Truyện Cổ Tích Thế Giới - Công Chúa Ngủ Trong Rừng tải xuống LIT miễn phí

Michael E _m_atz — Disclaimer: This was a Firstreads copy. This book is a primer on Tea Party philosophy as told through the campaign of Kentucky's current junior senator. It is short on autobiography and quite philosophical which is refreshing. I was glad to encounter an even-handedness in Rand Paul's laying of blame for the fiscal crisis around both Democrats and Republicans. He is hard on both sides but especially on those that he considers to be faux conservative Republicans who actually have little interest in the fostering of a limited federal government. Of course I expected no less having been a Kentucky-based witness of this 'historical' election. The explanations that he gives are more detailed than I would have initially thought. This book is on the same level as most of Ron Paul's writing. One problem that I encountered was the lack of index and full references both of which I consider to be the hallmark of serious nonfiction To me, the absence of a bibliography makes some of the content less credible. Throughout, Dr. Paul says things like "some polls even have the Tea Party ranking equal or above both major parties." I am sure that such polls exist but not citing them leads one to question their validity and the author's use of such a poll to bolster his opinion. However, one does not know what poll. The "Suggestions for Further Reading" is stunted and most likely an afterthought. However, some parts of this book are overly repetitious and annoying. Paul tends to have messianic ambitions evidence by his near-continuous indications of what a pioneer and outsider anti-hero that he is in today's political climate. The self-aggrandizement goes on. And on. Also, the buttkissing of Sarah Palin was just a bit too *bleah*. His continual relating that the Tea Party is so endemic to and a part of the American landscape that it seems to grow forth spontaneously almost like amber waves of grain is cloying and an insult to anyone who has ever taken part of any kind of movement politics especially ones that emerge as national phenomenon. There is a lot of infrastructure that goes into it despite however much it may seem to be decentralized. Even the grassroots has to have some system of root maintenance. The book also suffers from some ahistorical (or perhaps just poorly informed) tendencies. But one example is the assertion that Thomas Jefferson would be abhorred by debt. Yes, he wrote letters vilifying debt but he is also the same man who was the locus of the Louisiana Purchase a few scant years after the American Revolution sapped the nation's financial reserves. He also died with nearly $100,000 of debt in 1826 (a sum that would be several million inflation-adjusted dollars) and considered a lottery to bridge the gap. One can find this information in a variety of sources like the Joseph Ellis biography of Jefferson or from Bill Bryson's most recent book. (I wasn't joking about how non-sourced material irritates me. ;)) Slavish devotion to the Founders and their purported intentions negates the Constitution as a living document because there is almost a 180 degree difference between the politics/economy/culture that existed then and is now present. It is a concern if people who so fervently espouse some of these sentiments wish to return to a slave-based economy, a rigidly class-based political system that allowed only landed men to vote and in which women were, for the most part, chattel in order to appease those who wish limited government. Had one waited for the states to abolish slavery or enfranchise women, well, we would all still be wishing. It may behoove some to who are calling for a "Second American Revolution" that such an event has already occurred: it was call the American Civil War and one can be fairly certain that is not an event that this nation could wish for or withstand. Overall, this was a fairly easy read that gives some good insight into Kentucky politics as well as the national Tea Party scene. I agree with some of Dr./Senator Paul's points that the nation's political discourse is limited and needs to be widened and that federal funds should be spent much more judiciously. However, the politics that reverts to a strict Constitutional federal government would be extremely detrimental to much of the gains in liberty that have been undertaken since the document was codified. The devotion to the letter of the Constitution rather than the spirit of it needs fervently to be addressed.