A New Soul

The first part of this G.K. Chesterton quote was making the rounds on the Internet this past weekend:

The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul.

Here's the whole quote:

“The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul and a new nose; new feet, a new backbone, new ears, and new eyes. Unless a particular man made New Year resolutions, he would make no resolutions. Unless a man starts afresh about things, he will certainly do nothing effective.”
- G.K. Chesterton

If you really like the quote, join the society. That said, I'm in agreement. The slowdown for the past ten days whether you traveled, were snowed in or just hung with the family is a time for reflection on the year gone by and projection onto the year ahead.

2010 was a tough year, losing a mother and two friends, working extremely hard in business and with family, but on the flip side I bought my first electric guitar, played every night since and wrote eight songs along the way. And then I kept this blog going, albeit instituting Friday and Saturday nights off.

Looking ahead I hope for a combination of engagement and peace, if that makes any sense. I want a growth year, no matter how it happens. Having learned so much over the past several years, one hopes for something more than a New Year's resolution. One hope to have evolved, positive direction, maybe that new soul Chesterton prescribes.

Fresh, at all costs.

But of course

Of course they did:

The House Energy and Commerce Committee released dozens of internal documents that outline several problems on the deepsea rig in the days and weeks before the April 20 explosion that set in motion the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. Investigators found that BP was badly behind schedule on the project and losing hundreds of thousands of dollars with each passing day, and responded by cutting corners in the well design, cementing and drilling mud efforts and the installation of key safety devices.

"Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense. If this is what happened, BP's carelessness and complacency have inflicted a heavy toll on the Gulf, its inhabitants, and the workers on the rig," said Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Bart Stupak.

Of course, he isn't -- why would he:

Rand Paul, who touts his career as a Kentucky eye doctor as part of his outsider credentials in his campaign for U.S. Senate, isn't certified by his profession's leading group.

He tried Monday to bat away questions about it by calling it an attack on his livelihood, saying the scrutiny stems from his challenge of a powerful medical group over a certification policy he thought was unfair.

The libertarian-leaning Republican helped create a rival certification group more than a decade ago. He said the group has since recertified several hundred ophthalmologists, despite not being recognized the American Board of Medical Specialties – the governing group for two dozen medical specialty boards.

Of course they did. Do:

So, Halliburton creates offshore entities to circumvent the U.S. ban on doing business in Iran, and part of what passes through this truly ridiculous loophole is nuclear enabling technology. All of the profit ends up in a Cayman Islands shell company so there's no U.S. tax burden, and when we have to go interdict a nuclear armed Iran Halliburton gets paid again supporting our military in the conflict.

But of course!

The Other One

Of all the Republican Presidential aspirants who participated in the pre-nomination debates, the only one I found myself agreeing with regularly was Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

Paul, of libertarian bent, was opposed to the Iraq War as well as Cheney-led curtailments of freedom under the Patriot Act et al. So while I agree with Paul on a number of very big issues, most importantly that the U.S. follow George Washington's lead to trade with all but stay out of entangling foreign wars, I'm generally in disagreement with him regarding government spending -- he wants to slash it to the bone, which I hold is not a responsible or suited response to the modern world.

However, what Ron Paul does have that the Republican party desperately needs -- and won't get from Gov. Palin, no matter how many post-loser Election interview she does -- is a consistent, comprehensible philosophy. Leaders can come and go but a philosophy can mature, prevail. Think Goldwater to Reagan. Or Robert Kennedy to Barack Obama.

Paul espouses in a CNN commentary he just wrote:

• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world

I believe that the under-analyzed aspect of last week's election is Obama's philosophy, which is certainly not Marxism but does call for a responsible society, on both the governmental and personal level. While the government becomes an instrument of the Common Good, it does not reach into your television to turn it off during homework hours -- that's your job, albeit preached by Presidential example.

While the GOP casts about for some new packaging to somehow revive their party, Paul is offering something already made. If he can somehow turn his core of committed libertarian activists into the foundation of at least a mini-movement, I believe they could win a Republican Presidential nomination, whether it is Paul or a figure with less built-in loathing by his own party. And it could be a real threat to win, again if properly organized.

After all, who on the left could disagree with this passage from his commentary:

The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation -- while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don't matter as long as taxes aren't raised.

On the other hand, I have yet to be convinced that we should, per Rep. Paul, eliminate the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development.

But I bet a lot of Americans would be open to the argument. Especially now.

Which gives upcoming President Barack Obama a very, very slim window to prove his argument in action.