>What a whack-job.
He's not a whack-job. The article was designed to make him look like a
whack-job.
The right-wing (especially the Tea Party) wants less international, national,
or
even state government. They want government to be local. It should be your
city,
for example, that taxes people and pays for roads, not the US federal
government.
The left-wing wants to go the other way, taking away the powers of local
government and giving them to the national (or international) bodies.
For example, that's the crux of the Arizona immigration debate: people in
Arizona are unhappy
with the way the national government deals with immigration, and wants to
assert
local control. It's a typical right-wing response to the problem.
Conversely, the left wants to cede some national sovereignty in order to get a
world-wide treaty on carbon emissions. A good example of this was the ban on
flourocarbons which destroy the ozone layer. History has proven that correct:
they were damaging the ozone layer, that was a big deal, and ceding a tiny
amount of national sovereignty was the right way to solve the problem. Of
course, ceding sovereignty over carbon emissions is a much bigger deal, because
energy from carbon underlies everything in our economy.
You may disagree with the left-wing or right-wing on these issues, but neither
side is a "whack-job". Is juts the definition of what it means to be "left" or
"right" wing.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
