My obsession with relating Harry Potter to muggle politics appears to be general. Did you notice that both Ken Layne (no I won't do another link, there's one above) and Debbie Morse (oh, if you insist) have HP references?
"Who steals my purse, steals trash. . . . But he that filches from me my good name, robs me of what not enriches him and makes me poor indeed." Note to Paypal lawyers: the "steal" was put there by Shakespeare, not me, so don't get excited. I know it's all my fault really.
Heigh-ho, I'll work on it. Anyone who wants to try it out in an experimental fashion and let me know the results is most welcome.
Oh dear. Dawson.com is not going to like this.
Well, best go to bed. Night night.
We went through something similar when JFK Jr.'s plane crashed into the ocean. David Cross once said, "If I die in a plane crash, don't bother looking for me. If it makes you feel better, smoke a pack of Camels, put it in an urn, and call it me."Points taken. By the way Instapundit picked up on the same article. (Great minds think alike, but I got there first!) Glenn Reynolds thought it was "a clunker."
However, this is different. The rubble is going to have to be cleaned out regardless. They aren't just going to leave a smoking pile of concrete and steel sitting in the middle of Manhattan. And the rubble has a bunch of corpses or pieces of corpses scattered throughout it. If there are 3800 dead bodies in there, I would think that just not worrying about it would constitute a public health hazard. Additionally, stories have been coming out of people trying to defraud the authorities with false claims of relatives dying. Doesn't recovery at least lessen the chances that this would happen?
After engaging in some pop psychology and brandishing the names Galbraith and Veblen, two grossly irrelevant commentators even in modern liberal economic circles, she stretches for one last Deep Thought:You know that if those people whose family members died on September 11 could have them back for Christmas, the last thing on their minds would be a sweater or a tie.
Sure -- most people would gladly trade what is possible for what is impossible. That passes for an argument against a commercial Christmas? It isn't an argument against anything, except maybe against giving Anna Quindlen a platform for her elitist hyper-snobbery.
Anyway, I just pop over to the blog again to verify the reference and... it's disappeared. There's a completely different looking blog in its place, with stuff about Ashcroft and Mazar-i-Sharif and Windows XP and Turkey and clones and you name it. Panicpanicpanicrealityfadepanic. Eventually I found the Desert Eagle bit far, far, down the column. Phew. Does this man ever leave his computer?
BTW I forgot to say in my earlier post that Random Jottings, too, has had the decorators in. We San Franciscans (is that right?) are always at the forefront of style.
Lieutenant Jim Barry and two fellow soldiers were killed as they moved forward after an Argentinian trench had raised a white flag.... Not one of the Argentinians still defending School House when the incident occurred survived.... "...we had the white flag incident and they were not going to mess about trying to take surrenders any more."
But why does Anne Karpf have to make a whole new third world grudge out of this, like they had some shortage? The header says, "No living third world body ever had the sums lavished on it that are being spent on DNA tests at Ground Zero." She had to put in the "living" bit so as to stop wags like me mentioning Tutenkhamen's solid gold death mask or the Great Pyramid. All peoples spend what they can on honouring the dead. The discrepancy between funeral bills is no greater than that between any other sort of bill. If that's an issue, write about free trade or debt reduction or whatever, don't tack it on to this. And I never heard that the World Trade Center DNA investigators treat the remains of the many Yemeni or Pakistani victims with any less respect than the others.
Two crazy new American blogs: Dawson.com and Natalie Solent. Welch keeps writing to me about all the smart and funny Americans he's found since Sept. 11. I have to agree. We're supposed to be -- according to certain pundits -- one-eyed, cousin-humping morons, endlessly out of touch, too dumb to live. Or, at best, freaks on one coast or the other, ceaselessly impressed with an academic lack of common sense.
And yet ... this Dawson site comes from North Carolina (my buddy and neighbor Morgan J. Freeman directed some of those Dawson's Creek shows, you know?) and Solent writes from San Francisco, which is supposed to be filled with delusional nuts.
Seriously delusional. One may hope that now I have been confronted with the truth, a cure is at hand. Soon, now, I will stretch out my hand to the lightswitch and it will go down when it should go up. I will leave out the "u" in "favourable". I will develop an interest in that inferior version of rounders you colonials amuse yourselves with. Essex will melt away, revealing the seven hills of my own fair city, had I but known it. Or was that Rome?
"Yes, yes, OK," said the king, "I get the picture. You have my royal promise." Foolish words! For the philosopher continued implacably on: "16...32...64...128...512...1,024...2,048...4,092..."
And by the time he reached the 64th square all the rice in the universe would not suffice. Thus the kingdom was bankrupted, the currency collapsed, and the philosopher eked out his days in poverty, exacerbated by constipation from eating too much rice.
Aren't you glad you're escaping all that trouble, Brian? You get a mention, OK?
But it's a very nice mention. Outrageous story you have there about the smoke-out-the-window patrol in Maryland. As you so wisely say, "Hey, any day that this kind of shit doesn't start in California is a good day."
"And, to me, the most disturbing fact of all: "50,000 children, aged eight to 10, have nothing to eat or drink before going to school in a morning".The special horror of that final statistic is easily explained. Poverty - described in numbers and income levels - is, or ought to be, eradicable. Improve the minimum wage. Increase tax credits or the level of income guarantees.
Oh, you mean do some more of what you and your ilk of both parties have been doing for the last eighty years. Do some more of what has made the poor into your cattle, unable to take charge of their own lives even to the extent of feeding their children. Great idea, Roy.
But there is an unavoidable suspicion that many of those unhappy 50,000 children are the victims of private rather than public failure.
And private failure is not so easily redeemed. Surely every family should be able to afford a daily cup of tea and slice of toast. Some of them are the victims of society's failure.
Damn straight. Your Great Society: a cruel failure. You, the Controllers, made them like this. You made it pay not to have fathers. You made it impossible to have the humble jobs that raised men from serfs of the state. You made sure it didn't pay to raise yourself. You stole every institution whereby the poor provided for their own education, health and old age. You mocked and penalised "bourgeois respectability". You told them again and again that they were nothing but passive victims.
But bad habits are not easily changed. An extra £5 a week will not solve the problem.
That depressing conclusion leads naturally to the most controversial part of Piachaud's paper. No one will argue with his assertion that children's prospects are determined by the physical, social and cultural environment in which they live, the quality and extent of education and health provision - and their families.
But Piachaud reminds us that, in Britain, "families are a private matter" and that "privileged neo-liberals decry any inter- vention in the private sphere as the nanny state or social engineering".
That's not "neo" liberals, Roy, that's any sort of liberal whatsoever, including great names from your own party's past who you are fond of quoting but not reading.
And given half a chance, you'll make sure that any non-privileged person of any party who might want to tell you to get your tanks off his or her breakfast table is redefined as "vulnerable" and "protected" from hearing opinions you don't like. Any readers think I'm paranoid bringing up the freedom of speech angle here? Just keep reading and you'll see why I do.
The laissez faire approach not only abdicates responsibility for the relationship between parents and children.
Yes. Abdicate. Glad you get the idea. Abdicate the hell out of my relationship with my children. Abdicate the hell out of anyone's relationship with their own children. No one made you King, so abdicate. No one much even voted for you, which is why I bless the British electorate. Maybe I have harsh words above for their beer bellies and Vauxhall Carltons, and indeed for their irresponsibility in not ensuring their children eat breakfast, but by God, at least they had the sense to keep Roy Hattersley off their backs.
It prohibits interference in the workings of a corrosive triangle - parents, children and the commercial pressures upon them.
Piachaud calls it "pester power", TV-inspired agitation to own trainers and wear jeans which are embellished with the right label. All over Britain parents are now being put under Harry Potter pressure. Families who cannot afford the assorted tat are made to feel their poverty. Neo-liberals will ask who decides that buying some tawdry toy or contrived game is wrong? The answer is anyone who thinks it is important for children to be sent to school with a breakfast inside them.
The last two sentences are too incoherent to criticise rationally. He seems to be saying that anyone who thinks breakfast is imortant for children also thinks that it is wrong to buy Harry Potter's Quidditch card game. If that's what he means, then one counter-example suffices to disprove the theory: me. My kids eat about a packet of Weetabix a minute and yet I smile benignly on Harry Potter produce. When I cannot afford it, I say No. Try it sometime - of course it can be difficult to get through the socialist indoctrination that every material thing comes to you by right rather than work, but perseverance is good for the soul.
However Hattersley may be saying more: that anyone who thinks breakfast for children is important gets to decide, for others, whether those others should have the Harry Potter duvet cover. Maybe next week he'll tell us how he plans to enforce this ruling. Enforcement is not impossible. True the only societies so far to have managed that degree of control are tyrannies, but there's nothing impossible about horrible tyrannies.
In this, as in other matters, Britain is ridiculously reluctant to impose the slightest constraint on human behaviour. Quebec - a province of a capitalist country which regulates the provision of private medicine -
and threatens to destroy a talking parrot for speaking English
- prohibits all TV advertising aimed at children. So does enlightened Sweden - though protection of vulnerable families is undermined by Murdoch's satellite beamed from Britain.
See, readers I wasn't being paranoid. To Hattersley: Well how dreadful. You mean those ghastly poor people have freedom of speech, too?
Although Piachaud does not say so, TV itself is part of the debilitating problem. Not only do teenagers agitate for their own sets. Educational research confirms that toddlers, with innumerable channels to choose from, have a smaller attention span than those without. They spend their formative years zapping a remote control and, mentally, they zap for the rest of their lives. Even as I read Piachaud's conclusion, I could hear the chorus of derision that his recommendations are bound to provoke.
Give me strength to deride. I'll need it, for behind the derision lies fear. These people want the power to "protect" people from hearing any more derision of them and their notions. One government TV channel would do that job nicely.
He wants "a serious strategy" to improve the quality of children's lives. That has to mean that parents are sometimes denied the right to make the wrong choices.
"Sometimes?" Why stop there? If you're going to stop them making wrong choices about how hard they work at making the kids eat their Shreddies, why not stop them making wrong choices about the rest of their diets, kids and adults both? Now we've dispensed with the idea that even the vulgar have private lives that are not the state's concern, let's have a "serious strategy" to control all the other things they do with their yukky bodies, like who they fornicate with and when and how they propagate their wretched selves.
Neo-liberals insist that freedom must include the liberty to make mistakes. What right does anyone have to worship an idea which sends 50,000 eight to 10-year-olds to school cold and hungry?
The same right you have to worship an idea, socialism, which has slaughtered tens of millions. You're worried about hunger? Let's take a look at how most of those millions died. Famine. Deliberate famine in the old USSR. Accidental but easily predictable famine in China, in North Korea, and all over Africa. Anyone think all that is not really relevant? But it is. The famines came in societies where, to prevent individuals from making mistakes, the state took all the power. Then the state made its own mistakes, and because it was the state talking, its mistakes had power to propagate themselves over millions of lives.
RAILTRACK, the crippled railway company, is lurching towards another disaster as engineers and key staff leave the group in droves.
Industry experts say the exodus could see the biggest outflow of skills and knowledge from the rail industry since privatisation. Many engineers are giving up railway work for jobs building roads and other infrastructure projects. The departures are causing serious delays to important projects including the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line, according to construction groups and consultants who are involved in the work.One construction company heavily involved in railway work told The Times that it had been approached by several senior engineers. “There are a number of engineers who want to come and work for us because they feel so disillusioned there,” said a source in the company, which declined to be named.
“A lot of the understanding of the railway is in the heads of the engineers. You don’t have to lose very many engineers before that knowledge is haemorrhaging,” he added.
A Railtrack spokesman confirmed that the group was short of 200 engineers and that the number of people leaving was “obviously a cause for concern”.
Insiders fear that resignations of skilled engineers will surge after Christmas as construction companies lure away staff disillusioned by constant criticism of Railtrack.
Following the Government’s decision to put the company into administration, key staff have become increasingly demoralised and have lost any incentive to stay with the group, since their share options have evaporated. Staff lost share options worth £12million when Railtrack was put into administration.
The biggest loss to the company so far has been the resignation last month of Tony Fletcher, project director on the West Coast Main Line upgrade, who is moving to the rail division of WS Atkins, the consulting group.
There are fears that Mr Fletcher’s departure will prompt other senior staff to look for new employers. Richard Clare, chairman of EC Harris, a consulting engineering group involved in the West Coast Main Line work, said: “He had a strong following and many people on that project are now wondering what will happen to them.”
Meanwhile, Stephen Byers, the Transport Secretary, said yesterday that a successor to Railtrack should be running in less than a year.
Further extracts from the diary kept by Harris from April last year revealed that after attacking Columbine high school, he and Klebold planned to 'ravage' the neighbourhood, kill 500 people and then, if they survived, 'hijack an airplane and crash it into a major city', the sheriff, John Stone, said. The intended target was New York City.
Reminds me of a commercial art studio where I worked for three months. The day I joined, the girl at the next desk said, "You'll be fired in three months. It's nothing personal. Everyone is. I'll be out myself in a few days time." The idea was to get rid of staff before they were employed long enough to acquire some legal right or other - yet another illustration of how our wonderful employee protection laws really work. I duly passed on the same info to my successor.
Back to the law. Here's a joke: Question: "What do you call eight dead lawyers?" Answer: "A start." Now here's the background to the joke. Several years ago, a man went on a killing spree in a US law firm, killing eight. I think you'll agree that the witticism is not quite so funny once you know that. But the fact is, enough people thought it was funny to enable the joke to cross the Atlantic within days. It has to be said that, now that death has replaced sex as our biggest taboo, sick jokes about death will naturally fall on fertile ground. Yet even allowing for that factor the legal profession ought to be worried that hostility to their doings has become so widespread that everyone immediately sees the humour in dead lawyers. I find this sad. My late father was a lawyer. I suppose he was just too old fashioned to see the appeal in acting like the lawyers described in The Daily Outrage. (BTW if you want to see a really depressing account of the effect of the litigation culture on ordinary human feeling, search that site for the name of "Sergio Jimenez").