Every once in a while, I depart from strictly economic education and information, the purpose of Econlog, to comment on important things that are happening in the political world. My latest article on antiwar.com discusses the Rand Paul filibuster. This one falls under Public Choice, broadly defined. One of the things I found interesting in researching it was how little some of commenters knew about the content of the filibuster. Here's my most important paragraph addressing the content:
The question of drone strikes on Americans was an important one to address. But, like a salesman who gets his foot in the door so he can persuade you to buy, Rand Paul used the "drone strike on Americans" issue as his foot in the door to get people to think beyond that narrow issue. How far beyond? Rand Paul quoted Glenn Greenwald and Conor Friedersdorf, two people whose work often appears on antiwar.com. He questioned so-called "signature strikes," that is, shooting Hellfire missiles from drones at people who fit the profile of a terrorist, on foreigners abroad. He challenged the war on terror, pointing out that much of what the U.S. government does abroad creates more terrorists. And he called for ending the war in Afghanistan and pulling out. Not bad for a day's, or actually, 13 hours', work.
My favorite part of the filibuster, and the part where Rand Paul's humanity really came out, was the part where he criticized former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who claimed that Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, had he wanted to avoid being killed by Obama, "should have [had] a far more responsible father."