The newsletter brouhaha

It stands to reason that after running off one outsider candidate over affairs he never had, the press would now focus on another outsider over newsletters he didn’t write. Dr. Paul’s views on race relations are not the issue. I believe his opinions on it are much like anyone else’s; befuddlement about the lack of any real progress, and the realization that if there is to be any progress it will come from the self-motivations of the minorities themselves. The issue with the newsletters is Dr. Paul’s friends.

Dr. Paul has a long history of not being choosey as to who he has as allies. Being a voice in the wilderness, he tends to accept allies where he finds them. There’s a general consensus that the newsletters were written, or over-seen, by two associates from the early days, the late Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. They were all united by an interest in Austrian Economics. Whatever else they had in common is unclear.

All I know of Mr. Rothbard is that he wrote several books, none of which I’ve read. I ran across Lew Rockwell several years ago when I was beginning an interest in economics. He had one of the few websites about Austrian Economics at the time, but seemed to be more interested in re-fighting the Civil War. He seemed to take a special glee in bashing the memory of Abraham Lincoln. It was an interesting perspective, but not what I was looking for. Besides, my great grandpa fought for the North. I soon moved on.

If there is one question I would ask Dr. Paul it would be, “What is your current relationship with Mr. Rockwell?” It would be interesting to find out, but there are bigger questions at hand. Such as:

1) When the time comes, and it will, to decide if the future earnings of Main St. should be put towards the well being of Wall St. financiers, K ST. lobbyists, and foreign central governments, which candidate is most likely to side with Main St.?

2) When the time comes, and it will, to decide if we should involve ourselves in another pointless 10 year occupation based on the questionable theories of writers and editors at prestigious magazines, which candidate is most likely to ignore those theories? Whose kids will be sent to fight, or not sent?

3) When the time comes, and it already has, that a government that confiscates everything from colostomy bags to cupcakes based on suspected terrorism and that same government believes it is perfectly fine to detain, imprison and even assassinate US citizens based on nothing more than a suspicion of terrorism, which candidate see’s a potential problem? By what logic would a citizen supposedly feel safer?

So yeah, I’m still in the Ron Paul camp, in spite of his friends.

Weird news as inspiration

My poetry education continues. I've known about Rudyard Kipling's "Gunga Din," since childhood, and have read it several times since, but it wasn't until I tried writing a poem of my own, based on his, that I noticed the first part of each verse is in third person and the last rhyme is in first person. Pretty tricky. I didn't know that was allowed.

Anyway, the subject of my ire is Newt Gingrich. Not that I don't like Newt, he has his moments, but of all the people to be gaining the top spot in the primary campaign, he would seem the most unlikely. The rank and file in the TEA party seem to have evolved. Where was Mr. Gingrich when the revolt started? He was busy being a million dollar "historian" for some of the very people who were crashing the economy. And where has he been since? I don't recall him being at any of the rallies, or even having an opinion on them. Strange, since he thinks himself an expert on everything else.

What is especially bothersome is that Ron Paul has been fighting the TEA party fight since about 1972. He has been a consistent standard bearer on every issue the TEA party has. You don't like his foreign policy? Answer this: How does a minimalist government support a global military empire? Where will the money and resources come from?

Well, enough. The poem is supposed to be funny, so enjoy.

Gung-Ho Newt