Syndicate and Hague

God, I hate Ron Paul so much.

He’s going to be at Northrup this evening. Because, you know, all this federal funding of educational institutions is bad…so let’s hold a campaign rally in a building that exists because of this money.

He should hold his rallies on private property only. No parks, no public spaces, no public buildings. Yeah, that might make his campaign a little harder — but isn’t it worth it to adhere to your values?

/dripping, vicious sarcasm

I mean. Really. It never makes sense to me when people veer politically towards someone who is so anathema to their best interests. But, sure, who needs education? Not the students showing up for RP rallies, I guess.

I’ve developed a new morbid addiction. The Ron Paul Survival Report is an awesome site that is essentially devoted to showing what is wrong with Ron Paul. The blogger is thorough as hell. Every time I’ve checked his sources to make sure he was accurate (I try to vet the people I quote, you know), he’s been right on.

Most recently, Ron Paul is doing another one of his “money bombs” on MLK day. Ignoring his history of racist statements and affiliations, the general philosophies of extreme free market economics he espouses (which disenfranchise the vast majority of us), and the plethora of white supremacists who have flocked to his campaign (seriously)…RP is reinforcing his status as racist by actually speaking at Bob Jones University tonight at 5 p.m. It’s currently on his website (I checked).

So. Do you folks know about Bob Jones University? Well…let me enlighten you. Back in 2000, candidate George Bush spoke at Bob Jones, which set of a firestorm even from some of the most ridiculously conservative folks around (Bill Kristol, I’m looking at you). Why? From the Salon.com archives.

The school refused to admit any African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, most unmarried African-American applicants were denied admission, presumably to prevent interracial dating. After 1975, the school — under court order — began admitting unmarried African-American students, though according to the U.S. government, it rejected “any applicant known to be a partner in an interracial marriage.”

After the 1975 court order, Bob Jones administrators established rules requiring expulsion for any student who married or dated outside his or her race or belonged to an organization that advocated or encouraged others to marry or date outside his or her race.

In 2000, this was still the policy. After the controversy stirred up by Bush’s visit, they subsequently dropped the policy. In 2000. Eight years ago.

Now, you could argue: “But they changed the policy!” Despite the fact that I think that’s crap, I still think a candidate (or anyone) should not speak somewhere that is this misogynistic. From the Bob Jones website:

Dress Code for Women

Classroom/general dress consists of a dress or top and skirt; however, pants may be worn for some recreational activities. Shorts may never be worn outside the residence halls and fitness center.

Pants

• Loose-fitting pants may be worn between women’s residence halls, for athletic events, and to homes in the area.
• Loose-fitting jeans may be worn in and between women’s residence halls and when participating in activities where the durability of the fabric is important, such as skiing and ice-skating.
• Low-riders are not permitted.
• Shorts may be worn only inside the residence halls and fitness center

Other

• Combat boots, hiking boots or shoes that give this appearance are not permitted. Leather sandals, including those with a strap between the toes, will be permitted at times when women are not required to wear hose. Flip flops made of rubber, plastic, etc., are not permitted in public.
• Hairstyles should be neat, orderly, and feminine. Avoid cutting-edge fads and cuts so short that they take on a masculine look.

For some added hilariousness:

Abercrombie & Fitch and its subsidiary Hollister have shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions. In protest, we will not allow articles displaying their logos to be worn, carried, or displayed (even if covered or masked in some way).

Anyway, so, whatever. I’m not worried that RP is going to win the Republican nomination, much less the general election, but I do feel concerned that a certain segment of people respond to his rhetoric. It’s isolationist, self-interested, and generally loathsome. Anyone who believes we shouldn’t be funding public education is setting up a situation in which the poor remain poor and the rich get richer. From his website:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

Yeah. Um. Hello? If schooling is funded by local taxes, poor areas will not have competitive schools. I see no way in which this doesn’t disproportionately (moreso than now) advantage people who already have money and power. If your local tax base is small, where is money coming from to fund education?

Here’s the thing. This whole “personal liberty”/”I know what’s best to do with my money”/”personal responsibility” argument is just one thing: extreme selfishness. We live in a society, which is like being part of a household. A household has expenses. Let’s say we each need to put in 50% of our incomes so that we can pay our bills and improve things. Great. I’m a contributing member of the household. I’m willing to do what I need to in order for this to be a good place to live.

Now here comes along someone who says “This is ridiculous! Why should I put in 50% of my hard-earned money? You don’t do things right. You waste money on things I don’t think we should bother with. Let’s just leave it up to each individual to pay for each thing as it comes.”

You’d never live with someone like that unless you are a fool. You’d think they were supremely selfish and wonder how they expected to be part of a household when they obviously placed no value on it.

Anyway.

The images below are from the Ron Paul Chalk Flickr set. They make me laugh about us.

Ron Paul supporters frighten me.

I keep reading things about his candidacy and his supporters and I just don’t understand how people can throw their support behind the man.

From the Seeing the Forest blog:

Ron Paul is this year’s Howard Dean. You can’t go to a farmer’s market around here without encountering a Ron Paul volunteer. In their enthusiasm to help fix the country many new voters are being drawn into the Ron Paul sphere.

Bringing in new voters is always a good thing. And opposing illegal aggressive war. torture, and demanding that the Constitution and laws be followed are to be praised no matter who is doing it. Heck, listening to Paul talk about these things almost makes me want to support him!

But then these recruits are then subjected to the other side of the far-right libertarian agenda. First there is the lunatic “Secret NAFTA Superhighway” conspiracy stuff. It’s a catchy phrase that seems to affect people’s brains, but it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just nut stuff. People’s understandable concerns about trade deals that practically require the destruction of jobs and the environment are used by Paul as a way to mainstream far-right “black helicopter” thinking.

Then comes a dose of really bad economics. There’s the “get rid of the IRS” and gold-standard nonsense. And the talk that the Federal Reserve is some kind of secret internationalist cabal has a hint of the old-time antisemitism of those who say that Jews have a secret conspiracy to control all the money.

And I don’t fault a candidate based on who supports him or her, but Ron Paul sure does have a lot of militia, white supremacist, etc. groups endorsing him. So I do have get a bit suspicious about where he is coming from.

Unfortunately he is also a possible Ralph Nader whose independent run could siphon off enough votes that would otherwise have gone to Democrats to throw the election to the right. Anti-war, pro-Constitution support draws votes away from the Democrats, not Republicans. That guarantees the war continues and the shredding of the Constitution is completed.

Now, I’d like to note that the only similarity between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader is the same thing that makes him similar to Ross Perot or John B. Anderson in that he could be a spoiler.

I actually don’t think this will be the case. If Ron Paul became a truly viable candidate, not just the object of obsession amongst a primarily male, internet-lovin group of anti-war libertarian isolationists with dreams of not paying taxes, the exposure his crazy ideas would have would destroy his candidacy.

So I’m not worried about him. But I just would like to understand his support. Especially in light of things like this (from Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s column on HuffPo):

Then there’s Paul’s now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn’t fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul’s historical dumbness would have been laughable except for four things. One, he was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a war– Napoleon’s ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave revolt there.

He goes on:

In fact he even highlights this as “Issue: Racism” on the site. “Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry.” In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless.

I think it’s necessary to interject here that this is an argument I have heard in more subtle variations from a lot of white people - predominantly, though not exclusively, Republicans. Personally, I think it shows a fear of a slowly (sloowwwwly) leveling playing field and ignores how entrenched racism is institutionally. I don’t want to digress too much from my focus on Ron Paul here, but I think it’s really time that we disregard the notion that ‘changing our hearts’ is the most effective way to end entrenched racism. Because if you’re privileged, you can feel that everyone is equal, but the world that has been set into motion from before you were born has already made that not so. I guess I can talk about this more later. Back to RP.

He’s trying to get Dems with targeted messages. From Bleeding Heartland:

On Sunday night or Monday night, I got a robocall supporting Paul. The script emphasized that Democrats in Congress have failed to end the war, and none of the Democratic candidates would be able to end the war. It urged me to caucus for Ron Paul because unlike the Democrats, he has always been against the war and would be able to end the war. It also mentioned a few of Paul’s other policy positions.

He also doesn’t accept the theory of evolution.

Pet peeve alert. In vernacular, theory and hypothesis are used more or less interchangeably. I’m guilty of this. Totally. HOWEVER! In science, a theory is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena, like the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. (from Dictionary.com). Loony creationists are exploiting the broad usage of the word theory to minimize what a scientific theory is.

God, I could go on, but I just don’t get Ron Paul. Or his supporters. And I don’t think I will.