Oct 14, 2019 | Politics
From How the EU created a cadre of loyal academics – CapX
EU positivity is moulded from years of association born not simply of certification, but of financing. The EU is a massive donor and awarder of grants, even if it is not of course handing out its own money. But the association of grant and grantee, in fields and subjects chosen by the EU’s civil service, under systems run by its fellow travellers, encourages the recruitment, the development, and the progression of a pro-EU cadre – whether they are fully aware of it or not. This is particularly clear with respect to academics, from whom over October we can expect to hear a great deal as they are drafted in to act as commentators.
The problems arising from the EU funding academic research are several.
Firstly, the bidding system and scale of money available inevitably risks skewing academic research along the EU’s pro-integration priorities. Secondly, the selection points and networking system heavily risks openly pushing bids and bidders themselves along pro-EU lines. Thirdly, the nature of the inducements generates an elite of EU-specialists, whose starting point is one of explaining rather than challenging the process, and who are self-recruited from pro-EU academics. It also then supports the career progression of those professionals, bridging academia, thinktanks, governance, and the private sector. Finally, can only encourage a measure of professional hostility to Euroscepticism.
In other words, the mass funding scheme supports the creation of a pro-EU elite that has, to varying degrees, bought into supporting the system and professionally engaging with it – which to be fair is precisely why the funding streams were originally set up.
Oct 8, 2019 | Politics
Speech by Davy Crockett (House of Representatives 1827 -1831, and 1833 -1835) in regards giving government relief to the widow of a Naval officer:
Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.
I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
Comments Hal Gordon, a former speechwriter at Reagan White House in “Drain the Swamp”? Davy Crockett Did It With a Speech | Vital Speeches:
When Crockett sat down, the bill was dead. He had shamed it to death. Furthermore, according to [his biographer and friend Edward] Ellis, not a single member of Congress offered to join him in contributing a week’s pay for the relief of poor widow, about whose plight so many of them had waxed eloquent when they thought they were going to be spending the taxpayers’ money rather than their own.
At that time, the records of the House did not include transcripts of speeches made on the floor. So some historians have questioned the authenticity of Crockett’s speech. But Crockett is known to have opposed a similar bill in 1828, and the speech certainly sounds like him.
So does the observation that Ellis says Crockett made to him in private afterwards:
There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money—and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.
Oct 8, 2019 | Culture
Margaret Thatcher’s speech launching “Free Enterprise Week” (1975 July 1).
Recently you have changed your name from Aims of Industry to Aims for Freedom and Enterprise. I welcome that change—it is timely and it is vital.
Free Enterprise is an essential part of Britain’s future. Free Enterprise provides the jobs—nearly three quarters of all employment—and my goodness we need those jobs. Free Enterprise provides the exports—nearly 95%; of all we sell abroad—and my goodness we need those exports. Free Enterprise creates the wealth—nearly three thousand million pounds were paid in taxation last year—and my goodness this Government needs money. Free Enterprise provides the inventiveness—there would be no North Sea Oil without Free Enterprise who found it and developed it. (What a curious fact it is that it was Tony Benn who turned on the first drop of free enterprise oil. His appointment is the only known example of pouring trouble on oily waters.)
Yes—jobs, exports, wealth and inventiveness. These four—they are the basis of our prosperity. They depend on Free Enterprise.
All you need now is a Government that believes in it. A Government that would encourage a flourishing, profitable free enterprise which produces the goods. Jobs, exports, wealth and inventiveness. Certainly important enough matters to be celebrated on a special day.
Free Enterprise Day is dedicated to the destruction of one of the most dangerous of modern myths. There is an increasing belief that freedom is divisible. That you can have political freedom and economic slavery. That you can preserve intellectual freedom and destroy commercial independence. That you can fight for freedom of speech and yet overthrow freedom of enterprise.
No myth is more dangerous. Freedom is indivisible. Once the State controls the means of production, distribution and exchange, all of us become dependent upon it. The whole nation becomes dependent upon the decisions of the bureaucracy and the politicians. And it is obviously so. If the State is the only source of capital, then only those ideas, those people, and those aims which are approved by the State can get the money for development.
If the State is the only source of patronage, then only those causes, those ideals and those charities which commend themselves to the State can raise the money that they need.
If the State is the only employer, where is the real freedom to choose of the employer?
If the State is the only provider of housing, where can the tenant look for alternative accommodation?
If the State is the only shareholder, where can the director the manager or shop-floor worker look for independent support?
But, they say, you are putting forward an extreme choice. You are talking about total state takeover. That could not happen here. Couldn’t it?.
Is not the real fact that this Government is taking the country faster towards the centralised state than any previous Government?
Month by month, almost day by day, the freedom of free enterprise is curtailed and the power of the State enhanced.
That is why we have a two-fold purpose today.
First, to say “STOP” to the extension of State control, and second, to start the extension of freedom.
But, say the opponents of free enterprise you have to restrict economic freedom to gain political freedom.
You have to control private enterprise in order to give more power to the people. What nonsense.
Not one single measure produced by any Socialist Government has extended power to the people.
They have given much more power to bureaucrats, much more power to extremists, much more power to Socialist Ministers.
But it is power to the people which only free enterprise can provide.
Power is primarily the power of choice.
Choice in small things, and in big things—the food you buy, the house you rent or the home you own; the clothes you wear or the holidays you choose. Where you invest—the risks you take.
All these individual choices are a fundamental part of freedom, and free enterprise makes them possible.
The ideal of freedom has been part of our history since history began.
That of enterprise has been with us as long.
Free enterprise has been the engine which created the wealth which freed hundreds of millions of people from the day-long struggle; every day a battle merely to keep body and soul together.
It has enabled the arts to flourish. And to become, not just the preserve of the rich, but to be enjoyed by men and women from every walk of life.
It has created the wealth to finance science and technology; to continue the struggle to overcome the scourges of poverty and disease (not least in the third world).
Beyond these benefits, priceless in themselves, free enterprise has enabled the creative and aquisitive urges of man to be given expression in a way which benefits all members of society. [end p4]
Any man may test his skill, his capacity and his will to work, his tenacity and his vision against the demands of the market place and the customer.
The captains of industry and the stall-holders in the market place are both parts of the free enterprise system. They both exist to serve their customers, you and me, and those like us overseas.
They each know that success or failure depends upon how well they serve us.
So free enterprise benefits the customer in satisfying his demands.
It benefits the entrepreneur, in giving him an outlet for his skills and drive.
It benefits the worker, not only as a consumer, but by creating profitable firms and well paid jobs.
It benefits Britain by creating that surplus of wealth which improves not only material standards but the cultural and artistic standards of life too.
It benefits the poor, the old, and the handicapped by creating that wealth which alone can pay for their care.
Who then, opposes free enterprise—who wishes it ill and works for its destruction.
Those who hate free enterprise and those who have no patience with ideas of individual freedom.
Those who would end freedom of choice for the customer—and freedom of choice of employer, for the employee too.
Once the customer is dependent on the State for all his needs;
Once the worker can turn only to the State for work;
Once there is no possibility of the promotion of the Arts except by patronage of the State;
Then, not only Enterprise, but freedom itself is destroyed.
The trouble is the first steps down that road are tempting.
It is so easy to believe that freedom means giving greater power to politicians and officials of the State.
It is so easy to believe that by punishing the creators of wealth, the pains of poverty can be eased.
Britain has been tempted too far down that path.
So let free enterprise fight back now, not for itself but for all those who value freedom itself.
That is why today is a day of such significance.
Free Enterprise Day—July 1st 1975 marks the beginning of the fight back for freedom.
It is a battle we dare not lose.
Oct 8, 2019 | Politics
“On June 27, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy slipped out of the Supreme Court building and traveled to the White House to inform President Donald Trump that he was retiring. The news touched off a media maelstrom, triggering a confirmation process that his successor, Brett Kavanaugh, would denounce three months later as a “national disgrace” and a “circus.”
“At this special event and based on her new, #1 bestselling book (with co-author Carrie Lynn Severino), “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court,” Mollie Hemingway discusses the true story of what really happened, based on exclusive interviews of more than 100 people—including the President of the U.S., several Supreme Court justices, high-ranking White House and Department of Justice officials, and dozens of senators.
“Nasty politics and unverified accusations of sexual assault became weapons in a ruthless campaign of personal destruction. The Supreme Court has become the arbiter of America’s most vexing and divisive disputes. With the stakes of each vacancy incalculably high, has the incentive to destroy a nominee become irresistible? Will the next time a nominee promises to change the balance of the Court be even uglier and how will this affect the future of America?”
Oct 7, 2019 | Philosophy, Politics
From Yang2020 – Andrew Yang for President:
- Create a Department of the Attention Economy that focuses specifically on smartphones, social media, gaming and chat apps and how to responsibly design and use them, including age restrictions and guidelines.
- Create a “best practices” design philosophy for the industry to minimize the antisocial impacts of these technologies on children who are using them….
Sounds pretty innocuous (and unnecessary as the market is far better at doing these things than a tax-payer subsidized committee of political appointees), until we get to the last point:
- Direct the Department to investigate the regulation of certain companies and apps. Many of these companies essentially function as public utilities and news sources – we used to regulate broadcast networks, newspapers and phone companies. We need to do the same thing to Facebook, Twitter, Snap and other companies now that they are the primary ways people both receive information and communicate with each other.
So the New York Times, WaPo and WSJ are like the phone company? So much for the first amendment. And don’t get too successful at what you do — or if you are a “certain” company on Yang’s crap list, you will become a “public utility” and lose your rights under Yang style “public interest” censorship. Yang’s “Human-Centered Capitalism” sounds a lot of like old fashioned fascism mixed with socialist-style welfare schemes.
Who is the public interest? “C’est Moi!” says Fuhrer Yang.
For those “Yang Gang’ers” who welcome federal censorship under a Yang Presidency, ask yourself if you would like the President to have such powers under a Trump government?
(Yang has removed from his site his previous call for a Federal Censor or “News Ombudsman” who will provide “penalties for persistent and destructive misstatements that undermine public discourse.”)
Oct 6, 2019 | Culture
Is discrimination the reason behind economic inequality in the United States? Thomas Sowell dismisses that question with a newly revised edition of his book Discrimination and Disparities.
He sits down with Peter Robinson to discuss the long history of disparities among humans around the world and throughout time. He argues that discrimination has significantly less of a role to play in inequality than contemporary politicians give it credit for, and that something as incontrovertible as birth order of children has a more significant and statistically higher impact on success than discrimination. He discusses why parental attention is the most important aspect of a child’s intellectual development.
Sowell goes on to break down different minority groups around the world who went on to have more economic and political success than their majority counterparts, such as the Indians in East Africa, Jewish people in Eastern Europe, Cubans in the United States, and the Chinese in Malaysia. He argues that there is an underlying assumption that if discrimination was absent equality would prevail, which historically has been proven wrong.
Sowell goes on to discuss changes in crime rates and poverty since the expansion of US welfare programs in the 1960s and how this has had a huge impact on the success of African Americans. He talks about his own experience growing up in New York, how housing projects used to be considered a positive place to live, and his experience as the first member of his family to enter the seventh grade. Robinson asks Sowell his thoughts on the case for reparations currently being made in Congress, and Sowell presents an argument about why a plan for reparations is not only illogical but also impossible to implement, with so many US citizens’ ancestors arriving long after the Civil War. He also explains that slavery was common throughout the known world for thousands of years and that abolition movements didn’t begin anywhere in the world until the late 18th century. He reminds us that the United States was not the only country guilty of participating in slavery and yet is the only country debating reparations.
Oct 5, 2019 | Arts
Walt Whitman composed this elegy, or mourning poem, “O Captain! My Captain!” after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in 1865.
O Captain! My Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain! My Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills;
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head;
It is some dream that on the deck,
You’ve fallen cold and dead.
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip, the victor ship, comes in with object won;
Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells!
But I, with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
Jul 31, 2019 | Arts
by Yvor Winters (1900-1968)
Incarnate for our marriage you appeared,
Flesh living in the spirit and endeared
By minor graces and slow, sensual change.
Through every nerve we made our spirits range.
We fed our minds on every mortal thing:
The lacy fronds of carrots in the spring,
Their flesh sweet on the tongue, the salty wine
From bitter grapes, which gathered through the vine
The mineral drouth of autumn concentrate,
Wild spring in dream escaping the debate
Of flesh and spirit on those vernal nights,
Its resolution in naive delights,
The young kids bleating softly in the rain––
All this to pass, not to return again.
And when I found your flesh did not resist,
It was the living spirit that I kissed,
It was the spirit’s change in which I lay:
Thus, mind in mind we waited for the day.
When flesh shall fall away, and, falling, stand
Wrinkling with shadow over face and hand,
Still I shall meet you on the verge of dust
And know you as a faithful vestige must.
And, in commemoration of our lust,
May our heirs seal us in a single urn,
A single spirit never to return.
Jul 27, 2019 | Politics
Writes Amy Peikoff :
What follows is an excerpted and annotated version of the FTC’s “Stipulated Order” representing its “Settlement” with Facebook. It’s dated July 24. I’m giving you the lowlights, as I see them, plus my “translations.”
Some nuggets from Amy’s offhand analysis:
“Defendant agrees that the Department of Justice shall have the same rights as the Commission to engage in compliance monitoring as provided by Part XV of the Decision and Order set forth in Attachment A, as well as the same right as the Associate Director for Enforcement for the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Commission provided under
Part VIII.B to approve the person(s) selected to conduct the Assessments described in Part VIII of the Decision and Order set forth in Attachment A, subject to any applicable law or regulation.” (page 4)
Translation: Anything the FTC can get or do as a result of this “settlement,” so can the DOJ. This becomes particularly relevant when you see some of the last paragraphs of the order, the ones which inspired the title of this blog post.
“If a User deletes an individual piece of Covered Information but does not delete his or her account, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require deletion or de-identification of metadata (e.g., logs of User activity) that may remain associated with the User’s account after the User has deleted such information.” (page 6)
Translation: All your metadata are belong to the DOJ, unless you delete your entire account in time. (And will that really work anyway, or is it already too late?) Deleting individual pieces of data is inadequate to protect your privacy.
Amy also writes that she is applying for non-profit status for an organization to fight this power-grab by the FTC and DOJ:
“Would you like to help me do whatever is possible, using my unique theory of the proper legal protection of privacy, to fight this power-grab by the FTC and DOJ? If so, your donations are most welcome here. Make sure to add “FTC” in the optional comment field, and it will be earmarked appropriately. I’m in the process of applying for non-profit, 501 c(3) status, and so I’ll do everything possible to ensure your donation is tax-deductible, and will keep you posted about the status of the application.”
Link: FTC-Facebook “Settlement”: All your data are belong to DOJ
