Opening the Box is the first book in volume three of David Kynaston’s epic social history of post-war Britain.
It opens on 10 January 1957 as Harold Macmillan drops by Buckingham Palace to be made Prime Minister, and ends on Friday 9 October 1959 as the final results show that the Conservatives have won a staggering majority of 100 in the General Election: so the book covers about two years and nine months of British domestic history.
I say ‘domestic’ because there is no, absolutely no, mention of the British Empire, the independence struggles / small wars the British Army was fighting, or the impact of foreign affairs on Britain. The Suez Crisis was dealt with briskly and briefly at the very end of the previous volume: this book is utterly focused on the domestic scene.
In its end points Kynaston provides the usual bombardment of quotations from hundreds of diverse…
View original post 5,233 more words
In the opening seconds of what was surely one of the worst oral arguments in a high-profile case that I have ever heard, Pantelis Michalopoulos, arguing for petitioners against the FCC’s 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIFO) expertly captured both why the side he was representing should lose and the overall absurdity of the entire net neutrality debate: “This order is a stab in the heart of the Communications Act. It would literally write ‘telecommunications’ out of the law. It would end the communications agency’s oversight over the main communications service of our time.”
The main communications service of our time is the Internet. The Communications and Telecommunications Acts were written before the advent of the modern Internet, for an era when the telephone was the main communications service of our time. The reality is that technological evolution has written “telecommunications” out of these Acts – the “telecommunications services” they…
View original post 915 more words
You already know that it galls me when people extol the “oppressed” Palestinians—whose government has refused generous Israeli offers of peace time after time—and decry the “war crimes” committed against them by Israel. They never mention, of course, the three big war crimes regularly committed by Palestinians, which are far more odious than the accusations of “occupation” which are arguably questionable.
Palestinian war crimes. 1.) combatants don’t wear uniforms, something required by international law. 2.) Palestinians deliberately target Israeli civilians, also banned by international law. 3.) And Palestinian fighters hide behind civilians or fire rockets from within civilian areas, also prohibited by international law.
But one of the most odious and reprehensible acts that the Palestinian government commits towards Israel is to pay terrorists for killing Israelis, often civilians. If the terrorist dies as a “martyr”, his or her family gets money—often a substantial sum. This is called “pay for…
View original post 813 more words