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]
|
This is a terrific idea, and this is how nytimes.com reported it (scroll down to where is says “Sam’s blog”):
A new online diary made its debut on Jan. 1. Yes, there are already millions of such personal Web sites. But this diary belongs to Samuel Pepys, who lived from 1633 to 1703, long before “Weblog” cracked the lexicon.
Pepys (pronounced peeps), a British naval administrator, was a compulsive diarist who recorded his life in detail for nine years beginning on New Year’s Day 1660. The resulting diary is the most comprehensive personal account of life in the 17th century. The site, The Diary of Samuel Pepys (pepysdiary.com), posts Pepys’s entries in a Weblog format as if they had just been written – a new one is added each day – with the goal of allowing people to read along for nine years.
Phil Gyford, a Web developer in London, set up the site because he had always wanted to read the diary but found it “daunting and uninviting” in its long form. “I haven’t read much further ahead than what’s on the site,” he said by e-mail. “I’m enjoying reading it along with everyone else.”
Mr. Gyford also had the inspired idea of allowing site visitors to annotate the entries. The annotations can be personal comments or explanations proffered for obscure terms and historical references. The result is like reading a book along with a group of clued-in friends.
Still, Pepys should not be taken as a model by today’s online diarists. Although “Pepys’s diary shows us that the smallest of everyday details can be fascinating a few hundred years in the future,” Mr. Gyford said, “I wouldn’t want to encourage Webloggers to put even more of the details of their lives online.”
Gyford started this project on January 1st of this year. Pepys himself started on January 1st 1660. To make a start yourself, go here and scroll down.
I have a small personal link to all this through the late Robert Latham, one of the editors of the latest edition of the Pepys Diaries, and, it seems pretty generally agreed, the best and most complete one. Before going to Magdalene College Cambridge to work on Pepys full time, Robert Latham, a memorably jolly man as well as a great scholar, was a Professor at Royal Holloway College, Englefield Green, which was a walk away from my childhood home, the Lathams and Micklethwaits being good friends. Robert Latham’s son went to the same preparatory school as me and my elder brother.
I wonder what Robert Latham would have made of this project. He might have had mixed feelings, because the edition that Gyford is using is, alas, not his, but an earlier and less complete one, simply because only the earlier one is now out of copyright.
I’ve always meant to read Pepys but have never quite got around to it. This is my chance. All sorts of people are congratulating Gyford for having embarked on this project, but Pepys himself kept at it for nine years, and I will save my heartiest congratulations for the year 2012 when Gyford is scheduled to complete the job. So far he’s managed just over a fortnight of it.
Those concerned with legislative attempts to alter society may find this article on cnn.com interesting. It concerns recent and current efforts to have toy guns outlawed because they are sometimes used to commit real crimes. Even worse, the perpetrators of toy gun crimes sometimes end up really dead when their victim turns out to be a cop who reacts by defending himself with lethal force.
Surprisingly, the idea was discussed that the real issue is not the prop used but the criminal intent of the assailant. Personally, I take that as a given. If a perpetrator knowingly engages in an illegal activity it does not matter what is chosen as the crime enabler of choice. While it may engender discussion, the issue is not the criminal misuse of toy guns.
The real issue is why do lawmakers want to remove toys resembling guns from society?
The immediate answer is social engineering. This is a conclusion reached not only through logical thinking, but also through the words of the two city councilmen who have introduced a bill to ban toy guns in New York. One likens toy guns to toy cigarettes. Given the increasingly pervasive and invasive bans on smoking, it is not hard to see where that leads. The other, Albert Vann, is even more blatant when he states
“If they use toy guns there’s a greater chance they’ll graduate to the real thing when they grow up.”
Clearly, it’s not about the toys. It’s not even about the crime. It is about changing society one culturally legislating law at a time.
According to this report in the UK Times (not linked as subscription required for non-UK readers), President Bush is forging ahead in his confrontation with American trial lawyers:
“President Bush opened an assault on America’s litigious culture yesterday, saying that a deepening healthcare crisis could be solved only by curbs on patient lawsuits.
Calling for caps on jury awards to patients injured by doctors, Mr Bush said that the American instinct to sue was breaking the system.
“There are too many lawsuits in America, and there are too many lawsuits filed against doctors and hospitals without merit,” he said.”
From what I understand, trial lawyers in America are only marginally more popular than the Taliban so Mr.Bush should have ample public support in his showdown with them.
Whilst putting a mandatory cap on jury awards (which is the proposal) perhaps Mr.Bush might do as well to look at the entire concept of ‘punitive damages’ which can be awarded against a Defendant in negligence claim on top of the actual compensation paid to the Plaintiff. As far as I can tell, punitive damages are a means of punishing a Defendant for the negligence and lead breathtakingly high jury awards in medical damages cases.
Genuine cases of negligence, be they medical or otherwise, should always be actionable but it is my view that the concept of punitive damages constitutes a zealous over-egging of the pudding. Negligence is not crime and should not be ‘punished’. Similarly, a Plaintiff who has suffered loss and damage should be rightfully compensated but not rewarded. Recourse to law should be a matter of both necessity and justice not a warped form of entrepreneurship for both claimants and their legal representatives.
In my view that situation in the UK preferable. Whilst it is true that the litigious culture has blossomed in this country over recent years, nonetheless damages awards are maintained at only a fraction of their US equivalents. This is because there is no recognition of ‘punitive damages’ in the UK system. The purpose of a claim here is to ‘make the Plaintiff whole’ i.e. to put the Plaintiff into the position he or she was in immediately before the negligence occurred. There is also a compensation element for pain and suffering as a result of medical or other negligent damage but these are awarded on the basis of the Plaintiff’s provable condition not as a means of penalising the Defendant.
The further advantage of the UK system is that there is no jury for civil trials (except Defamation cases) and therefore both the verdict and damages are decided upon by a Judge. This does not entirely remove the ‘sympathy’ element influential in many claims but does keep it in some sort of check as all Judges are bound by both guidelines and precedents. Judges can push at this envelope but not discard it altogether.
That said, I wish Mr.Bush the best of luck in his campaign. As a lawyer myself, I am concerned that the popular view of the legal system as a kind of ‘get-rich-quick’ lottery to be, at best, distasteful and, at worst, socially and economically damaging.
The wonders of capitalism, or the false needs of the alienating consumer society? This gadget is designed to fulfill a role which is obviously important in badly ventilated homes and offices.
The question I would like to know is, does this methane filter reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore should it be made compulsory under the terms of the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty?
Three pints of gas a day for an average person? You mean it’s more for politicians?
For the last month or more I have been paying occasional visits to Michael Jennings‘s blog. One day a picture of him appeared at the top, making him look alarmingly like the bearded bloke on They Think It’s All Over. And then it was there at the top the next day, and the next, and I jumped to the conclusion that he was on holiday and not blogging, because if he was blogging, the photo would have moved down, and have been replaced by further entries. Or so I deduced. But, I do sometimes get matters intenetted slightly wrong (see the comments). It turns out that under the picture he’d been blogging away like a mad thing.
Yesterday, for example, with an unerring eye for the main story, he focussed in on the alleged doom facing the banana. Apparently, bananas are all clones of each other, which means that they can’t do evolution properly, which means that they are now about to be completely wiped out. This was national news in Britain yesterday, and for all I know, everywhere else that bananas are cared about.
Michael notes the supposedly ferocious consumer resistance in Europe to genetic engineering, but goes on to note that banana-wise Europeans – Germans in particular – may face an agonising choice.
Actually this could be interesting. Imagine the scene in 2012. Normal bananas are extinct. Those of us who have been following the ongoing EU banana war for the last couple of decades know that the Germans have an almost legendary appetite for bananas. It may be that they will be faced with a choice: accept genetically modified bananas, or move to some other fruit. My money is on the genetically modified bananas.
Michael also had a posting at the beginning of the month about cricket. For Zimbabwean mass murder reasons I want the entire blogosphere immediately to become fascinated about this strange game, and it can plug itself into an elaborate discussion via Michael’s posting about which international cricket side was the best ever, who the all time best Australian (and English and West Indian) side(s) would consist of, and so on, also involving Iain Murray. And then when all of blogdom everywhere is lusting to watch the World Cup, others whom we have also been instructing, but this time on the political dimension of this tournament, can dig up all the pitches.
Back when I was running an ISP here in Belfast, I was a regular reader and occasional poster on an email list about business in Eastern Europe. Steve Carlson, the list founder, moved with the times and the list expanded to general European internet business discussions; it spun off First Tuesday meetings all over Europe; then it became nowEurope, a more tightly edited Digest…
And now it’s a blog. They’ve got some good writers who have been involved with it from the beginning. I sort of dropped out as I moved on to other things. Well, truthfully, 90% of my writing goes to Samizdata now. So there!
The nowEurope blog looks interesting, but I hope they soon learn how important cross linking is: they currently are pretty stand-alone. So visit them and urge them to join the community.
It is certainly true that modern civilization has created environmental problems, but the key enviromental issue is addressed in this one question. Is our technology’s ability to solve environmental problems advancing faster than are the environmental problems themselves?
– Michael Jennings
In some cases, it is a heavy price.
The Swordsman, Iain Murray, one of the brightest stars in the blogging firmament, has just been summarily dismissed from his job:
“My employment was terminated this morning, with this blog stated as the reason.
It sounds like he has been treated very shabbily indeed. He has a wife and a small child so, if you can, please make your way over to his blog and leave something in the tip-jar. If you unable to do that, then at least let him know that you care.
This is the first occasion upon which I have picked out a comment for further comment, as it were, but this comment from Natalie Solent sharply claimed my attention:
“Just possibly the miracle may have been helped along by the power of the blogosphere. Er, specifically, by me.”
The ‘miracle’ that Natalie is referring to is the appearance of a vigourously pro-gun essay by Professor Joyce Malcolm on the website of the BBC and which I have blogged about euphorically here.
The part that Natalie might well have played in this moment of glory is set out in greater detail on Biased BBC:
“Dare we at Biased BBC hope that we had some role in its appearance? It is possible! The BBC’s clutch of articles published on the subject last October were, in their utter failure to even consider why anyone might oppose gun control (other than through an idolatrous reverence for every word of the US constitution), a disgrace to the BBC Charter. I fisked them with all the brio I could muster, and quite a few blogs linked to the fisking. I then sent the url to Prof. Malcolm, whose e-mail address I found at the bottom of an article about British media perceptions of gun crime published about the same time. She was kind enough to reply, so we may have helped bring to her attention a specific and recent example of a point she has long made, that the British media ignore the case against gun control. On the BBC side of the equation, we do know by various small indications that the Beeb’s watchful eyes do occasionally fall upon this site, so perhaps someone was stung by the realisation that one significant strand of opinion had been very ill served.”
Well, perhaps Professor Malcolm had already decided to write her essay and perhaps the BBC had decided, in any event, to make some concession to the other side of the argument. But I prefer to think that Natalie’s efforts did not go unrewarded. It gives me a delicious frisson of satisfaction to think that maybe one of us Lilliputians tied down the broadcasting Gulliver if only for a brief while.
It also illustrates the importance of communicating ideas and weaving the gossamer fine networks between sane, intelligent people who, whilst still acting individually, can eventually set off an avalanche. From the BBC to Natalie to Joyce Malcolm and back to the BBC. Thanks to the net, those degrees of separation get smaller all the time.
As the potential military conflict with Iraq draws near, all sorts of weird things come out of woodwork. For example, some of them are planning a D-Day for the ‘peace’ movement in Europe and United States on 15th February. Andrew Burgin, spokesman for Britain’s Stop the War Coalition expects record numbers on the day at the biggest anti-war demonstration London has ever seen, all marching under a “Don’t attack Iraq” banner.
“The message is a simple one: no war against Iraq for any reason, whether the United Nations supports an attack or not.”
I am aware that the public opinion in Europe is at best divided over an attack on Iraq and in most countries – Britain and France included – is against by a wide margin if an invasion is not supported by the United Nations. However illogical that position might be, I have grown used to fighting it and nowadays it leaves me cold, merely a reminder of human stupidity. But “no war, for any reason”?! Who are these people?
The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against ‘terrorism’.
When I looked at the list of supporters of the Stop the War Coalition, I found many of our old ‘friends’ from CND, assorted Marxist trade unions, and other institutions where ‘idiotarians’ like to congregate. Just a few rich pickings:
George Galloway MP, Harold Pinter (playwright), Lindsey German (Editor, Socialist Review), Paul Foot (journalist), George Monbiot (journalist), Tariq Ali (broadcaster), Liz Davies (Socialist Alliance), Dave Nellist (Socialist Party), John Rees (Editor, International Socialism), Will Self (writer), Germaine Greer (writer)…
These are just a few whose names have either been pilloried on this blog or the names of institution they belong to speak for themselves. What really gets me going is that these people confidently claim and occupy the moral highground in protesting against war with Iraq (notice how even the phrase ‘war on Iraq’ suggests aggression from our side; as far as I am concerned Iraq is at war with us and has been for some time, thanks to its megalomaniac leader).
They will satisfy their flaccid social consciences by making themselves ‘feel good’ about having the courage to stand up for things that everyone else is against like peace and justice and brotherhood… [hums the tune to Tom Lehrer’s song: We are the Folk Song Army, Everyone of us cares, We all hate poverty, war and injustice, Unlike the rest of you squares…] It’s an old communist, leftist, tranzi…etc technique. Grab them by their emotions and you are sure to be followed by those without reason.
What would these people say about fighting Hitler and the Nazi Germany or indeed about any aggressor attacking its neighbours and posing threat to the world? How do they square history with their idiotic demand to oppose war against Iraq for any reason? I fear that security and defence are meaningless concepts to such ideologues, what matters is that they get to call demonstrations against the US and be anti-American with a ‘noble’ message to boot. What joy!
On the other end of the table, we have the likes of Major Peter Ratcliffe, who won the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his role in the Scud base attack leading the crack Alpha One Zero squad behind enemy lines. He believes Britain should support any American military action in Iraq and describes anti-war critics in Tony Blair’s government as traitors:
“Tony Blair vowed to support America in the war on terrorism. He said: ‘Whatever it takes’. I see no reason why he should go back on that. Those who now say otherwise – old Labour lefties like Clare Short and Tam Dalyell, the pacifists, those now turning on Blair – they’re traitors.
Few doubted at the time of the Gulf War that Saddam’s true goal was to become a ruler of the Muslim world in the Middle East. There is no reason to believe that goal has changed. He is a megalomaniac. Saddam wants to dominate the Middle East, he wants to terrorise the world. His own people revile him.
Hussein has always vowed to avenge himself on America. His people suffer more, not less, because Saddam Hussein is allowed to remain in power. And they will continue to do so until he is removed. And no amount of hand-wringing, no amount of international aid, no amount of windy wobbling will change that fact.
Nobody likes war. Nobody enters a war recklessly, without deadly serious consideration of all the facts. Everyone would prefer to stay at home and hope for a political solution. But the fact is that there isn’t one.
Soldier’s words, honest and direct. They also carry far more weight as they are uttered by someone who fought to protect us and the society we live in.
The famous cartoon mouse is far too busy making money for the Disney company to waste his time on a BSc in “Golf-Course Management” or “Decision-Making”. However, higher education minister Margaret Hodge has finally noticed the proliferation of ridiculously silly publically-funded university courses, identified them as “Mickey Mouse Degrees” and promised to solve the problem!
Even the Guardian can’t resist making fun:
“There are the apparent oxymorons – turfgrass science, amenity horticulture, surf and beach management and the BSc from Luton University in decision-making, which begs the cheap but irresistible observation, how did those on the course manage to make the decision to take it in the first place?”
But has New Labour got some right ideas for once? Have they finally decided that market forces and the education system should meet?
“…students themselves will ensure that what is offered by universities not just meets their aspirations but also meets labour market needs,” [Margaret Hodge] told a seminar in London organised by the Institute for Public Policy Research”
Well, no. Because actually, it shouldn’t actually be any of their business what universities do, because they shouldn’t be funding them in the first place, whereupon students would be obliged to be much more careful in their choice of how to spend their first three years after school than they are now. Perhaps some might even not go to university at all! But that would be a terrible blow to the government’s Ten-Year-Plan to keep as many young able-bodied people as possible well away from the workplace:
“The Government remained committed to its target of higher education for 50 per cent of under-30s by 2010.”
Actually, all the government is doing about their embarrassing joke-degree problem is trying to ban more things. This isn’t going to help. Anyone can ban things if they use enough coercion: but the real answer is to make those libertarian economic reforms and then just watch the students abandon ship as the daft degrees suffer a slow and painful death… Madonna studies, feminist ice-skating theory, cross-dressing, nail varnish and citizenship, and all their loyal leftie practitioners disappearing down the post-communist rabbit-hole once and for all.
But don’t hold your breath just yet. Not until you have a proper PhD in Underwater Oxygen Management first, at least.
A change is as good as a rest, they say, and since I have made something of a custom of reporting and commenting upon all the gloomy news emanating from and occuring in this country, I can enjoy a brief rest and kindle a flickering light amidst the miasma of despair.
It gives me no small amount of pride to note that the British still possess a spark of creativity sufficient to produce interesting developments like this:
“An innovative radio that lets you listen to internet stations anywhere in the home has been showcased at the world’s largest consumer technology event in Las Vegas.
The GlobalTuner InTune200 is a small portable radio that connects to a computer wirelessly, providing access to any music on the PC or to thousands of internet radio stations.
PDT, the Manchester-based company that developed the portable player, says it could be just the thing to persuade more people to sign up for high-speed internet services.”
I love technological advances for their own sake but this one strikes me as having some potentially important consequences. We all know how libertarian and conservative views, having been squeezed out of the mainstream media, have flowered on the internet, to the extent that some even argue that they dominate the medium. Well, I can neither prove nor entirely dismiss that assertion but I am willing to stand by the claim that the ‘anti-idiotarian’ internet-bloc is both vast and growing.
With that in mind, the next logical development, as best I can see, is for a number of these voices to move up to internet radio. Indeed, I note with delight that some already have. How auspicious that, just as a tactical move from typing to talking may be afoot, along comes a consumer durable product that will enable internet radio to explode the way analogue broadcast radio did a century ago.
I wonder what music we shall play on Radio Samizdata?
|
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