Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
|
|||||
|
I am so tired of having to roar about the latest provocation-of-the-day from some Islamic barking moonbat that I really need to write about something else… so how about a paean to one of my favourite artists? As a big, no, huge Frank Miller fan, delighting in the way he has darkened up an entire art form, rescuing it from both Disneyfication and political correctness, it is interesting to see how his influence has started to spread into other areas of the arts. However I was apprehensive that when I heard that Sin City was going to be turned into a movie… “unfilmable” was all I said when I heard. I was completely wrong and Sin City was a tour de force, unlike the attempt to translate Miller’s Elektra onto the screen, which was a disappointing mess inspite of featuring one of my favourite actresses. So with the debacle of Elektra in mind, my reaction was rather dubious when I heard they were going to make 300 into a movie… oh me of little faith… having just watched the trailer, well, I am not used to having a film clip lasting 1 minute and 46 seconds sent a shiver up my spine quite like that. This is clearly one to watch on the largest screen possible.  Frank Miller has been one of the leading people adding a harder edge to US comics since the 1980’s, reclaiming a place in a medium in which I have always felt France and Japan lead the world. That he is now proving a source of interesting movies for Hollywood just increases my admiration for the man. October 5th, 2006 | 43 comments - (Comments are closed)
 A Muslim police officer has been allowed to refuse to guard the Israeli embassy in London.
A ‘rethink’? When ordered to carry out his job and protect a location within the United Kingdom from unlawful attack, PC Alexander Omar Basha took the view that it would be immoral to protect that place (in other words, he refused to enforce British law regarding possible acts of violence because of who the potential target was). The only ‘rethink’ needed is why was he not fired on the spot? I wonder… has a Jewish policeman in the UK attached to the Diplomatic Protection Group ever refused to guard the embassy of a Muslim country in Britain? So tell me, if a policeman who was a member of the BNP refused to protect an African embassy, do you think the Metropolitan Police would need even ten seconds for a ‘rethink’? October 5th, 2006 | 51 comments - (Comments are closed)
Robert Redeker is a writer and philosophy teacher in France who made some self-evident points critical of the behaviour of certain Muslims but he also laid the blame on Islam-as-a-religion itself…
As a result, even though he lives in France and was just expressing his views, he is a hunted man in fear for his life. Time reported that Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Mosque of Paris and president of the French Council of the Muslim Religion spoke of “grave errors” in treating questions of religion in a “purely subjective manner.” Yet surely that is exactly what Redeker did not do. He is looking at our old chum ‘root causes’ and finding that Islam itself may be the problem. That is not a subjective proposition. People need to start thinking of Islam in the same manner as they thought of Communism. Islam may be a religion but it is also has an imposed ‘whole life’ view that makes it indistinguishable from a political ideology. If Muslims want their religion to be treated with tolerance, they need to de-secularise it in the same way Christianity has (largely) done. But for as long as Islam advocates an imposed political order based on religious principles, it must not be treated either legally or socially as being above critique on any level whatsoever. Islam is the problem and, just like Communism and Fascism, it is simply incompatible with western post-Enlightenment civilisation. And also just like Communism and Fascism, it must be contained or defeated militarily when it threatens us but it must also be defeated as an ideology as well. The PLO and Ba’athism were regional threats but they were also largely secular and had political objectives that could at least be discussed (for example even Israel managed to eventually do deals with the PLO). Islam’s morality, theology or weird prohibitions should only be of interest to Muslims, just as Kibbutznik Communism is only of interest to people on Kibbutzes playing at Communism on a strictly voluntary basis… but whereas Communism has been defeated and discredited as a global ideology, Islam is very much alive and kicking and because of Islam’s political imperatives to impose its values by force on everyone (i.e. either become a Muslim or submit as a dhimmi), that makes it of concern to everyone. Until Islam is defeated ideologically, Western Muslims have to be regarded much the way communist sympathisers were regarded during the Cold War. Islam needs to be treated as a political ideology that needs to be confronted and defeated. The pretence that “oh, it is not about Islam, it is just about terrorism” is simply untrue. It is all about Islam. October 4th, 2006 | 71 comments - (Comments are closed)
Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty, property – this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. – Frédéric Bastiat October 3rd, 2006 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
It is hard for us (as libertarians) to understand just how radical even freezing government spending in real terms is. The UK Independence Party policy on government spending is, by modern standards, very radical [pdf document].
The last time there was anything like this was 1976-1977 when, under IMF orders, the brakes were put on UK government spending. The situation by the time of the next General Election will be similar (vast government spending and an exploding (13.7% ‘broad money’ growth at the moment) money supply, or in ‘modern’ language an ‘expansive fiscal and monetary policy’, having undermined the economy) – so the UKIP is being farsighted. Clearly they think that economic breakdown can still be avoided (and in technical terms they are correct – although the culture may have decayed to such a point that avoiding collapse is not ‘practical politics’). As for unifying the income tax and ‘national insurance’ systems – Australia and New Zealand did this long ago. National Insurance is a tax, it is not a ‘contribution’. A flat rate income tax makes good administrative sense and getting rid of the top rates of income tax would indeed stimulate the economy and benefit everyone bar tax lawyers. Getting some poor people out of the tax system would not boost revenue – but it is a political price one has to pay for getting rid of the 40% rate. Of course I would like to see a lower overall rate than 33% – but one must remember that there would be no ‘national insurance’ tax anymore. Also, if the poor no longer paid income tax, there would be no excuse for Mr Brown’s wildly complex and expensive ‘tax credits’. Getting rid of the inheritance tax is a logical move already done in Canada and other nations. Inheritance tax just encourages people to spend their capital (and then live off the state) – rather than invest for the long term in the hope that their children will see the benefit. It is sad that the absurd Capital Gains Tax is to stay – cutting it is good, but it is a mad (and hard to administer) tax that causes great harm. Converting the wildly complicated and open to fraud VAT into a sales tax is a good idea (and they are correct that this is not lawful under EU law). However, making the new sales tax a local tax would mean an end to the Council Tax (which would be popular) and one could get rid of all national government subsidies to local government as well (which would allow a reduction in the combined income and social security tax). Overall a ‘good as far as it goes package’ – certainly vastly better than the increasingly ironically named ‘Conservatives’ whose shadow Chancellor said on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that it was “unlikely” that he would put UP taxes… but would consider it. October 3rd, 2006 | 41 comments - (Comments are closed)
Am I the only person not to be surprised by the news that the US government’s extensive jihad against onine gambling has now culminated in outright prohibition? The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (which now only requires President Bush’s signature to become law) actually outlaws credit card payments or funds transfers from US citizens to ‘illegal’ internet gambling sites and also gives the US authorities draconian powers to extradite non-US citizens suspected of accepting or handling such payments from anywhere in the world. Online gaming shares have plummeted as a result. Of course, there are laudable moral reasons for these actions:
Or perhaps not. More likely is that this is good, old-fashioned protectionism dressed up in save-the-children type rubrics. The real problem is the British and European online gambling sites were rapidly eroding the profits of American casinos and I expect that the cost of buying a couple of senators is a mere trifle in comparison to the potential losses that this foreign ‘immoral’ gambling was destined to inflict. I expect that the man behind the man behind the man will turn out to be some guy whose middle name is “the”. October 3rd, 2006 | 29 comments - (Comments are closed)
Duke Ellington has more in common with Ravel than with Snoop Dogg. Scott Joplin would have regarded today’s “black culture” as an oxymoron. To eliminate a century and a half’s tradition of beauty and grace from your identity isn’t “keepin’ it real”; it’s keepin’ millions of young black men and women unreal in ways the most malevolent bull-necked racist could never have devised. October 2nd, 2006 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
Who would not sympathise with injured soldiers, forced to endure poor conditions and MRSA at Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham. Now one has been threatened by a local Muslim:
Soldiers are concerned about their safety. In such matters, one expects the usual response from government: a statement that refuses to acknowledge the problem and masks neglect:
We know where they would like to end up:
The black humour of the British Tommy! No wonder New Labour hates them. October 2nd, 2006 | 33 comments - (Comments are closed)
The EU and the US have failed to reach an agreement on airline passenger data sharing. This is a euphemism. The US is demanding information on all travellers that the European Court of Justice says violates our privacy, and the EU countries have been trying to square the circle. They have failed so far. Let us be clear. The member states want to do it. All 25 of them, despite Germany’s constitutional data protections. They would love to give the FBI your travel plans, bank account details and dietary preferences. UKgov is particularly keen, and makes sure such information is always sent ahead from UK flights to such friendly, peaceful and enlightened regimes as the People’s Republic of China (it bullied the other EU states into accepting the principle of requiring carriers to retain all communications data for state inspection). What is stopping this becoming an universal convention is not European states but the independent, supra-national institutions of the Union. October 1st, 2006 | 62 comments - (Comments are closed)
The Daily Telegraph ran a story titled Blow for Cameron as poll lead is slashed, with this as the leader article on the front page. However the analysis struck me as very strange indeed.
That makes little sense. Dave Cameron has been both consistent and explicit about what he stands for and anyone who thinks “it is hard to know what the Conservative Party stands for at the moment” must be hard of hearing. It stands for regulatory statism, high taxes and Euro-Federalism. In short, if you want to know what the ‘Conservative’ Party stands for under Dave Cameron, you have but to look at Britain for the last nine years under ‘Tony’ Blair. The Tory Party stands for continuity with Blair-ism, just with a fresh set of managers with their If you like what Blairism (or ‘radical centrism’ if you like) has done to Britain but want a fresh Blairite in control, Dave Cameron has made it crystal clear that he is your man. September 30th, 2006 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
“The moral and political track record of modernist artists is nothing to be proud of. Some were despicable in the conduct of their personal lives, and many embraced facism or Stalinism. The modernist composer Karlheinz Stockhausen described the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as “the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos”, and added, enviously, that “artists, too, sometimes go beyond the limits of what is feasible and conceivable, so that we wake up, and that we open ourselves to another world.” Nor is the theory of postmodernism especially progressive. A denial of objective reality is no friend to moral progress, because it prevents one from saying, for example, that slavery or the Holocaust really took place.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate, page 416. September 30th, 2006 | 16 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. |
|||||
Recent Comments