Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Neutralist Policy on Tibet and Eric Margolis Is Awarded "Best Article of the Week" Whether He Wants It Or Not
So, I am for Israel out of Palestine and Palestine out of Israel. England out of Ireland and Ireland out of England. France out of Brittany. Russia out of Chechnya and Independence for Lower Slobbovia.
As to our own unpleasantness 1860-1865, I am glad the South is still part of the US, but I can't think of a constitutional reason that secession was illegal. Of course if it can be proven that the men who approved the constitution burned holy cards in their hands as they approved it, then I would concede the point. We Nortenos forget the Hartford Convention or that the Empire State specifically reserved the right of leaving in their ratification.
Having said that, here is the official statement of The Neutralist, It should be the policy of the American Republic never to involve itself in disputes of other political entities as to what constitutes the official territory under government.
Notice the period at the end of that statement. That's it period. We again reiterate Adams that America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy" as well as the Irish proverb that only a fool gets involved in the religious wars of churches to which he does not belong.
Having reiterated the policy, we recommend the article by Eric Margolis, HOW TO RESOLVE THE TIBET CRISIS It is quick lesson on how we got to where we are and where are we going. We tend to forget that India is just south of Tibet and may have interests that do not coordinate with China's. The Tibetans are oppressed by China. It could not be otherwise no matter how well intentioned the uninvited guest may be.
His suggestions are wise, but will probably not be heeded. This is sad, but "face" is big in Asia. Heck, it's big here to, we just pretend it isn't.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Mr. Rogers is entertaining, but that is not the real reason for including the video. Dear CNBC, I am available as a commentator. I can put on a fake downmarket Brit accent and sound as stupid as the commentators (their accents aren't fake, but they do sound stupid). Granted, I don't look as good as Maria, but she doesn't look as good as she used to.
But I digress. Rogers is decrying the socialization of the losses. I was wondering if we really do need a fed. I did some imperfect research. According to a goldbug, Howard Katz, the Fed is our third national bank. We have done without a Fed before. Mr. Katz opines that the Fed serves not our interests, but those of a few.
I am not an expert in economics. As a Polish American major at a reserve intelligence school I attended (don't laugh) used to say, "I have all my money in cash." In the next few years, I expect to be getting a W-2 from the blood bank as I shall have to find tuition resources for my kids.
Still, I have some opinions about the Fed. One rationale for its existence was to make sure we did not have those old panics and crashes. How did that work out from 1929 to WWII?
Thus to our ranking. Two prezzies who go up in value are Andrew Jackson and US Grant. Jackson for vetoing the National Bank Charter extension and Grant because he vetoed the Inflation Bill which would have been the 19th Century equivalent of Helicopter Ben throwing money out the window. Grant had the excesses to deal with of a war he did not start but did more than anyone other than Sherman to end.
I specifically put these men above Madison, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Bush and Bush. Why? If these lads were so great, they would have been smart enough to figure out how to avoid a war. J&G were at least not warmongers.
In our rankings, avoiding war gets you extra points.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Monday, March 03, 2008
Unfortunately, there is no dearth of people who find that a difficult undertaking. Shortly after the Twin Towers went down some pundits opined how now people saw they needed big government. Okay, the leviathan that took oodles of tax money to build up a military and intelligence apparatus that allowed 911 was now to be looked for to save us. So we sent them into Afghanistan to not capture our grand antagonist. Oh, don't worry, Hilary will be there to answer the phone.
Now Karl Rove, mastermind of two not so overwhelming Bush victories and the loss of the House and Senate goes on national television to say
Well, we were not involved in the world before 9/11, and look what happened.
Now, if Mr. Rove believes that we had just a few national guard units hanging out weekends at the armory, he needs Britney Spears dad to be appointed his guardian. I'm guessing he is just being as the Irish phrase has it, glich francach caca laca (I'll clean it up, cute as a outhouse rat).
Then he went on to say,
If we were to give up Iraq with the third largest oil reserves in the world to the control of an Al Qaida regime or to the control of Iran, don't you think $200 a barrel oil would have a cost to the American economy?
Maybe a recession will intervene to moderate prices, but does anyone remember the price of gasoline before we went into Iraq. I don't think our being there has caused it to stabilize.
The producers of Fox News Sunday should make Rove standup when he is on as that is the usual position of a comedy routine.
Hat tips to antiwar blog and Daniel Larison
Sunday, March 02, 2008
William F. Buckley, Jr. has passed on. There are mostly encomiums even from conservatives who had disagreed with him. They are of the, "I disagreed with him, but he wasn't all that bad," stripe. That is how ladies and gents observe the passing of anyone who at least did not kill Dumbledore. I never knew the man and have nothing to say other than we were not on the same wavelength but good luck in whatever dimension awaits you.
There is a website that I am ambivalent about. I favor immigration control for a number of reasons, partly because 911 was an immigration system failure more than anything else. I am more nuanced in my views on restriction. Still, I have found it interesting to read. The editor, Peter Brimelow, published his eulogy on the passing of Buckley and gave it the title of William F. Buckley, Jr., RIP—Sort Of. That "sort of" business says it all. Reading the article, one almost feels Mr. Brimelow feels bad he can't put the man on the gibbet before the body get too cold.
Undoubtedly, there will be many books out that will praise or pillory WFB. That would be the time to honorably stick the knife in with a review. Heck, I'm sure Mr. Brimelow could write one of those books.
Mr. Brimelow has put his character on display and it is not pretty. As the voice of humility, I've done the same. Mostly in my youth, I never passed up the chance to be less than gentlemanly and I regret it. I hope Mr. Brimelow figures it out.
The man more than anyone else who might have reason to write a mean spirited bit on Buckley's passing didn't to my knowledge. He did write a piece about the man over a year ago that viciously got back at his former boss. Actually, no. He wrote kindly about the man as Buckley started his battle with emphysema. Peter, Joe Sobran has a lesson for you on how to be a gentleman.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
There is something about Europe and the US that WWI just has to be kept going. When George M. Cohan wrote were Over There and the lines, We won't be back till it's over over there, no one realized that it would never be over there. There must be magnets in the ground of the Balkans that keep attracting us. It's one of histories dumber attractions.
Mr. Lind says the Russkies are not amused and I don't blame them. He says they have the capacity to help the Serbs that they did not during the prior Clinton era unpleasantness. Memories are short in this life. Russia does not have to start a war to have a little fun with us. The two most complete defeats suffered by the superpowers postwar, Viet Nam and Afghanistan, saw neither patron commit ground units. It would not be without irony if we left Afghanistan because Russia started supplying, oh, I don't know, maybe something analogous to a stinger.
I don't think they really love the Taliban, but the Taliban did not invade Russia and never would.
Our forces are overextended. The opportunities for mischief are many.
Of course, there are no dearth of neocons touting the New Cold War. Of course, none of them are rushing to the colors.
Mr. Lind's proposal makes sense if there really were those magnets, but we don't have a real interest in Southeast Europe. We did not have one in 1916 either. It's too hard to say au revoir, let's just bug out. The Balkans were never worth Bismarck's Pomeranian Grenadier, they are not worth a National Guardsman.