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.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Philip Giraldi gets it, Does any Republican?

Philip Giraldi, columnist at antiwar.com has, in less than a paragraph, analyzed the recent elections better than any talking head,

Most voters seemed to understand that the outcome of America’s midterm election was the result of a devastated economy and the President Barack Obama’s failure to create jobs or even to understand the difficulties that are confronting many American families.  But it’s nevertheless strange how America’s elites never seem to get it, probably because they are completely immune to the consequences of their own actions through their possession of money and power.  The latest failure to compute comes from the triumphant Republican Party, which appears to believe that the electoral results were an endorsement of the foreign and security policies of George W. Bush, which will mean blanket approval of a prolonged stay in Afghanistan coupled with new adventures in Iran, Yemen, and Somalia.

In the second paragraph he is equally intelligent.

The euphoria of the Republican triumph is bringing to the surface the usual flotsam and jetsam driven by various agendas linked to foreign countries, none of which in any way benefit the American people. Too bad there was not a national referendum item on the midterm ballot with only one question: "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" Fortunately there are plenty of Republicans and also Democrats around who will make sure that such a question is never asked and who are intent on expanding America’s worldwide footprint.

Maybe, though, he is wrong and the GOP leadership gets it and the tea partiers want forever war. Obviously, the Neutralist wants Phil to be right.

The rest of the article is a discussion of the antics of some of the new warriors in Congress, but worth reading for the humor, though I can't be sure your man intended it so.

No matter, these words alone, "Shall the federal government dismantle its overseas bases, bring its soldiers home, and leave the rest of the world in peace?" are gold. For them, we deem Mr. Giraldi a Neutralist and name him a Fellow of the Neutralist Institue. Sorry Phil, there is little honor and no compensation.

We have st up a link to his archives over to the right.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

The Assange assassination continues on the Emily Rooney Show

They can't outright shoot Julian Assange. It's a little too late for that. He is too well known now. That does not mean they won't try to make him a pariah. Last Friday, October 29th, they had a go at it on a Boston radio show.

Emily Rooney, daughter of Andy has a show on WGBH, a public radio outlet in the Boston area. On her Friday show, she had four men, most of whom were reporters, discussing the news. I only get to listen when I am in the car and going east toward Boston. I do that as little as possible. Anyway, NPR seems to be on the war team and Emily, trying to appear ever fair, had at Julian. The boys, however did not get the memo. I urge you to listen to the audio here,starting at 40:45. I have transcribed La Emily as best I could below.

Emily: it is disturbing to me how this got out in the first place cause it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security. As it turns out it was just plain riveting I mean to know really that we're involved in I guess it's not a total surprise but the kind of situations torture, you know, killing people by mistake all kind of things that that those documents show

Others opined that they wished we had wikileaks in previous conflicts.

Other panelists:Also, it make those people in government who think they can do things behind closed doors much more cautious and would hold them accountale.

Then she went into her thumbs up thumbs down thing.

Emily: Alright, this is more nuanced thumbs up or thumbs down. Julian Assange himself now he's the founder of wikileaks I mean, he's an ideologue he's a polemic he's doing this for political reasons that was the journalist side of it. what's your take on it.

Someone said something about the attempt to pin the rape charge on assange and Emily let out a guffaw.

Emily: And the New York Times had a very critical piece of him, John burns did, suggesting he isn't stable and then that backfired on the Times as well

The others agreed that getting the info out trumped everything.

Emily: I'm troubled by him I'm going to give him a thumbs down.

Someone asked why and she said "He's totally biased."

Then one of the boys said "He's a horse's ass" and herself shouted, "He is, there you go. I liken him to that heavens gate guy Applewhite, he looks like him the guy you know the comet chaser."

Then one of the heavy hitter journalists said, "A lot of these bloggers are whacks too but if they get the information right, I think the public good is served." Thanks, guy. I am glad there are no whack jobs in serious journalism. Heck, the way the biz is going, you might be blogging soon, but I digress.

So the ever so fair Emily on rational public radio (as opposed to crazy right wing talk) unloads one big ad hominem against Assange. Now whatever you want to say about the man, his actions bespeak a bravery beyond what I, or maybe Emily, would attempt. Her act was disgraceful. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, it is on your dime, at least in part, thanks to the largesse of our government. Say what you want about the ravings of Rush and Glenn, at least you aren't charged.

Oh, and let me be ever so gentle here, Em (may I call you Em?) A person is a polemicist,. His speeches or writings may be polemics. Unless you were implying that his total being is one big polemic, which truly highlights you viciousness. Ironic that you would accuse him of being biased at the ideology free zone that is WGBH (not).

As to your statement, it could have been a whole lot more damaging to all of us I mean in terms of national security., Em, there is an ever so slight possibility that some random terrorist will burst into GBH's studios and shoot you. Still, don't worry your head over it. You have a better chance of dying from an infected paper cut.