Here's yet one more Register editorial, on efforts to keep Ron Paul out of future debates. My belief is like it's banning a book in Boston in the wa-a-a-y old days. Publishers loved it because it gave them valuable publicity and sold lots more books elsewhere. Ron Paul couldn't have bought the amount of publicity he's garnered from being ignorantly attacked by Rudy.
I've read through the transcript of the debate and am tempted to go through the fallacious and misleading statements of the candidates, but there are so many! ... Maybe I'll get to a few if I have some more time than I'm likely to have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Alan, you're absolutely correct. Effort to preclude Ron Paul from debating is analogous to banning books (or burning books).
Years ago I was watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos and he said something that I will never forget. He said (paraphrasing), "Supression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from..."
This attempt to ban Ron Paul from the debates appears to be backfiring on the powers that be. This has the potential to start a mini-revolution in American politics.
Even a mini-revolution would be welcome.
Post a Comment