Back from the Dead!

Good to see that Peter is back blogging after a six month hiatus

Why Stop There?

William Sjostrom notes how, with the marginalisation of "Old Labour", the schizophrenic LibDems have rebranded themselves as the party of appeasers. Meanwhile Alex Singleton is surprised to see glimmers of free-market-thinking underneath all the pomposity as their small business spokesman calls for the UK's Department of Trade and Industry to be scrapped.

I think this is an excellent idea but I don't see why one should stop at the DTI. There is a conflation of purposes in the selection of Government Departments and allocation of ministers. The official purpose of each department is as it is described. The real purpose is to award a ministerial title to someone it is considered desirable to have within the government cabinet. The problem is that these departments become fiefdoms, either of the minister concerned, or even worse of the mandarin(s) nominally answerable to that minister. Once you have a department of "stuff" it becomes imperative to "do something" about that "stuff". This perpetuates the initiative-driven interventionist government model. Far better to just assemble a cabinet of individuals without specific responsibility and scrap all these departments.

PG-Rated

If anyone wonders why there is precious little "18-Rated" material or language here: This is why.

(Even though this is more like my own experience!)

Not so fast!

I'm going to have to take issue with John about the proposal for additional levies on new houses. Local authorities already use development levies on new planning permissions for quite a big chunk of their income. I have written about this before. John conditionally approves of such a policy:

"The Irish Independent reports this morning that some county councils are so short of funds that they will impose levies of "up to €28,000" on all new houses. If this is the beginning of real local government with local fiscal authority, then I'm in favor of this. The money is supposed to be for infrastructural improvements in the counties."

The problem with - let's call this by its correct name - this development tax is that it disproportionately targets

a) Housebuyers, particularly first-time buyers,
b) Those who want to improve their premises,
c) Startup businesses

and disadvantages those against existing homeowners and existing businesses. There can be no justification for this lopsided tax and that is even before you take into account the effect it would have on house prices.

{I do agree with the rest of his point, particularly on the appalling benchmarking nightmare and the desirability of proper, devolved local government.}

Louth is Lovely

It takes Jon 1 hour & 40 minutes to drive the 27 km from Greystones to Dublin Airport. Meanwhile, thanks to the M1 completed to Dundalk, I can manage it in about 45 minutes!

Leaving Carlingford

I'd been dreading last Saturday for a few weeks. It was the day we were due to move house. It's not exactly because of sentimental reasons - although I can't deny a wrench in leaving the first house we built for ourselves, in which my son took his first steps and with that view - more that I imagined the moving itself would be a nightmare. It wasn't. The house we will be renting for the next year while we build our new house is perfect for our needs in every aspect, accommodation (plenty of space for the three, soon-to-be-four, of us), location (Blackrock, where we are building), except for one: Internet. We still have no land-line, never mind broadband so blogging will be strictly work hours only until that is rectified.

Sheridan of Arabia

Gavin is going to Iraq!. Call by and offer your help/advice/thoughts/financial assistance/warnings!

Abortion

Interesting debate over at Samizdata about abortion. I have to say that it perplexes me how so many normally clear-thinking commentators such as Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh take refuge in the standard comforting evasions about abortion. In professing themselves to be "pro-choice" it is as if they wish to parade their socially-liberal credentials. But abortion is not a simple individual social freedom involving as it does two parties: the mother and the foetus. I am heartened by the more considered views of some Samizdata contributors. The absolutist position of abortion-rights advocates is that a woman should have the right to choose to kill a perfectly viable foetus (partial-birth abortions). This is based on the absurd premise that a foetus only becomes a person at birth. The absolutist Pro-Lifers offer a similarly absurd position, that life begins at conception. It seems to me that a majority of people would support legal abortion in the first trimester and a ban after that point. This may seem to be an arbitrary fudge but on closer examination it's not. All you need to do is accept two principles

1. A person has the right not to be killed

2. No woman should be compelled to gestate a foetus against her will.

Thus deliberate killing of a foetus should never be legal but it should be legal to remove it from the womb. If the foetus is viable and survives those who created it should be responsible for its welfare (at least until adoptive parents can be found). That would be both parents in the case of consensual sex and the father in the case of rape.

Me too

John is against the death penalty but he "doesn't brag about it".

"Probably, because I'm a squeamish, middle-class wimp. Believe me, agreeing with the Irish sanctimonious set doesn't make me happy."

It doesn't make me happy either but I'm not opposed to it because I'm a "squeamish middle-class wimp". I don't weep for the cold-hearted killers who are put to death. My opposition is not based on a point of principle - any Libertarian objection to this undoubtedly intrusive government action is more than outweighed by the requirement of that government to punish those who murder and deter those who would murder - but the impossibility of reversing a death penalty should the conviction prove to be unsafe. It may well be the case that in excess of 99% of those executed are truly guilty but 100% certainty is unobtainable in every case, so it is better to err on the side of caution. That said, I don't share the sanctimonious set's view that the America's death penalty regime is uniquely barbaric. In fact, the British and Irish regimes are arguably more barbaric.

What better example of barbarism and decadence could be provided than the fate of the killers of Jean McConville? This woman was abducted, sadistically tortured to death, buried in an unmarked grave faraway, her reputation rubbished and her family broken up. Her killers were not executed, they didn't serve any time. If by some miracle they were identified and convicted, they would immediately be released and we would be asked to "draw a line under the past".

Now that's...

...what I call below-cost selling!

Deportivo Aye Caramba!

Astonishing stuff last night in the Champions' League as the normally "disciplined", "consistent" Galician side, third placed in Spain's La Liga, just one point behind Los Galacticos of Real Madrid, are humiliated in the Principality, setting a new record.

Result: Monaco 8 - Deportivo la Coruna 3

"Greater Guardianship for all Americans"

The fight for Increased Governmental Protection From Selves continues!

None of the above

I had been thinking about the inadequacies of democracy. That is that 51% of the people can theoretically get to boss 49% of the people around. This becomes more of a concern as government grows more intrusive but it is also a problem when there is an ethnic divide and especially as the numbers in each community approach parity, such as there is in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland's current territorial status derives its legitimacy from the fact that more people wish to remain in the UK than join the Republic of Ireland. This seems a lot fairer to me than the notion that those residents who favour the Union should be coerced into a United Ireland by a numerically inferior group. Yet it is still somehow unsatisfactory. It seems that whichever way Northern Ireland would go there will be approaching half of its residents unsatisfied with that status. Independence is something neither "community" wants, yet it may be the fairer option.

It occurs to me that NI could be offered a referendum on its future. Options could be

a) Remain in the UK
b) Unite with the republic
c) Independence
d) Re-partition (allowing predominately nationalist counties to secede)

Now if this vote was offered on a first-past-the-post basis let us say the likely result would be in that order

1. a)
2. b)
3. c)
4. d)

However if it were offered on a proportional representation basis, (i.e. first preference, second preference, etc.) it is more likely that independence (or re-partition) would be the favoured option. However much Unionists wish to remain in the UK, independence would be preferable to a United Ireland, and it is easy to see independence as a second favourite option for Nationalists too. Thus, though neither side "wants" independence, neither might they "mind" it certainly when compared to the option they don't want.

UPDATE: Thinking about this further, the weighting of preferences in such a vote would be crucial. You should get the opportunity to support or oppose each option so you could get first preference, second preference support and first preference, second preference oppose. In such a vote it is likely that the first two options , a) and b) would mainly cancel each other out. One advantage of such a plebiscite is that, as the relative size of each community approaches parity, it avoids the tipping point inherent in a first-past-the-post system. Thus it is less vulnerable to small demographic changes and offers, if not the (unachievable) permanent solution desired by many, an enduring stable solution. 5/11/03 12:14PM

A great poet and a great fool

Colby Cosh defends W.B. Yeats' (literary) reputation.

Michael Howard, PM?

Confident assertion from Eoghan Harris in yesterday's Indo.

"Howard can beat Blair at the next British general election. Most of the British media don't know this yet. Conservative papers hailed him as a safe pair of hands, an improvement on Iain Duncan Smith, a careful caretaker until someone more more charismatic comes along. But none of them had the bottle to say he could beat Blair at the next general election... But he can. Because anything that Blair can do, Howard can do better. Blair convinced the middle class they could trust him to be as conservative as John Major. But Howard can do this even better - and as a bonus he can secure the support of the upwardly mobile working class because, unlike the posh Blair, he came up the hard way. "

I think that a lot of the pundits miss the point about how to "modernise" the Tory party. With the linear left-right model in mind their assumption is that the Tories need to become more like New Labour to win. This may have been true of the route back to power for Labour, they did need to become more like the Tories but the same is not the case in reverse. Much as political pundits might wish it so, the British have not fallen out of love with the Tories because they became, pace Michael Foot's Labour party, too ideological. The irony is that the "ideology" decried by liberal pundits was often closer to public opinion on Immigration, Europe or the Euro. Indeed it could be argued that the Conservatives were insufficiently ideological, jumping on whichever bandwagon, tacking towards Tony, wearing baseball caps on backwards in pursuit of power but with no purpose or consistent philosophy.

Gavin on the smoking ban

Gavin has responded on the smoking ban. I think that he still misses the big point: Regardless of the merits of non-smoking workplaces - I'm prepared to agree that for most workplaces, especially offices and factories, a non-smoking workplace is preferable to a smoking one - this is something which should be decided between the parties involved, i.e. the employer and the employee(s).

"Yes, Frank, smoke-free workplaces are a great idea. But why the qualification? Why is one persons workplace better than another?"

Not all workplaces are the same, that's the whole point about diversity and the free market. If you take up a job, you already know what the workplace is like. If it is so dreadful you may decide not to take up the job, that is a free choice.

"If a government imposed ban is not the solution, then what is?

You rather beg the question here. You assume that a "solution" is required. Trust people to look out for their own interests, they always do. If the market operates properly (If it were easier to open up pubs) non-smoking pubs could compete with smoking pubs.

"God knows the Vintners rant on about 'air-changes per hour', but to anyone who's worked in bars you know that the effect of that is negligible."

The thing is, you either want to work in a bar or not. If it is so unpleasant as things are, get a different job. Or better, open your own non-smoking pub.

"Secondly, there is an argument from principle. I believe that people have a right to work in a healthy environment - most especially where an unhealthy working environment can be changed instantly into a healthy one - as in the case of bars. It is incorrect to say that smokers are all for it, indeed in the polls I read, many smokers were in favour of the ban."

Nobody has a "right to work in a healthy environment", nobody has a "right to work" for God's sake. How could such a "right" be guaranteed? This is nothing to do with a "right to work in a healthy environment" it is about the government tearing up the implicit contract entered into voluntarily between two parties: Employer: I offer you a job in a smoky workplace
Employee: I accept that job.

"Thirdly, damn right I'm a vested interest, as is my health, and the health of all bar workers."

Thus your argument is based on self-interest and is not necessarily a principled position. Arguing "this is good for me" is not the same as arguing "this is good for everyone".

"I'm not sure of the validity of the position that "publicans recognise that smoking on premises attracts more smoking punters than deters non-smokers". Publicans don't care whether people smoke or not; they want them to buy beer."

Yes, and if more people turn up to buy beer, indifferent to the smoking or expecting to be able to smoke, than would turn up to buy beer if no smoking were permitted, publicans will prefer to permit smoking.

"It just so happens to some of the public are addicted to a substance that pollutes the environment around them, badly affecting the health of their colleagues and the staff on a premises. The question is whether a persons right to smoke precedes other people's right to health, and whether that position is voluntary or involuntary."

Again, there is no "right to smoke" or "right to a smoke-free environment". Nobody is forcing you to work in or patronise a smoky bar.

"Fourth, you compare smoking to a hobby. It's not, it's a dangerous addiction. People playing tennis is a hobby, and hey I dont mind people playing tennis - people playing cards in a pub is a hobby, and fine, there's no cards affecting my health."

I don't compare smoking to a hobby, I am trying to get you to look outside your own interest for a moment and imagine a government restriction on something you enjoy. Regardless of the merits of the ban, let's say the government could show that tennis was a dangerous sport (my brother-in-law dislocated his shoulder twice playing it) and that in the interests of health tennis-playing should be rationed. Would you accept that the government had a "right" to regulate your behaviour this way?

"In my view, the government, just like in other employment legislation, has a right to give rights to workers. I have a right to x days holidays, I have a right to a healthy working environment."

What did you think the environment would be like when you took up the job? It obviously wasn't a clincher. Did you ever threaten to strike because of the danger to your health? This is why I say that you would get this benefit "free". It is logical and rational for you to argue in favour of it but that doesn't mean it is a good thing for everybody else.

The problem, Gavin, with your argument as set out is that you take for granted something which most of us who disagree with you don't: That the government has a right, duty or obligation to micro-manage normal social interaction in order to achieve some overall societal benefit. That is why issues about passive smoking health risks, or the merits of various types of workplaces or how easy it is to implement or police the ban are irrelevant. Even if all of those points were as you argue it still doesn't justify the government's intervention.

More tests

Conor is a "soft core" Libertarian, Taking the Libertarian Purity Test I find that, with a score of 88, I'm a "medium core" Libertarian. The test is quite tendentious and assumes a) That a "perfect" Libertarian is an Anarchist and b) Non-"perfect" Libertarian's strive for "perfect"ness in their stance. I'm not so sure if either is right. Some questions are hard to answer without a "depends", such as

50. Is bombing civilians in an enemy country morally equivalent to murder?

The answer to this is: Yes if that is the explicit intention (Dresden, Canary Wharf). No if it is an unforeseen consequence of an attack on enemy target.

I have used the term "Moderate Libertarian" before to describe my views but Minarchist or Social Individualist would probably be more accurate terms. I am neither a Utopian or an Anarchist and would be in favour of a minumum government responsible for the police, the courts and the army. Pretty much everything else can be dealt with less expensively, more efficiently and without any coercion or loss of individual freedoms by the private sector.

But I am still male!

The Gender Genie correctly identifies my sex from about 1000 words of my blog.

Via Andrew Sullivan

Hey, I thought I was Evil!

Irish Eagle is 42% evil but Internet Commentator is only 24%!

My kind of AgitProp

There's some great banners over at Bureaucrash and ProtestWarrior. I particularly like this one!

Balance

This is the Guardian's idea of a balancing op-ed to counter the default anti-american slant of their commentary. Eric Schlosser: Hey! we're not all evil

Regulation 0 Free Market 1

Those forward-thinking bureaucrats of Lucedale, Mississippi have acted decisively to counter the scourge of horses "going commando" in urban areas. Their new city ordinance requires all livestock, including horses to wear diapers in town.

Just as well that the free market can provide horse diapers!

(Via Bureaucrash )

More on smoking

Interesting debate over at Samizdata on the smoking ban. Gavin has chipped in and I see, via Slugger that Leptard has an intriguing suggestion for counties such as Kerry who are reluctant to implement Dublin's Diktat on this: Secede to the North!

More Imaginative Diplomacy

US Defensive Department replies to Lara Marlowe below!

Imaginative Diplomacy

I am rendered (almost) speechless by these weaselly words from The Irish Times' Lara Marlowe, eager to attribute the continuing violence from Saddam loyalists to wider Iraqi resentment at US "Imperialism" and rather too gleeful in mocking American "hubris".

"Imaginative diplomacy could have devised a less catastrophic way of removing the dictator."

"Imaginative diplomacy" is what led us to this path. The fudgers, appeasers and collaborators of Germany, Russia and France, had no interest in removing this dictator.

Whither the Tories

Mark Steyn on the future for British Conservatism has some interesting thoughts on decentralisation (which Samizdata's Robert Clayton Dean has picked up on) but also includes this priceless paraphrasing of John Major's definition of Conservatism:

"Or old maids on bicycles sipping warm beer as they're sideswiped by the Eurojuggernauts on the bypass"

Origins of Zionism

Great piece by Nelson Ascher at EuroPundits on the origins of Zionism and why, contrary to what Tony Judt believes, it is not just like any other European Nationalism:

"Zionism was a second degree, reluctant nationalism born of the impossibility, after having tried to do it, of giving up an identity. A Jew could learn his country’s language, write great books in it, get a Nobel prize, compose operas, lose a limb or two for his monarch, pay his taxes, help develop the national economy, win a gold medal in the Olympics, convert, change his name, marry a non-Jew, take his kids to the church, even become a nun (like Edith Stein) etc. Still, he wasn’t allowed not to be a Jew...Zionism, thus, wasn’t nationalism as a first or preferential option, but as a last resort, and it was resisted by the majority of the Jews until the Holocaust."

Finding Nemo

Nemo, Found!

From Fun with PETA Day

Bo-Jo: Ob/Gyn + Ob/And?

Tantalising suggestion from Boris Johnson of a surprising development in the field of Obstetrics/Androcology.

"You can call me sexist on this point, but there is nothing more sexist than sex, and it is still a more or less invincible fact of nature that women have babies and men do not. "

More or less invincible? do tell more..

Trailer Fabulous

Characteristically humourless Guardian op-od today from one Carrie Gibson who complains about Hoxton trendies (this week) adopting Trailer Park Chic.

"There seems to be some sort of assumption that these unfashionable, poor people have chosen to live in a house on wheels; to drive clapped-out Camaros; to wear tacky clothes; to have out-of-date hairstyles. But here, we choose to don a costume of poverty because we can afford to, and we don't even consider what it must be like for those who can't."

It's just clothes Carrie, that's all.

Bedazzled, Bewildered and Bamboozled

Kevin Myers muses on Sinn Fein's "disarming" charm and its dazzling effect on even the most "ardent anti-terrorists"

"The Shinner charm is carried into negotiations, where it seems to neutralise the most basic instincts of the opposition. How else could David Trimble have given his assent to the Belfast Agreement of five and a half years ago without a fixed timetable for disarmament being the keystone of the entire arch? Not merely did the Agreement not demand visible disarmament before the Shinners got into Government, it contained no penalty clauses if the Shinners had not disarmed by the agreed date for total disarmament, three years ago...Why does nobody remember this? Why do journalists at Shinner press conferences not remind the Shinners of this? Why, when the Shinners go on and on and on and on about bloody Patten, do the hacks not retort: Christ, how can there be full implementation of policing reforms when the IRA is still in existence, still armed, still recruiting, still training?..Why? Because of Shinner charm. It disarms: it makes the cleverest men fools."

The Wrong Type of Leaves on the Track

Rangers' non-caledonian custodian Stefan Klos comes over all British Rail in complaining about Phil Neville's winning goal for Manchester United at Ibrox. According to Klos, the younger Neville brother, after his unlikely Maradona impersonation, hit the wrong type of shot. If Phil had hit the right type of shot, Klos presumably would have saved it. Newsflash Stefan: if it goes in, it's the right shot.

Too Cool for Old Skool

I have to concur with Eoin: the new Outkast double album, Speakerboxxx/The Love Below, is a cracker! Definitely not the same-old-same-old.

"The whole room fell silent. The girls all paused with glee,
turning left, turning right, are they looking at me?
Well I was looking at them, there, there on the dance floor,
now they got me in the middle feeling like a man-whore."

(From "The Way You Move") Nice little Deuce Bigalow reference there!

Taheri on Mahathir

Great piece by Amir Taheri on Malaysian premier (and ami de Jacques) Dr. Mahathir Mohamed's recent speech.

"Mahathir says Jews have persuaded others to fight and die for them..Who does he mean by "others"?..If he means the West, let us not forget that Americans and Europeans fought and died to save the Muslim peoples of Bosnia and Kosovo from extermination. Not a single Muslim state provided any help..Mahathir presented Palestine as a religious conflict...Yet he did not apply the same logic to Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Burma, Cyprus, and East Turkestan, among the many places where Muslims are in conflict with non-Muslims..The logic of Mahathir's position is that Muslim Cypriots, Chechens, Kashmiris, Burmans, Mindanaoans and East Turkestanis are not as worthy as Palestinians. And yet the number of Muslims killed in those conflicts is many times higher than the total victims of all Arab-Israeli wars."

(Via Iberian Notes)

What? Did Daddy Do You in the War?

The Washington Post isn't only about boring stuff like news and politics. This week's "Style Invitational" is a classic: Week 524, Scramble the words of any book or movie, and come up with a new product

Lots of good stuff including:

Who the Man Shot Liberty Valance?: In this sequel, Superfly Valance arrives from Chicago to avenge his brother's death. (Tom Kreitzberg, Silver Spring)

Love Thing: A Many-Splendored "Is": Bill Clinton's guide through the pitfalls of romance and semantics. (Mary Ann Hennigsen, Hayward, Calif.)

and I particularly liked

Big Wedding, My Fat Greek!: The behind-the-scenes story of Jackie's ultimatum to Onassis. (Judith Cottrill, New York)

plenty more too...

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh..

..as Arsene Wenger's insufferable strutting cockerels are shot down 2-1 by Dynamo Kiev. Arsenal may be (just) top of the Premiership, unbeaten and cocky from dispatching oligarch-funded Chelsea but once again their pomp deserts them in Europe. The first European goal in 300 minutes of play for this supposedly "vibrant, attacking" team will be scant consolation as the Gunners' Champions' league dreams lie in shatters. Although they are not "mathematically" out - if they win their three remaining games they have a slight chance - it would be a brave punter who would bet on Arsenal's continuing participation in this competition.

Such sweet sweet schadenfreude, nothing could take this feeling away (not even an upset tomorrow at Ibrox!).

Low taxes and the real economy

Great piece today in The Times: Michael Gove explains to Gordon Brown the benefits of low taxes

"There are always good reasons to reduce taxation. The Government can never spend our money as efficiently as we can ourselves. But there are particularly good reasons to cut taxes when the country is in the position we find ourselves in now, with sluggish growth delivering less wealth for everyone. For cutting taxes, especially from the level we now labour under, will shift the balance of the economy in the right direction. Tax cuts will encourage growth in the real economy, the productive private sector, while helping to bring about the taming over time of a bloated and unproductive public sector."

..and looks across the Irish Sea

"Which is why a recent study of economic performance in the Nineties conducted by the economist Graham Leach for the free market, but non-party, pressure group Reform is so useful....Leach’s work demonstrates that countries that keep the amount of national wealth they take in tax low have grown far and away the fastest. Nations such as Ireland, which cut its tax take from 34 per cent of GDP to 30 per cent in the Nineties grew much faster than those, such as Australia, Canada or New Zealand, that kept their tax take above 30 per cent of GDP. Those countries such as Britain, whose tax burden crept up from 35 per cent to 38 per cent of GDP, experienced even lower growth over the decade. Leach’s work covers a variety of nations, which have all had different governments, but on one point there is no room to differ: lower taxes promote higher growth."

Benchmarking Bertie take note.

Shareholder Power

Following on from our discussion here a couple of weeks ago about "rogue" and incompetent company directors and hitherto supine shareholders there is an interesting story in today's Times: Shareholders in Granada and Carlton successfully prevent Michael Green - closely associated with the disastrous ITV Digital venture - becoming head of ITV Plc.

Tune in, Turn on, Drop out.

Interesting story in today's Irish Times about the level of first-year failure and dropouts for some courses at UCD. Turns out 30% of first year Science students fail and 25% of first-year Arts students fail or drop out. This contrasts with vocational or professional courses such as Law and Medicine.

Not that I wish to re-open my blog-slug-fest with the Backseat Drivers about subsidising third level education but I think there are a few conclusions which could be drawn from this. As the Times piece notes:

"Some academics believe the points requirement for science should be increased to help raise standards...However, since the points must reflect the demand for the course and the number of spaces available, UCD cannot do this."

Of course, nobody said that the number of "spaces available" for Science should be fixed. The obvious solution is to cut back those spaces which are not necessary.

I am in favour of greater scientific knowledge among the public. As can be seen from debates about GM foods, even supposedly intelligent people are scientifically illiterate. I think a better way of achieving this, instead of trying to lure people towards Science courses in University, would be as part of the second level curriculum. When it comes to University, courses should be less general and more specialised and you will tend to see greater vocational interest and "stickability".

Another thought is that while the points system (which aggregates all exam results even in subjects unrelated to the course) is the measure for awarding places and while this is the least-worst method for sought-after courses, it is singularly unsuitable for less desirable courses. Perhaps the basic entry requirements need to be tightened. For example, if you want to do Science, you should have a good result in Maths and Science subjects at the very least, even if you do less well in other subjects.

Whistling in the Dark

Arsene Wenger tries to take his mind off Arsenal's make or break tie against Dynamo Kiev today by, bizarrely, warning Manchester United not to take Rangers for granted.

Don't worry Arsene, we won't.

Meanwhile Arsenal - whose regularly abysmal Champion's league form never seems to deter soccer pundits from tipping them as likely winners - could even effectively exit the competition tonight after just three games if they lose to the Ukrainians.

End of History II

Carrie confidently asserts, on the basis of the IRA's statement today, that..

" If this is the IRA position, that's it for the IRA. The are committed to 'exclusively democratic and peaceful means', 'opposed to any use or threat of force'. The IRA wants to see all guns taken out of Irish society and are handing in a whack of theirs today to prove it. They are going to morph into Sinn Fein now, there's no more IRA"

I hope so.

The End of History?

John goes all Fukayama on us in seeing today's events in Northern Ireland as marking the beginning of the end of his NewsHound service and by implication "interesting" (as in the Chinese proverb) news from N.I.

More smoking

Jon has responded to my post below about the workplace smoking ban.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my analogies. I didn't intend to claim that the workplace smoking ban was exactly the same as a hypothetical government requirement to drink 2 litres of water a day. More that both initiatives were, in Tony's words, "beneficial, easy and cheap" and that is insufficient justification for them. Of course ETS is more complicated than self-harmful behaviour. I am not making a direct comparison between an unhealthy diet and smoking. The comparison is between an unhealthy diet and choosing to work in a smoky environment. If someone chooses to work in an environment they know is not smoke-free that is their free choice to do so. I imagine that most non-smokers and some smokers would prefer smoke-free environments and that the market will tend to provide them. For some workplaces, smoking may be an intricable part (a smoking club) for others it may be that the proprietor or some important employees cannot work without cigarettes. If that is the case the market would tend to punish them for not being able to attract non-smoking employees or by requiring them to pay a smoky-environment-premium.

I maintain that smoke-free workplaces are a good idea. My own workplace is non-smoking. I just don't think a crude government ban, and one which treats all workplaces as identical, is an appropriate approach.

What a great idea!

Nice quote from Glenn Reynolds about ESPN sacking Gregg Easterbrook for his clumsy Kill Bill blog post (which many bloggers, including Jon, picked up on) which suggested that Jewish movie executives had a special obligation not to promote violence in film.

"And, yeah, they had the legal right to fire him, I think. But, you know, Disney has the legal right to issue Heaven's Gate: The Extended Anime Version, and bundle it with a claymation remake of Gigli..."

Gobble, Gobble!

Neocon?

Turns out I'm a realist!

UPDATE: Or maybe not, I changed one answer that I had dithered over and now I'm a neoconservative!

Smoking

Tony has amended his position on the smoking ban somewhat, concluding that as ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) does appear to increase the incidence of tobacco related afflictions and..

"..A smoking ban in workplaces, for example, is beneficial, easy and cheap, so why not do it"

Let me try to answer this. A law requiring everybody to wear smart clothes to work may be beneficial, easy and cheap. A law requiring everybody to drink two litres of water a day or eat 5 servings of fruit or vegetable might be similarly beneficial, easy and cheap. None of these would be a good idea. It shouldn't be the government's role to force us to do things that are supposedly in our own interest. Individuals are better are at determining their own interest than the government.

Smoke-free workplaces are probably a good idea but a law mandating this is not a good idea. A smoke-free environment may not be appropriate for all workplaces, for example a cigar smoking club or a "smoky" jazz club. Potential employees for a non-smoke-free workplace can take a view as to whether the risk is sufficiently rewarded by the job (salary, enjoyment, career prospects etc) before agreeing to work there. It is better to let the market sort this out instead of resorting to a crude government intervention.