The Edge of England's Sword

Blogs I'm Enjoying at the Moment

I'm heading off for a few days holiday, but shall try to blog anything more on the impeachment malarkey if there's any movement.

In the meantime, I thought I'd give a hat-tip to the blogs I'm really enjoying at the moment. You might find the political make-up surprising:

Oliver Kamm

Damian Counsell

The Norm

Scott Burgess

Peter Briffa (of course)

Samizdata (also of course)

Richard North and Helen Szamuely

Anthony Wells (check out his lengthy guide to UK opinion polling)

and of course my colleagues at The Commons Blog

The list would be longer if some of my favorite bloggers (Natalie, Laban...) weren't on their hols at the moment or posting less than regularly (not something I can really accuse anyone of, so no names, no packdrill).

Impeach this

Amazing. One prominent left-leaning blogger today accused me of having fantasies about impeaching Tony Blair.

I really don't know what to say about that.

Big Fat Loser

I just have to say that this demonstrates just what a big dingus Michael Moore is to use this gesture.

To paraphrase Smash Mouth, he "was looking kinda dumb with his fingers and his thumb in the shape of an L on his forehead."

I mean, really, on top of everything else, he has to do the L-thing?

That's so last century.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

One final point on impeachment

It occurs to me that impeachment may actually have been the subject of implied repeal under the much-derided (by me among others), but nevertheless law of the land, Human Rights Act 1998.

How does the impeachment process as described by the authors square with these provisions?

[Article 6] In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

How can their Lordships assembled be regarded as an "independent and impartial tribunal"? And:

[Article 7] No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed.

An undefined "High Crime/ Misdemeanour" is patently contrary to this article.

I'm sorry, Boris and the rest, but your argument just doesn't stand up. Impeachment is outmoded, irrelevant and, probably, already repealed. Try the castles thing, instead. Can't see where that contravenes the Act...

Don't let Anya near this one

The Tragedy of the Commons affects us all. Yet, there is a simple solution, property rights. If you've ever wanted to see this explained at a pre-K level, check out the Tragedy of the Bunnies.

Belief-O-Matic: a bit rubbish, really

Well call me Kalistos and damn the Act of Settlement. I'm right up there with The Norm in finding Belief-O-Matic a bit rubbish, when all's said and done. Here are my results:

1. Eastern Orthodox (100%)
2. Roman Catholic (100%)
3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (92%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (89%)
5. Seventh Day Adventist (81%)
6. Orthodox Quaker (77%)
7. Orthodox Judaism (73%)
8. Hinduism (66%)
9. Islam (65%)
10. Liberal Quakers (65%)
11. Reform Judaism (64%)
12. Sikhism (64%)
13. Bahá'í Faith (56%)
14. Unitarian Universalism (54%)
15. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (49%)
16. Jehovah's Witness (47%)
17. Scientology (40%)
18. New Thought (38%)
19. Neo-Pagan (36%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (36%)
21. Jainism (31%)
22. Mahayana Buddhism (30%)
23. New Age (28%)
24. Theravada Buddhism (28%)
25. Secular Humanism (20%)
26. Nontheist (15%)
27. Taoism (12%)

And this with me giving the thumbs up to limited abortion and homosexuality within my conservative worldview. Perhaps they somehow knew that George will be baptised Catholic.

Still, as The Norm also points out, the former Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Wadham 1972, now a chap with a very impressive hat, takes a rather, erm, inclusive view of the statement, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Now that's a broad church.

Impeachable Argument

I am unimpressed by the constitutional argument contained in the impeachblair.org document, now that I have had a chance to read it.

In this post, I'm not going to comment on Chapter I, which lays out the case that Blair argued before the House of Commons along lines that were contradicted by strong evidence about which he knew (in other words, that he deliberately misled the House) and also that he entered into a secret pact with President Bush to invade Iraq. That's for another time, although the second allegation provides a nice link to the last precedent in 1848 and the thin evidence provided seems to me stretched in order to make this connection.

Instead, I'm looking in detail at the Constitutional case that impeachment is available to the House of Commons (incontrovertible) and an appropriate recourse in this case given that no other avenue remains open (laughable).

The authors spend a good deal of time laying out their case about the sort of high crimes and misdemeanours impeachment was used to punish and in pointing out that Parliamentary committees have said it would require primary legislation to abolish the procedure, which has not happened. Impeachment is therefore available as an option. That's fine, but it's less relevant to the modern Parliament than the Woolsack.

Where the authors have fallen down, repeatedly and inexplicably, is in ignoring the changes in Parliamentary and Constitutional convention since 1848 and, more importantly, 1805, when the last case was actually brought before their Lordships. The Parliaments of those days would be unrecognizable today. They were Commons of strong (and weak) individuals, where factions and power groups shifted continually within broad frameworks. The Party structure was unknown. Moreover, the Commons was still not dominant; the Lords produced many Ministers and Prime Ministers, and so the Executive and the lower house of the Legislature were not, as is the case today, essentially indivisible.

These two aspects go together to make the argument from history irrelevant when dealing with the impeachment of a member of Parliament, and especially the Prime Minister. Parties have recourse to unseat their leader, as happened to Margaret Thatcher, who had committed none of the alleged crimes detailed by this report (indeed, after the only similar incident, the Falklands War and the sinking of the Belgrano, she was returned with a massively increased majority as the populace roared their approval.) The removal of Margaret Thatcher from the office of Prime Minister is a far more appropriate precedent to consider than the proceedings against Buckingham.

Moreover, in all the precedents given (and I have yet to check this out, but it seems likely) there was not one case of the Commons impeaching one of its own members (the move against Palmerston, which did not get off the ground, is the only one I can see, and his position, as an Irish Lord, was somewhat anomalous). And why should there have been? In the days when impeachment was used to discipline public officials they were, by and large, not members of the House of Commons, and certainly did not gain their office by virtue of their position as MPs if they were. The House of Commons, and the Parties therein, have recourse to discipline their members, even their leaders, without going down the impeachment route.

So to the argument that impeachment is the only course of action left, I say it is not. The Labour Party has not taken any steps to move against its leader. Nor will it (I leave open the question of whether it should). And that is the fundamental flaw in the report's thinking. If an impeachment motion is to have any chance of success, it would need strong support from within the Labour Party. If there was discontent on such a scale, Blair's leadership would already be in jeopardy. It is not (although, of course, a week is a long time in politics). Moreover, such a rebellion would probably split the Labour Party far more surely than the Tories have been split on Europe. It would cast them back into the electoral wilderness from which Blair himself rescued them. It is, quite simply, not going to happen unless the Parliamentary Labour Party loses its senses (although there appears to be a current precedent for a party doing just that). Blair has to go willingly, and for this, unity is required and party discipline must be maintained.

So Parliament, which the authors of the report claim to champion, would in all probability actually thumb its collective nose at any impeachment motion (I should add that for the Tories to lend their support to the motion would be to grant a huge hostage to fortune, allowing opposition parties a chance to yell "Impeachment!" at every turn during their next Ministry, in addition to all the political points I make below).

What the authors have identified, in their clumsy way, is the central problem with British democracy that has been a theme of my blogging since I started in June 2001. The fusion of the Executive and Legilsature has been a disaster for the concept of separation of powers, where impeachment would form a useful check and balance. The authors (and this is especially evident where they talk about American precedents) regard the office of Prime Minister, presumably because it wields the Royal Prerogative, as an equivalent of Royal or Presidential power. This is not the case. To all meaningful intents and purposes, such power has been abolished. The legislature has accrued the power to itself. As such, it is meaningless to talk about impeachment being the recourse of the legislature to abuse of power, because that power is wielded by, and legitimized by the legislature itself. The course the authors argue for requires Parliament to be a profoundly schizophrenic body. That is not the body we have ended up with, like it or not.

A better course of action to prevent the sort of abuse of power the authors see impeachment as a corrective to would be to separate out somehow the executive powers from the legislature, and grant the legislature oversight to check abuse, while still guaranteeing executive freedom so that the executive does not become a creature of the legislature, as it became in the 19th century (perhaps, dare I say it, precisely because of the unbounded nature of impeachment. The way the American Constitution was implemented could have been very different if early Congresses had used impeachments less cautiously.) The point that such a reform would entail a massive upheaval of our present settlement underscores just how inappropriate is the action the report recommends.

One interesting point from the precedents, by the way, is that several were impeached for endeavoring "to subvert the fundamental laws and established government of the realm of England." I cannot think of a better description of the massive handover of legislative and executive authority to a foreign power represented by the transfer of power to Brussels by successive treaties and Acts of Parliament. Yet even there, these acts were legitimized by Parliament. Impeachment would be just as inappropriate there as in this case.

One final point. If the authors are so willing to delve into history, why do they not go back to the source of English liberty, Magna Carta? There they will find the following route to redress of grievance:

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice [sic], make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

So the recourse is simple. Find four Barons to complain to the Queen about her official, the Prime Minister, then with no redress forthcoming (as is likely), they can start seizing castles. That would be just as appropriate and legitimate a course of action as impeachment. It would also be just as silly.

Previous posts on this subject: one, two and three.

Comments open.

A Thought on Terrorism

Terrorists do not want to win.

Think about it. Sure they kill a lot of people (for which I doubt I will ever forgive them), but there are so many more effective targets to hit than either symbolic ones or military ones. There are plenty of effective targets out there that would be easy to attack and inflict real damage.

But more effective targets don't generate the publicity terrorists want. They require a real knowledge of how things work in a modern society work which terrorists don't really have. Otherwise they would realize that non-symbolic targets would cause far more infrastructure damage.

What terrorists do understand is killing. They know their demands will never be met. They don't care. They just want to keep on inflicted pain on others because they believe they are in pain or are victims or they are just sadistic serial killers.

No matter what though, they are not playing this game to win. Terrorists don't want to win. What would they do if they were at peace and no longer able to justify their murderous actions? No, what we need to remember is that terrorists just want to kill.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

What if America was poor?

What would the world be like if America was poor?

I was thinking about how America gets so much criticism for being the "superpower". As an American, I resent this because our power and wealth has protected most of Western Europe and supported many, many countries for decades. Yet the same hands that our outstreched to take our support, slap our faces as soon as the check clears.

So I was wondering what would the world be like if America never recovered economically from World War II. Would as the line goes "England be the smallest county in the Russian Empire"? All of Asia be communist? What would have happened to Germany and Japan and all the other Marshall Plan recipients? And more.

What would would we be living in? Would there have been more wars than there were? Would we have the same technological lifestyle? Would we have gone to the moon? Would we even have satellite TV?

America screws up now and then because afterall, we're only human. But as far as rich uncles go, we are not so bad.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

For those who can't wait

Here are my initial points about why those in the Tory establishment who back the impeachment idea are out of their minds, as made in the comments section of the post below:

The suggested course of action makes no sense, constitutionally, politically or practically. We expect this from the extreme left, but not from the mainstream right.

Constitutionally, the move makes as much sense as bringing back the Star Chamber. Were it to come to trial (see below), it would put the Lords, as judges, in an invidious position, and exposes them to the charge that they are overriding the will of the Commons. Demands for "reform" (read complete emasculation) of the House of Lords will increase, and not unreasonably. There are many vital roles their Lordships play in checking and balancing the power of the Commons. There is no doubt in my mind that this should not be one of them. If anything, the Parliament Acts, by asserting the supremacy of the Commons, made Impeachment unconstitutional.

Politically, the idea is even worse. For the Tory establishment, like The Spectator, to be linked to such an antiquated and anti-democratic (for that is how it will be portrayed) notion simply reaffirms the public image of them as out-of-touch and irrelevant. You may not think the idea crazy, but much of the populace will.

Moreover, and I'm hazy on the details here, which is why I want to read the full report and also see what Erskine May has to say, I'd imagine that a Commons vote would be needed to send the proceedings to the Lords. If Blair can win any vote of confidence easily, he'd surely also win any Commons impeachment vote easily. One is a proxy for the other. So on practical grounds the idea is a non-starter.

There is also the question of the Butler Report to consider. Oborne rattles through the evidence the Report provides but ignores its conclusions. What was the point of having an inquiry in the first place if people are just going to ignore the considered conclusions and recommendations of the presiding judge? That is do-it-yourself constitutionalism. At least when Blair strikes at the Constitution, he has the legitimacy of Parliament to back him up.

All of which, I think backs up my characterization of the Tory establishment supporting this move as insane.

I will add more points when I have had a chance to read the full report, as I said I would on Monday.

Crazy

My views on the insanity of the Impeach Blair idea are below. From that you might surmise what I think of The Spectator's endorsement of the idea.

Barking mad.

UPDATE: The campaign has a website from which you can download the 111-page rationale for impeachment. I'll comment on this once I've had a chance to print it out on Monday. In the meantime, I'm opening comments for this.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Now regular readers of this blog will know that I have little love for Tony Blair. I admire him for his fortitude on terrorism, for his brave stance on Iraq and for his command of British politics, but also consider what he has done to the British constitution unforgivable. I believe he needs to answer for that to history, but should he do so in the form of impeachment?

Consider that Margaret Thatcher was a massively polarizing figure in British politics, leading to a venemous hatred from many on the Left whose worldview she helped discredit utterly (one old Lefty friend of mine has a case of champagne he intends to crack open when she dies; he will not be surprised to discover how tasteless I find that). Yet, as far as I know, no-one ever suggested impeaching Mrs T.

Blair, like Bush, has angered not the populace, but the chattering classes. The difference is that the chattering classes have historically made up much of his party's support. No wonder they should fall on one of their own with such venom.

Yet Blair still commands the confidence of the House and his party. He is still the most popular available choice for Prime Minister by some way. I say let them try impeachment. It will backfire even more spectacularly than the move against President Clinton.

Any Conservative MP who backs this move must be barking mad or playing on his reputation as a loveable eccentric (you know who I'm talking about). If the Tory establishment's tin ear over politics continues to be as bad as Al Gore's, I fully expect to see them backing the move next week.

Too Many Chairshots

I'm a big fan of hardcore legend Mick Foley, aka Cactus Jack, aka Mankind, aka Dude Love, New York Times bestselling author and one of the most intelligent and yet insane wrestlers ever. Mick's a Long Island Democrat, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think some of the things he said in his recent Air America interview demonstrate that he's been thrown through too many tables. Take this, for instance:

Mick Foley says wrestling is to somehow to blame for “this current mess. I believe honestly, and I’ve told Stone Cold this, somewhere around 1998 then-Governor George Bush was watching Raw, and let’s face it, you know he watches the show. He took a look at Stone Cold Steve Austin and said, ‘That’s who I’m going to be.’ Because that’s when the swagger came around and it’s my feeling that if Vince hadn’t copyrighted Texas Rattlesnake, Bush would be calling himself that now.” Marc Maron says John Kerry should start calling himself The War Hero and dressing in fatigues, but Mark Riley says Sgt. Slaughter already had that gimmick.

Erm, yes, Mick. And no doubt Mikhail Gorbachev was so upset by Nikolai Volkoff and the other evil Russians in the 80s that he committed the Soviet Union to perestroika.

But what makes this so odd is that much of the rest of the interview is devoted to Mick ridiculing Brent Bozzell's "smear campaign" when he led the Parents Television Council in a campaign against televised wrestling (which ended badly when Bozzell had to admit to getting some facts wrong and promising never to atack wrestling again, if I recall correctly). But if wrestling can influence a Harvard- and Yale-educated Governor to act badly in imitation of it, then how can you argue that it won't have just that same effect on children?

Yet the interview also reveals just what makes Mick so charismatic. He displays his excellent sense of humor in this segment:

Host Mark Riley talks about being at the RNC in 2000 when The Rock was there and how it caused a media frenzy. He asks Mick if this stuff has an impact on voting. Mick says it does. Some people say the fact that the media covered The Rock at the RNC swayed some voters toward voting Republican. It’s not that The Rock is a Republican, he’s a Democrat with conservative values. Which is what Mick considers himself. “I believe in a lot of Democratic values, but I’m also a gun-loving, homophobic racist.”

I wouldn't bet against The Rock following in Arnie's footsteps in more ways than one, though.

Myers of Keswick, NYC

It suddenly occurred to me that I should let ya'll in on Myers of Keswick just above the Meat Packing District in New York City.

Simply the best homemade Bangers this side of the Atlantic, plus hundreds of other British goods. To walk into this shop is to be swept 3,000 miles away to a small village grocer (in Keswick actually).

He makes Cumberlands, Bangers, Chips, all sorts of pork pies, other pies, sausage rolls, etc.

And they ship.

I know there are other internet food providers, some even specializing in British food. But I can personally vouch for this place. When Iain and I trek to New York City, this is a must stop where we easily buy 15 pounds of sausage (not that we've been able to afford to do that in nearly two years [sigh]).

At any rate, enjoy and Bon Appetit as the late, great Julia always said.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

Whey, it's aal Greek t'me

Of course, if they actually taught people about their classical heritage, then perhaps researchers wouldn't be surprised at the number of Greek influences on North-Eastern architecture. Grey Street in Newcastle is one of the most classically beautiful streets in England, but does the local educational establishment think anyone ought to know about that? Naaaahhhh...

(By the way, check out the use of the 'greengrocer's comma' in the sentence, "The team said Wallsend People's Centre, was one of their favourite buildings." BBC English ain't what she used to be.)

Feminist Crap

I was talking with a good friend the other day and it got me thinking about the women's rights movement. Now I'm all happy that there were these amazing pioneer women before me who fought hard to get me the right to vote and open up all sorts of educational and career opportunities for me.

However, I really do not like the way the older feminists (I call 'em dinosaur feminists) expect me to act like a man in order to be equal to him. What a load of crap!

I'm a chick, not a guy.

The way I see it, the older feminists viewed the world in patriarchal terms and decided that in order for women to be equal, they had have patriarchal power. I'm not even going to go into the sexual revolution and easy divorce stuff.

Now women have all these "choices" but not really. Let's face it, if you are anything but married, working, and a parent, you must be strange. But isn't women's liberation about having choices?

And the men who complain about women having "choices" always forget that we are also the childbearers and (usually) rearers. Choosing to stay home and take care of the kids is as valid as choosing to work (although I deeply believe staying home is best even when finances must be sacrificed). These complaining men forget that they have always had choices, women only recently. Additionally, this "extra" choice (to work and have kids or just have kids) isn't necessarily one that makes a woman's (or a man's) life any easier.

Besides, many studies show that even when offered liberal paternity leave, men rarely take advantage of it.

My point is, I'm tired of being treated like a second-class citizen because I made a choice that goes against the feminist agenda. I am a chick. I had babies (who are peep, peep, peeping away right now so I have to wrap this up). It is essential to human society that someone make babies and raise them to be responsible citizens. I've chosen to concentrate completely at that job.

Peep. Peep. Peep. Got to go.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

Little Help, Please

Okay. I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'd like an expert's opinion, if possible.

Genesis. Adam and Eve. In both the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah, they are the first people. But I'm wondering if Adam and Eve should not be viewed as the first people but as the first Jews.

It makes no sense otherwise. The Jews are God's Chosen People. Wouldn't the Adam and Eve story make sense to them in that context? As Karen Armstrong in her book The Battle For God points out mythos and logos were familiar concepts to the writers of these religious texts. In short, that Moses understood his writing would fall under the category of mythos.

If Adam and Eve are the story of the Jewish Genesis/Creation, then Lilith and the un-named girl make sense. Lilith (I believe) was created like Adam from dust and had no connection to him. The un-named one just freaked Adam out. Eve was made while Adam was asleep and from his rib. This makes Eve deeply connected to Adam and explains why Jewishness descends from the maternal line. It also explains who Cain goes off to live among and who Seth could possible have married - converts.

Which brings me to the Sons of God and the Daughter of Man. Given the Jewish retraints on marrying outside of the faith, having the Sons of God (Jews) marry the Daughters of Man (Gentiles) would naturally be bad on many levels, including the race of giants (perhaps a metaphor for the threat of genetic defects?).

Are there any theology students who can tell me if this theory has ever been advanced before. I came up with it all by myself and I figure it's already a common posit amongst experts or it falls into the it-only-makes-sense-to-Kris category along with my time doesn't exist belief.

Kris Murray
Iain's (odd) Wife

A British "Food Nazi"

This broad Ella Windsor's article in The Spectator entitled "American Food Sucks" is pretty much summed up by the title. The article itself sucks.

Full of self-delusion, self-denial, and plain ignorance, Ms. Windsor clearly dislikes all facets of American life - in particular its food.

She makes the mistake of assuming that Americans can not stop eating when served a large portion. She is clearly ignorant of the popularity of "doggy bags". And she very clearly does not value value for money.

But worst of all, she assumes that all Americans eat out all the time at fast food and chain restaurants. This is so NOT true.

Ridiculous statements abound. She complains about the famous NYC deli over-sized sandwiches - it's a very local tradition but Ms. Windsor seems to think that all pastrami sandwiches throughout the land come with six inches meat. Dumb ass. Who but the British would complain about abundance?

She spends most of her time complaining about only a handful of restaurants, The Cheesecake Factory (who goes there?) and the obligatory McDonalds (you'd think she's at least try a more original target, say Wendy's). Perhaps if she'd have ventured out into some nicer restaurants she'd have had a nicer experience. It's as if I judged all of England's cuisine based on eating in Angus Steak Houses or Berni Inns.

My favorite though is when she actually complains about getting bread with her grilled turkey sandwich. She wants the cook to not put the bread on and is very upset when the waiter attempts to explain that a grilled sandwich must come as a sandwich. Why Ms. Windsor can't simply place a simple order and remove the offending bread slices herself is beyond me.

Ms. Windsor takes cheap shots at Twinkies because birds don't eat them, yet it does not appear she tried them herself. She is upset that Velveta cheese is a "non-dairy product", well duh. Big deal. American's don't live on this stuff, it's SNACK FOOD. By her reasoning the British must live on crisps.

We do agree on one thing. Ms. Windsor complains about a bright red apple which tastes like cotton wool. I suspect she means the Red Delicious apple. If she does, I, too, find it obnoxiously red and completely undelicious. However, what Ms. Windsor neglects to mention is that the Red Delicious apple is only one of many (say half dozen to a dozen) readily available apple varieties found in just about every grocery store in America. I NEVER buy Red Delicious (or Golden Delicious) apples because I can choose from McIntosh, Granny Smith, Pink Lady, Rome, Fiji, and others.

The prize for ignorant statements however, must be the final one "Perhaps we and the Americans should pay more attention to global gastronomy." The whole reason Americans are so food-obsessed (something Iain noticed immediately) is because we are a nation of immigrants. Nothing evokes "home" as food. America has a huge tradition of paying attention to "global gastronomy" - especially after World War II. So that part of her closing statements reveals her abiding stupidity and ignorance. But the final kicker is the completely inane statement that if "We" (I assume she means the British) "could form a food think tank to wean the US off sugar and on to snails, squid and sushi. It would make us all healthier — and happier." WHAT?!? First of all, who lives on snails, squid and sushi? Second of all, squid in the form of Calamari is under practically every other restaurant menu's appetizer section. My 3 1/2 year old daughter has eaten squid in Calamari form. And Helen loves sushi, another ubiquitous restaurant here in America. Indeed, you can buy ready-made sushi in supermarkets now. And why should American eating habits make everyone one else "all healthier - and happier"? Lame, lame, lame.

I don't know when Ms. Windsor spent her four years in the US but clearly it was either in some remote corner of Wyoming with a few days' vacation in NYC or it was so long ago that if she came over now she wouldn't recognize the place.

You will note that I have not said one disparaging thing about British food or its nutritional value. I like British cooking but recognize that it's quality cuts across a wide spectrum. What Ms. Windsor neglects to realize is what's true of Britain is also true of America. Rather than ridiculing our love of food (and our local towns pride in local foodstuffs), perhaps she might consider embracing variety (being a "spice" and all) and try some real American food prepared at home or in small local restaurants. Oh and she's a big dingus.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

Look Over There - a Property Right!

A while ago, I wrote about Cass Sunstein's view that property rights are a creation of law and do not exist without them. This elicited a little criticism from people whose views I respect in the comments box. Interestingly, Don Boudreaux og GMU has observed Spontaneous Property Rights developing in the university parking lot.

Yet Boudreaux views this as law. By his reckoning,

Law is so much more vast than legislation, and so much richer. Much of it – perhaps even most of it – isn’t written down anywhere. It’s embodied in people’s expectations about how others will act and about how others expect each of us to act under various circumstances.

By this definition, he's right (I haven't read the Hayek volume he references, shame on me). Law and right become correlatives. I'm not sure it's what Sunstein and Holmes meant, though. If it is, their statements are, in the philosophical sense, redundant.

Techie Alert!

My colleague Braden Cox is among many of the brightest names in the free-market technology movement who have come together to form The Technology Liberation Front. They're taking on the establishment, and with the talent they've gathered, they've got a good chance of winning. If you want to keep the government out of your computers, these are the types that'll help acheive that.

Putting Wes Clark in his place

Bruce Anderson is dubious about whether Sir Mike Jackson is a good Chief of the General Staff, because he seems only too willing to inflict the curse of New Labour on it:

In Britain today, we cannot run a decent A-level system. Ill people go to hospital, and come out with life-threatening infections. In many areas the police have given up pursuing crimes against property. Wherever the public sector is put under pressure, it crumbles into waste and inefficiency. There is one spectacular exception: the army. It would be a bizarre perversion of priorities if the government were to try to deprive the army of the institutions which make it work. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Those who have known Mike Jackson would have assumed that in his dealings with ministers, he would have pressed points. In his previous career, he had never shown much enthusiasm for Whitehall. There were no suggestions that he would succumb to the civil servants’ blandishments or to the politicians’ charm. Yet something appears to have gone wrong. It looks as if the old hound-dog has become toothless and will merely slink to his basket. If so, what a disappointment. The British army and its fighting élan deserve better than to be treated as General Jackson’s surgeon treated the bags under his eyes.

But I'm prepared to forgive him his sins (at this stage at least) because of the masterly way he put former Presidential candidate and Michael Moore favorite Wes Clark in his place in Kosovo:

When it came to seeing off political nonsense, he had form. While in charge of British troops in Kosovo he had come under the command of Wes Clark, then the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur). General Clark, a prickly, pompous, bleating creature, by many leagues the worst Saceur ever, had been appointed by President Clinton because they both came from Arkansas. He had no other qualification and serious nuisance value. At one stage, the Russians decided to seize Pristina airport. General Clark ordered General Jackson to stop them. Mike Jackson refused: ‘I’m not going to be the man who started the third world war.’

He was right. There was no need for a confrontation over such a trivial issue. Around that time, Wes Clark arrived at Mike Jackson’s HQ. It consisted of a tent, a camp bed, a collapsible desk, a couple of chairs and a bottle of Grouse. Observing the last, General Clark said, ‘As I’m sure you know, Mike, all forces under my command are dry.’

The reply was predictable. ‘As I’m sure you know, General, discipline is a national matter. You said “dry”. You’re right, I am.’ Reaching for the bottle, ‘Fancy a Scotch?’

Must remember that one...

Nonplussed

The Spectator's puzzling flirtation with grotesque anti-American distortions continues with this bizarre tirade against American food. Now both Kris and I are only too used to defending British food against ignorant American attacks, but this is the first time either of us has had to do the reverse. I think I'll let her handle this one.

Three Years Old and then some

By the way, in my business-enforced absence, I forgot to note the third anniversary of my blogging. My first post was on June 11, 2001. I'm actually older than Instapundit. Golly....

We Should All Laud Lord Learie

By the way, also at the site that hosts that potted biography of Ian Wright is a useful little introduction to the amazing man who was Learie, Lord Constantine.

Learie Constantine was a sort of non-American Anglosphere version of Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks and Colin Powell combined, who was elevated to the House of Lords for his acheivement in all walks of life.

His lodger and co-author, CLR James, was the author of the seminal work on Toussaint and the revolution in Haiti, The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, and one of the greatest works of sporting literature ever, Beyond a Boundary. If you want to understand the Carribean anglosphere, the latter is a must-read.

Wright On

Have I said how much I'm loving Fox Sports World? I got to see an England friendly for the first time in ages as England beat Ukraine 3-0 at the Landfill Stadium in Newcastle. I must say, I was disappointed at how little was heard from the famous Longbenton Ukrainians in the crowd (whose signature graffito, "We've got bigger Volokhs than you," is seen all over High Heaton and environs), and was dismayed, but not surprised, at the reception Kieron Dyer got from the crowd (boo him on the street, or if he ever appears in a Mag shirt again, but not when he's playing for your country, for goodness' sake).

But highlight of the night was undoubtedly the debut goal of Shaun Wright-Phillips, stepson of one of my favorite players, Ian Wright, of Palace, Arsenal and *coughWestHamCelticandBurnleycough* fame. He's a small lad, but he's obviously got his step-dad's self-confidence and that will take him a long way in the game.

If, as a result of this prediction, he suffers an horrendous cruciate ligament injury next weekend, my apologies to his family.

Intelligent Policy?

My MP, the carpet-bagger David Miliband, also "Minister for School Standards," has apparently decided that A-level exams aren't challenging enough, so he's making them easier.

The link to his Telegraph piece explaining the geometric logic behind all this is broken, so I can only link to the Education Editor's commentary, but this sounds pretty Milibandesque to me.

Quoting the views of Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University, Mr Miliband said there were eight different types of intelligence.

These include: spatial, the ability to perceive the visual world accurately; intra-personal, the ability to understand oneself and one's emotions; and bodily-kinesthetic, the ability to use one's body to express oneself and meet goals.

"Because different people are good at different things, it is silly to rely on a single metric of aptitude in measuring achievement," he said.

"Increasingly, our tests and exams are focusing on a broader range of intellectual competence than was traditionally measured by conventional IQ tests."

How on earth does one measure "intrapersonal intelligence"? If I think I'm pretty easy-going but the examiner doesn't, does that mean I get marked down? What about vice versa? Are A-levels to be administered via the psychologist's couch?

Honestly, I ask you.

Mr Miliband is known to some as "Mr. Pointy Head" because of his frightening intelligence. I wonder which of the eight intelligences that is.

Other Rights under Attack

Meanwhile, in Sweden, that famously liberal country, a Pentecontalist preacher has been sentenced to jail for preaching against homosexuality. Freedom of speech, the prosecution argued, does not give the right to offend.

Hmm, how about a Prime Minister pointing out that criticism of his policies offends him and his voters? The new aristocrats of the "liberal" left appear to have reintroduced a crime of lese-majeste by the back door. Can't be long before the rest of continental Europe follows suit.

I can't help thinking John Milton might have had something to say on this subject.

Tomorrow, however...

Those eight men arrested in anti-terror raids in the UK have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder and launch radioactive or chemical attacks. In addition, and of particular interest to me given where I work:

One of them was also charged with having plans which could have been used as the basis for a terror attack on the New York Stock Exchange, the IMF in Washington and Citigroup in New York.

They were charged as time ran out on the extended habeas corpus allowed under the Terrorism Act, and it seems some in law enforcement are unhappy they had to charge them, with all the publicity that entails, so soon.

This is a tough one. Habeas corpus is there to protect Britons from abuse by their masters, not the other way around, yet I'd like to know just how many of the following are British citizens:

The eight men are Dhiren Barot, 32, of Willesden, London, Omar Abdul Rehman, 20, of Bushey, Herts, Zia Ul Haq, 25, of Paddington, London, Abdul Aziz Jalil, 31, of Luton, Beds, Nadeem Tarmohammed, 26, of Willesden, London, Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, 24, of Harrow, Middlesex, Quaisar Shaffi, 25, of Willesden, London, and Junade Feroze, of Blackburn, Lancs.

I've said before, many times, that I don't want to see the UK going down the road that it went down in discrimating against Catholics on the perfectly reasonable grounds that quite a few of them at one time served another master than the Crown. I think with the current climate, and especially if the allegations against these men are true, that is going to be difficult. The alternative solution that New Labour seems so keen on is to deprive everyone of their civil liberties in the name of public safety.

At the end of the day, however, it is not Blair and Blunkett who are to blame, but those who plan terrorism. That makes the prosecution of the war on terror all the more important in my book. Without these evil men, the lesser evils of New Labour authoritarianism would be impossible to justify.

Slow news day, obviously

This is news?

Tomorrow, former ER actor cuts toenails.

Some observations inspired by the games of the XXIVth Olympiad of the modern era

A few things occur to me in relation to the Anglosphere:

1. I imagine John Howard's chances of beating Mark Latham will
increase now Ian Thorpe has beaten Michael Phelps. From what I could
see, Thorpe's lack of form had contributed to Australian
self-questioning.

2. Interesting to see that NBC has imported British commentators on
certain sports where they are weak, like cycling, but not commentators
from, say, Italy, where they know much more about the sport in
question.

3. I should like to see a poll in various countries ask questions like this:

"If your country is out of the running for a medal in sport x, which
country would you like to see win instead?"

I suspect that Brits will pick Australia well before any Continental
nation, that Americans would pick Britain or Canada before Latin America and
that Australians would pick New Zealand or America before South Asian
neighbors. Canadians, many of whom define themselves as not being American, might put America way down the list, and it would be interesting to see what India, Kenya and South Africa said, but I have a feeling that overall the Anglosphere hypothesis might receive some useful empirical backing from such a poll. If anyone knows of anything like that, please let me know.

0 Bishops = More Sense

If the first King of England and Scotland, James I and VI, had a catchphrase, it was, "No bishops, no king." I'm thinking more and more that this was a bargain we should have taken him up on. I've tangled with Bishops more than once in my career, although, strangely, the only Bishops I have ever been on the same side as are the Rt Rev Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, and a young fellow then named Canon Rowan Williams, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, in an Oxford Union debate opposing the motion, "(This House Believes) That Man Made God in his Own Image." The other two speakers on the opposition benches were Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald, former Prime Minister of Ireland and, erm, me. Oh, and I suppose I was on the same side as the new Bishop of Hereford, who was a crafty off-spinner for the College team (and a splendid chap to boot).

Anyway, these rare instances aside, I tend to find disagreement in anything any member of the Bench of Bishops or there colleagues outside Parliament has to say on social issues. Laban Tall covers another example with his usual style. The mitred moron in question here has condemned the hymn, "I vow to thee my country," sung at my wedding in the only similarity that celebration had to the late Princess of Wales' besides both being set in a Church) in the following terms (culled from the Telegraph's coverage):

The Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, said the hymn's popularity was a symptom of a "dangerous" increase in English nationalism which had parallels with the rise of Nazism.

Its associations with the British empire were also questionable in a multi-faith, multi-cultural society. ...

The bishop said the words, written by Sir Cecil Spring-Rice in 1918, were "totally heretical" because they suggested that people should pledge their allegiance to their country before God.

"My country, right or wrong is not an appropriate sentiment for Christians to uphold," he said.

He had no objection to the second verse but would not allow the first to be sung at any of his services and urged clergy to think "long and hard" before permitting it.

Bishop Lowe criticised the hymn in Crux, the Manchester diocesan newsletter.

"I quoted it as one example of my concerns about growing nationalism," he told the Telegraph. "While I am proud to be English, it is dangerous for a nation to suggest that our culture is somehow superior to others."

The bishop said the emergence of nationalism had been evident during the Euro 2004 football tournament and recent military anniversaries such as D-Day.

"It is like American culture where there is this view that America is the land of the free when we know it is not. But there are those in America who want to maintain that it is and want to impose their understanding, their culture, their way of doing things on everybody else. That is dangerous."

Well, aside from inciting racial hatred against Americans, what else is reprehensible about this view? Take a look at the words:

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above, Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love: The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test, That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best; The love that never falters, the love that pays the price, The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness and all her paths are peace.

It takes a dolt or a clerical collar a size too tight not to realise that the second verse is the ideal. The Kingdom of Heaven transcends "earthly" considerations. "Soul by soul" it shall dispense of the need for the sort of sacrifice the first verse celebrates which, regrettably, is necessary from time to time. If anything, the hymn underlines the point that the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven shall erase the nation state, and a good thing too.

If this is a parallel to the rise of Nazism, then I'm a Dutchman.

All gas and gaiters, indeed.

Some Thoughts About the Future

I'm thinking of concentrating solely on British and Anglosphere issues on this blog from now on. My environmental work is over at The Commons Blog and my commentaries on science/studies will almost always be available at the CEI site. I have nothing invested in this Presidential election apart from a slightly greater antipathy to Kerry than to Bush, as the former is marginally worse than the latter in most spheres (the latter has shown himself as devoid of ideas as John Major, and about as competent, yet the former shows all of Tony Blair's bad points and none of his good).

UPDATE, Aug. 17, 8:56 PM: Actually, that's overstated. In most ways, the President is much better than John Major, in that he is providing decisive and principled leadership on the most important foreign policy issue of the time. Iraq could have been handled better, but I'm not sure how any of the 20/20 hindsight gang's suggested policies would improve the situation. My problem with the President comes with his domestic agenda, where he's failed to cut Federal spending to anywhere near the levels it should be, and has simply allowed bureaucrats to carry on, erm, bureaucratizing. Kerry, however, would be far worse on all scores. I should restate the above as "I have a mild antipathy to much of the President's inactivity in important areas, but a major antipathy to virtually every proposal Kerry has." I should add that these are purely personal views.

So I shall return this blog to what was originally its unique selling proposition: a view of British and European politics and culture from an ex-pat in America, with the occasional reverse explanation thrown in. My co-bloggers, all sidelined for one reason or another at the moment, are still welcome to contribute whatever they wish, of course.

And I shall redouble my efforts at getting the spam problem cleaned up (25,000 spam comments and counting), after which, I shall reopen comments, taking as my maxim Thomas Sowell's comments in the latest issue of The American Enterprise: "I just have a thick hide and disregard what silly people say."

Talking of which, I am to be an Associate Editor of that magazine from September.

Grateful for any comments on the future direction of this blog. If things work right, I may even move to a different server with a new design.

American agressors in, erm, 1945

I'm used to the BBC "Have your say" sites being mouthpieces for assorted kooks, cranks and anti-Americans from around the world, but the contributions on BBC Have Your Say | US military shake-up: Your views take the biscuit. Alongside the usual "We don't want your troops and dollars' rants is this one:

I am delighted by the idea that the US troops will largely be removed. Russia and France had removed their troops by 1994, leaving only the Americans and British. They are occupying military forces that invaded in 1945. The world has changed in 60 years, and there is has been no threat of war either from or against Germany in over a decade. Permanent removal is long overdue, and the fact that they are even here is seen simply as US domination and imperialism. They have started down the right path, now we just have to hope for complete withdrawal in the future... JP, American immigrant to Germany

Emphasis added.

Well, what do you say to that? William Joyce would be nodding his head in agreement.