: “Get over it!”, which is a big part of why I probably will. I’m among friends. However, the Vampire situation has become complicated. According to David Carr I’m one, and thanks to me, so is he. And then about one day after that startling revelation, we were all given an award for our prowess in hunting Communist vampires. I suppose if you’re hunting vampires, it helps to have a couple in your own team. I’ve also been cheered up lately, following on from Tom Burroughes’ complaints about television, by Britain’s two current late night chat shows. On Channel 4 on Friday (repeated the following Thursday) is the sublime Graham Norton. Less commonly noted in Britain these days is that over on BBC1 (Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays) Johnny Vaughan is doing just as well as the heterosexual community’s answer to Norton. Before Vaughan, on BBC1, there was Jonathan Ross, and that show caused everyone involved, Ross, the help, the guests and the viewers to ask themselves: “Is this as good as Graham Norton?” and to answer: “No”. The Ross show was full of embarrassing gay references, because, you know, er, that’s what late night chat shows have to have these days. Before Ross, there was Parkinson and he’s past it. Vaughan, on the other hand, is the genuine article. Vaughan’s politics are not right wing exactly, more masculinist. A fortnight ago there was, for example, a short but respectful interview with a train strike trade unionist, a buddy of Arthur Scargill’s, the point being not: here’s a stupid lefty dynosaur, but here’s a “forgotten man”. Man, is the point. He also specialises in getting glamorous women on, and then a bloke, and Vaughan and the bloke then get deep into some ultra-bloke topic while the woman’s still there. The other night he had this fat and hairy comedian on and they assembled this big three-piece Star Wars toy with three Star Wars characters fighting each other, and there was this actress watching it all … Well, you had to see it. Both Norton and Vaughan have in common that the agenda is pleasure, not politics. Norton ignores politics completely. He’s too busy celebrating the uncensored joys of the Internet. Vaughan does the occasional sneer at things like £40,000 research projects paid for by the government which reach such conclusions as “traffic jams can seriously frustrate the travelling public”, before getting stuck back into the serious business of finding out what it was like being an actor in Blackhawk Down or how some farmer nearly got chewed to death by his own bailing machine and has a Captain Hook hook on his arm to prove it. When American superstar visitors appear on these two shows they seem genuinely to enjoy themselves I know what Tom Burroughes means. Capitalists get a horrible rap on the telly. But the products of capitalism get a good showing. Look at it this way. Lefties don’t produce any decent stuff. The only decent thing about them is that some of them do decent impersonations of decent people (which is perhaps why lefties dominate the TV advert voice-over profession). But capitalists produce all that great capitalist stuff, and that’s what they’re selling. They’re not selling themselves. I have another even better answer to Tom’s problem, about how the capitalists might sell themselves, but I’ll save that for later. February 7th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Just the other day I finally got a box out of storage, one which contained all of my old photographs. Now the truth can finally be shown.  I prefer going for accuracy over rate of fire. It’s all a matter of situation and appropriateness to the purpose at hand. February 7th, 2002 | 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. |
|||||