There's quite a lot of sense in the book published by Dmitri Orlov. I might even speak more positively of it were it not for the following.
I noted a recent article on his blog which I thought to be of particularly low quality:
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/08/hunger-insurance.html.
All the more pathetic that it was followed by numerous uniformly enthusiastic comments of rather mindless flattery such as (each in entirety):
"EW said... Hi, great post. Someone posted a link to your blog on my site as I've just posted about this too. Not as funny though! Pleased to have discovered your blog."
and:
"Anonymous said... An instant classic."
I attempted to post my own thoughts as follows:
" It's not very clear what point you are making here in so many words. Something relatively specific to the narrow cultural zone between the Atlantic and Pacific perhaps. (The reference to HMOs suggests so.)
If you are trying to use an analogy to make a point about private v public health provision, well:
Firstly--Analogies are pretty second-rate as devices for reasoned argument; the analogy may or may not be soundly made. Analogies are best confined to use as tools of illustration rather than reasoning.
Secondly--If we are being proposed a conclusion that private health provision is much worse than public provision, then I have something to tell you called facts.
I live in the UK where we have the NHS. It is passably good at putting bones back together after an incident (though not superbly so as attested by my crooked jaw and dentition, and my mother's continuing crippledom following a hip failure).
Apart from the bone-repair capability it is an absolute disaster of profitmaking, bureaucracy-building pseudoscience pseudo-healthcare dominated by big pharma and associated corporate evils related to major operations conveniently resulting from the equally crap food supply we have here.
ALL my healthcare I have to pay for myself, because the NHS will only provide corporate pseudo-healthcare.
Worse than that, the NHS has ruined my life with 40 years of dental mercury poisoning, in response to which I only get lies and even nasty libels.
Judging from your collapse book you can do better than this drivel article. I suggest you be wary that celebrity (and mindless fan-clubbery) may cause self-criticalness to be undermined by complacency.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:13:27 PM EDT"
It's now three days later and that comment has not yet been approved by the "moderator" of his blog.
PS: This energyark blog will not abuse the efforts of commenters here with any such "moderation".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Based on a preponderance of evidence with which he was kind enough to furnish us, Robin P. Clark is an ass:
ReplyDelete1. He didn't understand the topic of the article he commented on. It's on a whimsical topic of "hunger insurance" but the clever reader is able to guess the general point it illustrates: that insuring against basic needs (food, medical care and so on) as opposed to rare but catastrophic events (fire, flooding, accidents and so on) is downright stupid and socially destructive. Orlov makes spells out this same point in his book, which Clarke claims to have read (but, clearly, has not understood). Instead, Clarke saw this as an opportunity (and what, for him, wouldn't be) to go on a rant about Britain's National Health Service.
2. Clarke tried to submit a comment (which was off-topic, see 1 above) without bothering to read the instructions on Orlov's blog, which state: "If you submit a comment, it will be published, eventually, if it is good." Not seeing his comment published, he lashed out at the author, accusing him of being KGB-trained. Orlov left USSR at age 12, based on the bio in the back of his book, which Clarke claims to have read.
3. From the foregoing, it is clear that Clarke's main problem is a certain mental difficulty, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that National Health Service have not been able to find a remedy for it. It would seem a grievous misallocation of scarce resources to try to give Clarke a brain transplant.
Thanks "Anonymous" for telling me your thoughts if not your name. Wisely you keep it secret so as not to bring more discredit on yourself than on anyone else.
ReplyDelete"It's on a whimsical topic of "hunger insurance" but the clever reader is able to guess the general point it illustrates"
My comment had nothing to do with whether it was intended to be whimsical. More to the point it was also vaguely pretending to be making some sort of serious point about health insurance. None of the criticisms I made are addressed by "Anon" here except in the sloppy notion that I "lashed out at the author".
As for the notion of a "clever reader", any fool can write material that is too difficult for anyone else alive to understand. The clever, worthwhile author is the one who can present ideas rather than conceal them.
"his book, which Clarke claims to have read"
All I said of his book was:
"There's quite a lot of sense in the book published by Dmitri Orlov."
"accusing him of being KGB-trained"
Oh gosh! Yes I did didn't I? I wrote, clearly without a trace of tongue-in-cheek: "Did Dmitri Orlov get this training from the KGB?" [I cringe in shame].
Eight days on, Mr Orlov still has not published my reasoned critique among the drivel of mindless flattery he did let through. And this anon above here doesn't exactly add to the credibility of those who add to his popularity-ratings. I'm more than happy not to have the admiration of such persons.
P.S:
ReplyDelete"it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that National Health Service have not been able to find a remedy for it."
No one in the NHS has EVEN TRIED to make a diagnosis let alone attempt any treatment.
The only person who has made progress in reducing my invalidity has been myself.
What a dickhead of an "Anonymous".