Ron Paul will not be allowed to speak at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN this September because he refuses to endorse the warmonger war criminal John McCain. Instead of closing down shop and ending his campaign, Dr. Paul plans to host his own convention at Williams Arena in Minneapolis, MN.
The official announcement as well as additional details will be made public on Thursday when Paul makes an appearance at the Texas state Republican convention.
Despite widespread disapproval of McCain's candidacy amongst traditional conservatives, we've consistently been told that he's the Republican nominee. But what's the purpose of a convention if the nominee has already been decided?
About halfway through the article we discover the real purpose of the Republican convention...and why Dr. Paul will not be allowed to speak (emphasis mine):
"Conventions are about demonstrating unity and purpose and showcasing the nominee. They are media events made for prime-time TV. Any distraction from the central message of the convention is not helpful," [G. Terry] Madonna said.
Translated, Madonna's message is "conform or shut up." Not exactly a traditional conservative viewpoint, but then again McCain is far from your typical conservative candidate. McCain's consistently poor showing towards the end of primary season (winning under 75% of the vote in key states such as Pennsylvania) underscore the severe disconnect between him and conservative voters. Outside of his perceived "strong" position on National Defense and his reputation as a "war hero" McCain has tons of work to do in order to repair his relationship with the conservative base.
Pundits like to paint Obama as the second coming of George McGovern, and perhaps they're right. But let's be fair - if Obama is indeed the second coming of McGovern, then is it possible McCain is the second coming of Bob Dole? Or, worse yet, Alf Landon?
Although his motion is not likely to bear any fruit, Congressman Dennis Kucinich should be applauded for introducing articles of impeachment against President George Bush yesterday.
I enjoyed watching Kucinich during the Democratic Presidential Primary debates. In spite of my philosophical differences with the man, I always thought he presented a cogent, understandable, and refreshing point of view - especially when contrasted against establishment candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The case for impeachment against Bush is not short on material, that's for sure. From lying about Iraqi WMDs to his shameless disregard for the Constitution and human rights, it could be argued that the Bush presidency was one marked by abject failure. Pundits and certain members of the media like to pretend that history may yet vindicate the Bush administration, but it's far more likely that history will remember Bush and his cronies as the group that bungled everything it got its hands on.
On the first day of his two week economic tour, Barack Obama recommended lawmakers inject another $50 million of liquidity into the economy. Citing the recent rise in unemployment and rising prices for oil and other necessities, Obama claims the needed aid cannot wait until the next president takes office.
My question is, why stop at $50 million? Hell, why not just hand out money on every street corner? I wonder what it's like to play Monopoly with Obama - especially when he's winning. I wonder if he proposes that the banker distribute more cash to all players, you know, just to "stimulate" the game?
The net effect of another round of "stimulus" will only raise prices. An increase in the amount of money circulating in the economy can only increase prices, and its a shame politicians like Obama have yet to learn this basic economic fact.
Luckily for Obama and the other stimulus-backers, however, the price of one precious item is immune from inflation - votes. No doubt Obama's "proposal" will resonate well with the increasing number of poor and unemployed in this country.
In addition to winning over more votes, economic stimulus packages have another, more sinister effect on the voting population: it allows for politicians to shift the blame for a slumping economy from themselves to those "greedy capitalist pigs" who raise prices in order to garner their windfall profits.
Like all other political solutions to economic problems, this one is a ruse designed to win votes during an election cycle and shift blame from the real culprits. Anyone who is serious about solving our present economic mess should first work to curb inflation - and the best way to do that is to re-establish the gold standard.
Tonight I caught the very tail end of C-SPAN radio's replay of the Economist Club of Washington's interview with Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt. I heard a grand total of ten minutes of the interview, including three questions from the audience.
What struck me immediately was his negative reaction to the emerging market for the telecommunications industry, particularly the growth for mobile phones and mobile Internet service. You'd think the Chairman and CEO of the world's most successful Internet company would be ecstatic at the realization that his market share is about to increase by literally billions of people...yet Schmidt sounded morose--almost ashamed--upon disclosing the news.
Granted, I didn't hear the context in which the subject was brought up, so I could be completely wrong.
Mr. Schmidt redeemed himself during the brief question and answer period, however. One of the questions from the audience came from a network architect (and former US Representative). I didn't catch the gentleman's name, unfortunately. The man's question centered around increasing need for leadership and stewardship to help manage the increasing demand in the coming years; specifically, he wanted to get Mr. Schmidt's opinion on how the vast amounts of information would/should be managed. Although the man stopped short of using the word "oversight" I think that was the intent of his question.
I'm paraphrasing from memory, but the impression I got was that Mr. Schmidt is not interested in that particular portion of online service - that he believed the Internet should be free from any form of regulation of oversight.
Bravo, Mr. Schmidt. The Internet is beautiful because it's the only semblance of a true free market we have. Government officials hate the Internet precisely because they cannot control it. Only the free market can produce companies (such as Google) that are capable of handling increasing demand with little or no interruption. In contrast, rigid, intrusive government regulation strangles creative human energy and can only hurt enterprise.
I don't blame the gentleman for asking that question, but I was elated to hear Mr. Schmidt answer it the way he did. After years of government service it's probably natural for government employees to assume a top-down, bureaucratic-laced managerial team is needed to control everything produced in the market. Hopefully after hearing Mr. Schmidt's answer the man has a new outlook on the benefits of the free market.
2300 Marines from Camp Lejune, NC will overrun portions of Indianapolis for eight days as part of an urban warfare training exercise. City residents will be treated to live fire exercises, vehicle checkpoints, patrols, and regular airborne patrols by military aircraft.
The article does not quote any citizens of Indianapolis aside from the city's Emergency Management Agency. I wonder what the regular citizens will think when they look outside and see Marines patrolling their neighborhood. Yikes.
It appears DC has competition in its bid to the become the nation's first overt Police city!
Earlier this week I read I fascinating interview with Gore Vidal conducted by Robert Chalmers of the United Kingdom's Independent newspaper.
I have to admit that, prior to this week, I knew basically nothing about Vidal aside from hearing the occasional reference to his recent book Point to Point Navigation and his appearance on "The Real News" offering his analysis of the upcoming 2008 election. After I finished reading Chalmers' interview, I was more than intrigued to learn more about Vidal. The interview contains so many fascinating pieces of information that I would do a great disservice to attempt to break it down. Read it - you won't regret it.
From a tryst with Jack Kerouac to his venomous, blunt denouncements of some of the largest celebrities of his time, it's safe to say Vidal's life has been anything but boring.
In searching YouTube for clips of Vidal's political analysis, I stumbled across this epic, 70 second clip from 1968. Vidal and Crossfire's host, the late William F. Buckley, engage in a heated--and somewhat comical--debate over America's policy during the Vietnam War.
Admittedly, I know about as much about Buckley as I do about Vidal, but watching Buckley come unglued upon being called a "pro or crypto-Nazi" by Vidal was easily the best part of the clip. Buckley's response, as well as the look of utter disdain on his face, was priceless. It's a shame we the public is no longer treated to battles between intellectual heavyweights like Vidal and Buckley.
Here's a great clip of Buckley's analysis of the 1968 Presidential election. Buckley's elitism, rich vocabulary, and powerful stage presence remind me how ripped off we are whenever we are forced to watch any of today's talking heads.
