Blogs
Saturday, November 29, 2003
Spotted...
...written in the mud splatter on the back of a British Telecom van in Oxford today:
George W Bush welcome to UK.
Chirac go home.
posted by James
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Happy Thanksgiving
We are celebrating Thanksgiving tomorrow, then my sister is graduating at the weekend so blogging will be limited over the next few days.
posted by James
Attack Ad?
I was going to blog about this absurd piece in Slate which takes the RNC to task for deigning to run a negative ad about Democrats criticizing the war but Polipundit beat me to it [scroll down to 'Misstatement of the day'].
Sure there are comments in the GOP ad that could be questioned, but half of political campaigning is about sales spiel so thats just par for the course. I didn't see any commentary on Slate attacking Dick Gephardt for calling Bush and the war phoney or any of the other examples Polipundit lists.
Does Slate's piece mean that Bush is supposed to just sit back and take the shrill criticism from the Democrats. That when he gets slandered as 'presiding over the worst economy since Attila the Hun' or whatever is the slur du jour he should just turn around and say "Ooh, please can I have another?". Political campaigns include harsh tough debate. After unrelenting smearings in the Democratic pre-Primary debates, Bush is hitting back in kind and they don't like it. Cry me a river.
posted by James
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
I was wrong
I thought that it would be Kerry who'd start going negative on Dean first. Its Gephardt.
posted by James
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Neat!
For those readers in the UK with cable or satellite, who are looking for something good on TV, here is a tip. Try Brainiac, on Sky One on Thursdays. Basically it involves doing neat stuff (like playing with flamethrowers and getting people to walk across pools of custard) in the name of scientific experiment. I.e. Jackass for geeks!
posted by James
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Istanbul
I have actually been to the British Consulate in Istanbul and despite the horror this morning, I have to say that it could have been worse. The picture below demonstrates why.
The consulate fills a large building which dates from when Istanbul was the capital of the Ottoman Empire and this was the embassy. It stretches off the right hand edge of the picture. The bombing seems to have occurred at the main gates (near where the arrow at the middle of the picture is).
It is no solace to the relatives of the victims but the attack could have easily been more devastating. The actual consular office (for issuing visas and things), which would have been full of people is the building indicated at the bottom left of the picture. It sits right on the road, and had the bomb been targetted there today's death toll would have been much higher. While we pray for the families of the victims, we should give thanks that this was not worse.
posted by James
Unusual
For readers outside the UK, I should just add to the point below, that our stoicism about this is unusual. Do not believe the media spin that the protestors speak for the people of Britain, they don't. Many were unhappy about their behaviour before today, and after this morning's atrocity a lot of people are downright furious. Particularly about that stunt with the statue.
posted by James
Children
The jihadi human bombs which went off in Istanbul this morning cast a sombre light on the rest of the day's events. First and most obviously the slaughter again crystallises the difference between us and them. We take care to preserve innocent life, even when fighting a war, they attack the weak: diplomats, office workers, and ordinary Turks who happened to be walking past.
But the attacks throw up another contrast. For while rescue teams sift through the rubble in Turkey, in London so-called 'peace protestors' march in solidarity with the fanatics. Oh, they'd seethe and whine if you accused them of that. They'd say they deprecate the jihadists as much as Blair and Bush, yet strangely they seldom manage to utter a word of criticism in the direction of the enemy. And even when they do, it has to be dragged from them, and it emerges mealy-mouthed and insincere, always ending in a way that puts the blame back on their own nations.
One might think there is a way to be neutral. To support neither the terrorists nor the forces of civilisation. To offer condemnation of our leaders, with attacks on the muslim extremist foe taken as read. In a rational world, such a position might be intellectually defensible. But as today so clearly shows this is not a rational world. In this war, you either help the cause of justice or you hinder it. There are degrees, to be sure. The bombers are infinitely worse than the fifth column that marched through London today, but in the final weighing of the outcomes of their deeds they are pulling in the same direction.
Yet, they are also terribly insignificant. Several tens of thousands of protestors is not a great achievement in the most populous city in Western Europe - particularly when you have to import continental radicals to boost your numbers, and then pad them further by claiming the crowds of people walking past Trafalgar Square on their way home from work support you. In the light of the harshness of the real world, as revealed in Turkey this morning the protestors tasteless mockery of liberated Iraqis evokes not anger, but pity. They behave like children, and as such their whining can be ignored, while we adults (of all ages) concentrate on how we win this war.
posted by James
Interesting
Labour threatens to cap council tax rises next year. That points to an election in the early spring of 2005. If Blair was planning on going for one later, I'd have thought they would leave council tax to rise this year and be more concerned with capping council tax rises in 2005.
posted by James
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
No reason to damage federalism
The Massachusetts gay marriage decision is not something that is at the top of my list of things to blog about. Personally I am in favour of gay marriage and opposed to civil unions (on the grounds that they will undermine marriage). That said, I am absolutely against judicial activism of this sort. The definition of marriage in our culture has always meant a man and a woman, and the way to change that is to pass a new law to say that within area X marriage means something else.
However, the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is a bad, bad idea. It would be just as much of an abuse of federal power to ban California or Vermont from enacting gay marriage as it would be an abuse of judicial power to compel Alabama or Texas to enact it. Fortunately, the US Constitution is very hard to amend, and therefore even if this amendment passes Congress (very unlikely in my opinion) it will probably go the way of the late, unlamented E.R.A.
The Massachusetts decision is a bad one, but it is up to the people of that state and no one else to decide how to act in response to it. Let federalism work.
David Frum disagrees (scroll down).
Does anybody now doubt the case for the Federal Marriage Amendment? As soon as Massachusetts begins issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, we shall see suits filed in other states to demand that those licenses be honored. Most states will refuse, but a few will yield – creating an absolute legal chaos.That is no argument at all. So the rules on marriage for a small minority will be complicated. Big deal. People with concealed carry weapons permits have to navigate a complicated system of interlocking laws to carry their guns across state lines. People near state borders take advantage of beneficial sales tax rates on the other side. People who live in one state, but work in another sometimes face a complicated tax situation. That is what federalism is all about. But its benefits far outweigh these minor inconveniences.
Judicial activism is an argument in favour of putting the right sort of judges on the bench, it is no argument for abusing one of the fundemental tenets of the Constitution, and doing more damage to federalism than any number of gay weddings will do to marriage.
posted by James
Brass Neck
Was watching Littlejohn on Sky tonight. He had a discussion with Eric Pickles, some Labour MP (who was actually quite coherent and semi-sane) and Lib-Dem Mark Oaten. Oaten had the gall to make a sneering remark about how George W. Bush was 'narrowly elected'. This from a man who first won his seat with a majority of 2. [He susequently won re-election with a somewhat larger margin of victory. Just like George will next year].
posted by James
Protest in the provinces
England's Sword has some reports of the rather pitiful showing by the 'peace'-protestors in London today. It wasn't just London.
There was a peacenik demonstration next to the war memorial in the centre of Swindon this lunchtime: all of a dozen middle-aged protestors. So far, so normal. After all today was a work day. The amusing thing was that the demonstrators were outnumbered two to one by an ad hoc crowd of teenagers and young people who were jeering and heckling them, along with shouting out pro-war slogans. In fact the protestors chanting was drowned out despite their having a loud hailer.
posted by James
Response
Stephen Hayes has a response to the DoD Press Release which played down his Saddam-Osama connection story.
posted by James
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Spot on
Scrappleface is spot on here.
U.K. Police Gear Up for Peace Protestor Terror
...
"Little is more terrifying to police than mobs of people eager for world peace," said a spokesman for Scotland Yard. "They're a threat to elected officials and to life and property in general."
posted by James
Hail to the Chief
Just a note of welcome for President Bush on his visit to Britain. I only wish I could make it to London to mount a counter-protest against the unwashed ruffians who will doubtless be trying to have yet another Central London riot (yawn).
I am not one of the Jeremiahs who have been prophesying disaster about this trip, I think that most people are level headed enough to tell that the rent-a-riot mob do not represent British opinion on the war (indeed I bet a large contingent will come from across the channel). One thing I do find worrying though: the decision to let them march down Whitehall, which will bring their revolting procession past the Cenotaph. I do hope measures have been taken to protect it.
posted by James
Why?
Could someone explain to me why this is not bigger news?
The European Union is failing to keep track of huge annual subsidies, and 91 per cent of its budget is riddled with errors or cannot be verified, a financial watchdog said yesterday.I presume its not bigger news because it casts the EU in a bad light. After all if a report came out accusing some branch of the US government of losing / stealing 91 percent of its budget it would be all over the Independent and the rest of the gutter press - even though not a penny of that money came from British taxpayers. But that is what I don't understand - surely this transcends your opinion of the EU? Surely those who see the EU as the dawn of a new age and cheer the end of our independence would want to see the new power as well run as possible. The fact that they don't seem to hardly bodes well for democracy and public administration once the Euro state is completed.
posted by James
Monday, November 17, 2003
Political Genius
Well done to David Davis for speaking up for the Death Penalty. It is good to see that there are a few politicians left who remain in touch with the majority of the population on this issue - even if Mr Davis is a little to left of the country as a whole, favouring capital punishment only for serial killers.
The abolition of the Death Penalty and its continued prohibition despite consistent support from the public is one of the great travesties of British Democracy. The trouble is that even most Tory MPs are against its restoration, so there is little hope of this becoming a party policy (though I would suggest that a referendum on Capital Punishment would make a good nugget for a manifesto, since it would enable MPs to avoid voting for it and settle the issue once and for all, as well as winning votes)1.
In any case, as BritishSpin notes this was remarkably good politics from Davis, as it gets him and the Tories loads of publicity, on an issue the population agrees with, and therefore starts recreating the Tories=tough on crime meme. Its a shame some Tories feel the need to join in Labour criticism of Davis, as that rather blunts the message. I did like this though:
John Major, the former prime minister, said Mr Davis was mistaken if he thought there was an electoral gain in campaigning for the return of capital punishment.Yeah right, because when we want to know how to get re-elected we will turn to the architect of 1997.
1 Pay no attention to the 'Capital Punishment is illegal' line being hawked by some. It is right now, but no parliament can bind its successors. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English law can be removed by an act of parliament.
posted by James
Sunday, November 16, 2003
No play
Well, I was right that the leaked Senate Memo mentioned below hasn't had any play on the BBC. What's worse is that it doesn't seem to have had much play anywhere else either, as a search on Google News shows up only such stalwarts as Fox, Newsmax, Worldnetdaily and their affiliates. Given that Fox and the Weekly Standard are part of News Corporation it may make the (UK) Times (what with Bush being over here this week).
It seems that we may be about to see another piece of pro-war news spiked just because it doesn't fit the desired reporting of the liberal media, which means that it is surely a task for the blogosphere. Loads of papers around the US and the rest of the world pick up their international or national politics news from the Big Media organisations. Which means that if the Washington Post or Associated Press ignore the story loads of state and city papers don't pick it up either. Perhaps if those blog readers who have heard about this story were to e-mail or call their local papers and ask why they haven't reported on this that would result in demands flowing back to the Big Media organisations for this story and force them to cover it.
Even though a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda has never been claimed by the White House1 and always studiously ruled out by Big Media, a majority of Americans nevertheless believe that the two were connected. If this news gets in the press and out to the public, I think it will prove conclusive for a lot of people.
Personally, I've believed in a link between them for a long time now - as I said last night, if you are prepared to look, the evidence is there. Just do a Google search for Jayna Davis or Laurie Mylroie for starters.
1To be completely fair, some on the left have made the argument that President Bush did say there was a link by not acually saying that there definitely wasn't but this has always struck me as rather lame. Perhaps they mean he made the claim in an emanation or a penumbra from one of his statements. Hmm, maybe that's also where he said Iraq was an "imminent threat" and talked about yellowcake from Niger.
posted by James
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Vital
Read this article. It won't get any play on the BBC, but it is dynamite - it convincingly demonstrates that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were intimately connected through the nineties. Now there's been plenty of evidence floating around that points to that before now for those who have cared to look - but this starts to tie lots of loose ends up.
posted by James
Friday, November 14, 2003
All Nighter!
There’s an awful lot of guff being spouted over the not-quite-a-filibuster debate in the US Senate. By all sides. Lets take a look:
The Democrats claim that the four Bush nominees they have blocked are ‘extreme’ despite scant evidence to back that up. Take the case of Alabama’s Attorney General Bill Pryor. He’s strongly anti-abortion, and not afraid to say so. He believes Roe v. Wade was in his words “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history”, yet he has enforced laws he disagrees with in his current position, and has stated that if he were appointed to the 11th Circuit Court he would enforce the law as it stands, Roe and all. In short Bill Pryor is actually the poster child for what a judge should be: someone who enforces the law, irrespective of whether they like it or not. Now if he were being nominated for the Supreme Court then the questioning would revolve around whether he would vote to overturn Roe (I can only assume he would) and things would be different. But he’s not. The attacks on Pryor are not about his opinions at all. The faux-outrage from the Democratic Party over Bush’s judges (judges who would easily pass an up-down vote in the Senate like 168 others he has nominated) is really about riling up the activist base, and more ominously setting a precedent of judicial filibustering as normal, in advance of the next Supreme Court vacancy.
The Republicans on the other hand, slam the Democrats for doing something unprecedented and imply in their rhetoric that the judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. This is absolute hooey. The Senate has the power of veto over judicial picks, and one of the procedures available to a minority in the Senate is the filibuster. Just because its never been done before doesn’t prohibit it – the inherent absurdity of that position is obvious. The Democrats are perfectly within their rights to use the filibuster on this issue. You can (as I do) question whether it is a good thing that they do (because next time the shoe is on the other foot, they will suffer for it), you can assert that their blocking of these nominees is wrong, but you can’t deny that they have every right to use this procedure. Republican suggestions about changing the rules of the Senate to weaken the filibuster ought to be met with derision. If they can’t break the deadlock, and Bush won’t use tools already at his disposal (i.e. recess appointments of really hard core conservatives) then that’s tough.
The punditocracy is also wrong, in having a go at the Republicans for forcing the all-night debate that won’t change anything. They say that the GOP is holding up other government business by doing this, which is strictly true, but grossly unfair. If the issue is not brought to public attention, it will go on unnoticed forever.
The problem is, that the filibuster ought to be a weapon of last resort – using it ought to carry a price (being seen as obstructing government business). Unfortunately the current rules of the Senate allow a blocked piece of business to be set aside and returned to later. This change, introduced ages ago by Robert Byrd, has resulted in an enormous increase in the number of uses of the filibuster and a decrease in their visibility.
If filibustering judges brought other parts of government business to a standstill, the Democrats might not be doing it. They have already developed a reputation for obstruction, which contrary to the media’s belief, cost them in 2002. For instance Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle now has a higher disapproval rating than the GOP’s de facto leader in the house, Rep. Tom De Lay.
As it is, the Democrats can have it both ways – they can filibuster the judges without taking the flak that doing so ought to generate. That is why the Republican’s are right to devote time to this debate, because it will raise people’s awareness of the problem, and make the Democrats pay a price for their filibusters. It may be they decide it is a price worth paying, and that is fair too. But the freebie-obstruction has to stop.
Long term, the parliamentary procedural change that the GOP ought to be concentrating on is not reducing the number of votes needed for cloture over a series of votes (as some have suggested) or changing the rules to allow a simple majority to invoke cloture on judgeships. They ought to do away with the tracking system, so that a filibuster really would bring all business to an end. That would doubtless cause them inconvenience down the line. Well, too bad. They can also decide if that is a price worth paying for solving this problem.
posted by James
Thursday, November 13, 2003
"Big Men" in grey suits
Boris laments the brouhaha over the Prince of Wales in the media this past week, and claims that it represents the need of people to metaphorically emulate those tribes which carried out regicide as a cultural tradition. He then lists a whole series of such behaviours. One of them sounded remarkably familiar:
On the Benue river, which is a tributary of the Niger, the "big men" in the Jukos tribe used to decide whether or not their king had reigned long enough. If his time was up, he was invited to get drunk on millet beer and then speared.
posted by James
More on ID cards
Over at Englands' Sword, Chad Dimpler has written a coherent attack on their introduction as well. However I have to disagree with some of his reasoning towards the start of the piece. He describes the structure of the British state:
My passport tells me that I am a British Citizen. Some years, perhaps decades ago, I believe the same document might have labelled me a British Subject. The change is small, just one word, but the implied change in attitude and status is immense.Which is quite right, except that the system is supposed to rest on the notion that the crown holds the power in trust from the people (Coronation Oath and all that). Practically these days that is something that has been lost, and the destruction of the British education system, combined with European Laws has probably put it beyond recovery, but that principle is a fundemental one. It is the first mutation in the DNA of government that ultimately spawned the Anglosphere, for even back when Kings really could cry 'Off with his head' the King of England's powers were more limited than those of the King of France.
The term 'citizen' implies membership, whilst a 'subject' owes obedience to another. In the United Kingdom the transition from one to the other has been slow and arduous. It has taken generations of organic change and development which has seen the status of the average Briton improve from that of serf, a mere chattel of his lord, to a member of an (at least theoretically) free and equal society. The transition is incomplete but advanced, and there are powerful institutional and societal conventions which hinder the transition. One of these is the all-powerful position of the State. In the UK, other than in times of rebellion, power rests with the State, not the populace. Power devolves down from the Crown to the Crown in Parliament. The full constitutional ramifications of this are beyond the scope of this piece, but it is relevant. The direction of the flow of power directs the thinking of those who wield it, be they socialist or reactionary. They wield the power of the State for the State; they do not exercise it on behalf of the people.
Dimpler goes on to argue that because of this relict feudalism within the British state our government sees laws as being there for its benefit rather than ours, hence the introduction of ID cards. Now I don't dispute that this government sees things that way, what I do dispute is that that is somehow down to history. Because, as I have pointed out in the comments over there, the British state has managed to get to the year 2003 AD without imposing ID cards on the people [except during the Second World War and its immediate aftermath]. In contrast in Europe ID cards are the norm. Some European nations are monarchies too, but many with the strictest ID card laws are not. If one turns to the example of the French Republic, her laws and constitutional principles are cut off from feudalism in its entirity. And France has had ID cards for years and years.
I would suggest that in one of those curiosities the British Constitution is famous for (like the one noted in yesterday's post) the change from 'subject' to 'citizen' referred to by Chad has actually resulted in greater acquisition of powers by the state. ID cards are a sign of the attempted Europeanisation of Britain and the consequent removal of our ancient liberties rather than a sign of the (very real) problems with the overly centralised political system we use.
In one respect though, Chad is right, and the ID card proposal reflects badly on the British Constitutional settlement. It also incidentally settles once and for all part of the dispute between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the founding of the United States.
British Liberty and American Liberty are closely related. Both borrow heavily on the notion of natural rights that are reserved to the people and are beyond the scope of government intervention. British constitutionalists have always taken the view that as those rights are natural, they do not need to be encoded, because writing them down would imply that they could be taken away. In the USA in contrast the view was taken that these natural rights should be written down to prohibit the encroachment of government upon them (even though it had no right to do so).
The British assumption always was that while in theory a government could restrict (say) freedom of speech it in practice would not, as that would be an un-British thing to do. [Yes, I know there are complications surrounding ancient baggage like blasphemy laws, but the general principle holds]. That was also the Federalist view in the US: "We don't need a bill of rights, the people's representatives would never take their rights away." This Federalist view was defeated in the US but until recently, when assessing the state of our ancient liberties there was very little to separate the US from Britain, because the British/Federalist position held. Until recently.
In recent years (mostly under the Blair government, which has been responsible for more constitutional vandalism than I thought possible in 1997, but sadly also under the Tories) our ancient liberties have been eroded and one by one are being lost. ID cards are symbolic of the process. The right to silence was diluted by Michael Howard, Blunkett threatens jury trials, the EU arrest warrant threatens habeas corpus and race hate laws weaken free speech (though here the situation is nowhere near as bad as on the continent). So with the sad death of Britain's ancient liberties we finally know the answer to which is better: a written or an unwritten constitution. And we know the Anti-Federalists were right on this point. Thank God for the Bill of Rights.
Saddest of all though is the sense that this lesson has been learned too late. Because while a written constitution on the model of the US is now shown to be the best guarantor of freedom, there is no chance of such a document ever being introduced in Britain. If the government decided to introduce a written constitution today it would say nothing of a right to bear arms and would doubtless remove guarantees of a right to jury trial. It would come laden with socialist baggage like a 'right to strike' or a 'right to a free compulsory education' hardwired into it. Once again one marvels at America's good fortune in having its constitution drawn up at the cusp of the enlightenment by geniuses. It is hard not to detect divine providence there.
posted by James
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Read this
This article about ID Cards on Unpersons is one of the best things I have read on this subject yet.
Yet, I think it is clear that it is going to happen, particularly given the pathetic response from the Conservative Party. I have a feeling that the House of Lords (which somehow manages to simultaneously be the last bastion of feudalism and liberty) will make a stand on this, but with this being a prime piece of government legislation I fear that the fight will be less successful than on hunting.
At which point we have two choices: knuckle under, or take direct action. There come points at which civil disobedience is a duty, and this is one of them. ID Cards are coming and I can tell you now, I won't carry one. Will you?
posted by James
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Class costs nothing
Go to the Google UK homepage before the end of today (11th November).
posted by James
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Fun and Games
I revisited the Political Compass today, and find myself to supposedly lie well over to the right but on the boundary between authoritarian and libertarian, which I take with a pinch of salt as I would say that I ought to come out a bit more libertarian. I suspect that things like the question on civil liberties vs. counter terrorism skewed things. I do think that the counter-terror measures have the scope for abuse however, there is a war on, and I am comfortable with some restrictions on civil liberties in wartime, provided they are eventually lifted (which is why I am very glad that the US PATRIOT Act will one day expire). I think a 'how important is this issue to you' factor would be useful too as I suspect that issues that I don't care all that much about but agree with a more conservative position skewed my result too.
The flaws in this sort of survey notwithstanding I think it would be interesting if a polling company did this on the general population and published its results. Politicians all like to think the 'silent majority' is on their side. A survey like this would tell us who was right.
What was rather amusing on the site was their analysis of the 2004 US Presidential Election, and where the candidates lay. To an extent this is a bit skewed as certain issues that would be relevant to the US (such as Gun Rights) do not show up in this UK based survey at all, but it does bring to mind Peter Cook's classic comment:
"American politics is very easy to understand. They have the Republican Party, which is basically like our Conservative Party and the Democratic Party, which is basically like our Conservative Party."Finally, no discussion of this topic would be complete without urging people to go to this open source version of Political Compass, which is trying to do a survey of answers before drawing conclusions on where people lie on the spectrum and which will reveal its methodology.
posted by James
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Prey
Glenn Reynolds latest TCS piece talks about the problems of not being wary of having predators wandering around a town. Discussing the way in which do-gooders have tricked themselves into believing that carnivores would not eat them if they just thought happy thoughts, he extends the analogy:
This is, as Baron notes, something of a parable -- and not merely a parable of man and "nature." One need only look at the treatment of such other topics as crime, terrorism, and warfare to see examples of the same sort of misplaced sentimentality and willful ignorance. Tolerance of criminality leads to more crime; tolerance of terrorism leads to more terrorism; efforts to appear defenseless lead to warThis chimes with something that I have been considering about Europe's attitude to the war. Of all the parts of the West, Europe is the one which ought to be leading the cheers for America's attempt to civilise the Middle East. Just as it is in the interests of ordinary townsfolk for someone to shoot Cougars so it is in Europe's interest that someone clean up the mess in the Islamic world. The reason for this is fairly simple.
If one looks at history and compares wealth and power, some simple patterns emerge. Those who are weak and poor (think Africa in the 19th Century) tend to get taken over by the strong. But all in all this tends to benefit most of the people there. The only losers tend to be the former rulers. [This can go horribly wrong, e.g. the Belgian Congo, but often goes right, e.g. Botswana]. Those who are poor but strong (to continue the 19th Century analogy, think China) are generally safe - apart from a bit of border skirmishing. Those who are rich and strong can defend themselves, or ally with similar states for their own protection. But the remaining quadrant has almost always meant disaster throughought human history: being rich and weak. And that is where Europe currently lies.
The natural 'law of the jungle' is suspended right now, and order is maintained by the US. If someone tried to start a war in Europe the US would eventually put a stop to it. But fast forward a decade or two, to a world where the US doesn't care about Europe due to the current attitudes of Europeans. Without the US, things look very dicey for Europe. Its rich, its weak and it will also be empty, as demography drives down Europe's population. A historic recipe for death if ever there was one.
The current leaders of the Jihad will soon be dead. Their followers will have learned the hard way that they can't take on the US. Its possible that they will keep on trying for a couple of generations, but eventually a degree of rationality will descend on them. And they will ask themselves the question: why keep getting killed by America, when Europe is there to be conquered?
posted by James
Gunpowder Treason
Iain Murray writes in defence of fireworks, because as every November the killjoys are out to ban them. It is sad to have to speak in defence of fireworks - if common sense prevailed the idea of banning them because idiots hurt themselves with them and yobs abuse them would be dismissed out of hand. Sadly, common sense has long departed these shores, accompanied by responsibility and reticence, so defend them we must.
The post linked to above touches upon the notion that Hallowe'en and Bonfire Night are in conflict with one another. I don't see it that way, I think it is perfectly possible to celebrate both. The rise of Hallowe'en is an independent phenomenon, but Bonfire Night has become diluted. For two weeks or more on either side of November 5th Britain reverberates to the sound of fireworks, and I have a nagging feeling that many of those letting them off do not know why they do. I suspect that if the stores sold fireworks all year round, then people would be happy to buy them. It is simply the patterns of the fireworks industry that keep November 5th as a date of national significance, something which is terribly sad. For the preservation of our monarch and our parliament four hundred years ago is something to be proud of, and to give thanks for. Jokes about cheering on Guy Fawkes when politicians threaten something inane (hmm, like banning fireworks for instance) notwithstanding, the world today would be a different place had the plot suceeded. And given the devils it would have unleashed on 17th Century Britain: wholesale slaughter, political instability and probably through the butterfly effect the abortion of the English Revolutions, it would not have been a better one.
That our schools now airbrush such important events from our national consciousness is a tragedy - a victory for the leftists who seek to destroy our nation by redefining it. The way most Britons now celebrate Guy Fawkes Night - taking pleasure in the fireworks but ignorant of their meaning - is symbolic of our national crisis: the absence of meaning that has crept into people's lives in spite of prosperity, that leads to apathy and cynicism in the public sphere and self indulgence and narcissism in the private.
posted by James
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Howard
I haven't posted anything on the Tory putsch of last week because I don't think I can add much to what Iain Murray and Peter Cuthbertson have already said. To be honest it could go either way. We certainly have won the spin, with the media being shocked out of reporting "Tory Split!" but whether this will impress the voters is another matter. I would say the first polls are going to be an indication. Until last week we were 5 points ahead. If we hold that, or only fall slightly then we are in with a chance. On the other hand if we drop back badly then I think we will be back where we started in 2001.
Another point I think is important is that the leadership election rules be changed. From now on it should be entirely up to members of the party. MPs should not have any say beyond being members in who gets selected, and should be stripped of the power to no-con a leader. We should also institute primary campaigns for all constituencies so that useless MPs can be knocked out by ordinary members, even when their constituency association hacks stand by them. That way we could get rid of wastes of space like Bercow and Maude.
posted by James
"Every day, when we see these bloody headlines of American soldiers being killed, we are reminded that had this been a global coalition, ... what we're facing today could have been so much different," - Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill
The quotation above sums up in so many ways the marginalisation of the Democratic Party. It is glib, it is a lie, and unless Sen. Durbin is a blithering idiot, he knows it. The Senator, of course, knows that dozens of countries supported materially or with boots on the ground the conquest of Iraq. He knows that excluding Canada, the coalition that surged into Iraq in March was the same one that surged into Normandy 59 years ago. The notion that this was not a coalition activity is meaningless, a hackneyed 'line to take' handed out by the DNC, supposedly allowing its utterers to run down the war without taking the flak for it.
Does Senator Durbin really believe that having more countries on side for the war would have made it easier? If so he should explain who and how. Which Great Power's forces would have enabled the occupation to be over already? Which Great Power's military is he saying is better than that of the US and Britain? The French, whose conscript army is in disarray and who spent much of the Kosovo conflict telling the Serbs what NATO was going to do next? The Russians, whose experience in fighting Muslims hardly recommends them to our side (if the Senator would like to see a real quagmire, he should check out Groznyy). Or perhaps he would like the Chinese to have been involved?! Because, apart from them, and apart from maybe India, there is no one else who could have added many more troops than those the original Allies already deployed.
And Senator Durbin knows this, but still he comes out with his soundbite. Because he thinks that the little people don't know it. He thinks that the little people believe that if only we'd been nicer to the French they would have supported us and that the little people can therefore be induced to punishing President Bush. Well, he's wrong. We know the French have behaved despicably, and we're pretty mad about it.
Of course, he might sincerely believe these things. If so he has to tell us not 'what he would have done differently', but how he would have done things differently. How he would have achieved the goal of disposing of Saddam Hussein, without upsetting the Quay D'Orsay. The same applies to anyone, be they John Kerry or Joe Lieberman who trots out this tired old saw. None of them can, none of them will, but they will persist in mouthing variations of what Sen. Durbin said in the full knowledge that apart from insulting America's real friends this talk of false coalitions is nothing but playing partisan politics with national security. And in doing so they demonstrate why America cannot afford to let a Democrat anywhere near the White House right now.
posted by James
