We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Years back, a popular notion among liberal thinkers was something called
"imperial overstretch." This was the idea that America's far-flung
foreign-policy commitments could bankrupt the country. Mr. Obama
believes this, and before Chuck Hagel started talking the other day, he
was supposed to explain it. In his State of the Union speech next
Tuesday, Mr. Obama will say again that Washington, after Iraq and
Afghanistan, needs to "invest" at home. But isn't the federalization of
pretty much everything in a diverse country like the U.S. just another
exercise in imperial overstretch?
Let's see, impetuous vortex as in a black hole. Or a hideous monster with devouring jaws as in T rex. And you consider either a viable choice? Let's consider a third path, a dragon with a severed head.
No, no. See, there is an infinite pool of resources available for domestic entitlement programs, even if we have to borrow to fund them and even if they're destroying the economy and therefore the very source of the wealth that's supposed to fund them. But anything we do overseas in furtherance of national security is spending money we don't have. 'Cause imperial ambition is mean, but Nanny State ambition is very, very nice.