Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours.
Categories
John Locke
Author: Redactor
Categories
Boots on the Ground
Our congressional representatives, as well as each and every mouthpiece sent forth to speak for the Obama Administration, all repeat, ad nauseam, the “no boots on the ground” mantra regarding a U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Give them their due: politicians can recite poll-tested phrases better than the best-trained kangaroos.
But I’m decidedly not reassured. Saying “no boots on the ground” while advocating military actions that might trigger the need for ground-stomping boots simply suggests a dangerous naivety about the nature of war among policymakers.
If the situation in Syria is so serious that the United States should launch a military attack, is it really so unthinkable that at some point after intervening directly in an evolving civil war — say if things don’t go so swimmingly — that the circumstances could arise for U.S. soldiers to be placed on the ground in this devastated country?
War isn’t always easy-going and reasonable — or predictable. And firing missiles to blow up things in Syria, almost certainly killing people, is very much an act of war.
Granted, the U.S. can fire Tomahawk missiles destroying targets in Syria from Navy ships sitting safely far away in the Mediterranean Sea. But what if the Syrian government found a way to respond militarily or via a terrorist attack killing large numbers of American soldiers or civilians?
Wouldn’t that lead to a major military response, including the distinct possibility of boots on the ground?
Of course.
Politicians have long needed remedial instruction. Whatever your view on intervening in Syria, shouldn’t we begin with a lesson on actions having consequences?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
Dixy Lee Ray
A nuclear-power plant is infinitely safer than eating, because 300 people choke to death on food every year.
Categories
Acting Accordingly
Last week, the British Parliament declined to support Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for joining a military action against Syria — an effort to punish the regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.
Afterwards, asked on the floor of the House of Commons to confirm that he would not use force against Syria under “royal prerogative,” Cameron assured his country that, despite his strong belief
in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons . . . I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that . . . the British Parliament reflecting the views of the British people does not want to see British military action. I get that. And the government will act accordingly.
How refreshing for a national legislative body to actually reflect the interests of the people, and for the government to abide by the will of the people. Perhaps this positive example from the Brits helped convince President Obama to seek congressional approval for the military strike he urges.
Process is important and, though Congress doesn’t do much of a job of representing us, I applauded the president’s decision.
Why the past tense? Because Time magazine reports that “Obama’s aides made clear that the President’s search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection.”
Yesterday on CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry said President Obama “has the right to do this no matter what Congress does.”
The Brits have authentic citizen-controlled government. Is ours just for show?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
Henry George
Trade has ever been the extinguisher of war, the eradicator of prejudice, the diffuser of knowledge.
Addicts all? No, but as a “body politic” we sure seem addicted to government.
It should come as no shock to realize that this addiction has hit the industry from which the metaphor arises. Take a look at Townhall.com this weekend. Regular readers may notice that the Common Sense column is an expansion of Thursday’s effort. I hope it’s even more clear, more convincing. The reason to oppose Obamacare is not that Obama approved it, or Pelosi pushed it through. It’s just more of the same-old, same-old, and we really could use a better prescription.
Click on over and then come back here, for further doses of reality (hope it’s not too much).
- Lies of Obamacare, Michael D. Tanner (Cato)
- Congress’s Obamacare Waiver, Michael F. Cannon (Cato)
- Obamacare as Big Brother, Michael D. Tanner (Cato)
- The Obamacare Fraud, by Shikha Dalmia (Reason)
- Obamacare Abominations, by John Stossel (FEE)
Categories
Henry George
The struggle of endurance involved in a strike is, really, what it has often been compared to — a war; and, like all war, it lessens wealth. And the organization for it must, like the organization for war, be tyrannical.
Categories
Video: Britain’s Syria Intervention Vote
Amazing. The British Parliament bucks the establishment warmongering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEV6ySlsAmk
Public schools often get lousy report cards.
One big reason is that under the bureaucratically run government monopoly, teachers and administrators have no freedom to try fundamentally different approaches and be rewarded by consumers when they get it right. Educators must obey uniform and stifling standards.
Alas, too many of these public-school staffers are far from eager to shuck the mandatory mediocrity. They’re more worried about keeping their jobs and keeping captive their mis-taught and under-taught students. Such educrats oppose all policies — tax credits, vouchers, more autonomy for charter schools — that help students escape failing classrooms.
The educrats’ prejudice against educational freedom is being abetted by Obama’s “Justice” Department, suing to block school-choice policies in Louisiana on “civil rights” grounds. Obviously, no “civil right” is violated merely because a student attends a private school. But Obama’s lawyers want to make the issue about race regardless. Something about how it’s harder to maintain racial balance if too many children of a particular race leave public schools . . . even if fostering school choice makes it easier for all kids of whatever race to do so.
By Justice’s bogus standard of “justice,” then, actual justice — indeed, actual freedom and opportunity, even actual quality of education — must be shoved aside as irrelevant. What matters is only “racial balance,” no matter the injury to any student’s rights or well-being.
But preserving the jobs of educrats and preserving somebody’s idea of ideal demographics are not the purpose of going to school. The purpose is to learn.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
John Locke
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.