The leaders of European countries are facing massive political, economic and social problems, with no real solutions in sight. But those very serious issues actually pale to global ones.
Note: The Preface and Chapters One through Eight can be found here: The 15% Solution
This is the tenth installment of a project that is likely to extend over a two-year-period which began in January, 2010. It is the serialization of a book entitled The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022. Under the pseudonym Jonathan Westminster, it is purportedly published in the year 2048 on the 25th Anniversary of the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy in the Re-United States. It was actually published in 1996 by the Thomas Jefferson Press, located in Port Jefferson, NY. The copyright is held by the Press. Herein you will find Chapter 9. You can find a complete archive of the chapters published to date on TPJmagazine.us (lower right hand corner of the home page, http://tpjmagazine.us/15percent) as well as the Disclaimer, the cast of characters, the author’s bio., cover copy, and several (favorable) reviews.
Updated: July 31, 2012 added another video
Note: replaced 1st video Aug. 14, 2014
By Manila Ryce
The Largest Minority
Published Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 8:28 am
Since Brownback and Tancredo are out of the race, I guess Paul decided to keep Huckabee company amongst the presidential candidates who think the Flintstones was a documentary. Denying scientific evidence is an awfully peculiar thing for a doctor to do, but then again, Ron Paul is a paradox. He voted for the border fence with Mexico, yet claims to be a libertarian. He voted against the resolution to impeach Cheney, yet claims to be a strict constitutionalist. He’s against the occupation of Iraq, yet claims to be from Texas. Understanding Paul is like trying to nail Jello to a tree, and yet that doesn’t seem to matter to the majority of his supporters who still don’t have a full picture of their savior.
Despite eyebrow-raising revelations that continue to surface, such as about Paul not believing in the separation between church and state or the donations he accepts from white supremacist groups, nothing is stronger than the love a Paul fanboy has for his golden idol. Ask a left-leaning Paul supporter why they don’t just support a better candidate like Dennis Kucinich and they’ll put forth the anti-democratic group-think argument of electability having precedence over platform. Irony anyone? Why not just support Hillary and get it over with?
Ron Paul: I don’t believe in evolution
December 21, 2007
It’s actually pretty shocking that Paul would use the “evolution is just a theory” argument to justify his nonacceptance of it. In science, a Theory is not merely an opinion, but a well-supported and testable explanation of how nature works. Doctor Paul must surely know the error in putting something like the geological theory of plate tectonics and my cousin’s theory that Alf is really an alien and not a muppet on equal footing. Paul has shown how extremely misinformed he is on matters of science with his solution to environmental degradation already. Perhaps we should exercise a bit of intelligent design ourselves by electing a president with at least an elementary school understanding of what constitutes scientific evidence this time around, and not someone who thinks “both sides” are equally credible.
Audience member: “I saw you in one of the earlier debates, all of the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution to be true and they had a show of hands, but I didn’t see which way you voted, and I was wondering if you believe it to be true, and should it be taught in our schools.”
Paul: “First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I, um, I think it’s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory…. I just don’t think we’re at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side.”
h/t: Hugo Chavez
Ron Paul uses essentially the same kind of reasoning as Creationists regarding evolution vs creationism.
With the theory of evolution it’s like any other theory in science: it is a “theory” exactly -because- it is supported by evidence and because there is no evidence to the contrary. “Proof” is a mathematical concept that has very little to do with theories.
Nor is any scientific theory “fact”. With scientific theories it is verifiable observations (aka “facts”) that matter.
Creationism aka Intelligent Design on the other hand is not even a theory; it is at nothing but an idea.
This and everything else you need to know about this ‘controversy’ – among which is the fact that Creationism and Intelligent Design are in fact one and the same – is in this PBS/NOVA docu about the trial of “Kitzmiller v. Dover” in Dover, Pennsylvania:
Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
“In 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania school board established a policy that science teachers would have to read a statement to biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution called intelligent design. Intelligent design, or ID, claims that certain features of life are too complex to have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The Dover high school science teachers refused to comply with the policy, refused to read the statement. And parents opposed to the school board’s actions filed a lawsuit in federal court.
The trial that followed was fascinating. It was like a primer, like a biology textbook. Some of the nation’s best biologists testified. When I began delving into the case, it was clear that both the trial and the issue were perfect subjects for NOVA.”
h/t: Hugo Chavez