Your browser may have trouble rendering this page. See supported browsers for more information.

This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.

Title

A (very) partial defense of Ron Paul

Description

The Republican field has to be very thin---and very unbalanced---indeed for Ron Paul to rear out of the crowd of candidates as the voice of sanity. The man is possessed of a strong Libertarian bent that he uses like the proverbial hammer: all he sees are nails. Gay marriage? Let the states decide; let people have the freedom to be as bigoted as they want to be. Can't afford insurance? Die in the street and try again in the next life (if you happen to be Hindu and believe that sort of thing, which is your right, but tough luck sucker because Jesus is so gonna fry your ass when Gabe really leans into it and blows). Abortion? Well, he believes that sperm that has <i>just</i> hit an egg is a person, that person has a right to a free life just like any other Libertarian and, being more defenseless than a mother, must be defended from any attempts by said mother to murder it. And on and on it goes with indefensible, reactionary and nearly psychotic blather. However. He doesn't always rant and rave. If you squint and listen really carefully, he makes sense sometimes. Sometimes he gets the right thing done for the wrong reasons, but what the hell: that's a lot better than the rest of the stumblebums in Washington. Case in point: the Federal Reserve was forced to open its books not only by the intrepid FOIA requests by Bloomberg news but also by incessant pressure by Paul. Of course, he was pressuring to get them shut down and removed completely so that we can return to the Gold Standard, but he's right to distrust this organization that's nearly completely overrun by former and current financial businessmen.<fn> At least he's putting his kookiness and deluded interpretation of how large-scale economies work to occasionally achieve some good. Which is better than the rest of the stumble...well, you get the idea. In the debates as well, he seems to be the only one who's at all lucid about war and the defense industry and how people feel about running an empire (methinks we're tired of it). The other Republicans are still knocking each other out of the way to get as gung-ho as possible and jump into yet another fabricated war, this time with Iran.<fn> They swallow one story after another from the alternate history being constantly woven by our hapless media about Iran's nuclear arsenal (completely and utterly belied by facts presented by our own agencies) and their impending terrorist attacks (a laughable, supposed attempt on the life of a Saudi ambassador with a Mexican cartel as hitman orchestrated by a used-car dealer from iran but that was only a glimmer in some wanna-be Washington screenwriter's eye, but which was presented by the Obama administration and the whole of the U.S. media as nearly a <i>fait accomplit</i>) and their refusal to return a drone that is rightfully ours, a clear act of war if there ever was one (never mind that we have encircled their country in military bases and are actively sending secret missions into their territory and drones into their airspace in a clear violation of, well, pretty much all of the treaties that we accuse them of violating all the time). Here's Paul talking about Iran (citing from <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/15/ron-paul-and-michele-bachmann-square-off-over-a-nuclear-iran/" source="Forbes" author="E.D. Kain">Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann Square Off Over a Nuclear Iran</a>): <bq>Obviously, I would like to see a lot [fewer] nuclear weapons,” Paul responded. “I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them because there would be less chance of war. But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? That is absurd.</bq> Would you like to read that again? That was a Republican candidate. Not Obama nor his über-hawkish Secretary of State Ms. Clinton would even come close to saying something that reasonable. Ms. Clinton, in fact, all but declared war on Iran when the used-car-salesman plot was unveiled<fn>. Paul went on to explain whey countries in the rest of the world may have a bone to pick with the U.S., in particular. He demolished the commonly held belief that terrorists (meaning anyone who is not Republican) "hate us for our freedom".<fn> <bq>[The terrorists] come here and explicitly explain it to us,” he continued. “The CIA has explained it to us. It said they come here and they want to do us harm because we are bombing them! What is the whole world about the drone being in Iran? And we’re begging and pleading and how are we going to start a war to get the drone back? Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries?</bq> That, Dr. Paul, is an excellent question. Anyone? Does anyone have an answer that doesn't sully the sterling reputation we think we have? That doesn't disabuse us of our notion that we perpetually occupy a moral high ground? Does the answer begin, perhaps, with an "E"? And end with an "mpire"? But, please, Dr. Paul, continue; your time isn't up yet. I believe you wanted to tie our rapacity for conquering and empire to the economic doldrums we are currently experiencing? <bq>Why are we — why do we have 900 bases in 130 countries and we’re totally bankrupt. How do you rebuild a military when we have no money? How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. <b>the danger is really us overreacting</b>. (Emphasis added.)</bq> So there you go. The nutty lady from Minnesota wants to go to war with a country she probably couldn't find on a map. And all of the arrogant jackasses (Gingrich leading the pack) likewise. And they all want this because they think that it's what will get them elected. And only Ron Paul is willing to actually put his morals where his mouth is and inveigh against a senseless war that we can't afford and that would be immoral and that would achieve the exact opposite of making us secure. Not even Obama would ever say something like that. Paul is impossible to support as a candidate, but he's the most viable from a moral standpoint, believe it or not. But it's a sad comment on our times that we have to consider a debate in which at least one candidate out of eight<fn> refuses to be a rampaging warmonger against a country that hasn't done anything to us as "heartening". What a country. <hr> <ft>This is deliberate. I have no idea why it's typically called an "industry". And almost every single one of the usual suspects is male.</ft> <ft>I mean, hell, we're finished with Iraq now, right? Time to get nervous that we're just about out of the killing business. Never mind that the killing business in Afghanistan is booming and promises to grow and grow. If we can be guaranteed that the war with Iran will last no more than a decade, cost fewer than 5000 American lives (never mind the foreign ones ... why even mention them) and come in the bargain price of 4 trillion dollars, where's the downside?</ft> <ft>Oddly enough, there has been no mention whatsoever about this plot since, although it seemed like a Def Con One moment at the time. Funny that.</ft> <ft>Though can it ever truly be said that this argument has been demolished? It is a hydra, growing three heads for each one lopped off. It is a phoenix, rising from the ashes of its progenitor. It cannot die because it thrives on ignorant faith.</ft> <ft>I've lost track.</ft>