Ron Paul is supposedly zooming in popularity. Um, yeah.
New Yorkers Continue to Lead 2008 Nomination Contests
First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination Based on Republicans/Republican leaners May 10-13, 2007
Rudy Giuliani = 29
John McCain = 23
Fred Thompson = 12
Mitt Romney = 8
Newt Gingrich = 6
Sam Brownback = 2
Tommy Thompson = 1
Mike Huckabee = 1
Tom Tancredo = 1
George Pataki = 1
Duncan Hunter = *
Jim Gilmore = *
Chuck Hagel = *
Ron Paul = 0
Other = 2
None = 5
All/any = 0
No opinion = 8
* = Less than 0.5%If he keeps on like this, he's gonna break 0 any day now...
Okay, it's a joke, right? The whole Ron Paul thing? He's lower than Kucinich, for crying out loud. And he's supposedly a great leader? Don't you have to do something like... lead?
J.
Ron Paul is supposedly zooming in popularity. Um, yeah. New Yorkers Continue to Lead 2008 Nomination Contests
First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination Based on Republicans/Republican leaners May 10-13, 2007
Rudy Giuliani = 29
John McCain = 23
Fred Thompson = 12
Mitt Romney = 8
Newt Gingrich = 6
Sam Brownback = 2
Tommy Thompson = 1
Mike Huckabee = 1
Tom Tancredo = 1
George Pataki = 1
Duncan Hunter = *
Jim Gilmore = *
Chuck Hagel = *
Ron Paul = 0
Other = 2
None = 5
All/any = 0
No opinion = 8
* = Less than 0.5%If he keeps on like this, he's gonna break 0 any day now...
Okay, it's a joke, right? The whole Ron Paul thing? He's lower than Kucinich, for crying out loud. And he's supposedly a great leader? Don't you have to do something like... lead?
J.
Ron Paul is supposedly zooming in popularity. Um, yeah. New Yorkers Continue to Lead 2008 Nomination Contests
First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination Based on Republicans/Republican leaners May 10-13, 2007
Rudy Giuliani = 29
John McCain = 23
Fred Thompson = 12
Mitt Romney = 8
Newt Gingrich = 6
Sam Brownback = 2
Tommy Thompson = 1
Mike Huckabee = 1
Tom Tancredo = 1
George Pataki = 1
Duncan Hunter = *
Jim Gilmore = *
Chuck Hagel = *
Ron Paul = 0
Other = 2
None = 5
All/any = 0
No opinion = 8
* = Less than 0.5%If he keeps on like this, he's gonna break 0 any day now...
Okay, it's a joke, right? The whole Ron Paul thing? He's lower than Kucinich, for crying out loud. And he's supposedly a great leader? Don't you have to do something like... lead?
J.
Man, I can't believe I did this. I'm spending WAY too much time on Digg any more, and it seems most of the political posts are about Ron Paul - who seems to be, from all accounts, a Republican version of Chuck Norris. I've taken a look at his campaign web site, and, well...
I can only figure there's so much support for him because of the pity vote. There's just nothing THERE.
I've looked through his issues. I've dissected the one on taxes. It's standard political boilerplate, a nice listing of 'opinions', without a single commitment to DO anything about the issue. The bold text below is verbatim from his web site, the regular is my commentary on it.
Let's go through it, shall we? Direct from his web site, unedited... (but not uncommented.)
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
No argument there. I like lower taxes. I believe low taxes stimulate the economy. I think there's very few folks who actually, you know, WORK for a living that want their taxes raised. However, in this first paragraph - nothing about a committment to lowering taxes. We do have a point of agreement - which is what the writer of this bit wants remembered.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.
Again, non-specific praise on tax cuts. After all, how can you disagree with these statements? And we get the point. Tax cuts are nice. They're tasty. They're shiny and sweet-smelling. Are you actually FOR them? I realize as a politician he has to circle a subject a half-dozen times before he takes a stand on it, but this is a campaign site and you'd think he'd want to cut to the chase. And $40 a month - well, it's better than nothing.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
Zip! Now we change direction, AWAY from taxes. By implied definition he's a 'real conservative' - but in the verbiage so far there's no "I support and will campaign for lower taxes." That's certainly something that can be inferred, but it's not stated so it can be backed away from. And 'low taxes' - where's the point at which they're 'low', and where are they 'high'? You can infer a lot into this one sentence, without any support elsewhere.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
Setting the stage - if it looks like higher taxes will be needed, he can gracefully back away from any implied committment to lower taxes. Notice we've gone from taxes to spending, and there's STILL no comittment to cut ANYTHING?
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Blame the Fed.
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
Blame China, and Saudi Arabia, not a Congress that couldn't cut out pork if they had to. There's what seems to be an isolationist streak running through this guy's stuff. Don't know if it's intentional, but it's noticeable.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
Ah, okay then. Didn't realize it was a checklist for spending in the 21st Century... That's it. That's all that's up. Nothing more, nothing less.
So. Tax cut promise? Nope. I see nothing - NOTHING in his collection of buzz phrases that makes me think he'd cut taxes. He MENTIONS tax cuts, but avoids coming out and promising them. "I promise to cut taxes by X percent across the board" - that's simple, straight, and to the point, isn't it? I'd even accept "I believe taxes are too high, and I'll try to cut them and government spending." as being relevant. But what he's doing is spouting out opinions that people can agree with, and not taking anything resembing a stand. I don't want a president who's idea of plain speaking is using hundreds of words to dance around a subject without actually touching it.
Okay - my chance of voting for Ron Paul has officially reached the chance of me winning the lottery WITHOUT buying a ticket.
J.
Man, I can't believe I did this. I'm spending WAY too much time on Digg any more, and it seems most of the political posts are about Ron Paul - who seems to be, from all accounts, a Republican version of Chuck Norris. I've taken a look at his campaign web site, and, well...
I can only figure there's so much support for him because of the pity vote. There's just nothing THERE.
I've looked through his issues. I've dissected the one on taxes. It's standard political boilerplate, a nice listing of 'opinions', without a single commitment to DO anything about the issue. The bold text below is verbatim from his web site, the regular is my commentary on it.
Let's go through it, shall we? Direct from his web site, unedited... (but not uncommented.)
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
No argument there. I like lower taxes. I believe low taxes stimulate the economy. I think there's very few folks who actually, you know, WORK for a living that want their taxes raised. However, in this first paragraph - nothing about a committment to lowering taxes. We do have a point of agreement - which is what the writer of this bit wants remembered.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.
Again, non-specific praise on tax cuts. After all, how can you disagree with these statements? And we get the point. Tax cuts are nice. They're tasty. They're shiny and sweet-smelling. Are you actually FOR them? I realize as a politician he has to circle a subject a half-dozen times before he takes a stand on it, but this is a campaign site and you'd think he'd want to cut to the chase. And $40 a month - well, it's better than nothing.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
Zip! Now we change direction, AWAY from taxes. By implied definition he's a 'real conservative' - but in the verbiage so far there's no "I support and will campaign for lower taxes." That's certainly something that can be inferred, but it's not stated so it can be backed away from. And 'low taxes' - where's the point at which they're 'low', and where are they 'high'? You can infer a lot into this one sentence, without any support elsewhere.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
Setting the stage - if it looks like higher taxes will be needed, he can gracefully back away from any implied committment to lower taxes. Notice we've gone from taxes to spending, and there's STILL no comittment to cut ANYTHING?
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Blame the Fed.
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
Blame China, and Saudi Arabia, not a Congress that couldn't cut out pork if they had to. There's what seems to be an isolationist streak running through this guy's stuff. Don't know if it's intentional, but it's noticeable.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
Ah, okay then. Didn't realize it was a checklist for spending in the 21st Century... That's it. That's all that's up. Nothing more, nothing less.
So. Tax cut promise? Nope. I see nothing - NOTHING in his collection of buzz phrases that makes me think he'd cut taxes. He MENTIONS tax cuts, but avoids coming out and promising them. "I promise to cut taxes by X percent across the board" - that's simple, straight, and to the point, isn't it? I'd even accept "I believe taxes are too high, and I'll try to cut them and government spending." as being relevant. But what he's doing is spouting out opinions that people can agree with, and not taking anything resembing a stand. I don't want a president who's idea of plain speaking is using hundreds of words to dance around a subject without actually touching it.
Okay - my chance of voting for Ron Paul has officially reached the chance of me winning the lottery WITHOUT buying a ticket.
J.
Man, I can't believe I did this. I'm spending WAY too much time on Digg any more, and it seems most of the political posts are about Ron Paul - who seems to be, from all accounts, a Republican version of Chuck Norris. I've taken a look at his campaign web site, and, well...
I can only figure there's so much support for him because of the pity vote. There's just nothing THERE.
I've looked through his issues. I've dissected the one on taxes. It's standard political boilerplate, a nice listing of 'opinions', without a single commitment to DO anything about the issue. The bold text below is verbatim from his web site, the regular is my commentary on it.
Let's go through it, shall we? Direct from his web site, unedited... (but not uncommented.)
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
No argument there. I like lower taxes. I believe low taxes stimulate the economy. I think there's very few folks who actually, you know, WORK for a living that want their taxes raised. However, in this first paragraph - nothing about a committment to lowering taxes. We do have a point of agreement - which is what the writer of this bit wants remembered.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.
Again, non-specific praise on tax cuts. After all, how can you disagree with these statements? And we get the point. Tax cuts are nice. They're tasty. They're shiny and sweet-smelling. Are you actually FOR them? I realize as a politician he has to circle a subject a half-dozen times before he takes a stand on it, but this is a campaign site and you'd think he'd want to cut to the chase. And $40 a month - well, it's better than nothing.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
Zip! Now we change direction, AWAY from taxes. By implied definition he's a 'real conservative' - but in the verbiage so far there's no "I support and will campaign for lower taxes." That's certainly something that can be inferred, but it's not stated so it can be backed away from. And 'low taxes' - where's the point at which they're 'low', and where are they 'high'? You can infer a lot into this one sentence, without any support elsewhere.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
Setting the stage - if it looks like higher taxes will be needed, he can gracefully back away from any implied committment to lower taxes. Notice we've gone from taxes to spending, and there's STILL no comittment to cut ANYTHING?
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Blame the Fed.
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
Blame China, and Saudi Arabia, not a Congress that couldn't cut out pork if they had to. There's what seems to be an isolationist streak running through this guy's stuff. Don't know if it's intentional, but it's noticeable.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
Ah, okay then. Didn't realize it was a checklist for spending in the 21st Century... That's it. That's all that's up. Nothing more, nothing less.
So. Tax cut promise? Nope. I see nothing - NOTHING in his collection of buzz phrases that makes me think he'd cut taxes. He MENTIONS tax cuts, but avoids coming out and promising them. "I promise to cut taxes by X percent across the board" - that's simple, straight, and to the point, isn't it? I'd even accept "I believe taxes are too high, and I'll try to cut them and government spending." as being relevant. But what he's doing is spouting out opinions that people can agree with, and not taking anything resembing a stand. I don't want a president who's idea of plain speaking is using hundreds of words to dance around a subject without actually touching it.
Okay - my chance of voting for Ron Paul has officially reached the chance of me winning the lottery WITHOUT buying a ticket.
J.
One of the less appetizing bits of social fallout from the cultural shifts that brought about the 60s and the 70s is a simple little phrase that was used as both a shield and a weapon.
And no, it wasn't "Have a nice day!" delivered with a thick slathering of cheerfulness. No, this was much darker and yet very appealing for the counterculture crowd.
"Question Authority."
As a phrase, it's pretty good. It's clear, succint, to the point... and carries a hell of a lot of frieght. "Question Authority" - and a President fell. "Question Authority" - and a war was ended. (That the consequences for the losing side in Viet Nam were pretty horrific didn't matter.) "Question Authority" - and a cultural shift happened that hasn't settled down yet.
But any more, that phrase seems to be used for a simple rejection of the status quo. If a structure exists, "Question Authority" allows the 'user' to ignore it or attempt to change it into something more to his liking. In fact, it virtually demands it.
"Question Authority" ... but what's the real authority you're supposed to question? The authority of the teachers in school who tell you that everything sucks and the US is to blame for all the evils of the modern world? The PC folk who are very quick to insist that every culture is good in it's own way, with the exception of contemporary American culture which is uniquely diseased and deserving to be torn down? How about the authority of the likes of Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson? Question the authority of the police. Of your local government. Of the cultural mores you were raised under. Question what you're taught in the schools. Believe nothing, question everything... But NEVER question the authority of those telling you that you should question eveything and believe nothing.
Taken to the logical extreme - you wouldn't be able to trust anything. The web of trust that the country depends on would vanish. The glue that holds the country together, the common bonds of civility and politeness, the idea that you could believe the guy at the store selling food that was safe and wholesome or the doctor would give you proper treatment for what ails you with medicines that are likely to do you more good than harm - it's all corroded away by that little phrase. And how much weakening of the structure of a country can be endured before it collapses under it's own weight?
One of the things that's rarely noticed by political activists, the ones that advocate tossing out the old order and bringing in a new, who espouse violent revolution against the status quo because what's going on is so terrible they can barely find the words to express their hatred of it... is so simple it's not even worth noticing. It doesn't need a Communist Manifesto to proclaim it, or a book-length essay from a philosopher/linguist that is so complex that only someone who has studied philosophy for decades can comprehend it - instead it boils down to two simple sentances that have been overlooked by the 'man the barricades' crowd for centuries.
It's easy to break things down and burn things up. It's a lot harder to build things that work and build things that last.
When you go kicking at the structures of society, you'd best make very sure that there's nothing vitally important in those structures, and that you won't cause more problems than already exist. Certainly there have been things in our past that needed to be changed - slavery is a big thing there - but there have been attempts to change our society that backfired in ways that weren't expected, such as Prohibition. Caution is advised - but it's hard to be patient when you're a visionary. You KNOW what has to be done to make things perfect for everyone. The real problem is to sugar-coat the solution so people will be willing to swallow it. Yet the visionary's ideas of perfection tend to overlook a minor point
Perfection in human affairs is pretty much impossible to come up with - any society based on human interaction is going to be flawed and imperfect. This didn't keep the ideological dreamers from working at it, and generating horrific nightmares. The 20th century is littered with the wreckage of countries that attempted to create perfection within their societies, and failed at a horrendous cost of lives and properties and at their most malignant sought to force their 'perfection' on others... again at a staggering cost of lives and property. The dreams of utopia are fueled by blood and built on mounds of bodies.
And the call to "Question Authority", appealing to the young, to those who don't seem to fit in, who chafe under what they feel are artificial restrictions on the freedom they desire, seems | | |