|
|||||
|
Who is speaking? Where? When? And of what political philiosophy is this an epiphany?
Only the last question is really hard, but Googling the answer to the rest is cheating. More marks will be earned by creative guesses. December 9th, 2006 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
 The Daily Telegraph’s Charles Moore has good and important things to say about how the Armed Forces are viewed these days in Britain. He cites several examples of how soldiers, sailors or airmen returning home from a tour of duty frequently feel completely unvalued, sometimes despised, by the home population. To a certain extent, this has to be placed in historical context. Since the end of compulsory military service in the early 1960s and the end of the Cold War, the forces have shrunk, so a smaller proportion of us are likely to encounter people who are serving in the forces. I know a couple of people in the RAF and my father was a navigator in the 1950s – on aircaft with spiffing names like Meteors, Javelins and Venoms – but many of us do not. I wanted to follow my old man’s footsteps but I developed a small defect in my eyesight in my late teens so the prospect of Johnathan Pearce at the controls of a Typhoon was zero (probably to much relief to you readers). The idea of having a career in the armed forces is something that occurs to very few of us these days. None of the youngsters I know would be remotely interested in joining up. The pay is not attractive compared with what one could earn in other walks of life and the whole catch of travelling around the world, meeting interesting people and subsequently killing them does not appeal to a generation that can backpack around the globe on a cheap flight anyway. And the killing stuff is clearly not popular. Maybe the impact of television, culture and politics has sapped the military ethos. This is a good thing mostly, but it clearly comes at a cost in the supply of motivated personnel. Moore’s article concludes with a plug for a very fine charity that helps support our services. Without apology, I recommend those so minded to donate something. May I also suggest this RAF Benevolent Fund site as a place that people can visit. Other branches of the forces have similar bodies looking after people who have served and now need some help. These words of Rudyard Kipling, the great poet for the British Army, are nice:
(From the poem, Troopin’). December 9th, 2006 | 32 comments - (Comments are closed)
“We will not steal on your behalf unless we like you” … that is more or less what Tony Blair has said to the Muslim community in the UK.
After decades of pushing ‘identity politics’ and ‘multiculturalism’, the very architects of that approach are acting surprised now that many Muslims in the UK have taken that the establishment at its word. Of course all this really means is that Muslim groups which occasionally make the right sort of sounds will soon be receiving plundered tax money in abundance as never before as a sign that the making token gestures whilst coming from a threatening alien community is the way to enrich yourself in modern Britain, regardless of what even a cursory examination reveals about what you really think (see the government and media’s bizarre characterisation of Sir Iqbal Sacranie as a ‘moderate’ Muslim). Although every Hindu I have ever met do not seem to have a problem with Britain, If I was a Hindu I might start taking note and begin making threatening noises about ‘saffron fascism’ and ‘disaffected youth’ and then just wait for the dosh to start rolling in for those willing to make some small obeisance to nice Mr. Blair… and what about the Jamaicans? And the Poles? And the Jews? Start making a fuss guys, hold a few scary demonstrations and then set up some organisations which make government approved “tut, tut” sounds and just wait for the money to start flowing. Do you think that is not what is going to happen? December 8th, 2006 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
December 8th, 2006 | 22 comments - (Comments are closed)
A while back I had not read my email for a day or so and found several waiting in my ‘IN’ box. Two were from Perry. Oh no. What have I done now? In the halls of debate, I am not very house broken. Fearing a ‘please cease and desist’ is in store, I open one. To my startled surprise, Perry is offering me a byline and contributing privileges! Startled is an understatement. Apparently I am doing something that Perry actually wants to continue. But what? I have one all encompassing principle. ‘Reality.’ This is a more complicated choice than it may first seem, but still an easy one.. There are very few guidelines for contributors to Samizdata. Basically, the content guidelines are simple. The key position statement is “liberty – good, big government – bad”. Surprisingly, this is the one I will need to be careful with. For it is possible within my principles, to hold a collectivist position that is both philosophically consistent and morally sound. But while I am acknowledging that a collectivist can be morally sound and philosophically consistent, I am also mustering my defences and preparing for a ‘debate’ that can only be resolved by physical contest. I have made my choice and there is no middle ground. → Continue reading: How did I get to this page? December 7th, 2006 | 82 comments - (Comments are closed)
Following on from Johnathan Pearce’s article yesterday, I see more and more articles in the media about the issue of Britain’s military being asked to fight two wars without proper funding by a government which seem to know sweet FA about military affairs. Is this a sign that the issue is gaining some wider political traction? If so, I expect to see Dave Cameron suddenly develop an interest in military matters (perhaps a Tory spokesman will soon ask why the UK treasury has been skimping on military equipment funding and thus failing to fit more eco-friendly engine in the army’s clapped out Warrior APCs). Cynical? Moi? As a minarchist (rather than an anarchist) I regard managing the military as one of the few legitimate roles of the state and thus find myself in the unfamiliar role of arguing for more tax money for a state endeavour… how weird is that? December 7th, 2006 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
I suppose David Cameron never had much a chance with people like me, in that I hated him almost before he was born. – Paul Marks December 6th, 2006 | 31 comments - (Comments are closed)
EU Referendum has a long and detailed article on the problems the British Army is having with its equipment in the Middle East and the lessons that could and should be learned from other forces, such as the Canadians. The EU Ref. blog has become a regular read for me, and it specialises on two or three consistent themes and sticks to them solidly. You will not get closely-argued analysis of the armed forces like this unless you buy a specialist book or attend a lecture by military historians such as John Keegan. First class stuff all round. December 6th, 2006 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
I do not buy the Financial Times because, whilst there are some decent people on its staff, its employees are mostly European Union supporting New Labour types. However, I do make a point of checking it from time to time. I have been amused by its relative lack of coverage of the KGB/FSB activities in London and Italy (in connection to the recent murder in London). It celebrated the sacking of three top Italian intelligence chiefs (in the same issue that it demanded that Donald Rumsfeld be put on trial for the “torture” of poor innocent Muslim head hackers) as these men were too close to the evil CIA and had made charges against the noble Italian Prime Minister (and ex-head of the European Union) Mr Prodi. What these charges were was not mentioned, the Financial Times (due to some of its staff over the years – the old Soviet Union liked to have links with the newspaper of ‘Finance Capital’) tends to get a bit nervous when KGB links are mentioned. The Financial Times did invite an expert on Russia to write an article for them – Mr Putin himself (it was like “a word from our sponsor”… as Richard Littlejohn would say “you could not make it up”). However, there was a Russian story right on the front page of the weekend edition of the Financial Times: The Russian state gas company has ordered new offices to be built – there was an artists impression of the new offices all over the page. No doubt for its next Russian story the Financial Times will inform its readers that the PLAN has been over-fulfilled by X per cent. December 6th, 2006 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
So the social democrat who promised the people more government health care, education and welfare, higher minimum wage and so on, has been defeated. Even taking account of Chavez rigging things it seems likely that (with a claim of some 60% of the vote) he really did win. Chavez promised the same things as the social democrat of course, but he offers more entertainment value. Jumping about the world and allying himself with anyone (Putin in Russia, the mad Mullahs of Iran and so on) who hates Uncle Sam. At least Chavez understands that these people do hate America (and Western values in general), unlike so many people in Washington who think they can ‘talk’ to the Iranian regime (what would be there to be talk about – whether the evil infidels of the world should be buried or cremated?). Or President Bush who “looked into the soul” of Mr Putin and discovered that he was a “good man”. As for the elections: I am often attacked for saying nasty things about the way people sometimes vote, but the case of Venezuela is a tough one for the “the people may make mistakes but they mean well” crowd. President Chavez was first elected in 1998. He had previously led a military coup effort (which, on its own, should have sunk bid for the office of President of the Republic). He was up against a rather boring social democrat type – but there was nothing evil about that man. Venezuela was at peace (so there was no “it was the war stupid” factor), and no one could seriously believe that Chavez would be less corrupt than his opponent or that he would be any better at what is now called the “management of the economy”. So why did the majority of people vote the way they did? They voted that way because Chavez played class war “the poor against the rich” – forget that the Venezuela government had spent vast sums of money, it still was not enough. Why was it not enough? Was it because there were still lots of very poor people? Certainly, but in their hearts these people knew that they would still be just as poor under Chavez (and if they did not know in 1998 they certainly knew last Sunday – when they voted for him again, in spite of all the billions that have gone on his overseas alliances and in corruption). The majority vote they way they do because they see that there are well off people – and they want these people to suffer as much as they do. A vote for Chavez is not a vote to make oneself better off (and it never was), it is a vote to make other people as poor and as unhappy as one is oneself. Voting for people like Chavez is not a ‘mistake’, it is something very different. December 6th, 2006 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
This is a weird story. From The Mail on Sunday, 2nd December 2006: Estate agents secretly selling home details to tax inspectors Snooping: tax officers can now find out exactly what your home is worth. Government officials have been given access to a vast database of properties, revealing their sale prices and detailed floorplans, under a deal with the website Rightmove.co.uk. The site, run by four of Britain’s biggest estate agents, contains information on 800,000 properties – and the contract, which runs until 2008, also gives inspectors access to old records. The Valuation Office Agency – the department of HM Revenue & Customs that allocates a council tax band to every home in England and Wales – will be able to use the data to find out about improvements such as double-glazing and conservatories that may increase tax bills. What’s weird is this: Property sales in Britain now involve a direct return to the Revenue as part of the new Stamp Duty Land Tax regime. And the Lands Registry has a definitive record of all such transactions, now online, which ought to be accessible to the Revenue. Unless the transaction is registered, you haven’t bought the property. And a house’s recent, actual, sale price is going to be pretty conclusive evidence of its valuation. So why pay a website whose coverage can be at best partial? Either HMRC is wholly incompetent (possible). Or they think transactions are being under-declared in the hot market (difficult in most cases, when two sets of solicitors and bankers are involved). Or the Mail on Sunday is missing the point and HMRC is not targeting sellers but renters and landlords. Or this is a publicity exercise, and HMRC is engaging in its favourite hobby: public intimidation of the public. December 6th, 2006 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
Via the Adam Smith Institute blog I came across this excellent essay over at the LewRockwell site about South Park. Definitely worth a read. Of course it is not the first time that the outrageous but wonderfully sharp series has been noted for its libertarian, anti-puritan content. Blogger Andrew Sullivan even coined the phrase – I think – South Park Republicans. I doubt that the makers of the series would want to be seen dead with many modern self-styled conservatives, and I would love Parker and Stone to have a go at our own benighted David Cameron’s Tories. There was a whole book on the subject by Brian Anderson called South Park Conservatives, which I quite liked, although it had some flaws. Reason magazine had a recent nice article about the characters. Of course, arguably PJ O’Rourke was ahead of them all with his Republican Party Reptiles, which is essentially a libertarian credo in most respects. The nearest we have in Britain to such a celebration of brash material wealth and fun, irreverence towards do-gooders of all forms is motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson. December 5th, 2006 | 27 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