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]
|
In what can only be the yet another indication the the EU intends to ignore even the semblance of democratic norms when it does not suit them, whilst at the same time wrapping themselves in the cloak of legitimacy that the European ‘Parliament’ allegedly brings:
Günter Verheugen, enlargement Commissioner, said on Wednesday, that it would be difficult to interpret a second No by the Irish: “If a treaty is rejected twice in a country and that country knows exactly that this treaty is a precondition for the conclusions of enlargement negotiations, the outside world cannot make the judge whether the rejections means enlargement or something else.”
So if Ireland votes NO to EU enlargement, Günter Verheugen feels it might in fact mean something other than NO to enlargement. I suspect I understand the source of the misunderstanding: When translated by official EU translators from Irish accented English, into Greek and then into Danish and then back into English, the result was:
A pint of Guinness please
However when translated by official EU translators from Irish accented English, into German and then into Swedish and then back into English, the result was:
Top of the morning to you, Mrs. Murphy
Yet when translated by official EU translators from Irish accented English, into Portuguese and then into Italian and then back into English, the result was:
We are just a bunch of Paddy jokers, pay no attention to us
No wonder poor Günter Verheugen is confused as to the meaning of the word NO.
Thanks to Instapundit, I have just come across this gem of a blog. It seems to consist of three guys writing a fairly lengthy and very well thought out articles about French anti-Americanism, Rousseauian Conservatives, New Jersey, UN and global warming, American politics, EU, you name it. Last Tuesday they even discovered John Fonte and his Tranzi article. Welcome to the fold!
Go and see for yourself, they are definitely worth the read!
I suppose it is only to be expected that Iain Duncan Smith would round off the Conservative Conference in Bournemouth with a triumphal assertion that the ‘the Tories are back’. The poor man could hardly do otherwise having presided over a week of fractious in-fighting, broody soul-searching and insurrectionary plots to topple him as leader. He just had to try to end things on an upbeat note and stamp his authority.
But is he right? Like Perry, I think that the answer is ‘no’ and, furthermore, I feel that the situation is unlikely to be improved by any well-spun policy initiatives. The problem for the Conservatives was, in fact, highlighted this last week by their Chairman, Theresa May when she exhorted the assembled party faithful to work to shed their ‘nasty image’. Therein lies the crux of the problem: nobody likes the Conservative because they are popularly seen as being ‘nasty’ and ‘uncaring’, i.e. it is believed that, once in power, they will cut taxes, curtail generous welfare handouts, privatise healthcare and education and stop creating sinecure jobs in the public sector for the competence-challenged.
Now there’s a sublime irony here because, in the event that the Tories ever did ascend the throne again, they are highly unlikely to do any of those things. For sure, about half of the party consists of people who would very much like to do those things but the other half consists of people who would rather stick their genitals in a food blender and press the ‘On’ button before they rocked any boats whatosever, and it’s the latter half that usually wins (as well as being the half that toppled Mrs.T). → Continue reading: Conservatives up the creek
The Space Elevator concept is one I’ve always found to be of interest, but which I personally placed at least a century or more in the future. I remember many fun discussions in the early days of the sci.space netnews group; in which calculations of exponential tapers, masses and tensile strength tables were batted about gleefully. Carbon nanotubes were still in the future back then; and even in later discussions we all considered mass production of real fibres to be very far off.
Well, sometimes even those of us who have one foot in the next decade are too pessimistic. A company, High Lift Systems, has been formed to work on a near term design. Advances in production of carbon nanotubes have (mostly) solved the last basic problem. We will soon be able to build sufficient quantities of sufficiently strong material to actually build one.
Of course there is that one little detail of raising $10 billion dollars in the capital markets…
This research from Finland rates very high on the neatness scale.
It looks like it is useable anywhere with reasonably still air, so I can well imagine adverts floating in the aisles of department stores.
It’s a great Christmas gift for all those budding young tent preachers you know. They’ll get that Holy Appearance vetting them Officially for that lucrative TV contract they’ve always wanted. If your friends are of a more Shakespearean inclination, just think of the possibilities for their next production of Macbeth or Hamlet!
Ah, the future. I love this era.
Posted from Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Yesterday and the day before, I did a couple of talks in the local high school, with my friend the teacher supplying not so much translation as translatory clarification as and when needed, because my audience had a pretty reasonable understanding�- and this is the whole point of what I’m about to write – of English. I spoke about the British attitude towards the EU, and explained why the Euro-debate has become steadily more fierce.
One of the reasons for�this fierceness is that the Internet has made the idea of participating in the�Anglosphere more appealing, and the idea of a unified Europe corresponding less appealing, to the British. But yesterday morning, before I embarked upon this bit of my talk, I asked how many of my audience had themselves used the Internet during the previous week. Most hands went up. Then I asked: how many of you used only the Slovak language? All hands went down. All of them. Not only that, there was a distinct murmer of disapproval that I should even ask such a question. Only use Slovak internet sites? What a bizarre idea. → Continue reading: On what the EU means to Slovakia
Iraqi deputy prime minister and minister responsible for Iraq’s weapons programmes, Abdul Tawab Mullah Hawaish, speaking at a news conference in Baghdad, has invited the United States to send officials to visit Iraqi sites suspected of producing weapons of mass destruction. He said Iraq was not producing weapons of mass destruction and declared that U.S. claims that it was producing them were false.
“As I am responsible for the Iraqi weapons programmes I confirm here that we have no weapons of mass destruction and we have no intention to produce them.”
Damn, you are just so convincing, Abdul…
And my personal favourite – he also said Iraq would teach the United States an “unforgettable lesson” if it launched a military action to oust the government of Saddam Hussein.
“If the Americans commit a new foolish action against Iraq, we will teach them an unforgettable lesson.”
But, Abdul, honey, how would you do that? This is the US army you are talking about, remember? Lots of lovely, lovely modern missiles and other amazing equipment that actually works, not like your mucked up 1950s Soviet Scud Bs (ripped off V-2s). And besides, you just convinced me that the peace-loving Iraq has no weapons to speak of!? I am sooo confused! 
Not surprisingly the UK and Irish media are filled with the rapidly developing crisis in Northern Ireland. On the face of it, the situation is fairly simple: Following a lengthy investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, culminating in a high profile raid by uniformed officers of the PSNI on Sinn Fein’s offices at Stormont itself (the seat of the Northern Irish assembly), Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, has been caught spying at the highest levels of the Northern Irish coalition government of which they are a member. The Ulster Unionists are outraged, the British and Irish governments are stunned and the Northern Irish peace process stands on the very brink of collapse.
And yet…
Can it really have come as a surprise to anyone that Sinn Fein, a Marxist party dedicated to the end of British rule in Ulster and the stripping of the Protestant majority’s democratic political power, would be using the fact it is in a coalition government to compile information on its British and Protestant Irish political enemies? Clearly anyone with at least half a brain would expect them to use whatever means presented themselves to acquire information to gain political advantage. The leadership of Sinn Fein are also the leadership of the IRA, which is to say they are people who have gained their place at the very heart of Northern Ireland’s government because they have ordered large numbers of people killed over the last few decades. Are these the sort of people who would not use covert means to continue to advance their political agendas?
So if that is hardly unexpected behaviour from people who have got where they are now by the successful use of violence, then why the shock and outrage? Also, are we really to believe that all this information has only now come to light in spite of the fact Ulster is riddled with informants and undercover assets of Britain’s rather effective security services? Nonsense. It just does not add up.
Here is what I think is happening:
- Tony Blair can pretend to Labour dominated Parliament and the readers of the Guardian that the IRA has decommissioned more than a tiny fraction of its weapons and they it had stopped using violence within the Catholic communities of Ulster to maintain their authority, but no one in Northern Ireland really believes that.
- Yet Tony Blair was so loath to see his peace process go down the toilet the way of so many before it in Ireland had, that he would overlook almost anything the Republican side did if that was what it would take. As a result Sinn Fein could see all their dreams coming true, in gradual incremental installments.
- The Ulster Unionists had been making it clear for quite some time that they have had enough. David Trimble was facing progressively more discontent from within the Ulster Unionists and the crunch point was fast approaching: if he intended to remain as the party’s leader, given that the British government of Tony Blair did not have the stomach to face down Sinn Fein, Trimble himself was going to have to pull the plug on the Northern Irish settlement unless Sinn Fein actually lived up to its promises. This would involve him in effect taking the settlement and telling Tony Blair to stick it up his arse.
Result? Tony Blair gets the blame and is shown to have simply been too weak to force Sinn Fein to do what it had promised for real… Political disaster for Labour of the highest magnitude.
So… Given that consummate politician Blair has realised that nothing can now save the Northern Irish peace process from exploding, he decided the only way to minimise the political damage that Trimble would inflict on him is to blame the whole thing going down the crapper on the bad faith of… Sinn Fein. Thus all the information that Blair has in reality known about for years is suddenly ‘discovered’ following a high profile raid, he washes his hands like Pontus Pilate and says “It’s not my fault, oh if only those wicked Sinn Fein people had just been as honest with us as we had been with them”.
Of course if Tony Blair, like John Major before him, had not allowed the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to get away with telling a never ending stream of porkies for years in the hope they would eventually ‘play nice’, we would perhaps have seen a more stable agreement reached… but the fact is there was bad faith on all sides.
It’s official. The socialists run New Jersey.
Less than a month before the election and despite clear election laws to the contrary, the NJ Democrats swapped out a losing candidate and swapped in a retired ex-Senator. The courts rubber-stamped the maneuver on the argument that “the people deserve a choice.”
Never mind that there are four other parties running. Never mind that before they made their first candidate bow out the people already had a choice. Just focus on the realization that the choice before the bait and switch involved a Democrat who stood a real chance of losing. In New Jersey, that just can’t be allowed.
To maintain a facade of propriety, those voters who already returned their absentee ballots were invited to sue, which is a complete non-starter. As the candidate shenanigans show, the Democrats control the courts and any outcome will at most be a footnote to a hijacked election.
The only remaining question is whether the millions of dollars in political contributions raised by the original candidate can be used by his replacement. The obvious answer would be “That’s riduclous!” but don’t be surprised when the courts bless that one too.
The real issue is not about New Jersey but about how it relates at the national level. The socialists have only a one seat lead giving them control of the Senate. To have the New Jersey “election” a genuine race instead of a coronation simply did not fit into their plans.
Incidentally, the new candidate is not Frank Pallone as I reported earlier, but none other than Frank Lautenburg. Freedom minded people might remember the name. After an uninspiring 18 years in Congress, Lautenberg championed a major gun control bill just before retiring. The bill, which applied retroactively, was so broad and draconian it would have prevented a significant portion of the population, including a large number of police and military personnel, from possessing weapons. Instead of correcting the many faults with the bill, Lautenberg demonstrated his belief that the government is above the law by exempting the police and military and leaving the average citizen to bear the brunt of his confiscatory legislation.
Can you imagine what an emboldened Lautenberg will do with his belief in government supremacy if he is re-appointed Senator in a manipulated election and ushered into his old seat in the vaulted halls of Congress?
That veritable taste sensation and Slavophile angst muffin of the blogosphere, Shannon Okey needs help from you technical engineer types… so surf on over and see if you can lend a hand.
Shannon wants you badly
Whither the Tories as a low-tax party? Well, I came across this piece of defeatism by Danny Finkelstein, who was once an adviser to former Prime Minister John “bonker” Major.
Essentially, Finkelstein writes that the Conservatives should stop talking at all about tax cuts since it would give them nil public credibility in arguing for reform of the public services.
“There have been times when tax cuts have been a sure-fire election winner and such a time will undoubtedly come again. Yet in deciding to put so much emphasis on public services, the Tories have decided that the next election is not such a time. for if public services are to come first, something must come second.”
Firstly, I was not aware that any senior Tory, unless under the influence of booze, has made a principled and coherent argument for cutting taxes in the last five years. In fact, it seems this previously major feature of what passes for Tory thinking has fallen completely off the radar. More’s the pity.
Secondly, the supply side argument. Surely Finkelstein and others should have grasped the point that most major governments, including the present British one, set taxes at rates which actually means they raise less revenue than otherwise would be the case due to the blight on incentives high taxes cause. While I don’t expect every pundit to have heard of the Laffer Curve it would be nice to think that the enormous success of Ronald Reagan’s and Margaret Thatcher’s tax cut measures would have left some kind of mark. Clearly some reminders are needed.
Increases in public spending or holding spending where it is has not proven to work in delivering good health or education, as the shambolic state of Britain’s socialised system of health care proves. Many of the problems have little to do with money, more with ideology. Finkelstein’s argument is predicated on the idea that reform necessarily will cost as much, if not more, than what is being spent at the moment. That is questionable, to say the least.
And finally, by accepting the notion that one cannot cut taxes while sorting out health, education, etc, the Tories would be allowing the Labour government to dictate the very terms of the debate. That is a recipe for instant failure. That is why Labour-leaning commentators anxious to shaft the Tories urge it as the Tories’ only hope for salvation. Such folk are false friends and should be shunned.
And Mr Finkelstein should recall that although his domestic agenda is now either in tatters or in cold storage, one reason why George W. Bush made it to the White House was on account of tax cuts.
Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say that he values civilisation. The history of the two cannot be disentangled
– Henry Sumner Maine
|
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