I didn’t think it was possible, but after watching these hearings, my estimation of the intelligence and moral worth of politicians has actually lowered.
I didn’t think it was possible, but after watching these hearings, my estimation of the intelligence and moral worth of politicians has actually lowered.
I think Mr. Green and the congressman from Arizona are asking real questions and listening. But the rest of them are just pushing rhetoric. But Green is pretty opinionated.
Out of some misplaced sense of loyalty I watched, even though I think this committee is no more noble than any other, and that they are all ignoble.
What a disaster as a Ron Paul PR moment. DiLorenzo and Vedder weren’t the choices I would have made.
I can’t see any reason to watch any more hearings by this committee.
That bad? I couldn’t get it to work on my PC.
I thought DiLorenzo was great, though looked like he wanted to laugh the whole time. I guess that’s what happens when you put an anarchist in a room full of congressmen. Still, given DiLorenzo’s favorite subject these past few years, someone like Professor Murphy would probably have left him less open to the red herring of DiLorenzo’s affiliation with those evul Southroners.
I watched it to hear DiLorenzo talk, the best moment was when he recommended Rothbard to the congressman from Arizona.
Heh, that is rather ironic.
Who is this Vedder fellow?
Why Dilorenzo? I don’t understand. Roger Garrison would have killed it.
I was thinking about this as well. Garrison seemed like an obvious choice to me.
Also, was the hearing recorded? I was in class while it was going on and missed it.
Roger would have been a fantastic choice…
I posted this on the February Low Content page, too, but:
I haven’t really read much or listened to much of Vedder, and while I’m sure the guy is relatively smart, he came off a little frenetic and/or neurotic. DiLorenzo obviously didn’t make many friends when Clay called him out, as I’m sure most of the politicians there can’t think any less shallow than a street puddle to examine why DiLorenzo may be involved in such a community.
While the ploy was completely political, it painted the Austrian community as fringe as you could. Paul should have found somebody else, even if DiLorenzo is knowledgeable about the subject.
It’s difficult for serious and honest intellectuals like DiLorezo to simply put on the clown suit and join the circus. I guess some people here think that Paul simply hired the wrong guy. Garrison perhaps?? Funny, he doesn’t strike me as a talented circus clown.
This is what you get when you think you can outsmart the devil himself by paying respect to him and his criminal institutions. How many times have we been through this here? You don’t win this game by playing it!!!
It has nothing to do with “playing the game” really. Obviously if those people are offended by somebody who defends the economics of third world labor and can’t handle any criticism of Abraham Lincoln just because everybody else thinks he was a swell president, that is their problem. I’m not asking DiLorenzo to relent or hide his beliefs or anything of that sort. I’m just saying that Paul picked somebody with a lot of “baggage.” Garrison or Murphy would have said the exact same things without having any stigma of “NEOCONFEDERATE SOUTHERN NATIONALIST” attached to his commentary.
Got a recording for those who missed it!
http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia/financialserv/hearing020911.wvx
Really, it is all a game. There would have been one shenanigan or another regardless of who was there. It’s not as if they interviewing DiLorenzo for a position in a black rights organization. If Adolf Hitler was there proclaiming world peace nobody would support war just because it was him saying it. Anyone interested in world peace would support it regardless and anyone interested in war would supported war regardless. Being distracted from important matters by impertinent matters proves that the important matters are not important to them.
Oh yeah. Ron, Vetter and DiLorenzo did quite well, but Vetter seemed a touch nervous and DiLorenzo was attacked with a barrage of “You are a dirty Southerner, you hate Lincoln”. Clay just stopped short of accusing DiLorenzo of being a member of the KKK.
If somebody like Murphy or Garrison or Higgs had taken DiLorenzo’s place they would have accused of having ties of members of a “neo-Confederate hate group” that or " According to our economists your school of thought has been discredited; I have no questions for you."
You can’t win…
Joe Salerno would have been a perfect choice.
Clay had no choice but to try to criticize DiLorenzo. He couldn’t debate the man intellectually.
While the scientific method thing is wrong, the correct thing to do in the situation where politicians say something like that is to ask them if they believe in Jesus or God or creation myth or some other crap all politicians have to believe in. Which of course is a trap.
If they say yes, then they can’t care too much about the scientific method as way of separating truth from falsehood.
If they say no, you’ve just wrecked their career. And they’ve dismissed all or most of their colleagues’ ‘credibility’. (they won’t say this).