|
|||||
|
Bob Bigelow has released his first baby picture. The Genesis 1 space station test article is working so flawlessly the Bigelow crew is wandering about with glazed eyes or collapsing to recover from long weeks of sleep deprivation. The module unwound and inflated to its full 8 foot diameter, the solar panels are delivering power and they are receiving more telemetry data than they can handle.  July 17th, 2006 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
 The Hezbollah missiles landing on civilians deep within Israel change everything. I would suspect that the Syrians and Iranians who have supplied Hezbollah with the weapons to effectively attack Israel’s cities will soon find Israel’s fury directed against them directly. If we start seeing chemical or even radiological warheads, which are by no means beyond possibility, the Israeli reaction scarecely bears thinking about. Will the US and UK get dragged in? Well given that Syria and Iran are both also integral to the insurgency against the US and UK in Iraq, it may well be in the interests of the allies to strip away the fiction that these nations are not a key enabler of their woes in Iraq. A wider Middle Eastern war would open all manner of options against the manufacturers and suppliers of the weapons killing US and UK forces. The upside/downside could be considerable. Roll the dice. Pondering putting your spare cash onto petroleum futures? You had better do it quick. July 17th, 2006 | 84 comments - (Comments are closed)
This by Greg Burch, about the differences between Marxism and Islam, linked to by Instapundit, strikes me as shrewd. And the posting is also, unlike other blog postings I have found myself reading recently, mercifully brief, saying a great deal in a few pithy paragraphs. Marxism, Burch reminds us, promises heaven on earth, and in time, this promise will prove wrong. So, to defeat Marxism all you have to do is quarantine it, and then wait for it to defeat itself. But Islam makes no verifiable and hence self-defeating real world promises.
I do not claim that this is in any way a new insight, but it is an important meme, well stated. It also feeds in to what Johnathan said yesterday, about us “setting an example” to Islam rather than barging in and re-arranging it. Another good Islam-related meme emerged from a not-that-recent (but it deserves to be placed on the Samizdata record, I think) conversation between me and Perry de Havilland. Perry perpetrated that widespread meme-that-ain’t-so, to the effect that Islam needs a Reformation. The muddle here is that it confuses Reformation in the sense of reform in the direction of sanity and niceness with reformation in the direction of more devoted adherence to the original texts, which of course means the exact opposite of sanity and niceness. My so far rather limited reading of the Koran causes me to agree with Islamic fundamentalists about what the Koran says and what it demands of Muslims. Reformation, in the sense of what happened historically in Europe with Christianity – believers reading the stuff for themselves and not allowing the message to be bent out of shape by priests before it gets to them – is what Islam has for many decades now been busily engaged in, and that, from the point of view of Western Civilisation, is the problem, not the solution. Perry quickly rephrased what he was all along trying to say. Islam, he said, needs a New Testament. I.e. something fundamentally different for the fundamentalist true believers to read. Again, I am sure that this is not an original notion, but it is still a meme to conjure with, I think. It is a lot to ask, but that is the point. Islam has to change a lot before it can hope to rub along contentedly with the rest of us. I suspect that lots of people benignly raised within the Muslim religious tradition, but appalled by what Islam actually says, have many times attempted such a project, but that Original Islam 1.0 contains not only the contradiction of all such niceness memes, but also other memes which have the effect of preventing the niceness memes from ever catching on and becoming more than historical footnotes. However, the world is a very different place now to what it has been throughout most of Muslim history, and I remain optimistic that Islam may eventually reform itself, in the sense that Perry and I and everyone else who is civilised would all like. Such a benign transformation would be unprecedented and utterly out of character with almost everything that went before in Muslim history. But, so are mobile phones. July 16th, 2006 | 59 comments - (Comments are closed)
Overseas readers often scoff at my pessimism about the state we are in in Britain. Scoff may be the wrong word. Scoffing is now under close supervision:
Perhaps the scariest thing about the article from which that comes is the vaguely approving tone. Here is information about what is being done, no questioning that it needs and should have government attention. July 16th, 2006 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
Earlier today, Tim Blair laughingly reported on a senior Pakistani shi’ite cleric falling victim to a suicide bomber – presumably fielded by his sectarian rivals. The manner of this man’s demise carries a strong element of poetic justice, considering he allegedly supported Hamas and Hezbollah – both terrorist groups not unfamiliar with “martyrdom operations”. However, I do not feel as jolly about this cleric’s death as many of the commenters on the linked Blair thread. Certainly, when a prominent Hamas and Hezbollah supporter gets his comeuppance in the so-very-appropriate form of a zealot with a bomb strapped to his gut, one could be forgiven for revelling in schadenfreude. Trouble is, such an event is precisely the sort of thing that could trigger a large-scale Islamist movement that overthrows Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf, or adds further impetus to ongoing efforts to assassinate him. The Economist’s recent article on Pakistan is a timely reminder that the West’s current alliance with that nation is conditional in the extreme – and almost wholly reliant on Musharraf – whose death could not come soon enough for a large number of people he rules over. If he is assassinated, the General’s successor might well be cut from a far more fundamentalist cloth. If this circumstance arises, a nuclear-armed Pakistan becomes an even more alarming prospect; raising the stakes over Kashmir and making nuclear weapons proliferation more likely. The risk of a nuclear weapon being detonated in a Western city is proportionate to the greenness of Musharraf’s replacement. If the Pakistani leadership was to fall into fundamentalist hands, this would represent a massive setback in the global struggle against international Islamic terrorism. The mission in Afghanistan would be deeply complicated, for a start. Then there’s the problem of Pakistan becoming an even greater hub for Islamofascists. I will stop there; the list of conceivable heinous consequences could fill many pages. Unfortunately, “our boy” in Islamabad has made a lot of bitter enemies during his rule, and – according to the Economist article linked above – has also governed in a way that makes a post-Musharraf Pakistan a very ugly prospect indeed. Musharraf’s removal or death would likely be catastrophic to the interests of those nations struggling against Islamofascism. Certainly, the Pakistani cleric copped it most aptly. However, any gloating at the nature of his death may well be overshadowed by wider consequences relating to it. July 16th, 2006 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
American economist Thomas Sowell remains, in my view, one of the “must-read” authors for folk interested in the case for liberal markets and critiques of well-intentioned but hubristic social policy. In one of his books, The Vision of the Anointed, he hits upon a key fact that is so often ignored by writers making statements such as “X percent of the population own Y percent of the wealth”, and then proceed, in terms of great indignation, to argue for massive redistribution of wealth to rectify said terrible state of affairs. Sowell points out that what such statements miss out is that we are all getting older, our lives change, and as we do so, it is common for folk to pass from one wealth bracket to another: “One common source of needless alarm about statistics is a failure to understand that a given series of numbers may represent a changing assortment of people. A joke has it that, upon being told that a pedestrian is hit by a car every 20 minutes in New York, the listener responded, “He must get awfully tired of that!” Exactly the same reasoning – or lack of reasoning – appears in statistics that are intended to be taken seriously.” (page 43). July 16th, 2006 | Comments are closed
Back in 2004 I put a clothespin on my nose and endorsed the Republicans over the Democrats. This was primarily because with a hot phase of a war against our sworn enemies in progress, the thought of Kerry in the White House just scared the hell out of me. Several years on, as the Republicans continue to erode civil liberties and dig their snouts into the porker trough as deeply as any of the Democrats ever did, I am beginning to pray for enough of a Democratic success this fall to at the very least deadlock the government. The following, which I have just received from Downsize DC was the last straw:
It is time to throw the bums out. The problem is, we already know their replacements are bums who are just as bad. The best we can say is a new bum is less experienced than an old bum and less capable of causing trouble for a few years. I really wish we could get a few more libertarians into the asylum to jam a spanner into the works of government. July 16th, 2006 | 26 comments - (Comments are closed)
 We (classical) liberals have spent a lot of our lives worrying about how to keep the state small and stabilise free institutions against collectivist urges. It seems we missed the point. The gradual socialist slide we were resisting popped. Meanwhile the revolution happened and we missed it. In fact most people seem to have missed it, including the old leftists that we feared and who are now equally perplexed. We were all looking the wrong way: Blair’s Britain is no more like Scandinavia than it is like Soviet Russia. Matthew Parris might be right to detect something of the Third World in the way that government pronouncements no longer have a relation to reality, but I submit the polity itself is something new. It is nothing so human as kleptocracy. At some point Britain became a totalitarian bureaucratic state in spirit, while retaining plentiful food and clean water, and the forms of the rule of law – where that doesn’t get in the way of official power. Week on week measures are brought forward that present ministers would have organised protests against (and in some cases actually did) had they happened in 20th century South Africa, Eastern Europe or Latin America… Had anyone been doing them but the benign guardians of civic republicanism (themselves), in fact. Last week: Local authories get powers to seize empty housing. Next week: Some more exciting ways for the Home Office to build a safe just and tolerant society. 1. Seize the profits of companies that employ people who are not permitted to work by the state, or subcontract to companies that do. And remove their directors and ban them from acting as directors. 2. The Serious Organised Crime Agency to have powers to seek ‘control orders’ on those it suspects of involvement in serious crime but does not have evidence sufficient to prosecute. These control orders would be like those on suspected terrorists and control potentially any aspect of a person’s life and their contact with others. We will have to wait for the announcement to discover whether, “for operational reasons” they will, like the terrorist versions, have to be imposed in secret at secret hearings with the suspect unable to hear or challenge the evidence against them. What’s the betting? [Note: The current default definition of ‘serious crime’, by the way, is that in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s81. It is extraterritorial. Activity is serious crime if it would be a crime anywhere in the UK, involves the use of violence, or “substantial financial gain” or is conduct by a “large number” of persons in pursuit of a common purpose… The former NCIS (now part of SOCA) defined “organised” crime as that committed by three persons or more, so a “large number” may not be all that large. Mind how you go.] July 16th, 2006 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
So we now know that the police officers who shot dead Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, claiming they thought he was a suicide bomber, will face no charges. Instead, Scotland Yard may face charges under, wait for it, health and safety regulations. Yet all this utterly misses the point. I am willing to believe that the event itself was all just a horrible cock-up but what I am not willing to accept is that after shooting dead the wrong man, the authorities can issue a stream of bare faced lies with complete impunity. Very soon after the event it must have been clear to the police they had made a horrible blunder and this fact soon came out. However we were then told that the unfortunate Brazilian had significantly contributed to his own fate… he was wearing an unseasonable padded jacket1, he had run when challenged by the armed police and been chased in the tube station2 and finally had vaulted over the gate and run on to the train pursued by the cops3… all of which we now know was completely false. The reasons for such lies are clear. I was horrified when I first heard they had got the wrong man but given what we were told about how it had all gone down, I was not unsympathetic to the police. After all, in the aftermath of the suicide attacks on London a few weeks earlier and failed attacks a few days before, anyone who runs from armed police when challenged only to dive onto a crowded train can only expect one thing. But then the truth came out as there were simply too many witnesses and too many inconsistencies. Yet even that did not stop the London Transport CCTV footage that we are told makes us ‘secure beneath the watchful eyes’ from being mysteriously blank. So where did those lies come from? Who told the police spokesman to offer up those fabricated events and why are they not on trial for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? And yet it seems the entire stream of disinformation that the authorities tried to use to mitigate this ghastly error has just vanished down the memory hole. Why are Britain’s self-important press silent on this? THAT is what I want to know. July 15th, 2006 | 21 comments - (Comments are closed)
I am still unconvinced of the isolationist argument vis Iraq that would have had Western militaries – and probably as a result civilians – quit the entire Middle East, and leave Saddam to wreak havoc as he has before, but my goodness, the case for non-interventionist foreign policy has never looked so good at the moment as the insurgency in Iraq gets worse. Jim Henley sums up the “do as little as possible” school of libertarian foreign policy as well as anyone:
My main problem with Jim’s argument is that setting an example to the dictatorships, thugocracies etc of that region would strike me as a fairly drawn-out, if not rank impossible, endeavour (that’s putting it politely, ed). We are talking about a process that might last thousands of years. And I am afraid that in the meantime, the various despots in that region might not quite get with the Enlightenment programme and develop a continued fondness for blowing infidels up. At best, I would say that such folk might, even at their craziest, be deterrable, which is why I think the libertarian world-view – if I can presume to call it that – should focus on deterrence, and forswear the temptations of what folk called pre-emptive action. But again – and Jim and others have to answer this question – does observing the niceties of national sovereignty always trump other considerations? For me, one of the clearest-cut examples of justified and smart pre-emption was the Israeli airforce’s bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facilties in the early 1980s. No doubt some libertarian “leave-well-alone” foreign policy commenters fulminated about that event at the time, in a way that may have echoes now in what is being written about Israel’s actions in Lebanon (see the posts below). What to do? July 15th, 2006 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
Politician A says: Give me money. If I get power, I’ll let you have some of my power. Politician B says: Give me power. If I get power, I’ll take other people’s money and give some of it to you. Which is the more corrupt? July 15th, 2006 | 21 comments - (Comments are closed)
I take a more equivocal view of the current military actions in Lebanon than Dale. I strongly question the wisdom of dislocating communications and infrastructure in the non-Hezbollah controlled parts of the country, i.e. punishing people who are, if not natural allies of Israel (though some are), at least not currently Israel’s enemies. And yet… We cannot pretend that Lebanon is a normal nation-state. The Lebanese government does not in reality control Lebanon, or more correctly, it controls Lebanon’s various regions at the sufferance of the local factional leaders. Clearly just as the Lebanese government is not responsible for the actions of Hezbollah within Lebanon, they cannot then claim their sovereignty has been violated when Israel attacks Hezbollah within Lebanon: they cannot have it both ways. If they are responsible, then the Lebanese state must stop Hezbollah. As they clearly cannot do that, they cannot reasonably object to Israel doing so. But similarly Israel should be very discriminating upon whom they drop their munitions. I cannot really complain about Israel hammering Hezbollah anywhere they can be found (and I do mean anywhere). Hezbollah must be destroyed in the most literal sense of the word. Moreover the people in Syria and Iran who make Hezbollah possible must also be destroyed, again quite literally… and political posturing, UN resolutions and negotiations will not achieve those objectives. To this end right now Israel should be striking targets in Iran and Syria in retaliation for Hezbollah activities. In short, whilst I am very unhappy to see Israel attacking the airport in Beirut, I would have little problem with them doing exactly that to Tehran or Damascus. I think they are ‘sharing the pain’ with the wrong people. It is easy to point the finger at Israel (I am certainly not reflexively pro-Israeli myself and Lord knows they can be pretty arrogant and unsympathetic), but in truth I have yet to hear any workable alternatives to what they are doing being offered up by the critics. Hezbollah’s actions are intolerable and so why should Israel tolerate them? If not this then what should Israel do? Methinks this is not an easy question to answer. July 14th, 2006 | 49 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