I haven't gone wildly political on here for a while, and so I thought I'd post some links to some cracking good columns:
An Overdose of Public Piety - Charles Krauthammer
Presidential Preference Unmasked - Jonah Goldberg
The Hillary Who Stole Christmas - Jonah Goldberg
Failed Fraudulence - Jonah Goldberg
Don’t Be Scared - Jonah Goldberg
I particularly like that last one, on Paul and Huckabee. Hehehehehe...
6 comments:
Good articles. I was very bored at work today and they helped with that. Go Ron Paul!!!
"...Go Ron Paul"
That could be taken a couple ways (at least given some creative liberty with punctuation)... and in at least one possible iteration I would agree with the sentiment. :-P
I'd be most pleased, myself, to see the vast, sweeping majority of rabid Ron Paul supporters "go". Of the ones I know (*ahem* present company excepted) most are absolute nutjobs. Except for a somewhat marked disagreement on certain details of foreign policy, the man himself is the best choice for me among a circus of clowns.
But I've said it before and I will say it again. Put Ron Paul in charge of domestic policy and spending, and Fred Thompson in charge of The Department of Diplomacy and Making-War-on-Pissant-Little-Dirtbag-Nations.
Only ever-so-slightly kidding.
Here is one of the funniest, most insightful deconstructions of Hillary (by a liberal no less) I've read in a while:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/print.html
I have to admit that I was affronted by Paul's foreign policy at first. But that was based on 2nd hand info. Once I read his site it all made a lot more sense. His stand is based on a strict application of what the founding fathers themselves tried to follow, and which was done away with about 100 years later- probably about the time the good people of this country wholeheartedly embraced the notion of "manifest destiny", aka- our obvious divine right to kick indian ass and occupy their lands. The view of the founders was to avoid any "entangling alliances". I was already familiar with their view and after much contemplation have come to agree, it probably is the best view in an increasingly crazy world. But, if I were king, I would keep the nuclear stockpile and the big red button. It's best to have an ace in the hole when you're playing for high stakes.
As an aside, the "Don't Be Scared" title keeps reminding me of a very, very funny scene from Arrested Development, where David Cross as Tobias Fuenke is in prison trying to force pop psychology on his irate and hostile father-in-law, first hugging him, whispering, "sh-sh-sh, don't be scared", then singing "Somewhere, over the rainbow...there's another rainbow."
I agree Ron Paul's on the right side of the Founders on just about every issue but my pragmatic side much prefers a dogmatic adherence to "original intent" in domestic policy and general governance, moreso than things like foreign policy and the like.
If Ron Paul had been in charge in 1941, and he was consistent with his espoused views, the US would have waged war with Japan (assuming he didn't allow the Phillipines and the recently acquired Hawaii to return control and ownership to their original occupants) but ignored any "entangling alliances" with Britain or France.
Without the invasion of North Africa and Italy, bleeding Hitler's attention away from the Eastern front, and the subsequent invasion of Normandy, Hitler would have probably finally crushed the backbone of the Soviets, mastered the entire European main continent, and likely swept England off the map with a subsequently focused, concentrated force.
I'm as big a fan of original intent re the constitution as anyone, I just see a lot more gray areas in world politics.
I'm not sure I agree with that take on the hypothetical "What would Ron Paul do?" (don't forget to grab your WWRPD bracelet and coffee mug before the election!) The US declaration of War on Japan was a no brainer and I agree with you he probably would have done that as well. That came the day after Pearl Harbor. On Dec 11, Germany declared was on the US and by January their U-boats were working the east coast. One could argue it was our alliances that brought us into that and it likely was. On the more general topic (WWRPD aside), I personally don't see "entangling alliances" as being equal to strict isolationism. I do think we (the US) have swung very very far from that original intent and it is not beneficial to us. As an example, the US has troops stationed in 135 out of 192 countries in the world! (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html)
Post a Comment