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]
|
Michael Totten has a superb article up that compares the approach to counter-insurgency followed by Israel under the dismal Ehud Olmert, and that of the US in Iraq under General David Petraeus.
What Totten points out is that the policies promised by Barack Obama for Iraq (in essence remove the army and drop bombs on anyone who seems to be the Bad Guys) is essential the same as the demonstrably failed approach used by Ehud Olmert in Lebanon. Israel blew the crap out of Lebanon from the air and achieved precisely zero of its war aims.
Read the whole article.
I have read more about the Che and flag incident in the Houston Obama office today and my biggest concern over this affair now is the poor woman who was to ‘blame’ for it. We really have to be careful in the blogger world about building mountains out of molehills and using verbiage to turn neighbors into ideological enemies.
From what I have read via Little Green Footballs, I see someone very much like many close and dear friends of mine. People who I disagree with but whom are nonetheless good people with whom you would not at all be averse to spending an evening arguing ideas over some good wine.
She did something really dumb and probably never even considered setting up ‘her space’ with a familiar and comfortable decoration would actually mean something in the real world. Many people spend much of their lives without learning that lesson and are surprised when it happens. She possibly managed some minor and unintentional damage to her favoured candidate and in punishment is cowering in her home in fear of all those hateful people who are sending venom her way.
This is certainly not the Samizdata way as you all well know. Ideas can and should be argued… but one must recognize the humanity and very often the basic decency of the people you disagree with.
I sincerely hope her McLuhan fame is soon over so she can get back to her normal life.
PS: I have intentionally not mentioned her name or given a link.
This article is in the LA Times titled Doctors balk at request for data:
The state’s largest for-profit health insurer is asking California physicians to look for conditions it can use to cancel their new patients’ medical coverage. Blue Cross of California is sending physicians copies of health insurance applications filled out by new patients, along with a letter advising them that the company has a right to drop members who fail to disclose “material medical history,” including “pre-existing pregnancies”.
Firstly all aspects of medical care, including insurance, are regulated to bits in the United States (especially in California), and it is the government regulations and subsidy programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid – but in recent years SCHIP as well) that are at the root of the high price of medical cover. But to turn to the specific question:
If someone lies about their medical history when filling out a contract, in order to get less expensive medical cover, they are guilty of fraud. In an alternative world, which I am not saying I would support, they would not only be dropped by their insurance company when their fraud was exposed – they would also be prosecuted.
Of course, in our world, they will not be prosecuted and would not be convicted if they were prosecuted. It is much the same with all the political talk about “fraudulent lending” in the mortgage market. There has been vastly more fraudulent borrowing, but I doubt that the vast number of people who lied on their mortgage applications (for example claiming to have an income much greater than they really have) will be prosecuted.
However, in an alternative world (which, again, I am not saying I support) prosecution and conviction would solve the problems of customers guilty of fraud – medical cover and a roof over their heads.
Prison provides both.
This article on the Ron Paul news site has a very interesting photo of the Obama Houston Campaign office. You really want to take a look.
It would be much improved by a propeller beanie.
Now that the rather dismal Romney has bowed out, it looks like absent a brokered deal by genuine conservatives, the truly dismal John McCain will get the Republican nomination.
My hope is that he asks Fred Thompson to run as his veep… and that Thompson tell him to go fuck himself (and if he accepts, then Thompson was not the man some folks thought he was).
Although I am rarely in enthusiastic agreement with Ann Coulter, I agree with her basic premiss regarding John McCain. Better to have the statist poison introduced by the Hildebeeste or Obrama than a Republican, because if McCain gets into the White House, that is the end of the Republican Party as anyone in the Goldwater or Reagan tradition will abandon them, quite possibly forever. The Republicans will be dead and gawd knows it will be a well deserved death.
Of course the upside of a seismic shift style Republican collapse is maybe a new political grouping is indeed what is needed, one that can also appeal to the deeply civil libertarian elements on the so-called left (yes, they really do exist). I have met many Democrats who would never consider supporting Republicans for tribal/cultural reasons and yet quite frankly are deeply uneasy bedfellows with the intolerant authoritarian ‘Daily Kos’ style left that so loves Hillary Clinton. Every cloud has a silver lining.
I must admit to being surprised by the volume of comments that this “Samizdata quote of the day” item provoked; I am not aware that we got linked to by some pro-Clinton blogs. One thing that did strike me about the comments was the apparent ignorance of the new commenters as to the philososphical bias of this blog (pro-liberty, pro-capitalism, small, if not minimal government, robust view on defence, etc). My dislike of Hillary/Obama/McCain/Huckabee/Romney is pretty consistent all the way through. Their unifying characteristic is their belief that government can do many good things and should do these things a great deal. Not one of them has – unless I missed it – made the sort of general, shrink-the-state comments that were the trademark of Reagan in his prime (that’s not to say, of course, that the Gipper actually was as marvellous as some of his supporters might claim). Of course, there remain differences, but none so much to really make a major shift in the direction of American, or for that matter, western politics. If Clinton were elected and we got a re-run of the Clinton psychodrama of the 1990s, it would be tedious, even a dangerous distraction from serious events, but I am not convinced it would be the end for Jefferson’s Republic. On the other hand, if McCain got elected, he’d probably only want to serve out one term, as he is getting on in years.
Why does any of this matter? Well, like it or not, what happens across the Big Pond resonates here. British politicians look for suggestions that western political ideas are moving in a particular way. At the moment, Big Government, Greenery, micro-management of personal behaviours via the tax and legal system are dominant ideas, although there is some fightback. This is why, infuriating though it may be to Little Englanders, the US Presidential elections get so much attention.
I’ll just be relieved when it is over so we can go back to bashing Gloomy Gordon and Dave.
Hayek? …. Check!
Hazlett? …. Check!
Von Mises? …. Check!
Ron Paul gave an extremely cogent economics talk to Seattle Business leaders which you can watch here.
He even wants to dump Sarbanes-Oxley. What more could you ask?
“One day, there will be a woman worth electing to the White House. But not this one.”
– Andrew Sullivan. His observations on the contrast between Senator Clinton, and Margaret Thatcher, are spot-on.
The swing voters are on the ends, not in the middle. Take a good look at this chart.
Notice that the Democratic voter turnout is a steady trend. Not Ross Perot or Ralph Nader appears to have affected the Democratic base turnout. It looks quite reasonable to interpret that third party candidates do not pick off Democratic voters, but rather people who otherwise would not have voted or would have voted Republican.
On the other hand, look at the Republican voter turnout. During a time when the Democrats went from 37.4 to 44.9 million in a trend that projects in both directions, the Republicans went from 54.5 to 39.1 million. The explanation is a simple one. The Republican party does not have a ‘base’. If they do, it is so small that it is below the radar.
Put another way, Democrats vote for their party come what may. Republicans vote, or very importantly stay home, based on the candidates and their principles, not party loyalty. This comment thread on Rachel Lucas with well over 400 mostly thoughtful comments shows the depth of the division. Even here on Samizdata there are commenters who say things like:
… “true” conservatives piss me off. And if there is one thing I can count on, it’s that McCain will knee them in the nuts when needed. Who the hell do these self righteous ass hats think they are?
My answer? We are individuals. We vote with our mind, not ‘our’ party. And you will not win without us.
I said some time back that the only Republican candidate capable of winning the big race was Thompson. Obviously, I did not make that prediction based on poll numbers naming him as their first choice. I made that prediction based on the poll numbers that did not give him an absolute negative. Well, that and the obvious fact that the swing voters are on the ends, not the middle. Had he been the Republican candidate, a popular majority would almost certainly have found him to be the preferred candidate. No other candidate can avoid the rejection of substantial numbers of voters that the RNC claims are Republicans. Because Republican strategists are forgetting something. Many of ‘their’ voters do not belong to the Republican party. We belong to ourselves. And that is how we vote. If Fred is still on the ballot in your state, it is not too late to vote that way.
A new bill in Mississippi would make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese customers.
The legislation, introduced by three members of the state’s House of Representatives, would allow health inspectors to revoke the licence of any restaurant that “repeatedly” feeds extremely overweight people.
SCENE: Int. Day. A diner somewhere in Mississippi. A customer enters and sits down. The waitress approaches.
WAITRESS: What do you need, honey?
CUSTOMER: Hi, I’d like a steak, please, with some french fries and a side order of cole…
WAITRESS: Whoa, whoa, whoa….back up, fatboy. Everything’s off.
CUSTOMER: Everything??!!
WAITRESS: I can bring you some water.
CUSTOMER: But I’m famished.
WAITRESS: I don’t make the rules, sweetie.
CUSTOMER: But that man over there is eating a club sandwich.
WAITRESS: That man over there has a 32-inch waist. See the sign? ‘No six-pack, no lunch pack’.
CUSTOMER: Isn’t there anything you can bring me?
WAITRESS: ‘Lose the guts. No ifs, no buts’.
CUSTOMER: But, look, I’m not fat, I’m just big-boned.
WAITRESS (calling out): Joe, bring me out the calipers.
CUSTOMER: Okay, okay. Listen, its my glands. I’ve got a glandular problem. Can I help it if my glands won’t work properly?
WAITRESS: You’re wasting my time here, honey. I’ve got plenty of slim, healthy customers to serve.
CUSTOMER: Oh please! I’m starving.
WAITRESS: Not starving enough, sweetie.
CUSTOMER: Can’t I just have some bacon and eggs? Please? Oh come on, pleeeeeeeease?
WAITRESS: Listen, I’d like to help you. Tell you what, come in again next week and if you’ve dropped maybe five, six pounds, I can serve you a cup of black coffee and maybe a slice of dry toast. How’d that be?
ENDS.
Americans: Do not fear, you are not going to lose a conservative President next January and no conservative is going to be defeated on Super Tuesday.
First I must point out that this posting is not about Congressman Dr Ron Paul – no offence meant, I am just not going to be writing about him here. The United States will not lose a conservative President next January because George Walker Bush is no conservative.
No shock there – he is the man who gave the Republic such things as “No-Child-Left-Behind” and the Medicare extension (and so much other stuff). But just how un-conservative President Bush is was brought home to me by watching the rerun of the ‘Bush Special’ on FNC.
President Bush was asked about his 30 billion Dollar aid package for Africa and he replied that he had pushed it into effect because it was a religious moral duty to give to the poor and because terrorism was bred by poverty – the money would keep people away from the “ideology of hate”, which could never convince people with a chance in life. Mrs Bush then said something about a healthy workforce being good for the economy of these various African nations… → Continue reading: Conservative rule will not end next January, and no Conservative will lose on Super Tuesday
CNN man to Senators Clinton and Obama: “People all over the country are saying if you got together it would be a Dream Ticket”.
Senator Obama: “I was a friend of Senator Clinton before the nomination race began and I will be a friend of Senator Clinton’s after the nomination race is over”.
Senator Clinton: “The Republicans are more-of-the-same, we represent change. You can tell that just by looking at us”.
In short “change” means race and gender – not lower government spending or less regulations.
Indeed both Senators Clinton and Obama think the Republicans should have spent even more taxpayers money on health, education and welfare, and passed even more regulations.
As for CNN – it is like the rest of the main stream media. It can not ask tough questions to ‘liberals’ because its folk share all their basic assumptions.
|
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.
|
