That was the single best, most informative, article about the meaning of the Ron Paul movement that I have yet seen. It was at once objective and insightful. A true rarity in the major media. I leared a few things too.Wow.I'm really, really, really, impressed.Nick Gillespie. Matt Welch. I"m going to remember those names.Yours very truly,
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason Magizine published this fine piece, which was also published in the Washington Post, about the Ron Paul movement. I wrote them this email:
The Wall Street Journal wrote this smear piece on Ron Paul's supporters yesterday. I sent the email to the writer:
Editor's comments on the Ron Paul article:1. "The Paul Brigade" Isn't a Brigade a division of a military organization? Hmmm. Not the word I would have used. Don't see too many reports about the "Clinton Brigade." Well, lets just hope you don't hint that the Paul people (who are the only peace activists around) are militant.2. "low polling Paul." Same as Regan and Clinton at this phase, and number increasing along an exponential curve. Add a contextual comment.3. "incendiary comments." Hmmm. Well, incendiary means, of course, something that causes other things to start burning. But a hint that the Paul Brigade is militant??? Naww.4. "barely registers in national polls." Second time you've mentioned it. I wonder how many more times you'll need to drive home that misleading half truth.5. Whoop! There it is! Can't get through the story without associating Ron Paul with Guy Fawkes and "viliganties" that "wage war". It would have been a bit more effective if you used the word "terrorist" though.6. "draws support from antigovernment fringe groups and 9/11 conspiracy theorists". Wow. You just lost me, darling. Question: Does Mr. Paul have MORE support from individuals in these idiotic groups than any other candidate? Why do I get the feeling you have no idea, because you haven't bothered to look for questionable donors to the Establishment candidates.7. Did you just put "Ron Paul For President" in the same sentence with "white supremicists?" Do you guys sit around laughing while you're writing this crap?I'm quitting now because this article is a fucking joke.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
This is a comment I left on The Atlantic website in response to this article by one Ross Douthat.
You are partly correct that Mr. Paul is being ridiculed (not ignored so much any more, we've moved from "ignored" to "laughed at") by the media because he opposes the War. However, its deeper than that.
It's based on the fact that Mr. Paul is a symbol of the demise of the "Establishment".
He is the Internet, and that is killing the Old Press.
He is against the Federal Regulatory and Tax System, which (being written by the lawyers of multinationals) are used to maintain the status quo, to secure members of the "nobility" in their positions.
His opposition to the War is perhaps the ultimate anti-establishment position. Using Wars to gain power and money is nothing new. Julius Caesar used the conquest of Gaul to build his influence and wealth, and that of his friends in the First Century B.C. And he was just following the lead of dozens of Romans before him. "War is the health of the state" may seem like a crazy statement, but it is supported almost invariably by history.
His opposition to Welfare (including Social Security, Medicare, Student Loans, Farm Subsidies, Foreign Aid, etc.) is similar. Welfare payments have always been used by the "patrician" class to gain the support of the populace and other nations in their effort to expand their power, and in their attempts to maintain it. Caesar did it. Augustus did it. They all do it. Any time the aristocratic class needs popular support to maintain power, they turn first to providing welfare (which is invariably money taken from those that threaten to themselves become competing members of the aristocracy, i.e. the "rich". ).
I could go on.
Put simply, we should expect to observe that the entities threatened by Mr. Paul will do everything they can to discredit and ultimately remove his relevance (welfare recipients of all kinds, government employees, members of the Old Press, multinational corporations, the military industrial complex especially).
Conversely, we should expect to observe those that would benefit from Mr. Paul's platform (i.e. everyone else) supporting him, assuming the political rhetoric coming from the Establishment can be effectively countered.
As far as I can tell, that's exactly what is happening. As the signal breaks through the Old Media static, people hear it, and convert to the Paul cause.
Historically, the Establishment propaganda apparatus, along with its control of the police and military, had no real counterbalance. Today it does: The Internet. (Aside: Historically, no Establishment class has tolerated threats to its dominance. One wonders if today's Establishment will be the first to do so. If they don't, we would expect to see them endeavor to regulate the Internet, and do something to try and break up the anti-Establishment citizen organizations that have already arisen.)
I think it's very likely that the Paul movement will continue growing beyond this election, though it may abandon Mr. Paul if he does not win (and make no mistake, he very well could win).
I think what may be considered historically most noteworthy about the Paul candidacy is that it may be the first instance of the people, via the Internet, "nominating" and advancing their chosen leader in a grassroots fashion, rather than the establishment choosing the leader it wants in a "top down" fashion. It's interesting and somewhat disturbing that the candidate chosen by the people is so incredibly repulsive to the Establishment.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
One David Sforza wrote this article criticizing Ron Paul in the U.C. Santa Barbara daily paper. FYI, Santa Barbara is not known for attracting particularly intelligent students.
Hi,Your David Sforza wrote an article about Ron Paul.He attempted to analyze U.S. History. He did a bad job.For example, he asserts that if the U.S. did not get involved in WWII, "Germany would control the world." Is he suggesting that Hitler could have conquered Russia? China? I certainly assume he's not suggesting that Germany could have EVER successfully occupied the U.S. Facially invalid rhetoric like this makes one wonder whether you have any valid arguments in your arsenal.He also asserts that 9/11 would have occurred even if the U.S. had pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy. Has he ever read the justifications provided by Al Queda for their attack? All of them were based on our occupation, interference, and attacks on and in the Middle East.Unfortunately for us, people with reasoning abilities similar to Mr. Sforza's are currently in control of our government.But at least he has an excuse: It will still be four or five years until his brain is done growing.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
RealClearPolitics.com published this article criticizing Ron Paul's foreign policy stance. According to the author, one Kevin Sullivan, Mr. Paul just doesn't understand the need for our world empire and membership in international organizations like the U.N.
I wrote him this email:
I wrote him this email:
To libertarians, the Swiss policy of neutrality, nonintervention, trade, and travel seems quite rational. It has worked well for them.The thing you have to understand about Ron Paul and libertarian thinkers like myself is that, for years prior to 9/11, we were arguing as follows: "We're asking for it, and we're gonna get it. Maybe not today, but before long. How long would you put up with a foreign government that actively supported a totalitarian dictatorship in your country?"In the days following 9/11, I received not a few emails from Dems and Reps I know with short preemptive messages like: "I don't want to hear it." (Anticipating that I was going to go on an 'I told you so' bindge, although that would have been most distasteful at the time).I assume you can do the math and understand why people like us do not see 9/11 as evidence that we need to get more involved in policing the world.