Two decades ago, Sir Bob was at least demanding we give him our own fokkin’ money. This time round, all he was asking was that we join him into bullying the G8 blokes to give us their taxpayers’ fokkin’ money.
– Mark Steyn
|
|||||
|
July 5th, 2005 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
 You know we have a greedy government. Even if they cancel the debt, it will not help if the government is greedy. Senior government officials should cut their salaries first. July 3rd, 2005 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
You know what, I’ve finally understood what this whole “live 8” nonsense is about. I twigged when I heard a quote on the news, something like “this is all about you, the leaders of the G8, because you make the decisions”. Recognise the instinctual pattern: singing and dancing, mass ecstatic rallies, high moral cause, loud appeals for attention and for aid from on high – they’re praying, to the only gods they know. July 2nd, 2005 | 19 comments - (Comments are closed)
Commenter independent worm, in a Hit & Run post concerning some idiocy or other by members of Congress. June 29th, 2005 | 2 comments - (Comments are closed)
-Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. (With thanks to Professor Reynolds.) June 23rd, 2005 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
“Paul Wolfowitz’s nomination to lead the World Bank could turn out to be the right and inspired choice, following on the heels of John Bolton’s nomination as US ambassador to the UN. Both are political realists who appreciate the power of the USA to provide the global Pax and promote a liberal international economic order. Both are sceptics of international organisations and have no time for global-governance chatter. Now Mr Wolfowitz should marry his political realism with economic liberalism. The World Bank should promote markets and economic freedom in the developing world, but with more modest, pared-down means and ends. It should emphasise information-sharing, the exchange of ideas, policy surveillance and technical assistance. But its power of the purse through project and programme lending should be overhauled and kept within strict limits. And global-governance fantasists should be told where to get off.” – Dr Razeen Sally of the London School of Economics in the report 2005 and Beyond: The Future of Trade, Development & International Institutions (PDF) June 19th, 2005 | 2 comments - (Comments are closed)
June 12th, 2005 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
June 10th, 2005 | 119 comments - (Comments are closed)
C.P. Scott, who knew about running newspapers in the 20th century. The New York Times has decided to reverse this maxim. (Via Ann Althouse) May 18th, 2005 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
A nice analogy from the inestimable Tim Blair, posting temporarily on Tim Dunlop’s blog due to an outage at his own.
May 12th, 2005 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I’ll show you a hypocrite…If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there – the reason you don’t plummet into a ploughed field – is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right. – Richard Dawkins, from a collection of brilliant essays, “The Devil’s Chaplain”, crushing all manner of shoddy thinking. May 8th, 2005 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
9.30am BST Yes, Labour’s 60-65 majority was achieved with only 36% of the vote – an all-time low for a winning party in Britain. That reflects an election in which the traditional party labels didn’t quite capture the real divisions in the electorate. Nonetheless, I’d say it’s worse news for the Tories – not just because it’s an unprecedented third consecutive loss for the party but because such recovery as there was was so pathetic. In the days before the election, a lot of Tories told me that the real measure of their success was whether and by how much they’d break the 200-seat barrier. And even that was a conscious effort to lower expectations. The Conservatives are presently on 195 seats. That would have been regarded as a disaster for Thatcher, Major or even William Hague, and swift resignation would have followed. The Tory leadership’s ability to spin this as a great “improvement” is confirmation of just how shrivelled the modern British Conservative Party really is. May 6th, 2005 | 23 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. |
|||||