Geert Wilders acquitted. Gay marriage legalized in New York. Delta adds Saudi Arabian Airlines to its SkyTeam Alliance. The GOP sends “mixed messages” on a variety of issues.
If you were unable to attend live and would like to hear this week’s webcast/podcast, click here, or you can access it via iTunes (link on the right-hand side of this web page >>>>>> ).
Thanks to all who participated live! Use the comments portion of this post to leave comments, and to suggest topics for next week. If you are enjoying the podcasts, don’t forget to “Like” the show’s page on Facebook (link on the right-hand side of this web page >>>>>), leave ratings and reviews in iTunes, and tell your friends. Thanks!
If you would like to register to attend next Sunday’s webcast live, click here.
Every Sunday I conduct a live webcast in which I discuss news and politics from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. You are invited to get in on the discussion tooday, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., PST.
If you join in live, you’ll have the ability to communicate with me via text chat and also via audio either by using a USB mic connected to your computer (VoIP) or by phone. Click here to register (it’s free). If you are not able to attend live, the recorded podcast will be available later this evening, so you can download it and listen to it at your leisure during the week.
Planned topics for today: Geert Wilders acquitted by an Amsterdam district court of the “hate speech” charges against him. Gay marriage legalized in New York. What has the GOP done with respect to Libya? What will it do about the debt limit and the Democrats’ proposed tax increases? And more.
I had forgotten that reference, so thanks to Daniel for mentioning it. When writing that blog post I considered using the term Ron Paul uses, “non-interventionism.” But that term seems to me not to encompass some of his important foreign policy positions — e.g., his objection to the use of trade embargoes or sanctions, as well as his objection to aiding an ally in a way that falls short of “intervening”.
So, what term would encompass Ron Paul’s distinctive — and distinctively wrong — foreign policy positions? The only term I could come up with so far was the metaphorical term, “ostrichism.” The OED defines it as, “The policy of hiding the head like an ostrich.” On this web page it is defined as “A policy of burying one’s head in the sand, i.e. ignoring the reality of a situation,” which explains the meaning of the metaphor. This terms is an appropriate one to describe Ron Paul’s foreign policy, because there seem to be so many realities of our foreign policy situation that he must be ignoring in order to advocate the particular positions he has. Some examples:
—He wants to eliminate all foreign aid, even aid to important allies like Israel. (He said this during the South Carolina debate this year.)
—He would not have killed Osama bin Laden, despite the fact that the Pakistanis were no doubt hiding him, and that bin Laden was apparently still active in directing Al-Qaeda in its terrorist plots against the United States and its allies.
—He is reported to have said, shortly after 9/11, that the threat from Jihadists “was a made up one,” and that “if we simply learned to leave them alone, they would in turn leave us alone.”
Besides the fact that there is a list of realities that Ron Paul seems to be ignoring, the picture of him, with his head buried in the sand, waiting for the first strike from our enemies, just seems so perfect! (Thanks, by the way, to Bosch Fawstin, for creating the above cartoon for me.)
But there’s one more definition that I found. The site that I linked to, above, also offers this as a possible definition: “Conduct like that of the ostrich: alluding to its habit of considering itself wholly concealed when only its head is hidden.”
Hmm, “consider[s] itself wholly concealed when only its head is hidden.” When do ostriches hide? Most likely when they believe they face a threat. So, perhaps we can sum up a foreign policy of ostrichism as: “Believing one is safe in the face of a potential threat, even though all one has done is chosen to ignore certain realities of the situation giving rise to that threat.”