Monday, May 19, 2008

Followup on Burma

A Ron Paul support by by the name of Funky Dung has recently weighed in on the recent Burma controversy, by going straight to Lew Rockwell for clarification. Dung sent in the following:

I think what bothered me more is that though he voted no regarding Burma, he voted yes for domestic frivolities. Where does the Constitution say that Congress can/should pass silly resolutions praising sports teams?

Also, the resolution for Burma offered no aid. The line that a Paul spokesman said offended him suggested that a referendum election be postponed in favor of humanitarian efforts. What's wrong with that? Is diplomacy beyond the scope of Congress' powers? If Congress threatened violence or sanctions for noncompliance with its suggestion, it would of course be wholly in the wrong. However, I cannot see why states cannot or should not suggest to others how they ought to address important matters, so long as those suggestions can be freely ignored without fear of reprisal.
Meanwhile, Rockwell responds the only way he knows how. Which is, to say, by not really responding at all, and by relying on the same libertarian talking points that we've heard time and time again:
"It is none of the US government's business, which is using the disaster to try to expand the empire. The US government, like all governments, engages in theft and murder. It can keep its charity to itself. On the other hand, the US would not allow foreign help for the victims of Katrina."
Dung laments by asking, "Ever get the feeling you're not being listened to? He didn't address a single point I made, preferring instead to add to his list of red herrings." Welcome to our world, FD.

In other news, Allah Pundit from offers the following critique:
Commenter JohnTant raises a curious anomaly in the comments to the Headlines item about this, though: If it’s all about minding our own business or not deigning to vote on meaningless hortatory resolutions, why’d America’s Greatest Patriot cast a yes on an old measure regarding intercountry adoptions in Romania? Or on one condemning jihadist attacks in Egypt? I must have missed the part of the Constitution that makes that a necessary and proper power of Congress — but only with respect to countries other than Israel, because when it came time to condemn a terror attack there, the Paulnut politely declined. On principle, I’m sure.