1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15568/woods-reviewed-in-washington-times/

Woods Reviewed in Washington Times

February 4, 2011 by

Really happy to see this review of Rollback in the Washington Times, but you would swear upon reading it that Woods’s entire book is an attack on entitlements and a warning of a coming fiscal squeeze. This is strange because this part makes up, oh, perhaps 8% of the book, whereas the rest is an explanation of how central banking props up Leviathan to run a global military empire and why cutting government down to size is not enough; the entire ethos of government worship must be smashed. Again, I’m happy for this this review but I guess the reviewer was on deadline.

{ 7 comments }

Dennis February 5, 2011 at 7:36 am

Yes, let us be thankful for the interview and the exposure that it gives to Mr. Woods’s book. And maybe the reviewer was on a deadline. However, I am not convinced that, given the political orientation of the “Washington Times,” the paper would be all that open to a more accurate description of the book. This description necessarily would include “how central banking props up Leviathan to run a global military empire and why cutting government down to size is not enough; the entire ethos of government worship must be smashed.”

A more accurate and comprehensive evaluation of Mr. Woods’s book would describe his correct attack of major aspects of the statist agenda of most “conservatives.” Given the ideology of the vast majority of “conservatives,” a “free and prosperous commonwealth” will never be established in this country under their agenda.

El Tonno February 5, 2011 at 9:38 am
Matt Palmer February 5, 2011 at 3:20 pm

“Mr. Woods is bipartisan in his analyses.”

Bipartisan? Maybe in his vitriol. Must these state organs characterize something as mainstream to get their review published? Could anything miss the mark more than to call Woods’ work “bipartisan”?

augusto February 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm

Woods’ work isn’t in line with what either party defends, therefore, his work is bipartisan…

Jim P. February 5, 2011 at 5:55 pm

I think maybe Matt meant that the more appropriate term would be “non-partisan.” “Bipartisan” suggests that awful “we’ve got to work together to do the people’s business!” mentality so popular in Washington. In other words, grab something and hold tight. Non-partisan suggests that both parties are useless.

As a side note, every time I say “Washington,” meaning DC and its politics, I feel bad for George Washington. Poor guy. What did he do to deserve such slander?

J. Murray February 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm

Bipartisan means two political parties are working together for some common end. Bipartisan is a synonym for compromise. Bipartisanship is far worse than simple partisanship.

Matt February 6, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Woods is bipartisan? That was funny.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: