I'm wondering what everyone thinks of Ron Paul. He seems to be making headlines lately, such as this writeup about how he raised 4.3 million in some kind of Guy Fawkes-related fund-raising campaign. What the heck? I did see the movie and read the graphic novel, but still not feeling vindictive or vascular enough to vacate the verisimilitude.
I'm wondering if the dems aren't somehow funding this guy so he'll pull a Nader and shatter the Republican's unity (or is it spelled urinary? Can't spell todae). One of my friends is so aflutter with him you'd think he borrowed and broke the man's rotor-rooter in a bizarre gardening accident.
BTW, one thing Paul has said several times is that he was to demolate (look it up) the Department of Education. Would that be a bad thing? I have no idea what it does, actually. Are they the guys that are behind standardized testing? Or do they rewrite the old newspapers? I'm sure it involves lots of Old Spice at any rate. Arr, whether too much coffee or not enough, just can't conceptualate. Idle hands don't write for idle minds.
Here's a great line I found on Ron Paul's website: "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Liberty, and a vote to educate your children at home." Dude, I'm sure your kid is really avoiding the indoctrination of the state minions at your house.
Sigh. Back to leisure.
a penny for the ron?
Are they going to use the money for firecrackers and burn him in effigy when they get enough?
bradley || bleckblog.org
Ron Paul not loved by the Democrats
Well, this is the first time I've seen a blog post that ponders whether the Democrats are supporting someone who wants to eliminate (I swear I checked Google and Webster for "demolate" and couldn't find it.) the DOE. But, I'm glad to see a blog post about Ron Paul here, because I think he'd be good for education in this country (and for just about everything else).
Ron Paul's desire to eliminate the Department of Education stems from his understanding of what happens to money that comes from a supply at the bottom of a bureaucracy, i.e. taxpaying citizens, that is then distributed from the top down. The short explanation is that much less gets back to the bottom in any useful form. So, people have less disposable income to pay for education, while the cost of education rises. Ron Paul would rather see the states and municipalities of this country handle funding for education in communities where people want publicly funded education. And, for those communities that want to handle it privately, they'll have more of their own money available to them to do that with the DOE gone. Incidentally, the current budget for the Department of Education is 71.5 billion dollars (source: DOE).
Also, philisophically, Ron Paul feels it's wrong for the Federal Government to dictate the nature and content of education to its citizens or to limit parents' choices about how to educate their children. That's what the quote you read is getting at, albeit in Campaignspeak.
--
Scott Crumpler
Capitalism & Culture Blog
PS - Now that there's a Ron Paul post on this site, expect a bump in site traffic. ;)