Red Arrows

Defending freedom.

(CLICK to enlarge)

Leuchars - September 2006 Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

Leuchars - September 2006 Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

A date in November

The Libertarian Alliance Annual Conference will be held in London on 25th and 26th November 2006.

Read this and weep

This morning I took a trip over to Holyrood to see the World Press Photo Exhibition. It's certainly worth a look despite the leftist bias in the selection of shots.

The real shocker was on the way home. I got on the number 36 bus for the ride back into town. What seemed to be a mother and son got on at the same stop and sat a couple of seats behind me.

She: "It's really nice, the way that the countryside goes right into the city. Arthur's Seat is quite something. You'll like it here"

He: "Uh."

She: "I think you'll need three "B"s to get in to Edinburgh."

He: "Yeah."

She: "Have you any more idea about what you'll study?"

He: Grunts

She: "How about economic history?"

He: "Sounds boring."

She: "Aren't you interested in architecture? How about history of architecture?"

He: "Sounds a bit difficult."

She: "Well, you'll have to decide before you apply."

He: "Suppose so."

She: "Of course, we'll have to pay a fee if you come here. The Scots don't have to."

He: "Why's that?"

She: "Because they have a different government from us in England."

He: "Didn't know that."

He had of course got on the bus right outside the front door of the Scottish Parliament.

Not your usual ZaNuLab website

Good grief. David Cameron has done something rather cunning. Instead of splashing out thousands on a probably unreadable website, he's got himself a bog-standard, el-cheapo blog just like the rest of us. And on it he puts a link to Guido, the politicians' nemesis.

Very clever stuff. Unless the whole thing is a spoof of course.

Gordon Brown - tax snatcher

The final event that I attended at the Book Festival was a talk given by James Buchan (grandson of John), who has written Adam Smith and the Pursuit of Liberty. I was a little concerned that I was going to hear a revisionist take on Smith, having read book reviews along these lines:

Politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan promoted Smith's famous 1776 book, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" as the bible of Anglo-Saxon laissez-faire. In the past ten years, modernising leftists such as Gordon Brown have tried to kidnap Smith for the reformed socialism of Britain's New Labour. In this vigorous, crisp and informal book, James Buchan shows that Smith fits no modern political category and that much of what politicians and economists say about him is false.

I needn't have worried: Mr Buchan was sound and saw Smith as an anti-state libertarian. OK, so old Adam was a bit unsound on road privatisation and (more unfortunately) on the labour theory of value, but essentially he was one of us.

I asked Mr Buchan a question:

"Isn't it shameful that the Scottish political class hasn't given proper recognition to our greatest countryman, a man who has done more to alleviate world poverty than the whole goddamned race of socialists laid end to end?"

The rather unworldly Buchan was a bit surprised by this modest suggestion but I got a welcome round of applause from the audience.

Anyway, whether Gordon Brown understands anything at all about Adam Smith, it's now surely clear to everyone that his policies are a total disaster for the very people he claims to represent:

In 1996-97, the year before Gordon Brown became Chancellor, the poorest fifth of households paid 6.8% of the total tax take, according to official statistics. This had risen to 6.9% in 2004-05, while their share of benefits had fallen from 28.1% to 27.1% over the same period.

The extra tax paid by the poorest fifth of households, compared to 1996-97, was equivalent to an annual £56 (E82.9, $106.4) per household in 2004-05, while the benefits lost were equivalent to £475 a year, according to the report from the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), a free-market think tank.

Actually, in the context of "think" tank, the term "free-market" is a redundancy. Surely all tank people have read this gentleman.

So there we have it: socialism harms almost all of us, but especially the poor. And the Tories are afraid of these people!

Surely some mistake

The Independent has got a little list:

A panel of experts has picked out 50 individuals - including some double acts - who they believed were motivated by an "ethical" dimension.

There's obviously been some sort of mistake - at least one of the fifty seems to be a "businessman".

Al Gore

So much for the UK (or Scotland) being anti-American. Last night Al Gore was welcomed by the assembled ranks of Friends of the Earthers, Liberal Democrats, BBC journalists, pro and anti-independence Scots and assorted members of the Edinburgh Great and the Good, as if he were Mick Jagger over at Hampden Park. The Sunday night whooping and hollering must have caused a mass outbreak of birling in the graves of deceased local Presbyterians. However, unlike at the Glasgow gig, there was no smoking or inhaling by Mr Gore in Edinburgh. He did however appear to be enjoying a wee dram during the book signing session. (Look carefully at the photo below.)

Gore was introduced by Herald political writer Iain MacWhirter, who seemed quite beside himself with joy at sitting beside the great presence - "a man who could be the next President of the USA, because, after all, he’s already been elected to the position!” Except it ain't true.

MacWhirter (a Herald political "expert") told us that if Gore had been President the US would have signed up for Kyoto. "Not true," I whispered to Mrs F&W. To his credit, Gore pointed out MacWhirter's error. In the American system it's the Senate and not the President that ratifies treaties and they voted against Kyoto by 95 to 0. Gore didn't think it too likely that Kyoto would pass now even if he were President.

Gore had lost any sign of the woodenness that I'd read about during his presidential campaign. He spoke very competently and without (apparent) notes. He started with a series of one-liners: "For eight years I flew around in Air Force 2 and now I have to take off my shoes and belt before I can get on a plane." Tough, Al. Welcome to the real world.

MacWhirter asked about Global Warming and it's "human causes". We got the full Gore spiel. As far as can be discerned, according to Al, the scientific community is unanimous that it's all our fault. Except, once again, it ain't true. But the Edinburgh audience weren't told about any modern dissenters although I was sorely tempted to give a good old traditional shout of "Daur ye say nonsense in ma lug?" Of course, Jenny Geddes (*) didn't have the Secret Service to worry about. I presume that Mr Gore did have his own security but the two heavies at the book signing session were Scots and I'm damned sure that one of them does duty outside a well-know local pub on football Saturdays. I'm suspect that keeping Hibs and Hearts fans apart is an excellent training for protecting the former VP.

Mr Gore seemed to enjoy himself immensely. I thought that his answer to a question on Scottish independence might cause a mild panic over at Number Six. But if Scotland were to become the 51st State, Mr Gore could count on ten Electoral College votes for the Democrats. On last night's evidence at least.

(* Vegetable seller Jenny Geddes, attending morning service in St Giles, the High Kirk of Edinburgh, on 23 July 1637, is said to have picked up her stool and hurled it at the minister. That flying furniture led to the Scottish National Covenant, the English Civil War, the execution of Charles and the conquest of Scotland by Cromwell.)

I meet the man who invented the Internet

And here he is signing a book for Mrs F&W who is dressed in "Republican" red:

Al Gore, Edinburgh - August 2006
Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

In a brief conversation with Mr Gore he confirmed to me that he had known (slightly) his fellow Nashville resident, the late Harry Browne who ran as presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.

Where Atlas Shrugged?

Many libertarians have been influenced by the novels of Russian-American author Ayn Rand. Probably her best-known work is Atlas Shrugged, in which Rand shows what happens when the "men of the mind" go on strike.

Rand grew up in St Petersburg before escaping to the US. When I was in the Russian city recently I came across these statues of Atlas (CLICK to enlarge):

St Petersburg - June 2006 Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

St Petersburg - June 2006
Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

Not only that, the statues are to found in Millionaire Street:

St Petersburg - June 2006
Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

I wonder if Rand's inspiration for the title of her famous book came from her own hometown.

Not the Wright stuff

The Book Festival is almost over and I'm looking forward to getting back to a more normal existence, but I'll miss the Festival (and all the others) when it's gone.

Yesterday we went to hear Amaranta Wright in what the programme promised would be:

A vivid and eye-opening new take on globalisation. Journalist Amaranta Wright was employed as an undercover researcher on Latin American youth for Levi's - but soon realised the full arrogance of corporate globalisation, always seeking to create new consumers, however inappropriately. A passionate and timely polemic.

A "new take" for most of the audience would be one that actually explained and praised globalisation - like these folk do.

But that's not what we got; far from it. Here's an extract from the Guardian's review of Wright's book:

Childhood was punctuated by Crouch End dinner parties, "stroking the long black silky hair of mysterious Amazons as they left bespectacled Anglo-intellectuals in awe of their passionate intelligence".

Oh boy!

The whole talk was like that. Ms Wright clearly had no idea about basic economics, nor, shockingly for someone born in Latin America, about the nature of that continent's political structure. She told us that a free market economy (inevitably described as "neo-liberal") had been imposed on Latin America by military dictatorships. How I wished that a real expert on the continent had shared the platform:

From a staunchly libertarian perspective, this sweeping analysis and history considers the fate of Latin American freedom and the cultural institutions needed to protect it. Llosa looks at the ancient Incans, Aztecs and Mayans and their authoritarian ways of doing things, and asks: Isn't it time to drop this?

In modern times the tragic irony deepens. Throughout Latin America, those who governed the republics liberated from colonizing countries, and the leaders of all the major reform movements since, have shared the same approach to governance as those colonizers. Even the alleged market reforms of the 90s were attempted without the more basic changes, including well-defined property rights, without which "privatization" could only be cosmetic and spurious, mere cover for further corruption.

What must be expunged are the "five principles of oppression" -- corporatism, state mercantilism, privilege, wealth transfer, and political law -- that keep "the people" and their actual rights out of the loop despite everything done in their name. Can this be done? Llosa says yes, telling the inspiring story of how capitalism and a certain conception of rights successfully emerged in the West, and offering proposals for reform that offer genuine hope.

The military cliques in Latin America never "imposed" a free market. Governments can only respect not impose freedom. Llosa's "five principle of oppression", not capitalism, are what politicians have given to Latin America.

Sadly, the audience lapped it all up. Except for one thing. A questioner asked Ms Wright about Chavez and Castro, you know, those leaders who don't like free speech. The speaker acknowledged that there was a problem: Mr Chavez had given a 4.5 hour speech when Ken Livingstone invited him to London!

Ms Wright ended by telling us about her new anti-globalisation magazine. It's going well apart from one small problem: large companies are reluctant to advertise in it! Oh the humanity. Curse that wicked globalisation.

Monday's Festival

Barry Turner spoke about his new book Suez 1956: The Forgotten War. This was an interesting presentation and several members of the audience had been in the Army at the time. During his national service Turner was put in charge of a transport unit despite his being unable to drive. Talking of Nasser, Mr Turner said that many western politicians didn't realise that much of what Middle Eastern leaders say is exaggerated for domestic purposes and shouldn't be taken too literally. I asked him if Israel should worry about the outbursts emanating from Iran. Turner said, "No." And tomorrow is the 22nd!

Robert Lacey gave readings from his Great Tales from English History. I thought this session was a bit of a letdown.

In the evening we went to hear David Wishart talk about whisky:

The conventional way to classify Scotch malt whiskies is by region - Highland, Lowland, Speyside, Islay and Campbeltown. But knowing where they are made doesn't explain how they taste.

Well now we do because there was a well-stocked and free tasting session after Mr Wishart's very interesting illustrated talk.

These guys were present providing some of the samples.

The man:

Edinburgh - August 2006
Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

The message:

Edinburgh - August 2006
Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

Festival on Sunday

Alexander McCall Smith at the Book Festival this morning:

Edinburgh - August 2006
Originally uploaded by David Farrer.

Free to fly

Ryanair is often decried by the bien-pensants of Notting Hill on the grounds that it flies to and from some rather obscure airports. It does, although Ryanair's Scottish base is at Prestwick, the centre of the known universe.

The company's boss makes plenty of noise and his recent outbursts aren't appreciated by Martin Kelly on the grounds that Mr O'Leary isn't quite one of us.

I'm sympathetic to Martin's argument in so far as the only possibly legitimate function of the state is that of protecting the liberties of the British people and that it's up to us how the state should achieve that goal.

Today's Scotsman brings us this:

TERRORISTS are "rolling around the caves of Pakistan, laughing" at Britain's response to the terror threat, an airline boss said last night as he gave the government a seven-day deadline to relax restrictions or face legal action.

Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary described some of the security measures as "farcical, Keystone Kops-like and completely insane and ineffectual"

I have to agree with Mr O'Leary on the farcical nature of the situation, although some of the terrorists are probably a bit nearer to home than Pakistan.

But although I understand Martin's insistence on British sovereignty over the British state, does that rule out a security role for the Irishman O'Leary? Not necessarily. What if Ryanair were allowed to operate its own security system for its flights?

After all:

Mr O'Leary said the people being subjected to intense security were "not terrorists and not fanatics ... they are actually called holidaymakers".

Very well, let Ryanair operate a lax security system and see if the passengers still turn up. Other airlines may chose to adopt a policy of - how shall I put it? - passenger profiling. It's time to introduce some competition.

(UPDATE: the people have spoken.)

Mixing oil with water

Yesterday afternoon we went to hear talks given by Fred Pearce (author of When the Rivers Run Dry) and Jeremy Leggett.

Mr Pearce addressed us for around thirty minutes without even hinting at the only solution that will stop the rivers running dry, namely property rights. I'll give him his due though: he didn't mention Palestine until he had spoken for seventeen minutes. Surely some mistake.

During his presentation Pearce had a little dig at someone who had made a sensible remark at a conference he'd attended. "Even an economist agreed with me," Pearce told us. Inevitably, this raised a chortle from the assembled ranks of the Guardian-reading classes.

I was unable to ask a question during the meeting but approached Pearce afterwards. "Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources. Why didn't you mention property rights? It's only through the correct application of economics that environmental problems can be solved." I went on to point out that California's Central Valley was the fruit basket of America only because vote-seeking politicians had subsidised water in this desert area at way below cost. I was astounded when Pearce agreed with everything I said. He acknowledged that ownership was the key. He favoured the privatisation of fisheries and agreed that India would be far better off if farmers owned the water on their land instead of it being appropriated by the state.

The question is this: if some environmentalists actually do understand the economic facts of life, why do they never speak out accordingly?

I wasn't too impressed by Leggett. He made the de rigueur anti-Bush comment of course (in probably less than seventeen minutes) but what amused me was this: "We can't leave any of this to the free market, not that we have a free market, of course." Now if we don't actually have a free market, which we don't, is Mr Leggett really sure that it won't work? Has he actually studied economics? You know, the study of the use of scarce resources? There was certainly no evidence on show yesterday. If people like Mr Leggett are in charge we certainly will have a resource problem.

It was a relief to go on to hear Paul Johnston talk about his Greek novels followed by Gianrico Carofiglio, whose novels are set in southern Italy where he works as an anti-Mafia judge.

Incidentally, during this hour the noise on the roof of the marquee demonstrated that there is absolutely no danger of Scotland running out of water.

No bias here

The BBC is setting up a rival to al-Jazeera and this is what it promises:

"It will maintain the BBC values of accuracy, editorial independence, impartiality, while balancing a wide diversity of views."

The BBC yesterday said its new television service would be "free from commercial, political and religious affiliations or pressures".

I suppose it's possible that some BBC people really believe this nonsense. I've watched the Beeb for long enough. Will they refund my licence fee so as I can try the competition for a while?

Tuesday's Festival

Last night we went to another debate, this time between Michael Gove MP and Hywel Williams on who really runs Britain. Mr Williams thinks that it's the City:

He depicts the political elite, now more centralised than ever before in the House of Commons. He shows how governments and parliamentary parties all embrace the interests of finance capital. He also examines the professional elites, especially business consultants, IT firms, university vice-chancellors and City lawyers.

But the core of this book, as of the ruling class, is the financial and business elite. Williams shows us "the core competence of the City of London: reckless gambling on the one hand and well-spoken, beautifully suited, sharp practice on the other." He notes, "The rest of London - indeed the rest of Britain - could disappear tomorrow and the City would carry on functioning quite happily."

Mr Williams - a Marxist - said that he would prefer to see a more competitive form of capitalism. Yes, and the way to get that is to limit the state to the protection of property rights and the upholding of the rule of law. What's unfair about the elites is not their wealth but their close connections with the state. Abolish most of the state's functions and there would be no advantage to be gained from getting close to politicians. And the country wouldn't be so centralised on London.

I was pleased to hear Mr Gove discuss the impact of blogs in exposing the links between the elites and the state. I was even more pleased when he told me that he was a reader of this blog!

Edinburgh Hate Festival

I've been having a bit of an argument with some of the folk over at Tim Blair's place.

Monday's Festival

On Monday I went to the RIAS exhibition:

The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland 2006 Festival Exhibition is intended to be a revealing and affectionate response from some of the people who play an important part in the Incorporation’s role in the promotion and understanding of architecture.

One architect had picked the BBC transmitter at Kirk O' Shotts as his favourite place in Scotland. Odd, I thought, but apparently there are fantastic views of both Glasgow and Edinburgh up there and I'll pay a visit some day - complete with camera.

Then it was on to the Culloden Exhibition at the National Trust for Scotland's HQ.

That is handily located next to the Book Festival where I heard Eric Beinhocker speak on Society and Business. This was a bit disappointing. He took almost 50 minutes to say that the economy is somehow evolving and that this evolution is effectively a good thing. In the ten minutes left for questions I wasn't able to suggest that most of us had worked that out already.

In the evening Mrs F&W and I went to hear a debate on the Middle East between Con Coughlin, defence correspondent of the Telegraph, and Gwynne Dyer. After the debate I asked both speakers if they thought that there was any significance in the date 22nd August, about which there's been huge speculation on the web. Neither had heard of the rumours and Coughlin made a remark about Nostradamus. Unfortunately, I'd forgotten that the Wall Street Journal had also written about what might happen on the 22nd. Let's hope that the Iranians don't "light up the sky over Jerusalem", but if they do, Mr Coughlin should be suitably sheepish. The debate was chaired by Iain MacWhirter.

Out and about in Edinburgh

The Festival started for me on Wednesday when I visited the Edinburgh Photographic Society's annual exhibition. I was a little disappointed this year but perhaps that's because I've attended the event so many times that it's becoming too familiar. And we were spoiled by last year's Cartier Bresson show. I am looking forward to seeing Harry Benson's work at the Portrait Gallery and Albert Watson at the City Art Centre.

Yesterday I went to four events at the Book Festival. First, I heard the incomparable Christopher Brookmyre address a full house in the big tent. He was - as always - good value and told us that his website now contains a glossary for the Scotologically challenged in which you can learn that "Fitba" is a:

Popular team sport known in some quarters as “soccer”, invented and given to the world by the Scots. English claims to have invented it rest on their having the first Football Association, which proves only that they invented football bureaucracy. Thanks a pantload, guys. You form yet another bloody committee and a hundred years later, we had to put up with Jim Farry.

Precisely.

Unfortunately this also means that Scotland gets to enjoy the "Old Firm", which is an:

Ingenious idiot-identification scheme which tags halfwits, criminals, thugs and assorted neerdowells voluntarily in blue or green-and-white garments, making them easier for the rest of us to avoid.

(Mr Brookmyre supports St Mirren!)

Next were rather more sedate but nevertheless excellent presentations from historians Mike Dash and Tom Holland, respectively authors of Thug and Persian Fire.

After a "beverage" break it was time to hear Paul Johnston and Aline Templeton discuss "Location, Place and Crime Fiction". Conclusion: it's still OK to create yet another detective based in Edinburgh.

Finally, Mrs F&W and I went to hear Francis Fukuyama give a lecture based on his new book After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads. We sat alongside Mr Eugenides and another political friend. I thought that Fukuyama was somewhat bland and didn't hear anything new. Audience score: Moonbats 20%, Anti-moonbats 25%, Silent Majority 55%.

(UPDATE: I've just ordered tickets for the newly announced Al Gore event on the 27th.)

(Another UPDATE: Book Festival director Catherine Lockerbie tells me that Al sold out at 10am.)

It's simple really

Janet Daley asks:

Whose considered judgment is it that the broadcast (unlike the print) media should cringe in the face of extremist Islam?

It is the "considered judgment" of a broadcast media that is (unlike the print media) financed or regulated by the state.

Motorway service stations

These hated institutions are the subject of a piece in today's FT by Tim Harford:

Competition between MSAs could fix all that, and this is where the government campaign against the motorist comes in.

Mr Harford explains just how the state restricts competition between and within MSAs. Unsurprisingly, the bureaucrats' mistrust of advertising is a major problem.

There is one exception to the horror of Britain's service stations and I always use Tebay when driving north on the M6.

Others agree:

Top of the league was the independently run service station at Tebay on the M6 in Cumbria: "An attractive wooden building with terrific far-reaching Cumbrian views and a duck pond make a great first impact ... With stuffed pheasant, a deli counter and a selection of chutneys and jams, this is the closest the motorway network comes to Harrods' Food Hall," they rave.

I wonder if the Scottish Executive has any power over MSAs up here. In over-centralised Britain, perhaps not. But I'd like to see a "Scottish Tebay" on the M8 replacing the present incumbent at the armpit of Scotland.

The MSM and the bloggers

In today's Scotsman (but behind the subscription wall), Joyce McMillan makes a plaintive call for "real journalism". She starts off with an easy target:

The News of the World, for example, has been a byword for filthy and intrusive stories about bishops, actresses and divorces for 150 years

But this is a mere lead-in to what's really bugging Ms McMillan:

...society as a whole should end its foolish flirtation with the idea that professional journalism is somehow dead, now that every citizen can generate his or her own news stories and images, and write them up in his or her own blog. No-one on the planet has a hope in hell of understanding what is going on, in this chaotic universe of digitised disinformation, unless someone, somewhere, continues to undertake the job of information-gathering, agenda-setting, contextualising, editing and analysis that has been the role of serious journalists down the ages, regardless of the medium through which their work is presented.

Now, hold on. I'm not aware of any serious blogger who claims to "undertake the job of information-gathering" in the same way as can a newspaper or broadcasting company with hundreds or thousands of employees. It's when we get on to "agenda-setting, contextualising, editing and analysis" that the problem arises. And the problem I'm alluding to is that mainstream journalists all too often bitterly resent any suggestion that they are anything other than "objective".

Now, I can accept that a journalist covering, say, the physical sciences, may be objective, but when we are dealing with questions of politics and economics it's clear that there is no consensus. The mainstream media (especially the taxpayer-funded BBC) is full of journalists who portray themselves as "objective" when they are nothing of the sort. All successful political bloggers of the sort maligned by Ms McMillan openly declare their ideological starting-point and are increasingly becoming the "serious journalists" of our time. The relentless and instant feedback of the web together with expert knowledge is making many bloggers far more reliable than so-called professional journalists.

From Finest Hour to a nation of snitches

"The day will come when the joybells will ring again throughout Europe, and when victorious nations, masters not only of their foes but of themselves, will plan and build in justice, in tradition, and in freedom a house of many mansions where there will be room for all."

But no "mansions" for smokers:

The Evening News website revealed yesterday that the actor, who is playing Winston Churchill in the Fringe show Allegiance, had abandoned his plans to breach the smoking ban and light up on stage as part of his performance as the cigar-smoking Prime Minister after council officials threatened to shut down the Assembly Rooms, where the play was being performed.

I seem to recall that statist fanatics have threatened us before:

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail."

We didn't flag or fail, and now Britain is free.

Or is it:

...the council is to investigate the latest incident, at the Assembly Rooms on George Street yesterday, when Smith posed for photographs after the show. He could be liable for a £50 personal fixed penalty fine if he is found to have broken the rules.

At one time public spokesmen were eloquent:

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

Over the top, perhaps?

No such problem today:

A spokeswoman for Edinburgh City Council said that although his head and upper body were outside of the window, leaning out of a room where smoking is forbidden would not technically get around the ban - which prohibits smoking in enclosed public places.

This was the message of Britain's Finest Hour:

"Tyranny is our foe, whatever trappings or disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must forever be on our guard, ever mobilised, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at its throat. In all this, we march together. Not only do we march and strive shoulder to shoulder at this moment under the fire of the enemy on the fields of war or in the air, but also in those realms of thought which are consecrated to the rights and the dignity of man."

And now?

A nation of snitches:

Instead, council workers plan to rely on members of the public telling them if actors are smoking real cigarettes or cigars on stage and make complaints if they feel the rules are being broken.

Shameful.

If nominated, I will not run; if elected I will not serve. Probably.

Powerful. Intimidating. Trivia Nazi. President Bartlet is all of these and more. A super-nerd who's into chess, National Parks, and rambling off things in Latin, POTUS is the 'real thing.' Not being completely upfront with the American people may cause him re-election headaches, though...

:: Which West Wing character are you? ::

Thanks to the next Tory PM for this one.