So, Yates of the Yard has arrested another lacky of the Blair Regime as part of his investigation into the cash for peerages crimes. When will the Godfather himself be nicked? I hope that the boys in blue are forcibly taking blood samples from these perps. After all, as Blair himself would say, it is in the interest of all our security that suspects contribute samples to the National DNA Database. What if Levy or Turner or Blair’s criminality manifests itself in other ways? We must have samples in case they offend again.
|
|||||
|
Producing a plausible TV show about international terrorism without depicting Muslims is like producing a plausible TV Western without depicting cowboys. – The indispensable Robert Bidinotto January 18th, 2007 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
 “Castro Reportedly in Grave,” begins an Associated Press headline. Unfortunately, the next word is “Condition.” January 16th, 2007 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
Well-intentioned politicians are of two kinds, those who want to help people directly and those who want to free people so that indirectly they can help themselves. The distinction may sound like a quibble, but it is not. – paragraph one of a Telegraph piece yesterday in which Tim Congdon explains why from now on he will be voting UKIP (thank you Iain Dale) January 12th, 2007 | 2 comments - (Comments are closed)
“And having looked to Government for bread, on the very first scarcity they will turn and bite the hand that fed them.” Edmund Burke, the 18th Century politician who has been described by historian and journalist Paul Johnson as the “greatest Irishman who ever lived”. January 11th, 2007 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
Well, fancy giving money to the Government! – A.P. Herbert (no relation) Thanks to Brian Walden for reminding me of this, in a brilliant but very depressing radio essay: Lessons from Herbert. January 7th, 2007 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
If the best we get by having a choice between a “democratically” elected Statist behemoth and a dictatorially selected Statist behemoth then we’ve got a major problem. So “scale” is important when discussing democracy. Granted local authorities can be corrupt as well, but the whole notion is to “set aside” bad government, not elect in a new batch of the same. In the end, the bigger the government, no matter how it is contrived, the more self serving and unresponsive it will be. The anti-federalists knew this, but lost out for the most part – Commenter ‘Brad‘ January 6th, 2007 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
I believe in democracy because I distrust the elites. I distrust the elites because I believe that self-deception is widespread, and the elites are particularly skilled at it. Accordingly, I believe that it is important for those in power to have the humility of knowing that they may be voted out of office. Others believe in democracy because they are hoping to see the triumph of a particular elite. Many liberals want to see sympathetic technocrats manipulating the levers of government, nominally for the greater good. I see government technocrats as inevitably embedded in a political system that inefficiently processes information. The more they attempt, the more damage they are likely to do. Many conservatives want to see government used for “conservative ends.” However, I believe that the more that government tries to correct the flaws of families, the more flawed families will become. January 5th, 2007 | 27 comments - (Comments are closed)
And a “Long Tail” discussion is about the England cricket team presumably. – Michael Jennings commenting on this at my blog this morning. Last night, England’s 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 managed a total of four runs between them. January 3rd, 2007 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
New Year’s Day – Now is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving the road to hell with them as usual – attributed to Mark Twain January 1st, 2007 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
All governments, all people even, should be held to the same moral standards. If you allow it for Saddam or Uday, then you must allow it for Bush or Rumsfeld. If you forbid it for Bush or Blair, then you must forbid it for Saddam or Ahmadinejad. Anything else smacks of “you can’t expect any better of Middle Easterners”-style of racism, or at least cultural arrogance. Did Saddam lie about WMD? Does Bush rape women or imprison and torture small children? First set out what your standards of behaviour are, and when particular actions in response are justified, and only then consider the example set by particular nations. For if you pay more attention to Iraq than Tibet, say, people might be able to accuse you of being on the side of the tyrants, and your moralising protests no more than enemy propaganda. And you wouldn’t want that, would you? – Commenter ‘Pa Annoyed’ December 30th, 2006 | 21 comments - (Comments are closed)
For my last birthday I was offered jewellery or shotguns. I chose the guns. – Elizabeth Hurley, via Robert Avrech  December 28th, 2006 | 4 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. |
|||||