If at first you don't secede

A reading from the Book of Yael:

Now comes failed presidential candidate* Ron Paul, adding his inane comments about Texas possibly seceding from the union.

How's this for ignorance?

"What about all the strong endorsements we have given the past decade or two to all the republics that seceded from the Soviet system? We were delighted about it," the Texas Republican congressman said in a video on his Web site.

Uh, Ron, are you actually comparing the former USSR government to the U.S. government?

Maybe I'm ignorant, too, but how about addressing Paul's actual argument? We DID give strong endorsements to (almost) all the nations that seceded from the USSR and Yugoslavia, and we did so with an argument for the right of self-government. A people has the right to rule themselves, just like the Declaration of Independence says, right? Now, perhaps we really didn't mean it and just used high-falutin' words to cover our glee at the death of the Soviet Union and its hell-hole satellites, but if that's the case, it does not change that Ron is historically correct here.

Maybe Yael actually thinks that Georgians in Europe have the right to self-determination, but Georgians in North America don't. Or maybe people have the right to secede from "bad" governments but not "good" ones. What other problem could there be in "actually comparing" the US and the USSR?

But that last question above is pretty funny, given his next sentence:

And don't forget what happened to the states that actually tried to secede from the Soviet empire three and four decades ago. Those attempts were crushed by tanks, guns and the military.

By some weird coincidence, that's same thing that happened to Texas when it last tried to secede, except for the tanks. Then the entire state was placed under military control and a new government instituted that was more friendly to the national government.

So why does it shock Yael that the comparison is made? Does he really not expect that such a secession movement today would be crushed with the full force of the United States military**? The truth is that he probably hasn't thought that far ahead.

No wonder Paul is seen as a loony political figure by so many people.

The greatest perk of being a newspaper editorialist is that you don't actually have to say or prove anything. All you have to do is print a person's words, then call them "failed" and "loony" and then ask a couple of silly questions that have nothing to do with what your subject was talking about. You can even ask hypothetical questions that are only hypothetical in the sense that you don't know the answers to them and therefore presume no one else does, either. This is sufficient to prove*** the ignorance of your subject.

So long as your readers are ignorant as well.

* Your search - "John Edwards" "failed presidential candidate" site:kansascity.com - did not match any documents.

** Unless the seceding state had nukes, it would. But that's why while Paul is historically correct, it's foolish to believe that an actual secession would be any less bloody than the last one. And until one is ready for that, there's not sense in pretending it's a realistic option.

*** or at least declare.