The Crow's Eye: Ron Paul Is Not A Libertarian

"...it's not the training to be mean but the training to be kind that is used to keep us leashed best." ~ Black Dog Red

"In case you haven't recognized the trend: it proceeds action, dissent, speech." ~ davidly, on how wars get done

"...What sort of meager, unerotic existence must a man live to find himself moved to such ecstatic heights by the mundane sniping of a congressional budget fight. The fate of human existence does not hang in the balance. The gods are not arrayed on either side. Poseiden, earth-shaker, has regrettably set his sights on the poor fishermen of northern Japan and not on Washington, D.C. where his ire might do some good--I can think of no better spot for a little wetland reclamation project, if you know what I mean. The fight is neither revolution nor apocalypse; it is hardly even a fight. A lot of apparatchiks are moving a lot of phony numbers with more zeros than a century of soccer scores around, weaving a brittle chrysalis around a gross worm that, some time hence, will emerge, untransformed, still a worm." ~ IOZ

Sep 9, 2011

Ron Paul Is Not A Libertarian

The title has nothing to do with anything. But, following the bleghal recommendation of Mr. BDR, I stumbled across this piece. Seemed like an interesting experiment

Also, in the comments, someone suggested a title like, "..would Ron Paul be an existential threat to Israel?"

Seems too wordy and syntactically complex for a proper search chain. So, I'm going to refine it a bit. See next post.

3 comments:

Walter Wit Man said...: Discussion about Ron Paul does interest people. Me included. Same thing with Kucinich.

I think the reason people like discussing these two politicians is because they stray from the norm. They introduce ideas independent of their party platform. I think most Americans are eager to get out of the straight jacket the two parties have put us in.

Whether Paul (or Kucinich) is truly independent, I don't know. I once thought Kucinich was truly independent and sincere in his intentions but I now view him as a fraud who has deviously entrapped people in the Democratic party. I am wary of Paul as well, pretty much because all the other politicians have proved to be frauds (just yesterday I put Barbara Lee in the same fraud category after hearing her partisan apologia before Obama's speech--I hadn't considered her in a while and was 'hopeful' about her intentions--but alas, she's a dead ender). But Paul appears to me to be closer to the real deal than any other national politician. Like I say, I'm probably wrong. And he does of course play politics. He will harden his right-wing message (especially re economics and domestic issues) when faced with a right-wing audience and will soften the same message when talking with liberals. But he is generally honest and consistent in his argumentation and he is indeed willing to challenge conventional authority.

I have to say I really enjoy it when Paul challenges our foreign policy, especially when he does it in a room full of Republicans (just as I enjoyed it when Kucinich made the same points in front of Democrats). Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HD9nO0c328; September 9, 2011 at 3:14 PM
Mike the generic commenter said...: How dare you! You, sir, are no American!

(How's that?); September 9, 2011 at 9:18 PM
rapier said...: Obviously your clever strategy didn't work. Sadly you were a bit late to the game. I made it through 2 pages of the 12 million google hits and your not there. It might please you to know however that Charles Krauthammer agrees that Paul won't be president, "of the United States." he emphasizes, for reasons I can't quite grasp. Drugs? Were else does he have in mind? Uruguay? Anyway that's what your up against.

Thank the gods Ron isn't going to be president, of the Untied States, because I never trust a man with two first names. It is in his favor he named his son Rand.; September 10, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Post a Comment

This one took a while to put into words.

I don't kid myself that I've stumbled upon a unique insight and I have little doubt that someone has already written or said this better than I. Five minutes after I hit the "publish" button, I'll probably regret the choice of words more than I already do now - because it's difficult to get my head outside of English language usage, to comment on a problem with that usage, whilst using the English language to do so.

In the interest of not making more of an ass of myself than necessary, I've pared a very long thesis down to a paragraph:

I find it troubling that, using English, I have very limited choice in expressing how I relate to people with whom I have ongoing interaction. If I want to reference the nature of my relations with the woman who has challenged me to grow in ways I never imagined possible, the woman who howled with a primal, gorgeous, earth shattering, mother bear of a refrain, transcending pain and pleasure in act of creation to which I will never be immediate party, who has with her defiant and proud womanhood still intact forged a family out of disparate parts - I have to write "my wife." I have to reduce her to property. That really pisses me off. I don't own her. I don't fucking want the title or the claim. I don't want to express possession, simply to refer to her (without writing a discursive dissertation). I don't like one bit that the short hand for "association" in English is expressed in the possessive. I don't own my wife or my children. They're not mine.

So, fuck you Latin and Germanic branches of the Indo-European language group.

That is all.