The Guardian reports "Polly Toynbee, not Winston, should set Tory social agenda, says [conservative] adviser"
I'm sorry but ... what?! Polly Toynbee is considered too left wing by most of New Labour. What's next 'Cameron attacks Labour for not being Communist enough'?
It's a very dangerous strategy Cameron is playing here. Let's hope for the Conservatives' sake that this fellow's reaction to the "More like Polly Toynbee" suggestion isn't typical:
"I can't even feel the left side of my face. My eye is now opening and closing uncontrollably, and I fear a blood vessel is about to burst in my forehead. I look like Herbert Lom in an old Pink Panther movie. Jesus Christ, Polly Toynbee is giving me a stroke. Where's the number for NHS24? Here we go... Engaged! Fuck! Help! HELP!
[...]
The thumping vein bursts; blood splatters the screen of my computer. "Effective analysis"? Please tell me you’re yanking my chain, Greg. Please tell me this is all some monstrous, intricate practical joke, that someone has hacked in to my laptop and put a spoof news story in there to cheese me off."
Read the whole post for the full enraged effect.
And for a more thoughtful response read the ever excellent Chris Dillow.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Race and faith: a new agenda
Here is an excellent article on Community politics in the Guardian.
The quotes:
"Thirty years since the passing of the Race Relations Act, Britain faces a crisis of discourse around race and faith. These have always been sensitive topics, but the debate has hit new lows of simplicity and hysteria in the past few years. People want to talk. They need to talk. But how do they engage in a discussion which has been manipulated by recent governments to demonise minority groups, while being increasingly hijacked by self-appointed "community leaders"
[...]
"In a throwback to the colonial era, our politicians have chosen to appoint and work with a select band of representatives and by doing so treat minority groups as monolithic blocks, only interested in race or faith based issues rather than issues that concern us all, such as housing, transport, foreign policy and crime.
Unfortunately, many self-appointed community representatives have an incentive to play up their victimisation. This arrangement allows politicians to pass on the burden of responsibility to them and treat minorities as outsiders. MPs have increasingly sought to politicise problems of segregation, political apathy, criminality and poverty into problems of race and religion, and shift responsibility onto appointed gate-keepers rather than find ways of engaging with all Britons."
[...]
"The struggle for equality and better access to public services is a struggle for all Britons not just ethnic minorities. White working-class families also face problems with deprivation, injustice and demonisation. Their concerns should not be ignored or blamed on other groups.
We are not arguing that faith or race based groups should be restricted, but rather that their arguments be treated as one argument amongst many others and on their own merit. They have a right to argue for the enforcement of civil liberties and minority rights but they should be seen as lobby groups, not representatives of millions of people.
We need to foster a climate in which people can have private differences which include religion, language and culture, but also have a public space where such differences are bridged. The right to freedom of speech and expression of culture, faith and public debates must remain paramount."
The quotes:
"Thirty years since the passing of the Race Relations Act, Britain faces a crisis of discourse around race and faith. These have always been sensitive topics, but the debate has hit new lows of simplicity and hysteria in the past few years. People want to talk. They need to talk. But how do they engage in a discussion which has been manipulated by recent governments to demonise minority groups, while being increasingly hijacked by self-appointed "community leaders"
[...]
"In a throwback to the colonial era, our politicians have chosen to appoint and work with a select band of representatives and by doing so treat minority groups as monolithic blocks, only interested in race or faith based issues rather than issues that concern us all, such as housing, transport, foreign policy and crime.
Unfortunately, many self-appointed community representatives have an incentive to play up their victimisation. This arrangement allows politicians to pass on the burden of responsibility to them and treat minorities as outsiders. MPs have increasingly sought to politicise problems of segregation, political apathy, criminality and poverty into problems of race and religion, and shift responsibility onto appointed gate-keepers rather than find ways of engaging with all Britons."
[...]
"The struggle for equality and better access to public services is a struggle for all Britons not just ethnic minorities. White working-class families also face problems with deprivation, injustice and demonisation. Their concerns should not be ignored or blamed on other groups.
We are not arguing that faith or race based groups should be restricted, but rather that their arguments be treated as one argument amongst many others and on their own merit. They have a right to argue for the enforcement of civil liberties and minority rights but they should be seen as lobby groups, not representatives of millions of people.
We need to foster a climate in which people can have private differences which include religion, language and culture, but also have a public space where such differences are bridged. The right to freedom of speech and expression of culture, faith and public debates must remain paramount."
Saturday, November 18, 2006
The New Republic on Iraq
Here is The New Republic's Editor's comment on Iraq:
"At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom. But, as we pore over the lessons of this misadventure, we do not conclude that our past misjudgments warrant a rush into the cold arms of "realism." Realism, yes; but not "realism." American power may not be capable of transforming ancient cultures or deep hatreds, but that fact does not absolve us of the duty to conduct a foreign policy that takes its moral obligations seriously. As we attempt to undo the damage from a war that we never should have started, our moral obligations will not vanish, and neither will our strategic needs."
"At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom. But, as we pore over the lessons of this misadventure, we do not conclude that our past misjudgments warrant a rush into the cold arms of "realism." Realism, yes; but not "realism." American power may not be capable of transforming ancient cultures or deep hatreds, but that fact does not absolve us of the duty to conduct a foreign policy that takes its moral obligations seriously. As we attempt to undo the damage from a war that we never should have started, our moral obligations will not vanish, and neither will our strategic needs."
Friday, November 17, 2006
Butterflies and Wheels
Not Alexander Pope, not the Rolling Stones, but another online magazine that I thought might be of interest.
It's called butterfliesandwheels.com and is dedicated to 'fighting fashionable nonsense'. The site's creators are also the authors of the anti-relativist work 'Why Truth Matters'. (Incidentally they've taken their name from a disparaging remark made about Dawkins.)
Here's what they say about themselves:
Butterflies and Wheels has been established in order to oppose a number of related phenomena. These include:
1. Pseudoscience that is ideologically and politically motivated.
2. Epistemic relativism in the humanities (for example, the idea that statements are only true or false relative to particular cultures, discourses or language-games).
3. Those disciplines or schools of thought whose truth claims are prompted by the political, ideological and moral commitments of their adherents, and the general tendency to judge the veracity of claims about the world in terms of such commitments.
There are two motivations for setting up the web site. The first is the common one having to do with the thought that truth is important, and that to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour.
The second has to do with the tendency of the political Left (which both editors of this site consider themselves to be part of) to subjugate the rational assessment of truth-claims to the demands of a variety of pre-existing political and moral frameworks. We believe this tendency to be a mistake on practical as well as epistemological and ethical grounds. Alan Sokal expressed this concern well, when talking about his motivation for the Sokal Hoax: ‘My goal isn't to defend science from the barbarian hordes of lit crit (we'll survive just fine, thank you), but to defend the Left from a trendy segment of itself. Like innumerable others from diverse backgrounds and disciplines, I call for the Left to reclaim its Enlightenment roots.’ (Reply to Social Text Editorial)
They look like a fun bunch. Julian Baggini (author of The Pig That Wants to be Eaten) writes a "fortnightly column on bad argumentative moves."
Sort out your ad hominems from your abductions. An essential resource for detecting woolly arguments in all their guises!
What larks! But I like it, anyway. Elsewhere you'll find articles on the veil (natch), cultural relativism, and links to pieces that they find of interest, such as the phenomenology of smell (!)
Enjoy. Or not.
It's called butterfliesandwheels.com and is dedicated to 'fighting fashionable nonsense'. The site's creators are also the authors of the anti-relativist work 'Why Truth Matters'. (Incidentally they've taken their name from a disparaging remark made about Dawkins.)
Here's what they say about themselves:
Butterflies and Wheels has been established in order to oppose a number of related phenomena. These include:
1. Pseudoscience that is ideologically and politically motivated.
2. Epistemic relativism in the humanities (for example, the idea that statements are only true or false relative to particular cultures, discourses or language-games).
3. Those disciplines or schools of thought whose truth claims are prompted by the political, ideological and moral commitments of their adherents, and the general tendency to judge the veracity of claims about the world in terms of such commitments.
There are two motivations for setting up the web site. The first is the common one having to do with the thought that truth is important, and that to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour.
The second has to do with the tendency of the political Left (which both editors of this site consider themselves to be part of) to subjugate the rational assessment of truth-claims to the demands of a variety of pre-existing political and moral frameworks. We believe this tendency to be a mistake on practical as well as epistemological and ethical grounds. Alan Sokal expressed this concern well, when talking about his motivation for the Sokal Hoax: ‘My goal isn't to defend science from the barbarian hordes of lit crit (we'll survive just fine, thank you), but to defend the Left from a trendy segment of itself. Like innumerable others from diverse backgrounds and disciplines, I call for the Left to reclaim its Enlightenment roots.’ (Reply to Social Text Editorial)
They look like a fun bunch. Julian Baggini (author of The Pig That Wants to be Eaten) writes a "fortnightly column on bad argumentative moves."
Sort out your ad hominems from your abductions. An essential resource for detecting woolly arguments in all their guises!
What larks! But I like it, anyway. Elsewhere you'll find articles on the veil (natch), cultural relativism, and links to pieces that they find of interest, such as the phenomenology of smell (!)
Enjoy. Or not.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman Dies
Milton Friedman, hugely influential economist and one of my personal heroes, passed away today at the age of 94.
......
Cato Institute:
"Prominent free-market economist Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, passed away today at the age of 94. Friedman was widely regarded as the leader of the Chicago School of monetary economics, which stresses the importance of the quantity of money as an instrument of government policy and as a determinant of business cycles and inflation. In addition to his scientific work, Friedman also wrote extensively on public policy, always with primary emphasis on the preservation and extension of individual freedom. Friedman's ideas hugely influenced both the Reagan administration and the Thatcher government in the early 1980s, revolutionized establishment economic thinking across the globe, and have been employed extensively by emerging economies for decades."
.......
Milton Friedman quotations:
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."
"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."
"I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal."
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."
......
Cato Institute:
"Prominent free-market economist Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, passed away today at the age of 94. Friedman was widely regarded as the leader of the Chicago School of monetary economics, which stresses the importance of the quantity of money as an instrument of government policy and as a determinant of business cycles and inflation. In addition to his scientific work, Friedman also wrote extensively on public policy, always with primary emphasis on the preservation and extension of individual freedom. Friedman's ideas hugely influenced both the Reagan administration and the Thatcher government in the early 1980s, revolutionized establishment economic thinking across the globe, and have been employed extensively by emerging economies for decades."
.......
Milton Friedman quotations:
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."
"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."
"I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal."
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
It's War-hol, actually...
Gratuitous Bowie references aside I was struck by this comment on Leorockwell.com about the sale of Warhol's 'Mao'.
Marxist Mass Murderers Are 'Iconic'
But imagine the reaction, says David Kramer, if Andy Warhol had painted Hitler instead of Mao.
I couldn't find a link to the afore-mentioned David Kramer, but while looking for one I found this:
In a piece entitled "Mao and the Godfather", Eddie Driscoll describes seeing a photo of Francis Ford Coppola with a picture of Mao behind him. (You can see the photo if you follow the link.)
[T]he photo [...] "knocked me for six", as the English would say. Here's Francis Ford Coppola, at the height of his powers, shortly after making his fortune from the first two Godfather movies. It's taken, I believe, in Coppola's Napa Valley mansion, in what I assume is either his dining room, or perhaps a conference room.
In any case, notice the Warhol Mao print, and its placement directly behind Coppola, who it's safe to assume always sat at the head of the table. It was clearly hung there to establish some sort of "we're both powerful men" relationship.
Perhaps (and I'm being really charitable here), Coppola was making a statement about how dictatorships are powerless before the power of mass media (Warhol of course, cranked these prints out like mad). But probably not. Imagine dining with someone who had a print of Hitler, Stalin, or Castro (heck, that last one is probably still hanging in more than a few unrepentant leftists' homes). Wouldn't you have some second thoughts about your host?
What is it with the left and their love of evil men who have the murders of tens of millions of people on their hands? Is it the desire to seek some sort of weird, Palpatine-like father figure? Is it a belief that all of the evidence against their heroes is slanderous? (I'd pull off an Orwellian, "seeking the love of Big Brother" reference here, but that would be awfully cliched.) Or that the genocide they commit--all those broken eggs---is justified?
I don't know enough about Coppola's politics to speculate as to why he had the Mao print (maybe he was just a fan of Warhol), but I thought the central question (how would you feel if it was a print of Hitler) was a good one. Examining my own reactions I realise that I'd feel a lot more queasy about a pic of Adolf than I would about Mao or Stalin - why is that? I can't really see any justification for it.
Marxist Mass Murderers Are 'Iconic'
But imagine the reaction, says David Kramer, if Andy Warhol had painted Hitler instead of Mao.
I couldn't find a link to the afore-mentioned David Kramer, but while looking for one I found this:
In a piece entitled "Mao and the Godfather", Eddie Driscoll describes seeing a photo of Francis Ford Coppola with a picture of Mao behind him. (You can see the photo if you follow the link.)
[T]he photo [...] "knocked me for six", as the English would say. Here's Francis Ford Coppola, at the height of his powers, shortly after making his fortune from the first two Godfather movies. It's taken, I believe, in Coppola's Napa Valley mansion, in what I assume is either his dining room, or perhaps a conference room.
In any case, notice the Warhol Mao print, and its placement directly behind Coppola, who it's safe to assume always sat at the head of the table. It was clearly hung there to establish some sort of "we're both powerful men" relationship.
Perhaps (and I'm being really charitable here), Coppola was making a statement about how dictatorships are powerless before the power of mass media (Warhol of course, cranked these prints out like mad). But probably not. Imagine dining with someone who had a print of Hitler, Stalin, or Castro (heck, that last one is probably still hanging in more than a few unrepentant leftists' homes). Wouldn't you have some second thoughts about your host?
What is it with the left and their love of evil men who have the murders of tens of millions of people on their hands? Is it the desire to seek some sort of weird, Palpatine-like father figure? Is it a belief that all of the evidence against their heroes is slanderous? (I'd pull off an Orwellian, "seeking the love of Big Brother" reference here, but that would be awfully cliched.) Or that the genocide they commit--all those broken eggs---is justified?
I don't know enough about Coppola's politics to speculate as to why he had the Mao print (maybe he was just a fan of Warhol), but I thought the central question (how would you feel if it was a print of Hitler) was a good one. Examining my own reactions I realise that I'd feel a lot more queasy about a pic of Adolf than I would about Mao or Stalin - why is that? I can't really see any justification for it.
Europe is Finished, Predicts Mark Steyn
Love him or hate him, Steyn knows how to start a good argument!
Europe is Finished, Predicts Mark Steyn
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
November 14, 2006
Mark Steyn, political columnist and cultural critic, has written a remarkable book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (Regnery). He combines several virtues uncommonly found together – humor, accurate reportage, and deep thinking – then applies these to what is arguably the most consequential issue of our time: the Islamist threat to the West.
Mr. Steyn offers a devastating thesis but presents it in bits and pieces, so I shall pull it together here.
He begins with the legacy of two totalitarianisms. Traumatized by the electoral appeal of fascism, post-World War II European states were constructed in a top-down manner "so as to insulate almost entirely the political class from populist pressures." As a result, the establishment has "come to regard the electorate as children."
Second, the Soviet menace during the cold war prompted American leaders, impatient with Europe's (and Canada's) weak responses, effectively to take over their defense. This benign and far-sighted policy led to victory by 1991, but it also had the unintended and less salutary side-effect of freeing up Europe's funds to build a welfare state. This welfare state had several malign implications.
* The nanny state infantilized Europeans, making them worry about such pseudo-issues as climate change, while feminizing the males.
* It also neutered them, annexing "most of the core functions of adulthood," starting with the instinct to breed. From about 1980, birth rates plummeted, leaving an inadequate base for today's workers to receive their pensions.
* Structured on a pay-as-you-go basis, it amounted to an inter-generational Ponzi scheme, where today's workers depend on their children for their pensions.
* The demographic collapse meant that the indigenous peoples of countries like Russia, Italy, and Spain are at the start of a population death spiral.
*It led to a collapse of confidence that in turn bred "civilizational exhaustion," leaving Europeans unprepared to fight for their ways.
To keep the economic machine running meant accepting foreign workers. Rather than execute a long-term plan to prepare for the many millions of immigrants needed, Europe's elites punted, welcoming almost anyone who turned up. By virtue of geographic proximity, demographic overdrive, and a crisis-prone environment, "Islam is now the principal supplier of new Europeans," Mr. Steyn writes.
more...
Europe is Finished, Predicts Mark Steyn
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
November 14, 2006
Mark Steyn, political columnist and cultural critic, has written a remarkable book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (Regnery). He combines several virtues uncommonly found together – humor, accurate reportage, and deep thinking – then applies these to what is arguably the most consequential issue of our time: the Islamist threat to the West.
Mr. Steyn offers a devastating thesis but presents it in bits and pieces, so I shall pull it together here.
He begins with the legacy of two totalitarianisms. Traumatized by the electoral appeal of fascism, post-World War II European states were constructed in a top-down manner "so as to insulate almost entirely the political class from populist pressures." As a result, the establishment has "come to regard the electorate as children."
Second, the Soviet menace during the cold war prompted American leaders, impatient with Europe's (and Canada's) weak responses, effectively to take over their defense. This benign and far-sighted policy led to victory by 1991, but it also had the unintended and less salutary side-effect of freeing up Europe's funds to build a welfare state. This welfare state had several malign implications.
* The nanny state infantilized Europeans, making them worry about such pseudo-issues as climate change, while feminizing the males.
* It also neutered them, annexing "most of the core functions of adulthood," starting with the instinct to breed. From about 1980, birth rates plummeted, leaving an inadequate base for today's workers to receive their pensions.
* Structured on a pay-as-you-go basis, it amounted to an inter-generational Ponzi scheme, where today's workers depend on their children for their pensions.
* The demographic collapse meant that the indigenous peoples of countries like Russia, Italy, and Spain are at the start of a population death spiral.
*It led to a collapse of confidence that in turn bred "civilizational exhaustion," leaving Europeans unprepared to fight for their ways.
To keep the economic machine running meant accepting foreign workers. Rather than execute a long-term plan to prepare for the many millions of immigrants needed, Europe's elites punted, welcoming almost anyone who turned up. By virtue of geographic proximity, demographic overdrive, and a crisis-prone environment, "Islam is now the principal supplier of new Europeans," Mr. Steyn writes.
more...
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Why Poor Countries Are Poor
Fascinating and depressing in equal measure.
Why Poor Countries Are Poor
Tim Harford
Reason Magazine
March 2006 Print Edition
NOTE: If you're interested in the topic, David Landes' Wealth and Poverty of Nations is one of the best books I've ever read.
Why Poor Countries Are Poor
Tim Harford
Reason Magazine
March 2006 Print Edition
NOTE: If you're interested in the topic, David Landes' Wealth and Poverty of Nations is one of the best books I've ever read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)