Ron Paul 2008: Hope for Gattaca

Last week, Congress voted 414-1 on outlawing genetic discrimination. Guess who voted against it?

Some may question Ron Paul's judgment on this matter. But when most of your supporters are white supremacists who believe that their inherently superior Aryan genes are being held back back by genetically inferior black people and Jews, then of course you're going to support the genetic discrimination of minorities. These are the same group of kids who have barely paid any taxes at all in their entire lives, but who are absolutely convinced that they would have had the innate qualities to become millionaires if it wasn't for the evil tax payer funded roads and tax payer funded schools holding them back.

If you have a healthier genome than the average person, then that healthy genome should be reward in itself. Congratulations, you get to live a longer, healthier, and more productive life. In a fair and just society, you do not deserve an additional financial reward on top of that. It's not like th people with cancer prone genes are going to start partying at the idea of painful cancer treatments. Those people are going to be suffering. Why are libertarians so intent on making their suffering even worse? And honestly, even if we could objectively gauge genetic risk, and even if it wasn't morally deplorable to financially punish someone for possessing a genome beyond their control, you still need to deal with the fact that there wouldn't be any standard percentage for profit margins. Some groups would do a better job of arguing for lower rates based on their defects than other groups. And I think we all know who I'm referring to.

Worse yet, by giving insurance companies the ability to discriminate, you pretty much force employers to do the same, because now they have to factor in an employee's potential insurance cost when hiring them. "No sir, I didn't discriminate against the black guy for being black, I discriminated against him for having costly black genes!" Why am I not looking forward to this?

Meanwhile, the Ron Paul Tumblelog managed to dig up this nugget from the Ron Paul forums: "Anytime you see such overwhelming support for a bill you can bet it’s inherently flawed." The guy has a good point, you know. It's the same reason why I reject the theory of gravity.

Scienceblogs.com: Ron Paul has Crank Magnetism

Ron Paul supporters have a habit of always referring to Ron Paul as Dr. Ron Paul, as though delivering 4,000 babies somehow makes you more qualified to be president. We often hear that since Ron Paul is a doctor, he therefore possesses unique knowledge on the problem and solution with the current health care system.

Orac from scienceblogs.com writes a very thorough article to the contrary. Orac addresses Ron Paul's grasp of medical science, and calls him a quackery enabler.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Paul opposes mandatory vaccinations, as well. I wonder if he's a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, publisher of that repository of crank medical "science" and right-wing political posturing, that cornucopia of antivaccination pseudoscience and downright vileness, anti-immigrant screeds, dubious studies claiming to link abortion with breast cancer that we've all come to know and ridicule, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. It sounds as though he would fit right in. Wait a minute! He is and does! In any case, if you think the FDA can't adequately protect the public from dangerous drugs now, you ain't seen nothin' yet if by some unpleasant quirk of fate Ron Paul wins the Presidency and enacts policies consistent with some of the things he's said about the FDA, such as, "I don't think we'd all die of unsafe food if we didn't have the FDA. Someone else would do it."

Orac also points to a blog post by Greg Laden, where a commenter by the name of AndreCJ wrote the following:

Well there goes my hero worship for Ron Paul.
If he rejects something so fundamental like evolution how can I put my trust in him in things like monetary change, ie if he can be so wrong about evolution he may be equally as wrong in matters of political and economic importance, and it was his honest and humble manner that converted me into his way of thinking in the first place.
Would Austrian economics really work? I am beginning to have my doubts.

It looks like some people are finally starting to get the idea. Let's hope this trend continues.

Popular Mechanics on Ron Paul: Geek the Vote, 2008

Popular Mechanics has recently set up a page which breaks down the top twelve Presidential candidates based on their opinions on eight different subject that are important to their readers: Autos, Digital/Tech, Energy/Climate, Environment, Firearms, Infrastructure, Science/Education, and Space. According to Popular Mechanics, "We did not analyze any of the proposals, and we do not necessarily endorse them."

On these issues, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee and the least defined candidates currently running, with established positions on only three of the eight subjects: Digital/Tech, Environment, and Firearms. Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has no response on energy/climate, and one of only three candidates who has no response on the auto industry. While Ron Paul does comment on environmental policy, his response consists of nothing more than typical "Let's privatize everything and hope that the problem fixes itself" libertarian rhetoric.

The Ron Paul supporters would like to keep the focus on Iraq, because they know that this is where Ron Paul is popular. However, we need to remember that there are other major issues that will present themselves in the upcoming years. First, there is the issue of climate change, which has world wide implications that might persist for centuries to come. Just about everyone who lives on Earth has a reason to be concerned about climate change. Secondly, there is the issue of universal health care, which not only affects the 40 million Americans who aren't currently being covered, but also the millions of Americans who are denied coverage despite being being insured.

How can Ron Paul hope to represent the American people, if he doesn't plan on addressing the bulk of their concerns?

Ron Paul clarifies his positions on Church and State

Ron Paul, the OB/GYN who recently flip flopped on evolution, has recently solidified his position on the role of religion in government. In case you aren't sure, he's in favor of it. This comes from Kade, a senior member from the Ron Paul Forums, who writes the following:

Official Campaign Message to Facebook Users:

Question: What role should the personal faith of a President play in his/her decision-making?

Ron Paul

Position: It should play a strong role

"Like the Founding Fathers, the core of my political philosophy is grounded in the knowledge that rights come from the Creator, not the government. Since rights do not come from the gov't, the gov't cannot violate those rights. Religion has a very important role to play in a limited gov't philosophy."

Ron Paul's basic point seems to be that the will of God should trump the will of government. The difference is this: We have people who can speak on behalf of government, and who can hold government accountable. Who gets to speak on behalf of God? Who holds God accountable? Jesus? The Pope? Ron Paul himself? I, for one, see absolutely no room for abuse from this guiding ideology.

Kade goes on to say that he has written several candidates about their views on atheists in the government. Barack Obama, John McCain, Dennis Kucinich, and Rudy Giuliani have all sent letters, and Barack Obama even went so far as to send him a personal reply. But no letter from Ron Paul. This should come as no surprise to anyone who read up on Ron Shank's attempt to get an honest response on Ron Paul's views on evolution.

Needless to say, the Ron Paul Internet Gestapo hasn't responded very well to this posting, where you now need to enter a password just to access it. Fortunately, you can still find it on Google Cache, although I have no idea for how long. A screen shot of the posting can be found below.

Ron Paul Flip Flops on Evolution

It turns out that despite being a medical doctor for the past forty years, Ron Paul does not accept the theory of evolution. Ron Paul made this revelation at a rally last November, which can now be found on youtube:



This is a drastic flip flop from last May, when all the republican candidates were asked for their views on the subject. Just so that there was no room for confusion, a blogger by the name of Ron Shank even wrote into the Ron Paul campaign, and received the following response:

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.

Apparently, we can't really trust Ron Paul on the subject of medical science, or frankly, any science at all. We can't trust Ron Paul to place empirical evidence and observation over basic ideology. We also can't trust Ron Paul to support the separation of church and state, and to keep his religion views out of science class. But apparently, we can't even trust Ron Paul to be honest about what Ron Paul actually believes, nor can we trust his campaign when asked point blank about it.

Which only begs the question. What can we trust Ron Paul on?