Ron Paul

Ron Paul is kind of an unlikely candidate for President and even more unlikely as a serious candidate. He's 76 years old for starters, two years older than John McCain. He is also a pretty consistent libertarian. Libertarians are kind of like the redheaded stepchildren of the Republican party. The party is happy to have them vote in their block but don't want them to be very influential.

Liberals would probably agree with him on most of his non fiscal views. Ron Paul wants to bring all of our troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan but our military bases all around the globe like Europe and in South Korea and generally stay out of other countries' business. He opposes the Patriot Act, the use of torture, warrantless domestic surveilance, and wants to end the War on Drugs.

They probably won't be quite as happy with his views on the Second Ammendment, wanting to eliminate the Department of Education nationally and he thinks abortion laws should be handled by the state. Those who are fiscally conservative will probably agree with him on fiscal issues. He wants to audit the Federal Reserve, dramatically lower taxes, cut spending and all those things fiscal conservatives like.

Can he actually win the nomination, let alone the Presidency? As of now, Paul is actually polling with the pack of non-Romney candidates and there's an interesting thing with the delegates which could give him a boost as well. This article from Huffington Post explains that Ron Paul has been focusing on delegates more than actual votes in the States which have caucuses. I do think he's going to need to have some "wins" even if they are only symbolic.

It is interesting how far he has come despite the media's snubbing of the guy. Back in August, Jon Stewart did a piece on the lack of acknowledgement towards Ron Paul after the Republican Straw Poll:



The only thing predictable about politics is that its unpredictable. It will be interesting to see what happens. In all likelihood, I think Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee for the Republicans... but don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

Dan Carlin- "What if Alexander the Great had a podcast"

What if Alexander the Great had a podcast? This is the question Dan Carlin asks in his intro video on his website found here.

What is podcasting anyway? It's a hard question to answer because it is such a diverse media. I always feel like I'm doing a disservice to the medium when I answer this question to others. One way I try to explain it is that ts kind of like a talk radio show that you get on the internet. That doesn't quite work because of the image "talk radio" invokes. Talk radio is almost always political in nature and political podcasts are at least not the norm. There are history podcasts, philosophy podcasts, religious podcasts, cooking podcasts, even storytelling podcasts. There are podcasts on just about any subject you can think of.

Another difference is that anyone with a microphone and a computer with an internet connection can create a podcast. This is a double edged sword. There are some real gems out there but there is a sea of mediocrity, much like the blogosphere. A podcast is kind of an audio blog. Dan is so good, he has two.

Hardcore History is probably my favorite podcast out there. Definitely my favorite history podcast. Dan is an amateur historian so he often skips the bits from history which are not as interesting but what makes this show so good is that he tells history like a storyteller. Globalization to Death is a good one to start with in which he talks about the first wave of globalization as he follows Magellan around the globe and gets us to use our modern notions of globalization to put us in their shoes. There are some pretty intense long ones as well like the six part series on the fall of the Roman Republic. If you're into history, you should listen to Hardcore History. If you're not into history, you should listen to Hardcore History.

Common Sense has a slightly more focused demographic. If you like politics and current events, Dan always has an interesting take. He often takes the position of an extra terrestrial visitor and how they would view the world without our inherrent biases. He generally sees the two party system as broken and always has a take which you won't hear from the right or the left. You probably won't agree with him always (no matter where you fall politically) but always insightful. He cranks one of these out about every two weeks.

So, in his intro Dan Carlin asks the question, "What if Alexander the Great had a podcast?" He then asks what if lots of the ordinary people from Alexander's time had podcasts as well and how we'd get a very 3 dimensional view of that time in history. "Well, our decendants are going to have a very three dimensional view of ours," he goes on to say, thanks to the new media and the ability of everyone to be able to have a small voice in the world. With greater opportunity comes a greater responsibility since there's a good chance what we put on the virtual space will outlive us.

Here's a list of some of my favorite podcasts:

Memory Palace
Radiolab
Skeptoid
Skeptic's Guide to the Universe
History According to Bob
Big Picture Science
Philosophy Bites

Mormon based podcasts:
-Mormon Stories - I covered this one here.
-Mormon Matters - Believer friendly but delves more into the "meat".

A great source for podcast reviews by a Dutch fellow living in Israel named Anne:
-Anne is a Man!

Maverick

Yesterday, John McCain won the New Hampshire Primary which gave him a boost in the arm. Michael Medved made a point that with all the hype of an Obama victory, all the independents decided to give McCain a boost in the arm. New Hampshire allows independents to pick from republican or democratic (or any other party theoretically) ballots.

John McCain is known as being a maverick. He does things his way and doesn't care if it goes against the party line. He is for the war and a staunch supporter of the surge but he was extremely critical of the way the war was being waged under Rumsfeld. There is a freshness to this kind of position taking in that he bucks the trend, even if it makes him unpopular... and it has indeed, at least among republicans. He's supported several bills which are thought to be much more in line with the democrats with regards to campaign funding and immigration so he's kind of a mixed bag for conservatives. Being moderate though may mean he could have a chance in the general election if he makes it. He's a no nonsense kind of guy and that may end up giving him an edge in the end.

His age will definately be a factor at 71 but he doesn't act old at least. Definately an honorable man and I wouldn't hesitate pulling the lever for him if it came down to it.

FOX News Poll: McCain Takes the Lead in South Carolina GOP Primary

UPDATE 1/15/08: McCain Moves Into Lead

In His Sights

Mike Huckabee is one of those candidates you probably would have thought nothing of in the early, and even summer debates, one of the nobodies running for president. He may still have very slim chances at winning the nomination but I don't think anybody could call him a nobody now. With relatively little money, he is giving the guy who's outspent all the republicans, Mitt Romney a run for his.

WSJ:
Populist Message Gets Louder
As Iowa Caucuses Kick Off Race

"A decisive loss for Mr. Romney or Sen. Clinton in Iowa could reshuffle the preferences of voters elsewhere, and upend both candidates' strategies of riding to the nomination on the energy of early victories."

He has a populist message which resonates with many these days. He's also the guy who put the "Fair Tax" out there, which is a national sales tax to replace the IRS and Income tax system. He's much more moderate on Fiscal issues and perhaps his folksy demeanor will be an asset if he does end up with the nomination and is up against Hillary. Perhaps his most important asset is one of his endorsements:

Treading Water

Updated: Didn't have any time for commentary before so here goes. Well things look much different since my post about Obama. It seems that was about the turning point of his campaign and now he's giving Clinton a run for her money. Hey, that's politics. I actually think that Hillary would not be the landslide that the media has predicted. She has a lot of baggage and if I were her republican rival, I'd honestly rather be up against her than Obama. I actually think both can be beaten if the right republican is chosen and his campaign plays it right. She will constantly be in the shadow of her husband, who ironically is the only reason she has a chance at running.

She's actually not bad on national security issues, though pre-primary she's been rather elusive, if not inconsistent about her positions and the right will try and point this out until November. I think the left gives her too much credit.

The primaries are almost here and it's gonna be close for both parties:

No Words

Well if anyone doesn't know and has been living in a cave, there is a strike among writers in the television and movie industry right now. On Nov 1, the contract between the WGA (Writer's Guild of America) and the Sudios expired. The following week, the WGA went on strike. So, what's all the fuss? Well, currently, writers recieve a residual payment whenever a show or movie they wrote is shown in syndication (reruns) or purchased as a DVD. They do not, however, recieve a dime for any of their work which is streamed or downloaded off the internet. This is the central issue for which the writers are striking. They also want a higher DVD rate and they want to bring the Reality TV writers... (yes they do have "writers" for reality) and animation writers, who are currently covered by a different union, into the WGA juristiction. I believe these are relatively minor issues though and if a "good" internet deal was made, they'd have less support from their members to continue the strike.

So, why do I care? Well, some of you may know that I work in the entertainment industry and so this affects me directly so, I care. On December 10, I finished my last bit of work and have been out of work since. Up until then I had been working frantically to make as much money as I can to last as long as it can and hence, my blog has suffered. So, as I can attest, this strike affects many more than just the writers. Without writers, there is literally no work to be done at all. If anything it shows the value of writers in the television and film industries.

So, why start a strike right before Christmas? The DGA (Directors Guild of America) and SAG (Screen Actors Guild) have contracts which expire in June '08. The DGA tends to negotiate their contracts early to avoid work stoppages like these and they are much more diplomatic (meaning they'll settle for less than ideal) than the other two guilds. The WGA wanted to get a jump on them because the first deal struck will be the standard for the rest of the unions. If the DGA got a deal which was not as good as what the WGA wanted, it would be that much harder to negotiate.

The downside has been that the entire industry has been shut down and thousands of people are out of work, most of whom do not work as writers. The AMPTP (the collective negotiating arm of the Studios) appear to be ready to sacrifice the rest of the season to the reality hell of reality programming and the DGA may get to the table first anyway. This thing could last a while.

Deadline Hollywood Daily - Nikki Finke's blog. The most accurate accounting of the facts. She's definately on the side of the writers but she's the first to report insider strike information and it's always turned out to be legit.

As WGA strike continues, writers form online co-ops and some earn millions - This, in my opinion would be the best move for the writers to do. Take the market before the studios have a chance. "Some, ventures, such as Will Ferrell's FunnyorDie.com has seen one no-budget short top 50 million views. At the touted advertising rate of $60 per 1000 views for professional quality video, this would have earned the producers up to $3m, with no notable initial outlay." Yikes!

Featherweight

I actually like Barak Obama. I probably disagree with everything he stands for politically so I couldn't vote for him for president but I think he has heart, which is admirable. He has an idealism which feels fresh at least and he doesn't seem, well, scary. He's been compared to Ronald Reagan in his skill for connecting with people and when he talks and it really does sound like he knows what he's talking about, even if you disagree. His campaign has been focussed around being a uniter and not a divider. He says he wants to change Washington and I agree that it needs changing...

...but, can he win? Does he even have a chance? Edwards practically called Obama a featherweight in this campaign, though he is not one to talk IMO. Right now the heavyweight, Hillary (and no that's not a comment on her actual weight, in case that needs explaining), has built up a nice lead and is pummelling everyone else in the polls. Obama may just be in the wrong league against Hillary Clinton, whose drive to win as well as political skill seem to be rather effective. Still, that didn't stop her contenders from getting a few jabs in lately by pointing out her double talk on issues and general vagueness on where she actually stands.

It may be too little too late but then again, you never know with politics. You can be on top one day and the next, dead in the water; case in point, Howard Dean. I think if Barak Obama can wear her down a bit more with these kinds of jabs, then perhaps he'll have a shot... but then will he have thrown his idealistic view of "changing the atmosphere of Washington" out the window or does it simply mean he's moved up a weight class? Realistically, I think Hillary will adapt and learn to block those jabs, but that's for another article...

Our Only Hope?

Ah, my next victim, Rudy. The frontrunner in the Republican camp. I think that it's safe to say that either he or Romney will be the candidate. Sure McCain is still holding on by a string but I don't think he will make it. Rudy Giuliani has many strong points including the fact that he is a moderate. This leads many to believe that he is the only one who can beat Clinton. This thought ignores the fact that many on the right do not like him. There is even a movement among conservative christians to start up a third party in the case that Giuliani gets the candidacy for the republicans. This would be political suicide in my opinion but it is a possibility. Many evangelicals are begining to endorse Romney because of Giuliani's positions.

He is pro choice, pro gun control and simpathetic towards gay marriage. This doesn't sit well with hardline conservative voters. It bothers me much less so because there is little a president can do with regards to abortion other than appoint supreme court judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade and there is no reason to believe that he will appoint anyone different than any of the other republicans would. In New York he apparently lowered the number of abortions by advocating adoption and results are more important than perceptions.

Perhaps one of his biggest hurdles is his personal life. He's been married three times and apparently his last divorce was an ugly one. In stark contrast to Romney, his children don't apparently even talk to him anymore. He has tried to break this perception by showing how much he loves his current wife by pulling stunts like having his wife call while he's giving speaches.

All his weaknesses aside, I think he does have a good chance of beating Hillary. He is a moderate on many issues but on things like the war on terror and national security he is spot on, in my opinion. He has a reputation for getting things done as mayor and holds a pragmatic view rather than an ideological one. This I think will sit well with the people in the middle and I don't think the conservatives really would defect to a third party. Some would but I hope most wouldn't. I like the ideology of Romney but Giuliani may be our only hope.

Too Perfect?

I've thought for a while about doing caricatures of all the important presidential candidates for some time and I'm finally getting around to doing it. I've decided to start off with Mitt Romney for a couple of reasons. He and I share faiths and he's still my top pick. I, like many Mormons, have had high hopes for the guy, and still do. That said, my faith in him has been shaken but that's just because the picture perfect image you have in your head of someone is never accurate. Still, I think he's my favorite candidate, despite his apparent flip flop (in the right direction mind you) on abortion and gay marriage, though I don't think it's that cut and dry. Not many people know that Ronald Reagan, as governor of California signed bills which were pro-choice, yet he is held as the model of what a republican president should be by most conservatives. Even Ronald Reagan wasn't "Ronald Reagan" at one point.

So why the angelic depiction? Mitt has an image problem. A very strange one in fact. One of his major problems is that he appears too perfect for the average voter to relate to. He appears to have a good marriage, great kids (heck, they're campaigning for him), he's been extremely successful and his worse "scandal" was that he rode with his dog on the roof of his car on a vacation one time. It is ironic that with all the past scandals with past presidents, it's almost like the public needs to see that the president is like them.

This is not his only issue but it is a major one and I'm not sure he should get over it. It is ironic also that my next victim, Rudy Giuliani, faces the opposite problem, that of one with a poor public perception of his family life so perhaps a good one isn't all that bad.

Priceless

---

---

This week President Ahmadinejad of Iran spoke to students at Columbia University. The university among many in the media have declared this a victory for free speech and point out that this guy is a nut job. Less heard but still out there is the opinion that Columbia's decision to allow him to speak only gave him a pulpit in which he gets to use as propaganda back home. The fact that he actually got applause from the students only helps this cause.

The danger of this guy speaking is not that he looks like an idiot to us, that's the view of most Americans already. Remember, these guys don't go home and show the entire tape, they show the bits they want shown. What sounds like crude interpretation to us is elequent Farsi in Iran. He will be able to use this as spin back home to show how he went to America and "showed them the truth". Do you really think the challenging questions will even be shown? The "answers" sure will be and you can bet the farm the applause will be also. The effect in America, Zero. The effect in the Islamic world, priceless.

School of the Absurd - Victor Davis Hansen