We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
It is probably going to be rather difficult for our non-UK readers to believe this but there was a time when the Church of England was known to campaigners on the old left as ‘the Tory Party at prayer’. It was not meant as a compliment but then neither was it entirely unjustified. As the official Church of the State its function was to bolster the moral underpinnings of the old ruling class. In its ethos and operation it was every bit as conservative as the political party that represented the secular interests of the same old order.
But not any more:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday urged America to recognise that terrorists can “have serious moral goals”.
Dr.Williams omits to tell us precisely what those ‘goals’ are and why they are ‘moral’. A mere oversight, I’m sure.
He said that while terrorism must always be condemned, it was wrong to assume its perpetrators were devoid of political rationality.
‘Of course, I condemn terrorism BUT…..’
He said that in ignoring this, in its criticism of al-Qa’eda, America “loses the power of self-criticism and becomes trapped in a self-referential morality.”
Excuse me but isn’t that the precisely the wrong way around?
If this was a one-off, a weak moment or an aberration that would be grounds enough for criticism. But it isn’t. Ever since his inauguration as the Head of the Established Church of England, Rowan Williams has been busily establishing his own profile as a political campaigner. From his regular public denouncements of ‘consumerism’ and ‘greed’ to his ringing endorsements of bigger government and more state spending, Dr.Williams has mapped out his unimpeachable credentials as a shill for just about every green/marxoid canard in existence.
Under his stewardship the, the Church of England has finally completed its transformation into the Church of Post-Modernist Pieties, ever-ready to provide spiritual edification for the new ruling class. It is inaccurate to label this as an about-face because in many respects it reflects the traditional function of that institution. Like most other branches of the British state, it has been co-opted by the Gramschian project and set to work as impeccable disseminator of a new governing ethos.
The best we can hope for is disestablishment.
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
– H. L. Mencken
Says Alice:
(I considered putting this on Samizdata, then thought maybe it wasn’t quite The Thing).
This is from Blackadder Goes Forth, a quite brilliant vintage British TV series set in WWI. Lord Flashheart is instructing a class of soldiers training to fly in the Royal Air Corps. Flashheart is the ludicrously loud and oversexed character played by Rik Mayall. George is the idealistic upper-class soldier played by Hugh Laurie.
And here it is:
Lord Flashheart: Treat your machine like you treat your woman!!
George: What, you mean, invite her home at weekends to meet your parents?
Flashheart: No! I mean, get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back!!
What a series that was.
One of the depressing trends in modern life is the way in which political figures use the politics of fear to garner support for legislation which degrades our rights and our liberties.
I live in South Australia, and here the Premier (equivalent to a US state governor, although he models his government on New Labour), one Mike Rann, has ordered his ministers to come up with new legislation to curb the rights of bikie gang members to work in certain industries.
In South Australia a couple of small groups of motorcycle gangs have become noted for their involvement in drug dealing and other forms of organised crime. You’d have to look hard to notice them, though. Although South Australians love their motorcycles, I can’t recall seeing anyone from these “bikie gangs”.
Be that as it may, the powers that be have determined that they are a threat to the good folk of South Australia. And, as the powers that be are wont to do, they are arming themselves with legal clubs. The gist of the legislation is:
the aim is to ensure that people associated with bikie gangs and organised crime can be prevented from holding a security firm licence.
The term ‘bikie gang’ is used loosely. I would be concerned if I was a motorcycle enthusiast to know whether or not innocent social gatherings with fellow devotees were to make one a member of these dreaded ‘bikie gangs’.
Mr Rann gives no comfort:
I’ve made it clear that if it means the new laws must be radical and draconian in nature, then so be it.
So presumably, the civil liberties of people will go by the wayside if that is what it takes. South Australians are going to have their freedom of association challenged, as well as their right to seek employment where they wish, in order to deal with a piddling problem. South Australia’s crime rate is hardly alarming, and what we have here is a politician playing up people’s fears to drive through legislation that is iniquitous.
Thanks to Dale Amon for the tip about something called the Crypto-Gram Newsletter, which contains much of White Rose relevance. Dale particularly singled out a piece called The Future of Surveillance. Excerpt:
Some uses of surveillance are benign. Fine restaurants sometimes have cameras in their dining rooms so the chef can watch diners as they eat their creations. Telephone help desks sometimes record customer conversations in order to help train their employees.
Other uses are less benign. Some employers monitor the computer use of their employees, including use of company machines on personal time. A company is selling an e-mail greeting card that surreptitiously installs spyware on the recipient’s computer. Some libraries keep records of what books people check out, and Amazon keeps records of what books people browse on their website.
And, as we’ve seen, some uses are criminal.
This trend will continue in the years ahead, because technology will continue to improve. Cameras will become even smaller and more inconspicuous. Imaging technology will be able to pick up even smaller details, and will be increasingly able to “see” through walls and other barriers. And computers will be able to process this information better. Today, cameras are just mindlessly watching and recording, but eventually sensors will be able to identify people. Photo IDs are just temporary; eventually no one will have to ask you for an ID because they’ll already know who you are. …
And as soon as I saw the title The Patriot Act and Mission Creep I knew that White Rosers would want to look at that one also.
Yes it’s the Rugby World Cup, and in the early hours of this morning London time, the mighty Fijians came within a point of suffering a shock defeat at the hands of plucky little USA.
USA captain Dave Hodges paid tribute to his players after coming within a kick of beating Fiji.
“No-one in the world of rugby gave us a chance, but we came out with a good game,” said Hodges, whose team lost 19-18, having spurned a chance to win.
Fly-half Mike Hercus kicked for glory after Kort Schubert’s try, but narrowly missed with the last action of the match.
“It was a good effort from all the players. We were very, very disappointed,” said Hodges.
This rugby tournament still hasn’t had a decent surprise result, having instead suffered an abundance of one sided results along the lines of Goliath 70 David 10, the most extreme of which so far has been England 84 Georgia (the one next to Russia – every name except one ending either in -dze or -vili) 10. Rugby is that sort of game. If one team is well on top the points will accumulate. Running over a line with a rugby ball in your hand and planting it down on the ground (in rugby touching down actually does mean touching down) is relatively easy. So, in rugby, upsets are rare, and it only gets really exciting when the teams are pretty evenly matched, as Fiji and USA turned out to be today, and as will be the case in the later rounds of this tournament, but has has tended not to be the case in the early round games now being played. So this Fiji USA game was very refreshing, and I eagerly await the recorded highlights of the game this evening.
In soccer, by contrast, a team can have all the possession and a string of chances, and have nothing to show for it. And then the other guys can run up the other end and score a goal with their one attack. Converting a solid chance into a soccer goal still takes some doing. Even open goals are appallingly easy to miss, as you will know if you’ve ever played this game, and when chances are missed the sturdiest shoulders can drop and underdog spirits can soar.
The Soccer World Cup not so long ago contained many upsets, with France (sensationally beaten by their own ex-colony Senegal) and Argentina, to name two famously strong and fancied teams, both going home after the first round of games. This is one of the many reasons why soccer is now the great World Game, while rugby is not. Soccer minnows can (sometimes) take great bites out of soccer sharks, so the fans of the lowliest soccer nations can still dream of fantasy results with their heroes winning.
Samizdata readers in particular will surely never forget how the mighty Portuguese – sporting no less a person than Luis Figo of Real Madrid – were humbled 3-2 by … plucky little USA.
China has successfully launched Taikonaut Yang Liwei into low Earth orbit (LEO).
Buzz Aldrin thinks the Chinese could launch a circumlunar flight in a few years using a modified Shenzhou.
I’ve been watching the slow moving Chinese program for a very long time. They are the tortoise to the American hare. They are not intent on spending the next four decades in LEO with the other two go-nowhere space-faring governments.
We must remember the hardware that put Buzz Aldrin on the moon is forty year old technology. The ‘computer’ in Apollo capsules couldn’t even match the calculation abilities of a cheap 21st century wristwatch. The lunar orbit rendezvous which created the need for Von Braun’s giant Saturn V was not the best way to go to the moon even then. It was merely the quickest, most brute force method. Future lunar visits, whether by governments or tourist flights, will use Earth orbit rendezvous – something which can be done with existing launch vehicles.
All else being equal, the next footprint on the moon will be Chinese. With a bit of good luck they may arrive before 2020. That would be just in time to see the last traces of the American footprints fading into the lunar soil after half a century of wild lunar day and night temperature swings.
Of course all else is not equal. The dawn of commercial space tourism in entrepreneur built spaceships is not far off.
I’d love to be among the lunar tourists waiting to congratulate the Chinese on their arrival.
I went out for a drink this evening and had two, which given my (in)ability to function under the influence of alcohol is the equivalent of more like four or five. So this posting may be erratic and won’t have any links. But it’s been a slow day here, so every bit helps.
I picked up a nice political anecdote while imbibing. It seems that not long ago, Blair’s media enforcer Alastair Campbell wanted the political editor of the Sun, Trevor Kavanagh fired. Kavanagh is the sort of bloke we like and who would like us, and may actually like us for all I know.
So anyway, Campbell invited himself to the office of Kavanagh’s boss, a man called … can’t remember but it may come to me. But this Boss, the editor I assume it must have been, was not as easily intimidated as Campbell would have liked. Because, as soon as Campbell started in on his usual effing and blinding and threatening and carrying on, the Boss pressed a button on his desk, which had the effect of broadcasting all this Campbellising all over the Sun offices. Everyone could hear it, and they were both appalled at its barbarity and amused by its presumption.
The usual description of Alastair Campbell is that he is, or was, a “Spin Doctor”, a job description which implies nuance, subtlety, finesse, and also mental stability and poise. None of that is true. “Attack Dog” would be nearer the mark, and it says a hell of a lot about Tony Blair’s true character that he should have such a bizarre and unbalanced individual as his Number Two, and for so long. Campbell in full flood is apparently a remarkable sound, but this time, it hurt him more than it hurt his victim.
Trevor Kavanagh kept his job. I still can’t remember the Boss’s name for sure, but it may have been Yelland. David Yelland, I think. Commenters feel free to correct me.
As I say, this wasn’t that long ago. Politically, in Britain now, the times they are a-changing.
An awful lot of people don’t like smoking. Given the passion a number of my friends show for putting themselves into early graves, I put up with the practice for social reasons. And I certainly believe that businessmen and women should be free to have establishments where their customers can escape from the risk of fumigation.
However, things are never that simple. People want to ban smoking simpliciter. Depriving businessmen and women of the choice of letting smokers in, or perhaps having a business at all. And this is precisely the reason 400 publicans in County Kerry say they’re willing to go to jail rather than enforce a ban on smoking in pubs proposed by the Irish Government (coming soon to a European Community near you!).
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS, for the acronym-addicted) began laying out its agenda for its upcoming session by announcing the cases that it has accepted for review, and those that it has not. Among the cases that it has refused to review is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (federal circuit courts are the appellate courts for the federal system in the US; the 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over the West Coast) decision barring the federal government from prosecuting (or persecuting, take your pick) doctors for recommending marijuana to their patients.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that physicians should be able to speak candidly with patients without fear of government sanctions, but they can be punished if they actually help patients obtain the drug.
So, this has been pitched relatively narrowly as a free speech issue, rather than as a broader liberty/self-ownership issue. That is probably a wise strategic decision on the part of marijuana advocates. I personally don’t see where the federal government has the Constitutional power to outlaw drug use in the first place, but I am old-fashioned and believe the Constitution means what it says. SCOTUS hasn’t subscribed to that view since FDR intimidated the Court into submission in the 1930s.
Nine states have laws legalizing marijuana for people with physician recommendations or prescriptions: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. And 35 states have passed legislation recognizing marijuana’s medicinal value.
But federal law bans the use of pot under any circumstances.
The case gave the court an opportunity to review its second medical marijuana case in two years. The last one involved cannabis clubs.
As I recall, in that case SCOTUS said that cannabis clubs could prosecuted even if they were supplying only medical marijuana users.
The optimism expressed by various advocates about the import of SCOTUS refusing to take this case is badly misplaced, in my opinion. A refusal to take a case is far short of a SCOTUS opinion upholding the ruling of the 9th Circuit, and the annals of the Court are replete with examples of cases declined, only to have the same issue come up in a different posture later on to be reversed by SCOTUS.
Still, this is qualified win for the forces of good, feel free to celebrate with your substance of choice.
I can’t wait to see their election manifesto:
Anti-war activists including the Guardian columnist George Monbiot are planning to form a coalition to challenge the Labour party in the European and local elections in June.
The attempt to unite socialist parties, anti-globalisation campaigners, peace activists, and faith groups, including Muslims, has already aroused the hostility of the Green party, which is branding the electoral project as “unhelpful”.
The Green hostility is understandable. They can’t very well be expected to just sit back and do nothing in the face of this open challenge to their monopoly on crackpot drivel.
Every now and then somebody writes a piece (such as the one Brian referred to the other day) which talks about “Some pestilential scientist has invented a device that allows parents to trace their child’s location via his mobile telephone” or similar.
Now it actually isn’t actually scientific or technical issues that are the issue here, for mobile phones are tracking devices by their very nature, and have been since their invention. You see, if you call a mobile phone, then the phone has to be made to ring. In order to be able to make it ring, the network as to know where it is. And in order that this be so, your mobile phone network is tracking you at all times. It isn’t tracking you that precisely, but with sharing of information between networks (which they do, in order to track down mobile phones and sometimes to cooperate with the police) it is possible to track the location of anyone with a mobile phone to within a couple of street blocks. In terms of tracking the person with the phone, although the technology can be improved to track movements more accurately – particularly by putting GPS devices or similar into phones, in some sense it is good enough already. In this case the issues are not so much technological – the technology is already there – but regulatory and legal. Just how much of this information will be logged and stored. Having a database recording everywhere I have been in the last five years is different from being able to record where I am now on demand. How much of this information may or must be shared with government and law enforcement. And how much of this information may be used commercially and in what ways. Is it appropriate to provide a service to parents that allows them to track the movements of their children? (Certainly if I was a teenager, I would find it pretty rough if my mother was tracking me at all times).
But, of course, technology is advancing. Reading this article suggests that things are going to get far worse. Before too long we may have so called “passive radar”. Essentially the point of this is that our mobile phones are throwing lots and lots of radio signals around all the time. These signals are bouncing off things, being partially absorbed by other objects, and similar. If our phones and base-stations record signal strength, signal direction, gaps in the signal, doppler effects, and other such pieces of information, it may be possible to essentially construct an electronic map of the terrain that the signals are travelling through. Essentially if you are walking down the street not carrying a mobile phone or any form of electronic tag, it may be possible to track you using the mobile phones of other people in the street. Unlike conventional radar systems, this type of tracking cannot easily be detected, as it uses radio signals that have other purposes and are there already. The privacy implications of this are, of course, worrying.
Even if this particular means of ubiquitous tracking does not come into being, or at least not quickly, some technology that achieves essentially the same thing is going to come into being at some point, like it or not. If we want to attempt to establish rights to not be tracked, or clear laws as to how such information can and cannot be used, we need to do so now, when tracking is possible but not ubiquitous. Trying to do so so after it becomes ubiquitous is going to be too late.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Recent Comments