Letters to the Editor
-
Horse races, etc.
> It's an expression, but of course you already knew that.
Of course, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of the expression.
> And seriously dude, wake up. Of course it's a horse race,
> especially vis-a-vis the GOP. Those guys annointed Bush 43 at
> the beginning of the primaries back in 2000 and then spent the
> rest of the campaign season marginalizing the other contenders
> in the partisan press.
Bush ran on a platform of humble foreign policy, "no nation building", and sound economic policy. Obviously that didn't happen, but what do you expect from a Texas oil man? The truth? Either way, Ron Paul's record speaks for itself. Just because he's running on the same platform doesn't mean he's going to do the same things. If Ron Paul is elected and decides to invade Iran, I'll eat my boot (or sandal, as it were), but I expect no less from any of the other candidates. Why? They're controlled by big business, as is evident by the source of a large percentage of their donations.
> And the average GOP voter is going to be
> far more swayed by FOX news than the Internet.
Speak for yourself. I listen to Air America if I want political commentary (and I'm not kidding).
> If Paul doesn't get out of the GOP and go on his own, then
> this debate and debates like this are meaningless. He won't
> secure the nomination.
The GOP and Republican party as a whole used to be for small government and humble foreign policies. Barry Goldwater-style, dude. Thomas Jefferson-style, man. I don't know if today's GOP will accept Paul as their candidate or not, but I will write him in if they don't, because I vote for principles, not fast horses.
-
Principles don't win elections
Principles don't win elections, sir. Backing by big media and the leadership of a major political machine do.
Right now the GOP is in flux, mostly because the religious branch is at odds with the economic elite. But Dobson and his bunch will eventually realize that they'd rather not have Hillary as President, so Giuliani will promise them strict constructionist judges and they will fall in line.
Then, once the party elite is sufficiently corralled behind their Chosen One, the GOP media will do what it always does; ridicule and marginalize the other candidates, like they did to McCain seven years ago.
Your man Paul will be a prime target.
I appreciate your stance on the issues and divergence of the current GOP from its erstwhile allegiances.
I also admire some of the Ron Paul supporters who have written here, expressing how they discussed him on the Internet and read about his stance on the issues.
But I assure you, Bobby Hoffstetler in Southern Pines isn't going on-line, but he is watching FOX. And in six months, he's going to be telling his friends that Cavuto said Ron Paul was "out there" and "wierd." And with that, Ron Paul will be relegated to write-in campaigns and other dying gasps of fading campaigns.
Principles don't win elections.
-
Less goverment isn't same as no goverment and other strawman arguements
This is great reading because I'm always on the prowl for anything negative to say about RP. But nothing new here, mainly people expressing points backed by fundamental philosophical viewpoints. The biggest critics seem to be from the Hillary camp, which I guess is border line socialist. But when is comes down to it, socialists and libertarians are really opposites, one see the government as an agent of protection for the cruelties of the world, and the other sees the government as the biggest threat. Socialists think the governement is an agent of benevolence, its just the bad people that keep getting into power is the problem. Libertarians understand that its the system the predicts the behaviour. Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
This thing about life being messy, and coders just don't get that. Anything is messy if you fuck it up and don't plan ahead. Why does this become my problem? I won't make it illegal for you to become an artist, and you don't use the goverment to take product of my labor to support you and yours. Deal?
And about the federal government setting the minimum standards- there has been an interesting thing happening recently with the so called EPA, they think California's polution laws are just too strict. They are fighting to stop us from having less polution. This is what happens when you put the Feds in control of everything. What if Bush was able to get enough supreme court judges to say abortion was illegal for the whole US including California, would that be a good idea? That sword cut both ways.
People seem to confuse Ron Paul with corperatism. Corperatism is what we have now. Medicine is expensive because of regulation. A government granted monopoly to the AMA and drug companies. When the governemt is granted control over one industry or another, these agencies become the obvious targets of so much money that they're quickly corrupted.
Socialists think they know better than the little people. That they with their superior views should decide what everyone is taught in school, and what kind of medicine is should be legal, etc.
And this thing about tech people living in their high tech coccoons not realizing the benefits of the goverment controlled world. Its actually the other way around. The free markets that generated the wealth and suprluses that we're currently frittering away have allowed for these isolated (in the worlds population) nicities like child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and affirmative action.
-
Buggy programmers
"Because computers don't always do exactly as they are told"
Yes they do. They don't have any other choice.
Software "bugs" are the divergence between what the programmer thought he/she told the computer to do and what those instructions actually told the computer to do.
The "bug" is in the programmer, not the computer.
-
Re: Principles don't win elections
Principles may not historically win elections, but they do help me sleep at night. The way I see it, people are sick of "business as usual" and want a change. We're prime for a change, with all of the incompetence and disrespect for civil liberties we've seen recently. People are outraged, I know I am. I refuse to be part of the problem and concede to the media's dominance over our electoral process. I guess it's that whole principles thing.
I'm not saying what you say won't happen. I fully expect it, but I also have a (possibly unreasonable) belief that people are generally good and responsible (keyword: generally). I hope it's enough to make some real change in this country, because we need it badly. The Internet is kind of a "big thing" right now too, so hopefully that will make a difference--the whole "instant access to information" thing, you know. It all depends on if people on a whole buy into the "media controls my decisions" mindset or recognize the alternatives, and I suppose a person's outlook on it depends on their general regard for people as a whole. Regarding people as a whole as respectable, principled, and generally good, it's easy for me to come up with crazy notions like "Ron Paul might actually get elected". I suppose stranger things have happened.
I hope people will, for once in the past (too many) years, really look inside of them and decide if they will let business continue as usual or use their constitutionally-granted right to vote for what they really believe in, not the lesser of two evils (which are a douchebag and a shit sandwich, if you didn't know).
All the best to you and yours.