Felix has put up a page for his sister Rhian Salmon, who is going to Antarctica for a year or two, in part to get away from it all. He suggests a book club to keep in touch. Here are my recommendations:

Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hanitty

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right by Ann Coulter

Mission Compromised: A Novel by Oliver North

I imagine there is nothing like these books to get your blood boiling when it’s -80 degrees outside.

From the Amazon.com page for the book by Sean Hanitty:

18 people recommended Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right in addition to Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism

15 people recommended Stupid White Men …and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! instead of Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism

[Sun, Oct 06 2002 – 16:45] Felix (www) (email) Why do right-wing books always have a colon in the title? That CBS chap had one too, as I recall…

[Sun, Oct 06 2002 – 18:08] Stefan (email) Here are two books that could help you:

Snappy Title: The Victory of Form over Substance

or

A Title Compromised: The American Right and Colon Abuse

[Sun, Oct 06 2002 – 19:55] Matthew (email) are you trying to provoke some kind of major argy-bargy?

[Mon, Oct 07 2002 – 09:53] eurof (email) oh god, i read the sample pages of that “let freedom ring” book. the man’s a dolt. it should be called “the unexamined life: winning the war for unthinking populist streamof consciousness blather over the careful parsing of ideas”.

it even got me angry. perhaps i am becoming a leftie. it’s hard not to at the moment, in fact.

[Mon, Oct 07 2002 – 11:58] joachim eurof becoming a leftie??? that’ll be the day. given that this is the man who thinks margaret thatcher is sexy.

[Mon, Oct 07 2002 – 12:23] eurof (email) i never did! that was alan clark.

[Mon, Oct 07 2002 – 13:38] Stefan Geens (email) You thought Alan Clark was sexy??

[Mon, Oct 07 2002 – 14:29] Felix (www) (email) Hey, I thought Alan Clark was sexy, and I’m a lefty!

[Tue, Oct 08 2002 – 07:42] eurof (email) no, doltish morons, alan clark fancied margaret. in his diary he fantasised about her apparently slender ankles. i despair of you all, and hope you end up on a desert island where the only book you have to read is “let freedom ring”

[Tue, Oct 08 2002 – 09:03] Felix (www) (email) Look, Alan Clark might have said that he fancied Maggie, but this is also the man who said that Alastair Campbell twiceoffered him a peerage.

[Tue, Oct 08 2002 – 12:25] Mathew (www) (email) to rewind. little eurof; what exactly is causing you so much distress to occasion a conversion to being a bed-wetting euro leftie? over-excitement seeing clinton visit blackpool? admiration for the labour party’s unthinking populist stream of consciousness blather over the careful parsing of ideas? (oops, silly me)

[Tue, Oct 08 2002 – 16:25] Felix (www) (email) I’m sorry, Matthew, but even you would have to admit that at the moment, the prize for “unthinking populist stream of consciousness blather” would have to go to the Tories rather than to Labour. Labour might be bad, but IDS’s Conservatives are much worse.

[Wed, Oct 09 2002 – 10:00] eurof (email) no, matthew, i don’t care a fig for UK politics. just the war rhetoric thing, and the handling of the economy thingy, are driving me more to maoism rather than bed-wetting euroleftie-ism. don’t get me wrong, i’m all for the war, saddam being nasty, just against pretending we’re doing it because saddam is nasty. as for the economy, just look where the free market and that lunatic ayn rand groupie greenspan is going to get us. we’re all going to be lefties soon, mostly because we’re not going to have any money.

why does lefty have to have “euro” stuck in front of it anyway? are you now colonel bufton tufton?

[Wed, Oct 09 2002 – 11:00] Felix (www) (email) Wasn’t matthew always bufton tufton?

[Wed, Oct 09 2002 – 11:15] Buffers (www) (email) it wasn’t a british question at all. heavens forbid anyone should think i have a euro-rat’s ass about british politics. eurof, you are soft in the head. for one thing, being poor should make you a rightie, not a leftie, for in truth, it’s the lefties who oppress the poor with their stay-in-your-place welfare handouts and patronizing middle-class guilt; be a rightie, and stand up for personal freedom and the right to smoke in bars.

[Thu, Oct 10 2002 – 04:27] eurof (email) it’s interesting you deny having the arse of a european rat, when no-one was suggesting you had one. perhaps you have issues there you should be exploring.

that aside, i am concerned at the recent evidence that points to you having OPINIONS. i had thought we agreed that only stupid people had those, those without the benefit of an Oxbridge education to give you the conviction that everything you hear is mostly crap, but which still leaves a dim idea of right and wrong. the constant drip drip drip of sub taxi-driver drivel from the WSJ, the US equivalent of the daily mail, has obviously left its mark. opinions should be things you slip into when the mood takes you, and the only merit an argument can have is its elegance.

anyway, being newly stupid, you’re not grasping my point. there will be nothing but welfare handouts in the future, and no middle class to patronise the poor. in fact the long-term career poor, the ones who vote for their paternalistic tory oppressors, will finally have the upper hand and can patronise the ex-bed-wetting middle class for not being as good as them at being poor. also, you forget that one place where the personal freedom to smoke in bars is not under negotiation is, err, where the Euro-weenies are in power.

[Thu, Oct 10 2002 – 17:05] Felix (www) (email) Very well put, Mr Uppington. Positively Wildean. But of course if Matthew really believed in the distastefulness of opinions, he would never have married Mrs Rose.

[Thu, Oct 10 2002 – 17:28] Matthew (www) (email) gngnngngngnnrngngnngntntnnfmfnmngngngnfndhggfnfm

[Fri, Oct 11 2002 – 14:18] Matthew (www) (email) In a more considered vein, Eurof’s positively aristocratic distate for political debate is simply an excuse for either a) not being able to stand up for what you believe, or b) not having any opinions of substance on anything. I’m guessing b) is not the case, given your curiously strong opinion on having opinions; so I have to assume the answer is a). But seeing as you’ve argued publicly for the need to not have opinions, perhaps instead you feel there are only certain subjects you won’t debate. That implies a rather sad attempt to cover up for your intellectual shortcomings with smug condescension.

Go Yankees.

[Fri, Oct 11 2002 – 16:33] Felix (www) (email) Matthew’s obviously gone completely bonkers here. The whole point of Eurof’s post was that opinions should be changed at least as often as underwear, and chosen, a bit like underwear, according to one’s mood and environment at the time.

But more germanely, the Yankees are OUT, Matthew, OUT. They can’t go anywhere.

[Sat, Oct 12 2002 – 08:59] Matthew (email) What about consistency or principles? Good grief, no wonder all your posts are so incoherent.

Yankees (ought to) Rule

[Mon, Oct 14 2002 – 07:35] eurof (email) Matthew your decline from grace is stunning. I had no idea you had strayed so from the straight and narrow. Actually b) is much more the case. I really don’t have that many opinions, except as you say, a strong opinion that i shouldn’t have any.

What is this whining about consistency? Consistency is the hobgoblin of the small-minded, as someone or other once said. In fact (regrettably implying I am small-minded) I am extremely consistent in one big principle: I am currently a Popperian-Hayekian in my epistemology and political philosophy, and have been for many years. Pretty much everything I observe in the markets and life has backed up this belief so far. Crudely put, for various reasons that put me at no disadvantage relative to you, I know I am stupid (paradoxically, the one thing that makes me smart) so many of my deeply held beliefs are likely to be wrong. Given that, the smart thing is not to bother having a lot of them, and you may as well have fun with them. However, you are much more stupid, because you don’t know that you are stupid, and any beliefs you have are MORE LIKELY to be wrong, as you don’t make the all-important “I am stupid” adjustment, which you can only do by assuming, firstly, that all your beliefs are wrong, in which case you wouldn’t bother arguing them.

There are only very few subjects I won’t debate, and then only because they are very boring and pointless. Generally, I prefer debating things I can actually have some impact over, or which impact my life directly. So go on, start, but try and make it interesting. I’ll tell you if it isn’t.

[Mon, Oct 14 2002 – 14:07] Matthew (www) (email) how about a fight, instead?

[Tue, Oct 15 2002 – 02:28] eurof (email) i’m going to kick your weenie arse, you big flowery jessie