Hitler and Interventionism
I guess this is common knowledge, but hearing the way Senator
McCain used the worn-out Hitler analogy against Dr. Paul ("we
allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of
isolationism and appeasement"), I felt I should repeat basic
history.
I am assuming that McCain was referring to inaction when Hitler
became evidently belligerent around 1938 (Hitler came to power in
1933, but McCain probably wasn't referring to this date).
In a limited sense, McCain is actually correct. If France and England
had acted decisively anywhere between 1935 and 1939, Hitler and his National Socialism would
have been a footnote in history.
But this is an extremely superficial look at history and any
deeper investigation will debunk McCain's position. Hitler's golden
ticket to power was the Versailles
Treaty, which was essentially economic and political
interventionism perpetrated by France and England. The war
reparations bankrupted the Weimar Republic and the political
limitations (limiting the size of the army, imposing a de-militarized
zone in the Rhineland, etc) created plenty of hatred against the
treaty. Had the Allies chosen to leave Germany in peace after WWI,
German democracy likely would have survived and Hitler would have
been the sad, failed artist that he was always meant to be.
Basically McCain is saying that interventionism
is needed to clean up the mess created by interventionism. In other words, McCain is arguing for a vicious circle. The US
bailed out France and England when their interventionist policies on
Germany caused blowback. Who is going to bail out the US?
Fear and Loathing in the Establishment
To an outsider, the quirks of US politics are at times funny, and
at times scary. The latest quirk seems to be coming from the
Democratic side, where the fear of Ron Paul stealing their thunder is running rampant. And I am not surprised, as Ron Paul is certainly
a greater advocate of civil rights than the Democratic mainstream
(excluding people like Gravel and Kucinich). To be honest, I was expecting
assaults from the Neo-Cons, but they have mainly resolved to ignore
Paul and hope the whole thing will blow over. The Democrats on the
other hand are now making more or less overt accusations of Paul
being a cryptoracist, which they base on the now infamous
ghost-written Survival Report article and on a host of even more
ambiguous theories.
For a supposed cryptoracist, Paul is certainly doing a poor job.
Like saying in a public debate that the 'war' on drugs is biased
against minorities and should be ended? That is not going to
make his cryptoracist friends happy. Having rap songs written about
him? That is going to be pretty embarrassing at his next KKK rally.
As far as I can tell, the flaw in US politics is that intent is
deducted by deciphering nuances and minutia in speeches. You
have people looking for hidden meanings and sinister codewords. Every
sentence is dissected and twisted to meet a certain end. I guess this
is born out of necessity, as politicians tend to lack the
proverbial spinal column and looking at their records is absolutely
pointless. But Ron Paul is a completely different animal. To see if
he is a racist, you only have to look at his record.
So, has he voted for restricting civil liberties? No. Has he voted
for preferential treatment to some racial group? No. In fact, Ron
Paul is probably one of the least racist people in politics; he
doesn't advocate taking from any racial group and he doesn't advocate
giving special privileges to any racial group. And let's face it,
setting different rules for someone purely based on race is racism,
no matter how well-intentioned the motives.
I use to hold the Democrats in relatively high regard. As a slight
hope for America that is about the take world with it into whatever
hell awaits us at the end. But their recent ineptitude on reigning in
Bush and now this pathetic smearing of Ron Paul, has made me
understand their failings. They are not the voice of reason in
America, but just another part of the establishment, terrified of Ron
Paul disarming them, simply by saying the things that they should
have been saying from the beginning.
The Authoritarian Welfare State
Awhile back, I wrote about the looming mass resignation of nurses here in Finland.
Now, apparently, the Finnish government is ready to use the favourite tool of the state; force.
Government prepares legislation to keep some nurses at work
Urgent care would be excluded from industrial action
|
 |
The government is proposing legislation to mitigate the impact of
possible industrial action by the Union of Health and Social Care
Professionals (Tehy), which is threatening to organise a mass
resignation as of the 19th of this month to back demands for higher
pay.
The aim of the bill under preparation is to secure urgent
treatment necessary to keep patients alive. Excluded from the action
would be activities such as emergency room treatment, intensive care
units, and treatment of premature babies and support services such as
laboratories and x-ray examinations.
The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health calculates that
the bill would exclude no more than ten per cent of the 12,700 nurses
who have signed up for the mass resignation campaign.
A mediation board set up
to seek a solution to the dispute has been given a tight schedule in
order to secure passage of the proposed legislation.. The board is
expected to come up with a proposed solution by Thursday morning.
If no solution comes by then, the government will discuss
the proposal for legislative change securing urgent care at its meeting
on Thursday.
Another reason for the tight schedule is that possible
legislative action would require a full week of handling in Parliament;
if the legislation is to be in force by the November 19th deadline, it
needs to be brought before Parliament on Friday this week.
The Ministry of Social Affairs
and Health does not want to comment on the possible legislative change.
The ministry first wants to see if the mediation board comes up with a
proposal by Thursday morning.
Helsingin Sanomat was not able to reach Minister of Social Services Paula Risikko (Nat. Coalition Party) for comment.
Top officials from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health
met with Tehy leaders just under two weeks ago. At that time the
ministry appealed to the union to voluntarily exclude treatment from
the labour dispute whose neglect could endanger the lives or health of
the patients.
Two weeks ago the Commission
for Local Authority Employers in Finland asked the government to impose
restrictions on the action by Tehy. Similar limits were placed on
health care strikes in 1995, 1998, and 2001.
However, the threatened action is not a traditional strike:
Tehy feels that technically resigning, rather than going on strike,
exempts the nurses from obligations to maintain any services.
The mediation board, chaired by Archiatre Risto Pelkonen, continued its efforts to find a solution to the dispute late into the night on Monday.
Link to the Helsingin Sanomat article