Here is an awesome website about libraries: Beautiful Libraries
And here is a video of Jay Walker's private library:
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Will Israel Attack Iran?
I am of the opinion that Iran's nuclear program is not for peaceful purposes. It is a dictatorial government that used force to put down an uprising from its own people, and despite harsh sanctions, it continues to press on with pursuing its nuclear program. That is not the behavior of a country that is pursuing a peaceful nuclear program. The problem is, what else to do about Iran? Israel sees Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon as a fundamental threat to its existence, so the concern right now is, will or when Israel attack Iran?
Israel's fear is not that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon soon, but rather that they will reach a point after which they have secured their nuclear program to the degree that they cannot be stopped. The thing about Iran is that striking it isn't some simple one-strike operation. There isn't one facility and it isn't a simple matter of flying over the border. Striking Iran's nuclear program facilities would mean hitting multiple targets multiple times. Israel would also have to fly through the airspace of countries that would likely not grant it such permission in the first place just to reach Iran. All of this will take a lot of aircraft. They need strike aircraft to carry the weapons to strike Iran's facilities. Then they need fighter planes to protect the strike aircraft. They also need aircraft to jam Iran's air defenses. And because of the distance, they need refueling tankers, which can refuel all of the aircraft so they can fly back to Israel. They then need fighter planes to protect those refueling tankers.
So the operation alone is a huge risk. Then there are Iran's various ways of retaliating, which could cause all hell in the region to break out. The current American administration does not believe that the Iranians are as close to reaching this point of no return regarding their nuclear program as the Israelis believe. I also think there is an element of politics regarding President Obama's behavior on Iran. Attacking Iran right now could well be political suicide for him. If he decides Iran must be attacked after he is re-elected (assuming he is re-elected), well then yes his poll ratings may tank, but he's already in for his second term (I say political suicide because the American people do not want any more major U.S. military involvements and especially with a country like Iran, where attacking it could result in oil prices skyrocketing where we end up with $5 or higher gasoline for example).
I believe that as bad an attack on Iran would be, that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a far greater danger. Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would result in the following:
1) A likely arms race in the region to acquire nuclear weapons among other nations
2) Iran will be able to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz. Right now, they can threaten it on paper, but the U.S. Navy could force it back open and if attacked by the Iranians, that would be an act of war, which would give the U.S. the right to attack the Iranian military outright. But with a nuclear-armed Iran, it makes it a whole new ballgame.
3) Iran could possibly attack Israel with a nuclear attack
I sometimes wonder if the current situation with Iran is akin to the eve of World War II with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Hitler wrote a book saying what he was planning to do; it wasn't a big secret. Iran isn't all that different. The thing is, the world was so terrified of another war, because of World War I having been so recent, that much of Europe deluded itself into thinking Hitler would never start a war. Similarly, it seems many people now are frightened of another major military conflict because of what we just went through with Iraq and are still dealing with in Afghanistan. But in being afraid of this, I wonder if they are deluding themselves into thinking that Iran does not plan to use a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel or that the fears about a nuclear-armed Iran are overblown. Another fear I think is related to how the U.S. was so sure that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and then it turned out, he didn't. He did have the ability to start producing such weapons quickly if he wanted, but the actual weapons, he didn't have. It was a major intelligence failure. Now many wonder if we are repeating the same thing with Iran. The kicker is that historically, the U.S. has tended to under-estimate the enemy regarding what weapons it had, rather than to over-estimate it. An example could be the Soviet Union, which developed the largest, most extensive biological weapons program in human history (this done after the United States and the Soviets had signed an agreement not to continue devleoping such weapons).
Personally, I do not think that the fears about a nuclear-armed Iran are overblown. One thing history has taught us is that a lot of things can seem completely wacky and unrealistic until they actually happen. Terrorists hijacking jetliners and crashing them into major American buildings? Sounds like a plot to a bad made-for-TV action movie. The U.S.financial system almost completely failing? Pure scaremongering. A nuclear powerplant experiencing an actual meltdown? Can't happen. Yet all of these things have happened. Now the thinking seems to be, "Israel getting hit with a nuclear weapon from an aggressive Iran?" Won't happen. Until it does, and then the world will wonder how on Earth it ever let such a horror happen.
I would hope that in the end, neither Israel or the United States has to attack Iran, but I do hope that if the Israelis go ahead with it, that they are successful. The U.S. will probably be Israel's sole ally if it does that, because the rest of the world, which already tends to view Israel as the problem in the region, is probably going to go berserk if Israel attacks and oil prices skyrocket. Israel could fail and suffer major losses in such an attack, but even if successful, it will likely face heavy criticism globally and retaliation from Iran in various ways.
I do wonder however if the other countries in the region that do not like Israel, but even moreso do not want Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, might give Israel a pass if it strikes Iran. Or maybe criticize it publicly, while privately liking that it delayed Iran in getting a nuke (if successful). Some have speculated as to whether Saudi Arabia would allow Israel to use its airspace to travel to Iran. The Saudis don't like Israel, but they also don't like Iran (especially considering how Iran recently tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States). Iran is infamous for hating the United States and Israel, but being Shia Islam, it also HATES Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni. And Saudi Arabia in return hates Iran. So maybe this could be one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" instances. There is also the added benefit that Saudi Arabia and the United States have fairly decent relations, I'd assume mostly because of oil (we want oil and they like our money), so perhaps this could also aid in the Saudis being willing to allow the Israelis to use their airspace.
Israel's fear is not that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon soon, but rather that they will reach a point after which they have secured their nuclear program to the degree that they cannot be stopped. The thing about Iran is that striking it isn't some simple one-strike operation. There isn't one facility and it isn't a simple matter of flying over the border. Striking Iran's nuclear program facilities would mean hitting multiple targets multiple times. Israel would also have to fly through the airspace of countries that would likely not grant it such permission in the first place just to reach Iran. All of this will take a lot of aircraft. They need strike aircraft to carry the weapons to strike Iran's facilities. Then they need fighter planes to protect the strike aircraft. They also need aircraft to jam Iran's air defenses. And because of the distance, they need refueling tankers, which can refuel all of the aircraft so they can fly back to Israel. They then need fighter planes to protect those refueling tankers.
So the operation alone is a huge risk. Then there are Iran's various ways of retaliating, which could cause all hell in the region to break out. The current American administration does not believe that the Iranians are as close to reaching this point of no return regarding their nuclear program as the Israelis believe. I also think there is an element of politics regarding President Obama's behavior on Iran. Attacking Iran right now could well be political suicide for him. If he decides Iran must be attacked after he is re-elected (assuming he is re-elected), well then yes his poll ratings may tank, but he's already in for his second term (I say political suicide because the American people do not want any more major U.S. military involvements and especially with a country like Iran, where attacking it could result in oil prices skyrocketing where we end up with $5 or higher gasoline for example).
I believe that as bad an attack on Iran would be, that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a far greater danger. Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would result in the following:
1) A likely arms race in the region to acquire nuclear weapons among other nations
2) Iran will be able to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz. Right now, they can threaten it on paper, but the U.S. Navy could force it back open and if attacked by the Iranians, that would be an act of war, which would give the U.S. the right to attack the Iranian military outright. But with a nuclear-armed Iran, it makes it a whole new ballgame.
3) Iran could possibly attack Israel with a nuclear attack
I sometimes wonder if the current situation with Iran is akin to the eve of World War II with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Hitler wrote a book saying what he was planning to do; it wasn't a big secret. Iran isn't all that different. The thing is, the world was so terrified of another war, because of World War I having been so recent, that much of Europe deluded itself into thinking Hitler would never start a war. Similarly, it seems many people now are frightened of another major military conflict because of what we just went through with Iraq and are still dealing with in Afghanistan. But in being afraid of this, I wonder if they are deluding themselves into thinking that Iran does not plan to use a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel or that the fears about a nuclear-armed Iran are overblown. Another fear I think is related to how the U.S. was so sure that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and then it turned out, he didn't. He did have the ability to start producing such weapons quickly if he wanted, but the actual weapons, he didn't have. It was a major intelligence failure. Now many wonder if we are repeating the same thing with Iran. The kicker is that historically, the U.S. has tended to under-estimate the enemy regarding what weapons it had, rather than to over-estimate it. An example could be the Soviet Union, which developed the largest, most extensive biological weapons program in human history (this done after the United States and the Soviets had signed an agreement not to continue devleoping such weapons).
Personally, I do not think that the fears about a nuclear-armed Iran are overblown. One thing history has taught us is that a lot of things can seem completely wacky and unrealistic until they actually happen. Terrorists hijacking jetliners and crashing them into major American buildings? Sounds like a plot to a bad made-for-TV action movie. The U.S.financial system almost completely failing? Pure scaremongering. A nuclear powerplant experiencing an actual meltdown? Can't happen. Yet all of these things have happened. Now the thinking seems to be, "Israel getting hit with a nuclear weapon from an aggressive Iran?" Won't happen. Until it does, and then the world will wonder how on Earth it ever let such a horror happen.
I would hope that in the end, neither Israel or the United States has to attack Iran, but I do hope that if the Israelis go ahead with it, that they are successful. The U.S. will probably be Israel's sole ally if it does that, because the rest of the world, which already tends to view Israel as the problem in the region, is probably going to go berserk if Israel attacks and oil prices skyrocket. Israel could fail and suffer major losses in such an attack, but even if successful, it will likely face heavy criticism globally and retaliation from Iran in various ways.
I do wonder however if the other countries in the region that do not like Israel, but even moreso do not want Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, might give Israel a pass if it strikes Iran. Or maybe criticize it publicly, while privately liking that it delayed Iran in getting a nuke (if successful). Some have speculated as to whether Saudi Arabia would allow Israel to use its airspace to travel to Iran. The Saudis don't like Israel, but they also don't like Iran (especially considering how Iran recently tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States). Iran is infamous for hating the United States and Israel, but being Shia Islam, it also HATES Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni. And Saudi Arabia in return hates Iran. So maybe this could be one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" instances. There is also the added benefit that Saudi Arabia and the United States have fairly decent relations, I'd assume mostly because of oil (we want oil and they like our money), so perhaps this could also aid in the Saudis being willing to allow the Israelis to use their airspace.
Would Oil Independence Really Make a Difference?
So one thing I have been pondering as of late is, would oil independence from the Middle East, on the part of the United States, really change anything? Everyone talks about "weening us off of foreign oil," so that if chaos breaks out in the Middle East, we wouldn't have any worries. Saudi Arabia cuts production? No biggie. Iran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz (where a massive amount of the global supply of oil passes through every day)? No problem. The flaw with this however, as I see it, is that this view ignores that oil is priced globally and that we have a global economy. The price of gasoline is to a good deal determined by the global supply of crude oil. Now as it is, the United States already gets most of its oil from Canada and Mexico (we don't get most of it from the Middle East as many think, it's just that the ME supplies enough oil to America to really cause harm if the supply were to be cut, and it supplies a major portion of the global supply of oil). So even if the United States was able, through increased domestic production let's say, to make it where we are independent of ME oil, where our oil comes solely from domestic production, Canada, and Mexico, well how does that separate us from the global oil supply? If chaos occurs in the Middle East that cuts the supply of oil there, that still does at least two things:
1) Yanks up the global price of crude oil, which will affect oil and gas prices in the United States
2) Tanks the rest of the global economy that is flat-out cut off from the oil it needs, which then in turn tanks the American economy as well.
So the only real solution to the problem of the Middle East I would think is to make the entire Western world independent of Middle Eastern oil. But I do not see that happening anytime soon.
1) Yanks up the global price of crude oil, which will affect oil and gas prices in the United States
2) Tanks the rest of the global economy that is flat-out cut off from the oil it needs, which then in turn tanks the American economy as well.
So the only real solution to the problem of the Middle East I would think is to make the entire Western world independent of Middle Eastern oil. But I do not see that happening anytime soon.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Electric Cars Make No Sense
So one thing I have not been able to wrap my head around is this current push for electric cars and even venture capitalists financing electric car startups. What makes anyone think that electric cars are viable? With the current technology, there is no electric car capable of driving the same distance as a car powered by an internal combustion engine. And the ranges of the current electric cars that do exist, those are assuming you aren't using the air conditioning or heater, along with other features, which is unrealistic considering one will usually have to use one of those during long parts of the year.
In addition, because the car is electric and powered by batteries, if you say mash the accelerator to go from 0-60 fast, you can really drain the batteries rather quickly. And then of course there is the charging. The quickest an electric car can be charged is about four hours (and that's pushing it; it takes more around five to six hours or longer). Who wants a car like that?
But let's assume that they developed an electric car that has the range of a regular internal combustion vehicle and takes about five minutes to charge. Okay, well what happens if you run out of charge? For example, during the Hurricane Katrina evacuating, there were quite a few cars that got abandoned on the sides of the freeway because they ended up running out of gas. The thing is, with a fuel-powered vehicle, you only need to get a gas container, put a few gallons of gas in it, put the gas into the tank, and you'll be on your way. Even the most fuel-inefficient truck getting around say ten miles per gallon could go 40 miles on four gallons of gas from a gas container. Most vehicles today get better mileage than that. A small fuel-efficient car could go really far on just four gallons.
But with an electric car, if this happens, you've got no way to quickly partially charge the car up. If all those abandoned cars were electric powered, you'd have to bring in trucks to haul them all away. Now maybe if battery technology advances to the point that the batteries of electric-powered cars are smaller, lighter, last a LOT longer, and can be charged quickly, then they will also have say charge packs that you could buy. Basically it would do the same as a gas container, except instead of putting gas into it, you take it to a charge station, charge it up, then take it to your car and it gives the batteries a partial charge to get you to a charge station.
But the thing is, investing in electric cars now in the hopes of such advancements in battery technology in the near future strikes me as just silly. Same with solar panels. The technology isn't viable enough. Both batteries and solar technology need breakthroughs similar to the transistor and how it replaced the vacuum tube in computers. Transistors revolutionized computers and electronics. Then the microprocessor was invented, because they figured out you could create the equivalent of thousands of transistors on a tiny little chip through special engineering and manufacturing.
Hopefully, we'll see some type of similar breakthroughs for batteries and solar technology in the future, but until then, electric cars make absolutely zero sense to me. One thing interesting to think about is how will consumer electronics be influenced by such new battery technology? I mean think about it, batteries that can last a looooooong time and that also can be charged nearly instantly, that would mean cellphones, laptops, etc...with batteries that last days. And when the charge depletes, it takes only a few minutes at the most to re-charge it. As an aside, I'll bet the battery industry sure isn't going to like that!
Some environmentalist types talk about how the oil companies supposedly have a conspiracy to prevent any major research into something like electric cars or solar technology, but has anyone ever quesitoned what the stance of the battery industry is towards revolutionary batteries that would make electric cars viable? Such batteries would also have application in everything else, meaning you wouldn't need to buy batteries nearly as much anymore, which would hurt their profits.
In addition, because the car is electric and powered by batteries, if you say mash the accelerator to go from 0-60 fast, you can really drain the batteries rather quickly. And then of course there is the charging. The quickest an electric car can be charged is about four hours (and that's pushing it; it takes more around five to six hours or longer). Who wants a car like that?
But let's assume that they developed an electric car that has the range of a regular internal combustion vehicle and takes about five minutes to charge. Okay, well what happens if you run out of charge? For example, during the Hurricane Katrina evacuating, there were quite a few cars that got abandoned on the sides of the freeway because they ended up running out of gas. The thing is, with a fuel-powered vehicle, you only need to get a gas container, put a few gallons of gas in it, put the gas into the tank, and you'll be on your way. Even the most fuel-inefficient truck getting around say ten miles per gallon could go 40 miles on four gallons of gas from a gas container. Most vehicles today get better mileage than that. A small fuel-efficient car could go really far on just four gallons.
But with an electric car, if this happens, you've got no way to quickly partially charge the car up. If all those abandoned cars were electric powered, you'd have to bring in trucks to haul them all away. Now maybe if battery technology advances to the point that the batteries of electric-powered cars are smaller, lighter, last a LOT longer, and can be charged quickly, then they will also have say charge packs that you could buy. Basically it would do the same as a gas container, except instead of putting gas into it, you take it to a charge station, charge it up, then take it to your car and it gives the batteries a partial charge to get you to a charge station.
But the thing is, investing in electric cars now in the hopes of such advancements in battery technology in the near future strikes me as just silly. Same with solar panels. The technology isn't viable enough. Both batteries and solar technology need breakthroughs similar to the transistor and how it replaced the vacuum tube in computers. Transistors revolutionized computers and electronics. Then the microprocessor was invented, because they figured out you could create the equivalent of thousands of transistors on a tiny little chip through special engineering and manufacturing.
Hopefully, we'll see some type of similar breakthroughs for batteries and solar technology in the future, but until then, electric cars make absolutely zero sense to me. One thing interesting to think about is how will consumer electronics be influenced by such new battery technology? I mean think about it, batteries that can last a looooooong time and that also can be charged nearly instantly, that would mean cellphones, laptops, etc...with batteries that last days. And when the charge depletes, it takes only a few minutes at the most to re-charge it. As an aside, I'll bet the battery industry sure isn't going to like that!
Some environmentalist types talk about how the oil companies supposedly have a conspiracy to prevent any major research into something like electric cars or solar technology, but has anyone ever quesitoned what the stance of the battery industry is towards revolutionary batteries that would make electric cars viable? Such batteries would also have application in everything else, meaning you wouldn't need to buy batteries nearly as much anymore, which would hurt their profits.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
A Day Made of Glass
Very intriguing vision of the future by Corning. I hope I live to see such technology! I bet that we'll also have personal humanoid robots and cars capable of driving themselves if one so wishes. What will videogames look like!?
Friday, February 17, 2012
Polar Spiders
So this is just a random observation, but as everyone knows, one of the concerns regarding global climate change (or global warming, whatever they are calling it right now), is the concern over the effect it will have on the polar bears. And the global warming proponents (by that I mean the people who believe in global warming) have really found a great mascot with the polar bears, as they are so cute and cuddly-looking. "Save the Polar Bears!" is the message (nevermind polar bears are man-eaters and very vicious). Nonethless, well it's understandable still that no one wants an animal like polar bears to be harmed by global climate change if it is really occurring.
But what gets me is that most of the people soooo concerned over the polar bears probably wouldn't give a damn if they were instead of bears, big hairy giant polar spiders. For example, imagine if there was some gigantic polar version of the tarantula, with long white hair, the same size as the polar bear, except instead of looking cute and cuddly, it's a monstrous eight-legged, hairy, multiple-eyed arachnid. Imagine trying to do the marketing over that! Many people would probably think, "Global warming will kill off the polar tarantulas!? Great!!!"
Yet the polar bears, which are killers just as much as spiders are, get a pass, all because they are furry and cute-looking.
But what gets me is that most of the people soooo concerned over the polar bears probably wouldn't give a damn if they were instead of bears, big hairy giant polar spiders. For example, imagine if there was some gigantic polar version of the tarantula, with long white hair, the same size as the polar bear, except instead of looking cute and cuddly, it's a monstrous eight-legged, hairy, multiple-eyed arachnid. Imagine trying to do the marketing over that! Many people would probably think, "Global warming will kill off the polar tarantulas!? Great!!!"
Yet the polar bears, which are killers just as much as spiders are, get a pass, all because they are furry and cute-looking.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Is A Re-Election of President Obama an Endorsement of His Agenda?
So it is probably pretty apparent that I lean rightward in my political leanings. I am not a strict right-winger or left-winger, but I guess you'd call me center-right, or a classical liberal or a believer in human freedom (classical liberalism is not the same as the modern American definition of liberal which tends to refer to people who believe in a large amount of State intrusion into the economy and society but are socially liberal). One thing some commentators I have noticed have been saying as of late is that if President Obama is re-elected, that this is an endorsement for basically taking the country down the road (or continuing to take it down the road) of European-style social democracy. However, I do not agree with this, for two reasons:
1) As Ayn Rand once said, "There is no such thing as a collective brain."
2) The Republican candidates seem to be so bad that if Obama wins, it might not be so much an endorsement of social democracy as a rejection of what they saw as a worse alternative. Now some might say that a rejection of the Republican alternative is an endorsement of social democracy, but the thing is that the average voter may not even really understand these issues. For example, does the average voter even know what social democracy is? A Republican candidate with a strong message about the difference between the socially-democratic model (large social welfare state, large amounts of regulation, government seeking to steer and drive the economy, etc...) versus the "American model" (maybe more appropriately termed the "classically-liberal model"), consisting of limited-government, a strong private-sector unhampered by intrusive government, overall low taxes, fiscal conservatism, a fiscally-responsible government, etc...and the policies the Republican will implement to do this, could probably beat Obama.
Such a Republican could point out the dangers of the debt and deficit the country is running, how this president has done virtually nothing to address the issue of the debt and deficit, and also the failure of the European social-democratic model (the Europeans have virtually no defense budget and higher taxes yet still struggle to maintain their social welfare states, some of them having been pushed over a cliff economically due to this recession).
But as it stands, the current crop of GOP candidates is as follows:
1) Mitt Romney: There is no real platform he is running on. Nothing about social democracy and how America should not go down that route, nothing about how to repair the debt and deficit or the dangers of the debt and deficit, nothing about what he will do to really get the economy growing again, etc...instead, his entire platform seems to be, "I'm a successful businessman, so vote for me."
In addition, he seems to be completely incapable of defending his own record in the private-sector. He and his campaign were blindsided it seemed when Republicans such as Newt Gingrich began criticizing his time at Bain Capital. Did it not occur to him that this would occur? Maybe it occurring from Republicans was a shocker, but it would occur nonetheless. As a private-equity person, Mitt Romney, should be well aware that his political opponents would try to pervert his record, saying that he was a vulture capitalist who hunted for troubled companies, bought them up, fired everyone, and sold the company off for parts. They will do things like get some old woman and some old man and make commercials showing them talking about how they worked their whole lives at X company, until Romney came in and fired everyone and destroyed the company.
That should be common sense! If you are a private-equity person who saved struggled companies and now are running for political office, that you will be attacked like that should be something you're fully expecting and prepared for. Because if that's a career one has had, there will be companies that one tried to save and failed to do so, and also companies where one did have to fire people and put the company into bankruptcy, simply to save the entire company from going out of business.
This also leads to another point: bankruptcy. A lot of people think bankruptcy means the company ceased operations and went out of business. It doesn't. There are different forms of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a tool used to resructure a company. The airlines for example have been into and out of bankruptcy multiple times. So saying that under Mitt Romney, ten companies "went bankrupt" could technically be accurate, even though it's completely mis-leading (implying that all those companies went out of business). So one would think Romney would be prepared for such attacks. I am giving Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt in that this is the type of private equity that he pursued, and that he was not literally a vulture capitalist. But let's say he was, then it gets even more confusing ,because one would think a guy who is an amoral politician, who made his money preying on and ruining companies, would again be smart enough to know he will be attacked on this and that he must be fully prepared to defend against it.
But Mitt Romney has instead shown incredible weakness defending his private-sector record. He did not respond strongly to the attacks from Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry at all. What he should have done was give a very strong response, defend what he did while at Bain, say people were wrongly trying to demonize him, and completely distorting his record (and give some examples). For example, point out that with GM and Chrysler, Obama did the same thing: GM and Chrysler were put into bankruptcy, people were laid off, dealerships were closed, but it was done to save the company.
Romney does not seem to be fluent in conservatism or libertarianism at all (small-L libertarianism). He does not seem to understand the intellectual foundation behind the principles and policies the right support. It's like he is just trying to run as a right-leaning guy when he really has no idea of the framework for those policies. So he is unable to explain them or talk about them well. Up against the Obama campaign's onslaught, if his sole platform is "I'm a businessmen so vote for me" and then he is unable to defend his background against criticisms, he will lose.
2) Rick Santorum: Rick Santorum is likeable, except that his sole platform seems to be based on social conservatism, which is problematic for two reasons: one, it doesn't talk about the other issues (debt, deficit, etc...) and two, in the general election, Americans tend to be more moderate-leaning, not wanting a very socially-conservative person. Perhaps Santorum could pull an Obama and run more centrist in the general (as Obama ran to the far-left during the Democratic primary in 2008, then ran to the center during the general election), but the problem here is that Obama had the media on his side. The media hid all of his far-leftwing statements throughout the general election, whereas with Santorum, if he runs as a far-right social conservative during the Republican primary and then tries to run as a centrist during the general (provided he was the nominee), the mainstream media will make very sure that they inform the public about how socially-conservative he is (like when he said that homosexuality is akin to incest). This, without a solid platform contrasting the Republican vision for America with the Democratic party vision, means he will likely lose.
3) Newt Gingrich: Newt Gingrich is probably the most intellectual out of all of the candidates, but he has the problem of occassionally saying things that blow up in his face and get him into trouble. All it would take is one such incidence during the general election to wreak havoc with his campaign. There is also the problem that he has a lot of baggage. He was fired from being Speaker of the House over ethics violations. He was later found innocent of these violations, but this is not widely reported. He also has the reputation for having cheated on his wife (wives?) and having served his first wife divorce papers while she had cancer. Plus his current wife, Callista, looks like a stepford bride. While this is not unto itself a bad thing, it just doesn't look good to have the reputation regarding wives Newt Gingrich has and to currently have a wife who looks like a stepford bride. If she was his wife of fifty years or whatnot, that would be a real benefit. But she is instead a secretary he was having sex with for six years before revealing this to then wife Marianne, and Callista does not look like she can relate at all to the plight of the average person (even if she can, what counts is how people perceive her (and in addition, how will people perceive a woman who was sleeping with a married man for six years!?)). The Obama campaign would have a field day running against Newt Gingrich and he would probably inadverdently provide them with ammunition.
4) Ron Paul: I know my opinion here is going to enrage any Ron Paul fans, but personally I see the man as a nut. A Grade-A Looney-Toon. He has a history of being involved with conspiracy theories (the latest being his seeing the border fence as a way to keep Americans in!?), he has what seems very amateurish and ideological understandings and views pertaining to foreign policy and economics (he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard, or at the very least, audit the Federal Reserve, which would mean outright politicizing it), and he has referred to the United States, in one of his books, as an empire and one of the most aggressive and militaristic empires in history. He would be to the left of Obama on foreign policy issues and if the nominee, Obama would win in a landslide election.
Out of the four above, it seems the nominee will either be Romney or Santorum. With either one of these candidates, if they run in the general election the way they are running right now, the American people may well re-elect Obama not out of any endorsement of his socially-democratic agenda but simply because the alternative candidates do not seem any better, or even seem worse.
1) As Ayn Rand once said, "There is no such thing as a collective brain."
2) The Republican candidates seem to be so bad that if Obama wins, it might not be so much an endorsement of social democracy as a rejection of what they saw as a worse alternative. Now some might say that a rejection of the Republican alternative is an endorsement of social democracy, but the thing is that the average voter may not even really understand these issues. For example, does the average voter even know what social democracy is? A Republican candidate with a strong message about the difference between the socially-democratic model (large social welfare state, large amounts of regulation, government seeking to steer and drive the economy, etc...) versus the "American model" (maybe more appropriately termed the "classically-liberal model"), consisting of limited-government, a strong private-sector unhampered by intrusive government, overall low taxes, fiscal conservatism, a fiscally-responsible government, etc...and the policies the Republican will implement to do this, could probably beat Obama.
Such a Republican could point out the dangers of the debt and deficit the country is running, how this president has done virtually nothing to address the issue of the debt and deficit, and also the failure of the European social-democratic model (the Europeans have virtually no defense budget and higher taxes yet still struggle to maintain their social welfare states, some of them having been pushed over a cliff economically due to this recession).
But as it stands, the current crop of GOP candidates is as follows:
1) Mitt Romney: There is no real platform he is running on. Nothing about social democracy and how America should not go down that route, nothing about how to repair the debt and deficit or the dangers of the debt and deficit, nothing about what he will do to really get the economy growing again, etc...instead, his entire platform seems to be, "I'm a successful businessman, so vote for me."
In addition, he seems to be completely incapable of defending his own record in the private-sector. He and his campaign were blindsided it seemed when Republicans such as Newt Gingrich began criticizing his time at Bain Capital. Did it not occur to him that this would occur? Maybe it occurring from Republicans was a shocker, but it would occur nonetheless. As a private-equity person, Mitt Romney, should be well aware that his political opponents would try to pervert his record, saying that he was a vulture capitalist who hunted for troubled companies, bought them up, fired everyone, and sold the company off for parts. They will do things like get some old woman and some old man and make commercials showing them talking about how they worked their whole lives at X company, until Romney came in and fired everyone and destroyed the company.
That should be common sense! If you are a private-equity person who saved struggled companies and now are running for political office, that you will be attacked like that should be something you're fully expecting and prepared for. Because if that's a career one has had, there will be companies that one tried to save and failed to do so, and also companies where one did have to fire people and put the company into bankruptcy, simply to save the entire company from going out of business.
This also leads to another point: bankruptcy. A lot of people think bankruptcy means the company ceased operations and went out of business. It doesn't. There are different forms of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a tool used to resructure a company. The airlines for example have been into and out of bankruptcy multiple times. So saying that under Mitt Romney, ten companies "went bankrupt" could technically be accurate, even though it's completely mis-leading (implying that all those companies went out of business). So one would think Romney would be prepared for such attacks. I am giving Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt in that this is the type of private equity that he pursued, and that he was not literally a vulture capitalist. But let's say he was, then it gets even more confusing ,because one would think a guy who is an amoral politician, who made his money preying on and ruining companies, would again be smart enough to know he will be attacked on this and that he must be fully prepared to defend against it.
But Mitt Romney has instead shown incredible weakness defending his private-sector record. He did not respond strongly to the attacks from Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry at all. What he should have done was give a very strong response, defend what he did while at Bain, say people were wrongly trying to demonize him, and completely distorting his record (and give some examples). For example, point out that with GM and Chrysler, Obama did the same thing: GM and Chrysler were put into bankruptcy, people were laid off, dealerships were closed, but it was done to save the company.
Romney does not seem to be fluent in conservatism or libertarianism at all (small-L libertarianism). He does not seem to understand the intellectual foundation behind the principles and policies the right support. It's like he is just trying to run as a right-leaning guy when he really has no idea of the framework for those policies. So he is unable to explain them or talk about them well. Up against the Obama campaign's onslaught, if his sole platform is "I'm a businessmen so vote for me" and then he is unable to defend his background against criticisms, he will lose.
2) Rick Santorum: Rick Santorum is likeable, except that his sole platform seems to be based on social conservatism, which is problematic for two reasons: one, it doesn't talk about the other issues (debt, deficit, etc...) and two, in the general election, Americans tend to be more moderate-leaning, not wanting a very socially-conservative person. Perhaps Santorum could pull an Obama and run more centrist in the general (as Obama ran to the far-left during the Democratic primary in 2008, then ran to the center during the general election), but the problem here is that Obama had the media on his side. The media hid all of his far-leftwing statements throughout the general election, whereas with Santorum, if he runs as a far-right social conservative during the Republican primary and then tries to run as a centrist during the general (provided he was the nominee), the mainstream media will make very sure that they inform the public about how socially-conservative he is (like when he said that homosexuality is akin to incest). This, without a solid platform contrasting the Republican vision for America with the Democratic party vision, means he will likely lose.
3) Newt Gingrich: Newt Gingrich is probably the most intellectual out of all of the candidates, but he has the problem of occassionally saying things that blow up in his face and get him into trouble. All it would take is one such incidence during the general election to wreak havoc with his campaign. There is also the problem that he has a lot of baggage. He was fired from being Speaker of the House over ethics violations. He was later found innocent of these violations, but this is not widely reported. He also has the reputation for having cheated on his wife (wives?) and having served his first wife divorce papers while she had cancer. Plus his current wife, Callista, looks like a stepford bride. While this is not unto itself a bad thing, it just doesn't look good to have the reputation regarding wives Newt Gingrich has and to currently have a wife who looks like a stepford bride. If she was his wife of fifty years or whatnot, that would be a real benefit. But she is instead a secretary he was having sex with for six years before revealing this to then wife Marianne, and Callista does not look like she can relate at all to the plight of the average person (even if she can, what counts is how people perceive her (and in addition, how will people perceive a woman who was sleeping with a married man for six years!?)). The Obama campaign would have a field day running against Newt Gingrich and he would probably inadverdently provide them with ammunition.
4) Ron Paul: I know my opinion here is going to enrage any Ron Paul fans, but personally I see the man as a nut. A Grade-A Looney-Toon. He has a history of being involved with conspiracy theories (the latest being his seeing the border fence as a way to keep Americans in!?), he has what seems very amateurish and ideological understandings and views pertaining to foreign policy and economics (he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard, or at the very least, audit the Federal Reserve, which would mean outright politicizing it), and he has referred to the United States, in one of his books, as an empire and one of the most aggressive and militaristic empires in history. He would be to the left of Obama on foreign policy issues and if the nominee, Obama would win in a landslide election.
Out of the four above, it seems the nominee will either be Romney or Santorum. With either one of these candidates, if they run in the general election the way they are running right now, the American people may well re-elect Obama not out of any endorsement of his socially-democratic agenda but simply because the alternative candidates do not seem any better, or even seem worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)