We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
There is an article on Pajamas Media which, if largely true, would have certainly been enough to tip me over the edge into not supporting Ron Paul. Admittedly I have always been rather equivocal in my support of him, but if some the statements attributed to him are indeed what they seem when viewed in context, then I have even more difficulty lining up behind him.
However…
A lot of the ‘damning’ statement attributed to him are things I have no problem with in the slightest and to describe them as evidence of racism or conspiracy theories is unconvincing and in a few cases actually absurd.
So let us fisk the statements offered up as evidence of Ron Paul’s wickedness by Daniel Koffler, starting with the ones described as ‘Racists Pull Quotes’… → Continue reading: When Ron Paul is wrong… and when he is not
I am covering the New Hampshire primaries over on my Election Watch blog.
So far, the fun is Ron Paul 4 votes, Hillary Clinton 3. OK so Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location are not representative of the whole state.
How odd it is that we in the West seem to have only two ways of thinking about politics – either supreme cynicism or supreme credulousness.
– David Aranovich, who is not entirely impressed by the Barack Obama phenomenon. Count me in on that.
There is a powerful strain of thought in the United States which sees the world as essentially capable of reduction to a series of legal processes, and more specifically American legal processes. Acts of war by foreigners are seen as ‘crimes’, legal infractions, rather than acts of war, and anything that happens anywhere can be a source of legal action (and income) for American lawyers.
A case in point is the strange Biom case. David Boim, a 17 year old American, was murdered in Israel by some Palestinian psychos associated with Hamas and this ends up as the subject of a civil lawsuit by his parents in Chicago.
The actual details of this case are not what concerns me and gawd knows I am far from sad to see bad things happen to Islamist groups in the United States or anywhere else, but the logic underpinning this sort of thing strikes me as being based on a great many questionable and downright dangerous assumptions.
David Boim was an American, but he chose to leave America and go to another country with its own laws and courts, so surely Israel is where any legal issues should be sorted out as that is where he was murdered. Moreover, as the case in Chicago seems to be based on suing people for their political support of Hamas, if those organisations in the USA are legal, is allowing them to be sued for their political views really acceptable? If however they are declared to be proscribed organisations by the American state, surely they should not exist at all within the USA and that would presumably be a criminal matter, not a civil one.
Would it be regarded as acceptable in the USA for American organisations in some third country with links to the Republican Party or just the US government generally, to be sued by people critical of US foreign policy? Can the relatives of people killed by US troops in Iraq sue US commercial or political interests in Europe based on their presumed support for US policies? It strikes me as a ludicrous notion much like the preposterous ‘libel tourism‘ used by the odious Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz to silence US author Rachel Ehrenfeld (amongst others) by using British court rulings.
Yet as long as people in the USA are sanguine about US courts being used to sue people for things that happen outside the USA, they can hardly complain if others use foreign courts against US citizens for things they do in the USA (such as publishing a book, for example).
Former Governor ‘Mitt’ Romney ran a series of ‘contrast ads’ against former Governor Mike Huckabee in Iowa.
The ads claimed that Mike Huckabee had vastly increased government spending and taxation in Arkansas (whereas he claims to have cut taxes) and that he went around handing out every possible government benefit to illegal immigrants – whereas he pretends to be tough on illegal immigration. Every word of the Romney attacks on Huckabee was true – so why did they not work?
It is a simple matter – the source of the attacks. ‘Mitt’ Romney also increased taxes when he was Governor of Massachusetts, although he called the taxes “fees” (hence one of his nicknames, Governor “Fee Fee”). True he did not increase taxes nearly as much as Mike Huckabee did, but…
And on government spending – Governor Romney left Massachusetts with a new entitlement program. Universal health care – the costs and fines connected with this program will go up and up over time, as such things always do. And “but my plan is not as bad as the Hillary Clinton plan” is not really a good defence.
As for “tough on illegal immigration”. Governor Romney was indeed tough on illegal immigration – for about two weeks before he left office. Governor Romney ordered the State Police in Massachusetts to enforce Federal immigration law as a move to impress Republican voters as he was already running his campaign for President – and knowing that the incoming Democrat Governor would drop the whole thing. Governor Romney also made a great show of vetoing some State government spending – knowing that these “cuts” would be reversed by the incoming Democrat.
So why did not Romney’s attacks work on Huckabee?
Simple – people who are not wearing any clothes do not get any credit for pointing out that other people are naked.
One of the first things I learnt, indeed was taught – with hard words, when I first stuck my British nose in American politics is that one should never predict caucus meetings, especially when the polls are close, because “anything can happen on caucus night”.
However, I now find myself predicting the Iowa caucus – indeed I have even found myself writing about it in on-line games I am involved in, which must make me seem even odder than I do normally. I am not predicting the Republican side – my emotions are too involved in that. But I do find myself predicting the Democrat side – in direct contradiction to the first rule I was taught. Therefore I am almost certainly making a fool of myself. However, I can not see Senator Hillary Clinton losing.
Take the line of policy.
For example, going on television and saying that people should vote for Senator Clinton because if they did she would “cure autism – I have been working on this for many years” and “cure cancer – a women came to one of my campaign events with a bald head from cancer treatment, but she had painted her head in support of me and I will not let her, and all the other people who have placed all their hopes and dreams in me, down”. Or the Christmas ad – Senator Clinton with lots of presents wrapped in ribbons saying things like “universal pre K.”, “alternative energy”, “universal healthcare” and so on. With the Senator indicating how all these presents would be given if she won.
I may think that such an behaviour is terrible and disgusting, indeed a sign of a maniac with delusions of Godhood – but Democrat voters will love it. But it is not just this, it is organization.
For example, what other Democrat will have five thousand cars on Thursday to take people to caucus events – and this is just the full time cars not the ad hoc help. And then there are all the child minders in special centres who will “take care of the children” whilst the parents are at caucus – I trust that nothing bad will happen to the children if the parents vote the wrong way. The campaign has just such a huge organization and such an unlimited amount of money I do not see how Senator Hillary Clinton can lose.
This morning Fox and Friends concentrated on three candidates in relation the Iowa caucuses on Thursday night: the two lead candidates in the polls, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney – and John McCain… this was in spite of the fact that Senator McCain is not in Iowa (he is in New Hampshire) and that Fred Thompson is ahead of John McCain is most of Iowa polls.
This is a part of pattern: last night Fred Thompson was on Fox News Sunday, but in the panel discussion, later in the show, the panellists ignored Fred Thompson. He is attacked by people, including me, for not going on enough television shows – but when he does go on what he says is ignored, so perhaps I see why he does not clamour to go on. Yesterday morning Fox and Friends, like the rest of the media, was busy laughing at Fred Thompson’s comments about not being obsessed with politics: “If one is not passionate about campaigning one should not run for office,” was the message of the media.
But what sort of person is passionate about the political process? Not getting things done – but the process of gaining votes. Of going around pretending to be close personal friends with lots and lots of people one has never met before?
Fred Thompson is in the middle of a 40 town Iowa tour – so he is hardly lazy. And he does go on television shows – thus dealing with critics, such as myself, who attacked him for not going on enough shows. But what sort of person would enjoy all this?
A lunatic. Someone who was interested in office for its own sake – not as a means to reduce the size and scope of government.
What the media, including Fox News (the only non-leftist news station and, therefore, of vital importance in the Republican nomination process), are saying is that Fred Thompson is too sane to be President. It is not enough to produce detailed policies for dealing with the entitlement program Welfare State (a cancer that is destroying the United States and the rest of the Western World), or producing a new optional flat tax (individuals could continue to use the existing system if they wished to) to deal with the nightmare of complexity that the income tax has become.
It is not even enough to have a long record of service, going back to Watergate and taking down a corrupt Governor of Tennessee in the 1970’s. And having one of the most Conservative voting records in the United States Senate – before leaving it in disgust at how the system did not allow real reform.
No – someone has to enjoy the prospect for office for its own sake, not to reduce the size and scope of government and restore a Federal Republic. One must enjoy the whole process of politics – i.e. be crazy. Or one must pretend to enjoy it – i.e. be a liar.
And then people complain that politicians are either crazy or corrupt. When they shoo away anyone who comes along who is neither crazy or corrupt.
Fred Thompson or Ron Paul? Like Perry and some others, I would rather see a big government Democrat elected than a big government Republican. At least that would bring back some opposition. Republicans in Congress have a much better record of reining in the Democrats’ presidents than their own. And as I explain later, I think that one of these two is the only Republican candidate capable of winning the national election.
Ron Paul answering the What programs? question by naming three cabinet level departments … Wow. Good answer. If there was no rest-of-the-world, he would possibly have my vote.
“Possibly?!” Yes. Possibly. Why? Because good intentions are not enough. Many people have the right ideas. Even if elected, he needs to maneuver his ideas through both the Washington players and the great ambivalent middle of the electorate. He needs to explain and convince massive numbers of mainstream people that what he will bring is better for them personally. How many think Ron Paul is up to that job? I don’t.
Does any small government candidate have a chance both to be elected and a chance of accomplishing a rollback if elected? → Continue reading: Fred or Ron?
I want to reproduce, in somewhat edited form, a comment I left on Adam’s blog on the political issue of evolution vs. creationism…
The only debate that should be had on the issue of evolution vs. creationism is “does the state have a role in ‘edukshun’?” I say no and I suspect Ron Paul agrees. I have no problem with people believing whatever wacko things they want (and for me that includes all religion), but the evolution vs. creationism debate should be a non political one and the only way that can ever be true is when the state is no longer involved in education.
I think creationism is nuts and it makes me think less of Ron Paul that he has a religious objection to the theory of evolution. But frankly this should not be a matter for political concern and he at least is highly unlikely to force state schools to teach it (or anything else for that matter). The fact that it is a political matter shows something it very wrong and the correct ‘something’ that needs debating is not evolution, it is state schooling. Return all schooling to the private sector and the whole issue goes away from the political sphere. Let the market decide if there is demand for schools that teach creationism, I have no problem with that at all.
To which I would add…
The way to get people behind this is to argue that the only way to make sure your children are not subjected to [choose one: (1) Godless indoctrination (2) religious gibberish] is to make education non-political and the only way to do that is for schools to not take tax money. The moment anything involves ‘public money’, it perforce becomes political because that means you are trying to spend the money of people who do not agree with you. Dis-intermediating the state is in the interests of both sides of this issue.
The same logic applies to homosexual marriage. Get the state out of the ‘recognising marriage’ business and the political issue goes away. Want to shun/accept same sex couples? The only way you can be sure you are free to act on your belief on this subject is to make it a social issue, not a political one, by getting the state out of the way.
Yes, I know I wrote an article tentatively supporting Ron Paul, but please, someone, tell me this clip in which Dr. Ron Paul rejects the theory of evolution has been edited to remove the full context of the remark.
I recall reading years ago about ‘rumblings on the reservations’ but the Lakota Indians have finally done it… they have repudiated their treaties with the US federal government and UDI‘ed their asses. Cool. I have to say I am looking forward to seeing what comes next.
I am guessing the response will not involve F-15s or the army but would anyone would anyone who knows what they are talking about (my grasp of Lakota/US politics is a tad weak) care to speculate what will actually happen? Are the Lakota agriculturally self-sufficient? Do the leadership really represent the majority Lakota view? Are they serious or is this a ploy for Federal handouts? I am curious to say the least to hear from anyone who actually understand what the significance (or not) of this move really is.
The LA Times blog has reported an explanation for the incredible Sunday fund raising feat of the Ron Paul campaign.
Back in November, the Paul campaign reported raising $4.2 million online in one day with what they call a “money bomb,” a fund raising gimmick devised by Trevor Lyman, a musician and self-appointed Paul fund raiser profiled by The Times’ Dan Morain yesterday. Sunday’s gimmick was to celebrate the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party on a website with a drawing of Paul that looks remarkably like that president on the penny.
I am happy to see the LA Times covering this story and extend a hearty Samizdata thank you to Nikki at that publication for informing us!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
