Category Archives: Blog Discussions

Health Care @ Coyote Blog

Over at Coyote Blog, Warren takes WaPo columnist Steven Pearlman to task for an article on health care. It’s far too extensive to summarize, but I highly recommend taking a look. An excerpt:

But let’s get into all that money-grubbing. Mr. Pearlstein reads the study as saying the problem is all that profit. Because we have layers of profit in the distribution channel, our health care costs more than it does in Europe, where you have the efficiency [sic!] of government management. Before we get into detail, I would observe that this fails a pretty basic smell test right off: Nearly every single product and service we Americans buy, all of which are rife with layers of nasty profits in the supply chain, are cheaper than their counterpart services and products in Europe. If this layering of profit without government management is a problem, why is it only a problem in health care but not a problem in thousands of other industries.

Go check out the rest.

The Blogosphere As A Spontaneous Order

American Magazine has an interesting article arguing that the blogosphere is the perfect example of a spontaneous order in action:

Left to the free market of ideas and instant reader feedback, good writing, quality and reliability in blogging secures a readership and reputation solely on merit. The analogy to “democracy” may be clichéd but the blogosphere is a prime example of Milton Friedman’s credo (“Capitalism and Freedom”) that minimal (or no) regulation and state licensing are best; they are too often a pretext to shut down competition not protect the populace.

All the more reason, then, why Friedman should be the patron saint of the Age of Blogging:  people with brains, networks, and powers of self-expression don’t wait for journalism degrees anymore to have an impact. Indeed the response of ‘mainstream’ journalism to blogging (if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em) vindicates Friedman’s skepticism of credentialing like few other phenomena of the past 50 years.  This may be a sub-part of what Friedman saw as the power of the Internet:  “The Internet is the most effective instrument we have for globalization,” he said in 2005, referring to the power of instant electronic connections for commercial purposes.  The same applies, of course, to the world of ideas, flourishing free of the state.

Professional journalists often say that blogs will never compare to the “tradtional” media because they lack the discipline that comes with experience and a trained editor. However, blogs have something that the traditional media lacks — an evolving tradition of self-regulation that correction. A blog post based on information that turns out to be incorrect is not going to be ignored; it’s going to be critiqued and criticized, and the writer is going to be under pressure to come clean when it’s been proven that a mistake was made. When was the last time the MSM admitted it was wrong ?

The Future Of Liberty

I wrote this post back in January 2006 at The Unrepentant Individual. I’ve got a post I want to write in a day or two about blogging in general, but this post will lay the groundwork.

——————————————————————

Since the American Revolution, and particularly in the past 100 years, we’ve seen a ceaseless growth of the scope and size of government. In discussions with other LLP’ers, I often find that there is a latent air of futility. Many of my fellow libertarian bloggers see our role as a brake on that growth, rather than see the possibility of reversing it.

To some extent, I understand where they’re coming from. To affect a change that will reduce the scope of government will demand the support of a large swath of the voting public. This is a tall order, as much of the public has become hooked on the bread and circuses doled out by our federal government. In addition, it will require convincing legislators that bold action is required to keep their power. Our current system rewards politicians who spout meaningless platitudes, while actively punishing those who pursue bold action. In short, it will require that all of our culture as has been developed over the last hundred years be completely upended.

Those who feel they’re fighting a rear-guard action, I understand. But I don’t think it’s a futile endeavor. Perhaps I’m still young, dumb, and full of– bravado, but I think real change is possible. I see a fundamental change already occurring in our culture. This fundamental change is one that will wholly transform culture in this country in a way more widely felt than the invention of the television. In addition, it will be a change which empowers individuals, rather than turns them into mindless drones, as the television accomplished. The internet, my friends, is the answer.

I’ve made the point before, but since the time radio and television took over American media dominance from the newspaper, we have seen a slow– but steady– consolidation of media power. This consolidation has ensured that to have a voice in the national political debate, you needed money. Lots and lots of money. Large amounts of money have their own way of accumulating, whether it be in corporations, special-interest groups, or political parties. But when the only voices in the debate are those of the powerful, citizens have only one recourse– our votes. Despite what you might hear from P. Diddy, your vote doesn’t carry as much weight as the voices of the powerful.

The powerful care about only one thing: continuing their power. When Eric and I both discussed Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, we discussed the idea that inducing fear is a very simple way to control the populace, and that control perpetuates the powerful’s grasp on society. Fear can only be defeated by information. In a world where media and the control of information is dominated by the powerful, the foxes guards the henhouse. The powerful are the ones perpetuating a state of fear, and have no desire to allow the spread of information that may damage their position.

But the consolidation of the media has been breached. The playing field has been leveled. No longer does it take millions of dollars to get a message out to the public. The internet in general, and blogging in particular, will restore the flow of information that the current media inhibits. It has created a whole new forum, and widely expanded the popular media. At the same time, it has already had some effect on the legacy media, as we’ve seen in the Rathergate mess. The effect of the internet on our culture has barely been felt. But the internet has barely seen 10 years as a mainstream communications medium, and is still in a stage of infancy. Yet, we are already seeing its power. Blogs, also still in their infancy, have acheived enough prominence that the major media are paying attention, and in several cases, blogs have changed the debate. Some have claimed, and a case can be made, that George W. Bush would not have been reelected without bloggers shaping the debate.

The internet is a medium with little or no cost of entry. It requires nothing more than a will and a message to get your voice out there. Of course, unlike the current television media, finding people to listen to that voice is not easy. On the bright side, however, compelling information has a way of ensuring that it is heard. The terms “meme” and “blog-swarm” express just how quickly and widely information can stretch their legs. Last year, when I was (I still am, of course!) a small-time blogger, I started a meme, and checked back on it every month or so using technorati. The meme was going strong for months, finding its way to corners of the blogosphere that I would never have known to exist. And blog-swarms are feared by those in power. A couple of bloggers uncovering problems with documents ignited a blog-swarm which destroyed the credibility of Dan Rather and seriously injured that of CBS. It eventually grew large enough to force the major media outlets to cover the story.

Heretofore unexplored, of course, is how the growth of the internet and blogs as a medium will affect liberty. Here, it comes down to a matter of core beliefs. I’ve always believed that those who are conditioned to follow, will follow. Those who are conditioned to make up their own mind, will make up their own mind. This is all about changing people’s conditioning. As I said initially, this is a tall order, because years of television have given our nation the wrong conditioning. But the internet empowers people. Those of us who are trying to make our voices heard can do so. Those in the world who are looking for information outside that provided by the major media outlets can find it. When individuals become empowered, it is contagious.

What do we need to do to restore lost liberty and return to smaller government? We need to empower people and let them see– for themselves– that they don’t need government to provide for them. They need to see that by controlling the reality of the world around them, that they can do so much more efficiently than the government. They’re already getting this on their own; all they need are guides to find their way. In the run-up to the American Revolution, people weren’t striking out against England because they “all of a sudden” started believing in independence. The world was changing, and the old power structures were no longer viable. Our Founding Fathers were guides along the path, setting up a nation which they believed was suited to the new environment.

Our world is changing, and the old power structures are no longer viable. Whether or not your or my view of how the new structures should fit are correct, what we are doing is not futile. I honestly believe that liberty is not dead, and that big government can be defeated, and will do all that is in my power to achieve that end.

Edwards & His “Blogger Problem”

Barely a week ago, John Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte to be one of the head bloggers on his campaign. As is expected whenever something of this magnitude occurs, people started looking into her past writings. I— and quite a lot of other people— pointed out that she’s a bit unhinged, caustic, and was at best a questionable choice to be the “voice” of your campaign. Well, the pressure ratcheted up, and rumors circulated about Edwards firing Marcotte (and another blogger, Melissa McEwan, who didn’t attract nearly as much vitriol). Edwards chose to retain the two— publicly, at least.

Now Marcotte has resigned. And in typical Marcotte fashion, her own writings have absolutely no impact on her choice, it was all due to a right-wing smear job by the patriarchy!

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

No, Amanda, we’re not attacking you because you’re a woman, or because you’re pro-choice, or because you’re not religious. It’s because you’re the one running a scorched-earth campaign against anything with which you disagree, spewing venom and ad hominem attacks at anything in your path. It’s because you’re not a very nice person (at least publicly on your blog). While you may have described your religious writings as “satirical”, they miss a crucial trait of satire: they’re not funny.

The attacks against Amanda weren’t lies. It wasn’t a “smear job”, unless she considers pointing out the very things she wrote on your blog to be a “smear job”. The way she writes is offensive. It belittles anyone who disagrees with her, rather than trying to argue against their points. From the way she write, it gives readers the impression that she sees a bogeyman behind every corner, attempting to steal her uterus and shove a baby into it. She’s angry and hysterical, and it’s difficult for me to take her seriously because of that.

Now, I can’t speak for Bill Donohue, because I’ve never heard of him. And I’m not trying to silence anyone. But I’ll gladly engage in a little bit of schadenfreude when John Edwards hires such a loose cannon to run his campaign blog. From a political standpoint, it might have been smarter to let Edwards off the hook, and hope that Marcotte did more damage as a part of the campaign than outside of it. But Edwards may not last that long as it is, so I’ll point and laugh while I’ve got the chance.

One bit, though, stuck out. When the left gets attacked, it’s always “well-financed shills” who are doing the dirty work:

The other good news is that the blogosphere has risen as one and protested, loudly, the influence a handful of well-financed right wing shills have on the public discourse.

I’m assuming the check is in the mail?

John Edwards Has A New Blogger On Staff

Hit & Run is reporting on John Edwards’ new blogger, Amanda Marcotte. Some of you remember Amanda as the raving feminist* from Pandagon. Well, it seems that one of the earliest things Amanda has done after the announcement of her new position is to go back and delete a post where she jumped to conclusions about the Duke rape case.

Perhaps she should look further back in her history, to the blog Mouse Words. Before she got picked up by Pandagon, she made a name for herself on that blog. Back in the day, I was a very new blogger, and adopted the resident libertarian position, debating her.

But for those of you “right-wingers” like me (I include libertarians in that group because to a leftist like Amanda, anyone who doesn’t agree is a right-winger), you should know something about her. She thinks that those of us on the right are either evil or stupid. I got into it with her on this post at Mouse Words, dealing with creationism and public schools. It was then that I realized she divides right-leaning individuals into one of two groups, and as I pointed out at Unrepentant Individual at the time, she thinks I’m in the wrong one.

I’ve realized that to the left, there are two types of right-wingers: the stupid, and the evil. The evil is a very small, powerful group. Their goal is to find ways to destroy the country in such a way that it shores up their power, and makes them the ruling elite of the country. The stupid group is everyone else that votes Republican. They are pawns, too dim to understand that they are being manipulated by their evil string-pullers.

Now, I tried to defend myself and my right-wing brethren, and mentioned that we are not trying to destroy America as we know it. We have honestly weighed the policies, and believe that the policies that we are supporting are in the long-term interests of our nation as a whole. My frank response got me this:

“Brad, I don’t think you do. I think the people who want to be our evil overlords dump millions of dollars into right wing think tanks to come up with arguments that everyday folks think sound reasonable enough and then manufacture crisises so that everyday folks think that we have no choice but to implement the plans that the right wing think tanks come up with.”

Looks like I must have landed myself in the “stupid” group. Which undoubtedly has me a little angry. I don’t consider myself to be a slouch intellectually, and I’m enough of a skeptic to watch out when people are trying to exploit me. Despite my slight megalomania and delusions of grandeur, I’m not evil. The only explanation I have left is that they must be drugging my water.

This is the kind of mentality that we have to deal with from the left. Obviously our policies are absolutely atrocious, so to support them we must be evil or stupid.

So, if Amanda takes down her older old blog, remember one thing. If you don’t agree with her, she thinks you’re evil, or you’re stupid. And if the folks at Hit & Run are right, she really thinks you’re stupid, because she thinks she can just remove her previous words and they’ll go away. As they ask, hasn’t she ever heard of Google Cache or the Wayback Machine? And she thinks I’m the daft one?
» Read more

1 8 9 10 11 12 13