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.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
True Colours?February 12th, 2008 |
 28 comments to True Colours? |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
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. |
|||||
Dale,
So what? The Che image (in particular that one courtesy of Mr Warhol) means what precisely these days? It’s become so iconic that I suspect very few people connect it to communism even. Ditto for the so-called “peace scarf”. Now obviously I’d prefer it if such symbols were rightly identified for what they are and abhorred but then I’d also like to be able to piss into a headwind.
In any case think of the irony of that Che pic and how many millions it has made for capitalists!
First, this isn’t a dormitory room. It is the campaign headquarters of a man who would be President. Different standards apply.
Second: that is a Cuban flag. Guess which candidate now has ZERO chance of carrying Florida, should he be the Democratic candidate…
I suspect there will be some changes in personnel at that office if they have not been made already.
OK, Dale, I’ll give you the Cuban flag.
And your point wrt FL is a very good one. You would have thought the Dems might have learned of the importance of that state after the 2000 debacle. Though didn’t Gore also lose his home state of TN?)
I guess I was just reacting to previous post(s) about the Che image here on SI. I just don’t take it seriously as a political statement. I suspect the vast majority of the people who buy posters, flags, T-shirts etc don’t either. It has only slightly more political relevance than Warhol’s equally iconic Marilyn Monroe.
I also guess that I’ve seen enough fringe lefties making tits of themselves to no avail to just not take any of it seriously. Hell, I once had to point out to some “Revolutionary Socialists” in Newcastle that they were flying the Venezuelan Flag upside-down!
I probably shouldn’t have bothered considering what an inverted flag means. Quite apt, really. They swapped the flag around while bemoaning that it was slightly out of date (Charvez had added another star) but they couldn’t get hold of the new one without importing it from the USA which they weren’t prepared to do.
They were like younger, better looking, versions of E L Wisty (& Spotty Muldoon).
Anyway, I guess I’m becoming something of an Obama fan. Not because of his policies you understand, just because he seriously irritates that bitch-on-wheels. And because if he wins he’ll be about as effective as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
H/T to whoever coined that one on the “Night of the Living Hilarys thread”.
I don’t think the Che image will have that much of an impact for the Change brigade despite Fox’s whining. Obama isn’t Ron Paul and Che (cnut that he was) isn’t a series of questionable newsletters.
Go Capt. Change!!! you inexperienced man you.
What made Che such a heroic figure for our time is that he, more than any man of our epoch or even of our century, was the living embodiment of the principle of Revolution.
Murray Rothbard
Ron Paul’s intellectual inspiration.
Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul’s intellectual inspiration.
And one of mine and nearly all other libertarians as well.
Well… no, not really. The man thought the Soviets were not really that much of a threat and his views on much of WW2 make him laughable in my view. He was my ‘inspiration’ in the sense that he made it clear to me who I did not want to emulate. I think I quoted him once or twice before I actually read a great deal about him and realised just how much I actually disliked him.
He came from a time when some of those ideas seemed much more reasonable; I did not particularly share his historical views even then but I was very much affected in my views by “For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto”.
His views are quite visible in the Science Fiction of L Neil Smith, another libertarian whom I very much admire, and I highly recommend “The Probability Broach” to all comers as it very closely reflects my views and my sort of “ideal” world – with full recognition we will likely never see anything like it on this Earth.
Which is perhaps why I am a spacer…
If you follow the link in the text to this page, you’ll see the following message:
“The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign.”
Not ideal for him, then, but not as bad as it being his own office. Still, no need to expect his opponents to mention that….
Indeed. Also, Obama’s team are putting out videos like this: Link
Funky!!! – So funky that the occasional Che on the wall gets lost in the noise.
While Hillary’s lot are doing this: Link
Tacky- So Tacky in fact that the occasional Che t-shirt wouldn’t even get noticed.
I don’t know what the ROP-ers are putting out but I’ll bet they feature Jesus & Terrorists a lot.
Guess Her Clintonness can’t complain about her opponent’s promotion of a mass murderer in the torture-then-kill-prisoners Saddam mold; it’d raise too many questions. She’d have to limit herself to the Cuban flag.
A quote from the comments on the linked article at the Ron Paul site:
Wow, where can I get one of those? My gay hobbit porn is getting seriously stale.
Novus,
Yeah I saw that disclaimer also, kinda torpedos the main thrust of the post.
Also, there is somewhat of a problem with the story. Not only are the actions and shots of the office very short and limited, but the narration says, ‘…volunteers open two new Houston offices for the Barack Obama presidential campaign.’ If the office is new, how did they get the flag up so quickly ey? Unless Che was the first thing on their mind…
Also, the people in the shot are not interviewed or featured in the piece, and are merely ‘props’ for the story. I’m not saying it’s false, but it is dodgy nonetheless. I remain unconvinced.
His views are quite visible in the Science Fiction of L Neil Smith, another libertarian whom I very much admire, and I highly recommend “The Probability Broach” to all comers as it very closely reflects my views and my sort of “ideal” world – with full recognition we will likely never see anything like it on this Earth.
You can read The Probability Broach (graphic novel version) for free at http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn
Really??? What exactly does a ‘satanic Christmas tree’ look like? Does it have, what, little ‘Satan Claus’ figures hanging from it or something? Sounds like of entertaining.
Perry de Havilland – Really??? What exactly does a ‘satanic Christmas tree’ look like?
It’s exactly the same as a normal Christmas tree but on Christmas morning it eats all the presents that lie by its roots. Kids cry, Satanists chuckle.
Well given Ron Paul’s coutrship of the loony left, he can hardly talk. Perhaps this is a sign that he has purged some of the whackos from his own campaign staff and is playing up his conservative credentials again before his next senate run. If so, good for him.
And when Ron Paul allows donations on his website from the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, is that just another example of his true colors showing through too?
Not that I’m defending Obama in the least, just using the platform to point out that the same standard applied here would have indicted Paul for anti-Semitism of various sorts several times over.
As Perry has argued, his ideas if applied then would have led to universal slavery and the end of all human civilization, wheras now the consequences of idiot Blame-America-First pacifism, though malign, would hardly be as bad.
Or, if you meant that we didn’t know how bad the SU was then, Rothbard fancied himself quite a scholar so ignorance is no excuse.
Speaking for myself, Rothbard more or less sums up why I don’t refer to myself as a Libertarian. Not just the foreign policy, but the utopianism, the weirdly inaccurate historical narratives, the cult of progress, the oh-so-clever counter-intuitive political classificatory systems, the intellectual arrogance of sticking to any ideological conclusion no matter how absurd, the unwillingness to admit mistakes,* the obsessive loathing of conservatives, the willingness to not only touch pitch, but slather it all over one’s body – all of it makes me sick.
*The Black Panthers = Classical Liberals !?! Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a f**king tard.
Okay. You don’t like Murray. I like much but not all of Murray. I read him years ago and very much enjoyed him. So does that creates an unbridgeable gap in our paths and our end goals? Perhaps, but it is hard to tell as your post does not actually contain any argument beyond “I believe you are therefor an x,y and z and I detest x,y and z”. If you dislike hardcore libertarians then I am certain you will have little time for me. I’ll get over it.
What the actual rhinoceros in the board room here is that I am not going to vote for McCain and I am therefore sizing up the alternatives to keep him out. Do I prefer Hillary to beat him or Obama to beat him? Neither is wonderful and in fact about the only advantage either has is that they are NOT John McCain.
In my mind the best outcome we can hope for his Hillary as President and a Republican controlled Senate and House that hates her guts.
You, on the other hand, will have no problem voting for the co-author of McCain-Feingold and other anti-liberty laws. If we get him in the White House and get a Republican controlled congress… liberty is in deep, deep trouble.
This is becoming a bit of a pattern:
(Link)
At least she was polite enough to put an American flag in between the Che one and the peace sign.
What made Che such a heroic figure for our time is that he, more than any man of our epoch or even of our century, was the living embodiment of the principle of Revolution.
A racist, murderous thug as the living embodiment of the principle of [leftist] Revolution?
Sure, I’ll buy that.
Neither is wonderful and in fact about the only advantage either has is that they are NOT John McCain.
That is quite amusing. There is a thread on another site I read which amounts to a great deal of complaining that the only reason there is to vote for McCain is that he is not Clinton or Obama.
In my mind the best outcome we can hope for his Hillary as President and a Republican controlled Senate and House that hates her guts.
Not likely, this year. Between the general disgust with Congress and the republican retirements, it is extremely improbable that the R’s will get majorities in either the House or the Senate. Having a nominally republican President fighting with a democratic Congress is the best chance for gridlock this time around.
Simmer down there, or at least be a bit less sancitmonious about my alleged strawmen. I don’t much care for McCain (though I hardly see that he’s worse than Romney) and, were I an American citizen, there’s a 60% likelihood I’d hold my nose and vote Libertarian and a 40% chance I’d hold my nose and vote for him. In either case, though, I’d have to hold my nose pretty damn hard.
Okay. You don’t like Murray. I like much but not all of Murray…….If you dislike hardcore libertarians then I am certain you will have little time for me. I’ll get over it.
Goodness me! I hadn’t reckoned Dale to be quite so fragile. I only intended to do a bit of light teasing.
Actually Dale is correct about Senator Obama – and whatever Ron Paul and Murry Rothbard may have said or done does not alter this fact.
Senator Obama has the most leftist voting record of any Senator in the United States Senate, and he has a long record of leftism before this. He has also been endorsed by most of the extreme left in the United States.
So “Ron Paul eats babies” (or whatever) even if true would not be relevant – it would be the same as saying “1+1 does not = 2, because my home is made of bricks” – true, but not a valid argument.
Still I will deal with the Rothbard point (partly because I am also thin skinned and something that Dale said in one of his latter comments provoked me).
I also value a lot of Rothbard’s work – indeed Paul Coulam could confirm that I led him (litterally led him) to “For a New Liberty” many years ago.
It is true that the econonomics in Rothbard can be found in Ludwig Von Mises, but Mises was a utilitarian – and I am not. So I value Rothbard’s nonutilitarian arguments – I also regard him as a good writer.
On the history point – Rothbard is fine as long as he is dealing with the history of economics, indeed I would argue that he was the best historian in the world on this part of history.
However, yes although his first work on history “The Panic of 1819” was sound, he is sometimes unreliable in later general historical works (he commits the ultimate sin for an historian – he writes the facts as he wishes they were, not how they were in each case).
On his politics:
I have a nose for bullshit and the arguments that the United States should not have resisted Nazi Germany in Europe and the Empire of Japan in Asia were bullshit. As were the argument that the United States should not have resisted the Communists around the world in the Cold War.
The claim that Dale makes about John McCain is also bullshit.
John McCain has done many bad things (McCain-Feingold being perhaps the worst), but to claim that he is much the same as Senator Obama or Senator Clinton is absurd.
A serious look at the voting records of these three people would show that.
Dale is, in this case, subject to the Rothbard mistake of reporting the facts as he honestly (there is no deception here – other than self deception) wishes them to be – not as they are.
Actually John McCain is in many ways more conservative than President Bush – not that this is difficult.
Some examples of his conservatism: John McCain is agains tht ethnol subsidies, the “insurance” plan for Florida and the rest of the country, he was against the no-child-left-behind and the Medicare extention, and has a much better record on reforming the entitlement programs,…….. and so on and so on.
Even on taxation (yes McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts – although he never voted for a tax increase in all his years in the Senate), McCain is now committed to a bolder program of tax reductions than Bush.
Is John McCain a libertarian – no.
Has John McCain done many bad things – yes.
But is he much the same as Senator Obama and Senator Clinton – no. Although, yes, all three support limits on political donations – and this is bad.
As for either of them being a better option than Senator McCain – bullshit.
On the point of a Republican majority in House and Senate controlling the collectivism of a President Obama.
There is no such majority, and there will not be one in 2009 – especially if Senator Obama wins in November.
this would be ture if the argument I made was of the form “Ron Paul is bad so Obama is not bad”, but the argument I and others made was more of the form “In the specific way that you allege Obama to be bad*, Ron Paul is just as bad, if not worse, and therefore you should re-examine your views regarding either Ron Paul or Obama if you want anyone to take you seriously”.
*That is in having intimate links with the Far Left (Ron Paul, of course, has made links with both the Far Left and Right whilst calling his opponents Fascists. It’s funny in an “Office” kind of way.)
I also value a lot of Rothbard’s work – indeed Paul Coulam could confirm that I led him (litterally led him) to “For a New Liberty” many years ago.
20 years ago now Paul – heavens above time flies. Though it was Rothbard’s ‘Ethics of Liberty’ that you took me to in the Library at Leicester rather than ‘For a New Liberty’. Since then I have read practically every published word that Rothbard has written and I too am extremely impressed.
However among the hundreds of thousands of words written by Rothbard there are quite a few ‘bracing’ statements of the kind above about Che and other things. Perry tends to be rather more appalled by Rothbard’s ouvre though but, as I said, I only meant to tease.