For Reason's Sake

Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has his share of critics and vehement cult-like supporters. He also has no shortage of views that make a thinking person cringe.

Like the title suggests, Ron Paul has a fervent “hands-off” policy on matters of foreign intervention. Representative Paul can often be heard advising the United States to “mind it’s own business”.

At first glance, this policy seems to make perfect sense. Why should we trouble ourselves with the strife of other countries? Why not let them deal with their own problems and stay out of it?

Let’s indulge in a hypothetical scenario. You are walking down a lonely sidewalk when you notice a large man savagely beating a woman much smaller than himself. If nothing is done to intervene, he will certainly kill her.

You now have to make a decision. You have the power to step in and save this innocent woman’s life. But why should you? It’s not your business. Why not let her deal with her own problems?

Take a recent and more relevant example. In the north African country of Libya, the people, fed up with decades of tyrannical rule and oppression, took to the streets. The protesters were peacefully demonstrating their disdain for the totalitarian ways of their country.

Col. Gaddafi decided to apply brute force to the protesters, killing innocent people indiscriminately. The United Nations issued several condemnations and calls for Gaddafi to stop, all of which were ignored. In this instance, under a resolution passed by the UN, the right thing to do was to apply pressure to the military strength of the Gaddafi regime in order to spare many more lives being lost to the tyrannical dictator.

Libya has a long battle ahead of itself as a country. Without the intervention of the UN, the protesters would have been exterminated and the people of Libya would continue to live under fear and oppression.

This, along with stopping Hitler and countless other examples, is a reason to reject the non-intervention policy of Congressman Paul. Some things are worth fighting for.

The right-wing “bubble” has been echoing dissent over the Obama administration’s decision to agree to the State Department’s call to deny an application to TransCanada for a permit to begin work on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, said in a newspaper interview that the pipeline was “proven to be environmentally safe.” The State Department, however, claims that sufficient time was not made available to fully assess the impact the pipeline may have on the environment.

The House Republicans set an arbitrary deadline of 60 days to grant the permit. The Obama administration did not want to rush into granting a permit without being fully aware of the consequences the pipeline may bring.

Quoting far-right crackpot website Mr. Conservative:

“The president’s claim that the pipeline was being rushed is a limp excuse. When it suits the White House, federal officials have little trouble hastily approving much more suspect projects, particularly when they involve Obama campaign donors, such as the ill-fated Solyndra solar panel plant that failed, despite $535 million in federal loan guarantees. Clearly, the president can expedite when it suits him.”

This fatuous remark completely ignores the environmental implications of the pipeline. Can they be taken seriously when they compare a potentially dangerous pipeline project to a company designing solar panels? This conservative near-sightedness never ceases to amaze me and please its credulous readers.