|
|||||
|
[Samantha] Power is gone now – but not for the odd article this post points to. No the lady was fired because she said (to a journalist for ‘The Scotsman’) that Hillary Clinton was a monster who would do anything for power. In short the lady was dismissed for telling the truth. After all the Democrats have to kiss and make up at some point. – Paul Marks March 9th, 2008 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
 It appears that courts in the USA feel it is perfectly all right to issue a search warrant to raid someone’s house on the basis of higher-that-average electricity use. The linked example happened a few years ago but I gather it is not all that unusual a basis for a search in the Land of the Free. Presumably as I often have five computers running that is the sort of thing that would attract the attention of The Fuzz in the USA too. I also noticed that the search warrant allows them to search for ‘firearms’… so is possession of a firearm a criminal offence in the People’s Republic of California these days? March 9th, 2008 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
University of Tennessee law Professor Glenn Reynolds has an excellent paper on jury nullification, a subject near and dear to the hearts of libertarians. Jury nullification is a common law concept with ancient roots in Anglosphere law. During the run up to the American Civil War it was used repeatedly, and much to the State’s chagrin, to make the Fugitive Slave Act unenforceable. Juries would not convict persons arrested for assisting in the escape of slaves. Law in the US has again taken a turn towards State convenience and interests over those of the individual and liberty so it is high time we dust off this legal concept and start telling judges and the legislature to ‘shove it’. March 8th, 2008 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
Sometimes I wonder whether the news editors in the media “join the dots”, to coin a phrase. Scanning my Bloomberg machine this morning (part of my day job), this headline was prominent: Chicago’s Snowiest Winter Since 1979 Depletes Budget Then, on the same Bloomberg front page, is this: Gore Invests $35 Million for Hedge Funds With EBay Billionaire Gore has, of course, made himself a mint and also burnished his Green credentials with his film, An Inconvenient Truth, a film that has had great influence in encouraging the idea that the Earth is at serious risk from man-made global warming, although others remain to be convinced. Fair play to Gore: if he has managed to make a lot of cash by producing a film and persuaded enough paying customers to see it, well who am I, as an ardent capitalist, to complain? If he wants to invest in those mysterious-sounding things called hedge funds, even better (they are not all that bizarre, by the way, just a form of investment fund with a few tricks). But if the city of Chicago is running short of cash to pay for all the snow clearance, maybe the councillors should phone up Al and ask for a donation. After all, the current freezing weather in so many places must be er, Man’s fault, right? March 7th, 2008 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
For me the idea of the state installing cameras everywhere to ensure compliance with its edicts was the most memorable aspect to George Orwell’s dystopian 1984, with Newspeak a close second. But of course here in the real world, the state would never try to force private business owners to allow the state to place cameras to make sure people are following regulations, right?
And what comes next? Cameras in schools and daycare centres naturally. For the children of course. And after that? I mean, why stop there? March 7th, 2008 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
The very worthy folks of the Free State Project are holding an event in June in New Hampshire to highlight their work and maybe attract some more supporters.
If you are interested in supporting the FSP and becoming a ‘porcupine’, check it out!  March 6th, 2008 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
As many of our readers already know, Carla Howell succeeded in collecting a sufficient number of signatures for her ballot initiative to end the Massachusetts income tax. There may be further legal challenges but it will almost certainly be on the ballot this year. With polls showing a dead heat between yes and no voters the inappropriately named “Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation” is already preparing its defense of high taxes. Although the core battle is months away, politicians are already hitting back. Can you guess which party this statement came from?
It was from Peter Torkildsen, the Republican state party chairman of Massachusetts. And you wondered why libertarians do not flock to the Republican Party? The correct answers to Torkildsen’s quiz are: “Zero” and “Leave it with the honest folk who earned it”. March 6th, 2008 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
I am live-blogging the primaries over at my election blog. My prediction: the Hildebeast will not die. This is good for John McCain as the chances of more dirt getting dug up and thrown at the two Democrats is getting ever greater. Also, the obvious ticket of a year ago: Clinton/Obama or even Obama/Clinton, looks somewhat hard to pull off now. March 5th, 2008 | 16 comments - (Comments are closed)
The fine folks on The Line is Here (subtext: an anti-nanny state collective) have started something called the Picador Project which may be of interest to our USA based readers.
Check it out. March 4th, 2008 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
There is an interesting article on Martin Kramer’s Sandbox blog about Obama adviser Samantha Power. The article points out the extraordinarily daft 2002 foreign policy suggestions made by her and Michael Ignatieff (who I have met a couple times… nice enough for a total Guardianista) in which she urges US military intervention against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. But in the quoted part of her problematic remarks…
… the real ‘money quote’ for me is not the bizarre notion of (in effect) going to war with Israel, it is “But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway.” Her remark is a pretty clear cut rejection of the US Constitutional Republic in favour of unrestrained democracy. That is of course clearly what Obama thinks as well and why he will not allow the Second Amendment to get in the way of what he wants. So it is hardly surprising that he chooses an advisor who shares his opinion that constitutional limits on democratic politics are something to be sad about. It is also something that needs to be pointed out loudly and often by people who think limits on what the state can do are a very good idea indeed. At least Samantha Powers is somewhat honest about the fact she feels the US Bill of Rights is a regrettable limitation on untrammelled democratic politics. I wonder how many politicians would be so candid? March 3rd, 2008 | 28 comments - (Comments are closed)
Health care policy is a major issue in the Democratic Party’s choice of a presidential candidate. The final debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in Ohio, spent a reported 15 minutes on it. Yet the mainstream news media in the United States consistently report that there are only very minor differences between the positions of the two candidates. Given this, the argument looks like little more than semantic quibbling over the meaning of the word “universal,” all too typical of Clinton’s struggle to contest Obama’s unexpected rivalry for the nomination. But the mainstream news media have it wrong. There is, in fact, a vitally important difference between the two positions, though one that their worldview makes them ill equipped to recognize. The difference is that Clinton would compel everyone to purchase health insurance; Obama would not. The standard label for this difference in health policy debates is “mandate,” for what Clinton wants. Clinton has been evasive about exactly how she would compel the purchase of insurance – which is not surprising, as talking about punishing voters is not a good selling point in an election. The state of Massachusetts, which has a mandate, imposes fines on adults who do not have health insurance. Clinton has not talked about fines, but has suggested garnishing wages or making enrollment compulsory on admission to any hospital. Of course, Clinton promises to make health insurance affordable to everyone, through subsidies and through massive new regulation of the insurance industry. So does Obama. But what if their plans do not work out? Under Obama’s plan, adults who thought even subsidized health insurance cost more than they could pay would remain uninsured, and at least be no worse off. Under Clinton’s plan, they would be forced to sign up, or penalized for not doing so – and either way they would be hurt. And given that Clinton predicts that fifteen million Americans would remain uncovered under Obama’s voluntary plan, it seems that she anticipates that fifteen million people would have to be hurt financially to make her plan viable – or, perhaps, simply to justify her in calling it “universal.” → Continue reading: Health care, class conflict, and the Democratic Party March 2nd, 2008 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
John McCain has called himself a ‘liberal Republican‘. In other news today, Maria Sharapova called herself a ‘tennis player’, Nicolas Sarkozy called himself ‘President of France’, Natalie Portman said she was interested in Scarlett Johansson’s breasts and Terry Pratchett called himself ‘an author’. February 29th, 2008 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||