Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
Comments
1. We have a head of state who is also head of government. A figure of politics who is at the same tine supposed to be above politics.
2. He'd be a pretty dim fellow to not pick and choose his issues at a time when he has no real power to affect them, a la FDR in the winter of 1932-33.
3. To the extent one can comment on things and man the bully pulpit while waiting to take over, domestic issues are easier, given the constitutional vesting of foreign affairs as the province of the president. Domestic stuff one can talk with Congress about without treading on the outgoing's authority quite so nakedly.
4. Given the sheer volume and variety of shit the outgoing is leaving the incoming on Day 1, maybe a little garden variety prayer- by us all, for us all- and for the new president is particular, would be a good thing. We should want our presidents to succeed, and in fairness ought to give them the chance to be sworn in before romping on them with both feet.
2--Not really true of FDR--read Barry Karl, The Uneasy State, and get back to me. FDR said lots, most of which was calculated to leave HH hanging out to dry. Not a good example.
3--Then why did Barack Obama, two weeks ago, say at variance with the current administration that he planned to consider formally placing the US nuke umbrella over Israel? Can't have it both ways.
4--I haven't romped on anything garden variety; I have romped on a situation bordering very closely on genocide IMHO, and that's a completely different moral imperative than a stimulus package.
I can't really accept the idea that Barack Obama is a victim here--unless I've suddenly acquired powers I don't know about.
BTW, I don't know that I fully agree with your statement about it the invasion being a genocide. There are two sides and both seem to be a little bit wrong and a little bit right. Either way, I think the Palestinians have been much more aggressive in their genocidal goals than Israel. Israel seems to attack only when attacked, albeit with way more force than is probably necessary. Can the same be said for Hamas?
It's not a secret that Israel is armed to the hilt. Yet the Palestinians keep poking the bear. What would you suggest Israel do to make them stop?
I said "bordering very closely on genocide"--we obviously can't know until a certain line is crossed, but there are lots of disquieting implications.
As for your second question: what do I think Israel should do? I will be the first to admit that I don't have any amazing answers, but I submit that isn't especially germane.
I'm not in charge of the largest military force in the region (Israel) or the world (US), so I have neither the intelligence assets, the communications assets, or the diplomatic contacts to know what they know.
What I can point out, however, is that what Israel is currently doing in Gaza is way out of whack and unlikely to ever give them the peace they say they want.