Saturday, December 29, 2007

Ron Paul--Creationist Nutcase

Being right on one issue--the war--doesn't make Ron Paul much more palatable as a candidate than any of the rest of the Republicans. He's in favor of dropping out of the UN, eliminating the Department of Education, ending Social Security as we know it, destroying the EPA (counting on the free-market to protect the environment), and dismantling the FDA. To top it off, Paul has outed himself as a creationist.

He says he doesn't believe that the presidency should be "decided on a scientific matter." Of course not. He's a Republican.


Catnapping said...

thou art a god, and i worship thee.

Keifus said...

To be fair, it's not in the interest of any politician to start making scientific decisions. I mean, why start now?

Venturing about elsewhere, I've seen some doctrinaire liberals challenged on dismissing Paul (and Kucinich) as nutjobs. Basically, is Ron Paul's rigthness on the war but wrongness on abortion loonier than, say, Hillary Clinton's wrongness on the war and rightness on abortion? Maybe and maybe not, and there are definitely other issues with teh guy--his environmental views are nearly impossible for me to swallow--but I wouldn't quite call it worthy of dismissal.

(And I'll add that precisely zero of the buffoons are coming out as non-religious.)

Archaeopteryx said...

Cat, you make me blush...

K, I think the totality of Paul's views make him worthy of dismissal, but creationism is a litmus test for me. A man (or woman) who can't make sense of basic scientific facts has no business being the most powerful human in the world (for the time being, I guess), when the planet is in such dire straits, when we have the greatest opportunities in history to make strides against disease and poverty, and when religious zealotry is poised to destroy civilization.

On the other hand, Hillary ain't my first choice either. My candidate declined to run.

catnapping said...

I don't like Clinton or Paul. I want Kucinich, but it ain't gonna happen.

We'll end up with another or republican - won't make much difference.

I thought with a democratically controlled congress they'd string cheney and bush up, and they haven't done a damned thing. both of those men belong in prison for war any of our representatives care? 3 or 4. wow.

Keifus said...

Lucky you. I don't know who my ideal candidate would be, and not even what he or she would say. May I ask who would've been your first choice?

I do think that that hypothetical person would be able, at a minimum, to "show their work," to demonstrate how certain actions arose from certain evidence, based on reasonable principles. You're right that creationism categorically ignores both the "evidence" and "reasonable principles," making any candidate espousing it pretty fucking scary indeed. If pressed, I may just admit that in cases, it might not necessarily doom certain important areas of policy that don't rely on those unsupported axioms...important areas like the economics and foreign policy (and I'm skeptical about Paul on economics, with some well-placed reservations about the capabilities, and existence of, a free market).

Is a leader whose core principle preservation of the military industrial complex much better for us? Maybe--at the core, we suspect such a person is rational, only failing the "reasonable principles" test.

Archaeopteryx said...

Cat, I'll probably vote for Kucinich, even though, as you say, it won't make any difference.

K, my first choice was Al Gore. I liked him all the way back in '88. This is a smart guy, with principles, and who understands science, and reality. I'm not a fan of Hillary, but I can assure you she'll get my vote if she's the nominee. I always joke that I vote the man, not the party, then list those I've voted for: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. If you're a candidate, it turns out that putting that "R" after your name is pretty convenient for me. If you want to associate yourself with the party of homophobic, anti-poor, anti-Black, warmongers, I don't even need to consider you.

You're right in a way--Clinton is no different in essence than McCain where the war is concerned, but at least the lies she tells sound sort of like the stuff I want to hear.

I'm not a big fan of the idea of the free market taking care of anything. If libertarian ideas about the free market were correct, the cigarette companies would have gone out of business decades ago. Doesn't seem to be happening.

hipparchia said...


if it's truly your wish to prune american imperialism, vote for kucinich. a ron paul presidency might ostensibly bring a reduction in u.s. military strength, but his brand of free-market libertarianism would likely also remove what few checks we have now on the war-profiteering corporations like halliburton and blackwater and their ilk. it's possible that downsizing their biggest customer [the guvmint] would lead to the demise of the building of war machines, but i'm not sanguine about that. the industry is big enough and hungry enough to create its own market. i can't prove any of this, but i think a kucinich presidency would be more likely to attack the problem from both ends, downsizing the military and reining in the corporations, which is the strategy we're going to have to adopt, imho.

moving things to a more visceral level... you've visited my part of florida before, and had some not-very-flattering things to say about the people here, as i recall. i've also lived in the part of texas that paul represents right now, and they make this part of florida look urbane, cosmopolitan, and downright intelligent.

and now let me pull out my secret decoder ring for you. down here in the south, and this part includes texas, states rights is codespeak for the south is gonna rise again, south is codespeak for the confederacy, and right of free association is codespeak for racial segregation is a good thing and forcing white folk to allow black folk to mingle with them is a bad thing.

in ron paul's world, white heterosexual born-in-the-usa born-again christian men are the pigs of orwell's animal farm. he's a full-blown crackpot and it's only an accident that his anti-war views line up with the anti-war views of sane and thoughtful people.

would one of the other democrats [besides kucinich] dismantle the military-industrial complex, or even hobble it? probably not. there's a good chance that they could all be induced to at least not deploy it, though. and meanwhile, none of them would be actively dismantling the social gains we've made with medicare, medicaid, affirmative action, desegregation, civil rights, voting rights, etc.

and all the democratic candidates are finally making noises at least about universal health care. kucinich is the only one who is outright advocating single-payer insurance, with the government [and yes that means us the taxpayers, ultimately] being the payer, but i'm convinced that edwards, once elected, would also work towards that goal. making health care a public good that we all chip ind help each other pay for is the only sane way to do this.

hipparchia said...

[apologies for the lengthy rant]

Archaeopteryx said...

Hey, rants are what this blog is all about!

I can't speak for Keifus (he does a fine job on his own), but I certainly understand the distrust that many people have for the established political parties, and the desire to see something new and different. Unfortunately, what we get along those lines are people like Paul (I wish I could have written as good an assessment of him as you did). Yeah, he's different, but not in a good way.

hipparchia said...

Yeah, he's different, but not in a good way is probably the best summation of ron paul that anybody has yet put forth. keep up the good work [and good words].

Keifus said...

Nah, Paul's an ass, wrong on more things than he's right. He's running some anti-immigration ads up here this week (not far from NH, ya know), amounting to poorly concealed racism.

(I didn't have much problems with the people of the florida panhandle, didn't seem fundamentally better or worse than people anywhere else. It was just one guy I had a conversation with, who seemed to have some prejudgements of his own.)

I also liked Gore in 2000 rather a lot.

I don't think Kucinich should be written off either.

Keifus said...

Incidentally, was reading more details about Kucinich's health care proposals just recently. Raised my respect a notch.

Archaeopteryx said...

Also, Kucinich has a hot wife. So there's that...

hipparchia said...

it's true that not all of us here in almost-alabama are nutcases, but the guy you were speaking of isn't exactly an outlier either.

what would be really cool: an edwards/kucinich or kucinich/edwards ticket, either way, just so long as it's elizabeth/elizabeth.

Blogalogue said...

Kucinich is what this country needs yet ABC chose to exclude him from the New Hampshire debate EVEN THOUGH he came out ahead of Richardson in the Iowa bullcrap. Research Kucinich, he's a great man.

Robert Scheidler said...

As if his creationism were not enough (like you, that one is almost certainly a deal-breaker to me -- mostly because it signals an unwillingness or inability to consider evidence over ideology, which is exactly how things got so fucked up already), and if his desire to throw out the EPA didn't tip the scales, there is the matter of his web site (if not he, himself) having published blatantly racist, aryan nations grade propaganda in the past.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

He's in favor of dropping out of the UN, eliminating the Department of Education, ending Social Security as we know it, destroying the EPA (counting on the free-market to protect the environment), and dismantling the FDA

Hell, four out of five ain't bad.

We take the good points where we find them, Oh Great Chief Perfectionist.

Confucious say one never find total good in any good man. Glad my poor momma agreed.

Getting rid of the NEA (both of them, the one that pretends to care about kids and teach something other hatred of Christianity and El Socialismo Y Meurte, and of course the one that pretends to procure fine art) is perhaps the equivalent of trillions of bucks injected into the economy when the kiddies can think for themselves one day and not worhship the nanny state, or grow up believing that government is God more than God himself. Not that the latter is amused.

Then that solves one of the other thorny issue: The empty bank account that exists only as metaphor we often hear called "social security"--another milkwater marxism that needs to be more extinct than your fine feathred transition bird.

Having said all that, I appreciate the honesty of this blog and its pitch. Beats pretending to be something that's not.

So no, I don't follow in lockstep with the McCaininites either.

Archaeopteryx said...

Thanks for the comments, Wakefield. Always good to hear from the other side of the aisle.

Seems like a lot of the rank and file Republicans aren't exactly in lockstep with McCain.